Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Luke Reynolds and I am the rezoning planner for this application considered under the Broadway Plan. Council, this application before you is accompanied with a yellow memo that notes an error in Appendix A of the Referral Report. The memo specifies that Condition 5.2 should include added wording relating to family mix requirements for both total number of units and below market units.

The site, shown in red, is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East 11th Avenue and Ontario Street. The site is zoned R53, and the surrounding area consists of primarily residential uses, including single-attach and low-rise residential. The property is currently occupied by a three-story multifamily residential building with 20 rental units. Eligible tenants are protected under the Enhanced Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy. The neighborhood is undergoing significant change, with the future Mount Pleasant subway station located a five-minute walk away, which is scheduled to open in 2027.

The site is located in the Mount Pleasant Center Area A, MCEA, subarea 10.9.1. The plan permits 20, sorry, market rental buildings with 20% of the residential floor area secured as below market rental units and a maximum density of 6.8 FSR with the inclusion of commercial. The site is zoned R53, which would allow for this form of development. This application was in stream when the city initiated rezoning was approved in late 2025. The applicant opted to continue with their CD1 rezoning.

The applicant is proposing a 15-story residential building with 115 rental units, of which 20 are below market rental. Commercial space is also provided at grade, and a density of 6.8 FSR and a height of 44.9 are proposed. To reduce perceived massing of the development, staff have included a 16-story maximum height, which is one story higher than requested, to allow the applicant to reallocate massing and improve streetscape and pedestrian experience.

During the public consultation period and two-week Q&A, which was held from May 7th to May 20th, 2025, 69 pieces of feedback were received. Support was expressed for the height, density, and massing, building design, and increased housing supply near shops, services, and transit. Concerns were relayed to the proposed commercial space, building height, and neighborhood character fit, and traffic and parking.

Regarding the commercial space and building height, the proposal is consistent with the Broadway Plan and existing R53 zoning, which encourage rental housing and local serving retail off arterials. Regarding traffic and parking concerns, the application would be required to meet the requirements of the parking bylaw, and rezoning conditions require improvements to address safety for all road users, including upgraded sidewalks along Ontario Street and East 11th Avenue.

The public benefits of this application consist of 115 market rental units, of which 20% of the floor area is below market rental, and DCLs of $1.1 million.

In conclusion, this proposal aligns with both the Broadway plan and the existing R53 zoning. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any and all questions.

Good evening, worship and council. My name is Neil Robertson. I'm managing principal, Stuart Howard Architects. I want to thank you for taking the time to review our proposal today. I know you guys have four items, so I'll try to be as brief as I can. This is a challenging project for us, partly because of the topography of the site and also the size of the site being a 100-foot frontage. FOR US, WHAT REALLY MADE THE PROJECT WORK WAS THAT IT WAS A CORNER SITE. AND WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE, WE TREATED THE BUILDING SORT OF WITH TWO FACES, RIGHT? SO ON THE NORTH SIDE, WE'VE GOT THE COMMERCIAL FACE WITH SMALL-SCALE CRUs AT GRADE THERE. We envisioned something like a neighborhood coffee shop or corner store going in there. And then the east face is the entry to the building. The parking in particular was challenging for us because the lane is so much higher. So we had to do a little bit of somersaulting to be able to get the parking to work. But working with a traffic consultant, we were able to get all of the turning radiuses to get the required parking underneath the building. We're actually quite pleased with the result of the project. We think it's a very appealing building, and we've managed to break down the massing of the façade through the use of podiums you've heard me speak about before, but also the articulation of the façade. When you're working with these really tight envelopes and setbacks and tower setbacks, it can be quite challenging to create something that doesn't just look like a tombstone sitting there. And we worked really, really hard to articulate and to express different exposures and to create a bit of variety along the facade. I think staff did a good job presenting it. I don't have much else to say except for the fact when I was reviewing the comments from the public, the written comments, I did notice a concern that came up regarding the number of one bedrooms that are in the project. This was raised to us by staff when the comments came in, and we are well aware of the fact that all the one bedroom units that are on the site right now have to be replaced one for one with one bedrooms in the ultimate development. In working with staff and talking with them, we know that we have to do development permits. So the intent is to deal with that at the development permit stage for this project. So I can assure council and your worship that we will be putting one-to-one replacement for all those one bedrooms. And we've already actually come up with a plan for that. I don't know if you guys have plans in front of you, but on the east side of the floor plan, There are two, what are now labeled one bachelor apartments and the aspect ratio of the floor layout actually lends itself quite well to, to a one bedroom arrangement because it's a very shallow wide unit. So the big thing with one bedrooms is you need exterior wall space. So we have two units per floor over 14 floors, which can quite easily with a bit of moving around to the hallways and shuffling of other units can be converted into one bedrooms. And that will be our approach to dealing with that problem. So I'll leave it there, and we are available for questions should any of you wish to have them for us. Thank you so much.

My name is Stephen Lurch. I'm a Vancouver resident living directly across Ontario from the proposed development. I oppose the proposed recommendations. I'm trying to figure out who wants this building. It certainly isn't the residents of the apartment that will have to be torn down and who will be kicked out of their apartments. Yes, there is some distant promise of providing a space when the building goes up, but in the meantime, they have to find somewhere else to live in the city that has an extremely low vacancy rate and high rents. The Broadway plan states that its goals are to provide people with affordable housing and to deal with the low vacancy rate. But by putting this building here, you're increasing the problem by putting people out. So who wants this? I understand that the developer and the property owner want to make a pile of money. Maybe city council is bound by the Broadway plan, although the optics of having people pushed out of their living homes nine months before an election is pretty bad. It's definitely not in the interest of any of the residents living in the buildings nearby. We already have to deal with inadequate parking and heavy traffic. If you add 115 new suites to an area already at capacity, how will people be able to get around safely? This area is constantly choked with traffic. Often it is difficult to get onto Ontario from 12th or onto 12th from Ontario. Also, driving along 11th is challenging because 11th is essentially a single-lane road when parking is full, which it always is. Often people have to back their car up the whole length of the block to allow a car to pass. There's simply no way the area can handle 150 new units worth of people and their cars. Cycling. Ontario is one of the busiest bike routes in Vancouver. Sitting on a porch during busy times, we can watch cyclists constantly streaming up and down the road. As it gets busier during the day, inevitably cars start getting into dangerous conflicts with cyclists. Often stop signs are ignored by cars, cars stop unexpectedly or are trying to park, and people pull out of the alleys without looking. We see plenty of accidents and close calls. As it stands, there are too many cars. Adding 115 units to the area will make it much more dangerous for cyclists. Parking. If the condo doesn't provide adequate residence and visitor parking, it will spill over to the surrounding streets. I hope they do. But even if they do, very often there's not enough guest parking and then people have to find parking somewhere else. So that ends up being up on the street. There isn't a minute that a parking spot is free on that area. Basically, we sit there and we watch. We can time it. We'll see a car pull out and within a minute another car is pulled in. So there's no parking. So I've seen people getting yelling matches on the street over parking spots. People have parked in front of my driveway, and then I have to ask the city to tow a car. Good job, City of Vancouver. It takes 35 minutes. So the building plan has room for commercial space on the ground floor, which really surprised me when I read it. Why would you put commercial space in the middle of a neighborhood? It just doesn't fit. And again, this would further compound the above-mentioned traffic and parking issues. Imagine having a Tim Hortons or a Starbucks or a business that attracts people and vehicles. Well, how would they get in safely with their cars and residents while residents are also trying to drive in? Where would they park? Schools. Our local schools don't have the capacity to handle the influx of people in the area. Simon Fraser, the catchment school, is currently at 179% capacity, having 162 more students than they can handle. And finally, my own concerns about safety. I have a two-year-old daughter and a cat, and we like to walk around the neighborhood and we cycle commute to daycare and work. My daughter plays in the front yard. Sometimes she scoots down the sidewalk or alley. We walk down the alley to access our backyard multiple times a day. Many families have children that play in the alley between 11th and 12th. Having those extra units in place will definitely increase traffic everywhere and around, and thus the danger. Construction will make living in our area more dangerous with people cutting through the alley between 11th and 12th to get around blocked roads, large semi-trucks, dump trucks, construction workers, and contractors. driving and parking everywhere in an area where the streets are not wide enough to accommodate them. I don't trust that any construction company is going to 100% follow the safety rules. Case in point, just recently, Yuridia Flores was tragically killed by a crane overhead while working at the Oak Ridge Park construction site. I know there will certainly be a crane over our house and the surrounding streets and sidewalks while this unit goes up. The Broadway plan is meant to make the area an attractive place to live and work. How will this improve our neighborhood? It will make the traffic and parking unbearable. The construction phase and increasing traffic will be dangerous for residents, and you'll have to displace people, my neighbors, in order to push the project through. Thank you for listening.

I just discovered that I have three of my fellow tenants here. I was wondering if I can go a little longer than five minutes because of that. I won't need to go eight, that's for sure. Is that possible?

One, two, three in the corner here.

Go ahead.

I also have a couple of cues for videos and two photos, which I'll verbally cue. Awesome. Thank you.

Four years ago, I appeared on the front page of The Province. Headline was, Renters on Edge. as the previous council was preparing to vote on approving the Broadway plan, including enhanced renter protections. Everything I said in that Danfamano piece came true, unlike the main message from developers and landlord BC, who all warned that enhanced renter protections would mean no one would build a thing. How did that work out? I'm strongly opposed to this rezoning for the potential renovation of 20 families living in this healthy and well-maintained building where I live. At the corner of Ontario and 11th, two narrow residential streets already stressed by traffic and severely stressed by limited street parking. This is the neighborhood I've lived, volunteered, and worked in for over 20 years. Vancouver citizens and councillors looking at the city's rezoning application website, and please play the video now, see a video rendering of this location that would be laughable if it wasn't so misleading. depicting the intersection and surrounding blocks as virtually empty and without cars choking residential streets. Now you can show the photos, please. No photos or videos of the reality of the neighborhood. Putting 115 units on a small 100-foot lot on this block does not fit. Everyone I show this to says the building belongs on Broadway, not narrow and already stressed side streets. And you can lose the photos. Thank you. However, while that's understandably the primary concern for people in my neighborhood, we tenants have another concern. Why does this proposal with 115 units continue to have zero one-bedroom apartments? Zero. Instead, 74 studios. This issue was raised during the question and comments period in May 2025, but curiously, it is not mentioned in the reasons for opposition in the referral report that you are voting on. The applicant now mentions their solutions. Why wasn't this taken care of before it got to a public hearing? We are threatened with renovation from our apartment homes. Almost all are one-bedroom apartments between 600 and 700 square feet. Existing tenants, considering their options under the tenant relocation plan, are left to wonder if this is a design strategy to dissuade tenants from returning to the new building if all were being offered is 400-square-foot studio apartments. Understanding, I just heard somebody say there might be a solution. Might be. I say a design strategy because if you do the math, relocating tenants, topping up their relocation rents for three years if they can find a place, and then bringing them back at the same rent is exponentially more costly than handing tenants a buyout check to get rid of us. You can show the email now, please. When I raised the zero one bedroom concern to the city last year, I did receive a thoughtful response from the city. Staff will be reviewing the proposed unit mix in the new building and unit types in the existing building. If there are potential gaps in the applicant addressing their right of first refusal obligations, staff will work with the applicant to ensure eligible tenants are offered a new below market rental unit appropriate to their household. Therefore, there will need to be enough one-bedroom units to accommodate returning tenants. Again, I do not see this requirement or the one-bedroom concern specifically noted in the referral report that you are voting on, which doesn't seem fair to you or us. Another issue I raised almost immediately with the city when we were notified of the rezoning proposal, the city deemed the original proposal noncompliant with the Broadway plan due to a previous application for towers on East 12th. That's the same block. The rules at the time limited the number of towers per block. At the time, neither the applicant nor the city seemed too concerned with this noncompliance aspect, and that was definitely noted by tenants. Subsequent legislation removed that restriction, pretty much all restrictions, and it left a very sour taste in our mouths that the developer possibly had assurances that this noncompliance issue was either a temporary problem or would be waived. In conclusion, many renters feel like disposable ponds in a sweeping wave of rezonings and displacements due to what the Broadway plan has evolved into. We feel like the playing field is tilted in favor of the developers. Existing tenants also noted that the 20% below market rental requirement could potentially just be us returning to the building, meaning in effect there would be potentially no additional affordable housing in this proposal. Renters are indeed voters. making up half of the city's population. Council cannot be blind to this growing dissatisfaction of voters becoming collateral damage in the drive for profit. It's not too late to slow this down or cancel this one as the election approaches. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I want to acknowledge up front that I'm actually a property owner at 47 West 12th, which is just around the corner from this development. But I am actually opposed to this development because of actually in all the points that were just brought up, I've sort of listed the same ones. I'm actually not opposed to development in the city of Vancouver, and there's lots of big buildings going up along Broadway and elsewhere, and I'm okay with that. And I'm not opposed to rental properties especially. But parking is an absolute nightmare in my neighbourhood. I have tenants there, and although I have a couple of parking spots, it's impossible for any of them or their friends to find parking.

I need my glass to read my own writing.

Oh, yeah. We do not need any commercial space in our neighborhood. It's just ridiculous to start putting any kind of commercial there. In addition to the fact that we don't need it, there's lots of commercial on Main Street and, of course, Broadway, and it will just add to the parking nightmare. As the previous fellow mentioned, there is not a single spot available any time there. Also, I have a question. On the proposal, I don't see any parking listed in the information I've been provided with. So is there parking stalls planned for this development, and how many?

Is that reasonable to ask questions at this meeting?

Okay. And my last point also mirrors what the previous fellow was saying. I just don't understand why these developers are tearing down the three-story apartment buildings that are all around the Mount Pleasant area. Most of them look like they're in pretty good condition, and it's ridiculous. There's lots of places on 12th, Broadway. Main Street, everywhere that they could be building these places. Why tear down three-bedroom apartments and displace people? It's not going to affect me personally, but I just don't understand that. It makes no sense to me. So those are the main points I wanted to make. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Ruth Cherry, and I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver since 1985. I live in the area, and I am opposed to the amendments to the rezoning application for 10 East 11th Avenue. So the Vancouver real estate market in 2026... is experiencing a significant record high accumulation of unsold newly completed housing units with estimates suggesting from 5,000 to 5,400 of unsold new units in this region. This figure does not include the shadow inventory. which is an unsold supply held by developers and thus is not listed on the MLS. As of early 2026, Metro Vancouver has approximately 12,000 to 15,000 unsold new pre-construction condo units sitting in developer hands, and that is the shadow inventory. The figure is according to Steve Saratsky, who is citing data from the Altus Group and reports from Rennie and Associates Realty Limited. So imagine the numbers that will be in this category once these buildings along the Broadway corridor in our neighborhoods are most likely approved. In other words, these tall towers do not need to be built, especially not in neighborhoods such as the one in 10 East 11th. And once there is a glut on the market, developers will pressure the various levels of government to open the door up even more to foreign investment and foreign buyers, because frankly, they're the only ones that can afford it. It cannot be seen in any other way. 500 buildings along the Broadway corridor in 30 years. It's a very unfathomable scenario. So the unique character of this neighborhood is being replaced by huge buildings that don't contribute anything to the character of this locality, but instead degrade it. The suites and the proposed high rises are cramped. They're expensive, constructed with environmentally unfriendly materials, contributing to additional landfill as demolished buildings will have to be dumped there, and do not, in truth, address the shortage of truly affordable homes. The interests of people who live here are not considered before those of developers, whose mandate it is to make money and then disperse, going to their next money-making project. In addition, it is incomprehensible why global developers should have a preference for people who live here. The profits leave the city and go abroad. People who live here want homes, not investment properties, built for living in and with protective safeguards for truly reasonable rents and livable floor space. Developers and construction companies aim to make money, not enhance the city of Vancouver, nor contribute to making anything nearly livable. They don't care. It's not in their mandate.

Vancouver is losing its city as the status of a livable city, and therefore I ask that the council stop this and any other further rezonings. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Louis Villegas. I am a Vancouver resident practicing urbanism in the U.S. and Canada for 40 years. Next slide, please. I oppose this proposal and oppose towers in the neighborhoods generally for the unwanted consequences and the knock-on effects that they bring. Next. Why government insists on operating inside the density fallacy is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The facts show that towers inflate land values, perpetuating the government-made housing crisis. Perhaps this is the key. Captured by industry, government is fixated in maximizing private profits in order to direct revenues into the pipeline.

I will show 20% below market. Under these market conditions, falls 1,380% short of the affordability target. Next.

Housing in 2026 is predicted to rise to levels 14 times over what it was in 1986. That year, the year of Expo, the commissioning of SkyTrain, house prices were at par with affordability. subtracting the government's 20% from the 1,400%, or 14 times over. House price inflation, we arrive at 1,380% house inflation. Unfortunately, rounding up, we arrive right back at 14 times over affordability, rendering the 20% offer from government virtually irrelevant. Next slide, please. And this is not the only place where government is falling short. This week, we highlighted government's inability to preserve pristine, one of our most revered natural landscapes. Next slide, please. You're throwing it all away just to sell density and height. A good developer, and we have them in Vancouver, can make just as much profit at four stories as they can at 24. It just means that they have to get more sites, which would be fine because they would be bought at stable prices. rather than the artificially inflated madness that we confront today. Next slide, please. The staff report sees a significant change in the neighborhoods. Let me tell you, there's nothing significant about selling density and height, displacing renters, shadowing streets, blocking the sky. And yes, we have proof blocking the view of the mountains. Next. Numbers don't lie, but some governments do. Here is irrefutable proof that a government-made crisis that is tearing our community apart for a quarter century has no end in sight. Housing prices up 14 times, medium household incomes dipping slightly since 1986 once they were adjusted to $20, $25. Next slide, please. Winders keep government from understanding that the zombie SkyTrain and tower plans are gutting the local economy. When housing costs double, money left to circulate is cut in half. Shops close and jobs go begging, because in Canada, mom-and-pop small businesses are the backbone of employment. Just one more thing. We saw earlier that housing costs haven't doubled, but rather risen fourfold. leaving just one quarter of household income free to circulate in the local economy. Next slide, please. Then there are the other insults to be found in the Skytrain and Tower plans. I already mentioned unit shrinkage. Next.

Land lift has triggered land price inflation to levels of 1,400%. Next. The right way to end the housing crisis is to build in four-story vernacular made from the value-added forestry products. I've calculated we can double the Vancouver population by building no higher than four stories. That leaves a downtown for global real estate market to fashion the tower trade. Next. The government keeps permitting towers next to cottages and three-story walk-ups, adding fuel to the crisis rather than taking decisive action to end it.

Voters face a clear choice in October. Throw bad government out and elect a government that will end the housing crisis. Thank you.

