►
From YouTube: Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities (Reconvening from May 18, 25 and 26, 2022)
Description
Standing committee meetings
Standing committee meetings are held to hear information from staff and the public. There are two standing committees of Council:
1. City Finance and Services
2. Policy and Strategic Priorities
Open to the public
Wednesdays at 9:30am on scheduled weeks. View the meeting schedule
Send your comment online
Request to speak at the meeting
Attended by at least six members of Council to proceed
- The City Finance and Services Standing Committee chair is
Councillor Rebecca Bligh and vice-chair is Councillor Pete
Fry.
- The Policy and Strategic Priorities Standing Committee chair is
Councillor Adriane Carr and vice-chair is Councillor Sarah Kirby-
Yung.
A
C
D
E
Thanks
so
much
so,
let's
go
over
the
plan
for
the
day
before
we
begin.
I
just
want
to
note
that
the
city
of
vancouver's
has
a
long-standing
commitment
to
equity,
diversity
and
inclusion,
including
utmost
respect
for
all
genders,
and
I
said
I
remind
council
when
you
address
speakers
and
staff,
please
avoid
using
gendered
honorifics
and
instead
refer
to
the
person
by
first
and
last
name
or
role
or
title
today.
E
We
will
continue
hearing
from
speakers
on
the
broadway
plan,
starting
with
speaker
163
speakers
can
follow
along
on
twitter
at
vancity
clerk
for
updates
on
the
progress
of
the
meeting.
So
you
don't
miss
your
turn
to
speak.
Any
comments
on
agenda
items
could
be
sent
to
council
using
a
web
form
on
the
city's
website.
The
link
to
that
form
will
be
tweeted
out
on
at
ben
city
clerk.
E
As
a
reminder
this
evening,
I'm
sorry,
this
meeting
is
scheduled
for
3
to
10
pm
today.
Should
the
business
not
be
completed
this
evening,
the
meeting
will
reconvene
thursday
june
9th
2022
at
3
p.m,
scheduled
also
to
go
to
10
p.m.
That
day
today,
we
will
recess
at
5
pm
for
dinner
and
reconvene
at
6..
E
So
this
is
the
broadway
plan
in
continuation.
Before
we
begin,
I
want
to
remind
all
speakers.
You
have
five
minutes
to
make
comments
should
state
whether
you
are
in
support
or
in
opposition
of
recommendations.
That
may
only
speak
once
committee
members
in
committee.
You
have
only
three
minutes
to
ask
questions
to
speakers.
You
know
that
speakers
are
under
no
obligation
to
respond.
E
I
also
want
to
add.
I
will
also
ask
if
speakers
are
residents
of
vancouver.
If
it's
not
noted
on
the
speaker's
list,
following
the
last
speaker
on
the
speakers
list,
we
will
go
back
through
the
list
for
those
who
were
not
present
when
the
name
was
called
and
I'll
do
that
review
once
so.
We
will
now
continue
hearing
from
registered
speakers,
starting
with
speaker,
163
cheryl
webster
cheryl
webster.
Are
you
on
the
line.
F
Okay,
good
afternoon,
mayor
and
council,
my
name
is
shaw,
webster
and
I'm
a
resident
of
vancouver.
I
thank
you
for
hearing
us
all
speak,
I'm
sure
by
now,
you've
heard
many
points
on
both
the
for
and
again
sides
of
this
plan,
but
I
would
like
to
emphasize
a
few
against.
I
oppose
this
plan
for
the
following
reasons.
I
oppose
because
I
agree
that
this
plan
will
create
create
increase.
F
Plus
the
measure
of
success
seems
to
be
the
number
of
units.
This
is
a
race
to
the
bottom.
In
my
opinion,
this
creates
smaller
and
barely
livable
units
and
thus
creates
a
more
transient
community.
When
people
leave
for
larger
units,
usually
out
of
the
city,
I
know
too
many
families
who
are
desperate
to
get
out
of
newly
constructed
buildings
and
into
three-story
walk-ups
due
to
their
more
spacious
floor
plans
and
closet
space.
F
I
oppose
the
tower
style
development
because
it
will
be
unsustainable,
both
environmentally
and
socially,
environmentally
because
of
the
embodied
carbon
in
the
construction
of
towers,
not
to
mention
the
subway.
As
noted
in
the
toronto
star
article
that
a
newly
constructed
line
there
will
take
33
years
in
use
to
offset
the
carbon
from
construction
alone
and
socially
because
again
of
the
tower
style,
development
is
not
conducive
to
creating
community.
F
I
want
to
note
that
the
displaced
tenants
being
offered
a
place
to
go
and
write
a
fierce
refusal
to
come
back
for
her,
perhaps
pencils
out
financially,
but
probably
at
a
much
smaller
unit
for
the
same
price.
But
the
heartbreaking
part
is
the
tearing
of
the
social
fabric
severing
years
of
social
capital
and
affecting
people's
mental
and
physical
health.
This
is
socially
unsustainable,
but
today,
I'm
here
representing
a
family
perspective.
Many
people
with
families
don't
have
time
to
know.
F
What's
going
on
in
civic
politics
and
planning
the
public
engagement
process
that
the
city
provided
for
this
plan
seriously
overlooked
families,
families
are
too
busy
living
their
lives
barely
getting
by
to
even
know
that
there
are
these
elaborate
plans
going
on
in
the
city
affecting
their
lives.
I
ask
of
you
to
please
pause.
The
broadway
plan
revisit
what
community
engagement
means
allow
time
for
people
to
learn
about
it,
find
new
and
innovative
innovative
ways
to
be
in
touch
with
all
stakeholders
in
the
community
to
create
unique,
inspired
and
diverse
neighborhoods.
F
That
vancouver
is
known,
for
this
also
goes
for
the
vancouver
plan,
but
I
will
talk
to
that
at
that
related
hearing.
What
is
the
plan
for
creating
complete
communities
in
this
corridor,
or
is
the
plan
to
push
families
out
farther?
For
example,
there
are
a
few
public
amenities
noted
in
this
plan,
as
well
as
placements
for
schools.
F
Currently,
most
schools,
north
of
16th
are
full
while
south
of
16th
there
is
room
in
schools,
and
some
of
the
south
of
16th
neighborhoods
would
like
some
more
density
so
that
their
schools
are
not
in
constant
threat
of
closure.
I
feel
that
density
should
not
be
clustered
in
just
one
quarter.
I
feel
that
this
density
should
be
diversified
and
spread
throughout
many
neighborhoods,
perhaps
with
a
more
diversified
transit
network
as
well.
There
was
a
recent
map.
F
I
saw
that
show
that
families
do
leave
areas
with
higher
density
and
towers,
with
mostly
condos
as
options,
families,
pet
owners,
gardeners
etc
would
prefer
ground-oriented
units.
There
are
too
far
too
few
of
these
options
in
vancouver.
There
are
many
ways
that
the
city
can
grow
and
absorb
density.
I
really
fear
for
the
livability
of
our
city
with
this
plan.
F
If
we
look
at
this
plan
through
the
rich
tradition
of
neighborhood-based
planning
that
has
made
vancouver
a
livable
city
with
unique
and
diverse
neighborhoods,
allowing
a
place
for
all
families
seniors
and
all
in
between
the
broadway
plan
would
override
approximately
eight
of
these
successful
neighborhood
plans.
This
seems
like
a
big
box
approach
to
urban
planning.
F
For
example,
the
current
day
fairview
slopes
have
been
praised
for
the
fact
it
looked
at
multiple
variables
in
consideration.
The
result
is
a
stepped
approach
to
buildings
on
a
north
aspect,
slope,
which
provides
both
views
and
light
for
most
buildings
and
for
the
pedestrian
experience
both
within
the
neighborhood
and
areas
of
the
broadway.
However,
the
broadway
plan
does
not
seem
to
take
into
account
sunlight
or
views
for
citizens.
These
are
now
being
privatized
and
essentially
blocked
from
many
south
of
broadway.
This
will
affect
both
residents
and
pedestrians
alike.
F
F
I
understand
that
density
is
required
for
the
subway.
If
the
subway
is
still
the
smartest
move,
I
would
approach
the
route
like
the
other
skytrain
routes
and
focus
on
the
nodes
and
leave
the
quarter
to
neighborhood-based
planning,
which
would
plan
for
the
diverse
needs
of
each
neighborhood.
I
do
hope
you
can
revisit
the
plan
with
a
more
diversity
inclusion
limbs.
Thank
you.
E
G
G
Okay,
maybe
the
clerks
can
check
that
cause.
I've
been
on
for
some
time.
Just
that's
why,
thanks
for
speaking
to
council,
I
appreciate
it.
You
had
mentioned
that
you
knew
a
number
of
folks
who
were
wanting
to
move
from
sort
of
taller
buildings
to
three-story
walk-ups,
and
I
guess
my
question
is
this
is
is
if
the
three-story
walk-ups
are
not
affordable
to
build
today.
H
F
F
I
don't
know
I'm
not
in
the
construction
world,
so
I
just
from
like
a
model
of
development.
It
would
make
to
me
it
would
make
more
sense
spreading
diversity
out
around
the
city,
perhaps
using
the
existing
buildings
existing
vernacular
and
sweeting
out.
I
mean
when,
when
the
city
turned
every
lot
into
a
duplex
that
increased
land
value,
that
perhaps
buildings
could
be
made
into
two
units
or
three
units
and
not
for
sale,
but
for
rent
that
might
decrease
the
pressure
on
sale
like
land
value
sales
because
they
would
be
rentals.
F
I
think
three
stories
is
much
more
liberal.
It
depends
on
the
floor
plan.
I
just
know
that
the
older
buildings
have
better
floor
plans
and
everyone's
busting
out
of
the
seams
of
these
new
buildings
and
there's
no
storage,
there's
no
room
for
nightstands
nightside
tables
and
people
much
seem
to
prefer
the
floor
plans
of
the
other
buildings.
So
maybe
it's
a
square
foot
like
maybe
it's
just
not
do
number
of
units
but
measure
success
through
square
footage
and
then
floor
plans
can
be
made
more
spacious.
G
Hear
I
hear
what
you're
saying
and
just
reflecting
back
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
I'm
clear,
but
for
you
it's
more
about
the
build
form
than
than
rather
than
where
they
are
in
the
city.
So,
for
example,
if
we
had
them
in
all
neighborhoods,
across
vancouver
or
west
east
north
to
south
you'd,
rather
see
lower
story
forms
throughout
the
city.
Is
that
fair.
F
Yeah,
I
do
know
yeah
that
that
is
a
fair
comment.
I
think
people
even
accessing
being
more
ground
oriented
and
be
able
to
have
their
kid
go
to
a
little
yard
or
their
pets
or
garden.
You
know,
I
think
people
really
are
desperate
to
feel
connection
to
the
ground
is
from
what
I
and
are
leaving
the
city,
because
they
can't
find
that.
G
F
I
live
in
a
multi-unit
house
and
have
access
to
yard
space,
yes,
and
many
of
the
families
that
we
know
through
school
do
not,
and
they
all
want
to
leave.
They
all
do
leave
my
son's
friends
are
this.
This
is
the
thing
my
son's
friends
are
all
leaving
the
city
he's
gone
through.
Multiple
friends
and
then
the
ones
who
are
staying
are
looking
to
go
into
others.
E
F
G
E
E
E
I'm
gonna
have
sorry
thank
you
for
that
counselor
weep.
I
I
have
nobody
on
my
screen.
Yeah
we're
gonna
have
to
take
a
short
break.
I'm
so
sorry,
please
do
stay
on
the
line
cheryl
because
you
have
other
speakers.
Sorry
other
counselors
wishing
to
question
you.
We
have
a
bit
of
an
I.t
problem.
I
I
can't
tell
who
is
on
the
line
so
to
speak,
to
ask
you
questions
so
I
just
it'll.
Take,
I
think,
just
a
few
minutes,
but
thank
you
very
much
for
holding
on.
E
H
I
E
A
H
F
Yeah
definitely
schools
since
they're
all
seem
full
with
lottery
waiting
lists.
Even
if
you
live
a
block
away,
you
know
day.
Community
centers
parks,
I
mean
parks,
are
packed
all
the
time.
My
neighborhood
I'm
in
kits
and
I
did
live
on
commercial
drive
for
years
too
same
thing
went,
went
for
there
just
yeah,
I
think
more
access
to
services
and
amenities
for
families.
I
Thank
you
cheryl
just
to
confirm,
because
I've
asked
other
speakers
this
question
the
subway
is
going
through.
That's
happening,
no
matter
what
and
it's
going
to
affect
housing.
So
your
response
in
terms
of
what
you'd
like
to
see,
is
the
towers
that
would
be
around
the
subway
stops
and
ground-oriented
multi-family
along
the
corridor.
Is
that
accurate.
F
I
Have
you
considered
population
growth
projections
and
historical
norms
of
population
growth
in
in
your
assessment,
one
of
the
other
counselors
asked
about
having
similar
distributed
density
across
the
city.
Have
you
looked
at
the
population
projections
at
all
and
considered
whether
that
they're,
consistent
or
excessive
or
what
might
be
driving
them.
F
C
Good:
okay,
okay,
my
name
is
allison
bailey,
a
renter
in
vancouver
for
36
years.
I'm
opposed
to
the
broadway
plan
as
it
stands,
well-informed
speakers,
many
with
relevant
professional
training
and
established
careers,
are
spoken
eloquently
of
flaws
in
the
process
and
the
plan.
I
can
only
say
what
I
feel
I'm
sorry
so
many
future
residents
may
have
no
choice
but
to
live
in
towers
of
20,
30,
40
stories
or
even
more
as
land
values
escalate.
Why
must
the
forecast
needed
density
be
so
concentrated
along
broadway?
C
Why
raise
neighborhoods
eight
blocks
either
side
of
broadway,
where
we
already
have
dense
vibrant
neighborhoods
people
of
all
ages
and
incomes,
renters
and
homeowners?
It's
no
wonder
a
previous
speaker
commented
on
the
advertising.
Flavor
of
the
rendering
renderings
always
show
only
the
ideal
picture.
What's
eventually
built
is
often
quite
different.
There's
talk
of
neighborhood
character
and
walking
to
everything
you
need
where's
the
character
when
everything
is
new
and
all
more
of
the
same
small
businesses
in
every
high
street
have
struggled
as
land
values
and
taxes
in
greece.
C
How
will
that
change
the
plan
talks
of
new
housing
and
employment
opportunities,
with
more
jobs
being
done
remotely?
I
wonder
where
all
this
employment
will
come
from
the
current
market.
Rents
are
not
affordable
for
many,
even
those
with
good
full-time
jobs.
Many
cities
build
transit
to
get
people
from
where
they
live
to,
where
they
work
suburbs
to
downtown,
but
we
want
to
build
housing
to
pay
for
the
transit,
a
subway
to
ubc,
where
ridership
has
definite
peak
hours
and
is
seasonal.
C
I
C
Must
this
mean
we're
in
favor
of
towers,
or
could
it
mean
yes,
but
would
like
to
determine
what
building
types
residents
of
a
neighborhood
need
and
prefer
consultation?
That
tells
us
what
you
are
doing
as
opposed
to
asking?
What
we
think
should
be
done
is
not
your
consultation,
I'm
saddened
by
the
continued
disregard
for
vancouver
residents.
Yes,
I
mean
renters
and
homeowners.
C
Those
who've
made
homes
here
who
connect
with
and
contribute
to
their
communities,
disregarded
in
favor
of
developers
and
all
those
who
will
come
in
the
future.
This
this
can't
be
right.
Many
citizens
took
part
in
neighborhood
plans,
spending
countless
volunteer
hours
to
help
shape
livable
communities.
I'm
disappointed.
This
is
no
longer
considered
useful.
C
I'm
outraged
that
someone
with
no
connection
to
no
lived
experience
in
vancouver
lively,
says
those
plans
are
outdated.
Those
plans
are
no
longer
relevant.
Shame
on
them.
We've
been
told
for
years
to
expect
the
incoming
one
million,
whether
to
metro
or
vancouver
properties,
a
bit
fuzzy.
Why
does
the
number
of
homes
needed
never
diminish?
No
matter
how
much
is
already
underway
or
approved?
C
The
mayor
wrote
in
the
daily
hive
quote:
if
not
surprising,
debate
over
the
plan
has
heightened
those
feelings
of
anxiety
for
many
wrenches
living
along
the
new
subway.
He
adds
it's
even
less
surprising
that
a
handful
of
well-to-do
homeowners
are
preying
on
those
fears
to
stop
much
needed,
affordable
housing,
to
pull
up
the
drawbridge
and
make
vancouver
city
only
for
them
and
their
wealthy
friends
yikes.
I
wouldn't
say
it's
homeowners,
preying
on
those
fears.
All
ranchers
throughout
the
city
are
anxious.
Now,
not
only
those
in
the
broadway
corridor.
C
Why
are
homeowners
made
to
feel
unwelcome
guilty
of
some
wrongdoing
and
they're?
Certainly
not
all
wealthy?
I
don't
know
of
anyone
in
any
neighborhood
who
says
no
to
increased,
affordable
density.
The
article
goes
on.
Imagine
you're
a
long
time
renter
in
fairview.
You
love
your
neighborhood.
Don't
ever
want
to
leave
your
apartment's
in
poor
shape,
maybe
even
unsafe.
C
The
developer
will
have
to
offer
you
a
comparable
housing
and,
in
a
few
years,
you'll
return
to
a
new
safe
apartment.
These
comments
insult
good
landlords
and
those
who
are
happy
in
their
homes.
There
are
plenty
of
well-maintained
low-rise
rental
apartments
in
fairview
and
other
areas
they're
safe
with
decent
sized
rooms,
are
well
set
back
from
the
sidewalk
allowing
for
green
space.
It
seems
livability
was
of
greater
concern
in
the
past
this.
C
I
question
whether
displaced
ranchers
would
want
to
come
back
to
the
changed
neighborhood
after
a
period
of
three
or
more
years.
They
might
finally
feel
settled
wherever
they
landed
people
they
knew
have
moved
shops,
they
frequented
are
gone
no
longer
the
neighborhood.
They
love
more
and
more
speculation
great
for
investors
and
developers
will
not
lower
prices.
It
hasn't
so
far.
Land
values
in
vancouver
continue
to
rise
at
an
alarming
rate.
Certainly
some
are
happy
in
the
concrete
high
res,
but
not
all
even
developer.
Michael
geller
doesn't
think
they're
good
for
families.
C
Why
apply
one
approach
to
such
a
range
of
neighborhoods?
Why
are
high-rises
the
only
option?
Why
not
develop
two
existing
zoning?
Why
not
build
more
low-rise
courtyard
style
buildings,
including
co-ops
arbutus
walk,
is
very
livable.
Many
units
enjoy
cooling
from
shade
trees
rather
than
air
conditioning.
This
development
was
lauded
built
more
like
that
for
renters
and
homeowners.
C
With
all
the
building
rezonings
approved
to
date,
adding
densification
to
existing
zoning
on
high
streets
throughout
the
city,
we
can
accommodate
future
growth
and
more
livable
human
scale,
dwellings,
the
need
for
more
purpose-built
rental
housing
should
not
allow
or
require
displacement
of
existing
rentals
or
co-ops.
As
a
renter,
I've
been
happy
in
three
to
five
story:
garden
apartments
with
trees
outside
my
window
and
a
place
for
children
to
play
safely.
I
think
all
families
deserve
that.
We
must
demand
the
schools,
community,
centers
and
parks
be
planned
from
the
outset.
C
E
I
I
C
C
E
E
M
M
M
If
we
had
legalized
four
plexes
and
apartments
across
the
city
decades
ago,
we
wouldn't
be
facing
this
problem,
but
we
didn't-
and
here
we
are
continuing
the
status
quo
or
delaying
this
plan
will
only
perpetuate
the
housing
crisis.
Blocking
densification
to
prevent
displacement
is
ahead
in
the
fans,
short-term
response.
M
M
If
we
had
upzoned
and
legalized
departments
decades
ago,
there
would
be
plenty
of
housing
for
displaced
renters
to
move
into,
but
we
didn't
do
that,
and
now
we
face
a
situation
where
some
people
have
to
lose.
It's
important
to
recognize
that
blocking
new
development
is
what
caused
the
problems
we
now
face.
M
E
M
Hello
counselors.
I
appreciate
the
number
of
speakers
so
I'll.
Try
to
keep
my
comments
briefed,
I
am
speaking
in
support
of
mayor
stewart's
proposed
expanded
tenant
protections.
I
would
also
urge
the
council
to
go
further
setting
up
enforcement
mechanisms
to
ensure
tenant
protection
policies
are
followed
and
to
explore,
building
and
administering
social
and
co-op
housing,
as
well
as
implementing
rent
controlled
time
to
the
unit.
I've
been
renting
housing
in
vancouver
predominantly
on
the
east
side
for
15
years,
within
six
different
apartments.
M
In
that
time,
with
six
different
landlords
and
roughly
double
my
rent
with
each
move
at
the
moment,
rents
are
rising
so
quickly.
In
the
city
year
to
year
the
vtu's
rental
survey
report,
the
renter's
plan
found
that
within
buildings
the
landlord
could
expect
to
increase
rent
by
as
much
as
25
once
a
long-term
tenant
moved
out.
I
expect
this
won't
get
worse
as
rents
continue
to
increase.
So
mayor,
stewart's
proposal
for
the
right
of
return
will
occur
at
the
same
rent
or
lower,
will
help
reduce
profitability
and
therefore
attractiveness
of
addiction.
M
If
the
right
of
return
is
not
guaranteed
to
be
the
same
or
less,
and
instead
is
20
of
the
city
average,
as
currently
suggesting
the
broadway
plan,
many
long-term
tenants
will
be
priced
out
anyway,
as
the
rank
app
has
found.
The
bq's
renter's
plan
found
a
roughly
60
gap
between
the
median
reported
rent
paid
by
tenants
and
the
median
market
rental.
M
It
can
be
also
be
expected
that
the
city
average
rents
will
rise,
arguably,
as
a
direct
result
of
the
potential
for
development
driving
up
housing
costs
in
the
area.
I
have
concerns
over
enforcement
and
interpretation
by
city
staff,
we'll
suggest
to
council
and
overseeing
body
or
inspection
service
of
some
kind
be
implemented
at
a
city.
A
M
It's
important
to
remember
that
when
we
talk
about
the
profits
of
developers
and
landlords,
we
are
talking
about
revenue
provided
by
tenants.
It
is
not
passive
income,
it
is
my
income,
my
wages,
my
labor
and
the
labor
of
other
tenants.
We
are
the
ones
paying
my
language
mortgage
property
taxes,
utilities
and
also
providing
them
with
an
attractive
profit
margin.
M
E
M
Good
afternoon
council,
my
name
is
sam,
gary
goslow,
and
I'm
calling
in
today,
speaking
in
support
of
the
broadway
plan,
specifically
the
creative
district,
around
great
northern
way.
Let
me
just
say:
I'm
really
excited
about
the
new
plan.
I
grew
up
here
in
vancouver.
I
run
two
companies
here
in
vancouver
professionally,
I'm
co-founder
and
president
of
vaccines
and
dapper
labs
we're
two
homegrown
rapidly
growing
tech
companies
employing
more
than
600
people
all
around.
M
You
know
we
wanted
to
relocate
to
a
place
where
we
could
see
our
team
growing,
working
together
and
building
a
community
while
at
the
same
time
feeling
safe
and
comfortable
doing
so.
We
wanted
to
be
a
part
of
an
ecosystem
that,
had
you
know,
creative
innovators,
learners
and
makers
all
around
in
the
broadway
plan.
It
references
a
high-tech
and
creative
sector
tenant
that
would
be
attracted
to
this
area
because
of
the
large
office
floor,
spaces
and
the
potential
that
it
has
for
creative
collaboration
with
other
organizations.
M
The
one
thing
missing
I
would
say,
and
something
that
our
employees
struggle
with
daily
is
the
lack
of
daily
needs
and
amenities
in
the
area.
So
this
would
be
a
great
opportunity
to
build
new
housing
to
amplify
the
job
space,
while
also
also
building
local
and
community
serving
retail
and
also
retaining
the
industrial
drop
space
around
it.
M
For
us,
we
need
this
housing
to
retain
our
jobs
here
in
the
town
here
in
vancouver,
there's
already
a
lot
of
competition
all
around
for
for
smart
and
bright
people,
we
have
a
very
walkable
city,
and
with
this
new
subway
and
the
potential
for
new
housing,
we
could
really
have
something
special
in
our
hands.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
taking
the
time
to
to
listen
to
me
in
support
of
this
plan.
