NSV letter to Council on Heritage Density Bank and Transfer of Density

NSV sent the letter below to Mayor and Council regarding the proposed changes to the Heritage Density Bank and the Transfer of Density. This letter is also available as a PDF document (click here to download).

NSV – Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

September 24, 2013
Mayor Robertson and Councillors
City of Vancouver
453 West 12 Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4

Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,

Re: Heritage Density Bank and Transfer of Density Update – Council Sept. 24, 2013

Report reference: http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20130924/documents/p6.pdf

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver (NSV)  does NOT support the recommendations as proposed.

This issue has been raised by us since 2007 under then NPA Mayor Sam Sullivan’s EcoDensity. Sample letter summary and links to our letters are attached below in Appendix A.

Note that this includes our letter dated September 22, 2008 which was supported by 28 neighbourhood groups and individuals.

Mayor Robertson and Vision Vancouver committed prior to the November 2008 that you “oppose the  transfer of density from the downtown Heritage Density Bank onto landing sites outside of the currently-approved areas, into communities across the City”.

However, this report today proposes similar recommendations with the same problems as previously opposed.

1. The public is not considered a stakeholder in the report and consultation has only been with the development industry and those related.

2. Proposal would allow the transfer of heritage density to be considered in CD-1 rezonings on a city-wide basis into neighbourhoods across the city, in conflict with neighbourhood community plans. The Transfer of Density Program was originally designed for density transfers into areas suitably zoned for towers such as the Downtown District and Central Broadway rather than into lower density neighbourhoods city-wide. This is a huge change of policy.

3. Proposes the expansion of Central Broadway corridor in which lands may receive  up to 10 % more floor space ratio as heritage density transfer for all of the C-3A zoned sites in the city. And further for this amount to be increased to 20% subject to the Province amending the Vancouver Charter.

These recommendations are not supported and we request that the report be referred back to staff for public input as a stake holder, and to avoid conflict with the current community plan processes underway. We support heritage neighbourhood character and policy that is fair for everyone.

Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

Group contact email: info@nsvancouver.ca   Website: www.nsvancouver.ca

____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A

Summary of previous correspondence and links to previous NSV letters.

September 22, 2008  (signed by 28 neighbourhood groups and individuals)

To Mayor Sam Sullivan and NPA majority council
Re: Heritage Density Bank Review

https://nsvancouver.ca/images/stories/pdf/HeritageDensityBank/NSV-Heritage-Density-Bank-Review-Sept.22%2C08-V5.pdf

“…We adamantly oppose allowing landing sites for heritage density transfers from the downtown Heritage Density Bank to be expanded into the neighbourhoods across the city…

The neighborhoods should be active participants as stakeholders in the Heritage Density Bank Review process and to date that has not happened. It is completely wrong to be proceeding to bring this to Council for approval when the public has not been notified and included in this review process…”

July 25, 2009

To Mayor Gregor Robertson and Vision majority Council

Re: Committee Meeting July 28, 2009 – Transfer of Density (ToD) Program and Heritage

Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) Review

https://nsvancouver.ca/images/stories/pdf/HeritageDensityBank/NSV-ToD-July-25-2009.pdf

“…The above item has been added to the agenda as a late report. We remind Council of our

letter sent to you on June 10, 2009 (copy below) updating you on our concerns previously raised and emphasizing your pre-election commitment that you “oppose the transfer of density from the downtown Heritage Density Bank onto landing sites outside of the currently-approved areas, into communities across the City”.

We repeat our request that you honour your pre-election commitments and oppose this option. The issues we raised in our letter dated September 22, 2008 still apply (copy also below)…”

Request for prior public notification and public included as a stakeholder.

 

April 22, 2010

To Mayor Gregor Robertson and the Vision majority council.

Re: Committee Meeting April 22, 2010 – Heritage Density Bank Update

https://nsvancouver.ca/images/stories/pdf/HeritageDensityBank/NSV-Heritage-Density-Bank-Update-April-2010.pdf

 “…We remind Council members of your pre-election commitment that you “oppose the transfer of density from the downtown Heritage Density Bank onto landing sites outside of the currently-approved areas, into communities across the City”. We repeat our request that you honour your pre-election commitments.

However, we note that the report that was approved by Council on July 28, 2010l included Recommendation C:

 THAT, the Director of Planning be instructed to report back by November 2009 on the following, in consultation with stakeholders:

i) establishing targets to land density outside of the Central Area; and

ii) investigate further ways to land density.

We note that the Downtown Capacity Review has identified that there is enough capacity to absorb the excess density from the Heritage Density Bank in downtown and the currently approved areas for landing density. There does not appear to be any justification for expanding landing sites for Transfer of Density as proposed…

Much of the C-3A zone is outside of the Central Broadway area (Burrard St. to Main St.) which allows landing of density from the Heritage Density Bank. C-3A extends 2 block west of Arbutus St. and 2 blocks east of Main St. This is not justified nor supported.

The last bullet contemplates other areas to land from the Heritage Density bank to neighbourhoods across the City. Although heritage density transfers where the heritage asset and the landing site are within the same neighbourhood may be justified and supported, we oppose transfers from downtown to lower density neighbourhoods as this will encourage excessive heritage incentives at the expense of community amenities and affordability. Transfer of density is a complex city-wide issue that deserves public consultation and community oversight.

Again we request that the public be included as stakeholders in discussions and consultation on this important matter…”

 

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

September 22, 2008
Mayor Sullivan and City Councillors
City of Vancouver
453 West 12 Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4

Dear Mayor and Councillors:

Re: Heritage Density Bank Review

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver is a city wide ad hoc organization of neighbourhood groups that includes residents’ associations, CityPlan Vision implementation committees, ratepayers’ associations and community groups.  We understand that the City is undertaking a review of the Heritage Density Bank which includes the Heritage Building Rehabilitation (HBRP) and the Transfer of Density Program (TDP).  These programs have the potential to impact the entire city, especially considering the policies recently approved under EcoDensity.  We are concerned that to date the public has not been given adequate notification of this review and the neighbourhoods have not been included in the consultation as stakeholders.

In principle we support the City providing incentive programs for the rehabilitation of heritage buildings and preservation of heritage and character streetscapes.  Our concern is that the temporary 2003 incentive programs in the heritage districts have flooded the Heritage Density Bank.  The 160,000 sq. ft. in 2005 went to 1.5 million sq. ft. in 2006, followed by the freeze to the program in 2007.  Based on the Altus Report presently posted on the City’s website, there is 1.6 million sq. ft. of untransferred density that has now accumulated.  Already unsustainable, this approach is now proposed to be reactivated without considering all the broader implications or consulting with the neighbourhoods that could be affected.  As part of the temporary incentive program, the outright zoning in the heritage districts that allows 7 stories outright in an area that is mostly 2-4 stories is excessive.  These unearned density bonuses increase pressure on demolition of the heritage buildings and at the same time unreasonably increase the density in the bank.  The temporary heritage incentive programs in the Heritage Districts need to be restructured with the temporary outright allowable height and density reduced to be more sustainable.

Given the density already in the bank and the additional amounts that would be added were the program to be reactivate as proposed, we understand that the City is considering change of policy to increase areas for transfer of density landing sites.  We adamantly oppose allowing landing sites for heritage density transfers from the downtown Heritage Density Bank to be expanded into the neighbourhoods across the city.   This would override our Community Visions while eliminating opportunities for our own local heritage projects and bring in unsupported excessive density.  The character of each of Vancouver’s collection of twenty-three neighborhood villages must be respected and not used as a dumping ground for density from another area.

Considering EcoDensity was passed by Council with only 23% of letters for support and 77% of non-support or requesting changes, it does not represent a mandate to use this EcoDensity policy to transfer unsupported density from downtown into the neighbourhoods.  The neighborhoods should be active participants as stakeholders in the Heritage Density Bank Review process and to date that has not happened.  It is completely wrong to be proceeding to bring this to Council for approval when the pubic has not been notified and included in this review process.

Please consider our comments and we look forward to being actively included in the consultation processes to create a more sustainable plan for heritage areas.

