Summary#
Vancouver City Council rejected a motion to amend the Vancouver Official Development Plan and its Regional Context Statement for the former Molson Brewery site. The proposed change aimed to replace the site’s “Industrial and Employment” designation with “Mixed-Use High-Rise 2” and its regional “Industrial” designation with “General Urban.”
- The motion would also have approved guiding principles and rezoning guidelines for future development of the site.
- The proposed Regional Context Statement change would first have gone to Metro Vancouver for acceptance or refusal; enactment of the plan amendments depended on Metro Vancouver’s approval.
- Council’s motion was lost, so these changes and guidelines were not approved. The site’s existing designations were not changed by this decision.
What it means for you#
- People who live or work nearby: This decision does not approve a development or change the site’s land-use designations. The motion would have changed those designations, but it was rejected.
- The landowner or future developers: The proposed guidelines were not approved. The motion would not itself have approved a building, and even if passed, it would not have obligated the City to enact by-laws.
- The City and Metro Vancouver: The proposed referral of the regional designation change to Metro Vancouver did not proceed under this motion.
Money#
No cost estimate or public spending figure is provided.
- The proposed motion said that anyone choosing to spend money or incur costs would do so at their own risk. Because the motion was rejected, that condition was not adopted.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not explain what uses or building limits “Mixed-Use High-Rise 2” would allow.
- It does not give the reasons for the staff recommendation or explain the likely effects of changing the designations.
- The reasons behind the public comments are not provided: 20 pieces of correspondence supported the proposal, six opposed it, and four addressed other aspects.
- The record does not explain why Councillors Bligh, Fry, Maloney and Orr opposed the motion.
Case for#
- City staff recommended approval. A possible case for the proposal is that changing the site’s designation and adopting guiding principles could provide direction for future development. The supplied material does not set out staff’s reasons or specific expected benefits.
- Twenty pieces of correspondence supported the proposal, though the record does not give the writers’ reasons.
Case against#
- One possible concern is that replacing the “Industrial and Employment” designation with “Mixed-Use High-Rise 2” could reduce the site’s designation for industrial and employment uses. The supplied material does not establish what the practical effect would be.
- Six pieces of correspondence opposed the proposal, and Councillors Bligh, Fry, Maloney and Orr opposed the motion. The material does not provide their reasons.