The February 6 meeting of Council started with a series of presentations, including a discussion of the City’s Budget, and an Opportunity for Public Comment on the topic.

Draft 2017-2021 Financial Plan
As regular readers (Hi Mom!) will be aware, the City annually approves a budget in a form that is regulated by the provincial government. Those regulations require us to prepare a 5-year financial plan, and for the budget to be balanced. As part of the lengthy public process, this is the third or fourth time parts of this plan have come to Council, and there have been ongoing requests for public input from Council, on the City Page, and on the City’s website. Considering the importance, we get remarkably little feedback or constructive criticism from the public on this.

I will write further blogs in the upcoming weeks about the 5-Year Financial Plan, and the Bylaw that sets the Property Tax levels for 2017 will be coming back to Council next month. This will result in further conversation, I’m sure.

We had one person take the opportunity to present to Council on the 5-Year Plan, and I wanted to touch on some issues he raised. First, we are not hosts of “one of the highest Property Taxes in Metro”. Our average is 11th out of 22 local governments in the Metro Vancouver area, and our taxes per capita and per household are both below the average (here is a post I wrote last year, and another one, both covering this topic). I have also done a comparison (although this is a couple of years ago) looking at MLS housing values across the region and how our Mil rate compares, and again, we are right around average for almost every tax class. Second, the City is not permitted to run a deficit; we need to balance our budget every year. We are, however, allowed to borrow money, and we are allowed to put money in reserves. Currently, we have about $65 Million in outstanding debt that we are paying off. We also have a little more than $120 Million in our long term investments and in the bank as cash. If we were to cash in our savings and pay off our debt, we would be up more than $50 Million. However, that would not be a great long-term strategy for the City’s finances.

Quayside Park Redevelopment – Preferred Design Option Overview
The playground at Quayside Park (where the Expo86-era model submarine is) needs to be removed, because there is a major storm drainage line under it that is failing. Replacing that line is not an option, it needs to happen, and excavating around the park is the only reasonable way to do it.

Fortunately, the park itself is nearing the end of its design life, and doesn’t really meet modern standards for such a valuable amenity for the Quayside community. Our Parks staff have done a year of design and public consultation on this topic, and this report shows the preferred design that came form that process. Works will occur this spring, with the park out of service for a couple of months, but back in much improved order by June.

2016 Year-End Strategic Initiative Status
We received short updates on four of this Council’s Priority Initiatives, which are all making progress, although some of this progress is less visible than might be expected (hence these reports):

1. Arts Strategy: There is a lot going on in the City in the arts, between developments at the Anvil to activate the public space and programs, advancement of our Public art program, and strengthening of our partnerships with organizations from the Arts Council to Massey Theatre Society. The strategy has gone through a considerable amount of public discussion and is coming together, expected to come to Council in a draft form in the spring.

2. Truck Route Strategy: The City has tried to shift trucks to peripheral routes in the City for several years. This is not something the City has complete control over, but requires regional cooperation. We are cooperating well with TransLink and Surrey on the Pattullo Bridge project, and with Coquitlam on the Brunette Interchange project. We have also had discussions with the Port about sharing their GPS truck destination data, hoping to use that to developing data-based solutions to help with traffic flow. A work in progress…

3. Economic Development Strategy: We recently reviewed the Business Survey the City performed, which is an important part of data gathering for this strategy. There is also an event coming up in late February – Innovation Week – that will bring many aspects of the City’s ED file together with a broad group of partners to develop ideas about how Innovation will change our economic development, and our City in general.

4. Riverfront Greenway: The long-standing dream of connecting the Pier Park to Brunette Landing Park with a pedestrian and cycling route along the river is getting some legs beneath it (pun! I’m on fire today!). There are some significant engineering challenges here, including the general paucity of space for a trail between the Railways’ wide buffer zone, steep slopes above and below Front Street, and a river with large tide fluctuations. Then we need to thread the needle through or around a couple of bridges. We are hoping the Pattullo replacement project provides some opportunity to develop a collaborative design. So, not much more than a few lines on a map right now, but the momentum is definitely there.

---

Before those presentation, the following agenda items were moved on consent:

City of New Westminster Poet Laureate 2017-2020 Appointment
Welcome Alan Hill to the role of Poet Laureate, the fourth person to hold that position since the role was created. I am impressed by Alan’s work, and by his vision for making the written and spoken work a bigger part of our City’s arts scene. He also happens to be a great guy raising a family in Glenbrook North. Congratulations, Alan, and I look forward to seeing you at Civic Events!

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)
This is a project to develop supported housing in Queensborough as part of the City’s larger affordable housing strategy. At this point, the project requires an OCP amendment and Rezoning. Council approved moving this through to the Public Process that will include committee reviews, public open house, Public Hearing, etc.

43 Hastings Street: Road Closure and Dedication Removal Bylaw – Council Consideration of First, Second and Third Readings; Zoning Amendment Bylaw – Council Consideration of First and Second Readings
This is another project to develop affordable housing, this time in Downtown. At this time, the project requires a closure of an unopened road portion, which (like most everything we do) requires a Bylaw. Council approved sending this to first and second readings.

Queen’s Park Working Group: Terms of Reference – Amendment to Add an Additional Member
This move resulted from discussions about how to manage succession planning in the working group, as its mandate has been extended since it was first put together, and the Queens Park Residents’ Association membership has changed. There is a balance here between making sure stakeholders are represented and losing momentum that has been generated by three years of working collaboratively.

---

After a rather exciting Presentation and Delegation period, which you need to watch on video to enjoy (seriously, it is worth going to 1:42:00 in the video and watching 5 or 10 minutes), the following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2017 New Westminster Pipe Band Community Grant Request
Something apparently went wrong with this application, and the Pipe Band was not included in the review of grants that took place in the fall. This puts us in a difficult situation, as their $3,000 request was not assessed alongside the other Community Grant applications the Community reviewed, and I don’t know how they would view this request had they received it. The Community Grant Committee had $115,000 in grant requests, and had to say no to $67,000 in requests. There were 7 organizations had their grants refused outright and several others received significantly less than they requested. However, this organization does have a long history of successfully applying the Grant to their program. Council, attempting to divine the desires of a committee that no longer meets, and recognizing  it was likely a paperwork SNAFU that put us in this situation, approved granting them the same amount the group received in previous years, which is less than they requested, but should continue to support their program.

215 Manitoba Street (Queen’s Park): Heritage Alteration Permit No. 82 to Permit New Construction – For Council Consideration
This is a follow up to the first demolition permit the City issued in Queens Park during the Heritage Control Period. Council approved the demolition after receiving reports that indicated the house had little heritage value, and that no significant loss of neighbourhood heritage values would result from its demolition. However, the replacement home requires a Heritage Alteration permit, which means it need to meet the rather strict Queen’s Park Historic District Residential Design Guidelines.

The replacement as proposed meets those guidelines, and also requires no variances from the current RS-1 zoning as far as size, FSR, height or such. The project was recommended for approval by the Heritage Commission and the Technical Review Panel.

Train Whistle Cessation at the Begbie Street and Front Street Crossings
The endless adventure continues. The engineering work for Whistle Cessation on the Begbie and Front Street crossings downtown is complete (at a cost of just over $1 Million to the City), we only need to go through the paperwork exercises. By passing this resolution, we are formally serving notice to the rail operators under the Railway Safety Act. They have 30 days to comply. Assuming no surprises, whistles should stop sounding in Downtown New Westminster as soon as March.

2017 Spring Freshet and Snow Pack Level
It is a bit early to start planning for the 2017 Freshet, but despite our wintry winter, provincial snowpacks were mostly at or below average levels at the beginning of January. The notable exceptions are the South Coast and Lower Fraser Valley, which are 14% and 11% above average – and note this is before this week’s extra snowpocalypse events. Lots of snow is yet to fall across the province, and so much of freshet risk is related to how quickly it melts as opposed to how much there, but no need to worry yet.

Environment Advisory Committee: Corporate Sustainable Food Policy
This discussion grew organically (pun!) out of discussions at the Environment Advisory Committee. Food security and the impact of our food choices on the environment were part of the discussion, and there was some concern that City Hall doesn’t appear to be taking a leadership role in this regard in how we provide food at City functions and facilities. The committee started with the simple question: are the ubiquitous tropical fruits and cured meats the most sustainable choices for City Hall meetings? It definitely expanded beyond that narrow topic to thoughts of developing more of a corporate-wide policy about food.

I think this is a discussion worth having as part of our City’s larger Environmental vision, and am happy to support the Committee’s recommendation

---

We then did our regular run through of Bylaws that needed Council action:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Hastings Street Unzoned Right of Way) No. 7899, 2017
Road Closure and Dedication Removal (43 Hastings Street) Bylaw No. 7898, 2017
These Bylaws that support the closure and rezoning of an unopened road portion in Downtown, so they can be included in an Affordable Housing Project, were given two readings.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bylaw No. 7892, 2017
This Bylaw that supports the City’s updated Protection of Privacy policy was adopted by Council. It is the law of the land.

---

Finally, we had one item of New Business:

LEED Gold certification for civic buildings
The City currently has a policy that new civic buildings meet or exceed LEED Gold standard, however the LEED standard is now only one of several certification standards used to measure the lifetime environmental footprint and energy efficiency of new buildings, from LEED to NetZero to Passive House. As the city is considering a significant investment in capital projects in the years ahead (Canada Games Pool, new Animal Care Facility, a replacement for the Arenex), council has asked staff to provide us a report outlining the costs and benefits of different standards, to determine if our slightly myopic LEED Gold policy is still the best way to achieve our energy efficient building goals.

…and with that, we were done for the night, except for a couple of council members needing to dig their cars out of 12 hours of snow.

We had a relatively short Council meeting this week, partly because we had a long workshop during the day, and a Public Hearing in the evening. You never know how long a Public Hearing is going to go, so the Agenda was a little short. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t exciting and full of fun stuff.

We had 4 Public Hearings, but three were on different aspects of one project:

(612 – 618 Brantford Street) Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7876, 2017; Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No. 7886, 2017; and Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 7885, 2017
This project is interesting for several reasons. It is a 6-story apartment building on a small street in uptown just north of Bent Court. The building includes a lot of 2- and 3-bedroom suites which meet our Family-Friendly Housing policy, and the ground floor apartments are designed to face the street and make for a attractive street interface. The HRA part of this is related to the 1898 house on the site, which will be preserved, move to the west (sunny) side of the lot, and restored into a three-bedroom family home.

The project was modified through discussions with the Design Panel and Advisory Planning Commission, both of which gave approval to the final plan. The Residents association was generally in favour. We received one piece of correspondence for the Public Hearing, which was in support of the project.

At the Public Hearing, we had one neighbour speak against the project. To paraphrase what I hear in her presentation, she was not convinced the restored heritage home was worthwhile, and was worried about the impact on street parking.

I did not share her opinion about the preservation of the house, and think that a project like this is an important component of how we, as a City, are going to accommodate growth and the need for housing with the desire to preserve heritage assets, especially houses more than 100 years old. I also noted the project has more parking than suites (50 parking spots for 42 suites, plus 7 guest parking spots) which is a few short of the zoning requirement, but a variance I am willing to support for family-friendly housing Uptown.

Council referred the applications to Regular Council for Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment (Housekeeping) Bylaw No. 7893, 2017
This Bylaw makes several minor changes to our Zoning Bylaws to reflect the reality of how commercial spaces are used in the City. It allows pet daycare at animal care facilities, adds Daycare to a few select commercial zones, and updates the list of Liquor Primary operators in the city.