Regards,
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

Group contact email: agroupofvancouverneighbourhoods@hotmail.com

Supporting Group names:

• Advocates for Hastings Sunrise

• Arbutus Ridge Concerned Citizens Association

• Arbutus Ridge/Kerrisdale/Shaughnessy CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee

• Britannia Neighbours in Action

• Building Better Neighbourhoods

• Citywide Housing Coalition

• Douglas Park Residents Association

• Dunbar Residents’ Association

• East Fraser Lands Committee – Sharon Saunders **

• Friends of Southlands Society

• Grandview Woodland Area Council

• Hastings Sunrise CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee

• Kensington Cedar Cottage CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee

• Kitsilano Arbutus Residents’ Association

• Kitsilano Point Residents’ Association

• Marpole Oakridge Area Council Society

• Norquay Neighbours – Joseph Jones **

• North West Point Grey Home Owners’ Association

• Reinstate Third Party Appeals

• Riley Park / South Cambie CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee

• Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Association

• South Hill Initiative for Neighbourhood Engagement (SHINE)

• Southwest Marine Drive Ratepayers’ Association

• Upper Kitsilano Residents Association

• Victoria Fraserview Killarney CityPlan Committee – Andrea Rolls **

• Victoria Park Group – Gail Mountain **

• West Kitsilano Residents Association

• West Point Grey CityPlan Vision Community Liaison Group

* Some members of the group indicate support for the letter, but have not voted on it yet due to timelines.

** Signed as an individual member

 

Cc: Brent Toderian, Director of Planning

Ronda Howard, Assistant Director of Planning – City-Wide and Regional Planning

Kent Munro, Assistant Director of Planning – Community Planning Division

Rob Jenkins, Assistant Director, Current Planning Initiatives Branch

Thor Kuhlmann, Planner, City-Wide Regional Planning

Cameron Gray, Director of Housing

Marco D’Agostini, Senior Heritage Planner

V-5

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized |

NSV letter to City Council on Point Grey Cornwall Active Transportation Corridor

July 29, 2013

Mayor Robertson and Councillors
City of Vancouver
453 West 12 Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4

Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,

Re: Point Grey Cornwall Active Transportation Corridor

While Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver (NSV) is strongly supportive of the City’s efforts to promote active transportation and to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians, there is clearly a profound lack of public consensus on the City’s recommendations for the Point Grey Road – Cornwall Avenue Corridor Active Transportation Project.

As with all other city-wide initiatives, NSV believes that local implementation of active transportation improvements should be guided by open and inclusive neighbourhood-based planning with support established through verifiable neighbourhood-wide surveys based on city voter roles. As it stands, significant concerns have been expressed about the extent to which the subject consultation process was genuinely receptive and/or responsive to the balance of feedback from the local neighbourhood.

The lack of public consensus has become especially divisive around recommendations for Point Grey Road west of MacDonald Street (segments 1 and 2 of the proposed design). In particular, many members of the local community have called on the City to give further consideration to viable alternatives that would retain Point Grey Road as an arterial street and avoid diversion of additional traffic to corridors where traffic impacts and accident rates are already higher, and where further congestion could have an adverse influence on the efficiency of public transit. Our assessment is that viable options do exist and, consequently, we urge council to avoid further division by referring the report back to staff for additional public consultation.

Notably, NSV also understands that it is the City’s intention to launch a major community planning process in Kitsilano within the next 12 months. Notwithstanding ongoing controversy surrounding current Community Plan processes in Grandview-Woodlands, Marpole, West End and Downtown East Side neighbourhoods, and despite serious concerns raised previously by NSV in relation to the Terms of Reference for those processes, it is our view that if such a process it to be initiated in Kitsilano, the very significant changes proposed for the Point Grey Road – Cornwall Avenue Corridor should be an integral part of it. Therefore, we strongly encourage the City to reengage with local residents and businesses through that process, and to build consensus for a shared solution that advances project objectives in a way that the neighbourhood as a whole can support and embrace.

