COMMENT SUMMARY FROM OCP MEETING

 

FINAL DATA FROM ADRA MEETING – FEBRUARY 21

The draft OCP was released on Feb 13^th and the public has been given until March 16^th to provide their input.

The Planning department is holding information sessions with individuals and board/directors of groups (up until March 2), but not with groups themselves.

ADRA felt it was critical to gather member feedback in order to provide their comments & questions to staff by March 1^st, so a meeting for Feb. 21 was quickly arranged.

We were disappointed Planning Department would not attend and speak to our group about the draft OCP, or that no summary document or chart of changes (from old OCP to new draft) was available from the district.

In the absence of this, ADRA volunteers prepared a worksheet with questions based on issues commonly raised by members.  To the best of our ability (and where they existed) we provided references in the 53-page draft document.

Meeting attendees were dispersed to table groups to conduct short discussions on each question before recording their comments on their individual worksheets.

Worksheets were gathered at the end of the evening with some attendees opting to provide their comments later by email.

A total of 67 people registered for this meeting (include 4 from Chamber of Commerce), and 57 attended.

Given the snowy weather, the short notice and a gold-medal hockey game it can be surmised that there is significant community interest in the draft OCP.

From these we received a total of 49 responses.

38 of the respondents identified as ADRA members.

11 of the respondents were not ADRA members or did not identify.

41 identified as living in West Vancouver and 7 identified as working in West Vancouver

Supplementing this data are two further documents: One summarizing participant comments, the other participant questions.

1.  Does this draft OCP provide adequate measures to support and

     retain small independent shops and services in our villages?

     (Reference page 33, item 2.3.18.)

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for Me	Not Answered
ADRA MEMBERS	1   3%	32   84%	4   11%		1   3%
OTHERS	3   27%	5   45%	2   18%		1   9%
TOTAL	4   8%	37   76%	6   12%		2   4%

2. Will provision of more diverse housing, including mixed

    residential/commercial, help support and retain small, independent shops and services
in our villages?

	YES	NO	Don’t Know. Unsure	Not an Issue for Me	Not Answered
ADRA MEMBERS	8   21%	20   53%	9   24%		1   3%
OTHERS	6   55%	1   9%	4   36%
TOTAL	14   29%	21   43%	13   27%		1   2%

 Traffic congestion (current and projected) is not addressed in

  the draft OCP (pages 35-36).  Should this be addressed in the draft?

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	34   90%	2   5%	2   5%
OTHERS	9   82%				2   18%
TOTAL	43   88%	2   4%	2   4%		2   4%

4. MONSTER HOMES:  Does this draft OCP provide adequate

     measures to prevent the construction of “monster” homes?
     (Reference page 16, items 2.1.8 to 2.1.11.)

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	1   3%	34   89%	2   5%		1   3%
OTHERS	2   18%	6   55%	2   18%		1   9%
TOTAL	3   6%	40   82%	4   8%		2   4%

5.  Does this draft OCP provide adequate measures to protect the

      unique character and heritage of Ambleside and Dundarave commercial centres?  (Reference pg. 15, item 2.1.5; pg 19, item 2.1.14, page 20, item 2.1.19; page 31-33, items 2.3.1, 2.3.4, 2.3.6 – 2.3.21.)

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	1   3%	28   74%	3   8%		6   16%
OTHERS	2   18%	6   55%	1   9%	1   9%	1   9%
TOTAL	3   6%	34   69%	4   8%	1   2%	7   14%

6. The draft OCP touches on quality of life in broad terms (reference

 page 5, 1.3; page 49, 2.9.7), but does not address protection of specific quality of life factors which affect the livability and enjoyment of your home, such as protection of privacy, views, view corridors and sunlight.  Should the draft address these specific quality of life factors?

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	32   84%		4   11%		2   5%
OTHERS	5   45%	3   27%	2   18%		1   9%
TOTAL	37   76%	3   6%	6   12%		3   6%

7. The draft OCP refers to evolving housing needs and a priority to

 house young families and seniors (page 7, last paragraph and page 14, 15, & 19, 20), but does not demonstrate how specific percentages (page 14) and numerical targets for new housing units (Section A, page15-30) will achieve this, how this will be measured or how expectations compare to existing policies

Do you wish to see these (or other) details in the draft OCP?

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	27   71%	2   5%	4   11%	1   3%	4   11%
OTHERS	4   36%	4   36%	1   9%		2   18%
TOTAL	31   63%	6   12%	5   10%	1   2%	6   12%

8. The draft OCP contains specific numerical targets for new rental housing or special needs housing will be attained.  The expectation is this will be articulated in yet to be drafted Local Area Plans.  Should details on how much rental and/or special needs housing and how such housing will be attained, be included in this draft OCP?

 

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	25   66%	2   5%	5   13%		6   16%
OTHERS	4   36%	3   27%	1   9%		3   27%
TOTAL	29   59%	5   10%	6   12%		9   18%

9.  CLARITY / CERTAINTY: Does the draft OCP provide a satisfactory degree of clarity and certainty about what may be built and where? (Section A, pages 15-30.)
   

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS		29   76%	6   16%		3   8%
OTHERS	3   27%	7   64%			1   10%
TOTAL	3   6%	36   73%	6   12%		4   8%

10. TIME FRAME: Is the time frame (Feb 13 – March 16) adequate for

       the public to digest and provide comment on the draft OCP?

 

	YES	NO	Don’t Know/ Unsure	Not an Issue for me	Not answered
ADRA MEMBERS	2   5%	34   89%			2   5%
OTHERS	5   45%	5   45%			1   10%
TOTAL	7   14%	39   80%			3   6%

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

FEB. 21, 2018 DRAFT OCP MEETING

(“X” followed by numeral indicates how often this comment repeated)

1.  Does this draft OCP provide adequate measures to support and retain small independent shops and services in our villages?  (Reference page 33, item 2.3.18.)

• What are commercial nodes? X14
• Where are these commercial nodes? (Map?)
• Need specific supports for small, local, independent shops. X2
• We are missing policies to address staffing & workforce.
• Does not adequately deal with lack of parking.
• Does not deal with high/increasing rents/leases. X2
• Problems: employee transportation & inadequate transit; No measures for affordable housing; Land and zoning.
• Was the economic development plan meant to address this?
• Rents/Leases, parking, staffing are the big three challenges and are only exacerbated – not helped – by new developments. What existing small business could move into Grosvenor? None. X2
• New developments forcing out the shops and services needed by locals (barbers, shoe repair, dog grooming, etc.) will force locals to drive elsewhere making traffic worse. We don’t need luxury shops or big chains.
• Want provisions to keep variety of small business not just hi-end or chains. X4
• Increasing rents is biggest issue and not addressed X23
• Concern development will result in higher rents and force out small business.
• More development will create more competition and the small businesses will loose to the chain stores.
• Rents will always be high due to land values.
• Traffic issues hinder small business. X23e
• Rents are outstripping capacity of small business. i.e. only so many dogs to groom.
• Want provisions to keep variety of small business not just hi-end or chains. X4
• Need increased parking – not less.
• Need parking to support businesses. Businesses will fail without provisions for parking. X22
• Park Royal competition and concentration. X2
• Retail competition with online.
• Construction workers taking business parking is an issue x4
• Too vague X26
• Do not understand.
• Planner’s jargon X2
• Want specifics about how small businesses/shops supported. X3
• Compare costs of business licenses to other areas. X3
• Suite license is highest in lower mainland.
• Review Business taxes
• Employee recruitment not addressed. Low pay retail/service jobs will not be able to live/rent here. X13
• How will you measure support of small business? X3
• Need specific supports for small, local, independent shops. X2
• We are missing policies to address staffing & workforce.
• Does not adequately deal with lack of parking.
• Does not deal with high/increasing rents/leases. X2
• Problems: employee transportation & inadequate transit; No measures for affordable housing; Land and zoning.
• Was the economic development plan meant to address this?

2.  Will provision of more diverse housing, including mixed residential/commercial, help support and retain small, independent shops and services in our villages?

• Not necessarily. Independent business need lower rents and new buildings will cause an increase in rents. X2
• What is the impact of mixed housing on commercial rents? Need lower rents for small business.
• Yes – to a degree.
• We need specific housing for our priorities of seniors & young families.
• What kind of housing for seniors & families?
• What kind or incentives/development can be made to retain shops?
• at is the impact of mixed housing on commercial rents?
• Difficult to create affordable housing and affordable retail units based on todays rates.
• District needs to create opportunities for developers.
• Concern about workers & staff.
• Need affordable rental housing for employees.
• How can we be expected to believe more housing will save business when no new housing is planned for Dundarave? X2
• Can only help if occupied and not empty (i.e. investment home) X5
• No provision to ensure they are occupied.
• Needs adequate parking X13
• Only occupied homes have opportunity to support businesses
• More low-end townhouses.
• More density is not a solution to failing retail. X4
• Unaffordable housing will not help retail. X6
• Customers are not dependent on housing cost or income.
• Just drop in bucket.
• Will not make significant impact. Will not produce enough walk by traffic.
• Need affordable. X6
• Not affordable for staff X4
• Not affordable for families.
• Not catering to seniors.
• Will provide housing for staff. X2
• More commercial space will hinder existing business.
• Rents
• No brainer.
• Good idea.
• Density brings elements.
• Will increase. commercial rents. X3
• Dependent in parking availability. X3
• Too many antidotal assumptions – i.e. we need new 3 bedroom homes to house young families – but they can’t afford it. We are only building for very rich.

3.  Traffic congestion (current and projected) is not addressed in the draft OCP (pg. 35-36).  Should this be addressed in the draft?

• No doubt – this needs addressing in draft.
• Impact of “centre” expansion on traffic and parking needs addressing.
• Crucial to explore LRT and water taxi
• Parking X3
• Impact on development on parking availability. X2
• Customer parking taken away with development.
• Speed limits in Horseshoe Bay
• BC Ferry terminal expansion needs consideration
• Cycling lanes is a non-starter.
• Increase in population will cause more traffic congestion.
• Projected traffic patterns need to be bold enough to contemplate driverless cars.
• More collaboration with provincial & federal authorities.
• How can we be expected to believe more housing will save business when no new housing is planned for Dundarave? X2
• Can only help if occupied and not empty (i.e. investment home) X5
• No provision to ensure they are occupied.
• Needs adequate parking X13
• Only occupied homes have opportunity to support businesses
• More low-end townhouses.
• More density is not a solution to failing retail. X4
• Unaffordable housing will not help retail. X6
• Customers are not dependent on housing cost or income.
• Just drop in bucket.
• Will not make significant impact. Will not produce enough walk by traffic.
• Need affordable. X6
• Not affordable for staff X4
• Not affordable for families.
• Not catering to seniors.
• Will provide housing for staff. X2
• More commercial space will hinder existing business.
• Rents
• No brainer
• Good idea.
• Density brings elements.
• Will increase. commercial rents. X3
• Dependent in parking availability. X3
• Too many antidotal assumptions – i.e. we need new 3 bedroom homes to house young families – but they can’t afford it. We are only building for very rich.4.  Does this draft OCP provide adequate measures to prevent the construction of “monster” homes?  (Reference page 16, items 2.1.8 to 2.1.11.)
• Should limit square footage and establish new regulations.
• Should not allow combined lots for single family use.
• Stop lot consolidation.
• Increase fines for illegal tree cutting.
• Must include all housing types. Not only square footage.
• Establish new regulations to control development consistent with existing character.
• Keep wise of residential types.
• Reduce permitted square footage on large properties.
• Should be for all. Look at Mt. Pleasant examples.
• Need new regulations for all areas. X2
• There is a need to control the size of homes.
• The high level issue is addressed but needs more detail in specific plans.
• Only adequate if District enforces their own bylaws (see part 2).
• Need demonstration of bylaw enfocement.
• Duplexes/Triplexes/apts etc. can be versions of monster homes.
• Building up of lots to increase height must be regulated. X3
• Limit height and size. (FAR) X16
• Need for smaller more affordable homes. X3
• There are many examples of too large homes. X15
• Many of these are vacant. X10
• Developers/real estate have too much influence
• Amalgamated lots need regulations with regards to setbacks, etc. X4
• Prevent consolidation of lots. X12
• Heritage conservation should apply to all neighbourhoods. X5
• Blocking views should be prevented.
• Bylaws / enforcement are not adequate. X15
• Lack of detail. X5
• Infill, coach houses preferable to monsters. X3
• Make character houses into several strata suites.
• Expropriate Monster on Mathers.
• Bonus density allows too many exceptions and variances. X15
• Eagle Island should not be exempted. X2
• Why is Eagle Island exempt?
• Oversized homes are offensive and environmentally unsound. X12
• Inaction to date (to prevent) unacceptable X7
• Should limit square footage and establish new regulations.
• Should not allow combined lots for single family use.
• Stop lot consolidation.

 5.  Does this draft OCP provide adequate measures to protect the unique character and heritage of Ambleside and Dundarave commercial centres?  (Reference pg. 15, item 2.1.5; pg 19, item 2.1.14, pg 20, item 2.1.19; pg 31-33, items 2.3.1, 2.3.4, 2.3.6 – 2.3.21.)

• How about something for Horseshoe Bay other than a street scape plan?
• I have faith that commercial centres will thrive and continue to be values for the essence of WV which would not be lost in plan implementation.
• Heritage committee to guide.
• Is it possible to specify construction materials etc. al. la Whistler?
• Both are a hodge-podge with no redeeming qualities.
• These areas will only be protected by low-rise development that is controlled and regulated. The scale is the most important factor.
• Character is very missed. Shack to recent built with no linking character.
• Street scape is important.
• Select some recent Ambleside & Dundarave developments in scale and height and style to preserve a village atmosphere.
• Lack of defined term.
• Not by increasing density page 32 2.3.11.
• We should have Ambleside like LaConner. Retain old buildings and build new to fit in a set character. X3
• DNV policy forces upgrades when renovation of more than 10 sq. metres. X2
• Want seaside village.
• No more Grosvenors. X18
• I don’t want to be told we heard you don’t want another Grosvenor but then get stuck with something just as big but a different shape.
• We need redevelopment but in appropriate design/character, but will likely be too expensive for small business. X2
• Dundarave being preserved. Ambleside not. X3
• Dundarave nicer than Ambleside. X8
• Bonus density will remove heritage.
• Retain the low height in commercial centres. X5
• If LAP changes heights and density we will lose character.
• Hi-rise & Mid rise in commercial area will kill character.
• Need specific height limits. Not stories. X9
• Need specifics X4
• District lands should not be sold.
• Citizens rather than council should decide if public lands sold.
• District lands should not be sold but rather, leased.
• Neighbourhood boundaries are being changed arbitrarily by District.
• Where did Hollyburn go?
• Developers will continue to exploit.
• Developers not interested in heritage preservation. X2
• Owners need to be forced to do improvements on existing buildings.
• Property owners must be prevented from conducting demolition by neglect.
• Heritage is now lost. Too late. X2
• Unique character lost.
• We are not maintaining character now and will get worse if we increase height & density X8
• Number of units for each area should not exceed 20% of current. After 5 years conduct citizen review and decide if further increase.
• Need to use lanes for small shop fronts.

6.  QUALITY OF LIFE The draft OCP touches on quality of life in broad terms (reference pg 5, 1.3; pg 49, 2.9.7), but does not address protection of specific quality of life factors which affect the livability and enjoyment of your home, such as protection of privacy, views, view corridors and sunlight.  Should the draft address these specific quality of life factors?

