Mayor and Council Correspondence Summary

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary July 15, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

315 L. Kornder Cllr. Scott Hamilton CLERKS 117383

316 B. Morrell, Metro Board in Brief for Meetings on June CLERKS 117454 Vancouver 14, 2013

317 J. Austin Public Hearing Protocol and CLERKS 117548 Notification Area

318 R. Silvester, President & Port Metro Vancouver’s Fraser River HR&CP 117409 CEO, Port Metro Improvement Initiative Vancouver

319 M. Owen, General General Commercial User Group’s HR&CP 117413 Commercial User Group Involvement with Port Metro Vancouver Issues

320 D. Jones Proposed Coal Export Expansion HR&CP & 117341 CA&E

321 M. Fulks My Concerns About Coal Export HR&CP & 117340 Expansion CA&E

322 M. Evans Coal Trains HR&CP & 117339 CA&E

323 J. Moor Fraser Surrey Docks Expansion HR&CP & 117338 CA&E

324 A. Wilkie Stop Thermal Coal HR&CP & 117337 CA&E

325 M. Laturnus Opposition to Coal Trains HR&CP & 117336 CA&E

326 E. Perkins Proposed Expansion of the Fraser HR&CP & 117335 Docks CA&E

327 W. Wulff No Coal Export Expansion Please HR&CP & 117334 CA&E

328 D. & J. Shenton Coal and the Fraser Surrey Dock HR&CP & 117361 CA&E

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary July 15, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

329 D. Jones Proposed New Coal Train Route & HR&CP & 117378 Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Terminal CA&E

330 S. Garvey Proposed FSD Coal Transfer Facility HR&CP & 117379 & Corporation of Delta Council CA&E Meeting, June 10, 2013

331 R. Schindler Opposed to Coal Trains Running HR&CP & 117412 Through Delta CA&E

332 J. Green Smell on Tsawwassen Beach CA&E 117385

333 D. Mitchell II, Passenger Blaine Washington Passenger Rail HR&CP 117452 Operations, BNSF Station Railway

334 D. Lucas, ND Family Day Family Day Parade PR&C, 117445 Chair 2013, ND Lions ENG, POL Club

335 M. Morrison-Clark Trees Cut Down on 116th ENG 117386

336 G. Charlton 110th Avenue ENG 117381

337 J. Nelson Making it Worse ENG 117416

338 M. Menzies Traffic Safety - Speed ENG 117518

339 L. Fennell Transit in Delta ENG 117517

340 T. Lewis River Road ENG 117520

341 J. Grabinsky Tsawwassen Bylaw POLICE 117422 cc: PU&C

342 D. Devia Jungle Along the Gas Line in Delta CP&D 117451

343 R. & L. Trepke MK Lands Development Proposal CP&D 117453

344 D. Ryall, President, Delta Anaerobic Digester (AD) Use for CP&D & 117235 Farmers’ Institute Delta Farms CA&E

345 P. Johnson & P. Tillotson Southlands* CP&D 117456

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary July 15, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

346 P. Munro Southlands* CP&D 117460

347 B. & D. Brazier Southlands* CP&D 117274 cc: CAO

348 F. Rogers Southlands et al* CP&D 117275 cc: CAO

349 E. Kellock Southlands* CP&D 117276 cc: CAO

350 P. Wiebe Southlands* CP&D 117278 cc: CAO

351 M. Edgley Southlands* CP&D 117279 cc: CAO 352 L. Greene Southland Development Application* CP&D 117280 cc: CAO 353 T. Steele Development of the Southlands* CP&D 117288 cc: CAO 354 T. McKaig Southlands* CP&D 117289 cc: CAO 355 E. Stewart Southlands Development* CP&D 117290 cc: CAO 356 T. Forster Southland* CP&D 117292 cc: CAO 357 A. Kjertinge The Southlands* CP&D 117293 cc: CAO 358 M. & S. Millen In Support of Southlands* CP&D 117295 cc: CAO 359 W. Thompson Southlands Proposal* CP&D 117296 cc: CAO 360 V. Beaupre & C. York The Southlands* CP&D 117298 cc: CAO 361 D. Andersen Southlands Proposal* CP&D 117299 cc: CAO 362 S. Millen Southlands* CP&D 117300 cc: CAO 363 R. Schootman Southlands Information Meeting* CP&D 117291 cc: CAO 364 P. Andersen Southlands Proposal* CP&D 117316 cc: CAO 3

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary July 15, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

365 A. Wightman Public Information Meeting, CP&D 117317 LU006390* cc: CAO 366 K. Paremain Reference Southlands Community CP&D 117319 Plan Amendment and Rezoning cc: CAO Application Public Information Meeting, File No. LU006390* 367 T. Ringsma Southlands Development CP&D 117320 Application* cc: CAO 368 D. Massey Southlands* CP&D 117321 cc: CAO 369 C. Kristiansen Comments on Southlands CP&D 117322 Application* cc: CAO 370 D. McKaig “No” to Southlands Development* CP&D 117323 cc: CAO 371 R. Albus Southlands Development Proposal* CP&D 117324 cc: CAO 372 B. Yaworski & D. Southlands* CP&D 117325 Reynolds cc: CAO 373 S. McDowell Southlands Properties* CP&D 117326 cc: CAO 374 S. Hodges Southlands Application* CP&D 117327 cc: CAO 375 W. Thompson Southland Proposed Development* CP&D 117328 cc: CAO 376 L. Prior Southlands* CP&D 117329 cc: CAO 377 M. Lang Southlands* CP&D 117330 cc: CAO 378 N. Conti I Completely Oppose the CP&D 117331 Development Application for the cc: CAO Southlands* 379 L. Lazarus No to the Southlands Development* CP&D 117332 cc: CAO 380 D. Kaufhold Southlands Development Application CP&D 117333 and Amendment* cc: CAO 381 J. Crowley Say No to Southlands Rezoning* CP&D 117372 cc: CAO 382 P. Nemeth Southlands Rezoning* CP&D 117373 cc: CAO

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary July 15, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

383 K. Fletcher Proposed Re-Designation & Re- CP&D 117374 Zoning, Southlands* cc: CAO 384 D. Tisdale Southland Proposal* CP&D 117375 cc: CAO 385 G. Bouwman Southlands – Century Group CP&D 117376 Proposal* cc: CAO 386 W., C. & J Roberts Current Proposal for the Southlands* CP&D 117377 cc: CAO 387 D. McBride Opposition to Rezoning and CP&D 117371 Development Proposal Going to cc: CAO Public Hearing* 388 Ottho Family Southlands * CP&D 117419 cc: CAO 389 L. Cox Southlands* CP&D 117421 cc: CAO 390 H. Johnson Southlands* CP&D 117458 cc: CAO 391 J. Johnson Southlands Proposal* CP&D 117459 cc: CAO 392 G. & B. Brazier Southlands Official Community Plan CP&D 117457 Amendment and Rezoning cc: CAO Application* 393 S. Puetz Southland Development Application* CP&D 117461 cc: CAO 394 M. Offley Southlands Application Questions CP&D 117462 cc: CAO 395 D. McBride Archeological Studies on the CP&D 117488 Southlands cc: CAO

Comment Box for Southlands Correspondence:

A response has been sent to the writer advising that their comments will be included in the public feedback for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all correspondence, noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and reported to Mayor and Council. A set of binders that contain all correspondence/feedback on the Southlands application received up to and including November 16, 2012 are available for viewing at Municipal Hall, South Delta Recreation Centre, Winskill Aquatic and Fitness Centre, Tsawwassen Library, Ladner Pioneer Library and George Mackie Library. Correspondence received after that date will be put in a new binder that will be made available prior to Council’s consideration of first and second readings of the bylaws for the Southlands application.

315 ,

Mayor Council c

From: Lori Mayhew Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 20136:19 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Scott Hamilton Agenda <~r:ILE # Q \Ql () -yS' 1 Dear Mayor Jackson and Councillors:

I write to advise you of my utter disappointment at the decision you took to allow Scott Hamilton to take a leave of absence from Council. In my opinion, this is quite anti-democratic - the citizens of De lta have been denied a chance to shape the future of their municipality by electing another member to the council. Not on ly that, but the councillors that remain will have to take on heavier workloads. This raises the possibility of things 'slipping through the cr.acks', and decisions being made that wouldn't otherwise be made.

Yours truly,

Lori Kornder 9292 117 A Street Delta BC V4C 6El

This is provided for Council's I information

1 316 ....." '.,0.) ('..., BOARD IN BRIE~ .J:>,. 5i' 00

For Metro Vancouver meetings on Friday, June 14, 2013 A g!:!F~:t!~~=.:~~O:L\~-;;':::;:&)~-~:;Q"'4I,.../fn-\J9 ~

. Please note these are not the official minutes. Board in Brief is an informal summary. Material relating to any of the following items is available on request from Metro Vancouver.

For more information, please contact: Bill Morrell, 604-451-6107, [email protected] or Glenn Bohn, 604-451-6697, [email protected]

Greater Vancouver Regional District - Parks

License Agreement for Fish Habitat Construction within Surrey APPROVED Bend Regional Park

Staff sought authorization to enter into a license agreement with Transportation Investment Corporation (TI Corp) for construction and monitoring of fish habitat channels in Surrey Bend Regional Park.

TI Corp is a provincial crown corporation established to deliver and operate the Port Mann Highway 1 Project.

Metro Vancouver, City of Surrey and TI Corp staff developed a design for fish channels which will be integrated with planned park improvements like trails, park access and a picnic area. The fish habitat compensation project will remove barriers to fish, widen existing tidal channels and create new channels. The $2 million project will be entirely paid for by TI Corp, to compensate for highway construction impacts elsewhere.

The Board authorized staff to enter into the license agreement with TI Corp.

Greater Vancouver Regional District'

Delegations - Air Quality Impacts of New and Expanded Coal RECEIVED Shipment Activity in Metro Vancouver

Following is a list of persons who spoke to the Board:

Robin Sylvester, Port Metro Vancouver Eoin Madden, Wilderness Committee Laura Benson, Dogwood Initiative Kimberley Wong and Sam Harrison, Kids for Climate Action Tim Takaro, Faculty of Health SCiences, Simon Fraser University Jeff Scott, Fraser Surrey Docks Chuck Puchmayr, Councillor, City of New Westminster

This is provided for Council's information. BOARD IN BRIEF

Andrew Murray, New Westminster Environmental Partners Greg Vurdela, BC Maritime Employers Association Alan Fryer, Coal Alliance Bob Campbell, Surrey resident Chris Verbeek International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 502 Karla Dawn Graf, Triton Environmental Consultants Terry Finn, BNSF Railway Lynne Quarmby, Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Simon Fraser University Mark Gordienko, International Longshore & Warehouse Union Canada Kevin Washbrook, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change Kathryn Harrison, Department of Political Science, University of B.C. Ron Sander, Neptune Terminals Tom Watson, Fraser Surrey Docks consultant Deborah Jones, Cougar Creek Stream keepers Erik Seiz, Crescent Beach Property Owners Association Donald Gordon Alejandro Frid, Bowen Island resident Bob Wilds and Brad Eshleman, BC Wharf Operators' Association Paul Magnus, Richmond resident William Winder, Vancouver resident Rabbi David Mivasair Brad Hornick Chris Koscher, air quality consultant, Fraser Surrey Docks Judy Williams, Fraser River Coalition David Crook, Westshore Terminals Peter Nix Capt. Phillip J. Nelson, Council of Marine Carriers Kate Gordanier Smith, Burnaby resident Barbara Taylor Mary Taitt, Boundary Bay Conservation Committee Grant Rice Eliza Olson, Burns Bog Conservation Society James Crosty. Quayside Community Board Anita Huberman, Surrey Board of Trade Scott Lunny, United Steelworkers District 3

Air Quality Impacts of New and Expanded Coal Shipment Activity APPROVED in Metro Vancouver

Staff has obtained additional information from Port Metro Vancouver about the potential air quality impacts from new or expanded coal shipment activity at Neptune Terminals and Fraser Surrey Docks.

According to these assessments, changes to these facilities will result in comparatively small impacts in the overall airshed, and with the implementation of other actions by Metro Vancouver and Port Metro Vancouver, and international regulations regarding marine vessels,

2 ~. metrovancouver ~ \-0:,1 ,,'j' ;,'!", N',f.~;".~i'."\I:'I;~r'I"'i BOARD IN BRIEF

it is projected that there will be a net improvement for some pollutants. However, localized impacts due to particulate emissions which arise during coal transport, storage and handling are a concern, as well as exhaust emissions from additional rail and marine vessel activity.

Metro Vancouver has the authority to control air emissions from the Neptune Terminals and Fraser Surrey Docks facilities. Input from Port Metro Vancouver, the two regional health authorities, municipalities and the public will be considered in the adjudication of permit and permit amendment applications.

1) That the Board write to Port Metro Vancouver to: a. request detailed information on their review processes for permit applications for expanded and new coal handling infrastructure at Neptune Terminals and Fraser Surrey Docks respectively, and request a formalized procedure in the referral of project review processes between Port Metro Vancouver and Metro Vancouver; b. advise of its support for the inclusion of health impact assessment in the review of expanded and new coal handling infrastructure, as suggested by the Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health authorities; and c. express opposition to coal shipments from the Fraser River Estuary, other than the existing Roberts Bank coal port. 2) That the Board request Port Metro Vancouver, Transport Canada and Environment Canada require the necessary mitigation measures and monitoring to address emission sources that are not within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver.

Greater Vancouver Water District

Point Roberts Water Supply Agreement APPROVED

Point Roberts is a United States community, south of Delta, that is cut off from the rest of continental U.S. by the Canada-U.S. border. Its full-time residential population is 1,300 but increases to over 4,500 during the summer months. The Point Roberts Water District No.4 (PRWD) currently provides water service to about 2,050 connections, including over 1,800 residential connections.

In a lelter received March 20, 2013, the PRWD requested that the Water District amend the water pricing terms of the 1987 PRWD Water Supply Agreement to reflect a per-volume-used pricing method.

There is no provision in the agreement that enables an amendment to the pricing structure for water supply. Staff recommended maintaining the existing rate structure in the water supply agreement.

The GVWD Board advised the PRWD Board of Commissioners that in accordance with Article 5.(1) of the 1987 Water Supply Agreement between Point Roberts Water District No.4 and the Greater Vancouver Water District, the rate structure for water supply to the PRWD shall be maintained based on the GVWD rate charged to its members multiplied by 3,182.2 M3D

3 ~. metrovancouver ..... ,,", ,,:,:.; ',i,'oj,'!1 f','d "·i ,,,'I BOARD IN BRIEF

whether or not the PRWD utilizes the full amount of 3,182.2 M3D.

GVWD Water Rates for Members and Non-Members Policy APPROVED

The Water District provides water on a wholesale basis to its members, who pay the same water rate (dollars per cubic metre) for the volume of water they consume. Upon joining the GVWD, members pay upfront servicing fees associated with expanding capacity to meet the demand of the new member.

Due to unique circumstances and areas transitioning to becoming members, the GVWD also provides relatively small volumes of water to a limited number of non-members. Non-members, without an agreement, have not paid up-front costs to connect to the GVWD and do not have the liabilities, obligations, or commitments of members.

Since 1930, the GVWD's policy has been to charge all non-members, without a water supply agreement, a surcharge on the GVWD member rate. In 1949, the GVWD established a surcharge of 20% to non-members. This surcharge represented the additional financial risks that are borne by GVWD members with respect to legal liabilities, obligations, upfront costs of membership and member commitments.

At the April, June and November 2012 meetings of the Electoral Area Committee, questions were raised about the rationale for applying a 20% surcharge on water rates to GVWD non members including the University Endowment Lands (UEL).

The Board endorsed a policy, entitled GVWD Water Rates for Members and Non-Members Policy, which maintains the current 20% surcharge for the supply of water to GVWD non members who do not have a separate water supply agreement.

Drinking Water Quality with Sockeye Salmon Introduction in APPROVED Coquitlam Reservoir

In 2005, BC Hydro established the Kwikwetlem Salmon Restoration Program to investigate the feasibility of reintroducing sockeye salmon into the Coquitlam Reservoir. In response to this initiative, in 2007, the GVWD Board approved retention of an expert panel, consisting of water quality and public health engineers, to assess the ecological and public health risks associated with the re-introduction of sockeye salmon into the Coquitlam Reservoir

Metro Vancouver's expert panel has concluded that 15,000 +/- 5000 returning adult sockeye salmon introduced to the Coquitlam Reservoir would not alter Coquitlam Reservoir's drinking water quality.

The Board received a October, 2012 expert panel and directed staff to: a) Distribute the report to the appropriate federal and provincial agencies; and b) Continue working with Kwikwetlem First Nation and Be Hydro on the potential for reintroducing sockeye salmon into the Coquitlam Reservoir in a manner consistent with protection of the drinking water supply.

4 ~411 metrovancouver ..... ~::I::I'.",~'.',.: '·i!I';'-i BOARD IN BRIEF

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant - Quarterly RECEIVED Report

In accordance with the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan approved by the B.C. Minister of Environment in 2011, the Lions Gate primary treatment plant is being upgraded to secondary treatment by 2020. The Board authorized funds in the 2011 budget to proceed with initial work, including the Project Definition Phase.

The technical work for the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGSWWTP) project has now progressed to the business casing analysis, comparing the options and concepts that were captured in the three project-build scenarios presented in April. This work will be reviewed by the Utilities Committee in the second of three planned workshops currently being scheduled for June.

A staff report provides an update on the engagement and consultation activities recently completed and in progress for the Project Definition Phase of the LGSWWTP project.

Meetings and workshops will continue through 2013 with the Lions Gate Public Advisory Committee, Community Resource Forum and members of the local community and area businesses. The program is being carried out in collaboration with the North Shore municipalities, providing residents, First Nations and those with a specific interest in the project with continued opportunities for input.

The Board received the report for information.

2012 Quality Control Annual Report for GVS&DD RECEIVED

The report concludes that Metro Vancouver's wastewater treatment plants are providing ongoing benefits through the reduction of contaminants in the effluent, and are operating with no adverse affects on the environment.

The Board received the report for information.

Waste Flow Management Update RECEIVED A few companies are currently delivering some residential and institutional, commercial, and light industrial (ICI) waste to disposal facilities other than regional facilities (Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver transfer stations and disposal facilities).

If action is noUaken, and some commercial haulers continue to bypass regional facilities, it is likely that the region will not be able to achieve the waste diversion targets in the Board and B.C. Environment Ministry approved Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. Control over tipping fees, disposal bans and material prohibitions are critical tools to reduce waste and ensure recyclable materials are diverted from disposal.

5 ""'.. metrovancouver ,... ,'I "I ,,-11,;-' L,~: I' 1'; ,.-, I BOARD IN BRIEF

Metro Vancouver has engaged extensively with industry and other stakeholders in the development of waste flow management options to create a level playing field for participants, to ensure a cost effective and equitable solid waste management system, to support waste diversion commitments and to promote private sector innovation and economic opportunities.

Development of new waste-to-energy capacity will be subject to its own engagement and consultation program with stakeholders and the public, including the Fraser Valley Regional District.

The Board received the report for information.

Review of Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities APPROVED

Staff from Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver visited Mixed Waste Material Recovery Facilities (MWMRFs) in California in late April 2013 to examine their governance, operation, and performance.

A key finding was that these facilities cost a lot and don't recover very many recyclables. FaCilitating the development of private sector MWMRFs in Metro Vancouver would be inconsistent with the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and would disadvantage local recyclers that depend on source-separated materials.

The Board received the report for information and directed staff to:

provide an analysis of the viability of mixed waste material recovery facilities as part of the system while ensuring source separation of municipal solid waste; provide an overview of waste diversion plans relating to the multi-family sector and ICI sector; and comment on the financial impacts of possible approaches.

Waste-To-Energy Facility Environmental Monitoring and Reporting, RECEIVED 2012 Update

Since Metro Vancouver's existing Waste to Energy Facility (WTEF) operations began in 1988, the regional district ha~ worked to reduce emissions through assessment and improvement of operations, plant infrastructure, and environmental controls. In addition to satisfying regulatory requirements, environmental monitoring provides the regional district with valuable data to assess both existing plant operations and potential capital improvements.

A staff report provides an overview of emissions and testing results for the Burnaby WTEF, along with historic environmental monitoring information. The WTEF continues to operate in compliance with all regulations and with a focus on continued environmental and operational improvement.

The Board received the report for information.

6 "".. metrovancouver ,.., :',':"i'.j,I"":,I.,

New WTE Capacity Project - RFQ1 for Technology Only - RECEIVED Shortlisted Technology Vendors

A report provides an update on the new Waste to Energy (WTE) capacity development process and a shortlist vendors qualified to participate in subsequent phases of the process.

With the release of the first round of Request for Qualifications (RFQ1) in November 2012 project staff initiated a mUlti-stage process to develop new WTE capacity. At the direction of the Board, a staff engaged a Third Party Expert Panel and a Fairness Advisor to prevent bias with respect to technology and to guarantee the overall objectivity and comprehensiveness of the procurement process.

Metro Vancouver received twenty-two responses to RFQ1. To be shortlisted for participation in subsequent stages of procurement, responses had to meet five minimum requirements and score at least 60 points of out 100 points on a number of technical and sustainability criteria. The 10 shortlisted respondents are: AECOM, Aquilini, Covanta Gasification, Covanta Mass Burn, Energy Answers, Lehigh, Mustang JFE, Plenary Option 1, Termomeccanica, and Wheelabrator.

The 10 shortlisted respondents have proposed a variety of technologies, including mass burn, gasification, anaerobic digestion and refuse-derived fuel for combustion in a cement kiln. The respondents will be notified by letter that they are shortlisted to participate in subsequent stages of procurement, including instructions for participating in the Potential Site Identification process and rules of engagement for communication with government employees and elected officials.

The Board received the report for information.

Correspondence pertaining to Waste Flow Management RECEIVED

Twelve letters and one report about Waste Flow Management were provided by:

1. C. Victor Hall, Per ecoTECH Waste Management Systems Group of Companies, Chief Executive Officer

:~ 2. Gordon Harris, President and CEO, SFU Community Trust, UniverCity 3. John D. Wiebe, President and CEO, Globe Foundation 4. Greg D'Avignon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Business Council of BC 5. Eugene Hodgson,VP, Western Canada, Corpfinance International Ltd. 6. Patricia Heintzman, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board Chair' 7. Steve Bryan, Chair, Metro Vancouver Committee, (WMABC) Waste Management Association of British Columbia 8. Philip Hochstein, President, (ICBA) Independent Contractors and Businesses' Association of British Columbia 9. Robert Weatherbe (Director) and Louise Schwarz (Director), Recycling Alternative 10. Nicole Stefenelli, CEO, Urban Impact Recycling on behalf of Recycle FirstCoalition 11. Urban Impact 12. Emterra Environmental

7 ""4 metrovancouver ~ I'"'rll::':i"f-"~':'_j"·'·t,,!,, BOARD IN BRIEF

13. WMABC - Waste Management Association of BC report The Board received the report for information.

8 Mayor _Council

From: TasneemAli Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:51 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Metro Vancouver Board in Brief - June 14, 2013 . Attachments: June 142013 Board in Brief.pdf

Importance: High

From: ExternalRelations Date: Friday, 21 June, 2013 2:45 PM Cc: Glenn Bohn , Bill Morrell Subject: Metro Vancouver Board in Brief - June 14, 2013

Attached is the Metra Vancouver Board in Brief-June 14, 2013 for your information.

Material relating to any of the items is available on request. Please contact Bill Morrell, External Relations, 604-451- 6107, or Glenn Bohn, External Relations, at 604-451-6697.

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

1 317 Mayor _Council

From: Joanne Austin Sent: Thursday, June 27, 20132:35 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Fw: Public Hearing Protocol and Notification Area genda

FILE # OialO -f:D F Dear Mayor and Council, A

I would like to have the following clarified:

1) On the Corporation of Delta website under "Public Hearing Protocol - Schedule 3 - Protocol" - it reads "All persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by a proposed By-law must be offered a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to submit written submissions."

What is the definition of "interest in their property"? It would be my basic understanding that the statement would have some limiting factor to allow only a taxpayer in Delta to either submit or be heard. Is there any system Delta has in place to qualify a person as a taxpayer in Delta before their submission is accepted or heard? If a Bylaw change will affect a certain limited area within Delta are only those taxpaying residents given the opportunity to submiUspeak?

2) How is the "Notification Area" for Public Hearings I Proposed Developments determined?

Joanne Austin #36 - 5300 Admiral Blvd Delta, BC

This is provided for Council's TYPE i?e'§\J \a J /'ry&.k information. DEPT: Cleo-I::: 5 AT #. I \J<;'L{3 Comments: J v \" 1>·,2..0 \ 3

1 318

!..,,!\," r..,t.~ r.... P()RT METF~O c: z:, I""'"~ ..t:>,

i)F<6{tl~ Jd1. BJ~vJlI'- June 13, 2013 r PI H-~ 't- (.J>

Mayor Lois Jackson Corporation of Delta

Dear Mayor Jackson:

I am writing to let you know about Port Metro Vancouver's Fraser River Improvement Initiative, a five year plan to deal with the derelict vessels, structures, and trespass situations along the shores .of the lower Fraser River, which we hope will be of strong benefit to the Port and all port communities along the Fraser River. At Port Metro Vancouver, we regularly hear from members of the community who are concerned about these issues. While the vast majority of our tenants properly maintain their property and adhere to the terms of their lease, there are several instances where this is not the case. We share our tenants' and the community's concerns about these problems, and are committed to working towards resolving them.

We have attempted to quantify the extent of these Issues and have developed a coordinated strategy to address them; the Fraser River Improvement Initiative (FRII), which aims to resolve existing situations and prevent future re-occurrences. I am sure you would share the view that derelict structures, vessels and trespass are a risk to public safety and the environment. They impede navigation and port activities, while also impacting the community's quality of life. The Fraser River Improvement Initiative will primarily focus on addressing unsound structures and vessels, especially where there could be safety issues or harm to surrounding wildlife and natural habitat, such as when vessels are leaking fuel or sinking.

We are committed to addressing instances of trespass and working wIth our tenants to resolve situations of derelict structures and vessels. We aim to find solutions that work for everyone, and we will examine all possible options to resolve issues.

Port Metro Vancouver's mission is to lead the growth of Canada's Pacific Gateway In a manner that enhances the well-being of Canadians, and our Vision is to be the most efficient and sustainable Gateway, benefiting communities locally and across the nation. In alignment with our Mission and Vision, we believe that the Fraser River Improvement Initiative will protect public safety and the enVironment, as well as deliver on our duty to be a steward of Crown Land and be a responsible neighbour in local communities.

More information is provided in our attached fAQ document, but please do not hesitate to contact Jeff Burton, Manager of Real Estate, at 604-665-9095 If you, or your councillors or staff, require further information.

Sincerely, This is information on a new Port Metro Vancouver initiative to deal with derelict structures and vessels along the Fraser River. In 2012, Delta submitted a resolution to UBCM asking for action to be taken to address this issue so this is a positive step forward.

Robin Silvester President and Chief Executive Officer

100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Plaoe, Vanoouver, Be (C.~B.), Canada V6C 3T4 llt;::jrl CANADA PLACE portmetrovancouver,Qom oanadaplace.oa I Canad~ FAQ: Fraser River Improvement Initiative June 2013

What is the Fraser River Improvement Initiative? The Fraser River Improvement Initiative is a five-year program focused on resolving existing situations of derelict vessels, structures and trespass within the lower Fraser River and preventing future re-occurrences.

What types of complaints have PMV received from the community about derelict structures or trespass? We have received complaints to our community complaints line, as well as to our Real Estate department. In addition, elected officials and officials in the Fraser River communities have urged us to address derelict vessels. Issues have also been highlighted in the media.

Why is this a problem? Derelict structures, vessels and trespass are a risk to public safety and the environment. They impede navigation and port activities, while also lowering the community's quality of life. Furthermore, trespasses and derelict structures of others undermine the efforts of the majority of our tenants who follow their leases and maintain their property. The Fraser River Improvement Initiative will primarily focus on addressing unsound structures and vessels. Unsound structures located in areas frequently accessed by the public pose a risk to safety, and vessels at risk of sinking or leaking fuel could be harmful to surrounding wildlife and natural habitat.

Wh'at effects do derelict structures and vessels have on the environment? Derelict structures and vessels can present serious harm to the aquatic environment, due to the toxic chemicals such as fuel, oil, and paint that can leach out of abandoned structures. This in turn harms water, sediment quality, fish habitat, wildlife, waterfowl and aquatic vegetation. Furthermore, derelict structures may smother and destroy environmentally sensitive areas including fish habitat.

How are you prioritizing which properties you're going to focus on? We performed a risk assessment on all vessels and sites which had been identified as derelict. This involved determining the likelihood and severity of the potential impact to communities, in terms of public safety, environment, and navigation. As a result, we identified a list of priority targets that we will target first. Afterwards, we will focus on medium-risk situations and lower-risk properties.

How does this affect me? By addressing derelict vessels and structures, we hope to improve the quality of life for everyone who lives and works along the Fraser River. We encourage all tenants to be good neighbours and to review their property to ensure that it is properly maintained.

I can't afford to fix my property or pay my lease. What should I do? We aim to find solutions that work for everyone. Please contact our real estate department at 604-665-9095 to discuss your specific situation. Mayor Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:34 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Letter fr R Silvester, PMV re Fraser River Improvement Initiative Attachments: 2013-06-13 Ltr to Mayor L Jackson, Corporation of Delta fr R Silvester re Fraser River Improvement Initiative.pdf

From: , Nancy Radloff - Port Metro Vancouver Date: Friday, 14 June, 2013 1:51 PM To: Tasneem Ali Subject: Letter fr R Silvester, PMV re Fraser River Improvement Initiative

NANCY RADLOFF Senior Executive Assistant to the President and Chair

PORT MFHt(J vancouver

Pl/i;CI£

PORT METRO VANCOUVER 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, Be Canada V6C 3T4 direct: 604.665.9017 main: 604.665.9000 fax: 604.665.9020 portmetrovancQuver,(om I canadaplace,ca

Port Metro Vancouver and Canada Place Corporation integrated on December 1, 2012. Canada Place, an inspiring national landmark, welcomes you to Canada's Pacific Gateway,

1 319

29 - 3871 River Road West Delta, B.C. V4K 3N2

GENERAL COMMERCIAL USER GROUP www.generalcommercialusergroup.com

June 13, 2013

The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2 j\ " \ \ 1',11.:' . '1 (:r'llilnf'ni" iZeR:\;;:!I"A ~1Jw,ecO D ear M ayor an d C ounci , K ~ 01 ~~ \r::; I\3. The General Commercial User Group (GCUG) would like to apprise you and lour staff on its involvement with Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) issues. With the merger of the three former ports into PMV, some user groups identified in the Letters Patent of the Port are becoming more involved with facets of port related issues as they affect each user group's members.

The General Commercial User Group is a non-profit organization for all residential and small to medium-sized businesses that have Port issued leases or permits. It is our intention to become a resource to help and advance the interests of its members when dealing with issues affecting waterfront property owners. We envision becoming an umbrella organization, bringing together local advocacy groups; and, for advancing, even defending the interests of the general commercial users.

One of the duties undertaken by the GCUG is to screen, interview, and nominate potential Board members to the Federal Minister of Transport for appointment to the PMV Board. The PMV Board helps form Port policy and approve Port projects. It is critical that members of the GCUG have nominees that reflect their values and understand the issues they face.

Attached is a copy of our introduction letter sent to all General Commercial User Group users within the sixteen municipalities whose shorelines border the Port's jurisdiction.

We have a new web site: www.generalcommercialusergroup.com. It offers resources, links and updated information about the GCUG, the Port and waterfront issues. It will be upgraded as we learn more about our members' needs.

The municipalities have their own nominee on the current PMV board. We understand that many Councils and staff of the sixteen municipalities within the Port of Vancouver's jurisdiction also have matters of concern with the Port and that you and your staff are often the front line for concerns brought forward by your citizens. Should you have any questions or concerns or something you would like to discuss please do not hesitate to contact us.

