Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A OCP€¦ · METRO VANCOUVER ELECTORAL AREA A OCP Round 1...

Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A OCP

Round 1 Engagement Summary June 2016

Prepared for: Marcin Pachcinski, MCIP RPP Division Manager, Electoral Area and Environment Metro Vancouver

June 30, 2016

METRO VANCOUVER ELECTORAL AREA A OCP

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 WORKSHOP FORMAT .......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 HOWE SOUND COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................... 3 2.1 THE POSITIVE ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 THE CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED .......................................................................................................... 5 2.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 7

3.0 BARNSTON ISLAND .......................................................................................................... 8 3.1 THE POSITIVE ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 THE CHALLENGES ................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED ........................................................................................................ 10 3.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 12

4.0 INDIAN ARM/PITT LAKE/BOULDER ISLAND/CARRAHOLLY POINT ............................... 13 4.1 THE POSITIVE ....................................................................................................................... 15 4.2 THE CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................... 15

The Challenges – Indian Arm .......................................................................................... 16 The Challenges - Pitt Lake................................................................................................ 17

4.3 KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED ........................................................................................................ 17 4.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF APPENDICES

– WORKSHOP NOTES .................................................................................. A.1 APPENDIX A

– COMPLETED ISSUES IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEETS ................................ B.2 APPENDIX B

– COMPLETED FEEDBACK FORMS .............................................................. C.3 APPENDIX C

- EMAIL FEEDBACK RECEIVED ................................................................... D.4 APPENDIX D


Round 1 Engagement Summary June 30, 2016

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Metro Vancouver is undertaking the development of an Official Community Planning (OCP) for Electoral Area A (excluding the University of British Columbia, University Endowment Lands, Passage Island, and Bowyer Island).

The first round of community consultations with Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A residents were held in June 2016. The objectives of this round of engagement workshops were to introduce residents to the OCP process, explain why an OCP is needed now, and solicit resident feedback into the key issues facing each community.

Notification of the first round of community engagement workshops was sent via email and letter mail to residents who are on Metro Vancouver’s lists. The community engagement workshops invitation was also included as part of Metro Vancouver’s Electoral Area A June 2016 Information Bulletin; this bulletin is posted to the Metro Vancouver website and distributed via email to those subscribing to the Electoral Area A mailing list. Metro Vancouver staff also distributed notices of the community engagement workshops to neighbouring municipalities inviting their participation in the OCP process.

Table 1 below lists the details of the three engagement workshops.

Table 1: Community engagement workshop details and attendance

Community Workshop details # attendees # of issues identification forms received

# of feedback forms received

Howe Sound communities (includes Ocean Point, Strachan Point, Montizambert Wynd) *

Wednesday June 15, 2016, 6:30 – 8:30PM, Gleneagles Community Centre Seaview Room, West Vancouver

19 18 15

Barnston Island Thursday June 16, 2016, 6:30 – 8:30PM, Tetoten Community Centre, Barnston Island

16 11 12

Indian Arm, Pitt Lake (west), Boulder Island, Carraholly Point *

Monday June 20, 2016, 6:30 – 8:30PM, Port Moody Recreation Centre Multipurpose Room 2, Port Moody

41 25 28



2

*although these areas are geographically diverse, workshops have been grouped together for logistical purposes. Residents from each area were encouraged to think about issues facing their immediate surroundings but also consider the larger area.

Residents who were unable to attend the workshops were invited to participate in other means of feedback, such as phone dialogues or email comments. In total 4 residents reached out for phone dialogues, and 4 residents provided email comments. Verbatim email comments can be seen in the appendix.

1.1 WORKSHOP FORMAT

The format for each workshop was kept consistent. In general, Metro Vancouver and Stantec staff took 30- 45 minutes to introduce the Electoral Area and the OCP process, and set the agenda for small group discussions amongst residents. Residents were encouraged to ask questions at any point in the presentation. Participants were then given 45-60 minutes to discuss in small groups (of 6-10 members) the good/positive and bad/challenging aspects of their communities, and to elaborate on issues facing their particular areas. Residents were encouraged to consider the positive characteristics that they would like to see preserved or protected, the negative aspects that need change, and to discuss the threats or challenges they see for the future of the area.

