To send correspondence to Mayor and members of Council in relation to this Council agenda, please use the following email address: [email protected]
Mission Statement In carrying out its mandate, Bowen Island Municipality will work towards conducting operations in a way that: • Improves the economic, environmental and social well-being for present and future generations; • Encourages and fosters community involvement; • Enhances the small, friendly, caring character of the community; • Maintains an open, accountable and effective operation; and • Preserves and enhances the unique mix of natural ecosystems and green spaces that Bowen Island possesses.
NOTICE: That a regular meeting of Bowen Island Municipal Council will be held at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane on Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:30 AM for the transaction of business listed below.
Hope Dallas, Deputy Corporate Officer
REVISED AGENDA Regular Council Meeting Monday, July 24, 2017
(REVISED TO INCLUDE LATE & ON-TABLE ITEMS)
Page Timing OPENING OF COUNCIL MEETING 9:30 AM 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1.1 Introduction of Late Items
Recommendation: That Council approve the agenda and Late Items agenda (if applicable) for the July 24, 2017 regular Council meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS (15 min) Public Comment is an opportunity for members of the Public to comment regarding items on the agenda or any other comments or issues they may wish to bring to Council’s attention. If you wish to submit any written material to accompany your comments, please ensure it is provided to the Minute-Taker at the same time as you sign up to address Council. All written documentation will then be provided to each Member of Council and will form part of the formal record.
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 1 of 372
3. CONSENT AGENDA 9:45 AM (5 min) Note: Council members may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda, or prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict with an item.
Recommendation: That Council approve the items as outlined in the July 24, 2017 Consent Agenda.
START OF CONSENT AGENDA
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
3.1 Minutes of the regular Council meeting held July 10, 2017. 10 - 14
Recommendation: That the minutes of the regular Council meeting held July 10, 2017 be adopted.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3.2 Mayor Murray Skeels re: Request for support from Islands Trust regarding Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan for Bowen Island
Recommendation: That Council request the Islands Trust to support Bowen Island Municipality in its efforts to oppose any industrial logging of Crown Lands on Bowen Island; and That Council invite the Islands Trust Executive Committee to the September 11th Committee of the Whole meeting to be held with representatives of BC Timber Sales Chinook.
STAFF REPORTS
3.3 Daniel Martin, Island Community Planner re: Crown Land Referral (CLR- 15 - 24 03-2017): 349 Cardena Drive, dated July 14, 2017
Recommendation: Whereas Bowen Island Municipality has received a referral from MFLNRO for Crown Land Application File No. 2403028 located at 349 Cardena Drive in relation to an existing private moorage facility; and Whereas the application is to replace an existing Licence of Occupation with a Specific Permission; and Whereas, the existing facility is an existing non-conforming structure and no changes are proposed to the structure; Therefore be it resolved that Council has no objection to the application for the existing, non-conforming boat house subject to no further changes being proposed.
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 372 3.4 Tess Taylor, Bylaw Services Officer re: Noise Exemption: Knight Wedding 25 - 29 Celebration, dated July 17, 2017
Recommendation: That Council approve the application made by Rob Knight for an exemption to Noise Control Bylaw No. 108, 2004 for a private outdoor event to be held at 370 Robinson Road from August 19, 2017 at 6pm to 1:00am on August 20, 2017,
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COW, COMMISSIONS
3.5 Minutes of the Community Centre Select Steering Committee meeting 30 - 35 held June 13, 2017 (no recommendations for Council's consideration)
3.6 Minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting held July 7, 36 - 40 2017 (no recommendations for Council's consideration)
3.7 Minutes of the Emergency Program Management Committee meeting 41 - 43 held July 5, 2017 (no recommendations for Council's consideration)
3.8 Minutes of the Finance Advisory Committee meeting held June 14, 2017 44 - 46 (no recommendations for Council's consideration)
3.9 Minutes of the Mayor's Standing Committee on Community Lands 47 - 48 meeting held June 26, 2017 (no recommendations for Council's consideration)
INFORMATION ITEMS
Recommendation: That Council receive the information as outlined in section 12 of the July 24, 2017 regular Council meeting agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
3.10 Councillor Melanie Mason re: Federation of Canadian Municipalities: 49 - 50 Canada's Core Public Infrastructure Survey, dated July 20, 2017
Recommendation: That Council direct staff to respond to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities mandatory 'Canada's Core Public Infrastructure' (CCPI) survey.
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 372
3.11 Move to a closed meeting
Recommendation: That Council move to a closed meeting immediately following the regular Council meeting to discuss items pursuant to Section 90(1)(g)&(k) of the Community Charter: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; and (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public.
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
4. DELEGATIONS Nil. 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
5.1 Daniel Martin, Island Community Planner re: Grafton Lake Lands (Primex 51 - 81 9:50 AM Investments), dated July 16, 2017 (20 min)
Recommendation: That Council receive the Grafton Lake Lands report dated July 16, 2017 for information.
a. PowerPoint Presentation re: Grafton Lake Development, dated 82 - 99 July 24, 2017
5.2 Emma Chow, Island Community Planner 1 re: Update on Funding for 100 - 163 10:10 AM Multi-Use Path, dated July 13, 2017 (15 min)
Recommendation: That Council authorize the Mayor and CAO to execute the agreements with TransLink for the 2017 Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing funding program in the amount of $180,000 for Phase 1 of the Multi-Use Path; and That Council commit project costs of $360,000 in municipal funds through its 5-Year Financial Plan as follows: 2018- $25,000 2019- $335, 000.
a. PowerPoint Presentation re: Multi-Use Path Funding Update, 164 - 171 dated July 24, 2017
6. BYLAWS- Nil. 7. STAFF REPORTS (dealt with under Consent Agenda) 8. CORRESPONDENCE- Nil.
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 372
9. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COW, COMMISSIONS
9.1 Councillor Sue Ellen Fast, Chair, Parks, Trails and Greenways Advisory 10:25 AM Committee re: Recommendation from the July 18, 2017 meeting (10 min)
Recommendation from the Parks, Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee: That temporary toilet facilities be installed at Pebbly Beach until September 15, 2017.
a. Report from the Manager of Recreation & Community Services 172 - 173 to the Parks, Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee re: Portable Toilet at Pebbly Beach, dated July 11, 2017
b. Photos of Pebbly Beach Access 174
c. PowerPoint Presentation re: Map & Photos of Pebbly Beach 175 - 177
10. NEW BUSINESS
10.1 Councillor Sue Ellen Fast re: Orchard Cottages- OCP Policy 234, dated July 178 - 180 10:35 AM 20, 2017 (10 min)
Recommendation: That Council recommend that the Metro Vancouver Parks Committee repair the roof of Cottage 17 instead of demolishing it, and to leave it standing to function as an interpretive cottage feature.
10.2 Metro Vancouver Director, Councillor Nicholson re: Update to Council on 10:45 AM Metro Vancouver business (verbal report) (5 min)
a. Metro Vancouver re: Memorandum regarding Forest Harvesting 181 - 182 History in Metro Vancouver Watersheds, dated July 18, 2017
10.3 Islands Trust Municipal Trustees Fast and Morse re: Update to Council on 10:50 AM Islands Trust business (verbal report) (5 min)
a. Highlights from the June 2017 Trust Council meeting, dated July 183 20, 2017
10.4 Any other new business 10:55 AM (5 min)
11. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 10:00 AM (10 min)
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 372
12. INFORMATION ITEMS 11:10 AM (5 min) Note to members of the Public: if your correspondence is referenced in this section below and you wish to speak to Council regarding such, you are welcome to appear during our "Public Comment" section near the beginning of this agenda.
12.1 BIM Correspondence:
a. Letter to BC Timber Sales Chinook re: Bowen Island Forest 184 - 186 Development, dated July 12, 2017
i. Response from Enrique Sanchez, Planning Forester, BC 187 Timber Sales Chinook re: BC Timber Sales Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan #643, dated July 12, 2017
b. Letter to BC Timber Sales Chinook re: Proposed Forest 188 - 191 Stewardship Plan (FSP) number 643, dated July 17, 2017
12.2 C.A.W.E.S. re: Feral Cat Crisis in Cornwall, Ottawa, dated July 7, 2017 192
12.3 Owan Plowman, President, The Board of the Bowen Island Conservancy 193 - 194 re: Policy for acquisition of coastal access during subdivision; Bowen Island Parks Plan, dated July 11, 2017
12.4 Cathy Peters re: 'Notinmycity' Campaign to fight human trafficking in 195 - 196 Calgary, Alberta, dated July 6, 2017
12.5 Jeanie Seward-Magee re: BC Bowen Island Ferries Policies, dated July 7, 197 - 198 2017
12.6 Trish Jacquet re: Corner at the Village Baker, dated July 7, 2017 199
12.7 Letters from the Public re: BC Timber Sales Logging on Bowen Island
a. Allene Drake, dated July 13, 2017 200
b. Andrew Brownsword, dated July 15, 2017 201
c. Andrew Marjerrison, dated July 13, 2017 202
d. Anita Bleick, dated July 12, 2017 203
e. Aubin van Berckel, dated July 16, 2017 204
f. Anne Franc de Ferriere, dated July 17, 2017 205
g. Betty Morton, dated July 12, 2017 206 - 207
h. Bowen Island Conservancy, dated July 16, 2017 208 - 211
i. Brownwyn Churcher, dated July 15, 2017 212
j. Bruce and Lynda Wallace, dated July 13, 2017 213 - 214
k. Charmaine Park Franny and Ema Heffelfinger, dated July 14, 215 2017
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 372 l. Chris Kientz, dated July 13, 2017 216
m. Christiane Prim Silva, dated Jul 12, 2017 217
n. Clayton Hunter-James, July 12, 2017 218
o. Colin Ritchie, dated July 12, 2017 219
p. Dave Pollard, dated July 11, 2017 220
q. David Hill, dated July 10, 2017 221
r. David McCullum, dated July 12, 2017 222 - 223
s. Diana Izdebski, dated July 12, 2017 224 - 225
t. Don McLean, dated July 17, 2017 226 - 227
u. Edward Wachtman, dated July 19, 2017 228 - 229
v. Eliza McCullum, dated July 13, 2017 230 - 231
w. Emily McCullum, dated July 12, 2017 232 - 233
x. Emily van Lidth de Jeude, dated July 11, 2017 234
y. Jennifer Lundin Ritchie, dated July 12, 2017 235 - 238
z. Jenny Freeman, dated July 16, 2017 239 - 240
aa. John Dowler, dated July 17, 2017 241
bb. Josh Mephman, dated July 12, 2017 242
cc. Julie Vik, dated July 11, 2017 243
dd. Kathryn Wasylik, dated July 12, 2017 244 - 245
ee. Katie Cook, dated July 13, 2017 246
ff. Leah May Walker, dated July 14, 2017 247
gg. Lidia Patriasz and Ralph Fleming, dated July 17, 2017 248
hh. Mark Edmonds, dated July 15, 2017 249
ii. Mary Lynn Machado, dated July 14, 2017 250
jj. Michelle de Cordova, dated July 18, 2017 251 - 254
kk. Neil Hammond, dated July 14, 2017 255 - 256
ll. Nicole Gibson, dated July 15, 2017 257
mm. Rebecca Laursen and Andreas Behm, dated July 12, 2017 258
nn. Rebecca Lyne, dated July 11, 2017 259
oo. Rebecca Tunnacliffe, dated July 18, 2017 260
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 372 pp. Sam Nosek, dated July 12, 2017 261
qq. Shahar Rabi, dated July 14, 2017 262
rr. Sheree Johnson, dated July 18, 2017 263 - 264
ss. Steve Rio, dated July 18, 2017 265 - 266
tt. Tourism Bowen Island, dated July 15, 2017 267 - 268
uu. Peter Courtney, dated July 19, 2017 269
vv. Magdalena Kozicka, dated July 19, 2017 270
ww. Gregory Ronczewski, dated July 19, 2017 271 - 272
xx. Marina Pratchett, dated July 20, 2017 273 - 274
yy. Bas Brusche, dated July 20, 2017 275 - 277
12.8 Letters from the Public re: Pebbly Beach Toilet
a. Rebecca Laursen re: Pebbly Beach, dated July 5, 2017 278
b. Lynn Beattie re: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach, dated July 11, 279 - 280 2017
i. Response from Kathy Lalonde, CAO, dated July 11, 2017 281 - 282
c. Bruce Russell re: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach, dated July 11, 283 2017
d. Bruce Weston re: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach, dated July 11, 284 2017
e. Theresa Ewart re: Toilets on Public Beaches, dated July 12, 2017 285
f. Beth Legacy-Cole re: Pebbly Beach Potty, dated July 12, 2017 286
g. Rebecca Laursen re: Biffie at Pebbly, dated Jul 12, 2017 287
12.9 Metro Vancouver re:
a. Moving the Economy: A Regional Goods Movement Strategy for 288 - 297 Metro Vancouver Implementation Priorities, dated July 7, 2017
b. Heather Schoemaker, General Manager, External Relations and 298 - 353 Ann Rowan, Program Manager Collaboration Initiatives, External Relations re: Regional Prosperity Initiative Update, dated June 29, 2017
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 372 12.10 Questions from the Gambier Island Conservancy and Answered by Brian 354 - 359 Kukulies, FLNRO re: The Proposed New Gambier Woodlots, dated July 2013
12.11 Jonathan X. Cote, Mayor, City of New Westminster re: Support for 360 - 362 Resolutions submitted by New Westminster City Council to UBCM, dated June 30, 2017
12.12 Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, BC Wildfire 363 - 364 Service re: Current conditions and resources in Coastal Fire Centre, dated July 11, 2017
12.13 Province of British Columbia re: Coastal Fire Centre: Wildfire News, 365 - 372 dated July 7, 2017
13. QUESTION PERIOD 11:15 AM (10 min) 14. ADJOURNMENT 11:25 AM
Bowen Island Municipality July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 372 Regular Council Meeting July 10, 2017
DRAFT BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY A video recording of this meeting may be viewed at the following link: Monday, July 10, 2017 Regular Council Meeting
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Bowen Island Municipal Council held Monday, July 10, 2017 at 7:15 PM at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC
COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE Mayor Murray Skeels Councillor Gary Ander Councillor Sue Ellen Fast Councillor Michael Kaile Councillor Melanie Mason Councillor Alison Morse Councillor Maureen Nicholson
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Kathy Lalonde, Chief Administrative Officer Tyler Ruggles, Administrative Clerk (Minute Taker) Emma Chow, Island Community Planner 1*
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE 42 Members of the Public*
(* Denotes partial attendance)
OPENING OF COUNCIL The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:15 PM.
MEETING APPROVAL OF AGENDA That Council approve the agenda and Late Items agenda for the July RES#17-255 10, 2017 regular Council meeting as amended: • Item 5.1b Cris Delano re: 1441 Adams Road TUP, dated July 10, 2017 • Item 8.1a BC Timber Sales Chinook Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan • Item 8.1b Aubin van Berkel re: Logging Moratorium, dated July 9 , 2017 • Item 8.1c Nerys Poole re: No Logging on Bowen, dated Jul 10, 2017 • Item 8.1d Nerys Poole re: Potential logging on Bowen Island, dated July 10, 2017 • Item 8.1e Andre H. Chollat and Anne Franc de Ferriere-Chollat re: BC Timer Sales, dated July 10, 2017 • Item 12.9 Owen Plowman re: Intersection adjustment at Dorman Road, dated July 10, 2017
Page 1 of 5 Page 10 of 372 Regular Council Meeting July 10, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENTS Andre H Chollat re: Logging Mr. Chollat expressed concerns to Council regarding the proposal for on Bowen Island timber logging on Bowen Island. Hugh Freeman re: Logging on Mr. Freeman expressed concerns to Council regarding the proposal Bowen Island for timber logging on Bowen Island. John Dowler re: Logging on Mr. Dowler expressed concerns to Council regarding the proposal for Bowen Island timber logging on Bowen Island. David van Berkel re: Logging MR. van Berckel expressed concerns to Council regarding the on Bowen Island proposal for timber logging on Bowen Island. Anne Franc de Ferriere Ms. Franc de Ferriere Chollat expressed concerns to Council regarding Chollat re: Logging on Bowen the proposal for timber logging on Bowen Island. Island Marilyn re: Logging on Mariyln expressed concerns to Council regarding the proposal for Bowen Island timber logging on Bowen Island.
Enrique Sanchez, Planning Council discussed the proposal from BC Timber Sales regarding a Forester, British Columbia proposed forest stewardship plan for Bowen Island. Discussion Timber Sales re: Bowen ensued. Island Forest Development, dated June 14, 2017
RES#17-256 It was Moved and Seconded That BC Timber Sales Chinook be requested to extend their public review and comment session at least until September 30th. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RES#17-257 It was Moved and Seconded That Council invite BC Timber Sales Chinook representatives to a Committee of the Whole in September as per their request. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RES#17-258 It was Moved and Seconded That Council request BC Timber Sales Chinook to postpone their July 30th open house until after a Committee of the Whole meeting with Council. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSENT AGENDA That Council approve the items as outlined in the July 10, 2017 RES#17-259 Consent Agenda.
START OF CONSENT AGENDA
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular That the minutes of the regular Council meeting held June 26, 2017 Council meeting held June be adopted. 26, 2017. RES#17-260
Page 2 of 5 Page 11 of 372 Regular Council Meeting July 10, 2017
Minutes of the Committee of That the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held June the Whole meeting held June 26, 2017 be adopted. 26, 2017 RES#17-261
BYLAWS
Daniel Martin, Island That Bylaw No.413, 2016 cited as "Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Planner re: Community Plan Bylaw No.282, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No.413, Detached Secondary Suites 2016" and Bylaw No.414, 2016 cited as "Bowen Island Municipality Bylaw No.413 & 414, 2017 Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 414, 2017" be RES#17-262 reconsidered and finally adopted.
STAFF REPORTS
Kristen Watson, Manager of Council received the 2016 Council Remuneration Report, dated July 4, Finance re: 2016 Council 2017 for information. Remuneration Report, dated July 4, 2017 RES#17-263
Tess Taylor, Bylaw Services That Council approve the application made by Fitch Cady for an Officer re: Noise Exemption: exemption to Noise Control Bylaw No. 108, 2004 for a private Cady House Party, dated July outdoor event to be held at 1335 Mt. Gardner Road on July 22, from 7, 2017 7:00pm to 11:59pm. RES#17-264
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COW, COMMISSIONS
Minutes of the Board of (no recommendations for Council's consideration) Variance meeting held June 21, 2017
Minutes of the Parks, Trails (Recommendations regarding the Grafton Lake Lands Development and Greenways Advisory will be dealt with through a staff report at a future meeting.) Committee held June 13, 2017
RES#17-265 That Council authorize the owner of Noah’s Barque to utilize municipal land for the purposes of instructing dog agility classes at Seymour Bay Park for two hours a week over a six week duration in August and September 2017.
Minutes of the Recreation & (no recommendations for Council's consideration) Community Services Commission meeting held June 22, 2017
Minutes of the (no recommendations for Council's consideration) Transportation Advisory Committee meeting held June 27, 2017
Page 3 of 5 Page 12 of 372 Regular Council Meeting July 10, 2017
INFORMATION ITEMS
RES#17-266 That Council receive the information as outlined in section 12 of the June 26, 2017 regular Council meeting agenda.
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
DELEGATIONS Nil.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM
MINUTES Emma Chow, Island The Island Community Planner 1 presented a staff report regarding a Community Planner 1 re: Temporary Use Permit application for property located at 1441 Temporary Use Permit (TUP- Adams Road. Discussion ensued. 01-2017): 1441 Adams Road, dated June 30, 2017
RES#17-267 It was Moved and Seconded That Council issue Temporary Use Permit TUP-01-2016 to Raef Grohne for 1441 Adams Rd, legally described as Lot Q, LMP 4859, Block C, DL 492 for a one-year period. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
BYLAWS (dealt with under the Consent Agenda)
STAFF REPORTS Nil.
CORRESPONDENCE (discussed under Public Comments)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES,
COW, COMMISSIONS Councillor Sue Ellen Fast re: Councillor Sue Ellen Fast presented a report outlining a request for Coastal Douglas Fir Council to join the Coastal Douglas Fir Conservation Partnership. Conservation Partnership, Discussion ensued. dated July 4, 2017
RES#17-268 It was Moved and Seconded That Council join the Coastal Douglas Fir Conservation Partnership (DCFCP) by signing the Statement of Cooperation associated with the CDFCP. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 4 of 5 Page 13 of 372 Regular Council Meeting July 10, 2017
NEW BUSINESS Councillor Sue Ellen Fast re: Councillor Sue Ellen Fast presented a report regarding potential Adapting to Climate Change - climate change impacts in relation to the planning of the Cove Bay Water Treatment Plant, water treatment plant. dated July 3, 2017
RES#17-269 It was Moved and Seconded That Council refer the 2016 Climate Projections for Metro Vancouver and 2017 Climate Projections for the Capital Region reports to staff for reference in planning the Cove Bay Water Treatment Plant location and design. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Metro Vancouver Director, Director Nicholson advised there have been no meetings of Metro Councillor Nicholson re: Vancouver Board to report on. Update to Council on Metro Vancouver business
Islands Trust Municipal Trustees Fast and Morse advised there have been no meetings to Trustees Fast and Morse re: report on. Update to Council on Islands
Trust business
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Finance Councillor Mason advised that the minutes were incomplete. The Advisory Committee meeting minutes will be included in the July 24th Council agenda. held June 14, 2017
QUESTION PERIOD Nil.
ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 8:58 PM.
Certified Correct:
______Murray Skeels, Tyler Ruggles, Mayor Administrative Clerk
Page 5 of 5 Page 14 of 372
To: Mayor Skeels and Council
From: Daniel Martin, Island Community Planner
Date: July 14, 2017 Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Subject: Crown Land Referral 03-2017 (349 Cardena Drive); Lot 29 Block 3 District Lot 490 Plan 11088 File No. 2403028
RECOMMENDATION Whereas Bowen Island Municipality has received a referral from MFLNRO for Crown Land Application File No. 2403028 located at 349 Cardena Drive in relation to an existing private moorage facility; and Whereas the application is to replace an existing Licence of Occupation with a Specific Permission; and Whereas, the existing facility is an existing non-conforming structure and no changes are proposed to the structure; Therefore be it resolved that Council has no objection to the application for the existing, non- conforming boat house subject to no further changes being proposed.
PURPOSE Bowen Island Municipality has received a referral from the Ministry of Forest, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (MFLRNO) regarding a Licence of Occupation due for replacement. Staff have prepared a draft response, and seek input from Council prior to responding to the referral.
BACKGROUND 349 Cardena Drive, located in Snug Cove, holds a Licence of Occupation for an existing dock. Bowen Island Municipality have received a referral request from MFLRNO for an application to replace this Licence of Occupation with a Specific Permission. No changes to the dock would be undertaken as a result of this tenure replacement. Management Plan and Tenure Plan provided by MFLRNO are attached.
Application Review Planning Staff have reviewed the application for compliance with Bowen Island Municipality Bylaws. Dock does not meet current Land Use Bylaw regulations, including regulations regarding setbacks, length, and area of float. Any alteration, expansion, or replacement to the existing structure would need to conform to current Land Use Bylaw regulations and would require a Building Permit.
Page 15 of 372 Figure 1 – Location Map
ALTERNATIVES 1. That Council direct staff to include specific comment regarding CLR-03-2017 to MFLNRO 2. That Council refer referral to staff for additional comment 3. Other implications as identified by Council
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no identified financial implications.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Staff, as directed by Council, will send comment from Council regarding CLR-03-2017 to MFLNRO. Any comments made by Council will be communicated to the public through the Council Meeting Minutes, which are available on the Municipal website and at the Municipal Office.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Bowen Island Municipality has received a referral from MFLRNO for an application to replace a Licence of Occupation for an existing private moorage facility with a Specific Permission. No alterations are proposed for the existing moorage facility. Any expansion to the structure would require compliance with the Land Use Bylaw. Staff recommend that Council has no objection to this application.
Attachments and References: Attachment 1 – Referral email from MFLNRO Attachment 2 – Application Package
SUBMITTED BY: ______Daniel Martin Island Community Planner
REVIEWED/APPROVED BY: ______Kathy Lalonde Chief Administrative Officer DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW:
Planning ☒ Page 16 of 372
Attachment 1: Letter from MFLNRO
Good afternoon Daniel and Emma, I am currently working on the replacement of Crown Lands File 2403028. There is a Note to File requesting that this application be referred to Bowen Island Municipality prior to replacement with a Specific Permission (or any other form of tenure). Here is some background information on this tenure:
• My intention is to replace the existing Licence of Occupation with a Specific Permission with no fixed term: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/natural-resource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/private_moorage.pdf • The current Licence of Occupation expired on May 15, 2017. • The area has been used for private moorage purposes since 1986. • The tenure size is 0.08 ha +/- • Current improvements on site include a pier which is supported by four concrete posts, a ramp and a float. The exact dimensions of each of these improvements are included in the attached Management Plan. • The applicants do not plan to erect/install any new improvements or make substantial upgrades to existing improvements. • It was confirmed with the applicants via a phone call on June 29, 2017 (today) that there are no ancillary uses on site.
For your reference, I have attached the following documents: • Replacement Application Form • Legal Survey • Management Plan • Sketch/Site Plan • Tenure Map Please let me know if BIM has any issues or concerns with me moving forward to replace this application with a Specific Permission with no fixed term under the Private Moorage Policy: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/natural-resource-use/land-water-use/crown-land/private_moorage.pdf
It is my understanding that all BIM responses to FLNRO related to tenure replacements are forwarded to Council for comment. As such, I look forward to receiving a formal referral response from BIM by 4:00 pm on July 31, 2017.
Thank you Daniel and Emma. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you require any additional information on this replacement application.
Sincerely,
Navi Saini, RPF Authorizations Specialist South Coast Regional Office Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 200, 10428 - 153 Street, Surrey, B.C. V3R 1E1
Page 17 of 372 Page 18 of 372 Page 19 of 372 Page 20 of 372 Page 21 of 372 Page 22 of 372 Page 23 of 372 Page 24 of 372
To: Mayor Skeels and Members of Council
From: Tess Taylor, Bylaw Services Officer
Date: July 17, 2017 Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Subject: Noise Exemption: Knight Wedding Celebration
RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the application made by Rob Knight for an exemption to Noise Control Bylaw No. 108, 2004 for a private outdoor event to be held at 370 Robinson Road from August 19, 2017 at 6pm to 1:00am on August 20, 2017
PURPOSE A wedding celebration.
BACKGROUND This application for an exemption to the Noise Control Bylaw is being brought forward for Council’s consideration because this event falls outside of the duration allowed for an outdoor, private event on residential property.
DETAILS OF EVENT Nature of Event: Private outdoor event Type of Noise: amplified music (stereo) Location of Event: 370 Robinson Road Exemption period: August 19, 2017 at 6pm to 1:00am on August 20, 2017 Canvassed area: The applicant canvassed the neighborhood (see attachment) and obtained 7 signatures (out of 9 residences in the immediate area – 77% were successfully canvassed). All residents canvassed were in favor. Policy requires at least 80% of residents must be canvassed and that at least 80% of the residents canvassed must be in favor for Council approval.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY This information is communicated to the neighborhood by way of the canvassing required.
Page 25 of 372 ATTACHMENTS AND REFERENCES: 1. Application for Exemption from the Noise Control Bylaw made Fitch Cady. 2. Map of neighborhood that was canvassed. 3. Signatures.
SUBMITTED BY: ______Tess Taylor Bylaw Services Officer
REVIEWED/APPROVED BY: ______Kathy Lalonde Chief Administrative Officer
Page 26 of 372 Page 27 of 372 Page 28 of 372 Page 29 of 372 Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting June 13, 2017
DRAFT BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
Minutes of the Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting held Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 11:00 AM at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC.
COMMITTEE IN Councillor Gary Ander, Chair ATTENDANCE Jacqueline Massey, Bowen Island Arts Council Executive Director Councillor Melanie Mason (left at 2:55) Councillor Alison Morse Kathy Lalonde, Chief Administrative Officer (left at 2:45) Kristen Watson, Manager of Finance Shauna Jennings, Manager of Recreation and Community Services
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Stefania Shortt, Committee Clerk (note taker)
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Craig Burns, Principle Architecture Sam Collins, Project Manager, Pivotal Projects – a WSB Company Pera Hardy, Principle Architecture Drew Rose, Still Point Architecture Councillor Maureen Nicholson Sophie Idsinga, Communications Coordinator
OPENING OF MEETING The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:15 AM.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1.1 Introduction of Late Items It was Moved and Seconded That the Community Centre Select Steering Committee approve the agenda and Late Items agenda (if applicable) for the June 13, 2017 meeting with the following amendment: • Move Item 4.2 (Timelines) to 5.4 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the May 25, It was Moved and Seconded 2017 Community Centre That the minutes of the Community Centre Select Steering Select Steering Committee Committee meeting held May 25, 2017 be adopted. Meeting CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
PUBLIC COMMENTS Nil
Page 1 of 6 Page 30 of 372 Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting June 13, 2017
BUSINESS ARISING FROM
THE MINUTES 4.1 Review of Action Items The Committee reviewed the action items from the May 25, 2017 from the May 25, 2017 meeting.
1) Revised GANTT Chart: to be discussed in Item 5.4 2) Financial Plan: Will investigate infrastructure funding, questions in MP’s office 3) North Side Access Parking: Discussed with blaster of Snug Cove House – work should be synergized. 4) Sent information regarding generator purchase to electrical consultant who sent information to Design Team but draft ideas not ready to share yet. 5) Table comparing RFP and current reallocation of space: later. 6) Design briefs from each of consultant disciplines: ongoing. 7) Circulate FAQs to committee: ongoing.
Action Item: Schedule a meeting of the Mayor’s Standing Committee on Community Lands wherein they can consider making a recommendation to Council regarding blasting a road for north access to Lot 2 (Stef Shortt).
4.2 Craig Burns, Principle Craig Burns, Principle Architecture, advised that at the May 25, 2017 Architecture: Presentation CCSSC meeting the Steering Committee had been presented with two design options. The consensus had been Option A with requested revisions. He presented a diagram and outlined the revised space allocations. Discussion ensued.
He further presented sketches of the lighting and ventilation provided throughout the interior space, an image of a bird’s eye view of the building, and 3D images of interior and exterior illustrating daytime and night perspectives. Discussion ensued relevant to:
• Considering ideas for the jump in grade from the road to the building such as providing a ramp for wheelchair and stroller accessibility • Storing mechanical equipment on the roof and the advisability of starting that discussion now as it would affect maintenance and ongoing operation costs • Reconsidering exterior lighting needs, despite cost considerations, particularly regarding the need for children to walk from school activities to the centre: plan for the future, for example run conduit in parking for future site lighting expansion • Developing a five year business plan – required by granting agencies Page 2 of 6 Page 31 of 372 Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting June 13, 2017
• Preliminary energy optimization: Commissioning an energy study, partially to increase access to funding opportunities, and inform this with current BIM initiative: Climate Action Program • North access to the property from Miller Road
Other updates from Design Team:
• Schematic design costing: in progress • Mechanical and electrical reports: need to go back to them • Structural: need to go back to them • Civil: was hard to get a hold of but now on board • Geotechnical info: need that • Met with structural, mechanical and electrical: some work done, still waiting.
The Committee was generally in favour of the new proposed program and provided feedback to the Design Team on their desired changes.
Action Items:
Get comments on the installation of cistern and pump. Ask civil and mechanical consultants what the costs would be associated with installing an underground grey water storage tank and a pump. Acquire a fee proposal and schematic documents (Design Team). Investigate solar options (Design Team). Develop an energy plan as an additional scope item: an energy consultant would be a sub-consultant of the architects. (Design Team). Contact CEA to see what kind of support they could provide regarding increased energy efficiency based decisions (Councillor Nicholson). Consider lighting standards before cost report is complete (Design Team).
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Design Working Group Above.
5.2 Communications Working Councillor Nicholson updated the Committee on the following: Group • The Community Centre website had been created and was in shell form • The FAQs had been drafted • Connections between communications and capital fund raising campaign were being considered • The Community Centre brand would be developed by the July 24th Council meeting
Page 3 of 6 Page 32 of 372 Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting June 13, 2017
Notes regarding communications from the meeting’s discussion included:
The view that the communications group needs. There would be several images but one would be key to the communications strategy. The Committee discussed the list of elements to add to rendering.
5.3 Financial Working Group Notes regarding finances from the meeting’s discussion included:
• The need to have options clearly defined, for example, what would financials look like were there to not to be grant received. • Federal grants require community support before lending money Three known contributions: • 3 million dollars from rent revenue • A confirmed amount from Council: possibly from Community Lands sale revenue • The remainder would have to be provided by community donation and grants
It was confirmed that a borrowing referendum report was not required until Gate 5.
NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Next Steps The Committee discussed what was required to accomplish prior to Gate 2 approval: • Deliverables from Design Team: Schematic Design had received unanimous approval. • Cost consultant draft information would be available by June 22, 2017. Next steps regarding such would include: o Design Team look at draft cost report o Steering Committee look at draft cost report o Design Team and Project Manager meet to ensure that the cost report is complete • Steering Committee to develop a briefing note and prepare for submission to Council (due approximately June 29th) • By July 6 have preliminary materials • Revised quality survey report complete by July 14th • Provide feedback on quality survey report and have it revised by July 19th. • Report for Council would have to be ready by July 19th • Next CCSSC meeting on Wednesday, July 12th at 1:00 PM
At 2:04 PM the Committee took a break and the Design Team left the meeting. Page 4 of 6 Page 33 of 372 Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting June 13, 2017
6.2 Councillor Gary Ander, The Committee discussed the feasibility of completing Gate 1 Chair, Discussion re: objectives for the July 24th Council meeting and it was clarified that Timelines that Quality Survey and Design Development were on track. It was emphasized that Gate 2 approval did not include budget deliverables.
Committee members expressed concerns regarding being prepared for difficult questions from Council and community members at the Gate 2 approval stage at the Council meeting on July 24th. Discussion points included: • Gate 2: Update to project plan schematic design had been completed, budget had been validated by a cost estimate, strategy for moving into gate 2 with is design development. • Concerns were expressed that despite the fact that budget is not one of the criteria of Gate 2 approval, Council and community members would ask questions regarding such and the Committee would need to be prepared with concrete responses. • The need to develop the work breakdown structure, define budget of construction of building, and also budget for project • Clarifying the distinction between the Cove Commons initiative and the Community Centre project
It was confirmed that Councillor Ander would present the project summary report to Council on July 24th and that Sam Collins, Project Manager, would be in attendance. It was noted that for Gate 2 approval an image was not necessary and that a brief report including scope, price and appendices was advisable.
Concerns were expressed regarding the assumption that revenue from the sale of Community Land would be available to the community centre project.
Action Items: Schedule a Closed meeting of Council (pursuant to Community Charter Section 90 (e)) to discuss Community Land revenue (Admin). Create an operational work plan (Kathy Lalonde and Jacqueline Massey). Create a project budget based on input from the Committee report (Sam Collins) Update GANTT chart based on the discussion from June 13, 2017 meeting (Sam Collins). Create a GANTT chart (Communications Working Group). Create a GANTT chart (Financial Working Group).
Page 5 of 6 Page 34 of 372 Community Centre Select Steering Committee Meeting June 13, 2017
Schedule a Closed meeting of Council to discuss the proceeds of the sale of community lands (Admin).
The project manager defined the following objectives to be complete by the Steering Committee for the July 24th, 2017 Council meeting for Gate 2 approval:
1. Capital Plan Update: a. Scope b. Schedule (linked to referendum timing (see bullet 4) c. Budget d. Includes risk and spending up to Gate 3 2. Finance Committee Report and Next Steps (need a briefing report for these activities) 3. Communications Committee Report and Next Steps. 4. Referendum Process and Timing 5. Operations: Commissioning Facilities
The Project Manager outlined the following actions for the Steering Committee.
1. Finance Committee: Define capital fund raising campaign (Grants, community). a. Define cost by June 27 2. Finance Committee: Define Finance Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) a. Options for funding – no grants – no land sales? 3. Communications: a. Next steps (bullets) b. FAQs 4. Move within Gate 4 Work Process a. Submit with Gates approval
5. BIM to Summarize project accomplishments in a briefing note
NEXT MEETING Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 1:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 2:37 PM.
Certified Correct:
Gary Ander Stefania Shortt Chair Committee Clerk
Page 6 of 6 Page 35 of 372 Economic Development Committee Meeting July 7, 2017
DRAFT BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
Economic Development Committee (EDC) Meeting Watch the Video
Minutes of the Economic Development Committee Meeting held Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:30 AM at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC.
COMMITTEE IN Chris Corrigan, Co-Chair (Meeting Chair) ATTENDANCE John Parker, Co-Chair Robyn Fenton Jacqueline Massey Shana Richmond Councillor Maureen Nicholson
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Stefania Shortt, Committee Clerk , EDC Staff Liaison
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Lindsay Bisschop, Regional Manager, Economic Development, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training
REGRETS Glenn Cormier Rod Marsh Michelle Nelson Barry Pynn
OPENING OF MEETING The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:34 AM.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1.1 Introduction of Late Items It was Moved and Seconded That the Economic Development Committee approve the agenda and for the July 7, 2017 meeting with the following amendment: • Item 5.3: Add two supporting documents CARRIED UANIMOUSLY
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the June 9, It was Moved and Seconded 2017 Economic Development That the minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting Committee Meeting held June 9, 2017 be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Welcome and Introductions Committee members introduced themselves to new member Robyn Fenton.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Nil. Page 1 of 5 Page 36 of 372 Economic Development Committee Meeting July 7, 2017
REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS
4.1 Review of Action Items Committee members reviewed the action items from the previous (LINK) from the June 9, 2017 meeting. Discussion ensued relevant to: Economic Development • Branding Bowfest: Too late for 2017, re-visit in 2018 Committee Meeting • High tourist volume: Possible food truck solutions • Crippen Park session: Cultural tourism should be considered
Action Item: Consult with the Island Community Planner about land use bylaws relating to mobile food trucks (Councillor Nicholson).
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Business Retention and Chris Corrigan, Co-Chair, advised that the BRE had not met since the Expansion Working Group June 9, 2017 EDC meeting. He reported instead on a meeting he had (BRE) had with the CAO, noting that the hiring of a part-time consultant that had been suggested at the June EDC meeting would require a vote by the committee, an RFP to be issued by the Municipality, at least three expressions of interest submitted, and, as the proposed expenditure was over $3,000, there would need to be final approval from the CAO.
5.2 Branding Working Group Nothing to report.
5.3 Business Licensing Task Councillor Maureen Nicholson provided a spreadsheet which outlined Force key information regarding business licensing from 16 comparator communities. She further provided a report which summarized the findings. Discussion ensued. Next steps included:
• Business Licence Working Group would present a report for the EDC to review at the August 11, 2017 meeting • EDC would make a recommendation to Council at August 11, 2017 meeting • Recommendation would be brought before Council at their October 10, 2017 meeting
Action Items:
Answer some of the questions on the spreadsheet provided that had not been answered by information provided on the community websites (Lindsay Bisschop). Share the comparator community information with Lantzville to support their fledgling business licensing initiative (Lindsay Bisschop). Introduce Councillor Nicholson to Biz Pal contacts (Lindsay Bisschop).
Page 2 of 5 Page 37 of 372 Economic Development Committee Meeting July 7, 2017
Ask the Mayor to consult with the other three of the four smallest municipalities within Metro Vancouver (Anmore, Belcerra and Lions Bay) that do not have business licenses (Councillor Nicholson).
5.4 Internet Access Task Councillor Nicholson advised that there would be information Force available to provide to the community regarding internet connectivity improvements within the next three months. The Committee agreed that the November 7, 2017 Business Summit would be ideal for making an official announcement regarding such.
UPDATES
6.1 Council Councillor Nicholson advised that the final reading and adoption of the detached secondary suites bylaw would take place at the July 10, 2017 Regular Council meeting, noting that a guide had been created to make the process as convenient as possible for property owners. Discussion ensued.
• June 12, 2017 Regular Council meeting highlights • June 26, 2017 Regular Council meeting highlights • July 10, 2017 Regular Council meeting agenda
6.2 Province Lindsay Bisschop, Regional Manager, Economic Development, Ministry of Jobs, Skills and Tourism provided a brief update of developments at the ministry level.
6.3 Tourism Bowen Island While a TBI representative was not in attendance, the Committee discussed various tourism related ideas including:
• Addressing restaurant kitchen staffing issues by Inviting teachers and/or students from Vancouver Community College for tour of the Island and involving Work BC contacts in the event • Addressing restaurant staff concerns that are the result of lack of affordable housing by organizing group transportation from the mainland • Participating in Destination BC’s Remarkable Experiences Program in the shoulder season to help businesses build capacity and ensure quality for visitor
6.4 Cultural Master Plan Jacqueline Massey advised that there was nothing new to report regarding the Cultural Master Plan but instead provided an update regarding collaboration with Whistler’s ArtWalk.
6.5 Staff Nothing to report.
Page 3 of 5 Page 38 of 372 Economic Development Committee Meeting July 7, 2017
BUSINESS ARISING FROM
THE MINUTES
7.1 Economy Studies and Lindsay Bisschop, Regional Manager, Economic Development, Methodologies (Lindsay Ministry of Jobs, Skills and Tourism, provided a Summary of Local Bisschop, Regional Manager, Economy Studies and Methodologies. Discussion ensued relevant to: Economic Development, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and • Formulating a clear question which would drive the research • Skills Training The need for tools to monitor ongoing changes • The need for information outside of census data which is on a five year cycle • Leakage studies
Action Item
Send links to online sources of Bowen business and economy statistics and other provincial data to the EDC Staff Liaison for posting on the EDC page of the BIM website (Lindsay Bisschop).
7.2 Strategic Plan and The Chair advised that at the EDC planning workshop held in Budgeting Priorities (All) November of 2016 four priorities were identified and were now being addressed through the four 2017 subcommittee groups. He asked that the current Committee members take a moment to review the notes from that session and identify any additional areas that they felt should be focussed on for the remainder of 2017. Discussion ensued.
It was agreed that the discussion regarding strategic planning was incomplete and that members should gather informally to continue the conversation.
Action Items:
Send an availability poll regarding scheduling a weeknight evening conversation about strategic priorities to be held at the Bowen Pub (Stef Shortt). Share the notes from the BCEDA Webinar on Business Continuity: Emergency planning for businesses (BCEDA Economic Preparedness Toolkit) (Councillor Nicholson).
The Chair suggested that the Committee vote on a motion to hire a part-time consultant. Discussion ensued and it was decided that the motion be deferred to the August 11, 2017 EDC meeting.
Page 4 of 5 Page 39 of 372 Economic Development Committee Meeting July 7, 2017
Action Item:
Work with Michelle Nelson to craft a job description for that focuses on the deliverables for committee members’ consideration (Chris Corrigan).
NEXT MEETING Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:30 AM.
ADJOURNMENT
Certified Correct:
Chris Corrigan Stefania Shortt Co-Chair Committee Clerk
Page 5 of 5 Page 40 of 372 Emergency Program Management Committee Meeting July 5, 2017
DRAFT BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
A video recording of this meeting may be viewed at the following link: EMPC Part 1 and EMPC Part 2
Minutes of the Emergency Program Management Committee Meeting held Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC.
COMMITTEE IN Jennifer McGowan, Chair ATTENDANCE Denise Richard, NERP Coordinators Robyn Fenton, NERP Coordinators Bonny Brokenshire, Manager of Parks and Environment Kathy Lalonde, Chief Administrative Officer Corporal Paulo Arreaga, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ian Thompson, Fire Chief Bob Robinson, Superintendent of Public Works, Tess Taylor, Bylaw Officer Janice Trevalen, Paramedic, BC Ambulance Services (left at 1:34 PM) Sheree Haydu, Superintendent, BC Ambulance Services
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Stefania Shortt, Committee Clerk
REGRETS Sophie Idsinga, Communications Coordinator, Vice Chair Carolyn McDonald, Director of Emergency Social Services
OPENING OF MEETING The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:07 PM.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Introduction of Late Items It was Moved and Seconded That the Emergency Program Management Committee approve the agenda and Late Items agenda (if applicable) for the July 5, 2017 meeting with the following amendments: • Add Supporting Documents to Item 6.1 • Add Item 5.2: Robyn Fenton re: Rapid Damage Assessment (RDA) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the June 7, 2017 It was Moved and Seconded Emergency Program That the minutes of the Emergency Program Management Management Committee Committee meeting held June 7, 2017 be adopted. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
PUBLIC COMMENTS Nil. Page 1 of 3 Page 41 of 372 Emergency Program Management Committee Meeting July 5, 2017
Welcome and Introductions Members introduced themselves and welcomed Robyn Fenton and Denise Richard to the Emergency Program Management Committee.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM
MINUTES
Public Notification System: Jennifer McGowan, Emergency Program Coordinator, advised that Update (Jennifer McGowan, registration with ERMS public notification system was imminent, Emergency Program noting that next steps included training staff and communicating Coordinator) information about the system with the public. She projected a deadline of September 2017. Discussion ensued.
Emergency Program Website: Jennifer McGowan, Emergency Program Coordinator, requested Discussion (Jennifer feedback from the Committee regarding the set-up of an emergency McGowan, Emergency program website or webpage on the BIM website. Discussion ensued. Program Coordinator)
NEW BUSINESS
Quake Cottage: Discussion Jennifer McGowan, Emergency Program Coordinator, requested (Jennifer McGowan, feedback from the Committee regarding participating in the Emergency Program earthquake awareness building Quake Cottage program. Discussion Coordinator) ensued and it was decided that the funds from the 2017 budget would be better allocated to key expenditures such as webpage development or helicopter landing research.
Action Items:
Follow-up with the West Vancouver School District regarding partnering on costs to sponsor a Quake Village for the annual October Shakeout event (Jennifer McGowan). Include Public Awareness and Education Plan as part of 2018 emergency planning work plan (Jennifer McGowan).
Robyn Fenton, Robyn Fenton, Neighbourhood Emergency Response Persons (NERP) Neighbourhood Emergency Coordinator and member of the Architectural Institute of BC’s Post Response Persons (NERP) Disaster Response Committee, provided a verbal report on Rapid Coordinator, re: Rapid Damage Assessment (RDA), noting that in partnership with the AIBC, Damage Assessment (RDA) the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC, and the Justice Institute of BC, BC Housing was setting up a framework for post-disaster building damage assessment. Discussion ensued.
Action Item:
Include RDA on the next EPMC agenda for further discussion (Jennifer McGowan).
Page 2 of 3 Page 42 of 372 Emergency Program Management Committee Meeting July 5, 2017
WORKSHOP
Hazards and Risks Jennifer McGowan, Emergency Program Coordinator, provided a Vulnerability Assessment presentation outlining the process of updating the BIM Hazards and (HRVA): Workshop Risks Vulnerability Assessment (HRVA) and subsequent public engagement. She also provided a workshop participant package and a hazard and risk analysis form.
The Committee reviewed the methodology criteria described above and practiced working with likelihood of occurrence scores and consequence ranks. Members also broke into two groups to brainstorm HRVA social, physical, economic and environmental vulnerabilities specific to Bowen Island. The group finally worked in partners and individually to identify scenario details, likelihood, and consequence severity for some of the hazards identified for Bowen Island.
The EPC identified next steps:
• Continue with risk analysis • Identify risk reduction measures • Write HRVA recommendations
NEXT MEETING Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 1:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 2:00 PM.
Certified Correct:
Jennifer McGowan Stefania Shortt Chair Committee Clerk
Page 3 of 3 Page 43 of 372 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting June 14, 2017
DRAFT BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
A video recording of this meeting may be viewed at the following link: FAC – June 14, 2017
Minutes of the Finance Advisory Committee Meeting held Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 1:00 PM at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC.
COMMITTEE IN Stephen Bellringer, Chair ATTENDANCE Keith Ewart, Vice Chair Joyce Ganong Councillor Michael Kaile Councillor Alison Morse
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Kristen Watson, Manager of Finance Kathy Lalonde, Chief Administrative Officer Shayle Duffield, Senior Accountant Stefania Shortt, Committee Clerk
OPENING OF MEETING The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
U 1.1 Introduction of Late Items It was Moved and Seconded That the Finance Advisory Committee approve the agenda for the June 14, 2017 committee meeting with the following amendments: • Add Item 4.3: Follow up on Action Items from previous meeting • Add Item 5.1: Move to a Closed meeting CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the May 3, ItU was Moved and Seconded 2017 Finance Advisory That the minutes of the Finance Advisory Committee meeting held Committee meeting May 3, 2017 be adopted as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
PUBLIC COMMENTS Nil.
BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
4.1 Kristen Watson, Manager Kristen Watson, Manager of Finance, provided a narrative31TU report U31T of Finance re: Financial updating the Committee on the year to date financial results. She also
Report May 31, 2017 provided a combined31T statement of revenue and expenses,31T
Variance Report a departmental31T variance report 31T and capital31T expenditures report.31T Discussion ensued relevant to: • Building permit revenue
Page 1 of 3 Page 44 of 372 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting June 14, 2017
• Combined Statement • Increased hydro costs: look to future solutions for energy Revenue and conservation. It was noted that the Community Centre Select Expenses Steering Committee had been discussing making primary • Departmental investment to save money and energy in future operational Variance Report costs. • Capital Expenditures • School board cost sharing: Discussions were ongoing with school board regarding sharing costs of turf field
maintenance due to run-off from district land • Utility billing: moving towards online reporting of personal water consumption • Fire Hall Referendum: If successful, would require a borrowing bylaw which would require two Council meetings to adopt. • Cardena Drive remediation: budgeted for $50,000 but actual would be $130-160,000. Safety concerns necessitated the expenditure. • Possible expansion of Lot 3.
Action Item: Consider a system that would encourage residents to connect with the sewer system by opportunities to recoup their costs, for example, commuting debt by attaching cost of hook-up to property thereby folding it into tax payments and enabling deferral of those costs (Finance Staff).
4.2 Kristen Watson, Manager Kristen Watson, Manager of Finance, provided a report31T 31T updating the of Finance, re: Infrastructure Committee on the Infrastructure Master Plan, noting that she had Plan Update created the RFP based on a template and had then sent it to Public works for posting on BC Bid. Discussion ensued relevant to:
• Concerns by the Committee about the RFP responses • Connecting with comparable, small communities to learn about the process they had followed • The possibility of paying companies to write an RFP and/or offer to meet them in Horseshoe Bay to create excitement about the project • Indications that the project would cost triple the budgeted price – the Committee discussed phasing the project and choosing top assets to prioritize. It was noted that the Lions Bay infrastructure project was a similar cost to the proposed BIM project costing would provide eligibility for FCE grant funding • Suggestion that inclusion of climate change strategies would provide eligibility for Federation of Canadian Municipalities grant funding
Page 2 of 3 Page 45 of 372 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting June 14, 2017
Action Item:
Check with the Public Works administrator regarding the response to the RFP. Find out if there were any enquiries that did not submit and who was on the list of recipients of the tender (Finance Staff). Check with Superintendent of Public Works to see if there are any other companies to approach (Finance Staff). Check with Lions Bay regarding their consultant and also with the contact mentioned by the Manager of Finance (Finance Staff).
4.3 Follow-up on Action The Committee reviewed the action items from the minutes31T 31T of the Items May 3, 2017 FAC meeting. 1) Unclaimed building permits – in progress (Shayle Duffield) 2) Occupancy permits – in progress (Shayle Duffield) 3) Termination procedures – follow-up with Kristine Simpson and send to HR Committee (Shayle Duffield). 4) Examples of business cases for capital projects from Kristine Simpson – in progress. 5) Send Bylaw which included Parks Tax to Kristine Simpson – done. NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Move to a Closed It was Moved and Seconded Meeting That the Finance Advisory Committee waive notice of a closed meeting pursuant to Section 127 (4) of the Community Charter: (4) Notice of a special council meeting may be waived by unanimous vote of all council members. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
NEXT MEETING Undecided.
ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 2:19 PM.
Certified Correct:
Stephen Bellringer Stefania Shortt Chair Committee Clerk
Page 3 of 3 Page 46 of 372 Mayor’s Standing Committee on Community Lands June 26, 2017 Meeting
DRAFT BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
Minutes of the Mayor's Standing Committee on Community Lands Meeting held Monday, June 26, 2017 at 2:00 PM at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC.
COMMITTEE IN Mayor Murray Skeels, Chair ATTENDANCE Councillor Gary Ander Councillor Maureen Nicholson Kathy Lalonde, Chief Administrative Officer
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Bob Robinson, Superintendent of Public Works
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE John Reid, Consultant
REGRETS David Riddell
OPENING OF MEETING The meeting was called to order on site at 2:25 PM.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1.1 Introduction of Late Items It was Moved and Seconded That the Mayor's Standing Committee on Community Lands approve the agenda for the June 26, 2017 meeting. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the January This item was deferred. 17, 2017 MSCCL Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS Nil.
BUSINESS ARISING MINUTES
5.1 Mayor Murray Skeels, The Committee visited the Lot 2 Snug Cove House development and Chair re: Access Road to Lot 2 discussed creating road access from Miller Road to the northern from Miller Road section of Lot 2 noting the economic advantage of timing the blasting required for that project with that which was taking place currently for Snug Cove House.
It was Moved and Seconded That the Mayor's Standing Committee on Community Lands recommend that the Chief Administrative Officer authorize staff to have a topographical survey conducted at a cost of approximately $2,500 in order to ascertain the feasibility of creating an access road from Miller Road to the North of Lot 2. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 1 of 2 Page 47 of 372 Mayor’s Standing Committee on Community Lands June 26, 2017 Meeting
NEXT MEETING Undecided.
ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 2:50 PM.
Certified Correct:
Mayor Skeels Kathy Lalonde Chair Chief Administrative Officer
Page 2 of 2 Page 48 of 372 From: Bowen Island Municipality To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Make infrastructure count! Survey launches July 24th Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:36:35 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: FCM Communiqué
July 20, 2017
Make infrastructure count! Survey launches July 24th
Public infrastructure forms the backbone of our communities: social housing, transit systems, parks, bridges, wastewater treatment plants, community centres, and so much more. Now the federal government is calling on municipalities to help better inform governments and Canadians about infrastructure across Canada.
Canada’s Core Public Infrastructure (CCPI) survey is an opportunity to ensure that the public assets in your community are included in the national picture of Canada’s infrastructure. It will give all of us comprehensive, objective, comparable data on the current state and performance of Canada's core public assets.
Local solutions, national challenges
Statistics Canada will launch the CCPI on July 24, 2017. It will survey public infrastructure asset owners at the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels. The target respondents are primarily municipalities, but regional, provincial and federal governments and Indigenous communities will be invited to participate.
A public report will be produced and shared online, presenting a summary of the key findings in 2018.
Working together, we have achieved unprecedented government investment in crucial infrastructure. Like never before, Ottawa is turning to municipal governments to deliver local solutions to national challenges. This survey will help paint the national picture of how local governments are building a better Canada.
Tight timelines
Participation is mandatory and responses will be due within three weeks after the release of the survey. We know the timelines are tight, but this reporting requirement is part of this new era of partnership among orders of government.
Page 49 of 372 Our understanding is that Statistics Canada will provide contact information should your municipality have questions or concerns in responding to the survey. FCM will keep you updated if there is more information to share.
For more information on the CCPI survey, please visit Infrastructure Canada’s website.
Find us:
This is a publication of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ©2017. 24 Clarence Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5P3 | T. 613-241-5221 | F. 613-241-7440
This newsletter was sent to [email protected]. To opt-out, follow this link: Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy Change your language | View email in your browser
Page 50 of 372
To: Mayor Skeels and Council
From: Daniel Martin, Island Community Planner
Date: July 18, 2017 Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Subject: Primex Investments Grafton Lake Lands File No. RZ-05-2015/OCP-02-2015
RECOMMENDATION That Council receive the Grafton Lake Lands report dated July 18, 2017 for information.
PURPOSE To provide Council with results of referrals regarding a rezoning and Official Community Plan amendment bylaw for lands around Grafton Lake, and to present potential amendments to be considered at second reading.
BACKGROUND Bowen Island Municipality has received an application to amend the Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw, as well as an associated application to remove land from the Agricultural Land Reserve, for a series of properties surrounding Grafton Lake in the center of Bowen Island.
This application was given First Reading by Council at the April 10, 2017 meeting. At that time, Council referred the application to the Advisory Planning Commission, the Parks, Trails, and Greenways Committee, the Economic Development Committee, the Transportation Advisory Committee, Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee, the Agricultural land Commission, the Islands Trust, and to a public open house, and directed staff to report back with the results of the referrals. Council also referred this application to a Committee of the Whole meeting.
Given timing of summer break in Council meetings and potential Planning staff absences, staff have prepared a report that brings the results of the referrals to Council for consideration and presents potential amendments to the bylaw in advance of consideration of second reading.
RESULTS OF REFERRALS Advisory Planning Commission The Advisory Planning Commission discussed this application at their meeting of May 24, 2017.
The Commission made the following motion: That the Advisory Planning Commission support the proposed amendments to the Grafton Lake Lands Development application, the OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 439 and LUB amendments Bylaw No. 440.
