, . . ~

CITY OF BURNABY

TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

NOTICE OF OPEN MEETING

DATE: TUESDAY, 2014 MARCH 04

TIME: 6:00 P.M. (Dinner served 5:00 p.m. in Cafeteria)

PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, MAIN FLOOR, CITY HALL

1.

AGENDA

MINUTES

(a) Minutes of the Open meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee held on 2014 January 07

PAGE

I - 5

2. DELEGATIONS

(a) Diane Gillis, President 6 Kingsway Imperial Neighbourhood Association (KINA) Re: Traffic Safety in the Kingsway / Imperial area Speake.,.: Diane Gillis, President, KINA

(b) Mina Rohani, Program Coordinator 7 Eastburn Junior Youth Group Re: Crosswalk on Kingsway between Edmonds St. and 14th Ave. Speakers: Morby ladell, Sami Agosom, Shina likasa, Mahi Hussain,

Mukhtar Afadish, Mohammad Amirul, Raviell Srivarathall, Erfan Farhangpour and Mina Rohani, EastbuTll lunior Youth Group

3. CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORTS

(a) Correspondence from Claude Tani Re: Pedestrian Concerns at Georgia Street

And Madison Avenue

8

· . Traffic Safety Committee Agenda - 2014 March 04

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

Correspondence from Terry MacDonald Re: Parking on Resi~ential Streets - Brentwood Park and

Brentwood East Subdivisions

_Correspondence from Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion (BROKE) Re: Information on proposed public procession on 2014 April 12

Correspondence from Karon Trenamon Re: Right-hand Tum Lane at the Edmonds Street

and Kingsway Intersection

Correspondence from Linda Jenkins Re: Traffic on Halifax between Gilmore and Willing don

Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Re: Community Impacts of the Proposal to Eliminate Home

Mail Delivery Service by the Canada Post Corporation

Report from Director Engineering Re: Safety Concerns at Douglas Road and Sprott Street

Report from Director Engineering Re: 2014 Local Area Service Program for Speed Humps

3. NEW BUSINESS

4. INQUIRIES

5. ADJOURNMENT

Page 2

9 - 14

15 - 16

17

18

19 - 34

35 - 39

40 - 50

CITY OF BURNABY 2410-20

TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

An 'Open' meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee was held in Council Chamber, City Hall, 4949 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC on Tuesday, 2014 January 07 at 6:00 p.m.

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

STAFF:

Councillor Sav Dhaliwal, In the Chair Councillor Anne Kang, Vice Chair Councillor Pietro Calendino, Member Mr. John Artuso, Citizen Representative Mr. Ashak Dhanani, Senior Citizen Representath:e

..

Ms. Natalie Gobis Cutayne, School Board Representative Mr. Bob Heslop, District Parent Advisory Council Representativ!' Mr. Eric Laity, Citizen Representative : Mr. Cory Redekop, Burnaby Board of Trade Representative Ms. Karon Trenaman, ICBC Representative " Mr. Andre Zavaglia, Coasf Mountain Bus Company Representative

Mr. Nikita Vizniak, Citizen Representative

Mr. Stuart Ramsey, Manager Transportation Planning Mr. Doug Louie, Assistant Director Engineering, Traffic & Parking Management Insp. Steve Wilde, Assistant Operations Officer, RCMP S/Sgt. Pat Reilly, NCO In Charge of Traffic, RCMP Ms. Eva P~ior, Administrative Officer Ms. Therese Nielsen, Adm~nistrative Officer

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:09 p.m.

1. MINUTES '.

(a) Minutes of the Open meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee held on 2013 November 05

MOVED BY MR. LAITY: SECONDED BY MR. ARTUSO:

"THAT the minutes of the Traffic Safety Committee Open meeting held on 2013 November 05 be adopted."

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

01

....... ,.

Traffic Safety Committee Minutes - 2014 Janua/y 07

Page 2

The Committee requested an update arising from the presentation (Delegation 2 (b) , 2013 November 05, Ms. Cherie Moses) on Graveley Street traffic concerns. Staff undertook to provide information regarding this matter at the next Traffic Safety Committee meeting,

2. CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORT

MOVED BY COUNCILLOR CALENDlNO: SECONDED BY MS . GOBIS CUTAYNE: . , "THAT the correspondence and report be received."

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

(a) Correspondence from Ms. Kelly Engleson Douglas Road Crossing Guard Re: Pedestrian Concerns at Douglas Road aD'd ,

Sprott Avenue " ,

".:

" -.

Correspondence was received from Ms. Kelly Engleson, a Douglas Road crossing guard, regarding pedestrian safety at the corner of Douglas Road and Sprott Avenue due to truck traffic .

Staff advised the Committee that while reviewing various construction options for pedestrian safety at this 'intersection, many may not work due to spatial limitations. Staff will conduct a further review for options and implementation, and increased patrols will be launched by the RCMP,

(b) ' Corre~pondence from Ms. Jordanna Spellman Re: Pedestrian Concerns at Edmonds Street

And 16th A venue

Correspondence was received from Ms, Iordanna Spellman regarding pedestrian and traffic safety concerns at Edmonds Street and 16'h A venue.

The Committee was advised that this section of Edmonds Street, is scheduled within the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan, to construct to full standard. At that time, a further review will be undertaken to review if other improvements are required in conjunction with the streetwork. Staff will contact the correspondent to explain the City's Capital Improvement Plan,

Councillor Kang retired from the meeting at 6:44 p,m.

02

, ,

(

{ )

( )

Traffic Safety Committee Minutes - 2014 January 07

(c) Correspondence from Mr. Tony Morrell Re: Pedestrian Safety at Hastings Street

And Gilmore A venue

Page 3

Correspondence was received from Mr. Tony Morrell regarding pedestrian safety at Hastings Street and Gilmore Avenue ..

Coullcillor Kallg returned to the meetillg at 6:46 p.m. alld took her place at the Committee table.

, Staff advised that the RCMP and Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) jointly reviewed the incident. Mr. Morrell was contacted directly regarding the outcome of the investigation.

(d) Correspondence from Mr. John Artuso Re: Traffic Concerns at Gilmore A venue

and Lougheed

. '.. . Correspondence was received from Mr. John Artuso regarding traffic at Lougheed Highway and Gilmore Avenue. Mr. Artuso queried the feasibility of widening the southbound lanes of Gilmore Avenue, north of Lougheed Highway, to include a right hand turn lane and possibly an additional through lane. .

Staff advised the Committee that the City currently owns rights-of-way on the west side of Gilmore A venue at Lougheed Highway, but is currently' waiting for development on the east side of Gilmore Avenue to accommodate the widening of the southbound lanes. Arising from discussion, the Committee ' requested that this item is forwarded to the Transportation Committee f? r.review.

(e)

.'

Correspondence from Mr. Brendan Materi Property Manager 7488 Byrnepark Walk Re: Parking Restrictions on Southpoint Drive

Correspondence was received from Mr. Brendan Materi regarding parking restrictions on Southpoint Drive.

A comprehensive parking review was undertaken by staff due to the adjacent school and park site at this location. A four hour parking restriction (Monday - Friday 8:00 - 6:00 p.m.) was implemented on this section of Southpoint Drive to accommodate school, park and public use. Staff will write to the correspondent to outline the process and result of their review.

03

-. ,. 04

Traffic Safety Committee Min.utes - 2014 Jan.uary 07

(f) Report from the Director Engineering Re: Traffic Concerns at Capitol Hill

Elementary School

Page 4

A report was received from the Director Engineering in response to a petition received at the 2013 November 05 Traffic Safety Committee meeting from the Capitol Hill School Parent Advisory Council (PAC) regarding traffic safety concerns.

Various traffic control measures, Parent Advisory Council (PAC) and school administration recommendations were presented. The City. and. RCMP resources will continue to provide support, where appropriate, and as resourc,es and priorities allow.

The Director Engineering recommended:

1. THAT the Committee recommend to Council the installation of the various traffic control measures outlined in this report,' and ..

,", ~

2. THAT a copy of this report be sent to Capitol Hill Elementary i School Parent Advisory Council, Capitol Hill Elemental')' School, and School District 41 for information.

-. MOVED BY COUNCILLOR CALENDINO: , _". SECONDED BY MR. LAITY:

"THAT the recommendations of the Director Engineering be adopted."

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3. NEW BUSINESS .'

Nataii~ Gobis·Cutayne

Ms. Gobis Cutayne presented follow-up on Item 2 (b) (colTespondence from Ms. Cynthia van Ginkel) from the 2013 September 03 meeting regarding pedestrian safety at Confederation Park School. A letter was received from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department addressing concerns and expressing interest in working together with the School District to come up with solutions.

John Artuso

Mr. Artuso expressed thanks to the Committee and staff for the paving of depressions at Kensington Avenue and Hastings Street.

Mr. Artuso indicated that other depressions can be found westbound on Hastings Street at Springer Avenue; and approximately 66 m west of Springer A venue on Hastings Street.

Staff undertook to investigate.

( )

( )

\ J

(

Traffic Safety Committee Minutes - 2014 JanualY 07

Karen Trenaman

Page 5

Ms. Trenamail thanked Councillors, RCMP and staff for volunteering at the annual evening of participation on 2013 December 14 for Operation Red Nose. The volunteer turnout was above average with their being 25 teams of 3. This event was a success and all donations will go to 'KidSport' .

4. INOUIRIES

No inquiries were brought before the Committee at this time.

S. ADJOURNMENT

MOVED BY MR. LAITY: SECONDED BY MR. ARTUSO:

"THAT the Open meeting do now adjourn."

The Open meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. "

Ms. Therese Nielsen ADMINIS'J;'RA TNE OPI:ICER

/.

, '

•

...

'.

:" .... -..

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

, ,

Councillor Sav Dhaliwal CHAIR

05

Hi Therese

I will be speaking as the representative of Kingsway Imperial Neighbourhood Association . The topic is Traffic Safety in the Kingsway Imperial Neighbourhood Association community.

Than k you

Diane

President

Kingsway Imperial Neighbourhood Association - KINA

Diane Gillis 6675 St. Charles Place

Burnaby, BC V5H 3W2

From: Nielsen. Therese Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:47 AM To: 'Diane Gillis' Subject: RE: Traffic Safety Committee

Hi Diane, Thank you for your inquiry. I have placed KINA on the agenda for the March 4'h Traffic Safety Committee meeting. Please let me know by 2014 February 18'h who will appear and speak as the delegation and what the topic is. Also, please let me know if electronic equipment is requi red so that I can ensure that they are avai lable. I will also require a copy of your presentation, if providing one, by 2014 February 26.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, Therese

Therese Nielsen I Administrative Officer

T, 604.294.729S I Fa" 604.294.7S37 E: therese.nielsen@burnaby.ca

OB

..

(

To Whom It May Concern:

We are the members of the junior Youth Spiritual Empowerment Program in the Edmonds area of Burnaby. We are a group of 15 youth between the ages of 11-14. In our group we learn together, do fun things together, and think of ways to make our community a better place. To make our community a better place, together we carry out service projects in Edmonds. For example over the past year we have cleaned garbage, collected clothing and food for the homeless, and put on a festival

. for the younger children in our neighborhood. We are now working on a project to try to get a crosswalk on Kingsway between Edmonds Street and 14th Avenue.

Whenever we decide what our next service project should be, we try to think of what our community needs. We thought of the idea of having a crosswalk on Kingsway because many of us in the group j-walk across Kingsway between Edmonds and 14th to get to school. Also, a few of our friends have been hit by driving cars crossing this part of Kingsway. We decided, to prevent other kids from getting hurt, and to make our community safer, that this is something our neighborhood really needs!

As a way to start this service project we decided to survey our neighbors to see if they also thought we needed a crosswalk on Kingsway between Edmonds and 14th. So far we have surveyed about 100 members of the community. One of our group members heard that on March 4, .2014, the city would be having a meeting to discuss traffic and road concerns in Burnaby. We would like to ask for the opportunity to attend this meeting, present the findings of our survey, and to talk more about why we think the neighborhood needs a crosswalk on Kingsway. The members of our group who would like to give part of the presentation on March 4th are: Morby jaden, Sami Agosom, Shina Likasa, Mahi Hussain, Mukhtar Afadish, Mohammad Amirul, Ravien Srivarathan, Mina Rohani and Erfan Farhangpour

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, The Eastburn junior Youth Group

Mina Rohani Program Coordinator 778-558-451 5 minarohani9@gmail.com

07

From: To: Cc: Subject: Date:

Dear City,

Cla!Jde r ani

Qaude rani

Georgia St and Madison Aile intersection January-27-14 2:26:28 PM

SEOION 3 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE City Manager Dir. Engineering Dir. Planning & Building Traffic Safety Committee

Please install four way stop signs at the above intersection. Cars are parking too close to the intersection and it is becoming very dangerous to cross.

