July 30, 2009

There have been numerous statements over the past few months suggesting that the owners of CRC have the “legal right” to a 58-lot subdivision at Cape Roger Curtis. None of these statements can be attributed to a person with knowledge of municipal law, and appear to be simply a strategy to gain support for the CRC development. We now have a legal opinion on the matter.

Legal Opinion on CRC Subdivision Application (PDF)

Through a coalition of two Bowen organizations, the Bowen Island Eco-Alliance and the CRC Trust Society, a group of concerned citizens has come together to seek legal information about the subdivision process, specifically as it relates to CRC and the subdivision application that has been submitted by its owners.  We have, through our own internal resources, retained the services of Don Lidstone, Q.C. who is considered by many to be one of the preeminent municipal lawyers in BC. (His biography is available online.)  Mr. Lidstone has created a review of the subdivision application, which you can download as a PDF.

Mr. Lidstone’s review leads to some significant conclusions:

1.         There are good grounds for the rejection of the most recent subdivision application relating to the CRC lands, arising from the application itself and from the applicable law.

2.         If the approving officer does not reject the application, then opponents of this particular application would have good grounds on which to challenge his decision in court.

We think it is important for accurate legal information to be publicly available and we are are hoping that you will agree.  We would appreciate it if you could draw other people’s attention to this as soon as possible.

As most people on Bowen already know, the CRC Trust Society has worked tirelessly for over 5 years to preserve and protect the lands of Cape Roger Curtis as stated in the mandate of the Islands Trust.  The Trust Society is a group of people who would have preferred that the whole Cape be preserved as a park.  In reality, this now appears not to be a possibility.

There are people on the island who think that the Trust Society would sacrifice anything to have part of this land preserved as a park.  There are others who believe that the Trust Society is putting in jeopardy the possibility of any parkland at the Cape by taking a stand against the proposed “CRC Neighbourhood Plan”.  To all those who hold either of these views I would say the following:

A park at Cape Roger Curtis would be a wonderful gift for those of us living on this island and an important legacy for future generations but we are not willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the rest of Bowen to preserve a small portion of the south west corner of this beautiful, rural municipality.  As much as we care about the Cape lands, value the ecological uniqueness of it and recognize that compromise may be necessary, we also have a responsibility to consider the well-being of the island as a whole.  We are not willing to put our interest in the preservation of Cape Roger Curtis ahead of our concern for the rest of Bowen Island and the diversity that it represents:  its seniors; its low income residents; its business people; its commuters.  It is for all these reasons that every member of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society Board has endorsed the “100 for Bowen ad.”

Ellen Coburn, on behalf of the Directors of the Trust Society

 

Letter to Bowen Island Municipality, Attention:  Michael Rosen, 81 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island BC  V0N 1G0 dated February 11, 2009

Re:  Cape Roger Curtis – Neighbourhood Plan – September 2008

The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has been asked to comment on the development options for the 631-acre Cape Roger Curtis Lands (“CRC”) entitled Neighbourhood Plan (“NP”), dated September, 2008. 

CAVEAT:  The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has always worked in the hope of preserving all the CRC Lands from development in the belief that this is a unique, regionally significant coastal/marine area and that not preserving it as a park will have serious consequences for future generations on Bowen Island, and that its loss to development of any kind seriously compromises the “preserve and protect” mandate of this island.

Our overall goal continues to be to preserve as much of the CRC Lands in their current wild state as is possible.  In recognizing the determination of the current owners to put housing onto the CRC Lands, we continue to argue for preserving as much of the property in its wild state as is possible.  At a minimum, we look to retain 50% of the land as wild, contiguous, marine-based forest; this would most likely be in the form of a park and/or eco reserve. 

We consider that many of our ecological concerns and recommendations, put forward in our last referral response to council dated January 29, 2008, have still not been adequately addressed, leading us to repeat many of the same concerns that we expressed at that time.

Our main concerns are the following:

1.         Development Permit Area & Preserve and Protect Mandate

The Official Community Plan (“OCP”) has designated the CRC Lands as the CRC Development Permit Area (“CRC DPA”).  The special conditions, taken directly from the OCP (Section 6.1:  Special Conditions), that justify the designation of the CRC DPA are quoted below: 

”Cape Roger Curtis has special areas of wildlife habitat, sensitive vegetation and other areas of fragile flora and fauna which require protection in order to maintain the natural environment.  Sensitive vegetation is most prominent along the rocky coastal fringe as well as on the inland steep rock and hummocky terrain.  Wildlife is varied with significant populations of deer and bird life.  There are also areas of water, resource value, both for aquatic habitat and for potable water supply that must be protected.  Cutthroat trout are found in area streams.  Sensitive terrain and steep slope characteristics in certain areas must also be managed to protect development from potential hazardous, such as flooding, erosion, and rock fall.” 