Page 1 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 51 of 372
Parks, Trails, and Greenways Committee The Parks, Trails, and Greenways Committee discussed this application at their meeting of June 13, 2017. The Committee made the following motions:
Whereas the nature reserve, trails and greenways aspects of the Grafton Lake Lands Revised Proposal (Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439, 2017 (Draft) and Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017 (Draft) appear to be beneficial to the community,
Be it resolved that the Parks, Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee recommend that Council consider the following:
That best practices for Low Impact Development (LID) be adopted including: • Storm water (surface and subsurface) management (eg. bioswales, constructed wetlands, retention of vegetation, etc.) • Shoreline protection through the Green Shores approach • Pollutant, nutrient and sediment control and management • Ongoing water quality monitoring comparing to baseline data including, for example, a provincial groundwater monitoring well in addition to surface water; and, That best practices be adopted for habitat protection including for: • Invasive species management • Amphibian road crossing • Wildlife corridors; and,
That best practices for trail and multi-use pathway construction and ongoing operations, risk, safety, expense, liability and general management be adopted; and,
That the water quality and flows of the main creek drainage of the south Grafton Lake Lands into terminal creek be maintained; and, That cumulative effects be considered. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
That Parks, Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee recommend that the nature reserve be extended across the agricultural commons, including along the riparian corridor, to protect the existing creek habitat between the agricultural commons and the orchard recovery centre, including all wetland vegetation. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 2 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 52 of 372 Economic Development Committee The Economic Development Committee discussed this application at their May 5, 2017 meeting. The EDC made the following motion: Whereas the revised proposal is consistent with the Economic Development Committee referral policy, Therefore it be resolved that the Economic Development Committee support the revised Grafton Lake Lands development proposal as presented at the May 5, 2017 Economic Development Committee meeting (regarding Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439 and Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002 Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017) and request additional consideration of the following items: • That Council consider more indoor common use areas; • That there be flexibility regarding zoning for the retreat and guest house areas; and, • That diversity of housing unit types is ensured.
Transportation Advisory Committee The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) discussed this application at their April 25, 2017 meeting.
The Transportation Advisory Committee made the following motion: The Transportation Advisory Committee is supportive of the transportation elements of the revised Grafton Lake Lands proposed development plan as presented at the April 25, 2017 Transportation Advisory Committee meeting (regarding Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439 and Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002 Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017) and provides the following comments: • That it be ensured that the road allowance and easements that enable the cross island path to connect at both ends of the development be identified at the time of subdivision; and, • That the widths of the multi-use paths be similar to those of Whistler and Tofino; and, • That there be adequate space for bus pull-outs on both sides of the road at the Grafton Gardens intersection.
Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee The Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee discussed this application at their meeting. The Committee discussed the land designated for the treatment plant. The Committee made the following motions:
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee support the amendments of Grafton Lake Lands application including the removal of development in the north and west side of Grafton Lake and the proposed dedication of land for the water treatment plant.
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee supports the limited development within the Grafton lake catchment areas as described in Bylaw No.440, 2016.
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee request additional information on the management of storm water and sanitary sewers within the catchment area.
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee request that as a condition of the rezoning the applicant provide a monitoring plan to measure water quality impacts from stormwater and sanitary sewer systems from the Grafton Lake Development
Page 3 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 53 of 372 Agricultural Land Commission Following Council direction, staff referred the ALR exclusion/inclusion applications to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). The ALC has confirmed receiving the application, and it is currently being processed and reviewed by ALC staff. The ALC advises that due to the volume of applications at this time they anticipate a decision to be rendered and released in the fall.
Islands Trust The Islands Trust Executive Committee met on June 20, 2017 to consider the referral of Bylaws No. 439 & 440. The Executive Committee resolved as follows:
THAT the Islands Trust Executive Committee advise Bowen Island Municipality that Bylaw No. 439, cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439, 2017” is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement.
THAT the Executive Committee advise Bowen Island Municipality that Bylaw No. 440, cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017” is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement.
Committee of the Whole Bowen Council discussed the amendment bylaws at a Committee of the Whole held May 29, 2017. Council also discussed an initial response to referrals from the Islands Trust, and reviewed a Policy Checklist outlining compliance with the Islands Trust policy objectives. At the meeting Bowen Council made the following motion:
That the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council refer the updated Island Trust Checklist for Bylaws 439 & 440 to the Islands Trust.
Public Open House The applicant held a public open house May 2, 2017 from 3-8pm. Approximately 40 people attended and 13 people submitted comment sheets at that time. All submitted comment sheets support the proposed rezoning, and are attached to this report.
Summary In summary, there was broad support for the proposed amendment bylaws. The Islands Trust provided confirmation that the proposed bylaws are not contrary to the Islands Trust Policy statement, and feedback received at the open house has been positive.
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS Based on referral comments and staff review, several amendments could be considered to Bylaw No. 440. • Redefine Area boundaries between areas 6 & 7
Page 4 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 54 of 372 Move from Area 7 to Area 6
Current boundary line between Areas 6 & 7 is proposed to be shifted slightly to allow proposed office area to be included in Area 6.
• Add definition to “Health and Wellness Centre” Currently “Health and Wellness” use in the proposed CD5 Zone is undefined. Staff propose that a definition be included in an amended bylaw. Proposed definition:
“Health and Wellness Centre” means a use providing facilities for the operation of spiritual, cultural, education, and wellness programs for single-day or in-residence guest use, and may include shared kitchen and eating area; meeting areas; bathrooms; and accessory buildings.
• Re-define “Guest House” in CD5 Several committees discussed the “Guest House” use proposed in the CD Orchard Recovery Centre Zone. The use is proposed to allow clients of the Recovery Centre to stay to site, and committees found the term unclear when used in this context. Staff proposed instead allowing “Recovery Care Housing” as a permitted use in this zone, and including a definition in the Land Use Bylaw for this zone. Proposed definition:
Page 5 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 55 of 372 “Recovery Care Housing” means a use for in-residence guests of a Health and Wellness Centre, and may include sleeping accommodations in single or multiple buildings, including overnight guest facilities and shared eating facilities; and one dwelling for the manager of the centre.
• Amend Nature Preserve to include land adjacent to CD5 The Parks, Trails, and Greenway Committee recommended that Council amend the proposed Nature Preserve to include land adjacent to the expanded CD5.
Potential Expanded Nature Preserve
This is an area that the applicant had proposed to use as storm water catchment areas for water draining from the development areas before joining Terminal Creek, and as such does not support the proposed expansion. Proposed area is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Subdividing the proposed area would require an application to exclude this land from the ALR.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion/Inclusion The applicant has also applied to exclude land from and include land into the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). This application was considered on its separate merits by the Advisory Planning Commission, and the application is addressed in a separate report.
Affordable Housing Policy • Impact of 2005 rental rates vs. total – Council input In discussion with the applicant regarding provision of affordable housing staff have sought a definition of “affordable housing” as 10% below market rental prices in the Vancouver CMA area (all of Metro Vancouver), as the closest approximation of the Bowen market rate, as measured by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Using a regularly measured and published market rate allows staff and applicants to easily ascertain what the desired market rate is.
Page 6 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 56 of 372
The applicant has proposed that a more accurate “market rate” for new rental housing on Bowen would be the market rent calculated by CMHC in building built since 2005. This is broken down in table 1.2.2 of the Rental Market Report published by CMHC annually. This would result in rents higher than those proposed by staff. The applicant’s determination is that these rental rates would be necessary to provide rental housing in a way that is cost neutral to the developer, as called for in Bowen’s Affordable Housing Policy.
Fall 2016 Rental Housing Prices – CMHC Market Rental Housing Report Vancouver CMA Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 2005+ $1,323 $1,643 $1,974 $2,325 Total $1,013 $1,159 $1,450 $1,631 10% below 2005+ $1,191 $1,479 $1,777 $2,093 10% below Total $911.7 $1,043.1 $1,305 $1,467.9
Technical Studies Following First Reading the applicant has started a series of studies to better refine the development proposal. These include: 1. Detailed Riparian Area Assessment; 2. Species at Risk (Plants); 3. Species at Risk (Animals); 4. Septic Engineering; 5. Geotechincal Engineering; and 6. Stormwater Management.
Based on the recommendations contained in these reports, further amendments may be recommended to the bylaws.
APPLICATION PROCESS Application process, as presented to Council in October is below. Application is currently at step 4 of this list.
1. Introduction of Application to Council (Applicant is referred to Committees and External Agencies); 2. Results of Referral with draft bylaw returned to Council for comment; 3. Bylaws are presented for First Reading (Bylaws are referred to Committee and External Agencies for further comment, applicant holds open house and conducts required studies); and 4. Following completion of Bylaw referrals, required studies, and initial Public Input, Bylaws are returned to Council with any recommended amendments to the bylaws. If acceptable, seek direction to schedule a Public Hearing; 5. Public Hearing held, as per requirements in the Local Government Act; 6. Council consider Third Reading; 7. Applicant complete any necessary conditions of rezoning, including completion and registration of Housing Agreements, and Island Trust provide approval of amendment to the Official Community Plan; and 8. Bylaw considered for final adoption.
Page 7 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 57 of 372 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Given large scope of application, staff have undertaken this application as an extraordinary cost application. Costs that are incurred above the $4,100 application fee will be directly billed to applicant. Staff have estimated $20,000 of costs to incur in 2016/2017.
As a part of the application, the development is proposed to be included in the Cove Bay Water System. As per BIM’s Local Service Area Expansion Policy (Policy #16-024), staff will seek a financial contribution at time of expansion. This is currently calculated as $9,949 per additional dwelling unit. Staff are in conversation with the applicant regarding the timing of provision of the financial contribution.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Application proposes significant changes to the Land Use Bylaw and Official Community Plan, and consultation with agencies and committees has been ongoing since October 2016. In accordance with the Local Government Act, a public hearing will take place before third reading, and will be advertised according to Public Hearing protocol.
CONCLUSION The majority of referrals have been completed following First Reading of the amendment bylaws, including all BIM Committees and Commissions. However, the Agricultural Land Commission has not yet announced a decision on the exclusion application for land in the Grafton Lake rezoning proposal, with a decision expected this fall. Should the ALC not grant the exclusion application, amendments will be necessary to Bylaws 439 & 440. Additionally, Technical studies are being undertaken by the applicant, but have not yet been completed. Completed studies may lead to changes in the proposed development. Given these potential impacts, staff recommend that second reading be considered following receiving these two pieces of information.
Potential amendments to be considered at time of second reading are included in this report for Council information.
ALTERNATIVES Council has the following options available: 1. Receive report for information; 2. Refer application to staff for more information; or 3. Other alternative as identified by Council.
Attachments and References: Attachment 1 – Amendment Bylaw No. 439 Attachment 2 – Amendment Bylaw No. 440 Attachment 3 – Open House response comment Attachment 4 – Islands Trust Reponses
Page 8 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 58 of 372 SUBMITTED BY: ______Daniel Martin Island Community Planner
REVIEWED/APPROVED BY: ______Kathy Lalonde Chief Administrative Officer
Planning ☒
Corporate Services ☐
Page 9 of 9 Grafton Lake Lands July 14, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 59 of 372 Bowen Island Municipality
BYLAW NO. 439, 2017
A Bylaw to amend Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010
The Council for Bowen Island Municipality in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. That the map legend of Schedule C - Present and Proposed Land Use Designations of “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010 be amended by adding the designation CDA-3 – Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development following the CDA-3 – Comprehensive Development Area designation in the legend:
2. That the portion of Schedule C -Present and Proposed Land Uses Designations of “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010 as shown outlined in thick black line on the plan attached hereto as Schedule A is hereby amended as follows:
From R - Rural and RS - Rural Residential to CDA-3 Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development Area - Part of VAP2230, PID: 008-637-245; - Part of DL 1347 PID:013-966-413; - Part of DL 1348 PID:015-944-051; - VAP2230 PID: 010-715-452; and - VAP2230 PID: 013-966-391
3. That the portion of Schedule C -Present and Proposed Land Uses Designations of “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010 as shown outlined in dashed black on the plan attached hereto as Schedule A is hereby amended as follows:
From ALR- Agricultural Land Reserve to SC – Service Commercial - Part of VAP2230 PID: 008-637-245
4. That the portion of Schedule C -Present and Proposed Land Uses Designations of “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010 as shown outlined in dashed black with grey fill on the plan attached hereto as Schedule A is hereby amended as follows:
From R- Rural to ALR- Agricultural Land Reserve - Part of VAP2230 PID: 008-637-245
Page 1 of 4 Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.439, 2017 (Grafton Lake) Page 60 of 372 5. That Section 3.4.8 Grafton Lake Lands be added following Section 3.4.7, with text to read as follows:
3.4.8 Grafton Lake Lands
The Grafton Lake Lands refer to a 140-hectare (350 acre) area located near the centre of Bowen Island. The overall site is characterized by its location surrounding Grafton Lake. The site includes creeks and wetlands flowing into the lake, upland slopes, developable bench lands, and areas of steep slopes.
A Comprehensive Development Area plan was developed in 2017. The plan made provision for an agricultural commons and orchard and attached and detached homes. The master plan also made provision for a nature preserve, land for a municipal water treatment plant, a trail network, office and daycare sites, environmental protection, and some limited tourist commercial and retreat centre development.
6. That the following objectives and Policies be added following Section 3.4.8, with subsequent Objectives and Policies to be renumbered to match. Text to read as follows:
Objective 70 To comprehensively plan and implement the Grafton Lake development in a manner that fosters a sense of community through clustered settlement pattern with diverse housing types that are located on lots of assorted sizes
Objective 71 To support the provision of land for community / institutional uses that respond to the needs of the broader Bowen Island community.
Objective 72 To protect environmentally sensitive areas, especially surrounding Grafton Lake, and minimize environmental impact through encouraging the retention of natural vegetation, the construction of narrower roads, and by avoiding development in environmentally sensitive, steep slope and wetland areas.
Policy 172 The area identified in Schedule C as CDA-3 (Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development Area) is intended to be developed as a mixed use neighbourhood which includes residential dwelling units, a public orchard and agricultural commons, limited commercial space, active and passive parkland, a large nature preserve, and retreat centres.
Policy 173 The maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted in the residential clusters in the CDA-3 designation shall be 120, not including units of affordable housing or caretaker residences.
Page 2 of 4 Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.439, 2017 (Grafton Lake) Page 61 of 372
Policy 174 Affordable housing is to be included in the residential clusters
7. Policy 356 is to be amended to include “, the Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development Area”, so that the policy reads as follows: Policy 356 Within the Belterra Lands, the Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development Area, and the Seymour Bay area of the Cowan Point Comprehensive Development Area, consideration may be given to townhouse, multi-unit housing, including affordable housing, which meets the needs of island residents.
8. Policy 357 is to be amended to include “, the Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development Area”, so that the policy reads as follows: Policy 357 Within Snug Cove Village, the Grafton Lake Comprehensive Development Area, and the Belterra Lands, the following tenures are supported: freehold, rental, and various forms of shared ownership, including cooperatives and co-housing, as well as covenanted non-market and subsidized social housing.
9. That this bylaw be cited for all purposes as the “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 282, 2010 Amendment Bylaw No. 439, 2017”.
READ A FIRST TIME this 10th day of April, 2017
READ A SECOND TIME this ______day of ______2017
PUBLIC HEARING this _____ day of ______2017
READ A THIRD TIME this ______day of ______2017
APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ISLANDS TRUST this ____ day of ______2017
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this ______day of ______2017.
______Murray Skeels Hope Dallas Mayor Deputy Corporate Officer
Page 3 of 4 Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.439, 2017 (Grafton Lake) Page 62 of 372 Schedule A
Page 4 of 4 Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.439, 2017 (Grafton Lake) Page 63 of 372
BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
BYLAW NO. 440, 2017
A Bylaw to amend Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002
WHEREAS, “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” establishes regulations for the use of land and buildings; and
WHEREAS, Council wishes to amend “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” to provide for the a new “CD 21” zoning category in the Land Use Bylaw and to apply the new zone to land around Grafton Lake; and
WHEREAS, Council wishes to amend and expand the existing Comprehensive Development 5 (Rural Recreation and Service) Zone;
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council for Bowen Island Municipality in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017”
2. “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” is amended by adding the new zone Comprehensive Development 21 (Grafton Lake) following Comprehensive Development 20 on Schedule B – Land Use Map
4. “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” is further amended by adding Section 4.31 to the Bylaw as follows:
“4.31 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT 21 (CD 21) ZONE – GRAFTON LAKE
Information Note: The purpose of the CD 21 Zone is to accommodate the comprehensively planned area around Grafton Lake, which includes residential areas, a nature preserve, parks and trails, offices, daycares, a guest house, and retreat centres.
The regulations in the tables in this Section apply to land in the Comprehensive Development 21 (Grafton Lake) Zone, as indicated by the column headings. For purposes of regulation the area within the boundary of the CD 21 Zone is divided into ten (10) separate areas labelled as Area 1 through Area 10 inclusive.
4.31.1 Permitted Uses of Land, Buildings and Structures
(1) In addition to the uses permitted in Section 3.2 of this Bylaw, the following uses, buildings and structures and no others are permitted in the Grafton Lake Zone:
Page 1 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 64 of 372
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Principal Uses of Lands, Buildings and Structures Dwelling Playgrounds Water Treatment Plant Agriculture Horticulture Domestic Agriculture
Accessory Uses of Lands, Buildings and Structures Uses accessory to the principal uses Home Occupation use, Subject to Part 3 Accessory Residential Use Dwelling
Permitted Buildings and Structures Dwelling, detached Dwelling, attached Buildings and Structures accessory to permitted uses
Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Principal Uses of Lands, Buildings and Structures Dwelling Office Daycare Playgrounds Play Fields Agriculture Horticulture Domestic Agriculture Retreat Centre Guest House
Accessory Uses of Lands, Buildings and Structures Uses accessory to the principal uses Home Occupation use, Subject to Part 3 Accessory Residential Use Dwelling Retail
Page 2 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 65 of 372
Permitted Buildings and Structures Dwelling, detached Dwelling, attached Buildings and Structures accessory to permitted uses
4.31.2 Size, Siting and Density of Permitted Uses, Buildings and Structures
(1) Subject to Part 3, uses, buildings and structures in the Comprehensive Development 21 Zone must comply with the following regulations regarding size, siting and density:
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Lot Coverage Maximum combined lot coverage of 5% of lot 5% of lot 5% of lot 30% of 100 sq. all buildings and structures (sq. m.) area area to a area to a lot area m. plus calculated as follows: maximum maximum 30% of of 300 sq. of 300 sq. lot area m. m. to a maximum of 500 sq. m. Maximum number of dwelling units 1 12 Maximum number of dwellings per 1 6 lot Maximum number of Dwelling units 0 with maximum Floor Area of 112 sq. m. Maximum number of Dwelling units 11 with maximum Floor Area of 168 sq. m. Maximum number of Dwelling units 1 with maximum Floor Area of 465 sq. m. Minimum floor area for affordable 342 housing (sq. m.) Height Maximum height of a building or 9 9 9 9 11 structure (metres) Setbacks Minimum setback from front or rear 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3 lot line (metres) Minimum setback from side lot line 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3 (metres)
Conditions of Use Despite Section 3.54, maximum 2
Page 3 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 66 of 372 number of detached secondary suites permitted on lots smaller than 0.36 hectares
Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Lot Coverage Maximum combined lot coverage 100 sq. 100 sq. 100 sq. 100 sq. 100 sq. m. of all buildings and structures (sq. m. plus m. plus m. plus m. plus plus 15% m.) calculated as follows: 30% of 30% of 30% of 10% of of lot lot area lot area lot area lot area coverage to a to a to a to a to a maximum maximum maximum maximum maximum of 500 sq. of 500 sq. of 500 sq. of 1500 of 1500 sq. m. m. m. sq. m. m. Maximum number of dwelling 42 54 12 units Maximum number of Dwelling 3 15 12 units with maximum Floor Area of 112 sq. m. Maximum number of Dwelling 37 35 0 units with maximum Floor Area of 168 sq. m. Maximum number of Dwelling 2 4 0 units with maximum Floor Area of 465 sq. m. Maximum Floor Area for Office 300 600 (square metres) Minimum floor area for 1343 1343 affordable housing (sq. m.) Number of Units and Site Areas Maximum number of dwellings 6 6 12 1 1 per lot Maximum number of guest 12 12 bedrooms per 0.4 ha lot area Maximum number of guest 12 12 bedrooms Maximum number of in- 24 24 residence guests Maximum floor area for 20 20 accessory retail sales (m2) Maximum number of 36 meeting/course/workshop participants calculated as follows: 3 participants per each permitted guest bedroom Maximum number of accessory 1 1 Page 4 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 67 of 372 buildings for each 0.2 ha of lot area or portion thereof, plus one, subject to Part 3. Maximum number of accessory 1 1 buildings on any lot that may be used for home occupation for each 0.2 ha of lot area or portion thereof. Maximum height of a building or 11 11 9 11 11 structure (metres) Setbacks Minimum setback from front or 3 3 3 3 3 rear lot line (metres) Minimum setback from side lot 2 2 2 3 3 line (metres)
Conditions of Use Despite Section 3.54, maximum 5 5 number of detached secondary suites permitted on lots smaller than 0.36 hectares
4.31.2 Subdivision and Servicing Requirements
(1) The regulations in this Subsection apply to the subdivision of land under the Land Title Act and the Strata Property Act
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Lot Areas for the Creation of New Lots Through Subdivision Minimum lot area for individual lots 4,000 4,000 4,000 1,100 367 (sq. m.) served by community water system Minimum lot area for individual lots 1 1 1 1 1 (ha) not served by community water system Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Lot Areas for the Creation of New Lots Through Subdivision Maximum number of lots that may 12 be created through subdivision Minimum lot area for individual lots 367 367 275 1,100 367 (sq. m.) served by community water system Minimum lot area for individual lots 1 1 1 1 0.4 (ha) without community water
Page 5 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 68 of 372
5. Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” is further amended by renaming Section 4.18 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT 5 (CD 5) ZONE (RURAL RECREATION AND SERVICE) to read as follows:
4.18 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT 5 (CD 5) ZONE (ORCHARD RECOVERY CENTRE)
6. Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002 is further amended by amending Section 4.18 to read as follows:
4.18 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT 5 (CD 5) ZONE (ORCHARD RECOVERY CENTRE)
Information Note: The purpose of the CD 5 Zone is to recognize a rural property with multiple uses and buildings. This property is located adjacent to Terminal Creek and has changed from an industrial site to a recreation and service oriented site. The regulations in the tables in this Section apply to land in the Comprehensive Development 5 (Orchard Recovery Centre) Zone, as indicated by the column headings.
4.18.1 Permitted Uses of Land, Buildings and Structures
(1) In addition to the uses permitted in Section 3.2 of this Bylaw, the following uses, buildings and structures and no others are permitted in the Comprehensive Development 5 (Orchard Recovery Centre) Zone:
CD 5 Principal Uses of Lands, Buildings and Structures Health and Wellness Centre Guest House Cottage Industry General Services Office Recreation, Training and Meeting Centre Accessory Uses of Lands, Buildings and Structures Uses accessory to the principal uses Home Occupation use, Subject to Part 3 Dwelling Retail Permitted Buildings and Structures Dwelling, detached Buildings and Structures accessory to permitted uses
4.18.2 Size, Siting and Density of Permitted
Lot Coverage CD 5 Maximum lot coverage (%) 33% Number of Units and Site Area Maximum number of dwellings per lot 1 Maximum number of guest bedrooms 40
Page 6 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 69 of 372
Maximum number of in-residence guests 40 Maximum number of accessory buildings for each 0.2 ha of lot 1 area or portion thereof, subject to Part 3 Maximum number of accessory buildings on any lot that may 1 be used for home occupation for each 0.2 ha of lot area or portion thereof Floor Area Maximum floor area that may be used for retail use (sq. m.) 50 Height Maximum height of a building or structure (metres) 9 Setbacks Minimum setback from front lot line (metres) 7.5 Minimum setback from interior lot line (metres) 2.9 Conditions of Use Where a lot in the CD 5 zone abuts a lot with dwelling use or a highway a landscape screen not less than 1.5 metres in height shall be provided within the minimum setback area of the lot in the CD 5 zone adjacent to the lot line
4.3.3 Subdivision and Servicing Requirements (1) The regulations in the Subsection apply to the subdivision of land under the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act for the Comprehensive Development 5 Zone. CD 5 Lot Areas for the Creation of New Lots through Subdivision Minimum lot area (ha) with community water system 0.8
7. “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” is amended by changing the zoning classifications for the lands shown outlined in a solid black line on Schedule A of this Bylaw from Rural Residential 1, Rural Residential 2, and Rural Residential 3 to the Comprehensive Development 21 (Grafton Lake) Zone and by making such deletions, adjustments, and consequential annotations on Schedule “B” to Bylaw No. 57, 2002 as are required to give effect to this amendment.
8. “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” is amended by changing the zoning classifications for the lands shown outlined in a solid black line and grey interior on Schedule A of this Bylaw from Rural Residential 1 to the Settlement Residential 1 (a) Zone and by making such deletions, adjustments, and consequential annotations on Schedule “B” to Bylaw No. 57, 2002 as are required to give effect to this amendment.
9. “Bowen Island Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002” is amended by changing the zoning classifications for the lands shown outlined in a dashed black line and grey interior on Schedule A of this Bylaw from Rural Residential 1 to the Comprehensive Development 5 (Orchard Recovery Centre) Zone and by making such deletions, adjustments, and consequential annotations on Schedule “B” to Bylaw No. 57, 2002 as are required to give effect to this amendment.
Page 7 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 70 of 372
READ A FIRST TIME this 10th day of April, 2017;
READ A SECOND TIME this day of ,2017;
PUBLIC HEARING HELD this day of , 2017;
READ A THIRD TIME this day of , 2017; AND
FINALLY ADOPTED this day of , 2017.
______Murray Skeels Hope Dallas Mayor Deputy Corporate Officer
Page 8 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 71 of 372
Schedule “A”
Page 9 of 9 Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw No.440, 2017 Page 72 of 372 Page 73 of 372 Page 74 of 372 Page 75 of 372 Page 76 of 372 Page 77 of 372 Page 78 of 372 Page 79 of 372 Page 80 of 372
200-1627 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8R 1H8 Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155 Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 604.660-2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867 Email [email protected] Web www.islandstrust.bc.ca
June 26, 2017 Bylaw Amendment No.: 439 and 440
Hope Dallas Bowen Island Municipality 981 Artisan Lane Bowen Island BC V0N 1G0 Email: [email protected]
Dear Hope Dallas:
Re: BIM – OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 439 and LUB Amendment Bylaw No. 440
The Executive Committee of the Islands Trust Council met on June 20, 2017 to consider the Request for Decision regarding Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439 and Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 440.
The Executive Committee resolved as follows:
THAT the Islands Trust Executive Committee advise Bowen Island Municipality that Bylaw No. 439, cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439, 2017” is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement.
THAT the Executive Committee advise Bowen Island Municipality that Bylaw No. 440, cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57, 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017” is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement.
Yours truly,
Shelley Miller Planner 1, Local Planning Services [email protected] 250-538-5611 cc: David Marlor, Local Planning Services Director, by email Emma Restall, Islands Trust Executive Coordinator, by email Daniel Martin, Bowen Island Planner, by email Emma Chow, Bowen Island Planner, by email
Attch: Islands Trust Request for Decision – June 12, 2017 Page 81 of 372 Mayor & Council RZ-05-2015/OCP-02-2015 Grafton Lake Development
Page 82 of 372 July 24, 2017 LUB BYLAW 440 Page 83 of 372 COUNCIL TIMELINE April 10 – Council gave First Reading to Amendment Bylaws 439&440, and referred Bylaws to: • the Advisory Planning Commission, • the Parks, Trails, and Greenways Committee, • the Economic Development Committee, • the Transportation Advisory Committee, • Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee, • the Agricultural Land Commission, • the Islands Trust, • Page 84 of 372 a public open house, and • a Committee of the Whole meeting ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting May 24th
That the Advisory Planning Commission support the proposed amendments to the Grafton Lake Lands Development application, the OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 439 and LUB amendments Bylaw No. 440. Page 85 of 372 PARKS, TRAILS, AND GREENWAYS COMMITTEE Meeting June 13th Whereas the nature reserve, trails and greenways aspects of the Grafton Lake Lands Revised Proposal… appear to be beneficial to the community, the PTGAC recommend that Council consider the following: That best practices for Low Impact Development (LID) be adopted (…) That best practices be adopted for habitat protection … That best practices for trail and multi-use pathway construction and ongoing operations… be adopted; and, That the water quality and flows of the main creek drainage of the south GraftonPage 86 of 372 Lake Lands into terminal creek be maintained; and, That cumulative effects be considered. PARKS, TRAILS, AND GREENWAYS COMMITTEE Meeting June 13th And: That Parks, Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee recommend that the nature reserve be extended across the agricultural commons, including along the riparian corridor, to protect the existing creek habitat between the agricultural commons and the orchard recovery centre, including all wetland vegetation. Page 87 of 372 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Meeting May 5th
Whereas the revised proposal is consistent with the Economic Development Committee referral policy, Therefore it be resolved that the Economic Development Committee support the revised Grafton Lake Lands development proposal … and request additional consideration of the following items: That Council consider more indoor common use areas; That there be flexibility regarding zoning for the retreat and guest house areas;Page 88 of 372 and, That diversity of housing unit types is ensured. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting April 25th
The Transportation Advisory Committee is supportive of the transportation elements of the revised Grafton Lake Lands proposed development …and provides the following comments: That it be ensured that the road allowance and easements that enable the cross island path to connect at both ends of the development be identified at the time of subdivision; and, That the widths of the multi-use paths be similar to those of Whistler and Tofino;Page 89 of 372 and, That there be adequate space for bus pull-outs on both sides of the road at the Grafton Gardens intersection. COVE BAY … COMMITTEE Meeting June 1st
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee support the amendments of Grafton Lake Lands application including the removal of development in the north and west side of Grafton Lake and the proposed dedication of land for the water treatment plant.
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee supports the limited development within the Grafton lake catchment areas as describedPage 90 of 372 in Bylaw No.440, 2016. COVE BAY … COMMITTEE Meeting June 1st
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee request additional information on the management of storm water and sanitary sewers within the catchment area.
That the Cove Bay Water System Local Advisory Committee request that as a condition of the rezoning the applicant provide a monitoring plan to measure water quality impacts from stormwater and sanitary sewer systemsPage 91 of 372 from the Grafton Lake Development ISLANDS TRUST Executive Committee meet June 20th
THAT the Islands Trust Executive Committee advise Bowen Island Municipality that Bylaw No. 439, cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 439, 2017” is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement.
THAT the Executive Committee advise Bowen Island Municipality that Bylaw No. 440, cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Land Use Bylaw No. 57,Page 92 of 372 2002, Amendment Bylaw No. 440, 2017” is not contrary to or at variance with the Islands Trust Policy Statement. AGRICULTURAL LAND COMISSION Exclusion Application referred to the ALC
Latest response from the ALC:
The Application is currently being processed and reviewed by ALC staff. The ALC advises that due to the volume of applications at this time they anticipate a decision to be rendered and released in the fall. Page 93 of 372 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE The applicant held a public open house May 2, 2017 from 3-8pm. Approximately 40 people attended and 13 people submitted comment sheets at that time. All submitted comment sheets support the proposed rezoning, and are attached to this report. Page 94 of 372 ONGOING STUDIES Studies commissioned following First Reading in April • Detailed Riparian Area Assessment; • Species at Risk (Plants); • Species at Risk (Animals); • Septic Engineering; • Geotechnical Assessment; and • Stormwater Management
Staff will update as studies are completed Page 95 of 372 POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Move from Area 7 to Area 6 Page 96 of 372 POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS Orchard Recovery Centre Definitions:
“Health and Wellness Centre” means a use providing facilities for the operation of spiritual, cultural, education, and wellness programs for single-day or in-residence guest use, and may include shared kitchen and eating area; meeting areas; bathrooms; and accessory buildings.
“Recovery Care Housing” means a use for in-residence guests of a Health and Wellness Centre, and may include sleeping accommodations in single or multiple buildings, including overnight guest facilities and shared eating facilities; and one dwelling for the manager of the centrePage 97 of 372 . POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Potential Expanded Nature Preserve Page 98 of 372 LUB BYLAW 440 Page 99 of 372
To: Mayor Skeels and Council
From: Emma Chow, Island Community Planner 1, Planning
Date: July 13, 2017 Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Subject: Update on Funding for MUP
RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the Mayor and CAO to execute the agreements with TransLink for the 2017 Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing funding program in the amount of $180,000 for Phase 1 of the Multi-Use Path; and That Council commit project costs of $360,000 in municipal funds through its 5-Year Financial Plan as follows: 2018 - $25,000 2019 - $335,000
PURPOSE To present Council with the results of the funding application for the TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing (BICCS) program and advise on options for proceeding with the project.
BACKGROUND At the January 25, 2017 Council meeting, the following resolution was passed:
Council resolution #17-31: That Council approve $5,000 for the preliminary design work of the first phase (Grafton Rd adjacent to Charlies Ln area) of the MUP.
At the February 27, 2017 Council meeting, the following resolution was passed:
Council resolution #17-82: That Council provide project endorsement for the funding application for the TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing program to construct the first phase of the proposed MUP.
Project Overview Extensive community engagement from the Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP) project has identified safer and more efficient infrastructure for walking and cycling across the island as a top transportation priority. The ITMP will include a cross-island Multi-Use Path (MUP) as a high priority long-term infrastructure project. The MUP will safely accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists. It is expected to cost about $2 million and take about 10 years to complete.
Page 1 of 4 Funding for Multi-Use Path July 24, 2017 Page 100 of 372 Proposed Multi-Use Path: Route & Phasing
Phase 1 of the MUP is along Grafton Rd in the Charlies Ln area. This is likely the most costly phase, but it is a critical part of the proposed MUP. It is one of the most dangerous sections, and in an area with no other alternative for pedestrians and cyclists. It will connect neighbourhoods across the island with Snug Cove village, where most of the island’s shops, institutions, services, and the ferry terminal are located.
Preliminary design work for Phase 1 of the MUP was done in February to determine project feasibility and rough costs. The results of this work are in the staff report to Council dated February 23, 2017 (Attachment 1). Total project cost was estimated at $360,000.
FUNDING APPLICATION On February 28, 2017, Bowen Island Municipality (BIM) submitted a BICCS application to TransLink requesting 50% cost sharing of the total project cost.
Page 2 of 4 Funding for Multi-Use Path July 24, 2017 Page 101 of 372 On June 26, 2017, the BICCS application received formal approval for the full asking amount of $180,000. This funding will be provided under two agreements (Attachment 1): $20,000 for allocated funding, and $160,000 for competitive funding.
Starting this year, TransLink allocated two-thirds of the BICCS funding for each member municipality to help increase certainty of funding to encourage municipalities to undertake costly bicycle infrastructure projects. Municipalities are guaranteed their allocated amount as long as project eligibility criteria is met. Allocation amounts are determined based on population and projected growth, with a minimum cap of $20,000.
A third of the BICCS funding still remained as competitive, with distribution based on project merit relative to all qualifying projects.
Execution of Funding Agreements The two funding agreements need to be executed by July 28, 2017. These agreements set out the terms under which BIM will be reimbursed.
Execution of the funding agreements does not obligate BIM to carry out or complete the project, or to have funds in the current capital budget to cover project costs.
Funding Considerations Funding will be provided for 50% of eligible costs, up to the approved amount of $180,000.
Funding is contingent upon project completion within a four year timeframe. If more than half the project is constructed by the deadline date, TransLink will reimburse 50% of eligible costs incurred up to that date. If the project is less than half constructed by the deadline, TransLink may choose to not disburse any funding. Extensions to the four year deadline may be negotiated.
During project implementation, TransLink is amenable to working with BIM to accommodate changes to project scope, budget and timeline.
If project costs exceed the preliminary estimate, BIM may apply for additional BICCS funding each subsequent year within the four year timeframe.
NEXT STEPS Once the funding agreements are executed:
1. Technical investigation work (survey, geotechnical, environmental) 2. Determine viable options and refine costs 3. Council decides whether to pursue a viable option and approves required budget 4. Detailed design work 5. Construction
Council will need to direct staff to start coordinating the technical investigation work needed to determine viable options and refine project cost estimates. This will entail survey work, and
Page 3 of 4 Funding for Multi-Use Path July 24, 2017 Page 102 of 372 geotechnical and environmental assessments of the site, including both the rock face and the slope off the side of the roadbed. This work will require several months to complete. Council will then consider the results of this work and may choose to pursue one of the viable options. Once an option is chosen, the project will proceed with detailed design plans and construction.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Executing the funding agreements does not involve any costs or financial penalties for not carrying out or completing the project.
The technical investigation work is estimated to cost $25,000.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Should Council execute the funding agreements, notice will be included in the Council-in-brief and in minutes of the meeting.
CONCLUSION The funding agreements will enable BIM to access the approved BICCS funding. The execution of these agreements will not involve any financial risk. To ensure timely project completion, the technical investigation work should be carried out in 2018.
Staff recommends that Council execute the funding agreements and include a minimum of $25,000 in the 2018 capital budget for Phase 1 of the MUP project.
ALTERNATIVES 1. That Council authorize the Mayor and CAO to execute the funding agreements with TransLink; 2. That Council request additional information from staff; 3. Other option as identified by Council.
Attachments and References: Attachment 1 - Update on Funding for Multi-Use Path, Emma Chow, February 23, 2017 Attachment 2 - TransLink Agreements 171004-0301 & 171004-1302
SUBMITTED BY: ______Emma Chow Island Community Planner 1
REVIEWED/APPROVED BY: ______Kathy Lalonde Chief Administrative Officer
Page 4 of 4 Funding for Multi-Use Path July 24, 2017 Page 103 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
2017 Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Upgrade Program (BICCS Allocated) AGREEMENT
171004-0301
THIS AGREEMENT made the ____ day of ______, 2017.
BETWEEN:
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, having an office at 400 -287 Nelson’s Court, New Westminster, BC, V3L 0E7
(“TransLink”) OF THE FIRST PART
AND:
Bowen Island Municipality having an office at 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
(the “Municipality”) OF THE SECOND PART
The parties hereby agree as follows:
1.0 Definitions
1.1 In this Agreement, the following terms will have the following meanings:
“Eligible Costs” will mean direct capital costs, properly and reasonably incurred and paid solely and specifically in relation to the Project, as described in the OMR/MRNB Guidelines. Such costs would usually be capitalised in the financial records of the Municipality;
“OMR/MRNB Guidelines” will mean the Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation (OMR)/ Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines issued by TransLink, as amended from time to time;
“Project” will mean the Cross Island Multi-Use Path: Phase 1, as described in Schedule “A”;
“SCBCTA Act” means the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act of British Columbia, as amended from time to time; and
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 1 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 104 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
“Work” will mean everything to be provided and performed by the Municipality in relation to the Project.
2.0 SCBCTA Act
2.1 If any part of the Project is located on the “major road network” (as defined in the SCBCTA Act) (the “MRN”), the Municipality acknowledges that TransLink may, by bylaw, establish standards for all or any part of the MRN, including the Project (once added to the MRN, if not currently part of the network), in accordance with the SCBCTA Act).
3.0 Project
3.1 The Municipality represents and warrants that:
3.1.1 it has the capacity and authority to enter into this Agreement;
3.1.2 this Agreement is valid and binding on the Municipality;
3.1.3 it has the skills and experience necessary to carry out the Project; and
3.1.4 it has developed and approved the Project requirements and budget set out in Schedule “A” in a professional, competent and diligent manner.
3.2 The Municipality will undertake and complete the Project, at its expense:
3.2.1 in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule “A” for the Project;
3.2.2 by December 31, 2020, or such later date as may be approved by TransLink in writing in accordance with and subject to the OMR/MRNB Guidelines;
3.2.3 in a professional, competent, timely and diligent manner, in accordance with acceptable industry standards; and
3.2.4 in compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, by-laws, and directions of all governmental and statutory authorities issued under lawful authority.
3.3 The Project will be considered complete when:
3.3.1 the Work is ready for use, or is being used, for its intended purpose; and
3.3.2 the total value of all incomplete, defective and deficient Work does not exceed 3% of the maximum Project budget set out in Schedule “A”.
3.4 Any requests from the Municipality for a material change in the Project scope of work or an increase in the maximum Project budget must be submitted in writing to TransLink’s Program Manager, Infrastructure Program Management Department. No changes in the
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 2 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 105 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
scope of work or maximum Project budget will be effective unless and until approved in writing by TransLink, in its sole and absolute discretion.
3.5 The Municipality confirms that:
3.5.1 the Municipality has developed and approved the Project requirements and budget set out in Schedule “A”;
3.5.2 the Municipality will be responsible for completing the Project in accordance with this Agreement;
3.5.3 the Municipality will be responsible for submitting, to TransLink, Project updates in May and November of each year until the Project is completed;
3.5.4 notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, TransLink will not be responsible in any way for:
3.5.4.1 any deficiency or defect in the Project design, specifications, requirements or budget;
3.5.4.2 any deficiency or defect in the Work or completion of the Project; or
3.5.4.3 any costs of completing the Project in excess of the Project budget set out in Schedule “A”.
3.5.5 TransLink will have the right to advertise or promote its participation in the Project. TransLink’s participation in the Project may be advertised or promoted in any media format including, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing: signs at the Project; print, radio and television advertisements; and, electronic advertising on the World Wide Web. The Municipality retains the right to approve of the location of signs at the Project and the content of advertisements or promotions, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
3.5.6 The Municipality agrees to supply, erect and maintain Project signs visible by users travelling in either direction at the beginning and the end of the Project limits if requested by TransLink. The Project signs must be erected and maintained by the Municipality until the Project Completion Date. TransLink and the Municipality will determine the format, size and necessary information to construct the signs.
3.5.7 The Municipality will contact TransLink’s Infrastructure Program Management Department staff when preparing press releases, preparing for the release of any public information, or organizing public events, to ensure that TransLink has an opportunity to provide input prior to the release of information. The Municipality will, in all its publications, news releases, public communications and presentations regarding the Project, acknowledge TransLink’s role in funding the Project. The Municipality will provide TransLink Infrastructure Program Management Department staff with milestone information that may be used to South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 3 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 106 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
promote the Project and the MRN Minor Capital Program. The Municipality will provide TransLink, through Infrastructure Program Management Department staff, with at least 14 days’ notice of any proposed public announcement or ceremony related to the Project.
4.0 TransLink Contribution
4.1 For the Project, TransLink will reimburse the Municipality, for actual Eligible Costs incurred in connection with the Project, up to the lesser of (a) $20,000, or (b) 50% of actual Eligible Costs less contributions from provincial and federal governments or agencies, within 60 days after completion of the Project (as defined in s. 3.3) and receipt of the following:
4.1.1 A Contribution Payment Request Form containing:
a. certification by the Municipality’s City Engineer (or equivalent) that the Project is complete, as defined in the Agreement, and that the Project met or exceeded specifications and standards set out in Schedule “A”, if any, and those engineering specifications and standards established by the Municipality from time to time for the Project or for similar projects; and b. certification by the Municipality’s Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent) that the Eligible Costs as stated have been incurred by the Municipality, are attributable to this Project, are correct, and are net of any provincial or federal tax rebate or the municipal HST rebate; and 4.1.2 A Project cost statement, which must include the total amount of Eligible Costs, and the total amount of provincial and federal contributions, if any.
4.2 The Project budget specified in Schedule “A” will be inclusive of all applicable taxes.
4.3 All Eligible Costs submitted to TransLink for reimbursement under s. 4.1 must be substantiated by supporting documentation, as described in the OMR/MRNB Guidelines. Any undocumented costs will not be reimbursed by TransLink.
4.4 The Municipality must submit all documentation and information, described in s. 4.1 and s. 4.3, to TransLink no later than the Project completion date set out in s. 3.2.2.
4.5 If the Project is not completed by the date set out in s. 3.2.2 but construction is greater than 50% complete, TransLink will reimburse the Municipality under and subject to the terms described in s. 4.1, s. 4.2, s. 4.3 and s. 4.4 for up to 50% of the actual Eligible Costs incurred in connection with the Project to the date set out in s.3.2.2 less contributions from provincial and federal governments or agencies. Otherwise TransLink will not provide any reimbursement for the Project.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 4 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 107 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
5.0 Records and Audit
5.1 The Municipality will maintain accurate and complete records in relation to all Project costs, including, without limitation, supporting documentation of all Eligible Costs and other expenditures related to the Project, from the date of this Agreement until two years after the Municipality receives payment of TransLink’s contribution to the Project.
5.2 TransLink will have the right, and the Municipality will allow TransLink, to enter upon the Municipality’s premises for the purpose of auditing Project costs at any time during normal business hours. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, TransLink will have the right to inspect and copy, at TransLink’s cost, any records relating to Project costs, including any supporting documentation.
6.0 Indemnity and Release
6.1 The Municipality agrees to indemnify and save harmless TransLink, its subsidiaries and their successors and assigns, agents, directors, officers, employees, contractors, or others for whom TransLink may be responsible at law (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against all losses, damages, claims, demands, actions, proceedings, costs, interest and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and disbursements, that arise from or out of:
6.1.1 funding the Work to be performed by the Municipality under this Agreement; and
6.1.2 any breach of this Agreement by the Municipality, including negligence or willful default,
except where and to the extent caused by or arising through the negligence or willful default of the Indemnified Parties. Such indemnification survives the termination or expiration of this Agreement and any sub-contract.
6.2 In addition to the forgoing, and notwithstanding any other term or provision herein contained, the Municipality, hereby unconditionally, absolutely and irrevocably releases and forever discharges the Indemnified Parties from any and all losses, liabilities, or damages, at law or in equity and whether direct, indirect or consequential, which relate to, arise out of, or are in any way connected with the design, engineering, construction, operation, maintenance or rehabilitation of the Project or the operation, maintenance or rehabilitation of the MRN, except where and to the extent caused by or arising through the negligence or willful default of the Indemnified Parties.
6.3 Except as expressly provided under Sections 6.1 and 6.2 in the case of the negligence or willful default of the Indemnified Parties, the Municipality acknowledges that the indemnity under Section 6.1 and the release under Section 6.2 will not be affected in any way by the provisions of Section 2 of this Agreement.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 5 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 108 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
7.0 Insurance
7.1 Throughout the term of this Agreement the Municipality will maintain a Commercial General Liability insurance policy in an amount not less than $5,000,000.00 inclusive per occurrence insuring against bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy shall name TransLink as an additional insured with respect to this Agreement and include a cross liability clause. Upon request, the Municipality will provide TransLink with evidence of the policy in the form of a Certificate of Insurance.
7.2 In addition, the Municipality will require its consultants and contractors to provide and maintain liability insurance throughout the Project or the Work that is to the same standard that is required by the Municipality for contracted works of the same nature and scope, and will, to the extent it is possible, require that the liability insurance so provided and maintained by any such consultant or contractor name both the Municipality and TransLink as additional insured. Upon request, the Municipality will provide TransLink with evidence of these policies in the form of Certificates of Insurance.
8.0 Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation
8.1 The parties confirm that, once the Project is completed, the Municipality will, at its cost, operate, maintain and rehabilitate the Work, for the duration of its design life, in good condition and in good working order as part of its public works maintenance program.
8.2 The Municipality will ensure that the Work is operated, maintained, and rehabilitated in compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, by-laws, and directions of all governmental and statutory authorities issued under lawful authority, including, without limitation, any standards established by TransLink for the Work under the SCBCTA Act.
9.0 Default and Termination
9.1 If TransLink alleges the Municipality to be in default hereunder and gives written notice thereof stipulating the default, and if such default continues for more than 30 days after the delivery of such written notice, and the Municipality has not cured the default or resolved the allegation, TransLink may elect to terminate this Agreement effective forthwith on the giving of further notice.
10.0 Dispute Resolution
10.1 Any dispute or controversy occurring between the parties hereto relating to the interpretation or implementation of any of the provisions of this Agreement will be resolved by arbitration, conducted by one arbitrator. The parties will agree on the arbitrator or, failing agreement, the arbitrator will be appointed in accordance with the rules of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre. Any arbitration will be held in the City of Vancouver and conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and the British Columbia Commercial Arbitration Act.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 6 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 109 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
11.0 General
11.1 All notices, demands, claims or other communications required or permitted hereunder will be in writing and may be delivered prepaid or sent by prepaid first class mail. Any notice delivered will be deemed to have been given or received at the time of delivery to the address of the recipient as set out below. Any notice mailed as aforesaid will be deemed to have been given and received on the fourth day following the date of its mailing. Any notice will be addressed as follows:
To: TransLink 400 -287 Nelson’s Court New Westminster, BC, V3L 0E7
Attention: Shezana Hassko Program Manager II, Infrastructure Program Management and Engineering
Telephone No.: (778) 375-7583
To: Bowen Island Municipality 981 Artisan Lane Bowen Island, BC, V0N 1G2
Attention: Emma Chow Island Community Planner
Telephone No.: (604) 947-4255
11.2 This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of British Columbia and the laws of Canada. The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of British Columbia.
11.3 If any terms, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance will to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of that term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances, other than those concerning which it is held invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, and condition of this Agreement will be separately valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
11.4 Time will be of the essence under this Agreement.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 7 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 110 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
11.5 The provisions contained in this Agreement and in the OMR/MRNB Guidelines constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all previous communications, representations, expectations, understandings and agreements, whether written or unwritten, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.
11.6 In the event there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the OMR/MRNB Guidelines, the terms of this Agreement will prevail.
11.7 The Municipality may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of TransLink, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
11.8 This Agreement may be executed in counterpart and such counterparts together will constitute a single instrument. Any party may deliver an executed copy of this Agreement by facsimile or electronic transmission (including transmission by uploading to a website (designated in writing by TransLink from time to time) and email notification (to an email address designated in writing by the receiving party) that uploading has occurred), which will for all purposes be deemed to be as effective as an originally executed and delivered copy hereof.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 8 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 111 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
______(Authorized Signatory)
______Name, Title (Please print)
BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
______(Authorized Signatory)
______Name, Title (Please print)
______(Authorized Signatory)
______Name, Title (Please print)
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 9 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 112 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0301
Schedule “A”
Municipal Project Application
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 10 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 113 of 372 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 1 of 14
Applicant Municipality of Bowen Island Project Name Cross Island Multi-Use Path: Phase 1 Project Location Grafton Rd at Charlies Ln Name: Emma Chow Phone: 604-947-4255
Project Contact E-mail: [email protected] Date April 5, 2017 Revision (0,1,2,3) Rev. 1
The purpose of this and subsequent forms is to gather information regarding the types, costs, and timing of various MRN, bike, and/or walking projects to be considered for funding by RTAC (or designated subcommittee) and TransLink. Refer to the latest Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines (located on TransLink’s Partner Area website) for project eligibility and other information. If you require further clarification, contact Derek Yau, Transportation Engineer, by phone at 778-375-7821 or email at [email protected].
Submission deadlines Note: if your municipality has previously submitted a 2017 MRNB and BICCS funding application, MRNB / BICCS: March 1, 2017 please do not resubmit the application again. TransLink staff will work with your project contact Walking Infrastructure to Transit: March 15, 2017 to amend funding request details as needed.
For new applications, the following forms are required to be submitted:
FORM A – 2017 Funding Application (required with all submissions) o FORM B – MRNB and/or BICCS Upgrade Projects o FORM C – BICCS Secure Bike Parking Projects o FORM D – Walking Infrastructure to Transit Projects (application form to be provided in February)
Please select all applicable project types / project funding you are applying for:
APPROVED PROJECT FUNDING (TransLink use) CMC Must Contribution Approved approval Project funding complete Agreement No. amount FORMS… date MRNB Allocated* – Road upgrade on MRN $ MRNB Allocated* – Bike Upgrade on or off MRN A & B BICCS Allocated* $
BICCS Competitive** $
BICCS – Secure Bike Parking A & C $
Walking Infrastructure to Transit (WITT)† A & D $
* Please refer to separate document for your municipal MRNB and BICCS Allocations for 2017. ** BICCS Competitive funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $400,000 per year. Competitive funding may be requested in conjunction with an Allocated project; however, this will contribute to municipalities’ one-project quota for Competitive projects. Municipalities must also use up all of their annual BICCS Allocated funds, before applying for the BICCS competitive fund. † WITT funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $250,000. Page 114 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 2 of 14
1. Project description A. Project location
1. Describe the project location below and include map(s) identifying the project location, project limits, jurisdictional boundaries, and other pertinent information.
The project is located within the municipal right-of-way on Grafton Rd at Charlies Ln (Appendix B: Context Plan). A 150 metre section of multi-use path is proposed for the westbound side of Grafton Rd starting at Charlies Ln and extending eastward.
Grafton Rd is one of the main roads of Bowen Island, connecting almost half of the island’s population through the bend at Charlies Ln to access Snug Cove village for schools, shops, services and the ferry. The roadway at this bend is very narrow with no shoulder, a steep drop-off on the outside, and a ditch and high rock face on the inside. Pedestrians and cyclists are forced onto the vehicular roadway as they approach and round this sharp bend.
2. ‘Before’ photos of the project must be included as attachments. Attached
3. If known, what are the existing pedestrian, bike, and/or vehicle volumes along the project corridor?
There have been no traffic counts taken along the project corridor. Based on the island’s population distribution and count data from similar roads, 1,500 vehicle trips are estimated to travel through the project corridor on a typical weekday (both directions combined).
A pedestrian count taken at the ferry terminal last spring showed an average 41 EAU/hr. Again, based on population distribution, the pedestrian count along the project corridor can be loosely estimated at 300-400 per day (although number of pedestrian trips likely falls drastically with increasing distance from the terminal and lack of safe connection along the project corridor).
4. Is any part of the project constructed on non-municipally owned right-of-way (i.e. provincial, federal, hydro, and/or rail corridors)? Yes No
If so, specify:
5. Are there any schools and/or seniors housing or care facilities within 1 block of the project area?
If so, specify: There are no distinct blocks in the project area. The project is within 1 kilometre of two schools, Island Pacific School and Bowen Island Community School, and a senior housing co-operative, Bowen Court.
B. Project description
Please provide a description of the project scope in sufficient detail to demonstrate the project objectives and benefits. Relevant maps, plan drawings, and typical cross sections with basic dimensions MUST be included.
1. Detail project scope:
Bowen Island has very little active transportation infrastructure. There are no bike paths and only about one kilometer of sidewalk. Roads are generally narrow with limited gravel shoulders and many sections are steep and winding. This has resulted in hazardous conditions that has deterred many pedestrians and cyclists.
Recent community engagement has shown a strong latent demand for active transportation. Page Safer 115 walking of 372 and Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 3 of 14
cycling infrastructure has been consistently identified as the top transportation priority for Bowen Island. As a result, the Bowen Island Integrated Transportation Master Plan calls for the construction of a 6.5 km multi-use path along the main roads to connect the west- and mid-island neighbourhoods to the eastern neighbourhoods, the village, and the ferry terminal (Appendix C: Proposed Multi-Use Path).
The purpose of this project is to resolve one of the biggest safety concerns for active transportation across the island and provide a safe connection between the west and the east sides. This is the first phase of the proposed multi-use path for Bowen Island. It will connect to an existing gravel trail to the east that runs to the school and continues to the village sidewalk that ends at the ferry terminal. The next phase will be to connect to the existing gravel trail to the west, then to upgrade the gravel trails to meet path standards.
This first phase will involve road widening of 2-3 metres by blasting in to the rock face along the eastbound side, slope stabilization, ditch and road construction, and line painting (Appendix D: Preliminary Design Work). The resulting multi-use path will be about 150 m in length, 2-3 m wide, 50 mm asphalt, bi-directional, and barrier-protected from vehicular traffic. Project work is expected to complete in 2018.
Attach: Plan drawings Cross sections
2. Total project distance between end-points: 0.2 km
3. Indicate bus routes and bus stops along the project, and describe pedestrian/bike treatment at bus stops, if applicable. Was CMBC consulted on the proposed bus stop changes?
The C10 bus route runs along the project. This is a flag stop route and does not have any designated bus stops along the route. CMBC was not consulted since there will be no bus stop changes.
4. Describe how the project will acknowledge the funding contributors in media releases and other forms of public communication (e.g. project signage and website etc.).
Funding contributors will be acknowledged in new releases and project signage. Communication materials will follow TransLink guidelines and be reviewed by TransLink before publication.
5. Describe how project success will be measured (e.g. before/after volume counts, safety data, travel speed surveys, etc.).
Since this is a fairly small section of path, project success will be measured by annual community feedback/polls. In the future, as additional sections of the multi-use path get built to connect more areas, counters will be installed to monitor usage.
6. Are there any sections of the project that do not conform to TAC standards (e.g. lane width, sightline, grades etc.)? Yes No
Elaborate: The path width is 2.4 m, less than the 3 m minimum set out in the TAC standard. At this point, the preliminary design was conservatively developed based on existing information to show the minimum that can be reliably achieved within the project budget. According to the design engineer, the site has relatively low traffic volumes and speeds compared with most sites that TAC applies to. The design speed used is 40 kph. The engineer is satisfied that the 2.4 m path width is sufficient to safely accommodate a two-way shared path for cyclists and pedestrians. The engineer is also satisfied that the 150 mm asphalt/concrete curb, along with high visibility posts, will provide a sufficient safety barrier between vehicular traffic and path users. The proposed vertical barrier provides more protection than additional separation width.
We will include caution signage and pavement markings along any path sections narrower than the TAC standard to alert users to the constrained width.
The minimum TAC path width of 3.0 m and additional horizontal clearance of 600 mm may bePage achieved 116 of through 372 more Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 4 of 14
technical assessments and a land survey, which are to be completed at the detailed design stage. This detailed design work will help determine the feasibility of further widening the roadway.
7. Are there any permanent bike or pedestrian counting mechanisms included in the scope of work? Yes No
Elaborate:
C. Project schedule and readiness
The intent is to ensure that the project is ready to move forward and can easily be completed within the 4-year timeframe. This is also to ensure that feasibility issues have been considered and no major obstacles to implement the project are apparent.
1. Has TransLink previously approved funding for this project? Yes No
If so, please indicate the corresponding Contribution Agreement Number(s):
2. Provide approximate timing for each phase of the project.
Property acquisition (if applicable): N/A Design: 2 months Construction: 2 months Completion: Winter 2017/2018
3. Please indicate all supporting analyses that have been completed. Check all that apply:
Data collection Public consultation Conceptual / preliminary design Safety analysis / audit Detailed design Other (please specify: )
4. Are there any foreseeable risks / uncertainties which may delay the project past the 4-year completion deadline (e.g. council endorsement, funding approval, permit approval, railway crossing design approval, schedule impacts from other nearby projects, property / railway / provincial right-of-way requirements, etc.)? Indicate risk level and elaborate:
Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk
Elaborate: The project is entirely within public right-of-way and is not in any development permit area. Council has endorsed the project as presented in this application. Much of the work will need to take place outside of bird nesting season (March-July), which may cause some delays but the project is still expected to complete by 2018.
a. Describe the public consultation plan and expected schedule. Were any concerns brought up during the consultation process?
The project is one of the main outcomes of the Bowen Island Integrated Transportation Master Plan project, which included almost a year of community engagement. Over 1,000 participants, covering a range of stakeholders, were engaged through a number of events and campaigns. The top transportation priority identified for Bowen Island was safer active transportation infrastructure, with a multi-use path being the number one specified improvement.
The specific section of path proposed for this project has received some feedback from residents.Page 117 ofMost 372 have Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 5 of 14
voiced support, while the chief concerns have been around environmental impacts from the potential blasting work. These impacts will be further investigated in the detailed design stage.
b. Describe the financial commitment on this project (e.g. has Council and/or Senior Government endorsed the project and approved the funding? If not, what is the expected timeline for approval?)
Council has endorsed the project with an understanding of the financial commitment required by project completion. Allocation of municipal funds in 2017 will be contingent upon BICCS funding approval.
c. Are there proposed property acquisitions or other right-of-way requirements? If so, what is the expected timeline to obtain the right-of-way? Yes No
d. Does the project cross any railways? If so, has applicable agencies been consulted on the design, and what is the expected timeline to obtain rail crossing design approvals? Yes No
e. Are there other proposed projects (e.g. nearby development, paving, utility projects etc.) that may affect the project timeline? If so, describe the schedule impact. Yes No
D. Capacity changes to MRN
1. Estimated vehicle lane-km (e.g. new vehicle lanes, turning lanes, etc.) added to the MRN: lane-km
2. Note any road alterations that may reduce the people-moving capacity of the MRN.
(Check all that apply) 1. New signal (full, pedestrian) – traffic volumes and signal warrants must be submitted 2. Lane reduction 3. Introduction or modification of on-street parking 4. New crosswalk – pedestrian crossing warrant must be submitted 5. Other (please specify: )
As defined in Section 21(1) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (SCBCTA), municipalities are required to obtain TransLink’s approval for any road alterations that would reduce the capacity of any part of the MRN to move people.
Page 118 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 6 of 14
2. Project cost estimates Description / unit cost / additional Cost Project cost component information estimate ($)
Right-of-way property acquisition N/A
Total project Construction works Blasting, road construction $270,000 costs (eligible + Design and project management Assessments, drawings $30,000 ineligible) (max 12% of construction costs)
Contingency 20% $60,000
A) Subtotal of project costs: $360,000
Total MRN rehabilitation components ineligible project costs* Other ineligible costs (specify)
Subtotal of ineligible project B) $ costs:
C) Total eligible project costs (A - B): $360,000
Identify the class of estimate provided† Class A (10-15%) Class B (15-25%) Class: C Class C (25-40%) Class D (50%)
* Refer to latest Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines for a list of non-eligible project cost.
† For BICCS Competitive applications, a minimum Class “C” cost estimate is required.
Page 119 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 7 of 14
Identify ALL annual source(s) of project funding and the annual amounts confirmed or expected. Indicate the Contribution Agreement Number(s) for all previous approved funding from TransLink.
For projects with multiple year funding, Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total ($) change year as appropriate (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020)
TransLink Funding Request§ (Please indicate funding request for 2017, and funding forecasts for future years if applicable) MRNB Allocated*
(Round to nearest $1,000) 2017 R to MRNB Transfer**
(Round to nearest $1,000) BICCS Allocated* $20,000 $20,000 (Round to nearest $1,000) BICCS Competitive† $160,000 $160,000 (Round to nearest $1,000) Walking Infrastructure to Transit‡
(Round to nearest $1,000) Previous Approved TransLink Funding (Please also indicate Agreement No.)
MRNB
BICCS Regional Needs
Other (specify: )
Applicant Cost Share
Applicant Cost Share $180,000 $180,000
External Funding Sources§
Provincial or Federal contributions Confirmed Applied $
ICBC Grants Confirmed Applied $
Other (specify: ) Confirmed Applied $
Project Budget (Total eligible project costs only – should be same as Line C in Project Cost Estimate) $360,000
* Refer to separate attachment for your municipal MRNB and BICCS allocation for 2017.
** For 2017, municipalities must use up all of its allocated MRNB and BICCS funding before a transfer is allowed. R to MRNB Transfers will be discontinued in 2018.
† BICCS Competitive funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $400,000 per year. Competitive funding may be requested in conjunction with an Allocated project; however, this will contribute to municipalities’ one- project quota for Competitive projects. Municipalities must also use up all of their BICCS Allocated funds first, before applying for the BICCS competitive fund.
‡ WITT funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $250,000 per year.
§ Project costs eligible for TransLink cost sharing will be net of senior government and ICBC funding contributed to the project, and up to 50% of the net costs are eligible. Page 120 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 8 of 9
Certification
Certification by Professional Engineer
I declare the information stated on this application to be complete and accurate. The design will be prepared under the supervision of a Professional Engineer to meet or exceed applicable engineering standards and guidelines whenever possible, and professional engineering judgment will be used to address site specific conditions and exceptions.
Signature: Kevin Healy Name:
Title: Senior Engineer
Date: February 24, 2017
Page 121 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A: ‘Before’ Photos of the Project
East approach to project corridor
View of project corridor facing west
Page 122 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX B: Project Context
Senior Housing School Children Centre School Church
Snug Cove Snug Cove Village Ferry Terminal
Page 123 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX C: Proposed Multi-Use Path g
Proposed multi-use path
Phase 3 Village 2023 Improvement Project
Page 124 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX D: Preliminary Design
Page 125 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
Page 126 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
Page 127 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 1 of 6
Applicant Municipality of Bowen Island Project Name Cross Island Multi-Use Path: Phase 1 Revision (0,1,2,3) Rev. 1
The purpose of this form is to gather information for TransLink’s evaluation of road upgrade projects on the MRN, and/or bike route upgrade projects on or off the MRN. Refer to the latest Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines (located on TransLink’s Partner Area website) for project eligibility and other information. If you require further clarification about this form, contact Derek Yau, Transportation Engineer, by phone at 778-375-7821 or email at [email protected].
1. Project description A. Project type
1. Select all applicable project components:
Must Complete Sections Project Components 2.A. 2.B. MRN road upgrade components, including… 1. Road widening 2. Pedestrian improvement 3. Intersection improvement (e.g. turn bays, signal upgrade*) 4. Structure upgrade (e.g. bridge seismic upgrade) 5. Other (specify: ) Bike upgrade components on MRN or off MRN, including… 1. Structure (e.g. new bike overpass) 2. Protected bike lane or off-street multi-use path 3. On-street facility (e.g. painted bike lane or shared-use lane) 4. Ped and/or bike traffic signals* 5. Other (please specify: ) * New traffic control signals must be justified – provide supporting information.
B. BICCS Competitive Funding - Project presentations (optional)
1. If you are applying for the BICCS Competitive funding, please indicate below whether you would like to meet with TransLink staff to present additional details for this project.
Yes No
Page 128 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 2 of 6
2. Project Evaluation Must complete for projects that include: A. Contribution to Regional Transportation Strategy MRN road upgrade components MRN/non-MRN bike upgrade components
Please provide quantitative and/or qualitative descriptions below to describe how this project will contribute to the following goals/strategies within the Regional Transportation Strategy Strategic Framework. Indicate “N/A” if not applicable.
1. Strategies 1.3, 2.1, and 2.3: Improve safety for all modes
1.3 This project is road investment that improves safety and local access of the existing road network for active modes. Since the current road is built only for vehicles, the investment will directly improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians by providing designated and protected road space for these users. 2.1 Based on community feedback, the project corridor has been a long time deterrent for many to walk or cycle to get around the island. The main reasons cited are perceived and actual safety hazards from the proximity to moving vehicles, limited visibility at the bend, and a steep cliff at the edge of the road. A protected multi-use path will remove these perceived and actual safety hazards, reducing stress and increasing comfort for all users. 2.3 In essence, this project is reallocating road space to more safely accommodate all modes. Bowen Island’s transportation master plan is also implementing initiatives to encourage uptake of electric vehicles and e-bikes. The multi-use path from this project will help to bring awareness to such initiatives and the need to optimize our roads for a more balanced mode share.
2. Strategies 1.2, 1.3, and 2.5: Improve cycling and walking connectivity, and wayfinding
1.2 This project will provide a critical connection for cycling and walking between west- and mid-island to east-island neighbourhoods, including the Snug Cove village where most of the island’s shops, services and institutions are located. The cross-island multi-use path will be the spine of the island’s active transportation network, which will include destinations such as regional and provincial parks, employment and service centres, the ferry terminal and major residential nodes. 1.3 This road investment will improve cycling and walking connectivity for both locals as well as those from the region since Bowen Island is a popular destination for visitors.
3. Strategies 1.3 and 2.3: Increase transit trips by improving transit efficiency and reliability
N/A
4. Strategies 1.3 and 2.3: Improve travel time reliability for goods movement
N/A
Must complete for projects that include: B. Contribution to Regional Cycling Strategy MRN road upgrade components MRN/non-MRN bike upgrade components Tier 1 Evaluation
1. Regional significance
The regional significance of projects will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Page 129 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 3 of 6
a. Does the project meet the following criteria?
Is the project part of an existing or planned bike route across jurisdictional boundary or across a barrier in a coordinated way? Yes No
Elaborate: Bowen Island is currently in discussion with the Spirit Trail partnership and interest has been expressed for extending the Spirit Trail to Bowen Island. The Spirit Trail, a collaboration between North Shore municipalities and First Nations, is a multi-use path that is planned to run from Deep Cove to Horseshoe Bay. Continuing the path to Snug Cove and across the island appears to be a natural continuation.
Is the project part of a direct route that connects regionally significant destinations (e.g. municipal town centres, major institutional, transportation and commercial destinations)? Yes No
Elaborate: With the existing road network, the proposed cross-island multi-use path is the most direct route to connect residents and visitors to the village centre, which includes most of the island’s employment, institutions, services and shops, as well as a regional park and a number of hiking trails and beach accesses.
Is the project parallel to regionally significant transportation corridors (e.g. Major Road Network, Highway, rapid transit route) and connected to major transit stations? Yes No
Elaborate: The island does not have any Major Road Network, Highway, rapid transit route or major transit stations. However, the proposed multi-use path connects the island’s population to its only ferry and bus terminal, which connects to the transportation hub of Horseshoe Bay. With the increasing development along the Sea to Sky corridor, Horseshoe Bay is expected to grow in importance as a regional transportation node. Also, the proposed path runs along the main road through Snug Cove village, which has potential to become part of the Major Road Network.
b. How long is the bike facility?
Single direction: m (e.g. bike lanes) Bi-directional: 0.2 m (e.g. multi-use pathway)
c. Provide any further justification:
The proposed multi-use path is about 6.5 km in length. The current project is only a 0.2 m section of the path, but it will resolve one of the biggest safety concerns along the proposed path and provide a critical connection where there are no viable alternative routes.
2. Project readiness (respond on Form A)
3. Safety
The intent is to ensure that the project improves cycling safety, and that the design conforms to TAC Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines or other recognized bicycle facility design guidelines (if not covered in TAC Guidelines).
a. Does the project design conform with or exceed TAC guidelines (for width, sightline, markings, grades, etc.)? If not, please provide justification for TAC design exceptions or, how the project conforms with another recognized design guideline (provide specific reference): Yes No
Elaborate: The path width is 2.4 m, less than the 3 m minimum set out in the TAC standard. At this point, the preliminary design was conservatively developed based on existing information to show the minimum that can be reliably achieved within the project budget. According to the design engineer, the site has relativelyPage 130 oflow 372 traffic Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 4 of 6
volumes and speeds compared with most sites that TAC applies to. The design speed used is 40 kph. The engineer is satisfied that the 2.4 m path width is sufficient to safely accommodate a two-way shared path for cyclists and pedestrians. The engineer is also satisfied that the 150 mm asphalt/concrete curb, along with high visibility posts, will provide a sufficient safety barrier between vehicular traffic and path users. The proposed vertical barrier provides more protection than additional separation width.
We will include caution signage and pavement markings along any path sections narrower than the TAC standard to alert users to the constrained width.
The minimum TAC path width of 3.0 m and additional horizontal clearance of 600 mm may be achieved through more technical assessments and a land survey, which are to be completed at the detailed design stage. This detailed design work will help determine the feasibility of further widening the roadway.
b. Describe the incremental safety benefit for cyclists compared to the existing condition.
The project will provide significant incremental benefit for cyclists. The existing condition does not have any road space for cyclists. In addition, the project corridor involves a sharp bend with poor sightlines. Instead of shoulders, on the inside of the bend is a high rock face and on the outside is a steep cliff. The project will provide a dedicated and protected path for cyclists and pedestrians.
4. Project priority
The intent is to ensure that the project is a high priority bicycle project.
a. Describe how/why the project is a priority at this time. Provide letters of support, Council resolutions or approvals, OCP, or other indicators of priority.
Council Resolutions: January 25, 2017: That Council approve $5,000 for the preliminary design work of the first phase (Grafton Rd adjacent to Charlies Ln area) of the multi-use path. February 27, 2017: That Council provide project endorsement for the funding application for the TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing program to construct the first phase of the multi-use path.
Official Community Plan: Bowen Island’s OCP contains a number of policies that support this project as a high priority for the community. Under OCP objective 17 to reduce dependence on private vehicle travel, policy 30 states the Municipality will develop cycling systems as an alternative to car trips. OCP objective 111 is to encourage safe bicycle and walking across the island. Policies 251, 256 and 257 under this objective call for safe bicycle shoulders or lanes along main rural roads, and a shared use network for pedestrians, bicycles and equestrians to connect neighbourhoods.
The Bowen Island Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP) project just completed a yearlong engagement campaign in 2016. Over 1,000 participants, covering a range of stakeholders, were engaged and the top priority identified for transportation improvement was a multi-use path to safely accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.
As a result, the proposed cross-island multi-use path is one of the high priority projects of the ITMP, expected to be drafted and adopted this spring.
Tier 2 Evaluation
Only projects shortlisted in Tier 1 will proceed to Tier 2 Evaluation. The intent of Tier 2 evaluation is to determine how well this project can promote the goals and strategies as identified in TransLink’s Regional CyclingPage Strategy 131 of 372. The Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 5 of 6
information provided will be used to further assess these shortlisted projects.
1. Strategy 1.1: Make all roads safer for cycling (refer to page 31 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Describe how the project provides incremental improvements to cycling safety.
The project will be mitigating several safety issues in a high risk section of the proposed multi-use path. The existing road does not have any dedicated space or protection for cyclists. In addition, there are no shoulders and a steep cliff on the road edge. The project will create a safe and dedicated path for cycling. This will provide a significant incremental improvement to cycling safety.
b. Describe in detail how the project minimizes conflicts for cyclists (e.g. intersection and/or pavement treatments to reduce conflict points or crossing distance, reduction in vehicle speeds, traffic calming measures).
The project will include physical barriers between vehicular and cyclist traffic. The final design of the barrier is to be determined, but will likely be low-profile and of narrow width. There are no intersections along the project corridor.
2. Strategy 1.2: Build low-stress bikeways (refer to page 32 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Describe how the project makes the bicycle route more comfortable for cyclists.
The project will provide cyclists with the assurance of a dedicated and protected space from vehicular traffic around a sharp corner. Given the constraining cliff and rock face, the existing road leaves cyclists with no viable options when sharing the road with an aggressive or mindless driver. The physical barriers will be key in providing cyclists with peace of mind as they traverse this section of road.
b. Type of bike facility for the project (refer to Table 6 (p.32) of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy):
Before: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Other (Please specify: ) After: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Other (Please specify: There is currently no bike facility in the project corridor, not even a gravel shoulder in some sections.)
c. How does this project minimize conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles (moving traffic and parked cars)?
The project will include physical barriers between vehicular and cyclist traffic. There is no parking possible along the project corridor.
d. Describe bike treatments at bus stops, if applicable:
N/A
3. Strategy 1.3: Develop a cohesive bikeway network; and Strategy 3.1: Make it easy to combine cycling and transit trips (refer to pages 33 & 36 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Describe how this project will contribute to a more cohesive bikeway network. Applicants are required to submit a Route Plan and Context Plan describing the project location relative to nearby cycling routes and facilities, transit infrastructure, regional road networks, major destinations served, and general land use. Page 132 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 6 of 6
The project is part of the proposed multi-use path that connects neighbourhoods across the island from west to east, ending at the Snug Cove ferry terminal (see Appendix B & C from Form A). Snug Cove village is the heart of the community, containing most of the island’s shops, institutions, services, and a regional park. It is also the terminus for the two on-island bus routes and the only ferry connection point to the mainland.
There are currently no bike facilities on Bowen Island. The proposed multi-use path will be the beginning of an island bikeway network. The path will also potentially act as a continuation of the Spirit Trail that is intended to serve the North Shore region and currently planned to end at the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal.
b. Will the project be accessible and connected to transit? Yes No
Elaborate: The project is along a flag-stop bus route, which can be accessed at any point along the route.
c. How does this project provide safe, convenient, and legible connections to transit infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, SkyTrian stations, bus exchanges)?
The project is part of the proposed multi-use path that ends at the Snug Cove ferry terminal, where sheltered bike parking and storage is proposed to better facilitate walk-on ferry connections and transit use in Horseshoe Bay. Destination-based signage will also be installed along the path for convenience and legibility of connections to transit and the ferry. One of the goals of the plan is to have more people cycle from across the island to the ferry, either continue their cycle trip to the mainland, or walk on the ferry and take transit on the mainland.
4. Strategy 1.5: Make the bikeway network easy to navigate (refer to page 35 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Select one:
Project has no destination-based signage for cyclists (i.e. route marker only).
Project has a destination-based cycling wayfinding system that follows TransLink’s wayfinding guidelines (refer to TransLink’s Wayfinding Guidelines for Utility Cycling in Metro Vancouver).
b. Provide a signage plan, if available, and describe in detail the destination-based wayfinding signage features included with this project. Describe how the signage will allow cyclists to confidently navigate between key destinations.
Due to the limited length and location of the project, it will not include any destination-based signage. However, the proposed multi-use path will include a signage plan that is currently being drafted as part of the ITMP scheduled for adoption this spring. The signage will follow TransLink’s wayfinding guidelines.
Page 133 of 372 Updated: January 2017 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
2017 Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Upgrade Program (BICCS Competitive) AGREEMENT
171004-0302
THIS AGREEMENT made the ____ day of ______, 2017.
BETWEEN:
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, having an office at 400 -287 Nelson’s Court, New Westminster, BC, V3L 0E7
(“TransLink”) OF THE FIRST PART
AND:
Bowen Island Municipality having an office at 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
(the “Municipality”) OF THE SECOND PART
The parties hereby agree as follows:
1.0 Definitions
1.1 In this Agreement, the following terms will have the following meanings:
“Eligible Costs” will mean direct capital costs, properly and reasonably incurred and paid solely and specifically in relation to the Project, as described in the OMR/MRNB Guidelines. Such costs would usually be capitalised in the financial records of the Municipality;
“OMR/MRNB Guidelines” will mean the Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation (OMR)/ Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines issued by TransLink, as amended from time to time;
“Project” will mean the Cross Island Multi-Use Path: Phase 1, as described in Schedule “A”;
“SCBCTA Act” means the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act of British Columbia, as amended from time to time; and
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 1 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 134 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
“Work” will mean everything to be provided and performed by the Municipality in relation to the Project.
3.0 SCBCTA Act
3.1 If any part of the Project is located on the “major road network” (as defined in the SCBCTA Act) (the “MRN”), the Municipality acknowledges that TransLink may, by bylaw, establish standards for all or any part of the MRN, including the Project (once added to the MRN, if not currently part of the network), in accordance with the SCBCTA Act).
3.0 Project
3.2 The Municipality represents and warrants that:
3.1.1 it has the capacity and authority to enter into this Agreement;
3.1.5 this Agreement is valid and binding on the Municipality;
3.1.6 it has the skills and experience necessary to carry out the Project; and
3.1.7 it has developed and approved the Project requirements and budget set out in Schedule “A” in a professional, competent and diligent manner.
3.2 The Municipality will undertake and complete the Project, at its expense:
3.2.1 in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule “A” for the Project;
3.2.2 by December 31, 2020, or such later date as may be approved by TransLink in writing in accordance with and subject to the OMR/MRNB Guidelines;
3.2.3 in a professional, competent, timely and diligent manner, in accordance with acceptable industry standards; and
3.2.4 in compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, by-laws, and directions of all governmental and statutory authorities issued under lawful authority.
3.3 The Project will be considered complete when:
3.3.1 the Work is ready for use, or is being used, for its intended purpose; and
3.3.2 the total value of all incomplete, defective and deficient Work does not exceed 3% of the maximum Project budget set out in Schedule “A”.
3.6 Any requests from the Municipality for a material change in the Project scope of work or an increase in the maximum Project budget must be submitted in writing to TransLink’s Program Manager, Infrastructure Program Management Department. No changes in the
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 2 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 135 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
scope of work or maximum Project budget will be effective unless and until approved in writing by TransLink, in its sole and absolute discretion.
3.7 The Municipality confirms that:
3.5.1 the Municipality has developed and approved the Project requirements and budget set out in Schedule “A”;
3.5.2 the Municipality will be responsible for completing the Project in accordance with this Agreement;
3.5.3 the Municipality will be responsible for submitting, to TransLink, Project updates in May and November of each year until the Project is completed;
3.5.4 notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, TransLink will not be responsible in any way for:
3.5.4.1 any deficiency or defect in the Project design, specifications, requirements or budget;
3.5.4.2 any deficiency or defect in the Work or completion of the Project; or
3.5.4.3 any costs of completing the Project in excess of the Project budget set out in Schedule “A”.
3.5.5 TransLink will have the right to advertise or promote its participation in the Project. TransLink’s participation in the Project may be advertised or promoted in any media format including, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing: signs at the Project; print, radio and television advertisements; and, electronic advertising on the World Wide Web. The Municipality retains the right to approve of the location of signs at the Project and the content of advertisements or promotions, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
3.5.6 The Municipality agrees to supply, erect and maintain Project signs visible by users travelling in either direction at the beginning and the end of the Project limits if requested by TransLink. The Project signs must be erected and maintained by the Municipality until the Project Completion Date. TransLink and the Municipality will determine the format, size and necessary information to construct the signs.
3.5.7 The Municipality will contact TransLink’s Infrastructure Program Management Department staff when preparing press releases, preparing for the release of any public information, or organizing public events, to ensure that TransLink has an opportunity to provide input prior to the release of information. The Municipality will, in all its publications, news releases, public communications and presentations regarding the Project, acknowledge TransLink’s role in funding the Project. The Municipality will provide TransLink Infrastructure Program Management Department staff with milestone information that may be used to South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 3 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 136 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
promote the Project and the MRN Minor Capital Program. The Municipality will provide TransLink, through Infrastructure Program Management Department staff, with at least 14 days’ notice of any proposed public announcement or ceremony related to the Project.
4.0 TransLink Contribution
4.1 For the Project, TransLink will reimburse the Municipality, for actual Eligible Costs incurred in connection with the Project, up to the lesser of (a) $160,000, or (b) 50% of actual Eligible Costs less contributions from provincial and federal governments or agencies, within 60 days after completion of the Project (as defined in s. 3.3) and receipt of the following:
4.1.1 A Contribution Payment Request Form containing:
c. certification by the Municipality’s City Engineer (or equivalent) that the Project is complete, as defined in the Agreement, and that the Project met or exceeded specifications and standards set out in Schedule “A”, if any, and those engineering specifications and standards established by the Municipality from time to time for the Project or for similar projects; and d. certification by the Municipality’s Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent) that the Eligible Costs as stated have been incurred by the Municipality, are attributable to this Project, are correct, and are net of any provincial or federal tax rebate or the municipal HST rebate; and 4.1.2 A Project cost statement, which must include the total amount of Eligible Costs, and the total amount of provincial and federal contributions, if any.
4.2 The Project budget specified in Schedule “A” will be inclusive of all applicable taxes.
4.3 All Eligible Costs submitted to TransLink for reimbursement under s. 4.1 must be substantiated by supporting documentation, as described in the OMR/MRNB Guidelines. Any undocumented costs will not be reimbursed by TransLink.
4.4 The Municipality must submit all documentation and information, described in s. 4.1 and s. 4.3, to TransLink no later than the Project completion date set out in s. 3.2.2.
4.5 If the Project is not completed by the date set out in s. 3.2.2 but construction is greater than 50% complete, TransLink will reimburse the Municipality under and subject to the terms described in s. 4.1, s. 4.2, s. 4.3 and s. 4.4 for up to 50% of the actual Eligible Costs incurred in connection with the Project to the date set out in s.3.2.2 less contributions from provincial and federal governments or agencies. Otherwise TransLink will not provide any reimbursement for the Project.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 4 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 137 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
5.0 Records and Audit
5.1 The Municipality will maintain accurate and complete records in relation to all Project costs, including, without limitation, supporting documentation of all Eligible Costs and other expenditures related to the Project, from the date of this Agreement until two years after the Municipality receives payment of TransLink’s contribution to the Project.
5.2 TransLink will have the right, and the Municipality will allow TransLink, to enter upon the Municipality’s premises for the purpose of auditing Project costs at any time during normal business hours. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, TransLink will have the right to inspect and copy, at TransLink’s cost, any records relating to Project costs, including any supporting documentation.
6.0 Indemnity and Release
6.1 The Municipality agrees to indemnify and save harmless TransLink, its subsidiaries and their successors and assigns, agents, directors, officers, employees, contractors, or others for whom TransLink may be responsible at law (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against all losses, damages, claims, demands, actions, proceedings, costs, interest and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and disbursements, that arise from or out of:
6.1.1 funding the Work to be performed by the Municipality under this Agreement; and
6.1.2 any breach of this Agreement by the Municipality, including negligence or willful default,
except where and to the extent caused by or arising through the negligence or willful default of the Indemnified Parties. Such indemnification survives the termination or expiration of this Agreement and any sub-contract.
6.2 In addition to the forgoing, and notwithstanding any other term or provision herein contained, the Municipality, hereby unconditionally, absolutely and irrevocably releases and forever discharges the Indemnified Parties from any and all losses, liabilities, or damages, at law or in equity and whether direct, indirect or consequential, which relate to, arise out of, or are in any way connected with the design, engineering, construction, operation, maintenance or rehabilitation of the Project or the operation, maintenance or rehabilitation of the MRN, except where and to the extent caused by or arising through the negligence or willful default of the Indemnified Parties.
6.3 Except as expressly provided under Sections 6.1 and 6.2 in the case of the negligence or willful default of the Indemnified Parties, the Municipality acknowledges that the indemnity under Section 6.1 and the release under Section 6.2 will not be affected in any way by the provisions of Section 2 of this Agreement.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 5 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 138 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
8.0 Insurance
7.1 Throughout the term of this Agreement the Municipality will maintain a Commercial General Liability insurance policy in an amount not less than $5,000,000.00 inclusive per occurrence insuring against bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy shall name TransLink as an additional insured with respect to this Agreement and include a cross liability clause. Upon request, the Municipality will provide TransLink with evidence of the policy in the form of a Certificate of Insurance.
7.2 In addition, the Municipality will require its consultants and contractors to provide and maintain liability insurance throughout the Project or the Work that is to the same standard that is required by the Municipality for contracted works of the same nature and scope, and will, to the extent it is possible, require that the liability insurance so provided and maintained by any such consultant or contractor name both the Municipality and TransLink as additional insured. Upon request, the Municipality will provide TransLink with evidence of these policies in the form of Certificates of Insurance.
8.0 Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation
8.1 The parties confirm that, once the Project is completed, the Municipality will, at its cost, operate, maintain and rehabilitate the Work, for the duration of its design life, in good condition and in good working order as part of its public works maintenance program.
8.2 The Municipality will ensure that the Work is operated, maintained, and rehabilitated in compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations, by-laws, and directions of all governmental and statutory authorities issued under lawful authority, including, without limitation, any standards established by TransLink for the Work under the SCBCTA Act.
9.0 Default and Termination
9.1 If TransLink alleges the Municipality to be in default hereunder and gives written notice thereof stipulating the default, and if such default continues for more than 30 days after the delivery of such written notice, and the Municipality has not cured the default or resolved the allegation, TransLink may elect to terminate this Agreement effective forthwith on the giving of further notice.
10.0 Dispute Resolution
10.1 Any dispute or controversy occurring between the parties hereto relating to the interpretation or implementation of any of the provisions of this Agreement will be resolved by arbitration, conducted by one arbitrator. The parties will agree on the arbitrator or, failing agreement, the arbitrator will be appointed in accordance with the rules of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre. Any arbitration will be held in the City of Vancouver and conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and the British Columbia Commercial Arbitration Act.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 6 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 139 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
11.0 General
11.1 All notices, demands, claims or other communications required or permitted hereunder will be in writing and may be delivered prepaid or sent by prepaid first class mail. Any notice delivered will be deemed to have been given or received at the time of delivery to the address of the recipient as set out below. Any notice mailed as aforesaid will be deemed to have been given and received on the fourth day following the date of its mailing. Any notice will be addressed as follows:
To: TransLink 400 -287 Nelson’s Court New Westminster, BC, V3L 0E7
Attention: Shezana Hassko Program Manager II, Infrastructure Program Management and Engineering
Telephone No.: (778) 375-7583
To: Bowen Island Municipality 981 Artisan Lane Bowen Island, BC, V0N 1G2
Attention: Emma Chow Island Community Planner
Telephone No.: (604) 947-4255
11.2 This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of British Columbia and the laws of Canada. The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of British Columbia.
11.3 If any terms, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance will to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of that term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances, other than those concerning which it is held invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, and condition of this Agreement will be separately valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
11.4 Time will be of the essence under this Agreement.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 7 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 140 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
11.6 The provisions contained in this Agreement and in the OMR/MRNB Guidelines constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all previous communications, representations, expectations, understandings and agreements, whether written or unwritten, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.
11.6 In the event there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the OMR/MRNB Guidelines, the terms of this Agreement will prevail.
11.7 The Municipality may not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of TransLink, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
11.8 This Agreement may be executed in counterpart and such counterparts together will constitute a single instrument. Any party may deliver an executed copy of this Agreement by facsimile or electronic transmission (including transmission by uploading to a website (designated in writing by TransLink from time to time) and email notification (to an email address designated in writing by the receiving party) that uploading has occurred), which will for all purposes be deemed to be as effective as an originally executed and delivered copy hereof.
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 8 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 141 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
______(Authorized Signatory)
______Name, Title (Please print)
BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
______(Authorized Signatory)
______Name, Title (Please print)
______(Authorized Signatory)
______Name, Title (Please print)
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 9 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 142 of 372 2017 MRNB Upgrade & BICCS Program Agreement No: 171004-0302
Schedule “A”
Municipal Project Application
South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Page 10 of 10 (2017 MRNB & BICCS Agreement) Page 143 of 372 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 1 of 14
Applicant Municipality of Bowen Island Project Name Cross Island Multi-Use Path: Phase 1 Project Location Grafton Rd at Charlies Ln Name: Emma Chow Phone: 604-947-4255
Project Contact E-mail: [email protected] Date April 5, 2017 Revision (0,1,2,3) Rev. 1
The purpose of this and subsequent forms is to gather information regarding the types, costs, and timing of various MRN, bike, and/or walking projects to be considered for funding by RTAC (or designated subcommittee) and TransLink. Refer to the latest Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines (located on TransLink’s Partner Area website) for project eligibility and other information. If you require further clarification, contact Derek Yau, Transportation Engineer, by phone at 778-375-7821 or email at [email protected].
Submission deadlines Note: if your municipality has previously submitted a 2017 MRNB and BICCS funding application, MRNB / BICCS: March 1, 2017 please do not resubmit the application again. TransLink staff will work with your project contact Walking Infrastructure to Transit: March 15, 2017 to amend funding request details as needed.
For new applications, the following forms are required to be submitted:
FORM A – 2017 Funding Application (required with all submissions) o FORM B – MRNB and/or BICCS Upgrade Projects o FORM C – BICCS Secure Bike Parking Projects o FORM D – Walking Infrastructure to Transit Projects (application form to be provided in February)
Please select all applicable project types / project funding you are applying for:
APPROVED PROJECT FUNDING (TransLink use) CMC Must Contribution Approved approval Project funding complete Agreement No. amount FORMS… date MRNB Allocated* – Road upgrade on MRN $ MRNB Allocated* – Bike Upgrade on or off MRN A & B BICCS Allocated* $
BICCS Competitive** $
BICCS – Secure Bike Parking A & C $
Walking Infrastructure to Transit (WITT)† A & D $
* Please refer to separate document for your municipal MRNB and BICCS Allocations for 2017. ** BICCS Competitive funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $400,000 per year. Competitive funding may be requested in conjunction with an Allocated project; however, this will contribute to municipalities’ one-project quota for Competitive projects. Municipalities must also use up all of their annual BICCS Allocated funds, before applying for the BICCS competitive fund. † WITT funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $250,000. Page 144 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 2 of 14
1. Project description A. Project location
1. Describe the project location below and include map(s) identifying the project location, project limits, jurisdictional boundaries, and other pertinent information.
The project is located within the municipal right-of-way on Grafton Rd at Charlies Ln (Appendix B: Context Plan). A 150 metre section of multi-use path is proposed for the westbound side of Grafton Rd starting at Charlies Ln and extending eastward.
Grafton Rd is one of the main roads of Bowen Island, connecting almost half of the island’s population through the bend at Charlies Ln to access Snug Cove village for schools, shops, services and the ferry. The roadway at this bend is very narrow with no shoulder, a steep drop-off on the outside, and a ditch and high rock face on the inside. Pedestrians and cyclists are forced onto the vehicular roadway as they approach and round this sharp bend.
2. ‘Before’ photos of the project must be included as attachments. Attached
3. If known, what are the existing pedestrian, bike, and/or vehicle volumes along the project corridor?
There have been no traffic counts taken along the project corridor. Based on the island’s population distribution and count data from similar roads, 1,500 vehicle trips are estimated to travel through the project corridor on a typical weekday (both directions combined).
A pedestrian count taken at the ferry terminal last spring showed an average 41 EAU/hr. Again, based on population distribution, the pedestrian count along the project corridor can be loosely estimated at 300-400 per day (although number of pedestrian trips likely falls drastically with increasing distance from the terminal and lack of safe connection along the project corridor).
4. Is any part of the project constructed on non-municipally owned right-of-way (i.e. provincial, federal, hydro, and/or rail corridors)? Yes No
If so, specify:
5. Are there any schools and/or seniors housing or care facilities within 1 block of the project area?
If so, specify: There are no distinct blocks in the project area. The project is within 1 kilometre of two schools, Island Pacific School and Bowen Island Community School, and a senior housing co-operative, Bowen Court.
B. Project description
Please provide a description of the project scope in sufficient detail to demonstrate the project objectives and benefits. Relevant maps, plan drawings, and typical cross sections with basic dimensions MUST be included.
1. Detail project scope:
Bowen Island has very little active transportation infrastructure. There are no bike paths and only about one kilometer of sidewalk. Roads are generally narrow with limited gravel shoulders and many sections are steep and winding. This has resulted in hazardous conditions that has deterred many pedestrians and cyclists.
Recent community engagement has shown a strong latent demand for active transportation. Page Safer 145 walking of 372 and Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 3 of 14
cycling infrastructure has been consistently identified as the top transportation priority for Bowen Island. As a result, the Bowen Island Integrated Transportation Master Plan calls for the construction of a 6.5 km multi-use path along the main roads to connect the west- and mid-island neighbourhoods to the eastern neighbourhoods, the village, and the ferry terminal (Appendix C: Proposed Multi-Use Path).
The purpose of this project is to resolve one of the biggest safety concerns for active transportation across the island and provide a safe connection between the west and the east sides. This is the first phase of the proposed multi-use path for Bowen Island. It will connect to an existing gravel trail to the east that runs to the school and continues to the village sidewalk that ends at the ferry terminal. The next phase will be to connect to the existing gravel trail to the west, then to upgrade the gravel trails to meet path standards.
This first phase will involve road widening of 2-3 metres by blasting in to the rock face along the eastbound side, slope stabilization, ditch and road construction, and line painting (Appendix D: Preliminary Design Work). The resulting multi-use path will be about 150 m in length, 2-3 m wide, 50 mm asphalt, bi-directional, and barrier-protected from vehicular traffic. Project work is expected to complete in 2018.
Attach: Plan drawings Cross sections
2. Total project distance between end-points: 0.2 km
3. Indicate bus routes and bus stops along the project, and describe pedestrian/bike treatment at bus stops, if applicable. Was CMBC consulted on the proposed bus stop changes?
The C10 bus route runs along the project. This is a flag stop route and does not have any designated bus stops along the route. CMBC was not consulted since there will be no bus stop changes.
4. Describe how the project will acknowledge the funding contributors in media releases and other forms of public communication (e.g. project signage and website etc.).
Funding contributors will be acknowledged in new releases and project signage. Communication materials will follow TransLink guidelines and be reviewed by TransLink before publication.
5. Describe how project success will be measured (e.g. before/after volume counts, safety data, travel speed surveys, etc.).
Since this is a fairly small section of path, project success will be measured by annual community feedback/polls. In the future, as additional sections of the multi-use path get built to connect more areas, counters will be installed to monitor usage.
6. Are there any sections of the project that do not conform to TAC standards (e.g. lane width, sightline, grades etc.)? Yes No
Elaborate: The path width is 2.4 m, less than the 3 m minimum set out in the TAC standard. At this point, the preliminary design was conservatively developed based on existing information to show the minimum that can be reliably achieved within the project budget. According to the design engineer, the site has relatively low traffic volumes and speeds compared with most sites that TAC applies to. The design speed used is 40 kph. The engineer is satisfied that the 2.4 m path width is sufficient to safely accommodate a two-way shared path for cyclists and pedestrians. The engineer is also satisfied that the 150 mm asphalt/concrete curb, along with high visibility posts, will provide a sufficient safety barrier between vehicular traffic and path users. The proposed vertical barrier provides more protection than additional separation width.
We will include caution signage and pavement markings along any path sections narrower than the TAC standard to alert users to the constrained width.
The minimum TAC path width of 3.0 m and additional horizontal clearance of 600 mm may bePage achieved 146 of through 372 more Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 4 of 14
technical assessments and a land survey, which are to be completed at the detailed design stage. This detailed design work will help determine the feasibility of further widening the roadway.
7. Are there any permanent bike or pedestrian counting mechanisms included in the scope of work? Yes No
Elaborate:
C. Project schedule and readiness
The intent is to ensure that the project is ready to move forward and can easily be completed within the 4-year timeframe. This is also to ensure that feasibility issues have been considered and no major obstacles to implement the project are apparent.
1. Has TransLink previously approved funding for this project? Yes No
If so, please indicate the corresponding Contribution Agreement Number(s):
2. Provide approximate timing for each phase of the project.
Property acquisition (if applicable): N/A Design: 2 months Construction: 2 months Completion: Winter 2017/2018
3. Please indicate all supporting analyses that have been completed. Check all that apply:
Data collection Public consultation Conceptual / preliminary design Safety analysis / audit Detailed design Other (please specify: )
4. Are there any foreseeable risks / uncertainties which may delay the project past the 4-year completion deadline (e.g. council endorsement, funding approval, permit approval, railway crossing design approval, schedule impacts from other nearby projects, property / railway / provincial right-of-way requirements, etc.)? Indicate risk level and elaborate:
Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk
Elaborate: The project is entirely within public right-of-way and is not in any development permit area. Council has endorsed the project as presented in this application. Much of the work will need to take place outside of bird nesting season (March-July), which may cause some delays but the project is still expected to complete by 2018.
a. Describe the public consultation plan and expected schedule. Were any concerns brought up during the consultation process?
The project is one of the main outcomes of the Bowen Island Integrated Transportation Master Plan project, which included almost a year of community engagement. Over 1,000 participants, covering a range of stakeholders, were engaged through a number of events and campaigns. The top transportation priority identified for Bowen Island was safer active transportation infrastructure, with a multi-use path being the number one specified improvement.
The specific section of path proposed for this project has received some feedback from residents.Page 147 ofMost 372 have Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 5 of 14
voiced support, while the chief concerns have been around environmental impacts from the potential blasting work. These impacts will be further investigated in the detailed design stage.
b. Describe the financial commitment on this project (e.g. has Council and/or Senior Government endorsed the project and approved the funding? If not, what is the expected timeline for approval?)
Council has endorsed the project with an understanding of the financial commitment required by project completion. Allocation of municipal funds in 2017 will be contingent upon BICCS funding approval.
c. Are there proposed property acquisitions or other right-of-way requirements? If so, what is the expected timeline to obtain the right-of-way? Yes No
d. Does the project cross any railways? If so, has applicable agencies been consulted on the design, and what is the expected timeline to obtain rail crossing design approvals? Yes No
e. Are there other proposed projects (e.g. nearby development, paving, utility projects etc.) that may affect the project timeline? If so, describe the schedule impact. Yes No
D. Capacity changes to MRN
1. Estimated vehicle lane-km (e.g. new vehicle lanes, turning lanes, etc.) added to the MRN: lane-km
2. Note any road alterations that may reduce the people-moving capacity of the MRN.
(Check all that apply) 1. New signal (full, pedestrian) – traffic volumes and signal warrants must be submitted 2. Lane reduction 3. Introduction or modification of on-street parking 4. New crosswalk – pedestrian crossing warrant must be submitted 5. Other (please specify: )
As defined in Section 21(1) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (SCBCTA), municipalities are required to obtain TransLink’s approval for any road alterations that would reduce the capacity of any part of the MRN to move people.
Page 148 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 6 of 14
2. Project cost estimates Description / unit cost / additional Cost Project cost component information estimate ($)
Right-of-way property acquisition N/A
Total project Construction works Blasting, road construction $270,000 costs (eligible + Design and project management Assessments, drawings $30,000 ineligible) (max 12% of construction costs)
Contingency 20% $60,000
A) Subtotal of project costs: $360,000
Total MRN rehabilitation components ineligible project costs* Other ineligible costs (specify)
Subtotal of ineligible project B) $ costs:
C) Total eligible project costs (A - B): $360,000
Identify the class of estimate provided† Class A (10-15%) Class B (15-25%) Class: C Class C (25-40%) Class D (50%)
* Refer to latest Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines for a list of non-eligible project cost.
† For BICCS Competitive applications, a minimum Class “C” cost estimate is required.
Page 149 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 7 of 14
Identify ALL annual source(s) of project funding and the annual amounts confirmed or expected. Indicate the Contribution Agreement Number(s) for all previous approved funding from TransLink.
For projects with multiple year funding, Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total ($) change year as appropriate (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020)
TransLink Funding Request§ (Please indicate funding request for 2017, and funding forecasts for future years if applicable) MRNB Allocated*
(Round to nearest $1,000) 2017 R to MRNB Transfer**
(Round to nearest $1,000) BICCS Allocated* $20,000 $20,000 (Round to nearest $1,000) BICCS Competitive† $160,000 $160,000 (Round to nearest $1,000) Walking Infrastructure to Transit‡
(Round to nearest $1,000) Previous Approved TransLink Funding (Please also indicate Agreement No.)
MRNB
BICCS Regional Needs
Other (specify: )
Applicant Cost Share
Applicant Cost Share $180,000 $180,000
External Funding Sources§
Provincial or Federal contributions Confirmed Applied $
ICBC Grants Confirmed Applied $
Other (specify: ) Confirmed Applied $
Project Budget (Total eligible project costs only – should be same as Line C in Project Cost Estimate) $360,000
* Refer to separate attachment for your municipal MRNB and BICCS allocation for 2017.
** For 2017, municipalities must use up all of its allocated MRNB and BICCS funding before a transfer is allowed. R to MRNB Transfers will be discontinued in 2018.
† BICCS Competitive funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $400,000 per year. Competitive funding may be requested in conjunction with an Allocated project; however, this will contribute to municipalities’ one- project quota for Competitive projects. Municipalities must also use up all of their BICCS Allocated funds first, before applying for the BICCS competitive fund.
‡ WITT funding for 2017 is limited to one project per municipality, to a maximum funding request of $250,000 per year.
§ Project costs eligible for TransLink cost sharing will be net of senior government and ICBC funding contributed to the project, and up to 50% of the net costs are eligible. Page 150 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 8 of 9
Certification
Certification by Professional Engineer
I declare the information stated on this application to be complete and accurate. The design will be prepared under the supervision of a Professional Engineer to meet or exceed applicable engineering standards and guidelines whenever possible, and professional engineering judgment will be used to address site specific conditions and exceptions.
Signature: Kevin Healy Name:
Title: Senior Engineer
Date: February 24, 2017
Page 151 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A: ‘Before’ Photos of the Project
East approach to project corridor
View of project corridor facing west
Page 152 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX B: Project Context
Senior Housing School Children Centre School Church
Snug Cove Snug Cove Village Ferry Terminal
Page 153 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX C: Proposed Multi-Use Path g
Proposed multi-use path
Phase 3 Village 2023 Improvement Project
Page 154 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX D: Preliminary Design
Page 155 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
Page 156 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM A – Application Form
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application ATTACHMENTS
Page 157 of 372
Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 1 of 6
Applicant Municipality of Bowen Island Project Name Cross Island Multi-Use Path: Phase 1 Revision (0,1,2,3) Rev. 1
The purpose of this form is to gather information for TransLink’s evaluation of road upgrade projects on the MRN, and/or bike route upgrade projects on or off the MRN. Refer to the latest Major Road Network and Bike (MRNB) Program Description and Guidelines (located on TransLink’s Partner Area website) for project eligibility and other information. If you require further clarification about this form, contact Derek Yau, Transportation Engineer, by phone at 778-375-7821 or email at [email protected].
1. Project description A. Project type
1. Select all applicable project components:
Must Complete Sections Project Components 2.A. 2.B. MRN road upgrade components, including… 1. Road widening 2. Pedestrian improvement 3. Intersection improvement (e.g. turn bays, signal upgrade*) 4. Structure upgrade (e.g. bridge seismic upgrade) 5. Other (specify: ) Bike upgrade components on MRN or off MRN, including… 1. Structure (e.g. new bike overpass) 2. Protected bike lane or off-street multi-use path 3. On-street facility (e.g. painted bike lane or shared-use lane) 4. Ped and/or bike traffic signals* 5. Other (please specify: ) * New traffic control signals must be justified – provide supporting information.
B. BICCS Competitive Funding - Project presentations (optional)
1. If you are applying for the BICCS Competitive funding, please indicate below whether you would like to meet with TransLink staff to present additional details for this project.
Yes No
Page 158 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 2 of 6
2. Project Evaluation Must complete for projects that include: A. Contribution to Regional Transportation Strategy MRN road upgrade components MRN/non-MRN bike upgrade components
Please provide quantitative and/or qualitative descriptions below to describe how this project will contribute to the following goals/strategies within the Regional Transportation Strategy Strategic Framework. Indicate “N/A” if not applicable.
1. Strategies 1.3, 2.1, and 2.3: Improve safety for all modes
1.3 This project is road investment that improves safety and local access of the existing road network for active modes. Since the current road is built only for vehicles, the investment will directly improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians by providing designated and protected road space for these users. 2.1 Based on community feedback, the project corridor has been a long time deterrent for many to walk or cycle to get around the island. The main reasons cited are perceived and actual safety hazards from the proximity to moving vehicles, limited visibility at the bend, and a steep cliff at the edge of the road. A protected multi-use path will remove these perceived and actual safety hazards, reducing stress and increasing comfort for all users. 2.3 In essence, this project is reallocating road space to more safely accommodate all modes. Bowen Island’s transportation master plan is also implementing initiatives to encourage uptake of electric vehicles and e-bikes. The multi-use path from this project will help to bring awareness to such initiatives and the need to optimize our roads for a more balanced mode share.
2. Strategies 1.2, 1.3, and 2.5: Improve cycling and walking connectivity, and wayfinding
1.2 This project will provide a critical connection for cycling and walking between west- and mid-island to east-island neighbourhoods, including the Snug Cove village where most of the island’s shops, services and institutions are located. The cross-island multi-use path will be the spine of the island’s active transportation network, which will include destinations such as regional and provincial parks, employment and service centres, the ferry terminal and major residential nodes. 1.3 This road investment will improve cycling and walking connectivity for both locals as well as those from the region since Bowen Island is a popular destination for visitors.
3. Strategies 1.3 and 2.3: Increase transit trips by improving transit efficiency and reliability
N/A
4. Strategies 1.3 and 2.3: Improve travel time reliability for goods movement
N/A
Must complete for projects that include: B. Contribution to Regional Cycling Strategy MRN road upgrade components MRN/non-MRN bike upgrade components Tier 1 Evaluation
1. Regional significance
The regional significance of projects will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Page 159 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 3 of 6
a. Does the project meet the following criteria?
Is the project part of an existing or planned bike route across jurisdictional boundary or across a barrier in a coordinated way? Yes No
Elaborate: Bowen Island is currently in discussion with the Spirit Trail partnership and interest has been expressed for extending the Spirit Trail to Bowen Island. The Spirit Trail, a collaboration between North Shore municipalities and First Nations, is a multi-use path that is planned to run from Deep Cove to Horseshoe Bay. Continuing the path to Snug Cove and across the island appears to be a natural continuation.
Is the project part of a direct route that connects regionally significant destinations (e.g. municipal town centres, major institutional, transportation and commercial destinations)? Yes No
Elaborate: With the existing road network, the proposed cross-island multi-use path is the most direct route to connect residents and visitors to the village centre, which includes most of the island’s employment, institutions, services and shops, as well as a regional park and a number of hiking trails and beach accesses.
Is the project parallel to regionally significant transportation corridors (e.g. Major Road Network, Highway, rapid transit route) and connected to major transit stations? Yes No
Elaborate: The island does not have any Major Road Network, Highway, rapid transit route or major transit stations. However, the proposed multi-use path connects the island’s population to its only ferry and bus terminal, which connects to the transportation hub of Horseshoe Bay. With the increasing development along the Sea to Sky corridor, Horseshoe Bay is expected to grow in importance as a regional transportation node. Also, the proposed path runs along the main road through Snug Cove village, which has potential to become part of the Major Road Network.
b. How long is the bike facility?
Single direction: m (e.g. bike lanes) Bi-directional: 0.2 m (e.g. multi-use pathway)
c. Provide any further justification:
The proposed multi-use path is about 6.5 km in length. The current project is only a 0.2 m section of the path, but it will resolve one of the biggest safety concerns along the proposed path and provide a critical connection where there are no viable alternative routes.
2. Project readiness (respond on Form A)
3. Safety
The intent is to ensure that the project improves cycling safety, and that the design conforms to TAC Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines or other recognized bicycle facility design guidelines (if not covered in TAC Guidelines).
a. Does the project design conform with or exceed TAC guidelines (for width, sightline, markings, grades, etc.)? If not, please provide justification for TAC design exceptions or, how the project conforms with another recognized design guideline (provide specific reference): Yes No
Elaborate: The path width is 2.4 m, less than the 3 m minimum set out in the TAC standard. At this point, the preliminary design was conservatively developed based on existing information to show the minimum that can be reliably achieved within the project budget. According to the design engineer, the site has relativelyPage 160 oflow 372 traffic Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 4 of 6
volumes and speeds compared with most sites that TAC applies to. The design speed used is 40 kph. The engineer is satisfied that the 2.4 m path width is sufficient to safely accommodate a two-way shared path for cyclists and pedestrians. The engineer is also satisfied that the 150 mm asphalt/concrete curb, along with high visibility posts, will provide a sufficient safety barrier between vehicular traffic and path users. The proposed vertical barrier provides more protection than additional separation width.
We will include caution signage and pavement markings along any path sections narrower than the TAC standard to alert users to the constrained width.
The minimum TAC path width of 3.0 m and additional horizontal clearance of 600 mm may be achieved through more technical assessments and a land survey, which are to be completed at the detailed design stage. This detailed design work will help determine the feasibility of further widening the roadway.
b. Describe the incremental safety benefit for cyclists compared to the existing condition.
The project will provide significant incremental benefit for cyclists. The existing condition does not have any road space for cyclists. In addition, the project corridor involves a sharp bend with poor sightlines. Instead of shoulders, on the inside of the bend is a high rock face and on the outside is a steep cliff. The project will provide a dedicated and protected path for cyclists and pedestrians.
4. Project priority
The intent is to ensure that the project is a high priority bicycle project.
a. Describe how/why the project is a priority at this time. Provide letters of support, Council resolutions or approvals, OCP, or other indicators of priority.
Council Resolutions: January 25, 2017: That Council approve $5,000 for the preliminary design work of the first phase (Grafton Rd adjacent to Charlies Ln area) of the multi-use path. February 27, 2017: That Council provide project endorsement for the funding application for the TransLink Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing program to construct the first phase of the multi-use path.
Official Community Plan: Bowen Island’s OCP contains a number of policies that support this project as a high priority for the community. Under OCP objective 17 to reduce dependence on private vehicle travel, policy 30 states the Municipality will develop cycling systems as an alternative to car trips. OCP objective 111 is to encourage safe bicycle and walking across the island. Policies 251, 256 and 257 under this objective call for safe bicycle shoulders or lanes along main rural roads, and a shared use network for pedestrians, bicycles and equestrians to connect neighbourhoods.
The Bowen Island Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP) project just completed a yearlong engagement campaign in 2016. Over 1,000 participants, covering a range of stakeholders, were engaged and the top priority identified for transportation improvement was a multi-use path to safely accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.
As a result, the proposed cross-island multi-use path is one of the high priority projects of the ITMP, expected to be drafted and adopted this spring.
Tier 2 Evaluation
Only projects shortlisted in Tier 1 will proceed to Tier 2 Evaluation. The intent of Tier 2 evaluation is to determine how well this project can promote the goals and strategies as identified in TransLink’s Regional CyclingPage Strategy 161 of 372. The Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 5 of 6
information provided will be used to further assess these shortlisted projects.
1. Strategy 1.1: Make all roads safer for cycling (refer to page 31 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Describe how the project provides incremental improvements to cycling safety.
The project will be mitigating several safety issues in a high risk section of the proposed multi-use path. The existing road does not have any dedicated space or protection for cyclists. In addition, there are no shoulders and a steep cliff on the road edge. The project will create a safe and dedicated path for cycling. This will provide a significant incremental improvement to cycling safety.
b. Describe in detail how the project minimizes conflicts for cyclists (e.g. intersection and/or pavement treatments to reduce conflict points or crossing distance, reduction in vehicle speeds, traffic calming measures).
The project will include physical barriers between vehicular and cyclist traffic. The final design of the barrier is to be determined, but will likely be low-profile and of narrow width. There are no intersections along the project corridor.
2. Strategy 1.2: Build low-stress bikeways (refer to page 32 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Describe how the project makes the bicycle route more comfortable for cyclists.
The project will provide cyclists with the assurance of a dedicated and protected space from vehicular traffic around a sharp corner. Given the constraining cliff and rock face, the existing road leaves cyclists with no viable options when sharing the road with an aggressive or mindless driver. The physical barriers will be key in providing cyclists with peace of mind as they traverse this section of road.
b. Type of bike facility for the project (refer to Table 6 (p.32) of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy):
Before: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Other (Please specify: ) After: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Other (Please specify: There is currently no bike facility in the project corridor, not even a gravel shoulder in some sections.)
c. How does this project minimize conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles (moving traffic and parked cars)?
The project will include physical barriers between vehicular and cyclist traffic. There is no parking possible along the project corridor.
d. Describe bike treatments at bus stops, if applicable:
N/A
3. Strategy 1.3: Develop a cohesive bikeway network; and Strategy 3.1: Make it easy to combine cycling and transit trips (refer to pages 33 & 36 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Describe how this project will contribute to a more cohesive bikeway network. Applicants are required to submit a Route Plan and Context Plan describing the project location relative to nearby cycling routes and facilities, transit infrastructure, regional road networks, major destinations served, and general land use. Page 162 of 372 Updated: January 2017 FORM B – MRNB and BICCS Projects
2017 MRNB / BICCS / Walking Infrastructure to Transit Funding Application Page 6 of 6
The project is part of the proposed multi-use path that connects neighbourhoods across the island from west to east, ending at the Snug Cove ferry terminal (see Appendix B & C from Form A). Snug Cove village is the heart of the community, containing most of the island’s shops, institutions, services, and a regional park. It is also the terminus for the two on-island bus routes and the only ferry connection point to the mainland.
There are currently no bike facilities on Bowen Island. The proposed multi-use path will be the beginning of an island bikeway network. The path will also potentially act as a continuation of the Spirit Trail that is intended to serve the North Shore region and currently planned to end at the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal.
b. Will the project be accessible and connected to transit? Yes No
Elaborate: The project is along a flag-stop bus route, which can be accessed at any point along the route.
c. How does this project provide safe, convenient, and legible connections to transit infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, SkyTrian stations, bus exchanges)?
The project is part of the proposed multi-use path that ends at the Snug Cove ferry terminal, where sheltered bike parking and storage is proposed to better facilitate walk-on ferry connections and transit use in Horseshoe Bay. Destination-based signage will also be installed along the path for convenience and legibility of connections to transit and the ferry. One of the goals of the plan is to have more people cycle from across the island to the ferry, either continue their cycle trip to the mainland, or walk on the ferry and take transit on the mainland.
4. Strategy 1.5: Make the bikeway network easy to navigate (refer to page 35 of TransLink’s Regional Cycling Strategy)
a. Select one:
Project has no destination-based signage for cyclists (i.e. route marker only).
Project has a destination-based cycling wayfinding system that follows TransLink’s wayfinding guidelines (refer to TransLink’s Wayfinding Guidelines for Utility Cycling in Metro Vancouver).
b. Provide a signage plan, if available, and describe in detail the destination-based wayfinding signage features included with this project. Describe how the signage will allow cyclists to confidently navigate between key destinations.
Due to the limited length and location of the project, it will not include any destination-based signage. However, the proposed multi-use path will include a signage plan that is currently being drafted as part of the ITMP scheduled for adoption this spring. The signage will follow TransLink’s wayfinding guidelines.
Page 163 of 372 Updated: January 2017 MAYOR & COUNCIL Planning Department Multi-Use Path Funding Update
Page 164 of 372 July 24, 2107 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
•Multi-Use Path: • Top priority • Public health • Reduce GHG Page 165 of 372 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
•Multi-Use Path: • Top priority • Public health • Reduce GHG •5 Phases: • 10 years • Partnerships • $2 million Page 166 of 372 • Up to 80% cost sharing TRANSPORTATION PLAN
•Multi-Use Path: • Top priority • Public health • Reduce GHG •5 Phases: • 10 years • Partnerships • $2 million Page 167 of 372 • Up to 80% cost sharing MULTI-USE PATH: PHASE 1
•Phase 1: • Costly • Hazardous • Critical connection •Issues: • Narrow road • Sharp bend • High rockface • Steep slope Page 168 of 372 •Preliminary design: • $360,000 MULTI-USE PATH: PHASE 1
•Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost Sharing (BICCS): • Applied in February • Approved in June
•Funding agreements: • Execution deadline July 28th • Terms for payment • No financial penalties Page 169 of 372
•TransLink amenable to project changes MULTI-USE PATH: PHASE 1
•Next steps: • Execute funding agreements • Approve project budget • Technical investigation work • Council decision point • Detail design • Construction Page 170 of 372 RECOMMENDATION
That Council authorize Mayor and CAO to execute the funding agreements.
That Council commit a $360,000 project budget in the 5- Page 171 of 372 Year Financial Plan.
To: Parks, Trails, and Greenways Commission
From: Shauna Jennings, Manager of Recreation and Community Services
Date: July 11, 2017 Meeting Date: July 18, 2017
Subject: Portable Toilet at Pebbly Beach
RECOMMENDATION That the Parks, Trails, and Greenways Commission consider supporting the installation of toilet facilities at Pebbly Beach.
PURPOSE To provide information to the Parks, Trails, and Greenways Commission regarding Bowen Island Municipality Recreation department use of Pebbly Beach during the summer.
BACKGROUND Bowen Island Community Recreation, a department of the Bowen Island Municipality, programs two daycamps throughout July and August. Daytrippers is for up to 16 children ages 8-11 years old. They are on island Monday and Friday and off island Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. A second camp runs for up to 16 children aged 6-7 years old Monday to Friday from 9am-4pm. This camp, Island Adventurers, remains on-island for all five of these days. Island Adventurers enjoy many island based activities including going to the beach. The camp is based out of Bowen Island Community School and often walks to Pebbly Beach in the afternoons. Pebbly is a great location given the relative proximity to the school and the ability of the children to walk there and back. One drawback of this location however is the lack of toilet facilities.
Community Recreation has up to 16 children with 2 daycamp leaders and 2 youth volunteers visiting the beach on an almost daily basis. The lack of a toilet presents challenges for the staff as well as putting the children in a potentially uncomfortable situation. Given no other option, children end up going to the bathroom in the bush at the beach.
Sandy Beach, also walkable from the school, is an undesirable destination due to the poor water quality readings that have been occurring for the past few years. Daycamps do visit other beaches on Bowen as well but bus transportation can be a barrier with limited seating capacity. This has become more of a challenge this summer in particular with Translink being under new management. As a result, the camps are limiting their bussing to Fridays out to Tunstall Bay.
Page 1 of 2 Name of Report Council meeting date Page 172 of 372 CONCLUSION Bowen Island Community Recreation Daycamps along with other locals and tourists are frequenting Pebbly Beach throughout the summer months. Its location provides walkable access from the ferry, school, and the Cove and its water quality readings are usually favourable for swimming. Community Recreation is requesting that the Parks, Trails, and Greenways Committee consider supporting the installation of a toilet at Pebbly Beach for sanitary reasons, keeping the beach clean, and avoiding uncomfortable situations for our staff and campers.
SUBMITTED BY: ______Shauna Jennings Manager of Recreation and Community Services
Page 173 of 372 Page 174 of 372
Page 175 of 372 Page 176 of 372 Page 177 of 372
To: Mayor Skeels and Council
From: Councillor Sue Ellen Fast
Date: July 20, 2017 Meeting Date: July 24, 2017
Subject: Orchard Cottages- OCP Policy 234
RECOMMENDATION That Council recommend that the Metro Vancouver Parks Committee repair the roof of Cottage 17 instead of demolishing it, and to leave it standing to function as an interpretive cottage feature.
Purpose Through the public process there has been strong support for retaining more cottages than in either concept presented. The Metro Vancouver Board has the opportunity to reflect the public input, and to further protect heritage values by retaining this additional cottage as an interpretive feature.
A key feature of the Davies Orchard is the clustering of the cottages, forming a unique heritage precinct. Together they welcome the visitor into a public social setting. Alone, a cottage is diminished and the public space around it takes on a private atmosphere, less authentic and less welcoming to the visitor.
Cottage 18 sits alone in both concepts, off behind the orchard trees at the far end of the space. Visitors following the main path may feel that they are walking past a private building and space, reducing both the free feeling of a public park and the impact of the heritage grouping. By retaining Cottage 17 beside it, even as a decommissioned shell in a silent interpretive role, the social character of the Davies Orchard can be supported and the overall visitor experience can be enhanced.
Potential Use: Heritage interpretation is any communication process designed to reveal meanings and relationships of cultural and natural heritage to the public, through first-hand involvement with an object, artifact, landscape or site (Interpretation Canada, 1976).
An authentic cottage in its original location offers more potential to enhance the visitor experience than a plinth, footprint or other outline marking the spot. Interpretive media could range from interpretive panels mounted directly on the walls, to a featured stop on guided interpretive tours when other cottages are busy and distracting from the experience of imagining the past, to a backdrop or “film-set” role for living history or interactive drama, to a future digital interpretation role, depending on defined objectives. Interpretive roles may change with the seasons and evolve over time.
Page 1 of 3 Orchard Cottages- OCP Policy 234 July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 178 of 372 More open and usable space is not as valuable a use for the Cottage 17 location, between the Central Open Space and Snug Cove Beach, the Festival Field, and the open field behind the ball field in both concepts. The most important interpretive use will be simply through the presence of Cottage 17; to emphasize the unique heritage cluster character of the site, for both the visitor on site and viewing from afar.
Concept implications: The central open space featured in both concepts will not be affected by Cottage 17’s retention at the far end of the orchard. The view from the incoming ferry of the small cottages facing the sea will be enhanced by the retention of Cottage 17 completing the spread, and depending on height of new orchard trees in summer, greeting the visitor as a visible attraction.
Budget implications: Savings may be achieved if a new roof, coat of paint, secured access, and minimal stabilizing add up to less than the cost of demolition in the short term. In the long term other uses such as lively meaningful interpretation may evolve, especially through collaborative projects with the greater community.
Background Metro Vancouver conducted a public consultation process in relation to the Davies Orchard Cottages and the two options identified in June 2017. Bowen Island Municipal Council has supported Metro Vancouver in this process. On June 12 2017, Council resolved not to encourage Metro Vancouver to add a third option of retaining all of the Davies Orchard Cottages. At this time, having observed the response of the public, Council is proposing the option of retaining one additional cottage; Cottage 17.
Assuming the budget contemplated, the removal of Cottages 8 and 9 can be understood as necessary to create the central open space envisioned in both options, and as obviously integral to the planning process. A case has been made for retaining Cottage 11 to maintain a cluster of cottages representative of the historic situation. However, there is no money in the budget for this, and leaving it in its current condition would defeat the purpose of the project, so the removal of this cottage is also understood. Its location may be a better choice for parking as shown in Concept 1 than the area next to the baseball field currently shown in Concept 2.
This leaves Cottage 17, which is very characteristic of the numerous cottages that once hosted vacationing families from the region; evocative of the sounds of children playing or a banjo from a porch and the scent of a fruit pie cooling on a windowsill.
By retaining Cottage 17, only three cottages would be demolished and three retained for a balanced approach within the current project. In total nine of the original twenty cottages will still be standing, supporting the site’s heritage integrity.
Bowen Planning Context The municipal Official Community Plan includes Policy 234: Existing cabins in Crippen Regional Park have a heritage value derived from the Union Steamship era.
“Any efforts to restore and maintain the cabins will be encouraged and supported” is one of five bullet points and is reinforced in Section 9.1: Island Heritage through policies such as 396.
Page 2 of 3 Orchard Cottages- OCP Policy 234 July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 179 of 372 “Continue to enable and support initiatives, including those in progress, e.g., […] heritage orchard revitalization” is step 1 in Priority C4: Improve Snug Cove of Island Plan 2017.
Alternatives • That Council make no recommendation to the Metro Vancouver Parks Committee. • That Council recommend that all cottages be retained.
Financial Implications None for the municipality.
Attachments and References 1. Davies Orchard Planning Study: https://www.metrovancouver.org/daviesorchard 2. CDFCP website: http://www.cdfcp.ca
SUBMITTED BY: ______Sue Ellen Fast Councillor
Page 3 of 3 Orchard Cottages- OCP Policy 234 July 24, 2017 Regular Council Meeting Page 180 of 372 MEMORANDUM
Water Services Tel. 604-432-6505 Fax. 604-432-6297
TO: Tim Jervis DATE: July 18, 2017
FROM: Heidi Walsh File Number AD-03-01
RE: Forest Harvesting History in Metro Vancouver Watersheds
This memo has been prepared to provide a brief chronology and details of forest harvesting activity in Metro Vancouver’s Watersheds as requested by Commissioner Mason and Director Nicholson.
Background Metro Vancouver operates three large, forested watersheds for the purpose of water collection and storage for the residents of Metro Vancouver. From east to west, the Coquitlam (20,461 hectares), Seymour (12,375 hectares), and Capilano (19,535 hectares) watersheds supply water to 2.4 million people. The watershed lands are comprised of 12% fee simple lands owned by the GVWD, primarily in the valley bottoms, and 88% crown land under a 999 lease from the province.
Forest harvesting History In 1926, the GVWD was established with a mandate to protect all watershed lands for the sole purpose of drinking water collection In 1927, the GVWD negotiated a long term lease for 999 years with the provincial government for the watershed lands in Capilano and Seymour with a similar lease being signed for the Coquitlam Watershed in 1942. In 1931 the GVWD ended all private harvesting operations in the Capilano Watershed following decades of intensive valley bottom harvesting. In 1967 the GVWD revised the provincial lease agreement with an Amending Indenture which allowed for harvesting to occur within the three watersheds. The common harvesting practice of the era, was based on mitigating forest pest outbreaks and wildfire threats. In 1991, following public interest and scrutiny, the GVWD hosted public forums on the current harvesting practices. Due to the change in public opinion, operations were curtailed, and halted completely by 1994. On November 10, 1999, the GVWD Administration Board “[endorsed] the set of four principals as the basis for the Management Plan, and gave notice to the Province that these principals will require significant amendment or replacement of the Amending Indenture Agreement”. (Attached – Item 4.9). On February 8, 2002, the GVWD Board passed the resolution “The GVWD Board direct staff to provide notice to the Province to terminate the Amending Indenture”. (Attached – Item 4.1).
Page 181 of 372 Tim Jervis Forest Harvesting History in Metro Vancouver Watersheds Page 2 of 2
In 2002 The GVWD began a road deactivation program to decommission 170 kilometers, approximately 50%, of watershed roads. Road deactivation is common practice in formerly logged areas to minimize susceptibility to drainage problems and subsequent landslide events. The road deactivation works were completed in 2013.
Additional Information
There are currently active harvesting operations adjacent to Metro Vancouver’s watersheds in the Indian River, Furry Creek and Britannia Creek drainages. These areas do not impact our water supply although do perhaps increase the risk of forest fire ignition due to industrial activities. We contacted our colleagues in the Capital Regional District, and they too have harvesting adjacent to, but not within their watershed drainage boundaries on both the Sooke and Leech watersheds. The lands being actively harvested in proximity to Victoria’s watershed lands are privately held as is commonly the case on Vancouver Island. In the last two years we have been contacted by industry in regard to our practices, given their interests and the controversy surrounding the Chapman Creek Watershed on the Sunshine Coast.
Attachments: GVWD Administration Board Meeting Minutes – November 10, 1999 GVWD Board Meeting Minutes – May 24, 2002
Doc# 22974763
Page 182 of 372 From: Islands Trust To: Hope Dallas Subject: Highlights from the June 2017 Trust Council meeting Date: Thursday, July 20, 2017 10:13:13 AM
Can't read this email? Click here to view it online. Send to a Friend
July 20, 2017 Trust Council Updates Preserving Island Communities, Culture and Environment
June 2017 Trust Council Decision Highlights
Hello fellow islanders
Your Islands Trust Council held its quarterly business meeting June 20-22, 2017 on Lasqueti Island.
The decision highlights from discussions at the meeting capture some of the topics that have kept Council busy. If you are interested in more details, please go to the meeting calendar and click on June 20, 21 or 22 to view the agenda package and meeting schedule. Please note that the decision highlights are not the official minutes of the Council meeting. The minutes from the June meeting will be adopted by Council at the September 12-14 meeting on Denman Island and will then be posted to the website.
Thank you for your continued interest in our shared values of protecting and preserving the islands.
Your Islands Trust Council
Please do not reply to this message. You may use the links below to contact us or change your subscriber settings.
Home Page Manage your Subscription MapIT Contact Us Privacy Policy
Page 183 of 372
July 12, 2017
Mr. Enrique Sanchez Forest Development Planner BC Timber Sales, Chinook Business Area 46360 Airport Road Chilliwack, BC V2P 1A5
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
Re: Bowen Island Forest Development
At its meeting held Monday, July 10th, Bowen Island Municipal Council reviewed your correspondence of June 14, 2017 and your request for a meeting. We would like to invite you to a committee of the whole meeting of Council as soon as practical. As you know Bowen is a tourist destination during the summer so we have a lot happening and Council is on hiatus during the month of August. As a result, we would like to meet with you in early/mid-September prior to the Union of BC Municipalities annual conference later that month.
We note that you have scheduled an open house for Sunday afternoon July 30th. We would ask that you postpone that event until after our meeting in September. The event is sure to draw a considerable crowd and Summer Sunday’s are extremely hectic on Bowen at the best of times. Also, Collins Hall is a very small venue with very little parking available. Should you decide to proceed with the open house on that date we would ask that you extend the public consultation period to facilitate another community engagement opportunity after your meeting with Council and after Council has had an opportunity to consider the various options you laid out in your email.
One note of caution, Council Chambers was overflowing last night with Islanders concerned about your proposal. There was quite a cross section of the population and the speakers were universally negative. I anticipate that a full explanation of overwhelmingly potential positive outcomes will be required to move people from their initial reaction. An extended period of public engagement would give you that opportunity.
Page 184 of 372 For reference please see the attached Council resolutions referred to in this letter. Municipal staff will be in contact shortly to schedule the committee of the whole meeting.
Yours truly,
Mayor Murray Skeels Bowen Island Municipality
cc: Bowen Island Municipal Council
2 Page 185 of 372
Council Resolutions from July 10, 2017:
RES#17-256 It was Moved and Seconded
That BC Timber Sales Chinook be requested to extend their public review and comment session at least until September 30th.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RES#17-257 It was Moved and Seconded
That Council invite BC Timber Sales Chinook representatives to a Committee of the Whole in September as per their request.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
RES#17-258 It was Moved and Seconded
That Council request BC Timber Sales Chinook to postpone their July 30th open house until after a Committee of the Whole meeting with Council. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3 Page 186 of 372
File: 18046-20/FSP_DCK
July 12, 2017
Mayor Murray Skeels Bowen Island Municipality
Dear Mayor Murray Skeels:
Re: BC Timber Sales Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan #643:
Thank you for your letter dated July 12, 2017, regarding BC Timber Sales (BCTS) proposed Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) within the Chilliwack Natural Resource District, specifically the Salish Forest Development Unit (FDU) covering Bowen Island.
Also I would like to thank you for the invitation to meet with council. Early September would be best since BCTS plans to submit the final draft to the delegated decision maker by the first week of October 2017. Therefore BCTS is prepared to consider a closing date of September 22, 2017, for Bowen Island. This time would allow BCTS to address comments and submit final draft early October. BCTS can advertise in the local paper if acceptable to Mayor and council.
Regarding the open house planned for July 30, 2017, this is the earliest date available that would provide sufficient time for the community to submit comments within the specified review and comment period ending on September 6, 2017. Efforts were made to find a more suitable location but there aren’t that many places or times available in early July. In addition, Sunday was chosen to provide more opportunities for the community attend.
The objective of the open house is to provide clarity to the process and start the conversation in how best manage the working forest. BCTS is aware from the notes received so far, that some members of the community are apprehensive about forestry activities on Bowen Island. BCTS also believes that the options presented to some of your staff would be acceptable to the community once they realize the opportunities in managing the crown forest.
I thank you again for your letter and hope you can let me know of a couple of date options to meet the entire Bowen Island Council early September.
Yours truly,
Enrique Sánchez, R.P.F Planning Forester
Ministry of Forests, Lands BC Timber Sales 46360 Airport Road and Natural Resource Chinook Business Area Chilliwack, BC V2P 1A5 Operations Timber Sales Office Tel: 604-702-5700 Fax: 604-702-5711 Page 187 of 372
July 17, 2017
Enrique Sanchez, R.P.F. Planning Forester Chinook Business Area British Columbia Timber Sales 46360 Airport Road Chilliwack BC V2P 1A5
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
Re: Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) number 643
We are in receipt of your letter of July 12 and are concerned that you are disregarding the Municipal Council request for a reasonable consultation process and in so doing are acting against the interests of the people of Bowen Island.
I would therefore like to set out our correspondence to date, review the actions taken and propose what we would consider a reasonable consultation process.
CONSULTATION TO DATE
On May 30, 2017 You met with one of our staff and Councillor Sue Ellen Fast. After that meeting, it should have been clearly understood that the Bowen Island community would not support any industrial logging of Crown lands.
On June 14 In spite of that understanding, you sent an email to our Corporate Officer requesting a meeting with Municipal Council. In that email you said, “I am seeking your advice in how to proceed in a manner that is beneficial to the residents of Bowen Island and the rest of British Columbians.” You explained that “an FSP (Forest Stewardship Plan) is similar to an OCP because both documents provide guidance.” You then identified three options that the community might choose as ways to manage our local forest.
On June 23 Our Corporate Officer responded and confirmed that your email would be on an upcoming council agenda.
Later on June 23 You emailed our Corporate Officer that you were planning an Open House on Bowen for July 30.
Page 188 of 372 Mr. Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Services, July 17, 2017 2
On July 7 A legal notice (see attached) was published in our local newspaper concerning Forest Stewardship Plan 643. It asked for public comment and listed a number of open houses in communities from Hope to Bowen Island. Nothing in the notice indicated that FSP 643 proposed to include lands on Bowen Island. The internet link provided in the legal notice did not directly connect to the plan but instead to an FTP directory that is today inaccessible.
The notice did explain that the FSP would be the main strategic-level planning document showing the location of forest development units and providing the results, strategies and measures that the plan holders would follow.
The open house planned for Bowen Island was to be in a small church annex in a residential neighbourhood on Sunday afternoon July 30 with parking available for approximately 20 cars.
On July 11 At our council meeting there was a large, overflow audience. It was obvious that the venue for the July 30 open house would be inadequate to accommodate the many people planning to attend.
Also on July 11 An email from you to resident Mr. John Stiver was republished on Facebook. In your email, you explain that the reason for the July 30 date was in part to satisfy legislative requirements to provide a review and comment period. You also explain that the FSP is a complex technical document.
On July 12 Bowen Island Municipality wrote to you expressing Council’s agreement to meet with you as requested. I told you that the July 30 open house would be problematic because of the location, size of venue and lack of parking. I also proposed that the consultation period be extended to allow sufficient time for Council to digest your proposals and time for a second public meeting to gain informed comment from the public.
Later on July 12, you responded with a proposal to extend the public engagement period to September 22 so you could submit your proposed FSP by early October.
PROBLEMS WITH BC TIMBER SALES PROCESS
This is the first time in recent memory that Bowen Island has been actively proposed for extensive industrial-scale logging of Crown lands. Further, forestry plays no part in our island economy. As such, I cannot overstate how much surprise and alarm this proposed logging is creating in our community.
On May 30, you were gathering information from our staff. Two weeks later you emailed Council to request a meeting. On July 7, you published notice of an open house on Bowen. Reference to technical documentation was provided. However, nothing in any of the documentation even mentions the words “Bowen Island,” let alone adding us to your active forest inventory.
In spite of this, we have done our best to respond. Your email of mid June asked for a meeting to seek advice on how to proceed and gave us options as how we might manage the lands. We have replied in a timely manner and agreed to that meeting.
2 Page 189 of 372 Mr. Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Services, July 17, 2017 3
We are now at mid July. You have included us as stakeholders in the proposed update to FSP 643, yet there is no mention of Bowen Island in the document provided for review. You note that a Stewardship Plan is a complex document and you acknowledge that you are required to submit it for public review and comment before forwarding it to the Decision Maker.
You have arranged for a public open house that we have indicated to you is very problematic for our community. The meeting you requested with Bowen Island Municipality Council is set for September 11.
You are also telling us you have to start writing your proposal by September 22 and complete it by early October. This abbreviated timeframe on an issue so vital to our community does not constitute meaningful consultation and is completely unacceptable.
OUR PROPOSAL
Given the above, we ask that BCTS exclude Bowen Island from the current review and comment process and exclude Bowen Island from the draft update of FSP 643.
On September 11, Bowen Island Municipal Council as a Committee of the Whole will meet with BCTS to hear an introduction to the various ways in which we might be part of a process to create a Forest Stewardship Plan for Bowen Island. After that meeting, Bowen Island Municipality will explore all options outlined by BCTS in a timely manner and will work with BCTS to establish a timeline for an orderly process to deal with this matter.
IN CONCLUSION
The prospect of having 28% of Bowen Island logged over 20 years is a shock to the residents and businesses of Bowen Island. They see no good coming of it. Over the last six weeks the process employed by BCTS has enflamed the situation and enraged the population. It is time to step back and then re-engage in a respectful process.
Yours truly,
Murray Skeels, Mayor
CC: Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations Neal Carley, General Manager, Parks, Planning and Environment, Metro Vancouver Jennifer Eliason, Manager, Islands Trust Fund Mike Falkiner, Executive Director, BC Timber Sales Jason Fisher, Associate Deputy Minister – Forest Sector, FLNRO Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, MP, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country Peter Luckham, Trust Council Chair, Islands Trust Jordan Sturdy, MLA, West Vancouver – Sea to Sky Bowen Island Undercurrent 3 Page 190 of 372 Mr. Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Services, July 17, 2017 4
4 Page 191 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Hope Dallas Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:28 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Feral Cat Crisis in Cornwall, Ottawa
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:13 PM To: Mayor Council
Dear Mayor, Council and Bonny Brokenshire.
I am sending this article to you FYI, in case you have not already seen it. This situation could easily happen on Bowen and actually would have if we had not taken over the responsibility to spay/neuter/release/adopt starting in 2000.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/feral-cats-crisis-cornwall-1.4193823
For info about CAWES on Bowen Island, please go to cawes.org
1 Page 192 of 372 P.O.B OX 301 BOWEN ISLAND , BC V0N 1G0
11 July 2017
Bonny Brokenshire Manager, Parks and Environment Bowen Island Municipality 981 Artisan Lane Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
Dear Bonny:
Policy for acquisition of coastal access during subdivision; Bowen Island Parks Plan
The Bowen Island Conservancy applauds the Municipality’s effort to develop a Bowen Island Parks Plan. Our comments here focus on acquisition of public access to marine waters during fu- ture shoreline developments.
Access to marine waters is a fundamental part of island life. Enjoyment of shorelines, an im- portant determinant of quality of life on Bowen Island, includes viewing marine waters and shorelines for aesthetic and spiritual reasons, nature observation, and a range of recreational activities. However, only a tiny fraction of Bowen Island’s shores is accessible by the general public: most are privately owned. The Draft Parks Master Plan notes that the Municipality owns 18 beach accesses, 6 coastal access points, 2 coastal viewpoints, and 21 undeveloped coastal ac- cesses. While these numbers may appear reassuring, they are unevenly spread around the is- land, and many historic acquisitions access across challenging terrain. The collective value of these access points looks better on paper than the reality is on the ground.
Looking forward, acquisition of new coastal access points creates an important opportunity for the Municipality to build our island recreational asset base. The subdivision bylaw provides a re- quirement for private land owners to provide coastal access when subdividing coastal proper- ties. This mechanism is one of the few means by which new coastal accesses can be acquired. To our alarm, though, we understand that the Municipality has made a recent decision to accept cash payment in lieu of coastal access during subdivision of a south-shore Bowen property, and may be considering doing so again. While such decisions may be attractive in the short-term for financial reasons, they squander forever the opportunity for public enjoyment of our shores. The Bowen Island Conservancy strongly objects to this practice of cash in lieu of access and recommends clear policy direction against such decisions .
Bowen should look to its neighbours, Vancouver and West Vancouver, that have invested heav- ily in acquiring and developing public access along their shorelines. Today these seawall walks and related coastal accesses are their most valued natural recreational assets. In both cases, vi- sion and sustained commitment to acquisition over decades led to the current amenities.
Page 193 of 372 - 2 -
Though the opportunities for shoreline access are different on Bowen, a similar commitment will be required if our future Bowen Island is to have adequate coastal access.
In light of the above discussion, the Bowen Island Conservancy recommends the following:
1) That the Draft Parks Master Plan, under the category “Acquisition”, and under the heading “Key Recommendations”, include a separate policy recommendation spe- cific to acquisition of coastal access points (and that reference to coastal access points be removed from 4.1.3.) 2) That the policy referenced in (1) above include the following a. That acquisition of coastal access is a strategic priority of Bowen Island Mu- nicipality (BIM); b. That BIM develop a coastal access acquisition strategy, especially for subdi- vision and rezoning development applications; c. That the coastal access acquisition strategy be an integral part of the Shore- line Management Plan identified in 3.2.1.
Sincerely,
The Board of the Bowen Island Conservancy
Owen Plowman, President Leo Chan, Ellen Coburn, Allie Drake, Nerys Poole, Bob Turner, Adrian van Lidth de Jeude, Ever- hard van Lidth de Jeude
Cc Mayor and Council ( [email protected] ) Chair, Parks, Recreation, Trails and Greenways Committee ([email protected])
Page 194 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:35 PM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Notinmycity campaign to fight human trafficking in Calgary, Alberta
From: Cathy Peters Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 1:16 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bowen Island Municipality
1 Page 195 of 372 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Notinmycity campaign to fight human trafficking in Calgary, Alberta
Dear Mayors and City Councillors of BC, Calgary is stepping up to address the rapidly growing problem of human trafficking in their city. We can all do the same in our cities/communities. Sincerely, Mrs. Cathy Peters BC’s anti‐human trafficking advocate/educator http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/notinmycity-campaign-to-fight-human-trafficking-in-calgary
2 Page 196 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:41 PM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: BC Bowen Island Ferries Policies
From: Jeanie Seward‐Magee Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 1:49 PM To: Murray Skeels
Dear Mr. Mayor, BC Ferries and Bowen Island Council,
I have a question for you all.
Our ferry from Horseshoe Bay is often late leaving Horseshoe Bay or leaving Snug Cove Bowen Island. One of the reasons for this appears to be that quite often (particularly during the summer months) if a larger ferry for Vancouver Island or the Sunshine Coast is loading in Horseshoe Bay - our little Bowen Island then gets delayed for 15-20 minutes, because BC Ferries always load the larger ferries first.
Would it not seem more advantageous and perhaps better ferry management when two ferries are about to load at the same time for our little Bowen Island Ferry to be loaded FIRST ahead of the larger far longer loading time larger ferry. Bowen Island ferry, just for the cars and trucks, doesn't take much longer to load than five minutes sometimes less.
Because of the BC Ferries present policy of loading the larger and longer time to load ferries, our regular half hour sailings get constantly later and later during the mornings and afternoons. Yesterday the 12.45 p.m. ferry from Snug Cove didn't leave until well after 1.15 p.m. because of the present "if you are bigger therefore you get first load service".
As a woman (now in my seventies) I find it amusing - this domination - "of because you are smaller/different than me, you are not as important"! I feel it is very important for the many wonderful people who make Bowen Island their permanent home and have to travel daily to work on the mainland that your sailing times are more accurate.
I would appreciate your comments.
In one breath, my life changed forever.
In Gratitude for the love of family and friends, Jeanie
1 Page 197 of 372 Vancouver Cell 604-362-xxxx
When you love someone, the best thing you can offer is your presence. How can you love if you are not there?
- Thich Nhat Hanh
2 Page 198 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:46 PM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Corner at the Village Baker
From: Trish Jacquet Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 4:10 PM To: Mayor Council
Hello
I am writing in regards to the recent yellow cement blocks put at the corner of the Village Baker.
It is now more of a hazard than before, which I never even consided a hazard start with.
Cars turning up village road from Dorman Road must now turn into oncoming traffic. Or stop and hold up traffic before they can turn. Don't see why you even need the barrier!!!
1. People need to take responsiblity for themselves and either STOP, LOOK and then proceed to cross to either side.
2. Place the cement barriers closer to where people were parking their vehicles.
If the council created a decent parking facility (like Langdale) for ferry commuters, etc, we would not have cars parking in every corner of the Cove. Now that you have taken the parking away from behind the library and moved it across from the Police station, it is only a band-aid fix and creating more inconvenient .
Trish Jacquet
1 Page 199 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: ALLENE DRAKE <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 4:02 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCTS intention to log Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
I am writing to you as the above matter is of great personal concern to me and fellow Bowen islanders. We are a small island community which cannot support the impact of industrial logging.
Sensitive watersheds are located in each of the five areas selected for potential logging, and these watersheds directly supply the requirements for each nearby neighbourhood. They are in areas set aside for recreational development with hiking trails and parkland, and in some places directly adjoin nature and ecological reserves.
The affects of logging have already been unhappily seen on the island with the development of Cape Roger Curtis, with huge trucks endlessly clogging the roads and dispersing other vehicles on a limited ferry service. The roads have deteriorated and one of the heaviest costs faced by a small municipality is road maintenance. We cannot afford these costs in future. However, damage to the natural landscape is even greater in terms of habitat loss and erosion to stream beds, forest slopes and, as all areas selected for logging are on sloped areas, there is no way damage could be minimal.
With increasing population growth in the lower mainland, there are fewer and fewer green and natural spaces kept intact. Bowen Island is recognized and valued as a special place, close to industrialized towns, where people can wander in the parks and trails, hike the mountains, relax on the shorelines and restore their souls. Tourists are not here to enjoy the sounds, smells and sights of industrial logging. It is so important to keep safe, as much as possible, one of the best natural assets in this part of the world.
Please work to ensure that there is no further logging on Bowen Island. Thank you. Allene Drake
1 Page 200 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Andrew Brownsword <---> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 10:36 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Bowen Island logging
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sir or Madam,
It was just recently announced that BC Timber Sales is going forward with a process to begin large scale logging of approximately 28% of Bowen Island. This island is now home to approximately 4000 year‐round residents, numerous businesses and attracts significant tourists on the basis of its lovely forested hiking trails and mountain slopes. Logging the island will dramatically impact residents, businesses and tourism. Removal of trees at a large scale will have a serious negative impact on the island’s water and soil retention capacity, and Bowen already has a shortage of both soil and fresh water supplies. Residential wells will dry up or lose much capacity, the community water sources will be depleted more quickly and greater levels of surface contamination will occur. In addition the island is mountainous and it is well known how removal of forest will seriously increase the risk of landslides and erosion in general. Even trees which are not removed will suffer from the loss of their neighbours, leading to further damage. Most homes on Bowen, like mine, are located on slopes or at their base and therefore vulnerable to slope destabilization. Loss of forest will also badly damage the island’s wildlife habitats, and the fauna have nowhere to go as this is an island. This will cause more conflict with residents and tourists, and greatly exacerbate problems we are already having with the skunk and racoon populations that have been introduced by pest control people illegally dumping these animals here to relocate them away from the city. There is also the aesthetic issue of logged regions which will be visible everywhere on the island, and the increased fire risk from the waste left behind and decreased moisture retention. The destruction will extend to the fish‐bearing bodies of water and deplete that precious resource as well.
The actual process of logging will be similarly devastating. The island’s roads are in poor enough condition already — hundreds of massive logging trucks will destroy them, never mind the terrifying prospect of huge fast moving trucks on narrow winding roads. I have encountered logging trucks on the road before, and they are accidents waiting to happen. There will also either be significantly increased ferry congestion, or large amounts of damage to shoreline areas where log booms are built up. Logging teams bring risks of damage, fire, injury and so forth. All of this puts pressure on the delicate infrastructure this island community has built up.
Bowen Island is a community that prides itself on being ecologically sensitive and aware. The entire population is outraged that logging on our island is even being considered, never mind that the process has already been put in motion. We are not going to accept this shortsighted and foolish initiative, particularly in a time when we have just elected a new government formed between the NDP and Green parties. It will have horrid and long lasting negative impacts on our community, financial situation, health and wellness. Bowen is a jewel within the beautiful prize that is Howe Sound. So close to Vancouver, and so able to be enjoyed by so many. To proceed with this plan is simply unconscionable. It must be stopped.
Andrew Brownsword Bowen Island, BC
1 Page 201 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Andy Plusr <-----> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 9:33 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Attn: Enrique Sanchez, R.P.F Planning Forester British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS) Chinook Business Area (Chilliwack) E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 604-702-5748 Fax: 604-702-5711
Good morning Mr. Sanchez,
I am frequent visitor to Bowen Island writing in opposition to the proposed logging of 1441 Ha of Crown Lands on Bowen and request a rescheduling of the public meeting on July 30th until September 2017.
Bowen Island is located in the middle beautiful Howe Sound, only 40 short minutes from downtown Vancouver. They are part of the Metro Vancouver Regional District and included within the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. You may or may not be aware of the relative small size of the island, at only 5260 Ha, the proposed logging would therefore effect 28% of of the fragile island ecosystem and watersheds; irreplaceable environments for which I travel to Bowen Island specifically to enjoy.
Ecological impacts aside one of ther island's biggest industries is tourism, with over 21,000 visitors staying overnight per year as of 2013 (and growing every year). As part of Metro Parks visitors come to enjoy our pristineparklands, forests, lakes, hiking, beaches, ocean vistas and watersports. Logging healthy trees from the island would have a direct impact on tourism and those families that depend on it as their livelihoods.
In 2015 The Sunday Times (UK) listed Bowen Island as one of the best places to live in the world. With the rapidly increasing development of multi-million dollar homes on the island, Bowen is already losing some of it’s forests to construction, and while this is less than desirable, the local community is directly benefiting from the construction of these full time and seasonal residences. The proposed logging would substantially impact these and countless other industries while not having the same value of return to the community.
My family and I will be on our pre-booked summer vacation at the time of the meeting and are unable to attend. The short notice of the meeting and placement on a busy summer weekend is unacceptable and I request the meeting be rescheduled in the fall when a satisfactory number of residents will be available to attend.
Sincerely,
Andrew Marjerrison
1 Page 202 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Anita Bleick <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:29 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Bowen Island - BCTS / Logging
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez,
Further to your recent letter to Bowen Island Municipal Council indicating that logging is planned for 28% of our island, I write to advise that I am deeply opposed to logging activity on Bowen Island that does not comply fully with the parameters set out in the BIOCP. My preference and that of my family, is actually “no logging”, but we do understand that logging can occur in an ecologically sensitive manner that will not deleteriously affect our health and economy in terms of recreation, tourism, water supply and quality, transportation infrastructure, noise levels, views, and so on if done carefully and minimally ‐ although that is not likely what would occur if the planned logging goes ahead without adequate consultation and respect for community input. Why one would propose to log this tiny jewel of an island ‐ our home, and a recreation playground for thousands of others ‐ when you are going to face a groundswell of resistance from both residents and “summer people” alike confounds me; there are surely other areas of the province where logging would be greeted favourably.
You proposed an open house to answer questions we may have, but you scheduled it on July 30 when many people will be away for vacation. It was also poorly advertised. Further, you have not yet met with our Council but you propose to close the window for public comments by September 6. I don’t understand either the timing or the urgency of this matter. A year’s lead time for consultation with our highly engaged and concerned citizenry and any other affected parties would not be too long in this case for us to fully understand what is proposed and to try to seek a solution that makes sense for everybody.
I urge the Province in the strongest terms to remove Bowen Island in perpetuity from the list of areas of BC to be harvested. Failing that, please engage in a meaningful consultation of sufficient duration to allow concerned parties to receive and provide information, and to consider potential ways to make this situation work for all of us.
Yours truly,
Anita Bleick --- Salal Rd. Bowen Island, BC
1 Page 203 of 372 --- Cates Hill Rd. Bowen Island, BC V0N1G2 16 July 2017
Mayor and Council Bowen Island Municipality 981 Artisan Lane Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
Dear Mayor and Council;
I am writing to express my concern about planned industrial-scale logging on Bowen Island. As a long-time resident of Bowen Island, I am acutely aware of the crucial need for water management and conservation during our protracted summer droughts. Our island is entirely dependent upon rainwater collected during the winter months, and every year our water table is dropping. The proposed logging developments encompass much of our watershed and encroach on our ecological reserves. Large scale timber harvesting would pose a real threat to our existing aquifers both in water quality and quantity. We need to conserve our forests to protect our water supply. Our community’s survival is at risk if logging is allowed to occur.
I urge you to remove all of Bowen Island from the list of possible logging sites.
Sincerely,
Aubin van Berckel
Page 204 of 372 B8333/2811 13:54 6849479366 F3455 31/m
Anne Franc cleFerrlére — Chollat -West Si!eRd BowenIsland.BC - VON1G0 BCTimberSales,attention: Enrique Sanchez Mayor 8:Council Bowenisland Municipality To everyoneit may concern
Bowen Island July 17,2017
Re:Logging on Crown Landsof Bowen island.
Theearning intent of contemplating the loggingon Crown Landson BowenIslandis illadvisedand this is why:
In 2005, meGeulogital Survey of Canadapublishedthe first ofa series of special reports or waberscapeposeers illustrating the water issues for communities across Canada.
The BowenIslandWaterscape is a very thoroughillusixatianof allthe issues relating to water and con?rmsthat our sole source of water is rainwater. our “clean water factory’ is: the forests, streams and wetlands located on Crown Lands. The whole island is our catchmentarea and whether we are on the surfacewater intake or on a deep well.the whole island drinking water will be very rapidly and negatively affectedbyany of the proposed and plannedlogging of Crown Lands.
This is one ofthe major reasonsthatloggiug on BowenIsland shouldnot be done, as the long term consequencesofit are unpredictableand unavoidableand the cost of them can not be estimated.
Yours sincerely
Anne Franc de Ferriére » Clwllat
CC:IrlonolxrablelohnRustad, Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resvurces Operations Iordansturdyg MLA Peter Luckham, Chair of Island Trust
Page 205 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: betty morton <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:07 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected] Subject: Bowen Island FSP
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Jordan Sturdy, MLA
July 12, 2017
Re: Bowen Island FSP
I am writing to express my high level of concern regarding the Ministry of Forests Lands Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO)/BC Timber Sales (BCTS) intentions to log on Bowen. I understand that despite the fact that Bowen Island has not been part of a FSP in the past, a planning framework for logging is now in the consultation process. The timing (busy summer tourism season) and the minimal timeline and opportunity for input and feedback in no way constitutes what our Bowen community would consider responsible consultation.
Bowen Island is a very small ecosystem with a 3000 to 6000 population, (depending on the season), that depends on its forest ecosystems for replenishing its aquifers and providing water for the community, agriculture and the wild environment. We do not have “extra trees” available for logging in any form.
Being a Metro-Vancouver island community, we do not have a viable timber market. There is no wood industry or market to support logging so any harvest would need to be exported for processing. Even small scale log moving related to land development for subdivision and residential purposes creates a hardship for residents because logging trucks compete with commuters for ferry space. The impact of industrial logging on the ferry commuting public is untenable.
Bowen Island is currently a community in balance. We cut trees when we need to, our citizens are employed,we cherish and husband our wild environment to keep our community healthy and to engage our tourism industry. We welcome visitors from the mainland and the world to Bowen Island to walk softly on our tree lined trails, to marvel at our salmon spawn under the canopy of our forests and to restore minds and spirits in the sanctuary of our forested parks and nature reserves. Logging has no place here.
The five areas on Crown Lands identified by BC Timber Sales (BCTS) for logging are all on high ground where they affect every part of the island including it’s watersheds, wildlife corridors, parks, residential water sources and visual landscapes. Because Bowen is a small island, the conflicts with logging are amplified. Heavy damage from logging would include disruption of ecological functions, loss of wildlife habitat, compromising of recreational habitat, erosion and siltation that disrupts fish habitat and contaminates human drinking water sources, and noise that disturbs human communities and disrupts bird and animal reproduction. Industrial logging is clearly not compatible with Bowen Island values or systems.
Bowen Islanders are passionate conservators of their precious environment. They can be expected to protest respectfully, resist strongly, and obstruct with vengeance according to the need. There is miniscule financial
1 Page 206 of 372 benefit to the government for logging on a small island such as Bowen and huge consequences for the health and well-being of the Metro Vancouver popoulation, who have journeyed to our island for relaxation, recreation and rejuvenation since the Union Steamship days of the early 20th century. I urge you to consider the dissonance of even having a FSP for Bowen Island and work with islanders to create a different vision for how our forests can be nurtured rather than harvested.
Regards,
Betty Morton
---- Whitesails Drive, Bowen Island BC V0N 1G2
2 Page 207 of 372 P.O.B OX 301 BOWEN ISLAND , BC V0N 1G0
16 July 2017
Enrique Sanchez, R.P.F. Planning Forester Chinook Business Area British Columbia Timber Sales 46360 Airport Road Chilliwack, BC V2P 1A5
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
BC Timber Sales Bowen Island Forest Development initiative
The Bowen Island Conservancy is a registered BC Society that acts in a stewardship role to work with governments, land owners, and the public to conserve, protect, sustain, and enhance the quality of the natural environment of Bowen Island, neighbouring islets and surrounding waters. Our membership is made up of over 150 individuals living on, or affiliated with, Bowen Island.
We are writing to you with comments and an initial request concerning the BC Timber Sales (BCTS) Forest Development initiative, as it concerns Bowen Island. Our comments and request focus on:
• The way in which you have so far engaged with the Bowen Island community • The upcoming Open House, scheduled for July 30th on Bowen Island • The public review and comment period for the draft Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) #643 • The suitability of Bowen Island for industrial logging operations, community forests, or woodlots
The “process” so far: engaging with the Bowen Island Community The first opportunity for Bowen Island residents to learn about the BCTS initiative for potential development of Crown Land on Bowen Island—for timber harvesting purposes—was on Thurs- day, July 6 th (which, we note, is after the July 4th start of the FSP public review and comment pe- riod), when your email message to Mayor and Council was included in the published Agenda for the July 10th Council Meeting. Of course, only a small subset of the island population follows Council’s schedule of meetings and agenda items closely, so it’s very unlikely that more than 10- 20% of island residents saw your email when reviewing the Council Meeting Agenda.
Page 208 of 372 - 2 -
Subsequently, your organization published a notice in the local community newspaper, the “Bowen Island Undercurrent”, on Friday, July 7th (which is also after the July 4th start of the FSP public review and comment period) providing information about the approval of Forest Stew- ardship Plan (FSP) # 643. Besides mention of an Open House on July 30th, though, there was no specific information in this notice about the potential for timber harvesting activities on Bowen Island itself. Readers were directed to view the FSP, and public comments were invited. That is all.
All Island residents are grateful to a few local individuals who this week read both your email to Mayor and Council, and the newspaper notice, made the connection between the two, and sounded the alarm: that there is now a possibility that our beautiful island may be logged on an industrial scale over a 20 year period starting at some time in the near future .
Your organization is in the inexcusable position of—accidentally or deliberately—failing to provide critical information to Island residents in a timely and transparent manner. The critical information that’s missing from your communications is that:
• Industrial logging operations may take place on Bowen Island at some point in the fu- ture, and • You have put in place a rapidly-moving process with a very short time frame to which you expect all interested parties (including the residents of Bowen Island) to adhere.
In your email message to Mayor and Council, referenced above, you write “ I am seeking your advice in [sic] how to proceed in a manner that is beneficial to the residents of Bowen Island and the rest of British Columbians. ” So far your actions have not been beneficial to either group .
The upcoming July 30th Open House First, we take great exception to the time span between your initial communications and the scheduled Open House date of Sunday, July 30 th (which, as we pointed out above, is after the July 4th start of the FSP public review and comment period). The total elapsed time is only three weeks, and more notice is required at this busy time of year for people.
Second, holding an Open House on a Sunday in July, at a time when many residents are away on vacation, busy with other pre-arranged commitments, or entertaining visitors, suggests that you are not making an earnest effort to provide information to the public, and gain meaningful pub- lic input.
As a comparison, the Bowen Island Conservancy holds four or five public education events each year. We never schedule any meetings during the summer, because we know from experience that attendance would be very low. The excuse that you have made to at one Island resident that you were unable to find a suitable venue to hold the Open House at an earlier date simply confuses us. There are many venues on the Island that are available for meetings on a year- round basis.
Page 209 of 372 - 3 -
Public review and comment period for draft FSP #643 Your organization has put in place an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the draft FSP that lasts from Tuesday, July 4th, to Wednesday, September 6th. This means that you are expecting lay individuals to review and make comments on what you have stated is a highly technical 179 page document in a 9 week period. Your Open House is the sole opportunity for the Bowen Island community to learn about the FSP and what it means. So, in fact, the review and comment period for Bowen Island residents is only just over five weeks, since your Open House occurs almost one month into the review and comment period.
We strongly object to the duration and timing of this review and comment period . We suggest moving the end of the period to a date in October or November, which would give the public more time to understand the 179 page FSP and make cogent comments.
Our initial request Bowen Island is not a suitable location for an industrial-scale timber harvesting initiative:
1. It is a small island, with populated areas adjacent to every block of Crown Land. 2. It is located within the Islands Trust area, which was established to preserve and protect the area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of residents of the area and of the province generally. 3. The community has just completed an extensive and expensive process that defined its brand, which centres on the island’s peacefulness and unspoiled natural environment, as well as its suitability as a get-away from Vancouver and other parts of the Lower Mainland. 4. Bowen Island has an extensive and heavily-used trail network that extends through the Crown Lands, used by residents and visitors from elsewhere. 5. Many of the parcels which are proposed for your development purposes include im- portant water-supply watersheds for residential areas. Impacts of logging on water availability and quality are likely. 6. At least two of the parcels are adjacent to Nature Reserves owned by the Islands Trust Fund. The idea of logging operations taking place a short distance from these reserves is disquieting. 7. The impact of logging operations on wildlife will be magnified on Bowen Island since the Island is small and is relatively urbanized: there is nowhere else for wildlife to go. 8. Ferry congestion resulting from logging trucks and other vehicles used in logging opera- tions will interfere with commuters, as well as the ferry schedule. 9. The impact of logging operations on Bowen Island’s tourism economy, which attracts visitors not only from the Lower Mainland but elsewhere in BC and farther afield is likely to be significant.
The cumulative effects of any logging operations, therefore, will be too much for Bowen Is- land, and will also have a negative impact on all British Columbians. We request that you re- move the island from the list of potential timber harvesting areas in the FSP.
A final observation We note that there is existing FSP in place, and the expiration date for that FSP has been known for some time. An obvious question to ask is why there is now such a rush to complete the
Page 210 of 372 - 4 - flawed process of obtaining public input to the new FSP. The process that you have put in place for completing it could have been launched in the spring of 2017 (or earlier), which would have allowed more time for a thoughtful and reasoned response from the public.
We welcome your comments on this observation.
Yours sincerely,
The Board of the Bowen Island Conservancy
Owen Plowman, President Leo Chan, Ellen Coburn, Allie Drake, Nerys Poole, Bob Turner, Adrian van Lidth de Jeude, Everhard van Lidth de Jeude
CC: • Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations • Jason Fisher, Associate Deputy Minister – Forest Sector, Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations • Mike Falkiner, Executive Director, BC Timber Sales • Jordan Sturdy, MLA, West Vancouver-Sea to Sky • Peter Luckham, Trust Council Chair, Islands Trust • Jennifer Eliason, Manager, Islands Trust Fund • Neil Carley, General Manager, Parks, Planning and Environment, Metro Vancouver • Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality • Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, MP, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country • The Bowen Island Undercurrent • Bowen Island Conservancy membership
Page 211 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Bronwyn Churcher <----> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 10:42 AM To: Mayor Council Subject: Please fight with us to protect Bowen's trees
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Bowen Mayor and Council,
As representatives of the will of the Bowen community, I urge you to listen to us and please do not allow the logging of crown land on Bowen Island.
The community of Bowen Island is a powerful one that will not stand for the logging of it's beautiful crown land. Please do not let them touch our trees. We will remember that you allowed this and you will be on the wrong side of history, mark my word. We will climb the trees and chain ourselves to them; we will blockade their access and we will do absolutely everything we can to stop logging companies from taking even one tree off our island.
I have lived in this beautiful place for 20 years. I grew up walking through these forests and I will not watch anyone destroy them because they are part of me. Neither will the rest of Bowen's inhabitants who are strong, determined, intelligent and brave people.
Force them to take their logging industry elsewhere, not to this community.
Yours sincerely, Bronwyn Churcher (Teacher and resident of Bowen Island)
1 Page 212 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Bruce Wallace <----> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 7:46 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Timber harvesting on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez,
We are writing to address our objections to timber harvesting on Bowen Island. Your email to the Bowen Island Municipality was received as a huge surprise to us and to most of the Bowen Island community, particularly because it provides very little time for islanders to adequately participate in the consultation process.
Bowen Island is a unique location in BC. We are an island community and are passionate about protecting our environment.
Our specific concerns: 1 Logging will damage the ecology of the cut forests. 2 Wildlife habitat will be lost. 3 Recreational values will be damaged. 4 Road building and removal of trees will change natural runoff and increases erosion, and can lead to siltation in streams that affect water quality and could cause flooding during heavy rain. 5 Drinking water quality and stream habitat for fish and invertebrates will be damaged. Being an island, all drinking water is provided by the local watersheds. 6 Logging operations create noise that impacts residents, visitors and tourist operations. Because this is such a small island, this noise will travel widely. 7 Clear cuts will create visual scars on landscape, and many of the logged areas will be visible from many parts of the island, and nearby waters. 8 Logging trucks will take space on the ferry creating the potential for overloads and ferry delays.
Bowen Island is a special place. This island, so close to Vancouver, is home to many unique species of flora and fauna. Harvesting the timber is certain to disrupt the delicate eco‐system that defines the island. The Crown Lands are interwoven amongst private, municipal, regional park, ecological preserve and provincial park lands adding to the complexity of logging operations and the probability of conflicts. It is likely that timber harvesting on Bowen Island will lead to reduced property values, loss of jobs, and damage to infrastructure (roads, medical services, transportation) without any obvious benefits to the community.
I understand that Crown Lands are owned by the Province and are routinely harvested for their timber and represent an important part of provincial revenue. One must weigh the negative impacts on this small island with this revenue potential. We are a recognized get‐away destination, a truly magical place. I believe a careful analysis will lead to the conclusion that logging on Bowen Island does not make sense.
Bruce and Lynda Wallace, --- Jason Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G1
1 Page 213 of 372 604‐947‐---- cc: Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Foressts, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations; Jordan Sturdy, MLA; Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality; Peter Luckham, Chair of Islands Trust; Andrew Weaver, MLA
Sent from my iPad
2 Page 214 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Charmaine Heffelfinger <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 1:17 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Strong Opposition to Commercial Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear elected officials, My family and I are strongly opposed and dismayed to hear that a timber license has been granted to log parcels of Bowen Island. Logging on a commercial scale cannot happen here for a number of reasons including harm to wildlife, habitat, our watersheds, large trucks clogging our roads and ferries and noise pollution. This tiny place renown for it’s peaceful life and exceptional beauty is not the kind of place that needs nor will accept the invasive, noisy and destructive work that this timber license will produce. This will seriously affect the quality of life of our growing population. Please hear the voice of the people of Bowen Island. We say no to logging here!
As islanders are sometimes heard to say, “slow down, this ain’t the mainland”. Sincerely, Charmaine, Park, Franny and Ema Heffelfinger
1 Page 215 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Chris Kientz <----> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:00 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Bowen Island Logging
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
All ‐
I want to add my voice to the rest of Bowen Island, all of whom are 100% opposed to industrial logging on the island. Industrial logging does not fit Bowen Island; it just does not make sense to compromise the economy, values, quality of life, and environmental attributes of our community for modest revenues to Provincial coffers. You want to log something, log your own backyard.
Simply put, any attempt to log on Bowen will be meet with every element of resistance available. This resistance will make the cost of logging prohibitively expensive for anyone wishing to do so.
Chris Kientz 604------
1 Page 216 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Christiane Prim Silva <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:53 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez
as a citizen of Bowen Island, I want to express my concerns about the immediate and long term effect that this logging project would have on our whole island. All areas will be effected, our lives, our safety, the ecosystem, wildlife and even tourism. Logging on Bowen Island is not even commercially profitable and why ruin and destroy this place and habitat?? It will mess up the watersheds and water will become more and more valuable throughout the next years, also due to Climate Change. It will be devastating for Bowen Island and for each and every single of us, who live here and who treasure this place and it's still intact ecosystem. Everything speaks against such a step. Don't let logging destroy Bowen Island!
Sincerely Christiane Prim Silva Bowen Island, BC
1 Page 217 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Clayton Hunter-James <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:19 PM To: [email protected]; Mayor Council Subject: Logging on Bowen Island.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez.
I have been a full-time Bowen Island resident since I was two years old and my family has had a home on Bowen Island since 1971. I heavily oppose any commercial logging operation on Bowen Island as it would cause extreme environmental damage and exponential damage to real estate and business on the Island.
This community is known as natural haven, a bastion of environmental preservation and ecotourism. I hold an undergraduate degree in Environment and Sustainability Geography from the University of British Columbia Vancouver. I have extensively studied the impacts of deforestation at UBC. I specifically have done an extensive evaluation of Bowen Islands water shed and geography. In short, the terrain is incredibly rocky, steep, inaccessible and dangerous. It would be an expensive area to log with exponentially negative repercussions politically and environmentally.
I am a full-time employee for the District of North Vancouver Parks department, specifically parks construction. My opinion in this letter is a representation of my personal opinion and not the District of North Vancouver. I operate machines, build trails, service roads and implement drainage infrastructure on a day to day basis. The service roads we build and maintain are gravel roads similar to that a logging company would build. I have experience working in valleys, cliffs and rough forest terrain just like that of Bowen. I can simply say with modern safety standards and environmental regulation that the infrastructure required would be expensive.
As a father of a one year old and a one month old, I want my children to be able to enjoy the beauty of a mature beautiful forest. I recognize the importance of having a large trees in a forest such as the trees encompassing Bowen's crown lands. I regularly have used the trails on these lands for training for sport and enjoying hikes. I specifically remember running up Mount Gardner, seeing my breath in the air and feeling inspired by the beauty and wilderness. I want to see these lands grow and develop into a majestic ancient forest for myself and future generations.
I truly believe economically Bowen Island is not a cost effective area to log. Bowen Islands crown lands are best protected from commercial logging and preserved for ecotourism.
Sincerely,
Clayton Hunter-James
604------
1 Page 218 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Colin Ritchie <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council Subject: Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Your Honour,
I am writing to you to stress how upset I am to hear about the proposed logging on Bowen Island (BCTS’ Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan 643).
I consider this a massive violation on my home and community. This decision affects our water supply, local tourism, our lifestyle and the value of our homes.
Colin Ritchie
1 Page 219 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Dave Pollard <----> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:34 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: Logging on Bowen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sir:
I could write a hundred pages on why the idea of any logging on Bowen Island now is an atrocious idea, but I'll try to keep this short. We are part of Metro Vancouver and hence property values here are incredibly high and hugely vulnerable to any activities that might be seen to adversely affect the quality of life on our little island. For that reason alone, you can expect a huge and overwhelmingly upset crowd at your proposed event on July 30th — far more than Collins Hall could safely accommodate, and this will get your attempts to involve Bowen in your FSP off to a very rocky and rancorous start. The potential impacts on our very limited and very heavily used road system are enormous. The impact on our tourism industry, on which we rely heavily for local livelihoods, and which is overwhelmingly comprised of hikers and cyclists who come to see the very forests you plan to cut down, would be devastating. Bowen is an island of people many if not most of whom came here for sanctuary from noise and development, who voted mostly Green in the last election, and many of whom are environmental activists ready to do whatever it takes to prevent environmentally damaging activities from taking place here. We came here for the trees and the amazing view that those trees give us every day everywhere we go on our little island.
In short, any logging on Bowen is a bad idea — it offers us nothing, threatens everything that we hold dear, and would be a political nightmare for everyone concerned. I would urge you to, at the least, defer any plans to include Bowen in a FSP for at least a few years — surely there are many other places far more amenable on your list.
Respectfully, Dave Pollard
1 Page 220 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: David Hill <----> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:58 AM To: Mayor Council Cc: Bowen Island Conservancy; The Honourable Sturdy, MLA Subject: Logging on Bowen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am very concerned to learn that BC Timber Sales are preparing plans to log some areas of Bowen.
1. Bowen is its own watershed. We have water restrictions in the summer because the water table is limited. Logging would both contaminate water, and accelerate the run off, depleting the aquifers.
2. Our roads are only recently in the process of being remediated, at great expense to taxpayers on Bowen, from the logging that took place at CRC. Any logging on Bowen will again damage our fragile roads which are not able to sustain heavy logging‐truck traffic.
3. Part of Bowen's economy depends on its recreational facilities, including natural hiking. Logging will affect such recreational use directly.
4. Another part of Bowen's attraction as a tourist destination is the wild‐life which will suffer from logging.
5. Much of the terrain on Bowen is steep and much of the soil vulnerable to being washed away by the winter rains. It is not suitable terrain to support sustainable logging. For example, look at what happened around Uclulet, with soil washed away impeding regrowth, and streams blocked.
6. Any commercial activity on Bowen's Crown Lands will reactivate First Nations land claims.
Logging on Bowen is *not* a justifiable use of Crown Lands, and should be strenuously opposed.
Sincerely,
David R. Hill Resident 604‐------Windjammer V0N 1G2
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1 Page 221 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: David McCullum <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:35 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Concerns about logging of Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the pending log harvest plans for the Crown land on Bowen Island. We are gravely concerned about the habitat, watershed, and community impacts of such plans, and are grateful to be consulted.
Five areas on Crown Lands are identified by BC Timber Sales (BCTS) for logging. All are on high ground, on each of the three “big bumps” of Bowen. Collectively they affect just about every part of Bowen.
The “Collins Mountain” BCTS block sits above Eagle Cliff, Hood Point and Grafton Bay, includes water supply watersheds for Hood Point, Eagle Cliff and Grafton Bay, and directly abuts Eagle Cliff residential areas and Crippen Park.
The “Mount Gardner North” BCTS block sits above Mt Gardner Road, Mt Gardner dock area, and Grafton Lake Valley, includes watersheds of Cove Bay and Endswell Farm areas and extensive recreational trails on Mt Gardner, and directly abuts Crippen Park.
The “Mount Gardner South” BCTS block sits above Bluewater, King Edward Bay, Bowen Bay, Sealeigh Park and Tunstall Bay, and includes Bluewater‐Bowen Bay‐King Edward Bay, and Tunstall Bay water supply watersheds and extensive recreational trails on Mt Gardner.
The “Radar Hill” BCTS block sits above Sunset, Fairweather, Cowan Point Estates, Cowan Point, Golf Course, and Josephine Ridge, and includes water supply watersheds for Josephine Lake and the Golf Course, completely surrounds Fairy Fen Islands Trust Fund Nature Reserve, and directly abuts residential properties at Josephine Lake, and Cowan Point Estates.
The “Cowan Point” BCTS block sits above Cowan Point Estates, Seymour Bay and the Golf Course, includes the headwaters of Lee Creek water supply. It directly abuts the Cowan Point Estates and Apodaca Mountain Ecological Reserve.
Industrial logging is common in coastal BC so it is not difficult to understand the potential impacts of this scale of logging on Bowen. Impacts are amplified because we are a small island with a myriad of land uses and environmental values that are not easily compatible with industrial logging. Many come to mind.
Any logging, and even the best logging, heavily damages the ecological functions of the cut forests. Wildlife habitat is lost. Recreational values can be compromised, or badly damaged. Road building intercepts natural runoff, focuses flow, increases erosion, and can lead to siltation in streams that affects water quality. Drinking water quality and stream habitat for fish and invertebrates can be damaged. Logging operations create noise, whether by road construction, cutting and yarding timber, or hauling, that impacts residents, visitors, recreationalists and tourism operators. Because all the proposed logging areas are on high and sloping ground, this noise will travel widely across the island. Likewise for visual impacts. Clear cuts create visual scars on landscape, and many of the logged areas will be visible from many parts
1 Page 222 of 372 of the island, and nearby waters. Logging trucks will take space on the ferry, and sometimes that will be inconvenient for us. Our island brand, so much built around being a getaway and quiet place, is at risk.
Our community does not relish such impacts and I believe will rally to oppose any commercial log harvest. Commitment to our home runs very, very deep, and the Ministry would be well advised to look to areas of lesser struggle.
Regards,
David McCullum --- Cates Hill Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
2 Page 223 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Di <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:38 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Logging on Bowen Island
Attn: Enrique Sanchez, R.P.F Planning Forester British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS) Chinook Business Area (Chilliwack) E‐mail: [email protected] Tel: 604‐702‐5748 Fax: 604‐702‐5711
Good morning Mr. Sanchez,
I am a full time resident of Bowen Island writing in opposition to the proposed logging of 1441 Ha of Crown Lands on Bowen and request a rescheduling of the public meeting on July 30th until September.
Our island is located in the middle beautiful Howe Sound, only 40 short minutes from downtown Vancouver. We are part of the Metro Vancouver Regional District and included within the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. You may or may not be aware of the relative small size of our island, at only 5260 Ha, the proposed logging would therefore effect 28% of our fragile island ecosystem and watersheds.
Ecological impacts aside one of our island's biggest industries is tourism, with over 21,000 visitors staying overnight per year as of 2013 (and growing every year). As part of Metro Parks visitors come to enjoy our pristine parklands, forests, lakes, hiking, beaches, ocean vistas and watersports. Logging healthy trees from our island would have a direct impact on tourism and those families that depend on it as their livelihoods (including myself, as an island artist).
In 2015 The Sunday Times (UK) listed Bowen Island as one of the best places to live in the world. With the rapidly increasing development of multi‐million dollar homes on the island we are already loosing some of our forests to construction, and while this is less than desirable, our community is directly benefiting from the construction of these full time and seasonal residences. The proposed logging would substantially impact these and countless other industries while not having the same value of return to our community.
My family and I will be on our pre‐booked summer vacation at the time of the meeting and are unable to attend. The short notice of the meeting and placement on a busy summer weekend is unacceptable and I request the meeting be rescheduled in the fall when a satisfactory number of residents will be available to attend.
Thank you for your time, Diana
Diana Izdebski Artist 604‐--- - www.artbydi.ca
1 Page 224 of 372
2 Page 225 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Don MacLean <---> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:40 PM To: Mayor Council Subject: Fw: Logging Bowen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
July 17/2017
By now your office must have received many letters from Bowen Islanders, opposing the logging of approximately one third of the Island. Needless to say, the numbers in this proposal are horrendous and would have an irreparable negative impact on the community. It is my impression that the logging company is not concerned with this impact, understandably, and is focused on the revenues to be gained from this operation. They are, and will be in the future, engaged in a process of minimising and rationalising the unavoidable destruction of the island. To expect them to do less would be naive and wishful thinking. Our task is to stop this proposal with absolutely no negotiated compromises.
Looking at the history of community resistance to logging in certain areas in BC makes me wonder why a company would actually try to go forward with their cutting in inappropriate areas.. It seems that dealing with the protests would be very expensive, and above all, the ‘optics’ for any company would be extremely damaging. This is not a community that would be easily circumvented.
The potential destruction of the designated areas is obvious to a five year old so I won’t spend a lot of time on reiterating. The reminder is merely this….
Wildlife habitat Elimination of water retention...resulting in runoff...Pollution of streams and wells Landslides...Lower water tables Tourism damaged significantly…..Local economics hurt There are several more…
cc* Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Forests, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations: [email protected] * Jordan Sturdy, MLA: [email protected] * Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality: [email protected] * Peter Luckham, Chair of Islands Trust: [email protected] * Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Sales: [email protected]
Don MacLean ---
1 Page 226 of 372
2 Page 227 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Edward_Wachtman <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:24 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: BOWEN ISLAND: NO INDUSTRIAL LOGGING
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
The Honourable Jordan Sturdy, MLA
Approaching Vancouver by air—the lush and pristine splendour of Bowen Island—sitting amidst the sparkling waters of Howe Sound—is a welcoming and living testimonial to “Supernatural British Colombia”. It is a striking visual image of British Columbia’s very positive and compelling multi-billion dollar message to the world.
The paragraph above is one of many reasons I am greatly concerned about the recent and shocking interest of the British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS) with the Crown Lands on Bowen Island.
Potentially 28% of Bowen Island could be industrially logged. This is an area roughly the size of three and half Stanley Parks. Even logging a significantly smaller percentage would be a devastating loss at many levels.
Provincially, imagine the damage to the “Supernatural British Columbia” brand if tourists were confronted with huge swaths of timber cuts so close to the world-class city of Vancouver. What negative impact would this have on a billion dollar brand?
Regionally, Bowen Island is—according to an exit survey conducted by Bowen’s Economic Development Committee as part of the island’s recent branding initiative—a very accessible ‘get-away’, a ‘calming haven’, an ‘oasis’ where residents of the lower mainland can escape the hustle and bustle of urban life. Visitors tell us that Bowen’s natural beauty, its peaceful quiet helps them relax and recharge; allowing them to connect—or reconnect—with matters most in their lives.
Locally, logging would pose a major disruption to Bowen Island; a small community of 3600. Bowen Islanders rely on Crown Land watersheds for clean, potable water. Many residential properties directly abut Crown Lands that may be subject to the timber cut. Bowen’s local economy is heavily reliant on tourism, which most certainly would be negatively affected by industrial logging on the island. The branding exit survey cited above showed that 76% of visitors engaged in hiking while they were here. Hiking in a clear cut is not terribly tantalizing.
1 Page 228 of 372 The Islands Trust acknowledges that islands are delicate and unique eco-systems; they need to be treated with great care. This is one reason the Islands’ Trust was created. It’s mandate:
“To preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of residents of the trust area and of the province generally, in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, other persons and organizations and the Government of British Columbia.”
Given the potential risk versus the benefits for re-introducing industrial logging on Bowen Island, the risks far outweigh the benefits
Finally—and just as importantly—the ‘consultation’ process itself is extremely flawed. The truncated timeframe on an issue so vital to the province, the region, and Bowen Island is not acceptable. Meaningful dialogue takes time. It appears the BCTS is doing all that it can to ensure the outcomes of this ‘consultation’ meet its narrowly defined bureaucratic goals and objectives. The larger social, environmental, and economic consequences be damned.
This potential risk vs. benefit of industrial logging on Bowen coupled with a flawed and time constrained ‘consultation process’ leads me to one conclusion. I will staunchly oppose any industrial logging on Bowen Island. It makes no sense economically, socially, or environmentally.
Respectfully,
Edward Wachtman
2 Page 229 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Eliza McCullum <----> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 9:14 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Concerns about Logging of Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the pending log harvest plans for the Crown land on Bowen Island. We are gravely concerned about the habitat, watershed, and community impacts of such plans, and are grateful to be consulted.
Five areas on Crown Lands are identified by BC Timber Sales (BCTS) for logging. All are on high ground, on each of the three “big bumps” of Bowen. Collectively they affect just about every part of Bowen.
The “Collins Mountain” BCTS block sits above Eagle Cliff, Hood Point and Grafton Bay, includes water supply watersheds for Hood Point, Eagle Cliff and Grafton Bay, and directly abuts Eagle Cliff residential areas and Crippen Park.
The “Mount Gardner North” BCTS block sits above Mt Gardner Road, Mt Gardner dock area, and Grafton Lake Valley, includes watersheds of Cove Bay and Endswell Farm areas and extensive recreational trails on Mt Gardner, and directly abuts Crippen Park.
The “Mount Gardner South” BCTS block sits above Bluewater, King Edward Bay, Bowen Bay, Sealeigh Park and Tunstall Bay, and includes Bluewater‐Bowen Bay‐King Edward Bay, and Tunstall Bay water supply watersheds and extensive recreational trails on Mt Gardner.
The “Radar Hill” BCTS block sits above Sunset, Fairweather, Cowan Point Estates, Cowan Point, Golf Course, and Josephine Ridge, and includes water supply watersheds for Josephine Lake and the Golf Course, completely surrounds Fairy Fen Islands Trust Fund Nature Reserve, and directly abuts residential properties at Josephine Lake, and Cowan Point Estates.
The “Cowan Point” BCTS block sits above Cowan Point Estates, Seymour Bay and the Golf Course, includes the headwaters of Lee Creek water supply. It directly abuts the Cowan Point Estates and Apodaca Mountain Ecological Reserve.
Industrial logging is common in coastal BC so it is not difficult to understand the potential impacts of this scale of logging on Bowen. Impacts are amplified because we are a small island with a myriad of land uses and environmental values that are not easily compatible with industrial logging. Many come to mind.
Any logging, and even the best logging, heavily damages the ecological functions of the cut forests. Wildlife habitat is lost. Recreational values can be compromised, or badly damaged. Road building intercepts natural runoff, focuses flow, increases erosion, and can lead to siltation in streams that affects water quality. Drinking water quality and stream habitat for fish and invertebrates can be damaged. Logging operations create noise, whether by road construction, cutting and yarding timber, or hauling, that impacts residents, visitors, recreationalists and tourism operators. Because all the proposed logging areas are on high and sloping ground, this noise will travel widely across the island. Likewise for visual impacts. Clear cuts create visual scars on landscape, and many of the logged areas will be visible from many parts
1 Page 230 of 372 of the island, and nearby waters. Logging trucks will take space on the ferry, and sometimes that will be inconvenient for us. Our island brand, so much built around being a getaway and quiet place, is at risk.
Our community does not relish such impacts and I believe will rally to oppose any commercial log harvest. Commitment to our home runs very, very deep, and the Ministry would be well advised to look to areas of lesser struggle.
Regards,
Eliza McCullum --- Cates Hill Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
2 Page 231 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Emily Erickson McCullum <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:42 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: David McCullum Subject: Concerns about logging of Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the pending log harvest plans for the Crown land on Bowen Island. We are gravely concerned about the habitat, watershed, and community impacts of such plans, and are grateful to be consulted.
Five areas on Crown Lands are identified by BC Timber Sales (BCTS) for logging. All are on high ground, on each of the three “big bumps” of Bowen. Collectively they affect just about every part of Bowen.
The “Collins Mountain” BCTS block sits above Eagle Cliff, Hood Point and Grafton Bay, includes water supply watersheds for Hood Point, Eagle Cliff and Grafton Bay, and directly abuts Eagle Cliff residential areas and Crippen Park.
The “Mount Gardner North” BCTS block sits above Mt Gardner Road, Mt Gardner dock area, and Grafton Lake Valley, includes watersheds of Cove Bay and Endswell Farm areas and extensive recreational trails on Mt Gardner, and directly abuts Crippen Park.
The “Mount Gardner South” BCTS block sits above Bluewater, King Edward Bay, Bowen Bay, Sealeigh Park and Tunstall Bay, and includes Bluewater‐Bowen Bay‐King Edward Bay, and Tunstall Bay water supply watersheds and extensive recreational trails on Mt Gardner.
The “Radar Hill” BCTS block sits above Sunset, Fairweather, Cowan Point Estates, Cowan Point, Golf Course, and Josephine Ridge, and includes water supply watersheds for Josephine Lake and the Golf Course, completely surrounds Fairy Fen Islands Trust Fund Nature Reserve, and directly abuts residential properties at Josephine Lake, and Cowan Point Estates.
The “Cowan Point” BCTS block sits above Cowan Point Estates, Seymour Bay and the Golf Course, includes the headwaters of Lee Creek water supply. It directly abuts the Cowan Point Estates and Apodaca Mountain Ecological Reserve.
Industrial logging is common in coastal BC so it is not difficult to understand the potential impacts of this scale of logging on Bowen. Impacts are amplified because we are a small island with a myriad of land uses and environmental values that are not easily compatible with industrial logging. Many come to mind.
Any logging, and even the best logging, heavily damages the ecological functions of the cut forests. Wildlife habitat is lost. Recreational values can be compromised, or badly damaged. Road building intercepts natural runoff, focuses flow, increases erosion, and can lead to siltation in streams that affects water quality. Drinking water quality and stream habitat for fish and invertebrates can be damaged. Logging operations create noise, whether by road construction, cutting and yarding timber, or hauling, that impacts residents, visitors, recreationalists and tourism operators. Because all the proposed logging areas are on high and sloping ground, this noise will travel widely across the island. Likewise for visual impacts. Clear cuts create visual scars on landscape, and many of the logged areas will be visible from many parts
1 Page 232 of 372 of the island, and nearby waters. Logging trucks will take space on the ferry, and sometimes that will be inconvenient for us. Our island brand, so much built around being a getaway and quiet place, is at risk.
Our community does not relish such impacts and I believe will rally to oppose any commercial log harvest. Commitment to our home runs very, very deep, and the Ministry would be well advised to look to areas of lesser struggle.
Regards,
Emily McCullum --- Cates Hill Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
2 Page 233 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Emily and Markus <---> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:10 PM To: [email protected]; Mayor Council Subject: BC Timber Sales logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I wish to clearly and uniquivocally state my opposition to any logging on Bowen Island. I have been leading ecology outings on Bowen Island for many years, am very aware of the ecology of the areas BCTS plans to log, and know that even if these areas didn't include watersheds used for human consumption, they also include rich habitat for various indiginous BC species, some of which are threatened. I grew up on this island, and over the past forty years have watched much development happen, here. Luckily we do still have some green space, and we'd like to preserve what little we have left. BCTS' plan involves removing the trees from over 1/4 of the island ‐ most of our remaining green space. This is absolutely unacceptable, both from a cultural and ecological standpoint.
It is a waste of your money and resources to even be looking into this plan. Since BCTS is a government company, I am ashamed that my provincial government would support it. BC has a history of ecological devastation, and an international reputation to match. Now we have an opportunity to be a leader in such matters. Please discard these plans.
Sincerely,
Emily van Lidth de Jeude
Bowen Island, BC
1 Page 234 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Jen Lundin Ritchie <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:06 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: BCTS logging proposal on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez,
It was with shock and dismay that I heard about BCTS’ Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan 643 for Bowen Island. I read the notice in The Undercurrent, as well as your letter to Hope Dallas, and attended a municipal council meeting, where Sue Ellen Fast reported on her meeting with you.
I can scarcely believe that anyone would consider logging viable on Bowen Island in this day and age. Sue Ellen Fast was surprised that you didn’t “get the message” from your meeting with her, so I am writing to confirm that Bowen Island residents are STRONGLY OPPOSED to commercial logging on Bowen.
There are several reasons why the idea of commercial logging on Bowen just doesn’t make sense.
1. It is counterproductive for island revenue:
First, Bowen’s main industry is tourism. People come to Bowen island not for our non-existent nightlife, but because it is a wilderness playground. They hike, mountainbike, mountain-climb, and ride horses in our forests, and deepsea dive, sail, and kayak around our shores. We host a “destination” half-marathon, the West Coast’s biggest kayak race, and one of the coast’s largest single-start sailing races. Mt. Gardner hiking is a common day-trip from Vancouver. The trail network there has been recently upgraded and it is already in the process of being declared a recreation area under Sec 56 of the Crown Act.
Tourist season brings thousands of visitors, and an additional 1500 residents (mostly in tourism-based jobs). When the tourists come, the local businesses thrive. Many island businesses are only viable during the tourist season. Who will come to Bowen if Mt Gardner is logged? What kind of nature playground will we look like, from the ferry, or from the tourist hub of Artisan Square, if the lush forest of Mt Collins is stripped bare? How many people are going to want to play golf beside a noisy eyesore of a logging operation?
1 Page 235 of 372 The amount of money that could be produced from logging these areas in no way off-sets the losses that Bowen would suffer in tourism dollars. Certainly the annual $1500 revenue in stumpage fees (based on a similar proposal that was recently defeated on Gambier Island) is a laughable compensation. Although logging was common 100 years ago, today we have no local timber companies nor a need for these jobs. We already have zero unemployment: everyone who wants a job can easily get one, and often our job postings sit open for lack of applicants. Many of us are retired.
2. It greatly reduces our quality of life:
Commercial logging goes counter to “who we are” and what we value. I wonder if, because we are often lumped together with West Vancouver, that perhaps you don’t understand who we are here on Bowen Island. A great number of our 3680 residents live on Bowen precisely because of its forests. We are artists and educators. The island voted Green in the last election. We love to be away from the rush of the city, wake up to tree-covered mountains, waves lapping on beaches, and songbirds calling out the day. We love to “get lost” in Fairy Fen, hike up the lesser-known trails of Mt Collins and the Apodaca eco-reserve, and get together in volunteer groups to create community gardens and release salmon into streams.
What kind of quality of life will we have if we have to listen to chainsaws and chippers, 1000 logging trucks per day (calculated from your proposed harvest of 8288 cu metres a year) and/or the equivalent of helicopters? What kind of quality of life will we have, looking at bare mountainsides, no longer suitable for hiking or riding?
We greatly value our natural habitat, and we will fight to protect it. Many people are already planning to lay down in front of machinery, if it comes to that. I sincerely hope things don't have to get that far, which is why I am writing to you now.
3. It is harmful to island infrastructure:
What kind of quality of life will we have fighting with 1000 logging trucks on our already overloaded ferry system? This is more than just adding 1000 more “vehicles” per year, since a logging truck will take the place of several cars. Will BCTS be able to guarantee more sailings? This is more than just a matter of convenience, since many of our residents’ livelihoods depend on the ferry system.
We will need to repair all the local roads affected by the logging. Heavy logging trucks and machinery create a harder toll on asphalt than residential vehicles. Plus, they will be driving the same sections over and over, 2 Page 236 of 372 further weakening the roads. That costs money. Money that the municipality could otherwise spend on things that the island values.
Hiking trails will be destroyed and in need of repair -- or made moot -- by this logging. Trail systems will be disrupted and need to be rebuilt or rerouted. There has been a recent movement to make our trail system even MORE comprehensive than ever before, so there will be a lot of resistance to these efforts being pushed in the opposite direction.
If heli-logging is used, debris will need to be cleared from our shores. As an island, many of our residents are dependent on boats. Plus, as mentioned above, our tourism industry is in great part boat-dependent. Logging will add deadheads and other hazards to our surrounding oceans and bays. They will also clog up our beaches.
Our resources are better spent on projects that matter to our residents, rather than “cleaning up” the extensive infrastructure damage produced by unwanted logging ventures.
4. It is harmful to the environment:
I have not even begun to discuss the environmental impacts. These are very disturbing. Our wildlife will be displaced, and the wildlife corridors put in jeopardy. This not only affects the loss of their habitat, but also the loss of their food and water supplies, which will put more wild animals into our residential neighborhoods and onto our roads, where they can create damage and be put in harm’s way.
We also have several rare species of plants and animals that could be destroyed. Some species, like the velvet- leaf blueberry, are so rare in this area that we are the only location it grows among all the Island Trusts. Others, like the medicinally active Agarikon fungus, are now so rare on the planet that it took decades to locate any in their last bastion on earth: here on the Pacific Northwest coast. Yes, Bowen has some! Those are to just mention a couple of the several rare and nearly-extinct species we host here in our forests.
As for the ocean impacts, heli-logging would affect salmon runs, seals and sea lions, and orcas. Last year, Bowen had a record-breaking salmon run, because of our great investments of time and money into salmon enhancement and conservation (an astounding 95% of our fry survive). This includes creating a suitable habitat. Dumping logs into our seashore areas could easily undo those efforts. Furthermore, without salmon to feed on, our resident orcas would suffer. Bowen is also known for its abundance of marine mammals, especially orcas. Besides the disruption in the food chain, the noise and impacts of dropping logs into the water would surely cause these mammals to steer clear.
3 Page 237 of 372 5. It puts our fresh water supply into jeopardy:
One of the biggest hazards of commercial logging is to our water. The water tables will be compromised. The island is already in a precarious position when it comes to potable water. We cannot afford to damage them. Your proposal shows numerous watersheds that will be affected.
I could go on and on, but I hope that I have given you a taste of what is at stake here for us residents, and how vital these forests are to our daily existence. I think you might be surprised at the level of resistance you will encounter here.
I hope you will reconsider your plan to implement commercial logging here on Bowen.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Lundin Ritchie
4 Page 238 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Jenny Freeman <----> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 3:58 PM To: Mayor Council Subject: Bowen Island - Industrial logging opposition.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
To the Mayor and Council of Bowen Island,
I am writing a letter of concern to you regarding the proposed logging on Bowen Island.
To my dismay, I have recently heard the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) has decided to pursue industrial logging of five areas in the Crown Lands on Bowen Island. I am a concerned resident of this island.
The areas open for logging are looking to total 20‐25% of the island. I'm sure you will understand this will have a significant impact on every part of this island within beautiful Howe Sound. Areas of impact include: ‐ Watersheds ‐ residents are reliant on well water and lake water. ‐ Residential areas ‐ may be at risk of mudslides and flooding. ‐ Parks and Nature Reserves with rare plant life. ‐ Extensive recreational trails.
Our island relies on tourism, and also a balance between nature, residents, and small businesses. The logging will leave a visible scar that will be seen by residents and BC tourists. The scar will be visible from the Lower Mainland, on the Sea to Sky highway, cruise ships, and BC Ferries.
Industrial logging does not fit Bowen Island. It will compromise our economy, values, quality of life, and environmental values of this community.
In summary, I am writing this letter in the hope that you can change the course of the FLNRO logging proposal.
We do not want this logging. We are very passionate about opposing it.
I have also sent a similar letter to the Minister of the FLNRO, Pamela Goldsmith‐Jones MP, MLA Jordan Sturdy, and Peter Luckham who is the Chair of the Islands trust.
Thank you for your time
Jenny Freeman.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Jenny Freeman --- Hillcrest street Bowen Island BC, V0N 1G1
1 Page 239 of 372 16th July 2017
2 Page 240 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: John Dowler <-> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:03 AM To: Mayor Council Cc: Kathy Lalonde Subject: Thanks to Council for clear stand on logging
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Mayor and Council
I want to say how appreciative I am with Council’s immediate reaction to the BCTS logging process at the Council meeting last week. You made it easy for people to be heard, responded to concerns, had your own convictions on display, and gave a strong impression of unity.
I know it will be a long haul, and the result is far from clear, but I think we have strong leadership and community support. I believe that in the end we’ll prevail, but that we can’t for a moment underestimate the threat facing our forests.
Thank you John Dowler
1 Page 241 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Josh Mepham <----> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:33 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Bowen Island Logging
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
To the Honourable John Rustad,
I can only imagine the deluge of emails coming your way from Bowen Islanders following the announcement of BCTS' intentions to award logging contracts on Bowen Island's crown lands. Your inbox is going to be getting a workout over the coming days I'm sure!
I'm a born and raised British Columbian from Vancouver Island and I appreciate fully that logging is a vital industry in B.C. In fact, my father worked in the logging industry many years ago, but the province's plans to log Bowen Island is shortsighted and misguided at best. To put it simply, industrial logging does not fit Bowen Island; it does not make sense to compromise the economy, values, quality of life and environmental attributes of this community for relatively modest revenues to the Provincial coffers. Bowen Island is a sanctuary that prides itself on its beauty and natural gifts. The idea of cutting down up to 28% of that is not something we are taking lightly. Bowen Islanders are a proud and passionate group that will do everything in our power to protect out island and its sensitive resources from the potentially destructive repercussions of logging. The rushed nature of the initial public consultation meetings on this operation is a very poor start to this process and will only prove to enrage an already very leery population here on Bowen. I hope you and BCTS will do the right thing here and give serious thought to the real impacts of logging on Bowen Island. We look forward to an open and honest discourse on the subject. best, Josh Mepham
1 Page 242 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Julie Vik <----> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:50 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: Chinook BCTS proposal for Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez,
I write this letter with a degree of emergency regarding BCTS proposal to log on Bowen Island crown lands, and more specifically, your rushed deadline of September 6th for an initial stage one Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP).
The community was made aware of your proposal only this past week via advertisement in the July 7th edition of our local paper, The Undercurrent. This leaves us with one day short of two months to provide you with community feedback.
My initial, and understandably rushed, reading of BCTS procedure in applying for a logging lease requires that all watersheds, trails, recreational/scenic areas be received FOUR months prior to the FSP submission.
You have provided a map which appears to be sorely out of date, neglecting a complete picture of watersheds and recreational areas.
Please let me know if this false information is what you plan on submitting in your FSP. Also, please let me know why you have decided to submit now when it is clear that a FOUR month period for consultation is impossible.
Please respond with the same haste you have shown to our community.
Julie Vik Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2
Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 Page 243 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Kathryn Wasylik <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:12 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Attn: Enrique Sanchez, R.P.F Planning Forester British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS) Chinook Business Area (Chilliwack) E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 604-702-5748 Fax: 604-702-5711
Good morning Mr. Sanchez,
I am frequent visitor to Bowen Island writing in opposition to the proposed logging of 1441 Ha of Crown Lands on Bowen and request a rescheduling of the public meeting on July 30th until September 2017.
Bowen Island is located in the middle beautiful Howe Sound, only 40 short minutes from downtown Vancouver. They are part of the Metro Vancouver Regional District and included within the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. You may or may not be aware of the relative small size of the island, at only 5260 Ha, the proposed logging would therefore effect 28% of of the fragile island ecosystem and watersheds; irreplaceable environments for which I travel to Bowen Island specifically to enjoy.
Ecological impacts aside one of ther island's biggest industries is tourism, with over 21,000 visitors staying overnight per year as of 2013 (and growing every year). As part of Metro Parks visitors come to enjoy our pristine parklands, forests, lakes, hiking, beaches, ocean vistas and watersports. Logging healthy trees from the island would have a direct impact on tourism and those families that depend on it as their livelihoods.
In 2015 The Sunday Times (UK) listed Bowen Island as one of the best places to live in the world. With the rapidly increasing development of multi-million dollar homes on the island, Bowen is already losing some of it’s forests to construction, and while this is less than desirable, the local community is directly benefiting from the construction of these full time and seasonal residences. The proposed logging would substantially impact these and countless other industries while not having the same value of return to the community.
My family and I will be on our pre-booked summer vacation at the time of the meeting and are unable to attend. The short notice of the meeting and placement on a busy summer weekend is unacceptable and I request the meeting be rescheduled in the fall when a satisfactory number of residents will be available to attend.
Sincerely,
1 Page 244 of 372 Kathryn Wasylik
778----
2 Page 245 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Katie Cooke <---> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 8:46 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Timber Harvesting on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
My name is Katie Cooke and I am a resident and home owner on Bowen Island. I am a mother of two young children and a teacher at the Bowen Island Community School. I recently learned that BC Timber Sales (BCTS) in Chilliwack, BC has access to parcels of Crown Land on Bowen and is interested in harvesting trees on that land. Like many residents of Bowen Island, I was shocked to learn that BCTS has access to 1400 hectares of forest on our island and is currently making plans to harvest that forest. Bowen Island is the WRONG place to harvest trees for commercial purposes. Most of the residents on this island are here because of the unique ecosystem, the west coast forests and oceans. Our children walk through these forests daily and one of the things that make Boweners unique is our connection to the land and nature that surrounds us. As an educator at the Bowen Island Community School, one of my roles is to take over 150 children into the forest every week - that is half the school. By returning to the forest regularly, the children have become experts about the land that surrounds them and this connection to the land has promoted a sense of ownership and responsibility among our youngest residents on the island. The children of Bowen, just like the adults, have such a deep connection to nature here that we all work together to protect our pristine island - an island that we will all fight for if someone or something threatens it's environment. Timber harvesting, or logging, on Bowen Island threatens our ecosystem, our watersheds, our bogs, streams, rivers and lakes, our animals and their habitats, and tourism. But most of all, it threatens our way of life and our reason for choosing to live here.
NO to timber harvesting on Bowen Island.
Sincerely, Katie Cooke
1 Page 246 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Leah Walker <---> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 12:32 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Strong Opposition to Logging Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Honourable elected members, officials and stewards of our peoples and land,
As a community member of Nexwlexm (Bowen Island), I am dismayed to hear that a timber license has been granted to log parcels of Bowen Island.
Logging on a commercial scale cannot happen here for a number of reasons including harm to wildlife, habitat, our water systems and watersheds, ecological and economic values. We are a small island with a growing population. Many of us have traversed the back woods and forests, leaned against the trees, picked wild berries, watched squirrels and other wildlife forage food, listened to the birds converse. We live here for the intact ecosystems that support our physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing.
Logging would disrupt that in irreparable ways. I don't believe I am speaking dramatically when I express concern over the scarred landscapes, wrecked habitats, noise, pollution, silted watersheds, and increased industrial traffic that logging would bring to and overwhelm our small island. Others in our community can speak to the ways it would harm the economy as Bowen continues to provide a haven for Bowen Islanders, tourists and others seeking a natural respite from an increasingly crowded and urban environment.
The forests are our medicine. Please help us in protecting this land and forests on this beautiful island for current and future generations.
All my relations Leah May Walker --- Lenora Road, Bowen Island, BC ---
1 Page 247 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: lidia patriasz <---> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:20 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: logging on Bowen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Sirs, WE are writing to you because we are very worried about the proposed logging on Bowen Island's crown lands. We believe that this would adversely affect life on our small island. We think it would be detrimental to our watersheds,and will also increase the danger of flooding and forest fires. Bowen is a highly populated island , with a history of protecting and preserving the island's natural spaces. The last large scale logging on island ,logging truck traffic across the island and on the ferry was very disruptive to residents. We urge you to recommend that Bowen Island should not be logged. Our visitors come here to enjoy the many areas covered by mature forests, close to Vancouver. We believe this is of much more benefit than the monetary value of logging these forests, thanks for your consideration, Lidia Patriasz and Ralph Fleming.
1 Page 248 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Mark Edmonds <---> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 8:38 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Opposition to logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
I would to voice my opposition to the proposed logging on Bowen Island. There are many reasons for my opposition.
First is the devastating environmental effects that logging, in any form, will have on the watersheds and forest ecologies of the island. Everything from increased run-off, increased sedimentation, to loss of habitat will have a huge negative impact on the overall health of Bowen Island. This is not an island of limitless raw resources- it is an island already struggling with population increase and development leading loss of natural spaces and the important roles they play in preserving our unique island environment. Bowen Island is a Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Variant zone within the Coastal Douglas- fir and Associated Ecosystems Conversation Partnership Boundary; as identified by the Island's Trust Fund. As such this is an area which should not just be protected but steps taken to ensure it's survival and growth- certainly not logged.
Second is the fact that Bowen Island's economy is not based upon resource extraction but largely based on eco- tourism. Not only will Bowen residents not benefit from logging operations, many businesses will suffer lost revenue from the loss of natural spaces and the the major disruptions of the logging itself.
Third- water retention. Bowen Island's water table and reservoirs would greatly be reduced by logging. With increased run- off and degradation of forests to retain water, our water supply will heavily impacted. We have already seen water shortages and with the threat of global climate change, logging will only exasperate this problem.
Finally, I would like to express my disappointment on the public consultation process. With such a short time frame for public comment and response from the municipality, there is little opportunity for the public to be able to make informed decisions.
You have to be more careful with an island, Mark Edmonds
1 Page 249 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Mary Lynn Machado <---> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 12:16 PM To: Mayor Council Cc: [email protected] Subject: Proposed logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am a resident of Bowen Island, BC and am writing to you to express my disapproval regarding the proposed logging on Bowen by BC Timber Sales. Bowen is a small, community, where logging would not only affect our island identity but would also create numerous terrible side effects.
Any logging, and even the best logging, heavily damages the ecological functions of the cut forests. Wildlife habitat is lost. Recreational values can be compromised, or badly damaged. Road building intercepts natural runoff, focuses flow, increases erosion, and can lead to siltation in streams that affects water quality. Drinking water quality and stream habitat for fish and invertebrates can be damaged.
Logging operations create noise, whether by road construction, cutting and yarding timber, or hauling, that impacts residents, visitors, recreationalists and tourism operators.
Because all the proposed logging areas are on high and sloping ground, this noise will travel widely across the island. Likewise for visual impacts.
Clear cuts create visual scars on landscape, and many of the logged areas will be visible from many parts of the island, and nearby waters. Logging trucks will take space on the ferry, and sometimes that will be inconvenient for us. Our island brand, so much built around being a get-away and quiet place, is at risk.
I do not support ANY logging on Bowen Island.
Mary Lynn Machado
Resident of Bowen Island, BC.
1 Page 250 of 372
July 18, 2017
The Honourable Doug Donaldson, MLA Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development P.O. Box 9049, Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Re: Concerns regarding potential for industrial logging on Bowen Island under draft FSP 643 – Salish FDU
Dear Minister:
Congratulations on your appointment as Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.
As a resident of Bowen Island, I am writing to express concern about the possibility of industrial logging on the island under draft Forest Stewardship Plan 643 for the Chilliwack Natural Resource District. Stated simply, Bowen Island is not a suitable place for industrial logging. I ask you to intervene with BCTS to have Bowen Island removed from draft FSP 643.
I have perused the draft FSP 643 documents that have been published by BCTS for consultation (https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/TCH/external/!publish/FSP/Chilliwack/FSP_643/).
Referring to the Backgrounder, “planning and consultation play a major role in Chinook’s business practices”. The 60-day consultation period on the FSP does not seem adequate in the Bowen Island context. I had difficulty understanding the implications of the draft FSP for the Salish FDU on Bowen. There appears to be little information in the plan relating to this FDU, compared to others in the region covered by the draft FSP. It is worth noting in this context that I hold a Master of Science degree in protected area management. If I cannot understand the proposition that I am being asked to comment on from reading these documents, is it reasonable to expect community members who do not have land management training or experience, in an area with no recent history of logging, to understand the implications of the FSP, form an opinion and comment within a 60-day period?
Nevertheless, despite concerns about the consultation, I would like to offer the following initial comments on the documents. I will largely confine my comments to the Salish FDU area around Mount Collins, as this is the area with which I am most familiar, but similar concerns would apply across the FDU areas on Bowen.
It appears from the documents and from information provided to the Bowen Island municipality by BCTS that the Salish Forest Development Unit (FDU) areas cover more than 25% of the Bowen Island area. I am puzzled by the decision to include
Page 251 of 372 Bowen at all in draft FSP 643, because it does not appear to have been included in the mapping of FDUs in the recently expired FSP for the Chilliwack Natural Resource District (https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/tch/external/!publish/FSP/Chilliwack/BCTS_DCK_ FSP.pdf).
From the Backgrounder: "These forestry activities provide economic benefits to local businesses through the purchase of goods and services. Timber sales support communities by making wood available to loggers, wood processors and other forestry businesses of varying size, including major licensees. BCTS contracts annually with local and regional suppliers for forestry work, road and bridge construction, and reforestation activities.”
I am sceptical about the economic benefits that would be provided by logging on Bowen. As far as I am aware, we do not have any local logging companies on the island. It is also worth noting that local skilled trades with whom we have been doing business for household and garden renovations tend to have waiting lists to begin projects, and in many cases Bowen residents are forced to hire skilled trades from the mainland. This suggests to me that significant economic benefits of any logging on Bowen would be transferred off-island - and indeed, demand for labour for logging activities might worsen delays for Bowen residents trying to complete projects requiring skilled trades.
Far from providing economic benefit to the community, I am concerned that the local economy would be negatively impacted by logging. Many local businesses focus on arts and crafts, health and wellness, hospitality and outdoor pursuits. Tourism is a major source of income for the community. Bowen is marketed as an idyllic destination, quiet and alluring, a welcome escape from the stresses of city life. It is one of the most accessible outdoor destinations for Vancouver residents, being easily reached by public transit at an affordable cost. Our overnight tourism guests are seeking a peaceful getaway, and offerings include activities such as yoga and spiritual retreats. It seems to me that this kind of economic activity could be devastated by industrial logging.
A further economic consideration is potential loss of property value for neighbours who are closest to the FDU areas - and the consequent loss of tax income for the municipality.
According the Backgrounder, “safety is an overriding principle of BC Timber Sales”. We live in the Seven Hills area, off the main road to the Mount Collins area. This is a narrow, steeply-sloping and twisting road lined with relatively dense residential development, at a walkable distance from Snug Cove. To the natural hazards of the road itself can be added an hourly rush of ferry traffic, hikers, locals and tourists on bikes and scooters, children at play, wandering dogs, cats and chickens, and a large population of deer. The consequences of adding industrial logging traffic to this mix are frankly unthinkable.
Page 252 of 372
According to the Brochure, "the results and/or strategies in FSPs must be consistent with government objectives, which address values such as cultural heritage resources, soils, water, fish, wildlife, biodiversity, timber, forage, recreation, resource features, and visual quality.”
If our uplands are logged, I am concerned for the water supply of neighbours relying on wells and catchments impacted by the FDUs. The possibility of landslides is also a grave concern.
Living close to one of the trailheads, I can affirm that the Mount Collins area has well-established hiking trails. As yet these trails are not well-mapped, and there is no mention of them in the draft FSP. Without access to the technical specifications for trail recognition under an FSP, it seems to me that descriptions of the trails that are already designated in the draft could equally well apply to the Mount Collins trails ("semi-primitive non-roaded, nonmotorized, hiking recreation experience… from which there are spectacular views”).
Regarding visual quality, it is a puzzling omission that neither Bowen nor the Salish FDU appears to be mentioned in Appendix 5.5 of the FSP, which refers to scenic areas and viewsheds, given that the island falls under the Islands Trust, is a notable tourist attraction, and is part of the Sea to Sky Highway viewshed. The Salish FDU areas appear to fall in the higher reaches of the island. Any significant logging in these areas is likely to be highly visible from Vancouver, West Vancouver, the Sea- to-Sky Highway and the Sunshine Coast. If so, it would be visible to a large number of regional residents, potentially affecting property values where the view is part of the property premium. It would be visible to an enormous number of tourists, once again potentially impacting Bowen’s own tourism revenues, but also damaging the reputation of the province as a green destination. It would also be visible to the many residents of the region who care strongly about the environment. Bowen is readily accessible by public transit from Vancouver - including for environmental activists. Industrial logging activity on Bowen could become a flashpoint, creating reputational risk for BCTS and for the province.
Logging is not part of the contemporary culture on Bowen. It is true that we hold a Logger Sports event, but this does not equate to support for industrial logging. It is important to understand that in this small community, people tend to turn out in large numbers to support local events of all kinds. This is not indicative of anything other than the fact that Bowen is a small island community, and we have to make our own entertainment. I myself attended the Logger Sports event, to cheer on our household contractors – but I disagree strongly with the idea of industrial logging on Bowen.
Many Bowen residents are angry, confused and anxious about what the FSP means for the island, and to what extent they have a say in the outcome. For all the reasons
Page 253 of 372 outlined above, I ask you to intervene with BCTS to have Bowen Island removed from draft FSP 643.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,
Michelle de Cordova Scarborough Road, Bowen Island, V0N 1G1 778h [email protected] --- CC:--- The Honourable George Heyman, MLA, Minister for Environment and Climate Change Strategy Mr. Jordan Sturdy, MLA Mr. Andrew Weaver, MLA Ms. Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, MP Mayor & Council, Bowen Island Municipality Mr. Peter Luckham, Trust Council Chair, Islands Trust Mr. Neil Carley, General Manager, Parks, Planning and Environment, Metro Vancouver Mr. Mike Falkiner, Executive Director, BCTS Mr. Enrique Sanchez, Planning Forester, Chinook Business Area
Page 254 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Neil Hammond <---> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 3:35 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council; [email protected] Subject: Proposed logging on crown lands on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
TO:
Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Sales: Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Forests, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations Jordan Sturdy, MLA CC: Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality Peter Luckham, Chair of Islands Trust: [email protected]
I am writing with deep concern about the proposed logging on Bowen Island.
Please be under no delusion that temporary logging will any way help Bowen's economy. Quite the opposite, it would be disastrous.
Bowen's core economy is based on 3 sustainable factors in delicate balance:
1) Retail: All retail on Bowen is based on the strong business in tourist season helping them to stay open year round. Our draw is entirely predicated on our reputation for being a forested outdoorsy getaway.
Having unavoidably visible logged areas will ruin the significant and successful efforts of Bowen island municipality and volunteer groups to forge a strong island identify predicated on being a quiet unspoilt, nature- based get away for tourists which has successfully managed to boost our island ecomomy and provide work for shops, artisans, kitchen / wait staff, B+Bs and other recreation-based businesses.
2) Construction: House building on Bowen is again aimed and marketed on the idea of creating quiet communities surrounded by nature. Clear cutting on Bowen will ruin this.
3) Working residents: People who either work in Vancouver during the weekdays and who live on Bowen just because it is relatively unspoilt, and or people who work remotely or run businesses from home precisely because they want to live in a rural, unspoilt quiet place. If we start to lose this part of the community , you devastate the already precarious balance of the retail and construction sectors.
The best use of OUR crown lands to help us preserve the fragile sustainability of our community is to keep them preserved so that residents and visitors to the larger area can enjoy them. I am sure that there are extensive crown lands elsewhere than can be logged far away from bustling and populated tourist-dependent communities like Bowen.
1 Page 255 of 372 I would also like to urge the proposed public consultation scheduled this summer be postponed until the Fall when most residents may be back from vacation time.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Hammond --- Adams Road Bowen Island, V0N1G2
Neil Hammond
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Cell: (+1) 604 ------Email: Main Site: www.learnbase.com Skype neilalexhammond
2 Page 256 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: NICOLE GIBSON <---> Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:25 PM To: Mayor Council Subject: Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor Council and Bowen Island Municipality,
I am writing to you to urge you to reconsider the decision to log on Bowen Island. The residents of Bowen are fiercely loyal to the nature and wildlife on our island and the delicate eco system that is held in its balance. By continuing forward with this plan this ecosystem would be put at risk which would be detrimental. Furthermore the tourism that this nature brings, which countless islanders count on their livelihoods for, would also be impacted by this decision. Our roads are also not designed for huge logging trucks, they are very narrow which causes large safety concerns for all drivers on the island. This would also cause mass ferry overloads making life on the island very difficult and disrupted. Please re-consider this decision.
Thank you for your time, Nicole Gibson
1 Page 257 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Becca Laursen <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 6:28 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: No timber sales on Bowen island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
We won't mince words, the people of Bowen Island (ie. Property owners, tax payers, children who are growing up here, workers, seniors, politicians) DO NOT want bc timber sales, nor anyone else, setting foot on our crown lands.
This small island does not need the industry or any potential revenue from this venture. Logging this small island should not be considered. The community has spoken, and all groups involved agree, this venture goes against everything we stand for. We are a community dependent upon tourism dollars and the majority of our tourists come to enjoy our wilderness and what it offers.
BC Timber Sales needs to listen to us. We are clear...logging this island and our small ecosystems are not an option.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Laursen and Andreas Behm Long time residents and property owners
1 Page 258 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Rebecca Lyne <---> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:03 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: "timber harvest" on Bowen island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Please accept this letter as strong opposition to your plans for timber harvest on our small island.
Our community and leadership do not support this plan.
Thanks,
Rebecca
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." ‐ Mahatma Gandhi
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it." ‐ Pope Francis
1 Page 259 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Rebecca Tunnacliffe <---> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:48 AM To: Mayor Council Subject: Timber Sales on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality.
Thank you for your work to bring to our attention the issue of timber sales on our beloved Island. As a resident of over 25 years, I am very upset about the vast change the removal of trees from 28% of land will have on we humans and the biosphere the plants, animals, and birds abound in.
Please continue to do all you can to halt the removal of trees. It will have an anticipated effect of upsetting the quiet our island, increasing traffic on our roads and ferry, and of course changing the landscape forever.
For our home one of the lots is too close for comfort; we would have to leave our wooded home for a living space that would put us back into forest. I know most of my fellow-residents feel the same way.
Thanks for your help to preserve what we’ve all come here to enjoy.
Rebecca Tunnacliffe ------Creek Road, Bowen Island.
1 Page 260 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: sam nosek <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 3:47 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council Subject: Logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Enrique,
I understand you are exploring commercial logging on Bowen Island. I am writing you to inform you of my opposition to this idea. I am a lifelong resident of Bowen and I can tell you that this type of industrial development is the wrong direction for our community. Myself and the vast majority of others who live on this island are motivated to maintain the natural assets in their current condition. We rely on the beautiful scenery, trails and natural environment in general to support our growing tourism and wellness based economy. I am concerned for the watersheds and habitats of our non human residents of the island as well.
Just because you may have the opportunity and rights to explore this doesn't make it right. I do support a sustainable and healthy forestry industry in British Columbia and I know a lot of other communities would welcome this type of development; but Bowen is not one of them. We have a different vision for our community and I ask you to respect that.
Sincerely,
Sam Nosek --- Harding Road, Bowen Island BC V0N 1G2 604 ----
1 Page 261 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Dr. Shahar Rabi <---> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 9:19 PM To: Mayor Council Subject: Clear cutting!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor and council,
I am ready to help in any possible way to prevent this from happening!
This will be such a blow to our small island. Please let me know how I can assist this case.
I am sure there are a lot of commit, smart and capable people who are working hard to prevent this from happening, AND I believe that in cases like this, any additional help can enhance our chances.
Warmly, Shahar
Dr. Shahar Rabi PhD, .MEd,. MA, RCC
Psychotherapist & Registered Clinical Counsellor
Director of Education and counselling New Earth Institute W: www.newearthinstitute.com E: --- T: +1-604----
1 Page 262 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Sheree Johnson <---> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 12:28 PM To: Mayor Council Cc: [email protected] Subject: Proposed Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) number 643 Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.pdf; BCTS Sanchez June 14.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
For your records, I have sent the letter below to the following individuals:
John Rustad, Minister of Forests, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations Jordan Sturdy, MLA Peter Luckham, Chair of Islands Trust John Horgan, Opposition Leader Andrew Weaver, Green Party leader Harry Bains, NDP Forestry Critic George Heyman, NDP Environment Critic Marsha Walden, CEO, Destination BC Ty Speer, President & CEO, Tourism Vancouver Neal Carley, General Manager, Parks, Planning and Environment, Metro Vancouver Jason Fisher, Associate Deputy Minister, Forest Sector, FLNRO Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, MP, West Vancouver, Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country
**********
Community, Peaceful, Beautiful, Nature, Quiet. These are the top five words that residents and visitors used to describe Bowen Island in a 2014-15 survey for the Bowen Island Municipality Economic Development Committee.
In this survey, Bowen Island is described as a sanctuary, a haven, an oasis; a calming escape for lower mainlanders from the hustle and bustle of urban life. Over three-quarters of visitors come to hike in our forests. Almost half of visitors say they come to “do nothing in particular; just relax.”
When international visitors fly into Vancouver, they approach the province’s world-class city by first flying over Bowen Island, a natural jewel surrounded by the spectacular beauty of Howe Sound.
Recently, Bowen Islanders have been surprised and shocked with the prospect of having 28% of the island logged by British Columbia Timber Sales. The area under consideration is three and a half times the size of Stanley Park. This would be a devastating loss to a small community of 3600 that heavily depends on the beauty and peace of our natural setting to draw residents and visitors.
This logging plan would be bad for Bowen, bad for the lower mainland and bad for the province. The scar on the front door of Super, Natural British Columbia would be a visible travesty for the province. The damage to the brand and the economic value of an intact island ecosystem will not be matched by the meagre stumpage fees going to the province.
Islands, by their very nature, are unique and fragile eco-systems. And as such, need to be treated with great care. Please help us be excluded from the logging inventory. We believe our first step is to delay the process as we have not been given a reasonable consultation timeline by BC Timber Sales.
Thank you for your help,
Sheree Johnson ---- Deer Walk Bowen Island, BC V0N1G0
1 Page 263 of 372 2 Page 264 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Steve | Briteweb <---> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 7:32 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected] Subject: Regarding logging proposal on Bowen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
To Enrique Sanchez, John Rustad, Jordan Sturdy, Peter Luckham & the Bowen Municipal Council,
I'm writing to voice my grave concern about the proposed logging on Bowen Island. This is a small island with a large number of inhabitants and a fast-growing tourist economy. The proposal doesn't make sense environmentally or economically.
We already have water quality issues as well as water retention issues. Logging over a quarter of this island will be a disaster for drinking water quality and retention on the island.
Tourism is picking up dramatically on this island and numbers of people living and developing homes or properties here are growing fast. Tourism is the lifeblood of this small economy and is ecologically sustainable for decades to come. It has a history dating back to the late 1800's. Today, the number of international visitors that come here in the summer to hike and explore is staggering. This initiative will dramatically impact the beauty of the island and the attractiveness as a tourist destination and a home.
As Vancouver home prices continue to rise, many see Bowen Island as a new suburb of Vancouver and a place to raise their families.
I truly hope you'll consider the health and quality of lives of thousands of us on Bowen and look elsewhere for your timber needs.
Finally, if you're not persuaded by the health, economic and welfare risks to the people of this island, I would encourage you to consider the social and political risks of this project. Bowen is an interesting island. There are many influential people tucked away here who are well connected in politics, media and popular culture in Vancouver and the province. There is money on this island that you don't find in many small corners of this province.
There is a quickly organizing group of individuals coming together to rally against the proposed plans. There is already a third of the island signed up for updates and sharing notes and tactics about the coming political fight. This is going to escalate and become a PR disaster for all involved. As someone who has 15 years experience in branding and communications in the social sector, I can say that it makes very little sense to pursue this project so close to Vancouver and the media. The risk vs return is far too low.
I urge you, with respect, to seek alternative options for your timber needs. There are more remote places that will not affect as many people's health and wellbeing. The potential extra cost accessing other areas will be offset by the savings in PR, legal and political campaign costs.
1 Page 265 of 372 Thank you for your time, Steve Rio
______
"Investing in brand strategy: The foundation of a strong website design" Check out the latest case study from our work with Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
______
STEVE RIO / CEO @ BRITEWEB MOBILE (604) 999-6520 / O:YVR (604) 620-6174 / O:NYC (646) 760-2740 BRITEWEB: linkedin / @briteweb / youtube
Want to connect? Email Yas to find a time: [email protected] ______
Q: Why is this email three sentences or less? A: http://three.sentenc.es
2 Page 266 of 372 432 Cardena Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G1 Tel: 604‐200‐2399 www.tourismbowenisland.com
July 15, 2017
Email to: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Dear Mr. Sanchez,
Tourism Bowen Island, a Registered Non‐profit organization is a group of volunteers who give countless of hours promoting Bowen Island as the easiest get‐away from the fast pace of life on the mainland and a place where you can, within a 20 minute ferry ride find miles of trails and walkways in first and 2nd growth forests have to express our dismay at the concept of issuing logging licences on our pristine Island.
Tourism Bowen received 21,000 pageviews in the past month on our www.tourismbowenisland.com website and the #2 search was for trails! We are known for our wonderful walks and trails so much so that our local ROTARY CLUB produced a wonderful brochure to encourage their use! (www.bowentrails.com) . The hashtag #bowenisland receives thousands of hits on Twitter and Instagram.
We are known for our amazing viewscapes both on‐island and from the mainland.
Page 267 of 372 This is what the thousands of hikers on the Cypress Area and those driving north of Horseshoe Bay to Squamish and Whistler will savour:
Was there not an agreement put in place between the Tourism and Forestry ministries a number of years ago that protected the Viewscapes for the visitors? To think of our amazing forests removed, is beyond comprehension.
Bowen Island’s Economic Development Committee (EDC) Tourism as one of the top two Economic drivers of our island. We are a small island with a small population. Our merchants (all struggling mom & pop operations) depend on the tourist dollars during our short summer months to sustain their existence throughout the very long winter! The EDC did a visitor exit survey a few years ago. Out of that developed the Bowen Story: The Bowen Brand Story
Just off the coast of Vancouver is a place where everything’s…well…a little different. When you take the 20 minute ferry ride, it feels as though you’ve crossed over to another world, a special place where life is a little simpler, a little less stressful.
The sights, the smells, the sounds, the people – all fill you with a calmness and an awareness; making you feel a little different . There’s no hustle, no bustle, and certainly no rat race. The sense of community is so strong you can almost feel the hugs. In a modern world where everything’s always moving faster and faster, it feels really, really good to hit pause. To reflect. To exhale. To take stock. To stop and smell the ocean. To connect with what really matters.
Bowen Islanders can be fiercely proud of their island, and more than a little protective. Sometimes they’re tempted to keep it to themselves. But if you’re looking for a way to redefine play, work or life, this might be your place, too. You’ll leave your ordinary self at the dock along with all your mainland baggage. Bowen just might change you…for the better.
PLEASE do not interrupt our pristine watersheds, our economic growth (finally) and our reputation that we have so hard to develop by logging off our amazing island.
Sincerely
Murray Atherton, Chair
Page 268 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Peter Courtney <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Mayor Council; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Bowen Island
July 19, 2017 [email protected] Dear Mr Sanchez, I am writing you to express my deep concern regarding your recent Letter of Notice regarding proposed industrial logging of Crown lands on Bowen Island. I am a long-term resident of the island, and have been involved in both groundwater supply and community water conservation on Bowen, as well as trout and salmon species conservation and habitat restoration. Bowen Island is a rather unique setting, not unlike the famous “Rock of Gibraltar”. We have limited habitable lands due to the steep & mostly rocky nature of our topography. Almost all of our 3,000 or so residents are clustered in fairly dense areas at lower elevations and close to the few bits of arable land here. We have very few more unused private lands to expand into, nor “new known” sources of groundwater to draw from. Each year, as the summer approaches, every water system is stressed, and restrictions are applied in order to conserve waters that permeate our bedrock and replenish deep wells, and shallow lakes to supply us. The seasonal return of rains in autumn takes several weeks to recharge community resources. We truly live on the edge of drought. I am extremely concerned that your mapping of forested Crown lands for harvest is uphill and upstream from virtually all of our water users and water systems. Any interference with the forest shade cover and fragile groundwater recharge patterns will disrupt all of these “downstream” systems and users. Many of us have worked tirelessly for years to bring back salmon to our limited stream base, and ensure native wild trout survival in our tiny lakes. Our efforts would be severely hampered or destroyed by industrial logging on the Crown Lands you have mapped. Please take a lesson from Gibraltar, who now buys all of its potable water from Spain, and reconsider this dangerous proposal. Sincerely yours,
Peter Courtney [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Peter Courtney
1 Page 269 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Magdalena Kozicka <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:18 PM To: Mayor Council Subject: NO to commercial logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Bowen Island, July 19, 2017
Magdalena Kozicka --- Spyglass Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2 Canada
Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality
Dear Mr Mayor, Dear Council
I am writing this letter to say definite NO the the possibility of commercial logging on Bowen Island. I am appalled that such outrageous idea even had been considered. With climate change happening and ongoing ecological destruction we should focus on preserving our forests instead of cutting them down.
The aftermath of industrial logging on Bowen Island will be substantial: the destruction of wildlife habitat, compaction or removal of topsoil and the elimination of water retention capability, pollution of streams and wells, increased risk of land slides, and lower water tables. Not to mention ruined views, damaged tourism and local economies, and lastly the higher risk of wild fire with logging waste acting as tinder.
Once more NO to the industrial logging on Bowen Island. Please stop BC Timber Sales from cutting down 28% of Bowen forests.
Sincerely, Magdalena Kozicka Bowen Island resident for 12 years
Copy send to: Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Foressts, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations: [email protected] Jordan Sturdy, MLA: [email protected] Peter Luckham, Chair of Islands Trust: [email protected] Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Sales: [email protected]
1 Page 270 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Gregory Ronczewski <---> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:33 PM To: Mayor Council Subject: Stop plans of commercial logging on Bowen Island
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Bowen Island, July 19, 2017
Gregory Ronczewski --- Spyglass Road Bowen Island, BC V0N 1G2 Canada
Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality
Dear Mr Mayor, Dear Council
When I heard about Ministry of Forests Lands Natural Resource Operations / BC Timber Sales (BCTS) plans to start logging on Bowen Island I could not believe it. Who would come up with such plan? 100 years ago this could be a standard procedure. Logging was part of economy of coastal BC, but now when we hear word "sustainable" almost in every business proposal that is put forward, this idea seems to go against what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau describes as his vision for Canada. Canada that leads the process of Paris Climate Accord.
Bowen is a small island - how many square meters of raw wood will come out of this operation? This will be a quick process with a fix price attached to it, but the results will be measured in years of devastation and destruction of this special place. Roads will be ruined, wildlife destroyed, and my biggest concern—the water supplies—compromised. I moved to Bowen 12 years ago and over the years I learned that the most valuable resource here is water. Water restrictions are normal on Bowen and if you combine this with the logging plans, it is a recipe for disaster. Our resources are limited. Any change to the ecological balance will affect our well being.
Bowen has so much more to offer. What sort of picture the clear-cut island that sits right on the path of all the cruise ships that bring the visitors from all over the world to experience Beautiful British Columbia will this promote? Logging in 2017 when we all see that the economy has to leap forward towards new, sustainable ways of how we coexist with the nature does not seem like a smart plan.
Please, look beyond the quick revenue from those trees that support our water supply. Few years ago Parks Canada proposed to convert the island into one of its parks. It doesn't matter that this project was not completed - what matters is that Parks Canada viewed Bowen as a unique ecosystem worth fighting for. It is a unique place and we are all lucky to have it. Cutting is easy - the aftermath will not be easy to maintain and I bet its costs surpass the revenue.
Sincerely,
1 Page 271 of 372 Gregory Ronczewski Bowen resident for 12 years
Copy send to: Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Foressts, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations: [email protected] Jordan Sturdy, MLA: [email protected] Peter Luckham, Chair of Islands Trust: [email protected] Enrique Sanchez, BC Timber Sales: [email protected]
2 Page 272 of 372 Sophie Idsinga
From: Marina Pratchett <---> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 8:15 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mayor Council; Maureen Nicholson; Murray Skeels Subject: Logging of Crown Lands on Bowen
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
I am a resident of Bowen.
I am sending this email to formally request that the Islands Trust immediately and visibly become engaged in the BCTS move to bring timber sales areas into the BCTS FSA and commercially log Crown Land on Bowen.
Per the Islands Trust Act the object of the Islands Trust is to preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of British Columbia generally, in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, other persons and organizations and the government of British Columbia.
The proposed logging benefits no residents of Bowen; it only benefits the provincial coffers.
The BCTS has provided no useful information to residents and has placed an unworkable deadline of Sept 7 for comments, while at the same time stating that no comments are going to prevent their move forward to commercially log on 28% of Bowen. Accordingly I would suggest respectfully that this request for your engagement and assistance is of an urgent nature. If the Islands Trust is already participating in this process, could we know in what way and with whom.
One area of interest to me is the fact that Bowen was (historically) included in the Fraser Timber Forest Supply area and yet the lands closest in environmental and community perspective are not in this area. I understand there is a process under the Forest Act for moving lands from one timber supply area to another.
Section 7 of the Forest Act sys The minister may
(a) designate land as a timber supply area, and
(b) order the consolidation, division or abolition of timber supply areas or order their boundaries changed.
Should that process be immediately commenced by the muni and IT together and an injunction sought in relation to anything further being done by BCTS until that process concludes?
Please let me hear from you.
1 Page 273 of 372 -- Marina Pratchett 604 ---
This email contains privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the named recipients. If you have received this email in error or are not a named recipient, please notify the sender and destroy the email. A detailed statement of the terms of use can be found at the following address http://www.fasken.com/termsofuse_email/.
Ce message contient des renseignements confidentiels ou privilégiés et est destiné seulement à la personne à qui il est adressé. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, S.V.P. le retourner à l'expéditeur et le détruire. Une version détaillée des modalités et conditions d'utilisation se retrouve à l'adresse suivante http://www.fasken.com/fr/termsofuse_email/.
2 Page 274 of 372 Bowen Island, July 20th, 2017
To the Honourable Doug Donaldson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Victoria, BC
Re: Concerns about potential industrial logging on Bowen Island – draft FSP 643 – Salish FPU
Dear Minister Donaldson,
I want to extend my best wishes to you in your new role as Minister, realising that these are trying days for those who care about communities, forests and forestry in central BC.
With this letter, I want to ask you to intervene with BCTS to have Bowen Island removed from the draft FSP 643. You and your staff will likely have received other pertinent correspondence on this matter, covering several relevant points. Therefore, I will limit myself to some selected aspects that fall under Provincial jurisdiction and which may require specific attention.
1. Quality of the communication and consultation
I am professionally involved in communications and community consultations in BC and am saddened to see that the actions of BCTS in this regard have up to now been sub-standard, raising concerns and inflaming emotions on the island. Information provided to a community should be timely, clear and complete. Meaningful consultation can only take place after communities have been granted access to relevant information, and have been able to get a basic understanding about what is at stake.
However, Bowen Island has been taken by surprise. The island had not been included in the current FSP that is soon expiring, and there has not been industrial logging on the island for decades. Out-of-the-blue, BCTS placed one ad in the local newspaper announcing that the 60-day consultation period about the new draft FSP had started, in the middle of the summer holidays. The link in that ad to more information does not work, and those who persist and get hold of the draft FSP are confronted with a highly technical document, that makes no references to Bowen Island. Subsequent comments from BCTS have made clear that over 25% of the total land surface of the island can be earmarked for future logging based on this new FSP. The legitimate request of Bowen Mayor and Council to extend the consultation period to allow islanders to get better informed was ignored. The result is an anxious and angry community, distrustful of BCTS, and opposed to any logging. This will complicate a meaningful exchange of information and options.
I do not see any evidence in the plan that the Squamish First Nation (Bowen Island is located on traditional Squamish territories) has been consulted. Similarly, it seems that Mayors and Councils of nearby West Vancouver, Vancouver, Gibsons and Lions Bay have not been informed about the draft FSP and its potential impacts on the visual landscapes for residents and visitors in their communities (see below).
Page 275 of 372 2. Content of the draft FSP 643
As mentioned earlier Bowen Island is not specifically mentioned in the draft FSP 643 and only appears on an attached map of the Salish FDU. BCTS has never logged on Bowen Island, and as far as I could determine the island is not included in the “old” FSP. While it is understood that the old FSP is up for renewal it is unclear why Bowen Island (Salish FDU) has now been added. Importantly, for the Salish FDU the draft plan does not address any of the values based on provincial government objectives regarding soils, water, fish, wildlife, recreation, visual quality etc. If these regulatory issues are not substantiated the Salish FDU cannot and should not be included in FSP 643. Let me highlight two aspects: Recreation & trails, and Visual Resource Management.
a) Recreation & trails
Many islanders and visitors alike are involved in enjoying and exploring the peace and quiet of the island’s natural environment. The island’s brand and reputation is dependent on our spectacular scenery and tourism is one of the key economic drivers on the island. The intrusive sights and sounds of industrial logging on the island would severely diminish the attraction of the island for visitors. The prospect of large logging trucks clogging up our small roads, driving straight through Snug Cove and taking up valuable ferry capacity for years to come is almost unthinkable.
When I go to the ferry terminal these summer days it is a pleasure to see many visiting hikers arriving each morning – planning to enjoy our trails through the forests and on to our mountains. I recommend having a look at http://www.bowentrails.ca for a map of most of our well-used trails. You may note that several trails – for example east of the summit of Mount Gardner - are in the area earmarked for potential logging. I live close to Mount Collins (the second large mountain on the island which is now under threat of complete deforestation by logging) and often use the unmapped trails in the area, as do other islanders and visitors. In the draft FSP several trails are designated for protection: “semi- primitive non-roaded, non-motorized, hiking experience…from which there are spectacular views”. We have plenty of those trails on the island and it is striking that in the draft FSP 643 none of the trails in the Salish FDU are earmarked for any level of protection.
b) Visual Resource Management
Bowen Island can be admired in all its majesty from large parts of the Sea-to-Sky Highway, used by hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. Here is link to an article from the LA Times, describing the “panoramic views” of Bowen Island http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr- d-canada-20141005-story.html . This is just one example out of many. Bowen Island features prominently in the view from the popular Prospect Point in Vancouver’s Stanley Park, and can be viewed from many of Vancouver’s (and West Vancouver’s) beaches and waterfront locations. Our island is also highly visible for many residents at the more populated
Page 276 of 372 mainland – in particular from Horseshoe Bay (West Vancouver). This visual landscape is at risk of deterioration. That is why I referred to the need to inform the Mayors and Councils of these potentially affected communities on the first page of my letter, and to consult the communities involved.
In its brochure “Keeping Track of Our Scenic Resources” FLNRO observes that “BC’s most sensitive landscapes are usually steep forested slopes to many views”, and rightfully states that “A burgeoning tourism industry requires a scenic backdrop to sell its products and continue to attract visitors”. This is relevant in the context of potential logging on Bowen Island. See http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and- industry/forestry/visual-resource-mgmt/vli_keeping_track_of_scenic_resources_brochure.pdf . The related FLNRO web page about the Visual Landscape Inventory (http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/managing-our-forest-resources/visual-resource- management/visual-landscape-inventory ) even displays the image of an island that looks remarkably similar to Bowen.
Still draft FSP 643 does not make any mention of the protection of visual quality of the Salish FDU scenery. Altering the views from any of the numerous viewpoints of Bowen is very likely to attract the viewers’ attention and therefore sensitive. It can hurt tourism to the island, and with that, an important part of our local economy. The damage may very well be extended to reputational damage to BCTS and FLNRO, and to the BC tourism sector, by creating a logging-based eyesore in well-visited spectacular scenery close to Vancouver. Therefore, these potential visual impacts in the Salish FDU need to be assessed and addressed before the damage is done, and must be included in the FSP.
It is highly unlikely that the issues mentioned, as well as the other concerns raised through various channels, can be adequately addressed before the deadlines of the new FSP. I therefore urge you to intervene to exclude the Salish FDU from the current FSP 643 process.
Yours sincerely, Bas Brusche LLB, MA ---- Scarborough Road Bowen Island, BC 778 [email protected]
Cc: The Honourable George Heyman, Minister for Environment and Climate Change Strategy Mr. Jordan Sturdy, MLA Mr. Andrew Weaver, MLA Ms. Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, MP Mayor & Council, Bowen Island Municipality Murray Atherton, Chair, Bowen Island Tourism Owen Plowman, Chair, Bowen Island Conservancy Mr. Peter Luckham, Trust Council Chair, Islands Trust Mr. Neil Carley, General Manager, Parks, Planning and Environment, Metro Vancouver Mr. Mike Falkiner, Executive Director, BCTS Mr. Enrique Sanchez, Planning Forester, Chinook Business Area Forest Practices Branch Office, FLNRO
Page 277 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Hope Dallas Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:18 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Pebbly beach
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Becca Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 8:04 PM To: Mayor Council
Dearest council,
Okay, my newest (yet really my oldest) beef. Pebbly beach. It's the beach I frequent. Been going there since I was little. Love it. My friends love it. Ours kids love it. Their friends love it. The day camp kids love it. The daycare kids love it. The tourists love it. The neighbors love it. Everyone fricking loves it!....yet there is no toilet.
Today there were 50 + kids there, and parents, and others. So fun! Except when someone gets that feeling! Oh oh! You say "just hold it, we'll be going home soon." And then, there's no holding it. So you grab your roll and you walk them up onto, what is mostly likely, the neighbors vacant back lot...and they make their business. Gross right? Yup. Especially, when you think I'm going to be a good neighbor and pick this up with a doggy bag. To be clear, we are not talking urine!
Last week, I did that with 4 kids in 1 day!!!!!
This is probably your busiest beach on the island. Your parks and rec day camps go there every single day, yet you don't provide any of us with a toilet, a decent sized garbage can, a recycling bin, or a safe passage down to the beach from the top of the road access.
The garbage can was completely full today, and garbage day was yesterday. There is no recycling bin and so there are always empties strewn about the base. Most importantly: the access. It is a nightmare. Dangerous, uneven, logs everywhere, horrid little stairs, and slippery. Someone will get really hurt one day.
If I've not been blunt enough, Sandy beach is gross and no one goes there. Last week it was closed due to high fecal counts. Are you waiting for the same to happen at pebbly?
It's time.
Sincerely and thanks for listening,
The mom's of pebbly beach. (Written by rebecca laursen)
1 Page 278 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:12 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach
From: Lynn Beattie Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 12:42 PM To: Kathy Lalonde
Dear Kathy Lalonde, Mayor and Council
On July 10th a Bowen Biffy was placed in the garden at the entrance to Pebbly Beach without any consultation or consideration for the local property owners. Shortly afterward calls were placed to the Municipality office. Conversation ensued with Carla Skuce acknowledging that no consultation had taken place.
Follow up was a meeting on July 11th at 915am at Pebbly Beach with Carla to commence discussion and find a resolution.
1. There are no numbers about the need for the Biffy.
2. Parks and Recreation appears to be the force behind the decision to place the Biffy.
3. We were told it had to stay as a trial to August 28th.
It is totally unacceptable to have this abomination in site of all who walk down the hill, local residents and visitors to Bowen Island alike.
Today, Tuesday July 11th, the Biffy must be gone from its present location.
Sincerely
Lynn McArthur, xxxSenator Place Susan Schouten, xxx Senator Place Andrew Schouten, xxx Senator Place
1 Page 279 of 372
2 Page 280 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:51 PM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach
From: Kathy Lalonde Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:40 PM To: Lynn Beattie ; Mayor Council
Hello Lynn,
Thank you for your correspondence. I have had an opportunity to discuss your concerns with Carla Skuce. Carla and I are agreed that the Biffy should be removed until such time a proper process has been established including public consultation. The Biffy will be picked up tomorrow.
The Parks and Trail Committee will be discussing the request to put a toilet at this beach at a future meeting. We will make sure to let you know when this meeting takes place.
Thank you,
Kathy Lalonde Chief Administrative Officer Bowen Island Municipality
From: Lynn Beattie Sent: July 11, 2017 12:42 PM To: Kathy Lalonde
Dear Kathy Lalonde, Mayor and Council
On July 10th a Bowen Biffy was placed in the garden at the entrance to Pebbly Beach without any consultation or consideration for the local property owners. Shortly afterward calls were placed to the Municipality office. Conversation ensued with Carla Skuce acknowledging that no consultation had taken place.
Follow up was a meeting on July 11th at 915am at Pebbly Beach with Carla to commence discussion and find a resolution.
1. There are no numbers about the need for the Biffy.
2. Parks and Recreation appears to be the force behind the decision to place the Biffy.
1 Page 281 of 372 3. We were told it had to stay as a trial to August 28th.
It is totally unacceptable to have this abomination in site of all who walk down the hill, local residents and visitors to Bowen Island alike.
Today, Tuesday July 11th, the Biffy must be gone from its present location.
Sincerely
Lynn McArthur, xxx Senator Place Susan Schouten, xxxSenator Place Andrew Schouten, xxx Senator Place
2 Page 282 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:08 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach
From: Bruce Russell Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:34 PM To: Lynn Beattie ; Kathy Lalonde
Lynn, I thank you for copying me on the correspondence for this matter. Following the pleasant chat my wife Dorene and I had with you and Susan Schouten last evening, I fully agree with your concerns and that of your fellow neighbours. Over and above the lack of advance consultation, there are a number of other functional/”fit” as well as aesthetic concerns. As the appeal for the permanent removal of the “biffy” best come from members of your neighourhood, I commend you for the effort you have made to inform the municipality of your displeasure, which is well placed. While there are many things about the decision to place the biffy in such a tight, prominent, offensive location, I question why, if the request for same was only made by the Parks & Recreation group (if that is the case) to facilitate a youth day camp, part of which obviously is time at the beach, why isn’t Sandy Beach used which is much easier and safer to access (Pebbly Beach is not user friendly for anyone, let along very young children. Sandy Beach has as much, if not more useable beach area and is an easier walk from BICS, if that is where the group departs from each day. Sandy Beach also has an existing toilet that is far more attractive, and not so obvious as it blends in with the surrounding trees/bushes and does not stick out like a sore thumb as does the biffy at the bottom of Senator Road. As a Mannion Bay resident myself since 1942, and my parents since the late 1930s, we, like your Pebbly Beach neighbours fully accept the fact the beach is public, as it should be. We all welcome public use provided same abides by the rules, of which parking is one of them. Unfortunately the final access to Pebbly Beach is steep, dangerous and via a very short Senator Road which cannot accommodate parking, hardly functions well for drop off & pickup and does not have the appropriate space to effectively squeeze in a telephone booth sized biffy!! Unfortunately the foregoing is a negative for this particular public beach and should be considered before returning a biffy, regardless of how short a time. As Senator Road is needed for emergency vehicles I think better, more professional and permanent signage is need on which RESERVED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES wording is required, or some such wording as there is on other similar signage. Dorene and I wish you well in your discussions with the municipality. Bruce Russell
From: Lynn Beattie Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:47 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor Council
1 Page 283 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Bowen Island Municipality Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:11 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Bowen Biffy at Pebbly Beach
From: Bruce Weston Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:27 PM To: Kathy Lalonde
Kathy et al:
Imposing something like this(i.e. the biffy) on the immediate area without any level of prior consultation is astounding to all of us who have owned in the area for many years….it reminds one of the City of Vancouver where implement first and then pretend to discuss later….very disappointing! I would also suggest, as we have on prior occasions, the issue of 1) the lack of safe access to the beach area which is now unusable forcing those who wish to go to the beach to (continually) cross over private property and 2) the complete lack of regard by those who park their vehicles on private property on Senator Place while at the beach….this has been brought up before with the by law people but it is only getting worse. Don’t get us wrong…do we encourage people to use the beach? Yes…. by all means enjoy it but respect property owners and the access to their property; Many thanks.
From: Kathy Lalonde [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:40 PM To: Lynn Beattie; Mayor Council
Hello Lynn,
Thank you for your correspondence. I have had an opportunity to discuss your concerns with Carla Skuce. Carla and I are agreed that the Biffy should be removed until such time a proper process has been established including public consultation. The Biffy will be picked up tomorrow.
The Parks and Trail Committee will be discussing the request to put a toilet at this beach at a future meeting. We will make sure to let you know when this meeting takes place.
Thank you,
Kathy Lalonde Chief Administrative Officer Bowen Island Municipality
1 Page 284 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Hope Dallas Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:04 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Toilets on public beaches
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Theresa Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 8:19 AM To: BIMBC ‐ Parks Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee
Dear Mayor and Council
There is a need for toilets on our public beaches. The island and this council have made a strong push to encourage tourism on this island. With the increase of tourism comes increased use of our local beaches accessed by both land and water. There have been up grades to two westside busy beaches which is great but the westside isn't necessarily the only fun side. The other beach which has benefited from up grades is Sandy beach. This was an unfortunate decision as the beach has had chronic fecal count problems and is currently closed because of this health issue.
Pebbly beach touted as a neighbour hood beach and therefore not requiring facilities, is really a community beach. Historically the beach had a dock for community use, swimming lessons were taught there etc. Now the beach is frequented on an almost daily basis by the municipal summer camp. In addition it is a popular beach for not only those in the Deep Bay area but the whole community. It needs a toilet!
Pebbly doesn't require a permanent structure but a porta potty serviced regularly would suffice, for summer months. I understand some residents are not in favour but the alternative is beach users having to make emergency deposits of human waste on the shores of the beach. This is a health issue! This is not a new issue and should be a priority for council. You should also be looking at sanitation plans for other busy beaches like Eagle Cliff, Cates Bay, Alder Cove and King Edward Bay to name a few. Biffies can be a short term solution while you make an over all plan but ignoring the problem until the plan is made should not be an option. Regards Theresa Ewart
Sent from my iPhone
1 Page 285 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Hope Dallas Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:05 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Pebbly Beach Potty
From: Beth Legacy Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:48 AM To: BIMBC ‐ Parks Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee
Hello,
Please add my name to the list of supporters who seek to have a porta potty made available for families and day campers at Pebbly Beach.
I strongly believe that all of our public beaches should have this made available and maintained. It is a sanitation issue that needs to be addressed.
Regards, Beth Legacy-Cole
1 Page 286 of 372 Hope Dallas
From: Hope Dallas Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:05 AM To: Hope Dallas Subject: FW: Biffie at pebbly
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Becca Laursen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:59 AM To: BIMBC ‐ Parks Trails and Greenways Advisory Committee
> > Hello, > > Please accept this letter as a plea to the park's committee to do what is the most environmentally sound thing, and replace the biffie that was briefly placed at the entrance to Pebbly beach. > > Myself and many of my close friends frequent this beach with our children. Throughout July and august, this beach is packed, mostly with children of all ages. > > This beach is busy. I would propose it is actually the busiest on bowen, yet there are no facilities. This poses a health concern, as well as an environmental concern. > > I am also struck by the fact that Bowen island's own parks and rec day camps frequent this beach from Monday to Friday. The municipality should, therefore, uphold its responsibility and provide facilities for this beach as it is financially connected. > > I understand that a few of the local households have complained about a biffie being placed at the entrance to this beach. This "not in my neighborhood" mentality is ridiculous, entitled and anti‐community. > What they appear to be forgetting is that people will be pooping and peeing in the biffie and not on their property. > > I urge this committee to make the socially and environmentally sound choice and make this beach consumer friendly. > > Sincerely, > > Rebecca laursen
1 Page 287 of 372 4.1
Moving the Economy A Regional Goods Movement Strategy for Metro Vancouver IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
Metro Vancouver Mayors Committee July 7, 2017 Page 288 of 372 As the region`s multi-modal transportation authority, the legislated mandate of TransLink is to provide a regional transportation system that moves People & Goods Page 289 of 372
2 Challenges in Planning for Goods Movement
• Many players (public & private) with few avenues for coordination • Complex and poorly understood w/ little data • Fractured regulatory landscape Page 290 of 372
3 Filling a Critical Coordination Gap
• Filling this gap requires: • Coordination among the government agencies; • Collaboration with industry partners • The Regional Goods Movement
Page 291 of 372 Strategy is a first step
4 Relationship to Other Plans
Strategic Specific local Funded frameworks projects plans
AREA TL 10-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PLANS PLAN
COMMUNITY & MUNICIPAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CAPITAL PLANS PLANS Page 292 of 372
5 We have collaborated with municipal staff & stakeholders over the past three years to develop and agree on this regional strategy
Phase I Phase II Phase III 2014 to 2015 June 2016 to March 2017 to Implement March 2017 June 2017 Priority Research & Discussion on Consultation Review & Actions Key Issues on Draft Approval 2017-2019
• 12+ RTAC • 6 RTAC meetings • 2 RTAC meetings meetings & • 2 muni staff workshops • 1 RAAC meeting individual • • Page 293 of 372 Individual staff & Mar 9 w/ MC muni staff Council sessions • May 2 Urban meetings • Written muni feedback Freight Council • Presentation • 1 major stakeholder to MC & MV workshop w/ munis Board • Oct 12, Nov 10, 23 w/ MC 6 Greater Vancouver Urban Freight Council
Purpose: • Coordinate on key urban freight issues that require collective action; • Discuss, collaborate and “champion” the priorities identified in the RGMS. Page 294 of 372
7 Implementation Priorities
1. Price the transportation system more effectively to reduce congestion and improve travel time reliability (Mobility Pricing).
2. Develop a Regional Road Network Strategy (RRNS). Focus of of Focus
Discussion 3. Streamline processes to improve freight efficiency. 4. Improve regional road network operations and management. 5. Protect the existing supply of accessible industrial land.
Page 295 of 372 6. Raise awareness of the value and contribution of goods movement to the economy.
8 Develop a Regional Road Network Strategy (RRNS)
Scope: • Propose and agree on performance metrics to guide regional roadway investment and management decisions • Propose and agree on process to apply corrective measures when part of the road network is not meeting performance targets
Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Page 296 of 372 Confirm the Develop Review of the Annual Strategy’s scope performance Major Road monitoring and
metrics Network (MRN) reporting
By 2018 Jul By
By Jan 2018 Jan By 2019 Jan By By Sep Sep 2018 By program
9 Streamline processes to improve freight efficiency
Scope: • Adopt a regional definition of a truck; • Harmonize weight and dimension limits for “standard” truck configurations; • Explore centralized permit system for over-size and over-weight trucks
- Agree on truck - Draft reference - Develop and agree definition and bylaw for truck on a work plan for harmonizing vehicle definition and considering regional Page 297 of 372 weights & weights & permit system
dimensions; dimensions; option.
By Jan 2018 Jan By 2019 Jan By - Complete regional 2018 Jun By - Draft regional permit system pre- permit policy & feasibility study. procedures manual.
10 5.2
To: Mayors Committee
From: Heather Schoemaker, General Manager, External Relations Ann Rowan, Program Manager Collaboration Initiatives, External Relations
Date: June 29, 2017 Meeting Date: July 7, 2017
Subject: Regional Prosperity Initiative Update
RECOMMENDATION That the MVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 29, 2017, titled “Regional Prosperity Initiative Update.”
PURPOSE To update the Mayors Committee and the MVRD Board on the progress of the Regional Prosperity Initiative (RPI).
BACKGROUND In early 2015, the Metro Vancouver Regional Economy Task Force was formed to guide the development of the Regional Prosperity Initiative. The Regional Prosperity Initiative is a program that emerged from the strategic priorities identified in the Metro Vancouver 2015 -2018 Board Strategic Plan. Specifically, the “Regional Prosperity” strategic direction proposed action to: “Clarify and strengthen Metro Vancouver’s role in pursuing a collaborative approach to regional prosperity.”
The last update of the work of the Task Force and associated advisory committees was presented to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee on October 21, 2016. The MVRD Board subsequently endorsed the 2017 Regional Prosperity Initiative Work Plan and budget at its regular meeting held on October 28, 2016.
This report is being brought forward to provide the Finance and Intergovernment Committee and the Board with an update on the work to date of the Task Force and associated advisory committees.
REGIONAL PROSPERITY INITIATIVE UPDATE Building upon the success of the April 2016 Forum, which generated support for a new multi-sectoral collaboration for regional economic prosperity, a Steering Committee of community leaders and key stakeholders was formed to develop a proposed vision, mission, governance structure and funding model for consideration by the Regional Economy Task Force. The goal was to develop a governance and organizational model that could be presented at a second Regional Prosperity Forum – scheduled to take place on September 15, 2017.
The Steering Committee has met on a monthly basis since September 2016 to evaluate options and share ideas on how best to move forward with the initiative. An Advisory Group, composed of CEOs, Presidents and one Senator, has provided input into the process and provided a global perspective.
22021444 Page 298 of 372
DzͲϭϭ Regional Prosperity Initiative Update Mayors Committee Regular Meeting Date: July 7, 2017 Page 2 of 6
Based on the work of the Steering Committee and Advisory Group, a vision, mission and strategic priorities have been developed for the new organization.
Vision The vision statement is articulated as follows: Collaborating to advance economic prosperity, livability and sustainability in Canada’s Pacific gateway.
Mission The mission envisions that the new organization will: x Connect people, enterprises, academic institutions and governments to optimize economic development and quality of life; x Research and promote the region’s attributes, assets and opportunities; and x Lead and catalyze projects to strengthen a distinct, sustainable & high performing urban region.
Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities are to: x Align people, enterprises, academic institutions and governments around regional priorities for economic prosperity; and x Cooperate on actions to strengthen a distinct, sustainable and high performing urban region.
The strategic priorities will be realized by focusing the work of the organization, at least initially, on four key areas:
¾ collaboration, ¾ research and analysis, ¾ marketing and promotion, and ¾ high impact projects.
Governance and Funding The Steering Committee continues to work on governance models and the development of a preliminary three to five year work plan and budget. The revenue strategy has largely been based on the experience of Toronto Global and Montreal International that a united front of businesses and local governments with a concrete plan for advancing new business investment in the metropolitan region will be more successful in securing funds from both the federal and provincial government. The proposed structure of funding is one-third from the government of Canada, one-third from the government of B.C. and the final third coming from founding members, including local governments.
In addition to the knowledge and expertise resident in the Steering Committee, legal advice will be involved in moving this initiative forward including in the development of bylaws for incorporating a society (not-for-profit corporation) in BC. The goal is to incorporate an organization by the end of June 2018.
Page 299 of 372
DzͲϭϮ Regional Prosperity Initiative Update Mayors Committee Regular Meeting Date: July 7, 2017 Page 3 of 6
REGIONAL PROSPERITY FORUM II The work of the Steering Committee and Advisory Group will be presented to a second Regional Prosperity Forum for input and consideration. In this sense, the Forum will continue to be a venue for engaging parties interested in advancing the economic prospertiy, livability and sustainability of the Metro Vancouver region. The second Regional Prosperity Forum will be held on Friday, September 15 and hosted at the Wosk Centre for Dialogue at the SFU campus in Vancouver. The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development will provide opening remarks and Toby Lennox, CEO of Toronto Global will provide the opening keynote address. The remainder of the Forum will be organized around the rationale for developing a coordinated and collaborative organization to advance the region’s collective interests in growing a shared regional prosperity as well as a discussion of the work of the Steering Committee and Advisory Group proposal to structure and animate this new organization. The forum is a “by invitation” event of leaders representing business, post-secondary institutions, First Nations, labour unions, and municipalities. The choice of the Asia Pacific Room at the Wosk Centre limits the number of people who can be invited but provides the best venue for the exchange of ideas in a formal but intimate setting.
SHORT TERM PROJECTS Both the Steering Committee and Advisory Group felt strongly that this new collaboration needed to be more than a think-tank or a venue for the exchange of ideas. Two short term but impactful projects emerged that could demonstrate the commitment of regional collaboration and ultimately its value. One project was the creation of a regional mobile business licence and the other a regional registration portal for filming. An overview of each project is provided below.
Regional Mobile Business Licence A barrier for mobile businesses that are interested in growing their business beyond the boundaries of their home/principal municipality is the need to secure a business licence from each of the municipalities they would like to operate within. The Province of BC, Ministry of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction, has promoted and contributed to the development of inter-municipal mobile business licences (IMBL) and four such arrangements have been negotiated and implemented in the Metro Vancouver region: North shore, Metro West, the Tri-cities and the Fraser Valley. Each IMBL has been separately negotiated among the participating municipalities and while each expands the geographical space for the selected categories of mobile businesses, a regional option is not available and the four distinctly different IMBLs are not easy to communicate to eligible, local businesses.
The Regional Prosperity Initiative has been working with key municipal staff – from the CAOs to the business licence managers – to develop an option that would demonstrate regional collaboration to improve the environment for businesses currently operating within the region. This regional MBL model would provide eligible businesses the opportunity to secure a business licence in their principle/home municipality and then to select one or more sub-regional “bundles” or the whole region to operate within.
Three working groups are being established with municipal participation to help develop and further define the characteristics of a regional MBL. Each working group will be comprised of five to ten
Page 300 of 372
DzͲϭϯ Regional Prosperity Initiative Update Mayors Committee Regular Meeting Date: July 7, 2017 Page 4 of 6 representatives of Metro Vancouver members with responsibility for business licensing and/or business licensing technology.
The three working groups include: x The Business Model Working Group, which will determine key characteristics of the new regional approach to mobile business licensing, including fees for sub-regional bundles and for a regional licence, revenue sharing, and eligible industries/services.
x The Bylaw and Signatory Agreement Working Group, which will develop a common Agreement to be adopted by municipalities and a model bylaw that could be used by each municipality.
x The Technology and Integration Working Group, which will develop the digital elements that will facilitate efficiencies in both the application process for businesses and the administration process for municipalities.
The objective is to develop an implementable, effective regional MBL that will effectively integrate with municipal processes and systems and provides new work efficiencies; to achieve this will require the engagement of all members.
Regional Registration Portal for Filming The Metro Vancouver region has experienced an unprecedented expansion of filming in the past number of years. This growth has been enabled by positive developments within the resident film industry in terms of the development of a skilled and talented labour pool, growing physical and management capacity, supportive initiatives by the provincial government, local efforts to create a positive working environment for the filming industry and a positive exchange rate. Given the positive economic spinoffs and relatively light environmental impacts of this industry, its continued expansion is seen as important and viable. Representatives of the industry have indicated that while their relationships with each municipality are very good and extremely collaborative, the variety in processes, systems and forms required by each municipality in the region has created time lags and increased paperwork in an industry that values nimbleness.
A small working group, led by Creative BC, has been created that includes municipal film coordinators and representatives of the film industry including the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC, and Directors Guild of Canada. The working group is exploring the opportunities to develop a more effective and efficient system for location managers who are working with a number of filming sites across the region to work. At the same time, this system cannot compromise the efforts of film coordinators and other municipal staff to ensure that community buy-in for filming is strong, that safety, environmental and liability standards are maintained and that economic and community benefits of filming are documented.
As an initial step, a Regional Registration Portal for Filming is being considered. This would create a standard profile for a film production company that could be used by all municipalities and would link to users of the portal to the appropriate municipal sites for film permitting.
Page 301 of 372
DzͲϭϰ Regional Prosperity Initiative Update Mayors Committee Regular Meeting Date: July 7, 2017 Page 5 of 6
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT Updates on the Regional Prosperity Initiative have been provided at the two recent Council of Councils and in a number of the monthly Chair Updates. However, as the work of the Regional Prosperity Initiative moves forward, it is important that all Mayor and Councils have the opportunity to engage in these discussions and obtain a good understanding of the objectives and the related projects of the Regional Prosperity Initiative. To accomplish this, sub-regional dialogues with member local governments are being scheduled for July.
ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2017 budget and work plan for Regional Prosperity Initiatives is $233,997. The budget provides funding for temporary staff and/or contract resources, consulting services for research and strategy development as well as meeting costs, including the Regional Prosperity Forum II scheduled for September 15, 2017.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Regional Economy Task Force was formed in 2015 to guide the development of the Regional Prosperity Initiative. This Initiative emerged from the strategic priorities identified in the Metro Vancouver 2015 -2018 Board Strategic Plan, specifically, the strategic direction to: “Clarify and strengthen Metro Vancouver’s role in pursuing a collaborative approach to regional prosperity.”
The last update of this Initiative was presented to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee on October 21, 2016 and to the MVRD Board on October 28, 2016. This report is provides an update to the Finance and Intergovernment Committee and the Board on the work to date.
Building upon the success of the April 2016 Regional Prosperity Forum, a Steering Committee was formed to develop a proposed vision, mission, governance structure and funding model. The model is now ready to present at the next Regional Prosperity Forum, to be held on September 15, 2017, for input and consideration.
In addition to the development of a proposed governance model, work has been ongoing on two projects – the regional mobile business licence project and the regional registration portal for filming project – that it is hoped will demonstrate the commitment and value of regional collaboration in achieving regional economic prosperity. Local government staff and elected officials have been invited to participate in these two important projects to gain their insight and expertise in developing a successful model.
The success of the Regional Prosperity Initiative requires the support and collaboration of a diversity of agencies, institutions and stakeholders, including municipalities, business, First Nations, post- secondary institutions and labour. Strong progress has been made in the development of a prosperity model and it is now ready to be shared at the Forum in September. The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been secured to provide opening remarks at the Forum and Toby Lennox, CEO of Toronto Global will provide the opening keynote address.
Page 302 of 372
DzͲϭϱ Regional Prosperity Initiative Update Mayors Committee Regular Meeting Date: July 7, 2017 Page 6 of 6
Attachments: 1. Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Green Paper (Doc #: 14426761) 2. Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver: Economic Landscape Paper (Doc #: 20481546) 3. Members of the Regional Prosperity Initiative Steering Committee and Advisory Group (Doc #: 22060209)
Page 303 of 372
DzͲϭϲ dd,D Edϭ
Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver
GREEN PAPER NOVEMBER 2015
Page 304 of 372
DzͲϭϳ Page 305 of 372
DzͲϭϴ Introduction
In metropolitan areas across North America, leaders This Green Paper puts forward some general from the private and public sectors, academia, labour considerations and a proposed framework for a and community organizations have come together multi-stakeholder, collaborative regional prosperity in the pursuit of regional prosperity. Through open initiative for the Metro Vancouver region. discussion, the exchange of ideas and the review of experiences elsewhere, these leaders have come to This paper begins by making the case for the understand that metropolitan areas are the economic importance of a metropolitan-level approach to units in today’s world. The leaders have recognized the prosperity. A working defi nition of the term “prosperity” need for the various groups within a metropolitan area is offered, as is a review of the enablers of prosperity. to “rise above specifi c local and sectoral mandates to An overview of the Metro Vancouver economy is then provided. Present and future challenges to the focus on shared regional visions and objectives.”1 In the region’s prosperity are identifi ed. A review of past global competition for investment and people, it is the efforts at inter-party collaboration within Metro metropolitan areas, not the individual cities or sectors, Vancouver is presented, followed by an account of who are the players. lessons learned from experiences elsewhere. A “Made The Metro Vancouver region is home to highly diverse, in Metro Vancouver Approach” is then put forward for creative and innovative companies, public authorities, consideration. The model is intended to be critiqued universities and local government agencies, many of and improved; it is not presented as the defi nitive which are engaged in important activities aimed at course of action to pursue. The paper ends with a promoting the area and attracting investment and suggestion for a Regional Forum on Prosperity in people. What the region is lacking is a mechanism to early 2016. coordinate the efforts of these different groups and help them develop a shared vision and common goals. This lack of a collaborative and strategic approach to Businesses do not seek out townships or cities to the region’s prosperity is what sets Metro Vancouver call home, but rather thriving regions to join. apart from many competitor regions in Canada and the Entrepreneurs are not mindful of addresses, but United States. rather vibrant areas from which to launch ideas. Leaders from all sectors in the Metro Vancouver region Talent is not mindful of jurisdictions, but is drawn to are aware of the lack of collaborative action and the attractive and inviting places. disadvantage at which it places the region. Efforts to (Greater Lansing Next: A Plan for Regional Prosperity, p.4) address the situation have begun and are starting to gain traction. This Green Paper is an attempt to support and advance these efforts. (A “green paper” is an early-stages report on a proposed policy or new idea, and is designed to stimulate thinking and discussion among interested parties without requiring a commitment to action.)
1 Toronto Region Board of Trade (2014) Toward a Toronto Region Economic Strategy p.9
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 1 Page 306 of 372
DzͲϭϵ 1 Importance of a Metropolitan Approach
Metropolitan areas as economic units To succeed as a global city, [it is important] to draw st It would not be an exaggeration to say that the 21 on the strength and economy of the entire region century belongs to metropolitan areas. Today, over half rather than any one player. of the world’s population lives in urban areas; by 2050, ( Toward a Toronto Region Economic Strategy, Toronto two out of three people will do so.2 Between 2005 and Region Board of Trade, 2014, p.15) 2025, it is estimated that the metropolitan centres in the US and Canada will contribute 76 per cent of the growth in GDP.3 Metropolitan areas also tend to be wealthier than the rest of the economy. Within OECD countries, the GDP per capita gap between metropolitan centres In Canada and the US, the traditional model of a central and the rest of the economy is around 40 per cent.4 city dominated by commercial and industrial activity and surrounded by bucolic suburbs has been evolving The rising importance of metropolitan areas as the over the past half-century. Metropolitan centres today loci of economic activity is matched by the profi le are best characterized as dynamic economic units of of metropolitan areas in global affairs on a range of industry clusters, supporting services, and academic economic, social and environmental issues including and research institutions that function across municipal action against climate change. boundaries. Companies choose to locate and invest in centres based on an assessment of the broader metropolitan areas in which individual cities are The world’s fi rst Metropolitan Generation is located. These companies know that the fortunes of any coming of age, and as a result, the world will single city are shaped by the region as a whole – be shaped increasingly by metropolitan values: by the road and public transportation systems, air and industriousness, creativity, entrepreneurialism, sea ports, economic activities, natural environment and, most important, liberty and diversity…cities and culture of the region to which the city belongs will become not just more culturally signifi cant but and contributes. Companies know, too, that it is the also more politically powerful. Infl uence will shift metropolitan regions, with their large scales, diverse gradually away from national governments and offerings and opportunities that have the potential toward cities… to draw and retain the talent that companies need to (Michael Bloomberg, Former Mayor of New York City) compete.5
2 United Nations (2014). World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas.
3 McKinsey Global Institute (2011). Urban world: Mapping the economic power of cities.
4 OECD (2013) OECD regions at a glance.
5 Marc A. Weiss (2005). Teamwork: Why metropolitan economic strategy is the key to generating sustainable prosperity and quality of life for the world. Global Urban Development, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
2 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 307 of 372
DzͲϮϬ along with other key players in the region, to help A metropolitan approach to prosperity implement their strategies while also cooperating with In metropolitan areas across North America and each other to maximize their individual and collective beyond, collaborative efforts involving multiple parties efforts. are emerging to defi ne shared goals and objectives, and to raise the profi le of their regions as competitive centres of economic activity. These efforts recognize that in the global competition for investment and What Is Prosperity? people, success requires a coordinated and strategic approach to development that recognizes the In this Green Paper, the term “prosperity” is importance of skilled labour, effi cient transportation, chosen intentionally in place of the more common innovation, livability and lifestyle. Economic “economic development” to emphasize the development efforts undertaken by individual agencies, importance of environmental, cultural, and social corporations and groups at the local or sector levels factors to the economic health of the region. are important and need to continue. Without greater The term also refl ects the strong sustainability coordination across the broader region, however, such commitments of several key stakeholders to the efforts will ultimately be limited in their impact. discussion in Metro Vancouver. Regional prosperity can be measured in terms of desired outcomes: wealth, a comfortable Prosperity is more than just the accumulation of standard of living, opportunities for people to material wealth, it is also the joy of everyday life pursue and maximize their skills, a better life for and the prospect of an even better life in the future. those economically-challenged segments of the (Legatum Prosperity Index website) population, and a natural environment that current and future generations can enjoy. Any regional initiative that emerges in Metro Under a metropolitan approach to prosperity, agencies Vancouver would need to craft its own defi nition of and groups that are focused on economic development prosperity that speaks to the needs and aspirations join forces with local leaders from industry, business, of the residents and the assets of the region. In academia, labour, the arts and local government the meantime, the following working defi nition of to identify a collective vision and to create a broad prosperity is offered: strategy for the region. The strategy sets out goals and actions that build on existing strengths, but also Sustained and thriving economic and employment addresses critical weaknesses that serve to discourage opportunities based on entrepreneurship, investment. This collective effort does not replace the innovation and effi cient government policies and need for local economic development agencies; on the services that provide a high quality of life for all contrary, strong and autonomous agencies are needed, residents within a vibrant natural environment
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 3 Page 308 of 372
DzͲϮϭ Skilled labour. The workforce in a competitive Enablers of prosperity metropolitan economy will need to be diverse – in skills, A metropolitan approach can leverage the region’s knowledge and experience – and will evolve. Supporting strengths and strategic economic assets to improve productive activities in business, government and other overall prosperity in a way that is simply not possible institutions will require the cooperation of educational at a municipal level. Through the collaborative efforts institutions and proactive immigration policies. of leaders in business, government, education and Effi cient infrastructure. Infrastructure assets and community organizations, the components that together services form the backbone of modern life as well as shape and drive the region, the “enablers of prosperity”, local and global commerce. They include energy and can be directed towards a shared vision and objectives. other utilities, high-capacity telecommunications and An important task of a multi-stakeholder metropolitan virtual networks, and transportation systems that allow prosperity initiative is to establish forums and other people and goods to move throughout the region. In a venues to strategize how the region’s enablers can be knowledge-based and service-based economy, effi cient improved or adjusted to maintain existing businesses infrastructure enhances the productivity of people and industries in addition to attracting new investment and businesses. and talent.
Figure 1: Enablers of Prosperity
SKILLED EFFICIENT LABOUR INFRASTRUCTURE
STRONG QUALITY CLUSTERS OF LIFE
PROSPERITY POSITIVE POSITIVE PROFILE BUSINESS CLIMATE
EFFICIENT INNOVATION LAND USE CAPACITY
CENTRALIZED INFORMATION
4 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 309 of 372
DzͲϮϮ Quality of life. Quality of life is a broad concept that Centralized information. Easy access to reliable, attempts to capture the general daily experiences of centralized information sources supports strategic people living in a particular place. Access to excellent planning across all productive sectors in the region, healthcare, the presence of education and recreation and facilitates transparent, effective decision-making. opportunities, a sense of safety and community A region’s competitiveness depends cohesion, effi cient public transit and a healthy and Effi cient land use. on concentrating development in ways that allow for the protected natural environment are all factors that effi cient delivery of transit and public utilities, and that contribute to a high quality of life. While also a product enable key sectors of the economy to grow, evolve and of prosperity, a high quality of life is an enabler in interact effectively with each other. attracting and retaining a range of residents, talent and companies. Positive profi le and brand. Attracting new talent and businesses can be greatly facilitated by showcasing a Positive business climate. A positive business climate metropolitan area as a dynamic, globally competitive, features responsive and accountable governments that and desirable place to live, work, visit and do business. set fair taxes and fees, and that put in place regulatory The brand captures the positive characteristics environments conducive to growth and development. generally associated with the place or re-fashions Innovation capacity. The capacity for innovation a new image. is nurtured by world-class research institutions A cluster is a group of fi rms and related engaged in the private, public and civic sectors Strong clusters. economic actors and institutions that realize productive but also by a culture which thrives on new ideas. advantages from close proximity and professional These conditions support entrepreneurship within connections. Strong clusters organically build on the the region and attract new investment and talent. unique strengths that drive wealth creation in a region, The commercialization of new technologies, processes primarily through the export of goods and services. and products drives economic growth. Innovation in the public sector in terms of approaches and policies can also be essential.
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 5 Page 310 of 372
DzͲϮϯ 2 Metro Vancouver the Region
The Metro Vancouver region includes twenty-one A common characteristic of dynamic metropolitan municipalities, one Treaty First Nation and one regions is the emergence of a diversifi ed economy unincorporated area, each with its own unique physical, dominated by the service sector – a feature that is demographic and local economic characteristics. certainly true of Metro Vancouver. The wholesale The region has great strengths on which to focus and retail trade employs about 15 per cent of the a prosperity initiative. It is recognized globally for workforce. Other important service sectors include: its overall livability, and has done especially well in fi nance, insurance, real estate and leasing; professional, international surveys of metropolitan areas on attributes scientifi c and technical services; health care and social such as “tolerance”, “presence of amenities” and “quality assistance; and educational services. In terms of goods of place”.6 production, construction and manufacturing are the important employment sectors. This diversifi cation allows for greater responsiveness and resiliency in the The economy at present face of changing economic trends and may support the The economy of Metro Vancouver is neither defi ned nor emergence of industry clusters important to competitive constrained by the political borders of its 23 members. metropolitan economies. Business and labour migrate freely across municipal Within Metro Vancouver, the growth of the regional boundaries to perform activities that together account economy was driven, for many decades, by supplying for more than half of British Columbia’s economic services to the province’s resource extraction sector, output. including forestry, fi shing and mining,7 and these
Figure 2: Metro Vancouver – the Basics
• Contains 23 political jurisdictions • Population of 2.5M • GDP (2013) - Total $119.2B - Per capita $48,900 • Houshold income (2011) - Average $83,666 - Median $63,347 • 5.7% unemployment rate (2014)
6 Martin Prosperity Institute rankings and Economist Intelligence Unit’s Livability Ranking.
7 Vancouver as a city-region in the global economy. A paper by the Vancouver Economic Development Commission for the Business Council of BC’s “Outlook 2020” Project. March 2010. 6 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 311 of 372
DzͲϮϰ industries continue to be important in the provincial The primary sector is relatively small but within the economy and that of Metro Vancouver. However, the region, there are a few important industry groups. concentration of a diverse workforce with a range Unique to Metro Vancouver is the amount of good of skills and expertise, a complex and sophisticated quality agricultural land within the metropolitan network of businesses and industries, academic boundaries. In 2010, farms in Metro Vancouver institutions, research facilities, and urban centres generated 27 per cent of BC’s gross farm receipts on served by signifi cant investments in infrastructure have only 1.5 per cent of the province’s farmland. The agri- helped to build a distinct metropolitan economy. food sector includes this high value farm production, agri-tourism, and processing, packaging and distribution Metro Vancouver, situated on Canada’s West Coast and within Metro Vancouver of food harvested from the land at the mouth of the Fraser River, has grown to become and waters of BC. a major centre for trade. With the economic importance of the Asian Pacifi c economies, this role as a gateway The importance of forestry and mining in the province will continue to grow. The region is home to Port Metro of B.C. along with the promise of liquefi ed natural gas is Vancouver, the largest port in Canada and third largest refl ected in the natural resource fi rms that have located in North America in terms of total tonnage moved. their executive offi ces in the region. Key examples Port Metro Vancouver links the region and, through include Teck Resources Limited, Goldcorp, Canfor, the region, the entire nation to Asia Pacifi c and the Western Forest Products, West Fraser Timber Company, world. As the Port and the volume of goods handled Catalyst Paper Company, and Pacifi c NorthWest LNG. have grown over the years, so, too, have the number of businesses and jobs related to cargo handling, storage, The apparel industry is relatively new but is growing distribution and transportation. with lifestyle brands such as Lululemon Athletica, John Fluevog Shoes, Mountain Equipment Coop (MEC), In addition to moving goods and commodities through Arc’teryx Equipment (performance outerwear), and the port, the cruise ship terminal at Canada Place Herschel Supply Company (canvas backpacks) that welcomes upwards of 900,000 passengers each year. are based in the region. These recognized brands Vancouver International Airport (YVR) is another critical coexist with much smaller local designers that have element of the gateway – it is the second busiest jointly created an industry known for creative design, airport in Canada and the second most important trans- technological innovation and sustainability. Pacifi c airport on the continent. More than 19 million passengers move through YVR every year in addition Shipbuilding is once again important on the North to a considerable amount of cargo. Two major B.C. ferry Shore due to the recent $8 billion federal government terminals facilitate the maritime movement of travelers contract awarded to Seaspan for the construction of and goods to and from the region to other destinations non-combat ships. in the province.
Tourists and conventions are attracted to the natural beauty as well as to the recreational and cultural opportunities within the region. The tourism sector contributes approximately $6.1 billion to the Metro Vancouver economy annually and provides over 66,000 full time jobs.8
8 http://www.tourismvancouver.com/media/corporate-communications/vancouvers-tourism-industry-fast-facts/
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 7 Page 312 of 372
DzͲϮϱ Critical to being competitive in a knowledge and Industry clusters in Metro Vancouver information based global economy is the quality of The emergence and dynamics of industry/employment the post-secondary element of the education services clusters can be very important in shaping the character sector. Post-secondary refers to academic and advanced of metropolitan economies. Clusters have been defi ned research programs as well as vocation and technical as “networks of production of strongly interdependent training programs. In Metro Vancouver, these programs fi rms (including specialized suppliers) linked to each are provided by the ten degree-granting institutions other in a value-adding production chain. In some in the region: BC Institute of Technology, Capilano cases, clusters also encompass strategic alliances University, Douglas College, Emily Carr University of with universities, research institutes, knowledge- Art + Design, the Justice Institute, Kwantlen Polytechnic intensive business services, bridging institutions University, Langara College, Simon Fraser University, (brokers, consultants) and customers.”9 Clusters thrive Vancouver Community College, and the University of on networks created among people with diverse British Columbia. Together these institutions provide and specialized skills as well as synergistic links to skilled workers for key clusters. The institutions are also other productive activities in a metropolitan region places of critical research and technology development, including entrepreneurship, new fi rm formation and both for the use in the market and as inputs to the availability of capital. Clusters differ from industrial important public policies that contribute to the region’s sectors which are standardized categories of businesses high quality of life and sustainability. Post-secondary or institutions that produce similar products or services. institutions are also an important job generator as enrollments, particularly in terms of international Techniques exist for identifying clusters that drive wealth students, grow. creation in a region. Some potential examples include a sustainable solutions cluster that has emerged from the strong natural resources orientation of the region, and Present and future challenges includes engineering and consulting fi rms involved in The prosperity of the Metro Vancouver region is mitigating environmental impacts, tech fi rms developing infl uenced by local market, social and environmental regenerative technologies and new energy sources, and conditions, as well as by national and global forces. new businesses involved in practices associated with the The region is facing some signifi cant short and long circular economy or zero waste production. term challenges, including most notably deteriorating Another is an information technology cluster. affordability, competition for land, investment in The cluster is diverse and dynamic, occupied by a transportation infrastructure, and climate change. combination of large, well-known companies and many small start-ups that thrive on connections to post- 'HWHULRUDWLQJDRUGDELOLW\ secondary institutions in the region for talent and The gap between incomes and housing costs is top research, good digital infrastructures and access to of mind for many residents, employers and local venture capital. A related but distinct cluster is digital governments. Most reports on housing focus on the and entertainment media which encompasses a wide soaring price of single detached homes in the region. range of creative fi rms and activities including visual But detached homes represent only one housing option effects and animation, fi lm and TV production, digital in a region where townhomes and condo developments media, video games and other interactive media that have become increasingly prominent. A recent report by rely on similar networks, talent and technology to create Metro Vancouver found that housing and transportation quality content. costs combined – typically the two largest household
9 Theo J.A. Roelandt & den Hertog, Pim. (1999). Boosting Innovation, the Cluster Approach, Cluster Analysis and Cluster-Based Policy Making in OECD Countries: An Introduction to the Theme. Paris: OECD, p. 9.
8 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 313 of 372
DzͲϮϲ expenditures – can eat up 40 per cent of household future generations in food production. In all, the income for owners with mortgages, and 49 per cent for need for innovative and fl exible land use policies is renters.10 In the case of renters, who must compete for a paramount to making the best use of this very scarce dwindling and threatened supply of purpose-built rental resource. units, lower income households can spend up to 67 per cent of their income on housing and transportation. Investment in transportation and transit infrastructure Compounding the affordability burden is income: the Metro Vancouver region has one of the lowest median To accommodate the one million new residents expected household incomes among major Canadian metropolitan by 2040, focused attention and investment will be areas. A high housing and transportation cost burden, needed to grow the region’s transportation system. As coupled with sub-par household incomes, challenges experienced in the recent transit plebiscite, however, efforts to attract and retain labour. building support among funding partners and the public for major investments in transportation infrastructure Competition for land is a challenging task. Renewed efforts on the part of leaders from all sectors and throughout the region Metro Vancouver, hemmed-in by the mountains to will be needed to convince decision-makers of the the north, ocean to the west, and Canada-US border critical need to target resources for new transit and to the south, has a limited supply of land on which transportation infrastructure. The effi cient movement to accommodate commercial, residential, industrial, of people and goods throughout the region is both an agricultural, and conservation needs. Competition indicator of, and a requirement for, regional prosperity. for this land base is a growing issue that will become only more pronounced in coming years as the region’s Climate change population and economy continue to expand. The issue is particularly problematic for industrial lands. There 2015 was one of the hottest years on record across the is unrelenting pressure on these lands for residential, globe.11 In BC, high temperatures, limited precipitation retail, and commercial uses, which offer higher and forest fi res emerged as evidence of climatic immediate returns on investment. A shortage of well- conditions deviating from historical norms. Reducing located industrial lands and higher land costs inhibits greenhouse gases, scaling up renewable energy job growth, discourages businesses from locating or sources, and adapting to changing climatic conditions expanding in the region, decreases productivity in the are the subject of international deliberations as well goods movement sector, and puts considerable pressure as the action plans of local governments across Metro on agricultural lands. Vancouver. The cost of adapting to climate change may be signifi cant, but doing nothing is no longer Agriculture is an important economic activity within an option. As Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of several municipalities in the region; in addition to high England, recently said: “Alongside major technological, value food production there are opportunities in agri- demographic and political shifts, our very world tourism to be realized. Agricultural lands are subject to is changing. Shifts in our climate bring potentially constant development pressure but as recognized by the profound implications to insurers, fi nancial stability and provincial Agricultural Land Reserve legislation, however, the economy.”12 protection of these lands ensures opportunities for
10 The Metro Vancouver Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study: a new way of looking at affordability. 2015.
11 http://mashable.com/2015/08/17/july-hottest-month-on-earth/
12 “Breaking the tragedy of the horizon – climate change and fi nancial stability” Speech given at the Lloyd’s of London on September 20, 2015.
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 9 Page 314 of 372
DzͲϮϳ The fl ip side of all of these challenges is the opportunities they create. Climate change, for example, creates new opportunities for developing innovative and sustainable practices that reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, for building more resilient systems and infrastructure, and for developing clean and renewable sources of energy. Climate change also highlights the need for agencies to work together in developing and implementing strategies. In The Netherlands, the City of Rotterdam has forged a dynamic relationship with its port authority, local businesses, industry and academic institutions under the Rotterdam Climate Initiative. The initiative aims to reduce CO2 emissions and make the region of Rotterdam “climate proof”.
An opportunity to plan for the future Many metropolitan economic initiatives have emerged out of economic crisis, current or anticipated. Metro Vancouver is not in a period of crisis, but is facing challenges that, taken together, will threaten the region’s long-term prosperity. The efforts of individual agencies, while important, cannot continue to be conceived and pursued in the absence of a broader strategy that recognizes the metropolitan area as the economic unit, and that builds on the strengths of the region as a whole. There is a growing recognition that purposeful dialogue involving all stakeholders is needed to consider and, ultimately, direct the region’s economic growth and prosperity.
Building a collective vision will require leadership and teamwork. In the recent transit plebiscite, leaders in the public, private, civic and labour sectors pulled together to advocate for a “yes” vote on a 0.5 per cent region- wide sales tax. Though unsuccessful in its objective, the effort demonstrated a willingness and ability on the part of business and community leaders to build an alliance and to dedicate resources on an initiative that benefi tted the quality of life in, and improved competitiveness of, the broader metropolitan area. This willingness to collaborate for the benefi t of the region will be essential in enabling Metro Vancouver to compete against other metropolitan areas, and to achieve long-term prosperity.
10 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 315 of 372
DzͲϮϴ 3 Learning from the Past
The Metro Vancouver region is unique among prominent Metro Vancouver Commerce midsize and large metropolitan areas in North America for its lack of any strategic, regional approach to In 2007, the Regional Collaboration on Economic prosperity. There have been efforts in the past to Development – Memorandum of Understanding, was cooperate on limited economic development initiatives; developed by the Cities of North Vancouver, Surrey, however, none of these initiatives succeeded for any Richmond and Vancouver. The collaborative initiative considerable period of time. The most notable examples sought to capitalize on interest in the region being were the Greater Vancouver Economic Partnership generated by the 2010 Olympics. Ultimately, the (GVEP), the Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC) collective transformed into MVC in 2009 and added fi ve and Metro Vancouver Commerce (MVC). new members: Maple Ridge, Port Moody, Coquitlam, New Westminster and the District of North Vancouver. The Greater Vancouver Economic Partnership and Greater mandate was expanded to include the development of trade and investment programs designed to benefi t the Vancouver Economic Council region. After the Olympics, MVC folded. The GVEP was in place from 1999 to 2002; the GVEC existed, subsequently, from 2004 to 2005. GVEP was Lessons learned given a mandate to market the Lower Mainland (Whistler to Hope) to prospective businesses, and to The examples of the GVEP, GVEC and MVC are useful develop a site selection database. GVEC was broader in to consider in the current discussion on regional its scope with a mandate to “stimulate investment and prosperity. Perhaps the most important lesson offered new employment in the Greater Vancouver Region by by these examples concerns the need for cross-sector creating a clear vision and economic strategy for the collaboration. In each case, meaningful participation Region, within a sustainability context.” was limited – to the private sector, in the cases of the GVEP and GVEC, and to the local public sector in the In both cases, the private sector provided leadership case of MVC. The inability or unwillingness to “broaden with some fi nancial support, primarily, from the federal the tent” to include players from all sectors is believed and provincial governments. Municipalities, with the to be at the root of these initiatives’ limited duration exception of the City of Vancouver, were not consulted and impact. Every sector – local government, business, in the early stages of either effort, and were thus not industry, civic, academia – has an important role to engaged in developing the missions. The reason given play in achieving prosperity. All should be involved in at the time for not including municipal leaders was that developing, governing and implementing joint efforts to their interests lay in their own municipalities rather benefi t the regional economy. than at the broader regional level. In both cases, the lack of buy-in from municipalities was viewed as a limitation by other potential participants.
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 11 Page 316 of 372
DzͲϮϵ 4 Examples from Elsewhere
To inform the ideas put forward in this Green Paper, support the partnership and has developed a regional prosperity and economic development initiatives from economic strategy that “lays out a comprehensive across North America were researched: game plan to grow jobs and economic activity.” The Trade Alliance is a private sector based organization • Greater Victoria focused on attracting international interest to the Greater Victoria Development Agency is an industry region. led organization focused on promoting economic development in the region based on sustainability and • Greater Portland market-based principles. This regional approach has The Greater Portland Inc. (GPI) is a public-private been developed to retain and develop local talent and partnership that works to shape the economic future businesses. of an area that spans two states and seven counties and to market Greater Portland to the world. GPI has • Greater Seattle organized itself to provide services that promote The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the effective collaboration and mobilization of resource. In Trade Alliance of Greater Seattle have forged a late 2015, GPI released Greater Portland 2020 which is partnership to enhance the economic vitality of the a fi ve year action plan to achieve economic prosperity Greater Seattle metropolitan area. PSRC, the regional by aligning business, education and civic leaders planning authority, provides research and analysis to around regional economic priorities.” 13
Figure 3: Metropolitan Economy/Prosperity Initiatives Studied
CALGARY REGION GREATER MONTREAL
GREATER VICTORIA GREATER SEATTLE WATERLOO REGION GREATER PORTLAND GREATER TORONTO NEW YORK REGION GREATER MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA METRO DENVER LOS ANGELES COUNTY GREATER SAN DIEGO GREATER AUSTIN
13 www.greaterportland2020.com
12 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 317 of 372
DzͲϯϬ • San Francisco Bay Area • Greater San Diego The metropolitan area around San Francisco San Diego Regional Economic Development experiences robust economic growth and is the Corporation is a nonprofi t corporation funded by model of how new technologies and industry clusters more than 150 companies and public partners emerge from the synergies between business committed to enhancing the prosperity of San Diego and academic research. This model has been County. Since 1965 the SDREDC has worked to attract, accomplished without a multi-party collaboration on retain and grow the number of businesses and good issues related to prosperity or a common economic quality jobs in the more than 18 communities in San strategy. In 2014 the Bay Area Council Economic Diego County. More recently the focus has been to Institute engaged business leaders and other encourage the more dynamic local companies to stakeholders in the development of A Roadmap for engage with foreign markets, both by exporting and Economic Resilience to identify the top opportunities exploring foreign investment. The unique links to the for securing the region’s global competitiveness Baja California economy and region is another part of and economic vitality while providing for greater the package. opportunities for the region’s residents to benefi t from on-going prosperity. Central to the roadmap is • Calgary Region a recognitions that the metropolitan nature of the Managed by an independent Board of Directors, economy requires a regional approach to addressing Calgary Economic Development is a not for profi t issues related to the labor pool, housing, job centers corporation funded by the City of Calgary, community partners, the private sector and other orders and commute fl ows. 14 of government. The guide for CED is the 10 year • Los Angeles County economic development strategy for Calgary which The Los Angeles County Economic Development includes a regional perspective. The connection to the Corporation (LAEDC) provides collaborative, innovative 15 communities in the Calgary Region is through the and strategic economic development leadership Calgary Regional Partnership which is a collaboration to promote the competiveness and prosperity of of municipalities focused on resolving the challenges Los Angeles County which includes 88 cities and that transcend municipal boundaries. communities. This leadership comes the expertise and counsel of business, government and education • Metro Denver members and partners involved. In addition, LAEDC The Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation undertakes economic research and analysis, provides (MDEDC), the fi rst regional economic development strategic assistance to government and business, and entity in the United States, brings together over 70 advocates for action in specifi c areas of public policy. cities, counties, and economic development agencies in the nine-county Metro Denver and Northern Colorado area to promote the region’s prosperity. A collaborative approach to growing and diversifying the regional economy has been built on the exchange of ideas and collaboration supported by a code of ethics that supports the shared objectives. Initiatives of MDEDC are driven by the priorities identifi ed by eight industry cluster advisory committees.
14 http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/report/a-roadmap-for-economic-resilience
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 13 Page 318 of 372
DzͲϯϭ • Greater Austin • Greater Toronto Opportunity Austin is a fi ve-year, fi ve-county economic The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA) is a development initiative aimed at fostering job-creating public-private partnership that serves as the point of investment in Central Texas. Launched in 2004 by the contact for businesses exploring opportunities in the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, the focus was Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The partnership brings to create new jobs in the region through a variety of together the 29 municipalities and regions in the GTA, programs funded by the business community. The other orders of government, not-for-profi t organizations, success of Opportunity Austin in the fi rst fi ve years has and a broad cross section of private sector corporations led to Opportunity Austin 3.0. to provide services for businesses interested in locating in the GTA. It does not have a broader prosperity agenda. • Greater Minneapolis-St. Paul Minneapolis St. Paul Region Economic Development • Greater Montreal Partnership (MSP) is a public-private partnership Montréal International is the result of a private-public dedicated to promoting economic and population partnership. Its mission is to contribute to the economic growth for the 16 county metropolitan area. The development of Greater Montréal and enhance its focus of the Greater MSP initiative is primarily to international status. This includes attracting foreign provide the rationale for businesses and talented and direct investment, international organizations and younger workers to relocate to the region. The Partner strategic talent while promoting the competitive Council meets regularly to discuss the activities of the environment of Greater Montréal. Montréal International partnership, to coordinate regional marketing activities is a non-profi t organization that receives funding from and outreach with Greater MSP staff, and to address the private sector and all orders of government. Issues regional challenges and opportunities. related to the quality of life and environment are handled through the Montreal Metropolitan Community • Waterloo Region – a public agency of the nearly 90 communities in the The Waterloo Region Economic Development Greater Montreal region. Corporation (WREDC) is a new initiative, established in 2015 to foster, support and deliver a coordinated • New York Region approach to enhancing the prosperity of the Waterloo The Regional Plan Association (RPA) is a distinguished region that includes seven municipalities. WREDC is urban research and advocacy organization that has funded by the participating local governments and worked to improve the prosperity, infrastructure, governed by a board of 13 directors selected from the sustainability and quality of life of the New York- private sector. The Board is charged with implementing New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan region. The the 2014 Waterloo Region Economic Development development of long-range plans and policies to guide Strategy that articulates the strategic directions and the region’s growth is the cornerstone of the RPA. Since actions designed to strengthen “a distinct, sustainable, the 1920s, RPA has produced three landmark plans for high performance, urban rural region.” The Strategy is the region and is working on a fourth plan that will the outcome of extensive public engagement process to tackle the urgent challenges facing the region, including develop a regional approach to maintaining the region’s climate change, fi scal uncertainty and declining economic growth sectors. economic opportunity. The RPA is a public-private partnership.
Detailed profi les of initiatives will be available on-line and in hard copy as a separate package.
14 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 319 of 372
DzͲϯϮ Characteristics of initiatives studied Mission. While the missions of metropolitan initiatives span a broad spectrum, most are focused on attracting new business and investment to the region through greater promotion of the region’s economic assets and quality of life. Retention and expansion of existing businesses are also common objectives, as is workforce development. Less common are efforts aimed at improving the business climate, fostering innovation and working together to enhance the region’s livability.
Services. The collection and assessment of data, the undertaking of research and the formulation of a regional economic strategy and/or cluster-based strategy constitute core activities in most of the initiatives examined. In addition, almost all of the initiatives focus considerable attention on efforts to market their regions. A majority offer some form of business advisory services, primarily targeted at site selection, as well as initiatives related to workforce development.
Governance. The most common organizational structure for regional initiatives is an independent, non-profi t, member-based public- private agency. The board, in most instances, includes a diverse group of members and representatives though a few have involvement exclusively from the government or the private sector.Staffi ng levels in organizations examined vary from two to forty.
Funding. Most initiatives rely heavily on membership fees for funding. The board, in most instances, includes a diverse group of members and representatives though a few have involvement exclusively from the government or the private sector.
G Page 320 of 372
DzͲϯϯ Key takeaways The review of metropolitan prosperity initiatives points to some key lessons for Metro Vancouver. Consider the following points:
1 Commitment to region Discussion is needed on the roles of local economic development organizations within the metropolitan area to ensure that the various efforts underway and planned complement each other. The need to promote the strengths of the region as a whole, and a recognition of the importance of a collective regional vision, are important items on which to focus the discussion.
2 Phased approach to building credibility Successful initiatives start modestly and build the credibility needed for a broader role. Greater Portland Inc. (GPI) is a case in point. GPI formed in 2011 to focus on marketing and promotion, and to foster growth in exports and foreign direct investment. GPI’s success over the fi rst few years gave it the credibility it needed with regional stakeholders to undertake the development of a comprehensive regional economic strategy.
3 Commitment to action Successful initiatives identify a comprehensive and strategic set of implementable, focused actions driven by a high-level vision. Commitment to the actions, in the form of stable funding and ongoing involvement, is critical.
4 Adaptability As the economic landscape changes in a region in response to competitive, technological and social factors, the prosperity initiative must adapt.
5 Member engagement Collaborative initiatives must ensure that members are engaged frequently and in meaningful ways. Regular engagement ensures that the initiative is on track and has the backing of key players. Most initiatives engage members through meetings of the board and committees; some hold other workshops on special topics and/or general economic summits. It is also important to align the interests of the members with those that benefi t from a program or other action.
16 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 321 of 372
DzͲϯϰ 5 A ‘Made in Metro Vancouver’ Approach
This section presents a proposed model for a multi- stakeholder, regional prosperity initiative in Metro Services Vancouver. The model has been designed with the It is proposed that the regional initiative develop and history, current needs and future challenges of the undertake services in a phased manner, beginning with region in mind. It is presented, in the true spirit of a the “connectivity” of regional partners. green paper, to generate discussion and debate, not to prescribe a particular course of action. Readers are Connectivity asked to consider how the model may or may not meet the needs of the region, and how it might be improved. Even before the formal creation of the new entity, regional partners will see benefi t from the collaboration and coordination among them in beginning to work Mission together and discuss regional issues. In coming A broad mission for the regional initiative is proposed together, regional partners can build the relationships as a starting point: Position Metro Vancouver as a necessary for effective advocacy on issues of regional vibrant and innovative centre in which leaders from importance, and together leverage their individual all sectors work collaboratively to achieve economic strengths for effective action. Early discussions will help prosperity for all. Much of the initiative’s ability to inform future steps, including determining early priority further defi ne and to fulfi ll this mission will come actions for quick wins. through its role in facilitating dialogue among, and encouraging action from, partners.
Figure 4: Phased Approach to Service Provision by Proposed Initiative
CONNECTIVITY RESEARCH & ANALYSIS ACTION AGENDA TO BE DETERMINED
Regional partners A thorough analysis of The collaborative process Subsequent activities to collaborate/convene to regional economic of developing an action be determined based on leverage their strengths assets, clusters and agenda would inform the findings, regional needs and build relationships opportunities is required next steps for the initiative, and opportunities and necessary for effective to inform development including identifying members’ interests. advocacy on issues of of strategy. priority initiatives to regional importance. enhance the livability and sustainability of the region.
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 17 Page 322 of 372
DzͲϯϱ Research and analysis What could a regional action agenda A full inventory of regional economic assets, clusters, look like? opportunities and needs would be undertaken. This information, which has value in and of itself, Regional economic prosperity action agendas, or would be needed to help leaders better understand strategies, refl ect an understanding by stakeholders the metropolitan economy, and (ultimately) inform that metropolitan areas must identify and focus a regional action agenda. On an ongoing basis, a scarce resources on priorities in order to produce centralized base of current, reliable and useful maximum benefi ts for all. Findings from a study economic data would be maintained, including: of regional action agendas in other centres are described here. • the distribution and dynamics of key clusters and Developing the agenda. Signifi cant stakeholder sectors; input on a broad set of topics is important at the • identifi ed gaps between industry requirements and outset of the process in order to develop a common existing skills in the workforce, and education offerings understanding of the challenges and opportunities and enrolment; facing the region, and to set an agreed-upon base for action. As an example, New York recently • an evaluation of the effi cacy of existing education, convened a broad coalition of experts and leaders training and placement programs to fi ll workforce for a series of discussions on various topics, from gaps; sea level rise adaptation to the future of work, in an effort to develop an integrated look at the region’s • foreign direct investment levels and exports; and natural and built environment as well as issues • data related to innovation including research and more directly related to economic activity. development expenditures, patents issued, startups Content of the agenda. Content typically created, and venture capital funding levels. includes a focus on the economic fundamentals of the metropolitan region – specifi cally, the Action agenda competitive advantages and the areas that require improvement. Efforts often start with developing To guide and coordinate the efforts of stakeholders, an understanding of existing businesses in the the development of an action agenda – a regional region and their supply chains in order to identify strategy with a focus on implementable actions – ancillary industries or other synergies that should would be undertaken. Leaders from all sectors would be targeted. Another common focus concerns come together to articulate a vision for the region, workforce development, including strategies to identify priorities, and to assign responsibility for for enhancing certain fi elds at post-secondary actions. The agenda would include actions to build institutions and recruiting people with needed skills the capacity and competitiveness of economic sectors and expertise. and/or clusters as well as actions requiring multi- stakeholder collaboration to enhance the livability and More recent prosperity action agendas incorporate sustainability of the metropolitan area. a stronger focus on transportation infrastructure as a requirement for metropolitan prosperity. The agenda may in fact not be a document but a Accountability for action. Some action agendas process. Instead of developing a regional action agenda, identify the strategies and actions that just Metro Denver has identifi ed the eight important clusters the regional initiative will implement. Others, that drive the metropolitan economy. The focus of such as Calgary, Portland and Seattle, are more Metro Denver’s work is then identifi ed by the needs and comprehensive and include important and related initiatives that emerge from the eight cluster advocacy actions to be undertaken by member organizations. groups.
18 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 323 of 372
DzͲϯϲ Potential future services Governance Guided by the wishes of member organizations, The proposed model is an independent, non-profi t additional services could be established and regional prosperity agency created and governed by undertaken through the regional initiative. For example, leaders from all sectors that make up the regional a consistent branding and promotional strategy could economy, including business, industry, academia, civic be developed for the region, based on the direction organizations, labour and local government. A board set in the action agenda. The initiative would establish of directors would be broad in terms of interests the brand value proposition for the Metro Vancouver represented, but would also be small enough to be region, and could develop industry-specifi c marketing effective. Most board members, it is expected, would materials. Target audiences would be identifi ed and come from sectors other than government – an core messages would be crafted. Promotion efforts approach that would help to ensure that the initiative at the metropolitan level should complement the remained focused on and responsive to the needs of marketing campaigns of economic development all groups in the economy. Board committees would initiatives at the local level. On-going engagement with provide opportunities for participation in strategy boards of trade, chambers of commerce and municipal development and other key activities by a full spectrum economic development offi ces would be important. of agencies, including civic groups.
Additionally, the research into regional labour markets The board’s structure might resemble the composition and skills required to maintain competitive clusters shown in the accompanying graphic. As noted earlier, could point to the need for enhanced specialized past attempts at a regional economic approach in programs aimed at workforce development and Metro Vancouver, as well as the experiences in other attracting investment. The challenges to livability in metropolitan areas, have shown that it is important to the region – affordability, congestion and mobility, have cross-sector collaboration. ecosystem protection – could be addressed through strong advocacy efforts organized through the initiative. Figure 5: Proposed Composition of Board
A desire on the part of local development agencies PUBLIC SECTOR EDUCATION INDUSTRY / BUSINESSES to provide advice on site selection for the region as a whole through a single point of contact could ECONOMIC be addressed through a regional business advisory DEVELOPMENT service. To further complement the work of local groups, the new regional organization could use Initial staffi ng would be minimal. An executive director, its research expertise to identify companies within supported by a small group of economists and business targeted clusters to develop leads and prospects, and to analysts would support the board in its various support business recruitment and expansion strategies. activities. Outbound sales and recruitment trips involving member organizations could be organized. The regional organization could gather market intelligence to identify Funding opportunities for and threats to sectors located in the Similar to other successful metropolitan prosperity region. initiatives, funding would come primarily from member organizations. Other sources, such as grants from other orders of government, could be used to supplement money raised, but not to drive or control the initiative.
Local government may need to provide a certain amount of start-up funding to help the initiative get started. It would be important to ensure, however, that such funding remained time-limited and capped.
Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver 19 Page 324 of 372
DzͲϯϳ 6 Next Steps
In the immediate future, discussions will be organized with the range of stakeholders in regional prosperity including local economic development groups, boards of trade, representatives of economic sectors and clusters, civic organizations, labour, academia and media. The discussions will explore the need for regional prosperity initiative, and will present the ideas outlined in the Green Paper. Efforts will be made to fi nd common ground for moving forward.
In early 2016, Metro Vancouver (the regional government) will organize and host a “Forum on Regional Prosperity”. The event will bring together representatives of all sectors, along with thought leaders from the Metro Vancouver region, to discuss possibilities. The desired outcome will be some form of collaborative, regional initiative focused on positioning the Metro Vancouver region as a competitive and vibrant metropolitan economy. The exact form that the initiative takes will be up to the Forum participants.
20 Green Paper I Framework for a Regional Prosperity Initiative in Metro Vancouver Page 325 of 372
DzͲϯϴ Page 326 of 372
DzͲϯϵ NOVEMBER 2015 Page 327 of 372
DzͲϰϬ dd,D EdϮ
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Networked Economies and Globalizing Urban Regions
A REPORT PREPARED FOR METRO VANCOUVER NOVEMBER 2016 Page 328 of 372
DzͲϰϭ Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Networked Economies and Globalizing Urban Regions
Prepared for Metro Vancouver by:
Trevor Barnes
Department of Geography Faculty of Arts University of British Columbia
Tom Hutton
School of Community and Regional Planning Faculty of Applied Science University of British Columbia
November 2016
Page 329 of 372
DzͲϰϮ Contents
Executive Summary ...... 3
Purpose and Approach ...... 4
Contours of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver ...... 5
Global Processes and Local Outcomes in Metropolitan Economies...... 7
The emergence of world cities in advanced economies and urban systems ...... 7
A shift to a services-based metropolitan economy ...... 8
The importance of specialized industrial clusters ...... 9
The spatial organization of metropolitan economies ...... 10
Structural processes and the power of local-regional contingency ...... 11
Metro Vancouver Goes Global ...... 12
Development Trajectory ...... 12
Opportunities and Challenges ...... 13
Economic Geography: External Circuits and Comparators ...... 17
Toward a Collaborative Regional Governance and Networked Metro Vancouver Economy ...... 18
Appendices ...... 20
I. Notes on Sources and Methodology ...... 20
II. City-Regions and Economic Development: Twelve Key Texts ...... 21
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 1 Page 330 of 372
DzͲϰϯ 2 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 331 of 372
DzͲϰϰ Executive Summary
The economy of the Metro Vancouver region has and high-value food and beverage production. The been fundamentally restructured over the past three latter are supported by the agricultural operations decades, shaped by global processes, but always within the region and into the Fraser Valley. Many of mediated by local and regional factors. The 1980s were these clusters are increasingly represented throughout a decade of change, including a deep local recession Metro Vancouver, contributing to the emergence of a caused by a steep decline in resource industries and true regional economy. their associated services. This was followed by the Looking forward, Metro Vancouver’s economic emergence of a new development trajectory shaped by prospects are enhanced by many factors. These include markets, capital, and cultures of the Asia-Pacifi c – the international connectivity, higher education institutions, leading growth economies of a globalizing world. cultural diversity, unique regional ecological assets, and A signature event of the 1980s was the Expo ’86 World positive place-identity, all supported by commitments Exposition, showcasing advances in transportation to quality public infrastructure and services. These systems and technologies. Metro Vancouver’s fi rst provide a platform for economic development, fi xed-rail transit line, linking Vancouver’s downtown fi rst opportunity and widely shared prosperity if supported to New Westminster and then to the nascent regional by the right governance model and policy levers. town centre of Surrey, facilitated the emergence of a Our study also discloses some problematic conditions regional economy and an increasingly cosmopolitan and factors. These include a serious mismatch between society. Both processes were enhanced by immigration housing and labour markets within the region, the lack from the Asia-Pacifi c. The 2010 Olympic Winter of propulsive-scale fi rms in major sectors compared Games represented another hallmark event for Metro to leading metropolitan economies, land supply Vancouver, with important venues situated in Richmond constraints, transport congestion, and detrimental and North Vancouver as well as the City of Vancouver social conditions including poverty, polarization and and Whistler. inequality. Foundational features of Metro Vancouver’s economy In our view, moving forward to a dynamic, sustainable are the strategic gateway complexes of Port of and high-wage economy will require a new approach, Vancouver, Canada’s largest port, and Vancouver one more closely aligned with the models of the International Airport (YVR), consistently ranked as the most successful advanced metropolitan economies, leading airport in North America. The airport and cruise and attuned to our region’s specifi c conditions and ship terminal underpin the important visitor economy potentials. More specifi cally, a prosperous Metro of tourists, convention delegates, and extended family Vancouver requires, with some urgency, a more effective members. In addition, higher education and related collaborative and regional approach to development, advanced research institutions, the health and medical a complementary program promoting a more fully complex, fi rms providing fi nance and business services, networked economy, an innovative approach to and property development companies comprise managing critical land resources, and a commitment to cornerstones of Metro Vancouver’s economy. New and a more effective use of the human, social, cultural and growing clusters of specialized industries and labour institutional resources that abound in the region. include fi lm and video production, telecommunications, social media, green industry technologies, aerospace,
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 3 Page 332 of 372
DzͲϰϱ Purpose and Approach
The purpose of this report is to describe and analyse We begin with an overview of how Metro Vancouver’s the extended regional or metropolitan economy by economy evolved over the last decades, followed looking backward over the last 30 years and projecting by a discussion of the importance of metropolitan into the future. We draw on concepts from academic economies as the driver of development in a globalizing literature in urban studies and planning, as well as economic context. We then offer a profi le of Metro empirical sources. Vancouver’s economic pathway, taking into account the industrial restructuring of the past three decades, We intend to delineate Metro Vancouver’s principal together with implications of a shift in development economic advantages and drivers that are its sources orientation toward the Asia-Pacifi c. Next we address of prosperity as well as its weaknesses and challenges. the organization of Metro Vancouver’s economy, This involves identifying growing and profi table underscoring the importance of specialized clusters, economic clusters, agglomerations of similar and and a discussion of growth opportunities and more connected kinds of economic activity, as well as their problematic features, and close with a summary of forms of labour market, employment characteristics observations concerning regional and collaborative and levels of remuneration. Not all clusters are approaches, network formation, and industrial land. equal, of course, nor do they necessarily interact and cumulatively reinforce one another. Each cluster exhibits its own unique and specialized tendencies.
The conceptual framework derives from concerted work carried out by Canadian and international scholars on changing inter- and intra-metropolitan economic relationships. This work includes our extended engagement within larger collaborative economic research projects on the dynamics of urban growth and change, cited in Appendix I. The topic of urban economic change has been a rich research vein, deep and productive (see Appendix II for important examples). We also make use of the now signifi cant body of scholarly work completed by researchers based in Metro Vancouver, which is both theoretically suggestive and empirically dense. Empirical sources include Canadian census material, BC and Metro Vancouver statistics, and industry and area-based reports including selections from the Conference Board of Canada.
4 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 333 of 372
DzͲϰϲ Contours of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver
During the last 30 years Metro Vancouver’s economy The forestry sector became more capital-intensive, and has undergone a sea change. Its old self is now barely forests more accessible. From the 1970s, as companies recognisable. Large swathes of the old landscape continued to operate in ecologically sensitive, old- where the economy was once embedded are no longer growth forests, there was increasing confl ict between detectible. logging companies, conservationists and First Nations. Greenpeace, which was founded in Vancouver in 1971 to oppose nuclear testing, joined with other local activists to oppose some logging operations especially in coastal British Columbia, leading to what was known as the “war in the woods”. This dynamic of oppositional politics and public protest on resource-based economic activity can be observed in the current controversies around the shipment of coal and the transportation of oil by pipeline in and through the Lower Mainland.
The world came to Vancouver for “Expo 86”, signalling a changed relationship between Metro Vancouver and the rest of the world. At the same time, wider forces of globalization were taking hold, including the opening up and expansion of economies hitherto closed and stagnant, like China’s and India’s. Moreover, as Metro Vancouver began to move towards “world city” status, Until the fi rst half of the 1980s, Metro Vancouver its relationship to the rest of the province altered, functioned as a local control, fi nance, distribution and particularly in relation to its staples economy. From processing centre for British Columbia’s resource or about 1986 Metro Vancouver began to decouple, to staples economy. The principal resource was the “Green separate itself, from British Columbia’s historically Gold” of forestry, as UBC scholar Patricia Marchak once diverse, sometimes lucrative, sometimes depressed, described it. Other staples that were managed, fi nanced, resource economy. The metropolitan economy and distributed within the region included coal, fi sh, became much more varied, incorporating knowledge- agricultural commodities and a variety of minerals. and technology-intensive specializations, with new There was even a small stock exchange on Howe Street industries and clusters. that raised capital from “penny stocks”, primarily for speculative mining ventures. Decision-making and fi nancial services were concentrated in downtown Vancouver, and included corporate headquarters like MacMillan-Bloedel’s prize-winning, Arthur Erickson- designed, head offi ce on Georgia Street. Processing and distribution functions were dispersed around Burrard Inlet and the inner suburbs along the Fraser Estuary.
1. Port Metro Vancouver was renamed the Port of Vancouver in 2016. Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 5 Page 334 of 372
DzͲϰϳ The impact of global forces also changed the face Infrastructure, investment and new management of Metro Vancouver. There was the loss of resource systems have been critical to Metro Vancouver’s corporations headquartered in the downtown core international trajectory. The establishment of Port (most notable was MacMillan Bloedel which was bought Metro Vancouver in 2008, comprising the previously out in 1999 after more than a decade of fi nancial independent Port of Vancouver, the Fraser River Port turmoil) and a reduction of manufacturing jobs, often Authority, and the North Fraser Port, enhanced the unionised and well paying. In 2014, only 5% of Metro impact of port activity. The port1 and the Vancouver Vancouver’s employment was in manufacturing. This is a International Airport, owned by Transport Canada, a much smaller percentage than for Toronto or Montreal, federal agency, enhance Metro Vancouver’s strategic but comparable to London and Hong Kong, which have gateway role, and more especially the region’s – and undergone extended and deep restructuring processes. Canada’s – connections with the Asia-Pacifi c that constitute the most infl uential circuit of growth and By opening itself up to the world, and spurred by change in the region. federal and provincial policies around immigration, Metro Vancouver benefi tted by attracting people, investment capital and businesses. Its historical ties helped it forge particularly strong connections to Asia (more than half the globe by land area and population), becoming a gateway city for that continent. In this sense, Metro Vancouver shared in the wealth created in places half a world away. There were costs to this strategy of greater engagement with the Asia-Pacifi c, though, including the current infl ated housing market and a widening social divide.
6 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 335 of 372
DzͲϰϴ Global Processes and Local Outcomes in Metropolitan Economies
We are now in the age of metropolitan economies. Over refi ned especially during the tidal wave of globalization the course of the 20th century, metropolitan-regions, of the 1980s and 1990s. World cities are places where large extended urban areas like Metro Vancouver, have the work of globalization is done. London, New York, and emerged as the principal drivers of global economic Tokyo are at the very top of the world cities hierarchy. growth and change. They are places where talent Those metropolitan regions perform their functions, congregates and where economic innovation and especially fi nance and corporate control, around the creativity as well as corporate decision-making occur, globe and around the clock. But there are other levels affecting not only local and national but international within the world cities hierarchy. In the second rung, economic spaces. Finance capital, including venture which would include such metropolitan regions of the capital, accumulates in these urban centres and global global north as Paris, Frankfurt, Sydney, Los Angeles, supply chains come down to earth as production, and Chicago, are so-called “multiplex cities” containing distribution or retail centres; specialized forms of ensembles of banking, management, scientifi c economic activity such fi lm production, or high-tech innovation, media and creative industries. Within the innovation, or fi nancial services agglomerate and high-growth East Asian region at the same hierarchical cluster; and migrants from the four corners of the level are Seoul, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore, world journey, bringing skills, resources, and cultural with Shanghai especially posing a challenge to Tokyo’s knowledge. Further, the very diversity and density of apex global city status in the East Asian realm. Each activities found in metropolitan economies enhances of these cities projects signifi cant global reach while economic productivity through internal and external serving as local management and banking centres. And economies of scale, producing a virtuous cycle, where within the Global South, Johannesburg, Mumbai, Sao prior growth and prosperity creates yet more growth Paulo and Mexico City comprise sites of head offi ces, and prosperity. Large metropolitan regions power the banking and trade as well as increasingly advanced global economy. industrial production.
Pulling from the academic literature, there are four Within Canada, metropolitan Toronto is also on important features of metropolitan economies. the second rung of the hierarchy, while other large Canadian metropolitan regions are on the next step The emergence of world cities in advanced economies down. They are important nationally, but they don’t and urban systems interact with the whole world, only a part of it, often trading on past historical linkages with particular First, large international metropolitan regions are regions. In Metro Vancouver’s case, it is the connection “world cities”, a term coined by Peter Hall during the with parts of Asia that is important. A useful idea linked second half of the 1960s, and further developed and to world cities is “transnational urbanism”. This is the
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 7 Page 336 of 372
DzͲϰϵ notion that an important connection among world Canadian economist Harold Innis’s ‘staples theory’ of cities, in fact, partially holding them together as an development published almost a century ago.) overall system, are contemporary patterns of migration in which migrants continue to live in two places at once. Given Metro Vancouver’s small manufacturing Transnationalism is increasingly practiced because of employment, deindustrialisation had limited effects, the ease of international transportation, ever more although at particular sites they were transformative. permeable boundaries, and the possibilities of holding For example, the former industrial areas of the north two citizenships, or at least one citizenship and a and south sides of False Creek have become primarily residence visa. residential and associated with the new economy. Mills along the Fraser River demonstrated greater Germane to Metro Vancouver, transnationalism has longevity but are now transforming also into new been associated especially with the Chinese diaspora. urban spaces. An important issue here is “resilience”; It is linked to what Aihwa Ong calls “astronaut families”, that is, the ability of a given metropolitan region to the opposite of nuclear families that are characterized bounce back following a signifi cant traumatic event by family members all staying in the same place. such as deindustrialisation or deep recession. Metro Astronaut families, in contrast, are split between Vancouver’s resilience was especially robust following different places, with different members of the same the decline of the provincial resource economy during family at different times spending periods at each the fi rst part of the 1980s. It was then that Metro of those places. For our purposes, the importance of Vancouver remade itself, taking on a second life. transnationalism is that it provides yet more glue in the
bond that holds world cities together. Transnationalism A shift to a services-based metropolitan economy brings thick connections, literally embodied, holding together the extended metropolitan regions between The second common feature among metropolitan which people’s lives are geographically split. economies has been the rise of the service economy. Within the largest metropolitan regions this has Within the world cities of the global north, and meant the growing prominence of an educated, particularly, metropolitan economies found within credentialed professional, scientifi c and cultural Canada, there are broad common features. First is workforce. Such workers are part of a larger shift in deindustrialization, the decline of mass manufacturing the economy towards a post-industrial society, and employment that began in the 1970s and reached fi rst recognised in embryo during the early 1970s a nadir during the 1980s. Clearly, those cities that by the American sociologist, Daniel Bell. The post- historically relied on manufacturing were most affected. industrial economy replaced the old manufacturing In Canada’s case they were found mainly in Ontario economy. Post-industrialism’s principal product is and Quebec, which comprised Canada’s industrial not tangible – such as cars, stoves, two-by-fours – but heartland, while more peripheral regions specialized in intangibles: knowledge and information. Because the resource industries. (This pattern was captured in
8 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 337 of 372
DzͲϱϬ what is produced is different, the workers who make it The activities are clustered because of agglomeration are also different. They are valued for their creativity, economies, which result from the high degree of education and mental agility, which have been acquired interaction, both formal and informal, among fi rms and credentialed by the institutions of higher learning forming the geographical cluster. Agglomeration they attended. In Richard Florida’s terms, this portion advantages include the establishment of schools and of the workforce forms a new urban “creative class”, educational programmes to train labour employed in the which through its high income, its preference for urban cluster; the splitting of costs among fi rms for production residences, and its particular retail consumer aesthetic, space and equipment; the setting up of business has reshaped the form and internal dynamics of large associations and lobby groups to further the interests metropolitan regions. of the cluster; the sharing of information among fi rms about new markets, products, techniques, and labour; The other form of service work carried out in large the emergence of specialized services, say, in fi nance, to metropolitan areas, such as retailing, food and meet specifi c needs of the cluster; the opportunity for a beverage, and personal services, generally does not more fi ne-grained division of labour, and hence greater require sustained levels of education and training. That cluster productivity; and a relentless drive within the work mainly serves the needs of the local metropolitan cluster for innovation and advantage spurred both by population. Financial rewards for this kind of service internal cooperation and competition. The point is that work are not as high as for the creative class. In Metro clusters have an energy, dynamism and vigour brought Vancouver’s case, this part of the service sector also about by their very collective character. Any fi rm located satisfi es the needs of visitors, tourists and short-term within the cluster both raises its own competitive residents, as well as transnationals. For one of the profi le and, in so far as it contributes to the collective, functions of Metro Vancouver is, as Elliot Siemiticki raises the cluster’s competitive profi le too. Competitive put it, “a resort town”: an overstatement perhaps, but advantage lies outside a fi rm, even the industry, residing a term with resonance in the Metro Vancouver urban instead in the aggregated production complex, the imagination. cluster, and the associated concentrated geography. There is a signifi cant regional aspect to services In addition, certain kinds of institutions and networks development in Metro Vancouver. Complexes of are key to the growth of such clusters within advanced specialized offi ce and retail activities are key to the economies of city-regions. Foremost among these growth of regional town centres, exemplifi ed by Surrey are major research-based universities. They train Centre, Burnaby’s Metrotown and North Vancouver’s and educate the high-level labour central to the Lonsdale Quay. They have embodied key planning goals most successful urban-regional economies, and also since the original regional growth management strategy, attract major national and international funding The Livable Region 1976/1986. Further, that remains for all kinds of research, notably in the domains of in the current Metro Vancouver 2040, comprising an applied science, telecommunications, transportation, important continuity in Metro Vancouver’s extended medicine and health, and architecture and the built development narrative. environment. The arts and humanities are also important foundations for advanced urban-regional The importance of specialized economies, as they help to promote the creativity and industrial clusters cosmopolitanism associated with great world cities such as London, Paris, and New York. Increasingly, A third common feature among the larger extended too, the strength and operating characteristics of metropolitan economies within Canada, and other networks (which may include production, business, global northern countries, are clusters of new economic social, cultural, or institutional networks) constitute activity, especially in high tech, design, social media defi ning features of the most advanced metropolitan and cultural industries. Such clusters: attract capital, economies. Manuel Castells developed this idea in especially venture capital, and talented, high-paid his landmark study, The Rise of the Network Society skilled labour; help forge international connections; (Wiley-Blackwell 1996). More recently, drawing on an and are a source of scientifi c and cultural innovation. extended program of comparative research in Los
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 9 Page 338 of 372
DzͲϱϭ Angeles and San Francisco, Michael Storper’s The Rise and commercial services as well as transportation and Fall of Metropolitan Economies (Stanford: 2015) infrastructure, and industrial activity requiring large compellingly shows the critical roles played by the footprints or cheap land prices and rents. interactions of economic specialization, human capital and institutions in the economic success of city-regions The geography of economic activity within these spaces in the twenty-fi rst-century. Finally, Allen Scott has of the metropolis include the central business district underscored the centrality of knowledge, creativity and (CBD) comprising fi nancial and corporate offi ce activity; social connectivity in Social Economy of the Metropolis: industrial districts, which accommodate manufacturing, Cognitive-cultural capitalism and the global resurgence warehousing and distribution; special-purpose zones for of cities (Oxford 2008). major ports and airports; and retail districts which may include specialized retail areas as well as major shopping centre complexes. But these economic spaces are not The spatial organization of metropolitan economies immutable, and are subject to forces of change, refl ecting A fi nal common feature is explicitly spatial, the the rise of new industries (and decline of others), the increasing geographical fragmentation of metropolitan impacts of production and communications technologies, regional economies. “Urban splintering” means that and global forces. Digital technologies, corporate different spaces within the metropolitan region downsizing and changes in the structure of labour have specialize in different kinds of economic functions impacted central business districts, with retail, technology and forms of employment. The different parts are not fi rms and consumption activities infi ltrating the CBD. conventionally integrated into a single, uniform-type The decline of traditional manufacturing and resource of economy. Rather, as one commentator suggested, industries, as in the Metro Vancouver case, have produced the different spaces are held together by “mutual employment losses, but represent resources for new gravitational attraction”, with in some cases large industries, especially in the technology and creative geographical gaps between the nodes. The idea of industry sectors. ‘Cultural quarters’, typically including a fragmented, multi-nodal, multi-specialised city- creative industries as well as ancillary consumption region, a splintered metropolis, has been investigated activities such as restaurants, cafes and bars, have empirically, demonstrating an increasingly complex emerged as signifi cant economic spaces of the metropolis. spatial structure. But again pressures of change are apparent, pointing to Typically, three kinds of different spaces within the the fl uidity of space and function in the metropolis, and metropolitan region are recognised. First, there is we acknowledge three examples: the inner city zone around the city centre, which is • The idea of industrial spaces shaped by largely localised increasingly residential, subject to the juggernaut of production networks of labour and suppliers must be gentrifi cation, and bound up with high-end forms of modifi ed by the increasing use of outsourcing, enabled retailing, public and private consumption and spectacle. by digital production and communications technologies, Industry here takes the form of cultural, design-based essentially ‘stretching’ the territorial scope of modern and technology-intensive spaces of the new economy, production systems; or “neo-industrial” as it has been called, and a leading development zone for world cities such as London, • The patterns of retail activity in metropolitan areas San Francisco and Shanghai. Second, within suburban are increasingly subject to the growing trend toward districts we observe specifi c nodes and activities such e-retailing and online shopping; and as manufacturing, retail and business centres, industrial parks, universities and technical colleges, research and • Globalizing cities such as New York, London, Toronto and development campuses, and airports. Finally, there are Vancouver are exposed to large infl ows of capital from peri-urban spaces, anywhere from 50-100 kilometres international sources, placing upward pressures on land outside of the downtown core, which make the prices, and a powerful tendency toward more profi table transition from the rural to urban functions. This zone land uses displacing others in the process. can include new residential spaces along with public
10 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 339 of 372
DzͲϱϮ Structural processes and the power of Another example of Metro Vancouver’s uniqueness has local-regional contingency been its changing relationship with the wood-products industry. Historically, Metro Vancouver was embedded The processes of deindustrialisation, the growth of within the province’s forestry sector; trees were the the service economy, new economy cluster formation, local natural resource endowment that produced the and urban splintering are found across Canadian greatest income and wealth. That, as we will discuss metropolitan regions, indeed, across metropolitan in some detail below, changed during the early 1980s, systems of the global north. They indicate a degree of so that forestry was no longer an industry on which convergence among metropolitan economies. Within wealth and income could be counted. Compare that this high-level frame there can be signifi cant divergence to Calgary whose local resource endowment, oil, across the urban systems within and between countries, continued to generate wealth and income, and at however. some periods, enormously so. It never faced Metro Vancouver’s crisis during the 1980s, until now at least. For example, Metro Vancouver’s historical ties to Asia, Seattle-Tacoma’s economy was also initially based on which began before the province was a province, the forest economy. However, in the 1920s the Boeing and Vancouver was Vancouver, clearly has infl uenced Corporation established its operations there. Making both the current pattern of immigration to the planes increasingly became a new source of wealth metropolitan region, and the economic consequences. and income, and through the linkage to electrical Metro Vancouver has a far higher proportion of ethnic engineering, helped create that metropolitan region’s Chinese (19%: 402,000 ethnic Chinese population) than high-tech economy. Calgary (7%: 75,401 Chinese population), or the Seattle- Tacoma metropolis (4.1% ethnic Chinese). Neither had The larger point is that while extended metropolitan a historical relationship to China like Metro Vancouver. regions may experience common processes like The reversion of Hong Kong to China by Britain in 1997 deindustrialisation, service sector growth, and new and the promotion of Asian immigration by the British economy clustering, how those places deal with those Columbia and Canadian governments through the processes, and the economic consequences, will be immigrant entrepreneurial programme in 1998, along different because of particular determining local with the rise over the last quarter century of East Asia geographies and histories. as a titanic economic power, have brought immigrants and wealth to the region.
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 11 Page 340 of 372
DzͲϱϯ Metro Vancouver Goes Global
Development Trajectory Southwest Marine Drive in the City of Vancouver closed in 1999 and Canfor closed its Panel and Fibre Mill in The provincial staples economy, most prominently New Westminster in 2007). forestry, fi shing and mining, initially drove the development of what is now Metro Vancouver. It was within this context of the decline that a Downtown Vancouver was the corporate decision- new Metro Vancouver economy emerged, showing making and fi nance centre, and the Port along with remarkable resilience as it thrived in a post-staples warehousing along Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River economy. As the character of commerce changed, Metro were principal sites of physical storage and distribution. Vancouver became signifi cantly post-corporate, with Processing was carried out across the Lower Mainland. fewer head offi ces than comparably sized metropolitan In Innis’s language, Vancouver developed as a “local regions. In 2014, there were 240 head offi ces in Metro metropole” for British Columbia’s natural resource Vancouver with 15,000 employees, compared to 386 economy, performing key fi nancial, management, head offi ces with 41,276 employees in Montreal, and processing, and distribution roles. 215 head offi ces with over 32,000 employees in Calgary. (Source: Statistics Canada Table 528-0002). Some of the municipalities within Metro Vancouver were connected directly to staples production, such as Metro Vancouver’s post-staples economy took on the fi shing in Steveston (now part of Richmond), logging in hallmarks of post-industrialism. Employment soared North Vancouver, agriculture in Richmond, Delta, Surrey, in the service sector. In 2011, there were 95,000 workers Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and the Langleys, and the in professional occupations that climbed to 130,000 in milling and pulping in New Westminster. Municipalities 2015 (Source: Statistics Canada Table 282-0131) and such as Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam helped to produce the creative class. At the other end were prime for suburban development because of their of the spectrum there were numerous lower-paid jobs proximity to the downtown core and the extensive green in the form of personal services, from shop assistants to space that was available. wait-staff in restaurants to taxi drivers. Further, studded across Metro Vancouver were also a variety of clusters From the late 1970s, BC’s three principal staples of intense economic activity, some traditional ones industries, fi shing, mining and forestry, began to organized around the Port and YVR as well as newer experience diffi culties. Over-fi shing resulted in declining clusters involving video-game production, the design catches. Global competition, especially from South of social media platforms, and fi lm and TV production. America, decreased investment in BC mining. And the Each of these clusters had their own distinctive forest industry that formerly produced fi fty cents of geographies, in part made available by clearing space every provincial dollar was beset by a series of crises that was formerly occupied by defunct staples activities. that included valley-by-valley environmental protests, prohibitive US import tariffs, green-driven consumer Metro Vancouver also encompasses a large and boycotts, First Nation blockades, and, most recently, economically important agricultural sector. The the pine beetle infestation. The consequence was a Agricultural Land Reserve contains over 60 thousand “de-coupling” of the Metro Vancouver economy from hectares, or about 22% of the regional land base, and the mainstay of resource production in the rest of includes 2,800 farms (Metro Vancouver website). Metro the province. Among other things this resulted in Vancouver’s agricultural sector, which includes major the closing of Vancouver’s resource-focussed penny produce, berry and dairy farming, employs over 8,000 stock exchange in 1999, shrinkage and in some cases workers, and contributes almost $800 million in gross eradication of corporate headquarters, and elimination farm receipts. Further, Metro Vancouver’s agricultural of staples processing jobs (the White Pines Division on areas provide key ecological services to the region,
12 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 341 of 372
DzͲϱϰ forming a critical part of the region’s green spaces is partly a result of deep structural forces bound up (together with wilderness and recreational lands) which with globalization, innovation and competition, but it comprise over 60% of Metro Vancouver’s total land area. is also a consequence of contextual local factors. They have included Metro Vancouver’s innovative residential Finally, there has been urban splintering. Municipalities development, ecological stewardship, distinctive urban that formerly had been linked into the metropolitan design, and commitment to rapid transit and ‘active staples economy asserted a measure of autonomy, transportation’ approaches. Such home-grown factors specializing in new forms of activity, such as high-value have established Metro Vancouver as an admired and forms of production and service provision, including emulated region, generating positive associations that fi lm and TV production studios in North Vancouver and have served to attract new enterprises and skilled workers. Burnaby, Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, and high-tech industries situated in Richmond, Burnaby and Surrey. Opportunities and Challenges Within the context of Metro Vancouver’s economy, we It was as its new post-staples self that Metro Vancouver can recognise two main organizational levels. The fi rst emerged as a lower tiered world city. It has signifi cantly is anchored by major institutions regulated and in some rescaled its geography over the last thirty years. Its old cases supported by the state that include the strategic self was tied to the fortunes of the staples industries gateway infrastructures of the Port of Vancouver and of the province’s interior and Western Canada. Now Vancouver International Airport (YVR), higher education Metro Vancouver serves and is linked to the world. institutes such as the University of British Columbia, Consequently, while in 1991 Metro Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University, BCIT, and Emily Carr University, population was 47.5% of British Columbia’s, in 2015, that and major hospital and medical facilities. The second share increased to 53.7%. (Source: BC Stats) is a more granulated economic landscape primarily of Metro Vancouver’s principal global linkages are through small- and medium-sized privately owned enterprises the trading circuits, metropolitan regions, and cultures (SMEs) within the service sector. Metro Vancouver of the Asia-Pacifi c. The city is now a node within a lacks the propulsive multinational corporations larger vibrant network of Pacifi c Rim fl ows of people, found in cities like Toronto, Seattle and San Francisco. money and ideas. Government at all levels has been Consequently, it is reliant on the dynamism of the SME an important lubricant fostering trade missions, sector for generating employment, sales, revenues investment incentives, educational exchanges, and and trade. Within the SME sector, for example, video opportunities for migration. Particularly important was game fi rms and social media start-ups have played the state’s role in managing the large-scale immigration key roles in innovation, product development, and of entrepreneurs from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. generating employment opportunities, especially for Apart from the lure of an established community of younger workers who have high levels of education, ethnic Chinese in Vancouver, this class was persuaded entrepreneurial drive, and cultural capital. to move to Metro Vancouver in 1986 because Citizenship At the fi rst level of big institutions, both YVR and the and Immigration Canada added an entrepreneurial Port are critical. YVR is the second largest airport in stream to its Business Immigration Programme. That Canada, with more than 20 million passengers passing programme was cancelled in 2014, but over its course through it annually and 271,000 tonnes of cargo. There tens of billions of dollars were landed in the British are 400 businesses at the airport, directly generating Columbia economy, and Metro Vancouver’s in particular. $1.1 billion in wages. The Port of Vancouver is the largest Metro Vancouver’s economy from the mid-1980s was port in Canada, with 28 separate terminals spread incorporated within the Chinese diaspora’s Pacifi c Rim across the metropolitan region, handling just shy of a transnational fl ows. fi fth of all of Canada’s merchandise international trade. More recently, there have also been expanding It is the third largest port by tonnage in North America connections with Europe and with emerging economies (eclipsing New York), employing 47,700, and generating of the Global South, especially those of South Asia and $10.5 billion. Two of the terminals are for cruise ships, Latin America. This larger rescaling of Metro Vancouver which have twice as much traffi c as Canada’s second
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 13 Page 342 of 372
DzͲϱϱ most important cruise port, Halifax. In both cases, YVR signifi cant institutions of higher education include and the Port play a crucial gateway function for Metro North Vancouver’s Capilano University, Kwantlen Vancouver, literally connecting it to the rest of the world, Polytechnic University (campuses in Surrey, Richmond solidifying its status as a world city. and Langley), and Langara College in Vancouver.
That global reach is also the case with Metro Finally, there is the life and health sciences cluster Vancouver’s major higher-education institutions. The which includes the operation of two public health University of British Columbia (UBC), for example, authorities, associated hospital complexes, research with an annual operating budget of $2.3 billion, takes facilities and innovation centres with links to both UBC in over 13,000 international students or 23% of its and SFU. In general, these large-scale institutions not annual enrolment. The University employs over 15,000 only provide basic services for the Metro Vancouver academics, staff and service workers and generates economy, they are generators of considerable income in $12.5 billion in revenues. While UBC is the oldest their own right. academic institution in the region and traditionally ranks among the top 30 universities globally, there The other level of Metro economic activity is dominated is considerable strength in academic and technical by often small, private sector fi rms in a disparate set training as well as research across the region. Simon of sectors. There are a few big corporations which act Fraser University (SFU) has developed a multi-nodal as anchors for a given sector, but the headquarters for character. In addition to its original campus on Burnaby those fi rms compared to those of, say, Seattle giants Mountain, SFU boasts a major presence in downtown such as Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, and Starbucks, Vancouver, including the Morris J. Wosk Centre for are small fry. There are branch offi ces of global Dialogue, the Goldcorp Centre for the Arts, and the corporations found within Metro Vancouver such as Segal Graduate School of Business and in Surrey, the Microsoft, Electronic Arts, or Sony Pictures, but they are Bing Thom-designed SFU Surrey City Centre campus branch offi ces with limited budgets and employment, that provides a strategic development role while and important corporate decisions are made elsewhere. also contributing to the diversity of community life. Within Metro Vancouver’s SME sector we can identify The British Columbia Institute of Technology has its four main clusters. High-tech is likely the most principal site in Burnaby, but also has campuses in dynamic, providing green, well-paying jobs that North Vancouver, Richmond, and downtown Vancouver, are interesting and draw on Metro Vancouver’s and constitutes a propulsive force in the development well-educated labour market. In 2011, 58.6% of the of Metro Vancouver’s burgeoning tech-sector, as does population of Metro Vancouver aged 15 and above the Centre for Digital Media. The Emily Carr University had a post-secondary certifi cate, diploma or degree, of Art + Design is ranked as a leading Canadian and and 34.1% had a bachelor’s degree or higher (Source: international institute in higher arts education, training Statistics Canada, NHS Profi le, Vancouver Census and practice, and provides a creative stimulus to Metro Metropolitan Area: 2011). In 2014, there were 6,226 Vancouver’s important cultural economy sector. Other high-tech businesses employing 58,200 workers or 4.5%
14 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 343 of 372
DzͲϱϲ of Metro Vancouver’s workforce. For the most part fi rms Finally, there is tourism, also dependent on the value were small, and spread across the metropolitan region, of the Canadian dollar. In 2014 there were 8.9 million although there were geographical concentrations visitors to Metro Vancouver who stayed at least one such as Mount Pleasant, Vancouver, East Richmond, night. The tourism industry is a diffuse category, and and West Burnaby. There were also some larger fi rms the focus is dependent upon both human-made such as Electronic Arts (video games) in Burnaby, infrastructure and attractions such as Gastown, the and Hootsuite (social media) and Slack (cooperative Museum of Anthropology, and Fort Langley, and the software) in Vancouver, which provided opportunities natural environment, exemplifi ed by the mountains, for spin offs and outsourcing. The latter two were beaches, riverfront parks and the Reifel Bird Sanctuary. included within Canada’s fi ve ‘unicorn’ companies This underscores the importance of both cultural (tech start-ups valued at $1B or more) (Vancouver tourism and eco-tourism for the region. In addition, Economic Commission, Report on Technology 2014: agri-tourism constitutes a growing segment of the Metro Vancouvereconomiccommission.com). Vancouver economy, including wine, craft beer and artisanal food production. It is exemplifi ed by the Circle The second cluster is fi nance, insurance and real Tour of farms in Langley, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. estate, the greatest and fastest growing contributor to Part of the service sector, the tourist industry varies Metro Vancouver’s GDP. Clearly, much of the size and widely in terms of wages and forms of employment. advance of that sector is bound to Metro Vancouver’s While there are well-paying, full-time, permanent, and stratospheric housing prices which are no longer even unionized jobs – for example in the hotel sector confi ned to the west side neighbourhoods of Vancouver. – the tourist economy also generates many seasonal, Finance alone employs 41,900 people, making part-time, and minimum-wage positions. Metro Vancouver Canada’s second fi nancial centre by employment after Toronto (Greater Vancouver If these are the opportunities embedded within Metro Economic Scorecard Summary Report 2016: p. 20). Vancouver’s economy, there are also challenges: Its signifi cance is undoubtedly a result of the close • The cost of housing for homeowners and renters linkages Metro Vancouver has fostered with the fast- as well as rent for start-up businesses is perhaps growing economies of Asia, especially China. In addition, the most important. While housing price increases there is a limited venture capital market with a focus have enriched long-term residents, it constrains and on high-tech enterprises. It is overshadowed, though, by disheartens young, trained and talented workers much larger venture capital markets in cities like San even within the most-high paying professions like law Francisco, Seattle and New York. and medicine. In an Ipsos Reid poll of Vancouverites The third cluster within Metro Vancouver is fi lm and TV asking about their life satisfaction it was the 25-34 production. Taking off during the 1970s as a result of the age group with university degrees who were the most break-up of the old Hollywood studio system generating dissatisfi ed (Trevor Melanson, Vancouver Magazine “runaway production”, Metro Vancouver’s fi lm and TV 20 June 2016: p. 54). They were crippled either by industry is located in suburban locations, mainly North exorbitant housing debt, or perhaps even worse, Vancouver and Burnaby, but fi lming occurs across dispirited by the prospect of never owning a home in the region. The success of the industry, while clearly Metro Vancouver. depending upon the US-Canadian dollar exchange rate, has been brought about in large part because • Related is wealth and income polarization among of a strong coalition among industry partners: fi rms, Metro Vancouver’s population. Those who own organized labour, and the BC government. Investment their houses outright are all millionaires, and in fi lm and TV production, much of it foreign, regularly depending upon where they live, multi-millionaires. exceeds $1 billion, and when the Canadian dollar But average incomes are comparatively low. Metro exchange rate is low, as it is currently, it edges up to Vancouver’s average family income is tenth against $2 billion. other metropolitan regions in the country. For the critical 25-34 age group, workers with a degree make $36,484 in Metro Vancouver compared to $52,109 in
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 15 Page 344 of 372
DzͲϱϳ Calgary, $50,664 in Ottawa, and $40,681 in Toronto regions, there are constant pressures on the land (Conference Board of Canada, Scorecard for base associated with development pressures driven Greater Vancouver 2016: p. 31). by capital re-layering, the search for higher returns on investment, and increasing competition for space. • The lack of corporate head offi ces, and more generally, large corporations, both reduces potential These are common pressures experienced across high-paying jobs, but also opportunities for corporate metropolitan economies generally, but there are issues philanthropy and participation in the public life specifi c to Metro Vancouver. About one-half of the total of the city. Seattle, only a little larger than Metro territory of Metro Vancouver is dedicated green space Vancouver, established a cultural events offi ce that – including wilderness and recreational areas, as well uses corporate donations to mount a full programme as agricultural lands. Overall this is greatly to Metro of civic cultural events throughout the year. Vancouver’s advantage in terms of quality of life and the policy goals of sustainable development and the • Metro Vancouver’s technology sector represents ‘green agenda’. Much of the rest of the Metro land base a vibrant element of the regional economy, is allocated to commercial, residential and institutional with strengths in certain industries including uses. A large share of Metro Vancouver’s industrial telecommunications, video game production, land base is linked to transportation, warehousing and software, and aerospace, among others. There are distribution, including those areas associated with Port important clusters of technology-based industries of Vancouver and Vancouver International Airport – two and fi rms, including inner city districts of the City of principal drivers of the regional economy. Vancouver, within which Hootsuite is a leading fi rm; Discovery Park in Burnaby; and aerospace industries We are concerned that the supply of industrial land in Richmond. Metro Vancouver also encompasses will seriously constrain the development of critical signifi cant branch operations of technology-based ‘new economy’ sectors such as engineering systems, multinationals, including Microsoft. UBC also features telecommunications, digitalised cultural industries and important capacity in technology-based research the creative sector overall. Land – and more specifi cally and development, notably in Applied Science industrial land – should be seen not as a passive asset, and Engineering. Innovation Boulevard in Surrey but as a strategic resource for economic development. represents a vivid example of investments that To demonstrate, leading city-regions are characterised promote synergy between health care, technology, by the retention of signifi cant land in strategic locations education and business. But Metro Vancouver’s which serve as the critical sites of innovative, high-value technology sector, relative to those of leading city- creative, IT and business start-ups, including London regions such as San Francisco and Seattle, is small, (Clerkenwell, Shoreditch and Stratford), Berlin (Mitte and lacking multinational fi rms, propulsive sectors, Prenzlauer Berg), Milan (Bicocca), Barcelona (the 22@ and ‘critical mass’ in terms of the scale and growth project/Poblenou), San Francisco (the South of Market trajectories of technology clusters overall. Area), Seattle (Fremont, Ballard, South Lake Union, Duwamish, Eastlake, and Redmond), and Shanghai • Metro Vancouver’s growth and development potential (Suzhou Creek). These are dynamic areas of important is shaped – and to a signifi cant extent constrained – by cities, subject to upgrading pressures to be sure, and access to capital and skilled labour; these are common to what has been termed ‘industrial gentrifi cation’. But to many metropolitan regions in an era of globalization these metropolitan cities have ensured that there are and competition. But a critical constraint on future adequate land resources for leading-edge industries economic development in Metro is in the sphere of and businesses essential to economic dynamism in the land resources – and more particularly industrial new economy. land. In common with other rapidly growing urban
16 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 345 of 372
DzͲϱϴ Economic Geography: External Circuits and Comparators
Since the deep restructuring and recession of the 1980s, Metro Vancouver’s economy has experienced growth and change, including the expansion of the region’s services economy, advanced-technology industries, higher education, health care, cultural industries, and a very large consumption sector comprising retail and personal services. Over its existence, the Metro Vancouver region has transitioned from colonial outpost and peripheral centre of the national economy to its inclusion within both the Asia-Pacifi c and the ‘Cascadian’ region. The latter includes Seattle and Portland and (in the most expansive defi nition of Joel Garreau’s ‘Ecotopia’), San Francisco.
While there are commonalities between Metro Vancouver and other west coast cities, including its Asia-Pacifi c orientation, multiculturalism, and ecological values and environmental assets, there are signifi cant contrasts. San Francisco and the Bay Area have emerged as the world’s leading centre of advanced-technology research and production and the digital economy. The Seattle-four county area in central Puget Sound incorporates global-scale multinationals including Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Costco and others, as well as large operations of (for example) Google and Adobe. These constitute a base of advanced corporate enterprise and high-technology capacity orders of magnitude larger than Metro Vancouver. What is common to these two metropolitan regions, though, is a tradition of commitment to inter-governmental regional collaboration, and active networks of association and cooperation at the levels of sectors, industries, and key individuals: entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors. In Michael Storper’s study of the success of San Francisco over Los Angeles, singled out was the willingness of Bay Area fi rms in different sectors to work with other fi rms and branches of local government to facilitate exchange and knowledge transfer.
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 17 Page 346 of 372
DzͲϱϵ Toward a Collaborative Regional Governance and Networked Metro Vancouver Economy
Contemporary metropolitan regional economies are and collectives as a means of unlocking the economic highly complex, increasingly subject to global factors, potential and possibilities for broader prosperity within and varied in terms of industrial structure, enterprise the region. mix, and labour force composition. Progressive A Metro Vancouver economic agency could effectively development within the most successful metropolitan move the metropolitan economy forward. The potential economies, though, typically follows the same path of areas of focus of this agency are forging strategic and collaboration, association and interdependency. collaborative plans for managing the lands needed The Metro Vancouver economy is ‘open’ to external for economic development, and more particularly factors, creating pressures and opportunities for addressing the future needs of leading-edge industries development. For example: the region is a major in the technology, creative-cultural and green importer of capital, but much of this is ‘sunk’ in real systems and sectors; developing effective liaison and estate rather than being directed to business start-ups partnerships with foundational regional institutions and operating companies. Infl ationary land markets such as Port of Vancouver, YVR, UBC, SFU, Discovery may promote upgrading but they also suppress start- Parks, and the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health ups that are squeezed out of affordable space. Authorities; coordinating the development of timely and useful statistical data on Metro Vancouver’s economy; The challenge is to think creatively and critically about developing effective marketing for Metro Vancouver’s the future, and more particularly about how governance, propulsive sectors, industries and fi rms; and lobbying policy and planning can shape (or at least support) for more effective policies and programs for key progressive development in the region. There is already investment areas such as transportation infrastructure a complex and distinctive governance, institutional and and communications systems, education and training policy regime within the region as a whole. There are in and social development. place progressive policies for green space, for mixed- income housing, for sustainable transportation, and for The specifi c institutional structure of a regional tourism, among other policy sectors. But the governance economic governance body lies outside the scope of model for the Metro Vancouver economy is balkanized this report, and would be the object of a separate study, and fragmented, and generally inadequate for the undertaken as a structured process of consultation needs of a modern, contact-intensive, knowledge-based with all interested parties with clear terms of reference. and networked regional economy. But what we can say is that such an agency would explicitly recognise the current allocation of policy Following the logic of North America’s most successful powers, roles and responsibilities among orders metropolitan economies, we endorse a commitment to of government within British Columbia, where the fostering much stronger collaboration among economic Government of British Columbia exercises economic agencies and actors across the Metro Vancouver development policies and programs for the province as region. This approach starts with an assessment of a whole and its constituent regions and municipalities, the collective Metro Vancouver assets, competitive and where municipalities represent the basic unit of advantages and enterprise structure, and how they economic development at the local level in B.C. What could be leveraged by recognizing the diverse strengths we are proposing instead would likely take the form of and opportunities which abound in each municipality, a small, adroit agency with an intent to complement community and districts within the region. But there (rather than duplicate) the work of existing bodies, should also be commitment to fostering a parallel with a clear mission to develop programs not currently and complementary network of Metro Vancouver’s undertaken at the regional level, and with input from all industry groups, dynamic enterprises, and key unions of Metro Vancouver’s municipalities. In any event what
18 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 347 of 372
DzͲϲϬ we are suggesting represents an initiative in fl exible Establishing these collective mechanisms and action governance, aligned with the practices of the most frameworks of the metropolitan economy will require successful metropolitan economies, rather than the a sustained commitment from government, business, establishment of a new level or structure of government institutional and community agencies and actors, and with a legislated mandate and permanent powers. We will deliver benefi ts over the medium- and longer-term, therefore recommend a thoughtful, entrepreneurial rather than necessarily generating instant returns. approach to development policy in Metro Vancouver To conclude: collaboration on economic objectives as a crucial step toward the strategic goal of building and a more fully networked economy represent in an economy of high-wage enterprises within the key tandem a promising model for progressive, high-wage advanced-technology, creative and green economy development in Metro Vancouver, and for generating sectors. sustained, widely-shared prosperity. We’re sceptical A networked Metro Vancouver economy would involve of narrow ‘best practice’ models of policy mimicry, promoting critical partnerships, liaisons and operating as they often represent ‘off the shelf’ solutions to relationships between and among the metropolitan problems and opportunities that necessarily differ from region’s industry groups, institutions, business leaders place to place. As we have argued in this report, local and entrepreneurs, labour groups, and community contingency and place-specifi city are important factors, development agencies, with a view to growing the as they infl uence the ways that global forces ‘touch regional economy through the following (exemplary) down’ in individual city-regions. But there is at the collective strategies and actions: same time (as we have discussed) clear evidence that a commitment to collaboration and a networked economy • Promoting inter-fi rm synergy through the ‘mashing offer the best opportunity to deepen and diversify the up’ (after Michael Storper 2015) of key, potentially Metro Vancouver economy, with its complex economic complementary sectors and industry groups, such geography, and mix of gateway infrastructures, as fi lm and video production, music, social media, industrial clusters, and small and medium-size architecture and urban design. enterprise fi rms. • Sharing market intelligence, including opportunities for sub-contracting and collective marketing ventures, and forming consortia for bidding on major contracts.
• Advocating for local-regional policies for transportation investments, land-use policy and regulation in Metro Vancouver.
• Working with local community economic development agencies to ‘unlock’ larger potentials of Metro Vancouver’s culturally diverse communities and neighbourhoods.
• Cooperating with civic agencies in the creative place- making of Metro Vancouver’s districts, communities and neighbourhoods, in the interests of local job creation, progressive image-building, and marketing.
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 19 Page 348 of 372
DzͲϲϭ Appendices
I. Notes on Sources and Methodology Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary) relative to medium-size and smaller city-regions, and increasing divergence For this report we have drawn on primary and in the industrial structure and specializations among secondary sources, including an extended and deep metropolitan economies, with both tendencies shaped literature addressing Metro Vancouver’s development by a combination of global forces, access to capital and history. The basic trajectory of change since the 1970s – talent, and the strength of local-regional clusters. Key a decade encompassing the origins of formal statutory output: Larry Bourne, Tom Hutton and Richard Shearmur regional planning in the Metro area, and also the start (eds.) Canadian Urban Regions: Trajectories of Growth of an important era of economic change – follows and Change. Toronto: Oxford University Press (2011). the broad pattern of restructuring of metropolitan industries, labour markets and employment Innovation, Creativity and Governance in Canadian experienced across advanced societies. Change took City-Regions. A national study of key determinants the form of the expansion of service industries and of economic performance in Canadian city-regions, employment as well as an affi liated ‘new middle including an expert international advisory board as well class’ of managers and professionals, along with the as leading urban economy scholars based in Canadian contraction of traditional resource industries. Vancouver universities, focusing on: dynamics of innovation and stands as an infl uential example of this defi ning knowledge fl ows; the role of creativity and talent; and process of change. contributions made by new forms of governance in Canadian city-regions. Principal Investigators: David All this underscores the importance of investigating Wolfe and Meric Gertler. University of Toronto; Trevor (and understanding) what makes Metro Vancouver’s Barnes and Tom Hutton (et al) Co-Investigators. SSHRC economic pathway and structure distinctive, while at project 2006-2011. Key output: David Wolfe and Meric the same time assessing Metro Vancouver’s position Gertler (eds.) Growing Urban Economies: Innovation, within extended urban systems, circuits of trade and creativity, and governance in Canadian city-regions. exchange, and (increasingly) diverse cultures. Vancouver University of Toronto Press (2016) is exceptionally ‘open’ to external infl uences on its economy, industries and cultures. What follows is a A Tale of Two Cities: Comparing the Economies of concise description of important research initiatives Greater Vancouver and the Seattle metropolitan region. and programs which we have participated in over Principal Investigators: Trevor Barnes and Tom Hutton. the past decade, and from which we have drawn SSHRC project 2012-2016. Key fi ndings include explaining some of the critical insights and observations in our contrasts in industrial structure between the two report. We also acknowledge the contributions of our regions, and more particularly the greater strengths research assistants for this project, Dustin Lupick and of Seattle in terms of propulsive fi rms and advanced- Erica Sagert, of the School of Community & Regional cluster formation shaped by entrepreneur-industrialists, Planning, UBC. the strength of collaborative governance and inter- sector and inter-industry networks, and commitments Economic Change in the Canadian Urban System. to preserving industrial land in the Seattle – Central Principal Investigators: Larry Bourne [University of Puget Sound region. Toronto] and Tom Hutton [UBC]). Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council funded project National Research Cluster program, 2006-2009. Key fi ndings included a clear tendency for higher growth rates among Canada’s ‘big fi ve’ metropolitan economies (the Greater Toronto Area, Metropolitan Montreal, Metro
20 Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver Page 349 of 372
DzͲϲϮ II. City-Regions and Economic Development: Twelve Key Texts
There is a wealth of insightful material on the organization of economies, industries, enterprise and labour within city-regions. Much of this literature deals with the confl ation of global processes and local contingency in the economies of city-regions; with the synergy between technology, creativity and skilled labour in the economy of the metropolis; and with the importance of social, cultural and institutional factors in shaping successful, networked economies in city-regions.
In this spirit we recommend the following titles as instructive, research-based and policy-relevant texts, with broad relevance to the Metro Vancouver case.
Trevor Barnes, Jamie Peck, Eric Sheppard and Adam Tickell (2003) Reading Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell.
Larry Bourne, Tom Hutton, Richard Shearmur and Jim Simmons (eds.) (2011) Canadian Urban Regions: Trajectories of Growth and Change. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Stefano Breschi and Franco Malerba (eds.)(2005) Clusters, Networks, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manuel Castells (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: economy, society and culture. Cambridge MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
Stefan Krätke. (2011) The Creative Capital of Cities. Malden MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ronan Paddison and Tom Hutton (eds.)(2015) Cities and Economic Change. London: Sage.
Regional Studies Association (2014) Sustainable Recovery? Rebalancing, Growth, and the Space Economy. Seaford, East Sussex UK: The Regional Studies Association.
Allen J. Scott (2008) Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michael Storper (2013) The Keys to the City: How Economics, Institutions, Social Interaction and Politics Shape Development. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Michael Storper, Thomas Kemeny, Naji Makarem, and Taner Osman (2015) The Rise and Fall of Urban Economies: Lessons from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Stanford University Press.
P.J. Taylor and Ben Derudder (2004) World City Network: a Global Urban Analysis. New York and London: Routledge.
David A. Wolfe and Meric S. Gertler (eds.) (2016) Growing Urban Economies: Innovation, Creativity, and Governance in Canadian City-Regions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Dynamics of Economic Change in Metro Vancouver 21 Page 350 of 372
DzͲϲϯ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION
Page 351 of 372
12/16 DzͲϲϰ dd,D Edϯ
Regional Prosperity Initiative Members of Advisory Group and Steering Committee
Advisory Group Steering Committee
Iain Black Robyn Crisanti Greater Vancouver Board of Trade Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Tony Geheran Joanne Curry TELUS Simon Fraser University Kathy Kinloch Paul Faoro British Columbia Institute of Technology CUPE BC Val Litwin David Fung BC Chamber of Commerce ACDEG Group Santa Ono Michael Goldberg University of British Columbia Andrew Petter Hussein Hallak Simon Fraser University Launch Academy Robin Silvester Anita Huberman Port Metro Vancouver Surrey Board of Trade John Wiebe Peter Leitch GLOBE Group Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC Jonathan Whitworth Val Litwin Seaspan BC Chamber of Commerce Yuen Pau Woo Rob MacKay-Dunn Senate of Canada Greater Vancouver Board of Trade
Tamara Vrooman Greg Moore Vancity Metro Vancouver Evi Mustel Mustel Group Ken Peacock Business Council of British Columbia Gordon Price
Page 352 of 372
DzͲϲϱ Andrew Ramlo
Urban Futures Angela Robert
Conquer Mobile Brad West
United Steelworkers District 3 Michael White
University of British Columbia Bryce Williams
Tsawwassen First Nation
Page 353 of 372
DzͲϲϲ 1
QUESTIONS FROM THE GAMBIER ISLAND CONSERVANCY AND ANSWERED BY BRIAN KUKULIES, FLNRO, ABOUT THE PROPOSED NEW GAMBIER WOODLOTS (JULY 2013)
Part 1 Planning and background questions
Why more woodlots on Gambier? 1. What opportunities are there for negotiating the size and/or type of logging that occurs on Gambier? Who would be part of the negotiation? How best would it occur?
A1. Opening size and harvesting system are considered after a Woodlot Licence Plan (WLP) has been approved and are site specific dependent on any constraints, operational requirements, the judgment and knowledge of the Forest Professional. This would be best addressed by the woodlot holder. 2. Are local First Nations and Gambier Island property owners and community consulted at any stage(s) in the process?
A2. First Nations are consulted based on current case law and any agreements that the province has with the potentially impacted First Nations. We have consulted with both the Squamish Nation and the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation. We referred the proposed woodlots to the Islands Trust for comments in 2009. The local community feedback can be provided at the Woodlot License Plan stage. 3. What, if any, are the benefits to the Gambier Island community, and is there anything specific in this regard?
A3. There is the potential for local employment and woodlot operations provide revenue to the province to provide services. 4. Would Ministry of Forest, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) consider a public meeting on Gambier to respond to islanders’ concerns about this process in the near future?
A4. We have met with three local representatives and provided information and answered provided questions so this can be communicated to other members of the public. At this time we have no plans to attend a public meeting in regards to these proposed woodlots. These woodlots are being considered as a result of government initiative to expand the Woodlot Licence Program through a disposition plan. We had previously evaluated these areas in 2009 for their suitability as woodlot licenses. Deciding on the suitability of a woodlot location 5. How does the designation of these woodlots fit into FLNRO’s “Principles for locating new forest tenures” of Nov 2011?
A5. Woodlot Licenses are in important tenure option that we have to fulfill the need for tenure opportunities and woodlots fit well within smaller forested areas. The proposed woodlot licenses fit in well with the intent of this document. 6. How does the Ministry calculate the overall impact of logging on a closed system such as an island?
A6. Gambier Island is part of the Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area and is available for timber harvesting consistent with the Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw. Assessments of impacts are considered at the cut block road construction stage and must be consistent with the approved Woodlot Licence Plan. 7. Is there any kind of environmental assessment and review involved in the process? Is there any plan to produce Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs) for the landscape units in the Sunshine Coast Forest District? Specifically Howe Landscape Unit, given the particular sensitivity of island environments?Page So 354 far, of looking 372 at the 2
FLNRO website, it seems that all that has been done in terms of an SMRP is assignment of Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs), unlike in BC’s Interior, where there has been significant consideration of wildlife and other environmental factors included in SRMPs. FLNRO states “net timber area objectives will be expressed as a percentage of the total land base accessible for commercial forest harvesting, and the proportion for which other purposes – such as managing for old growth, biodiversity, wildlife species at risk and visual quality – will be emphasized.” They referred in 2004 to the Horsefly Sustainable Resource Management Plan as a model for how objectives would be calculated in future. Will this kind of assessment be done here?
A7. The proposed Woodlots were evaluated in 2009 to ensure that there was an opportunity for timber harvesting under a woodlot licence. Site specific assessments are completed at the time of proposed development of harvesting areas and roads. The licensee will complete the required assessments to ensure that they are in compliance with their Woodlot Licence Plan. There are no plans for completing further landscape plans for the Sunshine Coast. 8. Why are these lots coming up for sale now and how was the size determined?
A8. These woodlots were originally developed in 2008-2009 when initial assessments were completed. As part of a Woodlot Licence Disposition Plan the Sunshine Coast was requested to make available for advertising two woodlots. The intent is to advertise these over the next two months. The maximum size of a woodlot licence is specified in the Forest Act as 800 ha for coastal areas. The boundary of these woodlots used existing private land boundaries, Old Growth Management Areas and physical constraints to harvesting. The woodlots are not “sold”. They are offered based on a set of application criteria and the areas remain Crown land and available for others to use the land. 9. Have the woodlots being examined with regard to the type and value of timber and possible coastal sites to dump or take out timber?
A9. The timber types and potential operability constraints have been assessed and there is a suitable opportunity for timber management on these areas. A reserve for dumping and booming of logs south of Gambier Creek has been in place for many years. This area is being considered for a log dump or a direct to barge load out that will service both woodlot licenses. The woodlot licensees will have the option to explore other options for dumping and booming if they wish. 10. Would FLNRO consider using Gambier forests for some other, more specialized use such as Ministry Permanent Sample Plots (PSP) since there has been a loss of such plots to harvesting in the last few years? FLNRO website states “PSP’s matter because they are the only natural-stand data-set that the province has which have been re- measured over time.” Perhaps establishing such a data set on-island in Howe Sound would be more valuable to FLNRO than the stumpage from these woodlots.
A10. There have been no requests to establish Permanent Sample Plots on Gambier Island. If required other Crown Land areas will still be available on Gambier Island for this purpose.
Part 2 Implementation questions
The bidding process 11. What are the projected or expected timelines with regard to this project?, When is it likely that FLNRO will be inviting bids on these woodlots?
A11. We are intending to advertise these woodlots within the next two to three months. Update: the woodlots are to be advertised at the end of September 2013.
12. Looking at past offerings, 4-5 weeks seems typical of the period for submitting bids. What will the likely bid Page 355 of 372 3
period be for these woodlots?
A12. We are intending to allow for up to 60 days from initial advertising to when bids are required. This is to provide opportunities to access the woodlots and to thoroughly evaluate the opportunities, constraints and options to remove the timber from the island.
13. What are the steps for the application process?
A13. Below is the process that is generally followed when developing a woodlot licence. There may be additional steps as a result of circumstances or issues that arise from the development and referral of the woodlot so this is a general outline of the process.
1. Map review of perspective areas to identify any potential land use conflicts. 2. Reconnaissance of candidate areas to confirm suitability for management in a woodlot licence. 3. Complete Allowable Annual Cut calculation. 4. Referrals to government agencies and consultation with First Nations. 5. Formal clearance of proposed woodlot licence area to ensure no land use conflicts. 6. Preparation of Application Package. 7. Advertising opportunity for a woodlot licence. 8. Receive Applications. 9. Evaluate Applications. 10. Award Woodlot Licence based winning application. 11. Applicant prepares management plan for consideration by District Manager. 12. Province consults with First Nations regarding Management Plan and proposed Allowable Annual Cut 13. District Manager Approves management plan and determines Allowable Annual Cut. 14. Woodlot Licence is offered. 15. Applicant accepts offer and woodlot licence is issued. 16. Licensee prepares Woodlot Licence Plan. 17. Woodlot Licence Plan is made available to the public and First Nations for review and comment. 18. Woodlot Licensee considers submitted comments and adjusts woodlot licence plan if appropriate. 19. Woodlot Plan submitted to the District Manager to considerate for approval. 20. Province consults with First Nation regarding woodlot licence plan. 21. Once Woodlot Licence Plan is approved can apply for Road Permits and Cutting Permits. 22. Road Permit and Cutting Permits issued. 23. Harvesting and road building can start.
14. Who is, and who is not, eligible to apply for a woodlot license? Can a logging company apply? Can a major forestry company?
A14. The Forest Act specifies who is eligible for applying for a Woodlot Licence. See Section 44 for further information. Who is eligible: • Canadian citizen or permanent resident over 19 years of age; a First Nation or a corporation, other than a society that is controlled by people that meet the above qualifications. Who is not eligible: • A person holding two woodlot licenses • Holds an ineligible licence with an aggregate AAC of greater than 10,000m3. A logging company can apply if it meets the above criteria. If a major forest company has licenses with an aggregate AAC of greater than 10,000m3, they cannot apply. Page 356 of 372 4
15. FLNRO guidelines state that opening the bids may be a public process. If this request for bids goes ahead, will FLNRO make opening these bids a public process? Where will the bids be assessed?
A15. The information that is publically available at the bid opening includes the Applicants Name. The bids will be opened and assessed in Powell River. 16. In the bidding process, is the bidder made aware of the riparian areas, ecological features, recreational facilities and viewscapes that need to be protected during logging operations?
A16. As part of the application the potential applicants will be urged to thoroughly review the area before making an offer for the woodlot licence(s). Information on the established visual quality objectives established recreation features and proposed recreation features will be made available as part of the application package. 17. What are the requirements or restrictions on allowable cuts for these woodlots with regard to the amount of timber to be removed?
A17. Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC) is calculated based on the current inventory information, potential growth capacity of the woodlot and potential constraints to harvesting. The AACs for both woodlots are calculated to be approximately 3000m3 and is calculated to be sustainable for at least 250 years. An applicant may propose a different AAC but this must be justified with further inventory information. 18. Does the woodlot license always go to the highest bidder or can other factors such as experience and reputation of the bidder, whether the bidder is local or First Nations be considered?
A18. Please see the Woodlot Licence Regulation under the Forest Act for more information. Three components make up a woodlot application score: • Bonus Offer up to 50 points • Proximity of private residence to woodlot licence up to 25 points • Proximity and area of private Land contributed up to 25 points These are the only factors that are considered in the score for a woodlot.
Environmental issues 19. Is there any requirement for wood lot operators to classify streams and assess wildlife impacts before logging takes place?
A19. Yes, streams are classified based on the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation (WLPPR). There is no specific classification/assessment system for wildlife. A woodlot licensee can’t damage or render ineffective a wildlife habitat feature. Also, the woodlot licensee must set aside an area from harvesting. The default is 8% which may include riparian areas. There are also wildlife tree retention requirements for the woodlot. 20. There is a substantial designated community watershed on Gambier Creek and surrounding Gambier Lake. What protections does the Forest and Range Practices Act and its Regulations (FRPA) provide for community watersheds?
A20. See Division 4 – Watersheds Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation Can’t cause harm to water diverted for human consumption. Can’t cut timber or build road within 100m upslope of a licensed water works where water is diverted for human consumption. 21. How much land will be excluded from harvesting within the two woodlots due to riparian reserves on creeks and streams, community watersheds, possible Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) for species such as marbled murrelet Page 357 of 372 5
and tailed frogs, and a lake management zone?
A21. The amount of area removed will depend on the site specific management that will be determined by the forest professional completing the work that is consistent with the approved Woodlot Licence Plan. There are no Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) within the woodlots. Also, woodlot licensees do not have to create WHAs for these species. The lake side management zone width will be identified in the Woodlot Licence Plan. 22. Does the FRPA apply to streams and sensitive species (e.g. blue-listed, red-listed) that exist on Gambier, yet have never been formally inventoried by the province?
A22. A woodlot licensee can’t damage or render ineffective a wildlife habitat feature. Woodlot licensee must comply with general wildlife measure if they apply to an area within the woodlot. 23. Are tailed frogs recognized by FRPA as a sensitive species (e.g. blue-listed) and if so what precautions must be taken by a woodlot operator?
A23. Yes, Tailed Frogs are recognized under FRPA. Generally the management of a species like tailed frog would be considered under riparian management. 24. What protection, if any, is given to individual or groups of old growth trees if they are located within an existing woodlot?
A24. There is no specific protection of any old growth stands but there is an option for the woodlot licensee to set these aside. Within the Howe Landscape Unit old growth has been set aside to meet targets. 25. The extent of logging activity permitted in riparian management zones, riparian management areas, and riparian reserve zones appear to be different; what extent of logging activity can we expect to occur in these areas associated with lakes and streams?
A25. This will be dependent on the approved Woodlot Licence Plan, site specific circumstances and Forest Professional preparing any plans so it will vary from site to site. See Division 3 of the Woodlot Licence Planning and Practices Regulation. 26. How about mushroom harvesting? This has a community value but is there any recognition or value for these (e.g. chanterelles) during any stage of the process?
A26. The best time to share this information is with the woodlot licensee when preparing the Woodlot Licence Plan. They will determine if this can be accommodated. Recreational issues 27. Woodlot legislation seems to suggest that woodlot operators need to take recreational resources such as trails into consideration if they are established with FLNRO before a woodlot-harvesting plan is finalized. Can existing trails within the Gambier island woodlots be established and protected after the woodlot license has been awarded? If trails are taken into consideration, what does that entail? To what extent are trail corridors protected from harvesting?
A27. If an objective for a recreation site, trail or interpretive forest site applies to a woodlot licence area then the woodlot holder must carry out primary forest activities in manner consistent with the objective. Questions concerning the establishment of objectives should be directed to BC Recreation Sites and Trails. Generally trails are not protected from harvesting. Practices may entail rerouting the trail or re establishment after harvesting. 28. What procedures are in place to ensure that woodlot operators consult with other interested local parties such as Page 358 of 372 6
conservation and recreation groups when planning their harvesting?
A28. This will be up to the woodlot holder but initially they will make the Woodlot Licence Plan available to the public for review and comment. The woodlot licensee may engage with local groups prior to the preparation of the Woodlot Licence Plan. The woodlot holder may make other commitments regarding sharing information on harvest planning. 29. How much remediation do woodlot operators have to perform, if recreation resources are impacted during harvesting?
A29. This will be dependent on the individual situation. 30. To what degree and how is recreational access to the woodlots restricted once the license has been awarded?
A30. Generally recreation access to the woodlot will not be restricted. There may be short term access restriction for safety when there are active operations like harvesting and road building being carried out. Woodlots remain Crown land and are available for anybody to use. Operational Issues 31. To what degree does FLNRO monitor the operation of the woodlot, particularly with regard to the protection of riparian areas, ecological features, recreational facilities and viewscapes?
A31. There are reviews of operations completed by compliance and enforcement staff from time to time. Operations have to be consistent with approved Woodlot Licence Plan and any harvesting or road building authority. The Forest Range Evaluation Program (FREP) is a system of post harvest audits designed to determine whether forest and range practices are achieving government’ For more on FREP, please refer to http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/ 32. Is there a possible role for the community or the Gambier Island Conservancy in monitoring the woodlot harvesting operations?
A32. The best possible situation is for the conservancy to develop a good relationship with the woodlot licence holders.
Page 359 of 372 "aoum~. Jonathan X. Caté Mayor June 30, 2017
Via Email
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am writing to request your support for three resolutions submittedby New Westminster City Council to UBCM for consideration at the 2017 Convention, regarding l) addressing homelessness, 2) restorativejustice training, and 3) renovictionsl The three resolutions follow below:
1) City of New Westminster resolution regarding addressing homelessness (adopted June 12, 2017)
Whereas the homelesspopulation in Metro Vancouver increased by 29.8% between 2014 and 2017.
Whereas the federalHomelessness Partnering Strategy hasfocusedits resources on crisis response to the chronically and episadically homeless resulting in those at-risk ofhomelessness not being eligiblefor housing support and advocacy services
Whereas municipalitieshave experienced signi?cant funding cuts to housing outreach, referraland advocacy services, and inadequate senior government funding to address addictions and mental illness are significantly impacting the sheltered and unsheltered homelesspopulation.
THEREFORE.BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the Union ofBCMunicipalities urge the Provincial Governmentto work collaboratively with the Federal Government to place equal emphasison homelessness prevention and crisis response, to increase funding for housing outreach, referraland advocacy services, and to provide additional funding to address addictions and mental health.
of?ze of the Mayor Corporation of the my of New Westminster 51:RoyalAvenue, New Westmimtu, DC- Camda Val.1H9 1'(604) 5:1 43:: E(604)5214594Page 360 of 372 wwwmwwestcityca Page 361 of 372 Page 362 of 372 INFORMATION BULLETIN For Immediate Release Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource 2017FLNR0155-001300 Operations July 11, 2017 BC Wildfire Service
Current conditions and resources in Coastal Fire Centre
PARKSVILLE ʹThe BC Wildfire Service is fully prepared to respond quickly to any wildfire activity in the Coastal Fire Centre. Although some resources are being deployed to the Interior to help fight the large fires there, sufficient firefighters and equipment will remain in the region to maintain a first response capability locally.
At this time, every fire zone within the Coastal Fire Centre has its initial attack crews on maximum standby readiness. When fires are detected, these crews are matched up with helicopters to ensure a fast and efficient response to these incidents.
The Coastal Fire Centre strives to ͞hit hard and hit fast͟to keep all reported fires at a small size. To enable crews to get to any fire quickly, their equipment is pre-loaded in the helicopters so they can be on their way quickly.
Firefighting contract crews have also been pre-positioned within the Coastal Fire Centre to assist with wildfire response where necessary.
The BC Wildfire Service appreciates the public͛s help in reporting and preventing wildfires. To report a wildfire or open burning violation, call 1 800 663-5555 toll-free or *5555 on a cellphone.
For the latest information on current wildfire activity, burning restrictions, road closures and air quality advisories, visit the BC Wildfire Service website: www.bcwildfire.ca
You can also follow the latest wildfire news on:
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BCGovFireInfo Facebook: http://facebook.com/BCForestFireInfo
Quick Facts:
Initial attack firefighters operate as three-person crews and are usually the first on the scene of a new fire. Once at the fire, the crews set up water pumps, remove fuel from the fire͛s path using chainsaws, pulaskis or shovels and dig fire guards to contain and help extinguish the blaze. Theses crews are self-sufficient and can remain on a fire for up to 24 hours without re- supply. Sometimes during hot, dry and windy conditions, a fire can grow quickly and additional firefighting resources may have to be deployed. These types of incidents require ͞sustained action͟and this is where the 20-person unit crews come in. Once on site,
Page 363 of 372 these larger crews will set up pumps, establish hose lines, dig fire guards, use chainsaws to fell trees in the fire͛s path and burn off forest fuels. A unit crew can also be broken up into smaller groups, depending on the nature of the fire activity.
Contact: Donna MacPherson Fire Information Officer BC Wildfire Service Coastal Fire Centre 250 951-4209
Connect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect
Page 364 of 372 In this Prohibitions Issue: As most of you are aware the lightly but with hot, dry conditions forecasted Coastal Fire Centre implemented a and no precipitation in sight, as well as the Fire Prohibitions Category 2 open fire prohibition on Danger rising to High and Extreme, and June 7, 2017, in all areas except the increasing numbers of human-caused fires, the ‘Fog Zone’ and Haida Gwaii. decision was made to go ahead with the Specifically, this prohibition applies to: prohibition. The following activities are also Thresholds the burning of any material (piled or unpiled) prohibited: smaller than two metres high and three open fires, of woody debris, in outdoor stoves Seasonal metres wide tiki torches Outlook the burning of stubble or grass fires over an The prohibition does not apply to CSA-rated or area less than 2,000 square metres ULC-rated cooking stoves that use gas, propane the use of fireworks, firecrackers, sky or briquettes, or to a portable campfire The Fog Zone lanterns, burning barrels or burning cages of apparatus that uses briquettes, liquid or gaseous any size or description fuel, as long as the height of the flame is less Exemptions the use of binary exploding targets (e.g. for than 15 centimetres. rifle target practice). Another prohibition that will take effect today As of noon today, campfire and is Category 3. If you have any concerns or Know Your Zone Category 3 prohibitions will also be questions about a prohibition go to: gov.bc.ca/ implemented. The decision to enact a wildfirebans for more detail. campfire prohibition is not made Devices
Jurisdiction Thresholds The BC Wildfire Service (BCWS) takes makes sense, what does the science prove and ‘continuous improvement’ seriously and as such what other factors come into play. At Coastal is undertaking a review of campfire ban thresh- The reasons the BUI was selected as the crite- olds. In layman's terms the BCWS is looking for a ria include: better way, supported by science, to determine 1. The BUI is a solid indicator of seasonal Weather when the best time to implement a campfire ban drought conditions; would be. 2. The BUI is calculated from weather station The current process is tied to the Danger Class readings and is monitored daily; Rating, this criteria is subject to rapid changes, 3. The BUI displays an extended affect the fluctuating daily depending on local weather, weather has had on an area; particularly the wind. This is problematic when 4. The results would therefore have a more attempting to apply a campfire prohibition as the stable timeframe for bans. Danger Class can shift dramatically. This year the Task Team will run the old meth- A Task Team is now looking at alternatives od alongside the proposed changes and see what For detailed and are experimenting with basing campfire pro- the data proves. What it may mean is that once a weather hibitions on the Build-Up Index (BUI) as it is less campfire prohibition is put in place it could re- information go to dynamic and is easier to understand and to im- main in effect longer than under the old system page 8 plement. It is also based on fuel types which but whether this will be by a few days, or a few align with fire behaviour predictions. weeks, will not be known until all the data is If the BCWS is going to use the BUI it must compiled. The result, however, will be based on first determine what is the point in which a hard science as it must be both provable and campfire prohibition should be triggered. What defendable. Page 365 of 372
Page 1
2017 Seasonal Outlook
The latest long range forecast for July Aug Sept (below): Environment Canada—Link to Forecasts: Above average temperatures and near normal rain for http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/index_e.html Coastal. Note the forecasted dry area for southeastern BC, indicative of a recurring ‘4-corner ridge’. 4-corner ridge refers to an upper ridge based over the 4 corner US states. For Coastal, this pattern is known for being warm & dry for most areas (especially the south). This pattern can also bring subtropical moisture & lightning, mainly for Fraser, South Island and Pemberton zones. A 4-corner ridge is not overly supportive of strong/frequent outflow events but we still see hot & dry weather in the absence of outflow (like today). This is not to say the 4-corner ridge will dominate all summer – several ridge breakdowns are likely – it just means that the long range models think a 4-corner ridge will be the natural resting state the atmosphere keeps coming back to.
Firearms—Are you a responsible gun owner?
The Coastal Fire Centre is discouraging the practice of from a distance when a target has been hit. The public are target shooting outside of lawfully established shooting clubs reminded that binary exploding targets have been prohibited and ranges. In the Coastal Fire Centre several recent person since June 7, 2017. The prohibition for binary exploding targets caused wildfires have started from sparks when steel clad covers all BC Parks, Crown lands and private lands within the bullets struck rocks, steel targets or binary exploding targets Coastal Fire Centre, except in the Fog Zone and Haida Gwaii. which fell onto dry grasses, light ground fuels or logging slash. The responsible use of firearms is mandated under federal Binary exploding targets are homemade or commercially pre- law but the Coastal Fire Centre would like to remind target packaged explosives (such as Tannerite, Firebird or Sure Shot) shooters that they too have a responsibility to help protect that are used for firearms practice to enable a shooter to see forested areas. Page 366 of 372
Page 2
The Fog Zone
The area known as the West Coast Fog boundaries and the area was not Zone is a band of land two kilometres wide distinguished as separate or different when that runs from Owen Point near Port a prohibition went into place. This area is Renfrew to the district boundary of Port normally bathed in sea fog and has Hardy. showers throughout the spring and The Fog Zone is science based, and is summer months, resulting in a markedly based on the fuel types, common weather different ecosystem. patterns and future predictions. Since this area is subject to frequent The Fog Zone was recognized as having and heavy fog, it tends to be wetter and a different climate (marine). In 2009,the generally has lower wildfire risks than Coastal Fire Centre defined the area so that surrounding areas. This it could be identified on maps, could be does not mean that a legally defined for prohibitions, and could be better described to prohibition will not, or cannot be enacted in this the public. area but it is an area that is often excluded from The idea of the Fog Zone was to clearly define the area so that a prohibition as due to damp conditions it is at a when prohibitions were put in place this region could be lower risk for wildfire. In 2015, for example, a excluded or included as conditions dictated. Prior to the drawing campfire prohibition did extend to the ‘fog of this boundary campfires were prohibited within forest district zone’. Provincial Parks Within the Fog Zone
Although BC Parks generally follows BC Wildfire Service prohibitions they may choose not to depending on local conditions and concerns within their jurisdiction. If you are planning to go to one of these parks you can go to: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/
Hesquiat Peninsula—is situated on the west coast of Vancouver Island Raft Cove—is an isolated park on the northwest coast of Vancouver and occupies most of the eastern shore of Nootka Sound. Island.
Lawn Point—is located on the remote coastline between Brooks Maquinna Marine Park—Visitors from around the world flock to this Peninsula and Quatsino Sound on the west coast of northern Vancouver Park in Clayoquot Sound to soak in the natural hot mineral spring pools. Island.
Flores Island Park—Flores Island is one of the most popular Mquqwin/Brooks Peninsula—located on northwest Vancouver Island, the destinations in Clayoquot Sound. “cape of storms”.
Gibson Marine Park—Located adjacent to Flores Island Provincial Park Big Bunsby Marine Park—he park is situated on the west coast of on Flores Island, the park offers sheltered anchorage in Matilda Inlet. northern Vancouver Island, about 30 km southwest of Port Alice.
Vargas Island Park—Due to its close proximity to Tofino, Vargas Rugged Point—located on the west coast of northern Vancouver Island, is Island Provincial Park in Clayoquot Sound is a very popular paddling and a must-see destination for boaters traveling this area. Boat Access Only. wilderness camping destination.
Epper Passage—lies on route to popular kayak camping areas within Catala Island Marine— located in Esperanza Inlet on the northwest coast Clayoquot Sound, including Flores Island and Vargas Island. of Vancouver Island, between Nootka Sound and Kyuquot Sound.
Cape Scott (all campgrounds) - a truly magnificent area of rugged Nuchatlitz—encompasses the very northwest tip of Nootka Island and a coastal wilderness that is located at the northwestern tip of Vancouver large number of small island groups. Island, 563 kilometres from Victoria.
Lanz and Cox Island—together with the outer three islands of the Scott Santa Guertrudis-Boca del Infierno—part of the popular Nootka Sound Islands chain (Beresford, Sartine and Triangle Islands) they protect some kayak or boating experience. of the most important seabird nesting colonies in the world. Page 367 of 372
Page 3
Exemptions
NOTE: this does not apply to exemptions related to high risk must check to ensure that there are no local government activities. bylaws that are in effect. If there are then our legislation has no authority and we cannot exempt If the local government has a bylaw then the BC Wildfire should contact their local fire zone office and obtain an Service has no authority or responsibility to manage the activity Exemption Application to complete and submit to the zone within the area governed by the bylaw. If a local government does for review before sending it to the Prevention FPT at the not have its own burn bylaw, and an open fire prohibition is In fire centre. place, then an exemption to the open burning prohibition may be must be made aware that the activity is currently restricted applied for from the Coastal Fire Centre. Only under specific because of the fire danger situation and in the application circumstances will an exemption be granted. The applicant must explain how they will take extraordinary measures at their have a valid reason for the exemption and the applicant must event to minimize the chances of a fire occurring to an provide a plan for mitigating any risk. absolute minimum The Coastal Fire Centre encourages all local jurisdictions to must have the support of the local fire department and the implement their own burn bylaws as it provides more localized Fire Zone must confirm this authority over when burning can, or can not, occur and what activities are safe to be conducted based on local conditions. if the local fire department, the applicable fire zone and the One of the most common requests that the Fire Centre receives fire centre all agree that the measures are both substantive is for firework displays that are part of Canada Day celebrations. and have reduced the likelihood of a fire occurring from the This being Canada’s 150th Year we expect numerous applications event activity, an exemption may be granted. so if you are considering fireworks in your local jurisdiction please only the Fire Centre Manager or Deputy has the authority contact your zone early. to grant an exemption. The following process applies to all lands both Crown and Legally our Wildfire Act and Wildfire Regulation does not apply private that do not have local bylaws that govern open burning or to Indian Reserve Lands but our experience has found that Band other local bylaws that govern activities such as fireworks. officials are just as cautious, and concerned about potential losses Anyone desiring to conduct an open burn: to wildfires, and are willing to cooperate with Coastal Fire Centre’s when restricted might be eligible for a one time exemption open burning restrictions when they are in effect. First Nations from the restriction for a specific purpose on a specific date often notify the Fire Centre when there is an open fire prohibition but they have to apply and they are having a ceremonial fire so that Dispatch is aware of the event. Coastal Zone Map
Fraser Zone (V1, VB) Cultus Lake Base – zone office Haig Base (Hope) Boston Bar - seasonal Haida Gwaii - seasonal Sunshine Coast Zone (V5) Powell River Base – zone office Sechelt Base Pemberton Zone (V3) Pemberton Base – zone office Squamish Base South Island Zone (V7, V6) Errington Base – zone office Port Alberni Base Cobble Hill Base North Island/Mid Coast Zone (V8, VA) Quinsam Fire Base – zone office Mid Coast Base, (Bella Coola) - seasonal Page 368 of 372
Page 4
Know Your Zone
Please note that this contact information is for business needs and not for Fire Information. For information about a fire please go to the website www.bcwildfire.ca, Facebook page BC Forest Fire Info, or phone 250-951-4209.
Zone Location Contact Fraser The Fraser Zone has two very distinct geographic and demographic FRASER ZONE OFFICE units (Fraser-Lower Mainland and Fraser-Haida Gwaii) and contains the [email protected] widest range of cultural and climatic variances within the Fire Centre. DESK: (604) 858-4742 FAX: (604) 858-4943 Lower Mainland—The lower mainland portion of the Fraser Fire Zone stretches northeast from Bowen Island to Boston Bar and south to Manning Park and the international border.
Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) is a 300 km long area that consists of more than 150 islands approximately 90 kilometres west of Prince Rupert. There are two main islands, Graham Island to the north and Moresby Island to the south.
Sunshine The Sunshine Coast Fire Zone has the same administrative boundaries SUNSHINE COAST ZONE as the Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District, except it excludes OFFICE / POWELL R Coast Lasqueti Island. It is located on the mainland including numerous Gulf [email protected] Islands. The zone lies within the Coast Mountains, extending from Howe DESK: (604) 485-2794 Sound in the south to Bute Inlet to the north. FAX: (604) 485-2798
Pemberton The Pemberton Fire Zone is located on the mainland north of PEMBERTON ZONE OFFICE Vancouver, and has the same borders as the Sea to Sky Natural Resource (PEMBERTON) District. The Sea to Sky highway (99) goes through the center of the [email protected] zone from Lions Bay and north through the Duffy Lake. DESK: (604) 894-5401 FAX: (604) 894-5092
North The North Island Mid Coast Zone is the largest geographic fire zone NORTH ISLAND/MID COAST within the Coastal Fire Centre. The area includes all of Vancouver Island ZONE (QUINSAM) Island/ north of Fanny Bay to Cape Scott, and all islands and inlets north from [email protected] Mid Coast Maurelle Island to Dean Channel and Princess Royal Island (north of the DESK: (250) 286-7560 Bella Coola valley). FAX: (250) 287-5103
South Island The South Island Zone consists of the southern part of Vancouver SOUTH ISLAND ZONE Island, south of Union Bay and Tofino, which covers a diverse area and (ERRINGTON) includes the following gulf islands: Denman, Hornby, Lasqueti, [email protected] Gabriola, Saltspring, Galiano, Mayne, Saturna, North Pender, South DESK: (250) 951-4223 Pender, Thetis, Kuper and numerous smaller islands to the east. FAX: (250) 248-0477
To Report a Wildfire Call: 1-800-663-5555 or *5555 on yourPage cell 369 phone.of 372
Page 5
Devices Sky Lanterns
Section 12, of the Wildfire Act governs the prohibition and A sky lantern also known as a Chinese lantern, is a small restriction of activities that have been identified as being hot air balloon made of paper, with an opening at the bottom potential causes of a wildfire. This will then prohibit or restrict where a small fire is suspended. It is a floating open flame. the means by which that activity undertaken. For example, if a These devices are 17-18 inches wide by 30 inches high in size campfire is implemented then this also prohibits the use of or larger. those devices that burn woody debris such as a bio-lite stove. When a Category 2 prohibition is Or if Category 2 open fire is prohibited then a sky lantern enacted it will often include sky lanterns as would be prohibited because it uses an open flame to propel they can not be controlled or put out easily the lantern up. once released. Section 12 of the Wildfire Act reads: Sky lanterns have already been banned (1) The minister by order may prohibit or restrict in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince (a) the activities that may be carried out, or Edward Island and in several municipalities (b) the equipment, materials or substances that may across the country. be used in a specified area and for a specified period, if the minister considers that the activities or the use are likely to cause or contribute to the Tiki Torches spread of a fire. (2) A person must not If you just sit back and think about how a tiki torch is (a) carry out any activities, or constructed you will likely agree that during an open fire (b) use any equipment, materials or substances prohibition having an open flame on a top-heavy structure in contravention of an order made under is probably not conducive to fire safety, particularly when subsection (1). they are marketed for party use. (3) An order under subsection (1) may be different for While we have had some members of the public swear different that they are completely safe when embedded into the (a) types, categories or subcategories of activities, ground they are still an open flame and are generally equipment, materials or substances, included in a Campfire prohibition. (b) categories of persons, places or things, or (c) circumstances. (4) For the period during which an activity continues as a Chiminea restricted activity under this section, the minister may exempt a person in writing from an order made under Chimineas are devices we are often asked subsection (1) or from any fire control obligation for about. that area. The first question—what does it burn? Devices that can be, or are routinely, prohibited or If the answer to the first question is wood, restricted when a prohibition is enacted are: and a campfire prohibition is in place then no. Tiki and similar kinds of torches Burning wood, including wood pellets, during Propane stoves or fire rings a campfire prohibition is not allowed. Barbeques, including hibachis Chimineas are generally not ULC or CSA Fireworks, including firecrackers approved and therefore, can not be used to burn Outdoor stoves charcoal during a campfire prohibition either. Sky Lanterns Driving or riding an all-terrain vehicle Binary Exploding Targets But what about a... Burn Barrels or Burn Cages of any size or description As Information Officers we spend a lot of time answering Air Curtain Burners questions that usually start with ‘yeah, but what about…?’ When a prohibition is put in place it is important to And while we are more than happy to answer your questions read the whole document as it details all of the items that we may be dealing with a fire in a community at the same may be restricted or prohibited. time. So before asking the question—ask yourself ‘what does it burn and is that allowed?’ It may save you a whole lot of Page 370 of 372 frustration in trying to get through to us. Page 6
Artificial Campfires
Propane campfires have higher than 15 cm. proliferated recently and are 3. Do not pile or burn paper on a propane campfire. particularly popular in areas with 4. Do not leave the campfire unattended, particularly when campfire bans in place. Although a small children are present. propane campfire is a good 5. Make sure that the device is placed on mineral soil and has alternative to a wood fire, it’s like all proper clearance from anything that is flammable. flammable devices — it’s only as Pictured is a new artificial campfire. It burns wood pellets. good as the person who operates it. The device produces little if any smoke but would not be Before you purchase one of these allowed if there was a open fire devices, make sure it’s been prohibition in place as this type of approved by the Canadian Standards prohibition would disallow the burning Association (CSA). Read the directions carefully when putting of any woody debris. If you use this it together and always make sure it has completely cooled down device please make sure that you follow before you pack it up and put it in your vehicle or recreational the same rules as for a propane vehicle. Do not make modifications to the unit (or it is not campfire: place it in a campfire ring if certified) and use it only as directed. Always detach the fuel one is available, do not burn anything cylinder from the device before transporting it. but what it is intended to use (wood When using propane, DO NOT store the propane cylinders pellets), do not leave it unattended and indoors or at temperatures above 49°C (120° F). Make sure you make sure that it is on mineral soil with keep the cylinders out of the sun while camping. the proper clearance, and make sure it is A propane campfire is still a campfire, so remember the out before leaving the area. basics: A Bio-lite stove would also be 1. Place the device in a campfire ring if one is available. prohibited during a campfire 2. Do not turn the device to a setting where the flames are prohibition as it burns ‘woody debris’.
Jurisdiction
It’s not only important for you to know which jurisdiction forms of local government. you live in but what jurisdiction you are planning to have a campfire in, so you know which burning bylaws govern your The Wildfire Act and Regulation was legislated to provide property or worksite. The BC Wildfire Service has jurisdiction wildfire protection primarily for crown land, in recognition if there are no local burning bylaws in place. that crown lands are held in public trust and these lands repre- sent revenue for the citizens of BC. It was never intended to The first step is to confirm which local government you pay cover subdivisions or communities. For that reason, the Wild- your taxes to, but that may not always be the full story. In some fire Act and Regulation is the “default” if there are not local cases, your land may be in one jurisdiction but the bylaws that government open fire bylaws in place. determine when or if you can conduct an open burn are dictated by a local fire department’s operating boundaries or its area of Because there are so many local governments on the coast, responsibility. Make sure that you are very clear about which it is impossible for the Coastal Fire Centre to keep an accurate local government jurisdiction and which fire department juris- list, and instead encourage people to first contact “who they diction you fall into. pay their taxes to” and ask if there are any open fire bylaws that cover where they want to have a fire. The BCWS supports local government’s having their own burn bylaws as they would reflect local weather conditions and If you are told “no, there are no bylaws”, then the Coastal can mean that prohibitions can be implemented and lifted much Fire Centre open fire rules apply. Once you know this, you can faster when it is in a smaller area. For more information local check BCWildfire for any prohibitions that might apply to governments can refer to the Wildfire Act, section 4.2, which you. grants this authority to municipalities, regional districts or other Page 371 of 372
Page 7
To Date At Coastal
in Coastal Harrison Lake East (V10484) - Out of Control Mt. Manuel Quimper (V60580) - Being Held Location: approximately 30 kms. North of Harrison Hot Location: In Sea-to-Sea Park near Sooke, BC Springs at the mouth of the Big Silver Creek Size: 1.2 hectares (tracked) Fires to Date Size: 115 hectares (estimated) Cause: Human-caused Containment: 5% Resources: 1 officer, 3 firefighters. Person Reported: Afternoon of July 1, 2017 Status: Crews are currently mopping up. Caused 45 Cause: This is a human-caused fire and is under Other: This fire is in Sooke Fire Department jurisdiction. investigation. BC Wildfire Service is assisted the local fire department Resources: There are 78 firefighters, Incident on this fire as aircraft was required during the initial Lighting 0 Command Team, 2 Danger Tree Fallers, support staff, phase of this fire. BCWS no longer have resources on Caused a water tender, and air support by both airtankers and this fire. helicopters on the fire. Status: Crews made good progress on burning out and Nimpkish Lake-Upper Kilpala (V90616) - Out of Control Total reinforcing control lines. No significant growth of the Location: 20 hectares (estimated) Number 45 fire. Today, the crews will continue to strength control Size: 10 hectares of Fires lines and improve access to the base of the fire for Cause: Human-caused crew safety. Resources: 35 firefighters, 3 officers, 3 helicopters and Fire Danger Orders and Restrictions: An area restriction has been airtanker support when needed issued to clear this area of recreationalists and allow Status: 25% contained Rating today free movement of equipment and staff to the fire site. Other: The fire size estimate has dropped to 10 hectare A Road Closure is in effect. Checkpoints have been once smoke cleared and the fire became more visible. established on the Harrison East Forest Service Road at the 15-kilometre and 42.5-kilometre marks, north to the Shovel Creek Forest Service Road, and eastward Links to and including the Shovel Creek Forest Service Road. Road Safety at Work: https://roadsafetyatwork.ca/ The area extends along the eastern shore of Harrison road-safety-at-work-week/overview/? Current Prohibitions Lake from Bear Creek to Stokke Creek. (within BCWS jurisdictional area) Weather
Campfires ISSUED: 11:00 PDT Friday July 7, 2017 sunnier, and drier conditions should be seen to the SYNOPSIS: An upper trough brings increasing south. Isolated pockets of hot & dry conditions Category 2 southwesterly or inflow winds to all zones today. potentially linger in some eastern valleys south of Category 3 Limited moisture associated with the feature also Pemberton Saturday afternoon. Throughout with the brings partly cloudy skies, mainly to areas north & OUTLOOK: A steady onshore pressure gradient should exception of the west of roughly Nanaimo-Sechelt. The strengthening help push the somewhat cooler maritime airmass all the ‘Fog Zone’ and onshore flow also pushes an airmass with lower way to the Coastal Divide by Sunday afternoon, Haida Gwaii. temperatures and higher humidities over the Island effectively scouring out any remaining hot & very dry air and Mid Coast, and into the western sections of the from the inland valleys of the south. Temperatures other Mainland zones. Meanwhile, the inland valleys should hover in the 24 to 27 degree range in most areas of Pemberton and Fraser zones remain mainly sunny Sunday afternoon with partly cloudy skies and a slight and hot with low or potentially very low humidities. chance of the odd isolated shower or thunderstorm. The upper trough should trigger an isolated Humidities should level off near or above 30% in most thunderstorm in/around Tweedsmuir Park this areas Sunday afternoon; potentially closer to 25% in afternoon with a 30% chance or less elsewhere (the spots while inflow or westerly winds step up a notch Manning Park area being the next most likely spot for from Saturday. Generally cooler and cloudier conditions lightning today). Associated rain showers would be should be seen north of roughly Woss – Knight Inlet on light (5mm or less) and spotty in coverage. Most areas Sunday. An upper low should remain stalled just north should see good overnight recoveries tonight. Bands of of the region Monday & Tuesday with a prevailing moisture entrained in the prevailing southwesterly strong onshore flow and variable bands of disorganized flow should spread thickening cloud and scattered moisture resulting in near seasonal temperatures, showers over the North Island and Mid Coast Saturday occasional cloud and a riskPage of 372the oddof 372 isolated shower and Saturday night while progressively warmer, each day. Page 8