`NON-COMPLIANT' PROJECTS ON THE RISE IN VANCOUVER
Applications for developments that ignore city's policies are making more progress
The big blue “REZONING APPLICATION” board — like the one in front of 121 West 11th Ave. — is a familiar sight to Vancouverites, as are the flyers being distributed urging residents to “fight back” against the proposed tower.
However, what is much more unusual — at least until quite recently — is a detail on the sign: The proposed development doesn't follow the city's policies.
The 18-storey rental apartment building being proposed for this side street in Mount Pleasant is “non-compliant,” the sign says, as it “enters into a protected public view from Queen Elizabeth Park, which deviates from existing policy.”
In years past, a real estate developer proposing to intrude into one of Vancouver's protected view corridors would likely not get far enough in the rezoning process to erect such a development board and enter the public engagement phase.
This is just one example of the recent rise of development projects advancing through the approval process despite being non-compliant with existing policy.
“It is a relatively new phenomenon in Vancouver,” said Templar Tsang-Trinaistich, issues manager for the City of Vancouver. “Traditionally, council would set the framework, they'd say, `This is what we want to see,' and applicants were guided by that and they'd work collaboratively with staff to bring forward applications that generally comply with policy.
“There's always room for some flexibility, but it's really only the last three or four years where we've started to see more of these” non-compliant applications, he said.
There are a few reasons for that, Tsang-Trinaistich said. Challenging and quickly changing market conditions make it difficult for projects to be viable under existing policies that could be decades old. So developers seem to be trying to go further or in a different direction.
Also, city council has signalled a desire for more proposals to come to it for decision, even non-compliant ones, especially those that address priorities like the shortage of rental and below-market housing.
“As councils change, those priorities and objectives change, but the policy doesn't always catch up fast enough,” Tsang-Trinaistich said.
Sometimes, these non-compliant projects come to city council for a decision with the support of staff, despite not fitting existing policy. Such is the case with a proposal for two apartment towers of 33 and 30 storeys each, approved by council in January for Vanness Avenue in southeast Vancouver.
Although the project exceeded the maximum height allowed under the Joyce-Collingwood precinct plan, which a previous council adopted in 2016, staff recommended its approval because it ticked a lot of other boxes: close to rapid transit, in an area with excess school capacity, and delivering 679 purpose-built rental homes and a turnkey child-care facility to hand over to the city.
Other times, developers are opting to forge ahead without the support of city staff.
Last year, Army & Navy CEO Jacqui Cohen and Bosa Properties CEO Colin Bosa announced they would apply to redevelop Army & Navy's historic Cordova Street department store property, even though city staff indicated they wouldn't support the project, largely due to heritage preservation policies.
In the case of West 11th, the developer's proposal to intrude on the view corridor follows signals from city council. Last year, Vancouver's ABC-majority council directed city staff to review the policies prohibiting buildings from entering certain airspace to protect designated views.
City planner Sandy James says there can be, and have always been, valid reasons to consider projects that don't comply with every policy detail, especially if they offer exceptional design or amenities.
“But it's really dependent on what the policy is and what the contribution is and what's best in the public interest,” she said.
Just because developers say some relaxation is required to make a project viable shouldn't, on its own, be enough reason to ignore good policies, said James, who worked for the City of Vancouver from the mid-1980s until 2012.
“This is what developers do, they always try to push the envelope,” said James.
“Our job is to work in the public interest.”
The view protection policy is one James feels particularly strongly about, and has argued against “privatizing” the views she sees as a valuable public amenity.
City staff try to work with developers to let them know what hurdles, big or small, their proposal could face, said Casey Peters, who was recently promoted to Vancouver's acting director of rezoning.
She believes there is a place for non-compliant proposals to be considered while also respecting existing policies and plans, she said: “They can coexist.”
“In many respects, the world is changing very quickly right now,” Peters said. “We put our best effort forward when producing these plans to create something that will be appropriate for many years to come — but none of us have a crystal ball.”