Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

City offers no reason for firing planning director Brent Toderian

The City of Vancouver has failed to offer a reason for firing its planning director Brent Toderian in a formal statement Tuesday.

The City of Vancouver has failed to offer a reason for firing its planning director Brent Toderian in a formal statement Tuesday.

However, in an earlier media scrum, Mayor Gregor Robertson did confirm that Toderian will receive a year’s severance pay, equating to about $200,000.

Council endorsed and confirmed the dismissal in an in camera meeting January 31. The city’s communications department then issued a statement noting the “new opportunities and challenges” that the city is grappling with thanks to Metro Vancouver’s regional growth strategy (RGS).

Strangely, however, Toderian was a strong supporter of preserving industrial land, which was a central tenet in the RGS.

The city’s statement said that “new opportunities and challenges” are springing from documents such as the city’s:

  • economic action strategy;
  • affordable housing and homelessness strategy; and
  • greenest city action plan.

“Following due consideration, it has been determined that it is an appropriate time for a change in leadership in the planning department,” according to the statement.

“An international search will be conducted for a new director of planning.”

The statement noted that the city will focus more on initiatives to “balance the competing demands associated with housing affordability, economic development, citizen engagement and a broad sustainability agenda.”

One hallmark of Toderian’s tenure was overseeing the controversial city tactic of extracting community amenity contributions (CACs) from developers.

The goalposts for what could be considered a CAC sometimes seemed to change on the fly.

Earlier this month, for example, Toderian told Business in Vancouver that he was considering allowing Cressey to offer a private business below-market rent in a proposed development and have that cost be considered a CAC. The concession would be a first for Vancouver. (See “Capitalizing on industrial heritage” – issue 1161; January 24-30.)

“That’s an example of the arbitrary nature of CACs. They are decided by city staff based on who knows what criteria,” former city councilor Peter Ladner told BIV January 31.

Glen Korstrom

[email protected]

@glenkorstrom