There should be no concern about the pace of DWVâs development of a Trails Plan being eclipsed by the Cypress Village planning process….
Thanks for your detailed review, response and reflection on the conversation at hand. I agree with you 100%- but only in a perfect world.
I will hone into the comment: âIn light of these community values, the Working Group recommended that a âTrails Plan be prepared in consultation with private landowners and stewardship and stakeholder groupsâ. I will focus on this comment as it really forms the foundation for your following comments IMO.
As I alluded to in my most recent post about my chat with Alan, there are many moving parts that are not in view largely by the wider community which complicate the seemingly simple thesis you provide. But it is not that simple. Sadlyâ¦
Let me highlight some of the moving parts:
1) The Upper Land Working Group (ULWG) presented their report to DWV Council last June. I attended. The ULWG was hoping that DWV would adopt the Report as Policy; however, Council did not and accepted it as a âframeworkâ to move forward on. As such, ULWG Recommendations therein are not in force for individual DWV departments. Thus, the comment I am honing in on, though blue-sky and full of shared responsibility and optimism loses some of its shiny brilliance and hope.
2) When I attended Parks and Community Stewardship focus group meeting dealign with the trail review last fall sometime ⦠the first caveat of the conversation from the chair of the meeting was âWe are only concerned with trails on public lands. Trails on private lands are out of scope.â Now we see the disconnect. Although the blue-sky, optimistic, in a perfect world ULWG recommendation above suggests to âprepare in consultation with private landowners and stewardship and stakeholder groupsâ it seemed right out of the gate that there was a distinct âline in the sand which we shall not crossâ. I understand this position by DWV, but to keep this conversation lean, I will not explain my view on it.
3) The scope of the trail conversation is not â a Trails Plan - but a Trail âReviewâ⦠seeing what is out there first. This makes sense: you cannot plan until an inventory is made. And it is not just about mtb trails- it is ALL trails, so this inventory takes time. And it takes resources and a budget. To create a Trails Master Plan will likely require another Working Group context, and that is another, IMO- 3 years away.
4) Though we may think that DWV is rolling in the civil cash due to property taxes on the mansions⦠apparently it is not⦠all cities are cash strapped, and all cities have a priority list of what to deal with next. So, although âTrails Plan be preparedâ is cited in the non-policy, framework only ULWG recommendation, it still needs to be prioritized and funded.
5) DWV Council seems to be split, ie, not unanimous, in the importance of prioritizing Cypress Village Area Development Planning. Planning is busy with many other planning priorities too⦠so, for Cypress Village to be bumped to the top, Council needs to tell staffers to do so, and from what I understand, there is a bit of confusion with the importance of prioritizing Cypress Village within the Council chambers.
6) So if Council is in debate about the prioritization of Cypress Village planning, referring back to your comment generally, it risks the trails conversations that I feel need to be amped up in order to preserve the opportunities that exist⦠and since Parks is only concerned with trails on public land⦠the BPP trails will remain a black hole.
7) Last Fall BC Parks changed the Park Permit legislation to possibly allow more summer time activity within parks that have a permit to operate a ski hill. Think of Cypress, Seymour, and Manning⦠Many of us know that there is a potential that Cypress Bowl Recreation may go down the path and explore a bike park. On the surface this seems like great news. But there are consequences with this reality⦠why would BPP want to âcompeteâ with Cypress Bowl for the provisioning of a bike park?
Yes- one concept that could be considered by BPP is a bike park lower down, like Alan has pointed out. In fact, it makes more sense to do so- better dirt below, more adaptable terrain and fall lines, year round revenue for a Cypress Village⦠but⦠if Cypress Bowl beats BPP to the punch⦠then⦠in order to maximize profit⦠would it be in BPPâs interest to put in a private for profit lift assisted bike park? Likely not. LIkely more homes.
So⦠if Cypress Bowl can firm up their plans for a summer time bike park higher up⦠that sort of spells the end of a potential bike park below on private trails on private BPP land. What this means is⦠all those trails not being addressed in the current Parks Public Trail Review will then need to be addressed- but what about the planning process⦠where will it be by then? Will those trails in the planning documents be in sync with the trail management policies in the works with the Parks Trails review, or maybe the Trails Working Group? This is a potential gap that exists in the reality.
8) Lastly, on the possibility of a bike park up in Cypress Bowl⦠would you support it? I do not. It would not be year round, it is in a Provincial Park after all, and Parks conservation is the reason Parkâs exist. Further, it is naturally tempting for those in the Bowl on their bikes to continue down the slope down to Cypress Village⦠so what is the problem with that? From the perspective of managed mountain biking trails⦠most of all of that traffic will need to end up east of Cypress Creek⦠which takes it along the border of the Old Growth Conservancy⦠so⦠more risks of forest conversation abounds with a bike park higher up.
It is getting late and I think I am getting a bit tired with my writing. So, these points above showcase some of the interdependent moving parts that are non-predicable in outcome, whose individual outcomes overall affect the other remaining variables, which, then, when finalized, will affect what ever is left over. And the interests of a Private Company, a municipality, a provincial government park, are very hard to align… when all have to make decisions and report to their Board of Directors, Public Voters or Deputy Ministers each of which have a different measurement for success.
And this is why Alanâs comment still remains true: Sept 15 is a key date to see what the black box of BPP will offer the community and DWV in terms of potential community development contexts. Where will Cypress Bowl be at that time with their potential bike park visions?; where will Parks be with their Trail Review?; where will Council be in terms of sorting priorities for Planning? All this affect the outcome for initiating conversations about trails on private land in a development site- my point of the initial post.
At the end of that day⦠Parks and BPP and Planning need to address a cohesive interchangeable but consistent trails vision. And for that to happen⦠they need to talk- public trails/ private trails- it makes no matter⦠a trail is a trail.