Background West Point Grey Residents
West Point Grey Residents Association Jericho Lands Survey Summary Report April 2019
www.wpgra.ca [email protected]
This report gives a summary of the results of the West Point Grey Residents Association (WPGRA) Jericho Lands Survey as of April, 2019.
Background The West Point Grey (WPG) Community Vision was approved by Vancouver City Council on September 23, 2010.
Although the Jericho Lands were excluded from the visioning process – despite concerns raised by the WPG Community Liaison Group – the resulting WPG Vision includes clear direction for appropriate consultation in the event that redevelopment of the Jericho Lands is proposed.
In particular, the WPG Community Vision Direction 26.2 states:
"...Consistent with the approach taken to create the WPG Community Vision, workshops and other consultations – including a survey of WPG residents– should be held to help determine the neighbourhood’s view on issues related to the development of the Jericho Lands not covered in the WPG Community Vision. There should be early feedback to City Council on the interests and concerns of the WPG community before any key decisions are made..."
However, despite efforts by the West Point Grey Residents Association (WPGRA) to advance the foregoing direction since 2014, the City has given no indication that it was willing to undertake such a survey.
Consequently, the WPGRA was compelled to undertake its own Jericho Lands survey in 2016, roughly consistent with the WPG Choices Survey upon which the WPG Vision was previously established. A four page survey booklet (see Appendix 1) was distributed by hand and mail to every residential property in WPG and east to Blenheim St. in Kitsilano. The survey form was also available for download at wpgra.ca.
Completed surveys were collected over a three month period in 2016.
Most of the respondents were from West Point Grey, though some were from other areas. Eight hundred fifteen (815) people responded, of whom 75 were from outside West Point Grey.
The rate of response is comparable with that obtained for the City’s WPG Choices Survey (1100 respondents to general survey). The distribution of respondents, presented in Figure 1, indicates that participants were well distributed across the neighbourhood and surrounding the Jericho Lands.
1 | P a g e
General Summary
The survey addressed a wide range of planning, design and development issues. Residents were asked to provide their level of support in the form of a number, from 0 for no support to 5 for strong support.
Raw survey data are provided in Appendix 2 for reference. Unless stated otherwise, reported results are for combined WPG and non-WPG respondents.
The results show strongest support for building heights under 4 storeys, with some support for up to 6 storey, very little support for 7-10 storeys, and statistically zero support (<1%) for higher towers.
There is a strong preference for good environmental design and minimal impact on the surrounding community. Conversely, a dense development such as Yaletown or Oakridge with large towers was not supported.
Respondents favoured low-rise ground-oriented building types such as single family, townhouses, and duplex – fourplex over apartments and condos. Support was highest for housing that related to seniors and families.
Respondents favoured open green space, protection of public views across the site and from West Point Grey (Trimble) Park, and expanded community amenities. Support was high for expanded community center facilities on site while also retaining the Aberthau WPG Community Centre and Brock House facilities.
It shows the importance of planning traffic and pedestrian facilities carefully as these were rated highly. Respondents wanted minimal traffic impact on the surrounding areas with adequate onsite parking provided.
Finally, it showed that residents wanted to be consulted and allowed to provide meaningful input to the design and implementation of Jericho Lands development.
Data and Documents Relating to the Survey
Appendix 1 - Jericho Lands Survey Booklet
Appendix 2 - Jericho Lands Survey Results Data
Appendix 3 - WPG Community Vision documents and references related to the Jericho Lands
2 | P a g e
Respondent Distribution of the Survey
Figure 1:
The maps below show the respondent distribution of the survey, city-wide and neighbourhood views.
[Grab your reader’s attention with a
great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key City-wide View: point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.] The respondents were mainly from West Point Grey with some representation from other areas in the West Side of Vancouver
Neighbourhood View:
All areas of West Point Grey were well represented in the survey
3 | P a g e
Survey Results
Development Scale
Respondents were asked for support levels for different development scales by comparing the proposed development with other areas of the city that would be familiar. These areas were:
1. Surrounding Neighbourhood 2 – 4 storey development - this received very strong support 2. Arbutus Lands – up to 6 storeys – this received moderate support. 3. Yaletown – mostly high rise – this received no support 4. Oakridge – high rise up to 45 storeys – this received no support with 91% rating it 0
Non-West Point Grey residents gave 10% more support to the Arbutus Lands model and 10% less to the surrounding neighbourhood model. It is interesting that non-West Point Grey residents gave absolutely no support to the Yaletown or Oakridge models.
4 | P a g e
Building Heights
Respondents were asked their support for a total of eight different building heights varying from 1 – 2 storeys up to > 30 storeys.
Support was much stronger for the lower building heights. Similar to surrounding, 1 to 2 storey, garnered strong support while 3 to 4 storeys received moderate support. 5 to 6 storey buildings received moderate/low support. Support dropped off dramatically when the choices of building height became higher than 6 storeys. 7 to 13 storey buildings received strong resistance and even higher buildings exceptional resistance with statistically zero support.
Non-West Point Grey residents rated 5 to 6 storey buildings 10% higher and 1 to 2 storey buildings 10% lower than West Point Grey residents. Otherwise the ratings for other building heights were remarkably similar between the two groups.
5 | P a g e
Building Types
The survey asked the opinions of several different housing types varying from single family to apartments /condo buildings. The housing types were as follows:
Single family Duplex / triplex / fourplex Fee - simple rowhouses Strata courtyard rowhouse Townhouses Stacked townhouses Apartments or condos
There was moderate support for single family, duplex/triplex/fourplex, fee-simple rowhouses and townhouses. There was lower support for the remainder of the building types, with stacked townhouses, apartments and condos receiving the lowest level of support.
Descriptions of Housing Types shown here: https://wpgra.wordpress.com/descriptions-of-housing-types/
6 | P a g e
Design Aspects Respondents gave strong support to all of the following design aspects. 1. Ensure that new development is in harmony with and complements the surrounding neighbourhood by requiring appropriate setbacks and gradual transition of building forms and height in proximity to the established neighbourhood (8th Avenue, WPG- Trimble Park, Highbury St, 4th Avenue). 2. Natural topography and local grades across the site should be preserved and taken into account in planning the location, scale and form of new housing and other buildings on the site.
3. Provide a substantial green buffer zone including retention of mature trees, hedges and grass around edge of site as it transitions to the existing established neighbourhood.
4. As a general aim, mature trees, hedges and other established natural features across the site should be retained and guide the planning and design of new development.
5. Protect access to sunlight and public views across the site, such as from WPG-Trimble Park, Queen Mary Elementary School, W. 8th, Highbury St. and W. 4th.
6. Develop design guidelines for Jericho Lands regarding quality of materials, design and style to complement the surrounding neighbourhood.
7. Promote barrier-free universal access throughout the site (e.g. facilitate wheelchairs, walkers and strollers etc.).
7 | P a g e
Kinds of Housing
The results showed support for a variety of housing types.
The strongest support exists for family housing with 3 bedrooms or more and for seniors’ independent living. Senior supportive housing and special needs garnered strong/moderate support. All other housing types received moderate/neutral support.
8 | P a g e
Parks, Recreation and Amenities
Respondents wanted generous parks and green space, open space, public squares, and retention of mature trees, and gave these elements strong support.
Respondents were asked their support of expanded community centre capacity on the Jericho Lands site and their support of also retaining the existing facilities at the Aberthau WPG Community Centre and Brock House Seniors Centre. There was very strong support for both to be achieved - 76% supported expanded capacity on the Jericho Lands site at the 4 or 5 level of support and 85% supported also retaining the existing facilities at Aberthau and Brock House.
There was also support for the expansion of existing public schools of Queen Mary and Lord Byng to accept the students from Jericho.
9 | P a g e
Transportation Infrastructure
Respondents clearly wanted adequate frequent transit, walking and cycling paths, generous streets for walking and cycling, minimal traffic impact on existing streets and increased safety on existing streets. All these were given strong support.
Sufficient on-site parking for residents and visitors and electric car charging were all given strong/moderate support.
10 | P a g e
Environmental Design
Respondents gave strong support to all the environmental design aspects, including:
Avoid noise pollution, especially at night Avoid night light pollution Ecological cohesion with forested midsection of Jericho Lands to Jericho Park and Beach. Re-establish three historic streams on the Jericho Lands and connect them to the Jericho Beach Park ponds and wetlands. Be a world model of livability and sustainability.
Percent of Respondents Preferring Certain Aspects of Environmental Design 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Re-establish historic streams Cohesion of forested Avoid night light pollution. Avoid noise pollution, midsection to Jericho Park especially at night.
5 Strong Support 4 3 2 1 0 No Support
11 | P a g e
Community Involvement
All aspects of community involvement were given strong support by residents and non-residents alike, including:
Complete the WPG Community Vision process for Jericho Lands. Ensure meaningful community involvement in decision making. Ensure a meaningful collaborative process with the Community. Community input should be strongly reflected in the final plans for the site.
12 | P a g e
Appendix 1 – Survey Booklet https://wpgra.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/47150jericholandsurveyoriginalversion.pdf
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
Appendix 2 - Survey Results Data
Level of Support : No Support Strong Support
1. Development on Jericho Lands What level of support would you have for the kind of development on the Jericho Lands that is similar in scale to the following? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Similar to surroundings - 2 to 4 storeys 5% 4% 4% 9% 12% 66% all 4% 4% 4% 9% 12% 67% WPG 10% 7% 8% 6% 13% 57% non- WPG
Arbutus Lands - up to 6 storeys 34% 12% 12% 15% 12% 15% all 35% 12% 12% 15% 12% 14% WPG 20% 12% 17% 16% 12% 23% non- WPG
Yaletown, towers to 25 storeys 87% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% all 87% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% WPG 84% 6% 3% 3% 4% 0% non- WPG
Oakridge - towers to 45 storeys 91% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% all 91% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% WPG 93% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% non- WPG
2. Building heights for Jericho Lands 2.1 1 - 2 storeys 7% 4% 3% 7% 10% 69% all 6% 4% 3% 7% 10% 70% WPG 13% 3% 9% 4% 12% 59% non- WPG
2.2 3 - 4 storeys 10% 6% 9% 14% 24% 37% all 11% 6% 8% 14% 24% 37% WPG 7% 7% 10% 11% 28% 38% non- WPG
2.3 5 - 6 storeys 38% 12% 12% 13% 11% 13% all 39% 12% 11% 14% 11% 12% WPG 31% 10% 19% 11% 7% 22% non- WPG
2.4 7 - 10 storeys 74% 7% 8% 5% 3% 3% all 74% 7% 8% 6% 2% 3% WPG 69% 7% 10% 1% 6% 7% non- WPG
2.5 11 - 13 storeys 86% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% all 87% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% WPG 80% 7% 3% 3% 6% 1% non- WPG
2.6 14 - 19 storeys 93% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% all 93% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% WPG 89% 3% 4% 3% 1% 0% non- WPG
2.7 20 - 30 storeys 96% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% all 97% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% WPG 91% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% non- WPG
2.8 > 30 storeys 97% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% all 98% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% WPG 94% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% non- WPG
17 | P a g e
3. Types of dwellings for Jericho Lands - See wpgra.ca website for definitions. 10% 5% 7% 11% 12% 55% all 3.1 Single family / suites/ infill 9% 6% 6% 11% 11% 56% WPG 19% 3% 12% 10% 15% 40% non- WPG
3.2 Duplex / Triplex / Fourplex 8% 6% 8% 17% 24% 37% all 8% 6% 8% 17% 25% 36% WPG 4% 10% 9% 13% 19% 45% non- WPG
3.3 Fee-simple Rowhouses 12% 7% 11% 18% 21% 31% all 12% 7% 11% 19% 21% 30% WPG 11% 6% 12% 14% 18% 39% non- WPG
3.4 Strata Courtyard Rowhouse 14% 8% 12% 19% 20% 29% all 14% 8% 12% 19% 20% 28% WPG 14% 5% 14% 15% 18% 35% non- WPG
3.5 Townhouses (2 storey) 8% 6% 7% 20% 24% 35% all 8% 6% 7% 21% 24% 34% WPG 7% 6% 7% 13% 31% 36% non- WPG
3.6 Stacked townhouses (3 - 4 storey, no elevator, external stairs) 33% 13% 16% 14% 11% 13% all 34% 14% 16% 14% 10% 12% WPG 27% 11% 11% 19% 13% 19% non- WPG
3.7 Apartments or condos 34% 10% 10% 15% 13% 17% all 35% 11% 9% 15% 13% 16% WPG 17% 6% 18% 14% 19% 26% non- WPG
4. Aspects of design that matter to you Do you support the following on the Jericho Lands? 4.1 Ensure that new development is in harmony with and complements the surrounding neighbourhood by 2% 1% 3% 5% 10% 79% all 2% 1% 3% 5% 9% 81% WPG 6% 3% 4% 6% 17% 65% non- WPG
4.2 Natural topography and local grades across the site should be preserved and taken into account 1% 1% 1% 4% 13% 81% all 0% 0% 1% 4% 13% 82% WPG 1% 1% 4% 6% 14% 74% non- WPG
4.3 Provide a substantial green buffer zone including retention of mature trees, hedges and grass 2% 1% 2% 5% 9% 81% all 2% 1% 2% 4% 9% 82% WPG 3% 3% 5% 11% 7% 72% non- WPG
4.4 As a general aim, mature trees, hedges and other established natural features across the site 2% 2% 3% 6% 11% 76% all 2% 2% 2% 6% 10% 79% WPG 1% 1% 14% 10% 22% 52% non- WPG
4.5 Protect acccess to sunlight and public views across the site, such as from WPG-Trimble Park, 1% 1% 2% 8% 11% 78% all 1% 1% 2% 7% 11% 79% WPG 1% 1% 7% 10% 11% 70% non- WPG
4.6 Develop design guidelines for Jericho Lands regarding quality of materials, design and style to 1% 1% 1% 8% 13% 75% all 2% 1% 1% 8% 13% 76% WPG 1% 3% 3% 10% 19% 64% non- WPG
4.7 Promote barrier-free universal access throughout the site (e.g. facilitate wheelchairs, walkers and 0% 1% 2% 8% 14% 74% all 0% 1% 2% 8% 14% 76% WPG 0% 1% 5% 11% 19% 63% non- WPG
18 | P a g e
5. Kinds of housing on the Jericho Lands - Should there be some of the following: 5.1 Seniors supportive housing 4% 2% 7% 17% 19% 51% all 4% 2% 7% 16% 19% 51% WPG 3% 7% 3% 19% 22% 47% non- WPG
5.2 Seniors independent living 2% 1% 5% 11% 21% 59% all 2% 1% 5% 11% 21% 60% WPG 0% 1% 11% 11% 25% 52% non- WPG
5.3 Family housing (3 bedroom +) 3% 2% 3% 13% 18% 61% all 4% 2% 3% 13% 17% 62% WPG 3% 1% 7% 17% 22% 50% non- WPG
5.4 Rental housing 15% 7% 11% 19% 14% 34% all 16% 7% 11% 19% 13% 34% WPG 8% 6% 10% 21% 15% 40% non- WPG
5.5 Co-op housing 23% 10% 11% 15% 11% 30% all 23% 11% 12% 15% 11% 29% WPG 17% 7% 7% 15% 18% 36% non- WPG
5.6 Social housing - (CMHC definition: rental as no more than 30% of income) 27% 12% 10% 13% 11% 26% all 28% 13% 10% 13% 11% 25% WPG 15% 3% 15% 18% 11% 38% non- WPG
5.7 Assisted living for special needs 12% 9% 11% 19% 17% 32% all 12% 10% 12% 18% 18% 31% WPG 10% 6% 6% 29% 13% 37% non- WPG
6. Parks, Recreation and Amenities Include: 6.1 Generous parks and green space 1% 1% 1% 4% 10% 83% all 0% 1% 1% 4% 10% 85% WPG 1% 0% 5% 8% 14% 72% non- WPG
6.2 Retention of mature trees 1% 1% 2% 7% 9% 79% all 1% 1% 2% 7% 9% 80% WPG 3% 1% 5% 11% 10% 70% non- WPG
6.3 Expanded Community Centre capacity on Jericho Lands 2% 2% 7% 13% 17% 59% all 2% 2% 6% 13% 17% 60% WPG 5% 4% 11% 11% 19% 50% non- WPG
6.4 Retention of facilities at Aberthau WPG Community Centre and Brock House 1% 1% 4% 7% 10% 77% all 1% 2% 3% 7% 10% 78% WPG 3% 0% 10% 7% 8% 73% non- WPG
6.5 Provide generous public squares and open space 1% 1% 3% 6% 15% 74% all 0% 1% 2% 6% 15% 75% WPG 3% 0% 11% 6% 18% 63% non- WPG
6.6 Expand local public schools to accommodate increased students from Jericho (e.g. Queen Mary 4% 4% 8% 16% 19% 49% all 4% 4% 8% 16% 19% 50% WPG 8% 4% 10% 14% 21% 43% non- WPG
19 | P a g e
7. Transportation Infrastructure - Include the following: 7.1 Adequate frequent transit 1% 1% 3% 7% 18% 71% all 1% 1% 3% 7% 17% 71% WPG 3% 0% 1% 5% 20% 70% non- WPG
7.2 Walking and cycling paths 0% 1% 3% 7% 17% 72% all 0% 1% 3% 7% 17% 72% WPG 1% 0% 3% 7% 22% 67% non- WPG
7.3 Electric car charging 4% 6% 10% 19% 15% 45% all 3% 6% 10% 19% 14% 47% WPG 8% 1% 11% 20% 24% 35% non- WPG
7.4 Sufficient on-site parking 2% 3% 6% 14% 19% 55% all 2% 3% 6% 13% 19% 57% WPG 5% 5% 8% 24% 20% 36% non- WPG
7.5 Sufficient parking for visitors 2% 3% 8% 16% 20% 51% all 2% 3% 7% 15% 20% 53% WPG 5% 5% 12% 24% 22% 31% non- WPG
7.6 Sufficient street widths for walking, cycling and parking 1% 1% 4% 7% 18% 70% all 1% 1% 3% 7% 17% 71% WPG 1% 1% 7% 10% 22% 58% non- WPG
7.7 Minimize traffic impacts on existing streets 1% 1% 3% 7% 14% 74% all 1% 1% 2% 7% 13% 77% WPG 1% 5% 5% 15% 22% 51% non- WPG
7.8 Increased pedestrian safety on bordering streets 1% 1% 5% 10% 15% 68% all 1% 1% 4% 10% 14% 69% WPG 1% 1% 7% 12% 26% 52% non- WPG
8. Environmental Design 3% 2% 5% 16% 16% 58% all 3% 2% 5% 15% 17% 58% WPG 4% 4% 3% 25% 15% 49% non- WPG
8.2 Re-establish three historic streams on the Jericho Lands and connect them to the Jericho Beach 3% 3% 6% 12% 15% 60% all 2% 3% 6% 12% 15% 61% WPG 7% 4% 8% 17% 14% 50% non- WPG
8.3 Ecological cohesion with forested midsection of Jericho Lands to Jericho Park and Beach. 2% 3% 4% 10% 16% 65% all 2% 2% 4% 9% 17% 66% WPG 3% 7% 6% 18% 14% 53% non- WPG
8.4 Avoid night light pollution. 1% 3% 4% 10% 16% 65% all 1% 3% 4% 10% 16% 66% WPG 3% 4% 6% 10% 19% 58% non- WPG
8.5 Avoid noise pollution, especially at night. 1% 1% 3% 6% 14% 76% all 1% 1% 2% 6% 14% 77% WPG 1% 3% 7% 4% 15% 69% non- WPG
9. Community involvement in planning 9.1 Complete the WPG Community Vision process for Jericho Lands. 1% 1% 2% 7% 15% 74% all 1% 1% 2% 7% 15% 75% WPG 0% 2% 3% 14% 18% 63% non- WPG
9.2 Ensure meaningful community involvement in decision making. 0% 0% 1% 3% 10% 86% all 0% 0% 1% 3% 10% 86% WPG 0% 0% 4% 4% 13% 79% non- WPG
9.3 Ensure a meaningful collaborative process with the Community. 0% 0% 1% 4% 10% 85% all 0% 0% 1% 4% 10% 85% WPG 0% 0% 1% 4% 13% 82% non- WPG
9.4 Community input should be strongly reflected in the final plans for the site. 0% 0% 1% 4% 9% 85% all 0% 0% 1% 4% 8% 86% WPG 0% 0% 1% 6% 15% 77% non- WPG
20 | P a g e
Appendix 3 - WPG Community Vision Reference
Adopted WPG Community Vision http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/visions/wpg/pdf/wpgvision.pdf WPG Vision website: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/visions/wpg/index.htm
Jericho Lands Related Directions:
