Author: Patrick Johnstone

Our City

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The new Official Community Plan for New Westminster was formally adopted on Monday. The longest and most open public consultation process in the history of the City culminated in a comprehensive re-write of the OCP, last done almost 20 years ago.

I’m really proud of the process this community went through and the work staff did to make it work. The end result is a huge step forward for the City. Although I get a sense we didn’t reach far enough in some areas, I am happy with the end result, as it was clearly driven by the community.

When this process started back in early 2014, I was not on Council. I spent a lot of time that summer knocking on doors, and heard a variety of ideas about where residents wanted the City to go. Some clearly wanted no change at all, others saw the need for a different approach to housing. These differences were not neighbourhood by neighbourhood, but were all over the map. It was clear that the new OCP would be a huge Public Consultation undertaking.

The City put together an advisory committee of a couple dozen residents from all neighbourhoods and walks of life. We brought in Residents’ Association representatives, business people, community leaders and everyday citizens to not just consult, but to help lead the intensive sessions that got the conversations going asking the first question of any OCP: “what do you want the City to be?”

This launched us into two more years of talking about how to get there. We had more open houses that I can count, some very open chats about general OCP concepts, some more directed to specific topics like the series of community discussions on housing. Staff created interesting on-line tools to help people engage, visited every Residents’ Association at least once, and went out to everything from seniors homes to daycare centres to survey for ideas and opinions. The “Our City” Pop-up-Planning booth was omnipresent at City events for two years, asking questions that changed as the process wore on. Staff consulted with 11 Council Advisory Committees, ran “travelling workshops” to community centres across the City, and reached out to agencies that serve those members of our community that are usually marginalized from political and planning conversations, such as Spirit of the Children Society and Immigrant Services Society. Feedback was received from the development community, Metro Vancouver, Provincial Ministries from Transportation to Health to Environment, the School Board, the Port, TransLink, and Qayqayt First Nation. Council received a lot of correspondence.

The result was literally thousands of interactions with members of our community, and I am thankful, once again, that New Westminster showed up and told us their opinions. We have 7,000 pages of documents backing up this consultation. That is an amazing amount of paperwork to distill down to a working 200-page document.

A successful consultation does not mean everyone gets what they want, that is impossible with so many contrasting opinions in the City. However, it does allow us to gauge the mood of the City and frame the bigger goals of the community, and in turn frame the strategies and tasks that will move us towards those goals in the decade ahead.

An important point missed by many is that an OCP is much more than a Land Use Plan. It is about the 12 Major goals that define what our City will be in the decade ahead, those goals supported by 61 well-defined Policy Areas and 182 concrete actions the City can (and will) take to achieve the goals. If the OCP works the way it is intended, these goals will drive future Council policy, the work of staff, and will even help define how the Land Use Plan develops over time. Indeed, of all the OCP products, it is the Land Use Plan that is most easily and commonly edited as the community evolves.

Still, the Land Use Plan map gets the most attention. I suspect because it more tangible than policy statements. I don’t think the friction sometimes generated between community-wide goals and parochial or political concerns is ever as hot as when talking about changes in land use – which is ultimately a local government’s primary responsibility and jurisdiction. So I guess I’ll follow the lead and talk more here about the Land Use Plan than the 12 Goals, though you will see them scattered about  about this post as constant reminders of where we are meant to be headed, like this one right here:

The first big point to make about the Land Use Plan is that it supports growth anticipated in the Regional Growth Strategy developed the best part of a decade ago. This plan does not open the floodgates to population growth – that growth is happening regardless of what we do here – but it does give us a more sustainable plan to make that growth fit within the community we want to be, in 10 years, in 20 years, and beyond. Most importantly, the OCP allows us to plan for building the roads, parks, sewers, schools and other infrastructure we need to support the residents of the future.

When the OCP process started 3 years ago, the idea of increasing our housing variety and finding opportunities for density increases in our residential neighbourhoods had to be framed in the context of bringing more amenities to neighbourhoods – making our retail areas more vibrant, supporting more frequent transit service. In 2014 when we started, the regional housing crisis was still on a low boil, at least in New West. The “Million Dollar Line” of average house values was still far off to the west, and New West was still (almost) an affordable option for young families – if we could build them the type of housing they wanted and needed.

I don’t have to tell anyone here that we are in a different place now. The housing crisis is boiling over, and though we have strategies in the City that are effectively creating a new stock of rental units and assuring family-friendly units get built, we are simply not keeping up with the region-wide demand. In hindsight, this should have been obvious, and maybe staff was ahead of both the public and Council on this front. I’d like to think this is why we had significant push-back on creating more opportunities for flexible housing choice, and why Council decided that this push-back was reasonable.

In the end, any single map or plan that comes out of such a wide consultation includes compromises. I don’t think this Land Use Plan is perfect, but I think it is a significant step in the right direction, and I was happy to support it. All such maps are living documents, subject to lot-by-lot revision and adjustment as the plan unfolds. It will be up to staff and Council to track how this Land Use Plan leads us to the larger strategic goals we outlined in the OCP, and not be afraid to make those adjustments when the case can be made for them.

From the start of the consultations, the theme of housing choice and housing affordability clearly led the discussions. Call it gentle infill, call it family housing, call it missing middle, it is clear that housing choice was a wide concern in the City, both in how to make it happen and in how to make if fit in our existing neighbourhoods. In this rests my biggest concern with the OCP. I am not convinced we got the formula right for incentivizing the growth of the missing middle housing form, townhouses and rowhomes.

In my mind, the best option at this point is to challenge staff and Council (not just this Council, but the one elected in 2018) to closely monitor the situation as the community reacts to the new land use designations. Did we get the incentives, rules and guidelines right, and create a healthy market for missing middle housing forms? Or did we fall behind the real economics of housing over the period it took for us to complete this plan?

That was my thinking in moving some direction to staff as part of adopting the OCP. The text of my motion was “THAT Council direct staff to explore additional locations that could be designated Residential – Infill Townhouse as part of a two year Townhouse and Rowhouse Monitoring Program, and include the outcome in a proposed Land Use Designation Map update at the conclusion of the Program”. The completion of an OCP isn’t the end of the planning process, it is the beginning of a new planning process. I wanted to put some expectations and timelines on the next steps in that process.

Council just attended the UBCM conference (blogs to come!), where housing was one of the most pressing topics – everything from homelessness, demo- and reno-victions, housing affordability, and an increasingly challenging market for people at every single level of the economic spectrum. The crisis is regional, and it is mutli-faceted, not doubt made worse by a decade of general indifference at the provincial level. As there is not a single problem, there is not a single solution. This OCP will not solve the problem, but it does give us a view of where some solutions will be found. And it will obviously need to be adapted as new solutions are found through collaboration of all three levels of government.

I feel positive about the future for New Westminster outlined in this OCP, and am encouraged that we got literally thousands of New West citizens involved in such a complex public consultation. There were almost as many disagreements within Council as there were in the bigger community about major aspects of the plan, but we worked together to find the compromises needed to achieve the common goals. Now we need to get to work putting it in practice.

