City council to be presented with new proposal for mix of residential development

Rebecca Tebrake
Sun

City planners are presenting Vancouver city council with a dramatically changed proposal to develop the northeast shoreline of False Creek.

Their report, which goes to council today, calls for two-decade-old plans for strictly commercial development of the area — the last major undeveloped piece of False Creek shoreline — to be abandoned.

Instead, it proposes a mix of residential development — four million square feet to house about 7,200 people — along with recreational space, entertainment venues and commercial space that could include hotels, retail, and even a casino.

The city launched a land-use review after coming under pressure from land owners in the area — which stretches from the Cambie Street Bridge to Quebec Street — including Concord Pacific and other major developers, to zone it for housing.

The provincial government added to the pressure by announcing plans last year to upgrade BC Place Stadium and the surrounding area, prompting developers to ask for clarification of future land-use policies.

As well, Premier Gordon Campbell announced last May that a new Vancouver Art Gallery would be located on northeast False Creek.

“We have recognized this is a reasonable place for residential, but it’s going to have a very different type of livability,” Brent Toderian, the city’s director of planning, said in an interview Monday.

“It’s going to have congestion and traffic challenges, noise issues and a very high activity level.”

New housing could surround BC Place and GM Place and line Pacific Boulevard and the Carrall Street Greenway.

Developers will be required to advise prospective buyers about noise from vibrating bass at concerts, rowdy football fans and honking cars leaving hockey games.

There will be no major new road access into or out of the area; planners are proposing population increases be served by transit.

The report suggests leaving 1.8 million square feet for commercial development. Toderian said that is reasonable, even in a recession.

“Job space is built on seven-year cycles. It assumes ups and downs in the market,” he said.

The proposal includes a nine-acre extension to Creekside Park, a new sports park for teenagers, and open space along the water. However, even with these features, it falls short of the city’s goal of 2.78 acres of park for every 1,000 people.

The report says landowners PavCo, Canadian Metropolitan Properties and Aquilini Development all support the new plan and want to move on rezoning.

Concord Pacific, the largest landowner, has expressed concerns about the amenities each landowner would be required to provide to the city as part of the development.

“[Concord] wants to avoid being burdened with expectations or additional requirements on its land that is generated by individual rezoning, ahead of a comprehensive plan,” it said in a letter to the city.

A second report on residential mix and community facilities is expected in July.

“We’ve got many important questions about this,” Coun. Geoff Meggs said Monday. “There will be a lot of opportunity for public comment.”

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Development plan met city bylaws but council exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the project based on ‘vague’ public opposition, court finds

Kelly Sinoski, With files from Mary Frances Hill
Sun

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered White Rock city council to issue a development permit for a six-storey building after finding the city unlawfully rejected the project because of public opposition.

Justice Janice Dillon ruled Friday the city acted “in excess of its jurisdiction” when it refused to give Jacqueline and Robert Yearsley permission to build a condominium and commercial project on Victoria Avenue in the city’s waterfront business district.

The Yearsleys, who own Sausalito Bed and Breakfast, said they have been trying since 2005 to get city approval to redevelop the land.

Their plan met all the city’s bylaw and zoning requirements. But the city rejected the application, citing its design — saying it was too high and out of character with the neighbourhood — and public opposition to the project.

But the judge found the city went far beyond its scope in considering the project and didn’t give adequate reasons for rejecting it, noting “reliance on public opinion is not a relevant consideration if it is not linked to legitimate factors within the zoning bylaw or the [Official Community Plan].

“Council acted to refuse the application because of unspecified, vague stated concerns that are not referenced in the OCP, including implied concern about height, regardless that the proposed building was within the height requirements of zoning and OCP guidelines…,” the judge stated.

The Yearsleys said Sunday they were elated by the judgment, which wraps up a suit filed in June last year. City council will discuss the judgment in a closed meeting today, said Coun. Mary-Wade Anderson, who refused to comment on the court finding.

The city has, however, issued a statement saying a development permit will soon be issued for the property, which is set one block back from Marine Drive and is zoned commercial/residential.

“I’m feeling pretty vindicated,” said Robert Yearsley, a realtor who has owned the Victoria Avenue property for 20 years. “It’s a pretty major thing . . . I had no idea, having zoned property, that I’d face this kind of obstruction and unlawfulness. All my rights were trampled on.”

Yearsley claims that prior to the suit being filed, the city, which passed its Official Community Plan last September, tried to change the law and develop new guidelines in hopes of preventing the project. He said the city owns the property next door.

“What the councillors wanted to do was to try and override the bylaw by imposing their personal likes and dislikes,” he said. “This is hopefully going to be able to lead to a standard where developers and municipalities have no excuses when they evaluate a project.”

The proposed development would replace the existing bed-and-breakfast, which is two storeys.

Although the six-storey building is within the allowable height, most nearby buildings are three to four storeys. The project is allowable, however, because the property slopes upwards from the front street side toward the back. The development would consist of 804 square feet of commercial space with 19 residential units.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun