The Second Proposal (September 2023, not the current proposal)
The second version of the proposal was submitted to the City in September 2023 and received comments from the Planning, Transportation and Engineering Departments in October.
Provided below are:
- Key Extracts from the City Planning Department comments, followed by first the developer’s response and then our comments on this response.
- City Planning Department Comments to the developer in full. These comments were obtained under the Freedom of Information process.
- Developer’s Response to the City in full. This document details the revisions made to the second proposal following the City’s review of the plans.
Key Extracts from the City Planning Department feedback to the developer
City: Please reduce the density and/or increase the public benefit to help justify the proposed increase in density above 1.2:1 FSR
City: You may wish to consider proposing smaller scale development that is more consistent with the Traditional Residential Urban Place Designation to help facilitate a design that meets the Development Permit Area 16 objectives and guidelines in this lower–density building form context
Developer: Our proposal is a four and a half story building (reduced from 6) with a proposed FAR of 1.9. which is within the guidelines for Urban Residential areas. As noted in the OCP, projects with an FAR of up to 2.0 may be considered in strategic locations for the advancement of plan objective
Community Opinion: Regarding points above and below, we note that the developer is seeking rezoning and exceptions to the OCP to build larger and denser multi-unit structure than is currently allowed on the 585m2 lot at 50 Government St. This will be out of character with the neighbourhood, will negatively impact tourism and heritage values of the street and is counter to the interests of the City
City: Please revise the proposal to be more in line with the Development Permit Area 16: General Form and Character DPA’s objectives and guidelines . Specifically, please consider improving the relationship of the proposal to the adjacent existing properties by:
▪ Providing a transition in the proposed form and massing to the lower density building forms surrounding it by reducing the height and increasing the setbacks
▪ Redesigning the development to reduce potential privacy and shading impacts
Developer: the building has since been modified to a form more in keeping with the neighbourhood and sympathetic to the surrounding houses
Developer: Relationship to the neighbours:
• The proposal has revised the massing to provide a project with two principal forms, with footprints similar to surrounding houses. Additionally, a revision of the roof shape and an offset to the massings provide the overall project with a housing form that fits in well with the neighbouring buildings.
• Privacy is addressed by removing overlooking windows from the closest units to the northern and southern neighbours. Windows on these building faces are high, allowing views up to the trees and sky.
Community Opinion: The revised massing is not a solution as the proposal doubles the footprint of neighbouring homes on a single lot. The height of the proposed building is more than double the height of neighbouring homes and will create significant shadowing year around.
Privacy issues remain: external staircases on the North and South sides of the building – located very close to neighbouring homes will cause noise and light pollution for neighbours at all hours. People using those stairways will be able to look directly into living room and bedroom windows of the neighbours. In addition, large windows on all levels of the west exposure of the proposed building will overlook multiple homes and yards on South Turner.
City: Please review the Inclusionary Housing and Community Amenity Policy to determine the expected Community Amenity Contribution as indicated in that policy.
Developer: Regarding the Inclusionary Housing and Community Amenity Policy, because the project is not requesting additional density beyond what is proposed in the OCP, there are no specific “Community Amenity Contributions” proposed. However, the developer is willing to discuss how this proposal can add value to the community.
Community Opinion: The developer is proposing a density of 1.9:1. The OCP (Page 45) provides guidance for Urban Residential development. This allows for a density of 1.2:1 with higher densities permitted only if specific location conditions are met and additionally where there is a public benefit consistent with the OCP and other City polices including local area plans. The proposal does not meet the Housing Goals and Objectives of the James Bay Neighbourhood Plan (Page 5) nor have details of any public benefit been provided.
City: The City has policy that supports the creation and retention of affordable and rental housing. Please consider incorporating affordable and/or rental housing on-site with this proposal (more information can be found in Section 13 of the OCP and in the Housing Strategy). Specifically, please indicate how your proposal will meet the following policy:
o Section 13.23 of the OCP supports the retention of existing rental units in buildings of four units or more by considering higher density redevelopment proposals on these sites only if, as a voluntary amenity:
▪13.23.1 The same number of rental self–contained dwelling units is maintained on–site, and the general rent level identified, through a housing agreement; or,
▪13.23.2 An equivalent cash in-lieu contribution is made to the City’s Housing Fund.
Developer: As a result of significant pressure from the neighbours and city staff, the former proposal offering affordable rental units was revised to the current proposal. As you are aware, a viable project offering affordable rental units requires a size that exceeds other guidelines within the OCP
Community Opinion: The developer’s statement cannot go unchallenged. A review of the recording of the April 2023 CALUC meeting does not find any resident resistance to the provision of affordable housing.
City Comments:
The letter below was provided by the City as the result of an FOI request and detail the City’s review of the second proposal
The Developer's Response:
The letter below relates to the August proposal and includes replies to some, but not all, of the concerns raised by the City