← Public Hearing February 3, 2026
Good evening, everyone. I will now call the public hearing of Tuesday, February the 3rd, 2026 to order. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means council members on the public may participate by either method. Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. Uh, the meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at density clerk. So in case of an emergency, um, where we have to evacuate the chamber, please go through the glass doors and take a left at the post and, uh, Walk down the stairs. If that exit is obstructed for any reason whatsoever, please pay attention to the four exits on the side of this chamber. And if you need mobility assistance, please stay in place and one of our super friendly team members will come and get you out safely. I also do want to highlight the fact that there is a defibrillator at the end of the hallway just outside this chamber. I do want to acknowledge that we're hosting tonight's public hearing on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations, and I do want to thank them for their generosity and their hospitality and love and care they show this great land that we get to live, work, and play on. I also want to recognize the incredible contributions of all of our team members at the City of Vancouver who work incredibly hard with passion to make this city a way better place. I really want to thank you. And so with that, can we please have roll call?
Yes. Mayor Sim is in the chair. Councillor Kirby Young. Councillor Dominato.
Present.
Councillor Bligh has a leave of absence for civic business from 5 p.m. onward. Councillor Fry. Councillor Montague. Present. Councillor Klassen. Present. Councillor Meiszner. Present. Councillor Zhou. Councillor Maloney. Councillor Orr. You have quorum, Mayor Sim.
Thank you very much. So before we begin, I do have a few announcements. Please note that there's a public speaker podium, a new one that's been installed on the left-hand side of this chamber or to my right. Speakers may adjust the podium to a comfortable height for speaking into the microphone by using the controls on the bottom right-hand corner. Excuse me. The public may speak in person or by phone or may submit written comments to Mayor and Council. Speakers may only speak once and will have up to five minutes to comment on the merits of the application. Please state whether you support or oppose the recommendations and if you are a resident of Vancouver. Those representing four or more individuals or groups, including themselves, may speak for up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by phone and may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream or at bandcityclerk on X to track meeting progress and know when your turn to speak is approaching. Please note the live stream does have a slight delay. Written comments may be submitted through the Mayor and Council Public Hearing Feedback Forum on the City's website and linked on X. If you pre-registered with a presentation, say next to have the clerk advance your slides. A reminder, at public hearings, council acts as a quasi-judicial body and must focus solely on the merits of the rezoning or heritage application. Members may ask clarifying questions of our team members or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has closed. So after hearing from speakers, council may, one, approve the application in principle, two, approve the application in principle with amendments, three, refuse the application, or four, refer the application to our team members for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene on Tuesday, February the 10th, 2026 at 3 p.m. Okay, so the first item on the docket is rezoning. Report number one, rezoning 6507 through 6527 Maple Street. Before we begin this agenda item, does anyone on council think that they have to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing no one's hands up, the clerk is now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by Matthew Chun, architect, two weeds on 6507 to 6527 Maple Street from residential district to residential rental district to permit the development of a five-story residential rental building. A floor space ratio of 2.4 and a height of 16.8 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set on the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received and referred to public hearing. One piece in support, seven pieces in opposition, one piece dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today. Thank you very much.
So this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106-1445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. And now we do have our team members from Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability here to present the application.
And if we can take one moment to get the mic. Oh, that was a quick moment. Please go ahead.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Esther Ewan, and I'm the rezoning planner for this application considered under the secured rental policy.
The Secured Rental Policy, or SRP, encourages new, purpose-built rental housing and aligns with the rental housing goals of the Housing Vancouver Strategy and Vancouver Plan. Updates to the SRP were approved by Council in 2021 to create residential rental zones and a map with eligible areas for the standardized RR zones.
Rezonings to rental district schedules follow a simplified rezoning process that establishes clarity on permitted height, use, and density. The schedules include design guidelines, and the specific building design will be reviewed during a future development permit process.
This map shows sites that are eligible for rezoning. The sites are close to public transit and local shopping and are located on eligible on and off arterial roads. The yellow star indicates the proposed rezoning site on the southwest corner of West 49th and Maple Street.
The site, outlined in red, is comprised of two parcels and developed with two single detached houses that are not listed in the Vancouver Heritage Register. The property contains no rental tenancies and the tenant relocation and protection policy does not apply. The site and surrounding areas are primarily zoned R11, with sites to the west zoned C2, CD1, and RM3A. And the site immediately north was approved at public hearing in 2023 for RR2C for a six-story rental building. Consistent with the SRP, the site is located near several parks, schools, and shopping areas. The site is also well served by frequent bus service along Arbutus and West Boulevard and West 49th Avenue, and it is located near the Arbutus Greenway Active Transportation Corridor.
The eligible RR zones are shown here. Of all the options, the applicant has selected RR2B.
The RR2B zone allows for a five-story apartment building and a density of up to 2.4 FSR. For information, at the council meeting on December 10, 2025, council approved a policy report that included recommendations to report back to council in spring 2026, including changes to the RR2B district schedule to permit a six-story residential typology. While tonight's proposal is for a five-story development as currently contemplated in the district schedules, the changes to the RR district schedules are the topic of a future council meeting for consideration.
A total of 33 submissions were received during public consultation. General comments of support were received for more supply that addresses the housing shortage. Concerns were expressed regarding traffic safety and parking. building height and location, and infrastructure capacity. In response, engineering staff have included conditions to deliver street improvements to address safety for all road users. As well, the proposal will be required to meet the city's parking bylaw. Regarding height and location, the proposal and form of development is consistent with the SRP and the RR2B district schedule. Additionally, engineering staff will review water and sewer capacity to ensure infrastructure can support the new development.
The public benefits include a DCL contribution of $1.6 million. Additional benefits include the estimated 70 units of market rental housing that are secured through a housing agreement.
In conclusion, this proposal meets the intent of the SRP policy. Staff recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to present the application?
Okay, great. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council to our team members, the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant? Councillor Orr.
Yeah, thanks. I wasn't going to ask anything on this. I thought it was pretty straightforward. No displacement and lots of rental units, which seems great. Then I saw there's a petition, and I just wanted – I know you touched on some of the things already around parking and things like that, but – There's comments like traditional residential characters being ignored. Can you speak to that policy that comes later around sort of fitting in the character at that later stage and what that looks like and if there's other opportunities for engagement?
Thank you for the question, Councillor Scott Erdman, Senior Rezoning Planner. For this proposal, the built form aligns with what the SRP anticipated for this location. So that planning work and policy development already took place to establish what kinds of built forms would be appropriate in certain locations. And this one meets that criteria for enabling modest change for low-rise and mid-rise developments to support rental.
Sure. I'm just sort of maybe just sort of referring to Appendix D that says the project will meet design guidelines to manage neighborhood fit.
Yeah. So with that, it's with our simplified rezoning process, those detailed drawings are submitted at the time of development permit application so that... District zoning spells out things around height, form, massing, density, in order to be an appropriate neighborhood fit under that simplified rezoning.
Great, thank you.
This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when your name is called. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. So our first speaker today is speaker number one, Bruce Althaus. Is that correct?
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Bruce Althaus, and I live near Maple Street and West 49th Avenue. I'm here tonight to oppose the proposed RR2B rezoning at this location. I want to begin with process because public trust is breaking down. Residents repeatedly show up, speak respectfully, and raise evidence-based concerns only to watch those concerns be dismissed by city staff, project managers, and applicant engineers. Not tested, not debated, simply minimized. Parking is brushed aside. School capacity is oversimplified. Infrastructure strain is deferred. Community impact is reframed as fear of change. At that point, consultation stops becoming meaningful. It becomes performative. A public hearing is not a box to check. It exists so council can ask hard questions, deliberate openly, and determine what problem this building is actually solving, whether its benefits outweigh its costs, and whether it belongs here at this scale right now. That requires probing questions about parking, schools, infrastructure, cumulative impacts, not unrelated or softball questions that sidestep the issues residents are raising. If council isn't rigorously testing proposals in public, residents are left asking, why are we here at all? Let's talk about parking, because the city's assumptions don't match reality. Yes, this site is on an arterial road, but it also serves families, seniors, caregivers, tradespeople, and shift workers, people who rely on cars every single day. We're told transit is nearby. Car ownership will decline. But cars don't disappear. They spill into surrounding residential streets. Families still own vehicles. Trades still need trucks. Caregivers still drive. Seniors are not biking groceries home in February. Reducing on-site parking doesn't eliminate cars that export to prom, creating congestion, safety issues, and daily conflict on nearby streets. Planning must reflect how people actually live, not idealized projections. 19 parking stalls for 71 units. Council should ask plainly, does that make sense? Now let's talk about schools using the Vancouver School Board's own data. Mabel Grove Elementary has an operating capacity of 483 students and an enrollment of 571, 88 students over capacity. So claims that nearby elementary schools have room are simply not accurate. At the secondary level, McGee Secondary capacity 1,200, enrollment 1,002. Point Gray Secondary capacity 1,050, enrollment 811. Even where enrollment appears below capacity, pressures are not solved by pointing to a spreadsheet. We often hear that the city works closely with the Vancouver School Board. Yet when residents ask for concrete, actionable planning, we hear silence. But increased density is real. Residents also raise concerns about infrastructure and community facilities, and these are dismissed just as casually. We are told there is capacity. Operates will come later. But infrastructure doesn't fail all at once. It degrades gradually until it suddenly doesn't work. Yet impacts are assessed one project at a time, ignoring cumulative strain. Ignoring infrastructure doesn't make growth sustainable. It downloads the costs onto existing communities. There's another question that council rarely asks in public, financial feasibility. At a 3.7% rental vacancy rate, Vancouver's rental market has entered a bounce-to-soft phase for the first time in over 30 years. A 3% vacancy generally is considered equilibrium where neither landlord nor tenant have outsized leverage. We are now past that point, and we're already seeing that means on the ground. Landlords are offering one to two months of free rent, turnover rents, while new tenants actually pay declined in 2025. Rent growth hit a two-decade low. Renters have more options and are moving more frequently. These are not abstract indicators. They are real market corrections happening right now. If rents soften further due to a surge in new supply, the economics of this project change immediately. And if the economics no longer works, developers don't absorb the disruption, the neighborhood does. A stalled project means years of construction noise without completion. blocked streets, safety concerns, and prolonged uncertainty for residents. So I'm asking council to do what the public expects. Stress test is proposed not just as a design concept, but as a real project under current market conditions. Because planning isn't only about form, it's about outcomes. Placing a five-story building in a low-density neighborhood without the services or infrastructure to support them damages community life. Scale matters. Context matters. Cumulative impact matters. Council has a responsibility, especially at public hearings, to slow down, ask hard questions, and deliberate openly. Residents are not obstacles. We are local experts. We are not anti-housing. We are not anti-change. We are pro-planning, pro-infrastructure, and pro-community. Now imagine this building is next to your home. How would you truly feel? I urge these councils with a pulse on the community to feel the uptick in pressure that the residents are under. The R2B rezoning in Maple and West 49th fails on parking, realtor, school capacity, infrastructure readiness, financial risk, and neighborhood fit. I urge council to reject at a minimum pauses rezoning at work with residents not around.
Speaker number two, Joanne Ricci.
Hi there, city clerks.
Hi, Joanne. I noticed you're a representative speaker. So do you have the three other individuals online or in the chamber that you can identify themselves?
Yes, I do. Larry Davis, Annie Lim, and Jane Gray.
They're downstairs or somewhere in the other room that we were in.
Well, they were told they weren't supposed to come up here.
Well, we can get them up here. And just as a matter of protocol, is it okay if we have Speaker 3 go on for, like, and then come back?
They're all here in the building.
Yep, we can call them up. We'll make it happen. Okay, if you can bear with us, we'll go to speaker number three. We'll get your individuals up here as the next speaker. Thank you very much. Okay, so we are just going to jump to speaker three, Debra Gomez. Debra, are you on the line?
Yes, I'm on the line. Can everybody hear me?
You can hear you great.
Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Deborah and I live in Carriesville. I'm here to speak in opposition to district zoning. I've heard the most serious concern is school capacity. My daughter attends Maple Grove Elementary, which is directly across the street from the proposed development. The school is already full every single year and has a long wait list. Families in our area are routinely told there is no space and the school is already stretched in terms of staffing and resources. Every year, parents are asked to raise funds to pay for the things at the school. With an apartment building already approved across the street, I do not see how Maple Grove will be able to accommodate additional families and children from yet another large development. The school is already operating without adequate funding and adding density without addressing school capacity for children, families, and educators in an impossible position. If Council assists on approving this resounding, then there must be a minimum requirement for the developer to have a meaningful contribution to the school, whether through a one-time donation, funding a specific program, or supporting additional resources. Right now, the burden is being shifted entirely onto the school that is already at its breaking point. My second concern is safety on Maple Street. Maple Street is supposed to function as a two-way street, but in reality is extremely narrow. With parking on one side, it often only allows a single lane of traffic to pass at a time. Adding a large apartment building with limited parking will inevitably increase street congestion, drop-offs of deliveries, and illegal parking. This creates a real safety risk, especially for children. Maple Grove students walk along the street every day, including my own daughter. Increased traffic on the narrow, constrained roadway puts pedestrians, particularly children, at risk. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a daily reality for families like mine who live here. And my third concern is neighborhood character and housing needs. There are already many vacant units nearby, including the Chloe development on East Boulevard. Given this existing vacancy, I'm worried that these proposed apartments may also sit empty while permanently removing mature trees and damaging the established tree canopy and character of the neighborhood. Once the trees are gone and the scale of the street is altered, this cannot be undone. We risk losing what makes this area livable without actually addressing affordability or occupancy in a meaningful way. In closing, I am asking council to seriously consider the real on-the-ground impacts of this rezoning on schools, on child safety, and on the long-term health of this neighborhood. Density without adequate infrastructure planning and accountability is not responsible growth. Thank you for your time and listening.
So we're going to circle back to speaker number two, Joanne Ricci.
back up here and so clerk do we have to we're all good now yeah and you Joanne you have up to eight minutes okay thank you
Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Joanne Ricci, and I live in the Carisdale neighborhood for over 45 years. To give you some context, I have been the PAC Chair of Maple Grove Elementary School, McGee Secondary, as well as the past president for the Carisdale Little League Association. So yes, I'm extremely well connected with the community and familiar with its surroundings. I am here not only to speak on behalf of myself, but numerous neighbors, three who are specifically here tonight, who deeply care about this community and its future. I want to begin by acknowledging the broader context we're all aware of. Vancouver is facing a housing challenge, and I understand the importance of creating... more housing options for people who want to live and work in the city. Growth, when done thoughtfully, can strengthen a community. My concern, however, is this specific proposed zoning development and how it will fit into the reality of Karesdale, particularly in three areas, traffic, parking, and infrastructure. There are many new buildings going up very quickly, and without really assessing and evaluating their impact, what they will actually do to the community is of concern. As is noted daily in the newspaper and here at city council hearings, you have heard some of these comments over and over, not just from our group, but from others throughout the city. Onto specifics. 49th Avenue is already one of the most heavily used east-west corridors in this part of the city. It serves not only the local residents, but also commuters to and from UBC and Langara. It services delivery vehicles and public transport. During morning and afternoon peak hours, traffic frequently backs up along 49th and at major key intersections. added traffic is of major safety concern. McGee Secondary, as has been noted, is located adjacent and home to over 1200 students and 90 plus staff. And it actually offers the specialized arts sports program for the city, which is designed for high performance students in both the athletics and the arts. So this entire group of students have to travel from all over Metro Vancouver to this school every day. Maple Grove, as well, in close proximity, has an enrollment of 570 students and over 60 staff. Both of these schools are at capacity, so please tell me where will these new families be sending their children? Many of us who live here already experience daily delays just trying to exit our driveways and make simple left turns. This rezoning will inevitably increase vehicle trips from residents, visitors, ride-hailing services, deliveries. Even with good transit options in the broader area, the reality is that many households still rely on cars for work, taking their children to school, to daycare, and caring for elderly family members. Without meaningful upgrades to traffic management, designated left turn signals, road capacity, safety will be compromised. Thus, the potential two apartments, one on the north and this current proposed one, will minimize parking and increase traffic to a level of unbearable chaos. So to reiterate, this proposed development risks intensifying congestion in a location that is already stretched. Parking is another major concern. Carisdale is a neighborhood where street parking is heavily relied upon. Local businesses depend on it, residents depend on it, and visitors to the area depend on it. Many homes and new multiplexes in the area do not have adequate off-street parking, and permit parking is often full. If this new proposal does not provide sufficient on-site parking, overflow will spill and into surrounding residential streets. This doesn't just create inconvenience, it creates ongoing tension between new residents and existing ones, and it impacts access for service vehicles, delivery, and emergency responders. These are not short-term construction issues. These are permanent day-to-day quality of life concerns. Beyond traffic and parking, there is infrastructure and community resources. Our local schools, parks, and public spaces are already well used. Families rely on these shared resources, and they are part of what makes Carisdale a livable, connected community. Adding a significant number of new residents without a clear and transparent plan for expanding or improving these services risks placing additional strain on the system. That's at capacity. For example, Maple Grove Park cannot handle additional children on its structures at the current way it is. The structure is limited. The playground equipment is outdated and unsafe. Harrisdale Community Centre playground is pathetic, and the community centre itself needs a huge upgrade. And frankly, it's an embarrassment compared to other community centres in the city. Our healthcare, as you well know, is an issue. Walk-in clinics are at capacity. UBC Hospital only has an urgent care... area, residents are left with horrific wait times. So to many of us, it seems like we're putting the cart before the horse. I would respectfully ask Council to consider whether the scale and density of this project truly aligns with the physical and functional limits of the area. Has there been a recent comprehensive traffic impact study for this actual corridor? Are there confirmed commitments for traffic improvements, parking management, infrastructure upgrades, that match projected increases in residents. Many of us are not opposed to change. We are asking for responsible, well-integrated development, the kind that enhances a neighborhood rather than overwhelms it. That might mean revisiting the site of the project. Perhaps a sixplex, an eightplex. Is there sufficient... on-site parking, phasing the development, and investing in a concrete infrastructure improvement right alongside any approval. Carisdale has a strong sense of community. People know each other, they know their neighbours, they walk to local shops. The Greenway is always busy. Seniors rely on safe, accessible streets. Preserving that character while planning for growth is not easy, but it is essential. I appreciate the difficult decisions that you face as council members, and I thank you for taking the time to listen to the voices of those who live here every single day. I hope you will carefully weigh not just the number of units this project can deliver, but the long-term impact it will have on the safety, accessibility, and livability of this neighbourhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Great. Thank you very much, Joanne. Please, we actually have questions for you. Councillor Domenato?
Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, just a brief question for you. Thank you for your presentation this evening. Just given your experience as the PAC chair of Maple Grove, I'm curious if you could comment on how long there's been a wait list there. You noted an extraordinary wait list, but how long has that been the case for Maple Grove Elementary? How many years?
Well, since I've been a PAC chair, but I was a PAC chair. My understanding when I talked to the teachers in the school that there's been a wait list for about four years.
Oh, four years, roughly. Okay, thank you.
And when I spoke with McGee last week, they are at capacity as well.
Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks.
Mr. Mayor and Councillors, my name is James Gray. I stand to speak against the development of Maple Street at 49th Avenue, indeed very much against. I have lived on the adjoining block south of Maple Street since 1983. In having this public hearing, it is good to know that the city recognizes that it has an obligation to existing neighborhoods and that it is interested in hearing our concerns, and I thank you for that. My objection to this present proposal is primarily for the sheer bulk and massive size of the project, which I believe to be completely out of scale, context, or character for the neighborhood, especially with the narrow street intricacies of this particular block of Maple Street. By a remote quirk of ancient planning, this block of Maple Street is basically a single lane street. From your referral report map, it is difficult to appreciate that there's actually parking on one side of Maple Street, which is often filled to capacity, and then only one lane of travel restricted to the other side. The proposed building will not just be on the main artery, 49th Avenue, but extend two city lots down Maple Street. The front entry of the proposed building is depicted on Maple Street, which will further congest both the street and the sidewalk. With the proposed 70 units of this behemoth building, I challenge you to imagine 140 additional residents living on this single lane street with all their comings and goings compared to the previous possible eight or so individuals in the current two houses. I am also concerned with only 10 underground parking spots provided by the building, to my understanding anyway, putting the inevitable remainder of cars onto an already packed narrow side street. There are already significant traffic challenges on the single lane Maple Street related to the busy traffic caused by the two adjacent schools across 49th Avenue, as have already been discussed by my neighbours. This is quite a different picture than seen on other large arteries such as Granville, Oak, Cambie Streets and 41st Avenue, where the wider streets are more accommodating to larger structures, notably with a parallel... back lane, which provides a separation between the newly constructed residential buildings on the main artery and the neighborhood behind.
Vancouver should learn from missteps taken by other jurisdictions that have recently evolved their thinking. Quoting from the Vancouver Sun this past weekend, quote, in October, Burnaby Council responded to public pressure and approved bylaw amendments to reduce allowable building heights and sizes, unquote. Vancouver should learn from these acknowledged missteps and then recalibration steps taken by Burnaby concerning both the heights and sizes of large buildings within a neighborhood.
As for next steps for these two Maple Street lots in question, I understand there is a need for both increased density and more housing for families, and I strongly believe that smaller two- or three-story triplex or quadruplex buildings would be much more appropriate. In conclusion, I think this proposal is monstrously out of scale for this neighborhood and its streets. If allowed to proceed, I believe this proposal will lead to irreparable harm to the area and ultimately the surrounding city in which we all live. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker number five, Greg Kassop.
Mayor and members of council, my name is Greg Kassoff. I am speaking against the rezoning application at 6507 to 6527 Maple Street. My wife and I are both Vancouver born. In 1986, preparing for the arrival of our daughter, we put a down payment on a house on U Street just north of 49th and have lived as homeowners in Kearsdale since then for 46 years. We now lived for the past 20 of those years on East Boulevard, just south of 49th. In my early years, Vancouver was a gritty, resource-based town. It modernized and expanded with big urban renewal projects, and its population grew. Over those years, the city, for the most part, nurtured a high livability quotient in relative harmony with its beautiful natural setting and prided itself on retaining its signature character neighborhoods, Carisdale being an historic neighborhood center. I wish to convey my sincere concerns related to the City of Vancouver rezoning application for a five-story rental building at Maple Street on the south side of the 2000 block of West 49th. To be clear, I'm not NIMBY with an N, not in my backyard, or YIMBY with a Y, yes, in my backyard. As Bruce Altus, our opening speaker, has already stated, we are pro-housing, pro-planning, pro-infrastructure, and pro-community. So rather, I am Wimby with a W. What, why, and where in my backyard? In 1995, I was in attendance at a meeting in Kearsdale at which the city laid out its blueprint for what they called City Plan, a landmark bottom-up planning initiative adopted by Vancouver City Council. It officially affirmed Vancouver as a city of neighborhoods, villages within the larger city, each with its own distinct identity. To accommodate growth and improve affordability, the plan aimed to introduce more housing variety, including, at that time, townhouses and row houses into neighborhoods. I remember clearly that at that meeting, Karesdale was identified as one of only two existing neighborhoods in the city of Vancouver that then served as a template for a village node. In other words, Carisdale already manifested the characteristics that City Council was looking to develop in other areas of the city. Since then, we have witnessed the introduction of duplexes, row houses, laneway housing, and now multiplexes and apartments scattered throughout the city. Recently in Keresdale, we have seen increased building density along East and West Boulevard. This increased density is appropriately located on these streets along which such density is less negatively impactful as it builds on and supports local businesses that have existed there for many years. However, it has been at the expense of the affordable and spacious apartment rentals, even a co-op apartment, all demolished to make way for the introduction of not by any means affordable, that is, very expensive condos. In February 2025, the city received a development application for construction of a six-story rental building, allowing for a structure with 125 units on the Maple Street site in question. Combined with the 125 units on the north side of 49, with the 75 units allowed in the proposed rezoning across the street at Mabel Street, heightens the impact on the community with real and enduring repercussions on local traffic and parking and schools. Neighborhoods want and need families. Families need appropriately sized living spaces and cars. Cars need adequate parking and roads to facilitate reasonable flow and safe travel. Families also require accessible and efficacious local infrastructure, including schools and community centers. So both of these projects, especially taken together, stand as a potential threat to the coherence of our neighborhood, the livability of the space that we value as our home, livability, the primary feature of the neighborhood that attracted us to settle in Karesdale 40 years ago. I suspect the many, if not most, residents in Vancouver, like me, are Wimbees, and we vote.
Okay.
Well, good evening, Mr. Mayor and council people. My name is Sean Wallace. I've been a resident of the west side of Vancouver for about 30 years. And to be precise, we live at 6520 Maple Street, which is immediately across the street from the proposed development site. I'm here tonight with my partner, Brianna, my daughter, London, and we're also representing our other children, Olivia and Liam, who have enjoyed a fantastic place to grow up, and now they're off at uni, but London would also like to grow up in a fantastic neighbourhood.
You know... I've lived here for over 30 years, first as a renter and then as an owner on several different properties. So tonight I'm speaking in opposition to the particular development. We support housing. Housing is necessary. The city's growing. Obviously, you have to adapt, you know. But the quality of life has to remain, if at all possible. My concern is whether added density is being matched with the safety, infrastructure, capacity, and neighborhood fit standards needed to avoid predictable impacts. And they are predictable. It's obvious. You add another 120 people to the traffic nightmare that we're already seeing evidenced outside our door each and every day. I don't even know how they're going to get it constructed. They'll have to shut those schools down, I think, during that time. So the most immediate issue is the traffic safety in the school zone. Morning drop-off and afternoon pickup are already congested, as I mentioned, with curbside conflicts and higher crossing risk for children, caregivers. There's a number of elderly people in our neighborhood. You see it with their caregivers. They don't move quickly. You can't have a bunch of stressed people ripping around. We have to care for these people.
Parking spillover and circulation as vehicles compete for limited curb space. Now, construction will impact truck routing, block sidewalks, dust, diesel emissions, plus loss of tree canopy and added hard surface area that can increase summer heat and stormwater runoff unless green infrastructure is required. My request to Council is straightforward. Please defer approval until cumulative impacts are assessed. approve only with enforceable conditions school zone traffic calming and crossing improvements before occupancy a construction traffic and sidewalk protection plan meaningful tree retention and replacement and step back setbacks to reduce shadowing and privacy impacts And then, if this rezoning proceeds, require binding enforceable conditions such as school zone safety upgrades before occupancy, traffic calming improvements, a construction management plan with routes, hours, sidewalk protection and enforcement with special consideration for school start and dismissal times. Meaningful tree retention replacement targets and clear design measures, step backs, setbacks to reduce shadowing and privacy impacts. In short, if council is determined to add density here, it should also require the safety and infrastructure measures to make that density function safely and predictably, and not at the cost of our quality of life. And if you'll indulge us, London would like to say a quick word. Is that okay? That's absolutely amazing. It's a privilege, rather, that we all get to enjoy, that we should all be so grateful for, that we are allowed to speak.
My name is London and I'm seven years old and I live at 6520 Maple Street in Vancouver and I am not in support of the proposed development directly across the street from my home for the following reasons. I feel safe in my neighborhood and know many of my neighbors and worry that will change if the area becomes more dense. There would be many more cars, which is bad for the environment, and our street is already filled with cars from the single-family homes that the street is lined with. The development would mean more destruction of lots of trees and bushes, which are homes of animals. Please consider this and all of the other valid reasons from the other speakers tonight why this development is not a good idea. Thank you.
I do have a question. It actually was going to be directed at Sean, but since London came up, can I direct it to you?
To London. Well, this is the question I was going to ask, but I have another one for you as well, or for your parents. Are you proud of your parents?
Yes.
Yeah, you should be because you know what? I'm sure you're proud of them for a whole host of reasons, but to come here to council, to, you know, fight for their neighborhood, regardless of what the outcome is, and we don't know what the outcome is going to be, it's pretty amazing that people come here that are thoughtful and... They present to council, and that's something you should be really proud of. And to the parents, you have a very articulate daughter on your hands there, and you should be really proud of her as well. And if it's okay with you, I have something for her.
good evening mayor and council so please excuse me I'm a little bit nervous I'm not used to it but I want to say something from my heart I live in this neighborhood for 32 years I like to start with one questions how much is enough How much housing is enough? This question always comes to my mind when I drive in our city. We are stuck in heavy traffic because of the construction everywhere. We see many buildings under construction. We see rezoning signs on many streets. We see big banners on the buildings saying, now renting, hanging there for a long time. We always hear news about too many new homes and pressure in the pre-sale market.
So I ask myself, so much is already being built. Why does it still feel something is missing? I speak today not as a city planner or a politician, but as a resident. My home and my peace are affected by the decision made here.
Before approving another rezoning, please imagine this is your home. Imagine the house next to yours become a five-story building. You will lose sunlight. You will lose privacy. Your sky window will be overlooked by the sky roof.
So your life changed, even though you did nothing wrong.
I remember last year, in the middle of last year, one evening, my neighbor called me. She was very worried. She just learned that the house next to her will be re-sewn and built into a five-story building. She moved there only a few years ago. She believed this was a stable neighborhood. This is what I want to say clearly. Displacement does not only happen when people move away. Resoning can push people out without them leaving their homes. When peace, privacy, and certainty are taken away, a house no longer feel like a home.
People like my neighbors and us bought our home based on the rule at that time. When those rules changed overnight, the city is changing the deal after people have already paid the price.
Myself, across from my home, a large box-shaped building is being built.
A friend comes to visit me and asks me, is that a church?
That is how out of place it looks. It doesn't fit the neighborhood. It takes away the feeling of peace. I understand we need housing. We are responsible, we are reasonable people, but density keep increasing while parking, school and community service not. This is not balanced.
We are not asking for sympathy. We asking for responsible decision. Please think about the people who already live here. Please visit our street and see the real impact.
So let me ask you again, how much is enough? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Donna. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, can you please come forward to the podium? Clerk, are there any additional speakers online?
There are not.
Okay, this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445-POUND. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. Will we do? Okay, great. We will hear that speaker. Please come forward to the podium. I'm sorry, the one on the left, please. It's new. This changed very recently. And you can adjust the podium to work for you.
My name's Nancy Tam, and I live on Maple Street. I just want to say that I'm really against this development. Firstly, we have to look at this Maple Street in itself. It's a narrow street, so parking is only allowed on the west side. So usually the whole street is parked with the current residents that's on there. So when there's traffic coming up, it's usually coming up from the east side. And I have trouble getting into my house. coming in from along West 49th, when the school is happening in the morning. Twice for, once for Maple Grove and once for McGee School. So they have two different starting times. And because it is a, currently it is a two-way street, but once the park, the streets are parked on the west side, it becomes a one-way street. So it doesn't, traffic is just stuck there. I can't come in and I can't come out. I can't even pull out of my, my parking spot on the west side when the school's starting because it's all packed up with cars trying to get to the school. And then secondly, Maple Grove as it is, it's already packed. My kid who's in grade six and last year my other child was in grade seven, they are in portables. So if you're thinking about getting more kids in there or it's packed, not possible so and then I was looking on the listing for rent there seems to be like a lot of vacancies or about 50 vacancy in just this area so I don't think it's necessary for this development to be a rental property and lastly If you're looking at your map that you guys are for the development map, you can see the site around that area has been already been redeveloped for rental units and living units. For example, the site across the street from us, it's already in development for a six-story apartment, and they're starting construction soon. So there's going to be a lot more rental units out there already. And then along East Broadway, It's all RM3, C2. So there is a lot of, there is density. You guys plan for the density. And then lastly, when I'm coming home along 49th Avenue, trying to get into my house, there's a little bump out from there so that if there's a car that's turning left to get into this property or into my house, I cannot, it stops traffic totally because of the bump out. They cannot turn out. to get into the access into the Maple Street, the new development. So the only access for this development is through Maple Street and the alley. So there is no way that you're gonna get 50, 60 people coming into the house. more people. So that's the reason why I'm against it. I think for this particular street, because of the location, because of the bump out, because of the narrowing of the street, that's not suitable. And because the density is already there, and you guys have provided the density, on the other side of the street, I don't think this development is necessary. You have to match a need to it. When there's density already available, then this is not a necessary development. Thank you.
Great, thank you very much. Clerk, do we have any other speakers in the chamber? Okay. Okay, so we now will take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
Yes.
Hi. Kyra, can I please get you to state whether or not you're a resident of Vancouver for the record?
Yes, I'm a resident of Vancouver, address 6642 Maple Street.
Okay. I've been listening to the meeting online and thankfully I was able to call in because I didn't think I was able to. So I understand that development is necessary and changes do happen. Both would be great if they made sense. This has already been stated by the previous speakers, but the talk of the traffic and the congestion, it really doesn't make sense. McGee's got over 1,400 kids. Maple Grove actually has over 600. There's a potential swing site at the old Maple Grove that they're still discussing filling that with the potential of another 600 kids. The UBC traffic, the Langara traffic, all of that. Additionally, what I wanted to say was, as well as being part of the neighborhood, I also teach at Maple Grove Elementary School. And I've been there as a teacher for over 25 years, and I've seen the changes and the weight that has been put on our school numbers. My children currently go to McGee Secondary and the same thing goes there. Maple Grove is completely full. Like right now, we are absolutely full. We have a wait list. Students who live across the street can't come to our school. Last year, 60 students were displaced and had to be moved to another school until there was space for them to come back to us. And some of them are still not with us. They're still waiting. So adding a large bill potentially bringing in more young families where their children supposed to go. Our brand new school, we're like, I don't know, five years old or something like that. We're happy to get it, but it's smaller. We can't fit what we have in our neighborhood right now. Earlier stated as well, students who are supposed to be so happy to get into this brand new school, they've been pushed out to portables. There are two portables that are sitting in what used to be Maple Grove's old tennis courts. to accommodate this influx of people. There's also currently talk of opening up the remaining two portables because we still don't have the space. So there needs to be better planning. So if this development goes through, as you heard from everybody else, it's just not a good idea. It's not sustainable for our neighborhood. It's not sustainable for the residents. And it's not going to work for our entire community. So I appreciate that you have listened to everybody. I'm hoping that you will really think about it and to think about like the future of our neighborhood. So thank you. And that's all I have to say.
Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Clerk, do we have any speakers in the chamber or online? We do not. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
There has not been.
Okay. Seeing that there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any additional closing comments?
Thank you very much. Do our team members have any closing comments?
Staff do not, thank you.
Okay, does council have any final questions for our team members, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted? Councillor Domenato.
Thanks, Mayor. And through you to staff, I have a couple of clarifying questions. A number of the residents identified concerns with traffic flow and safety in the context of the proposed development, but also it sounds like regardless of the development in the current context of the school and drop-offs. So could you comment on... What might be, if this were supported, how do we address those concerns? And what does engineering undertake in terms of new developments and looking at traffic flows?
Thank you for your question, Councillor. I'm going to defer this to my colleague in engineering. Are they online? Okay.
Yes, thank you for the question. Kaveh Imani with Development Major Projects and Engineering. Staff acknowledge the concerns heard today. The rezoning conditions have been established to help with local improvements to address safety for all road users. This includes upgrades to street lighting, construction of new sidewalks and lane crossings. The proposal also means you utilize the existing lane for vehicle access and egress. Also, the northeast corner of Maple and 49th has a corner bulge, which reduces pedestrian travel and reduces the travel distance for the residents and students there that visit the school. Based on the transportation review, the proposal is not considered to adversely affect the peak traffic demand, as families in these homes will likely just walk to school.
Could I ask a clarifying question? Just in follow-up to that is we've had some partnerships with the VSB around slow streets with schools. Would this be eligible? Is there an opportunity to explore that?
Thanks for the question. Sorry, Kaveh, I'll just jump in quick, but if you'd like to add as well. So in terms of VSB, we can certainly take that back and further understand and explore what they're looking at. That typically wouldn't be triggered by a site-specific individual rezoning application like this, but I'll pass it to Kaveh as well for any supplemental.
Thanks, then, Polar. Nothing further to add.
Okay. And then... I had another question, but I lost my train of thought, so I'll go back. I see Councillor Orr is on the queue, so I'll let him go first. Thanks.
Councillor Orr? Yeah, thanks. So, yeah, a question through the chair to the staff. I mean, we've heard some pretty strong language here. Monstrous, absolute chaos, irreparable harm to the community, things like that. How did we sort of get here? I mean, I know we sent out... 1,244 notices. We received 33, both positive and negative. Is there something better we can do to sort of communicate around, you know, what we heard there, you know, around we're going to be looking at, you know, safety upgrades, street lighting, new sidewalks, lane crossing, parking, regulatory signage. You know, is there something more we can do to sort of communicate? you know, what we're doing to listen because the petition, you know, the petition says that consultation has been minimal and, you know, and feels performative. I just wonder, you know, it might be a difficult question to ask or to answer, but, you know, is there anything we could do to communicate that we are listening?
Thanks for the question, Councillor.
So certainly as part of rezoning applications, there's certainly some site-specific interest that is generated from projects, and we certainly have the public consultation process in an effort to provide information on the project itself. We have the Shape Your City platform, our Q&A period that often is enabled through that. But I think a lot of the bigger concerns that we're hearing from the public are more system changes and improvements, whether it's school site capacity or infrastructure capacity. We do have a lot of those functions that we perform through area planning work whether it's through the villages work whether it's through our capital planning improvement processes to understand where those capacity constraints are through our public benefit strategies to make sure that we've got the cultural amenity and public use spaces to ensure that we can meet those requirements what I think we're finding from this particular project on a site specific is this project won't detrimentally or have an adverse effect to the problems that already exist it's not necessarily growing those problems and it's still incumbent upon the city to find systems and means to address those more broadly as well. So what I think we're finding from these proposals is this project is consistent with those policies to encourage this kind of transition form of housing in terms of heights and densities through the SRP policy to rise and meet the occasion of providing sufficient housing options for the residents of Vancouver, which align generally as well with our Housing Vancouver strategy and Vancouver plan, for example.
A really detailed answer. Thank you so much. You know, just to sort of summarize, this work is ongoing. This work around infrastructure and whatnot is ongoing, right? And then just a question, just sort of a brief thing around, you know, people saying, you know, talking about policy and learning from other jurisdictions and worldview and stuff. Just to re-edify, public hearings aren't the place for that. If we want to change the policy, we do it at a different time and place, correct? Sorry to bring you back up.
Thanks for the question. So today's public hearing is about the merits of the application. It's enabled by policy that council has directed and invited applications and change. So if there's questions, we certainly hear those, but we often hear a revisiting of the overall policy in these projects too. So if there's an opportunity or an identity for that, we have venues like villages or Vancouver plan conversations about the type of city that you want to see Vancouver become.
Okay, thanks. And then maybe a little more granular and specific on, let's say, destruction of trees. There will be a tree bylaw, I assume, that is followed on this one. I'm just trying to pick out a few things.
Destruction of trees. Yeah.
Tree bylaw, sorry.
Yeah, thanks for the question. I'm Havan Surat, Planner 2. Normally during the time of DP, a detailed arborist report will be recommended and will be reviewed by the landscape staff, and additional conditions will be imposed during that time.
Okay, and then I don't know if someone else is going to ask about, I guess school capacity was a big one. Can we turn? I know we... Templar just briefly touched on that. What about community centers? That's kind of the same answer too, right? Where all the work is being done. Okay, sorry. I'm just kind of thrown back by some of this here. So, yeah, that's all my questions. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Dominato, did you?
Okay. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
unfortunately not mayor we did not uh yeah no we do have to follow the procedures unfortunately and we had an opportunity for speakers to speak and then no unfortunately not Council will now make its decision on this application. Do we have a mover for the recommendations?
Councillor Klassen, do we have a seconder? Councillor Frye, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you to the speakers for coming in and sharing your views with us tonight. I was very much remembering an experience I had when we lived in an apartment in Yaletown and I remember that Vancouver House was being built close to us. And I remember... And another building was being built as well. And I remember how I felt when we were losing sight of the wall street, the wall centre from my daughter's bedroom. And I remember feeling sad about that and thinking that's a shame. And... And there is definitely a feeling of stress about change in your neighbourhood and I've certainly experienced a lot of change moving around the world myself and it's always difficult and the period of adjustment is always...
It's always... very unrelaxing and takes a little while to get used to. And there are some things about change that are very helpful, though. And I know in my own neighbourhood having a new London drugs and supermarket was a fantastic by-product and more eyes on the street and more neighbours and having it easier to get around. It ended up, even though I had initial concerns about the change, it ended up being a better neighbourhood as a result of it. And I know that's not much consolation for you seeing this change, but I think there are some good things that can come to the neighbourhood as a result of having rental housing. You know, I was so appreciative of the... the speech by London. I have two kids of my own who are teenagers and I'm concerned about them being able to find housing in the city, affordable housing close to where we live. And I know that any parents are concerned about that as well. And I know how many people are losing their children, their adult children are moving out far away from where they live. And it is very difficult for them not to see them as often as they like. And I've heard from a lot of seniors that we don't have enough accessible housing options in every neighbourhood and people also don't like having to move far away from their community where they know everyone and they know the shops because they can't find suitable accommodation in their neighbourhood when they can't handle the stairs anymore. So I know that's all not what you want to hear, but there are real benefits from having more affordable rental accommodation for the people that need to live in our city, our firefighters, our police, our servers, our teachers. it is very hard to find rental accommodation. So I will be voting in favour of this development and I really appreciate you coming and sharing your views.
Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Claassen. Thanks very much, Mayor, and thanks to all the speakers that came in tonight. I really appreciate hearing your voices and your passion and certainly your love of the community. I'm going to just share a little bit. When I was straight out of high school, which was a long time ago, 45 years ago, I got a job at the Vancouver School Board, and I got to ride around in a truck during the summer jump out, cut grass, and clean up the gardens. And McGee High School is one of the places that I remember very fondly. It was the old building before they built the new one, which is still one of the nicest school buildings in the district. And I just remember sort of treasuring being at it. This area, for the most part, has not really evolved and changed a lot. The tree canopy is larger, but it maintains itself as a fairly stately neighborhood with beautiful boulevards, and it's just a great place to live. I remember next door to... the school across Maple at 49th, there used to be like a little corner store. And I think somebody knocked it down and built a house there quite a long time ago. But it was a neighborhood that had a place, a sense of place. It still has a sense of place, but it was really driven by the connection to Arbutus and some of the, now lately we're starting to see with the grocery store, Savon Foods, which I think a lot of neighborhoods would love to have grocery store like that so close to their door being able to walk to it one of the speakers talked about more older adults living in a neighborhood and that's something that is particularly important to me I see our neighborhoods evolving I see certainly the fact that we have so many seniors now. And I recently visited somebody who didn't live very far from here who was concerned about very similar things. A new housing development is going in, concerns around traffic. There was a school nearby. They were very worried about the potential for, you know, there being an incident involving the kids walking to school. So we walked around the neighborhood together and looked at it and talked about it. But when I went back to his home afterwards, he told me that his wife had to go into a care home because fairly elderly, and now she's had some cognitive challenges. And as I sat in the living room with him, I looked at all of his photo books. And, you know, it really drove home the fact that we really do need to take care of elderly people in this neighborhood, in all of our neighborhoods. And the way we do that, I think, is really suitable and appropriate housing. And what I do find is that when you get to a certain age. If it's at all suitable, it's really great to be able to have those housing options where you're closer to people, closer to amenities, walkable grocery, shopping, and having those kinds of things that really make life, those activities of daily life, and make life much more joyful in your later years. And so I just... I have to put that down as something that I think about a lot when we are planning and building our city. And so this is going to be a place that will always be lively. There will always be young people walking to school for generations to come. The school district absolutely needs to think about its capacity. That's a little bit out of our hands. We try and influence it as much as we can. But at the end of the day, that's a provincial matter. They really do need to think about it. And as Councillor Don Minato, through her questions, pointed out, We need to be very careful about the amount of traffic. I used to drive 49th all the time. I was an Eastside kid. I went to UBC. Some of my best pals were McGee kids, and still to this day they're old friends of mine. But at the end of the day, I think that this neighborhood is taking a very small step towards having a more kind of village environment that rental housing... like this, which at five stories is relatively modest, will hopefully provide housing for people who want to downsize their housing, still live in the neighborhood, still be able to walk to the grocery store, meet up with friends, and be able to... be close to a place where they can shop go to have a coffee and things like that so i'm just again i'm sort of trying to think about how the neighborhood evolves a little bit and i know it's cold comfort for those of you brought forward some very concerns about traffic and and and uh and what you considered, you know, sort of describing about the heft of the building, the shadows and what have you. At the end of the day, I think that this proposal that I see, designed well and built well, will, at the end of the day, would be a very positive aspect of this neighborhood. So I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'll just sort of touch on a couple of different points that I heard, and I appreciated hearing from all the residents who are very passionate about the neighborhood. What I'm hearing in this rezoning tonight and in other applications coming forward is people and local neighbors underscoring the importance of livability and community amenities. And so I did want to express that taking that to heart is very helpful to hear from people that are in their neighborhoods and that are They their kids themselves, families are trying to use them every day because council has an opportunity to set our investments in the upcoming capital plan. Every council inherits one and every council gets to complete one. And so I think for me, the takeaway I'm hearing is that we really need to be looking at some of these aging. facilities and we're hearing about it, whether it's the Kerrisdale Ice Arena, the local playgrounds, et cetera, and making sure that we are investing them, which happens, as was mentioned, in the capital planning process outside of this specific hearing, but hearing that feedback directly from residents is really important and affirms to me that that's where we need to be spending a lot of time and effort to contribute to supporting the existing residents and some of the new ones that would come in with this building. So I just wanted to thank everybody for that feedback. Thanks, Mayor.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. And echoing thanks that my colleagues are sharing for all the speakers and residents who've called in and also are here this evening. I appreciate, like my colleague before me, the concerns and considerations you're raising around... whether it be school capacity, parking, infrastructure needs. And as I was hearing some of the comments, I was thinking to myself, we're hearing some similar concerns across the city as a changing city, a growing city. I was recently looking at, I toured a six-story rental building not far from my home, and there's a number of them going up nearby. And that one in particular is a social housing serving women and children. but there's others that are just traditional sort of market rentals. And while the vacancy rate has changed and improved, by and large, these buildings are full. And my colleagues have already spoken quite articulately to the need for downsizing for seniors, but also someone mentioned having adult children moved out of the home, but we also have adult children who need housing as well. There's a challenge with housing students who want to go to UBC or SFU, for example. And so that is so I think there is still a persistent need for housing, but I appreciate a significant change. It is change. Even I was I was looking at the like, say, the buildings recently in my neighborhood and. and looking at the landscape of the street has changed. The view to the mountains has changed. But then I also see on the flip side the benefit of, as was noted, the amenities that come with that, but also the people. And I think there are, as we go forward, and I think it's a persistent challenge, because I was asking about how long there's been the VSB, because that was noted as a challenge, the school being full. how long it's been the case. I heard four years. I think it may have even been longer. I was a school trustee before. I do think we have an ongoing challenge of how do we get the province, not just the VSB, because VSB has limited opportunities. They can set priorities around capital, but get the province to recognize that we actually have more needs in our city for provincial infrastructure like K-12 schools. And I think that's on us to do some advocacy because they really hold the purse string. And then finally, I want to comment. I asked the question and I heard staff note that we could look at this. The considerations around sounds like there's already conflict and challenges of vehicles, pedestrians in this area, regardless of any proposal on the floor, that there are some conditions in the application, but also our staff can take away. And I heard they could. is conversations of VSB about slow streets. There are other things that could be done potentially to address concerns around increasing traffic.
And I also appreciate the point that Councillor Kirby-Young raised around what she's hearing in terms of livability. And I think that just, again, speaks to... change. This is a lower rise sort of model of housing than what we're seeing in other parts of the city where we are trying to concentrate more tower forms in certain areas closer to public transit. So relative to that, this is a lower rise build. But I appreciate it. There's probably nothing I'm going to say that would satisfy anyone at this point if you've come and spoken in opposition to this. But I do think the application should be supported, but I would challenge our staff to look more closely at the street conditions, looking over there to our planning staff, and also that we can take away advocacy around the school capacity and what do we do to address that going forward, not just in this neighborhood, but beyond in other parts of the city. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do I have to see the chair? Mr. Dallman, can I give you the chair? First of all, I do want to start off by thanking everyone who came to speak today, online and in person, and especially London. You did an incredible job. Everyone did. And your comments, they're not wrong.
I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. And like a few counselors have mentioned, anything we say, you know, I don't think we're trying to convince anyone here to change their feelings about it. The feelings are real. We're talking about your neighborhood. It's deeply intimate. Like I said, I'm very, very familiar with the neighborhood. I was a Churchill boy for the most part, and I had a lot of friends that lived on Maple, on LeBaron. We'd go there. Johnny Shardhouse lived there. Elizabeth Martin lived there and would visit them all the time. I actually did go to McGee my last year. And so that was the old school, you know, right on 49th there before they built the new school. I do remember, I think it was Carisdale Grocery Store on Maple Street, and it burnt down. I think it burnt down in 89 just after I graduated.
