Town Hall Meeting Notes - Covering Memo - Port of … Town Hall meeting on May 25, ... previous consultation that has taken place in the community commencing in the ... • I hear

the Strategic Action Group Tel: (604)980-3229 314 West Twenty-Seventh Street e-mail: [email protected] North Vancouver, B.C. V7N 2H4t

M E M O R A N D U M To: Steve Ono, City Engineer - City of North Vancouver

Peter Xotta, Vice President Planning and Development -Port Metro Vancouver

From: Raymond Penner, May 25th Town Hall Facilitator, the Strategic Action Group

Subject: Meeting Notes re Proposed Lower Road Improvement Project Town Hall (May 25, 2011)

Date: June 7, 2011 Attachment Port Metro Vancouver / City of North Vancouver - Proposed Low Level

Road Improvement Project - Town Hall Meeting Notes Port Metro Vancouver and the City of North Vancouver jointly hosted an Open House followed by a Town Hall meeting on May 25, 2011 in North Vancouver to provide the public with an opportunity to learn more about the proposed Low Level Road Improvement Project and to provide further comments. This meeting was scheduled as an additional component to the previous consultation that has taken place in the community commencing in the early part of 2011. The meeting was requested by the City of North Vancouver Council in preparation for a decision on the City’s support for the project.A Council meeting is scheduled for June 13, 2011 to address this matter.

As part of my role as a neutral facilitator for the Town Hall meeting portion of the evening, the hosts requested that I provide a report of the proceedings. The meeting was videotaped and a professional meeting recorder took notes of the meeting – these are attached. I have reviewed these notes and believe that they objectively reflect the main points of the conversations that took place.

The key themes from the Town Hall Meeting include the following:

• The main concerns that were voiced included: ! changes to the character of the neighbourhood in the area immediately upslope

of the proposed road; ! potential for visibility of traffic on the proposed road; ! potential increase in traffic noise and pollution both from what the community

believes will be an increase in volume and from the road being in closer proximity to their homes;

! hidden costs of the project that will be born by homeowners through potential devaluation of properties adjacent and near to the proposed road with no compensation from the project partners;

! benefits to the City seem inequitable in terms of the City land that will be provided for the project and impacts on the community; the main beneficiaries of the project were seen to be Port Metro Vancouver and its tenants;

! the road project will facilitate more activity at the Port, potentially cancelling out the benefits of reducing rail noise (shunting and train whistling at level crossings); and

! a request that needs of cyclists be addressed as the process moves forward the latest design.

• The community members acknowledged that potential changes to the project design as related in comments from both Port Metro Vancouver and the City of North Vancouver, in particular the commitment to try to lower the level of the proposed new road, might address some of the issues raised. However, there was also a theme of concern that the ability to make such changes is still unknown and that Council’s endorsement of the project to take it to the detailed design phase might constitute a “blank cheque”. While

- Page 2 -

the Strategic Action Group Tel: (604)980-3229 314 West Twenty-Seventh Street e-mail: [email protected] North Vancouver, B.C. V7N 2H4t

information was presented to attempt to provide some assurances to the community, the overall response was skepticism. This included doubting the following:

! the fixed project date based on the Federal government’s funding commitment deadline for project completion;

! the ability/willingness of the project partners to find a solution that will address the key community impacts; and

! the projected project benefits to the community of reduced rail noise would be met.

• The proposed project was also supported based on the following improvements that it would bring:

! stabilization of the bank that exists above the existing Low Level Road; ! better quality road (road surface, lane widths, drainage, cycling lanes, pedestrian

accommodation); ! better traffic flow with the ramps vs. the current level crossings; ! enhanced road safety via better traffic flow; ! significant upgrading to emergency responders’ access to Port facilities in the

event of an incident (life and death issue); and ! ongoing support for the growth of the Port’s business as an extremely important

component of the economic engine for North Vancouver.

The reader is encouraged to review the attached notes to see further details with respect to the themes that are noted in this covering memo. The video of the meeting will also be made available for viewing at www.portmetrovancouver.com

Sincerely

Raymond Penner

Summary of Port Metro Vancouver/City of North Vancouver Town Hall Meeting Held May 25, 2011 Page 1 of 17

PORT METRO VANCOUVER/CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER TOWN HALL MEETING

Proposed Low Level Road Improvement Project

Summary of the Town Hall Meeting on the Proposed Low Level Road Improvement Project held May 25, 2011, at the Pinnacle Hotel at the Pier, 138 Victory Ship Way, North Vancouver, British Columbia. Prepared by Christel Guenette, Raincoast Ventures Ltd. CALL TO ORDER

The Town Hall Meeting was called to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. 1. Welcome and Introductions

Raymond Penner, Facilitator, welcomed participants to the session. 2. Review of Agenda and Materials

Raymond Penner, Facilitator, reviewed the Town Hall Meeting agenda, and referred participants to materials provided at the session for information. Mayor Darrell Mussatto, City of North Vancouver, remarked:

• This project has a significant impact on everyone’s lives. Please respect everyone’s point of view at the meeting.

