Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of CityPlans, in consultation with City Building Inspector, Chief License Inspector, and Director of Legal Services

SUBJECT:

RS-Rethink Program Proposal

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

CityPlan states that even with growth, Vancouver will keep much of what gives its neighbourhoods their look and feel. The CityPlan direction is to support the creation of a distinctive look and feel for each neighbourhood, and use guidelines based on this character to determine the design of new development.

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE

This report proposes a program to examine and improve the City’s approach to the regulation of development in RS-zoned single-family residential areas. The goal of the RS-Rethink program is to identify and use tools, processes, and practices that will accomplish a balance of neighbourhood, applicant, and City objectives within a context of administrative sustainability. Staff believe this can be done by focussing our efforts in three main issue areas:

The RS-Rethink program will address how to better accomplish the intent and objectives underlying existing policies, guidelines, and regulations in single-family areas. The RS-Rethink program is not designed to address or challenge area specific concerns, or to act as a neighbourhood planning exercise. The intent is to focus on specific improvements to how the City manages single-family development.

While the scope and nature of the products of the program will be refined through consultation with a proposed RS Advisory Group composed of community and industry representatives, we intend to deliver through this program the foundations for:

· an adaptable regulatory framework for single-family areas that better accommodates change over time and neighbourhood variations; and
· clear and understandable controls and documents.

In recognition of the number of zones and complexity of issues involved, this report seeks approval and funding for an 18-month program that represents the first phase of work in the RS-Rethink program. Phase I would bring the work to a point ready for transition to a Pilot Program. The funding required for Phase I of the program is $298,700, and consists primarily of a temporary full-time Planner II position, funding for legal help (staff and/or consultants) over the 18 month program, and external consultants (refer to Appendix B for more details on funding). A significant commitment of time will be required from the Law Department with regard to the creation of a new framework for a single-family by-law and in the

development of clear and understandable controls and documents. As there are many legal issues integral to the work that the RS-Rethink program aims to undertake, this program proposal and budget, accounts for legal help (staff and/or consultants) over the course of the program.

The proposed program will utilize existing Planning positions which add up to an equivalent of approximately 9 months of staff time. The program will also draw on the resource and expertise of existing positions related to development and building permit processing. In consideration of the draw being made on the staff and resources of the various departments by several concurrent initiatives, this program will be structured to enable people to contribute input and feedback in an advisory capacity as workloads permit, with the substantive work being performed by RS-Rethink staff. If development activity and/or obligations to other concurrent initiatives increase over the proposed term of the project, the ability for staff involved in permit processing to contribute may be compromised. This may reduce what can be accomplished in the time period proposed for the program. RS-Rethink staff will work in close association with staff from other initiatives to ensure efficient utilization of resources.

Staff believe that the RS-Rethink program will result in products that will enable us to address the evolution of single family areas in a more inclusive and effective way.

BACKGROUND

Single-family Zoning in Vancouver

RS-1 residential zoning has been in place in Vancouver since the 1930s. Beginning in the 1980s, in response to growing neighbourhood concerns about the form, quality, and character of new houses, Council made a series of amendments addressing issues such as suites, above basement floor area, height, building bulk, and retention of rear yards. These measures did not sufficiently address the concerns of residents in some neighbourhoods, and between 1990 and 1996, five new zones addressing external building design and landscaping (RS-3, RS-3A, RS-5, RS-5S, RS-6) were created. Subsequently, in response to requests by residents in other neighbourhoods, these ‘design control’ zones (RS-5 and RS-6) were offered to any interested RS-1, or RS-1S, zoned neighbourhood as Interim Zoning. Of the neighbourhoods that were offered RS-5 and RS-6, nine adopted the new zoning, making a total of eleven RS neighbourhoods that now have a ‘design control’ zone. The City of Vancouver currently has eleven different single-family zones: six ‘outright’ zones, and five ‘design control’ zones.

While these changes have addressed many of the issues for which they were introduced, the changes themselves have led to new and different concerns that have been expressed from a variety of perspectives including: increasing complexity of regulations and administration; multiplication of new zones; scope and use of neighbourhood input and involvement; scope and application of design controls; and limitations on housing form options.

How we choose to deal with single-family issues is increasingly important as CityPlan is showing that willingness to accommodate growth within neighbourhoods is dependent on the retention of valued qualities - the look and feel of the neighbourhood. As single-family areas represent approximately 70 percent of the residential land area of the city, the City’s success in balancing these issues is critical to ensuring highly liveable, sustainable, and enjoyable neighbourhoods.

Participants in the Regulatory Process

There are three different participants in our single-family regulatory process -neighbourhoods, applicants, and the City - and their objectives and the issues they care about are not all the same:

There is a paradox that comes out of the relationship between all the participants and their objectives: neighbourhoods may ask that we be responsive, appropriate, comprehensive, and flexible; while on the other hand, the City’s administrative needs demand consistency, standards, a simple and certain process. Applicants may ask us to fall on either side of the paradox. A successful strategy for RS-Rethink needs to address both sides of the paradox to the greatest extent possible.

This is further complicated by the relatively high degree of concern that revolves around issues in single-family areas. Concerns are emotionally charged and expectations can include a high level of detail due to their closeness to the home and to the heart, and to the general familiarity and comfort with single-family homes as a building type.

DISCUSSION

The basic goal of the RS-Rethink program is to specifically identify and use tools, processes, and practices that will manage and promote a reasonable balance of neighbourhood, applicant, and City objectives. Staff believe this can best be accomplished by focussing our efforts in three main issue areas:

The methodology is to learn from what happens now, and to address the problem areas.

1. Participants and Processes

Currently in areas with design guidelines, applicants meet first with the City to discuss how what they are proposing relates to the regulations and guidelines:

It is essential to recognize that how we involve participants in the development process is the key to accomplishing better, and simplified tools and mechanisms. Process and tools are interrelated and interdependent; if there is effective involvement and accountability for all process participants, this could lessen the reliance on detailed regulatory tools.

The application process will never be without conflict and difficulty, but redesigning the way in which the three participants interact may achieve: improved satisfaction of the neighbourhood, industry, and design professionals in both the process and the end product; improved response to neighbourhood concerns; reduced need for controls; and reduced time spent in ‘damage control’ by administration.

The process changes proposed will be based on, and analysed against the principles and criteria established in the Public Involvement Review. Process changes that staff intend to investigate further include:

In coordination with Development Services, staff will assist in the application in RS zones of the following models identified by DBR:

2. Tools and Mechanisms

Our existing regulatory system has grown and evolved over time as a reflection of, and in response to, changing and evolving neighbourhood concerns. The extent and complexity of our regulations and guidelines mirror the growth of residents’ concerns about development in their neighbourhoods. This evolution over time has led to some systemic problems and inconsistencies:

· Overly prescriptive guidelines: our guidelines have become more detailed and solution-oriented, both in response to detailed community desires, and as a response to dealing with unwilling participants. Although this has ensured that inappropriate solutions can be refused, it has made it difficult to evaluate and support unique solutions, and to respond to specific neighbourhood concerns;

· Building bulk controls: we have expanded our regulations governing building bulk over several decades, but how we can most fairly and effectively limit building size remains an issue (bay windows, attics, basements, building height, footprint, building envelopes, secondary building envelopes, floor space, above grade floor space, height of main floor above grade, etc.);
· Multiplying zones: the way our single-family zones are currently structured, any difference in the requirements of an area means the creation of a new zone; and
· Mutant zones: as a result of multiplication and evolution over time, we have zones that don’t benefit from our best, most recent tools, and in which our regulations are applied differently even though intent may be the same.

Now, given the relative calm in the housing market, is an opportune time to comprehensively review the tools and mechanisms available to our single-family zones. Where appropriate, staff would like to investigate tools and mechanisms other than the City’s standard regulation system to accomplish neighbourhood, applicant and city objectives. This includes exploring ways in which the City can promote, rather than regulate, ‘neighbourly’ designs, through means such as education about local issues and concerns, and valued aspects of the neighbourhood. For those issues best dealt with as part of our regulatory system, staff would

like to investigate ways in which they can be accomplished more simply, consistently, and effectively including:

· writing all our tools with clear statements of intent or purpose to avoid misinterpretation, to discourage abuse, and to enable creative solutions;
· creating development controls that are performance based, to enable more creative responses;
· developing alternative methods to accomplish design objectives that would enhance flexibility and choice: pattern books, preapproved building types, customer choice of process according to desired product (limited review with highly specific criteria or design review with more open and general criteria, etc.); and
· improving tools to more simply and effectively control building size, bulk and placement, and other aspects of neighbourliness.

3. Communication

Aside from the improvements that could be made within our processes, tools, and mechanisms, significant value could be gained just by improving the useability and understanding of the City’s regulatory documents. This is particularly important in single-family areas, as the information is often used by people who may not have the level of technical expertise or development experience evident in higher-density areas. The documents need to more effectively convey what people need to know about building in single-family areas in Vancouver. In our current system:

· the language is based on a legal perspective, and is not easy to understand and apply;
· conflicting requirements: the building code, and the zoning and development by-law use different, sometimes contradictory definitions; and
· no illustrations or diagrams are provided in the regulations to assist understanding.

Through the RS-Rethink program staff aim to ensure that all information is clear, understandable, comprehensive, and consistent, and that the intent of our developmentcontrol mechanisms is not buried by technical or legal language, and unpublished precedent and interpretation. RS-Rethink proposes to accomplish this by looking at:

· adding illustrations and diagrams to the by-law, or an illustrated guide;
· using up-to-date understandable language; and
· coordinating the definitions of the Zoning and Development By-law, the Vancouver Building Code, and other City by-laws where possible.

In summary, through the RS-Rethink program, we will work to achieve a better balance of neighbourhood, applicant/industry, and City objectives, and a better product and process by focusing our efforts on these three inter-related issue areas: Participants and Processes, Tools and Mechanisms, and Communication.

PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM

This report seeks approval and funding for an 18 month program that will result in products ready to be tested in RS-zoned areas of the City. Depending on the products that result from the first phase, the second phase may involve testing the products as a Pilot Program in selected neighbourhoods. The phased program recognizes the extent of the work given the number of zones and complexity of issues. The timing, funding, and resources outlined in this report would bring the work to a point ready for transition to a Pilot Program, should this be determined to be the appropriate next step. The stages of work in the 18 month Phase I are:

2. Elaborate and Refine Directions: obtain agreement on program objectives and general criteria for assessing program outcome, identify issues to be addressed within the RS-Rethink program, issues to be addressed by other programs, inter-program coordination, and elaborate and refine directions for further development.
3. Develop Models: development of tools, processes, and mechanisms identified in the previous phase.
4. Refine and Test Models: further model development and testing internally and by external consultants, evaluation by staff and Public/Industry RS Advisory groups.

Phase II of the program would take the draft work of Phase I to implementation, and may include testing through a Pilot Program, with subsequent modification, monitoring, adoption, and enactment. Phase II would require separate resourcing not addressed in this report, and will be the subject of a report at the end of Phase I. Refer to Appendix A for more detail on the proposed work program.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The program proposes an advisory group format that brings together neighbourhood and industry representatives. The proposed Public/Industry RS Advisory Group would consist of neighbourhood representatives from various RS-zoned areas of the city, architects and design professionals, landscape architects, and builders. Options and conclusions will be checked with the larger public. There will also be opportunities to tie in with CityPlan implementation workshops and to participate in future neighbourhood Vision workshops.

CO-ORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS

RS-Rethink will be co-ordinated with several other concurrent programs including the Regulatory Review, and the Public Involvement Review. RS-Rethink will be preparing a framework to more effectively deal with future planning programs in neighbourhoods that have created a neighbourhood vision through CityPlan, and in turn will inform CityPlan visions in future neighbourhoods. Co-ordination of the Zoning and Development By-law with the Vancouver Building Code will build upon the work that is currently being done with respect to aligning the Vancouver Building Code with the BC Building Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

CityPlan directions indicate that enabling neighbourhoods to retain character and valued qualities is a condition to acceptance of some growth and higher densities. RS-Rethink will seek to establish a framework to maintain these valued qualities and to facilitate alternative housing forms where supported by CityPlan and further public processes. Additionally, RS-Rethink will co-ordinate with other ongoing programs addressing issues such as impermeability, and enhancement of the urban forest. RS-Rethink may investigate incentives for building retention.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Providing greater opportunities for informed ongoing community involvement in new development could lead to a greater sense of empowerment and responsibility within neighbourhoods.

