SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
JULY 27, 1995
POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: July 12, 1995
Dept. File No.: PF
TO: Standing Committee on Planning and Environment
FROM: Associate Directors of Planning, in consultation with General
Manager of Engineering Services, General Manager of Corporate
Services, General Manager of Human Resource Services, General
Manager of Parks and Recreation, Director of Legal Services,
and Manager of the Housing Centre
SUBJECT: Rezoning Inquiry - Grandview Highway and Boundary Road
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council advise the McLean Group that it would consider an
application to rezone 10.93 ha (27 ac.) at Grandview Highway
and Boundary Road for industrial and highway-oriented retail
uses, with consideration given to issues raised in this
report, and with any temporary staff or consultant funding
requirements to be reported back to Council at the appropriate
time;
B. THAT residential as a separate use not be further considered
on this site;
However, if Council rejects Recommendation B and wishes to consider
residential, an alternative B1 motion detailing the process, timing
and resources necessary is contained in Appendix A; and
C. THAT a rezoning application containing live/work use not be
considered unless the policy analysis of live/ work that will
be undertaken in the context of the False Creek Flats overview
planning indicates it is supportable on this site.
However, if Council rejects Recommendation C the following is put
forward as an alternative:
C1. THAT Council advise the McLean Group that it would consider a
rezoning application with a live/work component, to be
processed concurrently with the policy analysis of live/work
that will be undertaken in the context of the False Creek
Flats overview planning.
GENERAL MANAGERS' COMMENTS
The General Managers of Community Services and Engineering Services
note that this area is strategically located with respect to
transportation and access. Industrial and highway-oriented retail
uses are strongly supported by these facilities, and residential
can be incompatible. They therefore strongly support
Recommendations A, B, and C.
COUNCIL POLICY
Truck Routes and Residential Rezoning Policy
On March 23, 1982, Council adopted a policy:
"That when planning to rezone areas for residential use, the City be
wary of potential incompatibility with truck routes; that insofar as
possible new or altered residential zones be located away from truck
routes; that in those cases where new or altered residential zones must
be located adjacent to truck route, environmental protection such as
double glazing, noise berms, setbacks, etc., be required."
Hastings Sunrise Plan
On May 28, 1985, Council approved the Hastings Sunrise Plan, including
the goal "to maintain industrial viability" in the Lougheed and Boundary
Industrial area, and consequent policies.
Large Scale Retail Uses in Industrial Areas
On November 24, 1987, Council adopted a policy requiring CD-1 rezoning
for any retail use larger than about 10,000 sq. ft.
Still Creek
On April 24, 1990, Council adopted the Still Creek CD-1 industrial
zoning and guidelines which retain and enhance the open watercourse of
Still Creek.
Industrial Lands Strategy
On March 14, 1995, Council approved the Industrial Lands Strategy which
calls for the Grandview/Boundary industrial area to be retained for
industrial use, other than the Grandview Highway frontage which is to be
replanned for highway-oriented retail/industrial usage.
CityPlan
On June 6, 1995, Council endorsed CityPlan, which provides a number of
directions relating to land use, as noted in the relevant sections of
this report.
SUMMARY
1. Background
A major rezoning inquiry has been received from the McLean group to
rezone a 10.93 ha (27 ac.) primarily M-2 zoned site at Grandview Highway
and Boundary Road to industrial, retail, residential, and live/work
uses. The site is currently occupied by industrial and service uses.
It is located in the 81.34 ha (201 ac.) Grandview/Boundary industrial
area, part of a larger industrial area that continues 4 km (2.5 mi.)
into Burnaby.
The adopted Industrial Land Strategy (ILS) policies would support the
industrial and highway-oriented retail components, but not the
residential or live-work. However, in response to Council's direction
of July 1994 to consider the inquiry, when it came in, "on its own
merits," staff have completed a more comprehensive land use evaluation
based on the fundamental City goals, as well as data from the industrial
studies and elsewhere.
2. Land Use Evaluation
City goals and policies support consideration of rezoning that would
intensify industrial uses, and introduce highway-oriented retail,
subject to further discussion of issues noted in this report.
Residential use is not supported due to its adverse affect on
maintaining industrial viability on the site and in the area. Live/work
use has raised broader policy questions for the City which are being
dealt with in the context of the False Creek Flats overview planning.