Very familiar with Carisdale as well. That's actually where our first office was for the company that we started and spent over a decade in Carisdale. I've been familiar with the UBC traffic problem since 1988 when I started going to UBC and it's always been problematic, especially on 49th Avenue. I remember McGee grocery before it became a save on foods. And so, like I said, really familiar with the area and see, I've seen it changed quite a bit. And so, um, we've seen the beauty of that neighborhood. And we keep going there to this day. I think my last school visit to an elementary school, or second last one, was to Maple Grove. And so I think it's important that we're incredibly clear where we stand while we feel a certain way. And I'm only going to speak for myself in my role as mayor. We have to make decisions that make sense over the long term for the majority of the residents in the city. And so we take or I take a 30 year view on what we should do. And so when I look at that view, I know there are a lot of people that are coming to the city. And we want to create an environment where we can build homes. for the future Londons of the world, of Vancouver, who at some point in time are going to want to live in the city, if they so choose and want to live in Vancouver, they're going to have that opportunity. I'm also involved in seniors care. And look, I'm 55 right now. I'm not really thinking about it. But when I speak to people that aren't that, Much older than me, and they're looking at downsizing. The one thing I hear over...
over again especially on the west side is great you know we spent the last 40 years in our home and you know we're fortunate we built some equity and we want to downsize to move into something that's a little more manageable and we want to stay in the community we don't want to go somewhere else but there are no alternatives for us and so there are a lot of people that aren't given the choice of being able to stay in the community, aging in place in their community. And I know from a health outcomes perspective, it doesn't matter what house you live in per se, it's the community around you. When you have community, your health outcomes are better. And so when I look at those two factors and a longer-term view, That's why, despite the fact that I love the neighborhood and I'm very nostalgic about the area and specifically that street, that corner of the street that I know really well, I will be supporting the project because it does give us those opportunities. I think you can hear from this council, they all expressed that they heard your concerns about livability and amenities, and we will take that to the drawing table, back to the drawing table, and we will advocate for that area as well. So that's my time. Can I please get the chair back? Thank you. Councillor Frye.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor and folks. Thanks for coming today, and I'll also be voting in support of this application. And just echoing some of the comments that all of my colleagues have said, this is a difficult change to absorb, I'm sure, but it will be okay in the end. And, you know, we just look around the area. There are similarly scaled... apartment, condo-type buildings over on West Boulevard. And the gentleman who was speaking about, he'd moved in 40 years ago in 1986, I think, reminded me that was the year my step-grandmother moved into seniors living. And she was actually born, she was the original Vancouver homesteader, Mickey Gilmore. She was born in South Van Marple, sorry, in Marple when it was still a separate municipality. It was back then, it was West Point Grey Municipality. It was a totally different city, separate from Vancouver, separate from South Vancouver. And when she had downsized from her little house in Marple and she moved into an apartment in Carisdale and it was... a super cute little apartment in one of the towers closer to 41st and sort of boulevard area up there. But what struck me is that that was 1986, and it was a real great opportunity for her to downsize. The population of Vancouver in 1986 was... 430,000 people. Today, our population is about 775,000 people. So we are a growing city. We are running out of space where we can kind of keep these, you know, single family home kind of vernacular for folks to... to grow old in and for kids to grow up in, recognizing that we are running out of the space for us to keep our families intact in the city of Vancouver. So this in and of itself at five stories is quite a modest scale. Throughout the city, there's a lot of really difficult scales that are coming in that have far greater impacts on leafy communities like this particular intersection. And I think that, you know, as a city, we recognize that And change is difficult. And this, I think, on the whole, will not be the worst change. And in fact, I think as time moves on, it'll be seen as an asset for your community and new neighbors that can contribute.
and enjoy a wonderful part of the city. And people like my step-grandma who can grow old in the neighborhood that they were born in and grew up in.
Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, a reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to Section 14.13 of the Procedure By-law. I'm now going to call the vote. Clerk, if you can please take us to the voting panel.
Great, and that passes unanimously with Councillor Bligh absent. That completes item number one.
Okay, thank you for coming in, everyone. Thank you, team.
Okay, see you, London. See you. Okay, item number two, CD-1, text amendment, 138 East 7th Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody have a conflict they wish to declare?
Okay. The clerk's now going to read the application summary of correspondence received.
It's an application by Pacific Investment Corporation to amend the text of CD1, Comprehensive the Oral and Human District, bylaw number 10328 at 138 East 7th Avenue to permit the development of a six-story mixed-use building with office and service use. A floor space ratio of 5.1 and a height of 28.2 meter are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design and sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set on the summary and recommendation and a yellow memo dated February 3rd, 2026 entitled CD1 text amendment 138 E 7th Avenue. Amendments to update numbering for rezoning conditions in part one of the appendix B. The following correspondence has been received since we referred to public hearing. A piece is in opposition and one piece regarding other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Great, thank you very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 10614405-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. Now, we do have team members from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application.
Good evening, Mayor, Council, and members of the public. My name is Sarah Cranston, rezoning planner for this application being considered at 138 East 7th Avenue. I will note there is a yellow memo for this report to correct numbering of the rezoning conditions in Appendix B.
The site is located on the south side of 7th Avenue, west of Main Street, in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood. The surrounding context is mixed and industrial uses. There is a city park under construction kitty corner to the site, shown in green, at the northeast corner of Main Street and 7th Avenue. The property currently contains a two-story mixed-use building with office uses, as well as the Sarah McLachlan School of Music, a nonprofit music school which provides free after-school music programs for children and youth facing barriers to accessing traditional music education.
The Broadway plan is the rezoning enabling policy for this application. The site is located in the Mount Pleasant Industrial Area, Area A. The plan allows up to 11 stories and six FSR for industrial, office, service and retail, as well as cultural and institutional uses. There is a specific Broadway plan policy for this site, which allows consideration of additional height and density without the required industrial uses to support long-term retention of the existing music school.
This application proposes a four-story addition for office uses atop the existing two-story building for a total of six stories. The existing CD1 zone is proposed to be amended to permit an increase in height and density up to 28.2 meters and 5.1 FSR. The completed six-story building will include office uses and the existing nonprofit music school.
Support was expressed for this project for retention of the nonprofit music school, as well as for the proposal's compatibility with the neighborhood and the site's existing zoning. Respondents expressed concern for building height, privacy concerns, as well as traffic and alley congestion. Regarding building height, a condition reduces the building height to reduce massing. The proposal will also be below the permitted 11 stories, as per the Broadway plan, and is compliant with view cones. Regarding privacy, at six stories, tower separation does not apply to this building. If it were to apply, the average separation exceeds the required 60 feet between commercial and residential uses. Conditions ensure privacy and overlook concerns are mitigated. Regarding traffic and congestion, engineering conditions have been included to upgrade and improve the rear lane. The application will be required to meet the parking bylaw at the time of development permit for loading and visitor parking spaces.
A commercial linkage contribution of approximately $400,000 is expected for this proposed building addition, as well as DCLs in the value of $1.5 million. Additionally, the existing non-profit music school is intended to be retained in the upgraded building.
In conclusion, the application meets the Broadway plan. Staff support this application subject to the conditions in Appendix B. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any questions. Counsel, your vote tonight will mean we're no longer building a mystery. Thank you.
Maybe.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
My name is Brent Wolverton. I represent the Wolverton family and Pacific Investment Corporation, the company which owns the building. I will keep my remarks short as I wanted primarily to be here to answer any questions Council may have. More than 15 years ago, we bought the building in question and renovated it to provide a stable home for the Sarah McLachlan Music School. Our efforts have been entirely privately funded to date, through the Wolverton Family Foundation, and for our part, represent an effort to give back to the city, which has been my family's home for more than a century. Although the building has served the school well, after a decade, we need to plan for the next chapter and this proposal supports that plan. We believe the addition and update will accomplish several key goals. It positions the building to better meet the school's needs going forward, including additional facilities to enhance the school's effectiveness. It renews key building systems to current standards. It updates the buildings designed to meet the changing character of the neighborhood. It carries out these required updates in a way that is sustainable and least disruptive to the continuity of the tenants. We have spent considerable time, expense, and effort in strategizing how we might ensure that the benefits the school represents to the community continues for the next decade and beyond. I hope we can count on Council's support in this endeavor. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from Council to our team members or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for Council to ask questions of the applicant?
Councillor Klassen.
Yes, just a brief question with regards to the... additional floor that will be dedicated to office. I know that we've had some challenges with office development lately. What are you sort of foreseeing in terms of how that space will be occupied and will it be, it will probably, I'm just, I won't guess, is it going to be exclusive to the school of music or are you going to be having other agencies potentially involved in that?
The design of the building is that the idea of the building was, and, was that the school would occupy an entire floor. That's 15,000 square feet. And the other tenants would, in essence, the rent from the other tenants would be where we get the money to keep the school stable. So it's kind of a self-sustaining design. And the problem is that with costs going up across the board, one additional floor, one commercial tenant, which is what we currently have, just isn't going to meet our needs for the next decade. And so we want to make sure that we create that same stability. And so the additional floor is really to... to have additional commercial tenants that would then give us additional capacity to support the school. For the area, because it has a large floor plate, it's a 15,000 square foot floor plate, we have found it is ideal for some of the city's other goals. So if you are an engineering firm, if you're a high-tech firm, Those types of spaces in that area are hard to come by. 15,000 square feet, it's a big floor plate. And a lot of those firms, those companies, like to have everybody on the same floor for the synergy. and for some of the benefits that creates. So I think it's primarily to support the school, but I think it also adds to the capabilities of the area and the city's ability to attract the kind of tenants that you want to attract to that area from a light industrial point of view.
Yeah, it's a terrific area. And, of course, you're going to have a new park across the street as well. It's rare that we get to build a beautiful urban park like that. And what, a block away from the Broadway line SkyTrain station. So that's amazing. I just have a quick question. I should be able to find these things immediately. But is there some existing underground parking at the site?
There is, yes.
Okay. And I presume that would not be changed at all. Is that correct? No.
Okay.
OK, thanks for my question. Thank you, Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah, thanks. My question is for the applicant, and I'm just wondering if you can you mentioned sort of the the model ensures the school can operate in perpetuity or it's self-sustaining. Just wondering if you can comment on whether or not they're able to serve a chance to visit the current school. It's pretty phenomenal set up. This is a lot of serve more kids. Is it more purpose built functional space with respects to sound? Kathleen, our music set up, what's the benefits in terms of the new space for Sarah McLaughlin School?
So the size of the existing space would probably remain the same. what the update does allow us to do though is supply some of the infrastructure in the building is getting old the heating and cooling is not up to spec at this stage so we'd like to renew that and we think the kids would benefit from outdoor space so if you look at the design there's a roof deck with green space and we're hoping that the school can use that facility for maybe some outdoor activities or at least getting the kids some fresh air from time to time in the better weather. So there's an update to the infrastructure of the building, and there's an update to the capabilities of the building, but we don't foresee the school growing per se. Some of the facilities the school currently uses may be updated, but the plan is really to make sure that we have the capacity to support them into the future.
Okay, I appreciate that. And then just my second question is, do you have, you mentioned in terms of the types of tenants that this would attract. Do you have any specific interest from tenants at this point? Or are you building and then leasing?
We do not. Okay. It's staging things for the longer term. So we're not looking at construction tomorrow. We're looking at construction in the next couple of years. And so we have not solicited tenants at this stage. I can tell you the existing commercial tenant is really, really happy with the space. It's GHD Engineering. They think it's one of the best spaces across Canada that they have because they are a large firm. And so we hope that we'll be able to attract more of the same caliber of tenant.
Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Fry. Yeah. Exciting proposition. And what really excites me is that we're seeing this sort of genesis of even like a children's art-focused precinct around with. With the go ballet and, of course, the ethos down the street, it's exciting. Is there any contemplation of how the – I know there's a not insignificant commercial linkage charge coming through this. How do we enhance the sort of public-facing benefits of this kind of school and location? Is there anything that is contemplated through the – maybe this isn't a question for you so much as for staff even.
Thanks for your question. Yes, there's a commercial linkage contribution at approximately $400,000 that's being generated from the additional density, and that will be going to the Broadway Plan public benefit strategy to support other community facilities, infrastructure, et cetera.
inclusive of arts and culture kind of contributions? Yes. Amazing. Yeah, so I really love the fit, and I think this is a really nice piece.
So, great. Thank you very much. Okay, this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833. 353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445. Before the close of the speaker's list, the phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when your name is called. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of... The report being considered. So our first speaker today is speaker number one, Brad Nickel.
Is Brad present?
Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Brad Nickel, owner and resident of Unit 605-133 East 8th Avenue, directly across from the southwest corner of the application site. I oppose the report recommendation. I'm also the Strata President representing 45 owners of Collection 45. We have significant concerns about the scale, massing, and impacts of this proposal, and I ask each of you, if this were your home, how would you respond? The pace of development in the Mount Pleasant area is increasing, and it feels like vertical mining. The higher the buildings go, the happier the investment... companies become. In this case, the property is owned by an investment group leveraging the presence of the Sarah McLachlan School of Music, a valued neighbor, but one whose long-term presence is not guaranteed. When the Broadway plan was adopted, this site was identified for a modest increase of one up to three floors. What's being proposed now is four additional stories plus rooftop amenities with no clear justification for exceeding what was originally contemplated.
I would like to highlight three key areas of concern. Proximity, privacy, noise, light, air quality. The city's own guidelines require a 60-foot separation between commercial and residential towers above 60 feet in height. While the applicant claims an average setback of 78.5 feet, that number is misleading. At the southwest corner, the actual distance is 48 feet, and when measured to the railing, it is closer to 43 feet. Another strata owner will speak to this in more detail. The proposed height, proximity, massing will impact our Charter of Rights. Every Canadian is guaranteed the right to privacy, and this development directly threatens that fundamental protection. The increased height and lack of setbacks severely limit Skyward views, and this is a fundamental to why we purchased our homes. The application on page 38 mentions privacy, with vague notes and no specifics. It states, our design is taken... has taken this into consideration and addresses privacy and overlook interest with the provision of additional setback, perforated metal screens, and landscape planting. But there's no explanation how effective they are or how they meaningfully mitigate the direct overlook into our homes from the offices, balconies, and rooftop. Without specifics, these assurances feel more like placeholders than real solutions. Because of our close proximity, we are most concerned with noise, light, and air quality. There is no information about the implications of noise from the music practice rooms, the mechanical systems, or the exhaust vents directed toward our building or from the rooftop. We are concerned about the light pollution from modern high-intensity fixtures that will be on all night from the offices, balconies, and laneway. What will be the impact on the air quality to us? These are not minor issues. They directly affect our quality of life. In concerning to traffic congestion and parking strain, the laneway behind our buildings is already overburdened. Waste trucks struggle to maneuver. Trades and service vehicles have nowhere to stop. Evo car-sharing vehicles occupy scarce permit parking. And now the proposal adds an additional entrance at the southwest-southeast corner, precisely where two narrow laneways intersect, already constrained by power poles and garbage bins. This will worsen congestion, create safety hazards, and make essential services even harder to deliver. The need for design revision, I'm asking the City to require the applicant to revisit the design with the following considerations. A reduction in the building height and aligned with the modest increase originally envisioned. Increased setbacks, especially at the southwest corner. preserve privacy and daylight, noise, lighting, air quality mitigation that protects the nearby homes, and traffic parking strategies that keep the laneways functional.
Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is speaker number two, Sophia. Is it Villarreal or Villarreal?
Villarreal.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Sophia. I live in the residential building directly across the laneway from this proposed development, and I'm speaking against the development. What concerns us is how this proposal relies on selective averaging and discretionary leeway that shifts impact directly onto existing buildings. I want to briefly speak to three key issues and conclude each with what we are asking the city to require. I first want to speak about the laneway setbacks and separation standards. The applicant cites an average setback of 78 feet. Yet the applicant's own drawings on page 38 show averages of only 50 to 60 feet. When separation is measured using the city's lane midline standard, the actual distance across from our building is approximately 17 feet, dropping to 12 feet at the southwest corner. even allowing for minor measurement variation, these distances do not align with the setbacks being claimed. These are the actual conditions residents will experience day to day. Not averages, but the closest facing distances across the laneway. I also want to specifically highlight the applicant's reliance on Broadway Plan Policy 11.1.7. which establishes a 60-foot separation benchmark for portions of a building over 60 feet above grade. The issue is not the policy itself, but how it is being used. On page 38, the applicant cites the 60-foot benchmark as a justification, while treating it as flexible when assessing the real separation conditions at the laneway. If 60 feet is a measure of acceptability, it must be applied consistently and measured correctly. at the laneway midline, at the tightest point, and shared equitably between sites. It cannot be averaged out or achieved by relying on setbacks provided by the neighboring property. Privacy and overlook are not experienced as averages. They are experienced at the closest point and across entire facing elevation. What we are asking the city to require is to apply the city's lane midline measurement standard when assessing separation, to evaluate minimum, not average, separation distances across the laneway, and to require the building to be pushed back from the laneway at the pinch points where separation is more constrained. Having worked in architecture offices myself, I want to raise a concern before it becomes a negotiation. These are the patterns in rezonings. There is a pattern in rezonings where setbacks are later proposed in exchange for additional building height. We want to be clear that this will not be appropriate here. Setbacks only mitigate impacts when overall height is held constant. Once height increases, mountain views are permanently lost, shadows lengthen, and overlook becomes more severe due to downward sight lines. This reasoning is discretionary. Design flexibility should occur within a fixed height envelope, not to be used to intensify impacts on neighboring buildings. What we are asking the city to do is to hold the proposed height line and to assure any setbacks occur within the approved height, not in exchange for added stories. Finally, the proposal significantly increases building capacity while relying on the same service laneway. City staff already acknowledged the need for lane upgrades and traffic calming. This confirms the lane is already under pressure. While transit access may reduce commuter parking, it does not eliminate servicing demand. Tripling capacity inevitably increases deliveries, service vehicles, and pickup and drop-off activity in a shared service lane. What we are asking the city to do is to require a binding servicing and operations management plan and to protect the laneway as a shared functional corridor. In summary, this proposal relies on averages that mask tight laneway conditions, benefits from neighboring setbacks rather than providing its own, and defers key livability impacts to later stages. We have made our requests clear. This is not about stopping development. It's about ensuring it is done fairly, transparently, and in line with the city's own policies. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers online?
