Correspondence — Lisa Carlson (Zoning Amendment to Development - Westhills CD3)

Pages: 47-48

Email

From: Lisa Carlson
Sent: September 12, 2021 8:06 PM
To: Langford Planning General Mailbox
Subject: Zoning Amendment to Development - Westhills CD3

Re:

Westhills Development Zoning Amendment (CD3)/ and pending Parkland Dedication Agreement.

To the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee, City of Langford

The timing of this meeting and the failure to properly notify the community of its occurrence is incomprehensible. Many in the neighbourhood did not get the mail out or only received paperwork photocopied on one side and therefore missed pieces of the communication. The request put forward from community members for the complete package via email was not honoured for many and for others was received on Friday afternoon essentially providing one business day for review prior to this meeting.

It appears the developers are trying to reduce the amount of green space required of them in their development. The 40% land dedication needs to be strongly considered here. The proposal for a park & ride railway platform and parking lot to be included as a portion of the 40% should not constitute parkland in any reasonable person‘s mind. Nor does it appear that a train of any kind will come to fruition, so this seems to be a handoff of space shrouded as Public Use.

The original development plan suggested wetlands and streams would be protected but this has clearly not been a priority. They are requesting approval in their Appendix based on a best guess/rough draft. But as their past has shown they will then ask to significantly redraw maps included in the Appendix and alter what constitutes a percentage of Parkland after the fact. In addition, the plan is for undefined areas to be further developed based on speculative future needs. Shouldn’t there be a master plan put forward that outlines the project in detail based on their biological impact assessments and traffic assessments so that they can accurately understand what the impacts will be before starting? Here we are looking at their request to redraw maps after the fact so that they now look like a development that is significantly different from what was sold to the public. My understanding is that most of the Parkland was to be kept in a natural state and proposed to be improved through removal of invasive species; however, adding paved pathways and synthetic turf and calling it green space is not quite what was proposed by natural state. As a resident who chose to live in this area for its proximity to nature I am beginning to feel I have been sold a false bill of sale by the developers. Suggesting that they are protecting wildlife corridors is laudable. The previous allocations including the bike park have resulted in stream bank erosion, further deforestation (including trees in close proximity to the watershed), constant unsanctioned trail additions, dust creation which impacts the watershed and has been a mess in adjacent neighborhoods, and habitat loss for many of the species that live here. What used to be a wildlife corridor is no more. The section of land at the East end of Commander Court has become an narrow channel with little protection between houses and watershed. The deforestation of mature trees that already started with the additional quad trails has been noted as destructive. One request would be for consideration of Parkland dedicated at the East end of Commander Court in alignment with the green spaces farther up the street to ensure a wildlife corridor is preserved and mature trees remain standing.

Further, including what they are labelling as a rock climbing area in the proposed percentage is just area difficult for them to develop. The Westhills developer’s original commitment to being a leader in green development has been scrapped entirely in this new proposal. There used to be a vision of being a community that other regions of Canada could look up to for its green development. The revised commitment to only achieve bronze LEED standards is yet another example of lowering the bar.

Planning drive‐through banks and fast food chains will only further increase traffic to an area already suffering from overuse. If the City wishes for Langford to rid itself of the stigma of being the ghetto of the CRD, perhaps they shift gears from the garbage producing fast food chain plans and provide the community with restaurants with a little class. The last thing this neighbourhood wants is french fry wrappers and pop cups blowing into Langford Lake. Students at the local high school would benefit from the City approving something other than fast food and poor nutrition.

I understand traffic caused by construction occurring at Westshore Parkway and Sooke Road impacted neighbourhoods negatively; however, adding a road from Alouette Drive to Westshore Parkway is unnecessary and based faulty logic about traffic movement patterns and where people are going to and coming from. The additional proposed road merely reroutes people farther around where they are actually trying to get to. This plan simply shifts the issue of traffic flow from one neighbourhood to another.

In addition, once the elementary and middle schools open and the poorly designed and limited access points on the roadway will become evident at pick up/drop off times, the City can expect traffic jams at the roundabouts, which already happen regularly from Highway 1 through Westshore Parkway past the junction with Langford Parkway and down towards Jacklin Road. A larger Traffic Assessment of the traffic, not just in this area, but how it intersects with the surrounding areas is warranted before proceeding.

I apologize if this comes across as negative but my intentions are for the City of Langford to be a place we are all proud to live, work and play in.

Respectfully,

Lisa Carlson
1407 Commander Court
Victoria BC
V9B0T1

Key facts