That review may or may not indicate that live/work should be
accommodated on some industrial lands in the city, and if so, whether
this site is a likely location. Staff recommend waiting for the results
of that work before processing an application involving live/work. The
site is large enough that industrial and retail rezoning could be
pursued on parts of the site, with live/work being phased in later.
3. Transportation Plan
Any rezoning on this site would need to be closely co-ordinated with the
Urban Goods Movement Study being undertaken by Engineering and Planning,
particularly in respect to preserving transportation options.
4. Alternative Directions and Processes
(a) Industrial and Retail Use Rezoning
An industrial and highway-oriented retail rezoning could be handled as a
site-specific rezoning at the initiative of the owner--either a CD-1, or
new custom district schedules. Processing could begin when the
application is received, using existing staff, and would normally take
10 to 12 months. However, timing could be affected by work loads in the
Land Use and Development Division, depending on decisions made with
regard to completing enactments of major projects before November 1996.
(A report may be forwarded to Council on this matter shortly.)
Consultant assistance may be needed on the rezoning, but this would be
reported to Council for approval at the appropriate time.
The rezoning fee would be about $307,500 and would reflect Council's 50%
cost recovery policy.
As an alternative to site-specific zoning, the proponent may find that
the M-2 district schedule revisions, and the new Grandview frontage
retail zoning permit the uses desired, and may elect to have them apply
to the site.
(b) Industrial, Retail, and Live/Work Use Rezoning
Any rezoning including live/work should await the conclusion of the
live/work policy investigations that will form part of the False Creek
Flats overview planning.
(c) Industrial, Retail, Live/Work, and Residential Use Rezoning
Lastly, if Council wishes to consider adding residential use to the mix,
along the lines proposed in the inquiry, they would direct staff to
undertake an initial overview planning stage for the larger
Grandview/Boundary area, followed by processing of a CD-1 zoning
application. Community Planning Division staff would need to undertake
the overview, but are committed until at least mid-1997. Therefore, the
overview stage would require $78,000 in Contingency Reserve funding for
temporary staff in 1995, as well as approval for $46,100 in the 1996
budget.
A subsequent rezoning could see up to 50% of the cost of processing
recovered from normal rezoning fees, but would wait for available staff.
Alternatively, it could proceed immediately after the overview stage if
Council chooses to accept 100% cost recovery from the proponent. Staff
would report back for Council direction on this at the appropriate
time.PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide information and seek Council's
direction on an inquiry by the McLean Group to rezone about 10.93 ha (27
ac.) in the Grandview/Boundary industrial area to CD-1 for mixed-uses.
A land use evaluation is presented, together with alternative directions
and processes that could be followed.
BACKGROUND
1. Inquiry Background and Role of the Industrial Land Strategy (ILS)
The McLean Group has met with staff on several occasions to
review development possibilities for its site. On May 1, 1995, a formal
rezoning inquiry was received for a mix of uses (industrial, retail,
residential, and live/work) at an overall density of 2.08 FSR. Further
details on the inquiry are presented in the discussion of the specific
land uses, below. Consistent with staff's advice to the McLean Group,
the rezoning inquiry focuses on the desired land use mix and rationale,
since this is the main issue at this time.
On July 26, 1994, when the ILS was tabled for public review, Council
resolved:
"THAT the Director of Planning be instructed to consider a
rezoning inquiry for the McLean property at Boundary and
Grandview on its own merits and independent of the Industrial
Land Study;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Planning report to Council upon
receipt of the enquiry for this site."
The policies in the ILS, adopted March 14, 1995, would support the
industrial and highway-oriented retail portions of the proposal, but not
the residential or live/work components.
In this report, while noting the relevant ILS policies, staff also
present a more comprehensive land use review for the residential and
live/work uses. The discussion returns to underlying City goals, as
well as using available data from the industrial studies and elsewhere
to draw conclusions for this particular site.
2. Site and Area
(a) Location
The site is bounded by Grandview Highway, Boundary Road, Trans Canada
Highway, Burlington Northern Railway main line, and Skeena Street. It
is part of the larger Grandview/Boundary industrial area running between
Slocan and Boundary Road, and then extending about 4 km (2.5 mi.) east
of Boundary Road into Burnaby, as far as Burnaby Lake. (See Figure 1,
page 7, and Figure 2, page 8.)
