Little Australia

Demystifying water rates in UEL - within 5% of Vancouver rates

2011-12-08T10:49:00.000-08:00

Recently, there has been a lot of chatter west of Blanca on the subject of water rates, markups and general confusion surrounding water rates.

Below you will find a comparison of water rates between the City of Vancouver (CoV) and the UEL.

UEL has two water rates: one is a peak rate for Jun-Sep period - $1.3185 per cubic meter, the other is an off-peak rate for the rest of year - $1.0544 per cubic meter (CM). (source: UEL Admin, 2010 rates)

This translates to a "blended" rate of $1.14 per 1 CM of water in UEL.

A four person household living in a bungalow in UEL uses 555.5 cubic meters of water per year according to UEL water bills.

Therefore, such household pays $374.21 per year for the water, or $1.03 per day.

Compare that against the CoV.

CoV charges $2.01 per 100 cubic feet of water (2010 figures). 1 cu.ft. = 0.028317 CM so the CoV charges $0.71 per 1 CM of water.

At a first glance it looks like UEL residents pay 61% more for their water - $1.14 vs. $0.71 per cubic meter.

BUT, do not despair ...

.... CoV is also charging a "meter charge" per quarter. Meter charges depend on the diameter of the water pipe and were set as follows in 2010 (they are higher now):

17mm = $26

20mm = $26

25mm = $31

http://vancouver.ca/fs/treasury/utility/meterRates.htm

Typical household is connected to a 25mm pipe.

Thus a compareable household in CoV would pay $232.51 for water and $124 for "meter charge".

A grand total of $356.51 in CoV vs. $374.21 in UEL, a 5% difference.

Times They Are a Changin’/We Have a Race! - VOTE EARLY (Nov 1 - 18)

2011-10-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

Contrary to past years, where it was difficult to get candidates to come out of the woodwork, CAC and ADP positions are being actively contested. In our upcoming election, we have more CAC candidates than positions in all single-family residential areas. However we still need to engage more residents in multi-family Area D. ADP positions in both Areas A and B are also being contested.

All this bodes well for the new CAC – even if a candidate does not win, we now have a clear pool of talent that the CAC can turn to and invite to contribute to the council and help out the community. This also drives home the point that considering an at-large rather than ‘ward’ approach to CAC elections will result in better ‘staffing’ of the CAC. Overall 10 candidates put forward their names for 7 CAC spots; 11 ADP candidates vying for 8 spots.

Starting November 1^st, residents can vote by mail at the UEL Administration office. Election packages can be picked up at the office and must be returned to the office by 11:00 am on November 18^th. So effectively any resident can go to the UEL administration office and cast their vote early.

links to CAC website:
http://uelcommunity.com/elections-voting-information.htm
http://uelcommunity.com/elections-list-of-candidates.htm

UEL ELECTIONS LINKS

2011-09-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

Election information on the CAC website
http://uelcommunity.com/elections.htm

CAC nomination form
http://www.uelcommunity.com/docs/CAC%20Nomination%20Document.pdf

ADP nomination form
http://www.uelcommunity.com/docs/ADP%20Nomination%20Document.pdf

CAC Candidate profiles
http://uelcommunity.com/elections-cac-candidate-bios.htm

ADP Candidate profiles
http://uelcommunity.com/elections-adp-candidate-bios.htm

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON BLANCA AND 8th

2011-09-23T12:34:00.000-07:00

City of Vancouver will be conducting a traffic study next week to asses the feasibility and the need for a marked pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Blanca St. and 8th Ave.
Most likely this will take place on Tuesday or Wednesday (September 27 or 29) from 8am to 9:30am.

Elementary school children in Area-C are not taken by the University Hill Elementary School at UEL and instead are sent to Queen Mary Elementary on Trimble St (next to Trimble park). This has the kids crossing Blanca at Chancellor Blvd/8^th Ave at an uncontrolled intersection. It would be helpful to have a pedestrian crossing sign installed there to draw attention to pedestrians crossing Blanca at that location.

LOCAL ELECTIONS ON NOVEMBER 19th

2011-09-21T11:06:00.000-07:00

In two months UEL residents will be electing their representatives for the Community Advisory Council (CAC) to advise the UEL Manager on issues related to the quality of life and tax impacts on UEL residents.

