Council – April 25, 2016

Posted on April 29, 2016June 18, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As is standard for our last meeting of the month, we started our April 25 meeting with a Public Hearing.

This was to discuss amending the zoning language for 805 Boyd Street (the Westminster Landing retail area) and granting a Development Permit to allow the construction of one of those drive-through oil change places. This would be located on a relatively unused part of the parking area, adjacent to the Nando’s.

We had one person speak in opposition to this Zoning Amendment. They were a nearby property owner who leased to businesses of a similar type. He raised concerns about the timing and level of notice given to the surrounding areas. Staff confirmed that a complete mailout had been done to businesses and property owners, and that the signage and notice had met all of the requirements of the Bylaw and were appropriate for the development.

Council moved to receive the comments and referred the subject of the Public Hearing to Council.

That launched our Regular Meeting:

Zoning Amendment (805 Boyd Street) Bylaw No. 7827, 2016
Development Permit DPQ00096 for 805 Boyd Street
Council moved the Zoning Amendment and Development Permit. The change will allow “small box” automotive repair in Westminster Landing, and will allow the construction of the drive-through oil stop place. I was not given any compelling reason to vote against this proposal, and will continue to support my local independent mechanic (200,000+km on my 1996 Civic, still runs like a top!).

We then had a formal Opportunity to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit 00605 for 322 Sixth Avenue
After the required notification had been completed, the City received no correspondence on this project, and no-one came to speak in opposition to it. This is a slightly unusual corner lot in Queens Park, the heritage home is set a long way back from the street on two sides, and the owner wishes to build a relatively modest garage on the laneway. There simply isn’t enough room to build a garage with the required 5’ setback, so the owner asked for a variance to move the garage closer to the lane. This would align this new garage with the legally non-conforming garage right next door.

I have no reason to oppose this variance, and Council voted to approve it.

Queen’s Park Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation:
This might be the big story of the night. Following a couple of high-profile demolitions of heritage homes in Queens Park a couple of years ago, a large group of community members got organized and asked for the City to help them develop strategies to prevent the loss of more heritage homes in Queens Park.

This resident-driven process has been very proactive, and has developed a list of recommendations for the City, including developing a Heritage Conservation Area. There are many details to work out, but the short version would be the designation of all residential areas of Queens Park (essentially the residential areas between 6th and 1st streets and 6th and Royal Aves) as an area-wide heritage protected area. Within this are, homeowners would need to apply for special permission to do any demolition or significant alteration of their houses. Presumably, a heritage Conservation Commission would provide advice to Council on how to protect the heritage values of the property through the process, which may simply be impossible if someone wants to knock down a 100-year-old house. This would effectively permit Council to refuse to issue a demolition permit if it threatened the heritage value of the neighborhood.
There are other recommendations put forward to help preserve heritage homes, including incentives to make renovation and conservation easier, and the launch of a major effort to identify, characterize, and catalogue the heritage assets of the neighborhood. However, it is the proposal to designate the area and put processes in place to legally prevent demolition that will, no doubt, generate the most conversation.

Council moved to receive the report, and Staff will be working to evaluate the recommendations: some, such as “California Mills Act” type property tax changes may not be legal under the Community Charter, and others will need to find a funding source. In the meantime, the conversation in the neighbourhood, and indeed across the City, about how private property rights bump up against heritage conservation is sure to be an exciting one.

Bus Passes Reinstatement
The provincial government recently stripped funding from a special transit pass program for disabled seniors and people on disability assistance. I often get outraged about decisions made by senior governments, but I don’t usually bring that rage to the Council table. When Councillor McEvoy raised this issue, and suggested Council raise its voice, I heartily agreed, because it impacts our community so acutely.

New Westminster is a transit-oriented city, and we are doing so much work to make the transit in our City more accessible. This isn’t just something we are talking about, we are investing money in this – We are on track to have 100% accessibility for our bus stops ahead of any City in the region, we are accelerating our curb-cut program and working to improve accessibility for those with dementia, with vision impairments, and with mobility barriers. We aren’t doing this to fluff our own feathers, we are doing it because an accessible transit system is fundamental to the livability or our City, and the right thing to do

So I find it unacceptable that this government has decided without consultation to take that accessibility away from the most vulnerable members of our community, those who need it the most. It is mean, it is punitive, capricious, and wrong.

228 Nelson’s Crescent (Second Residential Tower, Brewery District):
Master Development Permit Amendment and Consideration of Development Permit Issuance
The deal that was originally signed with WesGroup set several conditions on the approval of the residential building, to assure the development met the City’s goal of “mixed use” and brought amenities to the community prior to an influx of new residents. WesGroup build and leased out most of the required office space and the major shopping amenities of the Brewery District prior to starting the first residential tower, but now want to proceed with further residential development prior to completing the entirety of their office space commitments. Their argument is that the office demand simply isn’t there right now, but will be once the RCH development is further along, but the demand for residential space is feeling no relaxation. The City will not let WesGroup off of the commitments they have made, but are at this time OK with making some changes in the timing, recognizing that WesGroup has already made good on the majority of the work.

There are still a few concerns long-term with the Brewery District development, mostly around traffic management. I have emphasized many times that the entire development cannot rely on East Columbia Street for all ingress and egress for cars, and that work needs to be done between the City, RCH and WesGroup to re-imagine how the foot of Keary (below East Columbia) is going to operate if WesGroup and RCH both have underground garage entrances there. I would be happy to see those garages not connect at all to East Columbia, but to have Keary dead-end mid-block between East Columbia and Brunette, with a signal-controlled intersection at Brunette and Keary. There are also concerns regarding how Nelson’s Crescent and Nelson;s cOurt interact with East Columbia, which will likely need ot wait until the Sapperton Traffic study is completed.

Qayqayt Elementary School – Transportation Update
There are ongoing concerns in the community about safe routes to Qayqayt School. This is something that has been going on since the school opened. I have toured the site several times, it has been discussed at NTAC and ACTBiPed meetings, and as part of the Master Transportation Plan implementation work. Compared to where we were two years ago, a lot of progress has been made. Notably, there have been many improvements on Agnes and with vital downtown intersections along 4th Street. The “slipway” off of Royal onto Merryvale has been re-designed, with some pavement, signage, and geometry changes.

However, proximity to Royal Ave still causes concern. The homes north of Royal adjacent to Qayqayt are actually in the Herbert Spencer catchmnent, but some students do still make this crossing. There was an incident a couple of weeks ago where the crossing was green, a crossing guard was present, but won child advanced ahead of the guard. Unfortunately, at the same time, a car failed to stop behind the white line, and rolled a few feet into the crossing, striking the child, who was knocked off of his/her bike. Fortunately, the child was not seriously injured, but this incident raised awareness of the potential for danger at that intersection.

Our engineering group is working with the School District and PAC to evaluate ways the intersection can be improved to emphasize pedestrian safety. The initial assessment indicated there were no engineering failures – the intersection is designed with adequate sight lines, controls, and geometry that it is ostensibly as safe as the design code requires. However, nothing in the code prevents us from exceeding those safety requirements, and in light of the type of traffic we get on Royal, and the vulnerability of the pedestrians using the crossing, our engineers will be looking at creative methods to increase the safety.

The following Item was removed from the Consent Agenda:

Westminster Pier Park 2015 Food Services Overview
We were provided a report on the food service operation at Pier Park. It has been a bit of a struggle to get an operation up and running, but now that we have better access to the Park via 4th Street and some potential for increased programming in the Park, the trend is going the right direction.

Councillor Trentadue raised an interesting question about whether it is possible to license this operation so people could get a beer or a glass of wine while enjoying the Park. I agree this is an area for further exploration, as is opening up the Park to Food Trucks and other temporary vendors. The model we have now is very similar to the Treats concession stand in Queens Park, which has been run on what is essentially a cost-recovery basis for years. It is possible we can get to that place with the Pier Park concession as the Park gets more established. It is also possible that we can look at alternative delivery models for the site… more to come!

The following items were moved on Consent:

2016 Downtown BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw
2016 Uptown New Westminster BIA Parcel Tax Bylaw
These are our annual bylaw updates to support the Parcel Tax that funds the Downtown Business Improvement Areas. This Bylaw formalizes the agreed-upon tax rate: the amount of levy charged per linear foot of business frontage, which is ~$20 in the primary part of Downtown, ~$15 in the secondary part of Downtown, and ~$20 in Uptown. This money is collected by the City, but it returned back to the BIA organization for them to use in promoting and developing their commercial neighbourhoods.

2016 Tax Rates Bylaw
This Bylaw formally adopts the Property Tax increase required to support he now-adopted 2016-2020 5-Year Financial Plan. That increase is 2.73%. I’ve got one good blog post left in me about this increase, answering the common question: Why is it always more than inflation? Coming soon!

We then moved on to our ever-popular Bylaws:

Downtown New Westminster BIA (Primary Area) Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7828, 2016
Downtown New Westminster BIA (Secondary Area) Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7829, 2016
Uptown New Westminster Business Improvement Area Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 7830, 2016
As mentioned above these Bylaws were each given three readings.

Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7831, 2016
As mentioned above this Bylaw was also given three readings.

…on the bike race

Posted on April 22, 2016April 22, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I didn’t want to write this blog post, for a few reasons.

First of all, I hoped that we would be building excitement right now for a bike race in Uptown a month from today, but that is not going to happen. Secondly, I had hoped that the process through which we got here was respectful and transparent enough that I would not have to engage in after-the-fact record straightening, because my doing so will be perceived by some in the community as my being unnecessarily confrontational, accusatory, or “political”. I hope I can demonstrate that is not my intention, as apportioning blame is not my interest, improving the process is.

My disappointment that the race is not going forward in 2016 has been shadowed by my disappointment that withdrawal of support for the road closure is being characterized as an arbitrary and capricious decision by City Hall. The quote

…the City of New Westminster, for unspecified reasons, has unilaterally cancelled the Hyack Grand Prix…”

does not fairly reflect my experience, and I have to address it.

For context, I was pretty excited about this race, and even attended a couple of organizational meetings to see if there were any potential hiccups I could help smooth out at City Hall, and so I could be more in the know in case Council had any questions or concerns. I didn’t have time to join the organizing committee, but hoped there was a way I could (with my limited free time) help out. I was actually looking forward to spending May 28th volunteering at a corner with my FR Fuggitivi friends and enjoying the race.

