Project Status
Thank you to everyone who shared feedback on potential changes to the neighbourhood boundaries.
Here is a summary of the Council motions from the COTW report on June 9, 2022.
1. “That the City recognize the 2700-block to 3000-block of the east side of Shelbourne Street as part of the Oaklands neighbourhood, with the Oaklands Community Association acting as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area.”
2. “That the City recognize the 800-block between Fort Street and Academy Close, and Blanshard Street and Quadra Street, as part of the Downtown neighbourhoodContinue reading
Project Status
Thank you to everyone who shared feedback on potential changes to the neighbourhood boundaries.
Here is a summary of the Council motions from the COTW report on June 9, 2022.
1. “That the City recognize the 2700-block to 3000-block of the east side of Shelbourne Street as part of the Oaklands neighbourhood, with the Oaklands Community Association acting as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area.”
2. “That the City recognize the 800-block between Fort Street and Academy Close, and Blanshard Street and Quadra Street, as part of the Downtown neighbourhood, with the Downtown Residents Association (DRA) acting as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area.”
3. That the City recognizes the area currently described as “Harris Green” as part of the Downtown neighbourhood, with the Downtown Residents Association continuing to act as the Community Association Land Use Committee (CALUC) for land use matters in the area. And that the City recognizes Harris Green as a district within the Downtown neighbourhood, similar to Chinatown and Old Town.
These neighbourhood boundary changes are reflected in the above map and came into effect on June 9, 2022. City staff will work on the administrative changes, including updating all City maps in 2023.
What We Engaged On
In 2019, City Council began a process to help reconcile some geographic anomalies and to align neighbourhood boundaries with residents’ sense of place.
How We Got Here
In 2019, Council introduced an action to ‘resolve anomalies in neighbourhood boundaries’ in the Strong, Liveable Neighbourhoods section of the City's Strategic Plan.
On February 4, 2021 Council held a discussion about current neighbourhood boundaries. For more details, view the Council Led Workshop – Neighbourhood Boundaries agenda item and Council’s discussion at the February 4 meeting here.
Council made several observations including that:
- Reconciling geographic anomalies that may fit better in an adjacent neighbourhood
- There may be opportunities to better match boundaries with the neighbourhoods in which residents perceive themselves to be living
- Neighbourhood populations vary substantially and may present challenges for neighbourhood associations, e.g. too big for effective representation or too small to recruit volunteer support
- Some village centres are divided between neighbourhoods
With the above considerations, several boundaries were discussed as possible areas for change. Council directed staff to engage residents through their neighbourhood associations about the proposed boundary area changes.
A subsequent Council discussion (including specific resolutions) was held on February 25, which you can view here.
As you can see in the timeline to the right, community engagement took place in the summer of 2021. The Council Report (in Reports section to the right) was accepted by Council and they brought forward a series of proposed neighbourhood boundary related changes.
In early January 2022, one of the three proposed changes (relating to merging the North and South Jubilee CALUCs) was removed by Council.
Two proposed boundary changes then moved forward for a final opportunity for public comment. You can learn about these changes that were brought forward at the January 27, 2022 Non- Statutory Public Hearing here.
Following the January 27 meeting Council considered all the feedback and provide staff with direction on moving forward.
Final motions were brought forward on June 9, 2022.
This is an interesting dialogue we are getting through reading the comments. I am not suspicious of motives and think its interesting to to be able to rethink these boundaries for the benefit of civic planning and community identity. I also think the point that zoning bylaw is not tied to these boundaries has been lost in the discussion and is generating some confusion. Providing some examples of what these boundary changes might mean and assurances that building zoning is a separate item would have been helpful.
As a Fernwood resident bordering Chambers, please let me know why it would be advantageous to give away a portion of our neighbourhood? I assume it's to grab more land to eventually tear down family homes to make way for more towers. Am I wrong?
Hello,
I live on a block of Humboldt street that is currently defined as being part of downtown. However the bulk of my neighbourhood activities occur in James Bay or Fairfield. Therefore these proposed boundary changes, by annexing more of Fairfield to downtown, would further alienate me from my 'sense of place'. Indeed I would suggest removing the peripheral and primarily residential portions of downtown and uniting them with their adjacent neighbourhoods, and thus make my block of Humboldt part of James Bay or Fairfield.
Regards,
KR
I proudly purchased a home in the community of Fernwood. My family have used many of the services provided by the community center. I am proud to identify as a Fernwood community member.
Not impressed to be presented with a proposal by City Council, qualified by the fact that there has been "ongoing informal discussion suggesting boundary adjustments for many years" that could change something that I feel is very important to me and my community.
Shame.
No No No No No I will not support this adjustment - not now - no one has shown me any cause or benefit that makes any sense. Just looks like people wielding power because they are in a position to do so. Bad form - Top down.
This is a very top-down proposal for something that should be bottom-up and driven by the the community organizations themselves. Community identity is developed by the culture and traditions within the community itself rather than that identity being prescribed by a body of bureaucrats and politicians.
This does not capture the spirit of a survey. I, too, would like to know the real reason behind these proposed changes. The leaflet I received in the mail provides the exact same information as on the website, which really isn't much. Mayor and Council need to be a lot more transparent.
Removed by moderator.
25 years in Fernwood and now this. I have a few questions:
• Did Residents propose these boundary changes?
• Don’t you think time, effort and tax-payers’ dollars could be better than using these for pushing through a council driven proposal?
• What are the consequences of the boundary changes for the residents of these areas?
• Will our services or service dates change: i.e. recycle, garbage, road and boulevard maintenance? As far as I have noticed city staff and crews most times don’t consider anything north of Bay is even part of the City of Victoria.
• Will our property assessments go up/down? Will we pay more/less property tax? Will our home/tenant insurances be affected?
The survey only consists of 2 questions:
Question #1: Do you agree, neutral, disagree and few options that lay in-between?
Question #2: Which neighbourhood do you live in?
Honestly, when I attend a seminar or use accommodations I am given more questions to answer in surveys.
Looks like a plan to make it easy to get rid of single family homes and build lots of condos.
As a North Park resident, I would be in favor of extending the eastern boundary of North Park to Chambers Street, primarily for incorporating North Park Village into the neighbourhood. I feel that issues regarding the Village, including the concerns of businesses could be better addressed dealing with one organization rather than 2, particularly when development of the Village as a whole is concerned.. Since Fernwood has its own neighbourhood village, It would be logical for the North Park Neighbourhood Association (NPNA) to respond to the needs of the Village, including perhaps the establishment of a Village Business Improvement Association.
I understand that residents and households living in the Cook/Chambers corridor identify more strongly with Fernwood for its historic ties as well as its character. However, I do not believe that the NPNA is looking to change the character of that area. In fact, the NPNA has been very vigilant in maintaining our neighbourhood's character, much of it being similar to Fernwood's with heritage homes and some mid-density dwellings. Also due to proximity, people living in the corridor frequently shop in the Village.
Anyway, as part of a welcoming community, I would relish the opportunity to welcome new neighbours into our neighbourhood!
Re: moving area of Fernwood north of Bay Street into Oaklands, I live in Fernwood just north of Bay, so I would be living in Oaklands with this change. I do engage with the Haultain Corners in Oaklands to an extent, but I am much more oriented to Fernwood. Oaklands seems a lot more single-family-dwelling and car-focused; other than Haultain Corners, there is not really a pedestrian-friendly commercial area. However, I can see the argument for Bay Street being a transition point and the area being more oriented towards Oaklands. So I've taken a neutral position on the change, despite personally not liking it.
Re: moving area of Fernwood between Caledonia and Cook into North Park. Two neighbourhoods can share the village/commercial area, Fernwood on one side and North Park on the other, just fine. The commercial area on Cook Street is much larger than Fernwood Square and serves a different function. The area between Cook and Caledonia will always be Fernwood to me; both sides of Caledonia, which is a small neighbourhood street, feel firmly part of the same neighbourhood. The proposed change makes no sense.
There is no benefit in merging North and South neighborhoods. We are different and distinct communities. What would this merger serve?
Merging south and North jubilee will make the neighborhood too large and no longer a “neighborhood “. In fact already in the survey it’s referred to as “jubilee “. That is worrisome
Once again Council is looking through the wrong end of the microscope. Your priorities are completely out of whack! Forget neighbourhood boundaries; forget any more bike lanes and electrify the core and adjacent neighbourhoods and subsidize the metering. That way, those folks who still need their vehicles will be encouraged to switch to EVs and everyone will benefit.
Redrawing boundaries? Just another red herring to hide some other agenda!
ChasT50
with respect to the change to add a portion of Fernwood (along Cook) to North Park, I agree with this because the orientation of this portion of Cook is to the businesses and activities along Cook and not to the Fernwood Village. It only makes sense that this area be classified as North Park because the viality along Cook is to the buisnesses and activities along Cook and as well as Crystal Pool, Central Park and not be Fernood.
With respect to adding the portion of Burnside Gorge (south of Bay0 to Downtown, again the orientation here is to Downtown and not the Burnside Gorge. In fact. most people are do not realize this area south of Bay is even part of the Burnside Gorge and, in fact, they are astonished to realize this is the classification. This to include this area as part of the Burnside Gorge is a complete anomaly.
You start by saying the changes are to align residents (of the areas) sense of place. BUT on reading the information Council directed staff to engage the various community associations that Council already had identified as wanting/needing change. Residents did not come to you. So what is the actual rational and intent of the changes proposed. This is not stated anywhere. Most likely it is so you can proceed with more housing the homeless without having to deal with pesky neighborhood organizations. As an aside I do not reside in any of the affected areas. This Council seems to be less than honest about their agenda.
There should be a Comments section for each of the proposed changed. As it is, there is far too much to wade through. Also, the surveys give no option for commenting on the boundaries. Perhaps some would agree with a change, but would suggest a different boundary than what is proposed.
The BG boundaries if were to be moved the housing moratorium would not apply and we need the moratorium .. if you continue the moratorium in that proposed aria. Put it in writing and publicly announced. We might start understand councils / City halls motives and gain some trust
It is very clear. If the boundary were changed for BG the moratorium on housing would not apply in the new aria. The trust of Victoria council is not there..
I would be ok to leave things as is and spend council dollars on other initiatives.