Not surprisingly, no one sent us correspondence, and no one came to speak at the Public Hearing in regards to this amendment. Council referred the Bylaw to Regular Council for Third Reading.

---

We then moved into our Regular Meeting, where we discussed the aforementioned Bylaws:

Official Community Plan Amendment (612 – 618 Brantford Street) Bylaw No. 7876, 2017; Heritage Revitalization Agreement (612 – 618 Brantford Street) Bylaw No. 7885, 2017; Heritage Designation (612 – 618 Brantford Street) Bylaw No. 7886, 2017
Council gave these Bylaws Third reading, moving the project towards formal adoption.

Zoning Amendment (Housekeeping) Bylaw No. 7893, 2017
Council gave this Housekeeping Bylaw Third reading, moving it towards formal adoption.

---

The Following items were them moved on Consent:

Poet Laureate Emerita Award
Candice James’ terms as Poet Laureate came to an end, as the Terms of Reference for the position limit how long a person can serve. Her service as our third Poet Laureate was exemplary, and the Arts Commission recommended to Council that we officially offer her the honourary title of “Emerita” for perpetuity.

Applications for Grant Funding to the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Infrastructure Planning Program
The City is applying for a grant to help pay for some infrastructure planning work – determining where we need tot spend and when to maintain our infrastructure. This is only planning work, not actual infrastructure repairs, as $10,000 doesn’t go very far, but well take it if we can get it.

Report on Major Purchasing Transactions for the Period September 1 to December 31, 2016
Three times a year, Staff report out on major purchases, as part of our open accounting. You can look at this report and see what we are spending your money on, and how the open procurement process worked out.

Investment Report to December 31st, 2016
The City has several Reserves Funds to pay for future capital works and commitments we have made under our DCCs, along with a bit of surplus money from previous budgets. We keep some of that money in the bank so it is readily available, and we keep some in Municipal finance Authority funds that give pretty good return and are very low risk. You can read the report for more details, but very short version: it’s about $124 Million, and we budget to earn about $2 Million in interest on that money.

Bylaw Updates to Permit Amusement Arcades in the C-4 and C-8 Zones, and to Update as a Permitted use Amusement Arcades in the C-3, C-CD-2 and C-CD-3 Zone: Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7881, 2017, Business License Amendment Bylaw 7903, 2017 and Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw 7904, 2017 – For First and Second Readings
The City is looking at taking a more open and adult approach to permitting video arcades/ pinball halls (depending on your generation), and getting rid of the current blanket prohibition.

Funny to read the regional bylaws where these types of operations are permitted with varying levels of control. It is easy to read the Moral Panic in the development of these bylaws. From Surrey’s: “No person under the age of 16 years is permitted to operate a pinball machine after 10:00pm, except Fridays and Saturdays or the night prior to a statutory or school holiday, unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian”.

Council moved to give there Bylaws two readings.

---

The following item was removed from the consent agenda for discussion:

Privacy Management Program Approval
Freedom of Information is an important principle in governance today, and the flip side is privacy protection. They are so intertwined that they are regulated together under the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). The City has implemented FOI procedures, even have a staff member whose job it is to manage FOI compliance (so Council or senior management cannot decide unilaterally when or why something is protected from public eyes).

A new, refreshed Privacy Policy is part of this. The City manages lots of information about homeowners, about users of our public facilities, about our own staff. The balance of how much of *your* information is public and how much is private, and the process to determine the difference, must comply with the provincial law. The policy being introduced here doesn’t replace or supersede the law, it provides guidance to staff on how to remain compliant, and makes clear whose job it is to assure compliance.

---

We wrapped our usual business, as usual, with reading of Bylaws:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Amusement Arcades) No. 7881, 2017
Business License Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 7903, 2017
Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7904, 2017
As mentioned above, Council gave these three Bylaws that support the operation of Arcade amusements in the City two readings. We will review these Bylaws at a Public Hearing on February 20th. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bylaw No. 7892, 2017
As mentioned above, this Bylaw managing how the city will comply with Provincial Privacy laws, was given three readings by Council.

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 7900, 2017
As mentioned on January 16, this Bylaw that re-allocates some DCC funds to build some sewer infrastructure was Adopted by Council. It’s the law of the land, may the sewage be pumped to the benefit of all.

And that, excepting some somber discussion of current local, national, and international events that have us all looking for catharsis, was an evening at Council. It is a strange time with too much to get depressed or distressed about. People are good, be good to each other, and don’t let the bad out there change you, or convince you it is winning. It never has before.

The January 16 Council Meeting was mostly memorable for me as I was still feeling the lingering effects of some sort of exotic fever that had me bedridden for the entire weekend. It is flu season at City hall, we are on a bit of skeleton staff because of it, but we soldiered on and did the City’s business.

The meeting began with presentations on the following topics:

2016 Business Survey
The City hired a polling firm to do a fairly comprehensive survey of the City’s businesses. This was part satisfaction survey, and part research to find out where the City needs to put more emphasis in its economic development plans.

Perhaps surprising to some was the level of overall satisfaction the business community has with the City of New Westminster. Yes, businesses have concerns with traffic, real estate costs, taxes, and a lack of affordable housing, but the responses were overwhelmingly positive about the experience of doing business in the City, and dealing with City Hall. Again, our strengths are our sense of community and “small town” connections in the middle of a big city customer base.

I was also happy to see many of the ideas businesses had for improving the business climate in the City were aligned with initiatives the City is already working on – a sign that our staff already had a pretty good sense of the needs. Overall a positive survey, and a good guide towards improvements.

City of New Westminster Innovation Week Overview
Continuing on the theme of business development, this is a great initiative developed in partnership with the Federal Government and several important local partners. Attracting innovative businesses, new-tech small industry and research & development to New Westminster is fundamental to our longer-term Intelligent City and IDEA Centre programs.

As this is all coming together, New Westminster was able to attract an event previously held in the City of Vancouver to bring emerging businesses together with federal technology grant agencies, Angel Investors, and other stakeholders. This being New West, we are spinning the one-day Innovation Forum into a week-long celebration of innovation, including a special PechaKucha evening, a Hack-a-Thon at City Hall, events for families, kids, innovators, and pretty much everyone in the City.

Follow the links here and see how you might take part.

New Energy Efficiency Initiatives for Multi-Residential Buildings and Strata Condominium Buildings in New Westminster
Energy efficiency programs have for several years that provided one-stop-shopping for homeowners looking at renovations or appliance replacements. Programs like Energy Save New West hooking homeowners up with different subsidies, rebates, and other support programs to reduce costs and encourage making our housing stock more efficient and sustainable in the long term.

However, most people in New Westminster don’t live in single family detached houses, but in Strata-managed or rental multi-family buildings. Providing them the economic and environmental benefits of more efficient housing is a bit more of a challenge, but New West has been working with regional partners to expand efficiency and retrofit programs to these housing sectors.

There is much more good stuff in this report, and coming down the pike, so I guess I’ll have to write some blog posts on the topic in coming months…

Drone Policy
We have not exactly been overwhelmed with complaints about remote control flying devices, but some Cities are taking a proactive approach to regulating them. I’m generally opposed to the idea of outright banning emergent technology, but am not opposed to laying out some community standards in how the tech is used, within the limits of our jurisdiction. Council referred this to staff to see if they can give us a little guidance.

---

The following items were moved on Consent without discussion:

2017 Committee, Commission and Panel Appointments
Council officially released the list of 2017 Committee appointments. If you applied and were selected to serve on a Committee, congratulations, and get ready to do some interesting work. If you applied and were not selected, Please don’t take it personally. We had a lot of great applications this year, and every committee selection is a difficult balance between viewpoints, experiences, and talents. The worst part is when someone has been a really great committee member, but you need to let them go to provide some opportunities for new members. This is an unfortunate result of having a really engaged and activated community – we always have more applicant than we know what to do with.

100 Braid Street: Development Variance Permit No. DVP00620 for the East Side Yard Setback Requirement for the Existing Building to Remain on the Site
The urban Academy / Wesgroup development at 100 Braid Street will be a two-phase project, with the school half starting pretty soon and the residential half not anticipated for a few years. The plan included subdividing the property, however the existing building at 100 Braid is too close to the proposed property line to allow such a subdivision under the current Bylaws. This variance will allow Phase 1 to proceed without the need to demolish the building that houses the current art gallery.

This variance request will have an Opportunity to Be Heard at the February 20, 2017 Council meeting. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Queen’s Park Arenex: Removal from the City’s Heritage Register
The building was on the Heritage Register. The Building is no more. We need to remove it from the Register officially. Alas…

New Westminster Age-Friendly City Strategy
Council supported staff’s intention to move forward developing this strategy to assure that our City is a place where people are able to live at all stages of life. It fits with so many of the City’s existing goals, and will help prepare us for the demographic shifts that are coming the New West and the entire region over the next couple of decades.

DCC Expenditure Bylaw No. 7900, 2017 for Sanitary Works in the Queensborough Special Study Area
A Development Cost Charge (DCC) is a fee we collect from developers when they apply to increase the density of a piece of land through development to cover the larger cost to the City’s infrastructure resulting from the density growth. More people mean bigger water pipes and sewer pipes, so we collect water and sewer DCCs, and use that money to increase the capacity of the utility system when it is more appropriate to do so. Sometimes this is before a development is built, sometimes it is after, but the City’s ability to pool DCC money, and borrow from it in anticipation of future DCC money being collected, provides the financial leverage to make the sure developers cover much of the cost of servicing population growth.

This DCC expenditure will be to replace a major sewer pump station (an expensive piece of infrastructure!) in the Queensborough area adjacent to the proposed mixed-use development just west of Port Royal.

Internet Service Provider Agreement with Wi-Band Communications
Our BridgeNet dark fibre utility has a fifth client hoping to sell services to the community by putting light in the fibre. Wi-band has a slightly different business model, using the fibre backbone and line-of-sight through-the-air service delivery to not provide the highest possible speed, but a relatively economic and highly flexible service model. You can go to the BridgeNet website for more info to find out of fibre is right for you!

720 Second Street: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
This interesting project in Glenbrook North, which will restore an existing historic commercial building and build an adjacent residential home, will be going to Public Hearing on February 20, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Delegation to Lijiang, China
I’m reluctant to support Sister City trips, I don’t generally see the ROI to the City for such things, as the opportunities for learning or business development are rarely realized. However, this student exchange program has been happening for several years with some success. Council moved to support this trip by Councillor Williams from the Sister Cities budget.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Interpretive Signage Policy – Objectives, Principles and Workplan
Staff will spend a bit of time putting together policy guidance for the interpretive sign program in the City. Frankly, we have various interpretive signs, but not much of a program, resulting in a bit of a mish-mash of sign styles and purposes, mostly arrived at through one-off developments or events. As things like branding and marketing become more important for Cities, and as technology changes how we deliver interpretive signage, it is probably a good time to throw some best practices and guidance into a policy package.

Intelligent City Project Update
This is a peculiar report, as it seems to feature an all-time high concentration of buzzwords and catch phrases. However, it does outline progress in the city’s Intelligent City initiative, and deals with things perhaps less tangible than the dark fibre in the ground. I am supportive of the initiative, as I see it as an important aspect of our business development strategy in post-resource economy we are trying to build, but I wish I knew more buzzwords.

