Summary#
Vancouver City Council unanimously approved in principle an amendment to the Vancouver Official Development Plan (ODP) and a site-specific rezoning for 1683–1691 East Pender Street and 485 Commercial Drive. The changes would replace the site’s MC-1 industrial zoning with CD-1 zoning and change part of its ODP land-use designation to Residential High-Rise 1. The stated purpose is to allow two buildings, including rental and social housing, and a social service centre.
- The proposed development has a 21-storey rental building with 236 units, 67.5 m high, and a six-storey mixed-use building with 40 social housing units and a social service centre, 22.4 m high.
- The application proposes dividing the site so the buildings could have separate owners and be developed independently.
- Council’s approval is in principle, not final permission to build. Required conditions must be met before the ODP and CD-1 by-laws can be enacted. The ODP amendment must be enacted before the CD-1 by-law.
- If the CD-1 by-law is enacted, the Sign By-law and Noise Control By-law would also be amended for the site. Housing agreement by-laws must be enacted before the CD-1 by-law.
What it means for you#
- Future tenants: The proposal includes 236 rental units and 40 social housing units. The materials do not say that the 236 rental units would be below-market.
- People using social services: The six-storey building would include a social service centre. The materials do not specify its services or who could use them.
- Nearby residents and businesses: The site’s zoning would change from industrial to CD-1, allowing the proposed residential and mixed-use buildings if the required conditions are met and the by-laws are enacted.
- The applicant and City: The approval in principle creates no legal right to build and does not require the City to enact the by-laws. The resolutions leave City officials’ authority and discretion unchanged.
Money#
No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.
- The resolutions say expenditures and costs are at the risk of the person who incurs them. They do not provide a cost estimate or say what City spending may be needed.
- The terms of the required housing agreements, including any financial obligations, are not provided.
What is unclear#
- The conditions in Appendix C are referred to but not included, so it is unclear what must be completed before the by-laws can be enacted.
- The housing agreement terms are not provided.
- The materials do not explain why the site’s industrial zoning would be changed, or what effects that change may have on existing or future industrial uses.
- The correspondence included 36 submissions supporting the application and 16 opposing it, but the reasons people gave are not included.
- The application proposes separate ownership and development of the two buildings, but the materials do not give details of how that subdivision would work.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the proposal is that it would add 236 rental homes and 40 social housing units on one site.
- The social service centre would be included in the same development as the social housing.
- Thirty-six pieces of correspondence supported the application, though the reasons for support are not provided.
Case against#
- A possible trade-off is that the proposal would change the site from industrial zoning to a residential-focused designation and zoning. The materials do not assess what industrial uses might be displaced or affected.
- The 21-storey building would be 67.5 m high. The supplied material does not include detailed assessments of effects on nearby buildings or the area.
- Sixteen pieces of correspondence opposed the application, but the reasons are not provided, so their concerns cannot be described.
- The approval depends on conditions and housing agreements whose details are not included here.