6486 Chester St rezoning application

Share 6486 Chester St rezoning application on Facebook Share 6486 Chester St rezoning application on Twitter Share 6486 Chester St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 6486 Chester St rezoning application link

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from R1-1 (Residential Inclusive) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a six-storey mixed-use building and includes:

  • 116 rental units;
  • A telecommunications facility on the northeast corner of the site;
  • An overall floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.89; and
  • A building height of 22.1 m (73 ft.).

This application is being considered under the Secured Rental Policy.

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

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from R1-1 (Residential Inclusive) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a six-storey mixed-use building and includes:

  • 116 rental units;
  • A telecommunications facility on the northeast corner of the site;
  • An overall floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.89; and
  • A building height of 22.1 m (73 ft.).

This application is being considered under the Secured Rental Policy.

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

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

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from June 11, 2025 to June 24, 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 Sorry for the interuption, if the City wants to increase green space cooling centers dated June 28,2023 why would you consider cutting down 8 mature trees at 6486 Chester Street on page 16 item #11 on Facebook Share Sorry for the interuption, if the City wants to increase green space cooling centers dated June 28,2023 why would you consider cutting down 8 mature trees at 6486 Chester Street on page 16 item #11 on Twitter Share Sorry for the interuption, if the City wants to increase green space cooling centers dated June 28,2023 why would you consider cutting down 8 mature trees at 6486 Chester Street on page 16 item #11 on Linkedin Email Sorry for the interuption, if the City wants to increase green space cooling centers dated June 28,2023 why would you consider cutting down 8 mature trees at 6486 Chester Street on page 16 item #11 link

    Sorry for the interuption, if the City wants to increase green space cooling centers dated June 28,2023 why would you consider cutting down 8 mature trees at 6486 Chester Street on page 16 item #11

    Chester St asked 9 days ago

    All onsite trees are proposed for removal due to significant conflicts with building envelope, parkade extents, and underground utility building use. In addition to this, the majority of these trees are species that are not preferable for long-term retention. Some trees are also showing signs of improper pruning, decay, and decline, reducing their retention values. Replacement trees are required to replace the removed on site trees. Proposed replacement trees will be provided in areas of below grade setbacks along Chester Street, and 49th Avenue, and on the rooftop amenity area.

    For information about the City’s plans and actions to enhance Vancouver’s resilience to extreme heat and related climate impacts, please see  2024-2025 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy PDF file (29 MB)

