Archive for the ‘CoV Documents’ Category
Transcript of the Final Minutes
24 May 2016 Public Hearing on 3365 Commercial
The Majority Opposition Rise in Concert to Walk Out of Council Chamber
The singular event that took place during the public hearing for
3. REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue
deserves the easiest access that can be provided to residents of the City of Vancouver. A careful transcript of approximately 1500 words takes less time and effort to access and review than would the video record — flawed by splicing and intermittent wild pixellation (see screenshot of acting mayor Raymond Louie provided as appendix to this transcript).
The cast of speaking characters in this segment, in order of appearance, are: Councillor Adriane Carr, Councillor Raymond Louie (Acting Mayor), Councillor Tim Stevenson, Assistant Director of Planning Kent Munro, Councillor Elizabeth Ball, Councillor Melissa De Genova, and the City Clerk. Real-time viewers tweeted about the video feed being cut, and the record for the entire evening originally seems to have terminated at 4:05:06. (Transcription timings belowed are keyed to the video for Item 3, not to video for the entire evening).
Context Below: After Deal’s Motion to Approve the Rezoning
[large omission] So, for those reasons, I will be voting against this app-application.
Thanks very much. Well, as I indicated, I-I have a lot of, uh, sympathy around this, uh, issue of, uh, of the trees. I-I just would really like us to have a second look at this. [clears throat] It does make a difference whether there’s mature trees or-or-or not, and, uh, I would like our city arborist to be involved in this. Uh, not that I don’t think that the one, uh, the developer has is, uh, not professional. But I really do think that it would be, uh, helpful to have our own city arborist, uh, look at this. I-I don’t know why the Park Board are not interested in a park. That-that’s too bad, actually. Um, but they have a budget, and I suppose this would be, uh, a fairly high ticket item for them. But one person did, uh, say, please stop and table this and have a second look at this. Uh, and uh, and I’m inclined to do that. Um, and maybe there’s some other, uh, issues we can look at at the same time, but, my real concern is because so many people from the neighborhood talked about how important that was, and how important the two parks were near them. So I would like to refer this back, uh, to staff and ask them to —
[Voice: Point of order]
Sorry, let’s hear what the motion is before you have a point of order. So, let’s hold for a minute. Clr Stevenson, can you just tell us what you’re intending —
Yes, ah, my intent is to have staff, um, uh, have-have another look at this whole issue of the trees and have our own, uh —
So you referred the motion to — you’re referring to staff for, what, and to when to report back —
I-I-I only want a month’s time. I’m, uh, sure that there’s all sorts of pressures, but, uh, I don’t think a month is too much, to come back —
Not, not to the merits of the motion, just —
OK. Ah, thank you. In July, uh,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
at this point video splicing skips back to Stevenson above at
… “helpful to have our own city arborist” [etc]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[Stevenson continued] with a further detailed report — [Louie: OK] — in particular in regard to this.
Now in regard to the point of order from Clr Carr. What was your point of order? [indistinct voice — apparently problem with microphone switch-on] Now, just a minute. There you go.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, in previous meetings where I’ve tried to refer a partic — a public — an item at public hearing, I was informed that that is not allowed, and so I would like a ruling from the City Clerk. Um, only — we can only refer — my understanding, uh, is the discussion and the decision to a future council meeting — not refer back to staff.
Thank you. Um, it’s actually a ruling from the chair, and advice from the Clerk. So, Madam Clerk, can we just get some advice from you? [long pause] Just give us a couple of minutes here.
[During this 2-3 minute period of silence, the City Clerk rummaged and ruminated, and then engaged in a lengthy whisper huddle with Louie]
So, after [long pause] let’s take some advice from Mr Munro, if you have it, ah, based on your experience. Just before — just before I rule on the matter — here’s-here’s my sense is that we — it would be for further advice from staff rather than, um, hearing further from the public on the matter, and so, when we’re — if it was to defer a decision and-and seek further advice from staff that would seem to fit a pattern, and that — uh, of previous council asking for advice, but what is-is, does — [indistinct voice] Mist-Mr. Munro has the floor. We are working on a point of order right now. Mr. Munro.
The question, that shall refer to the Clerk in terms of the Procedures Bylaw, um, and I don’t know it intimately to, to really, um, say either way.
OK. Thank you. Uh, absent, uh, any further advice from s-staff on that side, I will rule, uh, that it — the motion *is* in order for those, as for, for those reasons [clears throat]
— [Carr?: Different rules for you guys and us.] —
Your motion to — Yes. I’ve heard you, Clr Ball.
Ah, you have often re-, referred to custom in this chamber, and you have consistently over the last many years told Clr Carr and others [Louie: Clr Ball —] that they could not refer dur-, after a public hearing — that they could not do-, do this, and this —
Two-thirds majority to overrule the ruling of the chair. In this case, that was not present.
In a pub — [microphone cut?]
Thank you, Clr Ball. Um, that’s is not the case. It has not told Clr Carr that, ever before, in fact. Not myself, so — So, what I will say is that, I’ve ruled — that Clr Stevenson’s motion which is to seek more information, so —
[indistinct other voice] OK. Clr Carr has challenged the chair [pause] and I’ll just move to the question then. Shall the chair be sustained? All in favor? Those opposed? The requisite votes are there to sus-sustain the chair. Thank you. So, the motion is — [indistinct voices] It requires a two-thirds majority to overturn the ruling of the chair, I’ll remind Council members.
So. Clr Stevenson, your motion to refer — [long pause]
Clr S-Stevenson. Clr, uh, Ball. [indistinct voices] Uh, if you’re unfamiliar with the rules — and for the public, just for your benefit — the rules of the, of — parliamentary rules that we follow under the Procedure Bylaw requires that if a chair has made a ruling, that if someone disagrees, or a member of Council disagrees, that it requires a two-thirds majority overule the, the ruling of the chair. In this case, that was not present, and there — therefore the ruling of the chair is sustained.
I will remind, um, everyone that this is a request for further information on the matter so we can make a, I think, a — a full decision based on full facts, and there was con- some concern, if I understand it, that the arborist was an external arborist rather than, ah, a person on staff with the City that could give that information, and that’s what Clr Stevenson is asking for in this instance. So, if you have issues with asking for further information, certainly you can vote against the referral, and, uh, we will proceed. But Clr Stevenson — it’s absolutely open to him to move that motion.
Clr De Genova. What is your point of order? [long pause] Cou — [Voice: Mike]
— and now that we’ve been told that we could have referred, but at the time — and I’ll pull up the tapes — that we were told that that we couldn’t refer —
Let me — let me rule on your point of order. First — first of all, we are in a separate public hearing, and, in this ins-instance, I have conferred with the Clerk, and, uh, my decision has been made and so I’ve ruled on the matter and so your point of order, which is again, uh, before us, to discuss the ruling is out of order.
Clr Stevenson, did you have anything further on your referral motion? [indistinct voice] Clr De Genova. You’re challenging the ruling of the chair on your point of order. Is that correct? OK. So I will — Madam Clerk, do we have that? Ready for the challenge [to the] chair? Shall the chair be sustained? All in favor? Those opposed? Ah, those opposed, ah, do not have the sufficient weight — ah, sufficient number of votes, so the chair is sustained. OK? Clr Stevenson.
It’s three to four, sir, there’s a chair that gets to vote as well. [indistinct voice from chamber] No.
No, no, we’re not — we have not sir. [indistinct voice from chamber]
Sir, there’s been no decision. At this point in time we’re making a decision on whether or not we should refer [pause] the matter.
Clr Stevenson, do you have anything further?
Clr De Genova are you leaving the chambers? [long pause] OK. [long pause] So — [long pause]
[Shout from chamber: What a zoo!]