Please go ahead. Sorry, can I please get your name and if you're a resident of Vancouver for the record?
My name is Emily Oswald and I am a resident of Vancouver.
Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Emily Oswald and I am the Director of Development at the Sarah McLaughlin School of Music. Sarah sends her regrets for this evening's council meeting as she's currently out of the country, and so I am here today to represent SOM and to express our organization's complete endorsement for this proposed project at 138 East 7th Avenue. As you may know, the Sarah McLachlan School of Music is a charitable organization founded nearly a quarter century ago by Canadian Grammy and Juno Award-winning artist Sarah McLachlan. For thousands of children and youth across Vancouver, the school has been a place of community, mentorship, and high-quality musical education offered at absolutely no cost to the students. As Sarah always says, SOM is a home away from home for the young artists who need us most. For the past 11 plus years, the Wolverton Foundation has played a pivotal role in helping SOM support young artists to thrive by generously providing us a permanent home at 138 East 7th Avenue. Every day, nearly 200 students facing multiple barriers access free, life-changing musical programming at our school. This is because the Wolverton Foundation has removed one of the most significant obstacles faced by nonprofits in this city, prohibitive rent. Thanks to their support, SOM is able to allocate our funding to be the most impactful to our community, which is providing musical education to the next generation of young Vancouverites who otherwise would not have access to this opportunity. The building at 138 East 7th Avenue is more than just a building. It has been a stable, sustainable home for barrier-free musical learning at SOM. For over a decade, the current building has subsidized the cost of operating a school in the heart of Vancouver, saving us close to $650,000 in rent each year. This approach has worked exceptionally well as it has kept the Sarah McLachlan School of Music financially viable, kept students in the community educated, and ensured that the building is fully used and well maintained. However, to keep the Sarah McLachlan School of Music here for the foreseeable future, the building needs to evolve. From the school's student-centered perspective, this plan is the least disruptive option to our students, our school, and our school community. Retaining the existing building footprint while expanding vertically allows construction impacts to be largely confined to the summer months, minimizing disruption to the students and our programming. For over a decade, this school has been a quiet success story and perhaps even East Van's best kept secret as this proposed construction project is rooted in the city's mission of creating a great city of communities that cares about our people, our environment, our opportunities to live, work, and prosper. I humbly ask that the counselors endorse this project, ensuring that SOM's success of being a free musical education center for at-risk youth continues. And I really wish I had a good Sarah McLachlan pun like you did, but I will just say thank you for the opportunity to speak about this.
There are not.
Great. This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. So we're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
Thank you.
Are there speakers coming to the chamber or online?
He's checking the phone line.
Not on the line or in prison. Okay. So, you know, for the speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
There has not been.
Okay. Seeing that there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments? Thank you. Do our team members have any closing comments or hymns, songs?
Yes, just noting that there's a yellow memo associated with the recommendation of this report.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Does Council have any final questions for our team, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted? Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thanks, Mayor.
I wanted to follow up with staff around some of the concerns raised by neighbours around the setbacks, particularly in relation to the Collection 45 strata building. Can staff comment on the setbacks and
if they are being followed in this case. Thank you for the question. Yeah, as Sarah mentioned in the beginning, tower separation does not apply for this proposal as existing residential building to the south is a six-story building. And under the Broadway plan, a six-story form is considered a low-rise building. So it's not considered tower. As for the building separation distance, yes, the building separation distance between the majority of the units, so five units per floor, are facing the proposal is at approximately 74 feet, which does exceed the minimum 60 feet if the tower separation were to be applied between commercial and residential. But however, that's not the case here. As I mentioned, tower separation doesn't apply. One of the neighbors mentioned that there's a yes, there is one two bedroom unit towards the west with the building separation that ranges from 38 feet to to 48 feet. Yeah. And we typically look at the. Yeah, the layout of the existing units and, you know, for this particular existing building, the living room faces both the proposal and the side yard with enough setback. Also, the unit is directly facing the exit stair core with the blank wall. So... the direct privacy and overlook impacts are slightly, it's mitigated, minimized. And typically office and residential uses are not used at the same time. So generally that reduces the privacy and overlook concerns.
Okay, thank you for that additional detail. So with that one unit, it's not directly across from another window. It's going to be across from a... You said a stair core, is that correct?
Yeah, in terms of the placement of the units, of the existing unit to the south, yes, the stair core is with a blank wall with no windows, are directly across from that unit. So I would say that... You know, the direct overlook impacts are minimized as opposed to when you were to have a glazing directly across the unit.
Understood. Okay, thanks for that clarification.
Appreciate it.
Thank you very much, Councillor Claassen. I think staff did a pretty good job of covering the privacy questions that I was going to ask about certainly the positioning. And I'm sure those kinds of things usually get negotiated. But I think my questions, I think, were fully answered. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much.
Okay. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the closed public comments?
Okay. Council will now make its decision on this application. And I want to remind everyone that we're going to move it along with the yellow memo. So do we have a, so moved by Councillor Dominato, seconded by Councillor Klassen. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue.
Oh, Councillor Klassen, go ahead. Yeah, thanks very much, Mayor.
First of all, I want to thank the speakers and also just the responses from staff in terms of better understanding the placement. When I was... Many years ago when I sat on the City Planning Commission, as a member of the Planning Commission, we spent a good two years on a work plan focused on adaptive reuse. And so I'm a big fan of any way for us to kind of reuse and adapt building structures, certainly for either from the standpoint of usage and also just reducing the need for additional construction. It's good for the environment. It's just smart development. So from that standpoint, this project scores a few points from me. But speaking more to the school itself, and I just can't say enough about what Brent and the Wolverton Foundation... And the entire team, Dan Cleland and Sarah, of course, have been able to build there. I've been in that school on a couple of occasions and came away with just my heart pounding with excitement and what an incredible asset it is in our city. We are so incredibly, incredibly lucky to have a place that fosters culture and positivity and the growth of young people. to learn art and music and express themselves in that fashion. And it's all thanks to the generosity of private benefactors, which is incredible. And so it is, I think, just a really great addition. It just steps away from the new SkyTrain station that's going to open next year. It'll be across the street from our new urban park that'll be at the corner of 7th and Main. This is just going to radiate as a very... incredibly important part of the Mount Pleasant community and right in the heart of our city. So I'm really excited for this. And I think it just bears repeating that this stage of the growth of the organization really depends upon this building having some of the economics to help support the... the work of the school. So from that standpoint, I'm really grateful that this is going to be happening. And I know that Sarah just had a birthday recently because our birthdays are on the same day. It's one of those things you pick up in a funny little picks up of information. So on January 28th. So I hope that the rest of council will support this and be a nice birthday present for Sarah. Thanks very much.
Thank you, Mayor. And I'm smiling a little bit because I'm a very like mind to my colleague this evening. I do appreciate the speakers and some of the concerns you've raised. I think that staff did a reasonable job of trying to address some of the points that were raised. But there's very, I would say, very little opposition overall to this proposal. And And like Councillor Clausen, I also am a big fan of this adaptive use of leveraging the existing building, building on top, and have also had the opportunity to tour the school previously. and uh see it uh shine with the students and the performances and and um this is a really critical part of our city we often most i would say most of the rezonings and we hear that we see here are housing by and large there's you know there's some industrial, some office like this. But this is really special because it helps maintain the school in the city because oftentimes, I can say this from experience because one of my daughters dances and is at a school that started, a dance school that started in Vancouver and now is in a neighboring jurisdiction because they ran out of space. They couldn't relocate and find a suitable space. And there is an enormous appetite for music education. And particularly the one thing I think that's really notable about Sarah McLachlan School is that it really is to serve all children of all ages and come from all different ways of life and regardless of income. And that's a real focus. And so I know that this proposal is really coming from a place of... serving those students, those families and the community. And I think it is important that we have that vision to how do we ensure that services, community services like this can stay in the city of Vancouver
So I'm happy to support this and really pleased to see it come forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. A reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to section 14.13 of the procedure of bylaw. I'm now going to call the vote. If council can please register their vote.
Great, and that passes unanimously with Councillor Bligh absent. And that completes item number two.
Thank you for the hard work. Congratulations. Okay, item number three, CD-1 rezoning, 1402 through 1462 Burrard Street, 1401 through 1451 Hornby Street, and 900 Pacific Street. So before we begin this agenda item. Let me just pause for a sec. Why don't we take a one-minute recess?
The item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody have a conflict to declare? Seeing no one's hands up, the clerk's now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by General Manager of Real Estate Services of the City of Vancouver to E-Zone 1402 to 1462 Burrard Street and 1401 to 1451 Hornby Street and 900 Pacific Street from Forest Creek Comprehensive Development District to CD1 District to permit a mixed-use development of a 40-story and a 54-story east tower connected with a podium with 100... 1,089 secure rental units and ground floor commercial space. maximum floor space of 18,700 square meter, and a maximum building height of 165 meter are proposed. General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set on the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referred to public hearing. Four pieces in support, eight pieces in opposition, and four pieces dealing with other aspects. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Great, thank you very much. Now, this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list, and we do have our team members from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application.
It's good? Great. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Nick Danford. I'm the rezoning planner for the file.
So the site outlined in red is located in the downtown south area of the city on the southeast corner of the intersection of Burrard and Pacific Streets. This is directly east of the Burrard Street Bridge. The site currently houses a series of single-story commercial and industrial buildings and businesses. The surrounding neighbourhood generally consists of high density residential buildings ranging from a single storey to over 50 storeys in height. This proposal is being considered under the Rental Housing on City Owned Lands Public Benefits Pilot Rezoning Policy. So under this policy, development is to be delivered through the Vancouver Housing Development Office. The policy outlines that proposed developments will secure the residential floor area as 100% rental tenure through a housing agreement. Developments are to include 35% of all units D2 or more bedrooms and will generate ongoing tax revenue streams to advance city priorities. The Granville slopes policy is also applicable to the site. This policy that was approved in 1993 anticipated a strata residential development in this location with a density of 4.5 FSR and a maximum height of 64 meters or 210 feet.
The application was submitted in December 2024, with a resubmission in May 2025. The proposal is for a 54- and 40-storey mixed-use development, noting that the Council report dated January 6th captures the number of storeys as 52 for the East Tower. This is a typo, and the overall height of this building is 54 storeys, or 165 metres. The west tower measures at 40 stories or 127 meters, while the total floor area is proposed to be 80,700 square meters or approximately 11.2 FSR. 1,089 rental units are proposed with commercial space on the ground floor.
An online question and answer period and an in-person information session was held during the application review process. Throughout the process, respondents indicated support for the additional rental housing, the contextual fit of the building height, and the proposed commercial uses included in the development. While concerns were received related to the proposed height, neighborhood fit, traffic, and impact of construction noise. With regards to the proposed height, staff note that the surrounding context includes buildings in excess of 50 stories in height. Additionally, protected views and parks are not impacted by the proposal's size. Regarding traffic and parking, the proposal will be required to meet the parking bylaw at the time of development permit, and it's not anticipated that the site will put additional pressure on street parking in the area.
Finally, construction noise and any noise associated with the development after occupancy will be regulated through the city's noise control bylaw.
The expected DCL contribution from the proposal is approximately $28 million. Along with the public art contribution, the total public benefit package is $29.8 million. Other benefits include the 1,089 rental units as well as the non-tax revenue for city priorities.
The proposed land use, form of development, and public benefits is generally consistent with the applicable policies and the surrounding built context. Staff recommend approval and are available for questions. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Please note that the applicant for this item is the GM of Real Estate Services. With that, does the applicant or their designate have any additional comments?
Okay. Yeah. Thank you.
I'll just make a few introductory comments on the project and provide a bit more context on the VHDO. Just as a reminder to council and staff, and my comments will pertain to both items three and four, if that's okay, because the context is essentially the same.
Yeah, sure.
There we go. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Brad Foster, Director of the Vancouver Housing Development Office. This moment has been about two years in the making, and I'd like to celebrate this by giving thanks to Mayor and Council for your support to this point and the incredible cooperation we have received from our colleagues throughout the organization to bring forward our first two rezoning proposals. I'd also like to thank our top class design teams, which we've assembled here today, who can take any questions that are more on the technical side, and I think they'll be happy to do that. The combined cooperation and expertise that we've received have resulted in exceptional architectural design, offering massive improvements to the urban realm, and infusing new life into important but underutilized city-owned sites.
Just a reminder to Council of the range of housing that the VHDO deals with. Going left to right, and largely the left portion of the slide is dealt with through our Vancouver Affordable Housing Endowment Fund, or VAHEF. We address homelessness. We're providing housing with supporting services, social housing, community housing, and a huge range of affordable and rental housing and home ownership opportunities. largely through our nonprofit partners.
In addition to our market housing objectives through the VHDO and largely through VAHEF, as I said, the city has over 260 sites dedicated to non-market housing, comprising an estimated 13,000 homes. In addition to this nearly $4 billion land contribution by the city, VAHEF, in cooperation with our non-profit partners, have secured approximately $380 million in public grants and financing in just the past two years. This is a remarkable achievement, which provides the balance Council seeks with respect to affordability.
When we started the VHDO in January of 2024, the market rental mandate was twofold, to provide housing and optimize the land assets held within the property endowment fund. The two projects before you now do both and set the course for the city to provide nearly 2,000 new rental homes and earn substantial non-tax revenue in perpetuity.
Our teams continue to explore opportunities to deliver development strategies that stay true to this mission.
Just a brief reminder of our objectives. We are taking a portfolio approach across VAHEF and the Property Endowment Fund to increase the supply of rental housing generally on city land. trying to optimize the social and financial returns and increase non-tax revenues, generate public benefits, and most importantly, build generational wealth for the City of Vancouver.
Since our inception, substantial work has been accomplished on six sites that you see before you that are included in our pilot phase. All the design development work has been focused on maximizing the delivery of market rental housing, improving the public realm, and positioning the development strategy to deliver long-term value to the city.
Just a brief reminder of the timelines we've been working on. They've been very aggressive, and I want to thank again the entire organization through Planning and Development Services, as well as our amazing teams. Council asked us to proceed to rezoning in November of 2024. We received draft conditions on both these massive projects in October of 2025, and here we are today at the public hearing. Now, if... Whoops. in there. There we go. Now I'd like to call on Anna Maria Llanos, who is the design lead from Diamond Schmidt, to walk you through a couple of the particulars around the actual design and the urban realm that we're proposing. Thank you. You're welcome. Good evening.
Nick has already provided some of the metrics on the project in terms of overall square footage and the number of units and the breakdown of the units. I just wanted to point out two very important drivers for this project. One is the opportunity to create new exceptional public space, and the other one is to really improve the connections between the Burrard Bridge and the water. It's a very unique site, an incredibly prominent site, and one that we were delighted to explore and come up with a design that we have shared with you. But we didn't do this alone. We have a fabulous team of consultants, and the collaboration with the city has been... Extraordinary, so we have PWL, Landscape Consultant, Entrova, Sustainability, Mechanical and Electrical, Glottman Simpson, Structural Engineers, Banton Associates, Traffic Consultant, and Applin and Martin, Civil Consultants.
As I mentioned, a tremendous opportunity. And so one of the priorities for us is how do we enhance the public realm? How do we create something that's not there now? How do we strengthen the connection, understanding that there is a very significant topography as you travel south from the bridge? So the broad steps, as you see the image on the top, is this opportunity to create this gently terraced set of landscape opportunities adjacent to commercial space, a lively connector, a space that can really accommodate people as they traverse the site down to the water. The plaza, which is the image directly below that anchor public space of the corner that connects the top down through to the Burrard steps down to the water. The diagram on the left illustrates those set of relationships and that desired connection to the water. this image illustrates also a very significant issue which is how do we generate how do we establish a landmark and how do we reinforce the the the opportunity by creating um a visual uh that leads you into the downtown and frames the entrance into the downtown with an equivalent landmark to the south which uh as you're that you're familiar with which is the snog development currently underway Some images that illustrate the qualities of the public realm, the image on the left is the sloping site along Hornby. The image to the right is a bird's-eye view that illustrates the barrage steps that I already described, that gentle... terracing that is along the west end of the development and then the series of terraces and rooftops at different levels that create a number of opportunities for the residents and for the public to engage with the building and to engage with the edges as you traverse the site down to the water. The landscape plan on the right hand side gives you a sense of not only the edges that I've described to you, but also the framing of that central courtyard, which is a very significant space that is... heavily landscaped with opportunities, both in terms of soft landscaping and hard landscaping, playground space, spaces for seating, urban agriculture. So really trying to create a special environment, understanding the density that we are proposing, but also how do we create a really livable community and enhance the community that's already there.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay. Are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant? Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. And thanks, everyone, for the presentation. My first question is to the applicant and probably to Brad. I wonder if you can, because this is a significant scale, obviously almost 1,100 new homes in a very pivotal and important site in the city with rental tenure, different than strata that was originally envisioned, I think you said the 1993 plan. How, if this rezoning is approved tonight, how is the city able to finance and deliver the project?
