Your Worship and Councillors, I am Peter Harvey, President of the Sandy Hook Community Association and you will be hearing more from our association in a minute.

I have three very short examples of why the public is at a loss on the SilverBack proposal and why the provided information is so inadequate. These are ‘tip of the iceberg’ only so to speak and are just given to focus your attention:

First, the latest report mentions that with just a simple light change additional traffic of 300 to 350 vehicles per hour can be handled. The Bunt Traffic report uses projections for the overall district. It uses a District linear growth number of 2.5% yet we know specifically for Sandy Hook Road we are looking at an additional 1775 homes for SilverBack plus over 100 for the recently announced proposals for Gow and East Porpoise. This is a 625% increase on this road so how does 2.5% fit even allowing for some part time use?

Second, Mr. Phillips has thrown around a figure of only 25% as the anticipated full time occupancy of 70% of the homes thereby reducing the impact on Sechelt. For those part time homes that is only 3 months per home per year. He does not clarify whether this is the average over 12 months in which case one might anticipate much higher occupancy for the peak months – dare I say 100%. Further, Mr. Phillips references quarterly ownership in which case he is purporting that such buyers would only use the homes for about 3 weeks per year. – one quarter of 25% percent each. Are there buyers who would fork out over $100,000 plus fees and taxes for a three week privilege?

Third, Mr. Phillips answered council’s inquiry regarding increased business for the downtown core with some enthusiasm. He stated that because the commercial services in SilverBack would be so limited the residents would flock to shop downtown. Yet, the same Bunt report mitigates the traffic flow by stating that only 15% of all traffic might be Sechelt bound and quote “there will likely also be some degree of attraction from people living in Sechelt proper”. Who has it right? Who has the facts?

Thank you for your time and I hope these three examples have given you something to reflect upon prior to your deliberations tonight.