Island News & Views
General · 28th March 2007
Susan Westren
Official Community Plan Review Process and Critique
It seems that a lot of folks on the island either don’t know that a review of Quadra’s Official Community Plan is going on, don’t know much about the process, or are not aware that the draft plans in their current state represent massive change. The following is my understanding of what’s been going on, based on attending meetings over the past 6 or 7 weeks and speaking with steering committee members.
Provincial law requires that community plans be reviewed every ten years. 2006 was the tenth year since Quadra’s Official Community Plan (OCP) was created. Last October, the process of the review was initiated by the Regional District Planning Dept. The overall objective of the review was to manage some inevitable growth and to look at ways to create some more affordable housing opportunities.
However, rather than looking at the current OCP to see if some changes might be made to meet these needs, the planners decided to begin with what is known as a “visioning process,” and decided that four areas of the island should be looked at. Residents from these four neighbourhoods were then asked to form four distinct steering committees. These neighbourhoods are: l. Southeast of the island - from just south of Noble Rd to Fransciso Point, east of the Cape Mudge Band land; 2. south from Heriot Bay, again on the east side - from just north of Milford Rd to the wood lot at the south ends of Fox and Cedar; 3. Heriot Bay and 4. Quathiaski Cove. Committees were asked to “dream,” to begin sketching ideas, to draw up lists of concepts, to colour in the maps provided and later to develop policies that would in the end produce a Local Area Draft Plan for their neighbourhood. It only became clear recently that these LAP’s would become appendages to the OCP and which plan takes precedence where there is conflict or confusion between the two, has still not been settled. Having four major appendages to our OCP can only complicate the planning process and will probably enhance the possibility for making more of the kinds of mistakes made in the past. The planners claim that it will be easier for them to deal with re-zoning applications.
After the first introductory meeting, the four committees began working separately and had no contact with the other neighbourhood groups as their ideas and draft plans moved forward. There are some significant problems with this approach to planning. There was no opportunity to create a vision for the whole of the island. As the groups have been working in isolation from each other, each trying to deal with growth, they have had no notion of how their ideas fit in with ideas generated by the other committees and consequently the combined effects of their draft plans represent a potential for increased population and a potential for increased density that represent a huge population increase. Committee members who have put in considerable time and effort working on their area plans, have, understandably, developed by this time a vested interest in them and are less likely to abandon or adjust them so that they integrate with a more comprehensive concept.
The draft plans present how each committee has redesignated properties to allow, for instance, for 5 and 10 acre lots to be re-zoned to 2 1/2 acres, or for some properties to be developed as multi-unit (the definition of multi-unit defers between the Cove and Heriot Bay draft plans). If large areas are redesignated, that makes re-zoning a little easier but what it really does is encourage re-zoning and hence increased density. The result is possibly property reassessment, undoubtedly a rise in land value (a subdividable lot is generally seen as more attractive for purchase) and hence taxes.
The current OCP recommends that any increases in density should begin in the Cove but under this process, four areas are being targeted (why these particular other areas is a good question). The head planner said at a recent meeting when questioned on this point, that other parts of the island would be looked at in the same way some time in the future.
I wonder what this means for our OCP. Will it end up having 6 or 7 appendages? Is this a back-door way to change the OCP that ten years ago was agreed to by the vast majority of islanders? The current OCP provides already for all of the changes contemplated in the 4 area plans. The option is there to leave the plan as it is and put a new date on it.
Part of the work which the committees did was to look at policies for each area plan. Rather than lifting words directly from the OCP so that no conflict or confusion develops, I understand that sample policy statements have been lifted from other community plans and the many of the policies that have been included are not relevant to the redesignation process.
Even though the planners directing this process say they are taking a hands off policy, they have been perceived by many committee members as steering the committees towards development, and as being in favour of greatly increased density. They are not rural planners and have not lived in a rural environment. As well, the planners have not done well in maintaining the perspective of committee members, that any changes are for the short term, for the next ten years, at which time the OCP will need its next review. Committees have not been given accurate information on health regulations, the impact of assessments, soil drainage capacity and potential population increases. In fact, the head planner has been very misleading in giving figures about the possible increase in dwellings.
The study of consequences to traffic on the roads and ferries, on water supply, on services such as fire and ambulance was not encouraged. Comments made by the head planner, such as “we could put Hong Kong on Quadra and not have to worry about water” and “bring the people and then we’ll just ask the Ferry Corporation to produce a new ferry” have been his way to deal with what are serious concerns.
So, here we are at the time when the draft plans are being presented to the neighbourhoods concerned and soon there will be a general community wide public meeting to look at all four draft plans. It would be a good idea to have copies of the plan maps together with current zoning maps and copies of the policies together with copies of the OCP available before and after the community meeting so that everyone interested would have the time and opportunity to look at these materials carefully and submit their comments and concerns. There is never time at public meetings for everyone to speak and there are many who feel uncomfortable doing so. The reaction of islanders should then be used to support or bring changes to the drafts. I believe this should happen before the drafts are taken to the Regional District Board for approval.
Key to maps:
Quathiaski Cove
Green = active open space
Yellow = residential 1 acre
Orange = residential 1/2 acre
Turquoise = cluster housing 8 per acre
Brown = multi-unit housing 8 per acre
Pink = industrial
South-east of Noble Road
Orange border and everything inside = 5 acres with 2 full-size dwellings
South of Heriot Bay
Orange border and everything inside = 2.5 acres with 2 dwellings
Heriot Bay
Green = active open space
Red = Residential/commercial, 1 business 2 dwellings
Brown = Multi-unit: 16 per acre? per parcel? per 10 acres? (the draft is unclear)
It seems that a lot of folks on the island either don’t know that a review of Quadra’s Official Community Plan is going on, don’t know much about the process, or are not aware that the draft plans in their current state represent massive change. The following is my understanding of what’s been going on, based on attending meetings over the past 6 or 7 weeks and speaking with steering committee members.
Provincial law requires that community plans be reviewed every ten years. 2006 was the tenth year since Quadra’s Official Community Plan (OCP) was created. Last October, the process of the review was initiated by the Regional District Planning Dept. The overall objective of the review was to manage some inevitable growth and to look at ways to create some more affordable housing opportunities.
However, rather than looking at the current OCP to see if some changes might be made to meet these needs, the planners decided to begin with what is known as a “visioning process,” and decided that four areas of the island should be looked at. Residents from these four neighbourhoods were then asked to form four distinct steering committees. These neighbourhoods are: l. Southeast of the island - from just south of Noble Rd to Fransciso Point, east of the Cape Mudge Band land; 2. south from Heriot Bay, again on the east side - from just north of Milford Rd to the wood lot at the south ends of Fox and Cedar; 3. Heriot Bay and 4. Quathiaski Cove. Committees were asked to “dream,” to begin sketching ideas, to draw up lists of concepts, to colour in the maps provided and later to develop policies that would in the end produce a Local Area Draft Plan for their neighbourhood. It only became clear recently that these LAP’s would become appendages to the OCP and which plan takes precedence where there is conflict or confusion between the two, has still not been settled. Having four major appendages to our OCP can only complicate the planning process and will probably enhance the possibility for making more of the kinds of mistakes made in the past. The planners claim that it will be easier for them to deal with re-zoning applications.
After the first introductory meeting, the four committees began working separately and had no contact with the other neighbourhood groups as their ideas and draft plans moved forward. There are some significant problems with this approach to planning. There was no opportunity to create a vision for the whole of the island. As the groups have been working in isolation from each other, each trying to deal with growth, they have had no notion of how their ideas fit in with ideas generated by the other committees and consequently the combined effects of their draft plans represent a potential for increased population and a potential for increased density that represent a huge population increase. Committee members who have put in considerable time and effort working on their area plans, have, understandably, developed by this time a vested interest in them and are less likely to abandon or adjust them so that they integrate with a more comprehensive concept.
The draft plans present how each committee has redesignated properties to allow, for instance, for 5 and 10 acre lots to be re-zoned to 2 1/2 acres, or for some properties to be developed as multi-unit (the definition of multi-unit defers between the Cove and Heriot Bay draft plans). If large areas are redesignated, that makes re-zoning a little easier but what it really does is encourage re-zoning and hence increased density. The result is possibly property reassessment, undoubtedly a rise in land value (a subdividable lot is generally seen as more attractive for purchase) and hence taxes.
The current OCP recommends that any increases in density should begin in the Cove but under this process, four areas are being targeted (why these particular other areas is a good question). The head planner said at a recent meeting when questioned on this point, that other parts of the island would be looked at in the same way some time in the future.
I wonder what this means for our OCP. Will it end up having 6 or 7 appendages? Is this a back-door way to change the OCP that ten years ago was agreed to by the vast majority of islanders? The current OCP provides already for all of the changes contemplated in the 4 area plans. The option is there to leave the plan as it is and put a new date on it.
Part of the work which the committees did was to look at policies for each area plan. Rather than lifting words directly from the OCP so that no conflict or confusion develops, I understand that sample policy statements have been lifted from other community plans and the many of the policies that have been included are not relevant to the redesignation process.
Even though the planners directing this process say they are taking a hands off policy, they have been perceived by many committee members as steering the committees towards development, and as being in favour of greatly increased density. They are not rural planners and have not lived in a rural environment. As well, the planners have not done well in maintaining the perspective of committee members, that any changes are for the short term, for the next ten years, at which time the OCP will need its next review. Committees have not been given accurate information on health regulations, the impact of assessments, soil drainage capacity and potential population increases. In fact, the head planner has been very misleading in giving figures about the possible increase in dwellings.
The study of consequences to traffic on the roads and ferries, on water supply, on services such as fire and ambulance was not encouraged. Comments made by the head planner, such as “we could put Hong Kong on Quadra and not have to worry about water” and “bring the people and then we’ll just ask the Ferry Corporation to produce a new ferry” have been his way to deal with what are serious concerns.
So, here we are at the time when the draft plans are being presented to the neighbourhoods concerned and soon there will be a general community wide public meeting to look at all four draft plans. It would be a good idea to have copies of the plan maps together with current zoning maps and copies of the policies together with copies of the OCP available before and after the community meeting so that everyone interested would have the time and opportunity to look at these materials carefully and submit their comments and concerns. There is never time at public meetings for everyone to speak and there are many who feel uncomfortable doing so. The reaction of islanders should then be used to support or bring changes to the drafts. I believe this should happen before the drafts are taken to the Regional District Board for approval.
Key to maps:
Quathiaski Cove
Green = active open space
Yellow = residential 1 acre
Orange = residential 1/2 acre
Turquoise = cluster housing 8 per acre
Brown = multi-unit housing 8 per acre
Pink = industrial
South-east of Noble Road
Orange border and everything inside = 5 acres with 2 full-size dwellings
South of Heriot Bay
Orange border and everything inside = 2.5 acres with 2 dwellings
Heriot Bay
Green = active open space
Red = Residential/commercial, 1 business 2 dwellings
Brown = Multi-unit: 16 per acre? per parcel? per 10 acres? (the draft is unclear)
Quathiaski Cove
South-east of Noble Road
South of Heriot Bay
Heriot Bay
Too much money spent on community plan
Comment by rupert nimrod on 13th April 2007
How can we waste more money? If i were king I would take this OCP and its regional planners and there inflated salaries for a long walk off a short pier, the money that has been "wasted" and we're talking about lots off money folks, could have built our seniors housing, that sadly sits unfinished for lack of funds. Come on folks wake up this should be a priority, old timers shouldn't have to go off the island for care or a decent place to live. As far as density goes who really needs 10 acres or for that matter 1 acre what we must demand is respect for our clean water and protection of our aquafir.Perhaps our local health authority would allow us to use dry composting toilets, there's many on the market ,in the interum until an "approved multi-million dollar septic facility" is built in heriot bay. Yes sir composting toilets a simple solution, I can see it now , buy them now on sale at Quadra builders financing available from Quadra Credit Union on approved credit. We could be the first west-coasters to say sincerely " our sh*t don't stink"
How can we waste more money? If i were king I would take this OCP and its regional planners and there inflated salaries for a long walk off a short pier, the money that has been "wasted" and we're talking about lots off money folks, could have built our seniors housing, that sadly sits unfinished for lack of funds. Come on folks wake up this should be a priority, old timers shouldn't have to go off the island for care or a decent place to live. As far as density goes who really needs 10 acres or for that matter 1 acre what we must demand is respect for our clean water and protection of our aquafir.Perhaps our local health authority would allow us to use dry composting toilets, there's many on the market ,in the interum until an "approved multi-million dollar septic facility" is built in heriot bay. Yes sir composting toilets a simple solution, I can see it now , buy them now on sale at Quadra builders financing available from Quadra Credit Union on approved credit. We could be the first west-coasters to say sincerely " our sh*t don't stink"
Draw Bridge?
Comment by David Oppenheim on 5th April 2007
If these plans go ahead, it is not a Draw bridge we will need but an ordinary bridge - especially on holiday weekends, and during the summer, when all the owners of those small "affordable" lots come here from Vancouver to their holiday houses. If small lots made for affordable housing, Vancouver would be a cheap place to live.
If you really want affordable housing you have to move somewhere that is not very attractive to most people. Or you have to make it a requirement for any development that it meet a preset standard for affordability - which probably is not allowed under existing law. One could designate multi-housing for cooperative situations, such as was done for the seniors housing, without the idea that it be for the elderly. But this should be done on a case by case basis, to ensure that it will work.
If the "Vision" for this round of planning is really about providing housing for people who are already here but have no place to live that they can afford (and not about $$$ or some theoretical group who would like to come here), then the first thing we need is to know how many people or families we are trying to accomodate. If we do not know what the problem we are trying to solve entails, we will likely fail to solve it. And if instead we solve some other, unstated problem, we are likely to end up with unintended consequences that we will all have to live with.
If these plans go ahead, it is not a Draw bridge we will need but an ordinary bridge - especially on holiday weekends, and during the summer, when all the owners of those small "affordable" lots come here from Vancouver to their holiday houses. If small lots made for affordable housing, Vancouver would be a cheap place to live.
If you really want affordable housing you have to move somewhere that is not very attractive to most people. Or you have to make it a requirement for any development that it meet a preset standard for affordability - which probably is not allowed under existing law. One could designate multi-housing for cooperative situations, such as was done for the seniors housing, without the idea that it be for the elderly. But this should be done on a case by case basis, to ensure that it will work.
If the "Vision" for this round of planning is really about providing housing for people who are already here but have no place to live that they can afford (and not about $$$ or some theoretical group who would like to come here), then the first thing we need is to know how many people or families we are trying to accomodate. If we do not know what the problem we are trying to solve entails, we will likely fail to solve it. And if instead we solve some other, unstated problem, we are likely to end up with unintended consequences that we will all have to live with.
water shortages on south island
Comment by Lyn paterson on 5th April 2007
Morte Lake has been suggested as a back-up water supply for a growing population. I swim there quite often and watch the water level go down rapidly in a hot summer. The feeder streams dry up and most of the lake is shallow. There may be a deep trench on the northern side but that wouldn't stop the disappearnce of most of the lake if there was draw- down. A major tourist attraction transformed into our own Aral Sea .
Global warming is real. The last IPCC report apparently played down the chances of a major short-term temperature increase due to feedback. Water shortages and high temperatures are going to be the norm.We need to plan realistically, not get sucked into blue skies thinking.
Morte Lake has been suggested as a back-up water supply for a growing population. I swim there quite often and watch the water level go down rapidly in a hot summer. The feeder streams dry up and most of the lake is shallow. There may be a deep trench on the northern side but that wouldn't stop the disappearnce of most of the lake if there was draw- down. A major tourist attraction transformed into our own Aral Sea .
Global warming is real. The last IPCC report apparently played down the chances of a major short-term temperature increase due to feedback. Water shortages and high temperatures are going to be the norm.We need to plan realistically, not get sucked into blue skies thinking.
planning for the future
Comment by Robyn Mawhinney on 29th March 2007
I think it's a shame that the four groups have been working in isolation, and that major issues such as water, sewer, ferry capacity etc, seem to have been of no major concern.
However, this is not a time for a NIMBY approach: "we're here, so pull up the draw bridge".
I see this island drawing more retired folks, as it is splendid to live here, and as they are about the only ones who can afford to buy on the island right now. But what about the services that retired (and other) folks desire, that they expect from this island?
Who will provide these services as the population ages?
The school population is shrinking, a sure indication that younger people are leaving the island. Why? Because they can't afford to live here.
Let's not pull up the drawbridge; let's plan for growth in a sustainable way. Smaller lots have a place on this island too, lots which are affordable for younger people and those starting families. A variety of ages keeps a community a community.
Property sizes have been shrinking on this island for decades... several Quadra rentals I have lived on were once part of larger lots. The "global economy" is always increasing (with recession a naughty word), and Quadra is inextricably caught up in this growth.
Growth is coming, so let's choose healthy options: designate more green spaces, implement water and sewage treatment systems where smaller lots sizes are desired, and encourage farming & sustainable woodlots (rather than corporate logging of our island) with appropiate wording in our official community plan.
I think it's a shame that the four groups have been working in isolation, and that major issues such as water, sewer, ferry capacity etc, seem to have been of no major concern.
However, this is not a time for a NIMBY approach: "we're here, so pull up the draw bridge".
I see this island drawing more retired folks, as it is splendid to live here, and as they are about the only ones who can afford to buy on the island right now. But what about the services that retired (and other) folks desire, that they expect from this island?
Who will provide these services as the population ages?
The school population is shrinking, a sure indication that younger people are leaving the island. Why? Because they can't afford to live here.
Let's not pull up the drawbridge; let's plan for growth in a sustainable way. Smaller lots have a place on this island too, lots which are affordable for younger people and those starting families. A variety of ages keeps a community a community.
Property sizes have been shrinking on this island for decades... several Quadra rentals I have lived on were once part of larger lots. The "global economy" is always increasing (with recession a naughty word), and Quadra is inextricably caught up in this growth.
Growth is coming, so let's choose healthy options: designate more green spaces, implement water and sewage treatment systems where smaller lots sizes are desired, and encourage farming & sustainable woodlots (rather than corporate logging of our island) with appropiate wording in our official community plan.