Go Back

1925 SE Marine Dr rezoning application

Share 1925 SE Marine Dr rezoning application on Facebook Share 1925 SE Marine Dr rezoning application on Twitter Share 1925 SE Marine Dr rezoning application on Linkedin Email 1925 SE Marine Dr rezoning application link

This application was approved by Council following the Public Hearings on February 14 and 21, 2023.


We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 1925 Southeast Marine Drive. The proposal is to allow for the development of a six-storey residential building. The zoning would change from RS-1B (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 72 social housing units
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.04
  • A net floor area of 4,032 sq. m (43,394 sq. ft.)
  • A building height of 24.8 m (81 ft.)
  • 7 vehicle parking spaces and 84 bicycle parking spaces

The application is being considered under the Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney Community Vision.

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.


We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 1925 Southeast Marine Drive. The proposal is to allow for the development of a six-storey residential building. The zoning would change from RS-1B (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 72 social housing units
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.04
  • A net floor area of 4,032 sq. m (43,394 sq. ft.)
  • A building height of 24.8 m (81 ft.)
  • 7 vehicle parking spaces and 84 bicycle parking spaces

The application is being considered under the Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney Community Vision.

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

This application was approved by Council following the Public Hearings on February 14 and 21, 2023.

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from June 27 to July 17, 2022. 

We post all questions as-is and aim to respond within two business days. Some questions may require coordination with internal departments and additional time may be needed to post a response.

Please note that the comment form will remain open after the virtual open house time period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.

  • Share What is the process for extending our time to ask questions and submit comments? We, as general public have a huge learning curve, not knowing policies, plans, etc it takes time for us read and absorb documents of hundreds of pages, that we have no training or previous knowledge of, not to mention just researching attempting to find information so we can make informed, educated questions and comments to represent our neighbour. For example, I only learned of the Vancouver Plan yesterday. on Facebook Share What is the process for extending our time to ask questions and submit comments? We, as general public have a huge learning curve, not knowing policies, plans, etc it takes time for us read and absorb documents of hundreds of pages, that we have no training or previous knowledge of, not to mention just researching attempting to find information so we can make informed, educated questions and comments to represent our neighbour. For example, I only learned of the Vancouver Plan yesterday. on Twitter Share What is the process for extending our time to ask questions and submit comments? We, as general public have a huge learning curve, not knowing policies, plans, etc it takes time for us read and absorb documents of hundreds of pages, that we have no training or previous knowledge of, not to mention just researching attempting to find information so we can make informed, educated questions and comments to represent our neighbour. For example, I only learned of the Vancouver Plan yesterday. on Linkedin Email What is the process for extending our time to ask questions and submit comments? We, as general public have a huge learning curve, not knowing policies, plans, etc it takes time for us read and absorb documents of hundreds of pages, that we have no training or previous knowledge of, not to mention just researching attempting to find information so we can make informed, educated questions and comments to represent our neighbour. For example, I only learned of the Vancouver Plan yesterday. link

    What is the process for extending our time to ask questions and submit comments? We, as general public have a huge learning curve, not knowing policies, plans, etc it takes time for us read and absorb documents of hundreds of pages, that we have no training or previous knowledge of, not to mention just researching attempting to find information so we can make informed, educated questions and comments to represent our neighbour. For example, I only learned of the Vancouver Plan yesterday.

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    The three-week virtual open house Q&A period ended on Sunday July 17. Should members of the public have questions regarding this rezoning application, they may contact the planner at pmshi.rezoning@vancouver.ca.

  • Share According to the shadow report, it shades nearby residents. If this plan is approved, why could the building not be moved to Victoria Drive side ? How many residents would be affected by shadowing? on Facebook Share According to the shadow report, it shades nearby residents. If this plan is approved, why could the building not be moved to Victoria Drive side ? How many residents would be affected by shadowing? on Twitter Share According to the shadow report, it shades nearby residents. If this plan is approved, why could the building not be moved to Victoria Drive side ? How many residents would be affected by shadowing? on Linkedin Email According to the shadow report, it shades nearby residents. If this plan is approved, why could the building not be moved to Victoria Drive side ? How many residents would be affected by shadowing? link

    According to the shadow report, it shades nearby residents. If this plan is approved, why could the building not be moved to Victoria Drive side ? How many residents would be affected by shadowing?

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    Due to the building’s location on the southeast corner of the intersection of SE Marine Drive and Beatrice Street, an analysis of the shadow performance of the proposed building demonstrates there would be limited impact on the surrounding private properties  Shadow impacts are generally in morning hours before 11 am on a few low-density properties to the northwest. Shadows are expected in the winter months due to the low trajectory of the sun’s path; the duration of that effect is only during morning hours from September to March.

    Although the City does not have a city-wide shadow policy, or Council-adopted policies for shadowing of private properties, staff nevertheless take into consideration shadow impacts on both private and public spaces during all seasons.  Furthermore, shadowing is assessed in conjunction with the need to provide affordable and supportive housing, throughout the City.

  • Share Who will hold the residents and Kettle Society accountable to Health By-Law #9535? If this is zoning is approved, against the community’s wishes, current immediate residents should not have to be inhaling any smoke/vapour of any substance such as tobacco, marijuana, vapouring mist, Methamphetamines, Fentanyl, Cocaine, from smoking or vaping on this proposed property, etc on Facebook Share Who will hold the residents and Kettle Society accountable to Health By-Law #9535? If this is zoning is approved, against the community’s wishes, current immediate residents should not have to be inhaling any smoke/vapour of any substance such as tobacco, marijuana, vapouring mist, Methamphetamines, Fentanyl, Cocaine, from smoking or vaping on this proposed property, etc on Twitter Share Who will hold the residents and Kettle Society accountable to Health By-Law #9535? If this is zoning is approved, against the community’s wishes, current immediate residents should not have to be inhaling any smoke/vapour of any substance such as tobacco, marijuana, vapouring mist, Methamphetamines, Fentanyl, Cocaine, from smoking or vaping on this proposed property, etc on Linkedin Email Who will hold the residents and Kettle Society accountable to Health By-Law #9535? If this is zoning is approved, against the community’s wishes, current immediate residents should not have to be inhaling any smoke/vapour of any substance such as tobacco, marijuana, vapouring mist, Methamphetamines, Fentanyl, Cocaine, from smoking or vaping on this proposed property, etc link

    Who will hold the residents and Kettle Society accountable to Health By-Law #9535? If this is zoning is approved, against the community’s wishes, current immediate residents should not have to be inhaling any smoke/vapour of any substance such as tobacco, marijuana, vapouring mist, Methamphetamines, Fentanyl, Cocaine, from smoking or vaping on this proposed property, etc

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    The proposed building and surrounding areas will be subject to the same inspection and enforcement measures as any other building or area in Vancouver. These measures are contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the By-Law #9535. Any concerns about by-law application can be referred to 311, as is standard practice.

  • Share Who is held responsible when placing high risk vulnerable individuals with risky behaviours in a neighbourhood with other high risk vulnerable individuals: children, youth, seniors and disable persons? on Facebook Share Who is held responsible when placing high risk vulnerable individuals with risky behaviours in a neighbourhood with other high risk vulnerable individuals: children, youth, seniors and disable persons? on Twitter Share Who is held responsible when placing high risk vulnerable individuals with risky behaviours in a neighbourhood with other high risk vulnerable individuals: children, youth, seniors and disable persons? on Linkedin Email Who is held responsible when placing high risk vulnerable individuals with risky behaviours in a neighbourhood with other high risk vulnerable individuals: children, youth, seniors and disable persons? link

    Who is held responsible when placing high risk vulnerable individuals with risky behaviours in a neighbourhood with other high risk vulnerable individuals: children, youth, seniors and disable persons?

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    The safety of all city residents – including those living in supportive housing and in nearby neighbourhoods – is a priority for the City.  To imply that future supportive housing residents pose a greater risk to children, youth, seniors and people with disabilities than those living in other housing types furthers negative stereotypes, and stigmatizes people living in poverty.  

  • Share BC Housing state in their flyer, “homes would be for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities who are experiencing, or are at risk of homelessness with a priority for people in the local community.” Unfortunately, this site location appears to be a challenge for seniors and those with disabilities or mobility issues. This location is notably remote from the uses and services that residents of this proposed facility would need, over and above those provided by the on-site staff. 1. To head north to resources, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House or resource not found along Marine Drive, to catch a bus northbound, a senior or disabled with mobility issues would have extreme difficulty walking up the steep hill to the bus stop. a. Access to river walk and parks that you noted was important, it has been recognized the hill is too steep for seniors and disabled with mobility issues to access How would they gain access to resources and recreation? 2. There are no resources within walking distance. Are they limited to public transit? As these individuals can’t typically ride bicycles or scooters. on Facebook Share BC Housing state in their flyer, “homes would be for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities who are experiencing, or are at risk of homelessness with a priority for people in the local community.” Unfortunately, this site location appears to be a challenge for seniors and those with disabilities or mobility issues. This location is notably remote from the uses and services that residents of this proposed facility would need, over and above those provided by the on-site staff. 1. To head north to resources, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House or resource not found along Marine Drive, to catch a bus northbound, a senior or disabled with mobility issues would have extreme difficulty walking up the steep hill to the bus stop. a. Access to river walk and parks that you noted was important, it has been recognized the hill is too steep for seniors and disabled with mobility issues to access How would they gain access to resources and recreation? 2. There are no resources within walking distance. Are they limited to public transit? As these individuals can’t typically ride bicycles or scooters. on Twitter Share BC Housing state in their flyer, “homes would be for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities who are experiencing, or are at risk of homelessness with a priority for people in the local community.” Unfortunately, this site location appears to be a challenge for seniors and those with disabilities or mobility issues. This location is notably remote from the uses and services that residents of this proposed facility would need, over and above those provided by the on-site staff. 1. To head north to resources, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House or resource not found along Marine Drive, to catch a bus northbound, a senior or disabled with mobility issues would have extreme difficulty walking up the steep hill to the bus stop. a. Access to river walk and parks that you noted was important, it has been recognized the hill is too steep for seniors and disabled with mobility issues to access How would they gain access to resources and recreation? 2. There are no resources within walking distance. Are they limited to public transit? As these individuals can’t typically ride bicycles or scooters. on Linkedin Email BC Housing state in their flyer, “homes would be for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities who are experiencing, or are at risk of homelessness with a priority for people in the local community.” Unfortunately, this site location appears to be a challenge for seniors and those with disabilities or mobility issues. This location is notably remote from the uses and services that residents of this proposed facility would need, over and above those provided by the on-site staff. 1. To head north to resources, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House or resource not found along Marine Drive, to catch a bus northbound, a senior or disabled with mobility issues would have extreme difficulty walking up the steep hill to the bus stop. a. Access to river walk and parks that you noted was important, it has been recognized the hill is too steep for seniors and disabled with mobility issues to access How would they gain access to resources and recreation? 2. There are no resources within walking distance. Are they limited to public transit? As these individuals can’t typically ride bicycles or scooters. link

    BC Housing state in their flyer, “homes would be for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities who are experiencing, or are at risk of homelessness with a priority for people in the local community.” Unfortunately, this site location appears to be a challenge for seniors and those with disabilities or mobility issues. This location is notably remote from the uses and services that residents of this proposed facility would need, over and above those provided by the on-site staff. 1. To head north to resources, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House or resource not found along Marine Drive, to catch a bus northbound, a senior or disabled with mobility issues would have extreme difficulty walking up the steep hill to the bus stop. a. Access to river walk and parks that you noted was important, it has been recognized the hill is too steep for seniors and disabled with mobility issues to access How would they gain access to resources and recreation? 2. There are no resources within walking distance. Are they limited to public transit? As these individuals can’t typically ride bicycles or scooters.

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    Seniors and people with disabilities are a diverse group, with varying levels of mobility, and not all disabilities are visible. The non-profit operator and BC Housing consider residents needs and the degree to which the building is able to meet those needs. Aside from HandyDART services, the proposed site is well-served by transit, including the 20 Victoria and 100 SE Marine Dr. buses. Transit can provide residents with access to shopping and services at Main and SE Marine, and Victoria Drive between 41st and 49th within 15 to 20 minutes. As noted, the site is also in close proximity to outdoor amenity and recreation space.  

  • Share Why are there no children allowed in the building? Rezoning website response states 19+ At the Community Dialogue Session single moms with children were mentioned on Facebook Share Why are there no children allowed in the building? Rezoning website response states 19+ At the Community Dialogue Session single moms with children were mentioned on Twitter Share Why are there no children allowed in the building? Rezoning website response states 19+ At the Community Dialogue Session single moms with children were mentioned on Linkedin Email Why are there no children allowed in the building? Rezoning website response states 19+ At the Community Dialogue Session single moms with children were mentioned link

    Why are there no children allowed in the building? Rezoning website response states 19+ At the Community Dialogue Session single moms with children were mentioned

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    Children are allowed to visit the building but not to reside in the building. The units are designed  for single individuals not multiple people because the proposed building is for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.

  • Share You mentioned on this site, “with priority given to people in the local community”. 1. How is this determined? 2. Who determines this? 3. Rumour has it, that they will be closing some SRO’s. Is this being considered to house those displaced individuals? 4. In speaking with some homeless individuals, that are “down on their luck” and require min support, appeared to be discriminated against as they state there is no safe housing for them. They state these projects attract too much drugs and violence that they don’t want to live around. How do you suggest we get around this to help these individuals? on Facebook Share You mentioned on this site, “with priority given to people in the local community”. 1. How is this determined? 2. Who determines this? 3. Rumour has it, that they will be closing some SRO’s. Is this being considered to house those displaced individuals? 4. In speaking with some homeless individuals, that are “down on their luck” and require min support, appeared to be discriminated against as they state there is no safe housing for them. They state these projects attract too much drugs and violence that they don’t want to live around. How do you suggest we get around this to help these individuals? on Twitter Share You mentioned on this site, “with priority given to people in the local community”. 1. How is this determined? 2. Who determines this? 3. Rumour has it, that they will be closing some SRO’s. Is this being considered to house those displaced individuals? 4. In speaking with some homeless individuals, that are “down on their luck” and require min support, appeared to be discriminated against as they state there is no safe housing for them. They state these projects attract too much drugs and violence that they don’t want to live around. How do you suggest we get around this to help these individuals? on Linkedin Email You mentioned on this site, “with priority given to people in the local community”. 1. How is this determined? 2. Who determines this? 3. Rumour has it, that they will be closing some SRO’s. Is this being considered to house those displaced individuals? 4. In speaking with some homeless individuals, that are “down on their luck” and require min support, appeared to be discriminated against as they state there is no safe housing for them. They state these projects attract too much drugs and violence that they don’t want to live around. How do you suggest we get around this to help these individuals? link

    You mentioned on this site, “with priority given to people in the local community”. 1. How is this determined? 2. Who determines this? 3. Rumour has it, that they will be closing some SRO’s. Is this being considered to house those displaced individuals? 4. In speaking with some homeless individuals, that are “down on their luck” and require min support, appeared to be discriminated against as they state there is no safe housing for them. They state these projects attract too much drugs and violence that they don’t want to live around. How do you suggest we get around this to help these individuals?

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    Tenants would be selected through a coordinated process with BC Housing, the experienced non-profit housing operator, Vancouver Coastal Health and the City’s Homelessness Services Outreach team. The process includes individual assessments to understand each person’s unique needs and to ensure they will be supported by the services provided by the operator. Outreach staff partner with local homeless-serving agencies to learn where people experiencing homelessness are staying and connect with them directly. If there is interest in applying for the housing, then support is offered with the process.

  • Share In regards to my previous question, there appears to be some misunderstanding. 1768-1788 E Kent South - is a High Density Families with Children complex, therefore my understanding is the City of Vancouver Land Use & Development Policies and Guidelines should be complied with to keep families and children safe and secure. These policies and guidelines the City put in place for this now existing building will be violated if 1925 SE Marine Drive is approved. 2.2.1 Families with children should have reasonable and effective access to essential community services and recreational amenities. 2.1.2 Effective access means a walking route which is both safe and secure. Children will have to walk directly past 1925 SE Marine Drive, which will house individuals that may present with risky behaviours to themselves and others, to gain access to the cross walk for some of the busiest streets in Vancouver to access their schools, the Boys & Girls Club and a bus loop. This would violate the City Policy and Guidelines 2.2.1 Housing for families with children should be protected from conflicts with adjacent land uses 1925 SE Marine Drive is within 3 blocks and direct access for children to access schools and children programs potentially exposing them to unsafe behaviours with concerns of causing harm or youth being influences with drugs and alcohol or violence causing more future challenges for the children and youth ( trauma & substance abuse) 2.2.3 Residents' satisfaction is dependent on lack of intrusion by strangers and control of the housing site. Parents do not want their children to play in areas easily accessible to strangers. Uncontrolled access also increases opportunities for theft and vandalism. Children have direct access and often play unsupervised on the river walk which you have already acknowledged as being a benefit for the residents of 1925 SE Marine Drive if approved to enjoy. 1. Does this not put the recognized Vulnerable Children which you are trying to protect by putting specific Policies and Guidelines in place for the BC Housing Families with Children Complex? At the community dialogue session - it was confirmed by staff ( but neglected to be noted on the BC Housing website summary ) that this building will house individuals with criminal, substance abuse and mental health. 2. Do we not need to consider future projects and how they affect already existing BC Housing projects for vulnerable families? 3. Why can we not consider all the current vulnerable residents in the neighbour, seniors, children and those with disabilities? 4. You have referred to the City's Housing Vancouver Strategy and community plans in regards to 1925 SE Marine Drive. There appears to be conflict between this plan and the High Density for Families with Children Policy and Guidleline. How and who determines which policies supersedes the other? 5. What instances would you override a set of policies that have already been implemented by the City? 6. How is it you can override guidelines that have been voted on and implemented by City staff? 7. What instance does public safety override housing policies? 8. What risk assessments and analysis reports are completed to determine this is or is not a public safety risk and where can the public access these reports? 9. What is the ``checklist`` for these public safety assessments and analysis reports and who completes them? If the City chooses to ignore the Family with Children Policy and Guidelines in regards to safety 1. Knowing there are potentially multiple risks of criminal activity, trauma, and violence risks to the current residents of the neighbour, ( proven with previous Supportive Housing Developments, through media, police, ambulance, fire department call volumes and reports, other public hearing presentations ) how does the City plan to protect the neighbourhood? 2. As the City has been hearing constant concerns of safety for neighbours, especially the most vulnerable, seniors, children, youth and those with disabilities, mobility issues, How does the legal department and risk management consider potential liabilities for law suits? on Facebook Share In regards to my previous question, there appears to be some misunderstanding. 1768-1788 E Kent South - is a High Density Families with Children complex, therefore my understanding is the City of Vancouver Land Use & Development Policies and Guidelines should be complied with to keep families and children safe and secure. These policies and guidelines the City put in place for this now existing building will be violated if 1925 SE Marine Drive is approved. 2.2.1 Families with children should have reasonable and effective access to essential community services and recreational amenities. 2.1.2 Effective access means a walking route which is both safe and secure. Children will have to walk directly past 1925 SE Marine Drive, which will house individuals that may present with risky behaviours to themselves and others, to gain access to the cross walk for some of the busiest streets in Vancouver to access their schools, the Boys & Girls Club and a bus loop. This would violate the City Policy and Guidelines 2.2.1 Housing for families with children should be protected from conflicts with adjacent land uses 1925 SE Marine Drive is within 3 blocks and direct access for children to access schools and children programs potentially exposing them to unsafe behaviours with concerns of causing harm or youth being influences with drugs and alcohol or violence causing more future challenges for the children and youth ( trauma & substance abuse) 2.2.3 Residents' satisfaction is dependent on lack of intrusion by strangers and control of the housing site. Parents do not want their children to play in areas easily accessible to strangers. Uncontrolled access also increases opportunities for theft and vandalism. Children have direct access and often play unsupervised on the river walk which you have already acknowledged as being a benefit for the residents of 1925 SE Marine Drive if approved to enjoy. 1. Does this not put the recognized Vulnerable Children which you are trying to protect by putting specific Policies and Guidelines in place for the BC Housing Families with Children Complex? At the community dialogue session - it was confirmed by staff ( but neglected to be noted on the BC Housing website summary ) that this building will house individuals with criminal, substance abuse and mental health. 2. Do we not need to consider future projects and how they affect already existing BC Housing projects for vulnerable families? 3. Why can we not consider all the current vulnerable residents in the neighbour, seniors, children and those with disabilities? 4. You have referred to the City's Housing Vancouver Strategy and community plans in regards to 1925 SE Marine Drive. There appears to be conflict between this plan and the High Density for Families with Children Policy and Guidleline. How and who determines which policies supersedes the other? 5. What instances would you override a set of policies that have already been implemented by the City? 6. How is it you can override guidelines that have been voted on and implemented by City staff? 7. What instance does public safety override housing policies? 8. What risk assessments and analysis reports are completed to determine this is or is not a public safety risk and where can the public access these reports? 9. What is the ``checklist`` for these public safety assessments and analysis reports and who completes them? If the City chooses to ignore the Family with Children Policy and Guidelines in regards to safety 1. Knowing there are potentially multiple risks of criminal activity, trauma, and violence risks to the current residents of the neighbour, ( proven with previous Supportive Housing Developments, through media, police, ambulance, fire department call volumes and reports, other public hearing presentations ) how does the City plan to protect the neighbourhood? 2. As the City has been hearing constant concerns of safety for neighbours, especially the most vulnerable, seniors, children, youth and those with disabilities, mobility issues, How does the legal department and risk management consider potential liabilities for law suits? on Twitter Share In regards to my previous question, there appears to be some misunderstanding. 1768-1788 E Kent South - is a High Density Families with Children complex, therefore my understanding is the City of Vancouver Land Use & Development Policies and Guidelines should be complied with to keep families and children safe and secure. These policies and guidelines the City put in place for this now existing building will be violated if 1925 SE Marine Drive is approved. 2.2.1 Families with children should have reasonable and effective access to essential community services and recreational amenities. 2.1.2 Effective access means a walking route which is both safe and secure. Children will have to walk directly past 1925 SE Marine Drive, which will house individuals that may present with risky behaviours to themselves and others, to gain access to the cross walk for some of the busiest streets in Vancouver to access their schools, the Boys & Girls Club and a bus loop. This would violate the City Policy and Guidelines 2.2.1 Housing for families with children should be protected from conflicts with adjacent land uses 1925 SE Marine Drive is within 3 blocks and direct access for children to access schools and children programs potentially exposing them to unsafe behaviours with concerns of causing harm or youth being influences with drugs and alcohol or violence causing more future challenges for the children and youth ( trauma & substance abuse) 2.2.3 Residents' satisfaction is dependent on lack of intrusion by strangers and control of the housing site. Parents do not want their children to play in areas easily accessible to strangers. Uncontrolled access also increases opportunities for theft and vandalism. Children have direct access and often play unsupervised on the river walk which you have already acknowledged as being a benefit for the residents of 1925 SE Marine Drive if approved to enjoy. 1. Does this not put the recognized Vulnerable Children which you are trying to protect by putting specific Policies and Guidelines in place for the BC Housing Families with Children Complex? At the community dialogue session - it was confirmed by staff ( but neglected to be noted on the BC Housing website summary ) that this building will house individuals with criminal, substance abuse and mental health. 2. Do we not need to consider future projects and how they affect already existing BC Housing projects for vulnerable families? 3. Why can we not consider all the current vulnerable residents in the neighbour, seniors, children and those with disabilities? 4. You have referred to the City's Housing Vancouver Strategy and community plans in regards to 1925 SE Marine Drive. There appears to be conflict between this plan and the High Density for Families with Children Policy and Guidleline. How and who determines which policies supersedes the other? 5. What instances would you override a set of policies that have already been implemented by the City? 6. How is it you can override guidelines that have been voted on and implemented by City staff? 7. What instance does public safety override housing policies? 8. What risk assessments and analysis reports are completed to determine this is or is not a public safety risk and where can the public access these reports? 9. What is the ``checklist`` for these public safety assessments and analysis reports and who completes them? If the City chooses to ignore the Family with Children Policy and Guidelines in regards to safety 1. Knowing there are potentially multiple risks of criminal activity, trauma, and violence risks to the current residents of the neighbour, ( proven with previous Supportive Housing Developments, through media, police, ambulance, fire department call volumes and reports, other public hearing presentations ) how does the City plan to protect the neighbourhood? 2. As the City has been hearing constant concerns of safety for neighbours, especially the most vulnerable, seniors, children, youth and those with disabilities, mobility issues, How does the legal department and risk management consider potential liabilities for law suits? on Linkedin Email In regards to my previous question, there appears to be some misunderstanding. 1768-1788 E Kent South - is a High Density Families with Children complex, therefore my understanding is the City of Vancouver Land Use & Development Policies and Guidelines should be complied with to keep families and children safe and secure. These policies and guidelines the City put in place for this now existing building will be violated if 1925 SE Marine Drive is approved. 2.2.1 Families with children should have reasonable and effective access to essential community services and recreational amenities. 2.1.2 Effective access means a walking route which is both safe and secure. Children will have to walk directly past 1925 SE Marine Drive, which will house individuals that may present with risky behaviours to themselves and others, to gain access to the cross walk for some of the busiest streets in Vancouver to access their schools, the Boys & Girls Club and a bus loop. This would violate the City Policy and Guidelines 2.2.1 Housing for families with children should be protected from conflicts with adjacent land uses 1925 SE Marine Drive is within 3 blocks and direct access for children to access schools and children programs potentially exposing them to unsafe behaviours with concerns of causing harm or youth being influences with drugs and alcohol or violence causing more future challenges for the children and youth ( trauma & substance abuse) 2.2.3 Residents' satisfaction is dependent on lack of intrusion by strangers and control of the housing site. Parents do not want their children to play in areas easily accessible to strangers. Uncontrolled access also increases opportunities for theft and vandalism. Children have direct access and often play unsupervised on the river walk which you have already acknowledged as being a benefit for the residents of 1925 SE Marine Drive if approved to enjoy. 1. Does this not put the recognized Vulnerable Children which you are trying to protect by putting specific Policies and Guidelines in place for the BC Housing Families with Children Complex? At the community dialogue session - it was confirmed by staff ( but neglected to be noted on the BC Housing website summary ) that this building will house individuals with criminal, substance abuse and mental health. 2. Do we not need to consider future projects and how they affect already existing BC Housing projects for vulnerable families? 3. Why can we not consider all the current vulnerable residents in the neighbour, seniors, children and those with disabilities? 4. You have referred to the City's Housing Vancouver Strategy and community plans in regards to 1925 SE Marine Drive. There appears to be conflict between this plan and the High Density for Families with Children Policy and Guidleline. How and who determines which policies supersedes the other? 5. What instances would you override a set of policies that have already been implemented by the City? 6. How is it you can override guidelines that have been voted on and implemented by City staff? 7. What instance does public safety override housing policies? 8. What risk assessments and analysis reports are completed to determine this is or is not a public safety risk and where can the public access these reports? 9. What is the ``checklist`` for these public safety assessments and analysis reports and who completes them? If the City chooses to ignore the Family with Children Policy and Guidelines in regards to safety 1. Knowing there are potentially multiple risks of criminal activity, trauma, and violence risks to the current residents of the neighbour, ( proven with previous Supportive Housing Developments, through media, police, ambulance, fire department call volumes and reports, other public hearing presentations ) how does the City plan to protect the neighbourhood? 2. As the City has been hearing constant concerns of safety for neighbours, especially the most vulnerable, seniors, children, youth and those with disabilities, mobility issues, How does the legal department and risk management consider potential liabilities for law suits? link

