West Van Matters - WVM2005-18N: May 9th Ccl NOTES; May 15th Agenda; Mtgs/Events to May 19th

=== CCL MTG NOTES May 9th &= nbsp; =====================

AGENDA: items of correspondence and item 5.1 added, withdrawing 5.1, adding item 5.11 [C3] and sp ccl mtg for May 11

SSch: received three very late letters, on table, all on Ev Dr

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

3.1 Council Meeting Minutes, April 11, 2005, 3.2 April 18, 2005

4. DELEGATIONS

4.1 F. Patterson, Chair, BOOKtopia Committee, regarding update on BOOKtopia, West Vancouver Children's Literature Festival

{See Calendar for BOOKtopia events}

Julia Hedley, Head of Youth Dept at Mem Lib introduced a woman, mother of three, who had a vision. That woman was Fanny Patterson; she wanted a children's festival

this WV Children's Literature Festival

BOOKtopia's purpose is to promote literacy

thanks to Lib Fdn for generous support, VSun, Chapters/Indigo, and NShNews

Collaboration of WVML and SD 45; facilitated a joint initiative

first festival from May 12 to 14

four events at Kay Meek: Gr 2 Students Thursday; Gr 5 Friday

WV Poetry Slam on Thursday evening; poets go to schools, poetry is submitted; refreshments donated by Whole Foods

Puppet Production by Anansi, Kay Meek, tix at door

display at Kay Meet Ctr

Words become a story or a poem

looking for high profile poets who will have an impact

thx

JF: thank Fanny for all she's done for getting this initiative up and going

G-J: first, inaugural year with thanks

b/c of Kay Meek Ctr we can pull this off

Tears of Joy is the premier puppet troop?? in NAm

true partnership

7:16

4.2 S. Ward, regarding Proposed New Community Centre

SW: Thank you for allowing the Save Our Gym cmte to make this presentation

as you know, became concerned not court sports but for dynamic gymnastics

to exclusion of court sports and larger fitness progs

subsequently as a result of sev mtgs; staff have given serious reconsideration

we hope your deliberations will allow all users to enjoy

petition with 700 signatures

Elaine Fonseca will present the petition

VD: wd like to thank Mr Ward for his regular attendance at the Wed morn mtgs

5. REPORTS

5.1 Development Variance Permit Application No. 04-026 (2925 and 2935 Marine Drive) WITHDRAWN

5.2 Municipal Support for Community Social Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT the report dated April 28, 2005 from the Social Services Manager regarding consultant selection for the review of Municipal Support for Community Social Services be received for information.

KP: all three Ms involved; provide facts, strictly for information

Sop: the object is?

KP: to provide you with info staff do not have at present

where soc services are; what able to provide and what not, to enable you to make decisions

Sop: there is a need

logically evident in next while will have to look at it with serious commitment

$10K fee to tell us what?

end result is what I'm looking for

we already know we have a problem

Mayor: $30K

KP: $10K each M

Sop: study come back and then find the money, is that your plan?

KP: Ccls need an objective and unbiased as possible view

know what groups are up against

VD: Mr Pike, presume the project deliverables on p 8 of the tender doc specifies there'll be an analysis, present final report

these are what we're paying for?

come back and tell us before plan and cost might be?

KP: more than staff report

PASSED

5.3 Request from Hannah Rachel Production Services Ltd. for Noise Bylaw Exemption for Filming (118 Stevens Drive) ... for filming at the residence of Mark Scott at 118 Stevens Drive in West Vancouver:

=B7 on Thursday May 26, 2005 until 11:30 p.m.;

=B7 on Friday May 27, 2005 from 11:00 p.m. to midnight through to Saturday May 28, 2005 until 1:30 a.m.;

=B7 on Wednesday June 1, 2005 from 11:00 p.m. to midnight through to Thursday June 2, 2005 until 12:30 a.m.;

=B7 on Thursday June 2, 2005 from 11:00 p.m. to midnight through to Friday June 3, 2005 until 2:00 a.m.;

=B7 on Friday June 3, 2005 from 11:00 p.m. to midnight through to Saturday June 4, 2005 until 2:00 a.m.

JF: raft of letters of support from nbrs

PASSED

5.4 Development Permit No. 05-003 (2138/2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue)

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. Development Permit Application No. 05-003 (2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue), which would regulate the future development of a residential multi-family building, be referred to the Design Advisory Committee for review and comment; and

2. The applicant hold a Neighbourhood Information Meeting.

SJN: no variances, last hirise

info mtg May 17th in Lib

Don Wieber: here representing the strata ccl of the bldg across the street

have presented to Ccl and DAC our concerns

counting on M&Ccl that the interests of residents before dvpr.

we ask you take the time to consider this submission

G-J made motion above: this is a good staff report b/c it encapsulates concerns of the nbrs across the street; ask that the apt guidelines be given -- shd I add that?

SJN: we will do that

Sop: does it meet all the guidelines

SJN: we believe it does

Sop: when they speak of all 50 acres all built out, why are we still seeing hirises -- I know why but why are we?

SJN: this is the last undeveloped site in the hirise zone. Others have been purchased, not built. From time to time ppl will come. This is the last as apt.

Sop: [others?]

SJN: sgl house

whether called x or y

Sop: do you know when designated?

SJN: at least 1958

JC: May 17 info mtg but it's election day, suggest another

Mayor: another date

SJN: suggested others

but nbrs, want close and Peters Rm (in Library) is a block away; mtg 6 to 7pm

PASSED

5.5 Consideration of Adoption - District of West Vancouver Environmental Strategy

SJN: was previously presented to Ccl; recommendation be adopted

policy is a framework, sensitivity

Sop: want some clarification; GVRD Green Zone

to incorporate most of the 2800 acres in the GVRD Green Zone

it's WV land; don't want another level of govt telling us what to do with our land

do things under Livable Region? that's hogwash

what we want, we in WV do; they can want a thousand things

SJN: the four pillars of the Livable Region Strategy is green (ALR, river systems, containment area for urban, so shield; GVRD is a cooperative, ea M was asked to consider in terms of preservation, was some back and forth; each M put forth certain lands; at that time we weren't certain how much, knew Cypress Bowl but felt certainly above 1200ft wd be green, put in OCP; regional context statement; at least those lands owned by M wd be in Green Zone -- this repeats what's currently in your OCP; this is voluntary; once designated area to GVRD and up to M to work it out)

Sop: don't want to go above 1200ft, but says here 'consider including'

but re env'tal strategy, looked at creeks but not attempt to look at wildlife

haven't looked at bears, had problems with them

problems with raptors in Lighthouse Park -- that project seems to be going quite well

concern re wildlife in all WV

know Jim Bailey and Steve Jenkins have worked a lot on this and give them credit

{yay, Jim and Steve!}

hope will be here 2-300 years, I won't be here but

all NSh, three ski areas, trails, lakes, will we not look at some -- designate large areas green forevermore?

I think we fall short of end result won't be there

SJN: one of our proposals is to designate our land above 1200ft as park; to GVRD, dedicated, start with that

more important thing is that it takes together things M is already undertaking and puts them into a single strategy, enable a better picture wrt strategy

first step, identifies action plans, need to monitor and report back

JF: goes a long way

heard clearly from citizens through that four-year process, [citizens] wanted to honour and perhaps enhance the integrity of the environment; consider housing and transportation strategies

had absolutely no one in that time find fault with the env'tal strategy to achieve these goals

great first step

think staff have done an excellent job

G-J: this operationalizes the OCP, huge help; responds to residents as in Synovate survey -- most people care about the environment; been to three env'tal conferences and big puzzle is how to do these things

DAC v interested, wants to go farther wrt built form, suggest referring it to them with this specific request

objective two, promoting stewardship, wrt Upper Lands, cd be improved a little; it says devt as ..... think they shd say attractive and compact

base on env'tal and land stewardship, best practices; social and economic devt as well

particularly well done in this report

to check facts, p16 sustainable energy use, kind of cavalier stmt; says "NAmericans including WVites consume more energy per capita than anywhere else in the world." I heard a commentary on the CBC that said Washington residents use twice the energy of BCians, and BCians use twice that per capita as Germany, so I think we're in the middle

need help with our image

VD: think it's a good report

will join with Cclr Sop; re GVRD, green zones cause problems, M did it wish they hadn't

have to come before GVRD Bd to justify it

see no benefit in putting any in green zone

surely we can trust ourselves and ccls in future not to meddle with it

others have complained to me

suddenly you've actually put your land under control of 35 politicians with no interest in your M

all sorts of issues and trouble

like to come forth with something simple but end of day at Bd level

see recommendation adopt it

appreciate in OCP but that doesn't mean go forward with it

I know it says consider but a Ccl down the way will be asked

wd like to see it removed, and put control in our hands as if we're GVRD and not have to go through them

Mayor: Mr Nicholls, what is your recommendation?