Please call or email to let me know what you will do about my request.

Thank You, Claude 604-255-8172 4252 Grant St. , Burnaby, V5C 3N9

08

4863 Brentlawn Drive Burnaby, BC V5C 3V4

10 February 2014

The Mayor and Council City of Burnaby 4949 Canada Way Burnaby, BC V5G 1M5

SECTION 2 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE City Managei Dir. Engineering Dir. Planning & BUilding Traffic Safety Committee

Dear Mayor Corrigan and Councilors:

The Commitment to the Ratepayers of the Brentwood Park and Brentwood Eut Subdivisions

This is a follow-up to my 3 February 2014 letter to Mayor Corrigan. That~ttached 4-page letter dealt with the issues presented to the Traffic Safety Committee, in Mr. Matthew Senfs 10 April 2013 report and his 5 November 2013 presentation, regarding the need for traffic calming measures on Brentlawn Drive, and the need to reconfirm the commitments given by the City to the ratepayers of the above subdivisions. I have not received a reply.

In this letter, in anticipation of the public meeting scheduled for 2S February 2014 to discuss the first tower planned for the Brentwood Town Centre,l want to further address parking on residential streets.

We've seen quite a change in recent years in the Brentwood Town Centre region. First came the Millennium Line, then construction ofa POD ("Pedestrian Oriented Development"), and now here comes a TOO ("Transit Oriented Development"). At the public hearing on December 5th I noticed City residents who live outside of our neighbourhoods are very much in favour of the proposed changes. The residents of the neighbourhoods immediately adjacent to the TOO, notso much, they have serious reservations. One area of great concern is the Increase in traffic and how the City has been dealing with parking on the reside ntial streets.

Sign age of a general nature is posted in adjacent neighbourhoods to discourage TransLink users from parking on residential streets. Graveley Street is an example where more specific parking restrictions are posted to discourage parking by TransLink users and local workers, and Ridgelawn Drive Similarly to discourage parking by apartment dwellers. Regardless of whether there Is signage or not, policing is left to the residents, traffic officers will not take action unless a resident complains.

I complained once. A young man who resides in the POD, was parking his pleasure vehicle in front of our residence ... we're on a corner lot, 50' x 120', that due to parking restrictions provides us with sufficient space to park just one vehicle. The fellow would park his vehicle, remove his construction tools, walk across the street, and drive away in his pickup truck that had been parked there overnight The traffic officer left a notice on his vehicle (I don't know i(itwas just a warning. or a ticket). Well, the young man ' approached me, he argued, politely, but sttll, it upset me.

I haven't called for a traffic officer since' then; I don't want strangers approachln,:l me and I certainly don't want to take the risk of getting Involved in a hostile confrontationl

expect other neighbouring residents; daytime and nighttime visitors; and out-of-town family and friends may need to park in front of our residence on occasion. The City Bylaw certainly provides the

09

ability to control an abusive situation, with the assistance of a traffic officer, but seldom ever is there a need to rely on the Bylaw. However, the situation in our neighbourhoods Is not the norm.

It's different in the neighbourhood west of Delta Avenue, on Ridgelawn Drive and Brentlawn Drive as examples. Many residents of the POD are parking on adjacent residential streets. They are parking during the day for periods exceeding 3 hours (Bylaw 5410,6134,6912); they are often parking for periods of time exceeding 24 hours (Bylaw 4760, 6912); and they are parking in areas where they would be unable to respond within 1 minute to the sound of the vehicle's security system (Bylaw 11697).

We don't know why they are parking on our streets. However, it appears the development is not en tlrely attracting occupants that meet the model tenant criterion. Rather, the development too easily can attract multi-vehicle oriented occupants by simply mentioning parking is available on adjacent residential streets.

I cannot understand why the City approved a Pedestrian Oriented Development without contemplating the obvious adverse effect the current Bylaw would have on the adjacent single­family residential envIronment!

It's different In the neig)lbourhood west of Willing don Avenue, on Graveley Street as an example. SkyTrain users and local workers are parking on their streets.

I cannot understand why our City is encouraging transit users to park their vehicles on our residential streets, encouraging them to drive their vehicles Into our neighbourhoods rather than using a bus to connect with a host ofSkyTrain stations located throughout our City!

I cannot understand why our City is encouraging local office and other workers to park their vehicles on our residential streets rather than usIng pay parking lots or a TransLink system that delivers them right to their doors!

And. here comes the Transit OrIented Development. hurtling down on us faster than a speeding bulletl First. there will be hundreds of construction workers and then the apartment buyers, and the renters. all having to make transportation choices based on regulations our community have in place at the time.

The existing Bylaw needs to be revIsed. This cannot wait The revisions need to be made immediatelyl

Yours very truly,

. ~(£)o?~~ .~M

Terry MacDonald terrY,.I]1<!cdonajd@me.com 6041 '/f,/-3/f1

• PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

A.....tuJmml,lJl!:. Letter to Mayor Derek Corrigan dated 3 February 2014

cc: Matthew Senf 4811 Brentlawn Drive

2

10

(

)

\ 4963 Brentlawn Drive Burnaby, BC VSC 3V4

3 February 2014

Mayor Derek Corrigan City of Burnaby 4949 Canada Way Burnaby, BC VSG 1M2

Dear Mayor Corrigan:

The Commitment to the Ratepayers of the Brentwood Park and Brentwood Bast Subdivisions

A number of years ago the City of Burnaby made a commitment to keep all residential streets in the above subdivisions isolated from the traffic systems servicing existing and future high density developments in the area bounded by Beta Avenue to the west and Springer Avenue to the east, and by Lougheed Highway to the south and Ridgelawn Drive/Halifax Street to the north.

Also, and at the same time, the City made a commitment to the above subdivisions to keep other "rat­running" traffic off our residential streets.

One of the immediate issues at that time was a large high- and low-rise apartment development by Bosa Construction planned for the area east of Delta Avenue and adjacent to existing apartments located west of Springer Avenue.

The other immediate issue was the extremely high volume of morning traffic heading west, along Parker Street and down Springer Avenue and through the residential streets of the Brentwood East subdivision, along Broadway Avenue and north on Springer Avenue, with all that traffic culminating on Halifax, continuing west along Brentlawn Drive, across Willingdon Avenue and along Graveley Street Reverse the s4me route travelling east and you had the same extremely high volume of evening traffic.

The ratepayers of the above subdivisions joined together to form the Brentwood Ratepayers Association (the "BRA1 and held public meetings attended by City Council. The process to obtain the City's commitments was not an easy task. There were many ratepayers who opposed Bosa's plans and any future similar developments for the area. Rather, there was the desire to add single family dwellings to the areas east of the Brentwood Town Centre and the opinion all apartment developments should be located to the west of Willing don Avenue and south of Lougheed Highway. In the end the City's commitments were a compromise to the hard-nosed position. A working committee was formed, made up of members of the BRA, the City's Planning Department and Mr. Bosa to implement a number of recommendations.

In summary, Parklawn Drive and Dellawn Drive were blockaded at Springer Avenue and Halifax Street was blockaded east of Tara lawn Court The plans for the apartment site were revised: the towers were relocated to the bottom of the site near Lougheed Highway and the low-rise apartments were terraced below a green belt added" at the top of the site on Halifax Street Vehicle access to all apartments located east of Delta Avenue was only permitted via Springer Avenue. A left: tum lane was installed on Lougheed Highway to enable eastbound traffic access to Springer Avenue.

11

Further, Mr. Bosa constructed a frontage road, an extension of Anoia Drive, that would dead-end at Delta Avenue; however, this was done with the intent the road would continue west of Delta Avenue connecting all existing and future apartment developments west of Springer Avenue to Beta Avenue and the Brentwood Town Centre; Delta Avenue would be closed to trafflc at Rldgelawn Drive; and a traffic light would be installed at Beta Avenue and Lougheed Highway to provide convenient vehicle travel in and out ofthe apartment sites and the Brentwood Town Centre.

Now, tell us, where did the commitments made by the City go off the rails?

The traffic system for the new apartment complex between Beta Avenue and Delta Avenue is not isolated from the Brentwood Park Subdivision residential streets. The residential streets of single-family communities should not be expected to service high-density communities. This is notan unrealistic expectation!

There was obviously a decision made to not extend Anoia Drive through the new apartment complex from Delta Avenue to Beta Avenue and the Brentwood Town Centre. A driveway, Brentwood Drive, was constructed between Delta Avenue and Beta Avenue. However, there's no street parking and individuals for whatever reason are forced to look for daytime and/or evening parking on adjacent residential streets. I blame the City for approving this so-called ·pedestrian oriented" traffic system.

As an example, I've inserted a photograph taken out front of our residence, on Brentlawn Drive at the comer of Delta Avenue, on Saturday moming, February 1". None of the vehicles belong to Brentlawn Drive residents. Notice there's a Toyota Tundra pickup truck, a Design Roofing panel truck, a Mini Cooper, and a Coast Capital utility van. Other than the Mini, they are typical of those who own vehicles used for pleasure purposes and have the use of a company vehicle for travel to and from home,

,I' 12

(

(

There seems to be a double standard with respect to street parking. Homeowners who wish to add an income suite In their premises must provide additional off-street parking. Yet apartment dwellers can park their vehicles on residential streets In the evening. arrive and depart at any hour of the night or moming. without any restrictions. And, unless 'the homeowner complains, they can park there all day. ' We need a remedy.

Along with the decision to not extend Anoia Drive, Delta Avenue was not closed. Rather, a median running from Lougheed Highway to Ridgelawn Drive was constructed. As a result, access from Delta Avenue to Brentwood Drive is only available to vehicles southbound on Delta Avenue. Northbound vehicles, other than emergency vehicles, cannot access Brentwood Drive. This may have been an attempt to encourage traffic to enter and exit the apartment complex via Beta Avenue. But, that's not working. for some. Northbound vehicles simply continue up Delta Avenue to Rldgelawn Drive and U-turn. Vehicles exiting Brentwood Drive, who wish to travel north on Delta Avenue, drive up on the wrong side of the median and move over to the right hand lane when they reach Rldgelawn Drive. Medians should be utilized where there is a traffic safety concern, and as a traffic control device in some situations .. . but the design should not to encourage unsafe traffic behaviour.

On the other side of the new apartment complex, there's the traffic light at Lougheed Highway and Beta Avenue, intended to facilitate traffic in and out of the apartment sites and the Brentwood Town Centre. The traffic light, however, was not intended as an alternative route for "rat running" traffic to travel through Brentwood subdivision residential streets. Vehicles travelling north on Beta Avenue from Lougheed Highway that do not turn east onto Brentwood Drive, or turn west into the Brentwood Town Centre entrance, for the most part are rat-running west on Brentlawn Drive to WilIlngdon, or east on Brentlawn Drive to Delta.

( Before going any further, I want to mention the concern 1 have for the safety of the pedestrians crossing Beta Avenue between Brentwood Drive and the lower entrance of the Brentwood Town Centre. There is a crosswalk across Beta Avenue at Lougheed Highway, but the hill Is very steep, not conducive to individuals to walk up and down the hill. Frankly, I believe Beta Avenue should be blockaded at Ridgelawn Drive and a proper pedestrian crOSSing constructed at Brentwood Drive. Constructing a blockade here also eliminates the problem described above.

Southbound and northbound traffic on Delta Avenue and Willingdon Avenue are rat running through many Brentwood Park Subdivision streets. The City has had to deal with rat-running complaints pertaining to many of our streets, and currently is dealing with the complaints of Brentlawn Drive ratepayers and GraveJey Street ratepayers. J've been told the City is planning on constructing a median on WilJ ingdon Avenue when it's widened and the only access Into the Brentwood Park Subdivision southbound from Parker Street will be located at the Brentlawn Drive/Graveley Street intersection.