• Monster houses (2380 Lawson) must be addressed. X2
• Must post picture of project at front of property. Allow timely arbitration of complaints.
• Views are valuable and paid for. They should be reasonably protected.
• Cluster high-density, medium high rise residential in areas with the least impact of views. For instance – North and behind existing high-rises.
• In Japan they have sunshine laws. If sunlight access restricted by new development monetary compensation must be provided.
• Very complicated with no clear solutions.
• I found plenty of attention to views and privacy in LAPS.
• I think careful thought should be given to larger structures that could impede views. Let’s do what we can to preserve our natural setting.
• Adding proposed number of units will detract from QofL
• Quality of life is why we live here. X18
• Quality of life is best part of WV X3
• We need details. Very important. X1
• Need protection of view corridors. X 8
• Need protection of views X13
• Need protection of views, privacy & sunlight. X 9
• Need protections in perpetuity. X4
• Need financial compensation for own
• Need more green space in commercial areas.
• Art, artists, poetry readings desirable.
• Waterfront & LAPS need to address views.
• How were target number of units arrived at? X3
• Not through community consultation.
• Must address privacy, views, greenery. X3
• Tree bylaw is all about views and privacy. Same consideration should apply to buildings.
• Difficult to address.
• Be specific with the factors. Ask the public what QoL factors THEY prioritize.
• Photography properties and consult neighbours first.
• WV residents guide says consult neighbours to preserve views, privacy etc. this needs strengthening on OCP.
• Has always been in past OCP and is in resident guide. Needs to be in current OCP.
• Property values are related to views X3
• Buildings oriented on east west basis produce more shadow. X2
• We should not allow empty homes owned off shore.7.  FAMILIES & SENIORS The draft OCP refers to evolving housing needs and a priority to house young families and seniors (page 7, last paragraph and page 14, 15, & 19, 20), but does not demonstrate how specific percentages (page 14) and numerical targets for new housing units (Section A, pg. 15-30) will achieve this, how this will be measured or how expectations compare to existing policies.  Do you wish to see these (or other) details in the draft OCP?
• Explore Abbeyfield. Single residence for several seniors with shared facilities.
• Need infrastructure prior to increased development
• Infrastructure needs to be planned and priced.
• What is definition of affordable?
• Needs specifics re: priority housing.
• How will this address priority needs of seniors and young families?
• How can you cram so many units in Ambleside? How high are you expecting to permit?
• District needs to promote affordable housing to promote balanced generational mix.
• We need more gentle densification.
• We need smaller homes.
• I think the OCP is fine as high-level but need separate community specific plan.
• Need details/ specifics. X21
• Without specific it will not occur. Do not negotiate, rather specify
• Need definitions of affordable. X4
• Present bylaws not sufficient for much of Ambleside & Dundarave
• Need specific increased square feet.
• Need specific info & rational on population growth. X4
• What are plans if population does not grow as predicted? We are shrinking. What if that continues?
• Nowhere for elderly in big houses.
• Is affordable in WV realistic? X3
• District lands only viable source of low cost housing. X5
• Need wider range of options than what is presented.
• What is baseline and how will it be measured? X6
• Really cheap rental is not desirable.
• Rental is only way to (relative) affordability.
• All new mixed use should be 50% rental.
• All new mixed use should be 100% rental.
• Support for low rise. Not for hi-rise.
• Need definitions of affordable
• Nor sure OCP can achieve this.
• Not economic to subsidize families. X2
• Our populations is too small to diversify for every possible demographic.
• Number of units for each area should be set by citizens. After 5 years conduct citizen review and decision if further increase.
• I would like ability to have fourplex for my extended family.
• 1500 Block is district land. Make it multi-everything. Child-care, housing, etc.
• Senior demographic growing in all of Canada not just WV. Need senior specific homes. X8
• Need long-term care beds X2
• We need to retain green space in areas with higher density.

 8.  RENTAL The draft OCP contains specific numerical targets for new rental housing or special needs housing will be attained.  The expectation is this will be articulated in yet to be drafted Local Area Plans.  Should details on how much rental and/or special needs housing and how such housing will be attained, be included in this draft OCP?

• Fine to have broad targets, but each community is unique and different and needs to be studied carefully for what addition unit numbers make sense X2
• Should be specific to LAPS
• Does the draft have a moratorium on existing rental? Is there are replacement requirement?
• Well defined numbers but not with ability to fudge density with carrot amenities.
• Timing is critical. No more lengthy delays.
• Specify percentage that would be required in all new developments.
• Make all mixed-use rental only.
• Increased density cannot be supported by present infrastructure.
• With present zoning (part 2) this is not achievable.
• Make developments designate units for rental/special needs.
• Rental is only way to (relative) affordability.
• All new mixed use should be 50% rental.
• All new mixed use should be 100% rental.
• There should be a moratorium on building any multi-family housing that is not rental only. Do this for 10 years (minimum) and your force out speculators.
• Support for low rise. Not for hi-rise.
• Need smaller rental townhomes and housing for downsizers.
• Need ground-oriented housing.
• Municipality lands for low income housing.
• Need details/ specifics. X16
• Without specifics it will not occur. Do not negotiate, rather specify
• Need definitions of affordable.
• Need to know where it will be. X14
• LAP will have their hands tied. X3
• Do not agree with projected number of units.
• Where did the number of units come from?
• You cannot force a strata to allow rentals.
• We quit allowing rentals in my building because it did not work out.
• Do not force stratas to have rentals – rather build rental only/ rental specific buildings. X3
• Need to address empty homes.
• Special needs housing, group homes, needs addressing.
• Really cheap rental is not desirable.
• District Lands (at Gordon) should be jewel to incorporate housing of all needed types, facilities such as childcare, senior care, etc. X2
• Number of units should be determined by community in LAPs.