I should avoid speaking for the City, staff, the rest of Council or the Festivals Committee (I don’t serve on that Committee), but every impression I got from Council and Staff is that they were enthusiastic about this event, that there was good potential ROI for the City, and that there was no reason it should not happen. I never heard anyone at 511 Royal Ave speak against the idea.

It did become clear in early March, however, that some of the groundwork had not been laid to get the race going. Nothing was critical yet, but there were a collection of small issues that were not being addressed in a timely manner, giving staff reasons to be concerned about the organizing committee’s capacity to get them done in time. Most of them looked like details that were a little behind but were not yet on the “critical path”.

There were some negotiations on the course layout and safety issues, where I (frankly) was on the side of the organizers in negotiating with the City, but that was a discussion I felt was going to work out fine when CyclingBC folks were able to provide their professional guidance. There were issues around asphalt that were worked out, etc.

However, the sticking point became the road closures and impacts on the local neighbourhood. Closing several blocks of roads in the middle of the City on a Saturday has the potential to impact residents and businesses in unanticipated ways. Between the parade and the bike race, these closures were stretching to 8+ hours. If you ran a service business that had limited access to its front door on your busiest day of the week, you might be concerned (alternately, if you ran a pub or restaurant with a thousand people outside of your door all day, you might be exited!). If you had no access to the driveway of your house for 8 hours on a Saturday, you may equally be concerned. God forbid if you had a concrete pour on your construction site or a backyard wedding planned that day.

No problem, the City does this type of thing all the time. We have street festivals, we have parades, we do utility work. There are protocols for communicating with residents and businesses, assuring organizers have approval from them (or not) and that those approvals are crystal clear about what the type and duration of the disruption will be. It is clear with the organizations running these events that this is their responsibility, and although the City will provide guidance, the leg-work to get this work done to the satisfaction of the City is up to the organizer. It is simply a resource issue for a small municipality.

There will (almost) always be a small number of people who oppose the closure for whatever reason, valid or not. As the event is something the City and Council supports, staff are ready to deal with that small number. If there are a small number of residents or businesses that oppose it, we will talk to them, try to figure out how to accommodate their needs, make adjustments, or even (at times) tell them to get over it, because this is coming, and your neighbours all want it, so heads-up!

In early March, it was becoming clear that this consultation with the neighbourhood was going slowly, partly because of resource limitations of the organizer, partly because of some communication problems between the organizer and the City, and partly because of some disagreements/negotiations around expectations. This aspect of the organization was becoming the critical path, because if public notice was not completed to a level that made the City comfortable, then the City was not going to dump a bunch of resources into the following steps, knowing that the event may not go on. Again, limited resources require careful governance of those resources. Timing of this consent is also critical because the City needed time to manage those few residents or businesses that may not agree, to be fair to those people.

Through March and into early April, there was a significant back and forth between staff and the organizers, it was clear that the organizers felt they were doing an adequate job in this outreach, and staff were not as confident. Deadlines, first soft then firm, were set and passed. When the Festivals Committee reviewed the level of preparedness for the event, this critical gap was identified, and the Committee recommended to Council that we consider cancelling the event. Staff felt that this work had dragged on too long, and there was limited time to complete a long list of critical next steps.

The week after that recommendation was challenging for me, for staff, and for the organizers. I personally contacted the organizers in order to better understand the situation form their point of view. I had other concerns about the event (management of timing, parking arrangements for racers, a few course layout concerns, etc.) but I honestly thought they were going to get over this gap with liberal application of shoe leather, elbow grease, and salesmanship. I had enough experience with smaller bike races in my earlier days that I know how things can come together at crunch time.

I met with staff and looked at the public outreach data they were using to make their assessment, and I agreed with them. I was sent data from the organizers, and was challenged to rectify the two datasets and change my opinion about staff’s assessment. I arranged for a meeting with the organizers and representatives of the Festivals Committee to sit down and discuss how the data the organizers provided did not fulfill staff’s expectations about public contacts. following this, there was yet another meeting the between staff and the organizers to further compare notes. I cannot emphasize enough that all of this took place in an effort to make the event happen. We burned a lot of staff time (and overtime), at a level we would not have done for a commercial enterprise, film company, or most other volunteer events. City staff bent over backwards trying to see the situation through the organizers’ lens, and I feel they tried earnestly to get to a place where they could responsibly recommend further support.

Councillor Harper (representing the Festivals Committee) and I took the extra time to set up and attend these meetings, to dig into the data, and to consider the options. In the end, we had to agree with staff that moving ahead in 2016 was not the responsible thing to do. It didn’t serve the City, the organizers, or CyclingBC.

At every step of the way here, we were in communication with the organizers, and the City repeatedly made clear what its expectations were. There was nothing capricious in the decision, nor should it have been surprising to the organizers. I think staff made the right call in a difficult situation, and I support them, even if it means we cannot have an event in 2016 that I was very much looking forward to.

I hope that we can try again in 2017, and through this experience we can tighten up the way we set and address the City’s expectations. It appears we need to start consultations earlier and perhaps the City needs to set firmer deadlines instead of only giving guidance. Lessons were learned through this.

I think the relationship between the City and the organizers, clearly fractious in the past, was in this case business-like and respectful up until the end, and I hope this disappointment does not erode the progress made. That is part of the reason I was reluctant to write this blog post, as I don’t want fuel thrown on a spark. However I equally cannot stand silent while the motives and professionalism of the City’s staff, Committee, and Council are questioned in the social media. I think there are things the City could have done differently, but there are definitely things that the organizers could have done better, and should have done better. I own a bit of this, as I was probably not as proactive as a self-assigned liaison as I could have been, especially earlier in the process. However, both Hyack and the City were pushing the envelope a bit, getting into organizing an event they had little experience with, and I think it was valuable learning experience. I hope it pays off with a great event in 2017.

That will require a continued business-like relationship and respectful communications on both sides.

Council Report – April 18, 2016

Posted on April 19, 2016June 18, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Sometimes you know ahead of time you are in for a long night at Council. Other times they just kind of sneak up on you and keep you up until midnight. If I had any idea April 18th was going to be the latter, I might have had a little more dinner.

I am not going to comment on the Public Delegations here, because I want to keep these Council Reports limited to the business we did on the day, and they are already too long for a reasonable person to read. Some of the issues that came up at Delegation later came up in regular business, so I will talk about them there, others I will probably find another occasion to cover in this blog. I can summarize the delegation period as mostly about frustration, though with moments of true inspiration. So about par for the course.

Our April 18 meeting started with the Parcel Tax Role. These are various special initiatives for which the City collects taxes from a specific set of property owners for dedicated purposes. The people paying these taxes voted at some point in the past to have this special assessment in order to receive the benefit the assessment pays for. The BIAs use the City to collect their operational costs in the Uptown and Downtown, and others pay to have special paving projects, sewer/drainage projects that may not have otherwise been completed. Once a year, we need to complete a report and provide public notice to all being charged so they can appeal if the tax doesn’t apply to them due to clerical error or some other special condition.

On to the Regular Meeting, which started after our Poet Laureate celebrated World Poetry Day as part of the Mayor’s Annual Poetry City Challenge, and three other Proclamations.

618 Carnarvon Street – Rezoning from C-4 to CD to allow a Mixed Use
Commercial Multi Unit Residential Development
Council moved to approve the further development of this project, through Public Consultation and Committee review. This is a pretty significant project in the Downtown which will fill several lots just down the hill below the Point, where Bricks & Mortar Living and several other small businesses are currently operating.

The conversation was interesting, and there is a lot of detail to cover here, but this process is very early in the process, so I don’t want to put to much of my judgement into it prior to the consultation and Public Hearing. I’m sure it is going to be an interesting discussion in the community for the next few weeks.

After a half dozen 5-minute Public Delegations that somehow took us three hours, we moved onto:

PIKNIC ELECTRONIK Concert series Proposal
Since the Pier Park was opened, there have been several ideas to “activate” the space beyond just the passive uses that are already embraced by the community. The International Festival on Canada Day and the outdoor PechaKuchaNW event were both smaller-scale free events that showed the space off, and several proposals have been discussed to bring ticketed music events in the summer.

PIKNIC ELECTRONIK is a well-known festival held all summer in Montreal, expanding to Melbourne, Dubai and Barcelona. Electronic music is usually (to lame old people like me) associated with clubs and raves, but this is a daytime outdoor family friendly event which should be fun for all (especially that all-important “significantly cooler than me” demographic).

This year, we are being asked to waive the rental fee for the Park, and expect that the event will cost the city about $3,000 in extra staff time for maintenance, etc. This is the first year, and an unproven venue for this type of event. This looks like a good way for the City (for a low cost) to let a group with lots of experience in this type of event work the bugs out, with potential for more events of a similar nature next year.

Council likes the idea, and supported it, with some direction to Staff to evaluate and address the potential for conflict with other events happening that weekend – the StrEAT Food Truck Festival will directly overlap with this event (both occur in the afternoon and evening) and the Downtown BIA is supportive of another event next door, recognizing potential synergies and benefits. The Quayside Boardwalk Sale is also on the same day, although it occurs earlier in the day, and the QCB has indicated they are NOT in support of having this event on the same day as theirs, although the conflict seems much less pronounced. Regardless, it sounds like the organizers are happy to accommodate other groups, and I am confident a solution will be found.

No word yet on whether noted local punk polymath HARGOW will be playing.

After taking yet another break, we had three accelerated presentations from staff on progress of three of our Strategic Initiatives, which I will condense here:

OCP update is moving on, another workshop with Council next week, and landuse plans are going to be getting sketched up soon, with OCP framework will be going to Public Consultation hopefully before Summer!

Mayor’s Transportation Taskforce is rolling out the priority capital program, emphasizing getting our sidewalks, transit stops and cycling facilities improved, and working on Safe Routes to School Programs. We are also working with our regional partners on Truck Route strategies and the Fraser Trade area study.

Mayor’s Public Engagement Taskforce has been working on a report the outlines the many ways we can communicate better with the public, and make it easier for people to interact with City Hall. Believe it or not, we are taking the Public Engagement plans out to the public for engagement. The most meta event ever held by the City will happen on May 7 – its free but you should click this link and register to make sure you get a seat.

We then moved the following items on Consent.

Community Banners Program
You know those banners that hang off of light poles, but you might not know that they are designed through two local programs. One program gives themes to local artists, and a competition is held to come up with designs that fit that theme. The second program matches local artists with artistic youth in the community through the Anvil Centre community arts programs, and they work collaboratively to develop banner designs. The banner program costs about $10,000 and comes out of the community Public Art Reserve Fund.

