WVM2005-22B+A
Evelyn Dr
July 4th Agenda
Calendar July 10th
by
Carolanne Reynolds, Editor
www.WestVan.org
*** NEWS
BULLETIN:
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
=== REPORTS
=
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
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR
MEETING OF COUNCIL
DPA South Marr; Fees/Charges
Amendment Bylaw; Membership in
Engineering Advisory Committee
>>> CALENDAR to July 10th
<<<
FERRY BUILDING GALLERY -- "NATURE STORIES" -- July 5 to
24
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.
~ 7pm ~ CSAC [CANCELLED]
=== Wednesday, July 6
~ 8:30am ~ Sports/Rec Fac Planning Mtg at Hall
~ 6pm ~ PEAC [CANCELLED]
=== 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)
=== LIBRARY IN THE SUMMER
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.
Introduction
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.
Rob
COMMENTS
ON EVELYN DRIVE PROPOSAL
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
-----
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.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
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
Correspondence
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.
Applicant:
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:
RECOMMENDED:
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:
RECOMMENDED:
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).
RECOMMENDED:
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
Correspondence
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.
Applicant:
Keith Hemphill, Rositch Hemphill and Associates
Architects
Affected Lands: 2138 / 2140 and 2148
Argyle Avenue
Purpose:
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:
RECOMMENDED:
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:
RECOMMENDED:
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).
RECOMMENDED:
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
RECOMMENDED:
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
RECOMMENDED:
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
RECOMMENDED:
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
RECOMMENDED:
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
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Local Area Service Lane Paving
Construction Bylaw No. 4438, 2005 be introduced and read a first,
second and third time.
6.
REPORTS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
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.
8.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
9.
ADJOURNMENT
====
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR
MEETING OF COUNCIL -- JULY
04
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:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/text.iq/index.html
>>>
QUOTATIONS
<<<
Italian - la qualit=E0 di un libro dipende dal
lettore
English -
the quality of a book depends on the reader
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
HOPE EVERYONE ENJOYED CANADA'S
BIRTHDAY JULY 1ST!!!