The answer is that no, there is no zoning in that area because that parcel of land is not subject to City of Vancouver zoning laws, being not part of the City of Vancouver. The adjacent properties are part of the City of Vancouver, and therefore are subject to zoning that the City of Vancouver chooses to impose upon them. That zoning could be removed if city hall so chooses, but Kitsilano NIMBYs would oppose it. But city hall cannot define zoning rules for land that is not within their jurisdiction, so the NIMBYs have no voice. Just like, say, UBC is also not subject to City of Vancouver municipal zoning rules. Nor is Nanaimo. Nor Haida Gwaii.
This kind of begs a sort of “yes and..” line of questioning. Zoning permitting these things didn't happen because nimbys, right, I get that. But, why are the people just outside the reservation nimbys, and the people in the reservation yimbys? What messaging was used to lead to this dichotomy of opinions? I’m not so sure, but the answer to that question would likely make it possible to do such things elsewhere, even without a reservation legal loophole, since most places seem to have mechanisms to issue variances to zoning which would get used if messaging made such things popular.
There are still rules in place, indeed, just not for zoning.
So I don't see how getting rid of zoning rules there suddenly gives those areas any more power to sign sovereign treaties than it would to any other area in the US that decided to have lax zoning rules.
It's not really that complicated of a concept that you can deregulate one specific thing, but keep all regulations outside of that in place.
