Ask Pat: Carnarvon

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 6 Comments.

jenarbo asks—

Carnarvon between 8th and 10th is a mess for pedestrians and stressful for drivers. What solutions have been considered, and has anything been decided? Any timeline?

Ugh. It is a mess. I see several problems:

The exit from the Shops at New West Station is wide and friendly, then hits a relatively narrow sidewalk, with a strangely-conceived planter as one tries to get to the crossing at 8th. The other direction takes you past one parking entrance, then the gaping maw of the “breezeway” where drivers, busses and pedestrians all routinely ignore their respective and confusing red lights, until the least-functional three-way stop I have ever seen (one that is completely overwhelmed by the number of pedestrians the crosswalk accommodates) leads to a roundabout the functioning of which seems to confound the common sense of BC drivers which provides bad sightlines to another crosswalk on 10th. The sidewalk is congested with waiting bus passengers and street furniture, made less appealing by the looming (almost overhanging) 60 foot sheer grey sun-blocking wall that rises straight up over the entire 500 feet, while crossing to the sunny side of the street is perilous what with traffic back-ups, confused turns at those aforementioned driveways or three-way stops attempting to get through any opening that may occur in the line of cars and busses only to get to a sidewalk that is more driveway that crosswalk for most of its extent…

From an urban planning perspective, the Plaza 88 complex was a bold and brilliant idea, but from an urban design perspective, the result is close to a disaster. And I really don’t know how to fix it.

I have heard a few radical suggestions: make the road one-way eastbound (although it is generally thought that one-way streets make situations worse if pedestrian safety is your goal, which is why many urban centres are now removing them). Closing the street to traffic between McInnes and the Parkade exit has been suggested (which would only help with a few of the many issues, some locals would complain loudly, and I don’t think our traffic engineers would take it seriously).  Removing street parking would impact a few local businesses, although there is always parking available in the public lots in Plaza88, and would allow a better traffic-calmed street profile with wider sidewalks and better sightlines (but the back-ups would continue).

But no, I have not heard any serious plans, or timelines to implement them.

One thing I don’t want to do right now is make it worse. During recent discussions at Council about the “4th tower” at Plaza 88, this topic was raised numerous times. With another parking entrance on Carnarvon between the roundabout and the three-way stop, with another 6-story podium rising straight up from the sidewalk, with worsened sightlines and more pressure on the street – this is going to be a much harder building to approve until we recognize that Carnarvon is not working well now, and the addition of a stop light at McInnes is not going to solve the problems.

I am open to suggestion.

Ask Pat: Sapperton Park

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

J.H. asked—

Are there any plans with Sapperton park?

Not that I know of. The playing fields are well used, the spray park and playgrounds appear to operate, if a little long-in-tooth. There was talk in the 2008 Parks Comprehensive Plan of replacing the field with artificial turf and replacing the lights, but that appears to have not taken place (while an artificial-turf field was added to Queens Park).

With the Brewery District development, the expansion of RCH, and (likely) subsequent increased business and residential density along East Columbia, one of the City’s most historic parks will definitely be seeing more use and more demands on it. I presume you are a neighbor, so I guess I’ll throw this question back at you: What would you like to see at Sapperton Park?

Quest NewWest 2015

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This was my third year racing in Quest New West, and once again I was on a team of bridesmaids. Anna, Tig, Andrew and I finished 2nd in our category in the inaugural event; Andrew, Tig ,Reena and I finished in the same spot last year; for this year, I joined a Committee for Questing: Mayor Cote, Councillor Trentadue and Trustee Slade-Kerr. We finished safely second in our category, which isn’t too bad for a bunch of paper-pushing policy wonks!

This is an incredibly fun event. Tej Kainth from Tourism New Westminster and her platoon of volunteers put on a great show. Two dozen businesses around town opened their doors to something like 120 sweaty Questers, and major sponsors like Douglas College, Wild Rice, Wesgroup, Tien Sher Group, and the Record helped make it all happen. From a participant point of view, it was a flawless organization.

We sweated, we cycled, we ran, and we laughed. Mostly we laughed. Crossing the finish line, we were too tired to stand for the group shot. Thanks New West!

