Fisherman`s Wharf Plan - Greater Victoria Harbour Authority

Transcription

Fi she r man’s W har f Plan
Attachment to Rezoning Application to the City of Victoria | June 2012
Revised May 2013
Part One: General Overview.......................................................................................1
A.Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
Physical Characteristics..................................................................................................................................................................2
B. Historical, Regional and Neighbourhood Context............................................................. 2
History................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Context and Adjacencies................................................................................................................................................................3
C. Initial Public Input and Consultation................................................................................... 4
Float Home Owners........................................................................................................................................................................4
Shoal Point Residents......................................................................................................................................................................5
Commercial Fishermen..................................................................................................................................................................5
Annual Moorage Vessel Owners...................................................................................................................................................5
Commercial Operators...................................................................................................................................................................5
James Bay Neighbourhood Association......................................................................................................................................6
Near Neighbours..............................................................................................................................................................................6
Victoria and Esquimalt Harbour Society....................................................................................................................................6
First Nations......................................................................................................................................................................................6
Individual Submissions...................................................................................................................................................................6
D. SWOC Analysis.................................................................................................................... 7
F. City of Victoria Policy.......................................................................................................... 9
Offsite Utilities and Services........................................................................................................................................................10
On-Site Services.............................................................................................................................................................................10
Transportation and Movement...................................................................................................................................................10
G. Parking Analysis................................................................................................................. 11
Parking Demand Survey...............................................................................................................................................................12
Implications of Parking Assessment...........................................................................................................................................13
Bicycle Demand.............................................................................................................................................................................13
H. Plan Consultation............................................................................................................... 13
| June 2012 | Revised May 2013 | CitySpaces Consulting
E. Planning Principles.............................................................................................................. 8
Fisherman’s Wharf Plan | Prepared for the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority
Table of Contents
| Fisherman’s Wharf Plan
CitySpaces Consulting | Revised May 2013 | June 2012 | Prepared for the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority
Part Two: Fisherman’s Wharf Facilities Plan.......................................................... 14
A. The Vision........................................................................................................................... 14
B. Upland Area........................................................................................................................ 14
Development Opportunities.......................................................................................................................................................14
Movement and Linkages to the Neighbourhood....................................................................................................................15
Viewscapes and Vantage Points...................................................................................................................................................16
Environment...................................................................................................................................................................................16
Signage..............................................................................................................................................................................................16
City of Victoria Property..............................................................................................................................................................17
Parking and Access.........................................................................................................................................................................17
Bicycles.............................................................................................................................................................................................17
C. The Plan: Water Area Development................................................................................... 18
Float Home Community..............................................................................................................................................................18
Floating Commercial Units..........................................................................................................................................................18
Commercial Fishing Vessel and General Vessel Moorage.....................................................................................................19
Pier-Related Uses and Activities.................................................................................................................................................19
Marine Fuel Dock..........................................................................................................................................................................20
Public Water Use Access...............................................................................................................................................................20
D. Facility Plan: Land-use and Development Opportunities Analysis.................................. 20
E.Implementation.................................................................................................................. 20
Part Three: Appendices............................................................................................ 21
Appendix A: Key Features & Facilities Plan.............................................................................................................................23
Appendix B: Architectural Renderings......................................................................................................................................33
Appendix C: Design Guidelines.................................................................................................................................................41
Appendix D: Plan Consultation Feedback..............................................................................................................................55
A. INTRODUCTION
Fisherman’s Wharf is one of four harbour properties owned by the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority (Harbour
Authority), divested from the federal government via Transport Canada in 2002.
The Harbour Authority is in the process of looking at all of its properties, and preparing future land use and financial
management plans. Tasks any prudent organization should do, this work is also precipitated by the reality that many
current activities are non-conforming, meaning they do not adhere to City of Victoria regulations. Local government
bylaws do not apply to federal properties, but do apply to the Harbour Authority. In the case of Fisherman’s Wharf, a
number of current uses, and/or potentially compatible future uses, are not permitted by local bylaws. Not only does this
situation seriously hamper organizational planning and sound financial management, but it also jeopardizes certainty for
existing users and the neighbourhood. The development of a Facility Plan for Fisherman’s Wharf is aimed at remedying
this anomaly.
The large public engagement program, that initiated this process, has conveyed that the Harbour Authority has generally
done a good job over the past few years in terms of improvements and initiatives undertaken to Fisherman’s Wharf.
Moving forward, there is strong consensus that the current range and types of activities at Fisherman’s Wharf is “pretty
good”, and there is no need, or aspiration, for dramatic changes. However, within this framework, there are opportunities
to improve utilization, service delivery, and economic sustainability.
The following plan reflects a vision that strives to fit within the framework and opportunities available and, in the process,
also develop design guidelines that physically and aesthetically reinforce the plan.
Part One: General Overview
1
2
Physical Characteristics
The Fisherman’s Wharf facility consists of both land and water, contained within three properties, owned in fee simple
(titled parcels of property) by the Harbour Authority. The following table provides a high-level inventory of the properties:
Description
Area/Unit
Total Property Area
•
•
•
4.45 ha (11 acres) TOTAL
0.93 ha (2.3 acres) UPLAND
3.5 ha (8.7 acres) WATER
Uses
•
•
•
33 float homes
12 floating retail/commercial units
101 berths
Parking
•
•
142 vehicle stalls
11 loading space stalls
Although the upland comprises more than 8,000 m2 of land, and 100+ metres of waterfront, the site is an irregular shape
– long and narrow and, in places, has a depth of less than 30 metres – minimizing development opportunities.
B. Historical, Regional and Neighbourhood Context
History
Fisherman’s Wharf is strategically located at the intersection of
Victoria’s Inner and Outer Harbours. It is the first significant
marine property protected from southwest winds and surge, and
has been long been identified as a safe refuge for mooring vessels.
Prior to European contact, the area was occupied by the Esquimalt
and Songhees First Nations. Post contact, it was long referred to
as Miner’s Bay, and housed boat and liveaboard moorage, and a
shipyard. The Victoria and Esquimalt Harbours were designated
as federal harbours in 1924, and continue to remain under federal
jurisdiction. Around 1948, the federal government invested in
dock development, creating the precursor to what is generally
known at Fisherman’s Wharf today. When the facility became
known as “Fisherman’s Wharf ” is not entirely clear, but from
the early 1950s to the early 1990s, the facility was dominated by
commercial fishing vessel fleets, along with some liveaboards and
float homes. As the commercial fishing industry waned, and the
size of the fleet diminished in the mid 1990s, the facility took on
additional permanent moorage, an expanded marine tourism base,
and housed more float homes displaced from other areas.
Waterfront of ‘Laing’s Ways’ shipyard, Major Bay, early 1890s.
Source: City of Victoria Archives, ref. # 96609-01-6533
Fishing Vessels at Fisherman’s Wharf in 1952
Source: British Columbia Archives, ref. # I-26933
Fisherman’s Wharf has an important connection with the Inner Harbour, and its associated marine tourism and marine
transportation activities, as well as maritime activities and events in Esquimalt. Improving pedestrian connections to the
Inner Harbour is a high priority for the City of Victoria. The City’s Harbour Pathway Plan strongly supports pedestrian
waterfront connectivity. Perhaps the most impactful pathway improvement identified for Fisherman’s Wharf is the
proposed pedestrian bridge over Heron Cove. While detailed design and costing have not been developed, discussions
between the City and the Harbour Authority should take place as part of future development potential under this
planning process, and/or substitutions for other amenities.
A unique aspect of the property that also impacts development opportunities is the relationship with neighbours. The
City of Victoria plays an integral role in the development of the plan not only as a land use regulator, but also because it
owns lands that bisect the upland at Fisherman’s Wharf, both for pedestrian and vehicular access. To move from the east to
the west parts of the Fisherman’s Wharf property, one must transect City-owned land that is legally a part of Fisherman’s
Wharf Park, although contextually they seem separate. There is currently no formal agreement between the Harbour
Authority and the City.
Fisherman’s Wharf Park is also undergoing transformation. Improvements to the west end, creating a child-friendly
activity area, are complete. The east part of the park is being improved for passive recreation use with a meandering
pathway system, and environmentally-friendly pond features. The City’s policies identify the head of Heron Cove as
an environmentally-sensitive area. The two homes fronting onto St. Lawrence St. north of the driveway entrance to
Fisherman’s Wharf are designated heritage. Future Fisherman’s Wharf development should take this into account, and
include connections and linkages with the park plans.
The Shoal Point condominium building has a practical, but significant impact, on development due to its physical size,
and proximity to the southerly boundary line shared with
Fisherman’s Wharf. The Plan must recognize the constraints
imposed by its presence, and the Plan Principles reinforce
being respectful of neighbours.
Fisherman’s Wharf water lots are also restricted in terms of
future opportunities for expansion. Harbour waters to the
north, east and west are owned by the federal government.
Designated inbound and outbound traffic lanes are located
immediately north of the water lot. To the east is Raymur
Point. There is no practical future expansion area north or
east of the water lot. To the west are docks used by federal
agencies, and the federal “Malahat” building is located on the
upland. While there are no apparent considerations for further
divestiture of federal harbour land, the Harbour Authority
should set the groundwork for possibly obtaining the same
rights to the water and upland to the west. This would have
significant impact on the ability to maintain and enhance the
working harbour, and potentially overcome constraints now
faced within the confines of Fisherman’s Wharf.
To the west of Shoal Point is a federal government-owned
parking lot that blocks access to Huron Street. Obtaining
access privileges could improve operations and reduce
impact on neighbours.
Context and Adjacencies
3
4
C. Initial Public Input and Consultation
At the start of this process, public input was received from a combination of meetings, workshops, individual
conversations with stakeholders and key informants, and online feedback. Participants included: existing Fisherman’s
Wharf users (float home owners, commercial licensees, annual moorage customers, and commercial fishing
vessel owner/operators), Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, Shoal Point residents, nearby neighbours, James Bay
Neighbourhood Association Executive (and general meeting attendees), Victoria and Esquimalt Harbour Society,
Transport Canada, Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Victoria, and the City of Victoria.
Meetings with many of the groups involved a workshop session in which attendees were asked to mark-up maps of
Fisherman’s Wharf, and share their likes and dislikes about the existing facility. Participants were then asked to identify
ideas for the future, both in terms of potential development opportunities and/or other improvements/changes, that
might improve the Fisherman’s Wharf experience, and contribute to the neighbourhood. The format of each session
included a PowerPoint presentation outlining the planning process, followed by a small group exercise where participants
were asked to show the following on large maps of the facility:
1. Aspects of Fisherman’s Wharf, both physical and non-physical, they like and want to retain;
2. Aspects of Fisherman’s Wharf, both physical and non-physical, that are problematic and that they would like to see
changed; and
3. Ideas for enhancement/improvement to Fisherman’s Wharf in the future.
A brief summary of the highlights for each session is included below.
Float Home Owners
Sixteen float home owners attended a session on September 20, 2011. There was a broad level of consensus that the
eclectic nature of Fisherman’s Wharf is one of the primary draws for float home owners, as well as other users and
tourists. This mix of uses, activities, people, and architecture (often described as “funky”), makes Fisherman’s Wharf
unique, and needs to be preserved. The close knit community described as neighbourly, friendly, safe and goodhumoured, is important for float home owners. They like that the docks are not gated, and that they can interact with
visitors. It was suggested that the gates on the pleasure craft docks be left open during the day.
Concerns were expressed about the following:
•
Lack of mail delivery, a postal code, or postal boxes;
•
Inadequate location identification for emergency vehicles;
•
Limited public washroom facilities;
•
Inadequate garbage facilities;
•
Lack of parking for float home owners; and
•
Lack of space for water visitors.
Interesting suggestions generated by small group discussions
included reclaiming the bank in order to continue a pedestrian
walkway along Fisherman’s Wharf (possibly a wooden walkway
extending over the water), completing the walking bridge over
Heron Cove, encouraging more diverse businesses, including First
Nations participation, adding a pub or restaurant, and allowing
dockside gardening for float home residents.
Twenty residents of the Shoal Point condominiums attended a workshop held on September 21, 2011. Generally, this
group felt that the current mix of uses is about right. They like the eclectic mix, and indicated that a “cookie cutter”, or
sterile design, would destroy the ambience. The new docks, walkways and gates to the pleasure craft dock were noted
as positive additions. The fuel dock was also mentioned as being a vital part of the harbour. This group either did not
support further development on the upland, or felt that it should be limited to one-storey.
Some of the concerns raised in this session included:
•
Conflict/safety/noise concerns with reefer trucks;
•
Lack of signage;
•
Inadequate washroom facilities; and
•
Lack of landscaping/trees in the parking area.
Although this group generally supports a robust commercial mix, several participants did not support development of a
pub. There were also suggestions to add landscaping/flower boxes, and more seating to the upland area.
Commercial Fishermen
Consultants met with five representatives of the commercial fishing fleet on October 3, 2011. Unlike the workshop
sessions for the other user groups, this was a more informal meeting. This group noted that the long-term liveaboards
(float homes and vessels) provide “eyes” on the community, and increase security. They like the ambience, the room to tie
up, the fuel dock, and the convenience of access to the West Coast fishery. They suggested improved signage, better solid
and toxic waste disposal, and encouragement of marine-related businesses. Moorage rates, although lower than for other
user groups, are now among the highest for the fishing fleet in the region. Providing displays, or a small floating museum,
showing the history of Fisherman’s Wharf and the fishery was proposed as an increased tourism opportunity.
Annual Moorage Vessel Owners
Commercial Operators
Fourteen commercial business operators at Fisherman’s Wharf attended a consultation workshop on October 5,
2011. This group also spoke about the facility’s eclectic feel, and the mix of uses, people and colours as key aspects of
the Fisherman’s Wharf experience. It was suggested that this ambience needs to grow to become a “complete tourist
experience”. More commercial activity and events (theme days, festivals) were suggested. This group also noted that more
washrooms, seating areas, increased signage (including signage facing the water), and improved garbage disposal are
needed. Another suggestion was retractable covered areas over the commercial seating to make it a year-round facility.
This group also suggested historic photos and displays would enhance the tourist experience.
This group, represented by fourteen vessel owners, participated in a workshop on October 4, 2011. The dynamic mix
and density of uses, fuel dock, locked security gates, buskers, and the Harbour Ferry stop were among the features
participants liked and wanted to retain. Some of the issues they noted included: some conflict on the outer docks
between fish boats and pleasure craft (soot, inability to leave dock), and inadequate washrooms and garbage disposal.
It was also noted that a pub would not be supported, but they would like to see more commercial activities that would
attract people year-round. Other suggestions included a common room, improved laundry and shower facilities, and
bike/car share co-op for liveaboards located near the Harbour Master’s office.
Shoal Point Residents
5
6
James Bay Neighbourhood Association
The James Bay Neighbourhood Association gave over a portion of its regular meeting on October 12, 2011 for twentytwo of its members to participate in a consultation workshop. Some participants said they like the activity at Fisherman’s
Wharf – fish boats unloading, tourists, liveaboard residents, wildlife, etc. They also like that views of the harbour are not
blocked by large buildings, and would like the facility to remain low in scale. The float homes were described as “quaint”,
and add to the appeal of Fisherman’s Wharf with tourists and locals. More bike parking and storage, and improved
signage was suggested, along with encouraging commercial operators to reduce waste. Reclaiming the upland for a
boardwalk, and completing a bridge over Heron Cove were also identified in this session. Increased space for artisans and
arts festivals was suggested, as well as making room for a market at the east end of the parking lot. The need for improved
kayak, and other small vessel, access and tie-up was noted. A small community garden, or pocket garden, for float home
owners was suggested. Small, local businesses were preferred over chain outlets.
