Horseshoe Bay Local Area Plan: Phase 3 Public Engagement Transcript | August 2020

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW ...... 1 2. OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT ...... 1 I. Advisory Roundtable ...... 1 Meeting #5 – Meeting Notes ...... 1 Meeting #6 – Meeting Notes ...... 5 II. RefineHSB Survey ...... 10 A. Comments in response to survey question #1: Bay Street ...... 10 B. Comments in response to survey question #2: Eastern Village Entrance by BC Ferries ...... 16 C. Comments in response to survey question #3: Southern Village Arrival on Bruce and Royal ... 22 D. Comments in response to survey question #4: New Townhome Areas ...... 26 E. Comments in response to survey question #5: New Townhome Areas ...... 32 F. Comments in response to survey question #6: Multiplex Area ...... 36 G. Comments in response to survey question #7: Cottage & Small Home Infill Area...... 40 H. Comments in response to survey question #8: Enhancing Spaces in Between Buildings ...... 46 I. Comments in response to survey question #9: Place‐making & Street Life ...... 50 J. Comments in response to survey question #10: Connectivity & Mobility ...... 56 K. Comments in response to survey question #11: Further Comments ...... 62

*The feedback contained in this document was provided by respondents as part of the Horseshoe Bay Local Area Plan consultation process. Portions of these records have been redacted in accordance with section 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in order to protect the personal information of the respondents who provided feedback.

1. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW The District of West Vancouver is preparing a Local Area Plan (LAP) for Horseshoe Bay in accordance with Council’s direction on March 11, 2019 and an approved Terms of Reference.

This report provides a full transcript of all input and comments received during Phase 3 – Foundation, of the LAP for Horseshoe Bay.

2. OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT I. Advisory Roundtable The members of the Horseshoe Bay LAP Advisory Roundtable include Andre Berard, Andy Krawczyk, Barbara McMillan, Benjamin Nelson, Chris Adshead, David Weiser, Geoff Jopson, Holly Kemp, Joanne McKenna, Karen Harrison, Karen Kallweit Graham, Kim Whittall, Megan Sewell, Robert McCullough, and Susie Alexander.

The Advisory Roundtable held two meetings during Phase 3 (having also held two meetings in Phase 2). The first meeting of Phase 3 was held on March 10, 2020 with the second scheduled for January 21, 2020. The meeting notes are as follows.

Meeting #5 – Meeting Notes 1. Staff welcomed Advisory Roundtable members, provided a presentation on process to date and introduced guest consultants from Urban Forum Associates.

2. Planning and Design Workshop: Urban Forum Associates provided an introduction of the work to date, explanation of draft materials presented (e.g., draft land use map and proof of concepts), and the general protocol and objective of the workshop (e.g., open dialogue, review of various housing forms on generic sites and design options and consideration of siting, footprint, etc., rather than actual building design).

Discussion on mixed-use commercial village area:  Mixed-use will most likely be commercial retail-at-grade with residential uses from second floor upwards (can sometimes have second floor offices but generally less common and desirable).  Considerations for 5-6 storeys on Keith between Bay and Bruce: o There are trade-offs to situate a grocery store on this side of the village. o The advantage would be less view impacts with 5-6 storey building. o Concerns about traffic conflicts with “back-of-house”, loading and parkade access functions with creating a more “active” lane on Little Bay. o Need to address the realities of servicing and parking access for development (i.e., new businesses and buildings need service and parking access just as existing buildings do). The current challenges won’t necessary go away, but we can shift the balance of uses to prioritize pedestrian functions in the lane.

1

o Design guideline can require additional building set-back to widen the lane (as shown on the draft proof of concept) to accommodate separated pedestrian space and improved public realm in the lane through redevelopment. o Could the lane be changed to one-way only? o What about putting the grocery store at the current Bay Market location (SW Bruce & Royal corner)? . Height distribution is key, 5-6 storey is less acceptable in the centre of the village. . Not a large enough site for grocery. . Being close to the ferry can help attract a grocery store (example: Sewell’s was unable to attract a grocery store as it was far from the potential ferry demand). o The future grocery store is likely a modest grocery store (i.e., not a Superstore), like a boutique grocery, which seems to be more desired for the community.  Considerations for 5-6 storey on Bay & Royal key corner site: o Design rationale for 5-6 storey here is to break up massing on Bay St by varying height; however, there is likely greater sensitivity on view impacts. o Select sites for 5-6 storey is likely the only way to get things like 2nd floor office and rental. o Suggestion to place 5-6 storey on the both east and west ends of Bay St instead of the middle to reduce view impacts. o An east-west transect along Bay St and a north-east transect along Royal Ave can help illustrate what the height changes could look like.  Considerations for 3.5-4 storey mixed-use on a typical 2-lot mixed-use commercial (example: NW Bruce & Royal): o Enabling new development in this intersection is key to providing active retail and residential uses that could frame and make the village square successful and not feel abandoned. o Shaping the top fourth floor (e.g., step-back and different rooflines) helps reduce massing. o Upper storey step-backs can also provide for balcony spaces that activate the building. o Design guidelines that require buildings to relate, but not be identical, to neighbouring properties could help add character to the village without compromising neighbourly feel. o Do commercial retail uses (CRUs) on street-level require higher ceiling heights? From a design perspective, a larger CRU typically require higher ceiling height (14 ft vs 10 ft) to be workable.  Live-work options for ground-level units can be enabled through “choice of use” to give flexibility for property owners to respond to market demands (i.e., property owner can choose to make ground-level live-work, or CRU, or residential, depending on market demand at the time of redevelopment through the 20 year lifetime of the LAP).

2

Discussion on row/townhouse area:  Row/townhouses can be in varying height forms (2 to 3-storey stacked), with shared party walls, and could either be parallel to fronting street or perpendicular (on a deeper lot).  Parking for townhouses is typically surface at-grade but underground parking is possible with higher density (>1.2 FAR).  Does this mean all duplexes will be gone in the row/townhouse zoned area? The reality is that the density considered is marginal; market absorption is expected to be low and slow over the lifetime of the plan.  Townhouse form requires 2-lot assembly (100 feet frontages). o 5 unit option at 0.8 FAR: existing duplex + basement exemption is already at about 0.75 FAR, 0.8 FAR townhouse option unlikely to be economically unviable. o 10 unit option at 1.2 FAR with stacked townhouse/courtyard townhouse design with relaxed setback could allow for underground parking. o 10 unit perpendicular option with surface park and relaxed setbacks is more ideal on sites along Royal Ave (i.e., “eyes on Royal”). o 8 unit option (larger units) at 1.2 FAR underground parking could enable up to 2 stalls per unit: . Should be planning for less cars – keep 1 stall per unit. . Younger generations are less and less car inclined. . Don’t set parking maximums but regulate through minimum (i.e., if developer feels that they need more parking to market the units, that becomes their choice and costs).  Height: o Same massing and height along the street is less preferred. o Bruce St should be 3.5/4 storey at higher density so the residential side doesn’t “sink” into the topography and transitions better from the mixed-use zone. . Potential for 2 level above 2 level stacked townhomes (total . 3.5-4 storeys with a portion of top storey stepped-back to create varying rooflines).  3.5-4 storeys also provide more options for live-work and/or lock-off suites on the bottom. o Enable up to 2.5/3 storeys for Douglas St to transition to the multiplex area.  What advantages do townhomes have over duplexes? o Greater housing diversity and options, which have been identified as a key community desire and long term objective. o Opportunities for non-cookie-cutter solutions through greater site planning and design controls; this helps to create more organic variations over time.  Setbacks: o Relaxed setbacks on front property lines could impact street 3

experience – this need to be considered carefully.  Surface parking vs underground parking: o Underground parking could lead to water and maintenance concerns overtime. o Trade-off is that surface parking doesn’t look as good, but could still be acceptable. o Both options should be allowed and determined at time of development.  10-unit stacked or courtyard options seem like the option that would meet the considerations mentioned.

Discussion on the multiplex area:  Multiplex area could enable duplex with coach house or a triplex on a single lot.  The number of units that could fit (including basement suites) is based on parking requirements and how many parking can fit onsite (surface parking).  Should we separate triplex and duplex with coach house? No, enable multiplex flexibly to provide options for home owners and variability on the street (i.e., more attractive from a neighbourhood stand point).  Could we open up existing dead-end roads to help alleviate traffic from the village core (i.e., residents on these streets can exit the basin without needing to drive down to the mixed-use core)? o Opening Douglas St is being considered by the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure (MOTI) and BC Ferries as a new exit option to the highway. o Could consider opening the west ends of Argyle & Douglas to Nelson to help alleviate traffic in the core of Bay.

Discussion on cottage area:  There are many physical limitations on deep and steep sites that may limit the opportunities of clustering 3 to 4 smaller detached cottage houses on a given lot.  Two detached small houses/cottages (i.e., 2000+ sqft) are likely more physical feasible and economically viable (vs. four 900 sqft tiny homes).  Two or three detached small houses/cottages should be explored for this area to still allow for the smaller types of housing options in the future.  Potential to use shared driveways (e.g., creating easements) to enable residents to drive up to units situated higher on the slope, if possible.

Discussion on the transition area between Tantalus Park & Chatham St and other areas:  Chatham/Raleigh area: o Instead of existing OCP provisions and site-specific considerations, this area should be designed to provide flexibility given the non-uniform lot sizes, depths and spaces. o Consider extending the detached small houses/cottages to this area with flexibility for two or three units on a lot depending on what fits on the site. 4

o Can this area allow for something denser (i.e., townhomes)? . Could utilize slope to enable more terraced form of housing. . Should maximize flexibility given the area is next to Tantalus Park. . Could be an opportunity to allow for co-op type housing in this area.  The 2 lots between Sewell’s & Libby Lodge: o Current duplex zoning is out-of-context. o Should allow much higher heights like 6-storeys to make it more consistent with neighbouring properties (i.e., better transition).  Tantalus Park redevelopment: o Continue to proceed. Some of these exploration involves financial considerations on District lands and would necessarily be kept confidential. o However, the LAP can provide directions to enable the District to move to a separate, more detailed and complex process after the LAP to determine the potential development options of Tantalus Park so that the LAP can achieve its objectives (i.e., acquisition of Tyee Point Park).

3. Next steps: staff will continue to work through technical analysis phase and currently anticipates engaging with the Horseshoe Bay community on Planning and Design Foundations around mid-May to June of 2020 (while keeping in mind potential changes to the format and timing of engagement pending Covid-19 pandemic impacts).

Meeting #6 – Meeting Notes 1. Staff welcomed Advisory Roundtable members, and provided insight into how the Horseshoe Bay Local Area Plan (HSB LAP) community planning process has adjusted in response to the global Covid 19 Pandemic; with a slightly modified timeline (anticipated completion in December 2020); and engagement opportunities that follow public health measures, while allowing the HSB community to continue to shape the future of their village. Staff noted that the HSB LAP remains a top priority for Council and that staff are available to connect with all who wish to participate either through the online community survey, by telephone, email or by video conference.

2. Staff proceeded to the presentation sharing the visual materials that will be used in the survey as informed by the March 10, 2020 Roundtable meeting feedback highlighting new maps, architectural sketches, and artist impressions of what Horseshoe Bay (HSB) might look like in 20+ years should the proposed directions (or a version of them) become an adopted Local Area Plan (LAP).

Staff illuminated the format of materials presented throughout the survey indicating that a series of 10 questions follows the same format incorporating a land use map, housing forms sketches and the consideration of siting, footprint, etc., through artistic impressions. Staff clarified that the conceptual materials presented in this survey are founded in the process to date. The Phase 3 Foundations 5

community survey seeks the input of the community to validate and modify the conceptual designs with “Support”, “Support with modifications”, or “Do not support” response options.

3. Open Dialogue: Discussion on Public Use and Public Land:  Have staff taken into consideration of topography of Tantalus Park for potential residential development while maintaining park areas with regard to watercourses and steepness? Access from the north (Royal Avenue) could be better. o If the community considers this site an opportunity for potential redevelopment to gain more accessible / usable park space somewhere else and meet housing goals, then this would be looked at further and only once determined, through input and feedback upon completion of the LAP. o Considerations would include investigating site topography, terrain and design in determining the potential redevelopment of this site, within an area-wide perspective around park supply (e.g. can “no net loss” of park area be achieved through other local park expansions).

Discussion on Place Making and Street Life:  I have a clear vision of the housing piece but not so much the public realm piece, particularly in relation to a public square? o This is recognized in part through the limitations of budgetary demands for design illustrations and further more in realizing a synergy between the public realm piece of the plan, the existing streetscape plan and the approved revitalization of HSB Park. o Did we give up on the plaza with a fresh vegetable market? o In phase 1 the community expressed interest in a square or plaza. In Phase 2 this was presented back to the community however this idea was not embraced as enthusiastically as previously represented. Staff explored the possibility that potentially this was due to the use of the descriptive term “Plaza” hence a “village square” was brought forward. Additionally to this, the community’s desire to maintain a lower building height topography further declines the feasibility in providing for more outdoor “urban living” spaces, as taller buildings will allow for more outdoor urban activated spaces. Suffice to say this does not limit the ability to activate streetscapes and lanes temporary, and off-street corner patios should be achievable with a low-rise adjacent development. This also allows the park revitalization program to remain the focal point.

Discussion on retaining a virtually engaged community and promotion of survey:  How can we maintain the momentum of community input, motivate people to participate, and stay engaged virtually?

6

o Throughout this planning process staff have tracked how the community has kept abreast and involved, and effective outreach has included digital outreach (e.g. social media updates, email updates etc.). o Another effective component of outreach has been though community groups, and we can ask (e.g.) businesses to put up posters, and request active citizens like yourselves to continue outreach through “word of mouth”. o Through this the community has proven itself to hold a strong and engaged digital presence throughout this planning process, which we expect to be carried through into this phase.  Set the context of the process to date in the introductory remarks of the survey. This includes where we are in the process, and that this is a long-term plan.  This survey has an extended timeframe and it is likely that 60-70% of all participants will complete the survey within the first few days of going live therefore ongoing promotion will be required throughout the survey live period. o Yes, the survey is longer than typical this is in part; in response to in- person engagement being limited; and being cognizant that it is summer and wanting to providing ample opportunity for everyone to participate.  Could look at utilizing a closed store to place some posters or information in the windows for people to look at as they walk by. o For the portion of the community who are not computer literate can we get them a paper copy of the survey? o This community statistically has a younger average age then the broader West Vancouver population, and the westvancouverite.project platform has been successfully engaging with the broader community for years now, so staff are optimistic that the community is familiar (to some degree) in navigating various online engagement methods. If there is anyone who requires a paper copy then let us know or have them reach out to us and we can accommodate this. We also have numerous methods available to us to assist participants in providing feedback via telephone, email and virtual chat etc. o You could put up a posters up in various places such as office spaces, galleries, stores, Caulfield, Libby Lodge etc.  Who is the survey going to and to what locations? o This is an online survey so in principle available to all. It is through local voices and word of mouth that we can target this to the local community who have already been so engaged thus far. Utilizing subscriptions lists, and community groups own networks and social media we can further target the local population. o The Western Residents Association has a popular local Facebook page that we can utilize to spread the word further in our community. o Staff will be looking to the Advisory group to spread the word and help us reach the local community, much like you have achieved in the previous phases with brining local voices to the fore. o Staff also provide voluntary demographic questions where by the

7

community may wish to divulge where they live, so far in the process it has been tracked that 80% of those participating are Horseshoe Bay (live, work or both) and 90% are western residents. o Preference to see HSB folks contributing to our community plan and not the broader community of West Vancouver. o Potentially we could tease more out in the outreach to the community, “If you live here we want to hear from you”, type messaging. o Between us we have an expansive local contact list which we can utilize to get the word out, people are more inclined to get involved when you personally reach out to them. o We could look at the new owners of Sewell’s and getting the word out to them? o Staff can explore this option further, it would certainly be an atypical format around seeking personal information from developers who are currently still in construction phase and actively marketing. If the advisory group are aware of anyone personally then please encourage them to become engaged and involved in the process. o Anybody moving to an area would presumably wish to want to be familiar and connected with their respective Municipalities website. o So far the process has generated about 30,000 social media impressions, this indicates when people click on a social media link, leading them to become engaged and view further information on the process etc. that coupled with a rotating banner on the District webpage and local networks, staff are optimistic we can continue to engage the “local” community. Additionally to this, if there are grounds for “suspicisous” input we can further explore (e.g. multiple inputs from single source). o Recognizing budget constraints, including around paid advertising, there may be “earned” media opportunities in local press, in addition to wider District channels (e.g. newsletters). o How many surveys are you hoping to have submitted? o In a local community plan with 300 households, 100 surveys would be viewed as very good, and anything above this would be great.

Survey interface:  Is this an interactive survey? o The survey has a series of 10 questions, each maintaining the same format to help familiarity and ease of completion. The survey seeks the input of the community to validate and modify what they have told us to date through 3 answers “Support”, “Support with modifications”, or a “Do not support” response option. o The last two response options provide the opportunity for further input in explaining why one might support with modifications or do not support the question presented. This enables staff to build understanding in the

8

community’s preference as to what they see as reasonable to move forward with or what they wish to abandon; and we can come back to the Roundtable in the fall to ask you to help us understand the local perspective behind any concerns/suggestions for re-positioning  Provide a long estimate at the survey start so people know it will be a commitment of e.g. 20 minutes to take the survey.

4. Next steps: staff anticipates engaging with the Horseshoe Bay community on Planning and Design Foundations through a community survey between June 29 and August 16 of 2020 and will reconvene the Round Table post survey analysis sometime in the fall. Please continue to reach out to staff, direct anyone our way (we are available as before through phone, email, etc.), and please stay tuned for links to survey promotion to help spread the word. Many thanks for participating in this video conference and being willing to “try” new ways of meeting – your continued involvement is really appreciated.

9

II. RefineHSB Survey Phase 3 incorporated the RefineHSB Community Survey, which was designed to enable public input on the proposed planning and design “Foundations” for the LAP. The survey was available online for an extended period between June 29, 2020 and August 16, 2020 (inclusive) to allow the community to provide their feedback.

The following section provides comments received (either via survey, email, or phone) on the proposed planning and design “Foundations” as presented in the survey, through the “support with modifications” and “do not support” prompt.

A. Comments in response to survey question #1: Bay Street

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 1: I dont believe one minute these apartments would be affordable for REAL families. By real families I mean middle class and some low income. Would it be rentals or condos again? This village is a family place and i should stay like this. Not too many tall building crowding the water front as seen in figure 2 As much green space as possible, please. Not necessarily modified, but traffic and parking conditions really need to be considered. Weekends/summer traffic are already horrendous, and with added people/cars, it needs to be thoughtfully planned. Reduce the crowding of housing and people in this area. Too many people. Too many cars. I don’t think we need additional condos going into this area, there is plenty of housing already. No need for 6 story buildings given the recent Sewells development. 1 level retail and 2 levels of housing would be more than enough. Heights, maintain integrity of our established local businesses and the integrity of our small village community. 3 storeys max height More parking, less floors of housing max 3 floors. Height of buildings and density (in residential units). Three storey maximum on Royal and four storey maximum toward Nelson / Keith. unsure of what 'housing options' means lower size buidlings, less density Too much FSR for some of the commercial strips. Max 4 stories. I do not find the illustration helpful at all. Too much indeterminate detail, so I cannot really assess as presented. Ability to accommodate current and future pedestrian traffic coming from/going to Ferry Terminal The concept is solid, but the underground parking would greatly disrupt the terrain, and feels excessive for Horseshoe Bay. While I understand the appeal, I don't believe it would be best for our community.