(b) Current Zoning
The current zoning on the site is M-2 and Still Creek CD-1 zoning (which
is M-2 with various measures to protect Still Creek). M-2 allows a
variety of industrial uses including heavy industrial. An FSR of 5.0
and a height of 30.5 m (100 ft.) are permitted outright. Most of the
rest of the area is similarly zoned, although a portion on the western
end is zoned M-1 industrial.
(c) Existing Situation
The overall area [81.34 ha (201 ac.), 156 firms, 7,340 employees] is one
of four major industrial areas in Vancouver. The land vacancy in the
area is about 3%, and the space vacancy rate is 0.4%. Excellent street,
highway, and rail accessibility have contributed to the area's
predominant use for warehousing and distribution, and manufacturing.
(See Appendix B for land use statistics.) Firms include Eaton's
distribution warehouse, Glenayre high-tech electronics firm, Pachena
Electronics, Bendorff Verster, B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch
warehouse, and Molson distribution centre. Investment in the area is
ongoing. Most recently, the old 3.12 ha (7.7 ac.) Weston site north east
of the McLean site has been subdivided for auto dealerships and strata
warehousing.
The area's highway exposure has also proved attractive to discount
outlets such as Price Club and United Buy and Sell, which have been
approved under the M-2 as wholesale with accessory retail. A rezoning
for a home improvement centre at 2750 Slocan was approved at Public
Hearing in October 1994.
The site itself accommodates 68 licensed businesses. Based on the
proponent's data, there are 614 employees. About 8% of the land is
vacant. The largest single user is Price Club [+/- 3.64 ha (9 ac.)].
Most of the rest is in various manufacturing, wholesale, transportation,
and storage uses. Some recently vacated industrial buildings have been
leased for movie production studios. Uses bounding the site are CAE
machinery toFigure 1. Grandview/Boundary Area and Site: LocationFigure
2. Grandview/Boundary Site: Existing Land Usethe north; various
manufacturing, wholesaling and storage firms to the west, and single-
family residential to the south.
LAND USE EVALUATION
1. Industrial Use
(a) Proposal
The proposal is for 93 550 m› (1,007,000 sq. ft.) of industrial, two-
thirds "high-tech" and one-third standard. (See Table 1 for statistics
on proposed land uses.) The focus would be on technology- and
knowledge-based industries and services, including film studios, post-
production facilities, and software manufacturers. Many of the current
site users are also proposed to be incorporated. The proponent feels
that the development is an opportunity to attract a number of new
industries to the city due to a good location and possibilities of
synergistic relationships among them. They feel the advantages to the
city will be job creation and tax revenue.
Table 1. Proposed Land Uses (Square Footage and FSR)
LAND USE M› (SQ. FT.) FSR
Retail (big-box) 17 930 ( 193,000) 0.16
Industrial 93 550 (1,007,000) 0.86
- standard 28 520 ( 307,000)
- high-tech 65 030 ( 700,000)
Residential 111 480 (1,200,000) 1.02
- standard 89 184 ( 960,000)
- live/work studios 22 296 ( 240,000)
Community Facilities 4 645 ( 50,000) 0.04
TOTAL 227 605 (2,450,000) 2.08
(b) Policies
The (ILS) calls for the Grandview/Boundary industrial area to be
retained for industrial use. An exception is the Grandview frontage
which is to be rezoned for highway-oriented retail/industrial usage.
A key CityPlan direction with respect to economy and jobs is to
"maintain industrial areas" and to "use existing industrial land for
port uses and industries the employ city residents or service city
businesses."(c) Evaluation
Staff feel that the industrial proposal is supportable for the reasons
below. Some concerns are noted that can be addressed during rezoning
discussions.
First, the site has characteristics that make it suitable for industry.
It has particularly advantageous highway and rail access. It is
convenient to the metropolitan area, the port and downtown. Its street
pattern and servicing reflects its planning in the 1950s as an
industrial park, and with modifications are still suitable for
industrial redevelopment.
Second, in terms of amount of industrial space and potential jobs, as
Table 2 shows, the proposal is intensifying both. The industrial
studies did not propose any specific targets but noted that there is a
strong demand for industrial space, and that intensification of
industrial development would be needed in future. (Mount Pleasant
industrial area presented in the table for comparison only.)
Table 2. Proposed Industrial Intensification
Mount
Current Site Proposal Pleasant
Built Area 33 630 m› 93 550 m› n.a.
(362,000 sq. ft.) (1,007,000 sq. ft.)