• Although we would have liked to have more time for this process, it must be completed March 2014.

• Many good questions have been asked at previous meetings. • There have been significant changes. • Council has been clear that it would like a win-win situation for Port Metro as

well as for the City in terms of land stabilization and the Spirit Trail. • There have been issues with noise; hope is to have a resolution to these issues

shortly. • Challenges for those that live in the area are acknowledged. • It has been frustrating to get information out to public.

3. Presentation

Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver, provided a presentation on the project, noting:

• There is a lot at stake and more conversations are needed. • There are potential benefits that people may or may not agree with. • The roadway could impact the lives of residents i.e. fumes, noise. • Have heard at past meetings that not all people are dead set against the

project, and that there could be broader benefits if the project is done correctly. • It is hard to evaluate the project because there are big potential benefits to the


City but real potential impacts if it is not done right. • We do not want to lose the opportunity for potential improvements to this 85-

year old road; the City cannot afford to do the project independently. • There is no guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the project outcomes. • There is going to be a solution that will lower the road but we do not know what

it will look like yet – we are driving towards this solution. • We are not quite as optimistic about fixing the road around St. Patricks due to

height restrictions but Port Metro is looking at potential solutions for this as well. • This is a very important project for the city, and an opportunity to deal with the

things that have plagued us for so long; this opportunity won’t come again. • Staff is generally supportive, but not unconditionally because of the need to take

into consideration the local interests. • Volume through the Port will continue to increase. • There is an opportunity for conversations on improvements to Low Level Road

through this project, especially slope stability. Robin Silvester, CEO Port Metro Vancouver, remarked:

• It is great to have so many people come out tonight to hear everyone’s views and concerns.

• We wish to ensure that everyone can enjoy the economic benefits that will arise from having the Port here.

• We are very mindful that growth that comes with trade must work in the community, and allow the community to continue to be vibrant.

• The $250 million program was put together in 2009 – $100 million is allocated to this low-level road project, and is an unprecedented commitment.

• The project would address significant concerns that have been raised in the community.

• Trade will continue to grow which is good for the economy and for quality of life. • Without infrastructure improvement, the community will suffer. • Growth in trade needs to take place in consultation with the community. • Time constraint has created challenges for the project; the $50 million received

from government requires the project to be completed by March 2014. • The City of North Vancouver and the Port would like to move forward with a

win-win project for everyone.

Duncan Wilson, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver, remarked: • This is about realigning and elevating the Low Level Road, and adding two

overpasses to access Port facilities. • Project benefits:

o include separated cyclists lanes and pedestrian sidewalks o reduction of rail noise – significant decrease in amount of shunting o rail whistling – eliminating of three crossings o retaining walls will be built which will reduce general Port noise o slope stability – multi-million dollar project that the City has to do o Spirit Trail overpass – community legacy project o drainage and other improvements along the road.

• Why? o Incentive to increase efficiency of retail operation and manage the

growth as it comes and minimizes impact on surrounding community. • Where are we in the process?

o Need Assessment – done by Transport Canada in 2008-2009


o Conceptual design phase – Port led this process in 2010; City Council reviewed and endorsed the concept

o Preliminary design – there is a fixed budget and need to address community concerns

o Council needs to commit to the project as the detailed design is a multi-million dollar process; the matter will be considered at the June 15, 2011 City Council meeting

• Feedback has been received from community since January 2011. • The community would like road to be lower; this is an ongoing concern being

considered. • Are looking at what can be done to lower the road at St. Davids and

Moodyville; retaining wall must go higher and thus costs rise significantly. • Are looking at the feasibility of removing St. Patricks overpass; there is still

need for access to the Port properties; City suggests that this can be through St. Georges; will discuss this option with partners.

• The intent is not to increase traffic on the road, but to increase rail capacity. • There are no plans for a container terminal • Attempts are being made to address all concerns brought forward by the

community. • There is need to consider the broader benefits for the whole community as well

as impacts on the nearest neighbourhoods. • The project budget is limited, there is not a bottomless pit of money.