700 Royal Avenue (Douglas College): Exemption to Construction Noise Bylaw
Douglas College is doing some work during the very short inter-semester period, and needs to exceed the usual hours, requesting a noise Bylaw exemption to allow that. It is a short period of time, and most of the work is indoors, so if you live right next door, apologies in advance, but you might hear some noise a few nights this summer.

New Westminster SkyTrain Station: Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption
Move similarly, some of the works around the renewal of the New Westminster SkyTrain Station will require night work when the trains are not operating. This has been going on intermittently for several months, and the City has received only one complaint. Hopefully, it will be over soon and we can have our SkyTrain station back.

350 Gifford Street (Starlight Casino): Application for New Liquor Primary License
The Casino wants to shuffle their pub/restaurant layout, and this requires a new Liquor Primary License. This is a pretty typical application process, with no concerns raised. The part of it I found interesting is that ample nearby parking is a consideration in a Liquor primary establishment. Let that sink in for a minute.

Affordable Housing Small Sites: Recommend Proponents
The City is working on a few partnerships to developing a couple of small affordable housing projects, using money from our Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. Two sites have been identified (one Downtown and one in Queensborough) and two partners identified through a competitive procurement process (Catalyst/Community Living Society and Women in Need Gaining Strength). There is a bunch of work to do yet, from setting up agreements to rezonings and other approvals, but Council has provided preliminary conditional support, and things are moving forward.

Gas Works Site Land Use Plans and Response to Roof Collapse
This report is updating Council on what the province is doing about the recent collapse of the roof at the Gas Works building. The building and lands belong to the province, but the City has, in the past, expressed interest in partnering with the province to preserve the building and/or remediate the contaminated site it sits upon to re-purpose it for community use. We have a longer conversation to have, and some discussions with the province will have to be accelerated in light of the building damage. In the meantime, the Province is going to be removing the debris and shoring up the building to make the structure safe enough that it can be left unguarded (but not, I suppose, enough that it can be re-occupied).

30km/h Speed Limits on Residential Streets
I really wanted to make a speech here, but time was tight, so I let the report be received on Consent and saved my speechmaking for another day.

The report from staff importantly acknowledged that the Office of the Provincial Health Officer released an annual report on March 3 2016 that was directed towards “Reducing the Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes on Health and Well-being in BC” . It noted that although motor vehicle deaths have been on a downward trend for decades (it is getting remarkably safer to be inside a car), that pedestrian deaths are NOT declining. And speed is still the #1 factor in crashes – more than impairment, more than distraction.

The Provincial Public Health officer made 28 recommendations, from tougher graduated licensing to better road design and maintenance, but #12 stands out :

12. Amend the Motor Vehicle Act to reduce the default speed limit on roads within municipalities and treaty lands from 50 km/h to a maximum of 30 km/h (the survivable speed for pedestrians and cyclists).

I will be following up with staff through the ACTBiPed and Mayor’s Transportation Taskforce to determine if any of the other recommendations in the Public Health Officer’s report could be implemented by a local government and is not already part of our MTP or other plans. In short: is there anything they are recommending we could be doing to make our roads safer, for vulnerable users especially.

I think that is something this Council would be quick to support, but we can only hope the Provincial Government takes the same serious attitude about this public health issue and gives City the ability to protect their residents by implementing defensible speed limits that emphasize safety and survivability. .

BC Penitentiary Cemetery – Restoration and Preservation
There is, little known to most, a small cemetery to people who died at the BC Pen on the edge of Glenbrook Ravine. It is mostly invisible, though city staff do a basic amount of care ot it to assure it is not destroyed, but is kept to a standard of the provincial act that regulated cemeteries. There is a local heritage group interested in working to improve the conservation efforts around the site, and Council has agreed to set up a committee of volunteers with a small City staff contingent to help coordinate this effort.

Application for Strata Conversion of the Industrial Warehouse at 407 Wood Street
A property owner in Queensborough who operates a mutli-tenant light industrial warehouse wished to convert it to a Strata Ownership model. This is one of those semi-provincial semi-local government processes, but under the Strata title Act the City does need to administer it issue approvals. And Council did approve this application.

Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation
This is an information memo on the plans for the Pattullo Bridge renovation. If you haven’t heard by now, the Pattullo will be reduced to one lane each direction from the end of April to the beginning of October, and everyone is anticipating traffic chaos. I suspect it will not be that bad once people get used to the fact that the capacity is reduced and move their plans to other routes. The Queensborough will probably feel some pressure, and I anticipate extra toll revenue for the Port Mann. We will be doing traffic counts to collect data for better traffic planning, and the NWPD will be out doing extra enforcement in residential neighbourhoods to try to make life more difficult for rat runners. Let’s all hunker down and get through it, folks, because there isn’t going to be a new bridge any time soon.

The following items were (reluctantly, due to the time), pulled from Consent.

New Reference Concept for Q2Q Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge
Speaking of bridges and difficult projects. As someone who enthusiastically supported the fixed link concept prior to being elected, It has been a real dose of reality to now be in a position where I have to try to get the darn thing built. I think our staff has done an excellent job dealing with constantly shifting realities in this project, and I know that they are feeling the stress like we are, and I thank them for their efforts..

I have had a lot of conversations with people on the Quayside, where most of the concern regarding this project has arisen. However, much of the angst I felt from the neighbourhood arose from an impression that the City was not consulting enough on this project, but was barging forward. For me, it was important to let them know that the City is still working out details, and any design you have seen before is not necessarily the “final” design, but a concept used to gauge the possibilities, to guide the consultation and engineering work.

Indeed, there have been several different designs, some higher, some lower, different locations and different construction concepts taken to public consultation and evaluated by the engineers and regulatory authorities, and those plans keep changing as a direct result of those consultations. To me, this is a sign of a consultation and design process that is working well, not one that is failing.

To me, this bridge is and has always been about connecting communities. It is a transportation link no different than the McInnes overpass or the Central Valley Greenway. It needs to be accessible, it needs to be reliable, it needs to be safe, and it needs to fit the human scale of the neighbourhood it serves. We are getting there, and this shifting of the reference design to a low-level bridge that is much more accessible, should reduce cost and impact on the neighbourhood, but we going to have to have a discussion with the Marine Carriers and the Port to get approval for this. There is a lot of work to do yet, and of course, just as before, this may not be the “definitive” design, but I think we are headed in the right direction.

However, being cognizant that those regulatory challenges exist, I think it is time for the City to look seriously at Plans B. There has been much talk about a passenger ferry system, and there are good urban planning and community connecting arguments for why a fixed link is a better way to go (and we would most likely be letting the $6Million in DAC funding go away if we cannot meet the fixed link solution). So I added to the recommended motion that we ask staff to do some preliminary scoping of alternative plans, whether that means updating the previously-evaluated ferry option and other alternative methods to “bridge” the North Arm.

New Westminster Street Food Policy
We are working towards a pretty good policy here I can support, but share the Mayor’s concerns that Pier Park was being dismissed for poorly supported reasons, and want to set some guidelines around how the Parkade can be used in ways that does not challenge the structural integrity of the Parkade. A Bylaw will be sketched up and we may have a functional food truck Bylaw by the Sumer food truck season!

1031 Sixth Ave – Cancellation of Proposed HRA
This is a terrible situation. The owner of this 120-year-old house in Moody Park ran into unexpected issues renovating the house, and decided to demolish it to build a new house. his Demolition Permit application caused the City concern, as the house, though it is not designated or protected by law, it has significant heritage value to the neighbourhood and the entire community.

Staff worked for several weeks with the owner to try to find a way to make the house salvageable, and the applicant some time and money putting together plans where the house would be shifted to the back of the property, protected with a heritage Designation, and a second house could be built on the lot for his family.

This innovative approach was taken to neighbourhood consultation, and the Moody Park Residents Association voted against allowing the project. The resistance to the project was such that the owner, already reluctant, decided to no longer invest time and money in the approach, and 9 months of progress was apparently lost.

The City will be evaluating if we have further options to protect the house in or next meeting.

We then wrapped a long night be adopting a few Bylaws.

Development Approval Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 7825, 2016
Development Services Fees Amendment Bylaw No. 7826, 2016
As discussed at the April 4 meeting, these Bylaws that adjust how the city does Pre-approvals of projects in now the Law of the Land. Please adjust your behavior accordingly.

Five-Year Financial Plan (2016-2020) Bylaw No. 7821, 2016
As discussed at several meetings, including March 14, the Bylaw supporting our new 5-year Financial Plan was officially adopted.

And that was, for the most part, that. See you next week.

Myths and Lies

Posted on April 18, 2016April 22, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. 26 Comments.

There is a lot going on right now in the transportation file in the Lower Mainland, both good and bad news, and I can hardly keep up, never mind blog about it. So while the local radio stations stoked anger a couple of weeks ago about another TransLink “outrage”, I had something completely different to get angry about: this “Fact Scheet” produced by the provincial government in regards to the Massey Tunnel replacement project:

After venting into a Word document, I put it aside and relaxed. Writing is good therapy, and I figured I would edit it up and make use of it later. Anger abated, back of mind, life goes on. Then last week I was triggered to pull it back out by this post by Transportation Economist Stephen Rees (someone you should be reading – his knowledge and insight are unique and powerful), and his writing:

I must admit that when I read it I became almost incoherent with rage.

Amen, Brother.

Why “rage” about a seemingly innocuous two-page fact sheet produced to hard sell a key government project to the business community? Because almost every proclaimed myth-busting point presented on this definitive piece of Government paper is a lie. A stinking pile of bullshit that anyone who has spent any time learning about transportation policy in the western world over the last three decades can smell from a mile away. And it is printed on Government letterhead. I’m angry that either people in the Ministry of Transportation don’t know it is all bullshit, or they do know and are still willing to publish it. I’m not sure which is worse.

That last paragraph may seem inappropriate to some of my readers (Sorry, Mom!), but please let me assure you, I use the term bullshit in the strictly technical sense of the word. And someone needs to start calling this government out on their lies.

The “myths” hit the news two weeks ago when the Minister presented his case for a 10-lane bridge to the relatively receptive audience of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. At the event, he was suggested to have “busted” some myths about the project, being spread by what he called “rumour-mongers, conspiracy theorists and those with apparently ill-informed opinions”.

