Do you have any questions or comments about the Skaha Area Boundary Extension application?

over 1 year ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Consultation has concluded

  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    G) Loss of a beautiful hiking area: Not only will sheep and other protected species lose their habitat, hikers will too! This is a world class hiking area with some of the best views in the valley. There are some amazing trails in both the northern and southern sections of this development. If this were to be made a park (which certain nature groups are pushing for and which could be done if time were given to raise the funds), the endangered species would be protected and at the same time people could enjoy it. Everybody wins.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
      I am willing to contribute financially to any reputable organization willing to purchase that portion (~140 acres) of this parcel proposed for addition to the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park.
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      For many decades this land has been private property and is developable into large-lot country estates under the current regional district zoning. There are no substantive protections in place. Under the current proposal, 50% of the land would (the northern extent of the Skaha Bluffs) be set aside as provincial park and protected from development in perpetuity. About 30% of the hillside would see one or two houses built, with covenants protecting environmentally-sensitive areas and wildlife corridors. About 20% of the land adjacent to the Wiltse neighbourhood would see single-family and multifamily development which would be guided by environmental impact assessments. While protecting all of this land might be the ideal scenario, unfortunately that is not an option on the table in front of us today.
      Hide reply (1)
      • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
        As we discussed at the open house on Saturday, I don't believe COP has made a defensible case for annexing land that is intended to become part of Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park. The best-case scenario for Penticton residents and ratepayers is to compel the owners to subdivide the property into 3 parcels: one that is continguous with the Upper Wiltse development, one that is "a natural fit" with the provincial park, and one that would remain within RDOS that the developer can sell (with covenants) to 1 or 2 well-heeled buyers.Then the option for me to contribute to the purchase of the SBPP parcel would be on the table.
    • Deborah Webb about 2 years ago
      I agree, but only if human access is restricted to foot traffic only, no mountain bikers, no ATVs, no motocross bikes, no BMX bikes.
  • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
    City staff received a letter from BC Parks on Oct. 18 confirming their enthusiasm for the Skaha Bluffs donation proposal and their interest in taking it forward to the minister for consideration. The letter is available in the documents library on this site if you are interested.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
      This is excellent news. Now the CoP should mandate that the owners sub-divide their property so that the portion destined to become part of the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park is excluded from the area to be annexed by the City; i.e. remains within the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Deborah Webb about 2 years ago
        Yes, get the park, but stop the expansion outward of the City boundaries and stop resulting additional 875 car-traffic trips daily, stop luxury condo building and yes build in the areas of the City where there are empty lots and create condos that are smaller scale and rentable for those who cannot afford to buy. Emphasis in the OCP should be on walking, cycling and ELECTRIC bus riding (maybe smaller buses run more frequently - I know it costs more because you still need the overhead cost of 1 driver, but we have to do this!)
  • Kit about 2 years ago
    With every expansion there is a corresponding increase in traffic flows through residential areas in the city. Each new vehicle on the street increases the risk to life and limb of walking or cycling in the city. Will there be any new provisions for making it safer to walk or cycle in Penticton? The current trend is basically ignoring the safety of those who need to use city sidewalks to survive. Until equal attention is given to pedestrians in this city, I will continue to oppose any further additional vehicular traffic.
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
      I have to agree with Kit. They have estimated this development will lead to an extra 875 cars going up/down Wiltse blvd (goes right past the school) and Pineview dr (block away from the school) each day. To me this seems dangerous. It will definitely impact pedestrians and cyclists as well all over the city.
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      Hello Kit. Thank you for your sharing your thoughts. I urge you to get involved in our Official Community Plan process. A key component of that will be discussing and confirming transportation priorities for Penticton for the next 30 years. It would be a great opportunity to advocate for infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Kit about 2 years ago
        As a resident who is non-driver, how does one get involved in the OCP process? Other than open house I see no way to do so.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
          In mid-November we will be holding an intensive 3-day engagement expo in a storefront on Main Street (one block from City Hall). We will be publicizing the dates, times and locations at the beginning of next week. You can also share your thoughts anytime on our Shape Your City webpage.
      • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
        Human-powered transport (walking, cycling) is clearly a very low priority for the City of Penticton. If it was, this would be one of the foremost considerations when planning new housing developments. Building new subdivisions at the farthest reaches of the city -- especially on mountainsides -- virtually guarantees that 100% of daily trips to & from work, school, stores, restaurants, etc. will be in automobiles and trucks.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
          The OCP process is the opportunity to advocate for priorities that differ from our 2002 OCP. If you believe that the emphasis in the new OCP should be on infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, or that growth should be accommodated in particular ways, please add your voice to the conversation.
          Hide reply (1)
          • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
            I look forward to participating in the November 'engagement expo'.
  • PowderSkier about 2 years ago
    I am very disappointed in the city for using that alternate method. It's just like Skaha beach with trio marine. The citizens were not consulted about the decision and we had to take it all the way to court to stop it. I do understand why cities want to expand but maybe its time one city put their foot down and decided to say no to developers and abandon this "growth at all costs" mindset. At least make the developers pay more instead of bending over backwards for them at the expense of us citizens. Shouldn't the citizens come first? Why isn't there a referendum?
