2. resources be allocated for sustainability planning and execution in the amount of $30,000 for 2011 and $30,000 for 2012; and
3. the Sustainability Plan and Community Energy and Emissions Plan be returned to Council by September 2011 with public input incorporated and a status report on the actions outlined in the Plan.
1.1 ParkLane Urban Reserve – Application for Official Community Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment
File: 6700-20-774 / BL2853 / BL2854
“City of Port Moody Official Community Plan 2000, No. 2465, Amendment Bylaw No. 33, 2010, No. 2853 “ and “City of Port Moody Zoning Bylaw 1988, No. 1890, Amendment Bylaw No. 199, 2010, No. 2854” a bylaw to create 27 new single family residential lots in the Urban Reserve area of Neighbourhood 2.
The following written submissions were provided ontable:
Deana Grinell, Parklane Homes, email dated January 25, 2011 in support of the application.
Sara Breakspear, email dated January 25, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Oddy Trillo, email dated January 25th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Donna and John Filippelli, email dated January 25th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Marjan Jensma, email dated January 24th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Angela Salehi, email dated January 24th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Sonja Lindstrom and Dean Urquhart, email dated January 24th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Anne Brevig, email dated January 24th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Robert McAlpine, email dated January 24th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Bill Shanbill, email dated January 24th, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Nicola Ho, email dated January 23rd, 2011, in opposition to the application.
Karen Carson, email dated January 21st, 2011, in opposition to the application.
The City Clerk advised that all statutory requirements had been met and the Director of Development provided an overview of the application.
Bob Charbonneau, 184 Sycamore Drive, questioned why there is a public hearing when the Land Use Committee unanimously did not support the application and the proposal has not changed since then. He objected to the green space access points in that they may become public access points rather than simply for emergency response. This, he suggested, contributes to more residential breakins, vandalism and trespassing. He proposed that the access points be locked and signed as being only for emergency response. Alternatively, he suggested they beremoved completely to maintain a consistent tree buffer.
Pat Anderson, Sycamore Street, expressed concern that fire and ambulance vehicles will have difficulty with emergency response given the grade of this development. His concern is life safety as the access facilities are not adequate.
Matthew Campbell, 176 Sycamore Drive, expressed concern for the environmental impact. He noted that the trails between homes will become pathways that people will use to access the forest but those trails do not lead anywhere and will damage the forest floor and waterways. He also expressed concerned about deforestation in that the area is similar in size to Newport Village. Replanting in existing development has not been sufficiently successful. There is a natural habitat in that green forested area which is a fragile ecosystem that will be negatively affected. There is also a pipe left over from construction, as well as other construction debris which has yet to be cleaned up. He suggested a requirement that they must provide animal proof garbage receptacles. He advised that ideally he would prefer the area be left as is but if homes must be built he requested that the number of homes be reduced. He submitted a handout showing what he and neighbours feel would be a better project. He requested that the developers be required to restore flora and fauna from construction damage and that the area behind their homes be revamped. He suggested no trails and walking paths for public access to that area and if the paths are needed for fire protection there should be a locked gate for emergencies only.
Gayle Dalli, 148 Sycamore Drive raised the issue of water pressure which she noted was raised at the Land Use Committee meeting. She advised that the existing water pressure is not sufficient and does not meet standards and to introduce a pump station to serve additional houses will have a negative effect on existing houses.
Paula Sawrenko, 180 Sycamore Drive, advised that her property is bordering the proposed development site and she is concerned about blasting that will be required for the development. She inquired whether Parklane would be required to make any commitments to safe blasting to prevent damage to existing adjacent homes and whether Parklane would be required to fix any resulting damage. She inquired about what would typically be done to prevent damage to the structures and property of nearby homes and their drainage systems, underground running water under driveways and roads and the drainage along nearby interceptor channels which prevent runoff to downhill residents. She inquired whether there would be an independent inspector to evaluate their homes prior to blasting to ensure that damage caused by the blasting could be identified.
