Interim Zoning for RS-1 and RS-1S Areas

SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 3
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
MAY 16, 1996

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: May 3, 1996
Dept. File No.: BMcG

TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM: Director of Community Planning, in consultation with
Director of Land Use and Development
General Manager of Engineering Services
Director of Permits and Licenses
Director of Financial Services
Director of Legal Services

SUBJECT: Interim Zoning for RS-1 and RS-1S Areas

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT Council instruct staff to proceed, in co-operation with
neighbourhood groups, with a consultation process as outlined
in this report to determine neighbourhood support for an
interim zoning in single-family areas in advance of CityPlan's
neighbourhood visioning program.

B. THAT Council direct staff to proceed with RS-6 as an interim
zone available to RS-1 and RS-1S single-family neighbourhoods.

C. THAT, where there is demonstrated community support, Council
instruct staff to include RS-5 as a possible interim zone for
single-family neighbourhoods.

D. THAT Council direct staff to amend the RS-5 zone to control
the maximum area of impermeable materials on site should any
neighbourhood be rezoned to RS-5 as part of this interim
zoning program.

E. THAT $52,000 be provided from Contingency Reserve to cover
program costs in 1996 as described in Appendix C.

CONSIDERATION

F. THAT $28,000 be provided from Contingency Reserve for
independent telephone surveys for four neighbourhood phone
surveys as part of the Phase II programs in 1996.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A,
B, C, D, and E on the basis that these lead to interim zoning only.
In the long term this approach to assuring quality single-family
development is not sustainable. It cannot be economically
administered and because of its inflexibility will inevitably lead
to demands for additional amendments as neighbourhood populations
and tastes change. Therefore, the General Manager of Community
Services supports the initiative of developing a new approach as
noted in this report. The General Manager of Community Services
recommends approval of F noting that the proposed telephone survey
will provide Council with a more accurate reading of neighbourhood
support in advance of the referral to Public Hearing and will allow
staff to assist more neighbourhoods expeditiously.

COUNCIL POLICY

On June 6, 1995, as part of approving CityPlan, Council asked staff to
report back on interim measures to deal with single-family neighbourhood
requests for character zoning until such time as staff are able to go
back into those neighbourhoods to work with them on a CityPlan
neighbourhood program. CityPlan directions include "distinctive
neighbourhood character"..."to help residents establish the desired
character of their neighbourhood."

On September 27, 1994, Council asked the Director of Planning and the
General Manager of Engineering Services to report back to Council with
recommendations for private property "green space" regulations which
address aesthetic and infrastructure issues. This was in response to
the storm flooding that occurred the previous summer.

SUMMARY

This report recommends Council adoption of the proposed process to
implement the interim zoning program requested by Council on June 6,
1995. The recent RS-6 program is reviewed and external design
regulations and survey procedures are discussed. The option to offer
RS-5 zoning in addition to RS-6 is presented along with the option to
amend the RS-5 zoning to include controls on the maximum area of
impermeable materials allowed on sites. General criteria for priorizing
RS-1 or RS-1S neighbourhoods seeking new zoning is proposed. Program
schedule, staffing, and costs are reviewed.

PURPOSE

This report seeks Council's endorsement of a program to provide interim
zoning for RS-1 and RS-1S single-family neighbourhoods where there is
community support for a zoning change addressing matters of design
control. The report also provides a brief update of work underway to
develop a new approach to RS-1 to deal with issues of complexity, design
flexibility and administration.

BACKGROUND

1. RS-1 Zoning Initiatives

In January 1990, Council approved the development of area-specific
zoning in the South Shaughnessy/Granville area. This work resulted in
the development of new single-family zones briefly described below:

(a) RS-3 and RS-3A were originally developed by a residents' group and
adopted by Council. These zones reduce the outright allowable
floor space ratio and permit an increase to floor area based upon a
context-based design guideline review process. The maximum floor
area achievable in RS-3 and RS-3A is the same as RS-1/RS-1S
outright floor area. Because of the lot sizes of the areas for
which RS-3 and RS-3A were originally drafted, these two zones are
most suitable for moderate to large size lots.