Establishing a framework that allows for alternative residential development forms could enhance affordability, suitability for families, and options for aging in place.

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed program requires one full-time temporary P II position for 18 months, and will utilize existing Planning positions adding up to an equivalent of approximately 9 months of staff time.

A significant contribution of time will be required from the Law Department, particularly with regard to the creation of a new type of framework for a single-family by-law, and in the development of clear and understandable controls and documents. As there are many legal issues integral to the work that the RS-Rethink program aims to undertake, and in recognition of other commitments of the Law Department, this program proposal and budget accounts for legal help (staff and/or consultants) over the 18 month time period of the program.

Outside the CityPlans Division the program will draw on the expertise of existing positions related to development and building permit processing. The background of staff members with private sector experience, and knowledge of Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines, Zoning and Development By-law, and the Vancouver Building Code will make a valuable contribution to the program. The availability of staff members, and the extent to which they can assist with RS-Rethink will be affected by ongoing commitments to development and building permit applications, inquiries, and other initiatives within the City. In consideration of the draw being made on staff by several concurrent initiatives, this program will be structured to enable people to contribute input and feedback primarily in an advisory capacity as work loads permit, with the substantive work being performed by RS-Rethink staff. If development activity and/or obligations to other concurrent initiatives increase over the proposed term of the project, the ability for staff involved in permit processing to contribute may be compromised. This may reduce what can be accomplished in the proposed time period for the program.

Other staff advisors will be representatives from Permits and Licenses, Landscape Review, Real Estate, Heritage, and Social Planning.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total cost of Phase I is $298,700, and consists primarily of funding for a temporary full-time PII position, legal work, and external consultants.

Refer to Appendix B for details on the items comprising the $298,700 program cost. Staff will be reporting back with more detail on resources for Phase II at the end of Phase I. Depending on other work priorities at the time, Phase II may be accomplished with existing staff.

CONCLUSION

Through the RS-Rethink program, staff believe significant improvements can be accomplished in public involvement, professional satisfaction, administrative and environmental sustainability, and ultimately in the end product of single-family homes being built in Vancouver neighbourhoods.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 7
PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM
(refer to summary work program diagram at the end of this appendix)

PHASE I (scope of current program)

1. DEVELOP CONSULTATION PROGRAM (time approximately 1 month)

The initial stage of work will concentrate on setting up staff and public advisory groups; and establishing the working format and processes for consultation.

a. Establish Staff Groups:

b. Establish Public/Industry RS Advisory Group: volunteer members including residents/property owners from RS neighbourhoods, architects, landscape architects, home designers, builders, developers, housing and environmental advocates. (Staff will forward names to Council for appointment to the Public/Industry RS Advisory Group.)

c. Establish roles, format, process and schedule for both Public/Industry RS Advisory Group and Staff Groups.

d. Develop outline for consultation with general public.

2. ELABORATE AND REFINE DIRECTIONS (time approx. 3 months)

The primary focus of this phase is to obtain agreement on program objectives and general criteria for assessing program outcome, to determine which issues will beaddressed by the RS-Rethink program, to identify issues to be addressed by other programs, and to elaborate and refine directions for further development:

a. Assess results of RS-5/6 survey. Document and summarize results for public and staff working groups.

b. Analyse existing system (regulations, guidelines, administration, and process) and identify problem areas; what works, what doesn’t. Consultation and information sharing with Regulatory Review and DBR.

c. Identify and organize literature and materials from other municipalities on issues relevant to single-family areas of the City of Vancouver.

d. Research and identify other tools, processes, mechanisms that may be applicable.

e. Further research on municipalities with most relevant approaches:

f. Public/Industry RS Advisory Group and Staff Working group sessions including:

g. Outline scope of work involved in addressing each issue, identify relative complexity, inter-related issues, and degrees of public involvement.

h. Determine issues to be addressed by the RS-Rethink program, issues to be addressed by other programs, and issues which will require a new or future program.

Deliverable: Summary of confirmed issue areas and priorities, program objectives, assessment criteria, and directions for tools, processes, and mechanisms to be further developed. Summary of issues to be addressed within the RS-Rethink program, issues to be addressed by other programs, and issues which will require a new or future program.

