Thank you. Good evening, Acting Mayor, members of the Council, and members of the public. My name is Casey Peters, Assistant Director for the Rezoning Centre, presenting this rezoning application for 441 East Pender Street.

The site shown in red is a vacant site located on the north side of Pender Street between Dunlevy and Jackson Avenue. in the Strathcona neighborhood. Surrounding context is primarily residential and institutional. There's a mix of residential tenures in the area, including detached homes, co-ops, and social housing developments. The Lord Strathcona Elementary School and Strathcona Community Center are a block southeast of the subject site.

This rezoning application is being considered under the Downtown Eastside Plan and is located in the Strathcona neighborhood. The site is shown in red.

The application is also being considered under the Downtown Eastside rezoning policy and is within Area D Strathcona. Rezoning applications can be considered in this area on sites where there is existing social housing and the amount of social housing is being increased or on sites of Front and Gore Avenue where all of the residential use is for social housing or secured market rental housing. The rezoning policy does not contemplate a rezoning on this site as there is no existing social housing. However, the proposal results in an increase in overall social housing units with no tenant displacement.

The rezoning application was originally submitted for a six-story building with 65 micro-dwelling social housing units. Staff undertook online Q&A engagement period in the spring of 2025, and in October 2025, Council directed staff to undertake additional in-person consultation in both English and Chinese. This additional in-person engagement was held November 24, 2025. The in-person engagement session, all of the information boards and comment forms were available in both languages and eight verbal interpreters for Mandarin and Cantonese were in attendance. Approximately 135 people attended the in-person session. In response to this additional engagement, the applicant has made modifications to their application, including adding larger studio units and two-bedroom units, which has reduced their overall total unit count from 65 to 55 social housing units.

The current proposal for council's consideration is a six-story residential building with a height of 23 meters and a density of 3.1 FSR. 55 social housing units are proposed, including studio units, accessible units, and two-bedroom units, which were included in response to the feedback received during the public engagement process. Of note, the housing operator is not secured with this rezoning application and will be secured at a later stage of the development process.

Approximately 176 submissions were received through both the online question and answer period and the in-person open house. At the time of the referral report, two petitions were received with 638 signatures. Support was expressed for the application for the provision of urgently needed social housing units and its suitable location near amenities, jobs, and transit. Concerns were expressed for the proposed housing tenure, deviation from policy, building height, massing and density, livability of units, proposed unit mix, impact to the neighborhood character and compatibility, safety and language accessibility. In response to these items, regarding proposed housing tenure, the proposal follows the intent of the Downtown Eastside and rezoning policy to increase the social housing stock, regarding the deviation from policy, the rezoning Policy supports new social housing sites where existing social housing exists. This site is vacant, so it does not meet that criteria. However, as the proposal results in the creation of new social housing units without displacement of tenants, staff are supportive. Regarding building height, massing, and density, the plan does not include direction on form of development for social housing here, so staff have considered the RM4 zone as a comparable zone, and the proposal is consistent with the intent of the RM4 zone. regarding massing requirements for height, density, and site design. Staff have included conditions in Appendix B for further design development at the development permit stage. Regarding the livability of units, the micro-dwelling policy and guidelines regulate light and ventilation, internal unit design, storage, and amenity spaces to ensure the units are livable. Conditions have been included in Appendix B to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements of these guidelines at the time of development program stage and to improve the livability of units. Regarding the proposed unit mix, as mentioned, the applicant has revised their unit mix in response to the feedback from the public. This change has added larger studio units and five two-bedroom units and has resulted in an overall reduction of units from 65 to 55. Regarding the impact to neighbourhood character and compatibility, the surrounding neighbourhood includes a mix of forms and tenures, and the proposal aligns with the intent of the Downtown Eastside plan to provide additional affordable housing units. Regarding safety, safety of all city residents, including those living in social housing and the nearby neighborhoods, is a priority for the city. Regarding language accessibility, the City Shape Your City platform for engagement includes the ability to translate the text, and the postcards sent out to the public include language requesting that the applicant have the materials be translated. As noted previously, an in-person open house was held that included both translated materials and interpreters.

Social housing that meets the city's definition is provided an exemption from DCLs, CICs, and public art contribution. The public benefit of this application is the 55 social housing units.

