Temporary Modular Housing Public Hearing on April 12th for 1325-1333 East Georgia Street

Example of Temporary Modular Housing building at 220 Terminal Avenue

There’s a Public Hearing starting at 6pm on April 12th to consider changing the zoning designation on two lots at 1325 and 1333 East Georgia Street to allow for Temporary Modular Housing units. This rezoning application is the third item on the Public Hearing agenda. The Temporary Modular Housing proposal appears under the following name:

3. Amendment to the Regional Context Statement Official Development Plan By-law for 1325 -1333 East Georgia Street

Full meeting agenda: https://council.vancouver.ca/20220412/phea20220412ag.htm

Comments can be sent to City Council with the ‘Send Comments to Council’ button on the agenda page and there’s also an option to ‘Request to speak’ if you’d like to address Mayor and Council either in person or by telephone.

The policy report estimates that one Temporary Modular Housing building on the property could yield an approximate total of 30 self-contained studio units. Lu’ma, a non-profit housing society, would be the owner and operator of the temporary supportive social housing. Lu’ma has a portfolio of approximately 500 units.

There’s a house constructed in 1908 at the north end of the lot that would be preserved and used to provide tenant services and a kitchen. There’s no design or approximate site layout in this application. This would be part of a later development permit process if City Council were to approve the rezoning.

The site is currently zoned as Industrial Land and it is protected under Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. This rezoning application seeks to change the land designation to General Urban to allow for residential uses such as Temporary Modular Housing. A similar process was undertaken at 1580 Vernon Drive, the current site of two Temporary Modular Housing buildings that provide a combined total of 98 units of housing on a site with an area of 60,810 sq. ft. The property at 1325-1333 East Georgia is considerably smaller at 12,486 sq. ft. A Community Advisory Committee for this housing site is not planned. Community Advisory Committees are fairly common and one was formed for 1580 Vernon Drive.

There’s another temporary modular housing nearby at 1131 Franklin Street with 39 units of housing.

1325-1333 East Georgia Street site

The City of Vancouver website has a compiled list of Temporary Modular Housing Buildings. All of the Temporary Modular Housing has been built east of Oak Street. Current City regulations allow the approval of Temporary Modular Housing through the development permit process; however, in this case the extra rezoning stage is needed as 1325-1333 East Georgia Street is Industrial Land. The site is expected to be used for Temporary Modular Housing for a period of 10 years.

1325-1333 East Georgia Street site

Official Notice of the GWACAnnual General Meeting Saturday, April 2nd at 2PM

Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 850 6555 1323, Passcode: 972526
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/k56b8CCpg

Join us this month for our AGM – your chance to elect a new Board and help shape the future of Grandview Woodland

We’re so very excited to welcome this year’s
AGM Keynote Speaker – Andy Yan

In an uncertain era of rapidly rising land values and a dramatic loss of affordability, where is Vancouver headed?

How do we house our people and keep our vibrant neighborhoods intact? 

And what is in store for Grandview Woodland?  

For his insights into our present and future, join our special AGM keynote speaker Andy Yan.

Born and raised in Vancouver, Andy is the director of the City Program at Simon Fraser University and has a long and noted history as an analyst and commentator on urban regeneration, neighborhood development, public outreach, and more. 

Community Updates:

Broadway Plan – Towers Everywhere!

Last Chance for Input – Do the Survey Now

The City’s Broadway Plan proposes towers throughout without any meaningful neighborhood planning.

The plan covers 16th Ave. to 1st Ave., Arbutus St. (Vine) to Clark Dr., covering parts of Kitsilano, South Granville, Fairview, and Mt. Pleasant.

If the subway is extended to UBC, expect this kind of plan to also be extended to cover the rest of Kitsilano and all of West Point Grey.

The survey is only open until March 22, so, please  

Find the Plan & Survey Here: https://shapeyourcity.ca/broadway-plan

  • To do the survey, click on the small blue button “Share Your Thoughts”

Issues to Consider:

The plan proposal: 

  • Allowing 6 to 18 story towers in low-density RT zones
  • Undermines character and heritage building retention incentives
  • Allowing up to 20 stories in existing walk-up 3-4 story apartment zones
  • Allowing up to 40 stories near stations and broadly around the area

General lack of planning principles: 