Ask Pat: Airborne Contaminants

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Wes asks—

Hi Pat, I’ve been concerned about the airborne contaminants coming off the property that Harvest power urban wood waste recycling occupies in the Brunette industrial area. I remember hearing at a MSRA meeting that the city had told them quite some time ago that they had to move the operation indoors, but have not heard anything in quite some time. My real concern is that they are handling asbestos contaminated demolished products, and have been cited by worksafe in the past for not adequately protecting their employees. Are we as residents in lower Sapperton at risk for the same issue ?

To start off, I probably shouldn’t comment too much on the 2013 fine issued by WorkSafe, because all I know about it is what I read in the newspaper, and I assume that a serious fine like this comes with significant follow-up from WorkSafe BC to assure whatever was going wrong won’t go wrong again. I have (in my work life) dealt with illegal asbestos storage and transportation, and the Province (through the Hazardous Waste Regulation) and Metro Vancouver (through their job managing solid waste and recycling in the region) take asbestos pretty seriously. Businesses like Urban Woodwaste deal with demolition waste all the time, and have pretty strict protocols about how any asbestos they receive is managed.

That aside, air quality protection in the Lower Mainland is regulated by Metro Vancouver. They deal with odours, smoke, dust or any air quality concern. Generally, they require an air quality permit if a business has any point-source emissions. That includes traditional pollutants like sulphur dioxide from an oil refinery to odours from coffee roasting companies or dust from aggregate companies or sawmills. You can see a list of all of the companies that have permits and the conditions attached to those permits at this website. As you can see, Harvest/Urban Wood Waste in New Westminster does not have a permit, which tells me that Metro Vancouver does not consider their operation likely to cause air pollution or nuisance. They have a permit from Metro to operate a wood waste recycling facility (you can see a list of all of those permits here), which means they are on Metro Vancouver’s radar and are subject to regular inspection. I know enough of the Regulation & Enforcement folks at Metro to suggest they wouldn’t ignore the need for an air quality permit if they saw a problem.

If you have questions about Air Quality (and it sounds like you do), you shouldn’t ask random know-it-all bloggers like me, you should contact Metro Vancouver directly. They even have a 24-hour reporting line and on-line complaint form in case you observe (or smell, or suspect) an air quality concern.

Ask Pat: Bridges?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Matt asks—

What’s the deal with bridges?
Why are some bridges run by MOT (Ministry of Transportation), others by Translink, and still others by municipalities? For example, why is Pattullo a Translink bridge and not an MOT bridge. You get the idea… Thanks!

This is an easy one.

Let’s start with the Major Provincial Highways. All bridges on those Highways are owned by the Province and managed by the Ministry of Transportation (or, more commonly, their contractors). Highway 1 includes the Port Mann and the Second Narrows; Highway 99 the Deas Tunnel, Oak and Lions Gate; Highway 91 the Alex Fraser (and with the qualifier 91A, the Queensborough); and Highway 7 the Pitt River.
At the other end of the scale are the bridges that were within a City and both feet land within the same municipality: the Burrard, Cambie and Granville within Vancouver and the Dinsmore, No 2 Road, and Moray/Sea Island within Richmond. These belong to the City and are maintained by the City (although through the Major Road Network, many of them get funding from TransLink to help pay for maintenance). The Granville is also part of Highway 99, so I would not be surprised if MOT pitches in some maintenance money there as well.
The Laing is the freak bridge, as it connects Vancouver to federal land on Sea Island, and is owned and operated by the Vancouver Airport Authority.
That leaves 3 bridges that connect two separate municipalities, yet do not carry a major highway: The Knight, the Pattullo, and the Golden Ears. When TransLink was formed in 1998 to manage all regional transportation in Greater Vancouver, these bridges (well, actually two of them and the Albion Ferry, which was replaced by the Golden Ears) that had no other category but huge maintenance costs were unceremoniously dumped on TransLink. The Province threw in the 100-year-old one-lane wooden Westham Island swing bridge for good measure, although it is wholly within Delta.
Make sense?

Council Meeting – June 1, 2015

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

Another Monday, another exciting edition of City Council.

This week we started with our annual Environmental Poster Contest, where Councillor McEvoy and I, as Co-chairs of the Environment Committee, got to present prizes to the three winners. The posters will be displayed at River Fest in September.

We then had three presentations: one from the Canadian Federation of Students, concerned about recent cuts to adult basic education funding by the provincial government; a Proclamation of Access Awareness Day coming up on June 6; and one from City Staff outlining the Priority Capital Program that the Mayor’s Transportation Taskforce has brought to Council.

This was followed by a couple of Open Delegations, then a trip down the ol’ Recommendations from Committee of the Whole lane:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7759 – 210 Durham
This is an application to divide a full-width lot on Durham Street in Glenbrook North into two narrower 33’ lots with a separate home on each. The designs initially  proposed were not met well by the Residents Association or the Advisory Planning Commission, for several reasons. One complaint I heard (and agreed with) was that the proposed houses addressed the street with wide driveways and two-car garage doors, which was really “out of character” with the neighbourhood. There was also a concern about the removal of the significant boulevard tree in front of the house. Both of these issues have been addressed through revision of the design.

Council gave the required Bylaw first and second reading later in the meeting (see below) and the Bylaw will go to Public Hearing on July 13, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7765 – Commercial Above Grade at Brewery District
This will change the zoning at the Brewery District to allow commercial development above grade in the future buildings, which will provide more flexibility as far as work/live space combinations go, which might be really helpful as the Health Care Cluster and residential parts of the Brewery District develop.

Council gave the required Bylaw first and second reading later in the meeting (see below) and the Bylaw will go to Public Hearing on June 22, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

1258 Ewen height variance
This is the first notice that a single-family home planned for Queesnborough wishes to exceed it’s maximum allowable height by 10 inches. Council received this report, and will allow the application to go through the proper process.

BC Seniors Games
New Westminster was approached earlier in the year by the BC Seniors Games organizers, as they are looking for host cities for upcoming years. After reading the staff analysis of the requirements, commitments and timelines, Council agreed we are not really in a place right now to host these. With a series of ongoing initiatives straining for prioritization, and being a few locale/facilities short of what we would need to host these games without a partner city, it is just not a good time for this.

We have, however, taken this as an opportunity to ask staff in Economic Development to work with the other departments and our community partners like Tourism New Westminster to assess how Sports Tourism in general fits into our overall economic development plans.

302 Fifth Street Development Variance
This resident is asking for a height variance for their garage, as they wish to build one that matches the unique roofline of their house. The intent is not to build a second story on their garage as a living space, and the internal truss design is specifically made to prevent making the upper part of the garage occupiable space.

This is a preliminary report, and council voted to receive. The application for the variance will go through the usual process.

Front Street Mews consultation
The City is starting to do design work on the roadway and sidewalks along Front Street where the western half of the Parkade is soon not to be. The preliminary drawings look promising, and two separate options were shown.

I actually prefer to have all of the parking away from the sidewalk, and with a nice pavement treatment, raised intersections, there are other ways to control traffic flow. I think this creates a much better buffer between the sidewalk and the Front Street through-traffic, and maximizes the amount of sidewalk space that can be activated in front of the businesses. I also think clearly defined parking on one side makes for a safer cycling environment.

Stakeholders downtown will be looking over the designs this week, and after possible tweaking, there will be a Public Open House on June 18th, 5:00-7:00pm at the Anvil Centre. C’mon out and tell staff what you think!

Parklets Pilot Program Launch
Parklets are great ideas, and they can really improve the pedestrian and retail space in a commercial district. The City is piloting our first Parklet this summer in Sapperton, with plans to introduce another annually (at least) for the next couple of years. Staff has been given a modest budget, but a lot of flexibility to find partnership opportunities, design ideas, or creative innovations to make the Parklets fit local needs in our different neighbourhoods.

I was really happy Council endorsed this program, and that staff is not only excited to implement it but have provided a really nice design for New West Parklet #1 (see top photo).

Clear Garbage Bag Pilot program
This is an interesting idea that will support the City’s and region’s long-term targets of waste diversion – boosting recycling and diversion of organics from landfills and the incinerator, so that 70% of our waste is re-used, not tossed away.

Metro Vancouver is currently concentrating on organics diversion, such that as of January 1, 2015, it has been illegal to put food scraps in your garbage. Typical for a big, regional, lifestyle-challenging initiative like this, enforcement will be slowly implemented, ramping up over a longer period of time with extensive education programs. Enforcing this ban is a challenge, but other jurisdictions have successfully done so, and there are existing models from which to learn.

Metro Vancouver has proposed a pilot to test the idea of making clear plastic bags (or no bags at all) mandatory for garbage bound for the landfill or incinerator. This allows inspectors at the waste transfer facilities to quickly and more accurately assess the presence of organics in the waste stream, so that Metro can target education and enforcement. It has worked in other cities, but will it work here?

Participating in this pilot costs the City very little as Metro provides all of the education materials, does the data collections and reporting. They even supply to the bags for the residents and businesses involved in the pilot.

I am happy to support collecting more data and testing out an innovative system like this, and really happy that New Westminster can help out with the bigger regional goals for waste diversion – we want to continue to be regional leaders in sustainability, and this is yet another opportunity for us to do so.

Correspondence
We received correspondence form the Royal City Humane Society requesting that Council release some of the grant funds that had already been allocated as part of our Partnership Grants, so it could be used to expand the veterinary care types we can offer to cats in the City. Council approved this shift in the language of the grant.

Bylaws For Adoption:

Bylaw 7756, 2015
This Bylaw saw third reading last meeting, and simply expands the definition of “Commercial Schools” in our Zoning Bylaw. It was adopted, and is now the Law of the Land.

Bylaw 7741, 2015
This Bylaw saw third reading last meeting, and upon adoption, it makes our Family Friendly Housing policy the Law of the Land.

Plus we moved the two readings for both 210 Durham and Brewery District bylaws mentioned above.

Issuance of Development Permit
As discussed last meeting, we moved to approve this Development Permit on Kamloops and 13th Street.

Announcement!
Finally, an announcement of a community event this weekend! The Qayqayt Community Howl is both a community-gathering fun event for families, and a fundraiser for the Qayqayt playground space. They are a new organization trying to build on their exciting new community, so drop by and give them some support while entertaining your family!

HOWLeflyer

Ask Pat: Change Table in Pier Park?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 5 Comments.

Someone asked—

Is it possible to ask city to put back baby change table in family washroom at pier park in downtown area? There is no change table in the park right now.

This is probably one of those questions that should go straight to the Parks Department, or even on SeeClickFix. But I asked a few questions, and here is the best I can tell (again, contact the Parks directly to get what is probably more accurate info!

The Men’s and Women’s Washrooms at Pier Park do not lock (except at night) but the Family room does, as that better reflects it’s one-at-a-time use. Apparently, this ability to lock the door empowers some undesirable activities, possibly (but not certainly) related. First, it seems that some people with limited other options have used the room to grab a few hours of secured sleep in the early morning or evening hours. There has also been quite a bit of vandalism in that room – much more than in the unlocked “gender-specific” bathrooms.

Parks is working on a bit of a strategy to address the main concerns here, but in the meantime they are reluctant to replace the change table yet again, anticipating it will be destroyed again. I’m not sure what that strategy looks like, and although spot security enforcement might get lucky catching a perp, I don’t see 24-hour security being a viable option. There are meant to be change tables in each of the Men’s and Women’s washrooms, which may be suboptimal for some families, but it might be the best we can offer in the short term. I would love to hear if anyone has a suggestion on how to make this work better.

Short note on progress.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

It was such a beautiful weekend in New Westminster. I had a couple of events downtown on Saturday, and enjoyed my time wandering around between them, and something occurred to me.

The Northwest Fan Fest was occurring at the Anvil Centre. There were something like 10,000 people drawn to downtown New West on the weekend, spilling out onto the street, filling the sidewalks and Hyack Square – geeking out and having fun.

fanfest

And they spilled over to Pier Park, to mix with the usual families and locals using what is coming to be seen as one of the great public spaces in the lower mainland.

Pier Park2

Yet this is the weekend when a full half of the Parkade was closed to start the repairs, which will eventually see the west side removed. Parking chaos? Hardly.

parkade
Saturday, early afternoon. Yes, every parking spot behind me was closed for construction.

And I was reminded why I ran for Council. This City is on such a positive path. We are moving forward, setting plans and reaching for a better future. There are bumps along the way, some tough decisions to make, and some difficult setting of priorities.

But during the last election, not 6 months ago, there were people running who thought this was a waste of money that no-one would ever use:

20150530_121234
Westminster Pier Park. Saturday, May 30. Early afternoon.

Yet this was a valuable resource we cannot possibly afford to be without:

parkade empty
@HulkParkade, with all parking behind me closed and thousands of people in town for Fan Fest, Saturday, May 30, 2015, early afternoon.

I am happy to say I spent 10 hours in Council meetings today with people who see a more positive vision for the City, and we are moving ahead.

Predictions before Results

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

The polls on the Translink Transit Transportation referendum plebiscite are closed, the ballots are filled in, but the counting is only beginning. The message from ElectionsBC is that turnout was slightly higher than expected, so the counting is going to take a little longer. It is being suggested that it will likely be three weeks before we have results. The cynic in me suggests the Friday before the week where everyone is trying to decide which weekend to make extra long around the mid-week Canada Day is the perfect time for the provincial government to announce the results of something they really want to avoid talking about, so prediction 1 is that “results day” will be June 26.

I am a guy who likes the occasionally wager, but I’m not taking any bets on the referendum plebiscite result. I think the count will be closer than anyone expects (within 5% either way), but you would need to give me positive odds to make any kind of bet. The turnout is higher than we anticipated, which could be good (the YES side really motivated their voters) or bad (the NO side didn’t throw their ballots away in disgust, but made the effort to vote), and the spread regionally is a lot flatter than I thought.

If you really want to speculate, you can have some fun sticking numbers into Brad Cavanagh’s Plebiscite Predictor tool (my two-minute guess via that tool? 52% No).  Aside from that fun, I’m not going to pretend any kind of ability to predict the result, but I am going to try to predict what happens after the result.

If the result is a YES, the predictions are much easier. The provincial government will cob together a bit of self-back-patting for having such foresight, and will wait until the last possible second to produce some sort of enabling legislation so the PST increase can come into effect on January 1, 2016. Jordan Bateman will make some sort of “martyr against Big Government” reference, say the entire process was rigged and therefore invalid, will hunt for anecdotes of the new tax causing incredible hardship to some person, then will move on to attacking the healthcare system or public education or public toilets or whatever the next great evil is on the Fraser Institute list.

Meanwhile, the Mayors will get to work updating their local transportation plans to suit the new reality, and both the federal and provincial governments will find a way to open the taps so that they can cut the ribbons on every new project. Expect a lot of re-announcements. Municipalities (even those whose Mayors did not support the YES side) will start applying for the matching grants that are going to be available to improve their roads and pedestrian/cycling networks (such as the Q2Q Bridge) and more ribbons will be cut. Councils will update their plans to design future communities around the expanded Frequent Bus Network (in the shorter term) and the new light rail and Skytrain investments (in the longer term).

The Mayors will also continue (as they have for the last decade) to call for a complete re-vamping of TransLink, including a review of the “governance problem” to address the issues that were being raised long before the referendum plebiscite, but were thrown into brighter light by the referendum plebiscite process. I cannot predict if the province will take any action to fix those issues, as they are the only organization that can. Regardless, Mayors will still have disputes about who is getting more service or less and who is pulling their weight as far as regional transportation (i.e. Delta will continue to complain about getting no service, even as they watch a $3-billion bridge being constructed in their front yard), but at least we can move on to arguing about what is being built, and stop arguing about what isn’t. Overall, the region will move on with a good idea what the next 10 years (two council terms!) will bring.

If the results are a NO, the predictions are much more difficult. Of course, we know Jordan Bateman will make some reference to David slaying Goliath, say the process proves that the people are always right (at least when they are battling taxes), then will move on with new vigour to attacking the healthcare system or public education or public toilets or whatever the next great evil is on the Fraser Institute list. How everyone else will react is harder to see.

The Mayors have got a problem, because they need to keep their cities and the region moving, and it would be suggested that the last 2 years since the word plebiscite“referendum” first arose in the heat of the last provincial election, have been almost completely wasted.

Except they really haven’t been wasted. During that time, the Mayors put a plan together that (almost) all of them supported. They managed to put away the knives and agree on a set of priorities and principles. Even after a NO vote, few will argue that the vote was against the Plan (how many times did people say “I like transit and support it, but I’m voting NO because…”). The Mayor of Surrey thinks she can build light rail on her own; the Mayor of Vancouver has no such delusions about the Broadway line. Few are talking about the real meat’n’potatoes of this plan: the new busses, the expanded Frequent Bus Network, B-lines, and night busses, the increased capacity on the existing SkyTrain network, which will benefit every Mayor if the region, from Delta to West Vancouver to Maple Ridge. These things need to happen if we are going to have a livable region, and they need to happen soon. How do we get there?

And again, regardless of the referendum plebiscite result, the Mayors have to continue to press for the governance changes at TransLink that they have been calling for since the 2007 re-org that shuffled them aside from the real regional planning role.

The province has a couple of choices. They can see a NO vote as opportunity to open the TransLink can of worms, and create something new that the region can work with. However, there is no evidence this is actually something the province is desirous of.

Alternately, they can try to turn this back on the Mayors and say: You failed, live with it. They can march ahead with the Massey Tunnel replacement (no referendum) and step in to fund a larger 6- or 8-lane Pattullo (now that alternatives are off the table), and then, I dunno – a new Second Narrows? Rest assured they will beam of their commitment to transit when cutting the ribbon on the Evergreen Line, and if the fall election gives Dianne Watts any influence in Ottawa, maybe the new Mayor of Surrey will get a light rail bauble for her crown. However, without the comprehensive plan, without the commitment to new busses, more B-lines, higher frequency and more reliability on the existing Skytrain System, and a list of priorities something like the Mayor’s Plan, a functional Transit system we will not have.

Trying to understand the Province’s strategy by their public communications is like trying to read tea leaves. The most recent comments by the Premier are not particularly helpful. Allow me to parse:

“what ever happens, people in the lower mainland want more transit. I think everybody agrees with that. The question they are being asked now is how do they want to pay for that transit?”

Respectfully, no. That is not the question “they” are being asked. There have been more than half a dozen proposals about different ways to fund transit (and roads and bridges and cycling, but I’ll give it the pass here) expansion, from property taxes to road pricing to sales taxes and car levies –this proposal was the only one the Province took to the voters. The question “they” are being asked is actually: “Do you want to pay for this specific set of transit and transportation infrastructure through this specific and very limited method?” This is apparent in the many varying (and often self-contradictory) reasons people have provided for voting NO. Actually, if you follow the “no” side rhetoric closely, the question is more “would you like to take the food out of the mouths of struggling hard-working families to build a big cash vault for TransLink Executives to roll in?”

“I think that proposal is a sound one, and I think it would be great for job creation in the lower mainland… it would be great for transit and for the environment in the lower mainland but I think people have a right to make that choice.”

If it is imperative that people have a “right to make that choice” on a specific initiative that will clearly provide so many benefits, from the environment to job creation to the health of the region, someone has to ask why? If it is the right thing to do, and every elected person in the region agrees (with only very few exceptions), why are we intentionally throwing a taxpayer revolt at it? And please remind me again where this “right to make that choice” starts and stops, because no-one voted on the Port Mann, the Massey Tunnel Replacement, LNG plants up the whazoo, MSP premium increases or education budget cuts. Ugh, there I go, criticising the process again… Let me get back on track here.

It seems the one place the Premier and I agree is that the Mayors Plan, or something like it, has to happen, and very soon. As a region we cannot afford to balkanize our sustainable transportation system while the Ministry of Transportation pushes freeways through our neighbourhoods, because that is the only option left. The Pecha Kucha presentation by Gordon Price in February put it as clearly and eloquently as anyone could: Planning for a Sustainable Transportation Plan is an integral to what we are as a region, to everything we love about Greater Vancouver, Cities in a Sea of Green:

Cities in a Sea of Green (worth your 6 minutes to hear).

I think the Mayors would be best served by immediately coming out after a NO announcement and saying “this is still the plan”. Then ask the province, in no uncertain terms, to live up to what the Premier is quick to reiterate: This region needs transit investment, and it is the Province’s responsibility to get it done. We tried the referendum plebiscite route, we still have a viable plan here: What next?

Because there will be finger-pointing and blaming here if it goes to a NO, and the Mayors need to stand together, or they will fall apart, and the people hoping for a sustainable future of the region – those of us who want this City to be livable for the coming decades – will be the biggest losers.

Council Meeting – May 25, 2015

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

If you tuned into your TV at 7:00 and noticed there was no Council Meeting being televised, rest assured, we didn’t take the day off. We actually had a Public Hearing day, and two Bylaws went to the public for comment. But no-one appeared to speak on either (in contrast to the last Public Hearing night we had!). As is the practice, Regular Council started as soon a Public Hearing ended, and with a relatively short agenda lacking in controversial issues, we were actually done the week’s business before 7:00.

I don’t feel bad about the “short day”. My Council Monday started at 9:00am with a 2.5 hour Mayor’s Transportation Taskforce meeting, then a closed Council Session from 12:00-3:00, the Committee of the Whole at 3:00 for about an hour, then back to another hour of Closed meeting, a quick hour for dinner and then Public Hearing. So by 7:00, we were 10 hours in.

I should talk about the Public Hearings first.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No 7756, 2015
This change in the Bylaw language broadens the definition of what a “Commercial School” is, from strictly business-clerk-type schools to include healthcare and other topics that are more common now in New Westminster and regionally than they were back when the Zoning law was created. This brings some existing businesses in the City back into compliance, and opens the door for more business development opportunities, especially in Sapperton as the Health Care Cluster economic plan is developed.

No-one spoke for or against this Bylaw, and Council gave it Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No 7741, 2015
This is the formal public review of the City’s Family Friendly Housing Policy, which will now be adopted into the Bylaw. This has been in process for a while, and it is coincidental (yet perhaps apropos) that we have a Public Hearing on this topic in the same week that the affordability and availability of family housing is on the front page of newspapers, and on the front steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

Council has approved a Bylaw that will mandate a minimum number of 2- and 3-bedroom units that will be included in mutli-family developments, along with a few other details that will help increase the number of family-sized suites in the City.

We received no presentations on this, but did receive correspondence from the Urban Development Institute that supported the general idea of the bylaw, but made a few recommendations about small changes we can make to better balance the need for larger units with the need of developers to earn a return on their investment. Over the next few years, Staff and Council will be tracking the implementation of this Bylaw, and that on-going review will no doubt result in some subtle improvements. However, for now I am happy to support the City moving in this direction, and am happy that New Westminster is once again leading the region in an initiative that makes our City more livable for more people.

Council gave the Bylaw Third Reading.

After the Public Hearing, we dropped immediately into our regular meeting, starting with the Recommendations from Committee of the Whole meeting from earlier in the day:

327 Fourth Street HRA Application
This is a plan to subdivide one of the two remaining properties on the east side of 300 block of Fourth Street that has not yet been subdivided. Almost every house on this block has already been split up with a second home facing Pine Street.

Council referred this proposal for first and second readings, and sent it to Public Hearing on June 22, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

328 Holmes Street Subdivision Application
This is a plan to subdivide a 66-foot lot on the hilly part of Holmes Street with an older (but not “heritage”) home on it into two narrower 33-foot lots, so that two houses can be build under RS-5 zoning. There are a couple of other houses on this block where such a subdivision has been done.

Council referred this proposal for first and second readings, and sent it to Public Hearing on June 22, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Rezoning of 646 Ewen Avenue
This plan is a little different. The property at 646 Ewen is currently vacant, but is zoned Local Commercial District. It is at a pretty central pedestrian “crossroads” in Queensborough, where Wood (with the Temple and Sukh Sagar Park are located, but any developed land within 250m is single-family-residential. The plan is to re-zone the lot to residential so a single family home (one that actually faces Wood, not Ewen) can be built.

Council referred this proposal for first and second readings, and sent it to Public Hearing on June 22, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Development Permit application for 418 Thirteenth street
Finally, this multi-family development plan on the corner of 13th Street and Kamloops Street (just a block and a half above Stewardson and 13th) went through the public consultation and approval process back in the heady days of late summer 2014, when NWimby was a blogger and a hot race for the Next Mayor of New Westminster was just starting to bubble over. For whatever reason, the Permit was recommended for issuance, but that issuance never happened. We are approving the issuance now.

Regardless of delays, this looks like a pretty interesting project, with 13 primarily ground-oriented mid-sized townhouses/apartments that will address Thirteenth Street is a pretty creative way and hopefully provide some reasonably-priced family-friendly housing.

2015 Spring Freshet Update
Snowpack is still low around much of the province, although the melt-off is a little late. Barring a protracted heat wave until mid-June followed by an exceptional regional rain-on-snow event, we can probably put our sandbags away for this year.

New City-Wide Economic Plan
This is a proposal from staff to update the City’s Economic Development Plan. I was initially concerned about the timing of starting yet another planning process when we are in the middle of comprehensive OCP consultation planning process, and are working on a Public Engagement Strategy, MTP implementation, Economic Health Care Cluster plan, the Intelligent City initiative, and this council is still working on strategic planning objectives for the term. I was afraid we might approach strategic plan fatigue here.

However, chatting with staff, they feel that this is not an onerous task, and it is actually important to start right now, as there are many emerging opportunities for which we need to be ready to address from an economic-development front. Staff could use this plan to help set the framework for that. I can think of no better example than the just-announced launch of Phase 1 of the major RCH capital upgrade. This is the beginning of a decade-long development process that is going to re-shape Royal Columbian, and consequently much of the Sapperton commercial and institutional lands. From an economic development perspective, we need to have a plan to optimize the once-in-a-generation opportunity that comes with major expansion of your single largest employer.

Council voted to endorse staff’s suggested approach to the development of a new economic plan. Expect to hear some public consultation soon.

420 St, George Street HRA
One more piece of land-development business this week. This is a plan to subdivide a single-family lot on one of those little side-streets between Honour House and Queens Ave United Church, to build an infill house and do some restoration of the extant 1890 Burton Taylor house.

Council referred this proposal for first and second readings, and sent it to what is starting to look like a very busy Public Hearing on June 22, 2015. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Policy for Disabled Parking in Residential Neighbourhoods
This is a an interesting policy idea that might make a big difference for a very small number of people, and have little impact on anyone else. In short, a resident can apply to the City to have a parking area on a residential street adjacent to or near their house designated as a “Disabled Parking Only” spot. This would, presumably, provide them a better opportunity for accessible parking near their home if they do not already have accessible parking on their property.

It is important to note that these would remain public parking spots which anyone can use when it is available, as long as that anyone has a SPARC permit on their dash. As a City, we cannot guarantee you exclusive access to the parking spot on the curb in front of your house, but we can take initiatives like this to make the parking supply better suit the needs of the community. I serve as the Chair of the Access Ability Advisory Committee, and that committee whole-heartedly endorsed this initiative. Council voted to make it policy.

Train Whistle Cessation Update
The City is working on getting rid of the late-night train horns  (and the day ones as well, thought we get fewer complaints about those). The approach involves consultation with the railways (who have final say) and investing in the capital improvements required to make the Railways say yes. After many years of individual citizens wrangling with the rail companies over several issues with such a confrontational approach that legal settlements preclude some of those residents from even talking about the dispute, a new approach adopted by City Council a few years ago is finally turning the tide and making progress on this issue.

Yes, progress is slow, as there are logistical, legal, and infrastructure details abound, but the City has managed to get a few crossings designated as whistle-free, and has a solid deadline for many others. The image up top shows the many crossing in the City, and which ones are administered by which of the three main rail operators. Read the report for more details (especially on the challenges at Braid and Spruce Streets), but short version is we now have a tentative plan for when they will be made whistle-free:

Downtown (Front Street at Begbie and 4th): September 2015.
Sapperton (Cumberland): August 2015
Sapperton (Braid and Spruce): To Be Determined
Quayside Drive: December 2016
20th Street: August 2015
Queensborough (Port Royal): Done
Queensorough (5 crossings along Ewen): April 2016.

And, as always, we blasted through a number of Bylaws for adoption or readings:

7761 2015 – Electrical Utility Commission Amendment Bylaw
As discussed last meeting, we adopted the Bylaw that named another person to the El;ectrical Utility Commission.

7765 2015 – Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Amendment
As discussed last meeting, we adopted the Bylaw that updated our Bylaw enforceability and fines.

7712 2015 – HRA for 327 Fourth Street
7713 2015 – Heritage Designation for 327 Fourth Street
7760 2015 – Zoning Amendment for 328 Holmes Street
7758 2015 – Zoning Amendment for 646 Ewen Street
7736 2015 – HRA for 420 St. George Street
7737 2015 – Heritage Designation for 420 St. George Street
As discussed above, these are the First and Second Readings for the projects going to Public Hearing on June 22nd.

And at a little before 7:00, just as all our fans at Dunwood were tuning in,  we were done.