SJN: it's a policy so Ccl can reconsider it at some time

VD: can we defer to next week?

SJN: we can

JC: I concur with sentiments of Cclrs Sop and Durman

we're leaders

shd acknowledge work done by PEAC, EAC, when you look through recommendations, absolutely brilliant

v thoughtful, shd look at them

MMgr: with the exception of Green Zone

cd say "dev strategies in ... with the OCP"

come back

keeps intent

RD: go ahead and adopt with that slight change

the intent is clear

this says consider, it is compatible with OCP; not talking about an amendment to OCP

I'd say we shd just go ahead and adopt it

wd have liked to see stronger language to protect the waterfront, but we can do it in future, it's an excellent study

wd like to see it pass tonight or next week

JF: appreciate nagging concern designated as GVRD Green Zone...Livable Regions Strategy

throughout OCP process, ppl in this cmnty v much wanted to see land above 1200ft remain green

clearly recognized and clearly communicated

what's process for designating it and removing it

if we understood those two things better, perhaps it wd help us

Mayor: what's involved in getting in and getting out?

Cclr Durman said how difficult to get out

SJN: getting in involves an amendment to your OCP and to Livable Regions Strategy, getting out wd be the reverse process

expect you'd have some difficulty trying to figure out why you wd remove it if committed to preserving it

JF: need some compelling reason

SJN: thus far, inappropriate in first place

elsewhere maybe b/c based on ALR being included

Sop: p 8 states consider most of 2800 acres, and top of page, says will work with GVRD to include 2800 acres above 1200ft

I'm not voting for this if that's in there; shd be removed and make that consideration some time in future

*******************

MMgr: I'm just suggesting "strategies to best protect and control"

Sop: astonishing but have larger properties, the av WV resident uses 34m litres [did I mishear or did he mean all of WV daily?] of water a day

metering process started to follow with education process

toilet and shower head use most water; five bathrooms, image

met someone at Park Royal; went and looked at toilets -- not one dual flush out of 35 models; to NV did not find one!

GVRD wants to slip $50, shd be a couple of hundred dollars

these big companies promoting LEED and other things

these toilets shd be all over the places and they're not even there

how long is it going to take

at end of decade looking at 8% increase in water

not at you, Mr Barth, I know prog takes time

G-J: the sentiment expressed in the OCP really important and we have our own tools

we can do better

This Washington Post article: cash-strapped cmnties trading green space for greenbacks in California as a way to make money, don't think it's going to happen with this Ccl, but always a concern for the public

think we shd endorse this tonight and we shd hv the suggestion from MMgr come back asap

VD: subject to whole issue of Green Zone removed

MMgr: motion for adoption of the plan subject to an amendment

wrt the Green Zone, substituting those references with "identify strategies to best protect and control activity in M land above the 1200ft contour"

[what about G-J's comment about compact????]

PASSED

8pm

5.6 2005 Annual Tax Rates Bylaw No. 4419, 2005

RECOMMENDED: ... introduced and read a first, second, and third time.

RL: 2005 Budget was adopted Apr 4; M tax 1.95 increase; $49 av tax increase on av assessment of just under $900K

required also to collect taxes on other levels of govt: levy and collect school tax on behalf of prov; levy rates for GVRD; for GVTA for operation of TransLink; for the MFA; and for BC Assessment Authority

attached to my report is an analysis of impact of these tax rates on house under $900K

Dist Operations: $49

increase wrt provincial school rates almost $3

wrt TransLink $211

other regional levies, aggregate just under $3

total some $265 on average resident in WV, of that $210 GVTA negotiations, not from DWV

other analyses attached

there's a sheet indicating impact on all Lower Mainland Ms, all hit fairly hard

of course b/c assessments so high in WV, WV highest hit in Lower Mainland

recommend tax bylaw before you

Sop: Mr Mayor, will you comment on NSh mtg/relationship wrt TransLink and levy increase

Mayor: Cclr Day attended with me, about a week ago; NSh Mtg also w/ Doug McCallum and Pat Jacobsen

mtg focused on impact of TransLink cost

prob with increased assessments, rather than mill rate, TransLink works on 2%, not assessed value

factoring $18m

as a result of huge assessed values, raising $31m

Mayor Sharp asked roll back of diff of $13m, but Bd did not support her

our increase, passing to taxpayers is 88% -- $210

they're not going to roll it back, Bd keeping that $31m, passing it along to you and me

hits WV taxpayer rather hard

Sop: car, sgl occupancy

modern day ppl, esp from WV, well-educated, you can't really tell them not to take their cars

what about the north-south routes

know they came with a miniplan; know you were upset by that

what's happening, what plans, except for small ferry?

we're going to have a Transp Adv Cmte; don't know how they're going to answer

I hope you'll give them an earful

we need a rep on the Bd that we're not going to be satisfied with this in the future

Mayor: one of the ironies; we're not receiving any direct benefit out of this tax unless you consider the RAV line -- some WV residents go to the airport

difficult to justify

VD: they budgeted for $18m, but actually less; adjusted upward

2% increases, nope, more like 6 - 7%

using it for better safety on Pattullo Bridge but wasn't high on list until got this windfall tax

wonder what urgency they're putting on renewal

take issue with Cclr Sop re Mayor Sharp -- she has been vocal voice, not saying Mayor Wood wdn't

many benefits to GVTA -- cleaner air, better transportation

can relate it to LM

transportation and air pollution will be major over next few years

under Reports from Ccl I'll report on GVRD mtg on Friday

JF: wanted to agree with Cclr VD, Mayor was not only vocal, but she spoke out first

got to mobilize more ppl to speak out, go en masse

looking to you, Cclr Day, on this cmte, to speak up

know we'll all benefit but feel been robbed but not predictable; say will raise a certain extent then they keep the windfall and take it home in a bag and I really resent that

look for larger groups

RD: yes I'm on the Transp cmte with Cclr Sop and did attend that mtg with you, Mr Mayor

agree TransLink investments on the whole good, public transit rather than automobile whereas prov pushing automobile by twinning Port Mann bridge

other points we discussed, the disparity

Mayor McCallum talked about a ferry but not clear about it, didn't know we didn't have space for parking

prop taxes are regressive taxes

a lot of ppl in WV don't have a lot of income so that $210 tax on their property, those on fixed income, don't have cars, don't use public transit, and they have to pay

user pay made more sense -- $75 per car

Sop: to clarify, no slam against Mayor Sharp, wanted two for one

VD: GVRD little or no control over GVTA

RD: referring to other taxes, shd hv bn clearer

other taxes going up but not as rapidly

our ability to tax being threatened; in future cd be a serious problem

8:16

5.7 2005 Specified Area and Local Area Service Tax Bylaws

Designated Presenter: Director of Finance

RECOMMENDED introduced and read a first, second,and third time in short form: THAT

"Specified Area Tax Rates Bylaw 4425, 2005"

"Parcel Tax (Garrow Bay) Bylaw No. 4426, 2005"

"Parcel Tax (Eagle Harbour) Bylaw No. 4427, 2005"

"Local Area Service Parcel Tax 1902-1990 Kings Avenue and 1925-1995 Jefferson Avenue Bylaw No. 4420, 2005"

"Local Area Service Parcel Tax 1003-1075 Duchess Avenue and 1010-1074 Esquimalt Avenue Bylaw No. 4421, 2005"

"Local Area Service Parcel Tax 1735-1775 Gordon Avenue and 1734-1780 Haywood Avenue and 935-967 17th Street Bylaw No. 4422, 2005"

"Local Area Service Parcel Tax 2110-2198 Rosebery Avenue and 2107 -2197 Queens Avenue Bylaw No. 4423, 2005" be now introduced and read a first, second and third time.

"Local Area Service Parcel Tax 2423-2459 Mathers Avenue and 2426 - 2460 Nelson Avenue and 1508 -1589 24th Street Bylaw No. 4424, 2005"

RL: some ongoing; revitalization from 1988; underground wiring on Bellevue

8:21

5.8 Water Shortage Response Plan Bylaw No. 4418, 2005

Designated Presenter: Director of Engineering and Transportation

RECOMMENDED: ...be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

EB: water restrictions; manage discretionary uses of water

measures to conserve with least impact on users; standalone bylaw; being done throughout GVRD

more restrictive than previous bylaw, involves fountains, power-washing

G-J: this is totally in line with GVRD; only areas of concern were businesses using water and golf course

intent not to affect those earning a living

great to be lining up across the region

MMgr: just received a report today that snowpacks lower (north normal); important wrt water shortage

8:23

5.9 Bylaws to Protect and Enhance Watercourses in West Vancouver

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)

SJN: was distributed to Ccl on Friday, posted on 'net

this is complicated and long

given the volume of material; we're suggesting given deadlines by prov; suggest receive tonight and next week refer them to adv bodies

Mayor: Mr Roach?

DRoach: I'll defer my comments till you introduce it

Sop: guess we're not going to get into it tonight; major areas of concerns

MMgr: perhaps Cclr Sop cd give them to staff for consideration before next mtg

Mayor: water runs downhill...

8:26

[G-J leaves Chamber and returns at end of this item]

5.10 Evelyn Drive Planning Area Special Study

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)

SJN: just received report this afternoon so we suggest defer this to next week.

Blair Bailey: my letter....

VD: if we're not going to consider this tonight,

understand why you all turned up tonight -- are you going to turn up next week and do it all again?

I see a huge number of ppl but we/they only got this afternoon

apologize

ask ev to come back next Monday if they can

happy to sit here

two nights, same ppl

SJN: for clarification, the timing can be handled

brought back a report; if Ccl wishes to consider that, can do so

JC: don't know why we have to defer it; all it does is follow the OCP,

VD: listen to public

BB: have been anxiously awaiting the report since last week; seen few minutes before 7 o'clock

inclined to agree with Cclr Clark, it's not all that complex

tonight I was really intending to reverse dealings between Planning and Millennium

window of opp

there is a definite way -- to date not finite

way to enable them and Ccl to support something

afraid been quite a lacuna wch now cd be resolved so as to obviate the need for a study at this juncture

to refer to my seven-page letter of May 5, if read, you'll get a summation (of residents of area as well); have you read it?

Mayor: all received; yes I've read

BB: good; can save some time

you've seen my observations wrt the invalidity of OCP, H2

both Planning and Millennium reached same conclusion; b/c they worked together for two years

one year of wch after adoption of OCP and H2

my letter asked why it took all this time for both to realize OCP H2 was a governing factor

to be so, not to waste any more money and time

all in my letter; consider carefully when you come to decide about another study

Cclr Clark has just referred to suggestion and meaning of word consideration, and really what H2 seems to be, an advisory/cautionary document; I question whether intended to cover an extended devt

asks for a study and then goes on to second-guess study, anticipates saying cd consider townhouses, lowrise apts, and density up to 1 FAR etc

what if study wants something else? high rises? lower rises? more roads and so on? what then?

good deal of leeway

says nothing about a study carried on at the cost of the dvpr

indeed study carried on by Planning Dept, week after week, and 11 plans by dvpr

question appears how to arrive at magic figure of 1.0[FAR]; certainly been a recent bone of contention as far as I've been informed

briefly the dvpr wants to include roads etc wch it wd have purchased, paid for, and ceded to WV.

wants all that included in calculating FAR to arrive at 1.0FAR and on Apr 7 Planning Dept suddenly says the devt plan does not meet OCP and lots in excess of 1.0 and cannot be averaged

next to that report; then says okay not include, and have then 1.21, they not really approve; then conversation with staff, not to exceed 1.0, that's what OCP says

regardless of hill?

when I suggested OCP might just be a guide and shd not be a prison for a creative use of a piece of land

interpret lowrise four storeys and also have townhouses, all anticipated in OCP H2

I said, do you realize what effect that might have?

Planning said shd be something that distinguishes WV, announce WV, at gates, shd be monumental

nice maybe, but there'll be nothing distinguished about a series of four-storey bldgs

you have leeway to vary heights

if you look at the Vancouver skyline, I see ev day, interesting -- god-help-us if all four storeys

if you ever cross the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, skyline, what a treat that's what you want to see here

Mayor: there are a lot of ppl waiting to speak

BB: if I may conclude, urge these two parties to resume their talks with a bit of quid pro quo

other places will allow dvpr the advantage of the amalgamation in calculating

Carolina [unintelligible and Mayor found difficult to pronounce]: WV is in an exceptional position.....

most owners have agreed to sell their properties

shd be a grand entrance... richest area of Canada... has to be spectacular, the envy of all the other cities

hope all nbrs recognize this; ev stands to benefit

anything less than striking bldgs........

very hard to have lots this size available for redevt

Mayor: had trouble with this name last time

Dr Alec Cisero [sp?]: speak on behalf of several nbrs

attended many mtgs; watched on tv, just for the giggles alone

Cclr Day said WV is a privileged cmnty and other saying I'm going to lose my view, traffic probs, and asking Millennium to go back to the drawing board

of course, can't argue with these points

undercurrent; yes, we live in an exclusive cmnty

it's a privileged cmnty; an exclusive cmnty by its nature excludes

can't lose sight of those opposing are the ugly undercurrent of exclusion

not going to work

not owners, nbrs now renters; obviously they care less about their property than I do, I own

quality descending... renters aren't taking care of their property, trees being chopped down

even though we want to live in an exclusionary cmnty

you can't avoid ppl coming in but at same time have to make it accessible

folks in opposition, perhaps not so hidden, view loss, and same things we've heard over and over

MMgr: if Ccl going to move ahead, ppl shd perhaps speak to the study

Mayor: good point; let's try to speak to issue at hand

Morris Shemmer [sp?]: agree with Cclr Durman; we're going to hear the same thing over and over

there's a study

get on with it; you were voted in strongly and no one in objection to housing for emptynest seniors who have to go elsewhere

all voted you in, gave you support, and you don't need another study

Hank Jasper: Mgr of Millennium Properties

forwarded a letter today and I'd like to read into the record

Mayor: we have a copy

HJ: important to read; we don't

Sept 2004 applied

Ccl did not receive a staff report Apr 5 and 11; was not a defeat of our application

consultation with our solicitors, Ccl did nothing

misconceptions... wise of Ccl not to vote on the matter

not a decision at all... move on prof studies

do accept must continue to work together........

perplexing b/c we have done exactly what Ccl asked over the past two and a half years

...

public mtgs, planning options; complied with all the District's....

including process for planning and redvt of Ev Dr

feel we're entitled to.......

prepared at least nine different master plans

20% decrease, in number of units; ...... price tag todate $15m including

concerns; not yet seen report 5pm

we've undertaken... not to have that as benefit

no one's going to implement it... applicant and proponent

any redvt must be one that we wd wish to build and that WV wd like to see

Ev Dr was clearly identified

new housing types... sustainable; accessible, srs, ..........

processing of our application must be continued

any outstanding concerns

wd like to be kept informed of any mtgs and wd be prepared to respond

Peter Kreuk: I'm landscape architect, felt addressed

gateway to city

prefer to continue working and resolving; coming with a plan

[some applause]

JF: question of you and Mr Jasper, I was out of country during those mtgs as you know; wd like to know what you consider wd constitute timely?

[voice: tomorrow]

HK: props assembled at great expense

ppl have put their lives on hold; cost of continuing to hold these props; wd say immediate

plan to hire a consultant to review our proposal or application

think report we saw today says July 15, that's two and a half months away, understand Ccl doesn't meet during balance of July and don't know when it reconvenes, August or September....

the sooner the better

Sop: on a pt of info, may I ask a q of the Mgr

it was my understanding of the report that this wd go back and Planning wd hire a consultant, start from lay of the land; in the process involve all of the stakeholders; then come up with some submissions

consideration of input from Millnm Props, wch wd help, and further key stakeholder consultation -- all the area -- and the consultant wd give a summary of the consultation and a report to satisfy the study objectives

understood that when we didn't vote [last motion] and it had nothing to do with Millnm but wonder from comments

study whether Millnm or not, want quicker

consultation with all residents, what Ccl stipulated; a bit confused listening to Millnm support all over again

not saying we don't support Mllnm but study has to lay some groundwork

MMgr: throughout this process

public comment wrt Millnm Prop's proposal for and against

Ccl made a decision not to receive the two draft bylaws they had requested

indicated we'd come forward with some sort of framework for the area to assess applications

you're hearing some saying don't need another study

from Millnm, look at study, see devt proposed

hear balance of speakers and then Ccl can decide next step

Sop: don't have prob listening to ppl

but is it same as a week ago, same as TofRef here?

MMgr: report suggesting a framework, not unlike with Clyde Ave

somewhat abbreviated maybe, what's economically viable, given topography

then assess any application, including present application

Sop: then why not vote on it tonight?

MMgr: certainly cd, but staff just being conscious report/info received tonight; didn't want to put in position had to [decide] tonight [with virtually no time for anyone to read].

Brian Wallace: I'm traffic consultant, with ND Lea; b/c of evolutionary nature of projects such as this, reports have been prepared: first 2003, Feb 2004 changes to plan; Apr 2004, reviews and revisions; another report [date], then Nov, and Dec 2004 wch had realtime traffic simulation

from a traffic perspective, has been followed

looking process be expedited to Public Hearing asap

Curt Sheppard; reside on Duchess, this evening speaking for Millnm, engaged by them; took data from them, surveyors, and DWV

bldg outlines done by aerial mapping; bldgs designed and redesigned; hedges and vegetation in foreground wrt Stanley Pk

called residents, cd see exactly what you're going to get vs clouds in sky

Susan Wilkins: with Pottinger Geraghty, Env'tal Consultants

impressed; part of my job over last two years was to see we were satisfying all these objectives

we're ready and willing to move forward

been to lots of open houses......

Smart Growth BC, this is embodiment .....

Milln also committed to LEED

wrt sustainable devt, Millnm has done its best to follow that

Stuart Lyon: project architect; letter on file

coordinated devt of at least ten plans

explored different road layouts, bldg forms, hts, diff massing

three important pts:

1 -- on Apr 11 several mbrs of audience posed questions never clarified about density and ht, and may have misled;

density: proposed has never gone up in the two years I've worked on this project, has in fact been reduced, gone down including as recently as Apr 11; in staff report to wch public responded negatively to a higher density and that was to NET, after all dedications made, all land not to be built on

height: not increased in two years I've worked on project, has been reduced; most recent scheme no bldg rising more than six storeys, along Ev Dr alignment, middle of site, no bldg exceeds six storeys, no bldg exceeds two storeys above Keith Rd; the reference in Apr 11 staff report to 175ft was a sea-level reference, NOT a bldg ht reference wch led some to believe 17-storey bldgs on the site

2 -- devpr agreed to a reduction of gross bldg density; the devpr agreed to a further reduction of 22Ksf number reflected in report to ccl, 692Ksf but never reflected in planned drawings

had fully agreed and planned to redraw accordingly reflecting lowered hts

public/ccl has never seen plans with this reduction; wd still app opp to present these to you

3 -- an independent planner with only hypothetical access to the 65 properties cd only speculate

this is not raw land; this is collection of 56, 20 acres

no speculation how landowners wd react

no way of knowing if cd be amassed? again

strongly recommend District staff, adv cmtes, and applic continue to work together with public

take advantage of work done collaboration further refine to create the type of devt originally envisioned in the OCP

[applause]

Fulvio Verdicchio: reside at 885 Keith Rd, Prez of Sentinel Hill South Slope Homeowners' Assn

no one has spoken to the motion tonight

no one speaking for Millnm has given addresses; don't think they live in WV

we do really need an independent study of this area

[applause]

Helena Galas: Ev Dr; coming tonight, we've just had

four years of OCP, two years dealing with dvpr; our life must go on

v disappointed the residents and devpr have been discounted

56 residents but 15 - 20 ppl have so much

they can't read drawings; you still hear 17 storeys b/c been conveyed to residents -- and it's untrue

as I read deadline is July 15 and as we know District does not work to a deadline

wd take months, years

cost of this study -- what is it? public shd know? maybe expensive and reflect on all WV, not just a handful of ppl who cannot read the drawings

this kind of process, a senior lady asked me if this process will be applicable to other areas

ppl using Taylor Way affect those on Ev Dr as well

this say analysis must provide scenario with no road connection; most of us know entering or exiting, something has to be done; rerouting the road

Millnm has four diff exits, most sensible way

Keith Rd can go up and down but Ev Dr only one way

road connection long overdue

Shahram Malek, director and principal of Millennium Properties Ltd, also live in WV at 2050 Mathers Ave

didn't have much opportunity to read the report this evening but tried, spent 15 minutes reading it

some points need to be reiterated

about two and a half years ago put our trust in a system

asked about the system to be followed

informed of the process and what to be followed; go to residents

I believe we followed that process religiously

trusted process or wdn't have invested millions of dollars; wdn't do that without faith in it

we've done ev we've been asked to do

no one ever mentioned that someone else wd do a study on this site; devpr's studies and vetted by Planning

came back with plans and traffic studies; did ev we were told to do

been a lengthy and painful process, esp for residents both those opposed and involved

become a bit of a veteran; think it will go on and on

goes too much into future might not even be a project to debate

time shd be taken into consideration taking an outside person on board

if sincere, believe and hope, shd work together

perhaps this person shd be a facilitator -- listen to us and to others

with a mandate to come to a conclusion

think really wd be a big mistake if drags on into summer, fall, and wd divide cmnty even more

really want to have something residents, behind us and rest of WV, to be proud of

.....

Mayor: we have a recommended motion before us, anyone prepared to make it?

JC: I am [read it]: Ev Dr Planning Area Study

[Sop seconded]

JC: I too think July 15 an onerous date; think shd move forward to June 15

Mayor: not sure realistic

MMgr: suggest June 15 or as soon as possible

JC: can understand that

VD: concerned about July 15; want to receive it, read it, and then a motion to bring Millnm application forth; they have a legal

we don't have Public Hearings in August and rarely in July so we're really talking about September, drag into October and Nov

election in Nov, so big urge to put it off until after election

ppl counting on seeing who's on wch side of this debate

I think you're putting the public, residents, applicant through..........

shd hv done this by now

have a problem with hiring, uh, not sure what this consultant is

is this consultant an planning expert?

SJN: yes

VD: is he an arbitrator?

SJN: he has performed that role but don't anticipate that

VD: what is the role of Ccl? is it Ccl's obligation to listen to public for and against, or obligation of consultant to listen re planning proposal

SJN: role of consultant identified in this report is to assess all info before Ccl, to meet with representatives with stakeholders, no mtg with 300 attending; to meet with applicant; get their understanding and make recommendations wrt a plan that may or may not be consistent with what has been put forward by Millnm

part of planning effort for area

upon application, says Ccl was unprepared to go forward and wanted a third party; and that was intended as a planning consultant/expert, not an arbitrator

VD: I understand key stakeholder; I understand those homeowners on Ev Dr and those around and groups who have come out against; I understand Millnm is a stakeholder and I presume citizens of WV is a stakeholder, but I'm not sure, I don't understand where Preserve West Vancouver group sits as a stakeholder b/c many residents in Caulfeild who view this positive or negative

not sure as to why PWV as a major stakeholder to be listened to

SJN: included those who made submissions

VD: you've gone further, you've said WILL

so unless a group has joined together and made a representation to Ccl, they're not to be included

SJN: if Ccl chooses to hear cmnty, they can

don't expect consultant to hold general work shops

VD: if he's a planning consultant

surely he's meant to take the physical information such as topographic, traffic counts, view corridors, and his own view of whatever he comes up with

I'm unsure, listening, and with all politeness, the residents' point of view, and that's what Ccl's meant to do; not sure what planner's doing talking to ppl outside

and here is a group who have stated clearly that they're not that in favour of devt -- there are other groups that have been pro or anti devt, but b/c they didn't come forth for this they won't be consulted by this consultant

unequitable for rest; real difficulty

we either hire a planner, using his professional expertise, whatever he comes up with, is only another person's opinion; listened to a lot of opinions but unfortunately haven't been able to read our planning staff's opinions b/c no one's been willing to accept them

[laughter]

through a formal process

Millnm wants to go to a PH, public wants to go to a PH, so they can stand up and say for or against, not sure why we're not just going for a Public Hearing

[applause]

let the chips fall where Ccl wishes them to fall even though that may be difficult at this time

[applause]

JF: I was not here

understand when bylaws came, there was no discussion b/c no seconder; quite baffled why not advanced to PH

let Ccl do what they were elected to do

[applause]

with advice of our professional employees, they offer professional opinions, found valuable over the years

truly baffled need to delay this process -- nbrs and devprs in limbo

not in best interests of cmnty

no one is held by this opinion of a professional planner; just one more opinion; we have prof planners on [adv cmte] and we get those for free; great trust in those ppl

frankly don't see the need for this

wd like to know why my colleagues did not see need to go to PH

[applause]

