Two 30-storey towers proposed for 130 West Broadway (former MEC site). Virtual Open House ends April 2. A look at how it violates Broadway Plan guidelines.

Rezoning information sign

The City of Vancouver is holding a virtual open house regarding a rezoning that contains two 30-storey towers at 130 West Broadway, the site of the former Mountain Equipment Co-op flagship store. City staff are forgoing an in-person Open House for what is probably the largest development proposed in Mount Pleasant. The proposal would have a FSR of 8.46, building heights of 100.1m (328 ft.) and 99.1m (325 ft.), 524 rental units, a 37 space child care and 372 total parking spaces. Reliance Properties and Quadreal Property Group are the developers behind the project while the IBI group are the architects.

The virtual open house ends on April 2, 2023; however, it will be possible to contact the rezoning planner directly even after this date. The City received the rezoning application last year on December 5, 2022 and then waited months before making this information publicly available.

According to the description on the application sign, the rezoning purports to come in under the City’s Broadway Plan (which went into effect 1-Sept-2022). This is in fact an inaccurate claim by City staff, as the project is in violation of the Broadway Plan on a number of counts.

  • Section 11.1.12 of the Broadway Plan mentions a maximum of 10 ft floor-to-floor height for residential. The rezoning includes 11 ft. floor-to-floor heights and thus would not be supported under the Broadway Plan
  • The Broadway Plan recommends a maximum floorplate size of 6,500 sq ft. in section 11.7.11. In contrast, both of the proposed tower floorplates are 7,200 sq ft. and thus exceed the recommended maximum.
  • Even the weakened view protections in the Broadway Plan would not be followed, as proposed heights intrude into protected views, yet the plan claims that “achievable density will depend on view cone height restrictions and urban design performance” (10.4.7).

There would also be significant shadow impacts on Jonathan Rogers Park during the shoulder season (stay tuned for a future post about the shadow diagrams that are included with this application). While there has been talk about making Broadway into a ‘great street’, this out-of-scale development would turn Broadway into a dark, gloomy and unappealing street. The glass and concrete form can contribute to a cold, “mean city”. Was there a missed opportunity by planners to treat much of Broadway under the urban village designation?

During the Open Houses held in the course of the Broadway Plan consultation, City staff said to multiple participants that the Mount Pleasant Community Plan (passed in 2010) and the Mount Pleasant Implementation Plan (passed in Oct 2013) would co-exist with the Broadway Plan. However, just before the Broadway Plan went to Council last summer, staff added an item for repealing the Mount Pleasant Community Plan and the Implementation Plan to the agenda. Bait and switch. City Planners tore up a document that promised to guide Mount Pleasant over 30 years of development, demonstrating a lack of professionalism and ethical standards.

Continue reading

2,023 City of Vancouver employees earned over $100,000 last year. Sunshine list reveals that 3,639 City employees made over $75,000. Staff salaries totalled $628 million

According to the City’s released financial records for 2022, there were a total of 2,023 employees who earned over $100,000. This is up from the 1,798 employees who made over $100,000 in 2021.
Paul Mochrie, the City Manager, led the way earning $343,549. The sunshine list revealed that 3,639 city staff made over $75,000 last year.

The City of Vancouver spends a total of $628,401,551 on staff salaries in 2022. Of this total, $400,251,774 went to employees earning over $75,000. The total amount made by employees earning less than $75,000 was $228,149,777. The City’s records do not include the wages of the VPD, which is a $387,922,000 line item for “Police Protection” (in the Statement of Financial Information or ‘SOFI’ report).

A total of 183 people in the planning department earned over $75,000 (see the list further below).

Here’s a table of the top wage earners at the City of Vancouver who had official salaries over $200,000 (note: this does not include any other sources of income):

Continue reading

Miracle sought for elm tree: Petition against tree removal (1500 block Grant Street in Grandview-Woodland)

As of this writing, 722 people have signed the petition Miracle for the Elm Tree. The City of Vancouver is going back on its word that a magnificent heritage Elm would be saved as a condition of development.

From the petition:

Although this news saddens us immensely, we are even more aggrieved by the fact that both the City and the developer have made it known that the trees were here to stay, and are now backing down on their word.

  • On July 9, 2019, the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability report recommending the Rezoning: 1535-1557 Grant Street, specified that “No City trees are to be removed” to keep in compliance with the The Urban Forest Strategy (p.14).
  • At the September 19th, 2019 public hearing, when we voiced our concern about the feasibility of the project, we were told by the Planning Department and the developer that the heritage trees were in no danger of being removed and that an arborist had signed on the plan to keep it.
  • On September 10, 2020, the Director of Planning approved the development of the site under the condition “that the applicant has to maintain or extend existing front boulevard width as required to accommodate the existing street trees” ( 1.19 p.5 of 11).

For further information and to sign the petition, additional details are available here.

The controversial development at 1535-1557 Grant Street broke the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan (GWCP) on a number of counts, including not keeping the minimum front yard setback of 20 feet. Planning staff falsely claimed that the rezoning was compliant with the GWCP. The bait and switch of saving the Elm tree and then later authorizing its removal is yet another example of the lack of integrity and professionalism by planning staff at Vancouver City Hall.

Three capital plan questions on Vancouver municipal ballot were worth half a billion dollars. Was wording clear? Was there bias? A few points to consider

Above: Excerpt of borrowing agreement for up to $100 million dollars from November 4, 2020. Compare and contrast this text with the Capital Plan questions.

On October 15, 2022, Vancouver voters approved three capital plan questions on the ballot, authorizing the City of Vancouver to borrow up to $495 million in additional funds. (Compared to the 2018 election with three capital plan borrowing questions amounting to $300 million.)

Looking at the wording of the three ballot questions regarding capital plan debt financing, were the three questions very long, confusing and written in a way to skew a ‘yes’ vote in support?

Perhaps voters could have received more complete information, more clearly worded, some of which we’ll discuss below. The ballot questions are listed on the City of Vancouver website here:
These three questions take up one side of the ballot. For reference, we’ve included screenshots of ballot questions from the City’s webpage (see further below).

There appears to be no mention of ‘interest’ or the words ‘plus interest’ in the questions. The amount of new debt per resident is not stated. There’s no information provided about the current amount of accumulated debt on the City of Vancouver’s balance sheet, and thus residents are not able to make an informed decision on whether to take on more debt. With the way the questions are worded, it’s also unclear whether there would be any capital plan allocation from other parts of the City’s budget. Voters might be led to believe that if they vote against these borrowing questions, then there will be no investments in capital plan expenditures between 2023 and 2026.

The last official Census (May 2021) recorded a population of 662,248 residents in the City of Vancouver. A total of $495,000,000 borrowing is proposed. This works about to approximately $747.45 per resident (based on those census figures), and add to that all interest charges.

This information (debt per resident) as an aggregate is not stated clearly in the ballot questions. Nor is it broken down by amounts per resident for each of the questions.

So we calculated it, and here is a breakdown of the $747.45 per resident in new debt:

1. Transportation and core operating technology: $261.91 of new debt, plus interest charges for each resident of Vancouver (2021 Census)

2. Community facilities: $244.73 of new debt, plus interest charges for each resident of Vancouver (2021 Census)

3. Parks, public safety and other civic facilities, climate adaption, and other emerging priorities: $240.81 of new debt, plus interest charges for each resident of Vancouver (2021 Census)

There are no estimates of what the amount of interest would be on the debt. Neither is the duration of the debt stated.

The ballot questions do not accurately reflect the wording that goes into the bylaw when the debt is drawn upon. An example of a previously-approved bylaw can be seen here:

For reference, we’ve included pages 19 and 20 of the noted bylaw further below.
The wording on page 19 of the document states:

“The City is hereby and firmly bound and its faith and credit and taxing power are hereby pledged for the prompt payment of the principal and interest of this debenture.”

The full weight of the obligations that would be undertaken by the City of Vancouver are not stated in the ballot questions. The City of Vancouver is clearly stating in the bylaw document that it is ‘firmly bound and its faith and credit and taxing power are hereby pledged for the prompt payment of the principal and interest of this debenture.’

The ballot questions omit the seriousness of the City’s obligations. Thus, the questions are biased and leading, and voters are forced to make an important decision on how to vote based on incomplete information.

Here’s the text of the actual agreement to borrow (for $100 million in 2020):

It’s as if voters were asked to include a blank cheque for $747 plus interest, not only for voters themselves but for every resident of Vancouver.

