COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE UPDATE to NOVEMBER 6, 2020 (8:30 A.M.)

COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE UPDATE TO NOVEMBER 6, 2020 (8:30 a.m.)

Referred for Action (1) October 30, 2020, regarding “Fireworks on the Capilano Reserve” (Referred for consideration and response) (2) November 2, 2020, regarding “Re: FW: Collingwood - Noise Complaint” (Referred for consideration and response) (3) November 2, 2020, regarding “re: fireworks” (Referred for consideration and response) (4) Collingwood School, November 2, 2020, regarding “Response from Collingwood re: Noise Complaint” (Referred for consideration and response) (5) November 2, 2020, regarding “Horseshoe Bay construction causing power failures” (Referred for consideration and response) (6) November 3, 2020, regarding “CN vs West Vancouver” (Referred for consideration and response) (7) November 3, 2020, regarding “Unbelievable!” (Palm Trees in Dundarave) (Referred for consideration and response) (8) November 4, 2020, regarding Cell Phone Reception Complaint (Referred for consideration and response) Referred for Action from Other Governments and Government Agencies No items. Received for Information (9) Committee and Board Meeting Minutes – Board of Variance Hearing, June 17 and September 23, 2020; Arts & Culture Advisory Committee meeting September 8, 2020; Public Art Advisory Committee meetings, September 8 and 15, 2020 (10) 16 submissions, October 29 - November 5, 2020, regarding Feedback on Twitter Post (11) 5 submissions, October 30 - November 5, 2020, regarding Preliminary Development Proposal for Inglewood Campus of Care (12) 25 submissions, October 30 - November 3, 2020, regarding Tree Bylaw No. 4892, 2016 (13) November 1, 2020, regarding “Re: A Life Not Chosen” (The Story of Ethlyn Trapp and her Father) (14) 3 submissions, November 2-4, 2020, regarding Fireworks Ban Request (15) West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce (2 submissions), November 2 and 5, 2020, regarding Leader to Leader Series (November 5, 2020) (16) West Van Matters, November 2, 2020, regarding Council Meeting Update (17) November 3, 2020, regarding “Nora’s comments are end of meeting re: responses”

4137754v2 (18) November 3, 2020, regarding “Use of district email for Councillors” (19) November 3, 2020, regarding “The Global Spread of the "Virus of Fear" -” (20) November 3, 2020, regarding Council Code of Conduct (21) November 4, 2020, regarding “Green city initiative!” (22) HUB Cycling, November 5, 2020, regarding “November Bike Bulletin” (23) November 6, 2020, regarding “Cameron - Translink etc” (Patio Pilot Program - Temporary Lane Closure in Dundarave) (24) November 6, 2020, regarding “Unbeleiveable” (Poppy-Wearing Ban for Whole Foods Staff) Received for Information from Other Governments and Government Agencies (25) P. Weiler, M.P. (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country), November 5, 2020, regarding “November 2020 - MP Update” Responses to Correspondence (26) Acting Manager of Bylaw & Licensing Services, November 2, 2020, response regarding “Re: FW: Collingwood - Noise Complaint” (27) Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design, November 2, 2020, response regarding “Cannabis licensing” (28) Manager of Environmental Protection, November 3, 2020, response regarding Tree Preservation (29) Acting Manager of Bylaw & Licensing Services, November 3, 2020, response to Collingwood School regarding “Response from Collingwood re: Noise Complaint” (30) Director of Engineering & Transportation Services, November 4, 2020, response regarding “Horseshoe Bay construction causing power failures”

4137754v2 (1)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 8:40 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Fireworks on the Capilano Reserve

I live at s. 22(1) , West Vancouver and I am perplexed why so many community members are allowed to sell Fireworks this time of year. I'm more perplexed, and distressed, by how many fireworks are set off so close to our home, at all hours of the night. It literally sounds like we are living in a war‐torn country with bombs going off right outside our door. The last explosion shook our windows and when I looked outside, I could see smoke coming from our front lawn. This scares the shit out of my dogs and all of the other dogs in the neighborhood and I'm sure that the young children and elders don't appreciate it either. My landlord said that a couple years ago, the siding on her house had to be replaced because some fireworks melted it.

I'm sure I'm not the first to complain, but I'm curious to know if there is any plan to stop this distressing activity moving forward.

s. 22(1) (2)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 8:43 AM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Sheryl LeBlanc; [email protected]; Robert Bartlett Subject: Re: FW: Collingwood - Noise Complaint

All,

Contrary to what your Sheryl LeBlanc wrote (see below), contacting directly the so called By Law Enforcement, once again turned to be the least efficient way of communications!

I presume that she is still investigating the matter from June 17, 2020(see below) ... and to date, after over one year (see below again) the district at large accomplished absolutely NOTHING!

In the mean time Collingwood's garbage truck often (almost regularly) arrives before 7:30 am. Most recently; on October 19, 2020 it was as early as 7:05 am and today it was at 6:38 am (six thirty eight in the morning)!

As you know, many months ago Collingwood made a commitment to padlock the garbage shed for the night. Evidently, once again it was nothing more than another promise that they never intended to keep for more than a couple of days, sometimes a couple of weeks at the very best.

Furthermore. Please confirm or deny, if I am wrong; in my understanding noisy football practices on Collingwood field, which start at 7:00 am, actually at 6:55 am to be exact, are also in violation of the municipal bylaw. Sadly it seems that this is not part of the school operation, but rather Collingwood School's commercial activity i.e. the football field rental. It is definitely the case during lawful hours.

s. 22(1)

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:07 AM Sheryl LeBlanc wrote:

Good Afternoon, s. 22(1) , Thank you for your email. I will follow up with Collingwood School and the contractor today.

In future, please copy [email protected] or contact 604‐925‐7152 to file reports of concern, as this is the most efficient way for an on duty staff member to respond.

Thank you,

Sheryl LeBlanc

Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer | District of West Vancouver d: 604-925-7459 | westvancouver.ca

......

This email and any files transmitted with it are considered confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are intended. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email and attachment(s). Thank you.

From: s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:04 AM To: Sheryl LeBlanc Subject: Re: FW: Collingwood ‐ Noise Complaint

Hi,

Evidently tickets are not enough.

Today truck for Collingwood garbage arrived again at 6:55 am

s. 22(1)

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Sheryl LeBlanc wrote: Good Morning s. 22(1)

Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to me for response.

Staff have confirmed that Collingwood School has directed the service provider to attend within the allowable hours. Staff have issued 3 tickets to date directly to the service provider, and we will look into the incident this morning which will likely result in an additional ticket.

From here, our Licence Inspector will follow-up with the business, as they are not operating in compliance with municipal bylaws.

In future, please copy [email protected] on reports of concerns, as this is the most efficient way for an on duty staff member to respond.

Thank you,

Sheryl LeBlanc

Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer | District of West Vancouver d: 604-925-7459 | westvancouver.ca

......

------Original message ------From: s. 22(1)

Date: 2019-11-29 6:59 a.m. (GMT-08:00)

To: Sarah Almas

Cc: Nina Leemhuis , Mary-Ann Booth , Nora Gambioli , Peter Lambur , Sharon Thompson , Marcus Wong , Bill Soprovich , Craig Cameron

Subject: Re: FW: Draft Response re: Collingwood - Mayor and Council

Be inform that today Colingwood truck arrived at 6;45 am. It is 6:57. The truck is just leaving

Have a great day.

s. 22(1)

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM s. 22(1) wrote:

Mrs. Almas,

As you requested I am reporting that today Collingwood's garbage truck arrived at 7:14am.

I categorically demand nothing more and nothing less than strict enforcement of the law of the land; something that has chronically not been delivered and before one problem is even tackled at the "Round Table", Collingwood step by step starts to deprive its neighbours from other statutory rights. Most recently you wrote:

... "Staff will be reporting back to the School Traffic Advisory Round Table group with their observations and to discuss next steps".

Why must the district before taking any action, first seek approval from Collingwood ?

Sincerely,

s. 22(1) On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:00 PM s. 22(1) wrote:

Mrs. Almas,

Your response is puzzling. Unlike Collingwood's garbage, regarding more important issues, instead of enforcement, after four weeks of deliberations you talk about negotiations with "the School Traffic Advisory Round Table group", as if these matters were never before discussed and concluded upon. In addition, I am alarmed that this process would involve the majority (four of seven) of the same "elected officials" who created these absurdities. In a nut shell:

The elected official, Bill Soprovich offered his assistance and participated in meetings of the Glenmore Neighbourhood Committee (the Committee) to the very last moment before the voting ceremony, when he excused himself, because voting would elevate the common understanding of breach of ethics to legally breaching the code of ethics.

The elected official, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, collaborated the covenant, which instead of providing guarantees for the implementation of the agreement between the Committee and Collingwood that she initiated and endorsed, could be easily manipulated to serve interests of Collingwood... and indeed, "elected officials" Nora Gambioli, Craig Cameron and Mary-Ann Booth led by the acclimated mayor Michael Smith did exactly that. They reversed the resolution back to the problem and the manner in which they achieved this was disgraceful.

Mrs. Goldsmith-Jones admitted that ..."it does not make sense"... because it would be completely disconnected from the spirit of the agreement and it would be contrary to" the intent of the covenant. She, promised to talk about that with "Mike", but refused to repeat the same publically. After all, she was already focused on the federal election... and Collingwood got more than they were dreaming of. Now your response sounds as if in that rush "to be done with it", the district omitted even those conditions that Collingwood offered upfront, asking for the redevelopment permit.

Of course Collingwood quickly took every advantage of that favour and moved their garbage bins to the limit of their property; s. 22(1) The district refused to even talk about that and Collingwood further tested the boundary. They converted their parking into the bus hub servicing both of their campuses. The district again refused to intervene, so Collingwood pushed their traffic havoc from their property back on to our streets, while their circular drive way is half empty.

Sadly, it seems this madness still continues and will continue. Therefore by the copy of this email I am asking each of the four "elected officials, if they realized how much value s. 22(1) lost because of it and if they would do the same if it was their property? Nobody wants to s. 22(1) from the garbage shed and a bus lot. That wasa repeated sticking point for buyers.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1)

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:33 PM Sarah Almas wrote:

Good afternoon s. 22(1) ,

The traffic and parking concerns raised have been brought forward to the School Traffic Advisory Round Table group, consisting of representatives from various groups with expertise in school traffic including Engineering Services, Bylaw Services, West Vancouver Police, ICBC, School District, and elected officials. A site visit and assessment took place last week involving members of the committee representing Bylaw Services, Engineering and Transportation, West Vancouver Police, and Collingwood School. Staff will be reporting back to the School Traffic Advisory Round Table group with their observations and to discuss next steps.

Further to my previous email, a call for service was created in response to reports of early garbage collection, and staff have followed up with Collingwood School. If collection occurs prior to 7:30 a.m., please report directly to the Bylaw Services Department at 604‐925‐7152 or [email protected] so that we can ensure the most efficient response.

Sincerely,

Sarah Almas

Manager, Bylaw & Licensing Services | District of West Vancouver

t: 604-925-7153 | westvancouver.ca This email and any fi les transmitted with it are considered confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are intended. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email and attachment(s). Thank you.

From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 8:04 AM To: Sarah Almas Cc: Nina Leemhuis ; MayorandCouncil ; [email protected] Subject: Re: Colingwood traffic

Ms. Almas,

s. 22(1) presumption was right on the money. There was no meaningful response from the school nor from the municipality... Collingwood stated that first they must review "historical understanding" of this, you said that "staff are looking into this", announced an update "next week"... and three (3) weeks already went by.

The district is the master of how to look into this and do NOTHING about it.

On parking issues, directly related to the traffic, your department is also looking into it since we staged the parking protest on Morven Drive during the construction of the new school. Then the bylaw enforcement was here within an hour with a measuring tape... to conclude upon measurments that our cars were parked 100% legally, but to date regarding Collingwood's notorious illegal parking on Morven Drive you did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and that street is still used for Collingwood's unlawful day parking, because their above ground parking is used as a bus hub (see attached last week photos).

In fact to date you did not even bother to clarify what "School Days" legally means (see third photo), so, a resident or Glenmore resident's guest(s) always risk a parking ticket, especially, that the school has started to operate all year round, during the summer traffic controllers were absent, and fewer cars generated the same degree of havoc.

Similarly for years, Collingwood has been addressing unlawful hours of their garbage pickup and I am sure that your staff will look into it for more years to come, take no action and receive for it full appreciation from the same four councillors who recklessly created that mess.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1)

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 5:30 PM s. 22(1) s. 22(1) wrote:

Good Evening Neighbours,

s. 22(1) , sent an email (forwarded here) to Collingwood School describing the mayhem causes by the school related traffic. The traffic is particularly bad in the afternoon when hundreds of cars are blocking Stevens Drive and Glengarry Crescent.

It doesn't appear that there was any response so far from the school or from our municipality, which received copy of s. 22(1) email.

If this traffic chaos continues I suggest that our neighbourhood should contact both the school and our municipality and demand a corrective action to be taken without delay.

s. 22(1) thank you for taking the initiative.

Regards to all,

s. 22(1) ------Forwarded message ------From: s. 22(1) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 15:17 Subject: Fwd: Colingwood trafic To: s. 22(1)

Hi s. 22(1)

Please distribute at your discussion.

Regards, s. 22(1)

------Forwarded message ------From: s. 22(1) Date: Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 3:13 PM Subject: Colingwood trafic To: Cc: ,

Dear Beverley von Zielonka,

Like s. 22(1) , last week I received the letter from a couple of Collingwood parents apologizing in advance for any inconvenience the Collingwood Gala special event may cause.

Special events are not the problem. The major problem is the daily nuisance caused by Collingwood traffic during student pick up hours.

Only for a very short period, immediately after the construction, still under Mr. Wright, Collingwood played by the rules, proving that indeed it has the capacity to accommodate it's traffic on it's own property. Since then, step by step, the situation has worsened. This year that trend accelerated exponentially. During student pick up hours Collingwood traffic jams often lengthen up to Stevens Drive. In fact several times back to Deep Dene, and students are picked up all along that stretch causing even greater havoc. Most importantly. It happens regularly, I mean every day, that some parents are loosing patience waiting in the queue, jump the line, and "speed" down on the wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, cutting corners at the intersection of Glenmore and Glengarry, around the tennis courts and at the intersection of Glengarry and Morven. There were already several close calls.

It is only a matter of time that a serious accident will happen!

To get us faster to the point. Collingwood must utilize to the maximum, the full length of the circular drive way, including the second half of the circular drive way from the entrance to the building, up to the exit from the school property and cars should park parallel, if necessary, AND frankly, we do not care that it might be inconvenient for your clients! As long as there is one single free spot on Collingwood property, not a single Collingwood car should jam the neighbourhood streets. You must do that not as favour. This is your obligation. This is the commitment Collingwood made. This was the condition, under which the construction of that nonsense proceeded.

By the copy of this email I request the district of West Vancouver to confirm or deny whether or not the district ever released Collingwood from that obligation.

In any case, It is absolutely ridiculous that while Collingwood students are picked up at their convenience along the streets of our neighbourhood, our kids must cross these streets in dangerous situations caused by Collingwood School, which does not play by rules proposed itself.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1) (3)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:12 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: re: fireworks

Is West Vancouver going to ban fireworks as Vancouver has? it was a terrible display of loud noises etc..not anything else for over an hour from 9 p;m. on Saturday. They are a fire hazard and can harm people and children. I think with people out of work and suffering with COVID it is time to get rid of this ! The animals hate it and the kids only want a great night out out to get candy!

s. 22(1) (4)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Lisa Evans Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:48 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Sheryl LeBlanc; Robert Bartlett Cc: Angela Nielsen Subject: Response from Collingwood re: Noise Complaint

Good afternoon, Mayor Booth, Council Members, Robert and Sheryl.

I want to update you on the complaint that we all received today from a neighbour, s. 22(1) , about the garbage truck arriving to our Morven Campus School. We have checked our security footage and can confirm that the truck was here earlier than our stated pick‐up time this morning. Unfortunately, we did not know that something similar had occurred a couple of weeks ago. Whenever we hear that this has happened, we are in immediate contact with the company. This is completely unacceptable from the School’s point of view and we have demanded changes from the garbage company provider.

Collingwood School continues to work closely with West Vancouver District staff to send screenshots of when the garbage truck is not abiding by stated rules to By‐Law Officers. We are in full support that the company deserves to be fined. We have told the garbage company that we are partnering with District officials and sending visual proof of infractions to ensure that the company abides by the municipality’s Noise Control Bylaw.

We have also told the garbage truck provider that we expect them to abide by District of West Vancouver By‐Laws or else we will be looking for a different company to provide our pick‐up service.

I also wish to clarify that the field use that s. 22(1) mentioned in his e‐mail is not a turf field rental. Our own Collingwood students and staff have been out on our Morven field for morning practice some mornings during the fall. We have continued to provide opportunities for students to be physically active by training with their learning groups and coaches. We have not had any scheduled games or competitions because this is not permitted by BC School Sports during the Covid‐19 pandemic. We have just transitioned from fall sports to winter sports this past week, and so there will no longer be any morning practices outside until the spring time.

If there are any By‐Laws which refer to student athletes being active in the morning on their own school’s property, I would appreciate knowing this. I am leading the School with the assumption that we can use our facilities for our student activities during the school day.

Sincerely,

Lisa

From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 8:43 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Lisa Evans ; [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: Collingwood ‐ Noise Complaint

All,

Contrary to what your Sheryl LeBlanc wrote (see below), contacting directly the so called By Law Enforcement, once again turned to be the least efficient way of communications!

I presume that she is still investigating the matter from June 17, 2020(see below) ... and to date, after over one year (see below again) the district at large accomplished absolutely NOTHING!

s. 22(1)

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:07 AM Sheryl LeBlanc wrote:

Good Afternoon, s. 22(1) ,

Thank you for your email. I will follow up with Collingwood School and the contractor today. In future, please copy [email protected] or contact 604‐925‐7152 to file reports of concern, as this is the most efficient way for an on duty staff member to respond.

Thank you,

Sheryl LeBlanc

Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer | District of West Vancouver d: 604-925-7459 | westvancouver.ca

......

From: s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:04 AM To: Sheryl LeBlanc Subject: Re: FW: Collingwood ‐ Noise Complaint

Hi,

Evidently tickets are not enough.

Today truck for Collingwood garbage arrived again at 6:55 am

s. 22(1)

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Sheryl LeBlanc wrote:

Good Morning s. 22(1) , Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to me for response.

From here, our Licence Inspector will follow-up with the business, as they are not operating in compliance with municipal bylaws.

In future, please copy [email protected] on reports of concerns, as this is the most efficient way for an on duty staff member to respond.

Thank you,

Sheryl LeBlanc

Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer | District of West Vancouver d: 604-925-7459 | westvancouver.ca

......

------Original message ------

From: s. 22(1)

Date: 2019-11-29 6:59 a.m. (GMT-08:00) To: Sarah Almas

Cc: Nina Leemhuis , Mary-Ann Booth , Nora Gambioli , Peter Lambur , Sharon Thompson , Marcus Wong , Bill Soprovich , Craig Cameron

Subject: Re: FW: Draft Response re: Collingwood - Mayor and Council

Be inform that today Colingwood truck arrived at 6;45 am. It is 6:57. The truck is just leaving

Have a great day.

s. 22(1)

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:06 AM s. 22(1) wrote:

Mrs. Almas,

As you requested I am reporting that today Collingwood's garbage truck arrived at 7:14am.

... "Staff will be reporting back to the School Traffic Advisory Round Table group with their observations and to discuss next steps".

Why must the district before taking any action, first seek approval from Collingwood ?

Sincerely,

s. 22(1)

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:00 PM s. 22(1) wrote:

Mrs. Almas, Your response is puzzling. Unlike Collingwood's garbage, regarding more important issues, instead of enforcement, after four weeks of deliberations you talk about negotiations with "the School Traffic Advisory Round Table group", as if these matters were never before discussed and concluded upon. In addition, I am alarmed that this process would involve the majority (four of seven) of the same "elected officials" who created these absurdities. In a nut shell:

Of course Collingwood quickly took every advantage of that favour and moved their garbage bins to the limit of their property; s. 22(1) . The district refused to even talk about that and Collingwood further tested the boundary. They converted their parking into the bus hub servicing both of their campuses. The district again refused to intervene, so Collingwood pushed their traffic havoc from their property back on to our streets, while their circular drive way is half empty.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1) On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:33 PM Sarah Almas wrote:

Good afternoon s. 22(1) ,

Sincerely,

Sarah Almas

Manager, Bylaw & Licensing Services | District of West Vancouver

t: 604-925-7153 | westvancouver.ca

This email and any fi les transmitted with it are considered confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are intended. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email and attachment(s). Thank you. From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 8:04 AM To: Sarah Almas Cc: Nina Leemhuis ; MayorandCouncil ; [email protected] Subject: Re: Colingwood traffic

Ms. Almas,

The district is the master of how to look into this and do NOTHING about it.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1) On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 5:30 PM s. 22(1) s. 22(1) wrote:

Good Evening Neighbours,

It doesn't appear that there was any response so far from the school or from our municipality, which received copy of s. 22(1) email.

If this traffic chaos continues I suggest that our neighbourhood should contact both the school and our municipality and demand a corrective action to be taken without delay. s. 22(1) thank you for taking the initiative.

Regards to all,

s. 22(1)

------Forwarded message ------From: s. 22(1) > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 15:17 Subject: Fwd: Colingwood trafic To: s. 22(1) Hi s. 22(1)

Please distribute at your discussion.

Regards, s. 22(1)

------Forwarded message ------From: s. 22(1) Date: Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 3:13 PM Subject: Colingwood trafic To: Cc: ,

Dear Beverley von Zielonka,

Like s. 22(1) , last week I received the letter from a couple of Collingwood parents apologizing in advance for any inconvenience the Collingwood Gala special event may cause.

Special events are not the problem. The major problem is the daily nuisance caused by Collingwood traffic during student pick up hours.

Most importantly. It happens regularly, I mean every day, that some parents are loosing patience waiting in the queue, jump the line, and "speed" down on the wrong side of the road against oncoming traffic, cutting corners at the intersection of Glenmore and Glengarry, around the tennis courts and at the intersection of Glengarry and Morven. There were already several close calls.

It is only a matter of time that a serious accident will happen!

By the copy of this email I request the district of West Vancouver to confirm or deny whether or not the district ever released Collingwood from that obligation.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1) (5)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:01 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Horseshoe Bay construction causing power failures

Madam mayor and councillors, Horseshoe Bay faced today its 3rd (or was it 4th?) power failure for 10 hours or so due, again, to a large truck related to village construction taking down the power pole at the roundabout at the top of Nelson Ave. While I can understand that such an accident can happen once, I question why it would happen 3 (or 4?) times within a month or less. Isn’t it obvious by now that the corner is too tight for large trucks to access the village this way? Does the replacement power pole really have to be placed in the exact same location? Does anyone care that each time, the power failure affects all residents for an extended period — this is especially difficult for people trying to work from home at a critical time for Covid, without internet, and in some cases phone (internet phone)? The previous time we were without power overnight... Doesn’t this all seem unreal that we just keep going through the exact same scenario again and again? Please help address this issue before it happens again. I also hope that someone is paying attention that the proposed LAP plans or rebuilding much of HB Village will require a rethink of the road infrastructure and traffic flow… A quaint village isn’t equipped to accommodate oversized construction traffic.

Regards s. 22(1) (6)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 10:33 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: CN vs West Vancouver

I have tried to find what the final resolution was between CN and West van regarding the Centennial seawall. I was told moths ago that you were very close to solving the issue and the information would be available on the district website. I checked today and can’t find anything. Please let me know where the details can be found or who at municipal hall I could speak with. Thank you, s. 22(1) (7)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:05 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Unbelievable!

Madam Mayor and Council Members

I could not believe my eyes on Sunday morning when I noticed these Palm Trees planted at Dundarave Park. I can only hope they have been placed there temporarily for a movie set or something. If not my questions are: 1. Why did we need trees planted there? 2. If tress are needed, why not indigenous trees that would have a better chance of surviving? 3. Are they planted far enough back form the water in case of rising tides? 4. What was the total cost of the trees and the planting of them...... as a tax payer I think this is a total waste of money especially during these COVID times...... actually at any time.

To me, they take away from the lovely vistas of the water as you walk towards the park and look west as you approach from the east.

In my opinion, another area where the views have been totally spoiled is coming down Taylor Way and along Marine Drive because of the development at Park Royal. Travelling North over the Lions Gate Bridge the views of the mountains have been diminished and similarily going East to the bottom of Capilano Road with the huge developments going in there. Also moving further West to the Grosvenor Buildings which have taken the light away from Marine Drive, making that corridor very dark. Both of these developments (Park Royal and The Grosvenor) are examples of spot zoning. I really wish the Municipality would stop and smell the roses for a while. Get all the Community plans in place before going ahead with projects that need rezoning. It would save money at the end of the day if all the local area plans dealing with zoning were in place- special information meetings would not need to be held (where staff have to be paid overtime to attend) around every single small development.

West Vancouver has totally missed the mark in making an attractive and welcoming entrance to the Municipality. This would be an opportunity for an iconic architecture development with a wow factor- instead we get two ugly boxes!!!

I hope you all feel proud of the concrete jungle you are developing in West Vancouver. I definitely do not think this is what West Vancouver residents want!!!

I would appreciate an update on the Palm Trees and the total cost of installing them.

Sincerely. s. 22(1)

West Vancouver BC, s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (8)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:57 PM To: MayorandCouncil s. 22(1) Subject: pedestrian crosswalk

Hello Mayor and Council,

s. 22(1) I witnessed a car hit a pedestrian at the pedestrian crosswalk at s. 22(1) Another witness and myself exited our vehicles to come to the assistance of the driver who stopped to render assistance to the s. 22(1) he had struck. He waved us both away. She was trying to call emergency services and was unable to make herself heard due to poor cell reception. She asked me to try and call. I tried to call and was connected to ambulance services but to make myself understood, I had to walk up the hill, almost in line with the traffic lights. At that point the driver had moved his car up the on ramp and the victim was standing (she looked shaken and as if she had a head injury). When the ambulance service asked me to ask the driver if an ambulance was required he shook his head and then escorted the victim to his car to drive her to the hospital. I was too far away to get his licence plate number and I really hope he did take her to the hospital and she is ok now.

Why is cell reception so bad there? It is a dangerous crosswalk, with lots of teenagers heading up/down to Sentinel and WVSS and if someone is hurt and needed advice by phone from emergency services, they would not be able to do so from the crosswalk area. Can this be looked into?

Thanks s. 22(1)

West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

Sent from Mail for Windows 10 (9)(a) THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES MUNICIPALHALLCOUNCIL CHAMBER WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2020

BOARD MEMBERS: Chair L. Radage and Members I. Davis, S. Sanguineffi, D. Simmons, and R. Yaworsky, attended the hearing via electronic communication facilities.

STAFF: M. Panneton, Director, Legislative ServiceslCorporate Officer. P. Cuk, Board Secretary; and T. Yee, Building Inspector, attended the hearing via electronic communication facilities.

1. Call to Order

The hearing was called to order at 5 p.m.

2. Introduction

Staff introduced the Board Members and described the hearing procedure.

3. Confirmation of the Agenda

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe June 17, 2020 Board of Variance hearing agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED

4. Adoption of the March 18, 2020 Minutes

Chair Radage referred to the minutes of the Board of Variance hearing held on March 18, 2020.

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe March 18, 2020 Board of Variance hearing minutes be adopted as circulated. CARRIED

5. Time Limit of Board of Variance Orders

Chair Radage read out the followingstatement regarding Time Limitof Order Approving a Variance and noted that the time limitapplied to each application approved by the Board:

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARINGMINUTES M-1 4093791 vi “Pursuant to section 542 of the Local Government Act, ifa Board of Variance orders that a minor variance be permitted from the requirements of the bylaw, and the Order sets a time limitwithin which the construction of the building or structure must be completed, and the construction is not completed within that time, the permission of the Board terminates and the bylaw applies. Orders of this Board of Variance that permit a variance specify that: ifconstruction is not substantially started within 6 months of the issuance of the BuildingPermit, the permission terminates and the Zoning Bylaw applies; AND FURTHER THATin the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts), weather conditions or any similar cause reasonably beyond the control of the owner, the time for obtaining a Permit shall be extended for a period equal to the duration of the contingency that occasioned the delay, interruption or prevention, provided that commercial or financial consideration of the Owner shall not be viewed as a cause beyond the control of the Owner.”

6. Application 20-011 (8055 Pasco Road)

Staff confirmed the followingrequested variances regarding a proposed addition and alteration: a) 0.49 m to BuildingHeight b) 56.4% to Permitted Highest BuildingFace Exemption c) 1 Storey to Number of Storeys.

Staff informed of written submissions received for this application prior to the Board of Variance hearing.

Written submissions received:

SUBMISSIONAUTHOR SUBMISSIONDATED #

K. DhaIiwaI June 16, 2020 1

K. DhaliwaI June 17, 2020 2

Staff provided permit history of the subject property.

G. Hu (Director, MyHouse Design BuildTeam Ltd., representing the owner of 8055 Pasco Road) and I. Lara-Faure (Design Manager, My House Design Build Team Ltd., representing the owner of 8055 Pasco Road) referred to written submissions of support, described the variance application for a proposed addition and alteration, and responded to Board members’ questions.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response.

Staff responded to a Board members questions.

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-2 4093791v1 Members of the Board considered: • Allof the submissions; • Whether the application was for a minor variance that did not - result in inappropriate development of the site - adversely affect the natural environment - substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land - vary permitted uses and densities under the applicable bylaw; or - defeat the intent of the bylaw; and • Whether compliance with the bylaw would cause the applicant undue hardship.

Having read the application dated February 21, 2020, including the applicant’s letter plans and all other related documents, and having read the statutory Notice of Hearing for the subject application, and having inspected and/or viewed images of the subject site, and having heard the submissions of G. Hu and I. Lara-Faure:

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-011 regarding a proposed addition and alteration at 8055 Pasco Road with the following variances: • 0.49 m to Building Height • 56.4% to Permitted Highest Building Face Exemption

• 1 Storey to Number of Storeys BE ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated February 27, 2020 submitted with the application; AND THE BOARDFURTHER ORDERS THAT ifconstruction is not substantially started within six months of the issuance of the BuildingPermit, the permissionterminates and the Zoning Bylaw applies: AND FURTHER THATin the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts), weather conditions or any similar cause reasonably beyond the control of the owner, the time for obtaining a Permit shall be extended for a period equal to the duration of the contingency that occasioned the delay, interruption or prevention, provided that commercial or financial consideration of the Owner shall not be viewed as a cause beyond the control of the Owner. CARRIED Member Yaworsky voted in the negative

7. Application 20-013 (4495 Ross Lane)

Staff confirmed the followingrequested variances regarding a proposed addition: a) 4.6 m to Front Yard Setback b) 0.87 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback.

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-3 409379 lvi 409379

JUNE lvi

17,

2020

Written Staff application question. Staff Chair address to alternative commented P. Chair Designs Board D. Members

compliance Hearing Having THAT plans R. It regarding

Redacted

was

address

the

Smith

Van

• • •

(4495

informed provided

Radage Radage

and

subject

All

the - - -

Moved - Whether - Whether hardship.

submissions

der

read

the

for

Ltd.,

Variance

(4468

vary adversely result substantially defeat

all

Board

locations

the

for

Ross

Eerden:

the

with

regarding:

proposed the Board the

the

BOARD

SUBMISSION

other

representing

and site,

permit queried queried

Board

permitted

Marine

subject

the

compliance

submissions;

in Board

proposed

application

the written

the

finds

Lane)

Seconded: hearing.

inappropriate

and regarding

application

for

affect

Zoning received:

intent

history

regarding

addition

whether

that whether

considered:

side Drive)

affect

having

application,

and

the

submissions

uses

AUTHOR VARIANCE

addition

the

documents,

of undue

proposed

yard

R. with

dated

Bylaw

the

spoke

natural

and

owner

heard Van

the was

there there

the

development

the

setbacks; application.

use

4495

bylaw;

hardship

April

subject

and

densities and

application der and

for

bylaw

was

the was

of received

and

addition.

environment

HEARING

support

and a

Ross

orders

Eerden responded

4495

having

and

submissions

minor

anyone

enjoyment

2020,

property.

would

would construction

having

under

Lane

Ross

that

for

and of

variance inspected

(Architect,

SUBMISSION

including

the

MINUTES

cause

the

in this else

with

Application

read

the

there

Lane)

June

the

site

caused of

a requested

application

applicable

variances

Board

adjacent

gallery the of

the

that

10, P.

the

was

and/or

described

the

Pacific

Li,

2020

statutory

applicant

firewall;

gallery to

DATED did

applicant’s

member’s

20-013

who

the

variances

not viewed

land

response.

Smith,

prior

of: Image

bylaw;

Applicant

wished

who

the

and

Notice

undue

variance

and

images

Home

wished

the

letter,

and

M4 4093791v1

JUNE

17,

2020

weather

owner, duration viewed the a) application; permission substantially Application provided • • Written Staff Permit Staff BE Board Staff described commented. Chair address E.