10

There needs to be protected bike lanes on Bay Street between the ferry terminal building and the Sewell's condo development, Let's sell the houses already available in the Sewell's development and see what those residences do to the population of the village and the traffic flow and the retail space - let's see the plans for the ferry terminal before committing to more big development. More density should be allowed, 5-6 storeys or up to 8 behind the first row. What do you plan to do with the current residents? I am concerned about the height of the waterfront buildings and potential impact on our view (and the views of other residents). We live on and currently have water views from our top floor that we would be devastated to lose. I’m sure other residents feel the same way. It would also impact our property value. 5 -6 stories seem quite high for the area. "Building heights limited to three stories. I have already lost to much ocean view from the sewell’s landing development. (still in favour of the development)” Height restrictions MAX 3 FLOORS 5 -6 stories seem quite high for the area. None "Building heights limited to three stories. I have already lost to much ocean view from the sewell’s development. (still in favour of the development) None Height restrictions MAX 3 FLOORS None ruin the character None The bay has an already crowded feeling and having 5-6 storey buildings in the bay will ruin the remaining appeal of the village. Underground parking will encourage more people to come to the bay, and having worked for BC Ferries I understand a lot of people traveling will take up the parking anyways. Small area in which you are proposing a very condensed living which will make this lovely community another Lynne Valley or Ambleside type of area...why? None None The area is too small to support more traffic Our geographical setting between mountains and ocean means that the infrastructure will not be able to support such an increase in demographic and density. None Building heights Maximum height of buildings to be no more than 4-5 stories to maintain feeling of openness and light. The bay area is narrow and down in a hole, therefore if buildings are too high it will seem claustrophobic

11

I think the shops should be legitimate businesses, not just a coke machine, a few scarves, lotto and junk food. Businesses should be balanced - not too many fast food places, there are enough pizza/fishnchip/subway already. Some quality small businesses like a grocery store. Food places should be required to clean up the area in front of their business, as it's full of chewing gum - often garbages are overflowing as this is a public place that hosts a Ferry Terminal. It is very transient in nature and needs more agressive attention to maintain community cleanliness and safety. Fixing broken things like the Olympic sign (broken glass) should be done - cleaning off sign writing, etc on street signs. Can all street signage be higher like in the Netherlands? I have to duck around many signs as they are too low and visually in the way. The round about is a sign jungle and it's visually disturbing. Signs could be 6.5 feet high and still very visible. Would not like to see a 6 storey building in the village. You need to leave as much of the character of HB intact. This plan does not resemble HB at all at the moment. Keep developments all along Bay street to 3 - 4 storeys to maintain views to mountains & water from Libby Lodge & further up Nelson. I feel that there needs to be a solid plan for traffic before this type of development is considered. The area already has a small congestion issue and this type of increase in business, residential, and visitation could have a massive impact on the community. Need to see a traffic plan for flow in/out of HSB. It's already a big issue with the excessive motorcycle and car noise, and dangerous speeding that happens on Royal and Nelson Streets. What is the plan to calm traffic with the densification of residential and commercial properties? I think Bay Street should remain 2 storey only with 3/4 storey buildings adjacent to the BC Ferries Terminal, Libby Lodge and Sewell’s Landing. Beyond the Sewells development that is currently underway (which I did not support) and the more conforming condo complex and the corner of Bay and Royal I do not think other developments over 3-4 stories should be added. "The five to six story height of buildings on Bay St next to BC Ferries. It would remove some of our view in the I think 5-6 storeys are too high especially at the ocean side. This survey is hard to do as I don't know what is coming up in the next questions and apparently I can't go back and modify answers. I think 3-4 stores transitioning to 5-6 is way too high. I would suggest 1-2 stories, transitioning to 3-4 would be more appropriate. The allowable height should not be greater than four stories to maintain the Neighbourhood character of a "seaside village". I feel the height of buildings on Bay St. should definitely be limited to a maximum of 3 stories to maintain site lines for householders further back in the Bay. The third storey needs to be set back I would only ask for the 5-6 storey buildings right next to BC Ferries and have 3-4 storey buildings (style of the galleries) Stretch along Bay Street to Libby Lodge and the Sewell’s development

12

Too tall, the heights should be the same as the galleries on Bay street and only at the parking lot should a 4-5 story building be built IF it supported at grocery store but not otherwies. constant level of 3-4 Keep as commercial space only (no residential) and reduce height to max 3 stories with underground parking. Maximum 3 stores. Fewer storeys (3 maximum). Maximum of 3 stories... "Limit height to 3 stories in central area Parking required Additional density requires simpler traffic access to highway" 2-3 storey max and NOT 4; and no rise to 5-6 storey on the ends. The facade is too imposing; the height blocks the sun especially in times of year outside of peak sun in summer; and the height sets a precedent for what will fill in behind the front row on Bay Street. Is anyone looking at how out of place the high rises on the west end of the bay appear compared to the rest of the "village"? And you have yet to solve / demonstrate a traffic, transportation, and parking plan that address all the density being imposed on our "village" I am 100% supportive of higher density, I would like it to be even higher density, with underground parking BAY STREET…. I support building heights at 3-4 storeys but "Transitioning to 5 - 6 storeys at the edges "… in the case of Galleries at the Bay this means immediately beside. People here crave a balcony with sun on it. Not if, but when the current building located immediately east of us is replaced, this would not likely be Supported. As far as Galleries on the Bay is concerned, I believe I can make a general statement regarding the following: *LIGHTING ~ Use low wattage and indirect only near residential units please. *DECORATIVE ~ NO trees that grow up and block waterfront views for both residential and commercial units…. Shrubs or Gardens work perfectly! [comments received by email] 1-3 All low rise mixed use. Retail below, Living above. Boutique grocer, eg ** Nesters as in Deep Cove [comments received by email]received

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 1: We already have a residential development in the area (Galleries at the Bay) - this density is unnecessary and would subject residents to a decade of construction for little benefit. destroys the village atmosphere of HSB. Why should it be like Yaletown? Too condensed: already a very busy community with a lot of traffic It seemed reasonable until I saw the artist rendering, which makes the area appear stacked and bustling. It looks like dozens of places I've seen before and never cared for. I would prefer that my not become yet another suburban art project implemented as a means of justifying the presence of a city planners department. Low rise buildings will kill the water views and also add to traffic congestion.

13

Because they won’t look like this in final version, judging by the disaster that is the currently named “sanctuary” that you approved, which has totally destroyed the atmosphere of HB. ruin the character The bay has an already crowded feeling and having 5-6 storey buildings in the bay will ruin the remaining appeal of the village. Underground parking will encourage more people to come to the bay, and having worked for BC Ferries I understand a lot of people traveling will take up the parking anyways. Small area in which you are proposing a very condensed living which will make this lovely community another Lynne Valley or Ambleside type of area...why? The area is too small to support more traffic Our geographical setting between mountains and ocean means that the infrastructure will not be able to support such an increase in demographic and density. Need more details on the apartment in zone to the east of Nelson. Because of traffic and overcrowding due the increase in tourism, ferry ridership, Height should be limited to 2 stories except for the block from Royal to the BC Ferries terminal. Nelson will already have large scale buildings (Westbank and Libbie lodge). Seaside villages are not 4 stories tall. This excessive height alone the middle of Bay also blocks view corridors from streets behind. Nothing should be allowed over 2 stories on Bay Street with the exception of the current B.C ferries structure. Higher building should only be allowed on the perimeter of the bay so that sight lines are preserved . we are already fatigued with the Sewell's project 3+ years. You are talking about years and years of constant building. No way. The existing retail businesses in HSB are struggling. Each year, businesses close (eg. Tea Room) and area has high level of vacancies. I do not think that additional retail space will support the local business or be successful. More empty storefronts will not help HSB. wtf?!!! Are you kidding???? We have already endured 3+ years of building with Sewell's and with that comes NOISE and TRAFFIC and you want to not only add more building years to our quaint village but add density??? NOOOOO! It is already crowded enough from March to October. There is juuuuust enough parking but once that new atrocity of a condo created by Sewell's and owned by MULTI MILLIONAIRES is open to people actually living there who have cars, this place will be like downtown during rush hour. The only reason that place passed was because $$$$ speaks louder than the people that live here. And they PROMISED NO REVISIONS to the roadways. Now you slip these new roadways under the guise of building new condos???? Who is actually going to buy these new condos???? Duplexes and smaller houses are what West Vancouver needs and what some of us can afford. These will all be over 2 mil. and foreign buyers who don't care about our village and will have their Airbnb's going. We have plenty to contend with when it comes to our community next to the ferry terminal and all that entails. We want to reduce noise and traffic in our neighborhood, not add to it by increasing “housing options” which means more people, more traffic, more garbage and delivery vehicles - Starbucks alone has 15-17 commercial trucks in

14 our neighborhood each week and that is just Starbucks - there are a lot of existing businesses with a lot more trucks entering the area - we barely have room to accommodate all the commercial traffic as is, adding more businesses will increase this dramatically. If you talk to existing businesses they will tell you that the fall, winter and spring months are not conducive to business in this community - they have a difficult time making ends meet - adding more businesses will put a definite strain on the existing ones. Assume some underground parking? or? It will destroy the character described in the previous OCP as Seaside Village. Buildings are too high and would result in unwanted increase in density. It would result in the losing the intimate feel of the village and turn it into a mini Whistler. Height should be limited to 1 to 2 storeys to maintain a small village feel and better human scale. T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! These 'foundations' will erode and destroy any current sense of manageable scale of community, a compact scale which past a certain point of density will disappear. The current 'commercial' area should NOT be expanded, to keep its' local appeal. Horseshoe Bay does not need strip malls. The waterfront Park area should be retained as a local residential park, rather than over-developed as a multi-use pedestrian area designed and more suitable for a dense urban area. Keeping it small & locally oriented will allow for the continuing residential area's personal investment in its inherent value and upkeep. Over-development will turn it into a waterfront eyesore, with no recreational interest invested in it by locals. "'- Proposed heights and density not consistent with a small town village character. - Maximum height, character and density should be consistent with C2 zoning of 3- storey, such as Galleries on the Bay (6388 Bay St.) - Encourage infill and incremental growth to maintain small scale shops and village character by limiting maximum new building frontage to discourage large land assemblies - Establish a target for net new dwelling units in this precinct - Emphasize relationships of buildings to sidewalks to promote village life" I am concerned about the ability to provide sufficient underground parking in this location watertable and the ability to handle resulting traffic with limited Bay access. Do not see benefit of an anchor (6 storeys) at each end. I do support the 3 storey options if traffic and parking feasible. Buildings too tall, too much density Far too much desity for area....what happened to the seaside village OCP? Many of us attended all the community events expressing our dismay at the proposals for up to 5-story buildings in the Village, along with some higher buildings up Nelson (keep in mind that Nelson is one of only 2 roads into the Bay). But it appears that our concerns have not taken into account. The current proposal, with all the lovely drawings and soothing vocabulary, indicates that 3-4 and 4-5 story buildings are still under consideration. And, word to the wise, approval of 5-story buildings would not necessarily limit the final developments to the maximum 5 stories proposed, as we have all learned from the recent increase in the White Spot development by builders

15 who conveniently poured foundations to accommodate the larger building which had not (yet) been approved by Council. Explore other areas with less constrictions for multi-story residential units. Please don’t misunderstand me. Please consider alternatives: Explore other areas with less constrictions for multi-story residential units. [comments received by email]

B. Comments in response to survey question #2: Eastern Village Entrance by BC Ferries

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 2: There are many commercial trucks going along Little Bay. We need to consider this!! I support the development of new street-level retail but would limit the number of new residences. Perhaps a limit of 3 stories would result in a desirable reduction in density. Height of buildings, impact on established residential areas on Bruce Street and further. height Max 3 storeys height The lane way is used for commercial deliveries as well as a thoroughfare. If you are to take away the commercial use it would be very difficult for the businesses. Horseshoe Bay is small and in order for businesses to continue to survive their needs are vital to the success of the village. Max 3 stories and more parking. Horseshoe bay has a grocery store and it is barely used. The height should be modulated by setting back upper floors. Also the design should take into account the traditional materials used historically in the region. It would be ideal to consider how to activate night life through licensing for live music / dance venues and festivals along the water. I would also see a hotel being a useful addition, if not, more liberal zoning with respect to short-term rentals. Again, too many storeys. I would support maximum four storeys toward Nelson and Keith. The area can not manage this much residential density. lower size buildings, lower density, more parking Also stick to 4 stories. Same comment. As per my previous answer. We need to see what's going to happen with what's going in. With the increased density HSB will need more than a boutique grocery store. What's happening with the transit plan etc. It's challenging to make plans about each component in isolation. A six storey street wall might be a bit abrubt (i.e. have the Keith Road elevation step back - starting @ 4 storeys along Keith and stepping up to 6 as the building moves west). Widening Little Bay a great idea (woonerf for sure). The roadway

16 configurations (b/c of BCFerries) will be paramount along Keith Road as things move forward. Streetscape guidelines must be complimentary to HB Park aesthetic. I’m happy to see the Impark lot repurposed, but there is little information as to what would happen to the current businesses during construction. This looks great; however, the current problem (that this might worsen) is the amount of garbage being left on the streets (especially in the alleys) and in the park. If this was to go ahead I would want to see adequate garbage collection, cleanup crews, and public washrooms (with needle receptacles). Make little bay pedestrian only aside from the businesses that require access I do not like the idea of such a high building in this area, as I said in answer to the last question, maximum three stories. By having such a tall building planned for this site it will give BC Ferries ""license"" to build a high rise complex - mirroring the Sewell's Development site. no more than 3 stories please Support the street level development of Little Bay. Concerned about the increased housing density and effect on traffic and lack of parking. Reduce proposed building height from 5-6 storeys to 3-4 storeys. Overall objective to maintain view corridors and provide a reduced and more acceptable lower density. Could consider 5-6 storeys over current ferry terminal parking east of Keith to create buffer and transition zone to ferries. 3-4 stories would be more appropriate with existing building heights and site lines, keeping the village appeal. a) Make Little Bay pedestrian only b) The plan for Little Bay must be integrated with the BC Ferries new terminal development. This end of the village will become the main entry to the village. Measure will need to be taken to facilitate local vehicle traffic, while discouraging vehicle use in the village. c) Create an ""entertainment"" square in Little Bay, where public performers can perform (music, etc). Heights Height no more than 3 levels Max 3 floors More details on how will the additional traffic and parking be handled?. Concerned about building heights and putting all the density in a very confined area. Consider changing density outside the village too. No more than 3 storeys Again, I'd like to see the buildings restricted to maximum heights of 4-5 stories. less height on buildings...if you do this at both areas it is very dense for the area No more than four stories A more interesting building sloping building from 3 to 4 stories on one edge to 6 or 7 by BC Ferries. This could allow for preserved view corridors from streets behind and provide a less dense architectural look that values decks/patios and green space on those spaces. Again I think you need to retain of character and this is too high of a building for this corner.

17

Little Bay Street is regularly used for commercial deliveries. Where do those deliveries go if it is turned into a walking street? With this level of increased density, there will be increased commercial activity and those businesses need to be serviced and need appropriate access. Max at 4 storeys plus partial 5th for a shared amenity space for residents. This recognizes that ground floor may have to be taller (ie. 15') for viable retail. Same concern as before. Traffic plan needs to be addressed. Reduce height to 3/4 storeys Should be same height as building just Discussed. 4-5? The design is very boxy and should not look so institutional. It needs to have more interest than just a big box. It is also misleading to state things like " accommodate new services like a boutique grocer" All the plans presented to us over the years keep talking about a "boutique grocer" but we have 5 repetitive convenience stores and a pharmacy that sells random junk. Unless you are going to get a commitment from a grocery store to be an anchor please stop dangling it! Height of building. Loss of mountain views on 5-6 storey buildings is to high, 4 storey buildings will be better. Limit height of buildings to 4 storeys Again it seems too many storeys As in question 1, I do not belief that new retail spaces are required or will be viable. I love the idea of new stores/restaurants and some increase in multi family housing, but can Horseshoe Bay house so many new homes and people with a mass increase in the amount of cars in the neighbourhood? I would modify the size of the buildings and I hope that many people in Horseshoe bay can also walk to work!! Too tall - it should be consistent with other buildings that are 3-4 stories Again, 5-6 storeys are too high. 3-4 stories max. Again I feel heights of proposed new construction needs to be kept at 3 stories The design shows flat fronted buildings these should be stepped back with large balconies with a max height on the grocery store building of 4.5 stories the others should be lower as you move towards Royal to keep the views for all residents in the Bay again limit the live to 3-4 Max 3 storeys Fewer stores. Too big Max. 4 stories Lower buildings Reduced building height I feel there is something not being mentioned here when I see that you have eliminated Bay St as the eastern entrance. Does BC Ferries have a surprise for us? After the garbage residents have had to wade through this summer I would not be in favour of them expanding to any degree. You have transferred focus to what you refer to as Little Bay….. This is not a street -it is the service laneway for commercial and residential tenants at Galleries on the Bay and several businesses further East on the Laneway. I find that most Notices do not get posted here and the affected members

18 have not been generally consulted with in regard to this change. We are very concerned about our service laneway becoming mixed use with pedestrian traffic from buses and BC ferries area. This is already a very dangerous area on dark rainy nights with people wearing Black raincoats and black umbrellas strolling down the middle of the driving lane! This laneway is required for moving vans/ commercial delivery trucks/ maintenance workers and garbage collection-- it also hosts the entrance and exit from our C-R Parkade. Most residents do not even know the WRA exists and after we held the Town Hall in an attempt to expand the membership, meeting notices still go out as Directors meetings. People do not feel they should show up when they are not a Director ~ these meetings should be advertised as General meetings so people know what is going on around them and what decisions are being made for them [comments received by email] 1-3 All low rise mixed use. Retail below, Living above. Boutique grocer, eg ** Nesters as in Deep Cove [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 2: way too big....way too much...are you renovating the entire village??? The proposed plans seem to indicate the creation of a miniature city, which I certainly do not support. Preserve the current "village" atmosphere of HSB, please. I would support an update of pre-existing buildings (those on Royal Avenue), which are looking dated and shabby. Little Bay does not have room to support such a project and traffic. I don’t support the building height of 6 floors. I also feel that there’s a precedent being set in west van where developers propose a lower height, then double the capacity and height when the project is well underway even when residents do not approve. So I want to make it very clear that 6 stories is too high. Again adding to much housing which will create far too much congestion. Main level retail plus one or two floors of residential would be more than enough. Same reason Way too condensed for such a small bay and busy vehicle/foot traffic already in the neighbourhood Again, boooooooring. with no parking all fails Proposed buildings are too high and will drastically change the character of the bay area. Should not exceed three levels. This Lane has a heavy utilitarian aspect for the delivery of supplies for local businesses and parking access for existing residential units currently there. Pedestrian traffic in this lane should not be encouraged as there is no sidewalks nor space for sidewalks due to the lane width. The street-level concepts are well designed, but the buildings are far too large for the capacity of Horseshoe Bay. The appeal of Horseshoe Bay is a quiet but strongly connected community. Overwhelming the area with large housing and traffic flow would be a detriment to what the community truly is. Will destroy character of the Bay

19

The proposed buildings are too high and do not fit the village plan. It will make Horseshoe Bay have 'book-ends' with Sewell's development on one side and then this on the other. BC Ferries is also planning a big development in the future. The view will be narrowed and have a negative impact on the charm of our seaside village. 5-6 stories is too high I do not see how traffic will be managed effectively in and out. How will this impact traffic on Nelson and the surrounding areas? Would the proposal for traffic to leave via the highway? And how would that be changed? way too high and dense This would completely destroy the appeal and charm of Horseshoe Bay and reminds me already congested and unappealing areas like Ambleside. As of now, walking through the bay is quite enjoyable and this would development would deter me from coming down the hill. I moved this way to feel like I was outside of the city, not in the centre. This is already a very busy community without the extra numbers of dwellings.. the noise of the highway and traffic to Whytecliffe is already excessive. Why do you want to increase the population here? This is not a major city centre and people moved here to get away from Ambleside or Vancouver. Really this is a developers wish not a small local communities desire. Why not develop up the British Properties instead? closer to downtown and easier to access? Taking advantage of a more affordable neighbourhood for developers perhaps? Poor ethical choice here. Instant cash grab with destruction of small, lovely community. Too small an area to support high traffic Again, this is a village, not a cookie cutter resort style development. Horseshoe Bay is unique in it's setting. Multi storey dwelling of 5-6 storeys would be too high on such a small footprint of land - one way in and out..... Commercial vehicles use these laneways on a regularly now creating noise and pollution, and there are residences above this lane,the plan doesn't seem to have taken this into account Not interested in a 6 storey building that would make the village feel fenced in. To much density at the very entrance of the bay. No way that should be allowed. This is a bay for the current residents and this vision does nothing to enhance their quality of life too much change. The village is lovely already. Too much density. Do you realize how crowded it is already here from April to October? There is no LITTLE BAY. This is a cutesy word to get people to buy in. Not having it. Far too close to the terminal and all the noise the terminal makes, especially during the hours that they seem to be exempt from West Van bylaws. This is already considered a high traffic area and if you expand there we will never be able to leave or enter this community in a timely manner - we need less traffic, not more. Also, building there with the number of vagrants coming off the ferries would be extremely unfair to anyone who purchased there. I like the pedestrian feel of Little Bay street and the mixed use but the proposed 6 storey is too tall. Need more info on height of Ferry Terminal building adjacent. The

20 height needs review as prefer 3 storey. Possible courtyard on Little Bay rather than Royal Street There is no need for this level of density and growth, when transportation in and out of HSB has not been adequately addressed. We need more imaginative uses of our lots, that incorporate "green space" within the houses and commercial spaces. Infrastructure does not support monumental growth that is proposed. Buildings are too high and would result in unwanted increase in density. It would result in the losing the intimate feel of the village and turn it into a mini Whistler. Too much density for a small village, particularly with the Sewell Development. T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! The realities of Horseshoe Bay's winter micro-climate will not support additional commercial street level businesses on a year round basis. The over-all scale of the buildings will not support a suburban feel for the residential community of the Bay, and the additional traffic of new residents, residents' guests, and day-trippers, and increasing ferry foot traffic & their public transit needs will create a nightmare of traffic congestion and generalized urban alienation. Keeping things to an appropriate small scale, keeps residential communities safe, involved, and liveable. - 6-storey height not consistent to small scale village character and not welcoming - establish targets for net new dwellings targets- West end of Bay St should not exceed 3-storey height to transition with Sewell's Landing which limits height to 3 and 4 storeys along Nelson and transitions to 9 and then 12 storeys furthest from Village. - support improved sidewalk public realm- integrate public art with public realm- provide community amenity public space as a civic "living room"" with flexible programming. - consider POPAs (Privately Owned Publicly Accessible spaces) with new development, either exterior or interior" Far too much density Seems to dense and high for minor village on the bay, and wonder why it would be best located on the area abutting a major ferry terminal traffic hub from a liveability stance. I have not spoken to any local resident who wants the community to become the next Yaletown! We already have the completely inappropriate and franky ugly new "Sanctuary " developement ...still in the process of being constructed and no where near finished. Our out of town visitors can't believe that a high rise complex was actually approved ...... and the infrastructure is obviously still being ""figured out"". Most local residents moved to HB for the quieter, original seaside village feel...so much for that idea. Many of us attended all the community events expressing our dismay at the proposals for up to 5-story buildings in the Village, along with some higher buildings up Nelson (keep in mind that Nelson is one of only 2 roads into the Bay). But it appears that our concerns have not taken into account. The current proposal, with all the lovely drawings and soothing vocabulary, indicates that 3-4 and 4-5 story buildings are still under consideration. And, word to the wise, approval of 5-story buildings would not necessarily limit the final developments to the maximum 5 stories proposed, as we

21 have all learned from the recent increase in the White Spot development by builders who conveniently poured foundations to accommodate the larger building which had not (yet) been approved by Council. Explore other areas with less constrictions for multi-story residential units. Please don’t misunderstand me. Please consider alternatives: Explore other areas with less constrictions for multi-story residential units. [comments received by email]

C. Comments in response to survey question #3: Southern Village Arrival on Bruce and Royal

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 3: Bay Market convenience store and, while I agree that this area needs updating and modernizing urgently, I worry about the amount of disruption to an area so close to home. Here we have been subject to huge amounts of traffic, pollution and general disruption for years during the construction of Sewell's condo development. It needs to stop. It's always the same problem. Parking, cars. Tourist, cars. Cars and more cars. Visit any ancient/medieval village in Italy and they have eliminated cars. We need to eliminate cars. It's no longer about money for the few but about our environment in the future. Cars no, housing yes. Again I feel drastically increasing housing will only create further congestion in and out of horseshoe bay. Add additional housing on top of the massive Sewells development will dramatically change the community and will create significant traffic and noise pollution to Horseshoe Bay. More parking I would like to see how street life can be activated and enhanced with measures to reduce car traffic going through the village either through moving parking lots farther away, added public transit / taxi options, and/or bike/ebike roadways to encourage human-scale pedestrian activity that incentivizes and excites people to get out of their cars. You mention above an improved pedestrian experience. I would like to see more areas with a pedestrianized focus, less car focus. These spaces provide much more vibrancy and people tend to love these areas. lower size buildings, lower density Reduce to two stories max. I do not understand the orientation of the streets in your diagram compared to the map at the beginning of your survey, they seem backwards, so I cannot assess your illustration. Protected bike lanes on Royal Avenue Would be interesting to see this in the phases it would be completed in. Does one phase complete first to determine use before another is added, or all at once. Which phases first and who determines what is working. Where are cars parked? Is this housing affordable (really)? 22

Opportunity for even more density, there could be a mid rise tower behind, maybe 12 storeys. This looks much improved from the current subway on the corner, but you have businesses like Pudgies, Seaside Village and Lallie Loves It that will be majorly impacted by this project. The owners of these businesses are an integral part of the community. Same height issue but otherwise a good plan. Same height restrictions - three stories - otherwise it looks fine. no more than 3 stories Revised building height to 3 storeys north of Bruce and 2 storeys south of Bruce. Same as for Bay Street: I support the proposed higher density on the east side of Royal, but zoning west of Royal should be limited to 3 storeys max Again, it feels that there will be a huge increase in density with no plans to help with the flow of the traffic and how it will impact residents already living in the area. Height no more than 2 levels Max 3 floors I fully support areas for local businesses but am concerned by the use of space for larger retailers. This has more of a village like appeal - multi level, not block like - mix of residence and commercial. Less height and more character to buildings..Would also be good to have pedestrian only section - No cars (Village Square) - Again, very difficult to do in Horseshoe Bay, given it's geographical setting and a big Ferry Terminal renovation also looming. More details on traffic and parking. 3 storeys only 2 to 3 stories. Anything over 3 blocks views to the water from neighboring streets and takes away from a quaint, seaside village. Massing has already taken place at the Westbank Development and would potentially happen by BC Ferries. No structure higher than 3 stories and large setbacks See first comment Again, concerned about traffic flow. There are only 2 ways in/out of HSB. How are these streets going to support and calm the added residential, commercial and ferry traffic? Yes the scale of 3-4 storey seems appropriate for village feel. Good to have mixed use commercial with office and residential. Prefer stronger street front definition to continue without notch for corner plaza along Royal street. Possible internal plaza courtyard along inner Little Bay Street. Parking needs to be underground. In the survey, it should be very clear if it is street parking or underground. If it's not mentioned, do I assume it's street parking? Buildings should be restricted to 2-3 stories. Max height 3-4 story with balconies for eyes on the street and spaces to ensure a sense of community to improve connections and security Max 2 storeys Fewer storeys

23 again would love to keep at 3 stories. Limit height to 3 stories Parking required Improve traffic access to highway This will be a condo looking into the back of a condo on Bay Street. The existing building had problems with water table in the past. Three storey may be better. Lower building height Support - contingent on/with emphasis on the design imperative to ""step back"" the upper storeys. We must not line Royal with 3-4 storey facades. And street appeal/walking appeal along Royal should be paramount. If the design and layout does not help to draw people up from Bay Street, the retailers who inhabit the new spaces you propose will not survive. Therefore street scape, sun, facades, etc. are imperative to entice walking patrons to come up Royal - walkability and this dynamic of enticing patrons to move throughout the whole village, should be a major piece of the traffic flow and transportation plans you are developing. Assuming you have a plan that is being developed... 3-Support -except this appearsto be higher than 3-4 storeys…. And that corner is not exactly over at the “edges”. *LANEWAY ~ move slowly on this once you can expand the lane way south and corral the pedestrians on the southside to avoid a disaster. I highly recommend that you consult with the businesses and residences involved because they're generally not members of the WRA and have no idea of your plans. [comments received via email] 1-3 All low rise mixed use. Retail below, Living above. Boutique grocer, eg ** Nesters as in Deep Cove [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 3: It's perfect the way it is I don’t support additional condos in this area too much Way to congested with excess height changing the whole look of the bay. Already very congested with foot and vehicle traffic. I like the idea of revitalizing a pert of the bay that seems dead, but your designers ought to attempt creativity. Perhaps not multi use multi level building that's been cut and pasted from a waiting room magazine.? Same issues as with #1. The proposed pocket park/rest area (where C-Lovers is currently) will only have limited useage. The 'pull' created by the waterfront and new HB park will render this area superfulous (just have constant street furniture - eg. the benches at the corner of Bruce and Royal are constantly used). Also, why have this rest area when a better version could be created with an expanded Douglas Park as you propose. Rear patios for the restaurants along Royal (on the east side between little bay and Bruce) should be purused (to create an enclave of rear patios in that area vs. the laneway that provides limited parking). Eventually, a higher streetwall along Royal in this area would be good. Historical atmosphere and village experience of the Bay will be undermined too dense too crowded

24

Destroying a lovely community for the people who live here. Not everyone thinks Ambleside is improved by the development. Your taste does not reflect the people who live here...that's why we live here because we like it and that is why you probably don't. Does match overall feel of the location. The highlight of the area is the ocean and mountain views Traffic levels will increase with the current development, this would only make things worse. as usual, looks like you want to take away more parking. There is not enough parking as it is. There are so many visitors coming here. This project you are describing looks like it would take the next 15 years to complete. Way too much. Oi. The Bay has too many motorcyclists visiting the area --- traffic, excessive noise, speeding. Providing an additional square, will encourage more bikers and increase the amount of traffic on Royal. So you want to buy my house? Nope. Not leaving. We want less traffic, less people, not more. Honestly, if we could eliminate the ferry terminal that would be ideal. This is a community in a valley between to mountains. Why are you proposing trapping so many more people here - it’s ludicrous. Level of proposed congestion will destroy community feel. It seems the District is trying for too much density that will completely reshape the charming, small village feel. T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! Where are the 5 storeys concrete parkades that serves these deveopments? And the Bay doesn't need the parkades, or the traffic. Build up on Caulfeild Plateau, because the Bay already has taken on more than its' fair share. - Bruce and Royal is the commercial heart of the village and the proposed corner plaza will disrupt the streetscape retail continuity. As an alternative, encourage mid- block pedestrian arcades or small setback seating areas for outdoor coffee shops. - Add street trees in addition to planter pots. Integrate a public art plan with streetscape public realm development. - Mini-plaza would be more beneficial along Keith Rd opposite BC Ferry and Bus Terminal. Again too much and ridiculous for the area...we know from the "Artists illusrations" for the Sanctuary project that these are no guarantees that this is any realistic plan of what the final projects will look like. Many of us attended all the community events expressing our dismay at the proposals for up to 5-story buildings in the Village, along with some higher buildings up Nelson (keep in mind that Nelson is one of only 2 roads into the Bay). But it appears that our concerns have not taken into account. The current proposal, with all the lovely drawings and soothing vocabulary, indicates that 3-4 and 4-5 story buildings are still under consideration. And, word to the wise, approval of 5-story buildings would not necessarily limit the final developments to the maximum 5 stories proposed, as we have all learned from the recent increase in the White Spot development by builders who conveniently poured foundations to accommodate the larger building which had

25 not (yet) been approved by Council. Explore other areas with less constrictions for multi-story residential units. Please don’t misunderstand me. Please consider alternatives: Explore other areas with less constrictions for multi-story residential units. [comments received via email] I was horrified to see the density proposed for Horseshoe Bay. Has anyone considered the impact BC ferries has on the health of the families you want to move into Horseshoe Bay? With at least 1.4 million cars traveling through HSB terminal each year, highway traffic and the plague of motorcycles that descend on the area every summer, life for some is unbearable. This will only get worse with the expansion of the ferry terminal. Asthma, allergies and cancer are a reality for people living here. [comments received via email]

D. Comments in response to survey question #4: New Townhome Areas

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 4: No cars on the streets. It's the only way to make the changes and have the courage to do so. Have you already employed architects? Are they Green Architects? No cars. Find another way. Underground for owners but no street parking. I live on Copper Cove and the change, noise and pollution from vehicles in the past 7 or 8 years is astonishing and ours is an no exit street. If you build it they will come... Number of proposed dwellings. No need to have 4 story stacked town homes contributing to over congestion. requires significant land assembly to implement 3 story max Max 3 stories Townhomes need to have a sufficient size to accommodate growing families (2x2) as opposed to focusing on downsizers. This is because it is young families are more willing to live in multi-family homes. However you must compensate smaller unit sizes with increased out-of-home amenities otherwise the take up will be low, in my opinion. Please also consider any lock off suites should possess high ceilings and light in order to provide options for artists, writers, and musicians who’ve historically enriched our community. I would like to see the lower number of floors listed. For example, for the townhomes - 3 not 4 storeys. And that these are single dwelling, not multiple suites. lower density, indoor two car parking for residents Need more bicycle access You do not mention what happens to the people living there already. A high proportion of the row/townhome units should be rental units with some at below market rental rates. Cap at 2 stories. Even more density should be allowed.

26

I would support this as long as efforts were made to ensure that the water views from existing houses aren’t impacted. More variety of heights Develop rental and below market real estate for residents of existing properties. As well as a moratorium on property tax hikes due to the change in value of property inline with the rezoning. Keep the height to 3 storys maximum I like this plan but still keep it three stories maximum no more than 3 stories As long as they have adequate private parking in closed garages. Must not increase road parking and enclosed garages are a must for garbages since we have so many bears get killed yearly due to outdoor garbages that are not bear proof (because they can get in to almost anything) Really concerned about the increased traffic and lack of parking Bruce Street West of Royal reduce building height from 3-4 storeys to 2 storeys with 3 storeys for the two Bruce Street properties at west end of Bruce. i.e., to match building height of structures in front on Bay Street. Again to maintain view corridors and to provide an increased, but more reasonable density. 2-3 storey courtyard row/townhomes, would align more with the look and feel of the neighbourhood, but they would require undergound parking or single car garages a) similar to Bay Street, I support higher density and higher buildings east of Royal Ave, as proposed. However, west of Royal Ave the zoning should not exceed 3 storeys. b) Sample illustrations (fig 7) for 3-4 storey stacked townhomes in fact seem to show 5 storeys!! Same thing for Fig 8 where 4 storeys are shown for a 2-3 storey row/townhome. c) You need to scale down the proposed density for Horseshow Bay village -- this is a village, not Vancouver's West End! height limits max 3 floors Density issue - There are already townhomes on this street - Row townhomes, while increasing density takes away what little green space we have left in the Bay. What is the modified roadways and access to support this, is there increased transit, biking etc? These should be 2-3 story courtyard housing. Three to four story will block the HSB for everyone inland. Restrict height to 3 storeys I do not want to see 4 storey buildings. Again, I think that is too tall for the confined area of Horseshoe Bay I generally support this direction but the reality of having a developer assemble enough property in these areas to make this form of housing happen would be extremely challenging. There are very few existing duplexes or single-family homes that are beyond their useful life that would be suitable for redevelopment. Not only that, there are many newer duplexes that I am sure the current owners will not want to move out of unless they can realize a sizable return on their investment. I suspect that a suitable offer to an existing landowner would not be viable for a developer for

27 such a small increase in housing density. Unfortunately, the Village of Horseshoe Bay is not owned by one landowner. It is not a Park Royal of Cypress Village. There are hundreds of landowners involved. Keep to 3 storeys with a partial 4th to keep massing at street to 3 stories or encourage pitched roofs. Maintaining greenery in the Bay will be important - tree-lined streets/sidewalks - to make it more attractive. I'm concerned about the number of cars that are going to be in the Bay and entering/leaving the Bay - how will this be addressed. Four stories seems to high - 3 at the most. Stacked townhomes are very common in all municipalities. What they lack is a main floor bedroom and full bath which is important for ageing in place. Many homeowners would prefer a townhome to apartment when downsizing but lack the option of a main floor bedroom in most complexes. Too tall Again will these feel too high and imposing? A basic foundation of this proposal is substantially increasing the density of HSB. I do not believe that West Van has the support of HSB for this. Increasing the density is going to worsen parking and traffic issues in the area. HSB has parking issues which are largely caused by BC Ferries passengers. HSB residences rent out their off street parking to BC Ferries passengers and park on the streets. As a result, each house has appoximately 2 cars on the street. An example of this is the 6400 block of Argyle. During the day time hours, the street has few cars. At night, every parking space if filled. With the density that is being proposed, more residents will park on the street and make the area less ""walkable"" than it currently is. West Van needs to work with BC Ferries to resolve the parking issue caused by its passengers (ie. move to a BC Ferries site) and disallow the rental of offsite parking spaces. Less density/more green space I think 3-4 stories is much too high. I do not believe any additional plans for increased density should be made until the impact of the additional 158 residential units associated with the Westbank development are thoroughly evaluated in terms of traffic, parking, and pedestrian impacts. The current WV council's obsession with density needs to be more thoughtfully balanced with consideration given to current neighborhood character and existing infrastructure, as well as the wants and needs of the current residents! Would these be stratas? Fee-simple row houses might be better for bringing young families into the community. 4 is too many stories The concentration of one type of housing by street, it creates a "block view" and the varying roof lines recommendation will be eliminated. Also, I question what the basis of the number of these dwellings given that West Vancouver is proposing more cottage/suits in current Single family lots in and around West Vancouver. Once again I feel 3 storey town housing should be the limit. Parking and density needs to be considered very carefully if Horseshoe Bay is to continue as a pleasing place to live or visit. Parking is already a problem in the Bay Your pleasant artist's

28 rendering with one car parked on a very wide street is a fantasy but very pretty. Let's avoid pie in the sky! Buildings should be restricted to 2-3 stories in the interests of less density and retaining the village feel of HB. Height should be 3 stories max for live work. This will also help to ensure the price point would be more reasonable for artisans and artists. No underground parking as it will be too expensive to recoup cost of development and a nightmare to maintain as there is a delta system in horseshoe bay and multi sump pumps would be required. Make them smaller. Max 2 storeys Let's keep to 3 levels....we already have a devastation on the waterfront with an out of scale building. Let's keep things on a more "in-scale" size for the village itself. Too dense. What happens to the duplex homes that are In place currently? 4 stories is too high which will limit sunlight on the north facing slope Increased density requires parking and clean traffic access to highway. Ideally via the ferry exit I think 4 storeys is pushing village character. Also a number of lots and housing at lower site coverage in this area are providing parking for residents of Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast. Their loss will be substantial. Can other locations be created such as under the highway in the Lion's lot? Support is contingent on 3 storeys max ONLY. I do NOT support 4 storey buildings. And underground parking may or may not be feasible? Will you not be digging close to or below sea level? Emphasis in the units should not be on underground parking - rather we should be emphasizing improved public transportation options. If you are claiming to provide live/work options then people should not have to travel far from home and thus reduce the need for private cars. Commit to public transportation or you will fill Horseshoe Bay with a flood of cars that will make movement in and out untenable. Have you looked down one of our streets during a Sunday afternoon? Cars are piling out onto the streets. The answer is NOT underground, it is to avoid them altogether. Walkability, local services for residents and enhanced public transportation should be the focus and must be connected to the homes we are intending to build here. When you say 3-4 storeys it ALWAYS means 4 storeys. Don't play with words. Just name things as they will be/are. So, it was with some enthusiasm that many of us embraced the concept of finally being able to develop our basements etc, to allow for some additional families to live here. It’s a small, limited space, but we felt we could definitely add some density to the existing homes to provide SOME affordable housing in our West Vancouver community. [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 4: It will look like a fake village with buildings looking all the same... I live on If these developmental changes were to be implemented, I would leave HSB. I think this will add too much density to West Vancouver. Too many people

29

I have seen a similar Layout in NV moodyville and this is not appropriate for HB. Too densely packed and this will cause car/pedestrian access issues. The Bay cannot support this many extra people/cars. The current noise levels already echo around the bowl during busy periods. This will make the quality of life for residents in HB and up on Wellington miserable. It is already way too congested in the park and streets for foot and vehicle traffic as it exist now, can't imagine how these extra units would impact the neighbourhood. Gross. Like bad San Diego. I wonder if any of you have experience living in neighbourhoods instead of trash compacting them? no parking identified It's overwhelming. I'm a fan of progress, but it does start to feel like it will strip away the fabric of the neighborhood it's designed to support. I live on This planning completely disregards the current residents of Horseshoe Bay. Many of us live and work in West Vancouver. Our children go to Gleneagles Elementary . There is nowhere else affordable in the city. I support revitalizing the business core to some extent, but this goes too far. Congestion problems will be unmanageable when West Bank project is built out Traffic issues too dens and crowded As rental suits these designs are ok but I feel that it would ruin the village and the out of city feel Horseshoe Bay has. Too condensed for such a small and busy area. way too much density Horshoe Bay is already a beleaguered community because of the B.C, Ferry terminal and it is due to expand . Maximum heights should be 3 stories and the type of housing should be mixed: some townhomes, some duplex so as to not create a boring, sameness to the area. lower the height - too high as proposed Nothing should be higher than 2 stories from the south side of Bruce street up to Chatham Street Do not support stacked townhomes as we do not have the infrastructure to support traffic, pollution and parking. Too congested and busy for this tiny little village. I fully support duplexes (I live in one) but nothing beyond 4-plexes should be allowed. With the new build that is currently going up next to Libby Lodge I don't believe we need more housing in HSB. What are you planning to do with my house which we own? Buy us out? Get rid of everyone who already lives here? Ridiculous. Raze Horseshoe Bay and kick us out. Is that your plan? So many of these lots are rentals. You are getting rid of the riff raff and letting the rich move in. Despicable. Disgusting. Less people, less traffic is what we want

30

I don't think stacked houses are functional with having to walk up 3 floors to top units. The density for this area seems too high. The four storey seems too high. I prefer 3 storey for better livability. Also lack of garden area. It looks like they will be too high (more than 3-4 stories) Also, how many underground parking per unit? 2-3 parking would be required if there is a rental unit within. It will turn the charm of Horseshoe Bay into the slums akin to East Vancouver. T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! Too much density and traffic. We need housing but not at this size and scale. I don't agree with any further densification or urbanization of Horseshoe Bay. - Support 2 1/2 to 3-story maximum for townhouses with single ground floor dwelling unit - ground oriented units for seniors, accessible units and live/work studios- What is the net dwelling unit increase target for this area? How does it compare to potential net dwelling units under current zoning? Too high Too much density. No stacked townhomes, row only. Already way too much traffic for the area. Too much density and building mass With the huge density population grows ...how can the traffic infrastructure etc support all of this? Small cottages etc in character of our community could be a viable option but so far we have been unable to even supply parking for traffic flow for the huge new deveopment already under construction. Our neighbourhood is full of families. And the “missing middle class”. It was an affordable place to live. Until……..well, you know all about house prices in West Vancouver and the negative impact it has had on much of our life. So, it was with some enthusiasm that many of us embraced the concept of finally being able to develop our basements etc, to allow for some additional families to live here. It’s a small, limited space, but we felt we could definitely add some density to the existing homes to provide SOME affordable housing in our West Vancouver community. We are open to including some more families here. This is a community whose history demonstrates an openness to change. But we don’t agree to radical changes to this tiny, limited neighbourhood as it would negatively alter this unique community permanently. Please consider alternatives: Support Horseshoe Bay residents in creating secondary suites in their existing, low rise homes. [comments received via email] I was horrified to see the density proposed for Horseshoe Bay. Has anyone considered the impact BC ferries has on the health of the families you want to move into Horseshoe Bay? With at least 1.4 million cars traveling through HSB terminal each year, highway traffic and the plague of motorcycles that descend on the area every summer, life for some is unbearable. This will only get worse with the expansion of the ferry terminal. Asthma, allergies and cancer are a reality for people living here. [comments received via email] Townhomes are too dense given the Sewells condos [comments received via email]

31

E. Comments in response to survey question #5: New Townhome Areas

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 5: i just told you above ...i am all for leaving space for families, we need this but I dont want this village to look like a townhouse Resort of little houses looking all the same like any other suburbs of the grater Van. this village as character and all of this seems to erase all of it and modify everything I would support the development of a limited amount of townhomes. However, there are too many new developments in West Vancouver, and I am concerned that the density will become too high for West Vancouver. See above. Otherwise you just have congestion and more of the same.You have an opportunity as a Municipality to really make a difference and model others. Hire someone who thinks outside the box. requires significant land assembly to implement 3 story max More parking Consider row fee-simple arrangements since there is an on-going strata insurance crisis. Also, why doesn’t the District consider more liberal zoning for subdividing lots to enable thinner “detached houses” where the walls can touch the neighbours (like an English mews) at the lot line. And for the row homes, 2 not 3 storeys. And that these are single dwelling, not multiple suites. lower density, indoor two car per unit parking Less height for the buildings as above A high proportion of the row/townhome units should be rental units with some at below market rental rates Even more density should be allowed. I would support this as long as efforts were made to ensure that the water views from existing houses aren’t impacted. More variety of heights Develop rental and below market real estate for residents of existing properties. As well as a moratorium on property tax hikes due to the change in value of property inline with the rezoning. Population density to be determined by community planning process Keep the number of storys to 3 maximum I like this plan but still keep it three stories maximum no more that 3 stories Same as above . And total number needs to be limited. Traffic increase needs to be minimized. Really concerned about the increased traffic

32

Reduce building height to 2 storeys. To maintain view corridors and to provide an increased, but more reasonable density. If the rowtown homes had underground parking / single car garages that would be beneficial as there is already a lack of parking already, adding more density would be hard without parking measures. Same as in Question 8 above. In addition, where will all these people park cars? Concrete underground parking lots are not environmentally sound due to the high impact of concrete production on global warming" again height restrictions. But I realize change is needed and West Van Planning department is putting a lot of effort into this. Thanks for all the hard work max 3 floors Same as above Restrict to 2 storeyy less density, if you put 2-3 stories here and 5 - 6 on the waterfront and there are only 2 access roads, it will be too dense along with the sewells development. I think they need to leave some of the original Homes on the street I generally support this direction but the reality of having a developer assemble enough property in these areas to make this form of housing happen would be extremely challenging. There are very few existing duplexes or single-family homes that are beyond their useful life that would be suitable for redevelopment. Not only that, there are many newer duplexes that I am sure the current owners will not want to move out of unless they can realize a sizable return on their investment. I suspect that a suitable offer to an existing landowner would not be viable for a developer for such a small increase in housing density. Unfortunately, the Village of Horseshoe Bay is not owned by one landowner. It is not a Park Royal of Cypress Village. There are hundreds of landowners involved. as per 7 comments above You have not described what plots of land you intend to use. Secondly, the study area that includes Wellington is not part of Horseshoe Bay. Ask the owners of million + dollar homes on Wellington if they "Live in Horseshoe Bay" They do not! we need to be mindful of density increases and what that means for services, amenities and traffic ensure townhomes are not too high. As above, provide a bedroom and full bath on the main floor. I am hesitant to fully support the proposed plans for the row/townhomes because I do not like how they are all the same. Some more variety in the design of each townhouse would be nice to give the impression of housing with more character. I also think that there should be a shared green space area in the front or side of the townhomes– to provide passerby with the opportunity to stop and talk with the townhome residents. There should be some shared space (green space, patio etc.) to foster a greater sense of community between the townhouse residents and passerby. See response in 9. Increase in density will increase parking on street and make area less walkable

33

Less density/more green space/playgrounds Underground parking is a must. Would these be strata? Fee-simple row houses might be better for bringing young families into the community. the stories...? The same as my other opinions on height. Buildings should be restricted to 2-3 stories in the interests of less density and retaining the village feel of HB. Too tall, too wide on the street. It should be 3 stories max and less dense. The flat fronting creates too much massing. Better to have either separation or staggered fronting. An eclectic variety is needed and not blocky row houses. The design has no room for greenery or gardens, this is not in keeping with the work of the neighbourhood character working group or with an environmental perspective. There should also be a step back on these buildings with balconies and outside space to allow for greenery and true interconnection with neighbourhood. Seniors will not like this as they won't buy multi-storied buildings and families would like some garden or outside space for kids and pets. Make smaller, lower. Max 2 storeys Smaller development. again 3 levels Too dense. What happens to the duplex homes that are In place currently? Height limitations to 3 stories with parking I support the increased variety and diversity, but I question the scale. BRUCE street and where? Galleries on the Bay has several live-work Units and I would have to say that generally they have not worked all that well. [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 5: I don't believe that HSB has the infrastructure to support an increase in housing. Going to devalue our properties Same reason as above. HB will become a ghetto Way too congested in Horseshoe Bay as it already exists now without feeling the upcoming impact of the Sewell's development. Way too congested as is right now. See above no parking identified minimum 2 cars per family Development by the water is fine, but to push deeper into an established neighbourhood doesn't sit well. It would create a higher skyline, impacting views that homeowners farther up the hill have come to embrace. Further to this, Horseshoe Bay is an established neighbourhood like others in West Vancouver. Until Council starts recommending tearing out houses in Dundrave in favour of three story townhomes, I remain suspicious of their motives. It would be most ideal if a resident of Horseshoe Bay runs for council in the next election cycle. Same feed back as question 8

34

I do not think that HSB has enough amenities to make this a high walk score area. There are no grocery stores or services in the area to be able to provide residents to get all their needs satisfied in the area. This means an increase in traffic to the rest of WV. traffic issues too dense and crowded These townhomes are very upsetting and I honestly feel like it could be anywhere in Vancouver. It destroys the community feeling of the village and will make the area too congested. It is too busy already! Too condensed along small corridor with already condensed population. Everything Douglas and above have well established mixed dwellings already in place. Row Townhouses is overkill. Traffic would increase in an area traffic flow in Horseshoe Bay is already challenging,there is no getting around the problems more density will create I believe engineering can not solve them in a manner that would be suitable to the area. 2 to 3 stories max. Mixed types of housing. I don't mind row housing but not higher than 2 stories. Please see above. Think about the traffic flow here and how challenging it is now. With the new build that is currently going up next to Libby Lodge I don't believe we need more housing in HSB Majority of homes in Douglas are already duplexes with basement suites and already support the diverse housing options. Also, the motel is sorely needed here in Horseshoe Bay (when there is not covid). Looks like you want to get rid of it - then there would be no where for visitors to stay in West Van., the only motels close by being those horrible ones on Capilano Road. There is TOO MUCH DENSITY. I am appalled that anyone would think it's okay to raze and demolish the community we have here. Shame on you! Less traffic, less people is what we want I think the double row of row/townhouses at front street and back alley is too much density. Did you look at more dense units along the busier streets of upper Royal Ave. Prefer 3 storey townhouses with small coach house / laneways. Like live/work units. It creates a more congested neighbourhood, I question parking areas and what happens to "green space" when it is concentrated on a single street. Development not in the character of Horseshoe Bay. T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! As above. - Maintain a smaller scale of incremental growth on Douglas St by limiting lot consolidation to a maximum of two lots (i.e., approx 30m frontage) - What is the net dwelling unit increase target for this area? How does it compare to potential net dwelling units under current zoning (duplexes with secondary suites)?

35

Too high Same as above - traffic. Too much density and building mass More of my same comments! Because Row houses are 3 storeys and the areas you are suggesting for these should be focused on two-storey duplexes and in ground basement suites. My support is for 3 storeys in key places and two storeys otherwise. Until I see a plan that is unequivocally committed to transportation and NOT private cars, I will NOT support 4 storey buildings or three storey row houses. Our neighbourhood is full of families. And the “missing middle class”. It was an affordable place to live. Until……..well, you know all about house prices in West Vancouver and the negative impact it has had on much of our life. So, it was with some enthusiasm that many of us embraced the concept of finally being able to develop our basements etc, to allow for some additional families to live here. It’s a small, limited space, but we felt we could definitely add some density to the existing homes to provide SOME affordable housing in our West Vancouver community. We are open to including some more families here. This is a community whose history demonstrates an openness to change. But we don’t agree to radical changes to this tiny, limited neighbourhood as it would negatively alter this unique community permanently. Please consider alternatives: Support Horseshoe Bay residents in creating secondary suites in their existing, low rise homes. [comments received via email] Support Horseshoe Bay residents in creating secondary suites in their existing, low rise homes. [comments received via email]

F. Comments in response to survey question #6: Multiplex Area

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 6: Please be mindful of over population. No mention of what happens to the many homes already in the area. A significant proportion of the dwellings should be rental units with some at below market rental rates. As families move out, as houses become available these lots can be turned over. Could continue the stack townhouses up to here. Also should be more flexible in choices instead of being so prescriptive, allowing for multiplexes, apartments, etc. Develop rental and below market real estate for residents of existing properties. As well as a moratorium on property tax hikes due to the change in value of property inline with the rezoning. Density depending upon other infrastructure considerations The south side of Chatham including Raleigh should have the same multiplex options. If Tantalus Park becomes a future development then the housing options for Chatham and Raleigh should be greater and varied.

36

South side of Chatham, and Raleigh, should be the same as the north side of Chatham and Argyle. If part of the park is to be developed at some future time there needs to be more opportunity to ""think big"" with this area. a) allow higher density row-townhomes for the last 3-4 lots at the eastern-most end of Argyle and Chatham (North side). b) limit rest of area to 2 storeys max -- Figure 10 sample illustration shows 3 storeys in an area claimed to be for 2 storey buildings. No exceptions. actually i really like the concept. What happens to the existing homes and families? You cannot bull doze a community into approval of a proposal. Does this plan expropriate with full market value to the homes that currently exist in the area? The road looks bigger than it is now, how will transit support all the increased density? I am in support as long as the building height remains 2-storey and there is enough parking for residents. There was discussion about 6-story at some of the community sessions. Reduced density Building height should be increased to 3 to 6 stories. This would create homes with wonderful view corridors to the water. Having shorter buildings down near the water on Bay/Bruce would create a more visually pleasing environment. Horseshoebay is extremely busy and can not handle this kind of added traffic I generally support this direction but the reality of having a developer assemble enough property in these areas to make this form of housing happen would be extremely challenging. There are very few existing duplexes or single-family homes that are beyond their useful life that would be suitable for redevelopment. Not only that, there are many newer duplexes that I am sure the current owners will not want to move out of unless they can realize a sizable return on their investment. I suspect that a suitable offer to an existing landowner would not be viable for a developer for such a small increase in housing density. Unfortunately, the Village of Horseshoe Bay is not owned by one landowner. It is not a Park Royal of Cypress Village. There are hundreds of landowners involved. could be townhouses No triplexes. again we need to me mindful of the density increase and what that means for services, amenities and traffic. there would need to be increased capacity for these things to go along with the increase in density to maintain current level of enjoyment. They all appear to be rather narrow units which would likely entail a lot of stairs; hardly what would appeal to middle aged or older people. 1. There is a lane way between Douglas and Argyle. On the 6500 block, this lane way is used as a high speed access between Nelson and Royal. I do not support allowing access to Nelson from Argyle. This will mean that there will be high traffic on both sides of the dwellings on Argyle. Ok --- I live and do not want to have increased traffic on Argyle. I would prefer to close the lane access to Nelson. 2. I support duplexes in the remaining single family houses. I do not support triplexes, coach houses, rental suites. As previously discussed in a previous section, there are too many cars in the area from BC Ferries passengers. A couple of houses on this 37

laneway have up to 4 cars on their yards and residents park 2 cars on the street. By increasing the density of Argyle, this will simply force more cars on the street. What is the appeal of this? 3. A main focus has been improving the entrance to HSB as one approaches down Royal to Bay street. I find that the trees lining the street are very attractive and appealing. I do not think that townhouses facing Nelson is very appealing the visitors or potential buyers --- looking at cars parked on Nelson and traffic exceeding speed limits is not appealing. Concerns about parking - not sure how there will be enough. Chatham (my street) is already very limited.

I think this area should have different architectural expression. I also think it should be smaller, allowing for more Cottages & Small Home zoning With limited numbers, keeping the concentration to a minimum so that it looks like the "neighbourhood evolved" over a longer time. All housing must conform to current and existing community standard. underground parking I support duplex with coach house as this provides greater flexibility of price points. I don't support Triplexes for the same reasons I don't support row houses. It creates large building massing and is not in keeping with the character of Horseshoe Bay which is trying to keep the fishing village vibe of eclectic smaller homes. Basement suites and basements should be included in overall FAR. Too much density. No triplexes Allow coach houses, forego duplex + triplexes. This is a SMALL community. Too dense Less density! I support two storey buildings - but again - you must connect these building forms to a walkability and services plan for the whole village. Movement via cars with the level of density you are proposing is untenable. So development must be done with the priority on walkability for local residents to local services. The only way to support the services needed for the proposed density in Horseshoe Bay is to connect the buidling/development plans with homes that do not cater to cars. Locals need to walk to local services in order to create a small local economy that can flourish and sustain the density you are proposing. Oriented toward Royal Avenue from what location? (comments received via email) 4-7 Character coach houses, small home infill, cottages, multiplex. Wide use of shingle siding for nautical village look. Village trails, waterfront seating, green spaces, planters, deciduous trees for shade in summer, sun in winter. [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 6: so someone bought all the village ?? and building crap all over the place?

38

Once again, I do not believe that HSB has the infrastructure to support such a massive increase in development. I think that single-detached homes should be prioritized in West Vancouver. An increase in density is not desirable. These streets are already crowded with no exit access. NO. Like things like they are now Way too congested in the Bay as it is now with foot and vehicle traffic. no parking - a triplex with 2 parking spots, a bit of a dream As a resident of Argyle Ave., I can tell you quite succinctly that you will not garner any support from a single resident from here to Chatham. Go into Dundrave and start suggesting mowing down an established neighbourhood. I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation! But it would never happen, would it? You are looking at a complete turn over of residents. How does this create a community?!? Some families have lived here for decades!!!! Where are we supposed to go?!? Traffic will be overwhelmed with this many townhouses. Keep the townhouses closer to the village proper. Still parking issues and traffic issues too dense and crowded Why are you removing feature homes of the neighbourhood?? There are already homes split into duplexes in the village and these don’t interfere with the charms this area has to offer. By developing this entire area you will be destroying what nice parts of Horseshoe Bay are left. Really? Condensed condo living with all it features that the people who move here wanted to avoid otherwise we would have a condo already. Too condensed, no gardens, no free space to walk on sidewalks and overall congestions of parks and community resources nearby. Why? What benefit is this to the local community? Too much density. This is not a man made village, created as part of a suburb to the City of West Vancouver, it is a village that has grown within it's unique environment and has stood the test of time. Yes, Bay Street, Bruce Street and Lower Royal Avenue needs revitalization, but smaller increments than what is being proposed. From Bruce street upward there are already established townhomes and a mix of housing - with some room for small pocket development. Too much density for such a small area With the new build that is currently going up next to Libby Lodge I don't believe we need more housing in HSB what the heck? You want to take Horseshoe Bay to the ground and restart? Too dense... too tall See all my statements from above. Disgusting plans. Ugly architecture. Moving people out of their homes like a third world country. Completely unethical and does not have once ounce of support from anyone I know living in this community. You make it look like Disneyland! Gross! Less people, less traffic is what we want

39

I find these drawings absolutely useless to properly evaluate and give consideration to such an important issue. I feel that this proposal is significantly too much density to inflict upon Horseshoe Bay. This is why so many of the young families in the area left places like North Vancouver. This would strip all the character and charm from the area. No thank you! T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! As above. As well, surface parking turns the streetscape into a visual parking lot. Far too much density. No need for triplexes plus coach houses on each lot. Our neighbourhood is full of families. And the “missing middle class”. It was an affordable place to live. Until……..well, you know all about house prices in West Vancouver and the negative impact it has had on much of our life. So, it was with some enthusiasm that many of us embraced the concept of finally being able to develop our basements etc, to allow for some additional families to live here. It’s a small, limited space, but we felt we could definitely add some density to the existing homes to provide SOME affordable housing in our West Vancouver community. We are open to including some more families here. This is a community whose history demonstrates an openness to change. But we don’t agree to radical changes to this tiny, limited neighbourhood as it would negatively alter this unique community permanently. Please consider alternatives: Support Horseshoe Bay residents in creating secondary suites in their existing, low rise homes. [comments received via email] I was horrified to see the density proposed for Horseshoe Bay. Has anyone considered the impact BC ferries has on the health of the families you want to move into Horseshoe Bay? With at least 1.4 million cars traveling through HSB terminal each year, highway traffic and the plague of motorcycles that descend on the area every summer, life for some is unbearable. This will only get worse with the expansion of the ferry terminal. Asthma, allergies and cancer are a reality for people living here. [comments received via email]

G. Comments in response to survey question #7: Cottage & Small Home Infill Area

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 7: This seems a more likely area for development but, again, I don't believe that HSB has the infrastructure to support a further increase in population. Limit development zoning to one main dwelling and one cottage per property. I support this as long as the landscaping is absolutely guaranteed. The communities current attraction As a place to live is due to the mix of housing and trees on the mountainside. Nobody wants to see Tightly packed houses as you drive up Nelson devoid of trees and greenery. St Monica Church site is not included, why? One main dwelling and a coach house / cottage maximum per property. 40

Still no comment about existing housing Only detached homes with basement rental suites and/or rental coach houses. Could allow for more density. Figure 15 actually shows a South-East aspect. There needs to be the ability to combine existing lots to create multiplex options. This illustration makes it look more like a Whistler Village with too much visible parking. It lacks charm. The possible inclusion of Tantalus Park on the western side will create more housing opportunity but the forest side of Tantalus should remain. I like the plan for Nelson Ave - it fits perfectly as the lots are deep but steep. It does not however work for Chatham/Raleigh. The lots here are small, but by allowing a bit more flexibility here, including amalgamating and possible inclusion of part of the park it could work. I firmly believe that the Eastern portion of the park must remain forest. I don't think this periphery area needs a great deal of rezoning or central planning; it has an appealing mix of organic, 'cottage' style housing already. As long as it’s only Chatham, not Nelson as image states. Consider West of Nelson hillside for stepped row housing 2-3 storeys as preferable location over heart of Horseshoe Bay if planning demands increased density. "a) Artist renditions of cottage/small homes looks horrific! Small homes should be much smaller FSR than illustrated. The cottages already in existence on Nelson ave are a good example of the cottage size I support: 1 storey, 600-800 sf and maybbe 1,000 sf max on larger lots. b) 6403 to 6427 Nelson (6 lots) should remain zoned single-detatched homes part of the edgs of the study area c) 6507 Nelson is too small to zone for multiple cottages Being the owner of the last eight cottages on the hillside, i am totally in favour of this. Its been 27 years of hard work and landscaping around the cottages. Feel free to walk around them. love owning the property, just every few years have a difficult tenant. That would be the only reason for me to sell them. all the tenants that have ever lived in them greatly appreciate the gardens and views. They are small though These cottages appear to be incredibly large. The cottages already in the bay are an appropriate size. Once again, why are areas with already established homes being targeted for development? The bay is too busy already! I like the idea of clustered cottages but these buildings you're suggesting are not cottages! They're big homes. I like the cottages which exist now in a colorful cluster on Nelson. They are truly cottages! Yes to the cottages on Nelson. However Chatham should be 3 to 6 story buildings (preferably taller on Chatham than on the street below it) They would need to be affordable. Not 1.5 million dollar cottages This is a lovely concept in principal. The old Horseshoe Bay Cottages on Nelson so cute, but they are not practical for today’s families and seniors looking to downsize. They were built for fishermen’s needs 100 years ago. The cottages are too small, and they are built on the side of a steep rocky hillside. Of the 43 properties identified to create the cottage and small home infill area, only a small minority, approximately ten properties are flat enough to be practical and economically viable to build on. Of those approximately 10 properties, only half of them currently have homes on them that are beyond their useful life suitable for redevelopment or have existing homes 41 sited in a way that there would be room for an additional cottage or small home infill. There is currently no incentive for people to build coach houses in West Vancouver. The numbers simply do not work. How would anybody be more incentivized to build a coach house on the side of a cliff? The proposed Tantalus Gardens project by QUMA Properties is exactly the housing form we are looking for. It is located on the flattest area of Horseshoe Bay designated for cottages and small home infill housing. It is currently vacant or improved with buildings that are underutilized. It is the only assembled property that can truly provide the at-grade living that the community is looking for. because of the slope, this is an area where parking could be discreetly integrated in to the hill with condos above. A higher density could be accommodated and form a back drop to the bay with views down Howe Sound. (Think the "Evelyn" off Taylor Way) I support the opportunity for smaller detached homes that transition to the existing single-detached neighbourhoods on the edges of and outside the study area. Tantalus Gardens is a great proposal as it specially provides the desired housing form and it is located on the edge of the study area, transitioning into single-family home neighbourhoods. Not only that, Tantalus Gardens is on the most suitable section of Nelson Avenue, as it is the most gently-sloped portion with no rocky cliffs. It is one of the few parcels of land in the designated Cottage and Small Infill area, that can truly offer accessible, at-grade living suitable for families or residents who want to age in place. The historic cottages on Nelson and elsewhere should be preserved as they are important to the character of the bay I support the opportunity for smaller detached homes that transition to the existing single-detached neighborhoods on the edges of and outside the study area. It is one of the few parcels of land in the designated Cottage and Small Infill area, that can truly offer accessible, at-grade living suitable for families or residents who want to age in place. I support the opportunity for smaller detached homes that transition to the existing single-detached neighbourhoods on the edges of and outside the study area. Tantalus Gardens is a great proposal as it specially provides the desired housing form and it is located on the edge of the study area, transitioning into single-family home neighbourhoods. Not only that, Tantalus Gardens is on the most suitable section of Nelson Avenue, as it is the most gently-sloped portion with no rocky cliffs. It is one of the few parcels of land in the designated Cottage and Small Infill area, that can truly offer accessible, at-grade living suitable for families or residents who want to age in place. Is there allowance for homeowners with more than one vehicle? What about guest parking? I live on I support ONLY if we can build 2-3 cottages on our property, otherwise; I believe this will detract from my property value. Tantalus Park seems to have disappeared as well as St Monicas site? I can't comment on those sites. Does this suppose smaller lots proposed? That is good. Parking will hopefully be screened by landscape

42

Tantalus Gardens is an excellent project. However, reflecting the OCP and Council's Strategic Goals, it could be improved by including some imaginative Seniors Housing, say 20%. Thus, it could be a shining example of ""mixed"" housing - that's what W- Van and communities generally need now-a-days. Features could include: Co- housing: private spaces + common areas. Purchase or rental. Affordable – good quality but (say) half the cost/sq.ft of the other residences. Be ""self-supporting"", not requiring subsidy. “Affordable” housing in condominium buildings is too costly & requires subsidy - undesirable & unsustainable in the long-run. I support the small home with a coach house on Nelson where the topography makes it the best use of space and a green space is difficult to create, but some setbacks and green space needs to be maintained on Chatham and Raleigh streets so perhaps a max of 3 cottages with designated green space for each. Artificial manipulation of landscape to increase house size should not be allowed. Development should conform to natural contours of land. I support the opportunity for smaller detached homes that transition to the existing single-detached neighbourhoods on the edges of and outside the study area. Tantalus Gardens is a great proposal as it specially provides the desired housing form and it is located on the edge of the study area, transitioning into single-family home neighbourhoods. Not only that, Tantalus Gardens is on the most suitable section of Nelson Avenue, as it is the most gently-sloped portion with no rocky cliffs. It is one of the few parcels of land in the designated Cottage and Small Infill area, that can truly offer accessible, at-grade living suitable for families or residents who want to age in place. I would suggest covered parking areas and covered main pathways to these homes to help young families and seniors with unloading their vehicles protected from the elements. Feature interesting lighting for additional public safety. '- Consider additional density for the two blocks on the west uphill side of Nelson between Douglas and Bay. Multi-family development sensitively stepping back up the hillside would transition to Libby Lodge and increase opportunities for apartments. These would be perfect for the Tantalus Gardens site which was unfortunately turned down earlier. Less lots should be designed for cottage/small home infill, especially give that most of the lots shown on this map are far too steep and rocky for building beyond what is already on the lot. The exception is the Tantalus proposal which has no slope/rocky cliffs, plus the next two/three lots gong north on Nelson. The Chatham/Raleigh lots may be suitable for cottage/small home infill as well. Support for Chatham - current Nelson Ave. cottages are relic's and should not be touched. I support the opportunity for smaller detached homes that transition to the existing single-detached neighbourhoods on the edges of and outside the study area. Tantalus Gardens is a great proposal as it specially provides the desired housing form and it is located on the edge of the study area, transitioning into single-family home neighbourhoods. Not only that, Tantalus Gardens is on the most suitable section of Nelson Avenue, as it is the most gently-sloped portion with no rocky cliffs. It is one of the few parcels of land in the designated Cottage and Small Infill area, that can truly

43

The slope of the land on the west side of Nelson Ave. precludes this idea! Can not hide townhomes with a new fancy name of cottages! Seriously offensive in the space and land use concentration. What is wrong with what already exists? The highway noise will increase for Wellington Ave. Residents as trees are removed and the view of rooftops will certainly not be an improvement over the tree and mountain views. Seriously offensive. Too much density for neighboring properties above on Wellington. If you're going to allow increase density on the high side of Nelson, do it for the Wellington properties that the Nelson lots run up to. Because it is where my house is right now. We already have small cottages that infill.....That totally fit in with the character of Horseshoe Bay. The beach cottages on Nelson are one such example....and need a preservation order on them. Invades forested area that is critical to the areas nature Again , now that parking is mentioned,I see this only increasing difficulties. Too much density for the lower village too much change DO NOT BUILD ANYTHING ELSE IN HORSESHOE BAY. Less traffic, less people is what we want I do not agree with rezoning single home lots to accommodate 2-3 cottages. I am opposed to ANY density (other than SFH) above Chatham. Please for the love of god, listen to your own councilors who publicly think this process is a flawed joke. Absolutely disagree with this proposal. This will make Horseshoe Bay look and feel like living in the Newton Industrial Park. This community is a great place to live in and by allowing such large scale un-warranted development you will destroy the character of the village for those of us that have lived here for years. Once again I think considering the topography that the density your proposal encourages is too high and parking problems are not given enough consideration. Loss of green space between Nelson and Wellington which provides privacy, beauty and noise buffer for homes on Wellington. The area cannot support further year-round traffic. I do NOT support this UNLESS there is a limitation on ""cottage"" size linked to this question. We have seen firsthand how the language of ""cottage"" ""infill"" and ""small"" homes gets bent/twisted by developers. So you must first DEFINE what a cottage and small infill home is before consent can be given. I am an advocate for small homes i.e. 1200sqft or less and therefore to have 2-3 on a property as such. But I am NOT for a developers version of a ""cottage"" being a $2 million dollars 2000Sqft home with 4 jammed onto each lot and cars piling out onto the street. I also support the opportunity for resident home owners to put coach houses on their existing properties. What this achieves is that the appearance, and scale, and number of ""small infill"" homes remains in control of the people who live in this neighborhood. That is, NOT in the hands of developers. The idea of infill housing should be a tool for residents to create their own version of density according to how they want to see Horseshoe Bay developed/densified. This is a critical tool for cultivating an

45 appropriate level of density over time FOR the community and BY the community and it also retains the benefit of this kind of development WITHIN the community rather than having the profit leave in the pockets of a developer who does not care about the character and liveability of the neighbourhood. In sum, find ways to allow Horseshoe Bay residents to develop/densify their own property via ""infill housing"" and ""coach houses"". Let developers build ""cottages"" on small lots but you MUST limit/define the scale/storeys/sqft of these ""cottages"" or they will NOT be cottages as you appear to be suggesting. Our neighbourhood is full of families. And the “missing middle class”. It was an affordable place to live. Until……..well, you know all about house prices in West Vancouver and the negative impact it has had on much of our life. So, it was with some enthusiasm that many of us embraced the concept of finally being able to develop our basements etc, to allow for some additional families to live here. It’s a small, limited space, but we felt we could definitely add some density to the existing homes to provide SOME affordable housing in our West Vancouver community. We are open to including some more families here. This is a community whose history demonstrates an openness to change. But we don’t agree to radical changes to this tiny, limited neighbourhood as it would negatively alter this unique community permanently. Please consider alternatives: Support Horseshoe Bay residents in creating secondary suites in their existing, low rise homes. [comments received via email] I was horrified to see the density proposed for Horseshoe Bay. Has anyone considered the impact BC ferries has on the health of the families you want to move into Horseshoe Bay? With at least 1.4 million cars traveling through HSB terminal each year, highway traffic and the plague of motorcycles that descend on the area every summer, life for some is unbearable. This will only get worse with the expansion of the ferry terminal. Asthma, allergies and cancer are a reality for people living here. [comments received via email]

H. Comments in response to survey question #8: Enhancing Spaces in Between Buildings

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 8: I support the idea of revitalizing the parks and increasing access to the waterfront. However, I do not support any reduction in infrastructure for motor vehicles. Any changes must persevere or enhance the efficient and quick movement of motor vehicles. West Vancouver is very car accessible, which is one of its main attractions compared to downtown where one-way streets and traffic calming measures have made travel inconvenient. There shouldn't be a focus on opening a mid-block pedestrian connection under the Galleries at the Bay residential building - that would significantly intrude on resident privacy.

46 repurpose Tantalus Park as housing site; add more urban pocket parks along Royal Avenue Making sure to keep horseshoe bay a working marine harbour Please do not create a visiting park on Douglas St. With the park down at the water, the mass of irresponsible and inconsiderate visitors stay in a concentrated space. make sure there is adequate visitor and resident car parking, don't try and socially engineer us on to buses! More park/patio areas Still no comment on what happens to existing structures. The MidBlock Pedestrian connections try to connect public spaces but do so at the expense of private residential areas. In doing so, this encourages trespassing and loitering on private property which creates nuisance calls for Police and unpleasant situations for those that reside in those areas. There needs to be an attention to more Police walkthroughs and visible presence of WVPD in HSB" Some car free and slow streets should be included. The enhanced space needs to be a real space, capable of holding events, street performances , and celebrations....that is it clear I; this rendition we are not interested in it becoming a park. The property has been in the same family for years and are a fixture in the community. This will not be taken lightly. a) Reduce car dependence and access in the village. Create pedestrian-only zones. Make Little Bay a pedestrian-only alley with interesting street life. b) I support the HB park revitalization and would hope that no new significant lighting be added that would affect the ""dark night"" atmoosphere of HB It does not seem that parking has been explained enough. As it is, parking in HSB is not very well thought out and in the summer months hard to get street parking at all. If there were more stores and a huge increase in density where would the proposal for parking be? I do not want to lose tantalus park. It's a community green space we should not lose, especially as the rest of the plan calls for so much densification. More policing. Opening up roads that have been closed off means that traffic is less controlled in the Bay. Traffic congestion and noise level in Horseshoe Bay have been an ongoing issue - Be it the ferry traffic, motorcycles, visitors in the summer. By having some roads closed off at least the traffic is somewhat contained as of now. Again, how does the current infrastructure support all this densification? As this will become a destination, there needs to adequate parking, transit and traffic management to support it Reduce density Lots of trees and greenery will be important to making HSB attractive - see what has been done in Langford (suburb of Victoria, BC) Why reopen Douglas and Argyle to Nelson St? The closures support traffic calming and keep tourists from using those streets. The residents on those streets have no

47 need for openings to Nelson. Most residents park and use the alleys. I do not support re-opening those streets, it will only increase non-residential traffic on these neighbourhood streets. Not sure what street scape mesns In a previous section, I addressed that I do not support the opening of Arglye and Douglas to Nelson. I support closing the laneway access to Nelson. The lane way is used as a high speed access to Nelson It is very unpleasant having cars speed along the lane --- hard to pull out of garage, danger to children and dogs. I do not want to have an increase of traffic in front of the house. The closed section of Argyle allow kids to play on the street and encourages community connections with neighbours. This community connection would be destroyed with increased non-local traffic. Support outdoor terraces along Bay Street by widening the sidewalks, smaller streets Not to the corner patio at Bruce and Royal as street front needs stronger definition as so short. Yes to inner pedestrian connections and courtyards Yes to support mixed use at lower density No support to bringing Douglas Park to Royal as more private smaller scale local park Yes to revitalizing trails as shown to provide pedestrian access to larger neighbourhood Yes support to Tyee Point if affordable Yes support to seniors housing and assisted affordable housing around Tantalus Park Keep some of Tantalus Park as greenspace/childplay area No support for openng up Douglas and Argyle to Nelson as too noisy Yes support for revitalizing HB waterfront park with some of Sewells Landing development contribution I support the outdoor terraces/seating along Bay Street or corner patios at Bruce and Royal), seek to create mid-block pedestrian connections. I do NOT support increased commercial parking or reopening roads on Douglas and Argyle. I support the mid- block pedestrian connection, the activated little bay, the expansion of Douglas park, the street corner patio. I question why you have stated revitalize the park as that is already in the works and not up for consideration. I am not clear how it is proposed that we would gain increased commercial parking on the north west corner of Bay and Royal, I would not want to see the height above 3 stories on that corner as that is the view corridor for the rest of Horseshoe Bay and would cause everything behind it to have to increase in height, something that many stated they wanted to avoid. I do not support re-opening of roads, although giving the locals a way to leave the Bay without entering the commercial area, it could potentially increase more lost tourist traffic onto quieter residential streets. I believe that is why areas like Kits and Arbutus have to close streets off to keep traffic on specific arteries and allow safe streets for families and kids to play on. - Increase building setbacks to increase sidewalk width. - Develop a Public Art Plan for the public realm. - Use POPAs to secure outdoor seating areas. Do NOT expand a walking path to Tyee Point and overpay for that piece of land. Totally not worth it. I am all for walkability and improving ways to draw patrons though the various streets of Horseshoe Bay. Fewer cars, more walking. Better streetscapes and retail experiences. I think the western portion of Tantalus park should be redeveloped with a multi-storey apartment style building - in conjunction with BOTH a revitalized Public Amenity space in the PA zoned land at the roundabout of Marine

48

Drive, Nelson, and Roseberry, and subsequently a walking path the links to the top of Royal avenue that would enhance walkability, and connect the upper and lower neighborhoods surrounding Horseshoe Bay proper. Housing in Tantalus Park ( zoned Res.) in exchange for ** Tyee Point . Move 'Tantalus Gardens' proposal to very unused and wet Tantalus Park. Keep PA zoning at church site for upper HSB area. [comments received via email] Longer term possible private redevelopment interest and further exploration of possible land use change and public use opportunity for portions of Tyee Point, to be determined through further discussion and analysis. [comments received by phone]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 8: Please do not increase parking for the proposed areas! HSB is already suffering from overcrowding due to the influx of visitors on weekends and holidays. The village simply isn't large enough to accommodate an increase. Even before Covid 19 most retailers barely survive the winter months Opening for more traffic flow destroys the whole Horseshoe Bay community living experience. Way too busy and unnecessary. and where do the visitors park???? No new homes in Tantalus Park, the current trails are not maintained and are dangerous. A new walking trail connecting Madrona Cres. to the trail on the unimproved road sections of Imperial Ave. and Argyle. The area is only extensively used during the summer period and therefor the developments of larger patios and pedestrian areas is a waste. The park is already lovely and it would be an incredible shame to destroy the children’s park. They love that whale! Monte Carlo...patios and cafes for a residential community? Not for the local residents obviously, great for developers. As a resident you must see how offensive this is. Do you take this into consideration? Absolutely against reopening of Douglas and Argyle. If your planners do not understand all the parking and traffic issues we already then hire someone else. Against Tantulas Park for housing, the park needs to be activated for use like a Parkour exercise park, not housing. Wellington is not part of HSB. already discussed above. FYI, we need more garbage patrol as there is a lot of litter in Horseshoe Bay - I pick up garbage on my street daily, but there is so much. Tantalus Park is an under-used space and needs improvement. STOP DESTROYING OUR COMMUNITY Bikes, skateboarders and cars don’t obey the traffic rules as we have it now. Adding more to the mix will ensure injury and death. As for access corridors for foot traffic, we have a difficult time with existing corridors and the transients it brings - the do drugs and drink and set up overnight accommodations for themselves now on our private property - we actually would like to eliminate these corridors and keep people out in the open, where it is more difficult to break the law and do drugs and urinate on our private property and cause more nuisance than good.

