Mayor and Council Correspondence Summary

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary November 25, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

607 B. Cuthbert Brunswick Point Wedge Parcel HR&CP 119261

608 Hon. K.L. Findlay, MP, Proposed KRPI Radio Towers at HR&CP 119387 Delta – Richmond East Point Roberts

609 Hon. J. Moore, MP Industry Canada HR&CP 119388

610 P. & S. Mitchell No Radio Towers in Point Roberts HR&CP 119259 Please

611 D. Hazel Pt. Roberts Radio Towers HR&CP 119255

612 C. Higgins, BC BC Ambulance Service Resource FIRE, POL, 119307 Emergency Health Allocation Plan Update cc: Services HR&CP 613 R. Kerr South Fraser Model United Nations PR&C 119266

614 A. Maas Park at Fairfield Place PR&C & 119298 ENG 615 Hon. A. Wilkinson, Grant-in-Lieu Property Tax Payment FIN 119351 Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services 616 D. Corrigan, Mayor, City Renewal of Federal Gas Tax ENG 119268 of Burnaby Agreement – UBCM Member Survey

617 E. Seiz Draft Plan for Rail Transportation ENG 119305 Improvements on the White Rock/Surrey/Delta BNSF Corridor

618 M. J. Gordon Request to Have Birch Trees on the ENG 119269 Right-of-Way Topped 619 Hon. T. Stone, Minister of South Fraser Perimeter Road ENG 119336 Transportation and cc: CP&D Infrastructure 620 V. & K. Penney Noise Bylaw – Holidays are Not PU&C 119263 Included 621 S. Pushak Radiological and Environmental CA&E 119337 Concerns 622 M. Braem Boundary Bay Dyke CP&D 119299 cc: POL

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary November 25, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

623 G. Moore, Chair, Metro Metro Vancouver Board Acceptance CP&D 118949 Vancouver Board of the Corporation of Delta’s Regional Context Statement 624 M. Ritchie Rosario, Sr. Application to Amend the Official CP&D 119310 Strata Agent, AWM- Community Plan & Comprehensive Alliance Real Estate Development Zone No. 348-8, 10775 Group Ltd. Delsom Cres. 625 J. & R. James Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

626 T. & H. Johal Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

627 Y. Sol U.S. Thermal Coal to be Shipped HR&CP 119241 Through Delta, Tsawwassen & cc: CA&E Ladner*

628 K. Denman Coal Trains* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

629 S. Worsley Stop Coal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

630 S. Pellaers No Coal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

631 N. Piva Proposed Docks* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

632 I. Vowles Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 633 R. & R Mattu Coal Trains* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 634 R. & R. Mattu Coal Trains* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 635 R. Mattu Coal Trains Effects in China* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 636 J. Heslop & M. Laturnus Opposition to the Coal Trains and HR&CP 119241 Facility Proposal* cc: CA&E 637 J. & M.L. Derechey Surrey Fraser Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 638 L. Erickson Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary November 25, 2013

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

639 M. Rencoret No to Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 640 V. Fuller Fraser Surrey Docks – Coal Trains* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 641 M. Lang Fraser Surrey Docks – Coal Trains* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 642 L. Slack U.S. Thermal Coal* HR&CP 119241 cc: CA&E 643 M. & D. Van Egmond The Time Has Come – Don’t Support HR&CP 119297 the Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* cc: CA&E 644 T. Deschner Port Expansion on the Fraser River* HR&CP 119301 cc: CA&E 645 A. Grant Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal* HR&CP 119302 cc: CA&E 646 C. Sache Coal Trains* HR&CP 119303 cc: CA&E

* Comment box for all correspondence regarding the Direct Transfer Coal Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks:

Delta Council has provided a number of comments and concerns regarding the proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks. In response to the comments submitted, Port Metro Vancouver is requiring the completion of a full Environmental Impact Assessment by the proponent which includes an assessment of potential human health impacts. This report is available to Delta and the public for a 30 day comment period commencing November 18. A report on this subject will be provided for Council’s consideration in December.

607

_M~a~yo~r~C~o~un~c~il ______~,

I'.J.'.I From: Bruce Cuthbert Sent: Friday, November OS, 20131:11 AM d ::z: To: Mayor & Council A gen a e. ~ J' 0 Cc: Sean McGill ' ' FILE # I <...X-LV 'i;lo LlX::a?i102...~ Subject: Brunswick Point Wedge Parcel I o:~ ;J;i! Firstly, I'd like to commend Mayor and Council on the wisdom displayed in not supporting the Crown's current is"'" subdivision and variance application of the Brunswick Point Wedge Parcel. In terms offurther action by Delta, I ':S had hoped that Delta would have sent a message to Crown that the people of Delta and the people of British Columbia are not served by the sale of this property to a non-farming entity and that the Crown cease and desist in the sale, I'm aware that many members of the public have communicated their concerns regarding the sale, to both Mayor and Council and to the Crown,

I understand that Delta has started a dialogue with TFN and the Crown to achieve a permanent resolution to this property with a goal to preserve the property "as is" in perpetuity. I have asked Sean McGill, Delta's Director of Human Resources and Corporate Planning, to define the goals, terms, and parameters of this process such that myself and Delta citizens can understand what's to be achieved and how.

I've seen TFN's initial response of Oct. 23. Two statements in TFN's response are of significant concern: 1) TFN indicates a desire for "future Fraser River access from the dike". Of course, river access through any part of Wedge Parcel would be a great concern to myself and citizens of Delta. It is well documented that the foreshore has environmental sensitivities. Will Delta only support a resolution that denies future river access? I I 2) TFN deems the ALR designation sufficient protection, Of course, ALR designation does not protect the , property "as is" in perpetuity. ALR designation allows such activities/conditions as:

• greenhouses • partial or total clearing the site of all trees and vegetation (once property is Tsawwassen Lands, permits from Delta are not required) • a residence of any size (once property is Tsawwassen Lands, Delta's 350.0. sq ft restriction will not apply) • a secondary suite within the residence • an additional manufactured (mobile) home

Will Delta only support a resolution that involves protective covenants that run with the land and will preserve the property "as is" in perpetuity?

Thank-you in advance for consideration of my questions Bruce Cuthbert 2830. River Rd West Delta, BC V4K 3N2

Delta's goal remains to preserve the 'wedge parcel' in perpetuity as a heritage site, environmental habitat, and dike including public access and future flood protection requirements

1 608

Ottawa Constituency 607 Confederation Building Suite 202, 5000 Bridge ~lreet House of Commons Delta, British Columbia V4Sj!K4 Ottawa Ontario KIA OA6 Tel: 604-940-8040 Fax: 604-94'!z.041 Tel: 613-992-2957 Fax: 613-992-3589 www.kerrylynnefindla~.ca ,

HOUSE OF COMMONS Agenda CYS't' - n:/ CHAMSRE DES COMMUNES· FILE # ~loO- & CANADA The Han. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, PC, QC Member of Parliament Delta-Richmond East

Ottawa November 6, 2013

Mayor Lois Jackson Corporation of Delta i " 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BCV4K 3E2 ~ De" M'7"'

! I will update you with further information if and when it becomes available.

Yours Sincerely,

Submitted for Council's information.

The Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, PC, QC Member of Parliament Delta - Richmond East

KLDF/gg MAYOR'S OFFICE NOV 19 2013 RECEIVED [email protected] ()ttcrH)O Constituency 607 Confederation Building Suite 202, 5000 Bridge Street HOl1se of Commons Delta, British Columbia V4K 2K4 OU

HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES CANADA The Han. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, PC, QC Member of Parliament Delta-Richmond East"

OTTAWA November 4,2013

Dear_

Thank you for sharing with me your concerns regarding the possible radio tower installation at Point Roberts.

First, please know that I am as concerned about radio waves, noise, and interference as you are. Second, and as you may know, I wrote to Whatcom County bringing to their attention your concerns and the impact on our residents the radio tower mayhave. You may also know that the Mayor of Delta and the Delta South MLA also wrote.

It is not lost on me that our population north of the border is many thousands more than the Point Roberts population.

I have been actively involved with·this file and take very seriously the many Delta South and Tsawwassen residents involved. Industry Canada advises me that as per an agreement with its American counterpart, Industry Canada was consulted on the relocation of the radio tower. The conclusion was that this relocation would have no negative impact on existing radio infrastructure and/or broadcasts.

... 2

[email protected] 2

I investigated the matter and determined that the following list of 12 radio towers presently exist and operate with 10 in Delta - Richmond East and 2 in Blaine, Washington:

1. AM 1130 50,000 Watts #6 and Blundell Road (Richmond) 2.'AM 1200 25,000 Watts #6 and Catnbie (Richmond) 3. AM 1320 50,000 Watts #7 and Westminster Hwy. (Richmond) 4. AM 1470 50,000 Watts #8 and River Road (Richmond) 5. AM 730 50,000 Watts 80th and McAllister Road (Delta) 6. AM 1040 50,000 Watts 104 and Hwy 99 (Delta) 7. AM 1410 50,000 Watts 104 and Hwy 99 (Delta) 8. AM 600 10,000 Watts Nelson. and Westminster Hwy, (Richmond) 9. AM 690 50,000 Watts Springhigh Crescent on the Dyke (Richmond) 10. AM.S50 50,000 Watts Triangle Road and #6 Road (Richmond) 11. AM 550 5,000 Watts Downtown Blaine 12. AM 1600 50,000 Watts Downtown Blaine

My offices have had no complaints with respect to noise, interference, or other operations of these 12 towers. If anyone has information suggesting that the operation of the radio tower from the Ferndale location may indeed interfere with existing broad,casts, they should address these concerns to Industry Canada, and· copy me.

I trust the forgoing has helped to alleviate some of your concerns and thank you again for writing to me regarding this issue.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, P.c., Q.c. Member

Mayor Council

From: Greg J. Edwards ..::. Sent: Friday, November 15, 201312:51 PM ~, To: Ronback, Jim % Cc: Graham, Steve; Urquhart, Jennifer; To, Alexander; Reber, Arthur; Coe, Renee; Beaton, Nafi& Subject: Fw: Industry Canada ' . 1-'" t:..M Importance: High

----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: genda ./ Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:32 AM A. FILE #roKco-?J::, . Subject: Industry Canada

Dear Mr. Edwards:

Thank you for your email of October 27,2013, regarding the proposed relocation of AM radio station KRPI from Ferndale, Washington, to Point Roberts, Washington.

I can assure you that Industry Canada is investigating the situation and officials will be contacting the Federal Communications Commission to discuss this matter.

Please accept my best wishes.

Sincerely,

The Honourable James Moore, P.C., M.P.

Submitted for Council's information.

1 I 610

Mayor Council

J-"" From: r.JJ Sent: genda . .~ November-06-13 8:06 PM :::2'; To: Mayor & Council A FILE # (}0-H:o-OS i:::J Subject: no radio towers in point roberts please <:, 00 ,,.J I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed 5e,eee watt am radio tower that KRPI is planning to relocate from Ferndale to Point Roberts. If the town of Ferndale, Washington, USA is apposed why in the world would we here in Tsawwassen, delta, BC, Canada accept the visual blight, the hazard to migratory birds and blanketing interference to our radio, tv, internet connections and telephone land lines that will caused should these tower be allowed to go up. Point Roberts is not a suitable location because of its proximity to the boarder and I urge you as our elected representative to contact your counter part in the state of Washington and voice our opposition to the towers.

Paul and Susan Mitchell 5327 williams ave, tsawwassen

Mayor Jackson has written to the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner to express concerns regarding the proposed tower relocation and the potential impacts on Tsawwassen residents. A letter was also sent to E-Comm asking about the potential interference with emergency communications equipment. E-Comm responded that it is not a concern. Council will be advised of the date of the public hearing.

1 611

Mayor Council

From: Dale Hazel Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 12:21 PM ,.... '. I:"''') To: Mayor & Council 2: Subject: PI Roberts Radio Towers r..":l .~ genda '" ,.... N November 10,2013 A. FILE # COLJId2-7»

Dear Mayor Lois Jackson,

As a Tsawwassen resident, I am writing to express my concern about the potential effects of relocating the transmission towers of radio station KRPI from Femdale WA to Point Roberts WA. KRPI proposes to broadcast from a point about 340 meters south of the border at 50,000 watts power directionally towards Surrey in the daytime, and towards Nanaimo at night. The so-called "blanketing zone" where interference with other electronic devices might occur covers most or all of Tsawwassen depending on the relevant power criterion. KRPI's operation in Ferndale has caused considerable public nuisance due to interference with electronic equipment, and some residents have expressed concern about potential chronic health effects due to electromagnetic radiation. Since Tsawwasscu's location with respect to the proposed new transmission towers is comparable to Ferndale's with respect to the existing towers, similar nuisance and potential adverse health effects can be expected in Tsawwassen. KRPI's decision to relocate to Pt. Roberts was based, in part, upon expected public resistance to a license renewal in Ferndale. The US Federal Communications Commission approved KRPI's application to relocate, in part, on the basis of an engineering study which considered only adverse effects to persons in the northern part of Point Roberts and which did not consider adverse effects to the larger population of Tsawwassen. Neither the FCC nor the Applicant notified the public of KRPI's application to relocate in a newspaper or other medi~m in the South Delta or Point Roberts area. Since the station does not broadcast in English, on'air notifications would not have been generally received in South Delta. I call upon the Government of Canada and the Corporation of Delta to intervene with both the Whatcom County Planning Dept and the FCC to fully explain and clarify an known and potential adverse effects to residents of Tsawwassen from KRPI's relocation and to revoke or deny permits and licenses for KRPI to relocate if the expected adverse' effects are considered to be. unacceptable by the residents of Tsawwassen. ~~::~~~~. ..:.\.~~~~~ Dale Hazel qZ;; / 5380 Wallace Ave Tsawwassen,BC ····";:';~~~~vJ~rl

Mayor Jackson has written to the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner to express concerns regarding the proposed tower relocation and the potential impacts on Tsawwassen residents. A letter was also sent to E-Comm asking about the potential interference with emergency communications equipment. E-Comm responded that it is not a concern. 1 Council will be advised of the date of the public hearing. 612

Mayor _Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:33 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: BC Ambulance Service Resource Allocation Plan Update Attachments: Memo SeAS RAP Update Nov 12, 2013,docx

from: Higgins, Carla EHS:EX [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:49 PM Subject: BC Ambulance Service Resource Allocation Plan Update

The attached is sent lIll befUllt (It Michael MacDougall, Pl'esideut, BCEmel;t;ency Health Services f!~ q~. ~gl~;vJtL R, E) / Po L cc 1fI(i-tf To Your Worship; ur/ J !Y1~] . . Re: Be Ambulance Service Resource Allocation Plan Update A A KyWttlj CUU.fl r:! ,vi 1rfJ of /Lbv ,:;",;(..::> BC Emergency Realth Services (BCERS) works hard to get the right care, to the right patient, at the right time and in :> support of this aim, we have concluded a clinical, evidence-based review of our Resource Allocation Plan (RAP). I wanted to take this opportunity to provide further information on the process, results and changes to the RAP which will increase public safety while ensuring that the correct resource responds to each patient condition. A number oflocal government officials attended a BCERS-hosted session at the Union ofBC Municipalities conference in Vancouver in September and had the opportunity to discuss the results in detail. However, it is important that all local governments are aware of the changes and are assured that BC Ambulance Service (BCAS) will continue to respond to all 9-1-1 calls.

Ambulance Call Assessment

When a 9-1-1 call is received at a BCAS dispatch centre, an emergency medical call taker enters information provided by the caller into software called the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS). This internationally-recognized call assessment information system, used by over 2,300 emergency medical service organizations internationally, is used to triage patients and helps ensure that patients with the most serious medical conditions receive the fastest and most appropriate ambulance response. The RAP provides dispatchers with clear guidelines on the appropriate call priority (routine or emergency response), resource(s) for each call type and whether first responder should be notified. BCAS' s current adherence rate to the MPDS is over 95%, meaning that the vast majority of calls are assessed and prioritized accurately.

RAP Review Process

BCERS, formerly the Emergency and Realth Services Commission, the oversight agency for BCAS and all other emergency health services in B.c., regularly reviews the RAP to ensure optimal patient care, public safety is protected and appropriate resource stewardship. Most emergency medical service agencies regularly review their RAP; BCERS has updated the RAP five times since its inception in 1997.

The 2012/2013 BCEHS RAP review process was undertaken by a Working Group comprised of physicians, paramedics, dispatchers and first responders who examined the previous RAP and recommended changes based on the clinical needs of patients. The Working Group examined the records from over 630,000 BCAS ambulance calls over two years as prut of the process and reviewed each of the 868 MPDS call determinants using call volume, vital signs and Australasian Triage Score (ATS) categorization. Members voted on each of the three RAP elements - paramedic qualification (Advanced Life Support versus Basic Life SUPPOlt), response priority and whether first responders were required for each of the 868

1 individual call types. The Working Group then submitted their recommendations to a Final Approval Panel comprised of BCEHS senior medical and operational leaders.

Results

Following this evidence-based process, a revised RAP was developed. By applying the approved changes to 2012 BCAS call volume data, BCEHS anticipates that more calls will be responded to on a 'routine' basis, more calls will be assigned solely to Basic Life Support units and first responders will not be asked to respond to as many non-urgent medical calls as previously. The updated RAP is also expected to result in a 800,000 km annual reduction in 'lights and siren' emergency driving for ambulances alone, improving the safety of paramedics, patients and the general public. These changes are expected to be cost-neutral.

Implications for First Responders

First responders are an important element in the provision of pre-hospital care in British Columbia and BCEHS values the partnership we have with fire departments and other agencies. Currently, the dispatch process for first responders is that when a call is received in the ambulance dispatch centre for medical aid, BCAS dispatchers notifY the local first responder dispatch centre of the call. Most first responder services in B.C. are provided by fire departments. The fire dispatch (in most cases) then decides whether to respond based on previous decisions within the local government about the level of first responder services it provides.

In our discussions with local government officials, it's clear that municipalities and regional districts differ greatly on their interest in providing first responder services. Some local governments only wish to provide assistance to paramedics when clinically required, while others wish to provide more comprehensive medical coverage for their communities and respond to a greater number of calls.

For many types of calls, first responders provide important pre-hospital care and work as a team with paramedics to ensure patients get the services they need. It's important to note that fire departments will still be notified of motor vehicle incidents in order to ensure scene safety and extrication assistance. The RAP changes only refine when fire departments are called as medical first responders to attend according to the patient's clinical needs.

Implementation/Consultation Process

In September and October, BCAS implemented the RAP changes in two phases; the first involved the changes to Advance Life Support ambulance calls and the second related to Basic Life Support ambulance responses. BCAS felt strongly that it needed to implement the portions of the new RAP that impacted ambulances in order to reduce the risks to the public associated with unnecessary emergency driving. To date, BCAS has not implemented the changes to the RAP that affect first responder groups. BCAS has worked with the Fire Chiefs' Association ofBC to inform fire departments of the RAP changes. For departments notified of calls by phone, BCAS dispatchers now advise when BCAS is responding routine. For departments notified automatically by computer, BCAS has provided an interpretation guide so fire dispatchers are aware when BCAS is responding routine. The fire departments can then make an informed choice when they analyze the risk of emergency response based on what we have determined to be the clinical needs of the patient.

It is important to BCEHS to continue discussions with municipalities prior to implementing the final phase of the RAP changes. BCEHS is also consulting with a number of other stakeholders, mainly groups representing first responders, over the next few months.

I hope this information provides you with sufficient details regarding the process that was undertaken to develop the new BCEHS RAP which aims to balance the needs of the patient, with public safety and effective and efficient use of ambulance and first responder resources. BCEHS is available to provide further information with any local governments that have questions or would like a more fulsome debrief. Please contact [email protected] or 250474-7582 who will make the necessary arrangements.

Sincerely,

2 Original signed by:

Michael MacDougall President Be Emergency Health Services

Thank you.

Carla Higgins E}(€!cutive Coordinator to Michael MacDougall, Prcsident, Be Emergency Health Services &, EJCecutive Vice Pmsident, Provincial Health Services Authority Be Emergency Health Services Gateway Parle, 81ocl( C, 2261 Keating CroGs Road Saanlchton, Be VSIVI 2A5

250 ft953·313SS

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.

On October 29, BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) implemented changes to the Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) which affects the way BC Ambulance Service (BCAS) responds to approximately 75 incident types which have now been downgraded from emergency to routine. Delta Fire & Emergency Services is continuing with regular response criteria. One early repercussion of the changes noticed is longer wait times for ambulance arrival. Delta Fire & Emergency Services is working with the Greater Vancouver Fire Chiefs Association (GVFCA), Fire Chiefs Association of BC (FCABC), and our medical oversight doctor to encourage the BCEHS to delay full implementation until fire first responders have had an opportunity for full consultation on the process and to track impacts of these changes. Fire Chiefs continue to advocate for local jurisdiction choice to determine the level of service provided to the community. The GVFCA and FCABC have received some assurance that the changes to fire department (FR) response will not be implemented until a thorough consultation process has taken place. In the meantime, longer wait times for BCAS arrival on scene will certainly be experienced.

3 'm.BRITISH Be Emergency COLUMBIA Health Services

November 12, 2013 File: 230-20/RAP Cliff: 990287

All Municipalities in B.C.

To Your Worship;

Re: BC Ambulance Service Resource Allocation Plan Update

BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) works hard to get the right care, to the right patient, at the right time and in support of this aim, we have concluded a clinical, evidence-based review of our Resource Allocation Plan (RAP). I wanted to take this opportunity to provide further information on the process, results and changes to the RAP which will increase public safety while ensuring that the correct resource responds to each patient condition. A number of local government officials attended a BCEHS-hosted session at the Union ofBC Municipalities conference in Vancouver in September and had the opportunity to discuss the results in detail. However, it is important that all local governments are aware of the changes and are assured that BC Ambulance Service (BCAS) will continue to respond to all 9-1-1 calls.

Ambulance Call Assessment

RAP Review Process

BCEHS, formerly the Emergency and Health Services Commission, the oversight agency for BCAS and all other emergency health services in B.C., regularly reviews the RAP to ensure optimal patient care, public safety is protected and appropriate resource stewardship. Most emergency medical service agencies regularly review their RAP; BCEHS has updated the RAP five times since its inception in 1997.

The 2012/2013 BCEHS RAP review process was undertaken by a Worldng Group comprised of physicians, paramedics, dispatchers and first responders who examined the previous RAP and recommended changes based on the clinical needs of patients. The Working Group examined the

Pl'Ovincial Headquarters Telephone: 250 953-3298 PO Box 9600, Sto Proy Govt, 2261 Keating X Rd. - Block C Facsimile: 250953-3119 Victoria Be V8W 9P1 records from over 630,000 BCAS ambulance calls over two years as part of the process and reviewed each of the 868 MPDS call determinants using call volume, vital signs and Australasian Triage Score (ATS) categorization. Members voted on each of the three RAP elements - paramedic qualification (Advanced Life Support versus Basic Life Support), response priority and whether first responders were required for each of the 868 individual call types. The Working Group then submitted their recommendations to a Final Approval Panel comprised of BCEHS senior medical and operational leaders.

Results

Following this evidence~based process, a revised RAP was developed. By applying the approved changes to 2012 BCAS call volume data, BCEHS anticipates that more calls will be responded to on a 'routine' basis, more calls will be assigned solely to Basic Life Support units and first responders will not be asked to respond to as many non-urgent medical calls as previously. The updated RAP is also expected to result in a 800,000 km annual reduction in 'lights and siren' emergency driving for ambulances alone, improving the safety of paramedics, patients and the general public. These changes are expected to be cost-neutral.

Implications for First Responders

First responders are an important element in the provision of pre-hospital care in British Columbia and BCEHS values the partnership we have with fire departments and other agencies. Currently, the dispatch process for first responders is that when a call is received in the ambulance dispatch centre for medical aid, BCAS dispatchers notify the local first responder dispatch centre of the call. Most first responder services in B.C. are provided by fire departments. The fire dispatch (in most cases) then decides whether to respond based on previous decisions within the local goverument about the level of first responder services it provides.

In our discussions with local government officials, it's clear that municipalities and regional districts differ greatly on their interest in providing first responder services. Some local goveruments only wish to provide assistance to paramedics when clinically required, while others wish to provide more comprehensive medical coverage for their communities and respond to a greater number of calls.

Implementation/Consultation Process

Provincial Headquartel's Telephone: 250 953-3298 PO Box 9600, Stn Prav Govt, 22G 1 Keating X Rd. - Block C Facsirrlllc: 250953-3119 Victoria Be V8W 9Pl RAP that affect first responder groups. BCAS has worked with the Fire Chiefs' Association of BC to inform fire departments of the RAP changes. For departments notified of calls by phone, BCAS dispatchers now advise when BCAS is responding routine. For departments notified automatically by computer, BCAS has provided an interpretation guide so fire dispatchers are aware when BCAS is responding routine. The fire departments can then make an informed choice when they analyze the risk of emergency response based on what we have determined to be the clinical needs of the patient.

Sincerely,

Original signed by:

Michael MacDougall President BC Emergency Health Services

Provincial Headquarters Telephone: 250953-3298 PO Box 9600, Stn Prav c,ovt, 2261 Keating X Rd. - Block C Facsimile: 250953-3119 Victoria Be V8W 9P1 613

Mayor Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: November-06-13 2:43 PM :::~:: To: Mayor & Council )'"""1 Cc: Ken Kuntz; Sandra MacFarlane; Dona Packer ,:;;:'"," Subject: FW: South Fraser Model United Nations .:::;:1 "...:'J

Hi Sandra, Could you please forward to Council for information and consideration, ,R~f1~~~tv\"L- Thanks, 'I /")'/j 1 ----- Tanya,

From: Ronan Kerr Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:44 PM '~""~!r~~~1~1il To: Lois Jackson Redirect Subject: South Fraser Model United Nations

To Mayor Jackson Hello, you may remember me, I am Romm Kerr; currently in grade 12 at Sands Secondary School. 1 have been working on 3ssembling a new Moclel United Nations conference in tile Delta~Rich1llolld area to improve the skills, experience, and abilities of all delegates in a comfortable environment. The conference will be open to anyone of high school age, and any proceeds will go to fund trips for our clubs lo an international Model UN conference, The coalition of Modcl UN clubs that has been formed between Richmond and Delta current includes seven schools, with hopes of further expansion in the near future, We already have a secretariat set for the conference, all we need now is a venue, Given the fflct that the fimmcial purpose for the conference is to raise money to fund our clubs, a fl'ee venue would be almost a necessity. Would the Municipality of Della be willing to provide thc conference with fl suitable set ofl'ooms? We will need one room that can house 120 people, and three that can hold 30 each, Ine conference is planned for the 18th and 19th ofJanuary, and we would like to getthe vcnue sorted at1t assp so that we can definitively launch a website and open registration eurly, Any help in this endeavor would be greatly appreciated, as we strungly believe this conference "yill be an exceptional way not only to fund our clubs, but to improve the ability for people across the lower mainland to voice their ideas on the world stage.

Many Thanks, Ronan KelT I First Secretary Genera! r South fmscr Model United Nations

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,

Staff has been in touch with Ronan. Ronan's space requirements are difficult to fulfill at that time of year. Staff is continuing to work with Ronan on alternatives.

1 614

~ycr _Council

From: Andrew Maas Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:41 AM To: Parks, Recreation & Culture Cc: Mayor &. Council Subject: park Attachments; photo 1.JPG; photo 2.JPG; mader.JPG

.:; ··.1 :1 Hello Mayor, Councillors and Parks and Rec §~ ·i ~"';l I 'I I am a resident of north delta and presently live at 7316 Fairfield place, I am writing today in hopes that you can beautl~jlal t h e area across t h e street f rom my house. Presently across the street are hydro lines with weeds and grass that grow fm'" I 3 months and then get mowed down and the process begins again. There Is a walking trail that also goes through the middle of this area that is enjoyed by many, A few years ago some flowering bushes (I think lilacs) were planted at one end of this area which are very nice when they bloom. I am writing today asking for your help in making this area a more beautiful place in North delta to walle I am attaching a picture of the area so you can see how poor it looks It has just been mowed back so you don't see the weeds and uneven ground. photo 1 and photo 2 after a few months you cannot wall~ through the area as it becomes so overgrown.

If you continue to follow the power lines the trail from Fairfield place goes east toward 113 street to Mader Lane around the corner from me. You have done such a nice job with the landscaping on Mader Lane with much the same use as Fairfield. I am' writing to ask how we can get this done to our street? I am attaching a picture of Mader Lane so you can see how nice it looks. A little hill from the road towards the trail with grass and a few trees would make all the difference to make Fairfield place that much better for the residents of this area of this great community. I am sure you get requests like this all the time as a business man I understand there is only so much money in the budget but I do hope that you would consider my request and be able to find some money to make this small area that much nicer for the residents that live there and the ones that walk along the trail. Even if the whole landscaping could not be put into the budget some trees would help beautify this area and make It even more enjoyable for the residents.

I would encourage you to drive down Mader lane and then down Fairfield place to see what I am asking for the pictures really don't do it justice.

Thanks for your conSideration if you do want to discuss please call me at

Andrew

Andrew Maas Vice President

Suite 210,10720 Camble Road Richmond, BC, V6X 1K8

Staff have recently been involved in discussions with the resident and committed to some enhanced maintenance work. Consideration for some potential tree planting will require some coordination and approval from BC Hydro. Staff will discuss with BC Hydro. The resident is happy with our response.

~' ,

1.' I ;!d 615

Mayor .Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Thursday. November AM 14. 2013. 9:52 To: Mayor & Council Cc: George Harvie; Karl Preuss Subject: FW: Letter from Minister Andrew Wilkinson Re: Grant-in-Lieu Property Tax Payment ., Attachments: Delta Grant Payment Details.pdf ..... tJ.' 2" genda# a 'fI c:5 fiLE <: A �ftl-,;z(/ . I� ..(.�u.. From: Minister, MTIC MTIC:EX [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:23 AM To: Mayor Lois Jackson Cc: Karl Preuss; CAO's Office Subject: Letter from Minister Andrew Wilkinson Re: Grant-In-Lieu Property Tax Payment

Ref: 100182

t{�v_�_� �{,fla.y rt}�I'/(fI A, I fI a. November 14, 2013 - -J'Y '" �!(�gj;/-M � , Dear Mayor Jackson and Council: !fe.tt!d/O(/�l-I 'r � (3 ;;J 4leehrt

I am pleased to advise you that on November 15, 2013, the Province will issue your municipality's 2013 grant in-lieu of property tax payment by electronic funds transfer.

Based on the property identified in the attached Grant Payment Details Report, your payment for 2013 is $28,843.73. This payment is for provincially owned properties in your community, and is made in accordance with the Municipal Aid Act.

Included in this payment is $400.72, due to your Regional District. This amount is to be transferred to them at your earliest convenience.

This year the Province will issue a total of $18.2 million in grants-in-lieu of property taxes; this represents an increase of$1.3 million from 2012.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Charles Chan, Real Estate Manager, Real Estate Management, Shared Services BC, either by e-mail [email protected] or by telephone 604 660-4379.

Sincerely,

Honourable Andrew Wilkinson , ", Minister Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services

Attachment - Grant Payment Details Report

2013 grant-in-lieu of property taxes was applied for and received from the Province for the provincially-owned property at 11245 84 Avenue that is occupied by the North Delta Public Health Unit. The payment is $28,843.72 and includes $28,443.01 to Delta and $400.72 to GVRD. 1 TXR0070 Province of British Columbia 2013-11-063:43:42 PM Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services

Grant Payment Details Report Page 1 of 1

c�, t13:£l��O" Fiscal Year1314

Jurisdiction: 306 - District ofDelta

Taxctass

, 06 - Businessa nd Other 10.632900 .--�-.-----

Taxable Values .. _------General SchD.DI/'?lher Municipal Reg.ion�1 AssessmentRoll Nu ber ; Location "'0' Total Land Improvements Totol Land Land Improvements Total TotalGIL m ciax ·"··�· · m ___ I ""J"""i , �.'...... • l ��. ��.. ;. . _� L��':� D-16+52+01-o 06 ! Health &.H.R. 112�-- 2,675,000 1,766,000 909,000 2,675,000 18,777.70 i 9,665.31, 264.55 ! 136.17 400.72 2B,843.72 , Centre Site Ave.

1,766,000 909,000 2.675,000 1.,766,000 909,000 : 2,�75,OOQ 18,777.70 9��S.31 28�.. �1 264.55 136.17 400.72 28,843.72 0 00 0 7 7 7 72 - _,",�!4:..�_ _=:c-c:.� OO. 2 ___!8!�!. i �.� _=��;.s.��.1__ ._. ::::'C;...��?_5� ��.�_. }��_�,_ -,,_ !.!.���;.� 2:-_��_, 9 9.o ���.-=:=;;�O.!:.��,_ _ � ,.� ",",�,; , ,,: '.

TXR0070 Province of British Columbia 2013-11-06 3:43:42 PM Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services

� ��:;.In,",.�cion Page 1 of 1 COLUMB1A aM au,.,,..' 5=1= Grant Payment Details Report Fiscal Year 1314

Rel'ortTotals Taxable Values Grant Amounts ------: ---r--�- General School/Other Municipal Regional c.; � I �-�-" �� ----+ � Land Improvements Total , Land Improvements Total ��L�n�da ---'--�Im�rovements J Total ·ila�---Im-provemen� . ' --TO"'I Total GIL ' I' , 1,766,000 909,000 2,675,000 1,766,000 909,000 2,675,000, 18,777.70 9,665.31 28,443.01 64.5 _ 136.17 400.72 28,843.72 ! 1 i � � _ 1 : _ _" . : 616

CITY OF BURNABY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR DEREK R. CORRIGAN MAYOR

2013 October 28 File: 07400-01

Mayor Lois E. Jackson Corporation of Delta xxxxxxx ENG 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2

Dear Mayor Jackson:

Subject:

Burnaby City Council, at the Open Council meeting held on 2013 October 21, received the enclosed report from the City's Director Planning and Building regarding proposals for renewal ofthe Federal Gas Tax Agreement. Council adopted the following recommendations contained in the report including the underlined amendment to Recommendation No.4:

1. "THAT Council request the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and the Federal Department of Infrastructure Canada to develop a renewed Gas Tax Agreement for BC that establishes the Metro Vancouver Board as the responsible authority for management and administration ofthe agreement for the identification of project priorities and allocation of gas tax funds, within the Metro Vancouver Region, as outlined in this report.

2. THAT Council request that the development of a future administrative framework for the renewed Gas Tax Agreement, as outlined in this report, provide for:

a. full transparency and accountability within the governance model;

b. tracking of administrative costs for the MV area;

c. segmentation of the Innovation Fund to ensure that the Metro Vancouver Region receives its fair share of available funding under this funding stream;

MAYOR'S OFFICE Continued page 2 ... NOV 07 2013 RECEIVED 4949 Canada Way, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5G 1M2 Phone 604-294-7340 Fax 604-294-7724 [email protected] Subject: Renewal ufFederal Gas Tax Agreement UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 28." ...... ,,"" Page 2

d. a clear definition of qualifYing local and regional governments to avoid the situation whereby applications from non-qualifYing organizations would be considered;

e. clear assessment of criteria including information on weighting, ranking and priorities for program criteria; and

f. a broader scope of eligible project categories.

3. THAT Council request the support ofthe Metro Vancouver Board and of the member municipalities of the Metro Vancouver for the establishment of a renewed Gas Tax Agreement, based on the proposals and directions presented in this report.

4. THAT a copy of this report be sent to: Ministers responsible for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and the Federal Department of Infrastructure; the Metro Vancouver Board; member municipalities of the Metro Vancouver Region; and the UBCM including member municipalities."

Your support of our position regarding this important matter would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

~.~ This letter outlines the City of Burnaby's position on the MAYOR funding model for the renewed Gas Tax Agreement. Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities are continuing work on a proposed funding model for the distribution of the Gas Tax Agreement funding. IItem...... I City of Meeting ...... 2013 Oct 21

Burnaby COUNCIL REPORT

TO: CITY MANAGER DATE: 2013 October 15

FROM: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING FILE: 7400- 01 Reference: Federal Gas Tax Agreement

SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF FEDERAL GAS TAX AGREEMENT - UBCM MEMBER SURVEY

PURPOSE: To seek Council endorsement of proposals for renewal of the Federal Gas Tax· Agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT Council request the Ministry of Community; Sport and Cultural Development and the Federal Depintment of Infrastructure Canada to develop a renewed Gas Tax Agreement for BC that establishes the Metro Vancouver Board as the responsible authority for management and administration of the agreement for the identification of project priorities and allocation of gas tax funds, within the Metro Vancouver Region, as outlined in this repolt.

2. THAT Council request that the development of a future administrative framework for the renewed Gas Tax Agreement, as outlined in this report, provide for:

a. full transparency and accountability within the governance model;

b. tracking of administrative costs for the MV area;

c. segmentation of the Innovation Fund to ensure that that the Metro Vancouver Region receives its fair share of available funding under this funding stream;

d. a clear definition of qualifying local and regional governments to avoid the situation whereby· applications from non-qualifying organizations would be considered;

e. clear assessment of criteria including information on weighting, ranking and ptiorities for program criteria; arid

f. a broader scope of eligible project categories.

3. THAT Council request the support of the Metro Vancouver Board and of the member municipalities of the Metro Vancouver for the establishment of a renewed Gas Tax Agreement, based on the proposals and directions presented in this report.

REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As introduced by the Federal Government in 2005, the Gas Tax Fund (GTF) was established to provide reliable, multi-year funding in support of municipal infrastructure and capacity-building initiatives that contribute to cleaner air, cleaner water and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The first term of the program was from 2005 to 2010. Through this program, the Federal Government re distributes a share of the proceeds from the Federal tax on fuel to local government projects. The original agreement has since been extended twice, with the spending approval currently set to expire 1 in 2019 .

In 2011, the Federal Government passed legislation to make the GTF a permanent part of the Federal budget with an allocation of $2 billion a year as of fiscal 2014/15. In 2013, the Federal Government also committed to indexing the GTF by 2% annually and to expand the scope of eligible project categOlies to include highways, local and regional airpOlts, short-line rail, short-sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sport and recreation.

Agreements with each province provide the mechanisms for the governance and allocation of the GTF. In BC, that agreement is due for renewal in 2014. In preparation for the negotiations towards a renewed Gas Tax Agreement (GTA) in BC, the Union of Blitish Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) has circulated a survey entitled "Renewed Gas Tax Fund" to member municipalities as a part of its member consultation program. The intent of the survey is to build on directions received as part of the UBCM's annual resolution process, and on a related survey from September 2012? The UBCM is seeking to provide input. towards discussions that will take place between the Federal and Provincial Governments for a lO-year renewed GTA in Be.

The survey seeks input on the scope of eligible projects, pooling and direct allocation, capacity building, and gas tax reporting and compliance requirements. Of note, the UBCM survey does not seek input on the administrative or governance model of the GT A.

The purpose of this report is to review the current agreement that provides for the administration, governance and allocation of the gas tax funds within BC, in order to assist Council in submitting recommendations on the terms for its -renewal in 2014.

2.0 GENERAL GAS TAX AGREEMENTS

With the introduction of the GTF in 2005, the Federal Government negotiated 'agreements' between the Federal Government and each province and tenitory directly, referred to as Gas Tax Agreements CGTA). Other than British Columbia and Ontmo, the agreements between the Federal Government and the applicable province or territory did not involve other partners at a provincial, regional or local leveL Blitish Columbia and OntaIio have agreements that included additional partners. In BC, the UBCM was included as a partner responsible for administration of the program. In Ontalio,

1 Canada-Brirish Coltnnbia - UBCM Agreement on Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues, Amendment No 4, 2013 Feb 20. 2 Survey on the Long-Term Infrastructure Plan (LTlP) whicb provided high-level recommendations on infrastructure programming beyond the 2014 expiry of the Build Canada Plan which encompasses the Gas Tax Fund. To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15...... ;...... Page 3 agreement signatodes included the Association of Municipalities of Ontalio (AMO), which is an 3 organization that is similar to the UBCM, and the City of Toront0 •

The GTAs specified the program and' govel11ance parameters, including allocation models, eligible project categories, delivery mechanisms and administration, reporting and compliance requirements.

2.1 Governance Models

4 Staff have reviewed the govel11ance models of the agreements for vruious provinces and terIitodes • In general, there is a similar stmcture for the vruiousgovemance models. Typically, each agreement establishes an oversight committee with representation from each of the signatodes to the GTA. The oversight committees are responsible for monitodng the implementation of the agreements.

For BC, a slightly modified govemance structure was established. The BC GTA established two govemance committees to administer the terms of the agreement. There is a Partnership Committee (PC), comprised of representatives from the Federal and Provincial Govemments and the UBCM. The PC is responsible for monitodng the implementation of the GTA, and for establishing the spending pl'iodties for the val'ious funds within the GT A.

BC also has a Management Committee (MC). The MC is responsible for the implementation of the GTA. The membership of the MC consists of three appointments from UBCM, one appointment from the federal govemment, and one from the provincial govel11ment. The MC is chaired by one of the UBCM appointees. The pl'imruy focus of the MC is to provide approvals for projects for the pooled funding programs. The MC is advised by a technical committee comprised of staff from the Local Govemment Infrastmcture and Finance Division of the Ministry of Community, SpOli and Cultural Development. The technical committee evaluates eligible applications for the valious gas tax funding streruns, and makes recommendations to the MC for approval and award.

Information on the composition of the PC and MC was only recently made available on the UBCM website, as of mid 2013. This recent information included the members and contact details for each of the committees. Appendix 1 provides a current listing of the members of the MC and Pc. To date, however, minutes of the PC and MC meetings, where decisions related to the administration of the program are made, are not yet available for public review. This lack of public information raises concel11S related to the transparency of decisions made for the expenditure of the gas tax funds in BC. Moreover, since members of the PC and MC are not substantially composed of elected representatives, there is a fmiher concel11 as to the accountability of decisions for approval and award of funds from the pooled program under the GT A.

In summary, the existing management/governance stmcture of the GTA includes no elected officials, with the exception of a UBCM appointee at the PC, currently held by Mayor M. Sjostrom of Quesnel. The MC includes no elected officials and, as such, no direct electoral accountability for decisions made regarding eligible and approved projects.

3 At the time of negotiation of the agreement in Ontario, the City of Toronto had withdrawn its membership from the AMO, and, thus refused to be represented by the AMO in negotiations with the Federal Government. This resulted in the formation of a separate agreement with Toronto. 4 Except for Saskatchewan and Quebec for which no information was available online. To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15 ...... Page 4

Staff would suggest that any future administrative framework for a GTA should provide for full transparency and accountability within the governance model, in order to ensure that decisions on allocation of public funding for pooled programs is made by elected representatives in an open and public manner.

2.2 Administration Costs

A staff review of the approaches taken to provide for the cost of the administration of the GT As identified two distinct methods to addressing this issne. The GTAs generally enable signatories to claim administration costs, provided that a business case is submitted and approved by the Federal Govemment. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Quebec and the City of Toronto chose not to access the funding for administration costs under their GTAs, and, instead, directly covered the costs of administration, without drawing on the GTE The remaining jurisdictions, including BC, use a portion of the GTF for administration costs.

Staff were able to gather information on the level of administrative costs from four jurisdictions - BC, Saskatchewan, Ontario (AMO), and PEL The percentage of the funds received under the GTAs that were reported to be allocated to administration for these jurisdictions were 0.28% for BC, 1.11 % for Saskatchewan, 0.78% for Ontario (AMO), and 1.12% for PEL5

For BC, the admiuistrative costs incurred by DBCM in the delivery of the GTF was reported at a total of $3,201,000 for 2011, and would involve the costs of administration both within the Metro Vancouver (MV) area, and for all other local jurisdictions in Be. Staff would expect that the majority of the effOlt required for administration of the GTA under the BC agreement is associated with the greater number of jurisdictions from outside of MV.

Staff would suggest that any future administrative framework for a future GTA provide for the tracking of administration costs for the MY area on a separate basis, in order to ensure that gas tax funds intended to be expended within MV remain available for that purpose, and are not used to cross-subsidize the administrative costs for delivering the balance of the program for the remaining municipalities in Be.

2.3 Eligible Projects

The GTF was first established in support of municipal infrastructure and capacity-building initiatives that contribute to cleaner.air, cleaner water and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The Federal Govemment has iudicated an expansion to the scope of eligible project categories under the' renewed Gas Tax Program from the initial infrastructure categories of water, wastewater, public transit, community energy systems, solid waste management and local roads, to include highways, local and regional airports, short-line rail, short'sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sport and recreation.

5 Sources: Be: UBCM 2011 Annual Expenditure Report for the Gas Tax and'Public Transit Agreements in Be. SASK: Annual Report Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues (April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012). New Deal Secretariat, Saskatchewan Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Ontario: Association of Municipalities Ontario. Canada's Gas Tax Fund: Permanent funding for municipal infrastructure. 2011 Annual Expenditure Report (Part I) Province of Prince Edward Island Annual Expenditure Report 2011-2012 To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15...... Page 5

The current GT A puts limits on a number of eligible categories for Metro Vaucouver aud member municipalities. This GTA currently excludes solid waste, local roads, btidges and tunnels, and active transportation infrastructure projects, as well as community energy systems projects for retrofitting local govemment buildings or infrastructure, Dr fleet vehicle conversions.

The new GTA is au opportunity to ensure that a broader scope of eligibility can be reflected for Metro Vancouver. Staff would suggest that the scope of eligible projects include "core economic infrastructure" to better assist local govemments in targeting funds iu infrastructure areas that are most applicable and of priority to the region and member communities. This would encompass mnnicipal infrastructure that is necessary for the essential operation of a city aud region, promotes investment opportunities, and is considered an important finaucial asset. Categoties of infrastructure wonld include road aud blidges, highways, public transit, water, waste water, aud municipally-owned buildings and facilities, as well as the remaining project categories in the expauded scope proposed by the Federal govemment ..

Staff would suggest that a broad scope of eligible project categories for Metro Vancouver and member municipalities should be established in any new GTA to reflect full extent of what is permitted under the Federal guidelines for the Gas Tax Program.

3.0 CURRENT BC GAS TAX AGREEMENT

3.1 Current Allocatiou of Funding

The GTF is currently delivered through a number of programs. The current, primary approach to providing gas tax funding,is based on the allocation of Federal funds on an equal per capita basis among all municipalities. The majOlity of municipalities across the nation receive a direct allocation, and have local authority to invest in infrastructure and capacity-building initiatives of their choosing, subject to the specific ctiteria established for the fund. In some cases, in place of direct allocation to individual municipalities, funds may be pooled to serve a specific purpose.

In BC, the GTA includes both a direct and a pooled alloca.tion. Local govemments in BC are categotized into three tiers:

• Tier 1 are all areas of BC excluding Stildne6 aud areas in Tiers 2 and 3; • Tier 2 are Regional Districts and their member municipalities except Metro Vancouver; • Tier 3 is Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities.

Each tier determines the available funding from the valious direct aud pooled allocations in the three funding streams (Community Works, Innovation and Strategic Priorities Funds). Table 1 table below provides a summary of the funding allocation streams by tier.

6 The unincorporated area of Stikine. To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUIWING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15...... :...... ,...... Page 6

Table 1 Funding Streams by Community Category

Muirlcipall R.egional Tiers Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Funding All areas of Regional Metro ascribed to BC Districts and Vancouver each Funding (excluding their member and its Stream in Stikine and municipalities member 2005-2015 areas in Tiers (except Metro municipalities· Agreemene 2 and 3) Vancouver) Community Works Fund (CWF) $481 million 0 0 Innovations Fund (IF) $82 million 0 0 0 General Strategic ~ Priorities Fund $174 million 0 0 ~" (I) (GSPF) ~ Strategic Regionally :.s Priorities Significant Project $102 million 0 § Fund Fund (RSP) '" (SPF) Greater Vancouver Strategic Priorities $799 million 0 Fund (GVSPF) .

Under the cutTent agreement framework, the Community Works Fund (CwF) is a direct allocation (guaranteed) funding available on a per capita basis to all local and regional governments in the province except MV and its member municipalities. This is because, as noted below, MV chose to pool and allocate its CWF funding to the Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF).

The Innovations Fund (IF) sUppOliS projects that reflect an innovative approach to achieving the intended outcomes of cleaner air and water and reduced GHG emissions. The IF is a competitive application-based program, with applications from across the province ranked against program criteria, and funded accordingly. This fund is further discussed below.

Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities are eligible to access funding from two of the funding streams: the Innovations Fund and the Strategic Priorities Fund. The Metro Vancouyer Board in 2005 decided to allocate its direct per capita funding that would have been available under the Community. Works Fund, towards the Greater Vancouver Strategic Priorities Fund. In other words, Metro Vancouver chose to pool and contribute its individual per capita funding, that would have been available under the general CWF, to the SPF for Metro Vancouver. Details of the Strategic Priorities Fund are provided below in Section 3.1.2.

7 The distlibution of funding by stream and tier is reflective of the per capita share attributable to the specific local and regional jurisdictions, after the 5% allocation to IF. To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15 ...... Page 7

3.1.1 Innovation Fund

The Innovation. Fund is funded prior to the. allocation of the CWF and SPF, with up to 5% of BC's total GTF allocatiou being set aside into the IF. Applications to the fund can be submitted by any municipality or regional government.

A staff review of the total IF program applications and awards indicated that there is an over representation bias and direction of funding approvals to local govemments that are outside the Metro Vancouver Tier 3 communities. Since its inception, the IF fund has received over 400 applications, totaling $747,227,625. Of the approved funding applications, the majority of the projects were awarded to Tier 1 and Tier 2 local govemments and regional districts. Of the 82 approved projects, only 9 Were approved in Metro Vancouver, and 73 were approved for other areas of Be. In relation to per ppita population, since the inception, the Region has only received approximately 19% of the funding available under this program, while representing more than 50% of the province's population. A summary of the distribution of fuudiug under this program is detailed in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Innovation Fund Awards by Community Category

Tier # of Projects by Tier Total Value Tier 1 45 $ 46,156,212 Tier 2 28 $ 20,394,954 Tier 3 9 $ 15,432,217 Total· 82 $ 81,983,383

Source: UBCM 2013

In summary, the information shows a considerable trend towards the distribution and award of the Innovation Fund to municipalities and regional districts outside of Metro Vancouver, and the resulting inequity creates issues in terms of fairness, and ensuring that all local govemments receive an equitable per capita share of funding under this program.

Staff would suggest that any future administrative framework for implementation of a GTA should allow for the Innovation Fund to be segmented to separate Metro Vancouver's funding share from the balance of Be.

Other administrative aspects of this program that appear to affect the outcomes of fund distribution include an amended application process, whereby the UBCM allows for a single application to be submitted and assessed for both the General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and the IF. This, while reducing the effort of making applications, results in a single application receiving consideration for each fund, and increases the likelihood of funding of the many smaller, typically capacity-building applications, of local governments outside of Metro Vancouver. Overall, there would appear to be a considerable lack of equity arising from the application and administrative process for the IF.

In the staff review of the application and awards granted from the Innovation Fund, it is noted that TransLink (GVTA) has made four applications for funding, totaling $23.26M, in competition with member municipalities. From staff's view, however, TransLink should not To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING Re: . Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15...... ,...... Page 8

qualify for funding under this program, as it is not a Regional Govemment, an entity of a Regional District or a local government. While not awarded through this process, the applications from TransLink should have been rejected on receipt.

Staff would suggest that any future administrationframeworkfor theGTA should ensure that there is a clear definition of qualifying local and regional governments with a screening process to avoid the situation whereby applications from non-qualifying organizations would be considered.

Staff also reviewed the criteria employed in the evaluation of applications under the IF. All applications received for the IF are reviewed by a technical assessment team from the BC Ministry of Community, SpOlt and Cultural Development in relation to the criteria. However, in staff's view, these ctiteria are vague and do not provide clear information on weighting or ranking of ptiotities or program critetia elements.

Staff would suggest that any future administration framework for the GTA ensure that there is greater clarity on the IF assessment criteria including information on weighting or ranking ofpriorities or program criteria elements.

3.1.2 Strategic Priorities Fund

The Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) provides funding to strategic investments that are larger in scale or regional in impact. The SPF is application-based.8 The SPF is itself divided into three funding streams for Tiers 1 and 2, and Tier 3. Tne Greater Vancouver Strategic Ptiorities Fund (GVSPF) is only available to Tier 3 - Metro Vancouver.

As with all funding· streams, UBCM is responsible to apportion available funding in accordance with the delivery mechanism rules set out in the GT A. The rules of the GTA provide that between 75% and 100% of the per capita all

At the time the GVRD Board agreed to direct 100% of its SPF allocation towards TransLink projects, the Board had direct authority and control over TransLink's Strategic and Financial program, and hence local accountability for those decisions by the representatives on the Board that are elected locally. With the 2008 enactment of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, and subsequent creation of a new governance model for TransLink, the Metro Vancouver Board lost its authority to directly approve projects nnder the GT A. This loss of influence on expenditures is inconsistent with the overall intent. and mandate of the Federal Gas Tax Program, which is intended to support local govemment in establishing its infrastructure priotities.

8 The General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) is application based. For the Regionally Significant Project Fund (RSP), Regional Districts propose a project, and the MC approves. For the Tier 3 Greater Vancouver Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF), TransLink makes application to the MC for approval. To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PlANNING AND BUILDING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15...... ,...... Page 9

The change in TransLink's governance structure, coupled with the extension of the GTF, which was initially established for a 5-year period (2005 - 2010), resulted in Metro Vancouver effectively losing its local government input and authority to directly approve projects under the GTA. This will be the case for the duration of the agreement to 2015, and has resulted in a loss of local and regional government involvement in the allocation of this pOltion of the gas tax, making other significant municipal and regional 'non-transit infrastructure' projects ineligible for gas tax funding over the extended span of the agreement.

Metro Vancouver has mticulated the expectations for the new Gas Tax agreement, and stated that "it is imperative that Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities have control of these funds to ensure that decisions on gas tax expenditures reflect the broader interests of the [regional] community."

On this basis, staff would also suggest the full reinstatement Of the Metro Vancouver Board's regional autonomy in project priority identification, and control of GTA funds should be established to ensure that gas tax expenditures reflect the broader interest of the regional community.

Staff would, also suggest that any future administrative framework for a GTA should ensure that future decisions for the allocation of the Strategic Priorities Fund, attributable to Tier 3 - Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities, is the responsibility of the Metro Vancouver Board.

4.0 OTHER CONSIDERA nONS FOR RENEWAL OF THE GTA FOR BC

A review of the CUlTent British Columbia GTA and its administration, presented in this repOlt, raised a number of concerns that have been addressed in the individual recommendations presented above. The renewal of the GT A is, however, an opportunity to fully establish a new agreement to better reflect the objectives of Metro Vancouver municipalities based on the principles of accountability, transparency, equitability and regional representation.

As Canada's third largest census metropolitan area, Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities have an opportunity to establish an agreement that would provide a governance, administrative and funding model to meet its objectives and deliver benefits to the local region on a fair basis, whereby direct funding would be allocated and administered by the Metro Vancouver Board.

This model would ensure local and direct authority for project approval and funding, consistent with the protocols and practises across the country. The direct authOlity. and control of gas tax funds would ensure that decisions on expenditures would reflect the broader interests of the region, and that there would be local accountability to the electorate via the Metro Vancouver Board.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Arising from the Federal Government's commitment to make the GTF permanent in 2015, provincial and municipal signatOlies and pmtners are reviewing the CUlTent agreements in anticipation of the upcoming GTA renewals .. To: City Manager From: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING Re: Renewal of Federal Gas Tax Agreement - UBCM Member Survey 2013 October 15 ...... ,...... Page 10

The renewal negotiations thus provide an important opportunity for. MV local governments to express how the agreement can be improved to better reflect the objectives and priorities of Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities based on the principles of accountability, transparency, equitability and regional representation. This report has presented several proposals to support the development of the new GT A.' It is, therefore recommended that Council request:

1) the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and the Federal Department of Infrastructure Canada to develop a renewed Gas Tax Agreement for BC' that establishes the Metro Vancouver Board as the responsible authority for management and administration of the agreement for the identification of project priorities and allocation of gas tax funds, within the Metro Vancouver Region, as outlined in this report.

2) the development of a future administrative framework for the renewed Gas Tax Agreement, as outlined in this report, that provides for:

a. full transparency and accountability within the governance model;

b. tracking of administrative costs for the MV area;

c. segmentation of the Innovation Fund to ensure that that the Metro Vancouver Region receives its fair share of available funding under this funding stream;

d. a clear definition of qualifying local and regional governments to avoid the situation whereby applications from non-qualifying organizations would be considered;

e. clear assessment of criteria including information on weighting, ranking and priorities for program criteria; and

f. a broader scope of eligible project categOlies.

3) the support of the Metro Vancouver Board and of the member municipalities of the Metro Vancouver for the establishment of a renewed Gas Tax Agreement, based on the proposals and directions presented in this report.

It is further recommended that copy of this report be sent to the Ministers responsible for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and the Federal Department of Infrastmcture; the Metro Vaucouver Board; member municipalities of the Metro Vancouver Region; and the UBCM.

Lou Pelletier, Director PLANNING AND BUILDING

LL:jc Attachment cc: Deputy City Managers Director Engineering Director Finance

P:\Leah\2013-10-1S Council- Gas Tax Fund Renewal UBCM Member Survey.docx APPENDIX 1

Partnership Committee

Member Position· E-Mail. Patlick Tanguy Federal Co-Chair N Assistant Deputy [email protected] Minister Julian Paine Provincial Co-Chair Assistant Deputy Minister [email protected] Vacant Federal Appointee Vacant Vacant Lois-Leah Provincial Appointee Executive Director [email protected] Goodwin Mayor Mary DBCM Appointee DBCM President [email protected] Sjostrom Gary MacIsaac DBCM Appointee Executive Director [email protected]

Management Committee

. Member Position E-Mail Gary MacIsaac DBCMChair Executive Director [email protected] Carol Mason DBCM Appointee Commissioner/Chief Carol.Mason@metrovancouv Administrative Officer er.org Patlick Tanguy Federal Appointee N Assistant Deputy [email protected] Minister Julian Paine Provincial Assistant Deputy Minister [email protected] Appointee Brenda Gibson DBCM Appointee Victolia General Manager [email protected]

Source: UBCM website bttp;J!www,ubcm.caJEN/mainifundinglgas-tax-fundigovernance-and-structure.html 617

Mayor _Council

From: Erik Seiz [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:39 AM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Cc: Rasode, Barinder; info; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Draft Plan for rail transportation improvements on the White Rock/Surrey/Delta BNSF corridor

Dear Mayor Jackson and Delta council,

The Crescent Beach Property Owners Association (CBPOA) wish to provide information that we feel will be helpful in the evaluation of issues related to rail safety, and realistic quality of life opportunities for connnunities of the Boundary Bay area.

Given the precedent of three Canadian urban-rail disasters in the past 6 months, we feel it would be legally negligent for any government or private organization to not review opportunities to improve local rail transportation. This position is magnified on the BNSF corridor which has experienced unprecedented recent growth, and by the efforts of PMV to further stress the current infrastructure.

To help find solutions, the CBPOA has created a draft plan for potential rail transportation improvements that are specific to the White Rock, Surrey, Delta corridor. The plan has been shared with BNSF, who have accepted it as input for their study of local speed boundaries. The draft has also been shared for review with the City of Surrey, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and Transport Canada.

As Delta is a host to rail, a source for shipping, and a vital stakeholder in local culture and stewardship, we welcome your input.

The draft plan is available for review on our website: www.cbpoa.ca or can be viewed directly here.

We look forward to your thoughts, and to working together. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Best regards, Erik Seiz. xxxxxx ENG

The Crescent Beach Property Owners Association has requested that BNSF reduce the speed limit for trains in the Crescent Beach area. As indicated in the letter, BNSF accepted their letter as input for a study of the local speed boundaries.

1 Page 1 of2

~Iews & Letters> Proposed peed Boundaries posted Nov 7, 2013, 8:13 PM by Super U.ser [updflted 20 hours ago 1

Proposed Speed Boundaries for Crescent Beach

'..;} North Boundary

South Boundary

Following is the CBPOA draft plan for introducing rail speed boundaries within the Crescent Beach community, and potentially for the entire White Rock - Surrey bluff corridor.

We recognize there are also issues related to rail cargo on the BNSF corridor. However, the focLis of this plan is to explore simple, cost effective opportunities to bring neaHerm improvements to issues related to safety, stewardship, anclliability. Our view is that near-term planning must not be delayed by the discussion of other issues. In less than 6 months, we have witnessed three Canadian rail disasters in urban locations. In light of this, the CBPOA feels responsible to bring attention to obvious solutions that are immediately achievable. We also believe it would be negligent for our local, provincial, and federal governments, BNSF, and Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) to not irnplement these sdutions, given the precedent of recent events.

Consistent speed boundaries are an opportunity to provide dramatic benefits in safety and quality of life, to the residential and recreational beach area. Establishing steady, slower speeds will significantly help increase safety, and mitigate the effects of large, heavy trains within our community and the bluff corridor. (Note: Train speeds vary, and the metrics used were derived from recorded average behavior.) ,

North bound traffic pattern North bound trains currently begin to brai

South bound traffic pattern South bound engines currently begin to accelerate from 15 km/hr, after crossing the Nicomei<1 swing bridge, building to 45 km/hr for end cars leaving the south end of the beach.

Level crossing patterns The Beecher street level crossing is one half i

Opportunity If north bound trains were to enter the beach area at 15 !

Speed boundary proposal The swing bridge creates an eXisting 15 !<;m/hr boundary at the north end of the beach area We propose the 24th Ave

https:llsites,google,com/alcbpoa,calcrescent-beach-property -owners-associationlnews/pro,.. 11 I 13 120 13 Page 2 of2

pedestrian overpass be used to dejineate the southern boundary. The boundary would apply to all cars of a train. Trains traveling north would brake before 24th Ave, and enter the beach area at 15kmlhr. Trains traveling south would begin to accelerate after the last car has cleared 24th Ave,

Expected cost The proposed boundary introduces a rail transportation delay of approximately five minutes, (Depending on exact train speed and length,)

Expected benefit

Line of sight improvement at 24th Ave track curve. ~ Improved conductor, pedestrian, vehicle, and cargo safety. ~ Decreased ground vibrations and residential J civic structural damage from harmonics . • Increased sand bluff stability, ~ An order of magnitude reduction of locomotive emission output within the community, (All diesel engines under load emit ~1 Ox more pollution than when running at steady state,) Reduced noise and vibration from locomotives under heavy load. Reduced track and brake noise, Reduced probability of hitch coupling harmonics that aggregate over the length of a bralling train, (Released as a single, explosive impact)

Note: If the southern speed boundary was extended to White Rock, where there is an existing 15 kmlhr limit, there would be an addl'bonal benefit to BNSF in fuel savings by removing the entire acceleration!deceleration cycle from the bluff corridor. This would also remove the emission output from acceleration, and extend conductor and cargo safety and liability benefits under an area with regular mud slides. The estimated cost of the extended boundary is an extra fifteen minutes.

https:/Isites,google,com/a/cbpoa,ca/crescent-beach-property-owners-associationlnews/pro." 11/13/2013 618

4395- t.h-+4.:sr -z!9!) IJ E I? J3 c~ I//+K 3 m~· 6 3

? ? ' -Pl-~~:J!£!{L~'¢-Ll'l2afJ.~LL2!Ll&!;~-~--~++I'i,,:R0f~(,l;\~~A

__~'-----£Lil~--f-"£'LL=---,k-LLL.-P-LU,j~lL---'-"-&£!z{lgJd~~/n:r::&, ~ __ii;1l;;!il.ij '~~J.-.._ .... " .. / \ \QZ.0C). . ![!.~t~-JtC\-L~M-''l Ci I Mto Cif NDV oJ1]

I ;

Staff will provide an assessment of the trees identified in the letter and provide a response back to the resident. 619

Q genda BRITISH - FILE #C6l0CcQ·-02. COLUMBIA A NOV 06 2013

IIer Worship Reference: 219800 Mayor Lois E. Jackson The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta BC V4K 3E2

Dear Mayor Jackson:

Re: South Fraser Perimeter Road

Thank you for your letter of August 28, 2013, regarding the St Mungo and Glenrose Cannery archaeological sites along the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

The plan for the St Mungo and Glenrose Cannery archaeological sites, as developed with local First Nations, recognizes the cultural significance of the area and includes the protection of key sites through soil cover and recognition/interpretation through commemorative signs, pathways, viewpoints, a boardwalk, and some planting of native shrubs and trees such as crab apple. When complete, the area will be more protected from the looting of historical arti facts that has occurred in the past Any works on the site will be monitored by the ministry as part of normal operations on ministry rights-of-way.

With regard to incorporating information on Delta's fishing history, ministry staff will continue to work with the Delta Museum and Archives and Delta staff to incorporate interpretive signs into the site located under the Alex Fraser Bridge.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Gateway Executive Director Geoff Freer. He can be reached by telephone at 604 940-7987 or bye-mail at Geoff,Freer@gov,bc.caand would be pleased to assist you.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely, MAYOR'S OFFICE ~ NOV 12 2013 Todd Stone Minister ".12

------~------

Ministry of Transportation Office of the i"v1inister Mailing Address: and Infrastructure Parliament Buildings Victoria Be V8V lX4 - 2 -

Copy to: Geoff Freer, Executive Director Gateway Program I

This letter is a response to Delta's inquiry into to the long term operation and maintenance of the St. Mungo and Glenrose Cannery archaeological sites. The Province has indicated that the sites will be monitored by the ministry. Staff will continue to collaborate on information for the site's interpretive signs. From (he c!lfice vI THE CORPORATION OF DELTA The Mayor. Lois E. JE)cksoll

August 28, 2013 '

The Honourable Todd Stone TYPE: INPID Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure DEPT: % )C. P4--D" __ , PO Box 9055, Stn Prov Govt A.U: \ \1Q\q'b . , Victoria, BC V8V 9E2 " Comments: ~. M;n;o.~' ~,'1 De~" . / "'" Re: South Fraser Perimeter Road Archaeological Sites

As the construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road nears completion, we would like to, draw your attention to an issue that has been under discussion for quite some time - the St.

, I Mungo and Glenrose Cannllry archaeological sHes. I ,,J 1 We know that work is underway on these sites and that they will and ;:' cel~brate commemorate the culture and heritage of local First Nations and therfishing history of the community, but we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with more information about the operation of the sites. We are particularly interested in knowing under whose ',; 'i jurisdiction and supervision the sites will operate and how Delta's fishing history will be " incorporated into the recognition/interpretive area,

J Thank you for your attention to this matter, we look forward/to your response.

r\ t:;

";~ I'; I:: I;'; !i;. ~, 1 ":'1 lj i~ !:J cc: Geoff Freer, Executive Director, Gateway Program fi Delta Council Delta Heritage Advisoi)' Commission ;~ George V. Harvie. Chief Administratiire Officer f~ ;:1'1 INFORMATION TO COUNCIl. ,I Steven Lan, Director of Engineering u t·! DATE, fe{zl . .g, Ir~, !':\ 4500 ClaH~ncc Taylor Cresc:ent. DL"lta. British (\llllrnllii'l-_ Canada V4K 3E2 " <: Td; 004946<,210 Fax, GO£!' 946-6055 ["mail: l.llil)illjende)t;u;:o ':, ------)\; (" o (, i:i 620

Mayor Council

From: valerie Penney Sent: Monday, November 11,20136:49 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: noise bylaw - holidays are not included genda .' Dear Mayor and council, A filE #l9-ICO- GO /19fTf.2 i

At 7:00 am on Remembrance Day, I was woken by contractors using a machine as loud as a chain saw to inspect the power pole in my front yard.

After checking the bylaw, I was shocked that Delta, unlike most nearby municipalities (ex. Richmond and Vancouver) allows contractor to work from 7am - 7pm , Monday to Friday with no exception for holidays.

It is hard enough to get a good sleep with all the planes flying overhead. I realize that you can't do much about the planes, but could you please limit the contractors by adding holidays to the noise bylaw?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Valerie and Kelly Penney 14149 Street Delta, Be V4M2P1

The Bylaw Enforcement Clerk has responded to the writer acknowledging her concern about contractors using loud machinery on a holiday, and that her correspondence has been forwarded to Mayor and Council for their consideration. The City of Vancouver grants work on a holiday between 10:00am to 8:00pm, City of Surrey grants work on a holiday between 7:00am to 10:00pm, and City of Richmond grants work on a holiday between 10:00am to 6:00pm. The City of New Westminster does not permit work on a holiday.

1 621 genda FILE # {)o. Ma or _Council A acccc.-

From: Stephen PUshak (YPC:: A- ~. Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 20133:27 PM r.""':1 I To: Mayor & Council nCf-"T: %. 'I Subject: Radiological and Environmental Concerns 119337 0

I'm ~retir~d software engineer and gr~duate of mechanical engineering from:~h~D~~~is~i;:~£::¥~7%~ studIed wmd energy anlOng other subjects. 6 (J.) As you may be aware, information about the radiological hazards posed by fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, is not widely available. i· I have contacted some private environmental testing agencies and labs to inquire about the feasibility of testing a large number of samples of rain water for small but extremely radioactive dust particles. Our West coast is susceptible to this danger since we live in a high rainfall region directly in the path of the Fukushima dust cloud presently in the upper atmosphere.

Are we collecting a large enough number of rainwater samples throughout the municipality or throughout the province? Are the testing methodologies adequate to detect such tiny particles? I There are news reports of increases in radioactive Cesium levels in milk as a result of cattle grazing on grass that has been exposed. In response the FDA raised the tolerances; hardly a proactive approach. I am concerned about the hazards to British Columbians from our milk, cheese, vegetable and poultry produce not to mention the danger of ingestion of such particles from the air, from drinking water and especially skin contact which can lead to cancer. By the time our health authorities discover the statistical correlation with cancers and other illnesses, it will be far to late to do anything about remediation or appropriate prevention.

What steps are being taken by Delta council to address these concerns?

Concerning the proposed Transalta pipeline expansion and exports; I am strongly opposed to exposing the citizens of Delta to environmental hazards of many types. We are perhaps aware of the hazards from coal shipping through our port. Are we assured that any remediation steps !\Ie adequate? What steps are possible to prevent potential hazards and ensure the health and safety of our residents? Have we considered legal avenues? Taxation and tolling of dangerous goods through the city? Certainly we citizens have a right to top notch protection in the case of disasters. After all, we are being asked to be exposed t.o hazards with negligible local benefit.

I would like to invite the mayor, council and future municipal office candidates to participate in my Facebook forum, Democratic Free Enterprise Socialism where we discuss grass roots reform of the political system. I believe that our interests are most closely aligned as individuals and communities whereas the large political machinery is subject to influence by corporate profit concerns. The community leaders are our advocates to the provincial and federal governments, especially when they are not responsive to the public at large.

I believe now is a time that we must examine our ideology. The petrochemical industry recognizes that opposition to the hazards of hydraulic fracturing, shale gas and oil, bitumen extraction. The levels of air pollution around Fort McMurray are astounding. If such levels were found here in Delta, surely there would be action. Perhaps our community can partuer with these economically disadvantaged communities to assist them with insights and more.

The Northern Gateway pipeline should never be built; it's an an environmentally sensitive area, far from public scrutiny and passing through unstable geological formations in the mountains, subject to landslides, avalanches 1 Health Canada maintains a network of radiation monitoring stations in Canada. Staff has responded to Mr. Pushak providing this information along with details of actions taken by Delta Council relating to the other issues addressed in his email. and serious erosion. These hazards cannot be minimized ESPECIALLY when they are far from scrutiny. Massive oil leaks have gone on for days undetected because the pipelines were buried. If any new pipelines are constructed, they should be above ground and have full concrete containment ditches. I would suggest that we do not permit bitumen transport by pipeline anywhere. It should all be transported by heated rail tank car without diluent. It is the diluent (volatile solvents added to heavy bitumen tar in order to move it easily) which is so extremely hazardous during rail transport.

I would prefer that Canada and BC and Delta pursue a local energy self-sufficiency policy. Some municipalities in the US have adopted a policy of owning all their power generation infrastructure. They plan to transition to 100% green technology. Delta has access to considerable potential for energy extraction from tidal and run of stream from the Fraser River. While the wind profile in this area is low, I have located some new technologies that will reduce the costs of wind power extraction and entirely mitigate problems with bird, bat and insect mortalities. Has council given thought to this approach? Again, participation in my Internet forums will be of assistance. This group is global in composition with people from many countries around the world participating.

Thank you for your attention; I shall eagerly await your response!

Stephen Pushak \lLtSI-~A-1tI6' ~fC0 \lL{v ly8

2 622

Mayor _Council

From: Murray Braem Sent: Saturday, November 09,201311:04 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Boundary Bay Dyke

As a recreationist on this dyke I noticed of late, folks in fatigues with high powered rifles perhaps bird hunting. Nonetheless shots are consistently fired within the immediate proximity of men, women and children recreating on the dyke in addition to farmers, contractors and the Boundary Bay golf course. Is there a safety issue here? Seems to me there is. As a cyclist onthis dyke and having familiarity with guns I am troubled by the safety issues apparent in this situation. Can you comment?

I asked this of the city of Delta and the Delta Police Department. No reply.

Best Regards,

Staff have contacted Mr. Braem to identify the areas allowing the discharge of firearms along Boundary Bay dyke. The Boundary Bay Linear Park includes an exemption to the restriction for the possession of firearms from toe to toe of the dyke for hunters accessing Boundary Bay. Recently, Council approved amendments to the Discharge of Firearms Regulation so that the discharge would not be allowed towards the land in a 180 m area along Boundary Bay. Delta Police enforces the regulation.

1 Mayor _Council

From: Murray Braem Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 1 :12 AM To: Mayor & Council Subiect: Re: Boundary Bay Dyke

Thank you for your consideration on this issue. I would like to amend my previous comments to the extent that the City of Delta and the Delta Police have now offered a reply. However I don't see from their comments any direct attention to the obvious question of safety. I make no . judgement to this regard; just passing it on to you at this juncture. Perhaps it is not their place and I apologize for any overlap or confusion.

Once again thank you for your consideration on this important issue on public safety. I look forward to reviewing Councils thoughts on your website,

Best Regards,

From: Mayor & Council Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:21 PM To: Murray Braem Subject: RE: Boundary Bay Dyke o~ 0::' c::i1 OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL CLERK r.. n

November 15, 2013

File No.: 01070-50 A.T, No.: 119299

Murray Braem 9933 - 133A Street Surrey, BC V3T 5G4

Dear Mr. Braem:

Boundary Bay Dyke

I would like to confirm receipt of your correspondence dated November 9, 2013 regarding the above 1 noted subject.

Your communication has been circulated to the Mayor, Council and the Chief Administrative Officer , for information; as well as the Director of Community Planning and Development for consideration I and response as appropriate.

Council will receive your correspondence as part of its Regular Meeting Agenda on November 25, 2013. The agenda, including your correspondence and relevant comments and/or response, will be available for viewing on Delta's website at: www.delta.ca.

1 Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter.

Yours truly,

Office of the Municipal Clerk

From: Murray Braem Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:18 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Re: Boundary Bay Dyke

Greetings,

Address is 9933 133A Street Surrey, V3T SG4.

Regards,

From: Mayor & Council Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:50 AM To: Murray Braem Subject: RE: Boundary Bay Dyke

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: Murray Braem Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:04 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Boundary Bay Dyke

As a recreationist on this dyke I noticed of late, folks in fatigues with high powered rifles perhaps bird hunting. Nonetheless shots are consistently fired within the immediate proximity of men, women and children recreating on the dyke in addition to farmers, contractors and the Boundary Bay golf course. Is there a safety issue here? Seems to me there is. As a cyclist on this dyke and having familiarity with guns I am troubled by the safety issues apparent in this situation. Can you comment?

I asked this of the city of Delta and the Delta Police Department. No reply.

Best Regards,

Murray Braem

623

� � metrovancouver (jre

Mayor lois Jackson and Members of Council xxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXX The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent Delta, BC V4K 3E2 L-00 r.Jad(Soii 25 Dear Mayo and Members of Council: xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Re: Metro Vancouver Board Acceptance Statement

I am pleased to inform you that the Metro Vancouver Board ac�epted the Corporation of Delta's Regional Context Statement (RCS) at its September 27, 2013 meeting. Attached is the resolution for your records.

, · The Corporation of Delta has developed a strong Regional Context Statement that aligns well with the ··.·.1· Regional Growth Strategy. I have been informed that collaborative efforts between staff at the ;0· Corporation of Delta and Metro Vancouver facilitated the development of the RCS, and I look forward to continued collaboration in realizing the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy.

To conclude this process, please provide us with a certified copy of the Corporation of Delta's Official Community Plan. We will need a hard copy for our files, aswell as a digital copy which we will post on the Metro Vancouver website.

Should you or your staff have any further questions please contact lee-Ann Garnett, Senior Regional Planner at 604-432-6381. A Council Report is tentatively scheduled for December 9, Yours truly, 2013 to bring forward Bylaw No. 7237 for final consideration and adoption. Bylaw No. 7237 will add the new Regional Context Statement to the Official Community Plan. Once adopted and consolidated into the Official Community Plan, copies will be forwarded to Metro Vancouver as requested. Greg Moore Chair, Metro Vancouver Board

GM/Dl/Ig/ms

cc: Mr. Andrew Curran, Manager,Strategy, Strategic Planning and Policy,Translink Ms. Karen Rothe, Manager Growth Strategies-Metro and Fraser Valley, MoCSCD

Encl: GVRD Board Resolution of September 27,2013 on Acceptance of the Corporation of Delta's RCS

7892328 � metrovancouver � SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, Be. Canada VSH 4GB 604-432-6200 www,metrovancouver,org

Greater Vancouver R€!giona\ District • Greater V

Board & In/ormation Services, Corporate Services Tel. 604-432-6250 Fax. 604-451-6686

Resolution Form

This is to advise that at the September 27,2013 Regular Meeting, the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board of Directors considered the following report:

Consideration of the Corporation of Delta's Regional Context Statement

and passed the following resolution:

"That the Board accept the Corporation of Delta's Regional Context Statement as submitted to Metro Vancouver on August 7, 2013."

I, Paulette A. Vetleson, hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of a Resolution as finally adopted at the September 27, 2013 Regular meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board of Directors.

th Dated at Burnaby, British Columbia, this 10 day of October, 2013. eO·Ulw Paulette A. Vetieson, Corporate Officer

I I I 624

HEAD OFFICE; #401-958 WEST 8TH AVE. VANCOUVER,BC,VSZ1E5 <''tEL:-(604) 685.3227 FAX; (604) 893.1721

STRATA MANAGEMENT COMMERCIAL LEASING & MANAGEMENT RES1DENTIAL RENTAL

th October 30 , 2013

toj 7'" j-)? Mayor & Council 'f;LJ:i~.';L:s:'::Lj.:;;:::~( ",'t~J OJ\ ~ ~d~ Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent , Cf4\) Delta, BC Canada Im,l!. V4K 3E2 jlCi3 \ 0 1"'1.:' ~,t~J~ {j;",~/~ ,~(, Dear Sirs/Madams; ~ J A ) ~ a+ /V{)V -j ('" ,::,:,". "~l ~"" -" 1,",11, RE: Application to Amend the Official Community Plan & Comprehensive Development Zone No. 348-8 - "I~" 10775 Delsom Crescent, Delta BC

We write on behalf of the Strata Council of BCS3195 "Radiance" in regard to a proposed change to the official community plan and comprehensive development zone No, 348-8 located at 10775 Delsom Crescent, Delta, Be

The Strata Council of Radiance represents 89 town home units, The Council has expressed concern in relation to the proposed changes in development at 10775 Delsom Crescent as this lot forms part of the Sunstone Community, Specifically, the Committee does not believe that a liquor store, or other enterprise whose primary business is the sale of liquor, is well-suited to the community. The development of a liquor-primary licensed establishment may encourage additional loitering on private property, attract mischief and decrease safety for all Residents,

The Council also expressed concern to the proposed set-back changes, It is felt that reducing th'e set-back would be acceptable for a cafe with exterior seating, but would compromise the view, light exposure and re-sale value of adjacent townhomes if all four storeys proposed were to be constructed with only a 0,6 m set-back from Delsom Crescent.

In addition to the above, the Strata Corporation BCS3195 opposes any changes to the pathway network at this time.

We thank you for your attention. Should you have any questions further to the above, please contact the undersigned at [email protected]. The development application at 10775 Delsom Crescent is Yours truly, currently under review, and will be forwarded to Council for Strata Council BCS3195 consideration in early 2014. Per: The strata council for the townhouse development (Radiance) at 8385 Delsom Way is concerned with the proposed additional uses, reduced building setbacks and Meghan Ritchie Rosario pathway re-alignment for the property at 10775 Delsom Senior Strata Agent Crescent. Letters submitted to Council will be summarized in AWM-Alliance Real Estate Group Ltd. the community consultation section of the report to be provided at the time of Council's consideration of first and second readings of the bylaws associated with this application.

D VICTORIA OFFICE; -11100.-180.:;1 DOUGLAS STREET ~FRASER VALLEY: 11216-6820. teeTH STREET 0 WHISTLER OFFICE: cij2J2 -120.0. ALPHA LAKE Rq, VICTORIA, Be veT 5C3 SURREY, Be, V4N 3GB WHISTLER, EC, VON 161 TI:::L; (250.):;188,9967 FAx; (250.)388.9997 TEL:. (604) 6"85.3227 FAX: (S04) 893,\721 TEL: (604) 935.3227 FAX: (604-) 893.1721 625

Mayor _Council

~ ...... " , From: Joanna james I:"",~ Sent: November-06-13 3:34 PM ·z· To: Mayor Lois Jackson; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald i::::i Cc: Sylvia Bishop; Mayor & Council; Communities.and.Coal; Ian Paton '<:, r.::::. Subject: fraser surrery docks proposal """:J Attachments: Scoping Request-7.pdf jj! 1:::: I'''''' Dear Mrs Jackson I:~' , ...,Ii. As Mayor of Delta we urge not to support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health iimpact assessment, conducted by an independent third party as well as full public hearings on the project.

We have attended meetings and heard medical Doctor's findings from Washington showing great concern about coal traveling by rail and on open carts and ports in USA washington and down the coast have refused to have coal exported from there. They are now trying to get Canada to export their coal. Coal is an old fossil form of fuel now banned in homes here and only used in industry. Morally we should not sell coal to china to pollute their air and lungs anymore than ours.

You have to do what is right for this generation and the next and the next, do not think just about money. Think about the loss of Burns Bog which the train line goes through, think about the noise, the inconvenience of stopping at train tracks many times a day, the accidents as cars try to race the train, the pollution of the air, and water through which the coal is transferred.

Please do not let this happen. It is bad enough that we have trains and coal from Delta Port do not allow anymore frequency i urge you to read the medical reports sent from the states and ask for more information and vote against this ludicrous proposal. Thank you Joanna and Richard James M.D.

, 4925 53rd st I Delta V4K 2Z3 B.C. genda i . FILE # I A eo;xo - ao

1 Potential Health Impacts of Gateway Pacific Terminal

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

A direct impact of the proposed coal shipping tenninal 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 (HIA) 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 :1 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 Tenninallies 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 top five 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 emissions are of special concern, particularly the size fraction up to 2.5 microns, known as PM2.5. This size of particle is able to be respired deep into the lungs. PM2.5 from all sources has been implicated in numerous diseases ranging from cardiopulmonary disease to cognitive decline to cancer. The deleterious impact on human health is incontrovertible (WA DOE 2008, California Air Resources Board 1998, and many other studies). Diesel engines are of particular concern as sources of particulate matter, as they typically produce PM2.5 at a rate about 20-times greater than from gasoline engines.

Health Impacts of DPM: Cancer

Studies show an association between exposure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Bhatia, 1998), as well as cancers ofthe bladder and soft tissues (Ouo et aI., 2004). Several extensive and detailed reviews have been conducted on the body ofliterature relating long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles and lung cancer (California EPA, 1998; USEP A, 2002; Cohen and Nikula, 1999). In addition, over 40 studies conducted among those populations exposed to diesel exhaust have found increased rates oflung cancer associated with diesel exhaust particles exposure (as cited in Cohen and Nikula, 1999). Occupational studies conducted in railroad workers and truck drivers have consistently found increased lung cancer risk, even after adjusting for comorbidities such as smoking (Bofetta,2001). The impact ofDPM on cancer risk must be considered in the decision making process for the OPT.

Health Impacts ofDPM: Cardiac and Pulmonary

Although cancer risk is understandably of great concern to 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 congenital heart abnormalities. According to a landmark study by Pope et al (2002), each 10 uglm3 increase in DPM was associated with a 6% increase in cardiopulmonary mortality. In a follow-up to this study, Pope et al (2004) demonstrated that their previously observed increase in cardiopulmonary mortality was largely driven by increases in cardiovascular, as opposed to pulmonary mortality. In this follow-up study, a 10 uglm3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with a 12% increase in mortality due to 'all cardiovascular disease plus diabetes' and an 18% increase in mortality due to 'ischemic heart disease'. Further epidemiological investigations have revealed that these estimates are likely largely underestimating the effect ofPM2.S due to inadequate exposure characterization. Published in the New England Journal ofMedicine, Miller et aI. (2007) utilized a novel exposure characterization method and reported from the Women's Health Study that a 10 ug'm3 increase in PM2.S was associated with a 76% increase in death due to cardiovascular disease. To further highlight the impact ofPM2.S on public health, the 'Global Burden of Disease' report recently published in Lancet reported ambient PM2.S 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.S 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.S 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 major 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 aI. 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 IS minutes of being exposed to dilute diesel exhaust and reached a maximum increase in SBP within I 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 aI. 2001).

In addition to cardiovascular risk, cerebrovascular effects and risk of stroke associated with PM2.S 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.S as a key factor in triggering 'stroke, often within hours of exposure. The study found a linear relationship between PM2.S 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 (1S-40 ug'm3), as opposed to days when pollutants are lower than IS 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 pollution leads to asthma exacerbations, increased ER visits, and increased hospitalization, at levels that currently exist in Seattle (Norris et aI, 1999; Slaughter et al, 2003). A study in California shows that about half of the economic costs of asthma can be attributed to air pollution, 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 in the gas phase of diesel exhaust, some of the most commonly identified are acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs). 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. I • 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. PAR 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/pdflHRSguide200l.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 ofDPM i I 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 aloug 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 of the models.

If mitigation measures, pollution control devices, ultra low sulfur fuel specifications, or !I 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 I increase pollutant concentrations. Thus, the analysis must include not only effects of I 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 terminal 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:

1. 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 DPM 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 DPM and toxins will these areas be exposed to? 3. How much DPM 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 ft, 200 ft, 500 ft, 1000 ft, 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 COPD 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 ofthe 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 GPT 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 1 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 deraihnents. Large amounts of coal dust also escapes from coal piles, as can be 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 ,·1 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 (FDAIEPA 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 al, 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 ofthe "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? I 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 OPT operations?

Ill. Health Impacts of Noise Pollution fl. 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 of the 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, vasoconstriction, 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 M et aI., 2012; Sorensen M et aI. #2, 2012; Sorensen M et aI., 2011; Willich SN et aI. 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 a11980; Evans OW 2003; Evans OW and SJ Lepore, 1993; Evans OW and L Maxwell, 1997; Haines MM et. aI. 2001; Haines MM et al #2, 2001; Hygge S et aI. 2002; Stansfeld SA at eI. 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 GPT. (Aasvang et aI, 2011; Brink et aI, 2011; Carter NL 1996; Chang et aI., 2012; Clark C. et a12012; Halonen JI et al2012; Hong J et aI. 2010; Hume Kl2011)

Health hnpacts of Noise: Mental Health

Increased noise is known to accelerate and intensify development oflatent mental health disorders including depression, mental instability, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis. It is also a major environmental cause of anooyance leading to diminished quality of life (Evans OW at aI, 1995; Fidell Set 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 GPT must account for the fact that these would 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 GPT 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, 1 mile, and2 miles along the entire route from PRB to Cherry Point? 4. How much noise andlor 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? 10. Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how 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 thetotal 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

"I childhood learning? On childhood test scores? What is the total economic cost of the i 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 OPT operations? .

IV. Health Impacts of Delays in Emergency Medical Services

As physicians, we are concemed 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 pf 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 ofthe 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 hnpacts 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:

<.1 1. How many rail crossings are there along the rail corridor from the Powder River :1 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 of the 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. 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 I delays in care and to otherwise avoidable outcomes such as death or permanent :-! 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 increased rail traffic en route to OPT? 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 ofthese deraihnents, and are any of these potentially dangerous or inadequately designed rail lines in major population densities?

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

Dale Abbott, MD Erin Charles, MD Camilla Allen, MD Vishal Chaudhary, MD Daniel Austin, MD Michael Clunel, MD Diane Arvin, MD Joshua Cohen, MD Barbara Baclunan, MD Andrew Coletti, MD Laura Backer, MD Keith Comess, MD Kristi Bailey, MD Paul Conner, MD Jennifer Bates, MD Kirstin Curtis, ARNP Jeffrey B. Black, MD Jan Dank, 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 ThangDo,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 Laurie Emert, MD John Erbstoeszer, MD Mitchell Kahn, MD Worth Everett, MD Mara Kelley, MD

I 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 Lawrence, 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 Lorna Gober, MD Linda Leum, MD David Goldman, MD Hank Levine, MD Aaron Gonter, MD Chris Lewis, DO Erin Griffith, MD Jason Lichtenberger, MD Tung M. Ha, DO Serge Lindner, MD Deborah Hall, MD Kelly Lloyd, MD TomHall,MD Bill Lombard, MD William Hall, MD J ena 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, P A Will Hong, MD Monica Mahal, MD John Hoyt, MD Scott McGuinness, MD Bao Huynh, MD Judson Moore, P A 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 N aviaux, 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 I Denise Plaisier, PA Warren Taranow, DO Suneil Polley, ND Michael Taylor, MD Ronda Pulse, MD M. Greg Thompson, MD, MPH I Gita Rabbani, MD Chad Thomas, MD, PhD Andris Radvany, MD Stuart Thorson, MD Jon Ransom, MD Teresa Thornberg, MD Christoph Reitz, MD Loch Trimingham, MD Susan Rodgers, ARNP Elizabeth Vennos, MD George Roikar, 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 infonnation listed in "Whatcom Docs Position Statement" and appendices on I 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, Silvennan D. 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.htrn

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 19 2012.

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 EnglJ Med 329(24): 1753-1759. Gaudennan, 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-.

Gaudennan, 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

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

Gaudennann, 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 at. Vascular Responses to Long- and Short-Tenn Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter: The MESA Air (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution). Journal o/theAmerican College o/Cardiology, doi:1O.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:l0.1016/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 at. 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 Med 356, 447-458 (2007).

Mittleman, M. A. 2007. Air pollution, exercise, and cardiovascular risk. NEJM 357(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. NEJM351(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.

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 / Sante Fe Railroad Spokane Railyard. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, www.spokanecleanair.org

Thaller, E. et al. 2008. Moderate increases in ambient PM2.S 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 0/ Respiratory 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-Etlmic Study of Atherosclerosis. Americanjournal o/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. EPA/600/8-90/057F, 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.orglresources/coal-ash-the-toxic-threat-to-our-health-and environment.html. September 2010.

Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP 1991. Proctor and Hughes' chemical hazards of the workplace, 3Ill 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 Industn'al Hygiene Journal. Volume 42(5):382-391. ,i 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 Government Environmental Protection Agency Report. 2008. Environmental 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 AgencylFederal 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 WA, Petsonk EL, et al. 2010. Severe occupational pneumoconiosis among West Virginia coal miners: 13 8 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 polysornnographic 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.

Brink M et al. 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 al. 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. Epidemiol. 176(4): 327- 337.

Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz DS, Stokols D. 1980. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects of aircraft noise on children: Moving froni 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

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 oflangnage acquisition. Environ Behav. 29: 638-56 Fidell S, Barber DS, 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, JI 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. PsycholMed.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 Jet al. 2010. The effects oflong-term exposure to railway and road traffic noise on subjective sleep disturbance. 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. Psychol 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 Met al. 2012. Long term exposure to road traffic noise and incident diabetes: a cohort study. Environ Health Persp. http://dx.doi.org/l0.1289/ehp.l205503. S0l"ensen M, Hvidberg M, Andersen ZJ, Nordsborg RB, Lillelund KG, Jakobsen J, Tjonneland A, Overvad K, and Raaschou-Nielsen 0.2011. 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 of the United States.

Goines L, Hagler L. 2007. Noise Pollution: A modem plague. South Med J.I00(3):287-294.

Willich SN, Wegscheider 1(, Stallmann M,et al. 2006. Noise burden and the risk of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 27: 276-282. 626

Mayor _Council ., From: Teji Johal I-'I, Sent: November-06-13 4:20 PM tJ) To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; [email protected]; ~'"ci Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; [email protected] ..:;::: Cc: Communities.and.Coal Subject: The Time Has Come - Delta Mayor and Council

Attn: Mayor Jackson and Council,

We are requesting that you join the progressive cities of White Rock, Surrey, Langley, New Westminster, and Vancouver in opposing the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the proj ect.

We support the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and will now be doing it in Delta. We want you, our elected officials, to support and protect us, and to do what is right! You can still stand up for the people you represent and use your voice to demand a better process for the people who will be taking on all of the risk. As other communities have done already!

genda ....., Sincerely, A. FILE # CAt:g--CCr 0<-0 Taj & Hartej Johal 8965 Watson Court Delta, BC

1 627

Mayor Council

From: Yvonne Sol Sent: November-06-13 5:10 PM To: Mayor & Council Cc: [email protected] Subject: U.S. Thermal Coal to be shipped through Delta, Tsawwassen, & Ladner

To Mayor and Council: W <.1:1

As a very cQncerned citizen of South Surrey, BC, I wish to voice my strong opposition to U.S. Thermal Coal being shipped by rail through various communities in BC to Fraser Surrey Docks and then shipped by uncovered barge north to Texada Island where it will be transferred to ocean going vessels and sent over to China.

Ijoin a multitude of citizens ofTsawwassen, Ladner and North Delta in requesting that your City Council pass a resolution asking Port Metro Vancouver to not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal; and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project. I support the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and will now be doing in Delta. We want you, our elected officials, to support and protect us, and to do

:::::::~ht. A genda ~::~:~~ME FILE # 0!d:C0-~ AT #: IlQ2L\. \ .. _ Yvonne Sol 4020 12850 26th Avenue CO;;';~1vo To;,i Surrey, BC V4P 1Sl Cc-. 6,t 11~-tro Vmt.[;/A,vI/V ~wr~ H-I..4U DvdL-~

1 628

Mayor .. Council ...." From: K L Denman r.... 1 Sent: November-06-13 3:31 PM %o To: Mayor & Council <: Mayor Lois Jackson; Robert Campbell; Sylvia Bishop; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie • Cc: <::> Kanakos; Bruce McDonald -.:I Subject: Coal Trains I::;;''"" .... , w Hello, co

As a resident of North Delta living just above River Road, I am deeply concerned about the coal train traffic proposed by Fraser Surrey Docks and Port Metro Vancouver. I dread the prospect of increased noise and dust pollution. I also find it shameful that we Canadians would facilitate shipping this filthy product to China where air pollution in many cities already achieves toxic levels.

Please join with our neighbouring communities in opposing the shipment of US thermal coal.

Sincerely, Kim Denman 8858 Delvista Drive Delta genda. . A.. . FILE # C1ri@-@

1 629

Mayo r Council

From: I y scott wors e Sent: November-O .1 To: Mayor & Counci Subject: STOP COAL

ENOU GH POLLUTION!!!!!! Scott worsley 10966 river r d . n. delta

genda O(dCCO--;;o A FILE #

1 630

Mayor _Council

From: susan pellaers Sent: November-06-13 9:37 PM genda . To: Mayor & Council . . FILE # ao@ - ,9.0 Subject: No Coal A

Not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request afPort Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well asfidl public hearings on the project.

Susan Pellaers 11676 Alderwood Crescent, Delta, V4E 3E5

1 631

Mayor _Council

From: Nancy Piva Sent: November-06-13 10:26 PM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Cc: [email protected] Subject: proposed docks

Dear Mayor and council,

I am emailing with regards to the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, to request you not to support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project.

We are concerned about the impact this may have on our health and environment. Thankyou.

NancyPiva 8995 Watson Court genda c:;f:j A.. FILE # Q&:N')~ Delta, BC V4C8Al

1 632

Mayor _Council i",,,11o• I:".) From: Ian Vowles ··z· Sent: November-07-13 7:40 AM i~"':i To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian '$ Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald 00 Cc: [email protected] ·.... 1 ~ Subject: Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal ,....~....

Dear Mayor and Council,

Please request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project.

Ian Vowles 11707 64A Ave Delta, BC At. genda V4E 2C8 n FII.-E # C!cfCftyc!):j

1 633

Mayor _Council

From: Rami Mattu Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:43 PM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Cc: Communities. and. Coal Subject: Coal Trains ·genda /\lr;:2.AA . ~ A FILE # VII/~V -c>'\.-' Hello,

We are residents living in Delta and we are deeply concerned about the Coal Trains. My community will take all of the risk should this proposal be approved by Port Metro Vancouver, and you know we have a lot to lose. I, and so many others, support the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and I hope you will join the movement and represent what is best for this community.

I am asking you to not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request ofPort Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project.

You are our elected officials and we need your support to protect us, and to do what is right. It's your job,

And it's our job to make sure you are held accountable. Our children are depending on us all,

Together we can do what's morally right.

Thank you,

Romi and Roger Mattu

9204 Barnes Road

North Delta BC

V4C4Vl

1 634

Mayor Council

From: Sent: Friday, November 08,20132:52 PM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Cc: Communities.and.Coal Subject: Re: Coal Trains Agenda Dear Mayor, ,n FILE #- Cf.&f::6 '~OIO

Thank you for your reply. However, Port Metro's environmental assessment is not COMPREHENSIVE nor is it being done by a IN.DEPENDENT third party. This is not acceptable and a recent front page article in the Sun reveals a serious conflict of interest with the Port.

We expect more from Delta council to ensure the community is the top priority and not some other agenda. Just as White rock, Surrey, New West and Vancouver has already gone on the record as opposing.

,..." Why has delta said nothing?? W %c'i <:, I trust you and the rest of delta council will see thru the optics and do what is morally right. 1-.'ro.)

Thank you ...• ~;~~~~~At~ Romi and Roger Mattu 9204 Barnes Road North Delta BC ~~~~!t,tJ ~G ~O(t t-\d{lJ" if~ On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:43 PM, Romi Mattu wrote: S::lMY~ WMK ~~.;

Hello,

We are residents living in Delta and we are deeply concerned about the Coal Trains. My community will take all ofthe risk should this proposal be approved by Port Metro Vancouver, and you know we have a lot to lose. I, and so many others, support the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and I hope you will join the movement and represent what is best for this community.

1 You are our elected officials and we need your support to protect us, and to do what is right. It's your job.

And it's our job to make sure you are held accountable. Our children are depending on us all.

Together we can do what's morally right.

Thank you.

Romi and Roger Mattu

9204 Barnes Road

North Delta BC

V4C4Vl

2 635

Mayor Council • From: ;:; Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 3:24 PM ::z:: To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian C, Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald .-;:. Cc: Communities.and.Coal ,.... \"\.l Subject: Coal trains effects in China genda A.. ' . FILE# Cc2;-C(h?¥') Dear Mayor et aI,

I ask you to consider this article when deciding whe.re to dedicate your energies.

We need to have a global approach. We are all connected after all. Thank you ~1tf%~ RomiMattu :. ..< .... .---A.Ll.., . 9204 Barnes Road . . t.I~2!~_1:E..... ().A. La (;At~ north Delta iM'~~ u .;)S"'/15 BC ce: fort M~ V~o~v~ ~\.H(.t; Wo.-5b, Dock-"" http://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/editorial/fraser-sun·ey-docks-coal-plans-make-no-sense-in-today-s-world- 1.685341

On Nov 8, 2013, at 2:53 PM, wrote:

http://www.vancouversun.cominews/Port+Meh·o+Vancollver+sponsorship+coal+conference+em ails+reveaI/9110023/story.html

On Nov 8, 2013, at 2:52 PM, wrote:

Dear Mayor, :.: Thank you for your reply. However, Port Metro's environmental assessment is not COMPREHENSIVE nor is it being done by a INDEPENDENT third party. This is not acceptable and a recent front page article in the Sun reveals a serious conflict of interest with the Port.

We expect more from Delta council to ensure the community is the top priority and not some other agenda. Just as White rock, Surrey, New West and Vancouver has already gone on the record as opposing.

Why has delta said nothing??

I trust you and the rest of delta council will see thru the optics and do what is morally right.

1 Thank you

Romi and Roger Mattu 9204 Barnes Road· North Delta BC

On Nov 7,2013, at 8:43 PM, Romi Mattu wrote:

Hello,

You are our elected officials and we need your support to protect \ us, and to do what is right. It's your job.

And it's our job to make sure you are held accoUntable. Our children are depending on us all.

Together we can do what's morally right.

Thank you.

Romi and Roger Mattu

9204 Bames Road

North Delta BC

V4C 4VI

2 Fraser Surrey Docks' coal plaus make no sense in today's world

Burnaby Now November 5, 2013 01 :38 PM

The premier of China, Li Keqiang, said it like this: "It is no good to be poor in a beautiful environment, nor is it any good to be well-off and to live with the consequences of environmental degradation."

Li Keqiang was commenting on the horrific air pollution problems in China. Last month the air quality index hit 1,000 in the Chinese city of Harpin. The upper limit on safe air is supposed to be 25.

Meanwhile; thousands of miles away and a gulf of cultural differences apart, the plan to move coal by trains to the Fraser Surrey Docks to be shipped to China continues. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. While China's entire environmental disaster can not be blamed on coal, it is certainly a large part ofthe problem. And B.C. wants to ship coal over to a country that is struggling, hopefully, to wean itself off coal? We understand that the mighty profit motive can turn folks blind to the consequences of their actions, but surely even Port Metro, which is ostensibly in charge of approving such matters, has to see that this plan is doomed.

Citizens have held rallies, and the opposition is growing. At the last rally, a cloud of dust was I forming over the docks transfer facility, possibly grain dust, offering protesters a sneak preview of what could become of the air quality if coal was the cargo and not grain. Given the rising opposition, and rather lame attempts at securing a serious environmental assessment, one would almost think that Fraser Surrey Docks is expecting its first run at this project to be a feint or trial balloon. Are they expecting it to fail?

Or, much worse to contemplate, do they have such confidence in the lack of democratic accountability and transparency in the process that they are expecting - albeit after some twists and turns - to have their plan approved?

Surely that would be too cynical a conclusion, wouldn't it?

- See more at: http://www.burnabynow.comlopinionleditorial/fraser-surrey-docks-coal-plans make-no-sense-in-today-s-world-l.685341 #sthash.g7VCASNx.dpuf 636

Mayor Council

From: Janice Heslop 1-" Sent: Thursday, November 07,2013 11 :21 PM (,J,,) To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Bruce McDonald; Jeannie Kanakos; Ian Paton; :z: Scott Hamilton .:;. cc: [email protected] ~ Subject: Opposition to the Coal Trains and Facility Proposal .,,,,"!I genda i5'J FILE #Ci¢:£;t) To the Mayor and Council of Delta, A ·-ro ~...a We are concerned about the proposed increase in coal trains and the Fraser Surrey docks expansion of a coal ':j facility.

We have expressed our concerns previously and have not heard anything, directly or indirectly, on the position the mayor and council are taking on this issue. Silence is interpreted as compliance. It is astounding that there is not significant resistance from the mayor and council on this issue when the negative impacts to the health and wellness of the community are significant, and the benefits (a handful of jobs) are minimal.

Please represent the wishes of your constituents and oppose this proposal through any means at your disposal. Other communities including Whiterock, Surrey, Langley, New Westminster and Vancouver have either opposed this outright or have at minimum been demanding a comprehensive health impact assessment as well as formal public hearings.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Janice Heslop and Marvin Laturnus 8760 Deicrest Drive Delta, BC

1 637

Mayor _Council

From: Marylynn Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 5:00 PM To: Mayor & Council genda . - ."Y\ Subject: Surrey Fraser Docks Proposal A FILE # Cfo"'ZiX)-~

As residents of Delta for 40 years, we do not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and ask that this municipality request the Port Metro Vancouver perform a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, and supply the people impacked with full public hears on the project before any decision is made on this matter.

We are seniors and worry about ourselves and our grandchildren who live close to the rail line that will be passing by our community. Please support these intiatives .listed above before any decision is made. We do not support these coallines coming into our community.

John and Mary Lynn Derechey 11144-8IAve. Delta, BC V 4C IZ2 ::z: o '<:,

1 638

Mayor Council

From: Linda Erickson Sent: Friday, November 08,20137:19 PM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Cc: [email protected] Subject: Make a stand!

Mayor and Council, I am concerned that our Delta municipal leaders have not come forth with a stance on the proposed coal shipments through the Fraser Surrey Docks. I am asking you not to support the Fraser Surrey Dock proposal, and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project. It seems to me that our council has been moving away from listening to the concerns of Delta residents regarding various issues. Perhaps if this direction continues, we are needing a change in 2014. Linda Erickson 7875 119A Street North Delta

(lenda A LE # a(l&'f5~m

1 639

Mayor Council

From: maria rencoret Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:04AM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Subject: No to Fraser Surrey Docks proposal genda .' . ;)0 Dear Mayor and Counsel: ,A FILE # eJ,d'zff)O-

Please Do Not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request ofPort Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project.

Thank you, Maria Rencoret 11096 River Rd Delta, BC V 4C 2S4

Sent from my iPhone

1 640 ....." Mayor _Council f.!.l ::z: From: Valerie Fuller o Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:21 PM <:, To: Mayor & Council ..... Cc: [email protected] l"IJ Subject: Fraser Surrey Docks - Coal Trains genda ¥ C' A.. FILE # CidfCD- 00 IJ:! Dear Mayor and Councillors, ...... ~

PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal. At the very minimum, ask Port Metro Vancouver for a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, with full public hearings on this project.

I support and commend all of the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and will now be doing in Delta. We want you, our elected officials, to support and protect us, and to do what is right by opposing the coal trains coming through our community.

Studies show that the health of everything within 2 miles of the coal trains is compromised, not only human health, but the health of the entire eco-system, and in our case here in Delta, the health of Burns Bog and the Fraser River Estuary which, as you know, is recognized internationally as a very special place on this planet and has been designated a RAMSAR site. We have an obligation to the rest of the world to protect the entire Fraser River Estuary, including Bums Bog, from the pollution that will be caused by these coal trains and attendant activity at Fraser Surrey docks.

Sincerely,

Valerie Fuller

4326 Arthur Drive

Delta, B. C. V 4K 2W8

1 641

Mayor Council

From: MAUREEN LANG Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 3:37 PM ,...,• To: Mayor & C,ouncil w Cc: [email protected] ::z Subject: Fraser Surrey Docks ~- Coal Trains ,=, genda . <:, .. FILE# c:t'oZCO-~ .... Dear Mayor and Councillors, A N

Studies show that the health of everything within 2 miles of the coal trains is compromised, not only human health, but the health of the entire eco-system, and in our case here in Delta, the health of Burns Bog and the Fraser River Estuary which, as you know, is recognized internationally as a very special place on this planet and has been designated a RAMSAR site. We have an obligation to the rest of the world to protect the entire Fraser River Estuary, including Burns Bog, from the pollution that will be caused by these coal trains coming through our community and the attendant activity at Fraser Surrey docks.

Maureen Lang 4450 - 52A Street Delta, B. C, V4K 2Y4

1 642

Mayor _Council

From: L. Slack Sent: Monday, November 11,20137:39 PM To: Mayor & Council genda '7 Cc: Mayor Lois Jackson A . FILE # o(ot:CO-;Q Subject: US Thermal Coal

I am a resident of Ladner and am writing to voice my opposition to the Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal and do not want any US thermal coal to be shipped through our community for many reasons, most importantly because my 7 year old son attends elementary school at Boundary Bay Montessori House located on 72nd Avenue in Delta. Air quality testing was recently done in Tsawwassen and at the Boundary Bay Airport which is located 2 blocks my iny sons' school. The results from the testing done at the airport were well above the allowable levels which is a great worry to myself and other families attending our school. Not only do we risk developing diseases from coal dust as it is shipped through our community to the port, we then experience the aftermath from the coal after it has been burned overseas and pollutes our air. South Delta is a community, not an industrial zone and it is about time that elected government officials started putting the health of our community ahead of big business profits. Clean air and water are priceless, and without them there will be no community left. Please be responsible to the people of Delta by following the decision made by the cities of White Rock, Surrey, New Westminster, Langley, Vancouver, and Powell River to oppose this proposal...... • Sincerely, CJ.:I Leslie Slack a 5471 Westminster Avenue -0;::: W~B.C. ~ 2:;4-2166i',~~~~~~~4E ~ ... '

"c,}~~ C~:~sh w

CC~ (t- h~'tvD VO-MC/) iA-v)/L 5:lAr~ ~ge/boJ::<;

1 643

Mayor Council

From: Margaret Van Egmond Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 20136:58 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Re: The Time Has Come ~ Delta Mayor and Council

As requested our address is 9290 112 St., N, Delta, Be. V4C4X9 Margaret Van Egmond

From: Mayor & Council Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:41 PM To: Margaret Van Egmond Subject: RE: The Time Has Come - Delta Mayor and Council

Dear Margaret and Dick Van Egmond,

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: Margaret Van Egmond Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 3:58 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Fw: The Time Has Come - Delta Mayor and Council

Dear Mayor & Council:

We count on you to support our Delta Community to ensure a healthy environment along with possible employment opportunities. Jobs must not be at the expense of our health, We encourage Mayor Jackson & Council to take the stand that Surrey took especially in demanding that an independent third party comprehensive health impact assessment be done & that public hearings take place.

Margaret & Dick Van Egmond

From: Communities,and,Coal Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:12 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: The Time Has Come - Delta Mayor and Council

November 6, 2013

RE: CALL TO ACTION - Delta, Tsawwassen, & Ladner

Hello,

As many of you know, on Monday October 28, 2013 we put forth a resolution to Surrey Council, which they passed unanimously. The resolution asked them to:

1 Not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and 10 request ofPort lvIetro Vancouver a comprehemdve health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project.

The unanimous passing of this resolution was the result of all of the strong community work done by the residents of Surrey. We, the people, were able to show Surrey Council that collectively a large majority do not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal and we have legitimate concerns regarding risks to our health and to the environment. We asked council to step up and protect us. And we are grateful to say that they listened.

The time has come now to help our fellow neighbors in Tsawwassen, Ladner, and North Delta. Those three regions need to come together to show that they do not support this proposal either and that they demand a Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment, as well as full Public Hearings. Tsawwassen and Ladner know all too well about what a coal port can mean to the community and so it is time to do what is right to ensure that projects such as these do not go forward without due diligence. The time has come to set the new standard. Mayor Lois Jackson needs to join the progressive cities of White Rock, Surrey, Langley, New Westminster, and Vancouver in either opposing this outright, or at minimum asking for a comprehensive health impact assessment, as well as public hearings before support can be given.

If you live in Tsawwassen, ladner, or North Delta (or if you know someone who does), please email Mayor Lois Jackson and Council today asking them to:

Not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well asfidi public hearings on the project.

Whether you are a resident or a business owner, please take the time to email Mayor and Council, with a cc to Communities and Coal, ASAP. Do not delay. Our communities will take all of the risk should this proposal be approved by Port Metro Vancouver, and we know we have a lot to lose. Tell them you support the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and will now be doing in Delta. We want them, our elected officials, to support and protect us, and to do what is right.

Please email all of these contacts, with a cc to Communities and Coal: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Be sure to include your address at the end of your email to show that you live in the Delta region.

They may respond by saying they don't have a say in the decision over the permit application. This is true, however, they can still stand up for the people they represent and use their voice to demand a better process for the people who will be taking on all of the risk.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

Paula Williams

COMMUNITIES AND COAL www.communitiesandcoal.com [email protected] 2 facebook.com/communitiesandcoal

3 644

Mayor Council

From: $ent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11 :38 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Port expansion on Fraser River

To: Mayor and Council, Municipality of Delta From: Thomas Deschner - 1374 Beach Grove Road, Delta

Regarding proposed coal port development on Fraser River

Please join our neighbouring municipalities and demand a full, impartial environmental and health impacts review of Port Metro's plans to expand the Surrey-Fraser docks to handle coal exports.

~'l;,1 ~"r.,:: I"..,!t, 1""') I"'IJ n.l Jet: (1(+ iJ-1~{Y6 VtLttcw uiA <;'VLlvtJ h;'/:,:;'Pf'J:;od:,'s.;

1 645

Mayor _Council

From: Ann Grant Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:00 AM To: Mayor & Council; Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald Cc: [email protected] Subject: Fraser Surrey Docks proposal

I ask you not support the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal, and to request of Port Metro Vancouver a comprehensive health impact assessment, conducted by an independent third party, as well as full public hearings on the project. I support the work Communities and Coal has done in other communities, and will now be doing in Delta. I want you, our elected officials, to support and protect us, and to do what is right. . H I ask you to demand a Comprehensive Health Impact Assessment, as well as full Public Hearings. '! Tsawwassen and Ladner know all too well about what a coal port can mean to the community and so it is time to do what is right to ensure that projects such as these do not go forward without due diligence. The time has come to set the new standard. Mayor Lois Jackson you need to join the progressive cities of White Rock, Surrey, Langley, New Westminster, and Vancouver in either opposing this outright, orat minimum asking for a comprehensive health impact assessment, as well as public hearings before support can be given.

Ann Grant

1715 Wallace Street Vancouver, BC V6R4J7

1 646

Mayor Council

From: Sent: Sunday, November 10, 20132:09 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Coal Trains

I'm guessing from the lack of response from the major that she's only interested in creating yet another health issue for your citizens. Talk to Albertans about the coal and how damaging it is to the health of it's citizens. Do the research PLEASE. Revenues are important but so are the voters views.

CarolSache 10 qa', Nt)(LWl1 yJt.YlLB -j Ii! ~V\'l_·)pL./