Community Vision

D/N Oct 7
Big community vision rally could spark larger strategy
Vision Rally is starting point for the future
Oct 6: Residents urged to take control of their future during rally
Bulletin: Vision will come from residents

I attended the Nanaimo Community Vision Rally on the 5th and was quite impressed with the turnout, 250 plus. While primarily a business oriented group there were also representatives of a diverse number of interests as well as curious citizens. The speakers were quite good and the message that comes across, to me, in looking at a vision for Nanaimo is INCLUSIVENESS and how we can get past the barriers of Left and Right, Corporate and Social, have and have not.

I was not overly surprised in that I knew many of the folks, from all walks, that were at there. I am also quite sure that many of those that I didn’t know recognized me. I have after all been quite active in the community for more than a decade. While there are some that may not like me because of my beliefs that has never stopped me from getting involved; in fact there are times when it has spurred me on. I would hope a good challenge would spur others on as well.

I was asked if this was simply another effort on the part of the Chamber of Commerce to push certain candidates in the upcoming election and I have to say that I did not see it thus. I was informed that the funds from the evet would be going to the chamber but I was also informed by a chamber member that while they would be urging members to get their staff out to vote they would not be endorsing specific candidates. Truth? we will see.

I have been involved with the old Downtown Nanaimo Partnership, now the Downtown Nanaimo Business Improvement Association since around 2002. Part of getting involved was to bring forward and educate about the social agenda in a non confrontational manner which I believe has to some degree been a success. Let’s just say that it is a work in progress, one I am more than willing to continue.

Ivo Beitsma says it well in a post on the Nanaimo Community Vision Rally facebook page “It’s challenging to move a community forward in the face of doubt, skepticism and a spectrum of entrenched ideas.” In his Daily News article Paul Walton: Ideology of the right has failed my favourite quote would be “Democratic socialism is about creating wealth for all; but that depends on a shared ethic of being willing to forsake greed for a greater good.”

I am the eternal optimist in that I believe these barriers can be crossed. I look forward to the next steps in working towards the Vision that could be Nanaimo but that vision, I repeat, must be INCLUSIVE.

PS; peruse the comments on stories from local media reporting the event.
Here is a link to the Whistler 2020 plan that the Mayor of Whistler spoke of.

Zoning Public Hearing & Lobbying

Busy, busy with this one trying to rally the Neigbourhoods to speak up. The following was sent out to Neighbourhood contacts with a couple of developer letters, opposed, and a couple of Citizen letters, in favour. My latest submission follows with the submission of the developer it refers to following it.

Public Hearing September 8, 2011

Please be advised that ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004 received first and second readings on Monday’s August 22nd Special Council meeting. This bylaw now goes forward to Public Hearing on September 8th at 7:00 p.m. in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street.

Public Hearing Notice Scroll down to ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004

Those that support 8.25 metres in established neighbourhoods need to tell the mayor and council, otherwise there is risk that developers will get their 9 meters. What is fair, is to allow a new height of 9 metres in new developments outside of established neighbourhoods where all properties on the same and adjacent streets will be built to the same scale. .

For those of you who may not be aware, the construction industry is planning to have a large delegation at that public meeting seeking to have council increase the height restriction for single family residential houses from 8.25 metres to 9 metres throughout the city.

If you are in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the height of the previous Zoning Bylaw 4000 at 8.25 metres, it is important that your opinions be expressed.

This can be done by:
Clicking on the Public Hearing link below and indicating you are "in favour of the proposed Amendment to retain the 8.25 metre Height Restriction"
http://www.nanaimo.ca/PublicHearing/Default.aspx

OR
Sending an electronic submission (email letter to Mayor and Council) at:
mayor.council@nanaimo.ca

OR

You may wish to attend the public hearing in person.

It is important for residents to be heard.
------
My submission:

Honourable Mayor and Council

I am writing this submission in support of ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2011 4500.004

It has been said that the most important purchase an individual or family will make in their lifetime is their home. People purchase for many reasons the most important being the ambiance of the neighbourhood and views.

On reading Ken Connolly's submission I have to say that quite frankly, I was appalled.

Mr. Connolly has referred to the citizens of Nanaimo, who do not support his position, as being "a handful of bullies", he has also stated these citizens "own self-interests blind them to the realities of the world around them".

Pretty strong language, if I do say so. Seems to me if there's a 'bully' in the group he might like to take a look in the mirror and if those self interests are the very reasons they purchased a home in the first place then should it not be so?

As to realities of the world, perhaps Mr. Connolly has been absorbing too much of Donald Trump, on the TV.