In conclusion, staff are supportive of the application subject to the conditions set out in Appendix B as it meets the intent of the rezoning policy and delivers 55 social housing units. Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Kevin Liu. I came to Canada 23 years ago. I've studied in Vancouver, graduated at SFU, started my family, and now raising two children. Also, about 12 years ago, I founded my first small business also here in Vancouver, distributing consumer goods to retail stores. However, it was quite a lonely business. I didn't get a chance to talk to a lot of people. So now I'm very enjoy the work in development and construction industry. I get to collaborate with people. I get to interact with people. I'm very happy. And today, I lead a company called Pack Buildings and Technology. The development and construction company focus on delivering innovative and community-driven real estate projects. We're currently servicing as a development manager, owner's rep for a nonprofit Buddhist temple, constructing 150,000 square foot new build project in Richmond. As a company, we have a strong interest in scaling affordable housing and senior housing delivery initiatives. And we have been actively exploring opportunities across Vancouver, Richmond areas with both nonprofit and for-profit partners. For Pandem Project, we have consulted with several experienced local nonprofit organizations regarding design, feasibility, and long-term operational considerations. We have continuously refined our applications over the last year and a half with the team, neighbors, and the city to align those important objectives. I would like to thank city staff for their consistent and professional work on this file. And we appreciate the collaborative process and looking forward to continue working with everybody involved. To clarify, this project is not an SRO replacement. We understand the concern has been raised in that regard. However, the proposed building we named Powerhouse X represent a thoughtfully designed affordable building for its future users. And we're confident to execute and deliver swiftly upon approval. We're here and happy to answer any questions that may be relevant to this application. And thank you for your time and considerations.

Good evening, Dr. Mayor and Council. I just want to quickly run through a few slides and a few items to clarify for your consideration.

Firstly, speaking to the vision of the property, as is mentioned before, it's to develop a vacant parking lot into social housing. It results in no displacement. and is a net gain of long-term affordable rental units. The proposal itself is for a six-story building containing 55 units of affordable rental homes. It has communal indoor and outdoor amenity space, and bike parking and storage lockers are located below grade.

The homes are intended for low- to moderate-income residents, including local workers, families, and seniors. Each unit includes a kitchen and bathroom for independent living, with shared amenity spaces for gatherings and social engagement. Tenant eligibility will be income-based and consistent with city guidelines on social housing. While an operator is not required at rezoning, the project will legally be required to be owned and operated by a qualified nonprofit organization, as will be secured by the housing agreement. We are in active discussions with several potential operators, and we'll use the development permit stage to confirm the right fit.

For context, here is a timeline of the project to date. Overall, the project has been underway for roughly three years. The intent of the project has always been social housing. This dates back to 2023 when the previous owner of the property initiated a rezoning inquiry for 70 units of social housing, which was supported by staff. PAC subsequently purchased the property and continued with social housing proposal, submitting a formal application in December of 2024. Following the submission of the formal application, confusion arose around the definition and the distinction between social housing and supportive housing. This was resolved in meetings with staff in February of 2025, and the project was confirmed to be social housing. As a result of the initial confusion, the online Q&A was delayed so we could update the rezoning booklet and post it to the Shape Your City website. Following two referrals back to staff, A multilingual open house was hosted in November of 2025.

As Kevin mentioned, throughout the rezoning process, we have had direct meetings with neighbors and community groups to listen to their concerns. At the direction of council, we've also, and in addition to typical rezoning requirements, we also hosted a multilingual open house to clarify the intent of the project for the community. As mentioned, over 100 people attended. All presentation boards were in English and Chinese, and there were several translators present. We have heard the community's feedback through the open house and worked with staff to make the changes, such as reducing the number of units from 65 to 55, introducing the two-bedroom family units, and also introducing the larger accessible studio units on the ground floor. The revised unit mix clarifies the intended tenant profile. It's independent living for people who live and work in the area. It's a mix of low and moderate income residents and a mix of individuals, families, and seniors.

In summary, we have listened carefully to the community and council's feedbacks. We've made adjustments where appropriate and remain committed to ongoing collaboration with city staff as we move forward with delivering much-needed affordable rental housing. I also just want to note that Pete Atkinson of Human Studio Architecture is in attendance with us. So if there's any specific questions for him, please feel free to let us know. Thanks for your time.

I might actually ask to see if the architect would like to speak to the SEPTED question, and I would just say that we do not send rezoning applications typically to the VPD.

Hi, I'm Pete Atkinson, architect, Human Studio. The question is about septet principles during the design stage. Yeah, so the building is designed mostly for clear sight lines. So it's a fairly straightforward building, easy access entry or easy visibility to the front doors. There's been a lot of consideration given to the locations where people will congregate within the building. So there's a lot of outdoor amenity space given both inside the level one at the back of the property and also up on the roof. So a lot of consideration given to adjacent seat of the sidewalk where people will have access to outdoor space in a safe and secure environment.

If you let me grab my notes, I can probably give you an exact number.

Thank you, Acting Mayor and Councillors. My name is Andrea Kostanis, and I'm speaking regarding the proposal at 441 East Pender Street. I'm a longtime Strathcona resident and a volunteer. I sit on the city's neighborhood liaison table, which has been struck to allow members of the public, BIAs, community policing, provincial stakeholders, BPD, and fire to work together to improve the public realm and safety in the downtown east side, including Strathcona and Gastown. That work is underway, it's difficult, and we're all very committed to it. I've also been involved with the Strathcona Residents Association over the last six years. I currently sit on the board. Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of residents in the neighborhood and the strata owners of the triplex heritage property immediately to the east of the subject site. The residents will be most directly and permanently impacted by this decision. The property adjacent to this site is a beloved heritage listed property built in 1889. All of the current owners live there. They are not investors or absentee landlords. or real estate speculators. Two households include preschool-aged children. What happens on this lot will shape their daily safety, privacy, and quality of life. Council is being asked to exercise its highest discretionary power, a CD1 rezoning. That power must be exercised carefully, especially when better alternatives now exist.

I want to be clear from the outset. This is not an argument against social housing or rental housing in our neighborhood. We need both. It is an argument about the specific site, policy integrity, procedural fairness, and good governance in urban planning. My first point is that council has just unlocked several sites that are purpose-built for this type of housing.

This design, this architectural project was designed as supportive housing on behalf of community builders under the micro-dwelling unit policies. While the application has been under multiple rounds of revision, the medical room and various other amenities, including a security desk location at the front and staff quarters remain in place. This is designed to maximize whichever type of social housing operator the applicant is able to finally work with. This rezoning deviation is unjustifiable given the city's just completed review of the downtown east side plan. On December 16th, council approved in principle zoning amendments that were significant, adding extremely groundbreaking new height and density to the downtown east side Oppenheimer District and Thornton Park areas. Further, Councillor Dominato, you worked with community to unlock capacity for 25-foot frontage sites expressly to facilitate the type of development for micro-dwelling units and SRO replacements. Those sites are already zoned directly for higher density. And against that backdrop, Councillor must ask, why is a spot rezoning in a single RT3 parcel on a low-rise, heritage character, family-oriented neighborhood context necessary tonight?

My second point is one of procedural fairness, which has been fundamentally compromised throughout this process. Staff frankly dodged the question of what type of social housing is permitted in the draft bylaw.

This has been a constant question of the neighborhood and one that remains to be answered by the applicant as to their intentions for the property. If council members look to the draft bylaw, there is no stipulations on what makeup that fits within the very broad definition. social housing can be implemented on this site.

The CD1 bylaw as proposed is effectively asking for a blank check to be written so that all amendments can be made at the development permit stage. If you look through the materials closely you will see that there are severe non-policy compliant matters that cannot be addressed through the site constraints that exist and on this highly densified lot.

I note that I am out of time, and if there could be a motion to grant me some further time to finish my remarks, I would appreciate it.

Good evening. My name is John Ulrich, as stated. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this, so thank you for having me, but it felt like it was something that needed to be said. I do not have the expertise that has been done by city staff or this coterie of people from the developer. I live across the street and have for the last 10 years, and... Would like to emphasize, as been said, this is not about social housing or not social housing. Everybody in the neighborhood agrees social housing is necessary. Affordable housing is necessary. This is about whether this form of social housing in this particular spot is what's best. Who does it benefit? I really don't see it benefiting our neighborhood. We already struggle with a lot of density. There's a lot of speeding on that street. This is offering very small, very dense units. And yes, they have added five two bedrooms, but they're still keeping 45 micro units of 220, 230 square feet apiece. We're talking about people of a low income being stacked on top of each other. Yeah, they've done some, but it's a six-story building. completely changes the character the neighborhood it dramatically increases how many people live on that street which is already very dense if there are other areas in the city where we can do something of this density let's consider that let's consider something that's a little bit more appropriate for this site that maybe doesn't require the cd1 rezoning because it is a blank check I mean, we are talking about something. Yes, here you go. You don't have to define everything. Once we get to the development permit stage, then we refine all this stuff. It's very vague. I don't see how this fits with our neighborhood, how it benefits our neighborhood. Personally, I don't see how this style of housing benefits the people we're asking to live there. The people, you know, again, I ask, who benefits from this project other than numbers? Either profit or getting more social housing units. I respect that. I would think that that's a good thing to do. I don't say, let's not, again, this is not a social housing or not social housing issue. It seems very clear to me about whether this is the appropriate project for this particular spot. And frankly, I don't see how it can possibly be.

So thank you for allowing me to speak. I respect the developers and what they're trying to do. I respect the city staff and that they want to increase how we can, social housing units, but we really have to look at, and unfortunately it falls to you guys, to determine is this really what we want as, because this sets a precedent for the rest of our neighborhood as well. Do I have three minutes or do I have five minutes?

Oh, okay. Well, I won't use it all, but I just wanted to, again, that is very kind of nerve-wracking for me, but I'm glad that I came. Thank you for listening. And this is, one thing I would also like to point out is that there are many more people that are responding in favor of this, saying we need social housing. That's why I'm emphasizing, this is not about social housing or not social housing. A lot of people are not responding who are opposed to this because they view it as, and this is directly what they've said, if I say no, that means I'm against social housing. There's a grave misperception about what this project represents. Also, we have a lot of people who don't speak English as their native language. And yes, they had the public open house, and a lot of those people showed up. But they can't come tonight. calling on the phone, speaking on the phone, going through the rigmarole of getting here. There's a huge accessibility... question about whether our neighborhood is being fairly represented and fairly consulted here. That's up to people who get determined, but we really need to look at this from a much more human aspect, not just numbers of social housing units being created. This is, yes, it is an empty lot, but there's a lot more going on in there than just numbers. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Dan Jackson. I'm the president of the Strathcona Residents Association and speaking on their behalf. Strathcona was once considered a blighted neighborhood that the city of Vancouver went to great efforts to demolish. Thanks to the resistance of the people who lived there, it was spared. RT3 zoning was created in part to preserve its character and its heritage. Today, despite the many challenges we face from all directions, Strathcona is a thriving urban village, a model for what the Vancouver Plan proposes for other areas of the city. We are home to Chinese seniors who have been here for generations, to newly arrived Syrian and African refugees, to urban indigenous, to artists and musicians, to young families, to homeowners who take pride in preserving heritage homes. Rather than all this diversity being a problem, we consider it an asset. RT3 zoning has been key to turning a doomed neighborhood into a flourishing urban community. Yes, we are in an urban housing crisis, but our area already has thousands of social housing units and hundreds of more are opening just this year within blocks of this site. We, as a neighborhood, need affordable housing for seniors, for growing families, for young adults who want to build a life in Vancouver. But this proposal doesn't seem intended for those people. With 145 micro-units that seem smaller than the city's own guidelines, it doesn't seem hard to imagine... that it won't follow the downward spiral of many SROs. That concerns us. We acknowledge the challenge of housing people who struggle with mental illness and addiction. We know buildings where sidewalks are crammed with people who don't want to be in their miserable rooms. We know how often police, fire, and EMTs are called. We have sympathy and pity for them. We want them to be cared for, but we've also seen how they can corrode a community. Despite the good intentions of this proposal, we don't see any guarantees that prevent that from happening. Pender is a residential street with many Chinese seniors, two churches, a large housing co-op, a few two-story duplexes, and a large elementary school. For the most part, it feels safe to walk down. We want to keep it that way. City plans and zoning bylaws are created with the intent of shaping a positive future. I urge council to be cautious. before tossing them aside for the benefit of an eager developer or a single priority. As a spokesman for the Strathcona Residents Association, I ask you to respect the plans and zoning that are in place and working and to oppose this proposal. Thank you.

I'm speaking in my personal capacity as a Strathcona resident and parent, and I oppose this rezoning application. This is a rezoning application that sits nearly Kitty Corner, a quarter block from Strathcona Elementary School, where between 450 to 500 children attend school daily. This project is bad for the neighborhood, and it compromises the public safety of the residents in general, and it specifically compromises the safety of the children that attend that school. The unit mix is essentially an SRO. No matter what you want to call it, it is 46 micro-dwellings and it's 9% family units against a planned target of 25%. It's not family housing, and it's not seniors housing. It's high-density micro-units in a low-rise heritage neighborhood, and you can look at the mock-up to see how discordant it is visually. How it looks is not my concern, though. The site is on a main pedestrian route for kids walking to and from the elementary school. We already deal with public disorder, drug use, and property crime in the area, and let me assure you, I am a criminal lawyer. I have represented many of the vulnerable people that live and reside and spend time in the neighborhood, and I have a tremendous amount of empathy for them. I've also represented many of the police officers that patrol in the area. I have an intimate knowledge from living in the area of the challenges that these people face. And I know that when people come to live in buildings like the single occupancy buildings, the people that prey on those people are the ones that move in as well. And in particular, it is no secret, it is well publicized that the Zone 43 organized crime group is very active in the area, preying on the vulnerable people that use housing like this. They have brought violence. and gunplay and danger to citizens and danger to police officers at an increased level to our neighborhood that already struggles with those issues.

This will create a direct and serious safety risk for kids at the elementary school, for the seniors who use that corridor daily. This is not hypothetical. It's a pattern we've seen in similar buildings in the downtown east side, and there's nothing in the rezoning application that addresses or mitigates the risk, and there's been no consultation with the Vancouver Police Department, whose job it is to make sure that those kids are safe and that we're all safe.