Sincerely,

The NSV Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

Posted in Uncategorized |

Local funds shouldn’t pay for transit (opinion by Elizabeth Murphy printed in Vancouver Sun, July 23, 2013)

transit-fundingLocal funds shouldn’t pay for transit

Opinion: If Victoria and Ottawa don’t pay, property taxes and development fees are diverted from other programs

By Elizabeth Murphy, Special to The Vancouver Sun July 23, 2013 5:04 PM

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2035/Local+funds+shouldn+transit/8698500/story.html

 Also found on website: www.elizabethmurphy.ca

TransLink’s Canada Line trains were already at capacity at peak hours when it first opened for business. Photograph by: ian Lindsay , Vancouver Sun

 

Using development to fund transit shifts to municipalities a provincial/federal funding responsibility and undermines local community planning objectives.

It is time to dismiss this model and look at sensible options, with broad consideration of more affordable transit alternatives.

Public transit is a very important part of the city’s infrastructure and needs to be expanded. However, transit is a provincial/federal funding responsibility that would be transformed into a development regime and cash cow for TransLink at city taxpayers’ expense if development is used to fund transit.

The city uses fees from development (such as development cost levies and community amenity charges) to fund civic infrastructure like daycare, parks, community spaces, heritage and affordable housing. These development fees cover only a small part of the cost of servicing the new developments. It is not well known that the majority of these costs are paid by city taxpayers through property taxes and borrowing through the city’s capital plan.

Every year the city borrows hundreds of millions of dollars to finance and subsidize growth. Fees from development projects help to offset a small portion of the costs of growth. However, if fees from development are used to fund transit, the city will lose that source of funding. Civic costs to service new development would also increase to match that imbalance.

There is a mistaken belief that development fees from creating density is free money from selling air, but in truth all new density is subsidized by taxpayers who pay for the supporting infrastructure and services.

While city policy recognizes the need for other public amenities, the unspoken but well-understood reality is that rapid transit is so expensive it will cannibalize all potential for funding of civic amenities from development, while creating additional costs from development to be subsidized by city taxpayers. This amounts to provincial/federal downloading onto municipalities.

Shockingly, using development to fund transit was approved as an option in the city’s transportation plan last fall and in the city’s official development plan last month, by our Vision-dominated council without prior public consultation.

The provincial and federal governments get 93 per cent of the tax base, leaving municipalities with only seven per cent. It is time that senior levels of governments fulfil their obligations to provide funding for transit.

Transit funding should be structured as an incentive to drive less and/or improve vehicle efficiency.

One option could be a variable vehicle fee based on mileage driven and fuel efficiency of the vehicle, which could be collected annually with our insurance premiums. This would be much easier to administer than the complexity of road pricing without the privacy concerns arising when vehicles are tracked through GPS or tolls.

Other options include carbon and gas taxes. A larger portion of these taxes should be used to fund transit.

Vancouver was built as a streetcar city before widespread use of the vehicle. That system was subsequently replaced with the electric trolley bus. The entire city is laid out on a grid putting most areas within easy walking distance of an arterial with transit.

If transit funding is funnelled into only a few very expensive corridors, service in the rest of the transit grid will be reduced, neglected and inadequate.

We saw this when the Canada Line was completed. The electric trolley bus on Cambie was replaced by a reduced service diesel bus and the service along Granville Street was also reduced. Subway stops are far apart so that, even along this tremendously expensive transit line, there is limited service for local destinations including Cambie Village which has no station.

Transit funds need to be allocated based on how they can best serve the entire grid system. A subway costs approximately $250 million per kilometre to build, streetcars are $30 to $40 million per km, and electric trolley buses are only $1 million per km plus $1 million per double articulated electric trolley bus. Therefore, the electric trolley bus network should be expanded to replace diesel buses with improved service throughout the grid as a priority. Then more expensive subway and streetcar lines should be implemented only as we can afford them.

Keeping the transit system affordable to both the taxpayer and the transit user is fundamental to keeping the transit sustainable and improving transit ridership.

Transit-oriented development has merit in the right context. The location and scale of development should be under the full control of local communities and allowed to grow in concert with local community plans. Civic developments should not be influenced by the province to fund TransLink or any other provincial responsibilities such as the retractable stadium roof replacement.

The Canada Line was already at capacity during peak hours when it was first opened, even without upzoning. There now are reports of people in Vancouver who take the line southbound to Richmond so they can get a seat northbound to downtown, since trains are often already full by the time they leave Richmond into Vancouver.