The last three years highlighted a number of areas that could be improved going forward. The following three stand out:
- communication with UEL residents,
- UEL governance and administration, and
- our taxes and UEL finances.

COMMUNICATION

Communication between the CAC and the UEL residents is in the urgent need of improvement. The CAC holds only one information meeting per year for UEL residents. This is too infrequent and not productive. Correspondence with the CAC takes too long. Often it can take 3 months for a resident to receive a reply from the CAC. First, resident’s letter may be considered at a first upcoming CAC meeting which is a month away, then the matter might require an inquiry or a review – that’s another month until the next meeting, and another month goes by before the CAC prepares a response. A case in point is the CAC discussion on the current UEL budget. It took half a year since the initial budget conversation with the UEL Administration for that update to be shared with the UEL taxpayers. Opening CAC monthly meetings to UEL residents would improve the dialogue.

UEL GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

UEL residents, on the number of occasions, have heard the words of the UEL Manager – “I take my direction from Victoria”. Those words describe the bad state of our local governance. UEL residents are reduced to funding the UEL Administration and are excluded from influencing the direction of our community and participation in its ongoing activities.

Our Community Advisory Council is effectively marginalized which is not surprising since it does not maintain a strong connection with UEL residents. As the recipients of local services provided by the UEL Administration we do not have the mechanism for providing our feedback to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development on the performance of the UEL Administration. This feedback should be a part of annual employee performance evaluations carried at the Ministry. CAC could be a perfect, balanced and measured vehicle for providing such feedback.

Placed between much larger entities – the Province, the UBC and the City of Vancouver we have very little voice with respect to matters relevant to our community. Adding Metro Vancouver and the Musqueam Indian Band to the mix further highlights the need for strong UEL representation. We should strengthen our CAC or perhaps explore other governance options available to us before they get decided for us, without our participation. In the short term, our CAC should open itself to broad membership of UEL residents and establish three permanent committees dealing with the matters of local communications, governance and administration, and finances to ensure effective representation of UEL interests.

FINANCES

Our community of some 1000 households and 4000 residents is quite straightforward from the taxation and expenses point of view. We collectively pay approx $3 million in taxes and fees and receive $3 million worth of municipal services.

Over the last couple of years those services have been reduced – no sidewalk snow removal, no lawn care on boulevards while the UEL Administration wants to increase property taxes. In our community where a number of residents are elderly it is a hardship. Thankfully our community spirit prevails and younger residents are seen clearing the snow off their neighbours sidewalks.

Budgets prepared by the UEL Administration talk of transfer payments to UBC. At the time when the UBC is charging UEL residents 30% premiums for access to their services, while not charging those premiums to Vancouver residents it is inconsistent with UEL interests to be sending any funds over to UBC coffers. UEL Administration demonstrates their disconnect with local residents by attempting to send our tax dollars to UBC.

Despite our municipal services having a price tag of $3 million dollars our actual balance sheet is twice as big. It shows over $6 million in revenues and expenses. This is a result of UEL being involved in a $3 million “water trade”. We consume approx $300,000 worth of water, yet buy 10 times that amount. We then resell that excess to UBC. Our “profits” are very small, yet we are responsible for a massive water pipe, its maintenance and expected replacement cost. It is possible that we will have to pay millions of dollars required to replace this ageing water infrastructure. This is an important local matter that needs to be shared with local residents and should not be given an elephant-in-the-room treatment.

With plenty of time ahead of the November 19th elections, UEL residents have a number of points to consider before casting their vote.

With just 1,000 households we have the opportunity to influence our local governance, lets make our voter turnout the envy of others.

Laneway housing and increased density - observations from our neighbours at Dunbar

2011-04-15T16:25:00.000-07:00

In early March, our neighbours to the East at the Dunbar Residents Association held a presentation on laneway housing. A subject relevant to UEL residents as the UEL Administration is attempting to introduce unrestricted, rental suites in UEL.

part 1

part2

UBC line - translink update - public consultation

2011-03-20T11:06:00.000-07:00

From March 30 to April 6, Translink will be holding public consultation on the preliminary designs and
evaluation of the rapid transit alternatives for the future UBC Line

Join Translink at one of the following consultation sessions or online to learn more about the potential
alignment, station locations, the costs, benefits and impacts of each alternative, and have your say.

Several dates, times and locations are available;

Wednesday, March 30, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Jewel Ballroom, Vancouver Masonic Centre

Thursday, March 31, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Ponderosa Centre, UBC

Monday, April 4, 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Online webinar at www.bepartoftheplan.ca

Tuesday, April 5, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Kitsilano Secondary School Large Gymnasium

Wednesday, April 6, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Tenth Avenue Church

Can’t make one of these sessions? Don’t worry! Join Translink online at www.bepartoftheplan.ca from March 30 to April 22 to learn more about the designs and evaluation, complete the online questionnaire, and have your say.

Confusion - "survey" in our mailboxes

2011-03-15T13:12:00.000-07:00

The anonymous letter placed in our mailboxes illustrates the confusion created among UEL residents due to the lack of communication between the UEL Administration, the Community Advisory Council and UEL Residents.

I believe that residents DO need to bring themselves up to speed with proposed changes in order to make an informed decision. With that in mind, I provide more background and where needed, set the record straight as per the issues raised in the anonymous letter.

- The anonymous letter states that operating a Bed & Breakfast is an approved use of a single family building in the UEL.
Again, that statement is not correct. The current bylaw (on p. 36) does not allow for B&B’s to operate in Area C. (They are also not allowed in Areas A or B.)

- The letter claims that the maximum size of an accessory building in Area C is to be reduced to 425 square feet.
This is simply not correct. The proposed bylaw explicitly says that “every lot shall be entitled to a minimum of 47 square meters of floor space (for an auxiliary building).” This translates into 505.9 square feet, not the 425 square feet claimed in the letter. By comparison, the existing bylaw allows for an accessory building to be at most 500 square feet.
Residents may take comfort knowing that Area C focus group panelists – local residents that assist in the bylaw review - were vigilant in trying to ensure that the proposed changes to quantifiable measures like areas, offsets or heights are not resulting in decreases to that which is allowed to be built.

- Regarding the assertions on the permit process:
With respect to this issue, under the existing bylaw, a project to build or modify a house requires two permits – a development permit, followed by a building permit. The UEL Administration took on the task of updating the building bylaw in order to make this process more straightforward. During the residents’ focus group meeting for Area C, it was proposed that the development permit would not be required if a proposed project was not asking for a variance. The permit procedure in Area C has been often criticized for arbitrary abuse of the existing process. Residents in other UEL areas were less comfortable with removing development permits. It is an important issue and the UEL Administration was asked to carry out a survey of residents in order to help arrive at a consensus for each area.

- The letter appears to support accessory suites within main and accessory buildings.
Focus group participants were divided in their opinions with respect to accessory suites and this issue is identified as one of the two key issues to be included in the survey of UEL residents.

- The concerned property owner pointed out that the administration plans to increase the Development Permit Application Fee from $750 currently, to $20,000:
With respect to that issue, at a November 3rd, 2010 UEL resident focus group meeting with the UEL Manager, the UEL Manager claimed that the cost of processing a development permit application in the UEL is $20,000, although the UEL Administration currently charges $750 for a development permit. (This information is available on the UEL Administration website.)

It is interesting to contrast this cost of $20,000 against the salaries of the UEL staff. Approximately half of the 2.5 million dollars paid in property taxes (p. 6) by UEL residents are spent on salary and overtime of the 15 employees involved in UEL administration. That translates into an average salary of more than $6000 per month. Compare this average salary against the $20,000 proposed change and it suggests that it takes 3 months for a dedicated employee to process a single development permit application. That does not sound reasonable. What is the $20,000 spent on?

Best Bus

2011-03-15T13:04:00.000-07:00

It appears that Translink heard our local concerns that expensive, new train infrastructure may not be the best at serving our transportation needs and it is worth to examine how our existing bus lines can be utilized more efficiently.

Among the obvious solutions to help transit buses negotiate city traffic is to ban bicycles from bus routes.
At the same time the City should expand the network of bicycle routes on residential streets.