E
A
Yeah
two
questions:
there's
been
talk
about
putting
in
a
integrated
water
management
creek
through
that
area,
to
really
connect
that
area
to
the
land
and
waters.
Do
you
think
that's
something
that
the
staff
that
work
with
you
is
something
they
would
want
and
be
kind
of
a
way
to
entice
people
to
a
headquarters
is
really
recognizing
that
it's
on
the
waters.
A
Yeah
and
quick
second
one
they've
talked
about
a
24-hour
like
really
making
this
a
district
that
works
kind
of
all
hours
of
the
night.
It's
kind
of
creative
district.
Do
you
think?
That's
something
that
a
city
of
our
size
should
kind
of
focus
on
is
not
just
the
nine
to
five
but
the
different
techs
and
the
different
communities
that
were
kind
of
through
the
night.
M
M
A
A
A
The
reason
why
we
chose
to
remain
in
the
south
creek
flats
area
and
in
the
broadway
corridors
most
of
the
over
the
past
number
of
years.
Our
staff
have
sort
of
built
their
lives
here.
Their
daycare,
this
is
their
their
housing,
needs
close
access
and
proximity
to
the
to
the
transit
system.
On
the
skytrain
and
echoing
the
previous
speaker,
we
would
like
to
see
more
amenities
that
extend
further
into
the
evening
here,
as
well
as
more
food
and
beverage
opportunities
that
come
along
with
it.
A
We
feel
it's
important
as
part
of
our
brand
ethos
and
business
ethos
to
reduce
the
amount
of
carbon
footprint
we
put
into
the
end
of
the
world,
and
in
doing
so
we
try
to
encourage
our
staff
to
live
close
to
where
they
work.
In
most
cases,
we're
able
to
do
so
so
adding
more,
affordable
housing
or
adding
more
housing
in
general
will
certainly
help
us
do
that.
A
A
So
we
support
the
broadway
plan
and
all
that
it
brings
to
the
table
in
terms
of
housing
and
bringing
more
people
into
the
area.
We
certainly
see
a
demand
for
jobs
here
in
vancouver,
and
one
of
the
rate
limiting
factors
for
us
is
cost
of
housing
and
the
availability
of
housing.
So
anything
we
can
do
to
continue
to
attract
talent,
make
sure
we've
got
a
deep
bench
of
people
that
are
willing
and
able
to
work
at
nec
as
well
as
to
get
outside
we're.
All
in
support
of.
Thank
you
very
much.
E
A
I
have
a
quick
question
recognizing
that
the
mec
building
was
the
first
salmon
safe
building
on
the
falls
creek
flat.
Now
nature's
path
is
falling
suit.
Do
you
think
we
should
be
utilizing
elements
of
salmon
safe
design
on
the
flats,
recognizing
that
this
growth
that
will
happen
in
that
area,
still
needs
to
be
in
harmony
with
the
traditional
lands
there
and
the
water
lands
that
used
to
be
there?
A
E
D
Good
afternoon
marin,
council,
my
name
is
emma
macklin
and
I'm
speaking
in
favor
of
the
broadway
plan.
Today,
I'm
born
and
raised
vancouveride,
and
until
very
recently,
I
lived
near
commercials
of
broadway
very
familiar
with
the
99
bus
having
taken
that
route
daily
during
my
four-year
degree
at
ubc.
D
This
area
has
obviously
been
long
been
one
of
the
centers
of
rapid
transit
in
our
city,
and
the
broadway
plan
acknowledges
that
and
factors
it
into
the
city's
future
thinking
having
lived
in
the
area
since
I
was
born
and
intimately
familiar
with
the
increase
in
density
that
east
vancouver
has
experienced
as
of
late.
I
support
the
additional
density,
and
so
I'm
not
complaining
at
all.
In
fact,
I'd
actually
say
that
the
new
foot
traffic
and
new
retail
has
added
vibrancy
to
the
neighborhood.
D
What
I
like
about
the
broadway
plan
is
that,
after
years
of
hard
work
and
planning
and
engagement
undertaken
by
staff,
the
vision
spreading
the
density
along
one
of
the
most
major
arterials
in
the
city,
all
while
addressing
many
city
priorities
and
alleviating
the
housing
crisis,
I
really
believe
that
multi-family
living
is
the
way
forward.
So
many
of
us
renters
are
used
to
living
in
high-rises
with
smaller
floor
plates
already.
D
I
know
that
people
are
upset
at
the
prospect
of
the
city
changing,
but
frankly,
it's
already
changed.
We've
seen
massive
growth
in
population
and
we
need
to
start
growing
together
and
not
be
increasing
any
divides
that
already
exist.
So,
in
short,
I'm
fully
supportive
of
the
plan
as
it's
presently
contemplated,
and
I
encourage
council's
expedient
support
as
well
thanks.
So
much.
E
K
Hello,
my
name
is
anna
holton.
Thank
you
for
listening
to
me
today.
I'm
a
fairview
resident
and
I
oppose
the
broadway
plan
as
currently
conceived.
Please
refer
back
to
planning
staff
for
specific
amendments.
I
was
born
in
vancouver
and
lived
here,
90
percent
of
my
life,
I
rented
for
40
years,
the
last
20
in
a
kits
three-story
walk-up.
Fortunately,
I
was
able
to
buy
a
fairview
condo
in
2012
upon
selling
my
parents
home
after
they
died.
K
The
broadway
plan
will
be
a
30-year
comprehensive
area
plan
to
integrate
new
housing,
job
space
and
amenities
around
the
broadway
subway.
Why
rush
approval
without
incorporating
required
specifics
where
the
plan
is
deficient?
I
have
listened
to
the
broadway
plan
discussion.
Since
meetings
began.
May
the
18th
I
opposed
the
broadway
plan
for
these
15
reasons.
The
broadway
plan
adds
high-rise
density,
unsupported
by
any
current
housing
data
or
census.
K
Data
fails
to
address
the
housing
affordability
crisis,
which
is
not
based
on
lack
of
supply,
promotes
growth
at
three
times
vancouver's
actual
one
percent
growth
rate
relies
on
building
heights
and
built
forms
not
divulged.
Thus
lacking
citizen
approval
rescinds
four
existing
neighborhood
plans
created
through
extensive
citizen
consultation
up
zones,
massively
putting
pressure
on
existing
rentals,
which
will
cause
demo
evictions,
creates
conditions
for
huge
land
lifts,
not
leveraged
for
social
housing
and
non-profit
non-profit
co-op.
Housing
does
not
require
sufficient
below
market
housing
does
not
include
social
housing
or
not-for-profit
co-op.
K
Housing
worsens
the
climate
crisis
by
relying
on
concrete
high-rises
instead
of
wood.
Construction,
lack
specific
targets
for
new
parks
in
areas
already
woefully
short
of
them
lacks
new
community
centers
or
libraries
for
families
and
seniors
who
rely
on
them
in
the
plans
lacks
plans
for
those
fails
to
consider
additional
residents
who
will
move
into
the
planned
major
developments
at
synac,
the
9
thousand
people
moles
and
seventy
five
hundred
and
jericho
lands.
Fourteen
thousand
further,
the
new
towers
will
hide
the
mountain
views
and
concrete
canyon,
while
destroying
vancouver's,
unique
character
and
neighborhoods.
K
This
is
an
insurmountable
problem,
so
why
not
include
specifics
in
future
par
of
future
parks
in
the
broadway
plan,
then
I
wondered:
how
does
the
authority
to
create
parks
arise?
I
had
to
learn
about
local
government
to
understand
why-
and
this
is
what
I
discovered
the
vancouver
plan.
Part
23
parks
gives
the
elected
park
board
the
exclusive
possession
of
an
exclusive
jurisdiction
control
of
all
areas
designated
as
permanent
public
parks
of
the
city
in
one
of
six
ways
prescribed
in
section
four.
K
Eighty
five,
five
sub
five,
the
three
ways
require
requiring
action
by
council
are
real
property
may
be
designated
as
a
permanent
public
park
by
council
resolution
or
bylaw
by
statutory
appropriation
or
a
purchase
made
with
funds
borrowed
with
the
assent
of
the
electors.
So
there's
active
activity
or
action
required
of
council
to
create
a
park.
K
Then
I
wondered:
are
there
provincial
legal
requirements
for
the
city's
broadway
plan,
which
is
an
official
community
plan?
The
bc
government
website
official
community
plans
for
local
government
states,
the
city
of
vancouver,
has
the
authority
to
develop
official
development
plans
under
the
vancouver
charter.
Official
community
plans
must
include
certain
plan
statements
and
map
designations
for
a
residential
development
required
to
meet
anticipated
housing
needs
for
five
plus
years
present
and
proposed
recreational
land
uses
and
present
and
proposed
public
facilities,
including
schools,
parks
and
so
on.
K
As
an
official
development
plan,
the
broadway
plan
must
include
planned
statements
and
map
designations
for
present
and
proposed
recreational
land
uses
school
parks
under
bc
law.
However,
the
broadway
plan's
info
regarding
parks
at
pages,
399
and
400
does
not
include
map
designations
of
proposed
parks,
so
it
should
be
referred
back
to
planning
staff
council
will
need
to
provide
specific
instructions,
read
the
plan,
statements
and
map
designations
for
parks
and
schools.
K
I
had
a
look
at
that
memo
that
supported
the
motion
by
parks
board
and
there
may
be
a
typo
or
mathematical
error
in
the
figure
the
park
board
provided
the
council,
it
said
five
new
parks
would
be
required
and
gave
13
hectares
as
a
figure.
I've
emailed
counselor.
Sorry,
commissioner,
dumont
seeking
clarification
of
the
park
board's
recommended
part
provision
target.
So
far
it
had
no
reply.
K
Vancouver
park
board
did
not
endorse
the
broadway
plan.
At
its
may
17th
meeting
the
park
board
learned
its
general
manager
does
not
concur
with
the
plan
submitted
to
council
during
discussion.
The
part
board,
commissioners
were
also
told
park
board
staff
do
not
support
the
broadway
plan
because
their
input
was
seemingly
disregarded
by
city
planning
staff.
K
Commissioner
irwin
spoke
in
support
of
the
broadway
plan.
This
may
have
created
some
confusion
regarding
the
unanimity
of
the
part
board
motion.
But
having
watched
the
recording
of
the
park
boards
may
17
meeting,
I
may
be
able
to
clarify
what
occurred
after
the
broadway
plan
motion
carried.
Commissioner
irwin
requested
permission
to
speak
to
city
council.
The
park
board
chair
granted
irwin
permission
to
speak
on
his
own
behalf,
I.e
expressing
his
personal
views.
The
parkour
motion
involved
two
parts
erwin
voted
for
open
space
and
recreation
targets,
but
opposed
the
shadow
protection
extension.
K
Perhaps
that
would
explain
why
irwin's
answer
was
gave
an
unequivocal,
an
equivocal
reply
when
asked.
If
he
had
supported
the
park
board
motion,
we
not
only
have
too
few
parks,
but
there
are
incursions
on
the
existing
parts
we
have
green
space
is
being
eroded.
The
park
board
needs
to
balance
competing
needs
and
tries
to
maximum
use.
You
maximize
use
of
current
parks.
As
a
result,
some
part
green
space
is
being
converted
to
fence
off
leaf
dog
park
areas
in
charleston,
granville
and
heather
parks,
or
to
lap
swimming
pools
in
mount
pleasant
and
hillcrest
center.
E
E
I
K
K
Patrick
condon
suggested
wood
frame,
low
rises
and
other
speakers
have
referred
to
european
cities.
Condon
also
recommended
the
city
hire
a
consultant
with
expertise
on
incorporating
not-for-profit
and
social
housing
into
the
proposed
mix
and
how
to
leverage
and
capture
land
lift
for
the
public
benefit.
K
So
several
times
in
the
meeting
chair
carr
has
expressed
the
need
to
report
re-prioritize
city
streets
as
public
space
without
cars
she
mentioned
a
target
of
11
percent.
It
was
suggested
with
the
need
to
move
faster
in
this
connect
connection
because
of
climate
emergency.
I
would
suggest
that
consideration
be
given
to
adopting
barcelona's
superblocks
idea.
I
can
send
you
articles
about
it
I'll.
Just
briefly
explain.
Barcelona
superblocks
are
nine
block
grids
that
reclaim
streets
from
cars
and
turn
them
into
pedestrian
first
zones
in
a
super
block.
K
Traffic
flows
around
the
perimeter,
while
their
interior
streets
are
reserved
for
pedestrians,
playgrounds,
public
space
and
minimal
local
traffic
city
planners,
could
amend
the
broadway
plan,
adding
low
to
mid-rise
wooden
structures
in
barcelona
superblocks
or
they
could
go
to
many
blocks
or
just
two
by
two
grids.
Utilizing
the
barcelona
superblocks
street
reprioritization
could
occur
to
add
new
public
spaces.
Low
and
mid-rise
buildings
are
most
suited
for
super
blocks,
because
low
built
forms
keep
shadows
to
a
minimum.
K
K
Please,
the
failure
to
add
specific
targets
for
new
parks
is
no
mere
imperfection
which
can
be
tweaked
later.
Not
including
specific
targets
for
future
parks
is
a
fundamental
legal
defect
of
the
broadway
plan,
which
must
be
fixed
before
approval.
That's
why
the
park
board
did
not
endorse
the
plan
and
why
the
udp
also
criticized
it,
and
that.
L
Thanks
so
much
I
I
just
had
some
questions
sparked
by
your
comments
on
on
reclaiming
the
public
realm
and
I'm
wondering
right
now.
In
this
plan,
we'd
be
looking
at
at
rental
and
rental
doesn't
offer.
You
know
the
same
amount
of
amenities
that
we
can
put
towards
things
like
parks
and
green
space
and
public
realm
community
centers
that
sort
of
thing,
as
we
saw
sort
of
in
yale
town.
L
So
I'm
wondering
do
you
think
that
if
the
trade-off
was
to
have
some
more
strata,
condo
or
you
know
more
affordable
home
ownership
options,
along
with
the
rental
that
generated
the
development
fees
and
or
the
cacs
or
dcc's
that
would
see
us
be
able
to
deliver
on
these
amenities?
Is
that
something
you
would
want
to
see
changed.
K
Okay,
I'm
not
a
city
planner,
but
I've
been
listening
to
all
the
meetings.
I
think
that
the
dcls
and
the
cacs
and
those
sorts
of
things
are
too
limited
and
they're
often
also
waived
by
city
council
for
developments.
I
don't
believe
that
the
high-rise
form
is
the
way
to
go.
I
believe
that
we
should
be
having
low
rises,
new
low
rises
built
with
wood
construction
rather
than
using
concrete.
So
I'm
just.
K
No,
no,
I
didn't
want
me
to
talk
about
about
giving
up
the
street
amenities
the
park
amenities
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
that
we
can
have.
We
can
have
monies
from
rental
high
rises.
I
don't
see
that
rentals
can't
be
in
low
rises.
Many
of
them
currently
are,
and
they
can
continue
to
be.
We
can
develop
new
ones
if
we
look
to
leveraging
the
land
lift.
L
But
if
the
only
way
that
we
can
can
fund
the
amenities
in
the
public
realm
that
you
speak
of
is
by
trading
off
some
of
that
rental
for
strata
condo,
because
strata
condo
does
generate
cacs,
would
you
be
comfortable
with
that?
Would
you
be
comfortable
with
trading
off
some
of
the
rental
for
strata
condo.
K
I'm
not
going
to
answer
that
question
because
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
it.
What
I
want
to
remind
you
of
is
that
patrick
condon
suggested
that
you
need
to
get
an
expert
in
with
expertise
and
how
to
incorporate
not-for-profit
housing
and
social
housing
and
also
to
leverage
the
landlord
so
that
you
can
fund
these
kinds
of
things.
The
city
residents
have
spoken
and
they
do
not
want
a
massive,
concrete
canyon.
As
the
developments
in
this
area.
E
G
Yeah
I
was
gonna,
ask
I've
been
to
barcelona
and
I
know
that
they,
because
they
had
a
significant
increase
in
population,
that
they
really
made
huge
efforts.
Degree
in
the
downtown
core,
including
vertical
living,
greenery
and
walls.
Can
you
describe
a
bit
more
kind
of
the
experience
of
what
it's
like
on
the
interior?
Do
you
have
a
chance
to
walk
through
some
of
those
nine
block
areas.
K
Actually,
as
a
retired
librarian,
I've
only
read
about
it.
I
haven't
been
to
barcelona
to
experience
that.
However,
I've
spent
quite
a
lot
of
time
in
prague
because
my
brother
lives
there.
I've
spent
six
or
seven
months
there
in
total
five
at
one
point,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
there
there
are
many
parks
in
his
neighborhood,
their
low-rise
densification
everywhere
below
stairs
grocery
stores.
There
must
be
three
or
four
grocery
stores
within
a
five
or
seven
block
radius
of
my
brother's
flat
and
there's
three
parks
in
his
area.
K
So
I
know
that
there's
different
ways
that
we
can
conceive
of
cities
and
it's
a
very
livable
city
and
also
right
outside
his
door-
are
trams,
going
both
directions.
The
tram
stops
there.
When
I
come
back
to
vancouver,
I
think
oh,
my
gosh,
I
miss
the
transit
in
prague
and
I
miss
the
walkability
and
the
beauty
of
prague
and
I
don't
want
vancouver
where
I
was
born
to
be
destroyed.
G
K
Brother's
building
is
135
years
old,
it
was
built
in
1905,
it's
a
concrete
sort
of
walk
up
and
it
has
a
small
elevator,
but
the
elevator
is
so
small.
It
only
carries
one
person
in
a
couple
suitcases
and
it
stops
at
half
floors
because
it's
tacked
on
the
back
of
the
building.
So
basically
it's
a
walk-up.
G
K
K
Prague
is
unique
in
that
it,
it
protects
its
skyline
and
its
views
because
it
says
that
the
density
has
to
be
outside
the
city.
They
they
say
from
standing
at
prague
castle
looking
around.
They
want
to
keep
the
view
of
the
low
rise
of
the
center,
so
there
are
high-rises
out
in
the
periphery
in
hajja.
H-A-J-E
is
one
place
and
some
of
the
other
places
where
I
have
been
to
on
the
metro
system.
K
I've
seen
these
conglomerations
but
they're
far
out
of
the
city
they're,
certainly
not
in
the
city,
ruining
the
beauty
of
prague,
which
is
an
unbelievably
beautiful
place
and
part
of
the
reason
it's
so
beautiful
is
that
the
the
fronts
of
the
buildings
have
great
articulation
and
masonry,
vancouver,
of
course,
being
a
much
younger
place.
We
don't
have
any
of
that.
E
P
P
I'm
also
concerned
because
a
lot
of
people
who
live
in
the
area
don't
necessarily
want
to
live
downtown,
but
it
seems
like
we're
building
another.
They
want
to
live
in
livable
neighborhoods
communities,
places
where
there's
parks
and
schools
and
a
sense
of
neighborhood.
They
don't
necessarily
want
to
live
in
high
rises.
P
I
recently
had
to
move
and
I
almost
ended
up
in
a
building
where
there
was
you
know
it
was
all
glass
and
cement
and
even
though
the
apartment
I
looked
at
was
up
on
the
top
floor,
it
was
noisy
because
you
could
hear
dogs
barking,
echoing
through
the
alleys
people
on
rooftop
patios.
It
was
not
quiet,
it
was
not
peaceful.
So
I
I
don't
think
that
adding
countless
high-rises
adds
the
livability
of
our
city.
People
want
quality
of
life
and
they
they
live
in
vancouver,
because
it's
not
toronto,
because
it's
not
new
york.
P
They
live
here
because
it
is,
you
know,
a
beautiful
city
they're
here
to
connect
with
nature.
They
they
they
live
here
because
of
the
green
space
that
surrounds
it
and
they
want
to
be
connected
to
that.
Another
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
rents
are
directly
related
to
price.
The
night
of
the
last
meeting.
P
I
took
a
quick
look
on
realtor.ca
and
there
were
seven
listings
under
half
a
million
dollars
and
1048
over
half
a
million
dollars,
so
that
just
goes
to
show
that
the
affordability,
the
ability
for
people
to
live
at
you
know
to
you,
know
whether
it's
to
purchase
or
to
or
to
or
to
rent
is,
is
really
compromised
and
the
rents
are
directly
related
to
price.
So
somebody
asked
the
question
about
you
know:
would
you
trade
up
some
of
that
rental
housing
for
condos?
P
The
problem
is
those
condos
just
get
rented
out
and
become
I
mean
they
become
rental
housing,
but
then
the
rents
are
directly
related
to
the
price.
So
I
do
think
we
need
to
incorporate
far
more
nonprofit
housing
and
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
there,
not
being
a
lot
of
space
in
this
city.
But
if
you
look
at
main
street
below
30th,
there's
tiny
houses
like
they're
they're,
it's
not
built
up,
so
I
do
think
we
need
to
spread
out
this.
This
concept
of
density.
P
There
is
space
in
the
city,
it's
just
not
being
well
used.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
point
out,
very
importantly,
is
this
right
of
first
refusal
is
an
absolute
joke,
developers
don't
comply
and
it's
left
to
the
renters
to
fight.
This
happened
to
a
neighbor
of
mine
across
the
street.
She
was
essentially
run
evicted.
She
moved
to
a
new
place
was
supposed
to
have
writer
first
refusal.
I
watched
as
they
rented
out
every
apartment
in
that
building
and
then
the
developer
sells
the
building.
P
They
never
came
back
to
her
and
she
could
have
fought
it.
But
then
it's
up
to
her.
The
onus
is
on
her
to
to
you
know,
file
with
the
residential
tenancy
branch
to
get
a
lawyer
to
fight
it.
People
are
already
exhausted:
they've
lost
their
homes,
they're
having
to
resettle
themselves.
You
know,
they're,
the
fight
gets
left
to
the
tenants.
So
you
know
this
is
a
real
issue,
because
I
don't
have
confidence
when
the
mayor
says
that
people
are
going
to
be
able
to
come
back
with
the
same
rent.
P
We've
already
seen,
developers
take
advantage
of
that
and
find
unique
ways
to
not
adhere
to
those
policies
such
as
providing
the
same
rent
by
raising
the
rent
and
then
providing
a
discount
for
two
years
or
something
of
that
nature.
So
there's
all
sorts
of
stories
about
this
and
it
doesn't
happen
the
way
it's
supposed
to,
and
then
the
last
thing
I
have
to
say
is
that
20,
affordable
housing
is
not
enough
and
the
city
really
needs
to
sort
of
look
at
what
it
it
considers
affordable
housing.
P
It's
often
you
know
it's
a
percentage
lower
than
market
rent,
but
market
rents
are
going
up
and
up
and
up
and
up
and
again
it's
all
this
speculation.
It's
building
the
city
towards
you
know
growing
it
which,
and
somebody
made
that
point-
do
we
need
to
grow
this
city
or
make
it
a
livable
like
a
thriving
livable
city,
with
the
capacity
that
it
has
and
what
is
our
focus?
P
So
I
oppose
the
broadway
plan
as
it
currently
exists,
and
I
think
it
really
needs
to
be
revisited
to
to
spread
out
that
concept
of
density
to
to
have
that
housing
but
lower
either
smaller.
You
know
low,
like
either
low
rises
or
mid
rises.
You
know
built
across
the
city
in
a
way
that
it
maintains
livability
and
provides
an
affordable,
livable
city.
E
K
K
K
The
udp
advises
planning,
department
and
city
council
on
development
and
urban
design
policy
and
protects
the
interests
of
the
public
spaces.
We
live
work
and
play
in
city
hall.
Watch
stated
that
the
live
feed
was
not
working
on
that
day
of
the
udp
meeting,
so
nobody
was
able
to
tune
in
and
that
the
video
recording
was
not
has
not
been
posted
on
the
city's
website.
K
City
hall
watch
requested
the
video
recording
through
foi,
but
had
only
received
it
yesterday,
the
day
before
the
possible
final
deliberations
of
the
broadway
plan,
so
the
video
recording
was
withheld
and
then
they
decided
to
send
it
at
the
11th
hour.
It
just
seems
to
me
that
it
wasn't
an
entirely
honest
process
and
believed
and
makes
me
wonder
what
is
it
that
staff
wanted
to
hide
from
city
council
and
the
public
I'd
like
to
mention
some
of
these
recommended
changes.
That
was
stated
as
follows.
K
K
The
plan
area
includes
some
of
vancouver's
great
character,
neighborhoods
kit
granville
mount
pleasant.
