Mayor and Council Correspondence Summary

H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary JUNE 25, 2012

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal CLERK’S 113134 425 President, Federation of Program Canadian Municipalities

426 M. & M. Hindle 116th Street Beautification Plans ENG 113179

D. Biggin 7565 Garfield Drive PR&C, 113135 427 CA&E

428 M. A. Stone Removal of Trees on the Bluff CP&D 113133

P. Pfoh, CN Business 2007 Proximity Guidelines for 7451 & CP&D 113160 429 Development & Real Estate 7791 River Rd. and 10190 River Rd.

430 C. Haydar MK Land Development CP&D 113161

431 L. Meyer Rezoning CP&D 113162

M. & S. Hartley Proposed Development Permit at CP&D 113243 432 1204, 1212 and 1216 Hunter Road

433 J. Drinkwater Add Me To The List CP&D 113136

434 J. Meech Southlands CP&D 113137

435 E. Meech Southlands Development CP&D 113138

436 N. Roddick Southlands Development Proposal CP&D 113139

437 V. Roddick Southlands Development Proposal CP&D 113140

438 B. & R. Scowcroft Southlands CP&D 113141

439 S. McNamara Southlands CP&D 113142

440 The McDonald Family Southlands CP&D 113149

441 E. Calderwood Southlands Proposal CP&D 113152

442 J. & J. Pescitelli Southlands Development CP&D 113175

443 A. Dayle Southlands CP&D 113181

444 L. Weatherby Southlands CP&D 113182

445 J. Wasik Southlands Proposal CP&D 113183

F:\CorpRec Corr-Other\Agenda - Regular\2012\2012-06-25\H01.docx H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary JUNE 25, 2012

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

446 S.A. Reynolds Southlands CP&D 113184

447 M.J. Reynolds The Southlands Development CP&D 113185

448 T. Brennan Southlands Proposal CP&D 113186

G. Edwards Opposition to Southlands CP&D 113190 449 Development: Century Shows Southlands to be a Great Farm....

F:\CorpRec Corr-Other\Agenda - Regular\2012\2012-06-25\H01.docx ~M~a~y~o~r__ ~C~o~u~n~c~iI ______~•

~ From: Mayor Lois Jackson 2, Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:48 PM enda To: Mayor & Council A~ILE# oI09D-,lD-DJt11 ~ Subject: FW: Diamond Jubilee I medaille du Jubile - ~ f-'o .;;, <.CI

From: FCM Communique Reply-To: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:57:18 -0400 To: Dona Packer fYPE:~?ye~f-i'v,,=:.6~~ Subject: Diamond Jubilee / medaille du Jubile DEPT: CJee~{L5 A.T#: IIQI3~~ La version francaise se trouve a la suite du texte anglais. Comments: J -.tile <:;1\ ~ Gy:. eo.-chv'e... JVI ed>~ Dear Head of Council:

CELEBRATING COMMUNITY BUILDERS: The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal Program

The Government of Canada is offering municipalities a unique opportunity to celebrate the people who help build communities.

Through FCM, the federal government is inviting municipalities to award a Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal to a citizen who has made an exceptional contribution to his/her community.

The medal program is the centrepiece of a year-long series of Diamond Jubilee initiatives by the federal government. The jubilee marks sixty years of public service by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

To ensure that communities of all sizes and in every region of the country have the opportunity to participate in the medal program, all of Canada's 3,734 local governments have been invited to nominate a medal recipient and one alternate candidate.

There will also be an opportunity for FCM and Provincial-Territorial Associations associated with FCM to nominate recipients from the national and PT municipal sectors.

Following informal discussions with FCM, the federal government is preparing to allocate medals on the following basis:

3,734 - Medals allocated for nominations from individual municipalities 108 - Medals allocated for nominations by FCM 108 - Medals allocated for nominations by PT associations ~ - Reserve medals (allocation to be determined at a later date) 4,000

You will find the eligibility criteria included, as well as the nomination form to be completed, saved and returned to FCM via email. Please note that the deadline for submitting the name of your candidate (and one alternate candidate) is August 1, 2012. Questions concerning the nomination process can be addressed to FCM by electronic mail.

Council has previously been invited to submit nominations for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal by the two Delta MPs. This is a further 1opportunity to make nominations. Requests for promotional items, as well as use of the Emblem permission and submissions for the Calendar of Events must all be submitted to the Diamond Jubilee Team.

If your municipality is requesting Royal Portraits, Crown of Maples or Canadian promotional materials for a Canada Day celebration, requests must be submitted to the following address: CeremonialetSymboles [email protected].

To learn more about the Diamond Jubilee, please visit the Diamond Jubilee website.

Sincerely,

Councillor Berry Vrbanovic President

Cher chef du conseil :

CELEBRONS LES BATISSEURS DE NOS COLLECTIVITES Le programme de medaille du Jubile de diamant de la Reine

Le gouvernement du Canada offre aux municipalites une occasion unique de celebrer les individus qui contribuent au developpement des collectivites.

Le gouvernement du Canada, par Ie biais de la FCM, invite les municipalites a decerner une medaille du Jubile de diamant de la Reine a un de leurs citoyens ayant fait une contribution exceptionnelle a leur collectivite.

Le programme de la Medaille est I'element central d'un ensemble d'activites organisees par Ie gouvernement federal qui se derouleront tout au long de I'annee dans Ie cadre du Jubile de diamant de la Reine. Le Jubile de diamant de la Reine souligne soixante annees de devouement de Sa Majeste la reine Elizabeth II.

Afin d'assurer que les collectivites de to ute taille et de chaque region du pays aient la possibilite de participer au programme des medailles, tous les 3 734 gouvernements locaux du Canada ont ete invites a proposer la candidature d'un recipiendaire de la Medaille et d'un substitut.

La FCM et les associations provinciales-territoriales associees a la FCM auront egalement la chance de nommer des recipiendaires provenant des secteurs municipaux a I'echelle nationale et provinciale-territoriale.

Suite a des discussions informelles avec la FCM, Ie gouvernement federal est dispose a repartir les medailles comme suit:

3734 - Medailles pour les nominations provenant des municipalites 108 - Medailles pour les nominations provenant de la FCM 108 - Medailles pour les nominations provenant des associations provinciales-territoriales ~ - Medailles reservees (critere d'attribution a determiner a une date ulterieure) 4000

Vous trouverez les criteres d'admissibilite attaches, de meme que Ie formulaire de nomination que vous devrez completer, sauvegarder et retourner ala FCM par courriel. Veuillez prendre note que la date limite pour soumettre Ie nom de votre candidat (et d'un substitut) est Ie ler 300t 2012. Toutes les questions relatives au processus de nomination peuvent etre transmises a la FCM par courriel.

2 Les demandes de materiel promotionnel, I'utilisation de I'embleme du Jubile de diamant et les demandes d'ajout au Calendrier des activites doivent toutes etre soumises a I'eguipe du Jubile de diamant.

Les municipalites qui souhaitent utiliser des Portraits Royaux ou du materiel promotionnel de la Couronne canadienne ou du Canada dans Ie cadre de leurs celebrations de la Fete du Canada doivent transmettre leur demande par courriel au : [email protected]

Pour obtenir plus de renseignements au sujet du Jubile de diamant de la Reine, visitez Ie site web.

Mes salutations sinceres,

Berry Vrbanovic, conseiller, president de la FCM

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.

3 genda .-: I p FILE # r3d0{)--oxrfW ,....• Mayor Council A D-" c..... From: Christine Edlund on behalf of Mayor Lois Jackson ~ Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:30 AM ,...., To: Mayor & Council W Subject: FW: Invitation to Public Meeting - 116th Street Beautification Plans ,....~ ..... N Please register to M&C. w

Thank you, fYPE: J~c-g-tliLV A:J~,,-J,,- DEPT: L]lJCq Christine Edlund A.T: #: \\ Administrative Secretary to the Mayor 3\.:t.i- Comments: j ~{)'\.(' ~S I \ L The Corporation of Delta i-(e..P'A-r- w-1I31'if (2.. '3 .,[,\1" iY\(eh~

----~-----«- From: Mary Ann Hindle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June 12, 2012 9:05 PM To: Mayor Lois Jackson Cc: Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Scott Hamilton; Jeannie Kanakos; Bruce McDonald; Ian Paton; Heather Cumbridge Subject: Invitation to Public Meeting - 116th Street Beautification Plans

Dear Mayor and Council,

I have lived in North Delta since 1986 and have been involved in my community in many ways. My children were all raised here and all graduated from Secondary School here. I sat on the Delta Traffic and Safety Committee as a member for several years. I was the co chair of the first traffic calming committee struck here in North Delta where we spent an enormous amount of time consulting residents in neighbourhoods that were being considered for traffic calming measures. I was involved with many North Delta organizations, and sat on the Board of the North Delta Football Association for almost 10 years.

I have always believed that North Delta is a community that was worth fighting for and a wonderful place to live. I was even asked to consider running for a seat on city council in 1999. I worked with Bruce McDonald and Krista England at that time but my surname was Burton.

In yesterday's mail I received an invitation to an upcoming Public Meeting regarding the proposed changes to 116th Street and 96th Avenue.(92 to 96th Avenue) including traffic signal upgrades at 96th Avenue. I was both shocked and dismayed to receive this invitation. For the past 8 years my husband and I have made our home in the Delta Garden Town Home Complex at 11650 96th Avenue. It is an older development but one that we have enjoyed calling home. Just last year, I believe, we were invited to visit a town hall open house on upcoming plans for the North Delta Community at the North Delta Recreation Center. My husband and I both attended as we were concerned about a proposal like this possibly being considered. We were assured by the Engineering and planning staff that no changes were planned for this end of 116th Street for several years - and yet here we are. I am an active member of the Delta Gardens Strata Council and have been approached by many of the residents who have expressed their concerns to this project

The biggest challenge facing all of the 30 owners in the complex is the lack of parking. Having been built back in the late 1970's the complex only hosts some 36 parking stalls. In 1978 this may have provided ample parking but in 2012 it is proving to be a challenge. As you can understand with 30 units and each unit needing 2 parking stalls (on average) '!'Ie are rather short of parking. To date we also do not supply any handicapped parking or visitor parking in either of our 2 parking lots as we just do not have enough parking available.

Needless to say many of us are forced to use street parking to accommodate our vehicles. We park on the street both on 116th street as well as on 96th Avenue.

The Public Information Meeting for the 116 Street project is1 an opportunity to receive feedback from residents adjacent to the project. Staff will receive and address community feedback prior to finalization of design. We simply have no choice. It is inconvenient but a fact of life for us.

Under your proposed changes we will lose a significant amount of parking on both streets. By relocating the bus stop that currently is in front ofthe gas station.to directly in front our building we will lose 6 parking spots on 96'h Avenue. We are already extremely limited to the amount of parking on 96'h Avenue due to the Fire Hall located on the Surrey side on 96'h Avenue. Moving the current bus stop also has us concerned in regards to added noise and loss of green space in front of our building on 96'h Avenue.

On 116'h Street we park in front of residential homes and walk to our own townhouses. We already compete for parking with other residents who live in basement suites situated on 116'h Street. Further reducing the parking here will add to our concerns.

As you can see we have great concerns for this beautification and upgrade project. While we are all for upgrading our communities we have to wonder how closely this community was studied before these plans were formulated. Was the fact that this part of the community housed a 30 unit townhouse complex even considered when putting these plans together? Can we find an alternative solution that will accommodate the residents of Delta Gardens or are these changes going to be imposed on us? This is a very heavy handed project that has had almost NO input from any of the residents that are going to be impacted. What happened to the North Delta city that consulted residents and asked for their input before any major projects like this were undertaken?

I ask that each of you consider attending this meeting and that you reconsider this project and its impact on the 30 homeowners and voting taxpayers in this community.

Sincerely

Maryann and Mike Hindle

2 genda \ ?:;";)t?P-()C:;;':B A FILE# LUOD((>/.:;,I . .:;, Mayor _Council Co..c: From: liz/Don [[email protected] :z: Sent: Monday, June 11,20127:11 AM ....., To: Mayor & Council ..... Cc: CAO's Office; Linda Nielsen; [email protected] Subject: 7565 Garfield Drive

Mayor Jackson, I regret having to spend my time, yours and council on 7565 Garfield Drive. However, having just recently gone through the rezoning of part of the Royal York neighbourhood, which took over 18 months to resolve, I am not prepared to spend a similar amount of time on 7565 Garfield Drive, in an attempt, to resolve my concern. What I did learn from the rezoning issue is that Delta staff are not willing to try to find a compromise when an issue is raised. In the case of the rezoning issue the compromise was arrived at through the involvement of the Corporation of Delta's CAD.

_'Issue'_ - 7565 Garfield Drive. I contacted the Corporation of Delta 'April 20th' regarding the 'invasive plant species' and' inappropriate tree specie' on the undeveloped residential lot at 7565 Garfield Drive, which is owned by the Corporation of Delta. My call was directed to Angela Danyluc. After a brief discussion, she said my concern would need to be directed to Linda Nielsen, Park Planner. She was going to speak to Linda and get back to me. On 'May 11th' I contacted Angela since I had not heard back from either herself or Linda. An on-site meeting for 'May 25th' was arranged at that time.

_'May 25th on-site meeting'_ at 7565 Garfield Drive. This meeting was attended by Linda, Angela and myself.

I outlined my concern with the invasive species now well established on this residential lot that has received minimal maintenance by the Corporation of Delta over the past 35+ years. The main invasive species are blackberry, broome and creeping bamboo. The main tree specie is alder, which I contend is an inappropriate tree species in a residential neighbourhood.

Linda outlined that 7565 Garfield Drive is an undeveloped park reserve with the title of Garfield Park Reserve. Because of this she is not willing to intervene in regards to the vegetation that is establishing naturally. She commented that the maintenance budget for this Park Reserve is very limited. She also commented that there is a proposal still on the books to improve this Park Reserve and at that time she would consider some changes to the current plant species.

Angela agreed that the broome should be removed. As of 'June 11th' this has not happened.

_'Comments from my perspective'_ re 7565 Garfield Drive. It sounds good on paper or in the Corporation of Delta offices that 7565 Garfield Drive is a Park Reserve, but in reality it is nothing more than an 'undeveloped residential' 'lot'.

The corporation of Delta is showing very poor leadership in allowing invasive species to exist on a _'residential*_ lot owned by the Corporation.

As mentioned above, I contend alder is an inappropriate tree species in a *residential' neighbourhood.