4. Questions and Answers Questions and comments from participants were welcomed, which prompted the following exchange with City and Project Team members present: Marcus Bowcott, Norgate resident:

• I hear a lot of trains and do not mind particularly that much. • I work at Capilano University and cycle there; I love to cycle along the

waterfront. • It is wonderful to be situated between nature, industry, and residential. • I see the process as deeply flawed:

o It is a pressure cooker of federal money with a “take it or leave it” attitude. o There has been use of the worst type of corporate advertising trying to sell

us on this, and not listening to residents. o There is need for more time; progress will happen; and the City will be just

fine – we do not have to rush this. o What I am hearing from politicians and Engineers is that they are frightened

by what they see here in terms of the public response that they are not too impressed by the “take it or leave it” approach.

o I am afraid the waterfront will compare to Seattle’s waterfront, which is designed for cars and not people.

• How many acres would we be giving to CN? John Grant, 500 block East 2nd Street:

• I appreciate the sentiment about hearing what our concerns are and that you are thinking about them.

• I appreciate you coming to us about a road that will come into our backyard. • I am troubled by the blind leap of faith shown on June 13th. • What happens if this is tried but it does not work to get the road low enough?


• If the project does go ahead, consider variations of the types of sound walls. • I would like to get this road lowered. • With all the money involved you should be able to find a way to get it out of

sight. Make it happen. Ken Tollstam, City Manager, City of North Vancouver:

• Staff will only support the project if residents in the area who cannot see the road now, will not see the road.

Michelle Binkley, 500 block East 1st Street:

• A picture of tracks is the picture that I see. • Numbers must balance if we are going to go ahead

o Cargill – net earnings $2.6 billion o CN – $2.1 billion o Neptune – sales $3 billion o I could not find information on JR Richardson.

• If you have to spend $5 million better that it be from your pocket than ours. o $5.196 million (21.65 %) of dropped property values in the red zone. o Spend your $5 million not ours.

Robin Silvester, CEO Port Metro Vancouver, remarked:

• There is only a certain amount of funding available without the Federal government.

• If stakeholders will not get a return, they will not invest. It’s a real question of ‘how much will they put in?’

• The project budget is fixed; if it goes over budget, the project will not happen and the benefits to the Port and community will not be realized.

Cole Perry, Neptune Terminals employee: • I worked for 21 years at CN Rail, and now the last 20 years at Neptune • I can feel the emotion of the residents. • There is need to address safety – existing conditions are incredibly unsafe for

employees. The Lower Road is currently too close to rail. • I have concerns regarding congestion, confusion, and collisions.

o Vehicles are parked along the road. o It is a mad dash for people trying to turn left. o There are multiple rail track crossings. o At one of the signals all you see is cars parked and collisions happen. o Regarding collisions:

! Lower road heading eastbound near Neptune crossing is a little jog. ! Large trucks come down at high speed and have no idea there is a

little jog in the road. ! This repeats itself constantly.

• I appreciate that residents have more to say, but as a person who works there, I would like to get home safely.

Greg, 400 block E.1st A participant remarked:

• Is the Port willing to do an assessment of property values before and after this project and then pay homeowners the difference?

Peter Xotta, Port Metro Vancouver, remarked:


• We believe this, on balance, is a benefit to the community, and we do not believe that the properties, in the broader sense, will be impacted; in the context of acquisition of properties we are not in a position to do that due to the budget constraints we have previously talked about.

Heather Drugge, 33 Chesterfield Place, representative of the Cycling Coalition:

• I am present representing cyclists that use bicycles as their primary means of transportation.

• The Cycling Collation thinks this project is very forward thinking and would like to thank the City engineers for their efforts.

• Benefits – getting rid of the huge puddles on the existing road that are dangerous for cycles; and improved lighting and rail crossings.

• We have been working with the Port and City, and we appreciate their time and effort.

• Proposed hill elevation is at a 6.4% grade at eastern entrance; this is currently the only flat route for cyclists – request to reduce level of grade to 4% at most.

• In Detailed Design, would the Project Team consider moving the project east to reach the lower road and height required.

Chris Hall, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver, remarked:

• The eastern end is about 6.5% grade for 75m, the rest is below 4%. • There will be a reassessment of the junction of Cotton and Hayward. • We will strive to reduce the grade.

Heather Drugge, 33 Chesterfield Place, representative of the Cycling Coalition:

• The road is designed for speeds of 60 km/h. • We are asking the Project Team to consider physical separation barriers

separating cars from bikes during Detailed Design.

Chris Hall, Project Team, responded: • Most of the bike lanes in Vancouver are 1.5 m. The design shows 2 m. • We have already planned 2 m for bike lanes, which does not include separation. • There is still latitude in the design to allow for some physical design separation

between bicycles and cars. • There is concern about cars breaking down and rolling off the road and what

this would look like if there were physical separation barriers.

Ron Polly, 800 block Cumberland: • I started at Neptune in ’74 and had to visit the terminals. • Things have changed: rail cars have increased in size but infrastructure has not;

and the embankment has issues that need dealing with. • Have you considered going in from Brooksbank? Every time a crossing was

down that was how we got out. There are already improvements going on – can this not be included in that?

• The political climate has changed – can our MPs not go to their people and let them know we have hit a couple of snags?

• This is a long-term project, we need more time, but it is possible to do. • Level grade crossings are dangerous; I have seen kids playing at them, and

have seen what happens when people get hit.

Dennis Bickel, Project Team, responded: • Brooksbank was not considered.


• The terminal would need to respond to that. • The 2014 deadline is firm.

Mark Thompson, Program Manager, Transport Canada, advised:

• The program was set up in 2006 with money set aside for improvements to encourage trade to the Asia-Pacific region.

• For this project to be eligible, it has to be created within this timeframe. • There are no plans for the Federal government to set any more money aside –

money will not be available after this. • This is a window until March 2014 unless other funds are made available

elsewhere.

Brian Windatt, 48 St. Patricks, on behalf of North Shore South Slope Community Association:

• There should be more direct community input before Council approval is granted; you cannot expect approval without a plan that is actual and firm.

• I do not know what the actual design looks like, but it should not be done until the design is approved.

• Everyone here is a stakeholder; all community groups should be given a forum at a roundtable; we have a lot of issues to explore – this type of process needs to be entertained; the City could attend presentations by groups.

• Has the Federal government been asked for an extension due to TransLink pulling out?

Duncan Wilson, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver, responded;

• Consultation did not stop when Council approved the concept. • When Council agrees to move forward the partners will continue on. • The project is constantly being refined. • There is need to decide whether to move forward given the cost. • The City would gladly participate in a roundtable forum. • We have pushed the timelines so that we could have this meeting tonight. • In terms of the timeline the project would need to be substantially complete

within the timeframe of the funding which is why there is very little flexibility. • We are committed to going through this project with you.

Tyler Russell, Café for Contemporary Art:

• I run a shop so I understand the need for businesses to move goods efficiently. • I fundamentally support businesses expanding their facilities to better serve

their customers, and very much support Canada’s quest to have deepened trade relations with Asia.

• However, this project was sold to the community as a Low Level Road Improvement project – but that is not true, it is a Port expansion project.

• If this came to me as a proposal from the Port as a solution to contend with their growth it would have sat better.

• Why should I support companies that make billions so that they can expand while I struggle to make a penny?

• Why does the City continue to take tax from me but donate land to billion dollar companies?

Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver, responded:

• There are benefits that come from this project: slope stability, Spirit Trail legacy, bike lane improvements, and opportunity to address traffic concerns; we would


like these types of projects to be funded from other sources rather than from the City. The city cannot afford it.

Steve Nasby, 2000 Block Windridge Drive: • I am the Vice President of the Longshoremen, representing 5,000 workers. • I have heard a lot of great concerns, from people that moved out because of

growth. • The road improvements are needed. • I had a worker fall out of crane get injured – he is still not back to work several

years later because we could not get an ambulance into him. • I understand house and view concerns and think that these should not be taken

away. • We fight every day to make sure that things are safe. The Port knows this but

they say community has to be considered. • They want to reduce emissions. Why? To improve the air quality in our City. • The Port does not only work with big corporations – little guys, i.e. coffee shop

owners, also ship goods through the Port. • I do not want to take anything away from the concerns raised – but growth will

happen. Question asked from card – Aranka Lukacs, representative from Advisory Committee for Disability Issues:

• Once the project design is complete with sidewalk, and curb grades as well as pedestrian – how much participation will there be to ensure that accessibility issues will be addressed?

Chris Hall, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver, responded:

• It comes back to detailed design when looking at grades. • We will work with a number of associations. • The City road would be built to specifications. • When we get to detailed design that is when we will consider accessibility

issues – some of this will be in detailed design phase. • It is a little premature to give specific details.

Michelle Binkley, 500 block E.1st:

• Thank you Steve, Mayor, and Councillors who have taken time out of their day to talk to me; we do feel that we are being heard.

• A Port expansion will bring on more noise and pollution. • No one has answered the question of how adding an extra rail line is increasing

capacity and volume – there will be more pollution from trains – what are cumulative effects going to be?

Chris Badger, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver, responded: • Noise and pollution will increase; the Port anticipates 3% growth every year,

compounded – that is Canada’s trade increasing. • Pollution studies are ongoing to benchmarking air, noise and water pollution at

present. • We are focussing on process so that as we increase we reduce or keep level

the amount of pollution.

Juergen Baumann, Project Team, Port Metro Vancouver:


• The Port is and will continue to grow; to accompany that growth, we have designed and implemented programs to address pollution concerns.

Michelle Binkley, 500 block E.1st :

• Where do you go to find this information? • I appreciate those who have been available to respond to questions regarding

the Port growth. • If this project is built in conjunction with other projects, this will have adverse

effects.

Joanne Lantela, 400 Block Alder Street: • I understand the potential benefits, but please deal with the chronic problems. • If the Port came to us with their growth ideas, I would be happy to hear them. • When it comes to legacy, this is a “bunch of crap”. • Words like reduce, mitigate, and favour are words without meaning. • You seem to asking the City for blank cheques. • Will you be asking that the road or road traffic be out of sight?

Ken Tollstam, City of North Vancouver, responded:

• The motion that will be put before Council will include reference to the sensitive area around the bank.

• A motion to approve would be based on the understanding that residents would not see the road and vehicles, including trucks.

• 500 and 600 blocks will not see the trucks and road.

Joanne Lantela, 400 Block Alder Street: • What about Alder Street?


• This is a real problem area because of the bank. • One of the proposals is to remove the overpass; having an overpass requires a

certain height; the road has to go up in elevation. • Intent is that residents will not see it – without detail design, the best guess is

that 95-99% of residents are not going to see it – if you do not see it now, you will not see it then.

Joanne Lantela, 400 Block Alder Street:

• I’m that one percent you just mentioned. I will see the road.

Ken Tollstam, City of North Vancouver, responded: • Do you see the road now? If you do not see it now, you will not see it after • The proposal will include a subject to this effect.

Joanne Lantela, 400 Block Alder Street:

• I do not see the road now. • I saw from your design that the road will go down 1.7m. This 1.7m is from what?


• The motion will be worded to say that if you cannot see the road and traffic now, you will not see it when the project is completed.

• We are trying to find a win-win. • That will be the recommendation so that we are looking out for your interest.


Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver, added:

• We have spent time talking about this. • We are going to try to get rid of the overpass and have it shift to St. George’s –

this should give opportunity to lower that road past Alder Street.

Jim Belsheim, President & CEO Neptune Terminals: • I am a proud member of the North Shore community for the past 40 years, and I

applaud this process. • The honesty is critical. We will get something that works. • Neptune supports it. • It is an economic benefit to the Port. We do not make billions of dollars, we are

a service company that services people- we live and die based on the ability to service customers.

• We support the project for two reasons: o Picture for yourself the Low Level Road having one or two train crossings.

There will be all these cars backed up from all directions and in the midst of all that mess need to wait for gap in order to cross. Put into that mix bicycles, cars, trains, and pedestrians and this becomes very dangerous.

o To the owner of the espresso shop, the Port has 400 employees that cannot go to the shops because they cannot get out and cannot get to work on time – these are your potential customers.

Brian Lydall, 500 Block E 1st Street:

• The real goal is to raise Low Level Road, and move it as far north as possible to free up space for additional rail tracks; to do this means running through the buffer zones that currently block out noise and pollution of Port industry.

• I have walked that road; at the eastern end there is sufficient room to build an overpass to the terminals, from ground level. Moving west this runs out of space.

• Because of conditions, retaining walls will need to be built – but roads should be built at the foot of walls.

• Safety is achievable while leaving the road at its current level; raising the road is not justifiable; the buffer zone will be lost.

• The project legacy will be increasing noise and pollution to the neighbourhoods – we do not want industrial road in our neighbourhood.

• It works fine where it is now. • North Vancouver is famous for its quality of life. • Keep the lower road where it is.

Ian Macmillan, Norgate resident:

• 35 years ago I lived on the 400 block of E 1st Street. I did not hear trains at all. But 25 years ago I did hear some noise. However, since leasing rail land, the Port noise has increased significantly and has been intolerable for many residents.