FSR 0.31 0.86 1.00
Employees/ac. 23 74 100
The one concern staff have is regarding the range of industry
anticipated. The proposal may rely too heavily on "high-tech"
tenancies. While the ability to provide for these is a benefit, staff
feel the development needs to be able to accommodate a range of types of
city-serving and city-oriented industry. This ensures that if tenancies
change over time, as usually happens, the site remains viable as
industrial. While the "high-tech" businesses may use space similar to
office space, many other industrial users require the usual features for
viability: good truck access; adequate parking; ground access and/or
loading elevators; freedom for 24-hour operations, with accompanying
noise and lights; special spatial configurations such as higher
ceilings, and so forth. Rezoning discussions should ensure that the
appropriate provisions are made.
2. Retail Use
(a) Proposal
The proposal includes 17 930 m› (193,000 sq. ft.) of retail (.16 FSR).
These are described as wholesale/retail (or "small big-box") in nature.
The proposal also mentions convenience retail for the proposed residents
of the site.
(b) Policies
The City does not have a comprehensive retail strategy. However, a
number of regulations and policies are relevant.
Currently, M zones restrict retail uses to about 1 000 m› (10,000 sq.
ft.). A CD-1 rezoning is required for any retail use over 1 000 m›
(10,000 sq. ft.), with consideration being given to various criteria in
evaluating the rezoning.
CityPlan includes the following directions related to retail:
- with respect to neighbourhood centres "provide shops and services for
neighbourhood residents..."; and
- with respect to economy and jobs "make sure decisions about increasing
retail space in the city support the creation of neighbourhood
centres, strengthen the downtown, and protect industrial land."
The anticipated new zoning for highway-oriented retail on the Grandview
Highway and Marine Drive frontages will likely define permitted retail
by type of goods, and possibly size of establishment, focusing on those
which are not appropriately located in a local shopping district. It
will not, however, permit all types of what are commonly termed "big-
box" retailers. Many of these will require individual rezonings, as
they do now.
(c) Evaluation
Staff feel it is appropriate to give further consideration to a rezoning
that includes retail uses on this site, on the basis of what is likely
to be permitted in a new Grandview Highway frontage zone.
3. Residential Use
(a) Proposal
The inquiry proposes 89 184 m› (960,000 sq. ft.) of residential space
(.81 FSR). (This represents about 950 to 1,000 apartment units, housing
up to 1,500 people.) The units are intended to appeal to industrial
employees, or to a demographic profile similar to those employed in the
area. The advantages cited for residential are location of living
accommodation close to work, and affordability.
(b) Policies
The City currently has available zoning capacity for about 100,000 more
people (about 65,000 units), mainly in apartment zones downtown and
along arterials. Beyond this, CityPlan calls for an "increase in
neighbourhood housing variety throughout the city, especially in
neighbourhood centres." Additional ground-oriented housing is seen as a
way to meet"...the changing needs of current residents while preserving
most of the single-family neighbourhoods...retaining industrial areas,
and reducing the need to use a car for daily trips."
The ILS concluded that industrial use had greater merit than housing as
a competing use for the remaining industrial lands, in light of the
three City goals:
- promoting economic vitality through providing jobs, and a diverse
economy more capable of withstanding economic down- turns;
- furthering "access by proximity" for commuters and business service
trips; and
- responding to social diversity through ensuring a range of jobs to
match the range of residents' skills.
(c) Evaluation
Neither CityPlan nor the ILS conclusions support residential use of
industrial land. The issue is whether to alter or make an exception to
these policies for this site. The answers to several questions are
relevant in considering this:
- whether the proposal for an intermediate capacity transit line along
Broadway alters the relative merits of housing and industry as a use
on the site;
- whether residential can be combined with industrial in such a way that
the industrial remains viable;
- how suitable the site is for residential, and whether there is an
affordability advantage;
- whether adequate parks and other public amenities can be provided; and
- what the effect would be on the adjoining industrial area.
(i) Access by Proximity
The proponent feels that residential on the site near jobs would enhance
access by proximity. However, residents cannot be restricted to those
that work on or near the site. They will work in many locations, and be
similar to other Vancouver residents in their transportation usage.
The ILS assessed the comparative "access by proximity" advantages of
housing and industry for Vancouver's industrial lands. The estimated
number of the auto-users for an acre of Vancouver land that remains
industrial (with the potential residents living outside the city and
commuting to jobs downtown) was the same as if the acre were converted
to residential (with the jobs going outside the city requiring the
employees to commute to them).
This analysis was based on current transportation usage (mode split).
However, the results would change if due to the proposed transit line
along Broadway the mode split for residents on this site were to change
significantly. Based on experience, the key factors are the type of
transit technology and whether the station is within walking distance.
If light rail is installed, rather than rapidbus, it could likely
significantly improve the mode split for people within walking distance
of a station. However, the distance to the closest proposed station
(Boundary and Broadway) would be 500 to 900 m (about 3.5 to 6 blocks),
with significant slopes. Since the site is not within the 400 to 500 m
(about 2.5 to 3.5 blocks) convenient walking distance, regardless of
technology chosen the mode split for residents on the site would not
likely improve significantly. Therefore, there would not be a
significant "access by proximity" advantage to locating residential on
this site.
(ii) Viability of Industrial Combined with Residential
The proposal notes that the proposed "high-tech" industry would not
create undue impacts for the future residents. However, the residential
would be located in the midst of a larger industrial and transportation-
focused area. While "smoke stack" industry is a thing of the past, many
modern city-serving industries have 24-hour operations, noise, trucking,
and lights.
As noted during the ILS studies, and by related input and delegations
from industrial owners and tenants, residents inserted into industrial
areas often complain about operations. This makes it difficult to
attract and keep industrial tenants. In addition it was noted that
rezoning to higher value uses, such as residential, encourages land
speculation, which affects taxes and lease terms offered to tenants.
Both these factors jeopardize industrial viability. (Both also relate
toconsideration of live/work use, as discussed later in this report.)
(iii) Residential Suitability and Affordability
As the proposal notes, the site offers excellent views northwards to the
mountains for potential residents (see Figure 3). However, on balance
the site is a difficult one for housing in a number of respects:
- 24-hour impacts from BNR main line, Highway 401, Boundary Road and
Grandview Highway;
- difficulties of effective integration with adjacent neighbourhood due
to the highway, steep slope, and retaining wall;
- poor walking access to existing community facilities, schools, and
local shopping; and
- industrial uses on three sides of the site.
The proponent feels that allowing residential on the site will have some
advantages in terms of enhancing housing affordability. While the City
normally negotiates for some non-market housing units in a major
development such as this, most of the housing would be market housing.
The city has a significant apartment-zoned capacity available already
Adding zoned capacity will not significantly improve affordability. A
developer must cover costs and earn a reasonable profit, and will not
bring units to market at a price less than needed to do this. Given the
costs of residential development with adequate public amenities, it is
unlikely units would be sold for less than market prices.
(iv) Public Amenities
The inquiry proposal is not intended, at this stage, to provide details
of public amenities to be provided. It does describe the idea of
providing on-site park space associated with a restored Still Creek, as
well as about 4 645 m› (50,000 sq. ft.) of space for community
facilities.
A number of City policies relate to amenities. The current Still Creek
CD-1 industrial zoning requires any development (with or without
residential space) to provide setbacks from the Still Creek watercourse,
as well as landscaping of its banks. The draft Greenways Plan calls for
a city-scale Greenway corridor through this site to link with Burnaby's
trail system. In addition, the City has standards and policies
regarding the provision of park space, daycare, and social housing,
depending on the scope and uses involved. While amenity requirements
must be considered and negotiated during any rezoning process, they
doFigure 3. Residential Suitabilitynot in themselves provide guidance
on the question of the
appropriate land uses.
(v) Effect on the Adjoining Industrial Area
This site is part of a larger industrial area and is not significantly
different from other parcels in the area. The rationale for any
decision to permit residential here would extend to other sites, and
would imply a change of direction for the entire area.
Overall, regarding residential use of the site, staff feel that there
are serious disadvantages in terms of maintaining industrial viability
on the site and in the area as a whole, while there seem to be few
countervailing advantages.
4. Live/Work Use
(a) Proposal
The proposal includes 22 296 m› (240,000 sq. ft.) of live/work
accommodation (.21 FSR). This would accommodate people--artists and
others--who want the opportunity to combine residence and workplace.
The proponent feels this responds to a trend toward increased work at
home.
(b) Policies
Council recently decided to limit artist live/work studios in industrial
zones to renovations of existing buildings, with rental tenure only, up
to a maximum of 1.0 FSR with time-limited development permits. Other
types of live/work are not permitted in industrial zones. In areas of
the city that are already mixed-use (downtown, historic districts and C
zones), Council has recently given direction to staff to develop by-law
and guideline changes that would allow general live/work. These have
not yet been brought forward.
(c) Evaluation
Live/work proposals in industrial areas raise a number of policy
questions which are not limited to any one site, and which need to be
addressed. These are:
- what the nature of live/work (particularly industrial live/ work) is,
and what market it would serve;
- how much live/work the city needs to serve the market;
- whether the City can ensure the live/work nature is maintained over
time, and does not simply devolve into residential;-
whether residents of live/work in industrial environments are willing
to tolerate negative industrial impacts (truck and rail traffic,
noise, lights, etc.), and vice versa;
- whether the impacts on land values in industrial areas can be limited;
- whether live/work needs to be located in industrial areas (or can be
accommodated in the mixed-use zones noted above, for example); and
- if industrial areas are needed, which locations and how much land
should be used.
The answers will come from the recently-approved overview planning
process for the False Creek Flats, since the broad city implications
will be addressed in that work. Staff note, however, that even if
issues of definition, impacts and enforcement can be solved, it may be
that live/work would be supportable only on a very small subset of
industrial lands in the city. The broad policy questions need to be
answered before considering any rezoning for live/work on this site.
However, because this is a large site, it would be possible for the
proponent to move forward on the industrial and retail rezoning on parts
of the site, leaving the question of live/work until later.
CITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
City Council has recently approved undertaking an overall City
Transportation Plan to proceed over the next year or more. They
instructed staff to move ahead faster with an Urban Goods Movement Study
to identify the demand and need for policies and facilities to support
the movement of goods. The Study will be citywide, but will focus
particularly on the False Creek Flats, where overall replanning is to
occur. This site is located at the east end of the Grandview corridor
that ends in the Flats. Any rezoning process would need to be co-
ordinated with the Study to recognize:
- the need to reserve any rights of way through or at the edges of the
site, including those related to the Grandview corridor;
- the transportation demands generated by new land uses; and
- the possible impacts of transportation measures on possible residents,
and vice versa.
ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONS AND PROCESSES
The land use evaluation based on City policies and goals supports a
major redevelopment of the site for industrial (high-tech and standard)
and some highway-oriented retail. However, on balance, the addition of
residential is not recommended. Live/work could be considered, noting
that it raises broader City policy questions that would need to be
resolved before referral of any live/work proposal to Public Hearing.
Given all the possible land use directions, staff have developed
alternatives for processing any rezoning on this site.
1. Industrial and Retail Use Rezoning
To pursue a mix of industrial and retail uses, the owner could either
initiate a site-specific rezoning, or could proceed under the soon-to-be
revised M-2, and upcoming Grandview frontage district schedule.
(a) Site-Specific Rezoning
This could be a CD-1 rezoning, noting that staff may conclude that one
or more conventional zoning schedules may suffice. The choice is
largely an administrative one, depending on the exact nature of the
proposal and what regulatory controls the City needs. In either case,
the issues raised in the industrial and retail sections of this report
would need to be resolved. Appendix C contains some land use principles
to guide the work. Normal aspects of form of development, traffic,
parking, and public benefits would also be the subject of discussions
with the applicant.
While linkages with the Urban Goods Movement Study would be needed,
there would otherwise be minimal planning work in the overall
Grandview/Boundary industrial area. An overview planning stage prior to
the zoning processing would not be required.
Main staff responsibility would lie with the rezoning planners in the
Land Use and Development Division (LUDD), with advice from the community
and industrial planners. A rezoning of this magnitude would take 10 to
12 months. However, the timing might be affected by the timing of the
Urban Goods Movement Study, as well as by LUDD work loads and timing
commitments on other rezonings. (Discussions are currently underway
regarding resources for major rezonings seeking enactment before the
1996 election. Council may be receiving a report on staffing needs.)
Some consultant assistance may be required on industrial sub-markets and
Still Creek reclamation, but staff will report back on this later, if
necessary.
