Author: Patrick Johnstone

On the New School

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I guess I would be remiss if I didn’t blog something about this news. It does seem to be the biggest news in New West, after all.

Right off the bat, I want to say I had nothing to do with this. The High School is a Board of Education responsibility, and the Ministry of Education holds the purse strings to make things happen. Our primary role since I joined Council is to stay out of the way and let the School District do the work they need to get an approved plan. It is slightly more complicated than that, as we worked on an agreement over Massey Theatre and have plan and money in the budget for the for the Skateboard Park, but I consider those things to be included in “getting out of the way” to allow the School Board to do whatever they need to help things to proceed.

Of course, the Trustees of School District 40 and their staff deserve the most kudos. Jonina and her team have done what no Board over the last 20 years has managed to do – get an approved plan in place and money committed by the province. The School District has done some amazing work over the last few years – getting their perennial budget woes under control, some really progressive inclusion policies, getting one new school built, a second almost finished, and now a third, long-awaited project approved. School Boards often operate a little below the radar. We rarely recognize them unless something goes wrong and the pitchfork-and-torch crowd is looking for someone to blame. Perhaps a great mark for this Board is that they have been quietly and non-controversially getting the job done for the students of the district. A new NWSS may be a crowning achievement, but it isn’t the only one.

This is not to say there are no concerns in public education in New West. We still have several seismically-suspect schools, there are hard decisions being made due to ongoing funding pressures, transportation issues abound, and delivering a new NWSS on schedule is going to be a challenge, but we have many reasons to think this Board will be able to get things done.  So much good work has already been done, with so little fanfare. I am happy the Board got to stand up in front of cameras and take a bow for this one project. They deserve it.

For the Minister of Education, I give a slightly more qualified thanks. There is a hint of Stockholm Syndrome in heaping effusive praise on someone who held the purse strings for so long when they finally come through after what is (IMHO) an unacceptably long wait. A replacement for the decrepit NWSS is not a gift to the City – it is a basic social service this City has been without for way too long. Still, I thank the Minister for doing whatever he had to do in Victoria to get this approved, and I appreciate him taking the time answer what I understand were very frequent phone calls from our Board to work through the details.

Finally, I want to give thanks to the people paying for this school: the residents of the City. They have paid their school taxes through that decade-long wait, they have shown remarkable (if sometimes testy) patience, sending their kids to an increasingly festering building because they believe in public education, because they know the programs inside that building are still excellent, or because they had no other choice. Meanwhile, The students have kept making us proud with the academic, athletic, and social achievements. I have had the opportunity over the last couple of years to work with the Youth Advisory Committee and other youth organizations in the City, and am consistently inspired by the talents and confidence of students going through our school system. They are proud of their school community, I’m glad they will soon have a building to be proud of as well.

There is devil in the details here. My (admittedly under-informed) feeling is that $106Million will get us a school that meets our needs, but may fall short of many of our desires. The City has committed funds to help keep the Massey Theatre as a community asset, but the details of how the existing theatre will interface with the new school, and the pathway to get there, is a work in progress. Some of the school design and construction details are sure to cause conversation, and I still think we have some transportation challenges around the existing site. In short, there is a lot of work yet to do to make these plans a reality, but at least we no know the real work can start.

Exciting times ahead.

Urban Academy Redux

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

At last week’s Public Hearing, the most discussed topic was the proposal by Urban Academy and their partner Wesgroup to develop the property at 100 Braid Street. Urban Academy had been looking for a place to expand their school operation, and were disappointed last year when Council decided to not support the building of a larger school on their property in Queens Park.

Their second kick at the can involved creating a partnership with Wesgroup to purchase a larger piece of land, and use the available density and development potential of that property to share costs and regulatory hurdles. It was an innovative approach, and considering the significant time restraints, they did a good job putting a package together that Council could support.

The Public Hearing had something like 17 speakers, and if you are the type to score this kind of thing, the support/oppose/neutral count was something like 8/6/3. I don’t do the math that way, however, because I think the job of council at a Public Hearing is to hear all arguments, and evaluate them on the value of the argument, not the number of people able to make it. There were essentially two arguments against supporting this project, but before I get to those I want to outline some of the details of the plan, as it currently exists.

NOTE:I also need to do one of those reminder clauses here, that everything I write here is my opinion. It isn’t the official position of the City, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of any of the other members of Council. Let them write their own blog!

The lot at 100 Braid Street is 74,000 square feet, and includes three attached buildings with a largish rear parking lot, all zoned M-1 Industrial. The individual owner of the property leases the space to several businesses, Laser Tag and Bullpen in what I’ll call Building 1, 100Braid Studio/Gallery and an environmental services company in Building 2, and a music studio in Building 3. Under the current M-1 zoning, the owner was permitted to knock the three buildings down and build something like 225,000 square feet of industrial or commercial property, with no regulated setbacks and up to 6 stories (85 feet) high. According to the presentation at Council, all of the current lessees have demolition clauses in their leases, meaning the owner can shut them down and knock the buildings down whenever he wants. No need to ask Council permission to exercise these options.

The plan presented by Wesgroup and Urban Academy is to rezone the property, and as soon as possible build a school for 450 students on the location of the current Building 1. At a later time, they plan to follow up with residential development of the Building 2 and Building 3 spaces with a moderate-sized (21 story) high rise residential tower on a podium comprising enclosed parking, townhouses and some public art space. The timing of that second phase is uncertain, as it will be impacted by the ever-shifting market for residential housing and variable construction and marketing costs, but Wesgroup anticipates that phase may commence in about 5 years.

The first argument against this proposal was the ubiquitous “What about the traffic?” question. The school and eventual residential development will indeed increase the number of cars using the Rousseau and Braid intersection, and have a lesser effect on Rousseau and the adjoining lower Sapperton neighbourhood. The school appears to have a reasonable plan to address pick-up and drop-off, and are making efforts towards Transportation Demand Management which will leverage the proximity to the Braid SkyTrain Station.

I cannot say there will be no impact on the neighbouring properties, however the same could be said for locating a school in any neighbourhood in New Westminster. We have something like a dozen schools in New Westminster, and many of them are located on arterial roads, all of them have neighbouring communities. All of them have unique traffic management issues, and all of them work with the City and their PAC to make the traffic situation as safe and non-disruptive as possible. I also cannot think of another use of this M-1 zoned space that won’t have some sort of traffic-inducing impact. Light industrial and commercial properties have some of the most complicated transportation issues, especially adjacent to residential neighbourhoods.

As it is, the City is working on several projects related to the traffic issue at this property. The Sapperton neighbourhood traffic study will help us put several projects (the RCH expansion, the Brewery District, Sapperton Green) into better context and help us develop a more holistic approach to managing neighbourhood traffic concerns in lower and upper Sapperton. There are also ongoing discussions with TransLink, the Ministry of Transportation, and Coquitlam around the entire Brunette corridor, from Mallardville and the Hwy1 interchange through the Braid intersection and how it interacts with RCH, the Braid Industrial Area, and points west. No-one thinks it works great right now, and longer-term planning is required to come up with solutions to the flow concerns. This project (along with Sapperton Green) will be part of that discussion. Defining what will be on this location for the decades to come helps solidify that planning.

This brings us to the other major issue of discussion at the Public Hearing: the fate of 100Braid Studios, and the remarkable business Susan Grieg has developed over the last couple of years. I have been to the space, have attended events in it, have friends who have used the studio space, have even splattered paint in the booth. It has, in a relatively short time, become a significant piece of the local arts community, providing space for artists to work, and a space for them to display their works to an ever-shifting community of events guests. The space itself is bright, tall, and full of natural light refracting at interesting angles through seemingly-ancient amply-muntined windows.

Early on in the process when this proposal came to the Land Use and Planning Committee, this was identified as a significant community concern, and the proponents were asked to explore ways to address that concern. There was some complication in that process, as the Developer was not the landowner, and (as is pretty typical in a commercial land sale like this) was discouraged from communicating with the existing tenants by the existing landlord. However, these concerns also arose during the Public Consultations, and the developer was able to work with a few of the tenants to address various concerns.

They also added 4,300 square feet of public studio / gallery space to the podium of the residential building. This amenity will not necessarily replace 100Braid Studios for several reasons. The area is large enough for studio and galleries, but not the event hosting part of the 100Braid business. The studio space may be well appointed and designed, but it will most likely not feature that same unique aesthetic that 100Braid has.

However (and this is the ugly pragmatic part), if this project did not move forward, there is no reason to believe the 100Braid space will be preserved any longer than if this project is approved. When this partnership was put together, there were (again, based on what was reported at the Public Hearing) four offers on the land, and we simply don’t know what the other speculators’ plans were for the space. However, with 75,000 square feet of zoned industrial space near major transportation corridors that will allow 85 feet in height and an FSR of 3, the property is potentially a hot commodity, and re-development is almost a certainty.

The way this project worked out, we know that 100Braid will be able to operate for several more years, and a lease developed that will allow her maximum flexibility if another comparable or more amenable space comes available during that time. We also receive a community arts space that will be different from 100Braid, but has the potential to be a real asset to the community, and offering that space and the financial and logistical commitment to build it, is a show of good faith on the part of the developer. I hope that 100Braid can continue to prosper in this unique space for several years, until a new space can be found that continues to allow her artists to flourish.

I also hope that the UA community recognizes that there is some community-building to do with Susan at 100Braid, and with the artists who lease space from her. The UA community may feel they “won” a victory here, but to make it a win for the larger community, they need to understand that this development comes with some concerns for their new neighbours. some of whom are likely are suffering a feeling of loss and uncertainty. I hope the two communities can come together and find their common cause. There is a potential for synergy here, as Urban Academy offers an art-infused program, and they are likely to benefit from a closer relationship with Susan and 100Braid, as she is both an amazing spirit and amazing resource in the Arts community.

And I’m actually optimistic about that, mostly because the public consultation process culminating in the Public Hearing was a respectful and positive one. Although I was not directly involved in conversations between the parties, from my viewpoint the consultation and resolution appeared to be a constructive process. Opponents and proponents stuck to their concerns and proposed solutions, there was none of the acrimony, accusations, or anger that sometimes arises in these hearings. We are talking about people’s neighbourhoods, homes, jobs and community connections here; it is not surprising that it can become a very emotional discussion.

One other comment I want to make about the Public Hearing process itself. It is a regulated process under Division 3 of the Local Government Act, but it isn’t a perfect process. A common comment I hear is that the result feels like a fait accompli, and that Council already made up their mind before the public are allowed to comment. In my experience that is not true. Every item that came to Public Hearing on May 30th passed (although there were some dissenting votes on some projects) but no-one knows better than Urban Academy that this is not always the case.

The way I see it, the Public Hearing is the culmination of a long process that begins when a developer walks into city hall and says they want to build a building. That launches months (and often years) of design, discussion with City Staff, comparison to City legal requirements and policies, review by several committees, updates to Council, public consultations, revisions, more discussion, more Council review, more committee review, more public consultation, and development of enabling Bylaws. By the time a project of this magnitude gets to Public Hearing, staff and Council should understand the concerns of the neighbourhood, and should be able to understand how or if those concerns are to be mitigated. Some projects simply never make it that far through the process because of unsurmountable concerns; all of them are changed substantially through the process. If Council is surprised by what is coming to Public Hearing, and concerns from the public bring issues that Council hadn’t considered, then someone (staff, the Developer, Council) isn’t doing their job.

The project that Council approved through this public hearing is not the same one that walked in the door of City Hall months ago. It was shaped by public consultation, by City Policy, and by discussions between all of the stakeholders involved. Mitigation of concerns raised by the neighbourhood was part of that shaping.

The process is not perfect. Developers often feel it takes too long, too much power is given to a few neighbourhood voices, and that some City policies are too restrictive. “Red Tape”, they call it. At the same time, some in the Public feel that there is not enough consultation, that the City doesn’t get enough community amenity from development, and the developers are driving the process. A “Rubber Stamp” they call it.

It is fascinating to watch from this place in the middle, and it gives insight into why Government is, inherently, inefficient.

Landing the Pattullo

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

I know we have all enjoyed the quieter streets when the Pattullo Bridge has had weekend closures. We have all equally cursed the increased afternoon congestion as irregular lane reductions have confused and vexed our daily drive-through customers. So the pump is primed for a talk about the future of the Pattullo Bridge.

For those who have lost track of the many changes in the on-again off-again Pattullo Replacement Project, the short version is thus. Much preliminary design and evaluation went into the replacement project to determine the need and urgency of the project a few years ago. TransLink recognized the need to replace the bridge (a position I don’t necessarily agree with, but there you go), but was constrained by simply not having the capital in their budget to start the project. It was rolled into the Mayors’ 10-Year Transportation Investment Plan to create the initial capital, and then provide a framework for capital recovery through tolling. Of course, that Plan received a NO Vote setback (causing me to wonder how many of those people stuck in traffic behind that bridge voted NO… but I digress), but that doesn’t remove TransLink’s perceived need to replace the bridge.

In fact, the repairs happening right now are a scaled-back version of the repairs that were once anticipated if the capital to replace the bridge could not be found. As disruptive as the work is now, it is limited to deck-replacement repairs required to eke out another 5-7 years of service life from the bridge, not long-term repairs required to get another 20 or more years. So you may read from this decision that TransLink sees a replacement bridge being operational within that 5-7 year time frame. Assuming a 1-year Environmental Assessment a longer design/procurement stage and at least two years of construction, they have a bit of work to do and need to get started (funding pending, of course).

New Westminster has signed a three-party MOU with TransLink and the City of Surrey that clearly defines the parameters for a new bridge. It will be tolled, it will be 4 lanes (with underpinnings to support eventual expansion to 6 lanes if there is demonstrated need and with all-party agreement), and it will connect with the surface streets in New West in a way that respects the urban nature of our surface streets. It’s that last bit that is the topic of upcoming public engagement being led by TransLink.

As the project looks now, the bridge will land in a very similar place to where it does now, but there are oodles of details about how it interacts with Royal Avenue, with McBride, and with the access to Victoria Hill. In my role in the Mayor’s Transportation Taskforce I have seen some preliminary sketches, but I don’t know exactly what proposed options TransLink will be presenting to the public starting next week.

My take on what we should be looking for in this phase of consultation is tied up in that phrasing around the urban nature of our community. The north foot of the Pattullo Bridge should look like other urban bridges in the centre of residential and commercial areas in the region – think of the No 2 Road and Dinsmore bridges in Richmond or the Cambie and Burrard bridges in Vancouver. This as opposed to building overpasses and flyways and offramps like the Alex Fraser or Golden Ears. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First is safety. This bridge will be built to “modern” bridge standards, which likely means 3.5m or 4m lanes, physical separation of directions, and wide open sight lines. They may slap a 60km/h speed limit on it, but everyone is going to go 90km/h, because all of the visual cues telling you how fast to drive are going to tell the reptile part of your brain to go 90km/h. I have no interest in making McBride or Royal 60km/h zones or faster, it is simply not a safe speed to be operating a vehicle in an urban environment. There needs to be visual cues that you are entering an urban environment and have to slow the hell down, and those cues need to be designed in, not sign posted. One only has to look at eastbound Stewardson Way to see what happens when cars leaving flyways and crossovers enter a 50km/h zone with nothing other than a traffic sign telling them to slow down:Capture

The now-worn-away red flags on those signs do nothing to reduce speeds, but remain flaccid tokens of a design failure. I don’t want to repeat this design failure at Pattullo.

The second is simply livability of the local neighbourhoods. People living in Victoria Hill need to be able to access the Downtown of New Westminster without a freeway cutting them off. The Central Valley Greenway is one of the City’s primary bike and pedestrian routes – it needs to be a comfortable, safe space for all residents and street users. There is no place in this environment for elevated freeway ramps. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure needs to be well-marked, accessible, and not pretend to service active transportation users while actually being built to accommodate higher-speed traffic. Victoria Hill, Queens Park, Albert Crescent Park; these are neighbourhoods and public spaces in New Westminster, not through-fares. We need to design with that in mind.

What will that look like? I don’t know yet. But I am as curious as you to see how this develops.

So if you live in New Westminster and care about transportation, especially if you live in Victoria Hill and want better access to the rest of New Westminster, I recommend you register for one of the small-group meetings, or attend one of the public open houses. It might even be fun to attend a Surrey open house or two, and see what the conversation on the other side of the river is.

The schedule is as follows:

POH SGM

Go! Show up! Take Part! If experience is a guide, TransLink does take public consultation seriously, and we will only have one chance to make this right and lock in the interface to the Pattullo that residents of New Westminster will have to live with for a decades. We need some voices from New Westminster to help make this thing fit our neighbourhoods, and the future of our city, as best as possible.

Council – May 30, 2016 (Part 2)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Like I said in my last post, Monday’s meeting was a long one (look at that poor lost soul above as he briefly enters his happy place, 5 hours in), so I broke up my report into two blogs. This is Part 2 – everything that took place outside of the Public Hearing.

Partly because of the recognition of the evening’s long agenda and, with anticipation of a lengthy Public Hearing, some Regular Council items were dealt with in a “Workshop” format during the day, so it was more like the old Committee of the Whole model. It was a public meeting with video record and proper notice and all, just during the day.

Note: This wasn’t a real “workshop” the way I define it. That was what we did on May 16 instead of a regular Council Meeting, as we discussed parts of the Official Community Plan development. If you are at all interested in seeing the sausage-making parts of how this Council makes decisions and interacts with professional staff in a slightly less formal setting, I think that workshop is a pretty good representation of the types of conversations we have when we start to dig into things, and it may be illustrative to watch the video for some people. Including the comedy of how long it takes for us all to sit down around a table.

OPEN WORKSHOP

Tourism New Westminster Five-Year Strategic Plan
We had a presentation from Tourism New Westminster on their strategic plan, and a proposed path forward for the organization. There is a bunch of background around this topic relating to Council increasing annual funding for TNW over the last year as a interim measure to help with their transition to a new office and new vision, and in anticipation that the Hotel Room Tax (“MRDT”) that most Municipalities use to augment their tourism promotion programs.

The 5-year vision presented to Council as a draft was full of interesting ideas, but it also included us looking at some new, and increased, funding to leverage the MRDT and external Grants in a pretty significant way. There will be more discussion between the TNW Board and the city leading from this!

We moved the following items by Consent:

Report on Major Purchasing Transactions for the Period January 1 to April 30, 2016
This is a list of everything we purchased as a City in the first third of 2016, at least everything we paid for. Not every pencil and ream of paper, but all purchases with budgets above $50,000. As part of our legal reporting requirements, we list the winning contractor for competitive bids, and even list losing bidders. Not a regular business practice, but something Cities are required to do in the spirit of transparency.

Some of these purchases were just regular invoicing of ongoing projects. This is why, for example, we cut a cheque for $108K for our external engineer for work to date on the Q2Q bridge, although we anticipate we will require about $4 Million in services from them (assuming we find a solution to the Q2Q bridge that we can move forward on). The $4 Million is listed in our 5-year capital plan, but doesn’t necessarily mean we are going to spend it.

2015 Statement of Financial Information
This is more regulatory reporting. This is our official audited financial statements, in the format required by the legislation. In 2015, we collected $69 Million in taxes, an equal amount in utility charges, and about $42 Million in other revenues. We had about $14 Million in Surplus, but through the magic of accounting and tangible capital assets, that means we increased our financial assets by something closer to $9 Million. That surplus was budgeted for, and is directed to various reserves funds to pay for upcoming capital projects.

There is more to read here, including how the City stores its Investments, how our DCC funds are doing, our long-term debt situation, etc.

We also have to report our Council wages, and our expenses, it cost you a little over $40K to have me go to meetings and pontificate. My expenses were a little lower than most because I wasn’t able to attend a conference last year. I will definitely be attending UBCM this year, so that should catch me up.

There is also the annual list of employee remuneration, which I personally hate. In few other industries is a professional making $75,000 – $150,000 required to publically disclose their wages, and have their wage printed in the local paper next to their picture. I understand the public’s right to know what the City pays for public employees, but I would much prefer if these lists provided the Job Title, and not the employee’s personal name. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if the City is paying Jim or Alice $120,000 to be the General Manager of Some Section, what matters is that we pay the General Manager of Some Section $120,000 dollars. I don’t see how the way we do it now serves the public interest, other than puerile voyeurism. Rant over.

The following items were either removed from Consent or part of the regular agenda:

100 Braid Street: Principles for an Agreement between Urban Academy and the City for the Community Use of Proposed School Facilities
This item allowed Council to approve the principles of a legal agreement between the City and Urban Academy regarding a commitment made by Urban Academy to provide community access to some of their facilities.

This meeting was held prior to the Public Hearing where the fate of the urban Academy proposal would be discussed, so the legal agreement does not, practically, exist. However Staff felt it important (and I agree) that Council understand the framework through which a public amenity related to the project would be managed prior to us deciding if we want to approve the project that would bring that amenity.

Council approved the principles unanimously.

Proposed Widening of Blackley Street
Similar to the item above, this references a project coming to Public Hearing in the evening, the Platform Properties plan for Queensborough. The dedication of land to widen Blackley Street is complicated, because some of the lands along this right of way are not part of the development package, and we cannot take the lands away from a property owner who does not want to dedicate it. It is likely that there will be various iterations of Blackley Street between now and the final alignment, which could be decades down the road, and Council was concerned about how Engineering would make this street operate safely over the various phases of developments.

I was satisfied with the drawing provided by Staff, although admittedly, the presentation could have been a little clearer.

National Aboriginal Day Activities at Anvil Centre
There are going to be a series of free events marking National Aboriginal Day at the Anvil Centre on June 21st. Check your calendar, and plan to show up!

Joint Municipal Licensing for Film Industry
Councillor Puchmayr referred to staff the question if the Filming Industry is appropriate for joint licensing, much like the inter-municipal business licensing model the City has undertaken for contractors and the building industry. Similar to that industry, the Film Industry is mobile and regional, as opposed to operating only in one municipality, and there is a potential for great synchronization between Cities to help reduce red tape for them.

Tree Bylaw update
We have had a tree Bylaw for several months now, and we anticipate there may be a few teething problems, or a few places where members of the public have raised concerns that staff or Council did not anticipate. We will be having a review of the Tree Bylaw in the July 11 meeting.

I think that Council was clear when the Bylaw was passed that we want a high level of protection for trees and want to be proactive towards renewing our Urban Forest, mostly because that is what we heard from the public when we spent a year doing public consultation on the issue. Since the Bylaw was passed, I have had a couple of concerns raised by individual members of the public, but mostly I have heard overwhelming support for tree protection. It is not the level of protection that is a problem, but rather a few (hopefully) resolvable details of implementation.

Investment Report to April 30, 2016
We provide a report on our investment portfolio every year as part of our financial reporting. This money is mostly dedicated reserves for things like sewer and infrastructure renewal, and it is saved mostly with the Municipal Finance Authority. This is a very secure, and moderate yield, investment strategy.

There will be some discussion at the UBCM Conference this year about the MFA divesting from fossil fuel assets. Should be an interesting chat.

After dinner, and our lengthy Public Hearing (reported here earlier), we moved on to our Regular Evening Meeting, starting with the dispatching of the Bylaws referred to Council from the Public Hearing:

Zoning Amendment (129 Tenth Street) Bylaw No. 7839, 2016
This Bylaw amendment supporting the 8-unit townhouse development in Brow of the Hill was given third reading by Council.

Zoning Amendment (602 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7840, 2016
This Bylaw amendment supporting the 16-unit townhouse development in Queensborough was given third reading by Council.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (313 Queen’s Avenue) Bylaw No. 7834, 2016
Heritage Designation Bylaw (313 Queen’s Avenue) No. 7835, 2016
These Bylaws supporting the permanent protection of the single family house in Queens Park was given third reading by Council

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (501-505 Twelfth Street) No. 7818, 2016
This Bylaw amendment supporting the 5-story residential apartment complex on the corner of 12th Street and Fifth Ave was given third reading by Council.

Zoning Amendment (325 and 329 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7811, 2016
This Bylaw amendment to make the residential land use legally conforming in exchange for establishing utility rights-of-way for future City services was given third reading by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Brewery District) No. 7841, 2016
This Bylaw amendment to add a market rental component to the Brewery District mix of uses, and to make changes to the type of commercial activity that is permitted was given third reading by Council.