  • Share Given the Council members’ motion June 28 2023 by councilor Boyle “Addressing ongoing inequities by improving social infrastructure and access to services across south vancouver and marpole neighbourhoods” notes that residents face barriers to community engagement including fear of political participation in engagement process with the City of Vancouver and thus a lot of time, person power, resources and flexibility are needed from staff when conducting engagement sessions such as this one regarding the development at 6486 Chester and also that there is a shortage of quality public spaces, and directs staff to use the Reframing South Vancouver Initiative to inform engagement processes, neighbourhood improvements , and policy and funding allocation decisions at the city of Vancouver and also that council direct staff to ensure the voices of residents across South Vancouver neighbourhoods are heard at City Hall including creating a neighbourhood action plan that honours existing community assets (such as the public access park on the north side of the project site) and direct staff to bring recommendations to council in future operating and capital budgets to address historic under resourcing of neighbourhoods across South Vancouver including consideration of grants and investments related to increasing park and public space amenities for all age groups and abilities including covered area green space, lighting, flowers and gardens, and quiet spaces to retreat off the main or noisy streets, can you please explain how the current proposal for 6486 Chester which plans to remove the public access park and 8+ mature trees aligns with council direction to increase resident access to park space and how the existing engagement approach has demonstrated more resources, more people and better access for residents of our neighbourhood that face barriers to engagement (whether it is fear of political process, language, technology access)? on Facebook Share Given the Council members’ motion June 28 2023 by councilor Boyle “Addressing ongoing inequities by improving social infrastructure and access to services across south vancouver and marpole neighbourhoods” notes that residents face barriers to community engagement including fear of political participation in engagement process with the City of Vancouver and thus a lot of time, person power, resources and flexibility are needed from staff when conducting engagement sessions such as this one regarding the development at 6486 Chester and also that there is a shortage of quality public spaces, and directs staff to use the Reframing South Vancouver Initiative to inform engagement processes, neighbourhood improvements , and policy and funding allocation decisions at the city of Vancouver and also that council direct staff to ensure the voices of residents across South Vancouver neighbourhoods are heard at City Hall including creating a neighbourhood action plan that honours existing community assets (such as the public access park on the north side of the project site) and direct staff to bring recommendations to council in future operating and capital budgets to address historic under resourcing of neighbourhoods across South Vancouver including consideration of grants and investments related to increasing park and public space amenities for all age groups and abilities including covered area green space, lighting, flowers and gardens, and quiet spaces to retreat off the main or noisy streets, can you please explain how the current proposal for 6486 Chester which plans to remove the public access park and 8+ mature trees aligns with council direction to increase resident access to park space and how the existing engagement approach has demonstrated more resources, more people and better access for residents of our neighbourhood that face barriers to engagement (whether it is fear of political process, language, technology access)? on Twitter Share Given the Council members’ motion June 28 2023 by councilor Boyle “Addressing ongoing inequities by improving social infrastructure and access to services across south vancouver and marpole neighbourhoods” notes that residents face barriers to community engagement including fear of political participation in engagement process with the City of Vancouver and thus a lot of time, person power, resources and flexibility are needed from staff when conducting engagement sessions such as this one regarding the development at 6486 Chester and also that there is a shortage of quality public spaces, and directs staff to use the Reframing South Vancouver Initiative to inform engagement processes, neighbourhood improvements , and policy and funding allocation decisions at the city of Vancouver and also that council direct staff to ensure the voices of residents across South Vancouver neighbourhoods are heard at City Hall including creating a neighbourhood action plan that honours existing community assets (such as the public access park on the north side of the project site) and direct staff to bring recommendations to council in future operating and capital budgets to address historic under resourcing of neighbourhoods across South Vancouver including consideration of grants and investments related to increasing park and public space amenities for all age groups and abilities including covered area green space, lighting, flowers and gardens, and quiet spaces to retreat off the main or noisy streets, can you please explain how the current proposal for 6486 Chester which plans to remove the public access park and 8+ mature trees aligns with council direction to increase resident access to park space and how the existing engagement approach has demonstrated more resources, more people and better access for residents of our neighbourhood that face barriers to engagement (whether it is fear of political process, language, technology access)? on Linkedin Email Given the Council members’ motion June 28 2023 by councilor Boyle “Addressing ongoing inequities by improving social infrastructure and access to services across south vancouver and marpole neighbourhoods” notes that residents face barriers to community engagement including fear of political participation in engagement process with the City of Vancouver and thus a lot of time, person power, resources and flexibility are needed from staff when conducting engagement sessions such as this one regarding the development at 6486 Chester and also that there is a shortage of quality public spaces, and directs staff to use the Reframing South Vancouver Initiative to inform engagement processes, neighbourhood improvements , and policy and funding allocation decisions at the city of Vancouver and also that council direct staff to ensure the voices of residents across South Vancouver neighbourhoods are heard at City Hall including creating a neighbourhood action plan that honours existing community assets (such as the public access park on the north side of the project site) and direct staff to bring recommendations to council in future operating and capital budgets to address historic under resourcing of neighbourhoods across South Vancouver including consideration of grants and investments related to increasing park and public space amenities for all age groups and abilities including covered area green space, lighting, flowers and gardens, and quiet spaces to retreat off the main or noisy streets, can you please explain how the current proposal for 6486 Chester which plans to remove the public access park and 8+ mature trees aligns with council direction to increase resident access to park space and how the existing engagement approach has demonstrated more resources, more people and better access for residents of our neighbourhood that face barriers to engagement (whether it is fear of political process, language, technology access)? link