Considering these very clear warnings in the OCP about the potential for environmental degradation and destruction and considering, in addition, the very clear mandate that Council has under the Islands Trust Act (the “preserve and protect” mandate), Council should be extremely cautious when approving a development of this magnitude.  The possible impacts of even 200 residential units on the rest of the island, as well as on the immediately surrounding CRC terrestrial and marine habitat and its wildlife, will be huge. The impact on ferry capacity, the road system and the island’s overall potable water supply must be given due consideration.  Our concerns about the Cape water supply are: 

(a)        Given that there is an insufficient amount of water stored beneath the Cape lands and given the lighter rainfall in this part of the island, therefore, there is probably insufficient water for a project of this size.

(b)        Is the lens of water found under the Cape continually replenished over time from rainfall, or is it a closed system?

(c)        There is a possibility that blasting for construction could alter water courses resulting in less water reaching the fragile coastal flora in particular and may affect the replenishment of subterranean water.

(d)        The substandard nature of the water will require costly treatment to make it potable.

2.         Coastal Buffer Zone

Widening the coastal buffer zone is essential.  Now that we know where the current proposal sites the trails and houses, the narrowness of this buffer would result in human and canine impact on the easily disturbed marine wildlife, particularly in the winter months.  We note that no marine study was carried out which would have highlighted these harmful effects. 

Thinning and/or removing trees in this zone to create views is also unacceptable.  The corridors thus created would enable winds to gain access to the rising land immediately behind the coastal zone.  Wind accelerates when it encounters rising land and causes damage such as that seen in Stanley Park two years ago.  Therefore, the concept of keeping as much of the land as a contiguous whole (unfragmented), should also encompass the adjacent coastal waters. 

3.         The South Terrace 

We understand the developer’s intention is to commence building on the area known as the “south terrace”. 

If or when any development occurs, we would prefer that it start in the northwest corner (up to 35 houses) with access from Whitesails Drive (we understand that the people of Whitesails have said they could live with this amount of traffic) because we requested a covenant be placed on the South Terrace for 3 years which would give The Land Conservancy the time to help us raise the funds to buy it, thus reducing the footprint of the development by about 40 single family houses.  However, due to the downturn in the economy, we would like this covenant to be extended to at least 5 years. 

4.         There are still too many buildings/facilities proposed for this land. 

            Senior’s campus of care – The model used here depends on a pricey, high end purchase which would be beyond the reach of many of Bowen citizens.  We also question the location and continue to believe that this should be in the Cove. 

As the word “campus” evokes images of green well-kept lawns, flowerbeds and spaced well-pruned trees to let in the sunlight, was this the owner’s intent?  This type of green space, like a golf-green, would require a large amount of water to maintain which the island cannot spare.  Generally, daily water usage in care facilities needs to be extremely high. 

The distance from the Cove would be a problem for the island’s first responders, who would be 20 to 30 minutes away in ideal conditions but who could not respond at all on some adverse weather days, as was illustrated during the recent periods of heavy snow fall and icy roads.  This situation would strain our emergency services and put an aging population at risk. 

Other concerns of aging populations include mobility once the ability to drive a vehicle is lost.  We cannot recommend such a facility in this location, although we do acknowledge the need for suitable housing for Bowen seniors and affordable housing for all age groups on Bowen. 

Waterfront Inn – At 80 rooms this might be the largest inn in the Gulf Islands. There is no economic rationale for this scale of building.  We suggest elimination of this inn because it will result in even greater traffic to the area and a potential demand for a marina to accompany such a facility (which would be extremely detrimental to the coastal area) and also have negative consequences for the home-operated B&Bs on the island. 

5.         Density 

With regard to density, we feel that the addition of affordable housing units (presumably offered as an amenity) would be better located near Snug Cove for transportation reasons.  Otherwise, money saved on housing would then be spent on driving to and from Snug Cove.  Living in the Cove would mean that the all activities of daily living would be readily available without requiring the use of an automobile.

We believe that the issue of the density of this development should be addressed by the forthcoming OCP Review.  We also consider that accepting the NP before the forthcoming OCP Review would not only set a dangerous precedent for future development but could in fact unduly influence the outcome of the OCP Review itself. 

6.         Other Facilities 

Commercial Development – this subject (together with food growing) would also be better dealt with within the OCP Review and in light of Alderwood Farm and The Ruddy Café/vegetable garden already in existence at the foot of Sunset Drive. 

Food growing – A Bowen “master plan” (the revised OCP) would indicate the importance of this.  We support community gardening and food growing in principle but consider that too many trees would have to be removed from this sensitive area in order for there to be sufficient sun to accomplish food growing in a public garden.  Also, as this is the driest and warmest part of the island, water again becomes an issue. 

Composting centre – We see no rationale for this to be built on the furthest corner of the island.  The logical place for it would be adjacent to the Bowen Island Recycling Depot.  Like many of the amenities in the NP, we are not in favour of trees continuing to fall when there are other, preferable locations, elsewhere on the island, that would not require the clearing of more land. 

7.         Additional concerns 

We expect the municipality/council to take into consideration the following: 

(a)        the additional heavy impact and damage to our existing fragile heritage roads; 

(b)        that people will be forced to drive across the island for years to come until there is sufficient population to justify additional buses 

(c)        ferry service, which is considered by many to be inadequate now, will be further compromised; 

(d)        the need for an open and unbiased public process which has been lacking to date. 

We are appealing to Council to take a strong leadership role with all these concerns about CRC and adhere to the “preserve and protect” mandate of the Islands Trust.  We are convinced that this is possible without causing unreasonable delays for ownership.  We spoke publicly at council about these issues and were unhappy with the decision to move forward to first reading (yet another OCP amendment).  Along with the recent municipal election came the acknowledgement that the OCP is out of date and in need of review.  The lack of a current comprehensive “master plan” for the island, including both economic and ecological plans, makes it impossible to see how closely the proposed NP would match the results of an OCP Review.  We feel that to accept the NP in its entirety now, would set a dangerous precedent for other development and compromise a successful outcome for an OCP Review. 

We are disappointed that the previous municipal council chose, sometime in mid 2008, to let the closed-room planning sessions move forward well outside OCP guidelines, without delaying those negotiations and going to a public process for open consideration.  The series of owner-sponsored meetings that promoted the owner’s interests, have not presented the Bowen community with balanced information. 

Ownership would like the community to believe that the current choices are between moving forward with the current proposal or reverting back to a 58-lot subdivision which we know has not been withdrawn.  We wish to emphasize that there are still other options.  We are encouraged by the positives in the NP:  the large park areas, the large amount of waterfront preservation (although this has been reduced from the time of our last position paper in January 2008), and a decrease in density.  We see this as an indication that there is a willingness on the part of the owners to negotiate around certain facilities presently included in the NP. 

The Trust Society continues to see the ongoing process as being in mid-negotiation rather than at the end-stage of fine-tuning.  We also continue to see the situation as elastic and open to innovative change.  At this stage, the owners claim they have reached their limit concerning density and footprint and the amenities they can provide.  Now it is time to address the community of Bowen Island, inform them and ask them to respond.  This public discussion should occur soon.  Potential partners (The Land Conservancy, BC Parks and Metro Vancouver, who continued to be briefed) should be brought into the negotiations and heard publicly by the community.  The voices of those who understand the important ecological value of CRC to our collective future have not been heard.  These partners have indicated their willingness to be part of fundraising campaigns for targeted land purchases and park management partners who will have a significant impact on the footprint and density of any CRC development.  We must take time to ensure that all these options are exhausted before any final decision is made. 

We acknowledge the skill and effort that has gone into the NP.  Overall, it is a good plan but only if viewed in the context of redeveloping an urban area.  In the context of a small rural island, many elements of the NP are out of keeping and scale, especially on an island with 95% of its important facilities (ferry, library, post office, recycling depot, medical services, restaurants, gym, gas station, vet, cash machines, insurance agent or municipal hall, for example) on the opposite side of the island to the proposed development. 

We also acknowledge that many “green” elements have been proposed, however, to destroy interdependent ecosystems and then add back green elements does not compensate for the damage.  The way to do the least damage to this land would be to have as few buildings as possible and cluster them closely on the northern end of the property.  We continue to be in favour of something similar to the ”Mel Turner line” or the “Dave Witty plan” to minimize the impact and contain the footprint. 

We hope that the potential for developing a well thought out plan with minimum facilities and maximum preservation of the land, is still possible at CRC.  We consider that trading for density that is outside the OCP limit would not be acceptable to the people of Bowen Island, and was clearly stated as unacceptable by virtually all candidates for council during the recent election campaign. 

Sincerely,

 

Ellen Coburn, Pam Dicer, Jean Jamieson, Marion Moore, Stephen Foster, Jan Wells

Directors of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society

 

cc:        Mayor, Bob Turner and Councillors

            Bryan Kirk, Chief Administrative Officer

            Mel Turner, Parks Planning Consultant to BIM

            Sue Ellen Fast, Chair, Bowen Island Greenways Commission

            Peter Drake, Bowen Island Conservancy

 

Letter from the Directors of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society
to Bowen Island Municipality, Attention: Michael Rosen, 81 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island BC V0N 1G0

Re: Cape Roger Curtis — Preliminary Neighbourhood Plan and Implementation Options (dated January 3, 2008)

The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has been asked to comment on the three development options for the 631-acre Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) set out in maps on pages 22-23, 24-25 and 26­27 of the Ekistics brochure entitled Preliminary Neighbourhood Plan & Implementation Options, dated January 3, 2008.

CAVEAT: The Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society has always worked in the hope of preserving all the CRC lands from development in the belief that this is a unique, regionally significant coastal/marine area and that not preserving it as a park will have serious consequences for future generations on Bowen Island, and that its loss to development of any kind seriously compromises the “preserve and protect” mandate of this island.

The Trust Society recently launched its Wild Coast Plan 2 campaign (see map attached) to encourage the owner/developers to substantially widen the unfragmented sections of park in their proposals and limit development to a tightly clustered inland area. The comments below reiterate much of what is graphically represented in that Wild Coast Plan 2.

Specific Comments on Ekistics’ Plans. If we have to have development on these lands and if the parkland donation is sufficient enough to warrant it, the option from Ekistics’ January 3 brochure preferred by the Trust Society, with modifications, is the one at pages 22-23, the Phased Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan

Recommended modifications include:

All RC designated areas on map to be included in park area or, alternatively (and except as modified by #4 below),

All RC designated areas either to retain their current 10-acre parcel zoning or to be rezoned to 20-acre parcels, with one or two dwellings allowed on each parcel; requiring less elaborate infrastructure (i.e., gravel roads and, if necessary, septic systems); and including restrictive covenants that have a “no build” clause with sunset provision of not less than 10 years, that limit the location and size of the development footprint within each such parcel and place strict, perpetual conservation covenants on the remainder to be held (or co-held), monitored and enforced by a qualified land trust. There should also be a formal option to purchase the RC designated lands during the “no build” period in favour of the municipality, the Islands Trust Fund or a local or regional land trust. That option should be assignable (both in whole and in part) to permit the conservation community to acquire and protect as much of the Cape as possible.

Widening of the waterfront park strip along the western shore to at least 80 m-120 m to ensure greater protection of the coastal bluff habitat while also encompassing enough terrain for a workable, sufficiently green-buffered Wild Coast Trail along its entire length. It must be noted that the narrower the strip of forest retained between such a Wild Coast Trail and the most westerly development polygons, the more likely it is that the forest strip will be entirely blown down by strong winds, leaving the appearance of the CRC coast and the proposed trail “wild” in name only.

Conversion of the most southwesterly polygons of Rural Residential development to park (see those marked with an “X” on attached map). These areas are too integral to the core recreational areas on the property – Pebbly Beach and the Lighthouse.

Density to be reduced to 150 to 200 units maximum in the areas marked for amenities and residential, and to go that high only if the final plan includes a 60+% park/100% waterfront dedication, with possibly an increase to the OCP maximum of 224 only if reasonably priced multi-family units are included. (There are many reasons for holding the line on density, which we will discuss in greater detail below.)

A mechanism is put in place to ensure that some genuinely affordable housing will be provided within the units allowed.

Seniors campus of care facility – Cape Roger Curtis is not a suitable location for a seniors’ home. A seniors’ facility should be near the Cove, ferry and emergency medical services.

Waterfront inn – We suggest elimination of this, because an inn will result in greater traffic to the area and a potential demand for a marina to accompany such a facility (which would be extremely detrimental to the coastal area). Another inn on the island (in addition to the proposed hotel in Artisan Square and the proposed hotel at Cowan Point) would result in negative consequences for the home operated B&Bs on the island. Moreover, the location of the proposed inn appears to be atop some of the Ekistics-mapped significant coastal bluff habitat (see p. 11 of their brochure). If an inn is to be part of the final development, it should be relocated eastward enough to ensure protection of that fragile bluff.

Amphitheatre & Neighbourhood Commons – Again, increased traffic to this end of the island for cultural events does not make sense because the densest part of the island is around the Cove. A planned arts centre on the surplus lands in the Cove is sufficient for the needs of the artistic community. Also, we should not be converting precious natural habitat to unneeded lawn that requires maintenance. If there is to be a Neighbourhood Commons or neighbourhood park, we suggest it be located immediately southwest of Pebbly Beach near where the most intensive recreational use of the land is likely to be.

School and community garden – We feel that this would not be an appropriate site for a school, as it is not a central location. We do, however, support the idea of including a community garden in the plan.

Riparian & Watershed Protection – In the northeast corner of the property, the proposed extension of Cromie Road will run parallel and close to Burke Creek for most of its length and cross it multiple times. We suggest that the road be rerouted slightly to minimize its impact on Burke Creek and its tributaries.

Neighbourhood store – In order to reduce trips across island, this may make sense but only if it is a small mum-and-pop operation, like a convenience store.

Chapel and neighbourhood hall – Something along the lines of the Tunstall Bay clubhouse may make sense, again, to reduce cross-island traffic.

We feel that most of the amenities suggested by Ekistics:

(a) do not belong at the Cape;
(b) are “carrots” that are being used to buy the community’s support; and
(c) even if approved, may never become a reality.

The prospect of a major parkland donation is the only reason we see to justify a potential up-zoning of a portion of this property.

We consider that if the alternative plan on pages 24-25 of Ekistics’ brochure (the Partial Neighbourhood Plan) is pursued by the municipality, almost all of the above comments would still apply, except that the “remaining lands” should be rezoned to 40-acre lots subject to restrictive covenants and an option to purchase similar to those described in #2 above and the density permitted within the “partial neighbourhood” should be reduced to significantly below OCP to offset the “remainder” density and adjust for the significantly smaller parks donation.

We consider that the alternative plan on pages 26-27, the OCP+Subdivision Plan, although it includes a substantial park donation, is nevertheless completely unsatisfactory. Although the southern coastal bluffs might, conceivably, be protected through strict (and strictly monitored/enforced) conservation covenants on privately-owned land, the absence of a waterfront park along the whole western shore is too great a recreational loss to induce us to support this development. This option also includes housing in the headwaters of two watersheds in the most northeasterly corner of the property.

Development Permit Area & Preserve and Protect Mandate (i.e., reasons for most of the numbered comments above):

The OCP has designated the CRC lands as the CRC Development Permit Area. The special conditions (taken directly from the OCP) that justify the designation of the CRC DP area are:

Wildlife and bird habitat;
Sensitive vegetation (most prominent along the rocky coastal fringe as well as the inland steep rock and hummocky terrain);
Fragile flora and fauna which require protection in order to maintain the natural environment;
Protection of water resources, both for aquatic habitat and for potable water supply;
Potential to damage the cutthroat trout in the streams in the area;
Importance of managing the sensitive terrain and steep slope characteristics in certain areas in order to protect development from potential hazardous conditions such as flooding, erosion and rock fall.

Considering these very clear warnings in the OCP about the potential for environmental degradation and destruction and considering, in addition, the very clear mandate that Council has under the Islands Trust Act (the “preserve and protect” mandate), Council is obligated to be extremely cautious when approving a development of this magnitude. The possible impacts of even 200 residential units on the rest of the island, as well as on the immediately surrounding CRC terrestrial and marine habitat and its wildlife, will be huge, including the impact on ferry capacity, the impacts on the road system and the impacts on the island’s overall potable water supply.

Additional Comments:

Awaiting Additional Studies — Although laws are in place requiring ecological and other studies prior to development, those of us involved with the natural world and conservation consider that these laws do not go far enough, e.g. studies need to be of a longer duration in order to obtain more meaningful data, especially in this era of climate change. We have commented at length upon Ekistics’ brochure even without the benefit of the additional studies promised, but not yet provided, by the developer, and also without benefit of the January 19, 2008 walkabout having provided much help in the way of ground-truthing proposed locations. Without the owners’ disclosure and production of the long-promised environmental studies (water studies, wildlife surveys, vegetation surveys, fish and fish habitat assessments, archeological field reconnaissance, etc.), CRCTS emphasizes that the above are only preliminary recommendations. We must be able to review these studies carefully and analyze proposed development areas with a detailed topographical map or physical 3-D model showing watercourses, that indicates the areas that have been identified as environmentally sensitive and any proposals to minimize impacts.

The developers must also make good on their previous promises to flag the actual proposed boundaries of their development polygons on the property itself and then, once again, lead a walkabout demonstrating to the community which areas of the CRC lands are proposed for clearing and construction. Only then — after the vital ecological and geographical information we are still awaiting is produced and adequate time allowed after its production for it to be fully reviewed and considered — will it be possible for us and/or the public to comment fully on these proposals.

Ecological Concerns – Council must be mindful of the impacts that even 150 or 200 units will have on the surrounding fragile terrestrial and marine areas on these lands. To allow even that much in exchange for a park will undoubtedly have negative impacts on the ecology of the site. To allow more development than that, at any time, whether now or in the future, is to invite environmental degradation of this island and tragic loss of biodiversity that will never be recoverable.

Because he has expressed it so well and so succinctly, we attach, and hereby incorporate into this critique, the concerns raised by Alejandro Frid, Ph.D. in his January 11, 2008 letter to the Undercurrent.

In addition to emphasizing in our Wild Coast Plan 2 the importance of protecting coastal Douglas-fir and fragile coastal bluff habitats, we are also concerned that the current Ekistics’ plans will destroy the vast majority of the deciduous forest (red alder) on the CRC lands. This habitat type is also very important ecologically and is actually more important to the support of songbirds and small mammals than are the coniferous trees.

Disturbance to Humans and Wildlife — There is a need to consider the effects of noise and disturbance to humans and wildlife alike that will be caused by a 25 – 30 year project. The CRC lands are important winter range for black-tailed deer and the inshore area provides an essential food source for various wintering waterfowl species, including the at risk and extremely skittish surf scoters. While the developers will no doubt advertise their housing/amenities by extolling the beauty and peace of living at the Cape for up to 30 years, neither man nor beast will experience peace, apart from those brief hours when construction crews stop work. (And work on this island often continues into the evening and on weekends, particularly when the weather is favourable.)

More regarding “carrots.” Since the third public meeting held by Ekistics on November 27, 2007, the Members the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society Board have become increasingly concerned by Ekistics’ and the developers’ aggressive efforts to sell Council and the public their “sustainable” vision of unneeded and poorly sited housing and amenities, and other ideas which will degrade an ecological treasure without bringing benefit the island. Indeed, their “solutions” may only magnify existing problems by giving us more of what we already have.

Similar unrealistic visions for parts of this island have been sold to us in the past, ultimately leading to broken promises, e.g. Cowan Point. When push came to shove, many of the amenities that were offered to sway people to accept that development just evaporated after its approval either due to lack of funds or the impracticality of building what was proposed. Many of the same types of amenities that the CRC owners are seeking to use as incentives in the current case are already incorporated in the Cowan Point OCP amendment but not yet built (e.g., a school, a retreat centre, an inn). The one amenity offered by the CRC owners which is truly unique and potentially worth exchanging increased density for is publicly-owned parkland – but it must be a truly workable park whose design has been well thought out and thoroughly researched to maximize its ability to mitigate global warming and preserve biodiversity while also meeting many public recreation needs.

Sincerely,

Directors of the Cape Roger Curtis Trust Society

Nerys Poole Jean Jamieson Marion Moore Peter Drake
Pam Dicer Jan Wells Stephen Foster

cc: BIM Councillors
Bryan Kirk, BIM CAO
Mel Turner, Parks Planning Consultant
Sue Ellen Fast, Chair, Bowen Island Conservancy
Cathy Buchanan, Chair, BIM Trails Committee

by Nerys Poole
February 10, 2008, submitted for publication to Bowen Island Undercurrent

I have just reviewed the Cape Roger Curtis (CRC) Comprehensive Transportation Impact Study prepared by Opus Hamilton for the CRC owners, dated February 2008.

There are a few glaring errors that lead me to question the extent to which the authors analyzed our island situation. In addition, there is a blatant manipulation of numbers that results in a totally misleading calculation of the actual impact of any CRC development on the island roads and ferry.

The errors include the reference to a 50 kilometer posted speed limit on the island roads (instead of the 40) and then comments in a few places about “no posted speed limit” on some roads. The report refers to overloading conditions on the ferry being limited to the two morning sailings at 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (appears the writer is not a frequent traveler on our ferry system)

More disturbingly is the manipulation of the numbers resulting from a development of 224 units plus (initial phase only) at Cape Roger Curtis. The report states there is “a marginal increase of 89 and 137 two-way vehicle trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively.” In examining the report more closely, I find a table which shows how they reach this figure (at page 28). They calculate the trips that 224 units would generate (what they describe as “the OCP condition”, which is calculated at 172 and 228 two-way vehicle trips) and then deduct the “OCP condition” from their calculations for the initial phase of development (which includes traffic generated from additional 56 townhomes plus the traffic to and from the proposed neighbourhood facilities) to conclude the above “marginal increase.”

Further, the report makes completely unverifiable statements about the need for “a critical mass of Cape residents necessary to ‘kickstart’ carpooling, transit, or other transportation demand management measures” and the potential for “alternative travel mode usage” (such as bicycling and walking).

The report focuses on the initial phase of 224 plus units and then finishes with another disturbing conclusion about the Grafton-Adams Corridor – “At approximately 1,000 units (on the CRC lands), the Grafton-Adams Corridor will still operate at only 50 percent of the theoretical capacity of a rural road in one direction.” There is no mention of the impacts of the other developments that are happening on the west side of the island.

What this report emphasizes for me – once again – is the very pressing need for a complete review of our Official Community Plan (with full public input) – BEFORE any further developments are approved on our fragile island.

by Don Maclean
February 08, 2008, Bowen Island Undercurrent

Yes Virginia, size matters, particularly population size that has to be absorbed by a struggling infrastructure that has enough problems fixing potholes. Completely ignoring all the wonderful amenities and beachfront parks that are continually being used as a lure to support substantial development, I’ll restrict my observations to numbers. If we return to the original proposed development at CRC it is obvious to anyone who can count on their hands that 60 houses will result in at least 120 adults, 150 kids, dozens of nannies and gardeners, 100 or so more cars on the ferry each day and way way too many golden Labradors.

So you can see that it begs the question: why would a group of fervent activists work night and day in an attempt to exchange a chunk of parkland and a few hundred feet of beachfront for the right for CRC to build hundreds and hundreds of units at that end of Bowen?

Hey … you do the math.

by Bill Granger
February 08, 2008, Bowen Island Undercurrent

Thanks for publishing Ian Fry’s letter about the horrible state of Bowen’s roads, especially targeting the heavy traffic of eighteen-wheelers coming and going, taking our precious forest logs and bringing tonnes of concrete, gravel, fill, milled wood and building materials to the far reaches of the island.

The talk in the barber shop on Saturday (with three dedicated cyclists) had to do with Ian’s letter and the sad state of our roads and verges. Development should be paying for the costs of development – Bowen is so overdue for the imposition of development cost charges against developers that it makes me shake my head. I have been advocating for this for many years – all other Lower Mainland municipalities have been collecting $24,000 to $46,000 per lot at the time of subdivision approval since the early 1990s. The DCCs are generally split between streets, sewers, water supply and parks provision and upgrading. They are meant to be collected and spent for capital works related to new development. However, in my experience, the smart municipalities save the capital DCC funds and are allowed, under the Community Charter, to spend the interest on general upgrades.

So, I would again encourage council to seriously investigate DCCs for Bowen developments. We have lost millions of opportunity dollars in the last 10 years, at least, and cannot afford to lose any more. When old houses on my street are being listed in the mid-$600,000 range, no new house buyer in our (now, regrettably) gated community will even notice the extra charges that will serve us all well.

by Ian Fry
February 01, 2008, Bowen Island Undercurrent

EXCERPT: If ever there was an opportunity to pay more than lip service to the term ‘green’ this should have been it. When people say that they want to get away from the noise and stress of cities, what they mean is getting away from traffic.

Perhaps council can tell us when Bowen’s atrocious roads are likely to be rebuilt, and the individuals responsible for most of the damage forced to pay for it.

I’m talking about those developers with end-of-the-road projects whose relentless heavy truck traffic has turned our roads into a shattered, subsided and potholed mess. While it is common knowledge that the thoroughfares were substandard to begin with, they were adequate for a rural island.

There is no question about the cause. A fully loaded logging or dump truck exerts the compression damage necessary to crush the road bed, followed by hydraulic action from subsequent traffic on rainy days, degrading the surface into the crumbs of asphalt we have.

From my daily cycle commute across the island, I get an all too close look at what’s happening. Within three weeks of the golf course starting, Adams and Grafton roads were badly damaged and have only become worse – to the point of being unsafe for cars and plain dangerous for any two-wheeled transportation.

What we have here is arrogance and hypocrisy from all those developers on the south and west sides of the island whose immaculately paved suburbs have been gouged and blasted from this island, subjecting us to industrial traffic problems while paying 90 per cent less in taxes per lot than other comparable districts.

Open up a map of southwestern B.C. and look at areas where suburban sprawl has exploded in the last two decades, eating up farmland and costing us dearly in terms of pollution, road costs and accident rates.

Now look at our tiny island just offshore. If ever there was an opportunity to pay more than lip service to the term ‘green’ this should have been it. When people say that they want to get away from the noise and stress of cities, what they mean is getting away from traffic. The majority in Western society live, work and sleep within metres of a roadway, and this is only pleasant with few cars on the road.

Our OCP is open to several thousand more houses, many planned as far from Snug Cove as possible. We are being dictated to by a bunch of developers who endlessly claim that their scattered projects are mainly there to improve our lives. How absurd. They’re surging ahead now because the time is right to make a whacking great pile of money. I’ve heard references to two projects as being “visionary”. Right. It’s really visionary to have thousands of impatient individuals racing back and forth across the island in a polluted tide to their off-island commute. What would be visionary is if Mr. Russell, Mr. Duntz and associates, and Mr. Sorensen, proudly brought their clients and residents over in a frequent south island passenger ferry. The long-term accolades would surely be worth more than the financial costs, don’t you think?

What this island is, in its natural sense, is far more than a view from an exclusive strata enclave. As little as six or seven years ago, one could walk or bike along the main roads, and with cars sometimes five minutes apart, hear birds sing, frequently see kids heading someplace on bikes, see others walking and, best of all, riding horses on the roadside.

Where are those gems now, visionary developers?

by Sylvie Deselliers
Bowen Island Undercurrent, January 18, 2008

To those of us triggered by the attitude of the owner of the Cape Roger Curtis and to those willing to reach a higher level of understanding and consciousness regarding that experience, I have to say that we need to have a better look at ourselves.

It’s human to pretend that they are the bad guys and we are the victims, but it’s hard to put my head in the sand when things go differently than expected without asking the question: How did we create this scenario where we are facing the abuse of power, lack of vision and respect that is now menacing a piece of our land that is so vulnerable and precious?

Our outside reality is a reflection of our inside reality. Is it possible that the conflict between them and us is actually a reflection of our own stuff? Is it right to pretend that the profit, instead of the best interest of Bowen, is the first goal of the owners? Don’t we sometimes put our health and well-being at risk in an attempt to have a better quality of life, while lying to ourselves about the real reason: to have more money, but not necessarily a happier life?

Don’t we treat our heart, the most lovable part of our body, with less consideration than they do for the Cape, often leaving the weight of painful memories and worries to suppress our expression of gratitude? Don’t we intentionally close our ears to that inner voice imploring attention and respect of our own boundaries? Let the person who has never treated her heart, body and soul with the same attitude throw the first stone.

I see life as being a journey of experiences and I find in this an opportunity to grow consciously, individually and as a community. Therefore, I invite those who, like me, are concerned about the Cape to go within and spend time honouring the nature of your own private land, yourself. Only then will we see the manifestation of new possibilities.

by Eric Sherlock
Bowen Island Undercurrent, January 18, 2008

Something happened to the Cape Roger Curtis developers on the way to their coronation as enlightened landowners.

At the Sept. 19 public meeting where the developers unveiled the 60 per cent park, 100 per cent public waterfront scenario, one of their information display boards proudly announced: “A comprehensive planning and design process affords the island community an opportunity to secure the protection of a majority of its lands while more efficiently clustering the same development footprint currently permitted under the existing OCP”. The presentation board promised “neighborhood scale”, and suggested that after development, commercial services at Cape Roger Curtis could include “a corner store and coffee shop”.

Yet, by the Dec. 1 public meeting, the same amenities were now being offered at a new cost of 800 – 1,200 residential units. This new proposed level of density is about five times more than the highest possible permitted by the OCP.

What happened between Sept. 19 and Dec. 1? It wasn’t a change in interest rates.

I want to see the September plan and municipal council should demand the same.