To be clear, I am not saying that those that will use the residence are a risk to public safety, but those that will prey on them and do prey on them will cause a safety risk, and there's nothing in place to stop that or to deal with that. A couple other issues I want to raise. Unrelated to safety, the form of development is not ready for approval and principle. Staff acknowledged blank sidewalls, inadequate ground-level amenity, vacate deficiencies and departures from RT3 streetscape expectations. All were deferred to development permit stage. The urban design panel review was inexplicably waived. These are not minor refinements. These are foundational design issues. Once the CD1 is enacted, the public has no standing in the development permit process. Council should not approve a form of development in principle when staff themselves concede it does not currently meet applicable guidelines. As well, the opposition has been overwhelming and consistent. Across petitions, in-person sessions, and online comment forums, opposition significantly outweighs support. These concerns are not abstract. They track directly to the policy gaps that have been outlined by myself and other speakers. Unspecified affordability, policy deviation, and design deficiencies. Even after divisional language access engagement sessions, the dominant response remained opposition. Council should do one of two things here. Reject the application anchored in the fact that council has already unlocked appropriate capacity in the downtown east side and Thornton Park areas for this housing model, or alternatively, refer this back a third time for proper engagement on the current proposal and require explicit affordability tiers written into the CD1, clear caps on shelter rate units and housing mix reflecting 25% family housing mix and secured senior units. A prohibition on supportive housing without separate rezoning, council approval for any operator change, development permit ready drawings reviewed by the urban design panel, and if necessary, a formal amendment to the downtown east side rezoning policy for any area D departure is approved. These are the reasons I oppose this development. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. Hello, everybody. My name is Christopher Lee, and I'm a resident, and I'm fully in favor of this application. I started going off with this anecdote, but I felt like it. Actually, before I spoke here today, I spoke to a student who lived in the area and goes to Botanica Secondary School. And while he couldn't speak today, as the busiest student he is, he told me a few things that I'd like to mention today. thing is he told me about how wonderful and welcoming the community is. Even listening to the speakers today, it seems like every speaker is in favor of this. I think that proves... And he just talked to me about how the assertions that these people are unsafe and are going to hurt the community is blatantly wrong. And I want to make this quick. So what I'll end off with is... Contrary to popular belief, this is a part of the character of Vancouver, a space that welcomes everybody and a place that is for everybody. And by approving this application, you will continue to let that happen. Thank you so much to Council to approve this rezoning. Thank you.

Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Thank you. Good evening, councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again this evening. My name is Jamie McLaren. I'm a longtime resident of Strathcona with a 10-year-old son who attends Strathcona Elementary. I'm speaking in opposition to this application. My comments this evening are in the same basic vein as my comments on Tuesday evening when I spoke regarding the proposed megatower developments at East Hastings and Glen. Once again, Council's been asked to approve rezoning for a precedent-setting development of marginal or negative public value in direct contravention of its own carefully crafted policies and plans. I'm not sure why city staff continue to recommend approval of this type of misplaced and moving target application when they openly admit it violates Council's adopted policies. In this case, staff's recommendation is in clear contravention of the Downtown Eastside rezoning policy for Area D Strathcona. Now, Area D permits rezoning only for sites with existing social housing being expanded or sites fronting Gore Avenue. This site meets neither criterion. Just because you can depart from your own policy doesn't mean you should depart from your own policy. Just because a private applicant comes to you with an opportunity to boost its profits doesn't mean you should scrap months or years of thoughtful work and consultation that went into developing your own community-centered policy. Also, it's not clear here or in the case of the West Bank megatowers that a judge, if petitioned, would let you depart from your own policy. Mayor and council adopted specific bounded criteria for a specific reason, to prevent incremental erosion of Strathcona's character from case-by-case exception. This housing can and should be met elsewhere. Specifically, it should be met in the downtown Eastside Oppenheimer District and Thornton Park areas that allow SRO replacement buildings of up to 12 stories on 25-foot lawns. The report before council tonight acknowledges this directly. The proposed SRO development proposes barely livable spaces for vulnerable residents and presents very real safety concerns for children attending Strathcona Elementary. Our neighborhood has been very welcoming to social housing developments over the course of its history, but it also lives with the negative consequences of ill-considered and misplaced social housing. I walk each day along Union Street and see the disorder and suffering that drug dealing from the Nora Hendricks building has brought to the neighborhood. Likewise, I walk along East Hastings most days and see the good and bad elements of our community. We should do everything we can to minimize the risk that bad elements are brought within one block of an elementary school. For all of these reasons and others voiced by residents of Strathcona who must live with your decisions, I encourage council to reject this application. Thank you.

I support this application for a couple reasons. one uh i think that this this is a good proposal for bringing in affordable rental homes for people who are already part of the city workers seniors low to moderate income people um i think that as somebody who lives in east van in general uh the housing that is the the housing opportunities here the apartment buildings are seriously uh just not really in good condition there are so many old buildings falling apart that are not being maintained well and We need the opportunity to build new housing in East Vancouver because I feel like this part of the city has been neglected with a lot of newer development. And this is going to help broadly stabilize the housing market by offering new housing opportunities, increasing the housing stock in the area. And another factor that constantly concerns me is that a lot of these deteriorating buildings that exist... are often not really still meeting the requirements of you know like a safe and high quality of living with the huge amount of heat waves we're getting in the summer i know in my apartment specifically which had very old windows that were not being upgraded because it's an older building I was getting 30-degree Celsius temperatures in my apartment, and I can't imagine if you're anyone in a vulnerable population, an older person who doesn't have exactly the mobility to move elsewhere, and you're dealing with these 30-degree Celsius summer temperatures, it's just not a conducive living environment. And I think that this is really important that we keep implementing projects that can help increase the housing supply so more people can live safely in Vancouver without being priced out because the vacancy rate is incredibly low in the city. And we need to have more opportunity for people to find housing, especially for seniors to potentially downsize. Seniors that are worried about right now, they can't find anything on the market because the market rates are so high. So they'd rather stay in the apartment that they've been in for so many years. maybe in a far bigger apartment than they need to, rent control, when they could downsize to somewhere that might be more thermally efficient, it's not going to be as hot in the summer, and it might allow them to open up their current place for other people, for younger families to flourish.