Council – Oct. 2, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Our first October Council meeting was a little disjointed and diverse, as there were a variety of topics on the Agenda, and presentations and delegations were all over the place. I don’t usually report here on delegations and announcements that happen, but stick to the decisions made by Council, but you can always get the full deal by watching on the intertubes!

The meeting started with us moving the following items on Consent:

Capture Photography Festival 2018
Our participation in this project brought two great Public Art installations to the City, and our Public Art Advisory Committee is recommending we take part again in 2018 and fund that from the Public Art Reserve Fund. Council agreed.

Intelligent City Digital Inclusion and Marketing and Advocacy subcommittee update
Our “Intelligent City” initiative is meant to be more than just dark fibre in the ground and using smarter systems in the City, it includes many different programs to connect the entire population of New West to the advantages of Innovation and digital connectivity. We had a hugely successful Innovation Week last spring, and are gearing up for another in 2018. We also are developing various initiatives to assure connectivity is inclusive, which means we are finding ways to include people who may have barriers (education, economic, equipment, etc.) to connecting to the digital world have opportunities for access, for education, and for support. This report gives us an update of where those programs are.

Memorandum: Metro Vancouver Regional District acceptance of the City of New Westminster Regional Context Statement
This is a step in the Official Community Plan process, where the regional government essentially signs off that the OCP, after receiving Third Reading, complies with the Regional Growth Strategy. This is the last step to Adoption of the new OCP.

Recruitment 2017: ICAC Appointment
There is a shift of representation on the Intelligent City Advisory Committee, due to people changing job roles in one of our partnership organizations. Moved!

41 and 175 Duncan Street: Official Community Plan Amendment Consideration of Public Consultation
This project to develop a medium-sized townhouse development in Queensborough will be going into consultation, including a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments until them.

900 Carnarvon Street (Tower 4): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption
The construction of noise barriers over SkyTrain rails is challenging. It needs to happen when the train isn’t running (at night), and is pretty specialized work. Degelder have been trying to get the work done for the 4th Tower at Plaza 88 for a couple of months, and it is yet to start. We are approving a long construction noise variance, though the actual work will only take about 7 days within that longer window. The workers will need to provide 72 hours’ notice to nearby residents before evenings when works will actually occur.

Information Update re Recommendation from Ecole Glenbrook Middle School Student Presentation
Students from Glenbrook gave a memorable presentation to Council in May about how to make their community more fun and friendly. This report is a follow-up from staff. Short version: some improvements have been made as part of capital maintenance programs, there has been great feedback sought and integrated into a couple of bigger projects (Canada Games Pool and the Skate Park replacement) Spring, and we are going to continue to engage these students in future consultations.

Report on Major Purchasing Transactions for the Period May 1st to August 31st, 2017
Ternary report on what we have bought.

Downtown New Westminster BIA Extension
The two Downtown BIAs have been doing some really great work. It has been great to watch them become a more professional organization over the last decade with some really stellar staff. They have been proactive in developing a new Strategic Plan, and have been great partners to the City in our Economic Development initiatives. However, the Bylaw that enables them to be funded by a Parcel Tax on downtown businesses is expiring, and they have asked us for a renewal/update. I am happy to support this.

1319 Third Avenue (Steel and Oak Brewery): Proposed Increase in Seating Capacity
S&O wishes to increase their seating capacity, but have bumped up against the Zoning Bylaw maximums for their current zoning. This report will launch the Public Process to enable that, and I’ll hold off my comments until that happens.

Access Ability Advisory Committee: Consideration of the Effect of Demovictions and Renovictions on Low-Income and Disabled Residents
There was much talk at last week’s UBCM meeting (yes, I will blog about it soon!) about renovictions and the impact on homelessness, and it resulted in some promising action. This topic also came up at the last AAAC Meeting, and that committee wanted to assure Council considered the impacts of the housing and rental crises are harder on people with barriers – the lack of housing adapted to the needs of the disabled is even more dire than “regular” housing.

Access Ability Advisory Committee: Massey Theatre Universal Accessibility Design Review
Again, the AAAC heard about barriers in the existing Massey Theatre, and formally asked Council to invest in making the facility fully accessible when the High School project is completed and the Theatre property is transferred to the City.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Recruitment 2017: CHC Appointment
Unfortunately, a member of Community Heritage Commission passed away and we have to do the dry process or naming a replacement. However, Council did not want this to pass without the Council representative on the Committee noting that Laura Moodie was a long-serving volunteer in our community with a passion for the arts, heritage, and travel. She served on several City committees including as chair of the Public Art Advisory Committee. Her passing was sudden and untimely. All of Council wants to acknowledge Mrs. Moodie’s service to the community, and pass on condolences to her family.

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw (Increase in Taxi Licenses) No. 7943, 2017 – Bylaw for Three Readings
I think I ranted about this once before. Many of the issues with the current regulation around Taxi services is the many hoops they need to go through to get new licenses, even when it is clear that current service is inadequate. Royal City Taxi is applying to the province for more licenses to improve service, let’s see where this goes!

Review of City Snow and Ice Response: 2016-2017
We discussed at ACTBIPed, and I forwarded correspondence to Council from a well-known West End pedestrian advocate that came out of that meeting. 2016-17 was exceptional year, the worst and most persistent snow event since at least 2008. And although it was at times challenging, I think the City did an exceptional job keeping priority driving routes open and safe, especially compared to some adjacent communities. However, the pedestrian realm was a disaster.

I don’t use that term lightly, because I know it was a challenging situation and I do not want to come across as critical of staff for the hard work and extra hours they all put in, but we had people with mobility challenges, and a fair number of elderly people, who were trapped in their homes for weeks because they could not walk as far as the nearest pharmacy. Even in an extraordinary situation like last winter, this is not acceptable, and we need to make change. We need to assure that the pedestrian realm and transit access is prioritized alongside arterial and connector roads.

We have a Pedestrian Charter in New Westminster – one that puts pedestrian needs at high priority. We have a Master Transportation Plan that puts pedestrians at the top of our hierarchy for investment. Yet when we prioritize the clearing of snow from streets not used by transit above the clearing of sidewalks and the important pedestrian connections that make our pedestrian realm accessible, we fail to meet our own priorities. In the event of icy conditions, we don’t need people prioritizing driving as a way to get around – that simply doesn’t improve anyone’s safety if the only way to get to the grocery store is to drive because the sidewalks between home and grocery store are impassable two weeks after a storm.

I don’t have the answers, but we need to establish guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable response to sidewalk clearing, much like we have for roads, and a plan to meet those guidelines. In this case, I would even be happy to see cycling routes bumped down the priority list to make resources available. We need a map of priority walking routes and bus stops, as these may be different than the existing priority streets. The consultant report provided some recommendations towards this, but it would be good to know if additional resources or equipment are needed to address this. Clearly enforcement and proactive action need to be prioritized – there is work to do here.

That said, this is a good report as far as it goes, and I don’t want to slow the implementation of this response plan because it only gets us half way there – half way is better than going back to the start. However, I amended the recommendation to further ask that that staff continues to work on developing a snow response plan that prioritizes pedestrian safety, and address the concerns of the ACTBiPed. More to come here.

Exempt Properties – Review of Questionnaire Results
Remember when the BC Liberals extended the property tax exemption given to private schools, essentially asking homeowners to pay more for private schools in their neighbourhoods, at the same time they were fighting in court to keep from adequately funding public schools? Good times.

Anyway, this report is our annual update and Bylaw refresh to support mandated and permissive tax exemptions. The first are required by Provincial Law, the second are the $300,000 a year in Permissive Tax Exemptions for organizations doing good work in the City, be they social service (e.g. Honour House), Sports (e.g. Lawn Bowling Club), or education (e.g. FRDC).

Licensed Event Recommendations for Westminster Pier Park
I am happy to continue with the model demonstrated at Music on the River this summer. These type of low-key events should really not be exception in a modern City, but part of the regular fabric. Loosening of our provincial liquor laws make that possible. The most, perhaps, surprising part was the wide demographic range of people hanging out in the park during the event – it wasn’t just crazy Yoots with their skateboards and bling-bloop electronic “music”, it was it was young families, seniors, and those of us in the fuzzy and increasingly grey area in between. A strange mix to see at a public event where beer is served in North America, but just another day in most European Cities.

We also read the following Bylaws:

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw (Increase in Taxi Licenses) No. 7943, 2017
As discussed above, this Bylaw that supports the application to the provincial Government for more Taxi Licenses in New Westminster received three readings.

Taxation Exemption and Exempt Properties Bylaw No. 7945, 2017
As discussed above, this Bylaw that supports permissive tax exemptions for worthy organizations in New Westminster received three readings.

Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Area (Primary Area) Bylaw No. 7951, 2017
Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Area (Secondary Area) Bylaw No. 7952, 2017
As discussed above, these Bylaws that support the special taxation for our two Downtown Business Improvement Areas received three readings.

Official Community Plan Adoption Bylaw No. 7925, 2017
This is actually a big deal. Our new Official Community Plan, which was given Third Reading back on September 18th was adopted. It is now the Law of the Land. I will have to write another blog post about this, because this is both a great big step… and perhaps not a big enough step.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Infill Housing) No. 7936, 2017
Development Approval Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 7939, 2017
Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7940, 2017
This are the supporting Big Deals, as they support the new directions outlined in the OCP regarding Heritage, Laneway Housing, and Infill density. All three were adopted ,and are not Law of the Land. Adjust your behavior accordingly.

And other than a bunch of interesting presentations and delegations (seriously, go on-line and check them out!), that was a night of Council. I have a bunch of blog posts to follow on here, OCP and UBCM most prominently, so stay tuned!

ASK PAT: the Missing Link

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Tom asks—

Any news on the BC Parkway’s “missing link” between 5th Ave. and 14th St.? I understand that Southern Railways has given up its lease on the old Central Park Line, and so it’s reverted to BC Hydro and the tracks have been pulled up. Will TransLink be giving this stretch a proper surface any time soon? Can New West nudge them to do it? Or should we hold another “Worst Roads in BC” poll?

The answer to this one is short, but probably unsatisfying, so I’ll do that politics trick of shifting it to something I want to talk about and leave it with asking you another question that somehow makes you forget I didn’t answer your question. Hey, election time is coming up soon, I need practice!

But first, the answer is that it is a work in progress. The City has expressed its interest in making this connection better than it is, and the right of way on the other side of the SkyTrain pillars makes sense. However, complications arise in that the City doesn’t own that land, nor do we own the BC Parkway Trail. I’m not completely up on the details here, so don’t hold me to all of these interactions, but my understanding is that the land belongs to Southern Railway (or BC Hydro), and there are rights of way for TransLink and either Southern Railway or BC Hydro (whichever isn’t the owner). The BC Parkway is a TransLink asset, supported by surface Rights-of-Way, so I think their right-of-way is only for the SkyTrain guideway through that portion, which is why the BC Parkway was not completed through here more than as a sidewalk in the first case back in the 1980’s.

So as far as the rights to build things, including a paved cycling or multi-use path, there is some legal work to do on the part of the City and TransLink. It is in the City’s work plan, but I don’t know when all of the stars will align. I am pretty certain it won’t be this year, possibly next, but I’m not promising yet.

There is another work-in-progress in the same area also in the having-conversations-between-TransLink-and-the-City stage. When Stewardson Ave was re-aligned to build the Queensborough Bridge interchange, a link in the BC Parkway across Stewardson below Grimston Park was lost. There is a route across involving the ramps to the Queensborough Bridge, but it is quite a lengthy detour for West End residents interested in walking down to the Riverfront or Quayside. At one point, a pedestrian overpass below Grimston was proposed, but I’m not sure we should build one, which is where I turn this around and ask you a question.

When is a pedestrian overpass a pedestrian amenity, and when is it an automobile amenity?

This is not an academic question. Our City’s Master Transportation Plan puts a priority on pedestrians, with other active transportation forms and transit next, with automobiles at the bottom of the priority for new infrastructure investment. We still spend an order of magnitude more on maintaining automobile infrastructure than other forms, but when investing in new stuff, our budgets are shifting towards supporting MTP priorities.

So when asked to partner with TransLink to build a new overpass, we need to ask the question: are we building this to serve pedestrians, or are we building this to move car traffic?

The easiest and least expensive way to move pedestrians across a street is a stoplight and crosswalk. This is especially true if we want to assure the infrastructure is as accessible as possible, as any grade separation inevitably results in a compromise between slope and distance, making a simple walk across a road either impossible for those with mobility challenges or unnecessary long and complicated for everyone else. The engineering required to put active transportation users 5m in the air so cars have unfettered free passage below is always counted in the millions.

However, if we build a level crosswalk with lights and buttons and paint, that means cars need to, occasionally, stop and let pedestrians by. It also means that we need to design a crossing to reduce the chances that a driver will fail to stop and kill a pedestrian, which may mean improving sight lines and reducing vehicle speeds in general. When we consider building a pedestrian crossing on this part of Stewardson, will it be the couple-of-hundred-thousand dollar signalized crossing, or the couple-of-million-dollar overpass? If the latter, should we pay for it out of the pedestrian amenity budget, or out of the car amenity budget?

The question may be academic, because it is highly unlikely the City’s engineers or TransLink will sign off on a crosswalk on a City Street that is part of the Major Road Network (as this part of Stewardson is) where the traffic typically moves at 80km/h, despite the 50km/h speed limit. This speed issue is also part of the reason why the existing cycling connection you originally asked about feels unsafe for all users.

And this, multiplied by dozens of places throughout the City, is how we still, for all the best efforts and good intentions, lose our pedestrian spaces to motordom. It is frustratingly slow making this change, it represents a cultural shift in three levels of government and society in general, but that’s our goal.

Council – September 18, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The September 18 meeting of Council was an all-caps-worthy BIG ONE, and I pretty much am going to not talk about the BIG topic, which was the Public Hearing, for reasons below. But before that started, we went through a few Agenda items.

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Recruitment 2017 Committee Appointments
We have had a couple of changes in representatives to City Committees, both in the persons representing another group on the City Committee. This happens once in a while, but Council officially has to approve, which we did.

Investment Report to August 31, 2017
The City has about $160 Million in the bank, mostly with the Municipal Finance Authority. Note, most of this is restricted money (that is, we have already committed it to a specific purpose, such as future sewer upgrades or road projects). This is our regular reporting on how the investments are doing, which I would characterize as “pretty good”.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Fire Escape Stairs at 642 Columbia Street – Review of Alternative Options and Appearance Mitigation Approaches
I’ve already opined about this fire escape. I recognize the need for it to exist, and can see the engineering rationale for it, but am frustrated about how some siloed thinking in City Hall resulted in a design that was incongruous with the great planning and design work being done on the Front Street Mews. I feel a solution that fit the bigger vision could have been found through a more collaborative design approach.

This report outlines a better approach moving forward, and we can hopefully use this experience to enhance how we develop our public spaces.

Sale of Tanaka Court Properties
There is a piece of surplus City land in Queensborough with an adjacent unopened road portion that only makes sense to develop in concert with the commercial properties. The Community Plan designates this property for commercial use, which is not something the City is likely to do. This report outlines the negotiations that have taken place to sell the lands so that they can be developed and start contributing to the community through retail opportunities, jobs and taxes.

BCIT Smart Microgrid Applied Research Project for Street Level Electric Vehicle Charging in New Westminster
This is a pretty exciting pilot project the City is proposing to undertake in collaboration with BCIT and their Smart Grid Microgrid Applied Research Team. They are researching the implementation of curbside charging electric vehicles, and want to testbed some technologies that would connect EV chargers to existing City electrical infrastructure like streetlights, in order to develop reliable engineering specifications and systems for wider adoption of the idea.

This could, in the short term, result in up to a dozen more Level 2 public charging station in the City, and contribute engineering designs and data to the seemingly inevitable transition towards a fully electrical transportation system towards the middle of the Century.

The following item was a late addition to the Agenda:

647 Ewen Avenue: Temporary Protection Order
The oldest extant building in Queensborough is privately owned, and threatened with demolition as the landowner wishes to redevelop the property. The City is limited in what we can do to prevent this, but we can develop incentives to make it easier for the developer to maintain the building or portions of it through a Heritage Restoration Agreement. This temporary order protects the building from destruction while staff work with the proponent to find if these opportunities exist.

This work out of the way, we started our Public Hearing, which had three items, eliciting (in order), one, fourteen, and one delegations. All three items were referred to the resumed Council Meeting following the Public Hearing, and all three were given Third Reading. They were not, however, Adopted, because there needs to be some procedural work done by staff between Third Reading and Adoption. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the Public Hearing process, I don’t want to get into a discussion about the items between now and formal Adoption. For that reason, I am only describing the items at a high level here and will reserve longer discussion of them until after (and if) they are Adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment (43 Hastings Street Affordable Housing Project) Bylaw No. 7923, 2017
This Bylaw changes the zoning for a piece of land at the east end of Downtown New West to allow its use for a housing project that will combine housing adapted for people with disabilities with family-friendly townhouses, all operated by a not-for-profit to keep them affordable (through a separate housing agreement with the City).

Official Community Plan Adoption Bylaw No. 7925, 2017
This Bylaw would make Our City 2041 the Official Community Plan for the City, after more than three years of public consultation, Council wrangling, and staff work. Council moved to give the Bylaw Third Reading.

I added an amendment to the referral, which is not a change to the OCP in any way, but provides some direction to staff about measuring the success of one of the most significant aspects of the plan: the rapid introduction of Missing Middle housing forms. The motion read as:

THAT Council direct staff to explore additional locations that could be designated Residential – Infill Townhouse as part of a two year Townhouse and Rowhouse Monitoring Program, and include the outcome in a proposed Land Use Designation Map update at the conclusion of the Program, should the OCP be adopted.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Infill Housing) No. 7936, 2017
This Bylaw would make changes to our Zoning Bylaw to facilitate many of the changes discussed in the Official Community Plan, including setting parameters around which laneway and carriage houses will be introduced ot our existing Single Family Neighbourhoods. Council moved to give the Bylaw Third Reading.

We followed the Public Hearing with an Opportunity to be Heard on a Sign Bylaw Variance:

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00634 to vary Sign Bylaw requirements at 610 Sixth Street (Royal City Centre)
This Sign Bylaw Variance would allow a new anchor tenant at the Royal City Centre to affix signage to the outside of the building that is congruent with the exiting signage. Even with our new and refreshed sign bylaw, there are exceptions, including one of only two indoor malls in New Westminster, and a variance is best way to manage this type of application. There was no correspondence and no-one came to speak on this item, and Council approved the variance.

Finally, we had a single Bylaw adoption:

Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7942, 2017
This Bylaw formalizes a cost sharing agreement between a group of property owners in Queensborough and the City for some streetscape improvements on their block. It was adopted by Council, making it the Law of the Land.

Council – September 11, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

As has become tradition, the first Council Meeting of September was held in the Queensborough Community Centre, and we had a Queensborough-heavy agenda, though not a particularly long one. We started with an update on the largest road-improvement project in the City’s history:

Ewen Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Update
The third phase of this project (the easternmost westernmost part, from Hampton to Boundary) is currently being tendered. A bunch of the in-ground work around sewer main replacement and tie-ins has already been done, but the re-configuring of the roadway and installation of major sewer works is coming up over the next year.

Somewhat concerning, the first Request For Proposals for the project had no responses. That no road construction company in British Columbia put in a bid for the project is a sign of how challenging the construction business is in BC right now. There’s too much work and not enough people to do the work, and projects on tight timelines create too much risk for many companies. We have put out another, more flexible tender, and will see what happens.

Delays are expensive, and this project has had a number of challenges along the entire length, from coordinating with Metro Vancouver’s sewer work to geotechnical and environmental issues with the soils under the roadbed. There are many residents frustrated by the lengthy timelines, and I am not happy about the inability to find cost savings when it became clear that soils issues were going to blow the budget. However, I’m confident the end result will be a great asset for the Queensborough neighbourhood,

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Status of 2015-2018 Strategic Initiatives – Update for First Half of 2017
This report (more, it’s appendix) is a great update on what the City has been doing over the last three years on the Strategic Priorities set out by Council. Aside from the day-to-day running of the City, and the amazing number of new things that pop up, either by happenstance, or sudden Council whim, our strategic plan is coming along at what I would call a moderate pace. Some projects (e.g. Front Street Mews) are complete; some are still in early phases (e.g. City Hall renovations). As there is often a bunch of lower-visibility work that needs to be done before (for example) we break the ground on a new Affordable Housing project, these reports help keep Council and the public abreast of the progress that isn’t always obvious in following Council reports.

