Cypress overview to date.

Hi Everybody,

If you only care about riding your bike, this may bore you… if you want to know the skinny on the general situation, this may interest you:

Brett and I , Gord, some time ago initiated the MTB Cypress advocacy community to assist in the message broadcasting of what was going on in the Cypress planning process. We also wanted to advocate for mountain bikers continued future access to trails on the mountain to the parties involved.

It remains very frustrating.

There was a reason I had asked our community to fill in the DWV Parks questionnaire. Then, subsequently, after many of us did so, there was a posting in the NSMB Forum requesting that we cease such activity since “the city has gotten our message.”

It is challenging when one wishes to be an advocate when we also want to be partners in the conversation for a solution and work with those involved:

At which point do you not say anything? At which point do you?

Remember the trail “Family Guy” and the outrage that ensued for it when it was “shut down”? It was before my time on Cypress but I think I get the gist of it- BPP had to close it since it went into a Development Site- that being the Rodgers Creek.

Do you all know of the Trans Canada Trail? Of course you do- portions of it traverse BPP lands linking to DWV lands to the east and to the west. BPP had in the past written up a right of way transfer (whatever the correct term is…) so that the Trans Canada Trail through BPP land would be under the DWV management, alleviating BPP from any liability with respect to the trail.

DWV never signed the papers. This was years ago. This came up at a meeting last year from BPP directly. (Insert a “WTF”- DWV did not sign papers for the Trans Canada Trail??? Yea… the canary in the coal mine… read on…)

Fast forward to present day- Rodgers Creek Area Development Plan has a zone upslope of Cypress Bowl Road, between the first and second hairpin, at the blinking flashing yellow light. That development zone goes west towards Shoreplay and Sexboy.

It had been expressed to me over a year ago that BPP had also provided DWV with the paperwork to transfer the Sex Boy trail right of way to DWV control similar to the Trans Canada Trail example I referenced. This so that when that sub-area of the Rodgers Creek started construction… the trail would not technically have BPP infringing on the legal restrictions for a development site- whether they built towards Sexboy or not.

Has DWV signed the papers alleviating BPP of the legal liability of those trails? No. Can trails exist within a development site? No. What option does BPP have? You can connect the dots.

So, inasmuch as BPP has tried to accommodate a portion of one trail within a development site to prevent another Family Guy fiasco, it appears their hands are tied by DWV doing nothing about trails… whether Sex Boy or Trans Canada back in the day…

We have to remind ourselves of the only fact that is really tangible for us: mountain bike trails on “Cypress” largely were/are… built/maintained… by parties that are NOT the landowner, either BPP or DWV. Riders on those trails are uninvited.

It is frustrating DWV has no policy for trails yet- though they have started a “Trail Review” but who knows how long that will take. So from the perspective of BPP, they have no reference point from DWV as to how to approach trails.

It is also frustrating since I see BPP understands their need to deal with trails but they cannot since the DWV still has no trails policy: a catch-22.

And inasmuch as our community or local trail builders want to be at the table to assist in trail discussions and current trail issues, like the one discussed above, there can be no official stance from BPP. (This is my own personal view.)

So the way I see it… it is a big mess. When, in the future, we see portions of Sexboy and Shoreplay closed, just remember it takes two to tango, and BPP had made an attempt to address this some time ago… but their dance partner, DWV, seemingly did not want to dance to that tune yet.

And this is why the DWV questionnaire is important. When it comes to DWV Council and the question is asked, “How many mountain bikers did the questionnaire?”… MORE is ALWAYS BETTER!!! So keep doing them.

Good luck Gord…it must be incredibly frustrating trying to deal with DWV when they so obviously want to wash their hands of the entire process. If the DWV leadership weren't just paying lip service to trails, this would have been resolved years ago…

Can you post a link to the questionnaire?

Edit: Your last paragraph is:

And this is why the DWV questionnaire is important. When it comes to DWV Council and the question is asked, “How many mountain bikers did the questionnaire?”… MORE is ALWAYS BETTER!!! So keep doing them.

Is there a current questionnaire, or do you mean that we should keep filling out questionnaires in general?

"Then, subsequently, after many of us did so"
Nice.

"How many mountain bikers did the questionnaire?”… MORE is ALWAYS BETTER!!! So keep doing them."
Agreed.

Thanks for all your work Gord and for the update.

Good luck Gord…it must be incredibly frustrating trying to deal with DWV when they so obviously want to wash their hands of the entire process. If the DWV leadership weren't just paying lip service to trails, this would have been resolved years ago…

Don't confuse unwilling with underresourced. They're moving forward with a Trails Plan (policies and procedures) but with limited staff, it will be 2017 before it's complete. Lots of consulting before then.

They're also limited on another resource… land. Most of the bike trails are on private land. Until the landowner figures out what they want to do with the land there's very little the District can do.

Mark Sept 15 on your calendar. Come out and see what options are proposed for the trails.

