Summary of Comments Received COMMENT FORMS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
Summary of feedback received through electronic submissions between September and November 2016, including a resident's formal letter of opposition.
Christie Point Redevelopment: Summary of Comments Received
COMMENT FORMS COMPLETED / SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
12 Comment Forms Completed between September 23 and November 18, 2016
How would you best describe yourself?
- 5 Resident of Christie Point Apartments
- 4 Neighbour of Christie Point
- 1 Community Member
- 2 Other: Neighbour and Community Member, PISCES
The project team developed a set of planning principles to guide the redevelopment planning process. Do you agree with the planning principles?
- 5 YES
- 6 NO
Comments:
- You need to have more open ended questions. I feel that I can't really answer this question because it asks how I feel about the principles of the redevelopment planning. Of course I agree with protecting the environment and boosting the economy however; there are so many negative aspects to this redevelopment for the residents already renting at Christie Point apartments.
- As long as concerns of nearby residents are addressed.
- The most downside or negative aspect of Christie point is no sidewalk, people/ children has to walk along the street and deal with cars.
- You should have asked the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods how they see the redevelopment of the property. Colouring a building brown doesn't make it a tree it still is a hazard to birds.
- Simply over developed. not respecting the sensitive surrounding area. Grossly over developed.
- I have great concerns that expanding from 161 to 520 units will put a great strain on the land and wildlife, as well as the residents themselves. 161 units are just about all this place can handle, especially when one also considers current traffic conditions. Coming and going from Shoreline Rd. can be extremely difficult, especially at peak traffic times.
- I am concern about traffic in and out of the area if you increase the tenants. Currently at rush hour times (3pm-5:30pm), the intersection before the shoreline turn off is backed up by 45 minutes and people quickly merge onto the highway at that intersection, creating opportunity for accidents per car. The roads would need to be modified to better accommodate residents if more tenants were added to the property. Currently I feel slightly trapped in the area during those rush hour times.
Are there any other planning principles the project team could consider?
Comments:
- Affordable housing for the residents currently renting Christie point apartments.
- The disruption to residents directly across the water from the proposed construction.
- This is a unique environmental site and should not be considered as a commercial city development. Real star may own the land but the environment and nature belongs to everybody including birds, habitat and fish.
- The environment, the residents, the community.
- The residents must be considered, and how their lives will be affected. Very little is being said about the current residents of Christie Point who will have to relocate. Victoria already has a housing crisis - there is nowhere for us to go. Current rent is manageable. Many will not be able to move back here at a higher rent. If redevelopment is meant to help people find more housing options in Victoria, it is defeating the purpose by displacing those who currently have affordable housing here right now. If residents do have to move, Realstar should provide rental options at their other locations in Victoria, with rents that are equal to what residents are paying now.
- I am wondering if safety has been considered (BC requirement). Currently there is only one entrance/exit for all of Christie Point. With the addition of so many more residences, I would believe that more entrance/exits would need to be available for safety and evaluation reasons. Currently it takes me 5 minutes to leave the property with its current number of tenants.
The project team has completed a number of technical studies to inform the redevelopment planning process. Are there any other topics or studies that you think could be further researched?
- 8 YES
- 3 NO
Comments:
- Affordable housing for residents already renting at Christie point.
- Light pollution from the buildings.
- Social consequences of displacement of low cost (for Victoria) rentals before, during and after construction.
- Noise reduction during construction.
- Listen to the people who are the stewards of this sensitive water shed and sanctuary. Where are the impact studies of artificial lighting on birds, specifically migrating birds given the unique site as a Migratory Bird Sanctuary. Where are studies to revitalize and improve the existing native vegetation, i.e type, number, location, size of trees to be planted. Studies to show how natural inhabitants are going to be addressed and supported.
- Public consultation. If the community doesn't agree. the Project shouldn't agree. Further, any consultation should be independent and not commissioned by the developer.
- The local social impact of displacing families from current affordable homes to build new ones that they will not be able to afford.
- See above [transportation/safety]
Please let us know what your think about the preliminary concept plans.
Comments:
- Way too big, these buildings need to be scaled back.
- Density is too high and the proposed towers are too visually invasive.
- Density is too high and the proposed towers are too visually invasive.
- I don't believe this level of density - with over 500 units proposed - is good for the community. The light and noise pollution alone, with noise and lights traveling across the Portage Inlet in three directions 24/7. Already, with the existing units there are lights glowing across the water all night; and emergency vehicles arriving with sirens blasting across the water. Then there's the added traffic congestion, which as we all know is deplorable and without improvement in sight. Adding this many units will only amplify traffic congestion and make commuting to and from View Royal, Colwood and other western communities to and from Victoria even more challenging than it is already.