    Given the Council members’ motion June 28 2023 by councilor Boyle “Addressing ongoing inequities by improving social infrastructure and access to services across south vancouver and marpole neighbourhoods” notes that residents face barriers to community engagement including fear of political participation in engagement process with the City of Vancouver and thus a lot of time, person power, resources and flexibility are needed from staff when conducting engagement sessions such as this one regarding the development at 6486 Chester and also that there is a shortage of quality public spaces, and directs staff to use the Reframing South Vancouver Initiative to inform engagement processes, neighbourhood improvements , and policy and funding allocation decisions at the city of Vancouver and also that council direct staff to ensure the voices of residents across South Vancouver neighbourhoods are heard at City Hall including creating a neighbourhood action plan that honours existing community assets (such as the public access park on the north side of the project site) and direct staff to bring recommendations to council in future operating and capital budgets to address historic under resourcing of neighbourhoods across South Vancouver including consideration of grants and investments related to increasing park and public space amenities for all age groups and abilities including covered area green space, lighting, flowers and gardens, and quiet spaces to retreat off the main or noisy streets, can you please explain how the current proposal for 6486 Chester which plans to remove the public access park and 8+ mature trees aligns with council direction to increase resident access to park space and how the existing engagement approach has demonstrated more resources, more people and better access for residents of our neighbourhood that face barriers to engagement (whether it is fear of political process, language, technology access)?

    Sunset23 asked 15 days ago

    Thank you for the question. It is understood that parks and greenspaces are highly valued spaces in the city, further reinforced by the referenced motion. While staff try to balance community needs and the rezoning proposal for additional rental housing, increasing greenspace on a private development is not always achievable. There are limitations to what the City can ask for regarding park space on private redevelopment sites. While onsite trees are proposed to be removed, replacement trees are required. Replacement trees are proposed to be provided in areas of below grade setbacks along Chester Street, and 49th Avenue, and on the rooftop amenity area.

    Regarding access to engagement, the rezoning planner and applicant are available by phone and email to share project information and answer questions. Google Translate is available at the top right corner of the SYC webpage where users can select languages from the drop down menu. Note this is a third party tool so the translation accuracy is not guaranteed. Folks can also leave a comment or question 311 where translation services are available. 

  • Share The Secured Rental Policy, in s. 2.4.2, says that "Sites that meet the location and site context considerations in Table 2 but are highly irregular in size, shape, context or other attributes may be eligible for rezoning subject to a customized review and response." Is that "customized review and response" applicable to this rezoning application? on Facebook Share The Secured Rental Policy, in s. 2.4.2, says that "Sites that meet the location and site context considerations in Table 2 but are highly irregular in size, shape, context or other attributes may be eligible for rezoning subject to a customized review and response." Is that "customized review and response" applicable to this rezoning application? on Twitter Share The Secured Rental Policy, in s. 2.4.2, says that "Sites that meet the location and site context considerations in Table 2 but are highly irregular in size, shape, context or other attributes may be eligible for rezoning subject to a customized review and response." Is that "customized review and response" applicable to this rezoning application? on Linkedin Email The Secured Rental Policy, in s. 2.4.2, says that "Sites that meet the location and site context considerations in Table 2 but are highly irregular in size, shape, context or other attributes may be eligible for rezoning subject to a customized review and response." Is that "customized review and response" applicable to this rezoning application? link

    The Secured Rental Policy, in s. 2.4.2, says that "Sites that meet the location and site context considerations in Table 2 but are highly irregular in size, shape, context or other attributes may be eligible for rezoning subject to a customized review and response." Is that "customized review and response" applicable to this rezoning application?

    FairfaxQs asked 9 days ago

    Thank you for the question. A "customized review and response" refers to a rezoning to a CD-1 (Comprehensive District) zone which is a zone customized for a specific site; as opposed to rezoning to an existing zoning district such as an RR- (Residential rental) district zone. The Secured Rental Policy supports rezonings to either category. In this case, the application is proposing to rezone to a CD-1 zone due to the telecommunications use on site.

  • Share Given the recent motion put forward to address inequities identified in South Vancouver with respect to access to green space, how will this development avoid reducing green space in south vancouver when there are plans to remove 8+ mature trees and remove the current public access park on the north side of the site? on Facebook Share Given the recent motion put forward to address inequities identified in South Vancouver with respect to access to green space, how will this development avoid reducing green space in south vancouver when there are plans to remove 8+ mature trees and remove the current public access park on the north side of the site? on Twitter Share Given the recent motion put forward to address inequities identified in South Vancouver with respect to access to green space, how will this development avoid reducing green space in south vancouver when there are plans to remove 8+ mature trees and remove the current public access park on the north side of the site? on Linkedin Email Given the recent motion put forward to address inequities identified in South Vancouver with respect to access to green space, how will this development avoid reducing green space in south vancouver when there are plans to remove 8+ mature trees and remove the current public access park on the north side of the site? link

    Given the recent motion put forward to address inequities identified in South Vancouver with respect to access to green space, how will this development avoid reducing green space in south vancouver when there are plans to remove 8+ mature trees and remove the current public access park on the north side of the site?

    Sunset23 asked 15 days ago

    Thank you for the question. It is understood that parks and greenspaces are highly valued spaces in the city, further reinforced by the referenced motion. While staff try to balance community needs and the rezoning proposal for additional rental housing, increasing greenspace on a private development is not always achievable. There are limitations to what the City can ask for regarding park space on private redevelopment sites. However the City does require a landscape plan to seek opportunities to enhance planting and the urban tree canopy at the development permit stage, which is in keeping with the motion.  

  • Share When is construction planning to start and end? What are the planned construction days and working hours? Will there be 24 hour security on site during construction and will security cameras be used to deter theft, arson, and vandalism? on Facebook Share When is construction planning to start and end? What are the planned construction days and working hours? Will there be 24 hour security on site during construction and will security cameras be used to deter theft, arson, and vandalism? on Twitter Share When is construction planning to start and end? What are the planned construction days and working hours? Will there be 24 hour security on site during construction and will security cameras be used to deter theft, arson, and vandalism? on Linkedin Email When is construction planning to start and end? What are the planned construction days and working hours? Will there be 24 hour security on site during construction and will security cameras be used to deter theft, arson, and vandalism? link

    When is construction planning to start and end? What are the planned construction days and working hours? Will there be 24 hour security on site during construction and will security cameras be used to deter theft, arson, and vandalism?

    Chester Street asked 10 days ago

    Response from Applicant: The rezoning application must receive Council approval before it proceeds to the development permit and construction phase. With that, the following is the anticipated construction timeline--Construction will be completed in two phases. The first phase involves the new Central Office, which is estimated to start in Summer 2026 and end in Spring 2027. The second phase covers the residential building, estimated to begin in Winter 2028 and conclude in Winter 2030. Please note that constructing the new Central Office is a much less involved process that will include limited excavation and shoring. All trades will follow City of Vancouver bylaws regarding noise and construction working hours. Generally, construction crews will work Monday to Friday. In special limited cases, Saturday work may be necessary, but these will be one-off situations. As mentioned, construction hours will be restricted to 7:30am to 8pm during the week, in accordance with City of Vancouver by-laws. Neighbours will be provided with contact information for the site superintendent to share immediate concerns as they arise. Telus has been a good neighbour in this neighbourhood for many decades, and we will do our best to maintain this reputation and relationship. Regarding security, we are still a couple of years away from starting construction. However, we plan to have 24-hour security and surveillance cameras in place, and the site will be secured with a locked fence.

  • Share What are the requirements related to HVAC and other utilities on the new buildings with respect to noise, exhausts, etc., in particular the new Central Office, especially given it is located so close to neighbouring properties? on Facebook Share What are the requirements related to HVAC and other utilities on the new buildings with respect to noise, exhausts, etc., in particular the new Central Office, especially given it is located so close to neighbouring properties? on Twitter Share What are the requirements related to HVAC and other utilities on the new buildings with respect to noise, exhausts, etc., in particular the new Central Office, especially given it is located so close to neighbouring properties? on Linkedin Email What are the requirements related to HVAC and other utilities on the new buildings with respect to noise, exhausts, etc., in particular the new Central Office, especially given it is located so close to neighbouring properties? link

    What are the requirements related to HVAC and other utilities on the new buildings with respect to noise, exhausts, etc., in particular the new Central Office, especially given it is located so close to neighbouring properties?

    FairfaxQs asked 9 days ago

    Response from applicant: The HVAC requirements for the residential units will mainly be in suite, and there will be little to no ambient noise generated. The HVAC requirements for the new Central Office will be equal to or less than those of the existing Central Office on the property, as the footprint of the new Central Office will be 25% of the current one. Additionally, the rooftop HVAC equipment for the new Central Office will be more efficient and produce less noise. The City of Vancouver regulates noise through their Noise By-law, and any HVAC equipment will be designed to comply with these regulations. To ensure compliance, an Acoustical Engineer has been engaged to meet all Noise By-law requirements and to implement mitigation measures as necessary. Overall, any noise impacts should be less than those currently generated by the existing HVAC equipment.

  • Share What precautions are taken by the developer to ensure that the foundations and structures of neighbouring properties remain undamaged, especially given the desired setback relaxations, parkade digging, etc.? on Facebook Share What precautions are taken by the developer to ensure that the foundations and structures of neighbouring properties remain undamaged, especially given the desired setback relaxations, parkade digging, etc.? on Twitter Share What precautions are taken by the developer to ensure that the foundations and structures of neighbouring properties remain undamaged, especially given the desired setback relaxations, parkade digging, etc.? on Linkedin Email What precautions are taken by the developer to ensure that the foundations and structures of neighbouring properties remain undamaged, especially given the desired setback relaxations, parkade digging, etc.? link

    What precautions are taken by the developer to ensure that the foundations and structures of neighbouring properties remain undamaged, especially given the desired setback relaxations, parkade digging, etc.?

    FairfaxQs asked 9 days ago

    Response from applicant: Safety is a top priority for us, and we ensure these values are upheld by everyone who visits the site and is contracted to do work. Every precaution will be taken to prevent any risk of damage to city infrastructure or neighbouring properties. These precautions include, but are not limited to, preconstruction structural surveys, crack monitoring, vibration monitoring (where needed), settlement monitoring (where needed), and engineering inspections and field reviews throughout excavation. The excavation and shoring design have been completed by BC's most experienced geotechnical engineering firm, which will be onsite to ensure the contractor follows their design. It is also important to note that the soil conditions on the property consist of grey, very dense till, which is highly stable during excavation and well-suited for traditional footings and foundations.

  • Share In the application documents, there seems to be a wilful misrepresentation of the existing property, whereby the existing park / green space is not mentioned. To what extent is the City aware of the existence of this green space and the promises Telus had made to the community regarding its retention? on Facebook Share In the application documents, there seems to be a wilful misrepresentation of the existing property, whereby the existing park / green space is not mentioned. To what extent is the City aware of the existence of this green space and the promises Telus had made to the community regarding its retention? on Twitter Share In the application documents, there seems to be a wilful misrepresentation of the existing property, whereby the existing park / green space is not mentioned. To what extent is the City aware of the existence of this green space and the promises Telus had made to the community regarding its retention? on Linkedin Email In the application documents, there seems to be a wilful misrepresentation of the existing property, whereby the existing park / green space is not mentioned. To what extent is the City aware of the existence of this green space and the promises Telus had made to the community regarding its retention? link

    In the application documents, there seems to be a wilful misrepresentation of the existing property, whereby the existing park / green space is not mentioned. To what extent is the City aware of the existence of this green space and the promises Telus had made to the community regarding its retention?

    FairfaxQs asked 9 days ago

    The City is aware of an agreement between the owner of the property and the community regarding the greenspace.

  • Share To follow up on the previous question, is there precedent for a six-storey building being allowed immediately next to a single-family detached building, with no intervening lane or passageway? Is there precedent for relaxation (as opposed to expansion) of the side yard setback requirements in such circumstances? on Facebook Share To follow up on the previous question, is there precedent for a six-storey building being allowed immediately next to a single-family detached building, with no intervening lane or passageway? Is there precedent for relaxation (as opposed to expansion) of the side yard setback requirements in such circumstances? on Twitter Share To follow up on the previous question, is there precedent for a six-storey building being allowed immediately next to a single-family detached building, with no intervening lane or passageway? Is there precedent for relaxation (as opposed to expansion) of the side yard setback requirements in such circumstances? on Linkedin Email To follow up on the previous question, is there precedent for a six-storey building being allowed immediately next to a single-family detached building, with no intervening lane or passageway? Is there precedent for relaxation (as opposed to expansion) of the side yard setback requirements in such circumstances? link

    To follow up on the previous question, is there precedent for a six-storey building being allowed immediately next to a single-family detached building, with no intervening lane or passageway? Is there precedent for relaxation (as opposed to expansion) of the side yard setback requirements in such circumstances?

    FairfaxQs asked 9 days ago

    There are examples of six-storey buildings next to single detached-buildings throughout the City such as the Cambie Corridor.

     Setbacks are regulated by the Zoning and Development By-law. Similar to an earlier response, in some cases flexibility is applied for design/efficiency, site hardship, to improve how the project fits into the neighbourhood etc. The Shape Your City page has examples of projects. For referred projects and projects that have gone to Council, the referral reports typically outline where the projects met policy and where flexibility was applied to improve the project design.