Issues identification worksheets were handed out to residents who were encouraged to rank a list of potential issues in order of priority to their community. Each small group discussed the highest priority items within their group. Then, each group shared their highest priority issues with all attendees in a general discussion.

A plenary discussion was held prior to the end of the meeting to allow residents to build on any issues they heard about, and to voice any last thoughts. Residents were alerted to the date of the next round of consultation workshops for their communities. Optional feedback forms were handed out to each resident to fill in and return.

Workshop discussion notes, completed issues identification worksheets, and completed feedback forms can be seen in the Appendices. Any personal information identifying participants have been removed to protect individual privacy.

The same format was followed in a condensed 20-30min discussion for those who were unable to attend the workshop and chose to participate through a phone dialogue.



3

2.0 HOWE SOUND COMMUNITIES

Staff/consultants in attendance: Lourette Swanepoel (Stantec), John Steil (Stantec), Charling Li (Stantec), Tom Pearce (Metro Vancouver), Marcin Pachcinski (Metro Vancouver), Bill Holmes (Metro Vancouver). Meeting attendees: 19 attendees counted, with 19 signed in. Only one representative from Ocean Point was present. Members of other communities who were interested in the process: One Lions Bay elected official, one resident of Bowyer Island, and one resident of West Vancouver.

Figure 1: Howe Sound workshop presentation

Figure 2: Howe Sound workshop group discussions



4

2.1 THE POSITIVE

Residents generally appreciated the ocean views, clean air, and access to nature offered by this area. There is excellent recreational access for swimming, fishing, hiking, boating, crab-fishing, etc., and abundant wildlife, both aquatic and terrestrial. Some residents noted that the Sound has improved substantially since the Britannia mines and Woodfibre mines have been cleaned up. Residents want to see the existing shoreline protected from further dock development.

Residents like the access to urban centres via Hwy. 99 (Sea-to-Sky Highway), while being able to enjoy the rural/remote feel and privacy offered by living along the Howe Sound in small developments. There is a strong sense of community and neighbours rely on one another in times of need, as most of the houses are owner-occupied. Residents enjoy the low taxes as well as the low crime rate in the area. Drinking water is accessed through nearby creeks and is of good quality for now.

2.2 THE CHALLENGES

Of top concern to residents is the risk of wildfires as the area is surrounded by forests. There is no municipal fire protection and as a result fire insurance rates are high. In general there is a feeling of inadequate municipal services being provided, such as water, sewer, road maintenance and fire protection.

Residents do feel somewhat disconnected to other communities because they are separated by long stretches of highway. Residents do not want to see additional development that would compromise safety, access and convenience of Hwy 99. For Strachan Point specifically, residents find that a left turn to access Hwy 99 N is particularly dangerous already. Residents along Howe Sound find they are seeing more trucks on the highway now which is leading to noise concerns – they do not want to see the highway become busier.

Although all three developments along Howe Sound have access to drinking water, these services are provided privately and residents have concerns about the maintaining the quality and quantity of water available for their future use. Residents of Montizambert Wynd feel their water supply (from Montizambert Creek) is already oversubscribed.

An active CN Rail line currently runs along Howe Sound and carries heavy freight which sometimes includes hazardous materials that residents are concerned about and is a noise issue. Some residents expressed interest in seeing this line converted to a commuter rail line which might reduce noise and safety impacts. There are also some complaints of coal dust coming off the existing CN rail cargo. Proposed LNG developments elsewhere in Howe Sound were also raised as a concern by some residents.



5

Some residents expressed a desire not to see the area developed for resort uses – they don’t want it to turn into a ‘playground’.

