Common sense prevails at CVRD over amending the RGS

Common sense prevails at CVRD over amending the RGS

An overwhelming majority of directors defeated a motion to consider an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy via the”minor process” to enable 3L Developments 740-house community near Stotan Falls. But this is still an early round in the 11-year saga

 

NOTE: this story was updated July 26 to report that 3L Development has decided to proceed with its request for an amendment to the RGS despite the CVRD board deciding it would only do so via the standard amendment process, and to correct the vote total as 7-3 against. 

Common sense prevailed at the Comox Valley Regional District board meeting yesterday, July 24, as directors voted 7-3 to reject considering a proposed amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy via an expedited process.

Only Courtenay Mayor Larry Jangula, Courtenay Councillor Mano Theos and Comox Councillor Ken Grant voted in favor. The vote required a two-thirds majority for passage, so it failed overwhelmingly.

The CVRD did, however, vote unanimously to initiate the amendment process, which 3L Developments requested as a first step in a long process to build a 740-house new community near Stotan Falls.

3L spokesperson Kabel Atwall has said repeatedly that the company would only proceed via the minor amendment process, but it announced on July 25 that it would continue with its application via the standard process, which involves consultations with neighboring regional districts as well as local governments and the public.

3L said after the meeting it would make an announcement this morning, July 25.

The two votes yesterday, were narrowly focused on whether to consider amending the RGS at all, and, if so, whether it qualified as a minor or standard process by the rules the directors themselves have written into the bylaw.

It was not a vote on the merits of the proposed development, known as Riverwood.

That point seemed to escape directors Larry Jangula and Mano Theos who argued in favor of going the minor process based on a shortage of available building lots, job creation and 3L Developments offer to donate land for a public park surrounding the popular Stotan Falls swimming area.

“Think of the jobs and housing we’ll lose if we shoot this down,” Jangula said.

Area B Director Rod Nichol, who voted against the minor process, set Jangula straight.

“We’re not here to shoot it down,” Nichol said. “We’re deciding to go minor or standard.”

Grant at least kept his comments in support of the minor process on topic.

But it wasn’t only Jangula and Theos who didn’t understand the question before the board, all seven of the pro-development speakers also argued based on housing shortages and a desire for a public park, not whether the 3L application met the minor process criteria.

Only long-time Comox Valley realtor Dale McCartney even mentioned the minor versus standard amendment process question. He dismissed the standard process because he said the decision should be made solely within the Comox Valley.

How we got here

3L Developments first proposed a new, self-contained community on 550 acres between the Browns and Puntledge rivers in 2007. The CVRD rejected it  while developing its Regional Growth Strategy, but was later told by the BC Supreme Court to give the proposal a fuller consideration.

Because the Riverwood community isn’t included in the Regional Growth Strategy, 3L applied to have the RGS amended.

The CVRD is the only regional district in the province to allow developers or other private parties to apply for RGS amendments. In all other regional districts, only another government entity can apply to amend the RGS.

The CVRD passed first reading of its own amendment to the RGS at yesterday’s meeting to change that element of its growth bylaw, which will bring the Comox Valley in line with the rest of British Columbia.

At two previous Committee of the Whole meetings, which are not full-board meetings, a majority of directors first rejected recommending the minor process on July 10, then voted in favor of recommending it to the full board at a second meeting on July 17.

Yesterday was the first time the full board had considered the amendment issue.

Courtenay Councillor Bob Wells, Nichol and Area A Director Bruce Jolliffe changed their votes from pro-minor on July 17 to against it yesterday and swung the majority toward a standard process.

Wells, Nichol and Jolliffe probably heard from constituents aghast at how they could ignore clearly written criteria for a minor process, none of which the 3L Development proposal meets.

Their votes also rankled Mayor Jangula, who told radio station 98.9 The Goat, that he found it “amazing” the directors would change their vote due to “I think, the psychological pressure of all the opposed people.”

Jangula reportedly said he didn’t consider that good leadership. By “that,” he seemed to refer to listening to other points of view.

Record number of delegations

At the top of yesterday’s meeting, the board agreed to hear more than its usual number of delegations, including several that had applied to speak after the deadline.

Seven of those spoke in favor of the minor process by way of supporting the Riverwood development, and the five who were opposed stayed mostly on topic.

Diana Schroeder, a 10-year Valley resident asked for clarification of the issues before the board. She asked if the question was whether to allow the development or to accept the park land. She was told no, the question is about the process.

“Oh,” she said, “because I was confused. All the previous speakers were talking about parks.”

Kabel Atwall, speaking for 3L Developments, not as a delegation, said it’s been 11 years and many confusing missteps, which concerned him because “it’s our side that has to point them out.” He said without an amendment to the RGS, 3L would not offer up land for a Stotan Falls park. He said Riverwood would address the Valley’s housing shortage. He read a letter of support from Central Builders Home Hardware.

Atwall claimed the company will make a $780 million capital investment in Riverwood. If they develop 1,000 lots, that’s an investment of $780,000 per lot before house construction and operating profit.

D. Eliason, who owns a home improvement company, said his family was “pigeon-holed to a lot in Crown Isle” when he moved here because there wasn’t anything else available. If Riverwood was available, he would have preferred it. He praised the parkland offer and asked the board to expedite the process.

Greg Hart, the managing broker of Royal LePage, said the Valley has had a critical shortage of houses on the market since 2016.

“If you want to talk affordable housing, we to talk about supply,” he said. “Because local people can’t afford them”

Hart said the Valley “needs product on the market.”

Dale McCartney said there was no such thing as urban sprawl in the Comox Valley.

Ken and Gladys Schmidt, who live near the Riverwood site, says the Stotan Falls area is a parking nightmare now, with garbage strewn around and toilet paper hanging from trees. A developed park with parking lots and sanitation would improve that.

N. Strussi, who described himself as a sportsman, offered directors a tour of the area he has roamed since he was a kid. He wondered why we have to have so much bureaucracy.

P. Walker, a retired airline pilot, complained about how the CVRD handled his own small land development project south of the Trent River. He called 3L founder David Dutcyvich “a visionary” who is handing the CVRD a complete package. He urged the board to fast track the proposal before there’s a “ferris wheel” on the property.

L. Wilson has lived in the area for 45 years and called herself an avid hunter and outdoors person. She said a park near Stotan Falls would provide sanctuary for wildlife, such as deer, that are being driven into cities by diminishing habitat.

“People love to see deer in their yards,” she said.

Diana Schroeder was the first of several speakers to address the issue before the board. She said there was no “wiggle room” in the criteria for a minor amendment to the RGS. To consider the 3L proposal via the minor process “mocks the intent of the Regional Growth Strategy.”

She raised questions about water, fire protection, public transit, compatibility with Courtenay’s Urban Forest Strategy, and other topics.

“These are questions that can only be answered by the standard amendment process,” she said. “And it should take time. The 3L proposal will change the Comox Valley forever.”

D. Bostock suggested the rural Official Community Plan offers other means of preserving land for a park at Stotan Falls. She called the Browns River watershed critical, and, with the Puntledge, provides a natural urban containment, which preserves the rural character surrounding our cities. She disputed 3L’s claims of job creation, saying they can only transfer density from other existing settlement areas, which would then lose construction jobs.

Grant Gordon said the old north Island regional district was divided into two, creating the CVRD, because Courtenay, Comox and Campbell River didn’t like north Island directors interfering with their planning. He said the compromise was the Regional Growth Strategy to sustain our rural areas. He said all the pro-3L speakers were out of order because they didn’t address the issues at hand, and he claimed the municipal directors have too much power over Area A, B and C directors.

Lisa Christianson said she opposes developments that skirt proper procedures for expediency. Since Riverwood would have a major impact on the Valley, she said there’s no way it should qualify for a minor process. She questioned a concern of some directors to get the amendment process completed by the Oct. 20 municipal elections. She was confident that new directors will be competent to deal with the issue.

Wendy Morin, who has lived her entire 55 years in the Valley, said while she’s sympathetic to the affordable housing argument, she said it’s “unfathomable” that the 3L application could fit the minor process criteria. She noted the staff report that said the current settlement areas are not close to capacity and she worried about issues such as water consumption and the city’s Urban Forest Strategy.

What’s next

The CVRD will immediately notify neighboring regional districts in Nanaimo, Powell River and Strancona of an upcoming RGS amendment proposal for their comment.

CVRD staff will begin working on a consultation plan and time frame for the board to review at its August meeting.

 

Battle brewing over city’s transportation master plan

Battle brewing over city’s transportation master plan

The City of Courtenay may recommend a third bridge as part of its 2018 transportation master plan, but Project Watershed will oppose any crossing of the Courtenay River south of 17th Street

 

A battle is brewing over how to improve the flow of traffic through Courtenay and across the Courtenay River without destroying established businesses and key portions of the K’omoks estuary.

The fight could pit the city against Project Watershed, K’omoks First Nations, business owners at the Courtenay Airpark and others over a proposed third crossing at 21st St., which would close the airpark, destroy portions of the estuary and have devastating effects on the Kus-kus-sum restoration.

The city is developing a much-needed transportation master plan that will guide City Councils over the next 20 years on where to invest in new infrastructure and how to meet the transportation needs of a growing population.

The plan is long overdue, and the failure of the city to develop such a plan in the past has limited the city’s options today to meet future transportation requirements.

Mayor Larry Jangula and some council members have downplayed a consultant’s report that recommends the 21st St. crossing as simply “a concept.” But Project Watershed and airpark business owners worry that a ho-hum attitude could result in the “concept” being enshrined in the master plan.

In a strong letter to the mayor and council, Project Watershed has said it will oppose any third crossing of the Courtenay River south of 17th St.

“This route, which would go through wetlands, across agricultural lands and creeks in order to hook up with Comox Road and then eventually Macdonald Road, is ill advised in the extreme,” wrote Project Watershed Chair Paul Horgen.

“The permanent damage that would be done to sensitive ecological areas, including Hollyhock Marsh, Glen Urquhart and Mallard Creeks, as well as Dike Slough by such a project, is unacceptable. This additional crossing would also affect those that enjoy the recreational opportunities afforded by the Courtenay Airpark Lagoon trails, Horgen said in his letter.

Horgen said the city should appreciate the sensitive habitat values of the area and the importance of conserving key eco-assets.

The city is a full partner with the nonprofit and K’omoks First Nation in the restoration of the old Fields Sawmill site, known as Kus-kus-sum.

In response, Mayor Jangula seemed to indicate there was no cause for alarm.

“I understand your concerns. This was simply a report on transportation plans with suggestions on where to place a third crossing,” Jangula wrote. “The City has no plans at this time to build another bridge. The idea is conceptual.”

That provided little comfort for Project Watershed.

“Thanks for your early response Mayor Jangula. Our deep concern is that this non-viable and ill-informed Option B crossing, being a conceptual report or not, will continue to persist in future planning documents, as these things have been shown to do in the past,” Horgen responded. “Our preference would be to see it removed entirely from this process.”

How was the recommendations developed?

According to a fact sheet published by city staff, the City has explored several alternative crossings of the Courtenay River beyond the 5th Street and 17th Street bridges since 2005.

Public feedback has indicated that growth pressures on the crossings, downtown and northeast areas, as well specifically Ryan Road and Highway 19A Bypass were areas of concern.

But most of the city’s options for a third crossing have been eliminated by a “combination of previous decisions and studies along with technical review in 2018 … due to impacts and/or changes to localized conditions (including 3rd Street, 6th Street, 8th Street, 11th Street, 13th Street, 19th Street, and 20th Street).”

That left crossing alternatives at 21st Street and 29th Street, but “preliminary investigations and stakeholder meetings resulted in eliminating 29th Street from further review largely based on the reduced traffic diversion that would be expected, as well as the significant costs and high environmental impacts.”

That last statement is ironic according to Project Watershed Technical Director Dan Bowen.

“Project Watershed has worked hard to secure the old sawmill site to restore the shoreline of the Courtenay River. The option B flies in the face of all the city’s support of the Kus Kus Sum,” Bowen has said. “The wetland salt marsh ecosystem must be kept as a unit for connectivity of plant species and fish channels.”

Morris Perry, a spokesperson for the Courtenay Airpark, says the community benefits from the facility and supports it. He points to a May 2015 poll by the Comox Valley Record in which 93.7 percent of respondents said the Airpark should stay.

“Lots of votes here and, yes, lots of retired air force families that love the airpark and the green space it provides,” Perry wrote in a comment on Decafnation. “Oh yes, and no cost to the taxpayer as its 100 percent maintained by volunteers and of course all the jobs it provides working on aircraft from companies all over North America, not just Harbour Air.”

What’s next

Courtenay city staff will present final recommendations for the transportation master plan in the fall. The current council will consider the plan, including any changes they want before final adoption.

However, future council members will decide to proceed with specific recommendations in the plan and fund them through the annual budgeting process.

FURTHER READING: City bridge proposal would harm airpark, Kus-kus-sumProject Watershed, K’omoks First Nations to restore sawmill site

 

Expediency wins out over CVRD’s growth strategy

Expediency wins out over CVRD’s growth strategy

CVRD directors overlook their Regional Growth Strategy to expedite an application by 3L Developments to amend the RGS that would enable a 740-house project on the Browns and Puntlege rivers near Stotan Falls

 

BREAKING: In another surprising twist to the 3L Developments  proposal for Stotan Falls, the July 17 Committee of the Whole vote that defeated a motion to consider the issue via the minor amendment process has been overturned. The motion has now passed on a 5-3 simple majority, and it will be recommended to the entire Comox Valley Regional District board later this month that the 3L application for an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy be considered by the minor amendment process. When the full board votes, however, a two-thirds majority will be required.

Here is a statement from the CVRD legislative services team:

“In preparing the minutes for yesterday’s (July 17) Committee of the Whole meeting, Regional District staff considered the issue of whether the Committee’s vote on the process for proceeding with the amendment to the RGS proposed by 3L Development required a two-thirds majority or a simple majority vote for the Committee to recommend to the Board that it proceed as a minor amendment. Having reviewed the Regional District’s Procedure Bylaw, the RGS, and the applicable statutes, staff are of the view that there is an arguable issue as to the required vote. In the circumstances, and as the RGS makes clear that the determination of whether an amendment is a minor amendment must be made by the Board, staff have concluded that it is fair and reasonable to resolve the issue in favour of the applicant and have prepared the Minutes to reflect that the motion to proceed with the amendment as a minor amendment was carried on a simple majority vote of 5 to 3.  By doing so, the matter will properly be on the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting and the Board will be in a position to fulfill its duty to determine, if the amendment is initiated, on a two-thirds majority basis whether the amendment will proceed as a minor amendment or, in default, as a standard amendment”

The original story follows …

Editor’s note: this article was amended July 23 to provide context for a quote by David Dutcyvich

For Comox Valley Regional District directors Bob Wells and Rod Nichol, expediency justifies circumventing a requirement of the board’s own Regional Growth Strategy.

Wells and Nichol were two of five directors to vote July 17 in favor of considering a proposal by 3L Developments to change the RGS as a minor amendment, rather than through the standard amendment process.

The two directors joined Larry Jangula, Ken Grant and Bruce Jolliffe to support a motion to proceed via the minor amendment process.

Erik Eriksson, Curtis Scoville and Barbara Price voted against the motion.

It was the second time for directors to vote on the issue. On July 10, they defeated the motion with only Grant and Jangula supporting it.

But the board had voted at that time after hearing incorrect information that a future unanimous vote in the minor amendment process would be required for the proposal to pass first reading. In fact, only a majority vote would be required at first reading.

So when the board’s Committee of the Whole reconvened a week later, on July 17, and voted again after discussing the corrected information and another hour of debate on the matter.

What’s surprising about the vote is that the CVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy clearly states the criteria that a proposed amendment must meet in order to be considered through the minor amendment process.

Area B Director Nichol asked CVRD staff to display section 5.2.3(a) of the RGS, which refers to the “criteria under which a proposed amendment to the RGS may be considered a minor amendment:”

It can be minor, if it is not regionally significant, contributes to the goals and objectives of the RGS, contributes to achieving the general principles in the RGS, and is not directly related to enabling a specific proposed development.

Nichol then went through each criterion and explained why, in his opinion, the 3L proposal did not meet any of them. But he voted in favor anyway.

Wells expressed similar difficulty with the criteria.

After the meeting Wells told Decafnation that he voted in favor of the minor amendment process anyway because he was satisfied the board “could still get a fulsome and meaningful” review of the 3L proposal “equivalent to the standard amendment” process.

Wells said his concern was the timeline for responses from other governments required under the standard amendment process, which “from my experience can be significant, and it seemed very unclear there would be any benefit.”

Nichol said the board has “inherited an issue that should have been decided a long time ago.”

“Yes, it did not meet all the requirements, but I firmly believe we can come up with a decision that conforms with the wishes of the people.”

Director Eriksson, who opposed the minor amendment process, said the 3L Developments proposal for 740 houses at Stotan Falls is a significant change to the Regional Growth Strategy.

“I’ve been critical of the RGS in the past,” he said. “But it reflects the aspirations of the public.”

The mayors of each municipality and the electoral area directors signed a protocol on “managing growth in the Comox Valley” in September of 2006. That lead to the development of the RGS, which was adopted in March 2011.

The Regional Growth Strategy is the culmination of considerable public input, negotiation among elected officials and feedback from local government staff through the board’s Technical Advisory and Steering committees.

But five directors, including Wells and Nichol, ignored that work for the sake of moving along consideration of the 3L Developments proposal a little bit quicker.

And 3L Developments has been trying to get CVRD approval for a long time.

It has been 11 years since 3L Development founder Dave Dutcyvich originally proposed to build a self-contained riverfront community on 550 acres between the Browns and Puntledge rivers, north of Courtenay.

His company has offered to donate 260 acres for a public park that includes access to the popular swimming area known as Stotan Falls.

3L spokesman Kabel Atwall said they have grown weary of the delays that have prevented them from going ahead with their project. Atwall said consulting other regional districts, as a standard amendment process requires, could “spin the whole process out of control.”

Dutcyvich also spoke to the board prior to its vote on July 17.

“There’s a lot of money tied up (in the project), and it has to come to an end some time,” he said. “To quote the mayor of Ottawa, ‘I don’t want the red tape, I want the red carpet’.”

 

BC ministry attempts to justify Sackville water license

BC ministry attempts to justify Sackville water license

Ministry officials explain and justify their Sackville Road groundwater extraction decision, saying no negative effects will result. But Merville residents question the ministry’s data and remain suspicious about negative effects on their wells

 

EDITOR’s NOTE: This story was updated at 11 a.m. July 17

Provincial government officials who reviewed and approved a groundwater extraction license for a proposed Sackville Road water bottling operation explained their decision-making process to a packed house at the Merville Community Hall last night (July 16).

Representatives of the Nanaimo Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (FLNRORD) used a PowerPoint presentation to convince the crowd of several hundred people that the extraction of up to 10,000 litres per day from their aquifer won’t result in any negative effects.

The crowd wasn’t buying it.

The audience listened to the presentations with few interruptions and applauded politely for each speaker.

But when the question and answer period began, the mood turned raucous, with catcalls and loud and long cheering for citizens who pressed the ministry officials to defend what was called a “ridiculous” decision.

The ministry issued a groundwater license to Christopher Scott Mackenzie and Regula Heynck, who hope to create a commercial business by selling up to 3.65 million litres of water annually.

The Comox Valley Regional District has not approved the couple’s rezoning application, which is necessary to allow such an operation on the property.

Citizens questioned whether the ministry actually has reliable data about aquifer #408, because the studies it has relied on are 18 years old, and since then accelerated population growth and climate change have altered the facts.

Other citizens called most of the presentation irrelevant because it referred to the effects of the Sackville groundwater extraction on nearby drilled wells. But according to residents, 90 percent of the wells in the area are not drilled, but shallow.

Area C CVRD Director Edwin Grieve, MLA Ronna-Rae Leonard and the Sackville applicants attended the presentation.

How the decision was made

Pat Lapcevic, water protection section head for the ministry’s west coast region, talked through the science behind the extraction approval.

She showed charts of the ministry’s simulations that estimate that current groundwater use in the Merville aquifer is less than 20 percent of its annual recharge, which has been stable over the last 15 years based on data from an observation well located 12 km from the Sackville site.

The aquifer is recharged — a fresh input of water — by precipitation falling on the area and by snowmelt from the Beaufort Mountains.

She said the annual recharge is 34 million metres-cubed, or 34 trillion litres. The current use is estimated at six million metres-cubed, or 18 percent.

Lapcevic said pumping out 10,000 litres per day is “expected” to drawdown water levels in the aquifer by less than three centimetres. It represents less than one percent of the annual recharge.

Daryl Slater, a resource manager in FLNRORD’s Nanaimo office, reminded the audience that his ministry does not make policy, it only implements and monitors policy made by the Ministry of Environment and the BC Legislature.

Ticking off the considerations in reviewing a groundwater license application, Slater said the ministry could find no reason to deny it. They found no negative effects on anyone’s rights or to the wells of nearby users.

Slater said his office consulted with Island Health, local governments, the Ministry of Highways, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and archeology experts.

He said they also consulted with K’omoks First Nations, but would not reveal the content of those consultations, which he called confidential.

But K’omoks First Nations has publicly opposed the water bottling operation and the issuing of a water license, and told the FLNRORD ministry so in 2017 during the consultation process.

In a strong letter to the CVRD, KFN Chief Nicole Rempel explained their opposition.

Citizens wondered what was the point of ministry consultations if both the Comox Valley Regional District and K’omoks First Nation opposed granting a water license, and the ministry approved it anyway.

Citizens contradict FLNRORD

Bunky Hall, whose shallow well is the closest to the Sackville site, challenged ministry “estimations” of the effect of drilled wells on shallow wells.

He said when the Portuguese Creek Restoration Society drilled a well to keep the stream from going dry during the summer, his 16-foot deep shallow well went dry two days later.

When a water delivery service brought him water, they asked what was going on because they had never delivered water to that area before and all of a sudden they were getting multiple requests.

Ministry officials dismissed his experience saying there probably wasn’t any connection between the two events.

Lapcevic responded that shallow wells were sensitive to climate change and maybe it wasn’t the drilled, pumping well that caused his well to go dry.

“Most of what the ministry people presented tonight is irrelevant,” Hall told Decafnation after the meeting. “About 90 percent of the wells in the vicinity (of Sackville Road) are shallow wells. They only talked about the effects on drilled wells.”

The Technical Report summarty states that “the well (WTN 111987) is on the applicant’s property and is flowing artesian at roughly 15 gpm so a pump is not required at this time.” 

Neither Slater or Lapcevic explained that if a pump is unnecessary how the aquifer could be confined and not affect shallow wells.

Bruce Gibbons, a member of the Merville Water Guardians and lives on ALR land about 300 metres from the Sackville Road site, said the ministry presented more detailed information than was contained in their original Technical Report.

“It appears they did significant work after the decision was made and after the opposition to their decision arose,” he told Decafnation.

Gibbons was privy to the original Technical Report because he filed an appeal to the FLNRORD decision. The ministry has not revealed the report to anyone else.

Even MLA Ronna-Rae Leonard was unable to get a copy of the original report.

And the ministry has still not responded to a Freedom of Information request for the report filed in March by Merville Organics farmer Arzeena Hamir.

Slater told the audience he didn’t know why the FOI request hadn’t been fulfilled. He said it’s “unfortunate” it takes so long.

Another speaker challenged the ministry’s assumptions about the stability of the aquifer.

She said the climate change is causing the Comox Glacier and other nearby glaciers to melt, which could be artificially inflating the aquifer’s recharge rate and its stability.

Lapcevic said the ministry is not seeing changes so far due to climate change, but the Sackville Road decision was based on the best data at the time.

Wayne Bradley recognized the FLNRORD ministry was bound by legislation in its decision-making process, so he called on MLA Leonard to champion a political movement to amend the Water Sustainability Act.

“We need to recognize that water is a common property,” he said. “Private profit on a sale of community property is not a beneficial use.”

Leonard left the meeting without responding to Bradley, but made a statement earlier that residents “should feel assured that I have posed these questions also.”

She said the Water Sustainability Act is new, and it’s moving water rights issues in the right direction.

“It takes time,” she said. “Be active, make your concerns known.”

FURTHER READING: Water bottling project raises aquifer concerns; Ministry stalls FOI request on Merville water bottling; “Unbelievable accusations” move water bottling to public hearing 

BREAKING: 3L development vote today

BREAKING: 3L development vote today

Stotan Falls developer tries end run around Regional Growth Strategy

PHOTO: 3L Developments convinced the Comox Valley Record last fall to publish the developers’ opinion article on its front page. It was a breach of journalistic integrity for which the newspaper’s publisher later apologized.

 

By GRANT GORDON

At 4 p.m. today, July 10, the Comox Valley Regional District Committee of the Whole will hear a presentation by 3L Developments to try get their RiverWood proposal classified as a minor amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). Regional district staff have recommended that the 3L proposal be a standard (major) amendment.

If two-thirds of the board’s members vote to override the staff recommendation then their proposal moves ahead to third reading where this inappropriate development could actually come to pass quite easily due to the overwhelming presence of developers’ influence on CVRD board members.

So in case you missed it, a minor amendment classification would allow changing the zoning from ‘two houses per 20 hectares (50 Acres)” over some 400 acres, or 16 total houses, to 740 houses over the same area.

If this proposed amendment doesn’t pass, then 3L’s Riverwood proposal continues ahead as a Standard (Major) Amendment requiring the approval of the all the parties that were part and parcel to approving the RGS Document in the first place: the Provincial Government, the surrounding regional districts, the CV Regional District, local Municipalities and seven First Nations.

Section 5.2 of the Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw # 120, 2010 clearly states that this kind of development in rural areas is well above and beyond all the principals that would constitute a minor amendment: (Pages 108 – 110)

The location is outside of the municipal areas where 90 percent of all growth is to occur and even further out than the reserved ‘municipal expansion’ areas withheld for further growth.

The location is beyond areas with municipal services where water and sewer can be expeditiously supplied.

The location sits astride wildlife corridors where large and small ungulates and carnivores can physically get passed the fenced Inland Island Highway on their way to their prime feeding areas within the Puntledge and Browns rivers and on the dairy farms east of the highway. That’s bears on fish and cougars on deer respectively.

The RGS clearly states that a minor amendment: ” … is not to be of regional significance in terms of scale, impacts or precedence; Contributes to achieving the goals and objectives set out in Part 3; (Regional Policies); and, Contributes to achieving the general principals contained in the growth management strategy Part 4. (Managing Growth) … ”

In my opinion . . . Larry Jangula is for it. Bruce Joliffe (Area A) is against it. Manos Theos is for it. Rod Nichol (Area B) is against it. Erik Eriksson is for it. Curtis Scoville (Area C alt) against. Ken Grant is for it. Gwyn Sproule, Barbara Price and Bob Wells are unknown.

If you think that a 740-house development in an area that has already been excluded from the Urban Sacrifice Zones (Municipal Expansion Areas), with 1,480 vehicles, 740 plus cats and 740 plus dogs and multiple children situated on major game paths is not going to be a major change in the way things have been worked out in the Regional Growth Strategy, then your vision of the Comox Valley is quite a bit different that mine. It is also quite a bit different than the Regional Growth Strategy as interpreted by the CVRD’s planning and legal departments.

Please contact your local representatives to let them know how you feel about this attempt to change the intended Regional Growth Strategy by allowing this proposal to be downgraded to minor amendment status against the wishes of the general public that put so much into developing the RGS and the CVRD staff that are tasked with implementing and overseeing it.

There will be a normal Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting starting at 4 p.m. Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at the Comox Valley Regional District Board room.

Then the COW will reconvene a second meeting to discuss this 3L proposal, which goes against the staff recommendation.

Grant Gordon submitted this for publication as part of Decafnation’s Civic Journalism Project.

 

City bridge proposal would harm airpark, Kus-kus-sum

City bridge proposal would harm airpark, Kus-kus-sum

PHOTO: 21st Street is in the middle at the bottom, with the car lot on the right side. It crosses Cliffe Avenue and dead-ends at the Courtenay Airpark boundary. Dave Bazett photo

A proposed new bridge would kill the Courtenay Airpark, walkway, Hollyhock Marsh, undermine Kus-kus-sum and add another signal light on Comox Road. So why is the City of Courtenay promoting it? Even mayoralty candidates aren’t sure

 

The City of Courtenay has floated a proposal to build a third crossing of the Courtenay River at 21st Street to alleviate traffic congestion at the 17th Street and Fifth Street bridges.

The proposal, which is part of a study for the city’s required update of their 2014 Master Transportation Plan, would wipe out the Courtenay Airpark, part of the Airpark walkway, destroy the estuary’s last remaining intact ecosystem at Hollyhock Marsh, undermine the Kus-kus-sum rehabilitation project and create another major signaled intersection on Comox Road at a point that regularly floods during winter storms.

Not to mention that Hollyhock Marsh is protected crown land and is an area under claim by the K’omoks First Nation.

It’s an idea that has left many people shaking their heads.

“I thought it was an April Fools Day joke,” said Dave Bazett, a land surveyor whose office is in the proposal’s path and who owns two aircraft hangared at the airpark.

Project Watershed Technical Director Dan Bowen said the study appears to have been done by someone who doesn’t know anything about the area.

“And, who employs someone to pursue an idea that’s not feasible?” he said.

Bazett pointed his finger at the city, which defined the scope of the transportation plan update for the consultant, including a bridge south of 17th Street and the idea that the airpark and the marsh were expendable.

Even the three announced candidates for Courtenay mayor tried to distance themselves from the proposal.

David Frisch emphasized that the proposal is not a plan, just some consultant’s idea. He said there are more environmentally friendly options.

Bob Wells said he didn’t know how a third crossing got in the plan. He thinks its an option the consultant picked up from previous studies, before Kus-kus-sum became a community project.

Erik Eriksson wondered how many millions of dollars per minute of wait time at the existing bridge intersections the public is willing to pay for. A new crossing would cost tens of millions of dollars.

“So we’re not going to see another bridge in my lifetime,” Eriksson said.

Background

The city has undertaken a required four-year update to its 2014 Master Transportation Plan. It held an open house in March and another in mid-June, and is conducting an online survey.

The study and community feedback will be presented to the Courtenay City Council over the summer. Council members will decide what parts of the study get costed out and eventually make it into the 2018 Master Transportation Plan.

Take the survey here

FURTHER READING: See the study’s open house display boards; The city’s Master Transportation Plan webpage

The 2014 plan also examined options for a third crossing. It rejected crossings at 19th and 26th streets, and suggested Eighth or 11th streets for new bridges. The city eventually costed out an 11th Street bridge at around $35 million, and later dropped the idea.

But traffic congestion at the 17th Street east intersection and at the Fifth Street east intersection has worsened as the Comox Valley has grown. But is it unbearable?

Wait times at the bridges may pale now in comparison to the Langford Crawl in Victoria or to numerous choke points in Vancouver, but without an acceptable long-term solution, motorists’ frustration will magnify.

Why 21st Street won’t fly

Bowen, a former BC Ministry of Highways employee in the Comox Valley, said the third crossing proposal and other proposals in the study to build new roads across the Courtenay Flats farmland “fly in the face” of everything Project Watershed has been trying to achieve.

“We’ve been working on projects over the past 20 years to preserve and protect the remaining flora and fauna habitat along the river and K’omoks estuary,” he said. “This proposal has no regard for the estuary. It’s single-minded and not well-informed.”

Local citizens fought Crown Zellerbach from filling in the marsh back in the 1960s and battled them and the provincial government to save the pristine ecosystem, which is unique in the Comox Valley.

Hollyhock Marsh is the model for Kus-kus-sum, a project to restore of the old Fields sawmill site, and the marsh is it’s connection back to the estuary.

“It’s a non-starter for us (Project Watershed,” Bowen said. “And I would expect for K’omoks First Nation, too.”

Decafnation was unable to reach K’omoks Chief Nicole Rempel for this story.

Bazett, a pilot who uses aircrafts in his land surveying business, considers the 21st Street crossing a “purposeful attack” on the Courtenay Airpark.

Bazett says the city has tried to shut down the airport before and neither the mayor or council members have been supportive.

“This crossing was concocted as an excuse to eliminate the airpark,” he said. “The study didn’t even consider air transportation.”

He doesn’t think the city realizes the economic impact and importance of the airport. It brings pilots and passengers to town and the RCMP and MediVac helicopters use the facility regularly.

“It’s a precious jewel,” he said. “There are few private airparks in the province for both float and land aircraft, and within walking distance of town.”

Better options

Bowen said his experience working with the highways ministry taught him there are better options to improve traffic flow.

The primary problem is that there are two northbound lanes of traffic approaching the bridge from the south on Cliffe Avenue and two lanes on the bridge. But whether you turn north or south, you have to merge down to one lane.

It’s the same approaching the bridge from the north on the Island Highway bypass, which is two lanes at Superstore, but merges down to one lane at the bridge.

Bowen believes there should be four lanes of traffic approaching the 17th Street bridge, across the bridge and then all the way to the Shell gas station at the old Island Highway and also part way toward Comox.

The long-term solution, he said, is to twin the 17th Street bridge. The highways ministry purchased extra land on the north side of 17th Street east of Cliffe Avenue to anticipate a widened bridge. That land looks like a park with cherry trees.

The ministry also designed the bypass for four lanes, which is why the shoulders are extra wide through the S-turns.

Bowen agree with Erik Eriksson about also widening the Fifth Street bridge and making it four lanes from the Shell gas station at the bottom of Mission Hill all the way to Cliffe Avenue.

An election issue?

City Councillor Eriksson says the study is flawed in another important way: it only considers Courtenay boundaries.

“Any traffic study has to be regional,” he said. “And Comox people should help pay for any traffic improvements.”

Councillor Frisch wouldn’t rule out a third crossing forever, but he said “city taxpayers are not going to pay $20 million to $30 million for a new bridge.”

The question for him is where to spend the city’s limited funds.

“If we spend it on a bridge now, what’s the lost opportunity to support walkability, cycling, transit and other things,” he said.

City Council candidate Melanie McCollum said the cost of building a bridge across a estuary seems potentially prohibitively high.

“It’s very sensitive habitat. It would also mean building into sediment, which liquefies in an earthquake,” she said. “Of course this is not my area of specialty, but from what I know, building a bridge in an earthquake zone on sediment will incur some very expensive geoengineering.”

McCollum would also like to know if the plan for this bridge had taken into account sea level rise expected in the next 50 to 70 years.

Courtenay Mayor Larry Jangula did not respond to our questions.

 

Page 1 of 812345...Last »