_'Compromise*_ I suggested at the May 25th on-site meeting: Regular

Staff met with Mr. Biggin and had the invasive species removed1 on June 11, 2012

Regular Leave the 4 large alder trees, but remove the 9 seedling alders to prevent a dense stand of alder occurring on this lot. This was rejected by Linda and Angela. I would like this to be reviewed and if remains unacceptable, an explanation why.

Remove the broome.

In conclusion, please outline the reasoning for the Corporation of Delta holding on to this* undeveloped* residential lot considering the budget to maintain it is so limited. I do believe the proposal that is on the Corporation of Delta's books to develop this lot into a small viewing area to the west and south has a lot of merit. If this were done than 7565 Garfield Drive would truly become Garfield Park Reserve after some 35+ years.

Yours truly,

Don Biggin 7615 Garrett Dr. Home Ph 604-591-3142 Cell 604-309-7939

2 genda Margaret Aileen Stone FILE# 722 Tsawwassen Beach Road A Delta, BC V4M 2J3 June 7, 2012 rY PE _k;.2,.Regular-e Q. vI}\J.t Aj.eY'd '\ DEPT: r£t9 AT. #: Dear Mayor Jackson and Council Members; --\i-ll\~~--,-,j 3~'?'_- ~ Comments' 0v,'1 <: z.-,- \ \-<- ~r((ullVtRegular I am writing to you with concern over the continuing removal of trees on the bluff. The current bylaws and enforcement in place now do not protect these trees that are in a sensitive slope area. Most of this clearing is done by the folks up on the bluff who want a clear view of the water and act without concern to the sensitive area below. The latest incident occurred in February of this year. A number of old trees over 100 feet tall were topped on the slope. Over 40 feet were topped leaving these trees to die prematurely. These trees are the nesting sites for a number of Bald Eagles every year. I called your Arboriculture and Environmental staff and told them that these trees had been severely topped. The response was sympathetic but disappointing. Were you aware that if the trees were topped on my property, the city would not get involved? In this case, the trees were on the adjacent property and only putting my property at risk so in this case, the City did look into it. A By-Law inspector came out and the end result was only a $200.00 fine to the offender as it was his first offence. The offender had his house valuation go up $100,000.00 because of a new water view and the fine was a pittance. This only encourages other neighbours to do the same. Who will pay for the clean up and restoration with the next mud slide? I am sure it won't be the folks above who were at fault for removing the trees holding the slope. We have had two major mud slides here on Tsawwassen Beach Road requiring a bull dozer to do the clean up. Of course, this is why everyone on the bluff feels they can top the trees and not incur the expense of an arborist or an evaluation on slope stability. Why not just top or cut first and pay the small fine? It1s so widespread now, that when you are on the water and look up at the top of the bluff, you can see that all of the mature trees have been removed leaving the bluff vulnerable to yet another mud slide. I have written to the Director of Community Planning asking a number of questions relative to this concern. The answers are unsatisfactory and ineffective. If the department of Planning cannot come up with some teeth to impose stiffer penalties on the folks who insist on taking the law into their own hands, then perhaps the council should look into this matter and provide some teeth for them to enforce these bylaws. I would like to invite you and any of your council members to my home to have a look at these trees and assess the problem first hand. I have attached a copy of my letter to the Community and Planning Department so that you can examine my questions of concern and the responses to them. I have also attached a copy of Mayor Jackson's" Notice to Residents" dated 2005 where she outlines the precautions that residents should take with regard to slope stability. One can clearly state that these precautions have not been observed and that further steps are urgently needed to avoid a major catastrophe.

Sincerely, .~.~ "'::>~ Margaret Aileen Stone

cc:Thomas Leitham, director of Community Planning Stephen Lam, Director of Engineering Michelle Harris, Arboriculture and Environment Assisstant Staff had numerous discussions with Ms. Stone earlier this year in regards to safe steep slope practices and issuing tree cutting permits, bylaw enforcement, fines for property owners and tree service companies, as well when an arborist or geotechnical report are required. As outlined in staff’s letter to Ms. Stone, geotechnical issues are taken seriously and the Municipality uses different regulatory tools when works, including tree cutting, are proposed on or near a slope.

Ms. Stone remains unsatisfied that the Municipality does not charge higher fines or do follow- up inspections for work completed after permits are issued to ensure the work done is in accordance to what the permit was issued for.

Fines are set out in the bylaws, as adopted by Council. The Municipal Ticketing (MTI) Bylaw establishes a fine of $200.00 for each tree related offence. The Delta Tree Cutting Regulation Bylaw establishes higher fines but requires successful prosecution of offenses in court.

Property Use and Compliance staff will visit and inspect properties when a complaint is received. However, routine site inspections for permit compliance are not undertaken unless securities are being held for replacement trees, and in those cases only the replacement trees are inspected as to correct number and planting practices. Current resources do not allow for staff to investigate each permit issued for compliance, nor does staff have the expertise to assess slope stability issues. When a geotechnical report is submitted in relation to a tree cutting permit, the permit specifies that works must be undertaken in accordance with the engineer’s recommendations.

Staff had numerous discussions with Ms. Stone earlier this year in regards to safe steep slope practices and issuing tree cutting permits, bylaw enforcement, fines for property owners and tree service companies, as well when an arborist or geotechnical report are required. As outlined in staff's letter to Ms. Stone, geotechnical issues are taken seriously and the Municipality uses different regulatory tools when works, including tree cutting, are proposed on or near a slope.

Ms. Stone remains unsatisfied that the Municipality does not charge higher fines or do follow-up inspections for work completed after permits are issued to ensure the work done is in accordance to what the permit was issued for.

From the office of THE CORPORATION OF DELTA The Mayor, Lois E. Jackson

February 2, 2005

NOTICE TO RESIDENTS

With the recent heavy rains, several earth slides have occurred in steep slope areas within Delta. This is to remind residents living adjacent to steep slopes of the need to be aware of the potential for slope instability.

Precautions should be taken to reduce the risk of soil movement and earth slides. I've enclosed some general information to help you in maintaining slope stability in your area. By following these suggestions, you can reduce the risk of slope failure.

Many of the steep slopes are privately owned, It's important that all owners on, or immediately adjacent to, the slopes work toward the long-term preservation of these areas.

Should you have any questions, please call our Engineering Department at 604-946-3262.

cc: Delta Council George V. Harvie, CAO Ian Radnidge, P.Eng., Director Df Engineering

4~OO Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta. British Columbia. Canada V4K 3E2 Tel, 604946-3210 Fa" 604 946-6055 E-mail, [email protected] Community Planning & Development

File: 12160-30/ AT111846

March 27, 2012

Margaret Aileen Stone 722 Tsawwassen Beach Road Delta, BC V4M 2J3

Dear Ms. Stone:

Re: Cutting, Topping and Removal of Mature Tree~ on English Bluff

Thank you for your letter dated February 22, 2012, iregarding your concerns about cutting, topplOg and removal of mature trees on the steep slope of ~nglish Bluff. In addition to our earlier conversation over the phone, I understand that Y04 also discussed similar concerns with Delta's Bylaw compliance staff. Prior to responding to your specific questions, I would like to provide an overview of how our Tree Cutting Bvlaw and Develppment Permit Areas related to sloped areas are intended to protect properties within these areas.

Properties within Steep Slope Development PermitiAreas, which includes English Bluff (SD2-English Bluff), were deSignated to protect sloped lands and, require greater consideration and care when changes are made to properties. The associated Development Permit GUidelines and the "Guideimes for Geotechnical Studies 10 Steep Slope,Areas" outline a careful approach to activities on those lands. Where an owner wants to make sOime changes on the property, from extensive landscaping, includlOg tree cutting and removal, to puilding a new house, a geotechnical study may be needed to ensure that the changes do not affeci slope stability. Other permits may be required for other activities.

The cutting of trees in the designated Development Permit Areas Steep Slope falls under section 6.4(g) of the Tree Cutting Regulation Bylaw No. 633(6, 2006. An excerpt from this Bylaw IS provided for your convenience: (g) For properties identified in the Corporation!'s Official Community Plan as being located in a Development Permit Area established for the ~urpose of protecting development from hazardous conditions, the applicant must also:submit a report from an Engineer. The report must assess issues relating to slope stability, fl'poding ond/or erosion on the property, certify that the proposed tree cutting will not destabilize slopes or cause flooding or erosion, and specify any conditions under which the proposed tree cutting may take place, including the appropriate extent, timing and phasing of the rree cutting, to address publtc health and safety

~ The Corporation of Della _ ,. ~i:.. 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent ',i.: :: ~ :: >; Delta, BC V4K 3£2 . 604.946.4141 t: www.corp.delta.be ,(a Community Planning & Development Subject Cuning, ToPpinl and Removal 01 Malure Trees on Steep Slope, English BluH File NO 121601 AT11846 Page20lJ

Issues, minimize impacts to adjacent properties, protect retained trees, or protect other environmental features or functions.

At the time a tree cutting permit application is submitted property owners are made aware of the requirements set out in the Bylaw and only after these Bylaw requirements are met, maya permit be issued. SpeCific Conditions pertaining to tree removal on steep slopes are worded on the permit. The following are the Conditions as they read on the permit: The applicant has been notified that the property IS In a sloped area. At least 2 feet of the stump!s) of the subject tree!s) proposed for removal must remain standing and ;he root structure must remain Intact. Removal of roots or disturbance of the soil is prohibited No works sholl negatively impact slope and soil stability.

In certain areas within the steep slope deSignation where tree(s) may be located in the front of the property or on flat land away from the slope, an Arborist report and/or Geotechnical opinion may not be reqUired.

FollOWing adoption of the steep slope gUidelines, Council distnbuted a Steep Slope Practices ,nformat,on sheet to residents in the deSignated steep slope areas to prOVide some education and awareness (attached for your convenience).

With regard to your speCific questions, my responses are noted below:

Why are follow-up inspections not requirep after each permit is issued on an area backing on to these steep slope areas' ,,~e.cJ.e..J The "Tree Cutting Regulation Bylaw No. 6336, 2006" does not require staff todo follow up inspections unless replacement trees are required to be planted on the property and securities are held. If a Development Permit has been issued to the property and geotechnical studies are done, thiS may require, based on the conditions of the Development Permit, follow up inspection(s); however, we do not visit each site to inspect tree cutting, topping or removal.

Why are tree cutting companies not being fined? Tree cutting companies are often fined, however it is difficult to issue tickets to companies aher the offence has been done and the company is no longer on site If the tree service company holds a valid Delta business license, warnrng flags are posted on their files as well a letter of notification is sent to the company to inform them that they were seen working on property without a valid permit. Community Planning & Development Sub)eci. Cuning, Topping and Removal of Mature Trees on Steep Slope, Engli~h Bluff File No 12160/ AT11846 Page30f3

Why are the penalties for residents who cut dawn these beautiful old trees not much, much higher? ·!-.J0 {<> c;U Penalties are set out 10 the Bylaw and are approve:d by Council

Thank you for bnnging your concerns (0 our allenlion. We penodlcally review our bylaws and your concerns will be considered should the Bylaw undergo revision In the future

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 604·952·3813

YourS truly, \,' , Ii ' ~ ~\~l' l" Michele Hams Arboriculture and Envlfonment Assistant MH/cd

Attachment '" 1-" Mayor" Council I)z' ,-, From: Penny Ploh [[email protected]] I""'''' Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 3:14 PM ~; ' To: Mayor & Council; Tanya Mitchner ....,,,",, Subject: Files LU006563 & LU006582 (Corporation of Delta) Attachments: 2007 Proximity Guidelines.pdf; Property Planning & Development.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to the Notices that a Development Permit and Variance Permit application (LU006582) and a development application (LU006563) were received.

Please refer to the attached when considering any development or zoning variations.

Thank you,

Penny Pfoh Asset Management Coordinator CN Business Development & Real Estate Floor 2, Building "B" " I15JlQP/, 10229 - 127 Avenue ;,A/\ 2~ ~') i ' r- Edmonton, AB T5E OB9 Ph: (780) 643-7647 Fax: (780) 377-4281

The Canadian National Railway owns the adjacent property to the east and has forwarded their Best Practices and Proximity Guidelines, which is their standard practice for proposed developments near or adjacent CNR owned lands or right-of-ways. The CNR has no specific objection to the proposed retail building development, which includes a licensee retail store at 10190 River Road.

1 RAC/FCM PROXIMITY GUIDELINES RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT

Final Report Proximity Guidelines and Best Practices

Reprinted August 2007

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Earth Tech Canada Inc. 105 Commerce Valley Dr. W. 7th Floor EarthTech .!A::rIff RRt FCM Markham, Ontario ® L3T 7W3 JADE A"tqCD International Ltd. Company """'" Final Report Proximity Guidelines and Best Practices

Reprinted August 2007

Prepa red for

The Railway Association of Canada and

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Prepared by

Earth Tech Canada Inc.

