BC Hydro Nelson Park Detailed Public Comment Summary Part 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PART II: DETAILED PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Part II: Detailed Public Comment Summary is an appendix to the Public Engagement Summary (Part I) and documents a detailed summary of comments received during the 2019 Nelson Park Public Engagement process undertaken between October 19 and November 25, 2019. Part II also contains all verbatim comments received from survey participants. For a summary of the general findings, please refer to the Public Engagement Summary (Part I). Both documents are available on www.vancouver.ca/nelsonparkrow. BACKGROUND BC Hydro is requesting permission from the Vancouver Park Board for rights‐of‐way to bury five underground power cables through Nelson Park to connect its planned underground West End Substation to the electrical network. Once built, the underground power cables would not be visible from within the park but there are short‐term construction impacts (estimated two months plus time to rebuild the park) and potential long‐term limitations as to what can be placed on top of the underground power cables. BC Hydro and the Vancouver School Board have also requested a right‐of‐way for a driveway access from Bute Street which would have short‐ and long‐term impacts to the park. The Vancouver Park Board is undertaking an independent study to understand potential impacts of BC Hydro’s request on Nelson Park. As part of this study, public engagement was completed to share findings to date and learn about public questions and concerns related to Nelson Park. Public input, along with a technical study, will be brought forward for Vancouver Park Board Commissioners to review as they consider BC Hydro’s request. Spring 2020 1 | Page PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY Question 1: What do you think are the most important topics for the Vancouver Park Board to consider when making a decision about BC Hydro’s request to bury underground power cables through Nelson Park? Choose up to 3 topics. Topic Percentage of Respondents Urban Forest 47% Construction Impacts 38% Public Health & Safety 37% Park Experience 37% Community Gardens 28% Access to Play 25% Dog Off‐Leash Area 23% Community Events and Gatherings 11% Other (please specify) 11% Don’t Know 2% Other Important Topics (please specify): General Comment / Key Theme Number of Mentions Importance of maintaining electrical grid for the broader public good 10 BC Hydro's compensation to the School Board to provide a school 5 Concerns about health and safety risks particularly with children 5 Maintaining park amenities e.g. walk‐through, benches, enjoyment areas, winter 3 garden, including returning the park to its full former use Concerns about the potential social impacts during construction process 2 Concerns about ongoing maintenance and operational impacts 2 Concerns about tree removal and related impacts 2 Better than alternatives such as an above ground substation or overhead 2 powerlines Concerns this will set a precedent to allow similar projects on parkland 1 Concerns about traffic impacts 1 Spring 2020 2 | Page Question 1a: Please tell us why the topics you chose are important. General Comment / Key Theme Number of Mentions Key neighbourhood gathering place for social connection, community health and 45 well‐being, mental and physical health, ability to experience park Preservation of trees, particularly mature trees, to maintain urban forest for 38 shade, urban character, environmental health, climate change factors Importance of green space and passive recreation in an area faced with limited 38 park space well‐used by many as their “backyard” Replacing, relocating, or maintaining community gardens for gardening 37 enjoyment, food, neighbourhood character, apiary; need for additional plots due to demand Concerns about perceived health and safety risks particularly with children (e.g. 34 EMF, accidents); public health should be a priority Need to provide a play area for children (school playground is preferred 31 playground as it is considered safe due to fence) Maintaining or relocating the dog park; limited options already exist for off‐leash 30 Support for BC Hydro to construct an underground substation as long as standards 29 met and BC Hydro provides due diligence, mitigates impacts, has a defined construction timeline, and restores park Disruptive to community in terms of long‐term construction impacts (e.g., noise, 28 dust, safety) compounded by development fatigue from other ongoing developments Need to maintain electrical grid as a basic need particularly as power needs 20 increase due to a growing community, technological changes, etc. Impacts will be temporary / short‐term and potentially manageable to still provide 17 access to park