CD-1 Rezoning 1031-1039 Burnaby Street
Motion 41 · Council Meeting, July 29, 2026
Summary
- A rezoning application for 1031-1039 Burnaby Street in the West End would replace two 1953-era three-storey apartment buildings with a 32-storey, 329-unit purpose-built rental building.
- At least 20% of the total residential floor area would be designated for social housing, consistent with the West End Rezoning Policy for Area E.
- The proposal increases the floor space ratio from 2.2 to 12.0 and building height from 58 m (190 ft.) to 91.4 m (300 ft.), the maximum permitted under the West End Community Plan's Burrard Corridor guidelines.
- The current buildings contain 47 rental units, and 27 existing tenancies are eligible for protection under the City's Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy (TRPP).
- Shadow analysis indicates approximately 10% additional shadowing on the north sidewalk of Davie Village during afternoon hours at the fall equinox, a notable urban design consideration.
- Staff from the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability recommend approval in principle, finding the proposal consistent with the Vancouver Official Development Plan and West End Community Plan.
Report Images
Public comments
Read all 2 statements
Transcript
44 segments
And that passes unanimously.
So the next item is item number 14, because 13 was approved on consent. Before we begin the agenda item, any conflicts to disclose? No? Okay. This item, once again, has a presentation.
And we do have team members here to present, unless someone would like to waive the presentation. Councillor Zhou? seconded by Councillor Klassen. Councillor, is there any discussion?
Okay. All those in favour, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. One nay, and the rest are in favour. So we will waive the presentation. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Sorry, Mayor, I don't mean to interrupt. I just want, because we're moving quickly through these reports, and that up there says 1750 is up behind. Is that the correct one?
Yeah, so we just need to give our clerks, I think, a chance to update what items we're on.
Yeah. I'll slow it down a little bit. So we're so excited it's the last day.
Okay. So... We are on item 14, CD-1 rezoning, 1031 through 1039 Burnaby Street. We're all good? Okay, great. And move it to the main queue.
And we have the order of everyone in the question queue.
We're good? Okay. Thank you very much.
Council, my name is Donald Yen. I'm the architect for the project. At this point, no, I don't think we need to make a presentation. I'd just like to thank staff for working with them for the last two and a half years on this application.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, council members, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant. And there are questions. So, Councillor Dominato.
Thanks, Mary. Two questions to staff, noting the relaxations included around shadowing in exchange for social housing. Could you just comment on that further and the relaxations, the shadowing relaxations, what the impacts are for Davie Village? And then I have a second question after that. So start with that one. Thank you.
Good morning. Thank you for the question. Hiroko Kobayashi. I'm a senior development planner. So this project, we are anticipating creating approximately 10% of shadowing, which is under the policy we assess north side of the sidewalk, in this case between Bard Street to Thorough Street. And then under the policy, we assess on four equinox between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. And then this project probably shadow between 1.30 to 4 p.m. So the proposed development is like a tower form. So the shadow shape is quite long and narrow. And so through the 1.30 to 4 p.m., approximately 10% of the shadowing we are expecting between this one block.
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate a little bit of that detail.
Thank you.
And I'm not sure if this may be a question for staff, but also for the applicant. I'm curious, with the secure 20% of the residential floor area for social housing, is there any contemplation of a particular demographic that's targeted for the social housing, or is it just generally... Capturing social housing under our definition of social housing and generally being kind of below market, a rental, but is there a particular group that we're looking to serve in the context of social housing, seniors, women with children, anything in that? Could you offer any additional information?
I'll just introduce Mr. Paul Squamish, who's part of our delegation over here as an applicant team.
Thank you.
It's a great question. We originally were working with Vancouver Resource Society and staff for the past two years. We're very excited about that as a potential opportunity for them to be the management of the non-market housing component. Staff then insisted that the non-market housing component be a separate airspace parcel, which means that they need to purchase that particular airspace parcel, which puts a lot more pressure. on the application from a financing perspective because they need that group needs to secure their financing and that needs to be time with the financing for the overall construction loan so we went back and asked staff if we could allow for us to broaden the scope to look at different non-marking housing applicants So not commit specifically just to VRS. Because if it was just to VRS, and they're a great operation, we have a lot of respect for them. In fact, we think the work that Ken and his group does are absolutely fantastic. But if they get to the point where they just can't get financing because they have too many projects, they have one in Coquitlam, another one in North Van or somewhere else, and they can't get financing, we'd be stuck with a rezoning application that specifically outlines the housing operator. So we asked the housing staff, which they supported, that we keep the application agnostic so that we could go out and work with any and all.
applicants and then come back and report back to city staff so right now we don't have an answer to that we're going to work to that but it's going to be very delicate to find the financing for that airspace parcel subdivision right okay that's helpful context particularly given that um the relaxations are being offered to accommodate that you know the social housing i think i think it's helpful to have that additional context um because it is difficult for um uh particularly for not-for-profits to finance these things so um i appreciate that thank you
Thank you, Councillor Frye. Yeah, similar questions and reflecting on this letter that we had received from VRS specifically on this project and their concerns about ensuring that the social housing component is intact. Can staff explain how, in the absence of an actual specific operator, this will be guaranteed as social housing? Is this through a covenant on the title?
Our housing staff online will answer that question. Thank you.
Thank you for the question, Councillor. Emily Brecker, Housing Regulation. So, yes, we will have a housing agreement on title requiring the social housing to be secured as social housing. And we also have a condition on title requiring a non-profit operator to be selected and for the social housing S-PACE password to be transferred prior to occupancy of the building.
Prior to occupancy. So, OK, and that gets around, I'm assuming, the financing issue? that the applicant was talking about? Okay. So maybe, and if I could just then, just to get some clarity with this. So through this, you're able to finance the project entirely, and then it doesn't involve the social housing not-for-profit financing it.
Would you like me to take a stab at answering?
Yeah, yeah. So it's a tall order that housing and planning staff came forward with, which was that in order for this project to move forward, there wasn't going to be a leasehold interest but a freehold interest of the airspace parcel. And we actually fully support that because non-market housing operators that can own their asset over time are generally going to be a lot more stable in the long run when they own their asset. The challenge becomes is that... that entity needs to come up with some form of equity and they need to come up with some form of debt. And that needs to coincide with the overall construction of the project. We can't have that one component, which is 20% component, hold back the entire development. So what the housing group has come up with is that they've mandated as part of the housing agreement, a condition that we have to have that as a condition. We need to come back and report back to staff with our housing operator and how this all works. And it is a tall order, Peter. It's one that we're going to need to figure out, especially in the current financing environment.
Okay. I appreciate the answer and appreciate the complexity on this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
My questions center mostly around the tenants that won't be able to have the TRPP relief. Only 27 out of 47 tenancies are eligible. I was wondering if staff could just remark on that.
We've got housing staff online. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Yes. So this was an or is an existing primary rental building. So we did receive kind of the standard rent roll that we asked for from the applicant to look at who is eligible and to be eligible. All tenants would have had to reside in the building for one year at the time of resigning applications. So we ran that assessment and the number of I think you said 27 eligible tenants. that is kind of based on the the time that they moved into the building okay and then for those 27 eligible what um will they have right of return will they be returning to the uh social housing component would that be the the hills component or the low end of market component Yeah, it will depend on the tenants themselves. So all tenants will have the right, or eligible tenants will have the right of first refusal either to one of the market rental units at the 20% discount or a social housing unit if they meet the eligibility requirements for their social housing. Okay.
That's all my questions. Thank you, Councillor Claussen. Yeah, thanks very much, Mayor. So I have some questions here, perhaps for staff. So when staff recommended the additional height and density, was it on the understanding that BRS communities would purchase and operate the social housing component?
Thank you for the question. Short answer is no. We actually don't have to get involved in the operator at this point. Effectively, the trade-off that staff looked at was in order for us to support from a staff recommendation shadowing on Davie that we look for commensurate public benefits. In this case, we offered the applicant two paths. One was BMR in accordance with the West End Community Plan, at which point they could have retained ownership of that. or they could provide social housing that's turnkey and owned and operated by a non-profit. The applicant elected for the latter, and that's what the proposal is for us today.
So based on that answer, presumably staff weren't aware that VRS communities intended to pursue senior government funding to deepen affordability?
We're aware of VRS's involvement and interest, but again, it's not up to staff to select that. If that's a partnership that the owner would like to pursue or VRS would like to continue to pursue after that, they're welcome to do so as well.
Okay. Did the city assess or place any limits on the purchase price of social housing units given that their value was created by the city's grant of additional height and density?
Real estate services staff is online and they can answer that question. Yes, hi, Adrian Thompson for Real Estate Services. The purchase price is limited to $565 a square foot. And at that level, we don't believe there's a land lift generated through this rezoning with social housing and the market rental.
Okay. I suppose for either our EFM or our planning staff here, what protections are in place to ensure the public benefit of the additional density is preserved? since the operator is no longer the nonprofit partner.
Our housing staff is online, and they've added a condition which ensures that a nonprofit operator and owner of the social housing airspace parcel is identified before occupancy permit issuance.
Okay. And does the city have any replacement nonprofit, any assurances that the replacement nonprofit will provide the same affordability, accessibility, and shared care programming that was proposed in the original proposal?
I'll refer to our housing staff online. Thanks. Thank you for the question, Councillor Emily Brooker. The social housing will be required to meet the social housing definition. So that's kind of to be owned by the non-profit and to meet a minimum of 30% of the units rented to households with incomes below hills. That's our standard social housing definition. So that's our minimum and we haven't set it above that. It's just been set our kind of standard requirements for social housing.
Okay. Maybe I'll sort of close out with this question. If the affordability outcomes or operating model are ultimately less than was contemplated when the application was originally evaluated, what mechanisms does the city have to require an equivalent public benefit?
I would like real estate services staff to answer that question.
Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Essentially, we're looking to see what mechanisms does the city have to require the equivalent public benefit given what has transpired is ultimately less when originally the application was being evaluated.
I don't believe there's another method of capturing the benefit. The project is not financeable. Probably the applicant would have to come back with a revised scheme, and then it would be reviewed again by real estate. Okay. I'll just jump in to supplement that as well. So the application has evolved over the review process, but as mentioned through my colleague online, staff are satisfied that the proposal before you today meets policy, that the CAC is appropriately determined and secured in the project for the social housing delivery.
Thanks very much. You know, I'll just state that I think that there's obviously some public benefit, and the project, I think, will be a strong one. But ultimately, we are providing additional density that really should be given towards that public benefit, and I'm sure that between the applicant and staff that we'll get to a very good place for that. Thanks very much. Councillor, we're out of time.
Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion? Great. That was Councillor Blighth first, seconded by Councillor Claassen. Council, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue. Give it one more sec. Okay.
I'm now going to call the vote.
And that passes unanimously. That completes item number 14.
Statement Watch
Council, my name is Donald Yen. I'm the architect for the project. At this point, no, I don't think we need to make a presentation. I'd just like to thank staff for working with them for the last two and a half years on this application.
Statement Watch
Thank you.
It's a great question. We originally were working with Vancouver Resource Society and staff for the past two years. We're very excited about that as a potential opportunity for them to be the management of the non-market housing component. Staff then insisted that the non-market housing component be a separate airspace parcel, which means that they need to purchase that particular airspace parcel, which puts a lot more pressure. on the application from a financing perspective because they need that group needs to secure their financing and that needs to be time with the financing for the overall construction loan so we went back and asked staff if we could allow for us to broaden the scope to look at different non-marking housing applicants So not commit specifically just to VRS. Because if it was just to VRS, and they're a great operation, we have a lot of respect for them. In fact, we think the work that Ken and his group does are absolutely fantastic. But if they get to the point where they just can't get financing because they have too many projects, they have one in Coquitlam, another one in North Van or somewhere else, and they can't get financing, we'd be stuck with a rezoning application that specifically outlines the housing operator. So we asked the housing staff, which they supported, that we keep the application agnostic so that we could go out and work with any and all.
applicants and then come back and report back to city staff so right now we don't have an answer to that we're going to work to that but it's going to be very delicate to find the financing for that airspace parcel subdivision right okay that's helpful context particularly given that um the relaxations are being offered to accommodate that you know the social housing i think i think it's helpful to have that additional context um because it is difficult for um uh particularly for not-for-profits to finance these things so um i appreciate that thank you