Monday, January 16, Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Time: 4:58 p.m.

Transcription

1 Monday, January 16, 1995 Council Chamber City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. Time: 4:58 p.m. Present: Mayor Bose - Chairperson; Councillor McCallum, Councillor Lewin, Councillor Higginbotham, Councillor Huot, Councillor McKinnon, and Councillor Villeneuve. Councillor Watkins entered the meeting as indicated in the minutes. Absent: Staff Present: Assistant. Councillor Robinson. City Manager, City Clerk, and W. Hyndman - Administrative A. CORPORATE REPORTS 1. The following Corporate Report was not dealt with at the January 9, 1995 Council-in-Committee meeting: Item No. C179 Proposed Concept Plans for Sidewalks & Tree Planting in Surrey City Centre ( /3) The General Manager of Planning & Development submitted a report concerning the proposed Concept Plans for sidewalks and tree planting in Surrey City Centre. The General Manager of Planning & Development was recommending that the proposed concept plans for sidewalks and tree planting in Surrey City Centre be adopted as outlined in the report. Councillor Watkins entered the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Councillor Villeneuve commented that this is a move in the right direction and requested that the subdivision and engineering by-laws be amended to ensure an integrated and planned approach to the development of the downtown centre. Councillor Huot stated that he has no problem with the proposals in the report, except for the danger that paving blocks pose to people in mobility carts, as well as persons wearing high-heeled shoes. He added that the annual maintenance could be costly and commented that he would support some type of concrete; however, he cannot support the proposed pavers. Councillor McKinnon commented that she attended a Search Conference recently and pointed out that the question asked most often was if the City Centre will include bicycle paths.

2 Councillor Lewin concurred with comments made by Councillor Huot regarding the proposed use of pavers and that potential hazard to the public. She then went on to reference an area on 88 Avenue where medians were placed and repeatedly torn up to permit the completion of outstanding works. She then requested the trees and pavers not be installed prematurely in order to avoid disturbing them, adding that it would be more cost effective. Councillor Higginbotham also expressed concern regarding the potential danger with pavers and commented that this could become a liability issue. She then commented on the need for curbs to be cut flush with the road and sidewalks in order to ensure people with mobility carts and walkers, etc., do not experience undue inconvenience. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Moved by Councillor Villeneuve That Council: Seconded by Councillor McKinnon 1. Approve the proposed concepts for sidewalks and tree planting as shown on the attached Plans 1, 2, and 2A as standards for Surrey City Centre to be implemented through servicing agreements; 2. Authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare a tree planting and maintenance program and planting specifications for City Centre based on the tree planting concept; 3. Authorize the Planning & Development Department to work with the Engineering Department and Parks & Recreation Department to develop and implement the standards, details and a maintenance program for an underground irrigation system for trees (and hanging baskets along the City Parkway) with a view to including the underground irrigation as a servicing requirement on major roads (including City Parkway) within the City Centre; 4. Authorize the Engineering Department to develop standards and details for low voltage hard wiring of trees on major roads (including City Parkway); 5. Authorize the Engineering Department to incorporate the proposed sidewalk designs (Plans 3 to 11) and tree planting concept and the underground irrigation system and electrical system into the Design Criteria Manual and Standard Construction Documents, General Conditions, Supplementary Specifications and Standard Drawings and the Subdivision By-law and introduce the appropriate amendments to the Subdivision By-law; and 6. Authorize the Engineering Department to develop a programme to retrofit, in accordance with this new concept, the streets in Surrey City Centre which presently contain substandard infrastructure standards and the lands are fully developed or will likely not be redeveloped except in the long term. 7. Authorize the Engineering Department to prepare costs and possible revenue sources involved in implementing and maintaining the proposed beautification program and to report to Council with the results. 8. Instruct the Engineering Department and Parks & Recreation Department to implement Recommendations 2 through 7 in 1995.

3 Before the motion was put: Moved by Councillor Huot Seconded by Councillor Watkins That the following wording be inserted at the end of Recommendation 1: "and that reference to sidewalks with unit pavers be removed and another surface be used;" During discussion of the amendment, members of Council acknowledged that unit pavers add variety in design and are aesthetically pleasing; however the installation practices should be reviewed. Councillor Higginbotham observed that some problems arise as a result of poor installation and suggested staff investigate as to whether the installation process has improved. Before the motion was put: Moved by Councillor Villeneuve Seconded by Councillor Higginbotham That Corporate Report C179 be tabled pending additional information from Engineering regarding the installation practices for unit pavers. Carried with Councillor Huot against. 2. The Corporate Report dated January 16, 1995, was considered and dealt with as follows: Item No. C180 Purchasing Policy ( ) The General Manager of Finance submitted a Purchasing Policy report prepared by a Multi-Department Task Force. noted that the revised policy will serve to: Clearly assign purchasing responsibilities and approval authorities. Provide cost effective and efficient procedures. Improve the quality of service the Purchasing Department provides. Standardize the policy and procedures for Council and employees. Councillor McCallum commented that the process will be decentralized and asked if better prices will be obtained as a result of it.

4 Councillor Lewin asked to be advised of the results of audits and any savings that this leads to. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Moved by Councillor McKinnon Seconded by Councillor Watkins That the purchasing policy submitted under Corporate Report C180 be approved. Carried B. ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL Due to time constraints the following item was not dealt with. 1. Development Permit No Ed Klassen Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd Street ( ) At the Regular Council meeting held on December 19, 1994, Council referred Development Permit No to the January 9, 1995, Council-in-Committee meeting to discuss the provision of a proper landscape buffer. Due to time constraints this item was not dealt with. At the January 9, 1995 Regular Council meeting, Council tabled the Development Variance Permit for this project at the request of the Planning & Development Department. It is in order for Council to table this Development Permit for a report from Planning & Development to address the issues. C. DELEGATIONS 1. Bruce Cox Regional Fish & Wildlife Manager B.C. Environment ( ; ; ) Mr. Jack Evans, a Wildlife Biologist with BC Environment, representing Mr. Bruce Cox, Regional Fish & Wildlife Manager of B.C. Environment, was in attendance to express concerns with respect to Agricultural Land Reserve Application for an ultralight airfield on property located at 4981 King George Highway.

5 Mr. Evans submitted a brief outlining his presentation. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Moved by Councillor Villeneuve Seconded by Councillor McKinnon That the brief submitted by Mr. Evans be received. Carried Mr. Evans made the following comments: Conservation groups and government agencies have worked in cooperation to enhance the area for wildlife and wildlife viewing, with approximately $1m dollars being invested; Over the 14 year span that Airflow Ultralights Ltd. has been operating in the area adjacent to the Serpentine Fen, there have been numerous occasions where ultralights have been observed and reported to be flying over, landing on or crashing into the Serpentine. These incidents have been reported to Transport Canada along with the registration number of the aircraft; however, these disturbances continue; Complaints to Airflow Ultralights Ltd. have not prevented the practice of aircraft flying directly over the Serpentine; Citizen groups and members of the public have often observed several thousand waterfowl in the air which were clearly frightened by low flying ultralight aircraft; The delegation suggested a solution to this problem would be to discontinue the use of ultralights from this location; Concern was expressed with respect to ultralight aircraft equipped with pontoons. The delegation advised that this type of aircraft has used the Serpentine River as a practice area for takeoff and landings and poses a serious threat to other areas of open water in the City where there are large concentrations of waterfowl; namely Mud Bay, Boundary Bay, Semiahmoo Bay, Serpentine and Nicomekl Rivers. Ultralights have been observed as they deliberately buzz resting, feeding and breeding waterfowl, shore birds and other wildlife at Serpentine. While this kind of activity is illegal, charges have not been laid as witnesses have been unable to prove the identity of pilots. The greatest number of complaints occur between April and October. It is during these months that there is intense use of wetland areas by migrating, resting and breeding birds; Wildlife related tourism in the Lower Mainland generated $294 million dollars in It is anticipated this industry will grow by 20% in the next five years and offers more revenue than ultralight operations can.