26.2 Jericho Lands Planning Process Approved If the redevelopment of the Jericho Lands is proposed, the City should ensure that a major study of future uses of the site takes place with significant public consultation. Consistent with the approach taken to create the WPG Community Vision, workshops and other consultations – including a survey of WPG residents– should be held to help determine the neighbourhood’s view on issues related to the development of the Jericho Lands not covered in the WPG Community Vision. There should be early feedback to City Council on the interests and concerns of the WPG community before any key decisions are made. The outcome of a Jericho Lands planning process should be a plan for the site developed in consultation with the WPG community; the plan should be considered when implementing Vision Directions and pursuing other City initiatives in WPG. Percent Agree 90/89
16.6 Allow New Housing Near Shopping Areas Approved New housing types should be permitted near shopping areas in WPG, subject to detailed planning and impact mitigation. Percent Agree 64/60
17.1 Seniors’ Housing Approved Some small developments designed for seniors should be considered near shopping, transit, and services to allow seniors to stay in the community as their housing needs change. Percent Agree 84/85
20.1 Create a New Neighbourhood Centre at Jericho Village Approved The redevelopment of a new neighbourhood centre should be considered at Jericho Village. The shopping centre would be reoriented to face surrounding arterial streets to make the area more pedestrian friendly and enhance safety and accessibility. Restaurants and cafés with outdoor patios would be encouraged. Planning for the east side of Alma and 4th (i.e. located in Kitsilano) should be integrated with the redevelopment of Jericho Village. Percent Agree 71/70
20.2 Provide Additional Housing Approved Additional housing should be provided in Jericho Village if the site is redeveloped. The housing would be located above ground floor shops and would be higher than the 4 storeys permitted along 4th Avenue but lower than the mid-rise on the SW corner of the block (i.e. at 4th Avenue and Highbury). Planning for any new housing should pay particular attention to views across the site. Percent Agree 62/58 21 | P a g e
20.3 Provide a Range of Shops and Services Approved There should be a wide range of local shops and services in Jericho Village. Percent Agree 77/77
20.4 Create a More Attractive Area Approved Property owners, tenants, businesses, residents, and the City should work to improve the appearance of Jericho Village (e.g. with outdoor patios, attractive landscaping, banners, special lighting, public notice boards/directory, public art and special paving, and drinking fountains). Percent Agree 79/79
20.5 Retain a Supermarket Approved The supermarket in Jericho Village is an important ‘anchor’ for the shopping area. The City, in consultation with the community, should ensure that the inclusion of a supermarket is a condition of any future redevelopment. Percent Agree 79/80
23.1 Protect Natural Areas in Parks, including Beaches Approved The natural areas in WPG parks, including beaches, should be preserved and enhanced. Percent Agree 95/96
23.2 Improve Recreational Opportunities in Parks Approved Park design and facilities should provide a greater range of recreational opportunities to serve all ages. Percent Agree 69/71
23.6 Better Maintain and Improve Parks and Park Facilities Approved Park grounds, beaches, structures, and facilities should be better maintained and improved. Percent Agree 84/85
23.7 Encourage Community Involvement in Parks Approved Community involvement in the design and stewardship of parks should be encouraged. Percent Agree 77/75
23.10 Add Trees to Vancouver Heritage Register (VHR) Approved Page 48 of 59 The community should work with the City and the Park Board to further define and identify heritage trees to add to the VHR, and promote their preservation. Percent Agree 67/67
23.11 Better Protect and Preserve Trees on Private Property Approved Trees on private property contribute greatly to the pleasant character of the neighbourhood. Existing trees should be preserved and maintained whenever possible, with due respect for safety considerations. The Private Property Tree By-law should be enforced and modified to further the preservation of landmark, heritage trees. Percent Agree 75/77
22 | P a g e
23.12 Green and Beautify Public Streets Approved Streets should continue to be pleasant green links that connect the neighbourhood by: • protecting existing boulevards and street trees, and planting new trees as appropriate • encouraging residents to landscape traffic circles, corner bulges, and boulevards (e.g. through the ‘Green Streets’ Program), and • providing amenities like benches where people can socialize and rest, especially on longer walks. Percent Agree 85/87
23.14 Preserve Public Views Approved Views to the north shore mountains, water, and downtown Vancouver from public places like Jericho Park, West Point Grey (Trimble) Park, and north/south streets should be protected, without the loss of trees. Viewpoints should be made more enjoyable. Percent Agree 91/88
24.1 Retain Existing Public Buildings Approved Existing major public buildings with heritage character (e.g. schools) should be retained and well maintained, with renovations and additions compatible with the style of the existing building. Percent Agree 82/85
24.2 Improve Design Quality of Public Buildings Approved New public buildings should be well designed and identifiable as WPG public institutions. Percent Agree 86/85
25.3 Encourage the Conservation of Water and Energy Approved Individuals and businesses (with City support) should strive to conserve water and energy. These efforts might include: • upgrading energy and water fixtures • reducing daily water and energy use • providing neighbourhoods with energy consumption statistics and information for city-wide comparison of costs and benefits, and Page 52 of 59 • reusing rain and grey water. Percent Agree 84/90
25.7 Working With Other Levels of Government Approved The City should provide leadership and partner with the regional, provincial, and federal governments to enhance the environment, including efforts such as: • adopting additional measures to increase water and energy conservation • adopting measures to improve air quality • encouraging the development and use of alternative energy sources • working with Airport Authority to improve its noise control and air quality commitments, and • appealing to the province’s Air Care Program to implement noisy muffler control. Percent Agree 81/83
26.1 Community Involvement in Decision Making Approved WPG residents should have greater, and more timely, input into decision making about changes in their community on matters ranging from major initiatives like the possibility of redeveloping the Safeway site or the provision of new facilities and services, to recurring decisions relating to street and traffic changes or the review of development proposals. Percent Agree 89/86 23 | P a g e