    Hide reply (1)
    • PowderSkier about 2 years ago
      Also just wanted to add that we should revitalise the downtown, and get people off the streets before building these sort of luxury houses (which would mostly be for people from Calgary and Vancouver not people from Penticton). Development should not come at the cost of some highly sensitive ecosystems. There is an large empty lot on Eckhardt st and several others in this area (as well as some at the south end of town). If you really have to develop, why not develop these first? Why not develop Sage Mesa? (This would be closer to the city than the proposed development and wouldn't destroy highly sensitive ecosystems.)
  • Timjw about 2 years ago
    I cant find the link to the Petition...
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      It is the first item in our Document Library on the right hand side of this webpage:http://www.shapeyourcitypenticton.ca/skaha-bluffs-area-boundary-extension
    • Somazx about 2 years ago
      It appears to be the document on the right-hand side titled Elector Response Form Boundary Extension (116 KB) (pdf). So there isn't actually an "online petition", just a form.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
        The Community Charter, which governs the electoral approval process, requires that individuals fill out petition forms and return them to City Hall. On-line petitions are not a permitted way to seek electoral approval (similarly, elections and referendums cannot be held on-line). We have tried to facilitate this process by providing copies of the petitions at our public engagement events, at City Hall and on-line.
  • Gladys Kusmack about 2 years ago
    With all the development that has transpired in the last few years, I see no reason to expand. Wildlife is already stressed and I'll bet that whatever is built is financially unattainable for a greater number of the population of Penticton. I haven't seen anything in the last few years that a young family (probably working 2 jobs each) could afford.
    Hide Replies (6)
    • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
      What's interesting about this application is that 80% of the land is dedicated for conservation and only 20% for residential. The developers are proposing to donate 150 acres of the 300-acre parcel to BC Parks as an expansion of the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park. This should help to protect the habitat and access for recreational users. You may also find it interesting that the City has not applied to annex land in more than 30 years. The majority of development has been focused on densification of the core of the City. Homes in this development are expected to be about $450K or more and would not be considered part of Penticton’s affordable housing solution. However, affordable housing is ideally located in more central locations with better access to transit, jobs and other services.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Gladys Kusmack about 2 years ago
        $450K may sound reasonable to you, but in fact it is not. Housing is out of control in Penticton. Developers are riding high on this to the detriment of young people wanting to purchase a home. Not to mention that there are people living in tents and on the street because rentals have become outrageous based on "value". I'm sure the developer is not planning to build low income properties in the mix. Follow the money.
      • Jack about 2 years ago
        The fact that no annexation has occurred in such a long time strongly suggests that the AAP is inappropriate. This should be subject to a full referendum. This is not minor nor is it 'housekeeping', Council has made a bad decision to select the AAP.
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        According to the Wiltse Area Structure Plan, after the full development is completed only 57 % of the land will be left untouched, and of this land the majority is not planned to be donated to BC Parks or the Nature Conservancy. How do we know it is protected? The idea of donating land to parks seems to be to shut up activists and trick people into thinking they will protect the environment when for the large part they will destroy it. Has anyone realised that the part they are donating is also the part they can't develop? This should all be park and would be if only they would give the nature groups time to finish raising funds in order to buy it.
        Hide reply (1)
        • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
          I am willing to contribute financially to any reputable organization willing to purchase that portion (~140 acres) of this parcel proposed for addition to the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park.
      • Somazx about 2 years ago
        There is no way they'll start at $450K at current market prices. I think $550K minimum.
  • BLH about 2 years ago
    As is commonly the case, when developers, either private or the city, finally leak a proposal, it is assumed that few choices are available, other than some variation of what those developers expect.THAT IS NOT THE CASE: the simple option here is to purchase the property in question and add it to Skaha Bluff Park. The province should be involved, and they should offer most if not all of the purchase price, with local taxpayers contributing some percentage, say 10% for the sake of negotiation. The presence of housing is a real and significant threat to the environmental integrity of the Bluffs, and it will simply aggravate the intense displacement and alienation of wildlife, specifically but not only bighorn sheep, now happening on a regular basis. OF course, housing will simply outright destroy habitat, which is a complicating and irreversible impact. Obviously, a management plan that PROTECTS the bluffs first, and then, and only then, permits some human use on very specific trails and bluffs, needs to be in place. Thie question of Penticton taxpayers contributing to the purchase price would be an appropriate referendum question on the ballot in the next municipal elections, worded something like this: Are you willing to have the city collect $10 from each taxable property for (aiding) the purchase of the property (define it) near Skaha Bluff Park in order that it be added to the Park?Nothing complicated here, other than the COP - mayor, council and senior managers - ideological capture by developers and the destructive and failed "growth at all cost" mentality. The solution remains simple: no housing development, and an expanded Skaha Bluff park benefiting all regional Okanagan residents.
  • Stephen about 2 years ago
    1) Using land for city growth is important to the future of Penticton. So in general this is a great idea, but yes there are many items within this proposal that can use some more defining or review. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) If possible rather than doing generic area maps, create more of a full rendering of what the area use and layouts would be. Showing the number of parks, multi-family houses, single family houses, roads, and what the natural area will be left. As at the moment there is a specific # of housing units defined but no details of where/how those will be laid out.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) I highly advise that the city look at for the actual building/use of the housing. Ideally this housing would follow in the Whistler program of being sold to only people that are actually living in the community. Penticton has a massive problem with housing and many of these new developments do little to help the "locals" actually access housing, due to the focus of the real estate agents and marketing push to outside Penticton people buying vacation properties. At the proposed starting price of $450k+ means this project has little value to help the local market find housing. As $450K being the starting point, and with townhouses being apart of that pricing model, means a house will be $600+ and beyond. Also the Whistler program expands past just the sale of properties it also spells out rental policies, ensuring that while not all can afford to buy a place even the rental use of those places need to be inline with the sale requirements. Here is a summary of the rules for housing purchases from the Whistler project:- All applicants must be of legal age, Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, must be qualified employees or retirees, and must be pre-approved for a mortgage. - Employees must work a minimum average of 20 hours per week within Whistler. - A retiree is someone who was employed in Whistler for five of the six years prior to ceasing employment. - Applicants or their spouse must not own, either personally, jointly or indirectly through a trust or business assets, any real estate anywhere. - More Details: https://goo.gl/iRwZvF (Whistler Affordable Housing) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4) If the city doesn't want to allow these new housing units to be for locals, then that means this should be done as a money generation project rather than a cost to the city. As If you don't setup this for the local community the people that are going to actually benefit from this are the real estate agents, the housing developers, and the banks. To change this, the housing developers should have the land cost more to get access to do these developments. As lets just do the basic math based on the facts shared:- 180 new units/housing is apart of the plan.- $450,000 is the entry point for the units/housing.= At least $81,000,000 in housing will be sold.- While it is unknown what the $450k starting price will get in this new development, since we know the new development has planned to have multi-family townhouse/apartment style units let us take a real 1 bedroom price currently for sale in Penticton. That 1 bedroom price is: $124,000 ( https://goo.gl/EjeUQg ) and if 1 bedroom isn’t a fair comparison lets go for a 2 bedroom at $164,000 ( https://goo.gl/QYViQ8 ). - So we know the “market” value/rate for a entry 2 bedroom home in Penticton is $164,000 which means since this development isn’t intended to service/sell to the local market they are adding $268,000 to the price as they know people in Vancouver, Calgary and other outside cities have excess cash and are able to afford this premium pricing.- At the markup of $268,000 per unit, means there is $48,240,000 profit on the table that at the moment is being shared by the real estate agents, the housing developers, and the banks. - Based on the report this development will cost $17,000,000 to the city to have these new housing. While yes in the next 60 years we can get back tax revenue but why is it that the banks, real estate agents and developers get paid now get to re-invest and make more money but the city not only losses more housing for locals, it needs to have added financial stress.- Based on the above what I propose is that this goes to a bid for developers that want to get this contract to develop the area. Not only do they need to develop it, but they would also need to pay the city $17,000,000 on top of any other cost to get access to the development of this land. Yes it might mean they can’t buy that extra Ferrari or another Yacht but it means that since they’re doing this project for pure profit that this shouldn't be a cost to the city and still leaves over $31 million in profits to the developer.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5) Yes I’m aware that this is private land that the owner of the land normally is the one that decides what all happens and what pricing and developer decisions. But since this is private land that NEEDS the city’s approval to have zoning changed, the future of this space is in a lot of ways directly controlled by the city. So while it might take some legal work, and thinking it should be possible to either require this land to be used inline like Whistler does for locals, or have a fee added to the zoning application that would cover the costs to the city ($17m).
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    Here is why I am opposed to this project:
    Hide Replies (3)
    • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
      Thank you for adding your insightful input. Clearly you have given this matter a great deal of thought.
    • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
      ooops ! I sincerely hope you didn't misconstrue my reply ... it was certainly was not meant to be sarcastic. Here is what I meant to say ... Thank you for adding your insightful input elsewhere on this page. Clearly you have given this matter a great deal of thought.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        Oh I'm sorry trying to hit like for your comment but accidentally disliked it I guess. I really do appreciate your comments and like your idea of only developing the northern part of land while protecting the more sensitive centre and southern parts. I will try to find the info about the nature group who is interested in protecting the land. If it comes down to it I could contribute financially as well. Thanks!
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    A) Poor investment: Yes, the developers and home buyers will bear the brunt of the cost, but still the city and we, the taxpayers, will have to pay an estimated 17 million dollars* for this project (water system will need to be upgraded, roads will need to be redone, and police and fire boundaries will need to be extended etc). The estimated tax return for the city is 450 thousand dollars/yr.* Residents would have to pay this tax money for decades before the city would break even! To me that seems like a waste of money.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      Over 60 years we anticipate $26M in tax revenue from the 180 new homes in this proposed development; the costs to maintain the infrastructure and to service (fire, police, waste, etc) this area is $17M. The balance of this money would go to support city-wide infrastructure and services. Additional taxes from this development would go to the school district, RDOS and hospital. Further, $4,500,000 in Development Cost Charges would support city-wide infrastructure. Please see the 60-year financial analysis we generated for this project:http://www.shapeyourcitypenticton.ca/4184/documents/7999
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        60 years is ridiculous. Why not base your calculations on something more reasonable like 25 years. And by the way the net revenue is only 9 million. That is very little. If you really want to push this project you would have to have the developer bear more of the costs because we tax payers don't want this burden.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
          60 years was chosen because that is the time frame for major renewal of infrastructure (for example replacement of water mains), which represents a significant cost. If we chose 25 years, the finances would actually look much more favourable as those high costs would be left out of the equation.
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    D) Sneaky Extension: The city claims the development includes 180 homes, but clearly it includes a lot more than that. Wiltse Holdings site they are planning to start with 670 residences in the north lot and 180 in the south*. There will be shopping centres, offices, townhouses, duplexes and apartments as well as family homes. On top of all that the already have plans for a Benchlands extension*!
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      The area under consideration for the Boundary Extension is the South Wiltse Block only, which under our OCP is likely to accommodate about 180 homes. The North Wiltse Block, which you refer to, is already within city limits.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        Well the southern block gets approved then the northern block will likely go ahead. Does Penticton really need some 850 more half- million dollar houses? Shouldn`t we be more concerned about affordable housing and development in the lower city?
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    C) Lack of Transparency: This project has been extensively planned for years without citizens knowing about it but it was only announced this February*. In fact, in May 2014 they came out with a 132 page structure plan* with architect's drawings of future shopping centres, houses etc. Clearly, they have been working on this for years behind everyone's backs. They have hidden information because they don't want a referendum. They have also changed the name from "Upper Wiltse Development" to "Skaha Bluffs Park Expansion". They also have intentionally mislead citizens into thinking this is a project to protect the environment. A lot of people haven't even heard there is any development associated with this "Park Expansion"! The reality is that this will destroy 100s of acres of highly sensitive land. The park expansion was only added to the project to shut up nature advocates.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      The Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan was added to our OCP in 2014 after extensive community engagement including two open houses (2013 & 2014) and a formal Public Hearing at City Council. A number of people attending the recent open houses stated that they had attended the earlier engagement on the Plan and were familiar with what it proposed.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        Well this is what castanet said : "When news of the possible expansion first broke in February, recreational users were anxious about what the development might mean to the area." Nobody I know knew about this before this spring.
  • Rhea about 2 years ago
    I have just come from the open house at PTCC and am very conflicted about this project, as well as others that are projected. While this project definitely has its pros, namely increased park land & protected wildlife corridors as well as a logical extension of an existing neighbourhood, in my view it still represents urban sprawl and even though the housing proposal provides for a range of pricing, none of it would fall into the 'affordable housing' category, which is what we need most - and even if it did, the transportation costs would not be affordable. Between this extension of the Wiltse area and the other one that is also being planned, it is MASSIVE urban sprawl, and when combined with potential development on Campbell mountain, started and partially completed development up Lawrence Avenue in and above the old gravel mining pit, as well as the developments on the other side of the valley, we have significant urban sprawl around the city. Is this wise, given the finite space and resources, including water, that we have here? What about all the natural habitat being lost and wildlife being displaced? So we provide a 'corridor' - that's only a small piece of the puzzle. And, of course the rock we are surrounded with means blasting in inevitable, which is actual destruction of the existing terrain. Everyone agrees the Okanagan is beautiful; clearly though, it's not 'good enough' because so many people feel the need to destroy and/or spoil it. So sad. :(
    Hide reply (1)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      Thank you for taking the time to attend our open house and to share your thoughts. Weighing the pros and cons of different growth models will be a key element in creating our Official Community Plan. I invite you to join us get involved in that process in the months ahead. You can find out more information on our Shape Your City OCP page.
  • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
    What are the potential increased costs for utilities, policing, emergency response, schooling, public transportation, bylaw enforcement, wildlife management, etc. that would be borne by residential ratepayers ?
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      This boundary extension and subsequent development is intended to provide a net benefit to the residents of Penticton in tangible and intangible ways. The developers will provide all new infrastructure (about 2000m of new roads, plus utilities – sewer, water and electricity) to service the area. The future tax revenue (about $500,000 to the City) is estimated to be able offset the costs associated with maintaining the infrastructure and providing services such as snow clearing, emergency response and so on. There will also be a number of valuable unique benefits that are harder to quantify, specifically a significant expansion of parkland within city limits, plus new trails and protected wildlife corridors.
      Hide Replies (4)
      • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
        The accepted way of determining the expected financial benefits of any long-term investment is to plug the estimated annual cash outlays and revenues or savings into a spreadsheet and calculate the Net Present Value. If it is a positive number then you have a good case to proceed. If not, then further qualitative evaluation (of intangible benefits) might tip the scales in its favour. The additional infrastructure installed by the developer would become CoP assets and therefore would impact our so-called infrastructure deficit.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
          Just wanted to let you know that we were able to put together a summary of estimated financial impacts and an outlook for 60 years for the proposed development. I hope it helps answer some of your questions. It is in the library on this site.
