Panels from the Open House are now online on the City website (about 4MB in PDF, posted the day after the open house). The panels do not add much new information beyond the staff report that went to Council April 23 (see PDF of staff report including cover and actual RCS-ODP). Public comments will be accepted online until May 23. The Public Hearing is set for June 11, 2013. In previous posts, we have expressed concerns about the process and content of the RCS-ODP, soon to become enshrined as legislation governing urban development in Vancouver for decades to come.

Here is a photo showing dots where participants live. All 22 of them, from a city of just over 600,000 people. Very few people knew about this event.

By closing time at 8 pm, only 24 people had registered on the sign-in sheets. From 6:30 pm onward, only a few new arrivals showed up in the Town Hall Room at City Hall. Present in the room were familiar faces in neighbourhood issues, many of whom had heard about the event only through their networks. Only one senior planner was present – Jim Bailey. Director of Planning Brian Jackson and Deputy Jane Pickering were nowhere to be seen.

Some comments on the process…

• The City apparently made no effort to promote this event other than jargonistic advertisements in a local newspaper.
• The previous day, CBC radio had an extensive interview about an Open House for changes on the Adanac Bike Route. Great. But why did CBC and other media completely miss the importance of the Open House on the RCS-ODP? Just asking.
• Both the City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver outright rejected requests from CityHallWatch and MetroVanWatch to provide staff to explain and answer questions about the Regional Context Statement, Official Development Plan, and Regional Growth Strategy.
• CityHallWatch will try to provide further analysis of the materials presented at the Open House.

Local historian Jak King attended the Open House and wrote about it on his blog. Below we copy an excerpt of his report.

The Open House consisted of a dozen or so display boards showing information that has been available for a while, staffed by junior officials who were not in any position to debate points of interest.  It was, quite frankly, a complete waste of time, but this is what passes for public engagement under this Vision Vancouver Council.

DOT ONE: “The MLA, The Mayor And A Sweetheart Deal” (Mark Hasiuk, Contributing Columnist for The Province, in Huffington Post, 13-May-2013)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-hasiuk/bc-liberal-housing-vancouver_b_3267632.html

Selected points:

• On May 15, the day after the provincial election, Vancouver city council, led by Mayor Gregor Robertson and his Vision majority, were expected to approve [and they did so unanimously] the development (355 units of housing, expected completion date of 2015) of four city-owned sites (one on Kingsway, one on East Kent Avenue and two on Southeast Marine Drive — one being  a  riverfront property), as part of the mayor’s grand plan for “affordable housing.” 
• This may be the biggest deal of Robertson’s second term. 
• In August 2012, city hall began accepting bids from developers to build “affordable housing” (which it did not clearly define) at the four sites, with city hall waiving development cost levies, relaxing parking requirements, fast-tracking the permit and zoning process and allowing additional density (i.e., higher buildings, and more condos to sell or apartments to rent).
• The deal is based on recommendations from the city’s Task Force on Housing Affordability co-chaired by Robertson and Olga Ilich, a real estate developer and former BC Liberal MLA.

• The bidding process was highly secretive. But city documents for the May 15 Council meeting disclose that the contract has been awarded to the Community Housing Land Trust Foundation, the charitable arm of the Co-operative Housing Federation of British Columbia (CHFBC), a non-profit co-op.

• The four-site project will cost $76 million, not including the city’s contribution of $22 million in land and cost waivers.
• Thom Armstrong, executive director of the CHFBC, says that during the bidding process, the foundation worked closely with Performance Construction, a company financed by Olga Ilich.

DOT 2: City of Vancouver lease deal with non-profit housing groups draws admiration (Darah Hansen, Vancouver Sun, 15-May-2013)

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/affordability/City+Vancouver+lease+deal+with+profit+housing/8391323/story.html

Excerpt: The city has agreed to lease the land for 99 years at a nominal rate to a group of non-profit partners, led by the Land Trust. Those identified include Vancity, Society Purpose Development Partners Inc., Terra Housing, DYS Architecture, COHO Management Services, Performance Construction and Colliers.

Additional from CityHallWatch: Society Purpose Development Partners Inc. turned up absolutely zero in Google searches as of May 17. Terra Housing principals are Stuart Thomas, Simon Davie, and Jim O’Dea. DYS Architecture principals are Colin Shrubb, Dane Jansen, David Simpson, John Davidson, Knut Boeck, Richard Stout and Norm Chin. COHO Management Services’ main website is “under construction” as of May 17, so no information is publicly available regarding its principals, but there appears to be a connection with Olympic Village, and its Coho Repair Services site is up and running as a “maintenance solution for housing co-ops and non-profit societies.” The Vancity credit union and Colliers commercial real estate firm most people know.

DOT 3: Corporate Profile for Performance Construction.

http://perfcon.net/about/

Note the names of principals: “Performance Construction Ltd. is led and managed by our president Bernie Godler, and supported by principals Olga Ilich, and Milo Ilich…”

DOT 4: Members of Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability. Note name of Co-Chair, Olga Ilich:
http://vancouver.ca/your-government/mayors-task-force-on-housing-affordability.aspx

DOT 5: More on Olga Ilich – “Vision appoints right-wing multimillionaire developer to chair affordability task force” (by Tristan Markle and Sean Antrim, in The Mainlander, 14-Dec-2011)

http://themainlander.com/2011/12/14/vision-appoints-right-wing-multimillionaire-developer-to-chair-affordability-task-force/

Excerpts: Olga Ilich is a firmly entrenched member of the lower-mainland’s real estate oligopoly. Ilich is founder and president of Suncor Development Corporation. Most inappropriately, she was president of the Urban Development Institute (UDI), which is the development industry’s primary lobby organization….Ilich is also a BC Liberal. She was a cabinet minister under Gordon Campbell from 2006-2009.

As we said, nothing to see here folks…move along….move along…

…but for people who believe that business and government should be open and fair, here are some questions to ask.

• Was the process open, transparent and fair?
• Did all potential applicants have a fair opportunity to learn about the bidding process?
• Was favouritism involved in this process?
• Does the industry have a fair playing field  for all players?
• Is our society overall getting the best deal?
• Do a lot of deals happen like this one?
• What checks and balances exist for independent review of Council decisions and their underlying negotiations, so that the public can be assured that those decisions have the highest standards of integrity and comply with the letter and the spirit of the respective codes of conduct?

Today’s post is just for the record at this point in time. CityHallWatch continues tracking mainstream media attention for Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement – Official Development Plan. In the future, this will all take on more significance. We have documented that until just hours ago, not even the City of Vancouver’s official web page dedicated to the RCS mentioned the Open House, though today it is there, apparently “back-dated.” Until today, mainstream media attention to the RCS was at absolute zero. A Google search for “regional context statement” and “Vancouver” turns up posts by MetroVanWatch and CityHallWatch prominently, but limited coverage otherwise. The City of Vancouver is quietly moving to adopt a 30-year Official Development Plan. Is the failure to cover this a media blindspot or a media blackout? Is this phenomenon intentional or due to incompetence? Is it conspiracy or confusion?

Over the past few years, we have observed and documented some oddities in information disclosure and public consultation relating to the Metro Vancouver’s 30-year Regional Growth Strategy. Johnny Carline, the former head of Metro Vancouver used false claims of legislative restrictions and bluffing to block public contact to board members. A supposed computer glitch in the City of Surrey appears to have cheated citizens from having adequate notice before the RGS went to City Council in 2011. What else has gone on unnoticed?

Below is a summary of newspaper and web-based coverage to today, for the key words “regional context statement” and “Vancouver.”

Industry lobby group the Urban Development Institute put up a post on May 6. Just the facts about the Open House, in less than one hundred words with the heading “Learn about Vancouver’s Regional Context Statement and attend an Open House.” http://www.udi.bc.ca/news-central/news/learn-about-vancouvers-regional-context-statement-and-attend-open-house

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia made a short post, with just the facts about the Open House, for its own members on May 10, though eleven words reveal the true importance of the RCS.  Excerpt:  If adopted, it will essentially serve as the city’s development plan.
http://aibcenews.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/vancouver-regional-context-statement/

As a major breakthrough for the mainstream media, the Vancouver Courier made its first-ever mention of the Regional Context Statement on May 15, 2013, the day before the City’s Open House on the topic. This appears to be an obscure post, only online. No analysis. No real indication of its importance. We copy the entire thing below. http://www.vancourier.com/business/METRO+OPEN+HOUSE/8386835/story.html

METRO VAN OPEN HOUSE — VANCOUVER COURIER MAY 15, 2013. More people are coming. That’s what the politicians and the bureaucrats are telling us. So why not weigh in on what you want Vancouver and the rest of Metro Vancouver to look like as the influx continues? Drop by an open house May 16 at city hall from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. to learn more about the Regional Context Statement and how it’s important for Vancouver’s future. Apparently, more than one million people and 600,000 new jobs are expected to come to Metro Vancouver in the next 30 years. All municipalities in Metro Vancouver are required to submit a Regional Context Statement by July 29.

Now, how about efforts by the City of Vancouver to engage the public in consultation about the most important land-use policy it will adopt in a couple decades. Here is a scan of the City’s advertisement in the Vancouver Courier on page A13, on Friday, May 10, 2013. Ask yourself, does this notice give the public adequate information about the importance of the RCS-Official Development Plan?

Now a mysterious observation. Below are screen captures of the City of Vancouver web page dedicated to the Regional Context Statement. Until this morning, May 15, none of the tabs had the slightest mention of the Open House. But suddenly today, mention of the Open House appears, though it is back-dated to April 26. How did that happen? Just asking.

For the record, other than mention buried in proceedings of a daytime Council meeting on April 23, the ONLY public announcement of the May 16 Open House on the entire City of Vancouver website before May 15 was in the city’s calendar section. Does this description give adequate notice of its importance. Note, no mention that the RCS will become the city’s Official Development Plan. How many people see that calendar regularly? Just asking.  

Summary of some points in staff report:

The Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan (November 2010) envisages a range of new housing options (including apartments, rowhouses, stacked townhouses, duplexes and infill houses) within the area centred on Kingsway between Gladstone and Killarney. Plan implementation includes:

• new zones to allow duplexes, rowhouses and stacked townhouses (RT-11 and RM-7 zones);

• a Public Benefits Strategy; and

• adoption of an Apartment Transition Area Rezoning Policy to govern consideration of rezoning applications for 3-4 storey apartment buildings in the area between Kingsway and area covered by the new zones (see Figure 1), attached as Appendix C.

City staff expect that through Norquay Plan policies the neighbourhood’s population will grow from approx. 10,500 (2011 census) to approx. 15,500 over the next 30 years. To achieve Plan directions for a “complete” community, a Public Benefits Strategy has been developed to guide future capital investments in Norquay. It builds on the existing facilities and infrastructure within Norquay Village as well as those located beyond the boundaries of this planning area used by Norquay residents.

A major component of the strategy is to renew existing facilities and infrastructure, including the Collingwood Library, the fire hall that serves Norquay Village and the water/sewer pipes reaching the end of their service life. A second component is to add new facilities and infrastructure to address existing deficiencies and/or anticipated population growth: additional childcare, additional affordable housing, a community facility and associated open space , upgrades to existing parks, provision of a green corridor connecting two parks, and transportation improvements.

The Strategy is intended to act as a guide for the City (including City Council, Park Board and Library Board) in making future decisions on the allocation of funding to public benefits and infrastructure in Norquay over the next 30 years.

RESPONSE TO NORQUAY PUBLIC BENEFITS STRATEGY, by Jeanette Jones, Eye on Norquay

1.  Affordable/Non-Market Housing.  Non-market housing is essential, and Norquay needs to build some.  However, the allocation of funding for this purpose in this proposal is entirely disproportionate.  Non-Market Housing is a city-wide social good, not a benefit for any specific neighbourhood.  Applicants for such housing will not be required to come from Norquay.  By diverting the largest part of CACs  to housing, the City is placing an unfair burden on Norquay and other neighbourhoods undergoing rapid redevelopment.  The other neighbourhood facilities and services that should be receiving a larger share of CACs are being starved of the funds meant to accommodate growth.  Meanwhile, areas of the city that are not facing rapid redevelopment are not paying their fair share of non-market housing costs.

2.  Community Gathering Space.  This and the Renfrew Ravine Linear Park are the amenities prioritized by the Norquay community (see Appendix D).  The current proposal is to relocate existing facilities to the 2400 Motel site when it is redeveloped, and “the project could also include new community space.” (p.15).  The Norquay Plan calls for 15,000 sq. ft. of NEW community space at this site, as well as a 20,000 sq. ft. outdoor plaza.  The Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House and the Collingwood Library obviously need renewal.  But if either or both of these facilities are moved to the 2400 Motel site, space that merely replaces already existing space cannot be included in the specified 15,000 sq. ft.  Only expansion of the facility’s current floor space can be counted as “new community space.” Community residents were assured repeatedly that the 15,000 sq. ft. would be used to house new services, not to relocate existing ones. It is striking that of the five “key priorities” listed on page 7 of the Report, only “community facilities” receives $0 funding to accommodate expected population growth (see p.14-15).

3.  Parks 

(a) Renfrew Ravine Linear Park.   This park has been promised to the community for many years.  It is a vital link between Kingsway and the 29^th Street SkyTrain station,  and between Norquay Park and Slocan Park (the community’s two largest parks).  It may be some time before the properties necessary to complete the park can be assembled.  But the design concept to be developed as part of the Norquay Public Realm Plan (Appendix A.3) should be a modular one, so that parts of the park could be built sooner rather than later.  The City needs to demonstrate to the community that it is serious about delivering on this long-standing promise.

(b) Other Norquay Parks.  Earles Park was not included on the renewal list at the Open House, presumably because development is expected to take longer in that part of Norquay.

$2M will not be enough to renew three parks to a standard “similar to Norquay Park” as has been proposed.   For example, Brock Park, the first in line because it is very close to the redevelopment already taking place along Kingsway, has no existing washrooms.  At least $4M should be budgeted for park renewal. The expected 5000 new Norquay residents will not have traditional back yards, so local parks will need to provide a place to play, to socialize and to enjoy nature.

The Norquay Plan also prioritizes “opportunities to extend General Brock and Slocan Parks to provide an enhanced street presence and park entrance.” (6.2, p.71)  The City needs to consider seriously how to fund property assembly for future use by its citizens.  A recent opportunity to purchase a property immediately adjoining Brock Park (one of four identified for acquisition) was missed because there was no obvious source of funding.   We would not be talking today about a Renfrew Ravine Linear Park if earlier politicians and staff had not had the foresight to begin assembling the necessary land.

The public recognizes the need to reduce the influence of money in politics at every level of government. Politicians and parties have given lip service to election finance reforms at the civic level, but meaningful action has been lacking. This petition gives members of the public an opportunity to demand positive change. The text of the petition is as follows:

“Get Big Money out of Civic Politics!”
Petition for Municipal Election Campaign Finance Reform
We, the undersigned residents and voters of Vancouver [of British Columbia, for province-wide version], petition the Government of British Columbia to help combat actual and potential conflicts of interest in civic governance by acting promptly to:
1. prohibit donations to municipal political parties or candidates from corporations and unions;
2. permit only Canadian citizens or permanent residents to contribute;
3. place appropriate limits on personal donations and require continuous and transparent disclosure of donations above a modest threshold;
4. place appropriate limits on campaign spending; and
5. establish clear and enforceable regulations to prevent funneling of donations through third parties or other circumventions of these reforms.
Online: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bc-civic-campaign-finance-reform

This is a non-partisan petition, expected to grow in Vancouver and province-wide. Endorsements have already been received from three civic electoral organizations. Ned Jacobs, a steering committee member of Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver (NSV), said, “Civic campaign finance reform was a central plank of our initial election effort in 2011. Political funding is a core issue affecting civic decision-making. If this petition is successful in bringing about meaningful reforms we will begin to see decisions at City Hall that are more respectful of our communities, with improved livability and affordability.”

Tim Louis, Internal Co-Chair, Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE), said “The reform of campaign contributions worked well at the federal level. It’s time to apply this at the municipal level.”

Adriane Carr, a City Councillor with the Vancouver Greens, said, “Electoral finance reform to reduce the influence of the development industry and other special interests is long overdue. The Green Party of Vancouver has voluntarily placed strict controls on donations to prevent conflicts of interest, but these need to be enshrined and enforced in law to put all parties and candidates on a level playing field.”

CityHallWatch.ca provides tools for citizens in Vancouver to better understand and engage City Hall.

###

Contact: citizenYVR@gmail.com, Web http://www.cityhallwatch.ca

On May 16 the City of Vancouver will hold one single open house, and on June 11 a Public Hearing on this topic.

Official city information on this topic is here:
http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/regional-context-statement.aspx

Official information on the overarching “Regional Growth Strategy” is here:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/default.aspx

Everything might seem fine to people who look at the surface. But look deeper and you will see serious problems. The public process could be described as a sham, and the implications are much wider and deeper than most people could imagine. We urge people to attend the open house, or see the materials online, but to look deeper and take action. Check back with CityHallWatch for future announcements and analysis.

On the surface, the higher-level objectives seem good and convincing. Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) set forth five inter-connected goals that “provide a sustainability framework to accommodate the additional 1.2-million people and 600,000 jobs that are expected in the region by 2041″:

• Create a compact urban area
• Support a sustainable economy
• Protect the environment and respond to climate change impacts
• Develop complete communities
• Support sustainable transportation choices

Now, the City of Vancouver’s proposed “Regional Context Statement” is essentially a link between our city’s plans and Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS).

Below is an outline of the process, as we see it.

The ground work for “Regional Growth Strategies” was laid as a big development play started by the BC Liberals under Gordon Campbell and Kevin Falcon shortly after they were elected a decade ago. In the early 2000s, public consultation to replace the “Livable Region Strategic Plan” covered some of the higher-level topics. But in the last half of 2010, planners worked feverishly behind closed doors to put the details on the RGS bylaw. There was no media attention at this time. In November 2010 obscure ads in jargon and legalese appeared in local newspapers announcing a public hearing in just four locations in the Metro region. None was held in Vancouver. Turnout was low at the four venues, and public comments were largely ignored anyway. Various groups, including CityHallWatch and MetroVanWatch, attempted to raise awareness and protest the flawed process, but Metro officials and even City of Vancouver Mayor and Councillors blocked all efforts — and rejected requests for better public outreach. The Metro Vancouver Board of Directors adopted the Bylaw text in January 2011, and all municipalities were required to ratify it within sixty days. The City of Coquitlam disputed several critical points, a mediation process was launched, and Coquitlam coalesced, paving the way for the RGS to be adopted officially by Metro Vancouver on July 29, 2011. This gave member municipalities two years to submit a “Regional Context Statement” (though CityHallWatch has confirmed that there are no enforcement provisions, and no penalties for late submission). That is the back story. The City of Vancouver website (see “Details” tab) announces this timeline:

• July 29, 2011 – RGS adopted by the Metro Board
• April 23, 2013 – Council refers to Public Hearing and forwards to Metro Board and Vancouver School Board for comments
• June 11, 2013 – Public Hearing
• After Public Hearing – Council refers to Metro Board for acceptance
• Fall 2013 – Council Adopts the Regional Context Statement Official Development Plan. 

If adopted, the plan will be the guiding policy for all development within the city.

CityHallWatch has covered this story before. Here are some links for further reading.

• http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/regional-context-statement/
• http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/open-house-on-vancouvers-regional-context-statement-odp-may-16/
• http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/the-motion-we-would-like-to-see-in-council-public-consultation-on-regional-context-statement/
• http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/red-alert-still-on-30-year-rcs-odp-on-track-to-be-forced-through/
• http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/red-alert-vancouvers-regional-context-statement-going-to-council-april-2/
• http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/vancouver-racing-toward-developer-fundedend-game-in-july-2013/

Here is an excerpt from an April 22, 2013 media release outlining some concerns.

Media release: Citing flawed public process, CityHallWatch objects to Vancouver racing ahead with “Regional Context Statement” and “Official Development Plan” (Council agenda April 23)

Excerpt:

Below are some critical aspects of the draft Regional Context Statement Official Community Plan:

• The “Metro Core” has been extended to include the entire downtown peninsula (including West End, Coal Harbour, Central Business District, Yaletown, DTES), Strathcona, Fairview, and Mount Pleasant — east to Clark / Knight St., north to the water, south to 16th Avenue, and west to Burrard. What are the full implications of this change? Are they clearly written? How might staff, Council, land owners, developers, speculators, and citizens interpret this today and in the next few decades? Let’s get it out clearly in writing. Vagueness benefits special interests and usually doesn’t benefit the public.
• The Oakridge Town Centre is expanded from what was previously a dot on the map to include parcel by parcel designation on the map.
• The “Thin Streets” concept (to build housing on streets next to existing corner lots) is back, even though the mayor took it off the table after public outrage in October 2012 and restricted it to community plans underway.
• Designation of Cambie Street as a Frequent Transport Development Area (FTDA)
• A proposed future FTDA along the Broadway Corridor that would be extended to include the segment from Boundary to Blanca.
• EcoDensity is listed policy
• Greater influence for TransLink (a politically-appointed body) in land use decisions in Vancouver
• There are increased potential financial implications including regional or TransLink levies such as property taxes, DCLs, CACs and other means to finance senior government responsibilities like transit. This takes away from city resources for community amenities and infrastructure the city must provide for a rising population. This is senior government downloading to the city.
• Rental Housing Official Development Plan (which staff stated actually is the legal name for “Rate of Change” policy — but citizens requested confirmation in writing)
• Mayor’s Task Force on Affordable Housing (a politically appointed body that produced some controversial outputs, some not adequately discussed by the public).
• Interim Rezoning Policy (which in October 2012 resulted in a “trial” allowing spot rezoning on all arterial streets in Vancouver for greater heights, with no mention of density restrictions) and potentially up-zoned areas within 100 meters of neighbourhood shopping areas
• Vancouver’s Transportation 2040 plan is listed policy in RCS. T2040 was changed from a primarily transportation plan to land use plan released only 3 days before Council for approval and no public hearing. One of the last minute additions included using development to fund transit which is the Hong Kong model. No consultation was done on last minute bait and switch.
• Local Centres are identified on a map (page 58) including CityPlan neighbourhood centres. Norquay will be a precedent for these areas. New centres in other areas are also identified prior to local area planning defining the location such as:Local Centres will have greater pressure for high density development.
  • Grandview – East 1 Ave. and Commercial Dr.
  • Kitsilano – Macdonald and Broadway, Arbutus and Broadway, West Fourth Ave. and Arbutus
  • Marpole – W. 70th Ave. and Granville, Cambie and Marine
• City staff contend that there was no need for public consultation in preparation of this draft, claiming that the document is only a compilation of existing city policies. We believe, however, that that it is not simply a compilation of existing policies. Many aspects of this document have not involved prior public consultation, such as increased population and dwelling projections, greater than in the Regional Growth Strategy, that are now proposed to be targeted at specific locations.

• Saturday May 11, 11am – 1pm
  612 Main Street (UBC Learning Exchange)

• Wednesday May 15, 4 – 6pm
  100-221 East Georgia Street (221A Gallery)

Further information on the proposed changes are available on the city’s website here and an online questionnaire can be filled out until May 21st.

The Adanac bikeway is a section of the bike network that connects downtown Vancouver to Burnaby’s bike system. It’s a heavily used bike corridor during peak hours. Within the designated study area a section of the bikeway between Gore Street and Carrall as well as a connection along Quebec street to False Creek will be considered for an upgrade to an ‘AAA’ designation to meet the needs of all cyclists of all ages and abilities.

The existing bikeway certainly leaves plenty of room for improvement. Some of the sections are quite narrow for bi-directional traffic:

The improvements along the Adanac bikeway have been ongoing. There’s a bike pump available for use at Union Street and Hawks Avenue:

Reproduced below is a City of Vancouver poster on the Open Houses:

The first item on the agenda is a 5-storey building on the Toybox store half block site at 3002-3036 West Broadway. The proposal requests a 60.7′ (18.5m) high building with a FSR of 3.37, the site is currently zoned as C-2C. A total of 83 market rental units are requested under the ‘Son-of-STIR’ Rental 100 policy. The ground floor would have commercial uses. Further information on the project can be found on the city’s website. The Open House held last fall was well attended and it’s expected that Kitsilano residents will turn up in good numbers to voice their opinions about this rezoning.

A 43-storey tower is proposed for 1300-13200 Richards Street that is being reviewed as the second item at the Public Hearing. This project submitted by Dialog on behalf of Wall Financial Corporation would have an overall density of 12.32 FSR, contain 258 units, 258 parking spaces and have retail uses at grade. With a total height of 415′ (126.5m) there will be a impact on public views of the North Shore. The height is just below the maximum allowed under the viewcone from QE Park. Current Downtown District zoning allows for maximum height of 300′ and a density of 3.0FSR. The proposed building is 13-17 storeys taller than the existing tall buildings near the site. Further information on this proposal is available on the city’s website. There is another rezoning application on the same block for a 42-storey tower by Onni at 1396 Richards Street with a floor space ratio of 8.6.

The third and final item at the Public Hearing is a rezoning for a 15-storey building at 1107 Seymour Street. A 165′ (50.3m) building would have a FSR of 9.22, and increase from the 5.0 FSR currently allowed. A total of 81 social housing units are proposed on a 9,000 sq ft (836 sqm) site. Further information is available on the planning department rezoning centre website here.

Rezoning signs for 1300-1320 Richards Street (above) at Public Hearing, for 1396 Richards Street next door (below – ongoing rezoning).

1300 block Richards Street:

Official information and the survey form:
www.vancouver.ca/home-property-development/hastings-park-governance-review.aspx

Please also see Friends of Hastings Park for the community perspective:
http://friendsofhastingspark.wordpress.com/

Read on for background information and a description of the City’s conduct. CityHallWatch finds this process to be of great interest, as the same patterns and systems are evident in many “consultation” processes controlled by Vancouver City Hall today: An increasing concentration of power, suppression of the community voice, the use of “drop-in” format open houses, avoidance of public meetings where members of the community can have a public dialogue, and the “black box” style of city planning in which staff control the entire process in a form that is not transparent to the community. An open house on May 2 was a case study in itself. Details are below.

HASTINGS PARK GOVERNANCE ISSUES
Hastings Park is a 160-acre piece of land originally gifted to the Province of British Columbia in a trust in 1889. It was intended to be used as park space for citizens of the city and province to enjoy (see history of by the Hastings Park Conservancy http://www.hastingspark.ca/history-of-the-park/). Much work had been done through the 1980s and 1990s by community groups working with municipal and provincial governments, to build a green space and wildlife habitat on the property. But the vision of a green park became “seriously compromised” when the Liberal government prepared to transfer the land to Vancouver City Council between 2001 and 2004.
(Reference: http://friendsofhastingspark.wordpress.com/about/what-is-the-governance-issue-in-hastings-park/)

In the current process, three options were considered. Vancouver city staff are recommnending the option with Hastings Park and the Pacific National Exhibition being governed by a new board with its nine to eleven members appointed by the City, and Empire Fields managed by the Park Board. The two other options staff rejected are to run the park from a City department and have Empire Fields managed by the Park Board, and have it all governed by Park Board commissioners.

MAY 2, 2013 OPEN HOUSE ON HASTINGS PARK GOVERNANCE

• At an open house on May 2, consultants revealed their recommended option for the future governance of Hastings Park — “the option to basically maintain the status quo, with the PNE Board becoming permanent governors of the park.
• Many community members came out to support of the option preferred by the Friends of Hastings Park: Park Board Governance of Hastings Park. 
• As is typical at open houses organized by the City, public discussion is discouraged or prevented. 
• The consultants would not allow individuals to speak, instructing people to write questions on cards and drop them in a box, to be selected and addressed later by the organizers. 
• Only after strong protests from community members was Linda Shuto, representing FOHP, allowed to read a prepared statement (download PDF), or read the full text copied at bottom.

Reference: http://friendsofhastingspark.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/overview-of-may-2nd-open-house-on-hastings-park-governance/

Media covered the story

http://globalnews.ca/news/533054/plan-for-the-future-of-hastings-park-revealed/

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Citizens+oppose+plan+give+board+control+Hastings+Park/8324148/story.html

Goals of the Friends of Hastings Park:

http://friendsofhastingspark.wordpress.com/about/

1. To stop the further commercialization of Hastings Park.
2. To implement community improvements as a priority in the Master Plan for Hastings Park.
3. To return governance of Hastings Park to the publicly elected Parks Board.
4. To create public access on public land.
5. To support a Master Plan for a “Fair within a Park”.

STATEMENT

COMMUNITY INPUT STATEMENT
Hastings Park Governance Review – Open House May 2, 2013
The governance review process for Hastings Park was neither open nor transparent. It ignored community voices and made economic issues and revenue generation the overriding priority for the park.

• The public waited for more than 2 years for the governance review to begin, but when
it finally materialized, the review was hurried and the agenda inflexible.
• Participants on the Stakeholder Advisory Group were carefully selected. The majority
were advocates of private interests, future revenue generators and supporters of
continued PNE governance of the park.
• The Guiding Principles used in the review were unilaterally established by the City and
do not reflect principles of good governance – transparency, accountability, and
communication – but rather focus on economic issues.
• Stakeholders were not provided with the information necessary to give meaningful
input, and, more importantly, were not given opportunities to consult with their
constituents before providing that input.
• Information describing the proposed options was misleading and flawed, resulting in
skewed data for the review findings. Two initial governance options cited the possible
loss of the PNE’s charitable status and a negative impact on PNE jobs. This biased the
presentation in favour of the PNE option which cited no problems with these issues.
Later, in a complete about-face, staff indicated there were in fact no problems with
these issues in any of the options. Yet all 78 feedback forms from the March 11 Open
House were based on this inaccurate information.
• The presentation of the analysis of public feedback on the 3 options is unsubstantiated
and City staff and consultants refuse to reveal their data to Stakeholders. A meeting of
140 citizens unanimously in favour of a Park Board option was not included as input.
The City and KPMG consultants now state that public input supports PNE governance of
Hastings Park.
City staff and KPMG consultants are proposing a combined Hastings Park/PNE board with a strong commercial focus aimed primarily at revenue generation. This raises serious concerns.
• Public accountability and transparency are severely limited in the current proposal.
• Hastings Park is a public park. It is not only inappropriate but also a dangerous
precedent to consider revenue generation ahead of the public interest in a publicly
owned park. • The public was assured that under the new model the PNE would be “A Fair in a Park”.

City staff now claim that the PNE is no longer a tenant in the park but rather that
Hastings Park is not separate from the PNE.

• What is the future of our public parks if Hastings Park is allowed to be in the hands of
corporations? Who will ever donate land “in Trust” if the City violates that trust?

What does the public demand?
• We refuse to accept that “The Fair is the Park”.
• We demand that the city show leadership in resolving this longstanding issue, rather
than marginalizing the local community and betraying the public interest.
• We have always been willing to work with the City in a real governance review process
that is inclusive and respectful of all interests. We still are. What we will not do is
remain silent in the face of blatant manipulation of processes and of the public.
• We will not go away. We are a community that cares deeply for this park. We will
continue to demand that Hastings Park be returned to the citizens of Vancouver so
that we can honour the original trust agreement, adhere to the Vancouver Charter,
and build a park of which this city can be proud.