3. DEVELOP MODELS (time approx. 8 months)

This phase of work is directed at development of tools, processes and mechanisms identified in the previous phase and may include the following:

a. Participants and Processes

· direct and early consultation
· area generalists, sectoring, feedback and monitoring
· better notification processes
· conflict resolution mechanisms (i.e.) RS Review Panel

b. Tools and Mechanisms

· reorganizing and aligning control mechanisms around issue areas;
· writing tools with clear statements of intent or purpose performance based design tools;
· customer choice options other alternatives to accomplish design objectives: pattern books, design menus, preapproved building types, design competitions;
· investigate the best tools to more simply and effectively limit building size, bulk and placement, and other aspects of neighbourliness; and
· establish framework for enabling alternative residential forms within neighbourhoods (i.e. support structure for townhouse, rowhouse, and infill sites as may be supported by Community Visions).

c. Communication

· develop simple, separate, and illustrated by-law for RS areas;
· rewrite using understandable language; and
· align building code and zoning and development by-law where possible in terminology and controls.

d. Staff Groups:

e. Public/Industry RS Advisory Group:

Deliverables:

Preliminary Draft Models for public involvement and conflict resolution.
Preliminary Draft Tools.
Preliminary Draft Outline for illustrated by-law.

REPORT TO COUNCIL

4. REFINE AND TEST MODELS (time approx. 6 months)

This stage involves further model development and testing by staff and by external consultants, and evaluation by working groups.

a. Further development and refinement as described in stage 3.

b. Consultant testing:

c. Joint Public/Industry RS Advisory Group, Staff Sponsor group, and Technical Group session(s) to review and evaluate models.

d. Staff Working group:

e. Public/Industry RS Advisory Group:

f. Broader Public Consultation:

Deliverables:
Assessment of the models for public involvement and conflict resolution, draft tools and mechanisms, and draft by-law.

REPORT TO COUNCIL

END OF PHASE I, AND SCOPE OF CURRENT PROGRAM

PHASE II (outside scope of current program)

5. CONDUCT PILOT PROGRAM (12 month time period)

Prepare for, conduct, and review limited pilot program in selected neighbourhoods.

a. Select neighbourhoods for testing program and establish Community Liaison Groups: volunteer members representing the neighbourhoods selected for testing. In order to keep the work focused on a framework of processes, tools, and mechanisms, and not to devolve into a specific neighbourhood program, the Community Liaison Groups will not be formed until the Pilot Program phase commences.

b. Community Liaison group sessions to evaluate and give input regarding models as a support structure for specific neighbourhood interests and concerns.

c. Prepare draft documents for use in pilot project.

d. Neighbourhood Consultation:


e. Initiate pilot and assess against criteria for project outcome.

f. Monitor (feedback on process and product from applicants, neighbours, process staff, area generalists).

g. Review results with Staff Working Group, Public/Industry RS Advisory Group, and Community Liaison Groups.

Deliverables:
Analysis of the results of the pilot program and recommendations for changes and modifications.

Report to Council seeking approval for full implementation of new single-family system.

6. MODIFY, ADOPT, ENACT (time approx. 6 months)

Undertaking changes recommended as a result of the pilot program, and making necessary adjustments to be able to apply to all single-family areas of Vancouver.

a. Make changes to draft as per recommendations and pilot assessment.

b. Customize to reflect necessary differences in existing by-laws and guidelines for different areas as part of implementation programs following CityPlan Visioning.

c. Conduct public open houses regarding proposed framework, processes, tools and mechanisms.

d. Implement full system.

e. Monitor (feedback on process and product from applicants, neighbours, process staff, area generalists).

f. Assess, refine, and revise as appropriate.

g. Obtain final input from Staff Working Group, Public RS Advisory Panel, and Community Liaison Group.

Deliverables:
Report to Council summarizing results of complete program, and seeking approval for final refinements and revisions as appropriate.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

EXISTING FUNDING AND POSITIONS

1. Existing staff:

REQUESTED NEW FUNDING AND POSITIONS

2. Temporary Planning staff:

3. Legal costs

4. Consultant Budget:

5. Miscellaneous Costs:

6. Computer

Total Program Costs.................................................................................$ 298,700

* * * * *

ag990622.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver