CD-1 Rezoning Three East Hastings Sites Main Motion

See if there's any comments from committee here. Council.

Councillor Frye.

Well, I very much struggle with this application. The history, living close by, knowing the multiple vulnerabilities, knowing that the contemplated cycling routes and stuff don't actually connect to, like Raymer is the other side of a train tracks that the feds are asking us to separate. the at-grade crossing. I know that Seymour Elementary and Raycam Community Center, which are both immediately proximate to this, are doing a great deal of heavy lifting with the most vulnerable populations in the city and lack that infrastructure investment. And the scale of this is so out of sync with everything that... that has been contemplated in this part of town that's comparable in heights to significant transit-oriented areas like, I think the closest comparable would be the Broadway Commercial SkyTrain Station or Granville and Broadway SkyTrain Station contemplated. Nowhere have we seen... the degree of 40-story heights. Now, I appreciate that it will deliver 32 units of shelter rate housing and possibly more to be determined affordable housing, but it doesn't seem like it delivers a lot. And I'm certainly cognizant of the hardship that has been claimed for the developers to achieve the performance here. But I also am concerned that we have had pretty clear recent relevant evidence of failures to deliver specific public benefits that were articulated by the auditor general. That was just recently that many of us attended. Specific to this developer, a scan of recent news suggests all sorts of allegations where there may be financial and delivery and governance risks across the portfolio. And so I'm really struggling with approving this. It is a neighborhood I'm incredibly familiar with. It has a number of issues that have not, I think, been adequately addressed, not the least of which is the proximity to the Burrard Inlet line, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line. And I really worry that this sets expectations for even more density outside of a transit-oriented area with absolutely no commensurate benefits to support a community that's already grossly underfunded when it comes to amenities and green space. So I remain struggling with this, and I'll jump back on as I think about it.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Similarly, struggling with this particular application, I wanted to thank all the speakers, including our speakers this morning, for your touching story about your history in the neighbourhood. As mentioned, I've found considering this application to be extremely challenging. Throughout this term, I've been very pro-housing, but I'd like to think that I've always been never housing at any cost. And I fully recognize how challenging it is to develop housing in Vancouver with the market the way it is today. inflation, construction costs. But what's most important to me is that we are elected here in the chamber to make decisions that are in the best interests of all Vancouverites. So I am opposed to the application. I want to be clear that my opposition is not about what the applicant is trying to do here. I think it's laudable, creating new rental homes and also social housing. But I can't support this version of the project because I believe that the ask here, primarily the extraordinary heights and lack of public benefit, it goes way beyond what is permitted. And it's in an area that's not served by rapid transit. This would not be proposed, I don't think, elsewhere in the city in an area where there's no rapid transit. And I... I understand the rapid bus is great, but the rapid bus is not a train. And a 33-minute walk to SkyTrain is too far, in my opinion, for a project of this size. If this project was a more reasonable height, density, or size, and offered more public benefit to the neighborhood, as we've seen with other applications, including similar development in the downtown east side, for example, the recent Army and Navy proposal, I'd be supportive of it. but after listening to all the speakers and reviewing it in detail, I still can't support it. As we learned, the Vancouver ODP envisions 12 stories of mixed use for this site. I think we can do more there, but not nearly 40 stories. As we heard through questions from council to staff, just 32 shelter rate units will be created through this project out of a total of 924 units. That does not strike me as enough of a public benefit. And as we heard from staff this morning as well, through my questions, there was actually 36 SRO units on one of the sites pre-existing that burnt down. So we're not even replacing those one for one. And as mentioned by my councillor colleague, Councillor Fry, the heights and densities being contemplated here are way beyond what's permitted in TOAs or the Broadway plan. Strathcona in the downtown east side is amenity deficient. I think we all recognize that. And the Raykamp Community Center, which is right next to these proposals, is desperately in need of upgrades or replacement. And unfortunately, this proposal doesn't address this longstanding issue in the neighborhood. It also doesn't include any child care spaces or other benefits. So I would encourage the applicant to come back with a new proposal that aligns closer to the ODP and add more public benefit. As it stands now, I believe this proposal is an extraordinary ask, and in doing my due diligence, I'm not able to support it today. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Domonato.

Yes, thank you, Chair. And like my colleagues, I'd like to thank the applicant, thank our staff and all the speakers. I don't think any of them are here today or many of them. Some of them may be listening online who spoke with respect to this application. A couple of reflections. I've been weighing very carefully what we heard from the residents, what we've heard from the applicant today, as well as during the first meeting, as well as from staff. And you may have heard in some of my questions, one of the things that stood out at the very outset when we were looking at this was two things, the scale and lack of fit with the existing context, but even what's contemplated in the future context. But also, as was asked the last time we met, was... The lack of rapid transit. And those two things stood out for me quite a bit in looking at this. The proposal far exceeds existing zoning plans in terms of height and density. And as was noted by the residents themselves, is the lack of community amenities, whether it be infrastructure that is in dire need of renewal, but also from our own documents, and these are public documents about equity and resilience across the city, this area is identified as areas in high need of resources. And I think you've heard that repeatedly. And, well, I appreciate, like my colleagues, that an element of this proposal is market rental but also social housing. There are no other broader community benefits coming with this. And we have seen, as I noted, other applications, other projects. that achieve that now by no means do I expect that the development community or should be taking on all of that but to my point I raised earlier is so that at this point the project isn't compliant at all in any way near our current plans There's a lack of rapid transit. It's over 30 minutes away by foot. But effectively, if BC Housing, BC Housing hasn't made an application to the city independently, and the land, as I understand, there's no land costs at this time. And so... Effectively, the density, the greater heightened density being offered here by the city is to offset that, is to subsidize BC housing. And I guess what also stood out for me in this application, and again, it's all about timing. It's not bearing on the applicant themselves, but it feels like the cart before the horse. We are about to consider an ODP plan that's been in development for almost four years, and that's coming this evening to a public hearing. and then we're contemplating this application in advance of that. But suffice it to say, I really have landed, and I think Councillor Meiszner really articulated it well, is that Council had given, as staff noted and endorsed at one stage, and I'm sorry I don't have my notes now, but... I think it was somewhere between 19 and 27 stories. Council had initially given that the green light through a pre-inquiry process, and I think that would have been more in line with... What's contemplated, but I think suffice it to say, there is a lack of amenities in this area to support this densification, and also it's not connected in any way to rapid transit, which is ideally what we want to see for mobility purposes. So with that, I won't be supporting the application.

I thank you, Councillor. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thank you, and thanks for the robust debate on this. Yeah, it seems like we're all kind of struggling with this one. We talk a lot about tradeoffs in council, and I think here the tradeoffs are quite significant. The heights in density here, we're struggling to find a precedent for this. A rezoning precedent at this scale sends a strong signal to the market, I think, which often leads to land value inflation. pressure on surrounding rents unless we capture a fair share of that value for public benefit. I think we need to respect and properly integrate community input and existing planning frameworks like the Downtown Eastside Plan. Any significant rezoning here should reflect priorities identified by residents. This comment struck me. Bundling three sites into a significant site of such outsized density removes Council's ability to consider each of the proposed buildings on their own merits as measured against the requirements for the Downtown Eastside Plan. It effectively constitutes a new urban plan for this small but vital area of industrial land. and would drastically alter its land use without due public consultation and without due regard for the principles of equity and reconciliation that underpin the downtown east side plans. So considering that, considering concerns that my colleagues also have raised around, you know, lack of rapid transit, you know, speakers talking about a sort of lack of parks, grocery stores, post office, you know, that there's no R5 stop at Clark and Hastings. I am loathe to vote against any kind of social housing.

We heard that staff also struggled with this project. But then on the flip side, we heard that it's difficult to build any social housing and that this is unique because it's rental and social housing. So, yeah, again, I'm still struggling with it. So I just wanted to leave it there. Thanks.

Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Joe.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Yeah, I also want to thank the applicant for submitting this application. Thanks for our city staff for all your works to bring this application to council. Also, thanks for all the speakers. You know, we heard a lot of concerns from the speakers and the community. I think the concerns are real. I don't know how many projects we've been voting on this public hearing in the past three years. But let me tell you, this is the project I'm struggling the most, like all other my colleagues. You know, we need housing. And this is about 1,000 housing units, including social housing units. And it is really good for the local business who are struggling right now because of the economic situation. On the other side, I think the concern from the residents are real. lack of parking, and there's no community. And also, along with my colleagues, asking a lot of questions regarding the plan for transit, for parking, even at the DP stage, and for the future amenity plan, there's no clear answer. So I'm really struggling on this, and I don't know if I have all the information I need to vote either support or or either in favor or against this project. So just to be honest, I just don't know. I like to listen to other councillors on the queue to see their comments, and then they could help me make a decision at the end. Yeah, thanks.

Thanks very much. I'll have to cede the chair to Councillor Domenato. Thanks very much. This project, as you can tell from my council colleagues here, people are wrestling with this a little bit. And I think enough has been said about the experience on the ground of this area, which is not terribly conducive yet to a residential community. That said, the Strathcona neighborhood abuts these developments. There is social housing that is in this area as well. Over time, this potentially could be a very nice, welcoming neighborhood with some of the things that Councillor Orr mentioned, grocery stores, community space. But that is not foreseen currently. And the questions that I posed to staff was that a lot of that may follow, but it's unclear here. Essentially, we're voting for entitlements. for being able to develop this. And part of the reason that we're in this position is because the provincial government has walked away from supporting as much social housing. We know the most recent budget. We heard that community housing funding was being held back, and so cities now are being put in a position of... using density as a way to try and create more affordable housing and shelter-rate housing. And so I think it bears repeating that this is the position that we're being put in because of the actions of the provincial government this time. So this is a really tough one because I would like to see housing built, but at the same time, I'm looking at this... Area and I cannot think of another community that had would have this level of density without having commensurate rapid transit or amenities on the ground so So this is a again a position that I don't think is ideal. We'd love to see housing that is In communities that is well served by rapid transit especially when you're adding this level of density into a neighborhood. So again, this is a difficult decision for me. A few others have stated that they're not sure exactly where they're going to go right now, but I do think that we've had a really good discussion. I want to thank all the speakers. I want to thank staff and the applicant for... for answering our questions and providing some context to this one. But it, again, sort of leaves us feeling a little bit like this is a pushing the boundaries in terms of densification of an area that does not look foreseeably in the next sort of few years ready to take on this level of density. So I'll leave it there in advance, Councillor Maloney, and Councillor Dominette will take the chair back.