I'm speaking in favor of the development.

You might be wondering why I'm here. I have a fondness for modular construction, and this building lends itself well to modular. The owner knows Prefab and is a proponent of the modular industry and is in fact doing some test modules right now. And I want to be here to support that. I think this is quite an opportunity. It's the right type of building. The units are very regular. And I'd like to ask staff to keep the door open for modular because it does require some some special effort. And there are things about modular that's not common to traditionally stick-built buildings. And I know the city has been involved with some modular, so you'll have some experience from that perspective as well. But I think this is a project that even if it doesn't end up being a modular project, I think it's one that I support strongly. Thanks.

Wonderful. My name is Dana Duchenne, and I'd like to thank the council for their attention to this issue. I've been a resident of Strathcona for the past 15 years, and I'm an active member of the Strathcona Residents Association. I stand in opposition to the rezoning application at 441 East Pender Street. In the spring of 2025, I initiated a petition on change.org to solicit community feedback regarding this proposed rezoning. Our community remains strongly opposed to this application as previously outlined. As of the date of this meeting, our petition has received 624 signatures, which have been submitted to the Shape Your City page. I echo the feedback from the other speakers and stand with my community against this rezoning. On a personal note, I reside adjacent to the modular housing development known as Nora Hendricks Place, located at 258 Union Street in Vancouver. It's common to observe individuals in distress on the sidewalk, open drug dealing, and ambulances and fire trucks routinely present at the site. While I'm able-bodied and strive to demonstrate compassion towards all members of our community, I'm concerned that the proposed location at 441 East Pender may put vulnerable populations at risk due to its proximity to schools and senior assisted living facilities. Unlike myself, children and elderly residents, particularly those within the local Chinese community, cannot easily avoid these situations. It's our collective responsibility to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and I do not believe this rezoning aligns with the best interests of our community. Thank you all for your consideration.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Parker, and I'm a student here in downtown Vancouver. And I'm speaking today in strong support of this proposal at 441 East Pender Street. Just in general, as a student, I see every day how the lack of affordable housing is forcing people out of our city. And this project is a practical solution that just takes this small site and turns it into 55 permanently affordable homes. It includes both market rentals and below market rentals. And it represents just one more example of how we can build more housing in a part of the city that has been neglected and can truly reach its full potential through projects like these. I believe that the East Pender Street project is just one opportunity among many that city council should support so that more affordable homes can get onto the rental market and keep young professionals, university graduates, and students like myself, as well as long-standing residents who may need to move for whatever reason, this development can help key people within the strathcona neighborhood just i want to address also that some of the comments i'm hearing tonight are really disappointing and it also sounds um a little bit like it's been misconstrued and misrepresented there's a major misconception that i'm hearing that just because a building is run by a non-profit it's automatically an sro project i want to be really clear after reading through what this project is proposing that these are not SROs and that there are 55 self-contained individual rental units. They have their own kitchens. They have their own amenities. And these are dignified, well-planned, well-thought-out buildings that can help have people in affordable homes. What I've read tonight in comments and just listening to other residents is that this assumption that non-profit housing automatically means SROs is simply false. But more beyond that, I'm also horrified that some of the comments have implied directly or indirectly that this project automatically means more unsafe streets or that the crime rates will increase. As a resident who does live beside SROs, I do understand that there are concerns regarding these types of developments, but this is not one of these cases. I also think that the rhetoric in general that I'm just hearing is not conducive to a constructive... environment and i feel like the opposition is not just opposing this specific development but more in general developments that are trying to make the city more affordable and i want us all to lower the rhetoric and diction that's being used because some of it is simply dehumanizing while i understand that the community's concerns around the history of sros in this neighborhood are completely valid this project is actually the solution to these problems by building high quality dignified housing like this, we create the very reason that fewer SROs will be needed to be built in the future. I want to stress once again that these are rental buildings. And so this development offers a healthy mix of housing, both market rental rates and below market rentals. It provides 46 studios and five two-bedroom family homes, ensuring that everyone from local workers and seniors to modest income households have a place to live in Vancouver and Strathcona. And if we want to keep our workers, artists, seniors and students in Vancouver. This is the exact type of development that we as a city should support. Thank you for your time. I hope that you move this forward.

Hello, my name is Eric, and I'm speaking as a Vancouver resident in favor of the rezoning application at 441 East Pender. The addition of 55 social housing units provides affordable housing to Vancouver's most vulnerable population near the services and supports they rely on. I hope that you move this forward and thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today. I'm speaking as a student in Vancouver, and I want to strongly urge Council to accept this application and support this proposal. I don't think it's news to anybody that Vancouver needs more rental housing, especially homes that are affordable for people who already live in the city and people that work in the city. I think adding affordable rental units helps give renters more stability and more options in a city where rents continue to rise. Projects like this one, they help people stay in their communities instead of being pushed farther away from work, school, and local supports. The site is near good transit and everyday services, and it makes it a practical place to add new housing. I also think the range of studio and family units will help meet a wide, broad range of housing needs, including seniors who live in homes and are looking for affordable options to downsize, and students like myself who may want to find a permanent home in the city. All in all, I encourage council to approve this proposal and help deliver much-needed housing for Vancouver residents. Thank you.

Yes, I'm here.

I strongly oppose this application to rezone a lot. I moved to Vancouver, and I've lived here for over 40 years, and I moved into the neighborhood 29 years ago, and I live across from this lot. I think some of the most recent commenters are really escalating something. They're missing the point. The people in the neighborhood, I've lived here for 29 years. I'm an active participant in its growth and development and supporting the low-income population. I am including myself in that. And yes, there are problems that people deal with, but this is a rezoning application. It's not opposing social housing. It's rezoning our, what is it, RT3. And part of the RT3 is a residential area. And the director of planning is supposed to consider the height, bulk, location, and overall design of the building and their impact on the site, surrounding buildings, streets, and existing views. The director of planning is supposed to consider the amount of open space, the preservation of the character and general amenity desired for the area, and the intent of the schedule and all applicable council policies and guidelines. this application is proposing to change that zoning to comprehensive development this if you look at those renderings that the application shows you'll see it's a big six-story block plopped into a very tight dense residential area and it will just have such a huge impact on the neighborhood and the speakers who have spoken against this application before me tonight They're so articulate and have been able to identify so many of the problems. But it's not just numbers, I have to say. It's not just, oh, adding 55 units. That has now been rezoned by the city council very recently in surrounding areas. And I also have to ask, those people who are supportive of social housing, Did they speak in favor of that motion that council turned down to spread social housing through the rest of the city? No. Council turned down that motion and focused on this area, the downtown east side. There is really some misunderstandings going on, and this kind of spot rezoning is just not going to do it. It's not going to increase any social housing. This adds, what, 17 units at shelter rate? Not even maybe. 38 of those units are not at shelter rate. They're not providing housing for people on low income. They're just putting people in shoeboxes. And that means what do people who live in shoeboxes do? They have to come outside. They have to hang around. That's why Carnegie's around. That's why Evelyn Saller's around. That's why Oppenheimer Park has people in there around the clock. That's why people come out onto the sidewalk. Because you can't spend 24 hours in a shoebox. You've got to do something better. And it's just going to impact this neighborhood. Anyway, I've gotten all emotional. So I'm going to just remind folks, this is not against social housing. This is against the rezoning of one little block in a very tightly dense residential block. Thanks a lot for your time.

Yes.

Hi. My name is Chloe Lesmeister. I've been a resident of the downtown east side for 16 years, and I also work as a special education teacher at Lord Strathcona Elementary. And I also live directly across the street from the proposed rezoning. And so I am in strong opposition of the rezoning. I've looked into the history of the Strathcona's RT zoning, which is decades of community planning. And I feel like the RT zoning has highly benefited this neighborhood and created a lot of stability. And I also feel like the policies that the city has come up with for Strathcona housing policy would be better utilized at this site. So the Strathcona housing policy prioritizes affordable infill housing within the existing neighborhood character and family-sized housing that supports stability and long-term community health.

This project meets neither of those objectives and is within half a block of Strathcona Elementary, which is in urgent need of family housing. We don't need dense micro-suites that don't support families beside the school or long-term residents. The units, the SRO cell units, as Teresa said previously, are extremely small and we have so much housing like that in the neighborhood which does cause people to go out onto the street because of that um it also this rezoning fails to meet the city rezoning criteria it's not an existing social housing parcel and it is not fronting on gore a prerequisite for height and density increases I am in total support of social housing in this neighborhood. We have some wonderful projects going up at Gore and Hastings. We have one going up at Jackson and Hastings. I know that there's a big project that's going to be going on also at Hastings and Gore across the street from... Another one. So there are an incredible amount of projects that are providing housing in this area. But what I feel this spot needs is family housing. We are missing family-sized homes, missing metal housing. I work with families that live all over the downtown east side. These kiddos live in... many areas that are quite chaotic and live in very poor housing. And I feel like this parcel would be perfect for family housing, middle income housing, low income housing for families right by the street, because I also know tons of middle income families that just cannot find housing for families in this neighborhood. Strathcona is an amazing school, but The students there are deeply vulnerable and they experience a significant amount of challenges in this neighborhood. So I feel like when we are doing our planning, we need to be planning with all of those hundreds of children in mind. They're often overlooked and we need to think of safety and enriching healthy environments Because what happens now at Strathcona, it's a school that I've worked all over the school district and I have never encountered situations where you have to be so careful about who's coming on the ground or having human feces on the playground or just being, you have to be very, very hyper aware of what's going on around the school grounds because of what goes on in the neighborhood. So I feel like we need to move towards more thinking about our families, especially around the school and building an area that can make this area safer for families and kids. So I reject the rezoning and hopefully this could be made into wonderful family housing for families that could go to Strathcona Elementary.

