Interfor site

There were compromises made in 2002.  Parklane is reneging.  The original plan to cover the site with housing was rejected by the community until the developer reduced the housing component and promised community benefits including 

1)  Tourist destination with hotel and Granville Island style commercial area

2)  Waterfront village to open up the waterfront to the Fort Langley community

4)  40 acres of rural zoned land for park (note that the Fort to Fort trail runs on the 30 metre setback from the river so could not be developed anyway)

What the developers got in return for these promises

40 acres of land rezoned for residential development (only 20 acres of the site was industrial, the rest was rural).  Rezoning = a windfall profit of $20 to $30 million.

Other promises made to achieve rezoning that Parklane has already reneged on:

1)  No basements   Important to the community to limit density, avoid basement suites.  

2)  Parking for the downtown area; much of the parking on site is being occupied by residents of basement suites (that should not be there) so is unavailable to the community.

3)  Seniors residence   seniors were jilted by Parklane

4)  3 story height restriction.  Apartment 4 stories plus site 4 to 5 feet higher due to fill.

5)  Density restriction - exceeded with basements and apartments instead of seniors.     

Dredging the Bedford Channel 

Parklane needed the fill.  Fill opened the door to basements so it was a very good business deal for Parklane.  If the suggested cost to Parklane was $2.5 million then the 261 basements they have added cost them a bargain basement price of only $10,000 each.    

Apartments on the east site would effectively renege on the design promises made to achieve rezoning.  Apartments would also renege on the density limits.  Equitas had reduced density from 500 to 400.  The proposed apartments would result in 430 units.  Site density already exceeded (basements, apartments instead of seniors residences) 

Process is a major issue. 

Divide and conquer---Parklane has singled out special interest groups to get their endorsement.  This divide and conquer strategy is unethical and has split the community. 

Parklane has not been upfront---not telling the community in September that plans had already been submitted.  Not bringing forward the hotel study for review (requested in December and promised repeatedly but finally produced at the last minute) 

TOL has allowed Parklane to renege on promises without adequate consultation with the community (even when there was widespread opposition such as the height of the apartment building) and without negotiating benefits to the community in return. 

What should be done:   The site rezoning should be rejected and an authentic and inclusive consultation with the community as a whole should look at the entire area from Marina Park through the undeveloped Bedford landing site.  This area has tremendous potential.  More 4 story apartments on this site would cut off that potential. 

Hotel Site

The hotel site must be rezoned for Parklane to put up apartment buildings.  Rejecting rezoning is the best way to retain the potential of the site and the area. 

We should not assume too soon that a hotel is not feasible.  The hotel feasibility study is flawed (see below).  In addition there have been no discussions with the community about ways to redesign the hotel to improve its feasibility and benefits to the community.  The developer and TOL should initiate these sorts of discussions rather than rejecting the hotel concept without consultation. 

Background

The hotel was originally promised as something the community wanted and needed given that there is no hotel in Fort Langley.  A hotel fits the main themes of the site including tourism, opening up the waterfront to the community and the Trans Canada Trail.  A hotel provides meeting rooms, a restaurant, a bar and other facilities that the public would use.  These facilities would draw both Fort Langley residents and visitors to the waterfront to make that area a destination. 

Apartments clearly do not offer the same sort of benefits to the community and cut off rather than open up the waterfront.  Approval of apartments will permanently cut off the potential for a tourist destination and the promised Granville Island ambience. 

What about the hotel study that purports to show that a hotel is not feasible?  The study is flawed.  It leaves us with more questions than answers. 

1)      Why was a hotel suggested in the first place (Equitas must have done some sort of feasibility study at the time). 

2)      Was a hotel just offered as something to keep the community happy in order to justify rezoning of rural land for development (which gave the developer a $20 to $30 million windfall profit)?  If a hotel cannot be redesigned to work something else of benefit to the community should be offered instead. 

3)      Is the feasibility study really valid?  The study was not done by one of the consulting firms that specialize in hotel sites.  It was done by an architectural firm.  The same firm provided a study purporting to show that the waterfront would not be a good place for commercial space.  Our bullshit index should be alerted by the commercial study and, by extension, we should question the hotel study.  We should look at who paid for the study and be suspicious that they managed to find a compliant consultant.   We should also question why the developer held back on this study (despite promises to bring it forward) until the last minute. 

4)      If there is some question about the feasibility of a hotel, shouldnt Parklane let the market decide?  Parklane should put that part of the site up for sale at a reasonable price.  If there is no buyer after 18 months then a negotiation should be started with the community to determine what would replace the hotel.  The replacement would need to be feasible economically but also offer benefits back to the community.