Let us look at the Myths seemingly busted:

If we define “The project” as a 10-lane high level bridge, then clearly it is not the only solution to the problems presented here. Traffic congestion in the tunnel has been demonstrated to be getting better, not worse, over the last decade, and the Ministry’s own data shows that 87% of vehicles in the tunnel are cars (almost all single-occupant) while more than a quarter of the *people* going through the tunnel are in the 1% of vehicles that comprise the inadequate transit service through the tube. Providing better options for only 15% of the people who use the tunnel would virtually end congestion, leaving a bunch of money left over to finish the work to make the tunnel earthquake safe again. Saying “we need to do something” is not the same as saying “we need to do this thing”. This project is not needed. Myth not busted.

There is no doubt the Ministry has talked to many people, but to say they have “consulted” is quite the stretch. The City where the majority of the project has taken place is claiming they have not been listened to, and are not in favour of the project, the regional government is opposed, as are all of the local governments (save one). No defensible business case has been presented answering for the project. The parts of the “3,600 pages of Project Information” that referred to costing and SWAT analysis were redacted.

One way to tell that “consultation” has not occurred: No aspect of the plan has demonstrably been changed to address the concerns of people consulted since this 10-lane bridge solution was first presented to the public. They started with a 10-lane high level bridge solution, and ended at it. Myth not busted.

They are right, no Federal Review is required by current legislation (assuming that other accessory projects like removing the old tunnel and re-routing of the BC Hydro line that uses the tunnel are separate projects). This is because the gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by the Harper Conservatives in 2012 significantly cut back on Federal Review guidelines. Myth busted, but probably not something to be proud of.

What a steaming pile this is. “keeping traffic moving to reduce GHG emissions” is a perfect example of bullshit: it’s not wrong, it’s just stupid. Ways to reduce GHG impacts of transportation have been studied to death, and yes, idling reduction (depending on conditions) can reduce gas consumption per kilometre, but it does not reduce GHG emissions anywhere near as much as dozens of other available techniques, including modifying trip-making choices, increasing vehicle occupancy rates, shifting (freight and passengers) to more efficient modes, compact community planning, etc. etc. – policies that are directly undermined by this very project! Claiming that “free flowing traffic” induces transit use boggles the mind. The other “improvements” and “enhancements” listed here could easily be funded at a fraction of the cost of building a $3.5Billion bridge, without the boondoggle hanging over it. Why is planting a tree contingent on laying asphalt, what does one have to do with the other? Myth not busted.

This may very well be true. But you know what is cheaper than building a new tunnel and cheaper than a new bridge? Making the infrastructure you already have work better. One of the more galling parts of this entire project is that no-one seems to be looking at the opportunity cost of a $3.5Billion infrastructure investment – what real improvements could we build to the regional transportation system with that kind of money. Perhaps start here. Myth busted, not that it is relevant to the argument.

Seriously. The Ministry is arguing that the route that now has 4 lanes will be congested on opening day if it has 8 lanes, but will allow free-flow until 2040 if it has 10 lanes. Chew on that for a bit. Just let the magical thinking sink in. Then remember, these are the guys who projected traffic demand for the Port Mann. Myth not busted.

There is a lot of creative work here to not directly address the assertion that is being made. The bottleneck is irrelevant to this point (as we know there are too many other more affordable ways to address a bottleneck that is 85% single occupancy cars). The height of the Alex Fraser is irrelevant as well, as that is not currently a limit to crossing the tunnel. The word “dredging” is not raised at all in this retort, nor the evidence that deeper dredging in the river is a long-established goal of the various port authorities and port operators on the south arm, or that the tunnel is currently the largest impediment to a deeper channel. Myth not busted; Myth deftly avoided.

This is the “myth busting” that caused Stephen Rees the most rage, because it is completely separated from reality, the reality that he has spent a distinguished career studying on two continents. There are no transportation planners, transportation economists, transportation engineers, or rational human beings who believe that more than doubling the capacity at the tunnel will not increase traffic congestion at the Oak Street Bridge. Their denial of this basic reality is simply a lie. To get the count of “60% stops in Richmond”, they had to count all of the traffic leaving the 99 to go on the East-West Connector and the Knight Street Bridge as being “Richmond” traffic. And yes, those routes will also become more congested, calling for more future “improvements”, because of the induced demand this project will bring (more on that under Myth #1). Myth not busted.

Did you know that Highways are allowed in the ALR? Much of the South Fraser Perimeter Road is actually in the ALR, no exclusion necessary, just compensation paid to the property owner who has his acreage bisected or cut off. So the Ministry can put the entirety of this project on ALR land and claim “no net loss” of ALR land- although admittedly it is hard to farm asphalt.

I cannot find any evidence (outside of Ministry pieces like this) that farmers on either side of the river support this project, nor does their business case or other consultation material explain how putting hundreds of acres of farmland under asphalt could result in “net gain”. I have read stories of farmers expressing concern about various aspects of the project. I have also heard farmers speaking about the increased pressure on farmland, the inability to afford to farm on farmland with price speculation pushing up farm land prices because of projects such as this which encourage auto-oriented sprawl in valley communities. I have also read about the Port buying up farmland in Richmond to build cross-docking facilities that will be linked to this project with shiny new roads. Myth not busted.

And to top it all off:

This is pure, unadulterated bullshit. If the Ministry of Transportation can show us an example (from their alleged “experience here and around the world”) from a growing industrialized economy where adding highway capacity has not resulted in increased highway use, they should bottle it and sell it to Los Angeles, or Dallas, or Houston, or Atlanta, or freaking Hanoi. This magic solution to congestion will pay off better than LNG. That increased capacity equals increased congestion is such a well-established concept in transportation planning that it is actually called The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion by the people who study this stuff as an academic discipline. To deny this is to deny gravity, or evolution, or the atomic model. Myth not busted, but supported by a Fundamental Law.

On this blog, I’m trying to be solutions-based. I often write things that sound critical as a search for solutions, as a way to force myself to look deeper at issues, do some research, understand the counter-arguments against my point, so I can do a better job when I have to make a decision. The Q2Q bridge is an example where I am less and less certain about how to move the project the more I learn about it. Although I am still hopeful we can find a good solution, I am increasing cognizant through stages of planning and public consultation of just how complicated a project it is, and that no matter what we do, someone isn’t going to like it. And I’m trying, really hard, to stay realistic and evidence-based on this project. When I point out numerous flaws to one specific approach, it isn’t just to be a boo-bird or support “the forces of NO”, it is to challenge assumptions and try to understand *if* the idea will work, which is often easiest to do by figuring out why it won’t. That is, I suppose, a result of my training in science, where we work to find reasons to reject null hypotheses. Or maybe I’m just a detail-mining jerk.

Then I get confronted with a project like the Massey Tunnel Replacement. This is a project with no reasoned justification, no supported business case, no alignment with any other regional plan or transportation initiative. It is a megaproject that stands in opposition to regional growth plans, regional transportation plans, and provincial and federal GHG reduction plans, and will undermine them all. It’s a bad idea at a bad time, badly presented for bad reasons. It is a bad idea so bad even most of the arguments against it are bad, but are still better than the arguments for it. And this is why I get angry even writing about it.

That is what your money is building, folks, a 10-lane $3.5Billion concrete edifice to bad ideas, now being bolstered by bald-faced lies by people you are paying to tell them to you. If you are not angry about this, you need to start paying attention.

Council – April 4, 2016

Posted on April 5, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Whattya think folks? Mayor Mary did a pretty good pinch-hit for His Worship, no?

It was fun handing out awards to kids for colouring contests, but before that Council moved the following items on Consent:

Resolution on the Massey Theatre
The City has been waiting, just as the community has, for an announcement that the Province is ready to step up and fund the replacement of NWSS. In the meantime, we have been working with the Province and the School Board to make the process and the path forward clearer.

It should be no surprise that the City has committed $10Million to the eventual refurbishment or replacement of the Massey Theatre, this has been part of our Strategic Goals for the term, and has been a line item in our Capital budget for some time. This Agreement in Principle, however, clarifies the roles of the School Board, the Province, and the City in the event that the School project moves ahead in the near future, and that keeping the Massey Theatre open and running is not part of the Province’s budget for the new school. This was never a cause of delay on the project, but by getting an agreement framework in place, we can assure the fate of the Massey is not a delay in the works to replace the school once the project starts rolling.

And we need a new school. If you agree, maybe you can do something about it if you have a bit of time on Sunday.

Brewery District Building 5 Housing Agreement – Principles
The current plan for the next residential building in the Brewery District development is to have secured market rental for a portion of the building. This agreement (the details of which Council approved in principle) secures those units as rental for the long-term.

Policy for Driving the Parade Float, Truck and Trailer
The City actually owns the parade float chassis, and the truck and trailer combination used to haul the float around. Through Partnership Grants, the City provides funds to the Hyack Festival Association to revamp and decorate the float every two years, and we provide the use of the truck and trailer as an in-kind grant to Hyack and any other local organization who would like to use it for their festival.

Up to no, we have not had an established policy about who can drive the City truck/trailer combination and float, as it has always been one of a very few Hyack volunteers. However, now that at least one other organization is using the float, it was thought appropriate to codify license, use, and practice policies to make sure we are doing our due diligence as far as use of the City asset and compliance with the City’ insurance requirements. In that sense, this isn’t a new policy, so much as a putting into a policy what has been the traditional practice.

Financial Plan 2016-2020
The 5-year Financial Plan must be passed as a Bylaw, and Council moved to approve three readings of the Bylaw, now that the public process has wrapped up.

2015 Filming Update
The City both has a new Filming Coordinator, and had a record year in filming revenue. The City collects permit fees and charges for Engineering Services, Police Services, and whatever the Film companies may need to operate on City lands. We collected more than $500,000 in revenue for 2015, not including money made by private landowners or the spin-off revenue of the industry (New Westminster residents were paid more than $8Million in wages working in the local film industry).

Official Name for the City of New Westminster’s Youth Facility
The Youth Centre at Moody Park has been remarkably successful since it opened in 2010. As a member of the Youth Advisory Committee, I see the use of the site, and hear the youth of the City talking about how much they appreciate the facility. However, it has never had an “official” name.

A focus group of youth were brought together to develop and decide upon an official name for the facility and decided on Boaty McBoatface.

Just Kidding! Our youth are more rational than the British Internet, and chose the relatively obvious “New West Youth Centre”. Sometimes the simplest names are the best, and this was chosen through a process that put the youth who are the user group in the front of the process, so I am happy to support it.

Council Remuneration 2016
Yes, we get paid. A decade ago, it was decided that the issue of Council pay should be put over to our HR department, and an empirical process developed by an external consultant used to determine how our pay should be compared to our cohort in other regional Cities. Our pay is compared to other municipalities similar n size (so, not Surrey, Vancouver or Richmond), and normalized relative to two measures of the “size” (and inferred Council responsibility) of each municipality: population and total budget. The only change to this process we made is that the analysis (and subsequent adjustment) is done every 4 years to match the new election cycle, instead of the previous every 3 years.

There will be a public process where people can come out and tell us much they appreciate the hard work we do. C’mon out on May 2 and let us know what you think. Should be fun.

805 Boyd Street: Rezoning
This commercial property in Queensborough Landing needs a rezoing in order to open one of those drive-up oil and lube places. This is something we don’t have a lot of in the City, and in the middle of the only real car-oriented retail area in the City is pretty much the most innocuous place to locate a business of this type. Council agreed to give the rezoning First and Second reading.

322 Sixth Avenue: DVP Application – Consideration of Issuance
This heritage home in Queens Park is located with relatively large setbacks on a corner lot, and the owner wished to install a new garage that will match the setback of their neighbor’s existing garage, which is nonetheless 1.5 feet closer to the lane that is permitted by the zoning allows. This requires a Development Variance Permit.

Council agreed to consider issuance, and there will be an Opportunity to be Heard at Council on April 25. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Proposed Development Pre-Application Process
One of the things we are trying to do this term of Council is improve some of the internal processes for approving developments. Cities approach their regulatory requirements in different ways, and I hear that New West is one of the more onerous – we over-emphasize public engagement and internal committee approvals relative to most Cities. The more changes that need to be made in a plan to get past these hurdles, and the later in the process those changes are made, the more expensive and complicated those changes get.

This proposed change in our process will not remove those steps, but it will hopefully make it easier for proponents to bring plans to the City earlier in the process for review, at a lower initial costs, and to allow the proponent to make changes or adjustments earlier when it is cheapest to do so.

Council moved to give the two required Bylaw changes preliminary readings.

We also received a few pieces of Council Correspondence:

Ministry of Community, Sport and Culture and Minister Responsible for TransLink Letter Dated March 8, 2016 Regarding Uber and similar ride-sharing Services
I really can’t comment on this much more than I already have.

The Corporation of Delta Letter Dated March 14, 2016 Regarding George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
I really can’t comment on this much more than I already have .

Port Metro Vancouver Letter Dated March 16, 2016 Regarding Rental Fees for Marina Owners on the Fraser River
Ugh. When will we get a review of the Port’s mandate?

88 Residents at Laguna Landing Regarding Q2Q Bridge: Petition to Change the Location and Concept
There is lots of upcoming public engagement on this project, but I really can’t say much more than I already have.

After the Heritage Poster contest, we had a report on a Public Art process for a Pump Station Replacement Project, then had an Opportunity to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit No. 00573 (Amendment #1) for 320
Salter Street
This was an Opportunity to be Heard for a Development Variance Permit for a market rental housing development in Queensborough. The Variance is required to vary the parking requirements, and that variance requires this opportunity to be heard. No one chose to exercise their right to speak, and no-one sent in any letters of opposition. Council moved to consider the development Permit for issuance.

We then had two Reports for Action:

Tax Exemption for Emergency Response Kits
Council move to support a recommendation from the Emergency Advisory Committee that we ask the LMLGA, UBCM and FCM to call on senior governments to remove PST/GST/HST from designated Emergency Preparedness Kits, to encourage people to buy them.

Day of Mourning Event April 28th, 2016 at Pier Park
The City will be hosting this important memorial event on April 28 at Pier Park.

We then did our usual Bylaws reading procedure:

Zoning Amendment (805 Boyd Street) Bylaw No. 7827, 2016
This Zoning Amendment discussed above was given two readings.

Development Services Fees Amendment Bylaw No. 7826, 2016
Development Approval Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 7825, 2016
These Bylaws to support the changed development approval process discussed above were given three readings.

Financial Plan (2016-2020) Bylaw No. 7821, 2016
The Budget Bylaw was given three readings.

And that, aside from our usual delegations, was a night’s work.

Utilities 2016

Posted on March 30, 2016March 29, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

As we are deep in to budget times at the City, I wrote a couple of previous posts comparing the amount of tax collected by New Westminster, and the rate of tax increases in New Westminster relative to the other Cities in the Lower Mainland.

If you are a homeowner in New West, you also paid your annual utility bill recently, and you may have noticed the rates for utilities are going up faster than your taxes. So it is worthwhile comparing between municipalities, as the way they manage their utilities has an impact on the taxes you pay, and the cost of living in your community.

First off, I removed the very rural municipalities from this analysis, mostly because the comparison of apples to apples is difficult. Anmore, for example, has no municipal sewer service, so every resident has their own septic field. Water services on Bowen Island are limited to parts of the community, and the level of service provided to Lions Bay and Belcarra is very different than in major communities.

Even within the “bigger” communities, there is variety. The Township of Langley provides about half of its water through its own groundwater wells, White Rock has its own groundwater supply for 100% of its needs, where pretty much everyone else who charges for water gets it from he GVRD. Large numbers of Langley residents and smaller numbers of Richmond, Pitt Meadows or Maple Ridge residents still use septic fields. Trash collection services vary widely across the region.

I have done my best to compare the cities based on the numbers they made available on their websites (as of March 1, 2016 – yes I wrote this pose a few weeks ago and just haven’t had a chance to put the graphics together). All the numbers shown are the published 2015 rates, except for two Cities that have already published their 2016 rates and purged their 2015 rates from their respective web sites, which I label in the diagrams below. So the numbers you see don’t reflect the numbers on your bill this year because I am comparing 2015 values, because that is the data available.

To start with Water Services, it is important to note that some municipalities meter their water, some charge a flat fee. If there is a flat fee available, I listed that. If only a metered rate is available, I calculated the amount they would pay if the household consumes the Lower Mainland average of 350 cubic metres of water per year.

As you can see, New Westminster is about the middle of the pack, and slightly less than the regional average of $519. Surrey is especially high as their flat rate is somewhat punitive to encourage voluntary metering, whereas West Van is fully metered and charges pretty high rates (all of those single family homes on large lots, high slopes, and hard rock result in significant infrastructure cost for their utility).

The sewer utility comparison tells another story. New Westminster is the second most expensive city in Greater Vancouver for sewer rates:

This can be partially blamed on the age of our infrastructure (we need to put more into reserves sooner to plan replacement/upgrade) and a large amount on us still having a large proportion of our sewers not source-separated. We send a lot of storm water to the treatment plant, and that is really, really expensive way to deal with it. The alternate is to accelerate our source separation program, which also happens to be very, very, expensive. There is a whole blog post to be written on this point alone, so I’ll leave it be for now.

Finally, garbage and recycling programs vary probably the most between municipalities. As some Cities have bi-weekly trash collection, and vary greatly in the volume of different waste types they collect, I tried my best to compare to the “baseline” in New Westminster, which is 120L trash and green bins, unlimited recycling bins.

As you can see, New West is slightly below the middle of the pack for solid waste services. This reflects two competing trends. Our city is compact, which should reduce the cost for trash collection, but we have one of the largest percentages of residents not living in the Single Family Detached, where trash is collected commercially and not by the City, which hurts our economy of scale somewhat.

Put these all together, and here is where all Municipalities compare on utility rates:

We are the 5th most expensive Municipality out of 17, firmly in the top third, almost completely driven by our higher sewer rates. As there is a complex interplay between tax rates and utility rates, it is interesting to add our average residential tax per household number from this old post to the amount we pay in utilities, to show a closer approximation of real costs between Cities:

Not surprisingly, West Vancouver with the highest taxes and the highest utility rates, is standing tall compared to all others. It is more interesting to see Surrey with its very low taxes jump up to the middle of the pack because of higher utility rates (driven in this analysis, by the punitive “non-metered” water rates, a Surrey resident can probably save $250 a year by getting a meter, which would put it down around Pitt Meadows overall). New Westminster, as expected, is somewhere down on the low side of average, 11th of 17 municipalities.

So what does this all mean? Not much, especially as this is a bit of a jumble of data – a combination of sources with great citations, but combined in a way that would get me laughed out of accounting school. Overall, though, it does suggest that New Westminster is not running its City anomalously less or more efficiently than any other city in the region. New Westminster does not have the costs or services of West Vancouver, but spends more than Langley City. Outside the few anomalies at the ends of the charts, it is probably not surprising that similar cost drivers overwhelm wildly varying political philosophies, and most Cities in the region have found a way to balance the needs and desires of their residents within very similar funding envelopes.

Toll comment

Posted on March 24, 2016March 23, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

I received this comment to my previous post about $1 tolls:

Another big problem, amongst others in this plan, is that it does not fairly distribute the burden on all Lower Mainland residents. I notice that nobody seems to think that the Burrard, Granville, Cambie, No. 2 Road, Dinsmore or either of the Moray Channel Bridges should be tolled. Therefore, if your objective is downtown Vancouver, all residents of Vancouver, Burnaby, Port Moody, New Westminster and Coquitlam are exempt from tolls. Ditto for any Richmond resident working at YVR. And yet, their cars place as much stress on the infrastructure and contribute to congestion/GHG emissions as a car coming from across the Fraser or Burrard Inlet.

There is a lot packed inside this succinct comment, and it deserves a fuller response that I can fit in a comment. If we decide to toll all/most bridges, which bridges do we toll?

The Mayor of Delta provided an analysis of tolling all crossings of the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet within the general TransLink area. I pointed out a problem with including the Laing bridge, as it is Federal, and YVR isn’t going to want someone else collecting tolls on their infrastructure that they built for their customers to use.

There are also (as noted in the comment) three more crossings of the middle arm of the Fraser (the No 2 Road, Dinsmore and Moray bridges) that all belong to the City of Richmond. There are also three bridges crossing False Creek (the Burrard, Granville and Cambie) that belong to the City of Vancouver. Should we expect those two cities to turn the infrastructure that they paid to build and still pay to maintain, over to regional tolling?

Should we expect their respective Mayors to take any different an opinion about this than the Mayors of the North Shore do when it is suggested their residents and businesses start paying tolls without a concomitant return in infrastructure investment for their residents and businesses?

Perhaps we are asking this question the wrong way. Instead of asking where we can toll, we should be asking what we want to achieve with a regional tolling strategy.

Although many appeal to “fairness”, that discussion usually devolves to getting someone else to pay more and the commenter to pay less. There is little fair in transportation funding. Pedestrians and cyclists subsidize drivers, transit users pay to cross rivers, drivers don’t. We all pay for TransLink whether we use buses ourselves or not. People in Vancouver are paying to build transit infrastructure in Prince George, but Prince George residents are not expected to pay for TransLink infrastructure, BC Ferries that run on tidewater are expensive, those that run on fresh water are free. It isn’t fair. Let’s put fair aside.

One thing we may try to do is manage the infrastructure we have more efficiently. The toll on the Port Mann has caused a decline in the use of that brand new and woefully underutilized crossing, and an offsetting increase in use of the aged, decrepit and congested Pattullo. When (if?) the Massey and the Pattullo are replaced with tolled crossings, the Alex Fraser is going to be a gong show. The idea of balancing tolls across the region is one way to address this issue.

Of course, flat tolls on all bridges is a pretty inelegant and inefficient way to do this. Dynamic tolling where off-peak crossing costs are lower than peak times, and even (gasp!) temporary reductions on some alternates when an incident or construction is causing one crossing to be jammed, are possibilities that could make our existing infrastructure carry loads better, and make road use more predictable. Of course, this is effectively the same thing as increasing capacity, and induced demand will result in the same net congestion within a few years anyway. Which brings us to the third (and best) reason to toll crossings.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the only thing (emphasis needed here: *The. Only.Thing.*) that has ever been effective at reducing traffic congestion in urban areas. When we talk of “road pricing” or “congestion pricing”, we really mean using the forces of the market to adjust traveller’s behaviour. Airlines do it (it costs more to fly on Friday and at Christmas), Ski Hills do it (it costs more to take a lift on a Saturday in December than a Tuesday in March), Ships, Trains, Busses, Car Rental companies, hotels – they all do it. Charge more at peak times and less in slow times to encourage some percentage of riders to take the off-peak trip and save your need to build more capacity.

Except when we talk about an integrated regional transportation system, we can also incentivise different uses altogether. And herein lies some of the answer of which bridges we should toll.

“If your objective is downtown” is a compelling part of the comment. Translink constantly reminds us, the living in the burbs – working downtown model does not apply to Greater Vancouver (reason #437 why the PMH! Project was a silly approach). Look at this compelling diagram from BTAworks that shows where commuters travel. Most people from Surrey don’t commute to Vancouver, nor do most people in most communities.

Source: http://www.btaworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JtW2011.jpg

However, there is no doubt the region has “zones” for the most part defined by water bodies, and just like we use those zones to determine transit use, we can use them to determine tolling policy.

The model suggested by the Mayor of Delta would divide the lower mainland into the following zones: the Mainland, South of the Fraser, Lulu Island, the North Shore and the North Valley.

Although I admire the simplicity, this does seem to create significant inconsistencies, and as the commentor noted, if I want to drive the 45km from Anmore to UBC, I pay no toll, while I would pay two tolls to go the 12km from New West to my favourite Indian Restaurant in North Delta (and this is, like most things, all about me).

This also creates as bit of a strange zone-in-the-middle out of Lulu island, which I suspect would be of concern to the City of Richmond. Or not. Their residents may hate the idea that every time they wish to go somewhere more than 3m above sea level (and bring their car along) they need to pay a toll. Alternately, they may like the idea that toll-in and toll-out will reduce through traffic and make their City streets work better for the residents that live there. I frankly don’t understand the politics of Richmond enough to predict where that discussion would go, but I would wager less tolls would be favoured.

A perhaps more logical model I once saw suggested was to consider the Burrard Peninsula as the “central zone”, and create three other zones: South of the Fraser, the Northeast, and the North Shore:

This creates the slightly complicated (but not insurmountable) challenge of tolling crossings of North Road (or some imaginary line that runs roughly parallel to it). This arguably distributes the burden better. The problem is what to do with Lulu Island. Does it belong North or South of the Fraser?

The answer in that probably lies in one of the fundamental assumptions of using road pricing as a TDM measure: You need to provide alternatives. Simply tolling a crossing where people have no choice but to drive will do little to disincentivize people from adding to the traffic, but will do much to anger people who used to get a crossing for “free”. Looking at Lulu Island, the transit options to the south through the tunnel and Alex Fraser are not great. However, the Knight, Oak, and Laird currently parallel one of the nicest, shiniest, newest transit lines to ever grace the Lower Mainland. The pedestrian and bike alternatives are also there. So from a TDM perspective, it makes sense to toll the four north arm crossings, not the two main arm crossings.

I agree, true distance-based road pricing is a better solution, but we are a decade or more from that being implemented, and we need to deal with a funding situation that is killing the regional transportation vision right now. Meanwhile we are bringing a bunch of new asphalt infrastructure into the equation within the next decade. I see a more regional tolling introduction as a good stop-gap measure, and we can no longer allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We need to get moving.

And yeah, $1 still isn’t enough.

$1 Tolls: still not enough

Posted on March 20, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

I’m going to avoid being critical of Mayor Jackson, because I think her accepting the idea of road pricing as a Transportation Demand Management method (even in this watered down and ineffective format) is a sign of progress regionally.

I am going to be critical of the regional media for their lack of analysis in reporting this story. It is almost as if the story wasn’t “reported” at all, but instead the press release was repeated, sometimes with a few clauses moved around, with the most minimal amount of background (“the tunnel needs replacing!”) and no actual analysis. I cannot find a single report where a member of the esteemed press even checked the math.

Here is the math the Mayor provided in her press release:

That argument in the Mayor’s release was that $1 tolls would raise close to $300 Million (not the “$348 Million” reported by one local print media source) to pay for the local government portion of the Mayor’s Plan. Aside from a few of the questionable statements in that release (an increase of 20,000 cars a day does not suggest people are “avoiding” the Pattullo Bridge), you would think reporters would check the base premise. Is spending an hour with Google and a spreadsheet really too much to ask before the story is filed?

Lucky, I had an hour in the evening to sit down and compare this report to my earlier analysis that did get a little notice a couple of years ago, the last time this idea came up. So here’s the kind of analysis I would want to read in the media, if I felt it was doing its job.

The screenline numbers from 2011 used by Delta for traffic count simply do not reflect the reality of bridge use in 2015. I was able to throw this table together based on a bit of Google searching, and note every number is a hyperlink that connects you with the actual official traffic count source of data (for the crossings where such a thing exists).

	Delta data:	2015 January		2015 September		2014 Annual
	“2011”	MAWD	MADT	MAWD	MADT	AADT
Laing	79000	79000	79000	79000	79000	79000
Oak	88000	69166	65069	75043	71779	67376
Knight	96000	96000	96000	96000	96000	96000
GMT	89000	77306	71633	87037	82531	79105
Qboro	88000	79724	73739	87113	82706	80108
Fraser	117000	113496	103281	121079	113984	107785
Pattullo	68000	72985	78043	83598	79633	68000
Port Mann	112000	96098	87905	106378	100608	94986
Pitt	79000	79000	79000	79000	79000	79000
GEB	30000	34520	34520	34520	34520	32054
Lions Gate	63000	58857	56918	63137	61357	60757
IWMSNC	127000	120600	112697	129971	125220	117854
Total daily crosings:	1,036,000	976,752	937,805	1,041,876	1,006,338	962,025
x 365 days:	378	357	342	380	367	351

The Golden Ears Bridge data is less certain, as it comes from TransLink financial documents, and is not collected with the rigour of the Ministry of Transportation data. The Pattullo data is horribly complicated in its reporting, but available as a daily number, not as an annual average. For the Knight, the Laing, and the Pitt River, I could find no useful data. Anything I found lacked a link to who collected the data, and was too old to be reliable. For those bridges, I projected the TransLink screenline data that the Mayor of Delta used.

How much traffic you count depends on when you count it (no surprise!). The biggest number (378 Million crossings annually) is a made-up number that projected the annual weekday traffic (AWD = average week day) over the entire week. As weekend traffic is generally 20-25% lower than weekday, that automatically gives you an inflated number, so for the purposes of projecting toll revenue, you are better to use ADT – average daily traffic. It also depends if you pick a winter, summer or fall day (with fall being the busiest urban travel season). That is why I listed both January and September data for 2015.

The last year for which the MoTI provides Annual Average Daily Traffic data is 2014. This number best balances out weekdays, holidays, seasons, and other shifts. It is important to note that every bridge with good traffic count data from MOTI has a significantly lower amount of traffic than the 2011 data used by Delta to make their case. I’m amazed that this point was not noticed by any media).

Regardless, using the concise MOTI data as the best regional and pan-seasonal effort where available, and the likely inflated Delta/TransLink numbers where it isn’t, the actual number is somewhere less than 1 million trips per day, and less than $350 Million with perfect across-the-board $1 tolling.

That hefty chunk of change looks good if it ignores the issue of what to do with the existing tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears. If they are reduced to $1 and included in this analysis, then we have to account for the $164 Million (2014 estimate) collected from those bridges in the current regime. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that neither bridge is collecting enough toll revenue right now to cover their financing costs, and the concessionaires want to keep getting paid.

There would be many things nibbling away at the remaining $186 Million, including the cost of setting up the tolling system and the cost of administering the tolls. Based on the TREO model, and their most recent Financial Reporting, they spend about $16Million collecting $120Million, so we will be conservative and call that 12% overhead not including the capital cost of setting up the system. Giving a generous benefit of doubt, I’m going to assume they can collect a $1 toll three times more efficiently than a $3 toll, but still getting us down to about $160Million.

There will also need to be some discussion with the owners of several bridges, as the Pattullo (see below) and Knight belong to TransLink, and the Laing belongs to the Federal Government through the Airport Authority. With all due respect to the Airport’s sense of charity, they are not likely to let someone else collect revenue from their customers on a piece of their infrastructure without some form of compensation.

And finally, it raises the uncomfortable question of how much of this revenue goes towards replacement of the Pattullo Bridge and Massey Tunnel. The Pattullo is part of the Mayor’s Plan, and was slated to be funded by a toll that is similar to the one on the Port Mann. With that idea now replaced by regional $1 tolls, the revenue required to cover the financing for that >$1 Billion project will need to be drawn from an ever-dwindling revenue stream.

The proposed $3.5Billion replacement for the Massey Tunnel, a project the Mayor of Delta is almost single-handedly in support of, would surely eat up more than the remaining revenue from the regional $1 toll. It is not part of the Mayor’s Plan, and it is hard to see the Mayors of the region agreeing to divert all of the regional tolling revenue to that one project when it does nothing to address the rapid transit and bus service improvements the region desperately needs. Not to mention any improvements to the North Shore…

So $1 a crossing is far from a panacea, but this discussion may lead us in the right direction. Tolling many crossings and sharing the revenue as part of a truly integrated regional transportation infrastructure investment plan (which is what the Mayor’s Plan is) is not in itself a bad idea. Once the infrastructure is in place, then time-of-day tolling shifts and other TDM measures can be put in to better manage demand, and even take away the imagined “need” for 10 more lanes of car traffic crossing the Fraser River.

Council Report – March 14, 2016

Posted on March 19, 2016June 18, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

In my ever-strained effort to get a Council Report done before the subsequent council meeting, I am feeling pretty good about not having to use my entire two week break to get this one out.

Our Regular Meeting started with a presentation on the 2016-2020 Financial Plan. The draft plan looks at a 2.73% tax increase. We also had our official Opportunity for Public Comment on the budget.

Our accounting is complicated and regulated, and although it is completely transparent, it is not easy for most people to look at or understand. I have put together a couple of blog posts talking about how we compare to other Cities in how we collect and spend money, because I think that is a useful comparison. As much as we are “competing” with anyone in running a local government, I guess it is other local governments. However, that is not the whole story.

I am NOT an accountant, so I need to rely on our staff and our auditors to assure me that our budgeting is in compliance with PSAB standards, and our reporting to the Province meets the regulatory requirements. However, I am going to try in the next few weeks to put a few more blog posts together regarding the Financial plan, in hopes of making things more understandable about where your money is going.

Economic Health Care Cluster Branding,
One of the City’s economic development initiatives is leveraging growth that will come with the redevelopment of RCH, and aligning the Intelligent City Initiative and other local advantages to develop an Economic Health Care Cluster.

As is de rigueur for these types of economic development projects, the City needed to create a brand and identity to align our outreach and marketing efforts. I am not a branding expert, and frankly did not like the brand chosen when I first saw it, until it was explained to me and I was shown the application. Or maybe it was the beards.

If you don’t like it or understand it (see top banner), it is possible you are not the one being marketed to. This is not about selling the neighbourhood to the residents of the neighbourhood. It is about selling new businesses, not-for-profits, education and health care service providers, researchers and investors in the potential for a real economic interconnected science and innovation cluster. For that, I think it works.

New Zoning Bylaw: Initial Draft and Next Steps,
The City’s Zoning Bylaw is old (almost 75 years!) and unnecessarily complicated. This is because it has been edited almost constantly since it was first written, by different Councils, different staff, and for different reasons. New initiatives have been added to it at the whim of Council (like our Family Friendly Housing policy), edits to language made to solve immediate issues (like last year when we edited one land use provision to allow a Veterinary Clinic on 12th Street to add boarding for cats to their services), and old land uses that are no longer likely (broom manufacturing?) are mixed in with new land uses we would have never imagined when it was originally written (Vape Shops?).

For the last several years, Staff have been working on a new comprehensive re-write of the Bylaw. This is not about creating new rules or introducing new initiatives, it is about making what already exists internally consistent and easier to understand. The time is right for this, because we will be rolling out a new OCP (hopefully) by the end of the year, which will bring new policy and initiatives which will be much easier to introduce into a logically ordered and designed Bylaw than this old mess.

Update on Greenhouse Floor Space Ratio
Councillor Puchmayr raised a concern about the regulations around how large a greenhouse a person in the City can have. The issue with greenhouses larger than 100 square feet is that they invoke the building code (which is provincial), which increases the development cost of building greenhouses that size.

Bill M203 – Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2016
Council supported this bill to provide better support to first responders in how the Workers compensation Act addresses Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Strategic Initiatives
As part of our regular routine, Council is going to get an update report at the end of every month on progress of two or three of our Strategic Initiatives, so we know that progress is being made, we can ask any questions that might arise, and the public can be informed on what is going on.

This month’s update included the Front Street parkade upgrade, partial removal and Mews construction, which is coming along on time and budget. There have been a few concern raised by the local businesses, but for the most part things are moving smoothly as can be expected with an incredibly disruptive process. It is amazing to see the sun shining on the fronts of buildings along Front Street.

Also (perhaps) surprising is that traffic chaos has not occurred. There is a notable increase in “rat running” in the evenings especially, and increased enforcement to help manage that, but the large number of trucks that were expected by many to clog up Columbia and Royal have not appeared. We are doing vehicle counts, so staff will be able to report back to us on how the traffic fared with data, but in the meantime, the anecdotes support the Cheonggyecheon / Embarcadero / Harbour Drive model of traffic calming.

We also spoke about the Intelligent City Initiative, and progress on BridgeNet, where the City is putting dark fibre in the ground and securing deals with ISPs to lease that fibre to users in the City. The plan right now is to have something to sell by as early as this summer, and at that time to start hooking up more than 100 residential multi-family units and a few dozen strategic business locations to true 1Gbit internet service at process that should be competitive with what you are paying now to the Major Telecoms. More details to come here, watch this space!

The following items were moved on Consent by Council:

Roger’s Hometown Hockey Follow Up
I had a lot of fun at this event, and we cannot thank New West Minor Hockey enough for the help and energy they brought to the weekend. This did not cost the City much, thanks to volunteers, Rogers, and a generous list of corporate sponsors. The exposure of Queens Park and the Royals was good, lots of people got to meet Ron McLean and Cliff running and Kirk McLean, and fun was had by all. Also, a big thank you to our staff for making it appear to be a seamless operation!

1031 Sixth Avenue: Heritage Revitalization Agreement
This house in Moody Park is more than 100 years old, and presents a restoration challenge due to its level of deterioration and the housing needs of the land owner. Because of its age and potential heritage value, staff has been working closely with the homeowner to come up with a heritage preservation plan to accompany the building of a second home on the lot. We are pretty early in the process here, but signs are positive that an agreement can be reached.

Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project Revised MOU
With all the talk of the Massey Bridge and regional tolling, and following the failure of the Referendum that would have secured funding for the Pattullo replacement, we still have a bridge that needs to be dealt with. Negotiations between New Westminster, surrey and TransLink have been ongoing around the terms and details of the replacement plan. Through these negotiations, an MOU was developed that clarified for all three parties that the preferred [plan for the Pattullo is that which was laid out in the Mayor’s Vision for regional transportation: a 4-lane structure (that can be expanded to 6 lanes if all parties agree) with tolls to be build pretty much in the same location as the existing bridge.

There is much work to do yet, including finding the money, but at least we can start to plan around the agreed-upon terms. This does not mean the bridge upgrades happening this summer can be put aside. Even if everything fell perfectly into place today, the time needed for design, procurement, funding and environmental assessment means we wouldn’t likely see a shovel in the ground until 2018, and would not see a bridge put into service until 2022, so TransLink needs to eek a few more years of service out of the big orange arch.

Update on Anvil Centre 2016 Budget
We received an update report on the Anvil operations and budget. I don’t think anyone thought this major new facility was going to cost nothing to run, and the full revenue stream is not yet realized, but the costs are higher than I anticipated.

I’m cognizant that we need to look at the ROI on this operation – every time there is an event in the theatre, you cannot get a reservation at el Santo or the Hub, last summer during the Fan Fest we had literally thousands of people spilling out of the Anvil and using Columbia Street and the River Market spaces, supporting local businesses and raising the profile of Downtown New Westminster on the regional scale.

Ultimately, we will not realize the full value of this project until we lease the restaurant space, until the owners of the Office tower lease it out, and until the art programs reach a maturity that the location becomes the cultural hub that we expect it to become.

As I have said before, the measure of success for the anvil will happen in 10 years from now when it is a generator of community growth in the Arts in the same way the Canada Games Pool, Queens Park Arena, and Mercer Field (three facilities that also cost more for us to operate than they return in revenue) are generators of community growth in sports.

Special Occasion Permits – Salmonbellies
Our archaic and complex liquor laws require that we go through this process
every year so the Salmonbellies can sell beer at the League and Playoff games. Please watch lacrosse responsibly.

We then, as usual, wrapped the meeting by adopting a few Bylaws:

Housing Agreement (900 Carnarvon Street) Bylaw No. 7810, 2016
Given third reading last week, this agreement to make the 4th building at Plaza 88 a market rental building is now Adopted. It’s the law of the land.

HRA (235 Durham Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 7817, 2016
Given third reading last week, this agreement to extend the term for an HRA is now Adopted. It’s the law of the land.

Film Permit Bylaw No. 7793, 2016
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7814, 2016
Given third reading last week, these Bylaws regulate the Film industry in the City by codifying some existing policies and practices. Now adopted, it’s the law of the land. Please adjust your behavior accordingly.

Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw No. 7816, 2016
The new electrical Rates bringing our rates in line with BC Hydro retail rates was given third reading last week, and is now Adopted.

And we are off for two weeks. Please enjoy other Monday Night programming.

Council – March 7, 2016

Posted on March 12, 2016March 27, 2016. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The March 7, 2016 Council meeting began with the annual tradition of the May Day Draw. I’m not going to delve too deeply into this, but it was noted to me that this event was held the day before International Women’s Day, where we are asked to think about everyday examples of patriarchy in our lives.

The following items were moved on Consent by Council.

2015 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Report
The City is subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. We get FOI requests on a pretty common basis, for a variety of reasons. This report lists the statistics for 2015. We had 72 requests for FOI documents, released 1,041 pages of paper documents and 3,170 pages of electronic documents. One request was forwarded to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC).

Status of Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Review Process
This is an important issue for our City. Although the pipeline as proposed does not pass directly through our City, it passes very close to us, and more importantly passes right through the lower reaches of the Burnette River watershed, within metres of the River itself. After 50 years of hard work by Elmer Rudolf and the Sapperton Fish and Game Club to restore this urban water way – to bring salmon back to a river that had been devastated by a century of industrial pollution and neglect – the Brunette is too important a resource to risk. So it is important that we had representatives taking part on the NEB review process. Our consultants were there to provide solid scientific back-up, and we had Elmer help with describing the threatened habitat from a first person perspective. Our goal all along was to make sure that the protection of the Brunette is part of the decision making by the Federal government about whether, and under what conditions, this project moves forward.

This is not an Environmental Assessment the way many may think it is – it is an evaluation of the project by the National Energy Board, currently chaired by the former Deputy Minister of Oil for the Province of Alberta, with members that represent the broad range of oil and gas industry interests. The (new!) federal government last month announced an extension of the NEB review process to allow other Federal Departments to fill some gaps in First Nations Consultations and upstream GHG emissions, so we don’t expect to hear a decision from Ottawa on this project until December of 2016.

Recruitment 2016: Century House Association Representative on the
Seniors Advisory Committee
The CHA always nominates a representative to our SAC, and this report formalizes that appointment
.
900 Carnarvon Street: Housing Agreement (Bylaw No. 7810, 2016)
The building proposed for 900 Carnarvon (the “4th Tower” at Plaza 88) went through a Rezoning Public Hearing back on September 28, 2015, and Council gave the Rezoning Third Reading. One condition on this Rezoning is that the building would be a market rental building, in part to address a rental vacancy rate bouncing around 1% regionally. This housing agreement will secure that market rental condition for the life of the building (60 years). Council moved the recommendation to give this Bylaw three readings.

320 Salter Street: DVP and DP for a 91 Unit Secured Market Rental Housing Project
Move recommendation This is another project in Port Royal where we are securing market rentals. The zoning was adopted back in 2014 (before I was on Council) and we are now at the Development Permit stage. Council moved to bring this Permit to the April 4 Meeting for an Opportunity to be Heard. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

New Westminster Child and Youth Friendly Community Strategy
This is an interesting strategy the City has been working on in recent years to make sure our City has the infrastructure, programs and supports in place to be truly “family friendly”, by assuring it is a safe, supportive, and inclusive City for children and youth. There are a lot of good initiatives in here that will bolster our Family Friendly Housing Policy. I don’t have kids, but am keenly aware of transportation issues, so I am glad to see the strategy include a “Moving Domain” that addresses transportation gaps in the West End and Queensborough, safe routes to school, lowering speed limits and increased pedestrian protection in residential neighbourhoods,

Update on City Responses to Assist in Refugee Settlement and
Integration
There is a lot going on locally to support refugees that are arriving every day, including the work that social service agencies like ISS are doing (and have been doing for years before this latest crisis). Amongst other measures, the City has agreed to help organize and assist with financing of a “Newcomers Connect Day”, coming up in April.

The City is also working on updating our Newcomers guide, which includes materials to reduce barriers to local government, such as instructions on things many take for granted growing up here: what City does, where your garbage goes, when you should call police, how to get access to permits, parking, libraries, sports and recreation, etc.

235 Durham Street: HRA Amendment Bylaw No. 7817, 2016
This is an Agreement to amend a Heritage Revitalization Agreement prepared back in 2013 to extend the timeline for the restoration work, mostly due to the unexpected death of one of the parties to the agreement. Council moved to give the Bylaw which would allow the extension three readings.

Request for Support from Ladner Sediment Group
This is a group of residents and businesses in Delta who are mostly concerned that the Federal money for maintaining dredging in the Fraser River dried up under the previous government, not unlike almost every other program to support communities. Although the idea of advocating for dredging money is good for Ladner, I think that the larger dredging, flood control and diking program needs a basin-wide approach, and that is why New Westminster is active in supporting the Fraser Basin Council approach.

Additional Community Grant – Hyack Anvil Battery
The Ancient and Honourable Hyack Battery Salute is one of those quirky things about New Westminster that makes us unique. Every once in a while, we are asked to contribute a bit to help keep some of these traditions happening, and I am happy to support the renewal of uniforms for this organization. Our grants budget has a bit of unexpected room from last year, so this one-time grant is outside of cycle, but within our larger spending envelope.

2015/2016 Electrical Utility Rates
Yes, your New Westminster Power rates are going up 4%, in order to match the increase in wholesale cost for electricity in the City. A quick reminder about New Westminster Power: we pay the same rate per KW/h as other BC Hydro customers in the province, we have one of the most reliable electrical systems in the Province (notice how your lights didn’t go out during this week’s windstorm), and the Utility returns a small profit to the City coffers every year, helping to keep your taxes down. I think we have a good thing going here.

Filming Policy Amendment, Film Permit Bylaw No. 7793, 2016 and
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw 7814, 2016
We are updating our filming policy and are creating a new Bylaw to give the policy a bit of teeth. After a pretty minor edit following the last time this came tio Council, we moved to adopt the new policy and send the Bylaw for three readings.

1209 Hamilton Street: Proposed Rezoning
This duplex home just a half-block off of 12th Street is being set up to become a Day Care. It appears to be a good layout and location, but requires a rezoning. Council agreed to direct Staff to process the application as per usual, launching this plan into the entire Rezoning rigmarole. Coming to an Open House near you!

Brewery District: Rezoning Application and Master Development Permit
Amendment
This amendment to the Master Development Permit and Rezoning for the Brewery District has been back and forth between public consultation and Council for a bit, and this was one more chance for Council to comment on the changes.

Formally, the changes are to the density of the second residential building to accommodate some secured market rental, a change in density distribution (and height) to the third and fourth residential buildings, a density increase to the final phase commercial building, and a few accessory changes around land use.

I continue to be concerned about the traffic impacts here, and am happy to see that more is being done to move some access off of East Columbia. We need to shake off the idea that Brunette cannot be a used for access. I’m even happy, at this point, to see a controlled intersection installed on Brunette to further take the load off od East Columbia and discourage the use of Alberta, Kearey, and adjacent roads uphill from East Columbia from becoming commuter routes. The traffic/parking consultant for the project recommends moving access to Kearey Street, which may align well with RCH expansion plans, but a creative solution is required here as well, to prevent Kearey becoming a rat-running route. I hope Wesgroup will work with RCH to align their common approaches (and told them as much in Land Use and Planning Committee).

As much as I would love to see a Brewery at the Brewery District, I am cautious. I don’t know of another example in BC where an active brewery shares space in mixed commercial-residential development, and Breweries can be smelly and a little noisy at night. A Brew Pub or Tap house may be perfect, but an actual on-site brewery may need to be approached with caution.

École Qayqayt Elementary School Public Art Funding Request
I love this. I think this is a great use of Public Art funds. It is local, includes an educational component, is a permanent fixture, and is matched in finds with an outside partner. It is easy to say yes to this one!

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

Q2Q Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Review Process, Community Consultation
I feel like I have written a lot about this already, but here we go again.

I am a cyclist, a pedestrian, and have always been an advocate for sustainable active transportation, and for creating a permanent, fixed, reliable and accessible active transportation link between Queensborough and the Quayside. It is an important piece of the City’s waterfront vision, of our Master Transportation Plan, and for the development of our community in the whole.

However, this project is causing me more stress than anything else we are working on in the community today, mostly because I am very afraid we are not going to be able to build a project that is acceptable to the community.

The strong public support shown in 2013/14 consultation was for a design that we have now determined the Marine Carriers would not support – because it was low elevation, it was accessible, it had low visual intrusion and it provided reliable emergency vehicle access. One by one, we have removed those factors and are no longer building a transportation link, we are building a terribly expensive parks amenity. That would be a disaster. If we build a bridge that isn’t accessible and reliable for the ultimate users, it is going to be a lost opportunity.

So the design work continues, and the public consultation continues, but at this point I am hoping that the design consultants can pull a rabbit out of the hat, and can re-build my confidence that this project is still viable.

In the meantime, I think we need to re-engage with the Marine Carriers and the senior government agencies (Transport Canada and Port Metro Vancouver) that hold the navigable waters regulations. I respect the needs of the marine carriers and their expertise on marine operations, but the river belongs to all of us, and this community deserves and equal say in how our river is used.

I also put forward a motion to want to clarify the process for First Nations consultation. Although a pre-approval process through Port Metro Vancouver has initiated some discussions, I have learned through my participation I several Environmental Assessments over the last few years that it isn’t good enough anymore to tell First Nations what we plan to build and ask for comment. We need to engage their leadership early and make sure they are updated and aware long before formal discussion of design concepts are brought in. It is about relationship building, and I would prefer if we reach out Council to Council. This discussion should not just centre on the Q2Q, as this is an opportunity to check in and talk about the City’s Waterfront Vision in its entirety, and invite those First Nations to meet with the Council and discuss issues, concerns, and opportunities related to this bigger idea.

Ditch Infill and Urban Streetscape in Queensborough
The biggest issue in Queensborough (battling traffic and the general sense that “no one over there cares about QBoro” for that title), is how we are going to manage the remaining ditches in residential areas. The ditches are an important part of the drainage system for QBoro and Lulu Island in general, and also provide ecosystem services. Some people love the frogs and dragonflies, some hate the mosquitoes and murky water.

Filling in the ditches would require significant infrastructure costs, because an open ditch can hold and move a lot more water than a closed pipe that would easily fit in that ditch. Then you have to build curbs, gutters, storm catch basins, and connecting pipes, and in a place with no natural grades like Q’boro, you need to build grades and pumping infrastructure to keep things moving out to tidewater.

This report outlines the strategies the City will use to move towards closed drainage in the neighbourhoods where people want to go that way. Part of the cost will be on the city, some will be on developers who build new developments (and receive up-zoning benefits from that development) , and some by residents through special assessments.

We then moved on to the most exciting call-and-response part of every council meeting: Bylaws!

Film Permit Bylaw No. 7793, 2016 and Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7814, 2016
As discussed above, these Bylaws regarding Film operation in the City was given three readings.

Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw No. 7816, 2016
As discussed above, the new electrical rates bylaw was given three readings.

Housing Agreement (900 Carnarvon Street) Bylaw No. 7810, 2016
As discussed above, the Rental Agreement for Plaza 88 building 4 was given three readings.

HRA (235 Durham Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 7817, 2016
As discussed above, the Bylaw to grant this HRA extension was given three readings.

Erosion and Sediment Control Bylaw No. 7754, 2016
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7819, 2016
As discussed back on February 1, this Bylaw and the supportive changes of the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw were Adopted. It’s the law of the land, folks, please adjust your behavior accordingly.

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7777, 2016
As discussed back on February 15, this Bylaw on how we manage Taxi driver licenses was Adopted. It’s the law of the land, folks, please adjust your behavior accordingly.

HRA (205 Clinton Place) Bylaw No. 7800, 2016
Heritage Designation (205 Clinton Place ) Bylaw No. 7801, 2016
This Heritage conservation project went to Public Hearing on February 29, and the supporting Bylaws are now Adopted.

HRA (335 Buchanan Avenue) Bylaw No. 7802, 2016
Heritage Designation (335 Buchanan Avenue) Bylaw No. 7803, 2016
This Heritage conservation project also went to Public Hearing on February 29, and the supporting Bylaws are now Adopted.

And we were done!

Patrick Johnstone

Fan of cities; Mayor of a great one.

Category: Uncategorized