(b) RS-5 was developed as a compromise between distinctly divergent
views held by residents on design control. The outright floor
space ratio is reduced and, where an application is reviewed under
context-based design guidelines, it is eligible for an increase to
the allowable floor area that is somewhat greater than the floor
area achievable under the former RS-1 zoning. RS-5 zoning is
applicable to the full range of lot sizes.

RS-3, RS-3A, and RS-5 conditional (design guidelines) applications
result in designs that are generally compatible with adjacent
properties.

(c) For the zone recently developed for a portion of East Kerrisdale,
the working group did not choose to use RS-5, RS-3 or RS-3A because
they did not wish to specifically reference immediately
neighbouring properties for context-based design guidelines nor
have typical applicants go through a two to three month Development
Permit review process. Therefore, this neighbourhood identified a
number of specific design concerns and incorporated related
planning controls into the RS-6 zoning. These design controls
(except for landscaping) are addressed in the district schedule
regulations rather than
through discretionary design guidelines. The outright floor space
ratio is reduced for applicants not conforming to the landscape
guidelines. Where landscape guidelines are met, the FSR is the
same as under RS-1/RS-1S with an additional FSR increase for third
storey finished space under sloping roofs.

By using this format, the RS-6 zoning achieves the East Kerrisdale
area's goals of shorter application processing time and
non-context-specific-based selective design control.

Regulations are typically applied less flexibly by staff than
design guidelines (including guidelines used in RS-3, RS-3A and
RS-5). Because of this the RS-6 zoning also offers an optional
Development Permit application process which broadens the design
possibilities within RS-6 while still maintaining the zone's
general intent.

2. Interim Neighbourhood Zoning

During the course of the South Shaughnessy/Granville program, several
resident groups in other areas zoned RS-1/RS-1S expressed concerns about
the effects of new development in their neighbourhoods. In June 1995,
when Council approved CityPlan, they asked staff to develop an interim
zone that would address some of the more immediate concerns about new
development. This is consistent with CityPlan directions and provides a
way to address this issue faster than through neighbourhood-specific,
customized, RS rezonings or through neighbourhood-specific CityPlan
programs. It is anticipated that a CityPlan neighbourhoods program will
also begin in the near future. Staff have proposed a visioning program
through which neighbourhoods would work with staff to prepare visions
that take CityPlan to the neighbourhood level. Visions would include
statements about desired neighbourhood character, as well as about all
of the other CityPlan directions. The implementation of these visions
would likely result in further revisions to existing zoning schedules
and in new schedules.

Staff have met with residents from some neighbourhood associations
interested in having a zoning review. Some believe RS-6 will meet their
needs as an interim zone; others feel that RS-3 or RS-5 will provide a
more appropriate level of detailed design control based on adjacent
properties and context. An approach to deal with the associated
community consultation and administrative issues is outlined below.

DISCUSSION

1. Interim Single-Family Zoning

Given the sense of urgency that many RS-1/RS-1S neighbourhood residents
have expressed about the need for revised zoning, and given that several
neighbourhood groups have expressed an interest in having RS-6, staff
believe it is appropriate and most expedient to proceed with this
RS-1/RS-1S interim zoning program using the RS-6 zone.

Therefore, staff are seeking Council's approval to proceed with this
interim zoning initiative but before proceeding wish to obtain further
guidance on the following three issues:

- should staff offer individual neighbourhoods the opportunity to
make modest adjustments to selected external design sections of the
RS-6 to reflect the design preferences of each neighbourhood?;

- should staff offer zones other than RS-6 to neighbourhoods
expressing interest in other existing zones, such as RS-5, as part
of this interim zoning program?; and

- given Council's wish to offer an interim RS zoning option to all
interested RS-1 or RS-1S zoned areas as quickly as possible, does
Council support the short-format area zoning review program
described below?

(a) Adjustments to RS-6

RS-6 was developed to meet the needs of an area with diverse lots sizes
and house styles and is therefore applicable to a variety of RS-1/RS-1S
areas. It offers an increased building envelope permitting a wider
variety of building forms, addresses site impermeability and landscaping
concerns, and controls some design elements with minimal processing
time, permit and administration costs relative to discretionary design
guideline zones such as RS-3, RS-3A, or RS-5.

However, staff note that residents of other RS-zoned neighbourhoods
across the city may have different values with respect to design
control. To address this, an RS-1 or RS-1S area considering RS-6 for an
interim zoning for their neighbourhood could also be offered the
opportunity to retain or delete (but not amend) selected external design
control sections of the RS-6 District Schedule. This would give each
neighbourhood an opportunity to make some adjustments to the RS-6
zoning's external design controls related to their residents' design
goals and preferences.

Staff do not support neighbourhood-specific amendments to the
regulations (other than those noted above) because this is a zoning
initiative for potentially many existing areas and it is imperative to
keep any area-specific zoning modification options to a minimum;
otherwise, the overall program would get delayed in "custom" zoning
efforts.

For individual neighbourhood retention/deletion choice, staff recommend
only the following external design sections which regulate:

- screening of chimney flues (4.17.30);
- height of entry porches and related columns (4.17.31, 4.17.32);
- glass type (4.17.33);
- exterior wall cladding types, number, and "false front" design
(4.17.34);
- roof materials and colours (4.17.35, 4.17.36, 4.17.37); and
- minimum window trim or recessing standards (4.17.38).

These six external design regulation topics may be deleted individually
or in total without affecting other important sections of the RS-6 zone
such as building envelope flexibility, bulk control, impermeable
materials, site coverage, and landscaping.

(b) Zoning Options

Some neighbourhoods have requested that RS-3 and RS-5 also be offered as
interim zoning options. The residents who have requested RS-3/RS-5
options wish to preserve their area's specific existing neighbourhood
character via these context-based design control zones. They also
understand that RS-3 or RS-5 zones are primarily conditional (design
guideline) zones and result in most new house applications undergoing a
two- to three-month review process.

There are particular concerns with offering RS-3 to other
neighbourhoods. It was developed for an area with large lots. If
applied to areas with smaller lots, it would significantly constrict the
maximum building width on narrower lots (33 ft. and 50 ft. widths),
thereby making floor plans impractical. In addition, on very large
lots, there would be significant reduction in achievable FSR compared to
RS-1 due to more restrictive basement size limits. Also, RS-3 has the
most restrictive garage size controls. RS-5 achieves the same general
objectives as RS-3 but can be applied to the full range of lot sizes
found in most RS-1 or RS-1S areas and is less limiting on building width
and garage size.

Staff note that while RS-3 and RS-5 are "off-the-shelf" zones, they do
involve longer application processing time, higher permit costs to
applicants and more administrative resources. In addition, it may be
more difficult in specific RS areas to get neighbourhood consensus to
proceed with more intensive design control.

Should Council support offering RS-5 zoning as an additional "interim"
zoning option, staff's recent experience in the South
Shaughnessy/Granville program suggests that RS-5 will more likely be
requested in areas of the city where there are concentrations of
original, consistent character, owner-occupied homes with residents who
wish context-based design controls in order to retain this specific
character in new and renovated houses.

There are some pros and cons to offering both RS-6 and RS-5 as interim
zoning options. Limiting the choice to RS-6 (with or without minor
alterations) has the advantages of:

- a more straightforward community process;
- greater likelihood of achieving a clear, majority decision from the
neighbourhood (obtain RS-6 versus retain RS-1 for example); and
- minimizing staff time per neighbourhood thereby reaching all
interested RS-1/RS-1S areas sooner.

On the other hand:

- for areas where residents are in general agreement on specifically
preserving their neighbourhood's unique character, context-based
RS-5 zoning may clearly be the preferred interim zoning.

On balance, staff believe that all RS-1/RS-1S neighbourhoods seeking a
zoning review related to greater design control should be offered both
RS-6 and RS-5 as interim options. However, the interim zoning process,
described later, will attempt to identify early on those neighbourhoods
clearly not interested in the RS-5 option so that unnecessary staff work
can be minimized and the overall interim zoning program can be offered
to all interested neighbourhoods as soon as possible.

During the development of RS-6, at the Public Hearing, and subsequently,
a number of issues have arisen that should be considered by Council - 2 -

before moving ahead with this interim zoning program.

