West Van Matters - WVM2005-15N+A: Ccl Notes Apr 11th; Agenda 18th; Calendar to 23rd

WVM2005-15N+A:
Ccl Notes Apr 11th; Agenda 18th; Calendar to 23rd
by Carolanne Reynolds, Editor
www.WestVan.org

Herewith: CMNTY CTR UPDATE; INFObit; Televised ccl mtg Apr 18th MAIN ITEMS (Citizens' Assembly); Calendar to Apr 24th; Apr 11th Ccl Mtg Notes (EVELYN DR; Cmty Ctr); Abbreviated Ccl Agenda Apr 18th; Quotation; Heritage Designations: LGB and Butchart Gardens

>>> NEW COMMUNITY CENTRE UPDATE <<<

The rumour mill has been swirling faster and faster and Your Editor has been getting calls and questions about the new central cmnty ctr. The Sports/Recreation Facilities Planning cmte is composed of three councillors and the first presentation to the rest of Council was only a matter of weeks ago followed by various long-term groups worried when told they wd not be accommodated in the new gym. An information flyer out in March had significant differences from the one just in November. The present rec ctr is 47 years old and some residents have been using it for over 30 years. They've been outraged to be told there wd not be a gym they cd continue to play in.

While in conversation with where the buck stops earlier this week, I asked Mayor Wood his views. It was immensely reassuring to hear he anticipates building a facility that will accommodate the cmnty for the next 50 years and Ccl is now endeavouring to determine, within its financial constraints, what shd be included. Furthermore it was encouraging to learn public input is still welcome and further opportunities will be provided in the coming months.

This is the most expensive and possibly the most ambitious project for WV. Mayor Wood and Cclrs Day and Soprovich have expressed their desire to "do it and get it right". I think we can look for good news -- as early as Monday night-- as all Council now becomes involved and opens up the process for public consultation, including residents' ideas and responding to their needs and wishes to enhance the whole of West Vancouver.

The somewhat acrimonious regular Wed am Sports/Rec Fac mtg ended with orders to staff by Chair VD to have all the figures for next Wed's mtg. Amazing that in reporting feedback anyone involved in planning wd think that current users, while aware a new ctr was being built, wd not simply assume either they'd be in improved digs or if larger it wd accommodate them and more -- not that they'd be bounced! Can it be true that the cmte is only now asking for usage figures?

Apr 14's Outlook article caused further confusion/consternation besides the contradicted figure of 100 court sport users. Touched base with the MMgr for clarification and Dave Stuart said that feedback from the public, the information wrt court sports and gymnastics, and the options of one or two gyms have all now been forwarded to Council for their consideration. My hope is that there'll be a press release or some official statement as to the status now as well as a timetable for a process to go forward. My bet is that there will indeed be more openness and public consultation before irrevocable decisions are made.

Anyway, it's a good sign that we're all so passionate about the heart of our cmnty!

+++ INFObit +++ The Scots broke the world record for five-haggis juggling with 17.58 seconds in February; the English smashed this recently with a new world record of 26.01! The Scots are already laying plans to break this record in February 2006. :-)

=== MAIN ITEMS APR 18th === A Supplementa= l Information Package/Agenda May be Issued on Friday

= DELEGATION re Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

= DVP 4674 Clovelly Walk re Bldg Envelope Reduction

= ADOPTION of Controlled Substance Nuisance Bylaw

= DVP for 2925 & 2935 Marine Drive: three lots out of two with variances to be heard May 9

= Rock Breaking by Blasting - 6063 Blink Bonnie Road (215 cu m)

= Noise Bylaw Exemption During Proposed Filming in Whytecliff Park, Apr 22/23

= E-Comm Board of Directors Designate for the 2005/2006 Year (Mayor)

= CORRESPONDENCE - Minutes: CSAC, Sports/Rec Fac Planning (Jan 12, Mar 23 and 30), EAC, HAC; Rec Ctr reno; LMTAC; NSh Housing Ctr; Rec Ctr; Hwy Congestion/Transportation Planning: MFA Wkshops; Air Care; Ambleside Biz Assn; Home and Property Inspection; 96 letters re Rec Ctr!; Treaty Negotiations; Lawn Bowling Club Open House; MFA Spring Debenture; Dog Walkers; Court Sports in new Cmnty Ctr; 2100blk Argyle; Bears; Evelyn Dr; PJ Playground; Noise Awareness; Nat'l Volunteer Wk

=== CALENDAR to APR 24th ===

= TUESDAY, 12th =

~ 5 - 7pm ~ HAC at the Hall: Hodgson House; 2607 Nelson; Arts & Culture Strategy; Hollyburn Lodge

= WEDNESDAY, 13th =

~ 7:30am ~ WV Ch of Commerce hosts the Coho Society AGM at the Hollyburn Country Club

Speaker: Dr John Nightingale of the Vancouver Aquarium; pls call 926 6614 to reserve.

~ 8:30am ~ Sports/Rec Fac Planning Cmte at Hall -- Cmty Ctr! what else?

~ 4pm ~ WV Ch of Commerce: one-hour session with Gene Quan, a member of the Citizens' Assembly, wrt the Electoral Reform referendum question on the May 17th ballot.

~ 5pm ~ PAC in Ccl Chambers: AMBLESIDE TOWN STRATEGY

= THURSDAY, 14th = 7:30pm at the Kay Meek Ctr for the Performing Arts

Together Against Violence Against Women

Expose the truth - Speak out - Create change --- Panel discussion and community forum

Hosted by West Vancouver Secondary School Amnesty Club

All individuals, groups, and organizations are invited to come together and address Amnesty International's three-year focus, Together Against Violence Against Women. This panel discussion is an opportunity for communities to exchange ideas in open dialogue with regard to local and global aspects of violence.

Who: Michelle Dodds, North Shore Women's Centre, will moderate the discussion.

Panelists include:

Amnesty International member, Tricia Edgar, is a long-time fieldworker for Amnesty Canada. In its current Stop Violence Against Women campaign, Amnesty International adds its voice and support to the many local and international organizations working to stop violence against women.

West Vancouver Police Department, Const. Sue Chalmers.

Speaker with a Spiritual Perspective, Barbara Fife, is a Christian Science practitioner. After being sexually assaulted by a boyfriend as a teenager, Barbara struggled with a number of emotional and physical issues. She found strength, support and healing through prayer and now helps others experience the benefit of spirituality.

Joan Olynyk, Event Organizing Committee

Questions? Maryl Stewart 604-922-6174 marstewelaine@hotmail.com

= SATURDAY, 16th =

~ 3 - 5pm ~ Official Opening of Ralph Sultan's Campaign Office at 1447 Bellevue [for WV-East MLA]

~ 9am ~ Help set up Dennis Perry's campaign headquarters at 1517 Bellevue [for WV-West MLA]

= SUNDAY, 17th =

~ 2:30pm ~ Meet geologist/biologist David Cook at Lighthouse Park at the Phyl Munday hut near the entrance to the lighthouse for a presentation and walk focusing on the geology of this fragment of old-growth forest. This is the second in a series of lectures and walks given by David for the Lighthouse Park Preservation Society. For more information visit westvancouver.ca Lighthouse Park Nature Walk Today

~ END of exhibit Three Painters and a Sculptor at the Ferry Bldg Gallery

= MONDAY, 18th = Ccl Mtg televised live; see agenda in this issue [NB: No mtgs Apr 25th and May 2nd]

= TUESDAY, 19th =

~ 3:30pm ~ YAC at Hall (probably madly planning for Youth Ccl May 2nd!)

~ 6 - 8pm ~ Opening Receptions:

* Capilano College Textile Arts Grad Show at Ferry Bldg Gallery, Artists' Talk Apr 23rd [Exhibit to May 8th]

* Capilano College Textile Arts Alumni Exhibit at Silk Purse Arts Centre [Exhibit to May1]

= WEDNESDAY, 20th =

~ 8:30am ~ Sports/Rec Fac Planning Cmte: promised the figures re sports/space in gyms; C3

~ 4 - 8pm ~ AMBLESIDE TOWN CTR CMNTY FORUM at Seniors' Ctr

~ 5:30 - 7pm ~ FAC at Hall, Reports/Updates EAC; Sports/Rec Fac Planning; Cmnty Benefit Review Grp; Water Conservation Grp; Work Plan Cmtes

~ 7 - 9pm ~ Library Bd (Peters Room)

~ 7 - 9pm ~ BOARD OF VARIANCE

Application (995 - 15th St) re a proposed addition with variance 7.67ft. to Front Yard Setback.

Application (2530 Mathers Ave) re a proposed new single family dwelling with 22ft. and 5 inches to Front Yard Setback.

Application (5963 Marine Dr) re a proposed addition with 3.25ft. to Front Yard Setback.

Application (1154 Inglewood Ave) re a proposed addition with 10.58ft. to Front Yard Setback.

Application (1365 - 28th St) re a proposed new single family dwelling with the following variances: a) 11ft. and 8 inches to Front Yard Setback; b) 9ft. to Rear Yard Setback.

= THURSDAY, 21st =

~ 6 - 8pm ~ NS Family Court & Youth Justice Cmte at CNV

= SATURDAY, 23rd =

~ 9am - 2pm ~ Seniors' Centre 2005 Flea Market at the Ice Arena, 786 - 22nd St. Donations for the market are gratefully accepted through Thursday, April 21 between 9am and 4pm.

~ 10:30 - 2pm ~ ADOPT-A-FISH DAY at McDonald Creek in Memorial Park at the corner of Marine Drive and 19th Ave. This is a joint event of the The Coho Society of the North Shore and The WV Streamkeeper Society with the assistance of The Dept of Fisheries and Oceans for elementary school children. Register at the Coho Festival tent at the Library. Fish will then be supplied at Memorial Park across the street, for release in McDonald Creek. Adopt-A-Fish -- Small Fry for the Kids

~ 2pm ~ Capilano College Textile Arts Grad Show at Ferry Bldg Gallery, Artists' Talk

=== CCL MTG NOTES APR 11th ======================

JF Absent

At outset Mayor Wood announced that many had signed up to speak to 5.6 (Evelyn Dr) but suggestion was it wd be received then be defeated, and move on to 5.7 (Ev Dr staff report), so will ask for your comments then.

