-
Share I think the responders may have misunderstood the previous question asked by kpl, which appears to be asking about proposed changes to the Broadway Plan that the city is considering. According to section 10.25.2 of the Broadway Plan, "for the northern block faces along 10th Avenue between Guelph Street and Carolina Street, only one tower will be allowed on the Mount Pleasant RT Area B Block Face," but the city is currently considering reducing or removing the cap on the number of high-rise developments that can be placed on this block and in the neighbourhood, which would profoundly transform the context in which this building would exist. These are new changes that would allow buildings that are *not* currently allowed by the Broadway Plan, so I'd like to know 1. is the city considering removing the limit on the number of towers that could be built on this block? and 2. what specific efforts is the city taking to let residents of the neighbourhood know that the number of high-rise developments on streets like this could be substantially increased by these proposed changes? on Facebook
Share I think the responders may have misunderstood the previous question asked by kpl, which appears to be asking about proposed changes to the Broadway Plan that the city is considering. According to section 10.25.2 of the Broadway Plan, "for the northern block faces along 10th Avenue between Guelph Street and Carolina Street, only one tower will be allowed on the Mount Pleasant RT Area B Block Face," but the city is currently considering reducing or removing the cap on the number of high-rise developments that can be placed on this block and in the neighbourhood, which would profoundly transform the context in which this building would exist. These are new changes that would allow buildings that are *not* currently allowed by the Broadway Plan, so I'd like to know 1. is the city considering removing the limit on the number of towers that could be built on this block? and 2. what specific efforts is the city taking to let residents of the neighbourhood know that the number of high-rise developments on streets like this could be substantially increased by these proposed changes? on Linkedin
Email I think the responders may have misunderstood the previous question asked by kpl, which appears to be asking about proposed changes to the Broadway Plan that the city is considering. According to section 10.25.2 of the Broadway Plan, "for the northern block faces along 10th Avenue between Guelph Street and Carolina Street, only one tower will be allowed on the Mount Pleasant RT Area B Block Face," but the city is currently considering reducing or removing the cap on the number of high-rise developments that can be placed on this block and in the neighbourhood, which would profoundly transform the context in which this building would exist. These are new changes that would allow buildings that are *not* currently allowed by the Broadway Plan, so I'd like to know 1. is the city considering removing the limit on the number of towers that could be built on this block? and 2. what specific efforts is the city taking to let residents of the neighbourhood know that the number of high-rise developments on streets like this could be substantially increased by these proposed changes? link
I think the responders may have misunderstood the previous question asked by kpl, which appears to be asking about proposed changes to the Broadway Plan that the city is considering. According to section 10.25.2 of the Broadway Plan, "for the northern block faces along 10th Avenue between Guelph Street and Carolina Street, only one tower will be allowed on the Mount Pleasant RT Area B Block Face," but the city is currently considering reducing or removing the cap on the number of high-rise developments that can be placed on this block and in the neighbourhood, which would profoundly transform the context in which this building would exist. These are new changes that would allow buildings that are *not* currently allowed by the Broadway Plan, so I'd like to know 1. is the city considering removing the limit on the number of towers that could be built on this block? and 2. what specific efforts is the city taking to let residents of the neighbourhood know that the number of high-rise developments on streets like this could be substantially increased by these proposed changes?
hridi
asked
19 days ago
Thank you for your question. The rezoning application is currently being reviewed against existing City policy which does limit the number of towers per block at this location.
Recent public engagement on potential amendments to the Broadway Plan have taken place between June 13th-July 14th, 2024, which acknowledges some significant new legislation from the Provincial government, which impacts land use planning in areas near transit. As identified in the information boards, this block has been identified as a potential block where the tower limits may be removed due to its proximity within 400 m of a SkyTrain station. These potential changes have not yet been approved by City Council and staff review is ongoing.
-
Share I understand the Broadway Plan allows two towers per block in residential areas, with a few exceptions, including this block. Could you explain why the Broadway Plan policy limits the number of towers on this block to only one? Are there specific features of this block or this street that the policy is responding to? on Facebook
Share I understand the Broadway Plan allows two towers per block in residential areas, with a few exceptions, including this block. Could you explain why the Broadway Plan policy limits the number of towers on this block to only one? Are there specific features of this block or this street that the policy is responding to? on Linkedin
Email I understand the Broadway Plan allows two towers per block in residential areas, with a few exceptions, including this block. Could you explain why the Broadway Plan policy limits the number of towers on this block to only one? Are there specific features of this block or this street that the policy is responding to? link
I understand the Broadway Plan allows two towers per block in residential areas, with a few exceptions, including this block. Could you explain why the Broadway Plan policy limits the number of towers on this block to only one? Are there specific features of this block or this street that the policy is responding to?
Brandon
asked
18 days ago
Thank you for your question. Under existing Broadway Plan policy (Subarea MRTB), there is only one tower per block face on this block because the northern portion of block (located in MCEF) has a maximum of three towers per block face.
-
Share Many of the questions that have been asked concern the danger posed to the trees lining the street and providing a protective and decorative canopy. The developers are cited as saying it is proposed that they be retained. What guarantees do we have that the developers will be appropriately held to account should they not preserve the trees? Can Council assure us that no tree will be removed because retaining it is considered "excessively costly"? What does "robust" planting mean? Can Council guarantee that any trees that have to be replaced will be replaced by equivalents, not something 2 metres tall? on Facebook
Share Many of the questions that have been asked concern the danger posed to the trees lining the street and providing a protective and decorative canopy. The developers are cited as saying it is proposed that they be retained. What guarantees do we have that the developers will be appropriately held to account should they not preserve the trees? Can Council assure us that no tree will be removed because retaining it is considered "excessively costly"? What does "robust" planting mean? Can Council guarantee that any trees that have to be replaced will be replaced by equivalents, not something 2 metres tall? on Linkedin
Email Many of the questions that have been asked concern the danger posed to the trees lining the street and providing a protective and decorative canopy. The developers are cited as saying it is proposed that they be retained. What guarantees do we have that the developers will be appropriately held to account should they not preserve the trees? Can Council assure us that no tree will be removed because retaining it is considered "excessively costly"? What does "robust" planting mean? Can Council guarantee that any trees that have to be replaced will be replaced by equivalents, not something 2 metres tall? link
Many of the questions that have been asked concern the danger posed to the trees lining the street and providing a protective and decorative canopy. The developers are cited as saying it is proposed that they be retained. What guarantees do we have that the developers will be appropriately held to account should they not preserve the trees? Can Council assure us that no tree will be removed because retaining it is considered "excessively costly"? What does "robust" planting mean? Can Council guarantee that any trees that have to be replaced will be replaced by equivalents, not something 2 metres tall?
Mark Welch
asked
18 days ago
The final number of tree retentions and tree removals are determined at the Development Permit (DP) stage. After a DP has been issued, City staff will conduct site-inspections to ensure the tree protection plan (as recommended by the consulting arborist) is being followed.
Our current Protection of Trees Bylaw stipulates the requirements for replacement trees (see Section 6 of the Protection of Trees Bylaw, and Schedule C and D for more information). The proposed replacement trees will have to meet these requirements, and will be reviewed in detail at the DP stage.
-
Share What mitigation steps are being taken to avoid impacts to the 10th Avenue bike lane during construction? on Facebook
Share What mitigation steps are being taken to avoid impacts to the 10th Avenue bike lane during construction? on Linkedin
Email What mitigation steps are being taken to avoid impacts to the 10th Avenue bike lane during construction? link
What mitigation steps are being taken to avoid impacts to the 10th Avenue bike lane during construction?
scott.crs
asked
19 days ago
Thank you for your question. Prior to construction, the project is required to meet with and coordinate construction and street use impacts with the City’s Engineering team. Appropriate permits are required to secure street space and any closures must be permitted in advance with proper traffic management plans approved. Traffic management plans are reviewed closely by Engineering staff to ensure there are safe vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian provisions during construction to provide access for the local residents and businesses.