- RS-6 includes regulations on the maximum percent of impermeable
materials site coverage (house, garage, paving, swimming pool,
etc.). Before allowing any new areas to be rezoned to RS-5, staff
recommend that Council amend the existing RS-5 zone to include the
same impermeable materials site coverage controls as included in
the RS-6 zoning District Schedule section 4.8.4 and 4.8.5 (see
Appendix D). These sections control the maximum amount of
impermeable materials.

These controls address Council's intent to limit increased
stormwater runoff into the sewer system. Regulating private
property impermeable areas not only reduces flooding potential and
combined sewer overflows but also addresses concerns about the
retention of landscape planting and lawns.

To gain measurable benefits of stormwater runoff and combined sewer
overflow reduction, impermeability controls should eventually be
applied to all RS zones. However, a public process is required
and, given staff limitations, it is recommended that staff
implement impermeability regulations as individual neighbourhoods
adopt interim RS-6 and RS-5 zoning. Following the interim zoning
program, the remaining RS-1/RS-1S areas can be amended.

Regarding the existing RS-5-zoned South Shaughnessy area, residents
and property owners would be notified of the proposed amendment and
their input could be heard as part of the Public Hearing for the
first RS-1 area seeking RS-5 (with the impermeable materials
controls) for their neighbourhood's interim zoning.

- At the RS-6 Public Hearing, a suggestion was made that the external
design sections of the RS-6 District Schedule be converted into
discretionary design guidelines based upon the belief that the
administration of guidelines is more flexible and, therefore,
preferable to architects and home designers. Staff considered this
idea during the early drafts of the RS-6 but it was not pursued
because the area working group did not wish lengthy permit times
and staff were concerned about what criteria would be used for
administering guidelines since the original working group did not
want to use context-based design controls.

For the interim zoning program, a neighbourhood that believes a
discretionary design guideline type zoning is preferable to the
RS-6 zone's regulatory approach can seek the option of the RS-5
(discretionary) zone for their interim zoning. Given this RS-5
option, staff believe leaving the RS-6 zone in the current form
will both meet the design control intent of many RS-1 areas and
provide a non-discretionary option different from the RS-5
context-based discretionary design guideline zoning approach.

- The idea of area/neighbourhood/resident design panels was put
forward at the RS-6 Public Hearing. Staff will soon be submitting
a separate report to Council proposing a comprehensive review of RS
zoning which could include consideration of design panels.
However, given that RS-6 is primarily an outright
(non-discretionary, non-design-guideline) zoning, not lending
itself to the use of a design
panel (which typically provides input on zones using substantial
discretionary design guidelines), and given Council's wish to have
the interim zoning program be made available to all interested RS-1
and RS-1S areas as soon as possible, staff recommend not including
consideration of design panels for this interim zoning program.

- Residents of two RS-2 zoned areas have contacted staff enquiring
whether the interim zoning program could be made available to their
neighbourhoods. One request included a petition with 49 signatures
from the RS-2 zoned area near 21st Avenue and Ontario Street. The
RS-2 zone is a single-family zone in name only--in fact, in
addition to single-family homes, duplexes, multiple-conversions and
even, in some cases, new multiple-dwellings are permitted. Staff
believe that these areas will require special zoning analysis and
more intensive public consultation than has been envisioned for
this interim zoning program. Therefore, staff recommend that RS-2
areas should only be considered by Council after all interested
RS-1 or RS-1S neighbourhoods are served.

- There are some issues that have been raised by RS-1 area residents
that will not be considered as part of the RS interim zoning
program. View blockage, rear yard privacy, side window privacy,
changes to heritage building retention controls, and infill housing
options will not be addressed. Staff believe that in order to meet
Council's intent for making an interim RS zoning available to all
interested RS-1 or RS-1S neighbourhoods quickly, these issues and
others should be deferred and addressed separately with additional
resources or dealt with later under either the general RS Review or
CityPlan.