The
plan
may
ruin
all
of
these
areas
and
someone
else
said
I
am
disappointed
about
the
lack
of
information
about
design
for
the
disabled.
The
disabled
and
seniors
communities
are
waiting
to
get
more
involved
in
the
plan.
K
K
K
K
So
my
suggestion
and
alignment
with
the
urban
design
panel
members
is
to
densify,
but
at
a
more
human
scale,
along
broadway
near
transit
station,
but
leave
the
shoulder
shoulder
areas
alone,
where
there's
currently
tons
of
affordable
rental
homes
and
afford
and
sorry,
affordable
rental
homes
and
neighborhood
character
and
allow
for
low
rises
only
if
necessary
and
create
more
parts
and
green
spaces
and
community
amenities.
I
think
this
would
be
a
fair
compromise
in
closing.
K
E
H
Hello,
chair
carr,
mayor
and
city
council,
my
name
is
devin
hesse,
I'd
like
to
start
off
by
wishing
you
a
good
morning
evening,
night,
whatever
it
is
already,
I
imagine
that
after
so
many
hours
spent
in
these
meetings
over
the
last
few
weeks,
you
might
be
struggling
to
keep
up.
I
know
I
certainly
am
and
frankly
I'll
be
glad
when
this
is
over.
You
see
I'm
sick
of
seeing
notice
cards
news
coverage
posters,
not
to
mention
dozens
of
emails
about
the
broadway
plans,
various
updates,
open
house
events
and
virtual
meetings.
H
H
Naturally,
over
that
time,
like
all
things,
my
opinions
have
evolved
and
sometimes
even
conflicted
with
each
other
in
the
middle
of
our
housing
crisis,
it
was
tough
for
an
average
person
like
me
to
understand
why
your
staff
chose
to
drastically
cut
back
the
scale
you
originally
proposed.
For
the
apartment
zone,
the
few
explanations
make
sense
to
me:
now:
it's
eliminating
five
floors
of
housing
on
each
of
these
future
buildings
and
limiting
them
to
one
per
block
means
development
is
focused
elsewhere
and
existing
renters.
My
friends
are
displaced.
What
more
can
I
ask
for?
H
However,
horses
can't
survive,
let
alone
function
if
they're,
only
speaking
with
six,
they
need
carrots
to
thrive,
and
that's
where
the
broadway
plan
comes
up
short.
I
worry,
there's
not
enough
growth
being
allowed
in
the
areas
where
homeowners
like
me
live.
We
should
do
everything
possible
to
ensure
the
vast
majority
of
development
happens
where
the
only
people
who
have
to
move
actually
want
to
do
so.
H
Maybe
it's
because
I'm
not
a
realtor
or
a
developer,
but
I
don't
see
how
a
three-story
rental,
building
with
a
one-four
space
ratio,
will
ever
complete
a
multi-million
dollar
detached
home
or
slightly
cheaper
duplex
with
a
0.754
area
on
a
single
loss.
In
my
own
neighborhood,
the
fairview
slope,
the
six
floor,
rental
don't
have
six
floor,
rental
buildings
being
envisioned
are
hardly
different
from
our
existing
strata
homes,
especially
since
we'll
obviously
have
to
have
access
to
sunlight,
which
may
essentially
means
we'll
only
be
five
fourths
tall
against
a
hilly
neighborhood.
H
My
neighbors
aren't
scared
of
shadows,
though,
and
you
don't
need
to
be
scared
of
them
either.
Like
me,
they
welcome
more
growth
here,
and
there
are
many
survey
results
demonstrate
that
too,
plus
the
real
consequences
of
being
too
timid,
which
I
can
see
whenever
I
go
a
few
blocks
east
and
witness
the
results
of
mount
pleasant
out
of
date,
neighborhood
vision.
H
Yes,
it's
led
to
a
lot
of
great
things
that
are
enshrined
in
the
bodily
bond,
including
wonderfully
active
language,
unique
cultural
events
and
a
thriving
village
in
the
heart
of
the
city.
If
the
difficulties
of
that
old
document
are
institutional,
new
homes,
as
well
as
new
businesses
are
limited
to
busy
polluted
arterial
streets,
often
located
on
a
steep
hill
and,
of
course,
always
pulled
to
the
highest
theater,
I
get
it
a
decade
ago.
H
The
broadway
plan
recognizes
that
a
review
every
five
years
is
needed
to
keep
up
with
our
fast
moving
world,
and
that
means
the
mountain
presence
and
plan
has
failed
by
over
half
a
decade.
It
didn't
know
of
a
world
where
there
was
a
neural
festival,
let
alone
mass
member
construction
and
passive
house
building.
H
Nor
could
anyone
expect
that,
as
a
society,
we
would
fail
to
address
climate
change,
that
a
pandemic
would
shape
our
institutions
for
the
course
and
that
europe
would
be
gripped
by
madman's
war.
I
can't
imagine
what
the
next
few
years
will
bring.
How
many
refugees
will
come
into
our
doors?
Will
we
turn
them
away,
forcing
them
to
live
in
the
suburbs
or
drive
thousands
more
to
the
streets
in
search
of
a
mythical
zone
capacity
vancouver
has
proven
we
can
confront
our
problems
like
a
real
leader.
H
Would
instead,
the
world's
tallest
pacifist
is
the
green
shining
light
on
the
hill
of
our
first
downtown.
The
world
looks
at
us.
It
emulates
us
not
because
we
are
once
a
city
of
horses
and
cars,
or
even
littered
gasoline
and
manicure
to
state
ones,
but
because
of
how
we
are
using
our
presence
to
create
a
better
future.
The
broadway
plan
continues
that
legacy.
It
gives
us
the
best
shot.
H
We
have
of
building
a
better
neighborhood,
a
better
community,
a
better
city,
I'm
sure
in
five
years
hindsight
will
show
it
has
some
small,
unexpected
vlogs,
but
nothing
could
compare
to
the
mistake
of
rejecting
it
or
worse,
yet
dismembering
it
with
last
minute,
unpublished.
Amendment
amendments
that
lack
the
public
consultation.
This
plan
has
championed
iscsb.
H
E
E
D
D
The
ymca
is
passionate
about
the
early
learning
and
development
of
children.
We
believe
every
family
that
needs
it
should
have
access
to
the
high
quality,
accessible
and
affordable
child
care
in
their
community.
The
ymca
is
supportive
of
development
in
vancouver
that
takes
into
consideration
the
child
care
needs
of
families.
D
Vancouver
needs
to
expand
child
care
spaces,
especially
as
a
part
of
new
residential
development.
We
are
thrilled
to
see
a
commitment
at
all
levels
of
government
to
support
families
and
ensure
children
get
the
best
possible
start.
We
are
particularly
pleased
to
see
the
ongoing
priority
that
the
city
of
vancouver
has
placed
on
early
learning
and
child
care
over
the
years.
D
The
ymca
is
an
important
partner
in
supporting
child
care
expansion.
We
are
the
largest
provider
of
licensed
child
care
in
british
columbia,
providing
high
quality
care
to
over
4
000
children
in
the
city
of
vancouver.
We
operate
nearly
1500
early
years
in
school-aged
child
care
spaces
at
over
35
locations.
D
D
D
In
the
city
of
vancouver,
the
ymca
has
one
hundred
and
three
children.
Excuse
me
on
childcare
waitlist.
We
know
child
care,
expansion
helps
children
and
families
in
the
local
economy.
Not
only
does
it
enable
more
parents
to
remain
in
the
workforce,
it
also
employs
professionals
in
the
community.
The
ymca
is
a
large
employer
through
many
of
our
programs
and
services,
including
including
over
600
early
years
in
school-aged
child
care
professionals
across
greater
vancouver.
D
This
is
another
important
benefit
to
the
city
of
vancouver
and
the
expansion
of
child
care,
boosting
local
employment
opportunities
for
child
care
professionals.
Partnerships
between
the
ymca
municipalities
has
enabled
considerable
growth
in
child
care
programs
across
greater
vancouver.
We
want
to
continue
to
be
part
of
this
important
growth
and
support
the
development
that
makes
it
easier
for
families
to
find
and
access
the
care
they
need
where
they
live
and
work.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention.
I
just
had
to
hop
off
the
bus
when
all
those
speakers
were
not
on
the
line.
I'm
a
renter,
a
parent
of
two,
a
partner
to
a
hospital
employees,
union
member
who
lives
in
the
corridor
and
work
near
it
too.
Much
of
this
debate
has
been
focused
on
the
interests
of
landowners
and
developers
and
the
fever
dream
spheres
of
family
veiled,
nativism
opposed
to
any
and
all
plans
for
adding
war
neighbors.
A
Whenever
we
have
transit
infrastructure
added
with
the
support
of
federal
and
provincial
funding,
there
should
be
lots
of
affordable,
accessible
housing
added,
as
well
with
the
support
of
federal
and
provincial
funding.
Instead
of
transit-based
displacement,
we
need
transit-based
public
benefit
development.
Hospital
workers,
for
instance,
should
be
able
to
walk
or
take
a
short
transit
trip
to
work.
That's
a
basic
building
block
in
terms
of
livability
sustainability
and
emergency
planning
as
well.
A
A
number
of
major
changes
are
needed
to
serve
the
public
interest
rather
than
narrow,
profit-based
interest.
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
agree
with
chfbc
co-op
housing,
who
said
the
target
of
20
below
markets
or
non-markets
is
not
nearly
ambitious
enough
and
that
the
plan
should
include
provisions
to
set
aside
sites
for
community
housing
developers
as
a
first
step
to
increasing
the
number
of
non-market
homes.
A
In
my
view,
a
much
higher
target
for
public
housing
is
necessary.
A
target
of
50
or
more
would
hand
down
speculation
and
also
encourage
the
city
to
take
seriously
the
eminently
doable
proposal
of
a
mass
filled
out
publicly
owned
rental
housing.
Ccpa
has
done
a
lot
of
work
on
how
this
is
possible
and
profitable
over
the
long
term
for
the
public
sector.
A
I
also
agree
with
the
tenants
union
which
I've
been
a
member
since
its
founding
and
their
recommendations
include
stronger
tenant
protections,
including
the
right
of
return
at
the
same
or
lower
rent.
I
know
others
are
moving
amendments
to
that
direction
as
well.
The
real
vacancy
control
tied
to
the
unit
and
the
right
of
tenants
to
organize
and
collectively
bargain
the
vacancy
control
proposed
in
the
current
draft
of
the
plan
is
not
actually
vacancy
control
because
it
allows
for
resetting
the
rents
at
the
city-wide
average
minus
20
20
at
the
end
of
the
tennessee.
A
Finally,
I
wanted
to
say
I
agreed,
I
agree
with
the
dissenting
opinion
of
the
two
vancouver
city
planning
commissioners,
who
denounced
the
lack
of
universal
accessibility
requirements
in
the
plan.
We
need
more
bike
lanes,
we
need
more
side,
but
we
also
need
more
sidewalks
curb
cut,
lift
air
conditioning
installs
and
much
much
more.
The
lives
of
people
are
more
important
than
the
pro
formas
and
profit
margins.
Please
keep
this
basic
hermeneutic
top
of
your
mind,
while
debating
and
voting
on
amendments
at
the
center
of
the
broadway
plan.
A
The
last
point
here
is:
is
a
city-owned
block,
just
north
of
city
hall,
stretching
from
camby
to
yukon
broadway
to
10th
avenue,
it's
currently
a
staging
site
for
subway
construction,
but
my
hope
is
that
when
future
city
councillors
or
some
of
you
that
get
reelected
two
or
three
more
terms
when
you
look
out
the
windows
there
at
city
hall,
towards
the
north
shore
mountains,
those
views
will
be
partially
obstructed
by
beautiful,
co-op
and
public
housing.
That's
possible
and
it's
in
your
hands.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
A
Yeah,
clearly
not,
and
for
a
number
of
reasons
I
would
say
one
one
reason
that
I
didn't
touch
on
the
plan
doesn't
actually
deal
with
adding
enough
more
density
in
some
of
the
lower
density
areas
along
the
corridor.
It
it
actually
envisions
towers
or
very
small
buildings
in
in
some
of
the
some
of
the
areas
where
they
could
add
more
housing.
So
there's
that
and
also
that
yeah
the
20
below
city-wide
average
in
20
of
the
units.
A
If
these
are,
if
amendments
happen
that
make
these
more
generous
tenant
protections
or
better
guarantees
for
people
to
go
back
at
the
same
rate
or
lower
rate,
that
means
there
won't
be.
There
won't
be
more
new
units
for
new
people
to
move
in,
and
we
know
the
city
has
been
missing
all
of
its
targets
on
housing,
for
people
making
under
eighty
thousand
dollars
a
year,
the
types
of
people
who
claim
the
hospital
or
work
in
the
service
sector
in
the
sole
corridor
yeah.
A
I
A
Well,
I
saw
one
article
about
that
site
that
suggested
there
might
even
be
a
new
city
hall,
campus
or
part
of
the
city
campus
on
the
lower
levels.
So
clearly
there
should
be
some
commercial
and
different
uses
at
the
broadway
camby
hub,
but
why
not
put
put
co-op
housing?
On
top
of
that?
I
think
it
would
be
a
brilliant
use
of
of
city
land
and
the
kind
of
thing
we
should
be
prioritizing
on
any
any
city
on
land
near
near
the
transit
station.
G
What
about
since
housing
is
prioritized
in
this
plan
and
what
we're
hearing
the
most
is
from
people
is
the
need
to,
at
the
same
time,
prioritize
community
amenities,
lack
of
greed,
space,
etc.
What
about
maximizing
park
space
on
the
city
campus
so
to
speak?
Roof
gardens
park,
space,
public
access
and
public
space
since
we're
hearing
such
a
lot
about
that.
E
E
E
Okay,
so
I
do
have
to
go
through
the
whole
of
the
list
again,
which
I
will.
Apparently
there
are
about
10
people
on
the
line,
but
I
don't
we
don't
know
who
they
are,
so
the
clerks
need
to
check
so
we're
going
to
take
a
short,
I
think,
clerk
five
minute
break
which
allow
you
to
check.
However,
if
there's
anybody
with
them
thoughts
about
how
we
are
going
to
proceed
after
this
I'm
councillor,
kirby
young
you're,
on
thecube.
G
As
we're
going
through
this
meeting,
I
did
send
in
a
proposed
option
for
continuing
the
debate
and
decision
portion
pending
the
conclusion
of
speakers
and
questions
to
june,
the
9th,
which
is
our
reserve
date
commencing
at
3
p.m,
and
I
do
believe
that
the
clerk
should
have
that
language
to
bring
up,
and
I
have
emailed
it
to
council
just
now
too.
So.
Council
can
look
at
that
and
consider
it.
E
Thank
you.
If
you
could
just
comment
the
the
language
is
that
language
up,
yet
no
as
it's
coming
up
council,
there
is
a
the
language
that
I'm
seeing
is
it's
been
sent
to
all
of
us
that,
subject
to
the
conclusion
of
speakers
and
questions
to
staff
council
postponed
debate
and
decision
on
item
one
broadway
plan
to
june
9th
at
3
pm
steph?
Can
you
just
explain
how
you
interpret
the
subject
to
the
conclusion
of
speakers
and
questions
to
staff?
E
L
E
E
L
I'm
I'm
happy
to
support
this,
I'm
just
looking
for
some
clarity,
maybe
from
you
chair.
Maybe
it's
from
the
mover
of
the
motion.
If
we're
still
taking
our
hour-long
break,
I
usually
do,
and
I
try
and
plan
my
parenting
responsibilities
around
that.
So
I'm
just
I'm
wondering
if
we're
doing
that
or
not.
L
If
you
could
offer
me
some
clarity,
I'm
happy
to
support
this
overall,
I
wasn't
sure
if
questions
to
staff,
I
understand
are
proposed
that
we
do
those
today
if
we
get
there
and
then
come
back
for
debate
and
decision,
I'm
fine
with
that.
I
just
was
wondering
if,
if
you
could
clarify,
if
at
five
pm,
we'd
still
be
breaking
as
we
usually,
we.
L
Okay,
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
I
also
agree
that
would
be
something
I
believe
that
the
public
has
shown
great
interest
in,
and
it's
very
important
that
in
making
this
decision,
we
do
so
in
a
way
where
we
can
consider
all
of
the
answers
to
the
questions
that
we
may
have
and
reflect
on
speaker's
comments,
which
also
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
send
in
additional
questions
to
staff.
I'm
not
sure
if
I
see
them
nodding
yet.
L
E
E
E
Okay,
council,
we
have
quorum
again.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
break,
I'm
going
to
suggest
a
couple
of
things
we
we
do
have
some
speakers
on
the
line,
but
today
they've
also
been
informed.
They
should
call
back
after
our
dinner
break.
We
have
two
speakers
in
chambers
that
are
in
person
and
with
your
leave.
I
would
like
to
just
proceed
by
hearing
the
two
speakers,
which
means
I
need
a
a
motion
to
extend
to
hear.
I
E
Q
Q
I've
been
struggling
how
to
present
a
case.
A
council
may
even
consider
as
it's
much
easier
for
you
to
approve
the
broadway
plan
and
boast
about
all
the
good
things
it
promises
to
deliver
something
all
the
previous
proposals.
Around
development
and
housing
have
failed
to
deliver,
and
often
the
unintended
consequences
have
made
things
worse.
Q
Have
any
of
you
on
council
or
the
planning
department,
walk
the
neighborhood
streets
and
alleys,
where
all
this
density
is
being
planned.
Just
take
a
look,
take
a
walk
from
city
hall
to
maine,
along
10th
and
back
along
11th.
Look
at
all
the
variety
of
housing,
all
the
heritage,
designations,
the
many
single
home
family
homes
that
are
now
three
or
four
in
some
cases,
even
without
a
laneway
look
at
how
other
designs
using
several
city,
lots
have
created
even
more
housing,
and
this
is
happening
along
many
streets
across
the
city.
Q
Q
Did
planning
ever
ask
the
community
or
look
at
that
modeling?
We
have
been
densifying
at
a
pace
faster
than
population
growth
and
affordability
has
gotten
worse.
So
what
are
the
pluses
and
minuses
if
you
do
not
approve
this
massive
increase
in
density?
Has
anyone
done
the
analysis
and
if
not,
why
not?
Q
Q
Has
any
environmental
impact
analysis
been
done
on
this
versus
other
alternatives
to
density?
Have
you
looked
at
the
real
estate
listings
for
the
new
supply
of
housing
and
recently
approved?
Zonings
is
18
to
2
000,
a
square
foot,
the
new
affordable,
so
a
500
square
foot
condo
costs
millions
of
dollars
and
how
much
more
will
these
costs
be
inflated
and
the
purpose-built
rentals
have
also
resulted
in
higher
rents,
not
lower
or
stabilized.
Q
E
Q
Well,
we
basically
went
through
and
looked
where
the
hubs
were
going
to
the
stations
and
there
was
higher
density
put
there
with
with
towers
they
were
limited
to.
I
believe
it
was
20
20
stories,
23
stories
and
then
the
rest
of
the
housing
and
development
was
low-rise,
multi-taking,
multi-lot
and
creating
multiple
houses
on
it.
That
sort
of
thing,
so
it
basically
spread
the
development
across
but
kept
the
community
as
it
was
kept,
the
schools,
the
parks
and
all
the
other
things
and
allowed
a
much
gentler
introduction
of
density
into
the
area.
Q
G
Okay,
that's
that's
really
helpful
perspective.
So
in
terms
of
the
limit
to
20
stories,
do
you
see
significant
differences
in
the
proposed
heights
because
it
does
suggest
stepping
back
from
broadway
as
it
moves
into
the
neighborhoods
and
depending
upon
the
type
of
tenure,
whether
it's
rental
or
strata?
So,
do
you
see
significant
differences.
Q
The
problem,
a
lot
of
people
go
oh
strata,
we'll
we'll
we'll
add
some
condos
and
to
a
mixed
development,
and
that's
going
to
give
us
money
for
cacs
and
everything
else.
The
problem
is
that
all
of
the
development
gets
more
expensive,
now
you're,
adding
a
whole
bunch
of
other
costs
on
that.
So
who
are
the
rich
cats
if
you
like
that
are
going
to
afford
those
really
expensive
condos?
Q
If
I'm
on
I'm
a
strata
president
have
been
for
a
number
of
years,
I
deal
with
a
lot
of
other
strata.
Presidents,
if
you
look
at
the
strata
buildings
and
the
higher
they
get
the
more
complex
it
gets.
If
you
mix
residential
condos
with
rental
with
social
housing,
you
end
up
because
of
the
way
this
the
condo
act
works.
You
end
up
with
a
stratified
condo,
which
is
very
complex,
yeah.
G
Maybe
I
wasn't,
I
don't
think
I
was
very
clear
on
the
question.
I'm
just
wondering
if
you,
where
you
see
the
specific
differences
in
sort
of
the
height,
because
the
height
that
you
described
is
not
dissimilar,
but
there
is
more
extension
into
the
neighborhood.
So
is
it
the
height
on
sort
of
the
side
streets
or
like
I'm
just
looking.
Q
I
E
Q
Q
Q
Certainly
and
let's
look
at
the
options,
let's
look
at
the
data,
you
don't
make
decisions
on
one
proposal,
you
look
at
multiple
proposals
and
you
look
at
the
pluses
and
minuses.
I
don't
see
any
of
that
in
any
of
this.
My
background's
consulting,
I
was
always
brought
in
when
things
were
really
broken
in
big
corporations
and
help
them
get
things
back
on
track.
This
is
really
broken.
It
needs
to
get
back
on
track.
Q
A
Q
You
and
you
sat
in
a
lot
of
means,
but
I
mean
we
walked
the
streets
too,
like
I
that's
the
thing
you
get
out
and
you
walk
the
neighborhood
and
you
see
wow,
look
at
that.
Look
at
that.
That's
really
nice
and
look
at
what
that.
What
they've
done
here
and
they've
increased
in
some
housing
gee
that
could
be
replicated.
I
mean
when
the
marple
was
going
on.
Q
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
the
marple
folks
and
I
brought
them
up
here
to
walk
around
to
see
because
a
lot
of
people
were
oh,
we
can't
do
that
in
our
neighborhood
walk
them
through
some
of
the
neighborhoods,
where
some
of
the
stuff
is
done,
and
it's
done
very
very
well
and
they
went
oh
that's
not
what
our
vision
or
how
we
thought
this
was
going
to
go
about.
That's
great
yeah.
We
could
see
having
that
in
our
neighborhood,
but
there
isn't
that
engagement
there
isn't
that
show-and-tell!
Q
R
E
This
on
the
citizens
of
vancouver.
Excuse
me:
excuse
me,
I'm
going
to
have
to
caution
you,
you
are
making
assumptions
and
making
statements
that
that
can't
be
verified
one
way
or
the
other.
But
the
point
is
that
you
are
speaking
in
very
negative
terms,
not
only
about
the
mayor
but
about
council
as
a
whole.
So
I
ask
you
to
refrain
from
those
kinds
of
comments.
Well,.
R
You
know,
I
guess
I
guess
in
a
general
sense,
I've
been
here
a
lot
of
time
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
done,
deals
and
the
public.
It
seems
like
the
public
opinion
of
what's
happening
here
is
being
ignored,
and
I
I
will
reserve
my
judgment
until
I
see
that
vote,
but
you
know
I
I
think
everything
about
this
plan
is
wrong,
ignores
public
opinion,
community-based
planning
processes.
R
The
people
have
talked
about
the
zoning
up
left.
I
think
what
you're
doing
is
creating
a
blank
canvas
for
the
development
and
planning
industries
or
the
planning
department
to
basically
dump
a
lot
of
stuff
on
vancouver
without
a
public
hearing
process,
and
I
think
you're
shunting
the
public
and
where
you're
going
on
this.
So
if
you
vote
for
it,
I
think
that
I
think
you're
not
being
represented
of
the
people
that
live
in
this
city.
That's
my
personal
opinion
anyways,
for
maybe
some
of
the
green
members
on
council.
R
I'll
add
this
that
I
watched
the
pbs
program
the
other
night,
and
it
was
quite
interesting
if
you
were
to
lump
all
the
concrete
producers
on
this
planet
together,
as
one
country
they'd
be
the
fifth
largest
emitter
of
carbon,
they
have
the
fifth
largest
carbon
footprint
of
any
country
in
the
world
right.
So
why
we're
tearing
down
perfectly
functional,
affordable
housing
in
this
city
and
replacing
it
with
the
stuff?
That's
concrete
towers
and
filling
our
landfills
with
perfectly
good
and
usable
serviceable.
Housing
is
just
beyond
me
right,
but
anyways.
R
You
know,
and
the
other
thing
that
I
think
that's
really
bothering
me
about
all
this-
is
that
we
already
have
enough
zoning
capacity
in
this
city,
like
the
the
gentleman
before
me
just
spoke,
I
feel
like,
and
a
lot
of
my
neighbors
feel
like
we're
living
in
a
permanent
construction
zone.
In
the
city
I
mean
you've
got
the
subway
happening
right
down.
Broadway
street
you've
got
the
heather
lands,
that's
just
being
approved,
fraser
lands
in
my
neck
of
the
woods
that
are
still
being
developed.
R
I
guess
you
don't
have
to
go
through
a
rezoning
process
on
that,
but
we
have
tons
of
capacity.
Why
are
we
building
all
this
capacity
that
far
exceeds
the
natural
growth
of
people
in
our
city
and
while
you're
displacing
people
that
and
I've
heard
a
lot
of
renters
here,
they've
come
here
and
they
they
just
don't
believe
that
the
mayor,
I'm
sorry,
he's
gone
on
radio
and
said
he's
going
to
protect
everybody
and
that
they'll
be
moved
into
existing
or
some
sort
of
housing
in
the
in
the
interim.
R
While
all
this
wonderful
stuff
goes
up
around
us,
I
just
don't
buy
into
this.
I
think
it's
a
crock
of
whatever,
and
I
think
that
again
you
know
to
do
this
without
a
public
hearing
process
and
also
to
do
it
like
a
lot
of
my
neighbors
have
even
said
here
we're
having
the
only
time
people
that
are
working.
How
do
they
come
here
and
argue
against
this
and
a
lot
of
people?
I've
talked
to-
and
I
know
a
lot
of
people
in
this
city.
R
R
So
I
strongly
urge
council,
you
know
like
do
the
green
thing,
do
the
right
thing
and
do
not
go
forward
with
this
broadway
plan,
especially
months
before
a
big
civic
election,
and
if
there's
people
on
this
council,
including
the
mayor
that
feel
that
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
Maybe
he
should
go
to
the
people
and
get
that
mandate
from
the
people,
but
to
do
this
prior
to
a
civic
election
without
a
pre-existing.
R
R
E
R
R
I
R
Well,
I
think
that
you
can
do
things
along
the
broadway
corridor.
I
mean
there's
already
stuff,
that's
gone
up
around
camby
and
oak
and
stuff
like
this.
I
think
the
corridor
itself
might
be
open
to
mid-rise
or
higher
rise
buildings,
but
I
think
the
biggest
thing
about
also
the
broadway
plan.
That
really
concerns
me
is
that
that
it
gives
that
blank
canvas,
eight
blocks
north
and
south
of
broadway,
and
that's
the
part
that
really
really
concerns
me
if
it
was
just
broadway
itself.
R
I
might
you
know
again,
and
I
think
that's
why
we
have
a
public
hearing
process-
is
that
we
can
do
these
things
piecemeal
as
we
go
along
and
do
them,
as
we
think
you
know
like
works
for
both
the
residents
of
the
city
and
for
that
corridor.
You
are
going
to
see
some
expansion
around
those
skytrain
stations
and
but
I
still
don't
think
that
you
know
this
this
thing,
especially
if
it
goes
out
to
ubc
the
subways.
It
just
scares
me
what's
going
to
happen
that
8
that
16
blocks
either
side
of
broadway.
I
It
does
and
with
my
remaining
time-
and
I
think
I
know
the
answer,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
it
anyway-
staff
have
have
said
in
their
presentation
that
there
has
been
a
robust
public
engagement
process
around
this
and
that
we
should
be
very
pleased
with
that
public
process
that
has
taken
place
thus
far.
How
would
you
respond
to
that.
R
Me
and
my
neighbors
and
a
lot
of
people
all
this
thing
came
on
us.
We
didn't
feel
that
there
was
a
a
robust
public
engagement
process
and
I
guess,
like
I,
get
back
where
harry
rankin
used
to
say
back
in
the
npa
days
that
sometimes
public
hearings
and
these
sort
of
things
are
the
glazing
on
already
made
decisions,
and
I
hope
that
isn't
the
case,
but
I
don't
think
that
there's
been
a
broad,
especially
during
covid,
especially
a
lot
of
times.
R
R
Done
online
yeah:
well,
a
lot
of
people
like
me
that
are
seniors
aren't
comfortable
with
the
online
process,
and
all
this
I
mean-
and
besides
we've
got
this
all
these
community
planning
processes
that
are
supposed
to
have
been
respected
and
done,
and
if
a
council
basically
throws
those
community
planning
processes
down
the
toilet,
so
to
speak.
What
what
kind
of
credibility
does
that
give
to
counsel
that?
Basically
you
don't
you
don't
respect
that
public
opinion
in
the
first
place.
J
R
R
R
So
I
think
that
also
ties
the
hands
of
the
public
and
a
lot
of
people
going
forward
if
they
don't
like
what
they're.
Seeing
and
everything
like
this,
I
like,
I
said
I
just
don't
believe
doing
something
on
such
a
grand
scale
serves
the
public
interest
and
I
you
know
you've
heard
all
the
discussions
about
speculative
land,
lift
on
properties,
land
assemblies
and
all
this
there's
just
so
many
negatives
associated
with
this
plan
that
you
could
drive
a
truck
through
it
right.
I
I
just
you
know,
I
think,
if.
J
R
Well,
all
along
our
residential
corridors
and
all
this-
and
I
I
was
involved
in
the
city
plan
process,
way
back
in
the
day
and
it
seemed
like
the
planning
department
only
picked
and
choose
what
they
liked
about
it
and
ignored
what
they
didn't
like
about
it.
But
people
talked
about
the
fact
that
you,
along
dunbar
and
say
victoria
drive.
You
already
have
c1
zoning.
There
you're
allowed
to
build
four
stories
there.
On
top
of
that
commercial,
there's
tons
and
tons
of
existing
low
zoning
in
this
city.
J
R
R
Less
impactful
on
neighborhoods,
putting
it
along
corridors
and
all
that
and
if
people
that
are
immediately
beside
that
are
in
residential
neighborhoods
at
least
they
can
take
the
money
and
run
and
maybe
buy
a
place
within
the
neighborhood.
If
they're,
given
a
little
bit
of
premium
on
that
land
to
get
get
the
heck
out
of
being
in
the
the
shadows.
But
I
think
there's
tons
of
stuff
with
fraser
lands
and,
like
I
said.
E
G
R
R
E
D
However,
I
also
believe
that
accessible,
accessible,
affordable
and
subsidizing
housing
units
are
desperately
needed
in
vancouver.
I
am
a
full-time
teacher
and
my
partner
is
a
welder
fabricator
and
every
year
our
rent
is
raised
by
the
maximum
amount
allowed.
We
both
have
stable,
fairly
well-paying
jobs,
and
we
can
barely
afford
to
rent
in
this
neighborhood.
D
P
D
D
The
seventh
generation
principle
is
a
haudenosaunee
philosophy
that
the
decisions
we
make
today
should
ensure
a
sustainable
world
seven
generations
into
the
future.
Other
first
nations
have
similar
ideas
embedded
into
their
world
view,
centered
around
being
a
good
ancestor
and
considering
your
descendants
when
making
decisions.
D
E
I
As
I
do
see
a
physician
there,
I
looked
for
a
year
at
condos
down
in
the
olympic
village
and
they
were
so
small.
I
could
not
see
myself
living
in
them,
so
I
started
looking
at
equity
co-ops
and
I
don't
know
whether
you
people
are
familiar
with
equity,
co-ops
I'll,
try
and
do
a
quick
run-through,
they're
companies
who
shareholders
built
or
bought
a
building
sometime
after
world
war
ii.
I
I
L
I
To
tell
you
that
affordability
is
a
real
issue
for
her
one
owner
works
for
a
large
retail
company.
Two
owners
are
computer
professionals
with
their
own
company.
Two
owners
are
in
their
90s
and
are
transitioning
into
assisted
living.
There's
two
retired
nurses,
of
which
I
am
one
20
shareholders,
20
suites,
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
everybody
in
terms
of
engagement.
I
am
concerned
that
covid
was
happening
at
the
time
that
this
plan
was
was
being
discussed
by
the
planning
department.
I
I
Personally,
I
will
gain
more
if
the
land
price
is
soar
and
I
move
on,
but
I
must
express
my
concern
that
for-profit
developers
and
are
are
really
the
ones
seems
to
me
kind
of
driving
this.
I
think
that
there
should
be
rent
to
own
housing
for
workers.
I
think
there
should
be
co-ops.
I
think
there
should
be
non-profit
housing
and
I
think
there
should
be
some
designated
numbers
around
those
things
because
they
don't
just
happen,
and
I
also
want
to
express
my
concern
that
three
and
four-story
buildings
are
being
torn
down.
I
Now
we
have
been
talking
about
putting
new
windows
in
our
building.
We've
had
two
different
guys
come
around
and
say:
oh
you
don't
need
to
replace
these
frames.
This
is
good
old
wood.
This
is
really
dense
and
if
you
paint
it
and
keep
it
up,
you
don't
have
to
replace
that
and
yet
we're
talking
about
tearing
this
old
wood
growth
building
down
and
throwing
it
in
a
landfill
and
putting
up
up
a
concrete
high-rise.
Now
I
realize
that
would
house
more
people,
but
I
really
am
more
in
favor
of
gentle
density.
I
I
think
there's
huge
loss
of
land
in
shaughnessy
and
charisdale
and
other
neighborhoods,
where
you
can
take
sections
little
pieces
off.
Some
of
those
huge
lots,
put
them
together
and
put
up
some
townhouses
where
families
could
live.
Put
up
some
low-rise
apartments.
You
can
densify
that
way
and
I
I
think,
there's
ample
room
to
do
that.
I
think
that's
all.
I
would
like
to
say
so.
Thank
you
for
listening
to.
A
I
We're
secure,
but
of
course,
if,
if
we
get
an
offer,
I
mean
this
is
where
we
sit
now
is:
do
we
maintain
this
building
or
do
we
wait
for
an
offer
for
a
from
a
developer?
You
know
and
there's
I
think,
most
of
the
people
in
the
building.
I'm
only
I'm
speaking
generally,
because
I
haven't
really
done
a
survey
or
anything.
I
think
most
of
the
people
want
to
preserve
the
building.
E
N
Thank
you
very
much
mayor
members
of
the
council.
I
appreciate
your
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
john
donovan.
I
live
near
12th
and
granville.
I
am
strongly
opposed
to
the
broadway
plan
at
this
late
stage.
In
the
proceeding,
I
do
not
intend
to
list
my
reasons
for
this
opposition.
My
problems
with
the
development
or
with
the
plan
have
been
fully
set
up
by
earlier
speakers,
who
are
frankly
much
more
knowledgeable
and
much
more
eloquent
than
I
am
today.
N
N
At
the
end
of
my
comments,
I'm
going
to
ask
you,
council
to
reject
the
plan,
send
it
back
to
staff
with
directions
to
them
to
reconsider
it.
In
light
of
the
information
which
has
been
provided
in
these
hearings,
then
the
plan
should
be
the
subject
of
a
referendum
at
the
coming
election
or
the
very
least,
much
more
discussion
by
residents.
N
This
is
surely
the
largest
issue
to
come
before
you
in
decades,
both
in
terms
of
costs
and
impact
on
the
residents
of
the
city.
It
is
huge,
it
fits
the
need
for
low-income
housing
in
the
city,
against
the
interests
of
people
who
have
chosen
to
live,
raise
families,
invest
and,
in
my
case
and
others
with
any
luck,
die
in
the
several
established
neighborhoods
in
the
plan,
sorry,
which
the
plan
includes
and
which,
if
the
plan
is
carried
through,
will
destroy,
I
am
nowhere
near
able
to
tell
you
which
interest
should
prevail.
Nor
is
the
mayor.
N
N
Sadly,
most
of
the
residents
of
vancouver
know
little
about
the
plan,
at
least
in
part
due
to
covet.
The
city
has
not
done
enough
to
explain
it.
It
has
not
encouraged
robust
or
meaningful
conversation.
On
the
contrary,
my
sense
is
that
they
have
deliberately
kept
residents
in
the
dark
about
what
they're
doing
there
can
be.
No
doubt
the
staff
have
not
drawn
the
public's
attention
to
the
fact.
The
plan
does
not
apply
for
adequate
schools
or
new
plant
parks,
playgrounds,
community,
centers
and
all
the
other
amenities
which
new
residents
in
our
town
require.
N
The
plan
to
put
39
stories
on
the
six-story
building
of
1477
broadway
only
came
to
light
when
cops
and
plans
were
found
in
a
dumpster
a
long
time
before
the
city
admitted
that
that
was
its
intention
earlier
speakers
have
told
you
about
the
fact
the
city
refused
to
provide
information
to
arrest
about
the
plan
to
a
resident,
with
the
result
that
the
applicant
had
to
make
a
freedom
of
information
application.
That
information
was
not
provided
until
the
very
last
minute
before
this
hearing.
This
reeks
I'm
uncomfortable.
N
I
know
city
staff
report
they've
had
a
large
number
of
engagements.
I
put
that
in
quotations
with
residents
about
this
plan.
I
I
do
not
accept
this
earlier
speakers
have
raised
concerns
about
the
limited
engagement
they
experienced.
Speaking
for
myself,
I
participated
in
about
10
such
engagements.
In
quote
not
in
that
one
was
asked
to
comment
on
the
proposed
density
or
building
heights,
and
not
one
was
asked
if
I
preferred
to
have
my
chosen
neighborhood
left
intact,
rather
than
taken
over
with
high-rise
concrete
towers.
N
N
The
engagement
with
me
was
meaningless,
total
waste
of
time
to
approve
a
plan
of
this
magnitude
with
so
little
public
input
would,
with
respect
to
be
a
travesty
with
respect,
you
cannot
do
it.
As
I
said
at
the
outset,
please
send
this
plan
back
to
staff.
Please
direct
them
to
reconsider
it.
In
light
of
the
submissions
in
this
hearing,
please
then
hold
a
referendum
for
the
city
voters
to
decide
whether
the
plan
modified
or
not
is
desirable.
The
residents
of
vancouver
deserve
nothing
less.
Thank
you
for
hearing
me.
E
N
Two
reasons:
one:
the
plan
is
just
so
big
in
my
initial
draft.
I
said
something,
but
I
I
wasn't
anywhere
near
smart
enough
to
decide
how
it
should
be
resolved
and
I
don't
think
it
should
be
up
to
any
one
person.
This
is
a
public
issue
and
it
should
be
the
public
that
makes
a
decision
number
two.
I
don't
believe,
as
I
think
I've
said
that
the
public
has
been
affordable
what's
going
on
here
and
that
has
to
happen
before
we
can
resolve
this
issue.
That's
it.
D
N
I
have
to
confess
counselor,
I'm
new
to
vancouver
politics,
I've
fairly
recently
retired
and
and
frankly,
haven't
paid
much
attention.
So
this
is
one
reason
why
you
want
to
go
into
the
same
kind
of
detail
that
some
of
your
other
speakers
have
done,
because
I
just
don't
have
the
knowledge.
I
just
know
this
feels
wrong
to
me.
I
was
aware
for
40
years.
It
just
feels
wrong
and
hence
my
request.
E
P
To
hear
in
your
own
words,
what
what
the
experience
was
in
terms
of
that
engagement
that
you
did
participate
in,
you
said
you
weren't
asked
about
specific
elements
of
the
proposed
broadway
plan.
But
could
you
elaborate
on
what
you
were
asked
or
how
you
were
able
to
engage
just
so
we
can
better
understand
because
we
do
have
planning
staff
listening
to
this
and
hearing
the
public
feedback,
so
we
can
maybe
improve
if
we
need
to
so
can.
N
Only
a
little
bit,
I
my
sensation
when
I
dealt
with
staff
and
there
was
two
surveys
and
and
one
or
two
meetings
like
town
hall
kinds
of
meetings
and
then
some
private
communications
as
well.
I
I
felt
the
plan
had
already
been
decided
anything
that
they
wanted
to
know
for
me
was
like
lip
lipstick.
It
was
just
gloss
and-
and
that's
not
what
I
wanted
to
give
them.
I
wanted
to
give
them
my
thoughts
which
I've
shared
with
you
and
and
that's
not
what
they
wanted.
N
N
L
C
C
If
the
cement
industry
were
a
country,
it
would
be
the
third
largest
carbon
dioxide
emitter
in
the
world,
with
up
to
2.9
billion
tons
surpassed
only
by
china
and
the
u.s
two
taking
in
all
stages
of
production.
Concrete
is
responsible
for
four
to
eight
percent
of
the
world's
co2
three
among
materials.
Only
coal,
oil
and
gas
are
a
greater
source
of
greenhouse
gases
and
four
under
the
paris
agreement
on
climate
change,
every
government
in
the
world
agreed
that
annual
carbon
emissions
from
the
cement
industry
should
fall
by
at
least
16
percent
by
2030.
C
C
Trees
like
people
need
light
and
air,
and
then
there
is
a
much
higher
energy
requirement
for
day-to-day
operation
of
high-rises
compared
to
low
rises
and
the
higher
percentage
of
building
volume,
high
rises
required
for
support
structures
and
elevators
and
so
forth.
Thus,
on
a
per
volume
basis,
high
rises
provide
less
living
space
than
low
rises,
and
detailed
analysis
show
that
high
rises
are
not
even
necessary
to
provide
the
housing
that
vancouver
will
need
based
on
realistic
projections
or
foreseeable
population
growth.
C
Thus,
I'm
totally
baffled
why
city
staff
seem
so
bound
and
determined
to
turn
our
city
into
crowded
labyrinth
of
concrete
skyscrapers
on
may
18th.
The
staff
presentation
did
not
in
any
way
address
the
carbon
footprint
of
concord,
concrete
towers,
and
unless
I
missed
something,
council
did
not
ask
a
single
question
about
this
critical
issue.
There
was
not
even
any
mention
of
heat.
Mitigating
measures
such
as
green
roofs
on
the
towers
nor
of
solar
panels
to
power
them,
let
alone
of
entirely
powerless
options.
C
Please
tell
me
why.
Why
is
that?
I
want
to
know,
and
so
do
countless
other
vancouverites,
including
those
who
attended
the
protest
rallies
on
may
7th
and
17th.
Most
of
those
who
spoke
on
may
18th.
I
I
wasn't
able
to
listen
in
to
the
other
meetings,
but
most
of
those
are
spoken
in
favor
of
this
plan
seem
to
do
so
because
it
promises
more
housing.
C
E
I
Thank
you
roberta,
so
I
appreciate
your
climate
rationale
in
all
that
you've.
Obviously,
given
us
substantial
thought
and
and
research,
have
you
considered
considered
the
financial
implications
of
the
construction
of
high-rises
the
amount
of
money
that
they
generate
for
both
the
developers
and
back
to
the
city
in
the
form
of
variety
of
developer
contributions?
C
I
haven't
analyzed
that
my
background
is
in
ecology,
so
financial
things
are
not
my
expertise.
The
limited
sort
of
understanding
I
have
is
that
a
motivation
perhaps
for
building
towers
is
that
they
make
more
money
for
developers
because,
there's
you
know
more
stuff,
more
housing.
You
can
stack
on
a
on
a
same
square
footage
of
land,
but
of
course
that
has
all
the
negatives
of
livability
and
can't
be
built
with
anything
but
concrete,
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
L
C
This
city
is
a
series
of
unique
communities
and
the
planning
process
here
on
the
broadway
plan,
and
so
much
of
the
planning
that
seems
to
have
been
done
in
recent
years
is
ignoring
the
concerns
for
of
particular
communities
and
trying
to
homogenize
this
city
into
uniform
everywhere.
I
think
the
city
needs
to
go
back
to
not
repealing
the
community
plans,
as
the
broadway
plan
proposes
to
do
and
go
back
to
consulting
with
individual
communities.
Some
communities
may
welcome
towers
in
certain
locations.
Some
may
welcome
six
to
eight
stories.
Some
may
not.
C
Well,
I
see
so
many
roadblocks
in
development
and
I
see,
as
brian
palmquist
has
pointed
out,
there's
all
kinds
of
things
that
are
already
approved,
all
these
spot
rezonings
that
don't
have
shovels
in
the
ground
and
and
many
roadblocks
to
development
of
laneway
houses
and
so
forth.
I
mean
there's
lots
of
ways
we
can
proceed.
I
don't
think
and
get
housing
that's
already
been
approved.
I
don't
think
rushing
through
to
is
a
good
way
to
go.
C
L
C
Well,
I
could
say:
I'm
not
a
financial
whiz
by
any
means,
I
would
say
that
it's
as
I
understand
it,
it's
very
expensive
to
build
concrete
towers
and
cheaper
to
build
lower
timber
frame.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
I
could
be
wrong
about
that,
so
that
would
make
things
more
affordable.
Of
course,
there
would
be
less
land
lift
if
we
didn't
have
huge
towers
and
related
speculation,
so
that
will
contribute
to
increased
affordability.
C
L
E
L
K
L
K
E
K
Go
ahead:
okay,
great
thanks!
Okay!
So
thank
you
for
having
enough
time
to
let
everybody
have
a
second
chance,
I'm
so
sorry
I
missed
my
chance
on
friday.
So
these
are
my
main
points.
Almost
everything
has
been
covered
very
extensively,
but
I
oppose
major
aspects
of
the
broadway
plan
as
being
too
drastic
and
not
sufficiently
helpful
to
those
who
need
help.
Most
first
councillors
claim
that
the
city
survey
showed
very
high
satisfaction
levels
with
the
plans
described
as
per
the
shape
here.
City
survey.
K
This
survey
was
based
on
staff,
produced
brochures
using
very
glowing
aspirational
language
ignoring
any
downsides.
It
wasn't
objective.
The
specific
booklet
called
draft
housing
policies
mentions
no
specifics
on
height
or
frequency
of
towers
in
residential
areas.
I
quote:
the
residential
areas
will
have
an
eclectic
mix
of
housing
types
from
different
eras,
including
heritage
and
character,
homes,
multiplexes
low
and
mid-rise
apartments
and
towers.
K
One
word
mentioned
on
towers,
complemented
by
green
and
leafy
streetscapes,
quiet
residential
streets,
complete
neighborhoods,
home
to
a
diverse
range
of
people,
including
low
and
moderate
income.
Housing
households,
what's
not
to
like,
sounds
wonderful.
Other
brochures
featured
plans
regarding
community
well-being,
public
realm
heritage,
sustainability,
etc,
and
those
were
all
very
good.
I
felt
small
wonders
of
the
the
report
was
well
received.
Only
a
few
pages
in
this
summary
booklet
mentioned
actual
tower
heights.
K
Also,
I'd
like
to
mention
that
cheri's
views
from
street
corners
are
nowhere
considered,
and
I
never
go
to
queen
elizabeth
park
for
a
look.
Two.
The
extra
tall
tower
is
well
beyond
what
residents
in
neighborhoods
had
imagined
or
ever
envisaged
are
being
justified,
because
20
percent
of
the
suites
will
be
affordable
to
median
income
vancouverites.
So,
let's
analyze
this,
as
you
know,
median
doesn't
mean
average.
It
means
the
midpoint
at
which
50
are
above
and
50
below.
K
K
In
other
words,
eighty
percent
of
the
new
tower
housing
will
be
intended
for
the
top
fifty
percent
of
the
population,
with
no
limits
on
rental
pricing.
What
will
the
cost
of
those
enviable
new
one
or
two
bedroom
suites
on
upper
floors?
Be,
I
don't
know
four
thousand
five
thousand
per
month,
maybe
way
more
three
bedrooms
at
nosebleed
costs,
probably
if
they
have
a
great
view
so
50
to
60
000
a
year,
maybe
maybe
much
more,
requiring
a
household
annual
income
of
170,
000
or
higher
to
keep
within
the
livability
guidelines
of
30
percent.
K
Usually
given
house
is
making
our
neighborhoods
equitable.
This
is
gentrification
on
steroids,
plus
some
of
the
most
desirable
suites
may
well
be
rented
to
the
worldwide
rich
who
float
around
able
to
afford
a
swell
place
to
stay
now
and
then
during
the
year,
without
having
to
invest
in
a
new
condo.
This
is
not
the
vancouver.
We
want.
Third,
the
environmental
damage
from
all
these
concrete
and
steel
towers
has
been
mentioned
many
times
and
much
more
thoroughly.
This
is
no
way
to
get
climate
equilibrium.
K
K
This
constant
iteration
of
the
shophorn
phrase,
green
and
leafy
as
if
rows
of
slender
new,
mostly
identical
trees
along
the
boulevards,
can
restore
the
health
and
amazing
bounty
of
our
neighborhoods.
Also
leafiness
ignores
the
conifers,
those
towering
conifers,
which
fill
horizons
all
across
the
town
and
are
the
best
of
any
trees
at
removing
pollutants
from
the
air.
As
studies
have
shown,
almost
all
the
conifers
are
on
private
land,
except
for
the
major
boulevards
and
are
being
put
at
high
risk.
K
K
E
R
N
Q
N
A
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
it
and
I
respect
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
a
solution,
if
this
is
the
best
solution
for
the
citizens
of
vancouver,
I'm
a
resident-
and
I
don't
speak
on
behalf
of
any
special
interest
group,
so
I
was
also
trained
as
an
architect,
but
I'm
not
as
experienced
as
others
who
have
spoken
before
me.
Let
me
let
me
start
off
by
saying
that
I'm
well
aware
of
the
need
to
increase
density.
N
It's
not
it's
not
my
issue,
not
just
along
broadway,
but
throughout
the
city,
especially
the
further
north.
We
get
from
41st
avenue.
I've
lived
in
vancouver
since
cyty
in
one
of
these
neighborhoods
and
fully
supports
such
increased
density.
My
concern
is
not
so
much
about
density,
but
how
this
density
is
achieved.
It's
hard
to
argue
that
transit
should
serve
density
and
therefore
density
should
be
focused
on
a
broadway
corridor.
N
There
are
many
professional
opinions
that
residential
living
above
eight
stories.
Some
even
say
five
is
detrimental
to
neighborhoods,
not
particularly
healthy
to
the
residents
the
higher
that
they
live
and
not
beneficial
to
businesses.
Again,
I'm
not
completely
against
high-rises
in
the
right
context.
Some
of
the
best
examples
of
high-density
mid-rise
development,
as
we've
heard
over.
E
E
H
N
Some
of
the
best
examples
of
high-density
mid-rise
development
can
be
found
in
europe
in
cities
such
as
prague,
london,
rome,
paris
and
berlin,
to
name
just
a
few.
The
difference
between
these
cities
and
ours
is
that
they've
had
centuries
to
develop
while
we're
attempting
to
jump
start
our
development
over
a
period
of
decades.
N
They
provide
the
transportation
as
needed
over
these
extended
periods
of
time,
while
we're
providing
it
in
advance
and
then
trying
to
plan
around
it.
I
ask
you
all:
if
this
type
of
development
is
beneficial
to
the
fabric
of
our
city,
then
why
are
developments
like
those
at
marine
drive
and
camby
olympic
village,
jail,
town,
gerard
and
granville
bridge
areas,
including
vancouver
house,
coal,
harbor,
plus
those
in
brentwood
low
heat
area
metrotown?
Admittedly
not
in
vancouver
not
already
serving
our
housing
shortages?
These
areas
alone
have
provided
tens
of
thousands
of
high-rise
units
to
our
housing
stock.
N
If
they've
barely
made
a
dent
in
our
housing
shortage,
I
ask
why
not
will
additional
developments
of
20
stories
and
more
along
the
broadway
corridor
address
the
housing
needs
of
those
people
who
need
it
most:
young
families,
the
homeless
and
the
elderly?
I'll
briefly,
give
you
some
reasons
why
I
don't
think
so.
As
mentioned
above
high
rises,
don't
address
affordability,
even
if
they
are
made
higher,
as
some
counselors
have
suggested,
they
do
not
necessarily
become
less
expensive.
N
N
There
are
dozens
of
reasons
and
hundreds
of
studies
that
demonstrate
how
high-rise
living
is
detrimental
to
health
and
to
the
fabric
of
our
cities,
not
particular
number
three,
not
particularly
good
for
business,
especially
retail.
This
development
will
focus
business
around
transit
stations
and
density,
not
around,
in
fact
suck
it
away
from
current
commercial
areas,
such
as
4th
avenue,
main
street
commercial
drive
and
arbutus
and
14th
one
of
the
more
successful
dense,
neighborhoods
I've
experienced.
If
you
haven't
experienced
it,
go
for
a
stroll.
N
There
number
four
high
rises
destroy
neighborhoods
years
and
years
of
studies
throughout
north
america
have
proven
that
high
rises
undermine
the
fabric
of
neighborhoods
and
let's
develop
carefully
and
slowly.
What
is
good
for
new
york
or
tokyo
or
hong
kong
is
not
necessarily
the
answer
for
vancouver
our
own
west
end
is
still
one
of
the
best
examples
of
a
community
that
has
survived
high-rise
development,
partly
because
of
the
50
years,
plus
it
has
taken
to
a
ride
where
it
currently
is
at.
I
agree:
the
density
must
be
increased
in
vancouver.
N
I
agree
that
neighborhoods
such
as
mine
are
not
sustainable,
but
I
do
not
believe
that
simply
taking
a
transit
quarter
and
placing
density
which
seems
to
equate
to
high
rises
along
it
is
the
answer.
Vancouver's
been
very
innovative
over
the
last
50
years
fall
streak
south
was
once
the
envy
of
many
cities,
while
street
north
was
also
successful,
but
not
a
blueprint
for
everywhere.
N
E
I
N
N
E
K
E
A
Wonderful,
thank
you.
My
name
is
stefan
nielsen.
I
live
and
I
work
in
vancouver
and
I'm
proud
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
broadway
plan.
As
a
member
of
the
executive
board
of
the
united
food
and
commercial
workers,
local
1518,
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
what
what
our
organization
is,
we
we
are
a
union
that
represents
25
000
workers
in
retail,
industrial
food,
health
care
and
home
support
all
across
bc.
A
A
When
you
talk
about
a
jobs
corridor
such
as
the
broadway
plan,
lays
out
you're
talking
about
our
members,
jobs,
grocery
stores,
coffee
shops,
cannabis,
dispensaries
and
the
like.
The
broadway
plan
will
not
only
mean
more
opportunity
for
our
members
to
work
with
the
10
protections
for
our
members
who
already
live
there,
but
it
will
be
the
best
opportunity
that
our
members
have
had
to
actually
live
where
they
work
in
a
long
long
time,
and
just
based
on
my
own
experience,
I've
worked
at
a
grocery
store
in
vancouver
for
14
years.
A
A
B
A
E
I
I
So
what
I'm
afraid
of
is
if
we
protect
the
tenants
who
are
there
now,
which
I
think
we
should
do,
I'm
afraid
that
they
will
schlep
up
the
20
of
affordable
units
that
your
members
might
be
able
to
afford,
so
that
the
new
workers
won't
be
able
to
afford
the
80
percent?
That's
expensive
rental,
I
don't
know.
Have
you
looked
at
those
numbers?
Do
you
have
anything
any
comments
on
that.
A
L
A
Yeah
mine's,
a
follow-up
recognizing
that
there's
putting
a
lot
of
pressure
on
a
significant
amount
of
our
renter,
affordable
rental
in
the
city.
So
for
me,
I'm
just
wondering
from
your
standpoint
recognizing
that
as
people
are
displaced
for
two
to
three
years,
there's
a
chance
not
to
be
in
the
neighborhood
close
to
their
work.
A
A
Sorry,
I'm
just.
Can
you
clarify
that
you're
saying
I
guess
the
question
is
I'm
hearing
I'm
hearing
from
people?
Well,
I'm
hearing
from
people
that
are
nervous
that
they're
going
to
be
pushed
out
of
their
neighborhood
now
close
to
where
they
work
as
this
plan
develops,
and
that
there
might
be
a
better
opportunity
to
put
more
housing
across
the
city
in
every
neighborhood,
so
we
can
have
complete
neighborhoods
where
more
people
live
and
work
close
to
where
they
they
live
close
to
where
they
work.
Does
that
make
sense?
E
P
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
evening,
I'm
cheryl
grant
and
I'm
a
local
resident
of
kitsilano
as
well
as
I
studied
urban
planning
at
ubc.
I
now
live
at
broadway
in
maple
and
my
offices
are
located
at
ontario
and
east
6th
avenue.
I'm
on
the
strata
council
of
70
residential
units
where
I
live,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
very
few
in
our
building
are
familiar
with
the
broadway
plan.
P
P
We
should
not
hasten
to
push
through
a
plan
that
does
not
maintain
vancouver's
character
and
overwhelms
the
fragile
ecosystem
of
our
local
neighborhoods,
which
each
is
very
unique.
In
2014,
a
report
from
a
leading
think
tank
declared
vancouver
as
drunk
on
high
rises,
uli
expert,
dick
reynolds
stated
you
don't
need
towers
everywhere
and
noted
they
just
don't
fit
in
some
neighborhoods
and
then
there's
today.
P
The
broadway
plan,
with
heights
of
12-40
stories
or
more
from
vine
to
clark
with
shadows
of
streets
and
reducing
the
character
and
further
eroding
the
affordability
of
vancouver
new
developments
should
create
community
spaces,
including
green
spaces.
Employee
place
a
focus
on
mid-rise
buildings.
One
of
the
callers
on
me
teens
asked
why
the
future
population
growth
of
vancouver
is
only
focused
in
the
broadway
plan,
and
I
would
like
to
echo
that
same
question.
P
What
council
should
take
away
from
their
learnings
is
high
rises,
are
not
the
only
answer
to
density.
In
fact,
it's
very
unsuitable
solution.
In
most
cases,
first
high-rises
separate
people
from
the
street
people
above
the
seventh
floor
are
less
likely
to
leave.
The
building.
Meaningful
connections
are
not
made
by
people
who
are
below
the
fifth
floor.
P
That's
actually
from
the
portland
study.
Second
high-rise
scale
is
not
the
human
scale.
The
preservation
institute
tells
us
that
when
you
walk
through
a
traditional
urban
neighborhood
with
buildings
of
five
or
six
stories
high,
you
can
see
the
faces
of
people
which
creates
a
sense
of
community
connection
and
safety.
The
human
eye
cannot
connect
with
buildings
that
are
over
seven
stories.
It's
overwhelming
and
disconnecting
third
high
rises
dramatically
reduce
chances
of
encounters.
P
Basically,
those
who
live
in
high
rises,
especially
those
who
have
amenities
in
their
buildings,
reduce
the
likelihood
of
actually
for
the
individual
to
go
outside
and
encounter
people
outside
their
same
silky.
Socioeconomic
strata,
high
rises
literally
create
silos
both
physically,
socially
and
psychologically.
P
I
ask
council
to
consider
that
last
point,
especially
when
they
think
about
social
and
supportive
housing
and
mental
health
of
our
local
residents.
There
should
be
a
focus
on
integrated
housing
on
a
smaller
scale
in
vancouver,
as
this
plan
runs
from
1st
to
16th
avenue.
Council
also
needs
to
protect
residential
neighborhoods
from
land
assemblies
which
are
benefiting
a
few
and
harming
the
many
across
vancouver.
P
According
to
suzanne
krauss
leonard
co-founder
of
making
cities
livable
international
council,
the
construction
industry
is
a
powerful
engine
for
fueling
economic
development.
Tall
buildings
offer
increased
profits
for
developers.
However,
the
higher
the
building
rises,
the
more
expensive
the
construction
and
reduces
the
affordability,
and,
as
we
speak
at
the
height
of
the
building,
which
a
lady
just
spoke
to
very
eloquently
about
construction,
the
building
adds
to
the
climate.
Emergency
high
rises
are
not
energy.
Efficient
bc,
hydro
has
stated.
High
rises,
use
almost
twice
the
amount
of
energy
per
square
meter
as
mid-rise
structures.
P
We
are
creating
an
even
larger
urban
heat
island
in
vancouver.
In
addition
to
the
impact
on
the
environment,
is
the
health
of
the
individual?
High-Rises?
Are
documented
to
impact
mental
health
from
one
of
our
own
psychologist,
daniel
captain
rice
in
the
canadian
journal
of
public
health
high
rises
deprive
people
of
engagement
with
the
peers,
including
children
in
the
elderly,
who
instead
stay
at
home.
He
believes
this
creates
alienation,
isolation
and,
with
the
height
of
the
building,
increases
the
isolation
as
a
council.
I
encourage
you
to
reject
this
plan.
P
We
should
not
go
blindly
into
believing
high-rises
are
a
solution.
A
subway
is
a
mechanism
to
support
the
movement
of
people,
but
it
should
not
inform
the
enjoyment
and
livability
of
our
communities.
Please
vote
against
this
proposal.
Send
it
back
to
city
staff
with
focus
on
building
sustainable
housing
for
the
health
and
wellness
of
our
residents
right
instead
of
creating
a.
P
Well,
in
terms
of
the
subway,
I'm
I'm
living
right
on
the
subway
track
here,
like
I
said,
I
live
on
broadway
in
maple,
we've
even
lost
the
front
door
here
of
the
entrance
to
our
building
and
our
roadways
for
access.
So
the
reality
is
yes,
of
course,
the
subway
is
going
through
and
we're
experiencing
that
across
the
city.
What
I'm
saying
is
that
you
don't
put
all
of
the
density,
including
the
level
of
buildings
of
high-rises
across
that
density.
P
We
have
to
have
mixed
housing
and
that's
the
number
one
principle
in
urban
development
and
a
lot
of
people
have
talked
about
that
from
longer
cities
of
a
duration
of
london
and
so
forth.
You
don't
walk
out
of
most
subway
stations
into
the
mega
towers
that
are
being
proposed
along
the
broadway
corridor.
P
You
can
promote
growth.
Growth
will
always
continue
to
happen.
It's
how
we
build
in
that
growth,
and
I
think
several
people
have
spoken
to
that.
We're
trying
to
put
all
of
the
growth
centered
in
one
area
without
any
organic
growth
within
communities.
We
can
have,
of
course,
areas
that
have
high
rises
and
low
rises.
Next
to
us
and
one
of
the
areas
I'm
in
kiselano
here
there
are
areas
such
as
on
second
and
vine.
P
You
have
a
few
high
rises
that
are
also
dabbled
in
with
a
lot
of
low
rises,
including
older
houses
right
through
to
two
three
and
now
you're,
seeing
up
on
fourth
avenue
and
above
on
broadway,
seven
stories,
housing.
So
again,
it's
the
mixture
is
very
important
to
density
and
that's
what
creates
and
retains
a
community
and
will
fuel
the
growth
of
vancouver.
P
P
E
P
O
O
Great
hi,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
councillor,
carr,
thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
I
couldn't
make
my
other
times
thanks
for
catching
up.
I
won't
I'll
try
to
keep
this
short,
and
I
won't
go
into
a
lot
of
things
that
the
previous
speaker
and
several
before
I
think
I
would
reaffirm
a
lot
of
what
they're
saying.
I
think
that
really
I'm
opposed
to
this
and
I
think
it
needs
a
lot
more
work.
O
I
am
not
opposed
to
density
in
the
city,
it
needs
to
happen,
but
there
are
more
options
than
what's
being
proposed
here.
I
think
one
of
the
other
speakers
earlier
had
said
that
maybe
this
should
be
put
to
a
vote
at
the
election,
and
that
was
an
interesting
thought
and
I
think
I
actually
agree
with
that.
A
lot
and
I
think
it's
something
that
should
be
should
be
stated.
O
Do
you
think
we
need
more
housing
and
then
well?
Of
course
I
do,
but
we
never
got
to
the
essence
of
what
were
decisions.
It
was
just
very
leading
questionnaires.
I
went
to
an
open
house
which
we
had
a
group
session,
then
breaking
out
into
side
sessions
and
then
coming
back
together
again
was
the
format
in
our
side
session
our
breakout
session.
Everyone
was
effectively
asking
lots
and
lots
of
questions
largely
opposed
with
lots
of
objections.
O
I
think
that
the
other
thing
as
well
was
when,
in
that
session
there
was
a
discussion
on
the
affordability
and
and
the
the
the
model
of
these
buildings,
and
it
showed
if
we
built
a
20-story
building
at
all
market.
It
could
be
20
stories
and
I
don't
remember
these
numbers
and
if
you
built
it,
if
you
put
20
affordable
in
now,
it
needs
to
be
28
stories
and
there
was
all
this
mass
for
all
these
different
buildings
and
they
had
said
well.
There's
a
business
model
and
we've
had
a
consultant
figure.
O
This
out-
and
this
is
what
it's
worked
out
and
that's
why
we
have
to
have
these
towers
in
our
breakouts
people
had
asked
me.
I
was
one
of
them
well,
what
is
that
model?
Why?
How
do
we
know?
These
are
the
numbers
that
need
to
work
and
they
said
well,
we've
got
a
business
model,
it's
con.
It's
confidential,
it's
been
done
by
a
consultant.
Can
we
see
it?
No,
you
can't
see
it's
confidential,
it's
astounding
to
me
and.
O
I
even
wrote
an
email
after
in
the
feedback
saying,
can
we
see
it?
No
one
responded,
but
I
don't
know,
maybe
that's
been
released
and
if
we
had
it,
I
probably
wouldn't
be
the
one
to
analyze
it.
Others
would.
But
it's
just
astounding
to
me
that
the
entire
model
of
building
sizes
is
confidential
and
not
shown.
You
know,
and
I'm
wondering
what
does
that
look
like
what
what's
the
land
passing
factor
and
what's
the
profit
margins
that
these
developers
need
to
make
on
these
buildings
to
make
them
work?
O
Why
do
we
need
so
little
and
what
has
to
be
so
big?
And
I
guess
under
that
model,
I
think
the
next
point
I'd
say
would
make
it
even
more
challenging,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
model
sound,
but
I
guess
the
concession
has
been
given
here.
There's
a
lot:
there's
not
enough
affordable
housing
at
20
percent
like
why
can't
that
be
more,
some
people
have
said
50.,
maybe
that's
too
much,
but
20
seems
exceptionally
low
for
what's
been
given
away.
O
So
I
I
think
that
has
to
be
examined
us
to
that
model
in
more
depth,
perhaps
even
publicly
scrutinized
and
and
and
that
number
needs
to
be
adjusted.
I
think
given
for,
what's
being
taken
out
of
here
before
anything,
could
be
moved
forward
on
this
plan.
I
think
the
final
concern
I
have
is
a
lot
of
this
discussion
around
displacing
renters
and
they'll
come
in
at
the
same
rent.
O
You
know
that's
such
an
obscure
assurance
like
we,
you
can
come
back
at
the
same
rent
for
a
sec
for
a
two
bedroom
or
one
bedroom
all
based
on
number
of
rooms,
but
I
think
somebody
said
this
earlier.
I
think
they
said
what
what
about
a
dollar
per
square
foot
assurance,
because
you
might
move
out
of
a
one
bedroom
or
two
bedroom,
800
square
foot
or
900
square
foot,
and
then
you
get
to
go
back
into
a
one
bedroom.
You
know
I've
seen
some
some
figures
like
500
square
foot.
O
Families
can't
do
that
lots
of
people
don't
want
to
do
that.
You
are,
in
effect
getting
a
rent
increase,
you're,
just
getting
a
smaller
building
at
the
same
price.
So
I
think
that
feels
kind
of
disingenuous
and
I
think
that
needs
to
be
much
more
refined
and
there
needs
to
be
more
accountability
for
that
as
well.
So
I'll
stop
there
and-
and
I
ask
a
council
to
consider
that
and
ask
for
more
from
the
people
proposing
and
let
the
public
have
another
say.
R
O
Yeah
I
could
even
I
forgot
I
want
to
name
is
one
of
the
staff
members
who
was
one
of
the
leads
it
was
stated
in
the
general
session.
You
know
the
math,
their
drawings
and
the
presentation
about
the
size
of
the
buildings
and
how
they
need
to
be
this
big
and
this
much
to
accommodate
the
affordable,
and
so
that
was
just
stated
as
a
generalization
and
then
in
the
breakout.
When
I
asked
it
I
said:
well,
you
know:
can
we
see
that
model?
What
is
it
factor
in?
O
Does
it
factor
in
the
land
list
to
make
it
viable
for
the
developer
to
buy?
Does
it
factor
in
profits
on
the
developers?
Does
it
factor
in
you
know
what
kind
of
building
cost
does
it
factor
in
and
I'm
sure
people
who
build
these
things
there's
way
more
complexity,
the
simple
ones
I'm
asking,
but
that
was
the
essence
of
the
question
which
many
other
in
the
breakout
session
said.
Yes,
we'd
like
to
see
that
and
the
answer
was
well,
it's
a
very
complex
model,
so
it's
actually
confidential
and
well
who
wrote
it?
O
O
How
about
you
try
it
on
because
I'm
sure
there's
smart
people
beyond
the
smaller
circle
who
did
this
model,
but
there
was
a
little
very
little
given
away
about
the
economic
model
for
the
requirement
for
these
buildings
to
be
of
this
size
and
why
the
affordable
housing
within
their
you
know
how
that
fitted
in
with
the
with
the
model.
That
was
the
essence
of
this.
The
discussion-
and
I
don't
know
if
that
model's
ever
been
shared
or
not.
I
I
won't
expand
so
as
a
business
model,
though.
The
impression
that
you
got
was
that
that
you
needed
to
develop
at
this
level
in
order
to
make
enough
money
for
the
for
the
developers
to
be
able
to
provide
affordability
at
20
and
presumably
for
the
city,
to
make
enough
money
to
support
the
infrastructure.
O
I
assume
that
yes,
and
you
know
and
profit
help
you
know,
profit,
that's
sustainable
for
the
developer
and
people
have
to
make
profit.
So
that's
not,
but
you
know
what
does
that
look
like,
and
I
think
I
was
more
interested
when
asking
about
how
much
you're
expecting
the
land
lift
to
be
like
you
know
how
much
do
you
think
you're
going
to
acquire
this
land
for
a,
and
you
know
that
would
have
been
telling
us
to
an
acknowledgement
that
they're
going
to
be
massive
land
list?
O
O
I'm
not
in
a
finance,
I'm
not
a
financial
actuary
or
anything
like
that,
but
I
am
familiar
with
you
know:
financial
models
and
business
models.
Yes,
and
not
to
describe
them,
but
I
can
understand
the
complexity
of
them
and
how
many
variables
and
things
can
be
used
and
also
how
things
can
be
manipulated
and.
I
I
O
H
E
N
Great
thanks
mayor
council
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today,
speaking
in
opposition
of
the
broadway
plan
at
its
current
forum,
I'm
a
fourth
generation
vancouverite
living
in
falls,
creek
and
not
representing
employed
or
contracted
by
any
any
individual
or
industry.
That
has
a
financial
interest
in
this
matter
focus.
My
remarks
today
will
be
on,
what's
absent
from
the
plan
comparison
contrast
to
other
jurisdiction
and,
implicitly,
these
suggestions.
N
The
bronzer
plan
is
a
rejection
of
citizen
engagement
in
neighborhoods.
I
think
that
the
broadway
plan
rejects
both
citizen
participation
and
neighborhood
planning
and
replaces
them
with
a
failed
central
planning,
paradigm,
40
years
of
citizen
input
and
co-planning,
which
the
city
committed
to
will
be
subverted
in
the
broadway
plan,
as
it
seeks
to
unilaterally
dominance
over
citizens
in
neighborhoods
or
existing
neighborhood
plans
and
other
community
guidelines
over
developed
over
decades
are
rejected.
N
This
further
undermines
the
accomplished
and
trust
and
the
processes
of
city
hall
and
rejects
true
citizen
input.
The
previously
unavailable
urban
design
panel
meeting
said
one
of
the
participants
said.
The
planned
area
includes
some
of
vancouver's
great
character,
neighborhoods
kits
granville
pleasant.
The
plan
may
ruin
all
of
these
areas,
as
several
other
speakers
alluded
to.
Instead
of
incorporating
40
years
of
collaborative
planning
into
the
more
comprehensive
area
plan,
an
entirely
new
and
separate
plan
has
been
conceived.
N
The
in-group
of
planners
interfacing
with
the
housing
production
industry
seems
to
be
the
sole
architects
of
the
engagement
period,
materials
and
the
sole
interpreter
of
the
engagement
data
and
conclusions
that
the
previous
speaker
mentioned.
The
broadway
plan
lacks
sufficient
amenities
to
ensure
livability,
as
many
others
have
spoken
about.
Central
planning's
broadway
plan
lacks
adequate
public
amenities
commensurate
to
the
hyper-identification
that
it
would
enable
posing
alone,
doesn't
make
for
a
livable
or
healthy
life.
N
This
seemingly
self-evident
truth
is
underscored
when
we
look
at
the
world
health
organization,
recommendations
for
a
healthy
and
livable
urban,
develop
environment
and
compare
the
broadway
plan
other
absence
of
normal
public
amenities,
such
as
schools,
community,
centers,
pools
and
parks.
So
it's
on
the
area
of
parks
that
I'm
going
to
focus
now
is
their
emblematic.
The
wider
deficiencies
of
the
plan
and
share
the
common
attribute
of
diminishing
livability
world
health
organization
sets
nine
square
meters
of
park,
and
green
space
per
person
is
a
minimum
for
a
healthy
population.
N
N
By
contrast
in
the
east,
singapore
boasts
66
square
meters
per
person
at
thus
vancouver's
is
five
percent
of
what
singapore
has
achieved
in
the
west.
In
europe,
vienna
has
a
globe
topping
120
square
meters
per
person.
We
see
that
vancouver
is
just
2.7
percent
of
what
vienna
has
achieved
I'll
leave
this
topic
with
a
response
from
the
previously
unavailable
recording
of
the
urban
design
panel,
as
it
reacted
to
the
broadway
plan
and
comments
were
you
cannot
have
50
000
residents
without
much
more
green
space.
I
would
like
the
panel
to
conclude.
N
N
Of
note,
vienna
encourages
and
engages
the
residents
to
participate
in
even
designing
the
buildings
they
will
live
in
choosing
to
build
daycares
and
other
amenities.
In
the
context
of
that
design,
real
affordability
has
been
shown
to
cohabitate
with
livability,
as
we
have
seen
in
the
early
examples
of
vienna
and
europe
and
singapore
and
east
either,
which
have
been
achieved
by
their
success
by
relying
on
laissez-faire
markets.
To
accomplish
these
positive
outcomes
high,
affordable,
how
to
survive
highly
affordable
housing,
high
citizens.
A
H
T
Welcome
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
against
this
plan.
No
one
believes
towers
are
sustainable.
We
have
two
decades
of
proof
that
we
can
have
both
towers
and
affordable
houses
in
the
neighborhoods
page
286
introduces
building
typologies.
Yet
there
are
just
two
typologies
in
this
plan.
Houses
and
the
towers
that
will
destroy
them
missing.
Middle
densities
are
still
missing.
Neighborhood
patterns
are
not
understood;
no
one
knew
there
is
no
new
village
squares,
no
new
parks
or
boulevards.
T
There
is
no
regard
for
human
scale.
The
mountains
will
not
be
visible
after
this
plan
is
done
with
our
city.
This
plan
will
destroy
the
character
of
every
neighborhood.
It
touches.
The
first
page
should
read.
This
plan
adds
fuel
to
the
bonfire
of
the
housing
crisis
destroys,
affordable
rental.
Does
nothing
for
2000
souls
living
on
hastings
streets,
sidewalks
and
speeds
up
climate
change.
T
T
Olympic
tram
is
120
time
transit
advantage
over
this
skytrain
subway.
So
what
can
we
build
for
the
remaining
11
kilometers?
How
about
olympic
tram,
from
the
north
shore
to
chilliwack,
from
stanley
park
to
the
p
e
from
granville
island
to
chinatown
and
to
gastown
63
urban
stations
would
house
half
a
million
souls
and
co-ops
31
x
urban
stations
would
house
three-quarters
of
a
million
olympic
tram
will
deliver
over
1.25
million,
affordable
houses,
hardwired
to
downtown
proof.
Two,
this
plan
is
a
strategic
plan.
T
This
is
not
the
cart
before
the
cart
before
the
horse.
The
process
is
unfolding
exactly
as
intended
approve
a
39-story
tower
signal.
The
markets
approve
broadway
as
a
tower
zone
signal.
The
markets
in
june
approve
one
tower
zone
for
the
entire
city
signal.
The
markets
bend
the
neighborhoods
to
the
will
of
the
tower
industry
signal
the
markets.
T
This
is
a
strategic
planning.
Call
it.
Let's
make
a
deal
deal
a
start
at
the
end.
Build
towers
everywhere.
Consider
the
bottom
20
of
the
tower
space
will
not
achieve
high
market
values
and
things
strategically
sell
it
to
government
building
80.
On
top
of
that,
achieving
great
views
and
high
market
values,
as
this
council
swoons
over
delivering
below
market
rental
government
and
developers
make
off
like
bandits
with
bags
of
money.
T
T
Solar
access
is
restricted
to
half
the
year
between
the
equinoxes,
but
then
only
between
10
a.m
and
4
p.m,
but
then
only
in
public
schools
and
parks,
then
not
in
willow
laurel
macaulay,
arbutus,
greenway,
carolina
matthew
and
chocolate
parks.
This
plan
shadows
40
of
the
parks
and
creates
shadow
canyons
for
everybody
else.
What
a
great
plan
yet
I
expect
80
percent
of
this
council
will
vote
for
this
plan.
Like
was
the
case
with
39
story
tower
at
granville
and
broadway
last
elections,
the
volcker
voters
spoke
loud
and
clear
for
affordable,
neighborhoods
and
keeping
towers
downtown.
T
E
I
T
Well,
I
you
know
we
talked,
I
don't
know
if
it
was
four
years
ago
or
one
year
ago,
and
we
were
asking
ourselves
whether
or
not
it
was
too
late
for
vancouver,
and
I
think
that
it
is
too
late
for
vancouver
to
have
a
solution
that
is
market
driven.
I
think
that
government
has
to
step
in
now
and
government
has
to
build
massive
amounts
of
housing.
T
Yeah,
well
I
mean,
I
think
we
talked
about
it
for
the
granville
and
broadway
tower.
I
don't
see
a
reason
to
get
much
higher
than
five
or
six
stories
on
broadway.
Broadway
is
only
99
feet
wide.
If
we
gave
go
much
higher
than
that,
it's
going
to
be
shadowed
all
year
long.
There
should
be
setbacks.
On
broadway
like
there
was
at
london,
drugs
on
broadway
and
and
camby,
and
that
provided
an
additional
15
feet
of
space
and
therefore
they
could
build
a
little
higher.
T
But
you
know:
there's
no
magic
bullet,
there's,
no
reason
why
broadway
all
of
a
sudden
has
to
be
manhattan
right.
We
are
a
town
that
has
a
lot
of
potential
and
we
have
a
lot
of
space
and
we
are
living
in
the
country
that
has
the
greatest
amount
of
land
in
the
world
under
a
democratic
government.
So
let's
make
that
democracy
work
and
let's
build
this
human
scale
density
in
a
way
that's
going
to
benefit
everybody.
I
T
Yeah,
absolutely
it's
a
one
to
four.
You
are
given
well
on
broadway
and
and
grambled.
You
were
given
five
stories,
but
the
plan
gives
12
stories
away,
but
if
you
give
back
six
or
eight
stories,
as
you
know,
20
percent
afford
a
below
market
rate
rental.
Then
you
get
an
additional
32
stories.
It's
a
four
to
one
deal
and
it's
a
sweetheart
deal
for
the
developer.
Sure
take
the
bottom.
T
T
Well-
and
you
know,
the
city
gets
what
the
city
gets.
If
you
build
four
times
more
density
and
you
create
four
times
more
revenue
than
your
cacs
and
your
other
development
charges
are
going
to
be
four
times
greater
right
and
then
you
know
the
city
also
has
this
fig
leaf,
saying
that
20
percent
of
the
tower
height
or
area
is
going
to
be
for
below
market
rental.
J
J
My
name
is
naomi
singer
and
I'm
a
resident
of
heritage,
housing
cooperative
in
the
fairview
slopes
community
I've
lived
in
various
homes
on
west
8th
avenue
for
over
40
years,
and
I've
lived
in
four
different
homes
in
a
three
block
radius.
During
that
time,
I've
lived
in
my
co-op
since
it
was
first
built
in
1986
when
the
city
bought
this
property
and
invested
in
this
in
this
sustainable
and
affordable
form
of
housing.
J
I
have
witnessed
firsthand
the
evolution
of
this
area
from
single
family
homes,
large
old
victorian
homes
through
to
absentee
landlord
rental
units.
Where
I
lived
in
several
and
up
to
the
multiple
dwelling
townhouses
currently
in
place,
I've
experienced
the
gradual
changing
of
this
neighborhood
and
I
strongly
protest
the
proposed
development
of
the
broadway
plan.
It
is
too
much
too
fast
in
keeping
with
responsible
urban
growth.
The
fairview
slopes
area
has
been
carefully
designed
and
developed
over
the
course
of
decades.
As
a
townhouse-style
neighborhood
comprised
of
multiple
dwelling
housings.
J
The
current
proposal
disregards
the
spirit
of
the
city
of
vancouver,
land
use
and
development
policies
and
guidelines
for
fairview
slopes
regarding
compatibility
and
streetscape,
which
urges
that
new
developments
consider
quote
the
small-scale
character
of
the
buildings.
The
importance
of
compatibility
and
consultation
between
developers
and
neighbors
end
quote.
J
In
no
way
does
the
ambition
to
create
a
second
downtown
fit
this
model.
Well,
much
has
been
promised
in
the
plan.
I
do
not
have
confidence
that
the
shiny
new
proposal
will
be
delivered
as
outlined,
nor
the
housing
crisis
solved.
It
will
destroy
our
community
and
others
along
broadway
that
have
developed.
As
I
said
over
decades,
my
home
heritage,
housing
co-op
has
been
home
to
diverse
families
of
varied
income
levels.
J
However,
fellow
co-op
members
and
I
were
subsequently
shocked
to
learn
that
this
counselor
and
presumably
others,
had
the
impression
that
co-op
land
leases
were
being
renewed
as
a
matter
of
course.
In
fact,
we
have
been
struggling
for
years
to
get
city
staff
and
council
to
understand
how
cooperative
housing
actually
works.
J
My
neighbors
and
I
do
not
support
the
broadway
plan
and
we
do
not
want
our
housing
co-op
demolished
and
our
community
destroyed.
We
want
our
land
lease
renewed,
so
we
may
continue
to
house
a
diverse
demographic
of
citizens
who
are
secure,
secure
in
their
homes
and
are
thereby
able
to
contribute
to
our
city
in
numerous
ways.
J
J
The
broadway
plan
promises
to
relocate
people
during
construction,
but
it
is
unrealistic
to
imagine
parents
yanking
their
children
back
and
forth
to
new
schools
and
daycares,
not
once
but
twice
during
a
multi-year
redevelopment
process.
We
do
not
believe
that
a
new
development
on
this
property
will
ever
be
as
affordable
or
livable
as
it
is
now.
J
E
A
A
B
A
P
B
K
E
E
D
My
name
is
helen,
I'm
a
resident
of
vancouver.
I
also
work
for
a
local,
non-profit,
affordable,
housing,
developer
and
operator.
I
am
calling
in
to
support
the
plan
with
amendments
to
the
tenant
relocation
plan
and
with
an
amendment
to
allow
smaller
lot
frontages
and
to
remove
the
two
towers
minimum.
I
also
think
it
would
be
a
great
idea
to
support
bike
lanes
on
broadway.
D
As
other
callers
have
mentioned,
we
need
better
and
more
affordable
homes,
but
it's
not
because
we're
not
mandating
enough
building
better
and
more
affordably
requires
that
they
aren't
just
ideal
but
are
actually
feasible
and
for
non-profit
housing.
That
also
requires
more
provincial
and
federal
support
and
funding,
but
that
is
something
the
city
cannot
control.
What
the
city
can
do
is
make
plans
that
allow
for
homes
to
be
feasible,
homes,
often
don't
pencil
out,
because
there's
no
give
in
the
land
use
policies
or
regulations.
D
I've
seen
countless
projects
become
infeasible
because
changes
happen
overnight
and
suddenly
rents
are
not
covering
the
project
cost
even
with
free
land,
even
with
provincial
and
federal
funding.
Yes,
I
don't
have
to
turn
a
profit,
but
I
still
have
to
make
friends
cover.
The
cost
non-profit
doesn't
mean
that
there's
no
math
non-profit
homes
require
meeting
fundamental
performance
analysis
that
we
can't
just
manifest
on
a
great
story
about
non-profit
work
homes
have
to
pencil
out
in
order
to
be
built,
so
we're
talking
about
a
plan
that
needs
to
be
feasible
tomorrow
and
in
30
years.
D
An
analysis
for
what's
feasible
today
is
a
snapshot
in
time,
because
there
are
so
many
moving
parts.
For
example,
I'm
seeing
a
monthly
1.5
construction
cost
escalation,
that's
monthly,
and
then
a
recent
tiny
interest
rate
increase
is
now
jeopardizing
the
feasibility
of
a
whole
bunch
of
new
below
market.
D
D
I'm
not
sure
what
the
intended
outcomes
were
for
these
two
things,
but
I
don't
understand
how
they
would
supersede
the
priority
to
ensure
that
we
can
have
homes
of
all
types,
especially
in
smaller
and
more
creative
forms.
I
understand
that
there
are
a
lot
of
existing
non-market
housing.
The
reality
is,
we
will
come
to
their
end
of
life,
whether
or
not
we
approve
this
plan.
The
difference
is
what
happens
when
this,
when
these
buildings
are
redeveloped?
D
E
G
D
D
My
understanding
is
that,
when
the
frontage
requirements
are
too
large,
it
makes
it
really
difficult
to
actually
pencil
out
a
project
and
it
forces
us
to
go
after
sites
that
are
much
larger,
larger,
which
likely
could
be
existing,
affordable
rental
apartments
and
it's
just
harder
to
say,
try
and
consolidate
a
few
smaller
lots
in
order
to
make
a
smaller,
more
creative.
You
know
mid-rise
or
something,
as
opposed
to
being
forced
to
look
at
something.
That's
a
lot
larger.
G
And
so
do
you
think,
like
related
to
that
that
it
also
has
an
impact
on
built
form
in
terms
of
you
know,
we've
heard
a
lot
tonight
from
people
around
sort
of
the
visual
and
emotional
impact
or
reaction
to
towers.
Do
you
think
that
also
creates
more
of
a
diverse,
smaller,
potentially
more
porous,
streetscape.
D
I
think
any
time
that
you
allow
more
flexibility
for
things
to
become
feasible,
then
it
allows
smaller
forms,
medium
forms,
as
well
as
larger
forms
any
time
that
I've
had
to
work
on
a
project.
We
always
have
to
build
the
maximum
of
what
is
permitted,
because
that's
what
gets
us
enough
rent
to
actually
pencil
out
the
project?
D
E
B
B
Excellent,
so
thank
you
very
much
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
me
counselors.
As
you
just
heard.
My
name
is
michael
o'shaughnessy,
I
rent
in
fairview
and
I'm
speaking
tonight
to
register
my
support
in
favor
of
the
broadway
plan,
but
before
I
get
into
why
I
think
you
should
pass
the
plan.
I
want
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
how
much
I
love
the
place
I
live.
B
B
K
B
B
Second,
that
the
plan
be
amended
to
prioritize
the
intensification
of
remaining
low
density
areas
in
the
plan
area
such
as
kitsilano
and
mount
pleasant,
while
development
will
eventually
touch
the
whole
plan
area,
the
initial
stages
should
focus
development
pressures
on
homes
for
the
few
instead
of
homes
for
the
wealthy.
Many.
B
I
understand
that
you
can
achieve
this
by
reducing
the
frontage
required
of
new
development.
That
said,
it
may
not.
I
understand,
from
speaking
to
people,
that
it
may
not
be
possible
to
do
this
without
referring
the
plan
back
to
staff.
If
this
is
the
case-
and
I
don't
know
if
it
is,
I
ask
you
to
pass
the
plan
and
find
ways
to
strengthen
it
later
and
third,
I
ask
the
counselor
boyle's
amendment
on
a
bike
lane
on
broadway
pass.
I
live
right
next
to
broadway.
I
think
it's
a
great
street.
B
I
urge
you
to
not
only
pass
this
plan
but
to
improve
it.
Build
broadway
into
a
complete
street,
make
as
many
of
the
new
units
as
you
can
non-market
and
affordable
as
long
as
it
doesn't
compromise
overall
supply
protect
today's
tenants,
but
also
protect
tomorrow's
tenants
too,
who
are
in
lineups
30,
deep,
outside
every
apartment,
showing
and
perhaps
most
importantly,
where
apartments
are
banned
and
the
ban
and
build
housing.
B
We
can't
regulate
our
way
out
of
this
crisis,
but
we
can
build
our
way
out
of
it
and
the
rental
shortage
vastly
increase
the
supply
of
housing,
diminish
landlords,
market
power
and
give
renters
like
me,
many
more
options
and
therefore
more
leverage.
You
might
have
heard
that
this
is
a
fight
for
the
soul
of
vancouver
you're
right.
The
decision
you're
going
to
make
is
more
than
just
a
decision
of
the
future
of
my
neighborhood
is
the
decision
of
what
kind
of
place
we
want
this
to
be.
B
B
I
B
I
work
in
communications
counselor.
I
have,
as
I
said,
I'm
blessed
to
have
a
very
good
job,
but
what's
important
to
remember
here
is
that
I
am
the
kind
of
person
who
can
afford
to
live
in
this
city,
but
if
I
don't
go
to
work,
you
know
the
city
is
going
to
keep
moving
the
people
who
actually
keep
the
city
moving
are
priced
out
and
that
needs
to
end.
B
E
S
S
Since
the
broadway
plan
was
launched,
I
have
found
myself
defending
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan
as
a
relevant
and
current
planning
document.
I
asked
my
husband:
why
am
I
still
doing
this
and
he
replied
because
you
care
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan
adopted
by
council
in
2010?
Is
a
transit,
oriented
design
community
plan
focused
on
people
livability
and
densification
over
a
30-year
period?
It
is
an
elegant,
easy
read
in
33
pages.
S
In
comparison,
the
broadway
plans,
490
plus
pages,
are
full
of
spreadsheets
and
maps
depicting
a
dizzying
number
of
sub
areas,
multiplied
by
policy
areas
and
underwritten
with
dollars.
Dollar
signs.
The
broadway
plan
is
a
development
plan
focused
on
tall
buildings
and
densification
along
a
transit
corridor
over
a
30-year
period.
S
The
guidelines
in
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan
established
six
stories
along
arterials
as
a
baseline,
with
three
select
sites
for
increased
titan
density.
It
also
recognized
the
heritage
heart
of
the
community
at
maine
broadway
and
kingsway,
the
oldest
commercial
center
outside
of
downtown,
which
was
to
be
retained
at
current
height.
Any
new
build
within
the
heart
was
restricted
to
a
height
of
30
feet
maximum.
S
Since
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan
was
adopted
in
2010
over
2300
new
units
and
primarily
mid-rise
buildings
have
been
built
within
a
six
block
radius
of
the
future
subway
station
at
maine
and
broadway.
This
includes
catalysts
recently
completed
100
below
market
10-story,
145
unit
development
at
6th
and
main
with
50
of
the
units
geared
towards
families.
S
S
Based
on
the
density
that
has
been
built
since
2010,
it
is
feasible
that,
under
the
guidelines,
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan
mount
pleasant
could
add
over
an
additional
4,
500
plus
units
of
housing
in
the
next
20
years
or
20
percent
of
the
total
number
desired
in
the
broadway
plan
within
the
same
time
frame.
Given
that
there
are
four
subway
nodes
in
the
broadway
plan,
it
would
seem
that
this
percentage
is
in
line
with
mount
pleasant
share
of
the
required
densification
within
the
broadway
plan.
S
Construction
will
continue
in
mount
pleasant,
regardless
of
where
the
broadway
plan
is
passed
or
not.
There
are
currently
a
number
of
development
and
rezoning
applications
in
the
pipeline
and
the
kingsgate
mall
and
save
on
food
sites
earmarked
for
greater
height
under
the
male
pleasant
community
plan
no
doubt
are
on
someone's
design
board.
S
Before
I
move
on,
I
would
like
to
return
to
the
heritage
heart.
The
the
area
that,
under
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan,
was
to
remain
at
current
height,
the
broadway
plan
has
renamed
the
heart,
the
main
street
village
north
and
revised
zoning
to
allow
for
six
to
eight
stories
with
additional
height
for
heritage
retention.
S
Given
the
six
to
ten
story,
buildings
that
now
encircle
this
heritage,
heart
any
height
added
to
the
main
street
village,
will
eliminate
its
village
identity
and
dwarf
the
heritage
heritage
character.
New
buildings
will
bring
with
them
increased
rents,
which
will
force
our
cherished
small
independence
to
close
or
move
outside
the
community.
S
Given
my
personal
experience,
I
highly
doubt
that
the
broadway
plan
will
bring
a
great
affordability
to
the
broadway
corridor,
be
it
marketer,
non-market
properties.
In
2007,
we
purchased
our
900
square
foot,
1974
condo
in
a
three-story
walk-up
over
asking
at
370
000,
which
is
410
dollars,
a
square
foot
the
assessed
value,
dribbled
dribbled
up
until
the
independent
was
passed,
our
assessed
value
jumped
in
one
year
approximately
eighty
thousand
dollars.
S
S
Community
and
move
residents
there
and
then
result
redevelop
the
old
rental
site.
I
couldn't
help
but
wonder
if
it
was
any.
There
was
any
correlation
by
this
bylaw
revision
and
the
rather
outlandish
offering
which
we
did
not
accept.
There
is
much
much
more.
I
could
comment
on
and
opinions
I
could
offer,
but
my
time
is
limited.
I
am
starting
to
care
less
and
less
about
what
happens
in
the
city
and
you
are
out
of
time,
but
you.
S
I
S
S
Absolutely
and
part
of
that
is
because
of
our
pandemic.
I
mean
it's
really
unfortunate
that
that
this
had
to
happen
because
it
is
such
such
an
important
plan
in
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan.
I
know
there
was
a
former
speaker
who
was
who
said
that
there
were
countless
meetings.
There
were
weekends.
There
were
evening
meetings.
S
There
were
special
interest
meetings.
It
was
you
know,
three
years
of
of
meetings
on
weekends.
Almost
you
know.
Every
month,
every
other
month
there
was
the
implementation
committee
which
I
joined,
that
went
on
to
2013,
but
it
was.
It
was
sort
of
built
upon
itself,
so
we
went
to
a
meeting.
Things
were
discussed,
there
were
notes
issued
and
then
the
next
meeting
it
it
sort
of
built
upon
itself.
So
we
saw
the
progress
we
saw
the
development,
it
was
very
linear
in
the
the
broadway
plan.
S
What
one
of
our
members
have
noticed
is
that
things
change
from
plan
to
plan
you
read
and
the
draft,
and
then
the
new
plan
comes
out
and
it's
like:
where
did
that?
Come
from
that
number's
changed?
This
number
has
changed
in
the
sessions
that
I've
attended
for
the
workshop
sessions.
I've.
I
think
I've
done
like
three
or
four
online
ones.
S
I
did
an
early
walking
one
before
quoted
and
I
think
it
was
really
unfortunate
because
there
wasn't
a
consistent
group
that
would
attend
so
the
first
part
of
it
was
introduction
by
staff,
which
is
which
is
required,
so
they
would
introduce
the
principles
and
then
ask
you,
know
questions
who
who
thinks
of
this?
Who
thinks
of
that?
And
it
was
maybe
two
hours.
S
E
A
Yeah
thanks
for
coming
it's
great
to
see
so
many
people
from
the
committee.
Do
you
think
that,
from
this
phase
forward,
we
should
bring
back
a
neighborhood
implementation
committees
to
kind
of
go
through
the
implementation
process?
Principle
process
of
a
plan
like
this
to
ensure
those
neighborhood
nuances
are
continued.
S
Absolutely
I
think
it's
really
valuable
it's
valuable
because
you
get
a
good
cross-section,
it's
difficult
because,
as
as
we
know,
people
with
children
are
challenged
to
sometimes
attend.
I
think.
Unfortunately,
there
are
a
lot
of
renters
and
young
people
who
don't
attend,
but
it
does
give
a
core
group
who
does
get
engaged
and
it
it
provides
interaction
between
developers
and
and
and
and
the
community,
and
there
are
good
things
that
have
come
out
of
it.
A
I
agree
looking
back
to
the
planet
and
I
have
it
in
front
of
me.
It
seems
to
have
a
lot
more
nuanced
approach
to
historical
places.
It
colors
out
every
single
one
of
the
historical
buildings.
Can
you
talk
about
a
little
bit
more?
Why
you
feel
that
plan
kind
of
showcased
from
the
ground
up
a
lot
of
what
the
community
was
about
compared
to
this
plan
feels
like
it's
kind
of
being
implemented
on
the
neighborhood.
A
Components
the
blocks
that
had
what
kind
of
trees
where
the
historical
places
were,
the
markers
in
the
neighborhood
like
there
was
really
an
identity
of
place,
and
is
that
something
you
think
you
want?
You
would
like
to
see
more
in
the
broadway
plan
is
more
of
an
identity,
a
place
to
really
recognize
the
different
components
of
the
neighborhood.
S
G
Hi,
thanks
for
speaking
to
council,
it's
nice
to
see
people
in
person.
You
mentioned
the
importance
of
retaining
the
villages
and
giving
small
businesses
a
chance
to
kind
of
thrive
or
start
off
so
just
to
be
clear
because
there's
a
the
village
concept
is
represented
in
the
planet,
a
certain
capping
at
a
certain
height
to
retain
the
character
so
you're,
fully
supportive
of
village
concept,
sort
of
kind
of
village,
commercial
areas.
S
I'm
very
supportive
of
village
commercial
areas,
but
I'm
I'm
not
supportive
of
great
development
in
them.
We've
through,
through
our
association
and
working
with
the
ba
we've
gotten
to
know
quite
a
few
small
business
owners
in
mount
pleasant.
I
have
a
very,
very
good
friend
a
promoter
store
much
in
little
sarah
and
she
started
there
11
years
ago.
S
She
expanded
to
her
second
space
and
about
three
years
ago
her
rent
doubled
and
she
decided
to
go
back
to
half
a
space
and
she
said
I
could
pass
this
on
to
my
customers,
but
I
don't
want
to
do
that.
I
love
my
customers,
so
you
know
she
chose
to
stay
in
a
community
she
loved
but
struggled
to
find
a
way
kovac
came,
she
turned
around,
went
online
and,
and
she
made
it
work,
it
said
she
said
it
comes
down
to
rent.
My
rent
goes
up.
I'm
done
it's
important.
G
I
I
understand
that,
but
there's
sort
of
a
cap
now
in
the
village
areas
and
the
plan
you
know
with
details,
but
I'm
paraphrasing
and
sort
of
broad
strokes
for
time
suggests
retaining
the
cap.
And
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
asking
around:
keeping
the
lower
density
and
lower
heights
in
the
villages,
specifically
what
I'm
zeroing
in
on.
S
My
experience
has
been
that
development
will
raise
rents.
New
spaces
are
larger,
little
businesses
can't
afford
it
and
we
need
a
the
community
needs
a
space.
You
know
I
I
I
have
to
admit
I'm
very
nervous
because
in
the
mount
pleasant
community
plan
you
know
we
talked
about
six
stories
and
then
the
development
proposals
came
in
and
they
came
in
at
eight
nine
ten
stories,
and
so
it
it's
bound
to
happen
and
you
you'll
lose
a
village
character.
You
get
more
than
three
stories
down
there
and
it's
not
a
village
anymore.
G
S
G
L
So
much
I'm
I'm
wondering
I
mean
when
I
look
at
some
of
the
buildings
like
rise
alliance
built
and
we
talk
about
the
iconic
buildings,
that's
what
they
were
called
in
the
plan.
You'll
know
this
better.
Do
you
think
there's
room
for
maybe
some
of
those
more
iconic
buildings?
If
the
trade-off
was
that
we
could
also
have
you
know
in
in
other
areas,
so
in
in
certain
areas
we
had
more
towers
in
the
villages,
but
it
allowed
us
in
other
areas
to
have
more
of
that.
S
S
Then,
yes,
there
are
some
places,
but
there
aren't
many
iconic
buildings
here,
there's
some
great
local
architects
who
do
small
stuff,
but
we
don't
need
starchitects
coming
up
and
doing
stuff
amount
pleasant.
There
was
one
great
building
that
was
designed
at
seventh
in
maine,
but
it
was
turfed
by
the
urban
development
panel.
Unfortunately,
so
yeah,
you
know
it's
a
delicate
balance
and
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
make
it
happen,
make
it
come
together.
S
If
the
neighborhood
were
consulted
and
the
location
is
key,
you
know
I
could
see
something
else,
maybe
further
down
broadway,
not
in
the
not
in
the
low
story.
Walk-Ups
the
walk-up
areas
in
the
in
the
rm
was
interim
fours,
not
in
the
residential
areas.
I
think
we
need
low
rises
there.
We
need
low
rises,
we
need
walkability.
L
S
And
so
sort
of
like
the
heritage
density
bank,
taking
the
like,
let's
see
if
this
building
is
small
and
move
that
absolutely
you
know,
I
think
there
are,
we
have
to
accept
trade-offs.
We
have
to,
we
have
to
grow,
we
have
to
you
know,
and
it
has
to
be
done
with
care
and
it
has
to
be
done
with
thought
and
at
the
bottom
line
it's
about
community
and
people.
This
is
what
the
city
is
about.
You
know
thank.
A
A
There
has
been
a
lot
of
commentary
about
the
impacts
of
living
in
a
high
rise,
I'm
a
renter
and
have
lived
in
high-rise
buildings.
It
would
be
nice
to
think
that
we
all
get
to
live
in
single-family
homes
or
even
ground-oriented
homes,
but
this
isn't
a
reality.
Nor
is
it
a
responsible
approach,
as
our
planet
continues
experiencing
warming
at
an
alarming
level,
this
beautiful
city
is
bound
by
mountains
and
water,
and
so
our
housing
demands
require
that
we
go
up
from
what
I
can
see.
A
As
someone
who
has
had
the
challenge
of
finding
rental
policy
and
currently
is
looking,
I
can
tell
you
that
the
plan
will
bring
incredible
relief
for
those
who
get
to
live
in
our
beautiful
city
around
or
very
near
to
transit
in
a
walkable
community.
That's
well
serviced
by
neighborhood
amenities
and
a
walk
from
the
sea
wall.
A
Specifically,
I'd
like
to
encourage
council
to
complete
to
keep
the
proposed
density
around
the
station
centers
and
particularly
in
the
kits
area.
The
west
side
hasn't
been
subject
to
the
same
increase
in
density
as
other
areas,
and
why
is
that?
So
many
of
the
renters
these
days
are
young
adults
who
grew
up
on
the
west
side.
We
must
assume
multi-fun.
Why
must
we
assume
multi-family
homes
belong
elsewhere?
This
is
exactly
where
they
belong.
A
We
will
get
one
chance
to
develop
this
area
of
vancouver
close
to
downtown
near
to
existing
residential
and
along
a
new
skytrain
line.
It
sure
would
be
ashamed
to
under
build
here,
because
we
are
unable
to
look
ahead
to
the
coming
40-plus
years
and
how
our
city
will
develop.
We
are
living
in
a
housing
and
climate
crisis.
I
urge
you
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
project.
Thank
you.
E
B
B
You
also
have
to
look
at
the
risks
and
uncertainties
associated
with
those
effects,
including
the
results
of
any
interaction
between
effects.
You
have
to
look
at
effects
on
current
and
future
generations.
There's
nothing
of
the
sort.
In
this
plan
you
have
to
look
at
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
including
the
potential
effects
on
the
province
being
able
to
meet
its
targets
under
the
greenhouse
gas
reduction
targets
act.
The
information
in
terms
of
greenhouse
gas
reductions
is
very,
very
fluffy
and
I
think
that's
a
kind
way
of
describing
it.
B
What
am
I
reading
from
section
25
of
the
bc
environmental
assessment
act,
there's
similar
provisions
in
the
canadian
environmental
assessment
act.
Regulatory
bodies
have
similar
provisions,
and
these
are
the
types
of
objective
standards
that
you
use
to
evaluate
for
the
purpose
of
making
decisions
on
projects.
This
has
not
happened
in
this
plan.
B
B
The
vancouver
plan,
the
plan
to
build
on
the
former
rcmp
site
near
oak
ridge,
pearson
hospital
site?
That's
being
built
on
oak
ridge,
and
I
can
go
on
and
on
including
the
jericho
lands,
which
include
both
federal
provincial
governments.
There
is
no
cumulative
effect
analysis
and,
in
particular,
there's
no
cumulative
effect,
analysis
on
sewer
water
and
electricity,
and
I'd
like
to
spend
two
seconds
on
electricity.
B
This
plan
will
have
an
impact
on
the
electrical
infrastructure
in
this
city.
Has
anybody
looked
at
that?
The
answer
is
no
because
the
city
of
vancouver
wrote
to
the
bc
utilities
commission,
in
the
context
of
the
bc
utilities,
commission's
review
of
the
bc,
hydro,
integrated
resource
plan,
and
that's
exhibit
e
hyphen
six,
and
in
that
letter
the
city
of
vancouver
didn't
even
know
that
this
dc
hydro,
integrated
resource
plan
doesn't
cover
electrical
infrastructure.
What's
called
the
distribution
voltage
level,
the
city
of
surrey,
who
wrote
in
and
entered
a
submission?
B
That's
exhibit
c20
hyphen
2
was
smart
enough
to
realize
that
pc,
hydra's
integrated
resource
plan
doesn't
cover
the
electrical
system
at
the
distribution
level.
That
tells
me
right
then,
and
there,
that
the
city
of
vancouver,
including
staff,
has
not
done
its
homework.
City
staff
and
seemingly
council
seem
to
be
in
love
with
this
plan
without
having
done
a
proper,
critical
and
objective
analysis.
B
B
483
pages
is
nothing
in
terms
of
the
projects
and
analysis
that
goes
before
regulatory
bodies,
and
so
what
do
you
have
on
page
483?
You've
got
some
numbers
total
projects,
220
million
dollars,
so
there's
I'm
assuming
some
of
that
covers
sewer
and
water.
Is
that
number
quantified
in
any
way?
Is
there
any
evidence
of
how
it's
calculated?
Absolutely
not,
and
the
thing
that's
really
telling
is
it's
a
10-year
number.
This
is
a
30-year
plan,
so
this
plan
doesn't
look
at
the
cumulative
impacts
and,
in
particular
in
relation
to
inflection
points.
B
So
you
could
have
the
you.
You
can
have
infrastructure
that
will
sustain
itself
and
not
acquire
a
lot
of
capital
investment
until
you
get
to
a
certain
point,
but
the
next
increment
of
capital
investment
could
be
huge,
whether
it's
relating
to
sewer
water
or
electricity,
that's
not
in
the
plan,
so
you
go
back
to
you're
supposed.
E
B
Well,
the
electrical
pack
capacity
you've
got
you've
got
generation
transmission
distribution,
so
your
wires
are
the
transmission
and
distribution.
So
those
are
the
high
voltage.
Those
are
the
highways,
then,
at
the
distribution
level,
you've
got
your
side
streets,
which
is
typically
what
you'll
see
in
in
terms
of
the
impact
of
densification
in
vancouver.
B
There's
nothing
in
this
plan
about
that.
There's
nothing
in
this
plan
about
whether
you're
going
to
underground
it.
There's
nothing
about
in
this
plan
about
the
cost
of
undergrounding.
It
there's
nothing
in
this
plan
about
whether
this
existing
electrical
infrastructure
can
will
be
sustainable
in
an
earthquake.
B
For
the
most
part,
the
bc,
hydro,
transmission
system
and
the
distribution
system
are
not
and
were
not
designed
for
the
purposes
of
taking
earthquakes
into
account.
So
you
can
get
some
pretty
large
increments
of
increases
in
cost.
Because
of
that-
and
there
is
nothing
wrong
with
that,
but
you
have
to
look
at
what
the
bill
is,
and
it
could
be
that
if
you
put
some
development
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
the
electrical
sewer
and
water
infrastructure
could
sustain
it
without
having
to
have
large
capital
investment
in
it.
J
B
G
E
M
N
M
M
My
name
is
stuart
smith
speaking
in
support
and
be
honest,
I
don't
love
the
broadway
plan,
but
I
also
don't
hate
it.
It's
mostly
just
a
status
quo.
20Th
century
plan
take
the
boundaries
that
bartholomew
drew
in
1927
and
tell
the
apartment.
People
that
they
have
to
you
know
accept
more
more
neighbors.
They
have
to
squeeze
in
tighter
and
never
never
ask
the
house
people
to
do
the
same
earlier.
There
was
a
a
speaker
from
mount
pleasant
who
was
offered
the
choice
of.
M
Would
she
accept
more
towers,
near
vgh,
where
I
live
in
order
to
avoid
this
caller
from
having
to
look
at
such
horrible
monstrosities?
As
you
know,
buildings
that
people
live
in,
and
I
found
that
amusing,
of
course,
because
when
you
build
the
towers
of
vgh,
I
will
be
convicted.
If
you
build
the
towers
in
mount
pleasant
over
a
heritage
house,
the
caller
will
not
be
evicted,
they
will
just
have
to
look
at
something
they
don't
like,
but
anyways.
M
I
I
just
want
to
keep
us
focused
on
the
big
picture
and
think
about
what
what
are
good
things
in
cities
and
what
are
bad
things.
So
I
made
a
little
list
how
good
things
in
city
are
people
good
things
in
cities,
our
homes,
offices,
retail
schools
and
other
workplaces,
and,
of
course,
to
have
any
of
those
things
you
need
buildings,
so
buildings
are
good
buildings
and
cities
are
good.
They
give
people
the
things
they
need
to
thrive.
M
M
Noise
from
cars,
pollution
from
cars,
car
exhaust,
tire
dust,
brake
dust
and
road
dust
and
death,
disability,
injury
and
fear
from
cars
are
also
quite
bad,
so
whatever
you
do
tonight,
I
would
encourage
you
to
just
ask
yourself:
are
you
maximizing
the
good
things
the
buildings,
the
people,
or
are
you
maximizing
the
bad
things
when
people
can't
live
where
they
want?
You
end
up
with
the
rich
people
taking
the
housing
that
exists
and
the
four
people
either
leave
or
they
have
to
drive
in
from
far
far
away.
M
M
People
thrive
in
this
city
and
that's
cheap
rent
and
the
way
you
get
cheap
rent
is
by
getting
desperate
landlords
and
the
way
you
get
desperate
landlords
is
making
sure
that
there's
more
buildings
than
there
are
people,
so
the
people
own
those
buildings,
don't
have
any
power,
and
this
doesn't
really
change
if
you
prefer
a
non-market
world,
if
we
snap
our
fingers
tomorrow
and
make
all
the
land
and
all
the
buildings
non-market
utopias,
all
it
really
changes.
Is
you
end
up
with
a
wait
list?
M
J
Thanks
hi
stuart
appreciate
your
articulation
of
the
the
good
things
I
agree
with
you.
Homes
and
and
people
are,
are
good
things,
although
I
would
consider
the
list
a
little
incomplete.
I
also
think
about
other
good
things
that
we
need
to
deliver
like
parks
and
trees
and
schools
and
fire
halls
and,
of
course,
of
course,
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
J
So
so
how
do
you
feel
that
this
plan
measures
up
we've
heard
a
lot
of
people
talk
about
that
that
lack
of
those
other
good
things
and
and
and
we've
heard
the
director
planning
say
that
there's
sacrifices.
How
do
you
think
this
plan
measures
up
as
far
as
those
sacrifices?
Should
we
be
striving
for
more.
M
Or
less
I
mean
so
to
you
know,
be
honest,
of
course,
I've
not
read
all
400
pages
in
plan,
my
my
skin
of
it
is
that
it's
just
fine.
My
comment
would
be
that
these
things
are
not
in
conflict.
All
these
things
just
have
one
thing
in
common
and
they
all
need
land,
and
that
sounds
like
a
conflict,
but
it's
it's
really
not.
If
we
are
gonna
reserve
a
lot
of
land
for
houses.
Well,
then
we're
gonna
have
to
fight
over
the
land.
M
For
those
other
things,
the
minute
we
relax
that
the
minute
we
admit
that
we
actually
have
a
lot
of
land
in
the
city
in
the
region.
We
have
tons
of
land
for
all
of
those
things
to
have
lots
of
fire
halls
and
lots
of
parks
and
everything
we've
just
chosen
to
say
that
there's
a
little
line
down
16th
the
magic
line
and
everyone
belongs
on
the
north
side
of
that
line.
So
that
to
me
is
where
the
conflict
comes
from,
not
any
sort
of
inherent.
M
M
South
of
16th
yeah.
I
agree,
I'm
just
saying
like
it's
hard
for
me
to
say
that
you
know
they're
doing
the
best
they
can
within
the
constraints
they've
been
given,
they've
been
told,
the
planners
have
been
told
you
can
only
look
at
north
of
16th,
so
they've
done
the
best
they
can
and
and
if
people
want
to
criticize
some
specific
number
of
park
space.
That's
fine,
but
my
answer
will
be
the
same.
The
way
you
get
more
park
spaces
is
going
sucks
yeah.
So.
M
J
Plan
contemplates
is,
is
private,
green
space
in
in
in
building
this
sort
of
street
wall
podium
style?
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
on
that
as
a
built
form
or
versus
say
the
tower
in
the
park
kind
of
model
that
we
see
in
the
west
end
that
has
more
generous
kind
of
public
viewable
green
space
rather
than
the
sort
of
private
stuff?
Any
thoughts
on
that.
O
M
I
I
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion.
My
my
feeling
is
that
if
you
are
a
building
owner
or
a
landowner,
and
you
want
to
have
a
private
lawn,
then
you
should
go
ahead
and
have
a
private
lawn,
whether
that
lawn
is
at
ground
level
or
on
the
third
floor
or
sixth
floor
of
the
podium.
I
honestly
just
don't
think
it's
in
my
business.
M
E
F
F
My
first
ask
is
that
I
would
like
the
city
as
landlords
to
assume
the
same
accountability
as
private
market
developers
extend
the
amended
tenant
protection,
as
proposed
by
mayor
stewart
to
leasehold
co-op
members
as
well.
This
should
be
the
default
which
members
can
override
by
special
resolution
as
allowed
under
the
co-op
act.
Should
there
be
an
alternate
chosen?
My
second
ask
is
that
there
needs
to
be
a
robust
and
objective
framework
developed
for
planning
co-op
renewal
when
and
if
redevelopment
is
needed.
F
This
should
be
led
by
the
co-ops
who
know
their
buildings
and
membership
and
community
so
well,
each
with
decades
of
knowledge
gained
from
managing
and
governing
their
affordable
housing
and
done
in
collaboration
with
our
parent
federation
chfbc,
who
has
their
own
deep
expertise
in
asset
management
planning
redevelopment
and
the
strategic
use
of
swing
sites.
I
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
tom
armstrong
at
chfbc
for
his
feedback
on
these
editions
that
I've
mentioned
next.
I
have
some
questions
about
existing
policy,
equity
and
inclusion
in
the
broadway
plan.
F
But
I
fail
to
see
how
this
will
be
accomplished
with
the
disproportionate
reliance
on
market
rental,
which
is
tied
to
variables
not
connected
to
local
incomes
based
on
2016
census
data.
New
market
rental
will
not
be
affordable
to
90
of
female-led,
single-parent
households,
single-female
households
and
two
senior
households,
and
it
will
only
be
affordable
to
the
top
20th
percentile
of
single
male
households
in
the
absence
of
vacancy
control
permanently
attached
to
the
units,
which
is
what
we
do
in
co-ops,
and
the
inability
of
individuals
to
up
or
downsize
as
their
housing
needs
change
over
time.
F
Not
that
long
ago,
in
sustainability
conversations
the
building
industry
was
saying.
Energy
savings
of
10
or
20
percent
were
all
that
could
be
done
now.
Your
net
target
is
net.
Now
your
target
is
net
zero.
We
have
set
ambitious
goals
with
our
physical
buildings.
Let's
do
the
same
for
the
people
who
will
be
living
in
them
and
our
future
communities
like
so
many
others.
I
would
like
us
to
set
much
higher
standards
for
affordable
housing
through
this
plan.
F
E
M
A
A
A
The
plan
for
greenways
is
visionary,
imagine
being
able
to
walk
out
your
door
to
a
quiet,
green
linear
park,
apartment
dwellers,
many
of
whom
already
don't
own.
Cars
deserve
to
be
able
to
live
on
such
streets,
but
when
the
time
comes
to
make
these
changes
block
by
block
or
more
likely
spot,
resulting
by
spot
rezoning,
will
we
be
able
to
embrace
this
vision
or
will
taking
away
street
parking
under
this
process
simply
not
happen.
A
A
In
my
conversations
with
planners
at
open
houses,
the
plan
will
continue
with
individual
spot,
resulting
even
though
nobody
seems
to
like
them.
They
drive
us
apart.
The
process
basically
ensures
a
housing
shortage
despite
a
lot
of
busy
work,
while
also
giving
the
appearance
of
special
treatment
or
even
corruption.
A
A
better
approach
would
be
to
pre-zone
with
requirements
for
public
benefits
like
below
market
rental
and
to
adjust
those
requirements
annually.
It's
great
that
the
typical
tenant
would
see
the
rent
decrease
when
moving
back
into
a
new
apartment.
Under
this
plan,
I
also
think
incumbents,
if
their
current
rent
is
lower,
should
be
able
to
move
back
into
a
new
apartment
at
the
same
rate
to
compensate
a
lot
density
in
these
areas
will
need
to
increase.
A
A
It's
similarly
unlikely
that
the
broadway
plan
will
deliver
the
growth
and
visions
nor
the
corresponding
benefits
without
changing
the
processes.
The
city
follows
we
have
been
awaiting
this
plan
and
action
on
the
housing
shortage
in
general
since
before
the
last
election.
For
many,
the
housing
shortage
is
what
that
election
was
about.
I
encourage
council
to
approve
this
plan
this
year
with
amendments
effective
to
achieve
and
expedite
its
vision
to
help
create
affordability
for
current
and
future
renters.
E
E
Okay,
council,
that
completes
my
go
through
of
all
those
who
missed
their
turn.
First
time
around.
I
do
have
to
inform
you
that
that
those
who
there
were
some
speakers
who
called
in
after
I
had
already
called
out
their
name
for
a
second
time
and
they
were
told
by
staff
on
the
line
that
they
missed
their
turn
and
they
left
the
call.
However,
one
speaker
didn't
chose
to
remain
on
the
line.
E
So
if
you
want
to
hear
from
that
one
speaker,
sorry
what
there's
three!
Oh
there's
now
three
speakers
who
are
on
the
line.
Sorry
steph,
if
you
could
just
explain
all
three
speakers
missed
their
second
turn,
is
that
right?
Okay,
all
three
speakers
missed
their
second
turn.
If
you
wish
to
hear
from
these
speakers,
we
have
to
suspend
the
procedure
bylaw
in
order
to
to
hear
them.
That
would
be
a
motion
to
suspend
the
procedure
by
law
to
hear
the
three
speakers
who
are
still
remaining
on
the
line
other.
E
E
Oh,
there
may
be
somebody
in
the
public
here
in
person,
so
let
me
just
have
the
clerk
check,
meanwhile
explain
further
the
the
procedure
here.
You
would
need
to
have
a
motion
to
suspend
the
procedure
by
law
to
hear
from
x
number
of
speakers,
which
would
be
a
two-thirds
vote.
There's
no
debate
on
that
motion
and
don't
let
you
know
how
many
there
are.
G
E
G
E
E
E
E
I
E
E
L
L
First
and
foremost,
I
live
in
the
fairview
slopes
area.
I've
always
dreamed
of
living
in
this
neighborhood
my
partner,
and
I
we
moved
here
one
year
ago,
after
looking
for
almost
two
years,
we
are
both
hard-working
individuals
he's
an
immigrant.
I
come
from
a
middle-class
family
and
we
worked
multiple
jobs
to
be
able
to
afford
to
live
in
fairview
with
the
beautiful
views.
It
is
one
of
the
neighborhoods
where
you
can
still
see
a
view,
and
for
that,
that's
what
vancouver
really
is
we
always
talk
about?
L
This
has
a
significant
impact
him
to
us,
because
obviously
our
net
worth
is
tied
up
in
our
home
and
having
these
views
taken
away,
will
effectively
reduce
our
net
worth
and
also
our
building
is
unique
as
well,
because
it
is
a
heritage
building
and
it
was
designed
by
arthur
erickson.
So
it
has
a
unique
aspect
that
is
truly
vancouver.
L
L
L
I
also
would
like
to
say
that
our
neighbors
are
people
from
various
different
backgrounds
and
income
levels
and
effectively
with
these
plans
everyone
will
be
pushed
out
in
favor
of
developers.
You
will
have
the
people
that
are
in
co-ops
and
low-income
being
pushed
out.
You
will
have
us
being
pushed
out
because,
again,
okay,
there's
an
opportunity
to
get
bought
out
in
a
neighborhood
and
to
me
that's
not
right.
Everyone
in
the
neighborhood
would
effectively
be
displaced,
and
I
don't
think
that
is
what
vancouver
is
about.
L
The
other
aspect
is
with
regards
to
density.
