A few weeks ago, I wrote about West Van’s efforts to slooowly bring in a few more housing types to the community and I highlighted efforts to start some pilot projects for small secondary houses on large lots, along with a duplex and a four-plex.
I especially focused on a plan by one set of West Van homeowners, Rick Gruneau and Shelley Bentley, to build a small house designed by Barry Downs (one of Vancouver’s leading architects of the last generation) on a large property that they could move into when they retired, while selling off the big house.
Sadly, it seems as though that project has fallen through because of their fears thatseveral members of council are so lukewarm that Gruneau and Bentley could end up spending a lot of money and get turned down in the end. (They had already spent about $18,000 to get to this stage in the pilot process.) They say that it appears West Van has created a pilot project programmed to fail.
Here is the strongly worded letter that the couple sent off, which underscores the problems cities have when they try to introduce new policies while bending over backwards not to alienate any possible resisters.
After considerable discussion Shelley and I have reluctantly decided to withdraw from the pilot project program. Last Monday night’s council meeting was the tipping point. While the OCP amendment needed to move forward with the project was passed (barely) we were extremely uncomfortable with the discussion that preceded the vote. Comments by councilors Soprovitch, Lewis and Smith, in particular, made it appear that council as a whole is insufficiently supportive of the pilot project program to give us the security we need to continue to commit our time, emotional energy, and money to this dream. Indeed, we felt that Monday’s discussion from these three councilors was a tacit insult to all the time and to the professional expertise of the working group committee who evaluated the pilot project “competition” last fall. It was also a slap in the face, in our view, to the work put in by the planning department, and to the department’s recommendations and to us. The fact that some councilors could say there had never been any discussion of “neighbourhood character” in conjunction with these projects is simply astounding. We had written a detailed 20 page proposal including photographs of neighbouring houses, zoning discussion, and maps of amenities and services. We had also consulted neighbours extensively, many of whom are long time friends made over the course of our 27 years in this community, and all of whom were very supportive of our dream. Several even wrote letters of support that were included in our proposal. Even our new neighbours at 6915 Marine Drive, initially said they supported our project before changing their minds over the Christmas holidays. The whole pilot project proposal evaluation process involved extensive discussions of neighbourhood character: by us with our neighbours, by the working group committee who evaluated the proposals, and by planning department staff. There was also an opportunity for the pubic to speak to the proposed pilot projects at the council meeting on December 14th. So to suggest, as one of the councilors did last Monday night, that the pilot projects are premature because of insufficient discussion of neighbourhood character ignores all of the hours of discussion and evaluation associated with this issue prior to the selection of the two projects that were recommended to council.
At one point in the discussion in Council last Monday night, Shelley leaned over to me and asked “what did those councilors who are speaking against the OCP amendment think they were voting on last December? Didn’t they already approve this implicitly when they chose to go forward with our proposal as one of the municipal pilot projects?” These are good questions. When our proposal to build a modest retirement home on our remainder lot at 6801 Hycroft was officially “chosen” as one of the two pilot projects going forward, we were elated. We understood the call for proposals as a competition and we had set out to “win” the competition by putting together the best proposal we could. After council chose our project to go forward as one of two pilot projects endorsed by the District we assumed that we would realize our dream. After all, if there was nothing of consequence at stake in the pilot project selection process, then why have a competition?
In other words, we were under the strong impression that winning the competition meant our project would be built, albeit through a complex collaborative design process where ongoing discussions with the planning department and with neighbours would lead to possible modifications in house siting and design. We believed, incorrectly it now appears, that the “approvals” associated with subdivision and development permits, at the Council level, would be more or less automatic because the project had been vetted by both the a blue ribbon committee, and the planning department, as well as supported by a unanimous vote in Council with all but one member present. Of course, we understood that Council would still have to officially approve zoning and development application decisions, to guarantee that we were living up to what we said we would do in our proposal. But, we assumed this would occur in the spirit that the District as a whole was now fully behind the project and wanted to have it completed. Council’s vote in support of staff’s recommendation to go forward as a pilot project with our 6801 Hycroft proposal was unanimous and we interpreted that as a green light to move forward. We assumed that no responsible municipal Council would approve a process that encouraged individual homeowners to become partners with the District to develop new housing types, and ask them to spend money along the way, only to hang the homeowner out to dry at some point later in the process.
Convinced that we had ‘won’ the competition, we went out and celebrated after the decision on December 14th. The following weekend, we had a community Christmas party attended by more than 20 of our neighbours who had supported our dream to build a little retirement house on our remainder lot. Following closely on the heels of the December 14th Council meeting, we were also celebrating the success of our proposal. Barry Downs was at the party and his drawings and site plan were circulating freely and received numerous positive comments.
Over the past 5 months it has become increasingly clear, however, that we didn’t “win” anything when our proposal was accepted, except to become guinea pigs, at our own expense, in a flawed municipal experiment. As you know, we were supposed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding which laid out the process and outlined everyone’s responsibilities in it. In hindsight, it would have been nice to have an MOU early on that spelled out how contingent the process would would be. You will recall that we discussed a first draft of an MOU with planning staff, but a second draft was never completed. More notably, even the initial MOU draft did not deal sufficiently with the issue of “uncertainty” or risk balanced against the level of investment that would be required to see the project through the various formal approvals. Since being selected officially as one of two West Vancouver pilot projects we have been asked by your department to attend several meetings with our “project team” of professionals who we had to pay. We also had to supply professional engineering opinions in regard to site servicing and Barry Downs has had to spend many hours making revisions to the site plan as part of the “collaborative design process.” In addition, I have spent many hours working with Bill Chapman addressing variance and other issues to create a model for outlining the site specific zoning necessary to make this pilot project go forward.
The level of investment in money alone has been substantial and if we had known in January what we now know we most certainly would not have proceeded any further with the project. Since we became an “official pilot project” last December, and acting in good faith, Shelley and I have spent $18,500 in professional fees, as part of the process. As the bills mounted, and especially when [our immediate neighbours] suddenly changed their minds about the impact of the project on their privacy and began to threaten the municipality, we kept asking for some official level of assurance that the project would go forward. That was naive of us in hindsight, because, or course, your department is not in charge of the political process and can offer no such assurance. Last Monday night’s council meeting did nothing to assuage our concerns that we will be asked to spend more and more money in a process that offers us absolutely no guarantee of anything. For us, this level of financial risk, and the emotional ups and downs associated with the process as it is unfolding, are unsustainable. We are not developers. We are simple homeowners who merely wanted to build a little retirement home on our remainder lot next door.
This is the fatal flaw of the West Vancouver pilot project process as it is currently conceived. It requires that individual homeowners lay out substantial amounts of money to move the project forward, but in an environment that offers absolutely no certainty of any repayment on this investment. This is no problem for developers. Balancing risk versus reward is their business. However, the program, in its current form, is not for individual homeowners like me and Shelley, and it is certainly not what we thought we were getting ourselves into. After having our hopes built up in December, we are now in a state of disappointment and frustration. We still have two children in university and we can’t be wasting any more money subsidizing the municipality’s experiment with new housing types. At this point, we have lost all confidence in the pilot project process and we feel a need to mitigate our damages. [edited] Had we known that approval as a West Vancouver pilot project nonetheless meant the project might be killed later in the process we would never have agreed to participate. [edited] We entered the process in good faith, believing that no responsible municipal government would vote on a pilot project, invite the principals to spend money developing the project, then hold out the possibility that the project itself not be approved at a later date. [edited]
When we walked into the Council Chamber last Monday night I was pleased to see a display of photographs on the back wall taken from Barry Downs’ book “The Poetics of West Coast Modernism.” In that context, the stunning lack of understanding shown by certain council members toward staff recommendations needed to move the pilot project process forward was depressingly ironic. Barry Downs is one of West Vancouver’s treasures and, at 80 years of age, it is not likely that Barry will have the energy to design many more houses. Barry agreed to become involved in our project because he is one of our friends and neighbours, and, more importantly, because he deeply believes in the necessity of infill housing in the lower mainland, as urban and suburban populations increase. Lantern House was his statement to our neighbourhood about how to do this in a creative, aesthetically-pleasing, and site sensitive manner. The house would have made an enduring contribution to the quality of the built environment in West Vancouver. Our greatest sadness in this decision is the disappointment that it will cause Barry. We feel like we have let him down, as well as all the other people like ourselves who embrace the ‘small is beautiful’ mantra in West Vancouver housing. Hopefully, the District will learn something from our case and will develop a more coherent and transparent process for the next round of pilot projects. From the discussion the other day, and notwithstanding the Mayor’s obvious commitment to pilot projects, I suspect this particular Council has neither the vision nor the strength of political will to take the necessary steps forward in this regard. Smaller houses, infill houses, laneway houses and such are inevitable in West Vancouver in the future. Unfortunately, until there are substantial amendments to the current process involving municipal “pilot projects”, I can’t imagine that many individual homeowners will be willing to take the attendant risks.
Sincerely,
Rick Gruneau and Shelley Bentley
17 responses so far ↓
1 MB // Jul 6, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I find this story sad, not just for the proponents, but for Barry Downs who went so far down the road with his clients before hitting a brick wall.
Councils all over Metro Vancouver have to come to terms with the fact about 4 million people will be living here in another generation, and the growth pressures will be way beyond what we have now.
It sounds like Rick Gruneau, Shelly Bentley and Barry Downs had an excellent proposal that addressed in their small but significant way accepting growth while also preserving neighbourhood character.
If you can’t accomplish even one cottage infill in West Vancouver, then what is their alternative solution? A drawbridge?
2 xnexus // Jul 6, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“If you can’t accomplish even one cottage infill in West Vancouver, then what is their alternative solution? A drawbridge?”
The alternative solution will be obvious. To a future council. Just as long as no one on the current council is asked to make a decision.
3 scm // Jul 6, 2010 at 6:31 pm
http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Community_Planning/Major_Projects/4web_Housing_Pilot_Newsletter.pdf
disappointing to hear. the newsletter (above link) made it sound like it was being promoted by West Van and was happening……any chance the couple have over reacted?
4 Michael Geller // Jul 6, 2010 at 8:23 pm
This is very sad for a number of reasons. I am familiar with this proposal since I was one of the 7 short-listed projects, that was eventually reduced to two. While I was disappointed not to be selected, I was not surprised since the property owner with whom I was working had some nervousness about the process.
The scheme designed by Barry Downs was lovely, and I was pleased to see it was selected. The city staff who were associated with this program were very dedicated and helpful…and the program seemed to have the support of the Mayor and most councillors. I am therefore sorry to read about this turn of events.
But I am not completely surprised. Recently a very good proposal to replace three single family houses with three duplexes and associated laneway units by a well regarded West Vancouver builder (Joel Sloan) was turned down by Council, due to neighbourhood objections. This would have been a very good demonstration project.
I guess we’ll just have to wait for the day when those councillors who oppose new forms of housing need alternative forms of housing themselves.
Or maybe the day will come when there are enough West Vancouver residents seeking new housing choices to elect a majority of councillors who are willing to allow the community to age in place, in suitably designed accommodation.
I do feel for Gruneau and Bentley and Downs. Hopefully their letter will result in a change of heart by some councillors, and they can be given the assurances they are seeking to proceed.
5 CM // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:20 pm
As others have noted, infill housing and density are realities and will happen in West Vancouver. A project designed by one of our finest, most site-sensitive architects, with sympathetic clients, would be an ideal starting point. It’s a lost opportunity for the clients, Barry Downs and West Vancouver.
6 motera // Jul 7, 2010 at 12:11 am
Humble homeowners reaping developer profit through site development. It is a pity that they did not have the nerve needed to get this done. Development is not easy, it requires drive and commitment. A good idea and a lovely design is not enough. Politics is politics, the thing was passed, some councilors needed to flap their lips. That is how the game is played. I hope some one else picks up the ball and runs with it.
No, I am not a developer, and yes, I think they overreacted , or quit the process for some other reason. ‘Insult’ and ‘slap in the face’ , they come across to me as pretty childish.
7 philinkits // Jul 7, 2010 at 9:52 am
West Vancouver council should be ashamed of themselves, playing politics at the expense of those who ‘won’ the pilot project competition. It appears council only wishes to be seen to be acting on the worthy recommendations of the Working Group on Neighbourhood Character and Housing, while lacking political will and leadership qualities to allow much needed alternative housing projects to proceed.
And shame on them for disregarding the recommendations of their own planning professionals and for listening only to the ‘silent minority’ of perpetual ‘nay-sayers’ while ignoring the needs of the silent majority of West Vancouver citizens.
8 MB // Jul 7, 2010 at 10:10 am
@ motera: “… I think they overreacted , or quit the process for some other reason. ‘Insult’ and ’slap in the face’ , they come across to me as pretty childish.”
I think you’re totally wrong and offer nothing but insults yourself. They had a well-recognized professional architect with decades of experience guiding them. It’s obvious they were all caught off guard by flop flopping councillors and one neighbour (out of 20) who don’t understand what they were proposing was the most innocuous and ‘gentle’ form of density one can imagine.
Some West Vancouver councillors obviously need more experience in the changing needs in housing in thier own community relative to age, physical abilities and in recognizing their own constituent’s commitment to the community (they weren’t selling out, but needed to finance their staying).
These are traits that should have been recognized and rewarded, but instead got penalized by the naiveté of a minority of persons in power. I hope the proponents have the recourse of appeal, and the energy and resources to carry it out. This issue is too important to WV to ignore.
9 Ron // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm
@motera
Childish or not infinitely bankrolled? I agree they lost their nerve, but is it more childish to back out while you still have retirement coin, or to press on despite evidence of pointlessness?
10 jesse // Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Sad that an innovative project has withered on the vine. But as @Michael Geller alluded (I think), a non-transparent process has risks. For the developer the risks are now obvious. For the city, a lack of transparency will tend to lead to proposals only from marginal applicants going forward.
11 motera // Jul 8, 2010 at 11:04 am
“While the OCP amendment needed to move forward with the project was passed (barely) we were extremely uncomfortable with the discussion that preceded the vote. ”
This project was not blocked by West Van, it was given approval to go ahead. There is nothing substantive in the letter that explains why the cost of continuing is expected to be prohibitive, the design appears to be complete, changes demanded by West Van are not noted, the bulk of the work is likely done. That some councilors voiced opinions that they did not like, that council as a whole did not embrace the project as enthusiastically as they had hoped is not sufficient reason , in my mind , to give up. The council DID approve the OCP amendment. Councilor are obliged to look at things from their own perspectives, and not rubber stamp things. That some politicians were ill informed- hey that’s big news!
12 MB // Jul 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm
@ motera: “That some politicians were ill informed- hey that’s big news!”
There is no excuse for councilors in Metro Vancouver to be so deeply ill informed about modest infill proposals on large single lots which cover the vast majority of land in WV.
Nor about ways to accept growth without driving out their ageing constituents.
13 scm // Jul 8, 2010 at 6:53 pm
i think Motera and I read the same letter. It certainly is not clear why the couple have decided not to proceed other than ????.
14 Stephanie // Jul 8, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Rick Gruneau is a good guy – a thoughtful person and a respected scholar who is definitely not inclined to engage in fits of childish behaviour. I’d look elsewhere for an explanation.
15 Rick Gruneau // Jul 12, 2010 at 9:56 am
A comment about our withdrawal from the pilot project process. All that was approved at the June 7 council meeting that tipped things over for us was the legislative capacity to make OCP amendments for pilot projects. In other words council approved two projects in December without a clear commitment to support the necessary means to mount the projects. If the vote to amend the OCP “for pilot projects in general” had not passed at the June 7th meeting the planning department would simply have no means to mount pilot projects at all. The fact that some council members objected at this stage seemed unbelievable to us. It was like all the previous discussion, recommendations from the Working Group, and earlier votes on the projects themselves hadn’t happened.
Someone mentioned whether we had just “lost our nerve.” I am 62 and looking at living on a modest pension in a few years and I stll have two kids in university. I don’t have the money to be engaged in high risk development games.
We wrote proposal in good faith that was vetted by a blue ribbon committee and recommended by the planning department. When our propsal was accepted in December by a unanimous vote on Council we naively assumed we had the green light to get this project done. But, when a single neighbour, who initially supported the project, changed his mind and kicked up a fuss, we could see the planning department starting to run scared and several council members losing their nerve. We started to feel we could easily spend 50 or 60 k only to have the council fail to approve the development permit or the zoning in the 11th hour. In a divided council, all it would take, in our view, is a meeting where a key supporting vote wasn’t present. So, yes, we lost our nerve. But this loss of nerve was based on a realistic assessment of what was clearly becoming an excessively contingent political process. In addition, the whole process was becoming an emotional roller coaster, as well as too risky for our comparatively modest means.
Notably, as the process unfolded it became increasingly clear that being chosen as a pilot project was giving us some special attention from the planning department, but was effectively meaningless. We were still going to have to get a site specific OCP zoning amendment approved at council at a later date, followed by a development permit at another council meeting. In the meantime we were being asked to pay professionals to do all the work up materials, with absolutely no guarantees, as well as participate in several rounds of community discussion.
Knowing what we know now we would never have submitted a proposal for this ill-concieved program. Until the process is revised I can’t see how any individual homeowner would want to risk it. You’d be better off just to go to the board of variance. At least then you get a yes or no right away and, if the answer is no, you can cut your losses a lot sooner than we were able to do.
16 Pam Goldsmith-Jones // Jul 14, 2010 at 7:57 am
Last week Council voted 6 to 1, at 3rd reading, to amend the OCP to allow for Housing Pilot Projects, provided a proposal goes through the established – but not yet tested – process. I fully expect that the OCP amendment will be adopted by Council this coming Monday (July 19). This is the proper first step and, I believe, quite well supported by the community.
I was very disappointed that the Gruneau/Bennett application was withdrawn. The Downs “Lantern House” and the application still has my full support. Going first is not easy. Creating a process and a policy that honours neighbourhood context and the changing housing needs of families isn’t easy either.
I respect that certainty is needed to invest in a pilot project. That is why I committed to placing the OCP amendment before Council before any applicant went any further down the path. As well, I had expected that both recommended applications would be on our agenda in July for rezoning approval, following the OCP amendment . Council has followed through. We are ready for good applications to come forward.
The community has expressed its interest in trying a few pilot projects. Council has taken a solid first step by amending its OCP. We are learning, and we will endeavour to make positive change by listening to people like the Gruneau/Bennetts, in spite of the turns in the road.
17 WVanner // Jul 15, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Yes the initial pilot process could have been more thoroughly considered… and hopefully there is learning going on along the way.
The risks and uncertainties should be addressed…. and some recognition of the financial and emotional costs to homeowners who take on the leading roles with so much consultation, collaboration and care.
Much better that this leadership be supported for community minded individual homeowners who are invested in their community and want to be a part of its “character” rather than left to developers motivated purely by finding somefinancial gain to exploit and then move on.
It would be appropriate for these “demonstration” projects for instance to offset costs with some financial relief perhaps made available through staff time or, waiving of fees and perhaps offering a freeze on the spike in property taxes that the new additions would bring in….for example freezing property taxes at the original level for say 6 years post completion.
The housing that is being force fit to current bylaws and developer quality margins is not attractive or conducive to neighbourhood character in many cases and in fact, the costs of many “built to code” oversized residences will mean that multiple family earners will be required…. so density will not really be impacted…just demographics.
Lets get on with this most appropriate initiative and let’s recognize that staff collaboration and easing of bleeding edge costs through in kind support for these brave homeowners is a valid and valuable role for a forward thinking municipality.
Let’s build quality small residences that fit peoples needs and lets build them “right”.