      • janiec about 2 years ago
        I am rather at a loss to understand the tangible benefits to the residents of Penticton. If future tax revenue raised will offset the costs associated with maintaining the new infrastructure and cover the additional costs of providing other services to the new development, how is it a tangible benefit? It does nothing to add to the actual tax base of the City. For example no additional funds for running an ever expanding City Hall or improving aging infrastructure in the City.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
          Please have a look at the 60-year Financial Analysis we have created:http://www.shapeyourcitypenticton.ca/4184/documents/7999It indicates that this development would provide a significant amount of tax revenue to support city-wide infrastructure and services. Over 60 years, this area could generate about $41M in taxes; $26M of this would be municipal taxes. The cost of servicing this area, maintaining infrastructure and renewing infrastructure, would be $17M. Additionally, this development would pay $4.5M in Development Cost Charges, which would go to support city-wide infrastructure, in our water treatment plant. On top of this purely financial benefit, there is the opportunity to create 150 acres of actively-used parkland from what is currently private property.
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    *References:1 City of Penticton Website http://www.shapeyourcitypenticton.ca/4184/documents/79992 City of Penticton Website, Questions and Comments about Skaha Bluffs Area Boundary Extension, COP Community Engagement replying to Gladys Kusmack http://www.shapeyourcitypenticton.ca/skaha-bluffs-area-boundary-extension/forum_topics/do-you-have-any-comments-about-the-skaha-area-boundary-extension-application#comments3 City of Penticton Website, Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan, p27 http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20M%20-%20Upper%20Wiltse%20Area%20Structure%20Plan.pdf#search="upper wiltse area structure plan"4 Skaha Rockclimbs, Howie Richardson, p23http://www.highcol.ca/downloads/preview-skaha-rockclimbs.pdf5 Castanet Website, Skaha Bluffs Park may growhttps://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/206992/Skaha-Bluffs-Park-may-grow6City of Penticton Website, Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20M%20-%20Upper%20Wiltse%20Area%20Structure%20Plan.pdf#search="upper wiltse area structure plan"7City of Penticton Website, Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan, p44-48 http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20M%20-%20Upper%20Wiltse%20Area%20Structure%20Plan.pdf#search="upper wiltse area structure plan"8City of Penticton Website, Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan, p58-59 http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20M%20-%20Upper%20Wiltse%20Area%20Structure%20Plan.pdf#search="upper wiltse area structure plan"9City of Penticton Website, Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan, p81-82 http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20M%20-%20Upper%20Wiltse%20Area%20Structure%20Plan.pdf#search="upper wiltse area structure plan"10City of Penticton Website, Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan, p83 http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Land~Use/Schedule%20M%20-%20Upper%20Wiltse%20Area%20Structure%20Plan.pdf#search="upper wiltse area structure plan"
  • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
    The decision by council members, in my opinion, demonstrates their continued lack of respect for the citizens they are elected to represent. The onus should be on the City to convince its electorate that the benefits of the expansion far outweigh any financial costs that would be borne by residential ratepayers. There was no attempt during the September 19 council meeting to quantify the costs or benefits associated with boundary extension application ... nor was there any attempt to estimate the environmental impacts or the increased financial liability associated with recreational incidents on the portion of Skaha Bluffs that would fall within city limits. Let's hope they correct this during the October 2 council meeting when this matter is raised again !
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this initiative on our Shape Your City page. Bringing this parcel into city limits has been considered since 2014, when our Official Community Plan was amended to include the North and South Wiltse Blocks after public consultation and a Public Hearing. This initiative is seen as a way to accommodate our growing city in an environmentally- and financially-sustainable way. Development on these lands is limited to the northwest portion, where it will form an extension of the existing Wiltse neighbourhood, building on existing streets and services. The developers will be responsible for building any new infrastructure (roads and utilities), while the new development will contribute about $500,000 in property tax to the City each year, which in our evaluation more than covers the cost of servicing the development. The environmental benefits will be significant. About half of the parcel – 150 acres of ecologically-valuable land in the Skaha Bluffs – is proposed to be gifted to the Province as an expansion of the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park. This land is currently private and could be developed for rural residential uses; as a park it would be protected in perpetuity and public access will be guaranteed. We would also see new parkland and trails within the development dedicated to the City through the development process. All development will be guided by an Environmental Impact Assessment and archeology study to protect ecological and cultural values. The 2014 Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan, now part of the OCP, was guided by extensive environmental analysis (I would be happy to share the studies at any time). As the development proposal evolves through the zoning, OCP and subdivision process, we can more accurately quantify the costs and benefits of the development. There will be numerous opportunities for public input on these numbers at public meetings and Public Hearings. We welcome your continued involvement.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
        My prediction is that the combined attendance at the 2 open houses plus the community market booth will not exceed 10% of the electorate leading council and city managers to conclude, erroneously, that there is overwhelming support for the proposed boundary extension. Have we not learned a valuable lesson from the recent foray into commercialization of Skaha Lake Park ?
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
          Please know that information about the application and the alternative approval process has been reported in all print and online news sources which have thousands of readers. We have also advertised the open houses in the newspapers and have included an article about the application and the process in the October utility newsletter. The goal of the open house activities is to give people who have questions multiple opportunities to speak to staff in person in order to form their opinion and decide whether or not they oppose the application.
        • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
          This alternative method violates the citizens right to know about and have a say in a decision of such magnitude. This will be the first annexation in 30 years and will has been planned in conjunction with Lot A (northern lot) so that when this land is combined it will form a development with over 850 houses and plans to also build what they are calling "The Benchlands" later on. Usually this alternate method is only used when there are no other options. Here it is being used to push this through before citizens find out about it and oppose it.
  • Anette E about 2 years ago
    The access through Evergreen Drive goes by Wiltse School. Both Pineview and Wiltse Blvd will see increasing traffic if the subdivision growing. Do we really want to have a school between 2 main roads?
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
      I spoke with Michael Hodges, a City engineer, and he clarified that the only road travelling past Wiltse Elementary is Balsam Avenue. Evergreen Drive does intersect with Balsam Avenue but does not travel by the school. He also offered that in general, schools are located on roads designed for traffic to allow for the people to access the school for drop off and pick up.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Anette E about 2 years ago
        In general, schools are located on roads designed for traffic? Is that still what planners want? Increase traffic next to schools? Both, Wiltse Blvd and Balsam Ave travels by this school. The main access is from Wiltse Blvd.
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        The Wiltse Area Structure Plan estimates that the new development will lead to 650 more trips up and down Wiltse blv each day! How can kids are safe with all those extra cars going by (sorry to inform you but Wiltse blvd also does travel past the school, in fact it is the main access to the school) and why is Wiltse blvd going to be used as the northern access in the first place?
  • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
    What is the estimate of increased financial liability the City would inherit from RDOS and the current land owners for climbing incidents on Skaha Bluffs ?
    Hide Replies (4)
    • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
      Thank you for clarifying that the intent is to gift the 150 acres of ecologically-valuable land in the Skaha Bluffs to the Province as an expansion of the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park. What is the potential that the province will refuse the gift and the financial liabilities are assumed by the CoP ?
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
        While a decision on the park expansion will need to be made at a senior level in the Provincial Government, we are optimistic that the Province will accept the donation. For a number of years, BC Parks has been interested in acquiring this portion of the lands but was not able to. The new landowners, however, have made their intention to donate the land clear.
        Hide reply (1)
        • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
          None of the information provided by COP thus far has made it clear what benefits would accrue to the residents of Penticton that WOULD NOT ACCRUE if the 140 acres destined to become part of the Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park was eliminated from the annexation.Q: As there is no tax revenue to COP associated with that portion of the parcel, why should COP ratepayers be exposed to its associated costs ; i.e. subdivision fees, policing, emergency response, garbage removal (including illegal dumping), liability claim settlements, etc. ?
      • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
        Just hoping the province is going to take the land is not enough. There needs to be a concrete plan in place. This lack of planning could lead to the city being liable for incidents which we as tax payers will have to pay for.
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    F) Poor City Structure: The city should not be funding all these urban sprawl projects; it really takes away from the sense of community. We need to revitalise lower Penticton. Build nice, affordable, high density apartments downtown and surround them with green-space. Get the people off the streets before you think about building stuff for rich people.
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    E) Disruption of neighbourhoods: There is a plan to build a road connecting Evergreen Dr to Valleyview Rd.* This sure won't make Valleyview residents happy. For those of you who haven't driven this road it is a narrow windy lane where cars must pull over to let each other by. Also, increased traffic in the Wiltse neighbourhood will be an issue with over 400 more people driving past each day*. This is especially a cause for concern on Pineview Rd, which is only one block away from the school (would be the southern access to the development)* and Wiltse Blvd, which goes right past the school (this would be the north entrance to the development)*. You be the judge is it good having two main roads run right past an elementary school?
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    B) Environmental Impact: Technically this deal would increase the park but it will in fact destroy the habitat of Big Horn sheep (a protected species), Night snakes (only 40 known in BC, 2 of which have been found in this lot!)*, the pallid bat (red list threatened), Western skinks (endangered), white-throated swifts (endangered) and many others*. There is also lots of unique flora and vegetation. Ecoscape* rates 64.5% of this land under question as highly sensitive.
  • Rockclimber101 about 2 years ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • Robin Sims about 2 years ago
    Enough is enough, this plan means more cars, more taxes, more people in our already overcrowded city, and only the rich will be able to afford to buy these 500Grand ++ houses. Forget the plans, turn all the land into parkland. Put these houses up there and the first big fire that roars through with the fierce south winds, and you'll have a lot of sorry and some dead people. Is this city council really crazy determined to develop to what end? Surely Sonora Canyon provides obvious evidence development in the hills is just plan wrong.
  • amaas about 2 years ago
    I live in the Evergreen Drive area and am mostly concerned about the increased traffic up and down this currently quiet residential road that will no doubt be a result of this new development. It will be the sole regular entry/exit road to the new 180 residences, which will most likely mean an additional 360+ vehicles up and down Evergreen and also Pineview, which is an extremely winding and narrow road in places. I have significant safety concerns regarding this project. I attended the 5 October Wiltse School Open House and was advised by a City official that traffic studies have been carried out and it has been determined that Pineview/Evergreen can handle this increased traffic. I have my doubts. While Penticton city expansion is probably inevitable, I really feel that the existing road system cannot handle expansion on this scale in this particular area of town. Too bad 10% of Penticton residents have to oppose this project to block it; probably only Wiltse area residents will demonstrate their opposition, which will no doubt fall short of the 10% requirement.