Currently the city does not have the structural capability to finance this project. As you're aware, we did bring a proposal forward in October, which was not successful. So going forward, we're going to have to think, and we are doing so now, about alternative strategies on how we can finance and deliver a project of this magnitude and still remain true to our mission to provide the ongoing income stream to the city in perpetuity.
So you mean unless a Councillor has a change of heart and revisits that decision, we can approve the rezoning, but we would be stalled in actually delivering the homes and the revenue to the city?
At least temporarily, yes.
Okay. And in terms of, I don't know if you want to speak to this, but I'd like to ask the question. Over time, obviously, there's the design, construction, build costs, financing to pay back. At what point in sort of the life cycle of the project and the building would it start generating revenue and what kind of revenue would it generate for the city?
Let me just...
Well, the completed project would start generating revenue immediately on occupancy, successful occupancy. I have very round numbers, orders of magnitude. Sure. For Pacific and Hornby, the valuation at occupancy would be about $1.2 billion. That's just the sort of capped valuation of the project. Forecasted revenue over a probably 35 to 40 year period would be about $1.02 billion. And the land value, should the zoning be successful, would be in the range of about $90 million.
Okay. But in terms of, like, safe to say, if I can phrase this, that you could be generating millions of dollars annually in non-tax revenue that the city could reinvest back into affordable housing, community amenities, other things. That's correct.
And that's true. That's true. And that's in line with the public benefits rezoning policy.
um i'm curious let's say that you get a question tonight and you hear from a counselor well you know this shouldn't be market rental and the city should be delivering more affordable or below market rental homes and can you pivot this site to um highly affordable housing what would it take to do that and how realistic is that no go for it go for it i think you're on it right thanks
Thank you for the question, Councillor. At this point, the only way that you could deliver the affordability that I suspect is wanted is with provincial investment. There is absolutely no way that we could actually get the depth of affordability without public dollar investment by the province.
And significant given the scale, correct?
Correct. And if you actually look at the scale of what we're talking about today, you're at about 1,800 units with both these projects. That means that you would cannibalize every provincial investment for the next three years on just these two projects.
On just these two sites? Correct. So it could actually compromise delivering other affordable projects?
There would be no money left over for anywhere else in Vancouver.
Okay, and last question. If Council approves this rezoning, and if Council saw fit outside of the public hearing process to revisit its decision, how quickly could you get started on constructing almost 1,100 new homes and generating new non-tax revenue for the City of Vancouver?
Um, difficult question, frankly, to answer, Councillor. And I think I would have to be conservative in my response. I would probably say we'd have to look at where the market is. And we probably wouldn't look at putting the risk to the city unless we could actually do some market testing. So at least 24 to 36 months.
Okay. But time does matter because costs escalate, right?
Correct.
Okay, I'll leave it there. It's my time. Thanks, Mayor.
Thanks very much, Mayor, and thanks to the staff for their presentation. This is obviously a project that literally breaks ground on a number of important things around... since we established the Vancouver Housing Development Office. I just know that these projects are going to be around here for a long time, a lifetime. Can staff clarify how the 60-year rental covenant to protect future councils from potentially eroding the public intent behind this project?
I'll pass that over to the housing planner on file, Emily. Yeah, thanks, Councillor. Yeah, Emily broke a housing regulation here. So, yeah, we would secure a housing agreement as we do with all rental on this site. So that would secure no separate sales, no stratification. So that would secure the rental essentially for the longer of six years of life in the building, like we do with all rental in the city. Great. Thanks very much. Okay.
The report, Councillor Kerbion talked a little bit about revenue generation and noting that long-term non-tax revenue generation is a key public benefit. Can staff sort of walk how this model strengthens the city's balance sheet over time compared to traditional CAC offerings?
I'LL GET ROB FROM FINANCE TO ANSWER.
ROB EVANS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND PROJECTS. The intent behind the public benefit pilot policy for city-owned sites is to deliver the additional non-tax revenue to support the existing dividend that is similar to the existing dividend that comes to the city. And the idea is to deliver funds to address council priorities, whether it's affordability, whether it's... whether it's infrastructure or amenities for communities, but through an ongoing revenue stream as opposed to an upfront contribution, and that's enabled by the policy. Anything else? And normally... Our revenue sources are obviously hemmed in a little bit, property tax. Yeah, the city is constrained in terms of our revenue sources. Most of the city infrastructure amenities are funded through property tax and utility fees. It represents the vast majority of our revenue. We do have an existing support to our operating budget through the current dividend funded by the PEF, the Property Endowment Fund, and this is really an opportunity for a significant opportunity to increase the contributions that are enabled.
sustained over a longer period yeah exactly just kind of curious from a market standpoint what what signals is this project sent to the broader development community about the city's expectations for density family housing and design excellence in these kinds of high-impact locations
Thank you for the question. So again, the application came forward under a specific policy that enabled this type of a project to be considered on city-owned lands in the absence of amenities or other below-market housing. The project is located in an area that is somewhat dated in terms of policy, and we are actually looking at updating some of that. Certainly the new thinking around how sites like this could accommodate heightened density in transit-located areas are to that effect. Again, from a staff perspective, this is certainly in keeping with how some of our new planning rationale is looking. And again, it's one of the first two that you've seen where it will have that longer-term benefit return to the city, which we don't typically find on private applications as well. Great. Thanks, Templar. Okay, those are my questions, Mayor. Thank you very much, Councillor Meiszner.
Yeah, thanks, Bear. Thanks, Steph. First question, a few of my questions have been answered already, but first question is, give me a rationale as to why it's important to secure this rezoning now, given the fact that we don't have the GBE set up due to that council vote.
Well, again, that's a tricky question. I mean, we started this project about two years ago when the VHDO was started up, and we had considerable momentum on the zoning planning and the work that we've been doing with PDS all along. So, you know, we don't want to stop the momentum. And whether we develop the site in the near term or not is a bit irrelevant because just putting the entitlements in place for the site boosts the city's balance sheet and gives the city the flexibility to begin development when the time is right and when the structural pieces are in place.
Okay, thanks for that. Would there still be the flexibility, for example, to change, say, number of units per floor, number of two bedrooms, number of family size units, depending on market conditions in the future?
Yes, absolutely. There's a long way to go on the design here. This is just rezoning. As we get closer to or enter a development permit stage, all of those tweaks can be made to suit both the market and council's expectations.
Okay, thank you for that. And then my last question was related. It's really around affordability, and there's been some discussion as campaigns start getting ready for October. I've seen a suggestion from one of the other parties around including affordable housing here. And can you talk about the government subsidy or funding that would be needed, I guess the magnitude of that, in order to accomplish that on one of these sites?
It would be very significant. The estimated construction cost of this building is in the range of about $900 million. That's very significant capital that needs to be raised. The province simply doesn't have that kind of capacity. And as Armin alluded to, just these first two projects would... take most of the financial capacity from our public sector partners for the foreseeable future.
Okay. Thanks, Brad. Appreciate it. That's it for me. Great. Thank you very much. Councillor Maloney.
Thanks. Yeah, why are we wasting everyone's time approving this rezoning tonight if there's no chance of it getting built without a new council, senior government funding, or a radically changed economic circumstance?
I mean, the planning department's budget's been significantly cut and we have a huge workload to get through before the end of July. Why am I sitting here?
Well, we're asking you to rezone a very substantial piece of underutilised city property to potentially deliver nearly 2,000 homes. That's why.
All right. So if this was a private landowner, what are the chances of the development being built in the current economic circumstances, because Sennac has paused. A lot of the Broadway Plan projects have paused. I mean, I'm hearing a lot about the buckets of money that we could be generating from this, but that seems to be wholly inconsistent to say that it, because it wouldn't be built.
Well, these are long, yeah.
Opposite things. We either could be getting buckets of money or it can't be built.
Well, market timing is an important factor. There's no doubt about it. There's a ways to go on these projects. I mean, first you have to get the entitlements in place and make sure that the sites are delivering the amenities to the city that are required and needed from a public realm point of view, housing point of view. The next phase is really to get into those business partnerships to look for that development opportunity. And that's a piece of work that would happen subsequent to getting the entitlements in place. If you don't have the property prepared, you can't move ahead.
How can we be using amenity contributions that the city is not going to be paying itself? to establish the amenities that the site needs then?
Well, the amenities I think we've explained are largely in the public realm and the housing itself. And the largest piece of the amenity is the ongoing revenue stream that would come back to the city once the building is occupied. So the big public amenity here is the revenue stream back to the city that can be reinvested in all sorts of strategic priorities down the road.
but that we're not going to get without a massive change in economic circumstances or a new council?
I don't know about massive. I mean, the stuff is being built.
Even with a new council, we might not have it for years and years.
Well, I'm afraid I can't answer that.
All right. You're talking about the benefit of this being to boost the city's balance sheet. How can that be a tangible benefit if we're not planning to sell it and we can't take out loans?
Well, that might be the case today, but it might not be the case after October. Yeah. Maybe. Well, who knows? I don't know. I mean, just rezoning the site boosts the value of the property, right? And so that is on the city's balance sheet. So we're adding value to the city's balance sheet, and balance sheet values are important. For what purpose, please? Well, value. I mean, it's just value that can be leveraged down the road.
Thanks very much.
You're welcome.
Okay, I think I'm understanding the answer, but the Vancouver Housing Development Office, the wholly owned government business enterprise, wasn't approved, but we're bringing this forward to get the entitlements and everything squared away. Is this going to impact the land assessed value if we rezone and never build this for any amount of time?
Would we not pay taxes on this land, essentially? It's our land.
All city property is exempt from property tax. So the city itself would not be paying taxes on any additional value. I would have to defer to BC Assessment on when they would recognize the additional value, whether it's after public hearing or after enactment. It really depends on the considerations.
But in this case, we wouldn't be paying tax regardless because we're the city? even with an increased assessment for... I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that we're not the wholly-owned government business enterprise. Are we taxed as a government or as a business?
The city, as long as the city owns the property, the property is exempt from property taxes.
Okay, so when we talk about our landowner hat versus our regulator hat, which hat are we wearing in this capacity? I'm...
I'm responding on a regulatory hat perspective about the assessed value and the property tax implications.
I'll just clarify as well, the purpose of this is the public hearing on the rezoning application, so you're wearing your quasi-judicial hat on the merits of the application today.
Okay. So I think I heard Brad say $1.2 billion in... occupancy revenue but just to be clear these revenues aren't necessarily guaranteed for affordable housing or anything like that and in fact i think it was an outcome of the mayor's budget task force which the mission was to reduce taxes so this could be used as a tool to keep property taxes at zero percent is that conceivably what should this move forward as a revenue generation tool
Under the policy, the idea is to generate additional revenue to support public infrastructure and amenities.
You know, additional money to address the infrastructure deficit. However, you know, council can... They'll be reporting on the funding about how those amenities, sorry, how that funding is used and what amenities it goes to. But that's, it'll really be a council decision as those monies are generated and returned to the city.
Okay, so I heard a statement to the effect that this would cannibalize, 1,800 units would cannibalize the B.C. housing budget, assuming most of the financial capacity to deliver. Is that assuming that we're talking about 100% of these 1,800 units are below market, or is that...
Yeah, it would be the 100%. So if you took 20% of those, we would have to generate enough cash flow to pay for the 20% that wouldn't generate an income to actually service the debt for the most part.
So like a typical 20% inclusionary zoning that we would expect on a project of this size?
Correct, yeah. You could have an inclusion. And that is offered to you at the time of DP. These changes could happen to these projects.
I'm going to leave that to Templer. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the question. So again, council in your role can approve, refuse, or refer back to staff or approve with conditions. The policy that this came in under was to explore things other than affordability or amenities in terms of the deferred benefits. So this is what the proposal is that's before you and how staff presented it. We did review the file against some of our typical CAC evaluation metrics as well. So we can certainly provide some insight into that. Given the existing strata density compared to the proposed rental density, it's also very limited in terms of its ability to generate a CAC that would otherwise generate those types of below market components too as well.
But specifically, if we wanted to do like a typical 20% below market inclusionary zoning on this part, could we do that in this public hearing or would that require a different public hearing?
You can certainly do that in this public hearing. I would certainly say that if it were this or any other project, that's a significant change, and I'm not sure if the applicant in this case or if it were a private entity in another case would be understanding of what that effect would be to the project. Sorry, thank you. We're out of time.
Thanks for a lot of questions have been asked about the viability of this going forward. But I did have a question with respect to some of the visuals that presented around the potential future buildings. And it was specifically, there was a lot of attention to public realm and really the opportunity that lies there. And there was mention of courtyard space and I'm curious if someone could just outline for me was that contemplated as a public courtyard or courtyard for residents or shared just just curious recognizing this is very different from the other questions being asked but could staff just elaborate on that in terms of the design features of what was proposed and presented?
Yeah, the design, so the center courtyard is envisioned to be a private space. So the public realm goes along the exterior of the building and onto the steps. Is that actually right?
Yeah. Okay, thank you. I'll have maybe more comments later, but that's it for questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Orr. Yeah, thanks. A lot of my questions were asked. I just have questions on... Is it true we can't necessarily sort of direct where the dividends of this market rent would go? That would sort of be handicapping future councils. But there was talk. There was talk of affordable housing as well. I'm just kind of... I've heard a couple of things where this will... Help affordable housing, but then I was under the impression that there's no way to sort of direct those dividends into, say, Vahev.
So thank you for the question. So effectively, if this were approved and if this were to generate revenue, those revenues would come back to the city, and typically those are allocated and identified through our capital planning or budgeting process. So my understanding is we're not intending to earmark or identify those things now, and those are future council decisions on what to deploy that towards. I see.
Sorry, Templer. You said something around the density of the area and that the policy planning hadn't yet been finished. So correct me if I'm wrong. There's been a few cases where we've recommended against applications that had come forward because that planning hadn't been complete.
Yeah, thank you for the question. And just for clarity, there's lots of overlapping policy within the area. So the area does have existing policy and permissions in place. The policy I was trying to allude to was the higher buildings policy, which is under review by staff as well. So that's the one piece of policy that I was trying to reflect on.
Thank you very much. What is the impetus here... just sort of keep rents low. I mean, I guess we're not, we're not, we're not trying to keep rents low at all. I mean, what, like what's sort of, what kind of, I'm just trying to think here. What is the signal to, um, to people where we're using city land? And then I know this has been brought up. that this is a revenue generator, we're not trying to keep rents low.
Correct. But we are working with an income band. So if we actually do access any kind of public funding, like BC Bills or Build Canada Homes, and or if we actually get ACLP financing from CMHC, We'll have to work within income bands that are actually put together by the province. The province actually substantiates these income bands. Right now they are about between $94,000 and $194,000 a year annually. So we would work within those income bands. So you would have to make, you couldn't make more, a household couldn't make more than within those income bands if we were actually able to go out and get the financing to build the project.
Has there been any concerns by the development community in terms of sort of essentially competing with them?
I think there has been, and I think we all know that there has been. So thank you for that.
We all know? I think we all know that the development community has made comments about having concern around this being competitive with projects that they're building. However, we are actually not in competition with them. If you actually look at what the housing development targets are for the city of Vancouver, this represents about 5%. I can't imagine why 5% would be a problem. for a developer, but I can't answer that question.
Yeah, I think that's it for me.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this, around there not being a GBE and there not being financing. It's very confusing, so I'll leave it for there.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. I just have one question. Almost all my questions were asked, but I just want to be very clear or get clear. So if this is approved today, how much would the equity value of the project go up?
Approximately.
As Templer alluded to, we did do a review of the proposal. One of the challenges is the existing strata land rights that exist in the existing use. And so the review actually showed that there is minimal lift, support any kind of inclusionary or affordability requirements out of the rezoning. That obviously doesn't prevent Council from doing things in its landowner capacity. However, so... Given Council's decision to direct this to bring forward as a market rental project, there really is no lift compared to the existing strata rights. But what this does is maximize or optimize the... the um the market the the opportunity for the for the site as a market as as council is designated as a market rental uh development okay so just playing this one out if it makes it to that stage um what would be the increase in value
The rezoning is, compared to the existing use as a strata site, the rezoning is not adding value. What it is adding value is to the value of the land. What it is adding in value to the land is by optimizing the market rental as an opportunity to develop a market rental building.
Okay, so when that happens, what is that worth?
I can add a bit of color to this as well.
I mean, the strategy... when we started out, was not to focus on residual land value. The strategy for the value for the city is really the long-term revenue generation and the provision of housing. So that's the real value opportunity.
I'm just trying to get that. But right now, as proposed, the land value would be about $90 million, between $90 and $100 million, depending on how we look at it. But that was never the land, the sitting land value was never really the focus of what we're trying to do.
Yeah, it's about, you know, 90.
Yeah. We can talk about it being allocated to affordable housing directly or indirectly, synthetically, whatever. I'm just trying to get an understanding. for the size of the decision we're going to make today, whether or not people are going to vote for it or against it, and realize how big the decision is.
Yeah.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Awesome. Okay. With that being said, this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106-1445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when your name is called. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will have five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Our first speaker today is speaker number one, Michael Bisker. Is Michael present?
Speaker number one is not present.
Speaker number three is not present.
Hi there. Yes, I'm here. All right.
Hi. Thank you, guys. I appreciate you listening to my comments. I must admit I wasn't aware of the whole situation which you presented here tonight, and that certainly changes my mind about things a little bit. I've got a bit of a unique situation. I live at 1483 Hornby Street, and it's a townhouse right next to the alley, right across from the proposed new development. So I've got, I guess, a little bit of a... bias when i look at things and uh you know i originally i was kind of neutral on on whether i supported it or didn't support it i think that overall the area definitely needs to be redeveloped right now you know with it being a homeless shelter there it doesn't do much for the area i did think that the uh the new development looked very very cool and would add a lot to the area but in light of the uh you know the implications with the city uh using it as a more of a tax revenue i think it probably makes sense more something a little bit scaled down um and i guess my largest concerns around this were uh the fact that the alley and what i've seen over the years there just living on the corner and ever since the beach avenue was closed to traffic during covid it's really become the commuter lane for most people And, you know, people fly through there, and it's quite dangerous. And I noticed on the proposed development that the plans were just to keep it as an alley with the entrance for the development right off the alley. And I just feel very strongly that that's not going to be a good idea because you're talking about adding, you know, hundreds of vehicles into there on top of what's already a really quite a dangerous situation. And I think that would have to be addressed. But, you know, my comments, I guess, maybe aren't super relevant given that it sounds like there's a lot of other issues with this in terms of just how it all plays out. So I guess that's all that I really wanted to relay is just more of the concerns for the safety and the extra traffic with having Beach Avenue closed to vehicle traffic.
Thank you very much. Okay. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Are there any additional speakers online?
No one else is on the line.
This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
Okay. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
There has not been.
Okay. Seeing that there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Do our team members or the applicants have any closing comments?
No closing comments from staff. Thank you. Does council have any final questions for the team? Councillor Maloney?
So I'm just formulating this question. Bear with me. So if we were to... If council were, a future council were to create the equivalent of the government business enterprise but with the purpose of using revenues to invest into housing rather than general revenue, how would that change? the chances of this being built, the timing of it being built, the form of it being built and the ability to potentially, if that was decided, to transfer this land into the equivalent of a government business enterprise with the only change being that it's for non-profit. It's to invest back into housing only rather than general revenue. That's a very big question. I'm sorry. I appreciate you.
That's a really hard question to answer. So effectively tonight we're talking about a project, not the GBE or anything else. If council wanted to see this project deliver on housing or affordable housing, then that direction would be most appropriately applied to as a condition or a change to the project to say we'd like to see... X amount of affordability in this project or some other condition that we'd have to take back and think about in that regard. So we're not supposed to limit councils' future decisions on what they do with their revenue, but you can certainly condition a project, in this case, in this forum, around what you'd like to see it do on that particular site.
But instead of, if we were to incorporate inclusive zoning or whatever, It's really a moot point because all it would do is make the rest of the rental more expensive to compensate for the inclusive zoning.
Without speaking to details of that because we haven't assessed it, market rent is market rent. They can't really charge more than the market would bear, so it may not be possible to generate more rent on that. So the subsidy has to typically come from other places, which is what I heard some of the other responses from staff along the lines of where do you get that subsidy from if the project itself can't finance it?
Yeah, and so it would just make the project less likely to be viable.
Certainly adding below market or other things would draw on the ability and the financial capacity of the project, typically, yes.
Thanks.
Thank you, Mayor. I just have one clarifying question for staff, maybe Templar, just in light of, and I just want to be really clear on it because I think Councillor Kerr-Beyond was getting at this too, that you were just saying tonight we're not debating, discussing the GB per se. However, I guess what I want clarity is this is coming to Council for rezoning. Had the GV been supported at council, would that have enabled setting aside the rezoning, let's assume it gets rezoned, enabled the city to move faster in delivering the proposal and the housing development?
That question might be better directed to the applicant. Sorry, my apologies. But they actually can't speak at this point technically now.
Perhaps you can just give me your assessment of that. And I apologize because I know the question was asked, but I just want to get really crystal clear on that.
Fair question. So again, just through our process, working on the application, it was operating on pathways of that was an option that could generate that. So if council were to approve this tonight and that were an option, that's certainly the one route. The only other route I'm currently familiar with is to lease the land and and someone else delivers it. And that comes with a set of different financial outcomes for the city too.
So what I'm just reading between the lines there is that indeed, if the GB was in place and the framework was in place and council were to support the rezoning here today, it would have accelerated the ability to deliver housing on the site.
hypothetically, and I think those are still future council or future decisions of either creating the GBA or had it been created, the organization itself making those determinations as well.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Claassen. Thanks. Just a very simple question to staff. Would revenues generated by the revenue... that we would acquire from this housing be put into fire halls, police stations, emergency operations centers, city hall and civic administrative buildings, community centers, neighborhood houses, ice rinks and arenas, aquatic centers and pools, libraries and branch libraries, child care facilities, senior centers, cultural and arts facilities, civic heritage buildings. non-market housing and housing developments, roads, streets, bridges, viaducts, sidewalks, curb ramps, cycling infrastructure, traffic signals, street lighting, public realm improvements tied to streets, active transportation corridors, stormwater and sewer drainage and what have you. These are some of the things that... we might be able to pay for if we had the money to pay for it, correct? Yeah. Should the development proceed and subject to economic conditions, the non-tax revenue generated by the city through this rezoning could be targeted for any of those and any other council priorities that are identified. And parks and park facilities, playgrounds, spray parks, sports fields, public washrooms, urban plazas. These are the kinds of things that we would probably be able to pay for if we had the revenue to do it.
That's the case.
Thanks. Templar, I'm sorry to get you back up asking you a variant on the question that Councillor Dominardo just raised. But the question is, even if the GBE had been approved, would the current economic circumstances still be largely responsible for determining the timing so that it would not be certain at all that this would go ahead any time soon?
That question is kind of extending beyond my expertise on where I'd be comfortable responding in this forum, but market is certainly part of that, but there's certainly other aspects to making that decision.
Thanks very much.
Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah, Mayor, I'm not seeing anybody else in the queue, so I'm happy to move the recommendations if we're at that point. I know you might have some housekeeping to do.
And then speak to them.
You let me know when's the right time.
Sorry, what's... Okay, so Councillor Kirby Young, Councillor Fry just jumped on the queue for questions. So, Councillor Fry.
Yeah, okay, I just want to clarify a few of the assumptions I'm working off here. So, number one, the assumption is that the intention of this is to generate revenue for council priorities, ultimately, this project. That is the goal, right?
Is that what we understand the goal of this is to generate revenue for council priorities?
Thank you for the question. So, correct, the policy was to generate revenues for the city to deploy to other non, from a non-tax revenue perspective.
Correct, yeah. It could be whatever the council of the day decides.
Zero percent tax, it could be fireworks, Bitcoin, anything. I mean, I'm being cheeky, but yes. But any council priorities. Okay.
Now,
The second assumption is that on a standard large site of this kind of nature, if it was a regular developer coming to us, we would expect some kind of inclusionary, low-market requirement on this amount of units that would not necessarily impact project viability. It would impact the potential for profit or revenue.
So, again, typically our policies are guided with some of those expectations in mind, whether it's in the Broadway plan, for example, to pursue 20% below market, or whether it's a strata project in another location to deliver other on-site amenities or cash. Those are very clear policies for, say, in the West End plan, for example. So those plans and policies are calibrated to kind of account and predict and be enabled to generate those types of benefits on site. That's partly the kind of plan calibration that goes into those locations. In this area, as I mentioned, on this particular site, there was already quite extensive density permissions for strata development. So that's the kind of proposal and the starting point that we've... have been left with with this proposal and so based on the merits of that project under the current economic conditions this is the outcome that we have under this policy so that could have been a different conversation with a private applicant but as i mentioned the policy directed staff to explore the market option in this location right okay so but typically when we look at inclusionary that the intent is not to impact the project viability it's to extract
tangible public benefit in the in the sense of affordable housing and because i think i heard one of the counselors suggest that that inclusionary zoning may compromise the viability of this project altogether and in fact it it could allow the project to proceed it would just achieve some some direct affordable housing benefit
So again, typically when we look for inclusionary housing, there's going to be economic testing to ensure that that project with those densities can support that and still remain economically viable. That's part of the land valuation assessment that goes into the policy even. So again, in this case, you heard from Rob Evans before that given the existing density, even in a private development, it would be difficult to achieve a depth of affordability just because of that starting land value that was already in place.
I mean, I would love to refer this back for further work on below market inclusion, but I don't think there's an appetite for that. So I would like to just fine tune an amendment if I could send it through you. And I'm hoping that we might indulge a bit of a recess so I could just get that right, if that's agreeable. But I do see that Councillor Kirby-Young and Councillor Orr are on the queue for... Presumably more questions. So maybe I can jump back on that after if that's okay.
Reset the order I'm sorry.
Okay, I counselor or oh Okay, sorry I'm just trying to work out if this was a question to the applicant or not this whole two hats thing is confusing but how long, hypothetically, how long would it take for this project to start making revenue once the construction is paid off compared to, say, how long would it take regular development to start making revenue once the DCLs and CACs are paid off?
With a typical market rental project, there would be an expectation that after the building is leased up, they're generating enough net operating income to support all of their debt obligations and financing, and there's typically a... there's typically some contingencies and whatever built into that, some headroom in terms of their debt service. So there's expected to be income from the moment they get into full occupancy. The extent of that will depend on the financing structure and how the project moves forward.
Right, but in this case, the city doesn't have that luxury because we can't take on that debt financing, right? We can't.
and not under the current construct.
So we're kind of dealing in a lot of hypotheticals. Would that be kind of fair to say here?
One of the comments around the discussion with the previous proposal was having more information and so having clarity on the rezoning would help advance some clarity on how that could offer options for that to move forward, but that's really outside of the scope of. of what it can speak from a regulatory perspective.
Right, right, right. Yeah, I understand. And then maybe this is also not in your capacity. There's a lot of talk around land value and sort of increasing the value of the land. Actually, no, I just, I don't think I can ask that question.
That's all my questions. Thanks.
I'll start Kirby on.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I am prepared to move the recommendations, and then I'd like to speak to them, please.
Before you do that, there is one more step. So, Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
Okay, Council will now make a decision on the application. Councillor Kirby-Young moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Dallman. Council, is there any discussion?
Yes, typically you get to speak to it when you move the recommendations, Mayor. So can I do that now, please?
Great, great. Thank you. So I've heard all the discussion. Council obviously had, we do have a rezoning. decision in front of us, as staff have pointed out, and discussion around the GBE has been pertinent to the conversation, but that is also somewhat distinct in terms of the specific decision in front of us. I'm going to be very clear about this. I am very prepared to say yes to this rezoning application tonight. I think that it is saying yes to supporting what could be a transformational new direction for our city. It is a yes towards starting down a pathway that opens up the opportunity with a lot of work ahead, as has been identified. It's been noted that we're in challenging economic times. And these projects take a long time to come to fruition, but it is the opportunity to realize almost 1,100 new rental homes. As we heard previously, prior to the 2000s, this land was envisioned to be strata. Rental is better than strata. Rental that generates revenue, I would characterize it differently as for council priorities, but for the residents of Vancouver to spend on things that matter to them, I think is a very worthy vision. And I think it provides for a lot of opportunity. We have heard, there is opportunity depending on some pretty um still herculean steps that have to be taken to include more affordability in this project i don't think we're there yet what we're trying to do is create a pathway for a new type of project to move forward and to get something set up and financed i think that the amount of heavy lifting that staff have done on this file is very significant i want to appreciate them for that i want to note to some of the questions raised by councillors that We have an existing construct for affordable housing. I think Brad mentioned in presenting, we have about 13,000 units. The city has done a tremendous amount of time and effort into that, and that is why we have Baja, the Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency, where sites sit there. And what we're talking about is something distinct and different here that will enable us to do more of those types of initiatives moving forward. It would be a great debate to have in the future around how that revenue should be spent. It is a moot point. we cannot actually move something like this forward and actually generate revenue and i think that the opportunity to have the city doing something selectively on specific sites that can generate the needed housing and the benefits in a thoughtful way makes a lot of sense all rental housing becomes more affordable over time it has security of tenure like many other projects It has to go through all of the same level of due diligence, but I'm not prepared to shut the door on it and sort of slam it closed without allowing this pathway forward. It is something that, as we spoke about previously, underpinned the successful finances of the University of British Columbia. And so we have shiny examples in our backyard. And I think that that's something to really note about the ability to actually sustain communities in times we have more and more demands and our residents deserve better and higher quality amenities and an unprecedented era of affordability so regardless of the council of the day or whether the tax increase is zero or two or four or six the city is going to need additional revenue streams we have been advocating four years for municipal finance municipal finance reform at the federal level with no outcomes and no success and i see this as an opportunity for us to start taking some of our own destiny in our hands and complementing some of the additional work that we do. We are aging as a city. We have a lot of infrastructure. Councillor Klassen mentioned a lot of, all of those types of things. Let's get to a point where we can actually have a good fulsome debate about it, but let's not shut the door and actually allowing that conversation and that opportunity. So I'm going to say yes to it. I hope that others in seeing sort of the tangible nature of this rezoning, it becomes, the concept becomes a bit more concrete and that, There is an openness to allowing this, what could potentially be a very significant pilot demonstration project for this concept, and I hope there's an openness to allowing it to move forward. Thank you.
Thanks, Mayor. I'd also like to start by thanking the staff of the VHDO as well as our staff of the city in terms of bringing this forward. Just speaking directly to the application itself, and I will touch on a little bit on some other points, I'm happy to support it. I think it achieves many goals potentially in terms of housing delivery, market rental, which we need in the city. And I really appreciated the presentation around in proposing this, that you potentially could be addressing the public realm and the connections to the seawall and so on. But stepping back and speaking to the broader question of, because it's been raised throughout the discussion about the feasibility of this, I wanted to revisit some of the points that were made when we were considering the establishment of the GBE. And at the time, Council was presented with information that it would be a mechanism to leverage private capital and senior government financing opportunities without impacting the city's debt capacity. and credit ratings, and to mitigate our liability exposure. And that was daylighted as part of those discussions. And also it's been touched on is that it was multi-pronged. It would deliver much-needed rental housing, but there was also public benefits. It's been identified the ability to address infrastructure deficits, but also the ability to invest in social and co-op housing would have been a spinoff from that, and then other strategic council priorities. And then the other part of that was the non-tax revenue that would have been generated to address a number of these areas. But from my perspective, this was not – how do I put this? There are precedents for this in other jurisdictions. It was identified throughout the presentations that were made to us that we are not alone. Councillor Kirby-Young highlighted UBC, but Surrey, Burnaby, Calgary, Toronto. And the public is demanding that we be responsive to a myriad of issues today. And... There are certain things that are directly within our control that we have agency over and a whole myriad of other things that we have no control over that sit and lie with the other levels of government. But this is directly within our purview of leveraging our own land, our own asset, and any other level of government would do this in a flash. They wouldn't even blink. Provincial federal governments are doing this. And so it was absolutely a missed opportunity not approving that framework in the first place. But we should absolutely go forward with the rezoning in the hopes that in the future there'll be something new where maybe that framework will be adopted. But this is exactly what the public wants. They want us to get creative. They don't want to be taxed to the hilt. And they want us to develop housing and be an enabler. And for all of those reasons, I support the application. But I really wanted to reiterate some of the points that were highlighted several months ago when we were deliberating on the GEB, because it does tie directly back to this application and the opportunities that lies with it. I'll leave it there. Mayor, thanks.
Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thanks Mayor. I won't go on for too long. I think my colleagues have raised very good points around the GBE, and I'm hopeful that can be revisited in the future, but I agree that this is an opportunity that's within our control and that there's massive public benefits to be realized. The City of Vancouver is a large landowner. We have many, many sites across the city, and this is taking one site really as a pilot program, as was mentioned by one of my colleagues, and leveraging that site to deliver over 1,000 new rental homes in a great location in downtown Vancouver and generate that ongoing non-tax revenue that we need for all of our city priorities. So we're very fortunate that our... Previous councils and mayors have the foresight to support the acquisition of these lands over previous decades. And it is time that we put them to use to reduce our reliance on property tax revenue to fund all the things we need. but I think for creating housing for the greater good. And that's the opportunity here. So I'm 100% in support of this, and I am very hopeful that we can move it forward. And I do think it is a well thought out proposal for a really important site at the bridgehead. It's similar to other buildings in the area. I think it really has a good relationship with what's happening at Sanhok. And the best part is, as I mentioned, is that the city will be able to not just create over a thousand new rental homes, but generate that non-tax revenue that we need to fund city priorities, community centers, libraries, roads, cycling infrastructure. everything i mean we just we need that uh that revenue and i think it's a great opportunity so i'm wholeheartedly in support Thank you, Councillor Orr.
