Evelyn Dr
July 4th Agenda
Calendar July 10th

by Carolanne Reynolds, Editor

Well, June 27th and 28th were two full evenings of public input wrt Evelyn Drive ending with a request for a staff report and adjournment of the Public Hearing to July 18th.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA for July 4 includes the South Marr DPA thus facilitating approval the same evening the public mtg is held (and closed)!
A presentation on the new cmnty ctr design will be made on Thursday at DAC (see Calendar below).
***  THIS ISSUE  ***
July 4th Main Items; Police Bd Fireworks!; Calendar to July 10th; a few Evelyn Drive PH Submissions (more later); Abbreviated July 4th Agenda; INFObits (Email lowers IQ!); Quotations

***  MAIN ITEMS  July 4th --  A Supple  mental Info Package/Agenda May be Issued [or on-table]
=== Still a mystery to me that the minute= s used to appear at the following ccl mtg but recently even two weeks later they're not in the package and not even on Friday.  Here's what the website says:
"ADOPTION OF MINUTES - Council Meeting Minutes, June 20, 2005  (to be provided On-table)"
{That means we don't get to see them in advance at all!  They'll be presented at the ccl mtg itself -- sure lots of time to see if any errors or omissions, eh?}
=== DELEGATIONS: NVChamber of Commerce re proposed new Tourism Initiative; NSh Adults at Risk Support Network, re Support the Supporters Project
South Marr DPA (~25-acre devt), reconvened public mtg
{Come out and give your opinion! Speak up to request restoration/mitigation of the damaged creeks, and for sensitive and sustainable development of our hillside including retention of some trees rather than clearcutting as in previous BPP devt in Whitby.}
= DPA for 2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle - Public Meeting re ten-storey, nine-unit multi-family residence
= Population by Age and Gender and School Enrolment in WV
= Ferry Building Gallery - Architecture Project
= Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw (Cemetery Tariffs, Ice Arena and Aquatic Centre)
= Lane Paving
=== CORRESPONDENCE -- Minutes: Sports/Rec Fac Planning mtgs May 17, 24, and June 1
Letters: traffic congestion, popn density, Wetmore; Mtn Bike Park; standards for home/property inspections; prov funding of sch districts; black bears; TransLink/Parking Area Tax Bylaw; parking on Folkestone; water meters; GVRD Regional Parks; Gleneagles Golf Course
DPA South Marr; Fees/Charges Amendment Bylaw; Membership in Engineering Advisory Committee

>>>  CALENDAR to July 10th  <<<

Mixed Media by Karen Bagawaya, Rolf Brandvold, Karen Cain, Samantha Sanderson, and Marion Webber
Opening Reception: 6 to 8pm Tuesday July 5 Artists' Talk: 2pm Saturday July 9

=== Tuesday, July 5
~ 4:30pm ~ EAC: Watercourse Bylaw (presentation by staff) even though third reading given by Ccl on June 20; BPP's presentation on their DPA for South Marr was given at the last mtg even though its consideration had a later date; another example of being expedited just as adding the approval to ccl mtg July 4th, the same evening as the public mtg (confident of no staff report to come back?); Cmnty Benefits Strategy (presentation by staff); Shoreline Report Implementation Update.

=== Wednesday, July 6
~ 8:30am ~ Sports/Rec Fac Planning Mtg at Hall

=== Thursday, July 7
~ 4:30pm ~ Special DAC mtg at Hall: design of new cmnty ctr

=== Saturday, July 9
~ 6am ~ 17th Annual Knee Knackering Run (Baden Powell Trail)
~ 10am - 5pm ~ North Shore Antiques Fair (WV Arena)

===  Sunday July 10
~ 10am - 5pm ~ North Shore Antiques Fair (WV Arena)
~ 11am to 4pm ~ NEW HOURS
for Ambleside Farmers' Market  (Parking Area in the 1300 Block of Bellevue Avenue)
~ 7pm ~ Concerts by the Sea (Ambleside Pier)

Our library's summer hours are 10 to 5 and closed on Sundays till September
btw, TV news recently reported from a poll: last year 87% of Canadians and 51% of Americans read a book.

*** Fireworks at Police Board ***
                from an intrepid correspondent.............

The battle between the Police Board and Council has been ratcheted up several notches. The Police Board voted 3-2 to formally request that the provincial Director of Police Services investigate Council's use of the Traffic Fine Revenue Grants. One Board member who was vocally opposed to sending the request said that if his term were not already scheduled to end at the end of June he would have had to resign over this letter, calling it premature.

Initially Mayor Wood voted against sending the letter (making the vote 3-3 and thus failing) until another Board member read him the Police Act which states he does not have a vote (except to break a tie). He was forced to hold a second vote which passed 3-2.

Then the Police Board (3-1) voted to send a letter to Mayor and Council demanding an apology for the "abuse" and "disgraceful treatment of our Board Members and [the Police Chief]" and the "inexcusable" "barrage of sarcastic and disrespectful remarks from Messrs. Durman and Clark". One Board member cautioned that the Board was making a mistake picking a fight with Council that it cannot win.

We hope to have copies of both letters up on www.westvan.org early this week.

On an unrelated note it appears that the Police Board has regularly being meeting in camera to discuss matters that must be handled in public (in apparent violation of the Police Act). A reliable source indicated that the Police Association (union) has asked the Solicitor General's office to investigate and our observer is also pursuing the matter. Particularly disturbing was Mayor Wood's admission when asked during the Public Question Period at an earlier Board Meeting if he was aware of the four permitted reasons to hold a discussion in camera replied that he was not. Questioning related to the same subject at a subsequent Board meeting (two months later) resulted in the Mayor ruling the questioner out of order and abruptly closing the Public Question Period even though someone else wanted to ask a question.

Perhaps a nerve was touched?

{Undoubtedly more on this; Your Editor has spoken with the MMgr and more information will be forthcoming.}

>>>  SOME COMMENTS on the PUBLIC HEARING June 27/28  <<<
                        OCP, Zoning Amendment, EVELYN DRIVE

Millennium gave an extensive presentation stating that they had no master plan on the table, they've removed all previous plans and will work with Ccl, staff, public, in consideration of the new bylaw and Spaxman's Report -- implying predicated on staying with the FAR 1.0.

PLEASE NOTE: the density allowed in the area now is .35 and the actual at this time is around .2FAR so devt means a considerable change to the nbrhd.

Many supporters, bizarrely, extolled the virtues of affordable seniors' housing as their reason when in fact that is not in the application.

Everyone of course wants a beautiful devt at the gateway to WV (this is not a dividing issue).
No one said there shd be no devt.

The Sentinel South Slope Residents' Assn was most conscientious and contacted residents across WV from every nbrhd, and presented a petition of 400 names in support of a =2E5FAR.

Besides wanting to retain views, many -- and not just those on Evelyn Drive b/c it affects everyone who uses Taylor Way -- decried the obvious increased wait and congestion adding about ten times the number of cars (or whatever the multiple of units) finding a claim of only a couple of minutes not credible. 

{Just think of how long a minute seems when waiting compared with having fun; think also of BPP devts; needs of condos/units coming on stream on the east of TWay; more ferry/Whistler traffic; think about counting on the province's commitment to address transportation coming up to 2010; think of the effect of making 11th another connector when Keith already is being used as a thoroughfare and ways of manoeuvring to Taylor Way.......
ALL devt wherever in WV, however, has an effect on TWay.
Having increased density near public transportation and shopping is obviously desirable.}

***  PUBLIC INPUT  ***
A few submissions follow:
Frank Rutter, the first to speak (an owner of a house in area);
Vivian Vaughan, WV resident;
David Stephenson (a resident of Ev Dr);
CR, the first to speak on Tuesday (WVM editor and Council-watcher);
Rob Pellatt who also spoke on Tuesday and gave an developed area in NV that's successful); and
email from an Ev Dr neighbour whose comments were sent to me.


The first submission of the PH was made by Frank Rutter, Monday June 27:

Hi: Here's what I said last night at the Evelyn pub hrg. Cheers, frank

The [two] bylaws under consideration fly in the face of all the hard work done only recently on the Official Community Plan . These bylaws would supersede the OCP housing policy -- wipe it out -- and would  impose a new policy that is developer-friendly.
In fact the bylaws are highly friendly to [Millennium] Properties, the rezoning applicant.
The original OCP specifies that any changes shall be prepared following a comprehensive study of the area and creation of an area plan addressing traffic, views, a maximum density of FAR 1 and NO high rises, only low rises. The new OCP bylaw replaces the words low rises with apartments which of course include high rises -- we've heard 115 feet mentioned: that's low rise?

A brief study was done but not until after the bylaws had been prepared. The bylaws do not incorporate the recommendations of this study by the respected planner [Ray] Spaxman who noted this and also said it would take [six to eight] months to complete proper studies.

Despite what the architect for Millennium claimed in this yellow paper distributed with the Vancouver Sun Saturday, these two bylaws allow high rises which the OCP originally did not. What Millennium's yellow paper claimed [was] not true. These bylaws also allow a density which I consider to be inappropriate, up to 1.6 FAR on any given lot. These bylaws do not seriously address the very grievous traffic problems already existing on Taylor Way and Marine Drive which will only get worse if there is a dense development along the line proposed by Millennium, and  traffic will be even worse if there is another development on the east side of Keith Road and Taylor Way and I am told that a developer is already negotiating with owner-occupants in Taylor Wood to buy their low rise townhouses and replace them with vastly denser multi family housing. 
Now, I have some concerns about the ethics in this whole Evelyn Drive process. I mentioned one in the claim there will be no high rises permitted in these bylaws - which is not true.

