Vancouver approves village zoning plan

Summary#

Vancouver City Council carried, as amended, a decision approving in principle the Villages Plan and changes to the Vancouver Official Development Plan, zoning and related by-laws. The stated goal is to support more housing and mixed-use development in village areas; the decision does not itself put the proposed by-law changes into force.

  • The approved plan and zoning changes cover parcels in 17 Villages, along with certain low-rise mixed-use areas in Rupert and Renfrew and select blocks in Grandview-Woodland. Council rejected a proposal to limit the changes to five “Pilot Villages.”
  • The zoning changes would add R3-4, C-2D and C-2E districts; rezone certain parcels into new or existing districts; and repeal the RM-12 district schedule. Staff’s summary says the new R3-4 and C-2E districts would have affordable-housing requirements.
  • The decision also approves in principle changes to the Sign, Noise Control, Subdivision and Parking by-laws, and to several plans and land-use documents. These changes are to be brought forward with the zoning changes.
  • Council added approval in principle for zoning changes to allow new space-efficient stair options. Staff’s summary also describes increasing the maximum floor space ratio (FSR, a measure of building size relative to lot size) in all R-3 districts from 1.45 to 1.6 for sites of at least 460 square metres.
  • Council directed staff to bring the changes forward for enactment or later approval. The decision says it creates no legal rights or City obligation, and does not require the City to enact rezoning by-laws.

What it means for you#

  • People who own or live on affected parcels: The zoning and land-use designations could change if the City later enacts the by-laws and approves the related plans. This decision alone does not change a parcel’s zoning or guarantee permission to build.
  • Housing providers and renters: According to the staff summary, C-2D and C-2E would not be subject to rental replacement requirements under the Rental Housing Stock Official Development Plan. The summary describes affordable-housing requirements for R3-4 and C-2E, including a social-housing cash-in-lieu contribution and a below-market rental discount rate; the rates are not provided here.
  • People across Vancouver: The decision also calls for changes to rules on signs, noise, subdivision and parking to reflect the new districts. It does not itself approve a specific building or set the number of homes to be built.

Money#

No overall cost estimate is provided in the available material.

  • The decision provides no budget amount for staff work or implementation.
  • It calls for affordable-housing requirements that include a social-housing cash-in-lieu contribution, but the amount and discount rate are not given.
  • The decision says any person’s spending or costs made in reliance on the resolutions are at that person’s risk.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the full appendices, so the exact parcels, maps, zoning rules and space-efficient stair options cannot be verified here.
  • It does not give the cash-in-lieu amount, below-market rental discount rate, or an estimate of the City’s implementation costs.
  • It does not say when the by-laws and plan changes will return for enactment or approval.
  • The decision does not describe how the City will monitor housing outcomes or how the changes interact with other housing policies.
  • The material provided does not summarize public hearing comments or give the details of the staff report’s analysis.

Case for#

  • City staff say the plan and rezonings are intended to increase housing and mixed-use options in village areas and help streamline delivery of housing and mixed-use buildings.
  • Staff’s summary says the new R3-4 district would include affordable-housing requirements, and the C-2E district would also include them.
  • The approved stair and FSR changes are intended, according to the staff summary, to allow more flexibility in low-rise apartment forms.
  • Council approved a broad program rather than the proposal to start with five pilot areas, which could allow the changes to apply across more village areas.

Case against#

  • The rezoning would apply to parcels in many areas, but the supplied material does not identify those parcels or explain the local effects.
  • C-2D and C-2E would not be subject to the rental replacement requirements described in the staff summary. The material does not explain what protections would apply to renters in affected buildings.
  • Councillor Maloney and Councillor Fry proposed sending the recommendations back for deeper consultation; Council rejected that proposal. Councillor Orr’s proposal for added protections on single lots with small apartment density was also not adopted.
  • Council’s approval in principle does not guarantee enactment. The decision leaves the City free to decline to enact rezoning by-laws, so the plan’s effects remain uncertain.