Given the history of neighbourhood debate over changes to RS-1 zoning,
staff believe it is critical to determine if there is adequate support
in each individual RS-1/RS-1S neighbourhood for a zoning change before
significant planning staff time is committed to that area. To deal with
this, staff propose a consultation program which would be carried out as
a co-operative effort between staff and resident groups or neighbourhood
associations (where they exist). Initially for the public program
start-up, staff will advertise the interim zoning program in city-wide
and local news media and will respond to any RS-1 or RS-1S zoned
neighbourhoods whose residents express significant interest. For these
neighbourhoods, this program is outlined in detail in Appendix B.
Briefly, a two-phased program is proposed:
(i) Phase I

Staff will distribute brochures explaining the program and options to
residents in interested neighbourhoods and will establish a
multi-lingual information phone line service. In addition, staff will
provide assistance to any neighbourhood residents' groups that wish to
provide additional information to residents. Staff will complete Phase
I by conducting an "expression of interest" mail-returned survey of all
residents and property owners to determine if there is sufficient
neighbourhood support for some type of new zoning and to justify
commencing Phase II work.

Staff suggest that a minimum response rate of 25% with 60% of the
respondents in support of a zoning change be adequate to justify
providing planning services for the Phase II effort. Council should
note that these recommended response and support rates mean that as few
as 15% of all the polled neighbourhood residents and property owners
generally supporting a rezoning would be adequate for staff to commence
the Phase II work described below. As part of this Phase I survey,
staff will also include a question on whether residents/property owners
who do support a zoning change prefer simple, specific design
regulations (like RS-6) or zoning with context-based design guideline
controls (like RS-5).

The Phase I survey results will be analyzed to determine whether the
"neighbourhood boundaries" should be adjusted. For the purposes of
Phase I work, a "neighbourhood's" boundaries would generally be defined
by perimeter arterial streets or non-RS-1/RS-1S zoned areas. Other
factors, such as variations in housing stock, age or special
topographic/view sensitive issues may also be considered in determining
zoning boundaries. Staff believe maximizing Phase I neighbourhood areas
will assist in expediting the interim zoning program in the city. The
survey ballots, which will be identified by block number and street
(e.g., 2500 West 33rd Avenue, etc.) will allow staff to better define
neighbourhood boundaries based on resident support for new zoning before
proceeding into Phase II work.

The Planning Department has already been contacted by residents of
approximately eight RS-1 areas interested in revising their zoning
related to external design issues. Some of these neighbourhoods'
residents have undertaken some preliminary survey work to assess general
support for new zoning. Staff recommend that, generally, the interim
zoning program serve neighbourhoods on a first-come-first-served basis
except that other factors, such as rate of redevelopment, percent of
intact original housing stock, and city-wide equity, also be taken into
consideration.

(ii) Phase II

For neighbourhoods that show adequate general support for a change of
zoning in the Phase I survey, staff will commence Phase II work. Once
the subject area is defined, staff will hold one or two public
information meetings/open houses to explain the RS-6 (and RS-5 if deemed
appropriate) to area residents/property owners. These would be
announced in local media and be preceded by information packages
(including translation) delivered to each household and to every
absentee registered property owner. The information package would
include meeting times, and a (Phase II) questionnaire or ballot form.

Staff would administer a post-returned survey similar to those used in
recent RS-6 and RS-5 areas. Phase II survey ballots would be sent to
all residents and registered property owners. Some tenants of
absentee-owned houses will be surveyed (but not tenants of suites). A
total response rate of 25% of the households and a response of 60% or
more in favour of a rezoning will be required for referral to a Public
Hearing. Council should be aware that using a post-returned survey with
the return and support percentages noted above means that as little as
15% of the total polled residents/property owners supporting a rezoning
would result in a rezoning referral report to Council.

Based upon recent experiences with the ballot-post-returned surveys in
both East Kerrisdale and the "CHAT" area of Granville, staff would like
to propose an alternative survey method for Council's consideration.
Staff suggest the use of an outside consultant to conduct the Phase II
survey as multi-language random sample phone survey instead of the
ballot-post-returned survey. For example, a study area of 2,000
properties would have a phone survey of approximately 700 households
with the intention of completing 400 interviews (English, Cantonese,
Mandarin, Punjabi, etc., as appropriate). With approximately 400
completed phone surveys providing input to a few selected questions
about the interim zoning options for their area, the accuracy of the
resulting statistics is plus or minus 5% for the entire neighbourhood.
A 60% support rate for a new zoning would be adequate for staff to refer
a rezoning report to Council.