This letter from the General Commercial User Group is being sent to Attach. Council as a form of introduction to the group. The General Commercial User Group is a non-profit organization, established to help advance the interests of small and medium sized waterfront businesses, that have Port issued leases or permits A Letter To All Port Metro Vancouver General Commercial User Water Lease & Permit Holders

The three former port authorities Vancouver Port Authority, North Fraser Port Authority, and Fraser River Port Authority merged January 1, 2008 to become Port Metro Vancouver.

This leiter is to inform you that because you or your business has a lease or permit from Port Metro Vancouver, you may be a part of the General Commercial User Group.

The General Commercial User Group is a not-far-profit association for all individual waterfront property owners and small and medium sized businesses within the port's jurisdiction. It acts as a resource on waterfront issues, and helps to advance the interests of its members when dealing with issues affecting waterfront bUsinesses.

The General Commercial User Group holds two of the 15 seats on the nominating committee that selects suitable candidates for appointment by the Federal Minister of Transport to be directors of the Port. The nominating committee is made up of various groups that represent Port users. The committee selects seven directors to sit on the 11-member Port Metro Vancouver Board. The Port Board helps to form Port policy and approve Port projects.

One of our goals is to nominate potential Port directors that are knowledgeable and understand the variety of issues we face when operating within the port's jurisdiction. The Canada Marine Act was amended to give stakeholders a greater say in the choosing of qualified port directors. We want Ottawa, Victoria, Port board members and staff to clearly understand the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet commercial users' issues and concerns.

Port Board of Directors il' Federal Minister of Transport il' Users' Nominating Committee il' General Commercial User Group ,· i'

The new Port Metro Vancouver Nominating Committee has 15 positions. The GCUG holds two of those positions, which is equal to two votes. The Port Metro Nominations Committee is:

1. Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, B.C. Rail, Burlington Northern, Southern Rail 2. B.C. Trucking Association 3. North West Cruise Ship Association, Tourism Vancouver 4. Chamber of Shipping 5. Council of Marine Carriers 6. British Columbia Maritime Employers Association 7. Coal Association/Mining Association 8. B.C. Terminal Elevator Operators Association, Canadian Wheat Board, Grain Shippers and Exporters Association, Canadian Fertilizer Institute 9. Council of Forest Industries, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association 10. Chemistry Industry Association of Canada/Petroleum Association 11. International Longshore Workers Union/Grain Handlers/Canadian Council for 1;

The 14th and 15th positions are General Commercial Users (i.e. fisherman, distribution, lease holder, residents and all businesses not identified in the User Groups 1 to 13). This is your category.

Currently the GCUG is working with government and the Port on your behalf to try and find resolutions to a number of concerns. Two issues we are dealing with are rent increases by PMV and sediment buildup in the Fraser River channels.

Rent increases: Rent increases are calculated by PMV based on the value of industrial lands within the port's jurisdiction. Because of a shortage of industrial waterfront land the values are increasing. Use of water lots is tied to industrial land values. In the past this made sense because land use along the river was mainly industry-related. But that has changed and commercial and residential use has taken over. Rents in some parts of the river have doubled in the last four years and increases of up to 300 per cent are predicted within the next few years. For more information about water lot rent increases please contact: Dorothy Leighton at: [email protected]

Sediment: Sediment is building up in manyof the lower Fraser River secondary channels. Buildup of sediment hinders rnarine traffic and water use, which affects both businesses and residents along the river. After four years of negotiating, the Ladner Sediment Group has achieved a partial success. It has brought the three levels of government and the Port together to secure 10 million dollars to dredge five channels in the Ladner and Steveston area.

However there are several other channels of the river that all require some dredging. The port has a corporate social responsibility fund, called the The Local Channel Contribution Program, that other areas of the river can apply to for funding assistance. For more detailed information please contact John Roscoe, chair of the sediment committee, at: [email protected]

The result of a lack of dredging in the Fraser River. We would like to establish a list of all the water leaseholders that fall into the GCUG so that we can work collectively and ensure that we have a voice with the Port and other government agencies. This is an important opportunity to have Port directors that understand our issues. A list of contact information will also allow the GCUG to communicate with members about relevant port and river issues.

Please complete the form on the back of this page and fax or mail it back to us at:

General Commercial User Group #29 - 3871 River Road West Delta B.C. V4K 3N2 Fax: 604-940-9747 Email: [email protected]

Or alternatively, please visit our website at: www.gelleralcommercialusergroup.com where you can fill out the form online or print it off and fax or mail it back to us.

Check in with the website frequently to find updates, waterfront news, information about committee meetings and links to other group members and business within the GCUG.

Currently your two representatives on the Port Nominating Committee Michael Owen and Leo Stradiotli. :-~ i " ,-' :-" I : I ,-:

Help Us Help You!

Thank-you for helping us create a list of the General Commercial User Group members. Adding your name ensures that we form an effective group and will allow us to better assist you in the future.

Name: ______

Business Name: ______

ContactPerson: ______

Water Lot Use:

o Tug Boat Operations (not currently with the Council of Marine Carriers) o Marina Owner o Private Residence o Marine Mechanical or Sales o Farming o Fishing o Distribution o Charter Boat Operators o Residential Strata Council o Other ______

Address: ______

MainPhone: ______

Alternate Phone: ______

Email: ______

Website: ______

Please send to; General Commercial User Group #29 - 3871 River Road West Delta B.c. V4K 3N2 Fax: 604-940-9747

Or fill out this form online at: www.generalcommercialusergroup.com 320 ,....• w cc.... Deborah Jones :z:, 5612 Fairlight Crescent ,.... Delta BC V4E 1B4 genda , w June 12, 2013 A FilE # O(o?;;()O{i\ CoAL co~ CCI W t..O TYPE:~o.A &~t- Mayor Lois Jackson & Delta Council DEPT..-Jj 't-CP <\- ~A:'V£ Municipal Hall 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent AT# 1113'i6 " Delta BC comments'¥~~~ "'!.r u, 1VI tJ. IVI1 ur JJ:\ ISILl, Dear Mayor Jackson and Delta Council: Cc -PM \I (' "'~ _II . . F.--o-.Si r -->IA-(Y'~ 1vc.r-S Earlier this evening, I listened to a riveting presentation by Dr. Frank James, one of 209 physicians who have requested a full "Health Impact Assessment" (HIA) of proposed coal export expansion at Cherry Point, Washington (State),

As scientists, these doctors began with no preconceived notion of what those health impacts might be, if any, After an extensive search of scientific and medical literature, the group -- which includes physicians of all political stripes -- concluded that indeed the health impacts could be hugely significant and costly,

I'm attaching a summary of their findings, The summary outlines health impacts of:

• diesel particulate from locomotives .coal dust • safety on the tracks .• delayed ambulance and fire service due to rail crossings blocked by long trains .noise pollution (which turns out to have a surprisingly large impact on sleep and therefore on health),

Many of us have lost a friend or loved one to some form of respiratory illness, In addition to lung disease, diesel particulate and coal dust are also associated with increased rates of cardiovascular disease, All these chronic conditions cause enormous human suffering, Beyond that, they are also extremely costly for our health care system, and for lost productivity, The proverbial ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure (and in fact there is no cure for many lung conditions that leave victims gasping for breath - like silicosis, asthma and COPD),

I'm totally in favour of more jobs -- but they must be jobs whose net benefits outweigh their net costs, including those health costs which coal, rail and port corporations would only too gladly externalize to the rest of us, And what about the net health costs to Asian citizens? Already off the charts - so much so that China may leap to clean power while we're busy over-committing our infrastructure to coal exports, I urge you to read the attached material from the 209 Whatcom I Skagit physicians, and then to put the health and safety of our communities ahead of the pressures being brought to bear by American coal and rail corporations, and by Port Metro Vancouver. As Port Metro Vancouver has said, their job is to maximize profit. Our elected representatives' job is to defend the common good.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah Jones

Whatcom and Skagit County Physicians Request a Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment (RIA) be Included in the EIS

A direct impact of the proposed coal shipping terminal at Cherry Point would be eighteen or more 1.5 mile long trains traveling across the state and through our communities each day, and 400 or more ships traversing our waterways each year. This will result in increased airborne pollutants from diesel engines and coal dust. The increased train traffic will also cause significant delays at rail crossings, increased risk of vehicle and pedestrian injuries along the tracks, and increased noise pollution. As a group of local physicians, we are concerned about the health impacts of this proposal.

We believe the risks to human health from massive coal shipments across our state and through our communities are numerous and complex. We respectfully request a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment (RIA) addressing these issues along the entire rail and shipping corridor from the mines to the Pacific Ocean. In addition, because the GPT proposal is not iSOlated, but is being considered along with multiple other ports with associated cumulative impacts, we request that a comprehensive HIA (to encompass all of the ports in the Pacific Northwest) be performed to best elucidate the impacts on human health.

Further supporting documentation and EIS requests follow.

I. Health Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)

One of the largest potential health impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal lies in the increase in air pollution resulting from diesel locomotive emissions all along the transportation corridor, from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point, and the diesel emissions from the Cape Class ships transporting the coal through Puget Sound waterways.

The effects of air pollution are not hypothetical, but real and measurable. Many studies, some of which were conducted in the Seattle area, show significant health effects of exposure to everyday airborne pollutant levels, even when they are below national u.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines. The data show a linear effect with no specific "safe threshold." Recognizing this, the EPA has recently taken steps to enact more stringent standards.

The conclusion that airborne pollutants pose a significant and measurable health risk was also found by the American Lung Association, in their review, "State of the Air 2012", and by the American Heart Association, in their 2011 review, "Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease."

Puget Sound is in particular danger from diesel air pollution. A recent study from the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment released by the EPA states that "the Puget Sound region ranks in the country's topfive percent of risk for exposure to toxic air pollution." A study in 2010 by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the University of Washington showed that, "Diesel emissions remain the largest contributor to potential cancer risk in the Puget Sound area."

Diesel particulate emissi.ons are .of special concern, particularly the size fraction up t.o 2.5 microns, known as PM2.S. This size .of particle is able to be respired deep into the lungs. PM2.S from all s.ources has been implicated in numerous diseases ranging from cardiopulm.onary disease to c.ognitive decline t.o cancer. The deleterious impact on human health is incontrovertible (WA DOE 2008, Calif.ornia Air Res.ources Board 1998, and many .other studies). Diesel engines are .of particular concern as sources of particulate matter, as they typically produce PM2.S at a rate ab.out 20-times greater than from gas.oline engines.

Health Impacts of DPM: Cancer

Studies sh.ow an ass.ociati.on between exp.osure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Bhatia, 1998), as well as cancers .of the bladder and s.oft tissues (Gu.o et aI., 2004). Several extensive and detailed reviews have been conducted .on the b.ody .of literature relating long-term exp.osure t.o diesel exhaust particles and lung cancer (Calif.ornia EPA, 1998; USEPA, 2002; Cohen and Niku1a, 1999). In additi.on, .over 40 studies conducted am.ong th.ose popu1ati.ons exp.osed to diesel exhaust have found increased rates of lung cancer associated with diesel exhaust particles exposure (as cited in C.ohen and Nikula, 1999). Occupati.ona1 studies c.onducted in railroad w.orkers and truck drivers have consistently f.ound increased lung cancer risk, even after adjusting for comorbidities such as smoking (B.ofetta,2001). The impact ofDPM .on cancer risk must be considered in the decisi.on making process for the GPT.

Health Impacts ofDPM: Cardiac and Pulm.onary

Alth.ough cancer risk is understandably of great concern t.o the public, cardiac and respiratory effects of diesel exposure have an even larger public health impact because they cause death and illness for a greater number of people. DPM can exacerbate asthma and emphysema, induce heart attacks and strokes, and has been associated with c.ongenital heart abnormalities. Acc.ording t.o a landmark study by P.ope et al (2002), each 10 ug/m3 increase in DPM was ass.ociated with a 6% increase in cardi.opulmonary mortality. In a f.ollow-up to this study, Pope et al (2004) dem.onstrated that their previously observed increase in cardi.opulm.onary m.ortality was largely driven by increases in cardi.ovascular, as .opposed to pulmonary m.ortality. In this f.oll.ow-up study, a 10 ug/m3 increase in PM2.S was ass.ociated with a 12% increase in m.ortality due to 'all cardiovascular disease plus diabetes' and an 18% increase in m.ortality due t.o 'ischemic heart disease'. Further epidemi.ol.ogical investigations have revealed that these estimates are likely largely underestimating the effect ofPM2.5 due to inadequate exposure characterization. Published in the New England Journal ofMedicine, Miller et al. (2007) utilized a novel exposure characterization method and reported from the Women's Health Study that a 10 uglm3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with a 76% increase in death due to cardiovascular disease. To further highlight the impact of PM2.5 on public health, the 'Global Burden of Disease' report recently published in Lancet reported ambient PM2.5 as the #9 cause of disease world-wide, and the #14 cause of disease in North America (Lim et al. 2013) in the year 2010.

It is well understood that ambient air pollution and fine ambient particulate matter strongly contribute to disease burden and death, but it has been less clear as to how much an individual's living proximity to a major roadway or direct PM2.5 source influences health risks. Due to research led by those at the University of Washington, it is becoming clearer that an individual's exposure to PM2.5 is dependent on where he/she lives and works and that this strongly influences health outcomes. Van Hee et al. (2009) demonstrated that living close to a maj or roadway was a strongly associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, an important marker of cardiovascular disease and a strong predictor of heart failure and mortality. Additional work by this group has demonstrated an individual's exposure to PM2.5 impairs how well blood vessels dilate and how well the heart functions, providing a basis for our understanding of previously observed increases in mortality (Van Hee et al. 2011, Krishnan et al. 2012).

There are very specific physiological effects with DPM exposure. A very recent study by Cosselman et al (2012) showed that diesel exhaust exposure, to healthy human volunteers, rapidly increases systolic blood pressure (SBP). In their study, SBP increased within 15 minutes of being exposed to dilute diesel exhaust and reached a maximum increase in SBP within 1 hr. Additional work utilizing controlled diesel exhaust exposures to human volunteers has revealed that these acute exposures results in an impairment in blood vessel function and alters blood coagulability, both of which are extremely deleterious effects and increase the risk of acute cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke (Mills et al. 2005, 2007, and Tornqvist et al. 2007). Fitting with these findings, epidemiological investigations have consistently demonstrated that acute increases in PM2.5 result in an increased risk of heart attack (Peters et al. 2001).

In addition to cardiovascular risk, cerebrovascular effects and risk of stroke associated with PM2.5 exposure has been investigated. Research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (2012) examines, for the first time, the risk of acute, short term exposures to PM2.5 as a key factor in triggering stroke, often within hours of exposure. The study found a linear relationship between PM2.5 level and stroke risk even when the exposure was well below the EPA daily exposure limit. Overall, the risk of ischemic stroke was 34 % higher on days when the PM2.5 level was on the higher range of "moderate" exposures (15-40 uglm3), as opposed to days when pollutants are lower than 15 ug/m3. This is an unprecedented finding, and points to the acute danger of even short term exposures to levels of particulate pollution previously thought "safe."

Studies conducted at Seattle Children's Hospital show that air po llution leads to asthma exacerbations, increased ER visits, and increased hospitalization, at levels that currently exist in Seattle (Norris et ai, 1999; Slaughter et ai, 2003). A study in California shows that about half of the economic costs of asthma can be attributed to air poll ution, costing society millions of dollars per year (Brandt et ai, 2002). Thus, it is emphasized that additional DPM exposure adds to an existing problem.

Health Impacts ofDPM: Associated Toxins

While hundreds of different airborne toxins may be present inthe gas phase of diesel I exhaust, some ofthe most commonly identified are acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, I I benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The human health impact of all of these associated toxins will be important to study in detail:

• Formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans. It is also a highly reactive substance that can be irritating to the nose, eyes, skin, throat and lungs at fairly low levels of chronic exposure.

• Benzene is considered to be carcinogenic to humans. Chronic exposure to benzene leads primarily to disorders of the blood.

• 1,3-Butadiene is linked to cancers of the blood and lymph systems, including leukemia. It has also been linked to disorders ofthe heart, blood and lungs, and to reproductive and developmental effects.

• Some Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons are carcinogenic to humans. Because this group of compounds covers a wide range of physical-chemical properties, some P AH are found in air on particles while others are gaseous. P AH of both forms may be deposited in the lung.

Vulnerable groups who are especially at risk from air pollution include children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

Recommendations

It is incumbent upon the decision makers in this process to apply the best available science in determining the health impacts of the GPT. The Washington Department of Ecology summarized the current state of the science in a white paper entitled "Concerns about the Adverse Health Effects of Diesel Engine Emissions" (2008). This paper recommends the adoption of the risk assessment tools developed by the California EPA's Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, and the US EPA Integrated Risk Information System, for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk based DPM concentration levels. We recommend the use of these risk assessment tools in investigating the potential impact of the GPT. (See health risk assessment guidance from California's Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/pdfIHRSguide2001.pdf)

A study of air toxins in the Tacoma and Seattle area was recently completed using these risk assessment tools (October 2010). Among many other findings, this study demonstrated that DPM contributed over 70% of the potential airborne pollutant cancer risk in the Seattle area.

This study did not, however, quantify the risks spatially, relative to a specific source such as the railway corridor or the terminal operation. The highest exposure risks of DPM from the GPT will occur to populations in close proximity to the tracks, terminal, and shipping lanes. Thus, we recommend that the near source health effects be quantified spatially all along the transportation corridor, not just for the terminal site. This will necessarily include the railway corridor, as well as the emissions from marine vessels.

Modeling should use either the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment tools and modeling protocol or the EPA Air Toxics Community Multiscale Air Quality Model to predict multiple pollutant effects on the affected communities. The modeling protocol should be approved by the Washington Department of Ecology and the EPA. The modeling should be performed by consultants familiar with the models and with interpreting the results ofthe models.

If mitigation measures, pollution control devices, ultra low sulfur fuel specifications, or late model diesel locomotive emission factors are used in the emissions estimates and models, those assumptions should be listed as mitigation required in the Draft and Final EIS.

The Puget Sound area is prone to temperature inversions, which can dramatically increase pollutant concentrations. Thus, the analysis must include not only effects of pollutants near the transportation corridor under normal weather conditions, but also under temperature inversion conditions. .

Summary

A direct result of the Gateway Pacific Terminal will be a substantial increase in airborne pollutant emissions from train and marine traffic from the Powder River Basin, all through the rail transportation corridor, at the tet'minal site, and Puget Sound. If GPT is not built, these impacts will not occur. Thus, the impacts must be quantified through the entire region impacted by this activity, not just at the terminal site, as has been advocated by SSA Marine.

Because of the health impacts that will be a direct result of the GPT terminal, we respectfully request that the EIS include a Health Impact Assessment that addresses the following questions:

i I. How much DPM and toxins (detailed above) will people be exposed to at 50 feet, 100 ft, 200 ft, etc up to 2 miles from the tracks when a train goes by? We request this data to be shown in an easy-to-understand format, including maps with "pollution contours" (isopleths). 2. What neighborhoods will be exposed to even greater OPM and toxins due to trains idling on sidings, both existing and future (a study by Communitywise indicates an additional siding in Bellingham is likely)? How much OPM and toxins will these areas be exposed to? 3. How much OPM and toxins (detailed above) will result from the ships, including ships that are at anchor (staging), at the dock, or in transit? 4. What will the impact oftemperature inversion weather conditions be on air pollutants? How high may the concentrations get? 5. How many people live within 50 ft, 100 fl, 200 fl, 500 fl, 1000 fl, 1 mile, and 2 miles along the entire transportation route from Powder River Basin to Cherry Point to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, including current and projected populations? 6. How many of the people living, going to school, or working within the distances above are children, including current and projected populations? Elderly? Have any form of pulmonary or cardiovascular disease? 7. How many increased asthma attacks, ER visits, and hospitalizations will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 8. How many increased strokes will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 9. How many increased myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) will result, including current and projected popUlations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 10. How many COPO exacerbations will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 11. How much cancer will result, including current and projected populations? 12. How much acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, heavy metals (including but not limited to mercury, lead, and arsenic), 1,3-Butadiene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or other toxins will be deposited cumulatively? This should be analyzed in a cumulative fashion, (i.e. additive) over the next 50 years (the operating life of the terminal). 13. What are the effects of chronic exposure of the above compounds on: Neonatal and childhood development? Blood and lymphatic systems? Respiratory system? Cardiovascular system? Reproduction? Cancer? 14. What is the cost of cleanup of the cumulative environmental contaminants? How effective is the cleanup? Who pays the cost? 15. What is the economic cost of all of the health impacts combined? Who pays for the costs? 16. Medical research comes forth at an intense pace. When new health impacts of diesel particulate matter are inevitably identified or quantified, how can the public be assured that their health will be weighed in the balance of ongoing riskslbenefits of OPT operations? II. Health Impacts of Coal Dust

The amount of coal dust that escapes from Powder River Basin coal trains has been estimated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad to be from 500 pounds to I ton per car, or up to 3% of transported coal (BNSF, 2011). A study on a West Virginia rail line, transporting bituminous coal similar to the coal from the Powder River Basin, showed a similar loss of coal dust of up to a pound of coal per mile per car. (Simpson Weather Associates, 1993). BNSF reports that escaped coal dust on the tracks can increase risk for derailments. Large amounts of coal dust also escapes from coal piles, as can he seen in photographs of the West Shore Terminal at Roberts Bank. Coal dust can be a costly pollutant requiring frequent cleaning for businesses and residences along a rail line or near a coal terminal, as documented in a study from British Columbia (Cope et ai, 1994).

Health Impacts of Coal Dust and Combustion: Environmental Contamination

Deposition of coal from transport spills and dust may lead to contamination of soil, fresh water sources and the marine environment. Coal contains arsenic, boron, and heavy metals such as lead, chromium, cadmium, and mercury (see summary contaminants in. coal in Gottlieb et al. 2010). Contamination of farmland, animal pasture, and especially fisheries can impact human health. Arsenic from coal dust can persist in soil for years and has been shown to be a pollutant originating from a coal shipping terminal (Bounds and Johannesson, 2007). Arsenic concentrates in food crops such as apples and rice and is associated with increased rates of skin, bladder and lung cancers, cardiovascular and lung disease.

Because of the negative effects of mercury on neurologic development, pregnant women and young children are advised to limit their consumption of certain kinds of fish with increased mercury content (FDNEPA Consumer Advisory, 2004). While mercury in coal dust is less biologically active before it is burned, mercury from coal burned in China is carried in the air across the Pacific Ocean to the west coast of the United States and across the country. Fourteen percent of the mercury in the Great Lakes originates in China (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011) and a larger percentage of the mercury in Lake Whatcom originates from coal burned in China.

Health Impacts of Coal Dust: Airborne Dust

Airborne coal particles pose a potential health risk to workers and to people in communities near railroad tracks, as well as near the mines and the proposed export terminal. Cancer rates three times higher than average have been reported at one of Australia's largest coal ports (Ockenden, Will, 2012). Health risks of airborne coal dust to coal miners have been well documented to cause lung disease, ranging from severe pneumonconiosis to chronic bronchitis and exacerbations of asthma (Hathaway, et al. 1991). While pneumoconiosis has only been conclusively associated with intense exposure in miners, there is evidence that lower levels of respirable coal dust may also cause lung disease. A recent study (Wade et al. 2010) examined miners who developed lung disease even while exposed to currently legal and well-regulated levels of coal dust. Animal studies (Vincent et al 1987) have examined the pulmonary effects throughout a wide range of coal dust exposures. They show that pulmonary clearance mechanisms tend to sequester the dust in lymphatic tissue and the interstitial space between alveoli. This inhibits further clearance mechanisms and facilitates the inflammatory cascade in the lung tissue. In addition, the synergistic effects of respirable coal dust with other pollutants such as diesel particulate matter may accelerate lung damage beyond that which might be predicted by the coal mine epidemiologic data (Karagianes et ai, 1981).

It is emphasized that children are not "little adults" and are significantly more vulnerable to the health effects of environmental contaminants. Children eat more, breath more, and drink more per body weight than adults, and therefore receive a greater exposure and dose of any material. In addition, children have unique behaviors such as hand to mouth actions that increase exposure to contaminants. Developing organ systems (including the brain and nervous system) are also more vulnerable to adverse effects.

Because airborne coal dust exposure and environmental contamination is a direct impact of GPT, we respectfully request that the EIS include a Health Impact Assessment that would address the following questions:

1. How much coal dust from the mining and transportation of coal can be expected along each section of the rail corridor from the Powder River Basin to the proposed terminal? 2. How much coal is lost from residual dust still on the cars as they leave the coal terminal after unloading (so called "carryback coal")? How much of the "carryback coal" is expect to be lost in Whatcom County in particular? 3. How much accumulation will result after 50 years of transport (the operating life of the terminal)? 4. How many coal train derailments can be expected along the rail corridor per year of operation of the proposed export terminal? 5. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on farm land along the rail corridor? 6. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on grazing animals used for human consumption? 7. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on fresh water supplies for humans and animals? 8. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on marine habitat for fish and other seafood? 9. How many people can be expected to be affected by the increased exposure to mercury and other heavy metal contaminants of coal, such as cancer, including current and projected populations? 10. How many children and adults can be expected to have increased risk of asthma and other respiratory diseases, including current and projected populations? 11. What health and safety impacts may be present at the coal port itself, including increased rates of cancer that have been reported at a large coal port? 12. What is the economic cost of these health impacts? Who pays for the costs? 13. What is the cost of cleanup of the cumulative environmental contamination? How effective is the cleanup? Who pays for the cost? 14. Medical research comes forth at an intense pace. When new health impacts of coal dust and combustion are inevitably identified or quantified, how can the public be assured that their health will be weighed in the balance of ongoing riskslbenefits of GPT operations?

III. Health Impacts of Noise Pollution

Noise pollution is a growing health concern in this country and around the world. The World Health Organization has recognized it as a major threat to human health and well-being. Some ofthe well-documented adverse health effects include:

Health Impacts of Noise: Cardiovascular Disease

In adults, both short-term and long-term adverse health effects have been documented, including increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, vasbconstriction, elevated stress hormones such as epinephrine and cortisol, arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and strokes. Increased stress-related hormones and elevated blood pressures have especially been seen in children with lower academic achievement. (Selander J 2009; Sorensen Met aI., 2012; Sorensen M et al. #2,2012; Sorensen Met aI., 2011; Willich SN et al. 2006)

Health Impacts of Noise: Cognitive Impairment in Children

Children exposed to increased noise have shown lower academic achievement in various forms including long term memory, reading comprehension, learning, problem solving, concentration, social and emotional development, and motivation. (Clark, C et al. 2012; Cohen, S. et al 1980; Evans GW 2003; Evans GW and SJ Lepore, 1993; Evans GW and L Maxwell, 1997; Haines MM et. al. 2001; Haines MM et al #2, 2001; Hygge Setal. 2002; Stansfeld SA at el. 2005) Health Impacts of Noise: Sleep Disturbance

Noise can have both auditory and non-auditory deleterious effects on human health. Auditory effects include delay in falling asleep, frequent night time awakenings, alteration in sleep stages with reduction of REM sleep, and decreased depth of sleep. Non-auditory effects including increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, vasoconstriction, changes in respiration, and arrhythmia continue to have deleterious effects on human health even after the subject has acclimated to the noise. Decreased alertness from sleep disturbance is associated with an increased rate of accidents, injuries and premature death.

Studies have shown that noise >55 dB (night, outside level) is associated with sleep disturbance, that railway noise has greater impacts than road noise, and that even a single railway noise event significantly decreases REM sleep. Hundreds of thousands of people along the transportation route will likely experience sleep disruption multiple times through the night as a direct result of CPT. (Aasvang et aI, 20 II; Brink et aI, 2011; Carter NL 1996; Chang et aI., 2012; Clark C. et a12012; Halonen Jl et a12012; Hong J et al. 2010; Hume KI 2011)

Health Impacts of Noise: Mental Health

Increased noise is known to accelerate and intensify development of latent mental health disorders including depression, mental instability, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis. It is also a major environmental cause of annoyance leading to diminished quality of life (Evans OW at aI, 1995; Fidell S et a11991; Haines MM et. al. 2001; Haines MM et. al. #2,2001).

Coal trains produce significantly greater noise and vibration than other trains: longer trains means more prolonged noise, greater weight means increased vibrations and more wheel squeak noise, and more locomotives per train are required resulting in more engine noise. Indeed, people can tell whether it is a coal train or not without looking at it, and simply based on the noise and vibration they experience. Thus, evaluation of the noise impact of CPT must account for the fact that these wonld be coal trains and not passenger or conventional freight trains.

A person woken from sleep every hour-as would be expected when the OPT terminal is at full operation-represents a different order of magnitude of adverse health impacts than a person woken or otherwise disturbed once or twice a night from existing train traffic. The train traffic directly impacts multiple dense residential areas along the entire rail line.

Because of the health impacts that will be a direct result of the CPT terminal, we respectfully request that the EIS include a Health Impact Assessment that addresses the following questions: 1. How loud are train engines? Squeaking wheels? Whistle blasts? How loud it this 50 feet, 100 ft, 200 ft, etc up to 2 miles from the tracks? We request this data to be shown in an easy-to-understand format, including maps with "sound contours" (noise isopleths). 2. How much vibration does a coal train produce? How intense is this at 50 feet, 100 ft, 200 ft, etc up to 2 miles from the tracks? 3. How many people live within 50 ft, 100 ft, 200 ft, 500 ft, 1000 ft, I mile, and 2 miles along the entire route from PRE to Cherry Point? 4. How much noise and/or vibration wakes an average person? A light sleeper? . 5. How much noise or vibration distracts a working person? A concentrating student? 6. For each train along the entire route, how many crossings are there? How many whistle blasts per crossing? How many whistle blasts in total for a single train traveling from Montana to Cherry Point? How many whistle blasts per day in all (x 18 trains)? How many of these are at night during sleeping hours (8 PM to 8 AM)? 7. For each train, including engine noise, vibration, squealing wheels, and whistle blasts, how many people will be awakened, based on current and projected populations? How many children? How many adults? How many elderly? All calculations must include projected populations as well, since the terminal has an operating span of 50 years. 8. How many times per night will a person be awakened, from noise or vibration, who lives various distances from the tracks (including distances: 50 ft, 100 ft, 250 ft, 500 ft, 1000 ft, 0.5 miles, 1 miles, and 2 miles) in all areas and communities along the route, including Helena, Missoula, Spokane, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Shoreline, Mt. Vernon, Bellingham, and all areas between? 9. How many awakenings per night, including all people along the entire route up to 2 miles away from tracks, including all trains, based on current and projected populations?

I 10. Considering the noise and vibration, mUltiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how

I , many people may potentially have increased blood pressure, or elevated stress hormones, including current and projected populations?' 11. What is the total economic cost of increased blood pressure, elevated stress hormones? 12. Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how many arrythmias, or heart attacks could potentially result from the increased noise, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of the arrythmias, or heart attacks? 13, Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how many strokes could potentially result from the increased noise, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of the strokes? 14. Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how much increased mental disease may result from associated stress, including but not limited to: depression, mental instability, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis, including current and projected populations? What is the potential economic cost of the increased mental disease? 15. What is the potential impact of noise, vibration, multiple awakenings, and fatigue on childhood learning? On childhood test scores? What is the total economic cost of the learning impairment? 16. What is the potential impact of noise, vibration, multiple awakenings, and fatigue on workplace performance and safety? What is the total economic cost of the impaired workplace performance and safety? 17. How many increased traffic accidents may result from fatigue- associated sleep disturbance, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of the accidents? Cost in terms of human morbidity? 18. Who pays for the economic costs of the impacts listed above? 19. Medical research comes forth at an intense pace. When new health impacts of noise are inevitably identified or quantified, how can the public be assured that their health will be weighed in the balance of ongoing riskslbenefits of GPT operations?

IV. Health Impacts of Delays in Emergency Medical Services

As physicians, we are concerned that increased frequency of very long trains at rail crossings will lead to delayed emergency medical service response times and to increased accidents, traumatic injury and death, and we request a full health impact assessment of this issue along the entire rail corridor across the state as part of the environmental impact statement.

Health Impacts of Rail Crossings: EMS Delays

For many of our most common acute health issues, such as stroke, heart attack, massive hemorrhage, and trauma, every second counts, and a delay of just a few minutes can mean the difference between life and death or permanent impairment and disability. Hospitals routinely measure parameters such as "door to balloon time," the length of time it takes from the arrival in the Emergency Department until the moment the artery is successfully opened, in the case of a heart attack, to measure the quality of the care delivered and improve outcomes. The same is true for stroke, where thrombolytic medications given to break down clots and to open occluded arteries to the brain can be given only if administered within three hours of the onset of symptoms. Failure to promptly re-establish arterial blood flow to the heart and brain leads to cell death and permanent injury very quickly.

We are aware of a number of locations in Whatcom County where residents may be cut off from emergency medical services by rail lines and access to timely healthcare impaired by increased rail traffic. We are also aware of communities in the state where rail lines separate the major popUlation densities from the hospital or EMS facilities. It should be considered that an ambulance often must cross any tracks twice to bring a patient to a hospital. Emergent procedures may also be delayed when critical personnel (such as physicians, nurses, anesthesia techs, or people transporting blood for transfusion) are delayed en route to meet a patient at a hospital. Indeed, a study conducted by Gibson Traffic Consultants indicates that the rail traffic may cause severe impediment to EMS access (www.communitywisebellingham.org).

Health Impacts of Rail Crossings: Accidents

Finally, we are concerned that increased rail traffic of the magnitude that is currently proposed has significant potential for increased traumatic injury and death at rail crossings or by derailments. Many crossings in the city of Bellingham and in Whatcom County have no barriers or other warning signals, and local city, county, and state governments are struggling financially with limited funds for providing this basic safety service. Data from the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety inform us that there were 739 fatalities and 8,167 injuries at railroad crossings nationally in 2010. There have also been at least nineteen coal train derailments in North America in 2012, including fatalities.

Because increased frequency of very long trains at rail crossings will be a direct result of the GPT terminal, we respectfully request that the EIS include a Health Impact Assessment that addresses the following questions:

I. How many rail crossings are there along the rail corridor from the Powder River Basin to Cherry Point? 2. How many of these rail crossings are unprotected? 3. What are the costs to provide protective barriers at these crossings and who will bear these costs? 4. How often and for how long will these crossings be blocked by the increased rail traffic en route to GPT? Delay should be calculated for each crossing to account for differences in local circumstances. 5. How many times daily do EMS vehicles, including police, fire and medic units, cross rail lines? Please note that an ambulance needs to cross twice to transport a patient to a hospital. 6. What will be the cumulative and per incident delay in access to these services caused by rail traffic en route to GPT (including actual blockage ofthe crossing, as well as alleviation of resultant congestion)? Please again note that an ambulance generally needs to cross twice to transport a patient to a hospital. 'j ! I 7. How many people are affected at each crossing, based on current and projected populations as shown in relevant planning documents? 8. What crossings and locations are most likely to result in significant delays at crossings? 9. How often are there alternative crossings? How much time is lost to route through alternate crossings, rather than the shortest route? 10. Is there any current established system to alert EMS vehicles of impending crossing closures? 11. How much would such a system cost and who would bear the cost of developing such systems? 12. How does backed up traffic at crossings and the dispersion of that traffic effect EMS response times? 13. How often and to what severity will these delays in EMS response times lead to delays in care and to otherwise avoidable outcomes such as death or pennanent disability? 14. What is the amount of healthcare cost attributable to patients receiving delayed EMS services as a result of increased rail traffic? 15. How will the project applicant mitigate these impacts (grade separation at crossings, construction of new hospitals, support for additional paramedics, medivac services, etc.?) 16. How many rail crossing accidents, injuries, and deaths will be attributable to

I increased rail traffic en route to GPT? 17. What is the anticipated cost of these accidents, including anticipated litigation and long term care costs? 18. How many coal train derailments would be anticipated to occur across the state of Washington over time, given that there have been nineteen in 2012 alone in the US and Canada? 19. Where are the likely sites of these derailments, and are any of these potentially dangerous or inadequately designed rail lines in major population densities?

We thank you for your attention to thorough evaluation and full disclosure of the potential health impacts of GPT.

Dale Abbott, MD Erin Charles, MD Camilla Allen, MD Vishal Chaudhary, MD Daniel Austin, MD Michael Chmel, MD Diane Arvin, MD .T oshua Cohen, MD Barbara Bachman, MD Andrew Coletti, MD Laura Backer, MD Keith Comess, MD Kristi Bailey, MD Pau I Conner, MD Jennifer Bates, MD Kirstin CUltis, ARNP Jeffrey B. Black, MD lanDank, MD Terri Blackburn, MD Marc Davis, MD Pete Beglin, MD Joe Deck, MD Claire Beiser, MD, MPH Frances DeRook, MD Don Berry, MD Katherine Dickinson, MD Richard Binder, MD Peter Dillon, MD Nancy Bischoff, MD Thang Do, MD Bruce Bowden, MD Mark Doherty, MD Kirk Brownell, MD Kevin Dooms, MD Allan Buehler, MD Jim Eggen, MD David Cahalan, MD Jerry Eisner, MD Soren Carlsen, MD David Elkayam, MD Monica Carrillo, MD Lamie Emert, MD John Erbstoeszer, MD Mitchell Kahn, MD Worth Everett, MD Mara Kelley, MD Kerri Fitzgerald, MD Daniel Kim, MD Anneliese Floyd, MD Annie Kiesau, MD Ryan Fortna, MD, PhD Carter Kiesau, MD Dianne Foster, ARNP Gail Knops, MD Randy Frank, DO Joost Knops, MD Eric Frankenfeld, MD Ann Knowles, MD Jonathan Franklin, MD Andrew Kominsky, MD Anthony Gargano, MD Pamela Laughlin, MD Ken Gass, MD, PhD Shawna Laursen, MD Jeremy Getz, MD Sandy George Lawrenqe, MD Robert Gibb, MD Josie Lee, MD Stan Gilbert, MD Tyler Leedom, DO Martha Gillham, MD Kathy Leone, MN, ARNP Corinne Gimbel-Levine, ARNP Rick Leone, MD, PhD Loma Gober, MD Linda Leum, MD David Goldman, MD Hank Levine, MD Aaron Gonter, MD Cluis Lewis, DO Erin Griffith, MD Jason Lichtenberger, MD Tung M. Ha, DO Serge Lindner, MD Deborah Hall, MD Kelly Lloyd, MD Tom Hall,MD Bill Lombard, MD William Hall, MD Jena Lopez, MD David Hansen, MD Jonathan Lowy, MD James Harle, MD Leasa Lowy, MD Emil Hecht, MD Thomas Ludwig, MD Grayce Hein, ARNP John MacGregor, MD Michael Hejtmanek, MD Bruce Mackay, MD Harry Herdman, MD Margaret Mamolen, MD David Hoeft, MD Troy J. Markus, D.O. Marcy Hipskind, MD Vincent Matteucci, MD John Holroyd, MD Dick McClenahan, MD Jim Holstine, DO Kelly McCullough, MD Sherry Holtzman, MD Marianne McElroy, PA Will Hong, MD Monica Mahal, MD John Hoyt, MD Scott McGuinness, MD Bao Huynh, MD Judson Moore, PA Kellie Jacobs, MD David Morison, MD Meg Jacobson, MD Gib Morrow, MD Gertrude James, ARNP Larry Moss, MD Frank James, MD Sara Mostad, MD, PhD Helen James, MD Ward Naviaux, MD Lisa Johnson, ARNP John Neutzmann, DO Bree Johnston, MD Casey O'Keefe, MD David Jessup, MD Karen O'Keefe, MD Deborah Oksenberg, MD Robert Slind, MD David Olson, MD Chris Spilker, MD Rob Olson, MD Bonnie Sprague, ARNP Patricia Otto, MD Robert Stewart, MD Tracy Ouellette, MD Scott Stockburger, MD Mark Owings, MD, PhD Berle Stratton, MD Evelyn Oxenford, ARNP Jenny Sun, MD Clark Parrish, MD Gregory Sund, MD Mike Pietro, MD Erin Swanda, CNM, ARNP Trevor Pitsch, MD Mary Swanson, MD Denise Plaisier, P A Warren Taranow, DO Suneil Polley, ND Michael Taylor, MD Ronda Pulse, MD M. Greg Thompson, MD, MPH Gita Rabbani, MD Chad Thomas, MD, PhD Andris Radvany, MD Stuart Thorson, MD Jon Ransom, MD Teresa Thornberg, MD Christoph Reitz, MD Loch Trimingbam, MD Susan Rodgers, ARNP Elizabeth Vennos, MD George Rofkar, MD Steve Wagoner, MD Niles Roberts, MD April Wakefield Pagels, MD April Sakahara, MD Heather Whitaker, ARNP William Scott Sandeno, MD Sara Wells, ARNP Paul Sarvasy, MD Anne Welsh, MD Neal Saxe, MD Greg Welsh, MD James Schoenecker, MD Matt Werner, MD Julie Seavello, MD Susan Willis, ARNP R. Milton Schayes, MD David Wisner, MD Barbara Schickler, ARNP, CNM Steven Wisner, MD Melana Schimke, MD Todd Witte, MD Luther Schutz, MD Ginny Wolff, MD Miriam Shapiro, MD Greg Wolgamot, MD, PhD Janine Shaw, MD Stephen Woods, MD John Shaw, MD Darla Woolman, PA Mary Ellen Shields, MD Chao-ying Wu, MD Hannah Sheinin, MD Jessica Yoos, MD Russell Sheinkopf, MD Ellen Young, MD Lora Sherman, MD Alan Shurman, MD Don Slack, MD

(209 signers total) References

Additional information listed in "Whatcom Docs Position Statement" and appendices on coaltrainfacts.org.

I. Diesel Particulate Matter References

Ammann, H. and M. Kadlec. 2008. Dept. of Ecology Air Quality Program: Concerns about adverse health effects of diesel engine emissions white paper. Publication 08-02- 032.

Bhatia R, Lopipero P, Smith AH. 1998. Diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9(1): 84-91.

Boffetta P, Dosemeci M, Gridley G, Bath H, Moradi T, Silverman 0.2001. Occupational exposure to diesel engine emission and risk of cancer in Swedish men and women. Cancer Causes Control 12(4): 365-374.

Brandt, SJ et al. 2012. Costs of childhood asthma due to traffic-related pollution in two California communities. Eur Respir J 40:363-370.

Brook, R.D. and S. Rajagopalan. 2012. Can what you breathe trigger a stroke within hours? Arch Intern Med 172(3): 235-236.

Brook, RD et al. 2010. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: an update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 121:2331-2378.

California Air Resources Board. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on the Report on Diesel Exhaust (as adopted at the Panel's April 22, 1998 meeting) http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm

California Environmental Protection Agency. Part B: Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust. For the Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section, Oakland. May 1998

Cosselman K, Kaufman JA. 2012. Blood Pressure Response to Controlled Diesel Exhaust Exposure in Humans. Hypertension. March 192012.

Cohen AJ and Nikula K. 1999. The Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust: Laboratory and Epidemiologic Studies. Chap 32 in Air Pollution and Health. Ed. ST Holgate, JM Samet, HS Koren, and RL Maynard. Academic Press, London.

Dockery, D. et al. 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. New Engl J Med 329(24): 1753-1759. Gauderman, W.J. et al. 2007. Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. The Lancet 369:571-.

Gauderman, W. et al. 2004. The effect of air pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age. New Engl J Med 351(11):1057-1067

Gaudermann, W.J. et al. 2005. Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide. Epidemiology 16(6):1-.

Gaudermann, W.J. et al. 2002. Association between air pollution and lung function growth in Southern California children. Am J Respir Care Med 166:76-84.

Ghio, A. J et al. 2000. Concentrated ambient air particles induce mild pulmonary inflammation in healthy human volunteers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162: 981-2000.

Guo J, Kauppinen T, Kyyronen P, Heikkila P, Lindblohm ML, Pukkala E. 2004. Risk of esophageal, ovarian, testicular, kidney and bladder cancers and leukemia among Finnish workers exposed to diesel or gasoline exhaust. Int J Cancer 111(2): 286-292.

Hong, Y -C. et al. 2002. Effects of air pollutants on acute stroke mortality. Eviron Health Perspec. 110 (2):187-.

Krishnan, R. M. et al. Vascular Responses to Long- and Short-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter: The MESA Air (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution). Journal of the American College ofCardiology, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.973 (2012).

Lim, S. S. et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380,2224- 2260, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8 (2013).

Lin, M. et al. 2002. The influence of ambient coarse particulate matter on asthma hospitalization in children: case-crossover and times-series analyses. Environ Health Perspect. 110(6):575-.

Lin, S. et al. 2002. Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic. Environ Res Sect A 88:73-81.

McConell, R. et al. 2010. Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home and school. Environ Health Perspect. 118(7): 1021-.

Mills, N. L. et al. Diesel exhaust inhalation causes vascular dysfunction and impaired endogenous fibrinolysis. Circulation 112, 3930-3936 (2005). Mills, N.L. et al. 2007. Ischemic and thrombotic effects of dilute diesel-exhaust inhalation in men with coronary heart disease. NEJM (357(11): 1075-.

Miller, K. A. et al. Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. N Engl J Med356, 447-458 (2007).

Mittleman, M. A. 2007. Air pollution, exercise, and cardiovascular risk. NEJM357(11): 1147.

Mustafic H. et al. 2012. Main air pollutants and myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 307(7):713-.

Norris, G. et al. 1999. An association between fine particles and asthma emergency department visits for children in Seattle. Environ Health Perspect. 107:489-493.

Ostro. B. et al. 2009. Long-term exposure to constituents of fine particulate air pollution and mortality: results from the California Teachers Study. Environ Health Perspect 118(3):363-369.

Ostro, B. et al. The effects of fine particle components on respiratory hospital admissions in children. Environ. Health Perspect. 117(3):475-480.

Peters, A., Dockery, D. W., Muller, J. E. & Mittleman, M. A. Increased particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infarction. Circulation 103, 2810-2815 (2001).

Pope c.A. et al. 2004. Air pollution and health- good news and bad. NEJM 351(11): 1132-.

Pope, C. A. III et al. 2002 Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287: 1132-1141.

Pope, C. A. et al. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution: epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation 109, 71-77 (2004).

Pope, C. A. et al. 2009. Fine-particulate matter air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. New Engl J Med 360(4):376-386. , j Pope, C. A. III et al. 1995. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151: 669-674.

Slaughter, J. C. et al. 2003. Effects of ambient air pollution on symptom severity and medication use in children with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma & Immunol91 :346-353.

Spira-Cohen, A. et al. 2011. Personal exposures to traffic-related air pollution and acute respiratory health among Bronx schoolchildren with asthma. Environ Health Perspect. 119(4):559-. Studer, CEo 2011. Health risk study for the Burlington Northern I Sante Fe Railroad Spokane Railyard. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, www.spokanecleanair.org

Thaller, E. et al. 2008. Moderate increases in ambient PM2.5 and ozone are associated with lung function decreases in beach lifeguards. J Occup Environ Med 50:202-211.

Tolbert, P.E. et al. 2000. Air quality and pediatric emergency room visits for asthma in Atlanta, Georgia. Am. J Epidemiol. 151(8):798-810.

Tornqvist, H. et al. Persistent Endothelial Dysfunction in Humans after Diesel Exhaust Inhalation. American Journal ofRespiratory and Critical Care Medicine 176, 395-400 (2007).

Tsai, S-S. et al. 2003. Evidence for an association between air pollution and daily stroke admissions in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Stroke 34:2612-2616.

Van Hee, V. C. et al. Exposure to traffic and left ventricular mass and function: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 179, 827-834 (2009).

Van Hee, V. C. et al. Association oflong-term air pollution with ventricular conduction and repolarization abnormalities. Epidemiology 22,773-780 (2011).

Wellenius, G. A. et al. 2012. Ambient air pollution and the risk of acute ischemic stroke. Arch Intern Med 172(3): 229-234.

Weuve, J. et al. 2012. Exposure to air pollution and cognitive decline in older women. Arch Intern Med 172(3): 219-227.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Health Consultation: Summary of Results of the Duwamish Valley Regional Modeling and Health Risk Assessment, Seattle, Washington. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Atlanta, Georgia. July 14, 2008

US Environmental Protection Agency. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPN600/8-901057F, 2002.

Wellenius, G.A. et al. 2005. Air pollution and hospital admissions for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke among Medicare beneficiaries. Stroke 36:2549-2553. II. Coal Dust References:

Bounds, W. and Johannesson, K. Arsenic Addition to Soils from Airborne Coal Dust Originating at a Major Coal Shipping Terminal. Water, Air and Soil Pollution; October, 2007, Vol. 185 Issue 1-4, p 195.

BNSF Railway. Coal Dust Frequently Asked Questions, 2011.

Cope D, Wituschek W, Poon D et al. 1994. Report on the emission and control of fugitive coal dust from coal trains. Regional Program Report 86 - 11. Environmental Protection Service, Pacific Region British Columbia Canada.

Gottlieb, B., Gilbert, S.G., and Evans, L.G. "Coal Ash: The Toxic Threat to our Health and Environment," Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and Earthjustice. Report is available: http://www. psr .org/resources/coal-ash-the-toxic-threat-to-our-health-and environment.htrnl. September 2010.

Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP 1991. Proctor and Hughes' chemical hazards of the workplace, 3'd Edition. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Karagianes MT, Palmer RF, Busch RH 1981. The effects of inhaled diesel emissions and coal dust in rats. American Industrial Hygiene Journal. Volume 42(5):382-391.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Source of Mercury Emission into the Great Lakes.

Ockenden, W. 2012. http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/report-finds-cancer-risk-coal- 043612330.html

Queensland Govermnent Environmental Protection Agency Report. 2008. Enviromnental evaluation of fugitive coal dust emissions from coal trains Goonyella, Blackwater, and Moura coal rail systems, Queensland rail limited. Connell Hatch and Co. Final Report.

Simpson Weather Associates 1993. Norfolk southern rail emission study: consulting report prepared for Norfolk Southern Corporation. Charlottesville, VA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency/Federal Drug Administration, 2004. Consumption Advice: Joint Federal Advisory for Mercury in Fish, 2004.

Vincent JH, Jones AD, Johnston AL et al. 1987. Accumulation of inhaled mineral dust in the lungs and associated lymph nodes: implications for exposure and dose in occupational settings. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 31 (3):375-393.

Wade W A, Petsonk EL, et al. 2010. Severe occupational pneumoconiosis among West Virginia coal miners: 138 cases of progressive massive fibrosis compensated between 2000 - 2009. Chest 139(6);1459-1463. III Noise Pollution References:

Aasvang, G. et al. A field study of road traffic and railway noise on polysomnographic sleep parameters. 2011. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129 (6).

Babisch W. Noise and Health. Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113: AI4-15.

Berglund B, Lindvall T. (eds.) 1999 WHO Document on Guidelines for Community Noise: 39-94. il Brink M et a!. 2011. An event-related analysis of awakening reactions due to nocturnal church bell noise. Sci Total Environ. 409(24):5210-20.

Bronzaft AL, Dignan E, Bat-Chava Y, & Nadler NB.. Intrusive community noises yield more complaints. Noise Rehabilitation Quarterly, 25: 16-22,34

Carter NL. 1996. Transportation noise, sleep, and possible after-effects. Environ Int. 22: 105-116

Chang, K. et al. 2012. Road traffic noise: annoyance, sleep disturbance, and public health implications. Am J Prev Med.; 43(4):353-60.

Clark C. et a!. 2012. Does traffic-related air pollution explain associations of aircraft and road traffic noise exposure on children's health and cognition? A secondary analysis of the United Kingdom sampled from the RANCH project. Am. J. Epidemio!. 176(4): 327- 337.

Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz OS, Stokols D. 1980. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: Moving from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol; 35: 231-43.

Evans GW. 2003. Ambient noise and cognitive process among primary schoolchildren. Environment and Behavior, 35(6) 725-735.

Evans GW, Hygge S, Bullinger M. 1995. Chronic noise and psychological stress.

, Psychol Sci. 6: 333-8 . , ! , I Evans GW, Lepore SJ. 1993. Non-auditory effects of noise on children: a critical review. Children's Environments. 10: 42-72.

Evans GW, Maxwell L. 1997. Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating effects of language acquisition. Environ Behav. 29: 638-56

I Fidell S, Barber OS, and Schultz TJ. 1991. Updating a dosage-effect relationship for the prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 89: 221- 233.

Halonen, n et al. 2012. Associations between nighttime traffic noise and sleep: the Finnish Public Sector Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 120(10): 1391-1396.

Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Brentnall S, Head J, Berry B, Jiggins M, Hygge S. 2001. The West London School Study: The effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health. Psychol Med. 31: 1385-96.

Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Job RFS, Berglund B, Head J. 2001. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psycho I Med. 31:265-77.

Hall F, Birnie S, Taylor SM, and Palmer J. 1981. Direct comparison of community response to road traffic noise and to aircraft noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 70: 1690-1698.

Hong J et al. 2010. The effects of long-term exposure to railway and road traffic noise on subjective sleep disturbaJ;lce. J Acoust Soc Am. 128(5):2829-35.

Hume, KI. 2011. Noise Pollution: A ubiquitous unrecognized disruptor of sleep? Sleep; 34(1): 7-8. , Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. 2002. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in school children. Psycho I Sci; 13: 469-74.

Ising H, Kruppa B. 2004. Health effects caused by noise: evidence from the literature from the past 25 years. Noise Health. 6: 5-13.

Moudon AV. 2009. Real noise from the urban environment: how ambient community noise affects health and what can be done about it. Am J Prev Med. 37(2):167-71.

Ohrstrom E, Bjorkman M. 1998. Effects of noise-disturbed sleep: A laboratory study on habituation and subjective noise sensitivity. J Sound Vibration. 122: 277-290.

Selander J, Milsson ME, Bluhm G, Rosenlund M, Lindqvist, M Nise G, Pershagen G. 2009. Long-term exposure to road traffic noise and myocardial infarction. Epidemiology. 20(2): 272-279.

Sorensen M et al. 2012. Road traffic noise and incident myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE; 7(6): 1-7.

Sorensen M et al. 2012. Long term exposure to road traffic noise and incident diabetes: a cohort study. Environ Health Persp. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l289/ehp.1205503. S0rensen M, Hvidberg M, Andersen ZJ, Nordsborg RB, Lillelund KG, Jakobsen J, Tj0nneland A, Overvad K, and Raaschou-Nielsen O. 2011. Road traffic noise and stroke: a prospective cohort study. European Heart Journal; 32(6): 737-744.

Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, et al. 1949. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a cross national study. Lancet 2005; 365: 1942-

Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. 2003. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. Brit Med Bull. 68: 243-257.

Suter AH. 1991. Noise and its effects. Administrative Conference ofthe United States.

Goines L, Hagler L. 2007. Noise Pollution: A modern plague. South Med J. 100(3):287-294.

Willich SN, Wegscheider K, Stallmann M, et al. 2006. Noise burden and the risk of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 27: 276-282. Mayor Council

From: Deborah Jones [ Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 201311:50 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Health effects of coal trains Attachments: Coal transport & health -- Delta Mayor & Council.doc; Coal train health effects, Whatcom Skagit-Physicians-Scoping-Requesl.pdf

Office of the Municipal Clerk, Delta;

Please see letter to Delta Mayor & Council (Microsoft Word file) and accompanying attachment (pdf file).

Thank you for your attention.

Deborah Jones

i I

1 321

Mayor Council W: From: Mary-Ann Fulks ~, Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:51 PM . To: Mayor & Council W Cc: [email protected] :li' Subject: My concerns about coal export expansion Agenda ~ 8 ~)' FILE #{)flfjO-OlCOAL 0 C!"l Hello, I am emailing to ask you to please not allow for the expansion of coal shipment of US thermal coal. These trains will significantly increase the noise pollution and exposure to coal dust and diesel fumes in my neighbourhood not to mention the impact on our global community from the burning of thermal coal.

Thank you, Mary-Ann Fulks 11141 Prospect Drive Delta

1 322 ,....• Mayor Council w

From: Mayor Lois Jackson . Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:11 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: coal trains ~ gends I ...... '" filE # a£{:lO--OI CO&L Categories: Printed I

From: Marie Evans Date: Thursday, 13 June, 2013 10:04 AM ~:;~i~~~ To: Tanya Bader Subject: coal trains ~;m~~~t~~3 To Lois Jackson cc' t'M V Y <;'t,...<;'~ ~ 'bodes My name is Marie Evans and I have been a resident of North Delta for 13years .. at 7809 Wiltshire Blvd. I have voted for you in every election and believe your statement when you say you are dedicated to preserving and protecting the quality of life in our beautiful municipality.

I am a single woman who has worked very hard to buy my home and maintain it with pride ... 1 chose to live here because of the wonderful parks, wetlands, Burns Bog and the nature reserves ...

As you may know ,Wiltshire Blvd runs along the Delta Nature Reserve and the Bog ... My house is on the slope and my garden backs onto the nature reserve .. 1 have loved living here .. 1 have introduced many people to this lovely area and some have moved here, amazed that something so beautiful and peaceful exists this close to the noise and congestion of the cities in the lower mainland.1 am always telling people how wonderful it is to live here in my own little sanctuary away from my crazy job and the noises of everyday life ...

Now when I look out and see this magical scene I am filled with panic,sadness,confusion and tears ...

I was aware when I purchased my home that a train track BNSF ran through the bottom of my garden. It took a few weeks to get used to the few trains that passed bY,sometimes with squeaky breaks,cars banging together, whistles blowing.

I am very concerned about the proposed plan to accept American coal at the Fraser Surrey docks... with an estimated 1.6km train running by my home every hour ,7 days a week,24hours a day... How is this going to guarantee our quality of life here in the nature reserve ... The BSNF already has issues bringing trains through the Bog area as I understand just the shear weight of them is causing tracks to adjust to the softness of the ground with a result of a possible derailmenLI don't understand how Delta can possibly consider allowing this big American railway company (owned by Berkshire Hathaway with a never ending supply of money and spin doctors) to bring this toxic coal through such a sensitive area of the Lower Mainland .. .it defies logic!!!

I am devastated at this thoughLwhat will happen to my home?WiIIl be able to sell it?WiII anybody want to live here??Where has my quality of life gone??What happens now to my retirement home that I have put so much money and effort into???I'm sure I'm not alone amongst my neighbours with these thoughts ...

I I I am trusting you as our Mayor of Delta to do the right thing and say NO to the Fraser Surrey Dock coal transfer station ... 1have always been your supporter and believe you will fight for this lovely area to be preserved ,so much work has been done by many people to save Burns Bog and our wetlands. I can't imagine you not wanting to preserve this area ,as well as preventing the health issues that come along with the issues of coal dust to the people of Delta ... 1have asthma, a condition that will worsen with the dust that also cause cardio vascular disease, lung cancer,neurological conditions and stroke ..... This is quality of life???

1 I will be heartbroken if this plan goes through, and am afraid I will not be able to support you in the next election.

Thank you for your attention

Sincerely Marie Evans

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1432/ Virus Database: 3199/5907 - Release Date: 06/13/13

2 .. - 323

Mayor _Council c c From: Mayor Lois Jackson :z:, Sent: Friday, June 14, 20139:08 AM genda ..... To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Fraser Surrey Docks Expansion .A FILE # 0(£05-01 /CO~ "'" ..... ::~~A:?£ ~~~-_ From: Jane Moor Date: Friday, 14 June, 2013 6:59 AM A.. C ;It \\TO~CO (p_ . n To: Tanya Bader comments~~ l>~ ~1!3 Subject: Fraser Surrey Docks Expansion ce. $~~ ~ bodss I am a resident of North Delta and was appalled to hear this week of the proposal for the expansion of the Fraser Surrey Docks to handle 8 million tons of coal a year for export.

I am sure you are already aware of the reasons Delta residents oppose this. Safety concerns due to train traffic. the hypocrisy of trains running through Burns Bog a recently protected area, the health concerns for all of the lower mainland in terms of coal dust emissions from the trains, and the devastating effects these trains will have on our quality of life living in the North Delta area.

I am also aware that this decision does not seem to rest with the local politicians or residents but in the hands of members of a board that have for the most part been elected by the Federal government (far removed from our local concerns)

I am hoping that you can do your best to lend a strong voice to oppose this development and to explore as many avenues possible to stop the coal traffic through our community. I am not aware of the options but it seems that there may be bylaws surrounding noise pollution and traffic, laws that may apply to pollution of a protected area etc. that can be explored.

Sincerely Jane Moor 7801 Wiltshire Blvd Delta B.C.

1 324

Mayor _Council G

From: Ann Wilkie [ '-::z:, Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:18 AM ,.... J>o To: Mayor & Council Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; kerry [email protected] Subject: Stop thermal coal

Please do all you can in your power to speak against the dirty coal to be exported from the Powder River Basin through B.C. It will compromise our health, our resources and add to global warming. Increased cheap coal will increase consumption and add to global warming. There are better solutions.

Also encourage opportunities for dialogue on environmental issues. Surprisingly Ca.citizens are being muzzled in contrast to the U.S.A. Take a visionary stand to the unelected Port Metro Authority of Vancouver. ann wilkie

;;:I\-Ioto - WI' 1()01 5\Yd-.-t CLLVYtL( ,-=liSe v3'1-BNS

1 325

Mayor Council , c:::.. From: Marvin Laturnus :z:, Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:43 PM '""'" To: Mayor & Council r..>J Subject: Opposition to Coal Trains o~ c:o genda I .~ FILE # O{POC()- 0\ JOkG W A ':0 Dear Mayor Jackson and Council,

We don't want the coal trains running through our community and leaving the coal dust, diesel particulate, and noise behind. The known health impacts include respiratory problems (especially in children), strokes, and heart attacks and we don't want our family or community exposed to these known risks. There will also be a huge negative impact on our local Burns Bog site and the Bog is critical for the heath of the whole Metro Vancouver region.

We oppose US coal moving through our BC communities to be shipped overseas. Oregon and Washington have said no, and we should too. Please take action to NOT support the coal trains.

Thank you for your efforts,

Marvin Laturnus

Delta, BC COl 60 J>elc~e5t ])(. J;eHu,~ \!L(0 7SZi.;

1 326 genda, / Mayor _Council .....• A_ FILE # D0'C60- 0\ lOA:L r , From: Emily Perkins c..... Sent: Thursday. June 13, 201312:58 PM TYPEj(e~JM ~tvJt- 2, To: Mayor & Council ..... DEPT _tf ;c? ~(Ai £ W

Dear Mayor and Council, ~~m~en~~~~ ? ~ IS; /11. .1:10 I am a North Delta resident who is concerned about the proposed expansion of the Fraser Docks to export coa=/. If this proposal goes ahead, coal trains 175 cars long will soon be barreling past just a few meters from my home.

As a parent of two young children I am concerned about coal dust, diesel particulate and increased noise. Fraser Docks claims it will be 1 train! day in the first year (this means 2 actually- 1 going past full and one empty in the other direction), but after researching this I see that the number of trains will certainly increase once the port expands. The coal will be uncovered but sprayed- the surfactant will decrease but not eliminate dust. How much coal dust is it acceptable for my 2-year-old to be breathing? Also, after observing coal trains headed to Robert's Bank, I see that when coal trains pass under an overpass the wind causes the dust to billow up in a huge cloud. The trains will be passing under overpasses in my neighbourhood. Also, ifMK gets their proposal through, they intend to build more overpasses (pedestrian ones). My neighbourhood (including many schools) is under threat, my children's health is under threat, and I would like Delta council to stand up for us and oppose this as councilors in other neighbourhoods are doing.

I am also concerned about climate change. How ironic that a beautiful, clean city like Vancouver/lower mainland should be slated to become North America's #1 coal exporter! We should be helping Asia leapfrog over this dirty and archaic energy fonn, not assisting them in destroying the planet's atmosphere! When we look at photos of the air quality in Beijing, we here in the lower mainland must take a long look in the mirror and consider how we are facilitating this.