Hello. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city Councillors. Thank you for your attention and service. My name is Simina Toma, and I live at 10 East 11th Avenue. In regards to this development, I am opposed. I have lived in this building for the past 11 years in a one-bedroom apartment, and I love it. I want to raise several concerns about this proposed development, many that have been already spoken to, and specifically around the lack of one-bedroom apartments, affordable housing, parking and traffic, and the inclusion of commercial space in this neighborhood. In regards to the one bedrooms, as it stood and has been for the last two years since this proposal has been created, the one bedroom households that currently contained one single occupant would have been offered a studio. The one bedroom households that contain a couple would have been offered a two bedroom apartment. For the families that are currently residing in two bedroom apartments, they would have been offered three bedroom apartments. So that would leave us with the conclusion that without the comment being made today by the architect regarding one bedroom apartments, single occupants living in one bedroom apartments would have to downgrade to studios. And let it be noted that these studios are up to 40% smaller than our current unit. And yet those who are living together as couples or families would be awarded one extra bedroom than they are currently renting. HC National Occupancy Standard, which is currently referenced in the Borough Gateway Plan, states that it must not be used as a reason to discriminate. However, the plan development, as it currently stands, is being used to discriminate based on marital or family status. This is based on the Canadian Human Rights Act. Secondly, regarding affordable housing. The Broadway plan requires 20% of residential floor space to be allocated to the low market rental units. This project claims to meet that requirement. However, in reality, 18 of those 20 units in our current building are eligible for the right of first refusal. That means that if all existing tenants return, there are actually only two units available to the broader community as affordable housing. So this project does not meaningfully contribute affordable housing to our neighborhood. It simply maintains, if not worsens, what already is happening in our city. On top of that, the numbers don't fully add up. This proposal does not meet the square footage required for 20% below market residential square footage. By looking in their application booklet, it is actually short by 190 square feet. This raises concerns about accountability and adherence to the policy. Next, I would like to talk about parking and traffic. The application proposes 36 off-street parking spaces in total, including visitor parking. That leaves 30 residential parking spaces for 115 units. As has been discussed, this is completely insufficient for this neighborhood. Our streets are narrow, congested, and unlike downtown, it only allows for one car to pass at a time. Parking spillover will be unavailable and it will significantly increase frustration, safety risk and congestion. This is especially concerning because 11th Avenue is a major bike route and many of us from our windows have witnessed road rage incidents and bike accidents on a regular basis. Adding more vehicles, loading activity and traffic from this development will only increase the likelihood of serious incidents. Finally, commercial space. This proposal includes ground floor commercial space for a cafe or shop or a small grocer. This is a quiet residential neighborhood, Main Street, two blocks away. It already offers all these services and already has many vacant commercial spaces for that. There's no shortage of that. Adding this type of space will only increase traffic, deliveries, noise, congestion, which is no benefit for the small, quiet community that we have. So when we look at the proposal, as a whole it becomes very clear that this is not a community focused development it is a highly profit driven project that places the burden of its impact on existing residents and the neighborhood please consider this in your decision regarding this development i appreciate your time and consideration great thank you samina um speaker number seven marston leninska

Good evening, councillors. Thank you for your time. It's nice to come back to our wedding venue from a couple of years ago in a different context. My name is Marcin Lesinska. I live in Vancouver, and I'm a resident of 10 East 11th Avenue, and I'm speaking in opposition to the report's recommendations. With my time, I'd like to share my and my wife's perspectives as two recent additions to the growing class of rent-evicted nomads displaced by development around the new SkyTrain line. And I'd like to implore you to reconsider this application. Last year, we were rent-evicted from our previous home just off Clark Drive. We lived for nearly a decade in a small, rundown, but charming three-floor apartment building that had been bought in 2019 by someone keen to capitalize on his investment. before the details of the Broadway development plan had been announced. For several years, we waited for that announcement, hoping that we would get some of the rumored protections that we'd been hearing about. When that day came, we raced to the plan's website, we clicked on the map, and we zoomed into our block, and we found out that the boundary of the Broadway bubble had fallen directly on our street, and we were on the wrong side of it. We knew that the writing was on the wall, and so we immediately set out to find a new home. Within weeks, our building's owner gave notice to the residents that he would be doing just enough renovation to the suites to justify evicting everyone. And rather than wait out the four months that he offered, we paid double rent and moved. We thought that if we could manage to find a place that was up for rezoning within the bubble, because a lot of this was still gray area, we could still find some of those protections and stay in our neighborhood. As luck would have it, we found 10 East 11th Ave. But wouldn't you know it, the day we stopped by to sign the lease and pick up our keys, we were informed that the owners needed us to sign a waiver to waive our rights for protections under the Broadway Development Plan. And just like that, we fell through the cracks. Well, so be it. We thought at least we had a home until our next rent eviction, and then we can start it all over again. We've already fallen through the cracks, but I feel compelled to speak today in opposition to this rezoning because it seems like whether by accident, by design, or by crafty developer machinations, even those who are lucky enough to live within the Broadway bubble are being deprived of their protections. The proposed redevelopment of our home seeks to increase the unit count from 20 in a nice, well-maintained three-floor apartment building to 115. More than five times the amount of suites on an already congested street, one block away from the fire hall, a school, and a couple blocks off of Main Street, full of stores already. Also, the same developer owns the two adjacent buildings on the same block, both very similar buildings. Those are also up for rezoning. So five times as many suites with allotted parking for approximately a quarter of them on the property times three with two additional properties. That already seems like a tall task, but with at least five times as many suites, there should be plenty of room to accommodate the occupants of the 20 existing mostly one-bedroom units. Until you consider the fact, which we just received some new information that that might not be the case, that the proposed development doesn't include a single one-bedroom unit, only studios and two bedrooms. Conveniently, the applicant from the architecture firm has kind of as an afterthought said, oh, no, we'll fix that. Hope so. Now, I hate to be cynical, but it seems to me like this may not be accidental, that it may actually be a tactic to maximize the number of current residents who will not be able to downsize into a studio and take advantage of their right of first refusal. Now, I don't oppose development. I'm an electrician. I work in construction. We need more homes. Maybe that means higher density. And I'm not even against property developers making profit. I was tossing and turning last night at the prospect of speaking against our benevolent developer landlords not being able to quintuple their investment. But maybe they could settle for only quadrupling their prospective number of rental incomes and include some good faith accommodations for their current protected tenants. Or just leave the building alone. It's fine. The list of developers, their lawyers, their agents, and all of their various representatives that stand against tenants' interests in Vancouver is very long. and a list of people able to uphold the promises of the Broadway development plan to protect tenants may only be as long as the number of councillors present today. I implore you councillors to critically evaluate this rezoning application and to consider the tenants of this building before they fall through the cracks as well. Thank you for your time.

Last year.

Well, it was very last minute. We had talked to the property manager in conversation before. I believe that we had mentioned wanting to move into the bubble. We hoped to get protections because we had been rent evicted. Nothing was brought up then. It was only the context was I showed up to sign the paper, pick up our keys, and then it was just like, oh, if you want it, sorry, the owners need you to sign this.

I mean, we understood, and then we found out a couple months later through the news other people with similar plans moving into the bubble didn't have protections anyway, so we didn't really question it.

Yeah, the packers were out front, I believe.

So we did call City Hall like immediately, I think it was the same day or the day after that the plan had been announced and we actually saw that we were outside the bubble. And when we called City Hall, you know, eventually got somebody on the phone and, you know, we're just really hoping like, is that line a line or is there a little fuzzy boundary? And they said, well, it's got to end somewhere.

Oh, and then after that, we just kind of, yeah, no, that's the only time we spoke to City Hall. After that, yeah, we just kind of resigned ourselves to our fate there.

Okay, sure. My name's Carrie Ann Wood, and I live next door. And I actually campaigned for you. And I was asked by one of my Chinese friends, and I said, oh, what does he stand for? And he said housing and making sure that Vancouver stays the same but develops also in a positive way. So I know that you are also making sure that nurses, mental health nurses and different people, and the police were protected.

So, pardon me. Never done this before. So I did campaign for you, and I was happy about that, and I have my little notes here for me.