Added to Agenda: Letters re Water's Edge and Evelyn Drive; Item 5.7 added.

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES -- No items presented.

4. DELEGATIONS

4.1 M. Matheusik, Scouts Canada West Vancouver 3rd Division Cubs, regarding request for fire permit for bonfire at Ambleside Beach on April 25, 2005

MM expressed appreciation and introduced Brian Foxall and Andre Mateusik, two cubs, who gave presentation:

cleanup event; spread out to various parts of the park

at end of evening wd like to gather driftwood and light a fire

roast marshmallows and sing songs around the bonfire

[applause]

Mayor: why a Monday when we can't be there?

[laughter]

RD: wd you consider Dundarave? -- that's where we have a bigger problem with logs coming onto the beach, drift wood

am serious; and not a Monday so we can come along....

delegation received and approved

7:14

5. REPORTS

5.1 Fire & Rescue Reciprocal Aid - North Shore (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)

recommendations to revise the reciprocal arrangement

in line with Mutual Aid agreement

7:18

5.2 Proposed Noise Control Bylaw No. 4404, 2005 Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. Noise Control Bylaw No. 4404, 2005 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

2. Council endorse the Administrative Municipal Policy No. 02?10?278 for Private Special Events Exemption From the Noise Bylaw.

RB, D/AdminServices: present one outdated

this has been cleaned up and updated

clarified part dealing with exemptions wch has been removed and replaced with procedures

VD: I read the report and p 14, second line of last paragraph, section allows special exemption for special events and filming

years ago remember filming in Lower Caulfeild, light shining in; not able to sleep

not just noise

RB: staff are looking at our filming policy and will be coming back, tightening up, lighting and size of activities, etc

current policy if noise exceeds have to come back for Ccl approval

VD: most troublesome is this 'administrative policy', presume I'm showing my age [reads part re request, 80%]; written description, purpose of event, etc; surveyed area pre-approved by District; when? none is tied as to when to do this. Can understand what you're trying to get to

RD: admin policy sets out policy, 100m or a distance pre-approved

application 30 days in advance, boundary area

MMgr: you have to read 2.1, then it reads better, a, b, c, d.

VD: I appreciate that

however I'll read it out for everybody

[does so]

doesn't say you have to get everybody on side

appears under 2.1 just have to put applic in then M may not enforce the provisions

doesn't seem to have justification

MMgr: in essence saying for special events you have to apply and then we won't enforce the bylaws providing you do certain things, appreciate language complex

VD: but it doesn't say provided that you do all this

doesn't say if you don't provide it you don't get it

MMgr: "provided that"

VD: maybe my English isn't good enough--

Sop: when event goes over 11 o'clock; participants wd come to Ccl for ratification

RB: up till now

Sop: new policy cease, instead of coming to Ccl it's option of staff?

RB: option wd still remain to bring up any extraordinary

Sop: but not come to Ccl day-to-day, done by staff, not Ccl any more?

then policy wrt filming, wd not come back

RB: currently noise provisions, exemptions come back to Ccl

staff are looking at different policies

no recommendations have been made yet

Sop: [reads about this]

recommendation of solicitor is to set out a policy

doesn't say ccl decision not in future

confused why change and why solicitor recommends change

we're the ones who get it in the ear when things go bad

I wdn't want to see that policy change

RB: no suggested change wrt filming, but wrt noise

solicitors say present policy doesn't meet Cmnty Charter

policy gets around that

Sop: working on developing a bylaw re filming

once adopted, meanwhile filming will still come before Ccl

when policy adopted, does that mean it will be done by staff?

RB: that will be determined by Ccl

Sop: staff will be controlling noise bylaw issues forevermore?

RB: no

G-J: page 6.1.2 p 22.....how efficacious?

can't mow, use weedwhacker before 11 or after 4 on a Sunday

intend to enforce it? bylaw?

do people complain or not?

RB: been a few and have been enforced

G-J: in all fairness must make it known

other Ms have banned leafblowers, weedwhackers, etc

don't think ppl know that

think we can improve it

RD: same part, p22, section C that G-J mentions, seems d and e shd be subsets of c

leafblowers, etc as well

rules useful b/c bylaw officers operate by complaint

problem is that these Sunday rules are too long

most people can do our lawns in an hour

some of us live next to large properties where they mow for four hours or longer destroying and can't entertain

seem it shd be 11 - 2, don't need five hours

wd eliminate the real abuses, on Sunday, spending long time large properties where industrial concerns come in

[cited list including chainsaws]

move change to 11:00 to 14:00

Mayor: what is the frequency of complaints? 10, 15?

RB: not many

when complaint, made aware

these are status quo

RD: wd say b/c rules are too lax

MMgr: if discussion just hours, suggest just receipt, not deal with bylaw

D and E are not subsets of C, beyond, refers to power equipment

when Ccl rewording our bylaws that have been worded by our solicitors

prefer to take policy rather than rewrite here

RD: object to that

if we see bylaw we don't like, means we have concerns

My concern I think is widely shared

MMgr: didn't mean not concerns, mean in attempting to rearrange the bylaw

if just a matter of changing, go back and staff can reword and bring back bylaw Ccl is comfortable with

JC: Mgr's suggestion one I was going to make

but wrt Cclr Day's comments, I think that wd be onerous for anyone who goes to church

come home, lunch, change clothes, just one and a half hours

RD: I attend church

but to hear an industrial concern go on for four hours when I get home from church.

I'm suggesting three hours instead of five

Sop: some commercial services on Sunday might demand be confined to certin hours....

nothing more rewarding in twilight of a day, to work in garden all day, clipping and mowing, and in twilight, sit back and have a short liquid one

look at what you've done, it's magical and wonderful thing, part of nbrhd life

if the boss of the house says get the lawn cut, you don't mess about about what time it is, you get it done

[laughter and applause]

shd be a bit of flexibility, go out with family for the day, get home at 4:30

a lot of wives will say there's enough daylight left!

going to rule ourselves into oblivion--

VD: not sure you mean commercial, cranking up for four hours

agree not many hours a day I can get to spend out in the garden

when I do, I spend the whole day

I wdn't support restriction of hours, but I wd restrict commercial operation on a Sunday

agree with Cclr Sop, when my wife asks, I don't disagree, I just go out and do it

RD: I was objecting to commercial operation going on for four or five hours

very nice to take satisfaction in your garden but doesn't mean you have to use chainsaws, or very noisy equipment next to your nbrs

your satisfaction, may destroy the tranquillity of the entire nbrhd

7:38

even then not objecting to pple gardening, just to commercial who can work on six other days

G-J: essentially a status quo bylaw, but nec drawing attention to bylaws re Sunday and holidays

if we cd get it down to 11 to 4 wd be good

RB: construction restricted on Sundays and holidays

RD: I'm talking about commercial gardening operations, they come in with very heavy equipment and work extensively

Mayor: motion on the floor--

VD: MMgr said to refer to lawyers re wording

MMgr: if Ccl pass the motion, staff cd get back re commercial and how working on Sundays

Ccl wd like us to put in simpler English in administrative, cd be deferred, it's second part

that cd be deferred in second part.

[No 1 CARRIED]

Mayor: what about portion 2?

VD: Ask staff to rewrite policy so that Ccl and public can understand it

[to laughter:]

Sop: that's a bit unfair--

JC: that might be difficult--

G-J: maybe it's just us!

Mayor: you might be the only one!

MMgr: suggest motion asking staff look at commercial landscapers and clarifying the administrative policy

[No. 2 CARRIED]

7:41

5.3 Pressure-Treated Wood in Playground Structures

Designated Presenter: Director of Parks and Community Services

RECOMMENDED:

THAT the information report dated March 31, 2005 from the Director of Parks and Community Services re Pressure-Treated Wood in Playground Structures be received for information

KP: Vancouver Coastal Health Authority did a study and found using stringent Fed standard that two of the playgrounds came slightly over the level.[fixed, one sealed] Important to know no longer used.

Sop: re arsenic? seeping through? to drinking water?

KP: where water consumed, we applied to where not; applying even there

level was set re being adjacent to where food grown, water drawn from; applied where not consumed to comply with standards even there

Sop: old ones, dissipated?

KP: replace within our capital budget; over time replacing each of our playgrounds, on a regular basis, prog shows where. Material below playground topped up more frequently, materials that leach in; covered over or diluted

7:45

5.4 Confirmation of Development Permit Drawings - Waters [sic] Edge, 540 Clyde Avenue (formerly Park Royal Hotel site)

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. The revised building plans for Development Permit 03-009, 540 Clyde Avenue attached as Schedule B and as modified by plan elevation drawings Schedule A (A.5.1, dated March 24, 2005) be approved including:

(a) Re-introduction of the glass window walls in four bays on the crescent side of the building;

(b) Removal of the columns to open up the balconies and decrease building mass;

(d) Elimination of the stairs from the terraces to the riparian area with the exception of the northern most terrace and maximization of the natural riparian area by bringing it up to the wall of the terraces on the riverfront edge.

Geri Boyle, Planning Staff: [pointing to plans] re punched windows

partly enclosed balconies

proposed revisions were shown to DAC and they recommended that the punched not be improved nor the columns but did support loggia and terraces

G-J: understand motion to be split, move a

Mayor: no seconder, motion fails

G-J: move b

as liaison to DAC, the cmte stayed true to its comments to applicant in June

less heavy

wd also like to say that Mr Malek at Design Panel said we're here to do as you direct, then architect came back with same (ie didn't)

VD: when staff showed new drawings, I thought oh dear, devpr is trying to approve this poorer looking bldg but that's what we approved

I will reintroduce a, slightly

Mayor [vote: and b and c passed].

