Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment

The FVRD should oppose to this development once and for all. It is not only absurd that, despite resident's consistent feedback against it and the many issues it brings, that we are still discussing it. There are so many implications not properly being taken into consideration for this redevelopment. Highway 7 traffic would be even worse and more dangerous given the increase amount of people on the road along with the trucks that already make driving in this area more dangerous than most. The fire department in our region is made up of volunteers; given that we have fire bans every summer due to the dry conditions, it will not only make it impossible for the fire department to address a community that large, but will also for the current citizens living here full time to be able to evacuate the area safely. Even if the fire department was staffed according to the size increase, the road access in and out would be limited given that there is only one lane each way. Example of this was the most recent fires in California where multiple regions in the city of LA had residents have to leave their cars behind because the traffic to evacuate was backed up and put their lives at risk.
Lake Errock is already overcrowded by non-residents during the summer, who park on resident's driveways, disturb the peace with rambunctious behaviour and leave trash behind. Although signs clearly state that parking is not allowed except for the beach area, none of the community members have the proper authority to ticket or tow those who violate parking regulations. There have been several instances where resident's properties were damaged due to illegal parking and impaired drivers. When attempts were made to protect their properties and our community, residents very often found themselves being threatened or having the beach or private properties vandalized. An increase of 400 homes will exponentially increase that problem which is already an issue during the warmer months of the year. Safety for the residents in that regard has not even been addressed, and we should not be put into an even worse situation with an overflow of 400 more homes.
Regarding the waste facilities, which are already over crowded and only operate during certain hours/days of the week, adding 400 more homes (with secondary units, and therefore doubling the number of people) will also generate an unmanageable increase in that regard. This is an issue not just for the amount of garbage that will be accumulated in our transfer stations but also the contamination issues that it will present and the consequences to the natural habitat around us.
Residents are expected to pay a large amount to connect to the septic tank of this proposed construction. We should not be responsible for extra costs due to outside developments, that it absolutely absurd. Water quality of the lake during and post construction will also be a problem due to all of this and may very well render the lake improper for swimming, and kill the lake's animal habitats in the process.
The lake will also not be the only place where animal habitat will be damaged. The gravel pit already poses a disturbance to the wildlife if this region, and more construction and residents will only make that worse. We live in an area where multiple species reside, reproduce, diversify and also feed our land's ecosystem. The salmon run is only one of the many phenomenas that occur here every year. To have a disturbance of that size where the habitat, food supplies and water quality is jeopardized means we will eventually eliminate these species from our region altogether, and disturb nature in its process. I strongly oppose to this initiative and hope the people involved do the right thing, not just for our community but to all the species of residents that this place home.

I oppose this development. It is too big for the community. A couple of houses is ok , a small city is not.

I oppose the housing development proposed by present owners of Lake Errock gravel pit.
The gravel pit expansion went ahead contrary to the local residents in part because the ministry of mines can overrule municipal government decisions.
Now that we have this awful pit what will be worse is the proposed houses. Others who have listed their complaints I support everything they wrote so I don’t wish to repeat.
Reading the OCP it seems to me that the proposed 400 + homes exceeds what is listed as expected population growth for area C and that the FVRD presumes that the growth should be concentrated at Lake Errock which is preposterously stupid.
I’ve noticed that within the territory that the FVRD manages , residents who bring forth scientific studies and homeowner complaints the FVRD allows the developers to go ahead against their taxpayer’s wishes. Now perhaps you can change the status quo.
You have heard from our responses, what we don’t want and yet some people have said the want street lighting. Maybe on the Lougheed is a good idea but not on our streets. We who moved away from the city like the night sky. Lighting streets and homes that stay lit throughout the night interferes with insects and bats. If we don’t want an influx of mosquitos, or pesticides better to not have lights and we know once those homes are built we will feel like we are back in the city, a place we fled.
When I go to bed at night and awake in the morning I relish the quiet. I don’t hear the train just the quiet. With an addition of approximately 2 cars per house in the new development vehicles , lawn mowers, music, etc.,the noise will have me moving away.
Urban sprawl is a stupid way of doing business. If you want 400+ houses better to build them closer to Mission and Aggasiz and Harrison and concentrate on upgrading the infrastructure which in the FVRD is seriously abysmal.
At the transport meeting I heard from representative that there will be two buses. One only will run and the second held in case it’s needed when their is a breakdown. It’s nice to have a bus but won’t Allie via text the amount of cars on the road if the proposed houses are built.
Some people requested a coffee house, a restaurant, why move here if they can’t walk to the neighbours for coffee,. We have three restaurants very.close to Lake Errock we don’t need a whole bunch more houses so we can have more refreshment locations. Some wanted a grocery store we have local farmers for all their diet needs and Amazon ( dare I say) will deliver the other stuff without those 400+ houses.
So just to re-cap the majority of us moved here to escape the trappings of towns and please don’t build one on the pit.
I hate the pit but it is better than the housing development. Why not build your trails and bike paths at the pit and plant indiginous trees to heal our lake. More infrastructure at the pit will threaten the lake. It is obvious and you FVRD directors will be long gone to say your sorry because you know all the run off, a breakdown of a sewage plant, the lighting, the air, the fumes, will eventually ruin Lake Errock. We once had the Chehalis goat roaming our mountains now gone, not a one left, is this what will happen to the other species that are left here now the pit has ravaged our mountain. Time to reclaim with vegetation not houses. The park they want to build, we know it will be manicured lawns and stick trees. Just let the forest grow back and we will make our own trails.

