Dear Tim:

This is further to our November 25th meeting in your office. At that meeting,
which was requested by you as part of your initiative to re-ignite the PDVC
proposal, you asked that we reply to the hypothetical question: What would
our community organization like to see done at the PDVC site if we owned the
properties?

Our full Executive Committee has now met to discuss our reply. The Committee
voted unanimously to reply as follows:

1. Overall Direction.

Our volunteer organization, and its now over 500 members from across the
City, continues to support appropriate development in the commercial core of Port
Dalhousie's heritage district. We believe appropriate development (based on
extensive quantitative research in Port and full City plus feedback from the
community) meets the following criteria:

-Is consistent with applicable planning regulations including: Provincial
Policy Statement, Planning Act, Secondary Plan, Zoning By-Law and Heritage
Guidelines.

-Does not unduly: aggravate traffic/parking, restrict public access or
decrease safety.

-Respects the wishes of the community.

2. Design Specifics.

- We believe any design must be for a low-rise development that is compatible
with the current 19th and early 20th century 2-3 storey look and streetscape.
"New construction should be sympathetic to the existing built environment in
terms of height, mass, colour and materials." (Port Dalhousie Secondary Plan).
Such a development would "encourage the vitality of the commercial area by
promoting its unique architecture and contemporary commercial adaptive reuse as
well as continuing to protect its distinctive heritage fabric." (Heritage
Guidelines: Conservation Priorities). This type of development would also foster
increased heritage tourism which is a significant economic opportunity for our
City. We again mention the Tim Hortons Plaza in Port as an example of
appropriate new development.

- You asked if we thought there was room for compromise on a tower. We again
emphasize that, based on the heritage guidelines and our extensive
quantitative research, which we presented to you last year, we believe towers are not
acceptable at any height. However, in our 2004 research, over 80% supported the
premise that "buildings behind the street fronts may exceed the three-storey
limit providing overall height does not exceed that at the Lock Street front
sightlines." This would indicate that a terraced design might be acceptable even
if it slightly exceeds three storeys in the middle.

- In addition, we again emphasize the need for any major new development in
Port to take into consideration, and benefit, the City's downtown.

3. Need For Planning Reports

Beyond our comments above, it is impossible to be more specific at this time.
However, now that we know Planning Services' terms of reference for those
conducting the peer review of "urban design and architectural elements associated
with PDVC's proposal..." we believe even more strongly that the reports may
provide valuable guidance. We regret the City's decision not to make these
reports available under FOI and will reserve more specific comments until those
reports are finally made public.

4. Consultation Should Be Open and Inclusive

Our Executive is still most uncomfortable with a consultation process that
is not fully open and does not directly involve all stakeholders and,
particularly, our large community organization. We strongly urge you to make your
Action Committee a public and transparent body that represents the community in
addition to business interests. As we are certain you understand, the pro-tower
"Citizens" group that you now include in your Committee represents only a very
small minority and is closely aligned with the developer who has financed
their advertising.

Tim, we trust that this answers your questions and we will continue to make
ourselves available to encourage appropriate development as required.

Colin Johnston
Co-Chair, Government Relations Committee
PROUD Port Dalhousie
A PROUD History as a Volunteer Community Organization