heat off completely on sunny winter days, depending completely on the
heat of the sun to heat our living area. We don’t want a premature
sunset to interfere with this heating system.

The tall coniferous trees of the S.E. corner were intended to
provide some screening of the tower. The proposed N.E. site contains only
short conifers, and short deciduous trees. We are told to remember that
it*®s winter and there will be leaves on the trees in the summer. We
appreciate this fact and would like to point out that the leaves can be
expected to fall off next fall and every autumn thereafter!

On the slim chance that council were to approve this proposal, we feel
confident the developer would then wish to remove the tall evergreens in
the center of the property because they would now be hiding the tower in
‘the corner. Mr. Lee assures us this will not be allowed. Council has
stated they want the tower to be seen. They want a landmark, an entrance
to the city. If that's what wanted, tucking it away in the farthest cor-
ner and hiding it from the highway with the tallest trees on the site
isn*t the way to go. Get it back out near the highway where it belongs
and where it can be seen for the greatest distance up and down the major
highways. We are of the opinion that a tall commercial building doesn't
belong in the heart of a residential area but should be placed on a
commercial street. The developer has two such streets to choose from --
Westwood or Lougheed. Further, they may choose from amoung three cor-
ners (S.E., S.W., OR N.W. ) or anywhere in between.

"Mondays letter to residents stated, ".... soil conditions precluded
the construction of the office tower in the S.E. corner of the site."
We contest that statement. Mr. Lee has not seen, nor does he have
available for our perusal, the soil test results. Let the engineer come
forward, who is going to put his profession on the ling and state to us
unequivacally, that that soil carmot be built upon. Do we have any takers?

We accept that the N.W. corner of the site is four feet higher than
the S.W. corner but we don't feel that justifies the movement of the tower.
The developer only intends to go into the ground one story, therefore, the
head required to get it to the Coq. River could not possibly be more than
an additional four feet. A.10*% head pump at 800 gal. per min. would not
use more than 10 H.P. or 7.5 K.W. per hour. At the current hydro rate of
2.6¢ per K.W.H. that would cost $4.68 to run 24 hours per day -~ or $142
per month. Our monthly gasoline bill is higher than that!

As it happens, the bank of the Coq. River is 5.6 meters below site
at a distance of 800 meters. This works out to a drop towards the river
of 1/16" every linear foot. IN OTHER WORDS, NO PUMP IS NEEDED AT ALL,