  • Vic about 2 years ago
    Should we not be thinking about upgrading the old infrastructure of our water, sanitary and storm sewer lines, curbs and street repairs or is that not on the agenda anymore.
  • dilaur about 2 years ago
    wondering if all this building activity is going to necessitate another firehall up on the east bench?
    Hide reply (1)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      Thank you for your question. Penticton Fire and Rescue Services have been involved in assessing this development. This project will add about 1% to our total housing stock and is well within our fire service area, so it will not require another fire hall in this area. In fact, this development will increase fire protection in the Valleyview area by increasing water flow to their hydrants.
  • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
    Increased GHG emissions and human--wildlife encounters are inevitable.with this proposed boundary extension. Have the environmental impacts associated with residentlal development in the proposed area (a) during the construction phase and (b) ongoing after completion been quantified ? If so, what are those estimates ? If not, why not ?
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      As we grow as a city, we need to accommodate growth in a range of suitable ways, including infill development, densification and new neighbourhoods, such as this one. The new development in the Skaha Bluffs area are limited to a portion of the lands immediately adjacent to the Wiltse neighbourhood, and can build on the existing street and utility network. The environment will be protected through the preservation of wildlife corridors, avoiding environmentally-sensitive areas, and securing significant portions of the land as park. The proposed land use plan is based on the 2014 Area Structure Plan, which was guided by intensive environmental studies. As the development proposal gets refined through the upcoming planning process, quantification of benefits and costs will become easier and will be shared with the community. The principles of growth in a logical place and environmental protection will go a long way to minimize any costs.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • PT Gayler about 2 years ago
        Growing as a city should never come at a price to the environment. Bigger is not better. Perhaps it is time to abandon the 'growth mindset' and replace it with a one based on improving quality of life for residents, minimizing our impact on our environment, and optimal use of residential ratepayers property tax and utiity payments ?
        Hide reply (1)
        • CathB about 2 years ago
          We also need more affordable housing, I very much doubt 180 houses on the outskirts of town is going to do anything for that. It doesn't seem like city officials are really listening to ALL of the people in the city of Penticton. Just money talks. The expansion of the park is the only good thing about this! Barely any infrastructure costs to add and the benefits to the community would be present as we would continue to build our image as a family friendly and environmental city.
      • Rhea about 2 years ago
        Regardless, projects like this, Sendero Canyon, Skaha Hills, and (potentially) Campbell mountain, etc are contrary to a goal of reducing/preventing urban sprawl. While I realize that the City is not responsible for all of these projects, it is responsible for some of them. As I understood it, a major aspect of the official community plan was to promote densification and prevent urban sprawl. Now we have BOTH happening and given that we are in a finite space geographically with limited water, this does not seem wise in terms of ecological/environmental sustainability. Also, I wondered if the city has considered adding a special 'tax' for each new development to contribute to affordable housing? If each new $450,000+ home built over the past 2-3 years had contributed $1000, we'd already have funds for some decent affordable housing.
  • Pepper about 2 years ago
    Where is the online AAP petition ...?
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
      The form is in the document library. I have moved it up to the top of the list so it is easily visible. It's called the Elector Response Form. In accordance with the procedure outlined in the Community Charter, the Elector Response Forms must be delivered by mail or in person to Dana Schmidt, Corporate Officer, City of Penticton, 171 Main Street, Penticton, BC, V2A 5A9 by October 31, 2017 at 4:30 pm to be considered.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Rhea about 2 years ago
        Such an onerous process sounds like a system designed to reduce or prevent community feedback!
        Hide reply (1)
        • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
          Hi Rhea, The electoral approval process is governed by the Community Charter but you can provide feedback in a variety of forms including in this forum. I hope to see you at one of the information sessions as I would be happy to discuss the proposal with you and record your comments to share with Council.
  • limnogirl about 2 years ago
    Where can I access the Appendices and Figures from the Upper Wiltse Area Structure Plan (2014) Final Report? They are not included in the report available on this website. Thanks!
    Hide Replies (3)
  • Jack about 2 years ago
    What will be the access roads to the new residential area?Will Utilities be brought into the area on each access road?How will water be delivered to the site, a new developer funded Reservoir or developer funded pump station? Will water pressure be adequate for fire protection hydrant flows?Valleyview Rd appears to be on the western boundary of the new development, will hydrant flows be upgraded on Valleyview?Will storm and sewer pipes under existing streets that are downstrem from the new development need to be upsized to accomodate the extra flow, if so at whose cost?
    Hide Replies (8)
    • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
      I have posted a Q&A in the Library for Valleyview residents to answer the specific questions for that area. Please take a look. I have also put the answers in here.
      Hide Replies (7)
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        1. What will be the access roads to the new residential area? The proposed development requires two access points. The first is through Evergreen and the second is a connection to Valleyview Road. The extension to Evergreen Drive is expected to be the main access for the development. While detailed plans have not been fully finalized, the connection to Valleyview is currently planned to be an emergency egress that will be closed to the public except in emergencies. The connection to Valleyview could be opened to the public if the plans change, but the City would require a traffic study to determine the impact on traffic volumes and traffic safety prior to considering opening this access road to the public.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        2. What is the source of water for the new development?The first phase of this development will receive domestic water (drinking and fire flow) from the Carmi Reservoir which is supplied primarily by Okanagan Lake. After the first phase the water supply plan outlined in the current OCP will be implemented. This involves a water booster station and a new tank and additional piping. While the detailed design of this system has not been completed and some of the details may change, the system would be provided at no cost to the City and the cost would be shared by the developers of this parcel and the North Wiltse parcel.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        3. Will the proposed development affect water pressure for Valleyview residents?The proposed development will be required to connect to the Valleyview water system. This connection will only allow water to flow into Valleyview water system, due to the difference in operating pressures of the system. This connection will not increase the maximum operating pressure of the Valleyview system, but will reduce pressure fluctuation and increase water flow during high use times. This connection will also provide required fire flows into the Valleyview system. It will not fully rectify the deficiencies in the Valleyview system, but it should resolve many of the issues experienced by local residents.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        4. Will the proposed development impact irrigation to Valleyview?Valleyview irrigation water is provided from the Ellis Creek Dam. Irrigation water is not affected by this new development. The new development will receive all domestic water (drinking and fire protection) from the potable system.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        5. Will utilities be brought into the area on each access road? While the detailed design has not been completed, City utilities are to be provided to all lots created and we expect that these utilities will be within the road reserves. The utilities on Evergreen drive have been designed for this long planned extension and the utilities under the existing road are not expected to require upgrade, although until the detailed design is completed this cannot be confirmed. The only possible exception to roads having all utilities under them would be before the connection to Valleyview as at this stage only water and possibly electrical utilities will be placed under this road. Again the detailed design phase will determine if the development required utilities under this access road.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        6. Valleyview Road appears to be on the western boundary of the new development. Will hydrant flows be upgraded on Valleyview? As part of this proposed development, the developer will be required to make a water connection into Valleyview Road. This connection will provide a looping of the development area improving water quality within the development and increasing domestic water supply to the end of Valleyview Road. The connection will also provide the required fire flows. While this will greatly improve water availability along Valleyview Road, its full impact will not be determined until the detailed design phase.
      • Admin Commented COP Community Engagement about 2 years ago
        7. Will storm and sewer pipes under existing streets that are downstream from the new development need to be upsized to accommodate the extra flow? If so, who will pay?When this development was planned for in the OCP, the impact on downstream infrastructure was studied and the required infrastructure upgrades were included in the OCP. These upgrades will be paid for by the developer to the extent that they are required for the development. The City may also fund part of these upgrades to meet our own capacity needs to deal with our existing system shortfalls. As the development moves into the detailed design, these reviews will be redone to ensure that all required upgrades are carried out, at the developer’s expense, as part of this development.
  • Wayne about 2 years ago
    The people that've proposed the annexation need to realize that if they want to truly be considered part of the community it is not free. Conditions need to be imposed that include:- property taxation on the basis of the current market value of the land annexed. The land should not be valued based on some hypothetical agricultural use value which artificially understates the true market value of land. - the full cost of the extension of all hard utilities (e.g. roads, sidewalks, water mains and pump stations, upgrades to existing systems, sewer, electric etc. will be fully paid for by the developer as well as the owner of any subdivided lot.- the full cost of other services (police, fire, transit, parks, etc.) will by fully paid for by the developer and the owner of any subdivided lot.and appropriately registered on any future titles to subdivided land.- the developer will indemnify the current residents of the city against any potential costs that are not identified in the above.If these land owners want to be fully contributing members of the city they need to provide thorough assurances, guarantees, indemnities and other tools that safeguard the financial interests of the current residents.Thank you.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Ben Johnson, Special Projects Manager, City of Penticton about 2 years ago
      Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Wayne. Once the land is brought into the city it will be subdivided and zoned - to residential (R and MR) and parkland (P). There will likely also be an area of country residential (RC) for an area of largely natural lands that may see one or two houses not serviced by city infrastructure. Assessments will reflect the new zoning. The developer will be responsible for constructing all the necessary infrastructure - roads, utilities, city parks - plus any required offsite upgrades. At build-out, we can expect about $700,000 a year in taxes from this development (at current rates); about $450,000 of that going to the city, the balance to the School District, Hospital and RDOS. We are confident that the tax revenue will be more than adequate to cover any costs associated with serving this new area which sits adjacent to the existing Wiltse neigbhourhood.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Wayne about 2 years ago
        When, and if, the land is annexed, will the assessment for the purpose of taxation be based on agricultural use value or market value?What specific costs are included to offset the $500,000 in tax revenue and by how much will the city benefit?Is the $500,000 before or after further subdivision?Is the full cost of processing the application for annexation fully captured in the application fee made for this application?How are the full costs of the engagement and the AAP ageing captured and what guarantees are in place to ensure the city is in no way subsidizing the application and along with the costs of issuing approvals?Please be specific.