• This project affects everyone: $50,000 will be the costs incurred for those who want to move; this cost comes in the form of commissions, moving costs, etc.

• I do not believe that retaining walls will reduce sound. • In my experience, increase in rail traffic will increase noise.

Don Pullen, 900 Block E 4th Street:

• Some items that concern me.


• I commend people from Neptune for coming and showing community support. • Two rail lanes are not in this budget. How is that going to lower noise levels? • Noise barriers between St. Davids and St. Patricks are needed. • Now there will be an intersection for Low Level Road and Birch Street hill that

will drastically impact this neighbourhood. • Why is this area not part of this (around Windsor Plywood)? • Why is the Eastern section not being addressed?

Juergen Baumann, Manager Environmental Program, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver:

• The Port will buffer rail noise through the road being elevated; the retaining wall will also buffer some noise.

Heather Drugge, 33 Chesterfield Place, representative of Cycling Coalition:

• Vancouver Cycling Coalition does not believe it should be an act of bravery to cycle to work.

• Currently only 3% of commuters use bicycles as their main mode of transportation.

• 2 m lanes are a good start; however barriers will increase perception of cyclist safety.

• We want roads that everyone will cycle on – that is a road of the future. • Will the current design, before detailed design, consider reducing speed of road

to 50 km/h? This would go a long way to reduce noise and increase safety.

Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver: • Regular road speed is a City matter. • There is primary purpose for designation of a major road – it moves goods and

increases certain efficiencies to serve its purpose. • I cannot say for sure what the final speed limit will be.

John Orr, CN Rail employee:

• I deal with rail operations in regard to safety and safety of employees. • We are blessed to have an agency such as the Port – they are very progressive

with this project. • This is a unique process in that there are opportunities to allow people to be

heard. • Doing nothing puts employees at risk; there have been many recent incidents

with rail/vehicle crossing; an employee was killed. • We support this – it addresses real needs and takes into account the

community issues and concerns.


Participant (Name Unknown): • I support the project. • Regarding safety – the Port hires men and women in the hundreds who cross

the rail lines hundreds of times of day; they need more access to emergency responders.

• Economic impact is 2,000 jobs – this is one of the only significant industries that has bright future in front if it.

Mary Anne Ketchen, 400 Block E. 2nd Street:

• I work for the largest university that has its building funded by the federal government.

• Our project will not be done in time; we will be allowed to extend the deadline – deadlines can be stretched.

Graham Parkinson – 600 Block E 4th Street:

• I have dealt with all the negative effects of the Port. • The key issue is the Low Level Road – its alignment is too high. • The overpass seems to rule the elevation – I am encouraged that the Port and

City have worked to reduce overpasses and height. • Another concept may be climbing lanes and turning lanes and oblique

overpasses, which may allow more height to clear the rail lines, There are a few places that it could be done, i.e. St Patricks, over by east side, Brooksbank. I like the Brooksbank suggestion.

• If you do need to make a change, it must be done in the preliminary stage. • The Port needs something from us and we need some improvements from the

Port: we need community amenities; address sound emissions from Cargill elevator; machinery is exposed.

• To make this project a success make sound absorbing on this shed – the Port is familiar with making sheds.

Bernice Heimann, Lower Lonsdale corridor:

• I would love to see this project go ahead. • I would like to bike to work but the road right now is too busy. Even if I drive, it’s

still dangerous. • If this project does not go ahead, is the City willing to do something to make

these improvements?

Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver: • There are some improvements included in the capital program, i.e. extending

the pre-existing mesh, and resurfacing the Low Level Road – but that is all that we can afford with $800,000 for improvements.

• There would be improvements in Spirit Trail further down the road as part of capital program.

• Hopefully we can find a win-win situation.

Carol Abbott, 700 block E.7th • In the presentation to Council, it was stated that this project needed to be

substantially completed; here you say that it needs to be completed – what is it?


Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver:

• What I understand from the Federal government is that is has to be completed by March 2014 – substantially completed means fit for use.

Carol Abbott, 700 block E.7th:

• Why is the whole east side of Cloverly not being considered when it comes to everything that is happening in that area? It is going to affect us environmentally.

• This is going to affect the North Shore. With this road going higher and more traffic coming, it is going to really affect the environment, and increase pollution and noise. It will affect the whole city.

• Before final approval, we would like the City and Port to also consider implementing a coal cover that is made by local company – that coal is in our houses and in our lungs.