Thanks.

Thanks. I am going to do my best to offer some alternative perspectives, appreciating very much the genuine concerns that have been raised by community members and my fellow councillors. But looking at this map and my experience of living in the downtown peninsula, this is a... These sites are extremely close to employment areas, downtown on the east side, Mount Pleasant industrial area and the new St Paul's Hospital. So it is very central and it is unusually low density, this area being so close to downtown. I think that the struggles we're having, I'm not going to put the blame solely on the provincial government, although it's not helping their cutbacks on social housing. But this demonstrates so clearly the house of cards that our economy is built on, that we depend so much on endlessly increasing costs of housing rent costs and property values to fund development charges to pay for our amenities and just the stark limitations that are being shown by the economic slowdown that we're experiencing at the moment.

Pardon me. Sorry, Councillor. I'll just put you back on there. Sorry. Continue on. Sorry.

Sorry. I'm... I am really disappointed that there isn't childcare included in this because really the only way we get substantial new amounts of childcare is by them being included in new developments. I absolutely acknowledge the very true and real concerns about amenities, not enough amenities here. I just think that if we turn down every single development on the basis that there are traffic and parking issues, raised and that there are insufficient amenities, we'd also be turning down every development in the Broadway plan and in many spots in the city. You know, in relation to rapid transit, this does have transit. It does have active transport routes close by and there are large swathes of Yaletown and the West End that have higher density than this that aren't... equally far from rapid transit stations. So for me, it is a benefit to have this much rental housing and this much housing supply and a small portion of... affordable housing, it would be nice if it was more. But there are benefits to people being able to live close to where they work and not having to travel long distances from the suburbs and creating traffic that goes through the neighbourhood. So while I appreciate the very... pertinent questions raised by my council colleagues. I just think that to have a consistent approach to how we're making decisions about density in other areas of the city, I mean, I'm far more open, I think, to... Well, I mean, I know that my council colleagues have expressed that they're still in two minds about what to do, but I'll be voting in favour of this. Thanks. Mr. Frye.

Yeah, and I think actually thanks to all the council colleagues for speaking, and I think Councillor Maloney kind of highlighted a few pieces for me that aren't in this, and that's the Broadway plan is a plan, and we have done a thorough analysis of the amenities and the tradeoffs and the access to rapid transit. And with all due respect, this is not the downtown peninsula. This is outside the downtown peninsula. We haven't contemplated these kind of heights and densities outside the downtown peninsula or outside of immediate transit-oriented areas that have SkyTrain. And where the issue really rubs for me is that this is quite literally one of the most vulnerable communities in the entire city. I used to work at Raycan before I was elected to council. I know how beat down that community center is and how many vulnerable kids it serves and how they're under-resourced. I know that Admiral Seymour Elementary School is so seismically unsafe it doesn't even rate on the lists anymore because it's, I think, for all intents and purposes, considered a teardown, and it's got some of the most vulnerable kids in the city. I know that there's no actual cycling infrastructure that immediately, like Francis Street is the other side of Clark. I don't even know why it's on this list, and Raymer can't be accessed. without crossing an active rail line that is now supposed to be eliminated at grade crossing, thanks to the federal mandate over at grade crossing. So there's so many pieces to this that just don't check. And really what, you know, we do contemplate significant densities and massive changes throughout the city. And I think that that is a reason thing that we contemplate all the parameters and considerations. And I don't think that that's been adequately reflected In this report, and I know it's been on the deck for, you know, since last term when we had the extraordinary application. even before when the Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan contemplated what it would look like as strata developments, and I get that none of those are penciling out, but this is, I think, a dangerous precedent when we start to go into incredibly vulnerable neighborhoods like this and go with massive upzoning without really contemplating what's involved in the trade-offs and who is at risk with that. Oh, and I'm out of time, so sorry. Thanks for the extra.

Okay, I'll also cede the chair to Councillor Domenato. So, Council, I've been sort of listening to what everybody says here. I think there are risks with either decision that we make right here, but I also think that perhaps this project and the applicant might want to consider from what they've heard from Council today. And so I'm going to propose that we refer this, and I'm going to ask if we can take a recess in order to be able to allow me to work on a referral language, if that's okay. So can I ask for about a five-minute recess, please?