Author: Patrick Johnstone

Listening

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

I have already written a slightly-too-long blog post on the City’s burgeoning reconciliation process. If I could summarize the thesis, it is that the community needs to take intentional and careful steps in creating a space for communication. We need to hear each other’s stories.

I was both excited and apprehensive to see the Record name reconciliation as their News Item of the Year. It is great that our sole remaining local paper sees this as an important topic, as their participation in nurturing those conversations will be important. The problem being that their story once again focused attention on a statue – a potentially important issue point, but a relatively minor part of a much larger discussion that has to happen.

The story in the Record has, for good or bad, already started discussion in the letters section of the paper, and associated Social Media.

I disagree with some of what I read in those letters. However, I more strongly disagree with people jumping on Social Media to (with the best of intentions) correct things in that letter they deem as inaccurate or (with less clear intentions) accuse the letter writers of ignorance or ill intent.

One thing I have learned in my first forays into learning about the Truth and Reconciliation process is that we need people to tell their stories, to share their thoughts and experiences. This cannot happen if our default is to immediately question a person’s ideas or impressions. Conversation is different than debate, and on this topic we need much more of the former, much less of the latter. Even when what we hear is uncomfortable. We need to find a way to talk about how our understanding, our experience, may be different or come from a different place without engaging in debate or placing the letter writer in an “others” group.

I wrote last time about trying to understand how we can create spaces where people who lived the Indigenous experience can talk about their truths. I think this is an important early emphasis, if only because we have to get over the hurdles related to 150+ years of systematic efforts to silence those voices. However, we don’t get there by shouting down the voices of the members of our community for whom the entire idea of there being an “Indigenous Experience” is a challenge to their deeply held beliefs.

We all, all of us, have to learn how to listen. It’s only the first step, but it’s an important one. We can use this process to build a stronger, more just and compassionate community. And that is a way better goal than just having a well-debated statue.

Council – Jan 8, 2018

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

The first meeting of 2018 had that back-to-school feel, with presentations, some interesting public delegations, and some actual work done. We started with a presentation from staff on Innovation Week, which I will probably have to write a whole separate blog post about, because there is a lot of cool stuff happening at the end of February, and you probably want to take part.

2018-2022 Draft Financial Plan – General Fund
This is the first public reporting of the work that has been done up to now on the 2018 budget and Financial Plan through to 2022.

Our General Fund (the money we use for the day-to-day running of the City) is currently budgeting revenue to increase by 3%, mostly from tax increases, with expenses increasing by 2%. We can achieve this with a 2.95% tax increase, and still include the transfer of $4.7 Million into capital reserves to support our long-term Capital Plan.

The Capital Plan for 2018 includes $64 Million spent on buildings and other capital improvements – $50 Million from the reserves we have in the bank, $7 Million from borrowing, and $7 Million from other sources (Grants, DCCs, etc.). This is completely manageable in 2018, but we need to look forward to our entire 5-year Capital Plan, which is (at first blush) pushing the envelope a bit.

We have a great number of capital projects, including some new facilities and ongoing capital maintenance. Over a 5-year plan, it totals more than $240 Million, which will challenge our reserves and our debt tolerance. A big part of this is the proposed replacement of the Canada Games Pool and Centennial Community Centre, but also includes implementation of our MTP, necessary maintenance and upgrades on the Library, City Hall, and other buildings, and meeting community expectations for everything from accessibility to pavement management (there is a great table in the report that outlines all of the items in the draft 2018 Capital budget attached to this report).

The need to invest in closing our infrastructure gap is not unique to New Westminster, and we are in pretty good shape compared to many similarly-sized Cities across Canada, but the gap is real and needs a proactive approach. We have already done some pretty serious prioritization of capital projects, and our staff have done the financial analysis to determine the right balance between drawing down reserves and increasing debt – both options have long-term financial consequences.

Staff are proposing a Capital Levy to be added to our property taxes to help us get over this capital investment bump. A 1% levy for 5 years would help our reserves be maintained at a level that provides financial security long-term. Essentially, that would mean our tax increase in 2018 would be 3.95% (assuming the general budget is approved as it is), but that the extra 1% would be earmarked for tangible capital improvements like the Canada Games Pool.

This is an interesting discussion, and I look forward to hearing from the public about how we should best address the needs identified in our Capital Plan.

The following items were moved on Consent:

Infrastructure Canada Smart Cities Challenge
This Federal Grant program is a pretty exciting opportunity – though it will be a highly competitive grant process. The City has a pretty ambitious Intelligent City program, and has already been recognized as a Smart21 City. Events like the Innovation Forum, our Hackathon and our Open Data, BridgeNet, and other initiatives put us in a good position to put together a bid, either alone or working with regional partners. We need some community help here, though, so look forward to some upcoming community engagement asking you to help us frame a “Challenge Statement”.

Changes to the 2018 Schedule of Regular Council Meetings
Oops, they moved Spring Break on us! Please update your 2018 social calendars so you won’t be disappointed!

Queen City (Bonnie’s) Taxi Ltd: Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7976, 2018 to Add Vehicles – Bylaw for Three Readings
Once again, taxi operators in the City are asking for an increase in their fleets to meet frequency and timeliness standards their customers expect. This somewhat convoluted process includes the City approving a Bylaw to increase the number of licenses. This is the draft version of the Bylaw, which will go to an Opportunity to be Heard, so I’ll hold off my comments until after that.

Heritage Properties Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 7971, 2018 and Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Amendment No. 7973, 2018: Bylaws for Three Readings
The Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) protections for Queens Park are designed to prevent the active destruction of important historical assets in the community. However, these assets can be damaged in a more passive way – through intentional or unintentional neglect or maintenance failures that erode the structural stability or heritage elements of the building. For this reason, HCAs usually include a Bylaw that regulates minimum standards of maintenance for otherwise protected buildings.

This draft Bylaw replaces an existing older Bylaw that protected heritage assets in the City, in order to align with the new HCA. Essentially, it requires owners take reasonable steps to prevent water ingress and rot, infestation, and damage caused by penetration of vegetation into the building. It doesn’t regulate things like fading paint or cosmetic appearances.

Passive Design Incentives for Single Detached Zones – First and Second Readings for Zoning Bylaw No. 7953, 2018
The City has looked at providing some development incentives to homeowners interested in building much more efficient houses. This would help us meet our long-term community energy and emissions reduction targets. Passive House (or, in the native German “Passivhaus”) is an ultra-low-energy standard where a typical residential home can be heated by little more than the waste heat from their fridge coils and domestic water (with a bit of a boost from low-power heaters in extreme conditions).

We have at least one Passive Houses-standard house in the City that I know of (you wouldn’t know looking at it from the street), and as the Province’s Step Code changes advance over the decades ahead, the “leap” to Passive House will be getting smaller and smaller – making it more and more attractive to builders.

However, the thicker walls required for Passive House currently mean a slightly smaller house for a given footprint/allowable zoning, and staff are recommending we change the way we calculate square footage (and concomitantly FSR) for buildings built to Passive House standard to level that playing field a bit. This Bylaw will go to Public Hearing, so aside from describing the intent, I will hold off on comments until after that.

2018 City Partnership Grants – Update
This is a follow-up on a few questions Council had coming out of the Partnership Grant applications and approvals we did back in December.