Official Community Plan (100 Braid Street) Bylaw No. 7836, 2016
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (100 Braid Street) No. 7837, 2016
This Bylaw amendment to support the building of a 450-student school and a residential tower at the corner of Braid Street and Rousseau Street was given third reading by Council.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7822, 2016
Zoning Amendment (Queensborough Special Study Area) Bylaw No. 7823, 2016
These Bylaws supporting the designation of uses for the Queensborough Special Study Area to develop a mix of residential and commercial space was given third reading by Council

Following these Bylaws, we opened official Opportunities to be Heard on three other projects.

Development Variance Permit 00607 for 413 Alberta Street
This request was to make some modifications of a 1921 house in upper Sapperton. The house is on a small lot, which pushes some of the requested changes into the world of variances. The owners want to replace a front porch that was removed by former owners, but would be considered a fundamental design feature of the house, so they are fundamentally replacing a historically legally non-conforming porch. The new dormer they wish to add brings the living space of the house up to the FSR maximum (no variance needed) but because they need to match the existing roof pitch, the new maximum height of the house will be 9 inches higher than permitted. Thirdly, they want to build a garage, but the minimum useful garage size (440 square feet) is 1.4% larger than the maximum allowable accessory building size for a lot as small as theirs.

We received one piece of correspondence opposed to the request, but no-one showed up at the Opportunity to be Heard to speak on it. I am satisfied that the variances requested are reasonable and generally comply with existing policy.

Council voted to approve the DVP, and allow the project to go ahead.

Development Variance Permit 00606 for 810 Quayside Drive
The River Market wants to create some colorful banners along their northern side that brighten up the façade of the building and call attention to their tenants. These signs do not comply with the letter of the Sign Bylaw, which is why they came to Council for a variance.

There was no correspondence received on this application ,and no-one came to speak at the Opportunity to be Heard. The designs look tasteful and do appear to add a bit of colour to the outside of the building above a pretty drab road/loading bay/ railyard. I have no reason to oppose this idea.

Council moved to approve the Variance.

Road Closure Bylaw No. 7824, 2016
This Bylaw is related to the development at 12th Street and fifth Ave. The building and the adjacent single family home are separated by a lane allowance that is very unlikely to ever be used by the City. The City is formally closing this lane, but as we are disposing of a City asset, we need to go through the Opportunity to be Heard routine. We received no correspondence or public comment, so Council referred the Bylaw to the June 13th meeting.

The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion:

Food Truck Policy and Bylaws
It has been a pretty long process, working on policy development, a couple of round of public consultation and discussions with the business community, and more policy development, but it looks like New Westminster is ready ot have a Bylaw regulating food trucks ready for June 20th Public Hearing.

C’mon out and tell us what you think!

1031 Sixth Avenue: Heritage and Revitalization and Heritage Designation – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
This somewhat complicated project is not dead yet, despite some cynicism in the local blogosphere. The Bylaw to support the protection of the house and the building of a second house on the lot will go to Public Hearing on June 20. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

The following items in the evening meeting were moved on consent:

401 & 451 Salter Street: Temporary Use Permit for Film Production Studio
This is an underutilized piece of Industrial Property in Queensborogh. Large old industrial buildings are desirable places for shooting films and TV shows, but that does not necessarily comply with the zoning. The City is being asked to issue a Temporary Use Permit to allow a film company to set up some studio space for current productions. I’m just glad someone is using the space and generating some revenue from what is a pretty derelict piece of land.

900 Carnarvon Street (Tower Four – Plaza 88) – Development Agreement Bylaw for Consideration of Three Readings
You may remember back in 2015 when Council gave third reading to a zoning amendment that supported a planned dedicated-rental highrise for the last spot in thePlaza88 development – the currently empty lot at the corner of Carnarvon and 10th Street. The Bylaw has not yet been adopted, as there were some details to work out, some arising in the Public Hearing. Finalizing a Development Agreement is one step towards eventual Adoption. This is the agreement between the Developer and City around how the building and the City’s infrastructure will interact: sidewalks, driveways, signage, sewer connections, street lighting, etc. etc.

Council referred this Bylaw for three readings.

Amendment to Electrical Utility Bylaw – Adding New Rates 134, 241 and 500
The City’s Electrical Utility is, like everything else in the City, managed by Bylaws. The rates we pay for electricity, and how they are charged, is regulated through the Bylaw. This change to the Bylaw is doing two things, both with an eye to promoting more efficient use of electricity in the City.

The new rates are for multi-family buildings, designed to make it easier for new buildings to use energy sharing and thermal energy (like, for example, hooking up to a District Energy Utility) by pooling the electricity billing within a building and turning over the metering of individual units to the building management (be it a Strata or a Management Company).

The second change is a framework to permit net metering. If you want to put a solar panel on your roof, run a wind turbine, or hook up a thousands hamster wheels and generate your own electricity to reduce your power bill, but still stay on the City grid to work as your “battery” or back up, you will soon be able to do this!

As long as your energy source is renewable (no running the Honda generator in the backyard or Mr. Fusion machines, folks) and you get a two-way meter hooked up to the City’s specs, you can co-generate. Bring out the solar panels!

Commissioner – Electric Utility Commission Recruitment
The Electrical Utility is run by an Electrical Utility Commission, a board of utility professionals who oversee the operation of the Utility on behalf of Council. We are making some changes to the make-up of that Commission because the Utility is being asked to enter into business areas not normally part of their purview – namely setting up a District Energy Utility and overseeing a fibre optic network to bring Gigabit service to large parts of New Westminster.

Finally, we had a raft of Bylaws to go through, which we did thusly:

Heritage Designation Bylaw 7853, 2016
Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No. 7854, 2016
This plan for the heritage home on 1031 Sixth Ave (mentioned above) received two readings. It will go to Public Hearing on June 20.

Mobile Food Vending Bylaw No. 7850, 2016
The Bylaws to regulate (and therefore permit) Foodtrucks on selected City streets received two readings. is plan for the heritage home on 1031 Sixth Ave (mentioned above) received two readings. It will go to Public Hearing on June 20.

Development Services Fees Amendment Bylaw 7852, 2016
Bylaw Offence Notice Amendment Bylaw 7851, 2016
These Bylaws that support the Foodtruck Bylaw above by setting fees and penalties were given three readings.

Downtown Development Agreement (900 Carnarvon Street) Bylaw No.7855, 2016
This Bylaw to formalize the Development Agreement for Building 4 at Plaza88 (described above) was given three readings.

Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw No. 7848, 2016
This Bylaw to set a new electrical rate structure for some multi-family buildings, and to allow Net Metering for those interested in renewable alternative generation on their premises (described above) was given three readings.

And that was the end of a very long meeting. See you again next week.

Council – May 30, 2016 (Part 1)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Monday was a long day. I arrived at City Hall for my 9:00am Mayors Transportation Task Force Meeting, and left at 11:30pm after a long Public Hearing and regular meeting. But a lot of good things happened, I feel like we accomplished some things, and summer will arrive with a more relaxed schedule, so I’m not complaining.

As the day was so long, there was a lot of business, and I don’t have a lot of blogging time now, I thought I would break up this report into two (three?) posts. This is the first one, just outlining what happened at the Public Hearing. As is typical for the last meeting of the month, the evening meeting began with a Public Hearing on various pending projects. This was an aggressive agenda – 11 Public Hearings on 7 separate projects, some small, some very much not small. The link to the agenda is here, but be careful before you hit that link on your dial-up; it is 175MB of .pdf wonder.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7839, 2016 for 129 Tenth Street
This is an interesting project in the Brow if the Hill Neighbourhood that fills a large empty lot between a residential high-rise and some older single family detached homes. It is on a significant hill and has two frontages, on 10th Street and McInnes Street.

The development approach is a bit of a hybrid of townhouse and cluster homes, with two large-ish 4-unit three-story townhomes on top of underground parking. I like this development in general, as it represents a bit of that “missing middle” we are lacking on the mainland of New Westminster – ground-based, larger than an apartment, but more affordable than new single family detached home. This is a creative way to find sensitive infill density that works in this location (not to say it would work in every neighbourhood in New West).

We had no written submissions on this application, and had three presentations at the Public Hearing (not counting the architect), with no-one speaking in opposition. The Advisory Planning Commission and Design Panel supported the project, as did the Brow of the Hill Residents’ Association. I had no reason to oppose the project.