Don't confuse unwilling with underresourced. They're moving forward with a Trails Plan (policies and procedures) but with limited staff

My point exactly. If the leadership had bought into this process, resources would be made available. I really struggle to understand how one of the richest municipalities in the world ever struggles for resources…obviously property taxes are not sufficient

My point exactly. If the leadership had bought into this process, resources would be made available. I really struggle to understand how one of the richest municipalities in the world ever struggles for resources…obviously property taxes are not sufficient

It's allocation.

You are right that DWV likely has more than enough resources. But how many trails are actually on their public land? We're talking about trails mostly on private BPP land. The trails are probably pretty far down the list of priorities in the whole BPP and DWV talks when it comes to the permitted land usage.

how many trails are actually on their public land? We're talking about trails mostly on private BPP land.

Not really… whilst I don't want to put words in Gord's mouth, it seems DWV are even dragging their feet at having a right of way assigned to them. Isn't this something they should be rushing to embrace?? If not, why not and at what point should a municipality's performance be scrutinised?

Are you just speculating that DWV hasnt signed off on BPPs RoT (if thats what its called) because they havent been able to get around to it, or could it be something that they have chosen not to do?

Surely there's the appropriate type of lawyer amongst us?

The devil is going to be in the details, and unless a lawyer can work through it or someone on the inside (the true inside, not people here talking to people on the inside) tells all, we may not even know what the hot button issues are.

Im not a lawyer but Im around to assist whoever is looking for help (PM me!) - I also just bought a house in Caulfeild so Im a taxpayer in the area.

Are you just speculating…

Me? Absolutely. But I'm a City of North Van resident so I don't have a DWV councillor to work on my behalf to push the process along or find out the truth..

The timelines don't align. DWV wants to have their "Trails Plan" finalized this year, but with no visible progress to date I'd speculate that it'll be 2017-2018 before they make a move. More forest will be lost to BPP chainsaws and houses in the meantime, the ugly McMansions you will never afford are extending westward and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

On the bright side, we have trails above 1200ft (for now).

It's allocation.

You are right that DWV likely has more than enough resources.

Not so. West Van is half the size of DNV. Property taxes increases haven't kept pace with inflation and growth. Over the years I've seen the results of increased workload in both Parks and Planning.

That's why it will be 2017 before the Trails Plan is ready, but there's no rush. The more important issue is BPP deciding what they want to do with the trails. If the trails are going to bring people and business to Cypress Village, BPP needs to make them a big attraction.

Go big or go home. Find out what the options are on Sept 15.

There should be no concern about the pace of DWV's development of a Trails Plan being eclipsed by the Cypress Village planning process.

The Upper Lands Study Review Working Group reported that "€œthe community'€™s second most important value for the Upper Lands"€ is to enhance the "outstanding recreation opportunities of the Upper Lands, and the lifestyle and heritage associated with outdoor living"€. Such "outstanding recreation opportunities"€ include "€œthe technical mountain bike trails of today", identified by the Working Group as "€œa key component of our community'€™s lifestyle and identity"€ and "€œa regional asset"€.

In light of these community values, the Working Group recommended that a "Trails Plan be prepared in consultation with private landowners and stewardship and stakeholder groups"€. A review of recreational features should guide the development of all future neighbourhoods in the Upper Lands, including Cypress Village, and "€œ[p]referred trail corridors and a sanctioned trail maintenance strategy be identified and implemented early in the Area Development Plan process for Cypress Village"€. In addition, planning for Cypress Village must include consideration of trail connectivity for trails above the 1200 foot contour that connect to trails on BPP lands at or below that contour.

See Upper Lands Study Review Working Group Final Report, Part One: Recommendations; June 1, 2015; pp. 13-17.

The message: you can'€™t develop a Cypress Village Plan without developing a Trails Plan along with it!

On June 22, 2015, DWV Council passed a motion that the recommendations contained in the Upper Lands Working Group'€™s Report be used as a framework to prepare the Cypress Village Area Development Plan and to develop a Trails Plan. On October 28, 2015 Council passed a further motion to continue to use the Report for that purpose.

As Alan has pointed out, on September 15, 2016, BPP will unveil some "€œplan alternatives" for Cypress Village. The DWV will then form a Working Group to review the extent to which these alternatives align with the Upper Lands Review Working Group's recommendations. See, e.g., Council Report entitled "€œCypress Village Planning Process", dated April 5, 2016, by David Hawkins, Manager of Community Planning for DWV. See also: cypressvillage.com/about-the-project

So: moving forward with the planning process leading to the Cypress Village plan must go hand in hand with moving forward with the contemplated Trails Plan. And these related processes are to lead to an enhancement,€“ not a diminishment, of the community's trail resources. Thus BPP'€™s interests and the community'€™s interests are aligned. Good timing to move into BPP'€™s "€œpre-application phase" for Cypress Village planning, which involves "BPP led engagement"€ with the community. More info at the Cypress Village site, linked above.

Jonathan