The following is the essence of Mr. Connolly's submission, with the position's reversed, from the position of one whose ‘interests’ might be affected if this zoning bylaw were not to pass. It read's as follows;

With utmost respect regarding the complexities of the decisions you are required to make, I urge council to serve ALL members of our community by accepting the arguments of local citizens who wish to roll back the building height increase allowed for in Bylaw 4500.

You are elected to serve the entire community, and not just a few individuals. You are expected to act with due consideration and a vision for the future well being of our community and its citizens.

Evidence abounds that Bylaw 4500, with the proposed amendments, is well reasoned and will help our community to develop in a financially sustainable fashion for years to come. As stewards of public policy in this community you MUST vote for the benefit of the entire city and approve the amendment.

How tragic it would be if we all looked back on this issue and recalled that this council bowed to the pressure from a handful of developers self-focused arguments at this crucial juncture. Please vote now to serve the citizens of the City of Nanaimo, not a handful of people whose own self-interests and quest for profit blind them to the realities of the world around them.

In closing, this is a matter of fairness and in my opinion that’s an issue you have to address by approving the amendment before you.
------

Developer Submission:

Ken Connolly has sent a Public Hearing Submission Online.
Address: 2664 Willow Grouse Rd, Nanaimo
Bylaw Number or Subject Property Address to Which they Are Addressing Your Comments: 4500.004

Comments: Council and Mayor:
With all due respect and with regard for the complexities of the decisions you are required to make, I urge council to serve ALL members of our community by rejecting the self-focused arguments of a very few vocal citizens who wish to roll back the building height increase allowed for in Bylaw 4500. You are elected to serve the entire community, and not just a few individuals. You are expected to act with due consideration and a vision for the future well being of our community. Evidence abounds that Bylaw 4500 is well reasoned and will help our community to develop in a financially sustainable fashion for years to come. As stewards of public policy in this community you MUST vote for the benefit of the entire city. How tragic it would be if we all looked back on this issue and recalled that this council bowed to the pressure from a handful of bullies at this crucial juncture. To have done so will be to have betrayed your entire constituency by saddling present and future taxpayers with yet higher taxation. Please vote now to serve the City of Nanaimo, not a handful of people whose own self-interests blind them to the realities of the world around them.
Sincerely:
Ken Connolly

Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw presentation

Below is a copy of my presentation to council. On the 22nd three people spoke all opposed to the Height increase in the New Zoning Bylaw. The outcome was that council approved the amendment and actually added a few more of the single family zones. The public hearing is set for September 8th.

More to follow in the next couple of days.

Presentation to Council
August 22, 2011

Tonight I am speaking in support of the three Council Directed Amendments to City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw 2011 No. 4500

Amendment 1
With regards to height; this is one of those properties that I believe would allow for greater height and density with minimal impact on the surrounding area. The fact that the property immediately across the highway and subject of the 2nd amendment, 150 Comox Rd., allowed at one point I believe 26 stories and # 1 Terminal Avenue was limited to approximately six stories has always struck me as not making sense.

Amendment 2
Many people will be overjoyed with this amendment seeing the return of 150 Comox Avenue to park designation though personally I would like to see some stronger means of ensuring it remains a part of Maffeo Sutton Park in perpetuity.

Amendment 3
While far less complex than the previous zoning bylaw, Zoning Bylaw 2011 No. 4500 is still a complicated document. To believe that a few public open houses constitutes significant discussion especially since that significance would have been even less had not an open house been scheduled in Chase River is inaccurate. Those of us that are aware know just how few people tend to show up for these open houses.

Admittedly, in regards to the South End Community Association, we were more informed as our recent neighbourhood plan involved discussion, beyond the public open house, on a number of occasions with City staff regarding the new zoning bylaw. That said, and despite me knowing far more about zoning than I ever thought I would, average citizens are not experts and cannot be expected to be aware of everything within the document.

A simple illustration of the depth and complexity of the bylaw are the revisions, “to correct minor errors within the newly adopted bylaw,” coming up next on councils agenda. If minor errors can be made by those whose job it is to create the bylaw then it is not safe to assume that communication through the open house process will in any way adequately inform the public.

I ask do council and staff really believe the one open house regarding the water treatment plant to be significant discussion with the citizens of Nanaimo on that subject.

Last week I became aware of an e-mail that was circulating encouraging the development community to lobby council to retain the proposed new 9m height designation for R1/R1a zones. As chair of the Nanaimo Neighbourhood Network, and in an effort to bring even more discussion to the issue, I thought it imperative that Nanaimo’s existing neighbourhoods become aware of this and if they so choose lobby council in support of the amendment to, “ensure that the maximum allowable building height within these zones is the same as what was previously permitted.”

Don’t get me wrong, I do not oppose development in general but do believe that in existing neighbourhoods it fit with the form and character of those neighbourhoods. I believe the existing development variance process will serve those needs by allowing neighbourhoods say in the choice of whether to approve or disapprove.

