CD-1 Rezoning 2202-2212 West 10th Avenue

Statement Watch

My name is Oscar Erickson, and I'm the rezoning planner for this text amendment application for 3360 to 3384 Vanessa Avenue and 3347 Clive Avenue. The site outlined in red is located on the south side of Vanessa Avenue, just west of Joyce Collingwood Station. The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of high-, mid-, and low-density residential buildings with the greatest height located near the intersection of Joyce Street and Vanessa Avenue. The enabling rezoning policy for this site is the Joyce-Collingwood Station Precinct Plan. In 2014, when the plan was adopted, staff did not anticipate this site, here shown in red, to be redeveloped, and the plan does not provide guidance on height and density. The original rezoning application was approved by Council in January of 2024 and consisted of a two-tower development connected by a six-story podium, a building height up to 33 stories at 11.38 FSR, The proposal included 679 market rental units with 10% of the residential floor area secured at below market rates, commercial uses at grade, and a 37-space turnkey child care facility to be delivered in kind to the city. The Joyce-Collingwood Station Precinct Plant identified a need for portable housing and child care in the area. In reviewing the application, staff considered the delivery of rental units, the below-market rental units, and the child care facility in relation to the plant's public benefit strategy and recommended approval of the proposal, which exceeded the anticipated height and density. Council approved the application, and the CD1 bylaw was enacted in May 2025. In October of 2025, the City received an application to amend City 1-899 to increase the proportion of below-market rental units from 10% to 20% of the residential floor area, adding approximately 68 below-market rental units. Convert the previously secured 37-space city-owned child care to commercial space, which allows for private child care, and to increase the maximum density from 11.38 to 11.52 FSR. While no changes are proposed to the form of development, the amendment would result in an apparent increase in density. This increase arises from the conversion of the former child care space to commercial use, which would now be included in the floor area calculation. A virtual Q&A period was held in January 2026. Support was expressed for the contribution to the housing stock and the increase in below-market rental units. Concern was expressed for the loss of public amenity, neighborhood impact, and traffic. In response, staff note that while the loss of the turnkey city-owned child care facility is regrettable, affordable rental housing remains a top priority for the city, and 68 additional below-market rental units was considered in lieu of child care. Regarding neighborhood impact, the proposed text amendment does not increase the floor area of the development. The total number of approved rental units remains unchanged from the original 2024 approval. The proposed change is not expected to result in measurable impacts on traffic congestion or safety. The development's density, as originally approved in 2024, aligns with the city's objective to support higher density residential development in close proximity to SkyTrain stations. The rezoning application that was approved in 2024 included development contributions totaling $16.3 million. It included 611 market rental units, approximately 68 below-market rental units, and an in-kind childcare. If the amendment is approved, the expected development cost levies and public art contribution for the project is estimated to be reduced to $7 million. The reduction is due to the applicant now being eligible for the Class A waiver of the citywide DCLs on the residential floor area and reductions to the DCL payments through the Development Viability Report adopted by Council in December. Under the amended proposal, the number of below-market rental units would double in exchange for removing the in-kind childcare facility. In summary, if the amendment is approved, the project will deliver an additional 68 below-market rental units for a total of 136 below-market rental units. This previously secured in-kind childcare facility is removed from the proposal and there will be a reduction in the estimated DCL contributions. Staff have reviewed the product pro forma and confirmed that the value of securing the additional below-market rental units is comparable to the value associated with the originally proposed child care facility and other corresponding changes to the valuation. In conclusion, this proposed amendment advances the city's rental housing targets by delivering an additional 68 below-market rental units. Staff recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you for the presentation. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Yes, please.

Thank you very much, Acting Mayor and Council. We do really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. I know it's been a long night for everyone, but we really appreciate it. My name is Farouk Bebel, and I'm Vice President of Development at Intercorp Homes. I want to acknowledge staff and council for its ongoing commitment to rental housing and complete communities. We share in that goal at Intercorp, and we greatly appreciate the time and care that's gone into preparing and reviewing this text amendment. Intercorp has been working for nearly six years to advance the project towards construction readiness. All permits are now in place. However, as Council knows, entitlement alone does not guarantee delivery, and many approved rental projects are currently stalled due to financing constraints. Products of this scale and complexity are increasingly difficult to finance conventionally, particularly amid today's economic uncertainty. and they require coordinated support from all levels of government. To that end, we applied to CMHC under the Apartment Construction Loan Program, which is the federal government financing program for large-scale rental housing projects. Initially, our application mirrored the approved rezoning. However, this did not secure enough points for a competitive framework. CMHC encouraged us to reapply because they saw greater potential in this project. with the opportunity to strengthen the application through deeper affordability. In response to feedback, we updated and resubmitted the application. These revisions resulted in conditional approval for the project. Notably, this was the only project in BC to receive approval in this funding cycle, highlighting the strength and significance of this proposal. The amendment before council today is intended to align the city's rezoning framework with CMHC's underwriting. The overall public benefit value remains the same. However, it reallocates the value in a way that better meets a federal mandate. The form of development remains unchanged. Specifically, the amendment doubles the below-market rental requirement from 10% to 20% of the residential floor area. To support the increase in affordability, the previously proposed turnkey city-owned childcare is now being contemplated as privately delivered. Importantly, the childcare remains part of the proposal and is now proposed as zoned as commercial, and this is consistent with how privately delivered childcare is treated in the City of Vancouver. Ultimately, the amendment provides the pathway for the project to proceed. Without it, the financing cannot be secured and the construction cannot begin. To reiterate, the amendment does not reduce the public benefit. It is about enabling delivery in today's challenging financial environment. We respectfully request the support of council so that this important rental housing can proceed. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Welcome, Mona. Hey, I'm really tired.

I'm a mom. Thanks for hanging in there. And I had to do a lot of cleaning because today's Chinese New Year. My name is Mona Stilwell. I'm a resident of Renfrew, Collingwood. I have a story. It's a quick one. I had twins. They were born. And I immediately worried about child care. I was warned to sign up as soon as they were born. In fact, when they were still in utero. And it was really concerning. We ended up having to hire a private nanny because twins cost more. And we ended up getting into child care so thankful they both got into the same one. Can you imagine if I had to go to two different daycares? Crazy. it's a really stressful emotional thing for families that they have to think through just because they want to get. Okay, let me read my thing. Okay, I oppose this amendment because I see a day, I see on a day-to-day basis in my neighborhood, Collingwood, Renfrew, that families are struggling to live in our beautiful city, and this amendment does not help those most in need. Vancouver has a deep shortfall of childcare spaces. Converting the city-sponsored childcare space to a private one is a risk because I'm personally concerned that if the space is not snatched up by private childcare space, it's going to be converted into a regular commercial space. And then we've lost 37 spots for families to... to be covered for women, women's health to be, you know, sorry, I'm so tired. Okay. Doing great. Below market housing. I know this sounds so good. Yay, 120 below market housing items and or units. But it's not enough. That is not affordable housing. I know there's like different monikers for different things like affordable housing, low market. I know all these things are not my wheelhouse, but I just know it's different. And I know it's unacceptable. It's not accessible housing. So although it sounds good, it's not accessible, especially for those folks living in my neighborhood. Every week I go to the, I don't know why I'm crying, free pantry, and I load it up. And the next day I show up, I'm like, oh, there's probably going to be tons left. It's entirely empty after I filled it up. And it just breaks my heart that there are, even though it looks like, you know, suburban area, people are struggling. Families are struggling. Child care really helps city. Sponsored child care especially is so important for those families that are struggling. Engagement. I wanted to say that I didn't hear about this engagement personally, not that that matters, but I felt like there should have been a more fulsome attempt at engagement with the community. Eleven, I think there was eleven folks that... answered the survey. That is not enough. I'm sorry. Maybe people were busy. Maybe it was Thanksgiving. I don't know what, but I think a greater effort should have been made. Also, I heard that... calling them a neighborhood house. It's a small organization. People aren't paid super well. It's a nonprofit. And they spent three weeks working with the applicant originally to figure out the child care spacing. And all they got when they found out that there was this new amendment was a simple email. And I felt that that was really disrespectful. You know, when you ask people to do some... Huge project off the side of their desk. I'm sure we've all had that experience. I'm like, oh, great, my full-time job. Plus, I've got to do this extra thing. And then to have that disrespected, I felt like that sounded not great to me. Okay. We are entering the year of the fire horse. It's a year of rapid movement, action, and consequences. These consequences come really quickly. The last time the fire horse came around, the CPP was born. Our Medical Care Assist Act was set up, and there was a cultural revolution in China. Things are changing, and we think you have the power to make such important and impactful changes to the community that I live in and love. Thank you so much.

