CBPOA - November 15th, 2017, Additional General Meeting minutes.

Directors present:  Andrew, Jim, Robert, Beryl, Derrick.               Apologies:   Ed, Erik, Bruce, Rona.

The meeting was held at the request of the members, as a follow up to the City’s Community meeting of November 8^th.

The topics covered at the City meeting were grouped into:

- The Community Development Plan, (Land Use Plan), review work

- Transportation

-  Liveability

- Traffic control

-  Drainage

As the Land Use Plan work will essentially wait for the outcomes of the work on the Coastal Flood Adaption Strategy, (CFAS), the members decided to discuss the topics that are of more urgent concern.

1)      Drainage, Transportation and Liveability

  The Phase 1 drainage work on Gilley is done.  The Phase 2 drainage work, to be carried out by a City appointed contractor, will be on Agar, Gardiner, parts of McBride and Target.

On November 8^th, the Project Manager for the City, Tindi Sekhon, indicated this is scheduled to take place in 2018 and the plan is to go out for tender late January, early February, in order to attempt to secure the most experienced contractors.

Street surface remediation, following the excavation work to install the new drains, offers the opportunity to install new traffic control measures. On November 8^th, Planning and Transportation indicated that the feedback from the first Community meeting, back in May, indicated resident support for speed humps for traffic control.

As part of the preparation to go out for tender, Tindi is proposing to meet individually with the residents along the affected streets to gain their views on the incorporation of speed humps and his proposals for the final form of the roadway, particularly at the sides of the street where they join with the homeowners’ property. Given that the asphalt curbs installed on Gilley as part of the phase 1 work are not holding up, thoughts are moving towards gravel and grass street edges. An adverse consequence is that this will mean a reduction in angle parking, to parallel parking, resulting in a loss of parking.  Reducing overall village parking capacity is not an acceptable outcome for village residents.

 Members reminded each other that a commitment made as part of the Phase 1 drainage work was to try things, observe and incorporate what has been learned into future phases. There is concern from the CBPOA members that this is not happening, given a new Project Manager and potentially a new contractor.   For example, it became very clear on Gilley that dewatering of the excavation was essential; yet here we are, now hearing that dewatering will only be considered as part of Phase 2 in terms of “we’ll put it in if required”.

The CBPOA membership feel very strongly that the City should be holding a meeting, (meetings), with the affected residents of Agar, Gardiner, McBride and Target, with the residents of McBride in attendance, to hear what actually happened in Phase 1 on McBride and to talk about what was learned, how this is being incorporated in the Phase 2 work and what else is now being considered in this next phase. At the same time, have the Traffic Manager attend to inform residents about the various pros. and cons. of speed humps, traffic circles etc.  In this way the residents have an understanding of what various options really mean, when being approached, one on one, by the Project Manager for their views on the various options.

Similarly, on November 8^th, the attendees heard that the City is considering standardising one design, incorporating gravel and grass, for the sides of the streets along the full length of the streets associated with the Phase 2 drainage project.

 Members do not consider this is in keeping with the published Vision for the “Neighbourhood Character of Crescent Beach” which states, “Crescent Beach will be a distinctive rural and seaside village community”. “The pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood will support - - unique streetscapes - - “. “Crescent Beach will maintain the established character - -“.

In addition to one standard street design being inconsistent with the published Vision, this does not fit with streets that vary in appearance with different mixes of old and new. Furthermore, to drivers, the street along its length will appear more like a raceway, thereby not serving to moderate speeding.

As with Phase 1, it is strongly suggested by the members that homeowners should be given the option of maintaining the status quo, replacing like with like, along their properties, thereby giving variety to the streetscapes and helping ensure drivers have to proceed with greater caution.

As stated on November 8^th, O’Hara is used by the kids on their bikes in July and August to avoid the high traffic streets. This should be respected by the project schedule and the contractor. Also, surely a learning from Phase 1 is the need for better traffic flow during construction.

2)      Traffic control

The members are once again hearing - a one option fits all approach throughout the village to mitigating speeding – install speed humps and do this as part of the drainage improvement work.

We are told that periodic traffic speed survey work by the City indicates that Crescent Beach does not have a speeding issue.  This is clearly different to residents’ observations, particularly from those who live along Sullivan St. (There are many opinions about why the survey results do not tell the real situation from their being done only at quiet times, to the monitors being too visible and of course people then slow down).

This is a very real safety concern for residents and visitors, particularly on Sullivan St.

It was suggested that we look at having our own speed surveys performed, perhaps through the use of cameras, and talking to Community Policing about how this might be carried out.

This will also provide data on the Translink buses that continue to speed through the village, (particularly the “sorry not in service” buses deadheading one way or the other), despite numerous appeals from residents to the Manager of Translink. The comment was made, “they are going so fast you haven’t time to get out of the house and take a number”.

We can’t deal with speeding only when installing drainage work. The membership feels very strongly that it’s time to trial and test things such as intersection buttons and temporary speed humps at known trouble spots and monitor these for a year, as an inexpensive way to arrive at an  effective, comprehensive approach.

The City is to be congratulated for painting the “School” signs on the road on 128^th St., they certainly get your attention, and there was full meeting support for the traffic circle at 128^th and Crescent Road. It was commented that the present grid lock down the hill on busy weekends cannot be acceptable for emergency services if they are required to access the village.

The question was asked, why can’t big “30” signs be painted on the roads at various places in Crescent Beach, accompanied by the distinct white zig-zag lines used in Europe to heighten drivers’ awareness?

3)      Rail fencing along Bayview.

In response to a question, Gail responded that the City Engineer, Regent Ma and his Manager had met with Sandy and herself and walked the length of the proposed fence line. As things currently stand it will be a 6 ft. high chain link fence installed at the edge of the street from the Beecher St. crossing to the end of Bayview.