The latest from city hall. As just an average person, I’d like to hear some explanations from those in opposition about how and where oil and gas should be transported.

I’m an agnostic on this issue, but, as someone who observes that it takes oil/gas to run the modern world and even build bicycles, I’d like to hear more than just “Not here, thanks.”

Anyway, the news release:

(Vancouver) – Vision Vancouver is introducing two motions, one at City Council and one at Park Board, opposing the massive expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and outlining next steps to protect Vancouver.

Mayor Gregor Robertson is bringing forward a motion for next Tuesday’s Council meeting that formally opposes the expansion, and asks staff to prepare a by-law requiring pipeline operators and oil tankers using Burrard Inlet, Vancouver Harbour and/or the Fraser River to indemnify the City of Vancouver at levels equivalent to a worst-case spill.

“I am very strongly opposed to Kinder Morgan’s plans for a five-fold increase in oil tanker traffic through Vancouver,” said Mayor Gregor Robertson. “We will use absolutely every tool at our disposal to protect Vancouver’s vibrant local economy and natural environment from the enormous risks posed by the threat of a catastrophic oil spill.”

Vision Vancouver park commissioner Niki Sharma has introduced a motion, scheduled for next Monday’s Park Board meeting, for the Board to formally state its strong opposition to any expansion of the pipeline and fulfill its mandate to preserve and protect our green spaces.

“Future generations deserve the same opportunities we have today to enjoy Vancouver’s treasured beaches, parks, and natural environment – especially Vancouver jewels such as Stanley Park,” said Commissioner Sharma. “A five-fold increase in super-tankers through Vancouver simply poses too extreme a risk to our sensitive local coastline and the strong Vancouver
economy it supports.”

Mayor Robertson outlines his opposition to the pipeline expansion proposal in detail in an op-ed in today’s Vancouver Sun.

Nothing like talking about how to make housing more affordable to get people going on everything they think is wrong with the world.

One target in the talks: Vancouver’s community-amenity contributions — that money the city asks developers to give back to the city when their land is rezoned to allow them to build more on it than the previous zoning. For about the last year, developers have been grumbling about this practice in Vancouver, even as other municipalities are starting to extract it as well to pay for community services.

Architect/development consultant Michael Geller took a run at this in a Vancouver Sun news story here.

Former city planner Brent Toderian swings back at one of Geller’s main arguments in this message, which he’s sent out to various people:

The main thing to be refuted, is the notion that municipal costs “just
get added onto the price”. Do private sector costs get added on?
Marketing fees? Design fees? No, they get factored into land price
(bringing land price down, as it should be), get dealt with thru
contingencies in the budget it they are higher than expected, or they
dip into profits (usually beyond the 15%). By definition they can’t
just be added to the price, as people will only pay what supply and
demand will determine the value to be. Costs affect profit (especially
if they’ve overpaid for land) and land cost (if they’ve paid a
reasonable price), and viability in weaker markets, NOT price.

This notion, I believe, is a campaign to have ordinary people turn
against public benefits by suggesting they are contributing to
unaffordability. And its working to some degree – amazingly I’m
hearing some ordinary people saying that public benefits should be
waived. Not private sector costs, like high marketing fees in this
city. Only public costs going to the commonwealth. When i remind them
such fees pay for rental and social housing, heritage, parks, daycare,
culture, etc – many of the things that make density livable and
diverse, they usually change their mind, or say something like
“perhaps taxes should be raised instead.” The whole debate is based on
the premise that CAC’s get passed on to buyers. They don’t. This
campaign should be refuted.

As an aside, not sure where they got CAC’s at 85%. Range is typically 70-80%.

I’m reposting this detailed comment from Lee Chappelle, a former property-use inspector with the City of Vancouver, about the Rize development because his post analyzes a key point in its approval. A number of councillors and staff said that the site at Broadway and Kingsway would have been allowed a 150-foot building without a rezoning. Lee says no, below here, and says why.

I’d like to hear others weigh in on the technicalities of this, because this is an issue that has been controversial in other rezonings, especially the West End. I’m not sure I understand the technicalities myself.

In the past, when I’ve seen zoning guidelines that say the limit is X, but that staff has the discretion to go to X + Y feet if the building meets certain community criteria, I have always understood that to mean — the guideline is not really X but it’s much higher. The discretionary part is simply aimed at giving the city and community much more control over anything higher than X to make sure it fits into the neighbourhood. That’s why I never bought the West End protesters argument, which seemed to be that nothing higher than about three stories could ever be built there again. (Hyperbole on my part, I realize, but that’s essentially how it came across to outsiders.)

Now I see this same argument. Any experts?

Here’s Lee’s commentary.

I am a resident of Mount Pleasant and former Property Use Inspector with The City of Vancouver charged with enforcing the City’s Zoning and Development By-Law.

I would like to respond to the remarks made by Councilor Meggs, Yardley McNeil and echoed later by the Mayor in a statement to the press.

The mayor issued a statement shortly after the vote reminding the public the developer could have built a 150-foot building—instead of the 215-foot tower—without having to go before council. This originated from Councilor Meggs’s leading question from the Council meeting, to which the rezoning planner Yardley McNeil responded, “That’s correct..”

It is in fact not correct, just another example of City councilors and staff making it up as they go along to suit themselves. The following is the relevant section from The City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law:

C-3A District Schedule
4.3 Height
4.3.1 The maximum height of a building shall be 9.2 m. (30 feet)
4.3.2 The Development Permit Board may permit an increase in the maximum height of a building
with respect to any development, provided that it first considers:
(a) the intent of this Schedule, all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council and
the relationship of the development with nearby residential areas;
(b) the height, bulk, location and overall design of the building and its effect on the site,
surrounding buildings and streets and existing views;
(c) the amount of open space, including plazas, and the effects of overall design on the
general amenity of the area;
(d) the provision for pedestrian needs;
(e) the preservation of the character and general amenity desired for the area; and
(f) the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant.

The applicable “guidelines” as mentioned in 4.3.2 (a) to which this development would have had to comply under C3-A is The Central Broadway C3-A Urban Design Guidelines,http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/C013.pdf. The relevant section of that document is on page 54, where it clearly defines the parameters for maximum height on this site. As you can see, a 150 foot building could NOT be built here without a rezoning, which is directly in contradiction with one of the City’s core arguments when approving this project. It would have to descend down from the Stella building at 12th and Kingsway (126’) toward the Lee building at Main and Broadway (78’), so it could only be about 100’ at the outside, and the street wall on the south side of Broadway would be restricted to 30’ not 118’ as the Rize street wall is currently planned along Broadway. In other words, this was an outright LIE, a fitting endplay for a process that has been fraught with manipulation and deception every step of the way. Unfortunately these details are fairly technical so it has been quite simple for Council and staff to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Incidentally this and much more relevant information was brought out at the public hearing however it is obvious that Council either was not listening or doesn’t care.

Lee Chapelle
Mount Pleasant

Divorces rise when the economy is bad. I’d suggest the same dynamic is at play among the region’s 21 mayors, who find themselves being squeezed by demand for more transit from residents, resistance to new taxes and fees from taxpayers, and a province that keeps hacking off more body parts in each go-round to find a solution.

As my Globe story highlighted this week, Langley mayors are deeply unhappy about the announcement from TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis that all the improvements not yet started from the agency’s three-year Moving Forward plan are now on hold.

Although that decision also affects North Vancouver, which now won’t get 15-minute SeaBus service for evenings and weekends, it largely impacts the communities south of the Fraser.

That has Township of Langley Mayor Jack Froese even talking about pulling out of Metro Vancouver and joining up with Abbotsford — a move that likely won’t go anywhere for a long time, since Abbotsford’s efforts to leave the Fraser Valley Regional District have been shut down by the province.

The sad part of all of this is that people in Metro Vancouver largely support the idea of having more transit. (That’s in some contrast to where I am at the moment, Los Angeles, where I heard radio-show commentators yesterday slagging the mayor for his efforts to push transit. LA, they said, operates on the car and no one takes transit except for criminals, so why spend all the money?)

But, since the beginning, the agency has consistently found itself stymied in efforts to find funding models beyond ye olde property and gas taxes. Every time a new tax is suggested, the province, freaked out at the thought of a tax revolt, says no. In theory, everyone agrees there needs to be a new model. In practice, no one wants to take the chance.

Perhaps the NDP, if elected, can use up some political capital early by just putting in a substantively different system.

In the meantime, the pressure is causing mayors to splinter off into different groups — some leading the charge against the evil province, saying if only mayors were in charge, things would be better; some saying mayors should stop trying to do something they have no power to achieve; some unhappy about their region getting shafted; a few still hanging in, trying to keep the herd of cats together and headed toward a brighter future.

All such a shame, because any rational person knows that the cities that thrive and prosper in the coming century will be those that figure out how to build healthy city “bodies,” where people and goods can flow where they need to in the region.