So I think that the city should focus on redeveloping vacant commercial or industrial places first and not displacing residents. from older apartment buildings that made the city what it is. There's thousands of people that come to the street to take pictures of the trees. And it really, I mean, what is more Canadian than red maple leafs? The area is already congested due to traffic from private schools, churches, and bike lanes.

Parking is already very limited. Just coming here, there was basically a fight on the street with people trying to go both directions when they can't. The site is home to returning birds and local wildlife that need protection. Older architecture incorporated more green space, helping to prevent the concrete jungle look that we're now risking creating. And the Canadian red maple leaf Trees on site are a local treasure. And like I said, people come from all over to go to that street. Many shift workers live in this area. So construction noise and disruption will seriously affect their sleep and quality of life. There's lots of hospitals in the area. The diverse electric community in the neighborhood is what makes Vancouver world renowned. And this proposal threatens to erase that and the unique character of this neighborhood. So I urge the city to reject this proposal and support responsible development that protects housing, nature, and communities that make Vancouver livable. So I also had some other people text in.

The low-income rental market in Vancouver is characterized by extreme demand and limited supply, with options largely relying on subsidized housing and below-market rentals. Rent tied to income, maximum 30% of income. Based upon the CMHC current data, The better part of lower-income housing is at 96% capacity or better. What is the data supporting increased population density in our neighbourhood, which cannot even meet parking needs for the local, cannot be outweighed with forcing a better use of other areas? Can't this be outweighed with better use of other areas? How many people are you trying to fit into our infinite... space called our neighborhood. Who decided this? The people inhabiting the homes and the apartments refused to let this go ahead. Perhaps the system should stop serving those that want to be here and start serving those that are already here. For it is those that we are. We are the majority here, not your planned future. Perhaps the system should stop serving those that want to be here and start serving those that are living here. We are the neighborhood. We are the majority. Cut and splice. Okay, wait.

Vancouver faces an acute long-term affordable housing crisis with the median income families requiring over 100% of their income to cover home ownership costs. making it Canada's least affordable city. Massive supply demand gap requires 29,000. Done?

Many people are texting to me. So thank you very much. I'd really like to support you.

I was just taking some notes during the speakers, and I think I have some information that might help some of their concerns. So I heard a lot from the speakers regarding their concerns around parking for this project. The current building that's on the site doesn't actually have any underground parking. It's just got a few parking spaces back on the lane. and so as one of the speakers did mention this project does have 36 parking spaces below grade so we are improving the parking situation in our view relative to what's already there and I will note that this is WE'RE PROVIDING 36 SPACES, SIX OF WHICH ARE VISITOR SPACES WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY THE PARKING BY-LAW, BUT THAT IS ALL, ONLY SIX SPACES ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED FOR THE PARKING BY-LAW FOR THIS PROJECT. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING 30 MORE PARKING SPACES THAN WOULD ACTUALLY BE REQUIRED BY THE VANCOUVER PARKING BY-LAW. I ALSO HEARD SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE DENSITY SHOULD BE That was a little bit challenging for me.

For several years, we were doing projects under the affordable housing rezoning policies on arterials policy. And all I heard during those projects is that we need to provide more family housing, multifamily in neighborhoods and not on arterials. And I think that that was sort of the approach that staff came up with during the development of the community plan was to let's move some of that density off the arterials and into neighborhoods. And so I think that that's what this project provides. I heard again the concerns around the one bedrooms. And that is in the conditions of enactment for this project. So I know it might appear to some of the speakers that this is something that's a last minute addition. But in fact, this was written in the conditions of enactment. We did speak about this with staff and it will be dealt with during the development permit. We don't have a choice. It's in the conditions of enactment. And one of the speakers, I believe she may be conflating strata development with purpose-built rental. So I think she's right. There is a lot of strata product on the market right now, at least so I've heard. That's a different animal and from what this is this is this purpose-built secured on title for 60 years or the life of the building whichever is longer rental building with below market also secured on title for the same period of time so I think that the the bill the city does need more purpose-built rental and that's what this project addresses And finally, from my perspective, I keep on hearing a lot of people talking about these huge land lifts that this plan is creating. And I'm just an architect, but I do anecdotally hear from a lot of my clients. And from my understanding, the land lift that's afforded by these rezonings because of the below market component on these is negligible. In fact, from my understanding, property values for development lots have significantly dropped in the last two years because of the cost of construction and just market pressures. I know that it's easy to sort of say that, oh, well, these fat cat developers are making tons of money. From my experience anyways, these projects are, every single one of my projects is on a knife's edge financially. And we struggle quite a bit. Also, we have our housing consultant that I believe wanted to make a couple comments regarding the housing agreements. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thanks for having us here tonight. Generally, we always really appreciate there's always important work to do supporting tenants. That work at 10 East 11th is alongside the owner. We work very closely with them, and we look forward to doing that further. This is really ensuring that assistance and engagement's in place. And, you know, we can talk about a policy, but we can also see how it works. And I can say as a TRC, we know there's nuances when that's getting delivered. Sometimes it's repeating messages or taking extra calls or working through questions, maybe even some tears sometime when there's relocation that we're working on. Pretty rare, but it can happen. And it's a lot of emotions that can come up. So really, it includes leveraging a robust Broadway plan. Top Ops work, we've seen it in Burnaby. We've walked through it in Burnaby. We've done it here in Vancouver. We have one project and a few on the way. One's actively working, and a lot of the feedback's great. We empathize with the concerns and our team's always going to be here to focus on helping tenants find a great place. And we know that right of first refusal is in place when they want to come back to the building and the owner's supportive of that too. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Austin Norrie, and I'm the rezoning planner for this application coming in under the Grandview Woodland Community Plan. The site at 1613-1625 Nanaimo Street, identified red on the map, is located at the corner of Nanaimo and Gravely Street, which is one block north of East 1st Avenue. The site is currently zoned C1 and is developed with a two-story mixed-use building. The buildings around the site are mainly single-family homes at three stories in height, except for a handful of four-story apartments along Nanaimo and East 1st Avenue. There are no rental tenants living on the property, as the site is owner-occupied. The site is located within the Nanaimo area of the Grandview Woodland Community Plan. At this location, the plan supports mixed-use residential buildings with retail service and or community-serving uses at grade. The plan supports up to six stories in height and an FSR up to 3.2. Projects here require a minimum frontage of 120 feet. The proposal was submitted on March 25th, 24th, 2025. The applicant is proposing a five-story mixed-use residential building containing 23 market rental units. The proposal includes a maximum of 2.8 FSR and a height at 62 feet. Two commercial retail spaces are proposed at grade, and one level of underground parking is proposed, which is accessible through the lane. A virtual Q&A period was held from July 2nd to July 15th, 2025. 22 pieces of correspondence were received. Respondents were supportive of the proposal, given that there's a need for more rental housing in the city, that the proposal would bring retail vibrancy to Nanaimo Street, and that the proposal is an appropriate height, scale, and massing for an arterial street. Responding concerns were related to that the heightened density would impact the neighborhood's character. In response, staff can confirm that the proposed height, density, and scale are consistent with the intent of the Grandview Woodland Community Plan. Another concern was that there isn't enough parking to support the building, as well as the project would create pedestrian safety, automobile traffic, as well as access concerns. Staff can confirm that the proposal will be required to meet the parking bylaw, engineering staff have conditioned the proposal to include street improvements such as new sidewalks a new paved alleyway an improved lane crossing as well as new street lighting in addition respondents expressed the need to preserve local serving retail as they indicated a fondness for the existing vietnamese restaurant on the site The applicant has indicated that they intend to have the existing restaurant returned to the site after project completion. Staff have conditioned the building to require a minimum of 139 square meters of commercial use. The public benefits associated with this proposal includes the development cost levies, which will contribute to just under $700,000. Real estate services staff reviewed this proposal and found that due to the limited land lift, no community amenity contribution payment would be required or necessary. In addition, the site is anticipated to deliver 23 secured market rental housing units, of which delivering secured market rental units is a goal outlined within the Grandview Woodland public benefits strategy. To conclude, this proposal aligns with the Grantview Woodland Community Plan and advances the city's housing targets. Staff recommend approval of this application, as well as subject to the conditions of approval in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available for questions. Thank you.

Just some comments, if that's okay.

Good evening, mayor and council. My name is James Todd, principal of JTA Development Consultants, and I'm speaking on behalf of the property owner as applicant for the rezoning application at 1613 Nanaimo Street. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal and for the time staff and council have spent reviewing it. This application is for a five-story mixed-use rental housing proposal with a commercial space at grade. The property is owned by the family behind the existing Song Huang restaurant currently on site, long-standing local business offering a variety of dishes but are known in particular for their beef seven ways. Importantly, the owners intend to return to the site with a new restaurant as part of the redevelopment, continuing their contribution to the neighborhood's commercial and cultural fabric. The residential component is entirely rental housing, helping to add much-needed long-term housing supply in a location while serviced by transit, amenities, and services. I would also like to clarify that there are no tenants currently living on-site. The existing residential space is owner-occupied, so there is no rental displacement associated with this application.

From a policy perspective, the proposal aligns with the city's objectives around gentle density, mixed-use development, and rental housing, particularly along arterial streets like Nanaimo and within the preliminary boundary of the Nanaimo Street and East First Avenue village within the Vancouver Plan. The building scale has been carefully considered to fit the context of the area while making efficient use of the site. The project has been thoughtfully designed by Hex City Studio Architecture, who are here virtually this evening and available to answer any questions, architectural or technical. In response to one public comment, the project has been designed with the intent to offer an easement with the adjacent neighbor for a shared parking ramp and underground knockout panel so that in the future, if they wish to redevelop and require access through the parking ramp from this proposal, they are able to use it. Also noting the proposal will follow all requirements for acoustical, separation, noise during construction, and the parking bylaw. In closing, this is a locally owned project, reinvesting in the neighborhood, delivering secured rental housing, and supporting a small business that plans to return and thrive in the site. We respectfully ask for council support of the rezoning application. Thank you for your time. and we're happy to answer any questions.

I'll defer the question to our architects who I think are online.

Hi, yes. Hi, I'm Travis Hanks, principal architect at Hexody Studio Architecture. So I can address the question about parking. So we do comply currently with the VBBL and the parking bylaw. We chose to limit to one level of underground parking to increase affordability of the units as you... may be aware excavating down and creating concrete parkades below ground is a great expense and also increases the carbon footprint of the building. So it was a choice to limit the parking to minimums. But we are slightly over the minimum required by the bylaw right now.

Yes, there are dedicated commercial spaces, accessible.

Thank you for your question. No, there's no transfer of land in the alleyway. There's just going to be some upgrades accordingly.

Staff have no closing comments.

Good evening, Mayor and Council and members of the public. My name is Ricardo Peggi. I'm the planner assigned to this rezoning application at 1550 West 11th Avenue.

The subject site is located mid-block on the south side of West 11th Avenue between Granville Street and First Street in the Fairview neighborhood. The site is currently developed with a three-story rental building with 27 units. The surrounding area consists of low- and mid-rise apartments, and the Granville High Street is located to the east of the subject site.

The site is located in Fairview South, Area A in the Broadway plan. The FSOA designation allows for mixed-use rental residential tower forms with ground floor commercial with a maximum height of 20 stories and a maximum density of 6.8 FSR. A minimum of 20% of the residential floor area must be secured as below-market rental units.

The proposal is to rezone the site to a comprehensive development district to enable the development of a mixed-use residential building with ground floor commercial uses. The maximum height is 17 stories, or 60.2 meters, and the maximum density is 6.8 FSR. The development will contain 160 rental units, and 20% of the residential floor area will be secured for below-market rental units. Please note, in December 2025, Council approved a two-year time-limited rental development relief program to improve the viability of rental projects. This project is not eligible to apply for the program because the site currently contains over 10 primary rental units. Please also note this site is zoned R5-3, which would allow this form of development. This application was in stream when the city initiated rezoning was approved in late 2025. The applicant opted to continue with the CD1 rezoning.

71 pieces of correspondence have been received during public consultation. Public feedback in support of the rezoning found the development will help contribute to the rental housing supply. The location is suitable for additional density given the proximity of the site to transit. And some noted the building's attractive design and massing. Some concerns were also expressed. The first was related to displacement of existing tenants and concerns the proposed housing would not be affordable for current or lower income residents. In response, staff confirmed the proposal is subject to the tenant relocation and protection policy and the enhanced tenant protections for renters in the Broadway plan area. The project is also required to provide below-market rental units at 20% below citywide average rents. Some commenters raised concerns about the lack of existing community infrastructure and amenities to support the added density in the Fairview neighborhood. Staff point to the public benefit strategy within the Broadway plan, which is a strategy for developing public amenities and infrastructure to address the renewal and growth needs in the plan area. Amenities are funded in part by development contributions such as development cost levies. or DCLs. Lastly, there were concerns about the height, massing, and neighborhood fit of the proposed development, and staff confirmed that the proposed height scale and uses are all consistent with the policies that apply to the Fairview South Area A in the Broadway plan.

Public benefits from this application consist of DCLs and a public art contribution with a total value of $1.6 million. Other benefits from the development include 160 secured rental housing units and 20% of the floor area to be rented at below market rates.

In summary, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B as it is consistent with the Broadway Plan. This concludes my presentation. Both staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.

Good evening. Name is Andrew Methodius Harlick, associate with JTA Development Consultants, an applicant for the proposal on behalf of the owner at 1550 West 11th Avenue. We are also here with our architect, WA Architecture. to answer any of your questions. Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to speak and considering this proposal for rental housing in South Granville. And I'd also like to thank our planners, not only Ricardo, who's new to the project, but Sarah Cranston, of course, before. who worked through us quite extensively. And, of course, of all staff members on their team for their hard work during the applications review process and through, I would like to stress, a tower redesign process as we were better trying to address future tower separation. So that's the design that you see today. So this is a rework that we had worked through with staff, and that's the application that's before you. I would also like to quickly highlight just a few quick reasons why this project will be a community-supporting addition to the city and the neighborhood, achieving the overall goals of the Broadway plan. This proposal is very close to the new and soon-to-be-opening Grandview, or pardon me, Grandville SkyTrain station, of course the grocery store that will go above that. It's very welcoming for not only future housing options, but to future tenants in this neighborhood as well, as it has a high level of employment. maintaining solar access, which is a part of our redesign process as well. This is solar access to Granville Street and providing a local quiet side street retail CRU unit, which comes with a renewed wider pedestrian boulevard. So that comes with a setback and wider kind of pedestrian realm on our side of the property as well as what we will have in our conditions for renewal of the public realm as well. We believe that this application will help address our presently low purpose-built rental vacancy rates. Yes, they're still quite low. And to keep that momentum going, as especially our rental homes are continuing to age, as most were built over 45 years ago. Mine was built in 1967, so I highly encourage to keep the momentum going for secured market rental. And this secures much-needed housing in a central area of, as we've mentioned before, high transit and employment density. This project will deliver, as mentioned before, 160 rental units, 20% of those for below market, a floor area before below market. In our time of a housing shortage, which is, as I mentioned, still present, delivering purpose-built rental, especially with significant ports below market rental is very important for supporting future affordability and, of course, rental stability for us renters. We believe this is a long-term rental housing contributes to our future of resilience in a growing city, as we will keep growing for new and familiar neighbors. As well, the at-grade commercial space is integral to this proposal, intended for local serving retail, as many of GTA's projects have across the Broadway area, of course, mainly being on a quiet side street, not on a heavy arterial traffic-ridden street. It includes pedestrian-oriented landscaping treatment that will help this future human-scaled commercial kind of space. This will also range from everything that will range under what the bylaw would permit. So as far as a use, we've yet to determine that use for that commercial space. The proposal will also adhere to the TRPP rules. Tenants have had at least over 10 touchpoints since the application, which was quite a while ago. This included the initial notification of the rezoning itself, the all-tenant meeting, which of course hosted numerous updates as the application was in review over that period of time, the issuance of the city's eligibility letter and needs assessment survey, as well as notifications for this public hearing. As with all of our other projects in the plan area, I will restate that tenants will also be offered during the interim housing options within the owner's existing portfolio with the same landlord within the same neighborhood at the tenant's choice. meaning tenants will be able to remain in the same neighborhood in interim housing before being welcomed back into the new building within a new unit. I'd also like to stress from the first application today, we do have a mix of the 20% below market designated areas, which is in the application itself. So designating studios, one beds, two beds, and threes. We feel that this proposal represents a responsible response to the city's current and future needs, that housing supports availability and affordability, creates quiet spaces for local serving services, protects sunlight and public realm, and we feel this would be a welcome addition with your.

Okay.

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.

I'm on the line.

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.

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.

No additional speakers.

Just wanted to address, Stephen Bowhouse had an excellent comment. While it seems like there are, of course, as he pointed out, many JTA signs throughout the neighbourhood, it seems like things are moving both very fast, but as he pointed out, also very slowly, where it looks like an action to maybe himself or the public may be taking place. To give this project as an example, we applied many months ago, so that sign-up has been up for quite some time. And I guess that... level of acceptance through our redesign. I believe that happened sometime with staff when our redesign was, you know, formally kind of submitted and accepted sometime, and I believe in, you know, between August and October, pardon me for the exact date, but we're here today in February for our public hearing. We've been issued our conditions letter, which council might be familiar with, is our kind of marching orders. So then we have to go through a process of addressing those before the formal enactment goes into place and that the development permit process can start. So it is a lengthy process. This project, I would like to stress that it is, I know you've heard the term unviable. This project is viable for the client and our team, and we are very eager to go ahead. We didn't want to be here at a public hearing in February. We wanted to be here much earlier and to get this building going. and to have these rental units on market much sooner. But we are proceeding as quickly as we can, and staff is helping us do that as well to the best of their abilities. And just the amount of work in the Broadway plan for staff's capabilities as well. So we would just like to address that. And again, just thank staff for getting us here today and, of course, working through us in the next couple steps, which is addressing those conditions. and getting to formal enactment. Passing through the public hearing isn't the last step. It's only one of many steps, so I'd just like to address that. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Carla Guerrera, and I'm here as the project delivery lead of the Southwinds Place redevelopment. Today, you are being asked to approve a landmark affordable housing project, not just for Vancouver, but nationally. Southwinds Place represents the largest non-profit-led affordable housing development in the history of Vancouver and also most significant in Canada. This project is being advanced by our client, Sir Optimist, Kiwanis Sir Optimist Housing Society. a partnership of two longstanding nonprofits that have been serving the city for over 100 years. As a volunteer board, Kiwanis Suroptimist Society has demonstrated exceptional vision and stewardship, and they are choosing to use their land to help address the Vancouver housing crisis. at a scale never before undertaken by a nonprofit. Our team at Purpose Driven Development is honored to serve as their project delivery partner, leading development and financing of this critical housing project.

My name is Janet Law, and I am speaking on behalf of the Kiwanis Seroptimist Society. Our mandate has always been to serve Vancouver's most vulnerable residents by providing stable, affordable housing for seniors, working families, and supportive community spaces focused on well-being and social inclusion. For over a century, our organization has been deeply rooted in this city, responding to evolving community needs while remaining committed to service, dignity, and long-term impact that affordable housing can provide. This project represents a huge expansion and continuation of that legacy, dedicating our land to be used responsibly to provide significant housing that will serve current and future generations of the entire city.

We see this redevelopment as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a meaningful contribution from our society and our board members to the city's housing supply while remaining true to our mission and values. Thank you for listening. Southwinds Place is a mixed-income intergenerational rental community that's delivering over 903 homes over two phases and that is retained in non-profit ownership. It's crucial to highlight that this single project is delivering close to 10% of the City of Vancouver's 10-year affordable housing target, all at a transit node with amenities for daily life in walking distance. And it's a critical housing project at the right location and the right time. The project is intentionally designed to support a diverse mix of residents across generations, ages, stages of life, and income levels. So that includes seniors and the 90 seniors who will be relocated back to the new project. young families, and working households. The project is also delivering public benefits in terms of an accessible courtyard and wellness path, intergenerational gathering spaces, seniors outdoor amenities, and family spaces as well.

With over 900 new mixed income homes, 30% of those will be below the housing income limit, advancing council's housing objectives. We want to express our sincere appreciation to staff, particularly the senior leadership team that was established to work with our team and for their collaboration. We also want to acknowledge the innovation and leadership of this council and previous councils. I mean this when I say you are delivering some of the most progressive affordable housing policies in Canada. And it is those policies that enable Southwinds to come before you for considerations. Without the DCL waivers, the short program, and the CHIP program, projects like this are simply not possible with non-profit delivery. We acknowledge and support the Director of Planning's discretion and flexibility to resolve certain technical matters at the development permit stage, as this flexibility is essential to secure financing that this project is actively seeking with Build Canada Homes. So councillors, over to you, and Mayor, over to you. With your approval today, you have the opportunity to deliver this legacy project and demonstrate how our city delivers affordable housing at scale. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Councillor. So there's two reasons for that, and they were analysed very closely, and there's a lot of discussion with staff on this issue. The first is that our client is focused on the delivery of housing for seniors. That is who they currently house. They have 90 seniors currently housed at the site who are being relocated. and moving back. So with the focus on seniors, that reduction of the family unit count was a key driver. And then I'd say the second key driver is that this project requires financing and funding from all three levels of government. each unit comes, to keep the affordability low, each unit comes with a certain level of subsidy per door. And so when we look at the difference between a 30% family units versus 35% of family units, we calculated that as a loss of over $3 million to the project, which creates an equity gap, which directly impacts the viability of the project. because somebody has to fill that equity gap. So when we made that assessment, the equity gap was so significant that we worked really hard with staff to come up with where we landed.

So part of why a project of this scale has never been done before is because of the level of complexity of the financing that is required to enable a project like this to be delivered exclusively by a nonprofit under nonprofit ownership. Our client has used their land and is leveraging their land to secure land to date, about $12 million in pre-construction financing. That's all risk they are taking with their land to deliver this project. And with all of the changes in government and financing that has happened over the last few years, it's incredibly difficult to secure construction financing. CMHC's programs have closed. BC Housing's programs are very tentative right now. And so You know, projects like this are incredibly complex from a financing landscape and require all three levels of government and a lot of flexibility from the city on making the project viable from a financing lens. At this point, we are in active discussions with the federal government through Build Canada Homes, and we are hopeful that Build Canada Homes will come to the table with construction financing. It's definitely one of the most complex projects in the country from a financing landscape because of the scale and the changing landscape in Canada for financing affordable housing in the last few years.

Yes, great. Thank you. So we do have a tenant relocation team who's been actively, on a weekly basis, working with the tenants for... you know, at least the last six, eight months, one year actually. So we, you know, the tenants, some of them have already been relocated. We have 10 of them of the 90 going to be relocated in the next couple of months. So where they're being relocated to, luckily with the partnership of the two non-profits, both Sir Optimist House, they have a project that is completing at Cambion 13th. The council has approved. Thank you for that. So some of the tenants will be moving to that project when it's complete in August or September. And then the Kiwanis Club have a number of other holdings that some of these tenants will be moved back to as well or moved into. And through the partnerships with other nonprofits across the city, we're very confident that we will be able to relocate all of the tenants.

Thank you for the question. Certainly support from this council would actually really help given the scale of this project.

We were told, we met with the minister's office last week, and we were told, you know, a BC project has not yet been announced, and this one is on their radar for that. There's no commitments, but it is on their radar. And certainly any... support that our mayor and council could offer to the federal government for this project, I think would really help, actually. But what I can say, we have submitted the application to Build Canada Homes in December. We got in very early, the same month the portal was open. I can also say that this project really does... meet a lot of their criteria in terms of who's being housed here, the type of housing, the location, your transit, the scale of the project really does meet a lot of their criteria. And then I can also add that our team, the architects and our development team have been working very hard to look at modular construction and innovative construction methods, which we know is a key priority for Build Canada Homes. So we are meeting many, many of their priorities, and we think that is why this project is high on their radar right now.

Yeah, just to clarify, this project is exclusively housing. It doesn't have a mixed-use component at this time.

No, we do have four buildings, but it is all mixed income housing.

Yeah, at this point, so much of the affordability levels is driven by the financing that will be secured, that is not yet secured for construction. So right now, the project is 70% market and 30%. the housing below housing income limits. I will say that, you know, if we are successful in securing a higher amount of grant from any of the lenders that, you know, as this is a nonprofit, any of that grant will go directly into deeper affordability to the project. That's the intent of the owner.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Joshua Tiong, and I serve as a volunteer board member for the Kiwanis or Optimist Senior Citizens Housing Society. And I've lived in Vancouver my entire life. Born and raised East Van and very, very privileged to be able to volunteer for projects including this one. And that long-term connection to the city has strongly informed how I approach all of my community service. And I wanted to stress specifically the Kiwanis perspective in this project and how we've thought about it, conceptualized it, worked with our partners, our development manager, and our architects. So as a board, first and foremost, we see ourselves as stewards. And I know that we've talked about deep affordability and long-term generational social housing. So the land and housing that we see are held in trust, and we see it as our responsibility to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. And that means not only for today, but over the long term. That responsibility includes the senior citizen residents who currently call the property home. I know that there were a lot of questions around relocation, and so we have made it a priority to reach out to our sister chapters in Kiwanis across British Columbia all the way through to the island and the interior for those residents who might want to move there. As part of our governance role, the board has been deeply engaged in ensuring that the tenants are treated fairly, with respect, all throughout this process, and we have made significant investments of our resources, our time, and being there present to talk to the tenants throughout this process. And so what we wanted to make sure is that this proposal is the result of a careful and disciplined process. As a volunteer board, we took our time to understand the scale of this project, We have looked through the finances infinitely. We have looked at the risks involved. We have looked at the long-term obligations that it will create. And we've asked really hard questions and tested assumptions and worked really closely with our experienced professional partners and the city staff throughout this process. So while this is a very significant undertaking, we believe the project is well considered, it is well supported, and it is ready to move forward. So any remaining details can be appropriately addressed through the city's review process, and we are committed to having those conversations, including from those who might be opposed to the project, so that we can make sure we are continuing to be great stewards of this neighborhood. So on behalf of the board, I respectfully ask council to support this rezoning so the project can proceed to its next phase and that we can continue delivering on social housing. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is David Olson. I'm a long-term, 30-year-plus member of the Kiwanis Club of Vancouver, and that has included the positions of president, treasurer, which I currently am, as well as the director for the club. I've also been, I was born and raised in Vancouver. I was born at Grace Hospital many years ago. I'm now living in the North Shore, but I fully support this project. I'd love to see it move ahead. In fact, I'm very proud that our club, which was charted in 1919, has been supporting the senior housing for well over 50 years. And we're pleased and very, very happy to be able to provide... and move ahead with the redevelopment project on this location and very supportive with it. I respectfully encourage council to support the rezoning application for our project. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much.

center that's being rebuilt. There are discussions underway of expanding the library in Marple. Yeah. Okay. Thanks very much.