Community Planning Advisory Committee Meeting December 5, On-Table Item(s)

Transcription

1 Community Planning Advisory Committee Meeting December 5, 2017 On-Table Item(s) Item Type Date Item No. Item Name Reason For On-Table Distribution Mackey, Andrew December 1, h55 Allan, Jim December 1, h58 Somji, Yasmin December 1, h30 Hallman, Shelly December 1, h27 Fowlie, Kevin December 2, h01 Marcus, Stephen December 2, h47 Loblaw, Mary December 2, h30 Gobillot, Rene' and Gobillot, Lynn December 2, h44

2 Brown, Lois December 2, h58 Pearson, Bev December 2, h19 Hadi, Nafas December 3, h49 Schrump, Justin December 3, h23 Gridneva, Irina December 3, h31 McNeely, Ryan December 3, h07 Perez, Robert December 4, h26 Cummings, Claire December 4, h31 McGregor, Ian December 4, h45 Longson, Gerald and Bessel, Colleen December 4, h59 Simons, Richard and Simons, Christine December 4, h01

3 Am, L December 4, h38 Lee, Larry December 4, h43 MacLennan, Maya December 4, h37 Richard, Nataliya December 4, h17 Larson, Darren December 4, h27 Stone, Dave and Morton, Cathy December 4, h28 Bedwell, Bruce and Bedwell, Linda December 4, h53 Rahilly, Timothy December 4, h07 Bolton, Richard A. December 4, h33 McNeely, Karen December 4, h58 Lioce, Mirella December 4, h18

4 Eadie, Cecilia December 4, h18 Thompson, Stewart and Thompson, Joan December 4, h57 Stevens, Gary December 4, h04 Lynch, Maria December 4, h14 Wirick, Tammy and Gordon, Lee December 4, h26 Sime, Christina December 4, h44 Santo, George December 4, h45 Bolderston, Kelly December 4, h06 Kodjabacheva, Kristina December 4, h08 Pearson, Steve December 4, h12 Odlum, Derek December 5, h42

5 Fletcher, Nick December 5, h06 Wan, Wesley and Wan, Janet December 5, h35 Turner, Brenda December 5, h21 Bolderston, Patti December 5, h45 Ruhr, Michal December 5, h24 Laing Ewles, Carmen December 5, h46 Smith, Connie December 5, h19 Lewis Hardy, Cathie December 5, h49 Meikle, Scott December 5, h52 Bolderston, Keith December 5, h53 Boothe, Jan December 5, h56

6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

7 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Submission regarding ONNI rezoning application for Suter Brook Village Eric Vance, Acting General Manager of Planning and Development clerks@portmoody.ca Andrew Mackey, -400 Capilano Road, Port Moody I am an owner and resident at Aria 2 in Suter Brook Village and I attended the November 15, 2017 open house conducted by ONNI and a community meeting held on November 22 at the Aria Club where ONNI was excluded. I support ONNI s proposed rezoning as this project addresses many broader municipal and regional goals included in Metro Vancouver s Regional Growth Strategy and Port Moody s Context Statement. As a local resident, I have noted below a number of items that influence my thoughts about the ONNI proposal for rezoning of their Suter Book property, including: 1. Based on Port Moody s Official Community Plan (OCP) and the Regional Growth Strategy, the projected Port Moody population is to grow to about 50,000. We need to find ways of accommodating this growth. The Regional Growth Strategy, emphasizes complete communities and sustainable transportation choices for example, Strategy 4.1 says we should provide diverse and affordable housing choices. The ONNI proposal suggests, for the first time, rental housing in Suter Brook Village. 2. The focus for many years has been to direct growth in areas readily accessible to rapid transit. This focus encourages people to move from the automobile to alternate transportation choices. This is another goal of the Regional Growth Strategy and Port Moody s Context Statement. Aside from building on the edge of the Skytrain, ONNI has suggested ways of encouraging rapid transit use by those living in the new project such as providing monthly TransLink Compass Cards. Council might want to include this as a requirement in any approval of rezoning. 3. The region and in particular Port Moody has a lack of rental housing and most especially low income housing. In The Vancouver Sun Saturday November 25, 2017 a number of articles highlighted the consequence of not addressing the need for rental housing early. Port Moody can address this challenge and head off a future problem by approving rental housing proposals such as at Suter Brook. 4. Future business growth is limited by the availability of housing options for employees. Increasing density at Suter Brook including rental housing is a step to address this challenge. 5. It seems as if the amenity contribution of $10 plus million will add little to the quality of life in our village. Is it possible for the city to consult with the residents, owners and businesses in Suter Brook and ask how a portion of those funds might be used within our community, for instance, we have an aging population, could a seniors program and centre be established? The challenges with the rezoning especially challenges expressed by residents: It should be noted that less than 6% of the approximately 1600 residents currently living in Suter Brook Village attended the two community meetings. The position of the small but vocal group who oppose the rezoning is well summarized in an I received that said: It doesn t really matter what the goals of the region are. What matters is what members of our community want. 1 of 2