    In regards to my previous question, there appears to be some misunderstanding. 1768-1788 E Kent South - is a High Density Families with Children complex, therefore my understanding is the City of Vancouver Land Use & Development Policies and Guidelines should be complied with to keep families and children safe and secure. These policies and guidelines the City put in place for this now existing building will be violated if 1925 SE Marine Drive is approved. 2.2.1 Families with children should have reasonable and effective access to essential community services and recreational amenities. 2.1.2 Effective access means a walking route which is both safe and secure. Children will have to walk directly past 1925 SE Marine Drive, which will house individuals that may present with risky behaviours to themselves and others, to gain access to the cross walk for some of the busiest streets in Vancouver to access their schools, the Boys & Girls Club and a bus loop. This would violate the City Policy and Guidelines 2.2.1 Housing for families with children should be protected from conflicts with adjacent land uses 1925 SE Marine Drive is within 3 blocks and direct access for children to access schools and children programs potentially exposing them to unsafe behaviours with concerns of causing harm or youth being influences with drugs and alcohol or violence causing more future challenges for the children and youth ( trauma & substance abuse) 2.2.3 Residents' satisfaction is dependent on lack of intrusion by strangers and control of the housing site. Parents do not want their children to play in areas easily accessible to strangers. Uncontrolled access also increases opportunities for theft and vandalism. Children have direct access and often play unsupervised on the river walk which you have already acknowledged as being a benefit for the residents of 1925 SE Marine Drive if approved to enjoy. 1. Does this not put the recognized Vulnerable Children which you are trying to protect by putting specific Policies and Guidelines in place for the BC Housing Families with Children Complex? At the community dialogue session - it was confirmed by staff ( but neglected to be noted on the BC Housing website summary ) that this building will house individuals with criminal, substance abuse and mental health. 2. Do we not need to consider future projects and how they affect already existing BC Housing projects for vulnerable families? 3. Why can we not consider all the current vulnerable residents in the neighbour, seniors, children and those with disabilities? 4. You have referred to the City's Housing Vancouver Strategy and community plans in regards to 1925 SE Marine Drive. There appears to be conflict between this plan and the High Density for Families with Children Policy and Guidleline. How and who determines which policies supersedes the other? 5. What instances would you override a set of policies that have already been implemented by the City? 6. How is it you can override guidelines that have been voted on and implemented by City staff? 7. What instance does public safety override housing policies? 8. What risk assessments and analysis reports are completed to determine this is or is not a public safety risk and where can the public access these reports? 9. What is the ``checklist`` for these public safety assessments and analysis reports and who completes them? If the City chooses to ignore the Family with Children Policy and Guidelines in regards to safety 1. Knowing there are potentially multiple risks of criminal activity, trauma, and violence risks to the current residents of the neighbour, ( proven with previous Supportive Housing Developments, through media, police, ambulance, fire department call volumes and reports, other public hearing presentations ) how does the City plan to protect the neighbourhood? 2. As the City has been hearing constant concerns of safety for neighbours, especially the most vulnerable, seniors, children, youth and those with disabilities, mobility issues, How does the legal department and risk management consider potential liabilities for law suits?

    mountains asked over 2 years ago
    • The High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines does not apply to this proposed development because this proposal does not include units for families with children.
    • This proposal is for individuals who are experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness. This includes young people, seniors, people with disabilities and people who have experienced trauma or poverty.
    • The safety of all city residents – including those living in supportive housing and the nearby neighbourhoods – is a priority for the city.  
    • Homelessness exists in all parts of the city, and requires a city-wide response. The City of Vancouver’s Housing Vancouver strategy and community plans call for housing affordability and accessibility for all people in all communities.
    • This rezoning application can be considered by Council because it meets policy and multiple City objectives to meet the urgent housing needs of people experiencing and at risk of experiencing homelessness.
    • Rezoning applications are reviewed by many departments, including Urban Design, Engineering, Housing Policy & Projects, to make recommendations to Council.
    • In alignment with our principles of equity and anti-discrimination in planning, area plans and policies do not include maximums or exclusionary bounds for housing for lower-income renters and/or residents who are formerly homeless.
    • Your concerns about safety have been recorded and will be considered through the application review process and summarized in a Council report along with other public comments received through the rezoning application process.
    • For information on community benefits of supportive housing, please visit https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Community-Benefits-Supportive-Housing.pdf.
  • Share BC Housing has not been transparent in the slightest in the process, and not communicating fairly or honestly. 1. If approved, what stops BC Housing from changing criteria? 2. Are they held accountable to the agreement? on Facebook Share BC Housing has not been transparent in the slightest in the process, and not communicating fairly or honestly. 1. If approved, what stops BC Housing from changing criteria? 2. Are they held accountable to the agreement? on Twitter Share BC Housing has not been transparent in the slightest in the process, and not communicating fairly or honestly. 1. If approved, what stops BC Housing from changing criteria? 2. Are they held accountable to the agreement? on Linkedin Email BC Housing has not been transparent in the slightest in the process, and not communicating fairly or honestly. 1. If approved, what stops BC Housing from changing criteria? 2. Are they held accountable to the agreement? link

    BC Housing has not been transparent in the slightest in the process, and not communicating fairly or honestly. 1. If approved, what stops BC Housing from changing criteria? 2. Are they held accountable to the agreement?

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    Staff Referral Reports regarding rezoning applications, and containing recommendations and conditions to be fulfilled at subsequent permitting and development stages are considered by Council at Public Hearings. Should Council approve the rezoning application, applicants will need to  comply with any provision or conditions of approval of their rezoning application before permits would be issued.

  • Share There is a substantial difference between the current RS-1B District to CD-1 District. It will be very disproportional to the existing community in very close proximity to single dwelling homes. 1. Was it not zoned RS-1 with a purpose? 2. Have you approved this zoning change in any other neighbourhood? 3. Please provide where and when. 4. Please provide documents and reports of the negative and positive changes it made and who validates the reports. 5. Please provide contacts for the Community Advisory Committee with similar zoning changes. 6. How do you feel this will impact the existing neighbourhood? 7. How do you feel aesthetically it will fit in? 8. How do you think the shading will affect neighbours? 9. Will the current infrastructure be able to support such a large facility? on Facebook Share There is a substantial difference between the current RS-1B District to CD-1 District. It will be very disproportional to the existing community in very close proximity to single dwelling homes. 1. Was it not zoned RS-1 with a purpose? 2. Have you approved this zoning change in any other neighbourhood? 3. Please provide where and when. 4. Please provide documents and reports of the negative and positive changes it made and who validates the reports. 5. Please provide contacts for the Community Advisory Committee with similar zoning changes. 6. How do you feel this will impact the existing neighbourhood? 7. How do you feel aesthetically it will fit in? 8. How do you think the shading will affect neighbours? 9. Will the current infrastructure be able to support such a large facility? on Twitter Share There is a substantial difference between the current RS-1B District to CD-1 District. It will be very disproportional to the existing community in very close proximity to single dwelling homes. 1. Was it not zoned RS-1 with a purpose? 2. Have you approved this zoning change in any other neighbourhood? 3. Please provide where and when. 4. Please provide documents and reports of the negative and positive changes it made and who validates the reports. 5. Please provide contacts for the Community Advisory Committee with similar zoning changes. 6. How do you feel this will impact the existing neighbourhood? 7. How do you feel aesthetically it will fit in? 8. How do you think the shading will affect neighbours? 9. Will the current infrastructure be able to support such a large facility? on Linkedin Email There is a substantial difference between the current RS-1B District to CD-1 District. It will be very disproportional to the existing community in very close proximity to single dwelling homes. 1. Was it not zoned RS-1 with a purpose? 2. Have you approved this zoning change in any other neighbourhood? 3. Please provide where and when. 4. Please provide documents and reports of the negative and positive changes it made and who validates the reports. 5. Please provide contacts for the Community Advisory Committee with similar zoning changes. 6. How do you feel this will impact the existing neighbourhood? 7. How do you feel aesthetically it will fit in? 8. How do you think the shading will affect neighbours? 9. Will the current infrastructure be able to support such a large facility? link

    There is a substantial difference between the current RS-1B District to CD-1 District. It will be very disproportional to the existing community in very close proximity to single dwelling homes. 1. Was it not zoned RS-1 with a purpose? 2. Have you approved this zoning change in any other neighbourhood? 3. Please provide where and when. 4. Please provide documents and reports of the negative and positive changes it made and who validates the reports. 5. Please provide contacts for the Community Advisory Committee with similar zoning changes. 6. How do you feel this will impact the existing neighbourhood? 7. How do you feel aesthetically it will fit in? 8. How do you think the shading will affect neighbours? 9. Will the current infrastructure be able to support such a large facility?

    mountains asked over 2 years ago

    As previously mentioned, the Rezoning Policy within the Victoria-Fraserview/Killarney Community Vision allows for consideration of rezoning applications such as this for social or affordable housing developments. To explore other CD-1 rezoning applications that are underway or have been completed, please visit shapeyourcity.ca/rezoning. All previously-approved and enacted CD-1 district schedules can be found at Vancouver.ca/zoning-library.

    The building's design and shadow studies can be seen on the application's website. They, along with the infrastructure requirements to service the site, are being reviewed as part of the rezoning application review process.