The Urban Design Panel reviewed the revised proposal for 1401 Comox Street (22-storey tower under STIR program) on Feb 22, and voted (10-0) for full support of the updated design. Not a single member of the UDP had any problems with the proposed height or density of the project. The application requests a density of 7.14FSR which would be a significant upzone from the current RM-5 zoning. Current zoning allows for an outright FSR of 1.0 and a maximum conditional density of 1.5 FSR. A few concerns were raised about shading on the existing Broughton mini-park in front of Gordon Neighbourhood House in the afternoon, but otherwise most of the discussions were around minor details such as in-suite bicycle hooks and colour choice and finishing on concrete slabs. The allowable balcony space not to be included in FSR has been requested to be 12% (up from the exemption-free 8% per floor). There’s also a proposal for the ‘greening of Broughton Street’ which could turn the stretch of street on the east side of the site into a mini-park, something that Arno Matis supported and thought would be a ‘fantastic amenity for the neighbourhood’. The comments on the street to minipark conversion were mixed, with some members of the UDP also expressing caution and suggestions to keep the street paved with different materials for local traffic and emergency vehicles. Helen Besharat, Architect said: “I’m not in favour of closing streets…, but I leave it up to the applicant to come up with the best solution for the neighbourhood.” She also commented as a rental, the owner of the building has a vested interest in improving energy efficiency and hopes that they will be using some kind of insulation to isolate the balconies which are a source of heat loss. Concerns were also raised on the location of balconies (west side vs. east side).

Architect Jim Huffman said that there’s some confusion on the site, and used the words ‘chunky looking’. He also discussed the overall fit and feel of the West End context and changes that have occurred to the neighbourhood over time and its character. He was worried that the whole West End is going to change so that you are no longer ‘in something’ (as inside the space of the West End) if the trend continues towards having predominantly towers in a park. Mr. Huffman said he was less sold now than on a previous scheme, although did find overall concept supportable with the rental, height, density, materials and colours.

The loss of the separate low-rise building that would have housed Qmunity had detractors and supporters, generally the ability to shift the highrise back from the street was received favourably. Minor details on the form of the tower were discussed, and the use of salvaged stained glass from the demolished St. John’s Church proposal was brought up (part of the proposal on the ground floor). An Open House was held for this proposal on Feb 9. This application was submitted under the STIR rental program and the project would be built to a LEED Gold standard.

Excerpt from staff report:

This report presents the staff assessment of an application to rezone the properties at 8018-8090 Cambie Street from RT-1 (Residential) District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development) District and 8150 Cambie Street from C-1 (Commercial) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a mixed-use residential/retail development with two towers at 31 and 25 storeys with 441 strata units and 110 market rental units under the Short Term Incentives for Rental (STIR) Program. Artist Studios associated with residential units are provided to support Vancouver artists and the creative economy. Staff have assessed the application and find that it generally meets the intent of the Cambie Corridor Plan. The application is supported by staff, subject to meeting the design development conditions and the rezoning enactment conditions outlined in Appendix B.

http://delivery.ypg.com/delivery/

For further information, you can e-mail the contact below:

Ms. D. Bryan, CSR
9094 Leslie St Unit 1 Richmond Hill Ontario L4B 3L9
Office tel: 905.709.5265, Fax: 905.709.5242
Email: dbryan@pdclogistics.ca
Toll free: 1.800.268.5637 Ext.5265

The most extensive interview with Mr. Toderian himself was by Nate Berg at The Atlantic Cities. In it, he says he had a reputation as being anti-developer. He says that he was a champion against gentrification. And that he was the one who was “speaking truth to power” (with he himself holding the truth, and presumably Vision Vancouver, or city manager Penny Ballem, or chief of staff Mike Magee holding the power?). All of this may come as a surprise to citizens and communities who had to deal with the Planning Department and City Hall over the past several years. Perhaps our citizens’ poll will tell a different story. If he was spending all his time as anti-developer, fighting gentrification, and speaking truth to power, imagine where Vancouver would be now without him. And imagine what will happen now that his balancing powers are absent in the Planning Department and an Acting Director of Planning takes on the role for a while. And what if the next Director of Planning happens to be a true friend of developers? Time will tell.

The Urban Design Panel will be reviewing this proposal on Feb 22 at 5:15 pm (see this link for further information). Noteworthy to the UDP is that the shadow impact is still quite strong in the afternoon, when the mini-park on Broughton Street is actually being used by children from Gordon Neighbourhood House. CityHallWatch notes that the City should be providing reliable information on shadows so that the public can use this to evaluate impacts of development applications. Decision-makers and the affected community would be wise to compare independently-produced shadow images with those the project applicants provide to the City and the public. In this and other cases, is the Planning Department doing its job, fact-checking on behalf of the public? Is the UDP conducting a critical analysis? Also, we note that under the Vancouver Charter, the Director of Planning has the discretionary power to recommend increases above the “outright” zoned height, subject to conditions such as consideration of shadowing and privacy impacts on the surrounding community. It is not clear to us how these discretionary powers will be applied in practice since the Director of Planning was fired on January 31. Still images of the shadows, plus additional comments and useful reference info are provided below:

The four images below illustrate a 1.5FSR five storey building.

We have received this comment from an architect, and will post others where appropriate.

“The applicant cherishes the changes to the project in comparison to the previous proposals as great improvements. By taking into account setbacks, that were previously ignored – of course we can see an improvement. One might argue that the sliced off tower corner above the 7th floor might make an otherwise blunt tower a little less blunt – another so called improvement. The proposal to change a part of Broughton Street into a park seems nice, but is just distracting from the real issues, especially as it is not even the applicants property. This project provides no benefit to the immediate community apart from some flower beds. Neither in amenity spaces, additional public parking and especially not in respect to existing zoning. Even though the applicant puts a lot of effort and work into the street interface with the surroundings the applicant still has to go a long way to prove, why he deserves to have a 500% increase in FSR.  Far less would be sufficient to make this a profitable rental project.  Benjamin Merkle, Dipl.-Ing. Architekt, AIK-SH,LEED^® AP

More input, from a planning background:

CityHallWatch comment: Development applicants in Vancouver appear to stick to the absolute minimum requirements for provision of information, including shadow studies. The City staff, of course accept that minimum. But wouldn’t it be nice if both the applicants and the City staff worked a bit harder to earn the public trust and show communities more about the impacts of the proposed developments?

We understand that the City of Vancouver does occasionally reference the 4 pm times as well on the equinox and summer solstice. So it’s not only 10,12 and 2. In critical cases, it would be nice if the City required applicants to provide more complete shadow impact studies.

The 8495 Granville Street project (Safeway store site) is for buildings 16 storeys, 14 storeys, and 9-storeys in height. There are to be 326 condo units and 31 STIR rental units. It was at Public Hearing on April 21 and May 3, 2011, and was approved by Council at a Regular Council Meeting on May 17, 2011. A UBC researcher wrote concluded that the public consulation process was flawed (article by Stanley Tromp in Vancouver Courier) and others have lamented the dramatic changes the project will bring to Marpole and failure to consider local community wishes.

The comment on the Skyscraperpage Forum, by “dangerdoughnut” mentions that a billboard at the site is advertising condos for sale, and that construction starts in March 2012, then goes on to describe a visit (by appointment only) to the sales centre, operated by New Asia Group out of Bentall 4 on the 34th floor.

• The commenter felt that marketing is “targeting mainly Asian buyers as the sales staff are all Asian (Mandarin speaking) and the brochures all have simplified Chinese.”
• Comments go on to suggest that “pricing is extremely high, around 750-950 a square foot,” with a unit facing west on the 19th floor going for $1,046 sq ft or $989,000.
• And mentions that the salesman said “they’ve written 184 contracts in 1 month and will halt sale at 250, with the remaining 100-150 units being put out at a higher price down the line.”
• “They’re definitely emphasizing the luxury aspect of a Westbank building with multiple references to Shangri-la and Fairmont Pacific Rim.”

If all this is true, it makes one ask who has really benefited from the beleaguered Short Term Incentives for Rentals program, which was promoted by the recently-fired planning director Brent Toderian and strongly supported by Vision Vancouver. It was adopted in 2009 with virtually no public input, purportedly to create “affordable” rental housing and as a stimulus package for the construction industry after the 2008 economic crisis. The program was allowed to expire quietly on December 15, 2011, after West End Neighbourhods pointed out that the program was legally flawed. The status of projects in the pipeline is available here.
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/developmentservices/stir/pdf/11dec15status.pdf.

Several of the STIR projects have caused a lot of trouble for communities and some are still up for rezoning hearings. For example:

• 1215 Bidwell (Maxines, soon to be the Alexandra at 21 storeys, by Millennium, with architect Henriquez, site currently being excavated) was subject of what has been called a billion-dollar boondoggle for a $1 billion dollar mortgage to Millennium, released by city manager Penny Ballem with what still appears to be an incomplete explanation. CityHallWatch articles here and here.  To our knowledge, only the Vancouver Courier covered this story.
• 1401 Comox (Westbank Projects Corp and Peterson Investment Group, with Henriquez Partners Architects, proposed 22 storeys, public hearing date note announced):
• Beach Towers (tower, townhouses, infill on a heritage site) in the West End, public hearing not yet announced. Visit www.beachtowers.ca.
• More to be listed.

In some cases, project proponents are well-known political campaign contributors to Vision Vancouver in the 2011 election, which gave Vision eight of eleven seats on Council. Will our elected officials review the performance of already approved STIR projects and really listen to communities for the up-coming decisions? Can regulators of land use really make balanced decisions when they are put into power funded by the very industry they are supposed to regulate?

The Friends of Hastings Park message to supporters on 20-Feb-2012 went as follows:

Dear Friends of Hastings Park,

City Hall is holding another open house regarding Hastings Park that will be held this Wednesday, February 22, from 1 pm to 9 pm at the Pacific Coliseum (100 N. Renfrew St., main entrance. Free bike and vehicle parking are available on site).

The Friends of Hastings Park steering committee is concerned that the city is holding another open house prior to holding meetings with community stakeholders, including residents of Hastings Sunrise, to commence the promised ‘Governance Review’ of Hastings Park. (For your reference, the motion that city council passed unanimously promising the ‘Governance Review’ appears below).

As stated previously, Open Houses are not the proper forum for the kind of input and discussion that is needed during the ‘Governance Review‘. If this also concerns you please let City Staff and Councillors know that you want meetings that will permit the Governance Review to commence in earnest now with all the stakeholders invited to participate in a legitimate process.

Whether you attend the open house, or not, please send emails to Mayor and each Councillor telling them we want the Governance Review of Hastings Park to begin. Find their individual email addresses here. http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/mayorcouncil/index.htm

*****

City Council motion unanimously passed October 6, 2011:
Hastings Park Governance
Moved by Councillor Suzanne Anton
Seconded by Councillor Raymond Louie

Whereas,

1. Council approved the Hastings Park/Pacific National Exhibition Master Plan on December 14, 2010:

2. At the same time, Council requested staff to report back on a governance review for Hastings Park and the PNE;

3. There has been little to no engagement of the local neighbourhood by City officials since the Master Plan was presented this year.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be requested to engage Hastings Park stakeholders immediately to commence the process of determining the long term governance of Hastings Park.

Below is a breakdown of the executive positions; many of the votes were very close. The positions with real power went predominantly to the status quo slate. The 69 new members who signed-up at the beginning of the meeting certainly made a key impact.

Status-quo Slate (ran 9 candidates):
RJ Aquino – External Chair
Sarena Talbot – Internal Chair
Donalda Greenwell-Baker – Recording Secretary
Aaron Eddie – Treasurer
David Chudnovsky – Fundraiser
Richard Marquez – Member at Large
Kate Van Meer-Mass as Membership Secretary (previously a member at large)

Independent Slate (ran 12 candidates):
Kim Hearty – Corresponding Secretary
Anita Romaniuk – Member at Large
Ifny Lachance – Member at Large
Tristan Markle – Member at Large
Wilson Munoz – Member at Large

COPE has issued a brief media release on Feb 20, listing the newly elected. More details are available in the piece Paul Houle: An impressive showing for Independent COPE on the Straight.com. Select photos of the AGM follow:

A few photos of the AGM follow.

One to two oil tankers a week already traverse the waters of Burrard Inlet to reach the Kinder Morgan Terminal in Burnaby. Currently Kinder Morgan is seeking to double the current Trans Mountain pipeline’s capacity to 600,000 barrels of oil a day and to secure partners in the Alberta tar sands to provide additional tar sands oil. For additional information, please read the original Bloomberg article, or see earlier posts in CityHallWatch here, here, and here. The City of Vancouver Council has 6 Directors on the Board of Metro Vancouver holding a collective 23% of the vote. All of the City of Vancouver Directors are from the Vision Vancouver party (Directors Deal, Louie, Meggs, Reimer, Robertson & Stevenson). MetroVancouver can have considerable sway over the workings of Port Metro Vancouver.