WVM2005-12N
Mar 21st Ccl NOTES & Calendar to Mar 31st
by
Carolanne Reynolds, Editor
www.WestVan.org
HAPPY EASTER!
Herewith:
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
>>>>>
TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF WEST VANCOUVER ON THE WEB!!!
<<<<<
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.
So
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 +++
= OPERA
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.
+++
gRUMBLING
+++ === NEW COMMUNITY CENTRE
===
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.
... 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.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
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
RECOMMENDED:
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
CARRIED
Mayor: Now 5.1 FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN
BYLAW
***{Hands up.
THIS IS THE
BUDGET!
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
7:25
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.....}
7:37
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
7:38
5.3 Lighthouse Park Implementation Strategy
Designated Presenter: Director of
Parks and Community Services
RECOMMENDED:
THAT
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
7:53
Sop: not one of those moments
[chuckles]
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.
7:56
5.4 Request from Antonio Bay Productions for Noise Bylaw
Exemption During Proposed Filming in West Vancouver
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 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.
7:58
5.5 Profile of Disability in West Vancouver (File: 2515?02?01)
Designated Presenter: Director of
Planning, Lands & Permits
RECOMMENDED:
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
8:01
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
essentially
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
[applause]
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
[applause]
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
yes
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
conviction
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.....
[applause]
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
[applause]
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
[applause]
PASSED with Sop
opposed.
9:22
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
RECOMMENDED:
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?}
9:27
7.
REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
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!
[laughter]
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
9:35
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
9:38
8.2
Appointment to North Shore Family Court and
Youth Justice Cmte
9.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
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
Mayor:
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)