← Council Meeting May 19, 2026
City Council meeting of Tuesday, May the 19th, 2026. This meeting is being held in person by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. This meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube. And meeting progress will be updated regularly on ex-advanced city clerk. So in case of an emergency where we have to evacuate the building, please direct your attention to the glass doors. walk through there or when they're open walk through and take a left at the pillar and please walk down the stairs If that exit is obstructed for any reason whatsoever, please take note of the four exits on this chamber and we'll show you how to get out accordingly. If you need any kind of mobility assistance, please stay in place and one of our super friendly teammates will help you get to a safe location. There's also a defibrillator at the end of the hallway in case we need it. I do want to acknowledge that we're hosting today's council meeting on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations and I do want to thank them for their generosity and hospitality and love and care they show this great land that we get to live work and play on. I also want to acknowledge our incredible teammates at the City of Vancouver, throughout the City of Vancouver, who work incredibly hard every single day to make our city a better place to live, work, and play. And very thankful. With that, can we please get a roll call?
Mayor Sim in the chair. Councillor Kirby Young. Councillor Domenato. Councillor Bligh. Councillor Fry.
Councillor Fry, can you hear us?
We'll get IT to check with Councillor Fry. Councillor Montague?
We need to pause for a couple of minutes. Councillor Fry, can you hear us?
I can, yes.
Thank you. All right, we're just on roll call. Councillor Montague?
Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Klassen. Councillor Meiszner.
Councillor Zhou.
Councillor Orr. Councillor Maloney. You have Cora Mayorson.
Great. Thank you very much. So today we gather to honour the memory of the passengers aboard the Guru Nanak Jahaz or the Komagata Maru, a ship that arrived in Vancouver's harbour. on May the 23rd, 1914, carrying hopeful British subjects from Punjab who were denied entry under exclusionary and discriminatory immigration policies. This event remains a profoundly troubling chapter in our city's history, one in which racism and exclusion prevailed over justice and compassion. In 2026, as we continue to reflect on this legacy, we recognize that the impacts... of these injustices are not confined to the past. They shape the lived experiences of communities today. By proclaiming Guru Nanak Jaha's or Gumugata Maru Remembrance Day in the City of Vancouver, we not only acknowledge these historical wrongs, but also renew our commitment to confronting systemic racism in all its forms. The city remains dedicated to working in close partnership with the South Asian community and all communities who face discrimination to advance reconciliation, promote equity, and build a Vancouver where everyone feels a genuine sense of belonging, dignity, and inclusion. So I'd like to ask my fellow council members to join me and read a proclamation.
And before we start the proclamation, I do want to make a couple of additional comments.
When we came into office, one of the most important things that we did, and I'd say personally, but it reflects the entire council at the time, was acknowledging the Komagata Maru and what happened. And not just with the proclamation, but also with the street naming as well. and not just any street renaming. We wanted it to be in Canada Place because millions of tourists, millions of visitors come to Vancouver every single year, and the vast majority end up there. And we felt it was important that we acknowledge the Komagata Maru with the most number of people to see it. And so this is just a continuation of us paying respect to Vancouver the memory, but also what happened back in 1914. And so with that, I will get our teammates to read the proclamation.
Proclamation. Guru Nanak Jaha's Komagata Maru Day of Remembrance. whereas 2026 marks the 112th anniversary of Guru Nanak Jaha's Komagata Maru incident, in which a ship carrying 376 British subjects from Punjab, including 346, 24 Muslims and 12 Hindus, arrived at Vancouver's Burrard Inlet on May 23, 1914. and with the exception of some returning passengers, was denied entry into Canada.
And whereas passengers had valid documents and sufficient funds to pay a discriminatory head tax and endured two months on board in poor and sanitary conditions, often going for days without food and water, the SPAC pleaded for help and authorities did not respond.
And whereas, the passengers, aided by the local South Asian community, engaged in a legal battle led by Gurdit Singh and their lawyer, Joseph Edward Bird. The South Asian community organized protests and fundraisers to support them.
And whereas, on June 29, 1914, Vancouver City Council openly supported racist and discriminatory laws by passing a resolution stating that it was, quote, unalterably opposed the admittance of Hindus and other Asiatic races to this country. The resolution also claimed that these British subjects would pose a serious threat to civilization, both economically and socially. The Council conveyed this sentiment to the Premier of British Columbia via telegram.
And whereas, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled against the passengers, leading to their forced return to India. On July 23, 1914, the Komagatu Maru, also known as Guru Nanak Chahas, was ordered to sail back to India, where those on board were labeled as political disruptors. Tragically, 19 passengers were shot and killed by British Indian troops. Many were injured, and many others were jailed for years.
And whereas many descendants of these passengers later immigrated to Canada, settling in Vancouver and continued to fight against discriminatory laws. This included advocating for the right to work in a profession of their choosing, holding public office and the right to vote, which was granted in 1947. And whereas on May 23rd, 2021, Vancouver City Council officially apologized for its 1914 resolution and the harms it caused.
In 2023, Kamigata Maru Place was revealed as the secondary honorary name of Canada Place to acknowledge the victims, their descendants, and all affected by the tragedy.
And whereas the City of Vancouver is dedicated to addressing inequities, including racial discrimination in all its forms, and is committed to ongoing redress work with South Asian Canadian communities to address historical discrimination against people of South Asian Canadian descent in Vancouver.
Sorry, and Jazz, you should be up here, by the way.
We'll read the last line together. How's that?
Now, therefore, I, Ken Sim, the Mayor of the City of Vancouver, and on behalf of Jasverdi and the Vancouver City Council, do hereby proclaim May the 23rd, 2026, as Yernanik Jahaz, Hamagata Maru, Day of Remembrance in the City of Vancouver.
My name is Ras Singh Toor. I'm a vice president and spokesperson for the descendants of the Khamagatamaharu Society. First of all, I want to say thank you to Inspector Mayor and all the councillors, city staff, for recognizing the Khamagatamaharu passengers and proclaimed and recognized the Khamagatamaharu passengers and proclaimed . Thank you. And also I want to say thank you to the city of Vancouver for renaming the place name to place. And also apologize their role in the Khamagatamaru incident as well. Thank you very much for doing that. And also I went to see the Khamagatamaru memorial and the city did upgrade it. And it's a great job done by the city of Vancouver. And I would like to say thank you once again. Spectre Mayor, Ken Sim, all the Councillors, city staff, and arts and culture team, and also the parks board member for their work. making the Gulnana Gajahas, upgraded the Gulnana Gajahas Commemorative Memorial, ADLT, and the cultural leaders team, and the parks board member, did an excellent job. And it's a great tribute to those passengers who suffered a lot during the tragedy. We can't undo the past, but we can move forward. and leave a legacy for future generations by educating them about the past. And this is a very good learning tool to connect the Canadians to their past and build a more peaceful and tolerant tomorrow. And thank you very much for all your... Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. My name is Jagraad Singh Lawley. I'm the vice president for Sikh Heritage Month Vancouver. Alongside me, it's an honor to stand here today alongside our president, Thad Singh Jal. Again, you know, jumping off of what our individual said here, I sincerely want to thank the mayor and the council for your hard work, your leadership, your dedication. to the people of Vancouver each and every day for everything that you guys have done throughout your time and everything you guys continue to do to this day. Your continued support for diversity, inclusion, culture, and continued remembrance, community remembrance helps build a city where all communities feel seen, heard, and valued. Now, while the Komagata Maru moment remains one of the darkest times, the darkest chapters in Canadian history, I think it's also very important that we remember it as a story of extraordinary courage, resilience, and perseverance. The passengers of the Komagata Maru, also known as the Granada Jihad, stood firmly for their rights, their dignity, their humanity, despite facing immense racism and immense hardship. It's something that I think we should continue to remember each and every day. Today's proclamation is more than words on a paper. It's a promise that these stories are never going to be forgotten. It's a commitment to remembrance, education, and reconciliation. It ensures that future generations will continue learning about the sacrifices of those 376 passengers and understand the importance of building a society rooted in equality, compassion, and justice. As young Sikh leaders ourselves, it's deeply meaningful to see our city recognize and honor this legacy. It reminds us that history must not only be remembered, it must also be taught, protected, and carried forward. Through remembrance, we strengthen our communities and ensure that the lessons of the past guide us towards the future. So on behalf of Sikh Heritage Month Vancouver, we sincerely thank the Mayor and Council for recognizing Komagad Amaru Gurnanak Shahaj Remembrance Day and for standing with our community in preserving this important history. May we continue to honor the legacy of the 376 passengers, not only through remembrance, but through action, by uplifting one another, standing together in unity, and building a future where every person is treated with dignity, respect, and humanity. Thank you.
I wrote a few words, so I have to read it. I got a paper in my pocket.
,, standing on these traditional lands, we thank with deep humility his worship, Mayor ,, members of council, the city of Vancouver, and all who helped restore to its rightful place in Canadian history. Because reconciliation, rectification, and redress requires accuracy. was a Sikh-led initiative, carrying Punjabi passengers of Sikh, Muslim and Hindu faiths, envisioned by Baba Gurudev Singh Ji, sustained by Khalsa Diwan Society, supported by indigenous people of this land who send food in solidarity, defended by J. Edward Byrd, who challenged an unjust law. And as the redress continues, we remember Paimewa Singh, sentenced here in Vancouver and hanged in New Westminster. His shaheedi remains part of the city's unfinished moral record and one that true redress must resolve through his formal posthumous exoneration. For this history was never only about exclusion. It was also about what arrived here in Chardikala. Guru Nanak Jihad was the first floating Gurdwara Sahib to bless the Pacific. Guru Granth Sahib enthroned, Nishant Sahib flying high, Langar, Sangat, Pangat, that is what came to these shores. Not division, but dignity. Not exclusion, but Chardikala. Guru Nanak unites us. And when memory is named with precision, it does not remain on the margins. It stands where it belonged, at the heart of Canadian history. With immense gratitude to the City of Vancouver for this act of historical courage, this moment will become a catalyst for rectifying the federal apology. So that Canada's national memory also restores a true name with dignity, Accuracy and moral courage and that is good knowledge. Thank you
Yes, absolutely.