Currently a single cyclist moving slower than 15 km/h is slowing down more than 50 commuters on a bus capable of traveling three times faster.

West Point Grey - community vision

2011-03-14T16:52:00.000-07:00

Last Fall, the City of Vancouver published a document called "West Point Grey Community Vision". It may be of interest to the residents of Little Australia as it has a number of points that are likely to impact our neighbourhood.

Some interesting points include:
• reduce lanes on 10th Avenue to one each way between Alma and Blanca (with left turning lanes)

• reduce speed limit to 40 km/h on 10th Avenue
• identify ‘village centre’ on 10th Avenue with street furniture, clock tower, planting/landscaping/public
art, etc. which can slow down traffic
• need larger left-turn lane and ‘advance green’ in all directions at 4th and Alma
• restrict cars to fewer lanes: use extra for buses, extended sidewalks, median refuge, bike lanes, and
more landscaping
• keep 4th and 10th as streets, not highways
• deflect car and truck traffic from 10th onto 16th
• narrow 16th Avenue between Crown and Blanca to encourage bikes and reduce cars
• provide English-style roundabout at 16th and Blanca
• provide traffic calming around Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and Jules
Quesnel schools
• provide a light for crossing Blanca at 8th Avenue
• have a planted median, 2 lanes of traffic total, and Bikelanes on both east and west sides on Blanca
Street
• provide sidewalks or path on 4th Avenue to get to UEL trails
• build rowhouses on 16th Avenue locating increased density on an arterial route and next to UEL, creating
less impact on the neighbourhood

Provide Bike Parking and Racks
Bike parking and covered racks should be more readily available in WPG, particularly at Point Grey Village.

Reduce Speed Limit to 40 KM/H Speed Limit on Local Streets
The City should continue to encourage the province to move quickly to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to allow the City to reduce the speed limit on local streets to 40 km/h.

Improve Visibility at Intersections
Sufficient corner clearance at intersections should be provided to ensure clear visibility of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Reduce UBC Impacts on WPG
The City and the community should work closely with UBC and Translink to ensure that UBC growth doesn’t
negatively impact WPG. All participants should be strongly encouraged to address current issues of traffic
speed and volume along WPG arterials, and impacts related to the on-going residential, commercial, and
institutional development at UBC.

Provide Rapid Transit Service to UBC
As part of a longer-term solution, the City should work with Translink to extend dedicated rapid transit
service to UBC as a means to attract greater ridership and as a sustainable alternative to high-frequency
bus services.

Support a Community Policing Centre and Community Policing
A Community Policing Centre (CPC) serving WPG should be established and supported by the community.

Maintain Most Single Family Areas
In order to retain the basic character of WPG, most of the area that is now single family (with suites allowed)
should be kept that way.
• preserve open space, views, and character by maintaining existing density
• retain single family areas to address concerns that additional density leads to more crime, traffic, noise,
and pollution, and results in a loss in the general standard of living in WPG

Allow Full Basements in All Single Family Homes to Encourage Suites
New and renovated single family homes should be permitted to have full basements to encourage the development of more homes with a single rental suite.

Design Review for New Single Family Houses
The design of new single family houses should be improved by having new single family houses undergo design review.

Allow New Housing Near Shopping Areas
New housing types should be permitted near shopping areas in WPG, subject to detailed planning and impact
mitigation.
• provide mid-rise developments close to the ‘village’
• provide rowhouses and/or multiple family dwellings located within walking distance of shopping and
amenities on arterials
• allow mid-rises or low-rises only along commercial areas
• build duplexes close to shopping areas
• build rowhouses near shops

Housing Affordability (affordable housing) - Not Approved (Uncertain)

CAUTION - Burrard and Pacific intersection is more dangerous

2011-03-14T15:48:00.000-07:00

As Vancouverites woke up to the cheerful rumble of planters being placed on Hornby street to fulfill the dream of a segregated bike lane in the name of safety, ICBC data shows a chilling reality - that the number of accidents on the north end of the Burrard Street Bridge actually skyrocketed after the separated bike lane was installed on the bridge.

Last summer, right after the lanes were installed, was horrific. There was one accident per day, compared to one a week in the summer of 2008. The rest of the year continued to be bleak. Ahead of the holiday season, there were 33 per cent more accidents as families went shopping, attended holiday events and had to navigate their way through crowded bus and car lanes as the separated bike lanes stood largely empty. The second half of last year saw 130 accidents -- nearly twice the rate as in previous years.

In the first half of this year we still had a 38-per-cent increase in accidents, with the winter months being the worst. Bus, car commuters and commercial-vehicle drivers, who are 95 per cent of the Burrard Bridge users, face more accidents on its north end while the number of cyclists crossing the bridge remains at five per cent. The dream of safety for a few has turned into a nightmare for many.

http://www.globalnews.ca/entertainment/crashes+Burrard+Bridge/3650169/story.html

Proposed Building Bylaw Threatens Single Family Character of Little Australia

2010-09-20T11:49:00.000-07:00

It is worth noting that the new building bylaw proposed by the UEL Administration threatens the single family character of our neighbourhood.

The proposed bylaw allows for houses in Little Australia to have "one or more sleeping units" for the accommodation of persons not being members of the family occupying the house. This contradicts single family nature of our neighbourhood specified within the same bylaw and set out in the official community plan.
Residents comments can be forwarded to the UEL Administration through their website or local representatives within the Community Advisory Council or the Advisory Design Panel.

Section 405 of the proposed bylaw defines Area-C as "Single Family Residential".
Yet in section 405.1(2) it designates "Accessory Boarding Use" as a permitted land use in Area-C.
"Accessory Boarding Use" is defined within the bylaw as "an accessory use of one or more sleeping units contained within a dwelling unit for the accommodation of no more than two persons not being members of the family occupying the dwelling unit."

BUILDING BYLAW REVIEW - draft is avalable, opportunity to review and provide your comments

2010-07-26T13:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Neighbours, UEL Administration posted the draft of proposed new building bylaw (aka. "Land Use and Development Bylaw) on their website.

It is worth reviewing the letter from the UEL Manager that highlights the most notable proposed changes to the bylaw.

It is fair to say that the most notable change to the bylaw with respect to Little Australia (Area-C) is the REMOVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT if a project does not ask for variance from the bylaw.

At the moment, any new project is subject to obtaining a Development Permit (DP) before a Building Permit is granted. During the focus group discussion it was noted that the DB application process was open to subjective interpretations of an imprecise bylaw making the process time-consuming, uncertain and costly as UEL Staff had to spend an excessive amount of time to deal with each application.
The focus group asked the UEL Administration to draft a bylaw that would address the concerns regarding "neighbourhood character" by quantifying them. Those are to become fixed constraints and the most notable example is allowing for two storey houses to be build in Little Australia as long as the second floor is 25% smaller that the first floor.
This is a notable departure from the existing bylaw and residents comments would be most helpful in confirming that indeed this approach is widely supported in Area-C.

Another notable change is to allow ACCESSORY SUITES as long as they are a part of the principal building and the owner lives in the house.

UEL BUILDING BYLAW REVIEW - FOCUS GROUPS

2010-03-02T11:30:00.000-08:00

UEL Administration website (http://www.universityendowmentlands.gov.bc.ca/whatsnew/whatsnew.htm ) reports that in late January there was a workshop for CAC and ADP members covering the proposed changes to the UEL Building Bylaw.
The residents of Little Australia are able to participate in this stage of the bylaw review process by participating in focus groups.
At this time, the CAC and ADP websites are silent about the process for selecting focus group participants.
Perhaps it is appropriate that interested residents contact the CAC and ADP directly at council@uelcommunity.com and designpanel@uelcommunity.com respectively.

Maciek Kon in Little Australia

UBC Rapid Transit Workshop

2009-11-24T14:19:00.000-08:00

On Nov 5, 2009 Translink held a workshop for the UBC residents describing the UBC Rapid Transit study currently under way. Presenters at the meeting came from Translink and a consulting firm – Steer Davies Gleave.

The study appears to be driven by the concerns that the existing bus service connecting UBC with the city is being challenged by the volumes of passengers that are using it.

It was a very informative meeting, it provided many details regarding available technologies (aka. bus, streetcar, train etc.), covered examples of possible implementations and it provided an opportunity to point out shortcomings or areas for consideration.

Technologies.

In this part of the presentation we learned about different transit systems and differences between them.

Buses are the most familiar sight and they range from electric to hybrid and to articulated diesels.

Light rail is perhaps the least familiar to us and can be described as a supersized streetcar running on rails separated from the rest of the traffic. Supersizing comes from the “train” being longer than a streetcar but still remaining quite low to the ground allowing for easy access from the street level. Light rail trains are meant to run on dedicated lanes so they do not get slowed down by other street traffic. This way they provide for greater volumes of passengers transported by a light rail than a bus. Apparently, light rail can run at-grade, be elevated or placed in a tunnel.

Sky train is an example of rapid rail so this technology is familiar to us already.

It seems that every transit system has its own, unique passenger capacity.

Buses can move from 3 to 6 thousand passengers per hour, light rail moves 8 to 10 thousand passengers in an hour and rapid rail carries 20 to 30 thousand. Perhaps then, the answer to what type of the transit system to use lies “simply” in modeling future demand for transportation along this East-West corridor from Commercial St. to UBC and using the corresponding technology. At the time of the meeting Translink was not able to provide estimates of future demand so it would be premature to be deciding on the type of transit to be used for any UBC rapid transit project.

Other differences include the distance between stops with buses being able to collect passengers along many stops along their route and rapid rail having comparatively fewer stops with light rail being in-between.

Costs are considerably different and considering the initial, capital costs and the ongoing operating costs will be a very important part of the study.

Discussion.

A lengthy and informative exchange of ideas followed the presentation and it identified a number of points that should be expanded upon or be explicitly included. I am including some of the points that were discussed.

Establishing a baseline for the study.

As with any project one needs a reference point to compare the benefits and costs of a proposed solution. The participants in the meeting noticed that, to-date, Translink used the existing 99-B bus line as the baseline against which other proposals are contrasted. This was identified as a shortcoming of the study and concerns were raised that the study’s recommendations may be discredited on the basis of invalid comparisons. It was proposed that Translink prepares a “best case baseline” against which any new solutions are compared. Such best case baseline would demonstrate what passenger capacity can be achieved with the existing technology – buses, “some paint” – to change the layout of traffic lanes and perhaps sign changes that may prohibit street parking to gain space for buses. It was suggested that Translink puts forward their ideas on how to modify the pattern followed by the buses along the east-west corridor connecting Commercial St. with UBC and stretching from 4th Ave to 16th Ave. Brainstorming ideas that were put forward from the floor included supplementing the 99-B line with shorter bus lines that serve the travelers between Commercial St and the VGH and a separate line that runs between UBC and VGH. Participants suggested that Translink goes beyond relying to the extent that it does on Broadway as a bus route and looks to 16th, 12th and 4th Avenues for additional capacity.

Then, against such low cost, best case baseline, we will be able to evaluate the size of gains brought by the proposed new technologies versus their cost.

Governance.

Questions and concerns during the discussion brought up an issue of oversight of the study. Ultimately the funds for any rapid transit project will be sourced mainly from the Provincial Government and yet the apparent lack of challenging questions even at those early stages of the study suggests that there is little direct oversight of this project from the agencies that will be asked to fund it.

Impressions.

Listening to the presenters one might have got an impression that the experts liked the idea of light rail transit as the transportation system for the UBC rapid transit. Large amount of time was devoted to learning about the technical aspects of this technology and the term “light rail” kept on coming up with frequency. Participants were treated to really nice pictures of smart looking trains, moving on discrete rails, with use of plants to soften the visual impact of separating the light rail from the rest of the traffic. Presenters spoke of taking half of the road for the light rail transit and continue to use the other half for vehicles moving in dedicated single lanes in each direction. Consideration was given to cycling routes and pedestrian flow.

Kudos to Translink for this informative presentation that helped the participants understand what the technologies are. Based on the openness of this workshop it is reasonable to expect that questions and concerns raised will be addressed.

Point Grey Rd. closed to cars

2009-11-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

Many of UEL residents commute by car to downtown Vancouver. They often use the Point Grey Rd. to get to their destination. If the City Vancouver has their way it will not be possible to do that going forward as the City is considering closing the Point Grey Rd. to car traffic - only bikes would be allowed. To be precise, the Point Grey Rd. would be closed to the westbound car traffic. So on your way from downtown you would have to leave Cornwall/Pt. Grey Rd at MacDonald and then turn right on 4th Ave.
Imagine the traffic congestion as cars turning left to MacDonald yield to the cars heading east and then the stream of cars trying to turn right to 4th Ave.
All of this in the name of cyclists' safety. What is striking is how ill-though out this idea is. To improve cyclists' safety just place a "No Bicycles" sign on Point Grey Rd. in its narrowest stretch from Alma to Balaclava and send the bikes along 1st Ave. Problem is solved cheaply, with less interruptions and improved traffic flow. To add insult to injury, 3rd Ave is already designated as a bike route in the area.
You can reach the City planners through mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca

UBC rapid transit

2009-11-05T10:42:00.000-08:00

Translink is conducting a study of rapid transit options to UBC. On November 5th a UBC/UEL workshop is held at the Michael Smith Building, 2185 East Mall - Room 101 starting at 6pm.

For your reference please find included a map (click to enlarge) that shows straight paths from most likely transit routes out of Vancouver toward the two transit terminals at the UBC Campus.

History question - "Little Australia"

2009-09-18T11:28:00.001-07:00

Dear Neighbours
Our neighbourhood is often called "Little Australia". Do you know of any resources that would help me in preparing a short background on this name? In my research to-date I came accross two conflicting "stories";
One story talks about Australian troops being stationed between Blanca and what is now a Pacific Spirit Park during the WWII and this leading to the name "Little Australia".
Another common opinion was of a builder in the 1960's that developed this area and named three streets, "Adelaide", "Queensland" and "Tasmania" leading to the name "Little Australia".
If you had any references that I could follow-up on and create a "definitive story of the name - Little Australia" I would be very grateful.
Thank You

Neighbourhood Photos - call for your submissions

2009-09-18T11:27:00.000-07:00

Dear Neighbours
UEL Community webpage does not have any pictures of our neighbourhood. Please be so kind and forward (council@uelcommunity.com) your favourite shots to the UEL Council for consideration.
Let's show off our neighbourhood.

“Neighbourhood Character” - ambiguous

2009-09-17T12:41:00.000-07:00

Remove ambiguity with respect to “neighbourhood character” as referred to in Section 46 of the Bylaw.

Background: The UEL Official Community Plan (“the Plan”) is a “broad statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management within the area.” It is a document which was derived from collective decisions made by the community, and embodies resident visions of neighbourhood character. Building bylaws “must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan.”

In practice, since there are references to “neighbourhood character” in the Building Bylaws, these references are making the process open to subjective interpretation of neighbourhood character, not community expression of neighbourhood character – which is already embodied in the Bylaw by virtue of the Bylaw having been derived from the Plan.

Thus, in order to remove ambiguity in the implementation of the Bylaw, removing references to “neighourhood character” from the Bylaw should be considered.

Multiple Appeals - duplication in the appeal process

2009-09-17T12:36:00.000-07:00

Remove duplication and introduce clarity between the Bylaw and the UEL Act, with respect to appeals to the UEL Manager’s issuance of Development Permits.

Background: Under the current system, after a Development Permit has been issued by the UEL Manager, a resident can appeal the Permit in one of two ways:
(a) If under the Bylaw, by showing that their property value is being “materially affected” by the Development Permit being issued
OR
(b) If under the UEL Act, the resident can appeal a decision of the UEL Manager if they are “affected” by it.

As a result, Development Permits are being appealed under the UEL Act where the term “affected” is undefined and subject to broad strokes of interpretation.

Thus, in order to relieve the ambiguity of the process and to make the process more practical, the following two points need to be considered:
(i) Provide clarity and guidance as to what is meant by the term “affected” in the Act and how one demonstrates being affected
OR
(ii) Remove the ability to appeal under the Act, since the bylaw already provides for an appeal.