Importance of access via pathways for commuting, community connectedness to 12 other routes around the City Importance of maintaining community events such as the West End Farmers 9 Market as neighborhood asset Preference for alternative location (e.g. St. Paul’s, redevelopment of Dal Grauer, 7 under street, Burrard St) Need for a long‐term park vision or potential opportunities for park improvements 7 Support for a new school / compensation for new school 6 Disagreement in principle of project in park space that goes in contrast to the 6 mandate of Park Board to protect parks; issue of removing public space from public use Traffic impacts especially as Nelson Street used as a main connector 4 Concerns park use may be affected based on negative perceptions of EMF 4 Spring 2020 3 | Page Need for penalties if BC Hydro does not meet construction standards, safety, and 3 construction schedule Too many impacts and too many unknowns about full impact of development 3 Appropriate compensation needed 2 Inadequate consultation by BC Hydro with previous Park Board and City Staff, 2 stakeholders Concerns about ongoing maintenance and operational impacts 1 Concerns will set a precedent to allow similar projects on parkland 1 Concerns about impacts to future park configuration 1 Question 2: Are there potential impacts on Nelson Park not reported in the Discussion Guide that you think are important to consider? Other Impacts (please specify): General Comment / Key Theme Number of Mentions None 37 Concerns about health and safety risks particularly with children (e.g. unknown 23 effects of EMF, accidents, major disasters) including cumulative impacts and lack of assurance Significant and cumulative construction impacts (e.g. noise pollution, vibration, 19 safety and security, sleep) compounded by other construction initiatives Impacts to park experience and quality of life (e.g. social connections, community 13 well‐being) Increased traffic and pollution during construction process especially on Nelson 10 Street Impacts to trees but opportunities to replace with trees more suitable for 9 anticipated climate change impacts or to retain specific trees (e.g. Monkey Puzzle tree) for shading and that have a value to park Impacts to green space / urban oasis 9 Concerns about ongoing maintenance and operational impacts (e.g. noise, 9 vibration, other issues) Park configuration and features in terms of future park use as a priority (e.g. 9 amenities such as BBQs, winter garden, improved pathways) and Park Board’s mandate of meeting park space 1.1ha per 1,000 residents. How will park experience be enhanced? Impacts to long‐term ecosystem e.g. wildlife 6 Impacts to public gatherings including Farmers Market (e.g. parking, sidewalk 5 tables and chairs) Support for BC Hydro substation and the potential benefits that it could bring 3 Spring 2020 4 | Page School related issues e.g. students attending Coal Harbour outside 3 neighbourhood, operational impacts on school Long duration of construction process 3 Concerns about resulting park design and character 3 Social impacts e.g. homelessness 2 Community gardens impacts – permanent impacts including to apiary 2 Concerns about design of replacement school (e.g. size and shape) that may 2 impact park and shading (compounded by other developments) Preference for alternative location for substation development (St. Paul’s) 2 Impacts to the walking paths 2 Concerns about impacts to playground 2 Potential water drainage issues that render grass areas soggy 2 Concerns about BC Hydro parking and storing vehicles and other materials in park 2 and laneway entrances Impacts based on tieback anchors for deep excavation and potential 2 encroachment to park in terms of rights‐of‐way Support for underground cables vs. above‐ground cables 1 Concerns about impact to park features e.g., small fountain area 1 Concerns about Emergency Preparedness of substation following major disaster 1 Concern about continued availability of public toilet at park 1 Appropriate compensation to enhance park space following construction 1 Setting a precedent ‐ how project could potentially change other neighbourhood 1 plans Opinion that land better used for neighbourhood / housing purposes 1 Spring 2020 5 | Page Question 3: Do you have any ideas that could help address some of the impacts described in the Discussion Guide? General Comment / Key Theme Number of Mentions Consider alternative location to construct substation or cables (e.g., under streets 26 industrial/commercial area, private property, St. Paul’s, hospital parking lot at Comox and Thurlow, redevelop at Dal Grauer site) or provide information why certain locations won’t work. Ensure cables are strategically placed to avoid impacting high priority trees, 19 community gardens, or other park features or consider approaches to either relocate or