There is no benefit to Canadians in shipping dirty US coal to Asia. Fraser Docks port expansion will create only 25 jobs according to their proposal. This whole project is merely lining the pockets of billionaires. If the US coastal communities have said no to this, so should we.

I recently heard a doctor from Bellingham explain how 205 health care providers of all political stripe have united in Bellingham to oppose coal exports there. Why should we burden the bodies of our children with this pollutant when they are standing up to protect theirs?

Please let the Port Authority and the Federal government know that we do not want US coal shipped through our neighbourhoods and through Burn's Bog. The Port Authority needs to take responsibility for its actions and study the health and environmental impacts of coal transport before allowing this to happen. Public consultation is also a must. The Federal government needs to stop pandering to big business and protect its citizens, as well as take a stand against needless acceleration of climate change.

Please take a stand on this issue. Delta Council has expressed a number of concerns regarding the proposed project and made specific requests should the project be approved for additional Sincerely, mitigation to what is proposed. Delta has not expressed support for the project and does not have any regulatory authority with respect to the approval or rejection of the proposal. Port Metro Vancouver is the approving authority. Emily Perkins Staff continue to monitor the review of the project, responses from other jurisdictions and will provide new information to Council as it is received. The 10817 Magnolia Crt Metro Vancouver Board recently adopted a resolution, among others, to oppose DeltaBC the proposed project. The City of New Westminster has also passed a formal V4G 3Llp resolution directly opposing1 the proposed project. Comments and concerns have been provided by the Cities of Surrey and White Rock. 327

Mayor Council

From: charles king wendy wulff [ Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11 :37 AM To: Mayor & Council Cc: [email protected] Subject: no coal export expansion please genda ~ FILE # cX@9Q-OlCC'AL . A I I am strongly opposed to this proposal, for a dozen good reasons which you probably don't need to hear. If you do wish to have me expound upon them, please let me know sincerely Wendy Wulff .-" w 9ltPi(p fVIc.-'t:'.eV'lble ~ c..... c ~0-{, \3<::-- :z:, \fY:A olt3 .

1 .-" 328 w c... genda. I\A 'C:: FILE # (JOY:/) -OICOnL-I . :z: A Mr. & Mrs. D.J.Shenton ..:.. 11564 - 97th Avenue co Surrey, B.C. V3V 2B6 ~ June 12th 2013 ':" TYPE:32~M ~4E- To the Honourable Mayors' Dianne Watts & LOis Jackson: ilEPT: ttiif " Z *E AT #: II1Jlo\ _ Be: Coal and the Fraser Surrey Dock cemmK~ ~~ ~r?:' Since June 161: 1958 we have lived at this address,which is on the hill above the Fraser Surrey Docks. We enjoy a clear beautiful view of the North Shore mountains and hoped to continue to do so in the future. The news that the Fraser Surrey Docks are planning to place a coal transfer plant on their property that straddles both Surrey and Delta is beyond comprehension.

We have been to meetings about this issue and we believe that this project should not be allowed to go ahead for several reasons.

Coal dust will emit from this venture regardless of how much they proclaim it will not. The children and everyone else should not be exposed to the possibility of Black Lung, a terrible health problem.

The prevailing wind which is always present near water will bring more unwanted particles of dust in the air. We frequently need to wash the exterior of our home because of diesel fuel film from the docks and from the trucks that travel at the bottom of the hill. This is going to increase again what with the South perimeter road. Why should the docks be allowed to further decrease the well being of this community?

This coal first off is from the United States. As you must be well aware they themselves do not want these trains going through their communities and have made it known to their governments.

China as is well known does not seem to care about the damages done through the burning of fossil fuel and as seen in many a broadcast most of their citizens walk around with face masks on. Burning of coal is hurting the health of all people world wide and is harming the environment beyond our wildest thoughts.

We strongly urge you to listen to the people you serve and say NO to the coal transfer station at Fraser Surrey Docks.

Respectfu lIy Dave & Joan Shenton MAYOR'S OFFICE JUN 1 7 2013 RECEIVED DeltaDelta Council Council has has expressed expressed a anumber number of of concerns concerns regarding regarding the the proposed proposed project project and and made made specific specific requestsrequests should should the the project project be be approved approved for for additional additional mitigation mitigation to to what what is is proposed. proposed. Delta Delta has has not not expressedexpressed support support for for the the project project and and does does not not have have any any regulatory regulatory authority authority with with respect respect to to the the approval orapproval rejection or of rejection the proposal. of the Portproposal. Metro Port Vancouver Metro Vancouver is the approving is the approvingauthority. authority. Staff continue Staff to continue monitor theto monitorreview of the the review project, of responsesthe project, from responses other jurisdictions from other jurisdictionsand will provide and newwill provideinformation new to Council asinformation it is received. to Council The Metro as it Vancouver is received. Board The Metrorecently Vancouver adopted aBoard resolution, recently among adopted others, a resolution, to oppose the proposedamong others, project. to Theoppose City the of New proposed Westminster project. has The also City passed of New a Westminsterformal resolution has also directly passed opposing a formal the proposedresolution project. directly Commentsopposing the and proposed concerns project. have been Comments provided and by the concerns Cities ofhave Surrey been and provided White Rock.by the Cities of Surrey and White Rock...... • 329 r..oJ c.... i .....,

"'""~ Deborah Jones 'w:::> 5612 Fairlight Crescent genda ~ ..... FILE # O!oOCO -0\ rCOAL U:l Delta BC V4E 1B4 A June 13, 2013

Mayor Lois Jackson 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent kfl«~~~ ~«QvJlj. Delta BC tt~cP "I- 'c'ti tIZ 11]'070 I' . 11 WiAAc.lI Dear Mayor Jackson: ~PqV-.{~ M~of -J~ is/'l cc. p,.,/ V Re: Proposed new coal train route & Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminal ~I(~

I'm appealing to you directly to oppose this ill-advised project. While I understand that Delta has no official say in the matter, on the other hand I also know that your personal opinion carries a lot of moral authority in Delta and in the region. You also have a fighting spirit, which I have seen quite a few times in action.

If this project were greatly beneficial to Be's economy - such as the Neptune Terminal for BC metallurgical coal - I could see the logic of supporting it. But it is not beneficial. The costs to human health and the environment will far outweigh the benefits of a few jobs, and will grow continually as the nefarious effects of coal dust build up over time.

If an oil pipeline company were to say to us, "Yes, our pipeline leaks oil along its entire route, but we've cut the losses by 85%," would you be satisfied? I doubt it. If you then asked, "Exactly how much do you lose in Delta?" and they said, "Oh, it's negligible, you can just monitor it yourself, on Delta's dime," wouldn't you be outraged?

And yet that's exactly what BNSF is dOing. When I asked them at the recent open house if they are monitoring their current coal dust losses on the way to Westshore Terminal, they suggested that I get my local government to do it!

MAYOR'S OFFICE JUN 1 3 2013 RECEIVED Their arrogance is further revealed in their cavalier behaviour toward Cougar Creek, where they illegally dumped a huge amount of rip-rap in a futile attempt to shore up their sinking nearby track. (That poorly-placed track will sink even more, if coal trains use it.) They'll be in court next February - both for the dumping itself, and for doing it at a time when fish are highly vulnerable, rather than during the "fishery window".

North Delta's rain gardens, which you have so strongly championed, are now diverting about 13 million litres of rainwater runoff per year away from direct entry into Cougar and other North Delta creeks. Thanks to you, Delta Engineering, Delta School District, and thousands of hours of volunteer labour by students and local reSidents, we've taken a significant step forward in tackling the non-point source pollution caused by oil drips, tailpipe toxins, cigarette butts, plastic litter, etc washing into our watercourses. To then turn around and allow coal dust and vastly-increased diesel particulate to pollute not only our creeks but also our recreational trails and residential neighbourhoods would be several giant steps backward.

Whether you plan to run for Mayor again, to seek another position or to retire, your opposition to this project would absolutely guarantee you a blaze of glory and gratitude in Delta!

Delta ... ours to preserve by hand and heart ....

Sincerely, DJ?~~ Deborah Jones Rain Gardens Coordinator Cougar Creek Stream keepers (North Delta / Surrey BC)

330 genda fi FILE #Cli?fjJOICOM TYPE Ma or _Council i

From: Shaun Garvey A.I.#·: ~. J 2>i~\ Co ·n ~ Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5: 12 PM Commenf{:, \tl.CI-l , To: Mayor & Council 1J"11t& ~ IS "/I.?, ::O Subject: Proposed FSD Coal Transfer Facility & Corporation of Delta Council meeting, JGne-10, 2013 a;l .0 CC Good afternoon, (.oJ Ul I had an opportunity to watch the entire live broadcast of June 10's regular Delta Council Meeting, as a party very interested in Council's position regarding the proposed coal transfer terminal at Fraser Surrey Dock (FSD) and someone whom has corresponded with Council on this matter before. Several statements made by Mayor Lois Jackson and Council members on the topic struck me as disappointing, confusing and misinformed. Some, I agree with.

Councillor Bruce McDonald noted that both New Westminster and Surrey councils re opposed to the project ond that he saw little benefit to Canada from the handling of us coal destined for Asia. He also stated that "we (Delta Council) are making an assumption that the terminal is a "done deal". Th ese statements are on the surface correct. However, unsubstantiated reports (since access to the site is restricted) suggest that ;. construction of the coal receiving pits and other infrastructure has commenced at FSD and is approximately 50% completed. This would lead anyone to assume that the facility IS a "done deal" and that even the most pathetic attempts at public consultation done by BNSF and FSD or by Port Metro Vancouver have been window-dressing, pointless and not in good faith. Apparently, the Governor of Wyoming toured the proposed facility site by tug and helicopter this past weekend, again suggesting that this is a "done deal". What is Council's position in light ofthis new information?

Mayor Jackson noted that there are "global implications" associoted with this proposed terminal and wondered how the "US is deoling with this". The 104 page report compiled by independent US agencies, taking into account feedback from tens ofthousands of interested parties to the proposed Ferndale, WA coal port facility, clearly noted that one of the primary factors that led to the demise of that project was the "global implications" of contributing to green-house gas emissions by shipping "dirty" coal to China for burning as fuel The US, as has been habit of late, especially along the west coast, took a stand and led, rather than followed, electing to reject the proposed port project. Will Delta Council exhibit some positive leadership on this issu e?

Councillor Robert Campbell stated that coal is a "legal commodity" and we can engage in a "philosophical discussion" regarding the burning af fossil fuels, versus the use of natural gas. He also noted that the "reality is that a significant part of the world uses coal for energy" and that "we are not going to change THA T overnight" Respectfully, I again ask is Delta Council prepared to lead rather than follow here? Councillor Campbell's argument is very si milar to those put forth by those opposed to recycling or composting or any other matter that started with just one person, one city, one province or one country realizing that we are a global community and if we are not part of the so lution, we are part of the problem; a movement that abides by the basic human prinCiple that "one person can make a difference". He went on to say that "we are a resource economy invested in this (the coal) industry". While this is correct, as Councillor SylVia Bishop so aptly (and kudos for that) stated, "this is not our resource" but US coal from Wyoming. She also noted that the Delta Environmental Advisory Committee had "said no to this (the potential facility)". If a Committee reporting to Council is opposed to the transfer facility, why is Council seem ingly ambivalent on this matter?

Mayor Jackson suggested that Council needed to see the "science" relating to the effectiveness of coal dust suppression "treatments" so that residents "along the rail line" would feel secure that

1 Council had considered such "science" prior to determining its stance on the project. Councillor Campbell stated, as has been the consistent Council message, that BNSF should be required to re spray inbound coal trains with another application of dust suppressant prior to the trains entering Canada. He wondered aloud if Port Metro Vancouver could "hold BNSF to this precondition". First, 'I many more Delta residents than those directly adjacent to the rail line will be negatively impacted should this facility be developed and operate. Second, regardless of the science relating to the suggested effectiveness (figures of 95 - 98% were quoted) of coal dust suppressants, any such "treatment" would have lost its effectiveness by the time a unit train had got to Oregon, far less Canada . While I understand that this is the very reason that Council wants to ensure that "any contracts entered into between Port Metro Vancouver, FSD and BNSF" include re-spray as a precondition, Council has NO opportunity legally or contractually to bind any party to such a precondition. Port Metro Vancouver will not be signing any contracts with any party. Permits will be (and have already been) submitted by FSD for the construction of the facility. Port Metro Vancouver's interests in this project are only as they relate to adequate environmental and safety protocols for such a facility and leaseholders on any federally regulated lands that they manage on behalf of the federal government. The only contracts that will be signed relating to this facility will be between FSD, as transfer facility operator, and the shipper of the coal; the BNSF and the shipper; the Texada Island port operator and the shipper. Again, Delta Council has no opportunity whatsoever to influence wordings contained in such contracts since Delta Council has no legal authority over any party to such contracts. To suggest otherwise is folly and misleading to the public you serve. Nor does Port Metro Vancouver have any legal right to dictate contract language or terms & conditions. Bottom line, there will be NO additional application of coal dust suppressant on unit trains bound for FSD unless the three key proponents to this project choose to do so, which WILL NOT HAPPEN . Therefore, North Delta properties will be blanketed with coal dust on a regular basis and tax payers, families and visitors to our City will routinely breath in noxious dust and particulates.

Previously, I had asked that Council take a firm position opposing this facility, as other municipalities have already done. What I witnessed at the Council meeting was vacillating and a total lack of leadership on this issue. Delta stands to reap nothing of value from this facility. The environment will lose. North Delta residents will see property values decrease, some significantly, and will suffer the detrimental effects from coal dust, poor air quality from other particulates (dust, diesel) and reduced health and quality of life. Surely, these are worth joining your municipal colleagues and fighting against, even if this IS a "done deal". Since the most recent Delta Council meeting, Metro Vancouver, which Delta does not belong to, has reiterated its opposition to the transfer facility. This issue is NOT the right one for Delta to stand alone on. It's time for Delta Council to be united and take a formal stand against the FSD proposal.l had an opportunity to watch the live broadcast of last week's most recent Delta Council Meeting, as a party very interested in Council's position regarding the proposed coal transfer terminal at Fraser Surrey Dock (FSD) . Several statements made by Mayor Lois Jackson and Council members on the topic struck me as disappointing, confusing and misinformed. Some, I agree with.

Councillor Bruce McDonald noted that both New Westminster and Surrey councils re opposed to the project and that he saw little benefit to Canada from the handling of us coal destined for Asia. He also stated that "we (Delta Council) are making an assumption that the terminal is a "done deal". These statements are on the surface correct. However, unsubstantiated reports (since access to the site is restricted) suggest that construction ofthe coal receiving pits and other infrastructure has commenced at FSD and is approximately

2 50% completed. This would lead anyone to assume that the facility IS a "done deal" and that even the most pathetic attempts at public consultation done by BNSF and FSD or by Port Metro Vancouver have been window-dressing and pointless. Apparently, the Governor of Wyoming toured the proposed facility site by tug and helicopter this past weekend, again suggesting that this is a "done deal". What is Council's position in light of this new information?

Mayor Jackson noted that there are "global implications" associated with this proposed terminal and wondered how the "US is dealing with this". The 104 page report compiled by independent US agencies, taking into account feedback from tens of thousands of interested parties to the proposed Ferndale, WA coal port facility, clearly noted that one of the primary factors that led to the demise of that project was the "global implications" of contributing to green-house gas emissions by shipping "dirty" coal to China for burning as fuel The US, as has been habit of late, took a stand and led, rather than followed, electing to reject the proposed port project. Will Delta Council exhibit some positive leadership on this issue?

Councillor Robert Campbell stated that coal is a "legal commodity" and we can engage in a "philosophical discussion" regarding the burning of fossil fuels, versus the use of natural gas. He also noted that the "reality is that a significant part of the world uses coal for energy" and that "we are not going to change THA T overnight" Respectfully, I again ask is Delta Council prepared to lead rather than follow here? Councillor Campbell's argument is very similar to those put forth by those opposed to recycling or composting or any other matter that started with just one person, one city, one province or one country realizing that we are a global community and if you are not part of the so lution, you are part of the problem; a movement that abides by the basic human principle that "one person can make a difference". He went on to say that "we are a resource economy invested in this (coal) industry". While this is correct, as Councillor Sylvia Bishop so aptly (and kudos for that) stated, "this is not our resource" but coal from Wyoming. She also noted that the Delta Environmental Advisory Committee had "said no to this (the potential facility)". If a Committee reporting to Council is opposed to the transfer facility, why is Council seemingly ambivalent on this matter?

Mayor Jackson suggested that Council needed to see the "science" relating to the effectiveness of coal dust suppression "treatments" so that residents "along the rail line" would feel secure that Council had considered such "science" prior to determining its stance on the project. Councillor Campbell stated, as has been the consistent Council message, that BNSF should be required to re spray inbound coal trains with another application of dust suppressant prior to the trains entering Canada. He wondered aloud if Port Metro Vancouver could "hold BNSF to this precondition". First, many more Delta residents regardless of the science relating to the suggested effectiveness (figures of 95 - 98% were quoted) of coal dust suppressants, any such "treatment" would have lost its effectiveness by the time a unit train had got to Oregon, far less Canada. While I understand that this is the reason that Council wants to ensure that "any contracts entered into between Port Metro Vancouver, F5D and BNSF" include re-spray as a precondition, Council has NO opportunity legally or contractually to bind any party to such a precondition. Port Metro Vancouver will not be signing any contracts with any party. Permits will be (and have already been) submitted by FSD for the construction of the facility. Port Metro Vancouver's interests in this project are only as they relate to adequate environmental and safety protocols for such a facility and leaseholders on any federally regulated lands that they own. The only contracts that will be signed relating to this facility will be between FSD, as transfer facility operator, and the US coal shipper; the BNSF and the shipper; the Texada Island port operator and the shipper. Again, Delta Council has no opportunity whatsoever to influence wordings contained in such contracts

3 since Delta Council has no legal authority over any party to such contracts. Nor does Port Metro Vancouver. Bottom line, there will be no additional application of coal dust suppressant on unit trains bound for FSD unless the three key proponents to this project do so, which WILL NOT HAPPEN .

Previously, I had asked that Council take a firm position opposing this facility, as other municipalities have already done. What I witnessed at the Council meeting was vacillating and a total la ck of leadership on this issue. Delta stands to reap nothing of value from this facility. The environment will lose. North Delta residents will see property values decrease, some significantly, and will suffer the detrimental effects from coa l dust, poor air quality from other particulates (dust, diesel) and reduced health and quality of life. Surely, these are worth joining your municipal colleagues and fighting against, even ifthis IS a "done deal". Since the most recent Delta Council meeting, Metro Vancouver, which Delta does not belong to, has reiterated its opposition to the transfer facility. This issue is NOT the right one for Delta to stand alone on. It's time for Delta Council to be united and take a formal stand against the FSD proposal.

Respectfully submitted,

Shaun Garvey, CRM 11144 Hardy Place Delta, BC V4C7W3

Delta Council has expressed a number of concerns regarding the proposed project and made specific requests should the project be approved for additional mitigation to what is proposed. Delta has not expressed support for the project and does not have any regulatory authority with respect to the approval or rejection of the proposal. Port Metro Vancouver is the approving authority. Staff continue to monitor the review of the project, responses from other jurisdictions and will provide new information to Council as it is received. The Metro Vancouver Board recently adopted a resolution, among others, to oppose the proposed project. The City of New Westminster has also passed a formal resolution directly opposing the proposed project. Comments and concerns have been provided by the Cities of Surrey and White Rock. rl 331 DeltaDelta Council Council has has expressed expressed a number a number of ofconcerns concerns regarding regarding the the proposed proposed project project and and made made specific specific requests shouldrequests the projectshould bethe approved project be for approved additional for mitigation additional to mitigation what is proposed. to what is proposed. Delta has not Delta expressed has not supportexpressed for the support project for and the does project not andhave does any notregulatory have any authority regulatory with authority respect towith the respect approval to theor rejection of theapproval proposal. or Portrejection Metro of Vancouverthe proposal. is the Port approving Metro Vancouver authority. is Staffthe approving continue toauthority. monitor the Staff review continue of the project,to monitor responses the review from other of the jurisdictions project, responses and will from provide other new jurisdictions information and to will Council provide as it new is received. The Metroinformation Vancouver to CouncilBoard recently as it is received. adopted aThe resolution, Metro Vancouver among others, Board to recently oppose adopted the proposed a resolution, project. The Cityamong of New others, Westminster to oppose has the also proposed passed aproject. formal resolutionThe City of directly New Westminster opposing the has proposed also passed project. a formal Commentsresolution and directly concerns opposing have beenthe proposed provided project. by the Cities Comments of Surrey and and concerns White Rock.have been provided by the Cities of Surrey and White Rock. 332

Mayor _Council c From: Joan Green [ ::z:, Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 7:49 PM ..... To: Mayor & Council c..n Cc: Ted Murphy; [email protected] Subject: Smell on Tsawwassen Beach genda June 14, 2013 A FILE # C),a?uOO -QO

Mayor and Council:

You may reca ll that years ago Beach Grove suffered from a very pungent smell emanating from along the shore of Boundary Bay. That was resolved, somehow, and I cannot recall how, and it no longer happens there . •

Now, after 40 years of my living here without this occurring, it is Tsa wwassen Beach's turn, and the smell is truly disgusting. What has happened to this shoreline to result in this stench? And what ca n be done about it?

As I contemplate my Tax bill of $9,000 plus, try to keep my house clean inside and out despite the coal dust and diesel particulate, and now find it revolting to be outside with this smell, I really have to wonder what is happening here. Can you give me any information in this regard and can you do anything to give us some relief?

Thank you for your attention and I hope to hear something positive from you. If my concern should be directed elsewhere, to the Province or the Port, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Joan Green 340 Tsawwassen Beach Road Delta, BC V4M 4C9 cc: Delta Optimist

Staff have replied to Ms. Green advising that the odour likely relates to decomposing aquatic vegetation. At the time of staff's site visit, no unusual odours were noted. Staff has provided Ms. Green a contact at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations who is responsible for this area. Beach Grove does continue to experience a odours from decomposing aquatic vegetation from time to time.

1 333

DJ Mitchell II BNSF Railway Company RA/LVVAY Assistant Vice President P.O. Box 961034 Passenger Operations 2600 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76161--0034 (817) 352-1230 (817) 234-7454 [email protected]

16 June 2013

The Honorable Lois E. Jackson genda Mayor A.1. FILE # I?i-!WO ( The Corporation of De Ita 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, British Columbia, Canada V4K3E2

Dear Mayor Jackson:

I apologize for taking so long to comment on the resolution included with your letter dated March 22, 2013 to our Chairman, Mr. Matt Rose.

From the perspective of the BNSF Railway, the opening of a passenger train station is a decision best left to the sponsors of the passenger rail service that will call at it. In the case of a possible station at Blaine, Washington, the State of Washington's Department of Transportation sponsors the service operating between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. and would serve as the lead public agency in any evaluation of a new station, based on system needs and supported in their analysis by Amtrak and BNSF.

Nonetheless, I nnderstand the thinking behind the resolution you sent to Mr. Rose. If a discussion ofthe opportunities and difficulties oflocating a station near the US/Canadian border is something you and others would find useful, we could plan a meeting during one ofthe two times I expect to be in the Pacific Northwest between now and September I s'. Please understand that if you ask for a meeting, I would ask several people from the Washington State Department of Transportation to join me. You should feel free to invite someone from the Provincial Government, if you wish.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Staff attended a regional/state meeting on May 30th organized by the Washington State Department of Transportation on the possibility of a passenger train stop in Blaine.

DJ Mitchell II Passenger Operations TYPE:'ti~ %wJ~ MAYOR'S OFFICE DEPT: xxxxxxxxt\ s\-C f ENG JUN 2 1 2013 A.T#: tll'iS'L RECEIVED Commenl&: Jet l"1 IS f ,3 ~"j ,,1M .Nl(ef,~ '1-( ef~ AT 1\10 '-\\.0 0 From the office oj' THE CORPORATlON OF DELTA The Mayor, Lois E. Jackson

March 22, 2013

Matthew K. Rose Chairman and Chief Executive Officer BNSF Railway Company 2650 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth, TX76131-2B30

Dear Mr. Rose,

Re: Blaine Washington Passenger Rail Station

At the March 11, 2013 Regular Meeting, Delta Council considered the enclosed report regarding Blaine Passenger Rail Station and resolved as follows:

THA T Council submit a letter to the State of Washington, the United States Consul General to Vancouver and the BNSF Raf/way Company to support an Amtrak stop in Blaine, Washington.

In accordance with the above resolution, this letter serves as an endorsement from· the Corporation of Delta for a commuter Amtrak rail stop in Blaine, Washington. A rail stop at this location could potentially serve apprOXimately 750,000 residents living in Surrey, Delta, Langley and Abbotsford.

Enclosure cc: Delta Council George V. Harvie, Chief Administrative Officer steven Lan, Director of Engineering

. 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta, British Columbia, Canada V4K 3E2 Telo 604 946-3210 Fax, 604946-6055 E-mall, [email protected] bc.ca 334 genda 96 A FILE # 01 L\:00-

North Delta Lions Club - President Terry Rigby North Delta 2014 Family Day Parade Chair- Lion Pritpal Dhamrat Mayor Lois Jackson

24 June 2013

I had the plea~ure of speaking briefly with Mayor Jackson yesterday on arrival at Burnsview and at North Delta Community Park after the parade. Mayor Jackson wanted her "Thank You!" passed onto members and volunteers ofthe North Delta Lions Club for a wonderful Family Day event. She remarked that there were more parade observers along the parade route this year and was advised that "if all parade entries arrived with a full complement as registered there were over 900 people actually in the parade" .

In spite of all the planning and work by Delta Police, Delta Engineering, Delta Parks Recreation and Culture; staging the North Delta Family Day Parade out of Burnsview remains challenging. The traffic situations that could result from using Burnsview for the parade were discussed and addressed at a joint meeting when the decision was made to move the parade from Sungod Arena. Engineering Road Plans and a permitted parade vehicle structure with designated marshaling and specific participant drop-off areas were adopted and implemented in the parade registration process. The goal was to provide all concerned with the safest possible corridor for the event.

Fortunately our joint plans and operational methods have significantly reduced the number of incidents. Unfortunately we have not been able to capture the few individuals or groups that, for whatever reasons or excuses, operate outside the established parameters. Three near misses involving vehicles on 112'h Street at the entrance to Burnsview School could have easily resulted in an accident and brought an early close to Family Day. Burnsview may never be the best place to start a parade.

The parade started on time and was off the road in good time. There were two glitches coming out of the staging area as one group jumped the queue and another failed to start on time. Both glitches caused confusion for other participants; the parade marshals reacted quickly and got everything back into a resemblance of order. The judges (also parade Marshals) then resumed awarding ribbons, the TV announcer and parade marshal atthe disassembly point were able to make sense ofthe new order however, four parade entries did not receive their cherished North Delta Family Day parade ribbon.

Many thanks again to Arvind Sharma and Stephanie Cooke; significant players for Delta Corp that help , i everyone make North Delta Family Day Parade a success. I !

Lion Doug Lucas North Delta Family Day Chair 2013 MAYOR'S OFFICE Traffic control was successfully handled by a private JUN 24 2013 company with certified traffic control personnel. The writer has noted significant improvements in overall traffic RECEIVED management but has identified some possible improvements which will be reviewed in next year's event. 335 Ai genda '"'" E!LE # OdOlq.o-ao Mayor _Council

From: Mary Clark Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:23 AM To: Mayor & Council Cc: Sean Clark Subject: Trees cut down on 116th xxxxx ENG

Dear Mayor and Council,

2 beautiful cherry trees have been cut down infront of the Temple (formerly United Church) on 116th between 92 and 94. There is one remaining but I am sure it's just a matter of time until it comes down as well. Earlier this year, the owners of the property pruned the trees so dramatically, there wasn't a leafleft on them. However, much to our surprise, they survived. Now it seems the owners are talcing a more dramatic approach to getting rid of these trees.

I am curious, was there a permit issued? Do they need one? Were these diseased? Are they obligated to replace them? Please advise.

It seems backwards that while Delta is about to spend money improving the looks of 116 street, the owners of the temple would be allowed to make it an eye sore. I have attached a photo from this morning.

1 Thank you in advance for your response,

Mary Morrison-Clark 9457 116 street The trees were removed under permits and the owners are committed to replanting additional trees as part of Sent from my iPhone their landscaping plan which is to accompany a proposed modification to their existing building.

2 336

Mayor Council ';z;- From: Greg Charlton [ ....., Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:29 PM W To: Mayor & Council Cc: Engineering Subject: 110th Avenue Agenda ir~ FI LE # OOo.l6-S0

Dear: Mayor and Council Members

I'm writing to you to express the frustrations of myself and many of my neighbors regarding the ongoing construction project being carried on by the Corporation of Delta on 110 Avenue between 84th and 82"d. A couple months back I had emailed engineering regarding traffic and site safety and the slow progress of the work. I received an email from the engineering department addressing my concerns but not really satisfying me.

It has got to the point now where somebody has to stand up and take you to task on this matter. I have just returned from a walk on 110th and have taken a number of pictures showing some of the safety issues. The first picture shows the piles of materials on the side of the roadway with no cones and barricades to warn drivers at night; you can see the piles of reflective barricades and pylons on the ground. This is the way it was left tonight; they were not knocked down. Picture number 2 shows the backhoe with pylons marking it. The next picture sho ws a Bobcat with no pylons or reflective barricades . Another picture sho ws pipe and hydrants laying on the ground without any safety protection to prevent anyone from walking into them in the dark. Another picture shows a pavement pipe poorly marked on the side of the roadway. Another picture shows ba rricades and pylons sitting unused on the front la wn of a home that could be used to mark some of these hazards. Another picture shows a steep drop at a sidewalk that should have been protected. In another picture the excavator and the roller have been marked properly, sho wing inconsistency in safety practices. In another picture a piece of %" copper pipe runs into a catch basin and is very poorly protected and a major trip hazard . Another picture shows an open excavation around a hydrant that is poorly protected with caution tape.

I have a good friend who is in this business and is appalled at the way the site is left at night and on the weekends. He ha s told me that a private contractor working for a city or municipality would never be allowed to leave a site like this and that this job has taken a ridiculous amount of time to complete the underground portion of this project. I was told by engineering that the underground portion would be complete by the end of May and the balance of the project by the end of August. Is this still the time frame for completion?

The frustration of our neighborhood is growing day by day. Our street 109b has turned into a race strip with frustrated commuters returning home and speeding down our once quiet street. I have heard many complaints regarding the flaggers and the lack of productivity from the Delta crews. Did this project go out to bid? As tax payers we are not getting good value for our tax dollars and many of my neighbors are very unhappy and disappointed with Delta.

'1 I respectfully request a formal reply to the above questions, including some sort of assurance from the Corporation of I Delta that these safety issues will be addressed immediately and consistently until this project is complete.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Greg Charlton 8322 109B Street

1 I ,[ !

I !, i 3 L 5 -I

,- 7 B 9 '. c ·1

11 I I -!

t ,,

337 (' J.~\:,"l ~?, ~'" ,...." "_,-,,,i;:':;,:::'\~~,,,,=~=,~~~.:;~' 1:""':1 Mayor Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:32 AM IJ:) To: Mayor & Council """ Cc: Steven Lan .. gejvJ)o~~~5QN\Jc- Subject: FW: Making it worse f:J\J~1 .

i \!'fq)!

From: Jim Nelson '''''In" ,n ~~v~rJJ;~f 13 Date: Tuesday, 18 June, 2013 4:59 PM To: Tasneem Ali , Ian Paton , Jeannie Kanakos , Bruce McDonald , Robert Campbell , Sylvia Bishop , Scott Hamilton Cc: Subject: Making it worse

Mayor and Council,

Steven Lan was good enough to return my phone call today and answer my questions re the gate et all. I have to complement Steven for his honesty, directness and helpfulness. However the answers and conclusions are very troubling.

The closure of River Road was only a partial idea in 2006 never fully explored. In fairness to the council of the day, all eyes were focused on the SFPR itself so now is the time to look at in detail.

Mr. Lam did confirm that the majority of the traffic heading from River Road to Nordel would be coming up Brooke Road! So the proposal is to spend a half-million dollars to run all of River Road's traffic past a school and through a quiet residential area? Really?!! If that is the case I think you might as well rename Brooke to the 'Nordel Connector'.

Rush hours drivers are not a calm or a patient group and they are most certainly not safe. Would you send your kids or grandkids to walk on River Road today? That is just what Brooke will be like'once all the commuters find it out. Does it make sense to make a residential area more dangerous? Especially by a school?

I asked Mr. Lam if there had been any traffic studies done to predict what the loads would be post the SFPR opening. He stated the area was too small to accurately predict. So ...... why do we need gates if we really don't know what the traffic patterns will look like?

Prudence would say:

Do not divert the traffic into reSidential areas. Period! River Road is still an arterial road and it is built for it. If traffic calming is needed on River Road it can be added but not until the traffic patterns have settled down. Add several speed bumps to Brooke. I have lived near it for many years and racing, tire screeching and stop sign running has never stopped (Having the occasional cop show up for an hour helps very little.) In fact, now would be a good time to get rid of those very dangerous blind right hand turn lanes at Brooke and Nordel. Do not install the gates!

Regards, On June 10, 2013, Council directed staff to proceed with a public consultation process including a community survey and public1 information meeting. Staff spoke with the resident and his responses will be included in the overall survey summary. Jim Nelson 10959 McAdam Rd.

2 338 • Mayor _Council r.... 1 -e:: Co From: Mike Menzies :z:, Sent: Tuesday, June 25,20132:39 PM roJ To: Mayor & Council r.J'I Subject: Traffic Safety - Speed genda - A FILE # 06310 -as

Mayor and Council

I have the opportunity daily to witness the excessive speed of vehicles travelling on 12th Ave. The traffic conditions are exasperated by the number of arterial roads entering 12 th Ave. between 56'h Ave. and 53a Ave. there are 12 points of entry or exit plus a number of bus stops, pedestrian controlled crosswalks and intersection crosswalks as well a very active fire hall # 2. We continue to see pressure on the existing parking spaces, and roadways in Tsawwassen village and continued development which will challenge the existing infrastructure. I note a recent public safety initiative, the fence in the planted area on 12'h ave. reducing j-walkers transitting the traffic lanes. I would like to see the Delta Engineering and Safety departments to monitor existing conditions with an eye on traffic calming and reducing the speed of vehicles travelling on this section of 12'h ave. As we watch the village density increasing, aging demographic in many cases the aged walk or move about on scooters, we must ensure community plans include traffic calming initiatives, well marked crosswalks, appropriate lighting on sidewalks.

I !

Mike Menzies CUSTOM DESIGN + CONSTRUCTION

~ENORAH TRUE TO

103· 546112 AVENUE TSAWWASSEN. BC, V4M 282. CANADA

Engineering will take speed measurements along 12 Avenue and coordinate with Delta Police on enforcement. Staff will respond to the resident.

1 339

Mayor Council ':.... i , From: Lynn Fennell N Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:39 PM C:T"I To: Mayor & Council o~ Subject: transit in delta co W N Since no one at translink is listening or doing anything about this problem!

Again I have to complain. I was waiting at Scott Road for the 314 bus and it did not show up at 6: 17 as it was supposed to. This happens all the time. The bus was sitting resting and then just left with 10 people waiting at the bus stop. This has been going on for 3 years and to make it worse my bus stop has been removed at centre street so I not only have a 2 hr bus ride home but I now have to walk 1 hour to reach my house because I have to get off at Delwood Dr and walk home which is hard for a 60 yr old at the end of a 12 hr day. I am paying 170 for a bus pass and getting no service. I want a refund!@ or i want service for my money.

I was talking to someone at City of Delta who said they were going to put a bus stop closer to centre street (NOT)

Lynn Fennell genda o?-:> FILE # f?Y='}D- ; a.]\j-l 3r\ecuJes, ~ A 1'x::l+u .

River Road in North Delta is currently under provincial jurisdiction in relation to the construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR). Staff have been liaisoning with the Province, the SFPR Concessionaire (Fraser Transportation Group) and Coast Mountain Bus Company regarding bus stops along River Road. They have committed to reinstalling the bus stop on River Road at Centre Street and installing a new bus stop on River Road west of Delwood Drive. Staff will continue to work with these external agencies with activation of the bus stops anticipated by mid-July.

1 340

Mayor Council

From: TasneemAli :z:, Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:48 PM N To: Mayor & Council genda -.::I Subject: FW: River rd A FilE # Cfj;).70 -30

From: Ted Lewis < Date: Thursday, 27 June, 2013 12:54 PM To: Tasneem Ali Cc: Steven Lan Subject: River rd

Mayor Jackson and Delta Council:

I am one of the concerned residents that lives on River Road, in the Sunbury neighbourhood. I have lived at 8898 Delwood Dr N Delta for 16 years. My wife is a teacher in North Delta and she volunteers with Girl Guides and Sparks in Delta. I coach soccer with Surdel and work at Delta Cedar Sawmill. My daughters 7 and 10 go to Brooke elementry on Delwood. As you can see my life is firmly planted here in our community.

We've dealt with construction on this road for close to a decade. The construction started when you guys first cut all my bushes out along side my home and moved the road closer to my house. We also lost the shoulder where people used to park. Sidewalks were put in, and you resurfaced the road. The speed at which traffic flows now is very dangerous. We've had a death because of speeding and I myself have witnessed many accidents. I once had someone stop on the road so i could turn onto river rd. That person was consequently rear-ended. Because of that accident, another rear ending occurred 12 cars back.... YES two in a row because of speeding. That should give you an idea of the rate of speed they travel at.

We were told finally that a gate is going up and the nightmare will stop!

. BUT alas! Now we are told there is no gate going in because residents in our neighbourhood, who dont have to deal with the day to day hustle on River rd, have opposed it. Their main reason for this opposition is to shave a couple of minutes off their commute. I work at the Della Cedar sawmill on the otherside of the proposed gate and im prepared to drive around everyday just to get our community back. I've seen the protest list and was somewhat surprized at how many addresses were not in our neibourhood.

Can we not do something about this? What about the tax payer money already spent on the gate, wasted because of uninformed people who are just worried about a slightly quicker drive. They must know that the South Fraser Perimeter road will reduce the congestion on Nordel way. If the gate at Centre is opposed, can it not be installed slightly before? Perhaps between Terrace and Centre somewhere? That way the local residents can still use Center Street to access River Road heading towards the 91.

We need to do something now to seriously reduce traffic on River Road and a gate is the answer in my opinoin.

W Ted Lewis and family On June 10, 2013, Council directed staff to proceed with a public consultation process including a community survey and public information meeting. Staff contacted the resident and his responses will be included in the overall survey summary.

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If

1 you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

2 341

Mayor Council

From: Jaimie Sent: Thursday, June 20,20131:16 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Tsawwassen Bylaw ~ C'l IU'I~:I 1::~:1 I"',) I have recently moved to Tsawwassen, in search of a community worthy of ralslng my children. I grew up in a close knit, family friendly small town, and thought I had found a similar place to raise my children in Tsawwassen. We have settled in to a residential street, met our neighbours .. The adults stand outside and chit chat, watching the kids play in the neighbourhood. It was exactly what I had wanted.

Unfortunately, a person driving down our road recently, stopped in to complain of the kids riding bikes in our neighbourhood .. She was so upset with us for allowing it, she called the Police. Upon speaking with Delta Police in regards to this, it's been brought to my attention, it is in fact a by-law, no kids playing on residential streets, no street hockey, no bikes or skateboards. In the era of childhood obesity and under active children, I find this unacceptable & believe it needs to be amended.

I am inqulrlng on what I can possibly do to start the process, and how I may get some support or assistance from your office.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Jaimie Grabinsky 'ir /';" ! f) C.,,>

Sent from my iPhone

Police have made contact with the complainant and advised her that while there are By-Laws, Motor Vehicle Act and Criminal Code sections that deal with obstructing the free flow of roadways, Police are able to use discretion when enforcing these laws.

1 342

Mayor Council

From: Oeepti Oevia [ Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:17 PM 13280-20/LU005187 To: Mayor & Council; [email protected] genda .) Subject: jungle along the gas line in delta ~.A FILE # O?'?xxxxxxxx1{){}.C

Hi there. I am not sure who is responcible for maintaining the grass along the gas line which runs from 112th street down to nordel (basically its behind"wiltshire blvd). I have called the city of delta and they said Oelsom Estates takes care of that. I have been emailing them for years and they have been forwarding the emails to the engeneering department i believe. The grass behind us on wiltshire blvd is so big it attracts racoons, bees, flies, mosquitos etc. I feel that I should not have to remind the city of delta that this area should be maintained on a regular basis. I hope somebody can take care of this situation soon and keep a regular maintenance on it.

Thank you Dee Oevia 'j?l '2>t'l l>JCl~(,l'i.Q./~\IJO J'El.\Q('Bc..· xxxxx CP&D

The open space within the gas right-of-way is a naturalized habitat area. It is not intended to have a manicured park setting. This area is still under ,

I maintenance by the developer, Delsom Estates, who has maintained a mowed , strip adjacent to the pathway in accordance with the approved landscape plan. FortisBC also maintains the area over the gas line in early fall each year. When the developer's warranty period for this area expires in the fall this year, staff will review the long term maintenance of this right-of-way. Staff will provide a response to the writer.

1 343

genda 1?i1CO ~ h®lo~~oland and Leanne Trcpke A !:F!!IL~E:...!!#~.IL_~~'-"'~i~=- 11125 Canyon Crescent Delta BC

June 22, 2013

Mayor and Council Corporation of Delta TYPE: DEPT: RE: MK Lands Development Proposal A.T. #:~\1'5-;; Dear Mayor and Council, Comments: ~\J1;:;:::-(j;~ H~ ~(~112 Our family lives in Sunshine Hills on Canyon Crescent and have been deeply concerned with the proposed development of a loved, cherished green space near our home as well as the probable tax payer cost to maintain drainage and roadway infrastructure and the additional traffic congestion in the area.

I've attended presentations and a workshop provided by the Delta Residents Association and MK Lands. The workshop by MK Lands was particularly a "sham" to manipulate concerned citizens into "showing what they'd like to see" when really most simply want no development. To do their workshop assignment and earn their lasagna supper they felt they had to draw something. Few groups felt comfortable using the time allotted to leave their worksheet blank or draw trees on it. They felt obligated to show some sort of development. I could see how MK would use this to suggest that the citizens want a development. Nothing could be further from the truth.

At the May 27 council meeting, I learned MK Lands has changed their proposal to an outlet mall, so different that it has not previously been presented to the public. A surprising change when they had tried to downplay traffic by suggesting seriiors residences and low traffic uses then going to a proposal with a heavy traffic load of a malL I wouldn't want the horrible traffic seen at the mall in the Queensborough area affecting major arteries like 64'h and 72nd avenues.

The development area is part of Burns bog. It is transitional habitat for raptors and other animals who shelter on the slopes and wooded areas of this land and then fly to hunt in the bog. Its importance to the bog was recognized in attempts to purchase the land for preservation. It's more valuable as a study area than a development.

MK Lands has submitted a proposal to leave 45% undisturbed. We've all seen where developers try to . preserve trees on a property. Those trees usually die a few years later because their environment has changed. This area is far more delicate.

The property owners are simply acting uncooperative. They knew they were uncooperative when they did not sell the property as other landowners had in order to preserve it. They've gambled and lost. Your citizens still do not want this land developed. MK Lands should have realized this years ago, yet decided to continue to be stubborn.

A legal opinion supports MK land's right to develop the land under 13 zoning, yet the land is designated as a study/conservation area. I suggest the case is not that clear with two conflicting designations. I3 zoning was wrong, a mistake from another time, let's not perpetuate that mistake. MK Lands is. trying to upgrade their 13 industrial zone to zoning more valuable. They should not expect to be allowed to do this. It would set a precedent for other landowners wishing to upgrade their zoning to one that is more valuable. This precedent should concern any municipal council.

13 land use would never recuperate MK Land's investment. It's also not their type of business, so they'd want to sell the land. How much money is in peat? Is there gravel? A dog kennel? - no one could afford this land for those ventures. Ifrealizing they've gambled and lost and in spite try to develop, no other municipal council would cooperate with them. Another community would showcase Delta as how uncooperative and untrustworthy MK Lands operates.

Your citizens have spoken overwhelmingly against this development. Let's be green and preserve this area. It's far more important in its natural state than more boring generic buildings and traffic congestion. Please listen to your citizens; they've taken the time to participate in the community plan and development in this area is not part of it.

Thank you,

Roland and Leanne Trepke

This correspondence relates to a development application by MK Delta Lands Group for the property at 10770 72 Avenue. On May 27, 2013, Council gave first and second reading to Official Community Plan Bylaw Amendment No. 7196 and requested the Metro Vancouver Board to amend the Regional Growth Strategy. Public comments are being tracked and will be summarized in a report to Council following the Metro Vancouver process. '. Mayor _Council

From: Roland and Leanne and Nate and Russ Trepke [l Sent: Saturday, June 22,20133:20 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: MK Lands Proposal 10770 72nd Avenue Attachments: MK Lands June 2013.pdf

Dear Mayor and Council,

Please read the attached letter

Thank you

Roland Trepke

1 344

DELTA FARMERS' INSTITUTE (Established 1898) PO Box 18565, Delta, Be, v 4K 4V7 President: David Ryall ,::::;:, -.::\ Administration: L. Yee Phone/Fax: 604-940-2024 Email: [email protected]

May 30,2013

Mayor and Council Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Dclta, BC V4K 3E2 xxxxxxx Rc: Anaerobic Digester (AD) use for Delta Farms July 15/13 Dear Mayor and Council:

The Delta Farmers' Institute (OF!) is pleased that the Corporation of Delta allows the use of anaerobic digesters as bona fide initiatives for farms in Delta. Delta's endorsement to use AD technology on the dairy farm located on 112''' Street belonging to Jerry Keulen is applauded and we wish to thank you.

As you may already be aware, anaerobic digesters are becoming a new reality to farmers. This innovative technology is good for the environmcnt as they assist farms by utilizing waste byproducts more efficiently and with Icss odour. Anaerobic digesters are already a reality south of the border as these forms of efficiency are far more aligned with 'green energy' concepts. As the cost of installation reduces over time more of our farms will move in this direction.

We appreciate your cooperation and assistance with working with the Delta farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that farmers keep up with the technol06'Y that is changing how we do business. st;'}dd~L~ David Ryall President cc: Jeff Day, Director of Community Planning & Development Mike Brotherston, Manager of Climate Action and Environment Council considered a non-farm use for an anaerobic digester in May 2012 and forwarded the application to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission approved the non-farm use request, subject to conditions, in October 2012. As an anaerobic digester is not a permitted use in the A1 Agriculture Zone, the owner submitted a rezoning application in April 2013. A staff report and zoning amendment bylaw regarding this rezoning application will be brought forward for Council's consideration in July 2013. Staff will respond to the writer to advise of the status of the rezoning application. 345 genda / .. . • Mayor Council ..• FILE # \o2!GO-?1f{Q~?:RO W A = From: Sandra MacFarlane ~, Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM ru To: Michael Ruskowski; Mayor & Council Subject: RE: South lands - TYPE f\~f4l(tV- 'fYleefi"'-'J Thanks Mike. DEPT cfd> ·A.i. #:_::11 l4f2tr, From: Michael Ruskowski Comments: J lA.\",\ \S II,> Sent: June-21-13 9:39 AM To: Sandra MacFarlane ll:9u IOcr {VI ee 1'>- AJ Subject: FW: South lands

Hi Sandra, This email came to me but it is addressed to Mayor and Council. Please put on a Council agenda and send the standard South lands response to the writer. Thanks, Mike

From: Pat Johnson Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:39 AM To: Michael Ruskowski Subject: South lands

Mayor, Council and Neighbours: We cannot imagine a proposal that more ideally meets the contending needs of the community - for more appropriate housing, for recreational use, for locally produced agricultural products - than this one. We believe this project could become a destination for urban planners seeking to witness integrated uses functioning symbiotically. Too often, in Tsawwassen, we have been unwilling to imagine anything beyond the 1960s and '70s style of single-family homes. When we have been imaginative and endorsed alternative density, it has been almost exclusively in the form of apartment buildings or, in a couple of instances, small-scale semi detached developments. The proposal for a mixed-use development with a range of housing options - including modest, stand-alone cottage homes in a new urbanist, pedestrian-friendly setting - is not only what we need in terms of housing stock to support the diversity of families here, but a model of community-building in its most human sense, on a human scale, with neighbours living in proximity to each other, to the food we consume, and to the natural beauty that has brought us to South Delta in the first place. As a community, we are presented with a host of phenomenal opportunities: To develop more of the sorts of housing we need; to integrate our neighbourhoods more fully with their surroundings; to ensure (once and for all) that much of this land is preserved in perpetuity for agricultural and for park uses; to complete this beautiful community with a true destination centre where people, nature and agriculture mix harmoniously. We could make the case that, if this proposal is rejected, a far worse outcome may result ina few years, one filled with greenhouses illuminating the midnight skies or other incompatible uses. And, as a neighbour, we could hardly begrudge the property owners from reverting to a less desirable use if we reject this proposal. But it should not be necessary to make such a case. This is not a matter of accepting this proposal based on the fear that the alternative could be worse. We should embrace this proposal because it is a superb, imaginative, magnificent, well-designed, sustainable - and, yes, extraordinarily generous - proposal offered to our community. I desperately hope we do not miss this opportunity of a generation.

1 Sincerely,

Patrick Johnson and Paul Tillotson 449 56th Street, Delta

II !i

2 346 ...... , w Mayor _Council cc... :z: From: paddy munro [ , Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:45 PM genda . j' .• "J,p,Y' N To: Mayor & Council A FILE # 1'?fRO sXrl.U,L of() ;i! Subject: South lands. o,...... Please count me in as opposition to the Southlands development. We not only need this farmland ·now to groJO quality safe food but also for the future of our children. Too much land has been taken already. Time to stop costly and unreliable food imports that we can do here and promote employment too. Be progressive thinldng!

Paddy munro. 11o0S" FQ6A ar~-t Jt:U-u. ,~ Vllvl 2b?:>

1 347 Ma or _Council

From: Doug Brazier Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 20134:26 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Southlands

1;"':1 My wife and I oppose the development of the Southlands. As the Mayor and some council members have beetrrl quoted as against any further development of Agricultural land - and here is another 100 acres that they want to take and develop. It was designated agricultural when it was purchased by the Century Group and should stay with that designation. Yours truly

Bonnie & Doug Brazier 116 Centennial Parkway Delta BC V4L 1K3

1 348 Ma or _Council

From: Frank Rogers Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:51 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands et al

Hi gang!

Just a short note to let you know that, contrary to media spin, I am still opposed to development of the Southlands. My main concerns are further erosion of farmable land and increased traffic.

For the record I am appalled at what is happening on TFN lands, am opposed to Terminal 3 and coal pOli expansion and am not keen on what the SFPR has done to Delta - and what it will do in the future.\

Ours to protect! thanks

Frank Rogers

1 349 , Ma or _Council . . I From: Mayor Lois Jackson I-'" Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11 :00 AM \'\.:1 To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: southlands

From: Ella I Subject: southlands

Dear Mayor and Council:

I am hoping you will never okay Southlands please leave all of it for green space we will need for our future. I have lived here for forty years and have seen many changes and not all for the good; the traffic for one, it is getting to be a nightmare just to go up to the local shops. We have to think of others not just for the greed of the already very wealthy developers.

Sincerely, Ella A. I

1 350 Ma or _Council

From: Paul Wiebe Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:44 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Southlands

Given you all were elected to represent the residents of Delta, and 'the majority rules', please end this exercise, and do not allow this application to proceed any further.

It is a very poor use of time and money.

Paul Wiebe Bus: eel: 'fC?6t~~~tf\O . lvLll\tJ Of (JJj 15/\3

1 351

Ma or _Council

From: Mary Edgley Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 20136:25 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Re: South lands .. Please do not allow development of the South lands. I live in Point Roberts and traffic is already terrible through :jl Tsawwassen. This development would make it much worse. What's more, the land around Boundary Bay is extremely important habitat for migrating birds. There are many good reasons not to develop the South lands and the only real reason that I can see that someone would want to allow the development is financial. Please do the right thing and stop this development. Mary Edgley 1975 Province Road Point Roberts, WA 98281

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Mayor & Council wrote:

Dear Mary Edgley,

In accordance with "Council Procedure Bylaw No. 5000, 2000", please provide your address so that your correspondence may be processed and provided to Council.

Thank you,

The Office of the Municipal Clerk

From: Mary Edgley Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:53 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands

Please do not allow development of the Southlands. I live in Point Roberts and traffic is already terrible through Tsawwassen. This development would make it much worse. What's more, the land around Boundary Bay is extremely impOliant habitat for migrating birds. There are many good reasons not to develop the Southlands and the only real reason that I can see that someone would want to allow the development is financial. Please do the right thing and stop this development.

1 352 Ma or _Council

From: Loraine Greene Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:39 AM To: Mayor & Council; Jeff Day; [email protected] Cc: Dana Maslovat Subject: Southland Development Application

To whom it may concern,

I oppose the Southlands development application.

Loraine Greene 1437 55th Street Tsawwassen, Be V4M 3K4

Thank you.

Loraine Greene

1 353

Ma or Council

From: tomsteele181 Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:32 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Development of the South lands

My name is: Tom Steele I live at: 1335 - 53A St., Delta, V4M3E8 I am writing this to express my serious concern over the Southlands proposed development. From a macro level, it makes no sense to place intensive development at the extreme southern outer edge of the Lower Mainland. This only encourages more people to travel longer distances to the centre of Vancouver where most people work. On another level, I know that our quality of life will decline as more and more people move to Tsawwassen. I live here because of the low density and quite lifestyle. Please do not allow this mess to happen.

Phone: Fax: Cell: I:: Inmou..,...... :~. I 1-'" r'l.~ .. c.o.:l 1:::0

1 354 Ma or _Council

From: McKaig, Terry Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:58 AM To: Mayor & Council; Jeff Day; [email protected] Subject: South lands

I have been following the continued talks and discussions regarding the Southlands development and proposal by The Century Group. I AM 100% AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT. This will not be good for our community with too many real questions and concerns about spinoff effects that cannot be answered. The people have spoken and it continues to not have public approval despite the media spins being put on it.

Thank you for your time,

Terry McKaig 895 Eden Cres Delta, BC V4L 1W6

1 355 Ma or Council

From: ElshaStewart Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:05 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands Development

Hello Mayor and Council,

I grew up in South Delta, what a beautiful place to live. I am opposed to the South lands Development. Thank you, Elsha Stewart, 9211 Kingsley Court Richmond, BC

Sent from my iPad

1 356

Ma or _Council

From: T. Forster Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 20132:35 PM To: Mayor & Council Cc: T. Forster Subject: Southland

Mayor / Council

I would like to add my voice in opposition to the Southlands Development Application.

Terry Forster 5639 Clipper Rd. Delta B.C. V4K 5A5

1 357

Ma or _Council

From: Alison Kjertinge Sent: Wednesday, June 12,201312:07 PM To: Mayor & Council; Jeff Day; [email protected] Subject: The South lands

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed plans that council is considering for the development of The Southlands. There has been enough legitimate concern that has been voiced recently and over the years with regards to the development of this property that I am surprised that council appears to be rushing to approve it. There are so many unanswered questions, I believe much more research needs to be done to determine how this will affect the community at every stage of the process - from bringing endless truck loads of landfill through town, flooding concerns for the existing Boundary Bay area, future unacceptable traffic levels, and the environmental impact among other things. Over and over the community has expressed their opposition to developing this land - why is this still up for discussion? The referendum results were clear - why did you spend tax payers' money to have one if you are going to ignore the results?

I have lived in Tsawwassen for 10 years now having moved from Coquitlam to get away from the type of development that we are now seeing on the TFN property. I moved here with my children as the community was unique with lots of natural green space and people who care deeply about where they live. I am not saying I think the land should remain untouched - I would like to see plans for this land to be used as a large community garden which could generate income, provide us with healthy food, educate our children etc but that is not for me to decide. I am hoping that you will listen to the wishes of the people who re-elected you and not allow the interests of big business to permanently destroy precious fertile land and our beautiful community.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

Sincerely,

Alison Kjertinge

Alison Kjertinge Vice President

> Local 4094 - Vancouver (YVR) > Airline Division of CUPE / Division de Transport A6rien > Canadian Union of Public Employees / Syndicat Canadien de la Fonction > Publique > -- > This email message is privileged and confidential. Any > unauthorized use or > disclosure is prohibited. > > Le contenu de ce courriel est privilegie et confidentiel. > Il est interdit

1 358

Ma or _Council

From: Margot Millen Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 201310:15 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: In support of South lands .. Importance: High 1:.t.:1 1:r'1

As it stands today,

Regards,

Margot & Stephen Millen 316-65053 Avenue Delta, B.C. V4L 2N1

1 359

Ma or _Council

From: wayne thompson Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:00 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands Proposal

Mayor and council,

My name is Wayne Thompson and I live at 4814 13th Ave in Tsawwassen. I would once again like to voice my objection to the proposed development of the southlands by Century Group. I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed development including but not limited to; -Our streets becoming even more clogged by traffic, dump trucks and then added commuters. -The removal of viable farmland. -The negative impact of the amount of fill needed to develop the site with regard to the water table and flood plane. I continue to be astounded at the Councils seeming disregard towards the wishes of the citizens of Tsawwassen.

From ignoring the Ipsos Reid survey and all the correspondence received during the Public Hearing to return the Southlands to the ALR as well as the Kwantlen College disaster, it is clear to me that you have made up your minds.

Please respect the wishes of the majority and leave the southlands alone.

Wayne Thompson

1 360

Ma or Council

From: vbeaupre Sent: Thursday, June 13, 201310:53 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: The South lands

I am wring to you to express my strong opposition to the development of the Southlands. I have lived in Delta, beginning in 1971, and returning in 1986 until the present. I returned to Delta because of the unmatched beauty, quiet, and serenity that comes living with nature near the ocean in a community with like minded neighbors. We in Boundary Bay Village are graced with a very low crime rate, due largely to the fact that access to our community is one road in and out. Our beaches are unspoiled. Our streets remain quiet. My husband and I will not downsize as we age. This community is where we will stay. We do not need a "High Street" or ammeneties. Our chief source of leisure and pleasure, and that of our neighbors, is exercising and communing with nature. Please I beg of you, do not ruin our corner of heaven on eatih for the sake of a development that will so negatively impact our lives. There is development a plenty onjust the other side of town; the population planned for the golf course development and the First Nations lands are well and truly more than enough. Please be forward thinking and save the beautiful jewel that is the Southlands for a higher purpose.

Thank you for your commitment to the wishes of your community,

Valerie Beaupre and Collin York, 6735 Seaview Road, Delta, B.C.

.. ,,b.. 1:.11

1 361

Ma or _Council

From: Schatzi Andersen Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:48 AM To: [email protected]; Mayor & Council; Marcy Sangret Subject: South lands Proposal - Delta

Dear Esteemed Officials,

Please take into record my extreme opposition to the development of the South lands. Ample residential homes and shopping will be increased substantially in Delta by the eXisting development projects, the impending TFN development and building bylaws under the current Area Plan. There' is no reasonable argument to build on this viable farmland. Please read and understand the material presented to the City of Delta on topics such as food shortage, bird and animal habitat depletion and the pitfalls and undesirable effects of high density housing areas. Speak for the people of Delta and represent us by denying the application for development.

Thank you. Best regards, Debi Andersen 165-66A Street Delta, BC V4L 1 M6 '~~t~8~~o \;~~t~6h

1 362 Ma or Council

From: Steve Millen Sent: Thursday, June 13, 201310:27 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands

I wish to register my support for the proposed development of the South lands property by century Group. This is a well planned and very forward thinking proposal. Please do not waste this opportunity to provide an innovative solution to much needed development in Delta. Yours truly) Stephen C. Millen 316 - 6505 3rd Ave. 'J 1-'" Delta) BC V4L 2N1 1:.0.:1

,~, 1:..1"1

1 363

Ma or _Council

C~ From: Roel Schootman :z:, Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:00 PM 1- I"'IJ To: Mayor & Council ..,., Cc: Conference Phone; Jeff Day; Marcy Sangret; 'Metro Vancouver' ::m: '0 Subject: South lands information meeting Thursday May 30, 2013 I:"'J Attachments: Southlands information meeting Thursday May 30, 2013.pdf to.).. I""""

Letter to Mayor and Council June 12, 2013

Since the developer has added information to the living development proposal I would like to be assured that all the previous public input must be considered and stay as public record for your consideration.

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER.

1 Letter to Mayor and Council June 12, 2013

I attended the Southlands information meeting Thursday May 30, 2013. Please accept this correspondence and ensure this letter is added to the official public record in the application to change the Southlands designation. Since the developer has added information to the living development proposal I would like to be assured that all the previous public input must be considered and stay as public record for your consideration.

I am even more opposed to the development proposal than ever, the devastation of any farmland and surrounding support lands. I do not like the idea of 4thAvenue being connected to 3,d Avenue. The development will harm the Boundary Bay Village. All those pretty pictures do not tell the real story, they are only two dimenSional, for marketing purposes. The 3D reality will be unbelievable a dense, massive set of buildings and 2000 plus people. At the corner of 3,d Avenue and Boundary Bay Road there will become an enormous eye sore with high buildings and high density emerging from an existing below road level farm.

What benefit is the development proposal to Boundary Bay Village? For me it is a lot of sleepless nights wondering what will happen to our community and the supply of precious farmland. I dearly remember the farm fields along Boundary Bay Road growing corn and the grazing lands with first class dairy cows, sometimes having to stop for the cows being lead across the Boundary Bay Road to the field on the north side. The best potatoes in Canada were and are grown on this farm and the adjacent farm.

What benefit would the development have to the Municipality of Delta? The 80/20 percentage is far out of the reality and closer to 66.6/33.3.

No Alternative Plan has been presented for what the land is already zoned such as showing how the land could be farmed and a plan for upgrading services and costs etc for a true evaluation. The land could be a model for future generations on how to preserve and maintain farms. 86.5% of the land would be able to contribute to the food chain (13.5% conservation, 72.3 ac).

Has there been a traffic study done on 3'd Avenue in Boundary Bay Village, the review was not indicated on the Traffic Review Plan? The Translink study on the use of service and cost per user should be included in the study.

With the connection of 4th Avenue to 3rd Avenue how much will the increase in traffic be in the Village of Boundary Bay with trips to the boat ramp, the trips to the neighbourhood beach with accesses from Centennial Parkway, looking for access to Centennial Park and tourists sight seeing. Has street parking been addressed for these visits. Has enough overflow parking from the development been considered on site or is the plan to have parking overflow into the Boundary Bay Village and Boundary Bay Road? Parking on 3'd Avenue may prove to be closer than parking found on site, people are prone to do what is easiest.

The traffic study from Point Roberts was not available at the information meeting. Point Roberts CDP 2010 population was 1314 (http://data.spokesman.com/census/2010/washington/cities/point-roberts-cdp-wa/) with population density of 269 people per square mile. During the summer balloons to 5000. Currently according to Point Roberts Realty there are 60 building lots for sale. The average household size is 2.1 people, if the 60 building lots were occupied it could be an addition of 126 people. What the population could be in the next 20 years and future needs to be incorporated into the traffic plan.

Delta and Metro Vancouver can not afford to lose any more farmland, there will be a substantial loss of farmland to residential, commercial and recreational use. Tsawwassen does not require more housing, roads, markets and recreational parks. The Tsawwassen Area Plan has already addressed future housing needs, commercial spaces in the town core (there are plenty of empty units in the Town Centre Mall), parks and recreation. Support needs to be given to the wonderful farmers market stores that exist now the the town core, not diminished. There is plenty of Parkland in Delta and Centennial Park is not near its capacity.

The demand for locally grown food is on the increase as well a being promoted in food markets. Look around Delta there is a tremendous increase in farmland being prepared and cultivated for farming. This is sunny Tsawwassen where the earth produces lush vegetation and food. Where will the farmland come from to replace the farmland lost with this development proposal and all the other proposals to follow having the Southlands as a model for other developers to follow.

Traffic is a concern what will be done to alleviate the problem. Adding one right turn lane on the south side of 56th Street at 12th Avenue on the north bound direction does nothing to the inflow and out flow of additional traffic to Highway 17. The 56 th Street corridor is narrow and at times very busy. Often one lane is block off for commercial vehicles making deliveries, moving and various maintenance activities. In fact the 56 th Avenue corridor will become more dangerous and less safe for people as pedestrians and cyclists commuting on bike.

Drainage and water table is a major concern as well. Quality-of-life will be disrupted living amongst gigantic tandem dump trucks and flaggers who control traffic construction delays and rerouting for construction and workers safety.

This is a commercial development with support from a residential undertone and roadways on more than 20% of the property.

With the Tsawwassen downtown core shopping we don't need more retail and how many retail space are missing and empty at the Town Centre Mall.

Parking. too low if flooding were to happen, where will the gasoline and oil go. Who will the insurance companies go after to pay for claims?

With the tiny lot sizes and tiny homes how often will the developer ask to change the zoning to suit needs.

How much extra sand will be required for preload requirements, how many extra trips is that. How much unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions will be added to our atmosphere. Dust control when the winds howl as they often do. The sand storm at the TFN became so large it could be seen from the south slopes of Burnaby.

Development permit costs charges how much has Delta already spent on this? How much has the developer paid to The Corporation of Delta.

Please reject the Southlands proposal and keep the property for the future food chain supply. The above items are a few of the reasons as there are many that the proposal should be rejected.

Sincerely,

Roel Schootman 6696 3rd Avenue, Delta, BC V4L lB3

364

Ma or Council 'J

From: Peter Andersen Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:12 AM To: Mayor & Council; Marcy Sang ret; Jeff Day; [email protected] Subject: Re: South lands Proposal Attachments: The Corporation of Delta re Southlands Rev 1.doc

Esteemed Elected Officials,

Please find attached a word document expressing my views/opposition regarding the proposed Southlands development. Please contact me if you encounter any problems viewing this document.

Regards,

Peter Andersen 165, 66A Street Delta, Be V4L 1M6

1 The Corporation of Delta June 13,2013 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent (Original submission November 11, 2012) Delta, BC V4K 3E2

Mayor & Council, Delta

Re: Southlands Proposal

Please recognize this as my extreme opposition to the development of this viable farmland.

Additionally I must emphasize my displeasure with you, our elected representatives, in your handling of this affair. This issue has divided the community for decades. For this, I do not blame the developer for he is merely a businessman. I blame you, our elected representation. The constituents repeatedly demonstrate a majority opposition to any development of this land yet Mayor & Council continually entertain proposals. This is a flagrant squandering of community resources.

Don't be seduced by the potential increase in Delta Land coffers. This proposed land gift would surely become a White Elephant for the community despite its apparent and real value if managed by The Corporation of Delta.

The Southlands property has the potential for medium/high yield, soil based farming by all accounts. It would be feckless and capricious of the owner to build a greenhouse operation on this land. As it is zoned farmland and should remain so, greenhouses would be preferable to any residential development.

The existing projects and the impending TFNdevelopment coupled with building bylaws under the current Area Plan will provide ample increase in residential availability for the foreseeable future. There is no reasonable argument to build on this farmland.

It is more imperative than ever we retain farmland for local food production in light of recent natural disasters worldwide brought on by global warming and cyclical forces ,of nature. We must maintain some level of self efficiency. The Southlands along with other contentious farmland in Canada and worldwide should remain in a cultivable state to feed future generations. Let this be our legacy to our children, not some short-sighted, irreversible residential development. To allow the continued depletion of our remaining prime farmland by this or any other government body is negligent and inexcusable.

Sincerely,

Peter S B Andersen 165, 66A Street Delta, BC V4L IM6 365

Ma or _Council c:: :z From: Adrian Wightman I Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 201310:28 PM 1-'" 1:''':1 To: Mayor & Council Cc: Jeff Day; Michael Ruskowski Subject: Public Information Meeting - File LU006390 Attachments: Response to public information meeting 2013-05-30.pdf

Please include the attached document in your deliberations on the Southland Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application.

Regards

Adrian Wightman

1 Public Information Meeting - File No. LU006390

COMMENT SHEET (This comment sheet is also available at www.delta.ca/southlands)

Date: Thursday, May 30,2013 Time: 3:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Place: South Delta Recreation Centre (Gym)

*PLEASE PRINT* Name: ADRIAN WIGHTMAN

TH Address: 554 - 55 Street, Delta, BC, V4M 3J7 ------

Please note that this comment sheet will not be processed unless the above information is provided, Completed comment sheets should be returned to Mike Ruskowski, Community Planning and Development Department, The Corporation of Delta, 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta, BC V4K 3E2 or faxed (Fax No, 604-946-4148) or emailed to mruskowski@delta,ca, To be considered as input for the report to Council in July 2013, please return your comments by June 14, 2013. All comment sheets received will be provided to Mayor & Council for their review and consideration,

Please provide your comments below:

• No net benefit to Delta The ocp amendment and rezoning application does not attempt to reveal a net benefit to Delta, For example: - o There is no commitment regarding the timing of when ownership of the undeveloped portion would

transfer to Delta.

o Delta has no firm commitment to farm their portion,

o If migrant farm worker housing is needed the cost of this is not discussed.

o There is no accounting of the loss of property taxes and potential lease revenue,

o There is no accounting of the cost of operating the farmer's market, maintenance of the Gunn House or the

Red Barn, or any discussion about whether Delta even needs these additional facilities.

o There is no accounting of the damage to Delta's infrastructure that will accrue due to the 120,000 dump

truck trips required to fill the site, not to mention the untold number of trucks needed to deliver lumber,

concrete, and other construction materials, It is unlikely that the approximately $350,000 that Delta would

receive in filling fees under By-Law 5532 would come anywhere close to undoing the wear and tear damage,

The cost to resllrface BOllndary Bay road alone WOI lid be in the order of $300,000

1 o The on-site and off-site improvements triggered by the proposed development appear to have a total cost

of about $20.8M. Yet the developer is only offering $9m. Clearly not a net benefit to Delta.

Therefore. Delta should deny first and second reading being given to the proposal as there is no point in sending a proposal to public hearing that does not clearly demonstrate a net benefit to Delta. There are other serious issues with this proposal which Delta are grounds for denial. These are:

• Flood Protection In respect of flood protection, Delta is apparently not following the advice of its own consultants, and that contained in BC Ministry of Environment Guidelines of January 2011, and BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resources Operations report of October 2012 entitled Cost of Adaptation - Sea Dikes & Alternative Strategies. These reports identify a timeline for a development target to 2100 with a currently estimated relative sea level rise of 1.2 m in the Boundary Bay area. The Associated Engineering report of October 24, 2012 recommends a perimeter flood protection berm to surround the development to EI. 4.8 m, in order to achieve the intent of Provincial flood protection gUidelines to 2100. The proposal as presented now, presumably after negotiation with Delta, appears to adopt a lesser standard and proposes a FCL of only 4.2m EI., and a fill perimeter Elevation of 3.0 m, with no firm provision for any additional future flood protection. The stated provision of a 6m easement for future improvements is far too vague. It is simple to show that a perimeter berm starting from a base elevation varying from EI. 3.0m to EI. 1.5 m cannot be raised to EI. 4.8m within a 6m wide easement; there just isn't enough room without resorting to a major concrete structure. Furthermore the architectural design of the development with "greenways" passing through at the present low ground levels doesn't allow for a future perimeter berm without interfering with site drainage. Even if it were practical there is no commitment regarding who would pay for this future flood proofing; would it be the residents, or Delta, or some nebulous "government funding"? It may be that future Provincial/Federal governments of the day would simply refuse to participate when they understand that Delta could have avoided the issue with proper planning in the first place? Simply put. this proposal should not be allowed to proceed because it does not provide for long term flood protection to Provincial recommendations for residents and/or Delta's taxpayers.

• Earthquake Risk The assessment of geotechnical earthquake risk for this property is' not sufficiently advanced for critical design decisions to be made regarding earthquake induced settlement and lateral stability of the sloping site that would be created by the filling process. This kind of information is needed before final building layouts, grades, and set-backs from slopes can be established. The most recent example of the hazard posed by liquefaction induced damage to residential buildings can be found in New Zealand where the Christchurch earthquake of 2010 permanently damaged tens of thousands of homes and caused billions of dollars' worth of damage. Some areas of Christchurch will likely never be redeveloped because of the hazard posed by earthquake induced liquefaction ground movement now revealed. For examples of damage due to ground failure see Fig 1, attached from Darfield NZ in 2010.

• Traffic This application should be denied because of the environmental/social impact of the additional traffic it will generate. The traffic studies tabled as part of the public information meeting make the development's traffic impact seem quite benign. But anyone who actually lives in Tsawwassen knows that this cannot be so. Just one example is the choice of peak morning hour from 08:00 to 09:00. Most of the commuters have already fled Tsawwassen by that time of the morning! If peak traffic means counting cars in both directions then they are 2 missing the real peak when commuters are trying to get to work in one direction - out of Tsawwassen - and fighting 10 sets of traffic lights to do so. The idea, promoted by the traffic study, that intersections in Tsawwassen will remain within capacity seems ridiculous to anyone who actually lives here. Members of Council and Staff, most of whom do not live in Tsawwassen, should come here and experience our weekend and commuter traffic snarls and then imagine what the Southlands development would do with its 950 units likely adding well over 1000 cars to the morning and evening rush hours and the weekend shopping peaks. The traffic study doesn't seem to include the effect of the NorthGate development by Century, or the high end condos on Hunter Drive, or the build out of Tsawwassen Springs. And when the TFN development is completed Highway 17 could become a parking lot in the rush hour no matter what is done to replace the tunnel.

• Parking and Transit This development application should be rejected because there simply are not sufficient parking spaces provided. The developer's proposal is for provision of much less parking than Delta bylaws would normally require, and in many cases is only 1 per unit. The exact number is not stated since the mix of types of units is also not stated. Drive around Tsawwassen and how many driveways do you see with less than two cars on them? This is a commuter community as acknowledged by Translink who show Delta with the highest cost per rider in the Lower Mainland. No wishful thinking on the part of Century Group is going to change that any time soon. The homes in this development will not be any more affordable than any others in the community and in many cases will require two incomes to pay the mortgage. The development is not big enough for transit services to be increased, so that more vehicles will be needed, and that means more parking. This proposal would likely see residents seeking street parking off site in Boundary Bay and west of 56 th Street. Do we really want Tsawwassen to look like Vancouver's west end?

• Misleading Development Strategies? Century Group already has approval for Northgate, but shows no sign of proceeding. Century is the owner of the fire damaged Tsawwassen Terrace at 5521 16th Avenue where there is little to no sign of rebuilding. Also the fire damaged shopping area in the Town Centre Mall breezeway has not been rebuilt, but surplanted by a totally inappropriate show home that represents but a very small percentage of what could be on offer for the South lands. Could it be that the lack of progress in Tsawwassen is due to a deliber,ate plan to avoid a practical demonstration of the traffic chaos likely to ensue if Southlands was approved?

The most recent form of this development proposal now has construction in the so-called "South lands Gateway" on 56th Street as part of Phase I. Could this be a strategy whereby the Developer can start with the "low hanging fruit" and leave the rest of the development in limbo for years or even decades without losing his right to develop?

The application should be denied because the way in which it is framed leaves it open to potential increases in density in the future. Many housing types are proposed but there is no fixed amount or location for any of these housing options. Once approved there is nothing to prevent the developer seeking more units, more density, more height etc. The community has seen this development ploy most recently at Tsawwassen Springs, and Marina Garden Estates.

3 ., Air Pollution Another reason to deny the application can be seen by those living in Tsawwassen who will no doubt have noticed a large cloud of dust drifting over Tsawwassen Springs and Imperial Village whenever the wind blows over the TFN land fill. This is an unacceptable amount of air pollution. Is this what Delta residents want to risk - a pile of sand fill creating dust clouds blowing all over everybody for years and years whenever the wind blows?

., Environmental Damage The Southlands is part of the Fraser River delta which is an important part of the Pacific Flyway. Put to its proper use as agricultural land this property can remain a significant bird habitat as well as provide food for people. If Delta and Metro allow residential development they run the risk of destroying the high quality habitat adjacent to Boundary Bay where it provides shelter, resting and feeding during fall and spring migrations. Since when does housing take precedence over our environment? What would our grandchildren and their grandchildren think of us if we approved this application?

., The domino effect The Southlands represents the first of a series of dominoes. If this potential agricultural gem is allowed to fall to developers then others will soon follow. The loss of TFN lands to the bulldozer is something that Delta could not prevent, but enough is enough. The first and most obvious parcel at risk is the old Guichon property contiguous with the Southlands and Forest by the Bay. This again is prime farmland in regular cultivation. Just imagine another subdivision the size of Forest by the Bay and the truck loads of fill coming down through the middle of Tsawwassen and along 6th avenue or down Eden Crescent. Approval of the Southlands application is likely to have the most objectionable unintended consequences for our environment and for agricultural land around South Delta and should not be allowed to proceed:

• Loss of Agricultural Land Ultimately it is the tragic loss of viable agricultural land that should lead to denial of this application. Much is made of an 80/20 split in the application, but the actual amount of agricultural land that will be farmed under the proposal is only 53% of the total, or 285.7 acres. Without the development 465 acres would be available for farming. Thus the development would mean a net loss of about 280, acres. With food security an ever increasing issue due to climate change and other environmentally related issues this loss of farmable land is not acceptable when other development options are available.

4 (a) Sand boils ancllateral spread cracks

(b) E±Iects of lateral spreading in residential area

Figure 4.34 Lateral spreading at Courtenay Dr, South Kaiapoi

FIGURE 1- EXAMPLES OF LIQUEFACTION DAMAGE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE DARFIELD NZ EARTHQUAKE OF 2010.

5 366

5681 Goldenrod Crescent Delta, B.c. V4L2H9

2013.06.14

Attention: M. Ruskowski, Planning Department, TYPE~fgJlt\ Aj&-Je.. Corporation of Delta, DEPT __ill D Cc Clio 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta, B.C., V 4K 3E2 AI.# !IBt~ . Comments S~ ~ li;, 5/1s

Reference Southlands Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Public Information Meeting- File No LU006390

COMMENTS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE PLAN AND RATIONALE AS TO WHY THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED

A Sewer capacity. (Per Mayor Lois Jackson quote Vancouver Sun August 30,2012) "the main sewage line system carrying effluent from the municipality's Tsawwassen and Ladner Suburbs to Annacis Island was built to accommodate about 700 additional residents by 2041" How will the sewage for the approximately 2,500 - 3,000 people in the proposed 950 homes be accommodated?

A Current development and future infill in South Delta is currently increasing the population by more than 700 residents. So will Century pay for increased sewage capacity or is the Mayor misinformed?

A MLA Vicki Huntington in her Summer 2012 report emphasized the importance of preserving life-giving agricultural farm land. Also the need to produce food locally as transportation cost and carbon footprint to transport increase.

A BC Agricultural Council Chair, Rhonda Driediger has noted that California is the source of most ofBC's fruit and vegetables but that this source is diminishing as California reduces production.

A Vancouver Sun May 31 2013 article by R Shore stated that The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions advised that BC needs to produce more food. This position is supported by Erin Crawford's report on Strengthening BC's Agricultural Sector in the face of Climate Change, scope, scale and pace of climate change. A Letter of May 15,2013 from the BC Ministry of Agriculture to the Mayor of Delta advising that the Century Group's report "does not include sufficient reliable information on which to base this size of planning decision. The letter also list many other concerns of which you have the details.

These foregoing concerns alone should give Council reason to reject the approval of this plan. Once destroyed this valuable asset will be un-reclaimable. It would be this Councils legacy.

th A The data shown on May 30 . offill required to raise the land sufficiently was provided by a consultant hired the Century Group which conflicts with that provided previously by other independent consultants. The authoritative forecast for the rise in sea level for the Fraser Delta and Boundary Bay area is a minimum of 1.2 meters and possibly to 1.8 metres. Based on the Century proposal, the Southlands could become the "Venice of the BC".

A 56 Street, Tsawwassen is the only viable access route from Highway 17 to the proposed Southlands site. 56 Street would therefore have to accommodate:

I • calculated 140,000 plus, 45 ft truck and trailer loads offill to raise land. Vehicles would be traveling both to and from Southlands site. (Movement of ground due to the weight of this fill unknown)! • Additional trucks transporting bulldozers, graders, backhoes, service and contractors vehicles. , ! • Further transport of drainage materials, sewage pipes and building materials. • Highway 17 currently has high density traffic in peak periods which will be exacerbated by Tsawwassen First Nations and proposed Deltaport building developments over which Corporation of Delta has no control. • Serious potential for increased traffic accidents for vehicles and pedestrians.

A The highways 17,99 and the Massey Tunnel currently experience a serious !I gridlock situation. The Mayor and Provincial Premier have identified this problem which is causing difficulties for businesses, emergency services and commuters using this interchange. The situation will be exacerbated by development elsewhere in Delta, Tsawwassen First Nations, Deltaport, South Surrey and traffic servicing the Southlands development.

A From Southland development traffic, people living along 56 St. will be exposed to a high concentrations of diesel exhaust fumes, tire, brake and transmission lining dust. Also, from the noise of trucks driving along 56 St., braking and accelerating at the 10 stoplights on 3.0 kilometers of 56 St. This can result in aspiration and mental health issues for many people. Potential for future class action suites as this is an identified issue.

A 56 Street is an emergency evacuation route. In addition to normal traffic, the high volume of vehicles accessing the Southlands site could severely impede the movement of emergency vehicles. The Royal Canadian Marine- Search and Rescue, services both Canadian and US waters and has to access the search and rescue vessel positioned at Point Roberts, USA. This requires crews to negotiate 56 Street in emergency. In emergencies, traffic delays could result in loss of life.

th A Traffic on 56 • Street is experiencing ever increasing volumes of Canadian vehicles going to Point Roberts for gasoline and US goods delivered there.

A Tsawwassen is a dormitory town with a high percentage of elderly people. Fraser Health (Vancouver Sun article November 07,2012) noted that "the bulk ofthe regions increase [in population] will occur primarily among seniors 65 and older" These increasingly older people will take longer negotiating the street crossings and slow traffic more than the current level.

A The Century proposal for the Southlands includes 80,000 sq. ft. for commercial development. • There are currently at least 7 vacant retail and commercial properties in the business sector ofTsawwassen. This is an escalating problem as people shop at the "big box stores". The TFN proposal could "gut" Tsawwassens retailers. • No business person doing due diligence could justify trying operate a business I in the Southlands development. I • Can Delta guarantee that the 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space would not be converted into housing when businesses fail to materialize?

A The Century proposal includes a 6 acre set aside for Mr. Hodgins personal use. Can Delta guarantee that this land will not be developed for high density housing?

A Tsawwassen is poorly served by public transport. The Southlands development would be a satellite community, which if any, would have little or no public transport thus requiring a minimum of 1,000 vehicles per day to transit a winding 2 lane road onto 56 Street and Highway 17.

A There are very few jobs in Tsawwassen. Therefore most new residents will have to go outside of the town to work. With current approved development in Delta, TFN land and South Surrey the existing traffic problems with the Massey Tunnel are being exacerbated. The Southlands would add an estimated extra 1,000 vehicles per day exiting and entering Delta. Based on the foregoing details approval ofthe Southlands project would be a grievous error

Yours sincerely

Keith Paremain, P. Eng.

1 Mayor Council

From: Keith & Gloria Paremain Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11 :37 PM To: Mayor & Council; Michael Ruskowski; Jeff Day Cc: Delia Laglargaron Subject: Southlands Community Plan Amendment & Rezoning Application File # LU006390 Attachments: South lands 2013.docm

Importance: High

Dear Mayor & Council

Please find the attached letter with respect to the subject application.

Sincerely

Keith Paremain

1 367

Mayor Council c c From: Thomas Ringsma :z: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:46 AM .....• To: Mayor & Council; Jeff Day; [email protected] w Subject: South lands Development application

Importance: High

To whom it may concern,

I would like to voice my opposition to the development of the South lands. I feel that the precedent of allowing a developer to build on agricultural land is too dangerous in our area of South Delta as we have a lot of agricultural land owners who would like nothing better than to pave their land over.

The development ofthis land would also add a considerable amount oftraffic to the existing road structure for which Mr. Hodgins and his Century Group apparently bear no financial responsibility. As a tax payer I can assure you that I'm not too pleased to see my taxes go up to deal with this issue in the future so Mr. Hodgins can get his way. All too often this council turns to the tax payers to cover their short-sightedness in these matters.

I realize that as a council you cannot stop Century from putting in (yet another) application but this project has been rejected so many times over the years that you should be able to say "enough is enough" and put this out to pasture permanently.

Thank you,

Thomas Ringsma \L(~l '5i5"- 3Y~+ ~+cc(~ V4H 'Bt'-l:

1 368 .....• Mayor _Council w

From: :z:, Thursday, June 13, 20132:49 PM ..... Sent: ft genda . r..oJ To: Mayor & Council; Marcy Sang ret '.?'\\ FILE # I020(j-cPkJJQa;oC(o Subject: South lands i w~ o Mayor & Council: -..:l This is follow up to my e-mail of Dec. 18,2012 regarding the Southlands proposal. In answer to my questions regarding fees paid by the applicant, I was told that an amount of $43,381 dollars was paid in accordance with Delta's Development Application Procedures Bylaw and that time spent was not monitored to determine if the fee was adequate. I find this practice using taxpayers money in-adequate and un-business like. Should the by law fee not be determined by another method that would state a base fee for a certain number of hours and the applicant would be liable for any hours that exceeded that base fee, or more in keeping, the application fee for a project of this size be reviewed and increased to fit the time required to complete it? 2: I am still concerned about the flood proofing and drainage requirements for the development in the Boundary Bay Community area and any housing proposals for this area should not be considered. The dike situation at Boundary Bay should be finalized once and for all before any further development proceeds in that area. 3: There should not be a road r.o.w through the center of the agricultural land for it would defeat the whole purpose of retaining that land for agricultural and wildfowl purposes, and the noise from the traffic would would also change the liveability of the surrounding residential areas. 4. Once both the on-site and off -site costs have been determined and they exceed the projected costs for the proposal will there not be a request by the applicant to change his proposal to higher density, what then? 5. It would have more sense to have determined if any proposal other than agriculture would have been accepted by the Metro Regional Authority before all the expense and public frustrations. 6. If the Regional Authority and or the Municipality refuse the Southland proposal will we the taxpayers have to return the application fee to the developer? Submitted by Douglas Massey, 875 Eden Crescent, Delta, B.C. V4L 1W6

1 AA response response has has been been sent sent to to the the writer writer advising advising that that their their comments comments will will be be included included in in the publicthe public feedback feedback for the for Southlands the Southlands Official Official Community Community Plan Planamendment amendment and rezoningand application.rezoning application. Staff will be Staff reviewing will be reviewingall correspondence, all correspondence, noting comments noting comments and concerns and whichconce willrns whichbe summarized will be summarized and reported and to reported Mayor andto Mayor Council. and A Council.set of binders A set ofthat binders contain allthat correspondence/feedback contain all correspondence/feedback on the Southlands on the application Southlands received application up to received and including up to Novemberand including 16, November2012 are available 16, 2012 for are viewing available at Municipalfor viewing Hall, at Municipal South Delta Hall, Recreation South Centre,Delta Recreation Winskill Aquatic Centre, and Winskill Fitness Aquatic Centre, and Tsawwassen Fitness Centre, Library, Tsawwassen Ladner Pioneer Library, Library andLadner George Pioneer Mackie Library Library. and CorrespondenceGeorge Mackie Library. received Correspondence after that date receivedwill be put after in a that new binderdate will that be will put be in madea new available binder that prior will to be Council's made available consideration prior to of Council’s first and second readingsconsideration of the of bylaws first and for secondthe Southlands readings application. of the bylaws for the Southlands application.

InIn response response to to Mr. Mr. Massey's Massey’s question question regarding regarding the the refund refund of of fees, fees, the the only only portion portion of of the applicationthe application fees feesthat thatwould would be refundable be refundable is the is $1,600 the $1,600 Public Public Hearing Hearing fee. fee.This Thisfee would fee onlywould be onlyrefunded be refunded if the application if the application were to were be denied to be deniedbefore itbefore is sent it tois senta local to Publica local Hearing.Public Hearing.

369 ,....• Mayor Council w

From: Cheryl Kristiansen :z:, Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:34 PM To: [email protected]; Mayor & Council; Jeff Day Cc: Delia.lag [email protected] Subject: Comments on Southlands Application

Importance: High Here are my comments via e-mail regarding the South lands Application: :::~1t:;D~~ Cheryl Kristiansen A.T "# ! [70.9.? ' 101-66A Street, Delta BC V4L 1M3 commerits:R'.Q~\J.Rv::-e;:;::..J H 0\- ~i,jL \"/(~ I attended the May 30th open house and was disappointed to see that while the proposal has had s me m;;;~~J JI finetuning, there are still many MAJOR fundamental issues and concerns that have not been addressed. These include:

Impact of fill and trucks on road - what will the impact be on current infrastructure to accommodate the number and weight of trucks bringing in fill for this development?

Access points - what improvements will be made to current roads to allow adequate access to this development? Boundary Bay Road is already congested and at evening traffic jam, cars lined up at 12th avenue to turn left are backed up signifcantly, usually waiting at least one light if not more. On 56th avenue near 4th avenue - where the other access road will be located - the street narrows down to single lane. How will traffic being able to get in lout especially with line-ups for the US border which back up all the way down past 6th avenue at times?

Traffic congestion - in general - how will the eXisting infrastructure be able to handle the increase in traffic, especially when factored in with other developments on TFN lands, etc. All the main services that people will need to access are up in town centre - including their dentists, doctors, bank, preferred grocery stores, restaurants, hairdressers, after school activities for their kids and places that they go for their own hobbies, sports and interests.

School and no school bus - There is no school close tothe Southlands development and the School District WILL NOT re open tiny little Boundary Beach school when they have other schools in the area that are underutilized. This old Boundary Beach school is now used for the international program which generates significant rent and revenue for the District - they will not reopen it to service families in these new South lands development. Furthermore, school bus service to Boundarv Bay has also been cut by the Board starting Sept 2013, so since most of the development is pushed down near Boundary Bay - all these families will have to DRIVE their children to school and compete on the roads with the other approx 120 -160 students (and their families) in the Bay impacted by bus cuts. The nearest K-7 school is South Park but its English program is in severe decline (only 6 kids in Kindergarten this past year), so most students go to other schools like Beach Grove, Pebble Hill, and English Bluff - tnat are certainly not within walking distance.

Market Pricing - the proposal indicates that the housing units will be affordable but the reality is that they will be priced at current market pricing - the developer is not going to give away his profit.

• i Diversity and Availability of housing units - there is more than enough diversity of housing units available in the market with current developments that have already been approved.

Access to beach - the current plan shows a road from 56th near 4th going down to 3rd avenue and the developer promotes it as giving better and easier access to the beach. But on 3rd avenue beach access - but there are not facilities there for the public - ie no washrooms, no parking. The real main beach access should be connected to the current access to Centennial Beach/GRVD regional park.'

1 Agricultural land - this land is already being farmed - potatoes now, corn in the past and various other crops in the back areas near the US border. There is NO reason that ALL of it can't be farmed effectively if the owner had maintained the land properly as agricultural land. We have an opportunity to keep this agricultural and provide future opportunities to give South Delta access to produce that is grown locally. We should not be paving over good farmland for profit. We should be using it to feed current and future people of Delta. This could be a true model of "suburban agriculture" with sustainable farming practices, demonstrations farms and perhaps expansion of the Earthwise Garden plots that are available for the public to learn how to garden.

Please say NO to the this development.

Furthermore, I am saddened and frustrated to hear that there will be NO bye election to replace Hamilton. He is granted a leave to focus on his new duties BUT then says he will come to various council meetings "when he can". So - I :; i guess he is there to be able to vote FOR this development and push it through against the MAJORITY of the people's wishes. If he is on leave - he should not be able to vote on this development application. It would have been nice to I have the opportunity for the people of Delta to vote of a new Councillor and perhaps bring in a fresh set of ears and ! eyes - someone really interested in listening to what the majority of people are saying about this development.

Regards Cheryl

.j I

2 370 genda Mayor Council A FILE # 111pCihZO(COCCXoYiO

From: Davina S Sent: Thursday, June 13, 201311:11 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: "No" to South lands Development TYPE~~~ AjW~ June 13, 2013 DEPT C tL.LCo-~Qf\D To Mayor and Council, ~O~I~~nt~ 9<~~~--eOhJI k cf ...£J)..IA I!> /3- Please accept this correspondence and ensure that it is added to the official correspondence regarding the applicat;C;~ t;,~thange the designation of the South lands. , I am opposed to the development on the Southlands previouslyknown as the Spetifore Farm. To date, it has been evidently clear that the majority of the public has responded "NO" to the proposed development plan andlor rezoning.

As a community member, I have been involved in an Ipsos-Ried survey (80% said no), a terminated public hearing and two information meetings al of which I have observed and facts have proven that the majority of the public is opposed. I sat at the council meeting where the results of the first information meeting were 80% against the development and rezoning of the Southlands, yet there was a motion to to pursue the application for further information. There was not a notable difference in the most recent information meeting indicating to me as a member of the public that this process is being pushed by the developer with force and possibly taking over decision making of our municipal leadership. I am not sure how else that you explain a development proposal that is objected time and time again by 80% of the public and still continues to be tabled.

There are several implications of the current proposal that affect public. that I am concerned about. (only some are listed).

1. Food Security - acres of 1his land are currently being used for agricultural purposes and provide annual crops locally. Portions of this land are left fallow and have not had any follow up from the announcement under the per view of Ian Paton to follow-up with land owners to have this land farmed as per designated. 2. Fill - the fill required to have this land prepared for development would be significant and can only be speculated at this point as to what it does for the surrounding residents water table. Adding to this the thousands of truckloads needed to complete this task. 3. Traffic - there is an expected thousands of additional vehicle traffic per hour that will travel along hwy 17 due to the Tsawwassen First Nations development. We can again only speculate how much of this traffic will enter Tsawwassen with an additional 2000 cars or more from the proposed development of Southlands. There has been no clear plan of the change of infrastructure needed or who will pay for it. 4. Taxes - The public is being shortchanged in details regarding traffic, infrastructure and drainage to the South lands and actual transfer of land which the public would absorb in taxes with no fiscal ownership from the developer to absorb these costs. How much is this costing the public already? Other than the initial cost for application, additional costs including staffing, reports, legal council and other have not been fully disclosed. . 5. The Boundary Bay Regional Park which is adjacent to the proposed development is designated a Ramsar site. DevelOPment of this site is in complete objection to the decision to act and protect this natural area of natural wild life, inhabitants and nature. 6. It is of great concern to read the letter from Kathleen Zimmerman, the Minister of Agriculture and it is an enormous RED FLAG for me as a community member. Kathleen's report was very succinct and resonated the negative impacts of the proposed development on South lands.

I received this email from Leslie Calvert, Heather McNeil and Theresa Duynstee on October 26, 2012. This email states that the South lands are in the Green Zone and that Metro Vancouver is protecting agricultural land.

SENT ON BEHALF OF HEATHER MCNELL

Dear Ms. McKaig:

RE: Metro Vancouver Regional Planning and the Development of Tsawwassen South lands

Thank you for your letter dated October 19, 2012, regarding the proposed development on the Tsawwassen Southlands.

On July 29, 2011, the Metro Vancouver Board adopted a new regional growth strategy that aims to concentrate futUre growth in urban areas and along transit corridors to ensure efficient investments in utilities, transit and infrastruclure while protecting agriculture land and the natural environment, (previously referred to as the green zone), The new regional growth strategy is called Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our FutL/re is available on the Metro Vancouver website http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/developmentlstrategyIPages/default.aspx _The Tsawwassen Southlands are designated as Agricultural in the regional growth strategy, (page 11).

1 Yours truly,

Heather McNeil Regional Planning Division Manager MetropOlitan Planning, Environment and Parks.

CC Theresa Duynstee - Regional Planner, Regional Planning Division

Metro Leslie Calvert Vancouver Metropolitan Regional Planning Program Assistant II Planning, Environment P. 604 432 6393 and Parks F. 604 432 6296

To recap the above in summary and conclude:

a. The majority (80%) of the public has said "no" several times and using several different methods. (80% no has been the standard to this proposal).

a. Negative implications with the proposed development, (Food Security, Fill, Traffic, Taxes, Boundary Bay Regional Park Ramsar designation and more.

a. The Letter from Kathleen Zimmerman the Minister of Agriculture indicates that the proposal for South lands in Delta raises many concerns and as a development plan that this one does not make the mark. It is not ALR land, but after reading this report, I suspect that if it was, this development proposal would not even be given a slight glance in compared to the attention and time it has been given at eh municipal level.

a. Metro Vancouver indicates that this is an agricultural zone and on the map on page 11 - Regional Land Use Designation - it is indicated as a : Non - Urban Designation (Agricultural)

The above points of summary directly point to an overwhelming decision to reject the Southlands proposal. As a community member involved in this process and viewed this lengthy process, it is time to reject the South lands proposal and leave it as agriculturally zoned.

sincerely,

Davina McKaig i' 895 Eden Crescent Delta, BC V4L 1W6

i I I

2 .. 371 agenda 3C N'''(), r:ILE # 1'0206..,;tl!WCQb iD,.1 Mayor Council w c:c From: Rick Albus :z:, Sent: Thursday, June 13, 20134:47 PM To: Mayor & Council Cc: Conference Phone; Jeff Day; Marcy Sangret; [email protected] Subject: South lands Development Preposal

To Whom it may Concern,

I am writing to add my voice to those who are against the development of the area known as the Southlands. I strongly believe that the destruction of this farmland at this moment in time is of no lasting benefit to the community. We owe it to future generations to make sure that something as valuable and unique as this property is protected and nurtured for their use. I implore you to listen to the majority of citizens and not allow this process to continue.

Thank you Rick Albus 263-66th Street Delta, B.C. V4L-1M7

1 372

Mayor Council

From: BevYaworskilD.Reynolds Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:58 AM To: Mayor & Council Cc: Jeff Day; [email protected] Subject: SOUTHLANDS genda II· . ~ Dear Mayor & Council: FILE #- 132?tn20 L.LCC

As Delta residents we wish to express our opposition to the present Southlands development application and add our name to the majority of Delta residents who similarly disagree with this application.

In the latest version of Century's application, there appears to be an attempt to give a portion ofland to the citizens of Delta for community-based farming in exchange for dense housing on agricultural land. Fortunately most of us can see through this so-called gift and the future public financial implications and strings attached.

It is inappropriate for the Corporation of Delta and thereby the citizens to be involved in operating a farm business due to our collective lack of knowledge or experience. The farming start-up costs of over $1 million alone should make Delta Councilors, city staff and citizens run for the hills away from this questionable project - even if it attempts to lure us in couched in its buzz words such as sustainability, green and community-based.

Delta Councillors this year after consultation with some real estate experts quickly decided to put the Ladner· Seven Seas and Brackman Kerr waterfront properties up for sale because the ongoing financial implications of waterfront development set off alarm bells with Councilors. Is this Southlands situation any different?

If the landowner Century Holdings is now so convinced that Southlands is a viable location for community based farming, then by all means this landowner should go ahead and do the necessary steps to farm it. (although his arguments are now suspicious considering only afew years ago, the landowner had other experts tell the community that the property was unfarmable due to poor soil, water was lacking and it could not make a viable farming operation.)

We have read through most of the Community-Based Farming Report commissioned by Century and even the BC Ministry of Agriculture staff have seriously questioned the accuracy and reliability of the report.

At its Southlands Cottage Courtyard open house at the Tsawwassen Mall, Century is promoting housing will be geared to affordable housing for South Delta residents who want to downsize. How can 2 bedroom cottages starting price $550,000 in today's market be considered affordable when larger single family houses with 3 bedrooms are averaging $600, 000 in the rest of Tsawwassen? The Southlands housing would hardly be a saving for downsizers.

We therefore repeat our previous opposition to placing dense housing on such a huge tract of Delta agricultural

I land. Various Delta Councillors have previously expressed concern over loss of farmland with the South Fraser Perimeter Hwy. Southlands is very similar.

Regards,

B. Yaworski & D. Reynolds 4687 Morgan Place, Ladner

1 373

Mayor Council , From: SMM ] = Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:39AM To: Mayor & Council genda /I' Cc: Michael Ruskowski A FILE #YpGtO-SO r~O Subject: Re: South lands Properties

Mayor and Council, Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2

I am writing in regards to South lands Properties

How many times I have to say that I am opposed to developing the South lands properties. Especially, with the current plan in for approval. It does not improve Tsawwassen, Delta, but the opposite. It takes away a valued land with a view of Boundary Bay. I really hope that you do not push this through! But alii see, from what you have been doing, especially in the last couple of meetings, where the public could not speak out. And those who were there representing Delta, were quite surprised or just replied to look at what was posted when I had pointed out that it is appears to be pushing more than 3 storey buildings and where.

I am for the more area to be kept as Farmland I Public Area. The proposed plan is really hacks it up so it makes it unrealistic. The proposed updated changes only make this even more clearer. Again, Tsawwassen does not have a voice with all the changes that are coming down. I find it all more important to keep the Southlands as an area of ParkIWildlife area.

I loved Delta as the small communities, Tsawwassen, Ladner and North Delta. With the farms, and small farms with stables, etc in between. I have been very disappointed on how the council has approved 6+ housing in the building in the 'Springs' golf course development. What about that tower in North Delta. But this is getting off track.

Again, the plan that is up for approval is only serving the right to chop up the land, and develop all of it in the end. I would prefer that nothing should be built anything north of 3A, especially for the Neighbourhood Centre and the neighbourhood north of it. This is the most important view and area of nature that I believe should be saved!!! Allowing it to be developed with 3+ buildings would only open the door for more to be developed. And that is after they put down so much sand .... And if this land is not saved, the beauty of South Delta view of the bay area with Mt. Baker from the upper 56th Ave toward the Diefenbaker Park area will, be gone. Also, When I received the notice for public information meeting for May 30, 2013. My first thought is when are you going to let people talk on this one? You keep going to silence the public into what appears to be an approval for this proposal, but everything is quite opposite of this. Both in what was sent back to you the council and the committees in the previous info meeting. I went to that meeting and everyone that did talk to me were more for South lands to be a park-like Stanley Park. I feel keeping the Southlands, if not agricultural, but a wildlife refuge area, like Reifel Bird sanctuary, with walk ways, etc. We need to look into the future to think what will be more ola benefit to Tsawwassen or I if not Delta as a whole. Yes, in the proposal there is land that is going to be put towards Delta, but it is no real value to this after the precious view is taken away for the profit of in building up north of 3A. This proposal is more for Century Holdings, not for the improvement of Tsawwassen. There is another area of farm land that is closer to Tsawwassen TownShip, which the current owner is holding out for result of this proposal. .

I do not want Tsawwassen to be classed as another Richmond, Burnaby, and Surrey... I would like it to be a community, which I felt people wanted at the Tsawwassen Area meetings. None of these 5-8+ storey buildings. .

Again I believe you have made the decision already, and rushing this through a pass notion even though those whom oppose it will not get a real chance to voice it this time. And personally, it would be more beautiful all of it as a park! Again, with these plans, only benefits more for Century to build. And what remaining opened up for more building in the future. Even though, it may be another 20 years down the road. And how Century would have people go to the public forums in the past to confuse those who are opposed. They would say they are opposed, but if you ask further questions, you will only then find out that they are for! They did it to confuse the issue and have the whole plan for Southlands passed. And the informational sessions, that I have seen so far only confirms the less the public really knows the better that this will pass. Because it doesn't totally answer what it going to built, and how the effects of traffic, etc. Yes, there are 1 signs & pictures, but the wording is open to change. The traffic volumes covers 56'h , but does goes into the effect of Hwy 17. Especially now that they are in the process of building a bottleneck portion. God, I do not want to be on it with the Ferry traffic ... Or another lovely brilliant plan to have the traffic with the trucks on the new road. This is only to verify the right to create more highway out of valued farmland.

And come on, letting anything built north pass 3'" Ave., is only taking away the precious view from 56 1h Ave., that everyone, including myself loves. I would like to see this preserved as a park, and compare it to Stanley Park, with pathways all around it. And come on having'buildings like an apartment building, Farmer's Market, etc. which are planned, that is taking away the view of Boundary Bay. Most of the buildings samples are 3 storeys tall, and that just not take in account of the infill. I have to admit that Century Holdings have put up some interesting proposals to cover all the views that are out there.

I was shocked to see the headlines, that there is going to be an 'Approval Hearing' for the South lands in September. Wow, another sign I see as Delta council has already made up its mind. Please, listen to the people, and do the opposite, and do not allow this proposal to go through. I know I may be just repeating the obvious. AGAIN I REALLY DO OPPOSE THE PLAN TO BUILD. I would prefer to see Southland area all kept as parkland for the future of Delta. Seems, like everywhere else it is going to be built up, no matter what the citizens of Delta says. I do not mind change, but some of the change that is happening now, is more for the money of possible investment. Whereas like this Southlands proposal is more for profit and taking away a precious view that is a treasure to see. As for the proposed land for Delta, I hope will remain in Delta's hands, not removed to built on In the future.

Not all this is helping to keep Tsawwassen as a community with a charm of its own. If shops and tall buildings, etc. are built in Boundary Bay, what will keep its Charm of Boundary Bay area? And best of all, going to Centennial beach.

She.lley McDowell 5270 Camaro Drive Delta, BC V4M 2B9

cc: Mike Ruskowski, Community Planning and Development Department.

2 374

Mayor Council c From: Susan Hodges ~, Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11 :52 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands application, delta, bc

For the Attn of: Delta Mayor and Council Members, The Board Members of Metro Vancouver lDay, Delta Planning

Please be informed that more than ever I am against development on agricultural land in general, but especially in Delta. We have experienced a massive loss of agricultural land to Port Metro Vancouver. The South Fraser Perimeter Road, (SFPR) taking land that could feed 200,000 people according to Harold Steves. The president of burns bog society, Eliza Olson, announced yesterday, weds. June 11, that their case against the federal govt for impacts against burns bog by the SFPR was found to have basis. This will be back in court. It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case.

There is also loss of agricultural land to the excessive port expansion, the inexplicable approval of high density Tsawassen Springs, far away from the town centre, The planned 4,000 homes at the Tsawassen First Nation and coming commercial sector associated with it. The optioned farmlands along the rail corridor and loss of land to Delta Train track and Rail improvement of port metro Vancouver, Also the land purchased by developers 20 years ago pulling out all the stops to develop it. Delta, that is the balance for the environment has sacrificed far too much impacting the Fraser River Estuary in a disastrous way. Dr. Mary Tait announced for example that the western sandpipers previously in numbers of nearly 3 million are in decline to 700,000 and falling. I include these remarks to present the fact that Delta is a piece of the estuary, not a solitary stand alone piece ofland such as a map would define. Southlands is a vital piece of this.

South Delta has enough housing with much more coming at Tsawassen First Nations. There is nonstop spot . rezoning, legalized suites and granny flats. The development of Tsawassen springs and its coming phases offer plenty of choice. It is an unsubstantiated and baseless argument that this is necessary.

The lack of a credible traffic study that will include the minimum of an expected 2000 cars per hour from Tsawassen First Nations. Traffic is already ridiculous at rush hour. Another 2000 cars does not add to our quality oflife. It is a negative.

The lack of a credible impact study of the berm to be built on Southlands and the impacts to Boundary Bay.

I well recall the nonstop trucks for construction of Windsor Woods. The massive fill on this habitat will result in nonstop traffic of 100,000 estimated trucks or more. Unacceptable.

The blatant support of the southlands project by Delta Mayor and Council, with storyboards,excessive staff time devoted to this is an insult to the definition of democracy. The democratic tools such as Ipsos Reid poll have been openly ignored. Instead of recognizing the majority of the residents are strongly opposed as is in the public record, there is another obstacle to or twist and turn along the path of democracy. The social Licence for this does not exist here. Our tax dollars have been invested heavily to promote Southlands. I must note the previous public hearing was illegally halted by mayor Lois Jackson, thereby returning the application development fee to Mr. Hodgins, as I understand it. Here we are again. Most people are even more strongly opposed. Please respect the majority of written and stated wishes and maintain the ones already on record. 1 I do not have faith the stated 80/20 split will result in said amount of agricultural lands. There will be setbacks, there will be walking paths, bicycle paths, roads, sidewalks. It is nonsense. I believe a more realistic number is about 55% left for some agriculture in smail plots.

Then the is the unanswed cost of maintenance of this by our tax dollars by the nurncipaIity.

There have not been any studies done on the neighborhood of Beach Grove where I live. I live on Beach Grove Road and foresee a drastic increase of traffic due to recreation and traffic patterns, thereby resulting in a probable loss of property value to my principal residence. Late night traffic, probable beach parties will ail occur.

Our environment is in the intensive care unit. Noise and lights every night does not bode well for a quiet natural habitat.

The location of this is against the planning principles of Metro Vancouver of itself. It must be near a major transportation hub, to comply but this is the exact opposite, in a quiet out of the way comer of Delta, a 20-25 min. drive by car to the nearest major bus exchange at Ladner Loop.

This must not be approved.

Susan Hodges 1575 Beach Grove Rd., Delta, Be V4L IP2

2 375 .....• w Mayor Council t From: wayne thompson Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:45 PM '. To: Mayor & Council Subject: Southland proposed development '::> U"1 Mayor and Council,

I am writing you to voice my opposition to the Southlands proposed development.

My hope is that you will listen to the voice of the majority, from the Ipsos Reid survey conducted years ago to the continued voice of opposition.

My concerns range from increased traffic, including truck and commuter, floodplain impacts and loss of farmland. Please do the right thing and deny the Southland's proposal.

Wayne Thompson 4814 13th Ave Tsawwassen

Sent from my iPhone

1 376 ,....• Mayor Council w

From: lawrence prior Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:26 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands o Dear Council un I don't understand what you don't know what NO means when it comes to the SOUTHLANDS.Are yo~ people being PAID by Mr Hodgens??? The whole community says NO to this development and still you give him the green light.What do we have to do to end this waste of taxpayer money??? Lawrence Prior #206 1248 Hunter Rd Del ta B. C. V4L lV8

genda ~ A FILE # 13.ao-~JDCOGio90

1 ....." 377 w .:..., Mayor Council ••c:: From: Margaret Lang Sent: Thursday. June 13. 2013 7:25 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South Lands

What is it that You don't understand about the South Lands I have voted NO more than a dozen times already against development of that area in Tsawwassen what more do I have to do.

Margaret Lang. Address. #206-1248 Hunter Road, Tsawwassen B.C. V4L 1Y8

genda . .. A FiLE ~Ur20 jLDCCG?ltO

1 378

Mayor _Council

From: Nick Conti Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11 :27 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: I COMPLETELY OPPOSE THE development application for the South lands

I COMPLETELY OPPOSE THE development application for the South lands

It's a beautiful natural habitat for Generations to come. Do not allow any development of this sacred area.

South delta already has to many people. It's a small isolated area. Leave it that way for my future family. I'm 27 and plan to live in tsawwassen for my entire life, I've grown up here and have witnessed the changes. Enough development of this area.

Sincerely, Nick Conti 5526 6A Ave tsawwassen v4mlp6

i-1

1 379

Mayor Council

From: linda Sent: Friday, June 14, 201311:57 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: NO TO THE SOUTH LANDS DEVELOPMENT

To whom it may concern:

Please accept this as my family's absolute rejection of the South lands development. Reasons were given in my last correspondence to you in the last phase of this debacle.

Regrettably, linda lazarus 173 - 66A Street Delta BC, V4L 1M6 0 genda l?ffi:trCXJ /w;;L1o?f1 , FILE. # l· I A.:~

1 380 genda ' FILE # t?:/}!bO -dO IIJJa'i.O?Sio! Mayor _Council A r w w From: Danielle Kaufhold ~, Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:17 PM To: Mayor & Council; Jeff Day; [email protected] Subject: South lands development application and amendment - June 13, 13 Attachments: photo.JPG; ATT00001.txt

Dear Mayor and Council, Director of Community Planning and Metro Vancouver

My husband and I love Tsawwassen. We came here in 1972 from Montreal and raised our family here. We have been residents of South Delta for nearly 40 years now. I believe the residents are proud, as we, of living peacefully here, as we all enjoy an exceptionally good quality of life ... a charmed life, really. We are lucky and grateful to be so fortunate. I would therefore like to stay and continue enjoy our life right here, as my husband and I are now retired and we anticipate the possibility of fully enjoying this pastoral setting and tranquility at this stage of our lives.

The possibility, however, still looming ahead of seeing our way of life be turned upside down with this prospect of developing the South lands - its amended 950 housing version - is daunting, to say the least, and is everything but consistent with our vision of a tranquil, pastoral, quaint life-style and setting. It represents rather a radical departure from it, that will inevitably transform this quiet setting into roaring chaos, as we foresee the unavoidable on-going years of construction with all the disruption it entails - the constant noise, dust, pollution and obscene traffic mayhem that is sure to ensue at such close proximity to our town centre.

Unimaginable. It is chilling and deeply disturbing. The skillful strategies used to make this Housing Development more palatable do not take away the reality of unthinkable number of trucks (up to 60.000 back and forth) required to prepare the site with truckloads of fill and later with construction material, rendering our town centre a chaotic and, no doubt, a hazardous place to be.

I strongly oppose, thus, this development application and its amendment, as does my husband. 56 Street, the only street in and out of Tsawwassen is going to be one big mess, no question. Leaving Tsawwassen and returning will be a nightmare, not to mention the congestion that will result at the Massey Tunnel. Our present infrastructure is just not meant to accommodate so many cars, particularly if we factor in all the other developments in the making which we are all aware of. I fail to see how this is going to benefit the residents of South Delta, despite Century's best intention of doing so.

I hope the majority of the residents impacted by this impending development and living with the dread of losing their quality of life, the loss of precious farmland and habitat for unique bird species - will continue to voice their vigorous opposition and that their voices will be heard when the majority speaks loud and clear.

Thank you for taking our feedback and position on this issue. If the pluses were trumping the minuses, I believe not so many people would be opposing it so forcefully and for such a prolong period of time. The uncertainty that remains about the fate of the 80% of the land gifted to the city is real and unsettling, as well as questions remaining about the cost for irrigation and drainage confirms that we are not ready to go ahead with this application and throw our future up in the air.

381 ,....• Mayor _Council w o c From: kidsart :z, Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:42 PM ..... To: Mayor & Council .... Subject: Say no to South lands rezoning

June 14, 2013 The Corporation of Delta

Att: Mayor and Council,

:1 I am writing to voice my opinion against any re-zoning of the farmland known as the South lands from its current agricultural zoning to a residential zoning.

The South Delta community has strongly rejected such a zoning change for many years. This area is part of a fragile bank of agricultural land that is necessary for current and future farming needs.

I am opposed to the change of the agricultural zoning for many reasons, including the loss of wildlife habitat, the loss of farmland, the traffic problems that a large development would generate, and the disruption that the construction of hundreds of houses would have on our community. I feel that any re-zoning of the Southlands would be financially and ecologically irresponsible.

As a resident of Boundary Bay, I have grave concerns how the flood proofing of the proposed Southland development would negatively affect our community.

Jann Crowley 163 67 A Street Delta BC V4L 1 L2

1 382 ,-.• w Mayor Council e li" From: From my G Mail Sent: Friday, June 14,20131:35 PM To: Mayor & Council genda Subject: South lands rezoning A FI LE # 1?:;2gf5/J.o, /UJ CXJo?J:co Mayor and Council, June 14,2013

I am writing to voice my opposition to the rezoning of any portion of the lands known as the "Southlands" in South Delta from its current agricultural designation to any form of residential andlor commercial zoning.

It is my opinion that the all of the Southlands should be retained for current and future farming needs. The farming land bank of South Delta is already being slowly chipped away by large scale projects, such as the new South Perimeter Highway, Deltaport expansion and the developments of the TFN lands. We as a community should be concentrating our efforts to preserve any remaining agricultural land for not only our needs, but also for the needs of future generations. We do not need to be offered a reduced percentage of the Southlands for farming, when the current zoning is already 100% agricultural.

It is often cited by those favouring a large scale Southlands development, that it is needed to attract new families to help the local economy and to allow current residents to downsize. Checking this week's real estate listings, there are over 300 properties in all price ranges to choose from in the South Delta! Ladner area. We do not need the loss of agricultural land, 20 years of construction, thousands of dump truck trips delivering back fill, as well as additional infrastructure costs to upset the quality of life for current residents. .

To argue that we need to greatly increase population densities to attract business and improved transit services is foolish. Looking about us in neighbouring municipalities and cities such as Richmond, Surrey, White Rock and as far away as Abbotsford that have followed the density game, we see huge traffic jams, hospital overloads, and constant screaming for the funding of increased transit services. Believe me, South Delta is not a very bright blip on TransLink's radar screen.

I am also strongly opposed to a large Southlands residential development in South Delta, based on the transportation problems that it would generate. South Delta's geography is unique; it is a peninsula, with only one exit at Hwy. 17 and 56 Street. Our traffic problems are not restricted to traffic generated from 56 Street. They also include the traffic from BC Ferries and the huge volunie of truck container traffic from Deltaport. The Tsawwassen First Nations is actively involved in adding a huge shopping and residential complex along Hwy. 17. Currently, there are already large volume backnps where Ladner commuters merge at Hwy. 10, and commuters south of the Fraser River merge at the Massey Tunnel. Further along, there are the ongoing traffic restrictions presented by the Knight Street and Oak Street bridges.

Our traffic patterns can be shown in the shape of a funnel. 56th Street is but a minor part of the overall pattern, and adding more vehicles into the top just causes more problems in the restricted areas to the North.

The majority of the South Delta community has voiced its opposition to the re-zoning and development ofthe Southlands for many years. It is time that the current re-zoning application is rejected and that steps be taken to place the Southlands back into the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Peter Nemeth

163 67 A Street 'b~ 1-tR I?,c. \f If-L.. I L-'d \ 1 383

Mayor Council

From: Keith Fletcher Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:51 PM To: Mayor & Council; [email protected] Subject: Proposed Re-Designation & Re-Zoning, South lands :>::"'" o,- genda "" Your Worship & Members of Council: A FILE # lo~ ';)o/'.000Id?y{O:;;

Century Group's current application for re-designation and rezoning of the Southlands in unacceptable.

In my view the scope and scale of such a project can only be described as community assassination. The majority of land within the Southlands has proven itself to be of sufficient quality for continued agricultural purposes and I cannot accept any argument that suggests the land is not suitable for farming purposes having lived in South Delta for 27 years and personally witnessed full farm operations at this location.

The community's thoughts on this have been known to Delta Council for many years - although sometimes necessary to be reiterated through the media, petitions, public hearing and various other communication methods. Each time an application for rezoning or re-designation is presented to Council the vast majority of South Delta residents mobilize to voice their concerns. I think we all understand the necessity of Council going through a public process to be seen to be fair in any subsequent judgement. However taking such applications to second reading to ensure a public hearing process takes place is surplus both from the cost to Delta taxpayers of holding such hearings and the time Council members have to dedicate to it. Council knows there is an overwhelming opposition to any changes on these lands that place burdens on Delta and Metro Vancouver's infrastructure, increases traffic and, more importantly, mean the loss of viable farmland forever. Clearly farming continues to be the most favoured use for this land by the local community who would wholeheartedly embrace this continuance and support it in any way it can.

The erosion of South Delta's peace and tranquility and loss of farm land is already evidenced by the overhead power lines constructed through the centre of Tsawwassen and the horrific commercial development on Tsawwassen First Nation lands. There is also the threat of construction of a "Waste to Energy" plant on the same lands.

At what pOint does the South Delta community say enough is enough. Frankly I believe we are past that point. Please therefore do not consider Century Group's current application for re-designation and rezoning of the Southlands and take the courage to have these lands placed back in the Agricultural Land Reserve where they rightly belong.

Respectfully,

Keith Fletcher fj;)6q (}urv\<1YD Uf\\lt., iYPE~B/?;'b~ Jl':),fcL , ~ DEPT \-- . 9~C. CA:D V'4~"I DlG\ A.T #:~ Comments: t2.€j JCJ-., Co"",,-cJ CH, Of \j~ (~3

1 384 Mayor Council

From: Yuen Tisdale Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:53 PM genda / To: Mayor & Council FILE # lo2£xhX W

I want to express one more time my opposition to the Southland development proposal.

Daphne Tisdale,

5155 Cliff Place Delta , be

Sent from my iPad

1 385 .....• Mayor Council w c.... c. From: Susan Bouwman :z: Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:22 AM , To: Mayor & Council J>,. Subject: South lands - Century Group Proposal -'!Iii' genda It ..... FILE # lo1OO-c;t:U)fX)(o{fto .- A J ..... Mayor and Council, w

I would like to again provide some comment on Century Group's latest proposal to develop Southlands. George Harvey's letter to Century Group of Oct 31,2012 refer's to the Associated Engineering flood assessment report and asks for a response including discussion of alternative ways of achieving appropriate flood construction levels for the Southlands development, and providing an estimate of the amount of fill that would be required. The Cotter Architects submission does not contain much in the way ofthe requested discussion. Associated Engineering flooding study prepared for Corp of Delta details certain recommendations. In particular a perimeter dyke to 4;8m GSC around the Southlands, and increasing the FCL from 2.9m to 3.Sm GSC. No perimeter dyke is proposed by Cotter - just a perimeter grade of minimum 3.0m. The Cotter drawings show a FCL of 4.2m. There is no background on how these levels were arrived at, and they are different than Associated's. The Associated report is clear in its technical justification and outlines four clear flood scenarios. As a minimum I would have expected the Cotter response to at least address these four scenarios.

Cotter Architects state their proposal "serves to accommodate any changes in grade associated with any future off-site flood protection strategies". Presumably this means they will address Delta's recommendation when and if Delta issue a flood protection policy - something the Associated report also recommends Delta do. Both the Associated and Cotter proposals for flood protecting South lands will exacerbate flooding to the rest of Boundary Bay should existing or future dykes and seawalls be breached in future. This is due to the net reduction in area below 3.0m in the Boundary Bay flood plain should South lands be developed as planned. In the case of a severe storm event, flood waters will fill to higher levels in the smaller remaining areas which are at lower elevation. South lands areas which are presently at or below the elevation of Boundary Bay residential areas is a potential collection basin for flood waters, which would sustain little or no damage to property if kept as farmland.

I would like to again state my opposition to this development. This is the wrong place for a housing development. Flood risk, liquefaction potential, loss of farmland, traffic and increased liability to the Corp of Delta in case of flooding are some of the reasons this development should not go ahead in its present form.

Gary Bouwman, P.Eng

":.")7LJIo Fer~vl 1":el·tct ,1'x."-- \NL ~Jl\

1 386 ,...." Mayor Council w

From: Carolyn Roberts Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:05 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: CURRENT PROPOSAL for THE SOUTH LANDS

Mayor and Council genda It FILE # -dO 0(0(0600 Municipality of Delta A 11?JW i

As residents of Tsawwassen since 1980:-

We would like to record our OPPOSITION to the Current Southlands development proposal. As we have indicated on numerous previous occasions, we are NOT IN FAVOUR of any Residential Development on these agricultural lands.

William Roberts Carolyn Roberts Joanne Roberts

63 - 52A Street Delta, B. C. V4M 2Z6

1 387

Mayor _Council c..., From: Debbie McBride c Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 5:27 PM :z:, To: Mayor & Council; Jeff Day; [email protected] Subject: Opposition to rezoning and development proposal going to Public He~.J 11: 1 TYPE: .__ 1}., ~.v-ut- DEPT_ b J Cilp .... > Ai. # I \13"11 .to. > I am sending this along to indicate my strong opposition to the pr~meme.oning of the area known as the Southlands. (Z..~ Jlf,<... Co",,~ IY~ > of -.-10\1-L I 6.1 :?, > Let me start off by expressing my incredulity at the fact that some members of Delta) I Council are congratulating themselves for saving the taxpayer $200,000. They are manipulating the system to prevent a by-election from taking place, yet have been and continue to be promoting a development that is clearly not wanted by residents. > > Yet here we are paying for a full time Delta Planner and staff whose job it appears to be to push forward and help a developer in a rezoning and development project that has been and continues to be clearly rejected by the residents who pay their wages. > > Add into the costs of holding more meetings, putting together more studies and reports and the cost of holding a by-election with a Southlands vote attached to it would have been a far cheaper and simpler solution. > > That cost saving solution has unfortunately and conveniently been tossed aside, so here we go again. > > As I indicated previously, i am in opposition to the proposed rezoning and subsequent development proposal. > > This proposal goes against everything that Mayor Jackson and members of Delta Council have indicated previously in their remarks about the importance of retaining farmland and natural habitat in Delta. To support this rezoning and development would certainly indicate to those who have purchased agricultural land in Delta for eventual ·development, including the adjacent property known as the former Guichon Farm, by a numbered Holding Company, that this land is up for barter. > > Yes, I know very well that the Southlands is not in the ALR and there has been indication by Delta that fact could matter in allowing this to go forward. However, it needs to be remembered that this land was removed from the ALR over the strong objections of the Agricultural Land Commission. An ALC that was headed at the time by South Delta farmer, Ian Paton Senior. > > The land was removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve by an Order in Council by the Social Credit government of the day. During the infamous Public Hearings dealing with the proposed development in the 1990's, former Speaker of the House, Stephen Rogers, revealed that Cabinet had been misled and given wrong information when the Order was put in place. This was widely reported in the press at the time and is in the Delta records of the Tsawwassen Development Public Hearings should you wish to check further into those details. > > This past history is important for two reasons. First, the BC Ministry of Agriculture has issued a report sharply critical of the current proposal and should be studied in detail. > > Secondly, Delta's dismissive comment that the Ministry of Agriculture's critical findings were not important because the property is not in the ALR needs historical context. 1 > > Were it not for the misinformation received by the Provincial government at the time, it is highly likely the land would still be in the ALR. It was not removed from the ALR because the land was poor and unfarmable. It was and continues to be very good agricultural land. > It was removed under. dubious conditions to try and get it developed. > > Yes, this latest plan that is being put forward by Century differs from that past development proposal in a very significant way. This time around the proponent themselves tell us the land is farmable and could be very productively farmed. Yet in the previous proposals for development, the proponent provided many reports stating the land was of poor quality and couldn't be farmed. > > Funny how that happened and leads to even more questions about the veracity of each and every report provided to Delta by the proponent. The Southlands, I'm sure, was not visited by the Good Soil Fairy who suddenly turned unproductive and poor quality land into good productive agricultural land. > > No, I'd say that no magical transformation took place. The land was and always has been productive but now because the developer is taking yet another kick at the can and we are playing Let's Make A Deal, Century has decided to go with the Urban Farming angle. > > Whatever works I guess. > > Lets return to today's proposal, where once again we are being shown reports provided by the proponent. Reports about traffic, rising sea levels, quality of life issues and how the increased need for services have been provided. Yet how do we trust these reports to be accurate and truthful? We have seen for ourselves a huge twist of information that has been manipulated shamefully over the years. > > This attempt to change the Tsawwassen changes drastically the Tsawwassen area plan. > > Century wants to add yet another commercial center where none is needed. Hodgins Century Town Center mall is practically empty already as is the Century business complex across from the Rec center. > > As for yet another Farmers Market, we have 2 very good ones which are on both sides of 56St. > > There are already 4 other strip malls located alongside 56 St and Century just received approval for another commercial center included in his newly approved 56 st. Townhouse/condo/seniors living complex. That was approved with little disapproval from residents because adding to the population there would not really impede traffic. That again adds even more residential and commercial property. > > If the walkable town square is being used as a reason to allow yet another commercial center, then what we have as our town center is already in place. Certainly Century could build his commercial and live/work plan right there in the existing footprint. A brown fields endeavor that would not require thousands of pounds of fill be carried through the heart of Tsawwassen. Currently his mall is one story and is very old. If Century truly believes in a green mission, ecologically a repurposing and renewing in the actual town centre would be more appropriate. > > Additionally, since the TFN are building a giant mall it makes little > sense to build yet another retail facility that will sit empty. This is not conjecture, it is fact. Wherever Walmart centers open up, town centers and Main Street are decimated. The merchants of Tsawwassen will be had pressed to survive. I fully expect the people of Tsawwassen will support them as much as they can but there will be a struggle. There is no

2 value in adding to Century's commercial property inventory when they are unable to rent the properties they already own and will find themselves with additional commercial space as their new projects are finished. > > > > Additionally, the TAP that was just approved with multi family zoning centering in the town core will create a new zone that is not in keeping with the Area Plan. People in Tsawwassen were very upset at the inclusion of multi family projects in a single family residence area. Delta Council realized the follies of this plan and pulled the new Area Plan back in order to reduce the footprint of multi family residences into single family homes. > > I would remind you here, that the uproar about the newly minted Tsawwassen Area Plan was not about keeping the Southlands in an agricultural zoning. The retention of that zoning was applauded by the residents and the recommendation was endorsed unanimously by the Tsawwassen Area Planning Committee. > > To force residents to go through yet another expensive and time consuming Public Hearing makes no sense. Delta Council has it in its power to stop this right now and save taxpayers, including those of Metro, a lot of money simply by enacting the wishes that have been expressed very clearly over the last number of years by residents. > > Century would like you to believe that attitudes have shifted and residents are ready to accept a rezoning from Agriculture to Comprehensive Development. Wishful thinking on Century's part considering that the vast majority of letters and comments speaking to this latest proposal has been overwhelmingly against the zoning change. > > I will not ask questions of Delta Councilor Staff at this pOint because I was recently sent an email informing me that none of my questions would be answered. I would have to wait for the Public Information meeting to take place. > > Well, I have waited and very few of my questions were answered at the Information Meeting, though I did learn that Delta and Century used the very same company to produce the traffic study. Since Delta made it very clear my questions would no longer be answered by Delta Staff I am wondering just how my questions and queries will be answered. It had always been my understanding that it was permissible for everyone, especially those who would be affected, who had questions regarding a municipal project to get an answer. > > Not in Delta. > > Therefore, since it seems there has been such a massive reversal of the ability of the land to be productive, from poor to excellent, the recently passed Tsawwassen Area Plan and the obvious negative community reaction to the proposed rezoning, please save Delta taxpayers even more money, by refusing to take this planned rezoning and development proposal to Public Hearing. > > Respectfully, > Debbie McBride > 1086-S1A St > Delta, BC > V4M 2Yl

3 388 Mayor _Council

From: Linda Oltho Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:56 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Southlands - Your file LU006390 Public Info Mtg May 30/13

j;,. Dear Mayor and Council, .r;::, Our family - Ulf, Linda, Aaron and Bryan Ottho support the proposal presented at the Public Information Meeting on May 30, 2013 regarding the Southlands Official Community Plan Amendment & Rezoning Application.

There are so many features that Sean Hodgins through Century Holding has presented that are a gift to our wonderful community of Delta. It seems that no other person, or developer has ever wanted to give back to the community he lives in as much. Plus the homes and development that he is proposing will make a wonderful asset to our community, letting us older, ready to retire and downsize families have an option so that we can stay and enjoy where we chose to live. Younger families can also have an option to enjoy the community they grew up in as well.

Imagine if someone else had the same location, who would not be as community minded and might possibly just put in any kind of farming service in that location that would not be what we or anyone would want.

We have lived in Beach Grove, Boundary Bay and now Cliff Drive areas, and just love our community.

Please help our community to grow and thrive by supporting this wonderful addition to our area.

Sincerely, Ottho Family )

1 389

Mayor Council

From: deltareg Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:56 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: SOUTH LANDS

This was sent to the "deltareg" email address ....

Thanks,

TV!AIl:YCI/ ZCVVLfl; <9ffi-ce> supewUo-v ·SoutYvVel:ccv corporcU:uwvofVel:ccv· pru-4; Recve

From: douglas & leone cox Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 1:32 PM To: deltareg Subject: SOUTH LANDS

Mayor & Council, Corporation of Delta:

Once again I am voicing my strong opposition to any development on the land in Tsawwassen now called "THE SOUTHLANDS". .

My husband and I moved to Tsawwassen, many years ago. Before buying our present home on First Avenue, we enquired at Muncipal Hall about the large piece of farmland, then being farmed, on 56th Street (now The South lands). We were assured by a senior employee in the Planning Department, who has since died, THAT IT WAS ZONED FOR FARMING, IN THE ALR, AND WOULD REMAIN AGRICULTURAL LAND. We were shown the documents and official maps, etc confirming this.

We had owned a farm of a similar size in the South of England and we, especially my husband, were pleased to receive this information. Also my husband would often walk, or in poor weather drive, to the farm then watch from the road, the various stages of farming that the Spetifore family carried on during these years. Having been a hands-on owner of his own farm in England, he could say, without reservation, that it was a productive farm.

Of course soon after we moved into our house on First Avenue we learned about the continual battle over the Southlands which, unfortunately, continues to this day, many years later.

1 My husband and I attended every night of "the longest Public Hearing in Canadian history". Nothing we have heard/learned since that time convinces me that a significant majority of the residents of South Delta no longer feel strongly that this land should remain zoned for farming. I think many people might even feel more strongly today and that a larger number are actually in favour of retaining this land for agriculture.

Please consider this email as my most emphatic opinion that the South lands should remain agricultural land.

Thank you.

LEONE M. COX (Mrs.) 5191 First Avenue Tsawwassen, Delta, B.C.,V4M 1 B4

Telephone:

2 390

Mayor _Council

From: Sandra MacFarlane Sent: Friday, June 21,20139:17 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Southlands

·~~--:i~jpE =~«(2MT'tqVi: rt~c~~ From: Michael Ruskowski Sent: June-21 ~ 13 9:01 AM DEPT ____~:ft-~ To: Sandra MacFarlane Subject: FW: South lands f\.l. # __ JllL[1b Comments J vd'1 I s; I \"7 ,e. ~dVll

From: Helen Johnson Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:59 PM To: Michael Ruskowski Subject: South lands

Mayor and Council,

I have lived in Tsawwassen since 1977 and have witnessed immense change. While living directly across from the Spetifore/Southlands property for two decades, I was very wary of proposals for development. The defeat of the proposal of the late 1980s was met with relief by my family and most other residents of our neighbourhood. The current proposal is a world of difference from that one.

Other members of my family are writing to you to discuss some details of the proposal. I would like to address my personal case. After a decade in the Okanagan, I returned to Tsawwassen to be nearer to my children and grandchildren (and, since returning two years ago, two new great-grandchildren). We came to Tsawwassen in 1977 for the great reasons all of you understand.

By integrating active agriculture and a major new park, this proposal promises to make Tsawwassen even more attractive for those already here and for those who are destined to come.

But the thing that impressed me most with the proposal is the recognition of the need for housing for people like me. I have been a lifelong gardener and have always enjoyed the pleasures a yard can offer. Now in my ninth decade, I am not in a position to undertake the kind of major gardening I once did, but there is no alternative that wou1~ allow me a middle ground. I. am ~appy in an a,\;artment ~ear th~ town cen~re, but there is little area for pursumg my hobby and, frankly, bemg duectly on 56 Street, httle sohtude to enJoy what plants I have managed to nurture on my balcony.

1 Again, I am happy enough in my apartment. But I would have been delighted to have an opportunity of the sort offered by the proposed cottage homes, not only in terms of the home and small garden, but also the community it promises it to create among residents.

Even if you approve this proposal, it will be realized too late for me to take the opportunity to enjoy it. But, I'm sure I do not need to tell you, people my age represent the thin edge of a wedge. In the next decade or two, the numbers of people who will be seekingaltemative sizes and forms of housing will skyrocket. This proposal could be a model not only for Delta, but for communities far beyond here, who are seeking ways to address this housing issue. Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Helen Johnson #302 - 1428 56th Street, Delta

2 391

Mayor Council c c: From: Sandra MacFarlane :z::, Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:17 AM A.. . genda . To: ]2 'It),/)~ryl~lo N Mayor & Council .n. FILE # , O-!':. ~ - ~ ~ Subject: FW: South lands Proposal

., _.- ""--~ From: Michael Ruskowski Sent: June-21-13 9:01 AM To: Sandra MacFarlane Subject: FW: South lands Proposal

From: Jerry Johnson Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:57 PM To: Michael Ruskowski Cc: Subject: Southlands Proposal

To Mayor and Council: I raised my three children at 447 56th Street. My kids and I enjoyed looking across the street and seeing the fields change with the seasons, occasional farm machinery, potatoes sprouting, growing and being harvested and occasionally cattle grazing. It has been a beautiful part of our neighbourhood and of my children's lives. My parents bought this duplex in 1987 and, now that I am a grandparent, I look forward to having a fourth generation of my family living here and enjoying all that the neighbourhood offers. Like almost all of us, I was completely opposed to the proposal 25 years ago, which would have dropped suburban sprawl across the land. And although I thought Mr. Spedifore's revenge for the rejection of his proposal was brilliant (dropping pig manure over the entire property) I have been hesitant ever since, knowing that something would eventually happen across the street. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the original and the revised plans for the current proposal. As much as my family and I have enjoyed the view of this magnificent stretch ofland, consider this: We have never done anything other than look at it. Well, on occasion, my kids defied the "No trespassing" signs and ventured in to the fields, but it was rare and discouraged. For the most part, when you think about it, this property is an inaccessible hole in the heart of our community that cannot be entered or traversed. It is an attractive hole, no question, but for generations it has been underutilized agriculturally and off limits to the population. Under the proposal before council, I, my children and grandchildren could walk or cycle from 56 th street, through what promises to be, as long as the most recent proposal is approved (unlike the 'Park" that was promised at the corner of 6th & 56th St when Forest By The Bay was developed), then pass a village of welcoming residents and vendors, to a beach that, until now, has required driving or cycling on busy, dangerous roadways. The park proposal- a truly generous gift from the developer - would redefine Tsawwassen as an even more magnificent place to live and visit. We utilize Diefenbaker park almost daily and we marvel at what a gorgeous community amenity it is. Imagine something as spectacular, with water features and all the other 1 benefits. at the absolute, literal heart of the community! And the agricultural component offers the opportunity for my two infant grandchildren to genuinely witness where food comes from and to appreciate the work of small~scale farmers and the produce they provide. For these reasons, and the many more you will hear, I urge you to advance this proposal to reality. If you do, I believe you will be seen in the history of our community as forward-thinking, innovative and imaginative public servants who saw an opportunity to make Delta a model of planning genius. Generations will thank you.

Sincerely, Jerry Johnson The Wagonmaster Group

message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

2 392 genda - • Mayor Council A FILE # IQ220!1L.l1XXe3i~ c:::I From: Sandra MacFarlane :z:, Sent: Friday, June 21,20139:17 AM N To: Mayor & Council ..... Subject: FW: Southlands Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application

~ TYPE fry.ia->( ¥..!-. OJ t ,_,~~~_, _'_~~ ___ "'_'~' __ " , _____ u ______D~-" Cl ')-!) _ From: Michael Ruskowski ,-' \ lit u:::7 Sent: June-21-13 9:01 AM A. I. #: ~----- To: Sandra MacFarlane Comments.;j i.A \"'( \ S \ \ 3 Subject: FW: Southlands Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application fZ~Vl lar /hee h"'1

From: Beverly Brazier Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:59 PM To: Michael Ruskowski Subject: Southlands Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application

From: George and Beverly Brazier 122 Centennial Parkway Delta, BC V4L 1K3

The South lands proposal will destroy the fabric of Boundary Bay. It is too large and should be cut to 450 units and moved up to 56th Street.

The majority of Council were elected by the residents of North Delta, who have no stake in this issue whatsoever. Council must respect the wishes of the residents of Tsawwassen, who have repeatedly shouted loudly and clearly "NO" to Century's current proposal.

Even if you, as a member of Council, are in favour ofthis project, you must respect the wishes ofthe residents of Tsawwassen and vote "NO". You are well aware ofthe opinion of a majority ofthe residents of Tsawwassen, and you must, as responsible members of Council, vote "NO".

As a result of the size and location of Delta, it costs more to provide services required by the community and thus has one of the highest property taxes in the province of Be. Delta is essentially a rural area which has, against the will of its citizens, been taken over by urban sprawl. Those of us who live here have done so to remove ourselves from this kind of living.

1 This project does NOT benefit the citizens of Tsawwassen. It benefits only The Century Group. Residents of Tsawwassen and Boundary Bay have repeatedly shouted "NO" to the Southlands Project. It is time that Mayor and Council- and the Century Group -listen to the people of the community and act on their behalf. We are those who will be deeply affected by this atrocity and the destruction of a serene and pristine environment.

Please listen to your voters and say "NO" to this South lands Project!!!

George and Beverly Brazier

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediatelyby telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

z 393 ,...." w Mayor _Council

From: ::IF I'U Sent: Monday, June 24, 20132:03 PM .;.. To: Mayor & Council Subject: southland development application IA ~~~~~ !3WJ-:1 (XU$iO ~ 6 dear mayor and council: .J:>,. not too long ago there was a "divine right to " rule and govern"by such proponents as Louis XVI OF FRANCE, CZAR NICHOLAS of Russia both of whom lost their heads in the process because of their autocratic decisions and not listening to valid complaints by the" demos"- the people. Canadians consider their governments at all levels democratic. the people directly affected by your past and future decisions have spoken very clearly on several occasions NOT TO ENTERTAIN A PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPING THE SOUTHLANDS. when Krista Engeland ran for mayor she topped ALL POLLS in Tsawwassen with her outspoken opposition to south lands development. when Sylvia bishop ran for council, she also topped all polls in Tsawwassen because she opposed the south lands development. you received approx. 250 letters in favor and about 1250 against development. this should convince even the most compliant councilor, that "demos" the people have spoken. the argument that only a small percentage of the demos do not want development does not hold water when compared to the last municipal election participation- it was decided by only 33% of the population entitled to vote.is south lands worth the additional staff hours of work at taxpayers expense to please a land speculator- I don'tthink so; the people most effected have clearly spoken.is it worth to the developer? yes, like several million dollars. the proposal is not worth it to the people who have consistently opposed it? no it is a degradation of Tsawwassen and its constituents. has there been a thorough evaluation in light of the new FLOOD CONSTRUCTION LEVELS? HAS THERE BEEN A THOROUGH INDEPENDENT STUDY OF BUILDING ON A FLOOD PLAIN? HAS THERE BEEN A STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL HYDROLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THIS ANNUALLY FLOODED LAND? Specifically the "demos" the people, don't want to see in the process hat this process might potentially take three years that would bestow 46000 trucks per annum, at three hundred days a year and eight hours /day, one would enjoy 20 rucks /hour or one every 3minutes, followed by an untold number of cement trucks, followed by a multitude of lumber Trucks plus pick-up trucks for trades people. only an autocrat could approve this scheme ofthe CENTURY.

thanks for your attention Siegfried Puetz

:;r .90\ - \'3<)0 '\flew O'LS j)e~tu ( u~ \fLlL 6lt(3

1 394 • genda l· ,.... Mayor Council A,.. FILE # 029::9 -fey! iyrt@1~ ::z:, From: Mark Offley [ r,-, Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 5:07 PM r.rl To: Mayor & Council; [email protected]; ~ [email protected]; Michael Ruskowski; Gaetan Royer C> Subject: Southlands application questions co Attachments: Letter to Delta Mayor from BC Min of Agriculture.pdf .ii.. 0'1 Importance: High TYPE~Jtv\ ~L.JIA.-{t{) Dear Mayor and Council, DEPT p,+-!) ~ c., AT If _ 1\ lLfJi2- .(\ CAX. ~ comHt[ or~~~~r;/I: I attach a copy of an alarming letter from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture on the a~ubject and in general circulation as well as officially received and posted at your office.

Despite the fact that you have stated that Southlands is not ALRand you are not under obligation to consider the details, the very content requires serious investigation as it highlights ONE of the constant issues, that of actual cost and therefore the feasibility of the project.

Rather than merely collecting and compiling binder after binder of written input from the residents of Delta, public "information" meetings and copying the sources ofthe outdated report they issued on behalf of the Century Group, I request specific answers to the letter and also to the below questions on an urgent basis.

1. When will Delta Council meet to discuss whether or not to proceed to first and second reading? Will all outstanding questions and concerns be considered at that time?

If this proposal was to proceed beyond first and second reading what is Delta's intention with regard to the next step. Is it intended that there will be a local Delta Public Hearing, or will this be sent to Metro Vancouver first?

3. If this proposal was to proceed beyond first and second reading will Delta commit to a democratic process that goes beyond a public hearing, to include a surveyor referendum, so that democracy can be seen to reflect the majority opinion in the community?

At the June 24, 2013 Regular Meeting, Council received, for information, correspondence from Mr. Offley which contained similar questions and concerns raised in his recent email dated June 24, 2013. A response to the writer's emails is being prepared. 1 4. In support oftheir OCP/zoning amendment application MK-Delta Lands recently submitted an extensive geotechnical design report. Century Group has not done this for their Southlands application. Will Delta commit to ensuring that this is done now rather than later? Geotechnical issues such as liquefaction and earthquake induced lateral spreading ofthe fill placed on liquefiable ground have the potential to change the feasibility, scope, and economics of this project if not adequately addressed upfront.

5. The proposed FCL of 4.2 m is less than that recommended by. Delta's consultant's report which identified 4.8 m. as the level for flood protection in accordance with new Provincial guidelines.

Can you provide a breakdown of the various factors that Delta has included to arrive at a lower figure of 4.2 m? Why has this been used?

6. Could Delta provide details of how the eastern parameter 6m easement will

" accommodate any changes in grade associated with any future off-site flood protection strategies"?

Why is there no similar easement on the west perimeter, or along the greenways?

Would Delta commit to demonstrating, now, that" future strategies" are viable to provide protection up to El. 4.8m?

7. What consultations has Delta held (or plans to hold) with Provincial agencies with regards to flood protection aspects ofthis proposed development?

8. Geo- Pacific Consultants Ltd report is" preliminary" based on Phase 1, 3rd Avenue at Boundary Bay Road. At only two pages does it contain adequate information to allow safe consideration ofthe development application?

This report also identifies that portions ofthe site could be subject to liquefaction.

When will a full comprehensive geotechnical examination and report be conducted that will cover both Phase 1 and 2 proposed development areas?

2 9. Has Delta updated the development vehicle total? The number of dump trucks, and other development vehicles should be published together with the expected hourly, and weekly road occupancy that is expected during the period of construction, and site preparation.

10. Clarification is needed to determine the cost and benefit to Delta taxpayers who reside in Tsawwassen should 80% of the Southlands be acquired by Delta.

11. Who would pay for the drainage and irrigation ofthis 80%?

12. How many housing units and commercial buildings are proposed for the area adjacent to 56th Street?

13. What would be the order of construction? Would all the roads and infrastructure be completed initially? When would the proposed connector road from 56th Street be completed? Would Phase 1 be built at the same time as the 56th Street development?

14. Would the developer pay for all the road construction and road works, and the excess wear and tear caused by the heavy truck traffic?

15. What measures will be provided to identify and control pollution during the construction period? Will be monitoring of particulate, including dangerous diesel particulate?

16. Before Delta could accept ownership of 80% of the Southlands, there should be a comprehensive understanding and plan for the use ofthis land. Where is this?

17. It is noted that there is a considerable amount of proposed underground parking that will be substantially below the FCL. Has this type of construction been approved previously? Is it considered to be satisfactory, and if so why?

18. The construction plan indicates that very smalllive-in/work-in accommodation with areas of 375 ft. 2 could be constructed in some parts of the development. These appear to be of minimal size. What justification is there for planning these? 3 Yours sincerely

MarkOffley 5656 Goldenrod Crescent Delta B.C. V4L2G4

4 • 263 .....w $ -< genda I· ,..:. A FILE # l;iIDO-h20/tJ.X;;Ol£J1Q; Q 0 BRITISH r COLUMBIA .5""" I.Jl WW\\I,gov.bc.ca

May 15, 2013

Mayor and Cmmcil The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta,BC V4K3E2

RE: Della Community Based Farm District - PIaliniDg Soutbbmds as a Regionally Signifieal1t Model for Metro Vaul:Ouver

Dear Maycir JaCkson and Council:

It has come to our attention that the report titled, Delta Communi/;Y~Based Farm District Plannilf!} Southlaads as a Regionally SitJniftcantModel for Metro Vancouver (CBPD) has been submitted as part onhe Southlands OCP amendment and re~zoning application currently under consideration by the Corporation of Delta. .

While the Southlands is not in the Agricultural Land Reserve, and therefore Delta is not required to seek Minister of Agriculture approval for bylaws affecting this area, we would like to inform Delta of our concerns about the report, since ids largely based on calculations from Ministry documents. .

In the covering letter frOll) Century Group that accompanied the report, the applicant stated that the report's purpose was to articulate the specifics of how Southlands "can be activated towards the Community-Based Farming Model." However, we feel that the report does not indude sufficient, reliable information on which to base this significant planning decision. We have discussed these concerns with the report's authors.

Our primary con<;erns about the report are listed below. A more detaned list of concerns is contained in Schedule A.

First, the report does not include enough details regarding soils, suitable crops, and drainage and irrigation improvements needed at the site. The CBFO report authors have indicated that their client requested that they assume that drainage and irrigation needs

MaiIl1g_ 17B1AIl!"'~_ AbbOMord, Be il3G %"'3

Te~l$04l_ F,_1ee 1$(4) S!j8.3I)!I) Page 2

would be taken care of. Consequently, the report does not capture the costs associated with these items, As the "Southlands Drainage and Irrigatlon Assessment" report commissioned by the Corporation of Delta shows, drainage enhancements (a t a cost of $6 million) and irrigation improvements (at a cost of $7 million) would be critical to crop production. In his covering letter, Mr. Hodgins offered to pay for the installation of drip Irrigation lines using municipal water for Phase 1, but there is no mention of paying for: drainage improvement costs in Phase 1; the costs of both drainage and irrigation improvements In Phases 2 and 3; or the actual costs of the metered municipal water used for irrigation In any of the phases.

Second. the report utilized the Ministry of Agriculture's Planning for Profit Enterprise Budgets to calculate the potential revenue for most of the proposed crop/livestock types, These budgets are in 2002 or 2008 dollars and were intended for individual farm planning at farms ofa certain scale, using conventional production methods and a mix of wholesale and direct farm marketing. The repOrt did not adjustthe dollar amounts for Inflation, or adjust for organic production costs (Including higher labour costs) or lower organic yields, or for product slippage at 100% direct farm marketing. If these adjusbnents had occurred, the report's'conclusions about the economiC viability of these crop/liVestock types would have been significantly different

Third. the costs for hedgerow planting and maintenance (which would be incurred by the Corporation of Delta in Phase 2 and 3 of the plan) have been significantly underestimated. The report utilized a 2003 California publication and came up with planting costs (for a 4 to 5 meter Wide hedgerow) at $2.36/Iinearfoot, and operating costs of $0.52/linear foot Costs incurred by the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust hi planting a 4 metre wide hedgerow in 2012 were $43.14/linear foot. The Trust's hedgerow maintenance costs are also Significantly higher than the reparted $0.52/linear foot.

Fourth, we do not support the premise that the public will appreciate agriculture and become more involved with it by living adjacent to it, particularly small-scale, organic plots. Farm operations of all types and sizes will almost certainly utilize machinery and manure. generating a variety of annoyances for non·farm neighbourslncludlng odours and noise. In addition, many farms do not welcome the public, for theft. vandalism, and/or biosecurity reasons. Ministry of Agriculture staffijave years of experience with the agricultural/urban edge and our research has found that most people like seeing agriculture from a distance. Both fanners and their non-farm neighbors favour a cansistent and clear delineation of actiVities. The Ministry's "Guide to Edge Planning" recommends establishingvegetated buffers and residential building setbacks to ensure compatibility over time, particularly as indlvidual homeowners and farm bUSinesses change. 'I, Page 3 ,'I

, Thank you for taking these concerns into account. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions about these Comments.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Zimmerman, M.Sc., P.Ag, Regional Agralogist .

Hannah Cavendish~Palmer, M.A Land Use Planner

Cc, Bert van Dalfsen, Manager, Strengthening Farming Program. BC Ministry of Agrl cui ture Orlando Schmidt, South coast Manager, BC Ministry of Agriculture Tara Moreau, Grow Moreau Consulting Kimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places

Attachment

The SouthlandssltelS notin the Ag-rlculturaT LanaRes~rve:andDertais ih.;;'refore not required to seek Minister of Agriculture approval for bylaws affecting these lands, The comments from the Ministry of Agricultu re on the report titled, Delta Community Based Farm District - Planning South lands as a Regionally Significant Model for Metro Vancouver have been received for information. It is also noted that the information submitted to Delta by the Ministry of Agriculture has also been sent to the authors of the report that was prepared for Century Group,

------.------... ~--. 395 eneral ...... " G FILE # i3)<06-C?qiu.X:·C02:A c. w Mayor Council .:.... 'iii :z:• From: Debbie McBride N Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:34 PM -.::I To: [email protected] Cc: CAO's Office; Mayor & Council; Michael Ruskowski; Jeff Day TYPE ~v.,(twArM"'! Subject: Archeological studies on the South lands DEPT J:£<:\.;'i) c::c@ ~ ...

Mayor and Council, A.T. # -JJ~-.__ .. Comments:

Well, I have waited and have found that my questions were not answered by reading the submitted reports or the Public Information Meeting. Now I have no iQea how or if my questions will ever be answered. Since my previous questions were not answered, how will I, or anyone else who have asked questions regarding the proposed rezoning get our answers?

I was instructed by Delta to then raise my concerns at an upcoming Public Hearing. I and others I'm sure, are left wondering just how to get answers for our questions in time to speak with knowledge and accuracy at a Public Hearing since the Public Hearing doesn't allow more than 5 minutes for each person. Within those 5 minutes we are required to make comments and ask questions. Any answers, if they are forthcoming at all, would take time away from comments that are trying to make. Especially since we are not going to be given direct and focused answers for direct and focused questions.

The information meeting was not set up ~n a question and answer form where everyone wanting to ask a question can be answered in a public venue, so its impossible to know if my questions had been asked and answered. Certainly, note taking was scattered at best and it doesn't seem as if each question was logged and identified 'so followup could be done. It was quite surprising to see again Century's own artwork and graphs being used by Delta and that Century Employees were in attendance with Delta Staff. The public had been told that this would be a neutral venue for information so that all questions could be raised and asked without the developer's spin attached to the information. It clearly wasn·t.

If it had been there would have been very clear and factual pictures and graphs. Not pretty artist renderings done for Century, I did not see any realistic examples of height's of buildings and the amount of fill that would be required. It would have been very helpful to have a physical rendering of the berm that would be required for flood proofing. Something a person could have stood beside to get a true feeling for the actual height, instead of a pretty picture.

There could have also been a physical structure so comparison of the actual height of the houses on stilts to be built there could be compared to the existing homes in Boundary Bay will be. This could still be done and would be most helpful.

I would like to know just how and when the public's questions will be fully and satisfactorily answered. This is vital to the democratic process.

Additionally, I was told that the public could comment and ask questions during any upcoming Public Hearing. As the rules stand now, the public is excluded from speaking at length and 1 are allowed a mere 5 minutes to comment and to ask questions that they would expect to be fully answered. This is a very complicated and controversial development and rezoning application. In light of this, will Delta change the policy that currently only allows the public a mere 5 minutes to have all their questions answered fully and then be allowed to comment on the proposal? It would seem to me that to confine the public like that, defeats the purpose of the Public Hearing.

This is a big project that is not generally well supported. For many reasons, I imagine but certainly the disclosure that at least around 3ee,eee diesel truck movements going 24/7 through our small town needs some real discussion. Discussion that deserves more than a short·S minute allotment to a concerned citizen. A citizen that does not have the luxury of having an exclusive employee from Delta's Planning Department at their beck and call.

As an example. I do know that if any building is done in Boundary Bay and Beach Grove, before anything is permitted, an archeological study must be undertaken. A study paid for by the developer. When will that be done and who will pay for it. This has not be addressed ·at all and I wonder if the Lummi First Nation have been consulted or contacted about this development. The Lummi were the ancient and traditional residents of the Southlands. What happens there matters to them, I'm sure. It is a not so well known fact that treed area on the Southlands has an ancient village site, ancient grave sights and even a place where canoes were fired and launched into Boundary Bay.

There does not seem to be a plan in place about how this very sensitive and historical area will be handled. Certainly, as the development plan says little to nothing in regards to these ancient sights, it is seems there is no concrete plan in place to protect these important sites.

What will be done about these significant First Nation historical areas, is not spelled out and is seemingly ignored.

It is worth remembering that·it was Century Group that was willing to dig up the Marpole Midden where ancient Lummi children's bones and other artifacts were being dug up. Century did not stop voluntarily once they started pulling children's bones from the ground. They stopped because their permit from Vancouver was not renewed.

There is just not enough information provided in that topic alone.

So ...... Will my questions on the topic of the forested area that contains archaeologically significant material be answered by you, Delta before a Public Hearing is in progress? Will questions from others be answered in full before we find ourselves at a Public Hearing where restrictions apply that would prevent full and complete answers from being given?

Respectfully, Debbie McBride le86-S1A St., Delta, B.C. V4M 2Yl

2 AA response response has has been been sent sent to to the the writer writer advising advising that that their their comments comments will will be be included included in in the publicthe public feedback feedback for the for Southlands the Southlands Official Official Community Community Plan amendmentPlan amendment and rezoning and application.rezoning application. Staff will be Staff reviewing will be reviewingall correspondence, all correspondence, noting comments noting comments and concerns and whichconce willrns bewhich summarized will be summarized and reported and to reported Mayor and to Mayor Council. and A setCouncil. of binders A set ofthat binders contain allthat correspondence/feedback contain all correspondence/feedback on the Southlands on the application Southlands received application up to received and including up to Novemberand including 16, 2012November are available 16, 2012 for are viewing available at Municipal for viewing Hall, at MunicipalSouth Delta Hall, Recreation South Centre,Delta Recreation Winskill Aquatic Centre, and Winskill Fitness Aquatic Centre, and Tsawwassen Fitness Centre, Library, Tsawwassen Ladner Pioneer Library, Library andLadner George Pioneer Mackie Library Library. and CorrespondenceGeorge Mackie Library. received Correspondence after that date receivedwill be put after in a that new binderdate will that be will put be in made a new available binder that prior will to be Council's made available consideration prior toof Council’sfirst and second readings of the bylaws for the Southlands application. consideration of first and second readings of the bylaws for the Southlands application.

In response to the writer's concerns regarding outstanding questions, staff will be In response to the writer’s concerns regarding outstanding questions, staff will be preparing a report to Council which will include information on the questions raised by the preparing a report to Council which will include information on the questions raised by writer regarding fill volumes, building heights and archaeology. As is normal practice, staff the writer regarding fill volumes, building heights and archaeology. As is normal attend the Public Hearings and, when directed by the Mayor, provide clarification on practice, staff attend the Public Hearings and, when directed by the Mayor, provide questions raised by the public or Council. clarification on questions raised by the public or Council.