  • Share Question #1 Will Telus be removing the public park that they gave to the neighbourhood 52 years ago? In the City development files from 1973 and 1991 BC Tel/Telus wrote letters giving the park for public use and it was written into the development permit, I sent copies to Belinda Liu June 2, 2025. Question #2 Will the 8 mature trees on the north and west side be removed? In a highly dense neighbourhood we need these trees to clean the air, protect the animals and provide greenspace in the city. Question #3 Will you increase the parking stalls from 78 to 116 for each apartment plus extra for the Telus vehicles to accommodate the number of residents and Telus vans needed? Each of the half dozen new 5 plex houses (duplex, 2 suites & laneway house) on this block have 4-6 cars with no parking provided on their properties. Question #3 Will you change the 2 hour free parking to all permit parking in this block? As I noted in the June 17th submission we had residents only parking that we petitioned for permit parking because the volume of cars from Fraser Street were parking illegally on our block. The city omitted to tell us they were metering Fraser Street and the multi block parkade behind the shops to the west nor the fact we would be having 2 hour parking over 50% of our block, there are NO 2 hour parking on Fraser St or the parkade. Question #4 Will Telus put cancer causing consistently noisy receivers on the roof of the new building? In 2007 the neighbourhood petitioned to have it stopped, Belinda has copies. Question #5 Will the north and east sides of the building have larger setbacks to allow the neighbouring house to the north and houses across the alley on the east not to be cut off of all light and sun from a towering building? After reviewing the answers to questions my neighbours have submitted your team is not taking our concerns seriously and not answered properly. We have provided proof in writing this park was given to the neighbourhood, yet your answer was it’s on private property and is only a green space to walk through…Shame on You !!!! Our City deserves better. on Facebook Share Question #1 Will Telus be removing the public park that they gave to the neighbourhood 52 years ago? In the City development files from 1973 and 1991 BC Tel/Telus wrote letters giving the park for public use and it was written into the development permit, I sent copies to Belinda Liu June 2, 2025. Question #2 Will the 8 mature trees on the north and west side be removed? In a highly dense neighbourhood we need these trees to clean the air, protect the animals and provide greenspace in the city. Question #3 Will you increase the parking stalls from 78 to 116 for each apartment plus extra for the Telus vehicles to accommodate the number of residents and Telus vans needed? Each of the half dozen new 5 plex houses (duplex, 2 suites & laneway house) on this block have 4-6 cars with no parking provided on their properties. Question #3 Will you change the 2 hour free parking to all permit parking in this block? As I noted in the June 17th submission we had residents only parking that we petitioned for permit parking because the volume of cars from Fraser Street were parking illegally on our block. The city omitted to tell us they were metering Fraser Street and the multi block parkade behind the shops to the west nor the fact we would be having 2 hour parking over 50% of our block, there are NO 2 hour parking on Fraser St or the parkade. Question #4 Will Telus put cancer causing consistently noisy receivers on the roof of the new building? In 2007 the neighbourhood petitioned to have it stopped, Belinda has copies. Question #5 Will the north and east sides of the building have larger setbacks to allow the neighbouring house to the north and houses across the alley on the east not to be cut off of all light and sun from a towering building? After reviewing the answers to questions my neighbours have submitted your team is not taking our concerns seriously and not answered properly. We have provided proof in writing this park was given to the neighbourhood, yet your answer was it’s on private property and is only a green space to walk through…Shame on You !!!! Our City deserves better. on Twitter Share Question #1 Will Telus be removing the public park that they gave to the neighbourhood 52 years ago? In the City development files from 1973 and 1991 BC Tel/Telus wrote letters giving the park for public use and it was written into the development permit, I sent copies to Belinda Liu June 2, 2025. Question #2 Will the 8 mature trees on the north and west side be removed? In a highly dense neighbourhood we need these trees to clean the air, protect the animals and provide greenspace in the city. Question #3 Will you increase the parking stalls from 78 to 116 for each apartment plus extra for the Telus vehicles to accommodate the number of residents and Telus vans needed? Each of the half dozen new 5 plex houses (duplex, 2 suites & laneway house) on this block have 4-6 cars with no parking provided on their properties. Question #3 Will you change the 2 hour free parking to all permit parking in this block? As I noted in the June 17th submission we had residents only parking that we petitioned for permit parking because the volume of cars from Fraser Street were parking illegally on our block. The city omitted to tell us they were metering Fraser Street and the multi block parkade behind the shops to the west nor the fact we would be having 2 hour parking over 50% of our block, there are NO 2 hour parking on Fraser St or the parkade. Question #4 Will Telus put cancer causing consistently noisy receivers on the roof of the new building? In 2007 the neighbourhood petitioned to have it stopped, Belinda has copies. Question #5 Will the north and east sides of the building have larger setbacks to allow the neighbouring house to the north and houses across the alley on the east not to be cut off of all light and sun from a towering building? After reviewing the answers to questions my neighbours have submitted your team is not taking our concerns seriously and not answered properly. We have provided proof in writing this park was given to the neighbourhood, yet your answer was it’s on private property and is only a green space to walk through…Shame on You !!!! Our City deserves better. on Linkedin Email Question #1 Will Telus be removing the public park that they gave to the neighbourhood 52 years ago? In the City development files from 1973 and 1991 BC Tel/Telus wrote letters giving the park for public use and it was written into the development permit, I sent copies to Belinda Liu June 2, 2025. Question #2 Will the 8 mature trees on the north and west side be removed? In a highly dense neighbourhood we need these trees to clean the air, protect the animals and provide greenspace in the city. Question #3 Will you increase the parking stalls from 78 to 116 for each apartment plus extra for the Telus vehicles to accommodate the number of residents and Telus vans needed? Each of the half dozen new 5 plex houses (duplex, 2 suites & laneway house) on this block have 4-6 cars with no parking provided on their properties. Question #3 Will you change the 2 hour free parking to all permit parking in this block? As I noted in the June 17th submission we had residents only parking that we petitioned for permit parking because the volume of cars from Fraser Street were parking illegally on our block. The city omitted to tell us they were metering Fraser Street and the multi block parkade behind the shops to the west nor the fact we would be having 2 hour parking over 50% of our block, there are NO 2 hour parking on Fraser St or the parkade. Question #4 Will Telus put cancer causing consistently noisy receivers on the roof of the new building? In 2007 the neighbourhood petitioned to have it stopped, Belinda has copies. Question #5 Will the north and east sides of the building have larger setbacks to allow the neighbouring house to the north and houses across the alley on the east not to be cut off of all light and sun from a towering building? After reviewing the answers to questions my neighbours have submitted your team is not taking our concerns seriously and not answered properly. We have provided proof in writing this park was given to the neighbourhood, yet your answer was it’s on private property and is only a green space to walk through…Shame on You !!!! Our City deserves better. link