VD: increase in terrace area by one foot? included

Mayor: d passed

VD: reintroduce a, with punched windows

PASSED

7:54

5.5 Recreation Tenancy - Agreement with Hollyburn Sailing Club

Designated Presenter: Director of Parks and Community Services

RECOMMENDED:

THAT the draft lease/licence agreement between the District and the Hollyburn Sailing Club be approved.

KP: been to cmtes, been back and forth, first of seven; will work with HSC and with other six groups using M land

Annual review of rent using matrix

RD: pleased to support this motion

VD: friendly amendment to lease

Mr Pike is correct included 5A, rent be tied to cmnty benefit....

tack on

Mayor: page 75

VD: cmnty benefit score remain stable or improved

reflected in rent paid in 12 months

under 4, open to allow cmnty mtgs, etc

ADD: within club facility

JC: p78, 18, re compliance with laws

then it says relating env'tal matters......any such laws

19 states it all over again

KP: p30; a lot added by our solicitors

as Cclr Clark was reading this wasn't sure why env'tal matters.....

go back and consult with them

don't know why that change

Mayor: are you prepared to wait?

JC: sure

Mayor: approve or await Mr Pike's rewording

MMgr: at the very worst is redundant, just leave it

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

8pm

[Cclr G-J withdrew for 5.6 and 5.7]

5.6 Draft Bylaws for the Redevelopment of the Evelyn Drive Planning Area

This item was deferred from the April 04, 2005 Council Meeting.

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED:

THAT the report dated March 31, 2005 from the Manager of Community Planning regarding draft bylaws for the redevelopment of the Evelyn Drive Planning Area be received.

Mayor: Geri Boyle [Planning Staff],

VD: just receiving it; made motion

Sop: point of order, we're rejecting it

Mayor: seconder?

[none]

Sop: that's my point

Mayor: move on to 5.7

8:02

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM ADDED as you can see by date of report::

5.7 Evelyn Drive Planning Area: Alternative Bylaw Approaches

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED:

THAT the report dated April 7, 2005 from the Manager of Community Planning regarding draft bylaws for the redevelopment of the Evelyn Drive Planning Area be received.

Geri Boyle: zoning amendment bylaw and OCP amendment

very little relationship to and not formed by the Ev Dr master plan

we have to amend OCP to do a rezoning

doesn't have depth to it

declare the area a Devt Permit area for form and character; very general

slight modification of the multifamily devt permit we use for apt bldgs

Sop: Ms Boyle, when you look at this approach, isn't there a danger in the fact that, uh, what are you going to be looking at?

from point of view of establishing a bylaw

GB: very little predictability

one of the uses permitted and we don't know wch one

Sop: this is not the normal process, is it

GB: general rule within cmnty, almost ingrained throughout BC when dealing with small-scale projects, there's far more variability with large scale

***** Vivian Vaughan:

PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL @ COUNCIL MEETING, 11th APRIL, 2005

To: The Mayor and Council

From: Vivian Vaughan P. Eng. (4621 Woodburn Place)

Subject: Evelyn Drive Process

Your Worship, Councillors, good evening.

We see the chain of office, worn by our Mayor, as a symbol of the authority and dignity vested in our civic government, to which we owe our respect.

This evening, we would like to ask for reciprocal respect for a different, but equally important, chain. The links go between a democratic election, the oath of office by councillors, the "Local Government Act", the "Official Community Plan" and the Evelyn Drive redevelopment proposal.

Under this set of constraints, the assertion that the developer's study is the special area study, referred to in the OCP, cannot be true. The OCP has to comply with the Local Government Act, which prohibits assistance to an industrial or commercial undertaking.

Only a professional study, fully independent of those who stand to profit, would be in compliance. A developer's study, of his own proposal, cannot be adopted by the council as the OCP study, since this would have the effect of switching the oath of office away from allegiance to the residents, to an individual developer instead.

However well intentioned, we do not think it was appropriate to delegate the selection of a developer, to the committee formed by some Evelyn Drive residents, who wanted to sell their homes. The lowest density at which a multi-family redevelopment would be viable, cannot be discovered without a competitive bidding process.

The process has got off to a false start, partly because density points were not properly identified and valued as a public asset, over which Council has stewardship, on behalf of us all. However distasteful it may be, we have to talk about the cash value of those density points, for the proposed 510 new residences. Last week, the Council discussed relatively small sums of money, to be given as grants to various community service groups; $200 here, $1,000 there. We would now like to hear a discussion of the many millions of dollars' worth of density points, to be donated to the Evelyn Drive landowners. The amount would certainly dwarf the entire annual municipal budget.

Surely, an independent appraisal is needed for the value of this 21 acre site, firstly as it would be with no density change contemplated, and then as it will be if the up-zoning bylaw is enacted. The site could immediately take a quantum leap upwards in value, by an order of magnitude of $100 million, as a best guess. This is a staggering amount, but the value of the fully built site could be $500 million, which is consistent with the developer's estimate of an extra $2 million in annual municipal tax revenue.

Immediately the up-zoning bylaw is enacted, the developer's assets would rise by the value of the density points. If this happens without an adequate "Community Benefit" bylaw already in place, there is nothing to prevent the re-sale of the site to another developer, or other financial interests, in order to realise this amount as a profit.

The sale of a home is normally a private matter, but the transfer of density points is equivalent to the sale of a public asset, so that any premium offered or paid for density points, should be publicly documented. Homeowners, who stand to receive this premium, should be identified as partners in the developer's team, not as members of the public, in giving support at meetings.

[applause]

We are asking the Council, in effect, to declare a false start on this up-zoning process, to reject the current proposal and call everyone back behind the starting line. Everything could be put on hold, until an appropriate public process can be worked out. If not, the legal validity of any subsequent steps could well be called into question, by those whose properties have already lost value due to this project.

Thank you.

[applause]

{I was, of course, overjoyed to hear someone else beating the drum to get cmnty benefits! and in effect referring to "uplift" Ccl and staff are so coy about.....}

***** Michael Evison: Rose Crescent; may comments are short and direct

this debate, IMO, is not about Millennium or a 1.0 FAR, it shd be about following the OCP's own directions to find out what's best for all constituents affected by the Ev Dr area

so-called study can't be done by a party wch has a built-in economic bias

similarly, any and all endorsements are invalid when give by a local nbrhd equally biased

many sectors will make gains from this

The M will benefit considerably; must invest now time and signif resources to protect its interests on behalf of the greater cmnty

so far we've only seen one generic model

options and permutations countless, but we need to look at, and indeed we have to look at them, WAY before we look at any specific FARs

***** Gordon Ward-Hall: 1449 Keith Ave (speaking as an individual, on his own behalf)

general consensus there cd be some sort of multifamily on Ev Dr

but the bylaws are not acceptable

firstly, to remove the wording on low-rise apts and to amend the FAR makes a mockery of the three-year process taken to develop the OCP

unacceptable for the Planning Dept and applicant not to abide by applicable policies in recently adopted OCP

and to propose amendments wch remove some of key policies of the OCP; amends Policy H2 to suit applicant's proposal

now allows for high rise contrary to OCP and higher density -- not acceptable

Secondly, this proposed zoning amendment bylaw not acceptable b/c also does not abide by H2; wch restricts to townhouses and low rise apts and up to 1.0 FAR

the [proposed bylaw] wd allow 11-storey high rise apts as proposed by the applicant and wd not restrict the devt to low rise as stipulated in the present OCP

the proposed bylaw also allows too high a density

the preference of WV residents is for a slow controlled expansion in WV

this wd produce nearly three times as many housing units as forecast by the OCP

if we wish to retain the character of WV, we must ensure we do not overdensify, esp in nbrhds presently sgl fam

to sum up, these proposed bylaws shd be rejected b/c do not honour OCP b/c expression of the wishes of WV residents of kind of cmnty they want to live in

[applause]

***** Keith Pople: I'm speaking as director of Preserve West Vancouver. PWV directors and representatives of two other resident groups met yesterday to discuss Millennium's proposal and items 5.6 and 5.7

it was our unanimous opinion not to approve the amending bylaws proposed in either of the staff reports of March 31 and Apr 7

we consider process Ccl is using inappropriate for several reasons

first, Ccl is progressing to a decision without considering alternative concepts

OCP Policy H2 refers to Ev Dr as a study area, yet we have not really studied the area, to date have simply considered variations of one proposal by one devpr

what about other options, something along Trevor Lautens, 200, 250 units, limited to three storeys

probably cd be accomplished, leaving Ev Dr road in present location and avoiding costly infrastructure

Second Planning's reports March 17/18, set out guidelines; our advisory cmtes also appear to have reservations; these concerns themselves justify rejection of proposed bylaws and rezoning modifications

thirdly, Millennium's latest concept is essentially the same as one reviewed and rejected last year, Nov 30 2004

What wd cause Ccl to reverse its position

admittedly has been under consideration by Planning Dept for two years and feel some obligation to make a favourable recommendation, but I believe first time formally put before public was Oct 20, 2004

Ccl shd not rush to make a decision on this proposal

Predominant feeling of our orgs is some form of redevt in keeping with the bldg form of WV, but not present massive proposal

fourth, in the cmnty survey undertaken last year, the top issues were controlling growth and preserving character of WV

increasing the popn of a small section by 1000 people is unprecedented and flies in the face of what residents are looking for

fifthly, at Mar 21, reason given for processing to public hearing was to provide for public input

when people who have not a vested interest have spoken, a large majority, almost all, disapproval

more wd be repetitive

respectfully suggest ccl do not need further public commentary to gauge cmnty opinion

sixth, both Mar 31 and Apr 7 ccl reports accommodate the redevt parameters basically requested by Millennium

if Ccl approves either of these proposals, Ccl is in effect acknowledging the proposed project is worthy of approval