These items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2018 Festival Grant Recommendations
This is the last of our Grant approvals for the 2018 season, with the rest being done back in December. Festivals Grants help fund everything from the Hyack Parade to the various cultural festivals and road “closures” across the City. No doubt the Festivals file has been a great news story in New West over the last couple of years, with so many great events happening. This is – I cannot emphasize enough – mostly due to the efforts of armies of volunteers from the many organizations that work to bring people together in New West. They do most of the heavy lifting for these events, but the City’s financial and logistical support can be fundamental to their success.

Our budget was $235,000, and we received 25 applications totaling just a hair under $400,000. So the Festivals Committee was charged with prioritizing funding based on established criteria. In the end, Council approved the recommended $248,100 in funding to 23 organizations – which is $13,000 over budget.

Housing and Social Planning Update and Work Program for 2018/19
This City is regional leader in the Housing and Social Planning departments, because of consistent support from Councils past and present over the last decade, and because of some remarkably strong work done by our social planning staff.

This file has grown (…expanded, …exploded) as the regional housing crisis worsened along with other social issues in the province related to poverty, mental health, and failing senior government social supports . There is so much going on: the development of supportive housing on City lands, expansion of childcare, actions under the Family-friendly housing policy, child and youth friendly city strategy, dementia-friendly City action plan, the Rent Bank, our Tenant Relocation Program… the list goes on.

We have senior governments now that are talking about re-investing in supporting the disenfranchised and marginalized citizens of the province, and there is some light on the horizon, but the City still needs to maintain consistent action, and that means we need to invest in the staff required to do that work. Council moved to support that work, and further made it clear to staff that we don’t want to slow down, but need to know that there are sufficient resources to address emergent issues. This work program is ambitious, but the City is ambitious.

Rental Replacement Policy and Inclusionary Housing Policy: Proposed Work Plan and Consultation Process
Speaking of good work on the affordable housing file, we are looking at how to encourage the development of more affordable housing options. We have been pretty successful at encouraging secured market rental gets built, but need to worry about the affordability of those units, and long-term stability of the lower-cost rental stock (this is where the Demoviction and Renoviction issues come in). We also need some policy guidance on inclusionary housing – assuring there is a reasonable non-market housing component to the new housing growth in the City. That will require some economic analysis of proposed policy changes, for which we would need to hire some consultants. This can be paid for out of our Affordable Housing fund.

There will be some stakeholder and public consultation on this work, and I am interested to see where it is going.

We then performed our normal Bylaws shuffle

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Passive Design Exclusions) No. 7953, 2018
As discussed above, this Bylaw would adjust our zoning to support the building of more energy-efficient buildings. Council gave this Bylaw Amendment two readings, and it will go to Public Hearing on January 29th. C’mon out and let us know what you think.

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7976, 2018
As discussed above, this Bylaw which would allow an increase in Taxi licenses in New Westminster was given three readings. There will be an Opportunity to be Heard on this Bylaw Amendment on January 29th. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Heritage Property Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 7971, 2018
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Housekeeping Amendment Bylaw No. 7973, 2018
As discussed above, these Bylaw amendments that would help protect heritage homes in Queens Park from intentional neglect were given three readings.

232 Lawrence Street – Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7948, 2017
This Zoning Amendment was given a Public Hearing back on November 27th, and is required to permit a childcare facility to operate on City lands in Queensborough. It was Adopted by Council, and is now the Law of the Land.

Five-Year Financial Plan (2017-2021) Amendment Bylaw No. 7938, 2017
This Amendment to our 2017-2021 Financial Plan was discussed and given three readings back on December 4th. It is an administrative update to adjust for changes that occurred during the year, and was Adopted by Council.

And, again, aside from an interesting Public Delegations session, that was the work for the evening. See you all next week, same time, same channel!

Motordumb

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

This is terrifying.

I mean, that is what it’s supposed to be. Part of the macho-truck-tough-guy/gal image it is meant to project. Sports cars were sometimes jokingly referred to as phallic symbols, projecting compensatory manhood and virility. This is a more of a rolling sawed-off shotgun, projecting violence, instability, and wide destructive swath to compensate for an inability to aim.

Big Trucks are nothing new in Canada, but look at the language the puff piece in the “Drive” section of our national newspaper (ugh) uses to describe it:

“Insane”, “ridiculous”, “’roid rage”, “invincible”, “out of scale”.

This truck is too wide (“A single lane suddenly feels too narrow… a foot wider than an already-huge F-250”), too tall (“the bottom of the seat is at eye-level”), and both creates a visual barrier for others (“Once inside you can see clearly over the tops of all SUVs”), yet has terrible visbility itself (“Nothing directly in front of it is visible, thanks to the huge, wide hood”). This lack of visibility is enhanced by mating a 450 horsepower engine with a design that features “bad steering, bad ride and bad handling.” But don’t worry, “You’re so high off the ground, there’s little sense of speed. It’s like looking out the window of a 747 during takeoff.”

Yes, this vehicle is an exaggeration of a point, and not many are sold (although the Globe & Mail will no doubt help with that little problem). But it is symptomatic of a situation where the use of automobiles is,  for the first time in history, getting less safe. And it is increasingly innocent bystanders being killed by them, not drivers.

There are many factors leading to these trends, distracted driving being a bit part of the equation (which raises an entire new rant about big LCD screens in cars). However, we live in a situation were you can roll a Honda Civic off the lot that is faster on the racetrack than a Lamborghini Gallardo. Dodge is selling, over the counter and with no special training mind you, an 840hp drag racer that does a sub-10 second quarter mile. It is so fast, that it is actually illegal to use at a regulated drag strip without doing safety modifications, but you can drive through your local school zone with no such regulatory concerns.

Cars are getting bigger, they are getting more powerful, and things like outward visibility are being compromised for design reasons. Trucks, especially, are seemingly exempt from any regulations around bumper height and fender coverage. After-market modification of lights, suspension, and other critical safety equipment is essentially unregulated.

This is all coming from the position of someone who walks and cycles in a dense urban community, but also someone who sees it as part of his job to make it be safer for 8-year-olds to walk to school and 80-year-olds to cross the street. We already give so much of our urban space to automobiles, because they serve a utility that people value. Recognizing that, we can build wide, comfortable sidewalks. We can design better crosswalks, and paint green paint at conflict zones. We can impose speed limits, improve lighting, create walkable neighbourhoods and dynamic retail districts. But our public spaces will never feel safe – will never be safe – if some agro asshole can charge through it waving a sawed-off shotgun at everyone.

We need to have a discussion about how far is too far for automobiles that want to share our urban space. We need enforceable standards of power, speed, bumper height, and other design elements that emphasize the safety of not just the operator and the passenger, but of other who unwillingly share space with these machines.

Some will suggest this is an intrusion – the end of freedom as we know it. Of course, we already have an actual law telling people to wear a Styrofoam helmet when sharing road space with this monstrosity. And when you get run over by it, rest assured the driver will say “I didn’t even see him!” like that is a defense, and not an admission of guilt. And Crown Counsel will agree.

There is no “War on Cars”, but if that’s what it takes to get these tanks off of our city streets, sign me up.

CGP2?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

At the last meeting of 2017, Council received a presentation on the work done by staff, consultants, and the Mayors Task Force on a replacement facility for the Canada Games Pool. Here is my summary of the report, and where we are at on this project (through my eyes, at least).

There is quite a bit of background in the reports presented, but the short version is that Council evaluated refurbishment and replacement options for the Canada Games Pool back in 2015. At that time, the cost for some of the significant mechanical and structural work on the facility was larger than Council was willing to invest in the aged facility. So work began in planning for a replacement and determining if the Centennial Community Centre should be involved in that replacement program, as it was similarly approaching end-of-life for many of its components.

Council and staff worked together on setting some conditions around which future planning should occur. Work was done on a site analysis to determine if the pool should be moved (in the end, the business case did not support changing locations), and how/if to support existing programs during replacement (Council committed to not demolishing the old pool building until the new is built to maintain continuity in programming).

Around the same time, a large public consultation and stakeholder engagement program (“Your Active New West”), engaged the community in discussions around what types of programs the new facility must have, what programs would be nice to have, and what the community was less committed to. The members of Council also toured a number of relatively recent pool and recreation centres around the Lower Mainland, from Coquitlam to West Vancouver, to hear from other communities what worked well and what didn’t in their facilities. A few of us even toured a facility outside Ottawa during last year’s FCM meeting.

There was also a forward-looking needs analysis completed, looking at facility use now (at CGP and other regional aquatic facilities) by the numbers, and projected 30 years into the future. This included demographics on the types of users, facility capacities, and such to provide solid data to back up the expressed desires of the community, and support a business case for operating an expanded recreation facility. “Build it and they will come” is often true, but we need a defensible business case both to demonstrate due diligence, and to bolster our applications for senior government support.

With all of this in hand, the Task Force worked with a team of consultants to develop a proposed program for a new combined Aquatic Centre and Recreation facility. This proposed program is laid out in the detailed Feasibility Study you can read here.

From all of that, the current proposal is to build a natatorium (word of the day!) of similar scale as the Hillcrest Centre build in Vancouver in 2011: a competition-sized tank (8 full-width lanes, 54m long), with a movable floor on one half to provide flexibility of programming, and a separate large (~450 person) leisure pool primarily for family fun, but to also accommodate some (short) lane swimming. The proposal also includes two high-school sized gymnasiums, a fitness/exercise centre more than twice the current capacity, a childcare centre, and 8 very flexible multi-purpose rooms of varying size to accommodate the types of programs the Centennial Centre does now. Throw in change rooms, office space, and common areas, and you have 114,000 square feet of community centre.

Amongst the many issues that the Task Force have worked on is how to fit that much building on a relatively constrained space. Keeping the existing facilities operating was important, and much of the area where the current parking lot and gravel field are cannot be built upon because of a buried Metro Vancouver sewer line and geotechnical concerns. The Firehall (it is almost new) and the Curling Rink (the City doesn’t own the building) aren’t going anywhere, though the recycling yard may me movable. With traffic access, CPTED, and logistics of construction, the site is very constrained.

As I’m making these points, I need to emphasize that the design and layout suggested in the feasibility study are preliminary and diagrammatic. We don’t yet know what this building will look like in any detail, as we simply are not there yet in the iterative process of design, budget, and construction. However, we know what we want to build, and we know we can make it fit, so now is a good time to take this back out to the public and do a check-in before going forward to the next steps.

There will be public consultation happening early in 2018, but this will be somewhat different than the previous community discussion in 2016-2017. This will be more of a check in to assure we have hit the mark from the earlier consultations, not a time to go back to the drawing board that we already spent a year scribbling on. We also need to start the discussion about how we are going to pay for this.

The budget estimates (and yes, these are early estimates suitable to the early part of the iterative design and planning process we are going through, subject to change for various reasons within and outside of the control of Council) is that the entire centre will cost between $85 and $100 Million. When offering a preliminary estimate, we try to include reasonable contingencies, and are budgeting in 2020 dollars to account for some inflation. However, building costs do not necessarily track the CPI, and anyone trying to hire a contractor right now knows it is  a crazy hot and expensive building market in Greater Vancouver right now. Needless to say, this will be the single largest capital investment ever made by the City of New Westminster.

Council and staff have reason to be confident that the program proposed will qualify for some senior government grants, and potentially some significant Federal Infrastructure dollars. It ticks all the right boxes that the federal program has outlined (inclusive and accessible community infrastructure, improved recreational and social opportunities, significant energy efficiency gains and reduction in GHGs). That said, we cannot move ahead assuming those monies will arrive. We are required to put together a 5-year capital plan that shows we have demonstrated our ability to pay for this, and that will inevitably involve dipping into reserves, some debt financing, and tax increases. There’s no way around that.

So over to you. Public engagement is coming in January, and in the meantime will be doing some more technical work on things like geotechnical constraints, parking needs, and some sustainability targets for the building (is LEED Gold the right standard?). We will also be preparing to submit grant applications to senior governments when the windows open (if you know anyone in Victoria or Ottawa, put in a good word for us!). This is a big project, and an exciting time for the City. Let’s hear what you think. It is important to let Council know what you like and if you support this project, and to let us know if you have concerns.

Vacation

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I haven’t written much here as of late, and I’m only here to say I’m not going to for a bit longer.

It was a busy last few months, and @MsNWimby and I have taken a vacation. We’ve relocated for a couple of weeks to some place sunny where we can ride bicycles in the morning, sit on a beach getting caught up on some reading in the afternoon, and spend altogether too much time staring off in to the distance and thinking about the plans ahead…

If you follow me on Facebook, you may see the occasional glimpse of my vacationary adventures. I’ll post if I feel like it, but hey, I’m on vacation.

Regular (or at least the usual semi-regular) programming here will resume early in January. I have a bunch of half-formed ideas for posts, a few things in the queue, and some ideas about next year, which looks to be a busy one. Also, there is some sort of electoral event arriving in October, the “silly season” for which has clearly already started. Alas.

In the meantime, I hope you are spending Christmas doing the things you love the most, with the people you love the most. See you in 2018.

Council – Dec 4, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Wow. What a week. Much to talk about, too much to do, but first things first, my report on the happenings of Monday’s Council.

This meeting started with an Opportunity for Public Comment:

Five Year Financial Plan (2017-2021) Amendment Bylaw No. 7938, 2017
The City operates on a budgeting process that requires all expenditures to be included in a Five-Year Financial Plan. Every once in a while, we vary from that budget enough – because of extenuating circumstances or a shift in policy – that it is appropriate for us to amend it through a Bylaw. The interested public always has an opportunity to ask questions related to this amendment, as they do with the annual 5-Year Plan update.

The Amendments in question here comprise:

  • The Arenex collapse means we need to spend some money on clean-up, on a replacement structure, and some other ancillary costs (most of this is covered by our insurance)
  • We got a grant to do some sewer separation work in Sapperton. This is money in (the grant) and money out (we paid for the work to be done) but it still needs to be included in our budget
  • The Ewen Street work is over budget, and we are pulling money from reserves to cover it (since Queensborough DCCs won’t cover it). There is also some GVRD sewer renewal money here, which again is money we will recover, but it needs to be shown in the budget
  • The scope for library renovations has expanded somewhat, so we need to allocate some money from our existing borrowing authority to make sure we have enough to cover the project – now underway!

No-one came to speak to these amendments, and we received no correspondence on them. Council moved to give the amendment bylaw three readings.

We then had a Report for Action:

Canada Games Pool/Centennial Community Centre Project – Aquatic and Community Centre Feasibility Study
We haven’t reported out a lot of work from the Canada Games Pool task Force, but there has been quite a bit of work done by Staff and our Consultants on responding to the public consultation that occurred earlier in the year.

I think I need to throw this over to another much longer blog post, as there is a lot here, but the short version is: we have a pretty good idea of what type of program best balances what the community told us they want (thinking ahead a few decades), and what we reasonably think the community can afford given the various funding sources available to us. A little more than 100,000 square feet, a little less than $100 Million.

The steps ahead are to hear back from the community if this is totally the wrong direction, this is, after all, the biggest capital project in the City’s long history. This conversation in the community will begin early in the new year. We also need to do some technical work to provide better cost estimating and firm up the capital plan impacts. More to come!

The following items were then Moved on Consent:

2018 Heritage Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $25,000 for Heritage Grants. We have a Committee appointed by Council to review and make recommendations for these Grants. We received requests totaling $29,905, and the Grant Committee recommended awarding a total of $24,905. Council approved.

2018 Environmental Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $20,000 for Environmental Grants. We have a subcommittee of the Environment Advisory Committee who review and make recommendations to Council on the applications. We received requests totaling $25,090, and the Committee recommended awarding a total of $20,000. Council approved the recommendation.

2018 Community Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $75,000 for Community Grants. We have a Committee appointed by Council to review and make recommendations for these grants. We received requests totaling $86,357, and the Committee recommended awarding a total of $48,286. Council approved the recommendation.

2018 Amateur Sports Fund Committee Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $35,000 to support Amateur Sports through grants. We have a Committee appointed by Council to review and make recommendations for these grants. We received requests totaling $81,939, and the Committee recommended awarding a total of $35,000. Council approved the recommendation.

Heritage Register Update 2017
The City maintains a registry of designated heritage assets, which needs to be updated, usually as new assets are added, but occasionally when assets are removed.
I’m sad to have seen the Beech tree on Third and Ash come down. It is one of three majestic beech trees on that block (all visible from my house!). However, the reality is that trees don’t last forever, and this one was in decline, in what the City arborist deemed was “senescence” – or old age to the point where decline and death were imminent.

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Proposed Community Consultation on Zoning Based Incentives for Protected Properties
Since the Heritage conservation Area was formally adopted by the City, staff have been working on various aspects of the implementation plan, including doing some analysis of the impacts (imagined, projected, or realized), and are putting together incentive programs to help reduce the potential burden of heritage protection on some homeowners. It is actually a complicated process, and relies on local data collection and analysis compared to similar regions arounf North America. An early round of public consultation is beginning right now.

Queen’s Park Washroom and Concession Building
The City is replacing the bathrooms and concession stand in Queens Park. The building is at the end of life, and it is a well-used facility. This will be the first time the City builds exclusively gender-neutral bathrooms in a public building, and the accessibility aspects will be at a much higher level than most previous city buildings. This report shows some of the design elements, and gives us an idea of the plans ahead!

City Hall Community Garden
The Community Garden at City Hall has definitely raised a lot of conversation. Parks did a little extra here with some public space enhancements around the Garden, and the Garden was fully subscribed this year, and was an incredible community meeting place all summer. I walked by there regularly, and it was great to see so many people of all ages working the gardens, but mostly meeting, talking, and sharing their time. This is what “community building” looks like.

1002, 1012, 1016 and 1020 Auckland Street: Consideration of Issuance of Development Permit
This was the issuance of a Development Permit for an 88-unit Townhouse and apartment project on a steep site in the Brow of the Hill. It meets the OCP designation for the site, exceeds the “Family Friendly Housing” policy requirements, was supported by the Design Panel, the Advisory Planning Commission, and went through a Zoning Amendment, consultation with the Brow of the hill RA, and Public Hearing.

728 and 734 Ewen Avenue and a Portion of 220 Campbell Street: Development Variance Permit and Development Permit to Allow a 37 Unit Townhouse Development – Issue Notice to Consider Issuance of Development Variance Permit and Issue Development Permit
This is notice that a DVP is required for a proposed Townhouse development in Queensborough. It will go to an Opportunity to be Heard on January 29, 2018. C’mon out and let us know what you think.

746 Ewen Avenue: Development Variance Permit and Development Permit to Allow a Residential Development with 30 Townhouse Units and Two Units in the Restored Heritage House to be Retained as Part of the Development – Issue Notice to Consider Issuance of the Development Variance Permit and Development Permit
This is also notice that a different DVP is required for a different proposed Townhouse development in Queensborough. It will also go to an Opportunity to be Heard on January 29, 2018. While you are here for the last one, you may as well also tell us what you think about this one!

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2018 Arts & Culture Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $30,000 for Arts & Culture Grants. We have a Committee appointed by Council to review and make recommendations for these Grants. We received requests totaling $33,449, and the Grant Committee recommended awarding a total of $30,000. Council approved.

2018 Child Care Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $40,000 for capital improvements to childcare facilities in the City. We have a Committee appointed by Council to make recommendations for these grants. We received requests totaling $27,386, and the Committee recommended awarding all requests. Council approved this recommendation.

2018 City Partnership Grant Recommendations
The City has a budget of $475,000 for Community Partnership programs. We have a Review Panel that reviews the programs and applications to make recommendations to Council. We received $602,000 in requests, and the Panel recommended $475,010 in grants be provided.

Council moved to approve these, but to also provide a partial grant for the Humane Society, and to give the ACORN application a second review. Both of those will come back to Council after a bit more info is gathered by Staff.

Recruitment 2018 Library Board Appointments
The Library Board exists under Provincial Regulation to make Library operation at arms-length from local government. This report provides the appointments for 2018. So moved (and Thank You to the volunteers who help assure New West has not just the oldest Library in the Province, but one of the most used on a per-capita basis).

New Westminster Urban Solar Garden Project Update and Next Steps
It looks like we have enough interest in the general public for the city to support this program. We are almost sold out of solar panels, but there may be opportunities to expand the program if interest exists. Contact Energy Save New West right away and give your planet some photo-voltaic love!

Mobility Pricing Independent Commission – Perspective Paper
Amongst all of the craziness in the regional transportation file, the Mayor’s Council still has an Independent commission looking at Mobility Pricing models, and collecting public input. The City put together a Policy Position you can read here. Short version: we need to use this tool to drive commuting patterns in the region so our limited road resource is used more efficiently, we need to think about the fairness across the economic spectrum, and we need to assure voices more diverse than represented on the Commission are heard.

We then did the Bylaws dance for the last time in 2017:

Five-Year Financial Plan (2017-2021) Amendment Bylaw No. 7938, 2017
This Bylaw to adopt the amendment to the Five-Year Plan as discussed at the beginning of this report was given three readings.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Accommodation for Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging out of Foster Care) No. 7937, 2017
This Bylaw to support youth living in care and aging out of care, given Public Hearing in November, was Adopted. It’s the law!

232 Lawrence Street – Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7956, 2017
This Bylaw to amend the OCP to support a future childcare facility on City land in Queensborough, as was given Public Hearing in November, was Adopted. It’s time to get building!

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 7970, 2017
This Bylaw to allow us to spend some of our DCCs on designated projects was adopted. Please adjust your behavior appropriately.

At that point, it was all over, except for some very regretful singing. Council will be back in action in January. Hope the holidays bring peace and relaxation to you and your family!

Council – Nov 27, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I got so busy reviewing the December 4th Council reports and ranting about roads, I totally forgot I haven’t yet blogged about the last Council meeting! It’s been a busy week…

The following seven (7!) items came to Public Hearing:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Density Bonus Rates) No. 7947, 2017
Density Bonusing is one way that the City can legally (under the Local Government Act) raise revenue through development. There are varying rates based on the different market rates for development in Queensborough as on the Mainland, and depending on whether townhouses, low-rise apartments or high-rise apartments are being built.

New Westminster has done density bonusing since 2010, and did an update of the policy in 2014. Market conditions have, of course, shifted in the last few years, so it was time for an update in bonus rates based on current market conditions and increases in market value of new construction. Essentially, the City (and by proxy the residents who will benefit from this infrastructure investment) want to get their share of the profits.

This is one of the ways we, as a City, get developers and future residents to pay for amenities in the City, as all of the money collected from developers through this process is (by Council Policy) put into reserves with 30% going towards our Affordable Housing fund, 10% towards providing capital grants for childcare, 10% to fund our Public Art program, and the remaining 50% towards general amenity fund that goes into improving civic facilities and parks (via our 5-year capital plan).

We received no correspondence on this item, and no-one came to speak to Council on the topic. In the Council meeting immediately following the Public Hearing, we gave this Bylaw Third Reading and Adoption

Heritage Designation Bylaw (220 Carnarvon Street) No. 7958, 2017 and
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (220 Carnarvon Street) No. 7959, 2017
The property at 220 Carnarvon is a Romanian Orthodox church, but is listed in the City’s heritage registry as the Nidarose Lutheran Church, built in 1924. This proposal would add a heritage-sensitive addition to the church to put in a caretaker residence and meeting room space. This requires a rezoning and a Heritage Conservation Agreement.

This is a modest change to the building, essentially building over an existing parking area, and allowing for expanded programming by the Church. This project was supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and the Design Panel, and there were no concerns raised by the neighbourhood. Only the Proponent came to speak to the matter. In the Council meeting immediately following the Public Hearing, we gave these Bylaws Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (800 Columbia Street Liquor Primary Licensed Premises) No. 7946, 2017
The CPR Station / Keg Building has been undergoing significant renovation, and a new restaurant/bar is planning to open in time for the Christmas Season. The owner’s plan is to have a restaurant (“food primary”) on the main floor, with a smaller pub (“liquor primary”) above. The second use is not compliant with the language of the current zoning, so this zoning amendment is required prior to the Owner going to the Liquor Licensing Board for a change to their license.

The Heritage Commission and the Advisory Planning Commission supported this application. We did not receive any correspondence on the topic, but there were two pieces of correspondence (one in favour, one opposed) earlier in the process that are part of the public record. No-one came to speak to Council on the matter.

In the Council meeting immediately following the Public Hearing, we gave this Bylaw Third Reading and Adoption. We then Moved the Resolution recommending the issuance of a Liquor Primary license.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Accommodation for Youth in Foster Care and Youth Aging out of Foster Care) No. 7937, 2017
This change in the language of our Zoning law reflects a bit of a shift in how foster care and youth aging out of care are supported in our community. The current law creates a “two tier” system where a family can have as many kids in their house as fit, but if those youth are “in care” or have access to social supports through the Ministry in their residence, no more than 4 can live in a house. The proposed change would bring the zoning in line with other types of supportive housing, where the limit is on number of residents total, which would be limited to 12. That can include adults and youth, those in care and those not in care.

There is a value to levelling this paying field. Youth aging out of care have the highest risk of homeless, and organizations trying to address this issue need to be supported if we are going to make any headway on our regional homelessness crisis. The accommodation here is reasonable, not out of line with current City practice.

This topic was raised by a member of the Youth Advisory Committee at their meeting last week. After a considerable discussion, that committee’s moved the following unanimously (which was entered as correspondence, since it was moved too late to formally be addressed to Council):

“THAT the Youth Advisory Committee endorses the proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaw which would allow for a higher number of youth in foster care.”

We had one other piece of correspondence in favour of this change, and no-one came to Council to address the change. In the Council meeting immediately following the Public Hearing, we gave this Bylaw Third Reading.

232 Lawrence Street – Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7956, 2017 and
232 Lawrence Street – Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7948, 2017
This project would help increase the number of childcare spaces in Queensborough, where there is an acute need, by offering a City-owned parcel near the Queensborough Community Centre for a not-for-profit to set up a childcare facility in a modular building. We need an OCP amendment and a zoning amendment since the lot is currently residential.

There are fewer than half the child care spaces per capita in Queensborough as in the other neighbourhoods of the City, and this is the place where so much of the new and relatively affordable family-friendly housing is being built in the City. It is great that our staff identified this need, and developed this strategy to help address the need.

(And, to point, this is an example of how the kind of amenity funds raised through Density bonuses mentioned above is used).

This project was supported by the Community Social Issues Committee, and the Advisory Planning Commission. We received no correspondence on the issue, and no-one came to address Council on the item. In the Council meeting immediately following the Public Hearing, we gave these Bylaws Third Reading.

In the Regular Council meeting immediately following, Council moved the following items on Consent:

Renewal of Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Areas – Results from Notification of Affected Property Owners
The City supports BIAs by providing them the process through which they support themselves. The BIA members democratically agree as a community to raise some collective money through a local tax on themselves, and spend that promoting the interests of the business community. The City collects the tax and hands it over to the BIA.

So much of the great things happening in our downtown are supported by this BIA assessment – the summer festivals, the work with Tourism to promote our downtown, and all forms of local business support. They have also recently completed a Strategic Plan which charts their growth into the years ahead.

The existing BIA agreement expires at the end of 2017 (it is 10 years old) and the BIA started the process to renew the agreement. At the same time, they are asking to increase their footprint to include retail spaces in the new developments on the waterfront, and to increase their rates a little bit to keep up with inflation.

The members of the BIA are asked to opine on this and of a total of 207 businesses, 4 expressed opposition.

Recruitment 2018: Appointment of Chairs to 2018 Advisory Bodies and External Organizations
Going in to the last year of our term, we are not making any major shifts of internal committee roles, although my year as alternate at Metro Vancouver is coming to an end.

Recruitment 2017: Economic Development Advisory Committee
We have a bit of a shift on this Council Advisory, as we have had a retirement. We will, however, replace that person as part of our regular recruitment process.

DCC Expenditure Bylaw No. 7970, 2017
Development Cost Charges are another way the City is able to get developers and new residents to pay for the cost of accommodating the growth that comes with development. These are charged based on square footage of new density, and are set aside to specific reserve funds to pay for specific capital needs resulting from the resultant growth.

This Bylaw allows us to release $5.4 Million in DCC money from their respective reserve funds towards specific projects outlined in our 5-year capital plan.

The following item was removed from Consent for a bit of discussion (and mugging to the camera, clearly):

Downtown Dog Relief Station
It appears the community is supportive of the little blue doggy bathrooms on Columbia Street, and it appears to have had some effect reducing the number of doggie bombs dropped on Columbia Street.

I wonder about the bright blue fence – as the vast majority of users are locals living nearby, and everyone with a dog by now knows it is there, can we look at a fence that better matches the surrounding street furniture?

Finally, we discharged with these Bylaws:

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 7970, 2017
As discussed above, this bylaw that allows release of DCC funds for capital projects was given third reading.

Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Area (Primary Area) Bylaw No. 7951, 2017 and
Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Area (Secondary Area) Bylaw No. 7952, 2017
As discussed above, these bylaws that expand the BIA area and set new rates for the BIA were adopted. This now being the Law of the Land. please adapt your behavior accordingly, and support the BIA business that support your community!

Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7968, 2017
As discussed on November 20th, this bylaw that sets rates for our various engineering fees for the year ahead was adopted. It’s now law of the land, at least until next year.

And aside from us formally adopting a request that the Mayor challenge the Mayor of Port Coquitlam to a poetry contest riding on the results of the Hyacks’ Championship game… we were done for the week.

Bikes on the SFPR

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 8 Comments.

Bike lanes are in the news a bit again, here in New West, and out in one of our higher-profile western suburbs. It got me thinking about good and bad cycling infrastructure, and I haven’t gone off on a rant on this blog for a while, so make a cup of tea, because I am going to launch off on the Worst Piece of Cycling Infrastructure Ever®, known around these parts as the South Fraser Perimeter Road (“SFPR” or Highway 17). As this will most surely be tl;dr, you can skip down to the important part here.

When some previous Minister of Transportation (Falcon? Lekstrom? meh, it doesn’t matter) was hyping the region’s biggest-at-the-time motordom project, loosely defined as “the Gateway”, they were quick to point out the benefits to cyclists. The SFPR was announced as part of the largest MoT investment in cycling infrastructure of all time. This hyperbole was supported by the entire ~40km length of this glorious new road having cycling lanes affixed.

At the time, a few skeptics suggested that the shoulders of a high-speed truck route through farms and industrial areas may not be the ideal place to ride a bike, and by the time the new highway was opened, the previously-promised cyclist benefits were being seriously downplayed (hence all the dead links in that 4-year-old post above). But a Bike Route it is, to this day. There is a sign every 500m telling you so:

One of these green signs is found every 500 m for 40 km of great cycling infrastructure like this.

A couple of years on, the disaster of this poorly-placed, terribly-designed, and wholly-disingenuous cycling investment is pretty clear to anyone brave enough to venture onto this designated cycling route. No point dancing around the point: for cyclists of all skill levels, the SFPR is so unfriendly and dangerous that those “Bike Route” signs represent a reckless disregard for public safety.

That is a strong statement, so before I committed to it, I headed out to the SFPR with my bike to experience the length of the route in its harrowing glory, just to build up the temper necessary to commit that charge to hypertext. I went into it nervous, spent the ride terrified, and left enraged. Mission accomplished.

Funny I never ran into any other cyclists on this sunny fall day.

For the majority of the SFPR, the “Bike Route” is a 2.5 metre wide paved shoulder adjacent to industrial traffic moving at highway speeds. Nowhere is there a barrier protecting the shoulder from intrusions by trucks, not even rumble strips to warn drivers who may vary from their lane. The traffic is mixed, but the route was ostensibly built for and dominated by large trucks. The speed limit is allegedly 80 km/h, but speeds vary incredibly, from closer to 60 km/h around intersections (trucks accelerate slowly, after all, creating great rage moments for commuters!) to well over 100 km/h in the more open stretches.

Seriously?

In places where there is a soft shoulder or a low jersey barrier, having 80 km/h truck traffic blow by 2 metres from your left shoulder is unsettling. Where you are between those trucks and a 4 metre-high sound barrier wall (marked by the occasional gouge from vehicle swipes) or a 10-m concrete buttress, it is nerve-rattling.

shudder…

The knowledge that a momentary lack of attention by one of those drivers, or an impromptu swerve or technical problem with your bike means certain death provides a certain… clarity of thought. That thought is not “sure am glad I wore my helmet!”

The rational move (other than to avoid the SFPR altogether, which I will get to later) is to squeeze as far over to the right and put as much space between your body and the trucks. The problem with this strategy is that the SFPR “Bike Routes” are dotted with particularly deep and treacherous rainwater catch basins, and the further you get from the traffic-swept white line, the thicker and more challenging the road shoulder debris becomes:

Rocks and a hard place.

The road debris on this route is not surprising for an industrial truck route, unless you are surprised by the raw number of rusty and broken bolts and other important-looking parts that are ejected from trucks. Debris encountered on my ride included rocks large and small, glass, plastic vehicle parts, kitty-littered oil slicks, random lumber, nails, tire carcasses, tie-downs and bungie cords, and the occasional dead animal. These only serve to heighten the chances of one of those life-limiting impromptu swerves or technical failures. Once you realize the “swept clear” parts of the bike lanes are only done so by vehicles crossing the line at speed that you start to wonder if the route is designed specifically to kill you.

I hope that speeding truck didn’t need those parts…

Or just designed to confuse you…

Seriously, what are they trying to do to us here?

To add another layer of frustration to this alleged “bike route” is its isolation. Choose the SFPR and you are stuck with the SFPR, because it largely fails to connect to an established regional network and actively prevents you from getting on or off the SFPR where these types of connections may be obvious.

There are two locations on either side of the Alex Fraser Bridge, where a perfectly safe, low-traffic road is separated from the SFPR (one by a tall sound barrier wall) in such a way that getting out of danger’s way is impossible. For lack of a connection here, crossing this 5 foot barrier requires a multi-kilometre detour.

That over there on the left is NOT a designated bike route.

This lack of connection to regional cycling infrastructure is most obvious at the three regionally-important bridges under which the SFPR passes. The quality of the cycling paths on those three bridges is (east-to-west) really good, terrible, and not too bad, but they are all nonetheless important links. Again, either no connection has been contemplated for the bike route, or actual multi-layer physical barriers have been installed to prevent an SFPR cyclist from getting to the bridge where connections would be natural.

You can’t get there from here.

To get on the Alex Fraser Bridge from the SFPR requires a 3-km detour through two hairy multi-lane intersections. The Pattullo requires 1.5km and riding right past a pedestrian overpass, which would make for a great connection if it wasn’t barriered from access from the bike lane. The connection to the great bike infrastructure on the Port Mann is so far that is it actually a shorter distance just to ride to the terrible cycling infrastructure on the Pattullo.

Multi-layer protection – keeping cyclists from entering or leaving the SFPR at the Pattullo.

So the SFPR fails at every aspect of effective cycling infrastructure: it lacks the most basic safety and comfort considerations, it lacks connections, it lacks any form of appeal. It is not surprising that during my ride of the entire 40km length of the SFPR, both ways (done over two sunny mid-week days early in the fall), I never saw a single other person on a bicycle on the entire route. However, every 500m there is one of those little green signs. Or something like this:

Share the Road!

So it is time for the cycling community to wake up and recognize we got played. Of course, this is the Ministry of Transportation’s standard playbook, so we could have seen it coming: This “bike route” is a safety pull-off area for trucks.

One of these signs improves safety.

We were sold “cycling benefits” of a Billion-plus-dollar piece of transportation infrastructure, and got something else: bike signs placed on paved shoulder really intended to keep trucks in the other two lanes moving if the occasional vehicle needs to pull over, or of someone just needs to park a trailer for a few hours. Aside from that, it is a gutter for gravel and trash and carcasses and truck parts to prevent them from accumulating where they may impede truck travel. This “Bike Route” is just a part of the truck route, nothing else.

This is why this shoulder exists, signage be damned.

(I need to super-emphasize this) The SFPR it was never meant to be a Bike Route. 

So what to do? I’d like first to call upon the new Minister of Transportation to take down those “Bike Route” signs.

It isn’t her fault, she didn’t create this mess, but she adopted it by getting elected, so it is on her to do the right thing. The MoTI must stop threatening the lives of cyclists. Removing the signs and anything else that may incite otherwise-unaware bicycle users from mistakenly entering this cycling abattoir. Put an end to the ruse that this is any place for bicycles.

I could ask her for many more things – investment in cycling infrastructure for Surrey and Delta to make up for the funding-securing lies told by her predecessors, a commitment to policy changes to prevent her staff from ever doing this kind of bait-and-switch again – but those are opportunities for the future, and will require budget and policy decisions and such. She is a busy person with a huge mandate and new to the job; there will be time for those niceties later. First we must undo this mistake made intentionally by the previous government.

In the short term, someone in Minister Trevena’s office needs to call up the road maintenance contractor that bought the rights to not clean the shoulders here, and ask them to send a crew out to remove those signs. It shouldn’t take more than a day, it won’t cost any money, and it’s the right thing to do.

Where the SFPR meets another truck freeway, cooler heads prevail.

Truth before Reconciliation

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

We had a discussion at Council this week on the next steps for Truth and Reconciliation. As I noted in my Council Report, I didn’t support the staff recommendation to launch a Task Force to bring partners together and talk about an implementation strategy. I suggested that we may be headed down the wrong path, and need a bit of a gut check here on how we will engage this process.

First off, I want to make it clear I am not critical of the work staff have done so far, nor do I want this early course-correction to make it look like we are slowing the process or any less committed to it. Quite the opposite, I take to heart requests I have heard from members of our community that we go into this process with intention, and do it right. And that takes some explanation.

Every time we discuss reconciliation, I feel the need to put a big caveat before all of my comments: I am not a person who lived an indigenous experience. I recognize I have a whole bunch to learn about what that experience is, about what reconciliation means to people who have suffered under the residential school system and other forms of cultural repression that fill our history as Canadians.

Yet here we are, and with the best of intentions, I am another settler being asked to provide leadership over a process that is, fundamentally, not about my voice or my community.

Like many of my council colleagues, I attended an event a Douglas College last week where the intersections between local governments and the Truth and Reconciliation process were the topic. Again I left feeling that there is so much I don’t know, that I feel challenged in understanding where we even start. It was actually in discussions with participants after the event that some questions were framed for me in a way that got me to think about our path forward in New Westminster.

First off, we have a staff working group, charged with determining how our City’s internal processes and larger policies may need to change in order to fulfill our community’s commitment to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. I think that is an important step, and within the structure of a local government, we need to do this. I have faith in our staff’s ability to interface our internal structures and regulatory frameworks with whatever comes out of the reconciliation conversation.

However, the proposed next step, forming a Task Force of internal and external people, first had me asking who would serve on such a task force, and what role does Council have on it. How would we decide on representation? Wait – why am *I* deciding on representation? Ultimately, this led to questioning if a Task Force is really the structure we want to use to answer questions – or even to raise questions.

One thing that has been bothering me since this Council opened the discussion about reconciliation is that every news story, every debate eventually ends up at talking about a statue. It seems that some think we need to deal with the statue, or take a few similar simple (but arguably very symbolic) actions like changing road signs, then the City can say we have done something and move on to worrying about roads and sewers and parks. And of course, the topic of the names of places becomes a rallying point for supporters and opponents of… well I guess what they support or oppose is pretty loosely defined, but “us” and “them” is at the heart of all of those arguments. It’s “their” statue, it’s “our” name, why do “they” not respect our position?

When I was discussing this the other day with a really wise friend, she asked me (and I paraphrase) what is reconciliation before we have truth? We need to first open up respectful discussion, and explore the truth of this community. Not about statues or place names, but about our experiences. To do that, we need to create spaces and opportunities for people to speak their truth. And those conversations may be very difficult.

As I was quoted (and again, I was paraphrasing someone smarter than me), a Task Force that meets once a month in an office and operates by Roberts Rules of Order in relation to a Term of Reference is about as colonial a structure as anyone can imagine. It is actually designed to avoid and get past difficult conversations in the interest of getting business done. The Witness Blanket visiting our community and the resultant conversations that happened at the Anvil and at kitchen tables around that installation, were a beginning to the conversation, but I don’t think the conversation is over. The bigger issue is – I don’t know how to write the continuation of that conversation into a Terms of Reference.

I don’t want to constrain those conversations with the wrong structure. We need know from the indigenous community what space they need to share their truth, and we need to allow settlers here in New Westminster, whether they arrived yesterday or are fourth generation, to equally share their truth. To be offended. To self-reflect. To learn.

We may end up putting together a Task Force at some point to make recommendations to Council, but we are not there yet. To get there, we need to get some people experienced in leading these conversations, preferably someone who has viewed this challenge through a lived indigenous experience, and ask them how best to connect with indigenous communities and the voices we often fail to hear. We need guidance on creating the space for that conversation. It may be here in New West, it may be somewhere else. It may be around a table, it may be around a fire. What is important is that we not ask our partners to fit into our space, or into our structure, The point is, I DON’T KNOW, and I argue few in the City do know.

So I moved that the Staff Working Group on Reconciliation seek an external consulting organization experienced in working on reconciliation dialogues to develop a communication and relationship-building process that all parties are welcomed to share their experience and their vision for reconciliation.

We are starting a journey here, and there is almost guaranteed to be bumpy points along the path, but we believe in the destination, and need to travel together.

Council – Nov. 20, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Our Council meeting on Monday was an emotional roller-coaster. There was some good news and some great discussions about the future of reconciliation, measuring our OCP, and empowering diversity in the City on the Agenda, but we started with a challenging situation where decisions have real human impacts.

Remedial Action Order – 509 Eleventh Street
This may have been the most emotionally challenging situation I have experienced at Council. A home in the Brow neighbourhood is in a serious state of disrepair, and our Bylaws and Buildings staff are of the opinion that it constitutes a risk to occupants and an offence to the neighbourhood. After almost 5 years of working with the owner and incremental enforcement, staff came to Council to ask for permission to legally Order the owner to take action, or to take action as a City in the owner’s stead to protect human health.

The process here is laid out under the Community Charter, and Council must act rather like a judge in a semi-judicial process: a case is made by staff and the landowner is allowed to respond to that case, and we are able to act based on the evidence we hear.

I was convinced by the evidence that the place is not safe for human occupation, and I was satisfied that staff have taken sufficient, even extraordinary, measures to help this landowner bring his house in to compliance. Unsightly is one thing, but this goes well beyond neighbourhood standards of unsightliness, there is a real human health concerns here, we need to protect our residents, the neighbourhood, and our First Responders if they should need to respond to an emergency here – that is our job as a Council, and as a City. We had to act.

This process brought no joy, and there really is no good outcome except the landowner fixing his house and making it safe for the person who lives in it. There is a real risk here of the person living in the house becoming homeless, but there is also a real risk of the person becoming seriously ill or being killed just by living in this space. I hope our social service agencies can provide the supports necessary to help the resident, and after the Remedial Action Order process was completed here, Council moved to request staff act to assure that the resident and homeowner have access to supports available to them.

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Update on the Downtown Transportation Plan
Our Transportation Group is updating the traffic plan for Downtown. This isn’t about re-writing the Master Transportation Plan, but about finding spot improvements and local strategies to help the goals of the MTP be achieved in the Downtown neighbourhood. These is a public consultation process going on here (including a workshop next week), so if you have opinions about traffic in the Downtown, follow this link.

2018 City Grant Programs – Allocation of Funds
Every year, we give out almost $1 Million to community groups through our various grant programs. Most of this money comes from General Revenue, some comes from dedicated funds (i.e. parking fees and electronic billboard income). The applications for 2018 Grants are already in, but Council needs to approve the grant allocations (up to $950,000 this year, an increase of a little more than 3% over last year) before we start the work of telling most applicants that there isn’t enough money in the kitty for every request to be filled.

Engineering Users Fees and Utility Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7968, 2017
Back on November 6th, we reviewed Engineering Fees, and the proposed changes for 2018. This is the Bylaw that brings those changes into force. Council moved to approve this Bylaw for various Readings.

229 Eleventh Street: Proposed Rezoning to CD Zone to Permit Construction of a Duplex and Laneway House – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
Council moved to allow this project, which will bring some infill density to Brow of the Hill, to go to Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments until after that hearing.

430 Boyd Street, 350 and 354 Stanley Street and an Unaddressed Parcel of Land Fronting on Boyd Street: Issue Notice to Consider Issuance of Development Variance Permit and Issue Development Permit
Council moved to allow this project, which will bring some more townhouse development to the Queensborough neighbourhood, to go to Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments until after that hearing.

The following items were Removed From Consent for discussion:

Proposal for a Truth and Reconciliation Task Force
Staff proposed setting up a Task Force to guide the Reconciliation process that Council committed to earlier in the year. I moved instead that we take a slightly different path in bringing in some external guidance at this step. I have a bunch to say about this, and will save that for a subsequent blog post, because it isn’t a short discussion.

The short version borrows from ideas expressed by much wiser people in the community than me: we need to do this with intention, and do it right, and that requires us to be very thoughtful about the structures we use for conversation before we engage in conversation.

More to come.

Official Community Plan Implementation: Work Program for Endorsement
This was the first report of two for the evening that discussed the next steps in Official Community Plan implementation. It discusses how staff will track the changes in housing proposed in the new Land Use Plan to determine if we are achieving the goals of housing diversity we set out in the OCP. Staff will track projects for two years, and will track projects that may start but not be achieved, to determine what the barriers are to bringing more mixed density development on tap.

The appendix also reported on some policy work that staff is going to have to defer, simply for staff capacity reasons. This is frustrating, but a good reality check for Council – we are quick to suggest staff should do more things, are not so quick to recognize that we are a relatively small City will limited resources, and every new task delays other tasks.

My only concern (and I expressed this at Council) was the deferral of the development of a Short Term Rentals (read: AirBnB and VRBO) policies. I asked more than a year ago for this work to begin in the city, and I am not happy with waiting until after 2019 to address this issue. This is a fast-moving area, and with Vancouver recently implementing pretty restrictive rules, we are going to feel the force of this in our community sooner than we think.

As this issue is important an emergent, I asked staff to report back on the resources they need to make it happen, so we can have an open discussion about whether we want to spend that money, or are happy waiting.

Official Community Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Program
The other part of the OCP is the long list of policies and actions (aside from Land Use) that will move us towards the City we envision for 2040 and beyond. This report outlines the way we will assure the OCP isn’t another binder on a shelf, but is an active document that drives council and staff towards the goals the community placed the most value on.

Reporting out every 5 years on progress (at a timescale that makes OCP changes appropriate and manageable) and doing annual “updates” will provide accountability and transparency.

My only recommendation is that we think about structuring this reporting around a dashboard model, similar to the ones recently developed by Metro Vancouver. With a regularly-updated web dashboard, we can incorporate new data as it arrives, and make it public. This is also much easier to digest and share than having a report buried in a council package – as riveting as those may be.

Council moved to receive Correspondence:

Letter from Mayor Coté to the Board of Education, School District No. 40 dated November 10, 2017 regarding the Report from the May Day Task Force
The School District is currently engaging in a public consultation process around the May Day program. I have attended a meeting at the School Board, and heard much discussion about the topic in the community. Out of respect for the process the School District is working on, I am holding off on providing comments right now, other than this official correspondence Mayor and Council are sending to the District.

We then addressed the usual raft of Bylaws:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (229 Eleventh Street) No. 7915, 2017
This Bylaw would make the zoning changes required to facilitate an infill density project in the Brow of the Hill. Council gave the Bylaw two readings. It will go to Public Hearing on January 29, 2018. C’mon out and let us know what you think.

Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7968, 2017
As discussed on November 6th, this bylaw that codifies the changes in engineering fees was given three readings.

Housekeeping Amendment Bylaw (Sign Bylaw) 7961, 2017
As discussed on November 6th, this bylaw that cleans up some language in our new Sign Bylaw was adopted. It is now the Law of the Land. Haven’t you seen the signs?

Housing Agreement (43 Hastings Street) Bylaw No. 7941, 2017
As discussed on November 6th, this bylaw that codifies the no-market supportive housing nature of the project on City land in the downtown is now the Law of the Land. Adjust your behavior as appropriate.

Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7964, 2017
Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7967, 2017
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 7965, 2017
Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw No. 7963, 2017
These bylaws that make annual adjustments to various city fees, which were given three readings on November 6th, were adopted. Adjust your budgets accordingly.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw No. 7962, 2017
As discussed on November 6th, this bylaw that gives staff the flexibility for limited borrowing to cover short-term cash needs is now the Law of the Land.

Finally, we addressed a piece of NEW BUSINESS:

Motion on Notice: Diversity Mandate for City Committees
This initiative, brought forward by Councilor Trentadue and some ass-kicking members of our community, is not timely, it is overdue. At almost every level, our local government is run by people who increasingly don’t live the broader experience of the members of our community. From Residents’ Associations to Council Committees to elected positions, the political voice in our community is dominated by middle class middle aged white guys. Like me.

One way to shift that conversation is to assure we seek diversity on Council Advisory Committees. These committees not only bring ideas and experience to Council, they often provide a “training ground” in how local government works for people interested in running for Council or other levels of government.

So Council moved to support Councillor Trentadue’s motion, and we will be expecting Staff to provide us a Diversity Mandate to assure that Council Advisory Committees reflect the diversity of our community before the next recruitment round.