9.  CLARITY / CERTAINTY Does the draft OCP provide a satisfactory degree of clarity and certainty about what may be built and where? (Section A, pages 15-30.) 

• Too many motherhood statements.
• Not enough specifics.
• Focus on priority housing and broaden it from centres to other neighbourhoods. X2
• Impact on infrastructure needs addressing X2
• Sense of distrust in way the draft has been vaguely presented. The cart has already gone. The horse is trying to catch up.
• The draft needs flexibility to not tie the hands of council about what can be built in future.
• Leave to LAPs to sort.
• There is no time to understand part 1 let alone how it impacts part 2. The combined parts 1 and 2 need to be publicized and understood.
• You cannot approve until there is at minimum draft LAPS.
• Page 19, 2.1.14 – (prepare LAPs) it is very vague.
• I need more time to answer.
• There is difference between read and digest. X3
• Not enough specific information X7
• Not a clear picture of how we will grow. What we will look like. X2
• General and vague. X7
• Too much guessing.
• Lacks clarity.
• Too may motherhood statements.
• We deserve clarity – both residents and developers.
• Too much dependence on LAPS – cannot be considered without that context. X4
• As is it merely allows council to approve anything and everything.
• Words used are without meaning, i.e. “review”, “consider” X3
• Lack of specifics may allow more flexibility.
• Need to know how enforced.
• Need more info and area specific plans
• Ensure public input influences any re-zoning, not just OCP X2
• Needs a comparison with previous OCP – list and illustrate changes – X3
• It assumes many things will be addressed at actual time of development. This is not good enough.
• Bonus density mentions too many times and not described. X3
• Clear H&D restrictions needed.
• Clarify actual height of “story”.

 10.  TIME FRAME Is the time frame (Feb 13 – March 16) adequate for the public to digest and provide comment on the draft  OCP?

• Much more time is required to assess full impact of OCP and disseminate to broader community for comment.
• Who decided this time frame? Way too short.
• Not adequately advertised.
• A sense of urgency is useful.
• Keep this process moving.
• Keep open until mid-April.
• The process is unwieldy. Get on with decisions and execution.
• I have not had adequate time to absorb and comment.
• Way to short especially if Planning will not address groups X11
• Need large public info meetings.
• Most people at table 5 had not read this.
• Needs to be reviewed by more people and in town hall /group format. X14
• How will public input be used?
• When is public hearing?
• No allowance for informed comment in such a short time frame.
• Only allows time to scan.
• Too serious an issue to limit input to abut 30 days.
• Need more opportunities to discuss with planners, neighbours, others.
• This is purposely rushed to avoid public comment.
• Why so quick at this – the MOST important phase?
• Time is adequate if citizen has been involved and this has been properly advertised.11.Are there other issues you wish to address?  
• Why do we need to increase population? What will be the benefit? WV will be a less livable community.
• A vibrant community needs a cross section of demographics and residents who are less affluent.
• WV needs to provide low-cost accommodations.
• The scope of the OCP is far too great.
• Improve centre parking – sensibly.
• Plan for growth outside of transit corridors and centres.
• Focus on missing middle near schools and improve transit to support these areas.
• Factor Park Royal into Ambleside commercial potential.
• Overall verY happy with OCP. Hope it keep moving.
• Traffic management is such a huge public concern but largely beyond municipal jurisdiction. However visible local efforts to influence Translink are essential to keep faith in OCP process
• Need more detail on parks and trails.
• The 1200 feet height limit or building on the mountain. The hope was to have this dealt with directly in the OCP, instead the language is vague and leaves room for developers
• Not enough time in relation to such an important document.
• Need minimum 3 months to learn & digest before comment.
• So important OCP should be referendum item. X2
• A point raised by our table in comparing the original OCP which was much more community oriented.  That one was done by council, says our table, while this one was done by planners.  A big difference says our table and it shows.
  “We want the people to plan our community”
  “Why done by planners?”
  “Because our mayor believes in using ‘experts’ = our planners.”
• Planner DHawkin at a recent NS Housing meeting said that WV resists development and council is afraid to take control.
• How can we trust planners that do not seem to respect community or council?
• How did the Monster on Mathers happen? What can be done to prevent another?
• How did the great wall of Lawson happen? What can be done to prevent another?
• Such a huge outlay of effort and money to create a plan that works toward a future WV designed by planners and developers, and ignores the wishes of the population.
• Where is the listing of our heritage assets and how we will protect them?
• Unless part #2 has been read and understood it is impossible to support this portion X17
• Part #1 is a mere glossing over of what part #2 must detail.
• Page 16, 2.1.7 – No! – Protect present values of adjacent properties and views.
• Page 19, 2.1.13 – No! – affect on traffic is too large.
• Page 19, 2.1.16 – No! – developer will give up profits, the only way to affordable housing is if the district owns and rents it. (see 2.1.20)
• Page 26, 2.2.3 – No! – This will open the door to go higher. The height of structures at 1200 ft. needs to be specified. i.e. no hi-rise at 1200 feet.
• Page 32, 2.3.11 – No to increased density by “bonus”.
• Page 35, The 2 bridges need upgrading and a 3^rd crossing added.
• Page 36, 2.4.23 – Why should we pay for the fuel of low emission vehicles?
• The draft does not provide multiple options and the benefits of each option.
• Changes to laws, government programs, and other mechanisms required to achieve the community’s desired pattern of growth; and infrastructure improvements, like new schools, needed to achieve the benefits of growth with fewer pains.
• OCP and LAPs need to be done together. Need LAPS and other details. X 15
• Need to define each area clearly.
• Lack of transparency in large developments.
• Too broad to be of use. Not enough clarity.
• To full of platitudes and generalities. Not a Planning document.
• Use of words such as “encourage” and “consider” allows too much discretion for planners.
• Need to define affordable.
• Who are we building for?
• I notice that storm drains are not handling run off in big storms and heavy rainfall. (They spew water out rather than take it away – last storm dozens of examples in Ambleside & Dundarave) New development will put even more pressure on the storm water system. What is the current capacity? What is the forecasted capacity needed? Who will build it? How? Where? How much? Shouldn’t this be in place before we start saying how many new units we should add and where?
• I thought the whole rationale for allowing development in the upper lands was because Ambleside and Dundarave has been “built out” to the desired maximum.
• This demonstrates a disconnect between the desires of residents and Planners.
• Need to ensure reflects values & needs of community. Not convinced this has occurred X3
• Young families not sufficiently addressed.
• Boutique hotels not a solution.
• No provisions to control character of villages & town centres.
• Real estate dirty money & empty houses not addressed.
• Need more council responsiveness to public rather than developers.
• Bylaws need enforcement.
• Trees
• No mention of Squamish Nation land or how future development of IR5. This has potential to solve part of our high-density housing.
• Cannot discuss our OCP in isolation of Squamish Lands. X4
• Lease on Park Royal Towers (huge stock of rental housing) is expiring in a few years. This needs discussion.
• Site specific planning is done at expense of community and benefit of developers.
• Any financial benefit of zoning should go to WV not developer. Should be neutral for property owner and benefit to district.
• Not enough citizen input.
• 1% of WV pop. Took part in phase 1,2,3, & 1/3 were children. This is inadequate.
• Philosophy of Planners is not reflective of values of citizens.
• We are not beholden to Metro Vancouver growth strategy.
• We need specific and enforced. Not like how current OCP eroded. X2
• How high is a story? X4
• What is the rationale behind the assumed population growth of about 12,000? On the population graph the slope looks as though it is following the long term average but over the past 45 years the rate of growth has been slowing and is tending to “plateau”.
• What about FAR’s in the Ambleside area with the prospect of multi-story towers; the basic premise, i.e. the higher the building the more open space is left around it, should be followed, otherwise the neighbourhood could become a slum.  Infilling, as approved at 21^st/Bellevue/Argyle, I believe was a retrograde step.
• Low cost housing by private development is not really a realistic option, the developer has to make a profit and the property still has a market value which will become active when the units are sold or the whole complex is sold. The market value is basically the land value and with the situation in the Vancouver area, any subsidies for the structures are almost irrelevant. The best option for low cost housing, I believe, has to be on municipal land and the housing provided by the municipality, who would thereby subsidize rent levels from overall tax revenue.
• Not enough attention is being paid to vehicular transportation – Ambleside currently is a mess and can only get worse, bicycles are not the answer in this area, too many seniors.  Thought has to be given to more arterials, particularly East/West, including crossings of the Capilano River.”
• I note with alarm that view protection has been severely weakened in the draft OCP.
• it is very disappointing that the planning department were not prepared to attend the meeting and answer questions from interested
• I am concerned with the short time the draft plan has been published and the short submission date for comments – March 16. Many residents have no idea what this plan might mean for them. I think that there needs to be at least three months of review and many community meetings before plan goes to council.
• I think the focus group meetings that were held this summer tended to drive people to certain conclusions and has given the planning department some unfortunate feeling that in fact we all want more development (related construction) and density – fewer single family homes and a lot more townhomes and apartments. While I think that we do have citizens nearing retirement who want these types of properties I believe that there are plenty of apartments available –  the gap perhaps is larger three bedroom plus apartments and low rise townhomes or coach house (duplex, triplex developments) The idea of strong demand from younger citizens is I think misguided as it seems unfortunately that such apartments, townhouses or coach houses would remain unaffordable to them.
• Most people I think are concerned about traffic gridlock on the North Shore and if there are to be changes in density they want to understand how it impacts their neighborhood. The other issue they are concerned about is neighbourhood character and how this has been eroded over many years with very little concrete action to try to
  Affordability is also a concern but I fear there are no easy solutions to this one- recent steps taken by BC NDP may help a little here.
• The 53 page draft plan contains a huge amount of motherhood and apple pie but very little that deals with traffic issues and very little explaining the need for increased density and the impact on traffic and neighbourhoods of such increases. The plan also has very little to say on neighbourhood character.
• Some more specific thoughts and questions where it would have been really useful for some member of Council or Planning department at the meeting to answer.
• Pages 3-6 try to explain the increased population forecast which I believe is the driver in the draft OCP for the need for increased  Given that our population has been flat to declining I am not sure why we are now forecasting the population of West Vancouver to start rising again? I almost feel the draft OCP needed to justify increasing density and population growth is what was required. This seems to be a critical assumption and think needs to be well thought through as much of the following pages depend on this assumption. We need to understand the demographics of the forecast population growth surely to determine the type of housing they may need or want.
