Summary#
Vancouver City Council unanimously approved in principle an Official Development Plan (ODP) amendment and rezoning for 2516 Commercial Drive and 1704 East Broadway. The decision would change the site’s ODP land-use designation and zoning; its stated goal is to permit a 31-storey mixed-use building with 207 rental units. The zoning change takes effect only if Council later enacts the required by-laws and the conditions are met.
- The ODP designation would change from Business District to Mixed-Use High-Rise 2.
- The site’s zoning would change from C-3A (Commercial) to a site-specific CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) district. The approved-in-principle limits increase from 9.2 m and floor space ratio (FSR) 3.0 to 91.7 m (301 ft.) and FSR 14.8.
- The proposed building includes 207 rental units, one storey of social services space, one storey of office space, and ground-floor commercial space.
- Council approved related Sign By-law changes and a Noise Control By-law change, subject to the CD-1 by-law being enacted.
- A Housing Agreement by-law must be prepared before the CD-1 by-law is enacted. Its terms are not included in the supplied material.
What it means for you#
- People nearby: If the required by-laws are enacted, the site could be developed to the approved-in-principle height and density. This decision does not itself mean construction can begin.
- The property owner and applicant: They must meet the conditions before the by-laws can be brought forward for enactment. The decision creates no legal rights or guarantee that the City will enact the by-laws. Costs they incur are at their own risk.
- Future renters and social-service users: The proposal includes 207 rental units and a storey of social services space. The decision does not state rents, eligibility rules, or what services would be offered.
- Council’s decision: The motion was carried unanimously, but the ODP and zoning changes still require by-law enactment.
Money#
No cost estimate is provided in the available material.
- The owner bears costs it incurs to meet rezoning conditions; no amount is stated.
- No City spending estimate, funding commitment, fees, or expected revenue is stated.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the conditions in Appendix C or the detailed rules in the draft by-laws.
- The Housing Agreement’s terms, including any rent or affordability requirements, are not provided.
- The material does not say what social services would operate in the building or who would provide them.
- The reasons given by the five people who opposed the application and the three who supported it are not included.
- No timetable for possible enactment is stated.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the decision is that it would allow 207 rental units alongside commercial, office and social services space.
- The proposal combines housing with other uses in one building, rather than seeking approval for housing alone.
- Three pieces of correspondence supported the application, although their reasons are not provided.
Case against#
- The proposed change is substantial: the maximum height would rise from 9.2 m to 91.7 m, and the maximum FSR from 3.0 to 14.8. The supplied material does not explain the effects of that increased scale.
- Five pieces of correspondence opposed the application, but their concerns are not available here.
- The Housing Agreement and approval conditions could shape what is ultimately built, but their details are missing, so the proposal’s full obligations and limits cannot be assessed.