• A stamped retaining wall should be on south side with a bell curve on top that will help those in the Cloverly area.

• Why can we not have an underpass or an avenue with an entrance into Neptune through Brooksbank Road?


• The impacts on the Cloverly area is a focus; there is a lot of work to do with the Port in regard to the 3rd Street hill.

• There have been lots of questions to the City regarding Heywood and 4th Street, however, I apologize that this has not been my area of focus.

• The consultation will continue.

Tyler Russell, Café for Contemporary Art: • When I first heard about the project, I had just gotten off a 911 call regarding a

cyclist that had been injured on the Low Level Road; it is great that this will help to save people.

• I want to understand what my return on investment will be. I want a numbers breakdown. How much money is going to be coming back to me as a taxpayer? If the investment is worth it I want it to be executed in a way that is considerate of neighbours in the area.

Duncan Wilson, Project Team, Port Metro Vancouver:

• Economic impact analysis is factored in when approaching government. • On an annual basis, Port related activities contribute $1 billion to the GDP in

Canada, $1 billion in tax revenue to all levels of Government, $600 million of which is to the Federal Government, who is the primary funding agent here.

• When we look at projects like this, they more than pay for themselves in terms of return on investment.

Brad Eshleman, President, Western Stevedoring:

• I operated in the North Shore for 30 years, and strived to contribute and operate in a respectful manner to community.

• Access to Brooksbank is actually 6-7 rail tracks; redevelopment in that area will prohibit any access to the Port.

• Timing – under these programs, any change in the timing of the project requires federal legislation, which requires an act of Parliament; government does not alter legislation for one community.


• The Mayor and Council are putting significant pressure on the Port with regard to the concerns that are expressed by the community.

• Economic benefits include that this will provide a lot of jobs to the North Shore; and these improvements will last 50-100 years.

• I support the project, and hopefully it can meet all your concerns.

Sasha Wise, 600 Block E 1st Street: • I am concerned about the cumulative affects. • Have there been studies related to noise and pollution? • The timeline is quite short and I am concerned that there is not sufficient time to

get enough of a baseline on pollution and noise. • I am also concerned that there is going to be an increase in traffic; there will be

an increase in the numbers of container trucks on these roads and they will be producing large amounts of pollution and creating lots and lots of smog.

Juergen Baumann, Project Team:

• The work that the consultant did was to industry standards. • We are confident the baseline was sufficient. • There is a Port quality specialist here.

Gary Olszewski Project Team Port Metro Vancouver

• Container trucks have a program to address emissions; if you only pick out one, it is not representative of what we do; we do mandate that they do keep up to a certain level of emissions.

Sasha Wise, 600 Block E 1st Street:

• Why is a truck that is polluting so much on the road? If we have more container trucks on the road, we will have more emissions.

Chris Badger, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver:

• It does not necessarily mean that this truck is a container truck for the Port. • Call 604-665-9004 if anyone sees a container truck pouring out emissions – be

sure to get the registration number from the truck and we will deal with it and get it off the road.

Rebecca Salit, 300 Block E 1st Street:

• I have been woken up early mornings by the whistling. Is there a way to implement an anti-whistling bylaw?

Chris Badger, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver:

• If you have an uncontrolled crossing, you must whistle. • It has been brought forward to work on a noise mitigation program. No whistling

would be required between two bridges. • This project would eliminate three crossings with intent to have no whistling

between the 1st and 2nd Narrows Bridges.

Rebecca Salit, 300 Block E 1st Street: • Why does West Vancouver have bylaws?


Mayor Darryl Mussatto, City of North Vancouver:

• We cannot do this legally – this ability is no longer available for us to do as it was when West Vancouver passed their bylaw.

Warren Chandler, CN Rail representative:

• Whistling represents 60% of issues surrounding the Port; it is legislated by the federal government and is a safety mechanism.

Rebecca Salit, 300 Block E 1st Street:

• Can it not be regulated for volume control?

Warren Chandler, CN Rail representative: • There are too many people that get injured on tracks; it takes three years for

any changes to be enacted; crossing has to be upgraded so that people know a train is coming without whistling.

Kate Saw, 800 Block E 4th Street:

• This process is being misleading; there was only small signage letting us know about this meeting – no one was notified of the meeting.