One resident expressed an interest in aging in place and would like to explore how multi-generational housing could be allowed or accomodated in some communities.

Some residents indicated a lack of accountable governance from Metro Vancouver, but in general would like to see less regulation but better services. Some residents felt that there was a lack of consultation when the zoning bylaws were enacted in 2011.

2.3 KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED

Figure 3 summarizes the issues prioritized by residents of Howe Sound during the workshop.

Key issues for residents of Howe Sound are the lack of fire protection and the threat of wildfires, drinking water quality and access, the preservation of air quality and good road access to urban centres. Shoreline protection from large and numerous docks and the protection of forests and natural vegetation were important. Residents were sensitive to the potential for natural hazards in the area and want to protect the remote/rural feeling of the area.

Of medium-high concern are the protection of recreational opportunities, the threat of natural hazards and derelict properties in the area. In terms of the scale of development, residents want to see limited or no further development in the area.



6

Figure 3: Issues prioritized for Howe Sound

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Agriculture / farming / growing foodShops / commercial servicesOther: Complete community

Other: Local economicsOther: Potential re-industrialization

Other: Regional governanceEducation

Sidewalks / walking pathsSolid waste

Secondary suites / rentalsOther: Noise (Railway/Hwy)

EmploymentTourism

Other private utilities (electric / gas / cable /…Affordability

Other: LNG in the regionSeptic / sewageTransit services

Safety / crimeArchitectural character of development…

Streams and ravinesDerelict propertiesRecreation / sport

Housing types (townhomes, apartments,…Resource extraction

Size / scale of developmentRemote / rural feeling

Natural hazards (flooding, landslides, etc.)Shoreline

Forests / natural vegetationRoads / access

Air qualityDrinking waterFire protection

# of responses

High

Med-high

Medium

Low-med

Low



7

2.4 GENERAL DISCUSSION

One resident questioned how future density in the Howe Sound would be handled while preserving access to urban centres. The resident questioned whether further development was part of the plan for regional municipalities and Electoral Area A, where will the density go and what will it look like. The elected official from Lions Bay provided context for development pressure on the Metro Vancouver region in terms of expecting population to grow by 1 million people in the next 15 years. He emphasized that communities do have a say in what the Howe Sound area will look like through this OCP process.

Metro Vancouver staff also explained that there is no current development pressure directed at the Howe Sound area in Electoral Area A. However, Metro Vancouver staff needs to be proactive in creating the OCP so in case of future development pressure staff have an idea of what residents want. The OCP also gives staff more leverage when negotiating with various provincial departments on behalf of residents, instead of forwarding issues to the Province on an ad-hoc basis.

Residents generally did not want to see any future development in the Howe Sound area.

One resident suggested that current traffic connecting North Shore to lower mainland is poor – Lions Gate Bridge and 2nd Narrows Bridge congestion is currently quite bad. The resident expressed the need for an additional crossing, maybe a SkyTrain or other public transportation options, but noted that existing North Shore mayors have been against this idea.

One resident indicated that he does not want to see much change in the area, in terms of density or land use or highway safety, but would like to see better infrastructure for livability and safety purposes, such as fire protection, water services. Some residents expressed a desire to be ‘interfered with’ as little as possible.

Other feedback

Through phone dialogue, one property owner expressed a strong desire to see high-rise density allowed in the lots east of Hwy 99 near Montizambert Wynd. This property owner felt that high-rise development in this area is more environmentally responsible compared to single family home development, and urged other agencies such as the Ministry of Transportation to cooperate in providing access for potential development in this area. This owner also felt that increasing secondary suites and rentals is needed.



8

3.0 BARNSTON ISLAND

Staff/consultants in attendance: John Steil (Stantec), Charling Li (Stantec), Tom Pearce (Metro Vancouver), Marcin Pachcinski (Metro Vancouver), Bill Holmes (Metro Vancouver). Meeting attendees: 16 attendees counted, with 15 signed in. Members of other communities who were interested in the process: Two representatives of Katzie First Nation, one potential buyer of land on Barnston Island (resident of Delta) and one Metro Vancouver Parks Planner.