I'm the president of the Lookout Health and Housing Society. We're not a proponent, but of course we are considered and we're in the running. I want to first of all acknowledge the people from Strathcona that have spoken tonight. I did about a quarter of a century on New Westminster Council. I've been to many public hearings and many of them lasted way into the next day. And so I... I understand the concerns people have when a development comes into their community. It's understandable that there are some concerns, there are some fears. It's human nature. But I want to state what is happening right now, especially in our organization, We have a rapidly growing cohort of seniors coming to our shelters, knocking on our doors saying, my partner's passed away. I can no longer keep my apartment. I have nowhere to go. I can't afford the rents that are being asked or charged in the area. And they come to our organization for shelter. We've even created some spaces that are strictly for seniors, so when seniors come off the street into a shelter, we keep them segregated from normal shelter users, and we have a special place that we can put them in while we work with senior services societies and other organizations. to try to place that senior and sometimes that senior couple. It's a rapidly growing segment of our society is homelessness and seniors. These units, what is so unique about them, granted they are smaller than what people expect, but the cost per square foot of building today is unbelievable. The escalation, there was a while there, A year ago, I was tracking it. It was about 2% a month increase in the cost of building. And so by the time those projects are built, the cost of producing those, you know, 600, 700 square feet, no one can afford them. And people that wish to provide rental units, the payback is so long that a lot of people aren't getting into the business of providing rents. With our organization, we have some buildings that may only have 10% of people come transferring from shelter into our buildings. We just opened the new Powell Street Horizon. I hope you guys come down and visit it soon. We're populating it right now. We have below market. We have rent geared to income. And then we have numerous units that are... units that are for families. We have three-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, one-bedroom units. We've got single moms moving in on Powell Street right by Oppenheimer Park with children. We have single dads that are signing up that are moving in with children. They're doing so because they're able to afford the rents in those buildings, especially the subsidized rents. I need to stress that this project here, it is not an SRO. It is not a single room occupancy. It is not where people are sharing a bathroom down the hall or sharing a kitchen. These are contained units. I wish all the SROs in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland were units like this. You have your own bathroom. You have your own cooking facilities. You have your own bed. These are beautiful units. They're dry. They're clean. They're in a beautiful community. I mean, Chinatown, I come down here a lot, and I know it has its struggles and it has its challenges, but Wow, to be able to live in an area like that, a senior that no longer can afford their home in Strathcona, maybe a single senior, they can move into a place like that, remain in their community, a student that wants to go to school in the area. This is a win-win for the community. You know, whoever the provider is, you know, obviously will work with the community and make sure that they integrate well and that there's a great line of communication between whoever that provider is and the community. I think this is a win-win for the community, and I hope strongly that you support it. Thank you very much.

Well, some is. But I'll give you an example, the Powell Street Horizon. It's something unique for us because of the variety of units. So we understand clearly that there will be some seniors, there will be some families. And so we make sure that... When we populate that building, that there's a good mix and there's a mix that is going to be safe and a mix that is going to work in that model. It has to work. We have a building out in Mission, I think 10% of the units are people from Shelter Inn. They're scattered throughout the building, so they're not congregated. It works really well. It's like they sort of become a part of the community, and there's an excellent integration. So we're conscious of... how you populate buildings, and we have so many different models. For instance, we have the Belcourt, which is a lot of lower-income working people. We have the Horizon. We're able to move people around also in our... in our number of buildings that we have. But, yeah, we have a professional person working on it right now, and they're making sure that there's a good balance of people. There are interviews that are done. Some people meet the criteria and are welcomed in. Others may find housing in one of our other buildings, a different building. We have a lot of flexibility as to look at it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

I want to take the opportunity to thank everybody's valuable feedback and your time. And sometimes I wonder What is our role? And I believe we are a startup company. We're a team of entrepreneurs. We're hoping to have big dreams of delivering really good buildings very quickly. So at the same time, we want to start with something... somewhere that relevant to us. And we believe this is a very meaningful project. Very looking forward to work with the neighborhood to have a successful delivery of the project and to introduce more of us down the road and to present through results. So again, thanks to everybody's effort and considerations on this. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Kyle Wright with Bosa Properties. I'd like to thank staff and council for hearing this item. I'm available to answer questions if you have any. Our architect Sean LaPointe with Enriquez Partners Architects is also in attendance tonight. I can let him introduce himself and the consultant team in attendance. Thank you.

Thanks, Cal, and thanks, Acting Mayor and Council. As Cal mentioned, my name is Sean LaPointe, Principal with Henriquez Partners Architects. I'm joined here today by our consultant team, including our landscape consultant, Chris Phillips, Principal with PFS Studios, and our transportation consultant, Roxana Sorky, with Bunton Associates. And along with our client, we're here to answer any questions that you might have today. Thanks so much for considering our application.

It's a holdover, yes.