Even if in the future more trains are added at peak times, the Canada Line is limited in expansion at stations by load capacity. It is questionable if transit will be able to service the increased ridership from the massive proposed development along the Cambie corridor and in Richmond. There is a danger that excessive upzoning could result in even more people using cars instead of the overcrowded transit system.

The Broadway corridor could be even more problematic. If the area is prematurely upzoned in anticipation of a future subway, the increased ridership would overwhelm the already inadequate transit system, with the subway not being completed for decades, which happened to Port Moody in anticipation of the long delayed Evergreen Line. The current proposal in the draft Grandview plan for 36-storey towers at the Broadway and Commercial transit choke point is a case in point.

In summary, using development or property taxes to fund transit should be taken off the table since this model would download provincial/federal responsibility onto the city. Consider a mileage/emissions-based vehicle fee, carbon and gas taxes instead. Keep land use within the scale and character of each neighbourhood in accordance with community-supported local area plans. To be viable and sustainable transit must be electric, convenient, affordable and appropriately funded.

Elizabeth Murphy is a private sector project manager and was formerly a property development officer for the City of Vancouver’s housing & properties department and for BC Housing.

info@elizabethmurphy.ca

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Posted in Uncategorized |

NSV writes City Council on Hastings Park/PNE Governance Review — calling for governance of Hastings Park under Park Board

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver sent this message to Mayor and Council today.

July 23, 2013

Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,

Re: Hastings Park/PNE Governance Review – Standing Committee on Planning, Transportation and Environment Meeting July 24, 2013

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver oppose the proposed governance model.

We urge you to reject the governance option recommended in the staff report and to instead heed the expressed wishes of the Hastings/Sunrise community, concerned residents of Vancouver and the Board of Parks and Recreation by placing governance of Hastings Park under the auspices of our elected Park Board.

Sincerely,

The NSV Steering Committee

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

 

Posted in Uncategorized |

NSV writes Council on Grandview Woodland plan extension

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver sent this letter to Mayor and Council.

July 22, 2013

Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,

Re: Clr. Adriane Carr’s Motion to Extended Timeline for Grandview-Woodland Community Plan – Council Meeting July 23, 2013

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver strongly support Clr. Adriane Carr’s motion directions as follows.

“…THAT Council direct staff to:
Extend the timeline for the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan by at least six months;
Conduct an open and collaborative process for the community to discuss, debate, and select preferred options for the Community Plan. ”

Further we would like to add our support for the community’s request for proper workshops on all areas of the plan. The problems with the plan are not just with the Broadway and Commercial area, but with the entire plan. All the sub-areas of the plan need to be reconsidered and revised to incorporate community input.

Sincerely,

The NSV Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

Posted in Uncategorized |

Vancouver’s development plan lacks public input (by Elizabeth Murphy, special to Vancouver Sun, 24-May-2013)

Vancouver’s development plan lacks public input
Opinion: If you haven’t heard about it, you’re not alone

By Elizabeth Murphy, Special to The Vancouver Sun May 24, 2013 4:17 PM

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/2035/Vancouver+development+plan+lacks+public+input/8432633/story.html#ixzz2UKFFsAAH

RCS-ODP map in Vancouver Sun 24-May-2013

 

Caption: The Official Development Plan and Regional Context Statement plan will direct all development in the city for the next 30 years. Photograph by: Vancouver Sun graphics ,

Vancouver’s over-arching plan that will direct all development in the City of Vancouver for the next 30 years has been referred to a June 11, 2013 public hearing without prior public input. This is where all of the city’s development and land use policies are bundled up into one document and presented with a plan to Metro Vancouver (the Region, GVRD) for approval.

Called the Official Development Plan and Regional Context Statement, the plan is second in importance only to the Vancouver Charter, which legally governs the city.

City hall has been working on these plans with the region, province and TransLink under the public radar for more than a decade. It continues to present them as merely procedural, even though they will affect the future of every neighbourhood and every citizen of Vancouver.

Our previous regional plan was the very successful Liveable Region Strategic Plan. The current regime replaced it with the Regional Growth Strategy in July 2011. Within two years, by July 29, 2013, every municipality in the region is expected to submit its own plan to show how it intends to achieve the growth strategy goals set out in the Regional Growth Strategy.