-
Share Does Council require any developer to commit a certain percentage of the total cost towards landscaping? For example, 1% of $10M is $100,000. How is any landscaping, remedial or not, measured? How is it deemed satisfactory? on Facebook
Share Does Council require any developer to commit a certain percentage of the total cost towards landscaping? For example, 1% of $10M is $100,000. How is any landscaping, remedial or not, measured? How is it deemed satisfactory? on Linkedin
Email Does Council require any developer to commit a certain percentage of the total cost towards landscaping? For example, 1% of $10M is $100,000. How is any landscaping, remedial or not, measured? How is it deemed satisfactory? link
Does Council require any developer to commit a certain percentage of the total cost towards landscaping? For example, 1% of $10M is $100,000. How is any landscaping, remedial or not, measured? How is it deemed satisfactory?
Mark Welch
asked
18 days ago
There are no security deposits or bonds in place used to ensure landscaping is satisfactory. Landscaping is deemed satisfactory upon inspection by the City’s inspector’s who check to see that the installed landscaping is inline with the approved development permit (DP) landscape plans.
-
Share So the city’s plan is to completely ignore the character of the neighborhood and approve a series of high rises without any care for the impact to the current residents. 18 stories is gigantic for the area. Especially x 2. Will the city take into consideration the sentiment of current residents, as opposed to a sample that wasn’t necessarily specific to this neighbourhood? The surveys highlighted in another response were not specific to mount pleasant. Cambie and broadway, is very different to renfrew and broadway, or Alma and broadway. As a lifelong resident of mount pleasant these plans are very disheartening, as they ruin the spirit of neighborhood by ersaing its history and destroying spaces where the community commutes and enjoys shade from trees that are just as old as this neighborhood. adding structures that are too tall, and do not support the neighborhood’s artists, community, diversity, is really a shame, when the city could compel developers to propose structures that are within the character of the of one of the most lively neighborhoods and those that add to the vibrant mosaic of east Vancouver. on Facebook
Share So the city’s plan is to completely ignore the character of the neighborhood and approve a series of high rises without any care for the impact to the current residents. 18 stories is gigantic for the area. Especially x 2. Will the city take into consideration the sentiment of current residents, as opposed to a sample that wasn’t necessarily specific to this neighbourhood? The surveys highlighted in another response were not specific to mount pleasant. Cambie and broadway, is very different to renfrew and broadway, or Alma and broadway. As a lifelong resident of mount pleasant these plans are very disheartening, as they ruin the spirit of neighborhood by ersaing its history and destroying spaces where the community commutes and enjoys shade from trees that are just as old as this neighborhood. adding structures that are too tall, and do not support the neighborhood’s artists, community, diversity, is really a shame, when the city could compel developers to propose structures that are within the character of the of one of the most lively neighborhoods and those that add to the vibrant mosaic of east Vancouver. on Linkedin
Email So the city’s plan is to completely ignore the character of the neighborhood and approve a series of high rises without any care for the impact to the current residents. 18 stories is gigantic for the area. Especially x 2. Will the city take into consideration the sentiment of current residents, as opposed to a sample that wasn’t necessarily specific to this neighbourhood? The surveys highlighted in another response were not specific to mount pleasant. Cambie and broadway, is very different to renfrew and broadway, or Alma and broadway. As a lifelong resident of mount pleasant these plans are very disheartening, as they ruin the spirit of neighborhood by ersaing its history and destroying spaces where the community commutes and enjoys shade from trees that are just as old as this neighborhood. adding structures that are too tall, and do not support the neighborhood’s artists, community, diversity, is really a shame, when the city could compel developers to propose structures that are within the character of the of one of the most lively neighborhoods and those that add to the vibrant mosaic of east Vancouver. link
So the city’s plan is to completely ignore the character of the neighborhood and approve a series of high rises without any care for the impact to the current residents. 18 stories is gigantic for the area. Especially x 2. Will the city take into consideration the sentiment of current residents, as opposed to a sample that wasn’t necessarily specific to this neighbourhood? The surveys highlighted in another response were not specific to mount pleasant. Cambie and broadway, is very different to renfrew and broadway, or Alma and broadway. As a lifelong resident of mount pleasant these plans are very disheartening, as they ruin the spirit of neighborhood by ersaing its history and destroying spaces where the community commutes and enjoys shade from trees that are just as old as this neighborhood. adding structures that are too tall, and do not support the neighborhood’s artists, community, diversity, is really a shame, when the city could compel developers to propose structures that are within the character of the of one of the most lively neighborhoods and those that add to the vibrant mosaic of east Vancouver.
MPNP
asked
19 days ago
From March 2019 to April 2022, staff undertook an extensive community and stakeholder engagement process to inform the preparation of the Broadway Plan. Over the course of the planning program, over 28,500 engagement touchpoints were counted utilizing a range of in-person and virtual tools and activities. The intention was to reach a broad range of people who live, work, play and learn within the Plan area and beyond. This included 5 surveys, 14 public in-person open houses, and 41 workshop events that focused on neighbourhoods and policy themes. Given the area’s significance to the city and larger city it was important to hear from all people who may live, work, play, or visit the area.
With respect to the survey, we found the majority of residents who completed the survey were residents from either Kitsilano, Fairview or Mount Pleasant. During the final Phase 4: Draft Plan stage of the plan process, we provided detailed land use and chapter policies with the public for review. Of the 3,660 people who completed the survey 64.4% of residents lived in the Broadway Plan area. To view these results, please read the summary here. Furthermore, to learn about how key feedback themes were integrated or responded to in the Plan please read the 2022 Council report here.
-
Share I'm a little confused by a previous response that says that "In the case of the mature chestnut trees in question, staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly, while also accommodating the housing supply needs of the city" but also that the application proposes to retain the chestnut trees on the street. Does this mean that the project will keep the street trees that are directly in front of the houses that would get demolished, and if so, is there a way for the city to make sure this would happen? In other words, what is to stop the builder from beginning work on the site and then deciding that the trees are too inconvenient to preserve? on Facebook
Share I'm a little confused by a previous response that says that "In the case of the mature chestnut trees in question, staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly, while also accommodating the housing supply needs of the city" but also that the application proposes to retain the chestnut trees on the street. Does this mean that the project will keep the street trees that are directly in front of the houses that would get demolished, and if so, is there a way for the city to make sure this would happen? In other words, what is to stop the builder from beginning work on the site and then deciding that the trees are too inconvenient to preserve? on Linkedin
Email I'm a little confused by a previous response that says that "In the case of the mature chestnut trees in question, staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly, while also accommodating the housing supply needs of the city" but also that the application proposes to retain the chestnut trees on the street. Does this mean that the project will keep the street trees that are directly in front of the houses that would get demolished, and if so, is there a way for the city to make sure this would happen? In other words, what is to stop the builder from beginning work on the site and then deciding that the trees are too inconvenient to preserve? link
I'm a little confused by a previous response that says that "In the case of the mature chestnut trees in question, staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly, while also accommodating the housing supply needs of the city" but also that the application proposes to retain the chestnut trees on the street. Does this mean that the project will keep the street trees that are directly in front of the houses that would get demolished, and if so, is there a way for the city to make sure this would happen? In other words, what is to stop the builder from beginning work on the site and then deciding that the trees are too inconvenient to preserve?
Sheila G
asked
18 days ago
Thank you for your question. A similar question was asked and the staff response is available on the Question and Answer section of this SYC webpage.
-
Share Regarding the Q&A below about the removal of onsite trees by user hridi (https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/523-549-e-10-ave?tool=qanda#q414002 ), what does it mean that "The applicant is proposing to retain all the public street trees along E 10th Ave, including the mature horse chestnut street trees," but that the "staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly." Has the applicant done their due diligence in understanding the viability of keeping the trees? on Facebook
Share Regarding the Q&A below about the removal of onsite trees by user hridi (https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/523-549-e-10-ave?tool=qanda#q414002 ), what does it mean that "The applicant is proposing to retain all the public street trees along E 10th Ave, including the mature horse chestnut street trees," but that the "staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly." Has the applicant done their due diligence in understanding the viability of keeping the trees? on Linkedin
Email Regarding the Q&A below about the removal of onsite trees by user hridi (https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/523-549-e-10-ave?tool=qanda#q414002 ), what does it mean that "The applicant is proposing to retain all the public street trees along E 10th Ave, including the mature horse chestnut street trees," but that the "staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly." Has the applicant done their due diligence in understanding the viability of keeping the trees? link
Regarding the Q&A below about the removal of onsite trees by user hridi (https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/523-549-e-10-ave?tool=qanda#q414002 ), what does it mean that "The applicant is proposing to retain all the public street trees along E 10th Ave, including the mature horse chestnut street trees," but that the "staff note that their location on-site makes the possibility of retention impossible or excessively costly." Has the applicant done their due diligence in understanding the viability of keeping the trees?
pennysgirl
asked
19 days ago
A Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report has been submitted. The applicant has followed the standard rezoning requirements by providing these arboricultural documents that consider the on-site and off-site trees. As the staff review is ongoing, the final number of tree retentions and tree removals are determined later in the process, at the development permit stage.
Please note the trees on private property are referenced as “on-site” trees, and are proposed for removal. “Off-site” trees are the “public street trees” on city property, that were referenced in the previous message. These off-site trees are currently proposed for retention.
-
Share Thanks for the helpful info about the climate considerations and for getting the responses to all these questions. I'm not sure I understand though the answer previously that tree canopy loss is an inevitable trade-off for increasing the housing supply--is that a general comment, then, rather than about this street? Or would this trade-off be a consideration that informs possible future developments on this block/ on this street? on Facebook
Share Thanks for the helpful info about the climate considerations and for getting the responses to all these questions. I'm not sure I understand though the answer previously that tree canopy loss is an inevitable trade-off for increasing the housing supply--is that a general comment, then, rather than about this street? Or would this trade-off be a consideration that informs possible future developments on this block/ on this street? on Linkedin
Email Thanks for the helpful info about the climate considerations and for getting the responses to all these questions. I'm not sure I understand though the answer previously that tree canopy loss is an inevitable trade-off for increasing the housing supply--is that a general comment, then, rather than about this street? Or would this trade-off be a consideration that informs possible future developments on this block/ on this street? link
Thanks for the helpful info about the climate considerations and for getting the responses to all these questions. I'm not sure I understand though the answer previously that tree canopy loss is an inevitable trade-off for increasing the housing supply--is that a general comment, then, rather than about this street? Or would this trade-off be a consideration that informs possible future developments on this block/ on this street?
hridi
asked
17 days ago
Thank you for your question. As noted in previous staff responses on this Q&A, the street trees along East 10th Avenue are proposed for retention. There are trees on-site which are proposed to be removed due to conflict with the building footprint. The Broadway Plan seeks to balance numerous goals in residential areas which includes the provision of new secured rental housing and maintaining green and leafy landscaping through building setbacks and opportunities for large street trees. Each rezoning application is reviewed on a case by case basis and seeks to fulfill goals and requirements in City policies and by-laws.
-
Share Can you clarify the differences between the original proposal and the revised one? I couldn’t clearly see the differences anywhere. on Facebook
Share Can you clarify the differences between the original proposal and the revised one? I couldn’t clearly see the differences anywhere. on Linkedin
Email Can you clarify the differences between the original proposal and the revised one? I couldn’t clearly see the differences anywhere. link
Can you clarify the differences between the original proposal and the revised one? I couldn’t clearly see the differences anywhere.
SaraG19
asked
18 days ago
Thank you for your question. Please refer to the text on the SYC webpage underneath where it says ‘Revised Application (February 1, 2024)’ for details of what changed between the original and revised proposal. Generally, the revised plans were more coordinated than the original submission and provided some corrections to the shadow studies and statistics of the building height. A small reduction in density was proposed and the number of parking spaces was reduced. The form of development and proposed uses are similar between the original and revised documents.
Revised Application – February 1, 2024