A public hearing for White Rock\u2019s newest Official Community Plan revision will take place on July 27 at 4 p.m. in the Gallery Room of the White Rock Community Centre (15154 Russell Ave.)<\/p>\n
The hearing was scheduled after White Rock council gave first two readings on July 13 to a new OCP amendment \u2013 more than six months past the deadline given by the provincial Ministry of Housing.<\/p>\n
The hearing will be the only chance for residents to comment on the revised plan, before it is sent on to Metro Vancouver for a regional context statement.<\/p>\n
Final reading will need to wait until Sept. 21, and, if approved at that time, the OCP will be submitted to the province.<\/p>\n
A majority on council \u2013 in defiance of that Dec. 31 deadline \u2013 shot down the previous OCP amendment in March, arguing that, in its approach to provincial housing targets, it did not accurately reflect the wishes of residents, or the realities of city character, density and infrastructure.<\/p>\n
Coun. Anthony Manning presented a revised land-use concept in April. It re-focuses future density further along the North Bluff Road corridor, inside the town centre, and away from the lower hillside. <\/p>\n
At the July 13 meeting, council members were given a formalized version of the Manning plan, prepared by the city\u2019s planning department, with density analysis and additional expertise contributed by consultants Urban Systems.<\/p>\n
Significantly, the presentation noted that this version of the OCP would leave the city short of the current provincial 20-year housing needs target (8,816) for the city. Mayor Megan Knight confirmed with the presenters that the shortfall would be some 4,600 units.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, the majority (Manning and councillors Christopher Trevelyan, David Chesney and Susan Bains) passed the first two readings, over objections from Knight and councillors Elaine Cheung and Bill Lawrence.<\/p>\n
Those who voted for the current amendment argued that the provincial housing target is \u201ctheoretical\u201d \u2013 and based on policy that has made no allowance for the realities of White Rock\u2019s current high density and already stretched-to-the-limit infrastructure.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese are arbitrary numbers made up in Victoria in an exercise in centralized planning across the entire Lower Mainland that makes no reference to the relevant contexts of individual communities,\u201d Trevelyan said.<\/p>\n
He added he is not willing to capitulate to \u201ctop-down policy.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cJust obeying it and then going out to do photo-ops, do what the province says \u2013 why do we even exist as a council?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf I believed that these arbitrary numbers\u2026 would reduce housing costs, I would be supportive of it. But I don\u2019t. Vancouver has built more than virtually any other city in North America, yet prices have gone up 300 per cent.\u201d<\/p>\n
In opposition, Knight, Lawrence and Cheung criticized Manning\u2019s revision \u2013 presented at the meeting by planning manager Neethu Syam and Urban Systems\u2019 Melissa Clements \u2013 as having no input from planning experts.<\/p>\n
They also noted that new features of the revised OCP amendment will have no opportunity for further public consultation, other than the public hearing \u2013 while stressing that provincial deadlines to finalize the OCP must be met (Cheung quoted yet another warning letter to council from housing minister Christine Boyle).<\/p>\n
They also repeated arguments that the city is \u201cthe creation of the province\u201d and that the province has powers to set goals for local government.<\/p>\n
Among other objections, Knight underlined the revision\u2019s estimated shortfall in meeting the 20-year housing target.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere are we going to put (the 4,600 units)?\u201d she wondered.<\/p>\n
\u201cAre we counting on SSMUH (small scale multi-unit housing) to magically make all those units around the city? Is that the theory?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAt the moment, any development is theoretical,\u201d Manning countered. \u201c(Because) no-one\u2019s really building anything.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat council is trying to do is find a compromise between the additional density uptown, and spreading more density out along our largest corridor, North Bluff (Road),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe should be complementing what Surrey is doing across the street and not trying to compete \u2013 our infrastructure in White Rock cannot take that.\u201d <\/p>\n
Manning added that while he believes that it will be possible to meet housing needs in the long-term \u2013 between SSMUH and the direction of the current OCP \u2013 it is \u201cgoing to be a much slower process.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is potentially going to happen is that, as the (newest OCP report) notes, we do have a stronger emphasis on transition areas, lower-rise residential forms and scaled mixed-use development. And focusing more on six-storey (development) is probably going to see more shovels in the ground than a highrise, in the short term.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cheung said that Manning\u2019s plan, by putting much of the density along North Bluff Road is \u201clike creating a wall that separates White Rock from Surrey.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not an urban planner, but I\u2019m going to guess when you put a wall between two cities it\u2019s probably not the best urban planning practice,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cCan you imagine if you woke up one day and next to your house you\u2019ve got a six-storey building and you didn\u2019t even know, because there\u2019s (been) no public consultation whatsoever?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A public hearing for White Rock\u2019s newest Official Community Plan revision will take place on July 27 at…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":822836,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194299],"tags":[49,48,87674],"class_list":["post-822835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-surrey","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-surrey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/822835","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=822835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/822835\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/822836"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=822835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=822835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=822835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}