UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The developers argue that their mega-proposal somehow fits in our Regional Growth Strategy and Official Community Plans.

Yet, in order to do this development, the chair of the Plan Nanaimo meeting held last month tells us we would have to allow the developers to amend our Regional Growth Strategy, the RDN Official Community Plan, and the City of Nanaimo Community Plan and the zoning for both.

Question: If the development supports the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy and the OCPS and zoning by-laws that implement it, why do all of the strategies and plans we have developed for our area need to be radically altered for the proposal to go ahead?

The fundamental principle behind the development of our Regional Growth Strategy is to contain urban development and protect rural lands.

Question: How can the developers argue that a proposal that requires changing 500 acres of rural resource lands into "suburban residential" and "resort development" complete with high-rises, hotels, gated communities, times shares etc for 6000 outsiders support a strategy that is designed to prevent just that?

The Regional Growth Strategy is designed to prevent a number of problems related to inappropriate development including,

• worsening traffic,
• loss of open space & natural areas,
• increased cost of services.

Question: How does dropping 6000+ people - golfers, time-share owners, hotel guests etc - onto lands presently zoned for 5 and 20 acre minimum size lots contribute to the goal of preventing worsening traffic? Clearly, traffic will skyrocket, especially as people commute back and forth to Nanaimo.

Question: How does carving up 500 acres of "rural resource lands" and "open spaces" that surround a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (Dodd Narrows) and a rare Garry Oak meadow prevent the loss of open space and natural areas?

Question: The developer said they would protect the Environmentally Sensitive Areas by putting fences around them so their 6000+ guests and customers won't trample them into oblivion.

Doesn't the developer understand the part of the Regional Growth Strategy about connected green spaces - or the science that says fragmenting & isolating sensitive areas is damaging to them?

Question: How can it be argued that this is economically viable? 6000 + people will require a significant amount of services - and a long way away from the urban containment boundary set in place by our Growth Strategy.

According to CPI 's website, their "market" is internation. That means lots of non-residents and non-citizens. Who pays for:

• policing
• fire suppression
• health emergency services
• transit increases
• road maintenance increases
• failures of the water, sewer and other infrastructure?
  

Yup. We do. This kind of development encourages urban sprawl and is uneconomic. That's why our Growth Strategy says it should occur within the Containment Boundaries as they are now - until 2026.

The specified concern behind the Regional Growth Strategy was that population growth would undermine the very attributes of the region that residents value through further urban expansion into farms, forests and the country side (INtroduction to RGS, p. 1).

[Question: Has anybody other than those of us who live here figured out what this mega-resort will do to our rural lifestyle?]

To deal with these concerns, the RGS & OCP set the following long-term goals & strategies to govern future development, through to 2026:

1. First, to contain urban development to specified areas (called Urban Containment Boundaires).
   
   Plan Nanaimo specifically stated that there was no need to encroach upon existing rural and resource lands to meet the growth needs for the life of the Plan - that 2026.
   
   It also concluded that containing future growth with the UCBs made economic sense, because it focused development in existing serviceable areas (p. 3-2 of OCP).
   
   
2. Secondly, to promote and encourage the retention of large ruralholdings on land designed as Resource Land & Open Space & as Rural Residential.
   
   Question: How does fragmenting this 500 acres and putting 6000 people, some in high-rises 20 stories high "promote and encourage the retention of large rural holdings" on this land - which is designated Resource Land & Open Space?.
   
   
3. Thirdly, to protect open space and form a system of interconnected areas and natural corridors.
   
   Question: How does fragmenting 500 acres, presently zoned 20 and 5 acre minimum lot size, into bits of tiny green space with fences around Environmentally Sensitive Areas and rare ecosystems "protect open space" and help "form a system of interconnected areas and natural corridors?"
    

In addition, Policy 6C, p. 13 of the RGS states that destination resort developments might be permitted only where the development addresses "documented regional needs and complements the environmental, economic and social attributes of the area".

Questions: What are the "documented community needs" that this mega-resort addresses?

And how does this exclusive resort, times shares, high-rises and 6000+ person resort area "complement" our existing community? Seems to us it completely undermines it.

Furthermore, developments on land designated as Resource Lands & Open Space or Rural Residential can only include commercial development that is ancillary to the proposed tourism activity & may not include any additional permanent residual uses.

Destination resort developments are not permitted to threaten Urban Containment Boundaries nor conflict with adjacent land use.

Question: Cable Bay is designated as Resource Lands and Open Spaces, and borders on Rural Residential areas. This resort will completely and permanently alter this community.

How can you suggest your proposal supports the goals of the RGS when it so obviously threatens Urban Containment Boundaries - in fact, completely redraws them - and equally obviously conflicts with adjacent land use - ie our rural lifestyle and community.

Changes to the RGS & OCP would only be made on the following basis:

• to meet documented community needs,
• that can be serviced in a cost effective manner, and
• that would not lead to adverse changes to the health and ongoing vitality of sensitive ecosystems.
  

Question: On what basis can changes to the RGS & OCP be justified, given this statement in our RGS?

When the highway to Duke Point was built, our community made it very clear, to at least two provincial governments, that it was o.k. ONLY if there was no traffic off that highway into our community.

Question: Seems to us that one of two things has to happen to allow this "investment opportunity" for the two proponents of Cable Bay to have their way:

1. our local roads become a traffic nightmare or
2. only some of our local roads become a traffic nightmare - and the government renegs on its long-standing commitment to this community of no access from the Duke Point highway.

Which one of those does the developer plan to make happen?