8 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 The following topics were raised 2 weeks prior to and at ONNI s open house and later at the community meeting on November 22: 1. Lack of response from ONNI s management company to resident s concerns. This lack of response has angered many residents who see opposing ONNI s rezoning application as a way of expressing their anger. ONNI should be encouraged to be a better corporate citizen. 2. Concern regarding the additional density of the proposed rezoning. There is no doubt that density will increase. That may be the cost of meeting broader community needs such as the need for rental units and encouraging people to reduce their Single Occupant Vehicle use by building density at the Inlet Centre Skytrain station - a regional goal. 3. Threat to future rental fees and property values - Depending on the condo building at Suter Brook village, 35%-55% of the current owners rent their units. At the November 22 meeting it was expressed that if ONNI provides rental housing this will put downward pressure on how much people can charge for their units. This is not a reason to refuse ONNI s application. As for property values some might argue that if this was true, anything that reduces the cost of housing is good for our community. There is no evidence that additional density will negatively impact land values. 4. Additional traffic impacts - People are concerned about the increase in vehicles entering and exiting our community especially at morning and evening rush hours. As much as ONNI does to reduce this impact the fact is that there will be more cars. To reduce this impact, the city could reduce the allowable parking space in the new project to below 1.0 as this might encourage alternate transportation usage. In addition, the city could, to increase traffic flow, support the suggestion to change the Morrissey Street to Murray Street access to a full T-intersection. 5. Loss of green space - There seems to be much confusion about what the existing green space is and what it may be if the rezoning is allowed. The only current use of the space under consideration is by folks walking their dogs. 6. Concerns about those kinds of people especially in the proposed low-income units. As offensive as it might be, some residents felt that rental accommodation and most especially low-income housing would bring the wrong people into our village. In summary, Port Moody Council might address a number of community concerns by putting conditions on the rezoning application. However, many of the challenges identified by my fellow residents may be the consequence of meeting broader community needs and although there may be some adjustments required, Port Moody Council should approve the rezoning request. 2 of 2

9 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Concerns Traffic Bottlenecks will exist directly at the exit from the site (future 4 way) and also at the entrance to the underground parking (4 way). Both within a few car lengths of each other. There is a drop off zone for Aria 2 immediately in this area which is already insufficient and results in illegal parking and unloading problems. The volume of traffic that has been projected is suspect, given that if only 40% of the building occupants (minimum value used in the elevator industry) exit during the morning rush hour then we can expect from the four high rise buildings alone in the immediate area as much as 320 vehicles attempting to use this congested area. In an emergency evacuation situation this could be catastrophic. At the onset construction traffic will be a major concern and the existing residents can expect severe inconvenience much greater than the recent office construction and for a much longer time. Affinity with Suterbrook Village Urban Design guidelines, used throughout Canada, are very emphatic on the need to preserve or improve on density and design of the immediate vicinity. i.e Consistent with the rest of Suterbrook Village. The current ratio of low rise to high rise and distance apart should be maintained if over densification and the feeling of being at the bottom of a canyon is to be avoided. Blue sky view obstruction and shading will also add to the depressing conditions experienced by lower level residents and pedestrians.

10 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Parking It is expected that in order to achieve a change in zoning and allow a reduced number of parking spots a ratio less than the current Port Moody one (I believe 1.5 per unit) will be requested. This will be justified by recent development requests which quote a Vancouver study which suggests that 1.28 is sufficient. It should be pointed out that we are not down town Vancouver and it is only a suggestion. Public parking is horrendous at the moment and increased demand will only make parking impossible as well as impact quality of life. Environmental Whereas the inclusion of a small parkette is welcome and could be considered something that has been overlooked in the overall design of the village itself, it is not central, hidden, and is unlikely to be used by the majority of the Village. It would appear that the inclusion of this green space is only a recognition of the original omission and an attempt to enhance sales appeal for Parcel D Proximity to the brook is a concern with the likelihood that it will become (as has happened in other cities) little more than an open sewer. Two 4 way stops so close to each other will result in increased pollution and noise for low level residents. A needless health hazard. Noise There will be increased noise levels which will be amplified by the closeness of Aria 2 and the proposed building. (echoing effect). Construction, and the traffic associated with it, of the proposed building will make life miserable for lower residents during the next three years.

