What We're Saying & To Whom
As the Gateway community awoke to the need for change it also needed to find and centre it's voices. With the formalization under parliamentary rules of a responsible community structure for the Gateway, there arose the need for policies and aspirations born in the community to be articulated back to the community by the executive.
This new page of the blog is a compendium of various correspondence to promote open dialogue between the CGA's elected executive, community residents and elected officials.
November 6, 2012
Parks space acquisition for Lower Capilano through CACs
The matter of adequate park space to address the future expanding population of the Village Centre was a key concern of the Gateway/Lower Capilano community going into the planning process for our area under the 2030 OCP. Below is a recent email to DNV Planning staff that seeks clarity on the acquisition of park space and its apparent disappearance from recent drawings presented at DNV's Open House and Workshop, Oct. 10 - 16.From: Douglas Curran <dougcurran@shaw.ca>
Date: October 17, 2012 5:52:42 PM PDT
To: susan_haid@dnv.org
Cc: Brian Bydwell <Brian_Bydwell@dnv.org>, Tom Lancaster <LancasterT@dnv.org>, Richard Walton <rwalton@dnv.org>, Richard Boulton <boultonr@dnv.org>
Subject: Parks space acquisition for Lower Capilano through CACs
Hi Susan,
From the outset of the OCP planning process and consistently throughout the Conceptual Design phase, our community has supported the process for the Village Centre with its increased density and changes. Central to the these plans has been provision for expanding the available parks space to serve both present residents as well as adequately accommodating the future population of the higher density developments.
The prospect of acquiring this space through purchase of residential lots on Belle Isle, directly adjacent and connected to the Village Centre and community facility was seen and strongly supported by residents as logical and appropriate. It would not be unreasonable to state that this feature, along with the community centre itself, were major "buy-ins" for the community coming on board with the Village Centre proposal. It would also be fair to frame these components of the plan as being akin to a contract in the minds of the majority of residents.
It is worth noting that the two largest 'green spaces' (Klahanie & Norgate) close to this community are in fact virtually off limits to residents, restricted and dedicated as they are to defined sports programs serving Metro and regional sports teams, or as with Klahanie under control and ownership of West Vancouver. They are not parks.
The advantage of acquiring lots along the east side of Belle Isle Place are several:
- connecting the village "heart" directly to the neighbourhoods' residential "heart" of Belle Isle Park
- opening connections to trails and roads to Woodcroft, Klahanie playing fields, and river/mountain trails
- developing suitable walkable routes for growing ranks of seniors and young families resident in new local developments
- capitalizing on the existing Belle Isle park space to improve functionality and unstructured recreational use
- at least one of the two lots deemed suitable has a current sale listing, although the price would require negotiation.
More than a year ago it was suggested to Planning staff that it would be advantageous for DNV Parks to become involved with purchasing Belle Isle lots in advance of any land speculation that was surely to begin as plans solidified for the Village Centre. I do not know whether this suggestion was followed through or not.
Your recent comments at last week's Planning Workshop that the topic of park space would be left until a future round of talks regarding housing options for the single-family homes left residents with less than full confidence to a commitment to adequate additional park space for this community. We recognize that park space is difficult to obtain and once the opportunity is lost is virtually impossible to regain.
The application from Larco for their Capwest site is imminent. The Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) package arising from Larco's and other pending applications, although not fully revealed to us, should be sufficient to accommodate the acquisition of appropriate lands. The CGA executive was told by planning staff that approximately $6 mil was available for parks acquisition.
I believe it would serve the community and process best if we were able to engage with Larco's application with confidence and knowing that the overall design and amenities were formed and proceeding with the full support and best interests of the community fully addressed.
sincerely, for the CGA Executive Board
Doug
October 19, 2012
An open letter to Lower Capilano area residents:
On October 12th, the North Shore News published an error-ridden article on planning for the Lower Capilano Village Centre. At last night's CGA "Bench Session" held at 1829 Capilano Road, a number of residents expressed alarm at total living unit numbers mistakenly assigned solely to Larco's Capwest site, due to the misleading NS News article.
For the record:
- Actual living units for the Larco/Capwest site is estimated at 380 - 400 units, not 1,224. Final number is dependent on ongoing designs, but overall density is restricted to OCP guidelines and can not be more than 2.5 FSR..
- the total number of theoretically possible living units, on all 22 (Yes, 22!) commercial properties falling within the official Village Centre Boundaries would be 1,224. This is based on densities of 1.75 FSR (C9) zoning and 2.5 FSR on those properties that have a change of use and density, ie; Grouse Inn.
- among the 22 properties included in the area plan is the PetroCan station, Denny, Earl's parking lot, Travelodge, North Vancouver Hotel and Kal Tire sites.
- the 1,224 figure includes properties such as an existing mixed use C9 building at 1629 Garden and an existing multi family building at 1644 McGuire. Other sites such as the PetroCan are unlikely to redevelop at least until there is no more gasoline to pump.
- without property consolidation, many of the 22 properties falling within the plan would not be able to achieve these densities, due to other planning and site coverage requirements. As currently configured, a number of the existing Capilano Road properties would not be able to achieve even their present zoning of 1.75 FSR
- All of the above figures reveals both the degree of complexity involved in planning and the need to be accurately informed and actively engaged in plans for your community.
Please come and join other community members for the 2nd part of our
"Bench Session", Saturday October 20, 10 AM to 1 PM
1829 Capilano Road (former Capilano Bakery)
We look forward to seeing you!
"Bench Session", Saturday October 20, 10 AM to 1 PM
1829 Capilano Road (former Capilano Bakery)
We look forward to seeing you!
Subject: Reporting on Lower Capilano plan requires context and accuracy
Date: October 15, 2012 10:39:00 PM PDT
To: mmillerchip@nsnews.com
Cc: jstdenis@nsnews.com
RE: "Lower Capilano 'village' planned" / North shore News Friday Oct. 12
The above article misses a number of significant aspects of the proposed Village Centre and confuses the ownership, unit numbers and geography of the development in a manner that would tend to unbalance the opinion and understanding of a casual reader.
The article fails to mention the significant community amenities will be provided to the neighbourhood through the development of Larco's Capwest site, not to mention the further benefits not yet determined from the Grouse Inn and other properties slated for much needed refurbishment.
A 22,000 sq. ft. community centre, a revitalized and landscaped Fullerton Avenue with safe legal sidewalks (there are none at present), desperately needed seniors rental apartments, a public plaza with seating and meetings spots will revive a neighbourhood made inclusive and accessible via improved trails and a pedestrian-oriented street.
All of these amenity components - for which neither the DNV or its taxpayers have an appetite to pay for directly through increased taxes - are becoming available through the redevelopment of a site that has sat vacant for many years and offered no benefit to the community or enhanced the DNV tax base.
The revitalization of the motel properties would begin to offer tourists the level of accommodation they desire. Presently the owners of the Capilano motel properties watch busload after busload of tourists pass their doors on the way to the Capilano Suspension Bridge and then return to hotels in the downtown core.
The Capwest site, while comprising 4.35 acres, occupies a much smaller footprint than described by your reporter. Also, many of the 1,000 living units cited by the reporter would replace a large percentage of the dated motels rooms that continue to sit at vacancy rates below 60%.
While objections will remain from those who believe that the automobile should be accommodated above all, I wish that Mr. Miller had been available at the planning event to hear the young mother relate to me the decision made by herself and her husband to purchase and settle a few streets east of the proposed Village Centre.
