Mar 21st Ccl NOTES & Calendar to Mar 31st

by Carolanne Reynolds, Editor

INFObits; gRUMBLING; Calendar to Mar31st; Ccl Mtg Mar 21st NOTES (2005 Budget and $102m 5-Yr Plan, Lighthouse Park Implementation, Evelyn Dr - public input re density Apr 4, 1891 Marine); Quotation

How cd I possibly have forgotten all about it???
Especially during Heritage Week!
FYI, in January 1995, we started putting WV items on our website.  We were the second website on the North Shore (I think Capilano College the other), only about 20 in BC then.  Watched in horror at the devastation from the Kobe earthquake that had just occurred -- eerily reminiscent the even greater destruction from the tsunami.
WV's Heritage Week February 1995 had its very own website!  First in BC (and, I'd guess, in all of Canada).
Since that time it has had news, heritage and other events, cmte mtgs, council agendas, and more recently even partial transcripts of ccl mtgs from the ebroadcast West Van Matters (WVM).
We hope you have found, find, and will find the news and information interesting and helpful.

+++  INFObits  +++
Nice touch, Vancouver Opera!  At Cosi fan Tutte the background of the set was across water to the North Shore mountains and at night the lights came on along the water (a la NV).  One quibble though.  Since the sun sets in the west, the red streaks of sunset shd have been on the left, not the right.
=  ELECTION coming up!
Got a newsflash that Dennis Perry of Coalition to Save Eagleridge Bluffs will offer himself for the Green Party.
Joan McIntyre, wife of Andrew Pottinger who does PR for British Pacific Properties, will run for the Liberals -- she's in favour of the overland/hwy route.
MLA Ralph Sultan is running again (east side of WV) and been supportive of DWV's preference for the tunnel
=  Meant also to put this in the last issue (hint: look at number).  Celebrate the hendecagon, the undecagon; our new loonie is a hendecahedron or an undecahedron and honours our very own Terry Fox.
So many questions.  Need answers.  Try to sort out the timeline of the Central Cmnty Centre (C3).
Nov 2004 Status flyer from DWV Parks Dept says badminton, volleyball, and basketball will be in new gym.
In answer to my question at PQP February 14, Cclr Durman, chair of Select Cmte on Sports and Rec Facility Planning (with JF and Sop), says space to be flexible but at the moment no plans and no budget but when there is A design will come to Ccl with it.
Feb 15th Open House on C3 cancelled
End of February, badminton groups told they will not be in new gym wch will ###only### have equipment for gymnastics; too much wear and tear to keep moving in and out.
March 7th we find out C3 will be $16m.
Citizens form SOG -- Save Our Gym -- dedicated to
trying to change the decision to use the future public Recreation Centre gym exclusively for gymnastics, as we think it should be multi use like the present gym, and not restricted to one activity and interest group. We are writing to papers, and council, and encouraging people to contact councillors and get them to vote against this strange recently changed decision. We have a document handed out in November from the Parks department which describes the new gym as multi purpose, but four months later there has been a complete change of plan.
People who wish to get involved can contact Stan Ward at 922 9152 or stanw_ca@yahoo.com or Marny Peirson at 926 2753, marny@telus.net.
... the aim of SOG is to have a multi purpose gym in C3 and not a gym dedicated to just one activity, to the exclusion of many other groups and activities.
We do not want to go to Gleneagles as it is far from the majority of the population, particularly seniors, and anyway unsuitable for badminton. Parks staff make promises about making space available in schools such as Cedardale, but it is all nonsense because the school gyms are in constant use during the day.
Toward end of March, Parks said at Seniors' Centre that badminton was planned to be at Gleneagles from 1997.
SOG learns there are about five badminton groups
So why is the design at GCC unsuitable for badminton and with less space/fewer courts for sports?
and why did their own flyer in Nov say badminton in new C3 gym?
March 22nd, the volleyball group finds out not in new gym.  Shock.
March 23rd, the basketball group finds out not to be in new gym.  More shock.
Wonder if someone's going to tell floor hockey......
If the March flyer has those sports removed from inclusion in C3, what caused the change?
and who knew?
It was clear when badminton players spoke at the ccl mtg that members of Ccl were caught off guard and surprised.
What a crazy (lack of) process has left not just the majority of Council (four) in the dark but the public uninformed as well???
How can a gym dedicated to gymnastics with virtually fixed equipment be termed "flexible"?
What obligation is there to a group that has played in the central rec centre for at least 30 years (at least one player and possibly more)?
While there was some thought that GCC wd be for specialized activities, the central one was always to be the main one.  Naturally.  70% live in the east, near central civic site.
Something tells me this is not the end of this story............

===  CALENDAR to MAR 31st ===

= TUESDAY, 29th =
~ 4pm ~ POLICE BD MEETING at Chamber of Commerce Boardroom (moved from 24th)

= WEDNESDAY, 30th =
~ 8:30am ~ Sport/Rec Fac Planning (not just C3 but also why nets for baseball? move diamond or cancel?)

= THURSDAY, 31st =
~ 5pm ~ NSACDI at CNV M Hall

===  CCL MTG NOTES MAR 21st ===
                                        transcript typed on best efforts basis during mtg
Cclr Clark absent
Agenda amended by adding 5.1. resident comment on Financial Plan, add'l correspondence CNV,  8.2 apptmt to NSh Family Youth Court Justice Cmte

3.1   Council Meeting Minutes, March 07, 2005
3.2       Public Hearing/Public Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005
            (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)
***{why not have them available to public before passing?}

4.         DELEGATION
4.1       B. Waterbury, Chair, Planning Committee, North Shore Super Cities Walk/Run for Multiple Sclerosis, regarding North Shore Super Cities Walk/Run for MS (File:  3110-11)
Unfortunately Betsy was not well so another mbr made the presentation.
MS: 8000 in BC, more than 300 on the NShore, 83 in WV; scientists unsure what causes it or how to cure it.
MS Society offers support.
Sunday April 10th, meet at 9am at Ambleside; banner already on overpass
last year raised almost $78K on N Sh
turnaround at Dundarave Pier
Besides research, goal to raise awareness

5.         REPORTS
5.1       5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 4415, 2005 (File:  0860-01/1610?20?4415)
Designated Presenter:  Director of Finance
THAT "5 Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 4415, 2005" be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

RL: draft 2005 to 2009, distributed March 7 and allowed two weeks for public input
summary before you of the response
fairly active email with one; answering questions, providing add'l info; responding to some interesting comments and observations, reproduced some and also reproduced my responses
don't think anything that wd make me recommend changes to the five-year capital plan so recommending numbers as they are
point out tight and constructive and some issues raised will be reviewing when we get to ten-year plan exercise later this year
I wd recommend you receive this report without any revision to report as it stands now.
JF moved five-yr capital plan be received for information
Sop: p039 in expenditures, under general operation expenditures
Mayor: wch page?
Sop: under resident comment


***{Hands up.
How many realized this constitutes passing the budget for 2005?
(the deadline for wch is MAY, not March, 15th)
why is allowing more than a week apparently anathema to some staff/council?}

RL: now reached end of process that started last July when staff met with Council
milestones in development of budget
streamlined public process for month of November
another milestone, did prepare a five-yr capital plan more comprehensive, presented earlier this month
in previous agenda item discussed
budget is a year of consolidation
need to absorb impact of signif increased operating costs of GCC and new, expanded Aq Centre; phasing in add'l police staffing; final phases previously agreed increased fire staffing; implementing results process devt review; expanded bylaw enforcements courts initiative
Maintaining existing service levels will be a challenge for several depts for 2005, recommendation not consider supplementary service requests -- it wd involve some cutting back and citizens prefer we not do

***{must check into this; had understood that one supplemental was approved, ie another half-time position wch thus facilitates a full-time archivist.  The result of having only half-time is that they have not stayed and it's a case of continually hiring someone new.  This was much needed to provide continuity and reduction of less productive time training.
One of the reasons so few public involved for this budget is that we were told NO supplementals, IOW impression no choices, nothing can be done wrt the budget, the operating costs......}

good shape for 2006 and will then be able to consider add'l services then
priority items and some one-time expenditures/projects
from funds as one-time -- surplus, etc -- rather than tax increase
what is included in the budget:
dept'al service levels essentially unchanged
accommodated contract settlements with six bargaining units, range increase from 2.5-3.5% for 2005
provided for arts/culture strategy, phased in basis, started in 2005, funding will be ramped up
Staying the Course has been incorporated
final components of RFMP, central rec centre and how it integrates with Aq and Srs' Ctrs
provided for ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure, policy of not falling behind
feasibility and potential new police bldg
golf operations will be segregated to a standalone and will start planning a new clubhouse and catering facility
further devt of Eagle Lake water source
implementation of water metering
There was a late req to add a supplemental, from the Police Bd, not incorporated into this budget and anticipate Ccl will debate that separately and make decisions later this year
net 1.95% increase
the av assessment is just under $900K so that's about $49 on the assumption of a residential prop that has gone up by the av increase, about 16%; any assessment going up more will go up, skewed more and less, less
we just deal with what average in WV was
in late Nov set water rates 7%, $22
approved sewer rate at that time at 10%, $30
as part of the budget went through all other, reviewing user fees, etc
capital program, we'll be making add'l use of DCC funds
anticipating resources from new Cmnty Benefit Framework to fund some of the projects
That concludes my comments on this budget; believe it achieves all targets
on the capital plan, portion, in front of you, numbers somewhat higher than the original five-yr, that's b/c we've established the amounts of certain projects that were begun not completed in 2004,  continued in 2005 using same funding sources not used in 2004
JF: made motion first, second, and third; VD seconded
Sop: the old capital budget was a certain figure and we moved to a new five-year budget wch is another fig and yet later this year we'll move to another five yr with a diff fig 2014 for amount we don't know
explain rationale, why ten-year back to five and to another five
RL: believe referring to a prev so-called ten-yr plan for capital projects; that plan essentially provided for the RFMP and a few high profile projects; for some facilities
in addition to that plan we dealt with a ten-yr plan, separately, for the sewer utility and the water utility
had a proposed cemetery master plan, beginnings of a golf master plan
we had a number of capital plans dealt with separately
this year, the five-yr in front of you is comprehensive, deals with all
we intend later this year to return to looking to a ten-yr horizon

***{so only then can we compare estimates with actual costs?
delays and makes more difficult to gauge dependency on estimates or deduce normal range of deviation}

will be a wideranging review b/c talking about funding sources, principles in approach to capital
moving from a fairly restrictive ten-yr cap plan to a more comprehensive
Sop: looking at water and sewer again and looking again, and do another five-yr plan
RL: will be moving to ten-year, we'll be looking at that later this year; add one more year, one more Mayor: so it's a rolling ten-yr plan
Sop: what kind of bill are we going to look at in 2014?
RL: can't answer that, reason why we're taking a more comprehensive exercise later this year
Sop: p 0.39, general operations/expenditures
$475K (annually) for legal across the board until 2009
are we expecting to be in that much need in the legal dept?
MMgr: likely a high estimate; trying to balance things out, litigation last year and this year
some costs, Sea-to-Sky, pushing up
otherwise going down
Sop: why across the board, why not going down? shdn't it be decreasing if costs going down?
RB: incorporated within that insurance legal and a couple of large pending cases, perhaps Dir/Finance can answer
Mayor: they're conferring
[Dir/Fin and MMgr]
RL: I continue to have a hearing problem and access to my specialist sometime in May
suffering through it till then
MMgr: there's been a change in manner of how to account and plan for insurance and liability costs
change in possible legal liabilities associated with insurance claims
Sop: not under MIA, feel high
shd be decreasing; shdn't it be written down facing new costs?
MMgr: these are potential costs that are not included in MIA, required to include in budget
if you look at our 'day-to-day' legal costs have been going down
Sop: so insurance going up, costs once covered by MIA
MMgr: yes
Sop: fee for MIA
MMrg: yes
Sop: going up
MMgr: everything in insurance going up
Sop: p 043, water utility revenue side, a line item 2005 debt proceeds of $8,750,000
decreases and increases to 2008
is that amount we're going to pay for water?  including $6m we borrowed for metering system?
RL: we have two debt programs re water
one is Eagle Lake and at time approved the debt service costs were compared with savings re GVRD no longer have to be purchasing
second part we're borrowing for metering, at that time were anticipating relative to cost of water; opportunity for residents to monitor usage, pay only for what using wd have beneficial effect
there is significant debt and related charges for debt built into that; felt justified on cost/benefit basis
Sop: so conclude 2005, 6, 7, 8 of debt proceeds is $ 8m, 10, 11, 14, 15 and a half over four years
$6m borrowed for metering and  the other for Eagle Lake
MMgr: yes
Sop:  then down to expenditures 2009, says interest on debt;  $1.2m?
RL: two lines there, one principal debt and interest on debt
providing for repayment of both
Sop: so assume of the $15m borrowing, the principal's going to be a long time in the future but looks like interest rapidly increasing, will be $1.2m in course of five years
RL: not sure I understand
Sop: amounts paid  2009 $644K on principal and $1.2m on interest
until paid off, looking at substantial interest
RL: that's right
G-J: fact of consolidated budget, end of our mandate for being stewards of taxpayers' dollars
we've gone as far as we can go
this year the big things are Eagle Lake, water metering, new civic centre
major planning initiatives underway
rest will be filled in by next Ccl but will try to come up with some estimates, such as continued acquisition of Argyle lands (signif Q for public to be thinking about), Arts/culture facilities, new police bldg, replacement or possible renovation of municipal hall and fire hall
takes time; things initiated by previous ccl
shd feel good consolidating, extremely conservative budget.
not sort of ccl that dangles out things, we think fiscally conservative

***{how do you view the $16m new civic centre?????
Do you know if there'll be any money left over for anything else? for overruns?  they're not uncommon.....}

5.2       Youth Competition & Recognition Fund - Application for WV Field Hockey, Girls Cheetahs U16
G-J: $1000
VD: met with some sports groups; WV field hockey club is the largest in North America; many on Cdn team or Olympic

5.3       Lighthouse Park Implementation Strategy
Designated Presenter:  Director of Parks and Community Services
1.         The draft Implementation Strategy action items for Lighthouse Park be approved.
2.         A process be initiated with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to examine ways to protect aquatic life and habitat at a suitable distance off the shoreline of Lighthouse Park.
3.         Staff be directed to bring budget requests forward for 2006 and beyond during regular budget submission periods.
4.         Staff be directed to work with interested members of the community to secure grants that may be available for ongoing programming or capital works in Lighthouse Park.

KP gave background, consulted with many groups; got marine survey; discussions re foreshore and banned fishing:
wd recommend this to you; dollars we have in budget adequate for what we want to do this year
when need more will come back to you.
RD: welcome this and know LPPS has done a good job in suggesting ways we can protect the park
one thing that bothers me reading this is the amount of poaching that goes on especially around Starboat Cove even though banned
recommendation to banning around the park but if DFO hasn't got manpower to enforce it????
we shd put all the pressure we can on govt to enforce its laws
JF: page 2 re fed govt protection of Lighthouse Park and I think that's an important part
we're going to be investing a lot of money and cmnty has a large emotional and social equity in that park and the sooner we get indic from fed govt that it will be a park in perpetuity [the better]
we thought lighthouses and govt docks wd always be.
KP: we have discussed this issue for many years with DFO staff
we've tried to incorporate parts not in lease
b/c of number of native land claims, not prepared to make that change; staff will have to urge Mayor and Ccl to put pressure on fed govt (harder for staff)
JF: so part of strategy to come back to Ccl to provide some strength
KP: will attempt to deal at staff level initially but been stonewalled
MMgr: also attempted to attain support of Don Bell, quite interested
Sop: this protection of water surrounding the lighthouse is diff from marine no-take zone?
KP: number of ways to approach, wd be an objective, helpful
Sop: what we did at Whytecliff is signif to marine env'tal sustainability, cd be applied
if we accept restrictions in that park, why not all parks?
we allow fishing, crabbing off pier at 14th
reasonable off rocks at Lighthouse Park
more signif, creating an intertidal sustainability area
what about entire area of Whytecliff Park as a no-take area?
signif and to call in DFO staff, consultants
another feather in our cap; we were one of first for marine no-take
rules and regulations help; used to have prob with crabbing until laws enforced
v valuable to us in long run
shd go forth with no-take zone
KP: certainly there are areas around Whytecliff Park that are unique on this coast, in this whole area wch supports what Cclr Sop says
despite issue of enforcement, we've already had users talking to each other reminding new users what the rules of the park are
certainly people arriving with fishing rods wd be spoken to by users of the park
Sop: will there be discussion at all of no-take?
KP: as soon as this has been passed
G-J: did speak with our MP Don Bell at mtg at luncheon with Minister Ujjal Dosanjh (and other MPs) but his feeling is speak to First Nations who have claims
so this is a political effort
Mayor: supreme effort
G-J: hard for staff to do that
hugely worthwhile and worth trying, he's hoping to help
people ask me
road? what's planned for Beacon Lane? does this encompass this?
KP: don't have answer
Corinne Ambor, Park Planner DWV: we've put 30kph signs
feedback was ppl speeding in parking lot
signs directing buses not to turn into lane; work with Engg Dept
G-J: you'll be monitoring that and getting back to us this summer?
principles that form part of this plan becoming beyond Lighthouse Park as ppl become more attuned to what sustainability means
statements like: the park is a coastal forest ecosystem that has its own intrinsic value and plays an important role in people's lives
seeing that more and more in other reports about parks or about foreshore
wd be nice in a communications effort  to elevate these principles as cmnty principles
help educate people
sorry, had something else to say --
Mayor: it'll come back
Sop: not one of those moments
RD: know we need signs re traffic and obey the rules
have to be careful too that we don't put up too many signs, a kind of pollution and too many signs ppl ignore them
ev time I go to Dund Park seems like another sign
part of the beauty of Lths Park is natural, then signs crazy, careful not addicted
G-J: just remembered, "adopt a trail"
individuals can adopt a little part and pull out ivy as they walk their dogs
CA: LPPS have incorporated that, walk along and pull out ivy
G-J: how can you get involved in ivy-pulls
signs, notices, sometimes email; done on a regular schedule; 20 to 30 last time, becoming known.

5.4       Request from Antonio Bay Productions for Noise Bylaw Exemption During Proposed Filming in West Vancouver
Designated Presenter:  Director of Administrative Services
 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 at Sunset Marina on Saturday, April 2nd and Sunday April 3rd, 2005 from dusk to dawn, and exemption to film in Whytecliff Park after 11:00 p.m. Wednesday April 6, 2005 until 1:00 a.m. on Thursday April 7, 2005. 

5.5       Profile of Disability in West Vancouver (File:  2515?02?01)
Designated Presenter:  Director of Planning, Lands & Permits
 THAT the Council Information Report dated March 10, 2005 from the Planning Analyst titled, Profile of Disability in West Vancouver be received.
SJN: fact sheet
JF: found it interesting
wonder if we cd have copy of this excluding Sq Nation b/c their popn considerably younger
can we receive reports by disability, helpful when some places eg Amb biz core
SJN: yes

5.6      Status and Next Steps for Proposed Evelyn Drive Master Plan        
 Designated Presenter:  Director of Planning, Lands & Permits
            (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)
***{AGAIN -- why shd this appear belatedly and not come out with the rest of the agenda items with their relevant material????? or be delayed until it can be part of the normal process/mtg pkg.}

G-J: perceived conflict of interest based on the fact my husband and a resident of area have a business.
SJN: identified as a study area in OCP; been working with Millenium to see if proposal wd be possible, FAR wd be 1
townhouse and lowrise bldgs as mentioned in the OCP
four storeys and on slope up to six
proposal to date there wd be at least five buildings over that height on the lower part of the site
issues addressed traffic, views from above, internal pedestrian ways, a number of matters, road access both to Keith and shopping centre
reason report being distributed tonight
assembly of properties, 57 owners have an agreement with a time period attached
want to put information to Ccl, Ccl can take action
this report has table, status; staff remain concerned about extent of site work for roads and bldgs in proposal and bldg form in relation to slope; vehicle connection to Park Royal but no agreement that they can connect to PR so that's an outstanding item
concern re uniformity
devpr wd contribute, off-site benefits/needs; requires greater clarification
normally staff wd be working on this
our recommendation is to proceed to bylaw; enable ccl and cmnty to make comments in a more formal fashion
the applicant, in audience tonight, b/c large, wd like to make a short presentation on current status.
Sop: is this an application for a devt proposal?
SJN: presented about a year ago, OCP wants a study to be done
Sop: so
SJN: result of his study
staff has been working with applicant
Sop: staff working with applicant, does that follow OCP's intent of study?
SJN: yes
Sop: independent consultant
SJN: underlying assumption was that unless someone assembled, there was no proposal, plan
Ccl was willing to consider something someone had worked out
FAR up to 1
up to applicant to see if cd be done
Stu Lyon (sp?) architect for project mentioned also present:
Martha Burton helping out from my office; Mr Malek (owner); Peter Kreuk landscape architect; a couple of other mbrs of team; Brian Wallace, traffic consultant not able to be here tonight
have 15 slides
signif project, Millennium, two years
this process to date
Model is being revised so here's slide of it so it's a little out of date
four options a year ago, all 1 FSRs, lowrise, midrise, diff options
a lot of good advice came out of that; too much resistance to highrise though had benefits in freeing up the landspace so eliminated that
continued to work on project with staff and in June devpd a cpl of new versions to present to cmnty in Sept/Oct; again 1FSR but some up to ten storeys, some six, less
again good ideas, concerns over traffic and views; invited residents to give us their addresses so we cd take pictures and address that; flew balloons
slide re October and later with improvements, dropping bldgs out of the view so that Park Towers come up
done a lot of work wrt siting bldgs to retain views so not block anyone above
Public mtg asked us to look at traffic situation; Brian Wallace did a lot of site work, traffic report based on 600 units on the site
580 is the max we're looking at now
late Oct to DAC and they also asked us to look at view analysis, floor plates too large; went back and looked at very narrow floor plates [see bldgs in blue on slide]
midrises, townhouses above Evelyn Drive
pulled road down to bottom of side so potential of connecting into shopping centre; they have sent letter saying willing to once bylaw through
midrise bldgs with townhouse bases to provide a variety of housing
committed to keep all our bldgs within 25ft ht of Keith Rd, ie below ht restriction for sgl fam houses
PAC mtg early Dec; revisited site plan, saw potential paths throughout; thought cd have pedestrian portals throughout devt, pedestrian easements, converge at a central amenity site
Design guidelines for bldgs, looked at quality of materials, stone, glass on upper floors, extensive landscaping; looked at quality of cmnty
able to relocate the heritage house 742 Keith, on registry, dedicated to cmnty use
detailed street profiles with Engg and Planning Depts, now on plan
New site plan -- this is a month and a half old; modified rental bldg, opened up the site in the middle at the top, broad open space; enhanced cmnty area in middle of site as well; finally identified cmnty benefits (in back of booklet), they are before you somewhere
reduced area; working with 740K sf and now at 715Ksf on the site so reduction; and no of units reduced, 450 market units, with 60 rental srs' units with up to 70 units possible in future devt on unacquired sites.
Met with PAC in Feb -- plan on board to left, asked to integrate rental bldg into site, not in favour of on corner
asked for greater variety of bldg forms, specifically larger ones
looking for diversity of housing sites
DAC asked for a series of detailed cross-section studies of the site; found townhousing indeed came in considerably below the ht 20ft ht max allowed for sgl fam
prepared latest siteplan here
Incorporated the srs' rental bldg, now at ctr of the site;  left, two to four storey townhouses
down at Taylor Way, crescent bldgs
variety of bldg forms
sustainability review: we have committed to a LEED-certified/standard cmnty
we've responded quickly each time, improving it every time; think we have an exciting project to proceed with and ready to go to public hearing
[some applause]
Sop: small improvement to number of units, based on 56; add in add'l lots up to 650 again when purchase all?
Ans: don't know if intention to purchase them all; there are only 58 lots presently under contract
Mayor: Total of how many?
Ans: 65 we have calculated our site on sites under contract, wch is 58
1FSR is based on 58
allowed in documentation up to 70 units on unacquired sites but might be difficult to achieve
Sop: not purchasing any more lots, this will be your proposal?
Ans: yes
Mayor: a number of mbrs of public who want to speak, first is Gordon Ward-Hall
Mayor: you are a mbr of PAC
GWH: speaking on behalf of myself
Mayor: think that shd be clarified
GWH: definitely on behalf of myself
the OCP states lowrise and I understand 12 storeys and I wd consider lowrise six and below
says main need in WV is for low income families and seniors and not sure how this will meet that
main reason here is how will FSR calculated?
looking at documents presented, devpr says when subtracts seven or eight props that haven't been purchased, also subtracts Ev Drive and the lane but not continuation of Ev Dr wch is Municipal prop or the allowance for 9th Ave wch is also M property; that's one way of calculating it
understand shd be total prop minus the ROW allowance on the final prop wch is 180Ksf and it has not been calculated this way
how shd it be calculated according to our bylaws
is it between 1.5 or 1.35?
SJN: the way it's been calculated
OCP said an FAR up to 1 and at that point in time we didn't know what roads wd be required; set on general area and that's what devpr has done
based on the land they have acquired , the easiest way of putting it
but they have included the unopened 9th Street allowance
and we noted it in the report to Ccl
in essence they've said based on lands we've acquired wch does not include roads, we're proposing to build the same sq footage, FSR of 1
if we're drawing up bylaw for Ccl, we wd exclude roads and new park sites and deal with net
based on net, parcels of land to be developed, so based on sq ftg of land acquired it's 1, based on lands that remain the FAR is 1.35

***{interesting clarification; shd also point out the FAR for sgl fam homes in WV is .35 so this is a considerable increase.  OTOH, it is ideally suited for multifamily since it is near transportation and shopping.  Really the debate is over how much density.  If a businessman is given an FAR of 1.0 in the OCP it is obvious that's what he'll propose.  If an owner has just bought a house or made renovations in the thousands of dollars, he does not want his view blocked.  It looks like there'll have to be a lot of communication, compromise, and consideration given to devt of this area so that it becomes an asset in the cmnty, maybe with its own special character.  Highrises means more greenery, homes less; maybe somewhere in between?}

Frank Rutter: I own property at 1018 Keith Rd
I find this a v strange report
it recommends not doing one thing and then recommends doing it
I don't feel this report completely addresses the requests made of it of Ccl
certainly don't feel it addresses public input made on this proposal
doesn't address need for a complete traffic study
don't believe it complies with the desires/provisions of the OCP
confusing re density, hard to understand -- 1, more than 1, at least one -- something residents concerned with
not sure it completely reflects views of the adv cmtes b/c I attended them and considerable amount of concern expressed at those mtgs
not certain about definition of cmnty benefits here
in OCP, I note, traffic and views, topographical, etc, all to be taken into account, I'm not sure that's  the case here
also OCP says consideration of change in zoning will involve public consultation and I note the report suggests not worth having any more public input b/c it wdn't make any difference, cmnty consultation prior to Public Hearing is unlikely to result in add'l or different comments to inform further revisions or refinements to the plan
I certainly question that
it goes on to say the core of the cmnty's concern is density;  that's certainly true
and traffic, wch it doesn't say
I'm also concerned about the general feeling of a collision here, between public opinion and final proposals
before steps are taken to draw up a bylaw......resolution, difficulties that appear from this....
not least of wch is public input
the report offers three suggestions to Ccl and seems not to recommend the first one and then recommends the first one
I find that confusing
seems to me, if no acceptance of the second option with further public consultation, the only option is third, rejection until further
Fulvio Verdicchio: original applic about a year an a half ago, really frustrated by the barrage by Millennium that they 've done
they've taken the bldgs and moved them around
not a study if done by
what they've actually done; taken area and broken into different areas, getting approval for almost 2FSR in some areas; right in front of my house on 885 Keith Rd
all those show a horizontal view, no view at all
how can this be a benefit to cmnty, OCP talks about cmnty benefit
been to PAC, DAC, talked about reducing density, smaller homes on smaller lots, but Millennium has not responded to any of it, not to immediate concerns of people in area
started at 600 to 510 to 588 and now don't intend on buying any more lots
means nothing b/c once subdivided and have an FSR of 2, someone else will come in and develop it for solely commercial benefits
Millennium is a big corporation and whatever they've spent so far has been a tax benefit for them and will continue to be throughout process
I don't see any reason for rushing to decision or bylaws until we the taxpayers' concerns are addressed
beautiful pictures of portals mean nothing -- in Rome!
once subdivided they're going to build whatever they want
where am I protected? just moving back to Rome?
we want a study area, not just moving units around
want a mix of different bldgs, what about a little more spread out, less density, address the concerns of the residents that live in this area
when I came in 1963 only rich people cd live in Sentinel Hill
Now I have to fight for what I want
the mix just doesn't work
by allowing them to go ahead now and an FSR on 2 on some lots wd not be beneficial to WV, these people, and this cmnty
Dr Alex Cicero (sp?): Sentinel Hill resident, live on Evelyn Drive
you may have already noticed passions are running high
moved to Ev Drive about three years ago and been loving my life
the first thing that comes to mind is that I cdn't move here now with prop values now with what the prop values now
think about young people and seniors wanting to scale down, wch is what Millennium is proposing; we're expanding potential to these demographics
agree, you fight so hard to get into this nbrhd and then fight to keep it; we shd make it more affordable for these people to move in
I've been attending all these mtgs and Millennium has been responding to the residents; towers removed; frankly if you walk down Evelyn now, it's not that pleasing
right now looking down seeing roof of Park Royal, instead I'd be seeing a more pleasing scenario
you may be asking if you signed on
a couple of years ago may have thought v lucrative, hypothetical if I signed on, diff B- and A+, two years later not so lucrative
Taylor Way is ugly, not b/c of Sentinel Hill, from ppl from Squamish, Whistler,....
less likely to drive if can walk to Pk Royal, less car usage
problem far bigger than this proposal, inherent traffic dilemma wch they're supposed to be working out
devt and progress are inevitable, our job is to be reasonable to see that that process happens fairly
keeping the status quo is not how a society thrives or survives
we've seen what the Village has done, diversified
this creates new era of new families, new futures in most wonderful setting, our city.
Lorne Shemmer (sp)?: 870 Evelyn Drive
like to provide a bit of history and commentary
over ten years residents have tried to address a growing need in WV, will grow as popn ages; that is for smaller units for people to live in smaller homes as they age and want to stay here in cmnty they love
Many in our cmnty who've wanted to downsize have had to move some distance from their families
along Ev Dr, most of us live on sizable properties, most older houses at lower end of market scale; this made our area affordable for devt of multi-unit housing featuring many smaller units that cd meet the growing demand for our city's aging popn
close to transportation, services, shopping mall, river, Ambleside park, etc....
for these reasons, we the citizens, owners along Ev Drive, gathered together, we elected a cmte, and we assigned it the task of finding a competent devpr
we were not surprised that our area was named a transition zone in the OCP -- just look at the housing
this assisted us in obtaining proposals from several devt firms over the years
we ultimately selected Millennium b/c of their excellent record for example, check out Edge Water in WV and City in the Park in Bby
city's need for satisfying concept
since Millennium signed purchasing agreements with 50+ owners, has hired experts re traffic etc; carefully done over 18 months if not more; what it proposes for the site is not only what we need in our cmnty.  While this is most important, the devt will provide a modern appearance to the area surrounding Park Royal wch has taken on a new look
In addition, it will protect much of the vegetation and will not disrupt a single view of any of the existing residences as demonstrated tonight

***{Not a single view?  Have you not heard some of the residents talk about their loss of view?  Selective hearing?}

we recognize people tend to fear change
numerous objections are raised to protect the status quo, a natural thing
Mar 19 VSun West Coast Homes section, interesting article by Mr Bob Ransford, Director of UDI --important I cite briefly:
"those who fear change will appear in numbers and pressure municipal councils to undertake endless studies that attempt to refute the protestors' claims of traffic gridlock, kids being killed, and homes becoming worthless"
be conscious of this
during last election heard from this Council, elected, heard from seniors who wish to sell their homes....
many studies of Ev Dr [can be devpd] for this need
now is the time for action, seniors have made signif contribution to this cmnty
you were elected by a majority for this very reason
Mr Ransford says knows of no single family ares where values have decreased [b/c of higher density nearby]
only have to ask those who live in lower part of CNV (waterfront)
[some applause]

***{But there are residents who are about to have their 180-degree (or more) views blocked or limited by highrises.  How can anyone think those homes will not drop in value?}

Susan Strong;  1118 Lawson; speaking on behalf of my parents who live at 885 Esq
must be viewed in context of resolution 9 Nov 2004, may I remind you required in order to be considered must be consistent with cmte recomm and public input
about 30 residents spoke
clear direction to devpr to amend before coming back
must be consistent with adv cmte recommendations
both spoke
virtually all said density too high, bldg structures too high, traffic implications unacceptable
since not followed this direction respectfully propose Ccl has no option but rejection
speakers tonight, they don't have to live in the middle of this devt once finished,  we are
a devt is only successful, if cmnty benefit better than before
not against change, don't fear change
can't tell me 250 won't provide benefit as 600
still going to provide benefit to seniors but also retaining our nbrhd comfortably with what we're used to living, and maintain the views we're used to having
we're not saying not dev it but wrt residents living there
we're not just talking about TW; we can still dev a great devt here with fewer units
are there any covenants that that only seniors or only current WV residents can purchase into this devt?
Mayor: premature
SS: saying that for this specific [WV] popn, really anyone's going to buy into this devt
it's going to be people from [anywhere/everywhere], no covenants
can have win-win; lower the density; people can sell off their lots and move on
maintaining the type of nbrhd we bought and moved into and respect natural setting we had before
bad decision, really no reason to accept just b/c someone's come to the table ten times
like a child asking for a cookie ten times, so going to say yes
unless proposal changed to meet needs what Planning Cmte or Ccl have requested, really we cannot accept this application
Duncan Holmes: 870 Keith Rd, I've lived there since Sept 1959
Mayor: you know the nbrhd
DH: one of those who signed on
Millennium option came to me at opportune time; coming to age where 30 degree slopes weren't what I wanted necessarily for a garden
watched progress for two years, watched demands of planning group being met by Millennium
know it's difficult to make decision of this size; important part of WV, will be visible
TW two-lane hwy; time is now to do something with it
we can keep asking Millennium to go back more times, change; what we have at this stage is quite different from a year or two years ago
think it wd meet a lot of the  desires of this cmnty
wd like to think I can live in this cmnty being proposed here, and as it moves along, more quickly than slowly, that I'll be able to be a part of it
March 2003 I put pen to paper on it
hope to see things to make us proud, that will do great things for Sentinel Hill and this changing residential cmnty

VD:  I'll make the motion that
in order to obtain formal public comment on the devt application 04 004 staff be directed to report at the Apr 4th 2005 regular ccl mtg on
a)  the potential draft amending bylaws necessary to allow for the rezoning of the Evelyn Drive area;
and secondly
the associated approval process including the role of zoning and devt permit approval processes for the bylaws and the form and character of the bldg be described.
Ever since the OCP was passed by Ccl, in wch we stated wd be a study area, multi-family, density up to FSR 1
Millennium moved in buying up props; those who signed on don't know whether moving forward or staying still
general concern, therefore I think it's time Ccl takes the time to have a public hearing
to talk about the density/zoning for Ccl to decide on for the Ev Drive area
one speaker said someone cd do something different
has always passed a devt permit with zoning; DPs control type and form, not the zoning
when we pass it, that's what has to be built, can come back, Ccl can; have to have strong reasons, has to be better
time Ccl actually stood and took a place in this discussion
recently an interesting public mtg we were asked where are you in the process but we're not in the process
received an application and sent it off to the cmtes
time Ccl heard from public, they've heard from devpr, staff, heard from adv cmtes
now shd hear from the public wrt issue whether Ev Dr shd be rezoned multifamily at a particular density
built form, architecture will all come in the Devt Permit; Millennium or some other devpr
that's the question: are we willing to do what the OCP says?  that's what's posed in this motion
second part is for staff to explain process, difference between zoning and devt permit
what's being put in front of Ccl
the issue of whether it's Millennium's project or somebody else's project doesn't matter to me; the real issue is what does the public think of having Ev Dr rezoned to some form of density for multifamily zoning and I'd like to hear from the public on that.
JF: I think it's going to bring a large degree of clarity to this process
I was contacted by a lot of people last week, questioned as to Ccl's position -- what did we mean by lowrise, density of 1, what were our expectations, etc
difficult to comment without considering or debating a zoning change
I think we all want clarity, density, what do we mean by lowrise, and townhouse
will become clear to all of us
RD: that's probably the best way to go
I'm the one cclr who has stated how he feels about this proposal
my position probably shared by Ccl
I favour multifamily on the site, always have, continue to do so, but always felt the proposed density is too high
I think we have heard from the public
my take is somewhere between 200 and 300 units, density Ccl will accept on the site
we'll see if the dvpr can't reach it then someone else may/will
must go ahead with cmnty values and position most have taken, multifamily with less density than proposed, a four-storey format wch wd allow for townhouses, consistent with Chesterfield in NV
three/four storeys, can get a fair number of people
such hts will still give a better nbrhd feeling, more than high, and still get a reasonable number of ppl
Sop: may I ask proponent a question before I comment
Sop: cd I ask a question of the proponent?
Mayor: yes, pls come forward
Sop: in all you've heard to date, will you be prepared to lower the density on what you've proposed
[some mixed noises/laughter]
Mayor: you're putting the architect in a tough spot
Ans: my understanding from Millennium has always been that a 1FSR is required from acquiring the sites, to cover the costs of the new infrastructure
number they feel necessary to make project work, based on very extensive infrastructure needed
Sop: so your answer is no
Ans: that is correct
Sop:  can remember two factions on Evelyn; years ago talked to people and one man who's moved away
desire for devt and that wd be a likely place for devt to take place
talking with Millennium
two areas of OCP wch I don't think have been ratified yet: one public involvement policy and housing policy wch was supposed to give some direction as to how we wd identify future nbrhd devt or expansion
no qualms, it's a likely place shd be developed
went to a few of the mtgs and listened to the public, place again tonight, and stmt from dvpr not about to lower density
when you look at PAC and DAC to look at massing and form, and the direction that we're going, look at density issue
look at winning situation, allow them to see some growth one way or other with their house
this is precedent setting
this will shape WV, value forever more.....
I don't think staff know what direction to go
when you say go to PH, to listen to public
I think shd ask devpr to go back to drawing board so we have a win-win in this
we want that devt in there, something we're proud of, not go at it for this profound change
there are certainly ways dvpr can do look at what is there
don't have to look at deadlines
let's do it on win-win
RD: as I understand does motion mean Ccl to decide density?
VD: staff to bring forward draft amending bylaws to allow rezoning of Ev Dr; doesn't refer to Millennium

***{but then why does your motion refer to the application by number -- rather specific, no???}

 Ccl can come back and say we need .9, .8; within Ccl's purview to do
RD: telling the dvpr to come back, been going on for two years, he hasn't come back
what makes anyone think he'll come back?
seems to me Ccl's got to make the decision, rezoning, we've got to say what we want, FAR we're willing to accept
Millennium can say we can't do that and withdraw, or can adjust accordingly
somewhere along the line, Ccl has to make a decision
service to residents who've sold, nbrs, devpr
and wd bring this thing to an end
VD: I think Cclr Day has summarized it quite well
this devpr, cd have other devprs
Our OCP says this is multifamily, can have a density up to 1
at some point Ccl has to make dec
why wdn't  devpr always ask for 1?
why wdn't owners always ask for maximum price?
they will always want to get best price
the devpr puts land together, paying vendors
needs the max FSR
reduce the FSR, devpr may have to go back and renegotiate the purchase prices
pile of economics that drives prices, land devt
and when Cclr Sop says no time, dvpr doesn't need to rush, has anybody multiplied by 50-odd homes and if anyone wants to think he can play this game for a couple more years is ridiculous
let's say .8, .9, .1, whatever it is; recognize remember across the street is only 1.75, and that's only 50ft high bldg

***{but also remember, that by keeping the bldg below 50 ft meant that it does not block residents' views, b/c the bldg backs onto a cliff with the houses above the top of the cliff and even then those nbrs had input into what they'd see on the roofs below them and didn't want a rec space that might have music and other noise.}

you can have lowrise but then you don't have any green space, you don't get any view corridors, nice stuff, b/c you lay big bldgs on their sides
a lower density and slightly higher bldgs provide view corridors, trees, and so forth but that's what staff, our planning staff, the professionals, our adv cmtes.....

***{hm.  Looks as if VD is contradicting himself.  Bldgs to be vertical or horizontal?  Is density not the issue? Motion is wrt density.  Is design and massing more important?  is it greenery or not?  maybe residents mainly care about view?}

all issues need to be discussed
we've got to get down to actual density first so everybody starts with a fair understanding of what can be achieved on this site
I wd call the question
Sop:  I'm not swayed by that
the fact remains that density 1 is the issue
we go away and talk about what, 9.0?
Mayor: who knows?
Sop: who knows, but the fact remains, I'm making my statement tonight for the dvpr to go away and come back with a density that he feels that everybody can live with and get a win in this situation
PASSED with Sop opposed.

6.         BYLAWS
6.1       Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 1968 Amendment Bylaw No. 4413, 2005 (1891 Marine Drive)
            The Public Hearing for this Bylaw closed on March 14, 2005 and Council is not permitted to receive any further verbal or written submissions after the Hearing has closed.
Designated Presenter:  Director of Planning, Lands & Permits
 THAT "Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 1968 Amendment Bylaw No. 4413, 2005" be read a second and third time.

VD: zoning bylaw, devt permit will come back
G-J: particularly important about this application, more mix
this is just residential
overabundance of commercial in Ambleside
scale can be accommodated quite nicely; size not overly large, something people looking for close in
JF: pleased to support this
wrt renewal of Amb Biz Area, it has a number of differences, it is much longer than others, and the spending power
Sop: interesting that this has a density of 1.25, yet architect has taken the time to design something that fits with existing bldg
has built a very attractive bldg with that amount of density
when I went to the public mtg, people behind liked it
there's a format, albeit smaller by nature, where a project has fitted within the confines of a nbrhd
there have been other devts that fit
will support
VD: Cclr Sop has said it perfectly
density has nothing to do with design
no.... no trees
and how you play with it and good design

***{have they missed an opportunity to provide more of the much-needed parking in Ambleside as a cmnty benefit for the gift of an increase in density -- a sgl fam house sat there and now it'll be ten units -- with a substantial increase in value?
Watch what happens at Devt Permit stage?}


Mayor: attended with Cclrs Day, Ferguson, and Soprovich, event honouring one of our residents, Richard Kinar who personally spearheaded this whole discussion wrt safety helmets, now become a national discussion, with our MLA Ralph Sultan, contributed $50K for portion of study, Canadian Standards Assn represented by a VP from Toronto accepted
whole initiative for helmets for bicycle, skateboard use, etc; CSA-approved
real credit to Richard Kinnear who has kept with it, national recognition

Sop: started as an initiative by a citizen here, to FCM, took our resoln and went to fed govt to Industry Canada and Ministry of Health Canada
if provs wd partake, get ball rolling, wd take $500K
what was explained by Dr Hunt today, is that the trauma received from small knocks, tripping, banging, reason rather than hitting tree; small knocks over a period of time, brain trauma
why are you laughing?
Mayor: just thinking,Monday night ccl mtgs notwithstanding!

Sop; Good one; we shd hv worn them tonight
some of us are going to take to FCM
esp with Olympics coming
we did it here, we did it first
VD: Mr Kinar shd be highly congratulated and FCM
re Min Emerson's remarks  the idea that the govt hasn't got $500K
read about Gomery report
chipped in for golf balls
seems amazing have to get money from provs, amazing not say Ms had to chip in
thought it was such a poor response
feds shd pay the bill and get on with it
thought Minister Emerson's remarks sounded good but unsupported
hope we get through this very fast

G-J: last week I contacted building of Silver building, first LEED bldg in N Am
took me and some staff through the bldg
wanted next door and bonusing so NV said fine, make it LEED standard
in the end he learned a tremendous amount
using e-glazing, don't need air conditioning, just open window
,,,,,green roof
costs were 2% upfront but probably recouped it in the marketing effort alone, ready for this
more about rethinking things
interestingly the bldg has sold to people within a three-mile radius, of 15th and Lonsdale, maybe one person over bridge
type of housing needed
at 15th and Lonsdale, penthouse sold for $1m; beautiful view
hope this is something Council, we'll be asking for, not just in our own bldgs

8.         OTHER ITEMS
8.1       Correspondence [total list in previous issue]
No Action Required (receipt only)
8.1.6         M. Sherman; A. Nicholson-Chow; M. Moore; K. Patricia Wren; S. Nicholson; K. Patterson, March 07, 2005, regarding Clovelly Walk Heritage and Legacy and accompanying six (6) page, approximate sixty-eight (68) signature petition
                 Attachments available for viewing in the Clerk's Department.
RD: re letter 8.1.6, petition from residents of Clovelly Walk
disturbing, lovely area, near Caulfeild heritage zone
photos of some pretty brutal subdivisions
lots supposed to be half acre, some sort of loophole
exactly what we don't want, clearcut, brutal transformation of the area
cd Mr Nicholls bring us up to date on this subdivision
SJN: two properties have caused concern, western end and on south
one was an estate, trees were cut at rear
particularly for the garage, nbrs did not expect to see cut
not the intent of the estate when it sold, happened during construction
at other end of the block, a single lot was clearcut, no house now, also a concern
a large property another four-lot configuration told not permitted, met with residents last week, came back with three-lot and that may be coming forward, they are 20Ksf and above
those residents are hoping to be able to handle the tree issue.
I suggested contact previous person as to what he wd have done better

Appointment to North Shore Family Court and Youth Justice Cmte

Ron Komm: 1384 Chartwell Drive; on Chartwell Dr between fire hall and school, have been some engineers surveying and then cutting up, and say some curves into the street
residents on Ch Drive and BPAHA have not been apprised of this
thought there might have been public mtg re upgrading or as I see it, downgrading
have there been?
Mayor: no
EB: traffic safety improvements wrt schools in area, done in consultation with schools, parents, etc
notice to the cmnty went out about two weeks ago
RK: I never received that
Mayor: maybe you can contact Mr Barth tomorrow
RK: they have eliminated all the parking areas
where mothers come to pick up their children
traffic is now two lanes instead of three
inside curb lane
middle lane people cd have safe passage, one way going down
being a fire road
all devt
all trucks going up and down
in my view, the narrowing of Ch Drive is going to be a detriment to the traffic and to all who go up
ill-advised move and feel perhaps BPAHA shd have been contacted
if mothers were there, spring break now, you'd have pickets
no place to pick up chn
I drive down ev day about school time, never had a problem
always moves smoothly
see cars all lined up and there'll be no parking from now on
shdn't pour the cement tomorrow, that'll be a big mistake
Mayor: take it under advisement; Mr Barth
RK: how?
Mayor: he'll give you his card

Eleanor Thomas: on V between Keith and Esquimalt
when Ev Dr put to Public Hearing, are you going to send a mailout to ev resident in WV?
Mayor: not legally required to
SJN: no, will within 100m of the devt and in NSNews
ET: that's a mistake
will impact ev in WV
think that's totally unacceptable
RD: cd put in Tidings
Mayor: will be widely advertised
MMgr: Ccl can vary the notification so that's something that can be taken into consideration
Mayor: as widespread as possible

Bruce McArthur: a note from Kevin Falcon's office to CNV where NV Ccl was invited to a special presentation announcing hwy improvements to NSh roads
turns out in Dollarton and near cycle walks
evident Kevin Falcon has somehow missed WV
WV having a major traffic flow through cmnty
Amazing not get anything; we have a problem there
BMcA: hope you keep poking them, reminding him
Mayor: thank you very much; appreciate your bringing that to my attention
Easter, so next mtg Apr 4
wish everyone a Happy Easter.

===  QUOTATION ===

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
                        -George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)