COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE UPDATE TO DECEMBER 6, 2019 (8:30 a.m.)
Referred for Action (1) November 29, 2019, regarding “Rodgers Creek Bylaw Changes Questions and Concerns” (Referred to the Director of Planning & Development Services for consideration and response) (2) December 1, 2019, regarding Leaf Blower Noise Complaint (Referred to the Director of Corporate Services for consideration and response) (3) December 4, 2019, regarding “4175 Burkehikk Place, W.V.” (Referred to the Director of Planning & Development Services for consideration and response) Referred for Action from Other Governments and Government Agencies No items. Received for Information (4) Committee and Board Meeting Minutes – Audit Committee meeting May 13, 2019 (5) 73 submissions, November 17 - December 3, 2019 and undated, regarding Proposed: Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 5044, 2019; Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4985, 2018, Amendment Bylaw No. 5045, 2019; and Phased Development Agreement Authorization Bylaw No. 5041, 2019 (Areas 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek) (Received at the December 3, 2019 public hearing) (6) 4 submissions, November 29 - December 1, 2019, regarding Wireless Technologies (7) 6 submissions, November 29 - December 3, 2019, regarding Proposed Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019 (5776 Marine Drive - Thunderbird Marina) (Received at the December 3, 2019 public hearing) (8) November 30, 2019, regarding “A job well done” (Sidewalk Maintenance) (9) Vancouver Beideng Society, December 3, 2019, regarding “An Invitation to Chinese New Year Celebration Performance on Jan 25 2020 from Vancouver Beideng Society” (10) December 4, 2019, regarding “Climate and the Money Trail - ” (11) North Van Arts, December 4, 2019, regarding “You’re Invited to North Van Arts’ Holiday Open House” (December 12, 2019) (12) HUB Cycling, December 5, 2019, regarding “December Bike Bulletin” (13) 4 submissions, December 5-6, 2019, regarding Proposed Development Variance Permit 18-037 (4358 Ross Crescent) (Referred to the December 16, 2019 council meeting) (14) December 5, 2019, regarding “Rodenticide use and owl poisonings” (15) December 5, 2019, regarding “CBC News : Uber received more than 3,000 reports of sexual assaults in U.S. in 2018”
3965902v2 Received for Information from Other Governments and Government Agencies No items. Responses to Correspondence (16) Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer, November 29, 2019, response regarding “Bylaws are not stopping light from flooding into apartments of the elderly” (17) Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design, December 3, 2019, response regarding “Rodgers Creek Bylaw Changes Questions and Concerns” (18) Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design, December 3, 2019, response regarding “Rodgers Creek and Cypress Village” (19) Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design, December 3, 2019, response regarding “No to Rodgers Creek as proposed” (20) Director of Corporate Services, December 5, 2019, response regarding “2195 Gordon”
3965902v2 (1)
- -Original Message- From: s. 22(1) Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 11:51 AM To: MayorandCouncil
Mayor and Council:
Before you vote, please ask yourself this question: “Do I understand exactly the total impact and details of the proposed changes?”. Ifyou can not answer yes I understand exactly the proposals, then I believe it would be irresponsible of you, dereliction of your fiduciary duty and an abdication of your duties if you vote yes.
I believe there may also be a cause of action against the district of WV because, effectively, by council voting for this proposal, WV is directly or indirectly approving the release of .21 billion cubic feet of CO2 gas into the environment in direct violation of councils own climate emergency declaration which was passed by council and is binding on the district of WV.
I have spent days trying to understand and I continue to be confused about exactly what is being promoted by Mayor and Council (and/or Planning or British PacificProperties). I hope there are no unintended consequences because this is a very complex series of changes made in order to add 491 housing diversification / rental units to this area. It islike the Federal Government introducing sneaky legislation (like for Lavalin) in an omnibus bill designed and intended to confuse WV residents.
I have a series of questions that I would like to have answered by staff before next weeks vote.
Attached are copies of pages taken from the 26 Sep 2019 report from M. McGuire, Manager of Current Planning & Urban design “Council Report”, that contains a series of recommendations. The attached pages are numbered A to 6 and the numbers on the bottom right is the page number of the Council Report.
Except for pages D and E, all other pages are from M. McGuire memo:
The top part of page D is derived from page C and these page D summarizes the currently permitted construction as in square footage and number of units. And then compares this to the proposed square footage and number of units.
This page D, summary is:
My estimated increases are:
1. Carbon Footprint: increase from construction of .21 billion cubic feet of C02. 2. Increase in population: 718 3. Increase in number of vehicles: 445-529; no estimate of the impact on traffic in reports 4. There is NO estimate of the increase in service vehicles traffic nor from construction related traffic 5. No estimate of total new traffic generated directly and indirectly from these additional people at Rodgers Creek
Currently Approved: 1,020,776 sq feet of construction Currently Approved: 493 housing units
Proposed: 1,224,775 sq feet of construction Proposed: 974 housing units
Increase: 203,999 sq feet of construction Increase: 491 housing units
Increase: 20% in sq feet of construction Increase: 98% housing units
Page E is a partial copy of a British Pacific Properties (BPP) marketing/promotional piece.
QUESTION 1: Page F, is the zoning bylaw change. The maximum total floor area column for zoning purposes is 2,079,598 Sq feet of new buildings with maximum of 1,217 housing units.
The “sales pitch to citizens” show a maximum 1.224,775 sq feet of permitted construction. Why is the proposed zoning allowing for up to 2,079,598 sq feet of new construction? Please explain this 70% difference. Similarly for the zoning approved housing units of 1.217 vs the proposed 974 housing units (25% increase in housing units)?
QUESTION2: Page E: BPP notes rezoned plan a total of 1,122,800 sq feet of construction and yet the Council Report shows 1,224,775 sq feet. Why the difference [I assume that the Council Report amounts are “correct” in the sense that is what Council is voting on? Is the difference the possible additional construction on WV owned land in the area?
QUESTION3: Page E: BPP total housing units is for 699 homes and 125 rental units for a total of 824 units. Council Report total is 974 housing units a difference of 150 housing units (possible WV future construction?) What, in fact, is council voting on now in the sense that WV is now legally committed to build a 150 rental units on its property in this area?
QUESTION4. On page B, bottom it states: “A proposed amendment to the Development Procedures Bylaw that would allow form and character development permits within Rodgers Creek to be delegated to the Director of Planning...”. I have searched the WV website for “form and character” and I am unable to find a definition of what this means. Does it mean the Director of Planning has the power to, for example, add 5 stories to buildings without approval of council? Council can legally delegate but not abrogate their responsibilities. Please explain.
QUESTION5. On page B, bottom it states: “A proposed amendment to the Noise Bylaw to allow expanded construction hours in Areas 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek”. Please explain the scope and does this mean residents in the area and along the route will have to tolerate even more noise and inconvenience??
QUESTION6. Has district staff or BPP done/provided a calculation of the carbon footprint on new construction (i.e. carbon footprint up to the date of occupancy permit) of the proposed 203,999 sq feet of new construction (including roads, sewer, water, trail, etc infrastructure)? Ifyes, please provide the calculations. If no, why not?
QUESTION7. Has a calculation been done of the total cumulative carbon footprint from date of occupancy and going forward, say 25 years from all of the people living there including from transportation carbon footprint, infrastructure upgrades, heating, lighting, increase in police, increase in road maintenance, sewer capacity upgrades, etc etc? If yes, what is it and if no, why not?
QUESTION8. What legal defence does the district of WV have to defend itself if council votes yes to this proposal and thereby (possibly) performs an illegal act to permit (directly or indirectly) the release of .21 billion cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere? Voting yes would be a direct violation of its own passed and declared climate emergency resolutions? At best it would make the passing of this complex set of changes to bylaws illegal and unenforceable? Please explain why voting yes to this complex set of proposals is not illegal and/or leave the district WV open to litigation for breaking its own made laws without changing them first?
Thanks s. 22(1) THAT notice Council meeting November
that for THAT
Authorization RECOMMENDATION Bylaw Bylaw
2018” RECOMMENDATiON 2019” Proposed THAT RECOMMENDATION
THAT west section RECOMMENDATION Bylaw September
amendment, THAT RECOMMENDATION report RECOMMENDATION File: Subject: From; Date: November statutory be proposed be proposed be No. No.
proposed vancouver proposed from No. opportunities Chamber, 475 scheduled given read read “Phased 5044, 5045, 12,2019 5045, the 19, of ptember26, notice with Permit19-061(ea6orfly) Rodgers Michelle_MoGuire, Bylaw 1010-20-19-020 12, a a the of 2019, Manager “Development “Official first first “Zoning “Official 2019”, 2019”, 2019” 2019 the
persons, DSTRlCT to Local for Development at be No. for time. time. be scheduled be 6:00 November Creek given at consultation be proposed proposed held 5041,
Community COUNCIL Bylaw Government 750 Community endorsed of 6:00 read organizations, p.m. 17Th Current concurrently 2019 of Areas
& t 2019” Permit p.m. srREEr, No. the a Manager
1010-20-19-061 OF puhUc in Agreement 12, first “Phased “Zoning the as scheduled 4662, 5 Planning in on Plan WEST be Plan
2019 WEST Act. & time. No. sufficient the Municipal meeting. the 6 presented 2VLLANi V,NGOUVER
with of lRezoning Bylaw 2010, and Municipal Bylaw Bylaw
19-061” REPORT at Development proposed Current Authorization and 6:00 the public
authorities, VANCOUVER consultalion Amendment No. No, No. Hall Urban 60 public p.m. he at 19-020 V7V Hall Planning 4985, 4985, meeting. 4662, Official a Council presented 3T3 public in Design hearing Council Agreement the as Bylaw 201 2018, 201b, and for Community Bylaw outlined Chamber, Municipal heating & P purposes Development Urban dated at scheduled Chamber, Amendment Amendment No. Amendment a No. public - 5002, in scheduled Design 5044, Hall the and Ptan 5945151v1 of and for
that 31
32
Area
housing
THAT
5042,
• THAT
•
•
•
a
proposed: This
application
tO
RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION development
No.
RECOMMENDATION Proposed
Subject:
Ficm:
Date:
A
hours
delegated
A
allow
A A
proposed
A
Consequential C
5043,
6,
proposed
reek
report
proposed
new development
rezoning
2018”
Council
proposed
Purpose
the
for
form
in
phased
“Development
2019”
a
District
and
Areas
brings
(Area Michelle
Rodgers
September26,
be
period
zoning
to
and
authorize permits
application
amendment
amendment
read
development
the
“Noise
6
to
5
development
forward
character
amendments
only)
owned
permit
McGuire,
Creek
estabflsh
Director
of
and
a
amendments
In
first
10
Control
the
6
Rodgers
2019
Areas
years.
Procedures
to
parcel,
of
proposing
information
time.
blanager
to
to
District
of amend
development
Rodgers
permit procedures
the
the
5
Planning
Bylaw
agreement
&
to
ensuring
Creek
6
Noise
Development
the
to
o
Rezoning
the
proposal
amendments
Current
Bylaw
enter
No.
Creek,
to
Official
existing
and be
Bylaw
Council
for
4404,
permits
that
for
read
Into
19-020
Ptannng
No.
delegated
Development
for
Community
Rodgers
to
is
a
approved
Procedures
2005,
4940,
a
Rodgers
regarding
could
allow
legal
within
and
first
to
&
Areas
Development
Urban
Amendment
time.
201
agreement form
only
expanded
Creek
Rodgers
Plan
D?
Creek.
7
Services
a
Design
5
be
Dylaw
and
concurrent
Amendment
and
76-079
to
used
character
the
Permit
Creek
enable
construction
6
tor
that
Bylaw
of
for
following
Lot
Rodgers
would
19-061
rental
to
rezonIng
3945151v1
the
11
Bylaw
No.
be
Page
of
is
2 ,
-.
: “ west Oislrict-cwneU pnt) Total (townhouseL Muftiple (apartment Building Building (apartment) Building (apartment) Total Buildingi Lotl4 Area anartment) Lot apartmentL Lot Lot Lot family) Lbts LoL4 Lot Lotl Lot Area Application: Summary: Zoalna: ApplicantfOwner: OCP landscape Project: ot10(oWnjous;,18,O00 13 12 9 2 1 3 A 1 5- (apartment) (apartment) (cluster) c 6— (apartmer Source:
Policy: van lcluster (apartment) (rental to (rental buildings uster) 4 3 2 Buildings J Lot& (single
- couver ______— Architect Parcel
lnlounatien APPENDIX -
j_tso.n.) I 478,176 —______60O 57,600 105,144 105144 105,144 542,500__—. n/a 128,547 n/a 25, FLOOR 91720 87,586 38,086 92,143 FLOOR 4264 provided 672 AREA AR increase Add C03_(Rodgers_Creek) housing) British Policy PWL Rodgers Develooment Rezoning - i-r1—
by B 206 224 Partnership 52 52 16 269 52 n/a ExIsTING 84 n/a 6 38 10 64 4 16 10 37 applicant UL-8 UNITS Pacific UNITS - market in Creek
and PROJECT floor (Rodgers Permit
Properties
1 1 j j12stoy OCP
ISsloreys n/a 3 12 12storys n/a l2storeys storeys 6 3storevs storevs area) n/a n/a 3 6 storeys 12 (tot — storeys and storeys and AreasSand HEIGHT storeys HEIGhT storeis Arendmeni’2o . sale) No. Creek) and 12 10 Ltd. 19-061 add
housing SUMMARY j and 1
I f I
1 I ‘87,586 upto 57600 — 93,500 745M00 36086 109,000 124,575 23,500 34264 102,000 FLOOR 123233 91,720 102,000 3086 32__ 18,000 6 FLooR 21.17 units - 275 AREA AREA and (rental, -—_-—--—-‘— by unIts — decreasing - I PROPOSED1 5 n/a 354 36 of 68 84 98 620 52 - 125 72 16 150 122 10 39 16 iOJ UNrtS seniors UNITS secured - - unit 3934780 . and I 3
rental .1? 12 3stove_ys n/a 14 l6storeys 16 3storeys 12 16 stcrevs 3 3 12 3 6 storeys sizes storays and storeys storeys supportive storeys storeys stoteys storeys storeys stotey’s HEIGHT storeys HEIGHT housing 10 (no C —•
- - 49 ______
Sheetl
19
Rodgers Creek area 5 and 6 I jchanges to: zoning, OCP, an Development Permit L ZZEE core data from page 49 of memo to council from M McGuire Core data in italics; other data calculated or provided by writer [—-—i jSTlNG: Refers to what can be built based on current zoning, current OCP and current Development Pern9its Issued PROPOSED: Refers to what is proposed to be built bsd on changing toning, OCP and Ama 6 DR F Jtir’J jitiExltlNG PROPOSE ROPO ROPOSIu 9oor Area Units sq ! unit Floor Area units q ft/unit - II’rt, iiio Sqfeet sq feet UNITS
Area 5 totals 54Z60O 269 2.017 74660L 62’i 1,204 204,000 351 Area totals —7B.t 478,7iiA 2,135 4l 1M1 —1 i u
Total Rodgers CreeiE “—“ 1,0Qj76 2,071 — f,224jj5 974r 1,257 203,999 481 Percentage Increase in Sq ft& uti ItJ 20% 98% Carbon Footprint from new construction only: Total billion Grams of C02 46 55.3 9.3 Carbon Footprint from new construction only. TotaLbillion cubic feet of C02 89 1.11 ____ - 021 Estimated number of people who willlive %j in new Rodgers Creek development______1,O35 2.1 1,753 1.8 718 69% 4 Guesstimated increase in resident’s only ---1--- ‘t(. vehicles based on .62 cars per person ‘qi per stats BC 1,087 44 69% 1 -.----F--l--it -- - Guesstimated increase in residents only ii vehicles based on 1.1 cars per housing Cp,) unit per stats BC 542; 1,071 529 98% Percentage increase of WV current - population of about 44,900 - residents 2.3i% - j 3.90%; -- — 1.60 . . _. - — . .L.. Guesstimated increase in traffic issues and problems US study estimates .8 times % pop growth increase in traffic issues. le 10% increase in population results in an 8% increase in traffic ii issues/problems -- - 1.84% 3.12% - j1t28%4 Guesstimated increase in traffic issues based on the % increase in vehicles; currently approx 27000 ‘resident” vehicles. 2.38% I 4.03% 1.65% - ——- —1 iesstTmateclincrease in htc1 pollution caused by more vehicles travelling slower. A vehicle travelling at 5 Km/hrpollutes . -.. 5 times more per K. than •avehicle travelling at 50 km/hr. Using factor of 3 7.13%; - -1--- 12.08% -- — - 4.95%
-. - ———I .4 - - - - Carbon Footprint for new construction . excludes appliances, high end construction, new roads, subdivision utilities,storm water management, construction worker traffic emissions, and allC02 released after occupancy permit issued. -- - - L . - -- -. L.
Page I
I
Rodgers
DURA11ON
The COMMUNflYAMEN1fl’
•
rezoning
• •
‘Districts
THE
these
Community
outlined This
A The RODGERS
between
family
Concurrently, 1
on
proposed
and housing
housing remains by than
BACKGROUND
The
2019.
COUNCIL ______
Population:
Avg
Bu!dir:g Compositic: Housing
Green
Total
Floor,,: S
Floor
mIllion
District
Re-secured
NewCACsfrom2Ol9
102,000
the
BPP-owned
total
Area: 6
215-acre
PROPOSAL
rezoning
Home
Public
55%
Buildable
Area
future respectfully.
Space:
lots expiration
Lot
There
Il
Creek
Heights:
adjacent
needs,
is
unchanged,
in
benefits
RI square-feet BPP
11
Land
of
by
Area
Ratio:
valued
to
square-foot West
RentI
Amenity
Hearing
the
neighbourhoods
the
I
CD-3
CAC
and
and
are Rodgers
a
is
Sale:
5
NEEDS I
Lot
an
102,000
expected S
8uiIdei
and land
District Vancouver’s
of
to
package
the
from
at
two
a
II
Appox. 976
buildings 0 additional
12 493
0,8
1,02000sf flMres in
Approved
12
No
$2.86
a
new
6 a
approximately
rental
Contributions
and
has
of
2008
storeys as
District
10-year
to future
Statistics
I FAR
not
additional
Creek
CONTRIBUTION
market
people
ways
rental
expired
Rezoning:
CREEK
undeveloped open
St
square-foot
of
provide PDA
mdudedk,
to
TO
been
to
million. (Net)
homes
1,800sf
to
to
West
reduce
Plan
(max)
be
Village
Area
that
in
the
(1.98 130
secures
Phased
allow
homes; building
greenspace,
2018
with
I
Summary:
HEAR
2008
September
set complete
,‘ 1<
aPP
‘for additional
Vancouver
District
$7.14
and
—8
was
you
PPU)
housing
for
$13
the
Official
home for:
statistica
centre,
agreement:
sale’
rental
tR
Development
both
‘for
76 with
originally
the
can
development
AREAS
million. Approved
YOUR million
7pm
‘:i) of
homes
floor
in
sale’ sizes
above
This
District
2018
remaining
Community
West
1,170
125
diversity
participate:
building housing
while
a
on
buildings
16
14
699
12 125 (0.05 0.85
1,437 (md.
77Acres
Rezoned
on
minimum
area floor
to
rezoning
District-owned
homes
storeys
storeys
storeys—
rezoned
are
$3
and
Vancouver
market
rental
November
INPUT
also
FAR
better
102,000
for
and
people
Agreement
million
is
options.
with
area
proposed
priorities
Proposed
ii:
of
new
Plan and
(Net)
being
protecting
also
—1
(max) homes
is
Plan.
a
of
homes;
5
was
5
meet
also
tram
150
in
(1.74
diverse
rental)
ala
additional
building
sf
buildings
10
better
Area
proposed.
for
()
—3
&
triggered
proposed
homes
years.
and
single-
in
(PDA)
PPU)
Lot
today’s
this
Area
5
more
mix
6
aligns
goals
11.
&
is
6
of
S REZONING features Abow:hightlghted
AboiLA,aan
2. 1.
Fo,mareinfarmtion
Write
Speak:
raising [email protected] more
S to
slender
You your
and Council: in 6
ye#as can elRodgera
budthngs
hand be -
while
Written during
and heard Creek the ,edaced orange
ore
the
by
correspondence located home
represents
adding public sizes.
te
the
your input a east new theJuture
rental
name
period. can
building.
be to
t’pcesa
the
sent (
The speakers new
VHlaae. to:
scheme
FALL
list
2019 or
Zoning
3.1.3 IX
residential
(6)
FATea
I
3.1.2
Area
AREA
Totals
Area
Area
AREA Bylaw
On
(a)
6
5
Lot
5
6
No.
having
888,
‘tot
follows:
Section
603.06
The
31.1,6
rental
11
3.1.1.5
3.1.1.4
4662,
and
11”
Group
,193,201
rows
tenure,
the
44,426
AREA
69,361
4flflcquaromeres
change) MAXIMUM
17A
“Height”
Lot
603.03
means
2010,
for
renumbered
Section
parcel
table
The
shown
accordingly.
After 1,
‘.lfl
12,
Area
I_
New
and
Amendment
square
square
Cluster
Apartment ApaitmenlBuflding
Dwellings
Single
bottom
HOUSING
the the
is I
.r.,:
square
Section
that
is
identifier
amended
below:
amended
for (4)
5
TOTAL
tenure
Westminster
land
t
appears and
rr’
q
the is
and
metres metres
rows
Housing
accordingly.
‘‘lr’frPct
metres
legally
deleted
(1)
9E3
Area
purpose
Building
of
TYPE
Two 030-674-107;
-______
FLOOR
Bylaw
to
(U)
for
as
every
in
(no
add
6
described
renumber
Area
Family
shown
Section
and
District,
in
No,
of
table
a
dwelling
new
subsequent
5,
this 5044,
-.
1
below:
.10.76
[37.19 I
Area
(2),
50.29mandlS
37.19 that
7.6%
MAXIMUM
Plan
224
354
MAXIMUM
DWELLING
subsection:
subsection all
as
unit,
are
subsequent
2019
Lot
appears
6
m
EPP76455,
mp
and
and
and-12
amended
(no
11,
shall
sections
Totals,
12
change)
HEIGHT
District
TOTAL
(6)
change)
in
UNITS
be
storeyc
torcy
Section as
3945119i
sections
and
as
are
in
Lot
the
3
3; 65 ______
Zoning BylawNo. 4662, 2010, AmendmentBylawNo. 5044, 2019 5
PARKINt3RATIO =___
Secured A minimumof 1 parking space per dwelling
Rental I unit Housing Parking designed and designated as visitor parkingthat is equal to at least 10% of the 9 tota’ numberof dwelligpi1s Secure bicyclestorage space shall be provided equivalentto a minimumof 2 (39 I $A) storae spaces per dwellingunit —“
3945119v1 (2)
s. 22(1)
Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)
December 1, 2019
Mayor & Council
District of West Vancouver 750 ;7th Street
West Vancouver, BC V7V 3T3
Dear Mayor and City Council,
s. 22(1) I am following up to a letter which I wrote on behalf of over three months ago. I have not yet received a response from your office. Perhaps my original letter went astray or got misplaced in the filing process, so I am attaching it here for your reference.
s. 22(1) asked me yesterday if I had heard back from City Council and I told her that I had not. She surmised that my letter had gotten lost and asked me to write to you again, so — here we are.
Thank-you in advance for your forthcoming response.
Best regards,
s. 22(1) 1fliii )effe-{
s. 22(1) /1
Vancouver BC s. 22(1) - - August 21, 2019
Mayor & Council District of West Vancouver 750 17tfi Street West Vancouver, BC V7V 3T3
Dear Mayor & City Council:
I am writing on behalf of an elderly relative in the Dundarave area of West Vancouver.
She has been navigating the adjustment to s. 22(1) this summer, and most of this has been fine for her with the exception of a preventable source of regular noise.
s. 22(1) but certain frequencies and decibel levels come through loud and clear — in particular, the loud whine produced by gas powered leaf blowers. She experiences considerable distress when these machines are used in the vicinity and on the grounds by iandscaping workers or maintenance people keeping the area tidy. “Why can’t those lazybones use rakes and brooms like people did back in my day?” she asked me recently. I gently explained that nowadays everyone is under pressure to make money, including garden maintenance companies, and that blowers do the job in a fraction of the time required by manual tools, plus many people aren’t fit enough to safely use old school tools. I promised her I would write to your office and bring this to your attention and offer a constructive solution.
I did a bit of research and it appears that some municipalities ban leaf blowers outright, or at least gas powered ones. Would it be feasible to enact a law that only allowed the use of electric blowers (which are quieter and not as stinky) or — even better — battery operated models that have a maximum output of 65 dB?
s. 22(1) would be pleased to know that my letter was at least acknowledged, so I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
s. 22(1) (3)
From: s. 22(1) I)I?Oyj Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 12:41PM To: MayorandCouncil;Jim Bailey;MichelleMcGuire Cc: s. 22(1) Subject: 4175 BurkehikkPlace,W.V.
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Re: 41 75 Burkehill Place, West Vancouver
s. 22(1) letter dated December 4, 2019 to Mr. Baily cc to Mayor, Councillors and Ms. McGuire of the District office regarding the new building permit application for 4175 Burkehill Place, W.W.eloquently expressed my position and feeling, also.
s. 22(1) s. 22(1) My name is and I live at W.V. I attended the October 7 Council meeting and my impression at the meeting was that when the applicant’ s architect made presentation the District Office was in support of the application. s. 22(1) Such being the case we, with no authority other than the voting right, feel helpless. I appreciate that Councillor Soprovich kindly came to take a look at the site in question and that Councillor Wang courteously responded to my e—mail. However since then nobody from the District Office has gotten in touch with me to hear my side of the story. Here I feel I must repeat what
I said at the Council Meeting:
Can hardship in complying with environmental regulations be used to ignore so blatantly the spirit of zoning codes?
Thank you very much for your attention.
Very truly yours,
s. 22(1)
W.V.
4.
EXCLUSION
3.
2.
1.
Clerk.
Staff:
M. S.
MAY
Committee
Thompson,
Panneton,
90.
THAT
THE
Community
13, It
THAT
RESOLUTION
ADOPTION
circulated.
circulated.
THAT
It
APPROVAL
The
It
CALLTO
was
was
13,
was
N.
(1)
2019,
meeting
COMMUNITY
Leemhuis,
2019
in
Moved
the
(g)
being the
Moved
Moved
THE
MAIN
A
Members:
the
part
OF
Audit
Director,
December
May
ORDER
and
Charter:
CORPORATION
public OF
considered
litigation
PUBLIC
OF
was
FLOOR
of
and
and
and
M.
RE
13,
Committee
a
MINUTES
Chief
AGENDA
called
council Seconded:
Seconded:
Wong.
Seconded:
2019,
interest,
Mayor
EXCLUSION
AUDIT
Legislative
CHARTER
10,
CONFERENCE
or
Administrative
relates
to
potential
2018,
Audit
Absent:
meeting
M.
AUDIT
COMMITTEE
order
meeting
members
MONDAY,
Booth,
OF
Services/Corporate
Committee
Audit
to
OF
t2:02 at
THE
Councillors
litigation
or
COMMITTEE
may
on
Chair;
PUBLIC
is
Committee
Officer;
of
ROOM
DISTRICT
the
one
MAY
be
the
p.m.
MEETING
closed
meeting
basis
Councillors
affecting
or
public
13,
I.
C.
PURSUANT
NORTH,
more
Gordon,
Cameron
MINUTES
2019
of
meeting
OF
to
be
Officer
the
agenda
of
MINUTES
the
the
WEST
excluded
the
N.
following
MUNICIPAL
municipality;
Director,
public
minutes
Gambioli,
and
following:
and
TO
be
VANCOUVER
L.
if s.
approved
P.
from
the
sections
Arthur,
Financial
90
Lambur.
be
W.
subject
and
HALL
part
adopted
Soprovich,
Committee
as
s.
of
of
CARRIED
CARRIED
Services;
93
the
the
matter
39011
as
OF
May
M-1 64v1 (4) (I) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures, and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report]. 93. In addition to its application to council meetings, this Division and section 133 (of the Community Charter) also applies to meetings of the following: (a) Council committees. CARRIED
5. ADJOURNMENT
It was Moved and Seconded: THAT the May 13, 2019, Audit Committee meeting (open session) be adjourned. CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 2:02 p.m. The Committee then proceeded with the closed session.
Certified Correct: s. 22(1) s. 22(1)
Chair Committee Clerk
MAY 13, 2019 AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES M-2 39011 64v1 (5)(1)
From: s. 22(1) IIO-- D1f:jDtI Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 4:41 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1) Subject: How can we coexist with over devolpment
Hello esteemed Mayor and Council of West Vancouver
My name is s. 22(1) and I reside s. 22(1) in West Vancouver.
I wanted to follow up my last letter to you all in regards to the over development on the North Shore. Now more than ever do I understand the need to stop any further development until such a time as our infrastructure is modernized. Today at 3pm traffic on the upper levels was at a stand still. What should have taken 14 minuets took me over 50. That is insane!!! I wasn’t even trying to leave the North Shore. Why do we not have a local bypass to reduce highway congestion. Why do we have traffic crisis everyday on the North Shore? How many times are first responders too late because of traffic?
Well I would like to point out that we are clearly at a point of population and infrastructure saturation and can no longer continue to build until such a time that our roads and other public infrastructure are greatly improved. We need a 3rd bridge crossing, a regional hospital, highways widened, tunnels created under the highway to allow for more North - South flow of and also more bridges going East - West to help improve the traffic flow of the overall community. Also could someone please get the Capilano Bridge fixed. Accidents are almost daily and have been for almost a decade.
It may come as a surprise hut Kelowna has a population of 132,000 people and has a fully equipped regional hospital. By comparison the population of West & North Vancouver is nearly the same yet we suffer through as Lions Gate hospital was built in 1929 and is 91 years old. It has been updated over the years but is in dire need of replacement. It also happens to he the 4th busiest in the province. When will a new hospital he built?
Also: Our Sewage treatment plant was built in 1961 and is 59 years old. The Lions Gate Bridge was built in 1938 and is 81 years old. The Second Narrows was built in 1968 and is 51 years old. The #1 Highway was built in 1941 and is 79 years old. West Vancouver Secondary School was built in 1952 and is 68 years old The average age of WV schools is 55 years old
Our infrastructure is extremely dated built for an era long forgetten and in dire need of modernization. When will that happen? What’s the plan?
Addiotnally:
North Vancouver has 13 recreation centres - 5 public pools and 5 public ice rinks for a population of 82,000.
West Vancouver by comparison is half the size and yet only has 2 recreation centres with only 1 ice rink, and 1 pool for a population of 42,000. Where will all these new family’s go for recreation and why is our community so under served currently’?
Have any of you asked yourself’s what should be the definition of population saturation for our community’? How many more homes can be built before our community suffers irreparably by over development. Why is it that we have no long term vision for our community. Can we not create a plan that spans the whole North Shore?
Please note that I am not against responsible devolvement. But at what point does “responsible” become “irresponsible”? Cutting down large swaths of 70+ year old trees? Development is hands down the single largest producer of pollution in West Vancouver. If you approve further development applications; extra vehicular traffic from building materials and trades coming in by the tens of thousands each year; how will this not cripple this community? Our current roads clearly cannot handle any more development. Also what is going to happen once the new Ferry terminal is built and capacity increased? We need to start looking at the future more critically. British Pacific Properties have owned these lands for $4 years. Clearly they are not rushed. Lets put these projects off for a few years until the crisis on the North Shore are adverted and new infrastructure built.