Metro Vancouver’s Food Action Plan
The City of New Westminster has been supportive of several regional food security initiatives, including providing support for a large KPU-led study of the regional food system known as the Southwest BC Bioregion Food System Design Project. This is because we, as a City, see food security as a significant component of sustainability.

The City is continuing to support this ongoing regional initiative, that moves the food security question far beyond the simple “protect the ALR” foundation, and expands ot include advocating for, supporting and protecting the entire local food supply chain, from assuring we have healthy riparian zones to support wild salmon stocks to assuring we have adequate food storage, processing, and distribution systems to support a health food supply economy, to assuring food waste is managed in a more sustainable way.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I wanted to call special attention to the Royal City Farmers Market, which has received support from the City in the past, but has now grown into a self-supporting and thriving 4-season portal for food security in the City. Beyond just providing marketing for locally grown and healthy food, they have created a variety of programs to get healthy food education into the schools, to get senior citizens and those with mobility issues access to the market, and to promote better living through better food throughout the City. They are a real shining star, and you should support them if you have any inkling of concern about food security locally, regionally, or nationally. You might even think about volunteering a few hours with them, I know they can always use more hands!

Official Community Plan Review: Land Use Designations for the Area Around the 22nd Street SkyTrain Station
Staff are continuing to refine the Land Use Plan map and other aspects of the proposed Official Community Plan. This report was a follow-up on numerous discussions about the 22nd Street SkyTrain station area. Most on council are pretty comfortable with seeing significant density around this SkyTrain hub, including mixed-use development at both medium and high density. These changes would re-imagine how the entire Connaught Heights neighbourhood would look and operate, potentially making for an entirely new and relatively compact mixed-use neighbourhood.

Council expressed support for a draft land use plan around the station, but I am frankly not all that convinced that change will be coming soon to Connaught Heights. The lot values are pretty high, there is a fairly new stock of single family homes in the area. To my knowledge, no-one is rushing to assemble land in the area despite the fact that the existing OCP has designated multi-family medium density development around the station for more than a decade now, with no action. However, an OCP that looks forward for several decades (to 2040 and beyond) should begin to sketch out what eventual development in that vitally important regional transit hub may look like.

326 Arbutus Street: Heritage Alteration Permit No. 86 to Permit Demolition – Council Consideration
This is the fourth application for demolition of a pre-1966 house in Queens Park that has gone through our detailed and technical review process since the start of the Heritage Conservation Period. We have granted one demolition and denied two others in that time. In this case, the home is again found to have very low heritage value and both the Heritage Commission and the Technical Review Committee found that there would not be a loss of heritage value to the neighbourhood if this demolition was permitted to proceed. Council supported allowing the demolition.

Environmental Strategic Priority Update
The City is working to update and consolidate many of its environmental policies, and to bring them in to line with the commitments made by the City by endorsing the Blue Dot initiative.
I like the vision statement, but when it comes to environmental action, it is always the Metrics I am most interested in. We collect various types of data on our environmental impact, through our CEEP, through our Urban Forest Management Strategy, through our waste management department and fleet budgets. I would like to see us find creative ways (perhaps through our Open data portal, or a more interactive Environmental Dashboard) to collect and report data on environmental performance, set realistic goals, and measure our progress towards them.

That is what has worked with Greenhouse Gasses, it can work in other areas. I thought up a shift to more permeable surfaces and less asphalt, measuring our consumption of resources such as water, electricity, or paper, or even just counting our native plant populations vs. invasive species. I’m not sure where the limits are in this type of direct measurement and reporting, but an excited about the opportunities.

---

Finally, we once again dispatched with some Bylaw business.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (720 Second Street) Bylaw No. 7887, 2017
Heritage Designation Bylaw (720 Second Street) No. 7888, 2017
These Bylaws to support the proposed mixed commercial and residential project in Glenbrook North were given first and second readings. This project will go to Public Hearing on February 20th. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 7900, 2017
This Bylaw to support the spending of DCC monies to build the pump station Queensborough as described above was given three readings.

And with that, the evening was complete.

We got right back to it at Council this week. After a rather eventful month off, there was much to discuss, and a full Agenda!

---

The following Agenda items were passed on Consent:

Festival Grant Recommendations
Our Festival Grant Committee did a great job while making some difficult decisions this year, given very limited resources to work with. We have lots of requests for festival support in the City ($306,000 this year), and since we adopted a new program of providing three-year funding certainty to help some festivals plan forward more effectively, much of the allowable budget (about $190,000 of the $225,000 budget) is eaten up by these multi-year commitments, leaving little room for newer events. This is not an ideal situation, as arguably it is the new events that require the most support, where established and proven programs have better access to sponsorship and other supports to maintain their events. I think we need, once again, to have a re-evaluation of how the longer-term granting process operates, and as I am now, as of February 2017, on the Festival Grant Committee, I guess that will be my job!

The good news is that the committee recommended (and Council Agreed) funding $235,000 worth of festival events, which is an increase of $10,000 over our budgeted $225,000. 10 events were already committed through multi-year grants or early grants that council already agreed to in the previous few months. Five more events were funded for the first time in 2017, all of them for significantly less than they requested.

Conceptual Design for the Connection between Waterfront Parks
As part of our new Waterfront RiverFront strategy, a seamless connection for pedestrians and cyclists from Queensborough to Coquitlam along the river is a major goal of the City and part of our Master Transportation Plan. The most challenging section right now is the connection between Westminster Pier Park and Sapperton Landing Park. During the summer closures of Front Street, it really demonstrated to the community how useful and fun that connection can be.

We don’t own all of the land we need to make this happen, and some significant engineering challenges exist, but the timing right now with improved connections along the Brunette River and upcoming work to replace the Pattullo Bridge footings, it is a good time to make sure we have clear vision and some conceptual designs in place for this vital connection.

New Street in Queensborough: Endorsement of Proposed Name
We have a process, or more a policy, in selecting names for new streets. “Mabel” is a name relevant to the community of Queensborough, where the new road is being designated. My only question is why we chose the first name of a woman when we name the street after her, but the last name of a male…

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7893, 2017 (Housekeeping Bylaw): Bylaw to make Minor Updates/Corrections to Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001 – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
This is a “housekeeping’ change to our Zoning Bylaw to address three separate and unrelated changes. One just updates the list of Liquor Primary operators in the City, one formalizes the allowance for offering animal daycare at animal grooming businesses, and one adds childcare as an allowable activity at schools. Nothing controversial here, but the Bylaw needs to be updated through a public process to make these changes.

612 – 618 Brantford Street: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7876, 2017, Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No.7886, 2017 and Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 7885, 2017 for First and Second Readings
These are the First readings for a OCP amendment and HRA to support the building of a family-friendly 6-story apartment building and preserve a neighbouring heritage house in the Uptown neighbourhood. This will be going to a Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until them.

Electric Utility Commission – Recruitment
Our Electrical Utility is overseen by a Utility Commission. Council hires them, and they report to us, but the commission is responsible for creating strategic plans and overseeing operations of the Utility. We have now assigned two new Commissioners as per the Bylaw.

520 Carnarvon Street: Proposed Heritage Revitalization and Heritage Designation – Preliminary Report
There is a little house on Carnarvon Street downtown surrounded by commercial buildings that has some Heritage Value. The owners want to keep it, but want to make some alterations to make it more functional while adding permanent heritage protection to it. This is the beginning of a process that will be going to public consultation.

---

The following agenda items were Reports for Action.

Update on Draft 2017 – 2021 Financial Plan – General Fund
Our budget process is ongoing. We are currently putting together the General fund numbers to prepare for some public consultation. In this report, we are going over (again) some of the capital project plans for the coming year. This includes money we are taking from reserves for various projects, money we are borrowing for others. None of these are new projects, some are ongoing maintenance projects (like the City’s annual $3M+ paving budget), and some are single projects that have been part of our long-term capital planning, but we are actually going to spend money on in 2017 (like the Library website upgrade).

I like to note that we are spending more now than ever on sidewalks and have an aggressive plan to install curb cuts to improve accessibility and improve the conditions of sidewalks across the City, but it still only represents 1/7th of what we spend on asphalt annually. We should always remember that, contrary to what most think, pedestrians of the City are, through their taxes, subsidizing the drivers.

These reports will be going to public consultation, if you have concerns about any of these projects or priorities, let us know!

412 Third Street (Queen’s Park): Heritage Alteration Permit for Demolition
This request is to allow the demolition of a house in Queens Park during the Heritage Control Period. The house is old enough to qualify as “heritage”, but was also gutted by a fire before the Heritage Control Period began.

I agreed to allowing this demolition because the report made clear that almost all heritage elements of the building had been removed in earlier renovations, and the balance of remaining heritage elements subsequently burned in the fire. If we ask for protection here, restoration will be very expensive, and will necessarily require reproduction of heritage elements, which is not ideal conservation. As the eventual replacement house will require a Heritage Alteration Permit, it will need to be built to meet guidelines that respect the heritage value of the property and the neighbourhood, within both the letter and the spirit of the conservation area.

705 and 709 Cumberland Street: Update and Removal from the City’s Heritage Register
This property was provided the benefit of a subdivision and increased density in exchange for restoration and permanent protection of the heritage home on the property. However, during renovation the heritage home was effectively destroyed. Having not received the benefit of heritage conservation, council removed the benefit the homeowner received, that being the subdivision and density increase. Not a great solution for the homeowner or the City, but there were some confounding factors here that Council had to consider, and I think we took the right path here.

Queen’s Park Arenex
We received a report from the Fire Chief and Director of Parks and Recreation on the Arenex collapse. I am tempted to say we got lucky, but the reality is that our staff acted quickly and professionally at the first sign of trouble, and in the few hours between noticing the problem and the eventual collapse, all the right decisions were made to keep public and the staff safe, and to reduce the impact of the building failure.

Staff have in the subsequent three weeks, worked hard to find temporary and middle-term contingency plans to help the programs that were housed at the Arenex maintain as much continuity as possible. This was not an easy task, as the three weeks over the holidays are not a great time to try to make complex agreements with other organizations, as pretty much half of the planet is on vacation. The solutions are not always ideal, but our staff did as much as they could, and most programs have been accommodated.

Fortunately, we have insurance for the replacement value of the building, and most of the equipment inside was not in the collapsed part of the building, so it was almost all salvaged and stored securely offsite. We have some decisions to make in the next few months about middle-term contingency plans for the programs that the Arenex hosted, while we plan for eventual replacement. We simply don’t know what that eventual replacement will look like, as that is an entire different discussion which will include our Insurance company and users of the facility. More to come.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for some discussion:

Capture Photography Festival Public Art Projects
New Westminster is taking part in this regional festival and Public Art initiative. The plan is to take two large, blank walls in the city (one Downtown, one uptown) and apply a large original photographic work to each. They will be there for 1-5 years, based on how they weather. This is part of and funded out of our Public Art program, and paid for our of our Public Art fund. Look for the pieces being installed in April.

Building Permit Fee Reduction Incentive Removal
Our incentive program to encourage the building of dedicated rental buildings in the city has been very successful. After more than a decade without new rental stock coming on line (in a City where ~45% of the population rents, where vacancies are in the 1% range, and rents are going up at an unsustainable rate), we have more than 1,000 rental units now under construction, and a few hundred more planned. However, this part of the incentive program is not particularly attractive to developers (the savings are tiny compared to development and construction costs), and complicates our permitting process more than it is probably worth. Staff are suggesting this one small part of our incentive program be discontinued, which Council supported.

New Westminster Urban Solar Garden Pilot Project
This project will operate under our Electrical Utility and will operate on a model that has worked well in several Cities, including Nelson, BC. The idea is that citizens can purchase a solar panel which is installed as part of a “farm”, and the owner gets the benefit of the electricity produced in the form of having those kWH removed from your electrical ill. With some efficiencies of operations related to having a “farm” of panels instead of having panels all over the place (on the roofs of individual houses), the pay-back time looks to be about 20 years, based on current electrical rates.

An interesting idea, and the City will commit to setting up the farm as soon as we have commitments from the community to purchase 75% of the panels.

---

After some pretty entertaining presentations and open delegations featuring not one, but two separate references to Mongolia, and where we had a discussion about snow removal in the City, we moved onto the usual Bylaws shuffle:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7893, 2017 (Housekeeping Bylaw): Bylaw to make Minor Updates/Corrections to Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001
These “housekeeping” changes to the Zoning Bylaw, discussed above, was given two readings. This will go to Public Hearing on January 30, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

612 – 618 Brantford Street: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7876, 2017
Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No. 7886, 2017
Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 7885, 2017
These Bylaws to support the 6-story apartment building in Uptown, mentioned above, was given two readings, and will go to Public Hearing on January 30, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Community Heritage Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7897, 2016
This Bylaw changing the Terms of Reference for membership on the City’s Heritage Commission as discussed at the December 5th 2016 Council Meeting was Adopted. It is now the Law of the Land.

And that brought our meeting to an end, welcome to 2017!

The weather outside was fightful, but the last Council Meeting of 2016 was delightful. There were not one, but two separate choral experiences, and a raft of delegations to keep us warm.

We started with a couple of presentations:

Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project – Reference Connections Concept
Translink is moving forward with the Pattullo Bridge replacement, with a new bridge anticipated to be up and running by 2022 or 2023. Work is being done to set design parameters that meet the existing three-party MOU that describes the bridge as a tolled 4 lane crossing with full pedestrian and cycling facilities, just upstream from the existing bridge but landing in essentially the same corridor.

The current round of public engagement has concentrated on the New Westminster and Surrey landing design, and what the traffic patterns will look like, along with a detailed discussion of the pedestrian and cyclist facilities. It is really important that this bridge connects smoothly, but it is even more important that the design not be a barrier to east-west travel through New Westminster. This is an opportunity to connect Victoria Hill to Downtown and Qayqayt School with safer, more comfortable infrastructure, and to fix some of the pedestrian-hostile environments around the east end of Royal and the south end of McBride.

I’ve said it before, and will say it again: Translink has done an excellent job on this public engagement. They have taken to the time to listen to community concerns, have made changes to their plan, large and small, based on what they heard, and most people involved in the discussion seem really pleased. There are a few small details yet to be worked out from a pedestrian viewpoint, and there is some more work to do to address the needs of people in living in the Bushby/Leopold “island”, but so far, so good.

The next round of public consultation for this project will be as part of the BC Environmental Assessment that is triggered by the project. There is a lot of work to prepare background materials to inform the EA, so expect to hear about that process starting formally in the middle of next year.

City of New Westminster Public Engagement Strategy
I have served on the Mayor’s Public Engagement Taskforce, and can attest that this is the culmination of a lot of work by staff, our consultants, and a small but dedicated group of citizen volunteers.

This is one of those topics I will need to write more about, especially as the recommendations in the report start to roll out. In short, anyone who reads this Blog must recognize how important I think it is that people are engaged in the community, and feel like they can take some ownership of the decisions the City makes. We need to reach out, educate and inform the public more about what is happening and what plans are afoot, and we need to provide better feedback to people after they have engaged us, so they know how their input was incorporated into decision making in the City. Good times ahead, and this report (despite a lot of “planner speak”) will help guide staff and consultant in the future to make our City engage better.

Opportunity to host a professional cycling race as part of BC Superweek
I like this idea – I am a fan of bike racing, and have attended many a Gastown Grand Prix and a few Gira di Burnaby. I have a regular riding crew and a bike with curly handlebars, I organized bike races in the Kootenays when I was a kid, and was once counted amongst the top 10 30-39-year old male Mountain Bike racers in Indiana(there is a story there, some other time). So I am totally on board on the bike race side of this.

However, I wonder about the business model we are entering. The commitment of up to $750,000 over 5 years concerns me, and I wonder about the return on investment. I need to know how the local BIA would see this as a benefit, what the appetite is for sponsors. This is an order-of-magnitude larger than the commitment that the City makes to most festivals in the City. The proponent here has to demonstrate that closing down Columbia Street for an evening race on a Tuesday would have a positive impact as a City-promotion project, at least on scale with closing it down on a Saturday for a concert or street festival that costs the City much less.

Council moved to ask staff to do some more analysis and provide us a more robust business case. I’m interested in where this one goes.

---

The following items were moved on Consent

2017 Amateur Sport Fund Committee Grants Recommendations
The City has a $35,000 budget to support amateur sports through our granting program, and this year we received about $92,000 in requests. Our grant Review Committee made balanced recommendations, and approved awards to the entire $35,000 budget.

Heritage Grant Recommendations for 2017
The $25,000 budget to support heritage programs in the City was not met by requests. All programs were nonetheless reviewed by the Committee to assure they met the criteria for the grant, and all $19,155 requested was awarded.

2017 Child Care Grant Program: Committee Recommendations to
Council
The City has a $40,000 budget to support capital works to improve the operations of child care facilities in the City. This year we received about $69,000 in requests, although a couple were found to be not applicable to the Grant terms. Our review committee recommended $29,562 in awards, and Council moved that approval.

2017 Environmental Grant Program Recommendations
The City has a $10,000 budget to support environmental initiatives by community groups, and we received about $20,000 in requests. The committee recommended slightly more than the budget amount to support some great programs, and Council approved the $10,210 awards.

Appointment to the New Westminster Library Board
The Library Board oversees the operation of the Library at somewhat arms-length from Council via Provincial Regulation called “The Library Act”. Council holds the purse strings, and appoints Board, but from that point forward, operation of the Library falls under the Board. We have just appointed a new member.

District Parents Association Committee Representative to the Youth Advisory Committee
The Youth Advisory Committee includes a DPAC rep. Council has now appointed the sole applicant to serve on that committee.

Appointment of Chairs to 2017 Advisory Bodies of Council and Organizations
Councillors and the Mayor have numerous committees, boards, and task forces to participate in. We have made some subtle changes in who is serving on which board, mostly for scheduling and strategic priority reasons. It is also good to shake things up a little once in a while – a change is as good as a rest, someone with way too much time on their hands once said.

Community Heritage Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7897, 2016
Council is tweaking the make-up of the Heritage Commission. Since it is a Commission, the Terms of Reference can only be changed through a Bylaw, which Council has now endorsed for three readings.

501 – 505 Twelfth Street: Proposed Five Storey Multiple Unit Residential Development – Issuance of Development Permit
This project has been in the works for a long time. The first report to Council was in 2013. I’m glad to see that this is one of the last projects to be put together prior to our Family Friendly Housing Policy. Although it has a large number of 2 bedroom suites (and relatively roomy ones), there are no three-bedroom units. However, the project will be good for 12th Street by bringing more people close to the retail and by putting more eyes on the street with a design that includes ground-oriented suites along the street level.

Council moved to issue the Development Permit

628 and 638 Columbia Street: Endorsement of Works and Services Provisions for Temporary Sales Centre
The approvals for a temporary use at the site of the Columbia Street fire hit the letters section of the Record this week. I’m not sure, honestly, what the specific concern is presented in the letter, or how to address the concerns other than what was discussed coming out of last week’s meeting. Regardless, this report lists the required works and services required to support the temporary use.

Anvil Centre Restaurant Lease
It looks like we have a lease agreement that all parties can agree on. There was a lot of work on this file over a long period of time, and I’m satisfied that the deal we have reached is not only the best use of the space, but provides good value. I look forward to seeing the site developed, that corner of downtown activated, and another local entrepreneur setting up shop in our commercial district.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Poverty Reduction Strategy (2016)
1 in 6 children in New West live in poverty, which is better than the 1 in 5 province wide average, but still unacceptable in a province that claims to be the best place on earth with the greatest economy in Canada and what ever hyperbole will be used to gloss over provincial government’s inaction on this issue. They need to step up, not with random acts of funding, or by continuing to prop up long-debunked trickle-down economic fantasies, but with governance and a strategic vision of how they will support our most vulnerable neighbours.

Parallel to that hope, this is an area where local governments have to step up, because so many of the impacts of poverty are felt at the local government level, here in the community where we live. We will have longer discussion of this strategy early in the new year, because there are a great number of actions here, many the city is already doing, others that will require greater investment.

New Energy Efficiency Initiatives for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings and Strata Condominium Buildings in New Westminster
Again, more discussion in the New Year about this, but the City’s program to promote energy efficiency in the greater community has been among the most successful local-government-led programs in the province. This report is about the successful expansion of this program in to the MURB sector, where takeup exceeded expectations as did results. More to come!

222 Fifth Avenue (Queen’s Park): Heritage Alteration Permit for Demolition
Several people came to delegate to Council on this project, with divided suggestions about whether the City should allow this demolition. This one is difficult to call, as the *Heritage Commission is opposed to the Demolition, but the Technical Review Committee (in a split vote) was OK with it, seeing the preservable heritage value as fairly limited (but not insignificant)*. However, in the spirit of the conservation period, I feel I have to err on the side of preservation for these “too close to call” applications.

*edited: it was pointed out to me that what I wrote above was not correct, once again reflecting my lack of an editor! So replace the struck-out part with “the Heritage Commission opposed the Demolition in a split vote, where the Technical Review Committee was OK with it, seeing the preservable heritage value as fairly limited (but not insignificant)*

Every one of these applications is difficult. Council is making decisions that have a profound effect on one family’s finances and life plan. These decisions cannot be made lightly or without consideration for the context. However, I also feel that each of these applications that come in during the Heritage Conservation Period will inform the types of restrictions and process we want to see in an eventual Heritage Conservation Area, if that is the direction the community chooses to go. The difficulty of the conversation right now is part of the work we need to do to make sure any permanent controls are well considered and understood.

2017 Arts & Culture Grant Recommendations
The City has a $25,000 budget to support arts and culture programs through grants. This year we received $50,000 in requests, and the Review Committee made the hard choices to approve the full $25,000 balance.

2017 Community Grant Recommendations
The Grant window was $51,000, for which $74,244 was requested and the committee approved $50,872. A bit of discussion ensued, including moving the Humane Society grant out of the category and into the Partnership Grant (where it is more applicable).

I also challenged the idea that our two (yes, two) Ambassador Programs do not provide benefits outside of the leadership training they provide to their participants. I think both programs provide well-organized and reliable volunteer force that help with a variety of programs in the City. You see them helping host events, doing set-up and tear-down and a million other tasks. They reach out to other parts of the community and help make our community stronger.

I’m not in favour of the City funding beauty pageants, as I question their role in community building in 2016, however both youth groups do good work, and I wanted to assure the City stepped up to augment the sponsorship funds that the programs receive so they can continue their work. Council moved to provide $3,500 to each of the two organizations, which seemed a reasonable compromise amount based on how much they were funded last year and their request amounts for this year.

2017 City Partnership Grants
This is the big fund that supports a large number of ongoing programs in the City, including Tourism, the Arts Council, the Symphony, and several other community-building programs. The budget is $440,000, and we received requests for $560,000. Of course, the big budget and community impacts of these programs garnered a lot of discussion around the Council Table. The committee recommendation is for $440,501 to be approved. Council approved this, but we added $5,000 for the Humane Society (pulled from the Community Grant process), and ACORN for $7,000.

The strange discussion we have around these grants are not something you see in many Councils, but that there is democracy, folks. We receive the best advice from our staff and committees, and we them bounce our biases off of each other and come to some compromise through discussion that most people can support. It is not always pretty, but we do it in open Council, so we are at least accountable.

---

We received some correspondence, and then did the Bylaw shuffle:

Community Heritage Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7897, 2016
As discussed earlier in the meeting, the Bylaw to change the Terms of Reference for the Heritage Commission received three readings.

Housing Agreement (318 Agnes Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 7882, 2016; Housing Agreement (328 Agnes Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 7883, 2016; Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7880, 2016; Amendment to Comprehensive Development District (318 and 328 Agnes Street) (CD-63)
As discussed back on November 21 , these Bylaw amendments to support the minor re-allocation of suites between these two buildings was adopted. It is now the Law of the Land.

Heritage Designation Repeal Bylaw (437 Seventh Street) No. 7873, 2016
As discussed on the Public Hearing of November 28, this repeal of Heritage Protection for Duplex in Uptown was adopted by Council.

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 7895, 2016
As discussed on November 28, this Bylaw that empowers us to spend from our DCC reserves is not Adopted. Adjust your plans accordingly.

---

And after a painful bit of singing, we were done for 2016. See you all in 2017. Have a great Christmas break, and I hope 2017 works out pretty much how you wish! Be nice to each other, folks.

The November 28th Council agenda included no less than three Workshop topics during an afternoon session (although one was pushed to the evening session due to time constraints). These were wide-ranging discussions, so I will only give you a quick summary here:

Draft 2017 – 2021 Financial Plan – General Fund
As part of our ongoing public deliberations over the budget, we discussed the General Fund and some capital budget plans.

We have an aggressive capital program – something like $170 Million over the next 5 years. This is not, for the most part, new facilities, but investing in long-overdue renovations and replacements of our aged building stock. The Canada Games Pool, City Hall, the Library, and the Animal Shelter are the 4 biggest items, and few would argue they all need major work or replacement.

This is starting to show up in our budget projections for the coming years in various ways. Our reserves are currently significantly more than our debt, but that relationship will be changing soon. Structurally, we are OK, in that we are nowhere near the level of debt that would cause concern for a municipality our size, and our reserves are strong, if a little lower than ideal.

OUR CITY 2041 – Feedback Received Regarding Draft Infill Housing Design Guidelines.
This was an opportunity for Council to review the public feedback received on the draft design guidelines for infill density that will be part of the OCP. This goes hand-in hand with the draft Land Use Map, but is arguably more important. As we open up more areas to relatively minor density increases, the form and shape of projects will influence whether they improve or reduce the livability of our existing residential neighborhoods. It will also impact the viability and affordability of actually building any new project, so there is a delicate balancing act here which has required a lot of public consolation and discussion with stakeholders.

All of our talk this round was in relation to Carriage Houses and Lane Way Homes, we discussed conditions where slight increases in FSR (over the strict current 0.50 limit) would be acceptable, and conditions that would need to apply. We talks about flexibility n building separation and parking design, and even about how much off-street parking should limit unit numbers.

All of this will be coming back early in January in the form of a draft OCP bylaw. Then the fun really begins!

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Draft Design Guideline Principles, and Discussion on Possible Degrees of Conservation
The public consultation for the potential Queens Park Heritage Conservation Area has begun. There has been quite a bit of outreach (including a mailing to every house in Queens Park).

There have been a lot of questions about this idea, from the esoteric (“What is ‘Heritage’?”) to the practical (“Can I paint my fence?”), and the first step of the consultation will be about finding answers to some of the larger public policy questions around what protection should look like, how far it should go, and what is it that we are really trying to protect. This conversation will go on through the spring, as staff, the Residents Association, and the Heritage Preservation Society work through a myriad of details. I highly encourage you to take part.

---

As it was the last meeting of the month, our evening session began with a Public Hearing on three Bylaws:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1023 Third Avenue) Bylaw No. 7871, 2016 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (1023 Third Avenue) No. 7872, 2016
This is an interesting project in the Brow of the Hill neighborhood that seeks to protect a significant (if not grand) heritage house, while adding density befitting a mixed-density walkable neighbourhood. I think it will create some (relatively) affordable family-friendly housing options and fit very well within the streetscape. The Residents Association, the Design Panel, and Heritage Commission all support the project.

We received no written submissions, and had both the proponent and a neighbour speak in favour of the project.

Council voted in the regular council session to give these Bylaws third reading (which is a legal way of saying we have provisionally approved the project).

Heritage Designation Repeal Bylaw (437 Seventh Street) No. 7873, 2016
This is a slightly strange one. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement is an instrument where the City provides some benefit to a property owner (increased density in the case of the item above) in exchange for them designating their property for heritage preservation. The practice now is for those two processes to occur simultaneously (see item above), to avoid exactly what happened here.

In the case of this house in the Uptown neighbourhood, the Designation was made, but the HRA was never executed. Essentially, the homeowner never received the benefit. As such, (s)he is now asking for the designation to be removed

Council, in a split vote, agreed to give this Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7880, 2016; Amendment to Comprehensive Development District (318 and 328 Agnes Street)
This is the formal change of the law to support the shifting of a suite from one side of the development to the other, to deal with some buildability issues. No-one appeared to speak to this issue, and I can’t imagine why someone would, but process is process, and Council agreed to give this change Third Reading.

---

After the Public Hearing, our Regular Meeting started with Opportunities to the Heard on two development variances:

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00616 for 217 Ninth Avenue
This variance was to relax an off-street parking requirement for a secondary suite to protect trees. This is several of these now, but I am glad we are valuing trees over parking spots as a general practice. No-one came to speak to the DVP, and Council moved to approve it.

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00617 for 628 and 638 Columbia Street
This variance got a little more attention, as several people came to speak against it. The application is for a temporary use permit to build a single-story display and sales centre for the Bosa waterfront project. The site is on the empty lot where Copps Shoes was before the devastating fire of 2013. A summary of the concerns I heard was that an uninspiring one-story display suite building was not an appropriate replacement for such a significant location in the downtown.

To that point, I agree. However, this application is for a temporary use of up to 5 years. I do not imagine this will be the final use of the site, and that is not what we are permitting. Nor do I suspect this will in any way delay the finding of a more permanent use of the fire site. I’m only a City Councillor, and am sometimes shockingly unaware of development plans in the City until they arrive in a Council or Committee agenda, but I have not heard one whiff of a permanent development plan coming along for that site. If there are works in the wings that have not hit City Staff or Council yet, then a development of the magnitude one might imagine for that site (at-grade or multi-level commercial with residential above, I would presume, but who knows?) is at least three years away from breaking ground. The City cannot force that application to come, it is at the leisure of the property owner.

In the meantime, we have two options presented to us: let someone clean the site up, use the store frontage on Columbia, and perhaps provide some public amenity space on the Front Street side; or leave the rubbly hole with a fence around it until the right plan is put together. I think the first option is better for the City, and better for the businesses and residents downtown.

Council voted to support the variance that would allow the temporary use.

---

We had a couple of Reports for Action:

City Resources and Expenses Associated with the City Truck, Trailer and Chassis Usage in Parades
The City has agreed with the Hyack Festival Association to gift the truck, trailer, and Chassis used to manage the Hyack Parade Float program over to Hyack, after the City completed some necessary repairs to make them safe and reliable. We will also provide parking in our Tow Yard until we anticipate the Tow Yard moving around a year from now.

Update on the City Grant Program
After last week’s discussion of Grant funding levels, staff from the respective groups went through the grant criteria and whittled down the budget to equal the amount we granted last year (which, I note, was about 10% more than we budgeted or last year). The various committees can now get to work making recommendations to Council about how the Grants are allocated for next year.

---

The following Item was Moved on Consent:

DCC Expenditure Bylaw No. 7895, 2016
This Bylaw empowers us to spend from our DCC reserves for projects the DCC reserves were created to fund. For those new to this thing, Development cost Charges are funds that cities collect from developers as part of a development deal to pay the actual cost of increasing infrastructure capacity to accommodate the increase in population resultant from the development. Bigger neighbourhoods need bigger sewers and bigger roads; the builders of the neighbourhoods pay for those through DCCs. The amount we collect is regulated by the Provincial Government, and we are not legally able to spend the money on anything else.

Also note, we are drawing money from the mainland to build transportation projects in Queensborough ahead of schedule. How does this square with the perception that Q’Boro is ignored and treated as a second thought?

---

We had some bridge-based correspondence prior to our regular Bylaws chorus:

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 7895, 2016</>
As mentioned above the Bylaw permitting our spending of DCCs received three readings.

Five-Year Financial Plan (2016-2020) Amendment Bylaw No. 7891, 2016
As discussed November 21, the amendment of our 5-year financial Plan to address updated revenue and expense projections was Adopted. It is the law of the land, folks.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw No. 7864, 2016
As also discussed November 21, the Bylaw authorizing short-term borrowing to better manage cash flows was formally Adopted. Everyone pay your bills on time, and we might not need it.

Engineering User Fees and Utility Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7889, 2016
As discussed in the November 7 and November 21st meetings, this Bylaw to change various engineering fees was Adopted. Please adjust your account codes appropriately.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7868, 2016
As also discussed November 21, these changes to our fines and bylaw practices was Adopted. It is now the law of the land, I suggest you adjust your behavior accordingly.

Then I was off to hang out with the cool kids at the Christmas Parade:

Back to our last Council stint of 2016 – three back-to-back meetings before a month-long Christmas break. There is a lot of work to get done before we get all egg-noggy, so our agendas are looking full.

We started the November 21 meeting with an afternoon workshop session to dig a little deeper into the one aspect of the ongoing Official Community Plan update that needs more consideration:

OCP Review: Summary of Feedback and Discussion of the Area Around the 22nd Street SkyTrain Station
It’s no secret that the area around 22nd St SkyTrain Station is ripe for some increased density and conversion of use. It is an important regional transit and transportation hub, and is one of the least-dense parts of the City. Rare are 30 year old SkyTrain stations surrounded by single family detached houses and no commercial development. This OCP may give us an opportunity to look at ways to re-imagine this neighbourhood.

The existing Land Use Plan has allowed some multi-family development in this area for some time, but it just hasn’t happened. Look at the history of Connaught Heights – we have built, over the last 75 years, a car-dependent suburb. There are few sidewalks, there is a road pattern designed to get people in an out to through one constricted intersection (only to be chagrinned by all the people trying to drive by). If we try to build a compact mixed-use transit oriented neighbourhood on top of the bone structure of the suburb it won’t work, even if we add on sidewalks, greenways and left turn lanes. At the same time, there is a general lack of amenities or services in the West End neighbourhood.

So let’s get conceptual, recognizing this is a 20-or 30-year plan. Can 20th be shifted to a local road? Can the BC Hydro Right-of-Way be repurposed as a linear park? Can we create a new north-south High Street along 21st?

We had a good discussion about what we can envision around the station, and what it looks like as density steps down to the north and away from the station. The opportunities that exist are going to rely on a new design for the neighbourhood, a new town centre. I look forward to what the final draft Land Use plan looks like coming out of this lengthy discussion.

---

We started our evening meeting with an Opportunity for Public Comment on an update of our Budget:

Five Year Financial Plan (2016-2020) Amendment Bylaw No. 7891, 2016
The City’s “budget” exists as a 5-year Financial Plan, which is required by the Community Charter, enshrined in a Bylaw, and updated annually. As a matter of the same provincial law, our budget is always balanced.

Once in a while, we need to adjust that budget, as new expenses or revenues are realized. We do that by amending the Bylaw, which is a public process you are able to comment upon. This specific amendment is to introduce 4 things to the budget that were not part of the existing financial plan:

$1.5M in capital cost for a feeder station upgrades related to the new substation. This $1.5M will come from the Electrical Utility Reserves Account – money put aside specifically for this type of infrastructure improvement.

$6.0M for Ewen Avenue upgrades. This project is going over budget, mostly due to unanticipated costs dealing with the terrible soil conditions encountered during the works. Again, this money is coming out of the Queensborough Transportation DCC Reserves – money charged to developers building new units in Queensborough and set aside for exactly this purpose – improving the transportation infrastructure to better accommodate those new residents.

$1.6M for water main upgrades as part of the Ewen Street project. Similar to above, this project is going over budget, but this part of the project is being paid by Metro Vancouver (it is their water main). However, we are doing the work as part of our larger project. So we need to add the expense to our expense column, and the increase in revenues when the GVRD pays us for the work to our revenue column – balancing the budget.

$1.7M for a slightly expanded scope in the Library upgrades. This project has been discussed before, and this is not an example of going over budget, but in discovering new project work that will improve the durability of the building and should probably be done while we have the walls open. These funds will come from debt as part of our long-term debt financing plan.

No-one came to speak to the amendment, and Council moved to approve moving it forward for adoption.

---

We also had two Presentations from community organizations impacting our community:

New West Pride Accessibility Initiative
I will try to write more on this in a future blog post, but short version is that Pride has done an incredible job expanding the idea of what inclusivity is in New Westminster – recognizing that their event couldn’t be called inclusive if they left barriers in place to participation. They created accessibility information for their events, and actually performed and published Accessibility Audits for all of their event locations (18 venues, and the street areas of the Street Festival). But the work Hayley & her team have done expands well beyond our Pride Street Fest or the week-long Pride festival, but creates a model of all our street festivals, for businesses and not-for-profits operating in the City – the process for Accessibility Audits is something that can expand to all of our events, to all of our public spaces, to remove barriers and make our City more welcoming.

We have two motions coming to this Council from the Access Ability Advisory Committee in a future meeting based on this experience and the input from Pride to the AAAC. A great initiative – with more to come!

Heads-up: Hayley Sinclair is a star. The City is lucky to have her.

Vancouver Port Authority Presentation: activities that relate to New Westminster
This was our annual update from the Port Authority. There are a few issues of interest to the City. I asked about connecting the waterfront trials past 501 Boyd Street, about Short Sea Shipping, and about the proposed expansion of the grain terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. (see public engagement going on now)

---

We passed the following items on Consent:

Youth Advisory Committee Appointments
I love representing Council on this committee, which is led and chaired by teen-aged members of our community. Every meeting they remind me how old and out of touch I am. Humbling.

Alternative Representative to the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors
I am going to take Councillor Harper’s place on a Metro Vancouver board position. Nothing controversial here, just Council sharing responsibilities and shifting some committee roles around. A change is as hood as a rest, someone once said. I’m not sure I have enough context for comparison.

New Westminster Design Panel Appointment
We had a member of the Design Panel resign due to scheduling conflicts, and another representative of the Architecture community has been nominated and selected to serve.

318 and 328 Agnes Street: Housekeeping Amendment Bylaws for Housing Agreements – Bylaws for Three Readings
As mentioned last week, the building permit stage brought up some small but necessary adjustments to the allocation of units between these two secured rental buildings. We dealt with adjusting the development permits last week, and are now required to edit the agreement between the developer and the City that secures these suites as rentals. Council moved to support giving the edits three readings.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw No. 7864, 2016 for Three Readings
This Bylaw allows our finance department to do some short-term borrowing (up to $3 Million) to cover short-term cash flow management fully within the limits of our existing 5-year financial plan. This is essentially a confirmation of our ongoing “line of credit” in case we need to pay a bill prior to the secured revenue coming through.

Engineering Users Fees and Utility Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7889, 2016
Council approved the edited Bylaw that formalizes the changes to engineering fees as discussed at the November 7, 2016 meeting.

---

Following open delegations, we moved on to one Report for Action:

Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (Metro 2040): Consideration of Five Year Review
There has been some discussion around the OCP about how the RGS works, why we agree to it, and often the question revolves around some form of “Why should New Westminster agree to take on this density – why don’t we just say no to letting more people into the City?”

I think this is a misunderstanding of what the RGS is, and why it exists. The Strategy is a planning document that allows all of the municipalities in the region to work together and plan for the growth that is coming. We cannot stop that growth – the west coast of Canada is an attractive place to live, for a variety of economic, social, and cultural regions. When we talk about 1,000,000 more people coming to the region by 2040 or 2045, that is a conservative estimate – I suspect as the impacts of climate change manifest in regions around the globe, as economic and social unrest grips less stable nations (like the USA?), the pressures on Canada, and especially western Canada, will increase. We need to plan for this growth, and we need to do it as a region.

This means we need to make long-term investments in things like water supply, sewers, parks, schools, roads and transit. We cannot be reactionary when the need hits, because the costs are huge, and because building after is much more difficult and creates unacceptable disruption. We need to have a decades-long plan in place to assure infrastructure is built for when the need arrives. The RGS is one tool that allows us to do that.

It also forces us (allows us?) to make choices right now. Are those 1,000,000 people going to live in far reaches of the region, far from jobs, and totally dependent on cars to get there? Are they going to spread out across our limited agricultural land, ecologically valuable greenspace, and sensitive floodplains? Or are they going to live nearer work in denser mixed-use communities with the option to use transit or active modes?

In reality, we will have both of those, as we do today, but the former will be demonstrably more expensive and difficult to build, with huge externalities like climate impacts, loss of food security, worse air quality, worse affordability, reduced security and livability. That is why a City like New Westminster needs to build more of the latter- denser, mixed-use, transit oriented communities, to save the livability of the region, to reduce the cost of living in the region.

We are signatories of the RGS not because we are forced to be, but because we recognize, along with our regional partners, that planning for this growth will make our region a better place. Communities are built by cooperation between neighbours, and New Westminster will be that good neighbour.

I think the process built into the RGS does a good job of constantly updating the RGS as conditions change, and I support the process that is proposed towards constant and metered improvement as opposed to large re-writes every 5 years.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Celebration of Canada 150
The Country is having it sesquicentennial, a few years after the City did. We are going to ramp up Canada Day events this year to better mark the occasion. More to come here…

Amendment to Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 7318, 2009
These are the updates of the bylaws and fines that were discussed in a previous meeting as part of our general review of fees and charges. There were some typos in the previous Bylaw which delayed it slightly, so we are now approving it for Bylaw readings.

630 Ewen Avenue (Affordable Housing): MOU Update
Back in the April 18, 2016 meeting, Council approved in principle the development of a supportive housing project at 630 Ewen. This project developed in partnership with WINGs will provide supportive non-market housing for women with young children on a piece of land owned by the City. There is some work here to realize the project, but the MOU provides some guidelines moving forward.

2015 Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Update
This is our annual report on our Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as required by Provincial Law passed back when the Provincial government thought reducing greenhouse gasses was worthy of effort.

Figure 1 is the quick summary:

We are on target, which is good to see, and unfortunately uncommon amongst senior governments in Canada and elsewhere. Local governments in Bc have (for the most part) taken this issue seriously, and should be applauded.

This is the 9th year of our 10-year plan – developed in 2008. To be sure, we have feasted a bit on low-hanging fruit, like replacing lighting with LEDs, and with replacement of heating systems in many of our larger buildings. 1/3 of our emissions reductions are passed down to us by BC Hydro, a large amount of or carbon offsets from Metro Vancouver through mandated reductions and diversion of solid waste. However, we have also opened the Anvil Centre and an expanded Queensborough Community Centre, and have expanded our vehicle fleet to provide better services, so the reduction and adherence to targets is impressive.

2017 City Grant Programs – Allocation of Funds
The City has no less than 8 separate Grant programs. The money comes from a variety of sources, including parking revenue, and a couple of specified trust funds, but the majority is right out of property tax, and that proportion is going up as grant requests are increasing the other sources of revenue are slowly declining.

The City Grant Review Panel is recommending we have a substantial increase in grant funding this year, but I’m cautious about a 10% increase in the existing budget without having a more fulsome discussion of what how we measure the effectiveness of our Grant program. Also problematic is that while requests for grants are going up, every year a half-dozen special requests some to Council and ask for a little extra, and Council typically says yes, resulting in this strange hybrid-grant mechanism.

I would agree with increasing grants in line with inflation on an annual basis, unless we have a situation where the full grant amount is not awarded over several years. However, it doesn’t speak to fiscal responsibility to just raise grant amounts based on requests, because the requests will never be satiated.

We had a pretty good discussion around the Council table about this, but ended up with a motion that I can paraphrase here. We approved maintaining a budget and allocations reflecting what we awarded last year, $860,484 (note: this is more than we budgeted for last year). We approved the idea of having a staff review of managing inflationary increases for Grants, criteria that Council should use to determine allocations in relation to Council goals.

---

Finally, we blasted through a raft of Bylaws readings and adoptions (which we really should set to music some time):

Five-Year Financial Plan (2016-2020) Amendment Bylaw No. 7891, 2016
As discussed above, this edit to the Budget received three readings.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7868, 2016
As discussed above, these changes to our fines and bylaw practices received three readings.

Housing Agreement (318 Agnes Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 7882, 2016 Housing Agreement (328 Agnes Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 7883, 2016
As discussed above, the required edits to the housing agreements for these properties to reflect the changes we made in their Development Plan were given three readings.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw No. 7864, 2016
As discussed above, this bylaw allowing short-term lending to cover cash flow within the current year received three readings.

Engineering User Fees and Utility Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7889, 2016
As discussed in the November 7, 2016 meeting, these changes to various engineering fees received three readings.

2016 Racial Discrimination Enactment Repeal Bylaw No. 7884, 2016
As discussed in the November 7, 2016 meeting, these archaic and offensive Bylaws that are somehow still on our books are now rescinded. No longer the law of the land, no adjustment of your behavior required.

Police Fees Bylaw No. 7874, 2016
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016
Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7879, 2016
Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7869, 2016
As discussed in previous meetings, these Bylaws officially adopting our new fees and charges for most City operations is now Law of the Land. Adjust your behavior appropriately.

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 7664, 2015
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7769, 2015
Municipal Ticketing Information Amendment Bylaw No. 7666, 2015
As discussed in previous meetings, these Bylaws which comprehensively outline how people drive, walk, roll and park on our streets are now the Law of the Land. Break out the Skateboards and use them responsibly!

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw (100 Braid Street) No. 7836, 2016
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (100 Braid Street) No. 7837, 2016
The Bylaws that support the OCP amendment that permits the Urban Academy and adjacent residential use for this land is now the Law of the Land.

---

We had one final late addition to the agenda to cover:

Removal of Parking Meters and New Bus Stop in front of 609 Twelfth Street
A couple of weeks ago, TransLink moved a bus stop a half-block north on 12th Street. There was a good reason for doing this: several accidents had occurred near the 12th and 6th intersection, and moving the busses forward opened u pa little space and made the road safer.

The business owners on 12th Street were concerned about this shift as they (wait for it) lost 2 parking spots in front of their business.

Frankly, I am less concerned about the move (it was done for good reasons,) and more concerned that the impacted residents and businesses were not alerted ahead of time. Moving the stop further north on 12th is not a good solution, as it moves the stop further from 6th, where a crossing bus line connection is commonly used.

In the end, we asked staff to review these processes and consultation procedures so that we can understand whether or not changes to protocols may be required.

And with that, we wrapped.

The November 7th meeting had an insane Agenda. There were so many items, and a high potential for many Public Delegations, that we took the pragmatic decision to table a number of items that were not time-sensitive, but deserved a bit of discussion by Council (and would not, therefore, be appropriate for the passing on Consent). Still,we were at it until about 11:30 at night, which makes it (I think) the longest meeting not to feature a Public Hearing in my two years on Council.

We started with two Opportunities to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit 00608 for 725 Fifth Street
I mentioned this DVP last meeting, where the owner wishes to legalize a permitted secondary suite, but the requirement for an off-street parking spot would necessitate the removal of a Bylaw-protected tree. Instead, they are asking for a variance removing the requirement for the off-street parking spot, in exchange for permanent protection of the Tree.

Although no-one came to speak to this variance, we received two written submissions from neighbours opposing it over concerns about the availability of street parking on the block of Fifth Street.

A quick Google Street View survey shows the 22 houses that face the 700 block of Fifth Street have a total of 23 closed garages and/or carports and enough off-street parking pad space for 30 or more cars (not counting the well-used dozen or so parking pads on the City Boulevard). I just can’t see a lack of parking on this street to the scale that I a bylaw-protected tree should be removed.

Council voted to approve the variance.

Development Variance Permit 00611 for 337 Fourth Street
Similarly, I also mentioned this similar DVP last meeting.  The owner of this house also wants to protect two trees on their property and a boulevard tree by not providing off-street parking for their legal secondary suite. In this case, the off-street spot probably would not change the amount of parking available because of the need to build a driveway would result in the loss of at least one street parking spot.

We received one written submission supporting the variance, and a neighbour spoke in support of the variance (and was very complimentary to both City Staff and the Proponent in describing their opportunity to comment and provide feedback to the DVP).

Council voted to approve the variance.

---

The following items were moved on consent:

Designations to Act for the Director of Development Services from Time to Time
This item formalizes some parts of the chain of authority in the City planning department. We have Bylaws that give certain powers to the person designated as the Director of Development Services, but don’t have a formal succession process if the Director is away for an extended period of time. We now do!

Rescindment of Bylaws Involving Racial Discrimination
New Westminster is 150 years old, and that means we have 150 years of old Bylaws, many of them long forgotten, but still (apparently) on the books. The Provincial Government was doing reviews of old Bylaws and discovered a couple from 1929 New Westminster that allowed a paper mill to operate on City lands as long as they only hire white workers. Council moved to rescind these old Bylaws.

To put this in context, 1929 was a time of lengthy economic stagnation and sudden depression, where placing the blame on immigrants and foreigners was empowering rising fascism to replace liberal democracy, even in the most advanced nations… so nothing like today.

437 Seventh Street: Heritage Designation Repeal Bylaw for First and Second Reading
Back in 2010, this property owner went through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement process, agreeing to exterior renovations in exchange for zoning considerations that would permit more units in the building. The owner never executed the renovations requested, and therefore never received the rezoning benefits. The owner therefore wants to repeal that agreement and keep the house as the duplex it currently is.

Council moved to give this repeal first and second reading.

318 – 328 Agnes Street: Housekeeping Amendment Bylaw to Amend the CD-63 Zone to Allow for a Change in the Make-Up of Units – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
As sometimes happens, things shifted a bit in this development between approving the development plan and getting various building approvals during the building phase. In this case, a few units had to be shuffled around to make the building work. The development still has the same number of suites, but one 2-bedroom suite was shifted from one building to the other, and there is a very slight (<1%) increase in site coverage. Not a big problem, but it means we need to revise our Zoning Bylaw and Housing Agreement (as it is secured market rental building).

628 and 638 Columbia Street: Development Variance Permit 00617 for  Temporary Sales Centre – Consideration of Issuance
Bosa is planning to build two buildings on parking lot between the Pier Park and the Fraser River Discovery Centre, and wants to build a sales centre for the development on the old Copps Shoes site on Columbia Street. This would require a DVP to allow the construction of a temporary building that does not reflect the zoning for that property.

As there doesn’t seem to be any rush by the owners to develop the fire site, this will at least activate the space for a couple of years. I am more excited about the opportunity to activate the back part of the property – the south half that faces on to Front Street. This has the opportunity to be a great temporary public space that supports the other businesses along the Mews and downtown, and compliments the Pier Park.

Street and Traffic Bylaw No. 7664, 2015
The Street and Traffic Bylaw that regulates all City roads and parking spots is finally being updated. This process has taken a while, and review by the Ministry of Transportation (a necessary step) took longer than anticipated, but we are finally ready to approve this cleaner, more logical, bylaw.

My only disappointment is that City Councillors still aren’t able to hand out tickets when we see people driving or parking like idiots. Dare to dream…

Application for Grant Funding to the Clean Water & Wastewater Fund (CWWF)
The City is applying to senior governments for grants to help pay for sewer separation and pump station projects. Fingers crossed!

Application for Grant Funding to UBCM Asset Management Planning  Program
We are also applying to UBCM for a grant to help fund our ongoing Asset Management program. Keep your fingers crossed!

Users Fees and Rates Review Bylaws for 2017 for Three Readings
This Bylaw formalizes the rate changes we discussed at Council on October 24th.

1023 Third Avenue: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage  Designation – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
This project the Brow of the Hill takes an innovative approach to preserving a Heritage House and building some infill density on a large lot. The project will be going to Public Hearing on November 28. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

217 Ninth Avenue: Development Variance Permit for Parking Space Exemption for Secondary Suite – Preliminary Report
Similar to the items we covered in the Opportunity to be Heard portion of the meeting, this owner also wants to have a legal suite and not provide extra off-street parking to protect trees. There will be an Opportunity to be Heard on tis application on November 28, C’mon out and tell us what you think.

(ACTBiPed) Recommendation: Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation Project Thank You to Go Traffic and TransLink
The members of the City’s Advisory Committee on Transit, Bicycles and Pedestrians recognized that the teams of traffic control persons who spent the summer managing the traffic disruptions around the Pattullo partial closures had a tough job, and did it with exceptional patience and professionalism. The ACTBiPed didn’t want to let that pass without them being acknowledged for the great work they did, and thanking TransLink for providing support to the city to help that program be successful. Council will send thanks.

---

We then had two Presentations from Staff:

Draft 2017-2021 Financial Plan – Utilities
Each year as part of our budgeting process, we review Utility Rates for the coming year and the anticipated rates for the next 5 years. As usual, this is a mix of good and bad news.

Electrical: going up 3.5% next year, 3.0% in years 2-5: This cost increase is driven almost exclusively by equal increases in the cost of purchasing electricity from BC Hydro. The City’s policy is to match BC Hydro rates on a system-wide basis.

Water: 4% a year: Again, this relates directly to the cost of purchasing water from Metro Vancouver. We are still waiting to have the discussion about water conservation measures that were requested by Council back in February.

Liquid Waste: 7% a year: This is clearly the area of most concern. The region is going to need to spend a bunch of money on sewage treatment plant upgrades in the decade ahead, and in New West it is very difficult for us to avoid these costs, because we still have a significant amount of combined-flow sewers, where storm water mixes with our sewage, and it all goes to the treatment plant.

The capital investment in sewer separation that didn’t happen 20 or 30 years ago (in most cities) is costing us a fortune now. To accelerate our sewer separation program would be really expensive for the City and for homeowners, but the alternative is that we continue to pay the cost of shipping storm water to the sewer treatment plant, and paying for that privilege.

Solid Waste: 1% a year: The solid waste story is obviously one of success, with rate increases at or below the inflation rate. This is a result of several years of aggressive work to reduce waste and separate waste at the source to get the most value out of recycling. Those investments are paying off.

Brunette Avenue Interchange Public Consultation
The Ministry of Transportation is doing public consultations on a replacement project for the Brunette Interchange that somehow includes a return of the United Boulevard Extension. I attended the public Open House in New Westminster, and it was very well attended (something like 400 people), but with little forewarning and some significant data gaps, it was difficult for people to generated much useful feedback. I hope that people will take the time to absorb that information, understand the issues being discussed, and provide feedback to the on-line portal.

I have a lot to say about this, but will do so in a follow-up post to save a bit of space here for other business (this report is looking to be over 3,600 words already, Aye Carumba!).

In the end, Council moved to invite Coquitlam Council for a council-to-council meeting to discuss the project, and identify potential shared interests, which should be interesting.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent, and discussed after a fairly lengthy Public Delegation period.

Public Art Projects in partnership with Capture Photography Festival
There are two locations in the City, one Downtown and one Uptown, where large blank walls provide opportunities for Public Art. The Capture Photography Festival is happening around the Lower Mainland next April, and a part of that festival, a photography-based project on these two locations will be installed. Council agreed with the Public Art Advisory Committee to spend $60,000 out of our Public Art Reserve Fund to install these pieces in the spring.

Early Grant Approval for the Hyack Grand Prix Bike Race
I I am very hopeful that we are getting things approved early here so this event can go on. Having a bike race in Uptown/Queens Park during the Hyack Festival week would be a great event. Keep those fingers crossed.

Business Case and Next Steps for Sapperton District Energy System
I am happy to see this project moving forward. Sewer heat recovery is more capital-intensive than wood waste incineration, but provides some significant environmental benefits and the risks are better known as we are not attaching our long-term planning to an uncertain fuel supply. This will be almost carbon-free energy, is a great synergy between the City, the development community, and the RCH expansion. Through it, we are helping Fraser Health reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, making development of our community more energy and GHG efficient, and using a waste energy supply that is modular and expandable with increased need.

The capital cost up front is significant but we need to think in 30-year+ timelines if we are going to build infrastructure that moves us beyond carbon-intensive energy sources. We have been very conservative in our cost estimates here, and have reason to believe the cost-benefit ratios will outperform our estimates here.

215 Manitoba Street (Queen’s Park): Heritage Alteration Permit HER00577 to Permit Demolition
The situation with heritage preservation in Queens Park is obviously very sensitive right now. With a Heritage Control Period continuing for another 8 months, demolition requests for buildings more than 50 years old have to come to Council, and Council has the option to say no. As most of Council are not heritage professionals, we have a process developed that can assess whether a house being proposed for demolition has significant heritage value and potential for preservation.

This house has low heritage value according to the assessments done, and is in deteriorated condition. Neither the Heritage Commission nor our technical review panel recommended that the house be preserved. I am reasonably convinced that this demolition would not represent a loss to the heritage values of Queens Park, and I therefore voted to approve the demolition.

105 College Court (Queen’s Park): Heritage Alteration Permit
HER00581 to Permit Demolition
This application is similar to the above one, but differs in a pretty significant way. Based on the reports, the house has moderate heritage value, especially in how it impacts the streetscape of College Court, and has significant heritage assets intact. As a summary, it would not be particularly difficult or expensive to upgrade the few issues in the house while preserving the heritage value. Therefore I could not vote to approve the demolition of this house during the Heritage Control Period.