I wonder if it is true the municipality [has] been negotiating or even discussing with Millennium the disposition of certain municipally owned lots within the development area? These lots include a road right of way, the unbuilt 9th Street and a potential building lot Millennium has offered to buy for $1.8 million. Bear in mind that Millennium has not yet received a permit to develop.
There is something more.
When the bylaws were presented to the council they came with an explanatory report from the municipal planning staff that laid down certain pre conditions for any successful rezoning application, referred to tonight by the director of planning. Among these pre requisites was a donation of $500,000 to the Kay Meek Centre for the Arts on Mathers Avenue. What possible connection is there between the Kay Meek Centre and Evelyn Drive? Is this the price of rezoning  Evelyn Drive ? Is there any connection between such a sum  and Millennium properties? The answer is -- yes. Millennium -- long before any bylaw was prepared -- confirmed that it was making a $500,000 donation to the Kay Meek Centre. Now - why was this included in the zoning requirements? Does it mean there would be no rezoning without it? Does it mean that any developer has to pay this ransom to get a permit? Or is it there only because Millennium was going to make this philanthropic gesture anyway? Or is Millennium only going to give this money if it gets what it wants ?

[I was cut off here and didn't get to give my last para below:
 However, I don't like the bylaws anyway because they undo the truly dedicated work of council, staff, and citizens in crafting our Official Community Plan. They allow too much density in a highly sensitive area . They allow high rises. And they threaten to worsen our traffic problems. Everyone in West  Vancouver should be worried about a high density high traffic development  at our gateway. I would like to see a much lower density, low height development of affordable housing especially for senior citizens - that would be my dream for Evelyn Drive.]


                        PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL @ PUBLIC HEARING, 27th June, 2005
To:             The Mayor and Council
From:              Vivian Vaughan P. Eng. (4621 Woodburn Place)
Subject:    Evelyn Drive, Zoning Bylaw/OCP Bylaw

Your Worship, Councillors, good evening.


Many of us believe that this rezoning bylaw is premature, because the steps that have led up to it, have not followed a rational sequence. After an application to rezone has been received by the Municipality, the OCP requires a study, as the first step.  This surely has to be taken to mean the completion of the study, so that the results can be fully taken into account, before creating this bylaw.  The required independent area plan study, described by the consultant's report, can hardly have begun.  Logically, we are at the beginning of step one.  Yet, after this evening, the public will lose its right to speak to the Council any further, on this subject.

{Clarification and UPDATE: there is to be no communication between Council and public while a Public Hearing is on except during the Public Hearing iwith Ccl in session; this PH, held over two evenings, was adjourned to July 18th at wch time the staff report shd be available and public comment can be made on it.}

The proposed community benefit bylaw is only at the committee review stage, and we don't know when it will be completed.  This is expected to require two appraisals of the land value.  One appraisal as the land is now for single family zoning, and the second appraisal to estimate the value after the up-zoning to multi-family. The difference between these two amounts, reflects the dollar value of the public asset, in the form of density points.

We have been given to understand that the pressure to speed up the bylaw process, in advance of the completed study and community benefit bylaw, is from the developer, Millennium Properties and Evelyn Drive property owners, who have been waiting for an answer for about two years.

The Public Project Process, as far as the general public is concerned, began when information was distributed by the developer in 2004.  From the point of view of the 42,000 West Vancouver residents who don't live in the Evelyn Drive area, the project is less than one year old.  The general public is concerned about undue haste, in deciding about changes that will be massive, disruptive, irreversible and precedent setting for future spot zoning projects.       

The logical sequence of steps in the project process is:

Firstly, the Study.  The initial decision, to allow the developer to carry out the study, is at the back of the problems surrounding this project.  Two years have been lost, before correctly interpreting the OCP requirement, to mean an independent study. The purpose of the study is to serve the interests of the residents, through the Municipality.  The developer cannot simultaneously represent the interests of the Municipality and himself, because this would clearly be a conflict of interest. 

Secondly, the Community Benefit Bylaw
is essential for this 21 acre Evelyn Drive site, because many millions of dollars are involved.  No other type of corporation could engage in a transaction to transfer shareholder assets into private hands, without any valuation being done and duly entered into the books.  We should expect no less from the Corporation of the District of West Vancouver, in its stewardship of the assets of the residents.

