New posts

Cypress 2014 Conditions

Feb. 27, 2014, 2:39 p.m.
Posts: 1237
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

Bingo! People get to "vote" on various questions such as:
- What do you do in the Upper Lands?
- What aspects of the Upper Lands need to be protected?
- What priorities should guide planning for the Upper Lands
- Do you support allowing a variation to the 1200' contour if it will protect lands with exceptional environmental/recreational value below 1200'?

For those who cannot attend an Open House, there will be a survey available. A link to it will be posted later. West Van want's your feedback regardless of where you live.

Feb. 27, 2014, 5:35 p.m.
Posts: 1237
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

First session - Number of people that mtn bike: 0

Anyone coming to the 7:00 session?

Feb. 27, 2014, 7:20 p.m.
Posts: 1237
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

Second session - Number of people that mtn bike: Huge! Slightly ahead of Trail Maintenance!!

Excellent turnout! Many thanks! :)

Feb. 27, 2014, 7:27 p.m.
Posts: 1764
Joined: Dec. 31, 2006

NICE! See you March 4th for the second open house.

Feb. 27, 2014, 10:32 p.m.
Posts: 1237
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

Great representation by the mountain bikers that turned out. Thanks for comporting yourselves well, much better than some of the others in attendance, or so I am told. :argue:

Those that can't make the last Open Houses on March 4th can still fill in the online survey. Go here, click Go to the topic and read the background info before clicking Post and answering the survey questions.

Feb. 27, 2014, 11:14 p.m.
Posts: 788
Joined: July 4, 2004

Great representation by the mountain bikers that turned out. Thanks for comporting yourselves well, much better than some of the others in attendance, or so I am told. :argue:

Those that can't make the last Open Houses on March 4th can still fill in the online survey. Go here, click Go to the topic and read the background info before clicking Post and answering the survey questions.

Folks please represent and let your opinions be known. The workshop was a good way to get some opinions documented.

Feb. 27, 2014, 11:15 p.m.
Posts: 1584
Joined: June 20, 2003

Online survey done, with lots of additional comments added. Let's have our voices heard!!

Feb. 28, 2014, 7:11 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: March 7, 2012

Awesome to hear! I will be at March 4th meeting as I return to Van today.

Feb. 28, 2014, 11:34 a.m.
Posts: 788
Joined: July 4, 2004

How are the conditions? Was looking at heading up tomorrow.

Feb. 28, 2014, 11:44 a.m.
Posts: 18882
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

lol, ski conditions, right?

Feb. 28, 2014, 4:35 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: March 7, 2012

I am game!

March 1, 2014, 4:51 p.m.
Posts: 18882
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

- Do you support allowing a variation to the 1200' contour if it will protect lands with exceptional environmental/recreational value below 1200'?

I don't quite understand this.

This is how I read it:
current rule: they can't develop above the 1200' line (solid line on the maps)

proposed variation: they can develop above the 1200' line, up to the dotted line, in exchange for less development below the 1200' line.

Is my understanding correct Alan?

That variation encompasses most of the bike trails on Cypress!

March 1, 2014, 6:01 p.m.
Posts: 1237
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

Quoting the OCP:

Provide for community discussion of the possible benefits of some development above the 1200 - foot limit in areas such as the central part of the Limited Use and Recreation area, through a process of rezoning in exchange for public acquisition of land with environmental assets that would otherwise be developed, or that could be of outstanding community benefit.

Basically, the question is whether you support allowing some development above 1200' in order to preserve land below 1200' that has exceptional environmental or recreational value.

There is no proposal on the table, but an example would be preserving land around Whyte Lake by allowing development above 1200'. Some people feel that allowing a density transfer would be more appropriate than allowing development above 1200'.

You're correct that existing bike trails could be impacted by this. On the other hand, a wider corridor for recreational trails below 1200' could be exchanged for limited development above 1200' adjacent to the Cypress Village development.

It's hard to say whether you support this or not without a specific example. Maybe that's what you should put in the comments.

March 1, 2014, 6:10 p.m.
Posts: 18882
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

the specific example is shown as a dotted line. I don't support that example, but do support the concept. Thanks Alan!

March 1, 2014, 6:57 p.m.
Posts: 1382
Joined: May 4, 2006

That variation encompasses most of the bike trails on Cypress!

I was talking to the head of planning precisely about this on Thursday night….that specific area was chosen for two reasons:

1: its mostly hidden from downtown/Kits so any development would be less of an eyesore than the current sprawl at the eastern end of West Van. I can't disagree with this point

2. More worryingly, that area is some of the least steep terrain on the Upper Lands and therefore more suitable for development. From my point of view, that means that any future trails might be pushed into steeper terrain areas. Gulp! I find the existing trails steep enough!!

One of the good things about the crowd on Thursday night was almost universal push back on development above 1200ft unless in the most exceptional circumstances. Just about everyone was calling for better recreational experiences and there wasn't a pro-development slant from the public

Forum jump: