Crippen and the National Park proposal

I have been getting quite a lot of feedback from people who say they like the idea of a National Park, but don't want to 'lose' Crippen. So I have tried to elaborate on previous statements about my reservations on the same subject. 

Here is the answer to one enquirer:

The Crippen Park lands are central to the Parks Canada's  vision of what an NP would look like and how it would function as an 'urban engagement' portal. No question they really want those lands, they want the Old General Store (library), and they will even put up with being saddled with the Orchard cabins. Parks Canada cannot, by law, expropriate. It has to negotiate.

Metro Vancouver Parks will not 'hand over' lands except under duress. Period. Even though a lot of Metro Parks land came as gifts from senior governments, they see that as a one way street. Recently, there have been several sales and acquisitions of lands for the Regional Park system, all at market value. The only outlier was the 22 hectare chunk of Pacific Spirit Park that was handed over to the Musqueam as part of a third party deal involving the UBC golf course and the provincial government. Metro protested, took the province to court, and lost.

Metro also highly values the integrity of IT'S park system (ie- it is proud and proprietous). Crippen has been evaluated - in multiples of $10's of millions.....

So- Metro wants money or a land trade to give up Crippen. PC wants Crippen badly.

Unfortunately, neither party wants to push the envelope in terms of alternate arrangements other than outright ownership. Both hide behind their statutes which say that they cannot spend money to manage lands they do not control. So my push for some sort of co-management arrangement has largely fallen on deaf ears.

There are two changes though, which might make that a more viable option. First, are personnel changes at both Metro and PC. Richard Carson seems willing to do 'what it takes' to see a park happen. Gaetan Royer, newly installed at  Metro, is a visionary. Second, with the plans for Rouge Valley near Toronto:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/06/03/toronto-rouge-park.html

PC has had to change their ideas about land ownership. Currently, Rouge Valley has multiple owners, many existing developments- including a zoo, and PC will have to be very flexible to assemble all the lands they want.

I still believe there are models that could work- from a simple lease, to PC paying for the right to put up signs 'Welcome to Crippen Park- Gateway to the NP' sort of thing..., whereby they (PC) pay for some trail etc upgrades, perhaps mentor or collaborate with Metro Parks. So a wink wink kind of way of gaining access to Crippen without a land transfer.

I suspect that could be palatable to Metro and Bowen citizens. It really is a question of how flexible Ottawa could be- as PC officials have said that co-management of any kind would require a change to the Parks Act- not an easy thing to do. But I have been led to believe there could be  creative workarounds.

Separating the Park Vote from the Candidate Vote

I posted this on the Phorum, in response to a posting wherein Hugh Freeman spoke about the views of candidates on the National Park proposal:

Looks like all are firmly in one way or the other. 

No revisions.

Reply Quote

Peter Re: Stated Positions of Candidates on Park, Part 4 November 17, 2011 05:01PM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 590

So, Hugh- Why does this matter so much to you? If the vote goes no, no park. If the vote goes yes, discussions continue. Almost all candidates have solemnly stated they will respect the wishes of the electorate. Does that mean you support candidates solely on their NP position? Or even that it is pivotal? 

And the firm yes/no that you allude to is nonsense. Tim Rhodes, Wolfgang have spoken positively about a National Park. 

I am in favour of creating A National Park on Bowen, so I will vote yes. But if this were a vote on the revised Park Concept Plan, I would vote no. I have strong feelings against Crippen being bought or given to the Feds. So where do you slot me? 

Regardless of the vote, I would continue to do Council business, and more, if re-elected. Without rancour or acrimony about the vote outcome. There are so many issues on which ALL candidates agree, that it is their abilities, M.O.'s, energy and diligence which will differentiate good and better council members.

Q&A regarding Air Quality- Sea to Sky Air Quality Society

I chair this committee, so perhaps this is a bit unfair to have sent in comments, but I did.....

Questions for Local and Regional Election Candidates: 2011

1)      Car emissions are by far the largest contributor to air pollution in the Sea-to-Sky and Howe Sound airshed. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a set of strategies used to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. TDM promotes and supports increased walking, cycling, transit, carpooling, and increased transportation choices.

1.1)      Do you support the creation of TDM through smart growth planning and changes to infrastructure such as increasing sidewalks and bike paths and identifying new park & ride areas? If yes, what specific outcomes do you support? If no, why not?

Within communities, such as Bowen, or any of the town centres along the corridor, any actions designed to make alternatives to driving cars are welcome. The short term first steps include connected corridors-  multi-purpose trails and expanded transit (perhaps on-call neighbourhood shuttles). On Bowen, we have created safe hitchiking protocols. In the longer term, there is no question that land use decisions are paramount. The exmple of the new Wallmart complex in Squamish is an example of a retrogressive move that Council could have prevented, particularly since most incumbents have spoken about the need to revitalize downtown Squamish.