• This impacts my community. • I knew about the noise before I moved in, but there is no report out there about

the impact of future noise. I appreciate that is something that is now on radar. • Maybe we will change this later – If house plans are not allowed to be changed

after approval from the City, why would this? • We need detailed information before this goes to Council – put it in bold writing

so it is not hard to find. • What will those who will not see the road see? Will they see a barrier? That

needs to be addressed.

Steve Ono, City Engineer, City of North Vancouver: • I have the same questions. • We are working with the Port. • To get those answers, the Port needs to spend $5 million. • This project is a challenge because it is difficult to find balance between

community and the Port. • I do not think this opportunity will come around again – we do not have it in our

coffers to do this ourselves. • Transport Canada has managed to get these different companies to sign on the

dotted line to put money into this project.

Noel McFarland 100 block, St. Georges: • Train whistles are my main concern; since 1958 West Vancouver has banned

train whistling. • I reviewed the highlights of the process of what community has done regarding

noise issues, i.e. petition • Extension of St. Georges would eliminate crossing. What happened? It was

gated off so you it cannot be used. • Two crossing are not needed at all. Why do we not tear out those crossings and

then eliminate the whistling?


Carol Abbott:

• I would like to know from Neptune terminal if the covering for coal has been presented to the Board of Directors.

Rob Booker, Operations Neptune:

• We have been presented the dome; we continue to explore this option but it is not simple to implement; it is not at the level that we can present it to the Board.

Carol Abbott:

• It cost $250 million to do potash shed; $250 million went to the Port of Prince Rupert, which is why I’m wondering about a shed. The City can answer about taxes and what these companies are paying to the City.

• What are the taxes that Port and partners pay annually, and what kind of tax increase can residents expect?


• There is no correlation for the Port to make payments in lieu of taxes; it is outside of our jurisdiction, and dependant on senior legislation.

Carol Abbott:

• I have a report here in which a property tax cap was placed on designated Port facilities for the period of 2000-2014; it means that taxes would not be raised for 14 years but city residents’ taxes are increasing.

• We are 55% shareholders in this project.

Chris Badger, Project Team, Port Metro Vancouver • Industry on the Port was paying a disproportionate amount of tax into local coffers,

and we the residents have been doing well and benefitting from that. The provincial Government recognized that this was not sustainable, so they put a cap on it.

• Do not blame the industry – they are paying their portion of tax.

Ken Tollstam, City of North Vancouver,:

• When property values go up, taxes go up; the rate itself is limited; however, the rate for businesses is 20x what family homes are paying. Assessments are going up.

Mario Parent, 400 block E.7th:

• I am very proud as a young man to be part of this process. • Everyone has brought forth clearly their ideas. • I will take what I’ve heard here to the local youth, and would love to spread what

I have heard.

Don Worthington, 400 block E.1st: • I’m concerned about the safety of staff who work on the waterfront. • Has anyone addressed tunnel concept?

Richard Lyell, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver:

• In 2007 when the initial study was done many options were studied, including a tunnel; and options to take forward were narrowed; many were considered and


discounted but may be revisited; they just were not feasible. • Tunnels create issues with regard to groundwater and leave a different type of

footprint. • We are struggling with the land that is available.

Participant (Name Unknown):

• Have you considered the cost of a bridge over top of the railway?

Richard Lyell, Project Team Port Metro Vancouver: • This was considered but it would have to provide clearance over the track and

structures; the project footprint would also increase and extend into the bank; it would also double the cost.

• Building over tracks also has difficulties maintaining rail tracks, and construction would take longer.

5. Closing Remarks

Participants were thanked for their interest and comments regarding the project, and were encouraged to continue dialoguing with all the parties involved. The session concluded at 9:19 p.m.


PORT METRO VANCOUVER

Proposed Low Level Road Improvement Project

TOWN HALL MEETING ATTENDANCE

More than 200 participants attended the May 25, 2011 Town Hall Meeting at the Pinnacle Hotel, 138 Victory Ship Way, North Vancouver, British Columbia. The following persons were also in attendance: City of North Vancouver Mayor Darryl Mussatto Ken Tollstam Steve Ono Tony Barber Dragana Mitic Heather Reinhold Project Team Port Metro Vancouver Chris Badger Juergen Baumann Dennis Bickel Chris Hall Sarah McPherson Robin Sylvester Duncan Wilson Peter Xotta Raymond Penner, Strategic Action Group, Facilitator Christel Guenette, Raincoast Ventures Ltd., Meeting Recorder

Documents

Town Hall Meeting Notes - Covering Memo - Port of … Town Hall meeting on May 25, ... previous consultation that has taken place in the community commencing in the ... • I hear