Thanks. Yeah, I think one of my other colleagues sort of talked about, you know, the importance of looking at the, you know, decision in front of us. And I think if this was any other project, I'd have the exact same concerns around affordability and this project not having any is deeply concerning. And we heard from the presentation about creating a landmark. And I can't think of any better landmark or a gateway to Vancouver than a beautiful non-profit housing complex to show that we're using our incredibly shrinking resource of city land to show that we can be bold and create this city that we... Instead, what I think this shows is that we're just another developer trying to extract maximum rents from people in the form of 400 square foot studio apartments for someone making $90,000 a year, which is well above the average income. Only a few blocks from where thousands of people are on the streets. and in a city that is renowned around the world. So maybe this is a good landmark for Vancouver in that it shows that we are one of the most expensive cities in the world, and this is a beacon to that. And I would say that about any project, regardless of... future decisions around financing models or what. So I appreciate the robust discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Maloney.
Thank you. I am hugely... Oh, I'm feeding back.
I'll just give you a minute to sort that out.
No worries. I'm hugely enthusiastic about this form of... development. It's a beautiful, appropriate development. I've examined the proposal in great detail and at some stage it's going to be a beautiful development for the neighbourhood, so I'm going to vote in favour. There are alternative ways of getting this built using a GBE equivalent that cycles revenue back into housing, which is the number one crisis facing our city. Our residents do deserve better amenities. You can also pay for a lot of the infrastructure listed by Councillor Klassen And I really wish you'd put that to We Didn't Start the Fire by Billy Joel. That would have been great. With the $120 million worth of budget cuts made this year as a result of the zero means zero budget that the Mayor has promised to continue to implement in future years if re-elected, reasonable property tax increases are a progressive way of paying for city needs and housing needs is a crucial need for this city, number one priority by far. Let me make this clear. This council was given multiple opportunities to refer the GBE back to staff to slightly alter the purpose of it to focus on housing. Every time I asked questions about the GBE and whether revenue could be directed towards housing, I was assured that it could. I was assured that that was a major priority that revenue could be put towards. But the lack of appetite of council to even entertain focusing, finding a way to focus GBE funding on housing gives me a pretty good indication of how that would have ranked in the list of priorities if that had gone through. So I'll be voting in favour of this. It's a beautiful development. The designers, the architects, everybody who has worked on this has done a great job and hopefully we'll get it built sooner rather than later.
Over a thousand homes, housing for middle income folks. So when I think about it, like beyond the numbers and middle income folks, I think of the single parent nurse who works at St. Paul's. I think of a school teacher and firefighter couple that are just trying to live in our city. I think of a police officer, you know, that wants to come home after a day of keeping us safe. Now, The reality is the project will affect affordability to the good. As Councillor Klassen mentioned, revenue from the project in the future will go to a whole bunch of community amenities, or it has potential to, cycling infrastructure, public bathrooms, community centres, parks, social and co-op housing, as was brought up by Councillor Dominato. And the value of this decision is between $90 and $100 million. Now, I know people will say, well, it's in a different bucket. They'll allude to one bucket versus another. But the reality is, at the end of the day, it's just one giant bucket. And $90 to $100 million represents 9% to 10% of either an increase or a decrease in property taxes. And so I know there's been a lot of talk about how it's impossible to get to a 0% property tax increase. And there are other members in this council that say that we have to increase it by 6% to 7%. Yes, that's true. If you look gift horses like this in the mouth and you turn them down, because this is a 9% to 10% property tax increase that can be avoided. And so in my opinion, If anyone here is concerned, or if someone's concerned about affordability, housing, parks and rec, roads, core services, public bathrooms, to turn down this proposal is either political or it's crazy, in my opinion. And if... Hold on. I'm not seeing any... No, I said... No, I have not. I have not said that. Okay, so... What I've said, in my opinion, if someone did that, I'm entitled to my opinion, okay?
Okay, so I... Okay, sorry. Okay, Councillor, I'll apologize.
Sorry about that, okay? So I believe if this is turned down, it would be either political or... it just wouldn't make sense to me, okay? If turned down, it would be a huge blow to people struggling to make ends meet in the city. It would be a huge blow to anyone who's looking to live in our city, to find a place to live in our city. And I'm glad that it looks like this project is going to get support, and I hope the next thing that comes up in the not-so-distant future is a viable way to finance this because the good that's going to be created from this project is overwhelming. And so with that, I will close my comments. And once again, Councillor Orr, I'm sorry if what I said there offended you. That was definitely not the intent. Thank you. I'll take the chair back. Councillor Frye.
Yeah, I'll just start by just saying some good things about this project. It is a great design, and I appreciate the work that's gone into considering this location. And I do think that it's a very innovative approach. I haven't been able to find any cities that actually do this kind of approach to the concept of using public land for... generate for-profit housing, and then use the dividends as council sees fit. Now, I think we also recognize that even in a best-case scenario, if everything went ahead and this magically found the funding and everything, that this still wouldn't get built for conceivably even the next council iteration. I don't think we'd be seeing the profits from this for a number of years yet. And because we don't have any kind of clear indication of what those profits are gonna be stipulated to use for, it does leave it as a bit of a gray area. There's a reason other cities don't use public land for profit housing and instead use it to leverage opportunities for affordable housing. I think it's worth mentioning too that when we talk about middle incomes in the 90 to $190,000 range for a household, that is not the median income in the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver median household income is less than $90,000. So we are not meeting that basic level. And I think importantly to me and to this conversation is that we have expectations of private developer partners who do business in the city of Vancouver on a large site. that they need to deliver a quotient of inclusionary zoning, which is to say below market housing to meet the broader needs, recognizing that we have a diversity of needs in the city of Vancouver. And to that end, I have submitted a somewhat complicated amendment, so I would... almost welcome a recess for folks to review it as it is trying to move this forward and include inclusionary zoning in this project and moving forward. So I don't know if you'd like to jump to a recess or if you'd like to just move to the amendment queue or how do you like to play?
Why don't we just move to the amendment queue? Is it seconded? Great, thank you, Councillor Orr. Councillor Fry, I'll put you on the amendment queue.
Is there anything else you wanted to add? Yeah, I mean, I think we're all familiar with this kind of language that appears in all the large project rezonings that we consider here at Council. And I think it is important that we level set because should we not ask our developer partners to also... meet us with this inclusionary zone. If we can't do what we are asking others to do, I fear that it's a race to the bottom and we will have a difficult time justifying and turning around and asking our developer partners in the private realm to include inclusionary zoning in their projects when we aren't prepared to include it ourselves. And I think that that sets a precedent that none of us would be comfortable with because I know that this council also, in addition to prioritizing infrastructure and And lower taxes for folks also recognizes that affordable housing is a critical need in our city. And the folks that work in our city, the folks that support us as a city, be in the retail sector, restaurant sector, baristas, all the people who make the city run. also deserve an opportunity to live in this city. And I think that through inclusionary zoning policies, we do that. And that's been a standing policy for a number of years. And I hope the council would consider that in the spirit of that, this still allows the city to generate revenue to meet council priorities, but it also recognizes the value in public land for public good.
for housing for folks who uh live and work in our city thank you very much councillor kirby young yeah noting the time it's almost 10 to 10 and we'll finish without a motion to extend i'd like to move to extend to complete the business this evening if council is willing i suspect that i'm suggesting that i suspect since we've already debated this quite at length that the next item is essentially very similar and the same construct. So I wouldn't imagine it would take as much time. So that's my rationalization for proposing we extend to complete the business.
Can I just clarify, would that mean that we, because we've got another public hearing after this, I think, would that mean that we continue with the next public hearing or we just finish this one?
and the rationale is it's basically the same conversation so um and i'm very confused sorry to clarify mayor it's there's one public hearing but there's one after completing this item there's one additional remaining rezoning application and my proposal suggests completing the business so it includes all items on the docket and the second one is a pair
to this. So hence, I thought it might be more efficient for us to do that tonight versus bringing everybody back for a separate reserve date since we've already debated at some length. And it's going to be the same construct on the next item.
Does that answer your question, Councillor Maloney?
Thank you, Councillor Orr. Is this discussion or is this on the... No, this is just on the extension. Yeah, it's been a long day.
So why don't we call a vote to extend to finish the business of, so to be very clear, items three and four this evening. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
All those opposed say nay.
Has to be unanimous. Okay. So it's not unanimous. Okay. And so Just looking at the time, can we get a motion, can we entertain a motion to extend to finish this?
It was already done by Councillor Domonato and seconded by Councillor Klassen. Is there any discussion around that?
Mayor, if you can repeat that because there's no audio for those of us that are online, so we're not hearing that.
Oh, okay. So this is a motion to extend just to complete item three tonight. Okay. Is there any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. Great. We will complete item three. Councillor Orr. We now on the amendment queue to Councillor Fraser. We are on the amendment queue. Yeah, I think this is just fair.
I think it's very detailed and what we have seen from a lot of these applications. And it definitely, for me, doesn't go all the way in terms of what my previous comments were talking about, you know, a big social housing project here. I definitely think it's a compromise and it's a compromise I'd be willing to accept in this case.
That's it. Thank you. Councillor Maloney.
I very much appreciate the intention behind this. I won't be supporting it and this is a very considered issue But what I would like to see is I would like to see this get built at the earliest possible opportunity. I know that we're cutting back on inclusive zoning at the moment on staff's recommendation after a very thoughtful process of analysis. We're trying to give projects across the city the best possible chance of commencing in the very... suboptimal economic circumstances that I can see persisting for quite a while. And I would also like to see a government business enterprise equivalent that directs revenue into housing and I'm hoping that an opportunity to do something like that arises sooner rather than later. So this is really well intended and... I obviously want to see as much housing affordability as possible, but in this particular circumstance, I would rather achieve that through getting it built as soon as possible and doing it through an organisation that directs funding into non-profit housing.
Thank you, Councillor Fry. Yeah, and I should have first and foremost thanked staff for... preparing the technical side of that amendment because I didn't write it myself. I just want to be totally clear. My brain is not that big and certainly not at this time of the evening. But I just want to just kind of level set to some of Councillor Maloney's comments specifically. You know, the intent of this project is to deliver profits and revenue for the city to, the council to use as they see fit. through inclusionary zoning, we're not necessarily hamstringing this project. We're just reducing the extent of profit that can be used as council sees fit. And council may, a different council may see fit to put it into, like undo the supportive housing ban and put it into supportive housing or who knows. But my point being that this does make sure that some of that profit is creamed to go back into the housing needs of median income earners in the city of Vancouver. And that I think is consistent with, standing policy in the city of Vancouver, standing policy for large development sites, and frankly, the kind of approach that most cities, if not all cities in North America, take when it comes to the use of public land and ensuring that there is public benefits that are accrued through land that has been paid for by the taxpayers. And with that, thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Councillor. Okay, so we're going to put the amendment to a vote. If you can please go to the panel and register your vote on Councillor Frye's amendment.
Okay, that fails with myself, Councillors Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Classen, Meisner, Joe, and Maloney in opposition and Councillor Bligh absent. Okay, so we will go back to the main motion.
Okay, great. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm now going to call Councillor Klassen.
Thanks very much, Mayor, and thanks for telling us. to start off by acknowledging our team here at the city they we asked a lot of them and we asked that they give everything they have in terms of their creativity their energy their ideas and And I realize that we're in a uniquely challenging time in terms of the city's growth and development with a bunch of concurrent challenges being sort of thrown at us. So I think it's incredibly important to sort of acknowledge that, speak respectfully to our teams, and also just really emphasize how important that their work is to us. To to all of us here and to the to the city at large This project reminds me of an incredibly important, interesting debate right now. First of all, I just also have to say the talent that has been brought together, the presentation on the landscape design was next level. It was absolutely brilliant. This is going to be an incredible project. The urban design and the thought put into this, it needs to be acknowledged. It's fantastic. But I'm thinking of the words of the Prime Minister at his recent Davos speech when he talked about a rupture. And that rupture that is happening in terms of the global economy and to the order of how we govern ourselves is coming home to roost here in the city. And that is because we're seeing massive changes to the structure and the financing of projects. We've got two senior levels of government buried in record levels of debt and unable to move. We're about to hear the... the finance minister, provincial finance minister, who's been giving us many warnings that there is very difficult times ahead. And so when I see projects like this that don't exercise a political point of view, don't exercise a council priority, but a straight up a public benefit that could help us to afford to be able to make sure that we are renewing and restoring aging public infrastructure in this city. And we are able to leverage our assets that have been built here over generations, going back to the earliest decades of this city, where we've been able to acquire land that has a value and has the ability to create public benefit for all citizens of this city. I just shake my head at the thought that we would not take advantage of, again, this incredible creativity. that we are going to be able to move forward with the same paradigm. Pre-sales are dead, guys. We're trying to cut corners as much as possible to try and get development projects in the ground and being built while people are still moving here and our population is growing and our schools need to be rebuilt and our community centers. And we are really going to need to have all hands on deck as we address this rupture. And this is, I hate to say it, but it is... probably the best and wisest use of an asset to try and make sure that we can actually pay for the things that I listed off earlier. Again, everything related to public safety, to public health, is rolled up in the ability to pay for it. And right now, that paradigm has left us, and now we're trying to create a new paradigm. And I think that's exactly... What the citizens of Vancouver are asking for is finding ways of, because for the longest time, when we were able to do brownfield development, we were of the view that we can do anything without having to pay for it. Now we have to pay for it. This is a way to do it. So I'm strongly supportive of this project. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Frye. I thought I was done, but the comments comparing this decision to the rupture in world order created by the Trump administration has kind of prompted me to just go back to the essence of what I was hoping we could achieve with this, and that's with the inclusionary zoning and recognizing that in cities like ours that are growing and diverse, that we have a shared responsibility to ensure that folks of all incomes... can continue to call this place home. And inclusionary zoning is one of those tools that helps us meet that responsibility. It's simple. It's a policy that says growth should be for everyone. And it allows us to build mixed and vibrant communities where essential workers and seniors and young families Long-time residents can all find a place to live. And it's not about burdening development. What was being proposed here is creaming off some of the profit that we are hoping to see that can go into council priorities. So this isn't burdening development. It's about creating balance. It's making sure that as our city grows, it also grows fairer, more inclusive, and more resilient. And inclusionary zoning means that it's there at the start, and it's there as we are... We are considering it. It's not left to a future council to maybe invest in affordable housing. It's not left to chance. It's a statement of our values. Ironically, you know, we passed the healthy city strategy this morning. And a healthy city, I thought we all agreed to this this morning, but a healthy city is where people can live close to where they work, where they can participate in their community and have a sense of belonging. And it seems like that was an empty commitment that we made this morning because it's certainly not reflected in the decision that... that I feel council is making by approving this without any sense of any priority for housing affordability and inclusionary zoning in these developments. Disappointed. Thank you. Councillor Maloney.
I just want to clarify that I am very determined that the profits from... this housing and other housing on city lands get ploughed back into housing. Housing is the number one priority in our city. We heard today from an expert in one of the biggest problems we have and... It made a big impression on me and I can't say anything more about it. But inclusionary zoning is one of the tools that we have to achieve housing affordability. And I wish it was a more useful tool at the moment, but it's one cost that can make projects viable or not. in the current circumstances and I would rather make it more likely that a project gets built sooner and then be able to gradually make the housing more affordable or have the flexibility of using the revenue to plough into different forms of non-profit housing. Anyway, I'm losing my ability to express myself because I'm extremely tired, but I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you very much, Councillor Orr. Yeah, just a few comments. Similar to the sort of rupture of the world order, you know...
You know, we tried to compromise again. We're willing to, I feel like we're willing to work and come up with these compromises. And, you know, we're going to be painted into this corner. And, you know, it's really frustrating because the way I see it, this piece of land belongs to the people. I would prefer this to be 100% affordable social housing. That's what I would prefer. I compromise 20% below market. And I worry that this, instead of being a beacon for a city that we want to build for a future for everyone, this could end up being an empty tower that is testament... to the market conditions that we're in. And it'll serve as a reminder, you know, for everyone what our priorities were at the time. That's my genuine concern. But again, I wanted to compromise...
And, you know, well, we tried, but, yeah, I really just think this is the people's land, so I'll leave it with that.
Thank you very much. Okay, so I'm now going to call the vote. Clerk, can you please take us to the voting screen?
Counsel, if you can register your vote.
Okay, that passes with Councillor Frye and or in opposition and Councillor Bligh absent. And that completes item number three. Now we will be recessing. This meeting is recessed until Tuesday, February the 10th, 2026 at 3 p.m. here in Council Chamber and electronically to continue with item number four.
I will remind council that it is very important you do not engage in any discussion or correspondence in regard to the remaining application.