TRUE GREEN: Solutions for Bowen

Response to Draft 1 of the Bowen Island Official Community Plan Update, June 2010

TRUE GREEN: Solutions for Bowen

Sue Ellen Fast
Chair, Bowen Island OCP Update Committee
via email

re: “Towards a Sustainable Future,” Official Community Plan Draft I, June 2010

Dear Sue Ellen and fellow members of the committee,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the first public draft of Bowen Island’s Official Community Plan Update.

We would like to congratulate the steering committee for the inclusion in this Draft of many progressive objectives and policy recommendations for our municipality. Our members are pleased with much of this document, and we heartily endorse the overarching Vision Statement in 1.3.1. Overall, the document is much more accessible and readable.

We understand that this is an update not a review, and appreciate the attendant constraints of time and budget. That said, we would like offer detailed feedback on a number of items we feel need further clarification and revision. Chief among these are land-use planning, greenhouse-gas strategies, housing, and references to a national park on Bowen Island.

We wholly endorse the OCP Draft feedback submitted by the Affordable Housing Working Group (AHWG). You will find many of the comments and themes in that submission mirrored here.

We also would like to note the imbalance in the document. Sustainability is now broadly understood as a combination of social, economic, and environmental concerns, but this draft leans heavily on the latter of these three pillars. There are a total of 52 pages devoted to land use and environment, and parks and greenways, while housing and economy amount to a mere five pages each. People are “the environment.” It is us and we are it, and a document such as this that is the underpinning of all municipal policies and bylaws should give equal attention to all three concerns.

As noted in the Draft, Council is planning community consultations on “The Walkable Village,” a set of recommendations on the Snug Cove periphery recently compiled by the Advisory Planning Commission, and also a Snug Cove Implementation Plan. We feel it would be premature for the OCP Update to make recommendations on either of these prior to the completion of these consultations. We ask that all references to the Village Periphery and Snug Cove Village land use be removed from this document until these community reviews have been completed, and also request that the Council-sponsored 2008 Snug Cove Master Plan be included in the community consultation.

Similarly, there are numerous references to formally endorsing the idea of a new national park on Bowen. We feel that these are inappropriate without extensive community consultations on the challenges and opportunities presented by such a federally-controlled recreational preserve.

Throughout the document there are a number of calls to limit or discourage this or that. We feel the OCP is intended to provide a sense of vision and guidance, it is not an “anti-vision” statement for the island’s future. We propose recasting these statements to identify what we want as a community, rather than what we would like to prevent.

Finally, we wish to reiterate that, in our opinion, the 18 days permitted for public comment on this 165-page draft are insufficient. The provided feedback form seems to suggest that the committee expects only cursory comments. Recent OCP Updates in other communities—even smaller areas such as Sooke—allowed months for revisions, public workshops, and other outreach activities for the first draft. This is a busy time of year with many island residents away, and given that the OCP is, in essence, Bowen’s constitution, our citizens need to be given sufficient time to digest and amend the document at this initial stage, when the committee is likely most open to critical revisions.

All that notwithstanding, thank you again for the tremendous amount of time and energy you have invested in this document to date. We look forward to collaborating with you through the public consultation period.

We, the undersigned have read this submission in full and explicitly endorse it:

Lorraine Ashdown, Murray Atherton, Sara Baker, Peter Baumgartner, Elizabeth Ballantyne, Richard Best, Alan Boniface, Neil Boyd, Brandon Brind, Darcie Buzzelle, Jane Kellett, James Glave, Michelle Pentz Glave, Kim Hauner, Ian Henley, David Hocking, Bruce Howlett, Deborah Kirby, Julia McCaig, Don Marshall, Diane Marshall, Roger McGillivray, Colleen O’Neil, Isabel Otter, Heather Prittie, Jeni Redekopp, Matthew Redekopp, Tim Rhodes, Tom Roocroft, Christine Roocroft, Judy Taggart, Peter Taggart, Shari Ulrich, Aileen Vantomme, Jason Vantomme, Tim Wake, Bonnie Wilson, Dennis Wilson.

TRUE GREEN: Solutions for Bowen
contact@truegreenbowen.ca

OCP Update Draft Comments
TRUE GREEN: Solutions for Bowen

Section 1: Framework and Foundations

At the conclusion of 1.1. the Plan references a term of update of “five to eight years.” The reason given for proceeding with an update instead of a review was the need for a more expedient process that would bridge the next three to five years. Throughout the community consultation process, major issues for discussion—such as density allocations—were rejected as beyond the scope of an update.

For this reason, a number of important issues were excluded from this update. These issues, in many cases, triggered requests for OCP amendments in the past, and until they are addressed, will continue to do so. The success of an OCP is not in how many amendments it generates, but in how few. We believe the community should not have to wait more than five years to have these important issues discussed.

Suggested Action: We propose revising the term of this update to five years.

Re. 1.3.2 Objective 3: Bowen Island Municipality is a signatory to the Climate Action Charter between the Province, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and the municipalities. In its section 5 (a) (iii), Bowen commits to:

…creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.)

We feel this commitment must be enshrined in this OCP Update objectives.

Suggested Action: 1.3.2, Objective 3. Please revise to read: “To minimize Bowen Island’s contribution to global climate change by becoming a more complete, compact, and energy-efficient community.”

Suggested Action: Objective 6 is ambiguous and narrow. Please revise to read: “To manage growth in a way that recognizes and respects ecosystems and environmental impacts—both local and global—as well social and economic diversity.”

Suggested Action: Objective 11 – Please delete the word “necessary.” The modifier is unduly subjective.

Section 2: Natural Environment

Section 2.1 implies that we are only protecting 14 percent of our ecosystems. In fact, this is very close to the Island’s Trust objective of 15 percent. The wording suggests that we are not doing enough to protect our natural areas.

Suggested Action: To provide appropriate context, please add to the end of paragraph 4, “…. close to the Island’s Trust objective of 15 percent.”

Suggested Action: Section E1, please revise to read: “To maintain Bowen Island’s unique environmental heritage as well as its unique community identity…”

Suggested Action: Please update Objective E2B as follows: “To require new developments incorporate a “no net impact” strategy with respect to significant plant, wildlife, and fish habitats.”

Suggested Action: Section E7 calls on the municipality to give further consideration regulate exterior lighting. Please change the word “will” to “may,” which is more discretionary.

With respect to Objective E 8, many British Columbia municipalities are banning non-essential pesticides outright. Instead of developing a pesticide reduction plan, we recommend developing a plan to eliminate the non essential use of pesticides.

Suggested Action: Delete bullet one of 8.1, and strengthen bullet two with the above wording.

Section 2.5 Climate Change Mitigation

The Draft significantly understates our community’s global-warming pollution compared to our existing, Council-endorsed inventory, while offering almost no policies that will meaningfully mitigate climate change.

The Draft ignores Bowen Island’s agreement under the British Columbia Climate Action Charter between the Province of British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and signatory local governments to achieve Goal 5 (a) (iii), specifically:

…creating complete, compact, more energy efficient rural and urban communities (e.g. foster a built environment that supports a reduction in car dependency and energy use, establish policies and processes that support fast tracking of green development projects, adopt zoning practices that encourage land use patterns that increase density and reduce sprawl.)

The carbon-pollution totals quoted in this section’s introduction overlook our community’s two largest sources—the Queen of Capilano and vehicles traveling off-island. It does this by sourcing data from the new provincial Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEEI) project, which includes only “direct emissions from fuels that are burned within the local government’s geopolitical boundary” while excluding “…marine transportation such as ferries.”#

A previous, more detailed, and Council-endorsed inventory prepared by the Pembina Institute and the Community Energy Association takes ownership over our ferry’s emissions and those of the many private vehicles that leave the island every day for work, school, shopping, recreation, and other activities. According to that report, by 2010 these two pollution sources taken together were expected to be responsible for 23,699 tonnes CO2e/year. This almost triples Bowen’s “true” carbon footprint, from the 12,565 tonnes CO2e/year cited in the Draft, to 36,264 tonnes.

This OCP Update will effectively set a new greenhouse gas “baseline” for the municipality, and will form the basis of reductions to meet our 2020 targets. We believe we cannot revise our existing baseline to eliminate our two largest sources of greenhouse gases without explicitly consulting both the community and our council on the decision.

Further, the enclosed chart does not present a balanced comparison with other communities. In comparing Bowen’s gross CO2e emissions with two other, larger, municipalities, the Draft suggests we are doing very little to dangerously warm the planet. We believe that a per-capita comparison is more appropriate and realistic reflection of our record in this regard.

Finally, the data listed in the chart do not match current CEEI figures. The data as shown on the CEEI Web site are as follows:

Bowen Island 12,565 tonnes CO2e/year
West Vancouver 263,121 tonnes CO2e/year
Whistler 113,817 tonnes CO2e/year

Suggested Action: Please explicitly consult the community and council before eliminating Bowen’s two largest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions from our official community inventory.

Suggested Action: Please revise Objective E-9 to match Bowen Island’s commitments under the Climate Change Charter by changing it to: “To meet or exceed Provincial targets for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and meet the requirement to create complete, compact, more energy-efficient communities.”

Suggested Action: Please revise Objective 11.a as follows: “To consider the impacts of, and on, climate change as a central factor in community planning and land use management.”

Suggested Action: Please either add per-capita data to the chart to provide balanced perspective—after addressing the discrepancies above—or remove the chart altogether.

As SFU economist Mark Jaccard points out in his book Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Challenge,”Targets are meaningless if they are not attached to policies likely to achieve them.” Unfortunately, this observation applies to the Draft. Instead of recommending land-use and transportation policies that will actually mitigate climate change, the document leans heavily on private citizens, exhorting them to change their behaviors by choosing, for example, more fuel efficient vehicles, and developers, who are encouraged to construct more efficient homes. It also vaguely encourages renewable-energy use. Put simply, these exhortations will not accomplish our provincially mandated carbon-reduction goals.

The most effective strategy to accomplish the stated E.14 objective of reducing the dependence on private vehicle travel is by reducing the need to travel in the first place. We could do this by focusing growth in Snug Cove village, fostering a more complete community with clustered housing, more on-island employment, and a wider range of recreational and educational amenities, and by developing active-transportation infrastructure. The community identified all these strategies as priorities during the consultation process.

Suggested Action: The Community Energy Association serves as a “first stop for local governments” on greenhouse-gas planning. We invite the Committee to meet with that organization to review the outputs of community consultations and translate them into specific and meaningful policy recommendations for inclusion in this Draft.

In lieu of such a meeting, we suggest the following revisions.

Suggested Action: Section E.12.1 references endorsing “small scale… renewable power” but specifies that any such facilities must be “located on the same, or adjacent site as the user.” This clause effectively eliminates any potential for a district-energy system on the island. Due to high capital costs, renewable energy is largely cost-prohibitive unless the energy produced can be shared among multiple customers on different sites. For example, a solar-thermal district energy system could potentially serve multiple Snug Cove civic facilities via underground piping. This clause eliminates this possibility; please cut it.

Suggested Action: Please add a new policy recommendation: “lessen the need for on-island transportation by focusing the island’s growth in an inclusive, mixed-use, pedestrian-focused community centered in Snug Cove. This could be supplemented by additional small commercial nodes to support day-to-day needs for residents in distant neighborhoods.”

Suggested Action: Add policy recommendation to E 12.1: “To reduce the incidence of off-island travel by increasing on-island opportunities for employment, education, shopping, recreation, and food production.”

Suggested Action: Add policy recommendation: “Support the establishment of electric-vehicle-ready car-sharing infrastructure in Snug Cove, such as dedicated parking spaces.”

Suggested Action: Add policy recommendation: “In any future ferry-marshaling scheme, consider offering priority loading opportunities to low- or zero-emissions vehicles.”

Suggested Action: Add policy recommendation: “Commission and adopt an Active Transportation Plan to guide future development of shared-use (ie, bicycle and pedestrian) trails and bridges, and encourage non-motorized transportation in Snug Cove village and across the island.”