Along the highway, the best single initiative will be to provide better integrated public transportation.

1.2) Do you support marketing tools like carpooling and school bike plans and promoting events such as bike to work week and car-free days in the town centre? If yes, what specific tools do you support? If no, why not?

 Yes- with recognition of the limits. On Bowen, which is hilly and roads are mostly dead-end, biking is not easy, and transit patterns very limited. As well, over 40% of islanders commute off-island. But one Jack Bell Van Pool is not fully subscribed, and yet many people suffer ferry overloads rather than going on foot/taking the bus or joining a car pool. We provide preferential ferry marshaling for van pool. The town centre does not lend itself to car-free, as the ferry marshalling is within it…

2)      Transit services have been making headlines throughout Sea-to-Sky corridor communities for months. Recent feasibility studies indicate that the ridership potential exists to increase services along Highway 99 and within communities as well. The key to doing this successfully is ensuring that schedules, routes, and prices appeal to riders. In 2012, BC Transit is planning a review of the Sea-to-Sky transit plan. The Sea-to-Sky Clean Air Society believes an integrated and inter-regional transit plan could help identify and overcome barriers and improve ridership from West Vancouver up to Mount Currie. A successful plan might involve partnerships between public transit authorities and private carriers.

2.1) Do you ride local or regional buses on a regular basis (public transit or private carriers)? If not, what would be required for you to start taking the bus? (For example:  better schedule, different routes, lower cost? Or other?)

I use transit to commute to Vancouver almost exclusively. On Bowen, I drive, walk or bike depending on where and when travelling. Our neighbourhood does not currently have transit services.

2.2) Do you support the development of an inter-regional transit plan that would integrate services in communities from Metro Vancouver and the Squamish Lillooet Regional District (from West Vancouver to Mount Currie)?

Absolutely. To achieve a seamless service, BC Transit and Translink need to get on the same page.

2.3) What would a successful inter-regional plan look like to you?

Could be one of several forms, but I foresee Translink extending to Pemberton and Chilliwack, maybe Hope. Alternately, a mutually funded derivative authority, similar to the West Van. Blue Bus system, could take over from a terminus point, eg Horseshoe Bay.

3)      Industry presents another source of air pollution in the Sea-to-Sky and Howe Sound airshed. Examples include emissions from pulp and paper mills, gravel pit mines, asphalt plants, and contributions from heavy duty diesel engines.

3.1) How would you encourage the use of more efficient standards and greener technology for new and retrofitted industries in your community?

Air quality standards for industry should be synchronized for Sea-to-Sky, and Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley. Amenity zonity or other enticements for new industries which have low environmental footprints should be offered by member RD’s and municipalities.

4)      The way in which we plan and develop our communities has an over-arching influence on air quality. When jobs are located close to home it means commuting distances are reduced. However, when residential and school areas are zoned too close to industrial activities, land use conflicts can arise.

4.1) How will you ensure that all new residential and commercial development occurs in existing developed areas, thereby increasing walkability and proximity to shops and services?

Very hard to do for some sectors, but live/work, light industrial, residential over commercial are all highly effective. As well- under smart plannoing principles, long term needs should be predicted, with nodes planned, rather than simple expansion (spawl). Upzoning existing areas to permit higher density is well proven- laneway housing an urban example, secondary suites or outbuildings on larger parcels.

4.2) What policies do you think will be most effective at reducing our community’s impact on air quality?

Point source pollution is diminishing. Houses are better insulated, and using electricity, gas or better, new wood burners than before. Much less oil use for heating. So it is really transportation that is the key. Rather than holding out for a hydrogen highway, I’d go for battery swaps, transit, anything as mentioned above to reduce unnecessary car useage, and single occupancy especially.

5)      Air quality is a major environmental risk to the health of Canadians and is responsible for over 70,000 new cases of asthma among children a year. Contaminants arise from vehicle emissions, burning of various materials, industrial emissions, and pesticide usage.  Many communities have begun to adopt local bylaws on banning backyard burning and cosmetic pesticides. In the Sea-to-Sky and Howe Sound airshed, the Town of Gibsons, Bowen Island Municipality, and the Village of Lions Bay have adopted or drafted bylaws that ban or severely limit backyard burning. The District of Sechelt’s Fire Service bylaw restricts the conditions under which campfires are permitted and requires that all newly installed wood burning stoves are certified by the Environmental Protection Agency.

(Whistler candidates exempted (bylaw already in place)

5.1) The Province of BC is considering a province-wide ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides. Regardless of the outcome, would you support a local bylaw banning pesticide use in your community?

I am for the banning of cosmetic pesticide use, and tight regulation of agricultural /forestry pesticides.

(For Pemberton, and SLRD Electoral Areas only)

5.2) Would you support adopting a similar backyard burning bylaw(s) in (Pemberton/SLRD Electoral Areas)?

