CD-1 (839) Text Amendment 5590 Victoria Drive
Motion 20 · Council Meeting, April 14, 2026
Report Images
Vote
Public comments
Read all 1 statements
Transcript
14 segments
Yeah, thanks. I won't take up too much time. I think mostly my question is that this seems to be quite a significant shift in terms of, you know, this was a social housing project. By definition, 30% of the units were tied to household income and is now no longer social housing. I would just like to know, moving forward, I must have missed this, but I... It's consistent with the ODP just because it's residential. I'm just trying to wrap my head around that it's almost a complete shift in the actual housing type and why that doesn't trigger an ODP amendment or a public hearing.
Thanks for the question. So yes, the application is consistent with the Vancouver ODP for the land use and height. So therefore, it's consistent with the Vancouver ODP, and then it's not required to go to a public hearing.
Okay, I think this one is significant in terms of that people were presented with a social housing project, and a lot of times they will forgive height and building form and density because it's social housing, and this is something that was presented to the public and is now no longer presented to the public. Is there a chance in the future to amend the ODP for this to change in housing type from social housing to market housing to automatically trigger an ODP? I'm just curious of like moving forward and the ODP and how this works. Again, acknowledging that we're kind of in a brave new world here.
Thank you for the question. So just to further elaborate, so projects right now that are consistent with the ODP are weighed against the general land use plan, which is predominantly use and height. This is housing affordability is not a regulating factor in the ODP. If it were to become, that could be something that would add to that. But at the moment, it is not. And I'm not aware of a current plan to do so. But that's something that if council wanted to in future iterations, you could explore. What I will say is that's embedded in our policies and we still weigh applications based on those policies and we engage the public based on those policies. So the public was aware and was consulted on the proposal that was before us tonight. So it's not a last minute switch per se.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a last minute switch, but I just think that, you know. There is a difference between the way that a public hearing works in terms of mobilizing people and the way this kind of works. I do think there's a difference. Are you aware of other jurisdictions that have included what you said in terms of the general land use and the housing type, sort of separating that out?
Yeah, I don't want to speculate. I don't have that information available as to exactly what other municipalities have.
We'd love to know. We can certainly follow up. I appreciate that. Again, a similar question as before. Is there any sort of threat that this is a precedent setting in terms of... you know, we've been approved for a social housing project and then now, oh, I can't make it work. And instead of, you know, trying to find, you know, partners with senior levels of government or other sort of nonprofit housing providers, we just go and get rid of it.
Again, fair question as well. So we don't typically try to rely on precedents in this forum, so it could certainly set expectations. But again, in general, just to echo Dan Garrison's comments from before, a lot of what we're looking at now is to support viability in projects, and it is somewhat of a moment in time as we're experiencing these, and they are reviewed on an individual basis and still against our policies as to whether or not it's supportable as well. I think this did go through that evaluation, and the report kind of reflects on those tradeoffs that are presented for you today.
Okay, and then just, yeah, sort of going for tradeoffs in terms of, like, you know, we're reducing affordability, but, I mean, the original project would have had, you know, sort of, you know, community amenity contributions. I know that's probably changing. moving forward, too. So that is also something that is weighed in terms of, you know, CSEs were waived, and now, you know, it's now going to be 100% market. And is that something that is sort of contemplated, that trade-off?
Absolutely, yeah. So as part of our process, you know, social housing is technically exempt from a CAC, but otherwise the project, as it comes through our plan, would go through a review with our real estate team to determine whether or not there's viability in a project to support a CAC, and if there is or isn't. And some of those trade-offs might be to deepen the level of affordability instead of collecting a traditional CAC, whether it's cash or amenities, too. So those things are all evaluated against our plans and policies through our process.
Right, okay. And I'm sure we're out of time. okay um seeing no one else in the queue i i do want to circle back um and just see is the applicant online or uh in the chamber hey mayor i don't know if you can see me yes uh james todd um jta development consultants were the applicant for this proposal Great, thank you. And did you want to make a presentation at this time?
I did have a brief item, but I mean, maybe just to take a little bit through the process. The base zoning before it was changed was a C2 zoning, which now wouldn't require rezoning for a six-story market rental building. The previous owners... went through a three-year process and you know we can't comment on why or the viability of that of their proposal but the viability of our proposal to include below market units would not make or allow this proposal to be viable and then I just wanted to mention that you know our with our client here this is our fourth mixed-use rental project in Vancouver in the last decade. The other three are built and occupied by Vancouverites, and we're a strong proponent of creating viable rental options in Vancouver, and I think this is a fantastic neighborhood for that. So I think Studio One, our architect, is here as well, if there were any questions with architecture, but I just wanted to provide those notes, if that's okay. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.
Okay, would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Council, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.
Okay. That passes.
Councillor Domino. Sorry.
Statement Watch
Right, okay. And I'm sure we're out of time. okay um seeing no one else in the queue i i do want to circle back um and just see is the applicant online or uh in the chamber hey mayor i don't know if you can see me yes uh james todd um jta development consultants were the applicant for this proposal Great, thank you. And did you want to make a presentation at this time?
I did have a brief item, but I mean, maybe just to take a little bit through the process. The base zoning before it was changed was a C2 zoning, which now wouldn't require rezoning for a six-story market rental building. The previous owners... went through a three-year process and you know we can't comment on why or the viability of that of their proposal but the viability of our proposal to include below market units would not make or allow this proposal to be viable and then I just wanted to mention that you know our with our client here this is our fourth mixed-use rental project in Vancouver in the last decade. The other three are built and occupied by Vancouverites, and we're a strong proponent of creating viable rental options in Vancouver, and I think this is a fantastic neighborhood for that. So I think Studio One, our architect, is here as well, if there were any questions with architecture, but I just wanted to provide those notes, if that's okay. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.