Tag: Planning

UBCM 2017- Day 1

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This is part 2 on my reporting out on what I did at the 2017 UBCM conference. Part 1 is here.

Tuesday, September 26, was the first day of the UBCM 2017 conference, and it started early for me with the British Columbia Municipal Climate Leadership Council breakfast. This is an annual opportunity to sit down with the Council members and provincial leaders (those laser-eyed folks pictured above) to share good news about what local governments are doing, and to find opportunities for partnerships across communities and with senior governments to meet the Province’s climate goals.

For my part, I was able to talk briefly about how our new OCP integrates climate change mitigation and adaptation, about developing plans for our District Energy Utility, about the Urban Solar Garden Project and the small research project we are working on with BCIT to expand curb-side EV charging opportunities. I also heard about similar things in other communities, and from the province about their plans to renew the Climate Leadership Team and a commitment to a renewed Climate Action Charter that was the source of much criticism at this same meeting a year ago. Again, much to feel optimistic about, but still early days of policy development for the new Government.

This was followed by the Community Forums part of the Convention. These are semi-plenary sessions where we are divided up into small, medium, and large communities. At 70,000+ residents, New Westminster is part of the Large Urban Communities forum.

The session began with a panel on Transportation, Moving Commuters in Today’s Urban Environment. Councillor Kerry Jang from Vancouver chaired a panel consisting of Dr. Anthony Perl from SFU’s Urban Studies Program, and the CEOs of both TransLink and BC Transit. (yes, another all-male panel).

Dr. Perl started by showing a series of automobile ads with the same theme: “Buy Now, Pay later!”, and contrasted that with how we market transportation investment – we always ask for a new tax or other funding sources, on the promise that some new service will come later. No wonder we lose referendums. Aside from this, his main message seemed to be that we need to stop thinking more transportation spending means better transportation, when we need better transportation spending.

MORE ≠ BETTER.    BETTER = BETTER.

This was followed by TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond essentially saying that TransLink is doing better, at least in passenger counts. Ridership on the system was up 4.5% in 2016, and is up 6.1% so far in 2017, which is *way* faster than growth being observed in other urban areas around North America. This after a period starting in 2010 when service hours per capita and rides per capita was actually dropping. Some of this turn-around is due to the sometimes painful route optimization process that saw service hours cut but more emphasis on higher-ridership routes. However, more of it may be related to the Compass Card, and changing the way people pay for Transit use.

For anyone who took SkyTrain to and from the conference like I did every day, this measureable surge in ridership is not a surprise, nor is it making the system more comfortable, and Desmond was quick point out that managing overcrowding is now a priority, both in improving SkyTrain service and in the larger projects like Broadway SkyTrain. As is typical of any Desmond conversation about TransLink, he finished by reminding us that we need to start planning past the current Mayor’s Council 10-year plan, and have a serious discussion about mobility pricing as a stable capital funding source.

Manuel Achadinha , the CEO of BC Transit, is less familiar to those of us living in the TransLink service area, but BC Transit provides service to Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley, and the vast interior of the province, where most communities with more than 10,000 residents have some level of public transit service. His talk was mostly on the topic of using technology to collect transit data, and to make service better. Ultimately, what Transit users really want is Frequency and Reliability – technology cannot replace these, but can make them more achievable.

During the Q&A session, there were questions about integrating service and technology between BC Transit and TransLink, and from the answers, it sounded like this was not on anyone’s workplan. Local Government representatives from Fraser Valley communities and the Sea-to-Sky corridor are anxious to see some better integration happen. Connecting Squamish and Whistler to TransLink’s core service area, and inter-community connections between Greater Vancouver and growing Fraser Valley town centres like Abbotsford and Chilliwack seems to be on neither agencies’ radar, but will be a major topic for the Lower Mainland Local Government Association this year.

The Panel wrapped with a short presentation from Selena Robinson, the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (and Minister responsible for Translink). Again, she had little new policy to announce, and it was clear she was the most-in-demand Minister at UBCM. However, she did reiterate her and her Government’s support for the Mayor’s Council 10-Year Plan, and to providing the promised 40% funding for every phase of the plan.

The second half of the Forum was a Panel called BC Kids – Changing Demographics and Needs of Urban Families with Dr. Bonnie Henry, Deputy Provincial Health Officer, Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates, Chris Bone from the City of Prince George, and the Minister of State for Child Care Katrina Chen. (Hey! An all-female Panel!)

Dr. Henry tweaked us to some demographics and trends in BC in relation to children. They are 20% of BCs population, up to 25% in some communities. But it was her deeper dive into how health indicators vary across the province that show some of the geographic gaps in health services for youth. A comprehensive ongoing survey of children’s health is compiled at ChildHealthIndicatorsBC.ca.

Gregson provided the background behind the 10aDay.ca campaign to bring affordable accessible childcare to British Columbia. This research provided the basis for the new Government’s Child Care Plan – a solution that is much more complex than the speaking points commonly heard during the Election. The current situation is dire – there are 364,000 mothers in the workforce in the Province, with 570,000 children between the ages of 0-12, but there are currently fewer than 106,000 licensed day care spaces. It costs too much to put a child in daycare or many working parents, yet most daycare workers are not paid enough to put their own children in daycare. The system, if that’s what you call the current situation, isn’t working.

Fixing this situation will require more spaces to be built, and it will mean training a new generation of daycare workers. It also means setting up a structure to administer both a fair payment system ($10 a day is a catchy slogan, but in reality the cost would be adapted according to a family’s income and the type of care needed) and a fair wage system to build the professionalism of child care.

The promise is there, the delivery will take time. This is starting to sound like a theme.

Finally, I attended an afternoon policy session on the Water Sustainability Act that unfortunately missed the mark somewhat. The presenters were from the two Ministries responsible for the WSA (Environment and FLNRO), and were clearly highly knowledgeable about the topic, but I felt they didn’t really understand who their audience was, or what information about the WSA as actually valuable to Local Government elected types.

The WSA came into force more than a year ago, but there has been a notable paucity of policy and regulation development to support the goals of the WSA, especially as it relates to the empowerment of (or downloading to?) Local Governments with the ability to develop Water Management Plans and better manage the protection of community water assets. This is not news. People working in environmental protection have been patiently waiting for the WSA to be put to practice, and aside from new regulation around well drilling, the wait goes on.

UBCM17 – Day 0

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

The annual UBCM Conference was in Vancouver last week, and I attended for only the second time in my term as a City Councillor. I reported here, here, and here on my impressions from last year, but I was among those going into this year with different expectations, what with a fresh new provincial government, and one that has emphasized the importance of working with Local Governments. Indeed, I expect many local government types had expectations going in they were unrealistically high, but let’s see where this went.

I will drag this out across a few blog posts, as it was a jammed week. I’ll try to keep it concise, though this may get pretty wonkish for some regular readers. There was a lot to learn this year, and since the citizens of New Westminster pay my registration, I think it is important to report out so you know what you got for that money.

Monday is a bit of a pre-conference day, as the conference in earnest begins on Tuesday, but I attended two education sessions on Monday, and am glad I did.

The morning session was on Cannabis Regulations from a Local Government Perspective. There were presentations from the new Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Mike Farnworth, Provincial Health Officer Dr. Perry Kendall, and Sukhbir Manhas, a Lawyer specializing in Municipal Law who put the legal framework in perspective. This was followed by a Panel Discussion with four Mayors from around the Province and a bit of a Q & A session.

It is clear that marijuana for recreational consumption will be legal federally in July of 2018. We also know that the federal government will be responsible for the regulation of production of marijuana, and the provinces will be responsible for regulating wholesale and retail distribution of product, regulating consumption, and for enforcement. It is not clear what role Local Governments will play, except in that we are “Creatures of the Province”, and will be given our roles either through direct regulation or by a local desire to fill a regulatory gap left by provincial action.

It was an interesting session, with a lot of topics discussed, but short version is that the Minister made the commitment to open public consultation and to engaging Local Governments in a constructive way to address our concerns. There will clearly be economic impacts of any regulation. But the Minister was warned by other jurisdictions with which he has been consulting (including Washington State and Colorado) that revenue generation cannot be the driver of regulation, or the important public policy implications can fall by the wayside while short-term costs of setting up the regulatory regime are often underestimated. There will be revenue, but perhaps the message is that we shouldn’t be in a rush to spend it until we understand its character.

Dr. Kendall gave us some interesting perspectives about the public health implications of different policy directions – what age is the right age to permit cannabis use? What to do about public smoking rules, and what to do with multi-unit buildings? How to manage edibles? How do we provide the right price-quality-convenience balance that we effectively cut organized crime out of the supply chain? Legislation must balance these out if we wish to have the best public health outcomes. He presented this compelling graph:

link to source.

In short, if your interest is in managing public health impacts, a well-regulated market is better than a completely unregulated market (like cigarettes used to be) or blanket prohibition (like Cannabis is now) – but finding that middle is the delicate balance we need to strive for. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health have provided some pretty good guidelines, and research in existing and potential policy tools, but we have yet to see what advice the federal government will be taking.

Mr. Minhas and the Mayors’ Panel both discussed some of the challenges and opportunities for local governments coming out of this, and the importance of us coordinating with the province prior to next July. We need to be ready for the inevitable change that is coming, if only so we are ready to address the inevitable community concerns in areas that Local Governments have jurisdiction – land use, business regulation, and nuisance management. Our tools are limited, but are most effective if we get ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately, there is lots of evidence, especially from the Q&A session, that this is an area where many local government attitudes lag far behind the progressive public policy work of other jurisdictions and even public perception. From the lame Cheech & Chong joke that opened the session to one long-serving Mayor of an certain agriculture-intensive Lower Mainland Municipality expressing fear that her City will become the “Pot Capital of BC” (causing me to question if she would feel that worried if it became the Craft Brewing Capital of BC, or the Winery Capital of BC?), it is clear that attitudes about cannabis will not change as quickly as the regulation of it will – which suggests some difficult conversations ahead.

My second session on Monday was on Green Innovation and new Environmental Policies. We had a presentations from Jonathan Wilkinson, the Parliamentary Secretary to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and from George Heyman, the new provincial Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. They talked mostly of senior governments’ commitment to meeting the Paris Agreement goals to reduce emissions, and both acknowledged the role local governments will need to play to meet those goals.

A statistic oft repeated during UBCM was that local governments in Canada are responsible for about 66% of infrastructure, create about 50% of all emissions, but only receive about 6% of all tax revenue. This results in some pretty obvious math: if we want to reduce emissions, we need to update that infrastructure, which is going to cost money.

Which brought us to the topic of grants. There were some details on the Federal Build Canada Infrastructure Fund, and the process being developed through the Provincial Government to make these funds available to local governments. These funds may be applicable to help us fund a few projects in New Westminster where we are planning to reduce the emissions by updating our infrastructure (Canada Games Pool is our single largest emission source) or wish to shift the community to lower-carbon energy sources (The proposed District Energy Utility for Sapperton would replace gas-fired boilers for and expanded RCH and could provide ample carbon-free baseload heat for dozens of high-density residential and commercial developments).

This was followed by Panels on actions that some Local Governments are taking to reduce emissions or modernize their energy supply – from embedding energy sustainability in their OCP (done!) to helping strata complexes bring electric vehicle charging on-line, to implementing the Step Code to promote more energy efficient buildings.

Actually, there was a lot of talk about electricity and the transportation sector, from private cars to transit to heavy trucks. Some question whether the advances in vehicles are too fast compared to our ability to provide the infrastructure to support the shift. According to BC Hydro, if all of the 2.4 Million light-duty vehicles in British Columbia could be replaced with EVs today, and it would only result in a 19% increase in base load. As EV charging predominantly happens when other loads on the system are not high, (i.e. at night), this is less of a problem at the generation end than some may have you believe. On a per-year basis, the average Tesla uses about half the electricity as the average hot tub. Let that sink in for a bit.

The reality is we cannot build the plugs for all these vehicles fast enough for it to become a problem in the short term.

I also learned this:
EV or PEV or ZEV or CEV = PHEV + BEV.
In the electric car world, that’s a funny joke.

Finally, I want to note that today’s two sessions were informative, but I couldn’t help but notice I saw 23 presenters and panelists over the two sessions. Five of them were female, while two others were visible minorities.

Our City

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The new Official Community Plan for New Westminster was formally adopted on Monday. The longest and most open public consultation process in the history of the City culminated in a comprehensive re-write of the OCP, last done almost 20 years ago.

I’m really proud of the process this community went through and the work staff did to make it work. The end result is a huge step forward for the City. Although I get a sense we didn’t reach far enough in some areas, I am happy with the end result, as it was clearly driven by the community.

When this process started back in early 2014, I was not on Council. I spent a lot of time that summer knocking on doors, and heard a variety of ideas about where residents wanted the City to go. Some clearly wanted no change at all, others saw the need for a different approach to housing. These differences were not neighbourhood by neighbourhood, but were all over the map. It was clear that the new OCP would be a huge Public Consultation undertaking.

The City put together an advisory committee of a couple dozen residents from all neighbourhoods and walks of life. We brought in Residents’ Association representatives, business people, community leaders and everyday citizens to not just consult, but to help lead the intensive sessions that got the conversations going asking the first question of any OCP: “what do you want the City to be?”

This launched us into two more years of talking about how to get there. We had more open houses that I can count, some very open chats about general OCP concepts, some more directed to specific topics like the series of community discussions on housing. Staff created interesting on-line tools to help people engage, visited every Residents’ Association at least once, and went out to everything from seniors homes to daycare centres to survey for ideas and opinions. The “Our City” Pop-up-Planning booth was omnipresent at City events for two years, asking questions that changed as the process wore on. Staff consulted with 11 Council Advisory Committees, ran “travelling workshops” to community centres across the City, and reached out to agencies that serve those members of our community that are usually marginalized from political and planning conversations, such as Spirit of the Children Society and Immigrant Services Society. Feedback was received from the development community, Metro Vancouver, Provincial Ministries from Transportation to Health to Environment, the School Board, the Port, TransLink, and Qayqayt First Nation. Council received a lot of correspondence.

The result was literally thousands of interactions with members of our community, and I am thankful, once again, that New Westminster showed up and told us their opinions. We have 7,000 pages of documents backing up this consultation. That is an amazing amount of paperwork to distill down to a working 200-page document.

A successful consultation does not mean everyone gets what they want, that is impossible with so many contrasting opinions in the City. However, it does allow us to gauge the mood of the City and frame the bigger goals of the community, and in turn frame the strategies and tasks that will move us towards those goals in the decade ahead.

An important point missed by many is that an OCP is much more than a Land Use Plan. It is about the 12 Major goals that define what our City will be in the decade ahead, those goals supported by 61 well-defined Policy Areas and 182 concrete actions the City can (and will) take to achieve the goals. If the OCP works the way it is intended, these goals will drive future Council policy, the work of staff, and will even help define how the Land Use Plan develops over time. Indeed, of all the OCP products, it is the Land Use Plan that is most easily and commonly edited as the community evolves.

Still, the Land Use Plan map gets the most attention. I suspect because it more tangible than policy statements. I don’t think the friction sometimes generated between community-wide goals and parochial or political concerns is ever as hot as when talking about changes in land use – which is ultimately a local government’s primary responsibility and jurisdiction. So I guess I’ll follow the lead and talk more here about the Land Use Plan than the 12 Goals, though you will see them scattered about  about this post as constant reminders of where we are meant to be headed, like this one right here:

The first big point to make about the Land Use Plan is that it supports growth anticipated in the Regional Growth Strategy developed the best part of a decade ago. This plan does not open the floodgates to population growth – that growth is happening regardless of what we do here – but it does give us a more sustainable plan to make that growth fit within the community we want to be, in 10 years, in 20 years, and beyond. Most importantly, the OCP allows us to plan for building the roads, parks, sewers, schools and other infrastructure we need to support the residents of the future.

When the OCP process started 3 years ago, the idea of increasing our housing variety and finding opportunities for density increases in our residential neighbourhoods had to be framed in the context of bringing more amenities to neighbourhoods – making our retail areas more vibrant, supporting more frequent transit service. In 2014 when we started, the regional housing crisis was still on a low boil, at least in New West. The “Million Dollar Line” of average house values was still far off to the west, and New West was still (almost) an affordable option for young families – if we could build them the type of housing they wanted and needed.

I don’t have to tell anyone here that we are in a different place now. The housing crisis is boiling over, and though we have strategies in the City that are effectively creating a new stock of rental units and assuring family-friendly units get built, we are simply not keeping up with the region-wide demand. In hindsight, this should have been obvious, and maybe staff was ahead of both the public and Council on this front. I’d like to think this is why we had significant push-back on creating more opportunities for flexible housing choice, and why Council decided that this push-back was reasonable.

In the end, any single map or plan that comes out of such a wide consultation includes compromises. I don’t think this Land Use Plan is perfect, but I think it is a significant step in the right direction, and I was happy to support it. All such maps are living documents, subject to lot-by-lot revision and adjustment as the plan unfolds. It will be up to staff and Council to track how this Land Use Plan leads us to the larger strategic goals we outlined in the OCP, and not be afraid to make those adjustments when the case can be made for them.

From the start of the consultations, the theme of housing choice and housing affordability clearly led the discussions. Call it gentle infill, call it family housing, call it missing middle, it is clear that housing choice was a wide concern in the City, both in how to make it happen and in how to make if fit in our existing neighbourhoods. In this rests my biggest concern with the OCP. I am not convinced we got the formula right for incentivizing the growth of the missing middle housing form, townhouses and rowhomes.

In my mind, the best option at this point is to challenge staff and Council (not just this Council, but the one elected in 2018) to closely monitor the situation as the community reacts to the new land use designations. Did we get the incentives, rules and guidelines right, and create a healthy market for missing middle housing forms? Or did we fall behind the real economics of housing over the period it took for us to complete this plan?

That was my thinking in moving some direction to staff as part of adopting the OCP. The text of my motion was “THAT Council direct staff to explore additional locations that could be designated Residential – Infill Townhouse as part of a two year Townhouse and Rowhouse Monitoring Program, and include the outcome in a proposed Land Use Designation Map update at the conclusion of the Program”. The completion of an OCP isn’t the end of the planning process, it is the beginning of a new planning process. I wanted to put some expectations and timelines on the next steps in that process.

Council just attended the UBCM conference (blogs to come!), where housing was one of the most pressing topics – everything from homelessness, demo- and reno-victions, housing affordability, and an increasingly challenging market for people at every single level of the economic spectrum. The crisis is regional, and it is mutli-faceted, not doubt made worse by a decade of general indifference at the provincial level. As there is not a single problem, there is not a single solution. This OCP will not solve the problem, but it does give us a view of where some solutions will be found. And it will obviously need to be adapted as new solutions are found through collaboration of all three levels of government.

I feel positive about the future for New Westminster outlined in this OCP, and am encouraged that we got literally thousands of New West citizens involved in such a complex public consultation. There were almost as many disagreements within Council as there were in the bigger community about major aspects of the plan, but we worked together to find the compromises needed to achieve the common goals. Now we need to get to work putting it in practice.

Ask Pat: The Q’boro edition

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

Yes, I am a bad blogger. I have Ask Pats in the queue, and run the risk of looking like I just don’t care. But summer is over, which traditionally means time to get back to work, so I’ll try to knock off a couple together here, with a Q’boro theme:

Shaji asks—

Hello Pat
Do you know what is the story behind Frankie G’s Boilerhouse Pub on 305 Ewen Avenue in Queensborough? It seems like it has been under renovations for a long time.

I don’t know much, except that there was a fire, and the owner is doing a major renovation to coincide with the repairs required due to flames/smoke/water. That said, nothing has come across the Council table about it, and I am not aware of any other plans for the site. It is a bit of a shame that they were not open this summer, as it would have made a nice walkable destination during the QtoQ Ferry demonstration, and I know that Port Royal residents are missing having a local community pub. Hope it’s open soon!

Dan asks—

Why did you guys wait so long in the process to figure out building a Q2Q bridge was going to be expensive? How many tens of thousands of dollars did you waste in meetings discussing nonsense with other bureaucrats? You say you have us in your mind, but your thoughts and prayers are piss in the wind. Queensborough is one of the least thought out communities I have had the misfortune of living in. It seems not a single person on the council even thought about basic amenities like a grocery store or how people will get in and out or find parking. You saw a quick way to make cash, promised people a solution and future, and produced nothing. There are thousands of new homes coming up, and little to no forethought into how this will make the already existing problem of access even worse.

To answer your first question, the money to build the proposed Q2Q bridge was not going to be available until around 2015, based on the original timeline of the DAC funding model, when it was put together back in 2007 or so. The higher-priority projects (Queensborough Parks and the Queensborough Community Centre, the MUCF/Anvil Centre) were to be funded and completed first, and were. I wrote a longer piece here about the evolution and challenges of the Q2Q bridge, and a follow-up piece on the decisions made since my time on Council, which may answer some of your questions about how a project originally (in 2008) thought to be in the order of $10Million became a project estimated at $40Million.

I’m not sure how to square the idea that Queensborough is ignored by the City when I look at the Queensborough Community Plan, the investments in the QBB and surrounding parks, the largest road improvement project in the City’s history, and the City investing in childcare and affordable housing initiatives in that neighbourhood as priorities over the rest of the City. Queensborough is growing fast, and the City is investing in making it a livable, working community.

The Community Plan does include the building of neighbourhood-serving retail in a new node near Mercer and Ewen, but the reality is that the City doesn’t build retail developments; that is the job of the private sector. There is a frustrating chicken-and-egg situation where retail developers need to see a large population (=potential customer) base before they will invest and build, but in the meantime, we want local retail to support a growing population (it is kind of like the transit conundrum that sees Port Royal still under-served by Transit as it exceeds the density of many better-served neighbourhoods). The mostly-empty strip mall just over the border in Hamilton is an example of what happens if you try to build small neighbourhood-serving retail in a neighbourhood not ready for it, especially in the shadow of WalMart, but that’s an entire other discussion.

So, yeah, Queensborough is a work in progress, just as every other neighbourhood in the City is. It has an abundance of relatively affordable family-friendly housing options near a bunch of great community amenities, if one is willing to suffer from a lack of retail variety and rush hour traffic challenges. I think the community plan shows some longer-term relief from those challenges, but the solutions aren’t instant, and aren’t for a lack of forethought. Communities often shape themselves, regardless of the best laid plans.

And, as a side note, Council will be doing our annual Meeting in Queensborough on September 11, starting at 6:00pm. If you have a specific Q’boro concern, complaint, kudo or claim, Public Delegations start at 7:00! C’mon out and tell us what you think!

…on Montreal

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I wrote earlier about my spring trip back east, first to the FCM conference, then as a tourist for a few days in Ottawa. I don’t want this to turn into a Travel Blog (ugh, who needs another one of those?), but I do want to talk about the last leg of our trip, because Montreal blew my mind.

I have not visited Montreal in a couple of decades, and aside from the rampant bilingualism and historic buildings, the City had little in common with Ottawa. Montreal is so vibrant, it was so being lived in, that we almost didn’t want to leave.

We got around on the quick and efficient metro system. For $18, we got a three-day unlimited pass, and found the system easy to navigate, only occasionally crowded, clean (if a little well-worn in places), and friendly. Aside: It is notable, coming from a TransLink serviced area, that only 7 of the 40+ metro stations have elevators, and there is limited accessibility throughout the system. Perhaps a legacy of the age of the system, but it puts TransLink’s occasional accessibility issues into perspective when 90% of Metro is completely off limits to those who cannot navigate escalators and stairs.

Our other transportation source was Bixi, Montreal’s incredibly comprehensive bike share program. Bixi runs like the New York CitiBike, in that the tech and booking system is in a station kiosk, and bike must be returned to a station. This was never an issue on our two days of criss-crossing the City, as stations were ubiquitous. There were three stations within 1 block of our little hotel in the Village, and another two between us and the nearest Metro Station three blocks away. We paid $5 a day for unlimited 30-minute rides, occasionally checking a bike in and checking another out if our journey was longer that the maximum. The system operated flawlessly, and appeared to be very well used.

We thought Ottawa was a bike-friendly city, but Montreal takes it to an entirely different level. This is what it feels like when cycling is made equal to other modes in a City. Every journey we took, there was either a separated, protected bikeway, or a traffic calmed street bikeway, with the former more the rule than the exception. Light signals were designed with cyclists in mind, the network is connected and integrated with other modes. Overall, it just worked.

The result is obvious – we had, at times, Copenhagen-level bicycle traffic. There were a few of lycra-wearing Freds, but they were easily outnumbered by people in street clothes riding bikes of almost every shape and style, using the functional network to get around without much fuss. I would peg helmet usage in adults at about 30%, but with upright bikes and really well designed infrastructure, I don’t think I ever saw a conflict between a bike and another user. Quite the opposite, the few times we got a little turned-around with infrastructure, drivers seemed to treat us with an unfamiliar courtesy.

There are still people who think Vancouver is being too aggressive with bike lanes and normalizing cycling as a mode. There are people who think helmet laws are the best way to keep cyclists safe. My answer to them will now be Montreal. As a cycling advocate in the Lower Mainland for more than a decade, and someone now elected to make our City work better, I actually feel a little ashamed about how far ahead of us wintery, hilly, crowded, traffic-crazy Montreal is. Be assured: we are laggards; embarrassingly so.

The other part that made Montreal easy to love was the incredible animation of public spaces: Parklets, road “closures”, street art, festivals, patios, the whole damn scene. We walked a few blocks on a Wednesday night and stumbled upon a swing dance event in a public park, beer being sold, people hanging out and dancing, with what appeared to be very little fuss.

We soon discovered this was the rule, not the exception. For three days we travelled around on bikes finding streets closed and a stages set up, streets where traffic was being constrained by patio life, people playing or listening to music, stuff happening mid-week in May.

The streets of the Village, of the Plateau, of Mont Royal, of everywhere, were busy with retail and entertainment. Parklets, decks, restaurants, and a healthy-looking diversity of small street-level retail.

Travelling around on Bixi took us through the many residential neighbourhoods immediately adjacent to the main strips like St. Laurent, and I started to make the (obvious to my YIMBY friends) connection between the residential neighbourhoods and the street activity. and it comes down to this:

This type of 4- or 5-unit building, rental or condo, is ubiquitous in Montreal. There are many (and seemingly a growing number of) higher-rise condos in the centre of town, many areas on the fringes (a freeway-drive away from town) where relatively cheap single-family detached exist, but it is the medium-density, low-rise multi-unit apartment building that defines the livable neighbourhoods of Montreal.

I am sure there are other factors – cultural history, long winters, cosmopolitan population, laissez-faire laws, large student population – but I cannot help but connect this missing middle family-friendly density to the other features that make Montreal neighbourhoods so livable. The dependable dépanneur, the bike lanes, the lively streetfronts, the energy of the street: they all depend on a population density that supplies customers and neighbours, but doesn’t overwhelm space. This is the built form that so much of Greater Vancouver (including New Westminster) is scared of, even as our neighbourhoods struggle with being too expensive to live in, and too barren to support a vibrant community.

Seriously, we started to linger while walking past real estate offices to see what was on offer…

Pattullo EA

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

With all of the excitement around elections, renewed commitments to transit funding somewhat confounded by unclear priorities around the application of road tolling, it is easy to forget the Pattullo Bridge is falling down and scheduled to be replaced very soon. At this point, it is unclear how the replacement will be funded, but it is clear right now that the existing structure is unlikely to be carrying traffic in 2023, so unless they get busy planning the replacement, we will be entering uncharted territory.

Translink is continuing to get busy with that planning, and is currently involved in the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) process. I write about this now, because you have until the middle of next week to provide your first round of input to that process.

The need for an EA is mandated by the province, and the EA itself is run by the Environmental Assessment Office, not by Translink. It is a fairly tightly regulated process, with a structure and firm timelines, so if you at all care about the Pattullo (and I think most people in New West fall under this category), you might want to take your chance to comment while they are open. I thought I might outline the process a bit here, not to tell you what to comment on, but to help you understand the process so your comments have the best chance of being heard.

The first stage of any EA is the pre-application stage when the terms of the EA are determined. The primary purpose of this stage is to evaluate what impacts (positive or negative) will be created by the project, and what are the potential targets of these impacts – so “sediment in the river” is a potential impact of construction work, and “fisheries habitat” is a potential recipient of that impact. The second stage is the actual “Assessment”, where these potential impacts are assessed to determine if they are real, and then to make adequate mitigation of these impacts a condition on moving forward with the project. To have a project (any project, be it a bridge, a mine, or a pipeline) refused an EA certificate would be very unusual. The more likely process for an EA to kill a project would be to create conditions that make the cost or hassle of mitigating an impact so high that the proponent will decide not to proceed. I don’t think that will be the case here.

By necessity, an EA has to have a project to review. So the proponent has to provide a project description to hang the assessment on. It appears, from the preliminary documentation provided by TransLink to the EAO, that project is “a new four-lane bridge funded primarily by user pricing” and “located north and upstream of the existing bridge, its approaches will connect to McBride Boulevard in New Westminster and the King George Boulevard in Surrey” , which is consistent with the public consultation work TransLink has done to date and with the MOU between TransLink, Surrey, and New Westminster. This is important to recognize, because comments like “they need to build 8 lanes for future capacity” or “they should build the bridge in a different location” are not relevant to the EA. Those arguments were made, and discussions had, over the last 5 years while the project was being developed, they are not the current plan, and the EA is not the process through which a radical change of plan will come about. In essence, the question in the EA is not “how best to connect Surrey to New West by roads”, it is “what impact will this 4-lane bridge proximal to the existing one have”. Comments addressing the first question are interesting, but not relevant to this process.

So the comments the EA needs right now are pretty limited, but foundational to the EA to come. Have TransLink and the EAO appropriately identified potential impacts? How do you think the proposed project will impact your life, the livability of your neighbourhood? What concerns you about the project as proposed? If you want TransLink (or other parties, such as the Ministry of Environment) to address something as part of this project, now is the time to ask, so it can get into the EA early, and the proponent has an opportunity to properly address it.

Picking a random example, I have talked in the past about how the Pattullo is an iconic structure. It has significant heritage value for the City of New Westminster. It is hard to finds a picture or photo of the City over the last 75 years that doesn’t feature the large orange arch defining the skyline. There is a value to that for our community. I don’t know how the EAO or TransLink can address that value, or what kind of mitigation can happen, but if we don’t raise that as an issue important to our community now, it will not get into the EA review, and an opportunity to discuss that aspect of the design of the bridge will be lost.

There is another issue that I hope will become clearer as the project EA proceeds, and this might be a bit wonkish. How valid are the traffic modelling assumptions baked into the assessment?

Transportation Planners and City Planners understand that traffic is impacted by induced demand. If we build a 4-lane bridge to replace an existing 4-lane bridge, there will be no more than a marginal increase in traffic counts (perhaps induced by a wider, safer, bridge configuration). That small increase in traffic is fundamental to a bunch of other impacts that will be measured – air quality impacts, noise and vibration, economic impacts, etc. However, if the traffic numbers coming out of this model are based on false assumptions about traffic, then all of the resultant data will be similarly flawed, and mitigation will not be appropriate. With all due respect to our regional transportation planners, the last two major bridges built in this region have completely failed to reach modelled traffic volumes – let’s not three-peat that mistake here.

So if this bridge is being built to accommodate future expansion to 6 lanes, how does that increase in traffic capacity (and concomitant induced demand) change those impacts, and (more importantly at this stage) is that being assessed as part of this project?

Then we have to raise the uncomfortable subject of tolls. The MOU and Project Definition both call for a tolled bridge, and the recent election seemed to indicate the province is now cold on the idea of bridge tolls. There is some time (this bridge will not be built until 2022 at the most ambitious rate) for the region’s Mayors to work up a regional road pricing scheme as envisioned in the 10-year plan, but that is something different than specific tolls on this bridge. As we have learned from recent experience, tolls significantly decrease demand for bridge infrastructure, so if this EA is based on traffic models based on toll aversion behavior of drivers, is that base assumption still valid? This is the type of thing we need clarity on right now.

Finally, there is an area of the EA where the cumulative impacts of multiple concurrent projects can enter into the assessment. The idea here is that one project may have a small, but acceptable impact on a valued part of the environment, but 10 similar projects on the same river will have a bigger impact. However, this is a transportation project, so cumulative impacts may be thought of in a different light. What impact will the (potential) cancelling of the Massey Bridge have on regional transportation (and the resultant traffic modelling?). Perhaps more important, what impact will SkyTrain/Light Rail in Surrey have on regional transportation patterns, and the assumptions feeding the transportation plan?

So that is long way of saying, if you care about the Pattullo Bridge and the impact its replacement will have on New Westminster, do a bit of reading here, and take the time to provide some comments to the EAO before the end of business on July 26. Then hold tight and wait until early 2018 when the full EA process starts.

paint

53 Stories.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 9 Comments.

What is arguably the highest-profile development proposal in my time on Council was given a development variance by Council last week. Bosa Development (not to be confused with Bosa Properties who are building the nearby River Sky. These are two separate companies) plans to fill the parking lot between the Fraser River Discovery Centre and Westminster Pier Park with two residential towers and a 3-story commercial building, while dedicating a bunch of the space to expansion of public park space on the waterfront. The big news seems to be the 53-story height of the tallest building, but there is (as always) much more to the story. As there is a bit of uninformed chatter in the community about this development, it is worth me going through my impressions about this variance, and how I made my decision on which way to vote.

The background for this development pre-dates my time on Council. Back in the early 2000s , this site was zoned for 5 towers and 1,000 residential units to be built upon a multi-story parking pedestal. As the Downtown Community Plan changed and North Fraser Perimeter Road was shelved, this model of an elevated parking pedestal no longer met the vision of the City to connect the waterfront to Downtown and keep it public space. The previous Council worked with the owner of the time (Larco Properties) to re-imagine the space so that parking could be placed below grade, the number of towers could be reduced to three, and the number of residential units reduced to 820. After a Public Hearing on September 29, 2014, that rezoning was adopted by the City in November, 2014, just before the last Municipal elections.

The process that occurred over the last year was not a rezoning. The owner of the land has the right under existing zoning to build that 3-tower 820-unit development. However, for reasons that no doubt result from serious number-crunching at Bosa, they requested to change this project footprint from three towers to two, and to reduce the number of residential units to 665. They still committed to giving the City about two acres of public park and to build the full allotment of parking (mostly under grade except for 20 surface spots). They are now committed to meet and exceed the City’s Family Friendly Housing Policy by building mostly 2- and 3-bedroom units. To do this, they want to make the two towers larger than those proposed in 2014, and they re-designed the landscaping to move the towers out of direct line of existing towers on Columbia Street, and to better accommodate rail setbacks and traffic flow through the site, and to build a 9m-wide boardwalk across the riverfront. These changes did not require rezoning (the FSR has not increased, and the number of units has gone down), but variances of the development permits.

bosa4

It is important to emphasize that: the decision Council had before it was to grant the variances or not, we were not deciding whether buildings could be built on the site or not. The developer had their zoning in hand, and could have proceeded with the 2014 plan; Council had to decide if the 2017 plan was a better one for the City.