Thirdly, the Public Opinion Survey.  Municipal staff analysed responses to their questionnaire and reported the results in November 2004.  Responses were over 70% against the redevelopment proposal, and this result would have been even more negative, if those financially benefiting by selling their houses, had been excluded from the public category.  This brings us once again to a situation of conflict of interest.

Fourthly, the Advisory Committee's work should begin when the previous [three] steps are finished Technically the Planning, Design and Engineering Advisory Committees were giving advice to Council on the Millennium proposal, without the study.  Some members said the proposal should be regarded as the OCP study, so they should be able to see some alternative lower density plans, to make comparisons.  This request has not been complied with, so their advice to Council should not be construed as a green light signal to proceed.  Rather, this step should be done again, in the proper sequence, after the study is available.

[Fifthly], the Public Hearing
this evening is compromised because we don't have all the proper results from the previous steps.

Next, the Council's Bylaw Decision.  Again, without the integrity of the previous steps, the Council is hardly in a position to deliberate, let alone pass the zoning bylaw.

Finally, the Invitation to Development Companies should be in the form of competitive proposals from at least three companies.  It has been publicly said, that apart from Millennium, no other developers would undertake this project.  If this is true, then West Vancouver is long overdue to make changes to run a modern, transparent, efficient, timely, and fair process.  If we made the right changes, there is no reason to suppose that a properly conducted "request for proposals", would not work just as well here, as anywhere else.

Thank you.


Presented to Council at Public Hearing - June 27th, 2005.
From - David Stephenson, 836 Esquimalt Avenue, West Vancouver V7T 1J8

Mayor Wood and Councillors - Good Evening.

I would like to start by saying that it appears that this small chamber is totally inadequate for the number of people who would like to be part of this Public Hearing tonight.  Yes, there are sixty additional chairs in the foyer but again is this a case of poor planning? Who makes the decision as to where these meetings are held? I can remember being one of 700 plus people at a similar meeting at the West Van High School when the twin towers of 320 Taylor Way were under consideration.  I also wanted to ensure that we all understand that to amend the OCP we need at least four councillors (or three councillors and the Mayor) to support the motion.
Now continuing on with where Vivian Vaughan left off:

Balancing the Interests of West Vancouver Residents against High Density Redevelopment

Evelyn Drive proponents have told us:
that they approached councillors prior to the 2002 municipal elections,
that they formed a committee from amongst themselves and selected Millennium Properties,
that most of them signed options on their properties by March 2003.
What this time frame tells us, is that Council was aware of the application, prior to the OCP "town-hall meeting" in October, 2003,
and that the OCP wording might have been crafted to accommodate it.  The involvement of Millennium was not disclosed at that time. The public was allowed to believe nothing had happened yet.   Hiding relevant facts from the public undermines the principles of democracy that are necessary to the legitimacy of the OCP process itself.

Council has told us that the 56 Evelyn Drive owners are owed an answer now, because they have been waiting for about two years.  It is unfortunate these owners did not do their neighbours the courtesy of making this project public from the outset.  Someone might have noticed the problem with the study and also the incongruity between an OCP, that called for low-rise buildings, and the selection of Millennium Properties, with a reputation as a high-rise developer.

In fact, the applicants have received an answer.  They were told at the April 11th Council meeting, that the density proposed is too high. The developer has said density cannot be significantly reduced.  If the wrong developer was selected, the responsibility surely rests with those who made the selection.

If there is any kind of understanding, of a contractual nature, between the Municipality and the applicants, it should be made public.  Millennium Properties seem to believe they have certain entitlements, based on following the process that was set out for them.  What exactly are they entitled to?  What obligation has been incurred? If there is no legal entitlement, why doesn't the public interest in allowing time for the completion of the study take precedence?

Sentinel Hill, Evelyn Drive and Keith Road residents who will remain, are surely owed protection of their quality of life and property values.  Council has recently introduced the concept of fairness, in connection with the Ambleside greengrocer and the new farmers' market.  When will the concept of fairness be extended to residents around Evelyn Drive?   Official acknowledgement of the negative treatment they have received and losses they have already suffered, is long overdue.  A five to eight year construction period could leave them in a situation where their homes are virtually intolerable to live in, and extremely difficult to sell. 

West Vancouver residents as a whole, are owed a rational process.  We are owed a proper knowledge of the full consequences on everyone's quality of life, if the project goes ahead.

Justification for the project has been made on behalf of seniors and young families who face financial challenges and cannot afford the housing currently on the market. They have been encouraged to believe they will obtain cheaper, if somewhat smaller housing, in this new development.  We need to see the dollars per square foot price tag for these units.  We have no reason to expect lower prices than for the new "Water's Edge" condominiums by Millennium.

The Choice to be made, is between regarding people's homes as central to their lives and deserving of protection, or alternatively, seeing them simply as under-performing financial assets, that should be turned over for profit.


Submission (made June 28) to Public Hearing re OCP bylaw amendment (and zoning) re Evelyn Drive area

Good evening, Mayor and Council [and the few council mbrs left!]
Carolanne Reynolds, Editor, West Van Matters, 1065 - 24th; website www.westvan.org

Over the past year I've observed the contortions over this proposal.  It's a pity it's not a Gordian knot that cd simply be cut.

When asked, I've said it has been unfair to everyone -- staff, Council, residents, the developer, the cmnty.  Maybe this shd be expected since it is the first time such a proposal has occurred.  We must find a positive way forward.

It is important to note, however, that not just the process must be evaluated but also the risk of dangerous precedents.

Can another group of residents decide to densify their part of a neighbourhood, choose a developer to negotiate with staff, have lots of time, effort, and money spent with the impression there will be a favourable reception to then have it stumble and stagnate in acrimony?

Surely a clearly defined process -- and followed -- would avoid this dissension and waste.
Please institute earlier notification to the public and Council with the intent to inform so people know what's coming, have their concerns addressed whether directly or by way of accommodations or compromise in a timely fashion.

While there was considerable consultation over the new OCP -- several years -- it did pass with a requirement for a study of this area -- unmet? -- and 'up to' 1.0FAR.

No doubt this study should have been done before entertaining an application for the maximum density, entirely predictable if left to a developer.

Even the FAR figure gives no indication of the type of development and is misleading at best.
Someone cd build a horrible .5 and another design a delightful 1.5.  Massing, contours, greenery, views all must be taken into consideration -- surely part of the study.

As to cmnty benefit, glad to see finally there's an admission there's such a thing as uplift and it can be used in WV to give some return to its citizens.  The list however of possible benefits should be given to Ccl for their deliberation.  Depending on the number of units, the increase in value for this higher density cd be anywhere from $20 to 40m.  With that the case, to have a guideline of two thirds or half as recompense to the community for the gift of upzoning, the choice might be a selection of small projects even to the cost of the atrium for the new Cmnty Ctr.

What to do now when there are residents, although by their own choice, who have been living in limbo while others feel about a tenfold increase, ie 56 homes to 560 units, will adversely affect their quality of life and ruin their views?

Here are some suggestions.

Make this a phased development.

Do where easy and little controversy.

IOW, have an overall plan or concept but start in the areas where there is little or no objection.  That way devt can get underway -- unlikely all would be done at once anyway -- while arrangements made for a transition for those who have sold and negotiations undertaken to meet the concerns of those opposed.

Is there one spot by Park Royal for midrises or highrises that do not block views?  Or shd other parts be developed with duplexes awaiting agreed location for a high rise that would result in more greenery -- remember the OCP talks about maintaining the character of WV and one characteristic is that it's park-like.

To provide for seniors, have rental units;
to reduce dependence on cars, facilitate connection with Park Royal so shopping nearby -- the shuttle is a great idea b/c even if close, few will want to walk back with heavy purchases.

The Evelyn Drive area has been identified as suitable for upzoning.  Everyone agrees on that.  Now let's have consultation and cooperation, welcome lots of ideas, so that the development will be beautiful as well as meeting the needs and desires of the whole community.

No one I've spoken with has said no to development. 
The debate and choices are over how and how much -- and I've added when.
Have those opposed to 5 or 600 units come up with a concept for 400? 250? are they viable?
or start with doubling or the results of trebling?
Listen to what the community tells you.
Design can make the difference.

Please Council, set out a timetable for proposals for this area; have open houses for public comment, choosing which is preferable, welcome alterations and other suggestions.  Narrow it down to three after input.

Let the ideas begin!

[Thank you.]

Attached is my presentation made at last night's PH.....
The ED development will certainly pale as to the one proposed by the Natives on their territory, behind Park Royal.


I am in favour of a modern development in the area, but not with the extended higher dwellings, that the developer is so insistent on proposing.

I would recommend that this Council, West Vancouver staff, and the developer review an area in North Vancouver which could be used as a model for these types of developments. One area that I am familiar with is in North Vancouver near the Northlands Golf Course called Nahanee Woods.  My brother and sister-in-law are located in this gated complex at 1550 Larkhall Crescent, and have lived there for about [ten] years, following its construction. The area is approximately the same size as the Evelyn Drive area and is one that should be examined for West Vancouver.  It has only two-storey buildings with townhouses meandering through the site. The grounds are immaculately landscaped and the buildings are always well maintained.

It is interesting to note that seldom do you see "For Sale" signs in this gated community. The reason is that it is well constructed, compatible with the woodsy surroundings and the residents are proud to own their units. When these homes come onto the market, they are highly desirable and sell very quickly. Before you make your decision on the By-laws for the development of the Evelyn Drive area, I would recommend that Council, staff, and the developer review this North Vancouver property for the type of desirable redevelopment which should be approved and implemented for the Evelyn Drive area of our community. If Council so desires, I can arrange for a tour of the area.

I have also noted on the Developer's website that the Village Walk and trail from the top of Sentinel Hill to Park Royal, which currently goes through the Evelyn Drive area, has not been indicated on the Plans. I would recommend that the developer be responsible for including the Village Walk through this complex and assign development funds to the refurbishment of this walking/trail system in the area.

Robert J. Pellatt, 960 Younette Drive


from Evelyndrive@telus.net
fyi (and this comes from a realtor!)

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Campbell
To:  [Mayor and Council]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: Evelyn Drive Proposal

To our elected council members:
re:  Notice of Public Hearing
    &nbs= p; Zoning Bylaw No. 2200, 1968, Amendment Bylaw No. 4400, 2005
    &nbs= p; Creating CD1, Evelyn Drive proposal
I, along with many neighbours, are vehemently opposed to the proposed change to our new OCP allowing the Millennium project to go ahead.  As I have stated in previous correspondence to you all, the project will [affect] most residents of West Vancouver, not just those bordering Evelyn Drive.  Besides the raping of our pristine community by constructing more high rise condos, the traffic issue is paramount to those of us outside the immediate Taylor Way-Marine Drive corridor.  I believe I read the intersection of Taylor Way and Marine Drive is one of the busiest intersections in Canada.  How in the world can you consider adding more congestion to an already impossible intersection?  The reality of our roads and highway is they are archaic, built when our population was half of today's. 
The Spaxman report reiterates this project needs much more research and I quote from that report,  "Neighbours in the area may feel justified in their assertion that amendments to the OCP to permit high-rise development should not be considered so soon after its adoption following a significant public consultation program".  Also in the report, "It is not appropriate for area planning to be led by the developer for, however well intentioned they are, they cannot avoid the skepticism that their analysis is not truly objective."
And,  "...there is not broad support for the Millennium proposal in the immediate neighbourhood.  The proposal is seen more as a developer's proposal than an Area Plan....."
Regarding traffic, "...significant traffic impacts both from the widened Keith Road and the additional traffic on an already overburdened system."
In a June 21, 2005 CBC news report, More Cars, longer rush hour, it states:
 "A new [TransLink] report says Vancouver's afternoon rush hour has increased by about an hour in the past five years, starting just after 1 p.m. and ending after 6 p.m.  According to [TransLink] planners, that's the result of a rapid increase in the number of private cars -- which has grown twice as fast as the region's population over the past five years."   Source, 2004 Greater Vancouver Trip Diary Survey.  This report contradicts the information supplied regarding traffic and the Millennium project. 
The only supportive issue I could find in the Spaxman report was stated, "...because that situation (opportunity) could disappear if further delays in the approvals process occur."  Basically, if Millennium doesn't get their way, they are going to take their ball and go home?.....there are more balls available else where.
In closing, let me quote the infamous Shoeless Joe Jackson, "If you build it, they will come" ....and bring their cars.
Thank you for your time,
 Rick Campbell