105 Commerce Valley Drive West 7th Floor

Markham, Ontario

L3T 7W3 Table of Contents

2 Acknowledgements 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Background 3 1.1.1 Noise, Vibration and Crossing Proximity Issues 4 1.2 Purpose of this Report 4 1.3 Study Approach

2 Recommendations for Moving Forward 6 2.1 Communication 6 2.2 Development Review and Technical Requirement 7 2.2.1 Noise and Vibration 8 2.2.2 Building Setbacks and Safety Berms 9 2.2.3 Security Fencing 10 2.2.4 Drainage 10 2.2.5 Notification Mechanisms 11 2.3 Lack of Understanding and Awareness

3 Understanding Stakeholder Roles and Advancing Issue Recommendations 12 3.1 Federal 12 3.2 Provincial 13 3.3 Municipal 14 3.4 Railway 15 3.5 Land Developer / Property Owner 15 3.6 Real Estate Sales / Marketing and Transfer Agents 15 3.7 Academia and Specialized Training Programs 15 3.8 Industry Associations

16 4 Dispute Resolution

18 5 Conclusions

19 6 Internet Links

20 Appendix I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

26 Appendix II Examples of Best Management Practices

I Acknowledgements

The assistance of the many individuals from all levels of government; freight, passenger and commuter railway operators; the Railway Association of Canada (RAC); and, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) is acknowledged and much appreciated. This research was carried out under the direction of the RAC/FCM Steering Committee and with the support of many stakeholders who gave freely of their time and provided valuable information, insight and assistance. We would especially like to thank the former Chair of the Proximity Guidelines subcommittee for his constant leadership, guidance and support:

Geoff Woods CN

We gratefully acknowledge the valued support of the subcommittee members:

Member Representing James Allen Ottawa Central Railway Grete Bridgewater * CPR Joe D'Abramo City of Toronto, ON Nick Coleman CN Anne Dragicevic CPR David Ewart FCM Dan Francey GO Transit Jack MacDonald * City of Moncton, NB Ann McAfee * City of Vancouver, BC Orest Rojik CPR Yanick Turcotte ** Transport Canada Harv Weidner City of Vancouver, BC Sue Welke * FCM Brian Winter Town of Cochrane, AB Maida Zederayko City of Edmonton, AB

* Former member **Observer

These guidelines and best practices were developed with the help of many individuals across Canada, we acknowledge and are thankful for the assistance and support of all those contacted. In particular, we would like to thank the following individuals:

Don Watts CN Faye Ackermans CPR

2 Introduction

Municipalities are considered to be the other stakeholders understand the issues and economic engines of Canada and Canada's spur them to expand existing and/or introduce 1 quality of life and competitiveness depends on new effective rail/municipal proximity policies strong municipalities and sustainable municipal and guidelines. growth and development. Railways ensure efficient movement of goods and people and are vital to the success of Canada and its 1.1 BACKGROUND communities. When issues around growth and expansion of rail facilities and municipalities Economic growth. increased commuter rail are not understood and addressed. problems services and increased international trade can often be intractable and long lasting. has required significant expansion of rail Rail/municipal proximity issues typically occur facilities including double tracking. new in three principle situations: land development crossings. expanded rail sidings. scheduled near rail operations; new or expanded rail freight service, new yards, optimized and/or facilities; and/or road/rail crossings. The nature rationalized terminals, yards and corridors. and integrity of rail corridors and yards, which These changes have often occurred in the are industrial transportation uses that create midst of rapidly growing communities both considerably noise and vibration, needs to be large and small. It is no surprise that noise and respected and protected. Safety, trespass, vibration issues. conflicts at grade crossings drainage, and/or blocked crossings are other and other municipal/rail proximity issues have inherent issues as both communities and increased dramatically in some cases. railways grow in close proximity to one another. The lack of a comprehensive set of proximity management guidelines applied 1.1.1 NOISE, VIBRATION, AND consistently across municipal jurisdictions CROSSING PROXIMITY ISSUES has greatly amplified these conflicts in recent years, resulting in some cases in (real and There are two sources of rail noise: noise from perceived) social, health economic and safety pass-by trains and rail yard activities including issues for people, municipalities and railways. shunting. Pass-by noise is typically infrequent In June 2004, the Railway Association of and of limited duration and primarily from the Canada (RAC) and the Federation of Canadian locomotives. Other noise sources include Municipalities (FCM) initiated a research project whistles' at level crossings and car wheels on looking at guidelines, practices and issues for the tracks. new development adjacent to railway facilities Freight rail yard noises tend to be frequent and significant changes to rail facilities in and of longer duration including shunting of existing developed areas. New crossings cars, idling locomotives, load cell testing of and grade separation of existing crossings locomotives, wheel and brake retarder squeal, were also reviewed. It is hoped the study clamps used to secure containers, bulk recommendations will help municipalities, loading/unloading operations, shakers, and railway operators, senior governments and many others.

1. Applicable to federally regulated railways and some provincially regulated railways (notably in Quebec and Ontario), except where there is Transport Canada approved relief from whistling, trains are required to sound their whistles for at least 400 metres before entering a public level crossing.

-_._------3 Introduction

Ground bome vibration from the wheel 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT rail interface passes through the track 1 structure into the ground and can transfer • Raise awareness about railway/municipal and propagate through the ground to adjacent proximity issues. buildings. Vibration is more difficult to predict • Provide model development guidelines, and mitigate than noise and there is no policies and regulations and best manage universally accepted method of measurement ment practices for use and adaptation or applicable guidelines. Vibration evaluation as appropriate by all stakeholders, most methods are generally based on the human particularly municipalities and railways. response to vibration and the resulting effects • Inform and influence railway and municipal on the occupants include fear of damage planning practices and procedures; to to the structure, interference with sleep, provide for planning systems and approvals conversation and other activities. that more effectively anticipate and manage As urban areas grow in proximity to rail, proximity conflicts and to better facilitate traffic increases at existing crossings and municipal and railway growth. Municipal additional crossings are required to relieve and railway stakeholders are encouraged traffic congestion. However, in general, at to review and update as necessary their grade crossings can increase the exposure to respective planning instruments and com potential vehicle/train and pedestrian accidents pany practices/procedures, with a view to as well as delay problems for traffic where undertaking further specific research as frequently used rail lines bisect traffic arterials. necessary and/or implementing relevant Grade separated crossings address both these components of the recommended develop issues but are expensive to construct. Safety ment guidelines, policies and regulations. at highway/railway crossings is a concem for • Inform and influence federal and provincial all stakeholders and planning is necessary to govemments, with respect to the develop consider altematives to creating new grade ment and implementation of applicable crossings, including upgrading and improving policies, guidelines and regulations. safety at existing crossings and grade • All stakeholders are encouraged to have separated crossings. regard for this document in their respective operations and practices. Railways and all levels of govemment, in particular, are encouraged to customize and adapt this document to develop and/or expand existing proximity management protocols.

4 Introduction

1.3 STUDY APPROACH 1 The research included input from railway and municipal stakeholders and reviews of government legislation and land use guidelines across Canada. It is hoped this work will facilitate updated regulations and better communication among federal and provincial government agencies and municipal planners. land developers, and railway engineers and planners, to better manage rail proximity issues.

5 Recommendations for Moving Forward

Several issues have been identified and can laws/Ordinances, etc.) to secure appropriate be broadly categorized as follows: railway consultation protocols as well as 2 mitigation procedures and measures. 1,lnadequatecommunication-bothformal • Railways need to be more proactive in and informal notification and consultation is engaging municipalities and landowners lacking between and among stakeholders. and sharing information on expansion of facilities or changes in operation that may 2. Absenceofcomprehensiveorconsistent have impacts for adjacent land users. development review - policies, regulations • As soon as planning is initiated or proposals and approaches for dealing with land use are known by municipalities or railways, decisions involving rail proximity issues vary notification and consultation should be greatly from municipality to municipality and initiated for: are lacking detail in most cases. • Development or redevelopment proposals in proximity to rail facilities or for proposals 3. Lack of understanding and awareness for rail-serviced industrial parks. of rail/municipal proximity issues - the • Infrastructure works which may affect a rail issues and regulations affecting rail operations facility such as roads, utilities etc. and municipal land use decisions are complex • Transportation plans that incorporate freight and involve every level of government. Each transportation issues. respective stakeholder tends to not be too • All new, expanded or modified rail facilities. familiar with the mandate and operating • Railways and municipalities are encouraged realities of other stakeholders. Rail/municipal to be proactive in identifying, planning and proximity issues only arise infrequently for protecting for optimized use of rail corridors many municipalities, particularly smaller ones, and yards. and staff may not be aware of required or appropriate mitigation measures. 2.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND TECHNICAL REOUIREMENTS 2,1 COMMUNICATION Following are recommendations for municipa A major source of the issues identified was lities to introduce policies and regulation for a lack of information sharing and discussion development near rail facilities. Appendix I between the key stakeholders, especially early contains further information on conducting in the planning process. noise and vibration studies. • Municipalities, landowners, developers and Municipalities are encouraged to provide rail operators all needto place a higher priority clear direction and a stronger regulatory on information sharing and establishing framework to ensure that land development better working relationships both informally respects and protects rail infrastructure and and formally through consultation protocols will not lead to future land use conflicts. and procedures. Appropriate performance standards, such • Municipalities are encouraged to use their as building setbacks from rail corridors and planning policy and regulatory instruments yards, should be incorporated into regulatory (e.g. District Plans, Official Plans, Secondary documents. Railways also have a responsibility Plans, Transportation Plans, Zoning By- to minimize impacts from facility expansions.

6 Recommendations for Moving Forward

Land use development requirements should 2.2.1 NOISE AND VIBRATION include: 2 • Planning for land uses on each side of a rail The distance from rail operations where corridor or yard should be comprehensively impacts may be experienced can vary evaluated. with a view to minimizing considerably depending on the type of rail trespass problems. For example, schools or facility and other factors such as topography commercial uses located across the railway and intervening structures. The following corridor from residential uses are likely to Table is a general sample classification of rail lead to trespass issues if there are no public line types. crossings in the immediate vicinity. • Noise, vibration and other emissions studies and mitigation measures for development SAMPLE RAIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM * in close proximity to rail facilities and for (* To be confirmed by the railway) significant rail facility expansions that bring Main Line - Volume generally exceeds rail activity closer to sensitive land uses; typically would 5 trains per day • Implementation mechanisms for mitigation be separated into - High speeds, frequently measures, including long-term maintenance "Principal" and exceeding 80 km/h requirements if applicable (e.g. legal "Secondary" - Crossings, gradients, etc. may agreements registered on title); Main Line increase normal railway noise • Safety features (protective berms/buffers, and vibration building setbacks, security fencing for trespass deterrence, etc.); Branch Line 'Volume generally less than • Site access and crossing reviews, including 5 trains per day ensuring adequate site access setbacks - Slower speeds usually limited from at-grade crossings (to prevent vehicular to 50 km/h blockage of crossings), protecting at-grade - Trains of light to moderate road/rail crossing sightlines, crossing weight improvements and discouraging new at grade road crossings; Spur Une - Unscheduled traffic on demand basis only • Drainage reviews (i.e. ensuring that the - Slower speeds limited to existing drainage pattern is not negatively affected); 24 km/h - Short trains of light weight • Protection of expansion capacity for rail facilities, if applicable; • Notifications (e.g. rail operation warning Following are recommended minirnum noise clauses) to future residential property influence areas to be considered for each type owners where feasible; of rail facility when undertaking noise studies: Freight Rail Yards 1,000 m Mainline Rail Corridors 300m Secondary Lines, Branch Lines, Spur Lines 250 m

7 Recommendations for Moving Forward

The recommended minimum vibration influ 2.2.2 BUILDING SETBACKS AND ence area is 75 m from a railway corridor or SAFETY BERMS 2 rail yard. Development review of residential or other • Building setbacks and berms are mainly sensitive land uses proposed within these intended to provide protective buffers influence areas should include noise and and barriers to reduce the risks from a vibration studies to assess the suitability of the train derailment or other incident and proposed use and to recommend mitigation also to provide some noise and vibration requirements. The recommended mitigation attenuation. Residential setbacks from requirements should then be identified in any freight rail yards are intended to address the subsequent conditions of approval. Similarly, fundamental land use incompatibilities. where new or significant modifications to The recommended minimum building set existing rail facilities which require regulatory backs' and berm heights are as follows: approval are proposed, potential impacts • Rail freight yard should be investigated. Recommendations • 300 metre setback (for residential uses) for conducting noise and vibration studies and • Mainline noise and vibration criteria are contained in • 30 metre setback Appendix I. • 2.5 metre berm height

2. Setbacks should always be taken from the railway property line, to protect the entire railway right-ai-way or yard.

8 Recommendations for Moving Forward

• Branch/Spur line inverse berm, could be considered (e.g. a • 15 metre setback ditch that is 2.5 m deep and approximately 2 • 2.0 metre berm height (for branch linel 14 metres widel. • Where larger building setbacks are proposed (or are possibly more practicable, such as in rural situations), reduced berm heights 2.2.3 SECURITY FENCING should be considered, and where larger berm heights are proposed, moderately • Planning for land uses on each side of a rail reduced setbacks may be considered. corridor or yard should be evaluated, with • Where the recommended setbacks or berms a view to minimizing trespass problems. are not technically or practically feasible, due For example, schools or commercial uses for example to site conditions/constraints or located across the railway corridor from the absence of an available mechanism to residential uses are likely to lead to trespass secure the setback, every effort should be issues if there are no public crossings in the made to ensure as great a setback/berm immediate vicinity. as is practical, or alternate safety measures • For any new development, including parks such as crash walls are constructed. or trails proposed adjacent to rail corridors • Where there are elevation differences or yards, a minimum 1.83 m high chain link between the railway and a subject develop fence should be constructed and maintained ment property, appropriate variations in by the proponent along the entire mutual the minimum setback/berms should be property line to reduce trespass. determined in consultation with the affected • Due to common increased trespass pro railway. For example, should the railway blems associated with parks, trails, open tracks be located in a cut, reduced setbacks space, community centres and schools lo may be appropriate. cated adjacent to the railway right-of-way, • If applicable to the site conditions, in lieu of increased safety/security measures should the recommended berm recommendations, be considered, such as precast fencing and a ditch or valley between the railway and fencing perpendiculartothe railway property a subject development property that is line at the ends of a subject development generally equivalent to or greater than an property.

Property Line 1.83 m Chain Link Fence /3.0 m (min.) Acoustical Fence

/ 2.5 Earth Berm / Brick Veneer / < Foundation 1-""\ .s.., "'qt. / Isolation ~ ______~3~0~m~(ilmllin~) ______~

Typical Mitigation Measures for New Residential Development Adjacent to a Mainline.

9 Recommendations for Moving Forward

2.2.4 DRAINAGE complaints should not be directed to the railways. Such warning clauses should be 2 • Municipalities should consult with railways registered on title if possible and be inserted regarding proposed land development and/ into all agreements of purchase and sale or or infrastructure projects which may have lease for the affected Lots/units. impacts on existing drainage patterns. • Municipalities are encouraged to use the Proposed alterations to the existing drainage minimum influence areas discussed above pattern affecting Railway property should Ii.e. 1,000 m for a rail freight yard. 300 m receive prior concurrence from the Railway from a mainline corridor, and 250 m from a and be substantiated by a drainage report branch line or spur linel when using warning as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the clauses or other notification mechanisms. Railway. Railway corridors/property with • Where it is not feasible to secure warning their relative flat profile are not typically clauses, every effort should be made to designed to handle additional flows from provide notification to those who may adjacent properties. acquire an interest in a subject property • Similarly railways should consult with (for example. using property signage, municipalities where facility expansions or acknowledgements, etc.). changes may impact drainage patterns. • Municipalities and railways should consider use of environmental easements for operational emissions, registered on title 2.2.5 NOTIFICATION MECHANISMS to development properties to ensure clear notification to those who may acquire an • Appropriate legal agreements and restrictive interest in the property. Such easernents covenants registered on title are recommended would provide the railway with a legal right to be used if feasible, to secure construction to create emissions over a development and maintenance of any required mitigation property and reduce the potential for future measures, warning clauses and any other land use conflicts. notification requirements. • Stronger and clearer direction is recom- Where such agreements, restrictive mended for real estate sales and marketing covenants, and/or warning clauses are not representatives, such as mandatory dis currently permitted, appropriate legislative closure protocols to those who may acquire amendments are recommended to be an interest in a subject property, with undertaken. In some cases, provincial direction respect to the nature and extent or rail may be required to provide appropriate and/or operations in the vicinity and regarding any improved direction to the stakeholders. applicable warning clauses and mitigation • Municipalities are encouraged to utilize measures. Too often, it would appear that appropriate specific rail operations warning potential purchasers are misled about the clauses, if feasible, in consultation with the nature and extent of the rail operations. appropriate railway, to ensure that those • Municipalities are encouraged to require who may acquire an interest in a subject appropriate signage at development mar property are notified of the existence and keting and sales centres, identifying: the nature of the rail operations, the potential location of the rail operations; the lots or for increased rail activities, the potential blocks that have been identified by any noise for annoyance or disruptions, and that and vibration studies which may experience

IO Recommendations for Moving Forward

noise and vibration impacts; the type and (www.cn.ca and www.cpr.ca). The RAC location of acoustical fencing and safety website (www.railcan.ca) also has links to 2 (chain link) fencing; any required warning all member websites. clause(s); and, containing a statement that • Railways offering general rail operations railways can operate on a 24 hour a day information sessions and tours of facilities basis, 7 days a week. to municipal planning staff. • Associations such as the RAC and FCM, individual municipalities and railways and 2,3 LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND other levels of government supporting and AWARENESS providing awareness initiatives and training opportunities for the public and for staff - Awareness and understanding could be ego sessions offered at conferences, articles improved by: in association publications, CDs, DVDs, • Railways and municipalities allocating brochures, and expanded information on additional resources to anticipating and websites. managing proximity issues. • Railways and municipalities developing • Railways and municipalities establishing or expanding policies and procedures for and building upon existing communication meaningful project/application consultation channels and protocols to determine the (both formal and informal) early in the proper contacts for questions and concerns planning process. for different types of proximity issues. Some • Railways and municipalities improving work in this regard has been undertaken, information sharing regarding existing and which could be adapted or customized to future plans. Such information sharing local situations, and is available on the www. should benefit and be incorporated into proximityissues.ca website. Also on the policy, master and corporate planning website is national railway mapping, showing initiatives. Cooperation and coordination the location of railway facilities and the name in this regard would help create positive of the rail operator. In addition, both CN and business opportunities for both parties and CPR have public inquiry telephone numbers would reduce the potential for future land and email contacts available on their websites use conflicts.

II Understanding Stakeholder Roles and Advancing Issue Recommendations

The research has revealed the complexity Environmental Assessment Acts, air of interaction between public and private quality and noise guidelines such as the 3 agencies and individuals and that a lack of Ontario Ministry of the Environment understanding of roles and responsibilities Noise Assessment in Land Use Planning has contributed to the problems identified, documents, This section provides a brief and hopefully • Provinces generally have jurisdiction to useful overview of these roles and how each establish land use tribunals to adjudicate stakeholder can help advance the goal of disputes, with varying degrees of detail and reducing proximity issues, implementation across the country, • Some provinces regulate shortline railways,

3.1 FEDERAL Recommendations Provincial legislation governing land use and • The federal government's role is to transportation planning generally provides ensure balanced, effective and proactive directions on ensuring efficient and appropriate legislative, regulatory and policy framework land use allocation and tying land use planning for provinces and railways to work within, to sound transportation planning principles, • The rail operations or expansions of CN, However, more detailed direction is required to CPR, and VIA Rail Canada, along with some alert municipalities to key rail proximity issues shortline operators are regulated by the earlier and highlight their importance: federal government under the Canadian • A provincial noise guideline framework Environment Assessment Act ICEAA), should set impact study requirements the Railway Safety Act, and the Canada - how and when to assess noise sources Transportation Act ICTA), Applicable legis le,g, within 300 m of mainline rail corridors) lation, regulations and guidelines are and set specific sound level criteria for available from the respective websites, noise sensitive land uses le,g, 55 dBA for outdoor areas during day-time, 40 dBA for Recommendations indoor living/dining areas and 35 dBA for • The federal government and the Canadian indoor sleeping quarters); Transportation Agency are encouraged • Set requirements for early consultations to use and have regard for this report in between affected municipalities, rail proximity dispute investigations and in operators and land owners in advance the development and implementation of of proposed land use or transportation any related guidelines, to facilitate a more changes, projects or works which may comprehensive approach that appropriately potentially impact any of these stakeholders; considers the land use planning framework and, along with the rail operations issues, • Where none exists currently, establishment of an appeal mechanism that would provide railway operators, municipalities or land 3.2 PROVINCIAL owners the ability to have concerns that have not been addressed adjudicated, • Provinces provide the land use regulatory framework for municipalities through Planning Acts, Provincial Policy Statements,

I2 Understanding Stakeholder Roles and Advancing Issue Recommendations

3.3 MUIVIC/PAL • Protect rail corridors and yards for the movement of freight and people; 3 • Municipalities are responsible for ensuring • Plan and protect for future infrastructure efficient and effective land use and improvements (e,g, grade separations transportation planning including consulta and rail corridor widenings); and, tion with neighbouring property owners • Respect safe transportation principles, (such as railways) in carrying out their For example, the assessment of new planning responsibilities, at-grade rail crossings should consider • Municipal planning instruments include safe community planning principles and various community-wide and area plans. whether other alternatives are possible, Zoning By-laws/Ordinances. Development not just simply whether a crossing is Guidelines. Transportation Plans. Conditions technically feasible, of Development Approval and Development • Municipalities should consider and respect Agreeme nts to secu re developer obligations/ the plans, requirements and operating requirements, realities of rail operators and to work • Municipal governments have a role to play cooperatively with railways to increase in proximity issue management by ensuring awareness regarding the railway legislative, a strong land use planning policy. regulatory regulatory and operating environment and to and guideline framework and provision implement consultation planning protocols of specific conditions in, development and procedures for land development approvals process that reduce the potential proposals and applications, for future land use conflicts and provide • Municipalities should work with railways adequate protection for rail infrastructure, and other levels of government to increase coordination for development approvals Recommendations that also require rail regulatory approvals • Municipalities should ensure that planning (e,g, new road crossings) to ensure that the staff are aware of and be familiar with respective approvals are not dealt with in any applicable policies for development isolation and/or prematurely, adjacent to rail corridors (eg, rail operator • Municipalities should be aware of and policies and/or guidelines), implement where feasible Transport • Identify potential land use incompatibilities Canada's safety recommendations with early on and secure appropriate mitigation respect to sightlines for at-grade crossings, implementation mechanisms to minimize [The recommendations include a minimum conflicts, Municipal planning instruments 30 metre distance between the railway (e,g, Official Plan, Zoning By-law etc,) right-of-way and any vehicular ingress/ should contain policies and provisions to: egress, In addition, trees, utility poles, • Ensure that sensitive land uses proposed mitigation measures, etc, are not to block adjacent to railway corridors be buffered sightlines or view of the crossing warning and/or separated through the use of signs or systemsl, such measures as setbacks, fencing, site grading, berms and landscaping to prevent adverse effects from noise, vibration, odour and other contaminants, and to promote safety;

13 Understanding Stakeholder Roles and Advancing Issue Recommendations

3.4 RAILWAY • Railway initiation of long-term business and infrastructure planning exercises, 3 • Federally regulated rail operators are in consultation with municipalities, can guided by the requirements of the facilitate stronger and more effective Canada Transportation Act and Canadian relationships and partnerships< Environmental Assessment Act and are to • Work with municipalities, landowners minimize impacts on adjacent properties. and other stakeholders in evaluating and These requirements include notifying and irnplementing appropriate mitigation consulting for certain changes and plant measures with respect to new rail facilities expansions. Additionally the Railways are or significant expansions to existing required to adhere to the requirements of facilities, located in proximity to existing the Railway Safety Act. which promotes sensitive development; public safety, protection of property and • Consider and respect municipal plans, the environment in the operation of the requirements and operating realities and railway< work cooperatively with municipalities to • Rail operators also typically establish formal increase awareness regarding the railway company environmental management prac legislative, regulatory and operating tices and policies and participate in voluntary environment; programs and mUlti-party initiatives such • Utilize opportunities to get involved in as Direction 2006, Operation Lifesaver, land use planning processes and matters< TransCAER and Responsible Care ®< Municipal planning instruments can be effective tools in implementing, or at least Recommendations facilitating the irnplementation, of long-term Develop and/or modify company procedures rail transportation planning objectives; and practices with respect to increased • Work with industry associations and all consultation and formal proximity issue levels of government to establish management protocols with the following standardized agreements and procedures guidance: with respect to all types of crossings; • Undertake broad consultation and seek • Pursue finalizing and implementing the RAC multi-stakeholder support for projects Draft Railroad Noise Emission Guidelines< prior to seeking CTA approval. (see (See Appendix lion page 26 for more Appendix II); information); and, o When new facilities are built or significant o Support integrated transportation planning expansions are undertaken, implement involving provincial, municipal, Port autho on-going community advisory panel rities and multiple railways which is critical to discussions with regular meetings and balancing rail capacity upgrades, minimizing established operating protocols are useful comrnunity impacts and ensuring that to deal with stakeholder operational economic benefits occur. issues and concerns< Such panels typically include representation from the railway, the municipality, the community, other levels of government if applicable, and possibly industry; and, Understanding Stakeholder Roles and Advancing Issue Recommendations

3.5 LAND DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER 3.7 ACADEMIA AND SPECIALIZED 3 TRAINING PROGRAMS o Land developers are responsible for respecting land use development policies o Academic institutions provide training and regulations to achieve a livable deve in all fields related to land use planning, lopment which considers and respects the development and railway engineering. needs of surrounding existing and future land uses. Recommendations • These institutions should ensure their Recommendations curriculurns incorporate the latest research o Consult with municipalities and rail available to provide future land use planners, operators as early as possible on land developers and railway engineers with development applications and proposals to better and rnore comprehensive tools and ensure compliance with policies, guidelines practices to anticipate and prevent proximity and regulations and fulfilling obligations of conflicts. development approvals; and, o Enter into agreements with municipalities and/or rail operators as required to ensure 3.8 INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS proximity issues are addressed now and into the future. Property owners should • Industry associations include bodies such be informed, understand. acknowledge as the RAC, FCM. Canadian Association and respect any mitigation maintenance of Municipal Administrators ICAMA), obligations and/or warning clauses. Canadian Institute of Planners ICIP), provin cial planning associations. the Canadian Acoustical Association ICAA), and land 3.6 REAL ESTATE SALES/MARKETING development groups such as the Urban AND TRANSFER AGENTS Developrnent Institute.

• Real estate sales people and property Recommendations transfer agents Inotaries and lawyers) are • Industry associations should ensure their often the first and only contacts for people membership is informed of and involved in purchasing property and therefore have the latest research and proactively engaged a professional obligation to seek out and in raising awareness and educating their provide accurate information to buyers and members through seminars and other sellers. training prograrns.

Recommendations • Real estate sales people and property transfer agents should ensure that potential purchasers are made fully aware of the existence and nature of rail operations and are aware of and understand the mitigation measures to be implemented and maintained.

I5 Dispute Resolution

While the objective of this report is to recommend • Should the investigation include specific proximity guidelines and best management noise and vibration level measurements 4 practices going forward to reduce the potential and/or predictions, reasonable and practical for future land use conflicts by implementing approaches should be utilized, taking mitigation at the time of development/project into consideration both maximum level approval, it is recognized that there are and will limits at the source (eg. the RAC draft be historical land use conflicts that predate this Railroad Emission Guidelines discussed in report and/or the existence or utilization of other Appendix II on page 35 of this report) and relevant guidelines. Resolution of conflicts in receptor annoyance-related approaches, such scenarios may be more challenging and/or as appropriate to the context of the complicated, given the typical practical difficulties investigation. It is important to note that of implementing mitigation post-development/ Table A1-1 on page 28 of this report is project approval and determining the parties intended mainly for implementation in responsible, if any. new development approvals. Dispute The recommended proximity guidelines investigations are often more complex and and best management practices contained multi-faceted in nature, involving several in this report should be used to inform any stakeholders and different legislative, dispute resolution process. With respect to regulatory and policy frameworks. noise and vibration complaints/conflicts, the • Railway operating requirements and following factors/protocols are recommended obligations must be respected in any to be considered: dispute resolution process . • The federal government and the Canadian In cases when land use disputes do arise Transportation Agency are encouraged (mainly from existing situations but also from to use and have regard for this report in other scenarios as noted!. all stakeholders are proximity dispute investigations and in encouraged to have regard for and utilize where the development and implementation of applicable the following local dispute resolution any related guidelines, to facilitate a more framework that was established by the RAC/FCM comprehensive approach that appropriately Dispute Resolution Subcommittee, adapted/ considers the land use planning framework modified as appropriate to the specific situation. along with the rail operations issues. • Relevant municipal land use approvals history should be investigated, particularly with Local Dispute Resolution Framework respect to any rail noise, vibration, safety impact and warning clause requirements A, Guiding Principles to be Observed requested by the railway operator and/ through any form of Dispute or secured by the municipality as part of Resolution development approvals. This investigation 1. Identify issues of concern to each party. should include any relevant provincial noise 2. Ensure representatives within the dispute policies or guidelines that the municipality resolution process have negotiating autho had or should have had regard for at the rity. Decision making authority should also time of development approval. In general, be declared. railways should not be expected to mitigate 3. Establish in-person dialogue and share for bad land use planning decisions for all relevant information among parties. which they had no control over.

16 Dispute Resolution

II. Dispute Resolution Escalation Process 8. Consult any existing relevant proximity Municipal and railway representatives guidelines or related best practices 4 should attempt resolution in an escalating (eg. this report). manner. recognizing that each of these steps 9. Face-to-face meeting/s between parties would be time consuming for all parties. representing the issue to initiate dialogue 1. Resolve locally between two parties. If for dispute resolution process. Education, resolution not achieved. advocacy of respective positions. 2. Proceed to third-party mediation/facilita 10. Attempt compromise/jointly agreed tion support. If resolution not achieved. solution. If Not, proceed to step El2 3. Proceed to other available legal steps. above. 11. Determine necessary internal, external C. Generic local Dispute Resolution communication requirements and/or Process requisite public involvement strategies With the emphasis for resolution focused for implementation of compromise. on 81 above, a common local dispute resolu tion model based on the generic process outlined below is recommended. 1. Face-to-face meeting to determine specific process steps to be used in resolution attempt. Community Advisory Panel formation should be considered at this point. 2. Determination of which functions and individuals will represent the respective parties. Generally this would include the municipality, the railway. and other appropriate stakeholders. 3. Issue identification. 4. Raised through community to railway. Could be the result of an unresolved outstanding proximity issue, operational modifications, or change in rail customer operation (misdirected to railway). 5. Planned railway development that MAY impact community in the future. 6. Raised through the railway to community. Could be the result of a municipal government action (rezoning, etc.) 7. Exploration of the elements of the issue. Ensure each party is made aware of the other's view of the issue - a listing of the various aspects/impacts related to the issue.

17 Conclusions

This report provides the final recommendations The next steps by respective stakeholders for the rail/municipal proximity guidelines could include further research as appropriate 5 research project initiated by the Railway and/or implementation of relevant components Association of Canada and the Federation of of the recommended development guidelines, Canadian Municipalities. The three principle policies and regulations. situations that are dealt with are: new land Further consideration should also be development or redevelopment in proximity given to imbedding these guidelines and to existing rail operations; new or significantly their implementation into the curriculum of expanded rail facilities in proximity to existing educational institutions in civil engineering, residential uses and road/rail crossing issues. land use planning and railway engineering. A comprehensive set of proximity guidelines and best management practices has been identified in the report and appendices for consideration by stakeholders, including all levels of government, railways, developers and their consultants, property owners and academia. Topics covered include: • Noise and vibration protocols and proce dures for use in determining appropriate mitigation; • Safety impact mitigation measures such as buildings setbacks, berms and security fencing and other trespass prevention considerations; e Drainage considerations; • Warning clauses and environrnental ease ments; • Planning to minimize the creation of new at grade rail crossings; and, • Implementation mechanisrns to secure construction and maintenance responsibilities. The objective of the proximity guidelines and best management practices is to inform and influence railway and municipal planning practices and procedures to more effectively anticipate and manage proximity conflicts and to betterfacilitate municipal and railway growth. The various stakeholders are encouraged to review and establish or update as necessary their respective planning instrurnents and company practices / procedures.

18 Internet Links

This list is far from exhaustive and is intended to provide a few useful websites 6 that the reader should find useful. Railway Association of Canada www.rai/can.ca (* includes relevant government links and links to member railway sites)

Federation of Canadian Municipalities www.fcm.ca (* includes links to provincial affiliate associations and municipal sites)

RACjFCM Proximity Project www.proximityis5ues.ca

Government of Canada www.canada.gc.ca

Transport Canada www.tc.gc.ca

Canadian Transportation Agency www.cta-otc.gc.ca

Ontario Ministry of Environment www.ene.gov.on.ca

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca

Operation Lifesaver www.operationlifesaver.ca

Safe Communities www.safecommunifies.ca

Queensland Rail www.corporate.qr.com.au Append;x I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

rd AI.? e 1st 2nd and 3 storey receptor for Recommended Procedures for the low rise dwellings. The nighttime I Preparation of Noise and Vibration Reports calculation should be conducted at for New Residential or other Sensitive I.and the fagade where a bedroom could be Uses in Proximity to Rail Corridors located. The daytime calculation should be conducted at the fagade where the living/dining/family areas could be located; and 1. Studies should be undertaken by a qualified o If the building is a multi-storey building consultant using an approved prediction the calculations should be conducted at model. the outdoor amenity areas and at the 2. Where studies are not economically or highest floor of the building. practically feasible. due for example to the 8. The typical receptor heights are sum scale of a development or the absence marized below. These are to be used as of an available mechanism to secure a a guide only. If the actual receptor heights study. reasonable and practical measures are known they should be used. should be undertaken to minimize potential o Outdoor amenity area: 1.5 m above the noise impacts. such as increased building amenity area elevation; setbacks. noise fencing. and building o 1" storey receptor: 1.5 m above the construction techniques (e.g. brick veneer. 1" floor finished grade elevation; air conditioning). etc. • 2'd storey receptor: 4.5 m above the 3. Obtain existing rail traffic volumes from 1" floor finished grade elevation; and rail authority. • 3,d storey receptor: 7.5 m above the 4. Use most current draft plan/site plan and 1" floor finished grade elevation; grading plans for analysis. 9. The analysis should be conducted 5. Escalate rail traffic volume data by 2.5% assuming a 16 hour day (LeqDay) and an compounded annually for a minimum of 8 hour night (LeqNight). 10 years. unless future traffic projections 10. If whistles are permitted they should be are available. included in the analysis to determine the 6. Conduct analysis at closest proposed mitigation measures to achieve the indoor sensitive receptor. The minimum setback sound level limits. Whistles are not required distances based on the classification of the to be included in the determination of rail line. as specified by the railway should be sound barrier requirements. used for the analysis. If the closest proposed 11. Any topographical differences between residential receptor is at the greater distance the source and receiver should be taken than the minimum setback distance. then into account. the greater distance may be used. 12. The attenuation provided by dense. 7. The analysis needs to be conducted at the evergreen forest of more than 50 m in following locations: depth can also be included in the analysis • Outdoor amenity area receptor. This (assuming it will remain intact). is usually in the rear yard at a point 13. Intervening structures that may provide that is 3 m away from the rear wall of some barrier effect may also be included the house. This is typically a daytime in the analysis. calculation;

20 Appendix I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

14. The results of this analysis should be • Figure depicting the location of the compared to the applicable sound level sound barrier, including any extensions I limits listed belowto determine the required or wrap arounds; mitigative measures for both the outdoor • Top of barrier elevations; amenity areas and the dwelling. Mitigative • Sample calculations with and without measures could include noise barriers, the sound barrier; architectural and ventilation components • Sample calculations of how the (eg. brick veneer, air conditioning, forced air architectural requirements were ventilation, window glazing requirements, determined; etc.! • Summary table of lots/blocks/units 15. The required sound barrier heights to requiring mitigation measures, including achieve the guidelines at the outdoor lots that require air conditioning and amenity areas can be determined using an warning clauses; and appropriate model. The relative location • Any other information relevant to the with respect to the source and the receiver site and the proposed mitigation. is required as well as the grades of the tracks, barrier location and receptor. 16. The sound barrier needs to be designed taking into consideration the minimum safety requirements of the railway. 17. The architectural component requirements must include the minimum requirements of the railways. The remainder of the components can be determined using the AIF procedures found in the CMHC publication, "Road and Rail Noise: Effects on Housing", (NHA 5156 08/86) of the BPN 56 procedures found in the National Research Council publication "Building Practice Note 56, Controlling Sound Transmission into Buildings", September 1995. 18. In preparing the report all of the above information must be included so that the report can be appropriately reviewed. In addition to the above the report should include the following: • Key plan; • Site plan/draft plan; • Summary of the rail traffic data, including the correspondence from the railways;

2I Appendix I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

TableAI-1 Recommended Noise Criteria I New Residential or other Sensitive Land Uses in Proximity to Rail Corridors* , I SOUND lEVEL LIMIT TYPE OF SPACE TIME PERIOD Leq* (dBA) Rail**

Bedrooms, sleeping quarters of hospitals, nursing/ i 2300 to 0700 hrs. 35 I retirement homes, etc. Living/dining rooms, sleeping quarters of hotels/ I I motels, living/dining areas of hospitals, schools, I, 0700 to 2300 hrs. 40 nursing/retirement homes, day-care centres, places of worship etc.

Individual or semi-private offices, small conference I 0700 to 2300 hrs. 40 rooms, reading rooms, classrooms, libraries etc. General offices, reception areas, retail shops and 0700 to 2300 hrs. 45 , stores, etc. I Outdoor living areas 0700 to 2300 hrs. 55*** Outside bedroom windows and sleeping quarters 2300 to 0700 hrs. 50 Outside living/dining room windows 0700 to 2300 hrs. 55

Source: Adapted from the Ontario Ministry of Environment LU-J31 Guideline.

* Applicable to Transportation Noise Sources *** Mitigation is recommended between only. 55 dBA and 60 dBA and if levels are * Leq, measured in A-weighted decibels 60 dBA or above, mitigation should be (dBA), is the value of the constant sound implemented to reduce the levels as level which would result in exposure to close as is practicable to 55 dBA. the same total sound energy as would the specified time varying sound, if the constant sound level persisted over an equal time interval. LeqDay is applied to a 16 hour period (0700 to 2300). LeqNight is applied to an 8 hour period (2300 to 0700). ** The indoor sound level limits are used only to determine the architectural component requirements. The outside facade sound level limits are used to determine the air conditioning requirements.

22 Appendix I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

VIBRATION 7. The measurement equipment must be capable of measuring between 4 Hz and I Mitigation can take the form of perimeter 200 Hz ± 3 dB with an RMS averaging foundation treatment and thicker foundation time constant of 1 second. walls and in more severe cases the use of S. All measured data shall be reported. rubber inserts to separate the superstructure 9. The report should include all of the above from the foundation. as well as: 1. Studies should be undertaken by a qualified • Key plan; consultant. • Site/draft plan indicating the location of 2. Where studies are not economically or the measurements; practically feasible, due for example to the • Summary of the equipment used to scale of a development or the absence conduct the vibration measurements; of an available mechanism to secure a • Direction, type, speed (if possible), study, reasonable and practical measures number of cars of each train measured; should be undertaken to minimize potential • Results of all the measurements vibration impacts, such as increased conducted; building setbacks, perimeter foundation • Exceedance, if any; and treatment (eg. thicker foundations) and/or • Details of the proposed mitigation, if other vibration isolation measures, etc. required. 3. Vibration measurements should be 10. Ground-borne vibration transmission to conducted for all proposed residential/ be estimated through site testing. and institutional type developments. It is not evaluation to deterrnine if dwellings within acceptable to use vibration measurements 75 rnetres of the railway right-of-way will be conducted at other locations such as on the impacted by vibration conditions in excess opposite side of the tracks, further down of 0.14 mm/sec. RMS between 4 Hz. and the tracks, etc. 200 Hz. The monitoring system should be 4. The vibration measurements should be capable of measuring frequencies between conducted at the distance corresponding to 4 Hz and 200 Hz ± 3 dB, with an RMS the closest proposed residential receptor, averaging time constant of 1 second. If in or on the minimum setbacks based on excess, appropriate isolation measures are classification of the rail line. If the proposed recommended to be undertaken to ensure dwelling units are located more than 75 m living areas do not exceed 0.14 mm/sec. from the railway right-of-way, vibration RMS on and above the first floor of the measurements are not required. dwelling. 5. Sufficient points parallel to the tracks should be chosen to provide a comprehensive representation of the potentially varying soil conditions. 6. A minimum of five (5) train passbys (comprised of alltrain types using the rail line) should be recorded at each measurement location. Appendix I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

AI-2 9. The analysis may include any attenuation Recommended Procedures for the provided by permanent intervening struc I Preparation of Noise Reports For New tures as well as vegetation as set out Residential or other Sensitive Land Uses In by the prediction model. Topographical Proximity to Freight Rail Shunting Yards differences between the source and re ceiver should be taken into account. 1. Studies should be undertaken by a qualified 10. Any tonal characteristics of the sound consultant. should be taken into consideration. 2. Where studies are not economically or 11. All analyses should take the proposed practically feasible, due for example to the grading of the site as well as the grading at scale of a development or the absence the rail yard, particularly when determining of an available mechanism to secure a the sound barrier heights. study, reasonable and practical measures 12. The source positions should be determined should be undertaken to minimize in consultation with the railway. They potential noise impacts, such as increased should be based on the most likely and building setbacks, noise fencing, building reasonable location for that activity. construction techniques (e.g. brick veneer, 13. The consultant report shall include the air conditioning), etc. following: 3. Obtain information from the railway re • Key plan; garding the operations of the freight rail yard • Site plan/draft plan of the proposed in question. This information should include development; existing operations as well as potential • Figure depicting the location of each future modifications to the rail facility. of the sources modelled within the rail 4. Obtain minimum sound levels to be used yard; for each source from railway, if available. • Summary table of the source sound These data should also be verified by levels used in the analysis; on-site observations and on-site sound • Results of the predicted sound levels at measurements. various receptors; 5. Calculate the potential impact of all the • Results of anyon-site sound mea sources at the closest proposed residential surements; receptor. This should be at a minimum of • Sample calculations with and without 300 m from the closest property line of the any proposed mitigation; freight rail yard. • Summary table of all lots requiring 6. The analysis should be conducted for the mitigation; worst case hour (Leq 1hr). • Top of sound barrier elevations, if sound 7. The calculation may be conducted using barriers are proposed; and ISO 2613-2 or other approved model. • Any other information relevant to the 8. Impulsive activities, such as train coupling/ site and the proposed mitigation. uncoupling and stretching should be 14. The results of the analysis should be analyzed using a Logarithmic Mean Impulse compared to the following sound level Sound Level (LLM) and not included as part criteria in Table A-2 on page 25. Where of the 1 hour Leq. an excess exists, mitigation that conforms to applicable stationary source guidelines should be recommended. Appendix I Noise and Vibration Procedures and Criteria

TableAI-2 Recommended Noise Criteria - Residential or other I Sensitive Land Uses in Proximity to Freight Rail Shunting Yards Minimum Values for One Hour L,. or lLM By Time of Day

One Hour L,. (dBA) or lLM (dBAI) I Time of Day ; Class 1 Area Class 2 Area 0700 -1900 50 50 I 1900 - 2300 47 45 2300 - 0700 45 45

Source: Adapted from the Ontario Ministry of Environment LU-131 Guideline.

These criteria are applicable to any usable portion of the lot or dwelling.

AI-3 • Mitigation should be considered when Recommendations for Evaluation of New the predicted future sound level including Rail Facilities or Significant Expansions the project and the ambient' noise to Existing Rail Facilities in Proximity to exceed the future no-build, including Residential or other Sensitive Land Uses ambient' sound level by 5 dB or more. The assessment, implementation and extent • Evaluations of proposed physical expansion/ of mitigation should take into account modifications to a rail facility should be, applicable adjacent land use approvals leg. based on the specific site and operational whether newer residential uses have been characteristics and would be conducted permitted to encroach on the rail corridor in accordance with applicable federal or yard without appropriate mitigation) and requirements. The procedures should should be evaluated based on operational, be similar in nature to those outlined for economic, technical and practical feasibility, proposed sensitive land-uses in proximity and in all cases undertaken in accordance to a rail facility. with applicable regulations. Mitigative • The numerical criteria that would establish measures, if applicable, would be expected the need for mitigation should also consider to take the form of sound barriers, modified a change assessment - that is, considering alignments and/or modified operations, and comparing by what amount the sound where feasible. levels are expected to change Ithe pre project vs. the post-project sound levels).

3. Where rail is the dominant noise source, it should be included in the ambient.

25 Appendix II Examples of Best Management Practices

AII-1 DRAFT RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION Regulations - Oct 1, 2002. GUIDELINES, RAG • The guidelines apply to the total sound II emitted by moving rail cars and locomotives The Railway Association of Canada has (including the sound produced by refri prepared Draft Noise Emission Guidelines geration an air conditioning units that are that will assist in controlling noise emitted by an integral element of such equipment), moving rail cars and locomotives. active retarders, switcher locomotives, car • The RAC initiative is the first attempt at such coupling operations, and load cell test stands, a guideline in Canada. Federal agencies operated by a railroad within Canada. There have indicated that they support the RAC's are exceptions where the guidelines do not efforts and look forward to working with all apply, including steam locomotives, sound stakeholders on such initiatives and also that emitted from warning devices, special they encourage a blend of maximum levels purpose equipment, and inert retarders. of noise and annoyance-related approaches • Railways, and the RAC, are encouraged in the development of such guidelines . to continue with proactive efforts and • The RAC guidelines are based on the partnerships to undertake research and following United States Codes of Federal education initiatives that build on and Regulations (CFR): CFR Title 40 - Protection improve the draft noise emission guideline, of Environment - Part 201 Noise Emission including incorporating aspects of the Standards for Transportation Equipment; subject research. Interstate Rail Carriers - July 1, 2002; and, CFR Title 49 Transportation - Part A summary of the guidelines is on the following 210 Railroad Noise Emission Compliance page. Appendix II Examples of Best Management Practices

Noise Guideline - A- weighted sound Noise Measurement II Noise source level in dB Measure location All locomotives manufactured on or before Dec. 31, 1979

Stationary. Idle Throttle setting. 73 Lmax Islow)l/ 30m

Stationary, all other throttle settings 93 Lmax (slow) 30m Moving 96 Lmax (fast) 30 m

All locomotives manufactured after Dec. 31, 1979

Stationary, Idle Throttle setting. 70 Lmax (slow) 30m

Stationary, all other throttle settings 87 Lmax (slow) 30 m Moving 90 Lmax (fast) 30 m

Additional req't for switcher locos manufactured on or before Dec. 31, 1979 operating in yards where stationary switcher and other loco noise exceeds the receiving property limit of. 65 L90 (fast)2/ Receiving property

Stationary, Idle Throttle setting. 70 Lmax (slow) 30m

Stationary, all other throttle settings 87 Lmax (slow) 30m Moving 90 Lmax (fast) 30m

Rail Cars Moving at speeds of 45 mph or less 88 Lmax (fast) 30m

Moving at speeds greater than 45 mph 93 Lmax (fast) 30m

Other Yard Equipment and Facilities Retarders 83 Ladjavemax (fast) Receiving property Car-coupling operations 92 Ladjavemax (fast) Receiving property Loco load cell test stands, where the noise from loco load cell operations exceeds the receiving property limits of. 65 L90 (fast)2/ Receiving property Primary Guideline 78 Lmax (slow) 30 m Receiving property Secondary Guideline if 30 m located more than measurement not feasible 65 L90 (fast) 120 m from Load Cell

l/Lmax= maximum sound level L90"" statistical sound leve! exceeded 90% of the time Ladjavemax= adjusted average maximum sound level 2/ L90 must be validated by determining that L 10-L99 is less than or equal to 4 dB (A). Receiving property essent/affy means any residential or commercial property that receives sound (not owned by the raifroad). Appendix II Examples of Best Management Practices

AII·2 DIRECTION 2006 Engineering Highway/railway crossings, railway property and II Community Trespass Prevention is an initiative pedestrian crossings must be kept safe, both of Direction 2006, a Government of Canada physically and operationally, and improvements and public/private partnership initiated in must be made when needed. To ensure a high 1996, with the goal of cutting the nurnber of level of safety, the administrative process of accidents and fatalities in half within 10 years, improving railway rights-of-way needs to be by 2006. As part of this initiative, the document reviewed and changed when needed. At the Trespassing on Railway Lines: A Community same time, the public needs to be made more Problem-Solving Guide was developed. This aware of federal, provincial and other programs document describes the Community, Analysis, aimed at improving railway safety. Response and Evaluation (CAR.E.) problem solving model that was developed to assist Evaluation communities in identifying and addressing the To maintain the quality of Operation Lifesaver, underlying causes of trespassing. It provides a its effect should be measured against its step-by-step method of identifying, analyzing stated goals. Funds are available for technical and effectively addressing trespassing issues and program assistance. in the community. Lessons that can be learned from Direction Direction 2006 has identified four areas of 2006 include: concentration (the four E's) with respect to • The benefits of multi-stakeholder initiatives crossing and trespass prevention, namely: to raise awareness of public safety matters and reduce the potential for future Education incidents. Operation Lifesaver's success as a safety • Promotion of rail safety improvement, parti program lies in educating people of all ages cularly improvement and elimination of at about the dangers of highway/railway crossings grade crossings and provision of funding for and the seriousness of trespassing on railway safety initiatives. property. The methods used to reach the public include the production and distribution of educational related material, early elementary AII·3 NEW ROAD CROSSING and driver education curriculum activities, civic presentations, as well as media coverage. An example of a recent grade-separation crossing is Enterprise Drive (currently under Enforcement construction) at the GO Transit Uxbridge Laws are in place governing motorists' and Subdivision in Markham, Ontario. Thealignment pedestrians' rights and responsibilities at for Enterprise Road was established as part of highway/railway crossings and on railway a planning process in developing the Markham property. Without enforcement, however, they Downtownareaandwassubsequentlyincluded will be ignored and disregarded, and incidents in the Official Plan and associated secondary will continue to happen. Therefore, provincial plans. The road alignment was also identified and municipal law enforcement agencies are in a comprehensive area transportation study, urged to deal with motorists and pedestrians the Markham Transportation Planning Study. who disregard these laws and jeopardize their As this was a new road, it was subject to lives as well as the lives of others. a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Append;x II Examples of Best Management Practices

(Class EA). Initially, an at-grade railway crossing AII-3 CODE OF PRACTICE, RAILWAY NOISE was considered. The Class EA determined that MANAGEMENT. QUEENSLAND RAIL II due to anticipated traffic levels, a planned bus higher order transit alignment and community Oueensland Rail (OR), anAustralian government planning/ urban design factors, the crossing of owned corporation, has developed a Code of the rail line required a grade separation. As part Practice for Railway Noise Management. The of the requirement for the Class EA, alternative Code of Practice is generally a self-imposed solutions and designs were examined. set of rules to achieve compliance with the Throughout this planning process, the Town duty to mitigate environmental impacts such of Markham consulted with GO Transit and as noise and vibration. The self-regulation is sought input with respect to the new crossing similar to the approach to the environment and the overall area development. that has been adopted by the Class 1 and Upon completion of the planning studies, other railway companies in Canada. the Town of Markham coordinated the As part of this Code of Practice, OR has grade separated crossing design, diversion developed a "Network Noise Management track planning and executed a crossing Plan" that initially involves conducting a agreement with GO Transit to enable a rapid statewide noise audit. If "potential noise implementation of the grade separation. affected receptors" are identified then a The best practices in terms of creating new detailed noise assessment is carried out. rail crossings that were demonstrated in the Mitigation measures will be implemented case study include: where noise levels exceed the EPP levels or i. Undertaking of comprehensive community if OR cannot achieve compliance with these and transportation planning studies to levels, the railway will strive to comply with establish need and justification for a new OR nominated interim noise levels of 70 dB(A) crossing. (24-hour average equivalent continuous A ii. Undertaking transportation studies to weighted sound pressure level) and 95 dB(A) assess alternative methods to addressing (single event maximum sound pressure level). transportation requirements and alternat OR has prepared and made available to ives to creating a new crossing. Oueensland local governments "OR Guidelines '". Taking into consideration both community for Local Governments (and/or other Assessment safety and transportation requirements Managers under the Integrated Planning Act) and taking a long-term approach to Assessing Development Likely to be Affected planning new rail crossings. by Noise from the Operation of a Railway or iv. Consultation with rail corridor owner Railway Activities". These guidelines encourage throughout early planning stages to imple Oueensland local governments to apply noise mentation. impact assessment to development applications requiring assessment under the Integrated Planning Act and which are intended to be located near a railway. The noise impact assessment may require the imposition of conditions on the development to help achieve the required noise levels. Conditions may include devices such as sealed windows and/or double glazing; minimizing the window

29 Appendix II Examples of Best Management Practices

area facing a noise source; barriers for low level receivers; effective building orientation; II or provision of a suitable buffer distance. Although the Canadian environment differs somewhat from OR (the main difference being that OR is government owned), there are lessons that can be learned, including: • OR has developed a comprehensive "Net work Noise Managernent Plan" and carries out a detailed noise assessment if potential noise-affected receptors are identified. • OR has prepared noise impact assessment guidelines to assist local governments in applying guidelines to development appli cations. The guidelines are comprehensively applied. Property Pliu'Il'Iil'lg and Development

Principal Main line"

• traffic volume generally exceeds 10 trains per day

• high speeds, usually exceeding 80 kph (50 mph)

• includes heavy trains with 3 or 4 locomotives per train, commuter and passenger trains Secondary Main line" • traffic volume generally exceeds 10 trains per day

• high speeds, usually exceeding 80 kph (50 mph)

• trains generally of light to moderate weight with 3 or 4 locomotives per train

• majority of traffic may be commuter and passenger trains Principal Branch line" • regular scheduled traffic, usually less than 5 trains per day

• low speeds, generally limited to 50 kph (30 mph)

• trains generally of light to moderate weight with 1 or 2 locomotives per train but may include heavier trains with more units Secondary Branch line" • intermittent, unscheduled traffic, usually less than 1 train per day

• low speeds, generally limited to 50 kph (30 mph)

• trains generally of light to moderate weight with 1 locomotive per train Spur line" • unscheduled traffic on a demand basis

• low speeds, limited to 24kph (15 mph)

• trains generally of light to moderate weight with 1 locomotive per train Railway Service Yards, Terminals, &. Stations • frequent traffic day and night

• low speeds, limited to 40 kph (25 mph)

• includes light to heavy trains up to 4 locomotives per train , in yards, trains may be assembled and re-arranged

• through traffic may by-pass yard and stations at speeds frequently exceeding 80 kph (50 mph) Railway Classification Yards • frequent traffic day and night

, low speeds, limited to 40 kph (25 mph)

, includes light to heavy trains up to 4 locomotives per train

• sigle cars may be rolled from humps through retarders and assembled into trains

• Safety setback of dwellings from the railway rights-of-way to be a minimum of 30 metres in conjunction with a safety berm. The safety berm shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights of-way with returns at the ends, 2.5 metres above grade at the property line, with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1.

, The Owner shall engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise. At a minimum, a noise attenuation barrier shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights-of-way, having returns at the ends, and a minimum total height of 5.5 metres above top-of-rail. Acoustic fence to be constructed without openings and of a durable material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square metre of surface area. Subject to the review of the noise report, the Railway may consider other measures recommended by an approved Noise Consultant.

, Ground-borne vibration transmission to be evaluated in a report through site testing to determine if dwellings within 75 metres of the railway rights-of-way will be impacted by vibration conditions in excess of 0.14 mm/sec RMS between 4 Hz and 200 Hz. The monitoring system should be capable of measuring frequencies between 4 Hz and 200 Hz, ±3 dB with an RMS averaging time constant of 1 second. If in excess, isolation measures will be required to ensure living areas do not exceed 0.14 mm/sec RMS on and above the first floor of the dwelling.

• The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line.

, The following clause should be inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit within 300m of the railway right-of-way: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way."

• Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway.

• The Owner shall through restrictive covenants to be registered on title and all agreements of purchase and sale or lease provide notice to the public that the safety berm, fencing and vibration isolation measures implemented are not to be tampered with or altered and further that the Owner shall have sole responsibility for and shall maintain these measures to the satisfaction of CN.

• The Owner enter into an Agreement stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will pay CN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement.

• The Owner may be required to grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the subject property in favour of CN. '

CN's current guidelines recommend that the acceptable protective measures for non-residential uses adjacent to a Principal Main Line are as follows: , A minimum 30 metre building setback, from the railway right-of way, in conjunction with a 2.5 metre high earthen berm for institutional, commercial (ie. office, retail, hotel, restaurants, shopping centres, warehouse retail outlets, and other places of public assembly) and recreational facilities (i.e. parks, outdoor assembly, sports area).

• A minimum 15 metre setback, from the railway right-of-way, in conjunction with a 2.0 metre high earthen berm for a manufacturing and repair use (i.e. factories, workshops, automobile repair and service shops).

• A minimum 15 metre setback for a warehouse and other heavy industrial use.

• There are no applicable noise, vibration and safety measures for unoccupied buildings.

, A chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height must be installed and maintained along the mutual property line. • Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting Railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway.

• Safety setback of dwellings from the railway rights-of-way to be a minimum of 30 metres in conjunction with a safety berm. The safety berm shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights of-way with returns at the ends, 2.0 metres above grade at the property line, with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1.

• The Owner shall engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise. At a minimum, a noise attenuation barrier shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights-of-way, having returns at the ends, and a minimum total height of 4.5 metres above top-of-rail. Acoustic fence to be constructed without openings and of a durable material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square metre of surface area. Subject to the review of the noise report, the Railway may consider other measures recommended by an approved Noise Consultant.

• Ground-borne vibration transmission to be evaluated in a report through site testing to determine if dwellings within 75 metres of the railway rights-of-way will be impacted by vibration conditions in excess of 0.14 mm/sec RMS between 4 Hz and 200 Hz. The monitoring system should be capable of measuring frequencies between 4 Hz and 200 Hz, ±3 dB with an RMS averaging time constant of 1 second. If in excess, isolation measures will be required to ensure living areas do not exceed 0.14 mm/sec RMS on and above the first floor of the dwelling.

• The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line.

• The following clause should be inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit within 300m of the railway right-of-way: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-oF-way."

• The Owner enter into an Agreement stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will pay CN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement.

• The Owner may be required to grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the subject property in favour of CN. t

CN's current guidelines recommend that the acceptable protective measures for non-residential uses adjacent to a Secondary Main Line are as follows: • A minimum 30 metre building setback, from the railway right-of way, in conjunction with a 2.0 metre high earthen berm for institutional, commercial (ie. office, retail, services, restaurants, shopping centres, warehouse retail outlets, and other places of public assembly) and recreational facilities (i.e. parks, outdoor assembly, sports area).

• A minimum 15 metre setback for a warehouse and other heavy industrial use.

• There are no applicable noise, vibration and safety measures for unoccupied buildings.

• A chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height must be installed and maintained along the mutual property line.

• Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting Railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway. • It is recommended that a consultant be retained to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and that appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from noise and/or vibration that were identified be provided. t

• Safety setback of dwellings from the railway rights-of-way to be a minimum of 15 metres in conjunction with a safety berm. The safety berm shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights of-way with returns at the ends, 2.0 metres above grade at the property line, with side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1.

, The Owner shall engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise. At a minimum, a noise attenuation barrier shall be adjoining and parallel to the railway rights-of-way, having returns at the ends, and a minimum total height of 4.0 metres above top-of-rail. Acoustic fence to be constructed without openings and of a durable material weighing not less than 20 kg. per square metre of surface area. Subject to the review of the noise report, the Railway may consider other measures recommended by an approved Noise Consultant.

• The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line.

, Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway.

• The Owner enter into an Agreement stipulating how eN's concerns will be resolved and will pay eN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement.

• The Owner may be required to grant eN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the subject property in favour of eN. t

• eN's current guidelines recommend that the acceptable protective measures for non-residential uses adjacent to a Branch Line are as follows:

• A minimum 15 metre building setback, from the railway right-of way, in conjunction with a 2.0 metre high earthen berm for institutional, commercial (ie. office, retail, services, restaurants, shopping centres, warehouse retail outlets, and other places of public assembly) and recreational facilities (i.e. parks, outdoor assembly, sports area).

• There are no applicable noise, vibration and safety measures for unoccupied buildings.

• A chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height must be installed and maintained along the mutual property line.

• The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line.

• The Owner enter into an Agreement stipulating how CN's concerns will be resolved and will pay CN's reasonable costs in preparing and negotiating the agreement.

• The Owner may be required to grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the subject property in favour of CN. '

• Safety setback of dwellings from the railway rights-of-way to be a minimum of 15 metres.

• The Owner shall install and maintain a chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line.

• CN's current guidelines recommend that the acceptable protective measures for non-residential uses adjacent to a Spur Line are as follows:

• A minimum 15 metre building setback, from the railway right-of way.

• There are no applicable noise, vibration and safety measures for unoccupied buildings.

• A chain link fence of minimum 1.83 metre height must be installed and maintained along the mutual property line.

• It is recommended that a consultant be retained to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and that appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from noise and/or vibration that were identified be provided. t 1-"• Mayor Council N From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday. June 07,20124:11 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: Delta Website - Comments, Compliments & Inquiries

******Feedback Form Completed******

Directed To: ; ,.J\ Mayor Council DEPT Response Requested AT #: \ \ ? I !o l . comments: J cv'\L. 2.:511 'l-- fl'iU 1Z"j u!

Completed by : Cynthia Haydar

Address: 6687 Carncross Crescent, DeltaThis V4E correspondence IL5 relates to a development application that is being handled by Community Planning & Development (LU006537). This application at 10770 72 Avenue includes an amendment to the Official Community Plan (OCP) to amend the land use designation for the subject property from Resource Study Area to a new designation that would support a comprehensive mixed use development including urban uses, natural habitats, public open space and greenways. The exact type and mix of land uses would be Email: determined following consultation with the community. Council endorsed a public [email protected] consultation process at the April 2, 2012 Regular Meeting which will be carried out over the next several months. Public comments are being tracked and will be summarized in a future report to Council.

The applicant, MK Delta Lands Group, hosted a public open house in April and is undertaking a series of workshops with community members regarding their proposal. At the open house which was attended by more than 325 people, residents were asked to sign up for the public workshops if interested. In addition, the applicant delivered a notification to residents who live near the subject property about the upcoming workshops. To date, two workshops have been held and approximately 55 people attended each workshop. The next workshop to be hosted by the applicant is on Wednesday, June 27 at the North Delta Recreation Centre from 6 pm to 9 pm. Once more details are known about the proposed land use plan, The Corporation of Delta will host its own Public Information Meetings. Staff have informed the letter writer of this information and provided MK Delta's contact1 information. Mayor Council , From: [email protected] genda g Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 10:38 AM FILE #/Ct!,qL{fYf)O To: Mayor & Council A Subject: Delta Website - Comments, Compliments & Inquiries

******Feedback Form Completed******

Directed To: Mayor Council

Response Requested

Comments: Most rezoning creates value. Mayor and Council create the value then give most to the applicant. The applicant must pay the price demanded by Mayor and Council. This is where it gets fuzzy as to the costs of the conditions for rezoning to the applicant. A transparent 80/20 split of the value created with 80% retained by Delta feels better than what is now. Increased taxes to Delta from rezoning are spent on increased services while the applicant is granted a increase in value. 80/20 split willlirnit the value increase to the applicant and increase the value retained for Delta.

Completed by : Larry Meyer

Address: 5736 Goldenrod Cr.

Email: [email protected]

Staff will be sending an email to advise that rezoning a property can result in increased value, but developers are responsible for numerous costs as part of the rezoning process, including application fees, Development Cost Charges, legal fees, parkland dedication or cash in lieu of parkland dedication, etc. The requirements associated with rezoning applications are set out in bylaws and other legislation. Delta does not have any regulations to require developers to give 80 percent of the value created by rezoning a property to the municipality.

1 To: Mavor and Council Mav4,2012 ,! Delta, BC i 'fypr;::E~~~~J", .....• 'i N ,) From: Matthew and Stella Hartlev DEPT: ej? r-Y> ::E ::0 1209 Hunter Road AT # =r13~~3 _ -;c; 0, G(HWnents: :Y-i 1Jf?;)'5/ l 'J.--- .;.. Delta BC, V4LlY9 ,{Ij V::Lt<-.r I'A£ e -"3 ~ Subject: Proposed Development Permit at 1204, 1212, and 1216 Hunter Roild (WOO~) ....o :.j Our famllv, who resides at 1209 Hunter Road, oppose the proposed development. The reason being ~ as follows. FlrstlV, Hunter Road is reallv a lane and not a road, with a poorJv designed intersection onto 12"' Avenue. Anv further traffic on this road either pedestrian or vehicle would be unreasonable and dangerous.

Secondlv, the proposed rezoning would create an island of single famiJv homes at 1205, 1209, and 1211 Hunter Road with Commercial to the West and Multi-familv to the East. this is an Improper application of zoning which should transition from commercial to Single familv. The proposed height of the structure to the East would unfalrlv block out the light to our home and unfairly Impact our family with noise pollution and light from headlights at night which would shine on our master bedroom which Is on the first floor.

- ~ Thirdly our family bought our home safe In the knowledge tliat we were protected from such a development by current zoning and restrictive covenants which prohibit anything other than a single family home from being constructed in the site. The Oelta Council In Its Council Report dated August 5, 2008 on page 8 required that the owners, "The covenant should be dischareed as a condition of final approval to allow construction of an apartment dwelling on the properties." To my knowledge the owners have iBnored the instructions of this Council and have not even beBun court action to discharge the covenant. Our family has received no notice regarding hearing to discharge of the covenant nor j have we received any offer of a settlement, bargaining, or reparations, although we have made It known ;\ ,J that we are enforcing the covenant and that we are open to such reasonable bargaining. (see attached ~i communication) ,"! The owners ofthis property have ignored the instructions of The Delta Council regarding the covenant. The proposed zoning unfairly impacts our family and is Inappropriate for the location. We therefore request that Council deny the application. I thank Council In advance for its consideration.

~'CJ g-- Matthew and Stella Hartley cc genda rO~;';;Q FILE # (u ' ....." Mayor Council A N ... , c: From: jane drinkwater [drinkwaterjane77@gmaiLcomj :;: Sent: Friday, June 08, 20126:57 PM .... To: Mayor & Council ..... Subject: Add me to the list to3 o Dear madams and sirs, ,..,

Just a quick message here to show my stance has not changed being AGAINST the SOUTHLANDS development.

With all the developments happening and most we have little control over, this is one we can do, Any more development would be INSANE,

We must keep our best jewel as untouched as possible,

I'll be at the next meetings, see you there!

Jane Drinkwater l';I~k>:rk S+- Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their D~ lOG VlfL- I L- ~ comments will be considered as part of the public consultation process for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and reported back to Council.

1 Mayor Council

From: [email protected] on behalf of John Meech [email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:34 AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands

Dear Mayor Jackson and Councillors:

As you consider the difficult problem of the Southlands development application, please consider that the future of Tsawwassen as a viable community is in your hands. Don't make your decision based on the noise coming from a small minority of naysayers.

I am in favour ofthe current development as proposed by Century Group. Our community needs this type of housing for seniors and young families wanting to live and work in South Delta together with the real opportunity to conduct community-based farming on this property.

In fact I am concerned that not enough development is being considered. How do you intend to pay for the farming of the 80% ofthe land that Delta will acquire? If you are thinking that we the taxpayers should foot that bill, think again. That funding should come from the development and the only way for that to be viable is to at least double the density.

Sincerely,

John A. Meech Email: [email protected] CR 5Lj~ MltvUiV6 . 'bfh,1fl £C V 4vn rf()...

"There is no failure ... only early attempts at success. " - Mike Myers (Guru Pitka)

Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their comments will be considered as part of the public consultation process for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and reported back to Council.

1 genda A FILE # Mayor Council c c From: John Meech [email protected] :z:, Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:42 AM .....,.... To: Mayor & Council Subject: South lands Development ~ IXI 05 Sorry for using my husbands email address, but mine is out of service at the moment. N

I am in favour of Southlands development. The plan will open up the farm for walking and biking as well as creating the housing options that we so desperately need.

The Tsawwassen Town Centre needs this development to meet the pull of demand away to the TFN malls. Save our Town Centre.

Sincerely,

Elaine I.B. Meech

1 genda f3,)9;,o-~ ,..... Mayor Council FILE # LiLI9f)w3'70 " A D? From: valerie roddick [[email protected] Sent: Monday, June 11, 201210:13AM To: Mayor & Council Subject: south lands development proposal noel roddick

4315, tamboline road v4k 3n2 mayor and council: my life and business has always been in agriculture. allowing this project to get a fair hearing will benefit both agriculture and our community as a whole. thank you. fYPE _f? ~\d a c ,4Jf~ DEPT: C(l-hb> A. T. #: _\"",3:::.,:;1~+--, Comments: ",I\[. 1..-S-J \ "Z-- f-. <':j \AlP... Nt (e..tl Y\i)

1 Mayor Council eo:. c: From: valerie roddick [[email protected]] z:: Sent: Monday, June 11,201210:21 AM genda I ?:,;;~.J!?'D-,)e) ,...• To: Mayor & Council FILE # t4i3D103 tiP Subject: southland development proposal A valerie roddick

4315, tamboline road v4k 3n2 madam mayor, i urge you and your council to allow the southlands development proposal to move forward respectfully and productively .... in consultation with all of the relevant stakeholders.

life is made up of compromises - fortunately most of the are good compromises. thank you for your time and consideration on this difficult issue - it is truly appreciated.

1 • genda ,.... ('3;;;l.-'2>o--~- N _M_a"",yo~r_~C_o_u_n_c_il______FILE # luoofp?fj() _ c A c:: From: Bob Scowcroft [[email protected][ :z:, Sent: Saturday, June 09, 201211:13AM .... To: Mayor Lois Jackson; Mayor & Council; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Bruce McDonald; .... Jeannie Kanakos; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton §!it Cc: [email protected]; Bob Scowcroft; [email protected] al Subject: South lands - I support change! 0 N

South lands - I support change!

I am afraid that I have remained silent too long and need you to hear from two of the silent many who are NOT opposed to change on the South lands like the 80 you are reported to have heard from.

I am afraid of you only being influenced by those few very vocal people who are against ANY change in Tsawwassen and not open to being proactive in planning for our community's inevitable growth.

I am afraid as the owner of a healthy 26 year old Tsawwassen business that employs 8 local people who in turn pay taxes, spend their earnings, raise their families and vote in this town that I must speak out.

I am afraid for the long term viability of our business. Without adding new homes within Tsawwassen in a planned and responsible way, a dwindling number of customers nearby to support local businesses will fail to sustain our current solid standing in our community.

I am afraid that due to the stubborn short sighted views of a vocal few, I will continue to not have access to a wonderful parcel of land that promises to include a large section of park and farmland that my family and I would then be able to actually enjoy.

I am afraid that we will have to continue to walk or cycle a long and unfriendlyroute around South lands to get to the beach and the beautiful new facility that Metro Vancouver has constructed there instead of using a shorter more pleasant access route through the new South lands.

I am afraid that once again, politicians who don't live in my community will hide from an issue that doesn't directly affect them. That they will choose to avoid the conflict rather than seize the opportunity to make a positive and lasting change. Our community so badly needs to act and be seen as something other than a whining bunch of NIMBYs who can only say NO.

I am afraid that you have stopped reading by now. We are saying YES and are hoping you will please give thoughtful consideration to the amazing opportunity that lies before us!

Bob and Ruth Scowcroft Owners, Albany Books Ltd 1240 56th St, TYPE: A~vt.IM A;,.e-ndc; Delta Be DEPT: {le,ti> StaffV4L2A4 will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their comments will be considered as part of the public consultation process for the Southlands A.T #: ((514:1 Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be Gomments: ~j v- ",.t. :2. '5/ IL reviewing all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will ;J ( N\ee-h'r>q r, ~\t Ot.V , J be summarized and reported back to Council. 1 Mayor Council ~ From: Sean McNamara [[email protected] ::iF Sent: Sunday, June 10, 20127:37 PM :::: To: Mayor Lois Jackson Cc: Mayor & Council; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Bruce McDonald; Jeannie Kanakos; Sco~ Hamilton; Ian Paton; [email protected] c:o Subject: South lands 6 I'\)

Mayor and Council,

I would like to see the SouthIands project move ahead.

The opportunity we have today is better than anything we will have in the future. If this proposal is shot down we will end up with an unattractive industrial farm operation.

Please say "yes" to the Southlands proposal.

Sean McNamara 43 67th Street Delta BC Canada V4L 1 L5 TYPE: ~"j Iii Guv '4z1 c"ci' "- DEPT: Cf....-/) A.T. #: --,1,-,--,13=-<-d...... :g_ email: [email protected] Comments: JW\fL 2- S') 11..-

Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their comments will be considered (I,~y /YIee f-..YJ as part of the public consultation process for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and reported back to Council.

1 Mayor Council =c:: From: Kevin McDonald [[email protected]] ::iF Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:20 PM .... To: Mayor & Council .... Subject: South lands ~ C· !XI I have lived in Tsawwassen for 44 years and have raised four children. I fully support the South lands proposal and am ~ extremely confident the Century Group will build an innovative and precedent setting development. I don't think this influx of residence will hurt the way of living any more than the previous subdivisions have (Deerfield, Terrace, Forest by the Bay, Stahaken, Imperial Village, Centennial Village). These most recent area's ( 10-20 years ago) are the houses where some of the nay sayer's live. Think if we had stopped those desirable neighborhoods from enhancing our community. The only negative issue is traffic and as we all know, we can't control that but we will all adjust as we have in the past. The positives far outweigh the negatives with the issue finally coming to a close. Thanks, The McDonald family. Kevin, Kathleen, Joshua, Justin, Julia, Jane. SIS t ~ 'e> t1- 14//:1 D~ Vi.fNl (i'5'

1 Mayor Council

From: Lauren Munden Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 3:15 PM genda 13 ;;200-.,;0- To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: South lands proposal A FILE # CLlooio3CjD

Please register to Mayor & Council. Thank you.

-----Original Message---- From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:17 PM To: Eleanor Calderwood Cc: Dona Packer; Lauren Munden Subject: Re: South lands proposal

Greetings:

Thank you for your information; I will send it along to all members of council for their perusal.

Lois E. Jackson Mayor

On 12-06-10 10:52 PM, "Eleanor Calderwood" wrote:

>1 would like you to know that our family is in favour of the South lands >project moving forward. Thank you. > >Eleanor Calderwood Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their >5272 Upland Drive comments will be considered as part of the public consultation >Delta BC process for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment >V4M 2G4 and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all > >Sent from my iPhone correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will >------be summarized and reported back to Council. > >--~----~--~----~ >This email, and any files transmitted, is confidential and may contain >privileged information. Any unauthorized dissemination or copying is >strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please >delete it and notify the sender immediately. We may monitor and review >the content of all email communications. Trade instructions by email or >voicemail will not be accepted or acted upon. Please contact us directly >by telephone to place trades. Unless otherwise stated, opinions >expressed in this email are those of the author and are not endorsed by >Raymond James. Raymond James accepts no liability for any errors, >omissions, loss or damage arising from the content, transmission or >receipt of this email. Raymond James Ltd. is a member of the Canadian >Investor Protection Fund. >------> 1 Mayor Council ,...." P) From: J Pescitelli [email protected]] genda 1.3 ~b--~ c::~ Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:55 AM FILE # Ut f)[')h?/10 :z:, To: Mayor & Council A .... ' Subject: RE: South lands Development N ,....~ ..... Please not NEW return e:mail address r'ij U'I [email protected]

From: J Pescitelli [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June 12, 2012 10:53 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: South lands Development

Mayor - Council, Delta, B.C.

Please accept these comments on behalf of my wife and I re the Southlands development. We have been residents of Tsawwassen for 16 years and have been watching and listening to the ongoing battle between the Delta Council and the developer to develop this property. We feel that this would be right for the community and allow easier access to Centennial Beach and the Boundary Bay area. The trails are a great idea and would allow residents to access this beautiful area. The latest application by the developer to give a portion to the Municipality, allow for community farming and utilize the remainder for housing and park is an excellent one. We understand that there is a portion of the population that is against this for many reasons. Traffic and lack of wild habitat seem to be the main focus. The traffic should not be a problem once 56th is widened from Hwy 17 right to the USA border and the traffic lights are synchronized to allow freer flow of traffic along this corridor. We do need more residential area in our community to allow the area to grow. We do not wish to have to travel the Massey tunnel to do our personal shopping. If all the projects that are being planned for this area are completed, South Delta would benefit greatly as well as offer a larger tax base to our municipality. If we follow other communities, Surrey and Richmond, Council could negotiate as part of the development new roads and road access to these sites. We hope that Council takes these comments into consideration as the application process proceeds.

John & Judi Pescitelli i pescitell [email protected]

1 Mayor _Council

From: Christine Edlund on behalf of Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:42 AM genda 13Gf;o-dO To: Mayor & Council FILE # LL1.tJ[)IP39D Subject: FW: South lands A

Please register to M&C.

Thank you,

Christine Edlund Administrative Secretary to the Mayor The Corporation of Delta

From: Andrie Dayle [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June 13,2012 11:23 PM To: Mayor Lois Jackson Subject: South lands

Dear council members,

I would like to add my name to the list of Tsawwassen residents that would like to see development on the Southlands property. Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their comments will Sincerely, be considered as part of the public consultation process for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be Andrie Dayle reviewing all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will S08S 1" Ave, be summarized and reported back to Council. Delta, BC V4M 1B4

1 Mayor Council

From: Lori Weatherby [[email protected] genda I~O·-.;:>o ~ Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:17 AM :z:, FILE # tuooboCYD ..... To: Mayor & Council A w Subject: South lands o~ ttl Honourable Mayor and Council, W -.:J I am writing to you in regard to the issue of the Southlands property. My family and I have owned our home in Tsawwassen since 1992 and enjoyed growing up in this community. We,in turn, have raised our children in this community. Our current address is 5192 7B Avenue, Delta, B.C. V4M IS3.

I have been watching, quietly, the rhetoric in regard to the development of the Southlands property, currently owned by Century Holdings. I am astounded by the negative reception of Century's current offer of 60% of the land going to our community. What an incredible gift to us and future generations. I believe that the 40% remaining property will be tastefully developed and will bring positive growth to our area, support to our local businesses and a beneficial increase to our tax base which will benefit everyone. The planned gardens and trails will add to the enjoyment of a significant piece of land that is currently unavailable to the public.

I wholeheartedly support the Southland's Development Proposal and respectfully ask that you go forward with the process. 'YPE~eej\l krc (~'J~CI Thank you for your consideration. DEPT: CP+ l\

Lori Weatherby A. T. II: ..-1.\\!.J....3L.::...1-"<.9d~, Comments: J\i/lC 2:<:' ( ( 2-_ iC~U(tif Me c h!j

1 genda '3~D~ A FILE # UtobtoPflD " Mayor Council -N From: Janice Wasik [email protected]] 2::z:: Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11 :23 PM ...., To: Mayor Lois Jackson; Mayor & Council; Sylvia Bishop; Robert Campbell; Bruce McDonald; w Jeannie Kanakos; Scott Hamilton; Ian Paton Subject: South lands proposal rYPE: _Ke:J1f &u fi:!JCcrit. DEPT: C~!) June 12, 2012 AT #: fI :6£3 " Comments: 'Juac '- ') /( .2.- Dear Mayor Jackson and Council members: ~ "j [, lit(' fl1.re h)nj Regardless of the number of anti-South lands emails and letters that you may receive, I believe the silent majority has faith that you as our elected representatives will do the right thing, and they don't feel the need to flood you with letters and emails. The issue has polarized the community for too long and I implore Council to give the opportunity for a full and open discussion about the South lands proposal: if not then the final decision, whatever it turns out to be, will always have a cloud. In the end, it will be you who will be responsible for the decision about our future and that's what you have been elected to do.

I hope you do not choose to have a referendum because you yourselves are the oneS who can make the most truly informed deciSion, better than any referendum could ever provide. One only has to think about the frequent lack of education on issues and candidates' platforms and the poor turnout at election time (municipal. provincial or federal) to know that any referendum will never truly reflect the entire community, only those who went to the polls.

However, through an open process, you in your roles as Mayor and Council will be the recipients of the greatest amount of information and opinion, more than any individual citizens, and therefore you should have the best overall picture. Above all, I trust that you will not base your decision on your political futures, and that you will make the decision that you genuinely believe is in the best interests of the future of Tsawwassen, Delta and beyond.

At the very least, I support a very thorough investigation into the Century proposal for South lands from as many angles as pOSSible. Based on the information that I have to date, I strongly support the partial development of South lands in exchange for Delta gaining ownership and control of 80% of the land for agricultural, educational and/or public use. I believe that compromise is the best win-win scenario for people in the Southlands-The-Facts camp and those who believe that to progress and avoid stagnation, Tsawwassen needs additional, more affordable housing options for seniors and young families, while honouring the agricultural traditions of Delta.

Sincerely, Janice Wasik Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their 1027-51 Street comments will be considered as part of the public consultation Delta, BC V4M 3Z9 process for the Southlands Official Community Plan [email protected] amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing 604-943-0553 all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and reported back to Council.

1 genda 16<;l.-8:-0-JD-- nM~a~Y~O~r~C~o~u~n~c!iI ______~~~F~IL~E~# A ~LL~l~~Q~<=w=~=?=<=lo==:: ____ ~. - It From: Marty Reynolds [[email protected]] c.... Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:31 PM 2! To: Mayor & Council ...... o Subject: Southlands W fYPE_K.'(1 II tU e.:~~ ~ DEPT 'c-f'~ g Dear Mayor and Councilors AT. #: w II 31li£ o:l Comments: J\MIU/,L-"S I ('- I am in favor of the development of Southlands. {("1i1\(,;,/ {VleeDVIj Our community needs to grow at a measured rate, and requires a variety of housing choices. An important consideration is that this project will evolve over many years, and our infrastructure will to support the growth will evolve over that period.

This is a good proposal, and a good deal for Delta. The generous offer of land which will remain as green space is unheard of in other developments.

Thanks for considering my point of view, and good luck in your deliberations.

Sincerely.

S. A. Reynolds Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their 5318 Glen Abbey Place comments will be considered as part of the public consultation Delta, B.C. V4M4Hl. process for the Southlands Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and reported back to Council.

1 genda t~~n)lfl- Mayor Council A FILE # l..iL/)of0390 ,....• 0) From: Marty Reynolds [[email protected]] c::~ Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:19 PM :z::, To: Mayor & Council ..... Subject: The South lands Development Li.1 fWE: ~~~€!.CllolC1 o~ DEPT: . C P'l- D . CCI Mayor and Council of Delta W AT #: \\3/]95 CCI Comments: 2- I 2--. I am writing to register my support for the Southlands Development. J vlOe sf K.Cj'-tIA/ Medl~ I believe that this is a well thought out proposal that will be a real benefit to our community, and encourage council to give this proposal serious consideration. I am aware that there is a very vocal group against this development, but am also aware that this is the same people that are against any progress in this community. Given the demographics of Tsawwassen, we need housing alternatives such as this, that has been designed to make as minimal an impact on the environment as possible.

Please keep an open mind during your deliberations, and vote for what is best for the community.

Sincerely,

M. J Reynolds 5318 Glen Abbey Place Delta, B.C. V4M4H1.

1 genda \~W-~ Mayor Council FILE # LLLi9o{p, ..21Q A D' From: Trish Brennan [[email protected]] ~ Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 20126:38 PM ~, To: Mayor & Council ..... Cc: Trish Brennan; Kevin Brennan; [email protected] r) ~ UJ Subject: South lands Proposal fYPE:_J\CJi1 (i/ M¥"'-,5 DEPT: CPt)) ~. IX1 Dear Honourable Mayor and Council; AT #: \\ St0Lo ~~_ ~ Comments:Jt\(\t,..,2<)h2- . 1-' "Ce.<. We Me e, 111'{ I am writing in support of Century Group's proposal for the South lands . I feel very,J~' ~.J strongly that Mr. Hodgins' ideas are innovative, creative and a positive step forward for Tsawwassen.

I have lived in Boundary Bay with my husband and four children for almost ten years. My husband was born and raised in Ladner. Kevin, my husband, has served on the Delta Hospital Board for several years and continues this as well as other volunteer pOSitions within our school and his parents' apartment in Tsawwassen. His father, Terry Brennan, was also very active in our community for many years, acting as Deputy Chief of Police in Delta not being the least.

Our family looks forward to the day when we will be able to walk or bike to the Market Square at the Southlands, enjoy the trails and park space, perhaps have a coffee and a snack before purchasing our freshly "grown on the premises" produce for our dinner. What a great afternoon outing for a young family from Boundary Bay, or upper Tsawwassen for that matter.

There has been so much controversy regarding the quality of the farmland in question, but I believe that the groups arguing that the farmland is spectacular are forgetting about the cost of amending the land in order to produce successful crops. It seems to me that they believe that It is Century Group's obligation to take on this huge investment, when in fact it would be easier and much, much more lucrative for Century Group to put greenhouses all over the property (I guess I wouldn't need Christmas lights). I think that the people who are against this development are naive to believe and pro-port that if this proposal is denied, this tract of land will remain the same as it is today. It is wrong to say that consideration of the alternatives left to Century is bullying. It's quite simply economics.

The Southlands proposal is in fact not the most profitable venture that could be implemented on this property, but Mr. Hodgins has created a plan that would benefit our community much more than would his company's bottom line. Our children would not only be able to grow up to live and work in Tsawwassen, they would want to. This alone would create a better demographic for those of us whose taxes are supporting this community, as well as allowing families to stay together, thereby raising our children generationally.

It takes a Village to raise a Child. Everyone has heard this saying, and every person I've ever met agrees that it is true. This project, to my family and myself, is a Village for all of Tsawwassen to share and enjoy. I thank Mr. Hodgins and his team for his generosity and forward thinking practices in development. It is my sincere hope that Mayor and Council will not pass up this truly beneficial opportunity for our community.

Sincerely, Staff will be sending an email to the writer to advise that their comments will be considered as part of the public consultation process for the Southlands Official Trish Brennan Community Plan amendment and rezoning application. Staff will be reviewing all 162- 67 Street correspondence and noting comments and concerns which will be summarized and Delta BC reported back to Council. V4K 1M1

1 ..... Mayor Council P"- genda 13~e-cJe- .;..... From: Greg J. Edwards [[email protected] FILE # /!uoD(oo'1D c::: Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:41 AM A _ -- -- :;: To: Mayor & Council W Cc: Huntington, Vicki, MLA Subject: Opposition to South lands Development: Century Shows Southlands to be a great farm. " !,....

Mayor and Council

Re: Soil 'experts' off base on Southlands:

Curtis MacDonald tries to pull rank by slipping it in that he has practiced law and therefore implies that he's the only who knows that experts--including soil experts--can be bought.

Well, since Mr. MacDonald's a practiced lawyer, he'll agree that actions speak louder than words: in Delta Archives, he can find the Spetifores' ads displaying the bounteous crops they tookoffthe Southlands; the Southlands hosts Earthwise Gardens; Century Holdings invited Kwantlen University to set up an agricultural college and farm on the Southlands; Century Holdings is telling us that 80 per cent of the Southlands will make a great community farm if we let it build 900-plus little houses, town homes and condos on the 20 per cent that's flood-prone and subject to liquefaction during earthquakes.

I'd suggest we take Century up on its word: leave 80 per cent of Southlands in the ALR and transfer the remaining 20 per cent to the Boundary Bay Regional Park, a wildlife refuge.

Mr. MacDonald,