2022-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from C-7 (Commercial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 25-storey mixed-use rental building with a 4-storey podium and includes:

221 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
Telecommunications use on the ground floor;
A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.65; and
A building height of 77.6 m (255 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

Application drawings and statistics are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

Please note, a development permit for the new, smaller telecommunications facility has been submitted and is currently under staff review. The proposed telecommunications use is permitted under the existing zoning. If you have questions related to the development permit (DP-2025-00227), please contact Bryce Casidy, Project Facilitator - bryce.casidy@vancouver.ca – 604-871-6707.

Fly Through Video (Uploaded July 14th, 2025)

221 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
Telecommunications use on the ground floor;
A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.65; and
A building height of 77.6 m (255 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

Application drawings and statistics are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

Fly Through Video (Uploaded July 14th, 2025)

The Q&A period has concluded. Thank you for participating.

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from July 9-22, 2025.

We post all questions as-is and aim to respond within two business days. Some questions may require coordination with internal departments and additional time may be needed to post a response.

Please note that the comment form will remain open after the Q&A period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.

Share This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? on Facebook Share This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? on Twitter Share This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? on Linkedin Email This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan? link

This block lies at the outer edge of the 400m walking radius from Arbutus Station, and sits within a transition zone, not the core station area. Given that, why has the City endorsed maximum allowable height (25 storeys) on a site flanked by low-rise co-ops, seniors’ housing, and a private street with no sidewalks? How is this a “gentle transition” as promised in the Broadway Plan?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your question. This application is being reviewed under the Broadway Plan, which allows for higher building heights and densities than those permitted by the Transit-Oriented Areas (TOA) Policy. Under the Broadway Plan, the proposed 25-storey building could be supported. However, the final decision—whether to approve, deny, or request revisions—rests with Mayor and Council. The Broadway Plan envisions a gradual transition in building height and density moving away from SkyTrain stations. This site is close to the future Arbutus Station and has a street frontage of over 150 feet, which makes it eligible for consideration as a high-density building form.
Share You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? on Facebook Share You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? on Twitter Share You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? on Linkedin Email You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds? link

You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

Engineering review is still on-going. Details related to off-site upgrades and/or safety measures will be identified within the forthcoming report to Council.
Share The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? on Facebook Share The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? on Twitter Share The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? on Linkedin Email The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation? link

The flythrough video published on July 14 includes numerous inaccuracies and misleading omissions. Why was this video allowed to be published as part of the public engagement process if it fails to reflect the actual rezoning proposal? Specifically: The video removes major existing buildings including SOLO, at 2228 Marstrand Ave, giving a false impression of openness and clearance. It shows spacious sidewalks on Marstrand Avenue that do not currently exist, and which the City Planner has confirmed are not part of this proposal. The rendering omits large-scale existing trees on Marstrand that are claimed to be retained in the application. It does not accurately reflect the danger posed by adding 300–500 daily vehicle trips down this narrow corridor, especially with no safe pedestrian refuge and two nearby schools. In short, this flythrough gives a materially false impression of both what exists today and what is proposed. Will the City require the applicant to publicly correct this misrepresentation?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

The flythrough is intended to be conceptual in nature. Currently, they are not required to indicate existing buildings or the development potential for the surrounding area. The flythrough is more intended to demonstrate the proposed building form and design. Details on the submission requirements are publicly available here: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/application-for-cd1-rezoning-guide.pdf
Share What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. on Facebook Share What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. on Twitter Share What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. on Linkedin Email What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan. link

What is the documented ownership history of the property at 2202–2212 West 10th Avenue, including its current registration under TL Regent Property Inc.? Given that the site has historically been used for public utility purposes and continues to house telecom infrastructure, we request clarity on whether this land was once publicly owned under BC Tel or Telus, and what arrangements enabled its transfer into private hands. We also request disclosure on whether the City of Vancouver, through this rezoning process, has conducted or required any due diligence regarding the beneficial ownership structure behind TL Regent Property Inc., and how that aligns with public interest and housing goals under the Broadway Plan.

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

As part of the application requirements, the applicant is required to submit a title search, a summary of all legal charges on title, as well as a BC Company summary that outlines the applicant’s corporate structure. The BC Company summary is reviewed by the City’s legal department to ensure the applicant is in “good standing” which means the company has met all its legal and regulatory obligations with the BC Corporate Registry. Based on staff’s research, historically, BC Tel lands were private with no transition from public to private ownership.
Share It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? on Facebook Share It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? on Twitter Share It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? on Linkedin Email It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset? link

It is increasingly common for approved rezonings to be sold or assigned to other developers before construction begins, often with no obligation to ensure the original proposal is actually built. Given the urgency of the housing crisis and the significant public incentives involved in this application (including increased density and reduced development fees), what tools does the City have — or intend to use — to ensure that this project proceeds to construction and delivers the promised housing, rather than serving solely as a speculative asset?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

Council has the discretion to adjust the enactment timeline for rezoning applications, particularly in cases where there are concerns about land speculation or delays in housing delivery. For example, Council may require the applicant to submit a development permit application within two years, complete land consolidation through subdivision, and execute all necessary legal agreements before the rezoning is enacted. These additional steps help ensure the applicant is committed to moving the project forward. However, it is important to note that Council cannot require construction to begin or be completed within a specific timeframe.
Share This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? on Facebook Share This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? on Twitter Share This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? on Linkedin Email This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved? link

This developer is likely to receive significant public subsidies — including waived development cost levies and community amenity contributions — on the basis of offering so-called "below-market" rental units. But these units are still unaffordable to most Vancouver residents, offering little real public benefit. Meanwhile, the City’s current Empty Homes Tax policy allows developers to leave units vacant so long as just one unit is rented — even in large buildings — with no financial consequence. Given that taxpayers are subsidizing this development, what concrete steps will the City take to ensure that these rental units are being leased, even at market rate — and not warehoused until peak rents can be achieved?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your question. At present, the City does not have a policy requiring owners of secured market or below-market rental buildings to lease out all units immediately following occupancy. Ultimately, developers are incentivized to lease out units in order to generate revenue. Where units are secured at below-market rents through housing agreements, the City does require annual reporting to ensure affordability targets are met. Staff recognize the importance of ensuring that public benefits translate into real housing outcomes, and this issue remains a priority as part of ongoing policy development.
Share Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? on Facebook Share Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? on Twitter Share Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? on Linkedin Email Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain? link

Given that a significant portion of Marstrand Avenue is a privately owned, narrow, brick-paved lane without safe sidewalks for pedestrians, maintained by the adjacent strata, were those private owners formally consulted about this application? If not, how does the City intend to reconcile the impacts of 300–500 additional daily vehicle trips, construction traffic, and long-term wear on an infrastructure asset that the City does not own or maintain?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your question. The strip of private land along Marstrand Ave has a statutory right-of-way (srw) registered on the title of 2228 Marstrand Ave. Staff have not yet reviewed the legal document that enables the srw, however, it is likely the srw permits public access. The question surrounding specific use and the maintenance is a fair question. Planning will coordinate a more detailed response with Engineering and get back to you.
Share Has the City formally assessed the cumulative livability impacts on the Arbutus Housing Co-operative — a deeply affordable, multi-generational community directly adjacent to this proposal — which is now slated to be sandwiched between a pre-approved 30-storey tower (Fraser Academy site) and a proposed 25-storey tower at 2202–2212 West 10th? This co-op houses many seniors, families, and individuals living with disabilities — yet will face significant loss of sunlight, privacy, and quiet enjoyment. Was this block’s unique context and the potential harm to vulnerable residents ever explicitly considered in the planning or briefing process? on Facebook Share Has the City formally assessed the cumulative livability impacts on the Arbutus Housing Co-operative — a deeply affordable, multi-generational community directly adjacent to this proposal — which is now slated to be sandwiched between a pre-approved 30-storey tower (Fraser Academy site) and a proposed 25-storey tower at 2202–2212 West 10th? This co-op houses many seniors, families, and individuals living with disabilities — yet will face significant loss of sunlight, privacy, and quiet enjoyment. Was this block’s unique context and the potential harm to vulnerable residents ever explicitly considered in the planning or briefing process? on Twitter Share Has the City formally assessed the cumulative livability impacts on the Arbutus Housing Co-operative — a deeply affordable, multi-generational community directly adjacent to this proposal — which is now slated to be sandwiched between a pre-approved 30-storey tower (Fraser Academy site) and a proposed 25-storey tower at 2202–2212 West 10th? This co-op houses many seniors, families, and individuals living with disabilities — yet will face significant loss of sunlight, privacy, and quiet enjoyment. Was this block’s unique context and the potential harm to vulnerable residents ever explicitly considered in the planning or briefing process? on Linkedin Email Has the City formally assessed the cumulative livability impacts on the Arbutus Housing Co-operative — a deeply affordable, multi-generational community directly adjacent to this proposal — which is now slated to be sandwiched between a pre-approved 30-storey tower (Fraser Academy site) and a proposed 25-storey tower at 2202–2212 West 10th? This co-op houses many seniors, families, and individuals living with disabilities — yet will face significant loss of sunlight, privacy, and quiet enjoyment. Was this block’s unique context and the potential harm to vulnerable residents ever explicitly considered in the planning or briefing process? link

Has the City formally assessed the cumulative livability impacts on the Arbutus Housing Co-operative — a deeply affordable, multi-generational community directly adjacent to this proposal — which is now slated to be sandwiched between a pre-approved 30-storey tower (Fraser Academy site) and a proposed 25-storey tower at 2202–2212 West 10th? This co-op houses many seniors, families, and individuals living with disabilities — yet will face significant loss of sunlight, privacy, and quiet enjoyment. Was this block’s unique context and the potential harm to vulnerable residents ever explicitly considered in the planning or briefing process?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

As per the Broadway Plan, additional height and density generally up to 12 storeys and 8.0 FSR can be considered for institutional uses (Fraser Academy site). During the Broadway Plan’s development and public consultation phases, height, density, land use, and form of development considerations were formally assessed on a block-by-block basis. Additional assessment and public engagement are also coordinated through the rezoning stage.
Share The proposed “below-market” units are not rent-controlled or tied to core-need income levels. Can the City disclose the expected rents for 2- and 3-bedroom units based on current below-market averages, and explain what income range of families would be eligible to apply? on Facebook Share The proposed “below-market” units are not rent-controlled or tied to core-need income levels. Can the City disclose the expected rents for 2- and 3-bedroom units based on current below-market averages, and explain what income range of families would be eligible to apply? on Twitter Share The proposed “below-market” units are not rent-controlled or tied to core-need income levels. Can the City disclose the expected rents for 2- and 3-bedroom units based on current below-market averages, and explain what income range of families would be eligible to apply? on Linkedin Email The proposed “below-market” units are not rent-controlled or tied to core-need income levels. Can the City disclose the expected rents for 2- and 3-bedroom units based on current below-market averages, and explain what income range of families would be eligible to apply? link

The proposed “below-market” units are not rent-controlled or tied to core-need income levels. Can the City disclose the expected rents for 2- and 3-bedroom units based on current below-market averages, and explain what income range of families would be eligible to apply?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your question. The expected rents for all unit types will be included in the final Council report, based on the most recent Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) data on market rents in Vancouver. For example, this recent Council report for a similar rezoning in Kitsilano shows the anticipated market and below-market rents (see p. 8).

Below-market rents are set in the Rental Incentive Programs Bulletin; for 2025, the maximum below-market rents are $1,294 for a studio unit, $1,470 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,052 for a two-bedroom unit, and $2,819 for a three-bedroom unit. To qualify for a below-market rental unit, a household’s gross annual income cannot exceed the maximum income requirements for the unit type – household income cannot exceed 4 times the annual rent for the unit (i.e. at least 25% of their gross income is spent on rent).

After the units are occupied, rent increases during a tenancy will be limited to the maximum allowable increase set out by the province in the Residential Tenancy Act. Between tenancies, the rent for a below-market rental unit may be re-indexed to the current CMHC average rent by unit type, applying the same discount rate as was secured at the time of building occupancy.
Share In a July 22 Q&A response to user “Scott,” staff stated that the “primary goal of the Broadway Plan is to locate new higher-density development, housing opportunities, and services in and around the Broadway subway extension.” Can staff please clarify how this aligns with the actual stated goals of the Broadway Plan, which emphasizes affordability, equity, renter protections, and livability as its core guiding principles — not just density near transit? The Broadway Plan’s Executive Summary (p. 3) clearly lists “Equity, Reconciliation, Resilience, Livability, and Affordability” as the core values guiding implementation. Page 18 explicitly states that the Plan is a response to housing unaffordability, renter displacement, social inequity, and the climate emergency. Given this, how is the City ensuring that rezoning decisions reflect the true priorities of the Broadway Plan — rather than a narrow, developer-driven interpretation that prioritizes tower height and density without guaranteed affordability, tenant protection, or fit with existing neighbourhood context? on Facebook Share In a July 22 Q&A response to user “Scott,” staff stated that the “primary goal of the Broadway Plan is to locate new higher-density development, housing opportunities, and services in and around the Broadway subway extension.” Can staff please clarify how this aligns with the actual stated goals of the Broadway Plan, which emphasizes affordability, equity, renter protections, and livability as its core guiding principles — not just density near transit? The Broadway Plan’s Executive Summary (p. 3) clearly lists “Equity, Reconciliation, Resilience, Livability, and Affordability” as the core values guiding implementation. Page 18 explicitly states that the Plan is a response to housing unaffordability, renter displacement, social inequity, and the climate emergency. Given this, how is the City ensuring that rezoning decisions reflect the true priorities of the Broadway Plan — rather than a narrow, developer-driven interpretation that prioritizes tower height and density without guaranteed affordability, tenant protection, or fit with existing neighbourhood context? on Twitter Share In a July 22 Q&A response to user “Scott,” staff stated that the “primary goal of the Broadway Plan is to locate new higher-density development, housing opportunities, and services in and around the Broadway subway extension.” Can staff please clarify how this aligns with the actual stated goals of the Broadway Plan, which emphasizes affordability, equity, renter protections, and livability as its core guiding principles — not just density near transit? The Broadway Plan’s Executive Summary (p. 3) clearly lists “Equity, Reconciliation, Resilience, Livability, and Affordability” as the core values guiding implementation. Page 18 explicitly states that the Plan is a response to housing unaffordability, renter displacement, social inequity, and the climate emergency. Given this, how is the City ensuring that rezoning decisions reflect the true priorities of the Broadway Plan — rather than a narrow, developer-driven interpretation that prioritizes tower height and density without guaranteed affordability, tenant protection, or fit with existing neighbourhood context? on Linkedin Email In a July 22 Q&A response to user “Scott,” staff stated that the “primary goal of the Broadway Plan is to locate new higher-density development, housing opportunities, and services in and around the Broadway subway extension.” Can staff please clarify how this aligns with the actual stated goals of the Broadway Plan, which emphasizes affordability, equity, renter protections, and livability as its core guiding principles — not just density near transit? The Broadway Plan’s Executive Summary (p. 3) clearly lists “Equity, Reconciliation, Resilience, Livability, and Affordability” as the core values guiding implementation. Page 18 explicitly states that the Plan is a response to housing unaffordability, renter displacement, social inequity, and the climate emergency. Given this, how is the City ensuring that rezoning decisions reflect the true priorities of the Broadway Plan — rather than a narrow, developer-driven interpretation that prioritizes tower height and density without guaranteed affordability, tenant protection, or fit with existing neighbourhood context? link

In a July 22 Q&A response to user “Scott,” staff stated that the “primary goal of the Broadway Plan is to locate new higher-density development, housing opportunities, and services in and around the Broadway subway extension.” Can staff please clarify how this aligns with the actual stated goals of the Broadway Plan, which emphasizes affordability, equity, renter protections, and livability as its core guiding principles — not just density near transit? The Broadway Plan’s Executive Summary (p. 3) clearly lists “Equity, Reconciliation, Resilience, Livability, and Affordability” as the core values guiding implementation. Page 18 explicitly states that the Plan is a response to housing unaffordability, renter displacement, social inequity, and the climate emergency. Given this, how is the City ensuring that rezoning decisions reflect the true priorities of the Broadway Plan — rather than a narrow, developer-driven interpretation that prioritizes tower height and density without guaranteed affordability, tenant protection, or fit with existing neighbourhood context?

crashkate asked about 1 month ago
This proposal supports several core objectives of the Broadway Plan, which aims to guide growth, positive change, and delivery of public benefits:
- Affordability: A minimum of 20% of the residential floor area would be secured as below-market rental housing (BMR). This model is particularly effective when applied consistently across the plan area and directly supports the Broadway Plan’s goal of increasing access to permanently affordable rental homes.
- Equity: The project introduces new rental housing in a centrally located, well-served neighbourhood. Its proximity to rapid transit, cycling infrastructure, and everyday amenities helps deliver equitable access to housing for a broad range of residents.
- Renter Protections: Where applicable, the City’s Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy (TRPP) ensures tenants are supported through compensation, relocation assistance, and the right of return. These protections are secured through a Housing Agreement and are legally enforceable if the project is approved.
- Livability: The proposal is evaluated against the Broadway Plan’s Form of Development (FOD) and urban design guidelines, with attention to housing quality, open space, and neighbourhood interface. Access to frequent transit and active transportation corridors also supports long-term livability and climate goals.
While staff may recommend the application for approval, the decision ultimately rests with Mayor and Council, who are empowered to consider a range of policy, community, and contextual factors. If Council approves the application, the delivery of key public benefits, such as secured affordability, would be legally binding through the Housing Agreement. The proposal’s fit within the neighbourhood will be addressed in the staff report. Importantly, the Broadway Plan identifies this area as a transit-oriented, higher-density neighbourhood. As such, Council may consider both the existing and emerging neighbourhood context when reviewing new housing proposals.

Page last updated: 23 Jul 2025, 08:14 AM

2022-2212 W 10th Ave rezoning application

You mention traffic impacts being assessed by Engineering. Did the City flag any concerns specific to Marstrand Avenue — a narrow street with no sidewalks on the western half and two nearby schools? If so, what safety measures are being mandated at this stage, before development proceeds?

The proposed “below-market” units are not rent-controlled or tied to core-need income levels. Can the City disclose the expected rents for 2- and 3-bedroom units based on current below-market averages, and explain what income range of families would be eligible to apply?

Key dates

Location

Application documents

Applicable plans and policies

About rezoning

Contact applicant

Contact us