Yes. [indistinct shout] Apparently. OK. So apparently we have lost quorum. Madame Clerk, could we poll the councillors that have left the council chambers, and see whether or not —? Uh, yes, could you — [long pause]
It is 10:21 pm. Clrs Affleck, Ball, De Genova, and Carr have left meeting and we have — and this has resulted in the loss of quorum. Under the Procedure Bylaw I declare this meeting adjourned.
OK. Thank you. [shout from chamber] I apologize. Unfortunately we have lost quorum and we cannot conclude to a decision this evening — [indistinct voice] and we will see — what, how, uh to proceed after, uh, taking further advice. Thank you.
The notice copied below was issued today. The staff report referred to is available at
Note: a policy report does not offer an opportunity to speak to Council. Typically such a report is referred to public hearing at a later date (likely mid-January 2016). Eye on Norquay comment will be posted after further analysis.
from: Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Program date: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:04 PM subject: Norquay Apartment Transition Area - Proposed new zone (RM-9A) to replace rezoning policy mailed-by: vancouver.ca Dear Norquay community member, December 9, 2015 — Further to the community open house held in September 2015, staff have prepared a report to Council recommending that new zoning (RM-9A/9AN) replace the existing “Norquay Village – Apartment Transition Area Rezoning Policy.” The staff report is now available on the City’s website (See Policy Reports, Item #3). City of Vancouver 453 W 12th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4 email@example.com You are receiving this email as someone who has expressed interest in Norquay Village.
As detailed in the notification copied below, an open house on this proposed major site redevelopment was held on 4 November 2015. Panels from the open house and the development application can be viewed at
Following is the formal comment that we have made on the development application, based on the application, the materials presented at the open house, and discussion with developer agents and planners.
November 8, 2015
We are disappointed that more detailed information on this proposal was not available at the Open House held on 4 November 2015. There was no real model, and most questions to the architect received a standard response indicating that detailed planning had not yet occurred. If this were a Pre-App Open House, this would be understandable. If this is to be the only Open House opportunity for the public to respond, it seems premature and inadequate.
On the basis of the limited information available, we offer the following comment.
1 — Building Form
In general, the proposed building form is consistent with the Norquay Plan. We like the building form proposed on the “Photorealistic Visualization” board. The wider vertical and horizontal separation of windows on the tower, and the brick finish on parts of both the tower and the 4-storey portion of the development, are an improvement to the design. We find it difficult to visualize the appearance of the front of the 4-storey portion, and were hoping that a model could help us to do this. The face of the building might look more unified if the balcony railings on the 2nd and 3rd storeys were to be made of a material more visibly substantial than clear acrylic. The pedestrian connection between Kingsway and the lane appears to be adequate.
Our preferred color scheme is:
(a) Tower. We propose that the primary color be light gray, similar to the color seen in the “streetscape” file on the CoV rezoning application web site. White is less suitable because it can look dirty very quickly, and makes the building appear even more massive. If the glass is to be tinted, we prefer a very light blue or very light gray (definitely not green!)
(b) Four-storey. We propose dark blue as a primary color.
(c) Brickwork. We propose that the brick be red.
2 — Interior Layout
Information on interior layout was minimal. Many of the suites labeled “2-bedroom” do not seem to have enough windows to allow for 2-bedroom suites. The proposed amenity room is poorly located, has a problematic shape and too few windows, and is too small for the size of the development. A solution would be to put a larger room with more windows on level 5 beside the rooftop garden.
3 — Allocation of Community Amenity Contribution
To date Norquay has received no substantial amenities from a considerable amount of development under the Norquay Plan. The 37 daycare spaces at 2300 Kingsway (far fewer than there should have been) and the redevelopment of Norquay Park (paid for mainly by federal stimulus grants) were both funded outside of the Norquay Plan.
It is important for Norquay residents to be able to see that the rapid densification of their neighbourhood is actually bringing some of the benefits that CoV has promised since the planning process began in 2006. It would be very discouraging if the CACs from this development were to be sequestered in the Norquay Village Amenity Reserve Fund, where $3 million of the CACs generated by Kensington Gardens is already languishing and depreciating. All of the CACs generated by this development should provide amenities immediately.
The three top priorities identified in the Norquay Public Benefits Strategy are:
1. Community space at 2400 Kingsway. This space is to be built when the site is redeveloped, something unlikely to happen soon.
2. The Renfrew Ravine Linear Park. A concept plan for this park is currently being worked on.
3. Redevelopment of Brock Park and Slocan Park. Brock Park has been identified as a priority because there has already been so much development nearby. The Renfrew Ravine Linear Park and Brock Park are approximately equidistant from the site at 2395-2443 Kingsway.
We propose that the CACs from this development be allocated to the Renfrew Ravine Linear Park. CoV has said that the park will be built in modules, so that individual parts can be fully connected when all the necessary properties have been assembled. We would like to see at least one new module (i.e. one that does not incorporate land currently being used as a community garden or orchard) built immediately. If this module cannot be delivered by the end of 2017, the CACs from this development should be allocated to the renovation of Brock Park.
Jeanette and Joseph Jones
A developer has applied to rezone three adjacent single-family-zoned properties at 2312-2328 Galt Street to CD-1 in order to construct a 41.5 ft tall building at an FSR of 2.25 to contain 28 secured market rental units and 24 underground parking spaces.
The City of Vancouver is holding a “Community Open House” on 15 April 2015 from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm at Renfrew Community Centre — Room 112 — 2929 East 22nd Avenue.
Eye on Norquay has prepared a separate posting about Galt Street Sidewalks, an issue already identified as a matter of great concern. (More general comment will be provided after the upcoming open house.)
The two most important City of Vancouver policies that apply to this rezoning application are
Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre — Apartment Transition Area Rezoning Policy
Rental 100: Secured Market Rental Housing Policy
On-Site [Low-Visibility On-Ground] Development Proposal Sign
2312-2328 Galt Street on 11 April 2015
To see the correspondence that is replied to below, see the previous posting titled Going Through the Motions. (The Rezoning Applications web site now [12:30 am March 28] shows a rescheduling to 15 April 2015, but the file for 2312-2328 Galt Street still shows the old date.)
* * * * * *
from: Jackson, Brian (PDS) to: "Joseph Jones" cc: "Robertson, Gregor" , "Reimer, Andrea" , "Deal, Heather" , "Ballem, Penny" , "Munro, Kent" , "Naylor, Michael" , "Zeng, Yan" date: Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM subject: RE: Open letter to Brian Jackson on Notice of Rezoning Application and Community Open House for 2312-2328 Galt Street mailed-by: vancouver.ca
Dear Mr. Jones,
Thank you for your letter concerning the date for the Open House for a rezoning application for 2312-2328 Galt Street. We have taken immediate action as outlined herein.
You are absolutely correct that this date is not appropriate. It is not the City’s practice to schedule consultation events immediately around long weekends, statutory holidays or other significant cultural or religious observances. Staff normally schedule around these known dates; in this particular case, in the haste to secure one of few room bookings at the Renfrew Community Centre, there was an oversight in recognizing that the Friday following the available date was a statutory holiday.
Immediate steps have been taken this morning to reschedule the open house to a more suitable date. We know that the community prefers to have such events at the community centre but it may need to take place at a different venue because of limited availability at the Renfrew Community Centre in April. In any case, residents will be informed of the new event details.
Thank you for bringing this error to our attention and we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience that this may have caused you. It would be most helpful if you could assist in getting the word out to the community about our error on this by posting this note to your website.
Brian J. Jackson, MCIP
General Manager, Planning and Development Services
CITY OF VANCOUVER | [p] 604 873 7034
* * * * * *
from: Joseph Jones to: "Jackson, Brian (PDS)" cc: "Robertson, Gregor" , "Reimer, Andrea" , "Deal, Heather" , "Ballem, Penny" , "Munro, Kent" , "Naylor, Michael" , "Zeng, Yan" date: Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:06 AM subject: RE: Open letter to Brian Jackson on Notice of Rezoning Application and Community Open House for 2312-2328 Galt Street mailed-by: vancouver.ca
Dear Brian Jackson –
Your prompt and helpful response is appreciated. I and others can now look forward to being able to attend a rescheduled and more convenient Open House for 2312-2328 Galt Street.
Since Norquay had experienced a previous problem with a meeting scheduled for Chinese New Year on 3 February 2011, it was not clear that the City of Vancouver had any established practice about scheduling. It is good to hear that such policy exists, and that these two unfortunate instances resulted from oversights.
As you request, I am posting your response to Eye on Norquay with appropriate cross-linking.
The following open letter is being sent to Mayor Gregor Robertson and to all City Councillors. Eye on Norquay rarely gives space to an issue that does not have apparent and immediate connection to Norquay. In this particular case, while the connection may not be apparent, it does seem immediate — not only for New Yaletown but for all of Vancouver, including Norquay. For details on the recent B.C. Supreme Court judgment against the City of Vancouver, see
Supreme Court: Vancouver Development Process Unfair, Illegal
and for the issue addressed in the following open letter see
CANY Letter re: Amendments to the Official Development Plan
2 February 2015
To Mayor Gregor Robertson and All City Councillors:
I write to you regarding item 3 listed as Council agenda for 4 February 2015:
I am especially concerned to see the item followed by this preclusionary language:
Members of the public will have an opportunity to speak to this application
when it has been referred to public hearing.
To try to send a hasty done-deal proposal off to public hearing without being willing to hear from the public seems … I find myself at a loss for words. I gather that “procedure” is the shield for this assault.
To the extent that this document seeks to address fallout from the 27 January 2015 slapdown of the City of Vancouver by the B.C. Supreme Court, the document has to be illegitimate.
To head back into the public arena only one week following a severe rebuke manifests the extremest possible arrogance. The City of Vancouver cannot possibly do anything well-considered in that short period of time.
The message this action sends to perturbed residents across Vancouver is this:
Our jackboots are owned by the jackhammers, and we want them
to stomp you again as fast and as hard as possible.
The real apology message last fall from Gregor Robertson was that he felt sorry that he thought he might run a risk of not getting re-elected. Right?
2013 Annual Report on Community Amenity Contributions and Density Bonusing
Standing Committee of Council on Planning, Transportation and Environment
21 January 2015 — Agenda Item No. 4
• • • • • •
Comment Presented to Council by Jeanette Jones
We have before us a comprehensive report on the CACs that were collected by the City of Vancouver in 2013. I would like to talk a little about CACs that were NOT collected.
The City of Vancouver advertises waiver of DCL fees as one of the incentives for developers to build secured market rental housing. What is less well known is that the City will probably not be collecting CACs on these developments either. In Norquay, we have just become aware that even projects located in zones that were assigned fixed rate CACs will very likely not be paying them if the developer is building secured market rental housing.
This would be more acceptable if the 886 units of secured market rental housing approved in 2013 were indeed “scattered across the city” as the reports states (p. 8). In actual fact, this is not the case. Nine of the eleven developments listed on page 10 of the report are concentrated in only a few neighbourhoods: Downtown, Downtown Eastside, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, and Renfrew-Collingwood. Non-market rental housing, which is exempt from paying CACs, is concentrated in the same areas.
The Downtown is already notoriously underserved with amenities such as parks, libraries and community centres. This also true of the Downtown Eastside, which along with Kensington-Cedar Cottage and Renfrew-Collingwood is among the poorest neighbourhoods of Vancouver.
Does rental housing in Vancouver need to become more affordable? Of course it does. Should Vancouver have more non-market or social rental housing? Of course we should. I am glad to see that Council is concerned with this problem. Should social housing be built primarily in East Vancouver? This makes sense. But this citywide social good — which is what “affordable rental housing” is — should not be built on the backs of Vancouver’s poorest and most neglected neighbourhoods.
The stated purpose of CACs according to the policy is “to help address growth costs, area deficiencies, and/or other community needs and impacts.” (p. 1 of Community Amenity Contributions Through Rezonings, adopted January 20, 1999 and last amended April 29, 2014.) The first guideline for determining specific amenities states that they “must be located in the community in which the rezoning takes place and/or serve the site” (p. 3). CACs are intended to provide real amenities to the specific community that is receiving the increased density. Current practice means that the City does not even collect many of the CACs that should be funding these amenities. Most of the CACs that actually are collected in these neighbourhoods are being spent to address a problem facing the entire City of Vancouver.
This is not fair. Citywide problems should be addressed with funding from citywide contributions. It is those who live in Vancouver’s most expensive residences who can best afford to help provide homes for those who are having trouble finding a place to live. The burden of funding affordable rental housing should not fall disproportionately on those neighbourhoods that are being rapidly densified, at the expense of the amenities that their new residents desperately need. I encourage Council and Staff to find alternative ways of financing affordable rental housing.
• • • • • •
Comment Presented to Council by Joseph Jones
In February 2014, at a technical briefing on the new plan for Downtown Eastside, my attention fastened on a statement that the City of Vancouver would undertake to monitor new development and to report back to Council.
The build-out in our own local area, Norquay, the heart of East Vancouver, receives no such attention. Nor does the build-out in any of the other new-community-plan neighborhoods. Our Vancouver planning machine is designed to wrap up, move on, and do zero monitoring afterward. Recommendation number one: Require ongoing assessment for all new community plans.
So, Jeanette and I now put in a lot of hours trying to do the monitoring for Norquay. This CAC agenda item provides an opportunity for us to express disappointment at how all-take-no-give the Norquay Plan has turned out so far. We now have four years of evidence. What follows is a case-study on large-site quantification to set alongside the macro problem that Jeanette has already outlined.
A little northwest of Norquay, in the first of CityPlan’s only-two-ever “neighbourhood centres,” stands King Edward Village. What did that massive development bring to the area in 2003? A CAC of $251,328.24. That’s probably less than the price of one of those 400+ condos. The money funded relocation of an adjacent existing library. Existing, so not a new amenity. In essence the library relocation was an on-site in-kind sweetheart deal for the developer.
Now on to Norquay. Our first CAC under the Norquay Plan produced a scrawny $105,846. That entire amount disappeared into some vague attempt to mitigate the shadows that 2711 Kingsway’s new tower cast over the adjacent daycare. All in all, this deal did more to damage the neighborhood than to enhance it.
Our second and only other CAC comes from 2220 Kingsway. The $4,011,720 sounds like significant money. But about one-quarter of that total is more in-kind funny-money accounting. Meaning that the stated $1 million plus costs the developer a lot less than book, and at the same time increases value for the project. What’s left over is $3 million cash that vanishes into indefinite sequestration. One thing seems certain. If and when the money re-emerges, it will buy a whole lot less than it would today. Recommendation number two: Require indexing and clear accountability for squirreled-away CACs.
Only ten years ago a community vision promised Norquay that future development would be conditional on “an increase in community facilities and programs needed to serve any population growth generated.” (p. 30, Renfrew-Collingwood Community Vision). We can already see that Norquay is well ahead on the additional population we’re supposed to absorb over a period of thirty years.
Since Norquay Plan CAC is delivering nothing substantial to Norquay, Capital Plan funding needs to fill the gap now. Jeanette and I knocked as hard as we could on that door for Norquay in 2011, and we did the same again in 2014. We still have no idea whether we’re being heard on the other side of that door. I close with recommendation number three: Require significant 2015-2018 capital funding to be directed toward defined Norquay priorities.
• • • • • •