For this young family, the prospect of the Village Centre with its promise of energy, social connection and community centre cemented their decision to purchase here, as a place with a future that meets their future and growing family needs.
sincerely, Doug Curran
September 26, 2012
The North Shore Outlook published an article on reactions to DNV Council's decision to remove DNV Administration from oversight of community associations. Nine FONVCA members submitted a joint letter to the editor contesting statements in the article.To the Editor,
North Shore Outlook
The joint Letter of the Week signed by nine members of FONVCA relies heavily on a position that FONVCA itself carries no mandate or authority under which they could police their own members. That position would seem to indicate that FONVCA had vigorously fought to ensure its members were legitimately elected under what most DNV citizens would recognize as democratic practice and political freedom.
The joint letter denies any implication that FONVCA has inserted itself into politics on behalf of CAs. FONVCA knowingly allows community figures with no valid mandate to chair FONVCA meetings and in some cases submit letters to Council under the name of FONVCA. On another instance, senior FONVCA members attempted to intervene in local planning matters on behalf of a FONVCA member who had not held elections or community meetings, despite repeated demands from community members.
The simple fact remains that FONVCA is unwilling to require their members posses a valid and current mandate as a condition for sitting as a voting member or chairing a meeting. To do so would require only the demand of the most elemental and fundamental aspect of life in a (ostensibly) free society - regular and fair election of one's leaders.
While claiming to have no authority over its members, FONVCA adopted a Code of Conduct that includes the power to expel any member deemed to have exhibited bad faith towards that organization. Telling, for FONVCA's Code of Conduct, the primary responsibility to one's community constituents is obviated, with obligation to FONVCA itself held to the higher requirement.
Although publicly asserting that they have no control over any member's operations, that did not prevent FONVCA from threatening and attempting to expel a dissenting voice pointing out FONVCA's gaps in legitimacy.
Statements in your published article that FONVCA represents the "the shining prototype for associations everywhere" need to be gauged by DNV residents at large, not by an organization that lacks the moral clarity to demand that their members be freely and regularly elected from their respective communities .
FONVCA's mandate does include provision for "improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods". With a little stretch of imagination one could begin to contemplate that a degree of that improvement would include not just the social or physical, but the political environment as well.
sincerely,
Doug Curran
November 13, 2011 -submitted to DNV Council, Oct 17, 2011 in pursuit of an agreed and adhered to community planning contract with DNV Council and other stakeholders.
A Proposal for an Agreed Stakeholder Planning Process
An open process that informs and engages all relevant stakeholders is essential to successful planning outcomes.
DNV staff clearly did an excellent job of engaging the DNV community throughout the OCP adoption process.
Capilano Gateway Association has however, identified a critical need for agreement by Council on an enhanced decision making framework to guide the implementation of the OCP.
Although there was strong support for the adoption of the OCP at the District sponsored community meetings in the Lower Capilano area, there was a significant breakdown when decision making was subverted by those who did not voice their opinions at these meetings or had not participated previously.
Some of these voices came close to stalling or defeating the adoption of the OCP for Lower Capilano, as well as influencing further community discussions on infill housing. This was often done through poorly-informed community residents meeting privately with DNV Councillors outside of the open public process.
We understand that a very comprehensive OCP planning, engagement and implementation process will be in place for 2011/2012.
¨ We are asking Council to support and agree upon an enhanced engagement and decision making process that ensures the dialogue from all DNV/Community planning sessions, together with the OCP and other fact-based planning documents, are those that inform Councillors decision making and subsequent OCP implementation.
¨ We also propose that a communication strategy to ensure that relevant stakeholders are aware of this proposed framework.
¨ We recommend that the stakeholders in this process include:
o DNV Planning staff (including resource and support staff),
o Developers/property owners,
o Resident community members
By agreeing to this proposed, informed framework for decision making, it is our view that many costly and time consuming gaps in the process will be minimized and, will therefore, lead to better planning and positive outcomes for our communities.
Respectfully submitted by:
Elaine Grenon, on behalf of the Capilano Gateway Association Executive
[1] The Capilano Gateway Association (CGA) is a volunteer organization with a five member executive board and over 45 members to date. The CGA is committed to engaging residents in seeking viable, realistic goals focused on the greater well being of the community.
November 9, 2011
An email to a DNV 2011 candidate / Did the OCP negate the position of community associations?
Hi Wendy,
Several of your comments made at last night's Lynn Valley candidates meeting did not seem to be well informed on a number of fronts, particularly with regard to matters of the OCP and community associations.
It would appear that your dealings with the structure and actual operations of community associations is far removed from mine. In my close work in the community over the past two years I have been dismayed at the lack of legitimate community consensus exhibited by associations who profess to speak for their constituency.
Rubrics of "community voice" and similar terms employed by associations are seldom found in actual fact or practice. Many associations have a less than familiar knowledge or acquaintance with democratic principles and practice. The same would appear to be a particular affliction for FONVCA, which allows and gives voice to people who have no elected mandate from their own communities.
Insofar as the OCP may have negated any position of community association, this has accrued to the benefit of the actual residents of the DNV whose participation and feedback were readily and overwhelmingly heard at the OCP hearings.
If community associations maintain that they have a legitimate voice and position to present to Council it is essential that this be demonstrated at the most elementary level. Anything less than this primary exercise of democratic practice is an insult to residents and cynically plays our elected decision makers for fools.
sincerely,
Doug
November 7, 2011
"Honouring the Public Process in the DNV" / Comments before Council
Mayor and Council,
At the October 17th council meeting, a member of our executive was interrupted in her presentation by the Acting Mayor. While Councillor Little may have felt he was interceding to protect the reputation of some district residents, I am worried that in his well-intended urge to protect there may not have been the opportunity for this Council to grasp the full background and context of the presented remarks.
The case of impugning character is one that I am intimately familiar with, having been defamed, in public, and to this Council, by letters put before this Council alleging that I was a paid agent for Larco Investments. I have copies of these letters here, one of which was also copied to the North Shore News by its author.
Letters such as this have no place within legitimate public discourse. These letters should never been entered into the public realm, but should have been rejected forthrightly by Council as defamatory and without foundation. This was not done.
By failing to reject these letters Council unwittingly made itself complicit in this act of character assassination and thus indirectly encouraged more of the same behaviour.
Furthermore, members of this Council subsequently met in private and outside of the agreed upon public OCP process, with a small private group of local residents. This meeting on April 14th, although called and organized by a former community leader, was not declared to the community at large. No offer to attend this meeting was extended to other than a select few. At least one of the two authors of the defamatory letters was present at this meeting as one of the invitees.
It is worth noting that the coordinators of this meeting, self-titling themselves as the “concerned citizen’s group”, did not convene any public meetings within the community during any part of the OCP process. The majority of the “concerned citizens group” themselves failed to attend more than one or two of the public meetings or information sessions over the length of the year-plus long process.
It is also worth noting that none of those impugning my motives or character – the very objections that Councillor Little raised on October 17th – would have dared to make these same statements in public or to my face. It was this Councils’ responsibility to extend the same protection to myself and others at the time of receiving these letters.
The greater issues then – not just for myself, but for the CGA executive and for all residents of the DNV – is one of the subversion of open, transparent and accountable public process. The DNV’s own policies, the OCP Roundtable group, all clearly state the need for a just and fair public process based in fact-based knowledge.
The meeting of private interests groups outside of the public process – especially when the avenues for public input are as open and available as they were throughout the OCP process – has no place in a properly functioning democratic system.
The need for accountability requires that abuses of process not be supported or obliged.
This spring we in the Gateway will be going into a community planning process that will shape and determine many aspects of the future of the DNV and our neighbourhood. We expect Council to not simply agree to a public process, but to honour that process in its widest possible scope.
Thank you.
Douglas Curran
October 29, 2011
"FONVCA positions to DNV Council" / Legitimate Representation? Whose Voice?
- letter to the Federation of North Vancouver Community Associations, copied to DNV Council
On March 20th of this year, FONVCA directed a letter to the Mayor and Council, concerning details of the Draft #2 of the OCP, (attached). This letter and the circumstances surrounding its creation are troubling to us on a number of points.
There have not been - to our knowledge, any attempt to obtain a mandated resolution from our community regarding positions advanced in the letter with respect to proposed density increases or other details in the letter. In actuality the letter’s intent and endorsement by the ‘Chair pro-tem’ stands in stark contrast to a jointly signed 42-name letter from this community submitted to DNV Council.
FONVCA’s name implies an organization with a shared set of goals and agreed upon framework for discussing common concerns – an “association of associations” if you will. The bedrock formation of such an association would, of necessity, be an agreed upon process and democratic participation by its members.
FONVCA itself is largely unknown to the greater segment of the District population. This, plus the fact that it is neither elected nor directly accountable to District residents, means that it must adhere to a very high degree of transparency and accountability to both DNV Council and residents if any of its advanced positions are to be accorded credibility.
Lacking this degree of accountability and credibility, FONVCA could easily fall prey to a perception that it is nothing more than a mechanism to give voice to private or special interests outside of the scrutiny of the DNV public, a “shadow Council” promoting its own unarticulated agenda directly to District politicians.
In fact the March 20th letter was hastily crafted and sent to Council three days after the FONVCA meeting of the 17th. It was sent without a general review by the FONVCA membership. The letter’s use of the term “unanimously”, while qualified by the word “present”, might lead a casual reader to conclude that there had been unanimous support by a least a majority of the FONVCA membership.
While technically meeting a slim definition of the term “unanimously”, the matter was agreed upon at a meeting consisting of only five people. Two of these are part of the executive of an organization that has not held an AGM since January 2010 and do consequently not possess a mandate from their own community as “authorized representatives” “sent to a Federations meeting by a Member Association” (FONVCA procedures).
Given the above, we fail to see how the March 20th letter meets the mark of accountability and responsible process required of an organization that aspires to be the place for “one stop shopping” for District Council.
To our thinking, FONCA’s only responsible course of action with respect to the March 20th letter is to submit a request for its retraction to DNV Council and to express regret for FONVCA’s errors of process and legitimacy.
sincerely,
The CGA Executive Board
cc: DNV Council, Brian Bydwell, Dave Stuart
"Community Associations and their compliance to DNV Criteria for recognized status" / The Need for Parliamentary Training in Leadership and Due Process
- email to DNV Assistant Clerk's office
Thank you for your email reply of July 25th, with regard to reporting procedures of community associations and their AGMs. The situation as revealed in your email indicates that there is a need for a full review of the DNV criteria and the obligations of community associations to their resident constituents.
In May the CGA addressed this issue to DNV Council, particularly with respect to issues of representation by community associations and their actions surrounding the public OCP process. At that time we outlined to Council the need for leadership training for community associations and their executive board members.
The failure of community associations to adhere to the most basic criteria established by the DNV abrogates the rights of the average DNV resident and has led to the subversion of public process. It undermines the decision-making process. Most people in the District would be extremely upset to find out what is being said on their behalf by many community associations.
For example, by failing to call for the election of officers or hold public meetings, the leadership of the LGNA has failed to give many residents a real platform by which to voice their true opinions. In another instance, the 2009 Minutes of the LCCRA AGM clearly states that association does not represent any of the interests of those who do not live in single family dwellings.
How is it possible for a community association to present themselves to DNV Council and the public OCP hearings, through FONVCA and otherwise, as speaking for the community's interests, while having made a deliberate decision to disenfranchise a large and growing component of the community who simply don't follow their particular ideology?
It appears that the above instances demonstrate the need for fundamental reform of the criteria and accountability of community associations by the DNV Administration, coupled with an initiative to educate the community associations so as to provide a grounding in democratic function and parliamentary process of their operations within the community.
Attached for reference, is the 2009 Minutes of the LCCRA....