6 In his summary, Mr. Evans emphasized that the operation of ultralight aircraft continues to cause unacceptable levels of disturbance to both wildlife and the public using the area. He expressed a preference that ultralight activities not be permitted near sensitive wildlife areas. Mr. Evans then thanked Council for the opportunity to provide his comments on the use of ultralight aircraft in Surrey. 2. Mrs. Donna Harco ( ; ) Mrs. Donna Harco and representatives of various citizen groups were in attendance to emphasize and detail the most important reasons why Agricultural Land Reserve Application should not be allowed to continue its operation of an ultralight airfield on property located at 4981 King George Highway. Ms. Ruth Keogh, of Ocean Park Road, expressed concern with the Ultralight airfield being located next to the Serpentine Fen. She commented that this has been recommended as one of British Columbia's prime wildlife viewing areas and expressed the opinion that the Ultralight airfield is not a compatible use with this sensitive area. Mrs. Donna Harco outlined common concerns of residents impacted by the ultralight operation. She commented that many residents along the bluffs and on King George Highway, as well as Ocean Park, are longtime residents of the City, many people having lived in the same home from between 20 and 40 years. Mrs. Harco questioned a claim that a decibel meter showed a nil reading. She commented that these aircraft make a high-pitched, annoying noise which prevents many residents from enjoying their own backyard. She then commented on requirements which state that students must perform 30 take offs and landings prior to receiving a license. Mrs. Harco added that a student is only required to have 10 hours of lessons prior to being issued a license and, therefore, results in approximately three take offs and landings per student per hour. Mrs. Harco then commented on the possibility of the existing operation expanding. She pointed out that due to the prohibitive cost of Cessnas, ultralights are becoming a much more attractive alternative. She added that ultralights are not subject to Transport Canada airworthiness rules and stated that this is a self-regulating industry. Mayor Bose explained Council's policy of adjourning Council-in-Committee meetings at 6:00 p.m. and asked if Council would be agreeable to extending to 6:15 p.m. The delegation continued with Council's consent. Mrs. Harco then expressed the concern of farm owners adjacent to the airfield. The main concerns are with respect to ultralights swooping in too low and crashing into fences. Ms. Myers explained that she was representing the concerns of residents from East Panorama Ridge. She commented that she contacted 100 residents and only two declined to sign her petition. Ms. Myers discussed safety concerns and pointed out that this is an uncontrolled airfield with no Federal control tower. She added that most aircraft are privately owned and the operator has no control over the pilot.

7 Ms. Myers continued by noting that should Airflow's application be approved, the amount of air traffic will grow considerably. She commented that there are other local facilities for pilots to use and be trained and referenced Boundary Bay, Delta, and Langley. Ms. Myers then commented that residents are concerned about noise and the safety of residents from the uncontrolled airfield. She stated that residents want to be rid of the noise, harassment and lack of privacy the community has had to suffer. Mrs. Smailles recapped an incident which took place along Ocean Park Road, when an ultralight pilot continued to buzz a property after having been requested to observe Ministry regulations and not fly so close. Mrs. Smailles questioned why pilots are permitted to fly without any type of regulations and added that residents continue to be bothered by the noise of these aircraft. Mr. Wayne Worobec, representing residents from Trites Road and the West Panorama Ridge area, explained that many neighbours question how this group can operate when there are by-laws in place. He added that the ultralight operation does not conform to the Agricultural Land Act nor the Municipal Act. He then questioned if the Official Community Plan includes an airport. Mr. Worobec acknowledged that Council cannot make everyone happy, but suggested that the people who live in the area be given consideration and suggested that Council help the ultralight operation find an alternative location, while respecting the privacy of residents. As well, Mr. Worobec recommended that approval be withheld for this application. D. DELEGATION REQUESTS E. COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS F. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Lewin Seconded by Councillor McKinnon That the Council-in-Committee meeting do now adjourn. Carried The Council-in-Committee meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. CLKMIN 4118 Chairperson