Near Neighbours
Invitations to attend a consultation workshop were dropped to households and businesses within 100 metres of
Fisherman’s Wharf, including The Reef condominium. Nineteen neighbours attended a session on October 25,
2011. Members of this group noted that they like enjoying nature – the herons, ducks and otters at Heron Cove. The
importance of maintaining Fisherman’s Wharf as a working harbour was also noted. The presence of the fishing fleet
allows tourists and locals to see and interact with the fishermen. The suggestion was made that Fisherman’s Wharf might
be a good location for a public facility, such as a University of Victoria venue or venue for the Neptune project. Support
was also expressed for commercial activities along the pier, with advice to keep them “funky”.
Victoria and Esquimalt Harbour Society
At a regular monthly meeting of the Victoria and Esquimalt Harbour Society, a presentation was followed by a
question and answer session. There was also opportunity to provide input into appropriate future uses and activities for
Fisherman’s Wharf.
There was unanimous support for maintaining Fisherman’s Wharf as an active and vital part of the working harbour,
continuing as a generator of marine-related economic activities. Expansion of residential development was less
favourable, and many felt it should be restricted.
Within this context, there were strong views that a component of Fisherman’s Wharf economic activity must include
opportunities for the commercial fishing fleet, and its support activities. The fleet is seen as an integral part of the facility’s
history, and Fisherman’s Wharf would lose a large part of its raison d’être if the commercial fishing industry was lost.
First Nations
Esquimalt and Songhees Nations have direct involvement in the policy making of the Harbour Authority. Consultation
with First Nations about this planning process will be facilitated by the Chief Executive Officer of GVHA.
Individual Submissions
Other comments received noted that Fisherman’s Wharf generally works well, is an economic hub for marine tourism,
and it is important that its character not be lost. Comments were also made about shoreline improvements, and making
more floating commercial kiosks, or low scale buildings, along the shoreline available. Others commented that public
access to the docks is important (even if security gates to individual wing docks were locked at dusk), and connectivity to
the Inner Harbour should be improved. Maintaining RBS Seafoods’ activities was also viewed as important. A Transport
Canada representative said that while the location of its office works well, it could move elsewhere if need be.
Opportunity was provided through the website, and at all consultation events, for individuals to submit their thoughts
and ideas. These were all carefully reviewed, and the themes are captured in the group workshop comments in the
previous section.
A SWOC analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges) is essentially an examination of a business/
organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses, and considers the organization’s future external opportunities and/or
challenges. This high level assessment of how a business/organization can move forward helps identify future goals and/
or what things may impact achieving those goals.
• Diversification of activities; mix of uses
• Strong sense of community among tenants;
strong advocates for Fisherman’s Wharf
• Strategic waterfront location within active part
of Victoria Harbour
• Distinguishable & appealing brand,
recognized by locals/visitors; marked as a
“destination” by locals/visitors
• Managed by organization with mission of
being effective advocate for marine activities;
organizational capacity to carry it out
WEAKNESSES
STRENGTHS
In a planning context, a SWOC analysis is a useful tool in identifying improvements or changes from a physical and
operational perspective, creating long-term prosperous activity. Early public consultation discussions played an
important role in the development of this SWOC program.
• Aging infrastructure; additional capital
infrastructure improvements will be required
in the future
• Physical constraints to upland development;
largely allocated to parking and access;
divided by City of Victoria property
• With mix of uses, some require more
property management and staff than others
• Fishing fleet and related activities using FW
subject to vagaries of abundance and federal
fisheries management
• Some expansion of commercial units to
create year-round services for locals /visitors
• Opportunities for home-based business, i.e.,
professional services
• Build on eclectic “small village” feel
• Improve pedestrian/water linkages to
Inner Harbour
• Improve signage; provide history of
Fisherman’s Wharf
• Improve access to foreshore; expand visitor
experience with improved amenities/services
to create a “complete destination”
CHALLENGES
• Expand on image/branding already created;
don’t need to reinvent the wheel
• Many activities identified by public do not generate
revenues to offset costs of undertaking/operating
• GVHA operations & most capital improvements
must be financially
self-sufficient
• Over time, global warming effects (e.g., rising sea
levels) could have financial consequences & facility
changes may be required
• Rising fuel prices & general economic conditions
could impact public’s discretionary spending (e.g.,,
recreational vessels, travel, pricing structures
• Unfavourable new government regulations re:
commercial & recreational fishing, & whale
watching; environmental regulations that make
marine fuel service unviable
• Surrounding development affecting extent of
considered use options
OPPORTUNITIES
• Water & upland areas owned in fee simple;
not subject to Crown leases or water lease
renewals; can plan long-term
D. SWOC Analysis
7
8
E. Planning Principles
As a result of the feedback received, the following principles were identified and adjusted. They serve as
underlying building blocks for the development of the Facilities Plan.
1. Acknowledge the mix of existing water uses, and the facility’s distinct character and ambience.
2. Recognize Fisherman’s Wharf for its contributions to, and enhancement of, the local economy.
3. Future facility plans and uses will reflect and reinforce GVHA’s established vision, mandate and
principles that:
•
Support the working harbour and ensure best water, marine and marine-related uses;
•
Consider Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations opportunities in the planning process;
•
Support commitment to sustainability, and incorporate and balance the social and
environmental impacts;
•
Maintain and enhance the financial sustainability of the organization, and
•
Act in the best interest of the Victoria harbour as a whole.
4. Development considerations will be respectful of neighbours.
5. Augment and enhance the character of Fisherman’s Wharf, and strengthen it as a destination for the
community and tourists.
6. Encourage and improve linkages between Fisherman’s Wharf, and the Victoria/Esquimalt
waterfronts, reflecting the City of Victoria’s Harbour Pathway objectives.
7. Include environmental best practices in the planning and development process.
Relevant City of Victoria land use policies are found in several documents; most particularly, the new Official
Community Plan (OCP), and the Harbour Plan (2002). The James Bay Neighbourhood Plan (1993) also contains
comments pertaining to Fisherman’s Wharf.
Relevant new OCP policies for Fisherman’s Wharf include:
•
“Support marine-related industry, water-borne transport, marine air transportation, and tourism activities in
Victoria Harbour”... “encouraging a mix of active shoreline uses, including public recreation, small craft launching
and moorage, marine restaurants, pubs and float homes, in locations that do not conflict with the safe operation of
ferries and float planes”;
•
“Update the Harbour Plan in partnership with the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, senior levels of government,
and business and community partners”;
•
“Work towards the completion of an integrated, hierarchical greenway network composed of people-only greenways
and shared Greenways”;
•
Under the heading of “Ecosystems”: “protect and restore the ecological function of sensitive and remnant
ecosystems on public and private lands”, (that includes the eastern head of Heron Cove); and
•
Section 20.16.3, relating to the James Bay neighbourhood, it prescribes, “maintaining an interesting diversity of land
uses, housing types and character areas”.
•
The City of Victoria Harbour Plan (2001) also provides relevant policy direction to:
•
“Strike a balance between tourism, residential, and marine industrial uses is important to the overall health and
vibrancy of the city. Ongoing pressure from residential and tourism uses puts the continuation of marine industry at
risk. A concerted effort to accommodate and encourage marine activities is required”.
•
Policies and strategies that apply directly to Fisherman’s Wharf include:
Integrate marine-related uses into new development;
•
If float homes and liveaboards are permitted at Fisherman’s Wharf, it should be upgraded to service them in an
environmentally-sensitive manner (done);
•
Improve access between Fisherman’s Wharf Park and the waterfront;
•
Protect the natural features of Heron Cove and the natural shoreline around the former Texaco Tank Farm Site;
•
Provide public access for pedestrians and cyclists along the waterfront connecting Fisherman’s Wharf and
Laurel Point;
•
Improve connections between Fisherman’s Wharf Park and the waterfront as a capital project; and
•
The City will consider supporting rezoning applications for liveaboards and float homes at Fisherman’s Wharf
in cases where fire, sewer, water servicing and electrical, parking and building standards are met.
It is noted that since the development of the Harbour Plan, many of the strategies identified have been implemented,
including the service upgrades for float homes at Fisherman’s Wharf.
The James Bay Neighbourhood Plan splits Fisherman’s Wharf between the “Tourist District” and the “Marine Industrial
District”. Under policies for tourism, it states, “encourage the harbourfront, including Fisherman’s Wharf and Ogden
Point, to include limited tourism” (page 10) and “support new light industrial activity that is relevant to the community
(i.e., marine industrial, marine commercial, and fishing ports)” (page 8).
•
F. City of Victoria Policy
9
10
Offsite Utilities and Services
Fisherman’s Wharf is well served by utilities and services to the site. Erie and St. Lawrence Streets have had
upgrades to municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer lines. The site is serviced by three phase electrical power,
natural gas, and communication networks. Municipal utilities now servicing the site can accommodate any
contemplated future development.
On-Site Services
Since the Harbour Authority assumed ownership, many improvements, both on the upland and water areas, have been
completed. Improvements carried out on the upland include:
•
Parking lot and landscaping;
•
Pedestrian waterfront walkway, including new underground lighting;
•
Sanitary sewer pump station and sewer lines and electrical transformers;
•
Wayfinding signage;
•
Wharfhead and loading zone spaces;
•
Underground fuel tanks meeting modern safety and environmental standards; and
•
Dual pump system for the sanitary sewage uplift station.
Improvements to the water area include:
•
Sanitary sewer upgrades to float homes and commercial units;
•
Interim electrical servicing upgrade to the east side of the facility provides 30 amp outlets to float homes, but is at
maximum capacity. West side upgrades included installation of a main breaker, conduit, transformer, and cable feed.
•
Replacement of annual moorage docks;
•
Replacement of dock washroom facilities;
•
Expansion of deck area; and
•
Wayfinding signage.
The most pressing maintenance/capital improvement items identified by Harbour Authority staff include:
•
Upgrade/replacement of the docks F and G;
•
Upgrade electrical breakers, panels and conduit on the east side;
•
Replacement/renewal of the western pier to ensure the structural safety of the beams, and to allow for improved
utilization and improved access;
•
Upgrade to fuel dock;
•
Access ramp upgrades; and
•
Solid waste management program.
Transportation and Movement
Fisherman’s Wharf is strategically located with respect to its current and future function as a “neighbourhood hub”.
The James Bay Plan and the new OCP designate parts of St. Lawrence and Erie Streets, and Dallas Road as “secondary
arterial” – the highest level road designation within James Bay. This means that service vehicles and other traffic attracted
to the Fisherman’s Wharf community can arrive without traveling on designated “minor” or local roads. Fisherman’s
Wharf is also easily accessible by public transit, and is connected the community pedestrian pathway network.
A major part of the transportation network is “active transportation” via bicycle or pedestrian visits. The plan should
continue to improve active transportation linkages.
Future development opportunities are often driven by the availability of parking. Fisherman’s Wharf is no exception,
although as a traffic generating hub, it offers a somewhat unique situation in that more customers and traffic are derived
from water-based transportation and pedestrian traffic than in a typical marina, commercial, or mixed commercialresidential centre. In terms of future development opportunities, whether on the upland or water-based, parking will be
an important determinant of what can be improved.
Parking has been reviewed from two perspectives: (1) City of Victoria bylaw requirements; and (2) demand assessment.
There are currently 153 parking stalls on-site, consisting of 142 vehicle parking stalls, and 11 loading zone stalls. Zoning
bylaw parking requirements by current use is as follows:
Use
Number/Area by Use
Parking Bylaw Requirements
33
33
+/- 5,000 sf
13
101
n/a
1,300 sf
2
Float Homes
Retail CUs (water, including fuel dock)
Moorage Spaces
Upland Office (Harbour Master)
TOTAL STALLS
48
The bylaw parking standards do not take into account several operational factors:
1. The bylaw has no parking requirements for vessel moorage;
2. Seasonal parking for the unloading of fish products; and
3. Parking licensed to Shoal Point for use by the customers of the Shoal Point commercial strata owners.
G. Parking Analysis
11
12
Assuming 1) one stall per four berths for vessel moorage; 2) one stall for each float home; 3) accounting for the seasonal
parking restrictions for seafood freezer trucks; and 4) the parking area permitted to Shoal Point, the required parking
requirements would show the following:
Parking Stalls Required
or Reserved
Description
Total stalls (including loading zone stalls)
Parking Stalls Available
151
Float homes (1 stall each)
33
Commercial units (all retail units, 1,200 sf office, and
space for yellow line)
18
Moorage (1 stall per 4 vessels @ 100 stalls)
25
Shoal Point parking reserve
16
RBS Seafoods (seasonal freezer truck space)
10
Total stalls required or reserved
102
Surplus stalls
49
There are a total of 49 surplus stalls, taking into account all current uses and reserved spaces.
Parking Demand Survey
To verify this assessment, a parking use study was conducted in July 2011, targeted during the peak summer period.
Results were recorded three times a day, three times a week, over a two-week period, from July 13 through July 27, to
determine available vacancies. Parking stalls rendered unusable due to freezer trucks for tuna storage were not included.
Findings show that even during peak use periods, average parking stall vacancy throughout the day was between 36 and
48 parking stalls. These numbers are more or less consistent with the estimates provided using bylaw standards.
PARKING VACANCIES (not including 11 loading areas)
Date of Survey
10 AM
1 PM
3 PM
Average
SAT | July 13, 2011
76
37
32
48
TUE | July 16, 2011
68
20
19
36
THU | July 18, 2011
62
26
26
38
TUE | July 23, 2011
74
22
34
43
THU | July 25, 2011
62
31
28
40
SAT | July 27, 2011
74
33
30
46
Average stalls available
42
This assessment indicates that additional commercial development could be placed on the property, and parking
could be made available on the site. Based on retail use requirements (one parking stall per 37 m2/400 sf of gross floor
space), an additional 1,560 m2 (16,800 sf) of retail commercial building area could be built with existing parking. More
commercial space could be permitted if seasonally restricted parking spaces are reinstated, or if parking allocated to Shoal
Point is not renewed.
It is also noted that during pre and post Plan development, public meeting and workshops users, neighbours and
stakeholders, and other James Bay residents were asked to identify issues and opportunities. Highlights of public
responses are found in Appendix D of this report. While there were some comments referring to the internal parking
layout at the eastern end of Fisherman’s Wharf, no issues were identified with respect to parking impacts offsite, which
serves to re-inforce the survey findings of sufficient on-site parking to meet demand. The attractive improvements to the
City’s Fisherman’s Wharf Park, while designed for pedestrian use, may draw participants who drive to the Park to enjoy
the amenities. Both future parking demand at Fisherman’s Wharf and the upgraded Fisherman’s Wharf Park should be
monitered.
Bicycle Demand
When the parking demand assessment was conducted in July 2011, a review of bicycle usage was also undertaken to
assess the current demand and need for bicycle storage/rack areas. The highest usage was on Saturdays with 33 bikes
parked at 3:00 pm in the afternoon. The lowest number recorded was 12 bikes at 10:00 am on Tuesdays. It is anticipated
that users of the bikes identified were transient. Bikes owned by float home or liveaboard residents would be inclined to
have their bikes with them.
With bicycle ridership on the rise, results indicate a need for the provision of additional bike racks, and that planning for
additional bike storage should be included in future programming for the site.
On average, eight motorcycles were parked at Fisherman’s Wharf during the study period.
H. Plan Consultation
After the first round of consultation, the Plan was placed on the website of the Harbour Authority, along with an online
survey and email address for questions and comments. A second round of consultation was undertaken with the various
groups that were invited to the introductory workshops last fall, including the existing Fisherman’s Wharf user groups,
Shoal Point residents and other near neighbours, the James Bay Neighbourhood Association, and the Victoria-Esquimalt
Harbour Society. Display material and a survey form of the Fisherman’s Wharf Plan were also presented at a public open
house at the CP Terminal building. Feedback was received in a variety of ways, including face-to-face meetings, individual
responses, and survey returns. Responses differed among groups; changes to the Plan respond to many of the comments
received. Consultation feedback of the Plan can be found in Appendix D.
Implications of Parking Assessment
13
14
Part Two: Fisherman’s Wharf Facilities Plan
A. The Vision
To reinforce and enhance Fisherman’s Wharf as an economic generator and as a cohesive community, while retaining its scale,
mix of uses, and form and character that define it as a special place, and unique attraction for residents and visitors alike.
Based on the background assessment, including public input, the following development strategies and activities are
proposed to achieve the vision for Fisherman’s Wharf. The strategies employed form the basis of a rezoning application to
the City of Victoria.
Two overarching principles in developing opportunities for the Facilities Plan are:
1. The current general mix of uses: float home, commercial fishing vessels, general moorage, marine retail/tourism
attractions, and limited general retail commercial should be retained; and
2. New development should be low in scale to limit intrusion for neighbouring properties.
The Facilities Plan and its Key Features are found in Appendix A. A description of the plan, divided into upland and water
areas, follows. Appendix B provides a series of architectural renderings of various elements of the Plan, while Appendix C
provides Design Guidelines for future specific development applications.
B. Upland Area
Development Opportunities
Upland development is limited because of the physical configuration of the property (long and narrow), its relationship
to adjoining land uses, and the importance of/need to provide unimpeded access to service the activities generated
on the Fisherman’s Wharf docks. Unlike more conventional real estate investment analyses, the upland at Fisherman’s
Wharf primarily provides supports and ancillary services to water-based activities. Potential development opportunities
on the upland is limited to the development of a low scale building at the east end of the property and an addition to the
Harbour Master’s office building.
1. A small scale building at the easterly end of the building would consist of the following elements:
•
A reconfigured parking layout (see facilities plan) would allow for a low scale building of approximately 275 m2
(3,000 sf);
•
Building height to be restricted to 6 m;
•
The building should relate to a future pedestrian bridge and pathway across Heron Cove to Raymur Point, and
the concentration of the floating commercial units located at the east end of the dock facilities;
•
Uses should relate to activities on the docks that enhance business and traffic, particularly during off-season
periods. Uses envisaged include vegetable/food market, retail activities, restaurant, exhibits and artisan space,
including areas for First Nation craft making and sales; and
•
The suggested building style could be a modest, marine “market” design that would tie into the form and
character of the floating commercial units.
2. Future expansion, or replacement, of the existing free standing building housing Transport Canada:
The existing building located in the centre of the site could be expanded to the east toward the Dallas Road
entrance, with minimal impact on views from the adjacent buildings and include improving the exterior
appearance to be consistent with Fisherman’s Wharf design guidelines;
•
A partial mezzanine floor could be created to double the floor area to approximately 275 m2 (3,000 sf);
•
A renovated building should include a public deck that will act as an extension to the pedestrian pathway out
over the water;
•
Height of the building should be restricted to 6 metres;
•
Uses envisaged include: retail; coffee house; office space; boat brokerage; and exhibit space. Public storytelling
space, telling the history of Fisherman’s Wharf, Victoria’s working harbour and Esquimalt and Songhees First
Nations using images and descriptions, could be incorporated into the building. The space could also be
considered for community use, providing meeting space that could be rented to the users of Fisherman’s Wharf,
or offered as commercial meeting space for general use.
•
The west end of the property, beyond the west edge of the Shoal Point building, is primarily an “under utilized”
parking area. The space is severely restricted because it is preempted by commercial freezer truck storage and
underground fuel tank storage.
Ancillary Uses and Washroom Facilities
Facilities incidental to, and of an ancillary nature will also be permitted, including solid waste management compacting
structures, parking, plaza space for temporary displays and exhibits, and maintenance buildings required for the effective
operation of the Fisheman’s Wharf facility, including underground fuel storage. Additional public washrooms will
be constructed on the site when commercial development exceeds 1,000m2 of building area or when a restaurant is
developed on the pier, whichever comes first.
Movement and Linkages to the Neighbourhood
Envisaged improvements are as follows:
•
Maintain and enhance a pedestrian pathway adjacent to the water’s edge;
•
Where possible expand the walkway width along the upland areas, including consideration for cantilevering the
walking at the water’s edge;
•
Work with the City and cooperate in planning and construction of a pedestrian bridge across Heron Cove;
•
Maintain and enhance the connection to the Fisherman’s Wharf Park pathway system and the City’s Park Improvement
Plan by coordinating pedestrian access across the Fisherman’s Wharf parking area to the waterfront walkway;
•
Consider additional parking at the St. Lawrence Street entrance that can be used by Fisherman’s Wharf Park visitors
and visitors to Fisherman’s Wharf;
•
Create a stronger draw and focal point at the west end of Fisherman’s Wharf to encourage more interest and sense of
destination to alleviate the “dead end” that currently exists toward the west end of Fisherman’s Wharf; and
•
Continue to work with the federal government to obtain a connection to Huron Street on the west end of
the site that would accommodate:
•
Limited, controlled access to service activities at or near the pier (fuel tanks, freezer trucks) to reduce service
traffic now having to travel to the north side of Shoal Point; and
•
Pedestrian access to Huron Street.
The Harbour Authority has, over the past ten years, invested considerably in improving the waterfront pathway. Currently,
the pathway ends abruptly toward the western edge of the marina. There is no sense of destination or completion.
3.
•
15
Viewscapes and Vantage Points
16
It is important to maintain view corridors to the marina, and beyond, from the upland property. To achieve this,
development considerations should include:
•
Future buildings at, or near, the water’s edge should not create a “wall”, blocking views from key vantage points.
Building heights should be limited. The two upland buildings and floating commercial units should be limited to 6 m
in height;
•
View corridors should align with the marina alleyways to take full advantage of close and distant vistas;
•
The western pier will require future replacement. Replacement should involve significantly increasing the width of
the pier to serve as both a working pier, and place for public access to the north end of the pier;
•
Allow public access to the end of the pier (located at the west end of the site), while recognizing the need for
security to maintain and enhance the marine industrial activities taking place on the pier (i.e. RBS Seafood
unloading activities). Security gates and separation spaces with fencing can provide safety between public spaces
and marine service spaces;
•
Locate additional seating benches along the pathways;
•
Maintain consistency with pathway lighting; and
•
Coordinate lighting and benches with the City’s Harbour Pathway amenity planning and implementation.
Environment
The Harbour Authority has, as one of its core policy statements, environmental sustainability for all of its properties.
The long term goal is to approach zero solid waste production in all GVHA facilities through reduction, reuse, recycling,
composting, and education. To work towards achieving this goal, the following should be considered:
•
Provide, where not installed, oil interceptors for surface water run-off from the parking area;
•
Maintain the native vegetation at the head of the Heron Cove, identified as being environmentally- significant by the
City of Victoria;
•
Upgrade and centralize the solid waste recycling depot. The locations for new solid waste/recycle areas should be
easily accessible and consider user safety. Solid waste management for the site should consider at two locations
toward each end of the site;
•
Enhance the waterfront walkways with as many indigenous planting materials as possible;
•
Use permeable pavers where possible;
•
Relate upland development to the improvements the City is making to Fisherman’s Wharf Park;
•
Future development should be respectful of the two properties designated heritage at 300 and 426
St. Lawrence Street; and
•
Public space for taking canoes/kayaks in and out of the water should be considered in an area that will not create
extraordinary congestion or disruptions to pedestrians or other activities. A possible location identified is a platform
below the proposed foot bridge over Heron Cove.
Signage
An overall signage plan should be adopted and consider:
•
Identification and wayfinding signage should be installed at the corner of Dallas Road and Erie Street;
•
Improved wayfinding signage to the parking area at the west end of the site should be installed;
•
Wayfinding signage, and consistency in presentation of the signage, needs to be incorporated on the docks;
•
Identifying signage at or above wharf heads leading to the docks;
•
Creating focal points with visual displays depicting West Coast maritime history, including First Nations relationship
with the marine environment, the early coastal fishery, and the growth and decline of the whaling industry; and
•
Waterfronts have two front doors, water front and street front. When arriving by boat, there should be signage that
provides a clear, welcoming presence.
City of Victoria Property
•
The Harbour Authority and the City should work together to complete a long-term solution to this historic legally
unregulated situation.
•
There are a number options to be considered, ranging from a right-of-way agreement to an ownership change with
caveats relating to maintaining long term rights of public access.
•
The clearest option would be the transfer of land from the City to the Harbour Authority notwithstanding policy
issues associated with the sale of City land. Should the transfer of land be a consideration, the Harbour Authority
and the City should entertain an equitable arrangement that meets community, City, and Harbour Authority
objectives, including the possibility of a trade-off of community amenities in exchange for property providing
driveway access.
Parking and Access
Parking requirements should be rationalized on the following basis:
Float homes at one stall per float home. Float home Bed and Breakfast add one additional stall;
•
A future relaxation of bylaw requirements for retail/office and restaurant use at one stall per 37m2 (400 sf), 65m2
(700 sf) and one stall per five seats, respectively, could be considered because of the number of users and customers
visiting Fisherman’s Wharf that arrive by means other than private vehicle;
•
Parking requirements for general marina moorage is currently not regulated in the zoning bylaw. One parking stall
per four berths will meet demand;
•
Realign the east side parking area to free up space for a
potential building site and/or public realm space;
•
Continue to discuss limited access to the west end of the
site (Huron Street) currently used for surface parking, with
the federal government (see “Movement and Linkage to
the Neighbourhood” section); and
•
Dedicated parking for Fisherman’s Wharf tenants should
be located to the west end of the site, allowing customers
and the public use of the nearby parking for easy access.
•
The Harbour Authority should work with the City’s
Transportation Department and neighbours to determine
appropriate drop-off zones for tourism buses.
•
The Harbour Authority will monitor parking and
conduct appropriate parking demand studies if parking
requirements in the new site-specific zone are exceeded.
Bicycles
Demand surveys show that additional bicycle storage is
required.
•
Racks that can accommodate an additional 20 bicycles (at
a minimum) should be strategically located at Fisherman’s
Wharf and have appropriate signage.
•
The Fisherman’s Wharf property is bisected by lands that extend to the high water mark and legally form part of
Fisherman’s Wharf Park, but are practically part of the Fisherman’s Wharf operation.
17
18
C. The Plan: Water Area Development
The water area is what truly defines Fisherman’s Wharf, hosting nearly all of the uses associated with the facility. This
Plan intends to maintain the general mix of uses, although areas occupied, and the actual numbers of units within a use
category may change over time; all support the underlying principle of preserving and enhancing marine activity.
Float Home Community
The float home and liveaboard community have been part of Fisherman’s Wharf activities for more than a century. They are a
defining feature of Fisherman’s Wharf and are, in part, what makes it unique on the West Coast. They provide form, character,
and animation and are part of the facility’s attraction, even though they would not typically be defined as “working harbour use”.
•
Float homes should be a part of the long-term Fisherman’s Wharf community, but limited in the future scope.
•
Float homes will comprise a maximum of 25% of the commercially useable water area.
•
Live/work situations, including allowances for retail/food/beverage services and “B&B” or home occupations
should be permitted and encouraged on the first floor (dock level) of float homes, with residential above.
•
Float home uses must be connected to the community water and sewer system.
•
Parking requirements should be set at one stall per float home.
•
Float home structures should be limited to a height of 7.5m.
Floating Commercial Units
The number of commercial floating units should be expanded to create higher levels of activity and sense of a community
attraction, and to recognize the evolution of uses and activities at Fisherman’s Wharf. A higher concentration of floating
commercial units will help extend the season for current and future operators. The current commercial units are all located
toward the east end of the docks. The Plan seeks to draw customers to the west end of Fisherman’s Wharf.
•
Extending the deck plaza area at the east end around the current commercial units to allow for limited expansion of
floating commercial shops around a central floating plaza, and create a new, smaller concentration of commercial
units toward the west along the main dock.
•
The width of the main dock paralleling the shoreline should be increased when the lifecycle of the existing dock
expires, to allow for higher pedestrian traffic and, in strategic areas, expanded further to allow for seating around the
floating commercial units.
•
Individual floating retail commercial units should be restricted to a maximum size of 60 m2 on any floor, and a
maximum of 100 m2 in total, with a preference for a variety of building sizes. Building height should not exceed six
metres, measured from water level in accordance with zoning specifications. Floating commercial exhibits could
exceed the floor area maximum.
•
The total area of commercial space and access area will comprise a maximum of 25% of the commercially useable
water area.
•
The total area for floating commercial retail units is planned to be approximately 1,000 m2 (10,700 sf).
•
Commercial units should be connected to the community sewer system where gray or black water is generated.
•
A new pedestrian ramp accessing the main dock should be installed to the east of the Harbour Master building to
serve all dock users and visitors to Fisherman’s Wharf.
•
Uses envisaged include retail, marine tourism and recreation activities and sales, food services, artisans and crafts,
commercial exhibits, and activities related to marine services, including marina and boat brokerage offices.
General moorage consists of commercial fishing vessels (CFVs), other commercial vessels, and annual and short-term
vessel moorage important to a functional working harbour. The area allocated for general moorage, harbour service
activities, including the fuel dock and pier and access space, will comprise at least 50% of the commercially useable water
area.
•
The addition of floating commercial units on the west end of the marina will have minor impact on vessel moorage
space. Direct sales off commercial fishing vessels should be permitted, subject to health regulations. It is anticipated
that floating commercial units in this area will be more oriented to retail seafood sales. Uses envisaged include docks
for vessels, selling of products from commercial fishing vessels, and ancillary services.
•
Moorage should continue to predominate in the mix of water-related uses.
•
CFVs are an important part of the working harbour make-up and add to the character and vibrancy of Fisherman’s
Wharf. CFV operators will need to accept certain limitations of use given the space to service the vessels.
•
The west portion of the docks has not been upgraded, and is nearing the end of its lifecycle. There will need
to be discussions regarding the design of replacement docks, as commercial fishing vessels are typically heavy
displacement vessels, and are accustomed to rafting – they do not lend themselves to individual “finger” floats.
A design strategy for the west end docks should be developed over the next year.
•
Maintain the holding tank pump-out facility. The location of the pump-out facility may change over time to best
serve the needs of the users.
Pier-Related Uses and Activities
The west pier provides access to deep water, and is used predominantly to unload marine goods and supplies – mainly tuna
and other fish products – and provide access to the fuel barge. Public access to the northern, outside edge of the pier is not
comfortable or safe when loading activities are taking place.
The pier is nearing the end of its lifecycle, and will soon require significant upgrades. At the time of pier replacement, the
following improvements should be considered:
•
Widen the pier to facilitate safe public access along with marine services’ capabilities;
•
Allow for the future construction of a building on and adjacent to the pier. The uses envisioned include: marine
commercial uses, attractions, retail commercial, service commercial, and restaurant;
•
•
Permit the siting of a building of up to 465 m2 (5,000 sf) of site coverage consisting of a single storey and with
possible mezzanine above and a pitched roof (see design guidelines). Building height should be limited to 7.5
metres measured from pier level. The building would extend out on piles over the waterfront to a widened pier,
but be located well within the water lot, overlooking the marina. The building could tie into a ramp leading to
the new west side floating commercial units. The proposed “focal building” is strategically located to create a
“book end” to Fisherman’s Wharf, while sited away from the direct line of sight of neighbours ;
Create a significant public focal point at the end of the new pier that frames Fisherman’s Wharf ’s western side. The
end of the pier is the most prominent viewing point, capturing more of the Victoria harbour and skyline than any
other spot within the property. It is envisaged that an iconic focal point/attraction will enhance Fisherman’s Wharf
as a destination place and serve as a “bookend” to a future pedestrian bridge leading into Fisherman’s Wharf from
the east; and
The seasonal loading/unloading of fish and marine products has been a mainstay activity at Fisherman’s Wharf for decades.
There have been some references to moving all commercial fishing vessel activity to Ogden Point because of noise and
traffic impacts. However, it is an activity that adds to the character and functioning of Fisherman’s Wharf and is consistent
with the City’s working harbour policies, and should remain.
Commercial Fishing Vessel and General Vessel Moorage
19
•
20
Discussion with the federal government should be undertaken in advance of the pier replacement to optimize the
interface between pier renewal and the adjacent foreshore for mutual benefit.
Marine Fuel Dock
The gas barge provides an essential service to the marine vessel communities in Victoria and Esquimalt, and to visitors.
Located within convenient and safe access to boaters, it requires clear and reasonable access lanes for vessels waiting for fuel.
In planning for the replacement of the pier, the Harbour Authority should consider options for improved positioning or
“repositioning” of the fuel dock and, in doing so, provide more tie-up space for larger vessels and improved access.
Public Water Use Access
Providing public kayak/canoe ingress and egress should be considered. There is an opportunity to integrate public canoe/
kayak access at the west side of the new pedestrian bridge over Heron Cove. The facility would have to be designed to
accommodate tide changes and be respectful of the environmentally sensitive area at the head of the Bay.
D. Facility Plan: Land-use and Development Opportunities Analysis
The following table summarizes existing and future land use/development opportunities, and shows the total floor areas
envisaged for buildings, as well as numbers of units permitted as appropriate.
Note that the uses and development opportunities proposed comply with bylaw parking standards, and no variance to
parking provision of the zoning by-law are anticipated.
Use
Existing Size (m2)
Proposed Additional
(m2)
TOTAL (m2)
125
150
275
275
275
600
1,000
465
465
1,490
2,015
Upland Office (Harbour Master)
Upland Retail/Food Commercial
Floating Commercial Units
400
Pier Commercial
TOTAL
Float Homes
Moorage
525
33 units
33 units
101 berths
95-100 berths
E. Implementation
The Fisherman’s Wharf Plan will be implemented as follows:
1. Zoning application to the City of Victoria to reflect the vision of the Plan;
2. Development of a five year capital plan and implementation strategy by the Harbour Authority; and
3. Review and implementation of management policies as appropriate by the Harbour Authority.
PART THREE: Appendices
21
22
Appendix A:
Key Features Plan & Facilities Plan
23
24
New Floating Commercial
Existing Floating Commercial
Additional Floating Plaza Space
Low scale building on
piles and partially on
widened pier
with site coverage of
approximately 465m2
(5000ft2)
Pump-out Station
(subject to future relocation)
at
Flo
Hom
es
Fuel Dock: Consider
reconfiguration at time of
replacement of the pier
Views
sels
Ves
View Corridor
Replacement of Huron Pier
with separation space for
pedestrians (with location
for ancillary buildings
servicing the CFVs
View Corridor
Public View Point/Attraction
sels
Ves
View Corridor
Public Water Use Area
Passenger vessel pick-up/ drop-off
Pedestrian Pathway
s
w
Vie
R A Y M U R
P O I N T
dge
n Bri
a
i
r
t
s
P)
Pede
ty OC
i
C
r
e
(as p
New Signage
Potential Public
Kayak Access
38 39
40 41
57.61
33
31 30 29 28
s
Stair
Future second recycling/solid
waste management facility
10 20 30 40
50
100
150
Proposed additional bike storage
SHOAL POINT
Proposed additional bike storage
200
Scale in Feet
Note: All distances, areas, and locations are approximate.
Seek federal approval for
pedestrian access and
limited/scheduled service
access to Huron St.
New Entry Signage
DALLAS ROAD
0
Widen pedestrian path
16
51
52
53
10
5
Proposed widened
main dock
Existing underground
fuel storage facility
50
55
18
15
New Ramp
36 35
Environmentally
Sensitive Area
Public
Plaza
54
1
36°12'50"
42
49
47 48
45 46
43 44
Heritage
Designated
Properties
26 25 24
21
Reconfigure Parking
19 18 17 16 15
14
13 12 11
Area for future
low-profile
commercial building
(275m2 / 3000ft2)
Potential location of
additional
recycle/solid waste
management facility
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Entry Signage
ST LAWRENCE ST.
HURON STREET PIER
37
Additional floating
plaza space
WORLD MARK AT
VICTORIA
15.77
Widen dock where
appropriate
Ensure redeveloped
pier interfaces with
neighbouring water lot
Public Water
Use Area
Public View Point/
Kiosk/Plaza
FACILITIES PLAN
Fisherman's Wharf
Existing bike storage
Retain existing building in short term
Replace/ expand with larger building in the
future to the east
FISHERMANS WHARF PARK
March 14, 2013. 1:1100 (when printed at 11x17)
LEGEND
A - Public View Points
B - Fixed Commercial Building (Pier Commercial)
C - West Floating Commercial Area
D - Upland Office (Harbourmaster) Fixed Building - possible small extension
E - New Ramp
F - Possible Locations for Solid Waste Management/Recycling
G - East Floating Commercial Area
H - Upland Fixed Commercial Building and Public Plaza
I - Parking Reconfiguration on east end of parking lot
J - Pedestrian Bridge
K - Future Limited Access
L - Widened Pier
M - Harbour Pathway
A
View Corridor
w
Vie
View Corridor
View Corridor
Views
M
J
G
F
B
C
s
E
M
H
I
D
L
M
F
KEY FEATURES PLAN
Fisherman's Wharf
K
Note: All distances, areas, and locations are approximate.
Nov. 16, 2012. 1:1100 (when printed at 11x17)
Greater Victoria Harbour Authority | Fisherman’s Wharf Plan
N
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK & VIEWSCAPES
Existing and Proposed | November 2012
Existing
Proposed
Views
0
25
50
100 metres
N
ENVIRONMENTAL & CIVIC CONSIDERATIONS
May 2012
Maintain views
from Shoal Point
Access arrangement
with the
City of Victoria
Sensitive
Area
0
25
50
100 metres
Heritage
Appendix B:
Architectural Renderings
33
34
ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS
February 2012
February 2012
February 2012
Appendix C:
Design Guidelines
41
42
A. Introduction and Purpose.........................................................................................................................................45
Organizing Principles.....................................................................................................................................................................45
B. Building Design..........................................................................................................................................................46
Form, Mass, Scale............................................................................................................................................................................48
Roof Form........................................................................................................................................................................................48
Materials and Colours....................................................................................................................................................................48
C. Environmental Considerations.................................................................................................................................49
D. Safety and Security.....................................................................................................................................................49
E. Circulation, Connectivity, Paths, and Parking.........................................................................................................50
F.Lighting.......................................................................................................................................................................51
G.Signage........................................................................................................................................................................51
H. Outdoor Space and Landscaping..............................................................................................................................52
Table of Contents
43
44
The Design Guidelines for Fisherman’s Wharf should be used in conjunction with the “Facilities Report”, the “Standards
for Float Homes and Live-Aboard Vessels in Victoria Harbour, November 1, 2001”, the “Fisherman’s Wharf/Inner
Harbour Comprehensive Sign Program”, and the “British Columbia Float Home Standards”. These guidelines will ensure
that the design of individual developments at the facility are compatible with the overall design concept for Fisherman’s
Wharf.
Design Guidelines serve as a guide for the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority and the City of Victoria, and are not
prescriptive. They are reference points for reviewing components of Fisherman’s Wharf Facilities Plan as it develops.
The guidelines provide design criteria, intended for proposed marine harbour activities, including marine service
industrial and commercial, seafood supplies, marine tourism, retail and complementary uses such as artisans and
displays, food services (restaurant) and residential that are consistent with the development objectives of the City of
Victoria and the GVHA.
All proposed improvements within Fisherman’s Wharf should be consistent with a “marine activity idiom”. The design
character should provide both a clear “sense of place and destination” and a distinct “architectural identity ”. Wherever
feasible, architectural designs must also create a “pedestrian friendly waterfront environment”.
Organizing Principles
Key organizing principles guiding development at Fisherman’s Wharf also
apply to its Design Guidelines:
Acknowledge the mix of existing marine uses, and the facility’s distinct
character and ambience. It is recognized that Fisherman’s Wharf already
has a distinct, identifiable character and future improvements should
compliment and not detract from this character.
•
Recognize Fisherman’s Wharf for its contributions to, and enhancement
of, the local economy.
•
Future facility plans and uses will reflect, and reinforce, GVHA’s
established vision, mandate, and principles that:
•
•
•
•
Support the working harbour, and ensure best water, marine and
marine-related uses;
Consider Songhees and Esquimalt Nations’ opportunities in the
planning process;
Support commitment to sustainability, and incorporate and
balance social and environmental impacts, while achieving financial
sustainability; and,
Act in the best interest of the whole Victoria Harbour.
•
Development considerations will be respectful of neighbours.
•
Augment and enhance the character of Fisherman’s Wharf, and
strengthen it as a destination for the community
and tourists.
•
Encourage and improve linkages between Fisherman’s Wharf and
the Victoria/Esquimalt waterfronts, reflecting the City of Victoria’s
Waterfront Walkway objectives.
•
Include environmental best practices in the planning and
development process.
•
A. Introduction and Purpose
45
Floating and fixed structures within Fisherman’s Wharf should be exemplified by the following governing guidelines:
•
Buildings should be reminiscent of the working waterfront, i.e., generally of a variety of forms and shapes, typically
containing sloped, shed, or gable roofs, dormers with facia accent, liberal use of colour.
•
Hard wearing marine materials, such as corrugated and sheet metal, wood or clapboard siding, cementitous body or
shingle, and trim detail;
•
Nautical detailing, such as rounded openings and metal trim; and
•
Ample use of fenestration and entranceways that need not be symmetrical to enhance the sense of the eclectic and
whimsy.
Chow Low Hammond Architects
46
B. Building Design
Form, Mass, Scale
FIXED STRUCTURES
Three areas are identified on the Facilities Plan for fixed commercial buildings. While the development concept aims to
add amenities to the area, all buildings should be designed to emphasize the ground level, pedestrian environment. A low
ratio of building height to façade length should be targeted to maintain an intimate feeling and scale of the area. Form,
mass and scale considerations for these structures include:
•
Maintaining view corridors, particularly on the upland sites;
•
Limiting building heights to minimize infringement on views for
residential areas along Erie and St. Lawrence Streets, and Shoal Point;
•
Applying simple massing forms that maintain an engagement
with pedestrians, i.e. limit blank walls, use of roof overhangs;
•
Employing façade articulation to differentiate and accentuate the
ground level, and reduce pedestrian awareness of upper floors;
•
Allowing for pedestrian linkages between places of business and the public
waterfront;
•
Adding architecturally diverse and varied treatments, so as to create a sense of individuality between structures, but
not lose sight of a sense of place and Fisherman’s Wharf identity and character;
•
Where appropriate, allowing buildings and public walkways to be cantilevered with no required setback from the
water; and
•
Including opportunities for overlooking fish unloading areas.
FLOATING STRUCTURES
Form mass and scale for floating structures should relate to the
following guidelines:
•
Floating structures, whether float homes or
commercial units, should be organized into groupings
to create a sense of intimacy, activity, relationship
and character, with the docks forming the ‘street’ between opposite structures. Groupings also create better
opportunities to provide for view corridors seaward;
•
Floating structures should be of high-quality, unique designs, and complementary to the eclectic environment;
•
Diversity of building volume and form is encouraged;
•
Longer buildings with blank windowless and featureless walls that are visible from the public realm, including docks,
are strongly discouraged;
•
Floating commercial structures should be small in scale and sited close together to create a “storefront”
atmosphere; a variety of sized structures is preferable;
•
Construction projections and overhangs, such as canopies and eaves, are encouraged but should not extend beyond
the perimeter of the float structure, except for the floating commercial structure where projections over the dock,
provided they do not interfere with the public travel, access or safety, and comply with GVHA standards; and
•
Float homes should be designed and sited with particular regard to their orientation, privacy, views, setbacks from
the adjacent float home.
Much of the character of Fisherman’s Wharf can be attributed to
the form of its floating buildings that mostly comprises float homes
and the commercial floating units. These buildings significantly
contribute to the character of Fisherman’s Wharf that is often
described as whimsical, fanciful or eclectic, but without being corny
or distasteful. It is important that the form and character of the
facility’s floating structures maintain this sense of the unusual.
47
Roof Form
48
•
Roof construction for the fixed and floating structures should
either be of sloped or, where flat, treated as a roof deck.
•
Gable, shed, hip, and flat roofs, including dormer projections are
preferred.
•
Awnings, overhangs, and shed covers are encouraged and should
relate to the height above the deck level.
Materials and Colours
•
The scale of application may vary between the differing forms of
structures, with the fixed structures generally being larger, thus more appropriate for larger expanses of similar materials.
•
A range of façade treatment materials and combinations of materials are acceptable and are identified below. Materials should be
weather-tight, marine-oriented, and durable.
ROOF FINISHES
•
Materials traditional and suitable to a marine environment should be used, including metal and other standing seam products,
fiberglass or simulated shingle, or cedar shingle/shake.
EXTERIOR WALLS AND FINISHES
•
High quality building materials associate with a harbour setting is encouraged, such as corrugated metal cladding, horizontal
siding, board and batten and cementitious and other panel board, that may be further enhanced by the introduction of transoms,
clerestories, and awnings.
•
Trim, including cornices, corner boards, windows, doors, window boxes and bay windows, brackets, exterior post and railings,
and exposed rafter ends are encouraged to enrich the character of the building.
•
Personalized “knick knacks” that do not clutter but add to the eclectic nature of the floating buildings are encouraged.
COLOUR
•
All colours should be marine derived, with emphasis on vivid colours, including rich reds, yellows, blues, whites, and greens,
using a painted or stained base.
•
Multiple colours on individual exterior walls are discouraged.
•
Window, door frames and other trim including awnings and other projections should be highlighted in colours complementary
to the base wall colour.
Foreshore and waterfront environments are unique in their physical challenges and opportunities. Waterfront
neighbourhoods are highly influenced by their natural environments, which can be constantly changing with the rhythms
of the seasons, the weather, and the tides. The demands of the waterfront environment are considerable.
Landform and natural features are an asset, with buildings enhancing existing conditions. Planning modifications to
existing conditions should consider adjacent land uses, and the foreshore environment.
The Harbour Authority has embraced the principle of sustainability and has adopted environmental initiatives that
include setting environmental standards for marina operations and commercial clients. Future development initiatives at
Fisherman’s Wharf should be reviewed to ensure conformance with these standards.
•
Special design considerations should be paid to ensure that pathways do not deleteriously impact the head of Heron
Cove.
•
Use of permeable pavers as hard surface materials for parking and pedestrian pathways to reduce run-off.
•
All solid waste collection areas should be properly ventilated or in attractively screened outdoor enclosures.
•
New buildings should incorporate sustainable building techniques.
D. Safety and Security
Personal safety and security are paramount to the enjoyment of public and private spaces. To promote safety and security:
•
New buildings should address current principles related to “Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design” (CPTED) (refer to the guidelines adopted by the City of Victoria).
•
Develop well-defined public/private spaces that are adequately lit, visibility by others, with clear sight lines.
•
New activities should consider time of operation for public and private spaces, and aim to appropriately overlap one
another to maximize the opportunities for “eyes on public and private areas” to provide surveillance.
C. Environmental Considerations
49
The enjoyment of a place is often determined by initial impressions, and ease of access. Waterfronts have two “front
doors” – water’s edge and street front. Whether arriving by boat, car, ferry, or bike, a clear, welcoming presence is
important.
•
Waterfront areas should support distinct gateway features at key arrival points. In form, character and detailing,
developments should articulate the type of activity and its identity.
•
A clear definition of the marina is served by key, highly visible features that “book-end” the area, and serve to
improve the sense of place and overall ability to navigate the wharf.
•
Parking areas should be clearly defined. Pedestrian routes and plazas should be well connected to internal and
external amenities.
•
Building entrances should be well defined through such things as overhangs, porticos, or awnings. Primary entrances
should be clearly expressed and accessed from the parking area or water’s edge. Access from pedestrian paths sould
be a paramount design consideration.
•
Maximize physical accessibility for all members of the community.
•
Priority for paths and roadways should be indicated with physical features (i.e. raised pedestrian crossings, surface
material differentiation between uses, removal of barriers to pedestrian activity when pedestrians have priority).
•
Pathways should tie into the City of Victoria’s Harbour Pathway Plan, and the Fisherman’s Wharf Park.
•
Pathway materials should differentiate pedestrian from vehicle areas, using pavers, cedar decking, or other hard
surface, permeable materials.
•
Parking areas should be broken up with plantings or physical features to avoid expanses of paved surfaces.
•
Use physical landscape features, along with signage, to indicate parking area.
50
E. Circulation, Connectivity, Paths, and Parking
The GVHA has initiated an upland lighting fixture regime that should be continued throughout.
•
Light fixtures should be of a high quality and human scale.
•
Lighting should correspond to the overall architectural concept and reflect the marine context.
•
Pedestrian pathway lighting should low level and prevent overspill.
•
Dock lighting adjacent to the commercial floating units should not be overbearing, but add to its vibrancy.
•
Other dock lighting should be consistent throughout. Dock lighting of the float home neighbourhood should
illuminate sufficiently to provide safety and security, but not be instrusive or overbearing.
G. Signage
Signage is a critical element of the Fisherman’s Wharf “milieu” and should reflect its character. Signage should indicate
uses and provide a gateway to areas of activity.
•
Signage on the upland areas that communicate direction, give instructions, or outline GVHA or other regulatory
body regulations should be consistent throughout, and simple in design and form. A single sign conveying multiple
pieces of information should be adopted in place of multiple signs “cluttering” the property.
•
As access to Fisherman’s Wharf can be by land or water, signage communication must consider the multi-modal
approaches to the facility.
•
Banners and flags are iconic maratime features and should be considered in the overall signage strategy.
•
Backlit, plastic signs or flashing electronic signs are to be avoided.
•
Floating commercial unit signage should evoke a sense of whimsy, playfulness, curiosity, or quaintness.
•
Commercial unit signage can be wall-mounted, bracketed raised letters, window lettering, or bannered or canopy
inscript.
Signage should be colourful but not overbearing with a variety of letter types and shapes
•
Lighting should be indirect or spotlit unless it forms part of the integrity of the sign, such as neon lettering.
•
Small (no more than 0.75m2) personalized household name signs are encouraged on float homes.
•
F. Lighting
51
52
H. Outdoor Space and Landscaping
Well-designed outdoor space and landscaping adds to the quality of life in communities. Given the configuration of the
upland, there is limited opportunity for a large landscape of plaza features. Where appropriate:
•
Patios, decks and other outdoor spaces should be well connected physically and visually with other waterfront
activities, and oriented to maximize view opportunities.
•
Physical comfort should be considered including the use of windscreens and arbours, or planting for sun protection.
•
Planting schemes based on native or natural looking landscapes, with reduced water and maintenance requirements
should predominate.
•
Landscaping should relate to Fisherman’s Wharf Park improvements.
•
Window box gardens on float homes and floating commercial units are encouraged to add colour, vibrancy, and
personality to the outdoor environment.
Appendix D:
Plan Consultation Feedback
53
Fi sher man’s W har f Plan
GVHA Fisherman’s Wharf Plan
Online & Paper Survey Responses
•
•
56 fully completed surveys (online and paper).
Additional 8 comments submitted, that appear following Question 10 “Any further
comments or suggestions”.
Of the people who indicated where they live (in both Q1 and Q2), approximately
84% live in James Bay
Comments from the April 11 General Meeting of then JBNA also attached.
•
•
1. Do you live or work at Fisherman's Wharf?
Live
31
94%
Work
2
6%
Total
33
100%
2. If you don't live at Fisherman's Wharf, please indicate where you live:
•
5 identified as residents of Shoal Point
In James Bay
23
70%
In the City of Victoria
2
6%
In another municipality in
the Capital Region
2
6%
Other, please specify:
6
18%
Total
33
100%
GVHA Fishermanʼs Wharf Plan: Online & Paper Survey Results
3. In the following questions (3-11), please indicate your level of agreement with the
Key Features of the Draft Plan (see Key Features map).Please indicate your level of
agreement for reconfiguring parking at the east end of the site to allow opportunity for
a small, low scale building (+/-275 m2) – H of the Key Features map – that relates to
a pedestrian bridge across Heron Cove.
Strongly agree
13
23%
Agree
17
30%
Neutral
4
7%
Somewhat disagree
4
7%
Strongly disagree
18
32%
Total
56
100%
32 Additional Comments
Buildings should be at the water level so as not to disrupt views and further
complicate pedestrian/vehicle movement. If additional parking space is needed take it
from the east end of the park, open the access to the west of Shoal Point (Malahat
land), and close the roadway to the east of Shoal Point. Exchange the closed
roadway land to the east of Shoal Point so it can be used for park. In exchange for
more land for parking taken from the St. Lawrence end of the park transfer to the City
the land which is the extension of Dallas Road along the west end of the park. This
will reduce conflicts with Shoal Point, increase pedestrian safety, simplify the Dallas/
Erie intersection, allow for improved access to St. Lawrence, and allow for a bus drop
off location along St. Lawrence. This needs to be done before the City finalizes
improvements to the east end of the park.
Could be another food establishment with a deck towards the water. Hopefully
something better than Barb's greasy chips.
Strongly agree with pedestrian bridge. Strongly disagree with new building on upland,
thereby reducing space for parking. No obvious relationship to bridge across Heron
Cove.
1. Although a pedestrian bridge would enhance the wharf by helping connect it to the
rest of the harbour pathway system, an additional building is unnecessary. Buildings
at the wharf are visually obtrusive, impede lines of sight, and detract from the beauty
of the area. If additional buildings are absolutely required a better solution would be
low-rise (single story) buildings located on the street side of Fisherman's Park, the
east portion (majority) of which is an underutilized asset; 2. There is currently
adequate parking at Fisherman's Wharf. The parking at either lot is never fully
saturated. The existing parking space provides adequate parking for visitors arriving
by car, and the parking lot in front of the Shoal Point complex provides more than
adequate spillover parking if necessary. Street parking along Fisherman's park should
also be encouraged as it would increase use of this underutilized facility; 3.
Pedestrian access to Fisherman's Wharf should be encouraged over automobile
access. This is a greener choice. This would be facilitated by construction of the
bridge as proposed and connection to the rest of the harbour-front path system.
Increasing parking encourages automobile access over pedestrian access which is
less environmentally friendly.
Would like to see this new building house washrooms. This would help with existing
food services (Barb's and others). Also a good spot for a deck with food services.
Also locate garbage/recycling facility and public toilets in the east end building.
Garbage disposal, recycling facilities, and washrooms could be located inside, or
beside, this building.
Not enough detail to decide about the building and its unknown use.
Agree, as long as a low-rise structure is compatible with the area. A small retail fruit/
vegetable market perhaps, as discussed at your meeting, and caters to local and
visitor foot traffic.
Pedestrian flow is restrictive along the roadway into the wharf from downtown. A
bridge is an excellent idea that will both be welcoming and attractive. Area H would
be an ideal location for a restaurant that looks over the harbour and the wharf.
I like the idea of better parking configuration but a building there would interrupt the
vista you get then you first arrive into the FW area. Perhaps there could be a bit of
greenspace there with benches instead?
Reconfigure more parking
I think a building in this location would be a big mistake. This area should be left as
open space and not crowded by a building. Also, the City is spending a lot of
taxpayer's money upgrading Fisherman's Wharf Park and a building in this location
would block out the unobstructed view of the harbour from the Park. This would be
unfair to users of the Park who, when sitting on the " view " benches along the north
edge of the Park, would be looking straight into a building!! The suggested uses of
this proposed building are for some sort of vegetable market. Although this might
sound quaint there is no way that this would be financially viable. So, what else would
fit into " commercial " use? A short order take out food outlet? We already have four
of these on the dock and a " hamburger joint " would be a disaster and would
downgrade the whole ambiance of the dock. No, leave this area as it is. We need the
parking and we don't need any commercial activity on this upland area that would
negatively impact the view of the harbour.
I agree with the building there - but don't see how that has anything to do with the
proposed bridge. In summary, I agree with the building, but the bridge should not use
any city funding due to blue bridge cost over-runs (i.e. City too broke to subsidize
GVHA). This building would be good for restaurant with deck over looking the float
home village.
NO!! No building here!!
You talk of preserving view corridors in section #5 yet you are proposing to block out
one of the best view corridors of the open harbour with a building. That does't make
sense!!
There are several questions imbedded in this one question. yes to the parking
reconfig. No to the proposed usage. It would be more efficient (less congestion on the
wharf) if the washrooms were near to the major food area. In fact, the whole
proposed layout is awful. Imagine the extra people walking back and forth to compare
what is on the menus. And then they all scurry to the middle to go to the washroom.
Perhaps the consultant has had no experience handling time-management or
walkways. The proposed H building could be a restaurant with a deck facing the
water. And the washrooms should be there.
This is not a low scale building.
I understand the float home owners oppose this building – something about an
unnecessary cost burden? I don't have any understanding of that. Whatever it is, it
should be small enough to pay for itself. It should also integrate well with the new
park design.
For reasons of privacy, parking and noise
If it adds interest / sales / charm / a maritime flavour, I'm fully in favour.
Should be limited to uses directly relatable to existing 'tourist attraction uses and not
items such as banks, offices, or clothing stores etc.
Parking good. I am not sure of the purpose for 'H' building, so am unable to comment.
Why does a pedestrian bridge require a building??? Seems unnecessary, as there is
plenty of commercial space already slotted for further development.
I'm concerned about the number of parking spots that will be available. It's already
impossible to find parking during the busier months.
With the proposed addition to the harbor masters building and future building on dock
g I would be opposed to a land based structure that could impede the only clear view
of heron's cove...due to the pedestrian walkway.I believe the walkway is a priority and
therefore we need to keep the view of the cove. Also, there needs to be a focus on
the water not the foreshore...except for plants...
Pedestrian bridge would be a wonderful extension from the leisurely walkway around
the harbour. And a few single story buildings shouldn't disrupt our lifestyle as they'd
be facing the parking lot most likely.
I think commercial development should be focused on the docks where the building
does not impact the view. I think the space is needed in the parking lot for buses;
trucks; visitors. The upland area would be better utilized for picnic tables and benches
for viewing the water lot. Not all commercial space needs to produce revenue. Some
areas need to be preserved to promote the atmosphere for the commercial area to
draw people.
The building should have public washrooms.
I agree with parking but the building should be used for a non-alcohol restaurant. All
the food and washrooms, garbage and recycling to the east.
Great place for public washrooms and a restaurant deck looking over the harbour.
This is not the place for a building as it will block the view corridor to the harbour.
As long as it is a small building (275m2) does not seem to be small that small though.
4. Please indicate your level of agreement with future expansion or replacement of
the existing Harbour Masterʼs office building (D on the Key Features map) with a
building that meets the Fishermanʼs Wharf Design Guidelines, and could include uses
such as offices, retail coffee shop, publicly accessible washrooms, and opportunity for
historic and First Nationsʼ “storytelling space”.
Strongly agree
17
30%
Agree
17
30%
Neutral
7
12%
Somewhat disagree
3
5%
Strongly disagree
12
21%
Total
56
100%
26 Additional Comments!
This is too close to Shoal Point where there is already ample office and "coffee shop"
space. As with previous comment the commercial activity should be "at the dock level
- not on the uplands.
I am very pleased to see that this building is up for debate. It is central to the whole
development. It is UGLY and it serves no community purpose. Surely the Harbour
Master can relocate some where else. Because of its central location, it should not be
administrative. It should be attractive
Current building and use is great. best design around. Put native interpretation etc on
west side.
1. There is currently a surplus of retail and office space in the area (and downtown
Victoria in general) and additional retail and office space at Fisherman's Wharf is
unnecessary and redundant; 2. A new building if it was any larger than the current
structure would adversely impact visual access to and from the harbour; 3. The
existing public washrooms could easily be expanded without necessitating a large
new building; 4. The existing Harbour Master's office building is architecturally
interesting, modest in size, and it is not excessively visually obtrusive. Why go to the
expense of replacing it?
Hopefully a bldg which maintains a modest footprint and does not impose itself on the
existing flavour of FW.
I really like this building as it is. It has a unique low-key, yet nautical feel to it. Put first
nations story-telling and fishing history displays near to the fishing boats
Coffee shop redundant because of existence of Moka House. Washrooms should be
in east end building. Do not increase height of Harbour Master's building or extend it
to the west.
Building height should not be increased, and extension should only be to the east
side, not the west side. Locate washrooms in east end building, not in central
building.
Again, not enough specific detail provided to judge.
especially interested in a coffee shop and First Nations' storytelling space
I like the idea of a space for historic/First Nations story telling.
Really like this idea as a better use of that prime space. Also like the idea of more
washroom facilities as they are badly needed in summer and there is nothing other
than at Moka in the winter.
Plans for expansion, etc. should be to the east. No Liquor.
There are a number of retail coffee shops in Victoria which are licensed to serve
alcohol. The Plan does not make clear the intentions in this regard. Do alcohol and
family amenities belong together? Do we want inebriated folks out on the pirate ship
which caters to families with young children?
Why relocate the present function of this building?There's lots of coffee available,
there are vacant offices available in the immediate area. I doubt that this would be an
acceptable location for a "destination" location for a fine dining restaurant. BUT, more
washrooms are needed and I don't see them factored into your Plan.
The guidelines are too boring. The float-homes are already loosing the funkiness. The
current building LOOKS like a marine building. Washrooms should not be in this
building. Public washrooms should be in H building - where the people eating are.
See comments above - bad place for a food or washroom set-up. Really bad. And
what is wrong with the current structure - at least there is one building without a redroof. We need imagination - not the same design everywhere.
This is NOT a "tweak" of a building – you are more than doubling its size and
therefore taking the view away.
Expansion OK, but really, aren't we talking replacement? That thing is ugly and
inconsistent with the look and feel of the place. It is central, so even more so than any
east side building we have to get this one right in terms of size, function(s) and look
I'm not thrilled about the First Nations storytelling space. There's nothing wrong with
it, just that it's been done all over Victoria. Is there any other reason the GVHA is
doing this? How about a "History of Fisherman's Wharf". I'm sure there's archive
pictures that can be used. I'd be more interested in seeing pictures and reading about
the history of the wharf.
Small meeting space for rental..sm business groups..etc is welcome...public
washrooms year round is essential
I like the old building and thought it and the land its on would still be owned by the
government.
Current building is a bit of an eyesore
Washrooms should be near Barb's and Mexican food. I like the building the way it is.
Traffic flow is mixed up
The current building looks good. It is the best designed structure on the wharf. The
guidelines, as described, are weak and cookie cutter. Leave this building as it is - it is
nice.
5. Please indicate your level of agreement for preserving view corridors, and
providing vantage points for viewing water activity at both the east and west ends of
Fishermanʼs Wharf (A and J on the Key Features map).
Strongly agree
35
62%
Agree
18
32%
Neutral
1
2%
Somewhat disagree
1
2%
Strongly disagree
1
2%
Total
56
100%
As above - additional building on the uplands would negatively affect views.
Does area J belong to GVHA? A is not currently important. Cold and dangerous with
the planes.
No objection to creating vantage points for viewing at either end of Fisherman's
Wharf, although continued commercial use of the pier at the west end is a superior
choice. Adding additional buildings will impair view corridors however. It is the ability
to view a "working harbour" that makes Fisherman's Wharf the special place it is.
Every additional building incrementally erodes this.
Enhancing a viewpoint at A would be a big plus.
Also wood like to see opportunity for water activity =- not only viewing of activity.
Need to open up the private small-yacht piers too.
Maintenance of view corridors is important.
View corridors should be maintained as much as possible.
The viewing platform at the west end should not infringe on the fish unloading area of
the dock as it is presently indicated on the conceptual drawing.
Important that views from the park not be impeded.
Good idea to add a viewpoint at the west end. Park views should be unobstructed.
I'm unclear about the access to view points on the west end (A)
With the lock-down of the yacht wharves (the gates which were installed in 2011), it
has become imperative to offer other opportunities for visitors to view water activities
up close.
BUT, you don't tell us what your plan is for the fish unloading and reefer truck
loading.This operation s/b re-located to the Ogden Point area, & policed much more
aggressively with regard to noise by-law regulations which the truck operators are
frequently ignoring during late night hours. And the gas dock-what is happening to it?
I would think that it needs to stay where it is.
I agree with the view corridors. but from your map, the area in J does not belong to
GVHA. Hands off !
Yes for preserving view corridors.
Really a no-brainer for me. If the re-development and expansion is at the expense of
the aesthetics of the place, is it worth it? The balance point is critical - maintaing view
corridors and vantage points is an obvious objective.
Great idea.
Careful planning to make sure that the structure are as appropriate as possible...no
fisher price look and feel unlike the current entrance sign
Hence, don't put a building in the parking lot which will block the view.
Public should have viewing areas without needing to enter docks D & E.
6. Improve pedestrian movement and linkages by: • Maintaining/enhancing a
pedestrian pathway adjacent to the waterʼs edge; • Working with the City to plan/
construct a pedestrian bridge across Heron Cove; • Maintaining/enhancing
connection to Fishermanʼs Wharf Park by coordinating pedestrian access across
Fishermanʼs Wharf parking area to the waterfront walkway; • Considering additional
parking at St. Lawrence Street entrance for Fishermanʼs Wharf and Park visitors; •
Creating a strong focal point at the west end of Fishermanʼs Wharf to encourage a
sense of destination; and • Working with the federal government to obtain a
pedestrian connection to Huron Street on the west end of the facility.
Strongly Agree
23
43%
Agree
17
32%
Neutral
2
4%
Somewhat disagree
2
4%
Strongly disagree
9
17%
Total
53
100%
The access to Huron Street should be a combined roadway and pedestrian access.
The existing Dallas roadway extension along the west side of the park should be
closed.
There should be no further encroachment of parkland for parking vehicles!!! This is
the best parkland area in James Bay!
Too many topics in the one question. Expansion of GVHA would not be good. GVHA
has a ness on it's own properties and should fix up what it has before messing with
other properties - and in no way should GVHA be taking more public property form
the public.
1. Pedestrian access to Huron Street at the west end of the facility would serve little
purpose. The existing pedestrian connection on Dallas Road to Ogden Point and the
ocean front is superior and the Coast Guard facility precludes extending a harbourfront pedestrian pathway or creating a continuous pathway to Ogden Point. An
additional pedestrian connection west of the Shoal Point complex neither enhances
pedestrian convenience or serves a practical purpose; 2. Maintaining the existing
pedestrian pathway along the shore in front of the wharf and the Shoal Point complex
is essential and any plan should not rely solely on a floating pathway on the pier. The
pathway on the shore is a more convenient option than the floating pathway for
handicapped persons, particularly during low tide when the wharf is not easily
accessible. It is important to keep the harbour views from this land pathway
unobstructed; 3. A pedestrian bridge across Heron Cove is a positive improvement,
but only if a suitable upland pathway linking the rest of the harbour-front walk can be
built (creating a continuous walking path). The bridge would otherwise serve no
practical purpose.
Strongly agree re pathway, pedestrian bridge, pedestrian access. Agree re pedestrian
access to Huron St on west end. Strongly disagree on a west end focal point other
than the fishing fleet and viewpoint A.
Not really needed. The Wharf already is a destination. Need to make it better as is.
Need to focus on controlling the noise and garbage here. Let City do the pathway.
West end focal point should not be a licensed restaurant or a pub. It should have a
cultural, historical, fisheries or marine related focus.
The walkability of the site, including for parents with young children, should be
maintained, and kept safe.
Too many points with only one response. The first three are good. The fourth involves
a city street; use GVHA property, don't ask for public land for parking. The fifth point is
vague and fluffy. The last point could impact neighbours with traffic.
I would be strongly opposed to any vehicular traffic passing through K & connecting
west end with Huron St. Such activity would turn Shoal Point into a roundabout,
creating blockage on Huron St., air pollution for west side residents and difficulty in
accessing Dallas Rd. - already quite hazardous.
I live on the west side of Shoal Point (our level 3 which is the main floor) immediately
above the proposed future access K. Essentially people will be walking through a
parking lot. I'm very concerned about noise levels so this could be a vast
improvement over the current industrial use of that parking lot i.e loading reefer
trucks; fork lift trucks moving boxes etc., at all hours including weekends; relentless
noise from the refrigeration trucks
Really like the bridge across Heron Cove. Suggest that GVHA negotiates with Victoria
car share co-op to place a car with a dedicated parking space at Fisherman's to
potentially relieve some of the car and parking needs of wharf residents.
I don't agree with one part of this. I don't think additional parking at St.Lawrence is
necessary, and would ruin the planned corner entrance there.
Points need to be elaborated on before agreement given. Re: Point 6: Pedestrian
connection acceptable but requires some sort of feature to prohibit motor cycles from
zooming around building. Absolutely no cars. Reefer access ok.
Whenever GVHA suggests working with the city, everyone becomes worried. GVHA
has not been a good neighbour and should not take more of our tax dollars. I am not
sure where you are suggesting a pedestrian walkway. This was not well presented.
Stay out of the Park. There is already existing walkways between. Stay off St
Lawrence. Wharf does not need more parking - it needs less vehicles - encourage
walking through signage and example. GVHA has messed up the entrance already
bto the wharf from St Lawrence. The west-end focal point should be cultural or artsy.
Need to keep all of the food delivery/garbage/washrooms together on the east side by section H. That way trucks etc will not be stopping at each ramp to service food
establishments. GVHA should stop trying to get public land. A pedestrian connection
between a residential building and a reservist (Defence) building is NOT needed, or
wanted. There are no views, no water, only dark corners to invite problems.
Already have the pathway at waters edge - need more benches etc. Stay away from
City. At the presentation it was very bad to hear the consultant say he had been
speaking with the City. It is bad enough having GVHA taking part of the park already,
no more of that. You don't identify what is a focal point, or what you mean. Any focus
there should be passive - not food. That way could be more easily closed for offseason while the east side stays open more. use should be fishing history or native
exhibit.
This question is goofy! The pedestrian bridge is ok but opening up the pedestrian
connection is definitely not a good idea.
If you need any help with the Feds, I am quite sure we could muster a few live
aboards to help...Seriously, all these are good objectives to facilitate simple,
enjoyable movement of foot and vehicle traffic.
Inspired!
The pedestrian bridge is a fantastic idea.
Would like to see the 33 parking spaces for floathomes maintained on the west end.
Access and signage will do more to promote fisherman's wharf than anything else
RE: "Creating strong focal point...." Speaker was not clear on what "focal point"
means. Small buildings for crafts/native/fishing goods. No restaurant please - do not
want increase in delivery vehicles on west side.
1) it's ok 2)No! too expensive 3) Stay out of my park 4) no 5) no 6) No!!
There are problems with structure at the wharf and in parking lot. The Harbour
Authority should work on them (clean up own act) and stay away from other lands on
the property.
What is "strong focal point"?
7. Please indicate your level of agreement with expanding the number of floating
commercial units, particularly in areas C (west) and G (east) on the Key Features
map.
Strongly agree
10
18%
Agree
28
50%
Neutral
10
18%
Somewhat disagree
6
11%
Strongly disagree
2
4%
Total
56
100%
I believe the central area where the connecting dock is narrow should also have long
linear "kiosk -type" outlets. I know the space is narrow because of the tidal range but
something needs to be done or the dock widen to the maximum extent possible and
perhaps seating constructed along it.
Good opportunity to expand GVHA wit taking mo land away from the public or
government departments
Adding commercial units to the west (area C) will impair (or destroy) currently existing
view corridors and adversely change the character of this part of the wharf. It is clear
that this proposal is incompatible with retaining the commercial fishing character of
Fisherman's Wharf. Pity.
There is a risk of overdevelopment despoiling the nature of FW. Perhaps a small
number of additional units could be added to the east end. Strongly disagree with the
introduction of commercial units into the existing commercial fisheries portion of FW
on the west end.
Would like to see more 'family-friendly' retail/activity spots. Also a 'dry' no alcohol pier
and smoke free pier. Should not be mixing alcohol with families, narrow piers, and
some unruly people.
It depends upon what services these floating units are intended to provide.
Agreement depends upon usages. The socio-environmental ambience is important,
and the financial bottom line should not be given undue precedence.
Any food services should be food primary with a liquor license possibility.
Most of all, remember the mix is good now and big changes would be a mistake.
With reservations relating to B & C
The atmosphere and activity at the wharf has improved a great deal, but could use
more expansion and activity.
This is a working harbour so the expansion makes sense
I like the idea of commercial buildings to draw people down the wharf but am
concerned about the impact on commercial fishing vessels re reduced wharf space
and implications re more rafting of boats and crowding for Dock E boats. Also, if foot
traffic is increased along the main dock, it would be even more important to maintain
gated access to Docks D and E both for the privacy and security of boat owners and
the safety of visitors as those docks are not as amenable to foot traffic.
Shoal Point residents are very strongly opposed to any liquor outlets on the wharf.
Area "G" looks pretty full now, but I suppose it is possible to add to it. Area "C" at the
west end would seem to conflict with the fish boats using that area.If the fish boats
are removed, then it's not "Fisherman's Wharf" anymore. Area "C" could be combined
with Area "L" if the pier is widened and the reefer trucks relocated elsewhere.
I only partly agree. I think we already have enough floating commercial inits at the
east ( G ) end of the dock. However, a few floating commercial units at the west ( C )
end of the dock might be a good idea provided that: 1. There is strict control over the
commercial activity that takes place in/from these units. 2. That these units be
restricted to the south side of the dock/walkway so as not to negatively impact the
already restricted moorage space for the commercial fish boats.
Good as long as they are clean (low noise, no alcohol, clean up) and suitable for
family.
careful of the use - as you go west along the wharf, less food and more artsy and
fishing industry-focussed kiosks
Only limited more space on east side, and I would hate to see so much competition
such that existing business drop below viability. But something like a restaurant/pub
on the west side would be great!
There are still a number of homes - what makes this a unique community is the ability
to both live and wok on the Wharf.
So long as the businesses add flavour consistent with the nature of FW, are local and
charming or useful, bring it on.
As long as area G remains non food chain and non retail but relates to similar existing
uses i.e. food or artisan
How would 'C' effect the fishing vessels/liveaboards? Or 'G' the residents who already
occupy these spaces? And what sort of commercial units are being planned?
I'm not sure how you intend on putting more units in the east side (G). What will
happen with the existing commercial units?
Care must be shown to not over commercialize the biggest resource we have. I think
the east end has enough commercial structures except what might come from live/
work situations
Perhaps a multi story parking facility is needed for all this commercial use. And what
about the fish boats? Would there be provision for their needs?
This water area would be good place for more retail and services (fun like pirate ship)
activities.
We have enough going on at the east end of the dock. A limited number of units ok at
the west end as long as it doesn't squeeze out the fishermen.
Anything other than a pub.
8. Please indicate your level of agreement for widening the pier at the west end of the
facility, allowing for future construction of a building over the water, the creation of a
significant focal point at the end of the pier, and provision of a safe interface between
public and marine servicesʼ uses.
Strongly agree
13
23%
Agree
24
43%
Neutral
5
9%
Somewhat disagree
4
7%
Strongly disagree
10
18%
Total
56
100%
Liquor outlets should not be allowed. While most people are responsible there is
virtually no control over the loud obnoxious drunks. This would be very disruptive to
the adjacent residential area.
It depends upon what kind of building it is and if a restaurant, NO ALCOHOL!
Too much into one question - it would depend on what the focal point would be. A
native interpretation centre would be good - something to educate.
1. Maintaining the current industrial function of the pier and wharf at the west end is
the best choice as it keeps Victoria Harbour a working harbour. The "safe interface
between public and marine services' uses" will likely not be an issue as this plan will
likely kill all marine services use in favor of tourist use at Fisherman's Wharf; 2. If the
function of the pier and the wharf must be changed, widening and extending the pier
and providing public access is a positive thing, and arguably would enhance the
wharf. A building on the pier and over the water however is redundant and would be
visually obtrusive and impair existing visual sight lines toward the west and outer
harbour; 3. If a building must be built on this pier (and I seriously hope it won't),
locating it on the west side rather than the east side of the pier would without question
be the architecturally superior choice. This better frames the wharf, and it opens the
pier up to the rest of the wharf and the superior view toward the inner harbour. Any
building on this pier will in any case obstruct the view toward the west and the outer
harbour from everywhere else at Fisherman's Wharf. If a building must be located on
this pier it would be more attractive and functional if it left the pier visually open to the
rest of the wharf. Access to the proposed viewpoint at the end of the pier would still
be maintained and would provide a pedestrian viewpoint to the outer harbour.
Locating a building over the water on the east side of the pier also reduces the
amount of usable space in area "C" at the Wharf. If a building must be located on the
pier, the west side of the pier is a superior choice.
Widen the pier if needed for commercial fisheries operations. Strongly disagree with a
new fixed commercial bldg in that area. In particular, most strongly disagree with the
concept of a pub in that location. No! no! no!
This would be good space for cultural area with up-end retail and small food (Ice
Cream or crepes) More of a snack than a meal - that way washrooms not needed at
west end.
Fisheries dock needs major reinforcement or replacement. Building must not house a
licensed restaurant or a pub.
This depends upon the use of the building. A pub or licensed restaurant would be
most undesirable, but a cultural facility which celebrates the history of fisherman's
wharf would be okay.
Any food services should be food primary with a liquor license possibility.
Must see the specifications first to know if it would be compatible.
Depends on the building, size and use. No way residents should accept a vague
nonspecific idea.
I have concerns with regard to servicing of suggested building, waste management &
retrieval of waste at F west. I foresee a bottleneck of vehicles at what is already a
busy & noisy area, where increased commercial activity at C & B creates even more
traffic congestion.
But only on the condition that if a business of any type is a tenant of this proposed
building, that it NOT INCLUDE a liquor license of any description, including wine.
Shoal Point is a huge generator of property taxes to the City of Victoria. A license to
include wine sales would ultimately lead to subsequent applications for liquor or beer.
This would erode real estate values for Shoal Point residents who paid premium
prices for their units on the assumption they would not be plagued by excessive
noise, odors, and delivery vehicles. We are of the opinion that typical locals or tourists
are not visiting Fisherman's Wharf with alcohol drinks in mind as an attraction. There
is no shortage of drinking establishments nearby.
I like the idea of a positive focal point vs what is present now and a safe interface
between the public and marine services uses.
Great idea! Am already looking forward to dinner overlooking the wharves.
Shoal Point residents are very strongly opposed to any liquor outlets on the wharf.
The cement block building (NR West end pier) could cheaply and easily be
transformed to a visually attractive building with a little colour, mural, trails etc. and fit
in with the desired ambience.
The Plan does not consider the comments of the commercial fishermen. They feel
hemmed in at present. These features will only make it worse for them. The fishermen
do not want visitors to proceed to their end of the wharf system.
I agree, in combination with comments above in #7
I am neutral on this proposal. While I agree to a widening of the west end dock to
provide a safe interface between the public and marine services, I'm not sure about
the proposed building. What would this building be used for? Would this be a "
Pub"? !! Which has been suggested and which I would strongly disagree with. Or is
this to be a ' sit-down " type of restaurant ? Which I might agree with as long as it is
not a short order, family type such as a Denny's or a McDonald's!! Is a liquor license
involved here?? There must be strict control over the type of commercial use of this
proposed building.
problem is that the this survey - and questions are so wishy-washy in clarity that this
could mean anything.
The issue is not the building - it is what you do with it. this is a bad survey - sure does
miss the important things and focusses on matters that you should not be involved
with.
No pub. No alcohol. Keep the commercial at the east end.
Yes. Too bad there was little support for a pub/restaurant, but a restaurant only with
wine and beer is a good alternative, along with a few quality shops, and a good place
for the Harbour Master.
If there is to be another eatery/pub, it would be great there.
as long as it does not compete with area g directly
As long as the building does not take away from the view that already exists.
Thats an ambitious project and I'm wondering where all the money is coming for this.
Will it cost everyone more or will the commercial leases pay for all this additional
space and improvements?
Agree, but I think it may be hard to achieve without negatively impacting the
fishermen
Would like to see hotel/restaurant/pub at end of widened pier much like what exists at
Port Alberni.
Pier widening ok. Marine services (not restaurant) good.
No pubs no alcohol
The GVHA has so messed up development so far that it is not possible to agree with
a blank canvas. It is good management needed more than a new building. Concrete/
cement block building is the latent building - how can anyone agree to more awful
structures.
Widening the pier is ok but what is the building going to be used for? How will it
impact nearby residents?
A restaurant which would serve liquor/meals yes. A pub no.
9. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with the direction and content of the Draft
Plan for Fishermanʼs Wharf.
Strongly support
12
21%
Support
20
36%
Neutral
9
16%
Somewhat unsupportive
7
12%
Strongly unsupportive
8
14%
Total
56
100%
It seems like a plan to enable the GVHA to make more money from commercial
development. Without strong controls (which the GVHA has been reluctant to do with
other properties) this will only create more conflicts with the family use of the park and
the adjacent residential development.
Developer has lied before
1. The plan emphasizes the importance of maintaining view corridors but then
contradicts this priority with proposals for unnecessary new buildings. The proposed
enhancement of Fisherman's Wharf can be accomplished without the buildings,
particularly the permanent structures built on land and over the water; 2. Is the
intention to keep the harbour a "working harbour" or is the intention to turn Victoria
Harbour into a tourist facility? The proposed changes to Fisherman's Wharf change
the fundamental nature of the wharf and this part of the harbour by emphasizing
tourist access at the expense of the current use of the wharf. Much of the appeal of
Fisherman's Wharf comes from the fishing boats. Losing the fishing boats will destroy
the character and arguably much of the appeal of Fisherman's Wharf. This plan is
inconsistent with retaining the current character of the wharf.
Very supportive of the changes made in recent years and with various items in the
current plan. Strongly disagree with items which I view as overdevelopment to the
detriment of the current wonderful feel of FW as a whole.
GVHA has not been responsive to many neighbours and to noise/washroom/
emissions. I fear that the developments may add to the angst at the wharf and in the
community.
Maintain current ambience and balance of activities. Keep the wharf, together with the
park, children friendly. Keep the pirate boat for the children in all of us.
We have not seen any re-zoning plans articulated for Fisherman's Wharf, and cannot
provide an opinion until these are made available.
Not enough specific information, just vague words. What zoning are you requesting?
I think it has been a sham consultation so far since few if any of the comments
received seemed to be included. The most important details are left out so the public
has not been adequately informed and consulted. In particular, what zoning are you
asking for? The presentations have been verbose and vague instead of focused and
specific.
A lot of baloney and few facts. Poor presentations.
But strongly support development of JH&I, i.e. the bridge and improved parking.
However, allowing bus traffic into the constricted area of Fisherman's Wharf with the
attendant noise and pollution would be inconsistent with your stated objectives
regarding the form and character that make it a special place. At your recent meeting
with us you indicated that the existing zoning for Bus Parking on Erie Street would
handle Fisherman's Wharf needs. We were happy to hear this. Please NO BUSES on
Fisherman's Wharf.
There are several positive aspects as indicated. However, I would like more
information about the location of the reefer trucks. The current location does not
support one of your key development considerations i.e respectful of neighbours
The draft plan is creative and responsive to inputs. I like the tie-in between FW and
FW Park and the neighbourhood.
Thank you for being considerate of our view lines at Shoal Point. We would as that
you be mindful of the increase in delivery trucks each time a new business operation
opens.
The plan does not consider moving the fish unloading dock and the refueling station
away from Fisherman's Wharf. The Plan DOES NOT consider the danger to visitors
due to the maneuvering of refrigerated truck-trailers, the fork lift, the fuel delivery
trucks, Fishermen handling gear, etc. Nor the noise and fumes from the refrigerator
units on the trailer and trucks.
While I support some of the proposals, I do not agree with others.
Supportive of some, but not some. And the 'Draft Plan" appears not honest. Not clear
as to intent.
Some good some bad.
Did not incorporate what was said at the earlier JBNA meeting. It makes things
appear fixed - fake consultation
Direction and content so far good, but it will be the translation of the Plan into action
that will be the test of GVHA' s metal (?) This place is too precious to mess it up.
One of the homes in area G is currently a private residence and not a business - what
happens to them?
With a few questions/concerns.
I'm half and half. See 10 on the questionnaire.
I am in support of more development and continued opportunities for more commerce
and public enjoyment. I'd not want the current tenants, the fishermen, to feel disrupted
or prices to skyrocket to pay for this gamble of commercial pre-planning.
The speaker began by mentioning values/vision with fishing industry being important
and affects on neighbours being important.
So far the presentations have been so poorly done. Perhaps the poor consultation
has been done on purpose. This survey is so leading. Not enough information has
been provided - not as claimed "minor tweaking".
10. Any further comments or suggestions?
45 Comments
Get rid of the harbour master building and move the function into the control tower at
the Malahat.
I believe there should be a central theme to the development to make it a "go to"
attraction. A market atmosphere would work well much like Pike's Fish market in
Seattle or Granville Island market with an emphasis on Fish. Everything should focus
on FISH. This is Fisherman's Wharf. We are on the way with the Barbs and the other
fish store, whale watching and fishing charters, pirates...all good stuff with the nautical
theme. The fish store on Erie could be offered to relocate to the wharf. The more the
merrier
No alcohol to be served at Fisherman's Wharf and absolutely no large highway tourist
buses should be allowed. Tourists should disembark buses on Erie or St. Lawrence.
I have not been following too much - but this survey has so much in each question
that the responses could be twisted so many ways.
Thank you for offering this opportunity for input. I was unable to attend the recent
open meeting held at the Moka House.
GVHA needs to learn to become forthright and to live up to its motto - or slogans - it
tosses around.
Do not let the financial bottom line over-ride the social and environmental bottom
lines. Do everything in your power to respect the neighbourhood and its residents.
Any rezoning plan that permits alcoholic beverages to be served at Fisherman's wharf
will be vigorously opposed.
Pay attention to what nearby residents are saying. Far too much attention is given by
GVHA to tourists, especially those who are in Victoria for a few short hours when
cruise ships call, and frequently to the detriment of the local community and its
residents.
I have attended several presentations and they have been repetitive and vague and
unsatisfying. You need another presenter and a crisp focused presentation.
Thank you for continuing to stress the value of the commercial fleet.
No place in your plan does it state quiet hours will be posted. It is important to unlock
boat piers during the day. Float home piers are open, no reason not to welcome
strollers down the other piers also. Do you include bus parking in the plan? If so,
where and how? That should be stated.
The waste area F appears to encroach on park land. Is there bus parking planned? If
so, where and how? Everyone I know wants boat piers unlocked during the day, as
are the floathome piers. People who live near there want quiet hours posted. Include
those things in your plan.
I would support transfer to to Ogden Point of the fish unloading operation and also the
refueling station.
Great improvements seen already, and I look forward to what is to come according to
these plans.
I have reported my concerns re the reefer trucks to the GVHA communications
person. My experience is that there appear to wither be no operational guidelines/
rules or there is frequent flagrant violation of any rules with no apparent
consequences e.g. reefer trucks are frequently dropped off in the middle of the night
with a noisy discharge of air brakes as the cab/engine part leaves the container part;
the forklift truck goes up the metal ramp that clanks repeatedly where sections meet;
the fork lift trucks move things around at all hours including weekends; there is an
incessant noise from the refrigeration units with NO evidence of any sound baffles
even though these were promised. At times, it is like living in an industrial park. There
are small issues e.g. plastic is left partially attached to pallets so that the plastic gets
picked up by the wind and makes ongoing noise as it blows around; the muffler on the
fork lift truck appears to need to be replaced; one early morning, a truck arrived and a
man unloaded large blue barrels; people have used the parking lot to do welding
repairs etc., Where is the monitoring? Where is the respect for the neighbours?
Thank you for providing an opportunity to give feedback. I intend to closely monitor
and log the activity associated with the reefer trucks in 2012. I will be preparing a
report for the GVHA and the City of Victoria that carefully documents all potential
violations of 'operational guidelines'.
I can see summer use of FW skyrocketing as a destination for locals and tourists need to proactively manage increases in car and foot traffic, including surrounding
areas. See previous comment re the need to ensure the privacy and security for
residents on the wharf as visitation increases. Also - a thought for the bigger picture wouldn't it be cool to have something like a Granville Island in that area e.g., that
large building on the corner of St Lawrence and Erie to enhance the commercial and
tourism values of the area.
1) Possible relocation of the unloading of fish to Ogden Point - this would allow for
better observation decks, etc. 2) Waste recycling is noisy, messy and at times smelly.
Should be located further from residences, i.e. move "F" further east, somewhere
near parking reconfiguration Item 1.
Nor does the plan consider the danger to Shoal Point building residents caused by
the buried fuel storage tanks and piping/plumbing systems. One only needs to watch
on TV the fires which engulfed Japan's port in 2011 to understand the explosive
hazard these tanks engender. [attached feedback from Oct. 3 session with
Commercial Fishermen]
Any thought given to a purpose-built open air busker/community entertainment area
in the Fisherman's Wharf/Park combination complex?
The development of Fisherman's Wharf must be carried with the utmost care. My
overall concern is that there is too much emphasis on commercial, revenue
generating activities that might turn the whole place into a " three ring circus ". Any
rezoning must be very specific so that there is strict control over the types of
commercial activity that are permitted to take place on the dock and upland areas. If
rezoning is too vague in its definition we will end up with a" Pandora's box" which
could spell disaster for the whole area. The concerns of residents living in the
immediate area must take precedence over the perceived wants of the tourists that
may visit the area on a one time, short term basis. The commercial fishing fleet, for
which the dock is named, have had their moorage space severely restricted over the
last few years so that now they are rafted up two or three deep at certain times of the
year. These proposed developments must not restrict this moorage space any further.
Fisherman's Wharf has become a family place - at least part of it has. It is sad to see
it being promoted as an "attraction' rather than a place for people to live and work.
With the park development, there will be more people around - especially families.
GVHA needs to make sure that the boardwalks are safe - no alcohol. Alcohol and
piers and children do NOt mix.
The consultant at the JBNA meeting appeared shifty - especially as he avoided
answering questions.
This plan's direction does not focus on keeping the quaintness and productivity of
Fisherman's Wharf. Strongly strongly opposed to any alcohol near the pier - disaster
waiting to happen. This infringes on the community's enjoyment and the further noise
of more buses and trucks!
Appropriate cost components must be factored in. If anything, I think there is too
much emphasis on vehicles and still not enough on bicycles and pedestrians. Thanks
for the opportunity to comment.
A pub would be a positive addition!
The uplands building seems a bit problematic. Areas L and B seem to have a lot of
exciting potential. Pedestrian bridge is a great idea. But as a resident, I would hate to
see a neighbor lose his home because he happened to buy into a spot that will be reconfigured into a business.
Please always keep the fishing fleet as the Jewel in the Crown at FW. They are the
essence of the maritime purpose and charm here and we love their presence.
Having the Commercial Fishing Boats is huge part of retaining the historic aspect of
Fisherman's Wharf. Living at Fisherman's Wharf is a wonderful experience, it would
be very unfortunate to take away from the quaint, quiet but public community. Adding
unwanted buildings that encourage late night events that would add to extra traffic
and partying would be highly undesirable. The people I speak with, who are either
local visitors or tourists, enjoy coming down and viewing the homes, seeing the
Commercial Fishing Boats, go kayaking or even Whale watching. Feeding the Harbor
seals is a favorite family and tourist event. Adding a bar, or late night establishment
would be highly undesirable. The added Mexican Restaurant is a wonderful addition,
but anything too touristy, will take away the quaintness of Fisherman's Wharf; which
was named after The Commercial Fisherman, removing them would be a sad
decision. I love living here, being in touch with tourists and small businesses, the
Water Taxis and Buskers. Going much farther might make Fisherman's Wharf into
some form of Disneyland; which is not what people are looking for.
Fisherman's wharf must maintain a certain presence of fishing boats as long as
practical for interest to tourists and justify it's name
Most of this looks exciting and will really change the overall presentation of the wharf.
My fear is making sure there is a balance that is kept in mind and practice between
commercial and residential space. I would not like this area to become a Fisherman's
Wharf like the one in San Francisco; great for tourists, not so great for the year round
residents.
Everything sounds great with the exception of parking and the garbage/recycling
area. If reserved parking spots were put in place on the east side (I) for both
residential and commercial use, I would be on-board with the idea of the Upland
Retail/Food Fixed Commercial Building. Leave "K" lot for tourists and "I" lot for us. We
have children, groceries, supplies, etc to bring back and forth. Expecting us to park in
"K" lot is unreasonable. I think moving the garbage and recycling on land (F) is a
terrible idea. What's wrong with where it is right now? We already have to walk to the
other side of the docks to get rid of trash (which is fine), but having us now go further
is unnecessary. Leave the existing garbage and recycling for the residents and put
the new one up for the commercial lots as they will produce more waste. One of the
houses on Pier A is circle as commercial but they are residential. What is happening
with that? With the exception of parking and waste, I think the plans are great and I
look forward to seeing the results. Please just reconsider the parking and waste.
Reconfiguration of float homes should always be a "last resort"home owners should
have a sense of stability that their homes will not be moved around to accommodate
commercial potential.
The public do not need to enter docks D & E to view the boats. As previously
mentioned, the rental space for live aboard boats on docks D & E should be
respected and locked for the security, privacy, and reduced liability of the residents
there.
After that opening, all the rest of the presentation focused on "attraction". We do not
want to live in a zoo. Speaker did not answer question at meeting. Was there a
hidden agenda?
This is major change and does not reflect first step. Consult with those who will be
most affected and who know what is going on at the wharf. Need a good
communicator to consult and listen. This questionnaire and the presentation does not
reflect the consultation provided in December.
Be cautious! Once rezoning is in place, anything can happen.
Garbage holding areas have always been a problem at Fisherman's Wharf. Currently
(although the allotted space is too small) the location has worked the best. I am
concerned that by moving the garbage containers/building on to the uplands, we will
go back to when residents other than FW residents and users dump large items such
as beds, refrigerators, etc. This was the situation before the garbage area moved into
the dock area.
This is a little note to let you know that residents at Shoal Point strongly object to
alcohol being served at Fisherman's Wharf.
Hello CitySpaces, I live in a float home at Fishermanʼs Wharf and support having the
commercial fishing boats here. The Wharf was built years ago to provide a home for
fishing boats. Fishermanʼs Wharf is even named after them! To keep the Fishermanʼs
name while evicting the fishermen would be shameful.If the last of the fish boats are
made to leave, should we then change our name to Touristʼs Wharf? Please let the
fishing boats stay!
Hello CitySpaces, I live in one of the float homes at Fishermanʼs Wharf, and want to
let you know that I support keeping commercial fishing boats here. Fish boats are part
of the Wharfʼs tradition, and are the reason why the Wharf was created in the first
place. It would be a shameful and embarrassing betrayal of our heritage if the GVHA,
in the name of increasing revenue, kept the name FISHERMANʼS but kicked out the
fishermen! Please do not recommend this!
Regarding the proposed plans for Fisherman's Wharf, I would like to say that I'm
excited at the prospect of a building on the uplands area near the entrance to
Fisherman's Wharf. I think it will add to the appeal of the facility. Over the years we
have seen City Spaces successfully manage the transition of F.W. from federal
control to the new GVHA and I have confidence in their abilities re: planning traffic
control and commercial development. In closing I would like to say if you want a good
ice-cream cone go to Jackson's; if you want a good poutine go to Grilligan's; and if
you want a good commercial residential development plan go to City Spaces. And if
you don't like my poutine, go to Hull - I'm sure it's better there, it's just a long drive.
Good Morning! I understand that the subject of the fuel tanks at Fishermanʼs wharf
was recently addressed at a Victoria Esquimalt Harbor Society meeting. Clipper has
been on record for a number of years in stating the absolute necessity for retaining
the fueling facility. Although we normally fuel in Seattle for many reason we often use
the Fishermanʼs wharf for emergency fueling. This is generally associated with
weather routing, etc. I am certain that you have been advised that there is nothing
else conveniently located for commercial craft. It is a valuable resource that should be
retained.
Many thanks for inviting the local community to participate in the Fisherman's Wharf
Planning Process. We did attend the March 15/12 meeting on the Draft Facilities Plan
and have filled out and submitted our comments on this proposed plan. It is however,
extremely difficult to understand the overall impact of the proposed plan without
knowing the zoning changes you expect to present to the City of Victoria. I would
therefore request that we have the opportunity to review any zoning proposal PRIOR
to any submissions to the City. We are very impressed with what GVHA have done
overall, but are very concerned about the emphasis on licensed premises on the
docks. From the residents view point there is significant impact with little benefit.
In response to your questionnaire for the further development of Fishermanʼs Wharf,
may I begin by saying that I live at Shoal Point and do enjoy seeing and hearing the
fishing boats and ferries and kayaks and float planes. I realize that this is a working
harbour. But, because I do live here full time, I am concerned about increased traffic
and pedestrian noise that this proposed development would create. Both water and
concrete are wonderful sound conductors. Our bedroom window opens onto the
Coast Guardʼs parking and we frequently hear doors slamming and sometime people
talking and sometimes shouting late at night. There are the sounds of a city and only
natural. But, how very pleasant it would be (and civilized) to see the parking lot
adjacent to the coast guard dug up and a green space developed to copy the park
like atmosphere on the Dallas road side of our building. We do very much need in this
city more peaceful areas where people can walk, relax and play. I really donʼt see the
need for further commercial development. Period.
I am writing this in a separate document because I feel to a large extent your
feedback questionnaire is asking the wrong questions. What are you proposing re the
large reefer trucks that arrive, leave at all hours and leave their cooling units running?
We have had trucks arrive at 2am, and leave at 10pm. Are you proposing to widen
the pier to accommodate them? If so, far far better to move them and the gas dock to
Ogden Point. This question is fundamental to your plans, as it impacts everything
else. Do you intend that the fishing boats continue to dock here? You are proposing to
take away a significant amount of the limited space that they have. There should be
no alcohol sold on the dock. Huge safety risk. Opening up the west side of the
building for traffic flow to Huron St. makes this a through traffic road, as many people
will drive by to “see Fishermanʼs Wharf” and keep on driving right around the building.
This would undoubtedly become part of the tour bus route. We live here, sleep here,
walk along the docks, and most emphatically do not want to be next to a through
road. In general, the plans for the east end of the space seem appropriate. NOT for
the west end. Keep the commercial area where it is – in and around Barbʼs Fish and
Chips. And by all means build the pedestrian bridge (J) if you have the funds. But do
not make this into a through road around the Shoal Point Building.
James Bay Neighbourhood Association
General Meeting April 11, 2012
Questions:
Q: Asks if the police will chop down trees/bushes re: crime prevention (CPTED)
A: GVHA is not aware of any plan to do this.
Q: Will rezoning of FW be applied for all together or done for each separate lot?
A: He sees FW as one unit, rather than looking at 3 separate chunks.
Q: I hope there will be no bus parking – what is the plan?
A: Access parking is for vehicles ONLY.
Q: Why do you want to do this redevelopment of FW?
A: GVHA core properties – plan existing uses (non-conforming now).
Q: How has the development strategy plan of a year ago changed?
A: It was the precursor to creating a facilities plan.
Comments
•
Concern about effect on heritage properties on Heron Cove. A. No intention to
change anything affecting those 2 properties.
•
Does not like the chains between pathway posts – can’t hop over them, but more
importantly, rather than increasing commercialization at FW, increase the number of
float homes - they are the big attraction people come to see.
•
Regarding access for refrigeration/tanker trucks – please make sure access is
restricted - would also like to see better access for smaller water craft. Also very
concerned about the placement of the recycling facility as it is not convenient for
float home residents, and is such a busy spot, it would be dangerous.
•
I do worry about limiting space for fish boats, the commercial buildings will crowd
them out, and the fish boats are important to the character of FW.
•
Does not like the location planned for recycling (F on Facilities Map). Is it
encroaching on park? A. yes, but it’s a City owned park (there is no legal agreement
between City and GVHA).
•
The survey on GVHA website is terrible – multiple items – one answer – very poorly
designed survey!
•
Unlock piers, at least in the daytime like before. Liveaboards want gate kept locked
for security reasons.
•
Post ‘Quiet Hours’ signs – people live there and nearby – there are no signs at
present
•
You claim there are 49 surplus parking spaces, but my observation is that there is
NO surplus parking.
•
Does not want to see any alcohol on the wharf.
•
Commercial fishing boats are an important attraction to FW and commercialization
will detract from this.
•
I heard commercial building ‘B’ would be a pub and really doesn’t like this idea, and
there is overall a strong negative response to a pub at FW.
•
Regarding building structures, what kind of business/activities are planned? What
will be the impact on our community?
•
NO alcohol served on FW.
•
Barb’s Fish & Chips proves alcohol is NOT necessary for success. Also, JB assumes
you own public properties - it’s a mix-up – what is public property and what is not?
•
NO BUSES!
•
Enjoys walking between Beacon Hill along Dallas to FW – does not want waterfront
parking lots.
•
Further to what was said earlier regarding residents at FW: not just 33 floathomes,
there are another 25 liveaboard vessels that have always been there - long term
residents.
•
Quiet hours, pubs – how can we be assured GVHA will manage properly to have NO
negative impact on people living here.
•
What’s really important is that this plan will be a great test of integrity for GVHA.
•
Your survey doesn’t separate neighbours from others (clients) and economic
consideration appears to be the most important thing.
Fi sher man’s W har f Plan
GVHA Fisherman’s Wharf Plan
May 5 Open House Paper Survey Responses
1. Do you live at Fisherman's Wharf?
Yes
9
9%
No
86
91%
Total
95
100%
2. If you don't live at Fisherman's Wharf, please indicate where you live.
In James Bay
29
34%
In the City of Victoria
24
28%
In another municipality in
the Capital Region
19
22%
Other, please specify
14
16%
Total
86
100%
13 ʻOtherʼ Responses
Fairfield
Central Saanich
Saanich
Work across the road, live in View Royal
Fairfield
Fairfield
Oak Bay
Oak Bay
Fairfield
winter moorage @ causeway
Saxe Point (Esquimalt)
GVHA Fishermanʼs Wharf Plan: May 5 Open House Paper Survey Responses
Near Beacon Hill Park (Southgate)
3. Retaining current mix of uses, i.e. floathomes, pleasure craft moorage, floating
commercial, and fishing vessels.
Strongly agree
53
56%
Agree
36
38%
Neutral
4
4%
Somewhat disagree
1
1%
Strongly disagree
0
0%
Total
94
100%
4. Reconfiguring parking, and a low scale building on the upland at the east end of
Fisherman's Wharf.
Strongly agree
20
22%
Agree
42
45%
Neutral
19
20%
Somewhat disagree
8
9%
Strongly disagree
4
4%
Total
93
100%
5. Expansion of the Harbour Master's office building.
Strongly agree
8
9%
Agree
32
34%
Neutral
44
47%
Somewhat disagree
5
5%
Strongly disagree
5
5%
Total
94
100%
6. Public viewing platforms at each end of Fisherman's Wharf.
Strongly agree
51
55%
Agree
29
31%
Neutral
9
10%
Somewhat disagree
3
3%
Strongly disagree
1
1%
Total
93
100%
7. A pedestrian bridge across Heron Cove, linking to the City of Victoria's Harbour
Pathway.
Strongly agree
60
67%
Agree
25
28%
Neutral
3
3%
Somewhat disagree
0
0%
Strongly disagree
1
1%
Total
89
100%
8. A licensed restaurant on a new pier at the west end of Fisherman's Wharf.
Strongly agree
37
41%
Agree
34
38%
Neutral
8
9%
Somewhat disagree
4
4%
Strongly disagree
7
8%
Total
90
100%
9. Expansion of floating commercial at the west end of the facility.
Strongly agree
25
28%
Agree
35
39%
Neutral
17
19%
Somewhat disagree
6
7%
Strongly disagree
6
7%
Total
89
100%
10. Please indicate your overall satisfaction with the direction and content of the Draft
Plan for Fisherman's Wharf.
Strongly support
33
37%
Support
45
51%
Neutral
5
6%
Somewhat unsupportive
5
6%
Strongly unsupportive
1
1%
Total
89
100%
11. Any other comments or suggestions?
32 Responses
I love Fisherman's Wharf and hope it continues to benefit Victoria economically and
remains a great place for both tourists and locals.
Let's get going on the Belleville project now!
Further development would be a great benefit to Victoria and tourists.
Please be sure to increase live aboards and float homes. It is this aspect of FW that
makes the place so charming.
Keep up the good work!
Move the fish unloading dock somewhere else!
Please don't consider bringing cruise ships this far down the bay!
The licensed restaurant might be a problem for residents in the area (Float Home,
Reef and Shoal Point), depending on the restaurant (i.e. high end restaurant might be
ok, but a pub could be a real problem). I don't live near Fisherman's Wharf, but I do
walk around the neighbourhood from time to time. A high end, quiet restaurant might
be nice, if situated properly (maybe further away from homes).
Put a garbage hut by the float homes.
You should also include a gift shop because I noticed you do not have one showing
on current lease plans, because I know a lot of tourists hardly have time to get
souvenirs if they are waiting for the ferry.
Ferry passenger access eventually?
Be sure to see 1935 movie (colour) travelogue by James K Fitzpatrick. It opens with
the Princess steamer entering the harbour. I can forward it by email
billstavdal@shaw.ca
More "included" parking for float home residents.
Please be advised there are many people who live in James Bay, and have for over a
decade, who rent but are not included in the JBNA. Theirs is not our association.
Support tourism business on perimeter of neighbourhood. Please find a way to let our
voices, not just exclusive JBNA minority, be heard and counted for.
Looks good!
Please leave access from west end of FW to continue onto path going west and south
all the way to Ogden Point
Looks and sounds great!
A. Include in the publicity about Victoria - preferably to a wider public in Washington
State. B. Pursue a second public access to Huron St.
Good work!
The environmental impact assessment need to be addressed thoroughly to ensure
long term sustainability. Consult professional engineers (PEng) for approval.
Winter moorage service is appreciated. Thanks.
I disagree with ANY building in the parking lot - strongly disagree.
Great! Do it!
Make sure there are more toilets. Nice plan.
Public viewing platform - why? It is already possible to walk to the end of any finger
for a great view. Commercial - already busy enough - no increases. Enhance what is
there. Harbour Master expansion - possibly this is needed. Washrooms and showers
are what is really needed.
Inspired overall plan. If the building in the parking lot is charming and also sells
something attractive (not booze) I'm all for it. Most important: Keep the fishing fleet.
Need more info!
Happy with the overall plan so far. But how deep is the pond going to be at
Fisherman's Park?
Don't want to see too much in too small an area. Keep the fishing fleet. No bar.
We think it's great!
Should not happen!
This is a wonderful place to visit and bring guests! Love it!
Suite 585, 1111 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6E 2J3 |
604.687.2281
5th Floor, 844 Courtney Street, Victoria BC V8W 1C4 | 250.383.0304
Suite 300, 160 Quarry Park Boulevard SE, Calgary AB T2C 3G3 | 403.336.2468
www.cityspaces.ca

Fisherman`s Wharf Plan - Greater Victoria Harbour Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

radisson hotel fisherman`s wharf

Laketown Wharf Resort Panama City Beach, Florida

Unseen Cinema 2016 - End Credits Film Club

SUMMER 2 0 0 9 ~ ~ ~ Who We Are

Here is a PDF - White Shark Cafe

CASE STUDY

winter lights - Canary Wharf

From the Illustrations to 100 poems by 100 poet: Kakinomoto no