{CR adds: and more pitchers!}

 >>>  ABBREVIATED CCL AGENDA July 4th  <<<
                        A Supplemental Information Package/Agenda May be Issued on Friday
3.1       Council Meeting Minutes, June 20, 2005  (to be provided On-table)
4.         DELEGATIONS
4.1       H. Baker, Chair, North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce and N. Stibbard, Chair, North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Tourism Committee, regarding proposed new Tourism Initiative 4.2       D. Cartwright and J. Osborne, North Shore Adults at Risk Support Network, regarding Adults at Risk - Support the Supporters Project
5.         REPORTS
Items 5.1 and 5.2 are development permit applications regarding a reconvened public meeting and a public meeting, respectively.  The procedures regarding both meetings are identical and applicable to both the reconvened public meeting and the public meeting. 
5.1       Development Permit Application No. 04?017 (South Marr Creek - 24.23 acres bounded by Marr Creek, Collingwood School, the Chairlift Road Subdivision, and the westerly extension of Chippendale Road) - Reconvened Public Meeting
            On June 20, 2005 Council adjourned the public meeting regarding Development Permit Application No. 04-017 to July 4, 2005.  Reports and correspondence received to date are attached for reference.
            The Director of Planning, Lands & Permits will describe the subject application.
British Pacific Properties Limited
Affected Lands:
South Marr Creek (24.23 acres bounded by Marr Creek, Collingwood School, the Chairlift Road subdivision, and the westerly extension of  Chippendale Road).
Application Purpose and Proposed Development Permit:
To provide for development of 60 housing units on the 24.23 acre site at a density of 2.5 units per acre consisting of: 31 lots over 10,000  sq. ft. in size; 2 lots between 7300 and 9000 sq. ft. in size; 11 lots of  approximately 5200 sq. ft. in size; and two 8-unit cluster housing lots; and  to consider a development permit to regulate and impose conditions on the  development of the site.  Chippendale  Road is to be extended west to the north section of Chairlift Road, and the  north and south sections of Chairlift Road are to be connected.
           The Applicant will be given an opportunity to provide a presentation on the subject application.
Mayor Wood will call for public input.
Following public input:
THAT all written and verbal submissions up to and including the Reconvened Public Meeting held on July 4, 2005 regarding Development Permit Application 04?017 (South Marr Creek) be received.
If Council wishes a further staff report, then:
            THAT Staff report back to Council regarding submissions received at the July 4, 2005 Reconvened Public Meeting to allow Council to make a determination on Development Permit Application No. 04?017 (South Marr Creek).
            THAT Development Permit Application No. 04?017 (South Marr Creek) Public Meeting input be closed.
5.2.      Development Permit Application No. 05-003 (2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue) - Public Meeting
            On June 6, 2005 Council set the date for this Public Meeting. Reports and correspondence received to date are attached for reference.
            The Director of Planning, Lands & Permits will describe the subject application.
Keith Hemphill, Rositch Hemphill and Associates Architects
Affected Lands:  2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue
The owners have applied for a [ten-storey, nine-unit], multi-family residential building with 29 parking spaces that complies with Multiple Dwelling Zone RM1.
Draft Development Permit:
To regulate and impose conditions respecting the form and character of the development, including the siting, maximum height,  dimensions and general design.
            The Applicant will be given an opportunity to provide a presentation on the subject application.
Mayor Wood will call for public input.
Following public input:
THAT all written and verbal submissions up to and including the Public Meeting held on July 4, 2005 regarding Development Permit Application 05-003 (2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue) be received.
If Council wishes a further staff report, then:
            THAT Staff report back to Council regarding submissions received at the July 4, 2005 Public Meeting to allow Council to make a determination on Development Permit Application No. 05-003 (2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue).
            THAT Development Permit Application No. 05-003 (2138 / 2140 and 2148 Argyle Avenue) Public Meeting input be closed.
5.3       Population by Age and Gender and School Enrolment in West Vancouver
            Attachment A                                   Attachment B
Designated Presenter:  Director of Planning, Lands & Permits
THAT the Council Information Report dated June 22, 2005 from the Planning Analysts titled "Population by Age and Gender" and "School Enrolment" in West Vancouver be received.
5.4       Ferry Building Gallery - Architecture Project
Designated Presenter:  Director of Parks and Community Services
THAT the report dated June 24, 2005 from the Visual Arts Coordinator re Ferry Building Gallery - Architecture Project be received for information.
5.5       Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 4414, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No. 4441, 2005 (Cemetery Tariffs, Ice Arena and Aquatic Centre
Designated Presenter:  Director of Parks and Community Services
            (to be provided in Supplemental Agenda)
5.6       Lane Paving 1300 Block Mathers and Lawson Avenue and 1480 - 14th Street (Local Area Service Lane Paving Construction Bylaw No. 4436, 2005)
Designated Presenter:  Director of Finance
THAT Local Area Service Lane Paving Construction Bylaw No. 4436, 2005 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.
5.7       Lane Paving 1500 Block Jefferson and Kings Avenue and 1285 - 15th Street (Local Area Service Lane Paving Construction Bylaw No. 4437, 2005)
Designated Presenter:  Director of Finance
THAT Local Area Service Lane Paving Construction Bylaw No. 4437, 2005 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.
5.8       Lane Paving 1000 Block Esplanade Avenue and Keith Road (Local Area Service Lane Paving Construction Bylaw No. 4438, 2005)
Designated Presenter:  Director of Finance
THAT Local Area Service Lane Paving Construction Bylaw No. 4438, 2005 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.
7.         OTHER ITEMS
7.1       Correspondence
No Action Required (receipt only)
7.1.1         Committee and Board Meeting Minutes
(a)             Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, May 24, 2005 (b)             Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, May 18, 2005 (c)              Sports and Recreation Facilities Planning Select Committee of Council, June 01, 2005
7.1.2         B. Skeldon, President, North Shore Amateur Radio Club, June 06, 2005, regarding Emergency Communications Exercises
                  Previously distributed due to timing of event.
7.1.3         N. S. Thompson, undated, regarding traffic congestion, population density and Wetmore property
7.1.4         D. Comis, City Clerk, City of Burnaby, May 31, 2005, regarding Provincial Gateway Program:  Status Report
7.1.5         M. Carver, June 23, 2005, regarding article from The Missoulian
7.1.6         M. Craver, June 18, 2005, regarding West Vancouver Mountain Bike Park unfeasible
7.1.7         B. Sutherland, President, Canadian Association of Home & Property Inspectors (BC), June 14, 2005, regarding establishment of standards for the BC home and property inspection industry
Action Required
7.1.8         N. McLaren, June 13, 2005, regarding Capilano View Cemetery
                  Referred to Director of Parks and Community Services for consideration and response.
7.1.9         T. Flanders, Municipal Clerk, District of Central Saanich, June 06, 2005, regarding Provincial Funding of School Districts
                  Referred to Mayor and Council for consideration and response.
7.1.10       T. Watts, June 14, 2005, regarding black bears
        Referred to Director of Parks and Community Services for consideration and response.
7.1.11       A. Hilsen, Municipal Clerk, District of North Vancouver, June 21, 2005, regarding Draft Translink Parking Area Tax Bylaw
                  Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response.
7.1.12       D. McCreary, June 15, 2005, regarding Capilano View Cemetery
        Referred to Director of Parks and Community Services for consideration and response.
7.1.13       B. Devonald, June 17, 2005, regarding parking on Folkestone Way
                  Referred to Director of Administrative Services for consideration and response.
7.1.14       S. Hall, June 22, 2005, regarding water meters
        Referred to Director of Engineering and Transportation for consideration and response.
7.1.15       B. Platts, Federation of North Vancouver Community Associations, June 21, 2005, regarding open letter to provincial Ministry of Community Services and the GVRD Regional Parks Board
        Referred to Mayor and Council for consideration and response.
7.1.16       M. Stewart, June 21, 2005, regarding Gleneagles Golf Course
        Referred to Director of Parks and Community Services for consideration and response.
9.         ADJOURNMENT