In the realm of communication we all need to look for ways to better encourage citizen participation and awareness.

Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw Lobbying

Many of us have always thought developers have had an upper hand when it comes to lobbying council to get their agendas met. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this, if the opportunity is there then use it. The reality is Neighbourhood Groups and individual Citizens also have that same opportunity, if they so choose to use it. The sad reality is that more often than not they either don’t or wait until it is too late.

A couple weeks ago received the e-mail below, the names of the innocent or not so innocent have been removed, from a friend who thought it would be nice if the neighbourhoods were aware of the context of the e-mail and call to action by the development community. As you can see from perusing this e-mail was sent out as a result of council’s decision to put forward an amendment to the new zoning bylaw to keep maximum height in single family residential to the old standard 8.25m as opposed to the new 9m standard.

I then forwarded the e-mail, without names, to neighbourhood representatives in hopes that they would be willing to pass it on to their lists and galvanize folk, on an equal footing to those the original was sent to, to speak out. I encouraged people to e-mail council and appear at the council meeting on August 22nd if they wish to retain the old 8.25m height restriction, speak out.

I also offered, as chair of the Neighbourhood Network, to take their concerns and appear as a delegation to speak to the issue. As a result I received a number of e-mails back thanking me for the information, the Brechin Group planned to meet to discuss and, as can be seen on the agenda for the meeting, NOCA have already put forward items including this that they would like to see amended in the zoning bylaw. August 22nd Council Agenda

One other concern sent to me was council’s predisposition for “flip flopping” on items brought before them. Examples being, the Westwood Lake R.V. park, the 7-11 in the South End, and also recently moving the borrowing of funds for the Water Treatment Plant to referendum and then at the next council meeting waffling and taking it to the Alternate Approval Process.

It seems too often that citizens do nothing when informed but complain openly once council has gone in a direction they do not wish. The information on this was sent out to Neighbourhoods and it will be interesting to see how this one ultimately plays out.

The following are excerpts from the Staff Report on Monday’s agenda:
———--------------
“Staff does not support the amendments respecting reducing residential building Heights….. “ “The height issue, in particular, was debated at length by the community as part of the Zoning Bylaw review. It is acknowledged that a review of this nature usually is not inclusive of all neighbourhoods in the community, however, there were significant discussions surrounding the changes.”

“At the Public Hearing of 2011-JUN-23, two people spoke in favour of the height increase. Since the close of the Public Hearing, residents opposed to the height increase have sent emails to Council on the topic. Since Council passed its motion directing the height change be rescinded, Staff has received numerous inquiries from the development industry questioning why the change is being rescinded. Given the process that was undertaken to develop the new height restrictions, Staff does not support the proposed change back to the height restrictions found in Zoning Bylaw 4000..”
———---------
Admittedly there were public open houses on the new Zoning Bylaw. This though, because of the sporadic citizen attendance usually accompanying open houses, cannot be considered debated at length. It also has to be admitted that a couple neighbourhoods did have more contact with City Staff on the Zoning Bylaw.

During the work to complete the bylaw the South End Community Association(SECA) did have city staff contact on a number of occasions as they were also in the process of developing their Neighbourhood Plan. As part of SECA developing their plan I learned far more about zoning than I ever thought I would but because of the complexity of the bylaw I would in no way say I became an expert in all its many parts.

This said it cannot be expected that a mere citizen attending an open house is going to pick up on all the nuances of a plan. After all even the City which developed the bylaw is proposing 19 general text and mapping revisions at Mondays Council meeting. If those that developed the bylaw can’t catch everything then how can they expect ordinary citizens to?

Another amendment to the bylaw of note on the agenda:
——---------
“Rezone the property located at150 Comox Roadfrom the Comprehensive Development Three (CD3) Zone to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Three (PRC3) Zone in order to reflect the existing park use of the property and clarify that the City no longer intends to construct high density multiple family dwellings on the property.”
---------——
This is something many of us have been waiting for as these properties were originally used to bait a developer into building a hotel for the convention centre.

The following is the e-mail, developer driven, I spoke of at the beginning of this post that was put out to a list to galvanize the development community to try and get the following amendment squashed:
3. Amend the maximum allowable height of the principal building within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1a) Zone to ensure that the maximum allowable building height within these zones is the same as what was previously permitted within the Single Family Residential (RS-1/RS-1a)) Zone.

——
E-mail:
Sent:Friday, August 12, 2011 11:36 AM
Subject: URGENT..... New Zoning Bylaw Height Reversal

Hello everyone,Last Monday Aug 15th the City of Nanaimo adopted their new Zoning Bylaw 4500.Included in the bylaw is a new 9m (29.53') height restriction....which we've been fighting for years to have done. A group of us worked with city staff to come up with a 9m height and city staff fully supports this increase.HOWEVER....seconds after being adopted, City Council immediately voted in favour to proceed with an amendement to Bylaw 4500, reducing the height restriction back to 8.25m (27.06').

This absurd motion came as a result of one or two people who complained to council that the view from their homes would be affected by a higher height restriction.Councillor Bill Holdom, in his motion, stated that individuals seeking a higher height can simply apply for a variance.

The Amendement is going to 1st & 2nd reading on Mon. Aug 22nd thenPublic Hearing on Thurs. Sept 8th at 7:00pm at the Shaw Aud. in the Conference Center.We must all attend to fight this and also send emails to the council.

WARNING....As a compromise, some are now asking that the new 9m height apply only to future subdivisions. I feel it would be very impractical to establish a zone for just the new lots to take advantage of a 9m height restriction. There are many areas of Nanaimo that have vacant lots and lots with very old (knock down) houses on them that would not afford the opportunity to take advantage of a higher height.

Some background....Years ago we looked at the possibility implementing an increased height restriction for new lots which resulted in the Schedule "H" area using steeper roofs. Unfortunately, this was not effective and rarely was it possible to take advantage of the higher heights. The new bylaw (4500) has abolished this and a 9m height was implemented.

As for "views being protected", it should not be the City's responsibility to protect views...it should be done (and is done) by the Developers. This is the rationale other cities who defend their increase in height restriction. See the doc enclosed that lists the heights of comparable cities in BC (and NOTE: some of these cities measure to the mid-point of the roof which can easily add more than 1.2m to the heights shown).

Most existing subdivisions in Nanaimo, including many older ones have Building Schemes (by developers) with reduced height restrictions to protect view corridors. These would not be affected by a new 9m height restriction.

The height restriction in Nanaimo was 30' (9.14m) up until 1980 when it was reduced to 27' (8.25), where it has remained until the present. Progressively since the 1970's, the size of houses have continued to increase. Ceiling heights have jumped from 8' to 9' (& higher). Also, the architectural styles of buildings have resulted in steeper roof lines. Secondary Suites have made houses bigger too. All of this has resulted in buildings that are practically impossible to keep at, or under 27'. The building industry has been crying out for an increased height restriction for years and it's time for change.

As for the argument that individuals can apply for a height variance if their house is higher than 27'.... as we all know, this is not accurate because to get a variance the applicant must prove "hardship". Size of the building or architectural style of a building can not be used as an argument and will not be granted a variance for height. I'm a home plan designer and been designing plans for 30 years and I've had many clients get rejected in this exact situation even when they weren't in view corridor areas. Therefore the Board of Variance argument is not valid.

I strongly suggest you all look at the Doc enclosed to see how other municipalities have progressed to work with the building industry to adapt to the change in architecture that has resulted over the years. You will notice that even a 9m (29.53') height restriction will still be lower than most on the list. I view Kelowna as a similar city to Nanaimo with respect to size, terrain and view corridors. Kelowna has a 9.5m (31.17') restriction which is also measured to the Midpoint of the roof. This can result in maximum roof peak heights in the area of 10.7m (35'). Kamloops is 15m (49.21').

When the members of our industry along with City staff discussed an increased height restriction we decided on a fair height restriction of 9m, even though there were many in our industry that wanted an even higher height restriction.

Many of us in the construction industry have fought for a higher height restriction for years...always getting rejected by council who sided with the neighbourhood committees.This must now be OUR TIME! We must band together and fight to keep the 9m (29.53') and pressure council to reject the proposed amendment. This could be our last chance to finally get a higher height restriction...let's not blow it.

If you're in favour of a 9m height restriction make your voice heard...don't take it for granted that there will be enough support.Also, forward this email to everyone you know to get as much support as possible.

I recommend you send emails to the Mayor & Council AND also, click on the Public Hearing link to strongly voice your support.....click on BOTH links.We are "supporting the 9m height restriction as outlined in Bylaw4500 AND rejecting the proposed amendment to reduce the height to 8.25m"
Mayor&Council@nanaimo.cahttp://www.nanaimo.ca/PublicHearing/Default.aspxAlso,

I am looking for volunteers to be part of a small delegation to attend the Mon. Aug 22nd meeting (where it will go to 1st & 2nd reading)....if you're interested, please contact me. NOTE: I would still like everyone to attend the public hearing on Thurs. Sept 8th.If you have any questions or need any clarification please contact me.

Sincerely,
Kevin Krastel
Krastel Design Group Inc.
Jenish Home Plans
250-756-1110

7-11 Hopes dashed

I am a bit pissed but having dealt with Nanaimo's City Council for over a decade I really shouldn't have been surprised.

On March 14th in a complete reversal from a majority of councillors asking city staff, on the 28th of February,to prepare an amendment to the Business License Bylaw to allow retail hour restrictions in the South End Community city council, in a vote of 6 to 2, voted against the bylaw amendment brought forward at the council meeting on the 14th. This effectively has squashed any hope of 7-11, when and if constructed, not being open 24/7.

The City's website has apparently caught a bug, Unknown virus shuts down city of Nanaimo's computer systems . More to follow as soon as the City Website is de-virused as I want to post the Videos of the two council meetings etc..

7-Eleven "Oh thank heaven"

On Monday February 14th, Valentines Day, the proponents for a 7/11 at the corners of Nicol & Milton came before council, Council Agenda 7-11 pages 107 – 118 to have their development permit approved by council.

Recognizing that they were proposing the 7/11 be a 24/7 operation, efforts were made by SECA directors, Douglas Hardie and !, to inform council that SECA had proposed, through a letter to city staff on April 13 2010, not having the store open 24hrs and that until we heard about the development comming before council on the 24th had had no contact since that initial meeting almost a year ago.

Flash back to April 2010 when the proponents for the 7/11 had come to the SECA General meeting with their proposed development. The general consensus was that we thought the proposed 7/11 could be an asset in the community. The layout was quite pleasing and the fact that a suite would be built above the store also appealed to members. It was also recognized by many at the meeting that when a 7/11 had been in operation on that very site in the past it had become a “focal point of loitering and disorder associated with mental health and addiction issues in the neighbourhood (quote from letter to city staff).”

As this had been a sensitive issue in the past our primary concerns were:
1). 24/7 operation
2). the possibility of a payphone being placed outside of the 7/11.

In the letter to city staff it was also stated that we looked forward to further discussion.

Flash forward to Monday’s Council meeting on the 14th. No further discussion had happened with the 7/11 proponent and they were proposing 24/7 operation. Due to our concerns expressed by phone and e-mail prior to the council meeting council decided to recommend that the proponent, city staff and SECA meet to further discuss the issue with the outcome of the discussion to come to the following council meeting.

From discussion at the council meeting it would appear that the easiest way to accomplish the non 24/7 operations would be to have been for the proponent to agree voluntarily. The reason for this being that otherwise a bylaw would have to be written that would not allow any 24/7 retail operations in the area.

A meeting was set for February 24th with 7/11, a couple of SECA Directors, City Staff and a representative of the Nob Hill group, whom we invited as they who would also be directly impacted. The Nob Hill group had never until then been invited to give feedback.

At the meeting on the 24th we made no real headway in getting the proponents for 7-Eleven to look at voluntarily reducing their hours. In fact what they did say was that if it couldn't be 24/7 then it wouldn't happen. At the meeting on the 25th Ken Ridell stated that we were projecting what might happen. I say that past experience speaks volumes and that it is more a concern of history repeating itself than that of projection.

And so we come to the Feb. 28th Council meeting, Feb 28, 2011 Council Meeting Video , at which both Douglas Hardie & I appeared as delegations. Council did decide our concerns have merit and as such have asked City Staff to look at acreating a bylaw for the area that would restrict retail service hours, this will in no way affect restaurants. Council also, at the meeting, approved the development permit variances which would allow Ken Ridell and 7-Eleven to start building if they so choose.

Since Mondays council meeting we have heard nothing more about the development.

News Story's:

Bulletin
March 3
Editorial: Store proposal worth discussion
March 2
Debate over 24 hour openings not new
March 1
South End unhappy with proposed 24 hr store

Daily News
March 2
Neighbours feel snubbed by 7-Eleven silence over proposed store
March 1
New 7-Eleven ok'd but may not be able to open 24hrs
Feb 25
Neighbours fear 24-hour store will defeat efforts

Zoning Bylaw

The power of speaking out. The city has graciously decided to set up a meeting in the South of Nanaimo;

All locations:

Tuesday, 2011-FEB-08
5:30pm - 8:00pm
Nanaimo Ice Centre (Lounge #2)
750 Third Street

Thursday, 2011-FEB-10
5:30pm - 8:00pm
Beban Park (Lounge)
2300 Bowen Road

Wednesday, 2011-FEB-16
5:30pm - 8:00pm
Dover Bay School
(Multi Purpose Room)
6135 McGirr Road

Thursday, 2011-FEB-17
5:30pm - 8:00pm
Fire Hall #4
1425 Cranberry Avenue

City - Public Open Houses

As someone who lives and has lived in the South End for a number of years I have often been curious when it comes to the location of City run Public Open Houses around issues like the OCP Review, Parks Bylaw and most recently the Zoning Bylaw re-write. I for one like to participate when possible towards the betterment of my community but I also want accessibility in doing so. I am assuming that many in the community are also like minded

Regarding the Zoning Bylaw rewrite, I have been at a few things where it was discussed so was curious when it was announced at a PNAC (Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee) meeting that there would be some open houses for the public to view the progress to date. What got me even more curiouser, if that is even a word, were the locations of the open houses (see below). Once again there seemed to be a lack of any venue south of Third Street and while one might expect the Ice Centre to serve most of Harewood what about the South End, Chase River as well as other points south? Why?