Statement Watch

your time Thank You Mona and thanks for hanging in there I'm gonna move to our speaker number two Devon Harlow's

Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Devon Harlos. I live near the project site in Collingwood. And before becoming a mom a few months ago, I was a registered professional planner with the Planning Institute of British Columbia. I'm not opposed to this project, but I am strongly opposed to this amendment before you. Not only from a personal perspective, as my family needs the affordable child care in this development, but more importantly, there are major ethical and fiduciary issues with this amendment. If approved, Council would be failing to uphold the delivery of a $7.75 million community amenity contribution that is legally owed by Intracorp and upon which your zoning approval in 2024 was predicated. Just two years ago, Council approved a density increase from 0.6 and 1.45 FSR to 11.38 FSR. This massive increase in density was contingent on the developer delivering a turnkey city-owned child care on the main floor, valued at $7.75 million and a cash CAC of 500 grand, a total of $8.25 million in public benefits. During that rezoning process, members of the public were told at the online open house, at the in-person engagement sessions, on the Shape Your City website, by the 3,800 notifications that went out, and by planning staff, that the city was securing a child care in exchange for the increase in density. And council's approval in 2024 of the project was based on this exchange. Now, just a year after enactment, the project is proceeding. The developer owns the land. The site's mobilized. Demolition is underway. We are being told that Intercorp has changed their financing model to CMHC, and they'll only proceed with the project if Council abandons its obligation to the public in upholding its own CAC agreements. Instead of coming to you with an amendment, the applicant should be working on alternative solutions to delivering this child care. Nowhere in the report does it demonstrate that efforts were made to explore alternative financing options or capital grant opportunities to fund the child care construction. This is done all the time in the nonprofit sector to fund the construction of community service space in rental projects that the housing programs won't finance. Moreover, the CMHC program is in place to support the viability of rental housing, not to incentivize stripping already approved projects of necessary community infrastructure. The argument that an additional 68 below market rental units is of equal value as the child care space and that this amendment is simply an exchange of value does not hold, in my opinion. First, how can you make that determination if you do not see those numbers in front of you outlined in the report? And secondly, a child care serves a completely different function than rental units, a function that is desperately needed in this community. That need informed this rezoning decision, and now it's irrelevant with this amendment. You also need to see that the public was sufficiently engaged on this substantial change. There was no public information session on this amendment and the notifications that were sent and the shape your city website stated incorrectly that the publicly owned childcare was converting to privately owned. There is nothing requiring a childcare in this amendment. It will be general commercial space. Staff acknowledged this error and re-sent out the notifications and updated the City website. However, they did this after the two-week window for public engagement had already closed. In my opinion, this is a procedural error and Council therefore cannot rely on this report for a fair representation of the public interest on this matter. Another major issue is that an approval would taint future rezoning negotiations and set a dangerous precedent with developers. How can a good faith negotiation take place and how can the city successfully advocate for the public interest in negotiations if you demonstrate through this amendment that the city does not uphold what's legally agreed to at the rezoning stage? Promise the public millions in in-kind CACs, get the density approved, and then before construction, just ask for an amendment and you're off the hook. In closing, if you approve this, you will be undermining the rezoning process, setting a precedent for bad faith negotiations, canceling an affordable childcare that the developer is legally obligated to build, and breaching your fiduciary duties as counsel. This should be referred back to staff. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments.

Statement Watch

Hello. Good evening. My name is Alison Merton. I am the earliest director at Collingwood Neighborhood House in East Vancouver. I'm calling in tonight with concerns on the application from the developer to omit the city-owned child care facility and instead convert into a commercial space. Collingwood was confirmed as a non-profit child care operator of Vanessa in May 2025 after we had completed an extensive expression of interest, one that included many, many hours of staff time and resources to prepare. Collingwood has a 40-year history in the Renfrew Collingwood community of providing high-quality, accessible, affordable child care to our community. We currently operate 397 childcare spaces in nine locations, three delivered in city-owned facilities, one in partnership with Brightside Homes, and five school-age programs located in our local elementary schools. 183 of our under-six childcare spaces are ten-a-day. This development was designed with 37 childcare spaces to accommodate the anticipated number of families. However, our community has now 1,000 families on waiting lists, highlighting a significant need for additional spaces. Our understanding is that there are no new projected sites in the near future for child care in the Renfrew Collingwood community. It has been over 13 years since we had the opportunity to partner with the city to create new child care spaces. So we were excited to have the chance to offer more child care in our neighborhood. Imagine our dismay to find out, after the amount of focus time to complete the application, this may no longer be the case. As a neighborhood house, we know it's a fine balance to meet all the community's needs. Both affordable housing and childcare are important. The Renfrew-Collingwood community needs both. Although this commercial space will still be childcare, it will be a for-profit childcare operator. It would not deliver the public not-for-profit spaces the city should be prioritizing and would instead only provide access to families who can afford to pay high fees. This does not align with the city's goal of creating affordable and accessible childcare. As a neighborhood house, we provide wraparound services for the whole family that supports social determinants of health. We support families to live their best lives and become citizens that contribute to the community and the city. In fact, because Collingwood Neighborhood House has been a part of this community for 40 years, we now have staff who once attended our child care programs themselves. During interviews, I hear time and again that they want to return to the neighborhood, driven by the deep sense of belonging and connection they form through the neighborhood house and experience there. That's our mission. a place to belong, a place to grow. Our neighborhood is a place of connection, belonging, and inclusion. As we heard today, the province has reached a pivotal moment for child care. We believe the city must uphold its commitments to partner with community organizations and nonprofits to plan for accessible, affordable, and high-quality child care, ensuring that children, families, and our broader community can learn, work, and thrive. We remain deeply committed and will continue our advocacy to the mission of providing affordable, accessible and high quality child care in Renfrew Collingwood. Our community deserves this. We would like council to consider the impact of parents and children to the community and to the neighborhood health. Thank you all for your time tonight.

Statement Watch

Thank you. Our next speaker is Melanie Cheng.

Yeah, that podium. Go ahead.

So I prerecorded my presentation. I'm wondering if they can play it.

Has it been delivered to clerks? OK, yeah. They're just getting that set up. Thank you, Mayor and Council.

My name is Melanie Chang. I oppose this text amendment and I'm speaking on behalf of families in this area. This project is blocks away from my home and although it's a project that is near to me, these issues affect the entire city. The first reason I oppose this application is because of childcare. The original approval secured 37 spaces of city owned childcare to honor the precinct plant and city targets. The amendment removes that child care, discharges that child care agreement on title, and converts that space to commercial use. We are receiving significant density, which is welcomed, but the child care that justified that density for families is being removed. City-owned space is essential for viable $10 a day child care, and there's no alternative space in the community where this child care investment can be located. In the City's Making Strides update, the target is to provide for 59% of children to have access to full-time childcare. In order to hit that mark, we need 4,100 more spaces. And the only way that we can get those spaces is through adding childcare to rezoning applications and not removing them like is proposed under this plan. The developer is citing CMHC funding policies to remove childcare from this plan. However, the CMHC apartment construction loan program requires supporting community-oriented solutions and working with partners. Collingwood Neighborhood House, which was to be the nonprofit childcare operator, was not engaged with the removal of the childcare spaces, and the community was not consulted on alternatives. The second reason I oppose this plan is because of the community engagement. The original CD1 rezoning involved three months of consultation and input from 267 sources. This amendment alters the key public benefits with limited engagement. Notice cards were delivered over the Christmas period while the community was actively mobilized around the closure of Carleton Elementary, which is located just blocks away from this development. Only 11 responses were received from more than 3,800 notices, yet this amendment is proceeding. The third reason why I oppose this application is because of the community amenity contributions. In the original application, $500,000 was assessed for community amenity contributions. In the tax amendment, staff determined that no additional CACs were required. This is despite the material changes, including the removal of child care obligations, conversion of that space to commercial revenue, the access for the developer for low-cost CMHC financing, and the $8.7 million in DCL waivers. Those changes have financial implications on land lift and deserve transparent review of CACs. The Auditor General emphasized transparency in land valuation and public benefit calculations. CACs are based on land lift, and when density or public benefits change, the financial assumptions should be transparently reassessed. The family mix policy requires 35% of family units defined as two or three bedroom units. So the fourth reason that I oppose this application is that the project only proposes 31 three bedroom units out of a total of 679 units. City data shows that there's chronic shortage of three bedroom rental units for families in 2024. only 1.6% of purpose-built rental homes citywide had three bedrooms. Parents in my community have had to sleep in the living room to ensure that their kids have bedrooms, and this is not okay. We need housing for families. In summary, our community has asked for council here. This amendment should not proceed without protection or alternative placement of the secured child care that was promised to us under the precinct plan. This amendment should require proper community consultation and ensure that we have sufficiently engaged people in the changes. We need a transparent explanation of how the community amenity Contributions are calculated if there's any material changes in public benefits. And we need a strengthened three-bedroom family unit supply for our community and to ensure that families in Vancouver have places to live.

Statement Watch

Are there any other speakers on the line?

Speaker with the last four digits 7622. Hello, hi, can you state your name if you're a resident of Vancouver and whether you're in favor or in opposition to the text amendment this evening?

Yes, thank you so much. Chair and Council and staff and everyone who's still there. My name is Sarah McLeod. I do live in Vancouver. Also, just another thanks to the five speakers so far. I am opposed to the text amendment. The first speaker, Mona, mentioned the housing. First of all, the tradeoff of the child care is a whole other thing that I'll get to, but just even that the housing tradeoff of it being more below market is still not affordable. And they said not accessible. That's true. You know, the new definition of affordability from a lot of these developers coming is like attainable as opposed to affordable now, right? And all that to say, right, it's just all not accessible. And then the fact that 1,000 families are on a wait list for child care. And again, the first speaker related the looking for child care to like even women's health. And then the third speaker mentioning that this is an ethical issue as well. And the last speaker even mentioning the fact that we have a shortage of three bedrooms being built. None of this promotes families. None of it promotes health of families and women and childcare. And I really... do believe. I don't know what legal imperative means anymore because I've mentioned this at some rezonings and I guess text amendments seen before you guys at council. But I'll just read one section of the calls to justice. You know, section 13 for development industries. There's five recommendations and three of them mention municipal government. I'll read the fifth one because I think you guys are lacking this in every single rezoning you're passing, and it's how we will stop gender-based violence. So it's that we call upon development industries and all governments and service providers to anticipate and recognize increased demand on social infrastructure because of development projects. and mitigation measures to be identified as part of the planning and approval process. Social infrastructure must be expanded and service capacity built to meet the anticipated needs of the host communities in advance of the start of projects. This includes but is not limited to ensuring that policing, social services, and health services are adequately staffed and resourced. I want to believe and say that child care falls under social services. Just even the one proposal, right, with over 600 units, if you take the average size or average amount of people that are in a unit in Vancouver at 2.6, and you just make easy math and go for two, because who's having kids, right? Because there's nowhere to have them go to school. But that's 1,200 people. And then if you were actually to count the .6 and say that people are starting families in these units, then that's over 400 kids. So even at the beginning when it was guaranteed 37 child care units, like was that really, using the words from the thing, anticipating and recognizing the increased demand of these social services? And then just to cut it out completely is just absurd. Please, you know, take care of families in this city. And thank you for letting me speak to you tonight.

Statement Watch

Thanks for calling in this evening, Sarah. Speaker number six, Trevor Falkenhagen, is on the line.

Yeah, hi there. Sorry about that. Hello. Good evening, Council and Mayor Sim, wherever you are. My name is Trevor Falkenhagen. I am a new father and resident of the Renfrew Collingwood neighborhood, walking distance from Joyce Collingwood Station. I'm speaking tonight in opposition of this proposed text amendment, which would remove the owner's obligation to provide a child care facility. This project underwent valuable community engagement in order to increase the FSR from 1.45 to 11.38. Part of that agreement was that Intercorp would provide the City of Vancouver and its residents with a child care facility. Now the owner has mobilized the site with demolition and abatement underway. Why are we only finding out about this now? Furthermore, the city of Vancouver has not been very transparent with its residents. When initially posted to their website, it stated, and I quote, convert the previously secured city-owned child care facility to private ownership. The website has since been updated and now somewhat reflects the reality of the situation, stating convert the previously secured to the own child care into commercial space, allowing for private child care. However, when I walked by the site this morning, the posted signage still states false information saying there will be private child care. This is misleading to my neighbors who, after speaking with some of them, were still under the impression that a child care facility was going to be delivered as part of this project based on the posted signage. We were promised child care in this neighborhood, and we need it urgently. I, like many other residents, am struggling to find child care for my daughter, and I'm already on numerous wait lists. The proposed amendment also states that an additional 10% below-market units will be provided, roughly 68 additional units from the previously approved rezoning. Can we not expect some of these below-market rentals to be rented out by young families? And if so, this will create an even greater demand for local child care. We need more than a developer's intention to provide child care. We need a commitment. Remember that this is the same developer that had good intentions for 1045 Pajaro Street. Please consider the community and the families that will be affected when making your decision this evening. Thank you.