Capital Plan questions from the City’s website:

Amount 2021 Census Per resident

1) $173,450,000 662,248 $261.91

2) $162,075,000 662,248 $244.73

3) $159,475,000 662,248 $240.81

Total: $495,000,000 662,248 $747.45

Lessons to be learned from the outgoing Council (2018-2022). Did they let City staffers run the show? Is the new Council prepared to clean house? Or will the status quo remain?

The ballots have been counted, the election signs are gone from yards, and the dust is settling from the October 15 civic election. There’s perhaps a very short window of opportunity for the incoming administration to set the tone at Vancouver City Hall.

The outgoing Council came into office in late 2018. The 2018 civic election was a change election after a decade of Vision Vancouver rule under Gregor Robertson. Voters wanted change and nearly voted Vision Vancouver out of existence. Yet within their first few months, the new Council quickly squandered their opportunity to make big changes that voters were expecting. Here are few takeaways about blunders by the past administration:

  • In 2018, the incoming Council kept the Vision-installed administration/senior management in place, starting from the Vision Vancouver appointed City Manager.
  • The only place where there was a house cleaning was within the limited confines of the Mayor’s office, in order to install the new mayor Kennedy Stewart’s loyalists.
  • By contrast, when Vision first came into power in 2008, one of the first orders of business was to fire the City Manager.
  • Starting in 2008, the culture of City Hall changed from civil service to that of a corporation.
  • Changes in Council meeting rules limited their abilities to work and Councillors were actively hampered by uncooperative staff who threatened to silence them with the ‘code of conduct’ and the ‘integrity commissioner’ (who refused to investigate complaints made by the public).
  • The 2018 incoming Council was told ‘oh you have to get trained by staff’; perhaps the new administration can decline to accept the ‘training’ by City staff, and train members of their own caucus. At least some balance is needed to limit the tone set by staff.
  • The 2018 incoming Council quickly rubber-stamped the budget for the following fiscal year that was put in place by Vision; they had until the end of March in 2019 to make changes
  • The wholesale change that was needed (City Manager, Directors in areas such as Finance, Planning, HR, etc., along with respective Assistant/Deputy Directors) was denied; staffers who stymied the operations of Council were given free reign.
  • There seemed to be a trend for hiring and promoting managers from outside of Canada, who may not have an appreciation of this history and culture of Vancouver.
  • Planning and rezoning staff appeared to be actually coaching applicants in major and controversial development applications, and providing Council and the public with information that was not correct.
  • The culture of secrecy continued, whether this is refusing to provide information in response even to simple requests from the public, blocking and significantly delaying responses to freedom of information (FOI) inquiries, for what seemed to be political or bureaucratic reasons.
  • Large tax increases continued year after year, and the majority on Council collectively toed the line and rubber stamped budgets and policies coming from staff.
  • Council appeared to be tone deaf to the public, and refused to consider comments from the public. Staff could say anything, and be proven wrong by the public, without any repercussions.
  • Lavish spending by City Hall on the bureaucratic bloat was allowed; increasingly residents were seen as ‘piggy banks’ and ‘walking ATMs.’
  • Staff actively fought against transparency and accountability (torpedoing attempts for line-item budgets and data releases, trying to block the process of creating an independent office of auditor general, and so on).
  • Pet projects by staff appeared to be favoured over the provision of basic municipal services.
  • When Park Board and the public showed support to reconstruct the outdoor pool in Mount Pleasant Park, the City Manager and senior staff were able to nix it without consequence.
  • Access to council chambers at City Hall was for the most part closed off. Speakers were only allowed up to the third floor chambers from a holding area just moments before they were up to speak in the chambers.
  • Daytime public hearings continued as well as reconvened public hearings that went into business hours during weekdays
  • Council chambers were almost entirely closed off to the public with access to the seating area cut off; in the few exceptions were members of the public were allowed to view the proceedings in person, Kennedy Stewart scolded them if they clapped after a speaker.
  • Speakers were often interrupted by the meeting chair even when their points were on-topic and pertinent; slide presentations were hampered.
  • There was a complete lack of leadership by Kennedy Stewart at the regional level on the Metro Vancouver Board, as seen by his very poor attendance record there.
  • Big-ticket items like a road tax and a levy for all street parking were cash cows pushed by staff; these items would surely have been passed in short order after the Oct 15 election without wholesale changes, had there not been a major change in Council composition.
  • The chronic slowness and expense in getting many permits and business licenses didn’t seem to be resolved; staff kept making excuses and plans to speed things up, but nothing materialized (takeaway: don’t task the same staff to make things more efficient).
  • Public sector salaries spiralled out of control, as did expenses at City Hall; 1798 staffers at the City made over $100,000 back in 2021. Staff made over a half-billion in combined salary in 2021 – and the rise in staff numbers from 2011 so prevalent under Vision continued under the 2018-2022 council.
  • Core services such as simply picking up garbage once every two weeks or upkeeping parks were left to the wayside with the bureaucracy taking up so much of the budget.
  • The permanent campaign mode by Kennedy Stewart and the publicly paid staff at the mayor’s office showed that decisions were already made and the spin on a vote or topic was ready as soon as a measure was passed by Council (prepared tweets and e-mails would out within minutes of a vote).
  • While at least one individual on Council did attempt to counter many of these problems, it was an uphill battle, so the net effect was as listed above.
  • One positive thing of the 2018-2022 council was that, as the council represented different civic parties, representation on Metro Vancouver regional committees was more balanced, in contrast to the Vision years, when non-Vision councillors who appeared to be locked out of access to Metro Vancouver meetings and information. Hopefully the new Council will share these tasks even with councillors who are not on the ruling regime.
  • In short, the corporate culture set up at the City of Vancouver under the Vision regime continued through the current Council, and many of promises made were left unfulfilled.

How could things have been done differently? While most voters probably don’t follow the minutia of City Hall such as the above list, the net feeling of the electorate was one of frustration, and it was probably due to many of the above items.

Will the incoming Council learn from the mistakes of the last? Stay tuned.

A few takeaways from the 2022 civic election

Here are a few takeaways from the election. But first we’d like to congratulate all who ran. It takes a lot of courage to put your name forward.

This was a change election. And a blowout. In the end, big money bought the election.

ABC’s singular focus for the last year has been in getting out the vote. Ken Sim had demonstrated when he won the NPA mayoral nod in 2018 that he’s excellent at organizing, identifying supporters, and getting out the vote. ABC has made a machine that’s going to be hard to beat in the future. Chip Wilson and his sphere of influence has grown, as he’s apparently a key backer of ABC.

The pollsters were so wrong in their predictions. Didn’t they just claim that Sim and Stewart were running neck and neck? Then the mainstream media just ran with the narrative, of a two-horse race for mayor, without any asking questions. Will any of the mainstream establishment apologize for circulating such wildly inaccurate polling? Should anyone take civic election polling seriously anymore in Vancouver?

If anyone follows local the Chinese media as well as other non-English media (Philippines, South Asian, etc.) then perhaps it might be worth checking out to see what the sentiments around the election were and how the public opinion polls were reported.

Vancouverites elected the first mayor who was not backed by the VDLC (Vancouver and District Labour Council) in quite some time. However, the influence of the VDLC shows they were able to get Christine Boyle on Council and Jennifer Reddy on VSB re-elected for OneCity, as well as Green Party incumbents Adriane Carr and Pete Fry re-elected to Council. There were races where many other VDLC-backed candidates were just shy of being elected.

Continue reading

First proposal already violates the just-approved Broadway Plan on multiple counts (20-storey tower at 1540 West 10th Ave)

Above: Rendering detail from the architect’s materials. Note the height of the proposed tower compared to the surrounding buildings (street in foreground is West 10th Avenue between Fir and Granville)

The Broadway Plan was approved on June 22, 2022, and went into effect on September 1. Reliance Properties wasted no time and was the first out the gate with a proposal for a 20-storey tower at 1540 W Broadway. Reliance Properties President Jon Stovell quickly publicized the proposal by tweeting links on September 3rd and 9th to pieces in UrbanYVR and DailyHive. The tower design was created by omb (office of mcfarlane biggar architects + designers).

Here we look at the proposal versus the Broadway Plan, upon which it is purportedly based. The application by Reliance is in violation with the Plan on multiple counts.

As the first application coming forward, it is significant as a case study. Vancouver residents and voters need to know that the response by planning staff merits scrutiny, because unless there is a significant change on Council with the October 15 election, the provincial government will be angling to eliminate public hearings in Vancouver, effectively cutting out Council and public oversight of rezonings and leaving the planning department as the sole remaining check on rezonings. Applications would effectively go straight from the developer to the City’s director of planning for approval.

A total of 98 rental units are proposed on the site. A floor space ratio of 6.5 is requested. Four levels of underground parking would include the provision of 35 spots (to fulfill a covenant for the current parking lot on the site). The proposal was submitted as letter of enquiry to the City, which is generally done prior to a developer making a formal rezoning application.

The proposal already violates the Broadway Plan on multiple counts. For example, the building height for residential towers is non-compliant, as the proposed design exceeds the maximum floor-to-floor height 10 ft. (3.0m). Second, the tower volume lies within the “solar priority protection area” for the public green space at the Vancouver School Board building located on the other side of W10th Avenue. There’s no 4-storey podium on the site to make it consistent with the Broadway Plan; it’s only a tower proposed. The site frontage at 125 ft falls under the usual 150 ft minimum tower site frontage requirement, which means that it can proceed only at the discretion of the Director of Planning (for relaxation). This relaxation is eligible only when ‘the project satisfies the [Broadway] Plan’s built form and site design principles.’ (Clearly, that condition if not met, due to shading of protected public open space and exceeding maximum floor-to-floor heights).

Above: Spring equinox (March 20, 10am). A quick shadow study with a rough massing model (in orange, at bottom left) shows significant impacts on the VSB green space site, which is identified for protected solar access under the Broadway Plan.

This proposed design may well end up being a prototype for many future proposals, that is if the Broadway Plan stays in effect and the City management and Council composition doesn’t change. There’s further analysis along this line of thought in City Conversion 78: What’s at stake in Fairview (CC#78: our Broadway Plan models, called ‘just plain wrong,’ become ‘pretty much right’) by Brian Palmquist.

What would it say about the current state of planning in Vancouver if the first proposed tower under the Broadway Plan is allowed to sail through even though it is not in compliance with the Plan? What does this say about the intellectual honesty on the part of planning staff? Should staff be allowed to say, yes, something follows the Broadway Plan, because they say so, and that’s the end of story? What about checks and balances in planning-related decisions? What part of “Proposed new development should not create new shadow impact on parks and public school yards from the spring to fall equinoxes between 10AM and 4PM” do staff not understand?

City staff may wish to consult their own solar access diagram to see if the tower falls within a protected area (enlarged inset reproduced below).

Above: Solar access diagram from Broadway Plan (enlarged) shows that proposed 20-storey tower site falls within park and public school yards solar priority area. Full solar access plan is reproduced at the end.
Solar access to the public greenspace at West 10th and Fir (VSB) is protected under the Broadway Plan

It’s certainly possible to put a significant amount housing on the parking lot site at 1540 W 10th Avenue, at around 8-storeys in height, while still maintaining the solar access policy of the Broadway Plan. However, a 20-storey tower does not maintain protected solar access to green space.

Above: Spring equinox (March 20, 10:35am) shadow comparison between a rough massing of 20-storey tower (left) and the existing condition (right).
Above: Site and context (1540 W10th Avenue is located between Granville and Fir Street)
Above: Massing diagram from architect showing site and potential future development sites. Note the Vancouver School Board open greenspace is shown as having a potential for 6-storeys (Click to enlarge diagram)
Above: For clarity, here’s a cropped and annotated part of the Architect’s massing diagram showing the site and potential future development sites, along with a couple of photos of the greenspace that’s shown as having a potential for 6-storeys (Click to enlarge diagram)
Continue reading

Candidate nominations for the October civic election are closed. What happens now?

Who’s running for office in the October 15 Vancouver municipal election in 2022? The City’s website has a list of all of the candidates who submitted their paperwork by the deadline on Friday, September 9th. However, this list is subject to change because candidates can withdraw from running for office before 4 pm on Friday, September 16th. As well, candidates could be dropped if there’s a successful challenge against them (for example, if they are not eligible for running for office, or if there were issues with their paperwork).

The nomination papers and the financial disclosure statements for all candidates are available online in a redacted form for public review. The full unredacted paperwork can be viewed in person at Vancouver City Hall (City Clerk’s office on the third floor) during normal office hours. The City Clerk can also make the list of Vancouver electors (voter’s list) available. The paperwork for the local political parties (‘Elector Organizations’) has also been filed that includes the candidates who have been endorsed by the parties. Other information on the Elector Organizations include the financial agents and party presidents.

Each of the nominated candidates must be endorsed by at least 25 ‘electors’ (people who are eligible to vote in the Vancouver Civic election: Canadian citizen, reside in Vancouver or own property in the city, etc.). The rules for running for office are set forth in the Vancouver Charter (Division 6, from Section 41 onward).

The nomination papers usually contain at least several additional signatures as a precautionary measure beyond the required 25 (many candidates have somewhere between 33 and 40 signatures). This is to guard against a scenario where some of the candidate nominators are not eligible to vote (for example, if 26 people nominated a candidate, and two of the nominators were not Canadian citizens, then the minimum requirements for a candidate would not be met). However, a candidate’s eligibility to run would need further action. An eligible Vancouver voter (and the chief election officer) can challenge a candidate’s eligibility to run in provincial court by filing by 4 pm on Tuesday, September 13th. Reasons for a challenge can include false information (incorrect address, inaccurate paperwork, etc., set out in the Vancouver Charter section 45.2).

The City’s website currently shows the number of candidates running as follows:

  • 15 running for Mayor
  • 60 running for City Councillor (10 seats)
  • 32 running for Park Board (7 seats)
  • 31 running for School Board (9 seats)

The nomination papers also provide clues to some of the workings of the local political parties. Some of the nominators signing the papers are known in community and industry circles. The financial disclosure statements can also provide clues about the background of the candidates. It’s always interesting to find incumbent candidates who have preached for a ‘greenest city’ and at the same time own shares in oil, gas and mining companies.

The Vancouver Civic election will be held on Saturday, October 15, 2022. The candidate profiles will be posted during the week of September 20th. Advance voting days are October 1, 5, 8, 11, and 13.

There will also be three plebiscite questions asking voters whether they authorize the City to take on more debt. A total of $735 million in new borrowing by the City of Vancouver is being considered to pay for part of the proposed 2023-2026 Capital Plan. This works out to $1,109.86 per resident (2021 Census) in new debt. A total of $3.5 billion in capital investment is being contemplated. The City expects development contributions to make up $862 million of this total.

Continue reading

Development applications snapshot 1-Sept-2022

Example of a development application information sign

As a free public service CityHallWatch has for many years been taking a monthly snapshot of rezoning and development applications from the City of Vancouver website and making them available on our website.

The City has stopped updating its rezoning ( and development application ( web pages and shifted to a very different format called “Shape Your City.” Some changes may make it more user friendly, but some have reduced transparency and accessibility. On Shape Your City, you only see the applications the City wants you to see right now, in the way they want you to see it, and the rest of the information disappears. No handy lists, no archives prior to 2020.

If you see any items of concern, please spread the word to anyone who might be affected or interested. Our archive goes back years and is not available anywhere else. Even the City does not provide this information.

The City has also stopped publicly providing a map showing applications, so we continue to fill in the gap by creating our own static snapshot version using Google Maps. Click HERE to see the current map. If you feel the City should modify how it presents development and rezoning applications, feel free to write Mayor and Council, or director of planning.

Here’s a comment regarding our post in March 2022:

The way the City now provides for expressing your opinions about developments and making your comments via “Shape Your City” is very unsatisfying as well. What they do with your well-thought-out comments is to summarize and anonymize them before they are forwarded to the decision-makers. You never see how your comments are summarized. It’s really very disempowering.

Listed below (generated by CityHallWatch)

The following DP applications are new and were posted last month:

Here’s the complete list of DP applications: Continue reading

Rezoning applications snapshot, 1-Sept-2022

Example of a rezoning application information sign

As a free public service CityHallWatch has for many years been taking a monthly snapshot of rezoning and development applications from the City of Vancouver website and making them available on our website.

The lists contain valuable information on each application (all now being done online during the era of COVID). If you see any of concern, please spread the word to anyone who might be affected or interested. Our archive goes back years and is not available anywhere else. Even the City does not provide this information.

The City has stopped updating its rezoning ( and development application ( web pages and shifted to a very different format called “Shape Your City.” Some changes may make it more user friendly, but some have reduced transparency and accessibility. On Shape Your City, you only see the applications the City wants you to see right now, in the way they want you to see it, and the rest of the information disappears. No handy lists, no archives prior to 2020.

We’ve created our own static snapshot version map using Google Maps. Click to see the current map for September 2022. New rezoning applications include the following:

Below is our list of rezoning applications created as of 1-Sept-2022.

Proposed rezonings

Continue reading