CD-1 Rezoning: 1550 West 11th Avenue
Motion 5 · Public Hearing, February 5, 2026
Summary
- Rezoning of 1550 West 11th Avenue from R5-3 to CD-1 to permit a 17-storey mixed-use rental building with 160 units (20% below-market) and ground-floor commercial; FSR 6.8, height 60.2 m.
- Site is in the Broadway Plan's Fairview South Area A; existing building has 27 rental units, 81 of whose tenants are protected under the TRPP. Applicant noted tenants would be offered interim housing within the owner's existing portfolio in the same neighbourhood.
- Speakers opposed: concerns about very small unit sizes (one-bedrooms as small as 381 sq ft with possible inboard bedrooms), loss of 30–50% of living space for returning tenants, parking shortfall, shadow impacts on Granville Street, and a claim that JTA Development Consultants has not submitted development permit applications for any of its previously approved Broadway Plan rezonings.
- Staff confirmed there is no minimum size for bedroom types; the city-wide minimum of 398 sq ft (relaxable to 320 sq ft for market rental) applies per dwelling unit. Staff acknowledged the proposed units appear smaller than average and noted livability concerns but confirmed the proposal meets current policy.
- Conditions require that below-market one-bedroom count at the development permit stage match the existing 14 one-bedroom units.
- Councillors Meiszner and Kirby-Yung expressed concern about livability of sub-400 sq ft one-bedrooms and encouraged the architect to revisit unit sizing; both noted the policy question of minimum bedroom sizes warrants further consideration.
- Carried with one opposition vote (Councillor Meiszner).
Vote
Public comments
Read all 3 statements
Transcript
14 segments
No, we did not.
Great. Council will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover for the recommendations? So moved. Thank you very much. Second. Second. Councillor Meiszner. Thank you. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Domenato.
Yes. And maybe the clerks could just reset my timer.
Or go to, okay, you want me to?
Thanks, Mayor, and thank you to staff and also the applicant and also to Sir Optimus Quantus for presenting this evening. I have to say, I was noting off the top that I don't think in the time I've served on council that we've seen a social housing proposal of such a scale, and maybe I'm mistaken, but almost 1,000 units is quite significant. And I was, maybe I've had a bit of a smile on my face throughout this because in another lifetime, I was vice president of the Kiwanis Club of Victoria. And we were also stewards of a variety of social housing, including seniors housing, housing for young moms with babies. And it was a great joy being part of that Kiwanis family. And really to the point, I think, Joshua, you were making around really holding the land in trust, but really thinking about the broader public good. And why I really love this proposal and project is because it is really leveraging partnerships. So as a not-for-profit Soroptus Kiwanis, you're partnering as non-profits. You're leveraging a land that's in your trust to better the lives of both the existing seniors there but also to provide housing for more seniors in the future and as we've noted many times in this chamber we have a need for more affordable housing for seniors especially with an aging population in the city of Vancouver but we also have a need for as you mentioned Carla for young families, for people working in our city, delivering the frontline services. And that area is changing. The proximity to transit is there. My mom lived right at the bottom of Canby and Marine there in one of the buildings right near the SkyTrain station up until the end of her life. And so there is a lot of change. And so I think it's a really good fit. And also appreciated your comments about trying to accommodate all the making sure you're accommodating existing seniors on site. But overall, I'm really just pleased to see this come forward and also wish you well in your ongoing endeavors around the financing with the different levels of government. But it's just, it's a real win-win-win and a real positive, and I think it'll be a great legacy piece for the not-for-profits, for Sopton, Kiwanis, and for the city as well. So thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Meister.
thanks so much uh i think i got dropped off the queue it's councillor kirby young can you please put me back on i actually think that's right in your i think it was councillor kirby i can come back on if you want kirby young to i'm happy to go after i'm just asking if somebody can put me back on we're going to put you back on thank you councillor Councillor Meiszner please go ahead and yeah
I'll be quick. Thanks so much for bringing this very ambitious project forward. There's a huge need for this, as you know, and I'm very appreciative of all the work that both Kiwanis Club and Soroptimist International do in our community to house people, particularly seniors in our community. So I'm very encouraged by what you've shared on your discussions with the different levels of government on financing. And I'm really excited to vote in favor of this tonight. And this is exactly the type of housing that we need in Vancouver. And thanks for all of your work on this. Thanks. Can I please see the chair?
Thank you, Councillor. Look, I'm going to keep my comments brief. I just want to thank everyone for the incredible work they've done on this. Yeah, getting three levels of government together, it's hard enough to get one level of government together, so... And in a very challenging financing environment as well. Well done. Also, you know, I spent a lot of time of my life growing up in that neighborhood right on 62nd Kitty Corner to Winona Park. So I know the area very well and I grew up in that area. And, you know, it's good to see that there's going to be housing where regular folk can live there. It's a great community. So thank you. I'll take the chair back. Councillor Maloney.
Thanks very much. On my very first evening on council, I had the honour of voting in favour of the Jericho Lands Project. And really this is up there in terms of what an honour it is. I'm really thrilled to vote in support of this largest non-profit led housing project in the history of Vancouver. with 903 affordable homes. And I very much appreciate staff and the applicant, and especially the Kiwanis for Optimists Society, who really are demonstrating a passionate commitment to their mandate to serve Vancouver's most vulnerable residents. This beautiful, thoughtful project, it's quite stunning that it's delivering 10% of Vancouver's 10-year social housing target.
What a great project. And, you know, As we've heard, this project will require financing from all three levels of government, and I very much hope that our extremely enthusiastic approval will help you secure senior government funding. What an honour.
Thank you. Yeah, I think I mentioned earlier that I had the pleasure of voting previously on the Surruptions Project off of Canby and I want to say 10th. I can't remember if it was 10th or 11th. But it was a fantastic project at the time. And I had people messaging me saying, how do I apply for or get into that housing? Because people loved not only affordability, but the vision for it. There's a lot of heart behind it. And I see the same qualities being played out here tonight. So I just wanted to express gratitude. It takes a lot of expertise, but also a lot of heart and quite often a lot of... Just commitment and hard work to pull something like this off. And so there's obviously clearly some passionate folks behind it that have put their shoulders to the wheel to do something for community. And I'm grateful and appreciative of it. I do think we've had some large social housing projects before. I can recall a couple of them that have been zoned, but not brought forward, I think, by a nonprofit group like this. They typically have sometimes been driven more by BC housing or government. And so I think that is particularly noteworthy, and I'm really grateful for not only your tenacity and heart, but your commitment to see this through. So hopefully this approval tonight is going to be another positive piece of momentum and some wind beneath the wings to help you get the rest of that funding over the finish line. And so thanks very much.
Thank you very much, 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 bylaw. I'm now going to call the vote. Council, if you can please register your vote.
Statement Watch
My name is Louis Villegas. I am a resident of Vancouver and have worked as an urban design specialist for 40 years in the U.S. and Canada. I oppose this tower and towers in the neighborhoods generally for the consequences and knock-on effects that they will bring. Let's advance one slide and another one. Thank you. When government continues down the path of the density fallacy, it's hard to explain. The facts show towers inflating land values perpetuating the government-made housing crisis. And perhaps that is the key. Captured by industry, government is fixated on maximizing private profits in order to generate revenues. Next slide, please. I would show 20% below market under these market conditions, badly fall short of the affordability threshold. Next slide. Housing in 2026 is predicted to rise to levels 14 times over in 1986. The year of Expo, the commissioning of SkyTrain, a year when house prices were still at par with affordability. Subtracting the government's 20% offer from the 1,400% house price inflation, we're left at 1,380, distance away from affordability. And once we round up, we're really right back at 14 times more. Next slide, please. And that's not the only place government is failing. People are being evicted from their homes. Those who would like to return are housed in arbitrarily downgraded units. They may be a one-bedroom unit, but the size in today's market is equal to what a studio used to be 20 years ago. Next slide, please. In the staff report, the neighborhood is undergoing significant change. I see government biting its nose to bite its face here. Next slide. Government prefers no solution for ending the housing crisis. Given that it is a government-made condition, it comes as little surprise. Next. We can use the SkyTrain to gauge the government's incapacity in planning for good urbanism. Due to exorbitant cost... Over the last four decades, only 80 kilometers of SkyTrain route have been built. A rate of delivery of just two kilometers per year qualifies the SkyTrain as a primary cause of the housing crisis. Next, please. The SkyTrain loop measures just 8.5 miles across. European LRT streetcar systems travel for 150 miles. Next. For the same cost as 80 kilometers of SkyTrain, we can build 560 kilometers of modern LRT streetcar. While the SkyTrains blight the places they cross, hence Vancouver's requirements that SkyTrains must be built in tunnels, modern LRT streetcars revitalize the streets that they use. Next. It's a win-win for Vancouver because all lines intersect at the hub. Next. But there is a rub. Compare the footprint of the two systems. LRT is shown in a orange circle, the SkyTrain in a yellow circle. Next. In Vancouver, the cost difference between SkyTrain and LRT is 11 times and growing. The Broadway tunnel is one year delayed and incurring more cost overruns by the day. Elevated SkyTrain is seven times more expensive than LRT streetcar. Even at the lower figure, seven times, 80 kilometers delivers 860 kilometers of modern transit. Next. Here we gauge the government's miscalculation. Four orders of magnitude separate the amount of LRT streetcar that can be built for the same price as 80 kilometers of SkyTrain. Next. Voters face a binary choice. Vote out the gang that can't shoot straight. and elect an outfit that will end the housing crisis. Thank you.
Statement Watch
I'm on the line.
Can you hear me? We can hear you. Please go ahead.
I have a presentation, but I can start. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for giving me the opportunity to speak. The first slide shows a building that's in very good condition, and it's well kept, and really we shouldn't be tearing down buildings like this. I am a Vancouver resident and a renter, and I'm opposed to the rezoning in question. Next slide, please. I'm also looking at the context, and Fairview is traditionally not having too many high-rises or some lower-density towers on large lots with gardens. Next slide. Here's a computer model just like looking down the street with a little bit of... vegetation to give you an idea of the massing and the massing of some recently approved buildings. So there's a really big change in terms of urban scale. Next slide. On this fourth slide, you'll see a view down the block from Pine, looking towards the building being discussed. And this is a very major change for the area in terms of parking, in terms of sunlight access, construction and so forth. Next slide. The shadow impacts are big. They won't quite reach Granville Street on the equinoxes, but if you look at March the 1st, there are impacts throughout later in the year and later times. Next slide. Here's the other view of the shadow coming across Granville Street on March the 1st, which is outside of the window, but it is a consideration that it is adding to issues on that front. Next slide. City of Toronto releases their models for the entire city and for rezoning applications online, so that makes this kind of analysis very easy. Next slide. Now, I want to talk about JT Development Consultants, and they are about eight different towers throughout the Broadway Plan that have been approved in the recent years by this council. And the common thing about them, other than the fact that they're all sites that have rental buildings, is not a single site has gone to development permit. No development permit application on your permit site for any of them, starting from 1190 West 10th all the way to 2225 West 8th and all the other JTE development sites. So I'm really going to ask this question, like I hear staff talk about making these approvals for housing, but with JTE development consultants and the common ownership of the shell companies that are owning these various properties, they're not going ahead. They're not building housing. They haven't put in a single development application proposal, and the staff can correct me if I'm wrong, ever since they started their first rezoning. So this isn't about rezoning for housing. It's about creating insecurity for renters, and it's actually creating a situation where we don't know what's going to happen for years, and there's no time limit on the rezoning. You can't say... If you want this rezoning, you have to have at least a development permit or enactment within 24 months. Otherwise, it's null and void. And some of these rezonings are essentially not for housing, and it's not even for real estate. It seems to be using the idea of putting a tower on a site as a financial instrument. And I would really caution against that, especially if you're trying to build housing and also provide security of tenure for the tenants here. promises made by an applicant regarding how people would be rehoused and so on. That's meaningless if it's not in writing and it's really not in the CD1 conditions. So I would really urge council to look at that. There are also issues with the two towers per block limits in certain blocks where you're giving out approvals and not actual development permits or building permits for housing. I will mention that I think the tenants really deserve a lot better. I heard that some of the units are being used as short-term rentals in this building and some of the other buildings, like 1865 West 2nd, also JTA, as tenants move out. The vacated units are not rented out, but they are turned into SDRs, which reduces, of course, any impact of the TRPP if it were to come. As I said, I don't see the approvals coming for this site, so please consider that. Councilman put in a time limit for an enactment that would become null and void if there is no action because GTE has not been advancing their projects, and it creates a lot of uncertainty for tenants. So thank you for your time.
Statement Watch
You did. Can you hear me?
We can hear you great. Please go ahead.
Awesome. So yeah, I live in the building, 1550 West 11th. Been here for 12 years as of this year. First thing, I can confirm what the last speaker said. There are Airbnbs in this building. They have been reported to the city. What has happened as a result? I'm not sure. I'm opposed to this application and I'm speaking in the context of those who may want to return to the building or opt for the right of first refusal option. This is what I'm contemplating. That being said, I echo entirely what the first speaker said with respect to unit sizes. The floor plan for this new building is obscene. Not a single one bedroom in the entire building would be over 500 square feet and no storage lockers are being provided. I question how a planner or a counselor can look at a couple or a retired senior who currently has 650 square feet, a storage locker and a parking space, and then say to them that returning to 380 on the low end or 490 on the high end is any way okay. Like this is entirely divorced from reality. I would suggest that whoever came up with these floor plans has not rented in the city in a very long time, if at all. And to that point, I wonder if any of you counselors or staff have had to deal with the loss of 30 to 50% of your living footprint. Like, regardless if you have or haven't, do you have any advice on how my neighbors and I can make this work? Like, how do we pivot? How do we absorb this loss of living space? Like, on all ears, let me know after I'm done speaking. My neighbors and I would love to hear any tips you may have. As for this situation within the context for me, this quote-unquote extra space that I'll be losing, 100 to 250 square feet, It represents everything that keeps me interested in life beyond the nine to five workday reality or having a place to simply sleep and eat. I'm an avid outdoorsman. I camp, I fish, I play hockey. I have hockey gear. I'm a musician. I've played thousands of gigs in the city over the last 25 years. Like I have a dedicated rehearsal space here in town for my instruments that often. they have to come home with me. So what does the loss of even just 100 to 200 square feet look like? I've looked at storage space prices in town and in Burnaby. $4,000 to $5,000 per year for a 100 to 200 square foot storage space. That's insane. Beyond that, consider the environmental aspect. Like I said, if I go play hockey twice a week, but I don't have space for my gear at home, Picture this scenario. I drive from my apartment, go to the storage space, go to the rink, play the game, drive back to the storage space to drop my gear off, drive home. Hundreds of annual trips per year that I don't want to do, whether it's fishing, playing hockey, doing whatever I want. Greenhouse gas emissions, fuel costs on my end. I don't want that. And beyond those points, like... I'd ask you to consider the condo crash in the last few years in Vancouver and in Toronto. I'm sure you've seen this in the news. You've heard what real estate types are saying. People don't want to pay six, 700, 800 K plus for five to 600 square feet. They are by and large rejecting the floor plans of today. And you know this, but they have choice because of their income levels and their buying power. Whereas we are mostly all lifelong renters. And the chances that any of us will be able to buy in Vancouver at any time, slim to none. It feels like there are two groups in play here, those with money and then us, the second class citizens. Like this reduction in space, like it benefits no one here. The only winner here is the developer and the proponent who can pack people in at their discretion. And you can't use the argument. that these concerns can be mitigated because we're coming back at the same level of rent that we paid upon leaving. Like, I applaud some of the safeguards in the Broadway plan, but this is an apples to oranges scenario because we're not coming back to the same type of living arrangement that we left. Now, I'd like to draw your attention to the accompanying staff report dated January 6th, page 28. 54 submissions, 14 responses in support, 34 against. That's more than a two to one ratio. Who don't want this? This is exactly from the people in this neighborhood, not the accompanying submissions that are on the website today. There's a realtor from Carisdale who says, yeah, let's do this. Someone else from Grandview Woodland who's in favor of this. Fantastic. But the feedback from the neighborhood.