Ok Alan, we get you want a restaurant, as likely does BPP, at the top of their property line above the third switchback. And that everyone wants a pub at the bottom. We all agree. The 1200 Variation was in terms of residential development. That looks to be kyboshed now. But it still leaves wiggle room in interpretation for BPP to consider taking recreational amenities, such as a Restaurant, to above the third hairpin- and asking for permission from DWV. This is how I read the politic strategy in the wording of the Recommendations, and sensing developmental opportunities, other than residential, above 1200 ft contour variation.
None of this will solve any of the hard decisions forthcoming, or make them easier to take, in the future with respect to trails.
savethegnar is completely independent of a pub or restaurant!!! Let us deal with trails and not carrots.
As riders, we want to ride. Sure, amenities will be built. Having sat through the last year of Upper Lands Working Group meetings and listening to the community planner, ULWG citizen members, BPP, ect… it is clear the concept of these amentities will work themselves out. But they do NOT define success of a trail system!!! So we need to differentiate that here and now.
We all need to understand that there is the community development side (all the stuff you talk about Alan), and the Trail Development side, (yet to be determined) to the equation.
The Trail Development side has yet to be determined since the DWV Parks has yet to embark on their Trail Review, which will direct policy on how DWV will manage a Trail System. DWV Parks will not care about a pub or bike store or anything… they will address how to manage, create, maintain, and care for the trails in their lands. And this Trail Review has not started yet. It will take a year or two- a guess. I have yet to confirm with DWV Parks about when this process will start but I am thinking after the ULWG recommendations go to Council June 22, 2015.
So, if BPP is capped at 1200 ft elevation for residential development (the current line across the mountain) AND if they are prevented from developing residential west of Eagle Creek watershed… all that land to the west of this watershed, all the "already zoned for lands": ALL that density will likely shift to the east to the Cypress Village area- making this area a denser Village with more community appeal.
This, then, will really force us to consider how to deal with the trails that are lower than 1200 ft.
The fact is, we will loose trails. The opportunity is that we are at the table to assist all how to best mitigate and create a win win situation where we can retain No Net Trail Loss while also creating a community at the gates of a great trail system. This is the challenge. The link below shows the trails impacted by 1200 ft elevation contour.
https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11021267_362106183990888_3356868310834440416_n.jpg?oh=1913a1e6a8606d0be4d6d3c3dd2a1d0f[HTML_REMOVED]oe=55E54854
Great trail systems cost money. So, if we expect DWV Parks to give NSMBA the first option to take on the challenge, then, damnit, we need to find more money too and have our NSMBA ready for the challenge. Sure, maybe we will be helped out with some grants… but long term… these trails will cost money.
If we want them, we need to take a stand for them, and not only that… figure out a model to have them maintained with new money, and then, do it.
Regarding the gondola… there is no point IMO putting in a gondola if it doe not connect to Cypress Bowl. So, the link below from www.facebook.com/mtbcypress shows two possible options. The Blue, up the powerlines to the cross country and cabin area, doglegs to Cypress Bowl. And the Red, which is the alignment for a restaurant at the third hairpin, and then across there to Cypress Bowl. Issue there is that Alan has pointed out it would go very near, if not over, some very old Growth. So that is a challenge.
Do we see a separate "to the third hairpin only" alignment for a restaurant and bikes? AND a Blue one???
NONE OF THIS WAS EVER DISCUSSED IN THE ULWG. It is all still just possible dreamscapes. Do not become too attached to any of it since it is still a long way out.
https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/l/t1.0-9/10440194_362935470574626_1953279462015072417_n.jpg?oh=d7a3ce7b4257bc08bb25c1f27800997b[HTML_REMOVED]oe=55E258A1
My guess 2 years for a Trail Review/Plan making its way into a Policy document for the DWV.
My guess 2 years away from a defined Cypress Village Area Development Plan.
Lastly, Cypress Bowl is within a BC Park. This adds another layer to possible complexity with a bike park based on BC Parks constraints.
So, long story short- nothing is decided upon.
![https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11021267_362106183990888_3356868310834440416_n.jpg?oh=1913a1e6a8606d0be4d6d3c3dd2a1d0f[HTML_REMOVED]oe=55E54854](https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11021267_362106183990888_3356868310834440416_n.jpg?oh=1913a1e6a8606d0be4d6d3c3dd2a1d0f&oe=55E54854){kind=link}
![https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/l/t1.0-9/10440194_362935470574626_1953279462015072417_n.jpg?oh=d7a3ce7b4257bc08bb25c1f27800997b[HTML_REMOVED]oe=55E258A1](https://scontent-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/l/t1.0-9/10440194_362935470574626_1953279462015072417_n.jpg?oh=d7a3ce7b4257bc08bb25c1f27800997b&oe=55E258A1){kind=link}