We've received your comment and are currently reviewing it to ensure it meets our site's policies. Thanks for your understanding and patience.

I live in Deroche and have to cross Hwy 7 to access my road. This can be a hazard right now with the amount of traffic and crossing the railway along with limited visibility from the east. I am concerned that now my safety will be worse with this many new houses and people driving cars at least 2 per house including all the trucks servicing these houses and commercial vehicles. I would like to see some traffic revisions to make our turn onto North Deroche Road safe including a light and dedicated turn lane. With the amount of traffic this will be more dangerous than it already is. I have almost been rear ended many times as well as when there is a train not being able to turn due to traffic.

I live in Deroche and have to cross Hwy 7 to access my road. This can be a hazard right now with the amount of traffic and crossing the railway along with limited visibility from the east. I am concerned that now my safety will be worse with this many new houses and people driving cars at least 2 per house including all the trucks servicing these houses and commercial vehicles. I would like to see some traffic revisions to make our turn onto North Deroche Road safe including a light and dedicated turn lane. With the amount of traffic this will be more dangerous than it already is. I have almost been rear ended many times as well as when there is a train not being able to turn due to traffic.

I live in Deroche and have to cross Hwy 7 to access my road. This can be a hazard right now with the amount of traffic and crossing the railway along with limited visibility from the east. I am concerned that now my safety will be worse with this many new houses and people driving cars at least 2 per house including all the trucks servicing these houses and commercial vehicles. I would like to see some traffic revisions to make our turn onto North Deroche Road safe including a light and dedicated turn lane. With the amount of traffic this will be more dangerous than it already is. I have almost been rear ended many times as well as when there is a train not being able to turn due to traffic.

I live in Deroche and have to cross Hwy 7 to access my road. This can be a hazard right now with the amount of traffic and crossing the railway along with limited visibility from the east. I am concerned that now my safety will be worse with this many new houses and people driving cars at least 2 per house including all the trucks servicing these houses and commercial vehicles. I would like to see some traffic revisions to make our turn onto North Deroche Road safe including a light and dedicated turn lane. With the amount of traffic this will be more dangerous than it already is. I have almost been rear ended many times as well as when there is a train not being able to turn due to traffic.

I live in Deroche and have to cross Hwy 7 to access my road. This can be a hazard right now with the amount of traffic and crossing the railway along with limited visibility from the east. I am concerned that now my safety will be worse with this many new houses and people driving cars at least 2 per house including all the trucks servicing these houses and commercial vehicles. I would like to see some traffic revisions to make our turn onto North Deroche Road safe including a light and dedicated turn lane. With the amount of traffic this will be more dangerous than it already is. I have almost been rear ended many times as well as when there is a train not being able to turn due to traffic.

As a frequent visitor to the Lake Errock , it shocks me to imagine that such a project can even be considered, given the small size of the community and the fragile characteristics of the sorrounding ecosystem. This massive population influx would seriously jeopardize not only the natural resources and biodiversity, but would also mean a severe infrastructural impact, turning a rural and conscientious community into an urban scenario with all the environmental impacts involved. I strongly urge our community representatives to reconsider their stance on this OCP as it does not align with FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy or what the residents have in mind for the future of our community.

As a frequent visitor to the Lake Errock , it shocks me to imagine that such a project can even be considered, given the small size of the community and the fragile characteristics of the sorrounding ecosystem. This massive population influx would seriously jeopardize not only the natural resources and biodiversity, but would also mean a severe infrastructural impact, turning a rural and conscientious community into an urban scenario with all the environmental impacts involved. I strongly urge our community representatives to reconsider their stance on this OCP as it does not align with FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy or what the residents have in mind for the future of our community.

I was born in Mission and have lived in the area all my life. I have been a resident of Lake Erroch aka Squakum Lake lake since 2017. The gravel pit is MAN-made natural disaster. Let's fix it! Area C and First Nations can buy it with partners from the Provincial and Federal Government with the goal of creating a "re-wilding" project plan for the land. They use this project as a model template on how to repair, maintain and steward land after the devastation from gravel pit mining on the ecosystem and local communities. Given the location of the lake it was a huge mistake to develop this parcel of land into a gravel pit in the first place. We can take on the responsibility of repairing the damage while creating an educational environmental legacy for years to come that teaches the future generations how to transform our devastated ecosystems back into healthy thriving environments.

Those of us who live at Lake Errock choose to do so as it is a lovely quiet rural community however the proposed OCP shatters that ideal by suggesting an influx of 485 dwelling units. Our community is not designed to accommodate this influx and as such I strongly oppose the OCP which has been suggested. I believe it would be a much better fit if the gravel pit could be returned to a more natural state, perhaps a park and trails could be created for residents and nearby communities to access, so that we can all enjoy the beautiful environment which we are so fortunate to have in our backyard. Given the small size of Lake Errock our ecosystem is fragile and there is significant, and justified, worry that this massive population influx would seriously jeopardize it. I also worry about the infrastructure, which would need significant upgrades, to support an increase of such magnitude. I strongly urge our community representatives to reconsider their stance on this OCP as it does not align with FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy or what the residents have in mind for the future of our community.

Floating on the water watching Eagles in flight - Lake Errock is such a beautiful site.
A peaceful paradise to be alone – Shared with wildlife that call it home.
Soon you will take that away – building a metropolis for the money today.
A community filled with responsible properties – to be overtaken by multi-dwelling monstrosities.
Lake Errock is a nature's delight – Now you want it? Not without a fight!

As a Lake Errock resident, I am deeply concerned about - and strongly oppose - the gravel pit redevelopment plan. The plan is not aligned with the needs of the existing residents of the area or the FVRD’s Regional Growth Strategy. The plan poses significant risks to the area such as environmental pollution (including damage to Lake Errock itself), noise pollution from the proposed water treatment plant, safety hazards from increased pedestrians and traffic, and strain on emergency and other services. Also concerning is the lack of community engagement and transparency, and the conflict of interest related to the research performed by private consultants hired by the developer. In sum, the plan does not adequately consider social and environmental factors, provides no benefit to the existing community and its residents, and is detrimental to Area C. I implore FVRD to seriously consider the irreversible damage a redevelopment of this magnitude will do to the Lake Errock area.

As a Lake Errock area resident, I find it shocking that a development of this scale and ill planning could ever be considered to be compatible with the OCP or with any OCP of a similar rural area. We are in a sensitive environmental area that provides significant wildlife habitat and is a boundary to relatively pristine forest and mountain habitat. The expenditure for proper infrastructure and environmental mitigation to facilitate a project on this scale, (located in Area C considering existing infrastructure) would be truly astronomical and would render a project like this unfeasible - which is perhaps why the proposal makes little sense to residents of the area. Please reject this proposal in current form and conduct proper public consultation to develop an OCP that will truly respect the residents of this community, and the environment within area C and beyond.

As a resident of the area, it is a shame that the FVRD has not yet stopped this development. Residents are strongly opposing the plan, which has not been properly communicated or discussed with the community, and leaves us wondering how issues such as increased traffic, garbage collection, emergency services and the overall impact on the ecosystem will be. Research being done by private consultants hired by the development company do not take any of those issues into account, and should not be considered as they're being paid to show results that benefit solely the developer's point of view. The document below outlines the very many concerns the population of the area has with this development, please read it thoroughly and take it into consideration before moving forward with yet another housing complex.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iFzfvhKpPIb44b193T7UrR-cLo-4CfE-/view

To whom it may concern,
As an Area C resident I continue to strongly oppose the Gravel Pit Redevelopment plan. The updated OCP does not reflect the community feedback that was provided in the OCP planning stages, nor does it put forward a plan that benefits the local community or future residents with the proposed development. The proposal goes against the FVRD future planning strategies, and has numerous environmental concerns as well as lack of emergency and community resources and transit options for a population increase of that magnitude. These concerns, and more, are included in the attached document provided. This proposed development does not fit in Area C, and we strongly oppose the application

My 5 year old son, Bear, asked that I email his beautiful art and letter expressing his deep, heartfelt opposition to the gravel pit development. (Also submitting his message here) We have lived full time in the Lake Errock community since summer of 2021. Bear loves his community and loves the earth, and would do anything to prevent the gravel pit development and the devastating impacts it will have on the environment around us. There are two drawings, one from last year and one from this year, showing that it has been a consistent worry of his since we heard about the development plans. There is also a letter in his own words, hopeful that more trees can be planted, and animal habitat can be restored.

Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment Community Feedback
May 10, 2024
The following document is in regards to the application by GWEB Holdings Ltd. redevelopment
proposal.
GWEB Holdings Ltd has made an application to re-develop the existing gravel pit located at
43837 & 43873 Lougheed Highway (PIDs 013-445-871, 012-051-853, 012-051-888, 012-051-
900, 013-445-901) into a residential subdivision with approximately 485 dwelling units.
The current proposed subdivision includes:
144 single-family residential lots with secondary suites (288 Dwelling Units)
97 townhouse units (97 Dwelling Units)
67 Apartment residential units (67 Dwelling Units)
11 3-unit Multiplexes (33 Dwelling Units)
“Your redevelopment concept is defined as a Major OCP Amendment under the Fraser Valley
Regional District Development Application Fees Establishment Bylaw No. 1560, 2019 as it
constitutes the following:
• The creation of 100 or more dwelling units;
• Results in an increase in population of 250 or more persons, based on an average
household size of 2.5 persons per household”
FVRD Pre application letter.pdf (285 KB) (pdf)
As a full time resident of Lake Errock, I am deeply concerned about the revised OCP, the Gravel
Pit Redevelopment proposal and the FVRD’s perceived support of it. The April updated OCP is
reactionary to the proposal and puts the development as the only focus for the area, with no
other planning considered.
The OCP has a disclaimer that most of the document was provided by the developers
themselves. The OCP was also created by a Third Party consultant (with advisory from FVRD
Planners). As a FVRD rural electoral area tax paying resident I am incredibly alarmed that the
FVRD has decided to let a developer lead the visioning for Area C, and outsourcing the planning
of the area and multiple surveys that go with the application to consultants paid for by GWEB
Holdings Ltd to accommodate the developer’s application preference and timeline.
There have been no studies or surveys providing sufficient evidence warranting a change in the
OCP such as what has happened in the revised edition, outside of the influence of the proposed
development, and the FVRD reaction to it. It is disturbing that the OCP was created in part by a
Third Party consultant funded by GWEB Holdings, in a need to revise the OCP in order to move
their application forward. The updated OCP goes against everything the community had
previously identified and communicated clearly to FVRD Planners as values and vision for the
area.
In the Corporate Report provided to the Electoral Area Services Committee in 2022 it was
stated: “The Official Community Plan (OCP) does not support this proposal. The OCP designation
for the majority of the lands is Limited Use which supports low density development on 8
hectare parcels. LIMITED USE areas may also be reduced and re-designated if future studies
show that an area can safely accommodate a broader range of uses without environmental
damage, unacceptable public risk or excessive public expenditure on access or other public
works.”
This has in no way been accomplished.
It is unacceptable that given that statement, and ongoing clear concern expressed by rural
electoral area residents for this development, this proposal is continuing forward and with such
perceived support by FVRD staff and Board members.
GWEB Holdings Inc chose to ignore the FVRD who advised: “In the opinion of FVRD Planning &
Development staff, development of this scope and scale should be preceded by a neighbourhood
plan that engages the community and other stakeholders in the creation of a comprehensive
land use and servicing plan that balances social, environmental and economical factors.”
This was not done, and the effect of that is already observed by Area C residents, who are
rightfully upset with this government leadership.
There is an obvious lack of interest in community feedback experienced in the poorly planned
revisions to our OCP, all of which support the proposed development. None of the ‘community
benefits’ listed in the OCP have been requested by the community and do not serve the current
or future residents of the area.
GWEB Holdings Inc’s plans for Lake Errock in no way reflect the vision of the community to
maintain the rural environment that brought homeowners into this electoral district. Based on
the detailed feedback provided from the past OCP planning sessions and surveys the
community completed in 2023, the current OCP does not support the statement from the Area
C OCP Survey Response Summary that were presented in January 2023 that states “this input
will help to direct our next engagements and the development of the Official Community Plan.”
(link)
Comparing the OCP for Lake Errock to our neighbours in Harrison Mills, which is a detailed
environmentally progressive document, the OCP for Lake Errock is respectfully embarrassing to
residents, and ill thought out. As a resident, I find it quite alarming that the Municipal Planners
are presenting this proposal, given the serious concerns, dangers, and problems brought
forward for the current and future residents of the area.
With a desire to be an informed citizen, and in the spirit of collaboration between current
residents and municipality for what would best service the area, community, and to foster the
larger RGS for the region, I have reviewed the presented documents in the OCP and developer
updates.
I greatly oppose the Gravel Pit Redevelopment plan presented by GWEB Holdings Ltd. It
continues to be in significant misalignment with the RGS of the FVRD and the substantial
changes and scope made from the original proposal to now (which also continues to grow in
scope) brings serious concerns for the current and future residents of Area C. Below is an
outline of why the FVRD Board should not approve the application to redevelop the Gravel Pit.
UNREPRESENTATIVE OCP PLAN
The updated OCP plan presented in April outlines the Gravel Pit Redevelopment proposed by
GWEB Holdings Ltd as the only future planning for Area C. As a resident who wants to
contribute and benefit from a thriving community with shared vision for growth for it’s
members and habitat, is not only a shocking, but incredibly disappointing document. There is
nothing captured in the updated OCP that reflects the comments and vision provided by the
community Survey Response Summary.
The plans outlined in the OCP for unsupported population growth of this magnitude in the
immediate area, the unsafe highway crossings, the unnecessary and concerning waste system,
and half hazard ‘trail systems’ that are walkways along roadways are not aligned with the RGS,
and do not benefit the Area C community. It is disheartening to see the OCP primarily just
documents provided by GWEB Holdings Ltd, with no alternative plans presented by FVRD
planners for what is best for the current local community, or responses to feedback provided in
the past survey. There are numerous reasons why the proposed development should not go
through, but the most alarming are the following:
MAJOR CONCERNS:
Dangerous pedestrian crossing of Highway 7 and train tracks
- Traffic speeds on this stretch are notoriously 10-20KM above the listed 80KM speed
limit.
- The location is around a bend, not giving adequate lead time for drivers to be
alerted of crossing pedestrians.
- Drivers do not always pay attention, and certainly are not expecting a pedestrian
crossing on a highway, causing accidents.
- Many drivers on that highway are not local, so they would not be expecting a
pedestrian crossing.
- High traffic area, especially in summer months with additional biker and tourism
traffic.
- Not adequate lighting along the highway for evening crossings.
- There is not available space to safely add a walkway along this area, without
environmental impact of blasting rock near train crossing.
- There has been documented increase in traffic volume in the FVRD, which increase
the probability of vehicle accidents.
- Multiple major vehicle accidents have happened in this area, including a fatal crash,
cited in these two separate accident news articles:
https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/drivebc-highway-7-closed-again-followingcrash-
near-deroche-bridge-2662962
https://www.missioncityrecord.com/news/update-victim-of-fatal-crash-in-derocheidentified-
2105366
- The trains do not slow down in the area, increasing the chance of harm. There has
also been death contributed to the train in the area, cited in this news article:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/one-dead-after-thanksgiving-plan-turns-tragic-1.442854
- A pedestrian highway crossing has never been a request of the community, so
should not be considered a community benefit presented by the developer to
support their building application. This should not be included in the OCP or a
consideration to approve their application.
Waste Treatment Plant / Noise & Light Pollution From Development
- There are no studies showing that the current individual septic systems are causing
any negative environment impact.
- Developers documents listed current septic system as only having ‘potential’ future
negative impact to the local environment.
- Local community are invested in protecting their environment and are excellent
stewards of the lake and local surroundings.
- Septic tanks in the area are needing to be of the highest standard to be used, so
there is already significant review of this system in place.
- Current Area C Residents will not have access to the waste treatment until Phase 3.
- Current Area C Residents will have increased taxes and costs associated with the
new waste system, many for who have just spent thousands of dollars on the
municipal approved septic tanks for their property.
- Outlined costs to residents to be integrated into the system will be approx $10,000
initial cost, and upwards of $700/year to use the system, which is not affordable to
most residents of the area who live on a fixed limited income.
- Proposed new waste treatment will have noise levels of much higher volumes than
currently.
- Developer has noted that the noise levels will be similar to the train, however have
not noted the decibel levels of when the train is not traveling through the area to
compare to.
- When train is not running (the majority of the time) the area is quiet, serene, and
one can enjoy the sounds of nature – this in danger, should the new waste centre
move forward in it’s current proposed location.
- A major point of feedback from the OCP planning survey by residents was the high
value attributed to having a peaceful, quiet are free of noise and light pollution
- The addition of the development will add noise and light pollution, which is a major
concern.
- A waste treatment plant never been a high request of the community, so should not
be considered a community benefit presented by the developer to support their
building application.
Lack of Appropriate Proposed Trail Systems
- A medium point of feedback from the OCP planning survey captured the desire for
trail networks, such as a trail connecting the north and south sides of Lake Errock.
- A much higher point of feedback from the OCP planning survey was the desire to
reduce human impact on park & greenspaces, which the development proposal
directly conflicts in multiple ways.
- The previous OCP outlined the desire for more trail networks and parks, however
the proposed Gravel Pit Development plan has the majority of their trail accounted
for in walkways alongside the highway or residential streets, with train crossings.
These are not considered trail networks and should not be counted in the measuring
of trails for the area.
- A ‘trail network’ crossing Highway 7 has never been a request of the community, so
should not be considered a community benefit presented by the developer to
support their building application and these sidewalks should not be included in the
measurement of trails added to the area. This is a dangerous plan and should not be
included in the OCP or a consideration to approve their application.
Current Limitations of Services
- The rural level of services available to Area C residents are already at capacity and
cannot accommodate a population increase
- This is a rural area with garbage/recycling/compost being the responsibility of
residents to dispose of at the waste transfer station
- The waste transfer station is currently at capacity with bins regularly full, and does
not allow for organic recycling year round as bins are removed due to budget limits
- This is a rural area with no postal service outside of PO boxes
- This is a rural area with extremely limited access to transit service
- This is a rural area with extremely limited access to essentials (groceries, gas, etc)
- This is a rural area with limited schooling available
- This is a rural area with Emil Anderson Group contracted to manage road services
and maintenance, who are incredibly inactive and unresponsive
- During snowfall, Lake Errock does not receive plowing, and in 2024 residents were
supported by the First Nations communities instead to clear road access in the area
- Emil Anderson Group does not do the routine maintenance in the area they are
contracted to do, resulting in environmental impacts like the one cited in this recent
news article:
https://globalnews.ca/video/10261835/culvert-maintenance-blamed-for-lake-errock-flood
Emergency Management
There is no documentation that the Emergency Management Executive Committee (EMEC) has
reviewed the proposal and updated the EMP to reflect the hazards of not only the new
structures on floodplain and unstable land but the emergency plans and services needed to
support an approximate 200% population increase in the immediate area.
- Currently a minimum of 30 minute response time for any emergency service.
- Proposed Fire Hall as part of the latest development plan but there is no indication
that this will this be staffed 24hrs.
PROPOSAL MISALIGNMENT WITH RGS
The following statements are from the Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment – FVRD Electoral
Area Planning Preliminary Referral presented by Robin Beukens.
“Aspects of the proposed development are inconsistent with the RGS. While there is no
specific threshold at this time for developments being too large or dense for the rural electoral
areas, a series of developments of this scale would lead to more growth in these areas than
envisioned in the 2004 RGS and the Draft RGS. These types of developments are generally
intended to be located within the urban growth boundaries of member municipalities to
ensure larger populations have a diversity of transportation choices, are close to many
different amenities, and to provide learning and economic opportunities near by. The rural
character of the electoral areas also has the potential to be impacted by large, dense residential
developments.
The rural character and way of life is why many people live in the electoral areas, and
maintaining this is important for existing residents’ lifestyles; for protecting agricultural
lands, natural resources, and natural areas; and for supporting the rural economy.
o As part of the RGS public engagement process, there was clear concern expressed by
rural electoral area residents about the importance of maintaining the rural way of life. (link)”
Having reviewed the RGS alongside the revised OCP, I do not see how the FVRD Board can
support the approval of this development in this rural location.
Beyond the dissatisfaction with the updated OCP, the proposal also strongly goes against some
of the major goals and drivers of the broader RGS for the FVRD in numerous areas. Many of
these were outlined in the Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment – FVRD Electoral Area
Planning Preliminary Referral as concerns, and they have not be addressed. Below are
statements pulled from the RGS, and how the current proposal does not reflect the vision and
goals for the area, based on the RGS.
Sustainability Planning with RGS – Lack of Transit/Emergency Services
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to future planning, development, and
environmental impact. Based on the goals and direction outlined in the RGS, I do not see how
the FVRD can approve the proposed development plans for the Lake Errock Gravel Pit
Redevelopment given this vision for the area.
The imperative to curb greenhouse gas emissions, reduce our footprint and build
resiliency is another lens through which the we will consider the issues before us.
Support official community plans and zoning bylaws that integrate land uses with
transit service and active transportation routes, and encourage infill, redevelopment,
densification, and mixed-use as a means of creating more compact development patterns and
housing affordability, particularly around downtown cores and neighbourhood centres. – RGS
Focus urban development within established Regional Growth Boundaries, around
existing downtown cores and transit hubs. - RGS
Support development practices and land use policy that minimizes the use of cars and
encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit within and between communities, including
Indigenous communities on-reserves. – RGS
Consider Transportation Demand Management, reducing parking requirements where
appropriate, and other strategies that encourage the development of a multi-modal
transportation system and reduce long-term impact to air quality. – RGS
Environmental Impact of Lack of Transit Systems
There are currently no accessible transit options from Area C to any of the surrounding hubs.
Currently it is a 2.5hr transit commute during working hours only from Lake Errock to Mission
or Abbotsford via transit, or at least a 30 minute drive. There are no transit options during the
evening or weekends. This rural location affects access to emergency services, as the fastest
response time for any fire, police, ambulance is no less than 30 minutes. As of the 2021 census,
the current population of Area C is approximately 340. The proposed development will more
than double that number. There are not transit or emergency services available for this
demand.
Goal: To develop an integrated, safe, and efficient transportation system for people and
goods that promotes transit, walking, and cycling, and minimizes the transportation system’s
impact on air quality. – RGS
Goal: To provide efficient, sustainable, and cost effective services that contribute to
compact and sustainable growth. – RGS
The majority of the region’s highways are experiencing significant increases to traffic
volume. High traffic can lead to reduced safety on roads and highways. - RGS Monitoring
Report
The RGS outlines minimizing the use of cars, but this will not be possible for a development of
this size in a rural area with no services within a 30 minute drive. The target demographic for
this development, based on documents available, is intended for retirees and empty nesters,
which the FVRD needs to consider additional health implications for. A development of this size
and scope would best be suited closer to available services that currently exist.
Sustainability Planning with RGS – Limited Expansion
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to the value of concentrated growth and
maintaining rural areas and communities. The proposed development is not self-sufficient and
too far removed from a major hub to not incur significant municipal infrastructures to be built,
improved or updated to support it. Based on the goals and direction outlined in the RGS, I do
not see how the FVRD can approve the proposed development plans for the Lake Errock Gravel
Pit Redevelopment given this vision for how communities should be planned.
Support development patterns that minimize development costs, life cycle costs, and
risks associated with flood, geotechnical, and environmental constraints. - RGS
Building more compact communities is one of the most effective ways to reduce
infrastructure costs. Compact development minimizes the need for new and expanded systems
and reduces maintenance costs over the long-term. - RGS
Maintain the character of rural communities in electoral areas
a. Concentrate growth within existing rural communities, and encourage compact,
energy efficient development that minimizes infrastructure and development costs, and is
financially self-sufficient.
b. Recognize the regional role of rural areas and communities in attracting and
supporting tourism, providing recreation and natural resources, and encourage regional
cooperation and support to ensure rural areas, often with limited resources, can continue to
provide these services.
c. Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible and minimize conflict where residential
areas, including reserves, border natural resources operations on public, private, and Crown
lands.
d. Limit development in areas with flood, geotechnical, and environmental hazards to
minimize any risk to public safety. – RGS
Ensure that land use, transportation, and other planning decisions at the regional level consider
public health impacts - RGS
Environmental Impact
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to stewarding the land and protecting natural
habitats and environments. The Gravel Pit currently has documented that significant
environmental impact has already happened, with a fish bearing water system currently
compromised, and a history of negatively impacting the lake habitat, yet they are still fully
operational. Continued negative environmental impact is inevitable. The developers are also
using this environmental damage to benefit their own application, with the intention to
increase the scope of the development in the repair of the bank.
“The south bank of Watercourse B has become compromised. A Water Sustainability Act
Section 11 approval application is being prepared to reinforce the unstable section of the bank,
and ensure flows remain within the fish bearing Watercourse B and prevent future blow-outs
through the bank that have resulted in water running onto the ground and not contributing to
the downstream fish habitat. This bank stabilization will potentially allow for an increased
developable area. “ GWED Holdings Ltd.
Based on the goals and direction outlined in the RGS, I do not see how the FVRD can approve
the proposed development plans for the Lake Errock Gravel Pit Redevelopment given this vision
for respecting and stewarding the habitat in which we live.
Encourage compact development that respects environmental constraints and limits
development in ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas. – RGS
Continue to support initiatives that enhance the stewardship of soil, agricultural
waste, water, air, and habitat resources, including agricultural lands. Work with all levels of
governments to protect and restore waterways to support fish populations in the region. -
RGS
Work with member municipalities, Indigenous governments, neighbouring regional
districts, and the Province to identify, protect, and enhance ecologically sensitive areas, natural
assets, and wildlife corridors. – RGS
Protect surface and groundwater and maintain good soil health by supporting the
implementation of best management practices that minimize soil contamination and erosion,
and reduce runoff and leaching into aquifers and surface water. - RGS
Housing
Below are statements from the RGS with regards to accessible housing, and priority of types of
developments the FVRD supports. Housing is a serious concern in the FVRD, and homelessness
in Mission has more than doubled since 2017, according to the FVRD survey from March 2023.
Chilliwack witnessed the largest increase to its unhoused population in the region from 2020 at
35 per cent, followed by the Eastern Fraser Valley at 28 per cent and Abbotsford at 22 per cent
(link). The development proposal by GWED Holdings Ltd. in no way outlines their units are
intended for lower income housing addressing this significant need.
In addition, there is no indication that the development will include affordable housing, seniors
housing, or special needs housing either, all the types of proposals that the FVRD clearly
indicates it would support for new residential development. The target buyer for the proposed
development, as outlined in the GWED Holdings Ltd documents, are intended to be empty
nesters and retirees, both of which would be assumed to have considerable savings or already
property owners to be able to afford this property purchase.
Potential target buyers for Harrison Rise site could include: Retirees, empty-nesters, families
seeking space and value, and vacation homes. Comparable neighborhoods to Lake Errock are
Harrison Highland, Eagle Point and Rivers Reach price points are $800K - $1.1M depending on
lot size - Market Study presented by GWED Holdings Inc
They are not marketing the development to relieve the homelessness concerns in the area or
support lower income, working class local residents who are searching for affordable housing
options in Area C. For this reason, I don’t see how the FVRD Board can support this type of new
residential development in this rural area.
Support proposals for new residential development which provide a component of seniors
housing, affordable housing, special needs housing, and the use of adaptive housing
construction methods. - RGS
Support official community plans and zoning bylaws that integrate land uses with
transit service and active transportation routes, and encourage infill, redevelopment,
densification, and mixed-use as a means of creating more compact development patterns and
housing affordability, particularly around downtown cores and neighbourhood centres. – RGS
CONCLUSION
This document has outlined the numerous factual concerns presented by the proposed
development for the Lake Errock Gravel Pit. What is most alarming is the lack of impact the
community feedback about this area seems to have on the outcomes.
The feedback provided in OCP Survey Response Summary in January 2023 is in no way reflected
in the updated OCP and the community continues to feel like their legitimate concerns about
this development are not being heard. Given the actions the FVRD has done in adhering to the
developers wishes for a fast-tracked approval, including allowing them to fund third party
consultants to do much of the work surrounding this application and allowing them to choose a
faster application approach than they felt was within due diligence for such a project, the
community has completely fair opinions.
Not only have serious environmental and logistical concerns been brought forward, but the
desire to maintain the character of this rural community seems to be overlooked by the desire
to move this application forward quickly, based on the desired timeline of the applicant.
Due diligence is not happening. Third party consultants, paid for by the applicant, are be being
brought on board and are putting together plans and studies instead of the FVRD Planners who
our tax dollars go towards. Based on the proposed plans provided, neither current residents or
future residents will thrive in this new forced environment.
I would implore the FVRD to do better in this process, and to for the Board to decline this
application for land use change and proposed development this area based on the above
reasons.