I predict if it goes to Public Hearing stage, it will go to construction

I say this b/c I cannot recollect in the last three years, this Ccl ever rejecting a devt that has reached the Public Hearing stage of review

In conclusion, some moderate devt wd be beneficial 200, not 500 accommodating 1000 to 1500 ppl

Planning and the advisory cmtes have provided sufficient reasons for rejection of this devt for a second time

thirdly, Ccl shd initiate an independent study wch examines lower density alternatives

fourth, our recent cmnty survey indicates the top issues facing WV are controlling growth and maintaining District's character

this project does not satisfy these requirements

[applause]

***** Jerry Heddiinger [sp?]: 1042 Clyde; I have attended a number of mtgs and seen different proposals from the dvpr, obvious to me dvpr has completely ignored the comments of the cmnty

others and myself want redevt but not destroy the unique quality of life in the process

residents have asked for lower density

Lower McD has density of about .5

Millennium's still is 1; the devpr's main interest must be to maximize profit

if interested in cmnty, they'd have lowered density b/c we've been saying that loud and clear for months

still trying to stuff too many ppl into an area bounded by a major prov hwy, a major M road, a large and growing shopping centre, and a paved old cow trail, now called Keith Road

when told about a Transition Zone there were to be infills, duplexes, and three-storey townhouses

Millennium is talking about high rises as well

wd like Ccl to stay with the OCP originally adopted

WV Ccl has a mission statement -- unique quality of life, one of main reasons my wife and I moved to WV

if you truly believe, pls ask this devpr or another to reduce, I wd suggest, to something like .5

***** Frank Rutter: I'm Frank Rutter and I own the property at 1018 Keith Rd

I am very concerned about the process that's been going on here.

At the outset may I take the liberty of suggesting that council should not even receive this staff report on Evelyn Drive rezoning. There are two reasons for this:

1. I don't believe this report reflects the intent of council's request to staff and

2. It does not reflect either the letter or the intent of the Official Community Plan.

I believe council's intent as expressed March 21 was to decide itself the zoning density appropriate for Evelyn Drive BEFORE considering ANY development application. This particular report (and the earlier one, too) is based on the development application by Millennium and the recommendations are based on Millennium's wishes. This is approaching the issue backwards.

Second with regard to the OCP. Many people in our community labored long and diligently to produce our OCP. We're proud of it. It was a good process including participation by public, council, and staff in a cooperative way. But this report, I believe, is a complete betrayal of that process and totally ignores the intent and the specific language of the OCP. The OCP includes a housing policy which apparently staff wants to change to suit a particular developer.

The OCP contains recommendations for this site which are ignored. The OCP contains a zoning limitation for Evelyn Drive which would be repudiated.

It is clear from previous public input at meetings and in correspondence that there is major concern about high density for Evelyn Drive as well as concern that the necessary studies have not been satisfactorily made with regard to the guidelines specified in the OCP - especially for traffic.

Indeed the "special study" of the area suggested in the OCP has not been conducted by any public agency - but, I gather, by Millennium [According to staff in the information given with its recommendations for new bylaws,] These bylaws, I believe, totally conform to the desires of this would-be developer.

Policy H2 of the OCP says only that rezoning "could" include a density of "up to" Floor Area Ratio 1 . Doesn't say "of" 1.

Certainly doesn't say 1.2 .

Or 1.4 .

Or 1.89.

Or even 1.9 which is what the staff report recommends at one stage.

Anything over 1 would be in violation of the OCP in my opinion. And the OCP nowhere suggests there can be any fiddling around with the way the density is calculated. Surely density should be calculated the same way for ALL development in the municipality, not cut according to the cloth of each project.

I personally would prefer a density of well below FAR 1, but of course it's up to Ccl to decide. I think residents of the surrounding neighborhood - excluding of course those who personally benefit from selling their property to the would-be developer -think the same way.

I would prefer to see Evelyn Drive developed as low-rise, townhouse, affordable housing, emphasis for senior citizens - all things which the OCP specifically sees as desirable for our community. Indeed the notion that 175 ft elevation is not highrise is ridiculous.

I do not like the idea of a dense potentially high rise traffic problem at the gateway to our town. Please, council, take your time before you commit all of us to a future that might spoil an area, and follow a process that is both correct and fair, and above all respect the OCP. Do not degrade it . Ask staff to try again.

[applause]

***** Audrey Hutchinson: 753 Keith Rd, lived there for 39 years

I'm not against to devt nor do I feel I have a divinely mandated right to a view

ah, but I do have a right to protest the erosion of the quality of life for wch we chose to live in WV

certainly, our nbrhd less populated than many other areas; that's one of the reasons we chose to live here

we like being able to walk beside quiet streams through beautiful natural vegetation, go down to ocean, or hike in the mtns. I for one don't feel any need for neatly manicured little paths that go through pseudo European archways that go through bldgs and more bldgs

[applause and laughter]

from the beginning has been an amazing degree of duplicity in this devpr's presentation

the idea of housing for seniors and young families was stressed, but the plan presented featured apt blocks wch are not sr or family friendly

this project is designed to attract young biz and professional ppl, whose lives are better suited to apt dwelling

1000 all struggling to get out onto Taylor Way -- a designated evacuation route

and a part of the route to Whistler for 2010

the dvpr keeps shuffling the same bldgs around on his plan like some kind of bizarre shell game in an attempt to persuade that changes have really been made; while density keeps going up

what we shd like to hear from Ccl is a resounding no to the level of density

Otherwise they cd be the ppl who've taken part in paving paradise and put in a parking lot

[applause]

* David Stephenson: been asked to speak on behalf of Ringo Chen who cannot be here tonight [reading]:

[listed writing letter from list of properties who have not sold, on south side]

***** Ringo Chen, 760 Keith Road, West Vancouver, B.C. V7T 1M1

April 10th, 2005

Mr. Mayor and Members of Council:

My name is Ringo Chen. My family and I live at 760 Keith Road and I have also been authorized and instructed to write this letter on behalf of the owners of 770, 790, 810, 820, and 830 Keith Road. We are the owners who did not sell our properties to the Developer in the area commonly known as the Keith Road and Evelyn Drive neighbourhood.

We all live on the South side of Keith Road and up to now nobody seems to care about us. We have been ignored. Before the rezoning application, we enjoyed our lives, privacy, and the views. Yet we could suddenly be deprived of what we have worked so hard to obtain. We want to ask why the Developer has the right to ruin our lives and views just because of their self interest. In the Draft Bylaw, Schedule C- Evelyn Drive Development Permit Guidelines, Guidelines BF-B12, it says "Minimize obstruction of views from existing residential development North of the Evelyn Drive Planning Area". I have no idea who wrote this but I want to ask this person " How about us? Did you consider us, the six families on the South side of Keith Road? Since you know that the views are so important to the existing residents why did you not pay attention to us who have some of the best views on the Keith Road. Please imagine if this happened to your home, how would you feel? Is it fair? There are six families here, why do we have to suffer, why do we have to be sacrificed? We bought the properties and built some new houses based on the bylaws of the City. No one told us there would be hi-rise buildings or even so called four-storey town homes just in front of us to thoroughly block our views. Mr. Mayor and Councillors, we obeyed and followed the bylaws to build these homes, please do not punish us.

In the Council Meeting of March 21st, 2005, the Developer claimed that it is not economically viable at a lower FAR. If that is the truth, we would like to ask the Developer, could they now buy the properties at the same prices as two years ago? We all know that for the past two years the real estate market has changed greatly. Two years ago, you could find $600,000 houses in this area easily but now you have to pay 700 or even 800 thousand plus to buy the same house. We believe the Developer has made huge profits on the price differential of these properties. Referring to the Developer Millennium's "Water's Edge Project" on Clyde Avenue, in the flyer, they have priced the apartment units from 550 thousand to 3.5 million dollars. Considering the location and the views, the Evelyn Project is much better than the Water's Edge Project. We believe there must be some room to reduce the FAR and still make a good profit.

Regarding the problem of "what FAR is reasonable and acceptable?" I suggest consider the average price change in the real estate market in this area for the past two years and also consider the inflation rate of the building materials and calculate the percentage that the FAR should be reduced to. As a company, the pursuit of profit is expected but it has to be reasonable and not based on other people's loss and pain. Personally, I don't believe the Developer will give up the rezoning application because the profit margins are too great. After the City and Council set up the rules of the game, even if this Developer does give up, I believe, there will be other Developers who are interested in this project. Millennium is not the only Developer in Canada.

We understand that some of our neighbours want or are willing to sell their houses to redevelop their land. So if the Council wants to pass the rezoning application, please do limit the height and quantity of the houses.

We are here to talk about the unfairness. The Developer kept changing their Master Plan and never considered us or asked us "Will this cause you any inconvenience or not?" The Developer plans their own roads and never considers that some of us will have to make big detours to get home if they change the existing lane North of Evelyn Drive. They just do whatever they want! Members of Council, please don't give us up. Our interests and rights should also be protected by you.

Thank you,

Ringo Chen

[applause]

****** David Stephenson continuing: So now this is me.

Mayor Wood, Councillors and fellow residents,

My name is David Stephenson. My family and I have lived on the South side of Sentinel Hill at 836 Esquimalt Avenue for twenty-four wonderful years.

I have some major concerns as to why we are considering a zoning By law change.

Why have we have spent three or more years going through the OCP process with full community involvement only to want to amend it in less than a year of its being tabled?

I hardly think that the slope of this hill has changed in the meantime so why all this confusion? Certainly the traffic in the immediate neighbourhood has increased substantially and so have the land values but then the ultimate sales prices of units will also be priced at what the market can bear.

Where is that Evelyn Drive study that the OCP speaks to? Certainly I do not consider a developer's proposal a study. A study to me implies an independent, impartial expert assessment and I do not believe that has been done.

Certainly let us not fool ourselves that we are building social or affordable housing as this cannot be in West Vancouver where our land prices are sky high and construction costs are escalating by the day. Yet to suggest new construction in this area will create affordable housing is a fallacy. In fact this area was once one of the most affordable areas within West Vancouver. A recently released community survey was presented at a Council meeting that I attended and the two primary concerns of the citizens of this community was around maintaining the quality of life in the community and attempting to address the traffic nightmares.

Certainly the area can well do with a zoning change but I do not agree with a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0, 1.2, or heaven forbid 1.9, as has been suggested for the area. Why not rezone the area duplex with consideration for town houses and let the natural redevelopment process take its course? Do we really have to 'nuke' the area and then live with the consequences of a construction nightmare for 3, 5 or even 8 years? Do we really want to have 145 to 175 foot concrete high rise apartment towers as the entrance to West Vancouver? Will changing the zoning of what is a residential neighbourhood into building high rise towers not be the tip of the iceberg? Will my neighbours and myself push for rezoning above Keith so we recover our views by building more high rises? Where will it stop? At the border of Altamont?

I suggest wise counsel prevail this evening and you make a decision which we can all live with.

Thank you.

836 Esquimalt Avenue, West Vancouver, B.C. V7T 1J8 Monday April 11th, 2005

****** Kimberly Verdicchio: I'm the secretary of South Sentinel Residents Assn; 885 Keith Rd

our motto is to protect and preserve the character of our cmnty

OCP re Ev Dr says consider rezoning as a special study area

we do not think the dvpr shd do the special study and as far as aware not one done by this municipality

residents now residing asking for the rezoning along with devpr; the higher the density, the higher they receive

we're not NIMBYs, and like most people we love enhancements, esp WV

high density not an enhancement, esp when it doesn't tie in with the rest of the slope of Sentinel Hill

creates more traffic, area already congested

ludicrous to have high density at such a bottleneck as TWay and M Dr

all of WV shd be concerned b/c this is our Municipality

Sentinel Hill is seen in the forefront when approaching WV and we want to remain looking residential, not like approaching the West End

we do not want to see alternative bylaws and high density come into Sentinel Hill

most of all, cmnty upset about this

We want Mayor and Ccl to work within the OCP, up to FAR 1, not outside it, 1.2 or 1.9 or whatever dvpr wants

FAR 1 is too much

we like to see you recommend

1 - your own special study

2 - low density for Ev Dr, below FAR 1

Ask Mayor and Ccl to respect the wishes and values of most of WV residents who say no to any draft alternative or amending bylaws and changes to this area, keep within OCP and below 1.0 b/c happiness is home first and amenities are second

thank you

[applause]

***** Elaine Fonseca: Last summer - 2004. the Municipality of West Vancouver commissioned a "Public Opinion Survey"- What do you want for your community to look like? The message sent back was loud and clear - retain the character of West Vancouver. The philosophy of this community for many many years, from its taxpayers/residents has been controlled density, retain the character of West Vancouver.

The proposed Ambleside/Marine Drive redevelopment will add more residential units to this cmnty. The planning of this devt with a mix of commercial/residential and low-density will be a plus for West Vancouver and is what the Ambleside area needs. The Clyde Avenue development is already adding more residential units to the community. The Park Royal Towers and the twin towers at Marine & Taylor Way are already residential units. We have gridlock and traffic congestion at this intersection most of the time.

The "gateway " to West Vancouver and the reshaping of this area with more high density will start to resemble another "Manhattan".

I am not opposed to redevelopment on Evelyn Drive as long as it is low density and low impact, and it fits in with the existing neighbourhood.

and I thank you for this presentation.

Elaine J. Fonseca, 1126 Keith Road, West Vancouver, BC V7T 1M8

[applause]

***** Marion Crowhurst: have lived at 757 Ev Dr for last 24 years

according to some who've spoken I shd be disqualified b/c I have personal gain and benefit from that devt and I don't think I do particularly

have particular point of view b/c in 24 years of living at that address, ev two, three, four years, there's been a proposal by some dvpr to devp the area b/c it is an area particularly appropriate to devt, and all I have consistently and publicly opposed b/c I like may area, my view, and do not want to move

although my view, this time I have decided to sign

received fair price, not a great price

more than than, have recognized devt inevitable

more than that have recognized suitable for devt, so many nbrs strong support, I was not; seemed support from M, b/c price right, so I signed

my interest to move was enhanced by certain facts about the area

this is a very extensive area, lots on Ev Dr (maybe same on Keith), apart from two lots, all are far above the av size of lots in WV -- some huge

who lives on Ev Dr?

widows like me and retired couples, and some other ppl

this large area, close to Pk Royal, close to downtown Vanc, close to transport is occupied by a few ppl

Mbrs of Ccl know very well that townplanners tell us in these times of difficulties in our cities that it's important for devt to be close to shopping and transportation

we're talking about Ev Dr

has been talk of problems of traffic; no sentient person living in the Lower Mainland area is not aware of traffic difficulties

true everywhere, month by month gets worse; certainly true everywhere in WV

let's be logical and clear and recognize that any unit, house, condo, townhouse, built anywhere in DWV, will add a car or cars to that vexed intersection at MDr and Taylor Way when ppl want to go downtown -- doesn't matter whether it's a house in Caulfeild, Brit Props, or Ev Dr

I never take my car downtown (unless going through to UBC or airport); I walk down to MDr and take a bus: cheaper, more convenient, and usually takes less time

understand there'll be a walkway from middle of devt across to Park Royal parking on top so easier to walk (and I won't be one of them) and go down the escalator to bus stop

so reasonable to think, unit by unit, the devt on Ev Dr will make less traffic feeding into the intersection at TW and MDr

[laughter]

I'm disqualified from speaking, it's clear

Mayor: of course you're not

MC: unit for unit will make for less traffic than units in Caulfeild and other places

I have spoken to this ccl on previous devts and opposed devts

I certainly support rights of residents to protect their env and place; wd do it, and have done it

when we talk about destroying quality of life; one of the things that makes me think Ev Dr is suitable is that this is an area somewhat separated from other areas in WV

we hear of high rises, don't know how many of you have walked up Sentinel Hill as I have

a unit built at the bottom can be several storeys -- seven , eight, nine? -- without rising above the level of a house on Ev Dr

I don't want to move, I've agreed to sell, I think this devt makes a lot of sense.

[applause]

***** Tannis Siserevan [sp?]: 750 Ev Dr; keenly interested in this project b/c intend to live here a long time and plan to raise my family here

interested in cmnty with diversity, one of the things this project brings to the table

believe this project will greatly improve the aesthetic appeal

small biz owner and encouraged by economic impact this project will have on WV

[applause]

***** Erin Deste [sp?]: 770 Ev Dr; I have signed on as well but I do have the right to speak to devt

husband and I have resided for the last 16 and a half years on Ev Dr

unlike many of our nbrs, b/c a lot of props tenanted, we have maintained our home with a sense of pride while enjoying the conveniences this rare location has afforded us

it's obvious as residents of this street that the city of WV is not willing to make the nec improvements this gradually dilapidated area is badly in need of

an open ditch lines the northern lane with no lights to illuminate the hidden curves

broken water mains common, due to springs abundant through sloping area

the village walk often treacherous ever present rivulets after rainfall

many trees, noise buffer in past from shopping centre, were recently cut down without any notification to us from the city

I just wd like to ask: what part the municipal arborist might have had in these proceedings?

the lovely greenbelt we formerly enjoyed has now been mutilated along with our privacy from the shopping ctr

Millennium is proposing putting infrastructure back into this badly neglected area of WV

and return to the M an enhanced cmnty for individuals seeking affordable housing in the prestigious area of WV

cd be a soln for seniors and emptynesters making av to them conveniences Pk Royal has to offer

while being able to access Vancouver, the downtown core, by public transit

To be able to enjoy a park-like environment, leisurely walks, instead of dodging cars, in the absence of sidewalks wd be welcome

I'm a proud grandmother of three and wdn't dare venture out on Keith/Ev as it is now

know density is an issue if units to be affordable and greenbelts plentiful, Millennium wd have to be crazy to concede to the density limitations the general public is asking for

and that's true of any dvpr

traffic concerns are major; no totally satisfactory solution to traffic

the rerouting proposed is possibly as good as it's going to get

fact is TWay and MDr is a bottleneck from NShore to downtown Vancouver

Ev Dr add'l traffic seems inconsequential considering impact ferry traffic, Whistler,...

pls allow Millennium to work their magic in creating a complementary housing plan to complete the Park Royal cmnty or decide once and for all to give Ev Dr the attention it deserves

I know I speak on behalf most of the residents of Evelyn Drive and Keith Rd when I say we wd all like to get on with our lives

consider point of view represented here; negativity has resounded over this project, time you had some positive feedback

benefits of going forward are being sadly overlooked

thank you

[applause]

***** Giorgio Deste [? name inaudible]: 770 Ev Dr

we have a lifetime opportunity

a few minutes ago talked about beautiful arches -- look at all the money you will save. you don't have to go to Italy! don't have to go anywhere else

[some laughter, some clapping, comments.....]

Mayor: please, please, please

GD: perfect opp for WV

opp to collect a lot of tax money

I'd like to know where all does all tax money go?

[from] Marine Dr, Whytecliff Park....

you haven't done anything on our street for 17 years

ditches still there

ppl walk on our streets leave all the mess

I'm tired, I like to sell and get out, and we want to get on with life

Please think about--

[Voices from gallery: then sell!]

like to see project go ahead b/c a bunch of--

so many things going on

[applause]

***** Fulvio Verdicchio: 885 Keith Rd, Pres Sentinel Hill South Slope Residents Assn

wd like to refer to this as the rape of a hillside cmnty

Ev Dr alternative approach

do you want to leave WV this legacy? that's what you've got to ask yourself

Planning Dept taken all their ideas from Millennium

no study been prepared but Millennium says they've prepared one greater than three storeys

want to build roads, going to cost millions, imagine view from LGB, beautiful road -- wow! really be attractive

no concern for existing nbrhd and character

the density is greater than one as envisioned in the OCP

and traffic is going to increase b/c of high density

the OCP that we spent three years working on

Ccl Ferguson and Durman gave a lot of time and effort

Mayor: and Clark

FV: and Clark

talked about bldgs up to three storeys to encourage meritorious

doesn't meet facades and arches, to me new devt, sidewalk improvements, blvd landscaping and lighting streets

OCP also says promote preservation and enhancement of overall streetscape and character, promote complete cmnties, address needs of all residents, and improve quality of life

how can a 510-unit devt on Ev Dr do that?

OCP says not to promote devt large and intrusive roads through any devt/nbrd; why allow this?

increase density? 1.3, 1.9, how ridiculous!

OCP says devt in accordance with a comprehensive plan that respects the natural setting and creates a variety of housing types, NOT apartments 12 and 14 storeys

[says] types and uses appropriate to a sloping site

shdn't be bldg eight apt blocks at bottom of hill

the residents will not stand idly by while this goes on

let's start with the Planning Dept, Mayor and Ccl

Let's be vigilant that devt be tasteful within the OCP criteria and a benefit to all of WV

***** Andrea Flintoft: just to those who have spoken, I don't think anyone has mentioned they don't want any devt on Ev Dr, just that they want sustainable and reasonable devt

[a few claps]

Curious to know about Cmnty Benefits Policy, think it's item 3, understand you're putting together a policy on cmnty benefits

don't know how you can to ahead and approve this without having a policy in place

[applause]

{true, several cclrs have asked for it; think it was G-J last time; been waiting over a year, I think.}

also see $500K for Kay Meek Ctr in this devt

believe read in NSh News $500K for KMC a few weeks ago regardless of this devt, not sure about that

{Yup. That was passed as part of 2005 budget}

[comment from gallery: don't hold your breath]

a couple of other concerns

big one is that if this goes forward, creates a precedent for other areas designated for redevt such as Wetmore, Dept of Fisheries,...

not going into OCP and H2, not looking at high density, I hope

if this devpr can't put forward a reasonable and sustainable devt, at less than 1.0 why not sell the land to one who can?

this are your constituents, I urge you to listen to them and not to receive this motion

thank you

[applause]

***** David Hart: oppose the amendment to this policy H2 and think you guys shd too

if any amendments, shd be looking at no greater than .4

shd be looking at height restrictions such as done to Park Royal [I think he means former hotel site] 57ft

30% dedicated to srs' housing

hope you oppose

684 Esq live within meters, I oppose it

[applause]

***** Doug Elvidge (sp?); bought our home for the view, on a nice quiet street, nothing comparable

so much misinformation, density, OCP, what is it going to be?

Millennium needed 1 FAR or wdn't be viable to proceed

this past week still receiving marketing document saying project had been made and approved with 75% green space. Why not drop to 50% and lower bldgs?

quote also in this pubn: we have completed our presentations of the revised plan to ccl adv cmtes and anticipate a Public Hearing in spring of 2005; pending approval anticipate construction in the fall of 2005 with completion in three years three to five

we're not sure; even latest your document 5.6 states no bldgs taller than 20ft above Keith in a lineal line; bldgs have become taller, nine to 11 storeys, green plantings on roofs; 175 ft latest height

a rental bldg has appeared directly in front of my house, with a green roof, add another eight to ten ft on top of that as well

my home is described at 183 ft elevation

the proposal refers to most views will remain -- not for myself or my immediate nbrs

I moved to this area, my home, for the beautiful view of water, inner harbour, Siwash Rock, and Pt Grey

to clarify, my view wd be obliterated unless the view referred to the skyline, is straight or forward up into the sky [if so] I'd like to point out ev in this world has this view

[laughter]

I'd like to see this as a six-storey height as a maximum

just adopted OCP, one year old, collective vision for WV, how can be need to amend it, specifically to density, height, traffic

JF and OCP defined low rise bldgs as to a max of six storeys, not 7 to 11 storeys

My family is in favour of devt of the Ev Dr area, as long as it's sensitive to the surrounding area, just follow the natural slope of the hill

If devt goes ahead in its current density and ht, it'll be beginning of end of this M, WV as we know it

density of this magnitude wd destroy the fabric of the nbrhd

don't lose sight of vision of OCP

this is prime piece of real estate, there'll always be another devpr and another proposal

at end of day shd benefit everyone in the cmnty, can be a win-win outcome

ultimately you hold future of WV in your hands

we look to you to do the right thing

vote against; pls vote against in its current form

thank you

[applause]

***** Gaysa Holscher [sp??}: feel density too high

like sgl fam homes; won't see that so 200 to 250 units ideal

traffic

510 units proposed, can go to 580 in this flyer, if ev has av two cars, some might have one others three, you're looking at 1000 cars

looking at 65 sgl families 120 cars so increase 880 cars roughly

increased traffic concerns

when I go to Hugo Ray, people jump red light, going both ways

reason bring that up

if you add 880 cars you're going to have percentage going downtown and have impatient drivers from Eagle Hbr, from Brit Props, trying to find alternative routes -- they'll go down 11th, 12th, 15th......etc trying to find another way, will go through all nbrhds

four-way stop at 11th and Keith and often people don't stop

re trying to get through quickly; wish I'd taken more notice, someone mentioned a bus along Keith Rd; strongly opposed to any bus stystem, don't want bus traffic along Keith Rd never mind anywhere else

thank you

[applause]

Mayor: Lindsay Smith

***** Patti Young: Lindsay Smith has had to leave early

I live at 925 Keith

concur with a lot of what's been said by Sentinel Hill residents, not against devt but proposals to date; lots of trouble with density and height of bldgs

won't repeat; ppl have spoken

want to talk about 5.6 and 5.7 items on agenda

the bylaw amendment proposed Mar 31 and wd have been spoken to last Monday at Ccl was summarily dismissed tonight; Cclrs Sop and Clark had courage to not second that motion and not receive that report and that's the report most of us had tried to become familiar with for the purposes of this mtg

then we're met with the generic approach to this devt wch is incomprehensible now

ask Cclrs Sop and Clark to have same courage, ask them not to receive this

RD: Ccl in its entirety did not receive this, it was all of us

Mayor: that's correct

[applause]

***** Pat Johnson: 1175 Keith Rd

came unprepared; came b/c I find the potential traffic just horrendous

can't believe we can consider traffic from Clyde, Ev Drive, Keith, Marine Dr, and with all aboriginal devt planned, where are we going to go?

can't conceive of the problem -- Olympics, general, Whistler, Horseshoe Bay traffic and it's not getting any better

thank you

[applause]

***** Eleanor Thomas: 808 Esquimalt

so many ppl have spoken so eloquently tonight, v little for me to say

a point wrt bylaw

when I started pouring through this papers trying to understand, one thing that stood out to me

stood out, paper Mar 18 Option 4.3

staff has difficulty recommending option one: proceed to bylaw

b/c we are not certain cmnty objectives can be achieved by the project detailed by the proponent

Option Two, additional studies wd be considered if dvpr said time were not--

Mayor: been withdrawn

ET: my point is, why did we get this far as Mar 31st mtg when staff were against proposing didn't even propose a bylaw

no objection to redevt to Ev Dr, wd welcome it if retained my view if not obliterated -- probably even inc value but opposed to density -- no more than .5, 200 to 250 units, townhouses, sloped down the hill, no low or midrises

today standing at Park Royal looking up, see trees, dotted houses, beautiful

shudder, with 11 apt bldgs as proposed by Millennium with 1.9 FAR

duty of Ccl to get cmnty input, don't think Public Hearing shd come after the fact

great majority have no idea what's proposed for Ev Dr

daily, people I see, I bring it up, don't know what I'm talking about

when I asked this Ccl two weeks ago if prepared to send it out, was told you only have to notify ppl within 100 m

I received this two weeks ago Ambleside Town Ctr

think something like this shd go out before any more plans for Ev Dr

thank you

[applause]

***** Joe Delvicario [sp?}: 890 - Eighth St

I moved to Sentinel Hill area to raise my family

a little vignette re origins of home we live in; we built that home and I was required to follow all the requirements at the time however, initial proposal from architect, we were six inches over the height -- I went to Bd of Variance, pleaded my case, was turned down, and had to back to replan and rejig to meet the bldg code at that time

as I understand it, the staff has deemed that the proposal put forward by Millennium contravenes the FAR 1.0 however somehow the Ccl has authorized Ms Boyle, staff, to take Millennium's master plan and somehow jig it, change bylaws in such a way so a square peg is going to fit in a round hole

wd submit to Ccl and Mayor that there is an OCP , we shd adhere to it and shd not deviate

I was made to adhere, exact inches, I wd suggest Millennium or anyone else coming into WV shd adhere

good reasons why plan [OCP[ came into being; see no reason why I shd be paying, and everyone else, staff members' salaries to come up with a proposal that fits into Millennium's proposal

to me seems absolutely backwards

[applause]

wd urge Mayor and Ccl mbrs not accept this proposal tonight

[applause]

***** Susan Strong [sp?]: Lawson, and also speaking for my parents 850 Esq who have lived there for 40 yrs

original OCP has been clear from beginning, study area to look at Ev Dr area, up to 1.0

means site designs shd hv been presented, based on various plans =2E5, .75, .9, to study, compare the effects, benefits, perhaps impact

comparison

this has not been done

Millennium as put forth 1.0, 1.35 even higher

in each they have not changed the density, simply repackaged

with no indep comparisons, how can staff or ccl make a decision

Ev Dr is in need and ready for redevt, but not at an FSR of 1.0

if actually a study you wd see you eventually get to a density level where density pretty good for the dvpr, pretty good for tax base and cmnty

and if we up it a bit, wow, great for devpr, great for tax base, but at what cost to the nbrhd/cmnty

if you're at a density where unsafe for seniors to walk dogs, to schools, four within walking distance

where people sit and wait in traffic, not just at TWay and MDr, but throughout Ambleside

not acceptable density for this area

you've heard numerous people, and by mail, opposed

if Millennium can't find it feasible, simply lower units/charge more per unit or let's invite other devprs to look at this site AFTER we've established the FSR based on an independent study

[applause]

Furthermore, re ht, original OCP says not higher than six storeys, and here we are again with

Millennium asking for 11-storey bldgs and bylaws considering this; reach 176 ft, that's the ht of a regular 17-storey bldg. ten ft per floor

let's face it, there's a reason why the view to the north on the cover of Millennium's master plan is a photo taken from highest pt on LGB -- so that you can see Sentinel Hill, over the bldgs!

[laughter]

how will it look from MDr?

again there's a reason why view to the south photo taken from Aubineau, highest point of Sentinel Hill -- so one can see the water and the bridge

with Millennium's 176ft, 150ft, 130ft tall bldgs, current residents and nbrs will lose their views completely and the entrance to WV will be nothing but a wall of concrete

look at plans and balloons

I put the blue balloons myself measured out 20 ft outside my parents' house, the highest point on Keith Rd

Keith Rd goes down towards the east and toward the west

find it interesting Millennium's red balloons also to depict 20ft, sit 40 to 50 ft above mine

[laugh titters]

11-storey, 176ft bldgs are unacceptable

Let's start asking what can devprs do for us, for our nbrhd, and for our cmnty, not what we can do for them

respectfully ask you put the citizens' best interests to heart, it's in your hands to continue to make a WV a functional and still beautiful place to live

thank

[applause]

VD: classic case of we are listening to the public

we're not being asked in this motion is to make a decision, just to receive a report from Planning

keep hearing constantly, Ccl make a decision

Well, there's a process in getting to a decision

and that is, a Public Hearing

public comes out and officially tells us what they think

then Ccl can make decision, FAR of .5, .6, or .7 or nothing

somebody, seven guys on this side, have to make a decision

so people living on and near Ev Dr know where we're going, what's going on

the process, at the present moment, we've never had a chance to make a decision or speak our minds as to what we believe we to be doing

problem we've got now

rejected March report b/c sort of based around the Millennium project

OCP talks about multifamily up to 1.0

that's what we shd be discussing, not the Millennium project

didn't accept it last week b/c wasn't that

are we willing to make a decision wrt the OCP that we approved last year

does this report go the right way, do the right things?

a Public Hearing will do just that, tell us

at the end, Ccl will make a decision

whether multifamily or remain sgl fam

cure this problem

then Millennium or some other guy will know what density will be, then get down and pay right price for the land, etc

Sop: point of order, if we're going to discuss, shdn't we make a motion

VD: I'm about to make the motion

[smirk]

that's the problem shd be talking about planning issues here

planning shd be about planning not about who's making money

I wd make the following motion, report dated March

Mayor, correcting him: 5.7

VD: got it all wrong [then read 5.7] be received

Mayor: is there a seconder?

VD: not even a seconder?

Mayor: the motion fails for lack of seconder

[loud applause]

VD, usurping Mayor's role: Well, I wd then ask Ccl when are we going to decide what to do?

[from audience: order a study!]

that's a good point, but I'm just asking

we have to move forward to some decision, whether for or against

I'd like public to know where each mbr of Ccl stands on any devt or no devt.

Mayor: we've had the motion proposed, the motion has failed, we'll move on

RD: any comment as to why we--

Mayor: let's just leave it at that

VD: we didn't have a motion so we don't have a discussion -- let us move on!

{Incredible. Note, VD had a long discussion period on the item. Granted it was with himself, but when it got to motion and it failed, no one else was able to. One might deduct that it had been agreed before hand that 5.6 wd go nowhere -- see Mayor's introductory comments at beginning of mtg -- but this was not quite as predictable. Note also: VD made the motion but JF is away and G-J was not present b/c she withdraws owing to conflict of interest. No seconder means Clark, Day, and Sop not prepared even to receive. Mayor traditionally does not second a motion but in any case what wd be the point -- without a seconder, no chance of passing.

An amazing devt.

As they say, timing is everything!}

MMgr: Ccl has made a decision not to receive this report

staff will have to consider that and at some point in the near future come back in terms of what appropriate steps are to determine, how in fact we can engage the cmnty in a process to determine what is approp for Ev Dr. I believe both the cmnty and prospective dvprs need to have that info

we will by necessity by action or nonaction by Ccl tonight will have to report back to Ccl as to what the possible steps might be

Mayor: those of you who are leaving, pls leave quietly

[many people leaving]

VD: ...information.....procedures....I don't understand

Mayor: I don't either

------------------------------------------------------------------------

9:36

6. REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

Sop: re NSh Transportation Adv Cmte

Mayor Harris Chair, I'm vice chair

certain considerations wd come up from time to time

some of the issues that arose, manpower and safety on the hwy

future what we're seeing

heading up to Sea to Sky.....

whole consortium of

possibly Cclr Durman, can give us information from TransLink

RD: very interesting mtg in Lions Bay -- challenge finding the Municipal Hall

North Shore, see rapid popn growth, encouraged by prov

leads to all kinds of problems, traffic congestion one of them

devt of Howe Sound, Squamish, Porteau Cove

lead to vastly more traffic on hwy

large shopping ctr at mouth of Second Narrows, various other devts

means millions of people coming through all the time with transportation inadequate

face TransLink, pay high taxes but few benefits, based on assessed values

formed this cmte, prepared to take our case to TransLink and prov govt

if govt's going to promote growth, has to do something to help us with traffic

LGB, TWay....

plsd Sop, Mayor Harris

going to ask Squamish people to send a rep as well

VD: attended opening forum on (new) Cmnty Ctr

a lot of people, 300

useful info, people very positive about the facility

positive exchange of views

some issues raised, particularly about fitness and size of fitness space

as Chair, I said I'd look into this issue raised by numerous mbrs of public

ppl for and against music room, atrium, etc

fundamental thing I learnt was issue of fitness

I know Ccl only this evening started a discussion earlier this evening

around cmnty ctr and size of it wch will be followed up in weeks to come

thought it was good

{well, he wd say that, wdn't he. He's Chair of the Select Cmte. He'd be the last one to say hundreds royally upset at being told excluded and at total lack of public consultation until almost shamed into having one. See comments at beginning of this newsletter. Total lack b/c November's info flyer said court sports and when badminton groups found out three or four months later that they wdn't be in the new cmnty ctr, an info flyer came out in March saying indeed they weren't, confirming their fears. There were NO public info meetings in the meantime so on what basis -- certainly cdn't have been as a result of public input -- was it changed??? It appears the Mayor is rather discomfited with the fallout from this non-process and we can hope Ccl will pluck this out of the Select Cmte's closed hands and open things up with an actual program of public involvement and input.}

G-J: just a great turnout

goes to show the value of that

even those who seem to have diff interests engaged in respectful manner with each other

Ccl can't make planning decisions without that

serve the long-term needs of residents of WV

{mmmm. well said, very subtle; cdn't agree more that Ccl needs public input before making planning decisions.... tyvm, Pam.}

first mtg of Arts/Cultural Implementation group

great to partner with HAC, dev heritage strategy

real enthusiasm start on arts/cultural/heritage precinct identified in plan

real need M to coordinate, collaborate.....

attended GVRD Ccl of Ccl mtg Sat morning

three things:

air quality, water quality, and green space/planning by GVRD

clean air strategy learned most about

heard from Capt about port authority

improve visibility

reduce our contribution to climate change

if we maintain status quo, quality of our air is declining

triple port capacity

can't achieve that without dealing with diesel, marine emissions

finally, volunteer appreciation at srs' ctr

there if starts at 3, SRO at 2:30

three received, don't remember names

great night

VD: ships in port equal to ev car

G-J point they were making

VD: RAV line will help

G-J: making some headway with vehicle emissions

but ships in port producing huge amounts

VD: only way around is a plug in; at docks

diesel engines running all the time

can only do this in cooperation with other ports on West Coast so don't lose our economic--

somehow, US have other ways of funding

a lot of money through Pentagon; view their ports as a military asset

whereas our fed govt takes money out and doesn't put anything in

Sop: attended Open House but at 4pm attending Coho Fest Bd Mtg

dedicated, solid group, NSh-wide

look forward to this summer/fall Coho

after sip of coffee and off to Lions Bay, mtg went to 10 o'clock at night

JC: in add/n to Culture strat and Open House

attended staff open house at WVChamber of Comm re core review of Ambleside Town Ctr

heartened by positive comments

mostly v positive, two or three concerns

generally got something moving forward

7. OTHER ITEMS

9:48

7.1 Cancellation of May 02, 2005 Council Meeting Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the May 02, 2004 Council Meeting be cancelled.

RB: recommending Apr 25th (light agenda) and May 2 (Youth Ccl) be cancelled; shd need arise, have one (as special)

9:49

7.2 Correspondence [complete list in previous issue]

...

7.2.15 R. Richards, March 24, 2005, regarding Proposed New Community Centre

Referred to Director of Parks and Community Services for consideration and response.

7.2.16 H. Hamilton, President, West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society, March 31, 2005, regarding Lower Marr Development

Referred to Director of Planning, Lands & Permits for consideration and response.

VD: appreciate, believe BPP has brought in some sort of plan to staff; confirm hasn't come to Ccl yet

[read out sentence about support re ephemeral creeks re env'tal assessment, requisite screening applications... WVS not aware that this has been undertaken or nec DFO permits obtained]

I presume if an application does come in it does come along with these points

Geri Boyle: you're correct

{Not quite. See further on that at end of PQP}

7.2.17 J. W. Cryer, President, British Properties Area Homeowners Association, March 26, 2005, regarding Chartwell Drive Curbs

Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response.

...

8. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Mike Evison: re Upper Levels, five months ago today two ladies killed

drove by there three hours ago and nothing has been done!

a number of ppl made a commitment we shd do everything in our means so ensure never happens again

VD: we have

Mayor: I know mgr has been discussing this with other NSh jurisdictions and police

MMgr: representations have been made; last week ministry announced some studies including that particular area and MDr and TWay as well as corridor right up

it is a prov hwy, been assured looking at it but haven't announced any specific plans

{see last issue with the press release}

CR: sorry, I don't have the binder in front of me

but wrt to the letter from Streamkeepers

I thought that it was about a devt that was already under way

Mayor: South Marr. It's proposed

CR: b/c I know there was some concern was expressed about some ephemeral creeks having been piped but I can talk to staff about that

I know that was one of the concerns they had

Mayor: you have seen the letter of March 31st

CR: I don't have it in front of me but I do, as someone on bd of Streamkeepers, I didn't see what actually went in although the general intent was there, but I know some ppl had been concerned about some eph crks already been piped

so when Cclr Durman mentioned that it was for future applications, I wanted to make sure that someone knew they cd perhaps inspect what's going on now

it's not just for future, although the future's great

MMgr: I understand there are some discussions going on between our env'tal coordinator, British Properties, and Fisheries wrt the bridge, and some of the ephemeral creeks that have already been involved in previous construction

so there's really two facets to this

one is looking at bridge where there has been construction

secondly any potential devt down the road and how that's treated

we are in touch with both British Properties and Fisheries to look at these issues

CR: thank you for that clarification b/c that was my concern

not just for the future -- it was for something going on now as well

thank you

ADJOURNMENT

=== ABBREVIATED AGENDA APR 18th =============

3.1. ADOPTION OF MINUTES, April 04, 2005

4.1 DELEGATION -- G. Quan, Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

5. REPORTS

5.1 Development Permit No. 04-018 (4674 Clovelly Walk) - Request for Building Envelope Reduction

RECOMMENDED: THAT the plan as provided in Appendix B be authorized

5.2 Controlled Substance Nuisance Bylaw No. 4417, 2005

Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services

The Bylaw received three readings on April 04, 2005. Statutory public notice was published on April 10 and 17, 2005. An opportunity will be provided this evening for persons who consider they are affected by the bylaw to make representations to Council.

RECOMMENDED: THAT "Controlled Substance Nuisance Bylaw No. 4417, 2005" be adopted.

5.3 Development Variance Permit No. 04-026 (2925 & 2935 Marine Drive)

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED: THAT the Municipal Clerk give notice that DVP Application (2925 & 2935 Marine Drive), which would provide for a future subdivision of two lots into three lots with variances to site width and lot depth for proposed Lot B, will be considered at the meeting of Council on Monday, May 09, 2005.

5.4 Rock Breaking by Blasting - 6063 Blink Bonnie Road

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED: THAT the application for the Rock Breaking Permit to remove 215 cubic metres of rock for a pool construction at 6063 Blink Bonnie Road be approved.

5.5 Request from Antonio Bay Productions for Noise Bylaw Exemption During Proposed Filming in West Vancouver (Whytecliff Park)

Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT an exemption from sections 4(e) (i) and 6(n) of the District's Noise Control Bylaw No. 3908, 1994 be approved for Antonio Bay Productions for filming in Whytecliff Park after 11:00 p.m. Friday April 22, 2005 until 2:00 a.m. on Saturday April 23, 2005.

6. REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

7. OTHER ITEMS

7.1 E-Comm Board of Directors Designate for the 2005/2006 Year

Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT the continuation of Mayor Ron Wood as the representative for the District of West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver and District of North Vancouver on the E-Comm Board of Directors for 2005/2006, be confirmed.

7.2 Correspondence

=== No Action Required (recei= pt only)

7.2.1 Committee and Board Meeting Minutes

(a) Community Services Advisory Committee, March 15, 2005

(b) Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select, March 30, 2005

(d) Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select, January 12, 2005

(e) Engineering Advisory Committee, March 01, 2005

(f) Heritage Advisory Committee, February 08, 2005

7.2.2 M. Osberg, April 05, 2005, regarding Renovation of Recreation Centre

7.2.3 R. Drew, Mayor, Chair, Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee, April 04, 2005, regarding Greater Vancouver Regional District - Musqueam Indian Band Assessment and Taxation

7.2.4 K. O'Shannacery, Executive Director, Lookout Emergency Aid Society, undated, regarding North Shore Housing Centre Official Opening and letter dated April 08, 2005, regarding rescheduling of North Shore Housing Centre Official Opening

7.2.5 A. J. Steininger, March 31, 2005, regarding new Recreation Centre

7.2.6 J. Walters, April 01, 2005, regarding Getting Serious about Highway Congestion and Transportation Planning

7.2.7 J. & A. Crawford, April 03, 2005, regarding Recreation Centre Construction

7.2.8 S. Berna, Executive Director, Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, March 29, 2005, regarding Municipal Finance -Authority Workshops 2005

7.2.9 C. K. Imai, Meeting Coordinator, City of Vancouver City Clerk's Department, March 30, 2005, regarding Air Care On-Road Program

7.2.10 N. Garton, Nicole L. Garton Law Corporation, Treasurer of Ambleside Business Association, regarding Ambleside Business Association

7.2.11 B. Sutherland, President, Canadian Association of Home & Property Inspectors (BC) (CAHPI), March 29, 2005, regarding standards for the BC home and property inspection industry

7.2.12 I. Hignell, undated, regarding Recreation Centre

7.2.13 D. Sonderhoff, undated, regarding Recreation Centre

7.2.14 Ninety-six (96) signatures, dated as indicated, regarding WV Recreation Centre

7.2.15 T. Armstrong, Chair, Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), April 07, 2005, regarding Treaty Negotiations: Additions to Treaty Settlement Land

7.2.16 M. Lawrence, President , WV Lawn Bowling Club, April 07, 2005 regarding 2005 Open House

7.2.17 F. Leonard, Chair, Municipal Finance Authority of BC, April 06, 2005, regarding Municipal Finance Authority (MFA) Spring Debenture Issue

7.2.18 H. Knight, Hugh and Friends Dog Walking Service, April 04, 2005, regarding Dog Walkers

7.2.19 O. E. Chuan, President, West Vancouver Badminton Club, April 09, 2005, regarding Court Sports and the Proposed New Community Centre

7.2.20 H. Addison, April 11, 2005, regarding multi-storey building in the 2100 block on Argyle Avenue

7.2.21 S. Dolson, Executive Director, Get Bear Smart Society, April 12, 2005, regarding bylaws reducing bear attractants

7.2.22 P. Young, April 11, 2005, regarding bylaw amendments re Evelyn Drive

7.2.23 A. Flintoft, April 11, 2005, regarding ribbon-cutting for playground at Ecole Pauline Johnson

Previously distributed due to timing of event.

7.2.24 L. Schemmer, April 12, 2005, regarding Evelyn Drive

7.2.25 M. Bower, April 04, 2005, regarding West Vancouver Community Centre

=== Action Required

7.2.26 H. Schmid, President, Right to Quiet Society for Soundscape Awareness & Protection, April 08, 2005, regarding 10th Annual International Noise Awareness Day

Referred to Director of Administrative Services for response.

7.2.27 S. Ward, April 12, 2005, regarding delegation to Council regarding Proposed New Community Centre

Referred to the Municipal Clerk for response confirming scheduling of the delegation for the May 09, 2005 meeting.

7.2.28 B. MacLellan, Manager of Information and Volunteer Programs, North Shore Community Resources, April 06, 2005, regarding National Volunteer Week 2005

Referred to Municipal Clerk for response.

8. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

9. ADJOURNMENT

=== QUOTATION ===============

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.

-- William Blake, poet, engraver, and painter (1757-1827)

======================== ========================== ========

Yours thoughtfully,

Carolanne Reynolds, Editor, West Van Matters

tel 604 926 8649; msg 922 4400 www.westvan.org

SOME HERITAGE UPDATES:

THE BUILDERS:

Buckland & Taylor Ltd. - Lions' Gate Bridge

... Lions' Gate Bridge is the longest suspension bridge in Western Canada. It has been a landmark of Vancouver since it was opened in 1938. =2E..

www.b-t.com/projects/liongate.htm

HERITAGE DESIGNATIONS:

Welcome to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC)

Recent designations

The following designations were announced by the Honourable St=E9phane Dion, Minister of the Environment:

********** Lions' Gate Bridge

=A9 Parks Canada / J. Dufresne, 2003

Lions' Gate Bridge National Historic Site of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia

Date of designation: December 10, 2004

Lions' Gate bridge is an outstanding landmark and has a significant symbolic value to Canadians. It is distinctive by its elegant design which complements a spectacular setting as well as being an outstanding engineering achievement for its time in its advanced technical features. Lions' Gate bridge has had an undeniable and significant influence on the development of Vancouver. (See the news release)

********* Butchart Gardens National Historic Site of Canada, Victoria, British Columbia

Date of designation: December 20, 2004

Butchart Gardens represent the remarkable combination of three aspects of Canadian gardening history. First, the gardens represent the traits of an early twentieth century estate garden through its different types of gardens such as the Japanese Garden, the Rose Garden, the Italian Garden, the Star Pond and Jennie Butchart's Private Garden. Second, the gardens evoke the early twentieth century beautification movement as expressed through the Sunken Garden. And third, the gardens rely upon the Victorian bedding out system to achieve their outstanding floral displays. These three aspects of the Butchart Gardens have been conveyed through the successive visions of Butchart family members, notably Jennie Butchart and Ian Ross. The transformation of a limestone quarry into a sunken garden of massive dimensions and dramatic aesthetic qualities represents an exceptional creative achievement in Canadian gardening history. Moreover, as the garden has matured and evolved, its beauty has become more distinctive. (See the news release)

========================== ========================== ======

spring has sprung! :-)