Figure 4: Barnston Island workshop presentation

Figure 5: Barnston Island workshop group discussions



9

3.1 THE POSITIVE

Residents of Barnston Island in general considered the tight-knit working community a positive trait of the island. There is excellent recreation for biking and walking, and the area has low crime rate in general. It is very close to urban centers in the Lower Mainland, but it feels like a pleasant escape as it is a picturesque place with wildlife and birdlife. Residents like the fact that the island is generally quiet and allows for privacy, especially with limited night access (no ferry service after midnight). The agricultural potential of the land is good and residents feel taxes are reasonable.

3.2 THE CHALLENGES

Residents find the lack of fire protection a significant issue as a safety concern and also because of the impact of high fire insurance rates on businesses.

Safe, reliable and convenient access to the community is a negative aspect of living and working on Barnston Island. Currently vehicles have to back on and off the ferry on the island side – generally residents are skilled at this but find that tourists to the island are less skilled at backing on and off and can cause dangerous situations. Residents also have concerns about the safety of the wooden access ramp to the ferry. The wait for the ferry on both the Surrey and Barnston side can be unpredictable and residents find this impacts not only the logistics of running agricultural businesses on the island but also day-to-day life. Delivery times for farming products and equipment are unreliable because of delays at the ferry and at 104 Ave on the Surrey side. 104 Ave is the only access road to the ferry and crosses an active CN Rail line which often sees very long trains causing lengthy waits. In the event of emergency, there is no way to communicate with CN Rail for access in and out of Barnston Island.

Moreover, 104 Avenue is at lower level than Dyke Road which protects Barnston Island from flooding. In case of floods, it is sometimes possible that although the dike keeps water out of Barnston and allows for ferry access, 104 Ave is flooded on Surrey’s side so residents cannot access the Lower Mainland anyway.

There is also some concern of inconsistencies on the weight and size restrictions on the ferry for residents and businesses that have impacted some residents negatively. There may be different rules that are being enforced by the ferry that are not apparent.

In general, residents emphasize increasing conflict with the public who visit the island for its amenities – the pastoral nature, excellent biking and walking, as well as the two regional parks on the eastern and western points of the island. Residents find tourists add to delays at the ferry, take up too much space on Dyke Road and don’t make enough room for farm equipment that need clearance. In particular this is of concern at Robert Point which has posted visible ‘no



10

parking’ signage that is often ignored by tourists; this makes Dyke Road impassable for larger farm equipment at this point. The lack of by-law enforcement for parking in this area exacerbates the problem, and there is also no security patrol at the parks. Residents find that tourists treat the entire island as a public park, ignoring private property signage and trespassing, and in some cases behaving disrespectfully and irresponsibly.

There were some specific concerns about a bike race that was held on the island in April 2016. Residents were not informed or consulted about the bike race and found it created significant disruption. In general, residents felt there were too many visitors coming to the island. There were also concerns that Mann Point is being advertised on the internet as a nude beach, with no consultation or permission sought from local residents who are impacted.

Residents were also concerned about the aging and degrading dike surrounding the island. In some cases residents find the floodwaters seep under the dike to flood out fields. There are also indications that Dyke Road will need to be widened in the future to accommodate farm equipment. Residents are aware of the issues surrounding the maintenance costs of the dike as well as the issues relating to the potential transfer of this responsibility from the Province (Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure) to Metro Vancouver. There is also some concern of the ongoing erosion of the shoreline at Mann Point and how that may eventually cause damage to Dyke Road.

There are some derelict buildings on the island that are unsightly and attracting vandalism and in some cases squatters.

Residents think that there is insufficient municipal services being provided, such as fire protection, drinking water, policing.


Figure 6 summarizes the issues prioritized by Barnston Island residents.

The highest priorities are access to Lower Mainland, fire protection, protection from natural hazards, and the preservation of the remote/rural feeling of the place.

Of medium-high priority were the following issues: maintaining and improving agriculture, protecting air quality, safety and crime, the clean-up of derelict properties, protection of forests and natural vegetation and shoreline protection, and limiting the scale of development. Issues related to tourism on the island are also of medium-high concern.



11

Figure 6: Issues prioritized for Barnston Island

0 5 10 15

Other: Noise

Resource extraction

Secondary suites / rentals

Education

Employment

Shops / commercial services

Recreation / sport

Transit services

Architectural character of development…

Sidewalks / walking paths

Other: Residential moratorium if…

Solid waste

Other private utilities (electric / gas /…

Size / scale of development

Drinking water

Affordability

Streams and ravines

Housing types (townhomes, apartments,…

Septic / sewage

Shoreline

Tourism

Forests / natural vegetation

Derelict properties

Air quality

Safety / crime

Agriculture / farming / growing food

Remote / rural feeling

Natural hazards (flooding, landslides, etc.)

Fire protection

Roads / access

# of responses

High

Med-high

Medium

Low-medium

Low



12


During the plenary discussion, a planner from Metro Vancouver Parks was in the audience and invited specific feedback about the impact of the regional parks at Mann Point and Robert Point on residents. The general agreement was that the parks bring too much traffic to the island, causing parking and access issues. Many residents felt that the parks did not provide enough positive benefit to the island residents to offset the nuisances brought by visitors. Many would like to see the parks gone but one resident strongly supported keeping the parks where they are as they are a great natural amenity for residents as well. Generally, residents agreed that because Robert Point is developed for tourism (with washroom and picnic tables) that it tends to draw more tourist traffic than Mann Point. However, parking around Robert Point is an issue. Although the area is marked as ‘no parking’ many still disrespect the signage and park, taking up road space that is needed for large farm equipment. There is also a lack of enforcement.

Some resident felt the use of quad vehicles on Mann Point is leading to erosion of the shoreline and foreshore areas. Potential for the erosion of Mann Point to lead to tree collapse that could tear out sections of Dyke Road and compromise its ability to hold off flood waters. No one recalled whether an erosion study had been done in recent years to identify or remedy this potential hazard. There was also some discussion of whether Mann Point was originally meant to be a bird sanctuary with no public access. Some residents believe it was supposed to be.

A general discussion ensued on the need for greater respect from tourists who come for the parks and the biking – they need to respect private property, not trespass and let out animals. Tourists need to understand Barnston is a working/farming community and the island itself is not a public park. Some questioned whether new signage would be enough. It was mentioned that the tug boat drivers keep track of numbers of tourists compared to residents every day (walk-ons) to demonstrate how tourism has changed over the years.

One resident asked whether or how they could access funding for improved bike lanes or ferry access or safety. Metro Vancouver staff responded that there is federal and provincial monies available and Metro Vancouver would help facilitate that process – but the key is to capture the issues in the OCP to demonstrate its importance to the local community. The resident wanted to explore how to improve the dike and capture the needs associated with existing infrastructure.

One resident commented that this was the ‘most positive meeting in decades’.

Other feedback

Through phone dialogue, one property owner from Barnston Island felt that agricultural uses of the land was not a good fit because of poor soil quality, and thought that residential use of land should be encouraged but with sensitivity to how any land-use changes would impact existing residents who wish to maintain agricultural uses.



13

4.0 INDIAN ARM/PITT LAKE/BOULDER ISLAND/CARRAHOLLY POINT

Staff/consultants in attendance: John Steil (Stantec), Charling Li (Stantec), Tom Pearce (Metro Vancouver), Marcin Pachcinski (Metro Vancouver), Bill Holmes (Metro Vancouver). Meeting attendees: 41 attendees counted, with 36 signed in. Members of other communities who were interested in the process: One BC Parks Planner. No residents from Boulder Island or Carraholly Point attended the workshop. Despite being fairly distinct communities, Indian Arm and Pitt Lake share many similar issues and concerns. Some differences do exist between the communities and are pointed out where they appear.



14

Figure 7: Indian Arm/Pitt Lake workshop presentation

Figure 8: Indian Arm/Pitt Lake workshop group discussions



15

4.1 THE POSITIVE

Residents enjoy the fact that these areas are accessible by boat only. It maintains the remote nature of the area, and helps to keep crime low simply because the areas are difficult to access. Residents enjoy the ample recreation opportunities offered: fishing, swimming, boating, biking, water-skiing, etc. Water and air quality is excellent and the natural environment is ‘pristine’ and ‘raw’. Wildlife is abundant to the area: seals, otters, fish, geese, and bears,

Residents also treasure the fact that these remote places are fairly proximate to their permanent homes in the Lower Mainland. Residents enjoy the seclusion of the area, the solitude and generally ‘being left alone’.

As a result of the isolation of the area and the lack of services, tight-knit communities have developed over the years; neighbours rely on each other to deal with adverse events such as fires, storm damage, inclement weather, etc. A strong community spirit has formed in many pockets of Indian Arm and Pitt Lake. The area is also intergenerational; some families have been on their land for over 50 years for 4 generations.

Despite increasing tourism in the area, residents of Pitt Lake are happy to note there are not too many incidences of drunk boaters or other irresponsible uses of the area.

Generally, residents would like the area to be maintained as is, with some improvement to services.

4.2 THE CHALLENGES

For both Pitt Lake and Indian Arm, the lack of reliable cellular service in the area is a significant safety concern, not just for residents but also for visitors to the area. The threat of wildfires combined with the lack of fire protection services (such as a fire boat) leads to very high fire insurance rates and safety concerns for residents. In some cases, when residents do reach nearby municipal fire or emergency services they are passed around between different jurisdiction who don’t end up being able to help anyway. Residents are finding that some recent developments in the area are tending towards much larger homes that are out of character of the majority of recreational cabins. In both bodies of water, there are increasing issues with derelict property such as buildings, boat ramps/docks and even boats that have been abandoned and are causing environmental concerns as well as being a hazard to marine activities. Some of the derelict properties also lead to vandalism and attracts illegal dumping of junk and scrap. There was also concern from some residents about how current building codes impose ‘unreasonable’ building standards on recreational buildings, for example, heating, insulation,



16

and ventilation requirements, that do not suit the recreational nature of cabins in the area and lead to conformance issues.

Another concern common to both Indian Arm and Pitt Lake is the lack of garbage disposal services. In the past there have been annual garbage clean-ups and large item collection on Indian Arm but hasn’t been organized in a few years.

Residents also find that because they are in remote locations, there is no support for dispute resolution, whether it is between neighbours or with the many authorities having jurisdiction over different aspects of living in this area. For example, Metro Vancouver is in charge of buildings, while Port Metro Vancouver is in charge of docks, and in some cases the Province for leased lands, etc.

There is some general sentiment that residents of these remote areas are not getting sufficient services for the amount of taxes they pay.

The Challenges – Indian Arm

Specifically for the Indian Arm community, there was some concern from residents who lease lands from the Crown that lease payments are becoming unreasonable and unaffordable. This leads to some residents abandoning the properties, exacerbating the issue of derelict buildings in the area.

As Indian Arm is quite popular with tourists and is accessible from the Burrard Inlet, there has been an increase in the number of large boats in the area. There is no posted speed limit and no size limitation of boats in the area; residents find that these large boats at high speeds can create significant wakes that have damaged docks.

There are some general noise complaints from Indian Arm residents who find noise a nuisance from visiting party-goers, chain saws, and the Buntzen Lake Powerhouse. There are currently no noise guidelines for the area.

Residents also find some issues with bears who are habituated to human garbage. These bears are rounded up from urban areas and dumped north of Indian Arm; when these bears try to find their way back to urban areas they often go through Indian Arm. Residents sometimes see bears going through their garbage and in some cases cabins have been broken into by bears seeking food.

Convenient water access to Indian Arm properties is somewhat limited by the lack of overnight parking in Deep Cove, District of North Vancouver, or Belcarra, where residents launch their boats to access Indian Arm properties.

Some residents were concerned about landslide potential from septic systems, due to septic systems contributing to geotechnical instability on steep slopes.



17

Some Indian Arm residents pointed to the lack of access to the top of Indian Arm which is the only hiking option in the area.

Over the years, residents have been seeing reduced number of crabs and prawns available in the area due to the increase in commercial fishing operations in the area. They have also experienced increasing theft of crab traps and sometimes witness illegal fishing.

In the past there have been some disputes with Port Metro Vancouver over the sizes and spacing of docks, which residents stress are very important for access to their properties.

The Challenges - Pitt Lake

Pitt Lake residents found that access to their properties can be challenging. Many residents access Pitt Lake through Grant Narrows Provincial Park in Pitt Meadows, and the road leading to the Park is very slow, and in need of repair. In the summertime, increased traffic makes the road even slower. There are concerns about dock safety, security and maintenance at Grant Narrows also; given the importance of water access to Pitt Lake properties this is a significant concern.

Residents of Pitt Lake pointed out how it doesn’t make sense that the west side of the lake is under the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver, while the east side is under the Fraser Valley Regional District. Each jurisdiction has different rules for building permits, septic requirements, etc.; this does not seem fair.

Pitt Lake users also find that existing marine navigation markers are too far apart; this can be treacherous to boating safety. There are some incidences of a lack of resolution with First Nations treaties in the Pitt Lake area. Some feel that existing property owners and leasehold lot owners should be considered and not impacted by the on-going, unresolved treaty and land negotiations with First Nations.


Figure 9 and Figure 10 summarizes the high priority issues for Pitt Lake and Indian Arm.

The high priorities to both Pitt Lake and Indian Arm are similar. The issues of highest priority are the lack of fire protection, the protection of existing drinking water access (both quality of water and water licensing), the protection of forests/natural vegetation, and poor cellular service leading safety concerns for residents and visitors to the area. Residents highly valued the remote/rural feeling of the area and prefer to keep the area as water access only (no direct road access); they indicated a preference to limit development to recreational cabins only to maintain the



18

current remote feeling. Residents felt the natural environment should be protected and generally did not want to see any resource extraction in the area.

A concern for increasing crime in Indian Arm is a high priority. For Pitt Lake, issues relating to Grant Narrows Park’s access, management, safety and maintenance are of high priority.

Of medium-high priority to both areas are the protection of the current air quality and the lack of enforcement for derelict properties (structures, docks, boats) which cause aesthetic as well as environmental health and safety concerns. Also, the protection of shorelines and existing recreational opportunities were of medium-high priority, as was improved solid waste collection services.

In Indian Arm specifically, the issue of unreasonable lease payments is of medium concern to residents.



19

Figure 9: Issues prioritized for Pitt Lake

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Agriculture / farming / growing foodEmployment

Sidewalks / walking pathsTourism

Transit servicesAffordability

Secondary suites / rentalsSeptic / sewage

Recreation / sportShorelineEducation

Shops / commercial servicesDerelict properties

Architectural character of development (what it…Housing types (townhomes, apartments, cabins, etc.)

Other: Boat SafetySize / scale of development

Roads / accessStreams and ravines

Natural hazards (flooding, landslides, etc.)Air quality

Resource extractionForests / natural vegetation

Other: Grant Narrows Park IssuesDrinking water

Remote / rural feelingSafety / crime

Other private utilities (electric / gas / cable / phone)Fire protection

Solid waste

# of responses

High

Medium-highMedium

Low-mediumLow



20

Figure 10: Issues prioritized for Indian Arm

0 5 10 15 20 25

Septic / sewageEmployment

Agriculture / farming / growing foodEducation

Transit servicesTourism

Other: Commercial fishing in a marine parkShops / commercial services

Secondary suites / rentalsSidewalks / walking paths

Architectural character of development…Affordability

Roads / accessOther private utilities (electric / gas / cable…Natural hazards (flooding, landslides, etc.)

Other: Wake damageDerelict properties

Air qualityHousing types (townhomes, apartments,…

Streams and ravinesSize / scale of development

Other: Issues with multiple jurisdictionsShoreline

Other: Lease issues with CrownResource extraction

Safety / crimeRecreation / sport

Forests / natural vegetationDrinking water

Solid wasteRemote / rural feeling

Fire protection

# of responses

High

Med-high

Medium



21


The issue of governance was brought up by several residents who felt there were too many jurisdictions they needed to deal with to get things done on their property. For example, Metro Vancouver is in charge of buildings, while Port Metro Vancouver is in charge of docks, and in some cases the Province for leased lands etc., and it is difficult for residents to navigate between different agencies. Residents wish for a ‘one-stop shop’ agency who can meet their needs.

One resident questioned why representatives from BC Crown Lands were not present to discuss the issue of leased lands for owners who lease from the Crown on Indian Arm. Metro Vancouver will invite them to the next meeting.

A planning representative of BC Parks was in attendance to learn about residents’ use of the area surrounding the west side of Pitt Lake which forms part of Pinecone Burke Park.

One resident recalled going through a consultation process a number of years ago for BC parks planning and coal management planning for Indian Arm Park, but found that after the first community consultation meeting, the two subsequent consultations were cancelled, and a plan/set of recommendations was passed without further community input. These recommendations went on to be quite influential in the area but it was not clear whether community input was considered so the community did not feel like they were heard. This resident hopes that the current OCP process will continue as intended to fully capture community input.

Other feedback

Through phone dialogue, two residents in Indian Arm expressed their thoughts and concerns for the area.

The first resident enjoyed the remote and rural nature of the area and the recreational opportunities. This resident noticed the issue of derelict buildings but felt it was not a significant concern. This resident supported maintaining the area for smaller cabins and does not support the development of large single family homes on Indian Arm. The resident sees an increase in boat tourism which may endanger paddlers and swimmers, and could be controlled via a limit on the size and number of motorized boat traffic.

A second resident was concerned about the complications in dealing with multiple jurisdictions; for example Fraser Health for water and septic-related issues, and Port Metro Vancouver with marine traffic and docks, and Metro Vancouver for any building-related issues. This resident has experienced a lack of coordination between these agencies and found that these agencies are not equipped to understand and deal with the rural and remote context of Indian Arm. In some cases, the ‘rules’ that apply in urban areas (such as road access, building, water and sanitation requirements) do not make sense for Indian Arm because of the lack of existing infrastructure. This resident opposes the idea of subdivision of waterfront lots, because of issues



22

with water access, privacy and access to water, and does not want to see waterfront subdivisions similar to Deep Cove’s Panorama Drive. This resident felt the existing natural shoreline should be protected and residents should not be allowed to alter natural features like high water marks.

APPENDICES


Appendix A – Workshop Notes June 30, 2016

A.1

– WORKSHOP NOTES Appendix A


Appendix B – Completed issues identification worksheets June 30, 2016

B.2

– COMPLETED ISSUES IDENTIFICATION Appendix BWORKSHEETS


Appendix C – Completed feedback forms June 30, 2016

C.3

– COMPLETED FEEDBACK FORMS Appendix C


Appendix D - Email Feedback Received June 30, 2016

D.4

- EMAIL FEEDBACK RECEIVED Appendix D

Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A OCP€¦ · METRO VANCOUVER ELECTORAL AREA A OCP Round 1...

Documents

Transcript of Metro Vancouver Electoral Area A OCP€¦ · METRO VANCOUVER ELECTORAL AREA A OCP Round 1...