COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE UPDATE TO JANUARY 31, 2020 (8:30 a.m.)
Referred for Action (1) January 27, 2020, regarding Homeless Individual in John Lawson Park (Referred to the Director of Corporate Services for consideration and response) (2) January 28, 2020, regarding “A question about the 2020 Budget” (Referred to the Director of Financial Services for consideration and response) (3) January 29, 2020, regarding “request to a girl ( dream )” (Request for Postcard of West Vancouver) (Referred to the Director of Community Relations & Communications for consideration and response) (4) January 29, 2020, regarding “SkyTrain” (Referred to the Director of Engineering & Transportation Services for consideration and response) Referred for Action from Other Governments and Government Agencies No items. Received for Information (5) Committee and Board Meeting Minutes – Design Review Committee meeting December 5, 2019 (6) January 20, 2020, regarding Snow Clearing (7) West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, January 24, 2020, regarding “West Vancouver is developing a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy” (8) Old Growth Conservancy Society, January 24, 2020, regarding “OGCS Snowshoe Hike Feb 2 and AGM Feb 26” (Invitation) (9) January 25, 2020, regarding “CBC News : Kindness snowballs after online search for volunteers to help B.C. seniors with snow” (10) 10 submissions, January 25-30, 2020, regarding Proposed 2020 Budget (11) 3 submissions, January 27, 2020, regarding Councillor’s Motion regarding Discriminating Land Title Covenants (12) January 28, 2020, regarding “Re: Can a Whole City Go Green? Yes! | The Tyee” (Climate Action) (13) Small Business BC, January 28, 2020, regarding “Small Business BC Cordially Invites You to Attend the 17th Annual Small Business BC Awards - February 21, 2020” (14) January 28, 2020, regarding “Fwd: Larson Bay Tennis Court & Gleneagles Golf Course Restaurant” (15) 2 submissions, January 29 and 30, 2020, regarding 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure Award Received for Information from Other Governments and Government Agencies (16) P. Weiler, M.P. (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country), January 24, 2020, regarding “Letter from MP Patrick Weiler - Environmental Funding Programs” 3988854v2 Responses to Correspondence (17) Senior Community Planner, January 29, 2020, response regarding “CMHC DATA - 2019” (18) Director of Financial Services, January 30, 2020, response regarding “A question about the 2020 Budget” (19) Director of Financial Services, January 30, 2020, response regarding “2020 Proposed Property Taxes”
3988854v2 (1)
g From: s. 22(1) o-o Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 7:23 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: John Lawson Park
Hello Mayor,
Iwould like to know what the situation is with the homeless individual that lives inJohn Lawson Park and what is being done about it. He is extremely unpleasant and scaring people as they walk by. The worry is nothing is being done about it, or definitely not enough. Myselfand all the neighbors on my street feel the same way. Please let me know what is being done.
Thank you,
s. 22(1)
\‘coue1 (2)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:59 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: A question about the 2020 Budget
Hi Mayor and Council — we are home owners and residents of West Vancouver. We request that before West Vancouver approves the 6.1% proposed property tax increase in the district, the district explain why municipal spending is already so much more than in other municipalities in Metro Vancouver, as evidenced by the chart below from a 2018 Fraser Institute report.
We wish to point out that the proposed increase may well be more than the proposed 6.1% increase on a % basis for those of us who own houses, condos and townhouses below average value in the district, directly and negatively affecting the affordability issue the district is actively trying to address (ie. the ‘missing middle’).
Respectfully,
s. 22(1)
Municipalities spending 2018 $1Person :Iijiiii
W.1 V..’ N-. Wn Wtot,..t 1’.4ta Nfl” Vi” V44, W’ht. Ran Port J.koj, I -, Lbs Cr, iii
s. 22(1)
Vancouver British Columbia, Canada, s. 22(1)
s. 22(1) (3)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday,January29,2020 3:28PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: request to a girl(dream
I come here to know if it would be possible to send to my daughter a postcard by the post office of your city like monuments, city view, lakes, beaches or whatever identifies your city the most She enjoyed decorating her room with cities around the world on postcards (Around the World) Already have the world map on the wall and when you receive the postcard will make the connection with the country and the city and then willtry to know more about that country and the background in addition to decoration will also be educational
So far I already have some postcards but Iwould liketo have your it has been a nice experience for her and me because some besides the postcard send brochures, fridge magnets, pins, bookmarks, stickers we already received a little of everything maps ,tourism books, guide tourism etc.... as we are a poor family and we could not visit these countries and cities we make this trip together at home why receiving by mail and not printing over the net is becoming more personal for her to receive these postcards and some write messages to her which makes her very happy
First name s. 22(1) Street: s. 22(1)
Portugal
Already our thank you very much and we will be waiting for your answer s. 22(1)
4
• ,
C’ (4)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday,January 29, 2020 3:33 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: SkyTrain
What are the plans for SkyTrain to the Northshore ? Strong advocacy to UBC.The Northshore should be first. Allyou have to do is follow Google Maps to see where the real congestion is during peak travel periods. Are you working with North Van. City/District to make this happen ? SeaBus and B-Lineisn’t going to be enough.
s. 22(1)
\\ks± ncoutr
w
* (5) THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019 0116-20-DRC-2019
Committee Members: F. Ducote; A. van Hoek; J. McDougall; L. McKenna; B. Nelson; B. Phillips; Councillor B. Soprovich and Councillor S. Thompson. Absent: A. Matis; J. Levine and D. Harrison
Staff: L. Berg, Staff Liaison; E. Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner and M. Emery, Committee Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was Moved and Seconded: THAT the December 5, Design Review Committee Meeting agenda be approved as circulated. CARRIED
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
It was Moved and Seconded: THAT the November21, 2019, Design Review Committee Meeting minutes be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
4. INTRODUCTION The Chair read the statement of public participation. L. Berg (Senior Community Planner) stated the purpose of the Committee, gave a brief introduction regarding review process of by the Committee, and outlined meeting procedures.
5. APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 5.1 EVERGREEN SQUASH CLUB EXPANSION, 315 KLAHANIE COURT Background: E. Wilhelm (Senior Community Planner) introduced the proposal and spoke relative to site context, including: • The Squash Club is located within Klahanie Park. • The amenities of the park include a small asphalt play area, two rugby fields, one soccer field, Capilano Rugby Club and the Evergreen Squash Club.
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEEMINUTES M-1 3968832v1 • Imminent changes to land uses surround the site, with the new town centre plan by the District of North Vancouver to the east. • The development permit proposal includes some tree removal and adjustments to asphalt sports court and rugby field to accommodate the expansion of the squash club.
Project Presentation: E. Berwick (Architect) provided a presentation, including: • The Club has been operating in Klahanie Park for over 50 years on land leased from the District. • To continue the success of the club, build membership and host larger tournaments, proposing to expand to 4,700 sq.ft. by adding a doubles court, singles court, a small office on main floor, a training area on upper floor and viewing areas. • Existing entrance to club from Curling Road is under review due to the development in the immediate area. Districts of West Vancouver and North Vancouver are designing access to the park. • Materials include the continuation of board and batten, stucco to match what exists there now. Design driven by blending old and new, need for economy, and keep club affordable. Intent for building to blend into landscape.
Committee Questions: The Committee went on to question the presenters, with the applicants’ and staff responses in italics: • Sport court is it used for practice. The outdoor court is a parks amenity and willhave to be shortened by 10 ft. to allow the addition. • Parking layout find westerly section has an awkward area where are avoiding a stump? As part of a previous addition, it was stipulated that the stump remain. • The drawings show a possible pickle ball court, is that in first phase? Ifthe current access were closed, it would be a good possibility that it is included. • How do you get there by bike? Entry would be through future pickle ball area along a new pathway, a matter of developing that pathway once the entrance is clarified. • Is there any impact to rugby field? Yes, it has to be moved over 30 ft. • Upper lounge area shows two doors where do they go? Area fullof mechanical equipment in the roof area. • Is there a reason for the 9 ft. ceiling for exercise area, as this seems low? Wanted to keep building as low profile as possible, it could be built higher.
B. Nelson entered the meeting. Committee Comments: The Committee went on to provide comments on the presentation, including: • Consider a more efficient parking lot layout to maximize efficiency for the park and club. • Consider additional landscaping along whole west side of the building, and continue a series of trees along that boundary.
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGNREVIEWCOMMITTEEMINUTES M-2 3968832v1 • The future pickle ball court may add too much on the east and west. Explore opportunity for creating a welcoming entrance for waylinding. Architecture is basic, consider a simpler expression of the roofline and add more interest with materials and colours to contrast and enhance. • Consider increasing landscaping along the west elevation. Review circulation. • Appreciate blending the existing building and new architecture and how the building is blended in with the trees. Consider adding more trees. • The road curve on north side leaves very little room for pedestrians and bikes. Explore designing a couple feet around the outline of the building so people can safely move around the building and show path on the plans.
Having reviewed the application and heard the presentation provided by the applicant:
It was Moved and Seconded: THAT the Design Review Committee SUPPORT the application for the Evergreen Squash Club expansion at 315 Klahanie Court subject to further review by staff of the following items: • consideration of the setback for landscape along the west and north west corner of the building; • a review of the pedestrian and bicycle circulation around the building and how pedestrians and cyclists would arrive at the front entrance of the building in a safe way; • work with staff to come up with a more efficient and useful layout of the parking; • consideration of a simpler expression of the roof line; • consideration of the use of some more contrasting colours for the addition; • consideration of raising the roof of the building slightly to get more height in the exercise room above; and • consideration to improve wayfinding around the site and to enhance the expression of the main entrance of the building. CARRIED
5.2 GENTLES COTTAGE HRA, 4441 PICCADILLYNORTH Background: E. Wilhelm (Senior Community Planner) introduced the proposal and spoke relative to site context, including: • Outline of the HRA and where this application is in the review process. • Site is not within the Lower Caulfeild Heritage Conservation Area. There are currently three primary structures on the site: Gentles cottage, gazebo and coach house with storage area. • Cottage built in 1934 and considered an excellent example of English arts and crafts architecture; the cottage is not placed on the heritage register as the interior and exterior have had a number of renovations throughout the years; however, the 1934 living room and chimney are in excellent condition.
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEEMINUTES M-3 3968832v1 • Proposal is to protect and renovate the Gentles cottage with five rental units within the Gentles cottage, and add four duplexes and four townhouses on the west portion of the site accessed with a new driveway. • Two parking stalls for each duplex and townhouse and one parking staff for each of the units in the cottage is proposed. Project Presentation: T. Ankenman (Ankenman Marchand Architects) provided a presentation, including: • Site is one acre with exposed bedrock as a prominent characteristic of the site, which moves a lot of surface water through the site. • Proposing infillhousing as defined in the DCP along the Marine Drive corridor, where the objective is to add 200 infillunits over next few years. • The Heritage Advisory Committee suggested adding a trail to provide public access through site, down a right of way to Marine Drive, and connect to Caulfeild Park. Exploring improvements for pedestrian access to bus stops. • The infillhousing willbe setback and unseen from the street. • Proposal to restore house back to the 1951 era by removing additions and followingthe original archive drawings. • The historic gazebo willbe protected through the HRA. It is located in the heart of the site and willserve as a resident gathering spot. • Promoting tourism by proposing short-term rentals and scheduled community events within the cottage. • Green roofs proposed for townhouses and duplexes without obstructing views from the north. • Townhomes to cater to younger families and three storey duplexes to allow ageing in place with master on main and elevator leading to two storeys below. • Attempting to create a chronological time line as move through site with a clear distinction between historical aspect and new infill.
E. Gauthier (Landscape Architect) provided a landscape presentation, including: • Retaining the existing rhododendron and mature trees around perimeter, in particular at south and north edge as well as entry. Proposing to remove 36 trees. Many of the trees have been topped to comply with a covenant serving to retain views for homes to the north. Proposing to plant 55 large ornamental deciduous trees. • Promoting village character and scale by using naturalized materials in contemporary application. • Proposing semi-private to private outdoor lounge patio at cottage. The existing patio willbe retained as a common area that is adjacent to village green area. • Drive court to be heavily vegetated with buffer planting. Common pathways to connect heritage area through the site and terminate in a secret garden. • Each infillunit has a roof top patio and promotes rainwater collection from the green roofs. Propose to formalize streams and ponds on site. Committee Questions: The Committee went on to question the presenters, with the applicants’ and staff responses in italics:
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGNREVIEWCOMMITTEEMINUTES M4 3968832v1 • Duplex unit bedrooms and bathrooms seem very quiet close to each other? Have offset windows but could increase the off set. • Existing coach house does it have heritage value? No, but exploring recycling the timber. • How wide is the drive aisle and could two cars pass each other? Yes, it is 6 m with have aprons on side for pedestrian access. • Does water feature have storm water capture? It is a combination from roof leaders and channelling gravity through the site. • Does gazebo have heritage quality and is it being rebuilt? Yes, it is being restored same as the house, it has a fireplace, built in barbeque and, great views to the water. It willbe the social heart of the site. • Does outdoor amenity area carry up along the west side of heritage house? Seems like lack of separation for private spaces. Intended as outdoor area for rental space. • What are character of defining elements of site? Coach house has large footprint and remainder of site rock with topped trees. Propose to retain perimeter vegetation, as those trees have not been topped. • Is there enough room for trees and roots at perimeter on west side? Many of the existing trees are on the property line and there is an existing wall so any work willbe manually done with arborist reviewing and supervising. • Why not all townhouses on infill? Tryingto be inclusive and retain a variety of housing. The townhouses seem more for families and duplex more for empty nesters. • Is the 15 ft. right of way on the west side of the property District owned? Yes. Willthe District be providing access from private property on to this right of way? Recommendation from the Heritage Advisory Committee, to be reviewed by the District. • Ifthe right of way was not in existence what would be the setback from the west boundary of property line to the building wall? A conventional setback would be 2 to 3 m. Setbacks are negotiated under HRA. • Proposal includes a pipe system and exposed water for storm water, is it anticipated to have it all open? It is all open from road down, at top, it is a series of pools, can consider continuous. • Why has the proposal taken four years? Original owner passed away, since then a lot of design development, new OCP in place, and it has been an evolution with a lot of work on the heritage aspect. • Are there any existing utilities in right of way? There is sanitary line for existing house, which willneed upgrading, and given excavation, needed there willlikely be tree removal. Would like to take storm water through this area. • Have you had any public meetings? Had a meeting in 2016 with a conceptual idea where 30 people for and one against. Recent meeting in June 2019 with 60 in favor 40 against. The main comment against was changes in land use pattern by introducing multifamilyin single familyneighbourhood, also a lot of comments that the house was not worth saving as not on heritage register. People in favour were in support of this type of housing in West Vancouver. • Was there any discussion about tying in the architecture with the existing heritage character? Not too many comments on architecture on infill.
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEWCOMMITTEEMINUTES M-5 3968832v1 • Where would visitors park? There are aprons between the drive aisle and garage doors for parking. • Why do the duplexes have such a large area given that they will have the least amount of people? Site configuration best to have upper bench for families and lower bench for empty nester as one storey entry. Can the duplexes be smaller to increase setbacks? Duplexes long to accommodate bedroom on main floor and ageing in place. • What is the hardscape coverage? Unknown, but intent to make the drive aisle as permeable as can withpayers.
Committee Comments: The Committee went on to provide comments on the presentation, including: • Concerned with amount of maintenance required for all the ponds, important they are constructed in a simple enough way to be easily maintained. • The glass doors on the duplex units too much. Consider further design development to introduce some craftsmanship to soften the expression of the entrances. In early images, the staircase on existing building has a wood feature and that as a design element make its way as a modern expression on balconies to bring a degree of similarity. Like slim line created at roofline but concerned with depth of construction materials try to make sure structure allowed for and amount of glazing reduced. • Like overall approach to storm water and how it integrates through project. Seem like there are two distinct developments and the landscape pushes together to marry them but do not see an architectural bridge in any way. • The buildings are tight to property line and trying to pack in a lot of landscape a, concerned with success of trees and buffer. New buildings have a thoughtful form, however duplexes are long. Consider reducing to create buffer at lower level. More design development needed for hardscape area as paved area leading up to bedrooms does not work. Stair crosses in front of unit 101 and 102 takes up lot of window space needs reconfiguration. • Townhouses with smaller footprint allows more perimeter space for landscape and tree replacement. Reduce footprint of southern infill,as there is a lot of development on this site. Needs increased setbacks for neighbours and perimeter. The contrast between existing and heritage is good, architectural expression is good, materiality seems well thought out. Question why the big duplex units need rooftop access, elevators look like apartment element rather than duplexes. Supportive of the general thrust, reducing coverage with an eye to softening and creating landscaping. • The landscape plan would be much clearer if knew which trees were to be removed and which are topped as part of that list. Amount of site to be covered by the infillunits as concerned with limited amount of buffering around the buildings and limited opportunity to soften with landscape. Encourage less hardscape and more naturalization. Storm water management by being visible and useable important. Concern with roof top spaces and overhangs on duplexes. They will be visible from townhouse units above. Further design development about public access as will run into difficulty with the railway line to north and blockage at south end to Marine Drive, it will be an awkward way to get down to Marine Drive and going to run into dead end for years to come. Like the
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-6 3968832v1 options of having five units and having one available for use by the community in the heritage building and support the gazebo area as a gathering space. Ifthere was some natural ability to get pathway on that side that is not as hard surface will blend whole development into neighbourhood more. • Appreciate addressing the missing middle however hesitant when a development could create conflict with unanticipated changes in the neighbourhood. Consider a sizeable site buffer, neighbourhood character and privacy. Concept, community elements, green roof and connections all good. Consider reduced massing and size. Concern how number of vehicles interacts with neighbourhood. Consider investigating underground parking to allow for pedestrian and trees above. Appreciate heritage try not to replicate to the project, quite a few modern architecture in area. • Important to include dedicated visitor parking. • Great need for this type of housing and commend that the project tries to fillthe need but may be trying to do too much. It is commendable to have age in place units, but the proposed landscaping and permeability inhibits mobility. Explore opportunities to reduce massing to increase buffering. Support the modern aesthetic it is an appropriate response. Encourage framing the view from the townhouses and not having wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling glazing. Struggle with the footprint and size of duplexes on south in particular, that is the part of site that faces neighbour, north part of site setback tight but bordering railway right of way. Feel that it is too crowded on south portion with duplexes. Overall scale of the northern part appropriate and number of units appropriate but south duplex too high and tight on the sites.
It was Moved and Seconded: THAT the Design Review Committee commends the applicant on an excellent design and presentation. The Committee recommends RESUBMISSION of the application for the Gentles Cottage at 4441 Piccadilly North to address the following concerns: • a review of the buffering and setbacks of the infillportion of the project especially with regards to neighbouring properties including the trail to the west side; • provide a clear landscape plan showing current state of the site and trees to be retained and removed and their respective condition; • a review of the massing and height, in particular of the duplexes on the south side of the site; • a review of the roof top access that creates the vertical shaft element and the overlook aspect that the accessible roof tops create for neighbouring properties; • consideration of the amount of hardscaping on the site and provide data identifying the percentage of permeable surfaces versus non permeable surfaces on the site; • consideration of the proximity and overlook between the duplexes; • consideration of designating one or two visitor parking stalls; • reconsider the pedestrian circulation as it pertains to public and private space along the north and west side of the Gentles cottage; and • a review of the south façade for the infillunits and reviewing glass to wall ratio on the façade. CARRIED
DECEMBER5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEWCOMMITTEEMINUTES M-7 3968832v1 OTHER ITEMS 6. There were no reports/items.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS 7. Members of the public in attendance asked the followingquestions or made the followingstatements: • Ifpossible for the public to give opinion before the Committees decision-making. • Ifthe Heritage Advisory Committee minutes are provided to this Committee for information and how minutes are dealt with through the process. • Expressed that the information presented was misleading and offered a tour of the neighbourhood. • Questions regarding an applicant providing a trail on District land, potential blasting, and tree removal by BC Rail. • Clarification on storm water to Marine Drive.
NEXT MEETING 8. The next meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2020
ADJOURNMENT
9. Itwas Moved and Seconded:
THATthe December 5, 2019, Design Review Committee Meeting be adjourned. CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Certified Correct: s. 22(1) s. 22(1)
Ch Staff Lia5/
DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEEMINUTES -- 3968832v1 I rrt - / /
H 22(1) s. z
II!!! 22(1) s. / II / / / .22(1) s.
Q .22(1) s.
if/ : ‘J/ /11// Do 0
/ (6)
Iii I I (7)
co55- ‘n-WV(c From: West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Viewtins email in your browser West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Presents... Shigle-Use Item Reduction Strategy BUSINESS INPUT NEEDED The District needs your help to create a plan to reduce the use of single-use items in West Vancouver. r I fl. I \ / westvancouverlTE.ca/singleuse west vancouver JOIN US AT: RESERVE YOUR SPOT TODAY PARC Education Centre RSVP Now 2225 MarineDrive,West Vancouver,BC Date: Thursday Jan 30th, 2020 — flit;’ Time: 8:00 am 9:30 am a” -. — J West Vancouver is developing a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy The District of West Vancouver is collecting input from businesses to develop a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy. Single-use items are products and packaging made to be used once, then discarded. They include take-out containers, cups, straws, utensils and shopping bags. When completed, the Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy willdescribe how the District can help residents and businesses reduce the use of single-use items in West Vancouver. The West Vancouver Chamber is hosting an event on January 30, 2020 where member businesses can learn more about the project from District staff. Your input will help inform the District’s next steps. Coffee,tea, and light refreshments will be sewed. This event is FREE to attend but RSVP is required. Can’t attend9 You can learn more and provide input through the District’s online survey by visiting westvancouverlTE ca/singleuse. Chamber CfLw 7pre Jail1 IIO1L’! Byattending our iiV you can develop aluab1e connections that lead to business growth and personal success. AccessChamber benefits only a ailable to members. We are located at: 2235 Marine Dnxe Xest \anlou’er, BC V7V iK p Email: — infoc?estancliarnber.corn Phone: 604-92666!4 Want tu uhange how von receive these einails? You can update your preferences or unsubseribe from this list r{)pynqht ‘ 2019 fl.st Vancouver Chamber oJCo,n;ne;ee, All rights reserved. (8) From: Alan Bardsley s. 22(1) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:10 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Anne Mooi; Andrew Banks; Corinne Ambor Subject: OGCS Snowshoe Hike Feb 2 and AGM Feb 26 WE HAVE SNOW!!! Mother Nature has been generous with the snow this year, so the Old Growth Conservancy Society is having a snowshoe hike through the Old Growth Conservancy on Sunday, February 2nd. Meet at Hi-View Lookout at 10 am. for car pooling or at 10:30 at Parking Lot #5. The hike will last 2.5 to 3 hours. Bring some food and a beverage. Water-resistant outerwear over layered winter clothing is recommended, as are sturdy, water-resistant boots. On past hikes, footwear has varied from boots to snowshoes to crampons. Hiking or ski poles are advised. Mountain Equipment Co-op rents snowshoes for $15/day. Reservations can be made at the North Vancouver store at 604-990-4417 Please let us know if you willjoin us by emailing us at [email protected]. We’ll send a update on conditions to everyone that’s registered. OGCS AGM — Wednesday, February 26 I am also pleased to invite you to the OGCS AGM on Wednesday, February 26. This year the guest speaker is noted West Vancouver resident Dr. John Innes — Professor and Dean, Faculty of Forestry, USC. His presentation willbe “The Management of Old Growth: Challenges and Oppodunities’ Please join us early at 6:00 p.m. for socializing and snacking. Pizza and refreshments will be provided. The AGM starts at 7:00 p.m. OLD GROWTH CONSERVANCY SOCIETY ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING t4(- WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2020 West Vancouver Seniors’ Centre (Marine Room) 695— 21st Street, West Vancouver Social Hour 6:00 p.m. — Pizza and snacks provided Meeting 7:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. • AGENDA: Approval of Agenda Adoption of Minutes of February 20, 2019 AGM Directors’ and Treasurer’s Reports Election of Directors Presentation by Dr. John lnnes — Professor and Dean, Faculty of Forestry, UBC “The Management of Old Growth: Challenges and Opportunities” Adjournment Dr. John Innes is Dean of the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia and a resident of West Vancouver. He came to British Columbia in 1999, having previously worked in the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. He is actively involved with climate change research, particularly its effects on forest ecosystems. In 2007, he was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) team that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Dr. Innes teaches in the field of international and sustainable forestry. Under his leadership, the Faculty has taken significant steps toward broadening the curricula and academic content to reflect changing realities in the forest and conservation sectors. Alan Bardsley Secretary, Old Growth Conservancy Society 1594 Nelson Ave West Vancouver Please include my name and address in the correspondence package. (9) From: s. 22(1) OPJ)c2L1 Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:51 PM To: Canada PoliticsParties Conservative,Liberal,Green, NDP; Canada PoliticsParties Conservative,Liberal,Green, NDP; Canada PoliticsParties Conservative, Liberal,Green, NDP Canada PoliticsParties Conservative, Liberal,Green, NDP; MayorandCouncil; OfficeOfficeofthePremier Subject: CBCNews: Kindnesssnowballs after onlinesearch for volunteers to help B.C.seniors with snow Kindness snowballs after online search for volunteers to help B.C. seniors with snow snow-l.5435614 d r4 I.. at Sent from my iPhone. s. 22(1) Njsjs4 Vcojej (10)(a) From: BarryKirkham s. 22(1) 0965 Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 8:02 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Reckless spending The proposed 6% budget increase is outrageous. This 5 uncon5cionable money management Barry. Kirkham, Sent from my ipad as35 Gcov c1 \\jQsc \IckncouQQfl (10)(b) From: s. 22(1) Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 9:25 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Property taxes Dear Mayor and Council I have not written to you before and I do not wish to do so in the future. It takes a lot of discouraging issues for me to do write to you. Normally Ijust let the issues “lie’ on the belief that surely the mayor and council have better things to do than read another note from a dissatisfied West Vancouver resident. I also believe we elect our officials to act on our behalf. On the second point, I am very discouraged by the proposed property tax increase. Tax increases must be kept to inflation. There is no other alternative. Residents have budgets and many other expenses to content with and we expect our district mayor, council and staff to act responsibly with the residents tax dollars. I might suggest that it appeal-sthe expense of staff and the number of staff have risen well beyond the increase in population. This might be an area where there can be some cost savings. That would take some courage by our elected officials. Good luck. Regards, s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (10)(c) From: s. 22(1) 0955-0 a Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 2:01 PM To: Marcus Wong; Peter Lambur; Mary-Ann Booth; Craig Cameron; Sharon Thompson; Nora Gambioli; MayorandCouncil; BillSoprovich Subject: The 2020 West Van Budget Dear Mayor and Council, I have reviewed the proposed municipal budget and related financial information. Given the state of services, growth I levels etc. in West Vancouver, am incredulous as to how you can justify a proposed increase in property taxes of 6.1%. I see no justification for increases greater than 2%. I do not understand why we have the most deluxe budget of all municipalities in the Lower Mainland. I encourage you to take a very hard look at efficiencies, staffing and cost cutting. Sincerely, s. 22(1) West Vancouver (10)(d) From: s. 22(1) Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 10:28PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: A question about the 2020 Budget I would like to express my opinion initially on the lack of discipline which seems to have gone into the latest budget projection. There seems to be no financial management, no attempt to cut costs, no attempt to control salaries or to refuse initiatives. Surely a more business-oriented approach would be better than simply soaking the taxpayers of West Van. Where does it end? I was annoyed to see the 1% levy for’ climate change’, which has no specific purpose and which will make no difference of any kind. I have commented on this before. You seem quite willing to accept the views of social activists rather than real scientists. Perhaps you will use the money to sponsor a visit by Greta Thuneberg. The whole thing is a disgrace. s. 22(1) West Vancouver, B.C. s. 22(1) Sent from my Galaxy Tab E Lite (10)(e) From: s. 22(1) O%Go-ok Sent: Monday,January 27, 2020 8:00 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: A question about the 2020 Budget We do not need to spend more than the annual inflation increase, yes we certainly need more police and we need better efficiency from the staff we have, we don’t need to employ more. We certainly do not need twice as many staff with salaries over $100,000 than those employed by the Vancouver City.The fire department and police for West Vancouver, North Vancouver Cityand Municipalityshould be joined and money saved. One way to get increased taxes is to charge the developers, who are making huge houses that are not in character, significant additional fees as what they are doing is costing the Municipalityway above what you are charging them. Why are you wasting money on projects we do not need. Ifdrainage is going to be affected by the British Properties project they should pay the entire cost of the five foot diameter pipe that is going in down 31st. Ifwe are going to pay high salaries to the Chief Administer, Director of Planning and Director of Engineering they should have figured that out and not encourage Councilto pay for the pipe line. Regards s. 22(1) \s\jQk \Joncoujer (10)(f) From: s. 22(1) o955-o. Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:05 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: s. 22(1) -say no to a 6% Tax Increase s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) January 28, 2020 To West Vancouver Mayor and Council, I am writing to express my great dismay over West Vancouver’s proposed 6% tax increase at a time when inflation is minimal and in a place where there is very low population growth. How could West Vancouver spend more per capita in 2018 than any other municipality in Metro Vancouver? West Vancouver Mayor and Council has a responsibility to push back on the bureaucracy which self servingly proposes a budget like this. There is absolutely no justification for West Vancouver to have double the number of staff (per capita) earning more than $100,000 than Vancouver has. In the budget for 2020, there is an allowance for eight new employees, each earning over that $100,000 threshold. The audacity is hard to stomach as is the fact that West Vancouver actually has twenty-two staff members making over $150,000 per year. Our Mayor and Council were elected to serve the people and not to enrich an over inflated bureaucracy. I implore our Mayor and Council to use reason and to stand up to the egregious demands of its staff. I say enough is enough. By holding on salaries, limiting staff growth and paring any other excess spending, the 6% tax increase proposal should be replaced by closer to a 2% proposal. Yours sincerely, s. 22(1) QSk ncrrC . 1• ted (10)(g) —0 From: s. 22(1) C95 a Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:49 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: 2020 Tax Increase Aftn: Mayor and Council Re: 2020 Tax Increase I know that members of council are not insane but what I can’t figure out is why you act like you are. Did you ever stop for one second and think about the people in West Vancouver that you are hurting!!!! The World is on the verge of what could be a catastrophic economic recession and a financial collapse that could take a decade or more to recover from. Wake Up !!! If anything is needed in West Vancouver it’s a 20% Decrease in taxes and a hiring freeze or lay-offs. It’s time you got your collective heads out of the sand and realized what’s going on in the World. A 1/4 of West Vancouver citizens live on a fixed income of only $44,000.00, could you survive on $44,000.00??? West Vancouver has the worst streets in Greater Vancouver ye seen better streets in third world countries. Get our streets paved and paint the parking stalls on Marine Drive. Look for ways to cut cost in West Vancouver . . . that’s what will impress the voters . . . the citizens of West Vancouver do NOT have endless amounts of money!!!! s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC Canada s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (10)(h) ;rom: s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:45 PM To: MayorandCouncil - Subject: Proposed Property TaxIncrease Mayor Booth and Council I read with interest the many reasons you provided for the proposed property tax increase to exceed inflation. They are all reasonable. But that is not the issue. The issue is we expect our elected officials to operate within certain parameters and from a cost increase perspective that is inflation. Especially after several years when costs have exceeded inflation. Individuals and businesses make difficult decisions every day on how to live within their means. Our expectation is that you and your council members will do the same. If that means reducing services or employees, then do that. Making tough decisions is why we elected you. s. 22(1) s. 22(1) (10)(i) From: s. 22(1) Sent: Thursday,January 30, 2020 12:25 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: 2020 Budget to be 3 times the Inflation Rate I saw this recent note that captured my opinion perfectly: I read with interest the many reasons the Mayor provided for the proposed property tax increase to exceed inflation. They may all be reasonable. But that is not the issue. The issue is we expect our elected officials to operate withincertain parameters and from a cost increase perspective, that is inflation. Especially after several years when costs have exceeded inflation. Individuals and businesses make difficultdecisions every day on how to live withintheir means. Our expectation is that you and your council members willdo the same. If that means reducing services or employees, then do that. Making tough decisions is why we elected you So I expect that the 2020 Budget & Utilityincrease to be no more than 2%. s. 22(1) , West Van PS why does staff require names and addresses for letters written to Council, hut not for speakers at Council Meetings’? — _4• ‘,: (10)(j) From: s. 22(1) 0965-o Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 5:48 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Our Taxes On Wednesday Jan.29th, there was a Letter to the North Shore News, stating that we have a Director of Communications earning over $150,000. Why do we need to pay this? Iam opposed to this expenditure and to our 6%tax increase. Ihad thought it was for maintaining the physical care of West Vancouver. Sincerely, s. 22(1) s. 22(1) \J\J_s *flCOUV( Sent from my iPad r (11)(a) Attachments: Practice-Note-Ol -15 (2)pdf; ATT00001.htm From: s. 22(1) Date: January 27, 2020 at 12:39:53 PM PST To: Marcus Wong Hi Marcus and Council, This issue was dealt with in 2015 and as far back as 1978 - see attachment. Yours truly, s. 22(1) West Vancouver s. 22(1) B.C. t -H bcLafld Title&Survey Practice Note 01-15 Land Title and Survey Authority of BC Land Title Division August 7, 2015 Land Title Actsection 222 - Cancellations of discriminating covenants 1. Background: Section 222 of the Land TitleActspecifies that covenants that restrict the sale, ownership, occupation or use of land on account of sex, race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin of a person are void and of no effect. Section 222 is set out below for reference. The section, which was enacted in 1978, has legal declaratory effect: it operates against any registered covenant that directly or indirectlyhas a discriminating effect, whenever registered and in whatever form created. The registrar is authorized to take action to reflect the operation of s. 222, on request from an owner or on the registrar’s own initiative. Requests from owners are processed as cancellations done by the registrar on the registrar’s own initiative; accordingly, there is no customer fee for cancellation of a discriminating covenant. 2. Practice: On being made aware of the continuing presence in the register of a discriminating covenant, the registrar willact to amend the register and records to comprehensively reflect that the discriminating covenants are no longer valid. Instruments containing discriminating covenants typicallyalso contain other provisions that are not affected by s. 222 and which remain valid. Where the instrument contains non-discriminating provisions that are not affected, the registrar willmake an endorsement on the affected title, and original document indicating that the discriminating covenant has been cancelled pursuant to Land TitleActs. 222. After making the endorsement on the original document, the amended document willbe ./2 rescanned and reloaded into the records, under its original registration number, and will constitute the officialrecord of the document. Where the entire instrument has been affected by s. 222, the registrar willcancel it from all titles against which it is registered and make an endorsement on the document indicating its cancellation. In many instances, the covenant documents which are affected by s. 222 are stored on microfilm(generally documents registered prior to 1960). For technology-related reasons, it is not readily possible to remove individualdocuments from microfilmreels; as such, the original versions of documents containing discriminating covenants that have been affected as described above willcontinue to be accessible on microfilm.To ensure they access the officialrecord of the document, customers are advised they should always search for the record directly through their myLTSAaccount before going to microfilmrecords. Owners may submit requests to the registrar: • Online through the LTSACustomer Service Centre at https:/fmyltsa.ltsa.ca/contact customer-service-centre. • In writing by mail addressed to Registrar, New Westminster Land Title Office,Suite 300-88 Sixth Street, New Westminster, BritishColumbia, Canada, V3L5B3. The request should include the legal description and/or parcel identificationnumber (PID) of the lands affected by the discriminating covenant, and the registration number of the covenant. Discriminating covenants are void 222 (1) A covenant that, directly or indirectly, restricts the sale, ownership, occupation or use of land on account of the sex, race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin of a person, however created, whether before or after the coming into force of this section, is void and of no effect. (2) The registrar, on application, maycancel a covenant referred to in subsection (1) that was registered before October 31, 1979. (3) If the registrar has notice that a registered restrictive covenant is void under this section, the registrar may, on the registrar’s own initiative, cancel the covenant. s. 22(1) CraigD.Johnston Directorof LandTitles 2 (11)(b) BC’s Top Employers bcLafld Title&Survey I/55-I3 Media Statement For Immediate Release January 27, 2020 LTSASupports Efforts to Amend Discriminating Covenants on District of West Vancouver Land Title Records The LandTitle and SurveyAuthority of BritishColumbia (LTSA)supports the motion passed by the District of West Vancouver (District)to determine the process, resources and time required to strike any remaining discriminating covenants on affected land title records relating to the District. Enacted in 1978, Section 222 of the Land Title Act operates against any registered covenant that directly or indirectly has a discriminating effect, whenever registered and in whatever form created. Anycovenants that restrict the sale, ownership, occupation or use of land on account of sex, race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin of a person are void and of no effect. The Director of LandTitles issued Practice Note 01-15 to outline how discriminating covenants are treated. On being made aware of the continuing presence in the register of a discriminating covenant, the Registrar will act to amend the register and records. Where the instrument contains non-discriminating provisions that are not affected, the Registrar willmake an endorsement on the affected document indicating that the discriminating covenant has been cancelled pursuant to s.222 of the Land Title Act. Under the Land Title Act and in accordance with the principles of BC’sTorrens-based land title registration systems, the Registrar is expressly prohibited from erasing or rendering illegiblethe original words on a record. Thus, a ‘strike-through’ is made on the discriminating covenant so that it is more apparent on the face of a record that its discriminating components have been voided. With over two millionactive titles in BCand four million transactions per year, LTSArelies on the assistance of homeowners, local governments, and other property professionals to identify the land title records that need to comprehensively reflect that any discriminating covenant isvoid. Customers can submit a request to the Registrar by email to [email protected] or by mail. Media Contact: Janice Fraser Customer Communications Manager [email protected] 604 6309604 -F LandTitleandSurvéy Authorityof BritishColumbia Suite 200- 1321 Blanshard Street, Victoria, BC VSW9J3 nnoVation. trust. Phone:877 571 5812 www.ltsa.ca kceived Authority as amendment Charter They Respectfully These I The Based following Land understand In Saskatchewan 1947 The 15 Immigration Early of To This have became unable My Mayor look s. 22(1) qf s. 22(1) my there B released be name first Chinese first C is Title appeared Councils to since forward a on racists Land an and to -#xe of member 1959; are Chinese .22(1) s. my very the of important Act is become Rights learned Council Surveyors the in numerous submitted BC to Act comments, Covenants s. 22(1) misguided .22(1) s. (as to and in August upset in part in to .22(1) s. errors s. 22(1) of West icutwrj this of Canadian 1966 Canadian and attached British address Gleneagles Canadian 1923 he a b) discussion with Motion profession Freedoms 2015. was was of Vancouver of became and areas being lead prohibited Properties I our their these would .22(1) s. West this one lam in indeed in Member lawyer The Citizens of predecessors passing your of Quebec in discussed Motion issue. of a that He 27 West discriminatory their in Vancouver, Land in 1946. ask BCLS the barred one called Appendix 1982. believed Canada covenants Chinese need5 of the until If tonight, 2020 governments. Vancouver first Title not early to of Parliament I may tonight Mover to Chinese delete the until after professions to Office and one the he in from B) assist first. be and 1953; after was covenants. 1968. .22(1) s. was to must the bar rya/ar and “the understood were with enacted Canadians acquiring to help was your the Second in enacted the 1938, he Staff be British these British in placed I them elected first was can a Seconder Staff Canada Canadian working their but In World Crown Chinese only discriminatory 6ai361) Properties in from and clean Columbia both on in I 1978 in section also any Titles to recall dealt Vancouver Municipal to cases War with up Land. s. 22(1) welcome citizen, way have Canadian ,with consider their my by with. two was in of’ four s. 22(1) the vi I January examples 1947. developers would home the and covenants. Titles. and later Land years ee41 Contracts, Centre a able putting professional further Chinese instead In Chinese are in be Title 27 and Section prior 1953 to 1953; in pleased in in across .22(1) s. get forward in and Westmount 2020 Practice 1957. West insert Canadian and f7%fd2}y to the later Canadians them in 222 the Survey in Association the Canada, to Vancouver. years “lands Canada. Canadian of a Note help. to Chinese friendly the s. 22(1) from were /j35_73 01- in”; I (11)(c) .le1 6 (12) From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:59 AM To: MayorandCouncil s. 22(1) thought you might like this story from TheTyee.ca: s. 22(1) s. 22(1) V\J€isl-\lcAncouver, 1C. s. 22(1) Can a Whole City Go Green? Yes! IThe Tyee A future based on renewables isn’t some far-off utopia. This northern Finnish community is almost there. https://thetvce.calCulturc/2020/0 I/28/Finnish—City-li-Gocs-Green/ They included the following message: Excellent presentation, questions and responses of the Horseshoe Bay LAP as generated by the phase 2 of the process. What was painfully missing was a formal summation and response to the Climate Change Crisis. The community acceptance of increases in the building volumes and density, as noted by councillor Soprovitch, was an unspoken acknowlegement of the growing awareness of this challenge. However a more comprehensive framework (including policies to support clean energy, enrich biodiversity etc) would put this community design challenge at the next exciting level of urban design, and set the pattern for the next community LAP process, as the Mayor noted. Who is The Tyee? We’re anindependent, online news magazine from BC. We’re devoted to fact-driven reporting and analysis that informs and enlivens our democratic conversation. Our reporting has garnered numerous awards and the respect of our peers and readers. While some journalism gives the last word to power, we try to give the last word to ordinary folks. Receive Tyee headlines in your inbox — it’s free! Sign up here: suhscribe.thetvee.ca If you received this message in error, or do not want to receive articles shared from The Tyce, click here to unsuhscrihe instantly. ______(13) From: KelseyMaiden Dear Mayor Booth, On behalf of Small Business BC, we are pleased to extend you a special invitation and one complimentary ticket for our 17th Annual Small Business BC Awards Gala on Friday, February 21St at The Vancouver Convention Centre. Join us as we celebrate and showcase the leading small business owners making a difference around British Columbia in the largest small business awards in the province. Enjoy dinner, drinks, and networking with BC’s top business owners, industry leaders and government officials as we announce the winners of the 17th Annual Small Business BC Awards sponsored by Canada Post. Take in glittering views of Vancouver Harbour and the North Shore mountains from the award- winning Vancouver Convention Centre. What is included in your ticket: • SBBC Awards ceremony • A three-course dinner with wine • Two additional complimentary drink tickets • Pre and post Award ceremony networking with leading business owners, decision makers and inspiring past SBBC Award winners. How to book your complimentary ticket: Please respond via email to malden.keIsevsmallbusinessbc.ca with your RSVP to be added to the evening’s guest list. If you would like additional tickets, please let me know and I can pass your request onto our events team to discuss what paid options we have available for partners. The 2020 Finalists The Top 5’s represent small businesses from across British Columbia, including a tinytome manufacturer in Vernon, a an cosmetics company in Salmon Arm, and a fnous cat-focused cafe in Vancouver. This year’s nominations show the breadth and innovation of the BC small business community, which is poised to flourish in the coming years. See the full list We’d also really appreciate your help in raising awareness of the event — you can download our Media Kit which has Marketing assets that you are welcome to share across your channels from our press release here. Download our Media Kit We look forward to having you join us on this very special occasion for another great event showcasing the small business community in BC. Very best regards, KELSEYMALDEN MARKETING& COMMUNICATIONSCOORDINATOR Suite 54 — 601 West Cordova St. Vancouver, BC V65 1G1 Tel: 604 775 Toll-free: 1 667 Fax: 5607 I 800 2272 604 5520 I 775 Email: [email protected] Website:riJ www.smallbusinessbc.ca Sign up for our newsletter and join the Small Business BCCommunity — receive practical business advice to your inbox - including business blogs, upcoming networking events and special offers. Should you wish to unsubscribe at any time, email [email protected] or click the unsubscribe link at the footer of our subscription e-communication emails. (14) U- From: s. 22(1) \6 Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:14 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1) Subject: Fwd: Larson Bay Tennis Court & Gleneagles Golf Course Restaurant s. 22(1) s. 22(1) and I are unable to attend the budget information sessions as we’re . We both feel strongly that the Larson Bay tennis court be repaired and maintained by the District for the enjoyment of the Community. I have added my comments in (brackets and Capitals) to Mr. Andrew Banks, Senior Manager of Parks, email which follows my email. s. 22(1) we continue to pay very high taxes yet we see little to no improvements in our area. s. 22(1) Road is badly in need of repair. There has been minimal attention given to improvements to Larsen Bay Park/Beach and the loss of the Gleneagles Golf Course restaurant has greatly impacted our commttn ity. At the very least, the repair and maintenance of the Larsen Bay tennis/pickleball/multiuse court will greatly benefit our neighborhood as well as the community. s. 22(1) West Vancouver From: Mary-Ann Booth Good afternoon s. 22(1) , As per the Mayor’s request, please see response below from Andrew Banks, Senior Manager of Parks, regarding your inquiry and comments concerning the Larson Bay tennis courts. We hope this letter answers your questions! Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Nancy Henderson Administrative Assistant Mary-Ann District Mayor Booth I of West Vancouver t: 604-925-7003 Iwestvancouver.ca Dear Mayor Booth, Please see the following background information on the Larson Bay Park tennis court and the next steps. The District of West Vancouver is well served with tennis courts and has the highest number of tennis courts per capita in comparison to neighbouring communities with 31 tennis courts distributed throughout the community. Currently, West Vancouver’s population is 43,000 or .72 courts per 1,000 people. For comparison, in North Vancouver (City and District), there are 61 tennis courts serving 133,000 people or .46 courts per 1,000 people. Renewal of District of West Vancouver tennis courts is determined through a review of the level of use (LARSENPARKTENNIS COURT HASBEENNEGLECTEDBYTHE DISTRICTFOR YEARSAND SINCEIT HAS NOT BEENMAINTAINEDNOR REPAIRED,IT HASNOT BEENABLETO BE USED). )cost for renewal, ease of community access (EASYACCESSFROM GLENEAGLESDRIVE,GLENEAGLESCOMMUNITYCTR& GOLF COURSE) proximity to other District courts, potential for multi-uses such as pickleball, and is in conjunction with the 2016 District’s Capital Asset Management Policy. Larson Bay tennis court is located amongst mature trees with rooting systems that have grown below the surface of the court causing cracking and upheaval to the point where the base is not salvageable. (MAJORITY OF WV TENNIS COURTS ARE LOCATED AMONGST MATURE TREES. IT’S THE LACK OF MAINTENANCE THAT THE TENNIS COURT IS NOW IN THIS CONDITION) The estimated price to renew the tennis court is approximately $200,000. This estimated cost is based on contractor prices for similar work and on a quantity surveyor costing chart. The 2015 Fiscal Sustainability Review — General Fund Capital Assets Long Term Planning and Projections, presented to Council on February 22, 2016, identified a funding gap for maintaining District assets. Council approved a 2016 Asset Levy to partially close this funding gap, and asked staff to consider whether all the existing assets are needed to be retained or whether some assets could be disposed of without replacement. At the December 5, 2016 Council meeting, Council was provided with a list of “low use, poor condition” assets. This asset review identified the Larson Bay tennis court as a low use, poor condition asset.(AGAIN I STRESSTHATTHE LOW USE IS DUETO POOR CONDITIONCAUSEDBYLACKOF MAINTENANCE) The September 18, 2017 Council report titled “Asset Management Update Report” detailed the Larson Bay tennis court as a poor condition and low use asset. The report stated that feedback from the community consultation, undertaken in the fall of 2016, indicated that the retention of the tennis court was desired by the local community. (THE REPORT SUPPORTS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY DESIRED THAT THE TENNIS COURT BE RETAINED, REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED..FYI MANY NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT OF LARSEN BAY TENNIS COURT WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY COMMUNITY CONSULTATION IN FALL 2016, INCLUDING OURSELVES, WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT). Prior to the September 18th Council meeting, the Council report was reviewed by the District’s Finance Committee. In this review, the Finance Committee recommended, in a covering memo to the Council report, that Larson Bay tennis court be decommissioned. This recommendation in the District’s Finance Committee memo was subsequently incorporated into the “Asset Management Update Report” and approved by Council at the September 18, 2017 meeting. Through the 2019 budget process, the decommission cost of $40,000 for the Larson Bay tennis court was approved. The decommissioning of the tennis court is anticipated to occur in the fall and staff are currently developing a communication plan. The communication plan will ensure that the community is made aware that there are two different locations in the western area where the community can play tennis. There are 2 tennis courts at Whytecliff Park which are being renewed in 2019 (WHYTECLIFF PARK IS FREQUENTED BY MANY OUT OF DISTRICT PEOPLE RESTRICTING THE USE OF COURTS BY LOCAL COMMUNITY) and 2 courts in Plateau Park(TKESE COURTS ARE ALSO SURROUNDED BY MATURE TREES & SINCE THE COURTS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED THEY ARE VERY BUSY) Since the community engagement process on Larson Bay Park in the fall of 2016, positive impacts to the park have taken place: • the Larson Bayouthouse building was modestly improved and retained as a seasonal washroom for the public usingthe park • the West Vancouver Streamkeepers undertook a fish habitat improvement project on Larson Creek on the foreshore • in 2018, BCHydra completed the major project of upgrading the underground Bowen Island power line that goes through the park and through this project, the beach access was improved and stone steps were installed As per the feedback from the 2016 community consultation on Larson Bay Park, the District is now working to develop an invasive plant approach for the park that will focus on a prioritized removal of invasive plants and the replacement of invasive plants with native plants. The District will also be undertaking trail improvements in the park over the coming years. I hope that this information is helpful and if you need more information, please let me know. Regards, Andrew Andrew Banks Senior Manager of Parks District of West Vancouver I t: 604-925-7139 604-617-9483 westvancouver.ca Ic: I From: Mary-Ann Booth Sent: May-07-19 9:02 PM To: s. 22(1) Cc:Nancy Henderson Hi s. 22(1) s. 22(1) It was great to see you . I’ve asked my assistant, Nancy Henderson to get an update on the Larson Bay tennis courts. Unfortunately, I have now confirmed that the restaurant operator we had been negotiating with has decided not to proceed because of an inability to attract staff. I will be advising s. 22(1) , and a public announcement will be made shortly. I’m very disappointed hut I know that our staff did the best they could to make this work. We will be in touch shortly. Warm regards, Mary-Ann Booth Mayor District of West Vancouver I t: 604-925-7001 westvancouver.ca I On May 7,2019, at 4:22 PM, s. 22(1) wrote: Hi Mary-Ann, ft was nice chatting with you s. 22(1) Hopefully we can play golf together soon. I’m just following up to my questions to you regarding the Larson Bay tennis court and the Gleneagles Golf Course restaurant. s. 22(1) s. 22(1) s. 22(1) I have lived in the Gleneagles area years. Our were raised in this beautiful community and are hopeful to one day return to raise their families. I was very disappointed to hear that the Larson Bay tennis court may be decommissioned. Larson Bay is a small but beautiful waterfront park that is used often by the local community. The tennis court has been neglected by the District for so many years which has caused it to be unuseable. We were not aware of the Open Town Hall in October 2016 regarding Larson Bay Park but Ijust read the comments and the majority were in favour of the tennis court being repaired and maintained. I was recently talking to a friend in Caulfield and she commented on how the District keeps those tennis courts in great shape which allows them to be used often. I sometimes feel that the more west you go in West Vancouver, the more forgotten the area becomes. I strongly urge the District to repair and maintain the Larson Bay tennis court which will allow the local community of all ages to use this area not only for tennis but also for pickleball etc. Please let me know what I can do to help make this happen. s. 22(1) and we all frequently use Gleneagles Golf Course. We were devastated when the restaurant closed as we were there often, not only as golfers but as members of this community. It’s highly unusual for a Golf Course to not have a restaurant and there is strong support from golfers and the community to have a restaurant at Gleneagles Golf Course. I know that this was an important issue to you during the election and I’m sure it still is. I’m hopeful that you and the District will continue to work hard to make this happen. Both the Larson Bay tennis court and the Gleneagles Golf Course restaurant are important and will allow Gleneagles and West Vancouver to develop a stronger sense of community. I look forward to hearing from you. s. 22(1) \Vest Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) (15)(a) From: Peter Scholefield s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:42 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Raymond Fung; Vanessa Garrett John Calimente; Paul Stott; s. 22(1) ; s. 22(1) Subject: District wins 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure Award Attachments: Hugo Ray Connector mapjpg Dear Mayor and Councillors, In case you have not already been informed, the District has been awarded the 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure Award for completion of the Hugo Ray Connector. We appreciate the efforts of the staff in the Engineering Division to implement this vital piece of cycling infrastructure which connects to 7 commonly used bike routes (see attached map). We feel that it isprojects like this, where cyclists are physically separated from automobile traffic, that will contribute to encouraging more people to take up cycling. This will lead to reducing the number of carson the road, reducing automobile congestion and addressing the District’s Climate Emergency Declaration by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a photo of the Hugo Ray Connector in use: s. 22(1) s. 22(1) We expect that the District will soon receive an invitation to come and accept the award at the HUB Awards Ceremony at the Vancouver Public Library on 27 February. Paul and I plan to attend to present the award. Sincerely, Peter and Paul Peter Scholefield and Paul Stott West Vancouver Liaisons, HUB - North Shore Committee, s. 22(1) Islery nc.nt ITop a V V a I Furniture 9 A I&2 plus Sluydcg 0 Lealher Repair West 9 Cedardale — Cricket Vancouver HUGO Woodcroft 9 Park — Club RAY CONNECTOR 4 & / LIoGa1eSuItes / S — j- ,--- Connecting 7. 6. 4. IL, 5. 3. 2. 1. Kleewyck Westview Spirit Ambleside Edgemont7Village Weston Planned British A rarThda.y Trail Bike Properties 6&7 Hwy Upper Capiano and via via Routes Tennis I Middle *0 Capilano Keith Shoulder Level 9 ;9 L\. Club : 0 — 0. 0 1\ U Road Chevron Path Lonsdale Trans-Canada Pacific Bluebird ‘4 Hwy Daycare —j D Trail Cenire /WaodsDr ci Lo,noDr 6 7ndSiW .9 71 I Ii — Sunflower 4... C oneslopr 23 p a re. — F (15)(b) From: s. 22(1) - 0 Sent: Thursday,January 30, 2020 9:39 AM To: Peter Scholefield;MayorandCouncil Cc: Raymond Fung;Vanessa Garrett John Calimente; Paul Stott; s. 22(1) s. 22(1) Subject: RE:Districtwins 2019 HUBCyclingInfrastructure Award I rode that truly lovely piece of infrastructure a few times as part of my cycle commute this week. Very well executed, and an important connector for routes in the region. Much appreciated. s. 22(1) West Vancouver, s. 22(1) s. 22(1) From: Peter Scholefield s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:42 PM To: Mayor and CouncilWest Vancouver Dear Mayor and Councillors, In case you have not already been informed, the District has been awarded the 2019 HUBCyclingInfrastructure Award for completion of the Hugo RayConnector. We appreciate the efforts of the staff in the Engineering Divisionto implement this vital piece of cyclinginfrastructure which connects to 7 commonly used bike routes (see attached map). We feel that it is projects like this, where cyclists are physicallyseparated from automobile traffic, that willcontribute to encouraging more people to take up cycling.This willlead to reducing the number of cars on the road, reducing automobile congestion and addressing the District’sClimate Emergency Declaration by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here is aphoto of the Hugo RayConnector in use: s. 22(1) s. 22(1) : We expect that the District will soon receive an invitation to come and accept the award at the HUBAwards Ceremony at the Vancouver Public Library on 27 February. Paul and I plan to attend to present the award. Sincerely, Peter and Paul Peter Scholefield and Paul Stott West Vancouver Liaisons, HUB - North Shore Committee, s. 22(1) ______ (16) 0160—01 From: Weiler, Patrick - M.P. Good afternoon, Please find attached a letter from MP Patrick Weller. Thank you, Morgan McCullough Office of Patrick Weller Member of Parliament Dthputé I House of Commons/Chambre des communes Ottawa, ON Dear Friends & Neighbours, Across the country, Canadians are leading grassroots action to protect our environment tackle plastic pollution, conserve nature, and protect our waterways. Our Government is committed to working in partnership with Canadians to advance these efforts. That is why I am proud to inform you of two great opportunities for funding from the Government of Canada to support local environmental initiatives. This week, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, launched our annual call for applications for eight funding programs to support community-based, environmental projects. These eight programs aim to support Indigenous communities, environmental groups, schools, other levels of government and businesses in taking environmental action. Relevant to BCare the following programs: • Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk • Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk • EcoAction Community Funding Program • Environmental Damages Fund • Zero Plastic Waste Initiative Projects part of this funding program will be protecting the environment in a myriad of ways. For example, potential projects funded this year could help contribute directly to the recovery of species at risk, address plastic pollution and climate change, restore and protect water quality, and improve long-term sustainability of ecosystems. Canadians across the country—Indigenous communities, landowners, non-governmental organizations, schools, other levels of government and businesses—are invited to apply. For more information on eligibility criteria and how to apply for funding, please visit: https://bit.ly/38r2a38. I would also like to inform you of a joint funding program from the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia, which is now accepting applications for their second intake. The Green Infrastructure Environmental Quality Program aims to allocate $150 million to support cost-sharing of green infrastructure projects in communities across the province. To learn more about the program and to apply, please visit: https://bit.ly/360gCAS. Please feel free to share these programs with your networks. Sincerely, Patrick Weiler, MP West Voncouver-5unshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country (17) Attachments: new dwelling units 2019.pdf From: Winnie Yip Hello s. 22(1) , Thank you for your email. Your inquiry has been forwarded to me for a response. CMHC’s housing starts data and the municipality’s building permit data are not the same. CMHC does not account for building permits, instead they conduct monthly site visits based on the location of building permits issued (provided by the municipality) to confirm whether foundation has been laid. If foundation has been laid, they count it as a housing start for the month; if not, they will revisit the site until either the foundation has been laid or the permit is cancelled. Due to the difference in methodology, CMHC’s housing starts may never equal the number of building permits at any municipality at any given month/year. We can, however, provide you with the list of building permits for new dwellings issued in 2019 (attached). You may also access building permits issued data for a given date range through the District’s website. Based on building permit data, the number of dwelling unit starts for 2019 was: DWELLINGUNITS ADDED in 2019 SINGLEFAMILY 58 (+ 3 issued but cancelled) COACHHOUSE 1 DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES 12 APARTMENTS 193 Total 264 Based on demolition permit data, there were 52 single detached home demolition permits issued (2 more were issued but later cancelled). The net unit change (new permit — demolition permit issued) was therefore 6 units for 2019. Kind regards, Winnie Yip MRM, MCIP, RPP Senior Community Planner District of West Vancouver t: 604-925-7238 westvancouver.ca t, ..k;’ tJ ______ Jan 22, 2020 9:01:00 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 1 Category: BUILDINGPERMITS Type: RESIDENTIAL- NEW Report Code: ALL From Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019 Folder Issued Completed New Number Status Date Date Unit House Street - - -- Units Valuej RESIDENTIAL- NEW COACHHOUS BP116025 ACTIVE Jan 24, 2019 4730 HIGHWAY 1 600,000.00 Report Code Totals Permits: 1 1 600,000.00 DPX NEW BP115446 COMPLETED Jan 9,2019 Dec 10, 2019 2993 BURFIELDPLACE 2 1,350,000.00 DPX NEW 8P115447 ACTIVE Jan 9,2019 3003 BURFIELDPLACE 2 1,350,000.00 DPX NEW BP115448 ACTIVE Jan 9,2019 2997 BURFIELDPLACE 2 1,350,000.00 DPX NEW BP11S18I ACTIVE Apr4, 2019 6457 BRUCE STREET 2 1,400,000.00 DPX NEW 8P116151 ACTIVE Aug 26,2019 6478 BAYSTREET 2 1,200,000.00 DPX NEW BP116474 ACTIVE Dec 9,2019 1273 KEITHROAD 2 1,200,000.00 Report Code Totals Permits: 6 12 7,850,000.00 EXCAVATION BP116654 ACTIVE Dec 12,2019 2750 BELLEVUEAVENUE 0 500.00 Report Code Totals Permits 1 0 500 00 SF0 NEW BP115695 ACTIVE Jan 10, 2019 3290 MARINEDRIVE 1 930,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115362 ACTIVE Jan 11,2019 572 ARTHUR ERICKSONPLACE 1 580,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115364 ACTIVE Jan 11,2019 568 ARTHUR ERICKSONPLACE I 580,000.00 SFD NEW BP115965 ACTIVE Jan 11,2019 4159 BURKEHILLROAD 1 1,400,000.00 SFD NEW BP115766 ACTIVE Jan 18, 2019 1521 JEFFERSON AVENUE 1 962,160.00 SFD NEW BP115833 ACTIVE Jan 21, 2019 5930 CONDOR PLACE 1 1,200,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116003 ACTIVE Jan 25, 2019 6970 HYCROFT ROAD 1 1,100,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115963 ACTIVE Jan 29, 2019 3640 WESTMOUNT ROAD 1 1,800,00000 SFD NEW BP115867 ACTIVE Feb 1,2019 970 SHERWOOD LANE 1 1,500,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115860 ACTIVE Feb 5,2019 1802 ROSEBERY AVENUE 1 1,429,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115735 ACTIVE Feb 6,2019 . 2823 RODGERS CREEK LANE 1 834,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115875 ACTIVE Feb 21, 2019 1310 TYROL ROAD I 2,100,000.00 SFD NEW BP115788 ACTIVE Feb 25, 2019 969 AUBENEAUCRESCENT 1 1,200,000.00 SFD NEW 8P115808 ACTIVE Feb 27, 2019 2185 WESTHILLWYND 1 1,500,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115850 CANCELLED Mar 4,2019 Dec 18, 2019 770 WESTCOT PLACE 1 1,800,000.00 SFD NEW BP115774 ACTIVE Mar6, 2019 3172 MATHERSAVENUE 1 1,100,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115863 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 A 23 GLENMOREDRIVE 1 860,000.00 SFD NEW BP115864 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 B 23 GLENMOREDRIVE 1 860,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115865 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 C 23 GLENMOREDRIVE 1 860,000.00 SFD NEW BPI 15529 CANCELLED Mar 12, 2019 Sep 16. 2019 1776 INGLEWOODAVENUE 1 1,000,000.00 \\dwv caDWdFS$\Programs\TEMPESTthvelREP0RTS\CDOO0O1 1 0RP The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver ______— Jan 22, 2020 9:01:00 Nvl Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 2 Category; BUILDING PERMITS Type: RESIDENTIAL - NEW Report Code: ALL From Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dcc 31, 2019 rReport Folder — Issued Completed - - New —I Code Number Status - Date Date Unit House Stree - - Units Value - SFD NEW BP115BB1 ACTIVE Mar 12, 2019 5530 MARINEDRIVE 1 1.900.000.00 - SFD NEW BP115677 ACTIVE Mar 21, 2019 4103 BURKEHILLROAD 1 1.500,000.00 SFD NEW BP116094 ACTIVE Mar26, 2019 1092 EYREMOUNTDRIVE 1 1.600.000.00 SFD NEW BP116071 ACTIVE Mar27, 2019 2354 JEFFERSON AVENUE 1 1.500,000.00 SFD NEW BPI 16053 ACTIVE Apr 5.2019 2222 LAWSONAVENUE 1 990,000.00 SF0 NEW 8P1 16084 ACTIVE Apr 5, 2019 1358 CRESTWELL ROAD 1 3.620,000.00 SF0 NEW 6P116076 ACTIVE AprS, 2019 2224 PALMERSTONAVENUE 1 1,193,750.00 SFD NEW BP115549 STOP WORK Apr 11,2019 1424 SANDHURSTPLACE 1 1.976,000.00 SFD NEW BP116102 ACTIVE May6,2019 966 KINGSAVENUE 1 750,000.00 SFD NEW BP116128 ACTIVE May23, 2019 1373 20THSTREET 1 1,000,000.00 SF0 NEW BPI 16108 CANCELLED Jun 6,2019 Jan 7,2020 997 CROSS CREEK ROAD 1 2,000,000.00 SFD NEW BP116417 COMPLETED Jun 19, 2019 Jun 19, 2019 928 GROVELANDROAD 1 0.00 SF0 NEW 8P116087 ACTIVE Jul 4,2019 1046 MILLSTREAMROAD 1 2,500,000.00 SF0 NEW 8P116238 ACTIVE Jul 5,2019 2388 PALMERSTONAVENUE 1 1,500,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116244 ACTIVE Jul 9,2019 4710 WILLOW PLACE 1 1,020,000,00 SF0 NEW BPI 16110 ACTIVE Jul 11,2019 2680 CHELSEACOURT 1 1,500,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116109 ACTIVE Jul 25, 2019 4948 MARINEDRIVE 1 838,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116162 ACTIVE Aug 1,2019 3278 UPLANDSWAY 1 500,000.00 SFD NEW BP116163 ACTIVE Aug 1,2019 COM 3268 UPLANDSWAY 1 750,000.00 SFD NEW BP116171 ACTIVE Aug 6,2019 1845 PALMERSTONAVENUE 1 1,600,000.00 SFD NEW BP116185 ACTIVE Aug 22, 2019 2432 OTtAWA AVENUE 1 1,900,000,00 SFD NEW BP115967 ACTIVE Aug 27, 2019 3325 MARINEDRIVE 1 1,000,000.00 SFD NEW BP116256 ACTIVE Sep 16, 2019 2965 ALTAMONTCRESCENT 1 2,125,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116164 ACTIVE Oct 7,2019 3286 UPLANDSWAY 1 620,000.00 SFD NEW BP116456 ACTIVE Oct 7,2019 3270 UPLANDSWAY 1 750,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116457 ACTIVE Oct 7,2019 3284 UPLANDSWAY I 500,000.00 SFD NEW BP116358 ACTIVE Oct 11,2019 4129 BURKEHILLROAD 1 1,600,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116245 ACTIVE Oct 18, 2019 1416 SANDHURSTPLACE 1 2,800,000.00 SF0 NEW BP115402 ACTIVE Oct 25, 2019 3143 TRAVERSAVENUE I 1,600,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116148 ACTIVE Nov 1,2019 1640 ORCHARDWAY 1 2.000,000.00 SFD NEW BP115232 ACTIVE Nov 1,2019 3170 BENBOW ROAD 1 1,500,000.00 SFD NEW 8P116410 ACTIVE Nov 1,2019 6066 BLINKBONNIEROAD 1 4.000,000.00 SFD NEW BP116437 ACTIVE Nov6, 2019 1225 RENTON ROAD I 1.700.000.00 SFD NEW BP116361 ACTIVE Nov 12, 2019 3765 SOUTHRIDGEAVENUE I 1.420.100.00 SF0 NEW BPI 16430 ACTIVE Nov 22. 2019 961 KINGGEORGES WAY I 3,100.000.00 SFD NEW SP1 16458 ACTIVE Dec 5.2019 1110 MILLSTREAMROAD 1 2.200.000.00 SF0 NEW BPI 16468 ACTIVE Dec 11,2019 429 SOUTHBOROUGH DRIVE I 1.500.000.00 SF0 NEW BP116327 ACTIVE Dec 13, 2019 588 BARNHAMPLACE I 1.500,000.00 SF0 NEW BP116449 ACTIVE Dec 17, 2019 1509 24TH STREET I 1.172.000.00 SF0 NEW BP116480 ACTIVE Dec 18, 2019 885 WILDWOODLANE I 2.000,000.00 \\d’.w ca\DWFS$ProgramsTEMPEST\Iive\REP0RT5\CDDooa1 1 QRP The Corporation of be District of West Vancouver Jan 22, 2020 901:01 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 3 Category: BUILDING PERMITS Type: RESIOENTIAL - NEW Report Code: ALL From Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019 Report Folder Issued Completed New Code Number Status Date Date Unit House Skeet - - - - Units Value SF0 NEW BP116489 ACTIVE Dec 20. 2019 2648 LAWSON AVENUE 1 2.500,00000 Report Code Totals Permits: 61 - 61 -- 9,010.00 Folder Type Totals PermIts: 59 74 97,770,510.00 Report Totals Permits: 69 74 97,770,510.00 td’hvca\D’FS$PmgramsTEMPESThIiva\REPORTS\CDaDOO11 0RP The Corporationof the DistrictofWest Vancouver Jan 22, 2020 9:35:38 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 1 Category: BUILDINGPERMITS Type: MULTlRESIDENflAL NEW Report Code: ALL From Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019 Report Folder Issued Completed New Code Number Status Date Date Unit House Street Units Value MULTI-RESIDENTIAL NEW EXCAVATION 8P116267 ACTIVE May 16,2019 2100 BELLEVUEAVENUE 0 895,00000 Report Code Totals Permits: I — - - o _p5.ppq1qq FOUNDATION BP116547 ACTIVE Sep 13, 2019 2100 BELLEVUEAVENUE 0 591,500.00 FOUNDATION BP116548 ACTIVE Sep 13, 2019 2100 BELLEVUEAVENUE 0 1,398,000.00 Report Code Totals Permits: 2 0 1,989,500.00 MULTINEW BP116047 ACTIVE Jun 13, 2019 6707 NELSON AVENUE 63 14,487,830.00 MULTINEW BP116036 ACTIVE Aug 7,2019 727 MAINSTREET 0 472,224.00 MULTINEW BP115838 ACTIVE Sep 16, 2019 3101 BURFIELD PLACE 39 22,200.000.00 Report Code Totals Permits: 3 102 37,160,054.00 Folder Type Totals PermIts: 6 102 40044,554.00 Report Totals PermIts: 6 102 40044554.00 \wcaDVNFS5’PrransTEMPESVJive’REP0RT5\C0XC011 OR? The Cpcatbi the 0sthd of West VanJvec Jan 22, 2020 9:4603 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page 1 Category: BUILDING PERMITS Type: (R9 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL Report Code: ALL From Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019 o1Jer Issued Completed -______Code Number Status Date Date Unit House Street Units Value (RF) MULTI-RESIDENTIAL MULTINEW BP115475 ACTIVE Sep 6.2019 6699 NELSON AVENUE 28 1D,045.469.O0 MULTINEW BP115391 ACTIVE Dec 19! 2019 6667 NELSON AVENUE 47 10,391,595.00 Report Code Totals PermIts: 2 -- —— — 75 - 20437.054-00 Folder Type Totals PermIts: 2 - - 75 20,437,064.00 Report Totals Permits: 2 75 20,437,D6&OD ttdw caDFS$\Pzorams\TEMPESflhive\REPDRTSCDaOOD1I QRP The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver ______ Jan 22. 2020 10:09.11 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 1 Category: BUILDING PERMITS Typo: (RF) COMMERCIAL Report Code: ALL From Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019 Issued — Completed — —— New iIoIder p = - Number Status Date = Date Unit House Street - — Units (RF) COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION 9P115450 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 1327 MARINE DRIVE 0 1,500,000,00 Report Code Totals PermIts I 0 150000000 OTHER NEW 9P115451 ACTIVE Mar15, 2019 1327 MARINE DRIVE 15 5,250,000,00 Report Code Totals Permits: I 16 5,250,000.00 Folder Type Totals Permits: 2 16 - .06 Report Totals Permits: 2 16 6750,000.00 ttdw.ca’OlFSVProrrsiTEMPESThv&REPORTSlCDO0X1 I .QRP The Ccrç:’atcr et no D,s:icI ! VIeS: Va’ccuvr (////)(1) UflQ From: 5.22(1) -(33 Sent: Thursday, January 16,2020 11:32AM To: Jim Bailey;Nina Leemhuis: s.22(1) MayorandCou ncil; s.22(1) Subject: CMHCDATA-2019 To Jim Bailey through Mayor and Council, I am looking for some detailed data for the municipality of West Vancouver. From CMHC’s - Building Starts report for West Vancouver, can you please provide the list of the 339 building permits that make up the 2019 housing starts as tabulated by CMHC. And how many of the 47 single family house starts were “new” vs redevelopment? Thanks so much. .. TELUS ? 11:03 AM < Starts by Dwelling Type by Ce... Vancouver — Starts by Dwelling Type by Census Subdivision 4 O 0 0 8qln.%IJ 3 0 0 0 5 B..nh1aiL1b II ‘3 &n.ifl) LI 21 tM 3.411 CaId.ajCT) IL 1251 1jt3 Udb Iflt ‘SI ‘UI Sn flnjN.daflwnIH a a 115 9’ DEW a ‘I t12 Ls(ty cfl) I U III Sc I_ti Iflfl 36 115 I.ISJ lU P4 Us.. S I I a C 1 W Il4 Ii C Sn %cgd.krIfl1 64 II 55 4.’ Pt Siflh %nwtnIfl1 S 142 SmithSann fl%I 33 II ‘7 772 fl flIt %hmaa HI C ‘UI Is’ nfl CtpHI IQI 3-’ I’ TN Ftfl fln Ifl) ‘a .19 IU11J 941 ‘U C 23 lAid IW.1 Smt) Ifl 9v5 I’;? 2AIJ 3.312 C %aa.nrlfl) Pal N Wfl %airIDa 31 U 2tal :7 U 417 %Scn.wr i’ll 2.M4 21.121 211.141 5.22(1) Maple Ridge BC (18) From: Isabel V.Gordon Sent: January 30, 2020 3:03 PM To: s. 22(1) Cc: Mark Panneton Dear s. 22(1) Thank you for your question on the proposed 2020-2024 Financial Plan,which has been referred to me for reply. The following chart provides West Vancouver per capita spending for 2018: 2018 Per Capita Spending by Municipality 52,276.26 - 52,08838 51,887.82 51,569.56 51,518.19 51,428.62 51,415.35 51,392.85 51,371.72 West New Vancouver Delta WhiteRock North North PoftMoody Richmond St Vancouver Westminster Ii[iiiiVancouver Vancouver District City Based on gov.bc.ca/Iocal government statistics It differs from the chart you provided, which was from a 2018 Fraser institute report, and used 2016 numbers which were modified by the Fraser Institute as noted in their report. The chart above uses the Provincial statistics (available at gov.bc.ca/local government statistics) with a single modification: the cost funded by Translink related to the Blue Bussystem are removed from the West Vancouver numbers, as this amount is not paid by West Vancouver residents and no other municipality has a comparable cost. Related costs which are not reimbursed are included. In answer to your questions about per capita spending in West Vancouver, the Mayor has provided the following information: Why does West Vancouver have the highest per capita spending of lower mainland municipalities? The level of staff and the level of taxation in West Vancouver are directly tied to the level of service. We are a service industry, and one of the things people love about our community is the high level of service provided here. The factors that drive costs in our community are: Density — We are largely a community of large single-family lots. The cost of a length of road or a pipe is the same whether it serves twenty households, four households or one. The costs of these services become much less per capita as development becomes denser. It may be less obvious, but the same costing principle applies to Police and Fire protection, parks, and event planning. A low-density community creates high costs per capita. And, with an average of less than five residents per hectare, West Vancouver is one of the least densely populated municipalities in the lower mainland. Lackof Industry — There is no industry in West Vancouver to share operating and infrastructure renewal costs. Ninety-three per cent of the tax burden falls to residents and the remaining seven per cent to small business. In most other municipalities, the proportion of municipal costs borne by residents is much smaller due to the diversity of the tax base. Residents can share the costs with corporate offices and industry, to name a few. Geography — Inaddition to being spread out, West Vancouver has some of the most challenging geography in the lower mainland. Buildingup a mountain or down to a beachfront is more costly per meter that it is to build in a flat community like Delta. Our residents love the natural beauty and geography of our community, but it is more costly to service. Age of Infrastructure - West Vancouver is over 100 years old, and our infrastructure is aging. Unlikemany other municipalities in the Lower Mainland, we have not had much new development, and the benefit of development is having the developers pay for infrastructure replacement. West Vancouver’s tax base is mostly residential, with very little business and no industry. Without development or industry, the burden of infrastructure replacement falls to residents. Level of Services - West Vancouver does spend more per capita but also provides very high-quality community centres, sports programs, the library, the Seawalk, and more than 100 other parks. Manyof these amenities are equal to, or better than, what much larger communities such as Richmond, Burnaby, and even Cityof Vancouver provide. Our residents value these higher levels of service, but they do cost money. There are also costs that we often don’t think about. To provide our own Blue Bus,the municipality invests human resources, legal, communications, and administrative costs that are not reimbursed by TransLink.And, providing our own police force is more expensive than using the RCMP. The Mayor’s budget newsletter, which contains additional budget information, is available here: htts://westvancouver.ca/news/mayors-update-2020-budget-information And an interactive forum with additional budget information and FAQsis available here: https://www.westvancouverite.ca/budget I hope this information is helpful. Thanks, Isabel Isabel Gordon, MBA, CPA Director Financial Serqices District of West vancouver I I 604-921-29021 westvancouver.ca (////)(2) From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:59 AM To: Mayorandcouncil Subject: A question about the 2020 Budget Hi Mayor and Council — we are home owners and residents of West Vancouver. We request that before West Vancouver approves the 6.1% proposed property tax increase in the district, the district explain why municipal spending is already so much more than in other municipalities in Metro Vancouver, as evidenced by the chart below from a 2018 Fraser Institute report. We wish to point out that the proposed increase may well be more than the proposed 6.1% increase on a % basis for those of us who own houses, condos and townhouses below average value in the district, directly and negatively affecting the affordability issue the district is actively trying to address (ie. the ‘missing middle’). Respectfully, Municipalities Spending 2018 5/ Person 2 fli) [‘:1• If’, ‘-I W.a va, New W.,1 varcn L’tta No.iI, Van gsDnn van W. Rock P06 h4oa2 eo’naby Ibd-a.w.d Iii[iiiiii(fly S. 22(1) Vancouver British Columbia, Canada, S. 22(1) s. 22(1) (19) From: Isabel V.Gordon Sent: January 30, 2020 3:06 PM To: s. 22(1) Cc:Mark Panneton Dear s. 22(1) , Your question on the 2020-2024 Financial Plan has been referred to me for reply. First, staff provided the 6.11% number as a preliminary tax increase, in a report to Councilon December 16, 2019, based on the best information available at that time. At the recent budget meeting on January 28, 2020, staff noted that this information had been updated, and the requested increase was now 5.48%. Councilhave yet to approve any increase, and staff willcontinue to refine the proposed tax rate increase as new information becomes available. A report with tax rate options will be presented for Council’sconsideration on February 24, 2020. Interms of the relationship between inflation and taxes, the Mayor has provided the following information: Why is the tax levy higher than the rate of inflation? Inflation measures the cost of living,and that is only one of a number of factors that drive the cost of delivering services to our community. Most services are delivered by staff, and staff wages are determined by collective agreements. There are other cost pressures that the District cannot control. Electricityand gas costs are not tied to the rate of inflation, and these definitely affect the cost of services in our facilities. Information on the requests for new staff members is provided here: Eight(not 10) new FE positions are requested in order to resource Council’sgoals and objectives. Staff providing other services cannot be reallocated unless Council directs that the services they are providing are no longer needed. The details of the FE requests are as follows Trails Plan - Two FTEsare requested to create an additional trail crew of skilled carpentry staff that will complete trail improvements consisting of replacing and/or repairing failingtrails and trail structures such as foot bridges, boardwalks, stairs, and drainage infrastructure. Plan for Trailson Public Landsrecommends additional resources be allocated to trail improvements with a priority for trails that provide high levels of connectivity. Senior Planner - One FTEwould add capacity to undertake LocalArea Plans (LAPs),but is not sufficient in itself to complete that work alone. Generally, a team of 4+ FTEsis needed to complete a LAP.Horseshoe Bay LAP currently has about 1.5 FTEsallocated to it, so is under-resourced. Inthe near term, it is expected that this additional FTEwould help staff complete Horseshoe Bayon a more timely basis, and would set the District up to focus on Ambleside on the second half of this Councilterm. Also,the current limited staff resources dedicated to do the Horseshoe Bay LAPcould be impacted by other existing work (such as an extended term for the Neighbourhood Character WG,or because of a series of climate-related directions, etc.) — so this new FTEwould add capacity to either focus on LAPsor to allow existing staff to focus on other Councilinitiatives related to 2019-20 priorities (e.g. DPAs)and priorities for 2021-22 (Taylor Way,Land UseContracts, etc.). Community Planner - One FTE - this request would provide a 0.5 FTEdedicated to heritage planning initiatives including heritage development projects, management of the Heritage AdvisoryCommittee, and implementation of the policyand planning framework described in the policy report approved by Council “Preventing Heritage Demolitions”. The remaining 0.5 FTEwould be dedicated to working on development projects and would primarily work on projects that would achieve Council’sOCPobjective to deliver “missing middle” housing. Thiswould help deal with the existing workload where the District is currently very under resourced. Business Manager, Corporate Services & Planning & Development Services - One FTE-This resource is requested to provide financial advisory services, coordinating and participating in the District’sfinancial planning cycle, helping departmental managers develop their operating and capital budgets to work programs, tracking expenditures and budgets, and increasing financial reporting functions. Currently the support is provided by Finance at a minimal level and there is afurther need for financial advice and analysis in these two divisions. The position would report directly to the Deputy CAOand Director of Planning & Development Services. Police 1st Class Constable - One FTEThis position willwork with new arrivals to Canada and include general work on crime prevention through environmental design and behaviour. Commercial Plan Reviewer - One FTE - This request would increase the complement of Level3 plan checkers for large and complex building permit applications for multi-family and commercial development. The resource is required to manage existing workload and meet industry expectations for reasonable permit turn-around times. Police PrivacyAnalyst - One FTE-This position would be dedicated to handling Freedom of Information requests. An interactive budget forum with additional budget FAQsis available here: https ://www . wes Evancouyen te.ca/bud get I hope this information is helpful. Thanks, Isabel Isabel Gordon, MBA, CPA Director Financial Services District of I I west Vancouver 604-921-29021 westvancouverca (////)(2) From: S. 22(1) D9-o. Sent: Friday,January10,20207:28AM To: Mayorandcouncil Subject: 2020ProposedPropertyTaxes Mayor Booth I am very surprised that the Staff and FinanceCommitteeare advisingCouncil to approvea 6.11% property tax increase when inflationis runningat 1.9%. Why has DWV provided minimalexternalinformationon this issue to date.Why not provide the existing detailed internal informationjustifying this rate of increaseby say Jan 17? The 6.11% increase is well above the 1.9% rate of inflation for 2019 and follows a trend of the last few years where West Van property tax increases have also been above the rate of inflation. This comes at a time when homeowners are facing a slew of additional taxes including the so called education tax (or better described as a wealth tax). While Mayor and Council tell us they are concerned re housing affordability. Increasing taxes well beyond the rate of inflation hurts affordability. So please explain in detail why DWVneeds a 6.11% increase when inflation is only 1.9%. Although the Mayor says West Van population is declining but Staff want to add 8 new staff (trail maintenance, planning, a business manager and policing) at a cost of nearly $1 millionper year. Read the 2018 Annual Report salary expense summary which has climbed 11.7% in the past 5 years. Please provide a detailed analysis on the need for each of this proposed new staff. And why these new jobs can’t be filledby reallocating FTEs from other under-utilized positions. Thank you s 22(1) West Vancouver L; C