It’s been two-and-a-half months since the San Group gave a press conference announcing a billion dollar investment around two beautiful woodland ponds just inside the the city limits of Port Alberni. Shock waves have been rippling through the city as people digested the news. Letters of opposition have appeared in the local newspaper. A Facebook group with just under 400 members has been very active with people anxiously speculating on the impact this would have on the wildlife and atmosphere around the ponds. And the San Group has been silent until very recently.

Last Friday afternoon Mike Butler, their Marketing & Media Relation Manager,  invited me to their offices for a chat. When I arrived there was something going on in the board room, I believe the Minister for Housing, also our local Member of the Legislature and her staff, were being briefed about the development. I met Mike Butler who brought me to his office. He told me they are going to amend the original application. There are a bunch of changes. Below is a list Butler sent me. I will comment on each point after this list.

• They will be lowering the density by 50-55% to 1200 units,
• They will be keeping the beavers,
• They will be keeping trees along Log Train Trail and the trail staying where it is. They are also exploring putting the trees in a trust along the Log Train Trail to preserve them for future generations. The distance is still to be determined at various segments, 
• The construction techniques proposed are all to be green construction building and green energy use methods that they plan to share publicly shortly.
• The 10 year to 30 year construction time-line will slowly introduce new housing in the area being respectful of existing home owners on a price and traffic level. We do plan on offering local residents lease to own options based on job qualifications. The lease to own option is still to be determined based on feedback. 
• They are in negotiations with the city about donation of a 30 meter setback from the ponds in trade with another piece of property the city owns. 

Lowering the density of homes to 1200 units still means that this will be a very dense neighbourhood, with at least 2400 people packed onto about 55 acres. The original property is given as 73 acres, so I deducted an estimated area of the ponds and the 5% that the city would legally require for park land. That’s about 45 people per acre. Very dense.

The consequences of such density will mean that so many parents and children will be using this area that it will quickly degenerate. Even with high fences and controlled access points, the beaver, the turtle and the ducks will leave, in my opinion. More research is needed to confirm this.

I’m glad they will keep the beavers. But in order to maintain their presence the habitat would have to be carefully managed to avoid disturbance in the early morning hours and in the evening hours. Enough forage must be kept in the area to ensure a food supply for them. Consideration has to made for what happens to the kits when they are old enough to leave home. Dogs should not be allowed to cool off in the ponds.

The idea of a trust for the trees along the Log Train Trail is a good one. But without anything specific, it doesn’t amount to much. This will have to be negotiated.

It is nice that the San Group is seriously looking at constructing the home with the environment in mind. One of Mike’s colleagues spent some time on explaining their green techniques to me. They are planning to use oriented strand board with foam sandwiched between them in panels. No mention was made about their R values. I was also shown images of solar panels. These are all good initiates but they don’t address the immediate environmental effects on the ponds themselves.

The long construction timeline may be beneficial in that it may keep options open when assessing the impact of the starting construction. Construction could start in a part of the property well away from the ponds. Originally the plan was to built over 5 to 8 years. I hope the city doesn’t get locked into unfavourable agreements that will have to be honoured 30 years down the road.

The last point is very concerning. The idea that they are donating land is very misleading. Section 510 of the Local Government Act says that in a development like this the developer MUST dedicate some of their land to park. The best practise used is 5%. I don’t know where this figure comes from. I can’t find it in the legislation. I’m following this up. So the best you can say is that it is a mandatory donation that is agreeable to the city

To further muddy the water, Butler says that they are in negotiations with the city to find other property to compensate for this loss of property. Our Mayor says they are not in negotiations. There must be some mix up.

Some Links

• Parkland Acquisition Best Practices
• The Local Government Act