►
Description
Council meetings
Council meetings are held to make decisions about bylaws, spending, providing services (such as infrastructure, facilities, and programs), and fostering Vancouver's economic, social, and environmental well-being.
Open to the public
Tuesdays at 9:30am around every two weeks. View the meeting schedule
Send your comment online
Request to speak at the meeting
- Council must agree to hear speakers for an agenda item. If
Council agrees, the item is moved to an upcoming standing
committee meeting usually on the next day.
Attended by at least six members of Council to proceed
- Chair: mayor or deputy mayor
A
Tuesday
july
21st
and
this
meeting
is
authorized
under
the
procedure
by
law
as
part
14
and
members
may
participate
in
person
or
by
electronic
means.
Council
member
attending
by
electronic
means
loses
connection.
We'll
get
you
back
online
as
soon
as
possible,
very
important
that
video
of
council
members
speaking
presentations
and
vote
results
will
be
projected
on
the
live
stream,
but
just
a
reminder
that,
in
accordance
with
14.13
of
the
procedure,
bylaw
members
must
enable
their
video
to
conform
quorum.
A
We
acknowledge
that
we're
on
the
unseated
traditional
territories
of
the
muslim
squamish
label
tooth
people
and
thank
them
for
their
generosity
to
all
of
us
on
these
lands,
as
we
strive
to
become
a
true
city
of
reconciliation
thanks
to
staff,
and
why
don't
we
single
out
the
firefighters
today
because
they
have
been
busy
so
thanks
so
much
for
all
their
work
and,
of
course,
all
the
work
everybody
else
does
here
at
this.
This
great
city
clerks
go
over
the
roll
call.
Please.
C
C
A
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
plan
for
the
day
and
I'll,
get
you
and
then
counselor
nova.
Any
comments
on
these
items
that
are
on
today
can
be
sent
to
council
using
the
web
via
the
city's
website.
That's
tweeted
out
at
vancity
clerk.
A
We
do
have
a
long-standing
commitment
to
equity
diversity
and
inclusion,
so
remind
council
that
when
addressing
speakers
and
staff,
please
avoid
using
gendered
honorifics.
As
a
reminder,
this
meeting
started
july
5th.
Today
we
have
three
remaining
reports
to
deal
with
today,
so
the
plan
for
today
is
to
get
rolling
this
morning
a
break
at
noon
finish
at
1
pm
for
lunch
and
then
we'll
come
back
sorry
break
from
noon
until
1
for
lunch.
A
If
we
need
to
one
till
5
to
finish
the
remainder
of
this
business,
then
we'll
break
and
then
come
back
for
a
public
hearing
at
6
00
p.m.
Tonight
all
these
reports
have
speakers
council.
So
we're
going
to
start
with
the
policy
inquiry
process,
directions,
report
addressing
social
housing
and
secured
rental
housing
priorities
in
the
east,
hastings
sub
area
between
clark
drive
and
campbell
avenue.
Anybody
wish
to
declare
a
conflict
of
interest
on
this
one
privilege.
G
Thanks
mayor
mayor
stewart
right.
G
No
worries-
I
will
recuse
myself
at
this
time
from
this
item
and
declare
a
conflict
of
interest,
as
I
have
an
immediate
family
member
who
has
a
pecuniary
interest
in
this
project
with
one
of
the
partners
promerita
in
this
resonating.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
very
much
thank
you.
Councillor
memphis.
I
just
reminded
other
counselors
we're
at
a
bear
quorum
here.
So
please
keep
your
videos,
enabled
evangelical
clark,
the
housing
planning
from
the
planner
here
to
present
the
item.
Oh,
we
have
teresa
o'donnell.
Of
course
please
go
ahead.
H
Thank
you
mayor
good
morning,
mayor
and
council.
We're
very
pleased
to
be
here
today.
H
We
found
out
that
the
policy
was
not
delivering,
and
so
this
gave
us
an
opportunity
to
take
a
fresh
look
at
that
policy,
and
we're
very
pleased
with
the
outcome
angel
will
give
us
the
specifics
of
the
case
and
then
we're
happy
to
answer
in
question.
I
There
are
two
recommendations:
staff
are
bringing
forward.
The
first
recommendation
is
to
consider
future
rezoning
applications
for
two
proposals,
which
include
five
sites,
and
the
second
recommendation
is
to
consider
other
future
rezoning
proposals
in
the
hastings
east
sub
area
between
clark
drive
and
campbell
avenue.
I
This
image
illustrates
the
locations
of
the
five
sites
in
the
downtown
east
side,
including
four
along
hastings
street
and
one
along
ramer
avenue
of
the
four
sites
along
east
hastings
street.
The
three
which
are
solid
colored
on
this
map
are
part
of
the
east
village
project,
which
is
a
partnership
between
west
bank
development,
corporation
bc,
housing
and
promerita.
I
I
The
existing
zoning
along
this
section
of
east
hasting
street
is
primarily
m1
and
cd1
along
ramer
avenue.
The
zoning
on
the
east
side
is
i2
and
m1,
and
the
zoning
on
the
west
side
is
cd1,
which
is
the
raycam
community
center
and
the
new
chelsea
society
stamps
place
social
housing
development,
which
includes
seniors
and
family
housing.
These
areas
were
designated
as
a
let
go
in
the
1995
industrial
lands
policies,
meaning
that
they
could
be
considered
for
residential
development
when
supporting
policy
was
brought
forward.
The
downtown
eastside
plan,
which
was
approved
in
2014,
enables
residential
development.
I
Preliminary
economic
analysis
has
shown
that
strata
ownership,
housing
with
inclusionary
social
housing
under
the
maximum
density
set
out
in
the
plan
is
not
viable
secured
market
rental
housing
with
inclusionary
social
housing
is
even
less
viable
at
the
densities
enabled
under
the
plan.
With
the
exception
of
the
recently
approved
ashley
mark
cooper
development,
we
have
not
seen
a
proposal
with
a
10-year
mix
of
secured
market,
rental,
housing
and
social
housing.
I
Since
the
approval
of
the
downtown
eastside
plan
in
2014,
there
has
been
an
increasing
number
of
people
experiencing
sheltered
and
unsheltered
homelessness
and
a
continued
urgent
need
for
supportive
and
shelter
rate
homes.
Key
strategies
for
addressing
homelessness
are
found
in
the
sro
revitalization
action
plan,
which
includes
strategies
to
accelerate
sro
replacement,
while
in
the
interim
securing
and
improving
the
existing
stock.
I
The
east
village
proposal
is
for
the
development
of
three
towers.
The
table
on
this
slide
lists
the
proposed
housing,
tenures
other
uses,
and
heights
and
densities.
This
proposal
met
the
housing,
pep
baseline
and
review
criteria.
Other
aspects
of
the
proposal
which
have
merit
include
ground
floor,
commercial,
retail,
space
and
ground
floor
social
enterprise
space.
I
The
policy
deviation
that
directed
this
proposal
to
the
pep
is
that
it
includes
building
heights
ranging
from
183
feet
to
260
feet
which
exceed
the
maximum
120
feet
enabled
under
the
plan.
Also,
there
are
densities
that
range
from
10.7
fsr
to
16.7
fsr,
which
exceed
the
plan
maximum
density
of
six
fsr.
I
The
proposal
from
on
a
group
for
the
two
for
two
sites
is
to
permit
the
development
of
two
secured
market
rental
towers
on
top
of
a
podium
at
1220,
east
hasting
street
and
one
six-story
social
housing
building
at
560
raymer
street.
The
baseline
and
review
criteria,
which
this
proposal
met
was
also
for
housing.
Other
aspects
of
the
proposal
which
have
merit
include
ground
floor,
commercial,
retail,
space
and
ground
floor
light
industrial
space,
a
lease
agreement
with
community
impact
real
estate
society,
which
would
create
opportunities
for
more
affordable
retail
space
for
local
small
businesses.
I
A
voluntary
community
benefit
agreement
with
the
city
of
vancouver
and
an
agreement
with
the
east
side.
Art
society
who'll,
be
the
will
be
the
project's
public
art
consultant.
The
policy
deviation
is
that
it
includes
building
height
up
to
210
feet
and
a
density
of
8.56
fsr.
There
is
no
policy
deviation
for
the
building
at
560
raymer
street,
so
I'm
going
to
move
now
to
the
second
staff
recommendation
we
are
seeking
council
direction
on.
This
is
to
consider
other
future
proposals
on
hastings
street
between
clark
drive
and
campbell
avenue.
I
The
downtown
eastside
plan
recognizes
that
significant
senior
government
investment
is
needed
to
deliver
much
of
the
social
housing
in
the
downtown
eastside.
However,
the
intent
of
an
inclusionary
housing
model
is
for
the
market
housing,
whether
that
be
strata
or
market
rental,
to
pay
for
the
delivery
of
social
housing.
I
What
this
proposed
change
would
enable
is
for
proposals
to
come
forward
at
densities,
where
this
right
supply
of
housing,
mix
of
market
rental
and
social
housing
is
possible,
and
the
delivery
of
more
housing
units
note
that
the
hastings
east
sub-area
extends
from
heatley
avenue
to
clark
drive.
However,
the
section
of
hastings
east,
where
this
recommendation
is
focused,
is
only
the
section
shown
as
blue
on
this
map.
I
In
conclusion,
staff
are
seeking
direction
on
two
recommendations
listed
on
the
slide,
as
recommendation
a
and
b
regarding
next
steps.
If
council
confirms
that
the
proposed
policy
deviations
are
warranted
by
approving
staff's
recommendation,
a
the
next
step
would
be
for
the
applicants
to
each
undertake
an
enhanced
rezoning
process.
I
The
process
is
intended
to
resolve
policy
gaps
or
issues
as
well
as
site-specific
issues
and
come
to
preferred
project
concept
or
concepts
to
inform
the
rezoning
applications
at
the
rezoning
application
stage.
Council
will
have
the
opportunity
to
consider
the
development
proposals.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Staff
are
available
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thanks
so
much
for
your
presentation,
questions
from
counselors,
counselor
carr.
J
Great
thanks
very
much
just
a
couple
at
this
point
one
you
talked
to
just
now
about
an
enhanced
rezoning
process
in
the
in
the
future.
Would
that
include
some
ways
in
which
we
could
speed
up
the
development
permit
process.
I
So
the
enhanced
rezoning
process
is
a
robust
process
does
include
public
consultation
and
we
would
get
to
a
more
refined
concept,
and
so
the
enhanced
rezoning
process
can
take
between
as
little
as
eight
up
to
a
year
and
a
half.
However,
so
there
is
that
additional
time,
however,
the
concepts
coming
into
the
rezoning
application
will
be
more
refined.
J
J
Second
question:
you
said
the
social
housing
is
particularly
is
not
viable
at
the
current
density.
How
did
we
figure
out
like
what
was
the
sweet
spot
in
terms
of
what
density
is
required?
Like
I
mean,
obviously,
you
have
some
figures
you're
up
to
210
feet,
but
is
there?
Is
there
a
range
in
which
you're
considering
and
I'm
just
thinking
of
the
fact
that
it,
the
public,
is
always
seeming
to
come
back
at
us
saying?
Why
do
you
need
to
build
so
high?
J
So
what's
the
sort
of
underlying
data
or
information
that
we've
used
to
determine
those
heights.
K
Hi
dan
garrison
housing
policy,
so
we
we
did
have
coriolis,
run
some
financial
testing
on
proposals
in
this
area
and
determined
that
they
were
unviable
at
their
current
at
the
current
plan
policy
heights
and
densities,
as
part
of
the
enhanced
rezoning
process
and
throughout
the
rezoning.
Of
course,
one
of
the
parts
pieces
of
this
that
we
do
intend
to
do
is
detailed
financial
analysis
to
show
and
determine
that
the
heights
and
densities
are
needed
and
that
the
projects
will
be
viable
so
that
that
will
be
part
of
the
process.
Absolutely.
H
I
think
the
other
thing
that's,
we
have
undertaken
the
financial
testing,
but
we
haven't
had
any
proposals
come
forward
since
at
least
2017,
so
that
that
shows
us
that
it's
not
it's
not
economically
viable
to
the
market.
C
Right
the
mute
button
appreciate
this
is
early
in
the
process
and-
and
you
know
there'd
be
some
work
done.
You
know,
I'm
I'm
wondering,
because
there
are
so
many
deficiencies
in
this
particular
area,
including
tree
canopy,
public
amenities
parks,
all
those
kind
of
things
is
there
opportunity
or
does
any
of
this
significant
amount
of
development
contemplate
additional
public
benefits
that
might
might
be
framed.
I
Thank
you
councillor,
fry
for
your
question.
So,
through
the
enhanced
rezoning
process,
there
will
be
enhanced
engagement
with
the
community,
so
there
will
be
an
opportunity
to
hear
from
the
community
about
you
know
these
proposals,
which
which
do
include
beyond
housing,
social
enterprise,
space,
light
industrial
space
and
ground
floor
commercial
to
respond
to
proposals
and
hear
from
the
community
about
what
else
is
is
needed
also
to
note
staff
are
also
undertaking
right
now,
urban
design
guidelines
and
a
public
realm
strategy
for
this.
I
For
this
area
in
particular,
recognizing
that
there
it's
the
urban
heat
island
effect,
you
know
has
an
impact
here,
it's
a
lot
of
concrete
and
so
there's
there's
some
need
to
kind
of
look
into
that
further,
and
so
that
would
be
running
concurrently.
C
Second
question
from
me-
and
this
is
more
to
the
the
parcels
that
are
proximate
to
the
broad
inlet
line,
which
is
the
rail
line
that
runs
parallel
to
raymur
there,
which
has
significantly
expanded
its
operation
since
well,
since
the
downtown
eastside
local
area
plan
for
sure,
and
even
since
recent
development
approvals
in
the
area,
I'm
wondering
we
still
haven't
resolved
that,
and
it
is
a
significant
impact
on
residences
thinking
about
the
strathcona
village
complex
there
and
and
and
and
obviously
there's
real
proximity
guidelines
from
transport
canada
that
would
play
into
this.
L
C
Considerations
around
how
the
noise
and
the
you
know:
ancillary
noise
from
signal
crossings,
because
we
have
two
at
great
crossings
and
a
lot
of
noise
is
generated
by
trains,
traveling
back
and
forth,
and
this
does
impact
quality
of
life.
And
I
I
worry
about
improving
residences
adjacent
to
a
rail
line
when
we're
not
really
considering
how
we
mitigate
those
impacts.
I
Yeah
absolutely
and
the
downtown
eastside
plan
does
include
policies
that
highlight
that
housing
proposals
are
subject
to
technical
review
and
real
proximity
issues
and
knowing
that
locating
housing
adjacent
to
the
rail
line
in
a
way
to
mitigate
noise
pollution
vibration,
safety
issues
is
of
the
what
was
important.
So
there's
a
there's,
a
couple
of
things
that
word
that
we
do
or
that
are
required
one
is:
there-
are
guidelines
for
new
development
and
proximity
to
rail
operations
from
the
federation
of
canadian
municipalities
that
provide
directions
to
applicants
around
setbacks.
I
Berms
noise
mitigation,
vibration
and
applicants
are
required
to
reach
out
to
rail
agencies
to
meet
and
comply
with
fcm
guidelines,
but
in
addition,
the
urban
design
guideline
work
that
is
moving
forward.
We'll
also
be
looking
at
that
rail
adjacency.
So
the
guidelines
will
consider
urban
design
strategies
to
mitigate
the
rail
noise
and
pollution.
So,
for
example,
consideration
of
lower
occupancy
podium
massing
for
sites
adjacent
to
the
rail,
as
well
as
other
strategies
to
mitigate
adverse
impacts
to
noise
and
vibration.
C
Do
we
are
we
contemplating
anything
specifically
around
managing
the
at-grade
crossing,
which
is
which
is
kind
of
our
realm
at
sort
of
the
intersection
of
reamer
cordova
around
there,
because
that
that
generates
a
lot
of
signal
noise?
It's
it's
it's
ancillary
to
the
actual,
rumbling
and
vibrations
of
the
chain,
the
train,
it's
actually
the
the
bells
for
the
crossing
to
facilitate
cars.
Moving
through.
K
Morning,
council,
neil
rashoe
assistant
director
for
community
planning,
the
city
is
in
active
consultation
with
both
the
community
and
with
cp
rail
on
on
those
crossings,
specifically
looking
for
solutions
recognizing
that
trains
that
do
cross
and
even
queue
up
there
and
sometimes
wait
for
extended
periods
of
time,
can
trigger
trigger
those
signals
and
really
causing
a
disturbance
for
the
local
residents.
K
And
so
we
acknowledge
that
and
looking
for
active
solutions
to
improve
those
crossings
to
so,
we
can
actually
remove
eventually,
at
some
point
in
time
the
the
signalization
noises,
there's
considerations
of
access
for
deliveries
and
and
business
access
for
the
businesses
along
the
streets,
and
so.
A
K
Yeah
so,
but
we
are
actively
looking
for
solutions,
because
we
acknowledge
that
those
are
considerations
for
future
and
existing
residents.
C
Thanks
neil,
I
just
want
to
add
a
point
of
clarity.
It's
it's
actually,
the
the
braille
operators
cn
they're,
not.
I
So
in
the
east
village
proposal,
which
is
the
the
vernon
apartments,
is
our
sra
designated
building
and
there
are
36
units
in
that
building.
So.
H
I
I
Yes,
they
will
be
at
shelter
rate
in
the
downtown
east
side.
The
social
housing
requirement
is
for
one-third
of
the
units
within
this
a
social
housing
building
to
be
shelter
rate,
one-third
hills
and
one-third
low
end
of
market
rent.
So
there
will
be
those
shelter
rate,
replacement
units
and
additional
shelter
rate
units,
provided
so
how
many.
I
I
About
40
or
more
at
40,
at
a
minimum
shelter
rate
units
in
quick,
math
plus
the
36.,
so
the
there
are
we
will
be.
We
will
seek
a
one-for-one
replacement.
However,
that
will
be
determined
more
through
the
enhanced
rezoning
process
when
we
would
be
doing
a
performer
analysis
of
the
project,
but
that
that's
that's
what
we
seek.
K
H
I
I
So
currently,
my
understanding
is
so
bc.
Housing
is
on
title
for
the
land.
However,
it's
dependent
on
continued
ownership
is
dependent
on
this
proposal.
Proceeding.
I
I
Be
like
so,
the
rents
of
the
market
housing
would
be,
could
be
up
to
market
and
and
if
the
applicant
such
chooses
to
take
the
dcl
waiver,
they
would
be
at
the
dcl
waiver
rents.
I
do
have
some
examples
of
what
so
I
mean
average
market
rent
in
newer
buildings
on
the
east
side.
Right
now
for
a
studio
are
15
96
for
a
studio,
for
example
2
400
for
a
two
bed.
It
will
that's
that's
across
the
east
side
of
vancouver.
I
So
in
this
part
of
the
city,
the
the
average,
the
maximum
rent
that
could
be
charged
might
be
a
little
bit
less,
but
it
will
depend.
I
K
Yeah,
thank
you,
ps
questions
about
making
sure
that
we
expand
the
tree
canopy
area,
I'm
interested
in
the
economic
viability
on
the
commercial
space.
Can
you
speak
a
little
bit
more
about
how
much
the
space
will
be
lease
agreement
to
community
impact,
real
estate
society
and
what
that
could
look
like
to
support
kind
of
the
maker
space
and
light
industrial?
K
We
have
an
area
as
well
as
the
agreement
with
the
east
side
arts
society,
about
how
we
can
ensure
that
some
of
that
arts
and
culture,
space
and
galleries
are
still
able
to
be
viable
in
the
area.
I
You
bet
so
any
development
group
in
their
proposal
to
indicate
that
likely
one
of
the
spaces
so
within
their
buildings.
So
this
this
secured
market
rental
building
has
ground
floor,
commercial,
retail
and
then
the
social
housing
building
has
the
ground
floor,
light
industrial
which
of
the
spaces
the
agreement
with
community
impact
real
estate
society
would
be
with
is,
is
still
be
to
be
determined
and
that
will
be
further
worked
through
the
enhanced
rezoning
process.
I
I
don't
know
too
much
further
detail
about
the
agreement
to
hire
eastside
art
society
as
the
public
art
consultant
beyond
that,
but
yeah.
You
may
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
the
applicant.
K
Okay
and
then
the
other
component
is
it
talked
about
in
1995.
We
did
this,
let
go
of
the
industrial
space,
we're
recognizing
that
we're
in
a
very
different
context.
Now,
with
the
need
for
light
industrial
and
the
amount
of
made
in
strathcona
and
different
organizations
in
that
area,
have
we
looked
at
trying
to
ensure
that
the
base
floor
on
a
lot
of
these
projects
can
still
provide
light
industrial?
So
we
can
have
that
live
work
opportunities
in
the
area.
I
I
think
I'm
going
to
look
to
neil
hershoey
on
the
call
to
answer
this.
One.
K
I'm
sorry
counselor
weep
the
did
you
repeat
that
the
last
part
of
the
question?
Yes,
so
because
in
1995
it
looked
like
the
context
was.
This
is
a
let
go
area
but
recognizing
we
are
in
a
different
industrial
needs.
Time.
K
K
Thank
you
for
the
question.
That's
an
excellent
question.
It
is
something
we've
discussed,
but
no
work
has
been
done.
We
agree
that
having
local
employment
opportunities
within
strathcona
aligns
with
the
goals
of
the
downtown
eastside
plan,
to
really
provide
local
community
economic
development,
but
no
policy
work
has
been
done
to
to
advance
that
just
yet
okay,
but
recognizing
that
today,
we've
been
asked
to
vote
on
a
second
section
of
policy
work
for
that
area.
K
Absolutely
it's
because
it
does
align
with
previous
council
direction
on
the
special
enterprise
project,
which
is
looking
at
opportunities
for
local
industrial
spaces
and
employment
spaces
in
south
dakota.
So
we
could
certainly
add
that
to
the
work
program
to
align
with
council's
recommendation
here.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
appreciate
it.
F
Thanks
mayor
and
thanks
for
the
presentation,
I
have
a
handful
of
questions
just
with
respect
to
the
housing
itself.
Was
there
a
possibility
of
both
social
earth,
social
rental
and
strata
in
in
one
building,
or
is
that
I
know
you
did
the
performance
and
the
feasibility
of
it
was
that
considered.
I
F
A
couple
other
questions
not
specific
to
the
housing
but
adjacency
to
the
properties:
10
30
10,
40,
25,
50,
10
60
on
east
hastings
at
420
that
little
parcel
that's
on
the
west
side
of
the
rail
line.
Is
that
who
owns
that
property
answer?
Is
it
city?
Is
it
privately
held
and
what's
contemplated,
it's
a
very
small
strip
right
between
that
and
the
parking
lot
where
raycam
is.
I
Yeah
that
parcel
is
privately
owned
right
now.
Yeah
do
we
have.
I
We
haven't
seen
a
proposal
come
forward
on
that
specifically.
F
A
question
specific
to
the
rail
operators
a
little
different
from
cancer
fry's.
But,
can
you
remind
me,
do
rail
operators?
They
have
an
obligation,
responsibility
to
not
only
maintenance,
the
rail
lines
but
cleanliness
around
the
rail
lines
on
their
because
they're
landowners.
In
this
case,
I
think.
F
Oh,
maybe
it
can
be,
we
can
get
a
follow-up
memo
on
it,
but
the
reason
I
asked
the
question
is
aside
from,
I
know:
there's
proximity
guidelines
that
we
haven't
adopted,
those
in
in
the
city
of
vancouver,
which
is
largely
related
to
safety,
and
then
we've
seen
some
pretty
tragic
incidents
involving
rail
and
but
my
question
is
around
the
responsibility
for
cleanliness,
because
you
will
note
around
most
of
our
a
lot
of
our
rail
lines
in
the
city,
they're,
pretty
deplorable,
it's
pretty
and
and
now
I
just
think
it
needs
to
be
a
conversation.
F
So
that's
a
comment
more
than
a
question,
but
I
would
appreciate
information
back
about
who's
responsible
and
and
whether
we
have
an
accountability
mechanism
as
a
city
around
obligations
for
both
safety,
in
addition
to
safety,
but
also
cleanliness,
and
then
there
was
a
reference
to
what
would
be
the
expectation
around
setbacks
for
the
the
housing
proposed
housing.
Can
someone
comment
on
that,
especially
if
we're
having
retail
and
other.
E
Thanks
very
much
for
the
question:
derek
robinson
development
planner,
so
this
is
quite
early
in
the
process
right
and
so
again,
that's
something
that
we
would
have
a
fulsome
review
of
through
the
enhanced
rezoning
process,
in
terms
of
which
will
include
public
consultation.
Of
course,
in
terms
of
specifically
the
ground
floor,
you
know
we
would
anticipate.
E
You
know
typical
setbacks
if
there
are
uses
such
as
retail
right,
we're
looking
to
create,
you
know
a
safe,
active
and
fighting
space
there,
but
again,
that's
also
work
that
will
be
investigated
through
the
the
more
broader
guidelines
work
that
was
previously
mentioned
in
terms
of
how
we
can
achieve
the
best
overall
public
realm
and
achieve
as
many
objectives
as
possible
in
terms
of
yeah,
increasing
tree
canopy
and
all
the
various
sort
of
objectives
that
we're
trying
to
balance.
Hopefully
that
answers
yeah.
F
And
I
think
I
just
I'll
add
one
question
to
that
is
because
I
think
we
have
to
think
about
the
public
realm.
It's
incredibly
pedestrian
oriented
around
there.
Many
people
are
walking
so
having
that
space
and
for
other
uses,
but
also
with
it
the
transit
corridor.
F
I
know
that
there's
been
a
contemplation
of
rapid
transit
and
potentially
being
similar
to
broadway,
but
I
know
translink's
also
starting
to
look
at
maybe
not
tunneling
and
doing
that,
but
doing
more
just
rapid
bus
and
dedicated
lanes
and
so
then
having
to
think
about
spacing
for
that
I
know,
get
that's
far
out,
but
it
all
ties
into
if
we're
having
transit
oriented
communities
is
the
planning
for
that.
So
I'd
be
interested
in
that
I'll
pause.
My
questions
there.
I
know
we
have
speakers
thanks.
D
D
Therefore,
the
height
is
increasing
and
the
potential
consideration
these
resulting
applications
going
to
rental,
but
still
considering
the
same
ratio
of
social
housing
at
twenty
percent.
I
So
at
the
enhanced
rezoning
pro
during
the
enhanced
rezoning
process,
we
would
be
doing
a
perform
analysis
to
determine
if
there
is
an
additional
opportunity
to
increase
the
from
20
above
20
social
housing.
D
Maybe
I
can
frame
the
question
a
bit
differently.
We
have
had
a
historical
paradigm
of
requiring
20.
If
we
are
going
to
consider
projects
through
the
pep
to
be
exceptions
to
the
existing
area
plans,
do
we
have
an
opportunity
to
set
a
higher
benchmark.
K
Hi
kessler,
thanks
for
the
question
dan
garrison
housing,
I
I
think
it
is
interesting
and
council
has
asked
us,
through
the
pep
process,
to
sort
of
challenge
the
inquiries
to
try
to
exceed
council
policy.
I
think,
in
this
case
and
as
as
teresa
outlined
off
the
top,
what
we
found
in
in
reviewing
these
policy
inquiries
is
that
the
policies
and
the
plans
that
are
set
today,
the
sort
of
historical
standard
benchmark
you
referenced,
just
isn't
working
and
isn't
viable,
and
so
we
think
that
these
are
interesting
opportunities.
K
That's
why
we've
brought
them
to
council
and
recommended
them
as
to
proceed
just
to
be
able
to
achieve
what
we've
typically
achieved.
I
think
it's
also
interesting
to
know.
The
downtown
eastside
plan
does
speak
to
the
importance
of
rental
housing,
even
if
it's
market
rental
housing
as
sort
of
a
moderating
and
like
a
moderating
sort
of
insertion
of
market
housing,
as
opposed
to
strata.
So
I
think
that
that's
an
interesting
part
of
this,
too
is.
We
do
also
need
the
rental
housing.
D
So
reflecting
back-
and
I
guess
pushing
this
a
bit-
I
hear
you
all
housing
is
good.
Rental.
Housing
is
better
than
strata.
It's
what
we
need
right
now.
Social
housing
is
fantastic.
Can
we
push
the
envelope?
Could
we
set
it
at
where?
What
are
the
implications
of
saying
an
aspirational,
25
or
30?
For
example,.
K
Yeah
I
mean
it
is
interesting.
One
of
the
note
points
to
note
is
the
downtown
eastside
plan
for
this
area
actually
does
set
a
range
of
20
to
30
percent,
which
was
aspirational
right
and,
and
we
understood
that
that
would
have
required
more
sort
of
public
investment
than
we've
than
we've
seen
to
be
able
to
achieve
that.
So
we
haven't
seen
any
projects
come
forward
in
this
area.
That
is
our
inclusionary
projects,
delivering
even
the
base
minimum
20.
Yet
so.
K
D
And
then
sort
of
a
carl
carly
corrallery,
sorry
long
day,
corollary
it's
this
morning
to
that,
is
to
account
surprise
question
and
following
up
do
we
have
the
opportunity
for
zonings
to
set
other
aspirational
targets
like
amendment
20
and
10
value
for
public
benefit,
for
example,
because
we
have
the
public
amenity
deficit
that
we're
seeing
in
projects
because
we're
prioritizing
the
housing
tenure.
D
H
I
think
it's
a
great
direction
to
staff.
I
I
would.
I
would
be
nervous
about
setting
that
today
we
can
do
some
some
additional
economic
testing.
We
can
ask
our
applicants
for
some
pro
formas.
We
could
do
some
modeling
and
then
maybe
we'll
do
a
check
in
with
the
council
before
we
actually
bring
back
the
zoning
proposal
to
see
if
we
can't
indeed
increase
those.
D
Just
to
be
clear,
because
I
appreciate
that
so
procedurally
teresa.
How
would
that
work,
because
normally
it's
out
of
counsel's
hands
once
you're,
considering
the
rezoning
application
and
then
we
get
the
resulting
application
kind
of
fully
baked
if
you
will
right
and
so
without
necessarily
giving
direction?
And
again
I
don't
want
to
inhibit
the
project,
but
I
also
want
to
look
at
these
opportunities
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
our
due
diligence.
M
H
And
therein
lies
the
beauty
of
the
council's
leadership
on
the
pep
process
right
because
we
we're
not
looking
at
a
specific
zoning
case
like
we
are
a
couple
of
the
other
ones.
We
do
have
some
flexibility.
We
can
provide
that.
We
hear
you
loud
and
clear.
We
can
provide
that
either
as
an
informational
session
like
today,
or
we
can
provide
it
in
in
a
written
follow-up
report.
A
That's
it
for
questions
to
staff,
we're
going
to
move
to
speakers
four
speakers
on
the
list
today
for
this
item.
We
have
speaker
number
one,
ernest
lang,
ernest
lang,
speaker
number,
one.
N
N
I'm
here
to
ask
council
to
direct
staff
to
consider
our
east
village,
rental
and
social
housing
project
application
for
rezoning
and
further
eliminate
an
enhanced
rezoning
course
that
would
extend
the
process
by
another
year
and
delay
the
delivery
of
over
750
rental
and
social
housing
units.
I
am
confident
that
our
experienced
team
working
in
collaboration
with
city
staff
can
successfully
address
any
and
all
rezoning
community
and
amenity
considerations
through
an
immediate
rezoning
intake.
N
N
N
East
village
is
a
heart-driven
project.
It
is
driven
by
the
same
sense
of
purpose
behind
the
fact
that
there's
a
home
named
after
my
late
mother
grace
lang
called
the
grace
suite
at
the
new
women's
and
family
center
on
cordova
and
princess
street
that
I
am
going
to
be
touring
with
several
provincial
leaders
this
afternoon.
N
I
had
never
been
involved
in
any
multi-family
developments
in
the
city
of
vancouver.
Why
did
I
get
involved
here?
Even
though
there
are
many
other
good,
more
profitable
and
far
less
fraught
places
to
invest
time,
energy
and
capital,
it's
because
I
know
what
it's
like
to
live
in
a
ten
person
household
crammed
together
in
a
small
eighteen
hundred
and
sixty
square
foot,
three
bedroom,
one
and
a
half
bath
townhouse
to
be
worried
about
food
costs
and
buying
discounted
foods
at
or
past.
N
The
heart-driven
purpose
of
east
village
is
to
deliver
exactly
what
the
city
of
vancouver
needs.
What
my
people,
our
people
or
strathcona,
deserve
100
good
quality,
accessible
and
affordable
rental
and
social
housing.
This
is
why
this
project
for
my
community,
my
people,
our
people,
cannot
wait.
It's
taken
almost
two
years
just
to
get
to
this
point.
N
N
N
Any
and
all
of
the
rezoning
community
and
amenity
considerations
can
be
dealt
with
by
our
very
experienced
team
and
city
staff.
Through
an
immediate
rezoning
intake,
we
face
an
extraordinary
and
unprecedented
housing
crisis
that
requires
extraordinary
measures
and
courageous,
two
and
a
half
or
three
or
four
year,
total
rezoning
process
for
for
a
project
like
east
village.
That
is
entirely
social
and
rental
housing.
It's
just
not
good
enough
anymore
for
the
people
of
vancouver.
N
A
Thank
you.
I
don't
see
any
questions
on
the
queue
for
you,
so
I
am
going
to
move
to
the
next
speaker.
Thank
you
so
much.
The
next
is
raymond
kwong
speaker
number
two
raymond
quang.
L
Good
morning,
mayor
stewart
and
members
of
council,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
today.
My
name
is
raymond
kwong
I
am
a
resident
of
vancouver
and,
as
the
provincial
director
of
the
housing
hub
at
bc,
housing
I'm
here
to
speak
to
you
in
support
of
the
policies
and
direction
for
securing
rental
housing
priorities
in
the
hastings
east
sub
area
between
clark
drive
and
campbell
avenue.
L
The
housing
hub
is
a
division
of
bc.
Housing
focused
on
working
in
partnership
with
the
housing
industry
to
further
the
mandate
of
bc,
housing
to
create
housing,
solutions
for
middle
income,
households,
as
well
as
a
center
of
excellence
for
opportunities
to
create
additional
social,
affordable
and
rental
housing.
Housing
is
fundamental
to
the
well-being
of
our
province
and
our
community
with
affordable
options
becoming
increasingly
out
of
reach
for
our
residents.
L
That
is
why,
I'm
speaking
to
you
today,
in
my
capacity
as
the
provincial
director
of
housing
hub
at
bc,
housing,
I
want
to
express
my
support
for
an
important
housing
project
for
polls
for
three
sites
in
vancouver:
the
living
east
village
project
at
10,
30
to
1070,
east
hastings,
street
11,
15
to
1127,
east
hasting,
street
and
1168
to
1180
east
tasting
street.
These
three
sites
are
a
rare
opportunity
to
bring
a
diverse
blend
of
rental
and
affordable
housing
to
a
community
with
truly
diverse
needs.
L
This
portfolio
of
projects
are
at
a
critical
juncture,
sensitive
to
delays
from
an
unfavorable
environment.
It
requires
all
stakeholders
involved
to
act
purposefully
to
seize
the
opportunity
to
provide
over
several
hundred
urgently
needed
new
homes.
With
that,
we
encourage
you
to
strongly
consider
taking
the
following
action
to
move
this
policy
direction
forward,
so
that
proposed
projects
such
as
this
can
move
forward.
L
36
of
these
are
to
replace
existing
sreo
units
with
self-contained
housing
unit.
The
project
through
the
housing
hub
is
on
our
inventory
list
for
potential
financing
from
bc.
Housing
bc,
housing
through
the
provincial
rental
housing
corporation,
is
now
the
owner
of
one
of
the
sites
that
contains
the
sro
vernon
hotel,
which
is
not
an
operation
that
we
completed
through
an
acquisition
from
palmerita
and
have
a
limited
time
period
option
should
the
rezoning
approval
process
not
perceived
in
essence,
the
acquisition
will
be
at
one
dollar
or
nominal
fee.
At
the
end
of
the
day.
L
Time
is
of
the
essence
and
assuming
the
project
goes
through
expeditious
project
approval
channels.
The
free
land
component
certainly
has
attracted
the
strongest
interest
of
the
province
and
creates
good
project
viability
and
creates
the
foundation
for
a
bold
and
innovative
partnership.
L
The
availability
of
affordable
rental
housing
remains
a
challenge
challenging
problem
in
many
parts
of
the
province,
and
vancouver
is
no
exception
to
keep
up
with
community
growth
and
meet
the
housing
needs
of
everyone.
Increased
density
building
heights
and
a
range
of
unit
types
across
the
housing
spectrum
are
vital
for
this
area.
L
If
we
don't
keep
up
with
affordable
housing
supply,
it
results
in
increasing
levels
of
displacement,
eviction
and
homelessness,
which
impacts
all
of
us.
Thank
you
for
recognizing
the
critical
need
to
work
together
to
build
rental
and
social
housing
units
like
those
of
the
provost
living
east
village
project.
That
concludes
our
discussion
for
you,
mayor
stewart
and
council,
and
I'm
happy
to
respond
to
any
questions
that
you
you
you
might
all
have
today
for.
A
Me
thanks
so
much
I
don't.
I
don't
see
any
questions
for
you,
so
I
am
going
to
move
to
the
next
speaker.
We
have
duncan
sorry
chuck
sorry,
sorry
about
that
different
when
you
read
it
yeah
exactly
thank.
K
You
thanks
very
much
and
thanks
to
mayor
and
council
for
letting
me
come
speak
today.
Oh,
I
appreciate
that
so
I'm
here
my
name
is
daniel
vladarchek,
I'm
the
chief
of
staff
of
bonnie
group
and,
as
no
surprise,
I'm
here
to
express
our
support
for
this
proposal.
Given
it
mentions
our
site
so,
rather
than
get
any
specifics
about
our
site,
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
genesis
of
of
this
proposal
as
well
as
some
of
how
our
thinking
has
evolved
since
originally
submitting
it.
K
You
know
we
we
had
a
sort
of
project
proposal
in
place
based
on
the
zoning
from
the
current
area
plan
and
while
we're
going
through
that,
we
spent
a
significant
myself
and
others
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time
in
the
community
and
learned
a
lot
of
really
important
lessons
about
what
this
project
needed
to
do.
K
Obviously,
it's
situated
in
a
social
and
democrat
demographic
community
with
a
lot
of
vulnerable
populations.
We
wanted
to
ensure
we
added
that
affordable
and
social
housing,
but
we
also
sort
of
wanted,
find
ways
to
create
economic
opportunity
and
share
and
some
of
the
prosperity
that
would
come
from
the
project.
That's
how
we
got
in
conversations
about
community
economic
development,
creating
affordable
retail
space.
That's
what
led
to
the,
for
example,
mou
with
series
the
cba
agreement
myself.
K
I've
been
involved
with
the
cba
working
group
at
the
city
and
know
the
important
role
development
can
play
in
creating
those
opportunities,
not
just
in
construction,
but
also
through
procurement
and
post-occupancy.
And
so
that's
why
we
approached
the
city
and
said
we'd
be
open
at
a
smaller
scale
to
looking
at
that.
K
But
the
genesis
of
this
project
that
ended
up
in
this
report
was
through
a
conversation
myself
and
my
colleague
had
with
housing
with
miss
clark
and
miss
mogliss
about
how
to
is
it
possible
to
create
a
more
turnkey
option
for
the
affordable
housing
on
ramier,
and
we
said
sure
we
could
do
that,
but
we
would
need
to
find
a
way
to
add
some
additional
density
to
make
the
numbers
work.
K
And
lo
and
behold,
the
this
pep
process
came
up,
and
so
that
is
what
sort
of
led
us
to
this
this
project
and
included
these
other
pieces
related
to
that
work
and,
as
that
was
ongoing,
we've
continued
to
engage
in
the
community,
and
so
I
wanted
to
share
a
couple
of
things
that
we
would
like
to
also
offer
is
something
we
will
explore
through
this
enhanced
rezoning
process
if
it
is
to
move
forward.
One
is
the
continued
commitment
to
look
for
for
new
opportunities
for
economic
development
and
particularly
in
the
indigenous
community.
K
You
know,
I
think,
that
one
of
the
things
I've
learned
through
that
engagement
is
this
site
and
the
larger
area
is
situated
in
a
very
spiritual
place.
Traditionally
for
many
many
millennia,
and
through
that
conversation
I
had
with
one
hereditary
chief
recently
we
talked
about
well.
K
You
know
the
local
arts,
community
and
organizations
like
the
eatside
arts
society
have
really
allowed
to
create
a
robust
local
art
scene,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
people
love
living
in
strathcona,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
impetuses
for
reaching
out
for
myself,
working
with
esther
rosenberg
at
eastside
art
society
to
bring
them
on
as
the
public
art
consultant.
K
Not
so
much
is
because
we
just
wanted
them
as
the
consultant,
but
that
was
to
show
our
commitment
to
using
local
art
through
the
public
art
process,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
really
learned-
and
we've
really
learned
through
this
process-
is
that
wow.
This
is
what
makes
the
community
or
one
of
the
things
that
makes
the
community
so
great
and
unique.
K
It
also
is
something
that
is
struggling
in
terms
of
affordable
space,
and
so
I'm
here
today
to
also
express
any
openness
and
willingness
to
work
with
staff
work
with
the
local
community
to
add
a
cultural
amenity
space
to
the
project
that
could
be
turnkey
to
the
city.
Potentially
it
could
be
gifted
to
an
organization,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
process
worked.
K
K
This
process,
obviously
being
some
going
out
forward,
will
also
lead
to
those
changes,
and
so,
while
we
want
to
offer
all
these
packages,
the
key
thing
I
would
leave
to
to
mayor
and
council
is
just
providing
us
and
providing
the
the
direction
for
both
for
us
as
applicants
and
for
staff
to
work
with
us
on
the
heights
and
the
densities.
I
understand
the
sensitivities
around.
K
That
obviously
is
a
company
that
builds
both
all
across
vancouver
and
the
region,
but
we
were
willing
to
work
with
staff
and
work
for
the
community
to
deliver
those
amenity
packages
so
long
as
we
can
also
get
the
necessary
height
and
density
to
make
the
numbers
work.
So
with
that
I'll
leave
it
there
and
I
look
forward.
I
hope
you
pass
this
policy
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
staff
and
the
community
on
our
proposal.
Thanks.
Thank
you.
D
Hi
good
morning,
good
morning,
you
mentioned
some
of
the
engagement
that
you'd
have
with
esther
from
eastside
culture,
crawl,
who's,
a
firecracker
around
passionate
for
the.
D
Beyond
sort
of
the
traditional
public
art
sort
of
opportunities,
if
you
had
any
discussion
around
any
war,
innovative
out-of-the-box,
non-traditional
kind
of
art,
opportunities,
yeah.
K
Most
of
what
originally
most
of
what
we
discussed
was
in
sort
of
the
public
art
space,
because
that
was
obviously
a
commitment
the
project
has
to
deliver
on.
I
think,
beyond
that
our
conversation
was
primarily
around
the
need
for
space,
and
what
is
it
can?
What
can
we
do
through
this
project
to
create
more
opportunity
to
support
people
state
being
able
to
stay
in
the
community?
I
think
you
know
you.
It
sounds
like
you
know.
D
So
could
it
be,
could
it
take
a
form
of
I'm
not
presupposing?
I'm
just
I'm
interested
to
know
some
of
that
commercial
space
being
artists,
production,
space
et
cetera,
because
that
is
part
of
the
kind
of
the
challenge
is
the
housing
is
desperately
needed
and
it's
attractive
to
live
there,
because
the
arts
community,
but
then
the
arts
community
might
be
displaced
because
some
more
of
the
housing
comes
in.
So
to
your
point,
all
coming
back
to
you
know
retaining
artists
in
the
community
that
is
through
space
yeah.
K
Yeah,
I
think
again,
I
would
say,
we'd
be
open
to
exploring
any
of
those
options.
It's
just
about
making
the
economic
making
it
work
economically
and
that's
why
we
sort
of
talked
about
maybe
adding
an
additional
space.
It
wouldn't
necessarily
be
ground
for
retail,
as
our
original
discussion
doesn't
necessarily
stay
that
way,
but
I
think
that
starts
to
make
the
most
sense
and
having
that
space
for
visual,
visual
and
performing
arts
production
space,
it
could
be
fairly
significant.
D
Okay,
that's
a
very
attractive
idea
and
opportunities
we're
rapidly
using
that
space
and
I'm
sure
esther
walks
you
through
the
stats
on
that
right.
Yes,
from
the
study
they
commissioned.
Okay,
I'm
intrigued.
Hopefully,
staff
are
hearing
this
conversation
and
we'll
explore
that
during
the
during
a
process.
If
this
moves
ahead,
thank
you
no
problem.
Thanks.
A
So
much
that's
it
for
questions
appreciate
it.
We
have
speaker
number
four,
stephen
johnson,.
O
Great
thank
you.
My
name
is
steve
johnston.
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
community
impact
real
estate
society.
Cirres
is
a
not-for-profit
social
enterprise
that
curates
a
portfolio
of
commercial
real
estate,
predominantly
in
the
downtown
east
side
that
provides
measure
of
affordability
for
social
enterprise
and
not-for-profit
to
operate
in
the
community
and
around
the
constituents
they
serve.
O
I'm
here
this
morning
to
speak
in
support
of
the
direction
of
staff
to
consider
the
rezoning
applications
for
1220,
east
hastings
and
560
rimer
street,
particularly
understanding
that,
in
order
for
these
projects
to
be
viable,
we
do
need
to
look
at
increasing
the
height
and
density.
In
order
to
make
the
project
work.
O
Cires
has
been
very
proud
to
work
alongside
any
and
come
to
a
memorandum
of
understanding
about
how
we
can
partner
with
them
to
better
utilize
the
commercial
real
estate,
particularly
in
the
560
raymer
site,
to
support
local
communities,
social
enterprise
and
not
for
profit.
O
We've
heard
very
eloquent
speakers,
talk
about
the
affordability
crisis
in
real
estate,
for
rentals
and
for
sro
units,
there's
a
concurrent
affordability
crisis
in
commercial
real
estate,
and
that
is
driving.
Some
of
the
essential
supports
to
downtown
eastside
residents
and
those
that
live
in
rental
housing
outside
of
the
neighborhoods
and
away
from
the
constituents
they
serve.
Having
projects
like
these
go
forward
with
an
inclusion
of
affordable
real
estate
ensures
that
we
have
a
longer-term
hedge
against
gentrification
and
those
important
service
providers
can
remain
in
community.
O
I
want
to
emphasize
here
that,
through
this
mou
on
e
has
become
a
leader
in
the
private
sector
for
partnering,
with
an
organization
like
community
impact
real
estate.
To
date,
the
majority
of
our
portfolio
has
been
acquired
through
a
partnership
with
government,
and
this
mou
represents
the
first
private
developer,
offering
to
work
with
us
to
create
affordability
for
residents
for
small
business,
social
enterprise
and
not-for-profit,
and
to
really
think
deeply
about
how
development
can
support
community
economic
development.
O
It
was
always
our
fervent
wish
and
dream
that
our
private
developer
would
voluntarily
opt
in
to
this
type
of
a
policy,
and
I
applaud
on
his
leadership
here
and
considering
that
we
know
that
development
creates
a
tremendous
amount
of
opportunity
for
labor,
but
also
for
procurement
and
projects
like
these
create
local
employment
and
local
procurement
opportunities
that
again
advance
that
cause
of
community
economic
development.
O
So
again,
just
speaking
in
support
of
the
direction
of
staff
to
reconsider
these
rezonings,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
A
K
Yeah
thanks
for
coming
into
three
yeah.
I
think
this
is
really
important.
It's
great
to
hear
that
you
have
an
mou
with
one
of
the
opponents
recognizing
that
there's
also
a
conversation
today
about
expanding.
Let's
look
at
apologia
policy
direction
for
a
large
area.
How
do
you
see
us
creating
city
policy
for
this
area
to
see
more
projects
get
a
cyrus
component?
Do
we
want
to
do
a
20
like
have
you
seen
other
cities
or
other
policies
that
can
work,
that
we
would
have
a
certain
amount
of
square
footage?
O
Yeah,
thank
you.
That's
an
excellent
question.
Currently,
there's
not
a
lot
of
policy
mechanisms
that
exist
that
would
promote
the
inclusion
of
affordable
space
for
commercial
retail
specifically
for
the
arts,
not
for
profit
or
social
enterprise.
Under
the
city's
existing
cba
policy.
Those
type
of
policy
levers
don't
kick
in
until
a
project
side
project
size
exceeds
460
000
square
feet.
O
I
think,
through
the
rezoning
process,
though,
there's
an
opportunity
to
look
at
commercial
real
estate,
it's
inclusion
in
development
applications
and
understand
where
there's
opportunity
to
support
local
community
in
in
this
case,
I
think
it's
about
being
thoughtful
about
the
pro
formas
and
looking
at
heightened
density
is
potentially
a
trade
is,
maybe
not
the
best
way
to
talk
about
it,
but
as
an
exchange
that
gets
greater
value
for
community.
O
That
would
encourage
developers
to
include
commercial
real
estate
in
an
affordable
manner
to
an
organization
like
community
impact,
real
estate,
and
then
the
second
piece
is
that
we
have
an
excellent
working
relationship
with
dc
housing.
In
fact,
that's
where
the
majority
of
our
commercial
real
estate
assets
are
acquired.
K
O
We
do
yeah.
Currently
we
have
just
over
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
cru
spaces
or
approximately
53
different
units.
We
are
at
100
occupancy
and
I
have
typically
anywhere
from
30
to
40,
not-for-profit
or
other
groups
waiting
to
access
space.
A
Thank
you.
That's
it
for
questions,
appreciate
you
calling
in
today,
council.
That's
it
for
questions
from
the
statements
from
the
public.
Have
somebody
move
the
motion
please.
I.
P
A
I
heard
councillor
carr
first
seconded
by
councillor
dominato,
so
we're
on
the
main
queue.
If
anybody
would
like
to
speak
to
this
one,
please
go
ahead
and
stir
fry
up
to
five
minutes.
C
Man
you'd
think
I'd
have
figured
this
one
out
by
now,
but
I
won't
take
a
full
five
minutes.
I
just
you
know
do
want
to
reflect.
Obviously,
as
on
council
will
know,
I
live
quite
close
by
and
many
will
also
know
that
councilor
swanson
and
I
worked
together
on
the
downtown
eastside
local
area
plan,
which
was
accommodated
in
2014
and
and
contemplated
new
densities
in
this
particular
area.
C
C
I
you
know
certainly
reiterate
my
highlighting
for
some
of
the
the
needs
in
the
immediate
vicinity
which
include,
in
addition
to
what's
been
prescribed
in
some
of
this
around
the
series,
which
is
great,
I'm
a
huge
supporter
of
the
work
that
series
has
been
doing,
but
we
do
need
a
lot
more
green
space
park,
space
tree,
canopy
and
clearly
staff
are
aware.
C
That,
too,
is
they're
going
to
refine
this
policy
and,
of
course,
the
proximity
to
the
rail
line,
which
has
been
a
pretty
significant
issue
since
the
time
of
the
downtown
east
side,
local
area
plan-
and
I
I
can't
overstate
how
impactful
it
is
for
residents
who
live
adjacent
to
the
at
great
crossing
in
the
and
this.
C
The
signal
bells
which
go
on
at
all
hours
of
the
night
and
they
go
on
quite
persistently,
and
I've
heard
them
and
I've
been
to
people's
homes
to
listen
to
it
and
and
it
is
really
impactful
and
and
and
it
doesn't
come
across
as
a
decibel
noise
kind
of
thing.
So
often
it
gets
overlooked,
but
I
think
it
really
is
something
that
we
need
to
take
seriously.
C
I
worry
about
the
detox
housing
that
we've
similarly
approved
directly
adjacent
to
that
signal
crossing
because
it
really
has
a
an
annoyance
that
is
is
so
persistent
and
random
that
that
it
it's
tough
on
people,
and
I
want
to
highlight
that
and
it's
something
that
we're
going
to
need
to
do
before
we,
we
actually
move
people
in
to
live
there.
C
You
know
I
also
just
want
to
acknowledge
too
that
one
of
the
the
more
creative
art
spaces
that
has
been
going
on
for
some
time
right
there
at
the
vernon
hotel,
which
is
where
this
new
sro
replacement,
will
be,
is
shop
wrong,
and
I-
and
I
hope
that
the
applicants
are
working
with
the
folks
over
at
chopra,
because
they
do
some
really
amazing
grassroots
indigenous
led
stuff,
in
addition
to
feeding
people
and
doing
all
sorts
of
just
really
cool
creative
stuff,
and
I
hope
that
that
somewhere
in
there,
where
the
applicants
are,
are
taking
a
thoughtful
look
because
they're
they're,
weirdos
and
they're
a
big
eclectic
and
it
may
not
kind
of
meet
the
the
framing
that
often
we
look
for,
but
they're
they're
really
great
people,
and
they
do
some
amazing
stuff.
C
So
I
hope
we're
we're
we're
working
with
the
shop
wrong
crew
that
are
there
at
vernon
and
hastings.
So
yeah.
These
are
big
heights.
I
you
know,
I
know
it's
it's
going
to
ruffle
a
few
folks,
because
it's
not
something
we'd
anticipated.
I
think
at
a
certain
point,
once
we
go
taller,
it's
it's,
it's
less
impactful!
It's!
You
know
a
big
building
is
a
big
building.
C
The
extra
few
floors,
I
don't
think,
makes
a
huge
difference,
but
it
certainly
can
impact
the
viability
and
I
do
need
to
underscore
we
have
you
know
a
huge
housing
need.
There
is
a
great
opportunity
to
deliver
a
lot
of
that
here
in
this
area,
especially
with
the
industrial
lego
lands,
so
I'll
be
supporting
this,
and-
and
I
hope
that
we
can
really
achieve
some
deeper
affordability,
as
this
plan
gets
refined
and
and
some
of
those
public
benefits
I
talked
about
that
are
so
necessary
in
the
neighborhood.
D
Yeah
thanks
mayor,
I'm
gonna,
sort
of
echo
cancer
fry
and
just
augment
that
a
little
bit
vociferously
with
respect
to
any
type
of
green
space.
D
Small,
it's
good
trees,
obviously,
but
I'm
also
acutely
interested
in
the
dialogue
around
the
public
benefits
component
of
it.
I
was
pleased
to
hear
some
of
the
work
in
terms
of
community
engagement
and
some
of
the
the
applicants
doing
and
some
of
the
partnerships
that
are
more
proponent.
I
guess
in
this
case
not
officially
an
applicant
yet
in
terms
of
the
community
partnerships
or
conversations
and
engagement
with
the
arts
community
and
whether
it's
indigenous
economic
development
or
the
arts.
D
I
do
think
that
that
attests
to
kind
of
understanding
the
community
which
I
appreciate,
but
I'm
keenly
interested
to
see
in
any
discussion
what
comes
back
with
respect
to
delivering
some
meaningful
public
amenities,
because,
yes,
we
have
the
economics
that
we
have
in
terms
of
really
needing
to
deliver
the
much
needed
housing.
D
But
I
don't
want
to
be
in
a
situation
moving
forward
as
we
consider
these
projects
that
it's
housing
and
not
housing
and
kind
of
community
support
and
public
amenities,
because
we've
got
to
figure
out
that
balance,
that's
where
our
deficit
is
going
to
be
moving
forward.
We
know
that
we
have
one
now
in
terms
of
infrastructure
and
it's
going
to
continue
to
be
more
challenging.
D
So
I
think
it
is
incumbent
on
us
to
have
those
conversations,
as
we
consider
exceptions
here
around
how
we're
going
to
build
those
communities
that
not
just
respects
kind
of
the
uses
that
are
there
but
builds
communities
that
are
actually
where
people
can
connect
and
they're
livable
for
people.
So
it's
it's
creating
quality
of
life
in
addition
to
giving
people
the
roof
over
their
heads.
D
J
Yeah
thanks,
I
am
obviously
also
supporting,
and
I
think
that
both
counselors
fry
and
kirby
young,
I
really
stated
the
reasons
why
it's
important
to
support
it.
There's
one
additional
reason,
though
I
think
that
is
significant,
and
that
is
the
link
to
what
we
are
proposing
in
our
vancouver
plan
to
ensure
that
there
is
density
around
rapid
transit
areas
and
hastings
is
intended
to
be
a
bus
route,
and
so
I
think,
for
that
reason
too.
A
A
N
H
H
However,
it
is
within
the
applicant's
purview
to
withdraw
the
the
rezoning
case
or
to
amend
the
rezoning
case
if
there's
a
desire
to
see
more
flexibility,
but
what
staff
will
be
presenting
today
is
the
application
well
right,
so
we're
going
to
stay
away
from
the
application,
but
we'll
we'll
speak
a
little
to
the
application
in
general,
but
more
specifically
to
the
policies
so.
A
Great
and
as
we're
going
through
these,
if
you
could
offer
often
we
kind
of
it's
hard
to
know
exactly
what
questions
are
in
and
out
of
bounds.
So
if,
if
we
could
get
additional
guidance
on
on
that
just
to
set
what
we
should
be
talking
about,
what
we
shouldn't
that
would
be.
That
would
be
very
helpful,
especially
from
the
chairs
perspective,
thanks,
okay.
So
the
next
item
is
policy
and
directions:
application
for
rezoning
at
8,
30
to
850
furlough
street
and
1045
harrow
street.
A
A
Thank
you
tessa
from
the
resulting
center
here
to
to
lead
us
through
this
and
right
now
I
keep
thinking
it's
a
public
hearing,
so
scripts
are
different.
Sorry
about
that.
So
then
afterwards,
I
also
have
up
to
five
minutes
to
ask
questions
to
staff,
and
we
do
have
speakers
of
this
item.
So
please
go
ahead.
Q
This
proposal
has
been
formally
submitted
as
a
rezoning
application
staff
are
reviewing
the
application
against
relevant
policies
and
bylaws,
including
the
west
end
community
plan.
The
rezoning
policy
for
the
west
end
the
west
end
terraform,
citing
and
setbacks
administrative
bulletin
and
the
view
protection
guidelines,
while
the
application
references
the
higher
building
policy.
This
is
not
an
enabling
policy
and
does
not
apply
to
this
site.
Staff
have
completed
a
preliminary
review
and
the
proposal
is
significantly
non-compliant
with
the
existing
policy
framework.
Q
Our
presentation
today
will
include
a
brief
review
of
each
of
these
key
policies
and
how
the
rezoning
application
significantly
compromises
the
public
realm
and
protective
views
values.
The
city
has
upheld
for
many
years,
given
the
degree
of
deviation
staff
are
seeking
council's
confirmation
of
these
matters
prior
to
completing
the
staff
review
and
returning
with
a
referral
report
recommending
non-support
rezoning
potential
for
this
site
is
guided
by
the
west
end
community
plan
and
the
supplemental
rezoning
policy
for
the
west
end
in
this
area.
Building
heights
up
to
550
feet
can
be
considered
subject
to
the
view.
Q
Protection
guidelines
and
the
west
end
tower
form,
setting
and
setbacks
bulletin
two
protected
view:
cones
cross
this
site,
the
queen
elizabeth
parkview
3.2.1,
and
the
more
restrictive
protected
public
view
d,
also
known
as
heatherville
public
view,
d
originating
in
legend
boot
square
in
falls.
Creek
south
secures
views
to
the
lions
and
the
brunswick
mountains
and
limits
building
height
at
this
site
to
approximately
260
feet.
Q
Rezoning
site
shown
in
red
is
located
on
the
northeast
corner
of
thurlow
and
harrow
streets,
just
south
of
robson
street.
The
single
lot
is
currently
developed
with
a
three-story
commercial
building
with
ground
floor
retail
space
and
office
uses
and
a
seven-story
strata,
titled
residential
building.
Q
Q
As
described
in
the
previous
presentation,
the
policy
inquiry
process
enables
staff
to
consider
and
process
applications
for
proposals
that
are
not
compliant
with
council
adopted
policy.
This
application
did
not
go
through
the
policy
inquiry
process.
In
this
case,
the
applicant
has
submitted
a
policy
non-compliant
rezoning
application.
Q
The
contrast
between
a
modern
urban
skyline
and
a
rugged
coastal
mountain
range
is
unique
to
vancouver
and
has
been
a
celebrated
part
of
the
city's
civic
identity
at
a
building
height
of
580
feet.
This
proposal
varies
significantly
from
what
would
otherwise
be
anticipated
at
this
location,
as
illustrated
here
protected
public
view,
d
extends
across
the
site
at
a
height
of
approximately
260
feet,
the
developable
area,
below
the
view
cone
is
highlighted
in
purple.
Q
Additional
height
is
being
requested
for
the
strata
tower
and
the
proposal
projects
320
feet
into
protected
view.
Cone
d,
permitting
a
building
of
this
height
in
this
section
of
the
west
end,
would
erode
the
city's
ability
to
protect
public
views
to
the
north
shore,
mountains,
compromise
and
compromise
the
principles
of
the
view.
Protection
guidelines
within
other
areas
that
have
been
consistently
upheld.
Q
Access
to
daylight
is
foundational
to
the
success
of
pedestrian
shopping
streets.
The
intent
of
city
policies
to
maximize
sunlight
on
sidewalk,
sidewalks
and
public
spaces
is
to
protect
the
vibrancy
street
life
and
viability
of
these
important
commercial
areas
that
prioritize
meaningful
pedestrian
experiences.
Q
Q
Q
This
site
falls
under
the
west
end
public
benefit
area
of
the
plan.
Significant
progress
has
been
made
towards
achieving
the
short-term
priority
priorities
identified
in
the
west
end
public
benefit
strategy,
in
particular,
affordable
housing.
Eighty
percent
of
the
targets
for
secured
market
rental
housing
have
been
met
in
this
area.
Q
A
Thanks
so
much
do
you
have
questions
cancellation
of
up
to
five
minutes.
G
Thanks
so
much
my
first
question
is:
can
you
explain
to
me
why
why
this
application
doesn't
comply
with
the
higher
building
policy.
H
This,
the
higher
building
policy
is
not
a
zoning
enabling
policy.
This
property
is
not
located
within
the
designated
area
for
the
higher
building
policy,
so
it
just
doesn't
apply.
M
Okay,
thank
you.
Councillor
dj
nova,
the
policy
the
the
list
of
views
was
originally
enacted.
Oh
pardon
me,
higher
building
policy
was
updated
in
2011
and
I
believe
there
was
a
recent
amendment
in
2019.
G
Okay,
thanks
very
much,
I
might
send
further
questions
on
that
policy
and-
and
I
have
another
question
for
staff,
just
from
your
presentation
and
sort
of
I
understand
the
shadowing
was
outlined
in
purple-
I'm
just
wondering
should
the
sorry
I
wrote
my
question
down
here:
should
the
shadowing
be
minimized
in
staff's
opinion
or
does
does
the
applicant
have
to
achieve
no
shadowing
at
all
for
this
to
comply
with
with
staff
being
able
to
recommend
it?
G
I'm
I'm
just
wondering
how,
because
council
has
seen
other
applications
that
have
come
to
us
that
do
have
shadows
that
are
slightly
outside
of
the
realm
of
of.
I
guess
we're
calling
it
up.
It's
not
a
policy,
it's
a
bulletin,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
so
so,
what
would
need
to
happen
for
this
to
be
able
to
comply.
M
Yeah,
so
the
the
the
bulletin
is,
pursuant
to
the
west
end
plan
and
two
objectives
for
high
streets,
so,
broadly
speaking,
compliance
would
say
absolutely
no
additional
shadowing
onto
the
high
street.
As
with
anything,
there
is
a
little
bit
of
discretion
that
we
can
apply,
but
this
proposal
on
our
high
level
review
reveals
a
pretty
significant.
What
would
represent
a
significant
additional
shadowing
on
a
major
high
street.
G
Thanks
very
much
and
a
question
for
the
gm
of
planning
development
sustainability.
I
understand
in
the
past
and
appreciate
that
you
have
been
bringing
forward
to
council
recommendations
where
perhaps
staff
don't
recommend
something,
but
it
comes
forward.
Anyways
and
that's
sort
of
the
choice
of
the
applicant
to
take
that
gamble.
Is
that
an
option
that
the
applicant
has.
G
Why
we're
discussing
this
today,
so
they
could
choose
they
want
to
move
forward,
is
what
I
understand,
but
they
don't
quite
comply
with
what
staff
would
recommend
so
staff?
If,
if
it's
as
we
see
it
today,
moving
forward
to
public
hearing
would
not
recommend
it,
but
council
would
decide
to
cross
the
judicial
body.
Is
that
correct.
H
Absolutely
correct
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we
need
to
stay
away
from
the
specifics
of
the
zoning
case.
The
staff
will
process
this
application.
We
have
an
application,
a
paid
application.
It
will
come
forward
to
council.
The
question
is:
is:
does
council
want
to
direct
staff
on
any
further
study
of
the
view
cones
or
the
shadow
policies.
G
D
Yeah
thanks
mayor
so
first
question:
I
just
want
to
also
zero
in
on
the
higher
buildings
policy,
I'm
looking
at
adopted
by
council
on
may
6,
1997.
and
so
to
me.
It
says
when
adopted
by
and
I'm
just
not
clear.
I
want
to
get
some
clarity
as
to
why,
if
this
is
an
adopted
council
voted
policy
that
this
does
not
apply.
J
J
So
it
says
that
if
you're,
activating
the
higher
building
policy
or
trying
to
apply
that
you
have
to
be
in
a
specific
sense,
location
of
the
pa
of
the
downtown
peninsula
to
apply
and
this
project
doesn't
do
that
applying
it
to
this
site
would
also
not
meet
the
intent
of
that
policy,
which
is
essentially
to
create
a
higher
building
form
through
the
middle
of
the
site
through
cbd
and
the
bridge
heads
to
really
announce
the
area.
This
location
is
completely
un
connected
to
that.
D
In
many
ways,
because
I'm
meeting
in
the
policy
here
then,
for
example,
it
says
cbd
while
also
providing
opportunities
for
strategically
placed
height
at
gateways.
For
example,
that's
right,
bridge
granville,
bridge
georgia,
gateways,
etcetera,
you're,
you're,
classifying
this
or
viewing
this
as
interior.
D
Okay,
I'm
going
to
move
on
for
that
one.
There
was
a
comment
from
staff
that
you
didn't
feel
they
were
an
unparaphrasing
but
essentially
compelling
public
benefits
and
I'm
no
we're
not
so
trying
to
straddle
that
line
between
not
being
specific
to
the
application.
But
just
the
information
that's
been
presented
and
I
see
that
there
is
sort
of
a
plaza
walkway
through
so
that
apparent
and
there's
a
potential
child
care.
So
I'm
guessing
staff
are
deeming.
That's
not
compelling
what
would
be
compelling.
H
Yes,
what
the
west
end
plan
looks
for
in
terms
of
substantial
public
benefits,
is
social
housing
right
is
social
housing,
and
this
doesn't
provide
social
housing.
H
D
Okay,
how
are
we
doing
on
getting
applications
in
with
social
housing,
with
the
existing
policy
in
the
current
economic
environment?.
H
D
For
time
to
have
limited
time
sure
we
just
had
an
application
where
there's
an
existing
policy
area.
That's
said
that
the
the
aspiration
and
the
public
benefit
the
meritorious
public
benefit.
There
was
considered
to
be
80
strata
and
20
social
housing,
but
heard
that
we
hadn't
had
projects
come
forward
in
the
last
five
years,
because
the
economics
didn't
work.
Isn't
that.
H
D
D
Okay
and
in
the
hypothetical
situation
that
you
have
an
application
in,
you
said
that
staff
will
process
it.
It
will
come
to
council
in
some
regardless
in
some
form,
if
it
were,
there
were
not
sort
of
an
exception
of
this.
Through
this
pep
process
and
the
applicant
was
advised
as
an
outcome.
No
the
existing
policies
apply.
What
could
they
build?
They
would
have
two
buildings
of
what
type
of
height.
D
D
And
at
this
point
in
the
process,
just
to
be
clear,
staff
of
values
wrote
this,
for
it
has
been
any
dialogue
in
the
process
of
bringing
this
to
council
at
this
point
with
the
applicant
with
respect
to
different
building
height
or
form
other
than
the
two
that
are
proposed
with
the
56
and
14.
H
Yes,
and
I
think
it's
tests
laid
out
right,
we
could
consider
we
could
continue
with
the
application.
It's
really
the
applicant's
choice.
He
has
submitted
an
application
and-
and
we
are
obligated
to
process
that,
if
the
counts,
if
the
applicant
wants
to
withdraw
or
or
amend
that
application,
he
has
the
ability
to
do
that.
B
Thanks,
I
am
like
all
of
us
figuring
out
what
I'm
allowed
to
be
asking
questions
on
so
welcome
guidance
on
that,
but
I'm
hoping
to
better
understand
the
public
benefit
on
this
project.
B
H
Might
be
where
we're
delving
a
little
too
much
into
the
into
the
merits
of
the
application.
However,
these
gen,
this
general
area
in
the
west
end
plan,
was
really
looking
for
strata
and
cash
cac
to
pay
for
some
of
the
benefits
that
the
west
end
plan
envisions
and
not
particularly
below
market
rental.
H
The
last
couple
of
years
when
the
market
was
down
particularly
for
strata,
we
did
see
a
number
of
applicants
choose
to
move
to
rental
and
we
actually
created
some
enabling
policy
to
allow
that
to
happen.
B
Okay,
I'm
also
curious,
so
the
view
cone
in
the
images
you
showed
it
it
looked
like
the
lions
were
only
barely
visible
above
the
current
building,
so
that
is.
B
A
certain
place,
okay
and
my
other
question,
and
and
forgive
my
kind
of
pedestrian
understanding
of
this-
I
guess
no
pun
intended,
but
it
seems
to
me
like
almost
any
building
on
that
site
would
create
shadow
on
robson.
B
H
No
actually,
if
they
stayed
below
the
view
cone,
particularly
they
would
not
create
shadow
between
that
time
frame.
B
B
Okay
and
then
I
guess
this
is
to
sort
of
what's
in
the
scope
of
this
discussion
today,
I'm
trying
to
understand
those
view
cone
and
shadow
policies.
B
You
know
I
don't
care
that
much
about,
but
I
I
guess
my
interest
is
in
if
we're
going
so
far
over
both
of
those
policies
that
the
public
benefit
be
equal
to,
and
so
I
I'm
interested
in
some
guidance
about
what
direction
we're
able
to
give
to
make
sure.
If
we're
saying
you
know,
direct
staff
to
negotiate
be
flexible
in
those
policies
that
the
public
benefit
is
equal
to
and
what
I
read
doesn't
seem
to
me
to
be
in
line,
but
maybe
that's
not
the
scope
today.
H
Well,
I
I
think
that
is
the
scope
today,
because
that's
of
course
the
staff's
primary
concern
is
the
consistency,
because
there's
the
consistency
of
application
of
the
policies
right,
we've
with
there's
a
lot
of
activity,
there's
at
least
six
sites
in
play
right
now,
and
if
we're
gonna
relax
the
view
cones
or
the
shadow
policies,
then
those
benefits
should
be
available
to
other
properties
in
the
area,
not
just
this
one.
H
B
Can
you
remind
us
how
we're
doing
in
terms
of
cash
cacs
for
the
west
end
the
amenities
planned
in
the
west
end
community
plan?
My
sense
is
that
plan
is
sort
of
behind
schedule
because
of
a
lack
of
meeting
those
cash
contributions.
I
think
yep.
R
Thanks
team
boyle,
it's
teen
senior,
rezoning
planner
in
the
georgia
corridor
and
the
burrard
corridor
throughout
the
west
end,
not
just
the
site
or
not
just
this
part
of
the
corridor.
We've
secured
500
million
dollars
in
cash
cacs
and
that
would
consist
of
about
just
over
a
dozen
rezoning
applications.
So
in
that
sense
we're
performing
quite
well.
B
R
Yeah
definitely,
we've
been
able
to
upgrade
the
west
end.
Sorry,
the
gordon
neighborhood
house,
with
that
we've
been
able
to
provide
a
new
space
for
community
and
in
the
current
capital
plan.
I
think
it's
a
hundred
million
dollars
for
the
aquatic
center,
and
so
a
lot
of
those
contributions
when
collected
could
be
allocated
towards
those
sort
of
amenities.
So
we're
doing
quite
well
in
terms
of
collecting
cash
cacs.
Okay,.
R
F
Thanks
mayor
and
yeah
a
couple
of
questions
not
to
belabor
this,
but
can
we
just
go
back
to
the
higher
building
policy
and
I
just
pulled
it
up
for
myself
and
I'm
looking
at
it
and
the
way
I'm
seeing
is
that
there's
some
discretion
within
the
central
business
business
district
area
for
up
to
five?
Is
it
500
meters?
Is
that
right
they
get
that
right.
J
F
So
it's
that
conflict,
and
so
in
that
case
the
view
cone's
trumping
exactly
okay,
can
I
ask
about
broadly
shadow
policy
in
the
shadow
bulletin,
because
this
has
come
up
a
few
times.
One
is
in
the
context
of
looking
at
shadow
implications.
F
How
what
was
the
determination
about
there's
specifics
to
the
thousand
block
of
robson?
Why
the
change
there,
the
hours
and
why
is
there
something
specific
to
that
one
block
shadowing
implications.
M
So
in
terms
of
reducing
it
from
ten
to
four
from
ten
to
four
to
ten
to
three,
I
may
need
to
lean
on
teresa
or
somebody
else
to
answer
specifics
to
that.
However,
the
reason
why
it's
the
thousand
block
is
because
that
is
the
area
with
the
highest
concentration
of
pedestrian,
activating
retail,
high
value
retail
okay,
but
I
may
actually
just
ask
team
to
jump
in
and
and
talk
about,
the
specifics
about
reducing
from
ten
to
four
to
ten
to
three.
F
Maybe
I
that's
not
where
I
want
to
go
with
it,
so
maybe
let's
just
focus
on
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
that
so
that's
got
the
highest
pedestrian
sort
of
access
in
terms
of
retail.
When
we
look
at
shadow
impact
well,
how
many
meters
am
I
talking
about
at
a
given
time?
So
you
do
a
snapshot
a
certain
hour
of
the
day.
M
E
M
For
that
block
would
be
a
per
per,
our
policy
would
be
complete,
it
would
have
complete
solar
access
other
than
natural
features
like
trees,
from
the
curb
to
building
face
on
the
north
sidewalk.
F
And
so,
when
I
maybe
going
back
to
that
policy,
appreciating,
you
know
we're
trying
to
often
we're
trying
to
protect
playgrounds
and
parks
and
other
spaces
I'm
trying
to
get
to
what
is
the
real
impact
of
that?
What
seems
to
me,
it's
minimal
shadowing
at
a
time
on
an
area
where,
as
a
pedestrian,
I'm
not
going
to
be
standing
on
the
sidewalk
for
law,
I'm
probably
moving
from
one
destination
to
another,
where
I'm
maybe
traveling
in
a
vehicle.
And
so
what
does
that
tangibly
mean?
F
And
what
was
did
we
have,
if
vociferous
public
feedback
that
we
needed
to
protect
that
I'm
just
trying
to
do
you
see
where
I'm
going
with
this?
I'm
really
trying
to
reconcile
sure.
M
So
a
a
basic
tenant,
a
basic
principle
of
pedestrian
high
streets
that
really
reinforces
that
it
is
for
pedestrians,
is
to
maximize
daylight.
Access
to
daylight,
shadowing
from
man-made
features
reinforces
that
streets
and
central
areas
are
not
necessarily
designed
for
the
experience
of
the
pedestrian,
especially
on
these
really
important
high
streets.
So
it
really
is.
It
is
a
fundamental
principle
of
a
high
street
design
that
you
maximize
solar
access.
M
Our
own
studies
and
and
observations
of
robson
are
that
more
people
bias
the
north
side
of
the
sidewalk,
the
sunny
side
of
the
sidewalk
during
kind
of
like
nice
days
of
the
year.
M
So
that
means
that
the
south
side
of
the
sidewalk
tends
to
rely
a
little
bit
more
on
destination
retail,
whereas
the
north
side
tends
to
have
smaller
retail,
that's
kind
of
changing
a
little
bit
with
some
of
the
bigger
liquid
locker
and
things
like
that.
But
you
can
observe,
as
I
did
yesterday,
the
north
side
of
the
sidewalk
on
a
sunny
day
tends
to
be
quite
crowded.
The
south
side
tends
to
have
a
little
bit
more
people
going
directly
to
club
monaco
banana
republic,
etc.
M
M
K
Yeah,
I
have
a
couple
questions.
The
first
one
staff
had
a
recommendation
to
one
of
the
options
was
to
go
to
a
pep
program.
Can
you
speak
to
the
difference
of
having
this
proposal
come
through
as
is
or
it
going
through?
That
program.
Q
So
the
pep
program
has
criteria
that
were
approved
by
council,
so
we
would
evaluate
the
proposal
against
that
criteria.
If
council
chose
to
move
forward
with
this,
we
would
process
the
application
that
is
before
council,
as
it
is
right
now,
as
it
came
in
as
a
rezoning
application.
K
Q
K
Q
Process
is
similar
to
an
inquiry.
Application
timeline,
which
is
around
three
months,
so
would
be
able
to
be
looked
at
in
that
lens.
K
M
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Counselor
weeb,
so
you're
correct.
The
broadway
plan
anticipates
relaxations,
the
view
cone
for
certain
types
of
development
within
the
broadway
corridor.
That
applies,
as
you
said,
to
queen
elizabeth.
We
haven't
tested
this
against
those
projects
as
potential
projects
or
the
impacts
to
queen
elizabeth.
The
bigger
question
here
really
is
the
impacts
to
the
heather
bay
view,
which
is
not
the
broadway
plan,
doesn't
write
in
anything
that
provides
relaxations
to
any
of
the
view
corridors
other
than
queen
elizabeth.
K
K
I
guess
in
the
report,
is
that
little
section
on
the
very
left
of
the
picture,
what
this
project
would
do,
so
you
could
still
see
the
lines
it's
just
a
component
on
the
left,
or
is
it
significantly
block
the
lines?
Is
there
a?
Is
there
a
diagram
that
staff
have
done
that
can
show
counsel
on
the
significance
on
how
it
impedes
the
views
to
the
lines.
A
Thanks
kevin,
this
is
carl
stein
for
development
planner.
Yes,
the
we
haven't
done
a
detailed
video
as
kevin
stated.
Wherever
the
header
ray
view.
Comb
comes
in
at
260
foot
and
this
pose
will
be.
A
Will
be
so,
the
blockage
will
be
significant,
and
but
in
order
to
quantify
that,
we
would
need
to
do
a
detail,
analysis
and.
K
A
All
in
favor
aye
opposed
we're
good
okay,
so
we
got
a
second
round.
So
I
don't
see
anybody
on
the
list.
So
councillor
boyle,
you
can
start
in
on
your
second.
B
Thanks,
I
was
just
interested
to
hear
the
rest
of
the
answer
on
the
impact
around
view.
Cones
on
robson
there.
R
Thanks
councillor
boyle,
I
think
it
was
just
in
response
to
counselor
dominato's
question.
So
thanks
for
following
up
the
the
question
is
about
how
much
does
this
proposal
impact
the
shadow
on
to
the
1000
block
of
robson?
R
So
I
think
it's
it's
just
not
necessarily
confined
to
this
proposal
and
this
project,
but
the
potential
to
release
other
opportunities
to
shadow,
valued
public
space,
and
I
think,
just
to
add
to
councillor
dominato's
previous
question,
which
we
ran
out
of
time
of.
We
did
extensive
public
space
downtown
studying,
and
it
did
reveal
that
this
particular
block
of
robson,
because
it's
an
it's
a
regional
shopping.
Note.
It's
not
necessarily
just
focused
on
folks
who
are
coming
for
for
more
of
their
local
needs.
R
M
And
I
think
I'll
just
add
one
more
thing,
just
sorry
team,
the
the
the
shadowing
again
just
at
a
very
high
level,
based
on
our
analysis,
the
shadow
that's
being
proposed
here
is
not
a
matter
of.
It
is
well
beyond
an
area
that
we
would
say
would
be
reasonable
discretion.
M
B
Okay,
and
are
there
patios
on
that
block,
I'm
I'm
I'm
trying
to
picture
that
particular
block
and.
M
No,
so
I
I
took
a
walk
there
yesterday,
as
I
noted
just
to
remind
myself
of
it
on
that
side
of
the
block.
There
are
a
number
of
retailers,
but
no
patios.
There
are
a
couple
of
smaller
cafes,
but
it's
mostly
places
like
roots
foot,
locker,
indigo
and
a
few
other
sort
of
chain,
retailers
that
are
that
are
doing
some
major
renovations
right
now
to
the
street,
but
no
patios
on
that
side.
B
M
So,
yes,
that
is
one
of
the
the
sort
of
parking
space,
parklet
patio
things
that
retailer
is
closed
and
a
new
retailer
is
going
in.
But,
yes,
there
are
patios
on
that
side.
Those
are
also
things
that
we
in
urban
design
look
to
activate
sides
of
streets
that
are
potentially
less
appealing
because
they're
in
shadow
that
side
of
the
sidewalk
is
shadowed
by
the
buildings
on
robson
street.
So
those
are
things
that
we
kind
of
add
to
activate
it.
B
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
I
have
one
more
question
for
theresa
back
to
public
benefit,
which
is
again
I'm
I'm
hoping
to
get
some
direction
on
how
or
may,
if
it's
needed
for
council,
to
give
direction
on
ensuring
that
we're
maximizing
the
public
benefit.
If
we're
allowing
some
flexibility
on
these
policies,
maybe
that's
what
staff
would
do
anyway,
but
that's
not
what
I
see
in
the
proposal
in
front
of
us
and
so.
H
Right
and
again,
this
is
the
difference
between
reacting
to
a
very
specific
application,
as
opposed
to
having
a
negotiation
through
the
pep
right.
We
could
explore
that
and
say:
well,
maybe
you'd
rather
have
the
cash
or
we'd
rather
have
something
else
right,
but
what
we're
doing
is
we're
just
reacting
to
the
application
that
was
submitted
and
that
submit
that's
a
daycare
and
a
below
market
rental,
which
is
not
what
the
plan
envisions
in
this
area.
B
H
To
uphold
the
the
the
provisions
of
the
west
end
plan,
yes,
and
we
could
help
you
with
that
language.
Council.
A
We're
at
the
five
sorry:
okay,
that's
it
for
questions!
We
do
have
speakers
of
this
item,
council
and,
let's
see
right,
we're
gonna
start
with
speaker
number
one
evan
allegretto.
A
Coming
in
you
have
up
to
five
minutes
for
your
statement
and
then
counselors
can
ask
questions
for
up
to
three
minutes.
Yes,.
P
So
well,
thank
you
for
having
me
today
and
nice
to
see
everyone
in
person
actually
thank
you
senior
staff
for
creating
this
framework
that
lets
us
get
to
council
early
when
we
have
policy
in
discretions
with
them
thanks
I'm
just
going
to
just
go.
I
can't
start
okay.
P
So
well,
thank
you
for
coming
here.
You
know
intercourse
been
working
in
vancouver
for
over
40
years
and
we
never
enter
into
projects
that
we
that
are
significantly
deviates
that
are
significantly
non-compliant
and
dis
disregard
policy
framework.
So
we
disagree
with
staff
on
a
lot
of
these
policy
issues
which
I'm
going
to
go
through
with
you
today
next
slide.
P
The
first
thing
is
the
west
end
community
plan
we
feel
like
we
comply
at
100
percent
of
the
west
end
community
plan,
but
we
disagree
with
staff
for
the
layering
policies
of
the
other
policies
and
to
remind
council
that
this
this
site
is
supposed
to
be
a
cash
cow
for
the
community
and
we're
working
towards
that.
So
we're
trying
to
maximize
the
community
benefits
next
slide
and
the
and
they're
just
on
the
higher
building
policy.
So
the
the
big
sorry,
the
next
slide.
P
The
question
here
on
the
higher
building
policy,
which
I'm
surprised
to
see,
is
that
staff
are
saying
that
we
do
not
comply
to
the
higher
building
policy.
Well
to
me,
it
clearly
is
in
the
cbc
shoulder
area
that
allows
up
to
550
feet,
and
the
policy
clearly
says
that
the
that
the
it's
an
enabling
policy
that
allows
to
go
into
queen
elizabeth
park,
bucone
or
or
count
other
council
approved
view
cones.
So
this
is
a
council
decision
at
public
hearing.
There
should
not
be
a
staff
decision
added
during
the
rezoning
process.
P
So
that's
what
is
clearly
we
feel
is
up
to
council
here
to
determine
is
if
it's
in
the
shoulder
area
and
it
allows
to
go
into
the
view
cone
and
if
the
heather
bay
view
cone
is
compromised,
which
one
of
my
colleagues
is
going
to
show
here
in
the
future
next
slide
and
then
the
west
end
tower
form,
setting
and
setbacks
bulletin
or
the
shadow
bulletin
that
we
all
call
it.
This
bulletin
was
never
endorsed
by
council.
P
P
It
should
be
the
west
end
plan
and
it
should
be
maximizing
public
benefits,
so
this
policy
actually
reduces
development
in
the
western
plan
and
even
and
eliminates
it
on
this
side,
which
is
not
what
what
the
commitment
was
this
the
neighborhood
at
the
time
next
slide,
we've
also
looked
at
different
forms
of
development.
The
first
one
on
the
left-hand
side
is
the
balanced
approach
that
we're
working
towards.
We
feel
it
complies
to
that
west
end
community
plan.
It
uses
the
enabling
policy
of
the
higher
building
policy
to
get
the
extra
height.
P
It
actually
meets
the
tower
the
shadow
bullets
in
because
it
minimizes
shadow
and
it
only
impacts,
two
percent
additional
shadowing
on
the
sidewalk,
and
this
is
actually
supported
by
the
robson
street
bia,
which
would
be
the
most
negatively
impacted
group
and
while,
while
achieving
the
most
amount
of
sustainability
and
the
most
amount
of
public
benefits,
this
middle
column
here
is
the
two
two
towers
up
to
the
heather
bay
view
cone.
While
it
complies
to
the
west
end
plan,
it
actually
doesn't
comply
to
the
shadow
bolton.
P
Well,
it
does,
but
it
provides
the
most
amount
of
shadowing
up
to
nine
percent
and
it
doesn't
maximize
sustainability
and
public
benefits
and
then,
on
the
far
right
hand,
side
is
the
fully
compliant
path.
Well,
it's
not
economically
viable,
and
we
know
that.
That's
not
what
the
west
end
plan
wanted
here.
The
west
end
plan
wanted
a
cash
cow
to
maximize
the
public
benefits
next
slide.
P
P
Rezoning
policy
have
counseled
direct
staff
to
use
the
engage,
the
enabling
policy,
the
higher
building
policy
and
is
specifically
how
it
says
that
counsel
other
council-approved
view
corridors
and
like
ask
staff
to
study
the
heather
bayview
cone
in
parallel
with
our
current
rezoning
and
finally,
the
shadow
bulletin
treat
it
as
a
guideline.
It
is
to
seek
to
minimize
shadows,
not
eliminate
them,
and
I
go
back
to
2013.
When
I
watch
the
public
hearing,
there
was
a
social
contract
done
with
the
community.
P
That
said,
we're
going
to
increase
the
density
on
the
corridors
enormously,
and
so
we
can
protect
the
leafy
neighborhoods
and
there'd,
be
no
changes
there
and
why
we
had
to
increase.
The
density
is
because
we
needed
a
lot
of
density
to
create
the
public
benefits
in
the
corridors
and
the
shadow
bolton
breaks
that
commitment,
because
it
reduces
or
eliminates
the
development
and
doesn't
allow
projects
like
this
to
provide
the
debt.
The
public
benefits.
That
was
the
commitment
to
the
neighborhood.
G
Thanks
very
much
I'm
wondering
evan
would
you
be
able
to
to
share
with
us?
I
mean
what
what
are
you
seeking
here?
You
want
this,
your
application
to
be
able
to
move
forward
to
public
hearing
as
as
you've
brought
it
forward,
even
if
it
doesn't
comply
and
then
ask
counsel
through
the
public
hearing
process,
to
consider
that,
even
if
staff
doesn't
recommend
that
is
that
correct
yeah.
P
We
want
to
just
move
through
the
process
we
want
to
go
to
the
community.
We
want
to
work
on
the
cac
so
that
the
trade-offs
can
be
evaluated
here
at
council.
We
want
the
heather
bay
view
cone
to
be
studied
because
council's
already
changed
it
once
and
maybe
it
it's
already
compromised
and
all
these
things
need
to
be
done
through
the
application
process
and
it's
really
hard
to
do
it
at
the
early
stages
today.
So
yes,
we're
looking
just
to
move
forward.
P
I'm
trying
to
think
here,
I
think
the
last
one
was
777
pacific.
It
was
the
one
down
on
on
pacific
by
the
bc
place.
I
think
it
was.
It
council
had
the
decision
to
decide
if
it
was
going
to
be
condo
or
rental,
and
if
it
was
rental
it
could
go
through.
I
don't
know
which
view
cone,
but
obviou
cone
and
council
at
the
time,
decided
to
do
that
and
they
used
the
higher
building
policy
as
an
enabling
policy
to
do
that.
G
D
Yeah,
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
a
couple
things
with
respect
to
that
slide,
that
you
had
with
the
three
scenarios-
and
I
don't
know
if
staff
have
the
ability
to
bring
it
back
up
or
not,
but
you
said
the
middle
one
which
had
the
two
buildings
which
be
compliant,
I
recall,
which
would
have
more
shattering
to
nine
percent.
I
think,
respectively
versus
this
one.
P
Well,
as
we
were
trying
to
work
with
staff
to
minimize
shadowing
and
so
like
the
taller
tower,
in
the
view
cone
truly
minimizes
shadow,
it's
only
one
tower
that
is
penetrating
the
street,
and
you
know
I
when
we
did
the
analysis,
I
think
it's
on
average
45
minutes
a
day
and
it
moves
right.
So
it
it's
not
impacting
one
retail
location
all
the
time.
It's
constantly
moving
throughout
the
day,
so
everyone
shares
kind
of
like
the
shadow
and
that's
why
the
robson
street
bia
is
in
support
of
the
single
application.
P
P
I
well
the
west
end
plan
is
supposed
to
be
it's
supposed
to
be
strata
so
that
you
provide
the
most
cash
cac.
But
if
it
was
direction
from
council
to
kind
of
change
that
yeah,
we
it's
all
a
function
of
the
pro
forma,
and
we
would
be
happy
to
consider
that
so.
P
Be
social
housing
it
could
be
all
the
import,
not
all
of
it
portion
of
its
social
housing.
But
it's
just
it's
all
a
function
of
the
cac
so
you're
going
to
see
in
our
next
one
of
the
next
presenters
kind
of
talk
about
the
quantum
of
the
cac,
and
you
know
that
can
that's
all
cash
right
now,
other
than
and
plus
the
day
care.
So.
D
P
D
J
P
A
Are
at
the
three
minutes?
Oh
okay!
So
thank
you
so
much
for
that.
That
is
it
for
questions
for
you,
so
we're
gonna
move
to
the
next
speaker
who
is
and
monkey.
O
D
H
Important
than
ever
for
municipalities
and
industry
to
work
together
collaboratively
so
that
projects
like
this
can
move
forward.
Udi
was
very
involved
in
the
consultation
process
of
the
west
end
plan
and
udii
was
very
supportive
of
the
west
end
plan,
particularly
because
it
supported
high
density
on
the
corridors.
D
D
We
understand
the
importance
of
the
shadowing
policy,
but
again
all
policies
must
be
flexible
and
prioritized.
This
project
brings
an
enormous
amount
of
community
amenities.
Exactly
what
the
west
end
plan
was
designed
to
do.
For
example,
35
million
in
cash
cacs
to
support
west
end
community
plan
public
benefit
strategy,
900
million
dollars
in
economic
output.
D
D
Extensive
community
consultation-
and
we
know
in
this
case
that
the
proponent
has
reached
out
to
many
stakeholders
and
community
groups
to
ensure
that
they
are
onside
and
supportive
of
this
project.
I
urge
council
to
consider
the
benefits
this
project
brings
to
the
community
and
the
neighborhood
and
to
allow
staff
to
begin.
S
S
S
S
S
Where
can
you
keep
the
the
lions
in
the
middle
of
that
view,
and
then
how
do
we
keep
this
harrow
project
out
of
that
view,
corridor
and
what
other
tradeoffs
are
made
and
are
those
trade-offs
worth
it
and
how
are
the
policies
written?
Were
the
policies
written
to
minimize
something
such
as
shadowing
or
were
the
policies
written
to
say,
do
not
do
an
intrusion,
such
as
view
corridors,
but
the
analysis?
S
S
A
S
Hi,
I'm
john
patko
of
patco
architects,
we're
a
local
architecture
firm
and
most
people
recognize
us
as
the
architect
of
two
important
cultural
buildings.
The
odain
art
museum
in
whistler
and
the
polygon
gallery
at
the
foot
of
lonsdale
in
north
vancouver
intercourse
came
to
us
because
of
our
ability
to
develop
innovative
architectural
solutions
to
complex
sites.
S
S
One
of
the
first
steps
of
every
project
is
getting
to
know
all
of
the
different
rules
that
apply
to
the
site.
There
are
specific
policies
that
govern
the
west
end.
There
are
policies
in
place
to
improve
the
livability
of
the
broader
community
and
there
are
also
staff
guidelines
that
are
met
to
minimize
shadowing
on
robson
street
and
preserve
the
heather
bay
view
cone.
We
were
tasked
with
creating
a
balanced
application
that
maximized
the
development
potential,
while
moving
forward
with
one
that
generally
aligns
with
policy.
S
S
Taking
all
this
into
consideration,
we
explored
several
options,
including
developing
under
the
site's
existing
zoning,
two
towers
of
various
heights,
two
shorter
towers,
one
taller
tower,
etc.
We
feel
the
most
balanced
approach
is
the
one
that
considers
shadowing
the
view.
Cone
and
community
benefits.
S
Our
proposal
for
this
site
balances
the
competing
policies
to
provide
an
exciting
project
with
residences,
retail
and
public
amenities.
Our
first
step
was
to
shape
the
urban
space
by
introducing
street
animating
retail,
creating
a
cross-site
diagonal
connecting
robson
and
thurlow
to
the
new
public
plaza
on
harrow
and
activating
rosemary
brown
lane.
S
S
S
We
then
placed
the
remaining
density
at
the
edge
of
the
west
end
along
thurlow
in
the
second
building,
where
we
felt
it
was
more
appropriate
to
introduce
more
height
as
a
gateway
to
the
west
end.
We
responded
to
the
view
cone
by
offsetting
the
west
tower
to
preserve
the
view
of
the
lions
from
legend
boot
square,
and
finally,
we
articulated
the
design
by
incorporating
human
scale
components
such
as
trees,
landscape
benches
and
public
art.
S
1045
harrow
will
be
a
remarkably
sustainable
building.
It
will
exceed
the
city
of
vancouver's
stringent
requirements
for
tall
buildings.
We
are
also
looking
at
an
exciting
proposal
to
use
building
integrated
photovoltaics.
The
idea
is
to
take
advantage
of
the
height
of
the
building
and
cover
its
surfaces
with
pvs
to
generate
energy.
On
site,
the
goal
is
to
be
operationally
carbon
positive.
O
My
name
is
babul
and
I'm
vice
president
of
development
at
intercorp
homes.
As
you
know,
the
west
end
community
plan
was
created
to
provide
a
clear
but
flexible
framework
to
guide
positive
change,
but
with
the
conflicting
policies
impacting
the
site
and
pressures
being
put
on
sites
within
the
broad
corridor
to
deliver
much
needed
amenities.
This
flexibility
is
needed
now
more
than
ever.
A
More
time
council
we
have
fruga
bull.
A
O
Council
may
request
that
we
play
the
balance
of
the
video
design
and
architecture
should
cancel
direct
staff
to
process
the
application.
The
proposal
would
transform
this
portion
of
the
broad
corridor
in
such
an
impactful
way
and
bring
much
needed
amenities
that
this
neighborhood
so
desperately
needs.
O
In
fact,
the
stakeholder
most
affected
by
the
building's
moving
shadow,
the
robson
bia
has
provided
a
letter
of
support
which
has
been
included
with
our
submission.
We've
also
provided
staff
with
a
potential
solution
to
address
the
compromised
view.
Cone
moving
the
vantage
point.
18
meters
to
the
east
would
recalibrate
the
view
corridor
so
that
the
lines
would
be
centered
again,
which
was
what
we
understand
to
be
the
original
intent.
O
We
believe
that
the
resulting
application
reflects
a
balanced
approach
to
the
policies
and
delivers
much
needed
amenities
to
the
neighborhood.
So
we're
asking
the
council
direct
staff
to
process
the
application
in
fold
based
on
its
merits.
This
would
involve
bringing
the
proposal
to
the
community
and
to
the
urban
design
panel
for
feedback.
A
comprehensive
staff
review
with
conditions
before
coming
back
to
council
in
the
future
to
make
a
decision.
O
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
frugal
anything
else
to
add
or
that
we're
good
okay
council.
That
is,
we
do
have.
We
can't
ask
questions,
though,
to
the
last
speaker,
consultation
over
dfs
questions.
A
Okay
thanks,
so
we
have
the
report
moved
council.
We
are
at
10
to
12.,
so
just
want
to
bring
that
to
your
attention.
We
have
a
seconder
for
this.
G
So
much
and
I
did
submit
an
amendment-
an
apologies
council.
I
spent
a
series
of
them.
I
kept
updating
them
as
I
got
more
feedback
from
staff,
but
the
final
version
should
be
in
your
inbox
at
11
35,
and
I
just
asked
the
clerk
to
maybe
pull
this
up
an
amendment
in
addition
to
the
recommendations
before
us.
A
Okay,
council,
I'm
just
going
to
take
a
second
just
to
review
this,
and
I
will
come
back
to
you
shortly.
Let's
say:
let's
try
three
minutes
and
if
that
doesn't
work,
I'll
come
back
for
further
extension.
A
Okay,
so
we're
11
51.,
so
council
reviewed
the
text
of
the
amendment
and
it
is
an
order
for
us
to
consider
so
do
we
have
a
seconder
for
this
amendment.
G
Thanks
so
much,
I
I
think
that
it's
quite
self-explanatory,
the
amendment,
but
in
in
going
in
trying
to
to
understand
some
of
the
the
concerns
and
frustrations
that
have
been
voiced
by
the
applicant
and
and,
at
the
same
time,
respect
the
policies
that
our
staff
are
working
within
and
all
of
the
work
that
our
staff
have
done
to
bring
this
forward
to
us
and
the
decision
we
have
before
us
and
the
limited
scope
of
what
we
can
talk
about.
I
think
that
it
is
important
that
you
know
in
our
direction
to
staff.
G
We
can
add
some
considerations.
That
being
said,
understanding
the
applicant
doesn't
want
to
prolong
the
process.
Here
of
you
know
engaging
in
a
pep
and
also
understanding
that
there
are.
You
know
there
are
some
issues
with
the
view
cone
that
have
been
voiced
by
the
applicant,
and
there
are
some
issues.
Staff
have
have
noted
about
the
shadowing.
G
I'm
trying
to
be
very
careful
not
to
go
outside
of
the
realm
of
what
we
can
discuss
here
and
what
should
be
discussed
in
public
hearing,
but
my
understanding
was
from
staff
that
this
would
would
allow
them
to
consider
this.
It
doesn't
mean
that
we're
directing
staff
to
change
any
policy
but
there'd
be
some
consideration
and
there's
two
parts
to
this:
the
shadowing,
the
incremental
shadowing
and
the
view
cone.
So
I
see
others
on
the
queue
and
happy
to
to.
G
I
may
put
myself
on
afterwards.
I
just
received
another
email
from
staff,
but
but
that's
all
for
now.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks,
I
put
myself
on
the
queue
for
a
point
of
information,
the
staff
so
staff.
This
amendment
says
a
council
direct
policy
to
consider
one
thing:
the
higher
building
policy
and
the
west
end
community
plan
two
things,
and
then
the
heather
bay
view
cone
as
three
things.
A
Then
we
would
consider
reaffirm
the
west
end
power
form,
which
is
four
things.
It
seems
like
an
awful
lot
of
work
and
is,
is
all
that's
necessary
to
to
move
this
to
the
next
phase.
H
H
We've
sent
a
revised
in
my
apologies
to
counselor
dejanova
that
just
strikes
higher
billing
policy
that
just
allows
the
staff
to
consider
more
heights
more
heights
and
density
without
having
to
review
that
policy.
Also,
because
I
do
think
it
like
you
say,
merit
adds
another
thing
on
the
list
to
review
and
it
might
actually
slow
things
down.
It
complicates
it
doesn't
really
add
any
value.
So,
if
the,
if
the
objective
is
to
just
add
height,
it
can
be
much
cleaner.
H
A
H
A
D
D
My
brain
is
tired.
One
is
really
with
respect
to
precedent,
and
so,
if
this
particular
project
were
to
be
considered
what
precedent,
if
any,
does
that
set
for
all
the
other
buildings
in
the
area
wanting
to
receive
similar
consideration
and
the
impact
on
robson
street
in
the
public
realm.
H
Thank
you,
that's
a
great
question.
I
do
think
that
it
certainly
doesn't
send
set
a
legal
precedent,
but
I
do
believe
it
would
open
the
door
for
other
applications,
particularly
those
in
process
now
to
come
back
and
reconsider
what
they've
submitted
and
ask
for
additional
height
for
both
the
view
cones
and
the
shadows.
D
Okay,
follow-up
question,
then,
is
with
respect
to
recognizing
that
precedent
is
one
thing,
but
then
a
number
of
sites
are
all
unique,
and
this
is
a
sort
of
significant
one
in
terms
of
the
size
of
the
site,
and
this
amendment
is
directing
a
path
for
consideration
of
the
applications
it's
submitted.
But
with
respect
to
the
comments
or
the
presentation,
I
should
say
from
the
applicant
earlier
around:
what's
permitted
with
the
two
buildings
so
that
that
would
cause
more
shadowing
than
this
one.
D
S
D
H
I'm
going
to
ask
kevin,
I
don't
think
we
agree
with
that,
but
kevin.
Will
you
try
to
give
us
a
response.
M
So,
council
kirby
young,
the
the
there
are
sort
of
two
answers
to
this.
One
is
that
we
haven't
tested
and
we
haven't
reviewed
kind
of
what
would
be
considered
the
base
scenario.
The
other
part
of
it
is
that
these
overshadowing
policies
apply
to
any
development,
so
we
would
seek
any
development
to
apply
with.
I.
D
Understand
that
globally-
and
I
realize
it's
difficult
if
you
have
done
the
full
studies,
but
I
know
that
you
have
a
lot
of
expertise
and
you're
looking
at
these
things
all
the
time,
but
gen
and
you're
familiar
with
the
area.
So,
generally
speaking,
would
you
say
that
we
would
get
shadowing
from
a
couple
of
buildings
there?
Maybe
you
don't
agree
on
the
percentages,
although
I
would
think
a
shadowing
polyp
study
is
a
shattering
study
and
it's
sort
of
a
an
objective
measurement
done
by
a
party.
That
knows
hopefully
has
expertise
in
that
area.
D
I
don't,
but
I
would
figure
out
if
you
measured
a
shadow,
you
measure
a
shadow
and
there's
a
measurement,
but
it's
I
mean.
Is
it
a
fair
premise
without
and
I
wouldn't
put
on
the
spot
for
percentages
that
both
those
buildings
would
call
shadow.
M
D
Would
you
consider
okay,
let
me
ask
you
this
a
different
way.
If
council
were
to
support
this
amendment
and
explore
this
as
part
of
your
review,
would
you
look
at
the
contemplation
of
the
shadowing?
The
existing
zoning
of
what's
permissible
would
provide
versus
the
shattering
impact
of
this
application.
We
would
you
would.
D
A
A
That's
right!
So
we'll
we'll
keep
the
record
of
where
people
are
in
the
queue
and
your
remaining
time,
and
then
staff
can
chew
over
that
question
for
a
response
when
we
we
come
back
right,
so
we're
going
to
take
a
break
now
for
lunch,
we'll
be
back
here
at
one
o'clock.
To
conclude
this
item.
A
So
we're
at
105.,
so
I
am
going
to
reconvene
councillor
kirby
young's
on
thecube,
but
not
in
the
chambers.
So
I'm
going
to
move
to
councillor
dejanova.
G
Thanks
thanks
mayor
stewart
and
if
council
indulged
me,
I
know
when
we
left
off,
we
left
off
an
amendment
that
I
had
put
forward
and
as
staff
had
commented
on,
that
amendment,
there
were
some
wires
crossed
and
and
just
a
few
words
that
were
different.
So
I'm
proposing
an
amendment
to
my
amendment
to
strike
the
language
and
replace
it
with
language
that
that
staff
has
agreed
would
would
be
best.
A
A
G
I
I
won't
repeat
all
of
the
comments
I
made
before,
because
I
this
is.
This
is
virtually
the
same
as
the
amendment
that
I've
moved
before
it
just
simply
takes
out
higher
building
policy,
so
staff
don't
have
to
go
away
and
study
three
policies
instead,
they'd
be
looking
at
shadowing
and
and
they'd
also
be
looking
at
the
west
end
community
plan
and
heightened
density
within
that.
So
I,
if,
if
council,
has
any
questions
happy
to
answer
them,
but
that's
the
intent
here.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah
thanks
mayor,
I
do
have
one
question
as
a
point
of
information
through
you
to
staff,
if
I
might
and
and
it's
with
respect
to
the
higher
building
policy
and
the
2018
update,
and
I
believe
on
page
two
or
three,
there
is
a
map
that
shows
the
delineation
of
the
cbd
area,
but
it
also
shows
dotted
line
shadowing
areas
that
could
consider
impacts
there
and
I'm
wondering
if
we
remove
the
higher
buildings
policy.
D
Does
that
remove
that
opportunity
for
the
application
be
considered,
because
I
went
back
and
studied
after
at
lunch
after
our
conversation
on
the
higher
buildings
policy,
and
it
does
seem
that
those
shadowing
areas
provide
a
potential
avenue
for
consideration
or
sorry,
not
the
shadowing,
but
the
shoulder
areas
as
outlined
in
the
higher
buildings
policy.
2018
update.
J
Finder,
it
is
a
a
guideline
effectively
that
piggybacks
onto
rezoning
policy
right
now.
The
project
is
not
sitting
within
the
area
that
allows
it
to
be
considered
for
the
higher
building
policy,
but
we
could
consider
it.
Of
course
the
view
cones
are
the
overriding
policy
in
the
area
that
would
limit
any
recommendation
in
the
higher
building
policy
to
hire
them
the
view
cone
limits
it
so,
okay,.
D
So
just
to
reflect
back
because
I
want
to
just
make
sure,
for
my
make
sure,
I'm
clear
you're
saying
that
the
higher
buildings
policy
is
a
guideline,
not
a
council
policy
and
so
the
heavy-handed
more
heavy-handed
policy
instrument.
So
I
want
to
get
this
clear
because
I
feel
like
perhaps
I'm.
This
is
new
information.
I'm
not
clear
as
and
the
actual
policy
is
the
it's.
The
west
end
community
plan.
J
D
J
Sorry,
it's
the
it's
a
higher
building
policy,
it's
a
policy,
but
it
is
not
a
policy
unto
itself
that
can
enable
rezoning.
You
can
only
do
that
through
the
west
end
community
plan.
I.
D
J
D
G
H
The
with
with
all
these
layers
right,
because
what
we're
trying
to
get
to
is
a
zoning
enabling
policy.
The
higher
building
policy
is
not
a
zoning
enabling
policy.
The
zoning
enabling
policy
comes
through
the
west
end
plan,
so
asking
us
to
pursue
additional
highs.
Consider
additional
height
through
the
west
end
community
plan
is
the
correct.
Prop.
Is
the
correct
policy
way
to
get
there?
In
our
opinion,.
F
A
A
Okay,
council,
so
they
can
be
severed.
Did
I
hear
porn
privilege
from
somebody
I'll
put
point?
You
have
to
be
on
the
queue
and
you
are,
but
we
are,
I
don't
think
I've
vote
hasn't
been
triggered.
So
I
can
counselor
dominato
point
of
information.
F
G
This
is
the
exact
language
that
I
got
back
from
legal,
so
perhaps
I'll
I'll
ask
the
director
of
or
the
the
general
manager
of
planning,
planning,
development
and
sustainability.
A
A
Great
thanks
residential,
so
we
have
director
plannings
here
to
address
that.
A
A
Counselors
dominato
bly
and
kirby
young
counselors
blind
kirby
counselor
is
counselor
blah
here
I
don't
think
so.
Associate
marker
absent.
Please.
A
Okay,
so
that
passes
with
counselor
kirby
young
swanson
and
carr
in
opposition
gonna
move
to
number
two
now.
A
G
I'm
not
going
to
take
all
of
them.
I'm
just
gonna
thanks
council,
for
considering
that
I
understand
there's
another
amendment
in
the
in
that
has
been
circulated.
Also
so
perhaps
I'll
all
reserve
more
comments
until
afterwards,
but
I
think
that
it's
important
that,
when
application
comes
forward,
if
that
applicant,
wants
to
move
forward
through
the
process
that
we
have
with
public
hearing
that
we
make
that
easier
for
them,
and
I
know
that
the
decisions
we're
making
here
today
are
not
decisions
on
the
actual
application.
G
B
Thanks,
I
also
circulated
an
amendment.
My
primary
interest
here
is
in
maximizing
the
public
benefit.
The
west
end
community
plan
has
a
number
of
important
projects
in
it
that
we
hear
regularly
from
the
neighborhood
they're
I'm
interested
in
seeing
move
forward
quickly,
and
we
know
the
needed
upgrades
to
the
aquatic
center.
B
Add
costs
to
that
and
weren't
part
of
the
initial
calculation
of
funds
needed
to
meet
what's
laid
out
in
the
west
end
community
plan,
and
so
the
direction
is,
is
to
staff
an
applicant
to
consider
additional,
heightened
density
within
the
community
plan
for
the
purposes
of
providing
significant
public
benefits
of
meeting
those
needs
that
we
certainly
hear
from
in
the
neighborhood.
Second.
A
That
is
seconded,
so
somebody
like
to
address
this.
Please
go
ahead.
Conservation
of
up
to
five
just.
G
Speak
briefly
that
I
think
that
this
is
a
thoughtful
addition
I
appreciate
the
counselor
boyle
is
is
considering
the
public
amenities
and,
as
we'd
heard
from
staff
in
their
presentation
and
report,
they
were
putting
a
lens
on
on
this
application,
and
the
current
policy
of
the
west
end
plan
to
make
sure
that
they
were
delivering
on
the
public
amenities
that
that
are
at
the
forefront
of
that
plan.
So
I'll
in
the
interest
of
leaving
it
keeping
it
brief
I'll
leave
it
there.
But
I
do
support
this.
D
Yeah
thanks
I'll
also
speak
briefly.
I'm
keenly
interested
in
supporting
maximizing
public
benefits
and
supporting
livability
in
addition
to
housing,
because
people
need
to
have
that
quality
of
life
in
the
city,
and
I
think
that's
a
really
important
principle
as
we
continue
to
grow
and
densify
naturally
over
time.
I
do
know
that
we
didn't
staff
a
signal
with
the
first
report
that
they
felt
that
the
conversation
can
cancel
was
sufficient
and
we
didn't
necessarily
need
direction,
but
I'm
happy
sort
of,
if
there's
an
amendment,
to
have
that.
D
I
suspect
that
staff
would
be
doing
that
in
terms
of
maximizing
it,
because
I
feel,
like
the
west
end
is
the
one
area
of
all
of
them
across
the
city
that
we
really
have
seen
cassias
coming
in
because
of
the
sort
of
defined
framed
kind
of
very
clearly
articulated
plan,
but
I'm
certainly
interested
to
see
what
that
looks
like,
but
no
we're
not
supposed
to
comment
on
the
merits
of
the
application.
So
I'll
just
say.
D
Generally
speaking,
I
think
public
space,
green
space
and
trees
are
incredibly
important,
and
so
I
look
forward
to
seeing
what
that
might
deliver.
In
addition
to
the
traditional
cache
and
other
things
that
have
been
prioritized
under
the
west
end
plan,
thank
you.
B
Okay,
I
just
circulated
a
couple
versions
and
wanted
to
make
sure
the
most
updated
shortest
one
was
up
there,
but
that's
all
thanks.
A
A
J
J
H
I
I
think
to
be
careful.
You
should
instruct
us
in
that
in
that
manner,
okay,
okay,.
C
Well,
I'll
I'll
speak
in
in
support
of
the
the
general
idea
of
this
amendment
and
with
the
understanding
that
there's
possibly
an
amendment
to
the
amendment
that
would
reflect
some
of
the
considerations
around
specific
instructions
that
might
be
necessary
for
staff
to
sort
of
protect
some
of
the
the
inherent
core
pieces
of
the
of
the
west
end
plan.
C
C
Since,
since
we
we
created
and
implemented
those
plans
in
the
2014
kind
of
vintage
and
and
and
then
recognizing
that
that,
like
the
downtown
eastside
area
plan
stuff,
that
we
just
sort
of
discretionary
kind
of
added
added
some
discretion
to
that,
there
is
a
real
need
for
public
benefits
in
these
in
these
neighborhoods
and
so
similar
to
the
you
know,
the
downtown
eastside
plan
and
the
previous
item
that
we
discussed.
C
These
conversations
should
rightly
include
how
we
are
extracting
the
necessary
public
benefits.
So
if,
if
that
increased
density
in
in
these
cases
provides,
you
know
the
kind
of
housing
that
we're
looking
to
to
achieve,
obviously
like
non-market
and
market
and
rental
and
and
those
kind
of
things
that
we're
also
commensurately
sort
of
considering
where
we
need
to
add
to
public
benefits.
Obviously
the
west
end
has
a
lot
of
public
benefit
needs.
C
I
think
somebody
mentioned
the
aquatic
center
just
now,
and
and
so
there's
a
there's,
a
lot
of
work
that
could
be
done
and
delivery
of
services
in
the
west
end.
Similarly
downtown
east
side,
we
we
have
a
lot
of
you
know,
need
for
canopy
green
space,
and
that
kind
of
thing-
and
I
do
want
to
you-
know-
highlight
counselor
cars
concerns
around
the
sort
of
the
leafy
green
nature
of
the
west.
End,
which
I
think
most
would
agree,
is
a
is
a
great
example
of
achieving
density
and
livability.
C
With
with
you
know,
it's
been
so
fantastic
in
the
west
end,
the
last
little
while
during
the
heat
and
despite
its
density,
despite
the
towers
that
that
leafy
greenness
really
actually
contributes
to
to
a
very
pleasant
environment
and
a
cooling
breeze
that
traverses
the
west
end.
That,
I
think,
is
on
a
hot
day
like
this
is
really
worthwhile
to
articulate
so
I'll
support
this
amendment,
with
the
understanding
that
there's
likely
an
amendment
to
it
coming
forward.
Thanks.
D
Yeah
thanks
man.
I
was
going
to
ask
a
similar
point
of
information
for
you
to
staff
just
to
clarify
to
counselor
cars,
and
that
is
that
this
appears
to
sort
of
outside
of
to
to
me
to
be
straying
beyond
the
scope
of
identifying
a
pathway
to
consider
this
one
application
to
opening
up
the
full
west
end
plan,
and
I
know-
and
I
appreciate
that-
there's
an
amendment
coming,
but
that's
really
how
I
read
this
into
stuff.
H
Thank
you,
that's
a
great
question.
I
I
wouldn't
we're
not
amending
the
down
the
west
end
plan
today.
That's
that's
for
certain,
but
I
I
think
this
will
signal
to
the
development
community
that
the
city
council
is.
It
is
interested
in
additional
height
and
density,
and
it
seems
to
me
to
kind
of
draw
some
very
broad
parameters
around
that
might
quell
the
speculation
that
will
undoubtedly
occur
after
after
this
is
passed
today.
Okay,.
D
Thanks
for
that
kind
of
perspective
and
affirmation,
and
I'll
just
say
in
anticipation,
the
other
amendment
coming
that
I
won't
support
this
one,
because
I
think
it
does
signal
that
and
I
I
think
it's
bad
process
outside
of
again.
The
premise
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
create
a
pathway
for
a
project
that
potentially
is
meritorious
and
has
public
benefit
to
opening
up
an
entire
plan
outside
of
a
broader
public
engagement.
D
A
J
You
it's
in
blue
up
there
and-
and
I
think
you've
heard
me
say
this
before
having
been
through
the
vancouver.
Sorry,
having
been
to
the
west
end
plan,
it
was
clear
that
the
residents
were
were
virtually
unanimous
in
landing
density
on
the
peripheral
streets,
so
specifically
the
four
that
I've
mentioned
there,
gerard
alberni
and
sorry
barad
and
thurlow
and
alberni
and
georgia,
and
why
I
would
consider
supporting
this
is
that
we
would
just
consider
some
additional
heightened
density,
it's
already
at
60
stories
in
those
corridors.
J
J
So
you
know
if
there
is
a
good
case
made
for
it
that
has
relatively
small
of
negative
impacts
and
that
do
supply,
and
I,
like
this
language,
significant
public
benefits.
I
think
it's
worth
us
considering
as
a
council.
This
wouldn't
change
the
plan.
In
my
mind,
it
just
does
say
that
it's
clear
that
we
are
looking
for
significant
public
benefits
and
it
would
be
in
the
corridors
where
already
heightened
density
has
landed
at
the
will
of
the
public.
G
Thanks
so
much
mayor
stewart,
I
have
a
point
of
information
for
the
mover
of
this
amendment
to
the
amendment.
If
possible,
counselor
carr,
it
says
in
the
in
not
your
piece
of
the
amendment,
but
I
do
believe
that
your
edition
would
would
make
this
would
amend
this
amendment.
So
the
question
here
is:
is
it
asks
not
only
staff
but
the
applicant
to
consider
additional
height
and
density
on
the
periphery
peripherals
streets
of
berard,
thurlow,
georgia
and
alberni?
G
J
G
So
maybe
counselor
car
with
my
time
here,
I'm
just
going
to
thank
you
and
let
you
go
on
the
queue
and,
if
you'd
like
to
and
if
not
I'll
make
my
decision,
I'm
just
a
bit
concerned
that
this
could
be
confusing
and
asking
the
applicant
to
do.
This
might
not
even
be
possible,
as
as
I
understand,
their
application,
isn't
on
some
of
these
streets.
B
Thanks,
I
wonder
if
the
gm
of
planning
has
a
comment
on
that
and
she's
standing
right
there.
Thank
you
for
noticing.
H
B
So
maybe
I'll
may
or
I'll
ask
a
point
of
information
through
you
to
staff
if
that,
if
you'll
allow
it,
which
is,
I
wonder
if
this
amended
language,
as
proposed
by
councillor
carr.
H
B
So
I
will
just
say
that
this
was
my
intention
for
the
reasons
counselor
carr
outlined,
that
the
community
feedback
certainly
has
been
that
added
density
around
these
peripheral
streets
was
the
prior
preference
of
the
community
so
very
happy
to
support
this
amendment
from
councillor
carr
appreciate
hearing
from
staff
that
this
wording
of
it
works
and
council.
D
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
support
based
on
what
I've
heard.
Otherwise
I
was
on
the
queue
to
pray
for
a
helpful
amendment,
but
based
on
the
responsible
staff,
I'll
support
it.
G
We're
on
an
amendment
to
amendment
nothing
can
be
amended
further
right
now,
but
I
do
have
a
question
for
staff
that
I
want
to
ask
on
the
public
record
here
and-
and
so
it's
a
point
of
information
through
you,
and
that
question
is:
is
that
staff
wouldn't
take
this
direction
as
making
the
applicant
consider
additional
height
and
density
in
areas
they
absolutely
couldn't,
which
would
include
a
broad
georgia
and
alberni?
You
wouldn't
make
them
go
and
study
that
or
anything
like
that.
G
J
A
J
J
Five,
thank
you.
Okay,
so
you'll
see
in
my
new
amendment
that
I've
just
struck
the
words
and
the
applicant.
What
this
is
doing
is
simply
giving
some
guidance
to
staff
that,
if
something
comes
for,
which
is
what
this
process
is
about,
that
if
something
comes
forward
on
those
peripheral
streets
in
the
west
end
plan
and
if
it
has
significant
public
benefits,
they'll
feel
really
feel
reassured
to
be
able
to
forward
it
to
a
council
for
our
consideration.
J
F
A
See
anybody
else
on
the
queue
so
we
have
the
can.
We
have
the
amended
amendment
pulled
up
because
we'll
call
a
vote
on
it
once
everybody
gets
to
see
what's
happening
with
this
one
I
think
probably
on
screen
is
probably
good
enough
at
this
point.
Unless
there's
yeah
it's
the
whole
thing
now
the
amended
staff.
A
A
Okay,
that
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you.
So
much
cancel.
That's
it
for
this
item
council.
I
do
have
to
duck
out
for
a
few
minutes.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
the
chair
over
to
councillor
kirby
young,
to
move
to
shepherd
through
the
next
item,
which
is
the
one
1075
west
georgia
street
might
just
take
a
few
seconds
for
turnover,
but
thanks,
council
and
I'll
be
back
shortly.
D
Okay,
council,
we
are
now
moving
on
to
our
third
item
on
the
agenda
today
at
the
reconvened
council
meeting,
which
is
item
nine
policy
and
directions
application
for
rezoning
at
1075
georgia
street.
D
We
do
have
staff
here
to
provide
a
presentation,
including
test
monroe
planner
from
the
rezoning
center
and,
as
we
do
have
speakers
to
this,
we'll
begin
with
the
presentation
so
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
Q
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
council
can
see
the
presentation
that.
D
Is
a
great
question
because
I
don't
see
anything
on
the
screen
right
now,
just
just
wait
taking
a
moment
to
know
what
it
looks
like.
Q
Q
So
this
proposal
has
been
formally
submitted
as
a
rezoning
application
staff
are
reviewing
the
application
against
relevant
policies
and
bylaws,
including
the
downtown
official
development
plan.
The
rezoning
policy
for
the
central
business
district,
also
known
as
the
cbd
and
cbd,
shoulder
vancouver's
heritage
policies
and
the
metro,
court,
jobs
and
economy
land
use
plan
staff
have
completed
a
preliminary
review,
and
the
proposal
is
significantly
non-compliant
with
the
existing
policy
framework.
However,
the
rezoning
policy
for
the
cbd
provides
direction
for
proposals
to
be
brought
to
council
for
review
prior
to
an
application.
D
D
Q
Ability
of
limited
job
space
in
the
cbd
rezoning
potential
for
this
site
is
guided
by
the
rezoning
policy
for
the
cbd
and
cbd,
shoulder
shown
by
the
dark
and
light
colors
on
this
map.
With
the
light
being
the
shoulder,
this
policy
allows
sites
in
the
cbd
to
be
considered
for
additional
height
and
density
for
non-residential
development.
Q
Rezoning
applications
with
market
residential
can
only
be
considered
where
a
proposal
includes
protection
and
rehabilitation
of
a
heritage,
building
at
risk
or
for
sites
over
50
000
square
feet,
where
a
proposal
achieves
a
substantial
public
benefit,
while
still
providing
significant
job
space.
This
application
does
neither
this
proposal
was
reviewed
against
both
policies,
as
the
site
area
is
52
000
square
feet
and
includes
a
vancouver
heritage
register
listed
building.
Q
The
heritage
property
must
be
preserved,
a
high
level
of
retention
and
conservation
proposed,
and
it
must
be
seismically.
Upgraded,
legal
protection
of
the
heritage
resource
is
required
as
proposed.
The
building
does
not
comply
with
the
policies
as
the
owner
is
not
offered.
Designation,
seismic
or
structural
upgrades
of
the
heritage
asset.
Q
Q
Q
The
rezoning
application
as
submitted
is
to
rezone
the
site
to
permit
a
second
tower
where
the
current
parking
structure
is
located.
It
would
include
a
47-story
mixed-use
building
containing
commercial
retail
uses
at
grade
one
floor
of
office,
space
on
level
two
and
484
secured
rental
residential
units.
Above
of
the
residential
units.
The
applicant
has
proposed
that
20
of
the
floor
space
is
proposed
as
workforce
housing
for
households
with
an
income
range
of
56
to
120
000
per
year.
Q
Q
As
noted
in
the
previous
presentations
today,
the
policy
inquiry
process
enables
staff
to
consider
and
process
applications
for
proposals
that
are
not
compliant
with
council
adopted
policy.
This
application
elected
not
to
go
through
the
policy
inquiry
process
and
did
not
undergo
staff
review
against
the
council
endorsed
criteria.
Q
Q
Q
The
city's
heritage
policies
would
seek
for
any
intervention
on
a
heritage
site
to
be
responsive
to
the
character,
defining
elements
that
generate
the
heritage
value
as
previously
mentioned
the
building
does
not.
The
proposed
building
does
not
comply
with
the
policies
as
the
owner
is
not
offered
designation,
seismic
or
structural
upgrades
of
the
heritage
building
the
proposed
building
is
also
located
within
50
feet
of
the
existing
office
building,
which
would
compromise
the
value
of
this
class.
A
office
space.
Q
Additionally,
policy
5.2
states
that
on
sites
larger
than
50
000
square
feet,
residential
can
be
considered
where
a
proposal
achieves
a
significant
public
benefit,
while
still
providing
significant
job
space.
Non-Residential
space
equal
to
the
maximum
applicable
from
the
dodp
must
be
achieved
before
consideration
of
any
market
residential.
Q
Q
Workforce
housing
is
not
an
established
term
within
cities,
housing
policies,
the
city's
below
market
rental,
housing
policies
and
programs
target
households
with
an
annual
income
between
thirty
and
eighty
thousand.
The
pro
the
proponents
income
range
is
targeted.
Income
range
is
56
to
120
000
per
year
and
would
not
secure
deep
housing.
Affordability
as
compared
to
established
city
policy.
Q
Q
D
Thank
you,
staff
and
I
didn't
have
a
script
in
front
of
me
when
we
began
so
I
was
remiss
in
not
asking
in
alaska
now,
if
any
member
wishes
to
declare
a
conflict
of
interest
on
this
item
resulting
from
1075
west
georgia
and
I'm
not
seeing
or
hearing
any
so,
we
will
now
proceed
to
ask
questions
of
staff
on
the
presentation
and
reminding
council.
You
have
up
to
five
minutes
each
to
do
that
and
I
see
counselor
fry
on
the
queue.
So
that's
the
clerk
to
advance
him
and
go
ahead.
Counselor
fry.
C
Great
thanks
so
first
question:
just
on
the
the
subject
of
the
the
heritage
designation.
Now
the
parking
lot
is
not
part
of
the
heritage.
A
it's
strictly.
The
the
macmillan
blue
dell
building
is
that
correct.
A
C
C
Okay-
okay,
that's
helpful
to
know
thanks
latin,
I
guess
so.
My
larger
question
then
is
so
this.
This
lot
can't
be
touched
within
the
the
heritage
envelope
or
could
it
be
developed
if
it
was
consistent
with
the
cbd
usage,
zoning.
Q
C
T
Elsa
fry
chris
robertson
assistant,
director,
citywide
and
regional
planning
yeah,
the
cbd
is
a
protected
area
specifically
designed
to
incorporate
or
integrate
jobs.
T
It
comprises
13
of
our
downtown
peninsula
and,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
you
know
we,
we
have
upheld
the
cbd
policy
since
its
inception
and
and
what
I
can
say
is
is
that
has
resulted
in
the
ability
for
all
commercial
projects
to
be
viable
in
in
the
cbd
area.
T
Without
that
policy
and
and
standing
firm
on
that
policy,
I
think
the
speculation
could
drive
out
or
destabilize
the
land
values
and
cause
us
either
not
to
be
able
to
provide
the
commercial
which
we
have
seen
a
significant
amount
of
since
2016,
and
I
can
say
that
we
have
about
three
3.1
million
square
feet
under
construction
right
now,
so
that
kind
of
highlights
you
know
the
effectiveness
of
both
the
policy
and
the
interest
in
having
office
downtown.
T
The
other
thing
I
will
note
is
that
we
are
seeing
a
slight
rise
in
the
vacancy
rates
from
five
to
seven
percent.
Seven
percent-
seven
to
ten
percent
is
kind
of
the
healthy
area
that
you
want
to
be
in.
So
we're
approaching
that
healthy
area,
or
maybe
just
slightly
in
it
and
even
with
that
we've
seen
pressure
on
rental
rates
so
having
having
clear
policy
defined
policy,
helps
to
control
the
amount
and
the
pressures
on
on
on
land
speculation
and
control.
T
The
amount
of
increases
that
we
might
see
over
time
on
rents.
C
Yeah,
I
think
thanks
for
that
context.
Certainly
this
council's
been
keenly
aware
of
the
need
to
protect
our
our
industrial
and
employment
lands.
So
by
extrapolating
this,
then,
a
lot
of
the
stuff
that
occurs
within
the
cbd
wouldn't
be
viable
outside
of
the
cbs
cbd.
Is
this
sort
of
on
the
area
that
it's
or
it's
this
an
area
where
it's
more
viable
than
outside.
T
C
T
I
think
I
think,
through
our
policy,
the
cbd
policy
we've
been
able
to
maintain
the
viability
of
that
in
the
absence
of
that
policy
and
and
considering
residential
for
the
entire
downtown
peninsula.
What
I
will
note
is
that
you
know
there
are
areas
outside
of
the
cbd
that
do
allow
residential
significant
areas
that
you
could
do
residential
at
any
point,
but
by
preserving
the
area
in
the
cbd,
we've
been
able
to
make
and
maintain
the
viability
of
commercial
development.
T
D
Just
one
note
chairs
that
no
one
has
spoken
yet,
and
so
you
might
want
to
ask
the
staff
to
reset
those
timers,
because
people
are
just
beginning
to
ask
questions,
but
for
some
reason
they
show
time
on
them.
B
Great
thanks,
I
am
wondering
one
of
the
things
we've
heard
from
about
this
particular
site
is
that
office
space
isn't
viable
because
of
the
size
of
the
floor
plate
and
I'm
wondering
if
staff
could
respond
to
that.
T
Yes,
well,
I
can't
specifically
reference
each
individual
project.
What
I
can
say
is
that
we
have
projects
in
this
immediate
vicinity
that
are
all
commercial
619.
West
hastings
is
an
example
that
has
actually
smaller
floor
plates
that
are
being
proposed
here.
I
think
they're
in
the
6
500
square
foot
range
or
less
okay,.
B
That's
helpful:
no,
the
conversation
about
hotel
rooms.
B
Do
we
have
any
ability?
This
is
an
area,
I
don't
know
a
lot
about
our
policy
and
to
require
those
hotel
rooms,
be
like
not
the
sort
of
airbnb
saunder
style
but
to
be
staffed.
B
You
know
creating
good
local
jobs
in
the
hotel
sector.
Is
that
within
the
realm
of
how
we
would
zone
for
possible
hotel
space.
B
Okay,
I've
just
heard
some
suggestion
of
it
and
it
and
it's
currently
encouraged
to
be
commercial
or
hotel.
Am
I
correct
in
that?
Yes,.
H
B
B
H
R
R
T
Can
I
just
add
to
that-
I
think
what
we
have
heard
through
our
collaboration
with
destination
vancouver,
is
that
there
is
an
interest
in
hotels
that
provide
full
facilities,
commercial
kitchens
meeting
rooms,
that
sort
of
thing.
H
B
Okay:
okay,
just
thinking
about
the
local
jobs
as
well.
Can
I
move
for
a
second
round
of
questions?
Just
justin
secretary.
B
Okay,
good
thanks.
I
may
not
need
it,
but
I'm
also
I'm
wondering
if
council
were
to
consider
residential
here.
Is
this
a
site
where
I'm
thinking
about
the
what
staff
has
had
said
about
the
workforce,
housing
and
the?
Would
this
be
a
site
where
we
could
say
consider
residential,
but
I'm
with
direction
to
look
at
more
of
a
murph.
B
H
B
Okay,
I'll
wait
and
ask
if,
if
I
need
to
about
how
best,
we
would
do
that,
but
I'll
I'll
go
off
the
queue
for
now.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah
thanks,
I'm
also
sort
of
lined
up
to
ask
about
the
hotel
use
and
I've
got
some
sort
of
explicit
follow-up
questions
to
that,
and
that
is
in
terms
of
that
being
a
permissible
use
in
the
current
dodp
along
with
commercial.
Q
D
So
so
the
current
dodp
for
greater
clarity
would
not
permit.
I
want
to
do
residential
with
two
or
three
hotel
floors.
That
would
be
an
exception
right,
okay
and
in
the
context
of
this
specific
hazard
application-
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear
to
process
we're,
considering
an
application
on
the
merits
as
to
whether
or
not
that
should
be
enabled
by
council
for
rezoning
consideration,
even
though
it's
contrary
to
policy.
H
D
And
the
comment
was
made
with
respect
to
an
appreciative
perspective
from
staff
on
this,
too,
that
the
site
was
quote
unquote
too
small
for
four
meaningful
floor
plates
for
office,
but
that
certainly
wouldn't
be
the
case
for
a
hotel,
because
it's
similar
to
residential,
it's
you're,
doing
smaller
sized
rooms.
So
it
could
certainly
facilitate
hotel
rooms.
Correct.
H
D
H
F
F
If
it
was
a
combination
of
hotel,
workforce,
housing
and
rental
housing,
it
would
still
not
fall
within
with
within
all
the
policy
it
wouldn't
meet
all
the
policy
tests.
It
would
meet
some
of
them,
not
all
of
them.
That's
correct.
Q
Q
Would
look
at
the
policy
which
says
you
must
meet
the
requirements
of
the
dodp
first
before
any
extra
residential
is
permitted,
and
that
comes
with
a
substantial
public
benefit,
so
we
would
need
to
look
at
what
a
substantial
public
benefit
would
mean.
In
this
case,
we
staff
do
not
believe
workforce
housing,
as
defined
by
the
application,
is
a
substantial
public
benefit.
F
Okay,
thank
you,
and
can
you
refresh
you
may
have
made
this
said
it
in
your
presentation,
but
what's
the
current
office
vacancy
rate
right
now
in
vancouver
or
occupancy,
that's
amazing.
T
Primarily
to
the
downtown
chris
robertson
assistant,
director,
citywide
regional
planning,
it's
24,
and
that
has
increased
slightly
over
the
last
few
months.
F
And
24
vacancies,
and
is
that
you
said
the
last
few
months,
I'm.
T
Gonna,
I'm
gonna
clarify
sorry,
I
was
giving
you
the
rental
rate.
The
vacancy
rate
range
is
from
5.7
to
7.
F
T
As
of
a
couple
months
ago,.
T
Yes
slightly,
it
was,
it
had
kind
of
ranged
around
2.8,
and
it's
now
at
5.7
to
7.
It
depends
on
there's
a
couple,
different
assessments
that
are
out
there
by
brokerage
firms
and
that
sort
of
thing.
F
T
There
absolutely
is
five
to
seven
percent
or
sorry.
Seven
to
ten
percent
is
the
healthy
range
and
we're
just
creeping
up
from
the
five
to
seven.
F
F
Okay,
okay,
I'll
think
I'll
leave
my
questions
there
for
now.
Thank
you.
H
D
R
Hi
council
councillor
swanson,
it's
teen
senior,
rezoning
planner.
I'm
sorry.
Can
you
just
quickly
repeat
the
question
I
I
apologize.
I
couldn't
hear
it.
K
H
T
Councilor
swanson
chris
robertson
assistant,
director
city
wyden,
regional
planning.
What
I
can
say
is
that
the
full
service
hotel,
in
our
opinion,
is
more
responsive
or
inclusive
of
job
creation,
and
so,
as
we've
heard
from
destination
vancouver,
it
is
kind
of
the
preferred
approach
to
the
the
full-service
hotel
is
the
preferred
approach
that
we
would
like
to
see
in
terms
of
job
creation.
H
R
Hi
counselor
swanson
teen
senior,
rezoning
planner,
currently
in
our
definition
for
hotel.
We
don't
have
limitations
in
terms
of
the
type
of
programming
and
that
could
occupy
that
space.
So
there
is
a
traditional
model
of
a
hotel.
Where
there's
you
know,
meeting
space,
restaurants,
spas
and
then
a
saunder
hotel
is
a
different
type
of
hotel.
R
It's
still,
it's
still
considered
a
service
use
and
it
would
operate
quite
differently
in
in
that
it
is
more
tech
enabled
you
are
right,
but
we
currently
don't
have
any
requirements
to
see
that
a
future
applicant
could
potentially
have
to
run
a
particular
type
of
hotel.
B
Yes
thanks:
I
was
just
hoping
to
have
staff
clarify
again
because
we're
figuring
out
this
process
as
we
go.
B
If
that's,
okay,
we're
all
figuring
this
out
as
we
go,
if
council's
priority
was
to
uphold
the
existing
policy,
which
I
understand
would
require
hotel
or
commercial
and
could
allow
some
additional
residential
with
sufficient
public
benefit.
Is
that
a
fair
description
of
the
current
policy?
Yes,.
H
B
If
council's
priority
was
to
uphold
that
current
policy
and
allow
an
application
to
go
through
within
that
policy,
would
we
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendation?
Would
we
vote
down
I'm
just
all
of
the
languages
a
bit.
H
Yeah
these,
these
are
all
really.
You
know.
These
are
our
first
few
coming
through
and
they're
all
kind
of
clunky,
which
I
keep
trying
to
like
push
everybody
towards
the
pep.
Because
that
way
we
can
negotiate
these.
I
I
will
have
to
wait
to
hear
from
our
applicant.
I
do
think
there's
some
willingness
on
the
part
of
the
applicant
to
figure
out
a
pathway
forward,
that's
viable
for
the
for
the
for
the
site
and
meet
the
meet
the
goals
of
the
policies.
Okay,.
H
Recommendation
a
doesn't,
but
but
tess
did
line
out
three
a
couple
of
alternatives,
and
but
I
think
we
could
get
the
council
there
pretty
easily
and-
and
I
think
we'll
wait
to
maybe
hear
from
mr
stevel
or
go
in.
B
H
B
A
Great
okay,
so
that's
it
for
questions
from
council,
we'll
turn
now
to
hearing
from
the
public.
So
we
have
john
stevelap
first,
followed
by
michael
goldberg
and
then
angus
mcdonald
hi.
There,
thanks
for
coming
in
good
afternoon.
E
Mayor
council,
my
name
is
john
stefel
and
I'm
the
president
of
reliance
properties,
the
applicant
for
this
rezoning,
I'm
joined
by
our
director
of
development
joanna
quan,
to
assist
with
any
questions
if
that's
permitted
and
we're
happy
to
be
back
in
chambers
today,
and
thanks
staff
for
the
work
they've
done
on
this.
So
far,
our
alliance
properties,
together
with
our
partners
own
the
450
000
square
foot,
renamed
arthurics
in
place.
This
distinctive
office
tower
was
built
in
1968,
is
well
known
in
the
city
for
its
prominent
status
and
the
public
plaza
on
georgia.
E
We
submitted
the
resulting
in
july
2021
a
year
ago
in
response
to
council's
initiative
to
create
policy
inquiry
process
and
just
a
note
at
the
time
we
submitted
the
full
rezoning.
Our
understanding
was
that,
even
though
it
was
full
reasoning,
it
would
be
considered
in
the
context
of
the
policy
inquiry
process
and
I
think,
there's
been
a
bit
of
a
miss
there
in
the
way
it's
been
brought
forward,
as
the
council
hasn't
given
an
opportunity
to
look
at
it
in
that
context.
But
hopefully
we
can
do
that
anyway.
E
So
we're
pleased
by
this
opportunity.
In
the
last
two
weeks,
we
studied
the
staff
report
carefully
and
had
a
chance
to
modify
our
proposal
to
address
the
concerns
of
creation
of
job
space
and
are
as
summarized
on
our
presentation
there
on
the
first
page
that
our
modified
proposal
will
work
with
the
same
mass
incorporate
a
72-room
hotel
such
as
saunder
or
similar.
However,
I
can
adjust
questions.
E
If
you
can
go
to
page
two
on
the
presentation,
please,
the
application
is
made
under
the
existing
policy
that
anticipates
residential
if
all
zone
commercial
fsr
is
first
used.
This
policy
also
mandates
initial
direction
from
council.
Our
only
proposed
policy
variants
is
allowing
workforce
housing
to
in
place
of
remaining
zone
commercial
density
of
one
fsr.
E
I
can
elaborate
more
on
that
as
well.
Our
staff
report
contends
that
there
is
little
or
no
public
benefit
from
the
project.
We
respectfully
disagree
with
this.
In
addition
to
the
secured
market
rental
units,
the
workforce,
housing
units
provide
substantial
public
benefit
through
provision
of
below
market
rents
and
the
economic
benefits
to
adjacent
employers
of
the
workforce
housing
and
which
we
calculate
as
being
a
very
substantial
economic
on-site
benefit
of
the
blow
market,
housing.
Also,
contrary
to
the
staff
report,
our
target
salary
range
for
the
workforce.
E
E
Ambulance,
paramedics
association
is
one
michael
goldberg
from
ubc
several
large
hotel
owners,
including
our
hyatt
neighbor
right
next
door,
the
the
large
hyatt
hotel
and
various
restaurants
and
other
establishments
representing
thousands
of
employees.
There
are
no
letters
of
opposition
that
we
are
aware
of.
E
A
staff
report
also
mentions
that
there
are
no
heritage
benefits,
yet
we
have
proposed.
We
have
proposed
legal
designation
on
page
39
of
arizona
report,
contrary
to
staff's
summary
and
of
the
of
the
a
registered
arthurics
in
place
along
with
facade
reconditioning
and
restoration
of
the
georgia
street
plaza
in
front
of
the
building.
E
We
are
of
course
aware
that
staff
and
council
have
questions
and
concerns
about
how
the
proposal
may
impact
job
space.
However,
as
you've
heard,
the
office
market
is
healthy
and
in
balance,
and
our
company
alone
within
blocks
of
this
project
has
a
million
square
feet
of
office
space
on
the
market
right
now
available
for
pre-lease.
In
fact,
council
approved
the
bylaws
for
both
of
those
projects
in
its
meeting
last
night.
E
Further
due
to
site
size
constraints
and
setback
requirements
from
the
existing
office
tower
proposed
floor.
Plate
is
8
500
square
feet,
which
is
not
suitable
for
aaa
office
and
there's
been
a
reference
to
a
6
500
square
foot
floor
plate
elsewhere.
I
would
suggest
that
that's
an
outlier
outlier
and
if
council
is
to
look
at
the
broad
range
of
large
office
buildings
developed
in
the
market
right
now
typical
minute
floor
plate
minimums
are
closer
to
12
000
up
to
sixteen
thousand
square
feet.
E
We
have
also
provided
council
with
a
letter
from
respected
evaluation,
firm
altus,
confirming
that
the
applied
for
rezoning
will
not
put
upward
pressure
on
commercial
land
values
and
is
not
a
viable
office
site,
although
not
yet
updated
for
the
additional
hotel
rooms
we
propose,
we
expect
there'll
be
very
little
change
in
the
valuation.
E
In
conclusion,
council
has
asked
for
bold
ideas
to
address
the
housing
crisis.
Reliance
has
a
long
track
record
of
building
rental
housing
in
the
city.
We
respectfully
request
that
council
direct
staff
to
prepare
a
referral
report
under
section
5.2
of
the
cbd
and
cbd
shoulder
area,
resulting
policy
with
council,
supporting
the
proposed
policy
variants
to
allow
the
minimum
commercial
area
to
be
reduced
from
11
to
10
in
order
to
support
the
below
market
workforce
housing.
Thank
you
and
we're
here
for
your
questions.
A
B
Thanks,
I
have
two
questions
and,
and
one
is
to
the
hotel
use
and
you
sort
of
spoke
to
it,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
would
consider
support
more
of
a
full
service
hotel
that
creates
local
jobs
rather
than
the
sander
model.
E
We
have
spoken
to
a
number
of
hotel
operators
and
we
we
did
submit
a
letter
from
saunder
and
and
the
reason
that
that
was
what
came
forward
is
because
there's
been
some,
I
think
from
council
some
desire
to
have
hotels
that
are
a
little
more
cost
effective
for
the
guests
and
saunder
fits
into
that.
It
is
certainly
not
a
jobless
hotel
that
still
involves
housekeeping
and
maintenance
and
all
the
things
that
you
need.
We
have
also
spoken
to
conventional
hotel
operators.
E
The
floor
plate
still
is
modest
in
size,
so
according
to
urban
design
requirements,
so
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
like
a
hyatt
or
a
four
seasons
or
anything,
but
it
can
definitely
be,
and
we've
talked
to
marriott
as
an
example.
A
more
conventional,
somewhat
more
conventional
hotel
will
have
ballrooms
and
huge
meeting
facilities
not
really
possible
within
the
floor
plate,
but
it
would
be
more
commercial
we'd
have
some
meeting
rooms
would
have
full
service
would
have
food
and
beverage
that
we've
already
got
planned
on
the
ground
floor
anyway.
E
B
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
and
my
second
question
is
around
the
workforce.
Housing
definition
which,
as
we
heard
from
staff
is,
is,
is
not
a
term
or
category
that
we
currently
have.
I,
I
wonder
if
you
considered,
or
would
be
open
to
a
moderate
income
rental
in
line
with
city
other
city
policies.
Instead.
E
Okay,
you
know,
as
modeled
our
projected
rents
under
workforce
housing
aren't
markedly
different
from
the
merc
discount.
According
to
our
figures,
the
rents
would
be
at
about
60
percent
of
market
using
the
workforce.
E
Workforce
is
just
a
new
idea
and
we're
being
asked
to
bring
new
ideas
forward,
which
would
attempt
to
create
a
subset
of
of
workers
who,
because
there's
lots
of
people
who
need
below
market
housing
and
there's
blow
market
housing
all
over
the
place.
But
this
was
to
create
a
subset
of
tenants
who
not
only
will
have
an
affordable
home
more
affordable
than
market,
but
are
also
helping
with
the
economic
resilience
of
the
downtown
by
having
work
workers
close
to
the
places
of
work
such
as
ambulance
drivers
and
paramedics.
E
So
we're
really
flexible
there,
but
it
was.
It
was
an
attempt
to
sort
of
go
over
and
above
just
the
normal
discounted
rent
and
try
and
further
assist
a
specific
group
of
people
who
will
improve
the
resiliency
of
the
downtown
economy.
And
we
think
it's
something
vancouver
and
council
should
be
exploring.
But
we
also
understand
it's
kind
of
new
territory
and
would
require
some
work
with
staff
to
work
out,
but
we're
flexible.
E
E
B
B
I
can
those
are
all
of
my
questions.
Thank
you.
D
Thanks
I
want
to
follow
up
on
the
hotel.
Conversation
too.
Topic
is
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
and
72
rooms
is,
is
small,
I'm
looking
at
a
couple
fours,
two
three,
I'm
guessing.
Would
you
consider
the
bulk
of
the
floor
space
for
a
hotel.
E
I
don't
think
that
would
be
viable
with
the
type
of
floor
plate.
We
have
to
build
up
to
build
a
hotel
of
that
size
in
this
market.
At
this
time,
even
we
talked
to
the
hotel
operators
marriott
all
of
them
from
saunder
marriott.
You
know
four
seasons,
everybody
they're
all
looking
for
around
180
to
210
keys
right
now.
Nobody
wants
a
410
room,
hotel
anymore,
it's
just
not
so
I.
D
I
think
of
an
analogous
property
like
say
the
coastal
harbor
hotel
that
was
built
in
time
for
the
2010
olympics
220
rooms
and
not
dissimilar
to
you
know
when
we're
having
those
discussions
on
kind
of
the
interplay
between
the
density
needed
for
strata
and
rental
residential
is
very
similar
in
the
hotel
industry.
You
need
this
explicit
number
of
keys
to
do
that,
but
I
wonder
if
you
consider
that,
because
I
look
at
the
coastal
harbor
analogy,
220
keys,
also
a
very
skinny
building
other
site
doesn't
have
the
large
ballroom
so
hi.
D
E
Yeah,
well,
I
think
the
problem
with
a
large
conventional
full-service
hotel
on
this
site,
like
a
really
big
one,
is
really
the
floor.
Plate
like
to
hotel
hotels,
typically
have
a
larger
square
floor
plate.
They
have
anything
up
to
16
rooms
per
floor,
for
fish
and
housekeeping
and
and
for
the
geometry
for
larger
meeting
rooms
and
things.
So
it's
it's
a
sort
of
a
boutique
infill
tower
as
as
as
determined
by
you
know,
the
setback
from
the
milwaukee
building
and
the
size
of
the
remaining
parkade
site.
E
D
D
The
example
I'm
asking
about
with
the
coal
harbor
is
six
to
eight
rooms
per
floor.
Smaller
floor
plate
still
has
amenities.
It's
it's
very
similar
in
terms
of
sizes.
E
Oh
yeah,
I
think
it's
probably
a
bigger
floor
plate.
E
E
H
E
E
I
I'm
pretty
much
anticipating
that
we'll
have
a
you
know:
100-page
housing
agreement.
If
this
project
moves
ahead
like
like
all
of
them
and
we
we're
happy
to
have
the
mechanisms
which
control
that
those
units
remain
within
the
ratios
of
the
workforce,
housing
requirements
or
the
merc
requirements
over
time.
A
A
N
I
appreciate
the
chance
to
speak
briefly.
I'm
michael
goldberg
resident
in
west
vancouver,
I'm
dean
and
professor
emeritus
suburban
land
policy
at
the
sauder
school
at
ubc,
and
I
want
to
support
the
application
for
re-zoning.
I
realize
city
staff
do
not
support
it
because
of
their
view.
It's
not
compliant
with
a
13-year-old
policy,
and
I
would
like
to
start
by
questioning
that
policy
at
this
point
in
our
evolution,
the
policy
is
based
on
a
redemption
will
run
out
of
job
land,
and
that's
not
a
premise
that
I
support.
N
Council
has
the
capacity
to
greatly
increase
the
supply
of
job
land
by
adding
height
and
density
in
the
core
and
adding
heightened
density
to
other
commercial
areas
in
the
city
as
well.
So
I
do
not
see
the
underlying
premises
being
a
viable
one.
At
this
point,
additionally,
residential
uses
are
increasingly
job
uses.
If
you
look
at
all
new
developed
residential
developments
in
the
city,
they
are
very
heavily
wired
most
with
fiber,
and
they
are
clearly
workspaces
and
have
served
as
workspaces
during
covid.
N
This
is
a
trend
that
started
before
covert
and
certainly
one
that
will
continue.
Well
into
the
future,
so
I
think
the
crystal
clear
distinction
between
job
land
and
residential
land
is
is
also
not
particularly
useful.
At
this
point,
the
idea
of
intermixing
jobs
and
residential
land
uses
downtown
is
particularly
appealing.
N
I
think,
to
most
of
us
creates
a
more
vibrant
cbd.
24
7,
promotes
walking
and
biking
to
work,
certainly
supports
greater
transit
use
and
reinforces
the
investments
we've
made
in
transit,
and
it
very
much
helps
green
the
city
further
in
our
aspirations
to
become
a
model
of
green
development
having
job
only
land
uses,
creates
an
empty
cbd
at
nights
and
on
weekends
and
discourages
jobs
in
retail,
food
and
entertainment.
So
it
is
very
narrowly
focused
on
certain
sorts
of
jobs,
and
I
think,
having
mixed
uses
is
much
more
interesting
and
more
sustainable.
N
N
The
429
homes
to
be
built
under
the
hotel
proposal.
484
homes
to
be
built
without
the
hotel
adds
very
nicely
to
supply
of
housing,
which
we
are
critically
short
of
when
we
speak
about
vacancy
rates
and
commercial
of
five
to
seven,
that
is
healthy.
We've
been
running
close
to
zero
vacancy
rate
in
our
housing
stock
for
decades
now,
and
this
will
go
quite
some
way
to
help
alleviate
that
issue.
So,
for
all
of
these
reasons,
I
support
the
development
and
I'm
very
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
mayor
and
council
might
have.
A
A
I
N
Thank
you
very
much
yes
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
angus
mcdonald
and
I
am
a
resident
of
vancouver,
I'm
speaking
to
you
this
afternoon,
as
the
vice
president
of
his
canada,
and
we
have
two
restaurants
located
in
downtown
vancouver
not
too
far
from
the
brazilian
subject:
property
at
melville
and
surlow
highs.
Restaurants
have
been
employers
in
the
downtown
community
for
more
than
65
years,
and
I
am
dialing
in
today
to
express
our
company's
full
support
of
the
application
before
you
that
would
deliver
almost
500
new
rental
homes
to
an
incredibly
underserved
neighborhood
kaiser.
N
Canada
employs
over
a
hundred
staff
members
in
vancouver,
many
of
whom
have
worked
with
a
restaurant
for
years
and
whom
we
consider
part
of
our
extended
family.
These
hard-working
individuals
and
their
families
are
constantly
being
pushed
out
of
vancouver
due
to
lack
of
affordable
and
available
housing.
N
This
is
not
a
new
issue
for
our
business
and
our
industry,
but
it
is
one
that
continues
to
worsen
here's
an
opportunity
to
see
meaningful
benefits
throughout
housing
at
a
prime
location,
downtown
close
to
transit
and
jobs
that
otherwise
may
remain
as
a
parking
lot.
I
hope
council
recognizes
this
unique
opportunity
to
provide
essential
workforce
and
housing
in
the
area
where
it's
desperately
needed
and
allow
this
application
to
proceed.
And
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
share
our
perspective.
A
A
F
Yes,
marriage
have
a
quick
point
of
information
through
you
to
staff,
just
if
you
could
clarify
for
me
what
our
policy
frameworks
articulate
in
terms
of
tower
separation.
H
Separation
is
typically
80
feet
in
between
office
and
residential.
I
think
we
usually
go
60,
but
they
would,
I
think,
on
this
site
would
only
meet
like
40.
Perhaps.
F
M
Yeah,
so
as
so
for
a
an
application
in
the
downtown
core
of
any
variety
office
office,
we
don't
actually
have
any
controls.
So
a
recent
example
would
be
something
like
the
the
new
mass
tumor
building.
That's
been
approved
through
dp
at
the
benthal
center
has
relatively
limited
tower
separation
that
we
just
reviewed
through
kind
of
best
practices
of
urban
design
residential
to
office,
though
teresa's
correct,
would
be
60
feet.
F
M
B
Thanks,
I
I
am
hoping
to
move
an
amendment,
maybe
I'll
just
let
councillor
weave
go
first,
I'm
hoping
to
move
an
amendment
related
to
that
moderate
workforce,
moderate
income,
housing
and
also
a
more
full-service
hotel
space
in
the
interest
of
jobs
and
and
staff
are
just
I
understand,
I'm
helping
make
sure
the
language
is
appropriate
and
proper
on
that,
so
I'll,
let
counselor
we
go
and
come
back
when
that
language
is
ready.
K
Yeah
just
one
question
through
to
staff,
and
that
is
on
workforce
housing.
Do
we
have
any
definitions
within
our
policy
statements
to
kind
of
reflect?
What
whistler
and
other
municipalities
are
doing
to
ensure
that
those
workforce
housing
spaces
are
utilized
for
people
that
work
in
the
municipality
or
city
and
need
to
work
there?
So
people
wouldn't
be
working
from
home,
but
people
that
would
have
to
be
in
the
area
to
do
employment?
Is
that
part
of
our
current
workforce,
housing
definition
or
is
there
something
that
we
would
put
together
in
moving
this
application
forward?
K
K
There
are
a
number
of
things
about
the
workforce,
housing
model
that
we
have
some
concerns
with
one
of
them
in
this
case,
being
the
proposal
that
the
workforce
housing
qualifications
would
link
to
an
individual
income
in
the
in
the
unit
not
to
the
household
income.
So,
for
example,
you
could
have
a
household
in
the
unit
that
makes
significantly
more
than
we
would
normally
see
qualifying
for
below
market
rental,
because
one
of
the
incomes
does
meet
the
test.
K
So
there
are
some
things:
we'd
have
to
work
out
if
we
did
apply
a
workforce
housing
model
as
opposed
to
something
more
consistent
with
the
below
market
rental
policy.
We
have
okay,
that's
very
helpful.
Thank
you.
C
Yeah,
I
guess
a
question
chair
through
you
to
staff.
I've
heard
a
couple
of
references
to
moving
this
through
the
pep
process
and
I'm
wondering
is
that
implicit
in
these
staff
recommendations
or
does
that
have
to
be
included
as
a
specific
direction
or
amendment.
H
C
And
and
so
follow-up
question,
because
I
mean
I
hear
loud
and
clear-
the
concerns
around
sort
of
an
ad
hoc
change
to
to
the
cbd
policy
and
how
how
limited
that
that
zoning
capacity
sort
of
is
as
a
geographic
area
would
would
would
that
also
be
implicit
in
referring
it
back
to
the
pep
is
a
consideration
within
that
working
within
the
existence,
sort
of
cbd
policy.
H
Thank
you.
I
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
be
explicit
about
that.
If
council
were
to
do
that
again,
we
have
such
limited
job
space.
Seven
percent
city-wide
only
13
of
the
peninsula-
is
reserved
for
job
space.
So
we
are.
We
are
very
protective
of
that
remaining
space,
so
additional
instruction
to
staff
would
be
helpful
in
that
regard.
C
You
know
I
hear
that
loud
and
clear
and
I'm
inclined
to
support
the
staff
recommendations
outright,
but
but
you
know
the
applicant's
been
somewhat
persuasive
and
just
you
know
like,
and
is
there
a
middle
ground
as
an
opportunity
to
shift?
Obviously,
there's
been
some
shifts
in
the
sort
of
proposal
that
we've
seen
since
what
we've
written
and
what
we're
hearing.
So
I
might
noodle
around
trying
to
see
if
there's
what
other
counselors
are
reflecting
and
then
maybe
I'll
prepare
an
amendment
in
the
meantime.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
B
A
D
Yeah,
my
point
of
information
is,
if
you
could
advise
us,
please
with
respect
to
consistency
because
you've
denied
that
previously,
so
does
that
mean
that
we
can
take
a
recess
for,
however
long
whenever
any
counselor
wants
to
prepare
a
motion.
A
A
A
C
Yeah
mayor,
I
just
submitted
an
amendment
actually.
A
Great
looks:
could
you
just
recap
where
we
are
then
this
one
we've
we've
had
the
main
motion
moved.
A
A
G
B
G
I
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
point
of
information
through
you
to
staff.
Go
for
it,
I'm
wondering
with
this
amendment.
If
this
amendment
were
to
pass
and
and
the
applicant
were
to
withdraw
their
zoning
application,
ashley
have
two
questions.
First
of
all,
can
you
can
staff
advise
an
applicant?
They
can
advise
an
app
they
can
suggest
they
withdraw.
G
C
Yeah
thanks
mayor-
and
I
just
got
a
note
from
the
clerks
that
they
didn't
get
my
amendment,
although
I
did
send
one
in
and
I
gather
councillor
boyle
saw
it
so,
oh
and
I
see
it's
now
coming
through
again,
so
I've
submitted
an
amendment
to
the
clerk,
and
this
is
actually
thanks
to
staff
for
providing
me
some
helpful
insights
on
on
this
one
and
writing
it
actually.
A
C
Sure-
and
I-
and
I
certainly
don't
need
that
much-
I
appreciate
the
the
changing
parameters
that
the
applicant
has
has
suggested
and
I
think
that
there's
perhaps
opportunity
here.
I
do
really
want
to
uphold
and
respect
staff's
concerns
around
around
cbd
and
preserving
that
that
sort
of
unique
zoning
parameter.
I
think
it's
important
and
I
do
take
their
concerns
around
the
potential
for
speculation.
C
If
we
go
willy
nilly
and
ad
hoc
with
this,
so
this
amendment,
the
council
advised
the
applicant
to
withdraw
this
rezoning
application
and
consider
a
submission
through
the
policy
inquiry
process,
and
we've
we've
heard
a
bunch
about
that
today,
the
pep
and
evaluate
an
alternative
proposal
that
can
address
that
that
criteria.
G
Okay,
now
I
will
proceed
with
my
point
of
information.
If
that's
okay
with
you
now
the
staff,
so
I
had
started
off
on
this
because
I
too,
like
counselor
boyle,
had
seen
the
amendment
and
I
apologized.
I
jumped
the
gun
there,
but
as
I
wait
for
for
teresa
o'donnell
to
come
to
the
podium,
I'm
just
wondering
can
we
we
can
advise,
but
we
I
mean
it's
up
to
the
applicant
if
they
withdraw,
they
can
choose
to
move
forward
regardless.
G
H
G
F
Yeah
thanks
mayor
just
a
couple
of
quick
questions,
just
clarifying
again
that
council
can
indeed
direct
in
this
case
it's
councils
advising
the
applicant
versus
council
directing
staff
to
advise
the
applicant.
F
F
Okay,
would
that
potentially
mean
in
going
through
if,
if
this
is
supported
to
go
through
that
process
that
we
could
end
up
in
a
similar
circumstance
where
what's
proposed,
doesn't
accommodate
any
job
space?
And
it's
all
rental
housing
or
in
this
case,
potentially
maybe
a
combination
of
rental
and
hotel
or.
H
We
would
we
would.
I
would
envision
a
a
combination.
I
think
what
we'd
try
to
do
is
to
get
an
application.
That
staff
would
support
right
now.
We
would
bring
the
application
forward
for
denial
and
we
all,
of
course,
are
looking
for
a
room
to
cooperate
and
and
to
collaborate
on
a
successful
application.
I
think
that's
that's
the
objective
anyway,.
F
And
I
guess
my
last
question
then,
would
be
that
you'd
look
at
the
application.
Consider
these
baseline
criteria.
Would
you
also
consider
in
evaluating
that
the
existing
policies
and
the
spirit
of
wanting
to
have
job
space?
Yes,
yes,.
H
D
But
maybe
I'll
just
tease
out
an
additional
point
just
to
be
clear
if
this
were
to
go
through
the
pep
process,
the
council
pursued
this
and
if
the
applicant
chose
to
pursue
it,
there
would
have
to
be
substantive
changes
to
this
proposed
application.
Logically,
based
on
the
criteria
for
it
to
be
accepted,
I'm
just
reframing
that
back
yes,
so
it
would
have
to
look
different
quite
different
than
it
looks
today.
Yes,
it.
H
I
I
think
we
have
heard
some
flexibility
on
the
part
of
the
applicant
today
to
include
the
hotel
and
perhaps
look
at
some
some
more
definition
around
what
workforce
housing
actually
is,
but
it'd
be
hard
to
speculate
right
now.
D
Okay,
follow-up
point
of
information
is:
is
there
any
considerations?
One
of
the
things
that
we
hear
at
council
is
the
increasing
loss
of
public
space,
particularly
within
this
area.
I
used
to
work
immediately
across
the
street
and
so,
for
example,
that
building
that
backs
onto
alberta,
where
that
public
plaza
was
built
out
for
retail,
that
all
of
the
and
the
pacific
center,
where
the
plaza
was
devoted
to
the
apple
store
that
all
of
the
kind
of
the
public
space
and
gathering
is
essentially
disappearing
without
farming.
H
We
would
absolutely
look
at
the
urban
form
down
there
and
and
the
views
that
macmillan
building-
that's
that's
an
iconic
building
and
the
view
to
that
building
being
blocked
is
something
that
I
would
want
kevin
and
our
urban
design
group
to
take
a
very
careful
look
at.
B
I
just
wanted
to
say
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
I
certainly
have
heard
interesting
and
useful
conversation,
even
in
the
suggestion
of
hotel
use
that
wasn't
in
the
application
that
we
had
before
us.
I
think
that's
a
valuable
conversation
like
I've
said.
I
appreciate
the
conversation
about
a
moderate
income
rental
and
aligning
that
with
similar
approaches
that
we've
taken
in
the
in
the
broadway
plan
and
the
west
end
issues
report
and
elsewhere.
B
So
I
think,
going
through
the
pep
process
is
a
sounds
like
an
appropriate
place
to
have
those
conversations
and
figure
out
a
proposal.
There's
I'm
not
opposed
to
residential
on
top
of
hotel
and
commercial
in
this
space.
We
know
we
need
more
rental
having
more
moderate
income.
Rental
would
be
valuable
and
and
would
appreciate
that
going
back
through
a
process
where
staff
can
make
sure
that
the
public
benefits
are
being
maximized
in
what
the
public
is
seeing
out
of
this
so
happy
to
support
this
approach.
G
I
I
won't
be
supporting
this
amendment.
I
appreciate
you
know
the
sentiment
and
the
explanation
for
it,
but
I
also
understand
that
the
applicant
feels
comfortable
moving
forward
and
that's
our
right
to
do
that
towards
public
hearing.
Maybe
there's
something
not
on
me.
G
Okay,
now
that
the
cell
phone
stopped,
I
I
am
concerned,
though,
that
I
mean
sending
something
back
into
the
pep
process
and,
as
you
know,
some
of
my
colleagues
the
answers
to
their
questions.
You
know
explained
the
issue.
That
brings
me
to
my
decision,
which
is,
it
would
need
to
change
substantially,
and
you
know
council
we
talk
about,
and
we
know
that
you
know
vancouver
the
city
of
vancouver.
G
We
don't
have
a
good
reputation
for
moving
things
forward
fast,
especially
when
it
comes
to
timelines,
and
I
I
don't
put
that
on
our
staff.
I
appreciate
that
our
staff
are
working
within
the
limitations
of
the
policies
here
and
council
has
to
make
hard
decisions
and
pushing
that
off
to
another
process.
G
To
just
come
back
to
council
again
to
me
doesn't
make
sense.
I
mean
the
applicant
and-
and
I
want
to
be
very
clear-
that
we're
not
supposed
to
be
considering
the
merits
of
the
application
here.
I
know
that
and
public
hearings
the
time
to
do
that.
G
So,
instead
of
asking
for
withdrawal,
let
it
go
forward
to
public
hearing
and
if
the
council
of
the
day
decides
not
to
vote
on
it,
then
then
that's
the
decision
they
make
and
that's
that's
how
I'm
framing
this
decision,
but
I
think
that
it
should
move
forward.
G
So
at
this
point
in
time,
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
support
this
this
amendment,
because
I'm
concerned
that
all
it
will
do
is
is
you
know,
increase
the
amount
of
time
and
I
actually
am
a
little
bit
concerned
that
what
you
know
what's
brought
forward
this
amendment
is
some
debate
today
actually
over
the
project
instead
of
the
policy.
Thank
you.
D
Yeah,
I
am
in
favor
of
upholding
the
original
staff
recommendations.
I
believe
that
versus
the
amendment,
because
I
believe
that
we
do
need
to
protect
our
limited
job
space.
Just
like
we
need
to
protect
industrial
land.
We
do
have
a
low
vacancy
rate
and
this
if
it
was
interesting
in
the
maps.
D
What
stood
out
for
me
in
the
staff
presentation
is
that
this,
the
cbd
is
literally
circled
fully
by
areas
that
are
where
residential
is
permissible,
and
yet
we
have
sort
of
limitations
in
terms
of
that
job
space
and
still,
despite
the
pandemic
and
sort
of
a
shift
in
patterns,
a
low
vacancy
rate,
and,
I
think,
just
like.
We
have
lots
of
very
robust
and
important
conversations
around
how
we
need
to
ensure
livability
and
public
benefits.
Alongside
with
residential.
D
I
think
that
we
also
need
to
uphold
a
strong
and
thriving
economy,
which
is
what
enables
people
to
live
in
an
expensive
city,
and
so
that
concerns
me
when
we
start
to
chip
away
at
that,
and
I
think
that
that
has
become
a
vital
business
area
because
of
that
policy
that
clearly
identified
that
the
area
was
being
encroached
upon,
similar
to
whether
you
look
at
arts
and
cultural
space
and
when
you
don't
protect
that
you
see
the
loss
of
it
and
I
think
it
does
have
ramifications.
D
We
approved
one
recently
on
the
broadway
corridor,
but
traditionally
they've
only
been
enabled
in
downtown
and
in
those
specific
areas,
and
it's
quite
difficult
to
build
a
hotel
and,
as
we
heard
just
like
retail
or
sorry,
just
like
rental
residential,
you
do
need
scale
in
order
to
develop
that,
and
so
I
feel
like
this
would
also,
as
its
vision
be
a
bit
of
a
nail
in
the
coffin
of
trying
to
bring
forth
the
needed
hotel
space,
and
that
also
has
ramifications
in
putting
pressure
on
the
short-term
rental
stock,
making
impacting
the
health
and
viability
of
our
tourism
sector
and
turning
to
grow,
because
we
just
don't
have
the
inventory
so
for
me.
D
A
A
Thanks
so
much
go
ahead,
you
want
information,
okay,
so
this
amendment
is
add
letter.
It's
not
strike
and
replace.
So
in
my
mind
does
this
mean
that
the
applicant
can
either
move
ahead
the
way
they
want
to
or
they
can
go
through
the
pep
process?
It
really
doesn't
cancel
out
the
past
option.
It
just
adds
a
different
option.
Is
that
correct.
F
Mer
templar
sanctuary
stitch
issues,
manager.
L
With
planning,
this
would
be
in
addition
to
resolution
a
so
that.
K
A
Right
so
this
doesn't
cancel
the
staff
recommendation.
It
just
adds
that
staff
is
going
to
suggest
that
they
go
through
this,
but
the
applicant
doesn't
have
to
do
that.
You
can
just
proceed
with
it
with
the
letter,
a
recommendation
correct
right,
so
it's
not
an
either
or
okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
That's
it
for
questions.
For
me,
council,
kirby,
I'd
say:
take
the
chair
back!
H
J
Yeah,
thank
you.
I'm
I'm
also
going
to
support
this
amendment
and
it's
really
for,
I
think,
a
logical
reason
right
now.
The
staff
recommendation
is
not
supportive
of
the
application.
J
If
the
applicant
takes
this
forward,
they
know
that
that
the
staff
is
not
supportive,
but
I
think
they've
heard
the
discussion
at
the
council
table
and
know
there's
a
great
deal
of
concern
around
the
application,
so
this
offers
an
alternative
to
the
applicant
to
work
with
staff
around
and
through
the
pet
process.
J
I
think
that's
just
respectful
of
the
applicant's
time
and
and
and
the
public
hearing
process
which
at
this
point
would
be
a
you
know,
not
a
not
a
very
happy
process
in
terms
of
the
negativity
it
carries
with
it
from
the
beginning.
So
I
think
it's
a
good
suggestion.
Thank
you.
Councillor
fry.
A
Counselor
car
here
we
go
game
up
thanks
council
kirby
on
cancellation
over
in
opposition.
It
passes
over
the
main
queue
counselor
fry
anything
else.
A
G
A
A
And
that
passes
with
a
consultation,
oven
opposition.
Now
we
are
going
to
go
to
b.
A
I
think
I'm
going
yep
there
we
go
okay
that
passes
with
councillor
dejanova
and
councillor
kirby
young
in
opposition.
That
is
it
council.
Can
I
have
a
motion
to
adjourn.
Please
thank
you.
I
heard
counselor
nova
seconded
by,
I
think
councilor
kirby
young,
all
in
favor,
yay
jose.
We
are
adjourned.
Thank
you
all
who
participated
today,
yeah
good
work.