Life comes at you fast. When we put these Strategic Priorities forward, the housing crisis was only starting to percolate (a Million-dollar house in New West was still an anomaly), the scourge of fentanyl had not taken hold in our community, and we had Federal and Provincial governments with different spending priorities. So like all strategies, adjustments need to be made to achieve the long-term goals they underpin. I am pretty satisfied that we are moving in the right direction, even if progress on some fronts is slower than I might like.

232 Lawrence Street (Day Care)
One of those strategic things moving forward a little under most people’s radar (despite several public reports and a Public Hearing) is a Day Care facility to be built with Provincial Gov’t support on City lands in Queensborough. This report outlines the next steps in the senior government grant process, and the expected commitment that City will make to building the modular structure for the daycare.

The City’s $156K contribution represents a likely 24% of the budget, and the City’s contribution will come from the General Amenity Reserve, which is money we collect from developers when they increase density of the City.

131 Eleventh Street: Temporary Use Permit – Renewal
The area around Lower 12th Street is an area in transition, considered a “Special Study Area” in our community plans. Council recognized the land is not being used to its full value, and although the long-term plan is unclear (the City is reluctant to shift “job generating lands” to fully residential lands – short term gain may result in long-term pain) we want to accommodate the most sensible current use of the lands, to support local businesses. This retail use doesn’t fit the language of the current zoning, so we are using a Temporary Use Permit to allow it, such that we don’t undermine any future long-term planning.

Local Area Service Bylaw to Underground Existing Overhead Utilities
on the East Side of 200 Block of Howes Street
As mentioned back in June, a Local Area Service is like a “special assessment” where a neighbourhood wants a land improvement done that isn’t necessarily the highest priority for the City. When a majority of neighbours agree that these works are desired, the City works out a shared-cost agreement ,and the residents have the option of writing the City a cheque for their share, or adding a special charge to their taxes for as long as 20 years.

The majority of homeowners have agreed on street improvements along 200 Block of Howes Street, and through a complicated negotiation with several utility companies, the LSA Bylaw is now able to move forward.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

420 Boyne Street (Animal Shelter): Proposed Amendment to the Heavy Industrial Districts (M-2) Zone to Allow Municipal Uses and Zone the Former Lane to the Rear of the Property to (M-2)
The City also needs to amend the zoning language around the Industrial zones property where we are building our new Animal Shelter and the accessory space for our proposed tow yard. The site preparation for this site is finally underway, and the City’s long-outdated Animal Care Facility will be starting construction soon. So far: on time and on budget.

BC Hydro Pest Management Plan
Coming after public notice by BC Hydro of pesticide use on their properties in New West last year, Council asked for better reporting of the types of pesticides used and where. BC Hydro responded, indicating they use “mechanical methods“ (weed whacking) in the publically-accessible areas in their Connaught Heights right-of-way, and they use several different pesticides in their substation lands.

A Councillor raised a concern about the use of Glyphosate (“Roundup”) in the City, and asked that a letter be written asking BC Hydro to switch to different products (such as iron- and acetic acid-based pesticides). I am less fussed about small, spot use of Glyphosate when part of an Integrated Pest Management System, and I understand there are some seriously impactful invasive species (such as Japanese Knotweed) where chemical treatment are the only approach demonstrated to work, but am happy to forward the letter and ask BC Hydro to monitor and control its use, and demonstrate the City’s preference for the most sustainable solutions.

We then did the Bylaw shuffle:

Zoning Amendment (420 Boyne Street Animal Shelter) Bylaw No.7944, 2017
As discussed above, the Zoning Amendment Bylaw to support the development of the Animal Shelter on City-owned Industrial Lands was given two readings.

Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7942, 2017
As discussed above, the LAS Bylaw for Howes Street was given three readings.

Wood-Boyne Street Road Closure Bylaw No. 7935, 2017
As discussed at the July 10th meeting, this Bylaw to officially close an unopened part of Wood Street to support the City’s Animal Care facility was Adopted.

Housing Agreement (630 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7927, 2017
Zoning Amendment (630 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7920, 2017
As addressed at the Public Hearing on June 26th, and discussed at the August 28th meeting, these Bylaws to support the Affordable Housing project in Queensborough was Adopted.

This happened…

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I was lucky to be able to join Jagmeet Singh on a small group bike ride around downtown Vancouver yesterday, as part of his whistle-stop on the west coast going into next week’s NDP leadership vote.

Although many Canadians only know Singh from the strange racist thing that happened at one of his campaign events last week*, I have been aware of his work as one of the brightest lights in Ontario politics for a couple of years, but recognized his national potential (admittedly late to the story) after his appearance on Sook-Yin Lee’s podcast last year.

My take-away from the ride is that Singh, in person, did not disappoint or surprise. He was affable, sincere, and charming. He seemed to be balancing the strangeness of being suddenly-recognizable in a City he hardly knew. It was fun during the bike ride to watch as pedestrians and other cyclists did the double-take and smiled or pointed when they recognized him (or to quote one woman I rode by slowly:”Oh My God, is that him!?”). The ride participants talked to him about very Vancouver issues – the housing crisis, the opioid crisis, the decade-of-BCLiberal-rule-crisis – and he seemed to know the right questions to ask, which in his current position and given the setting, is much better than acting like he has all the answers. He was clearly enjoying the conversations, pausing only occasionally to look out from the Sea Wall and remark at how much beauty there was in this City (jaded Vancouverites: “Meh”).

And, for the record: nice three piece suit, tie, polished shoes, and an upright Brompton with a well-worn Brooks. He hardly broke a sweat.

I’m looking forward to putting his name on my ballot next week.

*a couple of weeks ago, some friends and I were lamenting the NDP leadership race wasn’t getting the media attention the Conservative one did. It was suggested (half-jokingly) that this is because the race lacked the batshit racist craziness of the CPC race. Is that irony?

Ask Pat: The Q’boro edition

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

Yes, I am a bad blogger. I have Ask Pats in the queue, and run the risk of looking like I just don’t care. But summer is over, which traditionally means time to get back to work, so I’ll try to knock off a couple together here, with a Q’boro theme:

Shaji asks—

Hello Pat
Do you know what is the story behind Frankie G’s Boilerhouse Pub on 305 Ewen Avenue in Queensborough? It seems like it has been under renovations for a long time.

I don’t know much, except that there was a fire, and the owner is doing a major renovation to coincide with the repairs required due to flames/smoke/water. That said, nothing has come across the Council table about it, and I am not aware of any other plans for the site. It is a bit of a shame that they were not open this summer, as it would have made a nice walkable destination during the QtoQ Ferry demonstration, and I know that Port Royal residents are missing having a local community pub. Hope it’s open soon!

Dan asks—

Why did you guys wait so long in the process to figure out building a Q2Q bridge was going to be expensive? How many tens of thousands of dollars did you waste in meetings discussing nonsense with other bureaucrats? You say you have us in your mind, but your thoughts and prayers are piss in the wind. Queensborough is one of the least thought out communities I have had the misfortune of living in. It seems not a single person on the council even thought about basic amenities like a grocery store or how people will get in and out or find parking. You saw a quick way to make cash, promised people a solution and future, and produced nothing. There are thousands of new homes coming up, and little to no forethought into how this will make the already existing problem of access even worse.

To answer your first question, the money to build the proposed Q2Q bridge was not going to be available until around 2015, based on the original timeline of the DAC funding model, when it was put together back in 2007 or so. The higher-priority projects (Queensborough Parks and the Queensborough Community Centre, the MUCF/Anvil Centre) were to be funded and completed first, and were. I wrote a longer piece here about the evolution and challenges of the Q2Q bridge, and a follow-up piece on the decisions made since my time on Council, which may answer some of your questions about how a project originally (in 2008) thought to be in the order of $10Million became a project estimated at $40Million.

I’m not sure how to square the idea that Queensborough is ignored by the City when I look at the Queensborough Community Plan, the investments in the QBB and surrounding parks, the largest road improvement project in the City’s history, and the City investing in childcare and affordable housing initiatives in that neighbourhood as priorities over the rest of the City. Queensborough is growing fast, and the City is investing in making it a livable, working community.

The Community Plan does include the building of neighbourhood-serving retail in a new node near Mercer and Ewen, but the reality is that the City doesn’t build retail developments; that is the job of the private sector. There is a frustrating chicken-and-egg situation where retail developers need to see a large population (=potential customer) base before they will invest and build, but in the meantime, we want local retail to support a growing population (it is kind of like the transit conundrum that sees Port Royal still under-served by Transit as it exceeds the density of many better-served neighbourhoods). The mostly-empty strip mall just over the border in Hamilton is an example of what happens if you try to build small neighbourhood-serving retail in a neighbourhood not ready for it, especially in the shadow of WalMart, but that’s an entire other discussion.

So, yeah, Queensborough is a work in progress, just as every other neighbourhood in the City is. It has an abundance of relatively affordable family-friendly housing options near a bunch of great community amenities, if one is willing to suffer from a lack of retail variety and rush hour traffic challenges. I think the community plan shows some longer-term relief from those challenges, but the solutions aren’t instant, and aren’t for a lack of forethought. Communities often shape themselves, regardless of the best laid plans.

And, as a side note, Council will be doing our annual Meeting in Queensborough on September 11, starting at 6:00pm. If you have a specific Q’boro concern, complaint, kudo or claim, Public Delegations start at 7:00! C’mon out and tell us what you think!

on Racists

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Last week in Council, we had an Agenda item entitled “Procedure for Offensive Correspondence Received as part of a Legislated Public Process”. I made mention of it in my Council report, but wanted to put a little more context around it, as it seems topical to events local and around the planet right now.

The background is thus: City Council has some legislated responsibility to “receive” public comment on issues of public interest through Public Hearings, Opportunities to be Heard, and some seldom-exercised quasi-judicial duties we have. To “receive” the correspondence generally means to acknowledge publically that we have received it and had time to review it, and then to enter the correspondence into the Public Record so the public has a right to see what evidence we used to inform our decision about the issue.

This spring, we had application for a temporary use zoning amendment from a community group, and received some correspondence opposing that application that was (in my opinion) offensive. It contained uninformed and hateful comments about people living, working, and worshipping in our community and included links to inflammatory YouTube videos by the most ignorant and intolerant fringes of our society.

During the Public Hearing, when the correspondence was to be received, I asked if it was possible for this correspondence to not be received. Having read it, I did not want it to be entered into the public record, as this would result in the City disseminating hateful speech. I also did not want to leave open an invitation for further bigoted speech to be used in part of our consideration for a land use amendments – at some point you need to say no to racism and bigotry.

At the time, our City Clerk (whose job it is to assure that the procedures followed by Council are legally on the up-and-up) suggested that not receiving a specific piece of correspondence would be irregular, and could potentially result in a legal challenge that may put the application in jeopardy – unintentionally impacting the applicants and empowering the person opposed to them. This seemed a suboptimal result, so I agreed along with Council to receive the correspondence. However, I also asked that we get a legal opinion and strategy to deal with offensive correspondence received as part of a Public Hearing process in the future.

The result, this week, is that staff have outlined a procedure where all correspondence will be received, and delivered to Council, but correspondence considered offensive or inflammatory will not be entered into the Public Record, except in noting that it has been received and redacted. In the end, an interested member of the public could FOI the correspondence that was redacted, but we are not required to disseminate this hate to the general public. I’m pretty happy with this compromise.

Some will call this “censorship”, and to them, I can only link to this XKCD comic, which succinctly outlines what constitutes free speech (excuse the American viewpoint and soft profanity, but the point is made):

Link to the always-excellent XKCD.

This brings to mind the E-mail folder I maintain for my City e-mail, simply labelled “racists”. I get about one e-mail a week that I scan through and send over to this file. They are all apropos of nothing that is happening in New Westminster, as I suspect the small, hateful group sending them is spamming every elected official in BC (or Canada?) with them.

Note, I redacted contact info, and have chosen the headlines of fairly “tame” examples of the 100+ messages I have received. I don’t want to cast light on these groups, but want people to recognize that this ignorant, offensive, bigoted conversation is constantly pressed in the face of elected folks. I keep all of these e-mails as an archive partly because I’m a bit of a digital packrat, but mostly because reading these screeds for the last three years has made me hyperaware of the “dog whistles” used for personal gain by people like Kellie Leitch and Ezra Levant, and Rex Muphy, and (unfortunately) in otherwise polite conversation by otherwise well-meaning people.

The balance between ignoring it and casting light on it in order to oppose it is the challenge of liberal democracy. Mostly, though, I’m disappointed that so many (especially on the right side of the political spectrum) see society as a zero-sum game; If they want more (from the economy, from their government, from life) then there must be some others who deserve less. We can do better.

Council – Aug 28, 2017.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

No surer sign that summer is over than spending a Monday in Council Meetings. The evening Regular Meeting was mercifully very short, although the Agenda included a large number of items passed on Consent.

We started with an Opportunity to be Heard, that gets a little complicated…

Wood/Boyne Street Road Closure Bylaw No. 7935 – Animal Services Facility – Rescind Third Reading
There was a clerical error in the diagram that went with the earlier reading of the Bylaw. The intent was (in my opinion) clear, but Staff decided there was some ambiguity in how the road closure diagram could be interpreted, so decided to roll it back and go through the process again to make sure everything is on the up and up. So first we rescinded the Third Reading from July 10 Meeting.

Wood-Boyne Street Road Closure Bylaw No. 7935, 2017
Third Reading of the adapted Bylaw required another Opportunity to be Heard. The required notice was completed, and we received no written responses, nor did anyone from the public exercise their opportunity to speak. Council moved to refer the amended Bylaw for Third Reading.

We than had this Report for Action.

41 and 175 Duncan Street: Official Community Plan and Rezoning – Preliminary Report
This is a preliminary report for a medium-sized development adjacent adjacency to industrial area that will be industrial for perpetuity (creating potential interface issues), however, it appears of offer an interesting mix of family- friendly housing forms that Queensborough is becoming famous for. This is a preliminary report, as the project needs to go through various levels of approval and public consultation, including a Public Hearing, so I’ll hold off on further comments until then.

The following items were then Moved on Consent:

Deaccessioning (removal) of Heritage materials from New Westminster Museum and Archives
Our Museum and Archives has to occasionally cull their inventory of items deemed to have little heritage or collection value. There is a process established for this, including a report to Council to make sure the process is transparent and accountable.

Solid Waste and Recycling Artist in Residence Program
Yes, it sounds funny, but hear this out. The City has a lot of waste management equipment and infrastructure. It is omnipresent, but often disregarded in how it impacts the aesthetics of our public spaces. I love the idea of finding an artistic canvas in the everyday and mundane. This project will provide a small amount of funding from our Arts Services budget (not our waste management budget), and creates an interesting opportunity to improve our public spaces. I’m happy council moved to support this.

Initial Operation of Q to Q Demonstration Ferry Service
The QtoQ Ferry has been (and continues to be) an interesting learning experience. 3,600 fare-paying trips on the first full operational weekend, and well over 2,000 per weekend since is definitely more than anticipated. There were, however, significant challenges also identified, along with a few we knew were going to be a problem from day one. I think it was the right decision to do this shake-down trial and learn about how to address these challenges.

These initial numbers show high interest in extended service, however this demonstration is not continuing beyond September 25th, simply because the contracts and agreements that empower it are not easy to extend. We will have some time over the winter to have the bigger discussion about where to go from here, be it extending and expanding the service in 2018, or a better look at partnerships with senior government agencies to find a permanent solution to connecting our Qs.

Procedure for Offensive Correspondence Received as part of a Legislated Public Process
This seems painfully procedural, but City Council has some legislated responsibility to receive public comment on issues of public interest such as Public Hearings. When we receive correspondence, it is forwarded to Council for us to read and consider as part of the process, then we officially “receive” this correspondence, and it is entered into the public record. However, we had some pretty offensive (racist, bigoted, hateful) correspondence with a recent application that I questioned whether we need to receive and enter in to the public record.

Short version (and I will write a follow-up blog post about this) is that we need to receive the correspondence, but we can avoid putting it into the public record if it is considered offensive. This report outlines the process recommended by the City’s legal counsel.

Official Community Plan Infill Housing Implementation: Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7936, 2017 and Related Procedures Bylaws – For Consideration of Readings
The OCP update is inching towards completion, and along with it some changes to our Zoning Bylaw are required to make it possible for us to allow Laneway- and Carriage-House in the residential zones where the new Land Use Plan map indicates is appropriate. This also includes formalizing some procedures around how the approvals will be managed.

I am generally happy with what is outlined here, but worry a little about creating a complicated processing issue that slows the development of these housing types after we finally approve them. This will be an area of continued work once the OCP is approved, and a new challenge for our Planning Department. If you look through this report, you can get a sense of the iterative process Staff and Council went through to get to the point where we have a Bylaw that can move to Three readings (a couple of 5-2 and 4-3 votes on major procedural concepts here). There was a round of stakeholder consultation here (the APC voted in favour), and the zoning Amendment Bylaw will go to Public Hearing in September.

610 Sixth Street: Development Variance Permit to Vary Sign Bylaw No. 7867, 2017 to Permit the Installation of Two Signs – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
It looks like the Royal City Centre has a new anchor tenant, and advertising such requires variance of our Sign Bylaw. This will go to an Opportunity to be Heard on September 18. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

630 Ewen Avenue (Affordable Housing Project): Housing Agreement Bylaw – Bylaw for Three Readings
The City is proposing to enter into an agreement with a not-for-profit (WINGS) to operate a supportive/affordable housing project on City land in Queensborough. It is a relatively small project, but will provide units to families that would otherwise have a difficult time finding housing in the City. This report outlines the Housing Agreement terms, and Council moved to refer the resultant Bylaw for three readings.

43 Hastings Street (Affordable Housing Project): Rezoning Application from Single Detached Dwelling Districts (RS-2) to Comprehensive Dwelling Districts (CD-73) – Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7923, 2017 for First and Second Readings
This is another supportive/affordable housing project the City is supporting in the Downtown, including providing permanent access to City lands. This project will require a Zoning Amendment, which will go to Public Hearing on September 18. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

988 Quayside Drive (Bosa RiverSky Project): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption
The River Sky project (the one currently under construction next to the River Market) needs to do a single big concrete pour next week. For structural engineering reasons, it has to happen as a single pour, and will take more than the time allotted by our construction noise bylaw allows in a single day. For this reason, Council moved to permit a one-day exemption to the Construction Noise Bylaw to allow an early start to the pour. The constructors are required to provide public notice to the neighbours.

900 Carnarvon St (Tower 4): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption
This exemption of the Construction Noise Bylaw is required to permit the installation of a noise canopy over the SkyTrain Tracks at the only time TransLink will allow it: when the trains are not running. This extension is required because the work has been delayed for various reasons. Short term pain for long-term gain seems to be the theme downtown these days…

OUR CITY 2041: Updated Official Community Plan Adoption Bylaw No. 7925, 2017
This is another procedural thing, with a few edits to the OCP Bylaw that was given two readings back in June. The changes are as simple as a few spelling mistakes corrected to some important clean-ups of the Land Use Map to properly reflect the spirt of the plan and previous plans. These edits don’t change our timeline for Public Hearing or Third Reading, which is still scheduled for September 18.

Queen’s Park Traffic Calming Plan
The first round of consultations around updating the traffic management plan in Queens Park raised what are (seemingly) some pretty minor complaints compared to issues identified in other neighbourhoods like Sapperton, Downtown, and Connaught Heights. The biggest issues seem to be around “rat-running” to the Pattullo Bridge during the evening rush hour, which may see some temporary relief with the removal of tolls from the Port Mann, but there are also a few opportunities to improve pedestrian safety in Queens Park, which will take some more exploration.

Internet Service Provider Agreement with CIK Telecommunications
A seventh (!) provider is signing up to provide service though our dark fibre network. The opportunities aside from the “big three” for internet and related services in New West are definitely increasing, especially for those living and working in Uptown and Downtown. You might want to look here if your internet service is letting you down.

Mann Cup Luncheon and Press Conference Hosting Opportunity
It’s not often you get to host the Mann Cup. The City will be hosting whomever wins the MSL at Queens Park Arena, thanks to the great season and remarkable playoff performance of the Salmonbellies. Follow along here to get your tickets and schedule your September!

We then went through our regular Bylaws routine:

Official Community Plan Adoption Bylaw No. 7925, 2017
As discussed above, second reading of this Bylaw back in June was rescinded, and the edited Bylaw was given Second Reading. There will be a Public Hearing on this September 18; C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Infill Housing) No. 7936, 2017
This zoning amendment to permit the process for approving Laneway and Carriage houses in the City as per the OCP proposal and the lengthy discussions back in July was also given two readings.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (43 Hastings Street) No. 7923, 2017
As discussed above, this Bylaw amending the zoning bylaw to allow for an affordable housing project on City land in Downtown was given two readings.

Development Approval Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 7939, 2017 & Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7940, 2017
These bylaws that support the OCP update for infill housing as discussed above and at length in Council back in July, were given three readings.

630 Ewen Avenue (Affordable Housing Project): Housing Agreement Bylaw
As discussed above, this Bylaw empowering the Housing Agreement for this affordable housing project in Queensborough was given three readings.

‘Housekeeping’ Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7893, 2017
This zoning amendment bylaw to permit animal daycare in businesses that were already permitted to have animal grooming, as given a Public Hearing back on January 30th, was adopted. It’s the Law of the Land, may your pets rest soundly while you work.

Zoning Amendment (1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street) Bylaw No. 7917, 2017
This zoning amendment bylaw to permit a development in Queensborough, which was given a Public Hearing back on May 29th, was adopted. It’s the Law of the Land, adjust your behavior accordingly.

Finally, we had one piece of New Business:

Motion on Notice (Councillor Puchmayr): Setting a target for 100% renewable energy in the City by 2050.
This is an interesting initiative, that I ended up sounding more negative about than I intended. I think it is a good aspirational goal (and supported the motion), but am a little concerned about resourcing the work necessary for us to put together a comprehensive adaptation plan, and how we fit that in with the number of significant strategic priorities we have going right now. Perhaps I’ll write a little more on this as I develop my thoughts a little more.

And that was the end of our summer session meeting. Enjoy Labour Day, and we will see you all in September when the real works resumes!

on Data

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

This isn’t exactly an Ask Pat, but I was asked a question on Facebook comments thread discussing the new Crosstown Greenway changes along 7th Ave, and I needed more than a Facebook post to answer:

I read two questions here, tied up into one. Paraphrased, the first is “How many cyclist injuries or deaths are there in the City to justify all of this money spent on bike lanes?”, and the second, perhaps more nuanced, is “What data justifies spending money on all these new bike lanes”.

I didn’t answer the first question, because I think it is a terrible question, but never got around to explaining why I feel that way. If we have a spike in deaths or injuries, it may be an indication that we have a problem that needs immediate attention, but we don’t wait for those spike if we can anticipate and prevent incidents. A raw count of deaths or injuries as the sole driver of infrastructure investment is not responsible governance.

The actual data being asked for is hard to come by. Local governments do not (to the best of my knowledge) collect these stats in any kind of comprehensive way for public consumption. ICBC presumably still collects stats, but their reporting out has become pretty inconsistent, and their crash maps for New Westminster have not been updated since 2013 (for Pedestrians and cyclists) or 2015 (for cars) and cannot be filtered by injury/death/property damage: 

Anecdotally (and off the top of my head) I can think of two cyclist and three pedestrian deaths in New Westminster in the last few years (there have surely been more). One of them I am comfortable in calling an “accident”, a second was clearly an act of negligence on the part of a pedestrian. The rest were just as clearly acts of negligence on the part of the drivers of a vehicles, resulting in the death of 3 innocent road users. I have also spent the last year watching a good friend struggle through recovery from a near-fatal cycling crash where he was clearly a victim of a negligent driver. New West is not unique here, as across the region, there is news every day of cyclist endangered by the negligence of drivers.

Of course, I acknowledge the obvious point that cyclists and pedestrians also sometimes act negligently, and cause accidents. However studies have shown that accidents causing injury or death of pedestrians and cyclist are in the vast majority, caused by the actions of drivers, most notably not yielding right-of way while making turns.

That said, we are talking about infrastructure, and part of designing and investing in transportation infrastructure is in making it harder for people (drivers or vulnerable users) to be negligent, and to reduce the potential impacts of any negligence on vulnerable road users. We can do this through design that reduces conflict points, improves visibility, slows cars, or puts barriers between vulnerable users and the vehicles that endanger them. At some level, this should be the primary goal of all transportation engineering. But perhaps I am already digressing too far from the point, so let me answer more succinctly:

We don’t measure the need for a bridge by counting the number of people drowning in a river.

The second question seems to be more relevant to how governance works: What kind of data do we use to make transportation investment decisions?

The City passed a Master Transportation Plan back in early 2014, and it sets out priorities for the City’s transportation investments. It was developed in context of a bunch of other planning documents, including larger regional plans like the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and the TransLink Transport 2040 regional transportation plan, both of which the City participated in. Internally, we have our own Official Community Plan (currently being updated), a relatively recent Sustainability Plan, and a variety of other strategies to make the City more equitable, safer, livable, and sustainable.

These plans all point to making active transportation modes (pedestrians, cycling, and transit) easier to access, safer, and more comfortable, as an important strategy towards the larger regional and local community development goals. This was reflected in our Master Transportation Plan with an established hierarchy for our transportation system:

In an ideal world, our transportation spending would reflect that hierarchy, but we are not there yet. This year, we will spend something like $4 Million* on asphalt, mostly to make roads smoother for drivers. At the same time, we will spend about $500,000* on sidewalk improvements and maintenance (which represents a pretty significant proportional increase over previous years), and the Crosstown Greenway improvements that started this entire conversation will cost us less than $125,000*. By any measure, the hierarchy in the MTP is aspirational, as travelling by car is still the preferred mode for a little more than 60% of residents.

(* all budget estimates, very close to reality, but not exact numbers) 

So the City has a well established and regionally-supported goal to encourage active modes, mostly by making them safer and more comfortable for all users. The only question left is what evidence do we have to suggest making active modes safer and more comfortable encourages their use, or provides the livability, sustainability, and inclusion goals the City is after?

I could start with Montreal, or Copenhagen, or Medellin, or even Vancouver. I can refer you to books by Jeanette Sadik-Khan or Charles Montgomery. We are not inventing a new wheel here (we are too small and too fiscally conservative a City to do that), but we are taking the best of what other jurisdictions have already demonstrated to work, and are warned by failures in other jurisdictions.

If you want to dig in to the academic underpinnings here, I can link you to resources about how protected bike lanes save lives and reduce injuries, and studies showing that communities where people are encouraged and supported in choosing active modes are happier, healthier, and more inclusive ones. Perhaps most importantly, I can show you the data that building proper infrastructure increases the number of cyclists, which actually correlates with cyclist safety much more than does helmet use (for example):

The Crosstown Greenway improvements are very small part of our transportation budget (less than 3% of this year’s budget for road improvements), and has numerous potential benefits to the community at large. As the City’s first foray into modern separated bikeway design, it may have a few kinks to work out, and it may take a bit of time for drivers to get their head around the new layout, but it is based on well-established design principles, and is a big step towards creating a safe, effective, and all-ages cycling network in the City.

That said, they were done as a bit of a trial, and I encourage everyone to let the City know what you like and don’t about the design – and provide suggestions about how the City could improve upon the design.

POST SCRIPT: I swear I did not read the New West Record that came out today before writing this post…