That happens through good planning that facilitates people living in areas with easy access to work and the things they need to get to. Inevitably, it means good transit systems, which are like the veins and arteries of the metropolitan body. Building for cars only is like asking for cholesterol build-up.

The Rize tower has been approved, with some conditions, which I don’t have the full text of here. The essence is that the developer has been directed to make a building that looks “ugly” (Andrea Reimer) fit in better.

Vision/Council is saying major changes are required. The ever-reliable CityHallWatch is calling them cosmetic.

Assessment from this thoughtful group?

Vancouver city council can approve the Rize tower at Broadway and Kingsway today as is and defend it energetically, saying this is a good design that represents the way future development should be done, if it believes that ultimately people will come to point to the building as a good example.

Or it can turn it down, if it thinks it’s too far from the goal.

Or it can modify it, saying, “We’ve listened to the community and they’ve made some valid points. In order to ensure that future communities welcome density, we will ask for changes that make this project work better with local goals.”

That was the way former city planning director Brent Toderian outlined today’s possible choices for council as I talked to him, plus the developer and community group, about today’s decision, coming in three or four hours. (My Globe story here, with a somewhat unfortunate headline in the print edition that overstates Toderian’s point.)

But I have to wonder if councillors are thinking about modifying the design at all. As I looked over the staff memos to council, which were in response to questions councillors put to them, none were about what options council had for asking for any changes to the building.

[Read more →]

Those following on Twitter know that I’m in Los Angeles at the moment, a city that I love in spite of all of its problems.

This is my fourth trip here in recent years and I discover new things all the time. This time around: Echo Park, the neighbourhood where we’re staying. Yet another of the great neighbourhoods that LA has, filled with local small businesses, parks, strong community organizations and a sense of place, bike lanes and more.

And for my purposes, ideal. Two miles from downtown, so I can get to culture stuff there — and there is a lot. Four miles from the heart of East LA, so a quick dash for antojitos, poblano stew and more. Five miles to the heart of Los Feliz and Thaitown near East Hollywood, giving me access to Skylight Books, Cafe Figaro and Jitlada.

The mayor said at the American Planning Association conference here that Los Angeles has a weak centre but many strong neighbourhoods, which I’d note makes it more like a European city that many others in North America. While we tend to think of sprawl as defining LA, that’s true more of the outlying suburbs than the city proper, which is filled with low-rise apartment buildings and small bungalows on tiny lots in many parts.

As various LA lovers have noted, too, the density here is actually higher than places like Portland, so beloved of planners, and it has fewer freeway miles per resident than many other North American cities.

What I like about it is the sense of a city of small working-class neighbourhoods that are dominant here, behind all the glitz of Beverly Hills. Every one has interesting history and buildings, often along with ethnic enclaves and mixes that make Vancouver look positively whitebread.

That was all on display Sunday, as me and a couple hundred thousand of my new friends rode our bikes through 10 miles of streets shut down for a huge ciclovia ride.

Everyone was there: an elderly Japanese woman riding her bike holding an umbrella with one hand, whole Mexican families with kids on tandem bikes, young Mexican and black teens with boom boxes playing pop-y Latino or other music in their packs as they zipped through the crowd, the professional guys with their $5,000 bikes and cycling-jester outfits, and more.

Funny how LA can organize something like this, when Vancouver — the alleged king of bikes and green — hasn’t yet.

I’d been asking for explanations of what the limits are on what council can do when it makes its decision about the Rize tower Tuesday.

Here is the answer from former senior planner Trish French below. I’ve checked with others too, who remind me that the point of a public hearing is for council to listen to the public and suggest changes based on what they’ve heard.

Changes that flow out of the public hearing are “legally defensible,” they say. And it’s not adequate for council to say (or think), “Oh, it’s been a long process and we can’t really ask the developer to go back and do a whole bunch more work at this point.”

Council can scale down a project, but can’t scale up without another public hearing.

Here’s what Trish had to say:

Just a technical answer to Frances’ question about what Council can do at this point. based on my past experience with major rezonings.

Legally Council can approve or refuse the rezoning application as it stands; or they can approve it with any revisions they choose to impose. For example, they could reduce the height and density, place limits on the uses or size of retail units etc.

Then a revised scheme that meets the revised parameters would be prepared by the applicant, for Development Permit Application. There could be public consultation on the revised scheme before any decision on the DPA. In CD-1 rezonings like this, not only does the Development Permit Board need to approve the eventual form of development, but so does Council, before the zoning is finally legally “enacted”.

In practical terms, Council modifications at the time of a rezoning decision are usually modest, i.e. they are modifications to the proposal under consideration, not radical change to it.

What is often happening between the end of the public delegations and Council’s debate and decision is that Council is discussing with staff what the options for modification are. Staff might or might not discuss with the applicant how open they are to changes. (Council is not supposed to be talking to the applicant at this point in the process.) If Council (i.e. the majority, in caucus discussions) wants changes, they (with or without staff help) will draft wording to revise the proposed zoning bylaw. This is presented in the form of a motion at the Council, during their debate on the rezoning.

The Vision council will be making a decision Tuesday, after five nights of public hearings and 130 speakers, what to do about the Rize tower rezoning at Kingsway and Broadway.

It was clear from questions put to staff at the end of the last night of public hearings that councillors and the mayor are trying to figure out what their options are for this project. (Complete details on their rezoning application here.) There were a few comments and questions about whether design issues could be dealt with in more detail at the urban design panel and development permit board.

It seemed to be that there can be much more design work done. But council will have to decide on the height and density. I’m not clear myself on whether the issues of a big-box store, the questions about truck traffic on the 10th Avenue bike route next to the building, the suggestions that artist space should be put back in the building, and other things like that are finalized in a council vote on a rezoning.

I’m sure councillors have been thrashing this over extensively and been getting lots of opinions, because this is a project that many see as one that will tell developers and residents how the city plans to handle the difficult job of increasing density throughout the city while respecting resident requests to have it done in a way that meshes with their neighbourhoods.

From all the discussion I’ve heard here and elsewhere, it’s not going to bode well for the future if councillors opt for an answer based on some of the simplistic arguments made.

Voting full approval because “if we don’t, it will kill density and affordability in the city” won’t fly, because that is a message to residents that developers can put in whatever they want anywhere, as long as they’re claiming that they’re creating density near transit.

And killing it won’t fly.

For one, not all opponents to this particular project are opposed to development. There’s one group that is. The people in that group think any development other than social housing leads to gentrification, higher rents for low-income residents and eventual displacement.

But many, many other opponents say they welcome development (some mentioned they live in new projects in the area) but that they want to see new development that meshes with the neighbourhood, not a replica of Yaletown-style towers.

But let’s have an airing here of what council’s options might be besides the two obvious and unsatisfactory ones are: Yes, without conditions for the project. Or No, turn it down.

I’m especially wondering if the people on this blog who are knowledgeable about city processes could weigh in to say what council might be able to do besides an outright rejection or acceptance. I’m not clear myself on what those might be.

Just one thing after another at poor old TransLink.

Hard to believe how much people loved it during and after the Olympics, when it was whisking around a couple of million people a day.

Now it’s everyone’s favourite whipping boy, with lots of blame being heaped on and not much discussion about how this region is going to move increasing millions of people around to their jobs and homes.

Anyway, here’s the latest. In response to Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom’s letter delivered Tuesday, putting in writing the province’s refusal to consider any more gas-tax increases, a vehicle levy or a regional carbon tax (for now, at least, on that last), the mayors have voted to call for a cancellation of the improvements that those mechanisms were supposed to pay for.

Three south of the Fraser mayors voted against that, as you’ll see in the story. If you’ll recall, those improvements were part of a total package designed to give something to everyone in the region. Mayors didn’t want to have a supplementary budget that only had one item: the Evergreen Line and a gas-tax increase to pay for it. So they added these other elements.

And, just to continue catching up, this follows on the report from Transportation Commissioner Martin Crilly, who turned down Wednesday TransLink’s request for fare hikes above its allowed limit. Crilly commissioned a report to support that, whose 103 pages closely examine its costs, particularly for buses.

That report is here. My far less comprehensive story on same is here. I will add, for you to contemplate while you’re reading, that report looks at TransLink’s spending from 2006 to the end of 2010 — the period that the commissioner was able to get the completed statistics for.

Those statistics are what led Crilly to say that TransLink’s productivity and costs per service hour are out of line with transit services in other cities. He noted that it costs Vancouver $130 per service hour, second only to Toronto.

But as TransLink planners noted in a technical briefing afterwards, that period was a time when the system was expanding rapidly. It’s typical that costs per rider or per hour of service will climb at a time like that, as the service expands but the public hasn’t totally caught on to it yet.

We tend to think that all transit improvements are like the Canada Line — millions of people jump on the minute the doors open. But most transit improvements don’t work like that. It takes a few months or even a year or two before people realize that their options are improving.

The number of people boarding per day and the costs per passenger started showing signs of improving in 2011 and more is expected in 2012.