Suggested Action: Revise Policy E.11.1 to read “add mitigating.”

Suggested Action: Please clarify wording E 9.4 Policy to read: “Planning for efficient land use, energy use, and transportation.”

Suggested Action: Please revise E 13.2 Policy to read as follows: “The municipality will examine the implications of, and potential for, establishing maximum residential dwelling unit sizes, and will examine strengthening energy-performance requirements in renovations and new construction to reduce residential energy consumption.”

Suggested Action: E19.1 – Policy: Please remove the phrase at the end of this policy statement and conclude with “….Killarney lake areas are protected while encouraging respectful use and enjoyment of this precious natural ecosystem” instead of “…protected from overuse by humans.”

Suggested Action: The E 25.1 Policy has a typo. Instead of 300 meters, it should read 30.

The idea of a National Park on Bowen Island is interesting and may prove to have net benefits, but needs to have a proper analysis and island-wide discussion before it is enshrined as an objective in the OCP.

Suggested Action: Remove E 26.1 and all additional references to a National Park in the OCP Draft document until such time as we discuss it as a community and understand its implications.

Section 3: Land Use Management

LU Principle 2 states there may be adjustments to density, but LU Principle 3 states the overall number of units is fixed. This seems to be a contradiction over a fundamental point. Firmly limiting the number of dwelling units in Principle 3 negates many of the policies intended to support Objective 7 (“to be inclusive by welcoming residents with varying income levels, lifestyles, and age groups”) and is not compatible with recommended strategies in the Local Government Act “Moving Toward Sustainability” (Appendix A).

We could consider exceptions to this policy to bring integrity to the overarching commitment to social, economic and environmental sustainability. For example, we may need to allow more lots in cases where it will facilitate the delivery of affordable and special needs housing. Throughout the community consultations, the committee has heard time and again that we want our island to be more inclusive; this principle is a leading barrier to this objective.

Suggested Action: Please revise 3.3.1 Land Use Principle 2 to read as follows: “Adjustments to the location, size, and density of existing lots is encouraged as a way to shift toward a more complete, compact, and energy-efficient community.”

With respect to LU Principle 4: An OCP is meant to enable rather than disable. Principles that prescribe what is not allowed should be recast to describe what is encouraged. It is important to replace the words “existing lifestyle” because that does not necessarily reflect the OCP’s vision and objectives. Words like “negative” and “prevent” are not helpful. What is it we want to encourage?

Suggested Action: Change LU Principle 4 to read “Developments that would have a significant positive effect on achieving the OCP’s vision and fundamental objectives are encouraged.”

With respect to LU 2.1 Policy: This policy provides guidelines for considering rezoning applications, describing the desired outcomes of the process. The three bullet points that follow are all laudable and supported. However, rezonings can also play an important role in moving toward complete, compact communities.

Suggested Action: Add an additional point. “Contribute to a land-use pattern supportive of creating compact, complete, energy efficient communities.”

Suggested Action: Clarify to read policy: “Give priority to development in existing brownfield or greyfield developed areas.”

With respect to the following land-use objectives:

LU 1E— Objective To encourage future residential growth to locate in Snug Cove Village.

LU 2.6 – Policy In Snug Cove and the Belterra lands, the Municipality will consider applications for affordable, rental and special needs housing (cross-reference: Section 7)

We have heard repeatedly during consultations that Snug Cove is where we would like to see most of the residential growth, but that other areas with access to transit will also be considered. Could this policy be expanded to include them?

Suggested Action: We propose modifying LU 2.6 – Policy to read: “In Snug Cove and the Belterra lands, as well as other locations with access to public transit, the Municipality will consider applications for affordable, rental and special needs housing (cross-reference: Section 7)”

Suggested Action: Please delete 1.4 because the village periphery will be addressed in community consultations with respect to the Walkable Village report.

Suggested Action: The CLU 1.5 should include The Snug Cove Master Plan (2008) in the community consultations around the Walkable Village.

With respect to Policies LU 2.13, LU 2.15, LU 2.18, LU 2.28, H2.6 Density and Density Transfer. Density is arguably the least understood concept on Bowen Island. It does not mean high-rise apartments, urbanization, or the end of the neighbourhood. For Bowen it simply means moving beyond the single-detached home as a housing form.

Currently, 91 percent of the housing stock on Bowen is single-family detached. Arguably, we have all the single detached housing we will ever need. Certainly, we need to diversify the mix with duplexes, townhomes, and apartments. Collectively we call this multi-family. We especially need this in Snug Cove, but we also need to consider it in other locations, anywhere on the island that has access to transit. Multi-family housing builds community. Neighbours get to know each other. Generations inter-mingle. It is healthy.

In this Draft OCP Update, we say that we support multi-family housing in Snug Cove and on the Belterra site. But we only support it if there is a density transfer from elsewhere on the island, and that transfer is measured in “units” or “lots” where a unit or a lot is a single detached home. A studio apartment is also called a unit. A single detached home and a studio apartment are not equivalent and yet we treat them as equivalent for the purposes of density transfer and measuring density. Density transfer on this basis will not work. There is no incentive to transfer density.

Suggested Action: It is clear that we need another way to measure density. This would be an OCP Amendment, and would require some serious thought. One possibility would be to replace unit per acre with developable gross floor area (GFA) per acre.

With respect to policy LU 2.18 Municipal Land Density Bank: This policy outlines some possibilities for transferring and banking density that arises from the difference between the Land Use Bylaw density allowed and the OCP Land Use Designation. This is an excellent tool for creating opportunities for affordable and special needs housing; it is arguably the only tool Council has at its disposal to facilitate the development of a diverse inventory of housing. We fully support the use of this tool by Council.

The OCP Land Use Designation Density does not seem appear anywhere in the Draft. Where can it be found, ideally contrasted with Land-Use Bylaw densities?

Suggested Action: Please answer the above question somewhere in the Draft.

In LU 2.27, the Draft effectively limits multi-unit or attached housing to garden apartments or row housing. These are good forms, but what about apartments over commercial space, stacked townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes? These could all be compatible with existing housing in Snug Cove.

Suggested Action: Please broaden LU 2.27 to suggest additional housing forms described above, or cut.

With reference to section 3.5.2 Tourist and Retreat Commercial Land use, LU 7.1 policy states that “destination attractions are not supported.” While we appreciate this statement is intended to discourage theme parks, casinos and similar mass-tourism-oriented operations, the overly broad language would also include amenities such as the golf course, the bike park, and so on.

Suggested Action: Please modify LU 7.1 to allow for creating ‘destinations’ that meet community needs and/or provide community benefits.

With respect to SCLU 7.10 – Policy Notwithstanding Policy SCLU 7.9, which states

the Municipality may vary individual equivalent lot density on individual parcels of land where the building form and character and building height addresses the intent and objectives of the Plan and does not exceed three storeys.

Limiting building height to three storeys severely constrains the opportunity for diverse and affordable housing forms in Snug Cove.

Suggested Action: Please consider amending this to “…four storeys, provided the scale is compatible with the surroundings and slope is utilized to minimize visual impacts.”

With respect to SCLU 7.17 – Policy which states

Notwithstanding any policy in this Plan, the Snug Point area will remain a single detached dwelling area. No other forms of housing will be supported in this area.

This is very restrictive and limits the possibilities for diversity in the Snug Cove area, the very place where we are looking to accomplish it.

Suggested Action: Please consider allowing Development Permit Areas in Snug Point where building size would be limited to the scale of single detached, but there could be up to four dwelling units per building.

We would like to see more attention given to Community Lands in the Draft:

Suggested Action: Please add a major sub-section dedicated to the Community Lands, drawing on community comments and OCP submissions relating to their potential use and disposition.

Section 4: Transportation and Mobility

The opening of this section, the Objective T1B suggests that transportation services promote growth. This statement is overly broad.

Suggested Action: Rewrite Objective T1B as follows: “Manage transportation without increasing the size or frequency of the current car ferry.”

Objective T-4 aims to provide for safe cycling and hiking across the island. One of the accompanying policies references a “bicycle plan,” but stops short of specifically calling for any such document. Policy T 4.10 appears to endorse the spiritual value of recreational trails. Let us be blunt: We have plenty of recreational trails on Bowen Island. We need trails that get us from A to B under our own steam.

This section must recommend specific policies that will encourage citizens to get out of their cars, to help us meet our binding greenhouse gas emission targets, promote healthier and more active living, allow seniors continued mobility as they move beyond their driving years, and foster greater quality of life. We agree with planner Mark Holland, who recently said, “your quality of life is inversely proportional to the amount of time you spend behind the wheel.” At present, some of our neighborhoods are simply unsafe to ride a bike or walk in. This is no longer acceptable.

Suggested Action: Please add a new Policy to read as follows: “The Municipality will commission and implement an island-wide active-transportation plan that will identify routes for future multi-model non-motorized transportation trails connecting residential neighborhoods with the shops, services, and marine transportation links of Snug Cove village. The plan will identify areas of particular need and vulnerability, and recommend a phased plan for implementation.”

Suggested Action: Please consider adding language recommending council facilitate a feasibility study for a potential made-on-Bowen public transportation system—funded by the existing annual remission to Translink—that will better serve our community’s public-transportation needs.

Suggested Action: T4.6 policy statement says “A paved shoulder or sidewalk or trail will be provided ……..will have a gravel shoulder use-able for pedestrian and equestrian purposes.” Please add “ and that Bowen Island Municipality will create and enforce restrictions against parking of vehicles on these pedestrian and equestrian routes.”

Section 5 – Services and Systems

Suggested Action: Since services and systems also include waste management, please add the following new paragraph to section 5.1 introduction and context:

As islanders we are individually and collectively responsible—economically and physically—for the waste we produce and presently export off the island. These materials are in the end a resource that should be recovered.

Suggested Action: Please revise SS3 Objective as follows: “To encourage on-island management and treatment of liquid waste, and the use of the organics therein as a resource in a composting facility.”

Suggested Action: Please add SS3.3 Policy as follows: “The Municipality will investigate the feasibility of retaining all processed liquid waste on the island, and using it as a resource for composting the organics therein.”

Suggested Action: Please add SS5C Objective as follows: “To promote individual responsibility for waste through appropriate community education, engagement, and incentives, and by applying appropriate penalties for overproduction of waste where applicable.”

Suggested Action: Please add SS 5.1 Policy: “The municipality will support organizations such as Bowen Island Recycling Depot, Knick Knack Nook Re-use-it Store Society, and Zero Waste Bowen that are working to reduce the quantity of waste removed from the island. The municipality will reduce and ultimately eliminate the off-island transport of green waste, yard waste, and kitchen waste.”

Suggested Action: Please add an objective in SS 5.2 Water Supply to encourage rainwater harvesting as an alternative to groundwater depletion.

Suggested Action: Please add the following SS 5.2 Policy: “The municipality will mandate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes for recycling and proper disposal as per provincial and regional-government regulations.”

Suggested Action: Please revise SS 5.3 Policy as follows: “The municipality will promote at-source waste-reduction strategies and encourage both on-site and community-scale composting.”

Suggested Action: Please revise SS 5.4 Policy as follows: “The Municipality will promote best practices with respect to the recycling and reuse of all waste materials including but not limited to abandoned vehicles, tree stumps, discarded wood products and demolition materials.”

Suggested Action: Please add SS 5.5 Policy as follows: “The Municipality will investigate the feasibility of a Resource Recovery Park to deal as much as possible with solid waste produced on the island.

Suggested Action: Further to the above, please add the following definition of a Resource Recovery Park to the Draft appendix glossary:

A resource-recovery park is a “one-stop” central community facility that brings together reuse, recycling, bulk composting, manufacturing, and retail operations on a single site. Such facilities preserve resources—lessening the need for resource extraction—while fostering entrepreneurial activity and job creation.

Section 7: Housing

The signatories to this TRUE GREEN submission endorse the comments on the OPC Update Draft Section 7 Housing, submitted by the Affordable Housing Working Group. That group’s comments include but are not limited to the following:

- Fundamental Objective 7 “To be inclusive by welcoming residents with varying income levels, lifestyles and age groups” should not be undermined by other objectives and policies.

- A diversity of housing forms needs to be supported Island-wide to allow for affordable dwellings that meet the identified needs of a wide range of residents, including young families, artists, employees, empty-nesters, and seniors who live independently as well as those requiring a range of support.

- Limited increases in density, compatible in scale and character with surrounding dwellings, need to be supported Island-wide when the intention is to provide affordable and/or diverse housing to meet identified needs.

- Land provided by the Municipality for affordable/special needs housing should be zoned for Comprehensive Development to encourage creative proposals for a mix of affordable housing types.

- Accessory buildings should be supported for residential use, as recommended by the Secondary Suites Task Force

- Density transfer should not be a consideration when the intent is to produce affordable and/or diverse housing.

Section 8: Community Facilities and Social Well Being

Suggested Action: In the last sentence of the second paragraph of 8.1 Introduction and Context, please remove “particularly for families, with young and teen-aged children” and replace with “for people of all ages and abilities with attention to multiple needs of families and inter-generational connections.”

Suggested Action: Please add the following to the introduction: “We encourage the municipality and the community to identify strategies and develop resources for individual and collective support in times of unexpected and systemic events such as energy shocks, infrastructure and economic failures, and climate-change impacts, and to encourage facilities, services, and activities that will foster a more complete and socially resilient community. Such a system could be layered atop the existing Neighbourhood Emergency Response Person organization.”

Suggested Action: Please revise 8.2 Community Facilities, CF 1A Objective, as follows:
“To bolster social and communities ties by providing places and facilities where islanders can meet and recreate together, and support each other in times of need.”

The CF 1E Objective makes reference to a community center “at a scale in keeping with the island community.”

Suggested Action: Please delete the recommendation with respect to island-appropriate scale, which is needlessly subjective, and replace it with the following: “To encourage the development of a multi-use facility in Snug Cove village that would include spaces appropriate for cultural performances, community assemblies, social gatherings, and a variety of other services as determined by community consultations during the design and planning phase.”

The CF 2B – Objective references the church camp on the island. We feel it is inappropriate to comment on specific properties and private institutions.

Suggested Action: Please recast Objective CF 2B as follows: “To encourage the development of non-profit institutional facilities that provide for spiritual, educational or recreational pursuits while ensuring that such developments have limited adverse effects on the island character and its natural resources.”

Section 8 does not include any reference to the role that community facilities play in reducing the neccessity for off-island travel with its attendant stresses and greenhouse-gas impacts, and by fostering a more complete community.

Suggested Action: Add the following new third paragraph to 8.1 Introduction and Context:

In order to help meet our emissions-reduction goals as outlined previously, Bowen Island needs to become a more complete community. This would include providing a broader range of community services and activities on-Island to reduce the need to travel to off-island facilities, services, programs, and events.

Section 9: Island Heritage, Arts, and Culture

No comments on this section.

Section 10: Island Economy

Suggested Action: With respect to Section EC1.2, please append the following to the end of the paragraph: “…and to implement a Business Licencing Policy to foster sustainable and safe business practices for both home-based businesses and outsourced services. This will ensure all contractors are covered by WorkSafe B.C., that business outlets are clean and safe, and that food-service establishments are inspected for cleanliness and safety.”

Section 10 does not include any reference to the role of the economy in helping foster a more complete community, to meet climate change and broader sustainability goals.

Suggested Action: Please revise the beginning of 10.1 Introduction and Context as follows: “In order to help meet sustainability and climate change goals, Bowen Island needs to become a more complete community. This would include supporting more on-island employment, more affordable housing, and a greater variety of services to lessen the need to travel to the mainland.”

Suggested Action: Please add to the end of the last paragraph in 10.1: “More diverse housing options will improve our local economy by enabling some of those currently commuting to Bowen for work to actually reside here.

Suggested Action: As previously discussed (LU 7.1), please omit EC Policy 4.1 that seeks to discourage “destination attractions.”