Members Staff

Redacted

Reisen

4.6

0.87 5.29

ALLOWED

event • •

confirmed

informed

provided

responded

Radage

All

Whether

- - by -

- m

the

submissions

conditions

the

Variance

that

the

reason

vary the adversely substantially result a (5874

to to

time

the

terminates

AND

Front

cause

the

Board

the

20-014

started

BOARD

Minimum Front

SUBMISSION commercial Owner

variance

of queried permit

contingency

pursuant

permitted

the

for

the

submissions;

Board

Eagle

written

THE

Yard

hearing.

inappropriate

beyond Yard obtaining

or regarding

following

application any

within

(5874

affect

is received

Board

history

any

BOARD and

whether

delayed Side

considered:

Setback

application Island)

affect

Act

submissions

Setback.

uses

or VARIANCE

AUTHOR

similar

six

the Eagle the

the the

that

members

Yard

financial

requested a

the

months

Zoning

referred natural

God, and control Permit plans

the FURTHER was

there

occasioned

development

application

cause

use

Island) Setback

interrupted

for

subject

densities

for

labour

dated

was

consideration

received

and

shall

a HEARING environment of

question. Bylaw

variance

reasonably

proposed

the

minor

written

anyone

enjoyment

ORDERS

property.

unrest

March be

the

and issuance Owner.

under

applies;

of extended

for

variance

delay,

prevented

SUBMISSION

regarding

the

there

submissions

MINUTES

this

addition. (including 5,

the

beyond

the

June6, 2020

site

THAT

AND

the

of application

interruption

was

applicable

adjacent

gallery

for

that the

Owner

submitted

FURTHER

from

2020

the

strike

Building

proposed DATED

did

construction

Board

period

response.

who

control

obtaining

support

not

land shall

prior

bylaw;

and or

wished member

equal

with

prevention, Permit,

THAT

not

addition: lockouts),

CARRIED

or and

the

a is be

not

the in

the

M-5 - defeat the intent of the bylaw; and • Whether compliance with the bylaw would cause the applicant undue hardship.

Having read the application dated April25, 2020, including the applicant’s letter, plans and all other related documents, and having read the statutory Notice of Hearing for the subject application, and having inspected and/or viewed images of the subject site, and having heard the submission of E. Reisen:

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-0 14 regarding a proposed addition at 5874 Eagle Island with a variance of: • 5.29 m to Front Yard Setback BE ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated April21, 2020 submitted with the application; AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS THAT ifconstruction is not substantially started within six months of the issuance of the Building Permit, the permission terminates and the Zoning Bylaw applies; AND FURTHER THAT in the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts), weather conditions or any similar cause reasonably beyond the control of the owner, the time for obtaining a Permit shall be extended for a period equal to the duration of the contingency that occasioned the delay, interruption or prevention, provided that commercial or financial consideration of the Owner shall not be viewed as a cause beyond the control of the Owner. CARRIED

9. Application 20-015 (3704 McKechnie Avenue)

Staff confirmed the following requested variance regarding an upper floor deck guardrail: a) 0.37 m to Combined Side Yard Setback.

Staff informed of written submissions received for this application prior to the Board of Variance hearing.

Written submissions received:

SUBMISSIONAUTHOR SUBMISSIONDATED #

Redacted May 14, 2020 1

Staff provided permit history of the subject property.

G. Nielsen (Owner, GD Nielsen Homes, representing the owner of 3704 McKechnie Avenue) and D. Cheung (Architect, GD Nielsen Homes, representing the owner of 3704 McKechnie Avenue) described the variance

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-6 4093791vi application for an upper floor deck guardrail and responded to a Board member’s question.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response. Members of the Board considered:

• Allof the submissions; • Whether the application was for a minor variance that did not - result in inappropriate development of the site - adversely affect the natural environment - substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land - vary permitted uses and densities under the applicable bylaw; or - defeat the intent of the bylaw; and • Whether compliance with the bylaw would cause the applicant undue hardship.

Having read the application dated May 20, 2020, including the applicant’s letter, plans and all other related documents, and having read the statutory Notice of Hearing for the subject application, and having inspected and/or viewed images of the subject site, and having heard the submissions of D. Cheung and G. Nielsen;

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-015 regarding an upper floor deck guardrail at 3704 McKechnie Avenue with a variance of: • 0.37 m to Combined Side Yard Setback BE ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated May 7, 2020 submitted with the application; AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS THAT ifconstruction is not substantially started within six months of the issuance of the Building Permit, the permission terminates and the Zoning Bylaw applies; AND FURTHER THAT in the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts), weather conditions or any similar cause reasonably beyond the control of the owner, the time for obtaining a Permit shall be extended for a period equal to the duration of the contingency that occasioned the delay, interruption or prevention, provided that commercial or financial consideration of the Owner shall not be viewed as a cause beyond the control of the Owner. CARRIED

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-7 409379 lvi 10. Application 20-016 (4135 Ripple Road)

Staff confirmed the following requested variances regarding a pool mechanical accessory building: a) 8.49 m to Front Yard Setback for Almondel Road b) 0.12 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback.

Staff informed of written submissions received for this application prior to the Board of Variance hearing.

Written submissions received:

SUBMISSIONAUTHOR SUBMISSIONDATED #

D. White June 14, 2020 1

Staff provided permit history of the subject property and responded to a Board member’s question.

D. Baron (4135 Ripple Road) and D. White (4135 Ripple Road) referred to a written submission of support and described the variance application for a pool mechanical accessory building.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response.

Members of the Board considered:

Having read the application dated May 19, 2020, including the applicant’s letter, plans and all other related documents, and having read the statutory Notice of Hearing for the subject application, and having inspected and/or viewed images of the subject site, and having heard the submissions of D. Baron and D. White:

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-016 regarding a pool mechanical accessory building at 4135 Ripple Road with variances oil • 8.49 m to Front Yard Setback for Almondel Road

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-8 4093791v1 • 0.12 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback BE ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated May 4, 2020 submitted with the application; AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS THAT ifconstruction is not substantially started within six months of the issuance of the BuildingPermit, the permission terminates and the Zoning Bylawapplies; AND FURTHER THATin the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts), weather conditions or any similar cause reasonably beyond the control of the owner, the time for obtaining a Permit shall be extended for a period equal to the duration of the contingency that occasioned the delay, interruption or prevention, provided that commercial or financial consideration of the Owner shall not be viewed as a cause beyond the control of the Owner. CARRIED

11. Application 20-017 (2418 Nelson Avenue)

Staff confirmed the followingrequested variances regarding a proposed detached accessory garage with the followingvariances: a) 0.47 m to Combined Side Yard Setback b) 7.03 m to Front Yard Setback for Nelson Avenue c) 0.61 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback d) 8 % to Impermeable Surfaces in Front Yards for Nelson Avenue.

Staff informed of written submissions received for this application prior to the Board of Variance hearing.

Written submissions received:

SUBMISSIONAUTHOR SUBMISSIONDATED #

Redacted June 8, 2020 1 Redacted June8, 2020 2 BoutHouse Design Group Inc. June 10, 2020 3 ,_Redacted June 10, 2020 4 Redacted June 11,2020 1 Redacted June 12, 2020 6 Redacted June 14, 2020 7 Redacted June 15, 2020 8 Redacted June 16, 2020 9

Staff provided permit history of the subject property.

I. Zhang (Architect, BoutHouse Design Group Inc., representing the owner of 2418 Nelson Avenue) described the variance application for a proposed detached accessory garage.

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARINGMINUTES M-9 4093791 vi Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application.

T. Craig (2425 Nelson Avenue) referred to a written submission, expressed opposition to the requested variances, and commented regarding: front yard garages; neighbourhood character; constructing within the building envelope; and sightlines.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone else in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response.

Members of the Board considered: • Allof the submissions; • Whether the application was for a minor variance that did not - result in inappropriate development of the site - adversely affect the natural environment - substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land - vary permitted uses and densities under the applicable bylaw; or - defeat the intent of the bylaw; and • Whether compliance with the bylaw would cause the applicant undue hardship.

Having read the application dated May 22, 2020, including the applicant’s letter, plans and all other related documents, and having read the statutory Notice of Hearing for the subject application, and having inspected and/or viewed images of the subject site, and having heard the submissions ofT. Craig and I. Zhang:

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would not be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-017 regarding a proposed detached accessory garage at 2418 Nelson Avenue with variances of: • 0.47 m to Combined Side Yard Setback • 7.03 m to Front Yard Setback for Nelson Avenue • 0.81 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback • 8 % to Impermeable Surfaces in Front Yards for Nelson Avenue BE NOT ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated May 4, 2020 submitted with the application. CARRIED

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-1O 4093791 vi 12. Application 20-018 (1015 Greenwood Road)

Staff confirmed the following requested variances regarding a proposed power pole (accessory structure): a) 3.46 m to Combined Side Yard Setback for Power Pole & Dwelling b) 1.17 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback for Power Pole c) 2.09 m to Accessory Building Height for Power Pole.

Staff informed of written submissions received for this application prior to the Board of Variance hearing.

Written submissions received:

SUBMISSIONAUTHOR SUBMISSIONDATED #

Redacted June 17, 2020 1

Staff provided permit history of the subject property.

P. Fraser (Site Supervisor, Bradner Homes Ltd., representing the owner of 1015 Greenwood Road) and C. Bradner (Contractor, Bradner Homes Ltd., representing the owner of 1015 Greenwood Road) described the variance application for a proposed power pole (accessory structure) and responded to Board members’ questions.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application.

T. Gill(1025 Greenwood Place) requested that the Board defer consideration of Application 20-018 and commented regarding: neighbourhood opposition to the requested variances; Board of Variance hearing notification; location of the existing home; alternative locations for the proposed power pole; and working with BC Hydro to determine alternative locations for the proposed power pole. R. Gill(1025 Greenwood Place) requested that the Board defer consideration of Application 20-018 and commented regarding: Board of Variance hearing notification and the height of the proposed power pole. Staff provided information regarding the height of the proposed power pole. T. Piovesan (1055 Greenwood Place) expressed opposition to the requested variances and commented regarding the height and location of the proposed power pole.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone else in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response.

Staff responded to a Board member’s question.

Members of the Board considered: . Allof the submissions;

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-11 4093791vi • Whether the application was for a minor variance that did not - result in inappropriate development of the site - adversely affect the natural environment - substantially affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent land - vary permitted uses and densities under the applicable bylaw; or - defeat the intent of the bylaw; and • Whether compliance with the bylaw would cause the applicant undue hardship.

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-0 18 regarding a proposed power pole (accessory structure) at 1015 Greenwood Road with variances of: • 3.46 m to Combined Side Yard Setback for Power Pole & Dwelling • 1.17 m to MinimumSide Yard Setback for Power Pole • 2.09 m to Accessory BuildingHeight for Power Pole BE ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated May 19, 2020 submitted with the application; AND THE BOARDFURTHER ORDERS THAT ifconstruction is not substantially started within six months of the issuance of the Building Permit, the permission terminates and the Zoning Bylaw applies; AND FURTHER THAT in the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts), weather conditions or any similar cause reasonably beyond the control of the owner, the time for obtaining a Permit shall be extended for a period equal to the duration of the contingency that occasioned the delay, interruption or prevention, provided that commercial or financial consideration of the Owner shall not be viewed as a cause beyond the control of the Owner. CARRIED Chair Radage and Member Yaworsky voted in the negative

13. Application 20-019 (370 MacBeth Crescent)

Staff confirmed the following requested variances regarding proposed retaining walls: a) 0.06 m to Maximum Exposed Retaining Wall Height b) 0.96 m at 45 degrees to Retaining Wall Grade Line.

Staff informed of written submissions received for this application prior to the Board of Variance hearing.

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-12 4093791v1 Written submissions received:

SUBMISSIONAUTHOR SUBMISSIONDATED #

BatistaPropertiesInc. June 15,2020 1

Staff provided permit history of the subject property.

N. Batista (Director, Batista Properties Inc., representing the owner of 370 MacBeth Crescent) read from a written submission from the owner, described the variance application for proposed retaining walls, and responded to a Board member’s question. Staff responded Board members’ questions.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response.

Members of the Board considered:

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would not be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-019 regarding proposed retaining walls at 370 MacBeth Crescent with variances ot • 0.06 m to Maximum Exposed Retaining Wall Height • 0.96 m at 45 degrees to Retaining Wall Grade Line BE NOTALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated March 10, 2020 submitted with the application. CARRIED Chair Radage and Member Yaworsky voted in the negative

JUNE 17, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-13 4093791vi 4093791v1

JUNE

17,

14.

Member

6:53

2020

Application Architecture, Written

a) variance b) questions. Staff Staff Staff Y. address N. expressed actions Chair Board opposition developers 4051

to proposed B. N. Chair Crescent; property

Members

OpenSpace Redacted

p.m. Redacted

Sanguineffi

address

Girard Boffo Peters

Boffo

2.57

8.03

•

confirmed

informed

provided

and

via

Radage

All

submissions

m m

the

(4051

and

Variance damage;

application

electronic

(4045

(4075

4045 of location

developers

and

to to

opposition

the Architecture

Board

the

the 20-020

BOARD

representing

Front Minimum

E. SUBMISSION

the

left

permit of queried

queried

adhering the

Rose

Board

the

Rose

Pettit Rose

Rose submissions;

Board

written

requested

the

construction

hearing. subject

regarding

Yard

following

communication

for (4051

received:

Crescent) the

history

hearing

Crescent.

commented regarding

OF to

on Crescent)

Crescent)

whether

Side

considered:

submissions

the

Setback

electrical

the

VARIANCE AUTHOR

the

property;

bylaws. electrical Rose

variances,

Yard

requested

subject requested

the

owner

the

there

and

there

the

6:44

referred

application. Crescent)

Setback.

regarding:

meter;

subject

facilities.

fence

application

property

meter

property;

was

was p.m. received

HEARING

Pettit

and

variances,

4051

variances

and

anyone

between

anyone

and

property. and

commented

written

(Associate,

damage;

neighbourhood Rose

written

construction

and

for

returned

and

responded

SUBMISSION

MINUTES

this

and regarding

else

adhering

4051

submissions

Crescent)

there

June

the

June

submission,

application

commented

adhering

regarding: to

gallery

OpenSpace

15,

13,

and

the

was

the

2020

to an

consultation; DATED

gallery

4045

Board a

described

no hearing

bylaws.

fence

electrical

who

expressed response.

prior

bylaws;

actions

opposition,

Rose regarding:

members’

wished

who

between

2 3

the

meter:

wished

the

M-14 JUNE 4093791 vi

17,

15.

2020

THAT of the the compliance an plans Hearing • B. Having weather not • It duration in BE viewed owner, provided Permit Applications:

THAT Receipt It

was

the the

Peters,

electrical

• • 2.57 8.03

ALLOWED

• • • application; • •

substantially permission

and

event

subject

the

Moved

Whether - -

Whether - - -

hardship.

Moved all

Application Application Application Application Application

the

read

for m m

conditions

that

written

vary adversely substantially defeat result

reason

all Board

and

a to to

time

the

Written the

with

the

cause

meter

BOARD other

Minimum

Front

commercial

and

site,

and

permitted

contingency

terminates

pursuant

subject

AND the

compliance

for Owner

application

the

finds started the

and

of Pettit:

Seconded:

Seconded: inappropriate

and

20-011 20-013 20-0 20-014 20-016

at related

Yard

beyond obtaining

or application

and any

Zoning affect

intent

THE

oral

4051

any that

affect having

Side

application,

within

Act

Setback

Oral

uses

delayed

VARIANCE

submissions

similar the (8055 and (4495 (5874 BOARD documents, (3704 (4135

undue

the

Rose

the

that with

dated

Bylaw

Yard

financial

the

Submissions

natural and

heard

six

the was

God,

plans

control

Permit

occasioned

development

the

Ross Pasco Eagle McKechnie Ripple

use Crescent

bylaw;

cause hardship

Setback

May months

Zoning and

densities

FURTHER

and

for

bylaw

labour

the

interrupted

dated

and

consideration

environment

HEARING

shall

Lane);

and a

regarding

orders 21,

Island);

having

Road); Member

Road);

and

reasonably

submissions

minor

the

enjoyment

Bylaw

would

with would 2020,

having May

unrest

the under

Avenue);

the

Owner.

that

ORDERS

extended

variance

inspected

variances

delay,

13 the

issuance

Sanguinetti

applies;

the

including

cause

MINUTES

(including Application

read

the

prevented

and

beyond

site

caused

following

the

applicable

interruption

adjacent

the

14,

that

for

THAT

AND

and/or

Owner

the

Boffo,

statutory

2020

applicant

the

strike

voted did

from

period

20-020

Board

applicant’s

FURTHER

the

control

viewed not

Building

land

construction submitted

shall

bylaw;

and

or Applicant

obtaining

Girard,

equal

Notice

the

undue

prevention,

regarding

not

lockouts),

Variance

CARRIED

images

negative

Permit,

the

letter,

THAT

with

the

M-15 4093791vt

JUNE

17,

16.

17. 18.

Certified

Radage,

2020

There Public Adjournment July Next Staff up THAT

The

was

Correct:

• • •

Board 15,

Chair

confirmed

Hearing

and

were

the Application Application Moved Application Application

Question .22(1) s.

2020

including

June

BOARD

Variance

and

questions.

that

17,

Period

20-020 Seconded: 20-0 20-0 20-0

p.m.

June

2020

the

17 19 18

hearing

17,

Board

the VARIANCE

(2418 (4051

(370 (1015

2020,

hearing

Municipal

MacBeth

adjourned

Greenwood Rose

Nelson

Variance

received. HEARING Crescent);

the

Hall

Avenue);

Crescent);

Board

Cuk,

hearing

Council

6:57

Road); .22(1) s. Secretary

MINUTES

p.m.

and

Variance Chamber

adjourned.

scheduled

CARRIED

for

M-16

411

SEPTEMBER

3970v1

attended

facilities.

STAFF:

Legislative

BOARD

Simmons,

Approving

approved

Time

Chair

THAT

circulated.

23, Chair

June Adoption

THAT

Confirmation

Staff

Introduction

The

Call

was

MEMBERS:

the

circulated. M.

2020

THE

Services

Hearing

17,

introduced

Limit

Radage

Panneton,

the

Moved

the

Moved

hearing

and

Order

CORPORATION

2020.

June

September

Variance

the

the was

and

read Clerk.

referred

Yaworsky

Board

BOARD

via

17,

Chair

Board:

the

BOARD

MUNICIPAL

Director,

June

the

WEDNESDAY,

called

Seconded:

Seconded: electronic

out

2020

Board

Agenda

and

23,

the

17,

Cuk,

Variance

Radage

attended

Board

the

2020

Legislative

noted

following

2020

order

Members

VARIANCE

communication

Board

VARIANCE Minutes

HALL

THE

Board

that

Minutes

and

SEPTEMBER

Variance

the

Orders

Secretary;

DISTRICT

statement

COUNCIL

the

and

p.m.

Services/Corporate

Members

hearing

HEARING

the

Variance

time

described

HEARING

hearing

Board

facilities.

limit

via

and

regarding

CHAMBER

23,

Davis,

electronic

applied

WEST

hearing

MINUTES

the

minutes

2020

MINUTES

Variance

Yee,

Hearing

Time

VANCOUVER

Officer;

agenda

Building

Sanguinetti,

communication

each

Limit

Hearing

adopted

procedure.

and

application

Inspector,

approved

Order

CARRIED

held

Grundy, on

(9)(b) M-1

411 SEPTEMBER

3970v1

23,

Staff

Written

Staff

garage:

Board

Application

Staff viewed

duration

owner, weather

provided the

substantially

this time,

Permit structure

permission and orders

“Pursuant

NI.

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

2020

Menghi

2.06

event

Board

the

provided

informed

confirmed

the

that

the

submissions

Order

conditions

Variance

that

permission

must

the

reason

time

the

a terminates

cause

20-021

section

started

Accessory

Variance

SUBMISSION

minor

commercial

Owner

permit

sets

BOARD

contingency

the

for

written

completed,

hearing.

beyond

obtaining

following

variance

any

(2966

within

received:

542

history is

time

any

and

that

delayed

the

submissions

Act

Building

AUTHOR

limit

similar

Mathers

the

Board

VARIANCE

permit

that

the

financial

requested

months

and

the

within

Zoning

control

God,

Permit

Local

permitted

occasioned

Height.

cause

terminates

the

interrupted

subject

variance

Avenue)

labour

which

received consideration

Government

construction

shall

Bylaw

the

variance

HEARING

reasonably

the

from

property.

issuance

unrest

the

Owner.”

and

applies;

specify

for

extended

the

construction

delay,

SUBMISSION

prevented

regarding

September

September16,

September

the

this

(including

Act,

MINUTES

requirements

June

beyond

July

June June

June

that:

not

bylaw

AND

the

application

interruption

the

28,

24,

23,

10,

for

completed

Owner

22,

12,

Board

2020 a

2020

2020 2020

FURTHER

from

Building

2020

applies.

construction

the

strike

DATED

proposed

period

2020

the

control

obtaining

shall

prior

and

or building

the

within

Permit,

Variance

Orders

equal

prevention,

not THAT

7 2

4 #

1 accessory

lockouts),

bylaw,

the

be a

that

not

the

the M-2 M. Menghi (2966 Mathers Avenue) referred to written submissions of support and described the variance application for a proposed accessory garage. M. Menghi, U. Menghi (2966 Mathers Avenue), S. Rasmussen (Principal, SRA Architects Inc.), A. Devery (Architectural Intern, SRA Architects Inc.) and G. Gallie (Project Builder) responded to Board members’ questions.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application.

C. Koo (2965 Mathers Avenue) queried regarding the final height of the proposed accessory garage and commented regarding hedge height, views, and sightlines. M. Menghi provided a response and commented relative to a land title covenant regarding hedges on the subject property.

Chair Radage queried whether there was anyone else in the gallery who wished to address the Board regarding the application and there was no response.

Having read the application dated August 12, 2020, including the applicant’s letter, plans and all other related documents, and having read the statutory Notice of Hearing for the subject application, and having inspected and/or viewed images of the subject site, and having heard the submissions of A. Devery, G. GalIie, C. Koo, M. Menghi, U. Menghi, and S. Rasmussen:

It was Moved and Seconded: THATthe Board finds that undue hardship would be caused to the Applicant by compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and orders that Application 20-021 regarding a proposed accessory garage at 2966 Mathers Avenue with a variance of: 2.06 m to Accessory Building Height BE ALLOWEDpursuant to the plans dated August 5, 2020 submitted with the application; AND THE BOARD FURTHER ORDERS THAT ifconstruction is not substantially started within six months of the issuance of the BuildingPermit, the permission terminates and the Zoning Bylaw applies; AND FURTHER THATin the event the Owner is delayed or interrupted or prevented from obtaining a Permit by reason of any Act of God, labour unrest (including strike and lockouts),

SEPTEMBER23, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-3 4113970v1

411

SEPTEMBER

3970v1

23,

letter

Having

address

Members

structure).

Chair described

Staff

Board

Staff

power Application

viewed weather

duration

provided

owner,

0. b)

2020

Fan

•

Fan

2.7

5.83

provided

informed

confirmed

plans Radage -

hardship. -

Whether -

- All

Whether

pole

read

(749

the

conditions

Variance

that

defeat

vary

substantially

adversely

result

the

Staff

time

the

and

(accessory

the

the the

Anderson

Board

cause

Accessory

20-022

SUBMISSION

commercial

variance

queried

Front

BOARD history permit

permitted

contingency

compliance

the

submissions; the

in and

application

all

Board

for

the

written

inappropriate

hearing.

regarding

other

application

beyond

obtaining

following

affect

Yard

intent D.

(749

any

whether

considered: Crescent)

affect

application

Fan

structure):

Structure

submissions

uses

AUTHOR Setback

Anderson

the

similar

VARIANCE

the

dated with

responded

that

financial

the

requested

natural

and

was

the

there

control

Permit

development

the

documents,

occasioned

application

use

bylaw;

referred

August

cause

Height.

densities

for

subject

for

bylaw

was

and

Crescent)

environment

received

consideration

shall

HEARING

and variances

proposed

Member

reasonably

minor

the

enjoyment

20,

Board

anyone to

would

property.

under

written

and

the

and

Owner.

2020,

for

variance

extended

the

members’

delay,

there

SUBMISSION

Sanguinetti

cause

having

September19,

private

this

regarding

the

MINUTES

submissions

including

site

the

beyond

applicable application

the

was

interruption

adjacent

the

gallery

that

read

for

power

Owner

questions.

applicant

the

did

voted

DATED

the

period

response. 2020 proposed

who

control

pole

not

land

applicant’s

bylaw:

statutory

shall

prior

support

wished

equal

(accessory

undue

the

prevention,

not

CARRIED

private

negative

the

and

the M4

4113970v1

SEPTEMBER

23,

address Chair

proposed

Staff

Staff a)

generator

Application

Staff

the

period from

interruption strike with

construction

with

•

FURTHER

Building

•

BE compliance

THAT

proposed

images

Notice

None.

2020

the

was

Norman

0.7

6.71

2.7

5.63

Owner

ALLOWED

control

the

variances

provided

informed

confirmed

obtaining

Radage

Board

and

the

equal

Moved

the

application;

Permit,

generator

Hearing

and

private

lockouts),

Board

the

responded

(6560

shall

THAT

Board

Minimum

Accessory

with

20-023

SUBMISSION

Front

the

Front

queried

permit

and

that

BOARD

outdoor

prevention, subject

Variance a

of:

not

the

pursuant

not

the

Permit

finds

Nelson

owner,

power

for

regarding

Seconded:

substantially

Yard

foHowing duration

Yard

and

the

permission

AND

(6560

Zoning

weather

history

Side

the

written

whether

site,

that

air

viewed

Structure

outdoor

event

Setback pole

hearing.

Board

Avenue)

the

Setback

AUTHOR

subject

conditioning

THE

provided

Yard

Nelson

undue

VARIANCE and

reason

the

Bylaw

the

time

requested

submissions

(accessory

conditions

the

there

the

BOARD

plans

members’

having

terminates

started

Setback

application

air

Height

application,

(Generator)

for

hardship

described

Owner

contingency

subject

and

Avenue)

conditioning

that

cause

was

obtaining

any

dated

unit

heard

orders

variances within

HEARING

FURTHER

commercial

structure)

(Air

anyone

Act

questions.

were

property.

beyond

(separate any

and

would

July

delayed

and

the

Conditioning

of and

six

that

similar

the

received

God,

variance

there SUBMISSION 7

unit

Permit

submission

months

having

regarding

and

the

MINUTES

Application

Zoning

ORDERS

the

occasioned

(separate

caused

units):

labour

749

was

control

cause

August

financial

interrupted

gallery

shall

for

inspected

application

Anderson

Unit).

Bylaw

the

this

unrest

DATED

reasonably

THAT

response.

proposed

10,

20-022

who

units).

the

issuance

consideration

the

extended

application

applies;

2020

Fan:

Applicant

(including

wished

delay, and/or

Owner.

Crescent

for

prevented

Staff

regarding

CARRIED

submitted

beyond

AND

for

viewed

and

the

prior

a M-5

411

SEPTEMBER

3970v1

23,

viewed

weather

duration

owner, the

provided

application;

Permit substantially

permission

•

6560 THAT

• compliance

proposed

images

It letter,

Notice

Having

Members

was

2020

6.71

0.7

ALLOWED

event

•

Nelson

plans

the

Moved Whether

by hardship. -

- All

the Whether

m of

read

conditions

that

the

Hearing

reason

generator

defeat

vary

Board the substantially

adversely

result

time

the

terminates

AND

with

Minimum

cause

and

the

started

Avenue

commercial

Front

Owner

and

subject

BOARD

contingency

pursuant

permitted

for

compliance

the

submissions;

the

application Board

all

finds

the

THE

for

Seconded:

beyond

inappropriate

obtaining

Yard

other

any

application

and

within Zoning

affect

intent

the

with

any

Side

site,

that

and

BOARD

delayed

considered:

affect

Act

Setback

outdoor

subject

uses

variances

similar

undue and the

six

the the

Yard

the

VARIANCE

that

Bylaw with

dated

financial

the

months

control natural

Zoning

God,

and

Permit

plans

FURTHER having was

occasioned

Setback

the

development

application,

air documents,

cause

use

bylaw;

(Generator)

hardship

interrupted August

and

densities

for

conditioning

labour

of:

bylaw

dated

consideration

and

shall

environment

Bylaw

heard

orders

HEARING

reasonably

and

the

minor

(Air

enjoyment

19,

ORDERS

would

unrest

July

the

Owner.

issuance

under

the

applies;

and

Conditioning

2020,

that

extended

variance

delay,

30,

prevented

submission

the

unit

cause

having

(including

Application

MINUTES

the

2020

beyond

including

caused

site

THAT

AND

(separate

the

interruption

applicable

adjacent

the

for

the

that

inspected

read

submitted

Owner

Unit)

FURTHER

from

the

applicant

strike

Building

did

construction

period

the

20-023

the

units)

control

obtaining

not

shall

land

applicant’s

bylaw;

statutory

Norman:

or and

Applicant

and/or

with

equal

prevention,

Permit,

undue

regarding

not

THAT

lockouts),

CARRIED

the

viewed

not

the

a M-6 9. Receipt of Written and Oral Submissions

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATall written and oral submissions regarding the following Board of Variance Applications: • Application 20-021 (2966 Mathers Avenue); • Application 20-022 (749 Anderson Crescent); and • Application 20-023 (6560 Nelson Avenue); up to and including September 23, 2020, be received. CARRIED

10. Public Question Period

There were no questions.

11. Next Hearing

Staff confirmed that the next hearing of the Board of Variance is scheduled for October21, 2020 at 5 p.m. in the Municipal Hall Council Chamber.

12. Adjournment

Itwas Moved and Seconded: THATthe September 23, 2020 Board of Variance hearing be adjourned. CARRIED

The Board of Variance hearing adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

Certified Correct: s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

L. Radab, Chair P. Cuk, Secretary

SEPTEMBER23, 2020 BOARD OF VARIANCEHEARING MINUTES M-7 4113970v1 (9)(c) s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (9)(d) s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (9)(e) s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (10)(a)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 5:23 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Craig Cameron Twitter re chip Wilson

I guess a man who positions himself as a family man has a very interesting way to express himself. I am absolutely disgusted and appalled and embarrassed as a professional working woman to have this kind of representation and leadership You do not represent anyone I know and it would be important fir you to consider resigning, take some time to reflect and determine how the kind of leader, you as a family man, would like to represent.

Simply unacceptable.

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver s. 22(1) (10)(b)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 9:25 AM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

30 Oct 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604074323_5f9c3b53d98f40.63681183

Dear Councillors:

Here is my understanding: Recently Mr Craig Cameron who is a lawyer, employee of the Canadian Justice Department, Councillor of the District of West Vancouver and represents West Vancouver on the Translink Mayors’ Council made highly inappropriate comments on Twitter in response to an article written in the Daily Hive by Mr Chip Wilson on the demise of Mountain Equipment Coop. These comments are unbecoming of an elected official in West Vancouver and reflect poorly on Mr Cameron and his judgement and are embarrassing to the Mayor, his fellow Councillors and the residents of West Vancouver.

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

 I request that the Council of the District of West Vancouver pass a formal resolution condemning the inappropriate language on Twitter used by Mr Craig Cameron and remind him that as an elected representative of West Vancouver what he says on any media reflects on the Council and Residents of West Vancouver.

 I feel this is extraordinarily offensive and deeply concerning. Mr Cameron should be requested to take training on appropriate communication and behaviour and District of West Vancouver employee guidelines on same.

 Irrespective of Councillor Cameron's motivations (like fighting homelessness), his words are unacceptable to me; he does not speak for me. And no Mr. Cameron you were not tweeting as a "private citizen" because as an elected official you are representing West Vancouver residents.

 Grossly, grossly, disturbing, offensive, comments for which Mr Cameron should unequivocally apologize. Mr Cameron's actions are an insult to every resident, taxpayer or voter in West Vancouver.

 I feel that Councillor Cameron's latest Twitter Rant has gone too far. I do not support that an elected representative of West Vancouver behaves in such an unprofessional and uncouth manner in his twitter attacks. It seems to me he is being a bully, insensitive, ignorant, offensive, inappropriate and he needs to be accountable for his unacceptable behaviour.

 Mayor Booth should remove Mr Cameron from being the District of West Vancouver ’s representative on the Mayors’ Translink Council and other Committees of the District of West Vancouver Council that he is currently on.  Mr Cameron should make a public written statement of apology to the Mayor and his fellow Councillors and the residents of the District of West Vancouver for his offensive tweet. The letter should be included in Council correspondence and read out by him at an upcoming Council Meeting.

 Mayor Booth should request all Councillors put their cell phones away during Council Meetings. The Council are there to listen to presenters and residents and it is disrespectful for Councillors to be looking at their phones and messages while presenters are talking. It has been noted many times that during council meetings Councillor Cameron in particular spends more time on his phone than paying attention to council proceedings

 Mr Cameron seems addicted to his twitter exchanges. He would be better to spend his time focusing on the interests of the residents of West Vancouver and the health and economic challenges being faced by residents.

 Mr Cameron has embarrassed his fellow councillors by this tweet and he owes them a public apology and a commitment that he will spend less time on Twitter and more time on the concerns of District of West Vancouver residents

Please urge Mr. Cameron to take a leave of absence or resign from Council and take appropriate sensitivity training and training on District of West Vancouver Code of Conduct dealing with respectful behaviour.

Thank you

s. 22(1) wv (10)(c)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 10:04 AM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

30 Oct 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604077146_5f9c465aaddd59.60438818

Dear Councillors:

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

Thank you s. 22(1)

West Vancouver. s. 22(1) (10)(d)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 2:16 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

30 Oct 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604091491_5f9c7e63187491.42112360

Dear Councillors:

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

I am offended that Mr. Cameron made derogatory comments regarding the staff at Mountain Co op re their salaries and then followed it up with an absurd and derogatory comment to Mr. Wilson on twitter. I have given up on the West Vancouver council so couldn't care how they "discipline" someone who has shown his true colours on twitter. As a lawyer, i would assume his English skills to be above the normal standard. Evidently not so.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver, BC. s. 22(1) (10)(e)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 8:54 AM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

31 Oct 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604158833_5f9d8571ee89b0.13522085

Dear Councillors:

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

 Grossly, grossly, disturbing, offensive, comments for which Mr Cameron should unequivocally apologize. Mr Cameron's actions are an insult to every resident, taxpayer or voter in West Vancouver.

I am s. 22(1) , but not a prude. I think the least we can expect is an apology for saying what he thought was funny, but was not.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver B.C. s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (10)(f)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 8:59 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

31 Oct 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604202333_5f9e2f5d264204.22554992

Dear Councillors:

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

 District of West Vancouver has a “ respectful behaviour” by law that states in West Vancouver residents and employees must “ treat others with respect, courtesy, fairness and equality”. Does this by law not apply to our Councillors or are they exempt??? Please urge Mr. Cameron to take a leave of absence or resign from Council and take appropriate sensitivity training and training on District of West Vancouver Code of Conduct dealing with respectful behaviour.

Thank you s. 22(1)

West Vancouver, B.C s. 22(1) (10)(g)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Claus Jensen Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 11:59 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: [Possible Malware Fraud]Survey Results of Councillor Cameron’s use of Inappropriate Language in a Recent Twitter Exchange Attachments: wvcs letter to mayor councillors re cameron inappropriate twitter oct2020.doc

WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a potential threat.

It may trick victims into clicking a link and downloading malware. Do not open suspicious links.

If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide additional security.

District of West Vancouver Mayor & Council

Please see the below letter in “email format” and the identical letter in a word document attached which was previously sent to “Mayor and Council” and now we wish to be on record and look forward to your response.

And in addition, We have a specific question and request an answer. In the letter created by WV residents- voters-taxpayers the following question was asked and no response has been received. Please respond to me and I will share the response received.

District of West Vancouver has a “ respectful behaviour” by law that states in West Vancouver residents and employees must “ treat others with respect, courtesy, fairness and equality”. Does this by law not apply to our Councillors or are they exempt???

Thank you.

West Vancouver Community Stakeholders per: Claus Jensen West Vancouver, BC

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver Community Stakeholders West Vancouver

1 November 2020

Mayor Booth, Councillors: Wong, Thompson, Soprovich, Lambur, Gambioli

re: Survey Results of Councillor Cameron’s use of Inappropriate Language in a Recent Twitter Exchange

To date 91% of WV residents who voted in WVCS sponsored survey concluded that Councillor Cameron's tweet was inappropriate. See Appendix A for more statistical detail and explanation and the link to the survey report. And also note what consequences residents felt were most appropriate (based on their votes).

As council considers what action to take with respect of the above we would ask you Madam Mayor and Councillors to consider the following:

1. Mr Cameron’s behaviour re twitter is not the sort of behaviour residents find acceptable from an elected representative of the District of West Vancouver. And it is not only this twitter but Mr. Cameron has a long term persistent pattern of bullying behaviour displayed during council meetings and exchanges with residents and fellow councillors.

2. His behaviour does not set a good example for staff of the District of West Vancouver (DWV).

3. Mr Cameron should likely seek some counselling re his behaviour in this and regarding previous instances of inappropriate behaviour.

4. In surveying residents at the very least Mr Cameron should issue an unreserved written apology to his fellow Councillors, Staff and Residents of DWV and: 5. You should consider replacing Mr Cameron on the Translink Mayors’ Council with yourself or another Councillor as his behaviour makes it unacceptable to have him representing DWV.

Thank you.

WEST VANCOUVER COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS

"signed on behalf of WVCS"

Nigel Malkin

Bob Charworth-Musters

Graham McIsaac

Claus Jensen Appendix A

My name is Claus Jensen and I administered the survey where WVCS made an open invitation to all WV Residents (who certified they were WV residents) and who wanted to give their opinion on a recent tweet made by Councillor Cameron. The core question:

"It is INAPPROPRIATE for WV councillor Craig Cameron to twitter: “Chip would be better off playing with his erection rather than meddling in the election." [ alternate options: Inappropriate or OK on twitter or None of above]. Link to survey result: https://dataca.surveygizmo.com/r/50008356_5f9f1447aec946.90500122

For the above survey question, I confirm that 90.1% of WV residents who voted felt that Mr. Cameron's twitter was inappropriate. 90.1% is an interesting and informative number, but not on its own. Based on statistical theory, what is more accurate and powerfull is the following statement:

Based on the number of WV residents answering the survey (sample size) and number of WV resident-voters, I am 99% confident that if every WV resident was polled AND if every WV resident responded then 99% of the time WV residents' whole community vote result would be in the range of 81% to 98% of WV that Mr. Cameron's tweet was inappropriate.

It then follows that we can say with 99% statistical confidence that at least 81% of all WV residents (community) feel that Mr. Cameron's tweet was inappropriate. And Council if you do not believe your resposnibility is to the whole WV community, then read no further because it will be a waste of your time.

More information from the survey results:

1. 60.5% of people made this statement about Councillor Cameron: ".... It seems to me he is being a bully, insensitive, ignorant, offensive, inappropriate and he needs to be accountable for his unacceptable behaviour" Hence it seems pretty clear that WV community is looking for Council to hold Mr. Cameron "accountable for his unacceptable behaviour".

2. 67.1% requested that council passed a formal resolution condemming the inappropriate language on Twitter used by Mr. Cameron ... If council can pass an environmental emergency resolution, council can certainly legally pass this type of resolution. This you can legally do. 3. 55% felt that you should "fire" Mr. Cameron from being on the Translink council and from being on DWV committees (like the Arts). This you can legally do.

4. 67% felt Mr Cameron should make a public written statement of apology ... this, of course you can not legally make Mr. Cameron do.

5. 59% felt that cell phone usage by by Mr. Cameron and councillors during council meetings should be forbidden. This can legally be done.

And every person who sent a letter to council, finished their letter with: "Please urge Mr. Cameron to take a leave of absence or resign from Council and take appropriate sensitivity training and training on District of West Vancouver Code of Conduct dealing with respectful behaviour." You can urge all you want. But legally Mr. Cameron can do whatever he choses to do (subject to the power of DWV code of conduct bylaw West Vancouver Community Stakeholders West Vancouver

1 November 2020

Mayor Booth, Councillors: Wong, Thompson, Soprovich, Lambur, Gambioli re: Survey Results of Councillor Cameron’s use of Inappropriate Language in a Recent Twitter Exchange

As council considers what action to take with respect of the above we would ask you Madam Mayor and Councillors to consider the following:

2. His behaviour does not set a good example for staff of the District of West Vancouver (DWV).

3. Mr Cameron should likely seek some counselling re his behaviour in this and regarding previous instances of inappropriate behaviour.

4. In surveying residents at the very least Mr Cameron should issue an unreserved written apology to his fellow Councillors, Staff and Residents of DWV and:

5. You should consider replacing Mr Cameron on the Translink Mayors’ Council with yourself or another Councillor as his behaviour makes it unacceptable to have him representing DWV.

Thank you.

WEST VANCOUVER COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS

"signed on behalf of WVCS"

Nigel Malkin Bob Charworth-Musters Graham McIsaac Claus Jensen Appendix A My name is Claus Jensen and I administered the survey where WVCS made an open invitation to all WV Residents (who certified they were WV residents) and who wanted to give their opinion on a recent tweet made by Councillor Cameron. The core question:

More information from the survey results:

3. 55% felt that you should "fire" Mr. Cameron from being on the Translink council and from being on DWV committees (like the Arts). This you can legally do.

4. 67% felt Mr Cameron should make a public written statement of apology ... this, of course you can not legally make Mr. Cameron do.

5. 59% felt that cell phone usage by by Mr. Cameron and councillors during council meetings should be forbidden. This can legally be done.

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 6:27 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

03 Nov 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604455936_5fa20e00e15632.32636174

Dear Councillors:

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

 Grossly, grossly, disturbing, offensive, comments for which Mr Cameron should unequivocally apologize. Mr Cameron's actions are an insult to every resident, taxpayer or voter in West Vancouver.

 Mr Cameron should make a public written statement of apology to the Mayor and his fellow Councillors and the residents of the District of West Vancouver for his offensive tweet. The letter should be included in Council correspondence and read out by him at an upcoming Council Meeting.  Mayor Booth should request all Councillors put their cell phones away during Council Meetings. The Council are there to listen to presenters and residents and it is disrespectful for Councillors to be looking at their phones and messages while presenters are talking. It has been noted many times that during council meetings Councillor Cameron in particular spends more time on his phone than paying attention to council proceedings

Cameron's ebullience is inappropriate in his elected position and in this instance he was just plain wrong.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver. s. 22(1) (10)(i)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron Twitter Rant Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:05 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; s. 22(1) Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: Twitter Rant by Councillor Cameron Crosses the Line

05 Nov 2020 Unique Identifier: 1604555572_5fa39334f39c08.54482790

Dear Councillors:

The big question is what specific actions are our Mayor and Councillors going to take and when?

Below are my additional comments, observations or concerns about Mr. Cameron's twitter activities:

 Grossly, grossly, disturbing, offensive, comments for which Mr Cameron should unequivocally apologize. Mr Cameron's actions are an insult to every resident, taxpayer or voter in West Vancouver.

Mr. Cameron's behaviour is beneath that of an elected representative. I have never voted for Mr. Cameron and his uncouth, unsavoury, and unbalanced behaviour and attitude towards his job and the residents of West Vancouver are two reasons why. He is an embarrassment to all of us whose taxes pay his salary. Other politicians have resigned for less. He should resign, but his self-righteousness and ego directs his faulty value system.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver s. 22(1) (10)(j)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:39 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

05 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604612238_5fa4708ed943b6.94254095

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I am aware that in a recent survey sponsored by West Vancouver Community Stakeholders group that 91% of people who certified they were WV residents felt that Mr. Cameron's tweet was inappropriate. I am aware that more than 60% of people felt that in addition to an apology, more substantial consequences should befall Mr. Cameron.

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you s. 22(1) (10)(k)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:48 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

05 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604612743_5fa472877aca63.53662547

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you s. 22(1)

West Van ps - surely the Code of Conduct for Councillors should be the same as for Staff (10)(l)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:45 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

05 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604614404_5fa4790424be57.20759494

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver

PS The apology that Councilor Cameron delivered did not feel genuine or remorseful. I have watched a number of Council Meetings in the last year where he has been very nasty and overbearing in directing comments to Councilors Thompson and Lambur and the Public on discussion items. We should expect an environment that allows people to question, share and have them received respectfully. Councilor Cameron should step aside and demonstrate that he can modify his behavior that many West Van residents feel that he stepped over the line. There should be consequences. (10)(m)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 4:56 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

05 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604623671_5fa49d37e72663.54723561

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

W. Van

PS. why doesn't Council save some W. Van. Taxpayer's money and follow this Official Code of Conduct from the Prov of BC re responsive conduct of locally elected officials. With three lawyers on Council, surely they would know that this already exists (10)(n)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:02 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

05 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604627868_5fa4ad9c0589e2.07499255

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver BC s. 22(1) (10)(o)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 7:49 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

05 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604634301_5fa4c6bd5d9599.31658735

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver (10)(p)

Mahssa Beattie

From: Councillor Cameron's Apology Not Enough Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 11:17 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; Nora Gambioli; s. 22(1) Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; Subject: Councillor Cameron's Apology insufficient. There must be consequences.

06 Nov 2020 Petition Unique Identifier: 1604645771_5fa4f38b43dd03.28128296

I certify that I am a resident of West Vancouver.

I am petitioning Mayor Booth to replace Councillor Cameron on two DWV positions that he currently holds:

1. As your representative at Translink Mayors' council; and 2. As a member of all DWV committees, including the Arts Facilities Committee

It is my understanding Mayor Booth that you have the legal capacity to execute my request.

I am aware that at the last council meeting you confirmed that Mr. Cameron's said tweet was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to our community.

I am aware that Mr. Cameron apologized to our community.

I am aware that at times Mr. Cameron has bullied fellow councillors and/or in interactions with West Vancouver residents at public meetings (some of which is documented in Council meeting videos).

I petition you to replace Mr. Cameron on the above two functions.

Thank you

s. 22(1) West Van PS I could care less about Craig Cameron's comment on "erection!" It is an act of an obnoxious "boy" needing to show off! It is the first comment in his tweet that shows he does not have the compassion nor the depth to understand the vulnerable in our society. This is more problematic. How could he possibly serve and defend the public? (11)(a)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 9:51 AM s. 22(1) To: ; MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill s. 22(1) Soprovich; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: I oppose the proposed Inglewood Care Centre Development

s. 22(1) West Vancouver, s. 22(1)

30 Oct 2020

Dear Councillors:

My name is s. 22(1) and I am a resident of West Vancouver. I am sending you this email to tell you that I do not support the expansion of Inglewood Care Centre as currently proposed. I could possibly support a much smaller and lower building height proposal.

There are other reasons why I oppose this spot re-zoning application:

 I feel outraged, despair and anger when I read that council is even contemplating moving this proposal forward. I am not opposed to senior care facilities, but the proposed development is far too large and not the right fit for our community; it is the equivalent of 2.6 Lions Gate Hospitals constructed at Taylor Way and Inglewood. This proposal is massive. The mass (4 buildings), height (up to 11 floors) and density (from 230 beds to 699 units – a 529% increase in Floor Area Ratio), is completely at odds with West Van’s small town, village character.

 This proposal is yet another example of spot-zoning and will set a precedent for the entire Taylor Way corridor. It should not be considered until a Local Area Plan has been completed. To do otherwise overrides a critical aspect of local community input as to the types of development residents want (or don’t want) in their neighbourhood.

 I am concerned about the impact this project will have on infrastructure (roads, sewer systems, drinking water, community facilities and parks).

 While the use of this site for housing and a graduated care facility is acceptable, the massive size of the project, particularly within a single-family residential neighbourhood, is not acceptable.

 The benefits to the community do not outweigh the drawbacks. The majority of the proposed development is rental apartments and private, for-profit units. There must be a significant increase in publicly funded long-term care to offer true community benefit.

 I am concerned about the traffic impact the proposed development will have. Additional residents, visitors and support workers such as medical staff (doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, etc.) and maintenance workers (cleaning and commercial laundry services, deliveries, etc.), plus users of the contemplated child day care facility and Seniors Wellness centre will put undue pressure on already congested roads. Please reject this proposal as currently presented to West Vancouver residents.

Thank you

s. 22(1) (11)(b)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 1:01 PM s. 22(1) To: ; MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill s. 22(1) Soprovich; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: I oppose the proposed Inglewood Care Centre Development

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver BC s. 22(1)

30 Oct 2020

Dear Councillors:

There are other reasons why I oppose this spot re-zoning application:

 Based on the proposed living areas, 67% of this development is for condos and 33% is for senior care (Long Term Care and Assisted Living). This just sounds like a condo development dressed up and marketed as a senior care facility.

Please reject this proposal as currently presented to West Vancouver residents.

Thank you

s. 22(1) (11)(c)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 11:15 AM s. 22(1) To: ; MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill s. 22(1) Soprovich; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth;

Subject: I oppose the proposed Inglewood Care Centre Development

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver BC. s. 22(1)

01 Nov 2020

Dear Councillors:

There are other reasons why I oppose this spot re-zoning application:

 I am concerned about the environmental impact this project. The carbon emissions from just the demolition, clearing of land the construction and furnishing of the facility will be significant. In addition the year after year operating (heating, lights, maintenance) carbon emissions from the facility itself plus the consequential increase in carbon emissions associated with increase population, traffic, utility operations, and etc.). Council has passed a "Climate Emergency Resolution" and yet there is NO analysis of the environmental impact of just building the proposed structure.

 I want a degree of predictability with zoning and development, yet this is another case of spot- zoning. I strongly object to spot-zoning. I despair that we are allowing developers to shape our community instead of residents. There is no point in having an Official Community Plan or Local Area Plans if Council continues to allow such significant exceptions.

 There are currently 230 publicly funded long-term care beds at this location. This proposal provides NO increase in public care beds. We need more publicly funded long-term care beds, not expensive, private-care facilities. The benefits to the community do not outweigh the drawbacks. If a significant increase in density is requested there needs to be a significant increase in publicly funded long-term care capacity.

 I am concerned about the impact this project will have on infrastructure (roads, sewer systems, drinking water, community facilities and parks).

Please reject this proposal as currently presented to West Vancouver residents.

The developers push the envelope and council decides that those of us who voice our opinions are negative and not progressive. i would like West Vancouver viewed as a whole unit, not separate pieces cobbled together.

Thank you

s. 22(1) (11)(d)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:05 PM s. 22(1) To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill Soprovich; s. 22(1) Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; s. 22(1) Subject: I oppose the proposed Inglewood Care Centre Development

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)

05 Nov 2020

Dear Councillors:

There are other reasons why I oppose this spot re-zoning application:

 I am concerned about the impact this project will have on infrastructure (roads, sewer systems, drinking water, community facilities and parks).  While the use of this site for housing and a graduated care facility is acceptable, the massive size of the project, particularly within a single-family residential neighbourhood, is not acceptable.

Please reject this proposal as currently presented to West Vancouver residents.

Thank you

s. 22(1) (11)(e)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:07 PM s. 22(1) To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Bill s. 22(1) Soprovich; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Marcus Wong; Mary-Ann Booth; s. 22(1) Subject: I oppose the proposed Inglewood Care Centre Development

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver

05 Nov 2020

Dear Councillors:

There are other reasons why I oppose this spot re-zoning application:

 I am concerned about the impact this project will have on infrastructure (roads, sewer systems, drinking water, community facilities and parks).

 We need more publicly funded long-term care beds, not expensive, private-care facilities. Yet this proposal provides NO increase in public care beds. I could possibly support a much smaller building if all beds were designated publicly funded long-term care.  The benefits to the community do not outweigh the drawbacks. The majority of the proposed development is rental apartments and private, for-profit units. There must be a significant increase in publicly funded long-term care to offer true community benefit.

Please reject this proposal as currently presented to West Vancouver residents.

Yet another spot zoning that should not go ahead until LAP and traffic studies are complete

Thank you

s. 22(1) (12)(a)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Lucinda Jones Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 3:28 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Mary-Ann Booth; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; Bill Soprovich; Peter Lambur; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Jim Bailey; Heather Keith; David Hawkins; Michelle McGuire Subject: For Immediate Attention: Rescind Correction to Tree Bylaw Amendment No. 5089,2020 Attachments: Abstract incl. Address in Respect of Amendments to Interim Tree Bylaw 5089,2020.docx

Mayor&Council West Vancouver Jim Bailey, Heather Keith, Michelle McGuire, Matthew MacKinnon, David Hawkins

Dear Mayor and Council and staff,

In respect of Monday November 2nd, 2020 Council Agenda item for the adoption of Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020, please make yourself available to the attached document in preparation for Monday evening.

Thank You in advance for your attention and good luck with the scaaaary Hallowe'en and All Souls Day which follows,

Lucinda Jones Urban Tree Alliance

Lucinda Jones s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) ______

REQUEST FOR RESCIND OF 3rd READING ON NOVEMBER 2, 2020

REGARDING

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS

IN THE CREATION OF: TREE BYLAW AMENDMENT 5089,2020

OCTOBER 28, 2020 ______

A B S T R A C T Particularly over the past two decades, municipal governments across the Lower Mainland have developed, along with their citizens and other governing bodies, progressive, ecologically astute, and mutually responsible policies which support the whole planet, while at the same time address particularities of their own jurisdiction.

Accordingly, local governments are ever-defining their systems of permitting, penalties, fines, and security measures to meet the demand for increased accountability and enforcement, to ensure both efficacy of protectionist measures and with which to afford staff.

What studies are conducted and how decisions are made to inform policy -written in civic jurisdictions as bylaws and up-dated bylaw amendments- are informed and enhanced through the collective known by academic disciplines as ‘Global Best Practices’.

Awareness of the biological functioning of trees and their extraordinary contribution to sustaining life on the planet, has given rise to a greater understanding and respect for trees whether in forest or neighbourhood.

Since the 1980’s the term Urban Forest has been applied to trees that live within enclaves of human habitation. At a civic level, West Vancouver now references its urban forest and its natural assets, its intention for greater care to be applied and education put in place to these critical low-tech solutions to environmental degradation.

In order for urban forests to provide lush habitat and the myriad ecological services they are known for, and to afford them their necessary state of on- going renewal, governing principles of conservation, protection, and diversity of species has been urged to be foremost in each jurisdiction’s bylaws, with particular support for native species which play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of a naturally functioning landscape.

Tree species native to the territory of Squamish First Nation, on which West Vancouver resides, are: the iconic provincial tree of British Columbia - Western redcedar; Grand fir; Douglas fir; that which the bio-geoclimatic zone is named after - Coastal Western hemlock; and Big Leaf maple.

As science has proven, whether of humans or trees, no one community on Earth exists in a silo but rather each contributes to the same one ecosphere.

______

The purpose of this discussion is to provide a pause, for reflection on the responsibility that West Vancouver is accountable to, in relationship to other Lower Mainland districts and cities and far beyond, where and when we have never been more heavily relied upon to support those who live within and those who live far away from this precious enclave. ______

I N T R O D U C T I O N

At each, of Sections: 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020 discernable issues are presented which require immediate attention and adjustment, prior to adoption of Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020. ______

M E T H O D S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Specific excerpts are transcribed from:

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS IN THE CREATION OF: AMENDMENT BYLAW 5089,2020

( PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 COUNCIL REPORT, READ A 1ST, 2ND & 3rd TIME AND PASSED OCTOBER 19, 2020 AT WEST VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING )

- wherein text is bolded as the subject point; and subsequent analysis is found directly below at each section (in colour). At: Section 2.0 Legislation/Bylaw/Policy

“ Under Section 8 of the Community Charter, a Council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements relative to trees and the protection of the natural environment. ”

Jurisdictions, which have been researched as outlined below, have made admirable efforts with good result to provide concise bylaws with clear, user-friendly, educational websites and brochures.

Of 13 Lower Mainland Districts, the City of Vancouver and the City of Toronto: - 6 regulate cutting down of a tree to require a permit at 20cmDBH; - 2 require a permit at 30cmDBH with further list of ‘protected trees’; - Toronto requires a permit at 10cmDBH; - Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and the City of Vancouver do not allow the cutting or significant alteration of any tree without a permit - the regulation is not by way of DBH but case by case - specifically mentioned trees are 10cmDBH – specimen trees are 60cmDBH and greater; - District of North Vancouver -positioned on the steep foothills of the north shore mountains- include on their ‘protected tree’ list those which are growing on steep slopes, and qualifies ‘large diameter tree’ as requirement for permit, rather than quantifying DBH of any tree; - City of North Vancouver cares for their urban forest by way of an extensive Urban Forest Management Plan with no defined DBH. - District of West Vancouver -also positioned significantly on steep slopes- does not acknowledge trees integral to steep slopes, and requires a permit for the cutting down of trees at 75cmDBH, with a list of ‘protected trees’ that require permit at 20cmDBH.

In brief, no other jurisdiction permits the magnitude of tree to be cut down without permit as what the District of West Vancouver allows.

https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/parks,- forestry-and-recreation/urban-forestry/permits-removing-or-injuring- trees-on-private-property-private-tree-bylaw.html https://www.whiterockcity.ca/DocumentCenter/View/282/Consolidated-- -Tree-Management-Bylaw-2008-Number-1831-PDF?bidId= https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-building-development/trees-yard- garden/building-site-tree-requirements/fees-and-securities-for-land- development https://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Tree_Protection_and_ Regulation_Bylaw_No_7799_2016_Amended_2018.pdf https://delta.civicweb.net/document/135321 https://mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/581/Tree-Protection-and- Management?bidId= https://www.richmond.ca/sustainability/environment/treeremoval.htm https://bylaws.burnaby.ca/media/Consolidated/10482C.pdf https://www.coquitlam.ca/557/Tree-Management https://www.portcoquitlam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/4108-Tree- Bylaw-2019.pdf

“ The “Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 4368,2004” is a bylaw that implements the enforcement of bylaw notices in conjunction with North Shore Bylaw Adjudication Registry. “

“ The “Municipal Ticket Information System Implementation Bylaw No. 4383, 2004” is a bylaw that implements the Municipal Ticket Information System pursuant to the Community Charter. “

At: “Part 8 Amends Replacement Trees Interim Tree Bylaw No, 4892,2016 Part 7 Replacement Trees is Amended by: 8.3 Replacing subsection 7.1.3 “ “(which text reads: provide a security to the District in the amount of $5000 per replacement tree, which security shall forfeit to the District if the replacement tree in respect of which the security is provided is not planted or fails to survive transplantation, and shall otherwise be returned to the owner not later than two years after the planting of the replacement tree.) “ “ with the following: Provide a security to the District in the amount of $1000 per replacement tree to a maximum of $10,000, which shall be forfeited to the District if the replacement tree in respect of which the security is provided is not planted or fails to survive transplantation, or shall otherwise be returned to the owner not later than one year after the planting of the replacement tree. “

The question which must be addressed is why has this amount been lowered so – from $5000 to $1000 and with a new maximum of $10,000, which did not previously exist? Have West Vancouver District Mayor & Council been specifically apprised of this amendment? Common discourse amongst District citizens regarding the prevalence of clear-cut lots and large trees cut down without those permits posted on display, has resulted in on-going requests from residents for District staff to take greater control. This status of failing tree protection requiring improvement notably appears unsupported by this bylaw amendment.

It is expected that West Vancouver District will strictly enforce the posting of bonds and Irrevocable Letters of Credit as forms of security in order to substantiate affective protection of trees on lots where activity could bring them harm.

The appropriate Tree Bylaw Amendment Bylaw must clearly define in its text the associated contraventions that will trigger and cause the drawing down on these forms of security by the District. This function of security is able to provide a hundred times the $1000 limit provided for in Bylaws No. 4368,2004 and Bylaw No. 4383,2004.

Bylaws of other jurisdictions where disciplined and clearly enforceable courses of action are outlined in detail, are found at each of those individual links, listed at Section 2 above. Here are 2: https://www.oakbay.ca/sites/default/files/Tree-Protection-Bylaw- 4742_0.pdf

Schedule A to Oak Bay Tree Protection Bylaw, 2020 – passed March9, 2020

SECURITY Activity 1. Planting, Care and Maintenance of Replacement Trees for a Period of Three (3) Years (sections 10.1, 10.2) DEPOSIT $500 2. Planting, Care and Maintenance of Replacement Trees for a Period of One (1) Year (section 10.1) DEPOSIT $500 3. Protection During Construction (section 11.2 - Maximum of $50,000 per Lot): (a) Protected Trees Under 30 cm dbh (per tree) DEPOSIT $1000 per tree (b) Protected Trees 30 cm to 60 cm dbh (per tree) DEPOSIT $2500 per tree (c) Protected Trees Greater Than 60 cm dbh (per tree) DEPOSIT $5000 per tree (d) Significant Trees (per tree) DEPOSIT $10,000 per tree https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-building-development/trees-yard- garden/building-site-tree-requirements/fees-and-securities-for-land- development

Bonding Trees to be included in the security/fee calculations: 1. The City collects a bond for the protection of all on-site/off- site/shared trees ($3,000/tree to a maximum of $10,000 per lot for single family subdivisions, or $100,000/project for multi- family, industrial, commercial, and institutional projects). Tree bonding securities are not collected for boulevard trees, or trees within dedicated park or riparian areas unless directed otherwise by Parks. 2. The City collects a bond of $10,000 for all Significant Trees (as defined by the Tree Protection Bylaw), regardless of their location. We may also collect a security of $5,000 for Specimen Quality Trees (as defined by the Tree Protection Bylaw) regardless of their location. 3. How to Pay Your Fees and Securities 4. Fees and monies that are not to be returned (ie. permit fees, cash-in- lieu, amendment fees, etc) can be paid by cash, cheque or debit. Refundable securities may be paid by cash, cheque, debit or letter of credit. Letters of credit must follow the City of Surrey’s Letter of Credit guidelines in terms of format and content.

At: Section 3.0 Council Strategic Objective(s)/Official Community Plan “ The OCP (Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4985,2018) recognizes:

1. the value of the natural environment and provides high-level policies regarding strengthening existing environmental regulation and facilitating environmental restoration and enhancement actions, protection and enhancement of the community’s natural assets and responding to climate change impacts;

The services provided by individual members of the urban forest and by the urban forest as a whole are acknowledged and endorsed by jurisdictions throughout the world, including what is presented in the numerous tree bylaws of the Lower Mainland (found above) and by the District of West Vancouver in its varied publications and undertakings to its citizens. However, a much lesser value than this is being attributed to trees through the District tree cutting permit commencing at 75cmDBH.

A DBH of 75cm is in sharp contrast to a pro-active and positive response to climate change, particularly in relation to the ‘heavy lifters’ of this bio-geoclimatic region – the native species of Western redcedar, Grand and Douglas firs, Western hemlock and Big Leaf maple – who as species have worked cooperatively together for hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of years.

The best action is to protect far more fulsomely.

2. the importance of tree retention for the community, specifically Policy 2.6.5 which is to “Balance tree retention, replacement or compensation for their ecological value with consideration to access to sunlight and significant public views;

A DBH of 75cm is not compatible with this statement.

The removal of trees, particularly native species, of 20cm - 75cmDBH, endorsed by a permit requirement, set by the Tree Bylaw, at 75cmDBH.

3. the impact that trees have on the form and character of the built environment with Development Permit Area guidelines promoting preservation of existing healthy trees, retention of mature trees and vegetation and planting of trees. “ 75cmDBH does not adequately protect the generations of trees to follow. As a consequence, what is put at risk are the familiar and already maturing landmarks and landscapes of neighbourhoods, the definition of space, the cooling of air and natural hydrology, the character of West Vancouver as a mightily forested region of readily accessible nature.

Global best practice has adopted the valuation of trees as the priority, with views offered through them and structures built upwards and around them.

At the rate at which trees are planted in the District, combined with the decades they will take to mature to match a healthy stand of redcedars or a mixed community of Douglas fir, hemlock and maple, ranging in dimension from 20 – 55cmDBH, adopting the installation of a 75cmDBH as the leading principle in a Tree Bylaw is shocking, folly at best, and does not meet stewardship standards for the urban forest. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/treebook.pdf https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/First-Peoples-A-Guide-for-Newcomers.pdf https://www.bcunbound.com/flora-british-columbia https://www.centralcoastbiodiversity.org/western-hemlock-bull-tsuga- heterophylla.html https://www.treesaregood.org/portals/0/docs/treecare/TreeValues.pdf https://www.newwestcity.ca/services/trees/urban-forest-management- strategy#policy-and-regulation Sec3

In addition, objective 3.3 of Council’s 2020-2021 Strategic Plan is to “Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan and decide whether to amend the Interim Tree Bylaw”. “

Absolutely develop an Urban Forest Management Plan. An energy efficient correction for all, which bares no further expense or foreseeable revisiting, is to remedy now the DBH stated in Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020, as outlined at Section 5.5, 6. And 7. below.

At: Section 4 Financial Implications

“ It is noted that current staff resources are limited to effectively administer the existing Interim Tree Bylaw*. The District has one dedicated arborist that reviews and processes private and boulevard tree permits and who works with Bylaw Officers to respond to enquiries and complaints. * Interim Tree Bylaw No. 4892,2016

Simpler guidelines and regulations are found at the tree bylaw formattings of other jurisdictions, including City of Vancouver, which may offer less costly administrative solutions.

The proposed amendments to the Interim Tree Bylaw are expected to provide better clarity on permitting requirements; thereby possibly reducing the number of inquiries to the District Arborist and allow the bylaw to be administered effectively using existing staff resources. “ https://www.newwestcity.ca/services/trees/tree-removal-permits#treeremoval-permits/fees-and-securities

At: Section 5 Background

5.1 2. THAT staff:

a) use Lidar data to establish a tree canopy baseline and prepare an Urban Forest Management Plan;

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan.

b) (as amended) report back to Council regarding the efficacy of the Interim Tree Bylaw in maintaining tree canopy and propose policy recommendations for a new bylaw as required to maintain canopy cover.

LiDAR alone does not have the capacity, nor is it intended to provide broad enough information on which to base tree-cutting policy in this district. Such application puts at risk the ongoing renewal of the urban forest where it may be required throughout. Tree canopy cover measured through the LiDAR modality is compromised in its specificity.

This website directly below will clarify the need for other measurement modalities to compliment LiDAR: https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2016/nrs_2016_alonzo_001.pdf https://www.cnv.org/parks-recreation-and-culture/parks-and- greenways/plans-policies-and-bylaws/street-trees https://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letter-west-vancouver-s-tree-canopy-study-is- deceiving-1.24224283

5.2 “ An application fee for a private property tree permit was added to Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 5025,2019, and was implemented on January 1, 2020. The fee is $300, which is now consistent with the fee for a municipal property tree permit and an environmental development permit for tree work. “

Fees charged at a higher rate could reflect much more accurately and respectfully the natural asset value of the trees and actually cover in a fiscally responsible manner the costs of administration and environment departments related staff.

Rates charged within other jurisdictions are higher and are listed at those respective websites found above at Section 2. At: Section 5.5 Adding the following definitions to section 4.3:

“Protected tree” means any of the following: a) Any tree greater than 75cm DBH, or in the case of a tree with multiple stems, a combined stem DBH of 75cm or more;

There are 3 recommended alternatives in order to correct: 1) to the categorization of “ Protected Trees:” add ‘native trees’ and list them as so: i.Western redcedar; ii Coastal Western hemlock; iii. Douglas fir iv. Grand fir v. Big Leaf maple

and reduce the DBH at top line “a)” which reads “Any tree greater than 75cmDBH…” to a reduced DBH of either: 35cmDBH, or 20cmDBH;

or,

2) At the top line where 75cmDBH reads currently, to amend to “Any tree greater than 20cmDBH ….. “;

or,

3) native trees are designated separately rather than within the protected tree categorization, and so the categories would read

a) Any tree greater than 35cmDBH ….. b) Any native tree, greater than 20cm DBH …. and listed as i.Western redcedar; ii Coastal Western hemlock; iii. Douglas fir iv. Grand fir v. Big Leaf maple c) Any replacement tree; etc. At: Interim Tree Bylaw

6. “ Addition of heritage trees, replacement trees, and retained trees to the Protected Tree List; “

There are approximately 6 single trees listed at the West Vancouver District website as heritage trees; the protected tree list includes 6 species including Garry oak of which it has been estimated there may be 6 specimens in the district. There is abundance of the other 5 species which together contribute loveliness, balance, biodiversity and ecological services.

The critical interwoven structure of this landscape is predominantly held together by way of the native tree species, which provide preferred natural habitat for many terrestrial and winged species.

“ Furthermore Council’s decision at the September 28,2020 meeting directed staff to seek funding for future collection of LiDAR data and development of an Urban Forest Management Plan, which could inform future policy and bylaw decisions. “

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan.

At: Section 6.0 Analysis

6.1 Discussion

“ The tree canopy study showed an increase in tree canopy cover on private property from 2013 to 2018; therefore, staff are not recommending any changes to the protected tree size under the Interim Tree Bylaw as the data do not support the need to increase regulations on tree removals. That being said, if the tree canopy cover in 2018 is used as a baseline to maintain moving forward, then staff are also not proposing any additional means to allow greater flexibility for tree removals, which may result in a decrease in canopy cover over time. The proposed amendments are to strengthen the existing tree bylaw to ensure continued tree protection in the District. “ The existing neighbourhoods of West Vancouver, built upon the sloped foothills of the north shore mountains, lie below a significant area of further on-going development above the highway, wherein every standing tree has an increasing vital role to play.

The equation of trees lost to various developments with the impact of that on natural hydrology, together with the die-off of Western redcedar, must not be overlooked or under-estimated, for whatever reason, as once trees are cut down the wait time for them to protect and restore is, generally speaking, several decades.

Significantly diffusing the sense of imperative need for our maturing native trees is the issue of ‘clear-cut above’, along with other developments, which have been excluded from the LiDAR study. This is no small matter. Additionally, the drastic cedar die-off has occurred since the May of 2018 LiDAR study fly-by data collection and so that loss has not been recorded either.

A LiDAR study was conducted in 2013 with results used as the comparative for the 2018 study. Is there reason to dismiss the 2013 and supplant that with 2018 as the new starting point? Why is this?

At: Section 7.0 Options

7.2 Considered Options

a) Defer readings of the proposed bylaw amendments pending receipt of additional information (to be specified); This alternative option was proposed by staff, which was not chosen by Mayor and Council on October 19, 2020 - to consider longer the weight and significance of citizen input, before 3 readings and passing of Bylaw Amendments 5089,2020, 5098,2020 and 5099,2020 – and so our request is for Mayor and Council to rescind the 3rd reading of these above in order to make the necessary change of either: - to lower the DBH in the District to 20cmDBH for all trees; or - to protect in particular the five native species of tree to 20cmDBH with title categorization of ‘native trees’ and reduce the generalized category of trees currently mentioned at 75cmDBH to either 35cmDBH or 20cmDBH.

______

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

Found at Section 7.2 Considered Options

October 29, 2020

author Lucinda Jones Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver

s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) Forwarded by email on October 29, 2020 to: Mayor & Council, West Vancouver Heather Keith, Environmental Lead Jim Bailey, Director Planning David Hawkins, Manager, Community Planning and Sustainability Matthew MacKinnon, Environmental Manager Michelle McGuire, Manager of Current Planning and Urban Design (12)(b)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Lucinda Jones Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 2:01 PM To: Mary-Ann Booth; Marcus Wong; Peter Lambur; Nora Gambioli; Heather Keith; David Hawkins; MayorandCouncil; Bill Soprovich; Craig Cameron; Sharon Thompson; Jim Bailey; Michelle McGuire; Matthew MacKinnon Subject: Including Full List of References and Expanded Bibliography - Request To Rescind 3rd Reading and correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020

Mayor and Council and staff, District of West Vancouver,

For Your Interest and additional in-depth examination of this imperative subject.

Please enjoy the depth and breadth and awesomeness of discovery!

Lucinda Jones Urban Tree Alliance

Lucinda Jones s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) (12)(c)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 2:23 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Mary-Ann Booth; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; Bill Soprovich; Peter Lambur; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Jim Bailey; Heather Keith; David Hawkins; Michelle McGuire Subject: tree bylaw Attachments: Request to Rescind & Correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020.docx

Dear Mayor and Council of West Vancouver and District staff,

I endorse the attached document of the Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver, and support the Request for a Rescind of 3rd Reading of Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020. This will allow the necessary, additional, ecologically-based protection of trees, as requested therein, to be written into the Tree Bylaw Amendment, prior to passing on November 2nd, 2020 and its subsequent adoption.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1) s. 22(1) West Vancouver BC ______

REQUEST FOR RESCIND OF 3rd READING ON NOVEMBER 2, 2020

REGARDING

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS

IN THE CREATION OF: TREE BYLAW AMENDMENT 5089,2020

OCTOBER 28, 2020 ______

As science has proven, whether of humans or trees, no one community on Earth exists in a silo but rather each contributes to the same one ecosphere.

______

I N T R O D U C T I O N

M E T H O D S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Specific excerpts are transcribed from:

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS IN THE CREATION OF: AMENDMENT BYLAW 5089,2020

( PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 COUNCIL REPORT, READ A 1ST, 2ND & 3rd TIME AND PASSED OCTOBER 19, 2020 AT WEST VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING )

- wherein text is bolded as the subject point; and subsequent analysis is found directly below at each section (in colour). At: Section 2.0 Legislation/Bylaw/Policy

“ Under Section 8 of the Community Charter, a Council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements relative to trees and the protection of the natural environment. ”

Jurisdictions, which have been researched as outlined below, have made admirable efforts with good result to provide concise bylaws with clear, user-friendly, educational websites and brochures.

In brief, no other jurisdiction permits the magnitude of tree to be cut down without permit as what the District of West Vancouver allows.

For referral: Tree Bylaws of these same jurisdictions: City of North Vancouver Urban Forest Management Plan Technical Report: https://www.cnv.org/parks-recreation-and-culture/parks-and- greenways/plans-policies-and-bylaws/street-trees https://www.dnv.org/sites/default/files/bylaws/Bylaw%207671.pdf https://www.portmoody.ca/en/business-and-development/tree-removal- permits.aspx https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/Tree/sec04.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/parks,- forestry-and-recreation/urban-forestry/permits-removing-or-injuring- trees-on-private-property-private-tree-bylaw.html https://www.whiterockcity.ca/DocumentCenter/View/282/Consolidated-- -Tree-Management-Bylaw-2008-Number-1831-PDF?bidId= https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-building-development/trees-yard- garden/building-site-tree-requirements/fees-and-securities-for-land- development https://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Tree_Protection_and_ Regulation_Bylaw_No_7799_2016_Amended_2018.pdf https://delta.civicweb.net/document/135321 https://mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/581/Tree-Protection-and- Management?bidId= https://www.richmond.ca/sustainability/environment/treeremoval.htm https://bylaws.burnaby.ca/media/Consolidated/10482C.pdf https://www.coquitlam.ca/557/Tree-Management https://www.portcoquitlam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/4108-Tree- Bylaw-2019.pdf “ The “Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 4368,2004” is a bylaw that implements the enforcement of bylaw notices in conjunction with North Shore Bylaw Adjudication Registry. “

“ The “Municipal Ticket Information System Implementation Bylaw No. 4383, 2004” is a bylaw that implements the Municipal Ticket Information System pursuant to the Community Charter. “

Schedule A to Oak Bay Tree Protection Bylaw, 2020 – passed March9, 2020

At: Section 3.0 Council Strategic Objective(s)/Official Community Plan “ The OCP (Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4985,2018) recognizes:

The best action is to protect far more fulsomely.

A DBH of 75cm is not compatible with this statement.

The removal of trees, particularly native species, of 20cm - 75cmDBH, endorsed by a permit requirement, set by the Tree Bylaw, at 75cmDBH.

Global best practice has adopted the valuation of trees as the priority, with views offered through them and structures built upwards and around them.

In addition, objective 3.3 of Council’s 2020-2021 Strategic Plan is to “Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan and decide whether to amend the Interim Tree Bylaw”. “

Absolutely develop an Urban Forest Management Plan. An energy efficient correction for all, which bears no further expense or foreseeable revisiting, is to remedy now the DBH stated in Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020, as outlined at Section 5.5, 6. and 7. below.

At: Section 4 Financial Implications

Simpler guidelines and regulations are found at the tree bylaw formatting of other jurisdictions, including City of Vancouver. Closer examination of these may offer less costly administrative solutions. Additional permitting transactions offer additional revenues to afford additional staff, whilst retaining urban forest, which is the goal. Inadequate protection of the urban forest cannot be reasoned by way of a current fiscal concept at the root of what needs amendment.

At: Section 5 Background

5.1 2. THAT staff:

a) use Lidar data to establish a tree canopy baseline and prepare an Urban Forest Management Plan;

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan. b) (as amended) report back to Council regarding the efficacy of the Interim Tree Bylaw in maintaining tree canopy and propose policy recommendations for a new bylaw as required to maintain canopy cover.

Rates charged within other jurisdictions are higher and are listed at those respective websites found above at Section 2. At: Section 5.5 Adding the following definitions to section 4.3:

“Protected tree” means any of the following: a) Any tree greater than 75cm DBH, or in the case of a tree with multiple stems, a combined stem DBH of 75cm or more; “

and reduce the DBH at top line “a)” which reads “Any tree greater than 75cmDBH…” to a reduced DBH of either: 35cmDBH, or 20cmDBH;

or,

2) At the top line where 75cmDBH reads currently, to amend to “Any tree greater than 20cmDBH ….. “;

or,

3) native trees are designated separately rather than within the protected tree categorization, and so the categories would read

6. “ Addition of heritage trees, replacement trees, and retained trees to the Protected Tree List; “

The critical interwoven structure of this landscape is predominantly held together by way of the native tree species, which provide preferred natural habitat for many terrestrial and winged species.

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan.

At: Section 6.0 Analysis

6.1 Discussion

The equation of trees lost to various developments, with the impact of that on natural hydrology, together with the die-off of Western redcedar, must not be overlooked or under-estimated, for whatever reason, as once trees are cut down the wait time for others to mature in order to protect and restore is, generally speaking, several decades.

Significantly, large areas of clear-cut, for developments above existing neighbourhoods have been excluded from the LiDAR study. The first step in management of a bio-diverse urban forest in this region is to recognize the imperative buffering from such affects that native trees offer, fully mature as well as maturing. This is no small matter.

Additionally, drastic cedar die-off has occurred since the May of 2018 LiDAR study fly-by data collection, and so that loss has not been recorded either.

A LiDAR study was conducted in 2013 with results used as the comparative for the 2018 study. Is there reason to dismiss the 2013 and supplant that with 2018 as the new starting point? Why is this?

At: Section 7.0 Options

7.2 Considered Options

a) Defer readings of the proposed bylaw amendments pending receipt of additional information (to be specified);

This alternative option was proposed by staff, which was not chosen by Mayor and Council on October 19, 2020 - to consider longer the weight and significance of citizen input, before 3 readings and passing of Bylaw Amendments 5089,2020, 5098,2020 and 5099,2020 – and so our request is for Mayor and Council to rescind the 3rd reading of these above in order to make the necessary change of either: - to lower the DBH in the District to 20cmDBH for all trees; or - to protect in particular the five native species of tree to 20cmDBH with title categorization of ‘native trees’ and reduce the generalized category of trees currently mentioned at 75cmDBH to either 35cmDBH or 20cmDBH.

______

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

Found at Section 7.2 Considered Options

October 29, 2020

author Lucinda Jones Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver

s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)

Forwarded by email on October 29, 2020 to: Mayor & Council, West Vancouver Heather Keith, Environmental Lead Jim Bailey, Director Planning David Hawkins, Manager, Community Planning and Sustainability Matthew MacKinnon, Environmental Manager Michelle McGuire, Manager of Current Planning and Urban Design R E F E R E N C E S & E X P A N D E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Urban Forests – A Natural History Of Trees and People in the American Cityscape, by Jill Jonnes - Viking-Penguin Random House

Red Alder-Conifer Stands in Alaska: An Example of Mixed Species Management to Enhance Structural and Biological Complexity https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/4/131/htm

HTTPS://SIERRACLUB.BC.CA/WEBINAR-RESILIENCY-IN-TIMES-OF-CHANGE- FORESTS/

HTTPS://WWW.NATIONALOBSERVER.COM/2020/05/01/OPINION/EARTH- DAY-50-OVER-SO-HOW-DO-WE-GET-EARTH-DAY-100

HTTPS://SIERRACLUB.BC.CA/CLEARCUTCARBON/ https://sierraclub.bc.ca/vancouver-islands-ancient-rainforests-destroyed- three-times-faster-than-brazils-amazon-rainforest/ http://worldriversday.com/resources/ http://worldriversday.com/sponsors/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/coronavirus- unemployment-youth.html https://www.nanaimo.ca/docs/property-development/development- applications/steep-slope-development-permit-area-guidelines.pdf

Protecting West Vancouver’s trees: https://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/assets/home-building- property/docs/Planning/Tree-Bylaw/200429InterimTreeBylaw.pdf

MOVIES (on Netflix): A Life on Our Planet by David Attenborough Biggest Little Farm Director John Chester Kiss the Ground with Woody Harrelson, Directors / Writers Joshua Tickell Rebecca Harrell Tickell, Writer Johnny O’Hara (12)(d)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 4:59 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Michelle McGuire Subject: Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020

Dear Mayor and Council of West Vancouver and District staff,

I endorse the attached document of the Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver, and support the Request for a Rescind of 3rd Reading of Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020. This will allow the necessary, additional, ecologically‐based protection of trees, as requested therein, to be written into the Tree Bylaw Amendment, prior to passing on November 2nd, 2020 and its subsequent adoption.

Sincerely, s. 22(1)

Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)

Sent from Mail for Windows 10 (12)(e)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 6:14 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Mary-Ann Booth; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; Bill Soprovich; Peter Lambur; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Jim Bailey; Heather Keith; David Hawkins; Michelle McGuire Subject: Request to Rescind & Correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020.docx Attachments: Request to Rescind & Correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020.docx.pdf

Dear Mayor and Council of West Vancouver and District staff,

Sincerely,

s. 22(1)

Salt Spring Island, BC s. 22(1)

s. 22(1) ______

REQUEST FOR RESCIND OF 3rd READING ON NOVEMBER 2, 2020

REGARDING

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS

IN THE CREATION OF: TREE BYLAW AMENDMENT 5089,2020

OCTOBER 28, 2020 ______

In order for urban forests to provide lush habitat and the myriad ecological services they are known for, and to afford them their necessary state of on-going renewal, governing principles of conservation, protection, and diversity of species has been urged to be foremost in each jurisdiction’s bylaws, with particular support for native species which play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of a naturally functioning landscape.

As science has proven, whether of humans or trees, no one community on Earth exists in a silo but rather each contributes to the same one ecosphere.

______

______I N T R O D U C T I O N

M E T H O D S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Specific excerpts are transcribed from:

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS IN THE CREATION OF: AMENDMENT BYLAW 5089,2020

( PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 COUNCIL REPORT, READ A 1ST, 2ND & 3rd TIME AND PASSED OCTOBER 19, 2020 AT WEST VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING )

- wherein text is bolded as the subject point; and subsequent analysis is found directly below at each section (in colour).

At: Section 2.0 Legislation/Bylaw/Policy

“ Under Section 8 of the Community Charter, a Council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements relative to trees and the protection of the natural environment. ”

Jurisdictions, which have been researched as outlined below, have made admirable efforts with good result to provide concise bylaws with clear, user-friendly, educational websites and brochures.

Of 13 Lower Mainland Districts, the City of Vancouver and the City of Toronto: - 6 regulate cutting down of a tree to require a permit at 20cmDBH; - 2 require a permit at 30cmDBH with further list of ‘protected trees’; -Toronto requires a permit at 10cmDBH; - Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and the City of Vancouver do not allow the cutting or significant alteration of any tree without a permit - the regulation is not by way of DBH but case by case - specifically mentioned trees are 10cmDBH – specimen trees are 60cmDBH and greater; - District of North Vancouver -positioned on the steep foothills of the north shore mountains- include on their ‘protected tree’ list those which are growing on steep slopes, and qualifies ‘large diameter tree’ as requirement for permit, rather than quantifying DBH of any tree; - City of North Vancouver cares for their urban forest by way of an extensive Urban Forest Management Plan with no defined DBH. - District of West Vancouver -also positioned significantly on steep slopes- does not acknowledge trees integral to steep slopes, and requires a permit for the cutting down of trees at 75cmDBH, with a list of ‘protected trees’ that require permit at 20cmDBH.

In brief, no other jurisdiction permits the magnitude of tree to be cut down without permit as what the District of West Vancouver allows.

For referral: Tree Bylaws of these same jurisdictions:

City of North Vancouver Urban Forest Management Plan Technical Report: https://www.cnv.org/parks-recreation-and-culture/parks-and- greenways/plans-policies-and-bylaws/street-trees https://www.dnv.org/sites/default/files/bylaws/Bylaw%207671.pdf https://www.portmoody.ca/en/business-and-development/tree-removal- permits.aspx https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/Tree/sec04.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/parks,-forestry-and- recreation/urban-forestry/permits-removing-or-injuring-trees-on-private- property-private-tree-bylaw.html https://www.whiterockcity.ca/DocumentCenter/View/282/Consolidated---Tree- Management-Bylaw-2008-Number-1831-PDF?bidId= https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-building-development/trees-yard- garden/building-site-tree-requirements/fees-and-securities-for-land-development https://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Tree_Protection_and_Regulat ion_Bylaw_No_7799_2016_Amended_2018.pdf https://delta.civicweb.net/document/135321 https://mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/581/Tree-Protection-and- Management?bidId= https://www.richmond.ca/sustainability/environment/treeremoval.htm https://bylaws.burnaby.ca/media/Consolidated/10482C.pdf https://www.coquitlam.ca/557/Tree-Management https://www.portcoquitlam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/4108-Tree-Bylaw- 2019.pdf

“ The “Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 4368,2004” is a bylaw that implements the enforcement of bylaw notices in conjunction with North Shore Bylaw Adjudication Registry. “

“ The “Municipal Ticket Information System Implementation Bylaw No. 4383, 2004” is a bylaw that implements the Municipal Ticket Information System pursuant to the Community Charter. “

These 2 Bylaws each have attached to them a schedule for fees and penalties, with same descriptor and same Section reference number (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.3.4, 6.1, 8.7, 10.4.3) - however fee and penalty dollar amounts are significantly inconsistent. Is the simpler schedule of a $1000 across-the- board rate for all infractions to be the only schedule used? At: “Part 8 Amends Replacement Trees Interim Tree Bylaw No, 4892,2016 Part 7 Replacement Trees is Amended by: 8.3 Replacing subsection 7.1.3 “ “(which text reads: provide a security to the District in the amount of $5000 per replacement tree, which security shall forfeit to the District if the replacement tree in respect of which the security is provided is not planted or fails to survive transplantation, and shall otherwise be returned to the owner not later than two years after the planting of the replacement tree.) “ “ with the following: Provide a security to the District in the amount of $1000 per replacement tree to a maximum of $10,000, which shall be forfeited to the District if the replacement tree in respect of which the security is provided is not planted or fails to survive transplantation, or shall otherwise be returned to the owner not later than one year after the planting of the replacement tree. “

Schedule A to Oak Bay Tree Protection Bylaw, 2020 – passed March9, 2020

https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-building-development/trees-yard- garden/building-site-tree-requirements/fees-and-securities-for-land-development

Bonding Trees to be included in the security/fee calculations: 1. The City collects a bond for the protection of all on-site/off- site/shared trees ($3,000/tree to a maximum of $10,000 per lot for single family subdivisions, or $100,000/project for multi-family, industrial, commercial, and institutional projects). Tree bonding securities are not collected for boulevard trees, or trees within dedicated park or riparian areas unless directed otherwise by Parks. 2. The City collects a bond of $10,000 for all Significant Trees (as defined by the Tree Protection Bylaw), regardless of their location. We may also collect a security of $5,000 for Specimen Quality Trees (as defined by the Tree Protection Bylaw) regardless of their location. 3. How to Pay Your Fees and Securities 4. Fees and monies that are not to be returned (ie. permit fees, cash-in- lieu, amendment fees, etc) can be paid by cash, cheque or debit. Refundable securities may be paid by cash, cheque, debit or letter of credit. Letters of credit must follow the City of Surrey’s Letter of Credit guidelines in terms of format and content.

If retained trees die, or have declined to the point that they will never fully recover, the $3,000 per tree bond is forfeited and deposited into the Green City Fund. If possible, a replacement tree has to be planted back into the same location as the dead/dying tree was growing. At: Section 3.0 Council Strategic Objective(s)/Official Community Plan “ The OCP (Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4985,2018) recognizes:

A DBH of 75cm is in sharp contrast to a pro-active and positive response to climate change, particularly in relation to the ‘heavy lifters’ of this bio- geoclimatic region – the native species of Western redcedar, Grand and Douglas firs, Western hemlock and Big Leaf maple – who as species have worked cooperatively together for hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of years.

The best action is to protect far more fulsomely.

A DBH of 75cm is not compatible with this statement.

The removal of trees, particularly native species, of 20cm - 75cmDBH, endorsed by a permit requirement, set by the Tree Bylaw, at 75cmDBH.

The intention of the words “compensation for their ecological value” is unclear. If it is a fiscal exchange, the evidence provided at the schedule(s) of fines and penalties does not translate to the natural asset valuation. A property with 3 mature trees standing, with a view THROUGH the trees, provides multiples of $3000 in services, both to an ecological base and to spirit. 3. the impact that trees have on the form and character of the built environment with Development Permit Area guidelines promoting preservation of existing healthy trees, retention of mature trees and vegetation and planting of trees. “

75cmDBH does not adequately protect the generations of trees to follow. As a consequence, what is put at risk are the familiar and already maturing landmarks and landscapes of neighbourhoods, the definition of space, the cooling of air and natural hydrology, the character of West Vancouver as a mightily forested region of readily accessible nature.

Global best practice has adopted the valuation of trees as the priority, with views offered through them and structures built upwards and around them.

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/treebook.pdf https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/First-Peoples-A-Guide-for-Newcomers.pdf https://www.bcunbound.com/flora-british-columbia https://www.centralcoastbiodiversity.org/western-hemlock-bull-tsuga- heterophylla.html https://www.treesaregood.org/portals/0/docs/treecare/TreeValues.pdf https://www.newwestcity.ca/services/trees/urban-forest-management- strategy#policy-and-regulation Sec3

In addition, objective 3.3 of Council’s 2020-2021 Strategic Plan is to “Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan and decide whether to amend the Interim Tree Bylaw”. “

Absolutely develop an Urban Forest Management Plan.

An energy efficient correction for all, which bears no further expense or foreseeable revisiting, is to remedy now the DBH stated in Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020, as outlined at Section 5.5, 6. and 7. below.

At: Section 4 Financial Implications

At: Section 5 Background

5.1 2. THAT staff:

a) use Lidar data to establish a tree canopy baseline and prepare an Urban Forest Management Plan;

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan.

This website directly below will clarify the need for other measurement modalities to compliment LiDAR: https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2016/nrs_2016_alonzo_001.pdf https://www.cnv.org/parks-recreation-and-culture/parks-and-greenways/plans- policies-and-bylaws/street-trees https://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letter-west-vancouver- s-tree-canopy-study-is-deceiving-1.24224283

Rates charged within other jurisdictions are higher and are listed at those respective websites found above at Section 2.

At: Section 5.5 Adding the following definitions to section 4.3:

“Protected tree” means any of the following: a) Any tree greater than 75cm DBH, or in the case of a tree with multiple stems, a combined stem DBH of 75cm or more; “

and reduce the DBH at top line “a)” which reads “Any tree greater than 75cmDBH…” to a reduced DBH of either: 35cmDBH, or 20cmDBH;

or,

2) At the top line where 75cmDBH reads currently, to amend to “Any tree greater than 20cmDBH ….. “;

or,

3) native trees are designated separately rather than within the

protected tree categorization, and so the categories would read

6. “ Addition of heritage trees, replacement trees, and retained trees to the Protected Tree List; “

The critical interwoven structure of this landscape is predominantly held together by way of the native tree species, which provide preferred natural habitat for many terrestrial and winged species.

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan.

At: Section 6.0 Analysis

6.1 Discussion

The existing neighbourhoods of West Vancouver, built upon the sloped foothills of the north shore mountains, lie below a significant area of further on-going development above the highway, wherein every standing tree has an increasingly vital role to play.

Additionally, drastic cedar die-off has occurred since the May of 2018 LiDAR study fly-by data collection, and so that loss has not been recorded either.

A LiDAR study was conducted in 2013 with results used as the comparative for the 2018 study. Is there reason to dismiss the 2013 and supplant that with 2018 as the new starting point? Why is this?

At: Section 7.0 Options

7.2 Considered Options

a) Defer readings of the proposed bylaw amendments pending receipt of additional information (to be specified);

______

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

Found at Section 7.2 Considered Options October 29, 2020

author Lucinda Jones Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver

s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)

R E F E R E N C E S & E X P A N D E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Urban Forests – A Natural History Of Trees and People in the American Cityscape, by Jill Jonnes - Viking-Penguin Random House

Red Alder-Conifer Stands in Alaska: An Example of Mixed Species Management to Enhance Structural and Biological Complexity https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/4/131/htm

HTTPS://SIERRACLUB.BC.CA/WEBINAR- RESILIENCY-IN-TIMES-OF-CHANGE-FORESTS/ HTTPS://WWW.NATIONALOBSERVER.COM/2020/05/ 01/OPINION/EARTH-DAY-50-OVER-SO-HOW-DO- WE-GET-EARTH-DAY-100 HTTPS://SIERRACLUB.BC.CA/CLEARCUTCARBON/ https://sierraclub.bc.ca/vancouver-islands-ancient-rainforests-destroyed- three-times-faster-than-brazils-amazon-rainforest/ http://worldriversday.com/resources/ http://worldriversday.com/sponsors/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/coronavirus-unemployment- youth.html https://www.nanaimo.ca/docs/property-development/development- applications/steep-slope-development-permit-area-guidelines.pdf Protecting West Vancouver’s trees: https://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/assets/home-building- property/docs/Planning/Tree-Bylaw/200429InterimTreeBylaw.pdf MOVIES (on Netflix): A Life on Our Planet by David Attenborough Biggest Little Farm Director John Chester

Kiss the Ground with Woody Harrelson, Directors / Writers Joshua Tickell Rebecca Harrell Tickell, Writer Johnny O’Hara (12)(f)

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 6:21 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Mary-Ann Booth; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; Bill Soprovich; Peter Lambur; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Jim Bailey; Heather Keith; David Hawkins; Michelle McGuire Subject: Request To Rescind 3rd Reading and correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020 Attachments: Request to Rescind & Correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020.docx

Dear Mayor and Council of West Vancouver and District staff,

Sincerely, s. 22(1)

Lions Bay, BC s. 22(1) ______

REQUEST FOR RESCIND OF 3rd READING ON NOVEMBER 2, 2020

REGARDING

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS

IN THE CREATION OF: TREE BYLAW AMENDMENT 5089,2020

OCTOBER 28, 2020 ______

As science has proven, whether of humans or trees, no one community on Earth exists in a silo but rather each contributes to the same one ecosphere.

______

I N T R O D U C T I O N

M E T H O D S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

Specific excerpts are transcribed from:

AMENDMENTS TO: INTERIM TREE BYLAW NO, 4892,2016; BOULEVARD BYLAW NO. 4886,2014; and SUPPORTING ENFORCEMENT BYLAWS IN THE CREATION OF: AMENDMENT BYLAW 5089,2020

( PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 COUNCIL REPORT, READ A 1ST, 2ND & 3rd TIME AND PASSED OCTOBER 19, 2020 AT WEST VANCOUVER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING )

- wherein text is bolded as the subject point; and subsequent analysis is found directly below at each section (in colour).

At: Section 2.0 Legislation/Bylaw/Policy

“ Under Section 8 of the Community Charter, a Council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit, and impose requirements relative to trees and the protection of the natural environment. ”

Jurisdictions, which have been researched as outlined below, have made admirable efforts with good result to provide concise bylaws with clear, user-friendly, educational websites and brochures.

In brief, no other jurisdiction permits the magnitude of tree to be cut down without permit as what the District of West Vancouver allows.

For referral: Tree Bylaws of these same jurisdictions:

City of North Vancouver Urban Forest Management Plan Technical Report: https://www.cnv.org/parks-recreation-and-culture/parks-and- greenways/plans-policies-and-bylaws/street-trees https://www.dnv.org/sites/default/files/bylaws/Bylaw%207671.pdf https://www.portmoody.ca/en/business-and-development/tree-removal- permits.aspx https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/Tree/sec04.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/kb/docs/articles/parks,- forestry-and-recreation/urban-forestry/permits-removing-or-injuring- trees-on-private-property-private-tree-bylaw.html https://www.whiterockcity.ca/DocumentCenter/View/282/Consolidated-- -Tree-Management-Bylaw-2008-Number-1831-PDF?bidId= https://www.surrey.ca/renovating-building-development/trees-yard- garden/building-site-tree-requirements/fees-and-securities-for-land- development https://www.newwestcity.ca/database/files/library/Tree_Protection_and_ Regulation_Bylaw_No_7799_2016_Amended_2018.pdf https://delta.civicweb.net/document/135321 https://mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/581/Tree-Protection-and- Management?bidId= https://www.richmond.ca/sustainability/environment/treeremoval.htm https://bylaws.burnaby.ca/media/Consolidated/10482C.pdf https://www.coquitlam.ca/557/Tree-Management https://www.portcoquitlam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/4108-Tree- Bylaw-2019.pdf

“ The “Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 4368,2004” is a bylaw that implements the enforcement of bylaw notices in conjunction with North Shore Bylaw Adjudication Registry. “

“ The “Municipal Ticket Information System Implementation Bylaw No. 4383, 2004” is a bylaw that implements the Municipal Ticket Information System pursuant to the Community Charter. “

Schedule A to Oak Bay Tree Protection Bylaw, 2020 – passed March9, 2020

At: Section 3.0 Council Strategic Objective(s)/Official Community Plan “ The OCP (Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4985,2018) recognizes:

The best action is to protect far more fulsomely.

A DBH of 75cm is not compatible with this statement.

The removal of trees, particularly native species, of 20cm - 75cmDBH, endorsed by a permit requirement, set by the Tree Bylaw, at 75cmDBH.

Global best practice has adopted the valuation of trees as the priority, with views offered through them and structures built upwards and around them.

In addition, objective 3.3 of Council’s 2020-2021 Strategic Plan is to “Develop an Urban Forest Management Plan and decide whether to amend the Interim Tree Bylaw”. “

At: Section 4 Financial Implications

At: Section 5 Background

5.1 2. THAT staff:

a) use Lidar data to establish a tree canopy baseline and prepare an Urban Forest Management Plan;

Rates charged within other jurisdictions are higher and are listed at those respective websites found above at Section 2. At: Section 5.5 Adding the following definitions to section 4.3:

“Protected tree” means any of the following: a) Any tree greater than 75cm DBH, or in the case of a tree with multiple stems, a combined stem DBH of 75cm or more; “

and reduce the DBH at top line “a)” which reads “Any tree greater than 75cmDBH…” to a reduced DBH of either: 35cmDBH, or 20cmDBH;

or,

2) At the top line where 75cmDBH reads currently, to amend to “Any tree greater than 20cmDBH ….. “;

or,

3) native trees are designated separately rather than within the protected tree categorization, and so the categories would read

6. “ Addition of heritage trees, replacement trees, and retained trees to the Protected Tree List; “

The critical interwoven structure of this landscape is predominantly held together by way of the native tree species, which provide preferred natural habitat for many terrestrial and winged species.

In and of itself LiDAR is but one information base, which can certainly play a part in an Urban Forest Management Plan.

At: Section 6.0 Analysis

6.1 Discussion

Additionally, drastic cedar die-off has occurred since the May of 2018 LiDAR study fly-by data collection, and so that loss has not been recorded either.

A LiDAR study was conducted in 2013 with results used as the comparative for the 2018 study. Is there reason to dismiss the 2013 and supplant that with 2018 as the new starting point? Why is this?

At: Section 7.0 Options

7.2 Considered Options

a) Defer readings of the proposed bylaw amendments pending receipt of additional information (to be specified);

______

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

Found at Section 7.2 Considered Options

October 29, 2020

author Lucinda Jones Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver

s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)

Urban Forests – A Natural History Of Trees and People in the American Cityscape, by Jill Jonnes - Viking-Penguin Random House

Red Alder-Conifer Stands in Alaska: An Example of Mixed Species Management to Enhance Structural and Biological Complexity https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/4/131/htm

HTTPS://SIERRACLUB.BC.CA/WEBINAR-RESILIENCY-IN-TIMES-OF-CHANGE- FORESTS/

HTTPS://WWW.NATIONALOBSERVER.COM/2020/05/01/OPINION/EARTH- DAY-50-OVER-SO-HOW-DO-WE-GET-EARTH-DAY-100

Protecting West Vancouver’s trees: https://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/assets/home-building- property/docs/Planning/Tree-Bylaw/200429InterimTreeBylaw.pdf

Mahssa Beattie

s. 22(1) From: Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2020 7:18 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Mary-Ann Booth; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; Bill Soprovich; Peter Lambur; Craig Cameron; Nora Gambioli; Jim Bailey; Heather Keith; David Hawkins; Michelle McGuire Subject: Request to Rescind 3rd Reading and correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020 Attachments: Request to Rescind & Correct Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020.docx

Dear Mayor and Council of West Vancouver and District staff,

I endorse the attached document of the Urban Tree Alliance West Vancouver, and support the Request for a Rescind of 3rd Reading of Tree Bylaw Amendment 5089,2020. This will allow the necessary, additional, ecologically‐based protection of trees, as requested therein, to be written into the Tree Bylaw Amendment, prior to passing on November 2nd, 2020 and its subsequent adoption.

Sincerely,

s. 22(1)

West Vancouver, B.C. s. 22(1) ______