Perhaps the reason for designing the above intersection on Willingdon Avenue at Brentlawn Drive/Gravely Street is because the designers have been misinformed. I've been told that Brentlawn Drive has been designated a "Residential Collector". This is ridiculous! Brentlawn Drive does not meet the criterion to be designated as such. In fact. by design, the residential collector for the Brentwood Park Subdivision Is Midlawn Drive. One just has to take a look at a satellite view of the subdivision to see that all streets in the subdivision can be accessed via Midlawn Drive. And. Midlawn Drive meets the collecto~ criterion. You could in fact change the Brentwood Subdivision to a "gated" community by blockading all streets, at Willingdon Avenue, Delta Avenue and Beta Street, all streets other than Midlawn Drive. An Interesting solution, jfpush came to shovel Regardless of future alternatives, If there is going to be only one southbound entrance into the Brentwood Park Subdivision from Willingdon Avenue, it logically should be located at Midlawn Drive. It's very obvious too, if a median was constructed on Willingdon

3

13

Avenue at the intersection of Brentlawn Drlve/Graveley Street, a large part of the problem created by traffic rat-running along these two streets would be eliminated.

Perhaps a reason for designating Brentlawn Drive as a residential collector Is because it is a bus route. Why It is still a bus route is a mystery. Someone explained to me it's because it's always been a bus routel We haven't needed bus service in our subdivisions since the advent of the 2-car garage ... new homes in our area are now building 3-car garages. Four buses an hour travel the Delta/Brentlawn/WiIllngdon route. They're big buses on weekdays, community buses on the weekend. Other than one bus travelling In each direction in the morning and mid-afternoon, the buses are empty.

For the most part the bus Is simply transporting passengers through our community to and from other parts far to the east of us. Residents rarely use it Students attending Alpha Senior Secondary don't use It. Public and private elementary students at Brentwood Park and Holy Cross don't use It. The faculties at these two elementary schools use their own vehicles as do most teachers who work flex hours, the norm for the teaching profession. Parishioners attending the churches on Delta Avenue don't use it A citizen's representative on the City's Traffic Safety Committee who does not reside In our community thinks otherwise. In response my wife, Gloria, suggests if those responsible for making a decision can substantiate the need, then service the Brentwood Park schools twice a day, but please, discontinue the present route. We're all tired of big. noisy, smelly, empty buses polluting our neighborhoods.

I attended a presentation to the Traffic Safety Committee on November Slit, discussing a report on the concerns of the Brendawn Drive residents regarding the overwhelming traffic problems. I believe the Committee is really struggling to find suitable solutions. They've had the report on their table for almost a year now, and to the best of my knowledge, no action as yet

I'm not convinced speed bumps (at our expensel) or a reduced speed limit are satisfactory solutions based on the magnitude of the problems the current traffic levels are creating. and the anticipated increase in high-density vehicle traffic with the development of the Brentwood Town Centre. There are better solutions, such as signage restricting access at given times, blockades, medians, gating. and I'm sure there are many Individuals in our community willing to work with City staff to design the changes.

The Traffic Safety Committee and City staff needs, in particular with respect to the Brentwood Park and Brentwood East Subdivisions, a firm framework to work with. They need someone to put them back on track, to reconfirm the commitments made by the City, and I'm hoping you're the person who will do that.

Please reconfirm the City's commitments to the Brentwood Ratepayers Association. as follows: 1) Isolate all our residential streets from the traffic systems servicing existing and future high-density developments; and 2) Prevent other "rat-running" traffic from using our residential streets . .

Yours very truly,

(Original Signed T.F. MacDonald)

Terry MacDonald t~ rI'}'.lJI ,,~d ona ld@ me· ~Q ITl

cc: Matthew Sent 4B11 Brentlawn Drive

.- .· 14 4

'.

( )

r

From: M,d,ne Bourchei'·! ,porte SECTION 1 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE To: ~ City Manager Cc: Gabriel Mjndel: Ryth Walmsley Deputy City Managers (2) Subject: notification of planned publJc procession and rally· BROKE Oir. Engineering

_D_"_te_: ______ Feb_"'_'_ry_._14_._14_1_1_:4_7_:0_7_AM __________ --lDir. Planning & Building

OIC,RCMP

Burnaby City Council Traffic Safety Committee

To whom this may concern,

I am contacting you on behalf of BROKE (Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion). We are planning a public procession and rally for April 12th, 2014. We have been advised to send detailed infomiation about our event to City Council's Traffic Committee and Engineering department. Please forward the information outlined below to City Council, the Engineering Department, the Traffic Committee, and any other committee/person to whom this information should be directed to.

Thank you for you help. Mariane Bourcheix -Laporte

Dear City of Burnaby / City Council/ Engineering Dept / Traffic Committee I etc,

I am contacting you on behalf of BROKE (Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion), a group of Burnaby residents who are opposed to the Kinder-Morgan Pipeline and its expansion. We are organizing a public event on April 12th which will involve a procession through various neighborhoods and a large rally. We would like to work with the City to insure that this event is safe and accessible. We are offering our proposed route and the times that we believe the events will occur. Along the walk we hope to h ave two smaller events a t Forest Grove Park and Squint Lake to provide opportunities for people to rest and regroup; and we are currently attempting make arrangements to stage our larger rally at Westridge Elementary School (schoolyard and adjacent park). At this time we can only guess at the size of attendance - it could quite possibly be as small as 50 people or as large as 5,000. We' hope to have clear communication with the city as a clearer picture of the scale of this event becomes known and will do our best to make it possible for you to anticipate what will occur. Listed below is our schedule:

Saturday, April 12, 2014 • 10:00am : People will gather at Forest Grove Park

• lO:30am: We will have an opening ceremony for the event, speakers, etc.

• 11 :OOam: We will begin to walk east along Forest Grove Drive to Underhill Ave; We will take a RIGHT to go north on Underhill to Shellmont St. to the KMTM Pipeline Bby Terminal. We continue west on Shellmont, and take a detour to the LEFT heading south on Meadowood Park, RIGHT on Meadowood Dr and follow out to take a RIGHT h eading north on Arden; This turns onto Greystone Dr; We will take a LEFT onto Burnwood Dr, and then a LEFT to enter SQUINT LAKE PARK.

• 12:00am: We will arrive a t SQUINT LAKE Park, which is the frrst waypoint where additional people may join us.

• 12:30pm: ~ave SQUINT LAKE Park and return to Greyston Dr via Burnwood Dr./Phillips; We will take a LEFT onto Greystone Dr and head west to Duthie Ave (possibly by a detour onto Kitchener). We will head north on Duthie Ave to Hastings St. where we will take a LEFT and follow west towards Westridge Elementary School.

• 1:00pm: Gathering time for rally attendees (not in the procession) at Westridge Elementary School

• 1 :20pm: Our procession will arrive at Westridge Elementary School, which will be the site of the rally.

• 1:30pm: Welcome, Speakers, entertainment, etc

• 2:30pm: Some of the attendees will leave for our final portion of the walk: across pedestrian overpass, down Cliff to Westridge Terminal, loop back a long Inlet Dr. to return to Westridge Elementary School.

• 3:30pm: Our walk and the rally will be fmished at Westridge Elementary School and everyone will disperse.

15

16

If you wish to further discuss this event or have any questions, please contact Mariane Bourcheix­Laporte (madane bJ@gmajl cow, 778-928-8205).

We thank the City of Burnaby for its cooperation and support and look forward to working with you to ensure that the procession and rally we are planning constitute a safe and positive experience for Burnaby residents.

Sincerely.

Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte mariane h1(fl)gmajJ com , 778-928-8205

NOTE: Staff will continue to correspond with Ms. Bourcheix-Laporte regarding her planned procession and rally. Given the uncertainty of the scope of the event, it is not clear if there is a need for any specific approvals at this time. At the very least, the event would be monitored to ensure the safety of all participants and the general public.

( )

(

Nielsen. Therese

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Hi Therese,

Trenaman, Karon <Karon.Trenaman@icbc.com > February-25-14 4:56 PM Nielsen, Therese RE: 2014 Traffic Safety Schedule

I spoke with Warren at 604-395-6343 last week and suggested he send in an email but he chooses not to. Warren's concern is with the intersection of Edmonds and Kingsway, W/B on Kingsway.

Warren feels the sight lines are not good and stated there used to be two right turn lanes and a sign that said "No right turn on a red light" but this sign is no longer there.

Warren said he'd spoken to BBY Engineering already about the intersection of Edmonds and Kingsway and expressed his concerns about safety and was advised that the second right turn lane and the no right turn on red sign were removed to allow traffic to flow better. In Warren's opinion the safety of the intersection has been comprised for traffic flow.

I plan to visit the site tomorrow and get some pictures which I can email In.

Let me know if there is more information you require.

Thanks!

Karon Trenaman MA

Road Safety Coordinator

'lrnaby, Delta & New Westminster

_..:8C building trust. driving confidence.

New Westminster Claims 11320 3r<1 Ave

1

17

Nielsen, Therese

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Stewart, Gil lian February-26-14 8:21 AM Nielsen, Therese FW: ATTN: Traffic Safety Committee

From: Linda Jenkins [mailto:lindaxo@telus.netl Sent: February-26-14 7:43 AM To: Prior, Eva Cc: Clerks Subject: ATTN: Traffic Safety Committee

Hi,

My name is Linda Jenkins and I live at 426-4373 Halifax Street, Burnaby.

I just wanted to bring to your attention that the traffic on Halifax between Gilmour and Willingdon has increased substantially. It has become a main artery of escape from the Lougheed Highway.

We have people feeding into Halifax from Douglas Road, Gilmour and Rosser, and it is creating bumper to bumper situations at rush hour. As well as reckless drivers during the day, as people ignore the traffic light at Rosser and Halifax.

Considering this is a residential street with a day care and senior home, this is very concerning .

The other issues around Halifax is at the Gilmour end, as people are treating it as a main artery to get to Willingdon and the entry off of Gilmour is more like an alley width and isn't meant for heavy traffic.

Please also look at the sidewalks from Douglas to Gilmour on Halifax, as they are not working and are very dangerous on the north side especially. The north sidewalk is higher in areas and it is very easy to fall while you are trying to avoid trees, cars and weather.

The intersection at Douglas and Halifax is also a concern as a pedestrian, as the sidewalks on the West side of Douglas at Halifax are really non existent and traffic doesn't seem to want to stop for people to cross (it is a 4 way stop at that intersection). You take your life in your own hands every time you try to cross this street.

If you have any questions regarding what I've stated, please feel free to email me. This is a very quick email done first thing in the morning and it isn't quite as detailed as I would have liked to have done.

Thank you.

My phone number is 604-264-6132

•

1

18

• ~ City of -rvBurnaby

Office of the City Clerk S. Cleave, Deputy City Clerk

INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: CHAIR & MEMBERS DATE: 2014 FEBRUARY 19 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

FROM: DEPUTY CITY CLERK. FILE: 2410-20

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE HOME MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE BY THE CANADA POST CORPORATION (ITEM NO. 01, MANAGER'S REPORTS, COUNCIL 2014 FEBRUARY 17)

Burnaby City Council, at the Open Council meeting held on 2014 February 17, received the above noted report and adopted the following recommendations contained therein, AS AMENDED:

1) "THAT Council, through the Office of the Mayor, write to the Federal Government and the Canada Post Corporation, through the federal Minister of Transportation, to express its opposition to the current proposal to replace home mail delivery service with community mailboxes and request immediate review and amendment of the Canada Post Corporation's ' S-Point Action Plan,' as outlined in this report, to:

a) require full and meaningful public consultation and engagement with municipalities in order to review all options in order to preserve continued home mail delivery service in Canada's urban centres;

b) ensure that any new mail delivery service proposal provides for the continued security of citizens' private information and property;

c) ensure that all proposals related to home mail delivery provide for the necessary safety and protection of seniors and persons with mobility restrictions;

d) address specific issues related to the impact of any proposed home mail delivery changes to existing federal , provincial and local government obligations related to the statutory notification of property owners and citizens;

e) remove the discretion of the Federal Government under the Canada Post Corporation Act to utilize City-owned property for any community mailbox program in urban centres, without the direct consultation and approval oflocal governments.

4949 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC V5G 1M2 ':. Telephone 604-294-7290 Fax 604-294-7537 .:. www.burnaby.ca 18

Director Planning and Building Subject: Proposal to Eliminate Mail Service 2014 February 19 ... ............................................. ... Page 2

2) THAT Council endorse the resolution for submission to the 2014 Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) Annual General Meeting and Union ofBC Municipalities (UBCM) Convention, as outlined in Section 4.0 of this report, and to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM).

3) THAT a copy of this report be sent to:

• Burnaby MLA's and MP's;

• The Honourable Coralee Oakes, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development;

• BC Chief Electoral Officer - Mr. Keith Archer, Elections BC;

• All Members of the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA), the Union ofBC Municipalities (UBCM) and Metro Vancouver;

• Federation of Canadian Municipalities;

• Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) - National Office (377 Bank Street, (') Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1 Y3, and CUPW- Pacific Region (999 Carnarvon Street, New Westminster, B.C. V3M IG2).

4) THAT this report be forwarded to the Social Issues Committee; Traffic Safety Committee; Environment Committee and the Mayor's Task Force on Graffiti, Voices of Burnaby Seniors and the Seniors Centres in Burnaby for information."

In accordance with the recommendation no. 4, a copy of the report is enclosed for your information.

J.Cl~~ Deputy City Clerk

SC:gs

20

;a;tI; City of -tp'Burnaby

Meeting 2014 February 17

COUNCIL REPORT

TO: CITY MANAGER DATE: 2014 February 11

FROM: DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING FILE: 212S 20 Rt'fuena: UBCM

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE HOME MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE BY THE CANADA POST CORPORATION

PURPOSE: To outline the City's opposition to the proposal to eliminate Home Mail Delivery Service by the Federal Govenunent and the Canada Post Corporation.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT Council, through the Office of the Mayor, write to the Federal Government and the Canada Post Corporation, through the federal Minister of Transpoltation, to express its opposition to the cutTent proposal to replace home mail delivery service with conununity mailboxes and request immediate review and amendment of the Canada Post Corporation's 'S-Point Action Plan,' as outlined in this report, to:

a) require full and meaningful public consultation and engagement with municipalities in order to review all options in order to preserve continued home mai l delivery service in Canada's urban centres;

b) ensure that any new mail delivery service proposal provides for the continued security of citizens' private infonnation and property;

c) ensure that all proposals related to home mail delivery provide for the necessary safety and protection of seniors and persons with mobility reslrictions;

d) address specific issues related to the impact of any proposed home mai l delivery changes to existing federal, provincial and local government obligations related to the statutory notification of property owners and citizens;

e) remove the discretion of the Federal Government under the Canada Post Corporation Act to utilize City-owned property for any community mailbox program in urban centres, without the direct consultation and approval of local governments.

2. THAT Counci l endorse the resolution for submission to the 2014 Lower Mainland Local Govenunent Association (LMLGA) Annual General Meeting and Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Convention, as outlined in Section 4.0 of this report.

21

22

To: City Manager From: DireclOr Planning and Building Re: Commullity Impacts o/the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail

Delivery Service by the Canada Post Corporation 20f4 February ff............... ... ............................... . ... ... Page 2

3. THAT a copy of this repOlt be sent to:

• Burnaby MLA's and MP's;

• The Honourable COl'alee Oakes, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development;

• BC Chief Electoral Officer - Mr. Keith Archer, Elections BC;

• All Members of the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMGA), the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and Metro Vancouver;

• Federation of Canadian Mlmicipalities;

• Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) - National Office (377 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1 Y3, and CUPW- Pacific Region (999 Carnarvon Street, New Westminster, B.C. V3M IG2).

4. THAT this report be forwarded to the Social Issues Committee; Traffic Safety Committee; Environment Committee and the Mayor's Task Force on Graffiti for information.

REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At its meeting on 2014 January 27 under 'New Business', emmcil requested staff to prepare a report outlining the is~ues and implications of the recently announced Canada Post service changes. Canada Post has developed a proposal that would eliminate the existing home mail delivery service for urban centers, which would cause significant impacts and issues for Canadian cOlrm1Unities and citizens.

In response to Council's request, this repOlt outlines the context and implications of the decision by the Federal Govemment to proceed with the plan advocated by of the Canada Post Corporatjon. Specifically, this repOlt details issues identified related to the lack of the required public process and consultation; security of private information and property; service for seniors llild persons with mobility restrictions; statutory obligations related to legislated govemment notification to citizens and property owners; and the appropriateness and impact of existing Canada Post powers related to the use of municipally-owned property.

In light of the significant md direct impacts the proposal presents, this report highlight specific concerns for the City llild its residents, including the safety of our most vulnerable citizens. In response, this report calls for the immediate review of the proposal to cancel home delivery in

)

( )

(

(

To: City Manager From: Director Planning and Building Re: Community Impacts of the Proposal 10 Elimillate Home Mail

DelivelY Service by the Canada Post Corporation 20 /4 February / I. ........................................................ ............... Page 3

urban centres to ensure full public consu ltation and actions to protect the interests of all Canadians.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Canada Post is a Crown Corporation. operating under the Canada Post Corporation Act, and overseen by the Federal Minister of Transportation - the Honourable Lisa Raitt. It is governed by a Board of 11 individuals, including the Chairperson and the President and Chief Executive Officer. All directors, other than the previously mention two positions, are appointed by the Minster for a term of up to four years, which can be renewed.

The Chairperson and President and CEO are appointed by the Governor in Council l for an appropriate term. The CUlTent Chairperson of Canada Post is Mr. Marc A. Courtois and the President and CEO is Mr. Deepak Chopra.

On 2013 December 11, Canada Post announced its '5-Point Action Plan,2 The plan's five main components are:

o Community mailboxes: Over the next five years, Canada Post will phase out home delivery to urban centers, to be replaced by community mailboxes. The plan states that this change will not affect the two thirds of residential addresses that cUlTentJy receive their mail through community mailboxes, grouped or lobby mailboxes (i.e. high density residential bui ldings such as apartment towers or seniors homes), or rural mailboxes.

o Tiered Pricing: Beginning 2014 March 31, pending regulatory approval, stamp purchases in booklets or coils will cost $0.85 per stamp. Individual stamp purchases, not in booklets or coils , will cost $1 each.

o Postal Franchises: Canada Post will expand its retail network and open more franchised postal outlets in stores, while retaining corporate (Canada Post owned) post offices.

o Operational Changes: Operations will be centralized ancl/or streamlined with technology (i.e. more centralized warehouses, with mail sorter equipment).

o Labour Restructuring: Canada Post expects to eliminate 6,000 - 8,000 jobs partially through retirement (the 'Plan' states that 15,000 employees are expected to retire in the next 5 years). Pension plan adjustments will also be considered.

On 2014 January 29, Canada Post released a statement outlining that affected postal walks in densely populated urban areas will be the last stage for implementation in the 5-year process , given the acknowledged complexity of siting large commwlity mailboxes installations in these environments . Canada Post is expected to announce which communities will be subject to the installation of community mailboxes and cancellation of home delivery service by the end of February, 2014.

I The Governor in Council (G1CI appointments process is a core function of the Sen ior Personnel Scaetari~lt in the Privy Council Office. on beha lf o f the Prime Minister and his Office.

2 for a full copy of the 'Plan', please visit: https:/lwww.canadapost.cakpo/mc/assels/pdf/abourlls/5 en.pdf

23

To: From: Re:

City Mal/ager Director Planning and BuJlding Community Impacts of the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail Delivel)l Service by the Canada Post Corporation

2014 FebruQ/y II ... ....... .. .. .... ............... ................. .... .. ... ............. Page 4

The local governments of Vancouver, Victoria, Saanich, New Westminster, Medicine Hat, Montreal, Saul St. Marie and Ottawa and the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities have all passed motions, directed to Canada Post through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) , and/or released statements outlining their opposition or stating their concerns with tlle approach and requesting more information3

The Official Opposition - the Federal New Democratic Party (NDP), and tlle Federal Liberal Patly have both expressed their concerns regarding the '5 Point Action Plan'. The Liberal Pany has filed several 'Access to Information and Privacy' requests through the Treasury Board of Canada, for documents of communication between TratlSpOll Canada, the Privy Council office ,Uld Canada Post.

On 2014 January 28, MP Olivia Chow of the Federal NDP tabled an opposition motion in the House of Commons regarding the Catlada Post service changes. According to the motion, should this implementation move forward, Canada would be the only country, among the G7 nations', not t.o have any level of door-to-door mail delivery service within its urban centres.

On 2014 January 29, Canada Post CEO Mr. D. Chopra, through the FCM, released a statement to Canadian local governments. This statement outlined that Canada Post will investigate 'alternative approaches' for persons with disabilities, seniors and others who would find travelling to a community mailbox an unacceptable hardship. The release also stated that many businesses will continue to have their mail delivered directly to their premises - specifically businesses in well-established commercial centres and those receiving a large volume of mail. However, some other businesses in more isolated areas, excepting those served by rural mailboxes, may be affected. These details were also included in the natioll-wide Canada Post news statement of the same date referenced above.

3.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES

This section outlines the identified major issues, concerns and impacts of the proposal by Canada Post to eliminate home delivery service, as identified by staff as pan of the analysis of the '5 Point Action Plm', accompanying press releases and limited background information made available by Canada Post. These identified issues and impacts will affect both Burnaby and other local governments across the country.

3.1 Lack of ConsnItation with the Public and Key Stakeholders

Of significant concern with regard t.o the Canada Post proposal has been the overall lack of consultation regarding this important postal service issue with the public and key stakeholders,

l This list many not be complele. as additional local governments may have issued gtale.ments or passed m.otions since the time this ({'port was written. ~The -GT is the currCnf 'wealth iest countries' by measure of nationa l n~t \\,'('a lth -the United States. Japan, France. Germany, Italy, U.K. and Canada.

24

( I

(

To: City Manager From: Director Planlling olld Building Re: Commullity Impacts o/the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail

Delivery Service by tfle Callada Post Corporarioll 20 14 FebruOlY II...... . .......................... ...... ...................... ... Page 5

including local govemments. From the limited available information it has been determined that the consultation completed to date has been advanced without benefit of the general public being provided with information of the specific proposals presented for implementation.

Public Con.sultation

Canada Post maintains that their consultation process focussed on engaging with members of the public and the business community. According to the limited information being released by Canada Post, the corporation contends that it conducted a 5-month public consultation process from April - August, 2013. This 'consultation process' included a 2013 April 24 news release, an online forum available for discussion through the Canada Post website, signage in post offices and franchise outlets , information on printed postal receipts, and participation of Canada Post leaders in over 40 talk and call-in shows. In addition, Canada Post maintains that it held 46 community forums with invited representatives from different sectors (e.g. business) and neighbourhoods with different types of delivery service. In the Lower Mainland, these conversations OCCUlTed in Vancouver and Co quit lam.

Generally, however, staff would conclude that the process undertaken for this consultation process does not meet the basic threshold required for either public engagement or consultation for an issue of such national importance and scope. Given the implications of the changes proposed, a wider and more sustained discussion should have included presentation of facts and issues, followed with specific options that reflected public feedback and concerns. Additionall y, the general public should have been provided an opportunity to participate in the process and attend public information meetings . At a basic level, the Canada Post Corporation's claim of wide public consultation and engagement is not well supported, as it was too broad, high-level, severely limited direct public involvement and did not disclose the true intent of the wide-spread and important changes being contemplated for immediate implementation.

Stakeholder Consultation. - Local Government

Local governments, as a key stakeholder, would be most directly impacted by these proposed changes in terms of a proposal impact on residents, corporate services, urban form and land-use policies. Canada Post maintains that as part of its consultation process that it met directly with the Mayors and senior administrative officials of six local governments. It is noted that the infOlmation provided by Canada Post does not identify the six communities or the range of issues lhat were reviewed or if any of the known teclUlical aspects related to the proposal were advanced for review. The size, location and nature of the communities ha~ also not been disclosed by Canada Post.

Again, given the importance of the issues being advanced, the lack of engagement with Canada's local governments, or their regional or national organizations, erodes confidence that the stakeholder review process was in an y sense complete or comprehensive. As British Colnmbia's third largest City, Burnaby should have had an opportunity to review the proposals being advanced and to participate in a technical review to analyze and comment on specific proposals.

25

To: From: Re:

City Manager Director PlanniTig and Building Community Impacts of Ihe Proposal 10 Elimillate Home Mail Delivery Service by rhe Canatia Posr Corporation

2014 February II ........................................................................ Page 6

As outlined, to the City's knowledge, no urban municipality, or agency representing Canadian cities, was specifically engaged on the issues of replacing home delivery serv ices with community mailboxes was ever undeltaken.

Given the implications of the Canada Post proposal to all urban municipalities and their citizens, staff are of the opinion that a more sustained and substantive . consultation process with local govelTul1ents prior to the service delivery changes being decided upon and announced would have been of benefit in identifying and determining issues and impacts of these service changes, including poss ible remediation approaches.

It is therefore proposed that Council advance its opposition to the proposal on the basis of the lack of wide public alld local government review, and request the Federal Governm.ent require full and meaningful public consultation and engagement with municipalities, in order to review all options related to preserve continued home mail delivery in Canada's urhall centres.

3.2 Mail Security

Another il1l1nediate and important concern with the proposal to eliminate home-delivery service is the high level of crime and vandalism experienced at existing community mailboxes. While Canada Post maintains that it locates community mailboxes in areas of natural surveillance, community mailboxes are more prone to many security concerns regardless of their location. The most serious concern is theft of mail through vandalism and breaking locks and access points to community mailboxes. The design and quality of the Canada Post commwlity mailboxes have proven not to be secure and have left citizens' property vulnerable to theft. Additionally, mailboxes are a target of vandalism through graffiti and damage.

According to an investigative report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), community mailboxes in the Lower Mainland and other urban/suburban areas are pmticular targets . Burnaby itself is reported to have had several dozen incidents over the past 5 years, including one act of arson, four acts of theft, and several Canada Post mailboxes being over turned and damaged. The number and severity of incidences appear to increase in communities with more community mailboxes already in place. For example, the City of Surrey is reported to have experienced almost 900 incidences over the same period, while the District of Maple Ridge and the Ci;r of Langley and District of Langley are reported to have experienced upwards of 400 incidences .

The issue of crime and vandalism of the existing conl1mmity mailbox program has other widespread impacts th')t have been demonstrated in a number of recent incidents across Canada. Canada Post does not have the capacity or infrastructure to maintain the existing community mailbox program in order to respond quickly and effectively to repair all of the mailboxes that can be damaged by organized criminal acti vities. In some instances several community

.~ For more informaiion, see the eBC Inwstig.alivc Report at: http://www.cbc.calnews/canada/brilish­cO lumbialare-canada-poSl-s-communiry- mailboxes-really-safe-l.24605 15.

2G

( )

(

\

(

To: City A1allager From: Director Planning and Building Re: Community Impacts a/the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail

Delivery Service by th e Callada Post Corporatioll 2014 FebrllOlY II ....................... ........... .................. .... .... ...... ...... Page 7

mailboxes within a city are targeted within a single crime event. The impacts to citizens include the suspension of mail delivery for several weeks to affected communities. ln some cases resident's mail would be made available through a Canada Post outlet until repairs can be completed. However, these locations can be located far away from affected neighbourhoods and witilOut the staffing availab le to effectively serve the public.

The proposal to increase the number of community mailboxes in urban areas will exacerbate the issue of mail theft and impact many more citizens on an ongoing basis. Of specific and serious concern is the vulnerability of community mailboxes to crimes related to identity theft tiu-ough access to personal information and sensitive mail. Direct theft of cheques, cun'ency, gifts, and parcels has also been reported and associated with community mailboxes. The impact of crime associated with the introduction of conu-nunity mailboxes on local police detachments serv ice calls has not been analyzed or reviewed. Additionally, none of these issues have been fully addressed by Canada Post or included in any public consultation efforts related to the discussion of the proposal to cancel home mail delivery.

It is therefore proposed rhat Council advance its opposition to the proposal on the basis of the lack of study and information related to implementation of provisions for theft prevention and mail security, and request the Federal Government ensu.re that any new mail delivery service proposal providesfor the continu.ed secu.rity of citizens' private information and property.

3.3 Safety and Access for Seniors and Persons with Mobility Restrictions

For many senior citizens and persons with mobility restrict.ions, li ving in areas currently receiving the home delivery postal service, the proposal to restrict their mail delivery to community mailboxes will represent a significant hardship. For mauy such persons, it may be difficult or imposs ible to travel to community mailboxes particularly in inclement weather, if they do not dlive, are not in an area well -serviced by public transit, or have few family and/or others whom they can ask for assistance.

For some persons with disabilities, there may also be hand-dext.erity consiclerations as keys are required to open each mail s10t.6 Another potential issue is with tile height of assigned mail slots. For some persons ut.ilizing a wheelchair or another mobility device, or who have limited upper body movement, they may be uuable to reach up significantly to access their mail slot. Finally, for many individuals isolation is also a factor and the 'human cOlmection' of home delivery service provides a much needed and valuable 0ppOltunity for daily conversation, interaction and connection to the wider community.

It is of great concem that Canada Post did not identify these important social planning issues as part of any public consultation program for citizens which should 'have ensured that vulnerable citizens and their issues were adequately addressed as part of any the proposed change to the

. II When persons move into a neighbourhood serviced by a community mailbox, keys to an assigned slot arc available lor pick-up al it local postal outlel.

27

To: Ciry Mana.ger From: Director Planning and Building Re: Community Impacts ofrhe Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail

Delivery Suvice by the Callada Post Corporatioll 2014 February 11 ..... .. .. .............. ....................... ...... .. ................ .. Page 8

home delivery service. Subsequent assurances by Canada Post to further study the issue, as outlined in Section 2.0 of this report, further emphasize the lack of planning and consultation that has occurred to date regarding this important issue and does not provide any confidence that the matter would be resolved through a consultative public process.

It is therefore proposed that Cou.ncil advance its opposition to the proposal and request the Federal Government ensure that all proposals related to home mail delivery provide for the necessary safety and protection of seniors and persons with mobility restrictions.

3.4 Provincial Statutory Public Notification Procedures

Of significant concern is the fact that the Canada Post proposal has been advanced without consultation and rev iew with regards to address any conflicts with existing B.C. Provincial Statutory Public Notification procedures. While these processes, and any requirements of mail notification through Canada Post, remain the responsibility of the Provincial Government, there are many impacts on local governments and its citizens. These include but are not limited to the Local Government Act, Elections BC and other statutory municipal notifications.

The proposal to cancel home mail delivery has been advanced without benefit of oversight or any review related to the legal implications regarding a local municipality's responsibility to ensure public notification under the Local Government Act. These laws were originally ( ) developed under the basis of existing daily home mail delivery services. For example, notices of a Public Hearing must, as mandated by Section 892 (4)(b) of the Local Govenunent Act, be mailed or otherwise delivered by local governments to all property owners at least 10 days before the hearing date. While Canada Post may maintain that community mailboxes would provide postal service to all residents, many issues remain of concern. Notification may not be deemed to have occurred within the statutory timeframe as property owners would only receive their mail upon collection at a community mailbox, which may not provide timely notification. However, currently home mail service has been deemed to provide legal notification to property owners upon its delivery to a private residence.

Additionally, Burnaby, other local governments and govenunent agencies have not had the opportunity to rev iew and comment on the potential impact of the proposal related to its intemal corporate and bylaw practices concerning the legal notification of property owners and residents. This includes taxation notices, bylaw infraction notices, local elections notices and emergency response information and procedures. It is unclear at this point whether the existing notification procedures and stated periods are still adequate or need to be reviewed and updated, based on the current or future mail deli very changes being cons idered by Canada Post.

Canada Post has also not addressed how it will maintain mail service to hundreds of thollsands of citizens that occupy legal and illegal secondary suites , located in single-family homes, duplexes and other building types, which are common in many of the country's urban centres. A high percentage of these citizens may be new immigrants and/or have low incomes. Tenants of private properties, for a variety of reasons (lack of knowledge, language barriers, etc.), may not

28

To: City Manager From: Director Planning alld Building Re: Community Impacts o/the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail

Delivery Service by Ihe Canada Post Co rporation 20 f4 Febfl/QI)' ff .............. ..... ..................... .... .. ... ..... ...... .. ...... .... Page 9

have the opportunity, knowledge, or financial ability to make application and maintain their own mailing addresses and community mailboxes under the proposal by Canada Post. 7 Although many tenants now share a conunon home delivery mailbox and therefore can receive and reasonably safeguard their own mail, this opportunity could be lost through the proposed system of communit y mailboxes. Concems include a tenant's mail not being safeguarded, or conveniently available, as their access to mail may effectively be controlled by a property owner, who could maintain sole access to the propelty's designated community mailbox.

These important issues, which have not been identified or addressed by Canada Post, have many implications for all citizens and communities. The proposed discontinuance of the home mail sys tem in urban areas may lead to the erosion of maintaining accurate mailing address lists and government databases, as tenants may not continue to report their own home mailing addresses as they would lose direct access to Canada Post mail delivery.

Elections BC in part provides voting rights on the presentation of various identifications, which includes providing a residential mailing address. Additionally, Elections BC provides mailed 'Voter Notifications' to residential addresses to provide citizens with the location of their designated polling stations. The proposal by Canada Post to cancel home mail delivery has the potential to take away the right of all citizens to be provided with their rightful enumeration and notification by mail in order for inclusion and participation in Federal, Provincial, and local e lections and/or public referendums. The overall impact of the Canada Post proposals would not only erode the reliability of public notification and citizen enumeration, but could harm the very fabric of Canada's ability to serve and ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to fully patticipate with the election system, which has to date relied primarily on the home mail deli very system.

Given these important inter-related and complex issues, a full review of the position and responsibility of the senior levels of govemment needs to be completed and fully addressed in any proposal by Canada Post. As stated, this consultation with key stakeholders would spec ifically include, but not be limited to, the B.C. Minister for Community, SpOlt and Cultural Development who oversees the Local Government Act and the Chief Elections Office who is responsible for Elections BC. This consultation should be wldertaken with the full notification to and engagement of all citizens, B.C. municipalities and other impacted government agencies.

b is therefore proposed that COIln.cil request the Federal Government to address specific issues related to the impact of any proposed home mail delivery changes /0 existing Federal, Provincial, alld local government responsibilities related to the statlltory notification of property owners and all citizen.s.

7 It is noted that the COS I of [he replacement of lost or ~[o l en Community Mailbox keys is currently $29.

29

To: From: Re:

City Matwger Director PI.af1l1iflg alld Building Community Impacts of the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail DelivelY Service by rhe Callada Post Corporation

2014 Febl"l/ary 11.. .............. .............................. .... .. ...... .... ........ Page /0

3.5 Location of Community Mailboxes on City-owned property

The proposal to cancel home delivery in favour of community mailboxes by Canada Post poses specific urban land use issues that have not been fully reviewed or addressed and reflect the lack of consultation with local governments that was outlined in Section 3.1 of this report. In dense urban commtmities, such as Burnaby, the location and placement of the proposed community mailboxes raises a number of important issues and implications for the City. These include increased legal liability for municipalities who would review and pennit many new locations for large installations of community mailboxes, which could pose safety hazards for drivers and pedestrians.

The power to impose this type of development without municipal approval or consultation is provided by the Federal Government through the Canada Post Corporation Act and the regulations made under this Act including the "Mail Receptacles Regulations"s. The broad sweeping power of this imposition on local governments was originally intended to serve the distribution of mail under the current system of a home mail delivery model. The use of this power to implement community mail boxes within densely populated urban places was never contemplated or advanced with any consultation with local government concerning the potential impacts.

It is unclear what process Canada Post intends to implement to locate the new community mailboxes. The dimensions of Canada Post's typical suburban community mailboxes are approximately 1668 mm (5.5 feet) long and 470 - 490 mm (1.7 feet) wide. The newly installed corrununity mailboxes are expected to be much larger to accommodate the number of residences in an urban community including space for package delivery.

Canada Post's current criteria9 for the placing of corrununity mailboxes in new sub-divisions or other suburban res idential developments, states that community mailboxes should be:

• placed a minimum of nine metres from intersection comers; • not installed at major intersections; • placed in meas not with heavy traffic volume; • visible to mUltiple houses or buildings for natural smveillance; • installed in proximity to the addresses it serves; • located adjacent to areas where 'pulling over' into the shoulder or street parking area is

allowable 24 hours a day; • installed near a natural 'entry point' to a neighbourhood or development; and • installed near existing street lighting fixtures .

• Spec ifically, ''The Corporation may install , ereCl or relocate or cause to be installed. erected or relocated in any public place, including a public roadway, any receptacle or device to be used for the collection, delivery or storage of mail." [Canada Post Corporation Act. Mail Receptacles Regulations (SORlH3· 743)]

• For more inform •• tinn. please vis it: hll.p:llwww.c:anadapost.ca/Cpo/01I./asscts/pdtlbusiness/s landards01anual en. pdf

30

( )

To: City Manager From: Director Pla nning and Bu.ilding Re: Commullity Impacts of the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail

D~/ively Service by fhe Callada Post Corporation 2014 February II ............ ...... .................................................... Page II

Currently. Canada Post places its required infrastructure on the City of Burnaby lands without the approval or any consultation with city staff (for the small letter mailboxes or postal carrier mail pick-up boxes). As a result. the Engineering Department would be required to contact Canada Posted should any traffic or community issues be identified by staff or citizens. Canada Post cUlTently is not obliged by law or any corporate policies to comply with community concerns regarding the location of its postal boxes. Canada Post has also developed no criteria that would provide guidelines for the implementation of Community mailboxes in dense urban areas. such as Burnaby. These guidelines would presumably also be reflected in an updated "Mail Receptacles Regulations" which would be amended by the Government of Canada.

There is some uncertainty if the proposal could be successfully integrated into some neighbourhoods given the lack of space within the streetscape to accommodate large installations of this type in multiple locations. This will pose difficult choices in locating community mail boxes and may be intrusive and of great inconvenience for many neighbourhoods and citizens. Additionally. it is unclear whether or not the "Mail Receptacles Regulatiolls" provides the legal right for Canada Post to place community mailboxes on any municipal. school district or provincially-owned titled properties which may be included in the defmition of the law's use of the tenn "public place". There are a host of concerns that have been identified related to Burnaby accommodating community mailboxes on City owned lands which include:

• the availability and suitability of locations for mailboxes to serve all neighbourhoods; • the ability to serve rapidly expanding residential areas effectively; • the visual impact of community mailboxes in an urban environment; • the impact on neighbouring properties and local land uses; • the need for selective sidewalk and road improvements; • the need and responsibility for community consultation; • safety or access concems (i.e. blocks traffic 'sight lines' or does not leave sufficient

sidewalk space for a wheelchair to pass); • any legal costs or liability from arising injuries or accidents ; • ability for location to accommodate the need for resident street parking; • traffic volumes. movement and safety around community mailbox locations; • security and lighting; • snow and ice removal; • vehicle access for Canada Post delivery staff; • vandalism. graffiti and theft; and • the need for provisions for litter clean-up and garbage removal.

All of these concerns carry with them a new level of municipal responsibility and costs that could become a significant financial burden for Burnaby's taxpayers and other municipalities.

31

To: From: Re:

City Manager DirecTOr Planning and Buildillg CO/wmmiry Impacts a/the Proposalro EJim;,wfe Home Mail Delivery Strvice by rhe Canada Posr COIporariofl

2014 February II ............ ... ....... ........ ........ .............. .................. Page 12

It is therefore proposed that Coullcil, as part of its opposition to the overall progralll, request the Federal Government to remove the discretion of the Canada Post Corporatioll to utilize City­owned property for all expanded community mailbox program for urban celltres, without the direct consultation and specific approval of allY affected local government.

4.0 LMLGA AND UBCM RESOLUTION

In light of the significant, complex, unaddressed issues outlined in this report and that the proposed Canada Post service delivery changes are of considerable scope and affect both Burnaby and other local governments nation-wide, the following resolution has been prepared for Council's consideration. It has been reviewed for submission with the concurrence of the City Solicitor, the Director of Engineering, the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture, and the RCMP 'Officer in Charge':

RESOLUTION: Suspensioll of Callada Post Home Delivery Service

WHEREAS local governments have a direct interest in the security and stability of Canada's postal system, both in terms of municipal corporate operations and services available to citizens;

AND WHEREAS the service delivery changes would directly impact local governments, () including in relation to land· use policy, requirements for municipal land and rights-of-ways, infrastructure for paving, lighting, and waste management, and public safety considerations (etc.);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) and the Union of BC Municipalities (DBCM) call on the Federal Government and Canada Post, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other avenues as appropriate, to suspend the Canada Post delivery changes until a sustained, substantive consultation process with local governments and the public is completed and identified issues are addressed.

It is therefore proposed that Council endorse the resolution for submission to the 2014 Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) in order to advance to Annual General Meeting of the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Con vention. Further it is propose that COLillcil advance a copy of this report to alll1lel1lbers of Metro Vancouver, the LMLGA and the UBCM for their information.

5.0 CONCLUSION

This report provides. for Council's infonnation, a broad overview of the major identified issues and impacts of the Canada Post service delivery change and its specific implications for the City of Burnaby and other local governments. Although it is acknowledged that this review has been based on limited information released by Canada Post, there remains too many important issues

32

(

To: From: Re:

City Manager Director Planning and Buildi.ng COII/Ulunity Impacts 01 the Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail Delivery Service by [he Canada Post Corporation

2014 February II ........... ....... .............. ... .. ... ....... ..... ....... .. ..... .. .. Page 13

of great concern to local governments and citizens that require immediate response. These issues include the lack of consultation with the public and local governments; mail security, safety and access seniors for persons with limited mobility; public notification under Provincial statutes; and issues associated with the location of community mailboxes in urban areas including the impacts 011 the operations and legal liabilities for municipalities.

It is therefore proposed that Council, through the Office of the Mayor, write to the Federal Government and the Canada Post Corporation, through the Federal Minister of Transportation, to express its opposition to the cun-ent proposal to replace home mail delivery service with community mailboxes and request inunediate review and amendment of the Canada Post Corporation's 'S-Point Action Plan,' as outlined in this repOtt, to:

• require full and meaningful public consultation and engagement with municipalities in order to review all options related to preserve continued home mail delivery in Canada's urban centres;

• ensure that any new mail delivery service proposal provides for the continued security of citizens' private information and property;

• ensure that all proposals related to home mail delivery provide for the necessary safety and protection of seniors and persons with mobility restrictions;

• address specific issues related to the impact. of any proposed home mail delivery changes to existing federal, provincial and local government obligations related to the statutory notification of property owners and citizens;

• remove the discretion of the Canada Post Corporation 1.0 ntilize Cit.y-owned property for an expanded community mailbox program in urban centres, without the direct consultation and approval of local governments.

These issues are of wide interest to all Canadians and other local governments and wan-ant the City to advance a resolution to gamer the support of the LMLGS and UBCM.

A resolution has been prepared for CounCil's consideration to seek support from other affected local governments for its concems regarding the potential impacts of the decision by the Canada Post Corporation. This is for submission to the 2014 Lower Mainland Local Govemment Association (LMLGA) Arllual General Meeting and Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Convention, as outlined in Section 4.0 of this report.

It is recommended that a copy of this report be sent to: Bumaby MLA 's and MP's; The Honourable Coralee Oakes, Minister of Community, SpOlt and Cultural Development; BC Chief Electoral Officer - Mr. Keith Archer, Elections BC; all Members of the Lower Mainland Local Goveml11ent Association (LMGA) and the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM); the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and CUPW­Pacific Region.

33

To: From: Re:

City Manager Director Planning and Building Community Impacts of tIle Proposal to Eliminate Home Mail Delivery Sen/ice by the Canada Post Corporation

2014 February II ....................... . ............................... Page 14

A copy of this report is proposed to be forwarded to the Social Issues Committee; Traffic Safety Committee; Environment Committee and the Mayor's Task Force on Graffiti for infonnation .

. ~~~ au~;;ier, Director

PLANNING AND BUILDING

RMIJW:sa:sla

cc: Deputy City Managers Director Engineering Director Finance Director Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services OIC-RCMP

Fire Chief Chief Building Inspector Chief Librarian City Solicitor Deputy City Clerk

fl:V.lll1g RtlIIKt! C/~rit:(lNJOC5V Iv.cfJI.mdl Rt!pt)f(.f\20INmpact ((Cwwlfa Po.~t S(!n.'irt! Changu.tloct

34

( )

l

(

• ~ City of er;p-Burnaby Meeting 2014 Mar 04

TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE REPORT

DATE: 2014 February 25

FROM: DIRECTOR ENGINEERING FILE: 3800020 Ref Traffic Safety

SUBJECT: SAFETY CONCERNS AT DOUGLAS RD AND SPROTT ST.

PURPOSE: To respond to a request for safety improvements at the intersection of Douglas Rd and Sprott St.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT the Committee recommend to Council the installation of pavement markings to faci litate truck turns from Douglas Rd to Sprott St as outlined in this report.

2. THAT a copy of this report be sent to Mr. Russ Sales, Director of Facilities, School District 41 and to Ms. Kelley Engleson, Douglas Road Crossing Gua.rd, for information.

REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND

At the Traffic Safety Committee meeting of 2014 January 07, correspondence from Ms. Kelley Engleson, a crossing guard for Douglas Road Elementary School, was forwarded to the Committee from Burnaby School District 41. Ms. Engleson was concerned about pedestrian safety at the intersection of Douglas and Sprott. She described a near incident on 2013 November 13 where a large southbound truck on Douglas was turning right onto westbound Sprott. She repOlted that the truck mounted the sidewalk on the northwest comer of the intersection potentially placing a young girl on the sidewalk at risk. After some discussion by the Committee, Ms. Kelley's concerns were referred to staff for review and report back.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Douglas and Sprott is a signalized intersection and is frequently used by school children attending Douglas Road Elementary School located one block south. Douglas is classified as a major collector and Sprott is classified as an arterial street. Both streets are designated truck routes and many trucks use the intersection to access Hwy 1 to the east, the industrial areas to the north, and Canada Way to the west and south. Due to heavy traffic in the area and proximity to Douglas Road Elementary, an adult crossing guard has been stationed at this intersection, as well as at Canada Way and Sprott, to assist children crossing when school is in session. Figure 1

35

To: Traffic Safety Committee From: Director Engineering He: Safety Concerns at Doug/as Hd alld Sprott Sf 2014 February 25 ........................................................... Page 2

shows the context of the intersection relative to the elementary school south of Canada Way and the service station located at the southwest cotner.

3.0 FINDINGS

A review of the turning path of trucks from southbound Douglas to westbound Sprott showed that the majority of trucks should be able to make the tum without mounting the sidewalk. For very large hucks, the tum is very tight and there is the possibility that the sidewalk may be mounted. This could also occur if truck drivers do not tum wide enough, despite space being available.

A number of options were reviewed to try to improve the situation. Removal of truck routes and restricting truck tunis was considered problematic due to the fact that there would likely be significant violations in the short term and the need for contiriual enforcement given the fact the that existing truck routes have been well established. As well, trucks are permitted to use non­truck routes if it is the shortest path between their destination and a truck route. The widening of the existing sidewalk at the northwest comer of the intersection is also not possible because it is currently built right up to the city's property line and because the existing retaining wall would make it prohibitively expensive. The installation of barriers or pipe rails along the edge of the curb is also not recommended because it would pose a barrier to pedestrians accessing the intersection. Warning signs were felt to be ineffective and of little value to commercial truck () drivers who are usually aware of the need to tum wide at most intersections.

The solution recommended is to shift the eastbound traffic lanes on Sprott (approaching Douglas) southward by about l.5 metres with a painted median as shown in Figure 2. The purpose of this shift is to provide additional room for southbound trucks to tum right, thus minimizing the probability that trucks would inadvertently mount the sidewalk at the northwest comer of the intersection. The resulting eastbound through lane on Sprott approaching Douglas would be about 6.0 metres wide, sufficient to allow an eastbound through vehicle to bypass a vehicle waiting to tum left thus avoiding any potential backup of traffic onto Canada Way.

4.0 CONCLUSION

After reviewing the pedestrian safety concerns raised by Ms . Engleson, it is recommended that a painted median be installed along Sprott west of Douglas to shift the eastbound traffic lanes southward by about l.5 metres. This painted median would provide more space for southbound trucks turning right onto Sprott and help to prevent trucks from mounting the sidewalk at the nOlthwest comer of the intersection. The paint markings can be completed within existing operating budgets later this year when the weather permits.

3G

( ) ,

To: Traffic Safety Committee From: Director Engineering Re: Safety Concerns at Doug/as Rd and Sprott Sf 2014 FebruQ/y 25. . . ................................... Page 3

It is also recommended that a copy of this report be sent to Mr. Russ Sales, Director of Facilities, School District 41 and to Ms. Kelley Engleson, Douglas Road Crossing Guard, for information.

A. Gou , P. Eng. MBA DIRECTO ENGINEERING

ZRJDLlac

Enclosure

Copied to: City Manager Burnaby RCMP - OIC Chief Sup!. Dave Critchley

37

~ City of >t:p"BLu'naby

assembled on the systems. Oala provided herein is derived from a a number of sources

with varying levels of accuracy. The City of Burnaby disclaims aU responsibility Ibf the acx:uraCf orcompleleness of information rontained herein.

Figure 1 • Douglas Rd • Sprott St

*~~~ Figure 2-- Proposea lV1 edian on Sprott February 25, 2014

The information has been gathered a nd assembled on the City of Burnaby's • ~mpute~ 5~tem s. Data provided herein is derived from a a numberof sourCES I Proposed Median on Sprott st west of Douglas Rd 'NIlh va rying levels of accuracy. The City of Burna by disclaims all responsibility for the accuraq or completeness of information 00 nta ined herein.

N

A

• ~ City of ~Burnaby Meeting 2014 Mar 04

TO:

FROM:

CHAIR AND MEMBERS TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

DIRECTOR ENGINEERING

COMMITTEE REPORT

DATE: 2014 January 24

FILE: 3450001

SUBJECT: 2014 LOCAL AREA SERVICE PROGRAM FOR SPEED HUMPS

PURPOSE: To review applications for the 2014 speed hump program and recommend streets that should proceed to the Local Area Service Program (LASP) process.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. THAT The Committee recommend that Council advance the requested speed humps, as discussed and recommended in this report, to the 2014 LASP process.

2. THAT The Committee recommend that Council send a copy of this report to the residents who requested speed humps as part ofthe 2014 LASP.

REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Traffic Safety Committee annually reviews all requests for speed humps for inclusion in the current year's Local Area Service Program (LASP). Over the course of 20 13 City staff has responded to numerous inquiries from residents about the process for instaliing speed humps along their street. Of those, a total of 9 residents have expressed a desire to initiate the LASP process for installing speed humps this year.

2.0 REVIEW OF REQUESTS

A review of the 9 applications for the 2014 Speed Hump LASP was completed and all were found to meet the general guidelines of the program (local residential road, less than 8% grade, and requested by a registered property owner). Brief descriptions of the appl ications are provided below.

As part of the review, the Fire Department was consulted to ensure that the proposed speed humps would not adversely affect their emergency response time significantly. It should be noted that speed humps are only installed on local streets to limit the cumulative impact of speed humps on emergency response times. Local collectors and other higher order streets are not eligible for speed hump installations.

The Fire Department and Coast Mountain Bus Company have no objection to the program proposed.

40

41

To: From:

Traffic Safety Committee Director Engineering

Re: 2014 LOCAL AREA SERVICE PROGRAM FOR SPEED HUMPS

......... ...................... .... .... .. Page 2

2.1 Eton St between Gilmore Ave and MacDonald Ave (Exhibit 1)

Eton St between Gilmore Ave and MacDonald Ave is constructed to an 8.5m wide finished standard with concrete curb and gutter and is fronted by single family homes.

The installation of speed humps in the Burnaby Heights area will help address the ongoing traffic concerns of some residents in the neighbourhood. It is recommended that the requested LASP speed humps proceed.

2.2 Canberra Ave between Albert St and Triumph St (Exhibit 2)

Canberra Ave between A lbert and Triumph is fronted by single fam ily homes. The road is constructed to an interim standard, 6m pavement with gravel shoulders . Installation of humps on this street may require installation of concrete bull noses at the ends of the humps to prevent avoidance of the humps by traffic . Installation of the requested speed humps would complement existing neighbourhood traffic ca lming.

It is recommended that the requested LASP speed hump proceed.

2.3 Georgia St between Delta Ave and Springer Ave (Exhibit 3)

Georgia St between Delta and Gamma is fronted by single family homes and is constructed to an 8.5m wide fini shed standard. This portion of Georgia St is surrounded by other local streets with speed humps.

It is recommended that the requested LASP speed hump proceed.

2.4 Cliff Ave bet",.,'een Halifax St and \Vinch St (Exhibit 4)

Cliff Ave between Halifax St and Winch St is fronted by single fami ly homes on an 8.5m wide finished standard road.

It is recommended that the requested LASP speed hump proceed.

2.5 Elmwood St between Boundary Rd and Smith Ave (Exhibit 5)

Elmwood St between Boundary and Smith is fronted by single fami ly homes. The road is constructed to an II m wide fini shed standard.

It is recommended the speed hump LASP proceed .

2.6 Irmin St between Buller Ave and MacPherson Ave (Exhibit 6)

( ')

Irmin St between Buller & MacPherson is fronted by a mix of single family homes and multi family dwellings on the south side and by multi family dwellings on the north side on an II m wide fini shed standard road . Burnaby South Secondary School and MacPherson Park are both located at the west end of the street. Petitioning all property owners in a multi-family area will be more challenging. (

It is recommended the speed hump LASP proceed.

(

To: From: Re:

Traffic Safety Committee Director Engineering 2014 LOCAL AREA SERVICE PROGRAM FOR SPEED HUMPS

... ...... .. ........ .. .......... .... Page 3

2.7 Windsor Neighbourhood (Exhibit 7)

Request for speed humps along the following 2 streets within the Windsor Neighbourhood were received:

Denbigh A ve between Kingsway and Irving St Dufferin Ave between Bryant St and Irving St

Denbigh Ave between Kingsway and Irving St is fronted by a mix of single fami ly homes & multi family dwellings on the east side and single family homes on the west. Commercial properties at the southern end of Denbigh at Kingsway will be excluded. The road is constructed with a mix of II m finished standard for 170m at the northern end and an interim standard, 6m pavement with gravel shoulders for 130m at the southern end. The location of the unfinished portion on this street would

. require installation of bull noses at the ends of the humps to prevent avo idance of the humps by traffic. Petitioning of property owners in a multi-family area will be more chall enging.

Dufferin between Bryant and Irving is fronted by single family homes and is constructed to an interim standard of 6m pavement with grave l shoulders. Dufferin would also require the installation of bull noses at the ends of the humps to prevent avoidance of the humps by traffic .

It is recommended the speed hump LASP proceed.

2.8 William St between Carleton Ave and Madison Ave (Exhibit 8)

William St between Carleton and Madison is fronted by single family homes with one multi-family unit on the south side at Madison and is constructed to an 8.5m wide finished standard.

It is recommended the speed hump LASP proceed.

3 RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommend that all of the above requested LASP speed humps proceed as outlined in this report.

Leon A. G s, P. Eng. MBA DIRECTOR ENGINEERING

SP/ac Enclosure

Copied to: City Manager

12

*~:~n~

r'

Eton St (Gilmore - MacDonald) EXHIBIT 1 107,365

C.dlnbur~l S'I 111111 III {lUll III II 111111 11111 J I III I ~ 11111111111111111111 WOlIIIIIII IIII'

Edinburgh 5t Y~le5t FYIII III1III (I Ilz' [llllIllli I I 111I1~ ~ t

P311 1 I H II I I I I :~nIID I ill I I III !ilinillmiili li'h ~ =--~~~ ~~~~ Y~I.,SI H I! I 1111111 I I I !~TIn III m II1111 I 11l11111!111[!IIIIIIII(~,

Trin ity s. Hili 11 11 u,11 ::1 ::1 ::1 ::1 ~[·=L::.n,I.Ll.UlD 11I1111ll.lJ~.l.~L:II.: __ .~.l~y;:;;;;:; r- Trlnlt,l 51 ITT

z3.IJl 1 Iz9l1J t IIII I I !z'lill 11I1I11I1!11l1 I !1 11111 IIlllb ~ Megm St ~,::rL . _.Jz 11~:::illJ~, IIII1II !~JlllIUDIUljjjjJllil/lI!1!1!!1I~ g ~--lill nm~ l~= ~~ 111111111~nnlfllllf\!lIIrz: 1I!1l1l11lll!1

i:' Mcgill 51 >' l! < • M!'IIIII 51 ~

~ • I E~ ~ g ~ Eton51 S· ~ c ~ ~~~~~.~ ~:=

Wd (11111111 ,. 1.6.' " irTIn~ ;;.,--rtrrn ~ ·z: III! II 1111111I!1!11l1!11f1!1!11 C;wnbridge51 JlIIII (II liz TIT lIJ IT llllnlJlIDlJllffiodlllllllllllllln:~=zIIIIlIIlIIlIlIlIlH

:> C~ffilinCiIl" 51 0 ,

114: 11 111' 1111 11 1' 11111I 1111 1111 110 nrIDl 11111 1I111II!1!1:i ~!!, s /'

= 11= MUlE 110111I1I!1!1I[!1II1I11!1IOIlIIIIII;:I!I!J!111l11l11 Wil li ~~y '" OXforCi 5 1 0 ::: pen~ !: rrn mlR PlIIOIIIII/!1!1I1III1I1I1II1I1IlIlIIIIlIlIlIlIllIlIlIII" :;;

mlIITnII fTTl Tn( I mlllTTTIJlTrrIlITnIII I1III1III1 ttqm!P5!!IWIIII.~ii~iiii::i~::i 1II1111111111111D II R II ( I I flllll l llil I II (11111 Err II 1111] 1 ,_.1. __ ..... [,_1. III/llim 11111111 H II I I I ~ I I II H WIIWIlITITITIIr4illmlllllllmnr ~

. TriurT'f)h St . rn-rTnrTlTTTlTmTl

H II I ! I I I ) I WRilll1 H 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 ~=~. I I II H~-:J III 1m 1III1/1I1IIIl1I1I1I~,llll/lll!1I11IlI!l~· ~'CllJ:II1:III~II/~!1I~III~1 i, ~ . 'C ... d RandorD St 2 g ~."TT'

g ~ 11111 1) II :~ I I II IIIUUIII WI I 11111l1li /I11!~dlllll!llIIlIlI!~'IIII1II1I1II11I1I ~:11I1tI1i1 flllII~ rb ~d I IJi I1III III iell III II! I liE. I II ) I I _ JJJII II III III IIlI:i 1111111 11111 U=, / ) i !>m

f r~nI<~n 51 - All>ert St <~

II H I 1111 / 1111 rnm 11[1111111 "'1'11 I II I 11111111111111111 II III II lID 1It11111111l1l111l1!i L-J I IIIII t I 1111 .1111 I amtml .1.. , __ 11111.111 .! 111111 1111 1111111111 ) ~ IIIIIIIIIIII;~" H ,;)G,1inQG St E -- Hnotinll. 5 t "-

f---l JlI I 11111111111 11.11111 W 11111 III I 11l1li111111111 I I IIlI III II tn III 11111 In

tTho

l;to

tIll/III -, 1 I X't hila bewI gathered and aaeemblod on the City of

Oat. proylded herein Is derived from .. a numberat' aourc:e l of accuracy. The Oty of Burnaby disclaims •• responsibility

ofinfonnation oonlained herein. • • 2013 LASP speed humps

A - , "-- un" "H___ I A Existing rear lane speed bumps

~ C""'~,_ , '!If" Burn,,,,),

~

II ulmlmlm~lii.mn ~ iii I Ii iii ill i II i Il1rtJ Alb«t _ct.

.....

Canberra Ave (Albert - Triumph) EXHIBIT 2

fIl~~~"< . ~3~LB~~~~ ~b

\ -

l~ I~

ltvu __ .,.Ul'm .. u ... p!V't1UllllU flIIIIlGm 1a~¥I:JIllrum ill .. nUlnlJllCl1 UI .u\,lfWa I ' , ProRQsed location of 2014 LASP speed hump • ElI'i~tinn fU)P.P-Ci hlJmn~

'

... h ~~gle""'. of KCUl"Ky. The CIty of Burnaby disclaims all respon$lblllty b (he ec:cur.cy orcompletone. d Information wntlinod herein. ' , 2013 LASP speed humps t Existing rear lane speed bumps

1:7,365

~. ~~~~

~J

N ..

*Bi;;:ii~

~ 111!l1111I~

P ... derSt 1.1111111 .. ,11111 I'"T'TTT"

r 1111111111111111 ' ;

[ 11I1I1I1I11nlll~ [If 111111111111 II1I11 II11I ! 1I11II ! IIII1

1/111) liB

....

Georgia St (Delta - Springer) EXHIBIT 3

~I I ( I 1==11---1 !

FrMCM; St

E [ II! I II ! 1I111~ I-- 111111/11111 ~

r-- Georgia SI C I II ~ I 11 1 I I r 11 1 I L ~H

I II I I I I I II 4 ( Union St • i

I I I I TTl I

::: :,1111~'l : ::~ :H R II II ! II II II~ ~

1:4.820

I I I I~l I I J

~~~ iffiB ffiB ~ '111

1111 1111 i

r--

~ . ~ (

I

111%71 Cur .. s St

The Information hal been gatl'Mnd.nd _embled on the City of Bumaby's oompu_ systems. Oat. provided herein is deri...s from a a numberollOUl'ODs ~h varylnglewl. of KCuracy. n. at)' 01 Bumaby disclaims II responslbilltt br ttwl> ec:curilO/orcompietenea of information OJnta lned heteln.

• I Proposed location of 2014 LASP speed hUmps . ExistinQ SPIled humps

• • 2013 LASP speed humps • Existing rear lane speed bumps

N ..

~~,

~ L,"" "¥' Burnaby Cliff Ave (HalHax • Winch)

EXHIBIT 4 1:7,&48

I

~ ___ _=-=:J [ __ - __ =JU lJC::l I III lei IU ~ n,-;1[ -~ J I. - i~~ Ch~rle~ ,St Q ~ LJL-1 \ 1_ ' , ." !

i= - - ~ L --~D DL. 0)) n~ L'~ l----o~";o-"~ '-J~ ____ I I L -, - ~ ' ~ I '0, :; J _ _ 1 .., J ,I" () '----

Klt<;hen .... S't :0:- " r --------_ JI ••••• +-.~ roc - M ~~c: _ 'Tf,nn '-c.,,_~,"[ Gr:tr _ , _ )--=- 'Or-oranfPI :) 10 nl (11 ;~ I~ ~ I> t ' I: 'I I Ii II I~ I", - '! L ) I<{ g,

hL ~ I ~ Wlnch-::S,t In [ J ' ;= !I)~I~ IOL 11 \ 1- IU 4 . " I Jc' = = = 0= ~~ [ttJ1~ -~

= =Jl, LochdaleSt~ t iD ~ coo l L\ 1 L _~ I Le::: ~ I',

----, I lfi > > HO:llfax.S-t , L- ,

I __ .J -------' ''' - - _I~ !il J IJ ~ I' <s

~r ~ :;:

'"

~_" ~~, 0,_ =:J ~ K~d.'''~Ct J, (~, I~,~ [l ~ ~! __ _ ,,-" , ~~ l -~ LJ ) .. -' J r-K.-__ r,en _ s~'=' \ P',,,'uo_Ct)

, "-' S' J I 1 Q'i- ,f..- L-J LI\ Dr- " , '-">. '........ I,r,, ' . ... l' ~. O)~ St ,------ b~ ,-........-. I r I I' , . - '___ , ,,,d- f '-Y"""iJ _ PI~J. GOidonS-' - i ~:,'----

", '.-"'1 L ..J i; , I ,: J,} l 'L--~ 'I f" U U' 'LJ>' u.s ~~~-. ......, ,--P';lWSon_S·t Ie; 1 I r ---1 A1t5J[St I ( - - - J I~ 15

-'::'-:. , --:-irL~, -JD~ :~ Q I~ [ l ufij<\d"'r_Stl~ l_ rr) I ~ . "....:.' '-"" ~ a; 1= .:;:---. .. '--1, ~C!J'] 'R~ '( -.......... "'-..- ll " 1"- 1 ::11 ...... --1 I ~ 0

"r-·""' __ -- ....... ::e'o - """'--- \' 18 ~ Q 3--""::::::Glb'on SI I" r """- ~ .. , .,~- J \ ., -, Q t:II \ \ n " ') ~;",,-~,-< ".~. -:::::, \ '" . ,', -- J L _11\ 0 )'--[ ~l ~ \Q.~ 1'\ g r., a .itclolr-St / --....". ~ ,',' r--------- --.---J ~( ~ c ./ / ,~ • .•• 11 No . '~.;;,:"." "'~_ 1. ___ Hycrest v - _ ~ -.___ I I..J U I .,.. -, \\ . - ,---~ ~~ . - , ( / " .... '"-. \~'. J' ~ ~-..;;;: . I v' g. , -- ''''''''-:;j' - -- --...:. __ l__ ______---~___==_6(""d'H3'/"'_ j-----== I & 'If~

• IN The infonnMIon t\as been gaUwed and naombkKS on the City of Bumaby" Existing speed humps

compulef '~Iem • . Oat. pt'O'Iided hofeln is deriYed from a.8 number of ~rc:e. I I Proposed location of speed humps ¥11th va"mg~-..i.d accuracy. Tho City or ~by disclaims a,lI responsibility I t Existing rear lane speed bumps A b" tho 8CC&.n0l orcompW.,.... dlnforrnation mnillined herein.

~ Loh"aby' vBlu'n<

.,." ~~

~'> "',,/

0\,,,, ,

"~ -I 0'

H,"~ Dr

a

11th Av ,s £.

" '" ~ Q

! Norm~ndy Dr E :6 ~ ~

23rd Av E

~

II>

1; c: ~ g '"

22M Av E

Vi c 'll

" c: " a

251h Av F

i= 111111/111111 I

:::: 111111111111

= 111111111111111

"'" Elmwood St (Boundary - Smith) EXHIBIT 5

~ Coond\l Wy I 11 i I r-- '----,---~--_,

:.... r'I~Il§ ~~ r--, ,,81 I ~

« ~::: ' '1 I.: I ,~~ ~

E ~

~

11111 Ii ::: sll.~.~t~StD ~-- [ II I I I Ii i ~ tdrrm rrn 0 111111111 •• _~ "", .. " ttlllllllill "11111111111111'E3DIlIIIIl1 §lllllllllill H 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBIIIIIDJIJIl!', BIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111/ 'Trl1'llllllll~§ I ~ IIII1 r r--1lbbll W 111=Ffillfffirllffillmn 111I "I, il fill U I f Iff f I '" '" •••• --- 111111 lilll I I i Ii I j i I Ii I

The information hat been gathered and hlembied oolhe City of BtJmaby's

01'." '> 'I'~ .. . ~ ,

I1j.

compotltr ')'Items.. Data provided herein Is def'hed f~ a ,a numberof !OU,rt:Os I' I Proposed location of speed humps tMth ~~g"wtI. of accwacy. The atyof BumIIby dISclaims all responslbiflty • Existing rear lane speed bumps I:Ir the aa:UI'1IOj orcomp6etono. of Information conlitlned honIin.

1:5,790

N ..

6 L'''''aby 'IIfI" Bum,

,--

'rmin St (Buller - MacPherson) EXHIBIT 6 1:5.440

--i ~~'-J W ~ ~~'mImo~tSt -- <~ A~~~:~t ~ ~DlliJ ~Il ~

I" ~ « SI10rtS t ~ ~t:::jD~

~~§H B~rt> .• jfPI F 88 e-·. E

l::::l [ill III ( 1 I ~··'i»it:SI Atbt-001h St

V,Ctory St > c:.s~ § ~

~++~~~~~~~~~n ~.-~====~~~« fi E ... - > ' ... --.....,~ ;, « -c i <t ' 6 !t

.. L ~

c ~ l~ i Sidt~_S.t o ~ ~

81 1:E ~:~=====~

p H! 1111 \ \ \ ! II [ [ IIJ IL , , iii I I Ilu."~r·S\t, ,,I,,,I,,,,-,1 ,-" I 1'§!3111 1 ;~"I'; II dill ! ffn(1111 ~

U::I > ~ I I ~ ~UIIIII[[I1[ I [ ii'ii[ii [[ [ [<UlJlJ II II [[~ , " :,:, HJ ~ i [ II [ IIIIIIII[II[[~ [[[III [[[i[/[ill[ I!illl[ [1I[[[[1![[ [ [ []IiIDJ] ~" , , Et;;;t~ ~ [[II 1111 II [[ II II [ [ [ [ , I I I l"i'i'l I I Ir

The Infonnation has been Qalhored and _ambied on the City of Burnaby's oompu .... • ~t." •. Oat_ provided htreln II derl\lll8d from a a numberof 8OUrcoa

IlMth _f)IIng"'" of 8C(;lQC),. The Oty of 8oI'Mby disclaims ell responsibility I' , Proposed location of speed humps lor the accu,.~ orcomploteoe. dlnformation mn\llined heroin.

• Existing speed humps

• Existing rear lane speed bumps

N

A

~ C'IV"aby "IIP"Burn

~

Windsor Neighbourhood EXHIBIT 7

ITilD~ila~~ 1 J ) ~ - ",,/0'> '?J/: -~ I 11 ---1 -

1!"T11 n=rr11l1'iTrr111l1r:..-IU - II ~~; 111

--=:7"""-- \- Tc;n=~;=;=;:::;:::~

1:6,359

~I \ \

-'. .~"I~ I' 1 I 1 1 1 ~ ~dr~llllrI W ! I ~ 11111111 11 !'til: 1--1-- 1 l I I I

r- I-- t--O<i/rl I I II

6· n I J=~ . . ~~ ..... il :1111111111111111 ~

SD'-'!I_ St ' i~~ I--- " _ c( Service St R I 11=1 '£r= r= • ~ ~ ~ , I 11111111 [J 111111 • ._~;o--LI_IIElt - t= i= • ~ 1111111111 ~H 1111 ~UUlJ 111111 _. y~

n---r- D-nJ~ r= t==: h 111111111 ri ll III I fZ) '"'""" I n= m- - . f-- • lilllllllll llllll · ~r--n LLUL " 1 1= - B D,cken.S,

~~w I ~~?I FE II I:~~ i~~I[U:! ~glllllllllllll!rrUiIIII U '1"""'4' ~ t t1' , ~- "1< • : : : : : """ :~'"" .. ,,'

St c' ~" . ' - • - . Cln~.I!;iii'r ~'J 'ri"lil ~ - , f w-.:~ is: ~~~~ > J=

· illl ULII ui~ · .g~" ~ i '-Tho information has been gathered and .lSomb'ed on ,he City of Bum aby's compo __ )'Item&. Oat. proylded herein Is ~'Md from a a numberof DJrc:ea ¥14th ... t)Vlg .. WIIsd lICCuracy. The aty of Burnaby disclaim. all responsibility br the aa:urac:y orcomplotonea d Information oon&ained hereln.

• • Proposed locations of speed humps • Existing speed humps

• Existing rear lane speed bumps

N

A

~ ,

~ WIlliam 5t (Carleton - Madison) 'IIf"~n'aby EXHIBIT 8 1:7.370

1111111111111111111 !IIDlIIIIlIUlII --g~III~III~llImlllm!ll~111 llff " 81 II I I I 1111 ~IIW=JWI~WI~WII [1111111/111111111 mMIIIIIIImIn IIWIWIIWWII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!lIIII , B.I.l.I,I!!!!! I,! H _If I m.m.m .. UUlJIIIIIIWIIII . 11m l!I_m!!l.I!IIIIfIllIlIIlIIlI!: 1111111111111111

lllllllllllllllllill IIIMIIIIIr1nIm Ion III IlIllll II I I II '~IIIIIII!lIIIIII ~om

t~'iIIIIIJIIIIIIII~IWIII~II,~1 mflTIffimIifm 11~1~1~1~~ ' .i~i I\HIIIIHlllm~~abl****#4=I=i=KH P .... ."St >

\ lilllil!illWlllllllllllllllllllllIlllIlIlllllll1 I H 9]11111 W Illllllllll :: l '" I iii it tllfllllllllllllll~ 1IIIIIIIIIIIi 1111111 1111 ltct It M 111111111111 [1: ~ .. V"",,,,,,, H...L.LJ

IIIIIIIIIIIII~ §IIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIII 111l'1111111111111 '016 11111I1111111 iJJll)JP'JtW~J IIIII! IIII~: 1IIIIIIIl y: ~ ~ \ 1 Q I pI :!l f q II !J:3~ '~_

1=)1 IIIIfr mill 1"111" ill It W§i' ;~S§)~\iJ.' ,~ ,I ~ ! I.! ) ~ ,I j' 1111111111 LIIIIIIIIII] ~ §. .1 . .

cgOllillllllJ ~ ,~. .~~ ~ rm SBw@l~l~ ~~~:;:: ~~Kltchen,.. S.l .! I S4 1111111111111111 '~Ij'i'i I f3~ ~

~. ..IIII[I !'IU W I~ 1 1)L ~::::~Gt:antSt ~ ~~~iMI<lawnor ~ IIIIIII1III1ITllTI ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIID \U¥~ I

LI ::::1 )-::.I-::."-:::II~I~II,:;7~ S th- 0 rr ou lawn r t--tl-l tLU-!l1..ULllililllillllll.JJ,WLLLllLL.JtL.LLLU.lll.U4 1 !ITTIII , I \ I n rID

~~~~~~~o i3#H~i~rWili ~~ ,. /11111111111111111 J ) 1'1=:lh:.1 ~fr\-r"n-

I The information has been gathefedand ._emtHd on the CityofBumaby'l I : Existing speed humps I N cnmputlw '~18In" Data provided herein II dori...ed from a a numberof «IUratl I I Proposed location of speed humps · • .-M:h "'r)W1gle". of accuracy. The CIty of Burnaby disclaiml all ntlponslbilily Existing rear lane speed bumps tIr the ~C¥ orcomP'eten.1& oflnfc:JI'TnMlon contained l\erein.