    Question #1 Will Telus be removing the public park that they gave to the neighbourhood 52 years ago? In the City development files from 1973 and 1991 BC Tel/Telus wrote letters giving the park for public use and it was written into the development permit, I sent copies to Belinda Liu June 2, 2025. Question #2 Will the 8 mature trees on the north and west side be removed? In a highly dense neighbourhood we need these trees to clean the air, protect the animals and provide greenspace in the city. Question #3 Will you increase the parking stalls from 78 to 116 for each apartment plus extra for the Telus vehicles to accommodate the number of residents and Telus vans needed? Each of the half dozen new 5 plex houses (duplex, 2 suites & laneway house) on this block have 4-6 cars with no parking provided on their properties. Question #3 Will you change the 2 hour free parking to all permit parking in this block? As I noted in the June 17th submission we had residents only parking that we petitioned for permit parking because the volume of cars from Fraser Street were parking illegally on our block. The city omitted to tell us they were metering Fraser Street and the multi block parkade behind the shops to the west nor the fact we would be having 2 hour parking over 50% of our block, there are NO 2 hour parking on Fraser St or the parkade. Question #4 Will Telus put cancer causing consistently noisy receivers on the roof of the new building? In 2007 the neighbourhood petitioned to have it stopped, Belinda has copies. Question #5 Will the north and east sides of the building have larger setbacks to allow the neighbouring house to the north and houses across the alley on the east not to be cut off of all light and sun from a towering building? After reviewing the answers to questions my neighbours have submitted your team is not taking our concerns seriously and not answered properly. We have provided proof in writing this park was given to the neighbourhood, yet your answer was it’s on private property and is only a green space to walk through…Shame on You !!!! Our City deserves better.

    Chester St asked 10 days ago

    Thank you for the questions. Please see the responses below.

    Q1: A similar question has been asked about the greenspace. Below is a copy of the earlier response:

    The current greenspace that you have referenced is on private property and is connected to the current telecommunications structure. While this greenspace is not a public park, we do appreciate that it provides access for members of the public. During a rezoning process, applicants bring forward a concept to re-imagine the existing space, for which staff and the applicant team work together to determine a supportable site layout. Since this application proposes to add residential use with a telecommunications building, this may or may not impact the current structure(s) and the conditions associated with it.

    Q2: All onsite trees are proposed for removal due to significant conflicts with building envelope, parkade extents, and underground utility building use. In addition to this, the majority of these trees are species that are not preferable for long-term retention. Some trees are also showing signs of improper pruning, decay, and decline, reducing their retention values.

    Replacement trees are required to replace the removed on site trees. Replacement trees will be provided in areas of below grade setbacks along Chester Street, and 49th Avenue, and on the rooftop amenity area

    Q3a: The development is required to provide off-street parking for both residents and visitors per the Parking By-law. Additionally, two surface parking spots are proposed to the west of the proposed telecommunications building for maintenance staff use. Parking, loading and bicycle spaces will be reviewed at time of development permit application.

    Q3b: A similar question has been asked about street parking. Below is a copy of the earlier response:

    Staff monitors on-street parking demand through the Resident Permit Parking (RPP) Program. If there is a concern, additional parking restrictions may be explored eg. RPP and time-limited parking. For more information on requesting a new of changing an existing permit zone, please visit the webpage linked here.

    Q4: Applicant response-- There are no plans to install a cell tower at this site. We understand that a Development Permit would be required for a cell tower and that the neighbourhood would be notified as part of the approval process.

    Q5: Staff are reviewing the proposal. Staff analysis and conditions will be included in the referral report later in the development process. 

Page last updated: 25 Jun 2025, 08:24 AM