To continue with business as usual is in my opinion completely irresponsible. We cannot handle more people until more modern infrastructure is built. But first most we need a community plan.
I call on this council, Can someone please put forward a motion to:
1. Create a Citizens Assembly aimed at overseeing the North Shore Municipal Infrastructure and development projects. We need to get the North Shore united in a sustainable plan for the future of our communities. We are far too interconnected to continue to act as independent municipalities. 2. Please also request a sustainahility and livability report that proves we have the infrastructure to move forward with more development before this goes from being a crisis to a catastrophe.
In conclusion: I call on this council to oppose any further densification and or development of Rogers Creek until such a time that all local crisis are resolved and adverted. Aside from Rogers Creek, it is my hope this council will vote against all new developments and further densification in our communities control until such a time that our local infrastructure has been improved to allow for the reasonable livability of the community. Please work on solutions instead of creating more problems by allowing unbridled development while we still can.
Sincerely s. 22(1)
\v\Jq_)+ flCuVC (5)(2)
From: s. 22(1) ObO4 ID1 Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 8:51 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek: Environmental Impact of increasing the zoning and density by permitting construction of 203,999 sq feet building
Mayor & Council,
Below is a question I posed in a prior submission. Because of the delay of the public hearing, I am reminding each of you about the true vote you are casting.
Essentially if you vote YES, then you are approving the release of carbon dioxide and other gasses and particulates into the air and water that will, as an absolute certainty, be emitted during construction. You are knowingly aiding and abetting the destruction of our environment if you vote yes to the Rodgers Creek rezoning, OCP plan changes and increased densification. Rd
Voting NO or against incremental construction of 481 housing units will not harm our environment nor will it violate any current contracts (like issued development permits). It will challenge your belief systems about the destruction of our environment in exchange for any type of housing unit. There are many vacant housing units in Canada. Rather than destroy our environment, encourage people to move to vacant housing units located elsewhere in BC or Canada.
It follows, if you truly believe we have a climate emergency, then you should not approve or vote yes for any new high density new construction in WV — ever.
Thanks,
s. 22(1) (5)(3)
From: s. 22(1) 10 -C) Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 11:53 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rogers Creek Area Zoning 5&6
Importance: High
Good morning,
I am in favor of the areas 5&6 proposal.
Thank you
s. 22(1) s. 22(1)
s. 22(1) West Vancouver, BC, s. 22(1) (5)(4)
From: s. 22(1) -D - 5O Sent: Friday, November29, 2019 1:33 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek Rezoning
Mayor and Council
I am writing to support the rezoning of Rodgers Creek Areas 5 and 6.
British Properties has been taking a forward looking view in their recent developments. As they have the right to develop with the area limits described under the existing zoning, it makes so much more sense to allow them to develop for sale the same built-up area with a greater number of units of smaller size. This is exactly what West Vancouver needs. With our aging population we need to enable younger people and families to live in West Vancouver. The addition of a rental building also makes sense with our current dismally low rental vacancy rates.
I applaud British Properties for the sustainable building initiatives that they are proposing. This fits well with the objectives of your recent prudent Declaration of a Climate Emergency. In this vein I hope that Council will ensure a higher energy step code level is required than under current by-laws. And I hope that Council will also insist that the buildings in the development meet your own Sustainable Buildings Policy.
It is encouraging to see that British Properties is prepared to be more visionary with its development proposals and more in line with Council’s own policies including the OCP and the Community Energy and Emissions Plan.
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver s. 22(1) (5)(5)
- From: s. 22(1) Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 4:29 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek
Please allow British Properties to increase density in the Rodgers Creek areas 5 and 6 Those areas need way more density. As a realtor Ifind that my clients would like to have options to the very expensive real estate down by the water. If there was life up there they would certainly consider buying . The people lead by s. 22(1) are not properly informed on this issue. s. 22(1)
Sent from my iPad s. 22(1) \j,4 onco’\jc, s. 22(1) (5)(6)
((jLy5 From: s. 22(1) IbL
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 5:30 PM V
To: V MayorandCouncil Subject: BBPRogers creek development
I am a long time West Van resident; generally I support increased density in our community but I DO NOTsupport tearing down trees and disturbing all that lives in the NS mountains so that rich investors can buy luxury homes in the forest (though many buyers will probably not even live here - but the trees, plants and animals will not return). I don’t want increased traffic on our roads nor the chaos and pollution that results from burning fossil fuels.
BPP must not be allowed to rip up and destroy any more of our mountains; they “own”, the land, but did anyone consult the people living here in the 1920 - 30’s if they agreed with the sale of such a huge swath of the NSmountains? I doubt it.
s. 22(1)
WQ-t cncLNe( (5)(7)
From: s. 22(1) lb10- -50 L )5o Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 9:56 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: RE:Rogers Creek Areas S & 6 Rezoning
To Mayor and Council,
s. 22(1) As a resident of West Vancouver, Iwould like to register my approval for the rezoning application as submitted. An Increase in density and protection of additional “greenspace” Is the best option, as an Integral part of the wholistic Village concept, amenities and transit improvements envisioned for the upper lands community.
Best regards,
s. 22(1) (5)(8)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2079 8:51 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council,
Living in close proximity to the 752 Marine Drive Project by Larco Development, Iwould like to remind Mayor and Council of the earlier development applications relative to this project!
After a long approval process, (six years ), and a request by Mayor and Council to reduce the height in order to seek FINALapproval, the developer was required to reduce the ORIGINALheight of the two towers, from 24 and 19 floors, to 14 and 11 floors! This was eventually approved to a maximum height of 14 and 11 floors. Recently, an amendment application has been received by Council (proceeding to public hearing) to add FIVEadditional floors to each of these towers, which subsequently WAS NOTAPPROVEDby THE MUNICIPAL PLANNINGDEPARTMENT. We have a similar “smoke and mirrors” project situation looming at Rogers Creek with higher density being sought. What is lacking here is infrastructure planning with regard to traffic at the ultimate destination of all those vehicles, Taylor Way and Marine Drive. Talk about putting “the cart before the horse”! Council is once again increasing the traffic madness at this junction! AND NO SOLUTIONS,NOT EVENSIMPLEONES!
SAYNO TO THIS INCREASEDDENSITYAT ROGERSCREEK!
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver,8.C.
Sent from my iPad (5)(9)
From: s. 22(1) OO-L- I5OH Sent: Sunday, December 1,2019 11:39AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: support for PROPOSED BYLAWCHANGESTO AREAS5 AND 6 OF RODGERSCREEK importance: High
Sunday December 1, 2019 To District of West Vancouver mayor and council:
I am writing to express my strong support for PROPOSEDBYLAWCHANGESTO AREAS5 AND6 OF RODGERS CREEK.
My understanding is the British Properties developers have already received approved existing zoning for the site. The proposed bylaw change provides for:
• additional available living units due to lowering unit size from 1800 to 1170 square feet, with same building footprint in place. • increased tree retention due to scale back of unit-sizing. • addition of one high rise rental. • Council adherence to their stated intention of dealing with climate emergency. This action provides high density housing with efficient step code building plans in place.
Council, Ithank you for your past consideration of the climate emergency and implore you to take this concrete action whereby your actions match your stated intention of dealing with the world’s climate emergency - this is under the Council’s control and you have already recognized the need !!
Sincerely, s. 22(1)
North Vancouver, BritishColumbia s. 22(1) (5)(10)
From: s. 22(1) )M0>50uI4(SOttS Sent Sunday,December1,2019 5:02PM To: MayorandCouncil
Mayor and Council.
With the topographyof West Vwicouverwe have very real transportationissues. Our municipalplanners (especiallyour municipalchief engineer, I cannot use his namebecause it is apparentlyabuse), along with provincialI federalgovernmenthave provenunable to deal with our traffic and transportationissues. Nothing of any merithas been done to improveour roadwaysto and from the city, highway accessor even arteries in West Vancouverin the pact40 years. Our transportationengineer, alongwith TransLinkare actuallydoing their best to “trafficcalm” and make it harder to get around.
Most cityplannersnow have a conceptof makingroadwaysfor bikes and buses and want us out of our cars. This works well in downtownVancouverbut it will never work forWest Vancouver. Once Craig Cameron, mayor Booth andTransLinkunderstandthis and we can look intorealisticways to move in, around and also out of our communityto Vancouverand beyondwith cars then maybe we can look at in. We live in a communitythat due to topographyand design forthe most partneedcars to get around. Saying no to the additionalunits at Rodgerscreek and Gatewaywill add pressureon our counciland provincialgovernments to act and work on our transportationissues. MaybeBPP canjoin forceswith WVCSon this issueand work for the future.
The B-Linewas nosolution at all and showedus how, quite frankly ignorantand the lack of abilityto solve our transportationissues,TransLinkand the district are.
Unless thereis pressure from council.our MLA and maybewith BPPand Larco’s helpnothingwill happen in regardsto transportationon the north shore. Stoppingfuturedevelopmentuntil there is a change in our transportationsolution is the only way to force. Addingthe nearly500 more homes to RodgersCreek offers little to no solutionsto West Vancouverçnd only serves to make BPP money. Let’s solve the issues wehave and then work to have the Cypress villagebecomea reality, if no transportationsolution is madethen Cypress village, CypressWest, Uppercampus and EagleridgeBluffs will not becomea realitybecause adding 10,000 cars won’t work withthe infrastracturewe have. For now we must all say no to the increaseof density at Rodgerscreek and push for better transportationfor the northshore.
Regards s. 22(1) s. 22(1) West Vancouver (5)(11)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 9:02 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek
Dear Mayor and Council, I have been s. 22(1) or so and and I understand that the deadline for public comments on the proposed additional development of Rodgers Creek is tomorrow.
I will be brief. I am totally opposed to the proper additional development of Rodgers Creek for the following reasons, among others:
1. Climate change
This Council has gone on record to take a stand to combat climate change. The District’s website states “Tackling climate change requires a range of actions—to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and also to prepare for the impacts that it will bring to the District.”
It is sheer hypocrisy of this Council to even consider the additional development proposal of Rogers Creek since this development, increasing the West Vancouver population by 25%, will increase the carbon-emitting traffic circulation and add to the existing carbon-emitting traffic congestion.
Furthermore the construction itself, materials and carbon-emitting trucks and other vehicles, will further add to GHG emissions.
2. Housing Density
Additional housing density in the Rodgers Creek location is logically counterproductive. Any housing density should be located near to transportation hubs.Asyou surely must know, Translink has reported on this location: “For these reasons Metro Vancouver does not consider the Cypress Village and Cypress West planning areas to be good locations for focusing trip generation multi-family growth and development.”
The Rodgers Creek proposal flies in the face of the Council’s own expressed preference to locate additional housing near transportation hubs such as Park Royal.
The Council’s willingness to even entertain the possibility of additional housing units at Rodgers Creek is Alice in Wonderland thinking. Lastly, why is the Council yet again countenancing developers’ requests to amend previously approved construction? For residents of our community it smacks of Council kowtowing to developers interested in maximizing their profits, rather than listening, and being responsive, to residents who live here and pay taxes to maintain this community.
Council has a duty to answer these questions before making any decision on such developer requests. Sincerely,
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) Sincerely While While the application community. While look on application, construction village with staff date. To The I the of living affordability you opportunity main sized” In Attention homes product To: Subject: buildable Sent: I From: appreciate am order housing political properly developer ability for servicing forward writing a and Village in it I at developer homes based .22(1) s. will am consideration. the is for mix this the square most Mayor to types aware only positioning. and West area. evaluate the I for to changes component, in methods rezoning to Design suggest utilize community of .22(1) s. for and West you often make hearing the opportunity enhance this than footage who Booth people Vancouver that This the today a entire , hillside Review Vancouver, this out that very West easy the currently stage has such there planners critical I and of have to this such of and rezoning is to decisions in consistently significant community a to Vancouver as rent not necessity, site some Committee, District positive provide certain to are to development be it reviewed mass mass as provide increasing exist is be to is or individuals a and this important of dramatically naysayer, FW: MayorandCouncil Monday, further a proposal purchase. that equation timber Council cases complete outcome my h concepts the in amount I viable, strongly and to Rodgers been the my the are thoughts there be these engage from it and input District, as submission, and December in it truly a Council to it is is of Any good must part that the community is is my support more keep also traditional Creek the groups protestations CAC critical sufficient on affordable and in are firm time best of will and be corporate previously directly this has a this contributions expensive the Public support not detailed 2, considered allow .22(1) s. belief interest that within a to the and a matter, 2019 in overall plan fully responsibility in have time wood mind Rodgers linked approach. Hearing perhaps a the this that 8:15 are citizen highly the requires for approved discussion resolved, than of to sufficient and evolution future, frame as project the having less the community in make to AM derived you Creek challenging the while other the to the Rodgers entire about revision (for achieve deliberate to it sure overall during to plan, most viability more “body on will of critically I locations project from begin lower am good community, the West all who which Reed important Creek diversity to the unable context that these heat” the task. possibilities of moving buildings) meet planning represents on Vancouver. are analyze review to providing project in goal. will Rezoning h matter. the items in have Having vehemently the to current in of terms provide metric
not ibIo-O-%tfjl3oc forward. make both the lower process principles the significantly to in are of just said an transit this truly proposal masterplan of facts the using it market is dealt opportunity mainland, many special to the that that, In part with opposed sizes impact the order surrounding services alternate and number with. the more of this needs, which both more Public interest and (5)(12) more the including overall to the making Council I to “right types encourage to Planning make at of diversity is the Hearing, this issue focused work a before people groups. this later of the a has the of I (5)(13) -,1c-!3o From: s. 22(1) (o Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:53 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Public Hearing Rogers Creek Areas 5 & 6 Rezoning Application
Dear Mayor and Council,
As a residence of West Vancouver and someone who cares and is passionate about this community, wish to support this rezoning application and highlight some of the facts that I believe are important to remember as you vote.
As you may have already read the Vital Signs research conducted and published by the Foundation this year, Using tenses of belonging, liveability and welcoming, the 2019 Vital Signs Report examines key factors that are critical to ensuring a healthy and vibrant West Vancouver where everyone is valued, contributes and feels they belong. Some of the hallmarks of a liveable community are: • A clean, healthy environment, and access to green spaces and parks • A built environment that is designed for residents of all ages and stages • Ease of mobility — walkability, access to public transit, bike lanes and well managed traffic and roads • Safety and security • Access to recreational opportunities • Welcoming community spaces where people can connect
Without going into too much details, I believe the rezoning of this project will benefit our community on various levels. I s. 22(1) have , Iwant to continue to live and contribute to this community. We need more diverse housing options, more rentals and places where younger families can move into.
This rezoning application represents a significant shift away from the large-scale single family homes traditionally built by the British Pacific Properties to smaller homes with smaller footprints, which I believe is very positive and important.
I encourage Council to make a choice for West Vancouver’s future. To quote from the 2019 Vital Signs report and a West Vancouver resident and philanthropist, “If we do not create housing for the next generation, will we by default, give away our community to those who have a different understanding of what community is or can be?”
With warm regards,
s. 22(1) West Vancouver resident; s. 22(1) (5)(14)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 1:23 PM To: MayorandCouncil
Subject: I support the the Rezoning of Areas 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek
Mayor and Council Members
I am writing in support of the rezoning of Rodgers Creek Area 5 & 6.
The developers are now understanding how they must support the climate emergency by increasing density, using sustainable practices and saving trees in the process.
I look forward to the Council supporting these changes in the bi-law for Area 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek.
Sincerely
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC
) - (5)(15)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 2:11 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1) Subject: STOP increasing the number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Madame Mayor and Council,
We are writing to you as s. 22(1) residents of West Vancouver.
The increases proposed for the Rodgers Creek development should NOT be approved. Traffic and congestion on roads and bridges in our municipality are already out of control. Other infrastructure is overloaded. And today’s problems do not even take into account projects currently under development in West Vancouver and other areas on the North Shore. There is no justification for this relentless approval of new developments which are negatively affecting the quality of life of West Vancouver residents.
Yours truly, s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) (5)(16)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 2:38 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Jim Bailey Subject: Public Hearing, December 3, 2019 - Areas 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed rezoning for Areas of 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek to allow for an increase in maximum height and number of residential units, an increase in density for rental units, and to secure community amenity contributions, as well as green building and adaptable housing commitments.
s. 22(1) In my volunteer work in West Vancouver, I have been engaged in our
I have attended numerous District open houses, public hearings, and focus groups on community issues. I have met with District staff and local developers to fully understand projects. I believe that to have an opinion on
District issues, one should be well informed and one should know the facts. I listen to different views, but filter them with my own experience. In summary, I do my own homework.
Based on my research, my support for this project is reflected in the following four areas:
1. Energy Emissions — as a responsible municipality who recently declared a Climate Emergency, your most important obligation today is to decarbonize all energy uses in our community as quickly as possible. Where full decarbonization is not possible, decisions should be made to minimize energy emissions, to mitigate, and to allow for future solutions to be implemented throughout a project.
At the public hearing on December 3Id, BPP is proposing changes to their approved plans for Areas 5 and 6. Council invited BPPto work with staff to evolve their plans to meet today’s housing and environmental realities - this they have done. BPP has committed to the approved level of BCEnergy Step Code and in many ways goes beyond. They offer leading edge technology to minimize energy emissions, including a commitment to 100% fuel switching for renewable energy heating and hot water, largest array of photovoltaic panels on the North Shore, passive solar design, natural cross ventilation, on-site milling and use of timber, habitat enhancement, as well as consideration of Mass Timber construction.
Can this project do more today to minimize their energy emissions? Innovations are appearing daily with the intent to keep our global temperatures below 1 32 degrees. New energy efficiency options could include sewage waste heat recovery, geo-exchange, onsite energy generation such as run-of-river energy, and development of a
repair/reuse/fix it/sharing facilities. I believe that as Area 5 and 6 is built out, BPPcould consider adding more carbon friendly innovations; certainly, as BPPevolves their planning towards Cypress Village, all of these options, and more, will and must be considered.
2. Expanding housing diversity — We know that West Vancouver is ina housing crisis, that we need different kinds of housing beyond the single family home. We know we need housing options for downsizers, for young professionals, and for families. This rezoning does not change the ‘for-sale’ floor area but does offer more, smaller units. This proposal also offers purpose-built rental housing which is badly needed in our comrrcunity over the time frame of this build. Let’s also remember that this land was originally zoned in the 1930s for single family houses BPP has chosen to move away from this model, has worked to meet community needs, to r: minimize loss of trees and, let’s not kid ourselves, to maintain a viable business.
— 3. Transportation — Land use planning is one of the most effective ways a municipality can impact energy emissions
— by encouraging and supporting concentrated housing choices that cluster in villages supported by transportation options. This proposal for Areas 5 and 6 meets all current requirements for offers bicycle parking and EVcharging infrastructure and vehicle parking. Equally important is the infrastructure planned to encourage active transportation including walking and biking; in time, this will include easy access to the proposed Cypress Village. Supported by TransLink, a transit plan will be in place and phased to grow as needed. Allof these features create co-benefits for our community-- healthier residents and cleaner air.
Ifurther suggest that all West Vancouver developments should not only produce a walk score, they should also calculate a bike score, an electric bike score, and a transit score. This would encourage consideration of all forms of active transportation by developers and consumers.
4. Environment— historically, BPP has built single-family homes on Y2to 1 acre lots leaving about 10% of the 2’ or 3rd growth trees. Today, BPPoffers more clustered, multi-family units with the ability to leave almost 60% of the lands as protected green space. Full consideration is given to the use and milling of cut trees on site, and to enhance local habitat for wildlife. As with all of the developments in the Rogers Creek zone, this project also reflects the natural environment protection with consideration for steepness of slope, integration of building design into the surrounding topography, site sensitive build form, as well as adding street trees, wetland features, and green spaces between buildings. Water use is considered with the use of native plantings, thereby minimizing the use of irrigation over the long term.
Finally, it is important to consider the proponent of this project and their history in West Vancouver. This is a long-term partnership with a long-term property owner in West Vancouver — who has the interests of West Vancouver in their minds while maintaining a successful business. BPPis not a ‘one-of’ developer who builds, sells and then leaves our community. BPPhave been in West Vancouver for over 85 years — they will be here for many more years — their buildings will be standing for the next 50 to 100 years. It is my observation that BPP listens to the needs of our residents and our community, and they respond to these needs—I see it in the design of their housing (smaller unit sizes, more rentals), their energy efficiencies (removal of natural gasfrom new builds, consideration of on-site powerfrom solar to run of river,),their protection and enhancement of green space, their approach to transportation issues (providing private bus service), their plans for an ‘upper village’ which will encourage shorter commuting for good and services as well as active transportation options from walking to biking to busing.
After a great deal of homework, meetings and questions, I respect and support the staff recommendation for proposed rezoning for Areas of 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek and that the Public Hearing be closed. The final decision is now Council’s
— I respectfully hope that your decisions are well informed. I hope that Council reflects on the current OCPwhich was a two-year exercise by staff and residents to define the community residents want — to create our community vision — to create a cohesive view of our community supported by the 1,000’s who attended endless meetings to provide their thoughts and opinions. I hope that today’s decision does not respond solely to a very loud minority ‘yelling’ untruths. I hope that Council decisions today are made for the long term and are made for the majority of residents who participated in the OCP process.
Today, Climate Emergency is our new reality. A responsible development will produce energy efficient buildings, will produce housing to bring our employees back to West Vancouver to minimize our traffic challenges, will respect and enhance the local environment, and will work closely with District staff to find the best solutions. We don’t have time to waste — we need the right decision now — we need drastic action now.
Thank you,
s. 22(1) WV (5)(17)
From: s. 22(1) - d.c)-MLtitULtL5 Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:48 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: support for the rezoning application for Areas 5 and 6 at Rodgers Creek
Dear Mayor Booth and Council,
As someone who lives and works in West Vancouver, Iam writing to express my written support for the rezoning application for Areas 5 and 6 at Rodgers Creek.
In discussions I have learned that this proposal is aligned with the District’s new OCP,which recognizes the importance of creating housing opportunities for the “missing middle”, there is no additional ‘for sale’ floor area, more than 58¾ of land is protected green space and the project will deliver more than $13 million in community amenity contributions. These are all amazing reasons to approve it.
As well, looking forward as a father s. 22(1) who have been raised in this community and love this community and would want to live her one day, Ithink it’s great that rental housing is now being proposed for Rodgers Creek. We need better housing options to allow up and coming families an opportunity to live in West Vancouver.
s. 22(1) As a person who has been in the industry for most of my career, Iam aware that building affordable housing opportunities in West Vancouver will actually decrease traffic, rather than add to it. The gridlock we see is party because we lack housing options for people earning moderate incomes in DWVand as a result, our roads are becoming more and more crowded with commuter traffic. As well, younger individuals who are more likelyto rent or live in smaller houses are much mote likelyto take transit and will increase the ridership necessary to justify more service from Translink.
Mayor Booth and Councillors, please vote in support of advancing this application coming before you for formal consideration tomorrow evening.
Thank you,
s. 22(1)
s. 22(1) Yours cars. traffic West Subject: First To: Dear Sent: From: improve Mayor Van sincerely is .22(1) s. impossible residents and the Council infrastructure already, have .22(1) s. , West had Vancouver. and enough. with this STOP MayorandCouncil Monday, will more You increasing make are bridges December ruining it much number and .22(1) s. our 2, worse. better 2019 way of Rodgers 3:51 roads. No of life more PM Don’t by Creek developments. adding even units yet think more about No buildings more adding high to more our rise town. people buildings.
(5)(18) 1E The and - West Sincerely, Vancouver traffic any we over until multi-family children We demands We To: Sent: population Subject: Dear From: .22(1) s. have live are plan the the Madame Vancouver, situation writing in toi’from current first past been on the to of growth .22(1) s. all for 8 the West Upper driving Mayor to years. is infrastructure, traffic a school BC Lion’s already you better Vancouver and Caulfeild the and with On congestion Gate development, road! highway untenable many Council concerns Bridge area but by transportation occasions, approximately Members, Monday, Rogers MayorandCouncil from especially problem and or and regarding s. 22(1) West especially use Caulfeild the Creek! we December the is Van proposal roads resolved. have system, the highway Cypress 10,000. waterfront, to near proposed and simply to 2, the is transportation. 2019 multiple increase irresponsible. Project With s. 22(1) highway, turned .22(1) s. Rogers the 3:52 this s. 22(1) s(British traffic times traffic around PM increased will Creek! and daily We has increase volume Pacific and down began Cypress are become to population returned get opposed Properties) throughout the traffic school to! Projects main increasingly from even home. to s. 22(1) will thoroughfares expanding V West work
which IOD-O)o%b more of V Generating course and congested, V and Vancouver, unreasonably. aim in to these come s. 22(1) to of , take increase (• even West (5)(19) particularly initiatives increased years our without 4 mote The .. , the that To: Subject: From Sent: Do It I Dear From: and is not time Mayor my ipad destroy .22(1) s. to husband of halt and our and Council are neighbourhoods consider totally .22(1) s. opposed lying STOP MayorandCouncil Monday, term and to increasing effects. keep the December ever adding increasing number to .22(1) s. 2, the 2019 of cost development Rodgers 4:14 of PM all our Creek services. which units will cause 1b1oDo15ô4 long term congestion (5)(20) in area. (5)(21)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 4:28 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Support for the rezoning application for Area 5 + 6 in Rodgers Creek
Mayor and Council,
Thanks you in advance for taking the time to read my comments concerning the above. As a Homeowner in West Vancouver and someone that cares deeply about the future of our community I’m in full support of the application submitted. I recognize that change is difficult for many, especially in an established community like West Vancouver, but to look forward and protect our community we need to embrace gradual change.
Part of the change needed in our community is the approval of new housing forms in the appropriate areas. The current lack of supply of new rental housing has a negative impact on our social fabric, limits the diversity of our population, and negatively impacts employee attraction and retention. Rental Housing is the only answer to address these issues. I was delighted to see 125 new purpose built rental homes included in the application. This is what our community needs. Without this housing our community will continue to move backwards and not forward. Gone are the days of “affordable” real estate in West Van. We must supplement our housing stock with rental housing.
I’m always happy to see significant community amenity contributions come into our community. I trust in you, our Elected Officials to allocate these funds in a manner that provides optimal benefit to our community.
Change most effects people in the present, hut it’s critical to implement the right change to ensure our future. Personally and professionally I’m confident this housing will help the future of West Vancouver. It’s a step in the right direction.
I’m always a phone call or e-mail away if you wish to discuss this further.
Thanks again for your consideration.
All my best,
s. 22(1) West Van)
s. 22(1) (5)(22)
From: s. 22(1) Io - O ¶O4 / Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:20 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
I s. 22(1) s. 22(1) am and not able to attend council meeting. I live on . I have a great deal of concern about what appears to be massive development changes above the Highway. The current infrastructure will not support this level of population increase. This proposal should be rejected in my opinion. Thank you s. 22(1) Sent from my iPhone
s. 22(1) (5)(23) \b(O-o-LLf From: Graham Mclsaac s. 22(1) /4J Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:21 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; BillSoprovich; Craig Cameron; Mary-Ann Booth; Nora Gambioli Subject: NO to Rodgers Creek Development
Unfortunately I am unable to attend the public hearing on Tuesday December 3 due to the short notice of the change in date of the hearing. I am sorry not to be able to address you all in person.
I have great respect for BPPand their contribution to our Community over many years. Their shareholders of course have also benefitted significantly from development in West Vancouver.
My own conclusion after reading the materials related to the current proposal fon the DWVwebsite, the WVCSwebsite and correspondence to Council from residents) is that this project should be turned down for the following reasons:
A) Iam unsure there is a real proper local area plan for these lands or that the affected communities have been adequately consulted. This and future Cypress Village developments will impact West Vancouver and all residents for decades to come.
B) I remain to be convinced that West Vancouver requires more density or that is what the residents and taxpayers of West Vancouver wish. West Vancouver already has 1,700 empty homes. There are already a number of major developments under construction that will add both strata condominiums, town homes and rental units to the current stock of available units for sale and for rent and more that are being proposed. There is also a large unknown as to what the Squamish Nation plans to build on their lands in Ambleside where significant leased and rental units could be added south of Park Royal.
A recent survey by a highly respected pollster showed that 67% of residents do not support increased population and density and consider that traffic gridlock is the number one concern of residents. The traffic gridlock is also a significant issue for our businesses.
I have heard a number of residents and Councillors refer to the poll as not being representative- if any of you believe that please share with the residents your own poll or how you arrived at that conclusion?
C) The proposed development seems to be ill placed-” Metro Vancouver does not consider Cypress Village and Cypress West planning areas to be good locations for focusing trip- generating multi-family growth and development.”
My understanding is that Translink also has no plans to provide transit to this area. The only planned public transportation is that being provided by the developer but the scale and frequency of such service is still to be determined. Clearly even with the developer provided transit residents would have to make multiple trips by car in any event.
D)“Climate Emergency”- I personally think that declaring such an emergency may have sounded good to some in and outside our Community but achieved and will achieve little.
Global Climate Change is real but what we in West Vancouver do or don’t do will make no difference to what is a Global issue. We as individuals and a Community though should take reasonable and responsible steps to reduce air pollution and protect our environment.
Where I ask does this huge construction project which involves pouring much concrete and removal of mature forest fit into such a Climate Emergency agenda- never mind the added automobile and truck trips such a development will add during and after construction? This seems to me hypocrisy- if you did indeed believe that we have a Climate Emergency in West Vancouver you would seriously question this whole development.
E)We actually do have a very current emergency- a “Traffic Emergency”- this is the number one concern of your
residents and I ask what steps you all are taking to address this serious issue?
We are all only too aware of the gridlock on our roads on the North Shore- particularly on the upper levels highway and our bridges to and from the North Shore. It seems highly irresponsible to continue to add population and density to the
North Shore (and perhaps additional B.C.Ferries) without having a serious traffic management plan including additional lanes on our bridges and improved transit. The proposed Rodgers Creek and Cypress Village Developments will add more automobile trips (and construction traffic) to roads that are already beyond the tipping point.
So please vote this proposal down on Tuesday night and before bringing any major developments forward provide residents with a proper short, medium and long term traffic management plan for the North Shore that demonstrates improved future traffic flows to what is clearly an unacceptable situation.
Please do not tell me that this is beyond your powers- if you work as a united group with the MLA’son the North Shore, the MP’s and your fellow Mayors you can successfully focus Translink plans and attention to the North Shore. Just saying NO to Rodgers Creek will get their attention!!!
Leadership is required . Ithink a starting point is for our Mayor to actually sit on Translink Mayor’s council as opposed to a Councillor fas currently) as a signal of how important this traffic emergency is to residents of West Vancouver.
Respectfully submitted,
Graham Mclsaac s. 22(1) West Vancouver, s. 22(1)
There is no need to redact my name (5)(24)
From: s. 22(1) lbIO(> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:31 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council
write a brief note in your words
Further Northshore housing developments of all sorts should be restricted until planning and development of roads, bridges and/or tunnels is in place. Where and when to build should only develop once the lack arterial traffic facility’s establishes proper location and is underway.
Yours truly,
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC
Sent from my iPad (5)(25)
From: s. 22(1) ibiD- o- Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 6:19 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Upcoming Meeting December 3 2019
Dear Mayor and Council;
Once again I am writing to express my concern and deep dissatisfaction regarding your decisions for development in the
District of West Vancouver. I would like to point out the following: -The overdevelopment of neighbourhoods, and aggressive densification you are planning is disrespectful to the
residents and environment of the district. I have no idea why there needs to be such rash and rapid development except to maybe ease North Vancouver’s overflow, but more likely money, money, money! I’m also wondering how the civilworkers “priority” will work. Rental only while working in the district, seems the only fair policy, but I’d like to see that in writing. -Not providing more adequate roadways to accommodate the extra car traffic. Ifyou believe we will all be walking, cycling and using our abysmal public transportation... with all due respect, wake up! With the topography of the North Shore and lack of transportation, it is completely irresponsible not to have solid infrastructure plans in place well before granting permits. -Not insisting on adequate underground or surface parking for all of these housing units is another example of council’s poor judgement. Clearly developers love this, as it lets them off the hook for the financial costs of providing adequate parking. I don’t believe that you have the ability predict that the future owners will not have cars. ... if you think you do, dust off your crystal ball. Once again you have raised the ire of many residents who would not normally voice opposition, like myself. Yours truly s. 22(1)
West Vancouver s. 22(1) Sent from my iPhone ©
Sent from my iPhone © (5)(26)
-‘3O-jLj From: s. 22(1) - O )L4L Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 6:21 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek Rezoning Areas 5 and 6
Dear Mayor and Council
s. 22(1) As a resident in the Rogers Creek area I am shocked about the potential change in the zoning for this Area. We made a very conscious decision to move to this area and studied the Community Plan before purchasing in the area. The lower density, being close to the Forest and Nature were important considerations. To now have this threatened is disconcerting. The downside to living in Rogers Creek is that there are zero services. Residents need to go up and down 15th and 21St Streets to access shopping, restaurants or drive out to Caulfield. Transit is not a viable mode of transportation on a hillside.The congestion on these routes are getting progressively worse. How willthey handle even the currently approved density let alone the increase that is being proposed? When are some services coming-better to develop the Village first.
It seems that developers feel that the door is open for density rezoning which is against Community Plans. Polls are pointing that citizens are not in favor of rapid development-especially high density development. The offset that seems to be the negotiating point is how much is the developer willing to pay into CAC that is negotiated behind closed doors.. Why should this be the justification? From what I have seen this money often gets misspent and we end up with more Publicly owned buildings that we need to maintain, more staff,then more taxes... I also know first hand that the District has required BPP to build public boulevards along Chippendale. These gardens have been totally neglected weed infested eye sores-not enough money in the parks budget to have them maintained.
I am sure the other argument will be that the increased density will make the units more affordable-what will be the pricing of these units-certainly 7 figures and do you really think that this is an attractive area for younger families with zero services?
I sincerely hope that the Council realizes that the Community wants to preserve its unique character and to move forward with lower impact development that is supported with infrastructure that works.
Thank you s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, B.C. s. 22(1)
;..r 4 .,,., A. ‘‘ (5)(27)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 6:52 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creekand CypressVillage
Dear Mayor and Council,
I strongly oppose any further additions to housing units at Rodgers Creek and Cypress Village. The congestion on Highway 1 is now becoming a life changing daily issue that is sadly eroding our quality of life in West Vancouver. We already have to contend with year on year increases to the ferry traffic at Horseshoe Bay, increases to the millions of visitors using the Highway each year to visit Whistler and Squamish, we have thousands of residential units and hotel rooms planned for Porteau Cove, Furry Creek and Britannia Beach as well as the Westbank development in Horseshoe Bay. In addition to the development planned for the Sea to Sky, we also have increasing populations on the Sunshine Coast, Pemberton, Squamish and North Vancouver who all need to use the highway, many commute each day. The fact that we are geographically challenged in West Vancouver is not going to change, so please, as temporary caretakers of our amazing community, protect the longterm future of West Vancouver and say no BPP.
Kind regards
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver (5)(28)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:09 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council Do not vote to increase the number of units at Rodgers Creek - the residents of West Vancouver do not want the detrimental effects on their community that it would have - and we would like to be listened to. s. 22(1)
write a brief note in your words
Sent from my iPad s. 22(1) Sent Sincerely them doesn’t without To: Please, Subject: Sent: Please Dear From: from Mayor .22(1) s. all explain consider solve any aside my and consideration anything. iPad your the Council use logic full them Just picture. for for I sticking the the You relentless infrastructure STOP MayorandCouncil Monday, your have increasing heads some need December in fully for required the number building, .22(1) s. qualified sand 2, 2019 to of over service building Rodgers 8:14 professionals the PM these full building Creek picture multi living units is storied just in the third developments.
community. IbID rate management. -O- Rather
More 50HLI1c)q (5)(29) than busses brush (5)(30)
s. 22(1) -lD- From: IO 5OL1LkI Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 8:31 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: No Cypress Park residential development
Dear Mayor and Council:
We are STRONGLYOPPOSEDto Rodgers Creek/Cypress Park development primarily due to grave concerns of traffic and congestion issues. Current traffic levels are virtually at saturation levels.
It is unacceptable that we are still relying on only 2 lanes each way of HWY1 to traverse the North Shore - the same 2 lanes that were built in the late 1950’s. (with only the overpasses at Westview and Lonsdale being notable improvements in over 60 years). Some of the on-ramps are very inadequate especially with the current volume of traffic. (most notably Capilano Road onto Hwy 1 westbound is terrifying to navigate most hours of the day). We have clearly inadequate secondary roads on which to travel east - west on the North Shore and public transportation is not a viable alternative for most residents - hence so much vehicle traffic. The B-Lineto Dundarave was a flawed attempt to address the latter and nearly made a disaster of Ambleside and Dundarave villages before it was re-thought. (thank you for that).
My point is before allowing ANYmore development we need a comprehensive plan for managing current and future traffic on the North Shore, that includes a third crossing - perhaps dedicated to rapid/public transit only. With the lead- times involved to get things built, it is critical that this be addressed urgently now and that we have a plan to move forward with.
North Shore residents pay at least their share of taxes per capita and all we have is the 60 year old HWY1 (a.k.a. ‘Upper Levels Hwy”)which gets heavier utilization yearly due not only to growth on the North Shore, but to growth in the Howe Sound corridor including Whistler, as well as Vancouver Island ferry traffic.
Why are West Vancouver residents being forced to suffer - in the form of virtually unbearable traffic congestion - for the growth of those areas with no overall plan to do anything about it?
In all good conscience, how can you possibly consider allowing any new residential zoning when you can not assure residents and taxpayers of a viable way to move around in the future?
Please do not allow further development until this is addressed.
Sincerely, s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)
q .—,s, (5)(31)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2079 9:01 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Marcus Wong; BillSoprovich; Nora Gambioli; Craig Cameron; Peter Lambur; Sharon Thompson; Mary-Ann Booth Subject: Rodgers Creek
Mayor and Council,
I would like to express my opposition to the development application at Rodgers Creek to significantly increase the number of units.
I am deeply concerned that present zoning policy and development approval appear to merely a suggestion. It seems that using the hot button words “rental” and “missing middle” are in fact open sesame to revisit current approvals and up zone projects — not just at Rodgers Creek, but elsewhere. Why even bother with process if all that is needed to seduce Council is to add a few key terms? I hope Council is smarter than that.
West Vancouver needs a defined housing policy and transportation and infrastructure plan before the up zoning of jy previously approved development is considered. I am not sure there is a demonstrated need for rental units in the price range that only the top 10% of income earners can afford, missing middle or not. Is there anything mote than anecdotal evidence??
These projects certainly benefit the developer, but I am concerned about the impact (traffic, livability) of such a massive scale development on our community.
Yours truly, s. 22(1)
West Van. s. 22(1)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10 (5)(32)
- From: Chamberlain, Russell
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: Rodgers Creek Rezoning
Cypress Mountain is pleased to support British Pacific Properties Limited (BPP) with their rezoning application. BPP and Cypress Mountain have built a strong and positive relationship over the years through transparency, collaboration and consistent communication. The rezoning of Rodgers Creek and the proposed new Village will provide BPP and Cypress Mountain the platform to continue fostering our relationship whilst working on recreational and transportation opportunities. We feel the additional highway interchange at Caulfield and Westmount will improve the flow and access to the area(s) and we are very pleased to see BPP’s plan for an independent transit service.
We look forward to watching this development move forward.
Sincerely,
R
Russell Chamberlain President & General Manager cpressmounta1n You’llLOVEit up here!
Mobile 778 227 1316 Office 604.913.2555
PD Box91252 West Vancouver BC V7V3N9
Stay in touch with our Newsletter ooo -.
çk’.. .,,.“. (5)(33)
From: s. 22(1) ft/( O-So / Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:46 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Area 5 & 6 Rezoning
Dear Mayor Mary Ann Booth and Council,
I’m writing in regards to the British Pacific Properties’ Area 5 and 6 rezoning hearing. As a s. 22(1) working in West Vancouver, I am hoping council will support this decision to increase the housing diversity in the Upper Lands. Every day I need to commute 40 minutes + to and from work, this is valuable time I could be spending with my s. 22(1) . Our family’s dream is to one day be able to afford to live and raise our kids in West Vancouver, we would love to be close to all the natural amenities in the North Shore but the prices of homes here are unattainable.
There needs to be more options for housing in West Vancouver. With including rental and smaller homes, the price point can be brought down to a point that a family with two working professionals can afford. This is so important for the city to consider, the people who work here cannot afford to live here.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
s. 22(1)
Bc s. 22(1) (5)(34) jOLj5 From: Scenery
Dear Mayor & Council —
Re: Rodgers Creek
I am not convinced this proposal is the best can do for our community.
I recall BPP holding a public information meeting some time ago at the Kay Meek Centre. Part
of the presentation (and the portion Ifound most compelling) was the descriptions and idyllic slides of Zermatt Switzerland — a mountainside community where no private vehicles are allowed.
This proposal is essentially the “anti-Zermatt” — a development dependent on private vehicles.
It is difficult for the public to have confidence in a process that tolerates what (at best) is irrelevant or misleading information or (at worst) what some would call a “bait and switch.
Furthermore, when a developer seeks and/or receives approval for a development and then later request substantial changes. (i.e. significant density, height or use increase because they never ask for a decrease do they?) it makes a mockery of those who participated in the prior public input process in good faith.
On that note, good faith is further hampered when the scheduled public hearing and vote for this major project is delayed to a date when a full complement of Council is not available.
Sincerely,
Scenery Slater 402-1730 Duchess Ave. \J;I VVf
Do not redact (5)(35)
From: s. 22(1) 10—-O —OLU.-( Iyj’S Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:59 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council write a brief note in your words
Having lived in West Vancouver fors. 22(1) years, it greatly disturbs me to see how our present municipal council is making plans to ruin the face of our one of a kind comm unity forever. We have no room in our municipality for this Rodgers Creek project and all the negative impact it will have. Why not think of repairing our existing infrastructure and/or commuting grid lock. Really council get a grip
Sent from my iPhone s. 22(1)
\JS+ Jcncovr, s. 22(1) (5)(36)
From: s. 22(1) “) ‘-‘ —-‘M Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:09 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council,
No increase of units at Rogers Creek or any other development that has received planning permission.
It’s like a child being given a candy and then whining that they want more. Don’t start!!
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver
s. 22(1) write a brief note in your words
Sent from my iPad (5)(37)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:16 AM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1) Subject: STOPincreasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council,
While each project may have some merit, the cumulative effect on our community is putting additional strain on our already taxed infrastructure. To my knowledge there are at least 5 large projects in the process, which doesn’t include the development in Horseshoe Bay including the addition to the ferry terminal. (This is needed as so many people are leaving Vancouver for the island to try to capture what the North Shore used to feel like.)
You must also keep in mind all of the construction at Capilano Road and Marine Drive which will also put thousands of cars coming from the east onto our pitiful bridge.
Ifthere were to be an earthquake or other natural disaster on the North Shore we would all perish as we would not be able to escape!
Thank you for your consideration, s. 22(1)
;, , (5)(38)
From: s. 22(1) 6to- O-%/Y4b Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:32 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: NO to Rodgers Creek
Dear Mayor and Council,
I have lived in West Vancouver for s. 22(1) years and I have never experienced a Municipal Council which proceeded like this one. The Mayor was elected by a thin margin, yet with this Council has undertaken a runaway program of construction and “spot zoning” without input from the citizens most affected by these zoning changes.
Example: Taylor Way and Marine Drive are already clogged and Lions Gate Bridge gets worse every month. yet the Council approved proposals for double density at the Park Royal shopping centre. Example: one of the British Properties proposals includes two 12 storey rental towers with no details on parking for 2000 cars.
Furthermore Council did not undertake due diligence before embarking on the so-called “Five Creeks Drainage Project”. There were no objective environmental impact studies and initial planning meetings were held in camera. Nor were residents informed that this drainage project was intended as infrastructure to make possible a huge amount of new construction proposed by British Pacific Properties. Indeed, when a member of council and a staff member first met with a group of property owners they presented it as a “necessary drainage program” until laughed down by local residents. Only then did the councillor admit that this massive program was actually required for British Pacific Properties to be able to proceed with residential construction on their lands.
In at least four new forthcoming projects this Council has attempted to put forward far greater density than allowed by past plans. This higher density will be at the cost of present residents who already find it very difficult to get across Marine Drive and over the Lions Gate Bridge. Not only it will impact main transportation corridors through West Vancouver, it will also stress other existing infrastructure such as sewer and water. It is also increasingly apparent that Council took office with many of these plans in mind because the B-line bus program initially put forward was to facilitate future mass development.
The West Vancouver waterfront and the area directly behind it was stipulated to contain buildings of limited height. The present council has circumvented these limits by “spot zoning” at least five new buildings which will block views of the water and benefit only a select few. Spot zoning was meant to be a device to be used in extraordinary circumstances. It now appears to be the West Vancouver City Councils’ zoning method of choice.
Given that our present infrastructure is so inadequate for our present population, there is no justification for such a drastic increase in construction without full consultation with the residents, yet the upcoming public meeting on Dec. 3rd regarding the Rodgers Creek proposal has only been scheduled because Council was required by law. Because of a news blackouts the majority of West Vancouver residents are unaware of these plans for density that will change the nature of the community and threaten ecologically challenged mountain areas.
All of these actions by the present West Van City Council make the whole democratic process irrelevant. Yours sincerely,
s. 22(1)
Qk \JcncouVr (5)(39)
s. 22(1)
s. 22(1) (5)(40)
From: s. 22(1) t00_q t%Li Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:39 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek Rezoning
Your Worship, Members of Council,
I am writing in support of BPP’sapplication for Rodgers Creek
They are in total compliance with what you have requested and are in conformance with the OCP.
You have stated repeatedly that the community must incorporate more affordable housing in their future growth . This is easier said than done given the intransigence of the community to do anything other than maintain the status quo. So by approving the BPP application , a principal objective of the community can be realized You should be expediting its approval not hindering it.
s. 22(1) Finally I have lived in our community for Thank heavens we have a developer who not only has put the community on the map in so many positive ways but also has a vested interest in its long term well being - you should feel grateful
Respectfully submitted
s. 22(1) (5)(41)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:43 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Support for a Carbon Free development at Rodgers Greek and Cypress Village
Dear Mayor and Council
I wish to support the proposed developments being undertaken at Rodgers Creek and later at the Cypress Village development.
However, in undertaking these projects it is imperative that the Municipality require that ALL buildings be designed and built to a ZERO CARBON EMISSION standard.
The Municipality can add this requirement to the Rezoning and then support the application of the Provincial Energy Step Code at Step 2. This would ensure that the buildings are constructed with a functional, cost effective and energy conserving building envelope while eliminating the use of FOSSIL gas and the resultant carbon emissions. This is a key to building affordable housing.
Further it has been recently demonstrated that the application of Personal Energy Metering and Billing is the most cost effective way of conserving energy. A recent report from UBC confirms savings in energy consumption in the order of 30 to 40% with a return on investment of approximately 3 to 5 years.
The Air to Water Heat Pump technology has been proven to deliver thermal heating, cooling and domestic hot water at operational costs competitive with FOSSIL gas. This technology recycles FREE ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY and complies with the Provincial and BC Hydro commitment to ELECTRIFICATION as the key to emission reduction.
The rezoning must contain the following stipulations.
1. All development are to be built to a Carbon Zero Standard
2. All developments are to be provided with personal energy metering and billing systems
3. All building envelopes are to comply to the Provincial Energy Code Step 2 standard for heating
4. All buildings that provide cooling are to use technology that recycles waste cooling energy
As a long time resident of the Municipality I trust that you will provide environmental leadership and ensure that the projects are built to these standards.
I also recommend that all parking areas be equipped with metered Electric Vehicle charging stations and that the municipality encourage the provision of Electric Vehicle CAR SHARE as a mechanism for reducing parking requirements.
Please consider the global condition as you move forward with this challenging program. my best regards
Home address s. 22(1) West Vancouver s. 22(1)
Yours
tonight
In Would
constituents
room --Result
I In --Allow
3.
preposterous. who Your
2.
--Permanent
allowances --Practical
--Predictable
regulations)
seek
planning.
1. To:
please Subject:
I Sent:
Dear
From:
will
will
the
fact,
The
To
The
elected
be
to
regulations
be
Mayor
for
truly, assume
.22(1) s.
meantime,
idea
somehow
consider
British
construction
will
double
glad
proposed
in
unable
this
7,000
I
that
midstream,
am
mitigate
and
to
you.
by
ill-advised
(until
that
Pacific
The
the
share amazed
claiming
to
allowing
these
new
Council,
regarding
do be
density
attend
this
District
previous
changed
part
“climate
not
1200
Properties
information
residents
points:
development
you
that
development.
it
pass
increased
of
tonight’s
increases
feet
will.
of
Rogers
some
are
densities.
a
by
change”,
this
West
Canadian
above
living
an
opening
has
ill-considered moral
on
Tuesday,
Creek Council
MayorandCouncil
inclusive
Council
Vancouver
densities
are
already
is
all
on
sea
Don’t
either
part
Land
violative
jurisdiction
three
or
yourselves
a
fail
level
steep
Meeting
legal meeting
of
December
planning
negatively
all
compound use
that
for
points
a
is with
three
and
“climate
obligation mountain
of regulations
.22(1) s. the
under
would:
the
December
up
would
no due
likely
with
North
process
tests.
3,
for
access
affected
principles
no
a
to
2019
change
mistake
you
illegal
litigation.
such
hillside
even
for
a
Shore
By
should
previous
that
to
3,
or
10:21
the
changing
moral the
s. 22(1)
consider
2019
proposal
a
strategy”
any
of
or
is
by viable
District
be:
environment
good
AM
as
anyplace
Not
of
endorsing
/
commitment
or
thorough
Rogers
your
the
transportation
legislative
to
changing
tonight. governance
to
is
mention
equally
previously
“accommodate
planning
else.
Creek,
it.
as
by
the
Stop
mandate.
the
clear-cutting
preposterous.
abandoning
et
staff
and
previously
studied,
one
al
insulting network
responsible
in
originally
growth” the
.22(1) s.
examined
the
the
future.
the
agreed
Nothing
trust
intelligence
is
hillside
used
land
allowances
and
of
to use
(5)(42)
that
to
the
set
.
specified
However,
make
you
the
citizens
of
your and North Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)
Without
Respectfully benefit
I
decrease
developments.
To:
I Subject:
Dear Sent:
From:
encourage
am
writing Mayor
.22(1) s.
of
any
the
extra
you
to
and
submitted,
improvement
quality
express
housing
to
Council
vote
of
my
life
against
if
no-one
concern
of
in
infrastructure,
the
the
present
can
Tuesday,
Rodgers
MayorandCouncil
tthe at
proposals
access
residents.
vast
Creek December
this
the to
.22(1) s.
expansion
can
maintain
area?
and
only
Cypress
3,
2019
of
increase
the
housing
livability
10:40
Village
the
AM
in
development
burgeoning
the
of
the
proposed
North
congestion
and
ogrsCreek Rodger’s
West
Vancouver.
on
the
and
North
Cyprus
What Shore
(5)(43)
is
Village
and the
West Vancouver, B.C.
Sent
units To:
Subject:
Sent:
I Dear
From: see
.22(1) s.
from the
.22(1) s. as
Mayor
a Rodgers
.22(1) s.
further
my
and
iPad
Council,
serious
Creek
project
misstep.
as
Tuesday,
STOP
MayorandCouncil
a
major
increasing
step
December
in
the number
.22(1) s.
wrong
3,
2019
of
direction
Rodgers
10:50
AM
for
Creek
West
units
Vancouver,
and \Lr
‘‘-““ increasing ‘‘—)
i the
(5)(44)
-JDL
number i
II of — Thank goals is For Density comments Rental Housing I’m Subject: To: Sent: Firstly, Dear From: certainly the • writing • • • • • • • • for Mayor you Supply: thank benefit The they This people. Adding dealing The & The If be (among Smaller But Smaller higher University provide Diversity: the another Feasibility for welcome. much on this as District latest development tell & would District. you your 3 .22(1) s. we Council income of planned with letter the units points: units us, housing lower for our all developer official Endowment time the likely has lowest major know, BPP’s your attract make in community, of professionals, than professional housing an support 46 and diversity. the not statistic will ongoing opportunity sustainability move in people sense our the consideration. a were be District Metro provide larger Lands buildings diversity, able of new towards from here Tuesday, I Rodgers to MayorandCouncil per service BPP’s would consultants, Vancouver), of pool to and builds purchase at housing year — to CMHC West justify $1,995 not issues rezoning are investors rental of smaller leverage like and Creek over December of potential only on Vancouver .22(1) s. to is the University options the dedication for per supply, average that the that see and Areas do and application development future same that BPP’s month. 10’’15 they additional West average we 3, buyers more for 5 and can 2019 40 land existing Endowment & are generations make to seniors Vancouver year 6 “ potentially affordable density our dealing 50 due today for rent 11:24AM density market costs build years community. the land to that of at & their with $1,896 Rodgers out Lands. at has ownership feasibility. old market need units create and sense, 0.9 period a 2,338 lower — critical faster which FSR to accommodating per Creek additional and they downsize, overall rental month is and build means envision supply simply are Areas create housing what price out which rental that higher shortage. not 5 a period & housing the points. similar a enough our is 6. stock, more supply. .
second net LOD.oz community I would average to multifamily worth diverse choices 0.6% meet when place like .. vacancy rents families, (5)(45) the we needs population to for only supply offer are project, its should to
to (o% my s. 22(1)
Thank
(Please West
increased that
life
seriously.
How
single to
It
serviced I Dear To: Subject: Sent:
From:
am
is
understand
on
are
my
strongly
would
Mayor Vancouver
.22(1) s.
family
you,
this
note
not
understanding
by
number
planet
walkable
cars,
cutting
that
and
homes
opposed
how
Council,
BC
rather
I
do
of
do
approving
down
in
units
not
and
NOT
to
that
neighborhoods
than
fit
increasing
more
more
at want
Tuesday, the STOP
MayorandCouncil
into
buses,
Rodgers
more
city destruction
.22(1) s. of
increasing
mitigating
name/address our
December
of
bicycles
units
the
Creek.
West
precious
that number
number
in
a of
3,
are
a
Vancouver
or
climate
Please 2019
neighborhood
the
not feet
of
trees
posted of
Rodgers
trees 11:27AM
walkable,
Rodgers
will
start
emergency.
help
that
has
publicly. help
Creek
taking
a
play
declared
climate
that
Creek
to more
units
mitigate
our
a
will
Thank
Please
critical
units.
neighborhoods
emergency?
climate
a
be
climate
you.)
(most
do
a
role
climate
not
emergency
in
realistically)
emergency.
approve
More
sustaining,
emergency.
of any
(5)(46)
large,
more
an
kind
I
our fail (5)(47)
From: s. 22(1) 0050t6o Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:58AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council
We do not have the infrastructure to support the numbers of people anticipated in the Rodgers Creek Development. Our streets are impassable now. With all of the development planned for West Vancouver Upper Levels Highway will be a parking lot. With each new unit built there will be at least I car. It isfantasy to think people are going to ride their bikes or take public transportation.
I expect with accommodation for 10,000 people there will be at least 5,000 cars — not to mention increasing traffic from the Sunshine Coast and Squamish. This is an impossible dream.
Stop the density I
s. 22(1)
‘&+ VO&LLA&) s. 22(1) (5)(48)
From: s. 22(1) LtO- O %f?Y5
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:17 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: In Support of Rodgers Creek Rezoning
As someone who grew up and currently lives and works in West Vancouver I have had the opportunity to watch the community grow over the past 4 plus decades. Unfortunately there seem to be a small, but vocal group of people that continue to resist any development regardless of location, quality, CAC5,or our current housing crisis.
I hope that you, Mayor Booth, and council support this rezoning application.
Regards s. 22(1) (5)(49)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:20 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rogers Creek -Support
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am writing as a long standing resident of West Vancouver to register my support for BPP’s rezoning application for Areas 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek.
From my observation of current housing needs in our Community, this proposal will deliver much needed housing diversity with the phased introduction of 125 purpose-built rental homes and an additional 206 market condos within the same 1 million sf “development envelope” that was approved as part of the previous rezoning.
Given our high cost of housing and low vacancy rates, there is an irrefutable need to create rental housing opportunities in West Vancouver for essential service workers and working professionals who contribute greatly to our Community and its societal vibrancy.
This proposal welcomes back the “working demographic” that has been increasingly being lost according to factual studies (ie Vital Signs). We need to complete our Community in the face of self-serving, fear mongering “Do Nothingness” that is permeating and destroying our Community’s future.
Furthermore, this rezoning will benefit the DWV and its residents by securing $13M in CACs — a portion of which may be allocated towards transportation improvements on Cypress Bowl Road or other locations within the District. It is important to recognize that this capital is coming from new investment, as opposed to being “drained out” from existing tax payers.
Council’s decision at the Public Hearing is to either support a good proposal that will help the District achieve our Official Community Plan’s stated goals around greater levels of housing diversity — or — discourage this and promote the development of larger, less affordable homes.
It will also hopefully re-establish the market confidence in this Council’s ability to move forward with high quality proposals.
Alternatively, if not supported , it threatens to bewilder and confuse the development community’s confidence in further spending time/creativity, and most importantly capital investing in our Community.
BPP is to be commended to bravely come forward with this high quality proposed investment in our Community’s future. I sincerely hope that Council appreciates what is stake with their decision this evening.
Thank You, s. 22(1)
West VANCOUVER, BC
Sent from my iPhone (5)(50)
From: s. 22(1) 1tt-o _5o%L(f5o Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:43 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Crk
Dear Council,
I oppose the new Rodgers creek proposal the district asked BPPto bring forward... send it back for changes.
- smaller unit size encourages speculation and non resident ownership (BPP - residents first program ie volunteers from north shore is a bit loose).
- smaller unit size does not encourage families ... families with a male and female child have to have separate rooms for sleeping after age of 2.
- the prices for the units have come down without making them smaller.
- the Cac package is light and given what we were told by Geoff Croll (the initial upzoning in 2008 provided no increase in value to the lots so the Cac’s could have been zero) Ithink the district has done well to get the 30 + 7.5m or so... but you should squeeze them while you are giving them the rental building zoning and there is no corresponding decrease in res floor space to the condo side.
- the residents can’t know by what mechanism the district asked BPPto bring the new proposal forward ... thereby creating another trust issue with the existing residents.
- 16 and 14 floor towers are not “of” the mountain.
Despite my points of contention and the many more I know you have recently read from residents... I, believe you will all ignore all the concerns from increases in Traffic to how this is absurd to build density in the forest where there will be no transit... I don’t believe any of you have the courage yet to see how dumb and selfish this development and the accompanying plan for the upper lands really is.
West Van needs a new plan for the upper lands - period.
The OCP is not a shield or a trophy to hold up and force your neighbours to succumb to your might.
Finish ALLthe LAP’sfirstl What goes where? How much have you already put into the pipeline?
Be the council to find critical and big picture thinking or be held accountable in 2020 and beyond.
s. 22(1)
Maple Ridge
Sent from my iPhone (5)(51)
jig/V From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 1:45 PM To: MayorandCouncil; Sharon Thompson; Marcus Wong; BillSoprovich; Craig Cameron Subject: BPP Rodgers Creek Development
I am writing to ask that you do not support BPP’s proposed further development for Rodgers Creek considering the following:
• The first objective of Council’s Housing Objectives has not been met. • The traffic study does not address West Vancouver. • Increased traffic • Target market • CACS • Trust
While the strategic Council’s strategic goal is “Significantly expand the diversity and supply of housing, including housing that is more affordable,” the first objective has not been met: “1.1 Refine and clarify the number of housing units of each type required in West Vancouver over the next four years.” It is difficult to understand why projects are seemingly being pushed through before this study has taken place. The cart before the horse?
I attended a presentation by BPP where the traffic study was discussed. This traffic study was not for West Vancouver and for the proposed additional units at Rodgers Creek. Instead the data is from a North American study, which includes some Canadian data with most emphasis that it is US based. It is a general study and does not apply to this unique development. There is a major difference between US traffic and our local community. American school children are bused to school. Children in our municipality are driven. A further traffic study of the local area should be demanded before approval of this project.
It is a long way up to the Rodgers Creek development with little access. Cars will absolutely he necessary. BPP have indicated they will provide a bus. For who? For what purposes? What hours? Not enough details are provided. Additional units at Rodgers Creek will only add to WV traffic problem, identified as the number 1 issue during the last 2 elections and on survey results.
When representatives of BPP were questioned about their target market, they answered that their target market would be those who would be downsizing. I am in s. 22(1) age group. I can say with certainty that none of our friends/acquaintances would consider moving up that far in the size of units now proposed. Who is the target market? A market study and more information needs to be provided before this new proposal can be approved.
Part of the CACs are for lightening and widening mountain paths. While the the path will be constructed as part of the development, there is no built-in maintenance provided by BPP. The path then becomes an additional burden on taxpayers where the Parks Department budget is already to low to maintain our current parks and pathways.
We want very much to believe that once a development proposal has gone to a public hearing that we can trust in the results of that hearing. We want to trust that a development proposal once passed and negotiated will not come hack asking for more densiftication as in this case, the additional units at Park Royal and additional units at Evelyn. Our community wants to trust that our planning department is working for our shared vision of our community, not for a vision of particular politicians. The increase in density is not generally welcomed although diversity of housing is. Problematic to get a balance, which this proposal does not.
Please consider what is the right project for our community and those that already live here. We do not want to give up what we have. Continued voting against proposed development is difficult, but consider it could be a message to our planning department to present proposals that are more acceptable.
Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts. Please vote against this development or at least to defer it pending more information. s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) Thank Attachments: Subject: 19, To: Sent: Please Hello, From: 2019. you. see my attached .22(1) s. submission West Tuesday, submission MayorandCouncil for today’s Van December council for public .22(1) s. public on hearing. 3, road hearing 2019 brief.docx 1:54 I asked Dec. PM 3/19 to be a speaker on
the Jtio-.2ô- original
date -yjç of November (5)(52) / Presentation to West Vancouver City council meeting on December 3, 2019
s. 22(1)
s. 22(1)
Today we are discussing development around Rogers Creek which has a direct impact s. 22(1) because the development before council is s. 22(1) and the future Cypress Village is s. 22(1) . s. 22(1) and appears to be s. 22(1) . Hopefully this new footpath is not s. 22(1) . The new development includes a fire lane which crosses a portion of this grid of lots but then stops short s. 22(1)
Allof these changes are happening s. 22(1) but we still do not have any s. 22(1) . s. 22(1) were sold a lot that shows road allotments around it. When are these roads and utilities going to be built? The property is land locked without access. (5)(53) /,vc7L7çy< From: Pascal Cuk Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:20 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: EW:Letter of Support - BPP proposal for Areas 5 and 6 Attachments: BPP - Areas 5 and 6 - Dec. 3, 2019 - letter.pdf
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:17 PM To: Mary-Ann Booth
Hello Mayor and Council,
Attached is a letter of support for the British Pacific Properties proposal for the housing development in Areas 5 and 6.
We apologize for not being able to attend tonight’s Council meeting.
Best regards,
s. 22(1) s. 22(1) West Vancouver, B.C. s. 22(1) December 3, 2019
Dear Mayor and Council,
Subject: British Pacific Pràperties — Areas 5 and 6— Public Heating We apologize for not being able to attend the public hearing this evening. The purpose of this letter is to support the proposal by British Pacific Properties for housing in Areas 5 and 6. The Official Community Plan clearly articulates the objectives for housing, seeking solutions for affordability and rental accommodation.
It strikes us that the BPP proposal takes a major step in this direction. Small per unit accommodation and dedicated rental space are major steps in this direction.
Itwould appear most developers would only be seeking the highest value return in their design plans which worked fine until we hit this housing affordability crisis.
Approving the BPP application clearly sets a benchmark for other development that is similarly in the works, such as the housing construction proposed at Park Royal.
There will undoubtedly be a push back from the negative crowd who seem to lack solutions other than “don’t do it”. This is not progress. The District last year, with much public input, approved a forward-thinking Official Community Plan.
s. 22(1) would encourage Council to vote in favour of the objectives of this document and approve the imaginative proposal put forward by BPP.
Respectfully,
s. 22(1) (5)(54)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:23 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers Creek IS NOT INTHEINTERESTSOF WESTVANCOUVER
Dear Mayor and Council My family are long time residents of West Vancouver. The investments made by the municipality over the years have had mixed results. For example, the West Vancouver Community Centre redevelopment and the waterfront development are outstanding investments, which support our healthy neighbourhoods and enhance residents’ quality of life. However, other developments, particularly those which have increased housing density without a commensurate investment in infrastructure have created and or contributed to traffic issues, overuse of public facilities and a lack of connectivity between our neighbourhoods.
I have read what is available on the Rodger’s Creek project and am in disbelief about the relative lack of information and community consultation that has taken place for such an impactful development. It is not clear to me why West Vancouver would support densification of this magnitude given the location. It appears that the development is proceeding without consideration of the likely negative impacts on the community, the infrastructure and our limited transportation corridors.
Please take the time to consult with the community in a transparent and open manner. Be responsive to the issues. Understand and foster our distinct community identity by continuing to invest in our current neighbourhoods. Work with the residents to prioritize and manage developments that enhance life in West Vancouver.
If we truly believe in growing a sustainable community, the Rodger’s Creek project must be suspended until a full community impact assessment is completed to the satisfaction of its tax paying residents.
Yours truly s. 22(1)
ve s. 22(1) (5)(55)
k/t?— .2c) vy From: s. 22(1) ,i sJ Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:33 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: BPPdevelopment
Mayor and Council,
I am writing to you regarding the latest proposal by BPPfor their property. Please make your decision based on the facts rather than the hysteria of a vocal minority. The facts and the silent majority must and I’m confident, will be your guide when making your decision as elected leaders of our community. Thank-you in advance for approving the BPP proposal for their prudent, necessary and thoughtful development of the Upper Lands. Respectfully, s. 22(1) (5)(56)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:44 PM To: MayorandCouncil
Subject: Rodgers Creek Area 5 & 6 zoning, OCP change and Development Permit: FYII oppose all changes and/or applications
To: Mayor and individual council members:
I oppose the changes to zoning, OCP and the modification of one of the currently issued (to British Pacific Properties - BPP) development permit in areas 5 & 6 of Rodgers Creek. Approval is certain to cause more traffic congestion and it is certain to release an additional .2 billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide into the environment during construction only. And it is guesstimated that approximately 60% of carbon dioxide discharged into the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere from 20 to 200 years. (the 40% is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans).
A. It is my understanding that council has previously approved a development permits for Area 6 and a second permit for Area 5. The combined impact of the currently approved permits are:
Authorization for British Pacific Properties to: (i) construct 1,020,776 sq feet of buildings (ii) 493 housing units (iii) 1,035 new residents in WV (iv) 642 additional cars (v) discharge approximately 0.89 billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide during construction phase only
B. It is also my understanding that this council and/or WV planning approached BPP, and requested that the currently approved development permits to modified in order to achieve more housing diversity and possibly below market housing. This new revised proposals is what is being voted on today and the incremental or additional data would be:
(i) 203,999 additional sq feet of buildings (for a total of 1,224,775 sq feet) (ii) 481 housing unit increase (for a total of 974 housing units) (iii) 718 additional residents (for a total of 1,753 residents) (iv) 445 additional cars (for a total of 1,087 additional cars) (v) discharge of approximately 0.2 billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide during construction (total of 1.1 billion cubic feet)
(vi) the zoning charge would permit the building of 2,079,598 sq feet of residents (notwithstanding that the development permits only contemplate 1,224,775 sq feet of new construction. Why the 70% more allowable building area difference? Is this another secret deal or quid pro quo?
(vii) Similarly, the zoning change would permit the building of 1,217 housing units (notwithstanding that the development permits only contemplate 974 housing units)
I do not believe it was the intention of WV residents to elect a group of individuals who are OK with destroying the character of WV and who would authorize construction projects that will increase traffic even more and that includes traffic during the construction phase. Realistically the Rodgers Creek area can not / will not be serviced by regular public transit. Transportation to/from Rodgers Creek will be at least 90% by vehicle. And it distresses me to have helped elect a group of people who would be so two faced as to declare a climate emergency and concurrently approve the release of an additional .2 billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from constructions only; not from roadways, utility construction or construction traffic. Never mind committing WV to more future environmental damage caused by the additional 1,087 cars that are expected to be driven by the residents of this new development.
In summary, I urge council to vote NO to this incremental development.
Regards, s. 22(1)
West Vancouver (5)(57)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:57 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Concerns about amending the OCP for Rodgers Creek Areas 5 and 6
Dear Mayor and Council;
I have concerns regarding the request before council to amend the Official Community Plan for Rodgers Creek. This bylaw change would dramatically increase the number of housing units previously agreed to for Areas 5 and 6.
While I am concerned that the District is considering an incremental change proposal for an area plan in a document, the OCP, which is barely over a year old, my two main areas of unease involve the impact of the proposed changes on traffic and the environment.
In her March 21, 2018 letter to the District’s Director of Planning and Development Services, Sarah Ross, Director of System Planning for TransLink expressed concerns about potential new neighbourhoods in the District’s Draft OCP. She wrote that these neighbourhoods “are not located along a reasonably direct corridor connecting other transit destinations, one of the key principles of the Transit-Orientated Communities Design Guidelines. They are also not located in or near a designated Urban Centre or along the Frequent Transit Network (FTN).” While her comments were directed at the Cypress Village and Cypress West planning concepts, the location of Areas 5 and 6, and the increased density proposed, would place them into a similar, if slightly smaller, category. Ms. Ross continued by suggesting that it would be difficult for TransLink to reasonably and cost effectively serve neighbourhoods in locations such as this. Perhaps, as one councillor suggested last year, British Pacific Properties might need to ‘step up’ and operate their own bus service in the area.
Additionally, to advance the goals of the Regional Transportation Strategy, TransLink recommends locating multifamily housing, particularly purpose built rental and ‘affordable’ housing within 400 metres of frequent bus corridors and within 800 metres of new or existing rapid transit stations. I’m not sure if anyone knows what ‘affordable housing’ and ‘affordable rentals’ means in a West Vancouver, not to mention, a British Pacific Properties context — we’ll only commit to ‘diversified housing’ — but even if truly affordable units are constructed and made available, it is highly possible that they will have limited bus service at best. And, rather than saving the day, Cypress Village and Cypress West may actually make the situation worse, from both a traffic and climate action perspective.
Of course, when I am at home during the day, I realize the environmental impact for projects like this. For years, as the
Upper Lands developments have moved further west, I hear the day-long sounds of chainsaws, rock hammering, rock blasting, diesel-powered heavy equipment excavating and helicopters hovering. Perhaps, as has been hinted at by councillors, an exchange of environmentally sensitive land for density has, or is, being considered for the BPP-owned land west of Eagle Creek or above the 1200 foot line. I suspect that it’s an either/or proposition and that both will not be left untouched. Perhaps if more was revealed about these future plans there might be more buy-in from those environmentally minded. Until that time comes, Iwill have to remain a skeptic.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
s. 22(1) ‘ West Vancouver
//
Regards,
Again,
savings
discharge And And
are carbon
and understand
projects.
I
housing
Thank
increase I
Please Thanks To: Subject: Sent: Cc:
From:
am
did
vacant
it
just
I
familiar
not
does
acknowledge
you
forward
development Thank
thank
hearing
Regarding On Development
Dear
footprint
from
Ms.
and
ties
a
appreciate
I
of
homes
reminder
Dec
1.
spent
not
for
s. 22(1)
that
Mayne.
concrete
C02
into
you building
with
you
The
(204,004
your
minimize
tonight,
3,
this
you of
.22(1) s.
hours
the
for
in
2019,
and
the
for
the
proposed
new
the
that
response
can
please.
Canada
agreement
current
your
Services
structures.
your
zoning
other
“green” difficulty
finding
December
change
construction.
at
sq.
not
forcing
the
to
response.
2:03
ft.).
gasses.
be
available
Doing
Ms.
application
immediate
zoning
it
and
for
is
papers
responsible
to
is
PM, The Tuesday, Cindy Re:
MayorandCouncil
of
higher
proposed
McGuire.
not
The
to
very
zoning
development
a
3,
guesstimating
NOTHING Council
response.
amendment
And
Mayor
increase
Cindy
a 2019.
L.
fact
for
and
sound
thorough compliance
Mayne
impact changes.
December
justifying
was
people.
that
options for
Correspondence
for
and
L.
Below
logical
is
for
Rodgers
Mayne
it
council’s
(i.e.
of
permit Council,
.22(1) s.
limited
and
is
for
carbon all
construction Thanks
3,
for,
are
hard
new with
no floor
2019
reason six
complete.
responses
truly,
amendments
new
Creek
to
to
areas
construction
the decisions
it
footprint area
3:18 Area
-
for
has calculate,
week
to
construction
carbon
guesstimating
surrounding
that clarification.
PM
approve
is
been
related
6 And
ending
limited
of
to
/
to
are
footprint
C02
Rodgers
your
forwarded
along
is
sorry
put
on
being
C02
not or
December
to
the
their
at
emissions
questions.
plan
to
Rodgers
an with
a
the
all)
emissions.
basis
good
considered
post
take
creek,
head
increase
new
carbon
prevents
to the Bylaw Official Zoning No. Received
ON-TABLE
of construction
6,
up
Planning reason
5045,
in
construction
phased
from Creek. No.
2019
however, potential Community
Bylaw
your wrote:
at the 2019;
5041, footprint
December of
No.
both
at construction
and to
2019
sand
18,952 time. 4662,
Plan
public
I &
Phased ignore
for see
3, current
Bylaw 2010,
future the Areas
09 public 2019,
is
vis for (5)(58) Deveiopment
1610-20-504415045
as now Amendment
No.
a sq.
5 a
and
positive
it.
long new
4985,
vis emissions 6
headng
and
m that
of I 2018, Agreement
Rodgers
the Bylaw
wood
as future regerding
Amendment
the there
No. step Creek 5044, Authodz propm 20 Byl
I
trust
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
this
If
No
As
would with
follow
No Appendix
performance
extraction, “Form
minimum infrastructure approved
approved
requires minimum strata the As
regulations phased
energy designs. The
manufacturing,
would
regulations permit
have consultation
development
design
procedures
character”)
protection
based -%20Schedule%2Oii
-
buildings
Planning are
Development
District of that
include to
provided
total
2,079,598
However, of
existing
Council
https://westvancouver.ca/sites/defaultlfiles/OCP%2OBylaw%204985%2C%2020
provides
the
the
described
provide
calculation
calculation
described
production
included
the
document
is
as
adjacent
due
buildings.
be
allow and
numbers
staff
expanded
environmental
proposed
of
and
owned
development
provision
phased
shown
assessment
CD3
Determination
secured
were
for
of
in
energy
floor
C in
the
buildings
the
to
provisions
processing, a
character”
sq.
to
to
report)
development
domestic
responses
the
bylaw).
there
75%
the
for
would
direct
decision
the
related
along
in
designs.
in
applicant permits
zoning
frame
frame
Permit
minor
has
has
ft.
residents
to
processes
area
parcel
referred
transport
on
off
the
zoning
the
cited
Rodgers
development
If
localized
is
of performance.
is
construction
approve
for
is
for
the
been
page
been
peak
is
response
still
with
limited
meet
staff
referring
The
construction staff
a
(1,020,829
development
to
discrepancy
development
up
encompasses
Area
of
174,
new
in
and
agreement
hot
0.pdf). development
which
in development
(Lot
description zoning
Determination
to
manufacturing,
green bylaw
be
can
to
the
of
all
the
other to
commuting
made. 3
delegated
made.
that
report
report
the
and
Creek
permits
water
the
of
dedication
multi-family
249
as
of
the
emissions
nature
required.
to
11).
of
Designation
150
applicant’s
continue
amendments
is
a
to
These the
to
would
guidelines
18,952
the
page
questions
amendments
amendment
product
house
agreement
areas
proposed
building
hours
consistent
sq.
These
the
the
secured
the
Under
Under
explain
systems
sq.
area
zoning
waste,
that
production
cited
are
of
of
occurring
occurring
m
scope
decision
E proposed
zoning
ft.)
permits
permits
be
types
all
their
of
of
BPP’s
gas
sq.
limited
(1,875,662
of
developing
was
due
as
what
the
of
delivery.
numbers
consideration
consideration
strata
with
construction
transport
6
impacted the could
including
document,
a
park UL8
you
amendment
in
rental
reuse
stated
emissions
zoning
m
for
areas.
emissions.
construction
document
applicant
the
with
to
that
of
created
of
the are
amendments
District
are
(204,004
sustainable
and
conventional
that
refer
all
to
construction making
have the
over
over (starting
development
processes
buildings land.
be
total
proposed
would
OCP
a what
of
housing
Areas
proposed
new
in
It
as
The
and
phased
proposed
number deal
due
sq.
and
resource
Areas
by
to
site
is
a
the
a
referred
by
for
The
the
(as
per
due
has
number noted
number
development
workers
part
and
construction
is
that
ft.).
approach
development
for
number
for
to
sq.
bylaw
affect
product
with
the
harvested
5 on
Official
all
being
operations floor
laid
thereby
the
individual
units
and
rounding
to
development 5
green
committed
of
Council
Council
development
As
neighbourhood
ft.).
3
was of
being
page
of
construction
for
applicant
requires
and
that
things
infrastructure
a
extraction,
permits
noise
(i.e.
to
out
staff
the
other
Rodgers
No.
area
previously
6
of
of
building
considered
delegation
in
with
referred
Community
us.
not
delivery.
of
6
building
under
years,
84
in
years, would
considered
concrete)
improving
an
applicant
5044,
report
with
trees,
are
are
Rodgers
bylaw
and
the
like
of
form
noise.
building
produced
permits
102,000
of
(e.g.
permit area
assessment
are
to
and
the
this
general
general
Creek.
all
development
the
including
environmental
still
unit
practises not
carbon-free not
processing,
to
agreement
2019
methods
and
and
etc.).
different
stated
commitments
It
diversion
amendment
data.
that
staff
of
to
construction
in
by
notification
proposed
is
owned
multi-family
detailed
amendments
require
detailed
the
Plan
for
Creek. numbers
(“Form
their
the
sq.
your
draft
by
character
noted
Council.
by
does (Appendix The
are
land
land
specific
Regardless
the
Council
ft.
Director
staff.
resource
under
of
that
existing
than
and
by-law
land.
not
for
existing
of
that
This
that
and increase
use
are
not
use
all
thermal
building
1
a
they
8%20
the
is
and
able
area-
of
the
not
in
to
as
E of Best Regards,
Michelle McGuire Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design
ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Recawedat December3,2019,publichearingregerdingprop ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,
OffiCialCommunityRan BylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentI No.5045,2019;andPhasedDeualopmentAgeementAutha From: s. 22(1) BylawNo.5041,2019forAieas5and6 ofRodgersCreek Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 3:41 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: BPP Lands
Dear Mayor and Council
Hi,
Sorry this is a bit late, work was beconing. Ijust want to write and say that while I support development in the BPP lands, I don’t support the extra height and towers. I would prefer to see lower rise buildings like we see in whistler centre that create more of a village feel with smaller detached homes, larger detached homes, townhouses and lastly multi family apartments that don’t exceed 6 stories. I would in general like to see council increase density with more coach homes and a faster process for those to he passed, and an allowance for a suite and a coach home on most properties over the construction of very large towers that cater to very affluent people. I am struggling to stay in west van, because most people my age can’t afford to live here. We have very few contemporaries and the perception of West Vancouver living is that of extreme affluence and nothing else (definitely not us). The community is tiny and none of the development that is happening aside from Tantalus Gardens (which may not pass my god) is really directed at extremely wealthy individuals and speculation. I would really prefer small more community driven development that would draw people in their 30’s and 40’s who want to start families, and not just rampant speculation. Our entire neighbourhood is now largely owned by speculators. It’s not pleasant and it’s not the west van that I or my partner grew up in.
Thank you for your time,
s. 22(1) (5)(60) ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Renewedat December3, 2019,pubtc hewingregerntngprop ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,2 OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4685,2018,Amendment No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuthor BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and6 ofRodgersCreek From: Carolanne Reyno’ds
Thank you for arranging a Public Hearing wrt this important development.
Several have enquited about the CACamount so appreciated the birector of Planning’sreply indicating where information can be found: The information requested can be found on page 9 of the
report: https://westvancouver.calsites/default/files/dwv/council-agendas/20 19/dec/O3PH/19dec03-PH-4.3 - R2.pdf
It is my hope that the devt willbe sensitively and comprehensively done. If true, that 55% will be green is a great decision. So is providinga variety of housing. Also hope that transportation and traffic issues willbe planned to address concerns I’ve heard from people livingup there.
Sorry won’t be able to attend but wish you all the best in your deliberations.
Regards, Carolanne Reynolds Editor, West VanMatters 201 - 2403 Marine brive West Vancouver
no need to redact name or location. (5)(61)
ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Receivedat December3,2019 publichearingregwdingprop ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo,5044,2 OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4985,2018,Amendment No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuthisi BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and6 ofRodgersCreek From: Heather Mersey s. 22(1) Sent: Tuesday,December3, 20194:07PM To: MayorandCouncil; Mary-Ann Booth; Nora Gambioli;CraigCameron;MarcusWong; SharonThompson;Peter Lambur;BillSoprovich Subject: RodgersCreek - PublicHearingDecember3rd, 2019
I am sorry not to be available to attend the public hearing this evening but would like to make my views known.
After much thought on this proposal, I cannot offer support. What Ido support is the the BPP development proposed for Lots 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek, which expired in September of 2018. The proposed development of the site added an adequate and diversified number of units to Lots 5 and 6 while retaining approximately
55% of the green space. A very simple statement of what was to be. I understand that a significant amount of CAC’shave been paid to the District of West Vancouver between 200$ and 201$ with some minor amounts outstanding.
A major concern is to do with transporation for that area. Translink has approved the operation of a private bus to Cypress Village, but there is no Cypress Village. The impact of 2000 residents communicating by private vehicles to shop, go to schools, recreation centres will only add to the congestion on the Upper Levels, Lions Gate Bridge, 15th, 21st, 22nd and Taylor Way. There will be additional demands placed on our recreation facilities. Metro Vancouver does not support this site due to its lackof accessability under the existing plan, so the question remains “Why would we want to double the number of people who are unable to avail themselves to public transportation. Not entirely a “green” solution to the declared climate emergency by the DWV.
Lookingat a bigger picture of development above the Upper Levels and anticipating 7600 addition residents inhabiting Cypress Village,should give a clear indication of why Rodgers Creek should remain as initially proposed in 2008 with approximately 490 units of diverse housing in an area devoid of any public transportation.
When these projects are approved, it requires a significant amount of staff time, developer time and money and the public’s time. There seems to be a trend of developers pressing for more density after the intial approval process, often contentious. How can the public have faith in a process that really has no end to continuing demands in density?
In my view, the best decision for our community on a long term basis would be to maintain the proposal for Rodgers Creek that was valid from 2008 to September 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Mersey s. 22(1)
West Vancouver BC s. 22(1)
Please do not redact my name. (5)(62)
From: s. 22(1) oc4 Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:33 PM
To: MayorandCouncil ON-TABLE 1610.20-504415045 Subject: STOP increasing number of Rodgers Creek units Receivedat December3,2019,publichearingregardingpro ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,:
OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentI No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuthe BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and 6 ofRodgersCreek
Dear Mayor and Council, I’m opposed to the proposal to increase the size of the Rodgers Creek development. Please consider the opinions of your constituents and really listen to the speakers tonight. We are jeopardizing the very things about our community that you, Mayor Booth ran your campaign on. Stick with the original plan.
Sincerely, s. 22(1)
West Van (5)(63) ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Receivedat December3,2019,pubhchewingregerdingpr ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,NnendmentBylawNo.5044 OfficialCommunityRan BylawNo.4985,2018,Amendmen No.5045,2019;andPhasedDeveiopment s. 22(1) AgreementAuth From: BylawNo.5041,2019forAreasSand 6 ofRodgersCreel< Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:40 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1) Subject: Opposed to increasing number of Rodgers Creek units
Dear Mayor and Council, 1. There is no requirement to increase WV population. (Only developers, realtors and municipal unions in favour). 2. Infrastructure overloaded now. Constant traffic delays on 15, 21 and 22 most of the day. 3. Terrible precedent to allow developers to obtain approval and then “sneak” incremental density with less rigour. 4. The terrible scar on our mountain viewed from Stanley Park is already a travesty. We should be seeking provincial or national park status for these jewels.
Best regards, s. 22(1)
Dictated on a small device which might autocorrect incorrectly! (5)(64)
ON-TABLE 1610-20.504415045 Receivedat December3,2019,publichearingregerdingpropc ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010, tmendment BylawNo.5044,2C OfficialCommunity PlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentB No.5045,2019; andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuthmb From: s. 22(1) BylawNo.5041,2Ol9forAreas5and6ofRodgersCre Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:57 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Fwd: Rodger’s Creek and Cypress Village development
> > > > > Dear Mayor and Council >
> I am writing to express my concern at the vast expansion of housing in the proposed Rodger’s Creek and Cyprus Village developments. > > Without any improvement in infrastructure, this can only increase the burgeoning congestion on the North Shore and decrease the quality of life of the present residents. >
> I encourage you to vote against the proposals to maintain the livability of the North and West Vancouver. What is the benefit of extra housing if no-one can access the area?
> Respectfully submitted, > s. 22(1) >
West Vancouver, s. 22(1) B.C.
> s. 22(1) > > > (5)(65)
ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Receivedat December3,2019,pubhchewingregerdingpr ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044 OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4985,2018,Amendmen No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuth From: s. 22(1) BylawNo.5041,2019forAmasSand6ofRodgersCreek Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:53 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: In support of dev permit 19-061
Dear Madam Mayor and members of Council,
I am in support of the proposed amendments to the BPPdevelopment plan. It’s well-aligned with the needs of our hopefully growing community and will provide many well-needed housing options for our aging and younger community. It also is well-aligned with the outlines of smart, sustainable development: it’s a rare opportunity to create density on new, undeveloped land. This is a change to model what European cities, and many cities around the world, have done very successfully- that is, to provide live/work/school/amenities in a concentrated area which will naturally decrease the need for car travel. This is a chance to give WV to reverse the annual loss of residents. Without housing options, people will continue to leave and our communities will continue to erode. RENTALis the new “affordable”.
Sincerely,
s. 22(1)
West vancouver
s. 22(1) (5)(66)
ON-TABLE 1670-20.504415045 Renewedat December3, 2019,pubfchearingregardingpropo ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,2C OffidalCommunity PlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentBt From: s. 22(1) No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAUthcri2 BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5and6 ofRodgersCreek Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:07 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Rodgers creek
Dear Council,
West Van is literally upside down world.., the guy who lives in his parents basement thinks that BPP is saving the world by building in the forest.
love how building fancy condo in the forest in #westvan is somehow going to solve climate change, sociol conomic disparity and the housing crisis all in one shot.
your special council meetjg aftef your fake public heaJ
s. 22(1)
4ple Ridge B
Sent from my iPhone (5)(67) ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Received at December3,2019,publicheatingregardingproposed: Zoning BylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,2019; Official CommunityPlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentBylaw No. 5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreaslentAuthorization BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and6 ofRodgersCreek Your Worship and Councilors: Dec.3, 2019
This Public Hearing on the BPP Rogers Creek Development had to be postponed because, as Mayor Booth stated in her Nov. 16th Mayors’ Update, it was because “the required notices were not published in the newspaper.” I frnd it unacceptable that a well-paid staff member neglected to do their job on this huge development rezoning. Now it’s rescheduled to a date where a Councilor is away. I apologize for being a skeptic, but it all feels quite purposeful. This Public Hearing should have waited until all Councilors were able to attend. This development is not an insignificant issue to the residents of West Vancouver and we deserve full representation. Madam Mayor, I hope that you will close the Public Hearing tonight and wait until the next Council meeting to take a vote. Since there are two regular Council meetings scheduled the week of Dec 15, one Monday Dec 16, and one Wednesday Dec 18, there is ample opportunity to do this.
ATfloi%J 19 I am not in favor of thi(’development. The environmental impact will make the District’s declaration of a climate emergency not worth the paper it is written on. 1331 parking spots and no transit now pr in th,9fgreseeab1jefaire. One road 5th 21st, in and one road out. All these vehici tiut Ff’g1ay 1, 1 and Taylor Way. We are at gridlock now, with no where else to go! The District says there will be “better transportation connectivity”. I have heard BPP will supply a shuttle bus are bike lanes down the mountain planned? What is the climate impact of huge concrete pours and the cutting down of beautiful mature trees?
Why does a developer, whose development was approved, get to come back and ask for more? It seems that all they have to do is quote the OCP, that it’s rental, or diverse housing, or workforce housing, or close to transit. But the bigger picture needs to be looked at....how it affects the livability of the people of West Vancouver.
Included in this rezoning, is a parcel of District owned land upon which a 12 storey secured rental building is proposed with up to 150 units. I question why this is being included in BPP’s rezoning application when this parcel of land is owned by the residents of West Vancouver and our only option for this land is a rental building? Why is there not a separate community consultation for this? The District stated that area 5 and 6 are in the closest proximity to the future mixed-use Cypress Village. BPP states on-line that’ an Area Development Plan (AD?) will be presented to West Vancouver Council for consideration by mid-2020, setting the policy framework by which BPP can submit subsequent rezoning applications” Local Area Plans are waiting to be done for Ambleside, Taylor Way, and are done one at a time due to staffing and resources. Yet BPP will be paying the District to hire the staff to start on their plan for Cypress Village.
I urge you to take a look at the bigger picture and how this development will continually affect this community. Do not set a precedent for developers to keep coming back and asking for more, and expecting more because someone else had their ask approved.
I urge you to vote NO!
Respectfully submitted,
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver s. 22(1) Petition with 2762 names (5)(68) ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415845 Receivedat December3, 2019,publichewingregardingproposed: ZoningBylawNo.4462,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,2019; OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentBylaw s. 22(1) No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuthorization BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and6 ofRodgersCreek 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 F— 43 I ATTACHMENTS AVAILABLE I FOR VIEWING [N LEGISLAnVESERVICESDEPARTMENT (5)(69)
Vancouver City Presentation to West council meeting on December 3, 2019 Receivedat December3,2019,pubychewingregardingproposm Zoning BylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,2019 OfficialCommunity s. 22(1) PlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentBylaw by No.5045,2019;and PhasedDev&opmentAgreementAuthmizafii BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and6 ofRodgersCreek Owner of Lot 2 Block D District Lot 888 Plan 20156
Good evening mayor and council members.
s. 22(1) s. 22(1) As present owners of our family property, and I have a dilemma. In our parents purchased a property s. 22(1) . Many present maps and drawings show this grid of lots s. 22(1) . Early maps of this grid indicate land set aside for roads around these lots. Their dream was to build on this lot and it would be close to s. 22(1) who owned s. 22(1) s. 22(1) . Personally, I have spent many weekends and summers working s. 22(1) . My father’s youngest sister graduated from s. 22(1) . My family established early s. 22(1) roots in West Vancouver and have paid taxes on this lot yet there is neither road access nor utilities.
Today we are discussing development around Rogers Creek which has a direct impact on s. 22(1) because the development before council is s. 22(1) and the future Cypress Village is s. 22(1) . s. 22(1) and appears to be bordered on s. 22(1) . Hopefully thi,s nw -yiO( L//yt6L footpath is not s. 22(1) . The new development includes a fire Ianewhich c’rosses a portion of this grid of lots but then s. 22(1) .
Allof these changes are happening s. 22(1) still do not have any road access nor utilities. s. 22(1) were sold a lot that shows road allotments around it. When are these roads and utilities going to be built? The property is land locked without access. What would you do?
There is no address. The city has been sweeping this under the rug. This is not fair.
When is this going to be done?
Can someone step up to see that road access and utilities are implemented?
Can this council make a commitment to get this done in 6 months or 9 months?
Thank you for considering our plea to make this right. ______(5)(70)
ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Receivedat December3, 2019,publichea,ingregerdingproposed s. 22(1) Shaw VVebmaii ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,MiendmentBylawNo.5044,2019; OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4985,2018,AmendmentBylaw No.5045,2019;andPhasedDevelopmentAgreementAuthmizehon BylawNo.5041,2019forAreas5 and6 ofRodgersCreel
s. 22(1) From : Tue, Dec 03, 2019 06:33 AM
Subject :
Reply To :
Liveat s. 22(1) s. 22(1) Have lived in west van - overpaid for our first British Properties house--s. 22(1) ! I am s. 22(1) but, since we did not poll our owners, these comments are my own.
Of the owners that I did talk with, the main concern seemed to be the increased traffic. In ski season weekends, traffic is particularly heavy. I would strongly suggest that B P can only build say 500 homes [approx what was previously approved] and no more, until a connection is made to the Westmount interchange.
this willtake some of the mountain traffic, as well as some of the traffic from the new housing this willalso take traffic going to caulfield.
I think that the addition of rental housing is good--as long as our municipal government does not get into the rental business!
Any Questions?
-- — . 4 . OO r / (5)(71)
ON-TABLE 1610-20-504415045 Receivedat December3,2019,pubhchearingregardingproposed: ZoningBylawNo.4662,2010,AmendmentBylawNo.5044,2019; Bylaw OfficialCommunityPlanBylawNo.4685,2018,Amendment Authorization No.5045,2019;endPhasedDevelopmentAgreement BylawNo.5041,2019forAreasSand 6 ofRodgersCreelc
Good evening Mayor and Council. I’m s. 22(1) , a iongtime vvest Van resident with s. 22(1) continuous commitment to community service.
I support BPP’s application to add more housing to their previously approved proposal, especially that a hefty portion meets our desperate need for smaller
condo units and rental housing. I have spent much time reading the proposal, its
environmental sustainability, talking with the developer and others. I find it to be sound and beyond the expectations of our most serious sustainability experts.
I’vealso seen BPP’s products. Their quality and design are exceptional.
I’mhere tonight not only to add my name to those in favour of this proposal, but hopefully to start a new trend. It’s called: ‘Where’s your solution?” Come with your opinion, pro or con, but also add your sound, workable solution to improve any proposal.
Like many, I have been disappointed a food store is not part of this proposal, that its absence willclog our roads and commercial core with local traffic. So here’s my researched solution. Bring the food to Rodgers Creek. Several Canadian and many American communities have implemented this solution, and it’s decreasing traffic by a much as 40%. Picture it: a bus. Seats removed, aisles lined with shelves of produce and groceries, coolers offering milk, juice, dairy, eggs, proteins and bread. A Mobile Food Store. In a simple partnership, the
District could decommission an older Blue Bus, give it over for a dollar to a not for profit—or say--to Fresh Street--who could paint it or wrap it with a smart logo-- and every day, this bus could supply customers not only at Rodgers Creek but all storeless neighbourhoods above the highway. With a small grant to rewire it for chilling and minor by-law changes, this bus could be on the road in a year. All it would need at Rodgers Creek is a place to park. This is a temporary solution until Cypress Village is built, but it decreases traffic and provides a needed ,) service elsewhere--and it can enhance this proposal and amenities.
Our civic roof is leaking. Do we need more pots and pans to catch the leaks as
the roof caves in OR do we need a future? I urge Council to ask this question of every public hearing speaker: “Iheard your voice, but where’s your solution?”
Harness the brainpower of a really smart community to power our own future.
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1)
Wet
Thank
application.
for
The
I other
association
is
but article
population.
prices
central
Fast
Mountain older
Pacific
Further
indicated
After
hearing,
Globe
“West
respectfully
41,000
almost
with
Vancouver
Rogers
forward
direction,
couples
two
you,
plus
we and
Van
Properties
the to
.22(1) s.
no
then
or
is
that
see
years
all
100
tries
Mail,
offsetting
Creek
with
article
(When
the
less)!
not
campaigns
ask
to
that
more
they’d
Mayor
years.
that
hidden
jLIst
to
today
of
an May
.22(1) s.
Mayor
re-
to
states
the
are
build
discussions organization
,
single
of
ensure
and
like
13,2010,
Pamela
development
increase
article
downsizing.”
and
providing
issue
support
and
in
to
that
larger
-family
we
the
see
that
of
council
Goldsmith
was
“it
Frances
are
in
about
a past
housing
single
for
choice,
which
its
tax
municipal
(West
written
homes
discussing
proposal
next
homes
municipal
to
revenue
alternative
family
Bula
has
scipport
VancoLiver)
-Jones
and
built
project
on
the
of
been
budget
wrote:
,discussed large
improved
houses
that
the due
stated
all
election.
said”local
this
on
sizes.”
part
housing
same
to
would
lots
that
the
has
specific
population
a ,
of and
“,
affordability
flat
slopes
issue,
tonite
Almost
has
worked
West
this
suit
forms
ON-TABLE
Bylaw Zoning
residents No.
Official
Received
consequently
or
5045,
risen
re-development
is
young
No.
declining
Community
the
Bylaw
VancoLiver’s
moves
of
at
May 2019;
5041,2019
10
was
December
with
at
No.
Cypress
issue
over
and
years
4662,2010,
Plan
a families
,
2010. Phased
have
42,000
tor
in
British
3,
us public
Bylaw
Areas
2019,
the
that
1610-20-5044i5045
Development
in
Amendment
after
No.
public
5
higher
clearly
and
decade 4985,2018,
the
fabric
of 6
or
was hearing
now
the
Agreement
Rodgers Bylaw
(5)(72)
regarding
Amendment
it
No.
Creek
5044,2019;
Authotizaton
proposed: Bylaw TOP STORIES x Battleescalates in Alberta , Canadian high school students Personal insolvencies hit between unions, Jason Kenney ‘ among top performers in highest level in a decade government over layoff threats V . reading, according to new international ranking 2 UPDATED
)ECE’.132R 3 UPDATED
Minding their manors: West Van tries to build support for homes of all sizes
FRANCES BULA> VANCOUVER PUBUSHED MAY13, 2010 UPDATEDAPRIL 28, 2018
PUBlISHED MAY 13, 2010
Trilsarticle was published more than 9 years ago. Some information in it may no longer be current.
0 COMHENTS SHARE
WestVancouver has frequently been described as the country’s wealthiest postal code, a suburb perched on a mountainside overlooking the city - the BeverlyHillsof British Columbia.
Now West Van is wrestling with a dilemma that many other less affluent cities have tackled: how to create affordable, compact housing that will make room in the community for a wider range of people, while also helping to preserve the environment.
In a citywhere the benchmark house price has recently been pegged at S1.4- million, and with a median household income close to S102,000, that has proven to be a delicate process.
Within the next three weeks, city councillors will decide - after two years of lengthy community discussions about alternative housing forms - whether to approve two pilot projects that would allow landowners to build small, secondary houses on a back portion of their properties.
That has been preceded by several sets of poiis, a community forum, numerous reports and a process that selected the two pilot projects from 17 proposals.
Mayor Pam Goldsmith-Jonessaid local residents have clearly indicated that they’d like to see some housing built that would suit young families or older couples that are downsizing. But they also want something that fits West Van’scharacter.
“Ithink council is getting quite impatient but we do vant to get it right,” said Ms.Goldsmith-Jones,who presides over more than 42,000 residents with an .,)“1’2[’’ • unusually high number of graduate degrees and a propensity for speaking out. ‘WestVancouver makes change with great caution. Sowe’re not making radical change. We’regoing one step at a time. But I am hopeful we can demonstrate change that reflectscommunity values.”
One step the community took in Marchwas to legalizesecondary suites within houses, something that’s been commonplace elsewhere for decades. Forty-sixpeople have applied so tar.
Andonce the matter of the two secondary houses has been voted on, there are two more pilot projects in the works - one for a duplex and another that would allow four housing units on one single-family lot.
A major step the city is still working on is a wholesale zoning change that would allow more condos around the main commercial street next to Ambleside Beach. And it has worked with the owner of British Pacific Properties, the development company that set the high-end standard for Vest Vancouver when it began building luxury homes in the 1940s, to ensure thac its next project on the slopes of Cypress Motmtain is not just single-family homes on large lots. Instead, it will include apartments and townhouses.
To keep building support for the new housing proposals, West Van is holding vet another community forum next week, called Homes That Fit Us and Fit In, to go over its ideas again.
But the biggest signal of the city’swillingness to allow new forms is likely to be the imminent decision on the pilot-project secondary houses.
“Itreally is a test of poIitial will,”said Rick Cruneau, who is involved in un of the pilot projects. ‘Now they’ll have to decide if this is just rhetoric.”
Prof. Cruneau, of the Simon Fraser University School of Commimication, and his wife, lawyer Shelley Bentley, bought their house near Whytecliff Park in 1993 after renting in the area the previous nine years. Along with it, they bought the “remainder parcel” attached to it that the previous residents had owned - a triangular piece of land on one side of the lot that under current zoning is too small to build a house on.
With their three children grown and on1y one left at home, Prof. Gruneau and Ms.Bentley started looking to downsize without having to leave the area. They couldn’t find anything for less than $1-million, so they started to explore the idea of building a small house on the remainder lot.
Then the’ discovered West Van was considering pilot projects for houses like that. One of Vancouver’s most prominent first-generation architects, now retired Barry Downs, designed them a two-storey, glass-enclosed house with about 600 square feet on each floor. The Gruneau-Bentley house - nicknamed the Lantern House - was selected as one of the two pilots, partly because of huge neighbourhood support.
Ir’ D-hj’ -S -1• 1331 AM 5 One of my neighbours said, ‘Afterall the coaching you’ve done here, you want to bui]d a nuclear power plant, fine with me,’ “Prof. Gruneau said.
But despite a December celebration party the neighbourhood held when the house plan was selected as a pilot, one set of neighbours who recently moved in has since decided they are not in favour of the Lantern House. Prof. Gruneau expects they will voice their opposition at the public hearing.
“The mayor and council is saying everybody wants this. Now we’llsee how the process works,” he said.
In the end, his new little house will end up costing $700,000, if it gets built, partly because of the difficulties of construction on a hillside. (Prof.Gruneau will get less than he tvou]d otherwise for selling his main house, because it will have a shared driveway with the Lantern House. The main house is worth at least Si-million.)
In Spiteof that, he thinIs West Van will have achieved its affordability and sustainability goals, in its own way.
The little house will use.far less energy than one of the “Frenchprovincial monstrosities” that dot West Van, he said. It will pave the way for the municipality to make use of the many small remainder lots in the district.
And it will let Prof.Gruneau and Ms. Bentley stay in the community where they have lived for nearly three decades.
Specialto The Globe and Mail
httpa//w.w.thogobc3ndrnoiI comfnowzfbritsh ccurnbio/min..tries to bud oupport for-homeo of aH :co/artico4353i35/ 2019 12 03, 10:37 AM Page 3 of 3 (5)(73)
ON.TABLE Received Byla efllber3,20196 9-5044,5045
s. 22(1) No.50 f1UfliPfa/0 — speaking points Araas5andS 9reemefltAth YIaw Rodgers Creek Area 5 + 6 Rezoning ofRger8k • Good evening Mayor Booth and members of Council. s. 22(1) As you know, my name is Iwas a resident of West Vancouver for over s. 22(1) , and recently was forced to move out of my community s. 22(1) where I raised my children, and sat on numerous
volunteer committees. I now live in the City of North Vancouver — all due to the lack of housing and diversity of housing in this great community.
• I am here to voice my support for this rezoning
application by British Pacific Properties, as I believe it will begin to help others, like me, who, following decades of living in this community in the typical large single family home, are looking to downsize with little to no options in West Vancouver today — and selfishly, this project, or others like it, may allow my
husband and I to move back to the community we’ve served and loved.
• While I recognize this is a rezoning application, it feels more like a refinement and improvement to the existing Rodgers Creek Area Development Plan which was approved by Council in 2008, following a lot of community consultation, in which s. 22(1) . • British Pacific Properties is not looking for additional floor area to sell, but rather has reduced the overall unit sizes in these two areas, to better reflect Council and Community Priorities for housing diversity as outlined in our OCP. In addition, British Pacific Properties has added a new purpose-built rental
building which is desperately needed. I heard this need throughout my recent campaign and while, this will not necessarily be “affordable” rental, it will provide opportunities for our working population to reside in the community in which they work, rather than having to commute across one or more bridges, daily, which only adds to our congestion. Itwillalso allow for those who wish to sell their homes, bank their nest egg and rent, stay in their community.
\\. runderstand there are fears around increased growth and the impacts this growth will have on our local road system. Having moved to the very busy s. 22(1)
area, I know that the only way we are going to ease congestion is to make it as easy for people to choose alternative options for transportation. Clustering new homes, close to future services and amenities, including transit and car share, is the only way to help with this. Our own family got rid of two cars by moving to an area with alternative transportation options! • Finally — the original Rodgers Creek plan was. approved in 20d8 for 736 homes, before the Village, and before transit Uncjet the new plan, the expected occupancy date for commercial services and transit in Cypress Village is 2025 With the time it willtake to build out the area, this means the majority of fj%re residents of Rodgers Creek willmove into nighbourhood with access to grocery (estaurants, and other daily needs.. Thi not the expectation of the original 2008 R reek Plan, and is a drastic/ improvement to in. • For these reasons, I hope Council willapprove this rezoning. Thank you. (6)(a)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 11:06 AM To: MayorandCouncil; Nina Leemhuis Subject: 5G Cell Phone Radiation: How the Telecom Companies Are Losing the Battle to Impose 5G Against the Will of the People - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Power is knowledge. Knowledge is power. hps://www.!1oha1research.caJte1cos-1osimz-hatt1e-i;npose-5g/569 1065
s. 22(1)
West Van BC (6)(b)
From: s. 22(1) O63-o3 Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 8:51 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1)
Subject: Pretty convincing
An odd coincidence that there are more NFL players falling illthis year that ever before (at least for one team) and that 5G was activated in 13 stadiums in Sept. 2019
Patriots’ Captain Has Never Seen So Much Illness Among Players. Could It Be from Verizon Operating 5G at Their Stadium?
“for me, in my 10 years here, this is probably the most guys I’ve seen be gone with just being sick. Guys came in, you look in their eyes and you could tell they were just out of it. So hopefitlly a day at home with meds and rest will help guys out.” https://www.activistpost.com/201 9/71/patriots-captai n-has-never-seen-so-much- illness-among-players-could-it-be-f rom-verizon-operati ng-5g-at-thei r stadium.html
Sent courtesy: s. 22(1)
W.Van. (6)(c)
From: s. 22(1) Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 9:23 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: s. 22(1)
Subject: Please pass this on to engineering, and other staff -- we all need to educate ourselves before investing further tax $$into potentially deadly technology! Attachments: pastedGraphic.pdf
5G - FROMBLANKETSTO BULLETS
by Arthur Firstenberg The single most important fact about 5G that nobody is talking about is called “phased array.” It will totally change the way cell towers and cell phones are constructed and will transform the blanket of radition which has enveloped our world for two decades into a million powerful beams whizzing by us at all times. Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves (harcourt Brace, 1995), brought this to my attention. A mutual friend, with whom I was speaking during the campaign to defeat S.B. 649 in California, passed on a message from Blake: “5G antennas will be phased arrays; Arthur will know what that means.” And I did. Phased arrays were one of the first things I learned about in the very beginning of my long, involuntary journey from medical student to campaigner against wireless technology. After I was injured by X-rays in 1980, I began to read everything I could get my hands on that had to do with electromagnetic radiation and its effects on life. And one of the first books I read was Paul Brodeur’s The Zapping of America (W.W. Norton, 1977). Early warnings Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker who had purchased property on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, only to discover that 30 miles inland, across the bay from his future home, the Air Force was planning to construct the world’s most powerful radar station. It was going to scan the Atlantic Ocean as a key early warning element protecting us against the threat of sea-launched ballistic missiles from the Soviet Union. Although it emitted an average power of only 145,000 watts, similar to some FM radio stations, it did not broadcast that energy from only a single antenna and it did not spread that energy out uniformly in all directions. Instead, it had 3,600 antennas arranged in two “phased arrays” of 1,800 antennas each. The antennas in each array worked together as a unit to focus all their energy into a narrow, steerable beam. Each beam had an effective power of four billion watts, and the peak radiation level exceeded one milliwatt per square centimeter—the FCC’s safety limit today—at a distance of three miles in front of the radar station. The facility was called PAVE PAWS (Precision Acquisition of Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System). The Defense Department acknowledged in a 1975 report, quoted by Brodeur, that such systems “energize thousands of operational elements, are electronically steered at high search rates, and operate at a frequency range having a maximum whole body energy transfer to man and for which little bioeffects data exists.”Ljj Shortly after I read this, I discovered firsthand what some of the bioeffects were. Attempting to finish my M.D. almost cost me my life. I collapsed one day with all the symptoms of a heart attack, whereupon I resigned from school and moved up to Mendocino to recover. There I was in the path of the other PAVE PAWS, the one that scanned the Pacific Ocean. This PAVE PAWS was due east of Mendocino, in California’s Central Valley at Beale Air Force Base. And for nine months, every evening at precisely 7:00 p.m., no matter where I was or what I was doing, my chest would tighten and I would be unable to catch my breath for the next two hours. At precisely 9:00 p.m., my body would relax and I could breathe. I lived in Mendocino from 1982 through 1984, and although I eventually recovered my health, I was always aware of an uncomfortable pressure in my chest whenever I was on the coast. I also lived in Mendocino from 1999 to 2004, and felt that same discomfort whenever I was there, and always felt it suddenly vanish when I drove out of range of PAVE PAWS, and suddenly return at the same point on my journey home. Directed beams 5G is going to be at a much higher frequency range, which means the antennas are going to be much smaller— small enough to fit inside a smartphone—but like in PAVE PAWS they are going to work together in a phased array, and like in PAVE PAWS they are going to concentrate their energy in narrow, steerable high power beams .j2j The arrays are going to track each other, so that wherever you are, a beam from your smartphone is going to be aimed directly at the base station (cell tower), and a beam from the base station is going to be aimed directly at you. If you walk between someone’s phone and the base station, both beams will go right through your body. The beam from the tower “jill hit you even if you are in the general vicinity of someone who is on a smart phone. And if you are in a crowd, multiple beams will overlap and be unavoidable. At present, smartphones emit a maximum of about two watts, and usually operate at a power of less than a watt. That will still be true of 56 phones, however inside a 56 phone there may be 8 tiny arrays of 16 tiny antennas each,L[ all working together to track the nearest cell tower and aim a narrowly focused beam at it. The FCC has recently adopted ruiesL4J. allowing the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts. Now if a handheld smartphone sent a 20-watt beam through your body, it would far exceed the exposure limit set by the FCC. What the FCC is counting on is that there is going to be a metal shield between the display side of a 56 phone and the side with all the circuitry and antennas. That shield will be there to protect the circuitry from electronic interference that would otherwise be caused by the display and make the phone useless. But it will also function to keep most of the radiation from traveling directly into your head or body, jj and therefore the FCC is allowing 5G phones to come to market that will have an effective radiated power that is ten times as high as for 4G phones. What this will do to the user’s hands, the FCC does not say. And who is going to make sure that when you stick a phone in your pocket, the correct side is facing your body? And who is going to protect all the bystanders from radiation that is coming in their direction that is ten times as strong as it used to be? And what about all the other 5G equipment that is going to be installed in all your computers, appliances, and automobiles? The FCC calls handheld phones “mobile stations.” Transmitters in cars are also “mobile stations.” But the FCC has also issued rules for what it calls “transportable stations,” which it defines as transmitting equipment that is used in stationary locations and not in motion, such as local hubs for wireless broadband in your home or business.Ij The FCC’s new rules allow an effective radiated power of 300 watts for such equipmentjfl Enormous power The situation with cell towers is, if anything, worse. So far the FCC has approved bands of frequencies around 24 GHz, 28 6Hz, 38 GHz, 39 GHz, and 48 GHz for use in 5G stations, and is proposing to add 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 50 GHz, 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and above 95 GHz to the soup.jSj These have tiny wavelengths and require tiny antennas. At 50 6Hz, an array of 1,024 antennas will measure only 4 inches square.j9J And the maximum radiated power per array will probably not be that large—tens or hundreds of watts. But just as with PAVE PAWS, arrays containing such large numbers of antennas will be able to channel the energy into highly focused beams, and the effective radiated power will be enormous. The rules adopted by the FCC allow a 56 base station operating in the millimeter range to emit an effective radiated power of up to 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum.jjQj And when you consider that some of the frequency bands the FCC is making available will allow telecom companies to buy up to 3 GHz of contiguous spectrum at auction, they will legally be allowed to emit an effective radiated power of up to 900,000 watts if they own that much spectrum. The base stations emitting power like that will be located on the sidewalk. They will be small rectangular structures mounted on top of utility poles. The reason the companies want so much power is because millimeter waves are easily blocked by objects and walls and require tremendous power to penetrate inside buildings and communicate with all the devices that we own that are going to part of the Internet of Things. The reason such tiny wavelengths are required is because of the need for an enormous amount of bandwidth—a hundred times as much bandwidth as we formerly used— in order to have smart homes, smart businesses, smart cars, and smart cities, i.e. in order to connect so many of our possessions, big and small, to the internet, and make them do everything we want them to do as fast as we want them to do it. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth—but the smaller the waves. Base stations have to be very close together—100 meters apart in cities—and they have to blast out their signals in order to get them inside homes and buildings. And the only way to do this economically is with phased arrays and focused beams that are aimed directly at their targets. What happens to birds that fly through the beams, the FCC does not say. What happens to workers who climb utility poles? A 30,000-watt beam will cook an egg, or an eye, at a distance of a few feet. And the power from a base station will be distributed among as many devices as are connected at the same time.jjJj When a lot of people areusing their phones simultaneously, everyone’s phone will slow down but also the amount of radiation in each beam will be less. When you are the only person using your phone—for example, late at night—your data speed will be blisteringly fast but most of the radiation from the cell tower will be aimed at you. Deep penetration into the body Another important fact about radiation from phased array antennas is this: it penetrates much deeper into the human body and the assumptions that the FCC’s exposure limits are based on do not apply. This was brought to everyone’s attention by Dr. Richard Albanese of Brooks Air Force Base in connection with PAVE PAWS and was reported on in Microwave News in 2002.jjj When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors.jjj They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough.jj,41 5G will probably satisfy both requirements. This means that the reassurance we are being given— that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body—is not true. In the United States, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all competing to have 5G towers, phones, and other devices commercially available as early as the end of 2018. AT&T already has experimental licenses and has been testing 5G-type base stations and user equipment at millimeter wave frequencies in Middletown, New Jersey; Waco, Austin, Dallas, Piano, and Grapevine, Texas; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and South Bend, Indiana. Verizon has experimental licenses and has been conducting trials in Houston, Euless, and Cypress, Texas; South Plainfield and Bernardsville, New Jersey; Arlington, Chantilly, Falls Church, and Bailey’s Crossroads, Virginia; Washington, DC; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Brockton and Natick, Massachusetts; Atlanta; and Sacramento. Sprint has experimental licenses in Bridgewater, New Brunswick, and South Plainfield, New Jersey; and San Diego. T Mobile has experimental licenses in Beilevue and Bothell, Washington; and San Francisco. January 17, 2018 UI The Zapping of America, p. 243. jJ W. Hong et al., “Muitibeam Antenna Technologies for 5G Wireless Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 65(12): 6231-6249 (2017). jJ Y. Huo and W. Xu, “5G Cellular User Equipment: From Theory to Practical Hardware Design,” arXiv:1704.02540v3 (2017), Fig. 11. j4J 47 CFR 30.202(b) jj Huo and Xu, p. 4 and Fig. 4. jJ In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order, FCC 16-89, 11 285-287 (2016) (“First Report and Order”). £fl 47 CFR § 30.202(c) fJ First Report and Order, FCC 16-89 (2016); Second Report and Order, FCC 17-152 (2017). £9J Huo and Xu, p. 12 and Fig. 7(a). L1QJ47 CFR § 30.202(a) UiJ Reply Comments of Nokia to FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Feb. 26, 2016, Appendix). U2J Microwave News 22(2): 1, 10-12. jJ R. Albanese et al., “Ultrashort Electromagnetic Signals: Biophysical Questions, Safety Issues and Medical Opportunities,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, May 1994, pp. A116-A120. Jj,4J B. Macke and B. Ségard, “Simple Asymptotic Forms for Sommerfeld and Brillouin Precursors,” arXiv:1203.4461v2 (2018). Copyright © 2019 Cellular PhoneTask Force - All Rights Reserved Contact Cellular Phone Task Force
Other informative sites:
THE INVISIBLE RAINBOW Purchase Reviews 5G SPACE APPEAL 5G Space Appeal — News, Needs and Plans for Delivery CELL PHONES: O&As 5G — FROM BLANKETSTO BULLETS WIFI IN THE SKY Planetary Emergency 5G from Space Taos, New Mexico, August 12, 2018 NEWS News from Around the World LANDMARKSCIENTIFIC STUDIES Olle )ohansson Leif Salford Allan H. Frey ASSAULT ON NATURE Bees Frogs Articles by Alfonso Balmori REPORTS, ARTICLES & STUDIES Epidemiological Studies Joining the Dots Mainstream Articles Review Article by Andrew Goldsworthy Articles by Arthur Firstenberg VOICES OF CONCERN Government & Organizational Bans and Warnings Statements by Scientists Warning by Acupuncturists SMART METERS WIND TURBINES GROUND CURRENTS ELECTROMAGNETIC HYPERSENSITIVITY (EHS from: s. 22(1) (6)(d) O632o3 From: s. 22(1) Sent: Sunday, December 1,2019 11:38AM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Prime Minister! Premier Ministre Subject: Canada’s shockingly high standards
Yes we have have the highest standard, but in the wrong direction! We allow the most radiation to hit Canadians 24/7/365, together with the other English speaking countries. But here is what Austria allows
:Conversion Chart, World Exposure Limits,Exposures EMR/EMF
U.S. 200 microwatts/cm2 to 1,000 microwatts/cm2 Canada 1,000 microwatts/cm2
Lichtenstein 0.1 microwatts/cm2 Austria Outdoor 0.001 microwatts/cm2 Austria Indoor 0.0001 microwatts/cm2
Cosmic EMRbackground we evolved from <0.00000000001 microwatts/cm2 https://mdsafetech.org/conversion-and-exposu re-limits-emr-emf/
(Forward by: s. 22(1) West Van.1 (7)(a)
From: s. 22(1) —O-4t3 Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 7:09 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Thunderbird Marina Re-Zoning Attachments: Marina Re-Zoning.pdf; Marina Letter 201 9.doc
Dear Madam Mayor and Councillors,
Please find attached our submission regarding the proposed rezoning of Thunderbird Marina. Note that the photos we refer to are included in the attached council report.
Sincerely,
s. 22(1) s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC, s. 22(1)
November 29, 2019
Mayor and Council, District of West Vancouver,
mayorandcouci [email protected]
Dear Madam Mayor and Councillors,
We are hereby submitting our objection to the proposed fe-zoning of the Thunderbird Marina, as outlined in the Council Report of October 17, 2019.
We have lived at s. 22(1) for the past s. 22(1) . The location of our home has been circled on the attached photos. As you can see, our home is s. 22(1) significantly affected by the marina activities at this location.
Several years ago, we wrote to the District of West Vancouver with a complaint about the noise, fumes and particulate matter emanating from the section of the marina s. 22(1) Our complaint then is the same as it is today. At that time, we had spoken several times with your Director of Planning and Development, Stephen Nicholls. He made a surprise visit to our home on Mothers Day, a Sunday in May, and seemed appalled by the noise and fumes from the marina, as he s. 22(1) His statement to us was, “How can you stand this? My wife wouldn’t be able to stand this.”
We know that West Vancouver has bylaws to prevent excessive noise, but the marina has not seemed interested in complying with these laws in the past. This has been an ongoing problem ever since the expansion of the working deck area in 1997. Several times we have s. 22(1) asked people to tone the noise down, with mixed results. The noise from an unmuffled boat motor, out-of-water, is extreme. We took 4 decibel meter readings on different days over a two week period s. 22(1) . The readings were 82, 82, 85, and 90.
We understand that activities such as hull-grinding and fibre-glassing are supposed to be done in a building to prevent fumes and particulate matter from wafting into neighbouring properties. This is routinely not being done. We are often plagued by such fumes and particulate matter, as the s. 22(1) developed asthma while living here and s. 22(1) . We do not know if these diseases are related to the fumes from the marina, but they might have been.
Much of the summer and spring months, we have to keep our windows closed and s. 22(1) , because of the noise and fumes. Regarding the storage of boats, the new zoning would not limit in any way the size of boats that could be stored on the property. What would stop the marina from storing very large boats on the property s. 22(1) , completely destroying s. 22(1) ? They did store a very large shrink-wrapped boat s. 22(1) one year. s. 22(1) complained to marina management, who then moved the boat to another part of the yard. There would be no incentive to move any such boats in future, if the marina was allowed to store any size boat on any part of the re-zoned property.
We would like the marina to please comply with the existing bylaws. We do not mind the owners doing some repairs on their boats, but activities such as outdoor hull-grinding, fibre-glassing, out of water motor running, and the like, should be prohibited. That type of industrial activity does not belong in a single family zoned neighbourhood.
Marina management says that boat repairs on the property have been ongoing for some time, which is true, but that still does not make everything right. We feel that, at least with the current zoning, we have some sort of recourse when the boat yard activities are intolerable. It would be great if marina management conveyed to owners what repairs and maintenance activities are permitted and what are prohibited. If management became more involved with policing the yard and shutting down inappropriate behaviour, we would be very grateful.
We respectfully request that you do not approve this rezoning. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
s. 22(1)
c.c. Jim Bailey, Director of Planning and Development Services Donna Powers, Director of Community Relations and Communications 47 / COUNCILAGEND.4
Date: tern: ector - AO
DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER 750 17THSTREET,WEST VANCOUVERBC V7V3T3 COUNCIL REPORT LjOFober 17, 2019 LEcrn_i Erik Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner LJect: Thunderbird Mathia Zoning Amendment 1010-20-17-026 RECOMMENDATION THAT Proposed “Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2017” regarding the rezoning 015776 Marine Drive (Thunderbird Marina) be read a first time. RECOMMENDATION THAT Proposed “Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2017” be presented at a public hearing scheduled for December 3, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Municipal Hall Council Chamber, and that statutory notice be given of the scheduled Public Hearing. 0 1.0 Purpose To present to Council a proposed zoning amendment for Thunderbird Marina to legitimize existing historical outdoor uses. 2.0 Legislation/Bylaw/Policy Zoning Bylaw The subject site is “splitzoned”, CR3 (Commercial Restricted 3) and M3 (Marine 3) which regulates permitted uses and location of buildings as well as parking requirements (Appendix A). The proposed rezoning would modify the allowable uses within the CR3 zone and the M3 zone. The modifications to the zones are applicable only to Thunderbird Marina. 3.0 Official Community Plan (OCP) Policy BF-C9, within the OCP, designates marinas and yacht clubs as Development Permit Areas. The Development Permit Area guidelines provide for waterfront environmental protection and guide local commercial redevelopment within a residential and waterfront setting. Policy BF-C9 requires issuance of a Development Permit prior to any substantial development activities on marina sites; however, as there are no development activities included with the rezoning proposal, there is no requirement for issuance of a Development Permit.
141 Date: October 17, 2019 Page 2 From: Erik Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner Subject: Thunderbird Marina Rezoning Text Amendment
4.0 Financial Implications
Development application fees are paid by the applicant as per the Fees and Chagres Bylaw, 4989, 2018. Any additional direct or administrative costs are considered cost recoverable and borne by the applicant.
5.0 Background
Thunderbird Marina has operated in Fisherman’s Cove since the early 1950s. As seen in Figure 1, there is an extensive network of on-water moorage facilities. There is one primary marina building and three maintenance buildings located onsite (Figure 2). The majority of the land is utilized for vehicle parking (for marina users), boat storage, boat maintenance and boat sales areas. A number of accessory uses, and businesses, operate at the marina including: • custom upholstery and awning work; general boat repairs; general boat supply sales; boat and yacht sales; Offices (Thunderbird Marina); Outboard motor sales and repairs; and Caretakers quarters (above primary marina building). s. 22(1)
5.1 Previous Decisions — Not applicable.
5.2 History — Not applicable.
142 Date: October 17, 2019 Page 3 From: ErikWilhelm, Senior Community Planner Subject: Thunderbird Marina Rezoning Text Amendment
H 6.0 Analysis 6.1 Description of Site The Marina is located at 5776 Marine Drive, and is bounded by Marine Drive to the north and northwest, Eagle Island to the south, residential uses to the east, and the West Vancouver Yacht Club to the west. The water lot and portions of the upland of the Marina are zoned M3, while the remaining upland portions are zoned CR3 (Figure 3).
s. 22(1)
t
6.2 Proposal
It has recently come to the District’s attention through a business license review that there are some historical outdoor marina activities occurring throughout the upland portion of the marina that are non-conforming with existing zoning, including: • boat and engine repairs and maintenance; • storage of boats greater than 3.7 metres (12 feet) in height; and • boat and engine sates and displays.
143 Date: October 17, 2019 Page 4 From: ErikWilhelm, Senior Community Planner Subject: Thunderbird Marina Rezoning Text Amendment
The rezoning would modify the permitted uses within the CR3 and M3 fl zones, specifically applicable to the Thunderbird Marina site, to allow the above noted uses (Appendix B). The rezoning would legitimize these historical outdoor uses and allow the marina to operate in fullcompliance with the zoning bylaw. The rezoning does not trigger the requirement for additional parking or a development permit, as no new development activities are proposed. 6.3 Discussion
Subject to public input, staff supports the rezoning as it is consistent with current OCP policy to encourage the retention of existing marinas. The proposed outdoor uses are a key component of day-to-day marina operations, which willencourage retention of the marina for the long-term. Staff note that the Noise Control Bylaw regulates noise disturbances throughout the District. Accordingly, in compliance with the Noise Control Bylaw, conventional marina business activity noises (e.g. boat engine repair) are not permitted on Sundays, statutory holidays and before 7:30 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on any other day (although the marina is open to recreational moorage customers 24 hours a day). Ifthe proposal proceeds to a public hearing, the surrounding neighbours would be given an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Further, the applicant willbe required to host an information meeting prior to the public hearing to clarify that the rezoning is limited to regularizing existing outdoor activities. 6.4 Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) It is District policy to undertake an evaluation of the liftin land value resulting from the rezoning of land to secure amenities relating to the impacts of site-specific rezonings. As there is no increase in density and no proposed development, staff do not recommend that a CAC be required. 6.5 Sustainability Marinas form an integral part of the economic sustainability within the District of West Vancouver. Policy BF-C9, supports the retention of “existing marinas and yacht clubs and encourage improvement or redevelopment compatible with their waterfront and residential settings”. Legitimizing the outdoor uses at the site willallow the marina and its business tenants to continue contributing to the economy of West Vancouver.
0
144 Date: October 17, 2019 Page 5 From: Erik Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner Subject: Thunderbird Marina Rezoning Text Amendment
7.0 Implementing the Project 7.1 Public Engagement and Outreach Public Information Meeting In compliance Development Procedures Bylaw No. 4940, 2017, should the proposal advance, the public willbe given an opportunity to learn about the rezoning prior to the public hearing at an information meeting.
Signage The applicant is requited to install a development information sign, in front of the property, along Marine Drive. Should the proposal advance, the applicant willbe required to update the sign information with particulars about the required public information meeting and public hearing.
Public Hearing and Notification In compliance Development Procedures Bylaw No. 4940, 2017, the proposed rezoning is subject to a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing willbe given in accordance with District procedures.
Website In alignment with current practise, a description of the proposal and applicable dates has been placed on the District website. 7.2 Condition Precedent to Adoption As the property is located within 800 metres of a Controlled Access Highway’ interchange, ministry approval willbe required on the rezoning bylaw in accordance with section 52 of the Transportation Act. 8.0 Options 8.1 Recommended Option
It is recommended that Council give first reading to the proposed bylaw and set a date for a public heating. 8.2 Considered Options Council may: a) give first reading to the proposed bylaw and set an alternative date (to be specified) for a public hearing; or b) defer consideration pending receipt in additional information (to be specified) be provided; or c) reject the proposal.
1 Highway 1 (Upper Levels Highway) is a provincially controlled highway.
145 Date: October 17. 2019 Page 6 From: Erik Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner Subject: Thunderbird Marina Rezoning Text Amendment
9.0 Conclusion Subject to public input, staff recommends that the proposed bylaw be given first reading and a date for a public hearing be scheduled as: • the proposed uses are historically pre-existing and are a part of typical marina operations; • the marina and its business tenants have been operating for many years without substantial complaints; • no new buildings or construction is proposed; • no additional parking is required; and • there willbe minimal negative impact to the surrounding neighbourhood.
Author: Erik Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner
Concurrence (_:) / Michelle McGuire, Manager of Current Planning and Urban Design
Appendices: A. Existing M3 and CR3 Zones B. Proposed “Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2017
0
146
(
Zoning
District
403 Bylaw
-
of
CR3
West
403.03
403.02
No.
403.01
SECTION Vancouver
-
4662,
Commercial 2010
_____
zone,
apply two
None Front
(5)
(6)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1) Conditions
(U)
(b)
(c) (a)
Permitted
REGULATION
intersecting
metres
Boat No
No (c) Any
(b)
(a) One
entrance or vehicles
Parking vehicle
boat
public accessory
to
required,
the
Yard
pleasure
sign
sign
Restricted
any
business
front
sign
storage
storage the
______
the
the
Uses
storage
in
commercial
of
parking
shall
shall
areas
and
or
parking
name
purpose
or
height
yard
Use
except
uses
streets
boats
access
banner
pleasure
is
exceed
not
of
shall
garages
regulations
restricted
of
from
sale,
exceed
rate
that
for shall
the
is
Zone
to
building be
may
wholly
2.4
which
keep
structure
proprietor display,
the
where
boats
used
not be
______
metres
1
to
site,
of
3
square
to
be
or
the
erected
boats
or
for
only
one
the
the
carried
repair
partially
indicating
structure
site
parking
or
in
residential
side
top
not
metre
operator,
height
is
on
or
of on
______
exceeding
of
operated;
in
the
servicing
super
or
a
the
in
in
a
storage
street
site
residential
total
this
zone
following
structure
at
zone
area and
3.7
between of
Page
shall
each
of
vehicles
only: 400
-
8 147 .
14$
Zoning
District
Bylaw
of
West
No.
403.07
403.06
403.05
403.04
Vancouver
4662,
2010
All
adequate Grading
7.6
side
Building residential Side
7.6
None
Rear
parking
metres
metres
yard
Yard
Yard
required,
and
Height
of
drainage
zone
areas
maximum
minimum
not
Surfacing
except
less
without
shall
and
than
be
that
dust
the
graded 1.5
where
intervention
control
metres
and
this
shall
surfaced
zone
of
be
a
adjoins
street
provided
to
provide
or
a
Page
lane,
400 a
-
.0
9
CD 0
(
Zoning
District
AMENDING
453
-
Bylaw
of
M3
West
453.02
453.01 No.4662,
SECTION
- Vancouver
_____
Marine
2010
Zone
(1)
Conditions
(k)
(h)
(g)
(I) (j) fe)
fi) (d)
fb)
(C)
Permitted
ff)
REGULATION
a)
Accessory
setbacks
water
parking marine
and
marina
(5)
(6)
floating
(3) ferry
(4)
(2) (1)
marina dwelling
cottage
boat
accessory boat
____
3
floats
sporting store
engines,
storage
outboard
coffee
offices
building
boat
terminal
rental
hoists
taxi
Uses
fuel
of
mooring
land
lot
boat
brewery
applicable
building
Use
moorage
or
buildings
buildings
operations
sales shop
and
facilities
within
sales
shelters
goods
or
and
facilities
launching
marine
or
and
inboard
room
a
and
restaurant
to
shall
and
which
building
the
maintenance
dispatch
supplies
for
including
uses
maintain
principal
ramps
engine
may
the
SECTION
sale
include:
including
repairs
docks,
the
building
and
or
required
rental
450
Document#
repair
wharves,
within
foods
•
MARINE
of
within
minimum
boats,
a
and
Page45O-4
building
4441
piers
ZONES
a
86v1 149
150
Zoning
District
Bylaw
of
West
453.06
453.05
453.04
453.03
No.
Vancouver
4662,
2010
3 Side
(2) (1) Building land
(2)
(1)
Rear 7.6
Front
(3)
(2)
metres
metres
the
(a)
height (b) 7.6
yard
fo)
abuts
9.1
utility No
(b)
(a)
Dwelling
(C)
(b) (a)
Cottage
Yard
Yard
Yard
teat
site
metres
metres
minimum
gantries
tamp boat
Height
279
manager
Only
is noise
no
produced storage
93
1,036
service
the
minimum
is
requited
to
yard
objectionable
square
measured brewery:
square
unit:
hoists,
high
the
one
mechanisms
or
maximum,
minimum
litres
is
areas
for
effluent
maximum
for
or
dwelling
water
on
requited
metres
for
stepping
per
metres
owner
any
site
a
from
week
mark;
sewage
may
building
dust,
except
maximum
unit
for
of
where
maximum
height
the
masts,
the
maximum
be
vehicle
except
for
odour,
average
for:
disposal emitted
marina
or
use
SECTiON the
of
structure
and
floor
the
6
ferries
gas,
floor
rear
solely
metres
of
street
building
is
system
area
beer
yard
smoke,
450 area
permitted.
Document
by
constructed
level
•
including
minimum
adjoins
or
a
MARINE
or
caretaker,
ale
vibration,
abutting
public
Page
#
may
444186v1
or
ZONES
tear
450-5
on
be ()
(
Zoning
District
Bylaw
of
West
453.09
453.08
No.
453.07
Vancouver
4662,
2010
(4)
(3)
(2) (1)
A
Regulations adjoins
and
Landscaping
(4)
(3)
(2)
(I)
Off-Street
compact
maintained
A
4
greater
The All
length groupings,
metres be
Floating
uniform constructed
during
be The
provided,
March Boats wharfed
metres
one
operations,
of
For
For
floating
space
50%
floating
a
maintained carried
______
all
commercial
component
(1)
sale
residential
and
hedge
of
Parking
the
31St
other
above
than
shall
of
additional
length
boat
of
Applicable
pTus
14.6
or
boat
the
the
months on
boat
boat
except
not
in
of
parking
rental
in
the
permitted
be
of
shelters
good 70%
storage
from
the
metres
number
the
groups
shelters,
between
and
less
zone
cradles
shelters
closely
provided
units
width
mooring
surface
immediately
that
parking
of
of
beginning
areas
condition
height
than
space
to
boats
the
of
of
shall
of
of
of
if
uses
planted
Floating
the
the
may
such
the
shall
the boats
not
2
boats
number
facilities
requited
of
space
floating
shall
and
not
adjoining sides
grouping
contained
width
the
less
be
at
October
groupings
be
and
following
SECTION
exceed
or
except
all
shrubs
stored
be
water
for
planned, Boat
than
of
of
vessels
and for
______
of times
boat
boat
provided
boats
boat
every
3
space
vehicle
consists
1St
3
boat
nor
Shelters
within
boat
as
in
shall
a
450
shelters
not
shall
cradles,
year
where
Document
height
shelter
parking
Ifl
hereinafter
for
moored
erected
a
37.5
•
rental
shelters
need any
more
maximum be
in
MARINE
buildings,
parking
hire
be
of
the
any
provided
square
of
year
of
shall
only
areas Page
#
not
than
or
5.5
or
and
amount
a
4441
site
shall
rent
ZONES
to
be
3
not
450
5
86v1 or
-
6 151
152
Zoning
District
Bylaw
of
West
No.
Vancouver
4662,
2010
(5)
are
of The
of
the
all
located
total
supporting
total
area
area
occupied
of
and
the
access
water
by
floating
floats,
lot
SECTION
within
boat
shall
which
450
shelters,
Document
not
•
exceed
such
MARINE
Page
#
inclusive
shelters
4441
10%
ZONES
450-7
86v1
n
0 ()
Amendment
Zoning
Bylaw
District
(Thunderbird
Bylaw
Effective
of
West
No.
Date:
Vancouver
Marina)
No.
4662,
4938,
2010,
APPENDIX 2019 123691
9v1 153 District of West Vancouver 0 Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019
Table of Contents
Pad 1 Citation 1
Part 2 Severability 1
Part 3 Amends the CR3 Zone 1 Part 4 Amends the M3 Zone 2
0
123691 9v1 154 Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019
District of West Vancouver Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019
A bylaw to amend the M3 and CR3 zones.
Previous amendments: Amendment bylaws 4672, 4677, 4678, 4679, 4689, 4701, 4680, 4710, 4697, 4716, 4712, 4737, 4726, 4736, 4757, 4752, 4767, 4787, 4788, 4784, 4772, 47911 4805, 4809, 4828, 4854, 4873, 4866, 4895, 4839, 4898, 4927, 4944, 4905, 4974, 4967, 4982, 4962, 4928, 4992, 50011 5021 and 5024.
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver deems it expedient to provide for amendments to the Zoning Bylaw;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver enacts as follows:
Part 1 Citation
1.1 This bylaw may be cited as “Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019”.
Part 2 Severability
2.1 Ifa portion of this bylaw is held invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then the invalid portion must be severed and the remainder of this bylaw is deemed to have been adopted without the severed section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, clause or phrase.
Part 3 Amends the CR3 Zone
3.1 Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Schedule A, Section 400 “Specialized Commercial Zones,” Section 403 “CR3 — Commercial Restricted Zone 3,” Section 403.02 “Conditions of Use” is amended by adding the following:
3.1 .1 Section 403.02(7) For Lands located at 5776 Marine Drive and described as LOT 2 BLOCK 15 DISTRICT LOT 772 PLAN 12573 (PID: 008-847-321) the following outdoor uses are permitted, despite the above:
123691 9v1 155 Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019 2
(a) boat and boat engine repairs and maintenance; C) (b) storage of boats greater than 3.7 metres in height from keep to the top of super structure; and
(c) boat and boat engine sales and displays.
Part 4 Amends the M3 Zone
4.1 Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Schedule A, Section 450 “Marine Zones,” Section 453 “M3 — Marine Zone 3”, Section 453.02 “Conditions of Use” is amended by adding the following:
4.1.2 Section 453.02(4) For Lands located at 5776 Marine Drive and described as LOT 2 BLOCK 15 DISTRICT LOT 772 PLAN 12573 (PID: 008-847-321) the following outdoor uses are permitted, despite Section 453.01:
(a) boat and boat engine repairs and maintenance;
(b) storage of boats greater than 3.7 metres in height from keep to the top of super structure; and (c) boat and boat engine sales and displays. C)
READ A FIRST TIMEon
PUBLICATIONOF NOTICE OF PUBLiC HEARING on
PUBLIC HEARING HELD on
READ A SECOND TIME on
READ A THIRD TIMEon
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on
ADOPTED by the Council on
0
1236919v1 156 Zoning Bylaw No. 4662, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 4938, 2019 3
Mayor
Corporate Officer
123691 9v1 157 This page intentionally left blank 0
0
This page intentionally left blank 0
158 Thank As All enforced). by it Beside lam Make Already living serene My atmosphere natural I is. focusing Dear Subject: Re: To: Sent: From: live will s. 22(1) not a negative 5776 name Proposed resident, deeply Mayor in no around also allowing o for you residential the home s. 22(1) our
now \kxncouver on Marine mistake, is hit fact of concerned beautiful boatlengine the change and residents .22(1) s. environment. and Zoning I them your this that see Thunderbird the Council Drive s. 22(1) neighborhood close we place only the proposed hard understanding. will all neighborhood Bylaw have directly that planned (Thunderbird to one repairs, I happen, with like Members, call the the to . way No. Marina the Zoning decreasing my Marina. home. suffer character on development wilt maintenance Marina, 46 to if residence top we preserve since 62, and he repair A Bylaw Marina) Sunday, Proposed MayorandCouncil of allow place, soon 2010 of the enjoy property the this is and Amendment. Marinas the views, become commercial will Amendment and every . a December special maintenance natural panoramic Zoning make boat values. the visitor s. 22(1) s. 22(1) a area sales. place place residents boats beauty interests Bylaw (Unless planned Bylaw admires 1, .22(1) s. view of noise will and 2019 and industrial for ufrincreased suffer over change No. the there to in from to character as 12:31 5776 West ignore blissful he 49 awesome here are the used 38, and noise Marine PM Vancouver profound and the Marina 09for 2019 of maritime its for and will love this and peace legalized noise Drive pollution. on to excepttonat being the restrictions (Eagle preserve Sundays activities be levels lively (Thunderbird destroyed. very commercial Harbour). and In yet and special. s. 22(1) and West around, short as potential natural, conditions protect holidays. that Vancouver a business nightmare Marina) but
the Jc-L.q pristine our health it lively implemented has priceless and location hazards, to and for but activities stay all peaceful also vulnerable people (7)(b) the as quiet and it way . still and it is, (7)(c)
__C4i -) From: Michelle McGuire to-I I Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 8:08 AM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: ErikWilhelm Subject: FW: rezoning objection. for Fishermen’s Cove
Original Message From: s. 22(1) Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:34 AM To: Michelle McGuire
Dear Michelle,
Please forward this email to the appropriate authorities if needed.
I am voicing concerns of the proposal to change zoning of Thunderbird Marina in Fishermen’s Cove.
I don’t believe that zoning should change to commercial, as proposed, as it would remove the checks and balances we currently enjoy. These are necessary for the local ecology as well as the peace of our residential area.
Please consider the sensitive habitat that such approval could harm. Indeed such changes to zoning, as I understand, warrant federal review of the impacts to habitat.
I believe that changes allowing for larger boats is a serious change with overwhelming implications.
Larger boats means more noise and pollution.
Such has serious implications to the viable salmon run that goes through this harbour.
Already we deal with heavy dust from the works yard. The impact on air quality in our neighbourhood needs to be considered. As well, the load on catch drains for the chemicals and debris washed off of boats in the boat yards needs to be considered. This yard runs directly adjacent to the moth of Nelson Creek which is home to trout and such, and a run for salmon spawners.
Recent increases in overnight activity from the film industry are upsetting to the peace of the neighbourhood. Iwas misguided as the the scope of activities by a recent Film staff who polled at my house.
I am not opposed to change but in this case an increase in industry and commercial use has much potential detrimental Impacts.
Please consider my arguments. Thank you for your service.
Regards, s. 22(1) s. 22(1) \kncouvQr Sent from my iPad (7)(d)
s. 22(1) From: )éIOcD L_)q3 Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 11:26 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Thunderbird Marina Bylaw amendment.
Hello, s. 22(1) Thunderbird Marina on the s. 22(1) aspect of the property. The present boat liftis approximately 50 or 60 metres from s. 22(1) . There are some worksheds s. 22(1) which have long served as storage for a large private automobile collection. We have lived there for almost s. 22(1) and have always had a good neighbourly relationship with the Marina. Our concern is that, ifthe zoning amendment is granted, then substantial development may occur such as construction of new, larger and higher buildings to accommodate more boats and service facilities and possibly redevelopment of the docks themselves, such as the construction of another boat lift. This would greatly impact the neighbouring properties with regard to noise, lighting and our right to quiet enjoyment would be lessened, to say nothing of the negative effect on the property values. Ifthe foregoing is even a possibility with approval of the amendment, then we would be strongly against it. Please take our concerns into consideration, Thank You, s. 22(1)
‘vJo “*flc1...UVf Thank this industry neighbourhood. Please To: Subject: It Sent: Dear From: has otherwise Mayor come you, consider .22(1) s. and to and its our pristine consequences. leaving Councillors, Eagle attention and Harbour this quiet lovely that is neighbourhood. the a Tuesday, Re harbour/boat MayorandCouncil special bylaws industrial part December may development .22(1) s. of mooring be West changed 3, Vancouver 2019 place of to 9:56 Thunderbird as allow it AM and is so industrial it that would Marina it is developments be not a shame being swallowed to to allow
function 16
more to— pby up (7)(e) in industry the more — in (7)(f)
From: s. 22(1) tbto — O —qqs Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:50 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Marina Attachments: IMG_3126.JPG
Dear Mayor and Council,
We sent a letter earlier for your consideration at tonight’s council meeting, regarding the operations at Thunderbird Marina. We also want to show you the attached photo that was taken yesterday, looking towards the marina s. 22(1) , to give you an idea of some of what we are dealing with on an almost daily basis in the summer, especially on weekends. Unfortunately we didn’t record the accompanying noise. Sorry that we were unable to get the orientation from this iPhone photo to display properly. Thanks again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
s. 22(1)
(8)
From: s. 22(1) 06 Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 12:43 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Ajob well done
Dear Mayor and Council,
This week, I reported a potentially hazardous situation on the side walk of Chippendale road, just east of Highgrove, to the Traffic department.
My e-mail was answered almost straight away by the Dispatcher, Jan Simmons, and the following day on my walk, I noticed that the side walk had been salted.
Today on my walk, I noticed that a crew had dug a small trench and rectified the situation.
I would like you to convey my thanks to all the staff involved for such timely action and the courteous response to my request to have that problem resolved.
Yours sincerely, s. 22(1)
s. 22(1) \t\jQc\ \Jckncou,Q , P.S. that The The Julia Vancouver around The Regards, Attached In pretty On community At upcoming more to Subject: media multicultural Cocincil To: Dear 2020. Cc: known Sent: Subject: From: From: get the the behalf MayorandCouncil purpose the Zhou Tuesday, Mayor organization was Vancouver julia involved past successful. request than An following “WeChat”. members as please the of New zhou five Invitation co-founded Beideng members and Vancouver of the identity, 100 December s. 22(1) of North years, nthe in this Year find New Council, the It to is in annual covers Society
for
To
and group
events. The
photography, experience
recital, VBS
planning,
Fun members educational
Vancouver,
personal The
which
immigrant exchanges
its
VBS
Today,
Beideng
profit
members(households).
In
June
achieve
the
membership,
with
gardening,
Management
management
Mission
mission
about
organization
but
tea
seniors it
2017,
VBS
Society
charisma.
who
has
coordination,
art,
also
culture
with
its
in
to
background
80%
of
reading,
over
international
establish
insure
Vancouver
Chinese
mission,
who
travel,
extended
Beideng
local
is
to
households
that
team
400
It
are
in
mainly
advocate
that
also
West
skiing,
multiculturalism,
English
opera,
will
since
interested
registered
a
communication,
of
and
VBS
social
is
in North
consists
benefit
made
Beideng
enterprises
Vancouver
to
British
June
golf,
cooking,
live
subdivided
stays
learning,
the
enrich
atmosphere
Shore
in up
to
soccer
201
members
future
of
essence
focused
West
and
is
meet
of
a
5,
children’s
the
headed
Hiking
BC,
Tai group
,
as
Chinese
Beideng
implementation
as
American
generations.
and
many
Vancouver.
new
Chi,
well
and
lives
on
well of
that
and
tennis
of
Group
friends
traditional
its
by
painting
renamed
interest
as
of
education,
highly
as
immigrants
more
nourishes
Society
mission,
Junmei
to
Chinese
literature
having
etc.,
was
create
in
than
talented
and
groups,
their
as
as
has
and
officially
Chinese
Somerville
as
strong the
music
Vancouver
well
calligraphy,
1000
immigrants
living
well
a
not
along
own
management
health
broad
such
and
as
only
as
appreciation,
WeChat/Unregistered
leadership
age
registered
elder
culture,
in
responsible
with
devoted as
,
and
and
Northshore
grown
Beideng
who
group.
singing,
dancing,
living
parents
management
friendship
far-reaching
to
of
has
volunteer
skills
as
its
Beideng
increase
farming
in
Society.
for
a
poetry
a
hiking
group
yoga,
West
from
non
high
and
the of
VBS
and,
have actors
sponsored
In
crew.
In
Lions
In In
In ‘s children
In VBS
In
During symposiums than
local
activities,
parties,
Each
at
Kay
June
November April
June
June
July
September
West
voice
and
since
been
3000
Gate
Over winery,
group
Meek
and
2017,
four
2017,
2015, 2017 2017,
summer
to
Community
Vancouver’s
and
then
published
the
West
Hospital
social
800
collect
Theatre
years,
on
VBS
2018,
VBS has
VBS
VBS
VBS
farm
stage
to
audience
there 2018,
various
Vancouver
dancing
welfare
organized
an
organized
launched
arrange
participated
registered
garbage
VBS
VBS
tours,
expansion.
twice
crew.
including
appointed
have
along
Kay
organized
launched
cultural
members
activities,
with
ball,
photography
learning
Over
Meek
been
a
along
Multi
over
a
six-act
its
with
donation
its
in
original
outdoor
400
topics.
own
facilitator(s)
over
a
Theatre
20k
the
Cultural
Ambleside
own
three
six-act
attended
classes.
West
stage
audience
including
West
donation
1000
members
literature,
environmental
sports
competition,
drive
with
stage
play
Dance
Vancouver
Vancouver
original
Since
the
park
public
members
responsible
and
weekly
“Monkey
its
drives
gatherings,
play
as
shows.
&
VBS
own
beach.
its
raised
playwright,
Potluck
articles
“Dream
platform
establishment,
for
hiking,
community
news
business
Neigbourhood
members
recycling
attended
King
the
over
for
Party.
New
written
and
of
Abroad”
Spring
Alberta
(micro
director,
30K
organizing
Red
meetings,
event
as
Year’s
programs
the
parade.
Chamber
by
playwright,
for
VBS
Festival
online
show.
at
forest
reports
Foundation,
its
the
actors
celebration
West
has
members
seminars
weekly
for
North
publication)
fires.
Redreamed
celebration
Vancouver
held
and
members
director,
Shore
stage
social
more
that
with
VBS and $t4 Vancouver fT Ij . .J s._
Beideng 1 Society (10) C)o —j From: s. 22(1) Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 9:19 AM To: MayorandCouncil; Nina Leemhuis Subject: Climate and the Money Trail -
Enjoy bare truths, All. Deep revelations. Homework.
s. 22(1)
West Van BC https://www.glohalresearch.calclimate-rnoney-trail/5690209 (11)
- From: North Van Arts
NOTH VAN ErARTS .. You’re invited to celebrate the Festive us! . Season with NORTH VANARTS OPEN HOUSE I . North Van Arts Open House CityScape Community ArtSpace 335 Lonsdale Avenue, North Vancouver Thursday, December 12, 6-8:3Opm
We look forwardto connecting withour members, volunteers, partners and supporters. Friends and familywelcome. Refreshments willbe served and a cash bar willbe open.
Enjoythe festive atmosphere of the Anonymous Art Show whileyou mingle’
No RSVP required. Anonymous Art Show continues to Dec 18
Currently at CityScape Community ArtSpace, our annual Holiday Fundraiser and group exhibition.
Allartwork is 8’ x 8’ and priced at $100 each. Revenue is shared equally between the artist and ANONYMOUS North Van Arts. ART Artists remain anonymous until the work is purchased. The exhibition opened on November SHOW 28 with over 630 original works of art, and as art is purchased, we wrap it up and send it home with the new owner.
This is a great opportunity to make your holiday shopping an art experience! Learn more
Thank you to our ongoing funders and supporters:
NORTH VANCOUVER DLSTRICTOF NORTH Recreation cityofnorth vancouver VANCOUVER &Culture
BRITISH COI,UMBTA BRITIsH ARTS COUNCIL aflafia Anagecy a,’ ia, Pmnincaci Btisi, Ccn,Wa
M!JSIC E LU S I[’Li::wQ HEfLS T conim’1y rx)ad II L1Ak.-
Withgratitude as guests, we acknowledge that North Van Arts activities take p/ace on the unceded territories of the se/i/wta2/ (Is/eu- Waututh) Nation, Skwxwt7mesh (Squarnish), and xwmaekwa,am Musqueam) Nations.
NQRTHVANARTSCA 604 988 6844 335 LONSDALE AVENUE NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7M 2G3
STAY CONNECTED 0 0 D0 0 North Van Arts 335 Lonsdale Avenue, North Vancouver, BC V7M 2G3 Canada
UpteProfHe I About Constant Co Sent by [email protected] (12)
From: HUBCycling
View this emailinyour browser
YourCycling Connecton
UPDATES
TRANSPORT 2050
TransLink is leading the development of Transport 2050, a shared strategy for transportation in Metro Vancouver for the next 30 years. With the conclusion of Phase 1, TransLink is ready to share what they heard through the report, Shaping Our Transportation Future, Together.
Read the report or Watch The Highlights Video Learn more about HUB Cycling’s transportation vision. Cheers to a Successful Year of Bike Education
Our Bike Education team just wrapped up another successful year of bike education in schools. A remarkable 10,541 students from 16 municipalities increased their cycling skills and confidence through articipating in our programs in 2019!
Learn More
S Are you a HUB Member? ‘I HUB Cycling members help make Metro Vancouver a safer and more connected community for people on bikes. Plus, you willget discounts at over 40 bike shops and deals on car and bike-sharing.
Join Now
GET INVOLVED
Year-Round Cycling
Do you travel regularly by bicycle all year I round to/from or around Vancouver?
Ifso, the City of Vancouver would love to feature you on their social media to inspire others to try #yearroundcycling too!
Learn More Support HUB Cycling -•‘r Give a gift this year that helps us build happier, healthier, more connected communities and work towards a more sustainable transportation future.
Your generous donation supports GWHE initiatives, such as modernizing the Motor i Vehicle Act to create a new Road Safety Act, making our roads safer for all road users. #VisionZero
Donate Now
Nominate a Bike Advocate
Please nominate an individual whose work has made substantial contributions to improving cycling in Metro Vancouver for HUB Cyclings Arno Schortinghuis Lifetime Achievement Award.
The recipient will be recognized at the 2020 Bike Awards on February 27th.
Make a Nomination
OUR SUPPORTERS
Mobi by Shaw Go
Mobi by Shaw Go explores stories of individuals who use multimodal transportation as their primary means of getting around. Check out HUB instructor and Modo Ambassador, Lisa Corriveau’s story.
Learn More Modo
Headed to the mountains? With Modo’s winter-ready fleet you’re always prepared for snow — perfect for getting around town, up to the mountains or along the Sea to Sky Highway this season.
Carsharing with Modo starts at $4/hour. Use the promo code HUB5Oto sign up as a new member and give yourself the gift of convenience this season.
Learn More
Two Wheel Gear
The 3-piece modular commute system designed in Vancouver for any type of rider on any type of bike. Make your commute the best part of your day with the Commute Backpack, Top Tube Stash Bag and Seat Pack. Use independently or combine for flexible carrying options. Available now on Kickstarter!
View Campaign RIC IIARI)S HUE L L TRANSf?1K Uownownvancouver J3 StTTTON
L’I*iI JUMP C’’PRESS CAPITAL MAN MNT
r” two CYCLE_CITY1AFARGE wheeL BuIdhg better ctties’ ‘j GEAR eVo CAR SHARE
exodus travels QuaU Real 0 F westbank Airoad
Donate to HUB Cycling and make biking better.
HUB Supporter, we need your help! Willyou join our core group of supporters and help develop better, safer and more accessible road conditions for bicycling across BC?
DONATE NOW 0000
Copyright 2079 HUB Cycling, Allrights reserved. You are receiving this email because you wished to stay up to date on Bike Events, Bike Advocacy, and Bike Education in Metro Vancouver.
Our mailing address is: HUB Cycling 312 Main (2nd Floor) Vancouver, BC V6A2T2 Canada
Add us to your address book (13)(a)
From: s. 22(1) lot Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:58 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Re 4358 Ross Crescent Building Project Attachments: Community Support Letter re Heffel Residence.pdf
Dear Mayor and Council,
Attached please find our signed letter urging you to approve the requested variances to 4358 Ross Crescent and to support the WV Planning Department in allowing the project to proceed without further delays.
Best, s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC s. 22(1) s. 22(1) 3-4
FOR
IS
We
We
Inc.
like
Please
It TOO
urge
h,e Owner’s
I to
Address only
Further Landscape
O
O YEARS
see
A
Council
Calculations
To retaining has reviewed
document
Garage To
do
POF,
Combined
2800
Mayor
add
name LONG.
add Comments:
not
s. negative s.
and 22(1) 22(1)
text
information
cause to
Design
Location
and
walls,
to
email the
support
manually,
SQ. FOR
Sideyard MevorandCOUflCd(WeStvanc0UVet,Ca
based
impact Council
proposed
this
ft
basement
by
to:
ei.dronlcafly
project
Paul the FT.
MavctandCpunc;kThwestvancouver,ca on
please
A on
Setback
vote
Planning West Flood -
the
Sangha residence
BUILDING
any HOUSE
exemption,
punt,
in
value
Construction support
Vancouver,
further
to
riu
this Landscape Department
of
in
at
properties
form,
OUt
delays.
4358
of
height
the
information
please
Level
Ross
BC
PERMIT following
Archftecture
and
in
in
support
type
the
including: Crescent
highest s.
and 22(1)
neighborhood
in
variances:
your
comments,
of
I
building
Interior
designed this
ormn
application.
face
Design
and
and
by
anci
causes
Hlynsky
by comments s.
and 22(1)
HB
undue
+
Design
Davis
,
save
this
hardship.
and
Architects
gnature
would
Attachments:
To:
Subject: Sent:
From:
4358
Thursday,
heffel
MayorandCouncil
Ross home
.22(1) s.
December
Crescent
Ietter.pdf
5,
2019
6:28 PM (13)(b)
document
To
To
PDF,
Address
Further
Owner’s
Please
It
We
We
like
Inc.
3-4
IS
FOR
only
add
add
O
IJ 0 to
have
I
urge
TOO
and
Landscape
has
see
text
information
do
Comments:
Combined
Garage
Calculations
retaining
YEARS
A
email Council
reviewed
to
not
negative
Mayor
manually,
MayorandCouncil5westvancouver.ca
2800
LONG.
cause
it
Location
Design
to:
walls,
to
and
electronically
Sideyard
the
impact
support
MayorandCouncilwestvancouverca
this
based
please SQ.
.22(1) s.
FOR
Council
proposed basement
.22(1) s.
by
project
on
Paul
on
the
Setback
FT. print,
vote
the
A
Flood
Planning
to
any
Sangha
residence
value
exemption,
BUILDING
fill
this
in
HOUSE
further
Construction
in
support
form,
your
of
Landscape
Department
properties
at
delays.
information
please
4358
of
height
LEi
the
Level
Ross
following
type
Architecture
and
PERMIT
in
in
the
VcE
support
and
including:
Crescent
in
highest
your
neighborhood
comments,
variances:
of
information
I
building
Interior
designed
this
application.
and
face
Design
and
and
by
scan
causes
Hlynsky
comments,
by
and HB
s. 22(1)
undue
+
Design
Davis
save
this
hardship
and
Architects
ignatu,5
the would Attachments: To: Subject: Sent: From: Thursday, MayorandCouncil 191129 191129 COMMUNITY COMMUNITY December .22(1) s. 5, SUPPORT SUPPORT 2019 11:24 LETTER LETTER PM - - HEFFEL HEFFEL RESIDENCE.pdf;
RESIDENCE.pdf OIOc,1C) A1T00001.htm (13)(c) To To Address document PDF, Owner’s Further We Please We like It Inc. 3-4 FOR IS through Ft i I only wisn hope IUF add add to El El El / have urge TOO Landscape and i[rus1y see has etmanually, text do information Comments: Combined Garage Calculations YEARS retaining A name Council reviewed me email to this not Mayor negative .22(1) s. 2800 enough MayorandCouncil(westvancouver.ca LONG. cause .22(1) s. iviayor it project Location Design walls, to to: and at the Sideyard electronically support impact MayorandCouncilwestvancouver.ca this based 2350 SQ. FOR Council please proposed basement and by ana project finally on Paul on the Setback FT. BeHevue. print, the vote A the ouncii Flood Planning Sangha any residence to BUILDING value exemption, fill HOUSE in bureaucracy this gets further Construction support in form, orinformation your of Landscape Department naa approved. properties at delays. 4358 please of height the iaen Level Ross following Architecture! PERMIT and type in in in the support including: our Crescent and a highest in These greater neighborhood your comments, variances: municipality of building information interior designed this people interest application. and face Design and by and scan have causes Hlynsky is comments, by in overwhelming. and HB stopping been undue email + Design Davis save this hardship. Signature and Architects me the would (13)(d)
From: s. 22(1) 0 - I O7 Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 7:32 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: HEFFELRESIDENCESUPPORT LETTER Attachments: 191129 COMMUNITYSUPPORT LETTER- HEFFELRESIDENCE.pdf
Gentepeople of West Vancouver Please review the attached asap!
Best regards, s. 22(1) To To document PDF, Address Further
Owner’s to It Please urge We
We
long professional like
Inc.
I
3
IS FOR find only add
add
-4 get
to
0 EJ have
I TOO and Landscape .22(1) s. see
has suffering text information do
Comments: it Combined Calculations Garage
retaining
YEARS
A your name Council reviewed email .22(1) s.
to appalling not negative Mayor
manually, 2800
MayorandCouncilwestvancouver.ca LONG. cause
it administration Location Design to walls, to:
and service the Sideyard electronically
support people. impact MayorandCounciIwestvancouver.ca this
based SQ.
please FOR Council
proposed that basement by project - on West Paul on the
Setback
FT. to
print, it vote
the A Flood
Planning
would their Sangha any to
residence value BUILDING exemption, Vancouver
fill HOUSE this
in to further Construction support
in form, constituents.
your understand of Landscape
Department take properties at delays. information please 4358 of height
the this Level Ross following Architecture
type and PERMIT in
in long the
support they including: and Crescent highest
in Lets neighborhood
your to comments,
variances: are
of
approve end information / building Interior designed
this there
application. this and face Design and by
and
the
nightmare to scan causes
Hlynsky provide comments,
by permit. and .22(1) s. HB undue email + Design
Davis
for
timely It’s save this hardship. Signature and
Architects
these time the would
jurisdiction
West to
https
council
senseless Sincerely,
I’m
sanctuary?fbclid=IwAR2ZLePIEk9Pmrwtg3 as https://www.nsnews.com/opinion!letters/letter-avoid-poison-and-let-nature-take-care-of-pests-
There
published I
wildlife,
my
written
Attached
and Dear
Attachments:
To:
Subject:
Sent:
From:
https://www.nsnews.comlnews/owls-fall-prey-to-poison-in-north-van- also
.22(1) s.
take
a
letter
also
pest
result
://globalnews.calvideo/625
Vancouver,
Mayor
wrote
was
prompt
can in
.22(1) s.
attaching
control
and
and
again
is
January
in
of
a
take
and
a
a
recent
and
December
secondary
domestic
letter
inhumane
letter
action
as
also
a
companies
Council;
BC
this
edon lead
a
of
news
I
to
letter
put
sent
2018.
to
the
problem
pets)
of2017.
poisoning.
slaughter
address
pressure
story
to
written
editor
this
use
you
I
is
did
and
on still
has
71
to
Thursday,
Banning
Rodenticide
MayorandCouncil
this
almost
of
Here
on
not
to
Global
of
69/increase-in-sick-birds-at-owl-
kill
do
very
the
not
Here
various
the
problem.
innocent
receive
everything
rodents.
is
North
been
2
serious
rodenticides
other
the
News
is
December years
.22(1) s.
that
use
levels
L3 addressed
link
a
Shore
animals.
levels
I
response
and
9o0jyyGbkhTmCpyNBF
reporting
ago
The
link:
and
whole-heartedly
in
to
of
owl
5,
your
News
regarding
both
letterl
ongoing.
copy
of
government
2019
poisonings
or
government
to
power
of
that
of
resolved, 7.pdf;
around
9:30
this
those:
my
there
owls
PM
so
OwIs-being-killed-by-Rodentcides-Feb-201
to
letter
second
that
by
I
eliminate
has
falling
am
and
to
a
is
time
change
naturalist
1.23127211
submitting
been
the
not
7PlxgBj
this
prey
in
dangers
dated
this
a
plea
response
legislation
recent
to
problem
ksM
group
and
but
the
it
to
again
spike
rodenticides
my
hope
owls
to
urging
wRDOdxVS
that
within
a
guess
now.
in
news
West
(and
will
Lto-oJ
predator
the
1.23148868
is
your
Please
to
Vancouver
story
end
government
that
that
all
s
this
predators,
casualties
it
residents
9.pdf review
(14) was To:
An urgent situation needs to be addressed. Anticoagulant and other rat poison products designed to killrodents are also killing birds of prey, pet dogs and cats, and many species of wildlife, including several endangered species. The problem occurs when a rodent is attracted to a bait box and eats the poison inside, then wanders off to suffer a slow death, during which time a predator can easily catch and eat the now-toxic rodent and ingest enough of the toxic substance in that rodent to die as well.
The North Shore News has reported an increase of owl poisonings on the North Shore (Dec. 20, 2017 and Jan. 15, 2018); I added my own experience to the conversation in the following letter to the North Shore News: http :!Iwww.nsnews. corn/opinion/letters/letter-avoid-poison-and-let- nature-take-care-of-pests-i .231 48868
On March 12, 2018 the Abbotsford News reported that according to the BC agriculture ministry the number of owls dying of poisoning in B.C. more than doubled over a six-month period (https://www.abbynews. corn/news/double-the-b-c-owls-are-dying- from-rat-poison-agriculture-ministry!).
OWL rehab (http://www.owlrehab.org/) in Delta has estimated that at least 100 owls brought to the facility last year showed signs of rodenticide poisoning, and almost all died. The following article cites that, and discusses Vancouver’s efforts to address this problem - http://vancouversun.com/news/Iocal-news/ vancouver-park-board-moves-to-end-use-of-rodenticide.
There are many jurisdictions working towards a ban on rodenticide use, and some that have already made this move. The group Raptors Are The Solution (http:!/ www.raptorsarethesolution.org/) have much information on their website, and would be a good resource.
Please take this situation seriously and work towards a ban of rodenticides in West Vancouver.
Sincerely;
s. 22(1)
West Vancouver, BC The generation • attracting An feeding, showed wariness legislative second-generation surrounded that population pets). We By control and low-dose North connected AG members BC Re: Honourable Dear [email protected] [email protected] B.C. B.C. Honourable Minister Honourable February create killing R. estimated Tel Nature wish Killing problem its Minister Minister inhabit [email protected] Ministers Vancouver, (604) lethal invasive signs the to of owls makes 4, bait, and province-wide. non-local response owls (the to outbreak rodenticides 985-3057 express Environment them. 2019 by effects George Lana Catherine we effects of of of and minimum enforce through accumulating natural McKenna, Federation FEDERATION with Agriculture them Environment rat rodenticide address Popham have BC Metro anti-coagulant populations to: may our
owls ature Heyman upon creates rodenticides Nature Fax more a areas secondary McKenna expertise concern 100 code exists. be Vancouver, to is and Our (604) Popham, owls of far delayed their — susceptible owls poisoning. the a have BC Climate of and 1620 membership OF from 985-3059 localized We and in better over rodenticide Naturalists) demise in brought poisoning, Climate BC perished brodifacoum. Mt. urban, and call British new. other several the the Seymour NATURALISTS Change practices Another for email: food to Heyman, Fraser as No use rural, to non-target Change capture Columbia’s an consists due they days. in we safe represents abundance, South of examination [email protected] Road, their and Valley to possible bromadiolone diminish that fill While place Poisoned Strategy secondary by of the Delta’s even North livers. involves predators. owls dedicated and landscapes it or spaces more dimension can wilderness and an Vancouver, safe possibly At (and of OWL rats important kill poisoning the the can than all delivery left rodenticides and other We rehabilitation rats naturalists stakeholders: same problem become and by 50 other to mice acknowledge - areas. BC and Web poisoned the predatory naturalists’ the natural system time, from V7G urban mice may site diversity an problem and However, and to 2R9 the their owl — continue control centre from for food-safety rat request www.bcnature.ca resident communities scientists wildlife highly “sink”, clubs the control second- reduced of is one owls that in organisms necessity rodents, a toxic to and 2017 owls and day’s who agent. feed a in 6000 rat are on to
Administrator, [email protected]
cc:
Ministry
Environmental
Regulatory cc:
Regional cc:
[email protected] Contact
Minister
Alan
(Federation Yours
President:
our
more
BC • •
•
•
•
•
Tel
educate
electrocution
Nature subsequent
promote
interface
permit consider
agencies,
ban
Christa environment.
Shaun
Honourable
E.
complete
truly,
(604)
Burger,
prophylactic
information:
of
of
Pesticide
the
BC
urges
Dhaliwal Environment
.22(1) s.
Operations
985-3057
Health
Zacharias-Homer
the
of
alternative legislating
areas;
environmental
Nature
use
BC
Integrated
Standards
PhD
to
public
references
Ginette
the
devices;
BC
Naturalists)
application
Officer
of
We
Phone:
government
use
second-generation
Nature
Dr.
Fax
about
attach
and
only
extermination
and
Petitpas Alan
of
(604)
Branch
Pest
250-378-2468
if
Regions Second
—
permitted
agencies
Climate
you
practices
1620
an
of
E.
985-3059
Management
Burger,
non-rodenticide
information
Taylor
need
to
Mt.
Generation
Branch,
take
Change
Seymour
and
that
use
them.
methods
email:
President
anticoagulant
prompt
the
of
prevent
Health
Act
Strategy
brief
brodifacoum
manager(bcnature.ca
pest
Road,
Anti-Coagulant
such
-2-
measures; action
—
on
control
Canada
rat
North
BC
the as
rodenticides
population
Nature,
to
mechanical
subject,
Vancouver,
industry;
and
address
Rodenticides
bromadiolone
and
growth.
the
only traps,
-
BC
Web
will
problem
V7G
as
site
fertility
be
a
(SGARs);
2R9
glad last
—
in
www.bcnature.ca
of
residential
resort
to
control,
toxic
send
SGAR
you
and
and in Background information on Bromadiolone:
A number of studies have confirmed accumulation of bromadiolone (which also works as an anti coagulant, not quite as toxic as brodifacoum) in the tissues of other raptorial birds. While most of the compound breaks down and is excreted from rats’ bodies within 4 days, the half-life of the remaining fraction (11% in one study) extends for as long as 170 days. Low dose exposure to bromadiolone can contaminate non-target native species such as deer mice, sparrows and ants, which can fall prey to owls and other predators. Bioaccumulation up the food chain and through the food web often spells death for higher order predators.
To underscore the bioaccumulation predicament, Canadian raptors carry as much rodenticide as in other areas in spite or relatively low rodent problem issues. Pierre Mineau, an ecotoxicologist (retired from Environment Canada’s National Wildlife Research Centre) reported that “There are high levels of exposure in every species we’ve looked at. Not just in the rodent eaters but in the accipiters [which eat mostly birdsJ. It’s still a mystery how this stuff is moving through terrestrial food chains. Insects may be picking it up and passing it to the songbirds that eat them.” (https://www.audubon.org/magazine/january-february-2013/poisons-used-kill-rodents-have- safer)
Government web sites state that Bromadiolone presents a moderate to high risk of secondary poisoning and is not recommended near wildlife areas, which interface most communities in BC. In urban areas rat visibility has increased with disturbance of their den sites due to demolition of old buildings and development. Citizen complaints have led the District of North Vancouver to draft a new Rodent Control Report.
Elise Roberts, a BCNature member, interviewed five pest management companies and found their responses contradictory. Despite knowledge of the owl deaths, they continue to use SGAR because it is less costly and less labour intensive than the use of mechanical traps. Fear of rats and conclusions based upon questionable data have resulted in a large increase in SGARuse, and bait boxes can be found in shopping malls, schools, community centres, restaurants, and residential complexes. The District of North Vancouver Parks Department was unaware of the presence of bait boxes when they investigated the poisoning deaths of 2 dogs after they walked in Cates Park. Compliance with current Provincial and Federal legislation and Best Management practices seem to be ignored by perhaps many profitable pest control companies.
Owls play a role in controlling rat populations, but by killing owls through secondary poisoning, we diminish an important natural rat control agent. Rob Hope, raptor care manager at the OWL rehabilitation centre in South Delta, estimated that at least 100 owls brought to the facility in 2017 showed signs of rodenticide poisoning.
Alternatives such as mechanical traps and electrocution devices are not being promoted. Prevention, such as rat-proofing green waste bins, has not been sufficiently encouraged. Public education about the importance of raptors as pest-control agents is lacking. BCNature wishes government leadership to address solutions to toxic SGARin our environment.
BC Nature—1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 Tel (604) 985-3057 Fax (604) 985-3059 email: manager(bcnature.ca - Web site — www.bcnature.ca
Warmly,
https
“Uber
We
Anonymity
and The
Taxi
accountable. Glorified Subject: To: Sent: From:
Q
are
creating
UK
://www.cbc.calnews/world/uber-safety-sexual-assault-20
company received
.22(1) s.
light
seems
Cftoue(
hitch
in
addictions;
years
the
drivers
to hiking.
more
be
world
behind
ahead
than
are
The
banking
of
them part
3,000
technology
of
driver
the
of without Thursday, Conservative, CBC Canada OfficeofthePremier;
NDP;
reports
security;
a
curve
has community News:
Canada
all is
Politics
on
legislation
of
the very
December Uber,
Uber
sexual so Politics
Liberal, power.
.22(1) s.
many
dangerous. Parties where
received
Lift assaults
BC to 5,2019 Parties
Green,
protections etc. Conservative,
Health
protect people
more
to People Conservative,
NDP; in
11:19 name
Minister
U.S.
know us...
than 18-1.5386364
Canada for
PM
do a
Liberal,
video in
3,000
each
few. it’s
2019
and 2018” Politics
Liberal, citizens.
reports
game other,
Green, say
NDP things Parties
Green, corporations
of work NDP;
sexual they Conservative, Canada
NDP; together
assaults wouldn’t
MayorandCouncil; praying
Politics and in Liberal,
U.S.
are normally
Parties on
in our 2018
Green, youth Office
(15) do. “The next time you seek answers, refer not only to the mind, but equally to the heart. Perhaps even viewing them as one.” - Tamara Levitt
“This path is a long one. Some of the terrain will be uphill and rocky. Some downhill and srnooth...Be kind to yourself. Enjoy the journey. And remember that the way you walk the path, is just as important as where it leads.” - Tarnara Levitt
“I treat people based on their actions and their words; not on things like their sexual orientation, race, gender or any other attributes they chose or were born as.” - Marty van den Bosch
Sent from my iPhone. (16)
From: Katarzyna Chase Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 2:44 PM To: MayorandCouncil Cc: Sarah Almas Subject: FW:“Bylawsare not stopping light from flooding into the apartments of the elderly” Attachments: s. 22(1)
From: Katarzyna Chase Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 2:38 PM To: s. 22(1) Subject: “Bylaws are not stopping light from flooding into the apartments of the elderly”
Good afternoon s. 22(1) ,
Thank you for your email addressed to Mayor and Council regarding outdoor lights at the Sewell’s Development site, which has been forwarded to me for review and response.
The Good Neighbour Bylaw No. 4380, 2004 regulates outdoor lights as follows:
“5.2.2 Without limiting the generality of subsection 5.2.1, every Owner of a parcel must:
(e) ensure that an outdoor light on the property is shielded by a shade or fixture such that the light source does not create a nuisance.”
In response to your complaint regarding the flood lights at the Sewell’s Development shining into residences at 6645 Nelson Avenue, staff attended the site on November 1st and observed lights located at the corners of the site, along the fence line facing down onto the site. Staff had previously worked with the site to ensure the outdoor lights were shielded from shining into the neighbouring residences, and pointed down into the site.
On the evening of November 6, 2019, staff re-attended to observe the lights from s. 22(1) . Officers observed the security light on the corner of Bay and Nelson on, and the light was pointing down into site and not at 6645 Nelson Avenue. Staff have also reviewed the photos submitted on November 6th, of the lights shining towards 6645 Nelson Avenue reportedly on November 4th and 5th. The officer met with the Site Supervisor and pointed out the lights which are causing the issue, lights were to be placed on a timer so that they are shut off at the end of the work day as per a discussion on October 15, 2019. The Site Supervisor advised the light timer can be bypassed but is should be shut off at the end of the work day. Officers patrolled the site again on November 7, 2019 and confirmed the floodlights were off.
On November 14, 2019 the Bylaw and Licensing Services Department received a call advising the lights had been left on again. An officer attended the site and confirmed two unshielded floodlights were left on at the site shining into the properties at 6645 Nelson Avenue causing a nuisance. The property owner as well as contractor were contacted and advised of the contravention and issued a Bylaw Notice for fail to shield or deflect outdoor light. A subsequent call was received on November 19, 2019 advising the flood lights were left on again, an officer confirmed this and issued a Bylaw Notice for the contravention. The site was contacted once again and one light was adjusted so as not to shine in the direction of 6645 Nelson Avenue while another light was disconnected altogether. The contractor on site has advised they will continue to work with the Bylaw and Licensing Department to bring the lighting on site into compliance with the Good Neighbour Bylaw. Bylaw and Licensing Services will continue to respond to concerns regarding lighting and any other concerns in this area on a complaint basis, escalating enforcement if required. Please contact Bylaw and Licensing Services directly by calling 604-925-7152 or by emailing [email protected] to report concerns, so that an on duty bylaw officer can respond promptly.
Sincerely,
Kasia Chase Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer District of West Vancouver 000d: 604-925-7052 westvancouver.ca
This email and any files transmitted with it are considered confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are intended. Ifyou are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email and attachment(s). Thank you. (////)
From: s.22(l) 1603—o( Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 12:31 AM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: Bylawsare not stopping light from flooding into the apartments of the elderly Attachments: 20191104_224557Jpg; 20191104_224516.jpg; 20191114_233009Jpg; 20191114_ 232954.jpg
To mayor and council the elderly residence of libby lodge in horseshoebay have been exposed to massive amounts of light pollution from our neighbors contractor for over two years. The bylaws department have done nothing that stops the contractors disgusting and disrespectful behavior. We have made numerous complaints over the past two years. The solution is very simple, NO light fixtures should ever point with any possibility of flooding light into our apartments at anytime and when the days work is over the job site should have an absolute minimum of light. I am confident that the contractor can light up what they need lite up without any floodlights aiming directly into our apartments. This has been explained to bylaws repeatedly So my question is why are bylaws not able to get the simplest request done ?? I am attaching 2 pictures from November 14 th with the flood lights left on all night and 2 pictures from a complaint made to bylaws november 4th and 5th when for two nights the contractor left the flood lights on all night. I have a large pile of identical pictures starting 2 years ago. The work is going to take at least two more years Please instruct bylaws to get the contractor to redirect the light fixtures and tone down the night light intensity, Please stop this extremely disrupting and disrespectful behavior
S. 22(1) westvan. I,1’ ‘TI
:; I 1iijIjI4 — i — LI I’ I ‘‘ •IfItIwIII
7.,- for Attachments: Thank proposed To: responses Regarding Subject: Cc: Sent: Dear From: a 2. 5. 4. 6. 3. 1. response. you thermal As would frame are dedication commuting expanded emissions design development other would These for for impacted environmental %2oSchedule%2Oii As considered document, cited ft.). The under including “Form direct The the all https://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/OCP%2oBylaw%204985%2C%2020 Designation No 5044, Rodgers .22(1) s. for 6 described all described up calculation to the for The proposed increase document proposed areas. could form Rodgers of your response the 2019 development to still affect and numbers your of zoning energy increase Rodgers 150 Creek resource by buildings proposed be construction due of and character” the questions. be The of by (Appendix e-mail UL8 the construction that secured park procedures required. in in for construction due zoning Council. and development floor has to Creek referred character and area the to the number as applicant delegation (starting is construction is Creek. land. explain to to extraction, been development meet per proposed staff staff occurring limited area domestic phased 0.pdf). as Mayor rounding that development amendment rental E the hours to The stated WHOLE-Action- Tuesday, Cindy Council MayorandCouncil; referred made. report report of the The and development bylaw). noise. on as owned are a .22(1) s. workers staff to the These to development document housing and permits individual guidelines page page Area unit limited existing is hot over L. processing, being requires the in of the report) staff the Correspondence Under Mayne report limited December permit Council, to the The the water land. numbers for Director types 84 E a 6 scope zoning permits in in considered that to of number was units Official data. floor delegated an total your of consideration and building that permits to assessment Areas Rodgers in systems amendments this of deal Jim area created it of 18,952 agreement the manufacturing, with amendments 3, area draft as Regardless e-mail of development was provided has is refer the 2019 Community Bailey; pdf of Planning with OCP 174,249 5 shown .22(1) s. that - (“Form in 102,000 years, been and at is not proposed by-law week decision for - creek, to sq. other 2:04 as by limited things public does Michelle and development produced all of 6 for in the 2,079,598 m on forwarded that ending along PM of all and not new the for of sq. areas are however, (204,004 sq. neighbourhood Council being not page plcn and applicant Plan Rodgers permits hearing like of to making the the transport noise detailed decision zoning character”) m McGuire included ft. with part the an have December environmental numbers (1,875,662 applicant of ne Development under for by 3 considered increase sq. production of to are the 3 bylaw the staff. are sq. permits the the tonight, approach adjacent Creek. (i.e. bylaw the Planning building ft. which and District general phased along ft.). different existing District is 6, zoning development concrete) However, amendment cited staff has notification product referring 2019 of amendment sq. for This December is by with residents processes 18,952 designs. would (as committed are consistent & protection development land in specific ft.). owned Council CD3 amendment than would Development the the laid not delivery, 1 As multi-family the to s regulations use 8%20- still iIO-2oYy/Q Permit applicant’s sq. zoning area-based amendments and is out able the previously parcel permits Determination minor 3, that buildings allow are include to of require m to provisions with 2019. in consultation proposed permit to a (204,004 would what carbon-free It Area the agreement encompasses bylaw for building discrepancy (Lot provide is a are Services strata provision noted Below number that off in stated is 11). be what the that No. being peak to total and the sq. (17) a of that are of buildings, lithe zoning amendments and phased development agreement are not approved the applicant can continue developing Areas 5 and 6 with all of their existing approved floor area (1,020,829 sq. ft.) with conventional construction methods and minimum energy performance. 7. No calculation has been made. Under consideration for Council are general land use regulations to frame development occurring over a number of years, not detailed infrastructure designs. Determination of emissions due to infrastructure construction requires assessment of all of the production processes of a building including resource extraction, processing, manufacturing, transport and product delivery. It is noted that in Appendix C there is a description of BPP’s sustainable development practises that they follow due to the localized nature of their construction operations (e.g. diversion of a minimum of 75% of construction waste, reuse of site harvested trees, etc.). 8. If Council were to approve the proposed zoning and development permit amendments with the phased development agreement the proposed green building commitments would be secured for new multi family strata buildings thereby improving the performance related to green house gas emissions.
I trust this provides responses to the questions you have referred to us.
Best Regards,
Michelle McGuire Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design (////)(1)
- -Original Message- From: s. 22(1) Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 11:51 AM To: MayorandCouncil
Mayor and Council:
Before you vote, please ask yourself this question: “Do I understand exactly the total impact and details of the proposed changes?”. Ifyou can not answer yes I understand exactly the proposals, then I believe it would be irresponsible of you, dereliction of your fiduciary duty and an abdication of your duties if you vote yes.
I believe there may also be a cause of action against the district of WV because, effectively, by council voting for this proposal, WV is directly or indirectly approving the release of .21 billion cubic feet of CO2 gas into the environment in direct violation of councils own climate emergency declaration which was passed by council and is binding on the district of WV.
I have spent days trying to understand and I continue to be confused about exactly what is being promoted by Mayor and Council (and/or Planning or British PacificProperties). I hope there are no unintended consequences because this is a very complex series of changes made in order to add 491 housing diversification / rental units to this area. It islike the Federal Government introducing sneaky legislation (like for Lavalin) in an omnibus bill designed and intended to confuse WV residents.
I have a series of questions that I would like to have answered by staff before next weeks vote.
Attached are copies of pages taken from the 26 Sep 2019 report from M. McGuire, Manager of Current Planning & Urban design “Council Report”, that contains a series of recommendations. The attached pages are numbered A to 6 and the numbers on the bottom right is the page number of the Council Report.
Except for pages D and E, all other pages are from M. McGuire memo:
The top part of page D is derived from page C and these page D summarizes the currently permitted construction as in square footage and number of units. And then compares this to the proposed square footage and number of units.
This page D, summary is:
My estimated increases are:
1. Carbon Footprint: increase from construction of .21 billion cubic feet of C02. 2. Increase in population: 718 3. Increase in number of vehicles: 445-529; no estimate of the impact on traffic in reports 4. There is NO estimate of the increase in service vehicles traffic nor from construction related traffic 5. No estimate of total new traffic generated directly and indirectly from these additional people at Rodgers Creek
Currently Approved: 1,020,776 sq feet of construction Currently Approved: 493 housing units
Proposed: 1,224,775 sq feet of construction Proposed: 974 housing units
Increase: 203,999 sq feet of construction Increase: 491 housing units
Increase: 20% in sq feet of construction Increase: 98% housing units
Page E is a partial copy of a British Pacific Properties (BPP) marketing/promotional piece.
QUESTION 1: Page F, is the zoning bylaw change. The maximum total floor area column for zoning purposes is 2,079,598 Sq feet of new buildings with maximum of 1,217 housing units.
The “sales pitch to citizens” show a maximum 1.224,775 sq feet of permitted construction. Why is the proposed zoning allowing for up to 2,079,598 sq feet of new construction? Please explain this 70% difference. Similarly for the zoning approved housing units of 1.217 vs the proposed 974 housing units (25% increase in housing units)?
QUESTION2: Page E: BPP notes rezoned plan a total of 1,122,800 sq feet of construction and yet the Council Report shows 1,224,775 sq feet. Why the difference [I assume that the Council Report amounts are “correct” in the sense that is what Council is voting on? Is the difference the possible additional construction on WV owned land in the area?
QUESTION3: Page E: BPP total housing units is for 699 homes and 125 rental units for a total of 824 units. Council Report total is 974 housing units a difference of 150 housing units (possible WV future construction?) What, in fact, is council voting on now in the sense that WV is now legally committed to build a 150 rental units on its property in this area?
QUESTION4. On page B, bottom it states: “A proposed amendment to the Development Procedures Bylaw that would allow form and character development permits within Rodgers Creek to be delegated to the Director of Planning...”. I have searched the WV website for “form and character” and I am unable to find a definition of what this means. Does it mean the Director of Planning has the power to, for example, add 5 stories to buildings without approval of council? Council can legally delegate but not abrogate their responsibilities. Please explain.
QUESTION5. On page B, bottom it states: “A proposed amendment to the Noise Bylaw to allow expanded construction hours in Areas 5 and 6 of Rodgers Creek”. Please explain the scope and does this mean residents in the area and along the route will have to tolerate even more noise and inconvenience??
QUESTION6. Has district staff or BPP done/provided a calculation of the carbon footprint on new construction (i.e. carbon footprint up to the date of occupancy permit) of the proposed 203,999 sq feet of new construction (including roads, sewer, water, trail, etc infrastructure)? Ifyes, please provide the calculations. If no, why not?
QUESTION7. Has a calculation been done of the total cumulative carbon footprint from date of occupancy and going forward, say 25 years from all of the people living there including from transportation carbon footprint, infrastructure upgrades, heating, lighting, increase in police, increase in road maintenance, sewer capacity upgrades, etc etc? If yes, what is it and if no, why not?
QUESTION8. What legal defence does the district of WV have to defend itself if council votes yes to this proposal and thereby (possibly) performs an illegal act to permit (directly or indirectly) the release of .21 billion cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere? Voting yes would be a direct violation of its own passed and declared climate emergency resolutions? At best it would make the passing of this complex set of changes to bylaws illegal and unenforceable? Please explain why voting yes to this complex set of proposals is not illegal and/or leave the district WV open to litigation for breaking its own made laws without changing them first?
Thanks s. 22(1) THAT notice Council meeting November
that for THAT
Authorization RECOMMENDATION Bylaw Bylaw
2018” RECOMMENDATiON 2019” Proposed THAT RECOMMENDATION
THAT west section RECOMMENDATION Bylaw September
amendment, THAT RECOMMENDATION report RECOMMENDATION File: Subject: From; Date: November statutory be proposed be proposed be No. No.
proposed vancouver proposed from No. opportunities Chamber, 475 scheduled given read read “Phased 5044, 5045, 12,2019 5045, the 19, of ptember26, notice with Permit19-061(ea6orfly) Rodgers Michelle_MoGuire, Bylaw 1010-20-19-020 12, a a the of 2019, Manager “Development “Official first first “Zoning “Official 2019”, 2019”, 2019” 2019 the
persons, DSTRlCT to Local for Development at be No. for time. time. be scheduled be 6:00 November Creek given at consultation be proposed proposed held 5041,
Community COUNCIL Bylaw Government 750 Community endorsed of 6:00 read organizations, p.m. 17Th Current concurrently 2019 of Areas
& t 2019” Permit p.m. srREEr, No. the a Manager
1010-20-19-061 OF puhUc in Agreement 12, first “Phased “Zoning the as scheduled 4662, 5 Planning in on Plan WEST be Plan
2019 WEST Act. & time. No. sufficient the Municipal meeting. the 6 presented 2VLLANi V,NGOUVER
with of lRezoning Bylaw 2010, and Municipal Bylaw Bylaw
19-061” REPORT at Development proposed Current Authorization and 6:00 the public
authorities, VANCOUVER consultalion Amendment No. No, No. Hall Urban 60 public p.m. he at 19-020 V7V Hall Planning 4985, 4985, meeting. 4662, Official a Council presented 3T3 public in Design hearing Council Agreement the as Bylaw 201 2018, 201b, and for Community Bylaw outlined Chamber, Municipal heating & P purposes Development Urban dated at scheduled Chamber, Amendment Amendment No. Amendment a No. public - 5002, in scheduled Design 5044, Hall the and Ptan 5945151v1 of and for
that 31
32
Area
housing
THAT
5042,
• THAT
•
•
•
a
proposed: This
application
tO
RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDATION development
No.
RECOMMENDATION Proposed
Subject:
Ficm:
Date:
A
hours
delegated
A
allow
A A
proposed
A
Consequential C
5043,
6,
proposed
reek
report
proposed
new development
rezoning
2018”
Council
proposed
Purpose
the
for
form
in
phased
“Development
2019”
a
District
and
Areas
brings
(Area Michelle
Rodgers
September26,
be
period
zoning
to
and
authorize permits
application
amendment
amendment
read
development
the
“Noise
6
to
5
development
forward
character
amendments
only)
owned
permit
McGuire,
Creek
estabflsh
Director
of
and
a
amendments
In
first
10
Control
the
6
Rodgers
2019
Areas
years.
Procedures
to
parcel,
of
proposing
information
time.
blanager
to
to
District
of amend
development
Rodgers
permit procedures
the
the
5
Planning
Bylaw
agreement
&
to
ensuring
Creek
6
Noise
Development
the
to
o
Rezoning
the
proposal
amendments
Current
Bylaw
enter
No.
Creek,
to
Official
existing
and be
Bylaw
Council
for
4404,
permits
that
for
read
Into
19-020
Ptannng
No.
delegated
Development
for
Community
Rodgers
to
is
a
approved
Procedures
2005,
4940,
a
Rodgers
regarding
could
allow
legal
within
and
first
to
&
Areas
Development
Urban
Amendment
time.
201
agreement form
only
expanded
Creek
Rodgers
Plan
D?
Creek.
7
Services
a
Design
5
be
Dylaw
and
concurrent
Amendment
and
76-079
to
used
character
the
Permit
Creek
enable
construction
6
tor
that
Bylaw
of
for
following
Lot
Rodgers
would
19-061
rental
to
rezonIng
3945151v1
the
11
Bylaw
No.
be
Page
of
is
2 ,
-.
: “ west Oislrict-cwneU pnt) Total (townhouseL Muftiple (apartment Building Building (apartment) Building (apartment) Total Buildingi Lotl4 Area anartment) Lot apartmentL Lot Lot Lot family) Lbts LoL4 Lot Lotl Lot Area Application: Summary: Zoalna: ApplicantfOwner: OCP landscape Project: ot10(oWnjous;,18,O00 13 12 9 2 1 3 A 1 5- (apartment) (apartment) (cluster) c 6— (apartmer Source:
Policy: van lcluster (apartment) (rental to (rental buildings uster) 4 3 2 Buildings J Lot& (single
- couver ______— Architect Parcel
lnlounatien APPENDIX -
j_tso.n.) I 478,176 —______60O 57,600 105,144 105144 105,144 542,500__—. n/a 128,547 n/a 25, FLOOR 91720 87,586 38,086 92,143 FLOOR 4264 provided 672 AREA AR increase Add C03_(Rodgers_Creek) housing) British Policy PWL Rodgers Develooment Rezoning - i-r1—
by B 206 224 Partnership 52 52 16 269 52 n/a ExIsTING 84 n/a 6 38 10 64 4 16 10 37 applicant UL-8 UNITS Pacific UNITS - market in Creek
and PROJECT floor (Rodgers Permit
Properties
1 1 j j12stoy OCP
ISsloreys n/a 3 12 12storys n/a l2storeys storeys 6 3storevs storevs area) n/a n/a 3 6 storeys 12 (tot — storeys and storeys and AreasSand HEIGHT storeys HEIGhT storeis Arendmeni’2o . sale) No. Creek) and 12 10 Ltd. 19-061 add
housing SUMMARY j and 1
I f I
1 I ‘87,586 upto 57600 — 93,500 745M00 36086 109,000 124,575 23,500 34264 102,000 FLOOR 123233 91,720 102,000 3086 32__ 18,000 6 FLooR 21.17 units - 275 AREA AREA and (rental, -—_-—--—-‘— by unIts — decreasing - I PROPOSED1 5 n/a 354 36 of 68 84 98 620 52 - 125 72 16 150 122 10 39 16 iOJ UNrtS seniors UNITS secured - - unit 3934780 . and I 3
rental .1? 12 3stove_ys n/a 14 l6storeys 16 3storeys 12 16 stcrevs 3 3 12 3 6 storeys sizes storays and storeys storeys supportive storeys storeys stoteys storeys storeys stotey’s HEIGHT storeys HEIGHT housing 10 (no C —•
- - 49 ______
Sheetl
19
Rodgers Creek area 5 and 6 I jchanges to: zoning, OCP, an Development Permit L ZZEE core data from page 49 of memo to council from M McGuire Core data in italics; other data calculated or provided by writer [—-—i jSTlNG: Refers to what can be built based on current zoning, current OCP and current Development Pern9its Issued PROPOSED: Refers to what is proposed to be built bsd on changing toning, OCP and Ama 6 DR F Jtir’J jitiExltlNG PROPOSE ROPO ROPOSIu 9oor Area Units sq ! unit Floor Area units q ft/unit - II’rt, iiio Sqfeet sq feet UNITS
Area 5 totals 54Z60O 269 2.017 74660L 62’i 1,204 204,000 351 Area totals —7B.t 478,7iiA 2,135 4l 1M1 —1 i u
Total Rodgers CreeiE “—“ 1,0Qj76 2,071 — f,224jj5 974r 1,257 203,999 481 Percentage Increase in Sq ft& uti ItJ 20% 98% Carbon Footprint from new construction only: Total billion Grams of C02 46 55.3 9.3 Carbon Footprint from new construction only. TotaLbillion cubic feet of C02 89 1.11 ____ - 021 Estimated number of people who willlive %j in new Rodgers Creek development______1,O35 2.1 1,753 1.8 718 69% 4 Guesstimated increase in resident’s only ---1--- ‘t(. vehicles based on .62 cars per person ‘qi per stats BC 1,087 44 69% 1 -.----F--l--it -- - Guesstimated increase in residents only ii vehicles based on 1.1 cars per housing Cp,) unit per stats BC 542; 1,071 529 98% Percentage increase of WV current - population of about 44,900 - residents 2.3i% - j 3.90%; -- — 1.60 . . _. - — . .L.. Guesstimated increase in traffic issues and problems US study estimates .8 times % pop growth increase in traffic issues. le 10% increase in population results in an 8% increase in traffic ii issues/problems -- - 1.84% 3.12% - j1t28%4 Guesstimated increase in traffic issues based on the % increase in vehicles; currently approx 27000 ‘resident” vehicles. 2.38% I 4.03% 1.65% - ——- —1 iesstTmateclincrease in htc1 pollution caused by more vehicles travelling slower. A vehicle travelling at 5 Km/hrpollutes . -.. 5 times more per K. than •avehicle travelling at 50 km/hr. Using factor of 3 7.13%; - -1--- 12.08% -- — - 4.95%
-. - ———I .4 - - - - Carbon Footprint for new construction . excludes appliances, high end construction, new roads, subdivision utilities,storm water management, construction worker traffic emissions, and allC02 released after occupancy permit issued. -- - - L . - -- -. L.
Page I
I
Rodgers
DURA11ON
The COMMUNflYAMEN1fl’
•
rezoning
• •
‘Districts
THE
these
Community
outlined This
A The RODGERS
between
family
Concurrently, 1
on
proposed
and housing
housing remains by than
BACKGROUND
The
2019.
COUNCIL ______
Population:
Avg
Bu!dir:g Compositic: Housing
Green
Total
Floor,,: S
Floor
mIllion
District
Re-secured
NewCACsfrom2Ol9
102,000
the
BPP-owned
total
Area: 6
215-acre
PROPOSAL
rezoning
Home
Public
55%
Buildable
Area
future respectfully.
Space:
lots expiration
Lot
There
Il
Creek
Heights:
adjacent
needs,
is
unchanged,
in
benefits
RI square-feet BPP
11
Land
of
by
Area
Ratio:
valued
to
square-foot West
RentI
Amenity
Hearing
the
neighbourhoods
the
I
CD-3
CAC
and
and
are Rodgers
a
is
Sale:
5
NEEDS I
Lot
an
102,000
expected S
8uiIdei
and land
District Vancouver’s
of
to
package
the
from
tapproximately at
two
a
II
Appox. 976
buildings 0 additional
12 493
0,8
1,02000sf flMres in
Approved
12
No
$2.86
a
new
6 a
rental
Contributions
and
has
of
2008
storeys as
District
10-year
to future
Statistics
I FAR
not
additional
Creek
CONTRIBUTION
market
people
ways
rental
expired
Rezoning:
CREEK
undeveloped open
St
square-foot
of
provide PDA
mdudedk,
to
TO
been
to
million. (Net)
homes
1,800sf
to
to
West
reduce
Plan
(max)
be
Village
Area
that
in
the
(1.98 130
secures
Phased
allow
homes; building
greenspace,
2018
with
I
Summary:
HEAR
2008
September
set complete
,‘ 1<
aPP
‘for additional
Vancouver
District
$7.14
and
—8
was
you
PPU)
housing
for
$13
the
Official
home for:
statistica
centre,
agreement:
sale’
rental
tR
Development
both
‘for
76 with
originally
the
can
development
AREAS
million. Approved
YOUR million
7pm
‘:i) of
homes
floor
in
sale’ sizes
above
This
District
2018
remaining
Community
West
1,170
125
diversity
participate:
building housing
while
a
on
buildings
16
14
699
12 125 (0.05 0.85
1,437 (md.
77Acres
Rezoned
on
minimum
area floor
to
rezoning
District-owned
homes
storeys
storeys
storeys—
rezoned
are
$3
and
Vancouver
market
rental
November
INPUT
also
FAR
better
102,000
for
and
people
Agreement
million
is
options.
with
area
proposed
priorities
Proposed
ii:
of
new
Plan and
(Net)
being
protecting
also
—1
(max) homes
is
Plan.
a
of
homes;
5
was
5
meet
also
tram
150
in
(1.74
diverse
rental)
ala
additional
building
sf
buildings
10
better
Area
proposed.
for
()
—3
&
triggered
proposed
homes
years.
and
single-
in
(PDA)
PPU)
Lot
today’s
this
Area
5
more
mix
6
aligns
goals
11.
&
is
6
of
S REZONING features Abow:hightlghted
AboiLA,aan
2. 1.
Fo,mareinfarmtion
Write
Speak:
raising [email protected] more
S to
slender
You your
and Council: in 6
ye#as can elRodgera
budthngs
hand be -
while
Written during
and heard Creek the ,edaced orange
ore
the
by
correspondence located home
represents
adding public sizes.
te
the
your input a east new theJuture
rental
name
period. can
building.
be to
t’pcesa
the
sent (
The speakers new
VHlaae. to:
scheme
FALL
list
2019 or
Zoning
3.1.3 IX
residential
(6)
FATea
I
3.1.2
Area
AREA
Totals
Area
Area
AREA Bylaw
On
(a)
6
5
Lot
5
6
No.
having
888,
‘tot
follows:
Section
603.06
The
31.1,6
rental
11
3.1.1.5
3.1.1.4
4662,
and
11”
Group
,193,201
rows
tenure,
the
44,426
AREA
69,361
4flflcquaromeres
change) MAXIMUM
17A
“Height”
Lot
603.03
means
2010,
for
renumbered
Section
parcel
table
The
shown
accordingly.
After 1,
‘.lfl
12,
Area
I_
New
and
Amendment
square
square
Cluster
Apartment ApaitmenlBuflding
Dwellings
Single
bottom
HOUSING
the the
is I
.r.,:
square
Section
that
is
identifier
amended
below:
amended
for (4)
5
TOTAL
tenure
Westminster
land
t
appears and
rr’
q
the is
and
metres metres
rows
Housing
accordingly.
‘‘lr’frPct
metres
legally
deleted
(1)
9E3
Area
purpose
Building
of
TYPE
Two 030-674-107;
-______
FLOOR
Bylaw
to
(U)
for
as
every
in
(no
add
6
described
renumber
Area
Family
shown
Section
and
District,
in
No,
of
table
a
dwelling
new
subsequent
5,
this 5044,
-.
1
below:
.10.76
[37.19 I
Area
(2),
50.29mandlS
37.19 that
7.6%
MAXIMUM
Plan
224
354
MAXIMUM
DWELLING
subsection:
subsection all
as
unit,
are
subsequent
2019
Lot
appears
6
m
EPP76455,
mp
and
and
and-12
amended
(no
11,
shall
sections
Totals,
12
change)
HEIGHT
District
TOTAL
(6)
change)
in
UNITS
be
storeyc
torcy
Section as
3945119i
sections
and
as
are
in
Lot
the
3
3; 65 ______
Zoning BylawNo. 4662, 2010, AmendmentBylawNo. 5044, 2019 5
PARKINt3RATIO =___
Secured A minimumof 1 parking space per dwelling
Rental I unit Housing Parking designed and designated as visitor parkingthat is equal to at least 10% of the 9 tota’ numberof dwelligpi1s Secure bicyclestorage space shall be provided equivalentto a minimumof 2 (39 I $A) storae spaces per dwellingunit —“
3945119v1 (18)
From: Cindy L.Mayne Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:34 PM To: s. 22(1) Cc: MayorandCouncil; Michelle McGuire; Jim Bailey Subject: Council Correspondence - week ending November 22, 2019 Attachments: WHOLE-Action-Rodgers-s. 22(1) f
Dear s. 22(1)
Thank you for your email to Mayor and Council, it has been forwarded to our department for response.
At this time there are no specific plans to change the Caulfield or other blue bus routes in response to this development application. In future if Council approves the proposed zoning and development permit amendments for Rodgers Creek the opportunity for adding transit servicing to that area is improved, however, this would be subject to future discussion and review.
In regards to your question about a “land swap” please provide clarification about the land and the drawing you have referred to and I will endeavor to provide the information requested.
Best regards,
Michelle McGuire Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design (////)(7)
From: s. 22(1) Eo —aD5t)QL\ I5L)Jc Sent: Tuesday,November19,2019 11:37AM To: Jim Bailey Cc: MayorandCouncil Subject: RodgersCreekand CypressVillage
In regard to the Rodgers Creek and Cypress Village projects and traffic diversion:
Caulfield Bus Service:
What is the long term plan for the touting of this bus. The bus currently operates at 30 minute intervals until 7 p.m., one way to Caulfield. Willthere be jy change to this service in the future and in particular will Rodgers Creek and/or Cypress Village to tied into this bus route?
Proposed road construction through District’s Works Yard:
The District recently did a ‘land swap’ with British Pacific Properties. The drawing shows a proposed road, please explain what the purpose of this road is.
In particular - my question is could this road now or in the future connect Caulfield Village or Rodgers Creek or Cypress Village to Exit7 through to Marine Drive.
Kindlyemail your response to:
s. 22(1) Attention to s. 22(1)
S. 22(1)
West Vancouver, B.C. (19)
From: Cindy L.Mayne Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:38 PM To: s. 22(1) Cc: MayorandCouncil; Jim Bailey; Michelle McGuire; Pascal Cuk Subject: Council Correspondence - week ending November 29, 2019 Attachments: WHOLE-Action-Rodgers s. 22(1)
Mr. s. 22(1)
Thank you for writing to Mayor and Council it has been forwarded to me for a response.
The application under consideration for Rodgers Creek is an amendment to the existing zoning with an incremental increase in units of 481 (less than 3% of West Vancouver’s total dwelling units based on the 2016 census). The increase in “for sale” units is limited to 206 and does not include an increase in density as the increase is achieved through reducing unit sizes. The only proposed increase in density is limited to the addition of up to 275 secured renal units. The proposal, therefore, is not representative of a 25% increase to West Vancouver’s existing population. The traffic impact study previously accepted by both the Ministry of Transportation and the District, has been updated to consider the proposed change in density and new units. Staff are satisfied with the findings that show that the proposal would reduce per capita vehicle usage and improve the opportunity for providing transit in this area of Rodgers Creek.
Best regards,
Michelle McGuire Manager of Current Planning & Urban Design (////)(5)
Ftorn: S. 22(1) o- Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 4:39 PM To: MayorandCouncil Subject: No to Rodgers Creek as proposed
Mayor and Council, If this projects increases West Vancouver’s population by 25%, what is your plan to address the current daily congestion and how are you going to address this increases impact on traffic? Regards, s. 22(1)
s. 22(1) (20)
From: Mark Chan 090 Z2 0/ Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:07 PM To: s. 22(1) Cc: MayorandCouncil Subject: FW:2195 Gordon Avenue Attachments: WHOLE-Action s. 22(1)
Hi s. 22(1)
Thank you for your email to Mayor and Council (copy attached), which has been referred to me for consideration and response.
Thank you for taking the time to attend the Preliminary Public Information Meeting for 2195 Gordon Avenue on
November21 and for your comments following the meeting. I set out below my responses to your email using the numbering in your email.
1. In order to address demographic and housing challenges in our community, Council is proposing that the rental units be income targeted towards moderate income people, such as families and workers. The approximate household income target is between $50,000 to $125,000. There are approximately 7,400 households (or 44% of all households in West Vancouver) with a total household income that falls within this range.
2. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)considers housing to be affordable when a household spends less than 30% of its pre-tax income on adequate shelter. Based on the number and percentage of households that fall within the targeted incomes of between $50,000 to $125,000, we believe the rental rate targets of approximately $1,200 to $3,150 would be considered affordable in this context. We also believe the central location, nearby amenities and the fact that the units would be new and discounted by 30% would be an incentive for people to rent at this location.
3. The District is not targeting specific groups of workers but, rather, workers and families who fall within the targeted household income levels. While this project is not dedicated to first responders or public employees; teachers, firefighters, and police officers are examples of workers who provide key services to our community with income levels that fall within the income targets.
4. West Vancouver’s vacancy rate of 0.6% (one of the lowest in Metro Vancouver) is the most recent information
available from CMHCregarding current vacancy rates. I note that your email refers to monthly rents at properties at: Capilano Road and Marine Drive in North Vancouver; Park Royal Towers; and the Saint George at 18th and Lonsdale in North Vancouver.
Your email states “Lookslike demand is weak” for the property at Capilano Road and Marine Drive in North Vancouver. We have not seen specific information that would allow us to comment on the demand for that private rental property in North Vancouver.
Regarding the Park RoyalTowers, you have mentioned that you believe the rent for a three bedroom unit is $155 lower than the estimated below market rents for 2195 Gordon Avenue. The estimated rents for 2195 Gordon Avenue are based on 70% of market rent for new apartment units in West Vancouver. The rental units at 2195 Gordon Avenue would be new units, in Ambleside adjacent to the Community Centre. The Park Royal Towers are 50+ years old.
Regarding the Saint George at 18th and Lonsdale in North Vancouver, you have stated that “They too are having promotions, which suggest that demand for rental accommodation in these price ranges is limited”. We have not seen specific information that would allow us to comment on the demand for that private rental property in North Vancouver.
Your email then states “The estimated rents for 2195 Gordon touted at 30% below market rates appear to be equal to current market rates.” We do not agree. The three examples in your email relate to two properties in North Vancouver, and one 50+ year old apartment building at Park Royal.
5. There are market rental units currently proposed to be constructed within the District. However, these are market rental units and not below market rental units.
6. The District is proposing to provide below market rental units to increase housing supply and diversity within West Vancouver to add to existing housing options. This would provide additional choice for workers and families. Please also see my comments after point 9 of this email.
7. We have noted your comments on this point.
8. The “missing middle” in West Vancouver is more pronounced than in Metro Vancouver. For example, the population in West Vancouver between the ages of 25-34, without children, is 2%. That number is 8% in Metro Vancouver. 28% of the population in West Vancouver is over the age of 65, compared with 16% in Metro Vancouver. While there are approximately 1,500 seniors and 55+ housing units in West Vancouver, including over 40% of those located within a 500 metre radius of 2195 Gordon Avenue, there are currently no rental units for the demographic and income objectives as proposed by this project.
9. We have noted your comments regarding this point.
I refer to the following comments in your email: “The estimated rents, even at 30% below (new) market value are out of the reach for most workers in West Vancouver. They are not affordable for moderate income families.”
“We need housing for baristas and home care workers and retail clerks. That I would be willing to sink my tax dollars into.”
It appears from the above that you are concerned that the rents in this proposed project are too high. Paragraph 4 of your email also refers to concerns about taxpayers providing the land, and the opportunity cost of providing below market rental housing.
In order to consider your public feedback and also provide that to Council for their consideration, it would be helpful if you could clarify: do you prefer that the 2195 Gordon Avenue project have lower rents targeted at people with incomes below moderate income? While that could be achievable, it would certainly result in reduced revenue to the District, and possibly no revenue from the site. Council’s current proposal seeks to balance multiple policy objectives including: demographic challenges; revenue; housing supply; and housing affordability.
In closing, I acknowledge and agree that there are many different viewpoints on this topic, and that the optimal use for a public asset differs from person to person. We have heard many different viewpoints during our public consultation, and there are more public engagement opportunities to come. Staff’s goal is to ensure that Council has the benefit of all the public feedback so that Council can consider that information when making future decisions about this project in the overall interest of the community.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Chan Deputy Chief Administrative Officer I Director of Corporate Services District of West Vancouver I t: 604-925-7098 I westvancouver.ca
as
addition
Attachments:
To:
Dear Subject:
I
Sent:
From:
attended
4)
it
3)
2)
1)
stands.
Mayor
The
current
transportation,
The there
ads 48K.
Although these
jobs
are
The demand.
demographic?
workers target
The
forecast
There
MISSING
c)
b) a)
of
The
Vancouver,
demand
the
$2995.
building
discount too
(22/11/19
Capilano
Park
the
estimated
offering
vacancy
target
a
estimated
that
is
and
workers
permanent
market?
Rents
appears
I
market
estimated
expensive.
have Preliminary
a
last
in
for
Royal
a provide may
initially
12.5%
MIDDLE?
Council,
West
market
Less
the
is
for
is
rentals:
for
even
rate
Residences
some
old,
p.A20)
a
rents
would
rates.
clothing,
rents,
Towers
to
How
but
rental
number
What
the
½
Vancouver.
positive,
deduction
than
home
is
below be
the
often
but
page
nearby,
questions,
I
first
Public
for
out
(copies
many
note
no
If
have
even
ate
accommodation
It
an
the smallest
ads.IMG.pdf
2195
Saturday,
the
Ma’orandCounciI
West
2195
had
is
of
toiletries
for
year
of
mentioned
market
market
ad
income
the
the
at
that
unclear
EO MARKET BELOW
apartments
date.
potential Information
a
would
at
Gordon
for
Adult
and
for
a
attached)
aiaoRoad Capilano
partner
Vancouver
on
Gordon
30%
They
West
numbers?
5.22(1)
1/3-page
the
concerns
November
pension
the
studio
analysis
new.
rents
studios.
I
and
that
Day
be
note
how
salary
below
Saint
are
Vancouver
is
renters
earning
interested?
touted
teachers,
basic
could
Care,
in
unit
They
are
Meeting:
in
these
that
not
contributions.)
ad.
23,
West
is
and
for
George
for
these
(new)
Looks
would
newly
providing
2019
affordable
in needs.
who
afford
too
A
basic
and
but
a
at
a
comments:
price
numbers
the
three
Vancouver
beginning
similar
30% Teachers
price
7:21
market
firefighters
are
I
2195
like
can
There
Marine
renovated
be
at
cannot
North
supply
these
estimated
PM
having
18th
bed,
half
below
demand
the
afford
ranges
Gordon
income.
for
were
Not
value
seems
and Shore
Drive.
their
land,
rates.
teacher
support
2-bath
Association
and
moderate
and
market
promotions,
and
much
the
and
determined.
Lonsdale.
is
is
at
are
take-home
demand.
this
on
they
to
News
limited.
proposed
How
These
The
weak.
police
2195
there
apartment
the
in
be
out Nov.21.
is
is
rates
are
West
left
income
assumption
no
outrageous.
many
present
this
of
concluded
Gordon.
are
officers.
(20/11/19
MARKET
(22/11/19
offering
for
the
which
True,
There
hard
appear
pay.
Vancouver
week,
rents.
amenities.
I
families food,
goes
o7Q-
reach
do
families.
housing
data
not
(Remember,
suggest
seems
support
Mind
a
These
there
to
Who
utilities,
p. is
that
for
RENTS
Why p.
$250.
in
for
be
also
indicating
27)
exist
A22)
West
you,
is
-Oj
the
most
Is
equal
proposal
is
were
to
should
are
that
the
$45-
that
month
this
the
be
in
rents
match the
(////)
the
this
3
no
to
(4) the
7)
6) 5)
condos to Vancouver
The
afford $500,000
down listings, 5%
payment West
So, above
Example:
they
needing be probTem.
market
actually
choosing where There
I less
Providing
they
housing And,
officers.
not firefighters,
Vancouver
taxpayers
There aspire
A anyone,
I
renters
Rodgers
also
also
enhance
core willing
*
a
it
presentation
expensive
are
should
$500,000
lifelong
Vancouver.
looks
strong
payment
note
find
to
$500,000
is
they
are
to
Canadian
rates?
and
aspire
(not
stop
a
is
buy
going?
panic except
is
Providing
Creek
home
to
long
We
and
If
unaffordable
20%
it
provide
many
expensive.
that
and
$25000
like
the address
can
your
police
single-family
somewhat
sink
be
including
incentive
a
this
renting
need
Any
10%
commutes
to
modest in
starts
= there
satisfied
those housing
proposal?
35
down
ownership
afford
and
perhaps
and Those
purchase market
my
this
some
$25,000;
outflow?
boards
value
Providing
officers
the
in
data?
below
for
housing
÷
is
tax
others
ensures
under
is
North
group.
at
dual payment
to
mobile $25,000
to
land
not
the
Yes,
home.
patronizing
housing
circles
a
jobs
is
5%.
bears
dollars
as
rentals
stay
the
buy
displayed
worker
homes.
to
market
home
What
an
and
remaining
income
and
price
10%
Vancouver
to
I
and
lifelong
$1,000,000,
for I
meet
for
accommodation
note are
devetoper?
People
a
acknowledge
poverty
attractive
homes)
in
meet
this
that
I
experienced which
=
home
save
baristas
into.
a
West coming pay
note is
*
about
ownership.
is
portable,
shortage
$50,000.
rentals,
($750,000
that
purchase
these
not
families
out.
$750,000,
to
West
at
renters
housing
the
for
that earning
portion.
to
tell
emphasizes
in
Vancouver.
under
the
the
high
providing
a
option.
the
on
opportunity
retirement,
raise
the
and goals.
Vancouver
of
workers
there
of
Nov. solution.
they
in
just
that
line
ratio
this
Nov.
future.
price
teachers
which
minimum $400k.
—
needs.
home
68%
many
the
at
the
their
$500,000)
21
are
to
are
in
The
are
is
unaffordable
mortgages
rentals
22,
top
of
minimum
the
with
a
stay
of
meeting
unaffordability.
is
children
Would
going
care
sectors
17 targeted
Becoming
even
problem.
$500,000.
cost
recent
Yes,
is
Canadians
2079.
10
dubious
tend
neat
down
earnings
listings
in
losing
%
workers
at
of
West
to for
=
286
available
to
of
future:
rates
across
used
loss
$25,000;
down
26
and
still
If
Mission
payment
teachers,
for
plan
incomes
those
rates
But,
you
considering
for
listings
a
million
Vancouver.
When
exist.
the
of
ensure
in
are
lifelong
that
only
and
condos
payment
Was
look for
has
the
professionals
Gateway
Metro.
will
professionals
more
rentals
home
or
And
are
their
retail
conventional
is
dollars
under
the
top
Typically,
anyone
in
firefighters
to
not
Squamish
this
they
5%
renter
Canada
actually
Surrey,
under
the
expensive
purchase
the
10%
This
futures
owners.
solve
is clerks.
at
purposeful
for
400K
at
future.
with
total
proposed rents
asked
for
Park
the
of
is
700K
to
a
the
there
e.g.
not
or
because incomes
no
30% and
-buy
a
for
minimum
down
That
first
mortgages
areas
Some
forecast,
West
price
Royal,
Others
Kamloops
rentals
benefit
where
unique
both
in
police
in
are
below
RRSPs,
I
rents
West
order
would
is of
that
286
are
can
to
to is The median FAMILYincome is West Vancouver is $89,800. That means that half our families
earn $89,800 or LESS. I am not sure there is much appetite for half the population to support questionable below market housing for folks earning more than their own family.
8) West Vancouver has compared demographic data from 1956 to 2019 to move forward the argument of the MISSING MIDDLEin more than one document. This is disingenuous. In 1956, there was a huge number of children. BABYBODMERS, remember? There needs to be a comparison of children 0-14 and 15-18 to Metro and to Canada, NOT TO 1956. The same goes for seniors. Allthose children from 1956 are now seniors. Our population is aging. So, wringing our collective West Vancouver hands over the number of young people or seniors in the community is a waste of energy. The senior demographic is increasing across the country, the MISSING MIDDLEis not.
9) And then there is the question of aging rental stock, often spoken about with derision by both
staff and elected officials. I note that these properties are more affordable than the below market
housing proposed. I also remind you that the majority of purpose-built rentals in Metro and Canada, not only West Vancouver were built in the 60s and 70s. There were government incentives to construct such rentals — MURBS. Untilthen, stratas did not exist. So, when condominium ownership was introduced in BC, it became more profitable for developers to build condominiums. Individual units marketed by individual owners became the purveyors of rental stock. In BC, 27% of condos are rented according to StatsCan.
CONCLUSION: Although the proposed design of this development is attractive, and the need for a permanent home for the Adult Day Care is addressed, this project does not appear to be affordable to most West Vancouver workers and comes at significant opportunity cost to West Vancouver taxpayers. The proposal appears to be based on weak anecdotal evidence and seems to address the political agenda of some local elected officials rather than being a viable solution to
housing needs in the community. I do support the concept of affordable housing, but do not support the present proposal.
West Vancouver, L..J s. 22(1)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10