Sop: this report has Tof Ref, desire to move along, scope of work with Millnm, and don't care if they work with PWV or whoever, hope all in Ev Dr area

move along and hope to get a win out of this

ready for the question

RD: question asked why we didn't second motion; had some concerns about the report

written by competent planner but written in haste, some confusion, meaning of some of the points

had concerns from the beginning about the density of this project

favour devt for site, pleased Millnm acquired prop; sympathize with owners and residents

but I thought too dense, 500 - 510; dvpr said he cdn't come down b/c of costs of transforming terrain; needed units for servicing

but provided no economic data, not enough information

want answer to questions I had -- wd it be possible to build in accordance with OCP midrise bldgs, that's what OCP asked for, not hirise

secondly called for less density than offering

in a way, it was a way to salvage the project

if went to PH it wd be defeated b/c too dense and incompatible with OCP

so key was to find density, answers to economic questions I had, so cd reach, so dvpr cd go ahead with, find some way

then resolved, and nbrs

know it's diff to achieve

but to go to PH without sufficient info; but to go and have it possibly defeated, not way to go; seemed counterproductive

hesitated, didn't second

was unhappy with situation as it existed; stalemated

needed some outside opinion

make it acceptable to residents and nbrs in surrounding area

that's the reason I acted or didn't act as I did

VD: fact is this is a planning consultant, not a financial consultant

doesn't have in time span he's got factoring in all costs

neither PAC or DAC turned it down, suggested it cd be better

one even said density cd be higher

question I'd ask, is consultant; is it like Solomon, wch gets wch part of this child

politicians are elected to do that

is he, after listening to ev, then trying to work out financial issues, cd he come in and say if you want lower cost housing to encourage young ppl and more affordable housing, you need not 1FSR, you need 2FSR; instead of 500 units, you'd need a thousand b/c unit cost gone down

is he able to do that or are some mbrs hoping he'll come in under

are we prejudging? or are we giving him a free hand? allowing Millnm to give figs?

up the units

or are we going to listen to the public?

why don't we just move forward?

maybe where we shd be going, if we ask this guy...why don't we set the PH date now, and ask him, whoever he is, to at least produce the report before the PH, then we have something to go on

[applause]

MMgr: the intent really is to give this indiv a free hand

one key question is, is the OCP really achievable?

maybe it was best guess at the time, we're hoping working with Millnm, some info

then can look at what's achievable

might come back and say maybe it can't be done economically, has to be higher, bigger

but Ccl has at least that information

VD: can I--

SJN: in this report, consultant not able to give info for Cclr Day

cd maybe if Millnm wd release to consultant financial info that Millnm wd not release to us [DWV]

Those questions cd be answered by Millnm, consultant will not be developing those; possible to get info without doing it himself

so possible to answer those questions

Bruce McArthur: pt of information: is the date in the motion correct? 2006? going to stall it another year?

Mayor: correction thanks; 2005

JF: app you had some question but you're allowed to ask those in PH

RD: there are questions density consultant cd give an opinion on; don't see why Mllnm wdn't

presumably Millnm willing to share with consultant, and if won't, wd suspect data

my assumption is that we will be able to obtain the info

at point now we call the question; we can go ahead, go to a consultant

VD: friendly amendment

Mayor: suggest a separate motion

VD: I'm not willing to vote on motion without a date

Mayor: without a date for the PH

VD: we never do anything of significance in July

[applause]

the PH date shd be in June

and the consultant shd bring in the report prior to PH

JC: that's why I suggested June 15, so suggested next two Mondays June 20, June 27

Mayor: wording?

JC: report June 15 and PH Monday June 20

Sop: enough time?

SJN: six weeks very tight, mtg with people, don't believe June 15 will work

Mayor: don't believe

SJN: don't; can't set date for PH without a bylaw

VD: can establish date and ask staff to bring forward

SJN: we do have bylaws drafted

JC: don't bring those forward

Mayor: motion as stated plus amendment

SSch: wd suggest date for report

and PH separate motion

VD: it's all got to be together b/c one may fall and not the other

Mayor: mover and seconder agreed to June 15

MMgr: I have to raise a concern here

we're setting ourselves up for failure

public notification two or three weeks

you don't even have time form and content

we'd have to give notice next week and we don't even have info what bylaw you want to entertain

RD: that's why Mr Nicholls said not feasible

shd vote separately; it's a trap to defeat the process

VD: how trap?

to decide on application, not a trap

asking for information from apparently a highly qualified consultant, and setting a date for a PH

hear it's difficult

are we really saying we don't intend to have a hearing until Sept, or Oct

real plan then intent after Nov?

RD: both our planner and MMgr said not possible, not difficult

JC: object to get into public hands asap

shd be making our best efforts before everyone leaving in July

Mayor: that's what we're attempting to do

[applause]

MMgr: at the very least try to back that up so hearing date June 26/27. and have to have quick discussion with Ccl about form of bylaw, if specifically bylaw in front of you specific to this application

then what's in front of you, then first set of bylaws

so if PH on 27th with report from consultant week before

then you're tying us to that first bylaw

VD: are those bylaws applicable to Millnm applic?

SJN: yes, both of them are to enable the Millnm application

VD: so we'll be dealing with Millnm

SJN: so dealing with project before you

Mayor: not report coming in?

MMgr: the differences between the bylaws is the certainty

the extent to the certainty; it's that simple

if up in the air, some negotiations to continue, then choose second; if nailed down in form and character, then first

perhaps come back next week with bylaws for Ccl's consideration?

Mayor: June 20 receipt of report, June 27, PH

CARRIED

10pm

ADDED TO AGENDA -- 5.11 RE NEW CMNTY CTR --

[This appeared at the mtg; see full motion in agenda for May 16 below in that section; it's Item 5.3 of agenda and note that part 4 b and c says no capital costs to DWV for leased spaces.]

KP gives background and points in report:

new budget estimate; all on leased basis; consultation

transition period; regular mtg with our architects; issues re timing; construction costs; offers options

still at advanced conceptual stage, not moved to formal schematic design but have brought back to cmte what components are

relatively early in process

VD: this motion comes from Select Cmte

[reads motion again, written out in May 16 agenda; adding gym, including atrium; bldg ~70Ksf]

those interested; have seen 700-name petition, and many many more

many attended or came to mtgs, and all letters show that the cmnty wishes to have a bigger, if not better, complex than we were designing in the constraints we had of $16m

above $16m

breakdown in report gone to ccl in camera, so construction industry won't know costs

at end of day Ccl will have to decide if we can afford it

final tenders by June July hope completely designed, and all pieces fitted together

three of those pieces

one, VCHA 20Ksf taking on at their costs, but as costs have gone up they might decide they can't afford it therefore proceeding with staff to tie them down asap

wrt WVYB, ppl have asked how they can raise all that capital, not asking WVYouth Band to raise all capital today; understand they can raise a reasonable amt, we'll be leasing them the space and lease payments over time

{er, um, doesn't this mean DWV pays the capital up front or to begin with?

a bit confusing

doesn't motion mean no capital costs to District? or does it pivot on definition of 'accruing'?

for someone with financial nous, one might have expected a clearer explanation.......}

lease for spaces for rehabilitation medicine, that space may or may not be leased out

may be other users, need some flexibility

atrium cafe, the piece ppl have raised -- what for? you need a cmnty mtg place where more than coming through the door and buying a ticket to go for a swim

it's meant to be a mtg place, grandparents wish watch

most get a cup of coffee -- tough to do that in WV facilities

Olympics coming so use facilities awarding prizes, medals; art exhibitions over the years, concerts, piano recitals; a whole range can take place and be performed in the atrium

at long last, remember this is a civic, not a health, facility

maybe, lo and behold, hold a PH for Millnm project in one of these big rooms that can spill out to the atrium

maybe ppl wd like to get married in it

whole series, can't imagine it but these days, some get married bungee jumping

Mayor: don't get carried away--

VD: so the atrium doesn't need to be built but like any good cmnty, sometimes one shdn't just look at pure need, how we're going to use it

look at greater feeling and say, does this jell the whole project together, and that's what this is

meant to be entrance way

throughout year, bright and sunny

those are the options, Ccl will make those decisions

think cmte and public mbrs of that cmte fully behind this report and wd like to go forward; now up to Ccl to allow us to do that, or not

Mayor handed Speakers' List: Before we go to Cclr Ferguson, Ms Reynolds has her name down:

CR, Yours Truly: can wait until after Cclr F

Mayor: no, go ahead; pls

CR: sounds like a really exciting plan, glad to hear it

just have a few questions, perhaps you cd clarify, pls

first of all, wd be appreciated if we cd see a timetable for public input into this

Secondly, the total number of sq ft -- suppose cd add that up

Mayor: don't know that yet, we'll find out--

CR: the range, then wd be helpful

appreciate the amt of money has to be in camera b/c of ppl re tender , but what a lot of companies do wch you might wish to consider, is you can give a range -- say $15 - 20m, doesn't matter what it is -- but do the tendering different parts at a time so they don't know how much you have allocated for that particular part

so there are ways of giving a range and still being able to hold them [their feet] to the fire on certain parts

Thirdly, with the public input and the need to raise more funds, perhaps the public wd come up with some good ideas

for example, to raise more money one of the things you might want to consider is putting two or three levels of condos on top of the cmnty ctr; that wd raise a lot of money

I'm just saying, just to throw out ideas, maybe if you throw it to the cmnty -- say we need so much more money, can anybody come up with

I mean it's a good idea to lease; maybe ppl will have some to other ideas you might find helpful

thank you

VD: raised the issue of condos on that site

when project started out five or six years ago, considerable public input

believe Ms Reynolds was a major part of that input; v much public opinion, no private residences be blt on the site, no person cd buy a piece of the site

we have thought of srs' housing through rental housing, etc., that may be a way but condominiums were clearly turned down by the whole of the public consultation process

CR: what was actually turned down at that mtg wasn't condos, and that's fine if ppl want to turn it down, I was just giving an example of things that cd [suggested/thrown out]

but was what turned down by that advisory group,

{the Civic Site Advisory Group}

was that the consultants, or the facilitators, had recommended that in the corner, where the tennis courts were [NE corner], that there be ten- to 12-storey condos. That's what was turned down vehemently.

Mayor: thank you very much

JF: I will support this; been working on it for some time; mandate to meet needs without overstepping bounds of our budget

{but do recall, that VD as chair kept saying they had no budget and it took until a few weeks ago that the fig of $16m finally was mentioned}

initially staff came back with wonderful ideas but not within our budget to accommodate wish list

we said you come back most cost-effective use

staff took a look and came back; meant suggesting court sports be in Gleneagles or be accommodated in other full sized gyms; were cut back

ppl weren't happy with that; said whoa! want to play where played a long time

gave opp to come back to consider larger budget to include [all this]

gave cmte and ccl justification, allowing us to build a cmnty ctr to see to needs of the cmnty for a long time to come

we wdn't have had the courage to come back and insist on enlarging the budget if there weren't that public support

{part of the cunning plan?}

heartening to see, encouraging to see public consultation work; ppl came back, rallied round

commend ppl in cmnty who brought this to our attn

will be voting for it

disagree with one thing -- think atrium does need to be built, will be enormous value to cmnty

can celebrate events undercover, even in the rain, able to gather together

will join Rec Ctr, Aq Ctr, Srs' Ctr, so SAC won't be hived off, they'll have to put up with the rest of us in this cmnty and some of us are pretty close to there

allow access to Srs' Ctr directly to parking lot with elevator, underground pkg lot

absolutely essential; excellent for seniors

VD: think it's needed

JC: Gosh, it's really nice to hear all that passion, think I can support it in principle, however Cclr Durman did mention an in camera budget discussion, we have not had that yet. It was on our in camera agenda this evening, but we have not had that discussion; wd really appreciate some more information regarding abilities of WV Youth Band; not to disparage them, but want to hear more about WVYB, their abilities, how they can offset the costs of the facility we're preparing to build for them, or talking about it

also like more about the rehabilitation medicine service and the atrium cafe

who's going to build and how are we going to get our money back, etc, etc,

Frankly until we have that budget discussion, my sense is to defer a couple of weeks until we've had that

VD: to be honest, wd be incorrect for Ccl to vote on this motion until we've had the discussion

JC: thank you very much

VD: there hasn't been the time to answer the questions about the money

JC: I move deferral for two weeks

Mayor: got to be three weeks

SSch: May 30

VD: happy to have it deferred -- can't we defer it to next Monday?

something wrong with that?

costs are going up, time's running out

if we want to build it we've got to move forward

JC: I'd rather do this project properly and correctly and within an affordable budget

can't see we can achieve it in one week, get all the info

RD: holiday, three weeks?

Mayor: prepared to defer, to try, for one week?

JC: if information there, sure

G-J: I actually have some things I wd like to see come forward wrt this before May 30 but the six printed I wd support deferring for one week

but I still wd like to speak to the larger motion; if we defer I won't get to say what else I'm looking for

VD, acting as if Chair: Well, we cd listen to you, and then--

Mayor: deferring for one week

G-J: can see deferring the first six for one week; realize time-sensitive

report focuses on bldg and need to move forward, obviously related to being timely

Unfortunately, Ccl still has much to learn and I think cmnty does as well

suggest for either May 30th or June 6th, we request presentation by architect b/c we really haven't had that and that wd benefit everybody

we shd ask for presentations by Health and WVYB b/c it's all about cmnty bldg and it's everybody's project, need to learn more about that together

Thirdly, we need a staff report that refers to the cmnty input we've had of late, but even pulls some things from the Baker McGarva Hart report b/c really is excellent

the atrium does serve as a metaphor in my view for the whole thing

this bldg is about cmnty building, and it's about seeking new partnerships

for me it's about cmnty services dept delivering things a little bit differently

like to have a staff report on:

> cmnty input;

> the Gordon Ave area study wch speaks to the pedestrian nature of the site as a whole and wch we've been waiting for;

> lessons we've learned from Gleneagles, b/c I know staff think it is actually underutilized and there are opps to partner with the cmnty and use it more

> opps for cmnty-building by bringing in cmnty groups, even to the extent of suggesting a cmnty adv bd for this project b/c if we're going to dev culture, we need to have the CAC involved

In my view, what the Select Cmte has done so far and done well, is talking about building, but I think the footing it goes forward on has to have more to do with cmnty input, certainly Ccl's input

{well-said, Pam. This is the first ccl discussion, peek into the machinations, and let's hope it goes forward now with full information (figures, funding, usage, costs, OPTIONS), full public and council discussion. The neighbourhood will not want to be invaded and occupied by cars that shd be on the civic site; the sports/fitness/gymnastics/etc groups will want to know they'll be accommodated; the taxpayers will want to know if the money needed will be from user fees, borrowing, or higher taxes.}

Mayor: Mr Pike, have you got that list?

KP: I do

Mayor: motion on floor is to defer for one week to discuss the six items in the report as we have it now

MMgr: and to extent we can provide info for Cclr G-J we'll also do that

G-J: I realize that's short, but somehow Ccl has to be in the loop on what this project is contemplating, and certainly Ccl's keen, and certainly we're all supportive but we're also all accountable

JC: and AFTER we've had our budget discussion vis a vis the project

VD: got to understand the money

Sop checked with MClk: no discussion after deferral

Mayor, correctly says: not after tabling but can be after deferral

Mayor: deferred to next week.

PASSED

10:25

6. BYLAWS

6.1 Noise Control Bylaw No. 4404, 2005 and Administrative Policy - Private Special Events Exemption from Noise Bylaw

This bylaw received third reading at the April 11, 2005 Council Meeting.

Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT "Noise Control Bylaw No. 4404, 2005" be adopted.

RB: staff have explained, clarified, simplified

RD: sums it up; good form

VD: when this came up last time, Cclr Day raised issues re commercial use, understand no changes

RB: no changes, clarification

Mayor: p 2

RD: I'm happy now; was not clear allowed on Sundays

power mowers allowed but other kinds, leafblowers not allowed on Sundays, then no problem

RECOMMENDED: THAT Council endorse the Administrative Municipal Policy No. 02-10-278 for Private Special Events Exemption from the Noise Bylaw.

PASSED

10:28

7. REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

= Mayor [read press release re appeal re tunnel/Sea-to-Sky case]: great disappointment

overturning District's

Judge found no significant; Judge recognized DWV's concerns, but Ccl concerned about uncertainly in terms of understanding; preventing env'tal impact

intention to appeal to fed court of appeal [see statement in Sunday's Tidings, May 8]

= G-J: re her resignation, thank Paola Merkins [school trustee] for her work, noting that on substance abuse

= JF: attended Irwin Pk School Gr 5 graduation from DARE program

since inception (20 years ago?), police there

students are as excited today as they were initially and parents even more excited

a lot of discussion if works but studies internationally, been found to; now RCMP are implementing the prog across Canada

= VD: GVRD Fin and Housing Cmte

re Finance, had required head of GVTA TransLink to come before cmte re bridge Golden Ears Maple Ridge to Langley wch will cost $600m, with soft costs to nearly $900m, apparently still not intending to use the MFA to finance this. MFA has AAA rating and borrows money at the lowest rate on the public debt market

TransLink plans using construction company and admit will cost them $20 - 30m more in interest than going through MFA

reason they say is wrt risk involved, worth the $20 - 30m -- running a bridge for the next 20 years; we cdn't quite ascertain wch bit of running the bridge they were worrying about

complex, might be defects but wd be dealt with under construction contract

asked staff to bring back a report; one of the main reasons they did not wish to come forward and borrow from MFA, is wd mean requesting an increase in debt cap, amount able to borrow wch is controlled by the GVRD, however if they borrow through a private source like a construction company, and guarantee it, doesn't have to come through GVRD. They actually put down reason as "ease of governance"

we have therefore put a motion to GVRD first of all to ask prov govt to change legislation to cover all debt however incurred (by TransLink re debt cap); secondly while legislation proceeding through or asked for that TransLink comply with the intent of current legislation; and thirdly the GVRD advise the GVTA that we think this is an expensive route to borrow

and to keep taxes under control

On Friday attended a GVRD Bd, sort of seminar

Mayor: workshop

VD: governance; spent five hours, discussed how and who shd control TransLink

obvious a split in GVRD:

> some think GVTA shd be disbanded, bring into GVRD so all brought in, all Ms represented in decision-making process and operated like utility (water, sewer); and

> those who strangely enough all sit on GVTA board saying marvellous and shd leave it all alone

now going to have another study section, now we've found out major cause of problems

in a couple of weeks' time

Min of Transport, WV has a really friendly relationship with, asking for a review of governance of GVTA, Min has said after election will be high on his agenda to do that

so GVTA and TransLink concerned racing against time to come up with better ways of running it

from a taxpayer's point of view, one of the big issues at GVRD in next few months

10:36

8. OTHER ITEMS

8.1 Correspondence [Complete List is in previous WVM issue]

8.1.1 Committee and Board Meeting Minutes

(a) Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, November 03, 2004

(b) Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, November 10, 2004

(d) Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, April 06, 2005

{Note dates of Sports/Rec minutes, strange -- C3 discussions???}

...

8.1.34 C. Marion and M. Hess, April 18, 2005, regarding Gleneagles Golf Course

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

JC: folks on St George's; six to 12 golf balls land in their yard ev day in summer

Mayor, laughing: didn't realize you were golfing out there

JC, also chuckling: just practice shots

two attempts to get info from Rec/Parks Dept; not well and second attempt didn't get answer

so hope Mr Pike you'll jump on that one tomorrow morning

KP: thought this was on way to being solved. I have been on that site, walked it, that yard...

yes, we'll be leaping on this one.

...

8.1.41...

8:2 Special regular mtg of Ccl for Wednesday May 11 at 9am

PASSED

9. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

= Mayor: Ms Reynolds

CR: wrt the special mtg, is that passing the taxation things? the only thing on the agenda, I imagine

Mayor: to my knowledge

MMgr: that's right

CR: sorry; very kind of you to consider this [so late]

I do have just a quick question and a suggestion

several ppl have asked me, and I have here in front of me three letters written to Mayor and Ccl and I have a recommendation of how to deal with this.

I have one letter dated Mar 31st sent from the Streamkeeper Society wrt a subdivision; I have one from Mar 29th wrt the cmnty ctr sent by a resident, and I have one sent Feb 28th wrt PQP.

Now those are obviously a long time ago, and none of these three writers has received a response.

So my, uh, I have two suggestions for your consideration please, that when ppl write in that you say that they will get a response within a month, and if it's not going to be within a month, that you let them know, b/c some of these are now two months overdue

Feb, Mar, April, well over two months

Maybe [you cd] suggest, uh, ppl cd normally expect a response within a month, and if not, so they'd be informed

The second thing is

I think it wd be really helpful if whether it's PQP, for that answer -- you have a section (agenda item) in your mtg for information items -- that cclrs give the verbal response to the person who asked verbally so that everyone who heard the question gets the answer

that's one suggestion to add to your agenda

The other one is:

Correspondence is now divided into 'no action, just for information', and then you have 'action' [usually referrals to staff]; [so] then add a third one, and have the letters that go out from staff in response to those letters in the third part. So they'd be letters with [requested] information [wd be information] b/c otherwise ppl read the letters but they never see the answers.

So my recommendation is, if you cd:

first of all say they'd get an answer within a month

you can give them orally, that wd be great

thirdly, have a section on the agenda where staff's very informative and helpful answers that we'd all like to know instead of just the person who wrote in cd be added as part of the agenda package

thank you very much

Mayor: thank you very much

any further comments or questions?

= Joyce Hibberd: thanks to all of you to listening to residents of WV and opening your minds to trying to solve the prob of the new red fac

thanks to Cclr Ferguson and Cclr Durman who weren't here when I spoke last week

may have omitted the Mayor, think I just said councillors; my apologies

the very large fitness class, tries to diffuse their isolation of the seniors b/c we go over there ev Tu and Th, coffee and visit

hope to continue to do that in a very large facility

Mayor: thank you

= Bruce McArthur: I've received a letter from Ferry Corp about increased ferry schedule, summer season

one comment re established noise bylaw about noise after 9pm and ferry noise prior so grandfathered

they're going to be running ferries from 6am to 10:30pm

curious about extent of grandfather allowances

Mayor: do we, M, have copy?

BMcA; don't know, maybe Mr Barth; he was on the cmte

Mayor: not sure we can answer

BMcA: curious about them

concerned about lawn mower, if grandfathered in esp if grandfather, I guess!

another small point

taxes adjusted re dock, govt prop

looked at NV and problems they went through

have to pay back taxes; not expect too much out of these people

they might turn around what to get back whatever we ask for

oh--

remind you of all candidate mtg Wed May 11th sponsored by WRA

hope to see many of you there

Mayor: extend my apologies

MMgr: re ferries becoming a priv companies

were changes in way taxed wch did increase money to Ms

but Ferries throughout BC have appealed the assessments, so that's an issue that's being dealt with

We have our solicitors are actually participating in that appeal process

10. ADJOURNMENT 10:46

=== ABBREVIATED AGENDA May 16th === A Supplemental Information Package/Agenda May be Issued

Order; Agenda Approval, then 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES -- No items presented.

4. DELEGATIONS

4.1 S. Martin, President, Bellevue Landing Strata Council, regarding Farmers' Market at 14th Street and Bellevue Avenue

4.2 A. Wilkinson and K. Galarneau regarding property damage from 4895 to 5295 Keith Road

5. REPORTS

5.1 [Residents'] Concerns: 4895-5295 Keith Road

5.2 Transfer of Funds from Welch and Patrick Bequests to the West Vancouver Memorial Library Foundation

Designated Presenter: Director of Finance (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)

5.3 Civic Site Community Centre - Project Authorization

This item was deferred from the May 09, 2005 Council Meeting

Designated Presenter: Director of Parks and Community Services

Various presentations will be provided.

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. Architectural planning and design for the Civic Site Community Centre be authorized to continue based on new budget estimates

{do we get to know these? it's our money after all..........}

and a revised and enlarged project scope.

2. The recreation facility scope include the original 39,000 square foot project with a main gymnasium with capacity for court sports and fitness.

3. The recreation facility scope be enlarged by:
(a) The addition of an entrance atrium connecting the Community and Aquatic Centres,

(b) A second gymnasium, dedicated to dynamic movement and gymnastics, with revenues from these program activities going towards the costs of the facility.

(c) A connection of the complex to the Seniors' Activity Centre, and new general office space of approximately 2000 square feet.

4. The broader building scope include lease spaces as follows:

(a) Vancouver Coastal Health Authority components to be financed by appropriate Municipal Finance Authority instruments with no capital or operating costs accruing to the District of West Vancouver.

(b) West Vancouver Youth Band component, designed and built to a standard and size mutually agreed to by the District and the Band, with no capital costs accruing to the District.

(c) Space that allows for leases with private organizations for a rehabilitation medicine service and an atrium caf=E9 with no capital or operating costs accruing to the District.
5. Authorization be given to negotiate the services of a construction management firm to work closely with the District's project manager.

6. Further costing to be carried out at the completion of the design development stage and this information then forwarded to Council for consideration prior to the issuance of tenders.

5.4 Proposed West Vancouver Mountain Bike Park: Planning Sequence (File: 2102?02)

Designated Presenter: Director of Parks and Community Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. Staff be directed to develop, in consultation with various community organizations, an Old Growth Management Plan for "Cypress Ridge Old Growth Park", to be presented to Council for approval;

2. The area proposed for mountain bike trail development, at a site abutting "Cypress Ridge Old Growth Park", be approved in principle, and that preliminary discussion with user groups continue, leading to a Management and Development Plan for a Mountain Bike Park that will be submitted to Council for consideration after the Old Growth Park Management Plan has been approved;

3. Regulatory signs be placed at all trailheads in the area, to delineate the boundary between the Old Growth Park (no biking) and the area proposed for mountain bike park and trail development.

{all support probablyt, but does the cost appear anywhere? or in Budget 2005? proposed for 2006?}

5.5 Development Permit Application 04-017 for South Marr Creek (24.23 acres bounded by Marr Creek, Collingwood School, the Chairlift Road subdivision, and the westerly extension of Chippendale Road)

            Appendix C - Applicant's Submission
            Introduction
            Section 1                                          Section 4
            Section 2                                          Section 5

Section 3 Section 6

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. Development Permit Application No. 04-017 be referred to:

(a) the Planning Advisory Committee for review and advice regarding the proposed land use and the consistency of the proposed development with the policies of the OCP for development in the Upper Lands; and
(b) the Parks and Environment Advisory Committee for review and advice regarding the environmental components of the proposal, including the response to environmentally sensitive areas and environmental sustainability; and

2. The applicant place a Development Application sign on the street frontage of the property, at the southwest corner, and hold a Public Information Meeting in accordance with Council's Public Involvement Policy.

5.6 West Vancouver as a "Bear Smart" Community

Designated Presenter: Director of Parks and Community Services

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. The District of West Vancouver take further steps toward becoming a designated "Bear Smart" community;

2. Funding in the amount of $1,500.00 be allocated for the municipal contribution to Step 1 of the "Bear Smart" designation process which is completing a Bear Hazard Assessment to determine high-risk zones;
3. Funding in the amount of $2,000.00 be allocated to expand educational programs directed at minimizing bear attractants in residential areas of West Vancouver;

4. Staff be directed to draft a Bylaw for consideration, which restricts the proliferation of bear attractants within areas identified in the Bear Hazard Assessment.

5.7 Community Benefits Strategy

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. Staff be directed to bring forward a District-wide Community Benefit Policy, and area-specific policies and guidelines in accordance with the report dated May 6, 2005 from the Community Planner titled "Community Benefits [Strategy";]

2. Staff undertake a consultation process to establish a list of projects that would have an "amenity status," for appropriate consideration during development negotiations; and

3. The report be referred to the Finance Advisory Committee and Planning Advisory Committee.

5.8 Municipal Ticket Information System Implementation Bylaw Amendment Bylaw 4428, 2005

Designated Presenter: Director of Administrative Services (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)

5.9 Bylaws to Protect and Enhance Watercourses in West Vancouver

Designated Presenter: Director of Planning, Lands & Permits

RECOMMENDED: ... be introduced and read a first time in short form.

RECOMMENDED: THAT "Development Procedures Bylaw No. 3984, 1996 Amendment Bylaw No. 4434, 2005" be introduced and read a first time in short form.

RECOMMENDED: THAT "Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 4414, 2005 Amendment Bylaw No. 4431, 2005" be introduced and read a first time in short form.

RECOMMENDED: THAT "Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4360, 2004 Amendment Bylaw No. 4433, 2005" be introduced and read a first time in short form.

RECOMMENDED: THAT

1. A Public Hearing to consider Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4360, 2004 Amendment Bylaw No. 4433, 2005, be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 6, 2005 in the Municipal Hall Council Chamber;

2. Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4360, 2004 Amendment Bylaw No. 4433, be referred to:

(i) properties directly affected by the proposed bylaw by mail for comments;

(ii) the Parks and Environment, Engineering and Planning Advisory Committees for comments;
(iii) West Vancouver Streamkeepers for comments;

(iv) the community via Tidings and the District webpage for comments; and

3. Staff convene two public information meetings prior to June 6, 2005 to provide information and receive comments on Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4360, 2004 Amendment Bylaw No. 4433, 2005 and Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 4364, 2005.

6. BYLAWS

6.1 Water Shortage Response Plan Bylaw No. 4418, 2005

This Bylaw received third reading at the May 09 Council Meeting. RECOMMENDED: ... be adopted.

7. REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

8. OTHER ITEMS

8.1 Correspondence

*** No Action Required (receipt only)

8.1.1 Committee and Board Meeting Minutes

(a) Community Services Advisory Committee, April 05, 2005

(b) Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, April 27, 2005 (c) West Vancouver Police Board, March 29, 2005

(d) West Vancouver Memorial Library Board, March 23, 2005

8.1.2 M. P. Bayes, Treasurer, Western Residents' Association of West Vancouver, May 04, 2005, regarding All Candidates Meeting - May 11, 2005

8.1.3 K. Higgs, April 27, 2005, regarding article "Florida Expands Right to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense"

8.1.4 J. Roberts, April 27, 2005, regarding Homeless Count News

Previously circulated due to timing of event.

8.1.5 R. Goodale, Minister of Finance and J. Godfrey, Minister of State, Government of Canada, undated, regarding update of 2005 Federal Budget

8.1.6 K. Washington, April 13, 2005, regarding Evelyn Drive Proposal

8.1.7 D. Bezeredi, May 02, 2005, regarding Farmer's Market - 14th Street

8.1.8 D. Mears, May 01, 2005, regarding Farmer's Market

8.1.9 M. L. Willows, May 02, 2005, regarding Farmer's Market in Ambleside Area

8.1.10 N. Gibson, May 02, 2005, regarding Proposed Market on 14th Street

8.1.11 N. Gibson, May 02, 2005, regarding Proposed Market on 14th Street

8.1.12 M. and S. Gabriel, April 28, 2005, regarding Anfield Residence - 4768 Pilot House Road, Lower Caulfeild, West Vancouver

8.1.13 R. and D. Sherwood, April 30, 2005, regarding change to lane entrance to the dock on Pilot House Road in Lower Caulfeild

8.1.14 A. David C. Manson, May 01, 2005, regarding change to lane entrance to the dock on Pilot House Road in Lower Caulfeild

8.1.15 Union of British Columbia Municipalities and First Nations Summit Task Group, May 06, 2005, regarding funding available for 2005/2006 Program

Attachments available for viewing in the Clerk's Department.

8.1.16 A. Dinwoodie, Union of British Columbia Municipalities, April 15, 2005, regarding Access Awareness Day

8.1.17 N. Henderson, Executive Director, Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia (SPARC BC), undated, regarding 2005 Access Awareness Day

Attachments available for viewing in the Clerk's Department.

8.1.18 A. MacLean, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, May 06, 2005, regarding response to letter from Leader of the Opposition

8.1.19 A. S. Bhayani, May 05, 2005, regarding Evelyn Drive Development

8.1.20 J. Kincaid-Smith, May 05, 2005, regarding Evelyn Drive Development

8.1.21 R. Ahrens, May 04, 2005, regarding Proposed Evelyn Drive Development

8.1.22 B. MacKenzie, May 03, 2005, regarding Evelyn Drive Development

8.1.23 E. and R. Andre, May 08, 2005, regarding Farmers' Market

8.1.24 D. S. Kennedy, May 05, 2005, regarding Farmers' Market

8.1.25 A. Stanley, undated, regarding "Save Evelyn Drive"

8.1.26 E. Fraser, Executive Coordinator, Lower Mainland Municipal Association (LMMA), May 09, 2005, regarding Species at Risk

8.1.27 P. Griffiths, Committee Clerk, City of Coquitlam, May 05, 2005, regarding Fire Fighter Cancers

8.1.28 B. J. Coombs, April 2005, regarding New Recreation Centre

8.1.29 K. Higgs, May 05, 2005, regarding zoning variance for 6875 Marine Drive

*** Action Required

8.1.30 P. & A. Marshall, April 28, 2005, regarding Kay Meek theatre concerns

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

8.1.31 A. Sheffield, April 2005, regarding New Recreation Centre