• Page 7 & 8 deal with Housing affordability and diversity- Firstly nowhere in this draft OCP do we define what our definition of affordability is – affordable to B.C. citizens at large, those who already own homes and are downsizing, younger people in B.C. ? With very high land prices more diversity of housing will not necessarily make our housing affordable except to foreign investors or a wealthy minority of the BC population. We have built Grosvenor one 7 floor and to be built one 6 floor building and have under construction Cressy a 20 story? We also have the Horseshoe Bay development and also under plan The Residences on Marine -from $1.9 million to 2.75 million. None of these would be affordable at all to the vast majority of B.C. residents and likely only affordable to those with inheritances, downsizing from an existing home or foreign investors. So increased density will not provide affordable housing only housing that is marginally more affordable than a single family home.
• Employees of businesses will still have to commute to West Vancouver as even the higher density smaller homes will remain unaffordable to most if not all- so what we need is to make it easier for those employees to travel to the North Shore by transit and road!!!
• Page 10 where we are in the process- as stated above I think the first three phases and the discussions led by planning surprisingly led participants to the solution that planning was directing residents to- I am not convinced that in many instances this is really what
  residents of West Vancouver are looking for.
• Page 15- 2.1.1 – I think the concept here is valid but wording a little unclear- my read is that draft OCP is saying throughout most of West Vancouver larger lots will be able to be subdivided and also coach houses built – what is not clear are actual minimum lot sizes (assume 33 foot) or minimum lot size where coach House could be built.
  Are we also saying that basement suites would be allowed anywhere as
• Page 15 & 16 2.1.4 to 2.1.7 This seems to be what is defined as the Marine Drive Transit Corridor which you are defining essentially goes along Marine Drive from Park Royal all the way to Horseshoe Bay- all along this corridor Triplexes, Duplexes and townhouses should be permitted – this would be up to three stories – I am sure many
  residents of single family homes along this corridor would have concerns re the developments and impacts on views , traffic etc.
• 1.7 seems to essentially permit Council to spot zone certain sites- I realize that Council wants flexibility but I think that Grosvenor ( with a very split Council) did not set a good precedent to grant Council this flexibility- (was pushed through with the vast majority of residents opposed.)- maybe would be OK if Council had a 75%
  majority to approve such cases.
• 1.8 – this really is the only small section ( two small paragraphs) that talks about respecting neighbourhood character for most residents- I think this is a real priority for most of the community and therefore ideas to provide this respect should be spelled out in more detail and given more prominence in the draft OCP. This has been a major concern for most residents for many years and very little if any action has been taken by our Council.
• 1.13 – Ambleside Town Centre 1,000 -1,200 new units or about a 25% increase!!! Seems quite high. I note that 2.1.14 looks at confirming area of Ambleside Town Centre which seems a larger area than would be currently zoned for townhomes and apartments etc? The second point states “Determine densities, heights, building forms that respond to neighborhood contest and character”- what does this really mean – I think residents want to know where high rises can be built and townhomes, duplexes etc. and how that may impact them. Not clear to me here.Next paragraph states “Prioritizing mixed-use and apartment forms in core areas and ground oriented multi family forms (e.g. townhouses , duplexes) to transition to adjacent single-family neighborhoods- Again using the Amblesde Town centre Map I think residents want  to understand where Apartments can be built and to what height , where
  townhomes can be built and to what height and where duplexes etc. can be built- this is not clear to me from reading the plan.
• Section 2.1.16 re Advancing housing affordability, accessibility and sustainability- all sounds good in principal but who is going to pay for subsidies and how do you determine who is worthy and who is not? it is interesting that we had some lower rental housing and Council approved demolishment and building of Cressey Apartment tower with unite selling well over $3 million each?
• 1.20 re Use of District Owned Lands to create affordable housing -but again there is a clear cost to taxpayers and how do we decide who is to benefit therefrom?
• Planning of the new Cypress West Neighborhoods-starting at 2.2.7 –all sounds good but should we not determine what we will do with additional traffic- are there plans to add another link to the Highway? If not we are creating a traffic problem at the Cypress Bowl junction? we are of course adding to the Upper Levels Highway
• 3 Local Economy and Employment- All sounds good but very general statements that need an action plan and specifics to determine what , if anything, the Municipality can actually do. The focus on more retail and restaurants sounds wonderful but think of Amazon- Retail stores are struggling unless they can create a real experience that makes people want to visit. We also have many restaurants that struggle already- will adding more really help- with no growth in population in West Vancouver customer growth will have to come from attracting visitors from elsewhere in Lower Mainland- this will add to traffic gridlock and discourage those form coming.
• Our businesses and employer on the North Shore struggle todayto get those willing to commute to North Shore- we are unlikely to be able to make it affordable to live here so we need to make it easier for those employees by transit and road to get here!!!
• 3.10 Supporting tourism and visitors- Again sounds good but how do you execute – also need to improve transit and road access to North Shore if you want to attract tourists and visitors. The Evening Entertainment sounds again wonderful but who are the customer base? We have an ageing population so not sure who we are catering to? Have we good feedback from our residents that they want this? cypress Park is great but again it is attracting huge volumes of traffic and therefore this brings us back to the inadequacy of our road systems.
• 4 Transportation and Infrastructure – Surprising to me that we start of with walking and cycling? We are an ageing population living on the side of a mountain- is this really our top priority and that of our residents? I hope we are not following Vancouver by adding bike lanes and creating further traffic gridlock.
• Yes it would be good to have improved transit to connect communities and to other parts of Lower Mainland and not just downtown- not really sure of need for transit along Marine drive within West Vancouver- the demand I think is to make it easier to get to other Municipalities in lower Mainland
• Expansion of the Ferry Terminal should be resisted without the Province investing in improved transit and road access ( third crossing or additional lanes on our bridges)- The Ferry traffic is a major contributor to the Gridlock.
• 4.12 Enhancing road network and sustainability I support but there is no real mention of what ought to be the very top of the list- A third crossing or additional lanes to our bridges- we need to get the Provincial and Federal Government to realise that the most significant volume of traffic to and from the North Shore is through traffic to ferries, Squamish and Whistler and visitors to Grouse Mountain and Cypress Park- It is highly unlikely that they would use transit.
• 4.21- Prioritize sustainable transportation options and seek to reduce auto dependency in private and public development projects- a great goal but how do you actually  get construction workers out oft heir cars?
• Bike sharing , car and ride sharing ? Have you actually asked residents if they would use that? I cannot see the demand for that now or in the medium future.
• Provide infrastructure for electric vehicles- do we really want  to subsidize Tesla owners?
• Our clear priority needs to be firstly improved road systems including more lanes of traffic to get on and off the North Shore  and across the North Shore, Improved Transit would be next.
• 6= Parks and Environment- I think fair to say one of the joys of living here in West Vancouver is our Parks and Access to the waterfront- lets keep that but also when we want to expand areas of plantings in our Parks be concious of maintenance- I think often we cannot maintain adequately existing planted areas. We do need also improved Parking at Lighthouse Park.
• 8 Social Well being- Section seems to be largely all Motherhood and Apple Pie- yes all worthy but how do you action and what are costs versus benefits.
• In general as taxpayers we have seen significant increases in our taxes and added billings for utilities- It is incumbent on our Municipal Government to manage costs and staffing demands very carefully to ensure the services are really meeting community wants and needs.
• In summary i think Residents priorities are:
  1) Traffic challenges and gridlock – we need a solution for residents,
  employees of our businesses and those passing through our community
  2) Neighborhood character and concrete actions
  3) Provision of more housing options but not large apartment developments
  4) More affordable housing but I think recognised that there is no
  easy solution that is not very costly..
• I do not think the draft OCP really deals with these issues very well
  or clearly.
• We are already experiencing water shortages in the summer. We need clear and specific plans to demonstrate How much water we use now, how much is projected to be used in future, how future development will impact this and most importantly WHAT are the plans to ensure we have adequate water supply. Where is the scientific data?
• We need maps to show areas that may impacted by rising sea levels and the plans to address this.
• I thought it was a requirement for an OCP to specifically address affordable housing specifically defined as costing no more than 30% of average income. We should know that amount and where are the plans for that type of housing. (what we have now, how much more we will need, how we will obtain it, where it will go)

 

• The plan should indicate how anticipated growth will impact our parks and recreation facilities. A huge portion of users are not residents

 

• This is not an OCP. It is a war of attrition. First we were told our vision, values & concerns would be addressed later, and later, and still later in OCP consultation. Still not done and now we have a draft OCP and we are told we must wait until Local Area Plans are developed to address issues we have wanted to table since this whole (redacted) started! This is not good enough.
• I have yet to learn if the beautiful view I enjoy from my home now will be retained or if I should sell now. I have participated at every point of the OCP process and now I read this and I still don’t know.
• It will entail how many more public hearings on LAPs etc.?
• The plan does not provide criteria to assess both past and anticipated growth on current and projected:

1. traffic congestion
2. parking
3. historic/cultural resources.
4. affordable housing (size, type, tenure, cost)
5. flooding/area sea level rise
6. fresh water supply
7. storm water
8. rental units (size, type, cost)
9. supportive housing
10. seniors housing (size, type – include public long term care
    beds, tenure, cost)
11. family housing (size, type, tenure, cost)
12. views and view corridors
13. privacy
14. noise
15. support of small independent shops and services
16. taxes & costs of infrastructure expansion.

We must have detailed components for each of these topic. We must accurately measure and manage current and projected metrics for each. THIS is what an OCP is supposed to do!

• All this plan does is provide for building more. This has not and is not a solution to our problems. This is not a means to achieve our goals.
• I have attended an “info-booth” and all Planning could say about every deficiency I brought up is “We take our direction from Council”. Maybe Council, Planning or both should be replaced.
• Building new housing will not stop, but must be recognized as the most expensive housing option available. More thought must be given to preserving existing housing stock in all areas and forms.
• At Cressy where we exchanged somewhat affordable units for unattainable luxury.
• Without part 2 this is meaningless, but this was not available at the information booth I attended. I was told it was online but it is too big for my computer to open.