I
know
the
argument
is:
we
need
more
density
in
taking
a
look
at
fairview's
density.
We
have
102
persons
per
hectare
based
on
2020
figures,
I'm
sure
that's
higher.
Now,
according
to
my
own
research,
translink
stated
the
requirement
for
the
broadway
line
was
50
persons
per
hectare,
so
already
fairview
is
more
than
double
that
in
reviewing
where
city
council
lives
based
off
of
reviewing
personal
websites
that
I've
seen
online.
L
It
should
be
noted
that
the
grandview
woodlands
area,
which
is
inhabited
by
quite
a
few
councillors
here,
is
only
64
persons
per
hectare
and
hastings
sunrise
is
even
less
at
only
43
persons
per
hectare.
Fairview
again
is
102
persons
per
hectare,
nearly
240
percent,
more
dense
than
the
hastings
sunrise
area.
L
So
that
is
why
I'm
here
today
to
speak
about
my
opposition
to
the
broadway
plan,
how
it
affects
me
personally,
how
it
displaces
my
current
community
and
neighborhood
how
it
takes
away
the
true
vancouver
views
that
we
have
and
how
we
we
already
need
to
put.
Obviously
there
is
the
need
for
density,
but
put
it
where
we
require
it
more
instead
of
displacing
where
there
already
is
quite
a
lot.
L
So
those
are
my
two
major
reasons.
My
other
additional
reasons
would
also
have
to
be
the
shadows,
and
I
know
that
one
of
the
speakers
near
the
start
of
all
of
these
conversations
talked
about
and
did
modeling
with
regards
to
shadows.
Every
day
I
have
a
raven
come
onto
my
balcony
and
it's
pretty
magical
to
have
a
raven
fly
onto
your
balcony,
and
then
we
have
some
hummingbirds
and
we
have
this
beautiful
nature,
with
shadows
and
the
destruction
of
the
trees
around
us
and
the
beautiful
neighborhoods
in
the
community.
L
That's
built
it's
just
heartbreaking.
To
think
of
you
know
that
people
in
a
community
will
just
be
displaced
for
developer
profits
and
that
the
only
people
that
get
to
enjoy
the
views
are
the
ones
in
the
penthouses
at
the
top
and
again
the
shadow
issues.
So
in
summary,
that
is,
I
see
my
time
is
now
up.
Those
are
my
reasons
for
the
opposition
to
the
broadway
plan.
Thank.
E
G
Thanks
chair
hi
over
here
sorry,
I
didn't
catch
right
off
the
bat
you
said,
you're
in
a
heritage
billion
in
fairview.
Yes,
on
the
slopes
on
the
slopes,
that's
correct,
okay
and
then
you
reference
concern
about
being
pushed
out
or
displaced,
but
presumably
your
building
is
strata
and
it's
is
it
heritage.
Is
it
protected.
G
L
I
won't
be
able
to
sell
my
home
for
what
I
paid
for
if
this
goes
through,
I
won't
be
able
to
like,
and
my
whole
life's
net
worth
has
been
put
into
my
home,
as
many
vancouverites
I'm
sure
has
been,
and
then
yes,
my
other
concern,
is
being
like
my
neighbors,
who
I
know
quite
well
now,
living
in
the
neighborhood
them
being
displaced
as
well.
Okay,
thank
you.
E
H
H
I
do
think
it
could
be
a
lot
better.
I
submitted
the
comment
that
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
put
things
like
casinos
on
the
street,
because
people
are
gonna,
stop
and
drop
off
people
at
a
casino
and
given
that
you're
taking
a
lane
or
two
off
broadway,
that's
already
gonna
make
it
pretty
tight.
Plus
you
have
people
stopping
on
the
street,
it's
really
going
to
impede
traffic,
so
I
do
think
there
are
better
places
to
put
things
than
on
broadway.
H
I
think
it's
also
a
mistake
to
focus,
because
I
know
you
have
like
basically
a
very
small
region
around
the
skytrain.
But
if
you
look
at
the
vancouver
jobs
survey,
I
mean
the
whole
working
area
is
quite
a
much
bigger
circle.
I
think
you
should.
I
think
you
should
identify
a
bit
more
and
make
it
miniature
downtowns
around
each
station,
instead
of
just
having
like
six
buildings
around
each
station
that
are
tall
and
everything
else
is
like
medium
density.
H
I
I
saw
that
counselors
are
commenting
about
the
150
and
100
square
feet
minimum
to
build.
I
I
think
it's
fine
to
have
100
in
certain
areas
I
mean
in
the
end.
You
want
people
to
have
more
housing.
Vancouver
has
like
two
percent
in
population
growth
a
year
plus
we're
about
to
take
in
a
couple
hundred
thousand
refugees
and
honestly
there's
going
to
be
more
refugees
as
time
goes
on.
Plus
immigration
targets
are
only
going
up.
H
If
anything,
I
think
you
should
overbuild,
because
I
mean
the
worst
thing
that
can
happen
in
overbuilding.
Is
that
prices
go
down
and
I
don't
think
anyone
is.
I
should
say
very
few
people
are
against
prices
going
down.
So
if
you
build
more,
it's
not
really
going
to
be
much
of
an
issue
with
building
more
and
in
the
end,
most
of
vancouver
people.
As
you
can
see
from
the
what
people
have
been
saying,
people
don't
want
more
housing
in
their
neighborhood.
H
H
Rent
in
a
building,
that's
50,
plus
years
old,
is
much
cheaper
than
a
brand
new
building,
even
if
the
building
is
in
affordable
housing
today,
it'll
be
affording
affordable
housing
tomorrow.
So
if
you
build
these
large
buildings,
they
will
last
I,
the
last
speaker,
has
a
five
unit
building.
I
know
from
experience
five
unit
buildings
don't
last,
because
cost
should
keep
going
up
until
people
have
to
knock
it
down
and
sell
and
build
something
else,
because
five
units
cannot
maintain
a
strata.
H
I
also
was
gonna
say:
oh
yeah.
I
do
think
you
need
much
better
connections
in
walking
along
broadway
in
the
end
between
broadway
and
the
greenway
on
six
there's,
not
a
good
walking
connection.
I
know
staff
are
saying,
go
down
fur
but
honestly
anyone
getting
off
the
granville
stop
is
gonna,
go
down
granville
and
it's
a
nightmare
down.
Granville,
there's
no
light.
People
are
gonna,
be
crossing
the
streets,
especially
in
winter,
when
it
gets
really
frozen
and
slippery
people
are
gonna
fall
and
probably
people
are
gonna
get
hit
by
cars.
H
H
But
they're
already
against
it,
so
you
might
as
well
build
as
much
as
you
can
and
actually
in
the
end.
Broadway
is
supposed
to
be
a
second
downtown.
I
mean
back
when
gregor
robertson
started
this
process.
That's
what
he
said
too.
Broadway
would
be
a
second
downtown
right
now
you
are
expanding
broadway
quite
a
bit,
but
it's
not
a
second
downtown.
It's
a
sub
downtown.
H
H
E
I
H
E
J
All
right
so
yeah
no
from
increasing
much
needed
housing
supply
in
the
midst
of
what
I
think,
many
of
us
recognize
as
one
of
the
worst
housing
crises
in
the
world
to
doing
things
like
securing
protections
for
renters.
I
really
fully
support
the
principles
and
the
suggested
parameters
of
the
broadway
plan.
I'm
a
child
of
eastern
european
immigrants,
I'm
also
an
orphan.
I
lost
both
of
my
parents
before
I
hit
age,
20.
J
J
I
suppose
that
means
that,
instead
of
worrying
about
the
height
of
my
neighbor's
hedges
or
the
setback
used
on
neighboring
developments,
I
get
to
instead
worry
about
what
happens
when
my
landlord
decides
to
sell
a
home
that
we
live
in
and,
of
course,
vancouver
is
a
world-class
city.
We
absolutely
have
a
special
character
to
it.
Some
of
that,
including
the
beautiful
density
that
we
see
on
display
in
the
west
end
core,
is
what
attracts
newcomers
from
all
over
the
world.
J
J
I
was
born
right
at
st
paul's
in
the
downtown
peninsula
as
poor
immigrants
with
multiple
systemic
barriers,
families
supporting
employment
without
a
reach
for
both
of
my
parents
and
as
it
turns
out
so,
was
stable,
secure
and
affordable
housing
for
our
little
family.
I
don't
think
we
ever
exceeded
18
or
20
000
annual
income.
When
I
was
a
child
and
of
course
it
was
impossible
to
find
anything
like
that
in
the
urban
core.
So
we
moved
to
metrotown
the
new
west,
the
north
surry.
In
wally
we
found
bullet
casings
in
our
building
laundry
room.
J
We
lived
in
a
notorious
scummy
landlord
slum
called
quantum
park
manor
and
after
spending
most
of
my
childhood
on
the
bc
housing
wasteland,
we
were
finally
offered
something
in
south
surrey.
So
that's
where
we
moved
far
away
from
the
friends
and
social
network
that
help
immigrants
feel
a
sense
of
connection
and
belonging
in
their
community.
You
know
I've
lived
in
just
before
the
age
of
17,
10,
separate
apartments
between
birth
and
going
to
university,
and
then
after
university,
my
first
year
ubc
I
lived
in
a
series
of
basement
apartments.
J
I
was
renovated
three
times
my
mother
passed
away.
I
acquired
her
dog.
I
had
to
leave
the
city
and
moved
to
ottawa
because
I
couldn't
find
anything
that
made
sense
for
me,
but
I
was
privileged.
I
got
to
return
unlike
many
of
the
young
people
of
my
generation
who
want
to
give
back.
They
want
to
be
a
part
of
the
city's
future,
but
they're
being
pushed
out
by
an
approach
to
housing
that
privileges
the
wealthy
and
now
I'm
25.
J
I've
lived
in
another
seven
homes,
that's
17
in
total,
since
I
was
born
in
the
city-
and
you
know
I'm
not
a
policy
expert
in
this
field
I
work
in
and
around
energy
and
climate
policy.
I
also
work
in
indigenous
economic
development,
but
one
principle
that
I've
learned.
I
was
doing
my
master's
at
a
top
global
university
is
that
greener
cities
require
housing
being
built
in
proximity
to
rapid
transit
and
they
require
building
up
and
not
out
that
achieves
the
goals
of
inclusivity
and
sustainability
that
the
city
of
vancouver
says
are
important
to
it.
J
These
are
the
goals
that
residents
over
many
successive
municipal
elections
have
given
as
a
mandate,
and
I
think
some
of
the
most
exciting
changes
happening
in
in
and
around
housing
and
land
right
now
are
actually
being
done
outside
they're,
bypassing
the
broken
processes
that
have
made
it
impossible
to
build
enough
housing
to
match
local
demand,
for
example,
snook
which
is
being
championed
by
the
squamish
nation.
So
I
think
something
like
the
broadway
plan
is
a
start.
J
Ultimately,
the
idea
of
predictable
long-term
growth
surrounding
this
plan
would
mean
the
world
to
my
generation,
but
it's
only
a
beginning.
So
I
urge
council
to
approve
this
plan,
it's
time
that
we
show
those
who
live
and
work
in
this
city
that
you're
ready
to
see
them
you're
ready
to
help
them
find
a
place
to
belong,
and
that
would
be
something
special.
J
E
K
Thank
you.
I
am
opposed
to
this
plan,
as
are
many
in
the
planning
and
design
profession.
For
example.
Example,
the
following
are
excerpts
from
recently
published
comments
from
ralph
siegel
city
of
vancouver's,
former
chief
urban
designer
the
plans
propose
significant
densification
as
extending
north
and
south
of
broadway
from
first
to
16th
does
not
take
into
proper
account
two
critical
factors.
K
In
reality,
such
a
strategy
would
be
a
dream
scenario
for
land
speculators
and
property
flippers,
who
would
profit
from
the
ever-increasing
land
values
triggered
by
this
proposed
major
densification
of
the
plan
areas
north
and
south
of
broadway.
These
huge
density
increases
would
put
the
existing
rental
stock
at
risk.
K
Should
council
be
so
unwise
as
to
approve
the
plan
as
presented,
a
flood
of
transactions
will
be
unleashed,
leaving
their
values
ever
higher,
making
delivery
of
affordable
housing
that
much
more
unviable.
The
effects
already
evident
elsewhere
would
be
magnified.
Should
council
fail
to
send
this
plan
back
to
the
drawing
boards,
with
an
instruction
that
expansive
densification
of
areas
north
and
south
of
broadway
be
eliminated
or
significantly
cut
back
to
absolutely
minimize
displacement
of
tenants?
K
Interestingly,
the
mayor's
announced
tenant
relocation
compensation
program
to
soften
the
blow
for
displaced
tendencies
now
being
cited
by
staff,
is
serving
to
put
a
constraint
on
the
pace
of
rental
development,
so
generously
incentivized
in
the
plan.
One
wonders
if
the
need
for
such
a
comprehensive
plan
program
brings
into
question
the
fundamental
premise
of
the
broadway
plan
regarding
these
flanking
neighborhoods.
K
This
would
include
the
present
rt
areas
with
their
canopy
of
existing
trees
or
well
under
understood
gentle
densification,
ideally
with
accelerated
permits.
This
would
advance
more
affordable
ownership
and
rental
units.
In
the
long
term,
we
seem
to
have
forgotten
the
greening
of
our
environment,
maintained
by
this
form
of
development
versus
high-rise,
concrete
apartments
requiring
lot
assembly
underground
parkades,
with
the
loss
of
mature
trees
that
contribute
to
air
quality.
K
The
broadway
plan
needs
further
close
examination
as
to
whether
its
approval
would
set
this
important
area
on
the
proper
course
over
the
next
30
years
that
addresses
the
needs
of
all
residents
present
and
future,
as
well
as
the
complex
challenge
of
housing
unaffordability,
while
taking
into
account
this
corridor's
unique
context,
diversity
and
character
its
sole
further.
I
would
add
that
udp
that
state
stated
that
a
majority
of
the
panel
are
concerned
about
adding
significant
density
in
the
existing
lower
density.
Sorry,
excuse
me
betty.
I'm
sorry.
K
K
K
K
K
We
all
in
chambers
we
we
were
hearing
the
whole
thing,
so
we're
not
missing
it.
We've
missed
most
of
it,
I'm
afraid
I
I
think
I
got
dropped
for
one.
I
think
we
missed
most
of
it.
Chair
yeah,
I'm
I'm
terribly
sorry
buddy,
but
if
you
could
start
all
over
again,
yeah
no
worries
thank
you
for
accommodating,
and
hopefully
we
have
fixed
that
glitch
whatever
it
is.
K
K
For
example,
the
following
are
excerpts
from
recently
published
comments
from
ralph
siegel
city
of
vancouver's,
former
chief
urban
designer
the
plans
propose
significant
densification,
extending
north
and
south
of
broadway
from
1st
to
16th.
Avenue
does
not
take
into
proper
account
two
critical
factors.
K
First,
the
plan
area
encompasses
four
well-established
neighborhoods
mount
pleasant,
fairview,
fairview,
slopes
and
kitsilano,
which
together
already
provides
a
significant
stock
of
rental
housing,
19
600
units,
25
percent
of
the
entire
city's
inventory.
Much
of
it
affordable
and
four
thousand
non-market
units,
social,
supportive
and
co-op
units,
fifteen
percent
of
the
city's
inventory.
K
Second,
the
plan
embraces
the
false
narrative
that
housing
unaffordability.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
sorry
buddy,
I'm
sorry!
I
just
got
a
message
and
I
can
see
all
of
the
people
online
for
council
are
disappeared
again,
so
I
am
so
sorry-
and
I
just
said:
okay,
some
messages
just
hold
on
for
a
second
and
see
if
we
can
no
worries.
K
K
K
Yes,
I
can.
We
can
agree.
Okay,
all
right,
so
we'll
ignore
that
message
and
and
just
if
you
could
again
start
from
the
top.
I'm
I'm
terribly
sorry
no
worries.
Okay,
I
think
I've
got
it.
Memorized,
however,
established
neighborhoods
mount
pleasant,
fairview,
fairview,
slopes
and
kitsilano,
which
together
already
provides
a
significant
stock
of
rental
housing.
Nineteen
thousand
six
hundred
units,
twenty
five
percent
of
in
the
entire
city's
inventory,
much
of
it
affordable
and
four
thousand
non-market
units,
social,
supportive
and
co-op
units,
15
percent
of
the
city's
inventory.
K
In
reality,
such
a
strategy
would
be
a
dream
scenario
for
the
land,
speculators
and
property
flippers,
who
would
profit
from
the
ever-increasing
land
values
triggered
by
this
proposed
major
damage.
Okay
plan
aries-
oh,
I
am
really
sorry,
I'm
getting
messages
from
counselors
saying
that
they've
lost
their
sound
again.
K
That's
councillor
swanson,
who
said
that
perhaps
I
could
just
again
apologies.
Could
I
hear
from
other
counselors?
Yes
just
coming
from
those
of
us
on
webex,
we
we
can
hear
you
yep
we've
been
able
to
hear
the
speaker
the
whole
time,
okay,
councillor
swanson!
Are
you
okay,
I'm
good
yep,
you're
you're,
actually,
not
good.
All
right,
okay,
continue
where
you
left
off
betty.
K
I'm
sorry,
okay,
no
worries,
okay,
so
I'll
just
start
that
sentence
again,
if
I
may
so
in
reality,
such
a
strategy
would
be
a
dream
scenario
for
the
land,
speculators
and
property
flippers,
who
would
profit
from
the
ever-increasing
land
values
triggered
by
this
proposed
major
densification
to
the
plan
areas
north
and
south
of
broadway.
These
huge
density
increases
would
put
the
existing
rental
stock
at
risk.
K
Should
council
be
so
unwise
as
to
approve
the
plan
as
presented,
a
flood
of
transactions
will
be
unleashed,
driving
their
values
ever
higher,
making
delivery
of
affordable
housing
that
much
more
unviable?
The
effects
already
evident
elsewhere
would
be
magnified.
Should
council
fail
to
send
this
plan
back
to
the
drawing
boards
with
instructions
that
expansive
densification
of
areas
north
and
south
of
broadway
be
eliminated
or
significantly
cut
back
to
absolutely
minimize
displacement
of
tenants?
K
Essentially,
the
existing
rm,
fm
and
rt
zoning
should
be
retained,
perhaps
with
carefully
crafted
amendments
that
provide
for
compatible
new
housing
inc.
Interestingly,
the
mayor's
announced
a
tenant
relocation
compensation
program
to
soften
the
blow
for
displaced
tenants
is
now
being
cited
by
staff
as
serving
to
put
a
constraint
on
the
pace
of
rental
development,
so
generously
incentivized
in
the
plan.
One
wonders
if
the
need
for
such
a
comprehensive
program
brings
into
question
the
fundamental
premise
of
the
broadway
plan
regarding
these
flanking
neighborhoods.
K
This
would
include
the
present
rt
areas
where
their
canopy
of
existing
trees
were
well
understood,
gentle
densification,
ideally
ex
with
accelerated
permits.
This
would
advance
more
affordable
ownership
and
rental
units.
In
the
long
term,
we
seem
to
have
forgotten
the
greening
of
our
environment,
maintained
by
this
form
of
development
versus
high-rise,
concrete
apartments
requiring
lot
assembly
and
underground
parkades,
with
loss
of
mature
trees
that
contribute
to
air
quality.
K
The
broadway
plan
needs
further
close
examination
as
to
whether
its
approval
would
set
this
important
area
on
the
proper
course
over
the
next
30
years
that
addresses
the
needs
of
all
residents
present
and
future,
as
well
as
the
complex
call
challenges
of
of
housing
unaffordability,
while
taking
into
account
this
corridor's
unique
context,
diversity
and
character.
Its
sole
further,
I
would
add
that
the
udp
stated
a
majority
of
the
panel
are
concerned
about
adding
significant
density
in
the
existing
lower
density
residential
areas
away
from
transit
mode.
K
Thank
you,
okay,
thank
you,
and
we
are
very
grateful
that
we
we
enabled
you
to
complete
that
the
presentation
there
are
no
questions,
but
I
very
much
appreciate
the
fact
that
you
you
stuck
it
out
to
the
very
end
and
through
that
technical
set
of
glitches-
and
you
too
thank
you
to
your
car,
okay,
council,
a
step
we
are
now
we've
completed
our
speakers.
Staff
do
have
a
presentation.
I
understand
it's
approximately
15
minutes.
Is
that
correct
and
you
would
like
some
time
to
set
up.
K
Yeah
five:
five:
five
minutes:
okay,
five
minute
break
staff
are
going
to
set
up
their
presentation
and
we'll
come
back
and
hear
it.
Here's
the
presentation
and
at
that
point
council
you
can
decide.
If
you
want
to
start
with
questions
to
staff
you
can
also.
We
can
also
make
a
decision
to
just
move
all
the
that
third
set
of
questions
to
the
the
9th
of
june.
K
K
First
of
all,
I'd
just
like
to
thank
all
of
the
speakers.
Who've
addressed
you
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks
for
taking
time
out
of
their
busy
lives
to
participate
in
this
process.
We've
been
listening
closely
to
all
of
the
speakers.
Who've
addressed
you
and
have
obviously
offered
a
wide
range
of
opinions
on
key
aspects
of
the
broadway
plan
and
on
behalf
of
the
team,
I
really
do
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
offer
some
closing
remarks
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll
focus
on
just
some
of
the
key
issues
that
have
been
raised.
K
Where
staff
feel
that
some
additional
clarification
would
be
useful
matt.
Can
I
just
interrupt
you
for
one?
Second,
will
you
be
it's
almost
quarter
two?
Will
you
be
done?
Actually?
Can
I
just
at
this
point
step,
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
going,
I
just
would
like
a
motion
to
extend
to
hear
the
staff
presentation
just
a
second
to
hear
the
staff
presentation
and
to
refer
questions
our
third
round
of
questions
to
thursday
june
9th
at
3
pm.
K
Thank
you
and
that's
great.
All
those
in
favor
just
say
aye
and
you
say,
nay
great.
Thank
you.
I'm
sorry
matt.
I
just
was
a
little
worried,
no
problem.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
going
to
address
a
number
of
issues
where
we
think
some
additional
clarification
would
be
helpful
and
they
are
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
public
engagement
process.
K
K
K
K
Emissions
from
new
high-rise
buildings
will
be
reduced
by
90
compared
to
similar
buildings
constructed
in
2007
with
respect
to
embodied
emissions.
The
new
regulations,
approved
again
this
month
by
council,
provide
a
pathway
for
a
40
reduction
in
embodied
carbon
by
2030
through
use
of
new
concrete
mixes
and
mass
timber
construction.
K
K
Turning
to
parks
and
open
spaces,
we've
heard
clearly
from
speakers
and
throughout
the
process,
the
demand
for
public
amenities
to
be
provided
to
support
growth
and
livability.
A
particular
focus
has
been
on
the
desire
to
see
more
parks
and
public
open
spaces,
the
built-up
nature
of
the
plan
area,
high
land
costs
and
limits
on
city
funding
all
contribute
to
making
the
delivery
of
new
parks
and
open
spaces
challenging.
K
K
This
latter
option
would
impact
traffic
movement,
including
goods,
movement,
buses
and
emergency
vehicles,
and
there
will
be
a
number
of
design.
Issues
to
resolve
relating
to
bus
stops,
truck
turning
parking
and
loading
as
broadway
is
part
of
the
major
road
network.
Approval
would
also
be
required
from
translink
for
any
such
changes
in
terms
of
cost.
It's
estimated
that
inducing
introducing
bike
lanes
on
broadway
would
increase
the
cost
of
the
great
street
measures
from
around
63
million
dollars
around
80
million
dollars.
K
K
K
Great
all
right,
thank
you
very
much
councillor
kirvyang.
Are
you
on
the
this
go
ahead,
and
it's
just
this
for
procedurally,
because
we
will
have
limited
time
for
questions
next
week
we
have
others.
Can
we
send
them
in
now,
and
will
they
be,
must
have
be
able
to
provide
some
responses
in
writing
that
will
go
on
the
public
record.
Just
recognize
we'll
have
limited
time
next
week.
I
will
leave
that
to
the
city
managed
to
answer
or
to
staff
to
actually
teresa
o'donnell.
K
K
So
that
is
it.
I
think
we
don't
have
there's
no
one
else
on
the
line.
So
at
this
point
the
standing
committee
is
now
recessed
until
thursday
june
9th
2022
at
3
p.m.
Thank
you,
counselors
staff.
Thank
you
planning
staff
for
your
patience
in
going
through
this
whole
process
and
your
leadership
on
this.