Bowen has yet to enact its burning bylaw upgrades, but I am pressing to have it go through, along with further waste reduction/composting/recycling initiatives.

Lifted from the Phorum- Commentary on the sewer project

Richard $$$ down the sewer? Who is responsible? November 16, 2011 05:57AM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 2,156

In Wolfgang's most recent blog entry his referenced outline details how the council before this one (ending Nov 2008) was planning a tripling of the capacity of the sewage treatment plant for about $750000. I am absolutely shocked to read that this current council (term Dec 2008 to the present) has managed to triple the amount of money spent but then only doubling the capacity. And get this, the thing doesn't work, and it's not yet finished, eight months late. Oh, and there is no money left to pay for the collection system to bring the sewage to the plant, in spite of the fact the money was allocated in the budget to do this very important thing.

This whizz bang bit of ineptitude was overseen by Nerys and Doug, Peter, Cro and Allison. And these people want you to give them the keys to the safe again??

Is this the kind of thing that needs some sort of official inquiry?

No N P
Richard

^{Primitive societies are always more complex than civilized ones - Robert Heinlein}

Reply Quote

Peter Re: $$$ down the sewer? Who is responsible? November 16, 2011 07:48AM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 583

Richard- Partial information, and a distorted understanding of roles and responsibilities, can lead to incorrect conclusions.

First- the cost of the enterprise. Originally, yes, we looked at tripling the size of the plant. Brad Hawthorn did the background engineering, and Eco Fluid provided the original estimate. The estimated cost was $560k. We applied for a 'Towns for Tomorrow' grant of $400,000, that I helped to craft. It was turned down. Remember, the sewer committee, including Wolfgang Duntz, vetted this process, debated the merits of different sized facilities. The application was resubmitted, with upgrades to capture the kinds of things the province was looking for- tertiary rather than secondary treatment, sludge thickening, potential discharge of aqueous treated waste into Davies Creek. That grant was successful.

However, an analysis revealed that the costs for the fancy system would be considerably higher than expected. Cro Lucas and Dave Wrinch helped put together a Canada Builds grant application for the now more elaborate project, leveraging the smaller grant. That too was successful, with a number of strings attached.

In the end, the specs. were modified (we had a new ops. manager by then), and the final price of $2.1 + million was tallied. We made a conscious decision to put in $721k of municipal money to hold up our end. There were bidding procedures, final adjustments, etc. The project commenced.

Under the terms of the grant all work nationally had to be complete by March of 2011. However, this was having the effect of distorting costs, and was unrealistic. So- across Canada, the deadlines were delayed, and we eased up on the throttle, getting the project done according to the new schedule, and doing a better job for it. Guys like Bob Robinson will tell you what the working conditions were like during last year's rainy season, with crew tying steel and pouring concrete in far less than ideal circumstances.

The result is we have about the best plant this side of Whistler- certainly better than any other system around the metro region. It has worked well in the commissioning phase, and the collection pipes were NEVER part of the project cost under the grant program, but an anticipated add-on.

We never did have the workshop to apportion collection pipe costs; we still need to do that.

So rather than smearing Council- whose role was limited to approving the plan and expenditures, besides grant writing and lobbying, perhaps Richard and Wolfgang (whose lands benefit) should applaud that we now have a state-of-the-art facility. Remember that BOD counts were periodically high on the old system, even before it was fully subscribed by the Cates Hill new hookups. And Wolfgang was VERY concerned at sewer committee meetings, along with Rondy, that they be saddled with any extra costs. They should thank their lucky stars at this point, along with the rest of the users within the sewerage district.

More sewer info:


This was in answer to a question about the capacity of the sewer plant expansion to provide hookups for Belterra, Parkview Slopes and all the other Community Lands/infill/Miller Road/Abbeyfield properties.

The price comparisons for doubling or tripling at first made it seem stupid NOT to triple. However, as the price of the whole system went up, to capture the bells and whistles which made it a  'green' enough project to warrant government funding, the additional capacity began to look  like more than the proverbial straw on the camel's back. It had become substantially more expensive to increase overall capacity.

There were competing interests. Cost containment was the municipality's first goal. It was reasoned that building a plant in anticipation of more than servicing Miller Rd. to Abbeyfield, plus Snug Cove infill, was reckless, or at least, getting ahead of needs.

The primary one, from Wolfgang's perspective, was, I believe, to upgrade the system without adding any cost to the current sewerage district subscribers. 

For Eco-Fluid and our municipal engineer, it was to get the plant to operate within normal parameters, some of which were being exceeded in the summer- high BOD, but not enough water to necessitate a bigger system.

Another factor was the outfall pipe, which at 3 inches is tiny- yet with a pump on it, could be made to work with a doubling, not tripling.

