City rezoning for 216 social housing units

Summary#

Vancouver City Council approved in principle a rezoning application for 5027–5053 Boundary Road, moved by Councillor Dominato and seconded by Councillor Klassen. It would replace the site’s existing CD-1 zoning (a site-specific zoning district) with a new CD-1 district. The stated goal is to allow a social-housing development.

  • The proposal is for a 21-storey building, 74 metres high, with 216 social-housing units, ground-floor commercial space and a proposed privately owned 74-space childcare facility.
  • The proposal has a floor space ratio (FSR, a measure of building floor area relative to site area) of 8.0. The site’s transit-area policy generally anticipates up to 8 storeys and 3.0 FSR.
  • The new zoning, related changes to the Sign and Noise Control by-laws, and a housing agreement still require further steps. The approvals in principle do not require the City to enact the zoning. The rezoning takes effect only if Council later enacts the by-law.
  • The housing agreement is intended to secure the units as social housing for the longer of 60 years or the life of the building. The City’s social-housing definition requires at least 30% of units to be for households below specified income limits, with rent no higher than 30% of household income.

What it means for you#

  • People seeking housing: If built under the proposed agreement, the project would add 216 social-housing units. The supplied material does not say who would operate the housing or set out application or allocation rules.
  • Nearby residents: The proposal allows a much taller building than the area’s usual transit-area policy limits. City staff recommend design conditions to address effects such as privacy, natural light and the building’s fit with nearby properties.
  • Neighbours and tenants: The site has two secondary rental units. Staff report no tenants eligible under the City’s tenant-relocation policy were identified; if eligible tenants are identified during later approvals, the applicant must meet that policy.
  • People using the proposed childcare: The application includes a privately owned 74-space childcare facility. The decision does not establish who can use it or its fees.
  • The public: The decision does not itself approve construction or create a right for the applicant to build. The proposal remains subject to later City approvals.

Money#

The report estimates $222,389 in development cost levies from the commercial space; it gives no overall project or public-cost estimate.

  • Social housing that meets the City’s definition is exempt from development cost levies. The commercial area is expected to generate the stated $222,389.
  • The project is exempt from community amenity contributions and a public-art contribution.
  • No publicly available information in the supplied material gives the project’s construction cost, public funding, or any cost to the City.

What is unclear#

  • The full rezoning conditions are referenced in the report but are not included in the supplied material.
  • No publicly available information in the supplied material gives a construction schedule, the housing operator, or the process for assigning units.
  • Parking and loading details are to be finalized at the development-permit stage.
  • The report says traffic and pedestrian-safety concerns were raised, but the supplied material does not provide a detailed traffic assessment.
  • The proposal includes commercial space and childcare, but their future tenants, services and costs are not specified.

Case for#

  • City staff say the site’s official plan allows a height exception where all residential floor space is social housing. They support additional height for that purpose.
  • The project would provide 216 social-housing units, with the housing agreement intended to secure them for at least 60 years or the building’s life, whichever is longer.
  • Of 53 public submissions, 20 supported the proposal and 4 were mixed. Supporters cited social and affordable housing, childcare, and the need for more housing.
  • Staff recommend design conditions to reduce effects on neighbouring properties.

Case against#

  • The proposal is substantially above the transit-area policy’s usual limit of 8 storeys and 3.0 FSR. Staff acknowledge possible effects on natural light, privacy, overlook and shadowing.
  • Residents who opposed or raised concerns cited the building’s height and size, neighbourhood character, traffic and pedestrian safety. The report does not establish that these effects will occur or explain them in detail.
  • Some residents feared the project could contribute to the loss of nearby co-ops or create safety risks. Staff said there were no rezoning applications for nearby co-ops; the safety concerns are residents’ concerns, not findings established in the report.