Each city’s draft plan must be submitted to the region for approval accompanied by TransLink comments. The region is required to ensure TransLink’s plans are supported by the city’s plans, thereby increasing Metro Vancouver, TransLink and provincial influence into our Vancouver civic land use authority.

Darlene Marzari was on city council with TEAM from 1972 to 1980. She was elected to the provincial legislature from 1986 to 1996, and served as Minister of Municipal Affairs for 2½ years. About the proposed plans, she says “Fifty years ago I fought a highway through Strathcona and advocated for neighbourhood involvement in land use decisions. The wheel has turned full circle. The issues are the same today.”

Marzari further explained, “It should be of great concern that Vancouver would jeopardize its stewardship and legal responsibility for zoning. Promising TransLink a role in the zoning process and decision making of how our city grows takes us towards the slippery slope of provincial jurisdiction overriding the Vancouver Charter.

“Ramming through an expensive transit option that is funded by massive development that would wipe out whole communities with their affordable rental units and close down local area planning processes for which we have received international acclaim. Vancouver’s ideal of planning is not served well by pandering to megaprojects without respecting existing communities. Neither is democracy.”

The Vision Council is pushing this plan through quickly and quietly; if you haven’t heard about it, you are not alone.

To compare, the city has scheduled three open houses for public input into traffic changes along Point Grey Road before proposing a final plan. Shockingly, for the Official Development Plan and Regional Context Statement for the entire city, there has been only one poorly advertised and sparsely attended open house, not scheduled until after the plan was already finalized for public hearing.

Former TEAM city councillor Marguerite Ford attended the open house and concluded, “I am very concerned about the lack of public input into the plan, the lack of consideration of local area plans, and the lack of demonstrated understanding of land use economics.”

She gave examples of where increased development pressures will result in demolitions of heritage and older affordable rental housing in favour of towers in Chinatown, and residential towers will impact land economics on adjacent industrial land at Marine and Cambie.

The city is claiming that this plan does not need public consultation because it is based on policy that has already had consultation. However, that is not, in fact, the case.

For example, policies such as the rezoning policy on arterials and Transportation 2040 were approved without public input into the final draft and put in place with only three business days’ notice before going to council for approval last fall.

Key changes in the Regional Context Statement are entirely new regional designations that makes provisions for the region, TransLink and the province to have increased influence in land use authority in these areas. The public deserves a major say in all of this, but alarmingly, has had none.

The downtown core of Vancouver has previously been designated a Regional Centre, but only as a dot on a map. Now it is an exact lot-by-lot line on the map that covers a much broader area. The “Metro Core” has been extended to include the entire downtown peninsula (including the West End, Coal Harbour, Central Business District, Yaletown, and Downtown Eastside), Strathcona, Fairview, and Mount Pleasant — east to Clark/Knight Street, north to the water, south to 16th Avenue, and west to Burrard.

Additional lot-by-lot regional designations include the Oakridge Town Centre and Cambie Street as Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDA). The Broadway Corridor is included as a future FTDA from Boundary Road to Blanca Street.

The city is proposing increasing the city’s share of regional growth in population, housing units, and jobs. However, no detailed analysis or data have been provided to justify any need for such an increase beyond what the region has projected.

Despite repeated requests from the public, the city has steadfastly refused to provide any information that could confirm or contradict their proposed interventions. So much for Vision’s claim to having an open data policy.

The existing zoned capacity was traditionally used as a transparent measure in previous Regional Context Statements. It was provided to demonstrate what increased development was required to meet growth projections. Last year, council directed staff to provide this information based on a motion by Coun. Adriane Carr.

So far, after numerous inquiries and requests, the city has still refused to provide this vital data to the public. It is reasonable to conclude that it is being concealed because the existing zoned capacity is already so vast that Vancouver has enough existing zoning that it would satisfy growth for decades. We have time to plan properly.

If this plan is approved as proposed, we could have TransLink and their P3 partners pushing through mega-projects that we cannot afford and draining limited transit resources into only a few corridors. Under the Hong Kong model of funding transit with large developments, which may remain substantially unoccupied, the plan would wipe out entire heritage neighbourhoods and divert development fees to cover the province’s responsibility for transit funding instead of much-needed civic amenities.

The public deserves a more robust and meaningful consultation process. We need to avoid regional designations that transfer the land use authority to TransLink and the province to carry out this misguided scheme.

Elizabeth Murphy is a private-sector project manager and was formerly a property development officer for the City of Vancouver’s Housing & Properties Department and for BC Housing.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Norquay Area Wide Rezoning and 2220 Kingsway Development

Norquay New ZonesNSV submitted two letters to City Council before the Public Hearing held on April 9, 2013. Please find the full text of these letters reproduced below as both text files and PDFs. The rezoning of 1900 RS-1 zoned lots in Norquay to one of four new District Schedules represents a very large-scale change in residential land use in Vancouver. Excellent in-depth analysis is available on the website Eye on Norquay that contains many details on both the area wide rezoning of Norquay and on the rezoning of 2220 Kingsway.

 


Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan Implementation – New Zoning District SchedulesRT-11/RT-11N and RM-7/RM-7N (Rezoning)
PDF Version

2220 Kingsway (CD-1 Rezoning three 14-storey towers on a podium at former Canadian Tire site)
PDF Version

Text version: Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan Implementation – New Zoning District Schedules – RT-11/RT-11N and RM-7/RM-7N (Rezoning)

April 8, 2013
Mayor Robertson and Councillors
City of Vancouver
453 West 12 Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4

Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,

Re: REZONING – Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan Implementation – New Zoning District Schedules – RT-11/RT-11N and RM-7/RM-7N

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver join Norquay residents in opposition to the rezoning of Norquay as currently proposed. The rezoning was not community supported and was not consistent with the Community Vision or policy plan. These Zoning District Schedules should not be used as a precedent for other neighbourhoods.
Some of the concerns are as follows.

1. There has been no community consultation on the new District Schedules as they were only released to the public with the policy report 3 weeks before the public hearing. This is not enough time for the community to review the complex documents in detail. Therefore, please delay approval of the new District schedules until a thorough public consultation process has been undertaken.

2. Details are not consistent with the Norquay Plan. Particular concern attaches to rowhouse widths that go below the 16 ft minimum already specified. We request that schedules be amended to respect the Plan. Currently the draft guidelines only requires 12 ft. minimum and possibly narrower.

3. All allocation of Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) should involve meaningful consultation with the local community and respect the result of that consultation. Priority must be given to the specific major promises developed through the extensive process that led to the Norquay Plan: indoor and outdoor community space at the 2400 Motel site, completion of the Renfrew Ravine linear park, extensions to and improvements of Brock and Slocan Parks. No allocations to other items should be made until these specific major promises have been fulfilled.

4. The Norquay area itself is admitted to be without any amenity other than daycare, which is not a general benefit visible to the broad community. Recent growth has brought none of the commensurate amenity promised in the community vision. Significant new capital plan funding is required. The 2011-2014 capital plan made no specification for Norquay, despite the Norquay Plan having been passed in November 2010.

5. There is no plan in place to house the people who will be displaced through gentrification and loss of older more affordable secondary suites, as the new buildings will be too expensive for many existing renters.

This proposed rezoning is geared to serve the interests of the development industry, and treats Norquay as a commodity to be exploited for profit, without sufficient regard for the existing or future community We recommend that much greater care be taken to ensure that the problems we have identified are addressed.

Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
Group contact email: info@nsvancouver.ca www.nsvancouver.ca
http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20130409/phea20130409ag.htm


Text version: 2220 Kingsway (CD-1 Rezoning three 14-storey towers on a podium at former Canadian Tire site)

April 9, 2013
Mayor Robertson and Councillors
City of Vancouver
453 West 12 Avenue
Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1V4

Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,

Re: REZONING – 2220 Kingsway

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver joins the Norquay community in opposition to the rezoning of 2220 Kingsway.

Some of the concerns are as follows.

1. The policy plan was not community supported and is not consistent with the Community Vision. Moreover, the policy plan implied only one tower of 14 storeys– not three towers.

2. The scale of the development is much too high and dense for the area. Note comparison between the current development proposal and what was approved by Council in the policy plan (attached below).

3. The $4 million Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) is too small and the community should determine how it is to be invested. The on-site CAC is far too oriented to benefiting the development itself.

4. The public art funding should go to artists based in East Vancouver, if possible to those based in or close to Norquay. A poodle on a pole from an outsider is not wanted. Please address these concerns as expressed by the community and do not approve this rezoning as proposed.

Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver
Group contact email: info@nsvancouver.ca www.nsvancouver.ca

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20130409/phea20130409ag.htm

http://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/walled-off-compound/

Posted in Uncategorized |

What we need is a more affordable transit option now than a $3 billion subway system at $250 per km (E. Murphy, Vancouver Courier, 3-Apr-2013)

Transit options - Skytrain, Streetcar or Trolley bus
By Elizabeth Murphy, Contributing writer to The Vancouver Courier

Excerpt: TransLink recently released its Phase 2 study report on the three proposed shortlisted options for the Broadway-UBC corridor. Vancouver had already announced the subway option as preferred before engaging the affected communities on the three recent TransLink study options.

The city instead worked with UBC on a $100,000 consultants report to justify only the subway option. Then Vision Vancouver sponsored a meeting March 10 in Kitsilano with Mayor Gregor Robertson and Geoff Meggs promoting the subway as if it is the only option and quoting the consultant’s report to justify it.

Read more: Vision Vancouver chooses subway option without consulting

Posted in Uncategorized |

Flawed policies doom Vancouver’s old buildings (E. Murphy, Vancouver Sun, 11-Mar-2013)

Waldorf Hotel and the Ridge Theatre

By Elizabeth Murphy, Special to The Vancouver Sun

Excerpt: In recent years new development has caused the loss of many arts, culture and community assets including local theatres such as the Ridge (and Bowling Alley), Pantages, Hollywood, Varsity, Granville 7 and Playhouse; music and entertainment venues such as the Starfish Room, Richards on Richards and Maxine’s; community space of St. John’s Church, and the list goes on.

Although the public generally supports the arts, culture and related amenities, city policies have not been enacted to ensure their retention. Instead, we have a chronic state of crisis management where last-minute attempts are made under threat of demolition, often after the building has been abandoned and degraded – as it was with the Pantages and York Theatres.

Read more: Flawed policies doom Vancouver buildings (Vancouver Sun)

Posted in Uncategorized |

March 13th Panel Discussion on Funding our Community Centres to better serve the needs of all citizens

Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver held a panel discussion on Funding our Community Centres to better serve the needs of all citizens. See below for video of panelist presentations. About 75 people attended. Discussion raised new insights and impressed many that at the core is the need for the City to provide more funding to Community Centres, rather than disempowering the Community Centre Associations.

Time: Wednesday, March 13, 2013  7:30 PM
Place: Hollywood Theatre, 3123 West Broadway

Three representatives from Community Centre Associations have kindly served on the panel:

  • Ainslie Kwan – President, Killarney Community Centre Society
  • Phil Daum – Treasurer, Sunset Community Association
  • Jesse Johl – President, Riley Park Hillcrest Community Association

The panel responded to questions from the audience, reflected on changes contemplated by the Park Board, looked at the role of volunteers running and setting priorities for local programming, and examined solutions for funding and access to Community Centres.

Park Board has recently proposed far-reaching changes to control the programming and revenues at Vancouver’s Community Centres, a cornerstone of our neighbourhoods. The proposed changes are the most critical public policy issue that has faced Park Board in decades. Please see our collection of media article links for further information.

This event was free and had an open microphone to take questions from the audience. Poster for the event in PDF (Poster March 13, 2013). Randy Helten will moderate.

VIDEO OF PANEL PRESENTATIONS

Ainslie Kwan

Phil Daum

Jesse Johl

Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/138237436351505/
Do you any have questions for the panel? The panel will take questions from the floor. You may also send your ideas for questions in advance to: questions@nsvancouver.ca.

Hillcrest CCKillarney CC
Pictured: Hillcrest Centre and Killarney Community Centre

Posted in Uncategorized |