CD-1 Rezoning 75 East 8th Avenue Approved

Yeah, thanks. I was going to put forward an amendment. If we can just go to the amendment queue.

Councillor Orr.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, I sent it through. It's essentially that we refer this back to staff until the new TRPP policy is confirmed and can be debated under those auspices. That might not be the best language there, but... Further, that council asked staff to redesignate 75 East 8th Avenue to general urban use, as Templar sort of just eloquently explained using the flex clause there. So, yeah, that's essentially it. Just that I don't think that we should be doing this while the TRPP policy is still sort of being reviewed. Thanks.

Great. Is there a seconder? Great. Councillor Frye seconded. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Maloney?

Yeah, point of information to staff about the second part of the proposed referral.

Can you just run me through what the implications are for taking this, it's one block of this out of the... industrial zoning that's part of the regional growth strategy allocation.

And did you have something to add to that?

Okay. And can you just elaborate on what is the purpose of ‑‑ what are some considerations to take into account in designating parcels to come out of this allocation or not?

Okay. And just one final question.

Can you remind me that with the other residential development at the other side of the Mount Pleasant industrial zone, did we use this or did we ‑‑ I think we used this.

Okay, thanks very much. Can I ask that the two parts of this be severed and that we vote on them separately, please?

Sure can. Thank you. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, just further that line of questioning in terms of when to use this clause and when it's appropriate and what other considerations. Would a consideration be that it is currently not being used for industrial and that it is actually a residential building?

Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

Sorry, I just had a question and I just completely forgot it immediately.

Okay, Councillor Maloney again. You're on there twice. You're good. Okay, Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, just a point of procedure. Did I hear from staff that the second clause is written is essentially not lawful because it has to go to a public hearing and trigger a new... A new public hearing? So staff can't redesignate until such time as a new process unfolds?

Unimplementable, meaning...

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. That seems quite clear.

Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, sorry. I was going to ask, does this, what's the status of this use? Does it remain a non-conforming use barring any other interventions?

Thank you.

I'm now going to call the vote on the amendment.

So we are going to... Sir, if we can refresh that screen, the voting panel, please. We're going to vote on the first part, which is highlighted.

Okay, so that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Councillor Dominato, Councillor Montague, Councillor Claston, and Councillor Zhou in opposition. Okay, and then the second part.

Is that clear, everyone?

I didn't intend to vote in opposition. Actually, I'd like for the record for that to be corrected.

Are you okay? Okay. Thank you very much. So we're all good?

No, no, I think Councillor Orr still had time. Sorry, I think the queues got switched around.

I think I changed queues, yeah.

Can I just clarify that this is final remarks before voting?

Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be voting in opposition to this. And I want to be clear about what I took into account in coming to that decision. The Broadway plan projects have displacement. that have displacement include a right of return for tenants on top of compensation options. And that's the difference between this rezoning application and other Broadway plan projects. I was very much convinced by arguments that there's insufficient compensation or protection of existing tenants. I wasn't assured by the assurances of the applicant that we had enough certainty that got there. They said they'd go above and beyond the minimum requirements but that wasn't sufficiently detailed or enforceable to reassure me. As an aside, I'm pretty concerned about how many former tech workers we heard from, especially young people and that's definitely a reflection on how hard it is for young people to get jobs at the moment. I am in favour of a new hotel in this area. It's a great area for visitors to stay.

But I can understand why some people don't really care about the supply of hotel rooms. But the availability of affordable hotel rooms is actually, it does affect ordinary people. And extended stay accommodation, we heard, is crucial for people who need to be in Vancouver to visit family, to support family members who are in hospital, including people...

I'll just leave that. I would caution people about using the term medical tourist. I think that it demeans folks...

who are going through a very difficult time. I'm going to leave it there. Thanks.

Thank you. And thanks for that reminder, Councillor Maloney. It's not the best term, 100%. And thank you for your vulnerability as well, knowing what your family has been through. I know this hits on a personal note. But also, you know, I really want to thank all the speakers here. You know, again, also showing a lot of vulnerability. I'm thinking of residents like May Bickley and Will Barrowkin, especially, you know, having to come out, you know, and also, you know, over multiple days, couldn't have been easy. It's obviously, this is a strange one, non-conforming rental building, industrial zone land, where residents don't qualify for the right of return. I really think we should wait until the TRPP review is complete This council just chose not to do that. The staff have acknowledged that this is a gap to be addressed in the future policy. And I hope, you know, there won't be any other situations like this and we can actually address this gap. I know it is an outlier. But, I mean, I think if we recognize that the policy is inadequate, then why, again, are we rushing? one of these projects that exposes the inadequacy before we actually go and fix it. I just think, you know, there's been a lot of kind of rushing lately, and I just think we should do this right. And similar with the hotel development policy, and I did vote against that. And we heard, you know, a few speakers talk about subsection 3.2.2.1D, which declares all displacements of rental apartments by hotel developments to be... conformance with all community plans despite the stated intent of those community plans and the official development plan to minimize those displacements. And again, we've already done this. We've referred a very similar hotel project back to staff. In the West End, I think we should do that here. Even just last night, we had a project, which was a hotel, which included below-market rentals in it. So we know that this can be done. We know that there's options, that we could have these people return to this site if that's so wished.

It happened last night. But again, I think council has spent... years talking about preventing displacement, strengthening tenant protections, keeping renters in their neighborhoods, and this has to mean something when they're tested. And I think if we prove this today, we're essentially saying that those protections disappear whenever housing is replaced with a hotel instead of another apartment building. I don't think that's what council intended when we strengthened the Broadway plan, and I don't think that's a precedent that we should be setting. So I can't support that. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks. This is a challenging one in some regards, but also in others, not really challenging at all. I think at the end of the day, and I appreciate staff's work in listening to those affected, obviously the residents who actually live in this building and have made their homes there that we have not, in my opinion, sufficiently dealt with the risk of displacement and homelessness yet. And I hope that, and I don't know if I will be in the majority with my vote, but I just, in good faith, look, I'll just say Nicola Wealth, as a developer in the city, but also as a fund in the city, does a tremendous amount of philanthropic work. I've been at tables where they're talking about funding programs for food security. I know that there's opportunities for artists to invest in Nicola Wealth, very small amounts, so that they can set themselves up for retirement. That feels uncertain now. They do make their... fund accessible to people, not just billionaires, as it was framed throughout this public hearing. That might surprise some people. I have it, you know, in my experience and in talking to, on various topics of philanthropic work across the city, faith in Nicola Wells to actually sharpen their pencil and do better by these tenants. if that became an opportunity. And I actually firmly believe that they would. I just cannot imagine a family where two parents are working with two kids having to come up with an additional $1,000 a month for rent. That risks homelessness, in my opinion. Those families will end up in temporary... high-risk shelter housing. That's just the way it is. So I've been there myself as a young single parent, single income with children, and was grateful for steady housing that I was able to rent. But because I was there for a long time, over time, it became affordable when all of the housing around me was incredibly unaffordable. And the risk that that would have posed if the landlord had told me that I needed to move and the options were limited, I can't imagine it. And I'm grateful it didn't happen. So this is a real, this is a moment, I think, of doing the right thing for people. first, and the people here are families that are deeply impacted. And so I don't think that this should never change use. I just think we haven't done enough to make sure that the relocation of these tenants meets the threshold of making sure that displacement and unaffordability is not significantly worsened. And we know that in redevelopments that those are the tenants that fall into homelessness. Homelessness is up. by a significant amount in the last couple of years, and I think we don't always have the opportunity to track at this level of granular detail what happens with tenants when redevelopment happens, and we have an opportunity to do something different. So I support the work and the investment and what Nicola Wealth does across this city in many of the ways that I framed it already. We haven't met the threshold, I think, for what would be reasonable to approve this application as is presented right now, but I do think that we could. And so I don't want to give up on the people that live in Myron Manor, but I'm also not giving up on Nicola Wealth and what they do to build our city in partnership. So I hope we can keep going, but not approve this today.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I appreciate the work of staff bringing this forward. I appreciate the applicant, Mr. Anderson, for sitting through many hours of public hearing with us. And I appreciate all the speakers who came and spoke to this item and called in. And, yeah, I'm struggling with supporting this rezoning. And my challenge is not rooted in the opposition to the development or economic activity or even hotel use in general.

I'm not necessarily sure about this specific kind of hotel option, but I can see that Vancouver needs investment and jobs. But Vancouver also needs affordable homes. And I think the testimonies from the tenants and the community that came and spoke to us is pretty compelling. And since each application, when we come to public hearing, it's evaluated on its merits. And in this case, I believe that the public costs outweigh the public benefits. And I think that the unique historical zoning context here is a serious and weighty consideration. I was on council when we voted in favor of the Broadway plan with conditions. And even as many of those conditions I supported the Broadway plan on, like the pace of change, as those conditions have since been stripped away from the plan, I note that this particular application is inconsistent with the Broadway plan anyway, and the Broadway plan doesn't specifically enable hotel use for this part of Mount Pleasant industrial area, nor at this height. And then, you know, appreciating from the friends, residents, neighbors who all talk about how this will result in the displacement of a longstanding community, seniors, families, folks with roots in the neighborhood. And I'm not persuaded that the proposed land use here and the discretionary rezoning that we're asked to consider represents the highest and best public interest for this site. And I... particularly lament that this application could not have included replacement residential. This site occupies a unique position in our planning history. Although it's currently zoned industrial and sits in an industrial area, it has functioned as a residential housing for over 50 years, predating the industrial zoning from a simpler time in the heart of Mount Pleasant.

I think that rather than replacing existing renters with a hotel project, council should be asking if there's opportunities to retain housing on a site that has been a residential for more than 50 years. This application found ways to make the project work, even though it wasn't compliant with the existing Broadway plan policy. So ultimately, I'm struggling to justify the displacement of an established rental community and that we didn't find a way to make it work for the folks who are living here now. I just don't feel like the public interest test has been met here. And for those reasons, I will be voting against this application.

Okay. Okay.