Keep Altamont Beach Park access Public.

Hello Mayor, Council and Residents of West Vancouver:

Following is a high-level summary of the facts around the 30th Street waterfront access and the proposal to sell that access to a private individual. A more comprehensive and fully documented report will follow.

It is vital that the Mayor and Council have a full picture of the situation around this public access, that they are aware of the strength of the group opposing it and that this information is entered into the public record.

A Cherished Path

The path at the foot of 30th Street, which connects Park Lane to the waterfront, provides an active and well used access to the waterfront. The waterfront is public property and access to that public property is a long-standing West Vancouver principle.

It should be clear to Council by now that this path is cherished in this neighbourhood. The path has been used for public access for more than a century.

It is naïve (at best) to pass off this proposed closure with the tone-deaf comment that there are other access points. Those other access points do not have the special character of this path and this piece of waterfront. Access at 31st Street is a little piece of rock with a storm drain outlet, cut off in one direction by rock and the other by a stream. The access to the east consists of a very steep set of 91 stairs.

Regardless of whether or not there are other ways to access the waterfront, it is shocking that Council would take away a century-old amenity for the sake of a momentary expediency.

The Official Community Plan

Trails and public access to the waterfront has been a priority since the founding of this community. That is well documented in the Official Community Plan. There is a clearly stated policy to continue to acquire trails and waterfront access. This proposal directly opposes a century-old policy which is enshrined in the Official Community Plan.

The Way This Matter Was Handled

The manner in which the Mayor and Council handled this matter raises concerns about the objectivity of the Mayor and certain members of Council.

• There was a very short notice period before the July 29 council meeting: A sign advising that the matter would be dealt with at a Council meeting was posted only a week in advance of the meeting at which the matter received first, second and third reading.

• There were letters submitted to Council in support of the proposal that were so completely detached from reality as to beg the question of authenticity and objectivity.

• The report at the Council meeting from Mr. Wong was clearly skewed towards supporting a position that had been decided in advance (eg, contrary to his comment, there is no safety concern; the steps are not dilapidated).

• Councilor Gambioli stating that, by accepting this proposal “access to the waterfront is not impeded”. That is just plain wrong.

• The argumentative and unprofessional response from the Mayor to the residents speaking about this matter at the council meeting leads one to further question his objectivity.

Sale of 3000 Park Lane

The rationale for taking away public access was stated by the Mayor was that it would result in a higher sales price for that lot. 

The lot at 3000 Park Lane is already the second-largest lot on Park Lane. Waterfront lots are highly sought after and that lot would certainly sell at the market price in the fullness of time without tacking on a public amenity. The Mayor stated that there was an offer, but that the price would be higher by taking away the access and including it in the lot. So, taking the Mayor at his word, let’s accept the basic price and keep the public access.

At the Council meeting, there was discussion around floor area ratios, which could be an elegant solution to the situation.

We congratulate Council on being fiscally responsible. However, being fiscally responsible does not justify selling off a highly treasured waterfront access for the sake of expediency in this moment.

The cost in moving the path onto the preserved right-of-way would constitute a tiny amount in relation to the amount that West Vancouver has spent to provide waterfront access in Ambleside.

Proposed Use of Proceeds

The Mayor stated in the July 29 meeting that proceeds from the sale of 3000 Park Lane would be used to purchase a waterfront property in Ambleside. Other than the Mayor’s personal desire to do that deal, there is nothing to support that use of proceeds. That one private lot has no impact whatsoever on the public’s enjoyment of the Ambleside waterfront. That is, the public can walk a few meters either side of that one lot to access the waterfront.

Speeding up the acquisition of that lot does not in any way justify the long-term harm in taking away this access from this community. 

The citizens of West Vancouver would be served far better if 3000 Park Lane was sold as is (with waterfront access retained by the community) and the proceeds used for any number of other high priority items.

Legal Considerations

The following is a high-level interpretation and will soon be formalized with professional legal expertise.

Under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, in order for West Vancouver to sell a property designated as a highway, special procedures are required. Among those procedures is the requirement to provide suitable public notice. Posting a sign a week before the meeting does not seem to be adequate notice. 

A further provision is that if a deal is already in place, the notice must identify the buyer. The Mayor stated that there was an offer and specified that including this access would lead to a higher price. The public has not seen details of that deal. The fact that there may be a personal connection between the buyer and the Mayor makes it all the more troubling.

When there is a conversion from a “dedicated property”, as this is, there are additional provisions, including the need for an appraisal and that the property must be tendered to the public. None of those legal principles have been followed. This is a behind the scenes negotiation with an undisclosed party who may have a personal connection to the Mayor.

Under the Provincial Land Titles Act, s75 specifies that “access must be given by highways 20 m wide to the body of water … at distances not greater than 200 m between centre lines”. Maintaining the 30th Access is necessary to comply with that principle of the LTA.

The spirit of the law is straightforward on both the Community Charter and LTA matters.

We understand from various discussions that legal counsel for West Vancouver may seek exemptions from these basic legal principles. That is, Council may seek legal manipulation to circumvent legal responsibilities in what clearly appears to be an illegal act in selling this waterfront access.

We intend to oppose any efforts to circumvent what are straightforward legal principles.

Implications for the Buyer

By now it must be apparent that this neighbourhood is strongly opposed to taking away our waterfront access and that we will continue to aggressively defend this public amenity. Forcibly taking away a century-old public access will lead to lasting resentment. We intend to continue to fight this, with every possible approach.

Public Perception of This Matter

One individual who is very well acquainted with municipal affairs stated:

“The way this piece of valuable public land is proposed to be disposed of is shocking, unethical, and is out of step with everything previously done in our community. I know of no other sale in which a member of Council did not recuse themselves if they knew a purchaser.”

(Details of that individual will be included in the more comprehensive report.)

It is extremely troubling that this matter is being rammed through in the face of clear opposition and in spite of being in contravention of well-established policies and legal principles.

It is shocking that the Mayor and the Acting Director, Corporate Services appear to be negotiating in an opaque manner. It is especially shocking that the potential buyer may have a personal connection with the Mayor.

In addition to vehemently opposing the removal of this waterfront access, this group and the entire community demand an investigation into the circumstances around this matter.

In view of the publicity around the Mayor over the past couple of years, it is not surprising that the media has taken a keen interest in this matter. It is a compelling story line which will continue to attract media attention: The mayor is spearheading an initiative to take away a beloved waterfront access and sell it to an individual with a personal connection to the Mayor.

This situation reflects poorly on the Mayor, on the Councilors who support him and on West Vancouver.

Next Steps

As this group expands and comes together, there is a growing resolve to protect this century-old public amenity. 

As other people in West Vancouver become aware of this matter, they are lending their support. Our group is growing exponentially.

Our group is now discussing fundraising alternatives and is in the process of securing formal legal representation.

We will ensure that this story continues to generate media attention.

We will do whatever it takes to protect our cherished waterfront access.

And, we are demanding an inquiry into a situation where the Mayor is negotiating the sale of a public amenity to a personal contact, without public tender and in a manner that contravenes various policies and legal principles.

On behalf of the Save 30th Access Group and other citizens of West Vancouver,

Lawrence Roulston
West Vancouver