5.1       Development Permit Application No. 04-017 (South Marr Creek) - Reconvened Public Meeting -  Additional report:  Draft Development Permit No. 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)
5.5       Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 4414, 2005, Amendment Bylaw No . 4441, 2005 (Cemetery Tariffs, Ice Arena & Aquatic Centre Fees)
5.9       Membership in Engineering Advisory Committee

>>>  INFObits  <<<   E-mails 'hurt IQ more than pot'

Friday 2005 April 22
LONDON, England -- Workers distracted by phone calls, e-mails and text messages suffer a greater loss of IQ than a person smoking marijuana, a British study shows.
The constant interruptions reduce productivity and leave people feeling tired and lethargic, according to a survey carried out by TNS Research and commissioned by Hewlett Packard.
The survey of 1,100 Britons showed:
* Almost two out three people check their electronic messages out of office hours and when on holiday
* Half of all workers respond to an e-mail within 60 minutes of receiving one
* One in five will break off from a business or social engagement to respond to a message.
* Nine out of 10 people thought colleagues who answered messages during face-to-face meetings were rude, while three out of 10 believed it was not only acceptable, but a sign of diligence and efficiency.
But the mental impact of trying to balance a steady inflow of messages with getting on with normal work took its toll, the UK's Press Association reported.
In 80 clinical trials, Dr. Glenn Wilson, a psychiatrist at King's College London University, monitored the IQ of workers throughout the day.
He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.
"This is a very real and widespread phenomenon," Wilson said. "We have found that this obsession with looking at messages, if unchecked, will damage a worker's performance by reducing their mental sharpness.
"Companies should encourage a more balanced and appropriate way of working."
Wilson said the IQ drop was even more significant in the men who took part in the tests.
"The research suggests that we are in danger of being caught up in a 24-hour 'always on' society," said David Smith of Hewlett Packard.
"This is more worrying when you consider the potential impairment on performance and concentration for workers, and the consequent impact on businesses."
Find this article at:

>>>  QUOTATIONS  <<<

Author - Emilio Praga
        Italian - la qualit=E0 di un libro dipende dal lettore
        English - the quality of a book depends on the reader

Author - Milan Kundera
        French - la lutte de l'homme contre le pouvoir est la lutte de la m=E9moire contre l'oubli
        English - the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting

David  Lloyd George:
A politician is a person with whose politics you don't agree; if you agree with him he's a statesman.

                        Yours thoughtfully,
                     Carolanne Reynolds
                              Editor, West Van Matters
                                tel 604 926 8649; msg 922 4400; www.westvan.org