As noted in Appendix C, the average cost of this type of phone survey is
between $6,000 and $7,000. If Council wishes to proceed with this,
staff recommend that funding for the first four neighbourhoods be
provided at this time. If additional funds are required, staff will
report back.

Given the sensitivity of RS zoning programs, the main advantage of the
phone survey is the statistical accuracy in reading neighbourhood
opinions. Unlike a random sample phone survey, a post-returned survey
showing 60% support of a 25% return is much less reliable as an
indication of general neighbourhood support for a proposed rezoning.
Further, by using outside consultants for this Phase II survey work (the
phone survey, the tabulation and reporting of results, etc.), Planning
staff will be more readily available to serve other RS areas sooner with
the interim zoning program. This Phase II survey (whether conducted by
phone or by post) could also offer those area residents/ property owners
who support RS-6 an opportunity to retain or delete selected external
design sections as previously described. Appendix A includes draft
neighbourhood survey forms for both Phase I and Phase II post-returned
surveys. A phone survey, if used, would cover the same question topics
as the Phase II post-returned survey.

WORK PLAN SUMMARY

The work plan for the RS interim zoning program will depend somewhat on
Council decisions on issues raised above (RS-5, etc.). However, the
major steps will typically include:

1. General public notification of availability of program.

2. Identifying and priorizing RS-1 and RS-1S areas that wish to
consider rezoning.

3. Phase I - Determine general level of neighbourhood support for a
rezoning addressing design issues. Co-ordinate with resident
groups in notifying area residents/property owners of programs.

4. Phase II* - Staff distributing more detailed information on RS-6
(and RS-5) to all area residents and property owners, holding
public meetings or open houses, and completing the Phase II survey
on the area's zoning options.

5. Report back to Council on the Phase II survey results with a
recommendation on the area zoning and, where appropriate, holding a
Public Hearing.

* The above assumes that the results of an area's Phase I work (step
3) indicates adequate support for continuing on to Phase II work
(step 4). A more detailed description of the interim zoning work
program is included in Appendix B.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

The RS-6 encourages site landscape planting which will positively affect
the city's micro-climate and air quality. The RS-6 also regulates the
maximum site coverage by impermeable materials (as may RS-5 if Council
so chooses) which would also have positive effects on micro-climate, and
reduce runoff thereby decreasing flooding potential and reducing
combined sewer overflows. RS-6 (and RS-5) provide some moderate
incentive for renovating existing houses which could result in lessening
the burden on landfill sites from house demolitions.

STAFFING AND SCHEDULE

Though we currently have requests from approximately eight RS
neighbourhoods for rezoning, the number of additional neighbourhoods who
may respond to the interim zoning program start up publicity is
impossible to predict. Initially, Community Planning would assign a
Planner I, Planning Analyst, and Planning Assistant to this program.
Their work would be overseen by a senior planner. The ability of these
staff to handle the work of the interim zoning program depends on five
factors:

1. number of neighbourhoods initially served;

2. how quickly the Phase I work is completed;

3. the number of areas whose Phase I surveys indicate adequate support
for commencing (and staffing) a Phase II;

4. the number of neighbourhoods who are offered RS-5 as well as RS-6
for their interim zoning; and

5. whether staff administer a Phase II post-returned survey or the
Phase II survey is a random phone survey done by an outside
consultant.

With the proposed staff of three, it is reasonable to serve two to four
neighbourhoods initially depending on area size and the availability of
resident volunteers. Subject to the time required to carry out the
Phase I work, we estimate approximately five to six months between the
beginning of a typical neighbourhood's Phase I work and referral to a
Public Hearing for a proposed rezoning, subject to Council's schedule.

Since neighbourhood demand levels and the percent of neighbourhoods
proceeding beyond the Phase I work are uncertain, it is recommended that
the program proceeds with existing staff and that additional staffing
needs be reported to Council as the program's progress requires.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Proposed Program

Appendix C details the costs associated with the proposed interim zoning
program. These include start-up costs of $8,000 to provide general
information about the program on a city-wide basis. The cost of
completing the program in individual neighbourhoods is estimated at
$11,000 for Phases I and II plus an additional $7,000 should Council
agree to cover the costs of an independent telephone survey following
completion of Phase II. This estimate includes brochure and ballot
printing, media notices, meeting graphics, illustrative models, postage,
and meeting space rental, but does not include staff salaries. This per
neighbourhood estimate assumes a typical neighbourhood of 2,000
properties completing both Phase I and Phase II work in a reasonable and
timely manner. All of these costs assume that existing staff resources
can be allocated to these programs.

Staff believe that with current resources, up to four neighbourhoods can
be accommodated during the remainder of 1996. This would bring the
total costs for 1996 to $52,000 (including start-up costs) plus the cost
of the Phase II telephone surveys ($28,000) (if Council agrees). An
additional six neighbourhoods might be completed during 1997, with
funding provided in the 1997 Operating Budget.

Should the number of neighbourhoods exceed this level, Council would be
faced with the choice of scheduling the work on a first-come,
first-serve basis using existing staff or of adding additional staff
resources, either by deferring other work within the Planning Department
or by adding temporary staff. Should this need arise, the department
will report back to Council for approval.

Separate from staffing issues for the actual RS interim zoning program
is the subsequent effects on staff in both Planning, and Permits and - 3 -

Licenses of any resulting RS area rezonings. Should RS-6 replace RS-1
in some neighbourhoods, additional staff for both Planning and Permits
and Licenses will be required.

Staff also note that should several RS-1 neighbourhoods be rezoned to
RS-5, Permits and Licenses would need additional building inspectors to
handle the increased responsibilities related to discretionary design
guideline enforcement. An increase in RS-5 zoned areas would also have
a significant impact on Planning staff due to its discretionary format
and the staff time required to deal with each conditional application.
Though any staff increases in RS-5 would be offset by permit fees under
the City's cost recovery policies, Council should be aware that staffing
increases for Planning and Permits and Licenses will be accompanied by
additional equipment/furnishing costs and also additional office space
requirements which cannot be met within these departments' current areas
in the East Wing (see Appendix E for further discussion).

PROGRESS ON AN APPROACH TO RE-THINKING SINGLE-FAMILY REGULATION

In the previous report to Council on RS-6 zoning, staff noted plans to
report back on a proposal to involve residents, the development
industry, designers, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia and
other interest groups in developing a new approach to RS zones. As the
previous report noted, staff share many of the concerns raised by the
industry and residents about the complexity of the RS zones, permit
processing time, and methods of design control available in the current
regulatory approach. There may be other methods of encouraging design
objectives, and improving approval systems where there is less reliance
on increasingly complex regulations, documents, and permit processing.

This work would involve a reconsideration of the objectives and
approaches to zoning in single-family areas. As background for this, a
consultant study examining approaches to single-family zoning across the
country was recently commissioned by staff and is in the final stages.
The results will be reported to Council shortly.

While the main focus of staff work has been on developing the interim
zoning program, staff have begun meetings with the various interest
groups and there has been support for this work. Our next step is to
bring representatives of the various groups together to develop a
process which will then be reported to Council in June or July.

The above work relates directly to the Better City Government
Development and Building Review and in fact, will serve as a pilot
project.

In summary, staff support the notion of RS-6 as an interim zone to
immediately address some of the neighbourhood character concerns.
However, staff do not see it as a long-term solution. There are a
number of concerns which have been put forward by the industry,
architects and designers about the regulatory approach to design
control, some of which staff share. The long term administrative costs
of the current approach to design control for potentially 70% of the
city need to be addressed. Further, RS-6 may not meet the needs of
CityPlan specific neighbourhood objectives. Given the number of RS
applications, the significant size of the RS areas (70% of the city) and
the degree of neighbourhood and industry concern, a more comprehensive
approach is needed. Staff would like to proceed with this RS Review
now, prior to the CityPlan neighbourhood visioning which could result in
the subsequent rezoning of single-family areas in or near neighbourhood
centres.

CONCLUSION

The quality and character of new single-family homes is a major concern
to many residents in the city. The interim zoning program will address
some of these concerns before a CityPlan neighbourhood program begins
and is consistent with CityPlan directions. In a separate subsequent RS
Review report, staff will propose further work on new approaches and
format options for single-family zones in Vancouver.

* * * * *