Based on the current fee schedule, the rezoning application fee would be
about $307,500 for a CD-1 zoning. This would represent about 50% cost
recovery for processing a CD-1, as per Council's policy in setting the
fee schedules.(b) Existing Zoning Schedules
It is anticipated that the M-2 zone will be revised later this year,
making a number of non-industrial uses outright and available at higher
density than the current 1.0 FSR (e.g., film and post production
studios, laboratories, and motor vehicle sales/rentals). The study for
highway-oriented retail zoning along portions of the Grandview and
Marine frontages is scheduled to begin later this year, with a new
zoning schedule anticipated by fall 1996. These new regulations may be
congruent with the proponent's industrial and retail development
objectives. If so, it might be advantageous to wait, and have the new
zones put in place on the relevant portions of the site.
2. Industrial, Retail, and Live/Work Rezoning
Staff recommend not processing a rezoning with a live/work component
until the policy investigations of live/work that will be ongoing in the
False Creek Flats overview planning are complete--about six months. As
previously noted, it is possible for the proponent to move ahead faster
with rezoning proposals for the industrial and retail portions of the
site, and pursue live/work rezoning later if appropriate.
Council could direct staff to process a rezoning that includes live/work
use concurrently with the policy investigations. This would likely be a
CD-1 application. Processing and resourcing would be as discussed for
the CD-1 above. Timing would be linked to the False Creek Flats
process. Staff do not recommend this approach. Reviewing this rezoning
while simultaneously conducting the Flats overview and processing the
Trillium live/ work application introduces a level of complexity that
would be very difficult to handle.
3. Industrial, Retail, Live/Work and Residential Rezoning
This type of mixed-use project would be of the same order of magnitude
as the Joyce/Vanness area and the Arbutus Industrial Lands, with a more
complex use mix. It has implications as a precedent for the broader
industrial area, and would require some comprehensive planning for the
entire area prior to processing a rezoning for the particular site.
This initial overview planning would include the site and the broader
81.34 ha (201 ac.) Grandview/Boundary industrial area, recognizing that
other sites would have similar development opportunities and
expectations. Appendix C includes principles that would guide the land
use aspects of this planning. It is anticipated that the public and
owner consultation process would be extensive.
At the end of this stage, staff would report to Council with:
- general directions on land uses and locations;
- general directions for form of development;
- concepts for an area-wide access system and transportation
requirements;
- concepts to meet utility requirements, including sewer and water; and
- a general public benefits strategy covering issues of parks, schools,
daycare, social housing, and so forth.
Subsequent to the overview planning stage, a CD-1 rezoning application
for the site could be processed.
The overview phase would take 6 to 8 months. The processing of the
rezoning can be expected to take 10 to 12 months to Public Hearing. If
the zoning is approved, enactment and follow-up implementation would
follow, and are variable in their timing.
The lead on this work would be taken by the Community Planning Division
(CPD), with appropriate advice from LUDD and the industrial planner.
Substantial time would also be required from Engineering and Law.
Participation from the Housing Centre, Parks, and Social Planning would
also be needed.
CPD staff are fully committed for 1995. In 1996, it is anticipated CPD
staff will priorize a number of projects already approved by Council
(e.g., Port Lands Study, completion of "let-go" areas) and CityPlan
implementation in neighbourhoods. If Council wishes to pursue this
program, temporary staff and other resources will be needed for the
overview planning stage. An approval of $78,200 from Contingency
Reserve would be required for 1995, as well as approval of 1996
expenditures. (See Appendix D for cost estimates.)
For the subsequent rezoning, Council could proceed under the current 50%
cost recovery mechanism, beginning processing when staff are available
(possibly mid-1997, depending on completion of other items).
Alternatively, as with the False Creek Flats rezonings, Council could
offer to allocate new resources to allow the proponent to proceed
immediately after the overview stage, but before existing staff are
available, provided there is 100% City cost recovery from the proponent.
Staff would recommend that this decision be brought forward for
Council's consideration at a later date, when the overview is complete.
CONCLUSION
Staff's evaluation of a mixed-use rezoning proposal for a 10.93 ha (27
ac.) site at Grandview and Boundary concludes that industrial and
highway-oriented retail can meet City policy objectives, and should be
considered in any rezoning on the site. Staff feel the proposed
residential component is not consistent with City policies and goals,
and do not recommend it. The proposed live/work use presents a number
of broad policy questions, which will be answered through the False
Creek Flats overview planning process. That review may or may not
indicate that live/work should be accommodated on some industrial lands
in the city, and, if so, whether this site is a likely location. The
option to consider live/work in a rezoning at this time is therefore put
forward for Council's consideration noting that the policy questions
would need to be considered before reaching a conclusion on only
rezoning analysis.
* * * * *