Sorry, Council, can we take a four-minute recess? Is that okay? Four-minute recess? Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, everyone. Welcome back. So the plan for today, we're going to break at noon for lunch, followed by the in-camera meeting. Return at 3 p.m. to continue to deal with the remainder of the agenda. If needed, recess at 5 p.m. for a dinner break and reconvene at 6 p.m. to complete the agenda. So in-camera. Councils require to meet in-camera later this week. The reasons and authority under the Vancouver Charter are listed in the agenda. Would someone like to move a motion?
Great, thank you. Councillor Kirby-Young, seconded by Councillor Klassen. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Minutes. Minutes one are from the council meeting following the Standing Committee on City Finance and Services meeting on April the 22nd, 2026. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Great, thank you. Councillor Meiszner, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Thank you. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Minutes two are from the council meeting on May the 5th, 2026. Are there any corrections? Would someone like to move adoption? Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Claston. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Minutes three are from the public hearing on May the 5th and 7th, 2026. Are there any corrections? Would someone like to move adoption? Councillor Domonato, seconded by Councillor Claston. All those in favour say yay.
All those opposed say nay. The motion carries unanimously. Council will now consider matters adopted on consent. We have reports 1 through 12 and referral reports 1 and 2 on the consent agenda for council's consideration. Council may adopt the recommendations for reports 1 through 12 and referral reports 1 and 2 on consent. Does any member wish to hold any of these items for debate or questions to team members? And I see Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'd like to hold Report 3, Capital Grant to More Than a Roof Housing Society for questions.
Okay, so that's Report 3, Capital Grant by Councillor Kirby Young. Thank you. Councillor Dominato?
Yes, good morning. I'd like to hold Report 2, Signed By-Law Amendment, Peony Exhibition Park for questions.
Great, so that's Report 2, Signed By-Law Amendment by Councillor Dominato. Councillor Orr?
Let me get, so report number four, number five, number six, number 11, and referral report number two. You missed eight.
So report number 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and referral report number 2. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing no one in the queue. Let me just do a little bit of math here.
Okay, so before we can consider the consent agenda, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it.
So then we have, and clerk, if you can just make sure you get this right here, we have report number 1, 7, 9, 10, and 12, and referral report number 1 for consent approval. Is that correct? Great. Would someone like to move a motion, move an option?
Great. Councillor Klassen, seconded by Councillor Meiszner. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. So the following have been approved on consent.
Report number one. Lease of portion of Coal Harbour Seawalk adjacent to 333 mentions news. Then we have report number 7, CD-1 rezoning 2244 through 2280 West 6th Avenue. Then report number 9, CD-1 rezoning 2120 through 2130 West 10th Avenue. Report number 10, CD-1 rezoning 1880 through 1898 Main Street and 1851 Lawrence Street. And number 12, CD-1847, text amendment 133 through 159 West 49th Avenue, formerly 131 through 163 West 49th Avenue. And then we have referral report number one, Vancouver ODP amendment and CD-1 rezoning 1745 West 8th Avenue.
So the first report we have is number one, lease of a portion of Coal Harbour Seed Walk adjacent to 333 Mention Mews. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to...
Seeing no one's hands up. This item does not have a team member presentation. And I'm sorry. We passed that one. Sorry. Okay. Ignore that. The first report we have is number two, signed bylaw amendment, P&E Exhibition Park, 2901 East Hastings Street. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest. Now is the time to disclose it. Seeing no one here, this item does have a presentation, and we do have team members here to present it. Please go ahead. Oh, sorry. Councillor Domenato.
Thanks, Mayor. I move to waive the presentation.
Okay. Seconded by Councillor Meiszner. Any discussion? All in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. We will waive the presentation. Council, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. And Councillor Domonato, you're on the queue. Yes.
Thanks. I just wanted to clarify, just with the proposed signage district, noting the locations, and there's an existing sign at Hastings and Renfrew, but some of the other potential sort of areas around the Hastings Park site. Will there be consideration to light impacts in that, because there's some residential areas along there and those corridors? So just consideration of the public realm and impacts to residential, both there's apartments and there's some detached homes and others along those corridors.
Hi, Jason Oldenick, Director of Development Planning. Yes, absolutely. And there'll be a formal review process for this. This just creates a bylaw that allows them to make applications. We'll go through that. The bylaw is also written similar to other bylaws where digital signage and other electronic means have been considered for light levels, changes per minute, and the locations are purposely located.
as best as possible away from residential again the the one in the north uh west corner is will be the most problematic and that's located away from the street and that'll go through a formal review process and and does that um include as well um you talked about light levels but consideration of maybe um you know being low level or turned off certain you know hours things like that and gained in terms of
Absolutely. And with any other sign, there's also, we'll take complaints, record complaints. And if there are issues, it's a requirement that they work with us to make adjustments.
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate those answers. That's all.
Thank you very much. Seeing no. Great. Thank you. Is there a seconder? Thank you very much. Councillor Kirby Young. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote. Just a reminder for any council member participating virtually, if your video is disabled, you will be marked absent. Okay. If we can please go to the voting panel.
And is Councillor Fry absent or is, oh, he is online.
Councillor Fry, do you need a vote assist? Oh, there we go. And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. okay next item is item number three capital grant to more than a roof housing society for development of social housing at 1395 Ralston Street before we begin begin this agenda item does anybody have a conflict that they need to disclose Councillor Kirby-Young, or are you just in the queue?
In the queue.
Okay. So I'm going to stop the timer there. Okay. This item does not have a team member presentation, and Councillor Kirby-Young, you did hold this item, so please go ahead.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I do have just a clarifying question because we received the grant reports, but they indicate reference the ability to lever other funding. For example, this one says the city's anticipated $30 million contribution was a key factor in securing community housing fund funding. And additionally, it speaks to the fact that this amount could be reduced, for example, if the application Build Canada Homes is successful. Can you comment on... what the other funding contribution is and how much is levered. I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to get that information in in these reports to include not just what the city is contributing, but what the other partners are.
Ryan Bigelow, Managing Director, Non-Market Housing Development. In terms of funding for the overall project, it's primarily funded from BC Housing through the Community Housing Fund. At the moment, there's BC Housing grants, capital grants of $36 million going towards the project, as well as an ongoing operating subsidy. in the tune of roughly $3.7 million a year for the next 60 years on the project. We're still in the process of trying to secure additional funding for the project, but at the moment it is fundable to proceed to construction. So the federal government launched the Build Canada Homes, and so we are in conversations with them to see if we can secure additional funding for the project to offset the city's contributions and BC Housing's.
Okay, so thanks. I appreciate the context because sometimes we're just approving a grant, and while there may have been more discussions at the referral report, it doesn't necessarily show the context of what that represents. On the Build Canada Homes application that you touched on, what does that look like in terms of the ability to reduce the city's funding?
Yeah, so we have proposed an additional capital grant from Build Canada Homes. That's still under review by Build Canada Homes. We don't necessarily know if they would contribute and how much. So this could see our capital grant be reduced by up to $15 million if our application is fully approved. But we haven't received any guidance from them in terms of how much and if they're interested at this point.
Okay. All right. That's it for my questions. Thanks, Mary. I'm happy to move the report.
Yeah. This was the old Continental SRO, correct? Continental Hotel? Yes. And so that had 109 units. And when the permit was granted... it was granted on the premise of a one-to-one replacement. If we are now doing only 20% of deep affordability, that looks like it's only 42 units. So are we potentially losing 67 units of deep affordability?
So in addition to the affordable shelter rate units here at this project, the city did also acquire what we call the new Continental on Kingsway. So that is offering, I believe, 120, 123 units at shelter rates as well. So that's been operational actually since the old Continental was closed down. So in combination, it's actually delivering more affordable housing to the community. Okay.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young, seconded by Councillor Plassen. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I will call the vote. If we can please go to the voting panel.
And that passes unanimously. Item number four, amendments to the street and traffic bylaw to authorize large format electronic advertising signs on streets. So before we begin, does anybody have a conflict that they need to declare? Seeing no one in queue, this item does not have a team member presentation. Councillor Orr, you held the item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions.
Yeah, I just have a few questions around basically safety and distraction. I know that says the signs will avoid roadways and comply with the Motor Vehicle Act, but I just want to, similar to Councillor Domonato's questions around illumination, image timing, transitions, and whether or not large digital screens near pedestrian areas create distraction or safety issues.
Thank you. Good morning. Paul Storer, Director of Transportation. So what the bylaw amendment does is it allows signs on street right-of-way to be authorized. Through the process of authorizing those signs, we'd be doing a thorough review of those, including a review around road safety. What we are looking to use is the TAC guidelines that look at digital billboards near the roadway and look at things like spacing, transition time between messages, illumination, and conflict with things like traffic signals. So we'd be going through a thorough review process.
Okay, and then in terms of this sort of opening the door to wider expansion, what sort of safeguards are there to sort of prevent that in terms of just, you know, this kind of opening the door to that commercialization of public space type thing?
Ben Pollard, Chief Strategy Officer. So Council will still be engaged in any decisions around any particular signs that would go up in line with the Council-approved public realm advertising framework.
Okay, and so that would be, so I guess that answers my next question. What transparency and public oversight mechanisms will exist for contracts, revenue sharing agreements, and sign placement decisions? So that's the same answer.
Yeah, thanks. Just following up on that, that was going to be my question, is that each, this enables, this modernizes or updates the bylaw to allow electronic static images, my understanding, but each individual application is considered by staff. A determination is made with respects to safety parameters, et cetera, and then each one, and if there are sufficient public benefits, and then it is brought forward to Council and Council makes the ultimate determination.
Is that right?
Okay. And do we expect that we will be judicious in the number that is approved? We're not littering heat to proliferate these in the public realm, for example?
Yes. So the public realm advertising framework that Council approved in September 2025 does speak to that. Council will be the one that will say what the level of advertising in the public realm is or is allowable. And so, yeah, we don't expect this to be a significant opening. We expect this to be a small number that provide the maximum public benefit to the city.
Okay. Thank you. Happy to move the recommendation.
Great. Thank you very much. Is there a seconder? Great. Councillor Dominoff. Thank you. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will call this to vote.
Okay. Item number five, or report number five, I should say. Directions report consideration of modification to conditions of approval. 1450 West Georgia Street, 1157 Broad Street, 1640 through 1650 Alberni Street, and 1668 through 1684 Alberni Street. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Seeing no one declaring a conflict, this item does have a presentation. We do have team members to present this item unless someone wants to waive the presentation. Okay.
Please go ahead.
Sorry. Two seconds. Just trying to get on to teams.
Anybody have internet?
Very Wi-Fi issue. If you can maybe just pull up the presentation for me. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Apologies, for some reason, corporate email is not working, or corporate internet is not working. So just to give you an overview, this is probably the second or third time this council has probably seen this presentation and these matters before you. My name is Templar Sang Tranistis, Director of the Rezoning Center, and I'll walk you through the slides. Next slide, please. So this is a report to consider modifications to conditions of approval relating to the enactment timelines for CACs, or as it relates to the CACs. For these four projects, two on Alberni, one on West Georgia, and one on Burrard Street. Addresses and their locations are located on the screen there. Three are located in the West Georgia corridor and one in the Burrard corridor within the West End plan. Next slide, please.
The first project, and I'll walk you through each one just to give you some historical context, was approved at a public hearing in October 12, 2021. It's a 49-story mixed-use residential strata rental building with 193 units, 162 market rental units, and commercial space at grade. Next slide, please. This project came with a cash CAC contribution of $8.9 million, as well as DCLs as established at the time of public hearing. They would be subject to change on whatever the DCLs are at building permit stage. This is a bit of a snapshot back to 2021, including public art. So a total contribution, including CACs, DCLs, and public art of $17.4 million. The CAC cash contribution, which is the subject of today's meeting and I won't repeat it every time, was payable within two years. It was a condition to enact within two years of the public hearing and payment of those funds prior to enactment. That project deadline was extended to 2024 and then again in 2024 to May 2026.
The second project is 1157 Broad Street. It was approved in public hearing in fall 2021 as well. 47-story mixed-use building, 13 FSR, predominantly strata residential units, including a child care and an arts and culture hub within the building. Next slide, please. In addition to that, there was a cash contribution of $10.6 million in addition to the in-kind amenities at the time valued at $22 million, DCLs of about $8 million plus public art for a total public benefit of $41 million. Similarly, this project had those same conditions for requirements to enact. Next slide, please. Third project is 1640 to 1650 Alberni, again approved in public hearing in fall 2021. It includes a 43-story predominantly residential strata-titled building with replacement residential units for the removal of the existing rental building on site as well. Next one. And again, this one, in addition to the rental replacement units, came with a $32.7 million cash CAC.
Next slide, please. Last one here is 1666-1684 Alberni. It was approved at a public hearing in May 2022. It's a 40-story strata residential building, and it has been extended from its enactment timeline from May 2024 to May 2026 as well. Next slide. Thanks. And this one, too, came with a substantial cash CAC of $37 million payable prior to enactment.
Next slide. So here, just to summarize, the conditions of enactment at the time and as amended, their public hearings were all in 2021 or 2022. They originally had enactment deadlines in 2023, 2024. They've been extended to May 2026. And we're now on the cusp of that timeline seeking your direction around extension or modifications to the conditions of approval. Next slide. Just as some context, it's important to acknowledge the city's role in the development process. The city has the most control over established city policies and approval processes, whether that's through rezoning or development permits. Staff work with the applicants, timing expectations to advance the project through enactment in the permitting. And following approval, there's many aspects that affect the project beyond our control, such as funding, financing, interest rates, construction costs, supply and labor and trade availability, as well as general market capacity. And staff, and as you've all known, there's been a significant downturn in the strata market over the last several years. Staff have been in contact with the representatives over the past two years. There's been little progress since that time, again, just because of the slowdown in the strata market. And we're now at this point where we have to make a decision to continue with the conditions of approval as they've been set. I think there is a desire to proceed on the part of the applicants, provided there was a market for them to pursue as well.
Next slide, please. So our staff's recommendation today is to seek further modifications to the performance obligation on securing the enactment of the bylaws for an additional two years. We've been working closely, as I mentioned, together with them. Some of them have expressed an interest to revisit their projects over time. But in the absence of that, the interim step would be to extend those deadlines as well. we think that this is a consistent move from past decisions of council to grant these further extensions while still securing the approval in principle and the CACs that were agreed to at the time.
Thank you. So just as a quick recap, where do CACs go if there's some questions on that? Cash CACs are not allocated in the capital plan until they're actually received, so until enactment. So until we receive the monies, they aren't actually deployed into the capital plan. But once they are received, they go to support many of those capital plan improvements in both the West End and the downtown. And this just gives you a bit of a snapshot of where we get those monies from. This is the 2022 to 2026 capital plan. A portion of that is obviously from property taxes, but about half of it, close to it, is from development-related contributions such as DCLs, CACs, density bonusing, and the like. So today is not a decision about where do we put the money, it's more about keeping the project active through these conditions of approval that in the event that they do enact and pursue, that we would be able to secure these monies and ultimately deploy them. Last slide. So the consideration is, so again, just to clarify, we did include a consideration that you can refer these projects back to staff to revisit any of the terms of the project, but our recommendation on the last slide is for the extension of those deadlines from May 2026 to May 2028. If you go to the last slide, please. Thank you.
I'll just pause there if there's any questions. Thank you very much. Counsel, you do have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. Counselor Orr.
Thanks. Thanks for the presentation. It helped answer a couple of things. Considering that the sort of strata market is cool right now, if we were to force them to sort of pay the CACs now, this risks sort of stopping the project.
Yeah, fair question. So technically, enactment is really at the discretion of the applicant to pursue the project. If they do enact, those obligations are payable. The way the conditions are worded is it's not an obligation to pay. It's a trigger to compel or to help encourage a project to move forward if there's a market to do so. So again, this condition basically holds that value, holds that rate based on the values established at the public hearing date back in 2021. if they choose to pursue this project in the future.
So essentially, if we were to say, no, you need to pay this now, this would sort of force them to be in a position to kind of proceed with the project.
Again, we aren't able to proceed them technically, force them to proceed. I would say if there was a direction to thou shalt pay this and thou shalt enact, that would be a very unique approach. We don't typically do that. And I could certainly see an applicant just being unwilling to do so.
I think that kind of answers my question. If we were to introduce a sunset clause, essentially, if the developer receives a deferral of the CACs but then fails to start within 24 months, the rezoning permit should expire. Is that something that...
Yeah, so this is from a bit of a pilot of how we explored some CAC terms back in 2021-2022. So this basically is a requirement to enact within two years and to secure that approval in principle. We've granted an extension. So that over time, these projects are also eligible for the deferred CAC policies. So if they were to enact, only the first $5 million is payable prior to enactment. And then beyond that, they're allowed deferral terms up to two years post-enactment. So, for example, the one project had $32 million. $5 million would have to be payable prior to enactment. $27 million could be deferred up to two years beyond enactment. But we can't compel the first $5 million initially without them enacting.
I see. Interesting. Okay. Just that I'm like seeing, you know, there's a project that's on today's agenda that's 1745 West 8th. You know, this project is a strata project and it's offering social housing and a child care. And this doesn't seem to be offering those public benefits and we're deferring the CACs.
So... Is this a sort of situation because the land there is just so valuable that we can't sort of extract some public benefits out of that?
Yeah, and I'll speak generally to the one on West 8th. That's an in-kind project and won't speak to the merits of it. That'll save that for future council decision. This area of the West End plan along the Georgia corridor in particular sought to seek cash to be able to deploy cash to other projects, whether it's the West End Community Center or other facilities in the area that need renewal and replacement or expansion. The project on Burrard did have inclusionary projects, so an in-kind childcare as well as the arts and space.
A cultural hub. So, again, it's more just how the West End plan was crafted for those areas to generate cash CACs to deploy to other facilities in the area. Okay. Thanks. That's enough for me. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor Meiszner.
Thanks. On the CACs themselves, what happens if these projects change? Let's say they go from strata to rental or they become a hotel. does that mean that those CACs would have to be renegotiated from the start? They would disappear, essentially?
Effectively. So it depends on the degree of change. But if an applicant were to come in with a different project, that would trigger a withdrawal, resubmit, and you restart the clock in the negotiation based on the merits of that project. If an applicant came in to completely change their tenure and form and other things, that CAC proposal that you see would be rescinded, and then you'd be presented with a new public benefit depending on what that new offer was.
Okay. Are staff aware of any... changes coming forth on any of those projects?
We've had inquiries from the applicants, the representatives of the project to explore, but no submissions, no applications yet.
Okay. And then on the proposed latest enactment date of May 31st, 2028, I guess my question is, if it was May 31st, 2028 right now, would your recommendation be the same for another further extension?
Fair question. And so this is, I think, the second or third time we've proposed the extension. What it's really doing is protecting the upset limit of the valuation to that date. It was always there intended to encourage projects to proceed and to take advantage of those rates. At the time, they were... than earlier negotiated rates in terms of valuation. So I think we would have to assess what it would look like in May 2028 if the market has returned, if the interest rates are still challenging, and have to reserve our comments for that point.
Okay, I understand.
Okay, thank you. Next. Counselor Zhou.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. So a quick question. I might be wrong, but I remember one last time we granted this extension was the interest was prime plus 2%. Was that right? Or it was always 1%?
So again, to decouple the two, until enactment, there is no interest applied, right? So enactment is when the rights and entitlements of the rezoning are secured. And at that point, we trigger the CAC. We only have deferral terms with interest beyond enactment until the payment of the deferred cash. So right now, the new CAC policy is prime plus one as established from June 2025 when council made some modifications. So if these applicants did pursue the deferral, which I expect they probably would be interested, they'd have to pay $5 million prior to enactment, and then the balance would be deferred, and that deferral balance would be subject to interest occurring on a quarterly basis as well.
So last time when we did the extension, that was in 2024, I think?
Correct.
That's plus 2% at that time, right?
Again, to decouple the two, we aren't adjusting the value of the CAC as secured at public hearing today. It's only if they enact and then defer the balance. So we don't have an escalation clause between public hearing and enactment. It's only post-enactment.
Okay, other questions. This is a two-year extension, so if they are able to proceed the project, let's say if the marketing is getting better, let's say next year, they can still do that, right? Correct. We can do the extension.
Correct. All the projects have development permits in the system. Most of them have got most of their agreements and conditions cleared. It would be a bit of a reactivation of the file and pick things up, but I think if the market was there and there was a willingness, they have the full ability to proceed.
The last question is, do we have any regulation to see what is the maximum number of extension they can do?
That's really up to this council. The way the conditions are worded is really at your discretion to rescind, revisit, or extend the approval and staff are suggesting two-year increments just to see how the market conditions go, but it could certainly be a different timeline. Perfect, thanks. That's all my questions. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Maloney.
Thank you. I've had a couple of inquiries about what the implications are for public infrastructure delivery timelines in the West End as a result of this. Can you explain how it works?
Yeah, sure. So effectively, rezonings and CAC contributions are one of the tools that we secure monies or in-kind facilities to help contribute to support growth in the community. Though we might forecast and anticipate projects to proceed, we actually don't use that from a budgeting perspective or a cost allocation perspective in the capital plan until they're received. So until that money is paid, it wouldn't show up in a capital plan as being funds available. We certainly have a forecast of where it could come in, but until that time, in the absence of those monies being paid, we're relying on other funding sources, whether it's DCLCAC's taxes or whatnot, to support the capital plan.
And there's not necessarily a connection between money that's paid for community amenity contributions and the area in which the development takes place?
Fair question. So CECs, from a policy perspective, are intended to support and offset the impacts of growth on the community that they're within. So our current CEC policy and the public benefit strategy for the West End contemplate that money being spent there, but it's certainly within Council's purview as part of your PIF exercise, the Public Infrastructure Investment Framework and our Capital Plan Framework, as well as your city policies to determine how and where that money is ultimately deployed to.
Thanks. And what does happen if market conditions are still weak in 2028?
At that point, if the project isn't proceeding and we're kind of at the new due date of May 2028, the council has the option again to extend or to rescind or to revisit this at a public hearing as well. And between now and then, I'm sure we'll have more conversations with the applicants of what their intentions are. Thanks very much. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, just following up on a question that was asked earlier, and I think it was phrased that some of the other projects were delivering community amenities or in kind of this was not. Is the cash or the tens of millions of dollars of cash not a public benefit? It's just taken as cash versus in kind? Correct.
Yeah, that's correct.
And we're talking about if I added up something like $110 million conceptually?
Close to that, yeah.
Okay. Which can do a lot for community amenities. And if these projects, if we don't create the conditions because the market is tough for these projects to move ahead and they don't build, we get zero to support community amenities and we don't get the housing if they can't make it go. I'll go with it. Is that fair?
I think we're, as I mentioned before, there was a slide in there that showed the different levers that might affect development. The city is one of them, and so are our policies. And the city has done a good job in both June, last year, and December, this past year as well, with development viability reports, cutting back on DCLs, being flexible on some of the unit layouts and the exclusions that are being explored, the BMR modifications while we're rental. So those are the kinds of things that the city has done and continues to do to help encourage projects moving forward. I would say this area of the downtown and the west end is a high-end strata particularly, and that market is all but evaporated in the short term.
So reflecting back then, is it fair to say the city is changing a number of our levers to try to do what we can, but the market conditions may or may not recover to allow these projects to proceed?
That's a fair statement.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no... Councillor Montague.
Oh. We have gremlins. Okay. Would someone like to move a motion? Great. Councillor Zhou, I believe. Councillor Claston is seconded. Council, is there any discussion? Okay.
I'm now going to call the vote. If we can please go to the voting panel.
Great. And that passes with Councillor Orr abstaining.
And so that was item number five. Thank you very much. Report number six, CD-1 rezoning, 717 through 743 West 28th Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to disclose it. Councillor, you're lined up to speak, right? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one in the queue, this item does have a presentation. We do have team members to present this item unless someone wants to waive the presentation. Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Claston. Is there any discussion? Okay, all in favour of waiving the presentation, say yay. All those opposed, say nay.
Does it have to be unanimous?
Okay, so we will waive the presentation. Sorry about that.
No? Okay. Council, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant. Are there any questions, Councillor Orr?
Thanks, yeah, I really wanted to see that presentation. I think it's important, generally, since we're not doing the public hearings, to at least give the public some insight into what we're doing here. And so far, I believe I'm the only one that's pulled any of rezonings since the ODP, and it's really unfortunate that we keep waiving these presentations. I think we owe it to the public to just at least hear from the applicant and from staff. So this is a six-story rental with 94 units and no below-market rental. Can staff say why there's no below-market rental?
Hi, my name is Kathy Jo, and I'm the rezoning planner for this application. Regarding the BMR, the site is located in Tier 3 of the TOA policy, which anticipates 20% of the residential floor area to be at 20% below CMHC rates. This proposal is for 100% market rental housing. During the process, during the application review, real estate staff reviewed a performer that was submitted and concluded that there's not enough, there isn't enough sufficient land lift value to support the inclusion of low market rental housing on the site. Even though the land lift was insufficient to support this 20%, the pro forma analysis demonstrated that there's still an increase in land value to support a community amenity contribution. During this process, the applicant negotiated a $250,000 CAC.
Would someone like to move a motion? Great. Councillor Claston seconded by Councillor Zhou. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I will call the vote.
If we could please go to the voting panel.
And that passes with Councillor Fry abstaining and Councillor Orr in opposition.
Move on now to report number eight, CD-1 rezoning, 4339 through 4387 Canby Street and 506 West 27th. Before we begin this agenda item, does anybody have a conflict of interest to declare?
So this item does have a presentation. We do have team members here to present it, unless there's a motion to waive the presentation.
Good morning, Marion Council. My name is Lauren Whitney, rezoning planner for this application being considered under the Canby Corridor Plan.
The site, in red, encompasses the block fronting the west side of Canby Street between West 27th and West 28th Avenues. The neighbourhood consists of a mix of single detached dwellings, townhouse developments and six-storey residential buildings. The area is undergoing change under the Canby Plan and transit-oriented areas rezoning policy. The site is currently developed with four single detached dwellings with four existing tenants. All existing tenancies are eligible under the tenant relocation and protection policy.
Under the official development plan, the site is identified as mixed-use mid-rise for buildings up to 12 stories.
The proposal is in the Queen Elizabeth neighborhood of the Canby Corridor plan, which considers redevelopment for residential buildings up to six stories and a density between 2 and 2.5 FSR. While the plan sets out policy for residential uses at this location, the 2024 Canby Corridor Commercial Demand Study identified a commercial use gap in this area, thereby permitting commercial in key locations.
The site is in Tier 2 of the King Edward Station TOA, which allows up to 12 stories and 4 FSR. TOA policy seeks to secure either secured market rental with below-market rental or strata with social housing. This proposal is offering a cash CAC in lieu of securing in-kind social housing. The TOA policy also allows for a negotiated approach to the CAC where project viability contemplates alternative housing outcomes. The density within the TOA was considered when determining the supportable density of the subject site while considering project viability.
The application proposes a nine-story mixed-use building with a density of 3.6 FSR. Their proposal includes 148 strata residential units and commercial space on the ground floor. THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY BEYOND THE PLANS ORIGINAL POLICY SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL AT GRADE AND THE RETENTION OF A SIGNIFICANT BEACH TREE IN THE FRONT YARD. 72 SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD. SUPPORT WAS EXPRESSED FOR NEW HOUSING AND DENSITY CLOSE TO TRANSIT, THE INCLUSION OF FAMILY SIZED UNITS, THE RENEWAL OF AGING PROPERTIES AND THE ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ANIMATING THE STREET AND PROVIDING LOCAL RETAIL AND SERVICES. Some respondents felt that the height and density were inappropriate for the area. Staff support the increase in height and density to provide ground floor commercial and the tree retention, as well as note general alignment with the policy context for the area, which allows up to 12 stories. Some commenters expressed concern that the addition of commercial space will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Staff support the addition of commercial in response to the 2024 commercial demand study, which identified a commercial use gap in this area. Lastly, some respondents felt the commercial space will negatively impact traffic and safety. Staff note that this location is well-suited to reduce reliance on personal vehicles for transportation and is located 400 meters from the King Edward Sky train station. Additionally, the on-site parking for both residential and commercial uses has been conditioned per the parking bylaw.
The public benefits from this application include a cash CAC of $4 million, DCL contributions of $4.7 million, and a public art contribution of $280,000, with a combined value of almost $9 million.
In summary, staff have concluded that this proposal is generally in alignment with the Canby Corridor Plan and support the application subject to conditions in Appendix B. Staff and the applicant team are available for questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
yes if i may very briefly my name is michael geller i've been the planning consultant on this project for the last few years i'm joined today by yazi navidi an architect with floyd raffi and the developer maji charaka of aria pacific i think first of all we do want to thank the staff for their guidance throughout this process the only thing i would like to mention in light of the previous discussions that i've been listening to is that this project is indeed providing almost $9 million in public benefits. The other thing is we have modified the design to accommodate a significant tree. We did also modify the design to accommodate what we think will be good neighborhood retail, which reinforces the character of the street. The last thing I will mention, as was previously noted, there is a concern about the financial viability of a lot of these projects, including ownership projects. A term has been developed within the real estate community Projects that get approved and don't proceed are referred to as the ghost pipeline. And we are trying very hard to make sure that this project will indeed proceed, deliver almost $9 million in financial benefits, and not be part of the ghost pipeline. With that, we're pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you very much. Council, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant. Are there any questions?
Thank you. Thank you to Michael Geller there for being so frank and sort of answering a lot of my questions before I asked them. And that's a lot of it. That's what I was getting at by pulling this in terms of. Just seeing that strata is sort of not viable in some areas, obviously because of land value, and viable in certain other areas. And I asked staff, I think, I can't remember the answer, but... Just in terms of the number of unsold units of Strata that we have currently, if that answer ever came back, I didn't get an answer. It was staff were going to get back to me. There's numbers out there where it's upwards of 10,000 in the region, 2,500 in the actual city, or...
And I see Templar right behind me. It might be coming out of a long weekend. I cannot remember the number off the top of my head, but it's several thousand. And if you give us just a few minutes, we'll try to get you the exact number. But it's in the thousands of unsold units.
Okay.
I don't have any other questions. So if you want to take the rest of my time, I've got three or four minutes.
So that $4 million cash in lieu of social housing, can you walk me through what the Canby Quarter Plan public benefits strategy would allocate that CAC money for? Is it staying in some sort of housing bucket or is it going to amenities outside?
Yeah, thank you for your question. The Canby Quarter Plan PBS envisions a number of different buckets that that $4 million could go toward. Areas that are currently still requiring progress would be child care and housing, as an example, as well as community spaces. So while we don't have anything identified specifically, those are three buckets that the Canby Quarter PBS has identified as requiring work.
And community spaces, yeah.
Right, okay. So, does the Canby corridor public benefit strategy contemplate delivery of housing in any kind of more specific targets? I guess where I'm going with this is my concern that we're not delivering on appropriate below-market housing in tandem with development. And I appreciate that it might not work in this building, but I would like to see it delivered in the context of TOA and in the context of Canby Quarter.
Yeah, absolutely. I can speak specifically to the policy in this area. There is no below market housing option, social or BMR contemplated or required. But for the public benefit strategy as a whole, I'm going to hand that over to team.
Thanks, Councillor Fry. My name is Tina. I'm one of the senior planners. Yes, the Canby Corridor public benefit strategy does identify a range of housing options in terms of where cash allocation could go. We've got co-op housing, social housing, and as two examples, yes.
Do you mean the cash allocation in terms of where projects are realized?
If this money was to go towards below-market housing in lieu of as a cash contribution, would it stay in that area?
It could. It could. CACs are intended to be in the location for which the development is within some close proximity in terms of an area plan. So we would like to see the cash CAC allocated towards the Canby Corridor area. However, there are opportunities to collect that money and maybe reallocate it to an area for which there possibly could be a bigger need.
Okay. I guess I would like to see a little bit more detail on that in the report, but that's fine. Thank you.
Thank you for the time. As of December 2025, the Metro Vancouver unsold inventory for condominium strata was 3,800. 3,800. In Metro Van. Metro Van. Okay.
Thank you. Okay, would someone like to move a motion?
Councillor Meiszner. Sorry, Templer. Just Councillor Orr's, the response to his question. That's the whole region, though. That's Burnaby, Surrey, et cetera, et cetera. Do we have numbers for Vancouver, City of Vancouver?
I don't have it on hand. This is, again, data from CMHC, and it was kind of aggregated in the metro perspective. It's hard to speculate exactly how much, but a percentage of that would be Vancouver.
We don't know, though.
My guess would be somewhere under a third of that, but below a third, but yeah.
Okay, thank you. Councillor Maloney.
Yeah, and I also want to follow on from that just in case you were going to sit down and have a rest. So that's 3,800 unsold strata units. for the region. Can you give us some context for that? Because we do often get people who are worried that we shouldn't be approving more housing because there are loads of unsold or unoccupied units. Can you give us some context about how much 3,800 housing units are compared to some... larger figure of how many total housing units there are or something that's more, that gives people more context for the percentage that that is.
A fair question. And so 3,800 on a metro-wide basis is not an insignificant number of unsold inventory. I can say from our Housing Vancouver strategy over 10 years, we've got, I think, 10,000 strata units, give or take. for that 10-year period, so call it 1,000 a year kind of thing. We've got at least that in our pipeline already for projects. I think at one point, I was looking at the numbers recently, there's about 30,000 rental units that have been approved, but we've got another 4,000 or 5,000 of strata units in the pipeline over large sites and major projects. They do take time to absorb and build out. So, you know, from a Vancouver perspective, having the right amount of supply is healthy for the industry and for the market to absorb to so that you don't get these, you know, excessive price escalations. But having that extent of unsold inventory and what's already approved in the pipeline is quite a robust amount of strata units in the pipeline already that's already been approved but not yet constructed.
Okay, thanks very much.
Thank you. Okay, would someone like to move a motion? Great. Thank you, Councillor Domonato. Seconded by Councillor Zhou. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing none, let's call the vote.
Thank you very much. That completes item number eight. Okay, so now we are on report number 11, fast-tracking rental housing updates to residential rental districts. Before we begin, does anybody need to declare a conflict of interest?
This item does have a presentation. We do have team members here to present it, unless someone wants to waive the presentation. All right. I'm seeing no one putting up their hand.
Great. Thank you so much. Hello, Mayor and Council. I'm Maggie Moore, a planner in housing policy. Today, I'm sharing the proposed changes to the residential rental districts.
I will start with an overview of the recommendations you have in front of you today. Then I'll talk through the current state of the city's housing targets, the city's policy objectives that relate to this proposal, as well as where we're at with our current residential rental districts. Then we'll get into today's recommendations, which are the proposed updates to these districts. I'll talk through engagement and what we've heard as well as a summary and next steps. So looking at the recommendations you have, recommendation A includes changes to the RR2 and RR3 district schedules, including removing below-market rental requirements for fully residential development, removing or reducing requirements in mixed-use developments, and allowing up to eight stories in the RR2 districts to be compliant with TOA legislation. Recommendations B and C include applying the district changes to four current in-stream projects. Basically, we're slotting these four projects into the correct district schedule to support their development viability. This also includes terminating their existing approval and principle. And then recommendations D and E include consequential changes to the secured rental policy and other bylaws and policies, including the subdivision bylaw and the signed bylaw.
So looking at the Vancouver housing targets, one of the values of the Housing Vancouver strategy is for housing to respond to the diversity of people and households that call Vancouver home. To measure this, the 10-year housing targets outline the specific type and quantity of housing planned. The overall goal is for 83,000 units. Today, we're focusing on these two middle categories of rental housing that are highlighted here. The purpose-built below-market rental and purpose-built market rental, representing 43% of the city's overall target. And while we've been very successful in developing new units and enabling supply through zoning, there's been difficulty in the market delivering deeper affordability, especially in these low-rise districts. We'll share data throughout this presentation on what types of projects we've seen approved and make it to construction in the residential rental districts. Overall, we've seen that delivering below-market rental through private development in these low-rise zones can be very difficult and only shows viability in certain types of projects in certain areas of the city. Delivering more of these types of projects could require a greater investment from different areas of government, and we need to continue to work on partnerships with other levels of government on the ability to deliver below-market rental units.
So looking at what's been approved so far, close to 50 projects in the residential rental districts have been approved since the districts came online in 2021. These projects include close to 3,500 secured rental units. However, only 5%, which is a very small portion of these units, are below market. The status shows that the secured rental policy in the RR districts have been really successful in delivering market rental, these low-rise, middle-density housing options, but it's been difficult to get the below-market rental units. We've also seen a couple of projects canceled and many other projects coming to the city asking for added support and reduction in below-market rental units. There are a few reasons why this has been the case, including increasing costs of development. This slide is not showing any new information. We know that there have been rising costs of construction. These rising costs are making it increasingly difficult to deliver the secured market rental housing, and even more so for projects that have the below market rental included. And as mentioned on the last slide, while units have been approved, we're seeing the rising costs of construction continue to make it difficult to deliver these units. Since 2021, no BMR units have been delivered from the residential rental districts. And while some, close to 50 units, are currently under construction, many others are failing to get to the construction phase.
So looking at it from a policy context, based on the data and the projects we've seen, we're proposing changes to the residential rental districts to ensure that the projects can continue. These changes are being proposed under the secured rental policy developed in 2019 to promote the development of secured market rental housing and the development viability report, which was brought to council in December 2025, which proposed a set of measures to address immediate development viability challenges, including this one.
In December 2021, Council approved amendments to the secured rental policy to create new rental residential districts near shopping and transit. Similar to other standard zoning districts, the RR zone set regulations such as permitted use, density, and height limits while allowing for a range of building designs. All residential uses in the RR zones are secured as rental tenure and no stratification or sale. of individual residential units is allowed. These requirements are secured through housing agreements. And the RR districts include options for four to six-story fully residential and mixed-use developments. The aim of allowing these projects is to develop complete communities, including the options on retail streets that allow for retail on the ground floor and apartments above to support these neighborhoods. When the zones were created in 2021, all six-story projects and arterials were required to provide below-market rental units based on the financial testing done at the time.
So I'm going to go into a little more detail on what the districts look like and what the proposed changes are. The RR2A, RR2B, and RR2C district schedules currently allow apartment buildings at four, five, or six stories. where all dwelling units are secured as residential rental tenure. The six-story option requires 20% of residential floor area to be secured as below-market rental.
Focusing just on the five and six-story option, the RR2B and RR2C, we've seen close to 30 projects approved since 2021. However, we've seen over 10 times more projects come in under the five-story option without BMR units than the six-story RR2C option. And while we've seen some five-story projects completed, we haven't seen any of the six-story projects completed or even have their zoning enacted. Because the five-story option is being opted for a lot more frequently, we're losing out on that six-story of rental units. If all of these five-story buildings had been approved as six stories, we could have seen up to 400 more rental units approved in just a few years.
Moving on to the mixed use RR3 district. There are currently two options, four stories at 100% market rental and six story with a below market rental requirement. Looking at what we've seen in the mixed use projects, we've seen a different trend than in the fully residential projects. Overall, we have not seen a lot of these projects and many are struggling. There have been no projects in this district that have been completed and some have asked for adjustments to the below market rental inclusion. As you can see from this map, we are seeing a majority of projects opt into doing six stories with the BMR requirement. However, three times as many are doing this on the west side of the city. And the only four story projects we've seen have come in on the east side of the city. An important part of complete communities is to ensure we're getting these mixed-use projects and we're not getting a lot of uptake. Current conditions are making this even more difficult. We really want to make sure we get the retail. Through our financial testing and the projects that are coming in, we've seen that the BMR units are more viable on the west side of the city, although they still face some difficulties for delivery. The difference between east and west could be from a variety of factors, including lot size differences across the city and the going market rents that are feasible for those market rental units.
So looking at those changes specifically to the RR3 districts. We are proposing removing the below-market rental requirement in six-story buildings on the east side of the city, where they're more difficult to deliver, and reducing the below-market rental requirement on the west side from a 20% discount below CMHC average rents to a 10% discount. This would allow us to get more mixed-use rental buildings throughout the city, contributing to those complete communities. So looking at an overview... THIS IS WHAT WE PROPOSED THE THIS IS WHAT WE PROPOSED THE DISTRICTS TO LOOK LIKE WITH THE DISTRICTS TO LOOK LIKE WITH THE CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED IN PURPLE. CHANGES HIGHLIGHTED IN PURPLE. SO IN THE RR2A, THAT FULLY SO IN THE RR2A, THAT FULLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WE'RE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WE'RE LOOKING AT A FOUR STORY OPTION LOOKING AT A FOUR STORY OPTION AND A SIX STORY OPTION WITH NO AND A SIX STORY OPTION WITH NO LONGER BELOW MARKET RENTAL LONGER BELOW MARKET RENTAL REQUIREMENTS IN SIX STORIES. And then three mixed-use districts, a four-story option and two separate six-story options with different levels of affordability requirements based on location. So removing the below-market rental on the east side of the city.
And some other proposed changes consistent with simplification approaches implemented with new district schedules. Updates are recommended to the existing RR2A, RR2B, and RR2C district schedules and the RR3A and RR3B district schedule. This includes removing design guidelines and relocating affordable housing requirements. And then in order to be compliant with provincial legislation, we've added in an eight-story 3.0 FSR option for RR2B sites and transit-oriented areas for existing in-stream projects.
So looking at recommendations B and C, based on these proposed zoning changes, there are four in-stream projects that have been approved for rezoning to an RR district that we're proposing moving to the appropriate district. This includes two projects currently in RR2C, which we're repealing, and two mixed-use projects on the east side. Recommendations B and C include changing the approval for these four projects to align them with the correct district. There are also a number of in-stream applications for residential rental districts. Staff will continue to process all in-stream rezoning inquiries and applications. This applies to all projects which have already submitted a formal rezoning application or a formal rezoning inquiry prior to the date this report is brought to council. Staff will begin accepting new development permit applications after enactment.
So looking at the engagement we did and what we heard from November 2025 to January 2026, we connected with residents in the development community through online information sessions and surveys. Engagement included a Shape Your City page and virtual open houses. From the public, we heard support for building more six-story buildings that feel human scaled and fit well into existing neighborhoods. We've heard a lot of support from the development community on streamlining development and implementing these changes as soon as possible.
We also heard concerns about the six-story building heights fitting into existing neighborhood character. Six stories is already allowed in most sites through the current RR rezoning process, so this isn't being added to those areas. However, the eight stories is new in these, but this is consistent with the TOA legislation. In addition, we heard concerns about reducing the requirements for below market rental housing units. This is being proposed due to current economic conditions and decreased viability of requiring the below market rental units in these low rise districts. We've seen this through the numbers of what's being developed. Existing requirements have produced minimal below market rental units, approximately 5% of the approved units so far. The proposal maintains requirements for the below-market rental units in areas where the market is more likely to deliver them.
So, in summary, the changes we're proposing today to the residential rental districts would improve development viability of secured market rental housing and simplify some of the regulations in these districts. I'll also note that there were report revisions on May 15th to clarify some mistakes that were made in the report, including FSR allowances, BMR rates, and heights in TOAs. If this is approved, the bylaws would be brought forward for enactment in June, and new applications using the updated district schedules could come in after that date. Staff will continue working through implementation of existing in-stream applications. And staff will also continue intergovernmental conversations on the tools available to the city for delivering below-market housing. And that's my presentation.
Great. Thank you very much. Council, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. Councillor Orr.
Thanks. Thanks for the presentation. Again, answered a lot of my questions. Just in terms of BMR, we're hearing that it's affecting project viability. But I've also heard anecdotally that even 20% isn't that affordable anyways. So, for example, say the average CMHC rent is $2,000 for a one-bedroom. 20% below that is $1,600. You'd have to make $5,300 a month to afford that. Has staff done an impact report on how many residents earning $50,000 to $80,000 would be excluded under the 2,348 rezoned properties if the BMR is reduced or removed?
I'm going to invite Edna to come share.
Morning, Council. I'm Edna Cho, Senior Planner in Housing Policy. The answer to your question is no, we didn't do that analysis for this work. We were looking at what was financially feasible in terms of these projects.
But really just focused on getting the projects done and not the affordability for people who make around that.
I would say that we are focused on preserving the affordability where it works. That's why we're preserving the mixed-use option for BMR at 10% discount because that shows to still be feasible.
And then as Maggie alluded to in her presentation, we have other mechanisms to try to get to gain affordability. And we also know that we're going to have to step up our efforts to do more advocacy with senior governments to try to get more deeper levels of affordability.
No, I appreciate that. And that really stood out to me in the report was that we do need this, but we're... advocacy is one thing, but we're being told over and over again from senior levels, especially the province, that we don't have any money. The province is broke. So why, you know, if that's the case, why are we then getting rid of kind of the only thing that we have? You know, you're saying it's not working, we're not building enough, but it's kind of the bare minimum that we're doing here. And then we're saying, oh, okay, well, we'll just advocate to the province, but the province is broke. I don't see how we square that kind of circle.
Again, we're preserving the below market rental where it works in the mixed use projects. As we show through the data, primarily we're getting almost all market rental projects right now. So... You know, to change the five-story to six-stories will ensure that those projects continue to be viable and to ensure that we get, you know, we get that extra story, that extra, you know, could be 400 units on the table.
Right. So I think the number was 5% that we're getting from BMR. How much do we expect going forward? That will increase or decrease? You mean the... For the new projects, if we're getting rid of BMR, are you saying that we don't... These projects aren't delivering BMR, so we're getting rid of BMR to make the projects happen. So we're going to have even less BMR.
Yes, that's correct. In the fully residential projects. Okay.
And then so for the five-story versus six-story buildings, we're saying we're getting more applicants to choose the five-story buildings because of the requirements on the six-story. So why wouldn't we just... Make it so that five stories have to have BMR instead of going the other direction and reducing BMR for six stories. The five stories... Why wouldn't we go the other direction in terms of requiring affordability down the line that way from five stories, four stories? Instead of just getting rid of the six-story one.
Because it doesn't work. If we layered a BMR requirement to the five stories, it wouldn't be feasible. Then we wouldn't be able to get any of the development.
Okay. Does this send a sort of a message to developers that if we just wait long enough, we'll just kind of, you know... retroactively reduce their requirements. I mean, this seems like the kind of message that we're saying, like, oh, we can't build anything, so we're not going to. And so the city needs to do something. Yeah.
Counselor, Dan Garrison, Director of Housing Policy and Regulation. Just wanted to jump in on that question. Really, if you'd take a step back and you look at what we're doing here. I'm sorry, we're at time. Okay, thanks. Counselor Kirby Young.
Yeah, thank you. I have some questions that might, maybe that'll help. My first question is really, I guess, around recognizing the challenging times we're in, just asking the kind of, so what question are we doing the right, chasing the right paradigm? And so I know that the report references that a comprehensive review and update the city's development contribution tools, including DCLs, is underway. I'm specifically interested to know if that review will be looking at something like Is the city better off to take cash than requiring inclusionary zoning and below market units that could be then used, for example, to support community amenities or contributed to nonprofit housing projects as opposed to getting a small amount in discount affordability? Will that type of analysis be looked at as to whether we should take a very different approach to affordability versus BMR?
yes thanks counselor dan garrison housing policy and regulation um i i think the review that's coming up we're going to look holistically at where we're doing inclusionary housing and what's the best way to deliver the the deepest level of affordability as well as looking at how the city deals with our other infrastructure and public amenity needs So I think if you look at BMR, what we're proposing here, of course, is to remove the BMR requirements from lower density development, which will then largely start to pay things like development costs, levies, etc. The higher density development, like in TOA areas in the Broadway plan, is the area where we still think more inclusionary housing, more BMR, etc., is possible. In the short-term review, we're going to be looking at mostly legislative compliance with the new Bill 16 requirements.
Can I just interject? I know you have lots of great information on this topic, but I guess if you said you're already stating that you think that in the higher density projects, for example, that's a better alternative, but will that analysis be done and information provided to Council on alternatives that you could continue to have BMR distinguishing between lower rise and more density? or it could generate this amount of cash that could go to support, for example, nonprofit projects. Will we explicitly get that type of information on what the tradeoffs are?
In the short-term review, we are mostly looking at legislative compliance. We're sort of taking what our existing constructs are and making them comply with the legislation. We are also looking at launching the major inclusionary review where we do look at exactly what you're talking about. Really, the market has changed fundamentally from where it was when most of our inclusionary housing policies and zoning were adopted.
I understand, and sometimes we need to pivot. When will that broader review happen?
We're looking at launching that essentially immediately, and it's probably going to take us a little bit of time. It's not going to be in June or July. It's going to be probably in 2027.
Okay, that's clear. I do think that we need to revisit how we best, within the city levers, achieve affordability. Yeah, we agree. My second question is really around, it wasn't covered as directly, I think, in the report, but can you kind of speak to us as the city's going towards now more pre-enabled zoning? So whether it's either through the TOA legislation, the adoption of the ODP, et cetera, which creates a different paradigm when someone's bringing a project forward because you have broad density and entitlements as opposed to rezonings. where you got extra FSR and sometimes more land lift. So are we trading off? Can you talk about how that's intersecting, for example? Is that helping us move housing along faster, but we're not seeing as much land lift? And I know that it's complicated because there's many factors, but just interested in general perspective on that.
Yeah, I think that's one of the really key pieces that we're doing is shifting our development approvals approach towards more certainty, more clarity. And that happens with the district schedule approach. So this work that we're doing right now is sort of that middle ground where it's a rezoning, but directly to a district schedule that's already established. When we come forward with the villages, which planning program, which this work is really aligned with, that's going to be the next major step in pre-zoning proposals where we do look at that certainty. So, you know, I think actually the pre-zoning approach creates a real opportunity around particularly development viability where there's more certainty. The processes of approval are faster. There's sort of less money involved in that process. So I think that's an important step.
Okay. And if the approval is faster, then it mitigates some of the costs.
Lower carrying costs, less uncertainty, less risk involved in development. So certainly we think at that point we're going to be seeing improvements in development viability through that approval approach.
Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Councillor Fry.
Yeah, I guess just off the top, can you... walk through why this is not eligible for public comment and why it's not coming to public hearing.
I'll invite Edna up to answer this one.
Thanks for the question. So there's been changes to our public hearing rules from the provincial legislation. And so under the new rules, a public hearing is prohibited if a project is consistent with the ODP. where the changes are primarily residential in nature. And at least 50% of the residential gross floor area, the buildings will be for residential. So because these changes fall within, meet all those three criteria, a public hearing is prohibited. And so that's why this report is being brought to Daytime Council today.
So I was of the impression that ODP was really a land use policy. And that we've disaggregated sort of housing policies like inclusionary zoning from the actual ODP. Because I seem to recall in previous items, we couldn't discuss ODP because they're inclusionary because it wasn't part of ODP.
Are we being consistent with the application here?
We are. The ODP governs land use, but it also governs housing policies.
Okay. Yeah.
So we are being consistent with the application of the new rules.
Okay. So elsewhere in this report, it references the report from December, the amendment to report back on supporting development viability and unlocking new housing supply, which asked asked to look at including but not limited to reducing the required proportion of below market units.
Are there no other options being considered? Like we didn't get any other options to support housing viability other than eliminating below market. Were there no other options considered or viable?
In terms of city tools, this is what's available to us in terms of land use tools. Yeah.
Well, this is... We didn't model that? In the low-rise, like we're already up to six stories, so there's really no room to go in the low-rise form. Otherwise, as Dan mentioned earlier, you know, we can do the below-market rental in the high-rise developments, which we are doing through Canby and Broadway and in the... the r5 district schedules and these projects already get 100 dcl waivers for the bmr so that's already in play so i think you know it's just a very difficult time right now in the market with the construction costs and the uncertainty in the environment around around tariffs as well you know we are seeing um new rental rates falling which is great news for renters but that does mean it's a little bit it's even more challenging for the projects to work So within the tools we have available within the six-story form, this is what the city can do. But however, we agree that preserving affordability is really important, and that's why we're preserving it in the mixed-use option on the west side, because that's still looking to be feasible.
But just to be clear from your presentation, the five stories are penciling out fine. It's just the six stories that aren't working, and specifically six stories with the inclusion of BMR.
The testing results show that even if a new project were to go forward today, the five stories is also challenged. It's more challenging than it was in 2021. What we're talking, but a lot of these projects that we were showing in the pipeline, they're ones that were approved previously or in the system already. So there are challenges that are being faced by new projects, but right now those ones, because they're proceeding, they look to be viable. And as you can see, there's a lot more of them than the below market six-story option, which the testing results show they're not viable.
So when we zoom out from the building and the pro forma on a building, does the planning consider what it means for neighborhoods when we lose? below market units as part of the fabric of a larger neighborhood?
I think when we put these changes in place in 2021, we were very hopeful that we could get, you know, the diversity of the... And I'm sorry we're at time, but I'm sure Councillor Maloney would love to hear that answer.
Yeah, I've got loads of questions, but please finish that.
Oh, okay. In 2021, when we put forward the policy, you know, we really wanted to see the full spectrum of the different forms as well as the affordability. And so that was the intent. And I think, you know, with the experience we have now, it's showing that the BMR was a really great idea on paper, but it's just not penciling out. So we are, you know, we're getting 97% of the market rental. That's working really well. But we're getting very few projects in the below market rental. So it's really... kind of on paper at this point.
Thank you. So how does this fit with the single stair egress typology work in terms of minimum frontage sizes? Because I note that it's 66 feet, which is two standard lots.
When are we going to get, at what stage of the planning process will we be looking at integrating single stair typology on single lots, like below 50?
Marie Linehan, Development Planner. So the building code changes have been made to allow the single egress steers So these apartment buildings can make use of that. They can choose to do the single egress stairs. I think the change you're mentioning is allowing apartment buildings on smaller lots, and that's coming through with the R3, with the update to R3, which will come with the villages, because we anticipate that the single egress stairs has the most benefit on these smaller lots for efficiency. So that's coming forward with the villages' work. Wonderful.
Thanks for clarifying that. So what would be the effect of council opposing this change today in terms of development viability challenges? It would just mean that six-storey apartments continue not to be built. Is that right?
That's correct.
Yeah. Okay. And so that is really what Michael Geller was referring to with the ghost pipeline, things that have been approved but just aren't financially viable to build.
That's correct. Yeah. We're hearing projects running into difficulties and applicants coming back requesting changes.
Yeah. And so the effect of that is 20% BMR, 20% of nothing is nothing.
That's correct. If it doesn't get built.
Yeah. All right. And what effect does additional market housing supply have on the overall affordability of housing?
Additional supply can increase the vacancy rate, which means there's more competition for renters, more choice, and it brings down the rents. And we're already seeing a reduction in rents, I think 1.4% down from last year. So it is happening. Rents are still high, but with a sustained pipeline, that trend will likely continue, that decrease in rents.
And speaking to developers recently, I've heard that... You know, we've got buildings in the pipeline that are being built for the next couple of years, but then it's really going to grind to a halt once the projects that are in process are finished. Do you think that approving this today will help contribute to more housing being in the pipeline at that two-year point?
Yes, we do. We think that that's really important. A sustained pipeline is really important. We have, you know, 10,000 units under construction, but beyond that, you know, there's lots in the pipeline, but unsure where they will go. So having more units go into the pipeline will be really important so that we're not, you know, making great changes now, but then there's a stop and then, you know, we're back to where we were 10 years ago.
And what would be the general effect of having a more significant lack of housing in the pipeline at that point when current construction is completed? Volatility of housing prices.
then the rents will rise again and there will be less choice for renters and there will just be a tighter market.
Yep. And so what solutions very quickly just generally are within the city's power to contribute to housing affordability?
So within the city's power, we have our land use tools. So we have density. We can offer density, DCL waivers. We can look at land use, different forms of development. So those are our main tools. And then, yeah, waiving DCL charges. Yeah, those are the city's main tools.
So things like allowing more density in the Villages Plan is something that's going to have a positive effect on housing affordability.
That's correct. We'll have more choice for renters and for owners and more diversity for households. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, so Council, you have up to five minutes to ask questions. Sorry. Can we get a mover of the motion? Thank you, Councillor Meiszner and Councillor Dominato seconded. Council, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.
Thank you.
Great. And that passes with Councillor Frye abstaining and Councillor Orr in opposition.
So the next item on the docket is referral report number two, CD-1 rezoning 1500 through 1580 West 3rd Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, does anybody have a conflict that they have to disclose? No? Okay. This item does not have a team member presentation. Councillor Orr, you held this item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members.
Thanks so much. Sorry, this is all moving very quickly, but I did put an amendment. I do think that this referral report should go to a public hearing. Can I just get you to the amendment queue, please?
Okay, so back to the main queue. So, Clerk, does that mean we have to move the motion first?
Okay. All right. Councillor Orr, please go ahead if you want to move that as the main motion.
Yeah, pretty straightforward. I think in terms of that staff say that this is conspicuously tall and out of scale, and that the report says zero tower separation, which will prevent adjacent lots from ever redeveloping, and that the report claims that GLU will consider opportunities for hotel use near rapid transit areas. The report notes that this is a tier three, but the proposal exceeds the heightened density for the TOA designation, which would limit this to eight stories. So I do believe considering these things in the report that we should hear from the public on this particular application.
sorry i'm just trying to follow this last minute is this not being referred to public hearing in the first place i'm sorry um sorry mayor i maybe questioned through you to uh uh the city manager or director of planning or whoever is appropriate to answer this because i'm a bit confused i was of the impression this was being referred to public hearing um
Austin Norrie, Resigning Planner on the line. This application is being referred to a regular council meeting, not a public hearing. It's eligible to do so because it is consistent with the Vancouver ODP and is consistent with the Broadway plan as well as the hotel development policy.
Council, is there any other discussion?
Seeing no one else in the queue, we will put Councillor Orr's, it's very clear quote, we'd call it an amended motion. It's a main motion by Councillor Orr to vote.
If we can please go to the voting panel.
And is Councillor Bligh online or is she absent? Okay. All right. Well, that fails with Mayor Sim, Councillors Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Classen, Meisner, and Joe in opposition, and Councillor Bligh absent, and Councillor Maloney abstaining. Okay. So, Clerk, then do we go back to the...
Okay, if someone would like to move another main motion to get us back to where we were. Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Klassen. Sorry to beat you to the punch there. Okay, so now we are back to where we were at the beginning. And council, is there any discussion?
Seeing no in the queue, I'm going to put this one to a vote.
You sure can.
Great. And so that passes with Councillor Orr in opposition and Councillor...
That concludes referral report number two. Now we're going to go to bylaws. Thank you very much. We have 14 bylaws on the agenda for enactment. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody have a conflict to disclose? Seeing no one in the queue. Council members who were absent for the meetings related to public hearing enactment bylaws must confirm that they've reviewed the proceedings of the meetings, including the video clip, to be eligible to vote. Bylaw number one was from the public hearing on March the 11th, 2025. Councillors Bly, Fry, Maloney, and Orr were absent for this item at the public hearing. Councillor Bligh, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting on the enactment?
I have and I will.
Thank you. Councillor Fry?
I have and I will. Councillor Maloney?
Councillor Orr?
Bylaws 7 and 10 were from the public hearing on May the 5th and 7th, 2026. Councillors Meisner, Orr, and myself were absent for this item at the public hearing. Councillor Meiszner, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting on the enactments? I have not and I will not.
Councillor Orr?
I have not and will not. We're going to need to adopt bylaw number one prior to voting on bylaws two through 14 as bylaws two and three were subject to approval of bylaw one. Would someone like to move the motion to adopt bylaw number one? Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Thank you. Council, is there any discussion? All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously.
Would someone like to move the motion to adopt Bylaws 2 through 14? Councillor Domenato, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Thank you very much. Council is there any discussion? All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. I believe that was a yay. Okay. The motion carries unanimously. Okay, the list of approved bylaws can be found on the city's website. Administrative motions. Number one, fast-tracking rental housing and small hotels. New mixed-use commercial district. Before we begin this agenda item, is there a conflict that anyone needs to declare? No. Council, are there any questions to team members?
Okay, would someone like to move the motion? Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Domenato. Council, is there any discussion? All those in favor say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Are there notices of council member motions for upcoming standing committee meetings? A reminder to please state the title of the motion and the date of the standing committee. meeting on which you intend to move the motion. And be sure to send the title and date to the standing committee, sorry, date of the standing committee meeting via email to the clerk. Councillor Dominato.
Yes, thanks. A notice of motion for the June 3rd standing committee advancing means prevention fencing on the Granville Street Bridge.
Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young.
For new business when you're there.
Okay, so I'll just... Councillor Orr.
Yeah, a motion, three motions for the Standing Committee on June 3rd. A motion titled, More Than Zero, Integrity and Accountability for Staff and Department Changes. A motion titled, Protecting Tenants at 75 East 8th Avenue through the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy Review. And a motion titled, Creating a Low-Income Transit Pass to Increase Efficiency, Ridership, and Equity.
Thank you. Officer Maloney.
Two motions for the Standing Committee meeting of the 3rd of June. The first one is just from me calling for the reading statement of provincial climate resilience funding. And the second one I'm moving with Councillor Orr, which is recognising National Accessibility Week as an official City of Vancouver observance.
Thank you very much. Great.
Mayor, Councillor Blighthe, if I could go on the queue.
Yes, please go ahead.
one motion for uh notice a motion for june 3rd at uh pride in vancouver strengthening and celebrating the vancouver pride festival thank you very much okay um seeing no one else in the queue we're going to move on to new business uh we have one item of new business on the agenda today and that's requests for leaves of absence this motion has been circulated to council at the beginning of the meeting and is available on the screen so Why don't we all take a look at the screen just to make sure it captures everything.
Does anybody need more time to review that? No? Does that happen here or does it happen as a separate item?
Why don't we just do amended so it's all in one place. Is that okay, everyone? Great. Okay. I guess we would need a seconder.
Councillor Claston, thank you very much.
We can just put that up on the screen. Oh, it's just coming now. Thank you, everyone.
You've got it now, but it's for July 31st LOA all day for personal reasons. Thank you.
Great. And that's been updated now? Perfect.
Perfect.
Okay, all those in favour say yay. Sorry, let me rewind back here. We're voting on the amendment, right? Yes, sorry, just to be clear. So we're voting on Councillor Domonato's amendment. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, that motion carries unanimously. And now we will put... The new business as amended, the request for leaves of absence to a vote. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. That passes unanimously as well.
new business counselor Kirby young yeah thanks mayor I have emailed a an urgent motion around to council and with council support I'd like to introduce it now if I could should I go ahead please go ahead and we need a seconder yep can we great counselor class and thank you very much counselor please go ahead Yeah, thanks. Everybody, I think, has heard in the news over the last week about the preemptive closure mandated due to FIFA of the BC Sports Hall of Fame. And I think that this came as a surprise to a lot of people. Not that FIFA doesn't have the right to access the spaces, but it came so late. And so they are required to close a... venue that really ironically is about showcasing British Columbia's rich sports history to the world. And no better time to do that when we're actually welcoming the world here through FIFA. And it's a key time of the year for the museum typically in the summertime with visitors coming in. And so they're required to close. I think that the second part that's been really egregious and disappointing is that they have been asked to close with no compensation whatsoever. and no plan B to operate. So you have staff that are essentially out of work for a couple of months, and the museum has lost its ability to really showcase that rich history when we have national heroes like Terry Fox and others in such a rich history of sport across our province. And so the motion that I am proposing, which is entitled Showcasing British Columbia's Sporting Legacy During FIFA World Cup by Temporarily Hosting the BC Sports Hall of Fame at Vancouver City Hall. And what it does is I think that rather than let this, what is an egregious situation pass by, I think it's incumbent on us to look at opportunities to provide the Sports Hall of Fame the chance to continue operating and to show that rich legacy. And so what the motion is requesting is to direct staff to work with the BC Sports Hall of Fame to explore the feasibility of temporarily hosting a rent-free pop-up exhibition at Vancouver City Hall. for the duration of the World Cup or such other period as mutually agreed upon, direct our staff to engage with the BC Sports Hall of Fame and relevant provincial agencies to identify the operational requirements with a temporary relocation, including all various considerations, installation, staffing, security, et cetera, and request that the mayor engage with the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Sports, and Culture that the province provide funding to cover the cost with a temporary relocation. I think what should be noted is that the Sports Hall of Fame folks, as I understand it, are temporarily packing everything up and have to relocate the items because it's going to serve as the media center during FIFA. And so rather than put them in storage, why not bring them up here and give all of the visitors that are coming to our city in unprecedented numbers the opportunity to experience that rich history. And so that is the proposal for council's consideration this morning. Thank you.
Oh, sorry, that's a holdover.
Yeah.
okay um should we we move it to an amendment queue or to be no it's just uh people are queuing up for new business and so i just okay so i'm going to skip councillor dominato and then put her back a bit and thank you Councillor Klassen but you're next in the queue thanks yeah thanks just uh really briefly uh thanks uh councillor kirby young for bringing this motion and
And I know that I certainly hope, but I think the province would be supportive of this. We've seen some of the outcry from community on this one, but obviously this is something where an opportunity, we have so many people coming to visit the city during this major sport event, but also the people of Vancouver itself and people in the region who want to celebrate some of these important figures from our past and future. and sporting legends. And so just being able to do a pop-up like this for that time just sounds like a terrific idea, and I'm very pleased to support it. Thanks.
Thank you. Mr. Meisner.
Thank you. I've been following this, the news coverage of the... I don't want to call it an eviction, but they were, you know, essentially marched out of BC Place. And it's very unfortunate. And the BC Sports Hall of Fame is a great... not just a destination for visitors, but also for locals to learn more about our sporting history. So I'd be really supportive of bringing this to City Hall and ensuring that the provincial government steps up to fund this temporary pop-up at City Hall. I think it's a great location for it. We have the FIFA dressing on City Hall right now, and we're close to transit, and we have some space. So as long as the provincial government is willing to step up and fund this temporary relocation, I'm in full support of it.
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue, we'll put it to a vote. Mayor, if I can get a vote assist in favor, please.
Sure can. Great.
And that passes with Councillor Frye abstaining. Okay.
So we will go. Thank you very much. And I'm going to add Councillor Domonato back to the queue there. Councillor Domonato.
I don't have new business. I have inquiries and other matters.
Okay. Are there any other new business items? No? Okay. We are inquiries and other matters. Councillor Domonato, please go ahead.
Thanks. My question is directed to our city manager and looking for a report back from staff. And I brought this issue up before, but again, it was reported again over the weekend, is issues around the Grandview Cut, particularly around commercial and Broadway and people trespassing and accessing the other side around the rail tracks there. In some cases, they're climbing the fence. In some cases, they're cutting. The fence has been cut through. There's been not only people injured but also killed. There seems to be multiple jurisdictions involved in terms of the city rail. TransLink but I would welcome an update from and a memo from staff as to are there some possible remedies through our multiple jurisdictions to prevent people from accessing this space both I know both police and Vancouver Fire Rescue have attended on a number of occasions so would welcome an update on that
Thank you, Your Worship. Due to the Councillor, happy to report back to all of Council.
That would be wonderful, thank you. Secondarily, also would welcome a further update on the TransCanada Trail access in East Vancouver at Bridgeway Street. I know that we were in the final, I think the final leg of getting some agreement settled with the rail company in question, but if we could get a further update as to when that will be reopened to the public, I would welcome that as well. Um, and, uh, I just, I will note as just an, I had to circulate an email to, uh, council, but I did want to just, uh, acknowledge in, in public, um, uh, the passing of Charlie Cosetto, uh, very grateful for the opportunity to get to know Charlie over the last number of years, but also thank you to all of council who attended and joined us in, in honoring him with a proclamation recently. Um, but he did, uh, pass away with his family on mother's day last week. And, uh, There'll be a gathering this Friday, but I just wanted to just acknowledge his passing and all the contributions he's made to the city of Vancouver and his role not only with soccer and futsal Canada internationally, but also locally as a former Parks and Recreation employee as well. But I know he was very honoured to be here and to have all of Council recognize him, so thank you.
Thank you very much. And Charlie was an incredible person. Thank you. Counselor Orr.
Yeah, thank you for that. I just have a question. There's an article, a couple articles that have come over since. There's an article titled Proposed TransLink Bus Stops Removals Raise Accessibility Concerns in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. And this is a question for the city manager. If council would want to decide to sort of defer that for more consultation with stakeholders in the community. Would that need to be a private member's motion to defer those changes, bus stop changes?
Two things. Without having further details, that would appear appropriate to me to have it be a private member's motion. But I will look into it and have a report back with more information to all of council.
Okay, thanks. And then I do have a second question. Just rezoning. I might be getting ahead of myself, but... 3475 East Hastings. There's a hotel with 85 supportive housing units in it. I just would like a little daylight on this in terms of if the new building will have 85 units of shelter rate in it. You can get back to me at some point. 3475 East Hastings.
Thank you. We will. Thanks.
Yeah, just a quick shout-out to the organizers, presenters, speakers, sponsors, volunteers at Web Summit Vancouver. We saw an incredible conference. I spoke to so many people who found that it was just a tremendous event. It topped what we did last year, and I'm sure it will continue to grow as an important part of our overall... I just saw so much energy and innovation and spoke to companies that we're going to be establishing here in Vancouver, bringing hundreds of new jobs, companies like Nutanix and Infosys, spoke to representatives of those companies, and it's just a validation of why.
uh events like web summit vancouver really matter to our city and to our tech community uh and so just shout out to everybody uh who made it such a incredible success thanks thank you very much counselor fry yeah um general inquiry about uh um it's come to my attention that uh sign blades the street signs have been replaced um here in in my neighborhood of strathcona and other neighborhoods with new street signs and the installer had told residents that it was being paid for by fifa which sounded unusual to me so i'm wondering if we could get an update on on uh the extent of sort of street beautification and specifically sign uh street sign replacement and and what that's costing and who's paying happy to provide that update thank you very much counselor kirby young
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, who held their day of music, their seventh annual day of music, this past Saturday, May 16th. The weather cooperated, and it was pretty fantastic to see stages set up across the city from... to Granville Island, as well as a number of activities at the Orpheum itself, both the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra and the Vancouver School of Music involved in that. All the activities were free across the city. I think a number of counselors were involved. I had the opportunity to go down and participate at the Helmiken stage in Yaletown, and it was so well attended. There was such a diverse amount of music that was presented. I saw things like flamenco dance, dim sum and a jazz trio and just seeing people gathering in the city with the chance to enjoy great culture and music for free.
when families are stretched was really something. I understand that the Orpheum was filled to capacity with lines around the block on Saturday evening when they sort of topped off the full day with a concert. And so I really appreciate it when our arts and culture organizations are providing, finding ways to engage and to provide access to as many people as possible. And it was a really well done one. And that was number seven. And hopefully we'll see number eight coming up next year as well. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Great. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we have a motion to adjourn? Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Dominato. All those in favour, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Great. This meeting is adjourned.
Thank you, everyone.