The long days of summer mean long council meetings. On June 26, we had a lengthy open workshop during the day on Water Conservation measures, which I will blog about at some other time (add it to the now quite lengthy queue), and the evening meeting began with a presentation of our Annual Report, where you can see what the City has been up to, financial statements and all.

There were several issues in our regular end-of-month Public Hearing:

Sign Bylaw No. 7867, 2017
Staff have been working on an updated Sign Bylaw for some time, and it has finally gone through stakeholder consultations with everyone from the ACTBiPed (to discuss how signs impact the pedestrian realm) to the various BIAs and Chamber (because we are talking about business regulations here). We received no written submissions on the Sign Bylaw and no-one came to speak on the matter. In the Council meeting following, Council moved to give the Bylaw Third Reading.

Official Community Plan Amendment (630 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7919, 2017 and
Zoning Amendment (630 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7920, 2017
This OCP amendment and zoning bylaw will allow the development of a small (5-unit) affordable housing project to be developed on City lands in Queensborough. We received no written submissions on this item, but had two people speak on the issue – a representative from the not-for-profit that will operate the facility and a person with a pretty negative impression of Queensborough.

This project is a small but important step forward for the City. The City is donating land to encourage the development of supportive housing for people at the sharp end of our regional affordable housing crisis. In this case, WINGS will provide family-friendly housing to women with children who have barriers to market housing. The location is on the newly-designed and pedestrian friendly Ewen Avenue, 200m from a park, 400m from schools and the Queensborough Community Centre, in a family friendly neighbourhood.

Council moved to give the OCP amendment and rezoning Third Reading.

The meeting them moved into several Opportunities to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit 00615 for 600 – 720 Quayside Drive
This DVP would permit some changes to the existing zoning approval for the empty parking lot between the Fraser River Discovery Centre and Pier Park, and facilitate the building of two large towers on the waterfront. We received 14 pieces of correspondence on this project (both for and against), and 6 people came to speak to the project, a couple expressing concerns, a couple in favour.

This is a big project, the biggest development project I have had to opine on during my time on Council, and there has already been much social media buzz about it, including some pretty significant factual errors being perpetuated by persons who should know better, so I’m not going to comment on this here, but will write a follow up-up blog post about it.

Council moved to approve the DVP.

Development Variance Permit 00629 for 736 Sixth Avenue (7-Eleven)
The Esso station in Uptown is changing the branding of its convenience store, and although the new 7-11 sign is smaller than the existing signage, the change does not fit the language of our Sign Bylaw, so a variance is required. No-one came to speak on this variance, and Council moved to approve.

Development Variance Permit 00612 for 300 Salter Street (Port Royal)
This variance makes some changes to a development in Port Royal to make some top floor suites larger, and allow for rooftop mezzanines. The variance is to allow the building to be higher than zoned to facilitate those mezzanenes. The variance does not increase density or FSR, but does significantly improve the livability of the suites to be built – family friendly three-bedroom suites, with minimal impact on surrounding properties, and is supported by the Design Panel.

No-one came to speak to the variance, and it was approved by Council.

Development Variance Permit 00627 for 628 Eighteenth Street
This variance is to allow a homeowner in the West End to exceed their allowable “ground cover” by 4% to permit a pool in their backyard. Apparently pools are considered “accessory buildings” in the bylaw. Who knew?

We received a couple of pieces of correspondence form neighbours who were in support of the variance, and the proponent came to speak on it. The variance is minor for the purpose of limiting ground cover, and there is little to no impact on adjacent properties. Council moved to approve the variance.

Temporary Use Permit 00014 for 718 Twelfth Street
The City limits the use of commercial space for religious assembly, for several good urban planning reasons. However, there is a small group on 12th Street who are building their congregation while provide community connection for a growing immigrant population. They do not have a place for prayer, and wish to use their community space for this on a temporary basis (maximum three years) until they can find a properly zoned assembly space.

Aside from one offensive, ignorant, racist and grammatically-challenged (why do those things always go together?) piece of correspondence, we received no public comment on this. Council moved to permit the Temporary Use.

Council had a single Report for Action:

OUR CITY 2041: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7925, 2017 – Bylaw for First and Second Readings

The OCP document is completed. Along with a new Land Use Map, the OCP includes 182 proposed actions to be taken by the City over 61 Policy areas towards 12 goals. There is a lot in here, and it is worth reading. This is culmination of three years of work by staff and the most extensive public engagement exercise ever undertaken by the City.

As this OCP will be going to Public Hearing on September 18th, I will hold any more comments until then. Please enjoy your summer reading assignment, and I will see you in September!

The following item was Moved on Consent.

Request for Local Area Service to Underground Existing Overhead Utilities on the East Side of 200 Block of Howes Street
A Local Area Service is usually when a group in the community come forward to ask for special works to be done to improve their neighbourhood that is not in the City’s Capital Plan. Depending on the works and by City policy, the City will either share the cost of the works with the proponents, or will bill the proponents for all of the cost. To activate a Local Service Area, the impacted property owners have to vote to approve the special assessment to cover their part of the costs.

This neighbourhood in Queensborough is asking to have their electrical service put underground, which also requires the other users of the poles (Shaw and Telus) to re-locate their service. This is the start of the process to determine if the residents are in favour of the costs.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Proposed Truth and Reconciliation Actions Work Plan Strategy
Back in April, this Council agreed to make a “concrete and actionable commitment to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action”, and staff has responded swiftly with a framework of how the City can respond to the 19 Calls to Action that fall completely or partially within Local Government jurisdiction. This is a significant step, and as a City, New Westminster is entering into new areas here, and are (frankly) lacking in full understanding of what the long-term implications may be. I agree with a somewhat cautious approach because I am concerned we will do more damage than good if we barge ahead without having a well-informed conversation about what we are doing. Staff is putting together a working group of management to go through the recommendations, and determine what the best path forward is from an operational perspective.

Council moved to endorse the strategy, with the addition that the working group engage, as a consultant, someone with experience in reconciliation from the indigenous viewpoint to sit in on these meetings so they are there to provide context where they feel it may be needed.

Access to City Grants for Miscellaneous Residents’ Association Expenses
I am a believer that RAs serve an important role in our community, both in facilitating conversation between residents and City Hall, and in bringing neighbourhoods together. Some do have a difficult time finding space to meet (a problem that will be exacerbated by the Library upgrades that will close the meeting spaces there for several months) and volunteers are sometimes expected to cover the modest costs of making RAs operate.

I am not opposed to providing modest funding to RAs to allow them to run a web page, print posters to promote their events, etc. however, I am concerned that not all RAs have the proper procedures in place to manage public money, and though the amounts are small, there is a diligence requirement for the City when handling public funds.
Council did not approve special granting for RAs, but expressed general support for the idea. Instead, we asked that the RA Committee work with staff on some criteria and guidelines for the finding and bring a better developed plan together for how these funds would be allocated and used.

Renovictions Update: Union of BC Municipalities Resolution Related to Proposed Amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act
A renoviction storm is brewing in New Westminster. For people in a couple of older (and more affordable) rental buildings, the summer will be spent trying to find new places to live in an increasingly tight rental market (vacancy is well below 1% in NewWest), and will likely find the cost of any new place they find is much higher than they are paying now. This situation is made much more difficult for people living in poverty (moving costs a lot of money!), people with families (family-friendly apartments are hard to find), those with pets, or those with disabilities (vacancy for accessible suites is almost nil).

The laws of the land limit what Cities can do to prevent renoviction. Demovictions are somewhat easier to manage as the City has zoning power to delay or prevent approvals for replacement buildings that are larger than current ones, and can therefore leverage this to get a tenant relocation plan from a developer. Unfortunately, we don’t have that power when zoning is not invoked (like extensive renovations), and cannot unfairly withhold building permits for renovation of buildings.

The City has three-prong attack on this issue right now. We are empowering our staff to take careful review of the building permit applications they receive to determine if eviction is required (or if this is just a cosmetic upgrade designed to drive up rent more than the Residential Tenancy Act allows). We can use our staff resources to reach out to buildings where evictions will be occurring to make sure tenants are aware of their rights, their access to the Residential Tenancy Board to adjudicate their concerns, and supportive services in the community they may need to re-locate (such as the newly-established Rent Bank). We can also lobby the Provincial government to change the residential tenancy act to provide more protection for renters facing renoviction, and to provide compensation to renters to help offset the costs and inconvenience of eviction.
The City is doing all three.

Ultimately, the solution will be found in building more rental stock to improve availability and (hopefully) put some downward pressure on rent costs, in providing greater housing diversity, and in working with the province to build supportive and non-market housing alternatives for those simply priced out of our stupid housing market. The City is also doing these.

Finally, we arrived at our Bylaws section of the evening.

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017
As discussed above, the City’s OCP Bylaw was given two readings. A Public Hearing on the OCP will be held on September 18, 2017. Enjoy your summer reading assignment!

Cultural Services Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 7931, 2017
As discussed at the May 15th meeting , this Bylaw that adjusts the fee for using the City’s dance spaces was given three readings.

Advisory Planning Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7934, 2017
As discussed at the June 12th meeting, this change to the meeting procedures for the APC was adopted. Please adjust your behavior accordingly.

Civic Facilities, Road Maintenance and Park Development Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 7932, 2017
As discussed at the June 12th meeting, this Bylaw that extends some borrowing terms in the existing Borrowing Bylaw adopted. It’s now the Law of the Land.

Next meeting in on July 10th. Enjoy the sunny weather and Canada Day, everyone.

The City held a Public Hearing on the introduction of a Heritage Conservation Area for Queens Park last Tuesday. To no surprise, the Public Hearing was long, as both advocates for and opponents of the HCA had turned up in force at previous Council Meetings to delegate on the topic, and feeling in the community were strong on this issue.

I have spent much of the last couple of months talking to people about this issue, and acting like the Devil’s Advocate on both sides, challenging the assumptions of both supporters and opponents. I have done this not to be a jerk, but because I needed to find a way to understand the arguments and concerns of each side. I have received more than 200 e-mails (and have tried to respond to them all – still working on that!) and more written correspondence, and have answered the occasional irate phone call. I have had conversations with people in the community who have not initially expressed an opinion one way or the other. Councillor Trentadue and I spent some time doorknocking in Queens Park to get a feel for what people (especially those without lawn signs) know, what people’s concerns are, and where the support and opposition lie. I have met for coffee with strong supporters and vocal opponents of the policy. As such, not much that I heard at the Public Hearing was a surprise to me.

The purpose of a Public Hearing is for me to listen, not for me to challenge or debate the delegates. I heard a few things I strongly disagreed with, and I heard a bit of bad information, but mostly I heard people concerned about the future of their neighbourhood and about the future of their homes. To my mind, the challenge the City had was to develop a policy that did its best to address those concerns. The HCA policy that was approved by Council is not perfect, but I believe we found a moderate approach that balanced individual and community desires.

The HCA was not something I thought I would be supporting when I ran for Council. This was something that the community brought to Council, and right from the start more than four years ago (when the Queen’s Park Neighbourhood Heritage Study Working Group was put together), bringing in measures to protect heritage homes in Queens Park has been an initiative driven by the neighbourhood, supported by staff, and endorsed along the way by Council. The inference by a few that this was a top-down Council-driven initiative is untruthful. When the Working Group brought recommendations to Council a little more than a year ago, it was the first time I was faced with the idea that we may institute an HCA, and I have had a lot to learn in the year since.

Ultimately, the two questions I need to address when supporting a measure like this are “Is there a policy goal here worth achieving?” and “Is this approach a good way to achieve that goal?”

The first question may seem like the easy one, but it isn’t. Supporters of the policy provided many reasons to support the protection of heritage homes, and even most opponents acknowledged that “they love heritage”. However, few made the argument (which I think is a valid one) that Queens Park style heritage homes are perhaps a luxury that the lower mainland can no longer afford, given the ongoing and worsening housing crisis. During the process, a few of us on council have made clear that the HCA policy cannot stop all development, infill density, or other ways of increasing housing choice in the Queens Park neighbourhood. We need to accelerate our work towards increasing laneway and carriage house infill, stratification of large houses if they wish to re-configure into multi-family buildings, and protecting the multi-family housing stock that already exists in Queens Park. The HCA as adopted will not prevent that progress, and I look forward to our work on the OCP and new Zoning Bylaws to address these issues.

However, at the risk of feeding the “elitist” narrative, Queens Park is unique in New Westminster, and in the Lower Mainland. A neighbourhood of 700 homes where 500 of them are pre-WW2 represents a significant heritage asset in a province that only has 160-odd years of Colonial history. The heritage value of the neighbourhood has been acknowledged for almost 20 years, with progressive increases in heritage protection, an active heritage conservation community, and voluntary design guidelines since 1999. There are heritage homes in every neighbourhood of New West, but not at this concentration across a neighbourhood, and there has never been any concerted effort from those neighbourhoods to formalize heritage protection like there has been in Queens Park for more than 20 years.

The second question is where most of the conversation has occurred for the last year, and this is where the vocal opposition to an HCA has helped the City develop a better, more flexible, and more sustainable policy. One commenter noted that Council voted unanimously for this proposal, demonstrating “group think”, but one can only surmise that if they have not been paying attention for the last year. Since the recommendation from the working group was adopted, there have been a dozen Council meetings and workshops where various aspects of this policy were discussed and debated. There were motions moved, ideas tossed around and sent back to staff for more work, there were split votes and motions defeated, and at one meeting, something akin to an argument of fundamental principles of the policy. If we got to consensus at the end of this process, it is a credit to the hard work of staff and the community members on the working group to forge a policy that all could live with. That more than 2/3 of the correspondence and presentations to Public Hearing also spoke in favour of the policy further reflects the great work staff and the community did to develop a strong policy package.

The policy is not perfect, and we have some work to do over the next year on incentives. The research I have done suggests to me that the HCA will not put long-term downward pressure on housing prices in Queens Park in this overheated housing market (although I guarantee some homeowners will be going to the Assessment appeals board to argue for a drop to save a bit on their taxes), but that it will more likely smooth out the spikes in a volatile market. However, the City committed to addressing impacts through creative incentive programs. I hope those incentives can also help bring more housing choice to Queens Park so it continues to be a neighbourhood where young families can afford to live (although I think we are past the point where it could be “affordable” in any meaningful way without some serious region-wide market corrections)

The policy will also not mean the end of demolitions and new construction in Queens Park. Houses younger than 1940 have no increased protection, and there are many pre-1940 houses that will be shown to not have sufficient heritage character or structural integrity to protect. The new design guidelines are “performance based”, meaning they don’t prescribe any specific architectural style. This means architects will still be able to develop creative designs that complement the neighbourhood. There will still be debate in the neighbourhood about aesthetics, and things will continue to evolve, but the process at City Hall will be transparent and defensible. In that sense, I think we have achieved a good balance.

Finally, I do want to acknowledge that this process brought out many people’s passions, yet the discussion was incredibly respectful and civilized. New Westminster lived up to its reputation as an engaged community that cares about issues and shows up to voice opinions, but we are a community first. Change (I recognize that preserving heritage is a somewhat ironic form of “change”) is hard. We often see the worst case as the likely case, and that is scary. However, if you want to go to 180:30 at the Public Hearing video, you will hear an elegant presentation by Jeffery Dresselhuis that left me wondering if he was “for” or “against” the HCA, until I realized his presentation was about the importance of community, consultation, and consensus in public policy. It is worth listening to, and something I will be thinking about for some time.

Just for a change of pace, we had a relatively short meeting with a very long agenda. This happens when we have a smooth Public Hearing, no Public Delegations, and a fair amount of the Agenda being passed on Consent.

We had an open Workshop during the day, and I recently received an Ask Pat on one of the topics, so more talk on that then. The other topic is Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, which I could go on for hours about (as it somewhat intersects with my professional life) so I’ll save you the boredom and ask you to watch the video if you care!

The evening meeting began with a Public Hearing on a fairly large development in Queensborough:

Official Community Plan (Land Use Designation Amendment) for 1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street Bylaw No. 7916, 2017 and
Zoning Amendment (1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street) Bylaw 7917, 2017
This project will bring 78 units of (relatively) affordable family-friendly family homes to a large site in Queensborough that has been pre-loaded for a number of years, and will dedicate the waterfront portion of the adjacent properties to the City to continue our Queensborough waterfront trail. The unit mix (18 duplexes, 14 fee-simple row homes, 10 small single family detached homes, and 36 strata townhouses) provides a lot of housing variety, and the development is relatively dense for what is all ground-oriented housing. The development is within 5 minutes of schools, parks, and the commercial strip on Ewen Avenue.

We received a couple of delegations speaking in favour of the development (one was the architect, so no surprises there) and one in opposition. The opposing delegate was chagrinned by the loss of farmland in Queensborough, although this site has not been a farm for a very long time.

Council voted to refer these Bylaws to the Regular Meeting which immediately followed:

Official Community Plan (Land Use Designation Amendment) for 1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street Bylaw No. 7916, 2017
Council gave this OCP amendment Third Reading and Adoption. It is now the Law of the Land.

Zoning Amendment (1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street) Bylaw
7917, 2017
Council Approved this Zoning amendment, which essentially means we approved the development.

The following Items were Moved on Consent without discussion:

Intelligent City Innovation and Knowledge Workforce Committee Update
The Intelligent City initiative is rolling along, with several different parts of the overall plan being overseen by different City staff groups working with community members. The Innovation group are working on the development of an Innovation Hub in New West, and are working to bring some innovative use of technology to our Master Transportation Plan goals. They have also been instrumental in the development of our Open Data Portal, which is now award winning. The Knowledge Workforce group are working with local and regional education leaders to develop programs like last year’s successful Hackathon. There is a tonne more going on with this initiative, with more updates to come!

Appointment of an Acting City Clerk
There are some staffing changes at the City, and the role of City Clark is one that needs to be approved by Council, because they have a regulatory role under the Community Charter and delegated authorities under our Bylaw. We did so for the new Acting Clerk.

2016 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Report
Our FOI requests are generally down (22% over the last three years), partly because of our becoming a more open organization (see award-winning Open Data portal, above). This is a good thing, as I think it demonstrates increasing trust in how the government operates. It is also good because FOIs take a lot of resources to manage, both to assure the data provided is complete, and also to assure that privacy issues are adequately addressed before data is released. Our response rate to FOI requests is also improved, which again saves us time and money.

320 Third Avenue: Heritage Alteration Permit No. 085 to Build New House in Queen’s Park – Consideration of Issuance
Because we are in the Heritage Control Period for Queens Park, a Heritage Alteration Permit is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for this house. The process this house went through is actually more rigourous than the one proposed for the Heritage Conservation Area Bylaw, but met almost all of the guidelines proposed for that process. The Technical Review Panel and Community Heritage Commission approved the design, and Council supported the HAP.

718 Twelfth Street: Temporary Use Permit 00014 to Allow an Institutional Use (Religious Worship) Within a Commercial District
The use of commercial spaces in the City for worship is closely regulated, for several good urban planning and business development reasons. As a general rule, the City discourages the use of commercial space for religious assembly. In this case, and organization is requesting temporary use for a small congregation as they are actively seeking a permanent location, and the proposed temporary use supports other uses of the site. Council granted this temporary use.

736 Sixth Avenue (7-Eleven): Development Variance Permit for Sign – Additional Information for Opportunity to be Heard
As mentioned last meeting, the conversion of the existing gas station uptown to a 7-Eleven location necessitates a variance of the sign bylaw, as their standard signage (which is actually smaller than what is currently there) does not fit the strict language of the Bylaw. Apparently, our notice of the opportunity to be Heard issued last week also required a bit of a language change to better reflect the variance. If you have a strong feeling about this signage, lease let us know by June 26th, when the Opportunity to be Heard will be held as part of regular Council.

2016 Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report
Every year, we get a report of the extensive testing of our potable water supply. Short version: the 744 samples taken in 2016 were clean and safe to drink. Bottoms up.

Investment Report to April 30, 2017
The City has about $136Million in various investments, and we have made about $1.0 Million in interest in those investments so far this year, tracking to a budgeted $2.6Million for the entire year.

Report on Major Purchasing Transactions for the Period January 1st to April 30th, 2017
Continuing on the theme of Open Government, here are all of the contracts larger than $100,000 that the City signed in the first third of 2017, and all of the Sole Source Awards larger than $50,000. If you bid and didn’t win, here is why.

Internet Service Provider Agreement with Surf Internet
Surf Net becomes the sixth vendor hoping to sell internet service though our BridgeNet dark fibre utility. How fast is *your* internet service?

National Health and Fitness Day Initiative
Check out the Fitness Day (June 3) offerings at the Centennial Community Centre, Canada Games Pool, Queensborough Community Centre, and Century House. I’ll be in Ottawa attending FCM, so please feel free to exercise on my behalf!

300 Salter Street (Port Royal): Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Applications for a Proposed 87 Unit Apartment Building – Development Permit for Consideration of Issuance and Development Variance Permit for Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
This four-story apartment building in Port Royal will require a variance to allow mezzanines and roof-top decks (which means it will be 12 feet taller than the zoning allows). There will be an Opportunity to be Heard on this variance on June 26th at Regular Council. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

630 Ewen Avenue: Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning from Queensborough Residential Dwelling Districts (RQ-1) to Comprehensive Dwelling Districts (630 Ewen Avenue) (CD-70) – Consideration of First and Second Reading
We are moving along with the process of developing a small affordable housing development in City-owned land in Queensborough. With this first and second reading, the OCP amendment and zoning will go to Public Hearing on June 26. C’mon out and let us know what you think.

600 – 720 Quayside Drive (Bosa Waterfront Site): Development Variance Permit – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
Not burying the lede here, but this large development that will re-make the shape of our waterfront for a generation does not require a formal Public Hearing, as the Development Permit and Zoning are already completed. However,  the shape of the buildings has changed, and it does require several variances: for height, building footprint, and parking layout. There will be an Opportunity to be Heard on June 26th. This is your chance to come out and tell us what you think about this development.

Advisory Committee for Transit, Bicycles and Pedestrians (ACTBiPed): 30 km/h Speed Limit on Designated Greenways, Bikeways, and Streets That Do Not Allow Cycling on the Sidewalk
Cars going 30km/h are significantly safer in our residential nieghbourhoods (and everywhere) than cars going 50km/h. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Transportation makes it difficult for local governments to regulate safe speeds in our communities, because they think 50 is nifty. In character with our Master Transportation Plan, the City is working towards bringing 30km’h in the most appropriate places where it will have the largest safety benefits. We will be phasing in 30km/h along greenways where we are encouraging cyclists an pedestrians, and in the areas of the City where the Street and Traffic Bylaw makes it illegal to ride on the sidewalk (primarily Uptown, Downtown, and Sapperton business districts). It is a start, and perhaps with a potential change in Government in Victoria, we will have more support to make it easier (and more cost effective) to make our nieghbourhoods safer for pedestrians.

The following Items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Shaw TV community television station ceasing operations in Metro Vancouver and partnering with Global News for local programming
My TV career is coming to an end. Shaw is getting out of its requirement to cover local government council meetings in Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton markets. By the end of summer, our Council Meetings will no longer be televised. It was, frankly, a declining audience, and probably inevitable. Maybe we needed to do more product placements…

The good news is that this may be the impetus we need to update our live and recorded video streaming service. The SilverLight®-dependant and slightly clunky interface we currently have is not exactly state-of-the-art, and I am hoping we can have a product that not only streams on more devices and through more browser types, but has search functions and links portions of the evening’s Council to agenda items so people can zoom to the part of the meeting that they care about. Hopefully good things to come by the end of the summer (and we can release Wes of his http://newwe.st/open-council/ responsibilities).

New Westminster Age-Friendly Community Strategy
The City collaborated with graduate students at UBC’s Sustainable Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) program to develop this comprehensive strategy. They presented to us some great demographic research, and provided a great set of guidelines and strategies to help us adapt to the upcoming demographic certainty of an aging (and healthy-into-older-age) community. These strategies will help us develop the services needed to for seniors to stay engaged in their community, assure our built environment makes it easier for seniors to live in an navigate through our community, and to partner with service agencies and senior governments to provide the necessities of life like appropriate housing, access to healthcare, and peer support. I’m really proud of the work our Staff did here with SCARP.

425 East Columbia Street: Temporary Use Permit for Arcade – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
I’m happy we found a way to accommodate this use, but I am afraid we are still holding onto some of the moral panic issues that led to strict restrictions of arcades on the 90s. I don’t understand why we think people can responsibly drink a beer, we think people can responsibly play Pac Man, but if we let people do both at the same time, trouble is inevitable. However, this Temporary use Permit may help us address some of the potential conflict issues while we try this on for size. There will be an Opportunity to be Heard on this temporary use, please come out June 26th and let us know what you think.

Finally, we went through the Bylaws Shuffle:

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw (612 – 618 Brantford Street) No. 7876, 2017
Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (612 – 618 Brantford Street) No. 7886, 2017
Heritage Designation Bylaw (612 – 618 Brantford) No. 7885,2017
These three Bylaws that support the development of a 6-story residential development and protection and restoration of a heritage home in the Brow of the Hill saw Third Reading on January 30th, and are now adopted by Council. Please adjust your behavior accordingly.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (1407 Sixth Avenue) No. 7807, 2016
Heritage Designation Bylaw (1407 Sixth Avenue) No. 7806, 2016
These Bylaws that support the subdivision of a property to facilitate the protection and restoration of a heritage home and building of a second house in the West End saw Third Reading on February 29, 2016 (!) and is finally ready for adoption. It is now the Law of the Land.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (518 Ewen Avenue) No. 7833, 2016
This Zoning Amendment to change an archaic commercial zones property to residential to facilitate the building of a single family home in Queensborough was given third reading on April 24, 2017, and is now law.

Official Community Plan (630 Ewen) Amendment Bylaw No. 7919, 2017
Zoning Amendment (630 Ewen Avenue) Bylaw No. 7920, 2017
The zoning changes to support the small affordable housing project in Queensborough was given two readings. The Public Hearing on June 26th will be your chance to come on out and tell is what you think.

And except for singing Happy Birthday for the seconds time in as many months at Council, we were done for the day.

At New Westminster City Council, we have Open Delegations, meaning anyone can come to a Council Meeting and have 5 minutes to delegate on any topic. There are not many cities where delegations are so open (most require you to address a topic on the day, register ahead of time, limit numbers, etc., if they have delegations at all). This week’s meeting was one of those ones where people showed up in force, arguing both sides of an upcoming issue, which kept us going until after 11:00. More on that later.

The actual agenda was not a lengthy one, with the following items Removed from Consent for discussion:

Homeless Count 2017: Update
There is a coordinated regional count of homeless persons every few years, run mostly by volunteers as it is a fairly large effort. The numbers in 2017 are not good, which is probably not a surprise to most who pay attention to these things.

You can read the preliminary report here. Regionally, the numbers of homeless have risen since 2014, after being mostly stable for almost a decade. We can point at the general housing afforability crisis, increases in renovictions, and reduced provincial supports for marginally housed or people impacted by addictions, those living on social assistance or with disabilities. There are a lot of trends to parse out here (i.e. increases over the last 3 years are markedly higher in the suburbs – Delta, Langley, Richmond, Ridge Meadows and the TriCities), and I will probably write a longer blog post on this topic.

Council moved to refer this report to staff in order to develop resolutions to take to the UBCM to address this issue.

Bequest to New Westminster Animal Services
A gentleman named Daryl Mutz passed away in January, and left part of his estate to a variety of causes that were important to him, mostly protection of animals and children. Included in his bequest was $275,000 for New Westminster Animal Services to improve the quality of life of animals being cared for at our shelter. The City will be working on an appropriate way to mark this significant contribution, likely as part of the new Animal Shelter that will be built in Queensborough.

The following items were Moved on Consent without discussion:

Amendment to Dance Studio Rental Rates in Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016
As part of ongoing reviews, we occasionally adjust fees for some of our facilities, which require a Bylaw to change. Some of the dace spaces in the Anvil Centre were determined to be underutilized, and a price comparison to other similar spaces around the region found that an adjustment to the cost may be in order. Council voted to support this Bylaw change.

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Official Community Plan Amendment and Related Heritage Procedures Bylaws for Consideration of Readings
This topic did bring many people out to delegate, both in favour and opposed. I don’t want to go too deeply in to the debate here, because this will be going to Public Hearing next month (a special Council Meeting scheduled for June 13), and I don’t want to pre-judge those discussions.

Council moved to give the proposed Bylaw first and second readings, and the schedule a Public Hearing for June 13. As per regulation, once the Public Hearing is scheduled, we cannot receive any more public delegations on the topic until the evening of the Public Hearing. However, I hope residents will go to the City’s website here and inform themselves about what the HCA is and isn’t, and chat with your neighbours about the goals and concerns it may raise. Then show up on June 13 to let Council know what you think.

Sign Bylaw No. 7867, 2017: Bylaw for First and Second Reading – Public Hearing June 26, 2017, and
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 7921, 2017: Bylaw for Three Readings
This has been the culmination of a couple of years work for our staff, updating our slightly-aged Sign Bylaw. It appears to me to be a reasonable approach, considering some significant changes in sign technology, but also creating stronger guidelines around physical intrusion of portable signs in to pedestrian space and the use of LED lights and other emergent technology. It also sounds a potential death knell to Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man, pictured above.

Council moved to give the Bylaws three readings.

412 Third Street: Development Variance Permit 00626 for Front Yard Setback, Projections and Height – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
This Queens Park property owner had various constraints on the development of their property, and is doing this work at the time that the Design Guidelines for the Queens Park Neighbourhood are in a kind of flux with the Heritage Conservation Area Bylaw in development. Staff worked with the proponent to find compromises that would allow them to build within the guidelines and protect mature trees on the lot, but this required relatively minor variances. These variances will go to an Opportunity to be Heard at the end of May.

736 Eighth Avenue (7-Eleven): Development Variance Permit 00629 for Sign – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
The gas station on Eighth Ave is changing branding of their convenience store, and the preferred signage, though not fitting the letter of our (old) Sigh Bylaw, will nonetheless not be a significant change from the existing signage. However, laws be laws and a variance is required to permit the change. This variance will also go to an Opportunity to be Heard at the end of May.

Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project – Environmental Assessment Process Including Public Engagement Under the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act
This is a good sign that the Pattullo Bridge project is moving forward. The EA process is fairly prescribed, including timelines. The first public participation part of the EA is during the pre-application phase, where the proposed application is reviewed and stakeholders are able to provide feedback to the EAO about potential gaps or issues with the application materials, and give the proponent and the EAO an opportunity to understand public concerns regarding the environmental impact of the project. There are some tentatively scheduled public meetings at the end of May in New Westminster and Surrey – be sure to check the project website and keep an eye on the local newspaper for updates.

In my professional life, I have worked on a half-dozen EAs for major projects, and can attest that active participation by the public is important to the process, but takes some commitment on the part of those willing to take part. There is a lot of information to absorb and understand, and the constraints around what can and cannot be addressed through an EA are not always straight-forward. I encourage people to follow the project website, show up at the meetings, and get informed about this project.

National Public Works Week – May 21–27, 2017
Next week is National Public Works Week, and the City’s engineering department will be doing some outreach to the community to help people get informed about what our Public Works staff do in keeping your City functioning, including being at the Bellies game next week.

Complimentary Parking for Veterans
The City, along with many other communities in the Lower Mainland, provide parking benefits to those who display Veteran’s license plates. As this regulatory change requires periodic update, here we are doing that update to keep that benefit going for another few years.

2017 Canada – BC Clean Water and Wastewater Fund Grant Applications – Sapperton Combined Sewer Separation Program and Wood Street Drainage Pump Station
This really should be bigger news than it is. The City applied for, and was granted a $5.5 Million grant from the federal government to accelerate our sewer separation program in Sapperton. $5.5 Million is a lot of money for New Westminster, we should be excited.

This being an old City, most of our sewer system was installed in the good old days when all sewage went straight to the river, so our storm sewer (rain running off of our roofs and streets) and sanitary sewer (the things you flush) went in the same pipes. As society evolved to building sewage treatment plants, cities started putting storm water and sanitary sewer into different pipes, so the former could go to the river, and the latter could go to the plant. Unfortunately, New West has a long legacy of “combined flow” pipes, and have been slow to separate the flows.

These combined flows are expensive, because we pay to have all that storm water treated as sewage, but separating the pipes is also expensive, so the $5.5 Million will not only save us some money in the short term, but will reduce long-term costs and ultimately benefit the environment.

Licensed Events at Westminster Pier Park
The City is going to pilot some flexible licensing in Pier Park this summer in partnership events with the Arts Council to take advantage of some recent changes in provincial liquor laws. The idea here is to try this out in July under relatively controlled conditions as a pilot to see what works and doesn’t and inform future policy for these types of events.

Thursday Nights in July should be fun at the Pier Park! Reschedule your vacations, folks, there is no reason to leave New Westminster during the summer!

150 Fitness Challenge
Notwithstanding the gluteus of a certain delegate, Canada is barging ahead with celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Confederation, and that celebration is manifest in various programs. In New West, our Parks and Recreation department is doing a 150 fitness Challenge. Info available at our Recreation facilities (Century House, Moody Park Arena, Queensborough Community Centre, Etc.) where you can get a tracking card to participate in the program and potentially win some great prizes.

628 Eighteenth Street: DVP00627 to Vary Accessory Site Coverage in Order to Construct a Pool and Hot Tub – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
These residents in the West End wish to enhance their back yard by putting in a pool and hot tub, but this will result in more site coverage than the zoning strictly allows. This requires a variance, which will have an Opportunity to be Heard at the end of May.

Finally, we went through the usual raft of Bylaws:

Official Community Plan Amendment (Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area Amendment) Bylaw No. 7926, 2017
This Bylaw to institute a Heritage Conservation Area in Queens Park was given two readings. It will go to Public hearing on June 13, please come on out and tell us what you think.

Sign Bylaw No. 7867, 2017
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7921, 2017
This update to our Sign Bylaw, as discussed above, was given two readings.

Bylaw No. 7928, 2017 to amend Heritage Procedures Bylaw No. 7606, 2013
Bylaw No. 7929, 2017 to amend Heritage Alteration Permit Procedures Bylaw No. 7859, 2016
Bylaw No. 7930, 2017 to amend Development Services Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014
These Bylaws that will need to be updated to support the Queens Park Heritage Conservation Area if it were to be adopted by council, were given three readings, so that they can be adopted in conjunction with the HCA Bylaw if that is the decision of Council after the June 13 Public Hearing. Once again, I encourage you to read, share and enjoy these Bylaws, and come out to the Public Hearing to tell us what you think.

Street Naming (“Mabel Street” in Queensborough) Bylaw No. 7902, 2017
This street naming Bylaw was adopted. A street in Queensborough now has a name. Adjust your Googlemaps accordingly.

Our Council meeting on May 1st was another long one, as a large number of delegates came to speak to the proposed Heritage Conservation Area for Queens Park. Again, if this proposal moves forward, it will be going to Public Hearing, so do not take Council’s cautious approach to responding to delegates’ direct questions as disinterest, but more an acknowledgement that there is still much discussion to have in the neighbourhood and community before Council makes any decision here.

The regular agenda began with a couple of presentations and reports.

Arrival of EVO Car Sharing in New Westminster
This announcement is important to New Westminster because it supports the policy goals of our Master Transportation Plan by reducing vehicle reliance in the City, encouraging active transportation choices, and making transportation in our city more affordable for more people.

The presentation and report outlined the various ways Car sharing support these goals. Every car-share vehicle correlates with the reduction of 5-11 private vehicles, reducing the need to accommodate cars through parking and road space. For many users, it is more affordable than owning a car, and supports increased use of transit, cycling and walking. I was amazed that there are already more than 500 EVO members in New Westminster, before they even brought any cars here.

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Request for License to Occupy – Quayside Community Board
The QCB has a large yard sale / festival in the summer, which brings in merchants from around the region to activate the boardwalk. The construction ongoing on the waterfront has created a bit of a challenge for them, and there is an underutilized space at the west end of the Quayside. Although the property is owned in partnership with Metro Vancouver, staff have been working with the QCB to provide a one-day license to allow their merchants to park their vehicles there during the boardwalk sale. Liability and licensing issues abound, but it sounds like all three partners are on side here and have worked through most of it.

1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street: Official Community Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Allow a 78 Unit Residential Development, Park and Road Dedication – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
This large family-friendly development in Queensborough will have a variety of housing forms, and result in road and park dedication to the City. Council moved to give the OCP and RZ first and second reading, and send the project to Public Hearing. I’ll hold my comments until then.

The following items were Removed form Consent for discussion:

Provincial Property-based Taxes in the Metro Vancouver Region
This is a report for information, you can read it here. Short version: people living in the Metro Vancouver pay more taxes to the Provincial government, in raw numbers and per capita, than the rest of the province. This is especially true of school taxes where the Mil Rate is flat across the province.

Street Naming Bylaw for ‘Mabel Street’ in Queensborough – Bylaw for
Three Readings
I am in favour of this motion, and am comfortable moving forward with this naming, but took the time to suggest to my Council colleagues that the Street Naming Policy that underlies this choice needs to be updated.

Perhaps this conversation can wait until we hear back from staff on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (following on our April 10th motion), but as a rule our street names disproportionately acknowledge the European settler experience, and probably fail to recognize the diversity of our history.

As a point of discussion, it may be interesting to discuss why streets named after men generally use surnames, and streets named after women fall to the given name…

630 Ewen Avenue (Affordable Housing Project): Housing Agreement
Principles – for Endorsement
The city is working with a not-for-profit to develop a small supportive family housing project in Queensborough. This agreement will set out the conditions under which the housing operates, the duties of the operator and rights of the residents (above and beyond those in the Residential Tenancy Act) which make up the “supportive” part of the housing. Council endorsed these principles.

Queen’s Park Universal Washroom Design
Times change, and how we design public buildings change with them. The concession stand in Queens Park needs replacement, as do the attached bathrooms. The new model for these types of facilities on BC (although this has been standard practice in large parts of Europe for a long time) are to make them “gender neutral”, with secure toilet booths open to either gender attached to a common sink/washup/baby changing area. This reduces a variety of barriers, especially with kids and others who need supports to use public facilities, and assures that the rights all persons are protected.

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Full Draft of Conservation Area, Administrative Policy, and Design Guidelines
This conversation followed more than two hours of public delegations, mostly on the topic of the proposed HCA. It is clear there are a variety of opinions and a lot of deeply felt convictions about this proposal. Unfortunately, there are also a variety of “facts” being provided, which makes the conversation challenging. We have more work to do.

This report, however, outlines some of the most important aspects of the HCA proposal, as it details the actual process through which permits and approvals would be managed under the proposed HCA, and also provides a draft of the Design Guidelines that would become mandatory under the HCA if approved.

Council was not able to discuss the Design Guidelines in detail, as we had only received them on Monday, and wanted some time to dig through them and have a fuller understanding before we approved them. That discussion will happen in an Open Workshop on May 8th at 4:30 in the afternoon. It will be open to the public as are all Council meetings.

There is some detail in the report, and if you are concerned, you should rely on the report and not my necessarily reduced summary here, but the draft policy looks something like this:

For houses built before 1941 (about 500 of the 700 homes in QP), the house would need a Heritage Alteration Permit (“HAP”) prior to demolition, construction on the front of sides of the house (parts visible from the street), or changes in the roofline. Internal renovations require no extra permitting. The proposed changes would be evaluated based on a transparent “checklist” to determine if the changes would significantly alter the heritage of the neighbourhood, and whether alternative approaches to meeting the owner’s zoning entitlement could be found.

Staff would review these applications, based on a transparent and clear set of standards, and would deny or approve the permit. If the owner is denied a permit, they would be allowed to appeal to Council, who would make the final decision.

All construction on the visible front of the house and replacement buildings would need to meet the Design Guidelines established under the HCA, as approved by staff.

For all other houses, an HAP would only be required for new construction or subdivision of the property. Demo permits and renovations would not require an HAP.

Staff have tried to develop a fee structure that is fair to all residents of the City, and reduced the cost for renovation vs. demolition, in order to further encourage renovation of heritage homes. The process has also been designed to operate as transparently and quickly as possible, with most permits only taking a couple of weeks to get through the process. The evaluation standards and guidelines have been developed though guidance from the Heritage Commission, Technical Review Panel, and Heritage Working Group, but they will not be involved in the review of individual applications.

In the few cases where it will be required, the appeal process will add time – getting on the agenda so Council can have the final say creates scheduling delays – but by delegating authority we simplify the process and make the entire process work faster, more transparently, and at a lower cost to the City and less stress for the homeowner.

Again, these proposals are going to be going to a Public Hearing in June. Best if you let Mayor and Council know what you think through e-mail.

231 Twelfth Street (Gas Works Building): Site Safety and Demolition Process
The building belongs to the province, and the owner is asking us for a demo permit. The building is in terrible condition, and needs to be removed for public safety reasons. It is unfortunate, but the time to save this building was 20 years ago, and it clearly was not a priority. We can move on and start looking at re-purposing this piece of land, which starts with us getting out of the way and giving the province the room they need to remediate the industrial site.

As a City we don’t own a lot of land that isn’t already completely programmed, this is an opportunity for us to acquire a valuable piece of land that links lower 12th to the Brow neighbourhood.

We wrapped the evening, as always, by addressing a few Bylaws:

Official Community Plan (Land Use Designation Amendment) for 1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street Bylaw No. 7916, 2017 and
Zoning Amendment (1102, 1110, 1116 and 1122 Salter Street) Bylaw 7917, 2017
These Bylaws to support a multi-family development in Queensborough was given two readings. The project will be going to Public Hearing on May 29, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Street Naming (“Mabel Street” in Queensborough) Bylaw No. 7902, 2017
This Bylaw to name a new street in Queensborough after Mabel Bowell, Queensborough’s first school teacher, was given three readings.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1023 Third Avenue) Bylaw No. 7871, 2016 and Heritage Designation Bylaw (1023 Third Avenue) No. 7872, 2016
These Bylaws to support he building of two stacked townhouses and refurbish and protect a heritage home on Brow of the Hill, as discussed at the Public Hearing on November 28, 2016, were adopted. They are the law of the land.

Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Primary Area Bylaw No. 7911, 2017
Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Secondary Area Bylaw No. 7914, 2017
Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7912, 2107
These Bylaws that allow us to collect taxes on behalf of the City’s three BIAs were adopted. Adjust your behaviors accordingly.

Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7913, 2017
This Bylaw that sets our property tax rate increase for 2017 at 2.98% was adopted. The bill will soon be in the mail.

We had another daytime workshop in Council this week, discussing some details of the proposed Heritage Conservation Area for Queens Park. There is a lot of work to do, and some more discussions to have (based on the bombardment of e-mail I am receiving on the topic), but we expect that issue to come to a Public Hearing in June, so I suggest you watch the video if interested, and I’ll save my comments until the public hearing.

As it was the last meeting of the month, we started with a Public Hearing on two projects:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7907, 2017 for 1002, 1012, 1016 and 1020 Auckland Street
This is a new multi-family development on a challenging site in the Brow of the Hill. The now-vacant lots have a high slope, but are in a great walkable location near downtown and lower 12th. The proposal has 13 townhouses and 75 apartments, the majority of which will be 3- and 2-bedroom, which puts them above the minimums in our Family-Friendly Housing policy.

The Design Panel and Advisory Planning Commission approved the project, the Neighbourhood Association raised no concerns, and the 6(!) people who replied to the 6,700 (1) mailed out invitations to the open house similarly raised no concerns. We receive no written submissions, and the one person who came to speak to the development was not opposed, but did raise a valid concerns about parking issues for his very constrained lot across the street that I hope Engineering can address.

Council moved to refer the application for Third Reading, which Council approved in the regular meeting immediately after.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7833, 2016 for 518 Ewen Avenue
This is a simple re-zoning of a single lot in Queensborough to match the zoning of the adjacent properties and in compliance with the Queensborough Community Plan. We received no submissions and no-one came to speak to the matter. Council moved to refer the application for Third Reading, which Council approved in the regular meeting immediately after.

The Regular Meeting started with us moving the above Bylaws to Third Reading, followed by a Opportunity to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00624 for Royal Columbian Hospital (330 East Columbia Street) – To Vary Front Yard Setback for New Mental Health Care Building
The RCH expansion is a big project, and this is a minor variance required for the Phase 1 building. There are two relatively small protrusions form the main building that will stick into the setback required by zoning (the minimum distance allowed between any building and the lot line). These two encroachments will in no way impact the pedestrian or other transportation realm around the building, wont impact any other land owners, and will not result in a significant reduction of greenspace (as other parts of the building are set much further back from the setback.

We had one written submission opposed to this DVP, with no reason given for that opposition, and no-one came to speak to the application. Council moved ot approve the DVP.

The following items were moved on Consent:

Festival Grant – Appeal from Philippine Festival Society
This being Canada 150 year, festivals organized on July 1st have a few unexpected budget constraints. The PFS came to the Festivals Committee and made a compelling case for an increase in their budget, and demonstrated an ability to also address their budget constraints with increased sponsorship. As there is some room left in the Festivals budget due to the cancellation of another funded event, the committee recommended that this request be approved. Council agreed.

22nd Street Bus Exchange Upgrades Public Art Proposal
The pedestrian realm around 22nd Street Skytrain will see a modest, but much overdue, upgrade this year, thanks to TransLink. In consultations with the City, some ideas around introducing Public Art have been brought to TransLink, and a collaboration is in the offing! Our Public Art Advisory committee likes the idea, has some money in the Public Art Fund, and will be helping coordinate this partnership – a great way to leverage or modest PA budget to greater gain. I’m looking forward to what they come up with, we could use a little public space enhancement in the area!

Front Street Mews – Proposed Public Realm Enhancements
So much work has been going on down on Front Street, and the merchants down there have been so patient going on down there, I am glad we are finally seeing the end of the disruption. However, we are also looking forward to a much improved public space, and even collaborating with the Downtown BIA on some events down there this summer. Again, I want to thanks staff for again showing creativity and vision, and for the BIA and other partners for being great partners! Summer is almost here!

Downtown BIA Parcel Tax Bylaws No. 7911, 2017 and 7914, 2017;
Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7912, 2017
These are the official Bylaws that authorize the City to collect a parcel tax on behalf of the Business Improvement Districts in Downtown and Uptown, so they can offer the programs they do to their members. We moved to approve them going to three readings.

2017 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7913, 2017
With our Financial Plan update done, and in preparation for sending our official Tax notices and documentation to the Government, we have to pass a Bylaw officially approving our property tax levels for 2017. As anticipated, they are going up by 2.98%, meaning the City will collect a total of $75.5Million in property taxes this year. A good primer on what a 2.98% increase across the board means to you based on your assessment change since last year is available here (from last year, so adjust the numbers accordingly).

European Chafer Management Program Update
The grass-munching buggers seem to be back with a vengeance this year, and the best way for you to manage them is to not have grass, but instead plant planet-friendlier things in your front lawn. The second best way to manage them is to have really healthy deep-rooted grass that isn’t overwatered. The third best way to manage them is to use nematodes, and the City will help you pay for nematodes, but there is a process. Follow the links here if this option is right for you, because timing is everything for nematode application.

The following items were removed from consent for discussion:

Anvil Theatre Piano Purchase
Theatres usually have pianos, I get this. Great performers require great pianos, I also get this. Staff have asked Council to approve the purchase of a $215,000 piano for the Anvil Centre Theatre. I don’t get this.

It may be possible that this is the right piano for the Anvil, and that its purchase is important, but I was not convinced of this by the report I received. For a purchase of this size, especially a sole source, I need to see a business case around how it will improve our operation, and how this source and this piece of equipment is the best way to address the need.

Council did not approve the request, and have sent it back to Staff to make a better case or come up with a different plan

Repeal the 1903 Curfew Bylaw
I am glad that youth and unescorted ladies are now able to roam the streets at night. Adjust your behavior appropriately.

Official Community Plan Review: Summary of Draft Official Community Plan Feedback and Discussion of Land Use Designation for Glenbrooke North
This report provided some response to the last round of public consultation on the OCP Land Use Designation map, and some public feedback received outside of the formal consultation process.

The report was great, and showed broad general support for the direction of the OCP, and also pointed out that OCP consultations in New West suffer from a common problem: there is a general underrepresentation of people under 35, renters, young families – just the kind of people we recognized as being most in need of more affordable and more diverse housing choices. Still, the overall message in this last round is clear: we need to provide more housing choice and are either on track, or slightly behind, where we need to be when it comes to accommodating family-friendly housing

This is why I have concerns about the changes proposed in this report (as I did about the changes on Fifth Street). These changes take away those things we need the most: flexibility in housing forms in family-friendly neighbourhoods, and potential for increased affordability in those neighbourhoods. For these reasons, I proposed instead designating these areas Residential Ground Oriented. This would allow the maximum flexibility for current landowners, and provide the most potential for sensitive lower density infill like laneway houses, cluster houses, and small townhouse developments. I appreciate the feedback from the residents, and think Ground-Oriented best represents the balance between allowing flexibility for current owners and still providing impetus towards greater housing choice.

The majority of Council did not agree with me and the designation for the area was rolled back to Single Family Detached.

The OCP is an ongoing process, and we should see a Bylaw ready for Public Hearing by the end of summer.

We then went through our usual Bylaws shuffle:

Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Primary Area Bylaw No. 7911, 2017
Downtown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax – Secondary Area Bylaw No. 7914, 2017
Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7912, 2107
These three bylaws that allow us to collect taxes on behalf od the three BIAs was given three readings.

Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7913, 2017
This bylaw that formalized the 2017 property tax rates for the city was given three readings.

We had a long night on April 10th, as often happens when we have open delegations on an important issue like the Heritage Conservation Area for the Queens Park.

For some of us on Council, we started at 8:30 in the morning with a Canada Games Task Force meeting, so this Monday was spectacularly long. Recognizing that there were ~30 delegates, Council for the most part avoided getting into long discussions with delegates, even to the point where we left some questions hanging somewhat – but we do that to assure everyone gets a chance to speak before midnight. As the two topics of most concern (the OCP and the plan for creating a Heritage conservation area in Queens Park) will both be going to Public Hearing, and there are conversations ahead about that, please don’t take our lack of conversation as a lack of interest in the presentations!

We started the evening with our annual signing of the Parcel Tax Roll:

Parcel Tax Roll
There are a number of properties in the City that pay a little extra tax than everyone else, through the Parcel Tax System, These are members of the Business Improvement Areas (for whom we collect a tax, then turn it back over to the BIA so they can use it to fund their business development and support programs) and some special assessment areas, where neighbours have requested some works and were willing to pay for that specific works (like enclosing a drainage ditch in Queensborough). These are all voluntary programs decided by a special vote of the neighbourhoods.

Every year we need to officially list the impacted properties and let them know what their special charge is, and this provides them, Council, and the general community an opportunity to make any corrections or alterations of the roll. We received no complaints of comments from the impacted property owners this year, or from the general public. So the roll was passed without much fanfare.

Then we began our regular meeting, which started with presentation of the Heritage Week poster contest winners (arguably the cutest Council Meeting of the year) before we got down to business. The following items were Moved on Consent:

Official Community Plan: Draft Development Permit Areas and Design Guidelines
As part of the ongoing OCP work, staff and our external consultants have been working on draft Design Guidelines to inform how the development of new buildings in the City will fit into the existing neighbourhoods. Development Permit Areas are tools Cities can use to facilitate and/or restrict the shape, form, and character of buildings within those areas. There are examples in this report of proposed guidelines for multi-family residential forms in the Brow of the Hill and Sapperton that are lower density than high-rise or even medium-rise buildings, there are examples from employment lands, and a discussion of how development around the Brunette River will meet the requirements of the provincial Riparian Areas Regulations.

There is a lot to chew on here, and the detailed report (the draft form of which I liked to above) is pretty complex. From here, it will go to the Advisory Panning Commission, and will be wrapped up in the bigger OCP Public Hearing process. Council moved to support this path forward.

425 Columbia Street (Columbia SkyTrain Station): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption by TransLink and 200 to 700 Block Columbia Street and Front Street: Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption by Metro Vancouver and 1400 to 1500 Block Stewardson Way and the intersection at River Drive and Stewardson Way: Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption by Metro Vancouver
All three of these are applications to do work outside of regular banker hours that will require some noisy equipment. The first because you can’t work in the SkyTrain guideway while trains are going by, the second is sewer work that needs to be done on Sunday night, because that when sewer loads are low enough, the third is being scheduled to reduce traffic flow impacts on Stewardson Way. Council approved all three.

809 Fourth Avenue: Application for Strata Title Conversion
This unique development on 8th Street at Fourth Avenue preserved three heritage homes by moving them over a bit, and built a multi-family mid-rise next door, with shared underground parking for all of them. The intent all along was to operate the three houses as Strata ownership, which requires this application process.

Asset Management Strategy Update
The City has more than $1Billion in physical assets like pipes in the ground, street signs, vehicles, buildings, etc. They are all depreciating, and will all need to be replaced or renewed eventually, some long after they have depreciated to “zero value” on paper, some at accelerated rates due to heavy use, obsolescence, or changing needs in the community. We are required to cost that depreciation as part of Public Service Accounting Board standards, but like all governments, there are still some areas where we are reactive to replacing infrastructure (find ways to pay for it when we need it) as opposed to proactive (planning ahead for when assets need to be replaced). Council has identified an Asset Management Plan as one of our priorities. This report is staff giving us a framework on how they are going to achieve that goal.

It is no secret that New West has a bit of an infrastructure deficit: our infrastructure is aging faster than we are replacing it. However, this is true for pretty much every city in Canada, and comparatively, we are actually far ahead of the average or median Local Government. This is due in part to our being a compact city (avoiding the externalized costs of sprawl) and because density increases have allowed us to invest in new infrastructure required to facilitate that growth. Still, a fully integrated Asset Management Program should help future councils better plan and adapt for the changing needs of the City.

This isn’t sexy work, and it is hard to cut a ribbon on an Asset Management Strategy, but the City will be stronger and more sustainable in the future for us doing this work now.

2017 Spring Freshet and Snow Pack Level
Surprisingly, it still looks like snowpack levels across the province are around or below average this year, so the risk of flooding related to the Spring Freshet remains low. Snowpack is only one measure of flood risk – a long cold spring that preserves that snow followed by sudden warming and rains that accelerate melt can still cause problems, but all things being equal, we are less worried this year than in some others.

Environment Advisory Committee (EAC): Master Recycler Pilot Program
The EAC is recommending Council ask staff to support this program, which trains people in multi-family housing to be “recycling champions” in their strata or rental complex. Recycling rates in multi-family housing lags behind that in single detached households, and this type of education program has proven successful in other jurisdictions. The small cost ($3,000) of supporting this program can be absorbed in our solid waste budget, and should result in higher rates of recycling, eventually reducing our solid waste costs. Council moved to support the program.

Railway Community Advisory Panel: Regional Railway Inclusion in Brunette Avenue Interchange Discussions
The RCAP recognizes the City and Railways should be working together to address issues that impact both of our operations, and the potential Brunette Interchange project definitely falls under this category.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Garden at City Hall
A simple request by an established community group (full disclosure – one I used to be the President of!) to place community gardens on the expansive green space in front of City Hall has expanded somewhat.

Staff made the reasonably point that gardens placed in such a high-profile location need to be well designed as they will, like it or not, represent a bit of the “Face” of the City. They have come up with a clever design that works well with the natural slope of the land, and will integrate with some further planned improvements in the area.

There are actually two things going on here – the Community Garden being developed by the NWEP and managed in partnership with the New Westminster Community Gardens Society, for which the NWEP is fundraising and developing, and the park improvements that City has decided to do to support and enhance the Community Garden and City Hall Lawn. Council has already voted to support the former, and this report more addresses how we will make the latter happen.

12 K de K Court Boulevard Trees
This report resulted from a request to remove or otherwise manage trees that are planted in a location that negatively impacts their views. The initial request was for the City to remove or replace the trees, and this obviously raised concerns related to our newly-adopted Urban Forest Management Strategy. Staff has worked with the residents to develop a pruning schedule that can address the resident’s concerns without risking the health and vitality of the trees.

We then had a long Public Delegation and Presentations part of the meeting is not something I usually report on here, as they rarely result in us making big decisions, but rather guide future decisions (which I will report on then). I will say that the topics of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations and Heritage Conservation Area are both creating a buzz in the community, I will be blogging about them separately very soon.

We then addressed a couple of Regular Agenda, items:

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Round 2 Public Consultation – Report Back
The conversation here is clearly moving to the next phase, as several months of work in developing guidelines and potential policy directions (based on earlier phases of consultation with stakeholders, the public, and Council) were sent out ot the greater community for feedback. Invitations to the open houses were mailed directly to every household in the Queen’s Park neighbourhood, including links to the online survey, and based on the large number of e-mails in my inbox (both in favour and expressing concern for the draft regulations), a large number of people are paying attention.

Again, I am going to have to hold off on a lot of discussion of this until the Public Hearing, but I do want to encourage people to talk to their neighbours, to get informed, and to let Council know how you feel about the regulations as drafted. This has been a long process over the last couple of years for the citizen Working Group and more than 20 years for heritage advocates in Queens Park. There are Heritage Conservation Areas in many jurisdictions in BC, some more successful than others in balancing the desire for heritage protection with the need to accommodate growth and change.

Demolition of the Pattullo Bridge
It has been discussed before, and will be again, I’m sure, but the topic of what happens to the existing Pattullo Bridge when a replacement is built is not something the City has much control over. TransLink has been pretty clear that the bridge is nearing the end of its useful life, including the underpinnings and foundations, and removal of those pillars from the river is probably required.

That said, I could dream is the City retaining parts of the bridge that are self-supporting and over City lands to create a type of elevated platform or park. These conversations have begun, but it is way to early to say if this is a viable plan. Stay tuned.

Our post-Spring Break council meeting featured a Public Hearing and an interesting afternoon workshop, if you are one of those freaks for whom Council Workshops on infill density guidelines informing Official Community Plans are “interesting” (if they are, you should either go to planning school and get it over with, or watch the video here to get your fix).

The Public Hearing concerned two projects:

260 Twelfth Street Zoning Amendment (Calvary Worship Centre and John Knox School) Bylaw No. 7905, 2017
This project will replace a recently-demolished small church at the corner of 12th street and Third Ave with a larger building to house a private Christian high school. We received a number of submissions in favour of the project (mostly, if not all, parents attached to the school), and a few submissions in opposition.

The project meets the Official Community Plan designation for the site, and the objectives of the Lower 12th Community Plan objectives. The density is a little higher than zoning, but the land use and other aspects of the development are within the intended zoned use. The Advisory Planning Commission and Design Panel approved of the project, and no major concerns were raised by the residents association.

There were some concerns, mostly from adjacent car dealers, about what the project will mean to the number of cars parking and driving in the area (read that sentence again), however the parking and drop off provisions for the school are well within what we should expect for the use, and the School has a pretty aggressive Transportation Demand Management program to get students out of cars. This brought me to suggest that the ACTBiPed might want to review the surrounding bike and pedestrian safety (working with our staff, of course) and make recommendations to Council if there are any changes required to assure the City is doing what it can to promote active transportation by the students.

I’ve said it before, I am no fan of private or religious schools, because I think the potential erosive influence they have on community is greater than the benefits they provide the small portion of the population who are able to use their services, but it isn’t my job as a City Councillor to set provincial education policy. My job in an application like this is to help the community regulate land use through policy. This project meets the stated policies the City has established over a decade or more, so I had no compelling reason to oppose the project.

Council moved to refer the project to Regular Council, where we voted unanimously to give the proposal Third Reading.

43 Hastings Street Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Hastings Street Unzoned Right of Way) No. 7899, 2017
This is a zoning amendment to support apply a zoning designation to an undeveloped piece of road, which will be amalgamated with and adjacent lot to support an affordable housing project. No written submissions were received, but we had one resident come to ask a few questions. As her questions were related more to the housing project (which will go through its own public process), her questions were answered as far as we could at this time, but that is a separate discussion.

Council move to refer to Regular Meeting, where we moved unanimously to adopt the zoning amendment Bylaw.

This brought us to our Regular Meeting, where following the votes on the above projects, we launched into Opportunities to be Heard on three separate variance requests:

43 Hastings Street Road Closure and Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7898, 2017
This is the actual street closure and dedication of that unopened road to support the affordable housing project above. We received no submissions, written or otherwise, and approved the road closure bylaw.

700 Royal Avenue (Douglas College): Development Variance Permit No. DVP00623 to vary Sign Bylaw requirements
Douglas College wants to modernize the signage on the side of their campus at Royal Ave and 8th Street. The site is a little outside what would typically fit into our Sign Bylaw, so they are asking for a variance to make the sign large enough to be visible and to scale with the wall upon which it will appear. The design is relatively understated (black sans-serif font), and only lighted from wall wash lights.

We received four letters in opposition to this variance, but they strangely didn’t have much to say about Douglas College or the sign itself. They all had a common theme around managing truck traffic on Royal Ave, and I couldn’t find a way to connect their concerns to this sign bylaw variance.

Council moved to approve the variance.

350 Johnston Street: Development Variance Permit No. DVP00621 for Frontage
This is yet another one of those variances related to the rule that a building lot frontage must represent more than 10% of the circumference of the lot – or a rectangular lot can only be 4x as deep as it is wide. For a few spots, typically in Queensborough, the lots are very deep and subdivisions that would normally be fine anywhere else break this rule, necessitating the variance.

We receive no submission for or against this variance, and Council voted to approve it.

We then went into a couple of Reports for Action:

813 Carnarvon Street: Rezoning to Allow a 245 Unit Residential development – Preliminary Report
This is a preliminary report for a proposed development downtown which has yet to go to public consultation, panel reviews, etc., and will end up at a Public Hearing, so I am holding off much commenting on the design or scale of the project for now. The amenity they wish to build (non-market secured rental for retired artists from the performance arts community) is interesting.

Ultimately, we were asked to provide some preliminary guidance to staff towards areas not well defined by existing policy – whether Family Friendly Housing criteria should be applied to all housing, including non-market secured rental provided as an amenity (I argued yes, it should), and how we determine what the amenity value of extra density is on this site. Kinda inside baseball, but rather important as a precedent for how we manage these projects in the future.

This project will be going out to public consultation, watch for an Open House near you!

2017 City Partnership Grant – Appeal from Rivershed Society of BC
The Rivershead Society have an annual event on the waterfront in September, coinciding with their AGM. They applied for a grant and were turned down by our Partnership Review Panel as they had used up all of their budget and this project was not placed high enough in the priority list. They appealed to Council, and we voted (in a split vote, me against) to fund them anyway.

The following items were moved On Consent:

518 Ewen Avenue: Proposed Rezoning from (C-1) to (RQ-1) to Permit Construction of a Single Detached Dwelling – Updated Application for Consideration of Public Hearing
This rezoning request to permit a single family home in Queensborough has been through a long process, and is now off to a Public Hearing in April. I will hold off further comments until then.

1002, 1012, 1016 and 1020 Auckland Street: Rezoning from Light Industrial Mixed Use Districts (M-5) to Comprehensive Development Districts (1002 Auckland Street) (CD-69) – Bylaw for Consideration of First and Second Readings
This rezoning to support a mutli-family development on the steep part of the Brow of the Hill is also going to a Public Hearing in April, so I will hold off comments until then.

Inclusion BC letter received February 17, 2017 regarding the first ever Disability Pride celebration and parade and requesting a contribution
Inclusion BC is based in New Westminster, and is working on a project to bring attention to access issues across BC. Council referred this request for funding to staff.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital) Development Variance Permit No. DVP00624 – Consideration of Issuance
The expansion of RCH is going to result in a lot of permitting and other requirements from the City. We have every reason to help facilitate this, as RCH is out largest employer and a significant part of our long-term planning for Sapperton, but we also have to assure we do proper reviews of the permits and plans to assure community interest is protected.

This DVP will support the design of the first building in the RCH expansion by allowing two small intrusions into setback areas on the west and north sides of the building. The intrusions are small, and integral to the design of the building, so I don’t think there is a large concern here.

I have some concerns about the Brunette Ave side of the building, as we have received two views of what that facia will look like – both contradictory. It will wither be a treed boulevard with sidewalk, or a parking spot for trucks dropping occasional fuel deliveries to the Hospital. I’m curious how these two uses are considered compatible – removable trees?

328 Second Street: Heritage Alteration Permit No. 084 to Build a New House in Queen’s Park – Consideration of Issuance
The HCA process is proceeding in Queens Park, and we are still operating under the temporary Heritage Conservation Period. We have turned down a couple of demolition permits (and have supported a couple), but the Heritage Protection measures also include guidelines to assure new builds are complimentary to the heritage landscape of the neighbourhood. This is the first application we have had that is testing the limits to how those guidelines will be tested.

The house is generally complimentary to heritage character in its massing and form, but the Technical Review Panel and staff expressed concern about the design having two garage doors facing the street, which is not typical of the street or of the Craftsman style, and has implications for the boulevard and street trees that are not in conformance with the existing standards for Second Street.

Council voted unanimously (Mayor Cote recused) to support the staff recommendation that the HAP not be supported, meaning that the architect will need to work with staff to adapt the design to better fit the guidelines.

Walk New West Initiative
The City is working with a residents group called The Walkers Caucus to promote walking in April and May – leading up to Jane’s Walks. One initiative is walkers challenge, where teams will keep track of their steps and miles walked and compete for some fun prizes and bragging rights.

I challenged the members of ACTBiPed to start a team, and it filled so fast I was not able to join a team, so I instead decided to put together a team of Council members – and we will set as our goal, more steps than the ACTBiPed!

If you have a community group, business, not-for-profit, neighbourhood or group of friends who might want to get a little fitter and set some goals for walking in the City, with a chance to get some prizes and motivation, you should sign up here!

12 K de K Court Boulevard Trees
Council Watchers may remember a group came to ask that the City trees on a stretch of the Quayside boardwalk be removed and replaced with smaller trees, as the trees that are currently there are much larger than anticipated when they were put in a decade ago.

I cannot support removing trees to protect views, at a philosophical level. It is 2017, and we have a newly adopted Urban Forest Management Strategy. There may have been some decisions made in the past by staff or council that need to be reviewed in light of this new era – we have not had the time to create new policies and directions for staff under the UFMS, but I can assure you “not cutting trees down to protect resident views” is one of those policies that will be seen as a reasonable response to a strategy designed to reduce the loss of trees.

I’m glad that staff has found a pruning solution that may keep trees closer to the scale that was originally envisioned to meet the aesthetic values of the neighbourhood, without threatening the health of the trees themselves or the cost and risk of relocation.

Finally, we launched into the always-popular Bylaws part of the meeting:

Zoning Amendment (1002 Auckland Street) Bylaw No. 7907, 2017
This zoning amendment to support the multi-family development in the Brow of the Hill was given two readings. This project will be going to public hearing on April 24. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (720 Second Street) Bylaw No. 7887, 2017
Council resolved to exempt the new parcels created from 720 Second Street from the statutory minimum frontage requirements set out in section 512 of the Local Government Act (that is, their frontage will be less than 105% of their circumference)

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (720 Second Street) Bylaw No. 7887, 2017 & Heritage Designation (720 Second Street) Bylaw No. 7888, 2017
This Bylaw to permit the subdivision of a lot in Glenbrook North to support the restoration of a commercial building and building of a new house as was discussed a the Public Hearing on February 20, is now adopted. It’s the Law of the Land.

Housing Agreement (295 Francis Way – Affordable Non-Market) Amendment Bylaw No. 7910, 2017 & Housing Agreement (295 Francis Way – Market Rental) Bylaw No. 7909, 2017
These agreements to support secured market and secured non-market rental use for a multi-family development in Victoria Hill, as discussed at the March 6th Council meeting, were Adopted. They are no the law of the land.

Subdivision Control Amendment Bylaw No. 7908, 2017
This Bylaw update that regulates lighting design standards for the City was Adopted. Justice (and pedestrians) should no longer be blind.

And with that we wrapped.

We had quite a long agenda on the March 6th Council Meeting, although a large number of items on that agenda went by on Consent. It is worth looking at least at the table of contents to see all the things we *didn’t* talk about.

The evening began with two very made-in-New Westminster events: the selection of the 2017 May Queen and Royal Suite, then a discussion of design guidelines for the proposed Queens Park Heritage Conservation Area, which will be going to public consultation, so I won’t go through them here.

The following items were moved on Consent:

City of New Westminster Public Art Plan Development
The City has a nascent Public Art program, funded through a reserve fund, overseen by a Public Art Advisory Committee, and has become more sophisticated in how it manages the role of introducing art to our public spaces. However, we don’t have a well-developed plan or strategy to look at the program holistically, which limits us to ad-hoc decision making when it comes to installing pieces.

Council approved the plan to develop a Public Art Plan for the City to synchronize it with the broader Art Strategy for the City.

Request from Hyack Festival Association to re-allocate 2017 Festival Grant funding awarded for Hyack Grand Prix to 2017 Parade Float
The Hyack Festival Association is working through some of the details of their evolving festival in May, and have come up with some interesting events to bolster their work on the Hyack Parade and all of Hyack Week. As they are pushing their envelope a little bit to make the week better for the community, I am happy to give them the flexibility to adjust how they use the funds granted to them under the Festival Grants to make everything work better. Notably, they expect to save some money on a slightly stripped-down Hyack Grand Prix event, and re-allocate it to the Parade and Float program. This is not an expansion of their Grant or an exceedance of the Festival Grant budget, but a shifting between events.

Community Heritage Commission Resignation and Appointment
The CHC changed meeting schedules, and as a result one member was no longer able to serve due to conflicts. Another applicant from the 2016 call has therefore been asked to step in. Council moved to appoint Lynn (2015 New Westminster Citizen of the Year) Radbourne to the CHC.

Moody Park Residents’ Association Representative on the Neighbourhood Traffic Advisory Committee
The NTAC is a different kind of Council Advisory Committee, as it is comprised of appointees from the City’s 10 Residents’ Associations and the Quayside Community Board. Council does, however, need to approve the appointee offered by the RA, which we just did for the Moody Park RA representative.

Restorative Justice Committee Amendment to Terms of Reference
DoneThe Terms of this Council Advisory committee was amended to include a space for a representative of the New Westminster Victim Assistance Association
Board. Makes sense.

1319 Third Avenue (Steel and Oak): Increase of Seating Capacity
This is part of a long process Steel & Oak has gone through to expand their business plan within the strange, new world of Craft Brewing in BC. The industry is exciting, although it does tend to run up against archaic rules and bureaucracy at every level of government – City not exempted. Part of this is puritan laws around alcohol production and sales, part of it is inflexible ideas in City Planning about separating “manufacturing” and “industry” from commercial and retail areas. Council moved to allow an expansion in their permit to allow 30 seats in their current space. I may have a whole lot more to say about this in a future blog post, if I find time to write it.

700 Royal Avenue (Douglas College): Development Variance Permit No. DVP00623 to vary Sign Bylaw requirements – Consideration of Issuance
Proposed new signage at Douglas College is completely in scale and compatible with their building, but does not meet the strict guidelines of our Sign Bylaw. Council therefore granted them a variance, recognizing they are not a “typical” building, and that their sign will not be obtrusive and is within the intent of the Bylaw, if not the strict letter.

100 Braid Street (466 Rousseau Street) Urban Academy: Development Permit – Consideration of Issuance
Urban Academy continues on its long journey to design a new building to provide long-term sustainability to their school.

As far as zoning and land use requirements, the proposed building meets all of the permitted uses, density, height, etc., which may not be surprising as those limits were developed as part of the OCP amendment and Rezoning specifically for this plan. It is good to know that the detailed design is worked out, and the Public Consultation was generally supportive of the project, at least through a well-attended Residents’ Association meeting. Perhaps surprisingly, the Public Open House, which was advertised with two ads in the newspaper, on the City website, at the school site, through the RA mailing list, and through mailing our advisory flyers to 850 residences in Sapperton, attracted exactly one resident.

Council moved to issue the Development Permit application.

425 Columbia Street (Columbia SkyTrain Station): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption
The good news: you may soon have cellular access in Columbia SkyTrain Station and the tunnel parts of the SkyTrain through New West. The bad news: the bulk of the installation work will need to happen at night while trains are not running, meaning a bit of night-time construction noise.

Council moved to approve a Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption to facilitate these works between March 8 and 24, on the condition that notices are posted at the adjacent residential buildings with contact numbers.

295 Francis Way (Parcel O): Housing Agreement (295 Francis Way) Bylaw No. 7909, 2017 and 
Housing Agreement (295 Francis Way) Amendment Bylaw No. 7910, 2017
The project at 294 Francis Way in Victoria Hill is a 5-story residential building where the developer has agreed to build dedicated and permanently protected rental. Aside from the 85 “Market Rental” suites in the building (where rents are rented for whatever value the market will bear), there are 100 suites that are “Non-Market” Rental – housing offered at below –market rates to protect an affordable housing stock. The two housing agreements that would secure these statuses were approved for third reading by Council.

East Tenth Avenue at Cumberland and Coquitlam Street Intersections (Metro Vancouver Regional District Watermain Project): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption
The good news: we are connecting our new Tenth Ave water main into the Douglas Road water main, meaning you will continue to receive clean, fresh, and safe water in New West through updated infrastructure. Bad News: there is a chance some of the work will stretch into the weekend of March 19th, meaning a bit of construction noise outside of permitted times. And yeah, there will be some traffic disruption as well.

Council moved to approve a Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption to facilitate these works on March 19th in case the work extends that long, on the condition that notices are provided to local residents.

Update on Improvements to the Rotary Crosstown Greenway (5th – 8th Street) for Walking and Cycling
This report is just to inform Council of some work that our Transportation staff have been doing in consultation with the ACTBiPed to improve an underwhelming stretch of the Crosstown Greenway. The part between Moody Park and an Fifth Street could be made a lot better, as there is a wide expanse of pavement, and very little car traffic other than access to local driveways for several buildings. The plan is to put in true separated bike lanes, which is actually the easy part. There is a bunch of complicated detail about how driveways will cross and what to do at intersections and with the problematic power poles that are actually in the street along part of the route.

The design that has been put together seems to balance many needs very well, and was generally supported by the ACTBiPed, however, the residents of the area are also going to be consulted. This report let Council know about the consultation.

Update on the Sapperton Transportation Plan
This is a big planning project the residents of Sapperton have been (mostly) patiently waiting for. Sapperton has required a comprehensive look at their various traffic and parking issues for a few years. With the RCH expansion project planned, initial stages of the Brewery District coming on line, the “temporary” diversion at Alberta Street, a significant collection of data, and the MOTI Brunette interchange project proposal, it is a good time to take a look at this. Early stakeholder and a first community meeting on the issues and concerns went great, with a “throw spaghetti at the wall” idea session, but the real work starts now. There will be another meeting on or around April 8 – keep an eye out.

Pedestrian Crossing Improvement Program
This report lists the priority pedestrian crossing program for 2017 and gives some idea of priority projects for 2018. One thing I am really proud of in my term on Council is the work our Engineering staff have done, led by our Transportation Manager and the Mayor’s Transportation Taskforce to *prioritize* transportation capital spending and to roll out rational improvement plans like this, based on the guidance of the Master Transportation Plan. $250,000 in 2017 to design and build tangible improvements to the pedestrian realm in our residential neighbourhoods, that’s a big deal for a small city like New West.

Hopefully your pet peeve crosswalk is on the list. If not, let us know, and we can add yours to the evaluation list for next year.

Temporary Relocation of Queen’s Park Arenex Programs and Services Update
The loss of the Arenex has been disruptive for the many programs it hosted, and our staff are working hard to find alternative arrangements for the users. This just brings an update on further programs that have found homes, and a few that have not.

This is probably also a good time to ask you to answer a quick survey question about the Arenex replacement. Go here, click., it literally takes 30 seconds to complete this simple survey.

260 Twelfth Street (Calvary Worship Centre and John Knox Christian School): Rezoning from Public and Institutional Districts (Medium Rise) (P-2) to Comprehensive Development Districts (260 Twelfth Street) (CD-68) – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
This is a report on a planned private school to be built on the current Calvary Worship Centre property on the corner of 3rd Ave and Twelfth Street. It is a pretty significant project for that neighbourhood, so you might want to take a look at this proposal. The project will go to Public Hearing on March 27, so I will hold my comments until then.

350 Johnston Street: Development Variance Permit No. DVP00621 for Frontage – Notice of Opportunity to be Heard
This is a relatively simple request to provide a Development Variance to allow the subdivision of a lot on Johnstone Street (no relation) in Queensborough. The lot here (like many in Queensborough) is longer than average, so subdivision means the front of the subdivided properties will not be the required 10% of circumference of the lots, necessitating the DVP. It will go to an Opportunity to be Heard on March 27th. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

408 – 412 East Columbia Street: Rezoning and Development Permit for Proposed Six-Storey Mixed-Use Retail, Office and Residential Rental Building – Preliminary Report
This project is for a 6-story building on a long-vacant lot on East Columbia in Sapperton, with a mix of commercial, office and residential space. This project is very early in the process, as this is the first time it has been in front of all of Council. There will be panel reviews, committee reviews, and full public consultation with the Residents’ Association and the entire community. Council moved to send it out for these various reviews. I am interested to see the community reaction to this proposal.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion at Council:

2017 Pavement Management Update
This winter was tough on our roads. No secret there, and there is a lot of that going around the lower mainland. New West has 227km of roads, and asset worth about $160 Million. This report provides some idea of what the medium-term maintenance costs are for maintenance and improvement of our roads. It isn’t pretty.

Up until about 2006, the City was underfunding its pavement maintenance program, allowing the roads to age and eventually degrade to a point that serious catch-up was required. Steady increases in the amount of road repair done in the intervening decade has seen some improvement (although it is the major roads where much of this work has been concentrated, the small residential streets have seen less improvement). Then a winter like this comes along, boosting the need for repairs to prevent further degradation of the substructure road base – like most things in life, a little repair now delays the need for expensive bottom-up replacement in upcoming years.

This is a good time to remind people that New Westminster has a disproportionately large amount of its land covered with roads when comparted to our municipal neighbours. Roads don’t pay taxes, and it takes a lot of your local tax dollars to repair them. Quick back-of the envelope estimate is that this plan means $65 per person in New West per year (or $170 per household) goes towards putting asphalt down and keeping it repaired.

This report was just for information, but the clear message is that the budget for road repairs is likely to be going up.

Amendment to Subdivision Control Bylaw Schedule “B” Design
Criteria Section 6 Lighting and Traffic Signals
This Bylaw regulates how lights are installed in the City when they are being installed by someone other than the City. When larger developments build in the City, we generally ask them to make the street and lighting improvements in front of their building as part of the project. With new technologies – notably the ubiquity of LED lights – some changes to our standards were needed. This Bylaw amendment will facilitate that update.

Access Ability Advisory Committee: Inclusion & Promotion of Accessibility Information at Public Events
This comes from work that the New West Pride Society did last year to assure the accessibility of their week-long festival and street fest. They did some amazing work as a group of community volunteers, performing accessibility audits of all two dozen or so of their event locations, trying to make them as accessible as possible, and more importantly – adding comprehensive accessibility information on all of their locations to all advertising and promotions for their event – so people who may have barriers know what to expect.

They really raised the bar on accessibility at their event, and hope that other organizations can use their database of location audits to also promote accessibility at their events. Actually, they are asking that the City make inclusion and promotion of accessibility a part of all public events the City either promotes or financially supports.

The recommendation from the Access Ability Advisory Committee (which I Chair – full disclosure) asked that Council support “encouraging” groups to include this information in their programming, I added to the motion by adding a referral to staff and the Festivals Committee to work on developing a policy supporting these principles, and bring those policy recommendations back to Council. I want to see accessibility part of our evaluation process for events we support as a City.

Proposed Energy Step Code for Building Energy Efficiency: Scope and Next Steps for Implementation
The province has been working on a new building code for building energy efficiency, formerly called the “Stretch Code”, now the “Step Code”. They are looking at allowing Cities to “opt in” to applying the code for new builds in the City. I am in support of New West opting into an enhanced energy efficiency code when this program is better developed and the Province provides that opportunity, but this report is just outlining the potential steps ahead.

It is amazing what can get done when Local governments and the province work collaboratively and carefully towards better governance.

We then had a ton of Presentations and Delegations – Two and a half hours worth! There was lots of good stuff there, and many interesting conversations, but I’m afraid I can’t explain them all here. Watch the video!

We then went through our usual Bylaws,/b> shuffle, which someone really should set to music one day.

Zoning Amendment (260 Twelfth Street) Bylaw No. 7905, 2017
The zoning amendment to support the John Know Private School was given two readings. A Public Hearing will be held March 27th. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Housing Agreement (295 Francis Way – Affordable Non-Market) Amendment Bylaw No. 7910, 2017
Housing Agreement (295 Francis Way – Market Rental) Bylaw No. 7909, 2017
These Bylaws that create the housing agreements securing rentals for the new building in Victoria Hill were given three readings each.

Subdivision Control Amendment Bylaw No. 7908, 2017
This Bylaw update that regulates lighting design standards for the City was given three readings.

Five-Year Financial Plan (2017-2021) Bylaw No. 7906, 2017
Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw No. 7901, 2017
These Bylaws that formalize our 5-year Financial Plan and set our Electrical Rates for another year were each adopted. They are the Law of the Land – please adjust your behavior accordingly.

And except for a few announcements, that was the evening. We got out just at 10, which was early enough for me to catch up at the pub after with these folks! Still love them, although they are Easterners now.