Sacha Davenport, 181 Sycamore Drive, expressed concern with traffic safety and traffic impact. She estimated there would be 50 to 70 additional vehicles in the area noting that vehicles are already travelling extremely fast through areas that have children’s play areas. She suggested traffic calming measures be implemented and more stop signs be installed.
Mark Breakspear, 177 Sycamore Drive, expressed the concern that tree removal will be more extensive than Parklane’s images suggest. He expressed the preference that the pathways between homes be removed out of a concern for public safety in the remote forested area and power line right of way. He also cited potential danger to new homes because of the difficultly emergency vehicles would have accessing the proposed houses. He noted that there are more break-ins in the houses that currently have public access lanes behind them. He expressed concern for the environmental impact of this development given the size of the area to be cleared related to the number of homes proposed. He noted a previously proposed development where land was cleared then development abandoned and would not want that to occur again. He also expressed the concern that this project would make the water pressure problem worse. He also cited concerns with the high elevation and steep grades, blasting and potential damage to neighbouring homes, traffic concerns and traffic volume.
Elaine Golds, 554 Yale Road, on behalf of Burke Mountain Naturalists, expressed objections to the development noting that protection of the watershed as an important issue. She suggested that this Acreage Reserve land is not suitable for development. She expressed concern for the impact on Noons Creek which already runs almost dry in summer which has been the resulting impact of other developments. She suggested that further development within the Noons Creek watershed could tip the fragile balance and turn Noons Creek into a winter stream with no opportunity for the survival of Coho and Cutthroat Trout. She advised that the forest that remains must be left to protect the watershed and the upper reaches of Noons Creek and to support other species at risk which need the forest and year-round water for survival. She expressed the view that this proposed development is not sustainable and noted the new Official Community Plan’s sustainability principles, nor does it help achieve Regional Growth Strategy targets. She described the development as little more than suburban sprawl high on a hill which is contrary to OCP policies. She noted that the provincial government is rolling out a new plan to cope with global warning and suggested that all the forest in the remaining acreage reserve be protected for its carbon sequestering potential and other environmental benefits. She suggested that Parklane could be a champion of this new provincial program. Ms Golds submitted a letter dated January 25, 2011 outlining the concerns of Burke Mountain Naturalists.
James Mattson, Noons Creek Hatchery, noted the problems with the Noons Creek watershed and the impact of development which this proposal would worsen. He noted his historical background on the quality of water that flows into creeks now as compared to 22 years ago. He advised that over the past 10-15 years Noons Creek has experienced problems with quality and quantity of water that flows into it which has been affected by the cutting down of trees which are needed to create a water reservoir which can seep into the water table during dry weather to support and cool streams. He advised that currently, the water storage in the ground is almost gone and water is warming to a point which kills salmon. He advised that right now Noons Creek is at a tipping point and if any more of the forest is removed and impermeable housing and streets replace it that might mean the demise of the creek.
Ruth Foster, Bedwell Bay Road, Belcarra and co-founder of the Mossom Creek Hatchery since 1976 advised that as a volunteer with Burrard Marine Enhancement Society she is concerned with the watersheds and the impacts that development will have on Mossom Creek and Noons Creek. She advised that for many years Mossom Creek could be said to be almost pristine with good water quality and temperature that was better than Noons Creek. She advised that comparing Mossom and Noons Creeks over the years, volunteers have noted the flash floods, low volumes and high water temperatures are now apparent in the creeks. She advised that the more of the watershed that is removed, the worse the problem becomes. She asked that, for the environment’s sake, this portion of the Noons Creek watershed be left intact.
Deana Grinnell, Director, Land Development, Parklane Homes, 1055 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver referred to the changes made to the proposal since the Land Use Committee meeting. She noted that the road standard and access meet the city’s grade standards and has been widened for emergency access. She advised that the proposal has been reduced by one lot. She noted the concerns regarding the access points and that Parklane can do something there. She advised that they do expect to complete the development program to complete construction. Regarding tree removal and replacement, she advised that Parklane does work with an arborist for tree removal and replacement and that hundreds of trees would be replaced. She advised that there would not be much blasting and they would assist in an inspection protocol before starting blasting. She noted that they heard the traffic capacity and calming issues at the open house and they would be willing to discuss traffic calming with the city. Regarding streamside classification and conservation concerns, she noted that this area is part of the overall upland reserve noting that 75% of the land they own will remain in a forested condition.
Declan Rooney, Hunter Laird Engineering, engineering firm for Parklane Homes, clarified that with respect to water pressures, at the highest point of the existing development, the top water pressure is in the order of 45 psi. At the time the water system was designed and constructed, the standard peak hour water pressure was to be no lower than 40 psi so their calculations indicate that the water pressure at the upper most part of the proposed development is adequate. He advised that their studies show that the water pressure impact will be minimal or undetectable.
Brent Hilpert, Alderside Drive, expressed the view that this area is a questionable area to develop due to the geography. Regarding the issue of access points, he advised that there are numerous trails through the development and the previous trails that he used to travel have been obliterated by the homes that are there now, so he does not feel that blocking off the proposed access points is reasonable.
Graham Kjargaard, 79 Hawthorne Drive, expressed opposition to changing the northern part of the neighbourhood from A2 to RS8.
Gail Dalli 148 Sycamore inquired about what the roadway grade is going up to the highest proposed lot.
Mr. Rooney responded that the average grade is about 10%.
Pat Anderson suggested there would not likely be sufficient water pressure to put out fires in the houses at the top of this development. He advised that a safe grade level for insurance purposes for areas above the snow line is between 4 to 8 percent. He also expressed concerns about potential blasting insurance claims.
The question on third reading of Bylaw 2853 and 2854 as amended was put and DEFEATED.
Voting against: Mayor Trasolini, Councillors Clay, Elliott, Lahti, Rockwell
A gentleman who, during the public hearing, raised concern about public safety and emergency response vehicle access to Cranberry Court was requested to clarify this issue. He advised that it was during a snow storm where fire and ambulance had difficulty responding to a call about a pregnancy.
THAT staff advise the proponent of this resolution and that the property owner of 2025 St. Johns Street be instructed to provide written confirmation to the City by January 31, 2011 to proceed with a new public hearing with respect to Bylaw No. 2589;
AND THAT should the property owner wish to proceed with a new public hearing, third reading of Bylaw No. 2589 be returned to Council for consideration of rescinding on February 8th, 2011 and consideration of setting a new public hearing to be held on February 22, 2011 at Port Moody City Hall, 100 Newport Drive, with respect to Bylaw No. 2589 given the significant time lapse since the close of the April 13, 2004 public hearing;
AND THAT should the property owner not respond by January 31, 2011 or indicate that they do not wish to proceed with the subject application, Bylaw No. 2589 be returned to Council for consideration of abandonment in accordance with Development Approval Procedures Bylaw No. 2543.
“City of Port Moody Fire Hall #1 Construction Project Loan Authorization Bylaw, 2010, No. 2878” a bylaw to authorize the borrowing of funds for the replacement of Fire Hall #1, 200 Ioco Road, Port Moody.
“Are you in favour of Council adopting Bylaw 2878, a bylaw to authorize the borrowing of up to $16,000,000 toward the construction of a new Fire Hall to replace the old Fire Hall #1?”
AND THAT Port Moody Council work with the neighbouring Municipal Councils of Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, and Port Coquitlam to discuss these matters with the executive of the Fraser Health Authority at a future date and time to be determined.
THAT the following items from the Capital Project PreApproval Submissions for Budget Year 2011 document be removed from the pre-approved Capital and Operating Projects for 2011:
THAT the following remaining 2011 Capital and Operating Project items from the Capital Project Pre-Approval Submissions for Budget Year 2011 document be pre-approved: