Appendix B: Neighbourhood Open House Feedback Summary

Christie Point Redevelopment

Summary of Comments Received

TENANTS MEETING, September 20, 2016: 2 Comment Forms Completed and Returned on September 20, 2016

How would you best describe yourself?

• 2 Resident of Christie Point Apartments
• 0 Neighbour of Christie Point
• 0 Community Member
• 0 Other

The project team developed a set of planning principles to guide the redevelopment planning process. Do you agree with the planning principles?

• 2 YES
• 0 NO

Comments:

• I am glad that there is a large focus on keeping the inlet environmentally stable.
• Protecting the natural beauty of the complex is very important.
• Seeing options for solar panels in the future shows some thought about the future.

Are there any other planning principles the project team could consider? Comments:

• No comments

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?

• 0 YES
• 1 NO

Comments:

• No comments

Please let us know what your think about the preliminary concept plans. Comments:

• I think the designs look nice, and I appreciate trying to keep some green space. Seeing that solar energy may be incorporated is great!
• I am happy to see the green spaces left and even expanded. I feel the buildings are definitely in need of a refresh.

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:

• I would like to see units of similar size to the current apartments, as we have moved to this location primarily for the location / space provided. Having bike lock up and a separate storage space is also something I would like to see continued with the new design.
• I personally find the current size perfect and would struggle to go much smaller. I would like to see a green building standard such as LEED put in place for the new design.

---

Christie Point Redevelopment

Summary of Comments Received

NEIGHBOURHOOD OPEN HOUSE, September 22, 2016: 22 Comment Forms Completed and Returned After the Open House

How would you best describe yourself?

• 8 Resident of Christie Point Apartments
• 9 Neighbour of Christie Point
• 4 Community Member
• 1 Other: Private property owner on Shoreline Drive; former resident of Christie Point.

The project team developed a set of planning principles to guide the redevelopment planning process. Do you agree with the planning principles?

• 4 YES
• 12 NO

Comments:

• It was my understanding that there are restrictive covenants precluding this kind of development. Is there any truth to that?
• The site plan is too large for the area. 2-3 storeys max just like Bylaws suggest. The light pollution from 400 more units will be massively disruptive for both wildlife and residents. The nature reserve should be highly respected.
• Stick to OCP/Zoning Bylaw. 4 storey max (on designated height) stay at or below FSR. This is not the place to develop with tall buildings in the middle of a recreational area (Portage Inlet) which will spoil any natural view presently remaining. Trees will be destroyed by proposed buildings.
• Not entirely – the traffic problem will not be resolved adequately – it will just be pushed a bit further past the Shoreline, Craigflower intersection.
• Good that we have an open house- need to know more.
• I believe they are finding ways to justify their development plans solely to cover up the sole motivation is for more profit. There is very little concern for displacement of families in particular.
• Planning should be done only after consulting with existing stakeholders, residents, neighbours and the community.
• 2 9-storey towers are unreasonable and will be an eyesore in the community. A lot of people will be displaced and probably won’t be able to afford the rent hikes!
• I believe that a phase plan should be implemented.
• Not agreeing with OCP as far as height restrictions. I feel upset that a multinational is coming to our neighbouhrood and don’t give a damn for locals.
• Density/traffic – how resolved – exists is absurd. No solutions – and best to develop than continue the sprawl. Dead end site with huge traffic issue.
• Apartment blocks (without townhouses or single storey dwellings) dwarves pedestrians. Not in keeping with immediate neighbours, neighbourhood. More suited to inner city site than such a suburban/pastoral site.
• It looks very attractive and has many attributes. I’m excited to be a tenant there!
• The main concern is access from Christie Point to the Island Highway either in an easterly or a westerly direction. Also access to Christie Point from Island Highway from either direction is already extremely difficult. There are PRESENT conditions. One cannot fathom what it will look like when the McKenzie interchange constructions are being carried out. Compound this further by the possibility of construction vehicles trying to access for development. The mind boggles!!!
• Then, fast forward a few MORE years when higher density tenancy at Christie Point may be a possibility. The traffic flow will be worse than a crawl.
• No attention whatsoever to the human aspects – we are plainly excited whether we like it or not. Most of us seniors, handicapped people, young families – won’t be able to afford the new rate and all of this for the sake of your successful business – an absolute shame.
• Too high density, Storeys too high.
• Principles are unrealistic.

Are there any other planning principles the project team could consider? Comments:

• Less units is a must!!!! There needs to be a more reasonable project presented to the public. Less units!!!! More people = more damage that’s just a fact. I will wait to see the new renderings with less units.
• Stick to DPAs which are designated to protect ESAs (Environmentally Sensitive Areas)
• You need to consider seriously the effect of such a project on the visual aspects of this important waterway – it’s one of the best in the Victoria area.
• It appears that the environmental issues have been raised. I do not think increasing the density on such a narrow strip of land is appropriate.
• Housing all residents who wish to stay, at rents no more than that allowed by existing rental legislation that protect residents from rental gouging. With 339 more sites and some I see no reason current residents could not stay on in new buildings at current rental agreements. At minimum, for a multi year transition commitment.
• Maintain the low rent housing and allow existing tenants to stay. All new structures should be no more than 2 storeys high. Many tenants of Christie Point will be asked to move and will not be able to afford rent in other locations.
• As far as I can see, and without in-depth knowledge, the planning principles seem fair. Except – traffic and traffic issues (especially during rush hour) should be thoroughly studied before proceeding. Suggestion: grandfather current tenants @ their existing rents and increase via new tenants moving in.
• The rental market of the CRD (Victoria) it is unreasonable to expect residents to find affordable housing within six months. By using a phase plan, it will keep residence here and put forward the planned.
• Height and density – the OCP states small lot detached homes, low rise apartments – buildings up to 3-4 storeys – none of which your plan has followed!!
• Some serious thought has to be put into traffic that is already ridiculous and getting worse every year.
• Amalgamation and regional planning versus district planning. No existing mid rise/high rise zones in View Royal? Pointint out flaws of past as positive to amend and develop.
• Existing View Royal OCP envisions multi-family in single family townhouses and apartment buildings “3-4 storeys”. There are no townhouses showing in your development concept and most importantly your apartment blocks are all 4 storeys or higher up to 9 storeys!! Way too high for site!! Way too high for neighbourhood.
• The team could consider supporting any plans for rapid transit to and from Victoria. Bring back the trains! The corridor already there. Solving the current traffic chaos should be the priority! Sewers can wait!
• The traffic, it will be too much for the road.
• Keep ‘family’ area in one place (with playground, but no leagues). Grandfather pets for present tenants and disallow pets in future – as it used to be when I moved in 12 ½ years ago when it was a well observed ‘protected’ area.
• Have a consultant evaluate the human impact. The human factor is ignored.
• Impact (realistic) on traffic impact on ambience of neighbourhood. Will rents be increased? Out of reach of present 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?

• 12 YES
• 1 NO

Comments:

• Less units!!!
• More to follow!!!
• As I’ve already stated, the visual effects of increased height and density of the area is of major importance in retaining the value of this area.
• Flooding, erosion, bird and wildlife sanctuary, are key points – increase in sewage, water, roads will exhaust resources.
• Traffic congestion – during construction and after completion - Shoreline road and intersection at Shoreline and Island Highway as well as Craigflower and Admirals.
• Relocating existing tenants at the same rental rates or subsidizing them for having to rent elsewhere.
• Traffic – what are you going to do about it. It’s already bad.
• Traffic implications, particularly egress in the case of an emergency. This is also be the case with the current Christie Point).
• Traffic with McKenzie interchange construction effect the Admirals/Craigflower intersection.
• Consideration for the school hasn’t been addressed.
• More traffic studies, additional documentation supporting your statement that growth from existing number of units to 500 units will “insignificantly “ impact traffic flow. I think that is a gross understatement.
• Emergency plans in case of earthquake or fire or other tenant emergencies i.e. heart attack etc.
• Yes, I think there should be more research on developing the sites, technical studies.
• Don’t know.
• Traffic at Old Island Highway major issue.
• Traffic impact on school re: traffic, highrise proximity to heliport

Please let us know what your think about the preliminary concept plans. Comments:

• Your sketch of the proposed development is completely misleading. From our vantage point (directly across from Christie Point), even buildings 4 storeys high will eliminate our view of most of the trees. At 6 storeys, we won’t see the hills behind them, and at 9 storeys, we may as well live in James Bay. This is obvious even from the picture on your non-functioning website.
• Too many units. I am all about growth and redevelopment but this is too much for this area.
• The proposed increased density is out of scale in relation to the traffic problems it will create – it’s not going to be resolved – just pushed a bit further up Craigflower. It will still remain a bottleneck to reach the Helmcken intersection.
• High rises on such a small narrow point situated on a mud flat makes no sense.
• The buildings are too high. There is not enough area for parking.
• Too much density for the property.
• I mostly like the preliminary concept plan. My only concern going to 9 storeys. It is my opinion that 9 is too high and would significantly impact the natural beauty.
• Looks good, but housing for present residence has not been considered. How will Mackenzie interchange construction effect traffic while this construction is proposed.
• The OCP calls for 3 and 4 storeys - building height does not coincide with local thinking.
• Too visible over the portage inlet – buildings too high, too many trees gone, buildings dominate the view instead of natural shoreline.
• Well done so far.
• I find the plans are alright.
• Wonderful idea and great attributes!!
• See previous page. Also I’m concerned about the # of trees that will be taken out. Also, misplacing tenants who have lived there for years and who will likely have to move because they can’t afford the rent.
• Good. Do we need nine storeys?
• Ridiculous, no highrises!!! Too ambitious. Stick with 3 storeys.

Do you have any questions about the project that were not addressed in the Open House materials? Comments:

• What’s going to happen to all the displaced residents? I am strongly opposed to the type of redevelopment you are proposing. There must be many other sites in View Royal far more suitable for high density housing, without the inherent environmental sensitivity attached to this project.
• There is insufficient consideration given to the visual impact of this project.
• Before Open House: Have given minimal consideration to concept as I oppose proceeding with any redevelopment plan. After [Open House]: Need community / Christie Point involvement in design plan and town amenities as part of approval i.e. bike paths, community garden, etc.
• Traffic, displacement, rental rates, # of places that would be offered to existing tenants, construction/displacement phasing. Everything is very vague. Residents in Saanich didn’t receive postcards re: Open House. Only know because I gave them flyer.
• Why has there been so much planning done without any consultation of residents, neighbours and the community.
• At the building planning stage – please deal with soundproofing!!! Currently floorboards squeak appallingly and we can almost hear our neighbours breath! Consider adequate storage areas – this is important.
• Possibilities of housing for residence during project has not been addressed.
• Traffic problems that currently exist are just being ignored. Traffic now at this area is absurd as it is without the addition of a potential 1000 more vehicles.
• The environment to do with a bird sanctuary is it still going to be the same, and another wildlife.
• Heating – will it be reasonably inexpensive as it is now?

Do you have any other comments you would like to share with the project team? Comments:

• This is a bird sanctuary and environmentally sensitive area. The proposed development is completely inappropriate for the setting – and the suggestion that it would have little impact on traffic is ridiculous. In the 13 years that we have lived here, the bird populations have decreased dramatically. I can’t imagine what this will do to them.
• I personally find the current size perfect and would struggle to go much smaller. I would like to see a green building standard such as LEED put in place for the new design.
• Less units.
• The environmental issues pertaining to this important waterway year-rounds for a myriad of waterfowl species needs to be assessed in considerable in-depth study.
• Changing the density in an area close to family, single homes would adversely affect the neighbourhood.
• I respect the need for more housing but strongly feel tearing down a community is not the answer. There are other places to develop high density housing that would not create an abundance of negative repercussions for so many people. This is pure greed. It shows a lack of understanding for who lives at Christie Point and why they live there.
• This is too much density for the area and it will create further burdens on the existing traffic.
• Currently, Christie Point is a warm, and friendly, and close community. I would hate for this to be lost by making it too big and impersonal. Otherwise, I am excited by the prospect of new and redeveloped dwellings. I love living here and would live in no other place. Thank you.
• This project should not even be considered until after the McKenzie intersection is complete and the impact on traffic that is worse and worse every year.
• Not at this time.
• Wild life, the tenants, plus are rents market rate. Myself, I think the tenants that want to stay should pay the same rent, it shouldn’t change, only the new tenants should pay more.
• Wishing you the very best!
• Concerned about noise, traffic, dust during construction and increased traffic if the project goes through due to the higher density housing = more cars.
• It complements the Marine Trail project. See Councillor John Rogers.
• Not the right locale for high density. We are not downtown! This is not Toronto.

---

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?

---

Christie Point Redevelopment

Summary of Comments Received

NEIGHBOURHOOD OPEN HOUSE, September 22, 2016: Comments Posted on Comment Board using Notes at the Open House

• Feedback from someone else was that she thought all the “consultants” here with handwritten name tags were Council employees, when in fact they are Realstar staff.
• Postal codes around inlet were not included in mailout. Only reason people from that area came is because Christie Point resident dropped off fliers. Heather w/ Realstar insists specific postal codes were mailed. Concerns that this is also being presented that the rezoning is approved already.
• Traffic is already insane.
• 500 units w/ 500 to 1000 cars???
• Light pollution.
• 9 storeys – no way!
• Realstar insisted they sent flyers to our neighbourhood houses (outlying Christie Point) but none of the house owners I’ve spoken to received any info from Realstar. They only rec’d flyers from a Christie Point resident about the rezoning and this meeting.
• Thank you for considering our local swans, geese, eagles, otters, buffleheads, kingfishers, owls, seals, salmon, garry oaks, arbutus, etc.
• Tell the town to put in a commuter lane.
• 9 stories is about 3 too high.
• I’m thinking of current tenants, this will cause them hardship. Would it be considered to have one new unit be designated for low income folks?
• Large dominant looming buildings creating darkness, shadowning, dwarfing single family residnces.
• Transit – work with municipality to find a way to get public transit into the development.
• No rentals – private ownership PLEASE.
• 9 stories building is too high!! Way too high.
• Tall buildings, too many lights and noise blasting across water attacking tranquility.
• Erosion flooding hardship on the land and shoreline.
• Maybe its @ the municipal level that the parking requirements need to be addressed e.g. there should be incentive to not needing a parking spot (sliding tax levels?...)
• Traffic, traffic, traffic, traffic.
• What happens over time? Buildings get run down neighbourhood suffers.
• Good that same footprint, BUT too high, too dense.
• I’m a tenant of Christie Point. I want to wish you the very best of luck with everything!! Your choice of architects is sublime. Ideas superb! Many thanks. As for the traffic – it’s already bad and will get worse with or without this lovely development. Do right Mr. Mayor + allow a good business to do good things.
• I’m concerned about the # of units that will be built – much higher density than what is there now.
• I’m concern that a lot of tree will be taken out.
• Input into design process i.e. rooftop gardens, community gardens, bike paths.
• Include 3 bedrooms in design plan and allot to existing 3br residents.
• Adding to an already horrendous traffic situation.
• There are some good ideas. However, buildings are too high. Max. 3 storeys each.
• Displacing current tenants and out pricing them out of market.
• Concern re: tenants who will be misplaced with new higher rents. Many tenants have been there for years.
• MacKenzie interchange be completed before rezoning to see traffic flow – too congested now.
• Tenants will be subject to many adjustments.
• Please don’t price us out of the rental market!
• Traffic – construction – ongoing – affects school and community.
• Any light installation or delay of traffic @ Shoreline Dr. and Craigflower will cause serious congestion at the intersection of Craigflower + Admirals, which is already an absolute nightmare between 2 pm and 6 pm.
• What about matching the % of low income assisted units in the new 500 unit complex. Realstar will already be turning a huge profit from unaffordable rental units and could give back to the community of View Royal!
• Bird sanctuary or dog haven?? Too many too big now!!
• Traffic is + will be ridiculous.
• From 140 – 500 units!! Too many people/bldgs.
• I can’t see how the traffic can possibly be accommodated turning off and onto Island Highway.
• Bright white LED light ought to face down onto your property not shine across the inlet. Envo countries now use BLUE LEDs.Victoria Pat Bay Highway uses orange LEDs.
• Density too high with poor traffic.
• Yes we need rental unit so happy to see plan to keep it rental. Concerns – will present renters be able to afford these units? Traffic will need to be addressed before buildings.
• We live directly across from Christie Pt. & had no notice by Realstar about this meeting.
• Displacement of tenants into an already saturated renting market.
• High bldg. Not favourable. Too dense.
• As a single parent + resident of Christie Pt, I would love to stay but I’m concerned I many not be able to afford the rent!
• The loss of a sense of community – Diito
• Higher high water +3 Nov – Dec