What follows is an excerpt from the obligatory section on public comment (which is in every city planning document dealing with an application for zoning changes), on the application to allow 'limited' office building in the Life Sciences Technology Park, at the East end of the Hospital lands. It is very apparent that the responses to the public comment strained credulity, especially the assertion that additional office space on the site would not add to the traffic!



Notification and consultation procedures carried out in accordance with Early Notification Procedure P&D/PPP/N&C #1 approved by City Council for Official Plan and Zoning Amendments.


There were thirteen responses to the public notification, which outlined the following concerns:

1 . The addition of office use would add additional traffic within the neighbourhood and Smyth Road is already overloaded with traffic for most of the daylight hours.

2. Amendment would open door for further development which would funnel thousands of additional workers into that complex.

3 . Proposed amendment is regressive and not in the best interest of the community and will result in the further erosion of existing building height standards, increased traffic, as well as more parking problems.

4. Research Park ill conceived, with only one small building is a failure and the addition of office use would add to this.

5. Inadequate parking allowance for office zoning.

6. Zoning for office use should be on a site-specific basis to cover actual needs not entire Park.

7. City should put a freeze on all development in the area until a comprehensive plan for parking, transportation, traffic and access for all vacant lands from Alta Vista to Botsford.

8. Opposed to any zoning change without full consultation with community.

9. Expect process to be halted until such time as communication occurs with community.


1 . The Licencing, Transportation and Buildings Branch has indicated that the addition of office use to the list of permitted uses would not have any appreciable effect on traffic generation from that which currently exists.

2. The proposed amendments will not add any new development potential within the subject lands beyond what currently exists.

3 . The proposed amendments are viewed as positive and have been made in an effort to stimulate interest and potential development within the Business Park. As outlined above, there is not anticipated to be any increase in traffic, there is no request for a building height increase, and parking will be accommodated on-site.

4. The proposed amendments are intended to stimulate development within the Park, as the development interest within the Park has been less than anticipated. Permitting a limited amount of office use within the Park is expected to enhance interest in potential development, while maintaining the primacy of the research and development component.

[This was grossly misleading, had the zoning been approved, the city would not have had any authority to dictate the type of office space going in]

5. While the parking standards for office use is not being considered as part of this application, there is no evidence to suggest the current standards are inadequate.

6. As outlined above, the proposed amendments are intended to stimulate development within the whole Park.

7. The proposed amendments will not add any additional development potential to the Park beyond what is currently permitted.

8 . The standard public consultation procedures for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments have been followed with regard to the subject applications.

9. As the standard notification procedures have been complied with, there is no apparent reason to delay the subject applications.


The applications which were submitted on July 13, 1999, were subject to a project management timeline, as recommended by the "A Better Way Task Force". Process charts which established critical milestones, were prepared and circulated as part of the technical circulation and early notification process. The applications were processed three weeks beyond the established timeframe as a result of a requested revision to the applications and consideration of the amendment.


Councillor Alan Higdon is aware of these applications.