This house also raises some interesting discussions about Heritage in Queens Park in that it is a Mid-Century Modern style, more than 50 years old, but not the first thing you think of when you say the words “Queens Park Heritage home”. I don’t even think we have existing guidelines for the preservation and protection of Mid-Century Modern homes.

Clearly, there is a lot of work to do, and a lot of discussion yet to have in the neighbourhood, about Heritage Preservation and the goals of the neighbourhood in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Internet Service Provider Agreement with Wi-Band Communications
A fifth small telecom company is interested in providing service through our dark fibre network (Bridg Net), this one a business-specific gigabit provider who also provides bargain rates for less-than-gigabit Wi-band (line-of-sight transmission by radio frequency) to expand service away from the fibre trunk line itself. Good news!

Official Community Plan Review: Summary of Our Future City Events and Land Use Designation Map Discussion
I am really happy that the OCP process is moving onto the next phase. We have beaten the Land Use Plan discussion to death. I attended a couple of the open house events during this last round, and was again impressed and amazed at how many people in New Westminster showed up, spent a couple of hours digging into the details of these plans. I heard great discussions, a few disagreements, and a lot of peer-to-peer learning and sharing. Now is time for our staff to get their weekends back.

We had more than an hour of discussion and I don’t want to cover it in any kind of detail here (you can pull up the video here and skip ahead to 4:22:00 to hear this), and I am sure I will be writing more on this in the coming weeks, but I will cover a few of the key points Staff asked Council to comment upon, and my take on them (remember, this blog is my voice only, not the opinion of Council or of the City – not all of Council necessarily agrees with me on these points).

Bent Court: This area is interesting, a mixed residential and commercial district that is zoned for high-rises, although it is unlikely that anyone would build to that scale here. Staff is recommending a special approach here that can incentivize the preservation of the heritage homes, whether they be used for residential or commercial.

Sharpe Street: This small light-industrial area along the north side of Stewardson is underperforming for a variety of reasons. We had a couple of owners fo the lots here ask for a rezoning to give them the ability to sell for development. The City does not have much light industrial land, so Council was generally reluctant to let any of it go, but I find it hard to envision this being improved for industrial use as the site access is so constrained, especially for trucks. It is only 400m from 12th, and 50 m from frequent bus service at 6th, so I could see a little cluster of townhomes/row homes or mix of moderate density housing here.

Uptown Density: There is some interest reflected in discussion with the Uptown BIA to see more density adjacent to the Uptown commercial area. I am not opposed to this idea, but am cautious about the potential impact of building new high rises where we currently have affordable rental properties. If we were to move towards replacement of these buildings, I would want to know there was adequate access to affordable housing for the people who live there now – mostly low-income earners and lots of seniors who need their connection to Uptown services. We don’t want a Metrotown renoviction situation here in New West.

Brow of the Hill Townhouses: I am generally in favour of more flexibility in development in the Brow neighbourhood. I love the Brow for its housing diversity, my SFD house is across the street from a 3-story walk-up, there are townhouses behind me and a high rise one block over. It is a really walkable neighbourhood with a lot of amenities, we need more of the “Missing Middle” here, but also need to be careful around the remaining pockets of heritage homes.

City-Wide Townhouse: There were several recommendations to open up more areas to townhouse or rowhouse type development, not just on busy streets, but also the block back on the quieter streets that are perhaps more family-friendly, but still a short walk to transit and amenities. I am in favour of the recommendations made by staff – the think overall we need to assure we are doing everything we can to promote a variety of housing types and get off of this tower vs. SFH density discussion. The Missing Middle should be our goal here.

Special Employment Area: The opportunities for a significant amount of job-generating commercial and office space around the expanded RCH need ot be supported. The retail core of Sapperton will benefit, the economy of the city will benefit, supportive businesses will make RCH run better, and the entire neighbourhood will become more vibrant.

I will be writing more on the OCP process as we go along, but I am pretty proud of the work this City has done to this point. Our Planning staff have worked long hours, had thousands of one-on-one conversations, produced an amazing amount of public input, and really engaged the community. We have a few people not happy about a few details of the draft Land Use Plan, and that is the nature of the beast, but the aggregate of the feedback is that we are pretty close to the Goldilocks zone for land use changes. We’ll be seeing the final plan in December, but I don’t think there will be too many surprises from here on in.

---

Finally, we dispatched a bunch of Bylaws:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7880, 2016; Amendment to Comprehensive Development District (318 and 328 Agnes Street) (CD- 63)
This Bylaw to reallocate the suites in the secured market rental development downtown received first and second readings.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1023 Third Avenue) Bylaw No. 7871, 2016
Heritage Designation Bylaw (1023 Third Avenue) No. 7872, 2016
These two Bylaws to support the infill density and heritage home preservation project in the Brow of the Hill received two readings.

Heritage Designation Repeal Bylaw (437 Seventh Street) No. 7873, 2016
This Bylaw to undo the Heritage Revitalization Agreement in Uptown that never came to pass was given two readings.

2016 Racial Discrimination Enactment Repeal Bylaw No. 7884, 2016
This Bylaw to repeal the ugly, racist, fascist, ignorant and totally appropriate for the times “white workers only” Bylaws of 1929 was given three readings.

Police Fees Bylaw No. 7874, 2016
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016
Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7879, 2016
Development Services Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 7869, 2016
These Bylaws to support the annual adjustment on various fees and charges charged by the City was given three readings.

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 7664,2015
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7769, 2015
This is the updated Traffic and Parking Bylaw. Council voted to rescind the third readings given to these Bylaws on August 31, 2015, and July 13, 2015 (respectively) and gave third reading to the amended versions.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1209 Hamilton Street) No. 7832, 2016
Finally, the Zoning Amendment to allow a daycare to operate in this duplex in the West End was adopted. It is now the law of the land. Tell your kids.

---

And that, at just a few minutes under 6 hours, was a Council Meeting for the ages. We will need a week off to recover.

We had a mercifully short Council Agenda this week, as there is so much else going on in New West these days that it was good to get a bit of a reprieve from all the new business. Regardless, it was a Public Hearing meeting, as all last-meetings-of-the-month are, and there was one item on the PH agenda.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7832, 2016 for 1209 Hamilton Street (718 Twelfth Street)
This was a public hearing on a zoning amendment that would allow a residential duplex on Hamilton Street to operate as a daycare for 20 children, and perhaps most importantly, 12 of those spaces will be infant/toddlers, which is a desperate need in the City.

This duplex actually sits on a large lot that faces 12th Street, sharing the lot with a commercial building and assembly hall. There will be no external changes to the size, siting, or height of the building, and the amount of parking available on site meets the zoning requirements. The project was supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and Moody Park Residents’ Association; there was a Public Open house held, and a presentation to the West End Residents’ Association.

We received no correspondence in response to the call for Public Hearing, but did receive correspondence on this issue earlier. A neighbour wrote us (and collected several signatures from their neighbours) in opposition. There were several concerns that I did not think were relevant to this specific application (Daycares are rarely the cause of, nor the solution to, litter), but the main thrust appeared to be a lack of parking for the facility. We also had one person present to Council who was not strictly opposed to the project, but was also concerned about the parking issue.

I need to comment on the parking issue. The Child Care facility will have on-site parking for their workers, but will need the street for pick-up and drop-off. This block of Hamilton Street is faced by 7 houses (other than the Child Care applicant). A quick Google Earth survey of the block finds that those houses have a combined 11 covered parking spots (garages or carports) and 8 more off-street parking pads. A total of 19 private parking places for 7 houses. Child Care spaces are a desperate need in our community, arguably more than car parking spaces. I cannot rectify denying a permit to an established and trusted operator because a few minutes of parking inconvenience on a street where the off-street parking is so ample.

Council moved to refer this item to the Regular Council Meeting, which followed immediately after:

---

The Regular Council Agenda began with a review of the above Zoning Amendment Bylaw:

Bylaw 7832, 2016 for 1209 Hamilton Street (alias of 718 Twelfth Street)
Council voted to give the Bylaw Third reading.

---

We then had two Opportunities to be Heard on Development Variance Permits:

DVP 00614 for 1016-1022 Fourth Avenue
The DVP here is for a project that has already been approved, but needs a couple of changes to the design. One change was the result of a minor mistakes in the drawing discovered when the project reached the Building Permit stage. The second is to shift one of the houses backwards on the lot slightly so that a mature Deodar Cedar tree on the site can be preserved.

No-one appeared to speak to the DVP, and Council moved to approve the issuance of the Development Variance Permit

DVP 00602 for 1004 Salter Street
This DVP is to allow for some of the lots in a Queensborough development to not meet the zoning rule that the lot frontage must be greater than 10% of the lot perimeter. The proposed 31 foot lots miss the 10% rule by about 4 feet, because the lot depth is a slightly-longer-than-usual 141 feet. The upside for the neighbourhood if we allow the frontages to be under 10% is more dedicated park space and better operating laneway.

No-one appeared to speak to this DVP, and Council moved to approve issuance of the Development Variance Permit

---

The following item was moved on Consent:

2016 Santa Parade and Tree Lighting
Set your calendar for Saturday, December 3rd. There will be an always-sunny Santa Parade on Columbia, with events downtown beginning at 11:00am. The always-exciting tree lighting ceremony at Hyack Square will be the night before, December 2 at 7:00pm . Ho ho ho.

---

The following Item was removed from Consent for discussion:

User Fees and Rates Review
This is our annual review of fees for various City services. The Parks and Recreation Fees were dealt with back in early October, so this covers Engineering and other fees like towing and parking.

Fees are not taxes, they are not meant to fill City coffers, but to cover the cost of the service the City is providing. For some services, this is relatively easy (a replacement trash bin costs about $40), sometimes it is part of a larger cost-recovery and capital investment model ($1.50 per hour represents a small portion of the total cost of operating the Parkade), and sometimes it is really difficult to pull out exactly how much City staff time and resources a service takes (does it really cost $2,450 to process a subdivision application, with all the public process? I’m sure some take much less, and a few complicated ones take a lot more!).

Cost recovery is the ideal, and in reality we need to measure our fees against what other Cities charge, and make sure we are remaining within a ballpark. Staff have provided us a report of a variety of “typical” planning scenarios like rezonings, and show where New West ranks compared to other Cities in the region.

If anything looks out of whack to you, the Bylaw that institutes these fees with be coming to Council on November 7th. You might want to let Mayor and Council know of your concerns before then!

---

We then moved on to Bylaws:

Engineering Fees and Rates Amendment (Secondary Suites) Bylaw No.7861, 2016
This Bylaw we talked about last week that formalizes how we manage utility fees for secondary suites was adopted by Council. Adjust your water usage appropriately. Or don’t, because it won’t make any difference. (see last week’s rant on this same blog)

Taxation Exemption and Exempt Properties Bylaw No. 7870, 2016
This Bylaw that we also talked about last week and lists the properties to which the City provides an exemption from property taxation was also Adopted. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, etc.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Twelfth Street & Fifth Avenue) No. 7818, 2016
This Zoning Amendment to allow a development a t 12th Street and Fifth Ave finally gets adopted, after seeing Public Hearing back on the 30th of May. I noticed they are sold out when I rode my bike by on Sunday, so they better get building!

And that finished the meeting!