In their quest to stop 22,000 cars a day from running through their quiet Walnut Grove neighbourhood, opponents of the 216 Street Interchange ramped up their battle last week, sending five delegations at Township council on Nov. 21.
The council chamber was filled with people wearing signs that read, “Glover is a better choice,” “children’s safety matters” and “no interchange on 216 Street,” and audience members frequently broke with decorum to applaud those who spoke on their behalf.
The first speaker, Graeme Harfman, said that in his research, he has found the interchange to be inconsistent with the Walnut Grove Official Community Plan, and therefore should not be allowed to proceed.
He asked council to “initiate a public process to change the land use plan in the WGCP before passing any further bylaws not consistent with the current Walnut Grove Community Plan.”
That would include the borrowing bylaw to acquire funding for the Township’s financial obligation to the project, which was up for final adoption later that night.
The second speaker, Peter Kravchuke, said Walnut Grove already has better access to Highway 1 than most places in the Lower Mainland, and suggested the interchange be a trumpet design instead to service the Willoughby side of the freeway only.
Marina MacLean, a mother of three children who attend école des Voyageurs — one of two elementary schools along 216 Street — spoke about the dangers the interchange will place on children walking to school, while speaker Linda Nash presented health studies that suggest living in heavy traffic areas can increase risk of cancer and other medical conditions.
The final speaker, Thomas Weihua Sun, said as a professional engineer, he was disappointed by the quality of the October report crafted by consultant R.F. Binnie & Associates. The report was created after council requested additional information on several issues brought up by the community, including the location of the interchange, safety and truck routes.
Later in the evening, council debated the information provided by the residents before voting on the borrowing bylaw.
Coun. Kim Richter requested that the decision be deferred until council receives a legal opinion on the Walnut Grove OCP.
“I am quite concerned that there is a very valid legal question that has been raised, and that is the original OCP did not contemplate an arterial road in the plan,” she said.
“And by putting this interchange in, are we de facto changing the OCP without having gone through the necessary approval process and public consultation processes?”
Mayor Jack Froese said that delaying or defeating the borrowing bylaw would not make the project stop. It would only mean the Township will have to come up with other sources of funding to cover the portion they are required to provide.
Township CAO Mark Bakken confirmed Froese’s statement.
“I don’t know of any situation where once the province has made the decision to proceed, that the municipality can argue that because their zoning, OCP or neighbourhood plans were not adhered to, that that can somehow stop the province,” Bakken said.
“We could certainly, I guess, in theory, put a barricade at one end. I suppose that is something that we could do. Or not widen the road (216 Street), leave it to a much lower standard … Again it depends upon which perspective council wishes to take.”
Coun. Charlie Fox called it an “interesting conundrum.”
“I’m feeling right now like I’m the meat between the bread in the sandwich … And I’m just about to get eaten. It doesn’t matter which way we go, we’re going to be the wrong ones.”
Richter’s deferral failed, and the borrowing bylaw was passed with Richter and Coun. Petrina Arnason opposed.
At the end of the meeting, Arnason made a notice of motion asking staff to implement a time-sensitive engagement strategy to specifically address the issues raised by the delegations.
Richter also made a notice of motion specifically asking that staff address whether or not the Walnut Grove OCP needs to be properly amended to accommodate the interchange.