49

The consideration that you think you are getting the point in a land swap is laughable and a pipe dream. It is being proposed as a way to sell a land swap that the community DOES NOT WANT. Obviously I wouldn't support new housing in the park area it the confluence of Nelson and Marine. .I don't support reopening the roads at Douglas and Argyle . I do support expansion of Douglas Pk as with the dramatic increase in density in the Bay people will need more green space. Do not support the opening of argyle and Douglas streets. I do not support the further commercialization and urbanization of Horseshoe Bay. Everything you propose is mostly going to increase vehicular traffic...not aimed at walkers at all So much disruption for the local population....need to cut back on all thse proposals! I was horrified to see the density proposed for Horseshoe Bay. Has anyone considered the impact BC ferries has on the health of the families you want to move into Horseshoe Bay? With at least 1.4 million cars traveling through HSB terminal each year, highway traffic and the plague of motorcycles that descend on the area every summer, life for some is unbearable. This will only get worse with the expansion of the ferry terminal. Asthma, allergies and cancer are a reality for people living here. [comments received via email]

I. Comments in response to survey question #9: Place-making & Street Life

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 9: I’m not sure about changing zoning of Tantalus. Maybe changing the park, but I wouldn’t put homes on it. I do not support repurposing portions of Tantalus Park for potential residential development. There is no need to expand housing in this area. Tyee Point is an interesting idea. How will this also renew Horseshoe Bay Park? Douglas Street Park is a lovely neighborhood park. With restructuring it would create far too much non-local traffic, which the bay is already overwhelmed with, and would detract from the community already existing there. The proposal for Tantalus Park is not acceptable. With housing proposals in other areas with the lower bay community the requirement for more green spaces will also increase. Please focus on maintaining or improving the green spaces and parks already established for local residents and prospective residents. Tantalus park is being used more than ever during the Covid issue. Local HB families have been using the park for picnics and games due to the overuse of Whytecliff And HB park from non residents during this time. It’s made me realize that we need more green space not less in our community. Taking Community parkland for housing is going to be highly controversial. The trail suggested As a swap will only benefit visitors. (Who probably don’t pay WV taxes) Adequate additional pay parking and underground pay parking available to visitors to the community with ease of traffic flow

50

I don't support residential development in Tantalus Park. I like making the area more "walkable" with more and better maintained trails. I love parks. But more parks is more visitors with more cars and more and more. The bay already contends with an unsafe amount of vehicle traffic. Lot's of places to park cars As before No residential development in Tantalus Park. "1. I already made my comments on the ""potential street corner patio"" @ little bay and Royal. 2. As development or funding allows, there needs to be a multi-use path (e.g. wider and safe for bikes) linking the lower HB to the 'roundabout' at the top of the hill on Nelson Avenue. The catchment this would serve is large (Gleneagles and Whtyecliffe walkers and bikers). 3. ""waterfront trail expansion"" to Tyee Point would be great (and really create another 'draw' to HB). 4. Portions of ""The Great Trail"" (adjacent to BCFerries) needs to be widened and graded to match lower sections. 5. Totally support selling Tantalus Park or portions thereof (on the condition funds are directly used to obtain Tyee Point for a waterfront 'marine park/viewpoint'). Tantalus Park only gets limited useage and the net benefit of being able to use Tyee Point along the waterfront would serve far more people and be better for residents and businesses of HB. 6. Not so sure opening Argyle and Douglas St. onto Keith will be good. Those streets have bad sighlines (b/c of slope and were originally closed in the 90s for that reason). Furthermore, opening those roads will create discontiuity of sidewalk along keith and remove streetside parallel parking along Keith (not to mention I cant imagine the residents will to happy!!) 7. ""More commercial parking spaces"" should not be implemented in 'the core' of HB as noted. Upon redevelopment of BC Ferries lands to the east, this is where additional underground parking should be provided and advertised through signage (this will allow visitors to park cars in 'the periphery' and walk to 'the core' without undue traffic issues on summer weekends). You are once again talking of removing families from this community!!! The house that stands between Douglas Park and Royal ave has been in the same family for GENERATIONS!!! Per my previous comment, I would like to see adequate garbage disposal, clean up, public washrooms, security (if needed) and needle disposal bins. It is probably a rather poor idea to sell parts of tantalus park seeing it is one of the last spaces of that area. I think a better idea would be to put more funding towards the seaview trail. As well as improving the existing sport courts to develop a sense of social community space. However if tantalus park were to be sold for a community hall or space in the bay area proper that would be desirable. I live at and we are not interested in it becoming a park. The property has been in the same family years and are a fixture in the community. This will not be taken lightly. I am skeptical of residential uses in Tantalus Park. I think the park could be better designed for use as a park Maintenance of green space.

51

Yes, all sounds good in theory - residential in Tantalus, while maintaining park environment/playground/dog walking.....Our green space is precious here in the Bay. Too much use assigned for one green space would be my comment here. Sounds good overall. I’d have have more clarity on the plans for Douglas Park. Don’t destroy the integrity of the existing area The more green areas/parks the better. Tyee Point should be considered a must. Tantalus Park should remain undeveloped. Development should be on the St Monica's on the likes of what was recently proposed. I support tyee point and tantalus. I see no value in expanding Douglas park. Leave the cute little cottage in the corner Douglas Park is only used by teans as a hangout. You could get rid of the whole park. I do support trying to work with the land owner on Type Point however access through Sewells may be an issue. Tantalus Park is not often used and would be a good candidate for conversion to residential property. It think Tyee Point is a tough one. I don't know how much it would ever be used. It will take 50 years for anything to happen in Horseshoe Bay. No need to change park space anytime soon. I don't support the repurposing of Tantalus Park for potential residential - it is important to maintain the green spaces we have now - this makes a huge difference in the character of the neighbourhood. Walking through residential development areas isn't the same as walking through green space. Money for other things should come from the increased property taxes due to higher HSB density and from developers wanting to make money in the Bay through development opportunities. I only support the repurposing of Tantalus Park if Tyee Point can be purchased and turned into a public park. The community can't afford to loose any park area unless it's being replaced by more/better park land. Park areas shouldn’t be diminished More parks are fully supported. Developing trails where there are none currently is not - we should not be using even more land and encroaching on natural spaces. We need to keep in mind the safety of the residents if there are plans to expand/open roads as we often see and hear vehicles speeding up on Royal Avenue with no care to pedestrians or kids playing nearby. I think these ideas are fantastic and would be beneficial for all West Van residents. I do not believe that this is likely to happen. This concept is to make the other density concerns more palatable. Tyee Point potential should be explored if possible/affordable. No support for expansion of Douglas Park to Royal as prefer smaller quieter local park. Like to explore the potential of housing opportunities while keeping some Tantalus Park area for local use I support the creation of an expanded waterfront trail and viewpoint and the expansion of parks. I do NOT support repurpose portion(s) of Tantalus Park for potential residential development while maintaining park area(s) for local use (e.g., playground, dog-walking, trails, etc.) to expand housing and generate funds that could support other park acquisitions or improvements. 52

Tyee point would be an interesting development, but is not something essential towards Horseshoe Bay. Although if they were to develop Tantalus Park into a residential, another large usable green space must be created in its replacement. Like-use for like-use. The other option would be revitalized the existing field at Tantalus Park Do not reduce park space in the Tantalus Park/Marine Drive area. I am concerned that with ocean level rise that Tyee Point would become a flooded or continually damaged trail space and may not be worth the money spent on acquisition. I support the expansion of Douglas park only if it is usable space and not a dead space. ie what would it be and how would it be used on a busy street like Royal ( safety?) Again it may not be worth the cost of acquiring it. I support some development of Tantalus Park but would like to see a green field be found for locals of Horseshoe Bay, so that all these future people that this plan is proposing to live closer together without their own green spaces, could at least have one to use, otherwise they will get in their cars and drive to Ambleside which goes counter to the OCP. No development on Tantalus Park. - General support for Tyee Point trail though as it has limited public gathering space at the point. This should not be a District Funding priority. - More information is needed on park requirement standards (area per capita for local serving parks). Is Horseshoe Bay currently park deficient? What additional park area will be required for the future population growth. - Support extension of Douglas Park to Royal Ave. - If Tantalus Park is excess park land, consider redevelopment for seniors housing and/or supportive living. Leave Tantalus park alone... Your waterfront trail expansion past 'The Sanctuary' should have been included before that project got the go ahead. The entire property should have been included in the package. That is what a Legacy truly is. Leave tantalus park the same size as it is now Tyee Point has been rejected for subdivision in the past because it only has water access, and so has the abutting peninsula owned by Telus. Make absolutely clear that the value of those lands recognizes these limitations. Highly recommend that you try to accomplish this objective for the public good, but do not allow the owners to overvalue the land. Do NOT buy Tyee Point. An expanded Douglas park would only work if there was some kind of amenity/food/retail space close to it. An expanded Douglas park could work if walkability up and down Royal Avenue was improved. I would support redeveloping the Western Portion of Tantalus Park but ONLY in conjunction with a number of other changes: e.g. That the PA space and the old St. Monica's church was renewed to provide a vibrant community space that would draw residents up and down from Horseshoe Bay via a walking path that could connect through a redeveloped Tantalus park and to the top of Royal Avenue (the little green cottage would have to be purchased). A coordinated devleopment is viable but only if the PA space is maintained and renewed at the old Church Site. If the PA space cannot be renewed as a community Hub, then I am opposed to giving away Tantalus Park for nothing.

53

I suggest~Forget all the little parks and put the money into the potential waterfront Trail expansion for all to enjoy. Most residents have their own private yard and I find that once these requested little parks are built, they sit vacant… other than the drug dealers! Fix up the tennis courts so HB locals have a place to play — is that not one of the major elements of space design? This appears to be extremely high density for a small bay— I find this a bit concerning. [comments received via email] Housing in Tantalus Park ( zoned Res.) in exchange for ** Tyee Point . Move 'Tantalus Gardens' proposal to very unused and wet Tantalus Park. Keep PA zoning at church site for upper HSB area. [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 9: I am very much against increasing the population of HSB. Too dense. Very disappointing. I don’t think we should repurpose the park for residential development. I don’t think we need to ‘expand housing’ here. Also the parks and trails are charming as-is, we are not trying to create a tourist destination are we? It’s busy enough in this area. Tantalus Park should be developed as a community park with no residential development. No additional housing in Tantalus Park Green and park spaces should not be changed to residential at Tantalus park Way too congested. Not sure why the District is intent on destroying the Bay and making it into some sort of condensed traffic hub. figure out the parking first Absolutely DO NOT support the removal of any of Tantalus park. There are so few spaces around here where we don’t get run out of by tourists. Keep Tantalus for the residents. Instead of a new boardwalk in the Bay a boardwalk/sidewalk needs to Be built to make it safer to walk to Whytecliff. I’m surprised multiple people don’t get killed on this road yearly. This should be your priority. a) land use change to Tyee point in itself is an interesting idea, but I do not support trading existing green space for it. I do not believe that sufficient CACs will be generated to actually purchase waterfront land to Tyee point, which will result in the net loss of green space for HB. This proposal has all the attributes of a ""bait and switch"" proposal. b) I do not support the expansion of Douglas Park. Put your money in expanding and improving the waterfront instead. c) I strongly oppose the development of Tantalus Park. Such development would negatively change the feel of the upper part of HB, away from the terminal. All your artistic renditions show abundant trees at the south end of the village, trees that will mostly have to be cut down in a proposed development of Tantalus Park. The South end of the village should remain lower density housing with significant green space in Tantalus Park. d) I strongly oppose any rezoning of the St Monika lots to higher density housing. The south entrance to the village should remain quaint and green. The District can get the density it is looking for near the Ferry Terminal, where it makes the most sense to increase density -- don't try to increase density everywhere in the village. I dream of that park to be a food market so our farmers can come and sell their food goods in our community, maybe some parking under etc, european style market,

54 mini-Granville Island. on top of that (on another level) kids playground with a view of the bay, so people can sit and eat while overlooking the bay without the hustle of the ferry foot traffic, more of a community thing, If along that you want to have some residential that will also be ok with me, but just to turn that into residential just because you need $ is not a good enough reason for our community to lose that park. I do not want to lose Tantalus park for housing. It's a community green space, we should not lose, especially as the rest of the plan calls for so much densification. Please do not get rid of Tantalus park to develop houses. It is a much loved park and is used year round by locals. Our community is already losing tennis courts and other park areas nearby, and this would be a devastating blow. Tourists don’t frequent it and so it is a good place to take dogs and to relax without much pedestrian traffic. Other walks around the bay are too busy now. I can't believe you would increase the density and then turn around and remove parts of parks for more development. Usually, parks and free space are added to planned neighbourhoods to improve the quality of life for residents. This plan does not offer a better lifestyle for the already inhabitants of Horseshoe Bay and the surrounding neighbourhood. the existing green space that Tantalus Park and the forested lands to the east provide a much needed buffer to the upper levels highway and ferry traffic the trees provide something of a sound barrier and some pollution filtration.And with millions of vehicles coming to board B.C. Ferries I think these areas left as they are are critical to liveability in Horseshoe Bay.My question is how would this area be accessed by vehicular traffic? Horseshoe Bay has little public use/land ‘expand housing and generate funds that could support other park acquisitions or improvements‘ sounds great but where is the land you might acquire? With increased density, more residents will increase the need for more public space not less. As mentioned above, the gigantic scope of what you are proposing would take years and years and years, which I am positive none of the current residents are willing to face. This is lovely, friendly community already. STOP BUILDING IN HORSESHOE BAY Again, we want fewer people, less traffic, not more. We have enough to contend with because of the ferries Do not support changes to Tantalus park I am only ok with the yellow area as proposed Do not support repurposing park for residential development. T his scale of expansion/development will change the nature of community Horshoebay has had and the reason we moved here away from the busy overcrowded city! The development of Tyee Point will attract more vehicle traffic, rough sleepers, and graffiti, and drug use....it can't be properly policed. Tantalus Gardens is completely misrepresented...... not sure why our Mayor and members of council would present this proposal again after overwhelming opposition by the local constituents to the original project. I can only assume that the Mayor and council are developer friendly to the point of disregarding any public input. 55

J. Comments in response to survey question #10: Connectivity & Mobility

Below provides comments received for the “support with modifications” prompt to question 10: no new parking spaces please. we should and MUST encourage people to use our public transit. I would like clarification on the "connectivity and mobility" proposals, please. Do not open Douglas and Argyle to Nelson. Keep Douglas and Argyle closed off Do not open Douglas and argyle, would create parking havoc Explicit design and planning for supporting bike/ebike infrastructure needs to be included. Do not reopen streets; otherwise support. I think this is a major issue given the plans to increase residential units in HSB. Parking, congestion and movement options (i.e. the number of cars / tourists driving down the wrong street, turning around, etc.) are currently a major issue, and we haven't even seen the impact of people moving into the Sewell's development. If the plans to increase residential population and revitalize the area so it is more attractive to tourists and people from connecting neighbourhoods move forward, traffic congestion and parking are going to be major issues. There has to be other road / route options to get into and out of HSB. And please don't plan thinking that people won't need / have cars. Need to give more consideration to cyclists (and not motorbikes, which should be banned unless they have serious noise control equipment As before Sidewalks on Argyle Ave and Douglas St and pedestrian access only to Nelson Ave. Protected two-way bike lanes between the ferry terminal building and the Sewell's condo development and one-way protected bike lane up to Hwy1 from the ferry terminal building. Start with the ferries and let's have these conversations once we see what's happening there and with Sewell's and BC Ferries. Already made my comments on this question. Do not reopen Douglas and Argyle streets to Nelson ave. We already see enough people racing through this community to get to the ferry terminal. There should not be ANY ferry traffic going through the village. Again, I would like to see adequate security around BC Ferries, garbage bins, public washrooms etc. to ensure that the current problems don’t get worse. Douglas and argyle should not be through streets. it will just create more confusion for the tourist The reopening of Douglas and Argyle gives me pause; the current circulation works well to move tourists out without cutting down residential streets. Improved trails from the upper ridge (Madrona area) would be fantastic; right now it's a very circuitous route to get into Horseshoe Bay from points west on foot.

56

More pressure needs to be put on bc Ferries to minimize traffic noise to horseshoe bay. A wall and trees should be mandatory if they want to proceed with any sort of project. They also need to provide adequate washrooms and security since Horseshoe Bay sees a higher rate of crime and people relieving themselves in the neighbourhood due to the proximity of the terminal. Their growth shouldn’t be at the expense of people that live here. turn nelson into a two way flow instead of one way, that will improve flow into the bay Through negotiations with BC ferries and the Ministry of transportation turn keith into a two way road and both trans canada Hwy routes into two way routes Keep Argyle and Douglas streets closed. As a resident I find it incredibly easy to get around. I do not appreciate there being more parking, as that will only make the pedestrian traffic in the bay increase even more. If people can’t find parking, they should consider taking transit. I do that all the time when I go into Vancouver. Not only would encouraging transit decrease car traffic, it saves you from having to build parking spaces. See earlier comments re opening up Argyle and Douglas. As mentioned earlier, there are geographical constraints for increased access to the Bay, not to mention Ferry Terminal renovation on the horizon. Increasing circulation increases traffic, which makes the village less family friendly or pedestrian friendly. Why not limit cars and have covered walkways. Get people out of their cars and on foot, bike or transit. Do not support opening streets to Nelson. Don’t reopen Douglas and Argyle as it would serve only to create further congestion Do not open Douglas or Argyle avenues to Nelson. These are nice peaceful streets now and no further traffic is needed or wanted. I agree with working with B.C Ferries to create a joint vision . Bay street needs to be two-way to distribute traffic better through the bay. under-ground parking in all proposed new developments; encourage transit, pedestrian, cyclists; discourage motorcycles (don't know how you do this but they are annoying!). Opening up Douglas & Argyle to Nelson would take pressure off Bay & Chatham, maintain Bay as 1 way. Maximize maximize maximize under ground parking to be integrated into any ferry terminal development. I'm not sure that opening Douglas and Argyle to Nelson would help traffic flow other than increase non-local traffic through those neighbourhoods making it less attractive for families with children and noisier for everyone. I DO NOT support the reopening of Douglas and Argyle to Nelson Street. ESPECIALLY if HSB becomes denser in residential and commercial use, all the more reason for keeping the traffic calmed on the residential roads and NOT letting tourists speed through our streets to get in/out of HSB. Dangerous speeding (including the city buses) and motorcycle & car noise is already a huge problem in the Bay. I support improving commercial opportunities and light densification of the Bay, but the traffic issues desperately need to be addressed to make this work. Re opening Douglas and Argyle onto Nelson would cause more problems than it addresses

57

Given the number of Extra housing units being considered, how are all the cars going to Get in and out With the addition of the large sewell Development as well? Do not like the idea of opening up Douglas and Argyle to Nelson Opening up access to Nelson from Douglas and Argyle is supported. If this cannot happen, please close off access to Znelson from Bruce as Bruce is currently a default thoroughfare with too much traffic - and NO sidewalks do currently very dangerous for pedestrians. horseshoe bay is confined on two sides by hillsides and on the other by water. we need to be mindful of traffic routing in and through the bay to not overly congest it, particularly with the increase in density that is being considered. re-opening douglas and/or argyle need to be considered in the context of an overall traffic management plan for the bay. Parking is already "tight" in HB please make allowances for free parking for locals. I think it's ok for Douglas OR Argyl to be opened up to Nelson, but not both as there is already a connection through Bruce. Ensure safety of the residents as with any increased in traffic close to parks where kids play we want to ensure that vehicles won't speed. As I do not live in HBY I can not comment on the opening up of Douglas St and Argyle Ave. 1. This is the third time opening Argyle and Douglas has been mentioned. I do not support this. Too much traffic on laneway behind houses. Opening Argyle to Nelson with increase traffic on front of houses. 6500 block of Argyle is nice quiet block and this ambiance would be ruined by opening Argyle to Nelson. 2. In a previous section, I have blamed the excessive on street parking on BC Ferries. HSB Residents rent their on-site parking spaces to BC Ferries passengers and park on the street. By increasing density, parking on street will increase as these additional residents rent out their spaces to HSB residents. West Van should disallow renting out parking spaces. 3. BC Ferries are not good neighbours to HSB residents and I do not believe will be very helpful as density increases. (EG. working on Bowen Island ferry until 3 am on Aug. 12 and 13 --- banging, grinding --- no good neighbour would do this) Relax to some degree parking requirements as near transportation. Have BC Ferries provide larger accessible parking garages as ammenty Don't open to Nelson street to Douglas and Argyle Streets Yes pedestrian trails are important to HBay especiallty as 257 translink has no Nelson Street route up to Marine Drive Re-opening Douglas and Argyle may slightly improve circulation, but will do little, if anything, to improve "options for leaving the village." There are currently 2 options for "leaving the village", namely Nelson and Hwy 1. Opening these streets will have no impact on Nelson or the highway. The proposed increased density will have a terrible impact on the roundabouts at Nelson and Rosebury and at the roundabout by Gleneagles Elementary, both of which are already incredibly dangerous, especially on weekends. I Support: new or improved trails into the village as redevelopment occurs and working with BC Ferries. I do NOT support increased parking and reopening street. More "soft space" vs "hard space" transitions.

58

I do not support the expansion of the ferry terminal or service in The Bay. I believe perhaps there could be expansion of service from Duke Pt. to the mainland instead. Horseshoe Bay is a very confined space, traffic on the Upper Levels Hwy is already heavy. It would be desirable to move heavier commercial vehicles to the Duke Pt. service. Douglas and Argyle are supposed to be residential streets I do not support increasing traffic on those streets to the detriment of the residents. I do not support the opening of Douglas and Argyle to Nelson as it will just mean tourists will drive down the streets in order to leave horseshoe bay and overwhelm residential streets I do not wish to see underground parking drive the design of Horseshoe Bay. The Bay is a flood delta and has many underground springs, underground parking lots are expensive to create and maintain and often cause buildings to be higher in order to recoup the cost of development. I would rather see the parking be part of BC Ferries design and keep it out of the core of Horseshoe Bay much as European cities do (is there some underground parking in the Sewells development). I do not support opening Douglas or Argyle to Nelson as this would decrease the use of the streets for neighbourhood connection and use and just cause more traffic issues for more areas. Improved trails into the Bay would be great as that is the best way to have connection between Horseshoe Bay and the rec centre, Whytcliff and Gleneagles. Please stay very connected to BC Ferries as there is great opportunity for mutual benefit in the design of their terminal but also great risk. Do not support opening of argyle or Douglas Street Need more details on the first point. Not sure what that means. - Limit surface parking. Require parking below grade for new commercial and townhouse developments. - Non-support for re-opening Douglas and Argyle to vehicle traffic. - Re-open and improve trail from Nelson to Madrona/Wellington No need to open Douglas and Argyle to Nelson. Critical that village has clean traffic access to ferry exit to highway I do not see any traffic or parking study, but one may exist. We closed off streets to avoid through traffic and promote the pedestrianized residential use and character. I would hate to see it turned into a maze again. Perhaps there are changes that can address the increased traffic. With 159 new units + commercial about to move-in to the area… it would make more sense to open Bay Street to 2-way traffic to provide direct access to Highway 99 and #1…. Or are we going to put up with existing until BCF turn the East Bank into Portland with concrete overpasses? Don't get me wrong about BCF ~ I am in favor of existing, however, I am not willing to go with Reciprocating Rams removing a mountain again. I spent seven years on the Sea to Sky Highway advisory group and ended up with it as my portfolio on Council. I know too much to be volunteering for that activity again!!! With each new BC Ferry Terminal “upgrade” Horseshoe Bay experiences loss: (1.) access to the Ferries from within the neighbourhood (a 9 minute turn-around to Caulfeild replaced the bridge to the toll booths) and (2.) the loss of a quiet neighbourhood with the installation of many more PA systems delivering all- day/ all evening (and sometimes into the night!) announcements beginning with “May I have your attention please”. Yup - you’ve got it, even though I might be working in

59 my private garden! Village trails, waterfront seating, green spaces, planters, deciduous trees for shade in summer, sun in winter [comments received via email]

Below provides comments received for the “do not support” prompt to question 10: I think adding less condos/housing would be a better solution to this issue. Traffic is already an issue in lower bay, with commuters racing down residential streets it is already unsafe and dangerous for our community. The plan to reopen Douglas and Argyle is absurd and is not in the best interest or safety of our community. We already have too many people visiting this very small bay...the park is over crowded on weekends and sunny days for comfort. This is not just a ferry stop...people live here. Dead end streets are one of the only reasons this area remains a safe and inviting family neighbourhood. This plan seems designed to accomodate the visitor, and not the resident. Do Not Open The Streets!! Reopening Douglas and Argyle to Nelson will create unnecessary traffic to the residents of those streets. There is ample access in and out of the village without funnelling traffic past homes. To-date, no one has presented a credible circulation model for the village, post ferry terminal development. It makes no sense to me to try and get traffic to enter/exit through the south entrance. BC Ferries is planning to make Keith Rd the main access in/out of HB, with rapid access to the upper levels. It makes no sense to try and force traffic through multiple roundabouts at the south exit to eventually gain access to the upper levels hwy. Of course, you must continue to work with BC Ferries to arrive at an integrated plan. However, for me to support a mobility plan, you will need to show how the 150+ new units at Sewells will enter/exit, and how all this new density will enter/exit. The only option that makes sense to me at this point is to focus the new density close to the Ferry terminal where good transit already exists, and where rapid access to the hwy will exist through joint work with BC Ferries. Meanwhile, forget about trying to squeeze more traffic through the roundabouts -- they're already dangerous traffic locations and will not handle a significant increase in traffic. If you don't believe me, just try driving the roundabouts in the summer on weekends... Again, I do not see a plan for the flow of traffic, increased need for parking and how density will be managed. BC Ferries has ruined the village of Horseshoe bay and I do not trust them to act in anyone interest except their own. The local community already gets around just fine. We walk, ride bikes, bus and drive just fine in and out of our area. I have lived in Horseshoe Bay for years and have seen all the various combinations of road openings and closures. Argyle Ave used to be open at the Eastern end and was very dangerous for small children and pets due to speeding cars and Ferry traffic. No way. Traffic is already a total nightmare. Do not have traffic going down the only streets the children can somewhat play in.

60

mobile.If a stranger can follow the logic of the signs ( they have to go some distance in the “wrong” direction)to get back to the ferry line-up, they are fortunate! 2) Safety, in many aspects is also a major concern: 2.1 As you enter the approaches to Horseshoe Bay/ Whytecliffe( HB/W) the connector bridge has a 40kph for about 150 m then this is reduced to 30kph. Both speed limits are ignored by the vast majority of vehicles. The “speedbumps are a joke, a driver has only to negotiate once & from then on is aware of their impotence, they are subsequently ignored. Cyclists seem to look upon them as an enjoyable frisson , a bonus to their hi- speed ride/rush to the park. I do understand, in younger less “aware” days I may well have done the same. 2.4 Any natural disaster of any kind or even an accident ( mix of pedestrians, local folk, tourists peering through cameras/ once called mobile phones[ humour attempt!] cyclists, cars, campers [ some searching for a ferry, which can be seen but impossible to reach “ so near yet so far”] a very lovely scenic road, narrow one twisty lane in each direction...... ’‘tis sadly but possibly only a matter of time. A limited finite defined space with an ever burgeoning number of people...... ( “cannot put more than a pint in a pint-pot”) A narrow road made narrower.01July weekend, parking for the Park became on occasion “gridlock” for those seeking any available space. I do not envy those whose task it is to resolve, I would be happy to help if I was qualified to do so. [comments received via email] Again.....too much to give any consideration to current local population...... wondering how this is going to to happen on a reasonable timeline. We should take this once in 50 year opportunity and the cultural moment where Covid 19 has created a context where localized living is dramatically more feasible and appealing - and we should develop Horseshoe Bay with live/work/walking lifestyle in mind and NOT cars - endorse home/building types that are built for people who do not own cars, and link them to improved public transportation and creative mobility options, and combine with terrific local community amenities/retailers/businesses - and envision a genuinely local community full of residents that will support their own local businesses. It begins with a commitment to fewer (or no) cars. Build a genuine local economy. Horseshoe Bay has organically evolved in tiny area with four fixed boundaries: one oceanfront and three hills/mountains. There’s literally no room for lateral expansion. Right now there are only 2 ways to drive in or out and one of these two roads crosses the Ferry traffic. [comments received via email]

K. Comments in response to survey question #11: Further Comments

Below provides comments received for question 11: Proceed with new park at Tyee Point - current vandalized home should be removed. Proceed with Tantalus Gardens development at St Monica’s site. Let’s get going on moving forward with these plans. "Awesome plan. This is just what Horseshoe Bay needs. I think many of the businesses struggle because they are hidden away and/or have uninviting surroundings. I can totally see how this plan would energize areas like ""little Bay"".

62

I'm very much in favour of diversity in housing and keeping to smaller living spaces. The possible land use trade between Tantalus Park and Tyee Point makes complete sense. Tantalus is such an underused park (dark/hidden) and it would be wonderful to have more parkland on the oceanfront. My one worry is congestion. I'm getting ahead of things but if Horseshoe Bay one day looks as great as you describe in words and artist rendering, I can see it going the way of Deep Cove. I'm sure you're considering this in your transportation, parking, etc. plans. It would be good to encourage non-car transportation as well. And...what about the potential of keeping certain streets pedestrian-only (except for residents who live there). This seems to work so beautiful in many cities in Europe who have kept their centres car-free and have parking on the periphery (I know, easier said than done with our geography). Great plan, thanks! PS: Re. Question 12. As you define the area in this document, I don't live in Horseshoe Bay, but just I consider Horseshoe Bay my immediate neighbourhood." I am very afraid it will look like The Truman show ( Yes the movie with Jim Carey...) The Power lines should get buried as they are an eye sore. While I believe that HSB is badly in need of modernization and a "face-lift", I cannot agree with any proposal to increase the population of an already saturated HSB. Excellent thank you. I fully support provided buildings do not increase in height. Developing more free parking options for people visiting Horseshoe Bay will make it convenient for visitors and support local businesses. I am in favour of increasing accessibility by car and enhancing public spaces. I am against increasing density. There are already a whole building of multi-family residents in the Bay (Galleries at the Bay building) - take our views into consideration we would bear the brunt of your never ending construction. Every proposal calls for increased housing and increased congestion. I do support the improvement idea but do not support over crowding or over populating Horseshoe Bay. A weekly farmers market in horseshoe bay park would be fantastic for locals and tourists alike. Concerned that incremental development of the area north of the multiplex zone will not sit well with existing low density development. Full redevelopment of a block face required to achieve urban design objectives and this may take several years to achieve if it is achieved at all. No mention on plans for old church site. Horseshoe bay already had a lack of parking and becomes super congested in the summer. That needs to be taken into consideration when planning. Consider participation in local and international art biennales that will renew and refresh the public realm with art that will act as a draw to the area. Please do not try to make this a travel destination. It is our home. We are at the very end of West Vancouver and are small. Please do not try to make this a second Ambleside. Would have been nice if this process had happened BEFORE council approved the Sewell’s project....

63

On the whole, there are some nice ideas regarding design. I like the suggested "look" of the buildings and ideas to create pedestrian-friendly areas and spaces. I also like a lower height limit toward Royal and one story higher toward Nelson / Keith and the variability in dwelling types and styles. My major concern is the suggested density of residential units. In general, I support the lower number range in the suggested building height (storeys), so when the suggestion is 3-4 storeys, I would support 3 not 4. But even with the lower heights, this plan is still creating a lot of new residential units and I don't think the area can support so it. Currently, HSB can barely handle the population density, especially during summer with tourists. The road access and parking is terrible, and we haven't even seen the impact of the new Sewell's development. I think there needs to be careful consideration of the vehicle access and parking, in balance with the number of people living and working in HSB. This entire plan seems overly thought out and entirely unnecessary. The bay, as anywhere, can benefit from well thought out changes. I cant imagine that a plan intent on recreating the area was conceived by anyone who cares for the bay as it is and will be. I would love to see some type of affordability component incorporated. This is a major problem for all of the lower mainland. Lower density, no low cost housing, lots of car parking Great - should proceed for the future of HSB. Minimize building height along Bay Street. Minimize traffic along Nelson Street. Apart from the fact that it looks like it wants to be Whistler-by-the-sea, which is not really ideal and doesn’t seem unique and consonant with a seaside village, I suppose it’s better than some frameworks. The developments you are proposing look as though they would require the razing of the entire community so it can be totally replaced with your proposed plans. How do you expect that to happen please? WVPD needs to have more of a presence in HSB. This area is the gateway to West Vancouver and needs a gatekeeper. Insist on Developers contributing to the pedestrian realm and supporting public facilities. To capture a fair share, from the land value increase due to the upzoning, for the HSB community, I recommend a separate substantial development fee component, payable by the developer into a fund for local affordable rental housing. There need to be more rental accommodatio in Horseshoe Bay, some at below market rental rates and some supportive housing. It's overwhelming. I am an active member of this community and I strongly supported the Sewells/Westmount development. The final building heights are far different than what was initially proposed, but it squeaked through, anyway. My greatest fear is that developers with the help of council will push the envelope on building heights throughout the village - largely because it doesn't affect any one of them. We are underrepresented on council, and this is proving to become more problematic as the years go by. This said, I am in favour of further developing the lower village in a tasteful manner. Edgemount Village comes to mind. As a longtime land owner in the

64 bay, I strongly resent the notion that this village of homes may some day simply become an extension of the Westbank development. I love these ideas. Let’s get going on them. We need more housing diversity - for people who are aging/downsizing and for young people who want a starter home. More density equals more services. It would be great to have a grocery store in the Bay so we don’t have to get in our cars to shop. Include biking and walking routes and discourage cars. This is a beautiful community and a healthy place to live. There’s lots of room to share. Enough consulting, time to move forward. What’s happening with Tantalus Gardens... it’s been on hold for a long time... let’s get going! More density is needed. There is a great opportunity here to make a vibrant community in Horseshoe Bay, but it needs good density to support the commercial. This is a great place for more density as it has great transit access and easy access to the ferry terminal. 1. The 'retail level' of the HB design guidelines need to be strong. I don't want to see a 'corporate retail' vibe to emerge. Dundarave and HB are unique in this manner. The retail level needs to remain eclectic (and maybe even divorced from the upper levels of new development). New development (at street level) should take cues from classic storefronts (e.g. inset primary entrances, display windows (wihout excessive window signage or glazing, and 'movement' along the sideway [some storefront setback while others are forward] to create a 'disorganized rythym'. Also, space needs to be provided inthe boulevard for streetside displays and patios. The streetscape needs to be good to draw people away from the waterfront and 'explore' HB which doesn't really happen currently. 2. Might want to think about 'nailing down the zoning' in the core (e.g. allow for only one grocer so a quality grocer would come in and be provided relative security that no competition would 'pop-up next door'. This would be the same for a 'micro-brewery', doctors office, pharmacy, coffee shops & ice cream shops (we have enough of those) etc. 3. Introduce bonus density provisions into HB residential zones (eg. duplex 'base density' yet triplex/fourplex or stratified coach house possible with $$ ). This would not require the need for uncertain, slow and expensive rezonings that pit neighbour against neighbour. Ultimately, bonus density zoning provisions would facilitate the housing forms you have planned for. This planning is NOT community oriented. It is about maximizing land use and generating revenue for the city. I think most of this is great and look forward to seeing Horseshoe Bay reach its potential. Transit links should be improved, including car sharing, bike rentals, rail link to Park Royal and North Vancouver using existing railway to the east Keep in mind that Horseshoe Bay is a seaside village and the character and charm could be easily lost without the on-going thoughtful planning in the future. The new LAP guidelines and rules should be enforced each time a new development proposal happens and not modified in any way such as additional storeys. I'm very happy that our area was selected to be the first in this LAP process. Despite the slowdown due to Covid-19 it appears to be evolving well. We must strive to maintain the village feeling in HSB with this LAP, we have an opportunity to plan for the next generations of residents. There are high rise buildings all over the lower

65 mainland - perhaps we can prevent that from happening in Horseshoe Bay, thereby retaining our sense of being a village. We live at and the fact that we still can't get By-law to enforce the overnight parking by commuters on royal and Douglas is a concern. We are overrun by tourist that don't know where to park even if they wanted to pay for it. I do think we need to preserve short term (same day) parking where possible, and not just assume it will come with underground access in mixed use development. Outside of Summer months when the tourists evaporate , local business relies almost entirely on local traffic being able to quickly drop in. These proposed changes are really extreme. I’m not sure why anyone would think this level of increase would be appropriate for a community of this size. Rebuild Caulfeild village first. It’s decrepit and has low functionality and it could really benefit from a complete overhaul. In fact, it is in desperate need of change. Plus, it could be accomplished without negatively impacting surrounding residents. General comments... We strongly disagree with DWV proposed increased building heights as creates wall to ocean views for its residents, is overpowering for the character of Horseshoe Bay, and overly increases density to a confined location which has limited access and egress. DWV proposal is overbearing for the community and would result in loss of charm and character for the village of Horseshoe Bay. Would you please take this into consideration when making changes. Would love to see a 3d & 4d and street view / render of the proposed changes You should consider restoring a trail/stairs at the north end of Wellington/Madrona, down to the village. The goal should be to make it easier for local residents to walk to the village. This LAP exercise is to plan ahead for the next few decades, yet the plan appears to be overly concerned with providing ample parking. If the plan is to add density to HB but that the majority of new residents need to commute by car then you will have failed in your planning... Global warming is dictating that we place higher density development in locations where residents will not need a car. If we cannot achieve that in HB, then it is the wrong place to focus on adding significant density. Add a space for comments when we click on our support. I want to make sure we service the community and not just the ferry traffic. as an example fresh slice serves the foot traffic of the ferries not the community at large. This proposal is upsetting and will destroy the things I love about Horseshoe Bay. It has always been a lovely, welcoming community but I fear that may be ruined with the introduction of large stores, massive buildings and the destruction of the character homes in the bay. The parks and community are perfect already, why change things? Please do not go ahead with the continuation of the Sewell's development throughout the Bay. It should by itself add all the extra population that the free spaces of green park can support. Paved parks like seen all around UBC are not the same as green spaces for laying down a picnic on. Families still picnic, watch movies and hold birthdays in Horseshoe Bay waterfront. Overcrowding is not an improvement or best option for anyone except for developers. What is the time line for the whole project? Anything housing changes away from the waterfront for all to enjoy is a great idea

66

My biggest comment on this proposal is that the level of densification is too great for the land mass and it's infrastructure. Too much multi use for too small a space. There is much already here in Horseshoe Bay to work with. The foundation of mixed housing is already established. The downtown core, yes, needs an upgrade. The park too....With Sewells Development and looming Ferry Terminal refit in our midst we need to wait, be cautious and assess how much more densification our community in Horseshoe Bay can withstand. Thank you. Increasing density without considering movement of people isn’t enough. On a summers day, the Bay is so packed, there isn’t parking, tourists are driving around and around trying to find one and making it unsafe for pedestrians. What is the plan to encourage businesses to move into the Bay? Is it all intended as artist studios or is there office space or flexible meeting space ? Maintain the small village flavor that is the most attractive part of the area Noise is a huge factor for HB residents. Motorcyclist rip roar through our community seeking a destination or a stop en route up the Sea-to-Sky highway. Also, because of all the commercial activity which already exists here, delivery trucks unloading outside of regulated hours are a nuisance. Increased commercial activity means increased deliveries and more noise. Also, the boat ramp is a commercial activity and it gets very noisy all hours of the night and early morning depending on tides. So, I would really like to see noise levels in the Bay well regulated and policed. please plant some flowers again and take care of our waterfront park. As a 20+ year resident of West Van and only 4 of those in Horseshoe Bay, it is appalling how little TLC the area receives compared to Ambleside and Dundarave. Council should be ashamed by the appearance. These kind of plans are more appropriate for reclaimed industrial areas like lower Lonsdale and False Creek.. Increase density in Horseshoe Bay because of its geography ( being a small area surrounded by hills and mountains, being hemmed in) would be stifling.Horseshoe Bay is a community not a resort like Whistler. Tantalus Park should remain completely as it is. Many cyclists lounge around and people take their dogs for a walk there. Children are there with their families, playing. It is the only Green space within Horseshoe Bay that you can go to to get out of the house for awhile. It is a great gathering space. If developed, it would be great to have a Community Hall for retirement celebrations, birthday parties, dances, weddings. Also Fowl Suppers which are big on the prairies. The only rental space is an awful grey cement room at Gleneagles Community Center which is depressing when it is rainy and gray outside which it is most of the year. It is also very small. The Tantalus Hall could have large windows looking out onto Tantalus Park and the wee playground could be repositioned at the opposite end across from where it is. The Community Hall could back up against Marine Drive with big picture windows facing the open park for people to spill out onto and relax on the patio during important celebrations. There is no where to do this sort of thing. The Gleneagles Club House is huge and carpeted and very expensive to rent. Doesn't have a Hall kitchen to cook in for celebrations. Other than building a community Hall, it should remain as is - green for the enjoyment of all and a place to get away to out of the house with lovely trees for shade. A simpler fix would be a lovely playground and

67 benches around to relax on - not just the small play area next to the noisy Marine Drive in the dark shade where no one wants to play. Also, a tennis court would be great fun in the small park area (Douglas and Royal, I believe). Right now it is cement and not used - I walk many times during the day/evening and have only seen a few children once just standing around in one corner. A tennis court or two (not sure of how much space there is)would be a wonderfully terrific addition and someplace great for all of us to use, young and old. We all need to build skills and get outdoors, more. This park and Tantalus Park are necessary for our well-being. Playing basketball is already available on the school playground just up the street for those interested. The school playground should remain open for soccer, etc. Right now it is repurposed for parking which is a shame. I know many young families who were taking there children there to ride bikes. When cars park there, that fun, protected, fenced space is gone - just to hold cars. There's no place for a child to tear around on their bikes just for fun. The gravel schoolyard was great for that. Why not increase the density up the hill ? Unfortunately the Local Area Plan as run by the District is suspect and generally the residents of Horseshoe Bay feel the LAP is being created by those that do not live in the area. Confidence is not found in a LAP committee made up of a large number of non-HSB residents and those that have conflicts of interest tied to their businesses and real estate development. The LAP committee members have told area residents about how the District has presented finalized stage presentations to them with no desire for feedback nor an ability to make changes based on their recommendations. The District should be embarrassed by its lack of professionalism and integrity - unfortunately that results in a process that few have confidence in. Meet with the residents and find out what they want All new projects should have to have on site parking. I don't support putting high buildings at the waterfront. Developers might but I don't There needs to be incentive for landowners to make change and it starts with government. There is not enough incentive for much change to come in Horseshoe Bay outside of the commercial core. The rest will remain largely unchanged for years to come unless staff and council embrace the creativity of landowners and developers. Density & height should be kept to the perimeters of the bay to retain its 'bowl'- like geography and maintain views to mountains & Howe Sound. I am also concerned that there is no mention of the proposed improvements to the ferry terminal. At a public information session at Gleneagles Golf Club, there was one diagram that overlaid the proposed docks on top of the existing. This was EXTREMELY concerning. It showed the docks extending well WELL beyond the existing and out in to the actual bay, cutting off views down Howe Sound from the Park and further restricting small boat traffic. When I expressed concern about this it was waived off. I definitely do not want this to be overlooked as plans for the ferry terminal develop. This will be another way that the beautiful characteristics that make the bay so special will be irreparably damaged. As plans develop, we should insist that this overlay information be made clear and public with full transparency.

68

I'm so sad. I love my house and had hoped that I could continue living here for the rest of my life but the HSB envisioned here isn't the type of community I want to live it - too many people, too noisy, too busy - not for me. But I'm sure some people will love it. Yes. I would ask the city to keep the St Monicas church site as designated community space and not rezone for more housing. A growing community need somewhere to congregate and two benches and a bbq offered by the current applicant wouldn’t be enough for the residents of Tantalus Gardens let alone the village and surrounding community Change is needed in the area but there is no Mention of how traffic is going to Be organized. 1. Wellington is not part of HSB. 2. These drawings need to be placed in the village on display BEFORE this survey ends. 3. Broken promises need to be fixed: IE Galleries on the BAY was supposed to have art galleries as promised. The display window for local art, have never been activated even though I tried multiple times. HSB needs a BIA to get the businesses in order as they are failing. Deal with the Commuter parking issue and make BC Ferries provide parking for the hundreds of cars that rent out illegal space from residents. Avoid widening streets in order to maintain the "village" atmosphere. Improvements should primarily benefit current and future residents. It is hard to assess Horseshoe Bay's future direction while watching the ongoing development of massive single family homes elsewhere in West Van. It feels like WV has some population and density goals that it is asking certain pockets - Ambleside & Dundereve Marine Drive areas and Horseshoe Bay - to shoulder. This plan needs rethinking. I would like to,see the Tantalus gardens development tone approved sooner rather than later. This is what we need in WV and is part of the community plan of smaller more affordable housing. How do you plan on changing the mindset of HSB residents???? 2 examples of hassel: In Sept. 2020, it will be a year since Royal St. from Bay to Bruce was ripped up, left for 2 months til end Oct, then filled back in messily, reason no one was ever told, possibly a native artifact. It took approx. 6 weeks of constant beeping of trucks for BC Hydro to dig deep pits over a man's head along Bruce to install cables. The audacity to ask us to accept a complete revamp of the entire village is daunting to consider. Who would want to live through all of that? I love Horseshoe Bay. It's so fun to live here. But everyone here, I believe, is so happy when October starts and the crowds die down. From what you've proposed in this survey, looks like you want to ramp up population and cause many years of building chaos. Yikes. No thanks. I really like the emphasis on green spaces and improved communal spaces, however, I think that more needs to be done to ensure that Horseshoe Bay is designed in a way that promotes and encourages sustainable, carbon-neutral living. Pedestrian, bike and public transit needs to be prioritized, as well as communal multi-use green space (community gardens, space for playing sports, picnicking etc.) There needs to an

69 emphasis on creating a self-sufficient community in Horseshoe Bay to discourage commuting and the use of vehicles to satisfy day-to-day needs. Please lets keep it quaint and not turn it into a Harrison Hot Springs that is all about tourism and not about livability with ugly high-rises taking up views on the waterfront. I do not believe that West Vancouver has the mandate or support from HSB residents to this increased density. It was voted on and approved by Council but HSB residents do not support this. When approved by Council, I was assured that there would be plenty of times to consult. I have participated in each part of the process and do not see that the density expectations have been reduced. (OK --- 6 plexes are not mentioned any longer but other high density structures are mentioned. ) STOP planning. STOP building. Make what we have more beautiful by adding flowers and the fountain. Add more garbage cans. More seats/benches/ picnic benches. We do not need more buildings or more retail and businesses. WE HAVE ENOUGH. And with the ferry terminal going to be rebuilding????? STOP THE INSANITY!! Move the ferry terminal elsewhere and out of a residential area such as ours. The ferries bring mostly undesirable people and traffic into this neighborhood and expanding this in the ways being proposed will make the existing problems and issues in this community far worse. You cannot expect to cram this neighborhood full of more housing and more businesses and expand the terminal without dire consequences. Whomever is planning and designing either hasn’t spent enough quality time, during our peak hours and months, to realize the gravity of your proposals or you just don’t care. Spend time here on the long weekends to see how busy it already is; come out and listen in the silence of the wee hours when the ferries do loud and disruptive work; come out and stay for a week and count the number of commercial vehicles that enter this community and gauge whether we could possibly add to that - not likely. Come out and count needles and drug paraphernalia and over- night campers and catch the vagrants urinating on our private property and trespassing. Don’t just plan it, come live it and get a real feel as to what our concerns are all about. Please keep a playground at the waterfront. We use it often. Consider children friendly spaces, communal gardens, safe bike routes, and a main grocery store. I would like more context on BC Ferries proposed expansion and their contributions. I would like to see less density to keep the ""village scale"" and green space available both public and private. I actually find this proposed level of density quite overwhelming and really offensive to the people of the western areas of West Vancouver. If density is a goal of council (I still have not seen clear and rigorously collected data regarding this need and desire - who exactly is asking for this??) there are other undeveloped areas that can be harnessed, such as above the highway (Cypress - Eagleridge) that will not have a detrimental impact on current residents and existing communities. There could also be additional repurposing of already dense areas, such as Ambleside. Thank you for sending out this survey. I agree that HSB needs some revitalization and I would like to see more affordable housing so young families can call it home. That said, I have some concerns. There appears to be a lack of green space,

70 protection of trees, and general sustainability in your plan. With climate change creating hotter summers it will be important to put in place measures to combat a ""heat island effect"" in the summer and increasing inclement/rainy weather in the winter/fall. Some suggestions: - mandating energy-efficient building designs (highly insulated building envelopes, airtight exteriors, and balanced ventilation systems designed to reduce energy needs while improving interior comfort)and green roofs- Street and sidewalk plantings to help retain stormwater and purify it through natural means. - creating a community garden- commitment to less car traffic and more sustainable forms of transit such as electric car charging stations, bike racks, wider sidewalks, and pedestrian-only streets. I also think if you are making these changes it would make sense to make plans to move the overhead electrical wires underground. I am vehemently opposed to anything that extends up Nelson or ANYWHERE near Tantalus Park or the original Tantalus application. If the municipality continues the charade of missing middle and support for Tantalus Gardens, then the opposition will get larger for what we currently support in the village center. Please listen to your own councilors! The burden of increasing density in West Vancouver should not be concentrated in a small area like HSB, we have many neighbourhoods in West Vancouver that could support this need, without loosing sight of the Neighbourhood Character Committee's recommendations in June, 2020. HSB is still part of West Vancouver, and should not be treated differently as a result of the BC Ferry. Plan is excellent & imaginative. If you actually lived in this neighbourhood you would not even consider making these proposals. Take your pro-development and density proposals to somewhere that won't destroy the existing community. Currently the density in Horseshoe Bay is due to increase greatly with the completion of the current condo/commercial project underway. I think it would be wise to take a go slow attitude to further density increases until we see the effect. Horseshoe Bay at the moment is not a destination people come to by transit to visit. The transit traffic is mostly commuters to Bowen and the Sunshine Coast. If people make an excursion to The Bay it is often by car. There is already a parking problem in our area considering summer traffic to Whytecliff Park, Horseshoe Bay, people trying to avoid parking charges who are walking on a ferry, hikers . An dramatic increase in density in Horseshoe Bay without adequate consideration to parking, will only exacerbate the problem. Consider widening your scope for increased density to a manageable walking distance from amenities in the Bay do not have such a narrow focus! With the increased densification, need to consider traffic flow as there are only two ways in and out of HB. I can see gridlock happening in the Bay/Royal area unless there is increased parking away from that area. Also need parking for locals who pop in and out of HB when accessing businesses. I would like to see more focus on preserving the history of Horseshoe Bay and incorporating it into the design. This will ensure that there is a sense of place and pride in the community and not become just another disneyfied outdoor shopping mall. Granville Island kept much of its heritage and that is what makes it interesting. West Van is in danger of tearing out all its interesting heritage buildings following a

71 model like Las Vegas rather than taking cues from places where heritage is seen as a commercial bonus such as San Franscisco or Palm Springs, even local places like Granville Island and Fort Langley have become tourist destinations because of what they left in rather than what they replaced. Many developers reference the cottages in Horseshoe Bay but their plans do not reflect that design ethos. I am also concerned about the green canopy in Horseshoe Bay and that much will be decreased by this new push for row houses and multiplexes. This is also something that the Neighbourhood Character Working Group has seen as important and the WV council are concerned about. I would request that density be lessened in order to keep the healthy green environment rather than concrete over and build on all available spaces. This survey is another waste of time -- staff, District and developers will do what they want. The gutting of the Marine Drive LAP shows how little regard there is for public sentiment. “I support the opportunity for smaller detached homes that transition to the existing single-detached neighbourhoods on the edges of and outside the study area. Tantalus Gardens is a great proposal as it specially provides the desired housing form and it is located on the edge of the study area, transitioning into single-family home neighbourhoods. Not only that, Tantalus Gardens is on the most suitable section of Nelson Avenue, as it is the most gently-sloped portion with no rocky cliffs. It is one of the few parcels of land in the designated Cottage and Small Infill area, that can truly offer accessible, at-grade living suitable for families or residents who want to age in place.” I like the idea of expanding the types of retails and food. Attracting quality small business owners. I would like to see a decent grocery store - choices ie nesters type. I like the idea Of more housing but with moderation. The traffic is already an issue. I would like to see better lighting and upkeep of the area - not just along the waterfront but the whole area. Traffic congestion is a big issue and concern. I support the proposed redevelopment of the former St. Monica's Church property as proposed It is an excellent model of diversified housing that sensitively integrates the history of the site, and offers an environmentally-friendly development. - It would be helpful to have more information on the planning targets for net new dwellings. - Integrate a Public Art Plan with the LAP. - Support working with BC Ferries for the long-term redevelopment of their sites and securing of Community Amenities. Two to three story buildings maximum. This was a semi-quiet village and you seem to want to change it into a bustling business area. I worked against The Sanctuary as it is out of scale and character and your ideas seem to be following their lead. Not impressed but you've already got your agenda so you have wasted my time for 1/2 hour. I can only ask that you be thoughtful. Currently Horseshoe Bay has become a bit of mess. Oversized buildings, street work being done without resident knowledge, very little in terms of monitoring parking as well as a project that will run two years behind schedule as well as several building sites that will now be years behind due to

72 financial issues. It's truly sad and makes it very difficult to look to the future and make decisions that we might not be here to witness. "I think Horseshoe Bay can be more vibrant and funky. I question the use of significant increased density overall to achieve this. It is limited in road access, is at the end of the road so to speak so cannot draw on a ""surrounding"" community for commercial. The ferry traffic has limited impact to the extent that passengers cannot leave their cars for great lengths of time to shop and eat. And cannot get to the Bay except by the Upper Levels. There is a reason that most of the commercial serves food, same as Deep Cove. I supported the proposed development of the Tantalus Gardens as a unique opportunity site and low density proposal with smaller homes. I do not see it in this plan and would recommend that it be included. Overall, the attraction of Horseshoe Bay is related to its location on the water and by the ferry, its limited scale, its destination and local related food establishments and it history as a working waterfront. It is higher density residential compared to the adjacent residential areas and that is an asset. If the proposals change the scale or original heritage association too much, we can end up with place fewer people want to visit. Recognize that Dundarave is a beautiful commercial village with 3 storey buildings (2 residential above 1 commercial) and it seems pretty dense when in it. But vibrant. You do not need 4-6 storey buildings to be vibrant. So make sure you are certain of what you are going higher to acheive! There are obviously “selfish” reasons but of far greater concern are possibly matters that are less obvious, at least to a “layman”. 1) Like it or not the Ferry Terminal is a reality . Despite current signage, for visitors who are unfamiliar with the peculiarities of the road layout/ferry access & given the volume/ speed of traffic from Caulfeild to the ferry turnoff, once a mistake is made , a correction is not easy- particularly if this is a large car/“suv/ truck”vehicle towing a mobile.If a stranger can follow the logic of the signs ( they have to go some distance in the “wrong” direction)to get back to the ferry line-up, they are fortunate! 2) Safety, in many aspects is also a major concern: 2.1 As you enter the approaches to Horseshoe Bay/ Whytecliffe( HB/W) the connector bridge has a 40kph for about 150 m then this is reduced to 30kph. Both speed limits are ignored by the vast majority of vehicles. The “speedbumps are a joke, a driver has only to negotiate once & from then on is aware of their impotence, they are subsequently ignored. Cyclists seem to look upon them as an enjoyable frisson , a bonus to their hi- speed ride/rush to the park. I do understand, in younger less “aware” days I may well have done the same. 2.2 The popularity , completely understandable attraction of HB/W increases, in direct proportion as does the lower mainland population; a given. 2.3 For visitors or residences, as is, let alone the new Westbank developement being built will only add to existing congestion; this is particularly so on long sunny weekends, again no surprise. 2.4 Any natural disaster of any kind or even an accident ( mix of pedestrians, local folk, tourists peering through cameras/ once called mobile phones[ humour attempt!] cyclists, cars, campers [ some searching for a ferry, which can be seen but impossible to reach “ so near yet so far”] a very lovely scenic road, narrow one twisty lane in each direction...... ’‘tis sadly but possibly only a matter of time. A limited finite defined space with an ever burgeoning number of people...... ( “cannot put more than a pint in a pint-pot”) A narrow road

73 made narrower.01July weekend, parking for the Park became on occasion “gridlock” for those seeking any available space. I do not envy those whose task it is to resolve, I would be happy to help if I was qualified to do so. As a fortunate & grateful resident of some 30 years, I observe a problem growing & no easy solution. Thank you for your attention & time. [comments received via email] Already the seaside community feel has been vastly impacted by the multi unit and out of character new development currently still under construction..complete by October 2020???....originally it was late 2019. Don't know why Horseshoe Bay has become such a huge target for development...... of course new growth is something that organically will occur but the scope of these proposals seems bound and determined to completely destroy the original OCP...please let us keep some integrity in our community . I would like to know how Covid 19 has affected the 50 year vision of staff and planners involved in this process. The context we began with is very different than the reality we live with today. This plan should reflect the new reality we face. Namely, building/envisiong that prioritizes resilient local economies and living spaces. I also believe that the uniquely zoned spaces related to community building/neighborhood character should be protected at all costs. To densify a neighbourhood like Horseshoe Bay will require extraordinary community spaces and retail/businesses to sustain a very dense neighbourhood. I also think that we must find a way to allow private home owners to develop their own land via coach houses and laneway homes - to allow residences to shape the density in their own neighborhood rather than have for profit developers come into our home and decide for us what our home will look like. Yes, 100% support the higher the density the better It would be so nice to renovate the buildings in HS Bay. Edgemont Village has done an amazing job of fixing the Village up. Places to socialize, have a coffee or even a drink in newly “fixed up” venues. To me HS Bay seems a little run down. [comments received via email] I support the Cottages concept as they provide affordable accommodation for many of our essential workers and cultural members such as artists musicians who maintain the soul of our community! [comments received via email] With respect to proposals for the Horseshoe Bay Area Plan, I wish to once again voice my support for the Tantalus Gardens development proposal. It’s needed and it’s suitable for our area.

74