Council moved to refer this to the regular Council meeting to follow.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7840, 2016 for 602 and 620 Ewen Avenue and  257 Boyne Street
Again, more relatively compact family-friendly units, which we don’t necessarily lack of in the Queensborough neighbourhood. This would be 16 “townhouses”, but they are separate buildings so you may think of them more as detached “skinny homes”.

We had no written submissions on this application, and had three presentations at the Public Hearing (plus the architect). Two presenters were related to a direct neighbour and were worried about the use of the alley and the proximity of the new homes in the project to her established home. Looking at the plans, the offset from her home (which is built on the side of her property most adjacent to the lane) is separated from the nearest home by 20 feet of laneway, then another 22 feet of yard/patio, and these offsets are not outside of what would be permitted if the lot was subdivided and built as 4 very large single family homes under the existing zoning. It is more than what you would typically see in a side-separation in an established neighbourhood like Queens Park or Glenbrooke North.

The project was supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and the Design Panel, after some design changes were made to the site. I have no reason to oppose the project, and think it will be a good development of relatively affordable family homes.

Council moved to refer this to the regular Council meeting to follow.

HRA Bylaw No. 7834, 2016 and Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 7835, 2016 for 313 Queen’s Avenue
This application is for a renovation to a heritage home in Queens Park to expand the living space at the rear of the home, in concert with permanent protection and addition to the City’s Heritage Register.

We had no correspondence on this project, and one presenter came to express support on behalf of the Queens Park Residents’ Association. The Heritage Commission and Advisory Planning Commission both support the project. I have no reason to oppose this project.

Council moved to refer these to the regular Council meeting to follow.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7818, 2016 for 501-505 Twelfth Street
This project is for a 5 story residential development on the northeast corner of 12th Street and Fifth Avenue. The buildings on this site had been demolished several years ago, so the lot is currently vacant, although there is a three-story apartment building neighbouring along the 12th street, and a single family home along Fifth. The design features full underground parking, and a “city homes” approach to the suites facing 12th, which are like multi-level townhouses that address the street in a much better way than a typical apartment building.

We received 3 pieces of correspondence on this project, one opposed on the concern of the impact it will have on their viewscape. The neighbour in the adjacent single family home came to present to Council. She did not seem “opposed”, more concerned about some proximity and drainage issues, which I think can be worked out with engineering. The building design was adapted to reduce the intrusion into her property, and as her relatively tall home is on a hill quite a bit above the grade of the bottom of this new building, the rooflines will not be that separate, although she will be losing much of the winter afternoon sun she currently enjoys with a vacant lot next door. There was also engineering consideration and extraordinary measures taken to protect the roots of the large trees she has along the property line during excavation and construction.

The Advisory Planning Commission and Design Panel supported the project, as did the Brow of the Hill Residents’ Association. I had no reason to oppose the project.

Council moved to refer this to the regular Council meeting to follow.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7811, 2016 for 325 and 329 Ewen Avenue
This is a bit of a strange one, for the uninitiated, and maybe a lesson in how complicated cities are. These two adjacent properties in Queensborough are residential, but are on land zoned for Industrial use. They are “legally non-conforming” with their zoning. Although they are perfectly legal to use the land as they are, this quirk sometimes leads to issues with mortgages and insurance, and limits their ability to expand or re-build their homes.

They are also deeper lots than their neighbours, creating a gap in the east-west right-of-way the City owns. The City wants that right-of-way to allow the installation of storm sewer service (yes, several properties around here still have septic fields) and a larger water line to the properties and adjacent properties, not the least being the large development planned by Platform (see below). The City would like a lane as well, but that would sever the properties, and the owners are no so into that idea, so that was taken off the table.

The owners want to live on their lots, and a rezoning will make that easier and provide them more flexibility. The City wants that right-of-way, so we tie one to the other, and everyone is happy. The Advisory Planning Commission is also happy, so who am I to stand in the way of all of those happy people?

Council moved to refer this to the regular Council meeting to follow.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7841, 2016 for Brewery District (200 and 228  Nelson’s Crescent, 258 and 268 Nelson’s Court, 230 Keary Street and 290 E.  Columbia Street)
This is another revamp of the zoning for the Brewery District site. There are several changes here, mostly an increase in residential density to accommodate 84,000 square feet of Market Rental, which is a piece missing not just from the Brewery District, but from the entire Sapperton neighbourhood. There is also some change in zoning language around permitted commercial uses.

The consultation for this step of rezoning has been pretty comprehensive, and there was much discussion about width-vs-height for the buildings and their relative impact on view corridors. I think Wesgroup got to a place where the neighbourhood was some combination of satisfied or resigned – I can only hope it is more of the former. There were not a lot of public feedback in correspondence (2 opposed, one supportive), or in the Public Hearing (one in favour, two with concerns but not necessarily opposed). The last residential building is going to be another 20 feet higher, pushing to 320 feet, but this should be the last of the size changes we see on this project!

Ultimately, these changes will make the building and use mix in the Brewery District fit better in the context of the Economic Health Care Cluster approach to Sapperton. The Advisory Planning Commission and Design Panel have supported the zoning, and the McBride-Sapperton Residents Association was consulted, without supporting or opposing the project.

I’m going to say it again – the Keary Street access for the parking garage of the future buildings is a great idea, but it needs to be oriented towards Brunette, and not towards East Columbia. Wesgroup and Fraser Health need to work together to develop a plan to make Keary work better, as both will be using it as their access, and neither should be expected to rely on access to East Columbia from those garages. It simply will not work for the neighbourhood. I see a signaled intersection on Brunette in all of our future.

Council voted to refer this to the Council meeting later in the evening.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7836, 2016 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7837, 2016 for 101 Braid Street
This was the big project of the night, with the most Public Hearing time, and the most passionate support and opposition. This is a follow-up to last year’s application from Urban Academy to expand their school space at their Queens Park location. And you all remember how that went down.

The plan is to build a school for 450 students on the location of the current Lazer Tag/Bullpen building, then follow up with residential development of the rest of the 100 Braid Street lot with a moderate-sized residential tower on a podium with townhouses and some public art space. The timing of that second phase is uncertain, but it will include the demolition of the building that currently houses 100 Braid Street studios and two other businesses.

This project is the result of months of work by the City staff, the Developer, and the School to adapt the project to address various concerns that were raised through the public consultation period. Many came to speak in favour of the School, its programs, and its value to the community. An equal number came to speak about the two primary concern with the plan: the fate of the existing building on site and (wait for it) the traffic impacts.

I voted in favour of approving this project, as did the rest of Council (Councillor McEvoy was out of town at a conference, and he reported to me that watching the meeting on video while he could not take part was killing him!). There are a lot of details and considerations that went into that decision, so I am going to put those off to a subsequent Blog post, as this one is already too long. So, I suppose this Council report will be 3(!) Blog posts long. Guess those Ask Pats will have to wait a bit longer…

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7822, 2016 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7823, 2016 for Queensborough Special Study Area
This project is a complex one, and has been in the works for a long time, since well before I was elected to Council. The eastern part of Queensborough really needs some retail space, as the large number of relatively affordable family-friendly building at Port Royal and area is somewhat constrained from quick connections to other parts of the City. This is part of why it is affordable, and the quiet neighbourhood with ample greenspace and dike trails are part of what makes it appealing to so many people. However, having to cross a bridge to purchase non-WalMart groceries is a persistent beef, and one this project should help alleviate.

The development is complex, however, as it will involve installing new roads, services (water, sewer, drainage, and electricity) to a relatively large underserviced area. The proponent does not own every piece of land in the project area, and will both have to phase and adjust their development plan as they either acquire land or do not.

This is still relatively early in the development of these lands. This rezoning sets the basic parameters of what will be on the site – commercial and residential mix, with potential densities, traffic circulation patterns, etc. However, development permits will need to be developed for each phase, so there is work to be done here. I wish I could tell the residents of Port Royal that the retail is coming soon, but I can’t give a timeline other than to say it is coming eventually.

Council moved to refer this zoning to the regular Council meeting.

And with that, we adjourned our Public Hearing, and went on to our regular Council Meeting, which will be reported here soon!

Chumps

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I wrote most of the following this morning on the New West Facebook Group “Rattled about Traffic in New West“, on a whim after reading this story, and wondering if people are connecting local traffic problems to the regional transportation logjam. I figured it was worth repeating here…

From before I was elected, I have said that New Westminster’s traffic problems are not solvable by New Westminster. We simply cannot accommodate the hundreds of thousands of through-drivers every day and maintain safe, livable, pedestrian- and business-friendly streets. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

The solutions are regional. We need to give people east and south of us better options than driving along our surface streets every day. Regardless of whether you love or hate “TransLink”, an expanded, reliable, and well-integrated multi-modal public transit system is fundamental to providing those options.

That is why New Westminster supports the Regional Growth Strategy that calls for compact multi-use development near transit nodes, and why we are leading the region in this development model. This is why we support Transport2040, the regional transportation plan, and are seeing results where New Westminster residents use transit more than any others per capita. This is why our Mayor is working so hard with the Mayors Council to implement the 10-year capital plan for our region’s transportation work – it is really the best option we have towards addressing our afternoon traffic jams. It isn’t “Us vs. Them“, it can’t be. We need to work together as a region, and the plans I have linked to above are examples of the region working together, putting aside parochial complaints, and seeking regional compromises that will support us all.

And that is why this weeks ‘announcement‘ is such a betrayal. If you care about traffic in New West, you should read this article in the Sun and ask what the hell the provincial government is doing playing the entire Lower Mainland – the economic engine of this province – for chumps. And for how long will we accept that?

ASK PAT: Heavy rail

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Tom asks—

Hi, loving your blog!
Bit of a general question: Do you think heavy passenger rail, of the type found commonly in Britain or Switzerland, could ever be useful in the Lower Mainland, and as an international connection for Cascadia?
Thanks for your time.

It already is! The West Coast Express is a pretty successful heavy rail transit system right here in the Lower Mainland and run my TransLink. By “successful”, I mean it is reliable, popular, and regional-development-defining. There is a debate about how to assess the financial success of the service, as they do pay a significant lease rate for the CP tracks they use, which requires the service to be subsidized from TransLink general revenue. But subsidizing passenger rail for the larger societal benefits is the norm in Europe, not an exception.

Of course, there are also rail connections to the rest of Cascadia, even if they are not really operated in a way that makes them “commuter” friendly. I would suggest until we develop widespread electrification of rail and the economics of aircraft travel are adjusted to match the environmental impacts, there simply isn’t the population density or economic model to push more rail through the challenging Cascade Mountains. Maybe the next generation will fix this.

There may be more potential in the nearer future for commuting in the Fraser Valley, though. There has been an activist group in the Lower Mainland for more than a decade fighting to get more rail service South of the Fraser. Over the years, “Rail for the Valley” have discussed the use of heavy and light rail options, specifically along the old Interurban rail corridor. This electric rail line used to operate between Vancouver and Chilliwack via New Westminster before the rails-to-rubber movement stripped it of customers and land back in the middle of last century (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit for more context).

It is clear that the long-range development model for the Fraser Valley is one that would support a heavy rail based commuter transportation system. Cities like Abbotsford are buying into the Smart Growth model of building denser urban centres with mixed uses and pedestrian and transit amenities. This is partly driven by economics working better for cities trying to deliver services, but mostly because the ALR continues to limit their ability to spread out as their populations boom. Extending the “Cities in the Sea of Green” motif could see Langley, Chilliwack ,and Abbotsford town centres connect to Surrey’s new “hub” via the existing rail corridors to King George or Scott Road.

This would really open up economic potential for those communities, and indeed for Surrey and the rest of the Lower Mainland. However, that is not the path we are on. Instead, we have spent $5 billion (and counting) on building freeways to get cars in and out of the Valley, and it appears the Provincial Government is dedicated to that path. Meanwhile, even the most modest of public transit improvements in the Lower Mainland are stuck in a funding and planning quagmire because one of the three levels of government simply refuses to show leadership or foresight.

A region-defining development like this would need a sense of vision. The Local Governments have shown similar vision, the federal government is ready to step up and fund bold initiatives like this. But much like any poorly-functioning transportation system, there is a piece in the middle that just doesn’t allow the connection to happen, and gums up the whole works.

Is it a good idea? Yes. Will it happen in the foreseeable future? No.

Outta here (for a bit)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I have, once again, been really slow to get new posts up here, and this one is mostly to tell you it is going to be a bit of time before you see another one.

The picture above is from an SFU City Conversation I had a couple of days ago with two other City Councillors, under the guise of us representing Young/New leadership in local government in the region. Nathan Pachal is definitely young (under 40) and new (in the job for only a few months), Mathew Bond is definitely young (40ish?) and is new (this is his first term on Council), and I am only young in the context of the average age of City Councillors across the region, and that new-Councillor smell is starting to wear off. It was great to be in the company of these two very bright and very engaged local government representatives

It was also good to have three Councillors from municipalities across the region come together to talk to a (mostly) City of Vancouver audience and expand the focus of the conversation to the wider region. The audience was receptive to our self- and hometown-aggrandizing, and we could have gone on for hours talking about public engagement, housing affordability, transportation, taxation, and other challenges our region faces. We were thinking maybe we should PodCast.

I also got a commitment from the organizers that a future City Conversations panel would discuss the issue of gender and ethnic diversity in local government politics, for what might be obvious reasons from the photo above!

So that is it for now. I am off to enjoy a quality long weekend with a couple of friends suffering on my bicycle for some seriously needed recuperation and to get my swollen-up cynicism gland drained. I will be far away from blogging devices. I have three (!) Ask Pats in the queue, and will button them up soon after I return. Hopefully.

In the meantime, if you want to enjoy your screen time in a hyper-local way, you should be over at Tenth to the Fraser, and see what real, local, high-quality content looks like instead of slumming over here.

Have a good long weekend, watch for flying anvils.

Taxes & the CPI

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

We are through the annual budgeting cycle at City Hall, our 2016-2020 Financial Plan passed, our tax increase bylaw adopted with a 2.73% increase for 2016.

I tried during this and previous tax seasons to talk about the hows and whys of our Property Tax system, but there is one topic I didn’t really touch on. It is a topic raised commonly by local contrarian, cyclist, and generally good guy, Ed. I am paraphrasing a collection of Twitter missives a bit, but my understanding of Ed’s position is that property tax increases should be limited to CPI increases, or matched to inflation. In this post where I compared New Westminster’s tax increases to the inflation rate, you can see that we are, and have been for more than a decade, above the CPI rate (which is projected by the Province of BC to be 1.9% in 2016), as is every other City in the Lower Mainland. Why?

It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Every year as a part of the budgeting process, staff bring recommendations to Council about new spending, and provide us (and the public) a pretty clear picture of how much each new staff position, program, or service will cost Taxpayers, right down to the percentage of tax increases. Some of those positions, programs or services come with offsetting cost savings or revenue potential, but in the end it always seems that taxes need to go up, it is just a question of how much.

I’m going to skip a little bit past the easy political talking points: downloading, deindustrialization, and economic bleeds caused by decades of neo-liberal economic policy. That’s not to say these factors should be blithely dismissed; indeed they are real pressures on local governments, and may be the biggest factor in ongoing tax increases. Maybe in another blog post I’ll try to explain what is wrong with the entire world economy (better if you just go read Umair Haque), but for now I am going to keep this local, because we are asking what we in Local Government can do about this.

There are many drivers that push up the cost of running a City the same way they push up the cost of running of your business or household. Just as you pay more every year for food, utilities, banking charges, transportation, and taxes, the City pays more for wages, equipment, supplies, banking charges, utilities, etc. As Ed astutely observes, those increase is (more or less) related to the Consumer Price Index.

There may be long-range factors that impact how closely our operational costs match CPI year-to-year. For example, a long period of ignoring our infrastructure means it will be more expensive to repair when the situation becomes critical. Similarly, if we have extended periods where wages are not keeping up with inflation, that will come back to haunt us.

There is a third factor, however, that is completely in control of local governments and the electorate that empower them. Every year, people want more from their local government, and more never comes for free. To give examples of this, I think I can divide that “more” into three general categories (recognizing there is a lot of overlap between the three): new needs, new programs, and new approaches.

New Needs are things we have to do now, that we didn’t really have to do in the past. There is some aspect of “downloading” to this, but most of it is just a result of changing times. We currently train a group of our NWFD force to respond to Hazardous Materials incidents, in case one happens at the railyards in the City. This was partly a response to the tragedy at Lac Magantic, partly an increased awareness of the hazards that exist in our community and a demand from the public that we do all was can to address those concerns. Another example is the new policy that every single sidewalk corner will have a “let down” to make all of our sidewalks accessible for those on wheels, those pushing children in a stroller, and those with other mobility limitations. We are similarly spending money upgrading all of our bus stops to meet accessibility standards. These are just a couple of examples of things we now do that we did not do in the past, and they all cost money – more money than we collected in the past.

New Programs are things that we have chosen to do because people want them, but are (arguably) not “needs”. I was at the Youth Awards held last week at Century House, and was reminded about the programming we offer in our (still brand new) Youth Centre, a facility used by literally thousands of local youth every year. We have recently been discussing infrastructure upgrades at the Library, and I am learning how they provide the only access to the internet for a significant portion of our community. Everything from interacting to government agencies to applying for jobs is impossible in 2016 without internet access, and the needs of the community are outstripping the computer terminals we have. We are currently replacing one of our all-weather fields for the princely sum of $1.5Million, because it is past its service life. We do this because a plastic turf field is about 5x more used than a grass field, and we can offer much more programming on a limited amount of space available in the City. Our Police Department has officers specially trained to determine when a person is suffering from a mental health issue, and manage their approach in a way that is less likely to result in violence or self-harm for the member of the public. Again, new, modern problems all around, not things we did 20 years ago, but things that our community expects in 2016.

New Approaches are things we have always done, but do very differently now, often in ways that are more staff or resource intensive. I am sitting in on the Public Engagement Taskforce, a group of staff and public volunteers looking at better ways for the City to reach out to the public they serve, both so we can keep the public more informed and so we can get more meaningful feedback from the public when we need to make decisions. The way we, as a City, have turned the Official Community Plan update into a two-year-long public conversation about the future of the City, instead of just a small collection of staff and a few councillors attempting to dictate the future, is an example of how resource-intensive true engagement is, and how important it can be to a community. Again, it seems obvious to us now, but not something we expected 20 years ago.

This is not to say there is nothing we can stop doing or paying for as times change: we save a bunch of money on pesticides with the new approaches to weed management in the City; our fleet fuel budget is going down as we upgrade to a more efficient vehicle pool; the cost of running our solid waste program is definitely increasing at a rate less than inflation as efficiencies are found. Our mental health officers will likely result in lower crime levels, better supports for marginalized people, and law enforcement savings down the road. Building pedestrian-friendly streets will reduce the use of cars in our city saving us money in road maintenance, emergency response, and health care costs. There are also efficiencies of scale as population increases and density makes provision of services more convenient. But the reality is that pipes in the ground and mowing lawns are costs that track along with the CPI, and no-one is lining up to propose which programs they want to see cut in the City. New approaches to new problems are inevitably added to the bottom line.

Every election, people come along saying they will freeze or lower taxes, but do any of them provide details of how they will do it? I still fondly remember former Mayor Wayne Wright in the 2011 election shutting a rather vitriolic opponent down at an all candidates’ meeting by calmly saying “Cutting taxes is easy. It’s the easiest thing for us to do. Just tell us which programs you want to cut to make it happen”. There was no retort, because he put a lie to the “find efficiencies” and “set priorities” memes that neo-liberals use when their real goal is to undermine public services at every scale, from public transit to schools to health care.

It is also telling that even the most strident of anti-tax crusaders find that in Local Government, the bills are always coming due because we have to answer the phone when someone loses a service or program important to their lives.

As a Council, the toughest part is setting priorities. You get elected hoping to do a lot of great stuff, and run up against limited resources and an over-burdened agenda of 7 Council Members. I would love for us to develop the Gas Works site into a public art curator and public park, to complete the Sapperton Landing to Pier Park greenway connection, to build an architectural wonder for a Q2Q bridge and a energy efficient family-friendly and competition-supporting Canada Games Pool. While we are at it, I want to fill the funding gap of senior governments that is threatening the very existence of our supported Co-op housing sector, build a fully integrated and interconnected bikeway network, and plant 10,000 trees to bring our urban forest back to the national average for tree canopy. These are all important things, and they all cost money, and they would all result, eventually, in tax increases above that of inflation. We can probably avoid significant tax increases if we do none of them, along with not doing a list of other things that would make our community better.

So every year at tax time, and actually throughout the year, when new programs or better services are presented to Council, we evaluate them. We try our best to understand the long-term budget implications, ask how or if these ideas can offset costs other areas (“find efficiencies”), and determine if this is something needed right now, or if it can be put off (“set priorities”), and we hear from the public about how critically important, wonderfully visionary, or economically savvy each new idea is. And we make those tough choices, and often we say no. That’s the job.

When people say “The City should…”, I so often want to respond with “Let’s do it!”, but instead end up saying “I wonder how we could…”. That (along with no longer fully enjoying the Letters to the Editor section) is probably the biggest dose of reality going from being a community rabble-rouser to an elected official. I agree with Ed, with former Mayor Wright, and (though I shouldn’t speak for them) with my Council colleagues, that we need to be diligent at finding ways to save money, find efficiencies, and keep our taxes as low as possible. But much like Jordan Bateman, I agree that we have a responsibility to the present and future residents of the City “to build the infrastructure that will keep them safe and healthy… we must balance both present and future needs”

Council – May 9, 2016

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Our regular council meeting for May 9, 2016 (careful before you click that – it is a monstrous 500MB agenda package!) was a generally positive one, because it started with an announcement of an award won by the Anvil Centre, and included a delegation from a NWSS student who is doing amazing national award-winning biotechnology research. If you want to be inspired, and restore your confidence that the next generation is doing a way better job than our own, please watch the video of our public delegations, and watch Iveta Demirova’s confidence, poise, and intelligence shine though.

Now back to the ugly politics:

The following items were moved on Consent:

June 19th Riverfront Community Event – “Pier 2 Landing”
This City-run event, in partnership with many community groups, will draw people down to a Front Street closed to cars to take advantage of some open public space, and show the possibilities for the greater Waterfront Vision. We have a vision to connect the Pier Park to Sapperton Landing permanently, as part of our much larger vision of re-imagining our waterfront and a place for people to enjoy – of connecting our City to the River after decades of turning our back to the water body that defines us as a City

Like many people, I have been spending time down on Front Street, and cannot believe how open and comfortable that space is when it is closed to cars, but open for people. When people occupy that space on Front Street in June, I hope it triggers a conversation in our City about why we are even considering closing it again to turn it over to twice-daily traffic jams when it could be a glorious, multi-purpose, active, and region-defining public space. We can do better.

Dissolution of the Family Court Committee and Replacement with a
Restorative Justice Committee
The Family Court Committee has not done a lot in the last few years to reflect its original mandate. The volunteers did help with organizing events around Family Day (for reasons lost to time), but less time was spent dealing with the issues it was set up for. The current Chair, Councillor Puchmayr, recognized a more effective role for the committee was possible by creating a stronger connection to the Restorative Justice program. Council agreed to make the changes to the Committee’s Terms to reflect this.

501 – 505 Twelfth Street: Rezoning and DP Applications – Council Consideration of First and Second Reading
This is a 5-story residential building on the corner of 5th Street and Twelfth Ave. Council moved to take this proposal to Public Hearing on May 30th, so I will hold my comments until after that hearing. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Amendments to Water Shortage Response Bylaw & Response Plan
This was discussed at our last meeting, but a the Bylaw language was cleaned up a bit and this week we approved it to go for three readings.

Civic Infrastructure Loan Authorization Bylaw and Temporary Borrowing Bylaw
I hate this. I hate the way the Community Charter is written such that this false referendum process is required for us to get loan approval. The problem is I have no viable alternative to propose.

I am sure there will be more discussion of this as the Alternative Approval Process goes forward, and I will both explain how the process works, and why I hate it so much, at that time.

For now, I will just say we need to be prepared to borrow (not necessarily borrow, but be prepared to – this is more securing a line of credit than it is taking out a loan) up to $28.3 Million between now and 2020 to fund 4 Council priorities: City Hall upgrades, library upgrades, land purchased to support a substation and District Energy Utility, and capital costs for Fibre Optic Network installations. I support all of these initiatives; I hate the process to get there.

Council Remuneration 2016
We’ve talked about this, and are moving it forward, having received very little feedback from the public.

313 Queen’s Avenue: Proposed HRA and Heritage Designation
Council voted to take this HRA and Designation for a single family home in Queens Park to Public Hearing on May 30, so I will hold my comments until after that hearing. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

413 Alberta Street: DVP Application – Preliminary Report
Council voted to give consideration to this Development Variance Application to permit the reconstruction of a front porch in upper Sapperton on May 30, 2016. If you have any feelings for or against best let us know before then, or show up at the regular council meeting on the 30th and tell us what you think!

100 Braid Street (Urban Academy): Proposed OCP Amendment and Rezoning
Council voted to take the OCP amendment to Public Hearing on May 30. This is the proposal to rezone some light industrial property on Braid at Rousseau to permit the building of a new Campus for Urban Academy, with and adjacent use for mixed high-density residential. As it is going to Public hearing, I will hold my comments until after that. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

The following items were removed from Consent for discussion:

200, 228 Nelson’s Crescent, 258 and 268 Nelson’s Court and 230 Keary
Street and 290 E. Columbia Street (Brewery District): Rezoning
Development Permit DPS00040 for 228 Nelson’s Crescent
Council voted to take this Rezoning to Public Hearing on (what is looking like an increasingly busy) May 30. This proposal shifts some of the Density on site compared to previous plans, and also adjusts some of the phasing to permit more residential to be completed prior to the completion of the “Health Care related” commercial development being built out. As it is going to Public Hearing, I will hold my comments until after that. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Queensborough Special Study Area: Proposed Widening of Blackley Street
We had a delegation speak to this concern, and have received some correspondence on the issue, so it is worthwhile discussing here. *This conversation is just on the road dedication issue at Blackley, and should not be seen as pre-judging the outcome of the Public Hearing on the OCP and Zoning.*

A local government is given great power over land use in its jurisdiction – indeed managing land use is the true power local governments have (along with property taxation), and rezoning is at the heart of that power. If you want to do things on land you own that complies with the current zoning, we are hard pressed to stop you. If you want to change or vary the Zoning (build a bigger building than allowed, a different use, etc.), you need to ask for that change, and we (as an elected Council) can say “NO” for pretty much any reason we want. If your requested change is minor, doesn’t impact other people or complies with the longer-term Official Community Plan, we are likely to say “Yes” without too much trouble. If you want to make a significant change, like upzone into more density or change from industrial to residential use in a way the OCP did not envision, you better bring something to the game to demonstrate that this benefits the whole community.

Dedication of lands from developers to a local government is not an uncommon request from a City as part of a rezoning negotiation. Sometimes a City will want to improve the road adjacent to your property, put in a right-of-way for utilities, or even turn a piece of your property into a park to serve the bigger community. The City may then ask to have (for example) a dedication along your property line to allow room for that road improvement.

In the case of the complex development happening in the Queensborough Special Study Area, an improvement of Blackley Street is seen as an important requirement for the project. To make that improvement happen the current 13m right-of way would ideally be expanded to 19m. In this case, the Developer owns only some of the property required to make this road full width, and presuming the rezoning is approved, that dedication would come from them at that time. However, there are several other property owners who live along Blackley Street, and for the entire 1-block length of Blackley to be full-width, dedications would need to come from these owners as well. Therefore, the City is putting future dedication of that space in the long-term plans for the street.

This does not mean that the City is going to take land away from the existing land owners. The zoning for those lands is currently M-1 (Industrial use), though the majority of people are living in legally non-conforming single family homes. They are allowed to stay there, living in those homes for perpetuity, and unless they are willing to sell those dedication to the City (and the City is willing to buy them), nothing will change. However, if they choose to Rezone their properties – change the landue to multi-family, or such, then the City would expect the dedication at that time as part of the rezoning. Part of the thinking is that the improved utility and road infrastructure would benefit their rezoning as much as anyone else’s, and making everyone on the street contribute to the improvements is seen as equitable.

Concerns in the neighbourhood, however, are that the dedication to make the road 19m is too onerous for some of the smaller lots, and it was suggested that the dedication should take more from the northern properties (mostly owned by the developer) than the southern properties (mostly owned by individuals).

In the end, council asked staff to come back with some plans for a 16m road, with the removal of parking on one side of the street. I want to assure that the reduction of 3m does not mean we won’t have proper sidewalks and boulevards where trees can thrive – these are two things Queensborough is generally short of, and I want that trend to reverse.

We also moved that the equitable dedication, an even 4.25m on either side of the centerline of the road, be considered preferable, based on the ability to make the road workable and safe over the period when only partial dedications will be available (that could be a 20 or 30 year period- so we need to plan ahead). This reflects both the standard practice of the City, and the best option for maintaining alignment of roads.

Queensborough Special Study Area: Conclusion of Master Planning
Process and OCP Amendment and Rezoning Amendment Bylaws
Council voted to give this project two readings and take it to public hearing, so I will hold my comments on the project until then. I will, however, write a second blog post (coming soon!) ranting about the letter we received from TransLink on this project, which filled me with blog-empowering rage.

2016 Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Program
Making our pedestrian spaces safer is a priority for this Council, and a major part of the Master Transportation Plan. There are several great plans included in this report to prioritize pedestrian crossings where we can make a big improvement in safety in a short time. So why did I oppose one of the changes?

The Coffee Corner at 6th and Belmont has long been one of the most-used crosswalks in the City. I wrote a bit about this crossing back in 2012 the last time the city planned to dump money into improving it, and my opinion has hardly changed since then. There are better ways, in my opinion, to invest our crossing-improvement dollars that installing “beg buttons” for pedestrians in one of the few crossings in the City where the population of walkers already enforces priority.

This speaks to the larger concern pedestrian advocates in our City and around North America have expressed about “beg buttons” in pedestrian-oriented commercial areas. A good summary of the discussion is available at the Strongtowns blog. Building pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods mean placing the pedestrian on top of the priority list of road users, like our MTP and Pedestrian Charter recommend. We need to start removing beg buttons, not continue to add them.

Staff made it clear this was not a safety issue for pedestrians, as there is not a history of pedestrian incidents at that spot (although a few impatient drivers have had rear-enders – maybe a 30km/h speed limit would help them out?). Even so, I am very reluctant to unilaterally oppose recommendations from Engineering Staff, so I moved that we take this back to the Advisory Committee for Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians, and get the input of pedestrian advocates in the City, after which I suspect this will come back to Council.

Despite the order of these readings, bookending public delegations and some other discussion as they did, this is as comprehensive a list of the Bylaws we advanced as I can muster:

Official Community Plan (Queensborough Special Study Area) Bylaw
No. 7822, 2016
Zoning Amendment (Queensborough Special Study Area) Bylaw No. 7823, 2016
These two Bylaws, as discussed above, following a public delegation, were given first and second readings. I will hold any further comment until after the Public Hearing scheduled for May 30.

HRA (313 Queen’s Avenue) Bylaw No. 7834, 2016
Heritage Designation Bylaw (313 Queen’s Avenue) No. 7835, 2016
These two Bylaws, as discussed above, were given first and second readings. I will hold any further comment until after the Public Hearing scheduled for May 30.

Official Community Plan (100 Braid Street) Bylaw No. 7836, 2016
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (100 Braid Street) No. 7837, 2016
These two Bylaws, as discussed above, were given first and second readings. I will hold any further comment until after the Public Hearing scheduled for May 30.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Brewery District) No. 7841, 2016
This Bylaw, as discussed above, was given first and second readings. I will hold any further comment until after the Public Hearing scheduled for May 30.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (12th Street & 5th Avenue) No. 7818, 2016
This Bylaw, as discussed above, was given first and second readings. I will hold any further comment until after the Public Hearing scheduled for May 30.

Road Closure Bylaw No. 7824, 2016
This Bylaw is in support of the closure of a non-active piece of laneway adjacent to the 12th Street and 5th Ave development above. It was given two readings by council.

Civic Infrastructure Loan Authorization Bylaw No.7842, 2016
Civic Infrastructure Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 7843, 2016
As discussed above, and as we will discuss much more I am sure as the process moves on, these Bylaws were given three readings.

Water Shortage Response Amendment Bylaw No. 7845, 2016
This was discussed last week, and we have now given the Bylaw changes three readings.

Downtown Parking Commission Repeal Bylaw No. 7844, 2016
The Bylaw bringing an end to the long reign of the Downtown Parking commission has been formally adopted. Adjust your behavior accordingly.

And with that, we were done for the week.