Dunbar News

By Carol Volkart

The Villages Plan, a hot topic at two overflow meetings in Dunbar last month, is now shaking things up at City Hall.

Facing a firestorm of anger about the plan, members of a council that for the past 18 months has been pushing it enthusiastically along the path to approval, suddenly have a lot of concerns.

In their questions to staff at the start of a July 14 public hearing on the plan to create 17 new villages across the city, some councillors appeared to be reading from the Top 10 list of its harshest opponents.

Will it raise taxes? Is it too big? Will it kill existing retail? Will it destroy the tree canopy? Will it provide affordability? Where are the design guidelines? Why are some properties being frozen, their owners left in the lurch?

Those are exactly the concerns of residents who have sent the city more than 2,000 letters of opposition, who jampacked a City Hall viewing room for the July 14 hearing, and who violated city protocol by applauding their most passionate speakers.

Councillors from various parties poked holes at the plan, with ABC Couns. Peter Meiszner, Lenny Zhou and Sarah Kirby-Yung leading the charge. The Green’s Pete Fry and Vote Vancouver’s Rebecca Bligh, both running for mayor in this fall’s election, chimed in. OneCity’s Lucy Maloney seemed more supportive of the plan, tossing marshmallow questions to staff so they could explain its benefits.

Staff clearly knew they were heading into muddy waters, stating at the meeting’s outset that they had already prepared amendments around one of the most controversial issues – the plan to effectively freeze about 600 lots in core retail areas by requiring any future development to be four-to-six-storey apartments with ground-floor retail.

Many of the councillors’ other criticisms prompted staff to remind them that staff were following council’s directives, including a 2023 motion introduced by Mayor Ken Sim to accelerate the Villages Plan.

Is the lot freeze even legal?

Despite staff’s assurances that it had already prepared options to deal with the frozen-lot complaints, Meiszner led off his questions by asking why such a measure had been proposed.

Villages lead planner Kirsten Behler said it was because of the importance of retail continuity “for the viability of businesses and of the development of the high street over time.”

She also reiterated that staff were offering options to the controversial proposal: “[We] can certainly look at some additional flexibility that we can explore and can propose some options to council.”

Coun. Kirby-Yung asked exactly what staff was proposing. “I’m not looking for signals. I’m looking for concrete answers. So what is it that you are suggesting the options are?”

Josh White, the city’s general manager of planning, said the idea is to replace the current proposed rezoning with an amendment “to something like say a rezoning policy. So that would just provide guidance on the type of character, scale, use, flexibility policy intent that through a rezoning process we might consider.”

Kirby-Yung asked whether the freeze proposal was even legal. “[D]oes this infringe on private-property rights because you are telling somebody they cannot rebuild what they already have today?”

The legal department’s Grant Murray assured her it’s authorized by the Vancouver Charter, occurs quite routinely, and there is no entitlement for compensation. “I agree that it’s a little bit unusual that you are rendered not capable of rebuilding the thing that you currently have, but that happens frequently with rezonings.”

Why the aggressive blanket approach?

Both Meiszner and Kirby-Yung raised a frequent complaint from critics about the plan’s massive, all-in-one-go rezoning strategy, affecting nearly 14,000 properties in nearly 600 blocks covering 14 percent of the city.

“Why take such a blanket approach to the villages proposal?” asked Meiszner. “Why not start small in maybe one or two of the villages . . . or potential future villages that have the most potential? Why take such a large citywide approach and I think some people would say aggressive approach?”

Neil Hrushowy, the city’s director of community planning, said it’s a new approach to planning “where the opportunities to provide affordable housing in areas that have had relatively little change was a priority that came out of the ODP [Official Development Plan].”

And he pointed out that council had asked for exactly that.

“The council’s motion in the fall of 2023 did specify all the villages be included in an accelerated program. And so we took that to heart and when we brought the scope to council, we did make some adjustments to reflect some reasonable exclusions based upon either upcoming area plans or future work.”

Noting that whenever council makes a large-scale policy change, it “inevitably” makes tweaks within 12-24 months, Kirby-Yung also asked whether there’d been any consideration of trialing one of the village areas “and using the learnings to inform future implementation?”

Josh White agreed that it was a novel, different approach, and said there had been some learning around villages in the Rupert Renfrew Area Plan, but referred again to council’s directive: “[W]e were clearly trying to follow council policy to deliver the program as directed.”

Kirby-Yung: “Okay. So maybe with the direction to expedite didn’t necessarily provide the time to take some of those learnings.”

Kirby-Yung and Bligh both asked about residents’ concerns that their property taxes will soar when their property is rezoned to allow a six-storey apartment on it.

Hrushowy said property valuation is not based on the zoning, but on what nearby similar properties are selling for. Depending on the relative demand for those properties, he said, “property values may go up, they may go down. There’s really no crystal ball way to say that.”

Blair Erb from Coriolis Consulting said there are a handful of housing forms in the new zoning that would put upward pressure on property values, but such housing will be required to include a certain amount of affordable housing. “So, the requirement to provide affordable housing will then effectively erode any land lift.”

Design guidelines to protect privacy and overlook ‘to the extent possible’

Zhou questioned how the villages were chosen, noting they are all very different from each other. “Like Mackenzie village there’s no traffic lights, very small intersection, only one lane in each direction, which is very different from 41st and Granville. So how do we select the 17 villages? What are the criteria?”

When Hrushowy said it’s based on a minimum size of the commercial core, which he thinks was about 40,000 square feet, combined with transit and bike networks, Zhou said Mackenzie village doesn’t fit those criteria. “There’s no transit and it’s not very close to the major-road network. Why is it considered the same village as Cambie and 41^st?”

Hrushowy said there is “diversity of character and identity across the villages and the intent is for that character to be strengthened over time.” As for transit, director of transportation Paul Storer said all villages have transit service, and most of them could get more under a 15-year plan that looks at where transit is needed. But when Zhou asked if there is confirmed funding from TransLink for the villages, Storer said no, and that it would come through future investment plans.

Zhou’s laundry list of questions included whether there will be design guidelines for villages, noting that “otherwise we’re going to run into the same issue as the multiplex policy.” (Fury over the impact of multiplexes prompted council to recently agree to review them, a move prompted by Zhou and Meiszner.) Hrushowy said design guidelines are coming to council next week.

Asked how they’ll protect views and privacy, which Zhou said is a big concern of residents, Hrushowy said the design guidelines “will ensure that new development does respect the privacy and overlook to the extent possible.

“In a growing city, there will be new sizes of buildings that are larger than the previous size of buildings by definition as we accommodate more people. It is unavoidable and so there are limitations to the design but we make every effort to make sure that design and overlook are respected to the greatest extent possible.”

Trees take back seat to housing crisis

Zhou also tackled the thorny issue of the impact of development on trees, a major concern of many of the plan’s opponents. Echoing a point often raised by critics, Zhou asked whether tree protection is “a mandatory requirement or only where it’s possible?”

“The tree-protection bylaw will apply to all new development proposals in the villages area,” responded Marie Lenahan, from development planning. “So that while it allows removal within the building footprint, there’s a replacement strategy through the tree bylaw and that applies to all apartment dwelling redevelopments we see today and it would apply to the villages.”

But when Zhou noted that replacement trees aren’t often the same age or size as those taken down, Lenahan said: “Yeah, we do recognize that sometimes mature trees are removed and the replacement trees are smaller.”

The Green’s Pete Fry got a stiff response when he also raised the tree-protection issue, noting that the floor space ratio (FSR) allowed in the Villages Plan “seems like we’re going into leafy green neighbourhoods potentially and removing a lot of the tree canopy or the permeability in order to facilitate a greater FSR.”

When he asked whether heights could be retained but the FSR reduced, Hrushowy went back to city council’s own directives.

“Generally the FSRs are set to deliver housing. I think this council’s mandate has been over the past four years to make sure that we deliver the much-needed housing. We’re in a housing crisis and so the FSRs reflect the desire to deliver that housing and it’s not an abstract number.”

New housing will be ‘much more affordable than what’s there today’

The affordability of the new housing in the Villages Plan arose several times in the meeting. “So what are you proposing to guarantee affordability?” asked Meiszner, noting that affordability has already been a struggle with multiplexes.

When Dan Garrison, director of housing policy and regulation, said just enabling different forms of housing than single-family homes in villages is an important step toward affordability, Meiszner stepped in, pointing out there was no actual requirement for affordability. It seems, he said, echoing many a housing critic, “we’re just hoping that additional supply will make things more affordable.”

Garrrison replied, “Well, it’s going to be new supply of housing that’s much more affordable than what’s there today.”

When OneCity’s Maloney later gave him a chance to elaborate, Garrison was prepared with detailed numbers. A typical west-side detached home worth $3.3 million is affordable to less than 5% of households in the city, he said, while a two-bedroom apartment on the west side is affordable to about 13%. A rental of that size would be affordable to about 25%, and below-market rental would be affordable to 40%.

“So the kinds of housing types that we’re layering into the village program would vastly enhance housing affordability in neighbourhoods across the city which are currently essentially shut out to households that don’t have very high incomes.”

Plus, he said, in responses prompted by Maloney, the Villages Plan would provide housing for seniors wanting to downsize in their own neighbourhood and increase the number of two- and three-bedroom apartments.

Will villages destroy neighbourhood character?

Bligh said she often hears concerns about the impact of the plan on neighbourhood character, noting that even the photos in the staff presentation are “pretty generic.”

“Has it been considered that with a homogeneous sort of policy that’s across the city 17 villages that we instantly lose that unique character?  …. So I’m concerned, and I think the public, what we’ve been hearing is that there’s a concern that we lose something more than we gain.”

But Hrushowy said many of the main retail streets in Vancouver are actually non-descript one- and two-storey buildings very similar to each other. “And what really gives the individual neighbourhoods the character is the mix of shops, the people who live around there, the type of retail that it is.”

Bligh and Zhou both asked whether the pressure of new development in villages will drive out existing businesses.

But Hrushowy said the city has taken that pressure off by not changing the zoning of existing retail “and really focused the new retail on adjacent properties. And so, in some ways, it’s going to sort of relieve the pressure on those sites to redevelop because there’ll be pre-zoned opportunities right next door for more residential above and ground-floor retail.”

When Bligh suggested doing a pilot on one or two areas where retail is not thriving, you could almost hear Josh White sigh. He reiterated that staff had followed council’s directions in taking a program-wide approach for the 17 villages, and now council can do what it wants.

“Council of course has the choice to decide whether it wants to approve or move whatever villages it wants to. So if it does want to take a more targeted approach, that’s up to council to decide through this process. If it wants to choose a select few to start with, learn from them and go later, that’s something that council certainly can do of course.”

Residents’ information campaign preceded public hearing

Many of the concerns raised by councillors reflect those of residents in the weeks leading up to the public hearing.

They were hot issues at two June meetings in Dunbar, one organized by Smart Density Vancouver and one by the Dunbar Neighbourhood Café. Both were so well attended that they overflowed the Dunbar Community Centre rooms allocated to them and had to move to accommodate the crowds.

After that, Smart Density launched a campaign to inform citizens about the Villages Plan, with volunteers staffing booths in various communities and distributing more than 5,000 flyers. The group, which began with Mackenzie Heights residents concerned about multiplexes, also has a petition with more than 5,000 signatures.

By the time the public hearing began on July 14, the city had received 1,771 pieces of correspondence opposing the Villages Plan, 317 pieces in support, and 48 regarding other aspects of the plan.

Because the hearing is continuing, resuming at 1 p.m. on Monday, July 20, the city is still accepting correspondence and speaker sign-ups. As of noon Friday, the correspondence opposing the plan was at 2,031, the support was at 484, and there were 60 regarding other aspects of the plan. At that point, the number of registered speakers was 261.

Those who want to speak or submit comments should do so before 11:30 a.m. July 20.

1. Sign up to speak– by phone (easier) or in person at City Hall (more impactful):
   https://vancouver.ca/your-government/request-to-speak-at-a-public-hearing-form-1.aspx Submit comments through the online link to count for the public hearing:
   https://vancouver.ca/your-government/contact-council-public-hearing.aspx3. E-mail City Councillors and the Mayor directly (in addition to submitting through the online form above):
   ken.sim@vancouver.ca, mike.klassen@vancouver.ca, peter.meiszner@vancouver.ca, brian.montague@vancouver.ca, sarah.kirby-yung@vancouver.ca, rebecca.bligh@vancouver.ca, lisa.dominato@vancouver.ca, lenny.zhou@vancouver.ca, pete.fry@vancouver.ca, sean.orr@vancouver.ca, lucy.maloney@vancouver.ca, info@jerichocoalition.org
   Cc: josh.white@vancouver.ca, matt.shillito@vancouver.ca, neil.hrushowy@vancouver.ca