  • No meaningful neighborhood-based planning process
  • No proper planning for impacts of scale, parking, & infrastructure
  • Impacts the major view cones, shadowing parks
  • Development fees only cover a small number of actual costs of infrastructure and amenities, so property taxes cover the rest and will increase
  • Will displace existing more affordable rentals
  • No meaningful affordability measures as claimed
  • The City already has more development approved than required to meet future growth, so there is time to plan properly in each neighborhood
  • The proposal provides much more development than what can be justified to meet future growth

Vancouver Sun – March 12, 2022

  • Four of five leading mayoral candidates support the Broadway plan’s direction: independent Mayor Kennedy Stewart, who is running for re-election, Non-Partisan Association candidate John Coupar, Progress Vancouver’s expected nominee Mark Marissen, and A Better City’s Ken Sim.
    But Coun. Colleen Hardwick, who is seeking the nomination of TEAM for a Livable Vancouver, is critical of the plan and the subway project in general.”

CityHallWatch – March 15, 2022

GWAC Constitution


The name of the society is the Grandview Woodlands Area Council.

The purposes of the society are:

  1. To establish an organization to inform people, in a way that they will understand, of services and programs that are either available to them or being planned.
  2. To provide a forum for residents to express opinions and to take action on problems and needs of the Grandview-Woodland area.
  3. To promote fact-finding surveys and studies of Grandview-Woodland’s community needs and problems.
  4. To be aware and promote an awareness of local issues, to take action when necessary, and to represent the Grandview-Woodland area on both government and non-government decision-making bodies.
  5. To seek representation from and to cooperate with other groups in the area and adjacent areas.
  6. To take over the assets and liabilities and to carry on the affairs of the Grandview-Woodlands Area Council.
  7. To carry on the function of a non-profit information centre.

The GWAC AGM will be held on Saturday, April 2nd at 2pm

Join the Council and
Be a Voice for your Community!

For more information about becoming a Director for GWAC
Contact us at: info@gwac.ca

Join us this month as Brian Palmquist presents:

The Future of Grandview Woodland –
Vancouver Neighbourhoods Under Attack
Monday, March 7th at 7:00PM

Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 896 4961 8675, Passcode: 525858
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kc8KyWVLTh

“Grandview Woodlands and every other neighbourhood in Vancouver is under attack by all levels of government, but none more aggressive than Vancouver City Hall. In this presentation, long time Vancouver architect and urban designer Brian Palmquist, author of the “City Conversations” blog, outlines the defining issues: federally-encouraged projected Vancouver population growth that is somehow expected to be 2-1/2 times what it has been historically for all the time since Expo 86, and what that means for real versus “aspirational” housing supply; provincial threats to take away any local control over housing rezoning unless there is a massive increase in supply; and a lack of affordable Vancouver housing caused by lack of supply, the slowness of supply, the wrong kinds of supply or excessive supply from excessive spot rezoning (pick one!).
Assisted by local civic oversight blog, “CityHallWatch,” Brian has spent the last few months collecting by stealth and sweat the housing data that City Hall won’t make available, discovering that the current City Council has so far rezoned a 20-year supply of mostly unaffordable housing and has another 20-year supply, including for Grandview Woodlands more than 800 housing units already rezoned and more than 1,200 homes “in the pipeline,” with more than half of those at the Broadway and Commercial site. And that’s not including development within existing zoning, what planners call “existing zoned capacity” and which city management and staff have resisted disclosing for the past year, even to City Councillors.
Brian’s presentation concludes with positive suggestions about how to align affordable housing provision with neighbourhood aspirations, and a call to the action every neighbourhood needs to take in order to welcome new neighbours to the places we call home.”

Community Updates:
NO MEGATOWERS AT SAFEWAY wants to remind you all to encourage your friends and neighbours to submit their comments about the proposed development at the Safeway site. The developer has linked a new 3D Virtual Model of the development through their Shape Your City page. It seems to be hard to load, but they’re reportedly working on that issue.

An Outrageous Environmental Decision and Six Days to Take Action

On February 1st, through freedom of information requests by Roger Emsley, it was revealed that in March of 2020 Environment Canada Scientists attempted to express major concerns about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project into a key stage of the environmental assessment. Their final submission outlining the department’s position including that “Project-induced changes to Roberts Bank constitute an unmitigable species-level risk to western sandpipers, and shorebirds” was not submitted because of the direction of the then Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Johnathan Wilkinson.  This seems to be a clear abrogation of his responsibilities and mandate as Canada’s Environment Minister.  

When Johnathan Wilkinson was asked why he withheld the concerns of his own scientists, Wilkinson responded “Upon review, it was determined that the expert input already tabled with the review panel stood for itself, and that closing remarks would not alter or add value to the Department’s analyses, conclusions, and recommendations already on the record.”  Imagine, the head of Environment Canada silencing its own scientists’ concerns for the environment at a key stage of an environmental review of a contentious project such as the RBT2!  And to think that I thought that muzzling of Canada’s scientists ended with the former Conservative government.

Now after that eighteen-month delay in finding out the concerns of Environment Canada scientists, there are only 6 days left for Canadians, that is, YOU, to submit your thoughts and feelings to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the RBT2 project.  This will be your last chance to express your thoughts, concerns, and opposition to the project after which a final decision will be made.

Roger Emsley has noted a much easier way to make a submission to the Impact Assessment Agency.  Instead of having to create an identity with the GC Key as is detailed on the front pages, a much easier way to submit comments is to “Simply copy the letter and paste it into your email, add your name and address, date it, copy the address conditions@iaac-aeic.gc.ca into the To box, and hit send.

We have now only seven days to make our voices heard and register opposition to a project that most likely will highly degrade or destroy the Pacific Flyway.  If we, that is each one of us taking personal responsibility to submit a comment, we will have no grounds for complaint about the end result.

So if you really care and are willing to act, possible next steps are:

1) Take some minutes to write your concerns and email them with your Name, Address, and Date to the Impact Assessment Agency

2) An alternative option for getting your submissions on file immediately is to use the GC Key to submit directly to the IAA. (Instructions to register a GC Key account are at the end of this email).

2) Make sure everyone else in your household registers their comments separately (the more separate submissions there are, the great the impact they will have)

3) Blind copy either this email or your own communication to everyone you think cares about the environment, today!  (if you do, I would love to  be included in your blind copy)

4) Also consider contacting your MP, cc’ing to:

    Minister Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment & Climate Change Canada: Steven.Guilbeault@parl.gc.ca

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: Justin.Trudeau@parl.gc.ca

    Minister Joyce Murray, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard: Joyce.Murray@parl.gc.ca

    Premier John Horgan: Premier@gov.bc.ca

You might be wondering why one individual would bother making such an effort to stop approval of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project? Several times in my life I have decided that an issue is too important to avoid and have chosen to go flat out. With respect to the environment and the Pacific flyways of both North, Central, and South America, restraint is not an option.  I hope you will decide to share this with one or two-family or friends to amplify this effort.

Please take action to make a difference!


Nigel Peck

Vancouver, BC

Websites providing further information:

1)  the outrageous story about Johnathan Wilkinson blocking his Environment Canada submissions to the environmental impact assessment  https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/02/01/news/feds-quashed-damning-scientific-conclusions-about-port-expansion-birds

2) PDF attached of actual document of Environment Canada scientists closing remarks for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project blocked/muzzled by Johnathan Wilkinson

3) Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Impact Assessment Page   https://www.iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80054?culture=en-CA

4) Nature Vancouver Blog submitted by board member Bev Ramey  https://naturevancouver.ca/roberts-bank-terminal-two/   (Note the easier way to submit provided by Roger Emsley)

Steps to register a GC Key and Submit Instantaneously

* If you already have a GC Key for banking, consider just using it, alternatively

* Click on Submit a Comment

* On next page, click on Submit a Comment

* Message will say you will be redirected to Login Page

* You will go to ‘Agreement to the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry’s….

* Click I have read and agree…

* Click on Continue

* For individuals, click on Sign-in Using GCKey

* Click on English if that’s your preference

* At this point you can use your GCKey or create a new one for this purpose

* Assuming you want to set up a new one, click on Sign Up

* Click on I Accept

* Plugin the name you wish. As I have a key already  and wanted a separate one for this submission, I selected First, Middle & Last Name with no spaces between Names (spaces screwed it up)

* Create a Password

* Put in three Security Question/Answers

* Easy peasy

* You are then redirected to the Impact Assessment Page where you can either type of cut and paste a previous composed submission.

Impact Assessment Agency Canada

160 Elgin Street, 22 Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3


January  2022

Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 – Invitation for Public Comment.

I am opposed to the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) project. The additional information provided by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA does not resolve the substantive issues raised by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) scientists. The environmental assessment conditions as drafted do not protect the Roberts Bank ecosystem nor the wildlife. ECCC and other independent scientists have provided compelling evidence that the project will affect both biofilm quality and quantity on Roberts Bank, threaten the entire Western Sandpiper species and negatively impact other wildlife.

Furthermore I have major concerns with the potential draft conditions:

  • Why are warnings from the government’s own scientists being ignored?
  • Why do the draft conditions assume biofilm quality and availability will not be damaged when ECCC science shows they will?
  • Why assume mitigation will be possible if damage is detected when it will be too late to prevent the damage? 
  • Why, if mitigation measures fail, are there no provisions in the draft conditions, to either stop the project, or to prevent environmental damage to Roberts Bank wetlands and the wildlife that relies on them?
  • Why (in section 10.2) do the draft conditions propose biofilm can be created when scientists have said it is not possible on the scale required?
  • Why ignore Review Panel concerns about Project effects on polyunsaturated fatty acid production in biofilm, which is a critical nutritional component for Western Sandpipers?
  • Why risk environmental degradation when the Panel had “considerable uncertainty around the possibility that loss of productive biofilm habitat could be mitigated by the large-scale re-creation of biofilm habitat capable of supporting shorebirds”?

The Fraser Estuary cannot withstand any more industrial or port development, but this is exactly what the Port of Vancouver plans to do with the addition of RBT2. Roberts Bank is recognized as one of the top Important Bird Areas in Canada. It is recognized as providing critical wintering grounds for the highest number of waterfowl and shorebirds found anywhere in Canada. Southern Resident Killer Whales, whose prime habitat is the Fraser Estuary, will be further endangered by vessel noise and further degradation of their major food source – Chinook Salmon. Why put all of this at risk?

The federal government must finally recognize RBT2 is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated and which are not justified in the circumstances.

The time has come – deny approval for Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

A letter from UKRA (Upper Kitsilano Residents Association)on Kennedy Stewarts “Making Home” plan

Dear UKRA members: In a bid to make home ownership more affordable for middle-income earners, Mayor Kennedy Stewart will attempt to resurrect his failed Making Home plan at Vancouver City Council’s Tuesday, Jan. 25 meeting. If approved, homeowners would be allowed to build up to six units on their properties, some of which could be “permanently affordable.” Here is the motion:https://council.vancouver.ca/20220125/documents/b3.pdfThe Mayor’s motion is bereft of details but Stewart was eager to share his ideas with supporters in a zoom meeting held Wednesday, Jan. 19. He said Making Home: “Housing for all of us” would begin as a pilot project with 2,000 lots currently zoned for single-detached homes or duplexes throughout the city. The pilot alone would create as many as 12,000 new homes, he estimated, if all property owners erect the maximum six units. City housing pilot projects normally involve a far smaller number of participants, but the mayor took an aggressive stance at his meeting: not only has Making Home already garnered support from developers, the Vancouver District Labour Council, and the Real Estate Foundation of Vancouver, it [Making Home] is the only way forward,” he said, to provide more homes for the middle class. This is Stewart’s second attempt to rally support for this plan, and it explains why he is taking a more guarded approach by beginning with a pilot. In 2020 Stewart stole the limelight from Cllr. Lisa Dominato during a meeting to build more “missing middle” housing for families, pushed his Making Home plan on Council members before they had time to consider the proposal. Council voted to sent Making Home back to staff for more work and information.In an election year, mayoral candidates are quick to take credit for plans that seek to solve the city’s most urgent issues, and in Vancouver no issue burns as hot as housing. But the idea behind Making Home is not Stewart’s alone. The plan draws on Portland, Oregon’s 2020 Residential Infill Project that allows up to four units on residential lots, and six units if three of them are affordable to low-income families. At the Jan. 19 meeting, Stewart offered some insights into how Vancouver’s version of Portland’s plan would work: New housing created could be rented out as strata units or sold outright; Cost of individual units would sell in the $800,000 to $1 million range; Some of the units could be made permanently affordable (see below); Up to six parking spaces would be provided on each lot, which Stewart said would not impact neighbors  Would allow seniors to stay in their neighborhood longer with family living on the same lot. He acknowledged that adding more units to Vancouver properties, already priced among the highest in North America, would further inflate land value. But, the “beauty of Making Home,” he said, is that a portion of the funds generated by a land-value capture tax would be shared with the landowner and the City to create new affordable and permanent housing, infrastructure such as sewer systems, and public amenities including daycares, community centers, and schools. Once again, Stewart offered no data or specific details to support his idea. Attendees’ questions ranged from the potential loss of green space and how the plan would affect property taxes, to whether units could really be “permanently affordable.” Others worried that Making Home would lead to the loss of character housing. Stewart told listeners that Cllr. Adriane Carr shared similar concerns about the threat of character house demolition, and that she will be putting forth an amendment at Tuesday’s meeting to create protection for older homes. Kennedy said he supports Carr’s changes, but shared no details on what such a plan would involve. Like the last time he foisted Making Home on Council, Stewart’s plan raises more questions than answers. The council meeting begins Tuesday at 9:30 am, with Making Home the third item (B3) under Council Members’ Motions. CityHallWatch has provided an opinion on Making Home by retired architect and guest columnist, Brian Palmquist: https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/…/palmquist…/Share your thoughts about Making Home with Council:https://vancouver.ca/your-government/contact-council.aspxUKRA will send an update following Tuesday’s Council meeting. Regards from your UKRA directors https://upperkitsilano.ca

A Conversation with the Commercial Drive Business Society

Join the Grandview Woodland Area Council for

A Conversation with the
Commercial Drive Business Society
Monday, January 10th at 7:00PM

Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 868 1131 0236, Passcode: 503747
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kedXY1Ryou

From street festivals to neighbourhood safety, the CDBS uses their portion of the City’s tax budget to help shape Commercial Drive. Come hear about their plans during these challenging times and share your questions and feedback.

Continuing Concerns Regarding the Safeway Site Rezoning Application


January 4, 2022

Attention: Mayor Stewart and Councillors,

In response to the latest revision of the 1780 East Broadway Rezoning Application, the Grandview Woodland Area Council would like to convey our continuing serious concerns related to the proposal.

Nothing has really changed in this “revision”. The public plaza is still no more than a widened sidewalk to serve as the entrance to Safeway, while the real neighborhood plaza is held behind locked gates for the exclusive use of luxury suites in their gated community – the first such gated community anywhere near Commercial Drive, it must be said. The small, narrow public “plaza” is the required compromise to facilitate a near doubling of the size of Safeway to a gigantic sprawling single-level, suburban-style grocery store footprint.

The revision still disregards the Grandview Woodland Community Plan that was carefully crafted by hundreds of community members who spent thousands of hours, working with the City, to create a vision for a dense transit-oriented community that has the potential to be both affordable and sustainable.

The intention of the Community Plan was that a larger number of mid-rise towers would meet the ground at a gracious public plaza connecting the residents to their new community. Instead, the application puts forward a gated community, where the public amenity envisioned by the Plan is locked away so that the affluent new residents need not interact with the poverty that has been created around them.

The revision continues to pose an existential threat to the treasured small businesses on the Drive and the historic residential affordability of the neighborhood, that the City claims to value.

This proposal fails the test of good city-making on so many levels and remains unacceptable to the community in its current form.

This proposal disregards the direction given by the Grandview Woodland Community Plan

Hundreds of community members spent thousands of hours, working with the City, to carefully craft a Plan for Grandview Woodland. Deep and sophisticated consideration was given to how to add significant density to the Commercial-Broadway Station Precinct in line with the need for Transit-Oriented Development.

Rather than relying on a few high-rise developments to provide density, the community planners opted to spread the density throughout the Precinct in a mid-rise form. This decision was based on the inherent lack of affordability of high-rise construction coupled with the unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions embedded in such projects. Mid-rise construction has a much higher potential for affordability and sustainability.

That said, higher built forms were contemplated for the Safeway site, with the intention of offering potential developers an incentive to create a neighborhood center for the newly densified community in the form of “a generous, centrally-located public plaza”.

The Community Plan calls for “a new large plaza as part of the redevelopment of the Safeway site”, “a generous, centrally-located public plaza”, “a central public plaza, with pedestrian paths connecting the plaza to adjacent streets, retail and transit facilities and other public spaces” and a redevelopment scheme that will “improve pedestrian path network connectivity”. The current proposal meets none of these expectations of the Community Plan.

The Community Plan calls for “new housing in buildings ranging from 12 to 24 stories”, a direction already well in excess of the twelve-story recommendation of the Citizens Assembly from which the plan was crafted. The Plan states that “perimeter heights will be generally 6 stories above the retail plinth” and that the “highest forms will be situated adjacent to the Grandview Cut”. Again, this proposal meets none of these expectations.

The Community Plan overtly praises and promotes extending the small-scale retail character of Commercial Drive, yet rather than extend that character east along Broadway, this application offers the blank lifeless wall of a suburban grocery store.

This proposal is an affront to the needs of the community with respect to a redeveloped Safeway site. Without substantial revision, this proposal must be rejected.

Grandview Woodland cannot accept a huge single-level grocery store in the redeveloped site

Despite the fact that the current Safeway is enormous when compared with anything in Grandview Woodland, this application proposes a near doubling of the size of the store and loading area. The application promotes a sprawling suburban grocery store while justifying the proposal as urban transit-oriented development.

The compromises required by such a sprawling single-level, suburban-style retail footprint are too harmful. The sprawling footprint destroys the public realm allowing no pedestrian connectivity through the site. On the contrary, the vehicle ramps servicing the parkade from Broadway compromise pedestrian and cycling safety and comfort in that area to a stunning and unacceptable degree.

The justification that this design is required because Safeway is unwilling to consider an urban grocery store footprint is manipulative nonsense given that the owner of this site is also the owner of Safeway.

The footprint narrows the proposed public plaza to little more than a widened sidewalk to service the grocery store, allowing no real greenspace or area for public gathering. Grandview Woodland gains nothing by this proposal with respect to an improved public realm while the community is asked to accept dramatic exceptions to the direction within the Community Plan.

In order to comply with the Grandview Woodland Community Plan, the applicants must resubmit their design for the large format grocery store to conform to an appropriately urban, multi-level character that enhances pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and an elegant public realm, rather than destroying it. Until this is done, the application must be rejected.

This proposal is a serious threat to affordability within the neighborhood

The project will lead to the destruction of historically affordable housing and treasured small businesses in the surrounding neighborhood and the displacement of our community members. While mid-rise development has the potential to be affordable and have a positive influence on housing availability in the area, the imposition of such a massive density bomb of luxury suites will put unsustainable land inflation and other pressures on the current affordable housing and commercial space in the adjacent blocks and that pressure will undermine affordability across a very broad area of the neighborhood for decades to come. This application must be resubmitted with a focus on mid-rise housing which will enhance affordability, not eliminate it.


GWAC c/o Britannia Community Centre, 1661 Napier Street, Vancouver, BC, V5L 4X4 E: info@gwac.ca W: http://www.gwac.ca

In summary, this proposal shows the inept and clumsy suburban character one would expect to see in Metrotown rather than the elegant public realm design that we are willing to welcome to Grandview Woodland. The proposal disrupts pedestrian and cycling connectivity, destroys nearby affordability, and offers no significant public amenities while diverging unacceptably from the Community Plan.

The proposal in its current form is not acceptable to the community and must be rejected. Regards,

Craig Ollenberger
President, Grandview Woodland Area Council

cc. Paul Mochrie, City Manager
Theresa O’Donnell, Director of Planning & General Manager of Planning, Urban Design & Sustainability Kent MacDougall, Rezoning Planner

Top 10 Metro Vancouver development stories of 2021

urbanYVR takes a look back at the Top 10 Metro Vancouver development, architecture and real estate stories of 2021.TweetShare0Share0Pin

What a year it has been. Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the dramatic changes it has forced in all of our lives, the future of Metro Vancouver continues to evolve and change, with new projects continually being announced, plus tweaks and changes to long-awaited developments.

In 2021, I found myself writing more than ever about purpose-built rentals, Passive House standards and mass timber construction, and less about strata condos. It appears we are finally seeing a long-awaited shift towards building more purpose-built rentals, due to a combination of incentives and a changing real estate market.

The Latest Proposal for Safeway1780 East Broadway

Monday, December 6th at 7:00PM

Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 814 8331 6630, Passcode: 529920
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/km9G1zyqs

A revised proposal has been submitted for development of the Broadway Safeway Site and the City is conducting a “virtual open house” until December 5th:
Get your comments in!

On December 6th, our local experts will help you navigate the latest proposal for the Safeway site, including issues of shadowing and problems with how the proposal is being presented to the public.

On the surface, the revised proposal looks nearly identical to its predecessor. It still fails to address any of the issues previously raised by GWAC and the community.

The would-be “plaza” is still little more than a widened sidewalk serving Safeway, the luxury rental and condo suites are still a huge threat to affordability and the project design and heights still look nothing like the Grandview Woodland Community Plan.

Join us to share your thoughts on the revised proposal and help us formulate a response from the community.