11 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Wind Amplification This is associated with height, proximity and orientation between adjacent buildings. In this case the closeness of the buildings and the fact that they are angular to each other will most likely create a severe funnel effect. Dangerous at ground level and more severe with the increase in height. The existing topography creates severe turbulence already at higher levels Seismic Amplification There a concern that while seismic requirements for the proposed building will be established the question will be, have they been applied to the proposed situation? These buildings will not be attached with a common base and will vibrate and sway at different frequencies. This can result in amplification and if it happens to be a windy day.. Privacy None. Residents of Aria 2 facing the proposed building will have windows on the two faces of their building directly opposite a similar situation on the proposed building. This will result in most likely 20 apartments looking directly into all (including bedrooms) of their rooms. As stated.privacy?...none

12 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Property Values Residents adjacent to Parcel D having done due diligence and understanding the zoning for the property, bought in, and have been quite happy with the existing and approved plan. To change the zoning and approve the current proposal will be totally detrimental to their property values. To date there is no recognition of this fact. Conclusion It is clear that this is an attempt to maximise the financial payback from this piece of property. Having said that, it is also clear that it is being done with no consideration whatsoever to the needs of the residents of Suterbrook Village. They are quite considerate of the need for higher density at the Transit station but feel that it was more than adequately addressed when the current design was approved. The Council for the town of Port Moody should recognise this, and the expressed concerns, and reject the proposal on this ground alone. I have mentioned the dangerous traffic conditions which will be enhanced. I say enhanced because this point was raised in a previous approval process but was not recognised or responded to. If it is ignored again conditions will only be exacerbated, create a fiasco, and be quite frankly, very, very, dangerous. Jim Allan -400 Capilano Road Port Moody 604

13 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Yasmin Somji Sent: December :30 PM <@portmoody.ca> Subject: Rezoning at SuterBrook Dear Sir /Madam, I have just purchased a unit at Aria 2, under the impression only 1 tall building and and 2 small rises will be being built. I am disable and coming to the retirement age. Most residents who have purchased in Aria have bought here because Port Moody has a small town charm and yet it has various amenities such as shops and banks. As you are aware that due to high house prices, we have many young families with children and seniors who cannot afford a single family rancher move into this location. We have all moved here instead of Lougheed Mall location or Coquitlam Mall location -so we can manage our lives. The shops are not too big and not yet too busy. My husband and I totally understand that we need to grow. But, to have another tall building in such a small vancity would create lots of congestion in the SuterBrook village. Our location is unique, it has shops, daycare and translink traffic-in a very small proximity. Our roads are narrow and its amazing that we do not have many accidents. Our parkade at P1 for shopping is very busy already as local Port Moody residents shop here also. As the surrounding area expands our location will get busier. We will have a bottleneck at Ioco. We also need to consider before giving Omni the permission to expand is: do we have the facility to provide service at the hospital, schools etc. I was recently at the hospital and it took over 3 hours to be seen by the doctor, and then they could not provide any bed for me for that night and I had to sleep in the emergency room for the night. I am therefore not totally against expansion in Port Moody -However, we must first look at expansions of our services before just increasing our population in our beautiful city. We residents at Suterbrook feel that although we voice our concerns, Omni has lots of resources and bottomline to them is just business. We hope you will reconsider the Residents of Port Moody Wishes. Merry Christmas! Best Wishes for the Season, Yasmin Somji

14 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Shelly Hallman Sent: December :27 PM <@portmoody.ca> Subject: Fw: The Residences at Suter Brook -December 1, Proposed Re-Zoning Application Meeting - Follow Up I wanted to give my input to this discussion. I strongly disagree with the second tower being built at the Grande. Our Suter Brook village is too small to accommodate all that extra traffic and people. Too much high density is going to ruin the area. Shelly Hallman Capilano Rd Port Moody, BC RANCHO MANAGEMENT <noreply@ranchogroup.com> Sent: December 2, :20 AM.@hotmail.com Subject: The Residences at Suter Brook -December 1, Proposed Re-Zoning Application Meeting - Follow Up M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: All Residents of Suter Brook Strata Corp. EPS1232 Francis Yeung, Senior Strata Agent DATE: Friday, December 1, 2017 RE: PROPOSED RE-ZONING APPLICATION MEETING FOLLOW UP Dear Residents, Further to the Suterbrook Village Residents meeting on Wednesday, November 22, 2017 regarding the impact on Onni s re-zoning application to increase the number of units from 290 to 483 for Parcel D (The Grande), a petition was circulated amongst the attendees demonstrating that 98% were opposed to re-zoning.

15 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 It was clear during the meeting that Residents wish to unite and voice their concerns directly to The City of Port Moody Councillors. In that regards, Aria 2 Strata Council has issued an informative notice on behalf of the Suterbrook Village Delegation: 1. The Delegation is inviting you show your support and voice your opinion at the following public meeting: "The City of Port Moody s Community Planning Advisory Committee is holding a public meeting to consider the re-zoning application." When: December 5 at 7:00 PM Location: Council Chambers, Port Moody City Hall. How can you provide input? 1. If you believe your property is affected by this application, comment directly to the Committee on December 5, You can also send a submission in writing before 12 noon on December 5, 2017 by ing clerks@portmoody.ca or faxing The Delegation is inviting you show your support and voice your opinion at the following info session: The City of Port Moody is exploring plans to sell the former Fire Hall and current Works Yard sites for redevelopment. As part of that process, Council will consider amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP) policies and zoning for these two parcels of land. Residents are invited to learn about the proposed amendments at the information session" When: Monday, December 4, from 5 to 8 PM Location: City Hall Galleria (100 Newport Drive). 3. Show your support and sign the e-petition if you oppose the re-zoning application. Web address is This memo may also be viewed by logging onto myranchostrata. Sincerely, Agents for the Owners pmgr@ranchogroup.com If you wish to be removed from our mailing list, please click unsubscribe.

