Dear Editor,

[Re: Opponents vocal in 6-hour hearing, 91原创 Advance Times, April 16]

91原创 City council held a public hearing on April 7 to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) to allow construction of a six-storey mixed use complex at 200 Street between 49 Avenue and 50 Avenue. This development encompasses the property owned and occupied by the Nazarene Church, and expands to cover three parcels adjacent to the original church site, previously owned by the City.

There were approximately 160 residents who attended the public hearing and 28 addressed council. 26 of the speakers spoke passionately and vigorously opposed to the OCP amendment and the development being considered. Two speakers spoke in favour of the development, one a member of the Nazarene Church and the other a supporter thereof. Neither of these two speakers lived in the neighbourhood.

The Local Government Act mandates councils to hold public hearings so residents affected by the proposed changes to the OCP or the zoning bylaw can present their concerns to council. Council must consider all of the proceedings at the public hearing when it considers third reading of the amendments.  
 
Council met on April 28 to consider the third reading. Mayor Pachal called on Councillor Albrecht to lead off the 鈥渄iscussion鈥� and he did not disappoint. He stated that he had studied and reviewed all of the reports staff and the applicant had prepared for council stating, 鈥� I spent several hours in the neighbourhood observing traffic.鈥� 

On cue Councillor White echoed Councillor Albrecht鈥檚 statement. Then one by one Councillor Solyom, Councillor James, and Councillor Wallace all followed the script. Indeed Councillor Wallace agonized over the beauty of the neighbourhood and understood why the residents opposed the development. She was almost in tears. But she had to remain firm and vote with the majority. However, she did declare that if a similar development was proposed for the neighbourhood, she would vigorously oppose it. 
 
The mayor was the cleanup hitter. There was no doubt in his mind that 91原创 City needed this development and the location chosen was the perfect place to build it. Like Councillor Albrecht, he, too, spent hours checking the traffic flow in the area and likewise concluded that traffic generated by the families in the building and the retail outlets would have minimal or no effect on the traffic flow in the neighbourhood. Neither the mayor nor Councillor Albrecht revealed their qualifications to assess and determine traffic flows.

There are 305 suites in the building plus retail outlets on the ground floor. A reasonable assumption of 1.5 vehicles per suite will add 460 vehicles to the traffic flow in the neighbourhood. To this one must add the traffic flow entering into and departing from the retail centre. A traffic impact assessment has been completed to determine the impacts of this development. This report has not been released to the public. Why? 

Notably, there was no mention of the children who will be living there. These apartments are being built to house families. Assuming 1.3 kids per unit, there will be about 400 children living there. Where will these children play?

If half of the kids are of elementary school age, which school will they attend? Simonds Elementary, the neighbourhood school cannot accommodate 200 more kids. H.D Stafford and 91原创 Secondary School will also be affected by a large increase of students. If schools are over capacity, will children be bused to other schools?
 
The lone voice seeking rationale debate was that of Councillor Delaney Mack. She obviously had listened to the 28 presentations made at the public hearing. She made a motion to have the traffic impact assessment released to the public. That motion was defeated 6 to 1.  Again, why is this report being concealed by council?

She then moved that Bylaw # 3305 be referred back to staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the development adheres to the density and zoning provisions outlined in the existing OCP.

Surprise, surprise. That motion was also defeated 6 to1.

Councillor Mack then motioned that the City-owned properties be removed from the development and further that they be designated as green space which, as has been pointed out, is an environmentally sensitive area.

Another surprise. It was defeated 6 to 1.
 
It was insightful to watch the body language of the mayor and the five councillors as they followed one after the other. Council must take into consideration the presentations of petitioners who speak at the public hearing The residents in the neighbourhood were unanimous in their opposition to both bylaws. The mayor made a cursory reference to the public hearing. This was a feeble attempt to placate the audience in the council chamber. The public hearing was irrelevant. The mayor and the five councillors seemed to have made up their minds before they entered the chamber. The group of six stayed on script throughout the meeting. The bylaws were approved six to 1.

The mayor and council have made it clear. The Official Community Plan isn鈥檛 worth the paper on which it is written. And irrespective of where you live in 91原创 City the zoning of the property adjacent to yours can be changed (at the drop of a hat, or by four yes votes at City hall).

Aubrey Searle, Murrayville