Comparative Analysis
of the Town of Gibsons
Official Community Plan
Requirements, Goals, Objectives, Guidelines, and Policies
As They Apply to the Proposed
Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan
Land Use Concept
Prepared for the Friends of Gospel Rock
December 2010
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TOWN OF GIBSONS
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
REQUIREMENTS, GOALS, OBJECTIVES, GUIDELINES, AND POLICIES
AS THEY APPLY TO THE PROPOSED
GOSPEL ROCK NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
LAND USE CONCEPT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An analysis of two documents—the Town of Gibson’s Official Community Plan and the Land Use Concept recommendations submitted to the Town by the Gospel Rock Refinement Working Committee on November 22, 2010—was undertaken by and for the Friends of Gospel Rock. Comparison of the stipulations of the OCP to the recommendations in the LUC revealed numerous conflicts. In fact, the comparative analysis found the LUC INCONSISTENT with the OCP in 27 areas.
Council of the Town of Gibsons would seem to have two options:
1. Change the OCP to allow it to accept a neighbourhood plan based on the Gospel Rock Land Use Concept, or
2. Change the LUC to bring it into conformance with the OCP.
Changing the OCP would entail gutting its principles, goals, objectives, guidelines, and policies on such a scale that the citizens of the Town of Gibsons would be unlikely to accept the assault on their stated and well-considered values. The Town would be vulnerable to legal challenges, and Councillors would likely face an angry electorate. The second option then, as challenging as it may be, becomes imperative.
To that end and based on the analysis herein, this paper makes several recommendations, which are offered in the spirit of being useful to Council members and staff in their deliberations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that Council ensure that the Land Use Concept and any Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan include, at a minimum, commitments that the proponents, including the Town where applicable, will:
A. Supply the information the OCP requires of a Neighbourhood Plan, specifically:
- Undertake a complete drainage/ analysis and plan with details of on-site retention works, limits to impervious surfacing, and plans for runoff reduction and the siting of these in the plan area. This drainage plan must alter neither the “natural drainage” systems of the overall area nor the waterways of the area. As well, the drainage plan must not alter the three separate catchment systems, north, east, and west, as identified in Holland Barr Figure 14.
- Have a habitat mapping study performed, with newly identified areas of critical habitat protected from development with DPA setback areas, as recommended by the Ministry of Environment, this mapping to include, but not be limited to: rare or sensitive plant communities, nesting sites, perching/feeding/hunting trees for raptors, snags and stumps for woodpeckers, bat habitat, alligator lizard habitat, songbird feeding habitat trees, mammal habitat including all freshwater accesses, wildlife trails and corridors, and freshwater seep plant communities.
- Have an Archaeological Assessment performed with input from the Squamish First Nation including maps of and preservation plans for the sites identified.
- Identify the freshwater seeps, their surrounding plant communities, and the bluffs and gullies below Gower Point Road, which have been newly identified as sensitive ecological systems, and establish setbacks of 30m for each, as per Ministry of Environment recommendations.
- Map important and unique natural features (e.g., “footprint” and “stone circle”) and draw up preservation plans including appropriate setbacks.
6. Identify and arrange protection for sites of historical significance, like the natural clearings, quartz cross and the slope west of the rock used historically by citizens to gather for special religious worship, including the area historically used to access the beaches below Gospel Rock itself and Secret Beach.
- Ensure forest preservation below Oceanmount through to Gospel Rock lands (see OCP page 44), including identification and protection of raptor, bat, woodpecker, and migratory bird habitat trees, and snags and stumps used by both birds and mammals.
B. Avoid development uses or activity in areas of concern as defined in the OCP (and other regulatory regimes), specifically:
- Designate for passive preservation, not active parkland, the land located in polygon 82, also identified as the “bluffs to the east of the viewing site,” implement measures to minimize deleterious pedestrian overuse, and include a 30m setback (as per provincial Ministry of Environment recommendations 2004 for “sensitive ecosystems”).
- Withdraw all development uses from DPA1 and -2 zones of Blocks 6 and 7.
- Withdraw plans for development uses in all Greenbelt areas.
- Plan no development uses of the waterways on Block 6 and include a setback from development of 30m, as recommended by the BC Ministry of Environment 2004, around each of the tributaries.
- Undertake no uses at all on the marine backshore below Gower Point Road, and acquire it for park.
- Include neighbourhood parkland dedications on flat land other than DPA1 or DPA2 or Greenbelt areas.
- Maintain present trails along ravines, and where necessary, carry out the works required to protect the banks from negative impacts of trail use.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
PREAMBLE
The Town of Gibsons is blessed with having crafted a powerful, overarching Official Community Plan, its SMART plan. This document is visionary and sensitive as well as being pragmatic and instructive. Future generations of Gibsons citizens will thank their forebears for their foresight in drafting it.
From its introduction OCP Part A 1.0:
Once an OCP is adopted as a bylaw, the Community Plan becomes ‘official,’ and all future land use decisions made by Council must be consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the Plan.
…several tools are required to implement a Plan’s policies and objectives. This includes the use of regulations or guidelines such as those contained in the zoning bylaw, development permits, capital expenditures planning, development cost charges and subdivision control. These bylaws and regulations must be consistent with the Plan.
Town OCP page 1
So, having adopted their Smart OCP, Council MUST ensure all land use decisions are consistent with the objectives and policies of that Plan. Council has no options; it MUST do so.
This paper examines the Land Use Concept proposed as a basis for the Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan (hereafter GRLUC) to determine whether it is in accord with the objectives and policies of the Smart OCP.
ANALYSIS
OCP PART B SECTION 4.0 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
· Council’s Objective (CO):“Protect the quality of the natural environment, including the presence of valued wildlife and greenspace in the Town’s wooded and natural areas.” Page 23
GRLUC: The LUC proposes dropping the Greenbelt designation on lands below Gower Point Road (GPR) to allow for housing. It also proposes dropping the Greenbelt designation for waterways on Block 6 to allow for development uses. In this way, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP objective. (Environmental reports prepared for the Town have identified two creek ravines on Block 6 as having high value for wildlife, as well as the bluffs, gullies and freshwater seeps below Gower Point Road.)
· CO: “Acquire through purchase or by dedication as park or by other creative arrangements, environmentally valuable land, riparian areas, sensitive marine backshore areas, including streams and watercourses [our emphasis]….”
page 23
GRLUC: The LUC would allow roads over/through the two Seward Creek headwater tributaries on Block 6. Therefore, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP objective of acquiring those watercourses as park.
Note: This Council Objective effectively removes the Riparian Act Regulations (RAR) discussion from this policy, as streams and watercourses are specified in the objective, along with riparian areas, so that, as a watercourse, it MUST be acquired by the Town as park.
GRLUC: The LUC allows housing below Gower Point Road, i.e., it recommends developing the sensitive marine backshore area, rather than acquiring it for park. The marine backshore is the area of bluffs, gullies and freshwater seeps mentioned above. Therefore, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP objective.
· CO: “Minimize risks to life and property from natural hazards and disasters such as floods, erosion and slides.” Page 23
GRLUC: GRNP lands pose known hazards to downslope development both in the Bayview Heights subdivison below Gregory lands and in the Gibsons bay area. Flooding, landslide, debris slides, mudslides, culvert blockages, and streambed shifts are all hazards that have been identified in geotechnical assessments (since 1981). The Town has not yet built recommended works to ensure citizen safety (called for in the Dayton and Knight report and the Thurber report and referred to in the most recent Golder report). The GRLUC contains no plans for the required mitigating works. Therefore, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP objective to minimize risks to life and property.
GRLUC: The LUC recommends allowing Mssrs. Gregory to clear and open a road into the lands. This undertaking has been identified, by the owners’ own engineer (Golder), as problematic since the area is prone to landslides:
We consider, however, that the annual probability of occurrence for debris slides on the steep slope area may be increased by the presence of the existing road that traverses this slope. We understand this road will be upgraded to form the primary access to the proposed subdivision development. We consider the stabilization of this roadway, including appropriate storm water management and possibly cutslope retaining structures and/or engineered fills, will be necessary to mitigate against road-related landslides that could impact existing downslope residential development.
The GRLUC is silent on the matter of requiring these mitigative works. Therefore, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP objective to minimize risk to life and property.
Note: It has been suggested that the proposed access to the land above Bayview Heights will not be to the Town’s roadway standards, but rather will be a “driveway” access and, as a driveway, would not be required to meet the same standards as a Town road would. The GRNP needs to ensure this “driveway” is properly engineered, designed, and built to mitigate the documented hazards. Interestingly, the GRLUC does not indicate this access as temporary, as had earlier been posited.
It has also been suggested that further engineering, such as the details of this road/driveway, will occur at later stages in the development process. As the overall neighbourhood plan rests on sufficient access (among other requirements), it is entirely appropriate to establish in the overall plan area whether such servicing is or is not possible.
OCP 4.1 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
· Council Policy (CP) 1: “Require a geotechnical report, prepared by a professional engineer, for areas that have steep slopes or are a geotechnical hazard to determine the conditions and requirements of the area for development…see Schedule B-DPA1 for areas that are subject to a development permit in order to protect from geotechnical hazards….” page 23
GRLUC: No geotechnical engineering report has been done for lands below Gower Point Road (steep slopes) that have been identified as having geotech rock fall hazards, or for the two waterways on Block 6 that are in both moderate and high zones of geotechnical hazards, to determine the conditions and requirements for development. Any plan to “grade” the ravines into development land would require geotechnical assessment before any final neighbourhood plan can be adopted. As the eventual road layout for the plan area depends upon these creeks’ elimination, it needs to be established whether eliminating the creeks is or is not possible. Such a consequential undertaking is not a “detail” to be determined at rezoning or subdivison.
· “Unless recommended otherwise by a professional engineer with experience in geotechnical engineering, no dwellings, structures or other use of the land shall be permitted within the areas defined on Schedule B as high geotechnical hazards.”
Page 102
The Land Use Concept indicates roadways and residential-dwelling use in the areas of high geotechnical hazard in the Seward creekways, but includes no accompanying geotechnical report. Therefore, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP policy.
OCP 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
· Council’s Policy (CP) 1: “Protect environmentally sensitive areas, riparian areas and marine habitat, including creeks, wetlands, forested and critical habitat areas from unsustainable development and land alterations….” page 24
GRLUC: No setbacks for or protection of the creeks on Block 6 or for wetland/pond/lake in the northern sector are referred to in the GRLUC. The Land Use Concept also recommends land alteration to the forest below Gower Point Road, a provincially documented environmentally sensitive area, to allow for residential development. In addition, development uses seem to be situated below the crest of the ridge on Block 7 (see LUC page 80) deep into DPA2 zone. For any or all of these reasons, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP policy.
· CP 2: “Conduct a thorough field survey and mapping exercise to determine which additional lands and shorelines are environmentally sensitive and should be protected through a development permit. This may include the ocean shoreline, the ravines or Charman and Gibsons Creeks, vegetative communities, watershed areas, eagle nesting areas, alligator lizard habitat areas, and other areas that have high scenic and cultural values.” Page 24
GRLUC: The GRLUC does not include any mention of meeting this stipulation. The Town has not undertaken this study and mapping, and the environmental reports attached fail to locate mammalian, reptile and bird habitats. So areas of alligator lizard habitat and other sensitive communities in the plan area are not yet determined and mapped. This study must be done before land use decisions are made. Therefore, the GRLUC is
NOT CONSISTENT with Council’s OCP policy.
· CP 5: “Ensure that land designated as Greenbelt is used to direct community development away from lands that have unstable slopes, poor soil permeability, subject to flooding, or areas with significant flora and fauna. These areas may be used for trail access or public utility corridors….” page 25
GRLUC: The land use concept neither respects nor plans to maintain the Greenbelt designations as they apply to the two areas of forest land below Gower Point Road, areas which have been documented to have unstable slopes (rock fall hazard zone) and poor soil permeability as well as significant flora (see above item). Therefore, the GRLUC is