What follows is a result of my inquiry.

Question to: Al Kenning- City Manager as well as cc’d to Mayor & Council.

Good day Al et al. I was at the PNAC Meeting when the open houses were mentioned for the New Zoning Bylaw, also noticed on council agenda (below), and it struck me as curious as to why there was no scheduled open house in the South End Area of Nanaimo. Is there some rational for this or is it just an oversight? It strikes me that a considerable portion of Nanaimo's population lives in the southern portions of the City and that an open house, say perhaps at the Chase River School, would benefit the area.

(a) New Zoning Bylaw – Public Open House Dates
Mayor Ruttan to announce the following New Zoning Bylaw Public Open
House Meetings:
• 2011-FEB-08 at the Nanaimo Ice Centre
• 2011-FEB-10 at the Beban Park Social Centre
• 2011-FEB-16 at the Dover Bay Secondary School (Multi-Purpose
Room)
All Open Houses will be held from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Answer

Hi Gord,
When we booked the venues for the Open Houses, we considered the event at the NIC as being in the south end, the Beban event to cover the central area and the event at Dover as covering the north. I guess it’s a matter of perception.
We have used Chase River School in the past, notably for public meetings during the Sandstone OCP application process, and the School District always put us in the library which was totally unsatisfactory. Given the number of display panels and the number of residents we hope to attend, we needed to find larger venues, preferably in City facilities (as you can see, we were unable to book Oliver Woods for the north end session).
The draft zoning bylaw (text and map) is available on the City’s website and Planning staff have made presentations to neighbourhood groups, as well as other interested parties, upon request. The new zoning bylaw is a standing item on the planNANAIMO Advisory Committee agenda and a display on the new bylaw is available in the lobby of the Development Services department in the City Hall Annex. As you can see, while the public open houses are very important to seek input on the proposed bylaw, they are just one element of a much more comprehensive public consultation program. A second round of public open houses are scheduled for the late spring (dates and locations TBA). We’ll look at moving one of those events further south.
Thank you for your suggestion and interest in the new zoning bylaw. I hope you are able to attend one of the scheduled events.

Andrew Tucker
Director of Planning
City of Nanaimo


My Reply

Thanks for the prompt reply Andrew.

Interesting, I never thought of the NIC or really even the Aquatic Centre as being in the south end.

Part of the problem is that many in the areas south of the Ice Centre are seniors as well as low income people who may not have computers and also be at the mercy of transit. While the South End Neighbourhood association is fairly well attended and we do have an extensive e-mail list to get information out even this only accounts for a very small number of people in the area. While I recognize it may be too late at this point in time, though late February could be an option, to schedule something for Chase River or even Bayview Schools I do hope that in the future this area will be better served towards accessing these types of events.

Regards;

City Council Meeting: January 24, 2011

Likely because of my initial inquiry, when the locations were brought up at the council meeting it promoted discussion. The result being that a location such as the Moose Hall, Chase River Firehall or some other venue in the area will be looked at to hold a Public Open House in February like the others.

What this shows is that sometimes one person can make a difference by asking questions of the right people, it never hurts to ask. It also helps that I showed up at the council meeting, they all know me, as a reminder to them.

Why should you care about the Zoning Re-write?

Really that is a subjective question in that if you rent it will have little or no impact but if you own property it likely will. Will the impact be positive or negative? That will be for the land owner to decide. It will also prove useful to developers to be able to locate potential projects in areas that would not require rezoning. So if you are interested here are some links and if you are able I encourage you to attend a Public Open House to give feedback.

Proposed New Zoning Bylaw explanation and links to Draft Zoning By-law and Draft Zoning Land Use Map

Rent Subsidies & Community Contributions

The following are a couple of things I have been trying to push to see implemented.

Rent Subsidies

For year’s Social advocates such as I have mentioned rent subsidies as an easy cost effective means to get the homeless into safe housing. While creating new housing is a component of a ‘Housing First’ Strategy these projects take time and large funding commitments before they even get off the ground.

Nanaimo has an excellent, if costly, homeless strategy that the province has committed to support. The problem with this support is that it hinges on creating new build supportive housing, 160 units, which will not see a tenant for at least 2 – 3 years. Good for the province for actually putting the funding in place but as I say this will take time. Also part of the City’s homeless and harm reduction strategy is rent subsidies but to date the focus has been new build projects.

It is well established that housing the homeless would save the province between $8,000.00 up to $18,000.00 per person per year. Subsidizing rents and getting people off the street and into market based rentals would be relatively quick and the savings to the government would be almost immediate. Once housed the people would then be assessed as to what services they need and costs from frequent use of health services, involvement at all levels of the justice system and use of other services would drop.

A $200.00 monthly subsidy, on top of the income assistance housing allotment would cost $2400.00 per year. Allowing it at all levels of income assistance would go a long way to ensure individuals & families were able to secure safer and more stable housing. The savings to the government would be seen during the first year and would grow in following years so it is almost immediate. If one hundred homeless were housed using subsidies, assuming the total $200.00 per month were needed, would be between $560,000.00 and $1,560,000.00. To me this is a no brainer.


Community Contributions

Lately, in my role as Advocate for Social Change, I have been getting on City Councils case with regards to the paltriness of the community contributions by developers when requesting up-zoning/density bonuses for potential development projects.

My sphere of interest in this is with regards to Social Housing and so when a potential development, of more than 50 units, comes before council I have been encouraging the City to get a real contribution and not just the pittance they seem to be happy with. This year I have brought up the issue of Community Contributions at the February 18th public hearing to have the OCP amended to include the Oceanview (Cable Bay) Master Plan; the June 3rd rezoning to allow 231 unit development in the Stephenson Point Area; and most recently on Aug. 5th at the rezoning to allow a 26 story High-Rise on the Port Place Mall Property (no link to the hearing info or minutes at this point).

The common thread is increased density. Increased Density is the catch phrase for many potential developments, Cable Bay and Sandstone being the largest examples, getting their rezoning pushed through council. Never mind for these two that one could just as easily use the words urban sprawl as the outcome.

Density Bonusing is a system that allows for variations to zoning in exchange for community amenities or beneficial housing. An example, using the Port Place High-rise, would be allowing the developer to increase the floor space, 6 to 26 stories, in his development in exchange for some amenity, housing bonus or the designation of a specific number of units for social housing.

My suggestion at the public hearing was that the first two floors be designated for social housing or the retail equivalent be put to the City’s Housing Legacy Reserve Fund. Currently the Cities Housing Legacy Reserve fund sits at $2,765,046.00 and is only expected to grow by $165,000.00 per year, not a significant increase by any means.

Currently Nanaimo bases the amenity contribution at $1000.00 per door, far too low in my opinion. Amenity contributions should be made more realistic with the goal of adding to Nanaimo’s Housing Legacy Reserve, monies could also go towards purchase of lands for future parks.

An example from another City would be Vancouver’s 20% policy which since 1988 “has required 20 percent of the units in new neighbourhoods be available for the de­velopment of affordable housing.” Langford, with one quarter the population of Nanaimo, has a one in ten policy, not quite as flexible but interesting none the less.

Using $300,000 as an average for a housing unit Vancouver’s model on a cash contribution basis of 20% would be $60,000 per unit. In Nanaimo the $1000.00 contribution would equate to .3333%. Nanaimo doesn’t need to use the same percent base as Vancouver but it should be, at the very least, a more realistic $10,000.00 per unit or 3.3333%. Unfortunately the City is not looking at this though I continue to ‘encourage’, on a regular basis, they do so.

With realistic contributions we should have seen, based on a 3.3% or $10,000.00 contribution, $25 million from the Cable Bay project, another $25 million from the future Sandstone project and $2.3 million from Stephenson point. While this may sound like a lot the potential profits to the developers of these projects are in the 100’s of millions.

In my opinion the City is literally lining the pockets of developers with untold millions of dollars at the expense of the community. I am not against development but it needs to take place to benefit the many not just the few.

With rising unemployment, poverty and an increasing population, the need for social housing, parks and other community amenities dictate the need for Nanaimo to do better. $10,000 per unit or 3.333% seems a little more equitable commitment and while nowhere near that of Vancouver and Langford it could see some of those potential profits trickle down towards real contributions to the community and possibly the above needs being accomplished.


Letter to the Editor (edited version published in the Bulletin August 21)

Recent rezoning of part of the Port Place Mall property to allow a 26 story High-rise is touted to benefit the downtown community simply by increasing density, nothing else.

Increased Density is the catch phrase for many potential developments, Cable Bay and Sandstone being the largest examples, getting their rezoning pushed through council. Never mind for these two that one could just as easily use the words urban sprawl as the outcome.

Another purported benefit the community sees is that of a community contribution on the part of the developer for the privilege of density bonuses and potential millions lining their pockets. Sadly Nanaimo’s amenity contribution is archaic ne pathetic to say the least. Based on $1000 per door/unit these contributions usually amount to little more than a tot lot.

Vancouver requires 20% of units or the equivalent in cash or land go towards future social housing. Langford, with one quarter the population of Nanaimo, has a one in ten policy. Based on a $300,000 average home value Nanaimo’s contribution would be only one third of one percent.

With rising unemployment, poverty and an increasing population, the need for social housing, parks and other community amenities dictate the need for Nanaimo to do better. $10,000 per unit or 3.333% seems a little more equitable commitment and while nowhere near that of Vancouver and Langford it could see some of those potential profits trickle down towards real contributions to the community and possibly the above needs being accomplished.

South End Neighbourhood Plan

Just a quick note on this one. We have been working on this for a few months now and the process has been a good one, not so much so with the other neighbourhood plan that is being done. You can check it out on the city website http://www.nanaimo.ca/southend and the Southend Community Association What's Up in Nanaimo's South End will also have updates as well.

Holy Crap am I tardy

Been 2 months since I posted anything, one would think nothing is happening in this fair city. Been very busy with a number of things one being the Neighbourhood Plan for the Southend. Check out the South End Community Associations blog http://www.nanaimosouthend.ca/ , we have had a number of great comments from the other Neighbourhood Associations. Kudo's to Barbara Densmore, Larry Gambone and former Nanaimo resident Anne Thompson (who helped design it for SECA) for being dilligent in getting it out every month. We are probably the most active community association and have a great group of directors and volunteeers throughout the community.

I just noticed that links in my blog to stories from the Nanaimo Bulletin don't seem to go anywhere. Bummer and will check it out to see if I can rectify it. Speaking of the Bulletin, a month or so ago I had spoken to Toby Gorman (reporter) regarding the comment option for the Bulletin http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/
not being as user friendly as the one in the Daily News http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/index.html . We had a few e-mail exchanges over the subject and I completely forgotten about it, except to note it remained a pain in the ass. Today I noticed the Bulletin has now improved theirs so am now hoping to be able to view comments to their stories without the hassle of signing in. The comments are one of my favourite reads but be aware that as the story moves on one needs to click on it to view any comments added after you have initially viewed them.

Anyway will once again attempt to post on a more regular basis.

Enjoy.

Neighbourhood Planning

For a number of years the South End Community Association has wanted to do a neighbourhood plan. We were told that would happen this year for sure but it has been a waiting game even though assurances by City Staff were there. I wrote the following during the election in answer to the 1st. question posed to candidates by South End Votes

(1) The South End is changing. Would you briefly comment on your understanding of the changes here?
Answer:
The South End has one of the most eclectic blends of residential and commercial as well as a little light industrial thrown into the mix. For me the diversity of people in the area is fantastic as is the commitment of those people living here to bettering the South End for everyone. Previously given quite a bad rap for its concentration of social issues the South End Community Association has been working to change and eliminate these perceptions. This is happening but slowly. We are seeing an influx of new families to the area and development of vacant space for housing is gradually taking place. Over the years a number of people in the area, including myself, have been pushing to get the city to decentralize its social services and avoid the concentration of services in the south end that has happened in the past. For a number of years SECA has been hoping to develop a neighbourhood plan and we have been told we would be next on the list. The city has in its yearly budget $60,000.00 to be put towards developing neighbourhood plans and yet we still wait. A neighbourhood plan will go a long way, working in conjunction with the city’s Official Community Plan, to move towards the removal of light industrial zoning in residential areas that has and still does cause problems for residents of the area. When elected to council I will push to have the neighbourhood plan process for the South End start immediately.

Derek Spalding, of the Nanaimo Daily News, did a little write up shortly after viewing the answers by all of the candidates and commented that though living in the area I didn't know it well because the City had stated SECA would start their plan in January. Well, as we had heard on a number of occasions the plan would be started and knowing how city staff and council works I was a bit skeptical. Derek, turns out I was right eh!

The idea this year was for the City to do 2 plans concurrently, the South End and Brechin Hill/Newcastle plans. Turns out we will now have to wait for council to pass the 2009 budget and rumour has it that in order to cut taxes the $60,000 for neighbourhood planning may be one of the things cut. The Neighbourhood Network, umbrella group consisting of members of the various neighbourhood associations is currently drafting a letter to council, which will be followed up by individual association letters, requesting that this item be left in the budget.

SECA is currently working to set up a steering committee for the project if and hopefully when it happens. As it is never boring in the neighbourhood we even have a bit of controversy happening around this. I will keep you posted on this saga as it is both amusing and pathetic at the same time.