NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY JULY 8
7:00 pm
A Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, 2010-JUL-08, commencing at 7:00 pm in the
Shaw Auditorium, Vancouver Island Conference Centre
80 Commercial Street
to consider proposed amendments to the City of Nanaimo “ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000.”
This Public Hearing will include the Port Place Mall rezoning application BYLAW NO. 4000.480. Purpose:
To permit the use of land for a highrise building of 26 storeys.
______________________
email received Tuesday June 29:
Did you know that the public is invited to the Food Court area of Port Place on Wednesday, June 30th between 4pm – 7:30 pm, for an “information session” ?
Four posters, were attached at the front of each entrance of Port Place Mall today (Tuesday) around mid-morning, announcing the Public Information Session for Wednesday. The Bulletin doesn’t publish on Wednesday. Maybe it ‘ll be in the Daily News ?
That speaks volumes of First Capital’s ethics. Maybe they cannot afford to advertise ? Or maybe they just want to make a shamefull token effort, that they invited the public to hear how they will lose their Mall and community.
In this case – the fewer the better
– Jerry
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
The notice of Public Hearing is still not on the City website and the file link on NanaimoMap still says “Information Coming Soon.”
This will take you to the link on the City’s website for the public hearing notice and First Capital’s video flythrough.
http://www.nanaimo.ca/PublicHearing/public_hearings.aspx
Two points:
I don’t know whether bias is showing but that notice of public hearing includes the slick video prepared by First Capital.
Second, is this the same company which bought the Terminal Park strip mall, where the liquor store is? If so, they have no problems with increasing rents by as much as 40% (I’ve been told) which is why there is no longer a post office in that mall and also why the dollar store moved. It could also be the reason behind the increased prices at the restaurant in this strip.
You may recall, the reno job on this malls facade took months and months, during which time merchants lost lots of business due to loss of parking.
Then, when all is finished … up go the rents.
Bias for sure, Jim. The Planning Department went public early in this process to enthuse about this on behalf of First Capital. Town Planning in this town is done in private between shopping mall developers and the the GM Development, Ted Swabey. The tail continues to wag the dog.
First Capital’s stranglehold on retail is a problem and lets them dictate rents. We need a stronger Mayor and Council to represent the broader and longer term interests of the city and its citizens.
Hi Frank,
I went to the public info meeting at Port Place Mall. It was a sales job with slick renderings of new store fronts for non-existent leases and a computer generated 3D model fly-by. The information showed nothing about this project in the context of downtown Nanaimo, no context model, no shadow diagrams, no views from the harbour or from Piper Park, and had the proponent been required to do so by the Planning Department the public would find this rezoning and re-development proposal unacceptable, the public would have seen that the “issue is solar shading of the south end of the Harbour”, relentless shading of public space by an out of scale project seeking Council approval.
Staff have presented Council with a recommendation that will result in a significant loss of sunlight for the south end of the harbour as far north as the fuel wharf caused by a waterfront high rise building even larger than the Pacifica. It is shameful that the City does not have an urban designer or the where with all to manage the design process of such a major re-development proposal. Shameful indeed that the planners do not know what public space is! Shameful indeed that Provincial regulation should be blamed for this overall disastrous proposal!
The south end of the harbour is the “Front Door” of the “Harbour City” with numerous public buildings, parks, public walkways and plazas through out which the public enjoyment is evident on any sunny day. It is certainly in the public interest to continue to protect these areas from shadows by applying the 65’ height limit that currently is in place.
Downtown housing need not take the form of high-rise buildings. Building out the perimeter of the site up to four storeys will yield five times more residential units than are currently proposed in the tower. The argument that height is required to provide housing is not valid. Low rise building will also yield 100% construction dollar benefits to Nanaimo suppliers and contractors as opposed to high – rise projects which require out of town contractors!
We need not trade the quality of our public space in order to develop housing in the downtown core, indeed we ought to seek further open space commitments in return for rights to build higher buildings, because as we know the larger the population the more people there are that require public amenity space.
In the case of Port Place Mall we might expect to see a civic plaza in the northeast quadrant, perhaps terraced public plazas over looking the waterfront and connecting Front Street to Piper Park and the Museum Building. Perhaps parking in this quadrant with harbour views as we see today with added tree planting; a canopy of green in the foreground for the sky condo’s to look down upon. This might be something to trade for height relaxation in the SE corner of the site but not, indeed never as proposed for the NE corner.
Let us remember our place in the world is the “Harbour City” not the “Dark Harbour”!
Does anyone here have the ability to produce graphics which would demonstrate the negative effects this structure would have on the harbour? The news (?) papers in town don’t have the resources to generate such an image and an image is indeed worth a thousand words.
Unless the general public can visualize the reason for your objections, they have little reason to consider the objection as valid.
On the one hand the city with all the high priced help, and our elected officials think its a good idea, so why not believe them?
I’d come at your question this way, Jim: Is it possible that Council and Staff and advisory panels would even consider this tower without this kind of shadow analysis? Has First Capital been instructed to supply detailed graphics showing the shadow consequences of this tower in this location?
Frank, are you suggesting that council and staff do not take a shadow analysis into consideration?
Yes I am suggesting that. The presentation to the Design Advisory Panel didn’t include one. If there has been one done I haven’t seen it and don’t have any idea where you might find it. The detail on the City website on the NanaimoMap (http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/PlanningAlerts/pdf/RA000223.pdf) where you’re supposed to be able to find development and rezoning application detail has said only “information coming soon” for the last year.
We need businesses downtown, not just people. If we can bring industry and technology and web companies to Nanaimo, we will see growth. Retirees and Speculators from Alberta have flocked here in recent years, but we need industry that brings high income earners, to spend their money so that all the minimum wage earners we have can make more money.
We need high income jobs here!
My crude shadow study suggests that the tower’s shadow will sweep across the boat basin from September to May. A proper shadow study for this project was likely not done. It most certainly was not done for the Design Review Panel or the Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee. These studies seem to carry very little weight anyway.
I see that there is a shadow study included in the package for Council in their Agenda for June 21 —
Click to access C100621A.pdf
page 224. They are blurred graphics and you can’t tell much from them. Looks like the Design Advisory Panel didn’t have them for their considerations but the Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee did.
I am bothered by what seems to be almost no justification for the tower. Other then it makes a bunch of money for the developer, the tower does nothing for us. Put another way, by granting this rezoning, we give the developer the opportunity to make a bunch of money, while we get with a really ugly and inefficient building. At the very least we should be demanding from the developer to meet a higher standard of architectural design, and to achieve the highest level of LEED certification.
Since the boat basin is an important entrance to our downtown, this development is a “gateway” project. It will provide an important first impression of our city. There is nothing about the design to suggest that this building will create a positive first impression. We just spent a bunch of money to have some consultant tell us that we need to rebrand our city image. Demanding a higher standard of architectural design from this developer might go a long way to acheiving that objective.
Also, this is a time when everyone recognizes the need to build so that resources are not squandered. LEED standards are recognized globally as the best direction for creating buildings that have the smallest environmental footprint. In most cities around the world, a high value site such as this one would be required to be developed to at least a LEED gold standard, but a LEED platinum standard would not be an unreasonable expectation.
Dock Side Green in Victoria, and the Olympic Village in Vancouver are similar locations by the water, and both where built to LEED platinum standards. The Uptown mall project in Victoria is a similar combination of retail, office and residential development and it is being built to LEED gold standard.
As far as I know, this project is not being built to any standard. I think, if we are going to rezone this project to allow for a tower, then the city should demand more from the developer and start raising the bar for all development along the waterfront.
I would presume you could argue that the increased tax base benefits all Nanaimo citizens, as there are then more geese to pluck so to speak meaning we each have to give a few less feathers to the cause.
This is a rationale popular with Council Jim. This developer and others should always have a time limit placed on rezoning approvals and they should be contingent on the proposed project actually being built — use it or lose it — and they should never be allowed to be flipped. A new owner should be required to reapply.
There is no reason to believe that the same amount of tax payers could be housed on that site without resorting to towers. That is a not a argument since the addition of a tower does not increase the tax base.
Hypothetical question: once a developer gets rezoning for say, a 26 story building, then in a year or so, flips the property, new developer comes along, says it is not feasible at only 26 floors but will be a go with 32.
How much flack would they likely get for the 32 story change?
Pacifica, the phantom hotel, and I think Insite’s Front Street tower appealed for additional height after the original variance was allowed. All were happily granted by Council.
Is anyone following the Chilliwack saga:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/25/bc-john-les-cleared.html
“The investigators found that Les and most of the councillors embraced a “pro-development/can do” culture at city hall that resulted in a number of decisions that did not comply with both provincial and municipal laws.
“”Staff were encouraged to find creative solutions to facilitate development, and view government regulations and municipal laws as guidelines only, with the goal of finding creative ways to make developments happen,” said [Special Prosecutor] McFee.”
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/25/bc-john-les-cleared.html#ixzz0t214mgEf
Seems to me we’re very close to this here in our wee backwater.