So- decision made to 'get by' with a doubling. Additional modular capacity itself is fairly easy to build. Cost- ? but I think less than $250k . It is the outfall and collection system which is the problem.

I say this with some dated information, as I had very little to do with the actual upgrade process- the sewer committee hardly met, and did so mostly to review budget , and hear Eco-Fluid reports on operating performance. Cro and David Wrinch were involved with the latter grant writing, and might be better informed.

NOBODY has done a proper analysis of our projected sewerage needs, partly because Council has never agreed on the enlarged service area, nor the # of units we might want to serve.

Yet Snug Point has indicated an interest in being part of the District, and obviously both public and private lands on Miller could suck up a lot of the allocation. clearly, larger municipal interests- eg servicing community lands, should trump private ones, unless, as partners, they pick up outfront costs as was done with Cates Hill. Ultimately, that is probably what will happen.

The obvious interest for taxpayers should be recovery of costs through latecomer agreements. I think the new expansion has about a 10 year lifespan at most before being fully subscribed. 

Adding Comments- OOOOPS!

For those who have wanted to post comments, but found they had to sign in to a google account- that was a default setting and has now changed. So you can sign in anonymously, or as Donald Duck or whomever...

Another Endorsement- this time from James Tuer

I first meet Peter at a local Bowen Island symposium on heritage architecture. I was on a speaker’s panel and Peter in the audience. The first thing that struck me was Peter’s enthusiasm for all things Bowen. Over the last 6 years I have gotten to know Peter much better. Peter has been instrumental in the Sung Cove Planning efforts, challenging many of the misconceptions of where the plan could and could not go. Peter bridged the gap between the heritage folks and the development folks and as a result we have some really great ideas on the table that after years of just talk are now council instructions to staff to make good on our collective planning efforts.

What really strikes me about Peter is his ability to listen to both sides and to not be a slave to his own ideas. If a better idea comes along Peter is willing to change his position. However even more important to me in an elected leader is that when it comes down to core values Peter follows his heart. As an example, Peter was the lone voice to contain the Cove redevelopment to a south side village. I know that is just symbolic but to his constituents that believe in this principle he is their voice as we move forward investigating what a two sided street will look like.

I’ll be voting for Peter as he is an elder statesman on Bowen and can bridge the gap between the new and the old. He is a career politician in the most positive meaning of the word. He’s hard working, smart, a great reader, well connected and a great ambassador. With Peter’s help we easily navigated the Metro Vancouver bureaucracy and found instant champions of Bowen Island both on the Parks board and also within the organization itself.

Just Another Council Meeting

Last night marked the last Council meeting before the election, and it is a pity more people were not in attendance, as in many ways it typified the work we have done. Unfortunately, Andrew stone was not there recording everything, so it will not be preserved for posterity either...

It would have been informative for some more of the newcomer candidates to have sat through the close to four hour session (Wolfgang and Darren came for the Belterra reading).

Why? Well, a lot of things came together, there was spirited discussion, it was at times disorganized, there was some dissension, advice of staff was countermanded (not acted on is maybe a better phrase).

The meeting began with public comments on Belterra and the solid waste management report.

This was followed by a brief discussion on two Metro Vancouver bylaws, for which our assent was requested, and Council would only receive, not sign off on, without further information.

Corporal Don Southern gave a farewell presentation on the state of police enforcement on Bowen, and expressed his genuine attachment to this island. He got a standing ovation plus a book as a token of appreciation. Car crashes, property crime, assaults are all down dramatically over the past five years.

The Belterra rezoning was given second reading, but not before a contentious element, the provision of sewer and water, was rejigged such that Belterra could not automatically expect to get hooked up to municipal services. A goodly crowd of supporters came out just for that, then departed. The project was presented by Michael Rosen, over the speakerphone, as he is very ill, yet working from his bed. So this was quite dramatic, and the reading was met with cheers and applause.

Hap Stelling walked us thorugh the design element revisions for Snug Cove, and, led by Alison Morse, words were mulled over, parsed, pared and otherwise smithed to almost everyone's satisfaction.

Brent Mahood presented the Solid Waste Program options in some detail, with added comments from Zero Waste Bowen Don Marshall. There were a number of contentious ideas, including changes to frequency of garbage pickup, mandatory separation of food waste, transparent bags, and collapsing of the decal system into a fixed parcel tax. Needless to say, we ran out of time on this, but were able to agree on the establishment of a committee!, request another report, and get the ball rolling on complying with Metro Vancouver policies regarding waste management.

Finally, Christine Walker and Florrie Levine presented an update on the Community Centre, with a request to seek provincial funding for the next phase of the work. It took a lot of explaining to get Council onside with an application for $616,000 of potential spending, with the province providing 80% of the money.

There were so many themes, items getting wrapped up, moved along, that I found it a remarkable example of how this Council, staff, and community have worked over the last three years.