- Far to invasive and dominating in height and scope. Environmentally insensitive to the site location.
- Grossly and inappropriately developed and ill conceived.
- They look great.
- Six stories is still too expansive for this small piece of land.
- See above [transportation/safety]
Do you have any questions about the project that were not addressed in the Open House materials?
Comments:
- No comments
Do you have any other comments you would like to share with the project team?
Comments:
- Real star should have informed its most recent renters of their plans to redevelop before renting apartments to tenants. I would have never rented an apartment here if I had known of plans for redevelopment. Especially if it meant a possible increase in rent. The current rental market in Victoria is competitive and it is difficult for families living on fixed income to find affordable housing. Had I known that I would have to move again even in a couple of years I would not have moved here as I was looking for an apartment rental my family could stay in long term.
- The local traffic cannot handle a development of this size. The building needs to be scaled back considerably. Your traffic assumptions are off, try commuting in it.
- First and foremost, the traffic problem must be solved before proceeding with this project whether by reduction in density or by innovative access construction.
- As retired residents we spend the majority of our time at home in our yard. We live directly across the water from the road side of the development and the many years of construction will severely disrupt our lifestyle.
- View Royal Park which is several acres next to the Trans Canada Hwy, was originally developed as a rest station when the highway was built, but was not used, so was later redeveloped as a park. The park is used by a few dog walkers and people cutting through to the residential areas. Perhaps the park, or part of this park could possibly be traded for Christie Point, making Christie Point a park and nature reserve, and turning View Royal Park into a higher density development, with fewer traffic problems and impacting far fewer residences with noise and light pollution. Something similar was done at the Spit in Campbell River a few years ago.
- The present proposed size and scale of the redevelopment shows a lack of understanding as to the impact on this sensitive environmental site.
View Royal Mayor and Council 45 View Royal Avenue, Victoria BC V9B 1A6
November 8, 2016
Dear Mayor and Council,
As a resident of the Portage Inlet I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Christie Point Development. The proposed development is to the detriment of the environment, the community and is a gross misappropriation of urban space and ecological preservation.
Christie Point is situated in the middle of Portage Inlet, a six kilometer waterway connecting View Royal, Saanich, Esquimalt and Victoria as it spans from the upper inner harbor to Portage Inlet. Portage Inlet is an environmentally sensitive intertidal ecosystem that not only intrinsically links these communities by its geography; it is also home to extensive eelgrass beds, native oysters, herring and Coho salmon spawning. The inlet is also a federally protected migratory bird sanctuary making it one of the most important bird habitat areas in the capital regional district (CRD).
Despite a tumultuous history of pollution, sedimentation, habitat loss and degradation, Portage Inlet has prevailed as a thriving ecosystem as result of community efforts of conversation and environmental stewardship. The proposed 520 rental unit development would endanger, if not destroy this sensitive ecosystem which is of critical importance. Further, the proposed development would regress the community's conversation and stewardship efforts.
Christie Point currently provides 161 units of low density affordable housing while respecting the environmental integrity of the surrounding area. The proposed construction of 520 rental units consisting of seven buildings ranging from four to nine stories, would reduce affordable housing by removing modest, economical residences in place of several elaborate residential towers. The proposed developments destruction and subsequent construction of residential units is a form of gentrification that would systematically and permanently displace those of more modest means.
While the proposed development endeavors to provide 520 residential units, it only provides for 500 parking spaces. This is well below the View Royal bylaw requirement of 700 parking spaces. The impact of this inadequacy is that vehicles will spill out to the outlining areas. Further, the development will accelerate the Island Highway traffic gridlock commonly referred to as the 'Colwood Crawl'. Additionally the construction of parking spaces will destroy many protected species of tress such as: Garry Oak, Douglas-fir and Western Red Cedar.
Portage Inlet and Christie point are a part of the CRD's ecosystem and urban environment. I trust that this area of vital importance will continue to benefit from the community's conversation, environmental stewardship and well considered urban planning efforts. While I strongly oppose the Christie Point Development, I appreciate both the opportunity to engage in public consultation and your consideration of the above. I look forward to further informed dialogue.
- It would be nice if there were some condos available to purchase as well as the rental ones.
- I am unclear on this, and it likely has been answered to some degree by you already, so I apologize in advance. I currently live in a townhome at the end of the property. If construction goes forward, would I be able to continue living in the townhome? Are the townhome areas also eventually going to be under construction and would townhomes still be available over apartments in the future?