16 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Kevin Fowlie Sent: December :01 AM <@portmoody.ca> Subject: Land Use Contract for Suter Brook Dear City of Port Moody, I hope you will take into consideration my concerns over Omni's request to increase the maximum # of residential units. I live in Suter Brook and already parking and vehicle congestion are a major problem. By adding even more residential units to what has already been approved would be a big mistake. Although the Evergreen Line is very close and offers a transportation option for residents, you are still going to have the vast majority of residents own a vehicle. With the costs associated with purchasing a parking space, many residents park their vehicles on the roads within Suter Brook and the addition of more residents is only going to increase the issue of street parking. Traffic congestion will become even greater which could affect many of the businesses in Suter Brook. With greater congestion, consumers may opt to go to other businesses outside of Port Moody due to less congestion and ease of parking. Thanks for considering my feedback, Kevin Fowlie

17 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Steve Marcus Sent: December :47 AM <@portmoody.ca> Subject: onni's developement of parcel D Our village of Suter Brooke will change in a negative way forever if Onni is allowed to push ahead with there latest proposal for this Parcel D project. There are already a high percentage of rental units in each building 30-50% in some. The lure of a six story fair market rental building is unnecessary as a similar number of units will always be available in the original construction plan. A much better use for this parcel would be a park -open space for the residents already living here raising their young families. Thank you very much for giving me a voice in this matter. I'll look forward to the meetings on Dec 4 & 5th. Regards, Stephen Marcus Steve marcus

18 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 MARY LOBLAW Sent: December :30 PM Council <council@portmoody.ca>; <@portmoody.ca> Subject: ONNI application for development, reference # December 2nd, to Comminity Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Re: Application # I have a number of concerns with this application: 1) When I visited "The Grande" on one of their numerous "Grand Openings in August, I was told that another high rise and two low rise buildings would be constructed. The cost of one of their two bedroom suites, with a "view" was over $800, Not small change. Should you allow the changed plan, what happens to the view that people have purchased? ONNI has NO INTEGRITY. They LIED outrightly. Their application for change to City Council was in July. 2) SAFETY - ONNI made NO PROVISION for commercial vehicles, including service vehicles, most notably recycling vehicles, and large recycling bins. It is impossible to see over or around these vehicles which are present for a large part of each weekday. It is a matter of time until someone leaving our underground parking is seriously injured or killed, as other vehicles attempt to reach Murray Street. ONNI made no plans for this, and Port Moody City Council did nothing to ensure that this happened. 3) Traffic congestion safety: double parking often happens in front of the building holding the day care center. It is a question of time until a child is hit, and the opening of the Grande and further construction will not lessen this problem. Should the plan for another tower be approved, more families = more cars. Skytrain does not work for everybody, and the problem will be intensified. 4) When I purchased my home ten years ago, I was told that a hotel would be built by the skytrain station, and that businesses would occupy the lower floors. Seems ONNI has discovered that commercial enterprises require more service and are costlier to serve than the simple build, grab cash and go that apartments provide, and the bigger, the better, because it is a lot more profit for the builder. This builder, if he is following his past pattern, will cancel the plan for the low rise building as soon as he gets the okay for his present plan, and another application will be made for another high rise tower. How many high rise towers can Port Moody accommodate? The builder has no obligation to consider environmental concerns, infrastructure concerns, community needs, and or planning for the area. You, the planning council, do. What are your plans to meet these needs?

19 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 5) Infrastructure - schools. We are told the new plan will require ONNI to pay $10.8 million towards infrastructure. If I understand, it costs $50 million to build a school. ONNI's contribution is rather negligible. What plans does the council have for meeting this need, since the builder is not invested in doing this? 6) Infrastructure - hospital and health needs. Current wait time in emergency is six hours, and transportation to the Royal Columbian or Vancouver General is needed for anything serious. What plans does council have for keeping this from becoming worse? How much is the increased hospital capacity going to cost, and on what land does council see this being put? On the roof of one of the new towers that have been approved or are in the works, perhaps? Really????? I am not opposed to development. I am opposed to development without consideration for the needs of the community involved in the development. Turns out ONNI is not the only developer that council is recklessly and thoughtlessly approving for a multitude of high rises in the area. Will they bring business to the area? Perhaps, but if what you are aiming for is a downtown Vancouver in Port Moody, the same issues will exist that exist there. Families will not be able to live here, because they will not be able to afford to. I purchased in Port Moody because I liked the friendliness, the safety, and the feel that it was a good place for families. If council desires to change the face of the community entirely, this mad building drive will surely achieve that, at the cost of safety, integrity and happiness of both current and future residents, who have been mistakenly trusted their builder and their council. Mary Loblaw , Port Moody, B.C. V3H 0E6

20 CPAC - On-Table Item Original Message----- Rene Gobillot Sent: December :44 PM <@portmoody.ca> Subject: PROPOSED RE-ZONING APPLICATION MEETING-FOLLOW UP Dear Planning Advisory Committee, Our names are Rene' & Lynn Gobillot. We are owners at Suterbrooke Village, The Residences. As we are unable to attend the public meeting we wish to voice our concerns with regards to the impact we feel will be created with Onni's re-zoning application to increase the number of units from 290 to 483 for Parcel D (The Grande). Our condo is on the 20th floor with an East/South/East exposure. Our view of the pedestrian and vehicle traffic is unobstructed, especially the area of Morrisey, Capilano and Brew streets. At certain times of the day noted traffic is congested and chaotic. One of the stated objectives of Port Moody Council was to ensure easy access and movement of both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. We can only imagine how by increasing the number of units from 290 to 483 will effect this lovely village. Traffic will be congested and will certainly be much more difficult for residents to move about. We are definitely opposed to this re-zoning and hope that your Advisory Committee will take a closer look at this proposal and realize how this will impact our community. Regards, Rene' & Lynn Gobillot Sent from my ipad

21 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: E. Lois Brown Onni Development December :58:12 PM I live on in Port Moody and I have serious concerns about the change in development plans for the lot bounded by Ioco Road, Barnet Highway, and Capilano Rd. My main concern is for the increase in automobile traffic that the proposed application will cause. The roads in Suterbrook are narrow and often choked with traffic at present and I don't see any attempt to alleviate this problem in the proposal. Suterbrook is ideal for foot traffic with shops and other amenities close but it will be increasingly difficult to get about safely on foot or by car with added traffic. Thank you for considering this issue. Sincerely. Lois Brown

22 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Bev Pearson Re 300 Morrissey December :19:26 PM Altho I am not personally affected by this development, as I do not live in Suter Brook, I want to voice my opposition to the additional tower. We are crowding way too many people into that small area. Anyone who lives, visits, shops or tries to park there, is aware of how congested it is already. We need to slow down on this, let the tower and low rises that are already approved be built, and then see where we are at. There will always be a developer waiting in the wings if the city decides later that the extra tower is really needed. I am looking at the local paper this evening, and 2 pages after this announcement is news of the development of Moody Center. This is too much, too soon. Bev Pearson Mt Royal Place Port Moody 604-

23 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Nafas Hadi Objection on Onni Development (Ioco Road) Corp. December :49:17 PM Attention Eric Vance: Our property and many others' will be affected by the development of these residential units. We and many others are against this and truly believe that this is not the right move and there are a few reasons for this: We do not understand how this is going to work without sufficient parking lots and space for cars to come in and out since it is so busy here and individuals already have difficulty entering and exiting the parking lot. The view and privacy of our property and many others' will be affected by this development (especially individuals located in South West Aria 2). I highly advise you to take this in consideration. Thank you for your concern. Thank you, Amir

24 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Justin Schrump application # /rezoning proposal December :22:55 PM, As a tax payer of federal, provincial, and municipal levels, what assurance does the public receive to allow amendment to go forward? Increased congestion on new train and current roadways is inevitable. What are the plans for these difficulties? Majority of high income persons commute to the large city for work, will the Murray/Clark overpass congestion ever be alleviated? What are the plans? Safety of environment to Suterbrook Creek Watershed and its surrounding ecosystem? What are the plans? I'm not alone in stating that ONNI has poor reputation for overall construction aesthetics. As an owner, reputation from trade workers, and just opening your eyes. example: Libra phase 1 for Capilano road, appears to have stood a good test of time but during tough economic times 2008/2009 Sutterbrook low rises took poor finishing and a lot shortcuts to exteriors an interiors. With this crazy real estate market its sure to dip at some point; purchasers living in this new construction shall not to bear the cost of looks and who knows what else because ONNI can't pay their bills. -- thanks, Justin Schrump

25 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Irina Gridneva Subject: RA # December :31:13 PM Good Day, Regarding rezoning application # , 300 : Absolutely NO to the second 26 storey tower, I strong believe that my property will be affected by this application. Sincerely, Irina Gridneva -301 Capilano Road

26 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Len McNeely Subject: Onni Development (Ioco Road) Corp. - # December :07:16 PM To whom it may concern: I own an apartment and currently live in the Suterbrook village in the Residences. When I purchased my place, I was aware of the intention of Onni to do further development in the area. However, I cannot support any expansion to the current approved development plan. The current traffic issues continue to be a source of concern. The congestion in and out of Suterbrook is increasingly problematic. I say a strong NO to any approval for any increase to Onni s planning. Thank you. Ryan McNeely - Capilano Port Moody

