3988854v2

COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE UPDATE TO JANUARY 31, 2020 (8:30 a.m.)

Referred for Action (1) January 27, 2020, regarding Homeless Individual in John Lawson Park

(Referred to the Director of Corporate Services for consideration and response)(2) January 28, 2020, regarding “A question about the 2020 Budget” (Referred to

the Director of Financial Services for consideration and response)(3) January 29, 2020, regarding “request to a girl ( dream )” (Request for Postcard

of West Vancouver) (Referred to the Director of Community Relations &Communications for consideration and response)

(4) January 29, 2020, regarding “SkyTrain” (Referred to the Director of Engineering& Transportation Services for consideration and response)

Referred for Action from Other Governments and Government Agencies No items. Received for Information (5) Committee and Board Meeting Minutes – Design Review Committee meeting

December 5, 2019(6) January 20, 2020, regarding Snow Clearing(7) West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, January 24, 2020, regarding “West

Vancouver is developing a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy”(8) Old Growth Conservancy Society, January 24, 2020, regarding “OGCS

Snowshoe Hike Feb 2 and AGM Feb 26” (Invitation)(9) January 25, 2020, regarding “CBC News : Kindness snowballs after online

search for volunteers to help B.C. seniors with snow”(10) 10 submissions, January 25-30, 2020, regarding Proposed 2020 Budget(11) 3 submissions, January 27, 2020, regarding Councillor’s Motion regarding

Discriminating Land Title Covenants(12) January 28, 2020, regarding “Re: Can a Whole City Go Green? Yes! | The

Tyee” (Climate Action)(13) Small Business BC, January 28, 2020, regarding “Small Business BC

Cordially Invites You to Attend the 17th Annual Small Business BC Awards -February 21, 2020”

(14) January 28, 2020, regarding “Fwd: Larson Bay Tennis Court & GleneaglesGolf Course Restaurant”

(15) 2 submissions, January 29 and 30, 2020, regarding 2019 HUB CyclingInfrastructure Award

Received for Information from Other Governments and Government Agencies (16) P. Weiler, M.P. (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country),

January 24, 2020, regarding “Letter from MP Patrick Weiler - EnvironmentalFunding Programs”

3988854v2

Responses to Correspondence (17) Senior Community Planner, January 29, 2020, response regarding

“CMHC DATA - 2019”(18) Director of Financial Services, January 30, 2020, response regarding

“A question about the 2020 Budget”(19) Director of Financial Services, January 30, 2020, response regarding

“2020 Proposed Property Taxes”

From: o-o gSent: Monday, January 27, 2020 7:23 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: John Lawson Park

Hello Mayor,

I would like to know what the situation is with the homeless individual that lives in John Lawson Park and what is beingdone about it.He is extremely unpleasant and scaring people as they walk by.The worry is nothing is being done about it, or definitely not enough. Myself and all the neighbors on my street feel thesame way.Please let me know what is being done.

Thank you,

\‘coue1

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(1)

From:Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:59 AMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: A question about the 2020 Budget

Hi Mayor and Council — we are home owners and residents of West Vancouver. We request that before West Vancouverapproves the 6.1% proposed property tax increase in the district, the district explain why municipal spending is alreadyso much more than in other municipalities in Metro Vancouver, as evidenced by the chart below from a 2018 FraserInstitute report.

We wish to point out that the proposed increase may well be more than the proposed 6.1% increase on a % basis forthose of us who own houses, condos and townhouses below average value in the district, directly and negativelyaffecting the affordability issue the district is actively trying to address (ie. the ‘missing middle’).

Respectfully,

Municipalities spending 2018

$1 Person

:Iijiiii iiiW.1 V..’ N-. Wn Wtot,..t 1’.4ta Nfl” Vi” V44, W’ht. Ran Port J.koj, I

-,

Lbs Cr,

VancouverBritish Columbia, Canada,

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(2)

From:Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:28 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: request to a girl (dream

I come here to know if it would be possible to send to my daughter a postcard by the post office of your citylike monuments, city view, lakes, beaches or whatever identifies your city the mostShe enjoyed decorating her room with cities around the world on postcards (Around the World)Already have the world map on the wall and when you receive the postcard will make the connection with thecountry and the city and then will try to know more about that country and the background in addition todecoration will also be educationalSo far I already have some postcards but I would like to have yourit has been a nice experience for her and me because some besides the postcard send brochures, fridgemagnets, pins, bookmarks, stickers we already received a little of everything maps ,tourism books, guidetourism etc....as we are a poor family and we could not visit these countries and cities we make this trip together at homewhy receiving by mail and not printing over the net is becoming more personal for her to receive thesepostcards and some write messages to her which makes her very happy

First nameStreet:

Portugal

Already our thank you very muchand we will be waiting for your answer

4

• ,

C’

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(3)

From:Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 3:33 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: SkyTrain

What are the plans for SkyTrain to the Northshore ? Strong advocacy to UBC. The Northshore should be first.All you have to do is follow Google Maps to see where the real congestion is during peak travel periods. Areyou working with North Van. City/District to make this happen ? SeaBus and B-Line isn’t going to be enough.

\\ks± ncoutr

w

*

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(4)

THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVERDESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERTHURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

Committee Members: F. Ducote; A. van Hoek; J. McDougall; L. McKenna; B. Nelson;B. Phillips; Councillor B. Soprovich and Councillor S. Thompson.Absent: A. Matis; J. Levine and D. Harrison

Staff: L. Berg, Staff Liaison; E. Wilhelm, Senior Community Planner and M. Emery,Committee Clerk

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

It was Moved and Seconded:

THAT the December 5, Design Review Committee Meeting agenda be approved ascirculated.

CARRIED

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

It was Moved and Seconded:

THAT the November21, 2019, Design Review Committee Meeting minutes beadopted as circulated.

CARRIED

4. INTRODUCTION

The Chair read the statement of public participation.

L. Berg (Senior Community Planner) stated the purpose of the Committee, gave abrief introduction regarding review process of by the Committee, and outlinedmeeting procedures.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

5.1 EVERGREEN SQUASH CLUB EXPANSION, 315 KLAHANIE COURTBackground:

E. Wilhelm (Senior Community Planner) introduced the proposal and spoke relativeto site context, including:

• The Squash Club is located within Klahanie Park.• The amenities of the park include a small asphalt play area, two rugby fields, one

soccer field, Capilano Rugby Club and the Evergreen Squash Club.

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-13968832v1

0116-20-DRC-2019

(5)

• Imminent changes to land uses surround the site, with the new town centre planby the District of North Vancouver to the east.

• The development permit proposal includes some tree removal and adjustments toasphalt sports court and rugby field to accommodate the expansion of the squashclub.

Project Presentation:

E. Berwick (Architect) provided a presentation, including:• The Club has been operating in Klahanie Park for over 50 years on land leased

from the District.• To continue the success of the club, build membership and host larger

tournaments, proposing to expand to 4,700 sq.ft. by adding a doubles court,singles court, a small office on main floor, a training area on upper floor andviewing areas.

• Existing entrance to club from Curling Road is under review due to thedevelopment in the immediate area. Districts of West Vancouver and NorthVancouver are designing access to the park.

• Materials include the continuation of board and batten, stucco to match whatexists there now. Design driven by blending old and new, need for economy, andkeep club affordable. Intent for building to blend into landscape.

Committee Questions:

The Committee went on to question the presenters, with the applicants’ and staffresponses in italics:

• Sport court is it used for practice. The outdoor court is a parks amenity andwill have to be shortened by 10 ft. to allow the addition.

• Parking layout find westerly section has an awkward area where are avoidinga stump? As part of a previous addition, it was stipulated that the stumpremain.

• The drawings show a possible pickle ball court, is that in first phase? If thecurrent access were closed, it would be a good possibility that it is included.

• How do you get there by bike? Entry would be through future pickle ball areaalong a new pathway, a matter of developing that pathway once the entranceis clarified.

• Is there any impact to rugby field? Yes, it has to be moved over 30 ft.• Upper lounge area shows two doors where do they go? Area full of

mechanical equipment in the roof area.• Is there a reason for the 9 ft. ceiling for exercise area, as this seems low?

Wanted to keep building as low profile as possible, it could be built higher.

B. Nelson entered the meeting.Committee Comments:

The Committee went on to provide comments on the presentation, including:• Consider a more efficient parking lot layout to maximize efficiency for the park

and club.• Consider additional landscaping along whole west side of the building, and

continue a series of trees along that boundary.

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-23968832v1

• The future pickle ball court may add too much on the east and west. Exploreopportunity for creating a welcoming entrance for waylinding. Architecture isbasic, consider a simpler expression of the roofline and add more interest withmaterials and colours to contrast and enhance.

• Consider increasing landscaping along the west elevation. Review circulation.• Appreciate blending the existing building and new architecture and how the

building is blended in with the trees. Consider adding more trees.• The road curve on north side leaves very little room for pedestrians and bikes.

Explore designing a couple feet around the outline of the building so people cansafely move around the building and show path on the plans.

Having reviewed the application and heard the presentation provided by theapplicant:

It was Moved and Seconded:

THAT the Design Review Committee SUPPORT the application for the EvergreenSquash Club expansion at 315 Klahanie Court subject to further review by staff ofthe following items:• consideration of the setback for landscape along the west and north west corner

of the building;• a review of the pedestrian and bicycle circulation around the building and how

pedestrians and cyclists would arrive at the front entrance of the building in asafe way;

• work with staff to come up with a more efficient and useful layout of the parking;• consideration of a simpler expression of the roof line;• consideration of the use of some more contrasting colours for the addition;• consideration of raising the roof of the building slightly to get more height in the

exercise room above; and• consideration to improve wayfinding around the site and to enhance the

expression of the main entrance of the building.

CARRIED

5.2 GENTLES COTTAGE HRA, 4441 PICCADILLY NORTH

Background:

E. Wilhelm (Senior Community Planner) introduced the proposal and spoke relativeto site context, including:• Outline of the HRA and where this application is in the review process.• Site is not within the Lower Caulfeild Heritage Conservation Area. There are

currently three primary structures on the site: Gentles cottage, gazebo and coachhouse with storage area.

• Cottage built in 1934 and considered an excellent example of English arts andcrafts architecture; the cottage is not placed on the heritage register as theinterior and exterior have had a number of renovations throughout the years;however, the 1934 living room and chimney are in excellent condition.

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-33968832v1

• Proposal is to protect and renovate the Gentles cottage with five rental unitswithin the Gentles cottage, and add four duplexes and four townhouses on thewest portion of the site accessed with a new driveway.

• Two parking stalls for each duplex and townhouse and one parking staff for eachof the units in the cottage is proposed.

Project Presentation:

T. Ankenman (Ankenman Marchand Architects) provided a presentation, including:• Site is one acre with exposed bedrock as a prominent characteristic of the site,

which moves a lot of surface water through the site.• Proposing infill housing as defined in the DCP along the Marine Drive corridor,

where the objective is to add 200 infill units over next few years.• The Heritage Advisory Committee suggested adding a trail to provide public

access through site, down a right of way to Marine Drive, and connect toCaulfeild Park. Exploring improvements for pedestrian access to bus stops.

• The infill housing will be setback and unseen from the street.• Proposal to restore house back to the 1951 era by removing additions and

following the original archive drawings.• The historic gazebo will be protected through the HRA. It is located in the heart of

the site and will serve as a resident gathering spot.• Promoting tourism by proposing short-term rentals and scheduled community

events within the cottage.• Green roofs proposed for townhouses and duplexes without obstructing views

from the north.• Townhomes to cater to younger families and three storey duplexes to allow

ageing in place with master on main and elevator leading to two storeys below.• Attempting to create a chronological time line as move through site with a clear

distinction between historical aspect and new infill.

E. Gauthier (Landscape Architect) provided a landscape presentation, including:• Retaining the existing rhododendron and mature trees around perimeter, in

particular at south and north edge as well as entry. Proposing to remove 36trees. Many of the trees have been topped to comply with a covenant serving toretain views for homes to the north. Proposing to plant 55 large ornamentaldeciduous trees.

• Promoting village character and scale by using naturalized materials incontemporary application.

• Proposing semi-private to private outdoor lounge patio at cottage. The existingpatio will be retained as a common area that is adjacent to village green area.

• Drive court to be heavily vegetated with buffer planting. Common pathways toconnect heritage area through the site and terminate in a secret garden.

• Each infill unit has a roof top patio and promotes rainwater collection from thegreen roofs. Propose to formalize streams and ponds on site.

Committee Questions:

The Committee went on to question the presenters, with the applicants’ and staffresponses in italics:

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M43968832v1

• Duplex unit bedrooms and bathrooms seem very quiet close to each other?Have offset windows but could increase the off set.

• Existing coach house does it have heritage value? No, but exploring recyclingthe timber.

• How wide is the drive aisle and could two cars pass each other? Yes, it is 6 mwith have aprons on side for pedestrian access.

• Does water feature have storm water capture? It is a combination from roofleaders and channelling gravity through the site.

• Does gazebo have heritage quality and is it being rebuilt? Yes, it is beingrestored same as the house, it has a fireplace, built in barbeque and, greatviews to the water. It will be the social heart of the site.

• Does outdoor amenity area carry up along the west side of heritage house?Seems like lack of separation for private spaces. Intended as outdoor area forrental space.

• What are character of defining elements of site? Coach house has largefootprint and remainder of site rock with topped trees. Propose to retainperimeter vegetation, as those trees have not been topped.

• Is there enough room for trees and roots at perimeter on west side? Many of theexisting trees are on the property line and there is an existing wall so any workwill be manually done with arborist reviewing and supervising.

• Why not all townhouses on infill? Trying to be inclusive and retain a variety ofhousing. The townhouses seem more for families and duplex more for emptynesters.

• Is the 15 ft. right of way on the west side of the property District owned? Yes.Will the District be providing access from private property on to this right of way?Recommendation from the Heritage Advisory Committee, to be reviewed by theDistrict.

• If the right of way was not in existence what would be the setback from the westboundary of property line to the building wall? A conventional setback would be2 to 3 m. Setbacks are negotiated under HRA.

• Proposal includes a pipe system and exposed water for storm water, is itanticipated to have it all open? It is all open from road down, at top, it is a seriesof pools, can consider continuous.

• Why has the proposal taken four years? Original owner passed away, sincethen a lot of design development, new OCP in place, and it has been anevolution with a lot of work on the heritage aspect.

• Are there any existing utilities in right of way? There is sanitary line for existinghouse, which will need upgrading, and given excavation, needed there will likelybe tree removal. Would like to take storm water through this area.

• Have you had any public meetings? Had a meeting in 2016 with a conceptualidea where 30 people for and one against. Recent meeting in June 2019 with 60in favor 40 against. The main comment against was changes in land use patternby introducing multifamily in single family neighbourhood, also a lot of commentsthat the house was not worth saving as not on heritage register. People infavour were in support of this type of housing in West Vancouver.

• Was there any discussion about tying in the architecture with the existingheritage character? Not too many comments on architecture on in fill.

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-53968832v1

• Where would visitors park? There are aprons between the drive aisle andgarage doors for parking.

• Why do the duplexes have such a large area given that they will have the leastamount of people? Site configuration best to have upper bench for families andlower bench for empty nester as one storey entry. Can the duplexes be smallerto increase setbacks? Duplexes long to accommodate bedroom on main floorand ageing in place.

• What is the hardscape coverage? Unknown, but intent to make the drive aisleas permeable as can with payers.

Committee Comments:

The Committee went on to provide comments on the presentation, including:• Concerned with amount of maintenance required for all the ponds, important they

are constructed in a simple enough way to be easily maintained.• The glass doors on the duplex units too much. Consider further design

development to introduce some craftsmanship to soften the expression of theentrances. In early images, the staircase on existing building has a wood featureand that as a design element make its way as a modern expression on balconiesto bring a degree of similarity. Like slim line created at roofline but concernedwith depth of construction materials try to make sure structure allowed for andamount of glazing reduced.

• Like overall approach to storm water and how it integrates through project. Seemlike there are two distinct developments and the landscape pushes together tomarry them but do not see an architectural bridge in any way.

• The buildings are tight to property line and trying to pack in a lot of landscape a,concerned with success of trees and buffer. New buildings have a thoughtfulform, however duplexes are long. Consider reducing to create buffer at lowerlevel. More design development needed for hardscape area as paved arealeading up to bedrooms does not work. Stair crosses in front of unit 101 and 102takes up lot of window space needs reconfiguration.

• Townhouses with smaller footprint allows more perimeter space for landscapeand tree replacement. Reduce footprint of southern infill, as there is a lot ofdevelopment on this site. Needs increased setbacks for neighbours andperimeter. The contrast between existing and heritage is good, architecturalexpression is good, materiality seems well thought out. Question why the bigduplex units need rooftop access, elevators look like apartment element ratherthan duplexes. Supportive of the general thrust, reducing coverage with an eye tosoftening and creating landscaping.

• The landscape plan would be much clearer if knew which trees were to beremoved and which are topped as part of that list. Amount of site to be coveredby the infill units as concerned with limited amount of buffering around thebuildings and limited opportunity to soften with landscape. Encourage lesshardscape and more naturalization. Storm water management by being visibleand useable important. Concern with roof top spaces and overhangs onduplexes. They will be visible from townhouse units above. Further designdevelopment about public access as will run into difficulty with the railway line tonorth and blockage at south end to Marine Drive, it will be an awkward way to getdown to Marine Drive and going to run into dead end for years to come. Like the

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-63968832v1

options of having five units and having one available for use by the community inthe heritage building and support the gazebo area as a gathering space. If therewas some natural ability to get pathway on that side that is not as hard surfacewill blend whole development into neighbourhood more.

• Appreciate addressing the missing middle however hesitant when a developmentcould create conflict with unanticipated changes in the neighbourhood. Considera sizeable site buffer, neighbourhood character and privacy. Concept, communityelements, green roof and connections all good. Consider reduced massing andsize. Concern how number of vehicles interacts with neighbourhood. Considerinvestigating underground parking to allow for pedestrian and trees above.Appreciate heritage try not to replicate to the project, quite a few modernarchitecture in area.

• Important to include dedicated visitor parking.• Great need for this type of housing and commend that the project tries to fill the

need but may be trying to do too much. It is commendable to have age in placeunits, but the proposed landscaping and permeability inhibits mobility. Exploreopportunities to reduce massing to increase buffering. Support the modernaesthetic it is an appropriate response. Encourage framing the view from thetownhouses and not having wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling glazing. Struggle with thefootprint and size of duplexes on south in particular, that is the part of site thatfaces neighbour, north part of site setback tight but bordering railway right ofway. Feel that it is too crowded on south portion with duplexes. Overall scale ofthe northern part appropriate and number of units appropriate but south duplextoo high and tight on the sites.

It was Moved and Seconded:

THAT the Design Review Committee commends the applicant on an excellentdesign and presentation. The Committee recommends RESUBMISSION of theapplication for the Gentles Cottage at 4441 Piccadilly North to address the followingconcerns:• a review of the buffering and setbacks of the infill portion of the project especially

with regards to neighbouring properties including the trail to the west side;• provide a clear landscape plan showing current state of the site and trees to be

retained and removed and their respective condition;• a review of the massing and height, in particular of the duplexes on the south

side of the site;• a review of the roof top access that creates the vertical shaft element and the

overlook aspect that the accessible roof tops create for neighbouring properties;• consideration of the amount of hardscaping on the site and provide data

identifying the percentage of permeable surfaces versus non permeable surfaceson the site;

• consideration of the proximity and overlook between the duplexes;• consideration of designating one or two visitor parking stalls;• reconsider the pedestrian circulation as it pertains to public and private space

along the north and west side of the Gentles cottage; and• a review of the south façade for the infill units and reviewing glass to wall ratio on

the façade.

CARRIED

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-73968832v1

OTHER ITEMS

6. There were no reports/items.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

7. Members of the public in attendance asked the following questions or made thefollowing statements:

• If possible for the public to give opinion before the Committees decision-making.• If the Heritage Advisory Committee minutes are provided to this Committee for

information and how minutes are dealt with through the process.• Expressed that the information presented was misleading and offered a tour of the

neighbourhood.• Questions regarding an applicant providing a trail on District land, potential

blasting, and tree removal by BC Rail.• Clarification on storm water to Marine Drive.

NEXT MEETING

8. The next meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2020

ADJOURNMENT

9. It was Moved and Seconded:

THAT the December 5, 2019, Design Review Committee Meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

Certified Correct:

Ch Staff Lia5/

DECEMBER 5, 2019 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES --

3968832v1

s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

H z

-

/ /Irrt

/II!!

!/

II

//

Q

if/

:‘J/

//1

1/

Iii

II

/D

o

0

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(6)

co55- ‘n-WV(cFrom: West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce <info@westvanchamber.com’Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 5:56 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: West Vancouver is developing a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy

View tins email in your browser

West Vancouver Chamber of CommercePresents...

Shigle-Use Item Reduction Strategy

BUSINESS INPUT NEEDED

The District needs your help to createthe

items in West Vancouver.

JOIN US AT:

PARC Education Centre2225 Marine Drive, West Vancouver, BC

Date: Thursday Jan 30th, 2020

Time: 8:00 am — 9:30 am

RESERVE YOUR SPOT TODAY

RSVP Now

flit;’a”

a plan to reduce use of single-use

fl.

\

rII/

westvancouverlTE.ca/singleuse westvancouver

—-.

(7)

J

West Vancouver is developing a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy

The District of West Vancouver is collecting input from businesses to develop aSingle-Use Item Reduction Strategy. Single-use items are products andpackaging made to be used once, then discarded. They include take-outcontainers, cups, straws, utensils and shopping bags. When completed, theSingle-Use Item Reduction Strategy will describe how the District can helpresidents and businesses reduce the use of single-use items in WestVancouver.

The West Vancouver Chamber is hosting an event on January 30, 2020 wheremember businesses can learn more about the project from District staff. Yourinput will help inform the District’s next steps.

Coffee, tea, and light refreshments will be sewed.

This event is FREE to attend but RSVP is required.

Can’t attend9 You can learn more and provide input through the District’s onlinesurvey by visiting westvancouverlTE ca/singleuse.

ChamberCf Lw 7pre

Jail1 IIO1L’!

By attending our iiV you can develop aluab1e connections that lead

to business growth and personal success. Access Chamber benefits only a ailable to

members.

We are located at:

2235 Marine Dnxe

Xest \anlou’er, BC V7V iK

Email:

p

—

infoc? estancliarnber.cornPhone:

604-92666!4

Want tu uhange how von receive these einails?

You can update your preferences or unsubseribe from this list

r{)pynqht ‘ 2019 fl.st Vancouver Chamber oJCo,n;ne;ee, All rights reserved.

From: Alan BardsleySent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:10 PMTo: MayorandCouncil

Cc: Anne Mooi; Andrew Banks; Corinne AmborSubject: OGCS Snowshoe Hike Feb 2 and AGM Feb 26

WE HAVE SNOW!!!

Mother Nature has been generous with the snow this year, so the Old Growth Conservancy Society is

having a snowshoe hike through the Old Growth Conservancy on Sunday, February 2nd. Meet at

Hi-View Lookout at 10 am. for car pooling or at 10:30 at Parking Lot #5.

The hike will last 2.5 to 3 hours. Bring some food and a beverage. Water-resistant outerwear over

layered winter clothing is recommended, as are sturdy, water-resistant boots. On past hikes, footwear

has varied from boots to snowshoes to crampons. Hiking or ski poles are advised.

Mountain Equipment Co-op rents snowshoes for $15/day. Reservations can be made at the North

Vancouver store at 604-990-4417

Please let us know if you will join us by emailing us at ogcs.wv@gmail.com. We’ll send a update on

conditions to everyone that’s registered.

OGCS AGM — Wednesday, February 26

I am also pleased to invite you to the OGCS AGM on Wednesday, February 26. This year the guest

speaker is noted West Vancouver resident Dr. John Innes — Professor and Dean, Faculty of

Forestry, USC. His presentation will be “The Management of Old Growth: Challenges and

Oppodunities’

Please join us early at 6:00 p.m. for socializing and snacking. Pizza and refreshments will be

provided. The AGM starts at 7:00 p.m.

OLD GROWTH CONSERVANCY SOCIETY

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGt4(-

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

West Vancouver Seniors’ Centre (Marine Room)

695— 21st Street, West Vancouver

s. 22(1)

(8)

Social Hour 6:00 p.m. — Pizza and snacks provided

Meeting 7:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m.

• AGENDA:

Approval of Agenda

Adoption of Minutes of February 20, 2019 AGM

Directors’ and Treasurer’s Reports

Election of Directors

Presentation by Dr. John lnnes — Professor and Dean, Faculty of Forestry, UBC

“The Management of Old Growth: Challenges and Opportunities”

Adjournment

Dr. John Innes is Dean of the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia and a resident

of West Vancouver. He came to British Columbia in 1999, having previously worked in the Swiss

Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. He is actively involved with climate

change research, particularly its effects on forest ecosystems. In 2007, he was part of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) team that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al

Gore.

Dr. Innes teaches in the field of international and sustainable forestry. Under his leadership, the

Faculty has taken significant steps toward broadening the curricula and academic content to reflect

changing realities in the forest and conservation sectors.

Alan Bardsley

Secretary, Old Growth Conservancy Society

1594 Nelson Ave

West Vancouver

Please include my name and address in the correspondence package.

OPJ)c2L1Saturday, January 25, 2020 7:51 PMCanada Politics Parties Conservative, Liberal, Green, NDP;Conservative, Liberal, Green, NDP; Canada Politics PartiesNDP Canada Politics Parties Conservative, Liberal, Green,Office OfficeofthePremierCBC News: Kindness snowballs after online search for volunteers to help B.C. seniorswith snow

Kindness snowballs after online search for volunteers to help B.C. seniors with snow

snow-l.5435614

r4

I..

at

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Canada Politics PartiesConservative, Liberal, Green,NDP; MayorandCouncil;

d

Sent from my iPhone.

Njsjs4 Vcojej

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(9)

From: Barry Kirkham 0965Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 8:02 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: Reckless spending

The proposed 6% budget increase is outrageous. This 5 uncon5cionable money management

Barry. Kirkham, Sent from my ipad

as35 Gcov c1\\jQsc \IckncouQQfl

s. 22(1)

(10)(a)

From:Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 9:25 AMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: Property taxes

Dear Mayor and Council

I have not written to you before and I do not wish to do so in the future. It takes a lot of discouraging issues forme to do write to you. Normally Ijust let the issues “lie’ on the belief that surely the mayor and council havebetter things to do than read another note from a dissatisfied West Vancouver resident. I also believe we electour officials to act on our behalf.

On the second point, I am very discouraged by the proposed property tax increase. Tax increases must be keptto inflation. There is no other alternative. Residents have budgets and many other expenses to content with andwe expect our district mayor, council and staff to act responsibly with the residents tax dollars.

I might suggest that it appeal-s the expense of staff and the number of staff have risen well beyond the increasein population. This might be an area where there can be some cost savings. That would take some courage byour elected officials. Good luck.

Regards,

West Vancouver, BC

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(b)

0955-0 aFrom:Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 2:01 PMTo: Marcus Wong; Peter Lambur; Mary-Ann Booth; Craig Cameron; Sharon Thompson; Nora

Gambioli; MayorandCouncil; Bill SoprovichSubject: The 2020 West Van Budget

Dear Mayor and Council,

I have reviewed the proposed municipal budget and related financial information. Given the state of services, growthlevels etc. in West Vancouver, I am incredulous as to how you can justify a proposed increase in property taxes of 6.1%. Isee no justification for increases greater than 2%. I do not understand why we have the most deluxe budget of allmunicipalities in the Lower Mainland. I encourage you to take a very hard look at efficiencies, staffing and cost cutting.

Sincerely,

West Vancouver

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(c)

From:Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 10:28 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: A question about the 2020 Budget

I would like to express my opinion initially on the lack of discipline which seems to have gone into the latestbudget projection. There seems to be no financial management, no attempt to cut costs, no attempt to controlsalaries or to refuse initiatives. Surely a more business-oriented approach would be better than simply soakingthe taxpayers of West Van. Where does it end?

I was annoyed to see the 1% levy for’ climate change’, which has no specific purpose and which will make nodifference of any kind. I have commented on this before. You seem quite willing to accept the views of socialactivists rather than real scientists. Perhaps you will use the money to sponsor a visit by Greta Thuneberg. Thewhole thing is a disgrace.

West Vancouver, B.C.

Sent from my Galaxy Tab E Lite

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(d)

O%Go-okFrom:Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 8:00 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: A question about the 2020 Budget

We do not need to spend more than the annual inflation increase, yes we certainly need more police and we needbetter efficiency from the staff we have, we don’t need to employ more. We certainly do not need twice as many staffwith salaries over $100,000 than those employed by the Vancouver City. The fire department and police for WestVancouver, North Vancouver City and Municipality should be joined and money saved.One way to get increased taxes is to charge the developers, who are making huge houses that are not in character,significant additional fees as what they are doing is costing the Municipality way above what you are charging them.Why are you wasting money on projects we do not need. If drainage is going to be affected by the British Propertiesproject they should pay the entire cost of the five foot diameter pipe that is going in down 31st. If we are going to payhigh salaries to the Chief Administer, Director of Planning and Director of Engineering they should have figured that outand not encourage Council to pay for the pipe line.

Regards

\s\jQk \Joncoujer

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(e)

o955-o.From:Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:05 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: -say no to a 6% Tax Increase

West Vancouver, BC

January 28, 2020

To West Vancouver Mayor and Council,

I am writing to express my great dismay over West Vancouver’s proposed 6% tax increase at a timewhen inflation is minimal and in a place where there is very low population growth. How could WestVancouver spend more per capita in 2018 than any other municipality in Metro Vancouver?

West Vancouver Mayor and Council has a responsibility to push back on the bureaucracy which selfservingly proposes a budget like this. There is absolutely no justification for West Vancouver to havedouble the number of staff (per capita) earning more than $100,000 than Vancouver has. In thebudget for 2020, there is an allowance for eight new employees, each earning over that $100,000threshold. The audacity is hard to stomach as is the fact that West Vancouver actually has twenty-twostaff members making over $150,000 per year.

Our Mayor and Council were elected to serve the people and not to enrich an over inflatedbureaucracy. I implore our Mayor and Council to use reason and to stand up to the egregiousdemands of its staff. I say enough is enough. By holding on salaries, limiting staff growth and paringany other excess spending, the 6% tax increase proposal should be replaced by closer to a 2%proposal.

Yours sincerely,

QSk ncrrC .

1• ted

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(f)

From: C95 —0 aSent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:49 AMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: 2020 Tax Increase

Aftn: Mayor and Council

Re: 2020 Tax Increase

I know that members of council are not insane but what I can’t figure out is why you act like you are. Did you everstop for one second and think about the people in West Vancouver that you are hurting!!!!

The World is on the verge of what could be a catastrophic economic recession and a financial collapse that could takea decade or more to recover from. Wake Up !!!

If anything is needed in West Vancouver it’s a 20% Decrease in taxes and a hiring freeze or lay-offs.

It’s time you got your collective heads out of the sand and realized what’s going on in the World.

A 1/4 of West Vancouver citizens live on a fixed income of only $44,000.00, could you survive on $44,000.00???

West Vancouver has the worst streets in Greater Vancouver ye seen better streets in third worldcountries. Get our streets paved and paint the parking stalls on Marine Drive.

Look for ways to cut cost in West Vancouver . . . that’s what will impress the voters . . . the citizens of WestVancouver do NOT have endless amounts of money!!!!

West Vancouver, BCCanada

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(g)

;rom:Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 6:45 PMTo: MayorandCouncil -

Subject: Proposed Property Tax Increase

Mayor Booth and Council

I read with interest the many reasons you provided for the proposed property tax increase to exceed inflation.They are all reasonable. But that is not the issue.

The issue is we expect our elected officials to operate within certain parameters and from a cost increaseperspective that is inflation. Especially after several years when costs have exceeded inflation.

Individuals and businesses make difficult decisions every day on how to live within their means. Ourexpectation is that you and your council members will do the same. If that means reducing services oremployees, then do that. Making tough decisions is why we elected you.

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(h)

From:Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 12:25 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: 2020 Budget to be 3 times the Inflation Rate

I saw this recent note that captured my opinion perfectly:

I read with interest the many reasons the Mayor provided for the proposed property tax increaseto exceed inflation. They may all be reasonable. But that is not the issue.

The issue is we expect our elected officials to operate within certain parameters and from a costincrease perspective, that is inflation. Especially after several years when costs have exceededinflation.

Individuals and businesses make difficult decisions every day on how to live within their means.Our expectation is that you and your council members will do the same. If that means reducingservices or employees, then do that. Making tough decisions is why we elected you

So I expect that the 2020 Budget & Utility increase to be no more than 2%.

, West Van

PS why does staff require names and addresses for letters written to Council, hut not for speakers at CouncilMeetings’?

— _4•

‘,:

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(i)

From: 0965 -oSent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 5:48 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: Our Taxes

On Wednesday Jan.29th, there was a Letter to the North Shore News, stating that we have a Director ofCommunications earning over $150,000. Why do we need to pay this?

I am opposed to this expenditure and to our 6% tax increase. I had thought it was for maintaining the physical care ofWest Vancouver.

Sincerely,

\J\J_s *flCOUV(Sent from my iPad

r

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(10)(j)

Attachments: Practice-Note-Ol -15 (2)pdf; ATT00001 .htm

From:Date: January 27, 2020 at 12:39:53 PM PSTTo: Marcus Wong <mwoiw@wcstvancouver.ca>, Craig Cameron <ccwneron@westvancouvcr.ca>, BillSoprovich <bsoprovich@westvancouver.ca>, Mary-Ann Booth <mhooth@wcstvancouvcr.ca>, Nora Gambioli<nuambioli @westvancouverca>, Peter Lambur <planthui@wcstvancouver.ca>, Sharon Thompson<hompson @ wcstvancouvcr.ca>Subject: Covenant Discriminatory Language.

Hi Marcus and Council,This issue was dealt with in 2015 and as far back as1978 - see attachment.Yours truly,

West VancouverB.C.

t -H

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(11)(a)

bcLafldTitle & Survey

Practice Note 01-15

Land Title and Survey Authority of BC Land Title Division

August 7, 2015

Land Title Actsection 222 - Cancellations of discriminating covenants

1. Background:

Section 222 of the Land Title Actspecifies that covenants that restrict the sale, ownership,occupation or use of land on account of sex, race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry orplace of origin of a person are void and of no effect. Section 222 is set out below forreference.

The section, which was enacted in 1978, has legal declaratory effect: it operates againstany registered covenant that directly or indirectly has a discriminating effect, wheneverregistered and in whatever form created.

The registrar is authorized to take action to reflect the operation of s. 222, on request froman owner or on the registrar’s own initiative. Requests from owners are processed ascancellations done by the registrar on the registrar’s own initiative; accordingly, there is nocustomer fee for cancellation of a discriminating covenant.

2. Practice:

On being made aware of the continuing presence in the register of a discriminatingcovenant, the registrar will act to amend the register and records to comprehensivelyreflect that the discriminating covenants are no longer valid.

Instruments containing discriminating covenants typically also contain other provisions thatare not affected by s. 222 and which remain valid.

Where the instrument contains non-discriminating provisions that are not affected, theregistrar will make an endorsement on the affected title, and original document indicatingthat the discriminating covenant has been cancelled pursuant to Land Title Acts. 222. Aftermaking the endorsement on the original document, the amended document will be

./2

rescanned and reloaded into the records, under its original registration number, and willconstitute the official record of the document.

Where the entire instrument has been affected by s. 222, the registrar will cancel it from alltitles against which it is registered and make an endorsement on the document indicatingits cancellation.

In many instances, the covenant documents which are affected by s. 222 are stored onmicrofilm (generally documents registered prior to 1960). For technology-related reasons, itis not readily possible to remove individual documents from microfilm reels; as such, theoriginal versions of documents containing discriminating covenants that have been affectedas described above will continue to be accessible on microfilm. To ensure they access theofficial record of the document, customers are advised they should always search for therecord directly through their myLTSA account before going to microfilm records.

Owners may submit requests to the registrar:• Online through the LTSA Customer Service Centre at https:/fmyltsa.ltsa.ca/contact

customer-service-centre.• In writing by mail addressed to Registrar, New Westminster Land Title Office, Suite

300-88 Sixth Street, New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada, V3L 5B3.

The request should include the legal description and/or parcel identification number (PID)of the lands affected by the discriminating covenant, and the registration number of thecovenant.

Discriminating covenants are void

222 (1) A covenant that, directly or indirectly, restricts the sale, ownership,occupation or use of land on account of the sex, race, creed, colour,nationality, ancestry or place of origin of a person, however created, whetherbefore or after the coming into force of this section, is void and of no effect.

(2) The registrar, on application, may cancel a covenant referred to insubsection (1) that was registered before October 31, 1979.

(3) If the registrar has notice that a registered restrictive covenant is voidunder this section, the registrar may, on the registrar’s own initiative, cancelthe covenant.

Craig D. JohnstonDirector of Land Titles

2

s. 22(1)

BC’s Top Employers

Media StatementFor Immediate Release

bcLafldTitle & Survey

I/55-I3

January 27, 2020

LTSA Supports Efforts to Amend Discriminating Covenantson District of West Vancouver Land Title Records

The Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia (LTSA) supports the motion passed by the District ofWest Vancouver (District) to determine the process, resources and time required to strike any remainingdiscriminating covenants on affected land title records relating to the District.

Enacted in 1978, Section 222 of the Land Title Act operates against any registered covenant that directly orindirectly has a discriminating effect, whenever registered and in whatever form created. Any covenantsthat restrict the sale, ownership, occupation or use of land on account of sex, race, creed, colour,nationality, ancestry or place of origin of a person are void and of no effect.

The Director of Land Titles issued Practice Note 01-15 to outline how discriminating covenants are treated.On being made aware of the continuing presence in the register of a discriminating covenant, the Registrarwill act to amend the register and records. Where the instrument contains non-discriminating provisionsthat are not affected, the Registrar will make an endorsement on the affected document indicating that thediscriminating covenant has been cancelled pursuant to s.222 of the Land Title Act.

Under the Land Title Act and in accordance with the principles of BC’s Torrens-based land title registrationsystems, the Registrar is expressly prohibited from erasing or rendering illegible the original words on arecord. Thus, a ‘strike-through’ is made on the discriminating covenant so that it is more apparent on theface of a record that its discriminating components have been voided.

With over two million active titles in BC and four million transactions per year, LTSA relies on the assistanceof homeowners, local governments, and other property professionals to identify the land title records thatneed to comprehensively reflect that any discriminating covenant is void.

Customers can submit a request to the Registrar by email to customerservice@ltsa.ca or by mail.

Media Contact: Janice FraserCustomer Communications ManagerJa nice.Fraser@Jlandsure.ca604 6309604

Suite 200- 1321 Blanshard Street, Victoria, BC VSW 9J3trust. Phone: 877 571 5812 www.ltsa.ca

Land TitleandSurvéy Authority of British Columbia

nnoVation.

-F

(11)(b)

kceived qf -#xe icutwrj 27 2020 rya/ar 6ai361) vi ee41 f7%fd2}y .le1 6

Mayor and Council January 27 2020 /j35_73This is an important discussion that need5 to be understood and dealt with.

My name is lam my home are in West Vancouver.

To be a member of a profession in Canada one must be a Canadian citizen, and Chinese Canadians wereunable to become Canadian Citizens until after the Second World War in 1947. In 1953 the Associationof B C Land Surveyors was one of the first professions in Canada to welcome a Chinese Canadian

became a BCLS early in 1953; he was and in later yearsbecame He believed he was the first Chinese Canadian professional in Canada. Ihave since learned he was indeed one of the first.

The first Chinese Canadian lawyer called to the bar in British Columbia was later in 1953; inSaskatchewan in 1966 and in Quebec not until 1968.The first Chinese Canadian Member of Parliament was elected in Vancouver Centre in 1957.Early Councils in West Vancouver barred Chinese Canadians from Municipal Contracts, and the ChineseImmigration Act of 1923 prohibited Chinese from acquiring Crown Land.

These racists Covenants being discussed tonight were placed on Titles by developers across Canada,following the misguided lead of their governments.They appeared in British Properties covenants after 1938, but I also have examples in Westmount from1947 to 1959; and Gleneagles in 1946.

In my I can only recall twovery upset with these discriminatory covenants. In both cases able to get them to

understand the errors of our predecessors and to help them clean up their Titles. Section 222 of theLand Title Act (as attached in your Appendix B) was enacted in 1978 ,with the further Practice Note 01-15 released in August 2015. The Land Title Office enacted their section four years prior to the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

Based on my comments, I would ask the Mover and the Seconder to consider putting forward a friendlyamendment to part b) of their Motion to delete “the British Properties of’ and instead insert “lands in”;as there are numerous areas of West Vancouver with these discriminatory covenants.

I look forward to this Motion passing tonight, and to Staff working with the Land Title and SurveyAuthority of BC to address this issue. If I may assist your Staff in any way I would be pleased to help.

Respectfully submitted

West Vancouver,

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)s. 22(1) s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(11)(c)

From:Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:59 AM

To: MayorandCouncil <MayorandCounciI@westvancouver.ca>Subject: Re: Can a Whole City Go Green? Yes! I The Tyee

thought you might like this story from TheTyee.ca:

V\J€isl- \lcAncouver, 1C.

Can a Whole City Go Green? Yes! I The TyeeA future based on renewables isn’t some far-off utopia. This northern Finnish community is almost there.

https://thetvce.calCulturc/2020/0 I/28/Finnish—City-li-Gocs-Green/

They included the following message:

Excellent presentation, questions and responses of the Horseshoe Bay LAP as generated by the phase 2 of theprocess. What was painfully missing was a formal summation and response to the Climate Change Crisis. Thecommunity acceptance of increases in the building volumes and density, as noted by councillor Soprovitch, wasan unspoken acknowlegement of the growing awareness of this challenge. However a more comprehensiveframework (including policies to support clean energy, enrich biodiversity etc) would put this communitydesign challenge at the next exciting level of urban design, and set the pattern for the next community LAPprocess, as the Mayor noted.

Who is The Tyee?

We’re an independent, online news magazine from BC. We’re devoted to fact-driven reporting and analysis thatinforms and enlivens our democratic conversation. Our reporting has garnered numerous awards and the respectof our peers and readers. While some journalism gives the last word to power, we try to give the last word toordinary folks.

Receive Tyee headlines in your inbox — it’s free! Sign up here: suhscribe.thetvee.ca

If you received this message in error, or do not want to receive articles shared from The Tyce, click here to unsuhscrihe instantly.

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(12)

From: Kelsey Maiden <malden.kelsey@smaUbusinessbc.ca> 00 !50—

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2020 12:09 PMTo: MayorandCouncilSubject: Small Business BC Cordially Invites You to Attend the 17th Annual Small Business BC

Awards - February 21, 2020

Dear Mayor Booth,

On behalf of Small Business BC, we are pleased to extend you a special invitation and one complimentaryticket for our 17th Annual Small Business BC Awards Gala on Friday, February 21St at The VancouverConvention Centre.

Join us as we celebrate and showcase the leading small business owners making a difference aroundBritish Columbia in the largest small business awards in the province.

Enjoy dinner, drinks, and networking with BC’s top business owners, industry leaders and governmentofficials as we announce the winners of the 17th Annual Small Business BC Awards sponsored by CanadaPost. Take in glittering views of Vancouver Harbour and the North Shore mountains from the award-winning Vancouver Convention Centre.

What is included in your ticket:

• SBBC Awards ceremony• A three-course dinner with wine• Two additional complimentary drink tickets• Pre and post Award ceremony networking with leading business owners, decision makers and

inspiring past SBBC Award winners.

_______________________________

added to thepass your request

How to book your complimentary ticket:Please respond via email to malden.keIsevsmallbusinessbc.ca with your RSVP to beevening’s guest list. If you would like additional tickets, please let me know and I canonto our events team to discuss what paid options we have available for partners.

The 2020 Finalists

(13)

The Top 5’s represent small businesses from across British Columbia, including a tinytome manufacturerin Vernon, a an cosmetics company in Salmon Arm, and a fnous cat-focused cafe in Vancouver. Thisyear’s nominations show the breadth and innovation of the BC small business community, which is poisedto flourish in the coming years.See the full list

We’d also really appreciate your help in raising awareness of the event — you can download our Media Kitwhich has Marketing assets that you are welcome to share across your channels from our press releasehere.Download our Media Kit

We look forward to having you join us on this very special occasion for another great event showcasingthe small business community in BC.

Very best regards,

KELSEY MALDENMARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATORSuite 54 — 601 West Cordova St. Vancouver, BC V65 1G1Tel: 604 775 5607 I Toll-free: 1 800 667 2272 I Fax: 604 775 5520Email: malden.kelsey@smallbusinessbc.caWebsite: www.smallbusinessbc.cariJ

Sign up for our newsletter and join the Small Business BC Community — receive practical business advice to your inbox- including business blogs, upcoming networking events and special offers.

Should you wish to unsubscribe at any time, email newsfeedback@smallbusinessbc.ca or click the unsubscribe link at the footer of our subscriptione-communication emails.

From:\6 U

-

Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:14 PMTo: MayorandCouncilCc:Subject: Fwd: Larson Bay Tennis Court & Gleneagles Golf Course Restaurant

and I are unable to attend the budget information sessions as we’re .We both feel strongly that the Larson Bay tennis court be repaired and maintained by the District for theenjoyment of the Community.I have added my comments in (brackets and Capitals) to Mr. Andrew Banks, Senior Manager of Parks, emailwhich follows my email.

we continue to pay very high taxes yet we see little to no improvements in our area.Road is badly in need of repair. There has been minimal attention given to improvements to

Larsen Bay Park/Beach and the loss of the Gleneagles Golf Course restaurant has greatly impacted ourcommttn i ty.At the very least, the repair and maintenance of the Larsen Bay tennis/pickleball/multiuse court will greatlybenefit our neighborhood as well as the community.

West Vancouver

From: Mary-Ann Booth <mbooth@westvancouver.ca>Date: May 16, 2019 at 2:57:32 PM CDTTo:Subject: FW: Larson Bay Tennis Court & Gleneagles Golf Course Restaurant

Good afternoon ,

As per the Mayor’s request, please see response below from Andrew Banks, Senior Manager ofParks, regarding your inquiry and comments concerning the Larson Bay tennis courts. We hopethis letter answers your questions! Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Nancy HendersonAdministrative AssistantMayor Mary-Ann Booth I District of West Vancouvert: 604-925-7003 I westvancouver.ca

Dear Mayor Booth,

Please see the following background information on the Larson Bay Park tennis court and thenext steps.

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(14)

The District of West Vancouver is well served with tennis courts and has the highest number oftennis courts per capita in comparison to neighbouring communities with 31 tennis courtsdistributed throughout the community. Currently, West Vancouver’s population is 43,000 or .72courts per 1,000 people. For comparison, in North Vancouver (City and District), there are 61tennis courts serving 133,000 people or .46 courts per 1,000 people.

Renewal of District of West Vancouver tennis courts is determined through a review of the level of use

(LARSEN PARK TENNIS COURT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED BY THE DISTRICT FOR YEARS AND SINCE IT HAS

NOT BEEN MAINTAINED NOR REPAIRED, IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BE USED). )cost for renewal, ease ofcommunity access (EASY ACCESS FROM GLENEAGLES DRIVE, GLENEAGLES COMMUNITY CTR & GOLF

COURSE) proximity to other District courts, potential for multi-uses such as pickleball, and is in

conjunction with the 2016 District’s Capital Asset Management Policy.

Larson Bay tennis court is located amongst mature trees with rooting systems that have grownbelow the surface of the court causing cracking and upheaval to the point where the base is notsalvageable. (MAJORITY OF WV TENNIS COURTS ARE LOCATED AMONGSTMATURE TREES. IT’S THE LACK OF MAINTENANCE THAT THE TENNIS COURT ISNOW IN THIS CONDITION) The estimated price to renew the tennis court is approximately$200,000. This estimated cost is based on contractor prices for similar work and on a quantitysurveyor costing chart.

The 2015 Fiscal Sustainability Review — General Fund Capital Assets Long Term Planning and Projections,

presented to Council on February 22, 2016, identified a funding gap for maintaining District assets.

Council approved a 2016 Asset Levy to partially close this funding gap, and asked staff to consider

whether all the existing assets are needed to be retained or whether some assets could be disposed of

without replacement.

At the December 5, 2016 Council meeting, Council was provided with a list of “low use, poor condition”

assets. This asset review identified the Larson Bay tennis court as a low use, poor condition asset.(AGAIN

I STRESS THAT THE LOW USE IS DUE TO POOR CONDITION CAUSED BY LACK OF MAINTENANCE)

The September 18, 2017 Council report titled “Asset Management Update Report” detailed theLarson Bay tennis court as a poor condition and low use asset. The report stated that feedbackfrom the community consultation, undertaken in the fall of 2016, indicated that the retention ofthe tennis court was desired by the local community. (THE REPORT SUPPORTS THAT THEMAJORITY OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY DESIRED THAT THE TENNIS COURT BERETAINED, REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED..FYI MANY NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT OFLARSEN BAY TENNIS COURT WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY COMMUNITYCONSULTATION IN FALL 2016, INCLUDING OURSELVES, WHICH WOULD HAVEADDED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT). Prior to the September 18th Council meeting, theCouncil report was reviewed by the District’s Finance Committee. In this review, the FinanceCommittee recommended, in a covering memo to the Council report, that Larson Bay tenniscourt be decommissioned. This recommendation in the District’s Finance Committee memo wassubsequently incorporated into the “Asset Management Update Report” and approved byCouncil at the September 18, 2017 meeting.

Through the 2019 budget process, the decommission cost of $40,000 for the Larson Bay tenniscourt was approved. The decommissioning of the tennis court is anticipated to occur in the falland staff are currently developing a communication plan.

The communication plan will ensure that the community is made aware that there are twodifferent locations in the western area where the community can play tennis. There are 2 tennis

courts at Whytecliff Park which are being renewed in 2019 (WHYTECLIFF PARK ISFREQUENTED BY MANY OUT OF DISTRICT PEOPLE RESTRICTING THE USE OFCOURTS BY LOCAL COMMUNITY) and 2 courts in Plateau Park(TKESE COURTS AREALSO SURROUNDED BY MATURE TREES & SINCE THE COURTS HAVE BEENREPAIRED AND MAINTAINED THEY ARE VERY BUSY)

Since the community engagement process on Larson Bay Park in the fall of 2016, positiveimpacts to the park have taken place:

• the Larson Bay outhouse building was modestly improved and retained as a seasonal washroomfor the public using the park

• the West Vancouver Streamkeepers undertook a fish habitat improvement project on LarsonCreek on the foreshore

• in 2018, BC Hydra completed the major project of upgrading the underground Bowen Islandpower line that goes through the park and through this project, the beach access was improvedand stone steps were installed

As per the feedback from the 2016 community consultation on Larson Bay Park, the District isnow working to develop an invasive plant approach for the park that will focus on a prioritizedremoval of invasive plants and the replacement of invasive plants with native plants. The Districtwill also be undertaking trail improvements in the park over the coming years.

I hope that this information is helpful and if you need more information, please let me know.

Regards,

Andrew

Andrew BanksSenior Manager of Parks I District of West Vancouvert: 604-925-7139 Ic: 604-617-9483 I westvancouver.ca

From: Mary-Ann BoothSent: May-07-19 9:02 PMTo:Cc: Nancy Henderson <nhenderson@westvancouver.ca>Subject: Re: Larson Bay Tennis Court & Gleneagles Golf Course Re5taurant

Hi

It was great to see you . I’ve asked my assistant, Nancy Henderson to get an updateon the Larson Bay tennis courts.

Unfortunately, I have now confirmed that the restaurant operator we had beennegotiating with has decided not to proceed because of an inability to attract staff. I will be

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

advising , and a public announcement will be made shortly. I’m verydisappointed hut I know that our staff did the best they could to make this work.

We will be in touch shortly.

Warm regards,

Mary-Ann Booth

Mayor I District of West Vancouver

t: 604-925-7001 I westvancouver.ca

On May 7,2019, at 4:22 PM, wrote:

Hi Mary-Ann,

ft was nice chatting with you Hopefullywe can play golf together soon.I’m just following up to my questions to you regarding the Larson Bay tenniscourt and the Gleneagles Golf Course restaurant.

I have lived in the Gleneagles area years. Our wereraised in this beautiful community and are hopeful to one day return to raise theirfamilies.I was very disappointed to hear that the Larson Bay tennis court may bedecommissioned. Larson Bay is a small but beautiful waterfront park that is usedoften by the local community. The tennis court has been neglected by the Districtfor so many years which has caused it to be unuseable. We were not aware of theOpen Town Hall in October 2016 regarding Larson Bay Park but Ijust read thecomments and the majority were in favour of the tennis court being repaired andmaintained.I was recently talking to a friend in Caulfield and she commented on how theDistrict keeps those tennis courts in great shape which allows them to be usedoften. I sometimes feel that the more west you go in West Vancouver, the moreforgotten the area becomes.I strongly urge the District to repair and maintain the Larson Bay tennis courtwhich will allow the local community of all ages to use this area not only fortennis but also for pickleball etc. Please let me know what I can do to help makethis happen.

and we all frequently use Gleneagles Golf Course. Wewere devastated when the restaurant closed as we were there often, not only asgolfers but as members of this community. It’s highly unusual for a Golf Courseto not have a restaurant and there is strong support from golfers and thecommunity to have a restaurant at Gleneagles Golf Course. I know that this wasan important issue to you during the election and I’m sure it still is. I’m hopeful

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1) s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

that you and the District will continue to work hard to make this happen.Both the Larson Bay tennis court and the Gleneagles Golf Course restaurant areimportant and will allow Gleneagles and West Vancouver to develop a strongersense of community.I look forward to hearing from you.

\Vest Vancouver, BC

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:Attachments:

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Peter ScholefieldWednesday, January 29, 2020 4:42 PMMayorandCouncilRaymond Fung; Vanessa Garrett John Calimente; Paul Stott; ;

District wins 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure AwardHugo Ray Connector mapjpg

In case you have not already been informed, the District has been awarded the 2019 HUB Cycling InfrastructureAward for completion of the Hugo Ray Connector. We appreciate the efforts of the staff in the EngineeringDivision to implement this vital piece of cycling infrastructure which connects to 7 commonly used bike routes(see attached map). We feel that it is projects like this, where cyclists are physically separated from automobiletraffic, that will contribute to encouraging more people to take up cycling. This will lead to reducing the numberof carson the road, reducing automobile congestion and addressing the District’s Climate EmergencyDeclaration by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Sincerely, Peter and Paul

Peter Scholefield and Paul StottWest Vancouver Liaisons,HUB - North Shore Committee,

Here is a photo of the Hugo Ray Connector in use:

We expect that the District will soon receive an invitation to come and accept the award at the HUB AwardsCeremony at the Vancouver Public Library on 27 February. Paul and I plan to attend to present the award.

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(15)(a)

9A plus Lealher

Furniture Repair

*0

—jD Ii

ISKleewyck

j- ,---

4 & — Connecting Bike Routes/ 1. British Properties 71/ 2. Planned Upper Level Path

3. Weston Hwy I Shoulder4. Ambleside via Keith Road

— 23 —

5. Spirit Trail via Capilano Pacific TrailLIoGa1eSuItes 6. Edgemont7Village

7. Westview and Middle Lonsdale

I I&2

West VancouverCricket Club

A

HUGO

RAY

0

0.

U

0

:Chevron

Va

ITopIslerync.nt

Cedardale Park

Va

9 Sluydcg

CONNECTOR

IL,

C

4...Lo,noDr

Bluebird Daycare Cenire

ci/WaodsDr

poneslopr

6

re.

L\.;9 1\

9Capiano Tennis Club

6&7rarThda.y

—‘4

Trans-Canada Hwy

— —0

Woodcroft

9

Sunflower F

.97ndSiW a

From: - 0Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:39 AMTo: Peter Scholefield; MayorandCouncilCc: Raymond Fung; Vanessa Garrett John Calimente; Paul Stott;

Subject: RE: District wins 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure Award

I rode that truly lovely piece of infrastructure a few times as part of my cycle commute this week. Very well executed,and an important connector for routes in the region. Much appreciated.

West Vancouver,

From: Peter ScholefieldSent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:42 PMTo: Mayor and Council West Vancouver <mayorandcouncil@westvancouver.ca>Cc: Raymond Fung <rfung@westvancouver.ca>; Vanessa Garrett <vgarrett@westvancouver.ca>; John Calimente<jcalimente@westvancouver.ca>; Paul Stott

Subject: District wins 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure Award

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

In case you have not already been informed, the District has been awarded the 2019 HUB Cycling Infrastructure Awardfor completion of the Hugo Ray Connector. We appreciate the efforts of the staff in the Engineering Division toimplement this vital piece of cycling infrastructure which connects to 7 commonly used bike routes (see attached map).We feel that it is projects like this, where cyclists are physically separated from automobile traffic, that will contribute toencouraging more people to take up cycling. This will lead to reducing the number of cars on the road, reducingautomobile congestion and addressing the District’s Climate Emergency Declaration by reducing greenhouse gasemissions.

Here is a photo of the Hugo Ray Connector in use:

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(15)(b)

We expect that the District will soon receive an invitation to come and accept the award at the HUB Awards Ceremonyat the Vancouver Public Library on 27 February. Paul and I plan to attend to present the award.

Sincerely, Peter and Paul

Peter Scholefield and Paul StottWest Vancouver Liaisons,

HUB - North Shore Committee,

:

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

0160—01

From: Weiler, Patrick - M.P. <Patrick.Weiler@parl.gc.ca>Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:01 PMTo: Weiler, Patrick - M.P.Subject: Letter from MP Patrick Weiler - Environmental Funding ProgramsAttachments: Letter from MP Patrick Weiler - Environmental Funding Programs - January 2020.pdf

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a letter from MP Patrick Weller.

Thank you,

Morgan McCulloughOffice of Patrick Weller

______

Member of Parliament I DthputéHouse of Commons/Chambre des communesOttawa, ON <lA 0A6Tel.: 604-913-2660

V Mobile: 604-353-2550

tBefore printing this e•mail. think about the Environment

(16)

SIIOL’SE OF COP,i]’.IONS

CHAMBRE DES CONIMCNESC ANAl).’

Patrick [Vet/erMember oF Parliament

West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country

Dear Friends & Neighbours,

Across the country, Canadians are leading grassroots action to protect our environment tackle plastic pollution,conserve nature, and protect our waterways. Our Government is committed to working in partnership withCanadians to advance these efforts. That is why I am proud to inform you of two great opportunities for fundingfrom the Government of Canada to support local environmental initiatives.

This week, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, launched ourannual call for applications for eight funding programs to support community-based, environmental projects.These eight programs aim to support Indigenous communities, environmental groups, schools, other levels ofgovernment and businesses in taking environmental action. Relevant to BC are the following programs:

• Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk• Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk• EcoAction Community Funding Program• Environmental Damages Fund• Zero Plastic Waste Initiative

Projects part of this funding program will be protecting the environment in a myriad of ways. For example,potential projects funded this year could help contribute directly to the recovery of species at risk, address plasticpollution and climate change, restore and protect water quality, and improve long-term sustainability ofecosystems. Canadians across the country—Indigenous communities, landowners, non-governmentalorganizations, schools, other levels of government and businesses—are invited to apply. For more information oneligibility criteria and how to apply for funding, please visit: https://bit.ly/38r2a38.

I would also like to inform you of a joint funding program from the Government of Canada and the Province ofBritish Columbia, which is now accepting applications for their second intake. The Green InfrastructureEnvironmental Quality Program aims to allocate $150 million to support cost-sharing of green infrastructureprojects in communities across the province. To learn more about the program and to apply, please visit:https://bit.ly/360gCAS. Please feel free to share these programs with your networks.

Sincerely,

Patrick Weiler, MPWest Voncouver-5unshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country

Attachments: new dwelling units 2019.pdf

From: Winnie Yip <wyip@westvancouver.ca>Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:50 AMTo:

Cc: MayorandCouncil <MayorandCouncil@westvancouver.ca>; Nina Leemhuis <nleemhuis@westvancouver.ca>; JimBailey <jbailey@westvancouver.ca>Subject: RE: CMHC DATA - 2019

Hello ,

Thank you for your email. Your inquiry has been forwarded to me for a response.

CMHC’s housing starts data and the municipality’s building permit data are not the same. CMHC does not account forbuilding permits, instead they conduct monthly site visits based on the location of building permits issued (provided bythe municipality) to confirm whether foundation has been laid. If foundation has been laid, they count it as a housingstart for the month; if not, they will revisit the site until either the foundation has been laid or the permit is cancelled.Due to the difference in methodology, CMHC’s housing starts may never equal the number of building permits at anymunicipality at any given month/year.

We can, however, provide you with the list of building permits for new dwellings issued in 2019 (attached).You may also access building permits issued data for a given date range through the District’s website.Based on building permit data, the number of dwelling unit starts for 2019 was:

DWELLING UNITSADDED in 2019

SINGLE FAMILY 58 (+ 3 issued but cancelled)

COACH HOUSE 1

DUPLEXES/TRIPLEXES 12

APARTMENTS 193

Total 264

Based on demolition permit data, there were 52 single detached home demolition permits issued (2 more were issuedbut later cancelled). The net unit change (new permit — demolition permit issued) was therefore 6 units for 2019.

Kind regards,

Winnie Yip MRM, MCIP, RPPSenior Community Planner District of West Vancouvert: 604-925-7238 westvancouver.ca

t, ..k;’ tJ

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(17)

Jan 22, 2020 9:01:00 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 1

Category: BUILDING PERMITS Type: RESIDENTIAL - NEW Report Code: ALLFrom Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019

Folder Issued Completed NewNumber Status Date Date Unit House Street - -

-- Units Valuej

RESIDENTIAL - NEW

COACHHOUS BP116025 ACTIVE Jan 24, 2019 4730 HIGHWAY 1 600,000.00

Report Code Totals Permits: 1 1 600,000.00

DPX NEW BP115446 COMPLETED Jan 9,2019 Dec 10, 2019 2993 BURFIELD PLACE 2 1,350,000.00DPX NEW 8P115447 ACTIVE Jan 9,2019 3003 BURFIELD PLACE 2 1,350,000.00DPX NEW BP115448 ACTIVE Jan 9,2019 2997 BURFIELD PLACE 2 1,350,000.00DPX NEW BP11S18I ACTIVE Apr4, 2019 6457 BRUCE STREET 2 1,400,000.00DPX NEW 8P116151 ACTIVE Aug 26,2019 6478 BAY STREET 2 1,200,000.00DPX NEW BP116474 ACTIVE Dec 9,2019 1273 KEITH ROAD 2 1,200,000.00

Report Code Totals Permits: 6

___________

12 7,850,000.00

EXCAVATION BP1 16654 ACTIVE Dec 12,2019 2750 BELLEVUE AVENUE 0 500.00

Report Code Totals Permits 1 0 500 00

SF0 NEW BP115695 ACTIVE Jan 10, 2019 3290 MARINE DRIVE 1 930,000.00SF0 NEW BP115362 ACTIVE Jan 11,2019 572 ARTHUR ERICKSON PLACE 1 580,000.00SF0 NEW BP115364 ACTIVE Jan 11,2019 568 ARTHUR ERICKSON PLACE I 580,000.00SFD NEW BP1 15965 ACTIVE Jan 11,2019 4159 BURKEHILL ROAD 1 1,400,000.00SFD NEW BP115766 ACTIVE Jan 18, 2019 1521 JEFFERSON AVENUE 1 962,160.00SFD NEW BP115833 ACTIVE Jan 21, 2019 5930 CONDOR PLACE 1 1,200,000.00SF0 NEW BP1 16003 ACTIVE Jan 25, 2019 6970 HYCROFT ROAD 1 1,100,000.00SF0 NEW BP115963 ACTIVE Jan 29, 2019 3640 WESTMOUNT ROAD 1 1,800,00000SFD NEW BP115867 ACTIVE Feb 1,2019 970 SHERWOOD LANE 1 1,500,000.00SF0 NEW BP115860 ACTIVE Feb 5,2019 1802 ROSEBERY AVENUE 1 1,429,000.00SF0 NEW BP1 15735 ACTIVE Feb 6,2019 . 2823 RODGERS CREEK LANE 1 834,000.00SF0 NEW BP1 15875 ACTIVE Feb 21, 2019 1310 TYROL ROAD I 2,100,000.00SFD NEW BP1 15788 ACTIVE Feb 25, 2019 969 AUBENEAU CRESCENT 1 1,200,000.00SFD NEW 8P115808 ACTIVE Feb 27, 2019 2185 WESTHILL WYND 1 1,500,000.00SF0 NEW BP1 15850 CANCELLED Mar 4,2019 Dec 18, 2019 770 WESTCOT PLACE 1 1,800,000.00SFD NEW BP115774 ACTIVE Mar6, 2019 3172 MATHERS AVENUE 1 1,100,000.00SF0 NEW BP115863 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 A 23 GLENMORE DRIVE 1 860,000.00SFD NEW BP115864 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 B 23 GLENMORE DRIVE 1 860,000.00SF0 NEW BP115865 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 C 23 GLENMORE DRIVE 1 860,000.00SFD NEW BPI 15529 CANCELLED Mar 12, 2019 Sep 16. 2019 1776 INGLEWOOD AVENUE 1 1,000,000.00

\\dwv caDWdFS$\Programs\TEMPESTthvelREP0RTS\CDOO0O1 1 0RP The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver

Jan 22, 2020 9:01:00 Nvl Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 2

Category; BUILDING PERMITS Type: RESIDENTIAL - NEW Report Code: ALLFrom Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dcc 31, 2019

rReport Folder — Issued Completed -

__________________________—

- New —I

Code Number Status - Date Date Unit House Stree -

- Units Value -

SFD NEW BP115BB1 ACTIVE Mar 12, 2019 5530 MARINE DRIVE 1 1.900.000.00 -

SFD NEW BP1 15677 ACTIVE Mar 21, 2019 4103 BURKEHILL ROAD 1 1.500,000.00SFD NEW BP116094 ACTIVE Mar26, 2019 1092 EYREMOUNT DRIVE 1 1.600.000.00SFD NEW BP116071 ACTIVE Mar27, 2019 2354 JEFFERSON AVENUE 1 1.500,000.00SFD NEW BPI 16053 ACTIVE Apr 5.2019 2222 LAWSON AVENUE 1 990,000.00SF0 NEW 8P1 16084 ACTIVE Apr 5, 2019 1358 CRESTWELL ROAD 1 3.620,000.00SF0 NEW 6P116076 ACTIVE AprS, 2019 2224 PALMERSTON AVENUE 1 1,193,750.00SFD NEW BP115549 STOP WORK Apr 11,2019 1424 SANDHURST PLACE 1 1.976,000.00SFD NEW BP116102 ACTIVE May 6,2019 966 KINGS AVENUE 1 750,000.00SFD NEW BP116128 ACTIVE May 23, 2019 1373 20TH STREET 1 1,000,000.00SF0 NEW BPI 16108 CANCELLED Jun 6,2019 Jan 7,2020 997 CROSS CREEK ROAD 1 2,000,000.00SFD NEW BP116417 COMPLETED Jun 19, 2019 Jun 19, 2019 928 GROVELAND ROAD 1 0.00SF0 NEW 8P116087 ACTIVE Jul 4,2019 1046 MILLSTREAM ROAD 1 2,500,000.00SF0 NEW 8P116238 ACTIVE Jul 5,2019 2388 PALMERSTON AVENUE 1 1,500,000.00SF0 NEW BP116244 ACTIVE Jul 9,2019 4710 WILLOW PLACE 1 1,020,000,00SF0 NEW BPI 16110 ACTIVE Jul 11,2019 2680 CHELSEA COURT 1 1,500,000.00SF0 NEW BP116109 ACTIVE Jul 25, 2019 4948 MARINE DRIVE 1 838,000.00SF0 NEW BP116162 ACTIVE Aug 1,2019 3278 UPLANDS WAY 1 500,000.00SFD NEW BP116163 ACTIVE Aug 1,2019 COM 3268 UPLANDS WAY 1 750,000.00SFD NEW BP116171 ACTIVE Aug 6,2019 1845 PALMERSTON AVENUE 1 1,600,000.00SFD NEW BP116185 ACTIVE Aug 22, 2019 2432 OTtAWA AVENUE 1 1,900,000,00SFD NEW BP115967 ACTIVE Aug 27, 2019 3325 MARINE DRIVE 1 1,000,000.00SFD NEW BP116256 ACTIVE Sep 16, 2019 2965 ALTAMONT CRESCENT 1 2,125,000.00SF0 NEW BP1 16164 ACTIVE Oct 7,2019 3286 UPLANDS WAY 1 620,000.00SFD NEW BP1 16456 ACTIVE Oct 7,2019 3270 UPLANDS WAY 1 750,000.00SF0 NEW BP1 16457 ACTIVE Oct 7,2019 3284 UPLANDS WAY I 500,000.00SFD NEW BP116358 ACTIVE Oct 11,2019 4129 BURKEHILL ROAD 1 1,600,000.00SF0 NEW BP116245 ACTIVE Oct 18, 2019 1416 SANDHURST PLACE 1 2,800,000.00SF0 NEW BP115402 ACTIVE Oct 25, 2019 3143 TRAVERSAVENUE I 1,600,000.00SF0 NEW BP116148 ACTIVE Nov 1,2019 1640 ORCHARD WAY 1 2.000,000.00SFD NEW BP115232 ACTIVE Nov 1,2019 3170 BENBOW ROAD 1 1,500,000.00SFD NEW 8P116410 ACTIVE Nov 1,2019 6066 BLINK BONNIE ROAD 1 4.000,000.00SFD NEW BP116437 ACTIVE Nov6, 2019 1225 RENTON ROAD I 1.700.000.00SFD NEW BP116361 ACTIVE Nov 12, 2019 3765 SOUTHRIDGE AVENUE I 1.420.100.00SF0 NEW BPI 16430 ACTIVE Nov 22. 2019 961 KING GEORGES WAY I 3,100.000.00SFD NEW SP1 16458 ACTIVE Dec 5.2019 1110 MILLSTREAM ROAD 1 2.200.000.00SF0 NEW BPI 16468 ACTIVE Dec 11,2019 429 SOUTHBOROUGH DRIVE I 1.500.000.00SF0 NEW BP1 16327 ACTIVE Dec 13, 2019 588 BARNHAM PLACE I 1.500,000.00SF0 NEW BP116449 ACTIVE Dec 17, 2019 1509 24TH STREET I 1.172.000.00SF0 NEW BP1 16480 ACTIVE Dec 18, 2019 885 WILDWOOD LANE I 2.000,000.00

\\d’.w ca\DWFS$ProgramsTEMPEST\Iive\REP0RT5\CDDooa1 1 QRP The Corporation of be District of West Vancouver

Jan 22, 2020 901:01 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 3

Category: BUILDING PERMITS Type: RESIOENTIAL - NEW Report Code: ALLFrom Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019

Report Folder Issued Completed NewCode Number Status Date Date Unit House Skeet - - - - Units Value

SF0 NEW BP116489 ACTIVE Dec 20. 2019 2648 LAWSON AVENUE 1 2.500,00000

Report Code Totals Permits: 61 - 61--

9,010.00

Folder Type Totals PermIts: 59 74 97,770,510.00

Report Totals Permits: 69 74 97,770,510.00

td’hvca\D’FS$PmgramsTEMPESThIiva\REPORTS\CDaDOO11 0RP The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver

Jan 22, 2020 9:35:38 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 1

Category: BUILDING PERMITS Type: MULTlRESIDENflAL NEW Report Code: ALLFrom Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019

Report Folder Issued Completed NewCode Number Status Date Date Unit House Street Units Value

MULTI-RESIDENTIAL NEW

EXCAVATION 8P116267 ACTIVE May 16,2019 2100 BELLEVUE AVENUE 0 895,00000

Report Code Totals Permits: I — - - o _p5.ppq1qq

FOUNDATION BP116547 ACTIVE Sep 13, 2019 2100 BELLEVUE AVENUE 0 591,500.00FOUNDATION BP116548 ACTIVE Sep 13, 2019 2100 BELLEVUE AVENUE 0 1,398,000.00

Report Code Totals Permits: 2 0 1,989,500.00

MULTI NEW BP116047 ACTIVE Jun 13, 2019 6707 NELSON AVENUE 63 14,487,830.00MULTI NEW BP116036 ACTIVE Aug 7,2019 727 MAIN STREET 0 472,224.00MULTI NEW BP115838 ACTIVE Sep 16, 2019 3101 BURFIELD PLACE 39 22,200.000.00

Report Code Totals Permits: 3 102 37,160,054.00

Folder Type Totals PermIts: 6 102 40044,554.00

Report Totals PermIts: 6 102 40044554.00

\wcaDVNFS5’PrransTEMPESVJive’REP0RT5\C0XC011 OR? The Cpcatbi the 0sthd of West VanJvec

Jan 22, 2020 9:4603 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page 1

Category: BUILDING PERMITS Type: (R9 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL Report Code: ALLFrom Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019

o1Jer Issued Completed -____________________

Code Number Status Date Date Unit House Street Units Value

(RF) MULTI-RESIDENTIAL

MULTI NEW BP115475 ACTIVE Sep 6.2019 6699 NELSON AVENUE 28 1D,045.469.O0MULTI NEW BP115391 ACTIVE Dec 19! 2019 6667 NELSON AVENUE 47 10,391,595.00

Report Code Totals PermIts: 2 -- ——— 75 - 20437.054-00

Folder Type Totals PermIts: 2 -- 75 20,437,064.00

Report Totals Permits: 2 75 20,437,D6&OD

ttdw caDFS$\Pzorams\TEMPESflhive\REPDRTSCDaOOD1 I QRP The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver

Jan 22. 2020 10:09.11 AM Building Permits Issued by Issued Date Range Page: 1

Category: BUILDING PERMITS Typo: (RF) COMMERCIAL Report Code: ALLFrom Date: Jan 1,2019 To Date: Dec 31, 2019

iIoIder Issued — Completed —

______

—— - New pNumber Status Date = = Date Unit House Street - — Units

(RF) COMMERCIAL

EXCAVATION 9P115450 ACTIVE Mar7, 2019 1327 MARINE DRIVE 0 1,500,000,00

Report Code Totals PermIts I 0 150000000

OTHER NEW 9P115451 ACTIVE Mar15, 2019 1327 MARINE DRIVE 15 5,250,000,00

Report Code Totals Permits: I 16 5,250,000.00

Folder Type Totals Permits: 2 16 - .06

Report Totals Permits: 2 16 6750,000.00

ttdw.ca’OlFSVProrrsiTEMPESThv&REPORTSlCDO0X1 I .QRP The Ccrç:’atcr et no D,s:icI ! VIeS: Va’ccuvr

From:Sent:To:

Subject:

Thanks so much.

5.22(1)

Thursday, January 16,2020 11:32AMJim Bailey; Nina Leemhuis:

s.22(1)

s.22(1)

UflQ -(33

MayorandCou ncil;

CMHC DATA -2019

To Jim Bailey through Mayor and Council,

I am looking for some detailed data for the municipality of West Vancouver.

From CMHC’s - Building Starts report for West Vancouver, can you please provide the list of the 339building permits that make up the 2019 housing starts as tabulated by CMHC. And how many of the47 single family house starts were “new” vs redevelopment?

(1)(////)

.. TELUS ? 11:03 AM

< Starts by Dwelling Type by Ce...

Vancouver — Starts by Dwelling Type by Census Subdivision

Udb Iflt

flnjN.daflwnIH

Ls(ty cfl)

I_ti Iflfl

Us.. S

W

Sn %cgd.krIfl1

Siflh %nwtnIfl1

Smith Sann fl%I

flIt %hmaa

nfl CtpHI IQI

Ftfl fln Ifl)

Smt) Ifl

%aa.nrlfl)

Wfl %airIDa

64

33

HI

3-’

‘a

‘U

9v5

31

:7

LI

a

a

U

36

I

Ii

5

‘3

21 tM 3.411

1251 1jt3

Sn

DEW

Sc

lU P4

1

4.’ Pt

142

772 fl

Is’

TN

IU11J 941

lAid IW.1

2AIJ 3.312

2tal

U 417

4 O 0 0

8qln.%IJ 3 0 0 0

B..nh1aiL1b II

&n.ifl)

CaId.ajCT) IL

a

I

I

Il4

‘SI

115

‘I

III

115

a

‘UI

9’

t12

I.ISJ

C

C

II

S

II

C

C

C

Pal

55

‘7

‘UI

I’

.19

23

I’;?

N

U

%Scn.wr i’ll 2.M4 21.121 211.141

5.22(1)

Maple Ridge BC

From: Isabel V. GordonSent: January 30, 2020 3:03 PMTo:Cc: Mark Panneton <mpanneton@westvancouver.ca>; Donna Powers <dpowerswestvancouver.ca>Subject: RE: A question about the 2020 Budget

Dear

Thank you for your question on the proposed 2020-2024 Financial Plan, which has been referred to me for reply.

The following chart provides West Vancouver per capita spending for 2018:

2018 Per Capita Spending by Municipality

52,276.26 -

52,08838

51,887.82

51,569.56 51,518.1951,428.62 51,415.35 51,392.85 51,371.72

Ii[iiiiWest New Vancouver Delta WhiteRock North North PoftMoody Richmond St

Vancouver Westminster Vancouver VancouverDistrict City

Based on gov.bc.ca/Iocal government statistics

It differs from the chart you provided, which was from a 2018 Fraser institute report, and used 2016 numberswhich were modified by the Fraser Institute as noted in their report. The chart above uses the Provincialstatistics (available at gov.bc.ca/local government statistics) with a single modification: the cost funded byTranslink related to the Blue Bus system are removed from the West Vancouver numbers, as this amount is notpaid by West Vancouver residents and no other municipality has a comparable cost. Related costs which are notreimbursed are included.

In answer to your questions about per capita spending in West Vancouver, the Mayor has provided the followinginformation:

Why does West Vancouver have the highest per capita spending of lower mainland municipalities?

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(18)

The level of staff and the level of taxation in West Vancouver are directly tied to the level of service. We are aservice industry, and one of the things people love about our community is the high level of service providedhere. The factors that drive costs in our community are:

Density — We are largely a community of large single-family lots. The cost of a length of road or a pipe is thesame whether it serves twenty households, four households or one. The costs of these services become muchless per capita as development becomes denser. It may be less obvious, but the same costing principle applies toPolice and Fire protection, parks, and event planning. A low-density community creates high costs per capita.And, with an average of less than five residents per hectare, West Vancouver is one of the least denselypopulated municipalities in the lower mainland.

Lack of Industry — There is no industry in West Vancouver to share operating and infrastructure renewal costs.Ninety-three per cent of the tax burden falls to residents and the remaining seven per cent to small business. Inmost other municipalities, the proportion of municipal costs borne by residents is much smaller due to thediversity of the tax base. Residents can share the costs with corporate offices and industry, to name a few.

Geography — In addition to being spread out, West Vancouver has some of the most challenging geography inthe lower mainland. Building up a mountain or down to a beachfront is more costly per meter that it is to buildin a flat community like Delta. Our residents love the natural beauty and geography of our community, but it ismore costly to service.

Age of Infrastructure - West Vancouver is over 100 years old, and our infrastructure is aging. Unlike many othermunicipalities in the Lower Mainland, we have not had much new development, and the benefit of developmentis having the developers pay for infrastructure replacement. West Vancouver’s tax base is mostly residential,with very little business and no industry. Without development or industry, the burden of infrastructurereplacement falls to residents.

Level of Services - West Vancouver does spend more per capita but also provides very high-quality communitycentres, sports programs, the library, the Seawalk, and more than 100 other parks. Many of these amenities areequal to, or better than, what much larger communities such as Richmond, Burnaby, and even City of Vancouverprovide. Our residents value these higher levels of service, but they do cost money. There are also costs that weoften don’t think about. To provide our own Blue Bus, the municipality invests human resources, legal,communications, and administrative costs that are not reimbursed by TransLink. And, providing our own policeforce is more expensive than using the RCMP.

The Mayor’s budget newsletter, which contains additional budget information, is available here:htts://westvancouver.ca/news/mayors-update-2020-budget-information

And an interactive forum with additional budget information and FAQs is availablehere: https://www.westvancouverite.ca/budget

I hope this information is helpful.

Thanks,

Isabel

Isabel Gordon, MBA, CPADirector I Financial Serqices I District of West vancouver604-921-29021 westvancouver.ca

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Respectfully,

s. 22(1)

Tuesday, January 28, 2020 10:59 AMMayorandcouncilA question about the 2020 Budget

Hi Mayor and Council — we are home owners and residents of West Vancouver. We request that before West Vancouverapproves the 6.1% proposed property tax increase in the district, the district explain why municipal spending is alreadyso much more than in other municipalities in Metro Vancouver, as evidenced by the chart below from a 2018 FraserInstitute report.

We wish to point out that the proposed increase may well be more than the proposed 6.1% increase on a % basis forthose of us who own houses, condos and townhouses below average value in the district, directly and negativelyaffecting the affordability issue the district is actively trying to address (ie. the ‘missing middle’).

Municipalities Spending 20185/ Person

Iii[iiiiiiW.a va, New W.,1 varcn L’tta No.iI, Van gsDnn van W. Rock P06 h4oa2 eo’naby Ibd-a.w.d

(fly

2 fli)

[‘:1•

If’,

‘-I

S. 22(1)

S. 22(1)British Columbia, Canada,Vancouver

s. 22(1)

(2)(////)

From: Isabel V. GordonSent: January 30, 2020 3:06 PMTo:Cc: Mark Panneton <mpanneton@westvancouver.ca>; Donna Powers <dpowers@westvancouver.ca>Subject: Re: 2020 Proposed Property Taxes

Dear ,

Your question on the 2020-2024 Financial Plan has been referred to me forreply.

First, staff provided the 6.11% number as a preliminary tax increase, in a report to Council on December 16,2019, based on the best information available at that time.

At the recent budget meeting on January 28, 2020, staff noted that this information had been updated, and therequested increase was now 5.48%. Council have yet to approve any increase, and staff will continue to refinethe proposed tax rate increase as new information becomes available. A report with tax rate options will bepresented for Council’s consideration on February 24, 2020.

In terms of the relationship between inflation and taxes, the Mayor has provided the following information:

Why is the tax levy higher than the rate of inflation?Inflation measures the cost of living, and that is only one of a number of factors that drive the cost of deliveringservices to our community. Most services are delivered by staff, and staff wages are determined by collectiveagreements.There are other cost pressures that the District cannot control. Electricity and gas costs are not tied to the rateof inflation, and these definitely affect the cost of services in our facilities.Information on the requests for new staff members is provided here:

Eight (not 10) new FE positions are requested in order to resource Council’s goals and objectives. Staffproviding other services cannot be reallocated unless Council directs that the services they are providing are nolonger needed.

The details of the FE requests are as follows

Trails Plan - Two FTEs are requested to create an additional trail crew of skilled carpentry staff that willcomplete trail improvements consisting of replacing and/or repairing failing trails and trail structures such asfoot bridges, boardwalks, stairs, and drainage infrastructure. Plan for Trails on Public Lands recommendsadditional resources be allocated to trail improvements with a priority for trails that provide high levels ofconnectivity.

Senior Planner - One FTE would add capacity to undertake Local Area Plans (LAPs), but is not sufficient in itselfto complete that work alone. Generally, a team of 4+ FTEs is needed to complete a LAP. Horseshoe Bay LAPcurrently has about 1.5 FTEs allocated to it, so is under-resourced. In the near term, it is expected that thisadditional FTE would help staff complete Horseshoe Bay on a more timely basis, and would set the District up tofocus on Ambleside on the second half of this Council term. Also, the current limited staff resources dedicated todo the Horseshoe Bay LAP could be impacted by other existing work (such as an extended term for theNeighbourhood Character WG, or because of a series of climate-related directions, etc.) — so this new FTE would

s. 22(1)

s. 22(1)

(19)

add capacity to either focus on LAPs or to allow existing staff to focus on other Council initiatives relatedto 2019-20 priorities (e.g. DPAs) and priorities for 2021-22 (Taylor Way, Land Use Contracts, etc.).

Community Planner - One FTE - this request would provide a 0.5 FTE dedicated to heritage planning initiativesincluding heritage development projects, management of the Heritage Advisory Committee, andimplementation of the policy and planning framework described in the policy report approved by Council“Preventing Heritage Demolitions”. The remaining 0.5 FTE would be dedicated to working on developmentprojects and would primarily work on projects that would achieve Council’s OCP objective to deliver “missingmiddle” housing. This would help deal with the existing workload where the District is currently very underresourced.

Business Manager, Corporate Services & Planning & Development Services - One FTE- This resource isrequested to provide financial advisory services, coordinating and participating in the District’s financial planningcycle, helping departmental managers develop their operating and capital budgets to work programs, trackingexpenditures and budgets, and increasing financial reporting functions. Currently the support is provided byFinance at a minimal level and there is a further need for financial advice and analysis in these two divisions. Theposition would report directly to the Deputy CAO and Director of Planning & Development Services.

Police 1st Class Constable - One FTE This position will work with new arrivals to Canada and include generalwork on crime prevention through environmental design and behaviour.

Commercial Plan Reviewer - One FTE - This request would increase the complement of Level 3 plan checkers forlarge and complex building permit applications for multi-family and commercial development. The resource isrequired to manage existing workload and meet industry expectations for reasonable permit turn-around times.

Police Privacy Analyst - One FTE- This position would be dedicated to handling Freedom of Informationrequests.

An interactive budget forum with additional budget FAQs is available here:https ://www . wes Evancou yen te.ca/bud get

I hope this information is helpful.

Thanks,

Isabel

Isabel Gordon, MBA, CPADirector I Financial Services I District of west Vancouver604-921-29021 westvancouverca

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Mayor Booth

S. 22(1) D9-o.

(2)

Friday, January 10, 2020 7:28 AMMayorandcouncil2020 Proposed Property Taxes

I am very surprised that the Staff and Finance Committee are advising Council to approve a 6.11% property taxincrease when inflation is running at 1.9%.

Why has DWV provided minimal external information on this issue to date. Why not provide the existingdetailed internal information justifying this rate of increase by say Jan 17?

The 6.11% increase is well above the 1.9% rate of inflation for 2019 and follows a trend of the lastfew years where West Van property tax increases have also been above the rate of inflation. Thiscomes at a time when homeowners are facing a slew of additional taxes including the so callededucation tax (or better described as a wealth tax). While Mayor and Council tell us they areconcerned re housing affordability. Increasing taxes well beyond the rate of inflation hurtsaffordability. So please explain in detail why DWV needs a 6.11% increase when inflation is only1.9%.

Although the Mayor says West Van population is declining but Staff want to add 8 new staff (trailmaintenance, planning, a business manager and policing) at a cost of nearly $1 million per year.Read the 2018 Annual Report salary expense summary which has climbed 11.7% in the past 5 years.Please provide a detailed analysis on the need for each of this proposed new staff. And why thesenew jobs can’t be filled by reallocating FTEs from other under-utilized positions.

Thank you s 22(1) West Vancouver

L;

C

(////)