27 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Robert Perez Subject: Comments regarding application # December :25:49 PM Hello, My wife and I are residents of Suterbrook Village, living on Capilano Rd, and we would like to send this to express our strong opposition to the planned development of second 26-storey on Parcel D at 300. First of all, we would like to say that we appreciate the need for appropriate population density in a community, as this provides some economies of scale when delivering essential services to the community, whether it be services by the city or by local businesses. However, there is such a thing as too much density, as there is ample proof in other cities of this causing excessive traffic congestion, noise pollution, crime or negative environmental issues, thus reducing the quality of life for those living in the area. Currently, Suter Brook already has three towers, and quite a bit of low-rise condos, with approval to build a fourth tower. And now they want to build a fifth tower! Really? In a small area such as Suter Brook Village? It seems that developers only care of building more condos to help their bottom line, without any consideration of the existing infrastructure or environment. First of all, let me say that Capilano road and the other streets in the Village are congested as is, especially during peak hours, and parking is always an issue. The only parking of any size is the underground parking underneath Thrifty s, and it is far from enough for the needs of the people living and working there. We always hear stories of workers having to move their cars during the day just because of the three-hour time limit in the parking, as there is not sufficient parking for them to park for the day. Although Onni is planning on adding parking for the new development, you can be sure that there will not be enough for the additional demand that two additional towers will bring. Also, the plan to add a rental building concerns us, especially considering that some of them will be slated as affordable rentals. Our concern then is what is the target clientele for these rentals. Although we agree that helping those in need is important, we are concerned about the unwanted element that this may bring into our own community, and the crime and noise this may bring. We bought a place at Suter Brook because of the village feel of Suter Brook, as well as the services and greenery that are accessible without the need of a car. Adding two more towers in this area will make this area feel like a concrete jungle and, essentially, destroy the nice village feel of the area and reducing the quality of life of all living in this area. We should not be using space just to build more and more condos; we should also build a balance of housing with enough green space to allow room for our the families to play in nature as much as possible. We should build with the idea of enhancing the quality of our lives, not reducing it! Please do not allow Onni to just do whatever they want; please consider the needs of the people living in this beautiful area. Let s keep this location beautiful and not allow Onni to overrun Suter Brook with their ugly condo tower monstrosities! We will be at the meeting on Dec. 5, but we wanted to express our opinions about this, as we believe that approving this project will be detrimental to all living in this area. We trust that you will see reason and not approve this project. Cheers,

28 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Robert Perez Youngshil Choung

29 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Cc: Subject: Claire and Dave Council Input from CommunityPlanning Advisory Committee member December :30:40 AM Dear Port Moody Council members, I am unable to attend the committee meeting on December 5 due to another meeting. However there are a few points I would like to make: 1. Do any of the newer members on Council remember this company (Onni Development Corp.) promising a hotel on one of their earlier parcels in exchange for increased heights on their buildings? The increased heights were delivered; the hotel was not. The company also tried to hold Council hostage by saying that they could not build the hotel without being allowed to build an additional tower. Sensibly, Council did not allow this. We still don t have the hotel that is no doubt needed in our growing community. This current application sounds to me like another bite at the second 26 storey tower apple. Other than more pressure on our community amenities, road network, etc., what does Council hope that our City and it s citizens will gain from allowing this? The argument used to be we need to increase density to attract Skytrain ; now it has become we need huge development to justify Skytrain. The area around Inlet Centre station has two towers already approved long ago: one on this Onni property, and one on Appia property adjacent to the station. The Coronation Park plan seems to be tending toward more of the same. When is enough enough? 2. My second concern is that developers aren t building the type of housing that we need in our City. Everything being built in towers is far out of the financial reach of most of our children and grandchildren what first-time buyer can afford, without plenty of help from other family members or taking on huge debt, high-end finishes like hardwood floors, quartz countertops, stainless steel appliances etc.? What we need are condos with nice but basic amenities, so that young people or other first-time buyers can upgrade their living spaces when they can afford it in time, and, in addition, have the pride of having worked toward a goal done it on their own. 3. Another concern is that many of our condo units are being bought by investors with the intention of flipping them for huge profits in the future. These investment units are sometimes left vacant, and even if rented, the rents are well above $2000 per month, putting renting out of reach for a lot of our younger residents. Do we want to turn Port Moody into a place where only the downsizers and older folks with money can afford to live while pushing the vibrancy of younger residents out of our community? I appreciate this opportunity to have input into this situation. Regards,

30 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Claire Cummings

31 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Ian McGregor Onni Proposal December :45:26 AM Members of Community Planning Advisory Committee: I moved to Port Moody from downtown Vancouver for a number of reasons - primarily to move into a quieter community with much less traffic. That traffic increased somewhat with the addition of a new tower at 700 Capilano. It would increase even more with the (originally proposed) new single tower at 300 Morrissey. With 2 new towers (current proposal from Onni) it is going to be a nightmare. What we currently have at Suterbrook is a compact, small, unique, sustainable and highly liveable environment - that will be totally destroyed if 2 towers go in. Adding to the potential gridlock caused by the new Onni proposal, there is also the Bossa tower going in next to the Inlet station, and also whatever gets built on the old Firehall/ Works Yard property on Murray. It is going to be almost impossible to get in and out of the Suterbrook area! In other words, it is going to be a zoo! I strongly oppose Onni s new proposal which appears to be a straight money grab, cashing in on improved condo property values in Port Moody. Ian McGregor Ian McGregor, Ph.D Capilano Road, Port Moody P: 604-

32 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Gerald Longson & Colleen Bessel 200 Capilano Road Port Moody, B.C. V3H 5N1 December 01, 2017 City of Port Moody Community Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC) 100 Newport Drive Port Moody, B.C. V3H 5C3 Re: Rezoning Application # This letter is a statement of total nonsupport of the above rezoning application. Three major reasons: 1. Increased Traffic Through Suter Brook The current design of the roads and traffic patterns in the existing neighbourhood and community of Suter Brook will have to adjust and absorb the originally planned traffic from 1,250 residential units previously approved. Suter Brook currently is a well planned walking and pedestrians first neighbourhood. Additional traffic from 193 units will destroy these important livability features of the community. A complete traffic analysis must be carried out and solutions must be approved before a proper review of the application can be made. 2. Strain on Community Facilities and Programs In the City of Port Moody s community plan I see no provisions for the increase in the community facilities and programs. 1,250 originally approved residential units will already put a strain on the existing community facilities and programs and 193 additional units will only increase this strain. A study analyzing the effect of increased residence to the community must be carried out and any additional requirements implemented before a proper review of the application can be made. 3. Sun Light Penetration There are currently only three towers in Suter Brook over 20 stories in height and they are located along the perimeter of the business centre of Suter Brook and thereby permit southern sun light to penetrate to the street level and the pedestrian activities. Adding two 29 storey towers directly south of the Suter Brook core will have the potential to reduce the sunlight penetration to the

33 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1

34 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: chris simons Letter for the PM Community Planning Advisory Committee December :01:09 AM To the Port Moody Community Planning Advisory Committee for Dec 5, 2017 Meeting: My wife and I are residents of ARIA 2 at 400 Capilano Rd (suite ) and wish to communicate our personal opposition to the newly revised plan by Onni to develop the last remaining parcel of land in Suterbrook Village (Parcel D). The original site grand plan, and until recently the proposed development to Parcel D, called for a single high rise along with several low rise developments all in keeping with the rest of the village where high rises are well spaced and the community feels thoughtfully planned out, open, and with plenty of light. This new revised plan has now inserted a second high rise onto this relatively small plot of land. To accommodate the new tower it has been placed virtually across the street from the 400 Capilano tower and in direct line of site of residents on the east side of the nearby 301 Capilano tower, Residents of both towers, especially on the affected aspects, are rightly angry about this revision to the site plan fearing loss of view, loss of morning light claustrophobic proximity to new development and likely loss of value to their own homes. The proposed amenities in no way compensate for over densification of this parcel of land and encroachment on existing developments. In addition, there will be further traffic congestion on these small streets that have very limited street parking. This is a betrayal of those who bought into Suterbrook Village on the understanding that the vision of the site grand plan would be observed and the sense of spaciousness and thoughtful planning and design preserved. The new plan does neither. The Suterbrook residents are developing a coordinated response to Onni s revised proposal including a petition and letter to council registering our opposition. This is our personal response to the Onni Proposal. Thank you for reading our input regarding this very worrisome issue which is literally "in our backyard. We moved to Port Moody for the views, green spaces, and community feeling rather than the dense, crowded streets of downtown Vancouver and now feel mislead and betrayed. Please deny this second High Rise proposal. Sincerely, Dr. Richard Simons and Christine Simons Capilano Rd, Port Moody

35 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 AM L Subject: Rezoning Application # December :38:05 AM Hello Port Moody Planning and Council, Please accept this as written notice of my vehement opposition to the land use change at 300 as proposed by Onni Development. I have lived in Suterbrook Village for several years and have come to really value the quality of life living here has afforded me and my family. We have lived through the construction of 301 Capilano, the Skytrain and the Office Building on Brew Street. The increases in traffic and people in our area were expected. Adding a second tower to the proposed development is unexpected and sure to increase the negative effects of over-densification, while decreasing our "village" quality of life. Please do not support this land use change. Consider first the residents of Port Moody at Suterbrook Village and the surrounding areas, rather than the financials and profits of a development corporation. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this correspondence.

36 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Larry Lee Onni"s re-zoning application - Parcel D (The Grande) December :43:08 AM To whom it may concern; I am the owner of unit Capilano Rd. Port Mood at the Residence. I am totally opposed to the re-zoning application to increase the units from 290 to 483 for Parcel D. My unit, facing north east will be directly impacted as sun light will be totally covered by the tall high-rise building situated right in front of the Residence building. I did not purchase the unit in which I cannot get sunshine in the morning, and if the re-zoning is approved, the real estate value could be potentially impacted as well. I hereby once again state that I strongly opposed to the re-zoning application for Parcel D (The Grande). Larry

37 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Maya MacLennan Onni Development - Parcel D 300 Morrissey December :37:15 PM Onni should not be allowed to increase the number of units it plans to build on Parcel D. Morrissey, Suter Brook, Capilano and Brew streets are currently too narrow to accommodate the traffic that flows through here especially that which goes into the parking lot for Thrifty's customers. There is very little street parking and numerous delivery trucks clog the roads. The heavy traffic currently is dangerous for pedestrians especially seniors and children. Do we really need an increase in the number of people living here plus their vehicles? Despite the convenience of the sky train people will continue to drive. This area is part of a small city but it has big city problems and traffic. Onni is also planning a high rise at Murray and Ioco. When will it stop? Onni cannot be allowed to cram more residential units into such a small space. Those of us who live here should have reasonable access to our homes whether we are walking or driving. They plan their expansion with absolutely no consideration for the people who already live here. Maya MacLennan Morrissey Rd.

38 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Nataliya Richard Objection to Rezoning Onni Development. Affected Home Owner December :17:14 PM Hi there, I'm responding regarding the proposed rezoning application by Onni (# ). I'm a home owner at Suter Brook Village (at 301 Capilano Road building). I would like to OBJECT to the rezoning application that Onni has applied for. Bringing extra residential units will literally kill Suter Brook and Port Moody. 483 extra residential units will potentially bring over 800 extra cars. 1. Allowing to add extra cars will increase the high negative impact on the environment and pollute Port Moody even more as it is right now. (it used to be an oasis of nature it's becoming a metropolis!) 2. High Density on a small area: There is a high density of people living in this community on a relatively small area already. It has gone busier in the last 2 years. 3. No street parking available: due to a lot of businesses opened in the last 2 years and Thrifty foods and the skytrain, there are always cars parked and no parking available at any time 24/7. 4. Skytrain has brought a lot more people to the area already. 5. We should protect Port Moody's nature and not turn it into a metropolis. thank you

39 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Darren Larson Onni Re-Zoning Parcel D December :27:30 PM Good afternoon, I would like to go on record as posting a refusal vote regarding the Onni expansion consideration. 1. They destroyed an ecosystem with no planning or consideration when they terminated the pond area. I get that this is their land to develop, but the current project I am on had to create habitats in place of shore line that was reclaimed. Should their not have been some preplanning to promote betterment project/s throughout this operation? How will the high rise construction affect the fish baring stream adjacent the building? I expect pile driving will be required to provide support for a high rise, more so than the low rise. Are we going to allow them to destroy a local salmon run? 2. This area is not designed to handle existing traffic let alone this level of increase, this portion of my response applies to the selling of the old fire hall as well. Turn it into a park or something usable to the population. Idea, deny Onni's request, the original plan with one high rise and two low rises is more than sufficient and will provide it's own challenges for us all. Designate the old fire hall land area as park and have Onni develop the area, as a requirement of construction, into a similar eco system as the one they destroyed. Create walking trails and connect them to the existing trails around the inlet. Seems to me their has been enough taking by this firm, lets have them give something back as a statement that these actions are not tolerable. Regards, Darren L.

40 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 Subject: Cathy Morton Fwd: Onni Rezoning Application - Suter Brook December :27:59 PM Hello, We sent the attached to Council last month. Please consider it as input with respect to tomorrow night s Community Planning Advisory Committee meeting. We oppose Onni s rezoning application. Thanks! Cathy Morton & Dave Stone Begin forwarded message: Cathy Morton Subject: Onni Rezoning Application - Suter Brook November 11, 2017 at 9:19:47 PM PST Council <council@portmoody.ca> Cc: David Stone Hello, We are residents of The Residences building in Suter Brook. We are out of town and won t be able to attend the Public Open House on November 15. However, we wanted to put our views on the record. We are strongly opposed to any additional Land Use Contract Amendments being granted to Onni. When we moved into Suter Brook over two years ago, we understood that there was only one more high rise tower left to be built. Changing the rules now is not fair to the existing residents of Suter Brook, who bought or moved into the area on the understanding that it would have a village feel and adequate green space. If the density increases, that small-town atmosphere is at a very real risk of disappearing. We do not want Suter Brook to turn into a mini-metrotown. Traffic will also be an issue. While we understand that the idea is to have everyone along the Skytrain corridor using public transit, unfortunately the reality is that many people still need and/or use cars, and will be driving in and out of Suter Brook, adding to the already congested traffic situation. Finally, and most importantly, we are very concerned that the sensitive environmental area around the Suter Brook watercourse will be negatively impacted by the additional development. Suter Brook is home to frogs, salamanders, herons, coyotes, hawks and spawning salmon, all of which we have

41 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1 observed personally. The more development there is on the east side of the stream, the more the ecosystem will be put at risk. Already people trespass in the protected area and smoke and leave litter; adding people to the area will only make this worse. We think the integrity of this ecosystem should be preserved as much as possible, and not threatened by more building and increased human encroachment. Please do not grant the Amendment that Onni is requesting. Thank you, Dave Stone and Cathy Morton -301 Capilano Road

42 CPAC - On-Table Item 4.1