The public consultation and delegations to Council brought forward a few concerns, which create a good framework to answer that question:

Too much density: This general concern was that this project brought too many people or too much traffic to downtown. As previously described, the variance actually reduces the number of units in the development by 20%. If density is your concern, the variances are your friend. Building density within a 5-miunte walk of two SkyTrain stations is completely consistent with our City’s pending OCP, with the Regional Growth Strategy, and with our larger regional desire to manage automobile traffic by providing people better access to alternatives – the opportunity to live, work, play and learn within a short walk of major transit infrastructure.

What about our views?: Every building in downtown blocks someone else’s view of the river, and this is simply the easternmost development of a line of buildings stretching along the Quayside. However, this variance shifts from 3 towers 34m apart to two towers 50m apart, which opens up more view corridors and reduces the blockage of river views from existing buildings.

53 Stories is just too big: Indeed, this will be the tallest building in New Westminster (although similar-sized buildings are currently being planned or built in Burnaby, Vancouver, Coquitlam – essentially anywhere SkyTrain exists), however the variance only increases the height of the tallest building by 6 stories, from 47 to 53 stories. I have consistently said that the real impact of new buildings in the City is felt in the bottom three stories – how the building footprint improves the streetscape – and not at the elevation of the penthouse. One need look no further than Plaza 88 to see that the streetscape impacts are much more important than the ultimate height

bosa3

The FSR of this development is not increasing, and the buildings have relatively small footprints. By shifting the locations of these buildings on the lot (as done on the variance), there is better flow-through of the site and the vehicle access to the buildings is separated from the boardwalk. In my opinion, we get a better layout of the site for the public, in exchange for a relatively modest increase in height.

bosa1

What can the city get out of this?: We get two residential buildings bringing residents, customers for the local businesses, and a financially viable development on a piece of land that has sat empty for more than 20 years. The City will get 2 acres of public park space, a re-aligned Begbie Street intersection built to maintain whistle cessation, a second access to Pier Park spanning the rail tracks at the foot of 6th street, a 40-child day care space in the third commercial building, 80 public parking spaces underground, new restaurant spaces, and a re-aligned 9m-wide boardwalk along the waterfront. This will be a phenomenal addition to our Riverfront once it is built.

However, there is something else that came out of the public consultations around this variance that speaks positively towards the development. The construction was originally envisioned to start this fall and result in a closure of the Begbie St rail crossing for up to 18 months. This shocked and concerned local businesses, especially at the River Market, as they are already feeling the pressure of the River Sky construction. After meeting with River Market owners and the Downtown BIA, Bosa agreed to delay the start of construction until after the RiverSky development makes its public parking available to guests of the River Market and adjacent businesses. They also adjusted the construction plan so that the (absolutely necessary) closure of Begbie would only be for a few weeks. The willingness of the developer to delay and adjust their construction schedule like this cannot be emphasized enough – these are real costs the developer is bearing for the benefit of the businesses and citizens of downtown New West.

The use of secant piles instead of steel pile walls and a commitment to using vibratory hammer driving of building piles will reduce construction noise and vibration by about 50% compared to RiverSky. This is also an increased cost the developer is bearing to the benefit of the community.

In summary? Yes, 53 stories is tall, but the density is within the existing plan, and the ground level amenities (and demonstrated will of the developer to be a good neighbour to existing residents and businesses) made this variance easy for me to approve. In my opinion, the changes that made the variances necessary make this a better development overall.

FCM2017 part 2

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This is part 2 of my (partial!) report from the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (Part 1 is here).

One of the tours that was really valuable for me was of the Centre Sportif Gatenau. This relatively recent (2010) sports complex in one of Ottawa’s Quebec suburbs was useful to tour at a time that some of the more detailed design decisions are being made in New Westminster around the Canada Games Pool and replacement of the Arenex.

outside

The CSG had a natatorium that I suspect is close to the volume of water and pool types that we are hearing is desired for New West from the stakeholders and public engagement. They have a 52m 8-lane pool with a moveable floor on one half to increase use flexibility, and a second warmer leisure/wellness pool that may not have as many “fun”activities as some community pools, but did provide a small length swimming area to increase flexibility. They also had a one of the larger diving complexes in a diving-centric community (towers to 10m and paired springboards for synchronized diving) that are probably beyond the needs here in New West.

One interesting point: the modern standard for BC of emphasizing gender neutral and family changing areas is not the standard in Quebec. Their relatively small family-oriented change area is restricted to those 9 and under when accompanied by a parent. I assume that people needing assistants or care providers are also accommodated, but there was little to be seen indicating this was a standard idea in Quebec.

bball

The CSG also had a large three-partition gym complex (it is the home of Canada’s national volleyball team) that is a little larger than is appropriate/affordable for a CGP replacement, but there were some learnings in their state-of-the-art floor treatment (“Terraflex”), and their already old tech lighting (sodium!). A lot can change in 7 years.

The CSG also featured a very large (20,000 square feet) gymnastics area. Again, gymnastics are hugely popular in Gatineau, which allows them to program a gymnastics space twice the size of the Arenex. It was an impressive space that helped provide some context to what a space that size can provide, as we look at options for short- and long-term Arenex replacement.

?

Gatineau is a true suburb of Ottawa, and in looking around the CSG area, has all of the stroads, strip mall parking lots, and low-density housing you would expect of an auto-oriented community. There is a Corridor Rapid Bus station adjacent to the facility, a community college to one side and the National Library to the other, yet, they only built 175 parking spots. Parking is free for 90 minutes, but charges are applied for longer periods.

map

There were many, many more details we learned about: what works well and what does not, and about how decisions were made for specific programming. After touring several pools and community centres across the Lower Mainland over the last year, this provided great context to how other regions address similar constraints and desires.

We were also fortunate to get a meeting with staff from Infrastructure Canada to discuss opportunities around the new infrastructure funding plan that is being rolled out by the federal government. There were a couple of other sessions at the FCM discussing the structure of the grant program, and what the Federal Government will be looking for in projects applying for grants. The plan is long-term (10 years) and the needs across the country are large, but this is an important time for information gathering so we can put the best proposal together when funding windows open.

Speaking of funding opportunities, I also attended a session where the FCM’s Municipal Climate Infrastructure Plan grants were discussed. Local governments in Canada own half of all public infrastructure, and are responsible for 60% of public service greenhouse gas emissions. BC is ahead of most provinces on this file (as the first Climate Action Plan under the Gordon Campbell Liberals really pushed Cities towards carbon neutrality), but there is still a lot of work to do, and it was great to learn from the experiences of Cities across the country. It was not lost on this crowd that this talk was occurring the day after President Trump announced his intention to pull out of the Paris Accord, shortly followed by a chorus of state and local government leaders stepping up and saying they were going to lead if the President fails to. Local governments can, and must, lead on climate mitigation and adaptation. The FCM is doing much to help us do so.

?

Finally, the FCM provided so many opportunities for informal learning. There were networking sessions where I met everyone from a City Councillor representing Kanata who has served for 28 years as Ottawa grew into a tech hub to a young Councillor from a small town outside of Edmonton who frequented New Westminster because his girlfriend actually lives in Moody Park! There is also a significant Trade Fair, where vendors of everything from waste management systems to artificial turf come to show us what is new in public services.

I went for a bit of a vacation after FCM, visiting family in Ottawa and friends in Montreal, which led to a bunch of other informal learning about how those Cities work, but I’ll save that for a future blog post.

Council – June 12, 2017

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The June 12th meeting seems so long ago, because the Public Hearing the following day seems to dominate the Council Agenda this week. However, we had a large Agenda, so I’ll get this report out first, and write more on the HCA later.

We started the meeting with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Development Variance Permit 00626 for 412 Third Street
This design for a single family home in Queens Park requires a Development Variance Permit because it is too far forward on the lot (by 7 feet) and too tall to fit in the current zoning (by 2 feet). These variances, however, are a result of the homeowner and staff working together to assure the City meets the Queens Park design guidelines and the construction of the house can accommodate the protection of mature pine trees on the property.

The current house was damaged by fire and provided a demolition permit during the Heritage Conservation Period, but their progress in building a replacement has run in parallel with the Heritage Control Period, which has no doubt been challenging for the homeowner and staff.

I am not concerned about the height variance, as it is minor, will fit in the context of the area, and provides a more livable secondary suite. The front yard projection is a bigger concern. It is, however, close to the front yard projection of the (restored heritage) house to the north. The house to the south was built quite a bit further back on their lot than the other adjacent houses, and the resident did show u to express concerns about this variance and the impact on their home.

We received some correspondence on this Opportunity to be heard, mostly in favour (including from the QPRA), and one opposed from the neighbour to the south. In the end, I was convinced the compromise made by staff and the homeowner balanced the various needs for the site, and Council voted in favour of granting the variance.

We had a single Report for Action:

Contemporary Art Gallery (CAG) Vancouver project proposal ,
A contemporary artist has an interesting proposal to activate the historic Simon Fraser bust on the boardwalk, at least to activate it on the geologic timescale sense. She intends to remove a 5-inch slice of the plinth, relocate that piece to the headwaters of the Fraser River, allowing nature to slowly, but inevitably, return the plinth to the lower Fraser River through erosion.

The Statue has an interesting history, and this may be an interesting way for the City to call attention to the statue, and re-enlighten a conversation about Simon Fraser, the colonial history of the Fraser River, and what the story of Simon Fraser has to say about New Westminster as a community, and as part of a Gateway.

Council voted to support the concept, noting that we need to put this proposal through a bit of a review with impacted First Nations in light of our recent commitment to the principles of reconciliation, but I think just opening this discussion will be a useful step in the right direction.

The following items were Moved on Consent without discussion:

508 Agnes Street (The Masonic Hall): Heritage Alteration Permit Application No. 100 to Allow a Reduction in Required Parking Spaces and a Revision of Exterior Design
The historic Masonic Hall building is being redeveloped, with a preservation of the historic façade (much like the Trapp building) under a Heritage Agreement from 2014. Unfortunately, some geotechnical issues were discovered during excavation and foundation work that will require an engineering response to preserve the structural integrity of the façade wall. The required reinforcement will take away 3 parking spaces. The owners are further requesting a change in balcony design to create a better profile and building envelope.

I’m not concerned about either change. The balconies are a design choice that is not fundamental to the HAP and the loss of three parking spaces in a dedicated rental building within a 200m of a SkyTrain Station in our compact downtown should not be a deal-breaker.

43 Hastings Street (Affordable Housing): Principles for Housing Agreement
This is the formal agreement between the City (as landowner) and the operator of a small Affordable Housing project in the east end of Downtown.

232 Lawrence Street: Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for Child Care Facility
The City is working on a plan to use an empty City lot in Queensborough for a medium-sized childcare facility, recognizing the critical need for childcare in that neighbourhood. The plan has many details, including the requirement for an OCP amendment to allow this institutional use on a residential-zoned lot. Public consultation is beginning on this project, and it will go to Public Hearing in the Fall.

Financing Growth: Density Bonus Rates Update
Density Bonuses are cash payments made to the City by developers to allow increased density with new developments. These are regulated by the Local Government Act, and are generally earmarked to provide amenities wanted by the City. In New West, we divide up that cash this way: 30% towards affordable housing (like the Hastings Street project above), 10% towards child care (like the Queensborough project above), 10% towards public art and 50% towards general amenities like parks, civic facilities, and public realm improvements.

The City has not adjusted its Density Bonus rates since 2014, and the value of newly built density has increased 30% – 60% in that time (depending on the building type and location). This increase, and comparison to adjacent markets like Burnaby and Coquitlam suggests our density bonuses should go up between 50% and 140% in this accelerating market. This will require a zoning amendment Bylaw, which will see some stakeholder consultation.

900 Carnarvon Street (Tower 4): Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992 – Request for Exemption
The tower being constructed at Plaza 88 will include a structural apron to stop things being dropped on the tracks and direct noise from the Skytrain away from residential areas. This work can only be done when the train is not running, which means at night, which requires a variance from our noise bylaw.

Advisory Planning Commission: Terms of Reference – Proposed Bylaw Amendment for Three Readings
About as small an administrative change as one can make to a Committee Procedure Bylaw, but a change it is recommended we make to clarify voting procedures for the APC.

Revised Union of BC Municipalities Resolution Related to Addressing Homelessness
This follows up on the report we received on May 15th regarding the 2017 Homelessness Count. After a few years where it looked like the region was beginning to reduce the rate of homelessness, there was a sharp spike in numbers this year. There are many factors here generally grouped under the “housing affordability crisis”, but we are also seeing reduced senior government support for people at risk of becoming homeless.

Despite the work we are doing in New West (arguably more than any other City in the region on a per-capita basis), we will not be successful without a regional response and senior government funding. Through the adoption of this resolution, the annual UBCM meeting in September gives us an opportunity to lobby the Provincial government to provide these supports.

2016 Statement of Financial Information
Here is the last piece of official financial reporting for the 2016 fiscal year. It includes a list of how much I got paid (and my expenses). My expenses are mostly for my participation in UBCM in 2016 (which I reported on here, here, and here) and for my participation in community events as per Council expense policy.

Civic Facilities, Road Maintenance and Park Development Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 7932, 2017
Moving from Fiscal 2016 to Fiscal 2017, the City has some ongoing projects in the Five Year Financial Plan that still require debt financing as laid out in the borrowing Bylaw of 2012, which expires in August. This Bylaw does not add to the amount of money borrowed, nor can we spend borrowed money on anything other than what was laid out in the original Bylaw, but only extends the time limit for the borrowing.

Overview of the Proposed 2018 Budget Process
Moving from Fiscal 2017 to Fiscal 2018, we will soon start on our next budget cycle. This report lays out the budget process and opportunities for public input to the Budget process. There is timeline from now to our May 15, 2018 budget filing date, so you can adjust your council delegation calendar to suit.

A good way to start is to look at the part of the report entitled “Budget Principles”. It gives a good idea of the order of priority the City gives to budget decisions, starting with departments benchmarking their level of service and being charged with finding internal efficiencies. Arguably, the “public participation” part of the budgeting process should come earlier and higher on priorities, and I would love to hear examples of the best way to make that input meaningful.

Dublin Street Boulevard Tree (1400 Block)
A resident came to complain to council last month about a rather un-neighbourly tree on public land adjacent to his garden. Our staff went to look at it, and decided it was indeed worthy of being replaced with something more friendly.

I suggest maple. Everyone loves maple.

Queen’s Park Washroom and Concession Building
The concession stand and washrooms at Queens Park are aged, barely functional, and due for replacement as per the Queens Park Master Plan. These are really heavily used facilities, and the concession actually turns a small profit. The designed replacement will improve the building, make the washrooms more comfortable and accessible, and will support the adventure playground, petting zoo, and other Queens Park amenities.

Restorative Justice Committee Recommendation to forward a resolution to the UBCM and the FCM that Criminal Education Faculties Incorporate Restorative Justice into Police Training
Another resolution for the City to take the UBCM, this one to ask for support in training Police to include principles of Restorative Justice.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Green Building Policy Options for Civic Facilities
As I reported earlier, I attended a session at FCM that discussed the different certification standards that are currently being used across Canada for different types of civic facilities. Previously, Council asked Staff to report on updating our Green Building Policy to determine if our current practice of requiring LEED Gold is still appropriate. I am more convinced than ever that we took a leadership position at the time, but times have changed, and it is time to take a broader review of the numerous standards to determine which works best for each specific project.

Part of this report was to approve a high-energy-efficiency approach to the Animal Care facility, and I think that is an appropriate path (and I really don’t want to delay that project). Council moved to support this approach.

However, when it comes to a set policy for future buildings in the City, Council moved to hold off on adopting a standard practice until we can have a bit of a more fulsome discussion of how to go about selecting standards. Look for a future Council workshop.

2017 Spring Freshet and Snowpack Level
The river is rising. Snowmelt was late this year, and much of the snowpack in the Fraser catchment is now higher than average. Again, we do not expect a flood this year, but the forecasters are warning that the river could rise quickly, and will stay higher than normal later into June.

Car Trip Reduction Program Guiding Principles and Employee Transit Subsidy
New West is beginning to show regional leadership in our MTP in how we address regional congestion issues, and how we are working collaboratively with our neighbouring communities and TransLink to reduce the reliance of Single Occupancy Vehicles. I think that there is a time for a City to show operational leadership in this area. When we set goals for our community, to reduce Greenhouse gasses, to reduce waste, or on any issue, we should expect the City to act like a responsible corporate citizen, and do its part to help the community reach its goals.

How we perform our daily commute is a choice that has one of the biggest impacts on our environment, and on the sustainability of our community, and employers have a responsibility to provide access to a variety of commuting options. Free parking is a huge benefit to employees that many employers do not offer, and comes at a significant cost. However, people who choose more sustainable options receive no benefit from their employer. I think that encouraging transit use by our staff is a step in the right direction, and fully support this program as a first step in corporate Transportation Demand Management.

Assessment of Water Conservation Measures and Residential Metering
I would like to have a more comprehensive discussion of this report, as there is a lot here, so I might leave it for a longer stand-alone blog post.

Short version, we have asked staff to outline an enhanced enforcement plan for future water restriction seasons, especially one that ramps up as restriction stages increase. We have also asked staff to go the next step towards piloting residential water metering for single family homes, starting with voluntary users, but not to adopt a larger metering program until at least after Metro Vancouver completes their regional metering study. Finally, a wide suite of water conservation measures were presented in the report from the consultant, and we will hopefully Workshop these measures to go through some more detailed cost-benefit analysis.

So we are *starting* to ramp up our conservation measures, perhaps not as fast as some would like, but our pace is being moderated by the economics of the situation.

Municipal Finance Authority of BC (MFA) – Survey on Socially Responsible Investing
New Westminster was one of several local governments and MFA customers who asked them to consider providing fossil-fuel divested (FFD) investment options. The MFA basically said no, but provided this survey to determine interest in Socially Responsible Investing (SRI).

I think we should consider any SRI offered to us, as New Westminster in many other ways invests in social responsibility form our progressive approach to homelessness and our adoption of programs like the Age Friendly City Policy.

That said, I am not satisfied with the response on FFD. Their reasoning against providing this option to their members skated around the issues at hand, and could be summed up by saying “providing financial backing to the destruction of the biosphere is the only financially responsible way to act”. I cannot accept that.

This is about the future of our communities, and the planet we are leaving the next generation. We, at the local government level, are already at the front line in addressing the cost of climate change, and here we are saying that we cannot afford to invest in a way that takes the financial incentive away from the companies that profit from climate change the most. Again, I cannot accept that the local governments in BC, who are leading the world in climate change mitigation are being asked to find our own destruction. That is a pretty strong damnation of the economic system we are under. The MFA belongs to us, they need to do better.

Mercer Stadium Skatepark Relocation – Project Update
The City is working on planning a new Skatepark to replace the one at Mercer Field that will be removed as the new NWSS is built. The City’s ongoing consultation with skaters, punks, and other stakeholders has turned up some interesting responses:

“Access to Transit is 100% the most important consideration on the location” – rarely do we get as clear direction as that from a stakeholder group.

There is lots of good info being collected, including some terminology my lame 47-year-old vocabulary misses, but I am enthused that staff are taking such a proactive approach to building what the user group wants.

Proposed Public Realm Improvements to the Telus Plaza located at 611 Sixth Street
The City is partnering with Telus to improve the small public park area adjacent to the Legion in Uptown. I share Councillor Trentadue’s concerns about how smoking will be managed at this space. Generally, we don’t allow smoking in public parks, but this space is where the customers of the Legion go to have a cigarette, and if there is one exception to a rule, I have to give that exception to our Veterans at the Legion.

Queen’s Park Interim Gymnastic and Multi Sport Facility 
We are working on the Canada Games Pool and Centennial Community Centre replacement project, and will be reporting out on progress soon, but in the meantime, we may find several synergies in a “temporary” building option to replace some of the Arenex programs (most notably, gymnastics, which need a large space). 24,000 square feet is more than twice the size of the Arenex, and gives us a lot of programing flexibility. We put out a press release about this proposal, read it here.

1111 Sixth Avenue (West End Methodist Church): Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Development Permit –
This is just a preliminary report on a proposal to build a larger childcare facility as part of a Heritage Revitalization Project at the Methodist church in Moody Park. Lots of detail to come here, and there will be a Public Hearing, so I’ll save my comments until then.

Finally, we wrapped with a series of Bylaw approvals.

Advisory Planning Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7934, 2017
As discussed above, this Bylaw that changes the terms of Reference for the APC was given three readings.

Civic Facilities, Road Maintenance and Park Development Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 7932, 2017
As discussed above, this Bylaw that extends the date of the temporary borrowing Bylaw was given three readings.

Zoning Amendment (Accessory Caretaker Unit) Bylaw No. 7778, 2015
This Bylaw was given three reading back in 2015, and allows the integration of a Caretaker Suite into a planned industrial building in the West End. Council adopted the Bylaw, the Caretaker can sleep easily knowing she is in full compliance with the law.

And, really, that’s all any of us want, isn’t it?

Ask Pat: 22nd St.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

W asked—

What are the exact details and status for the increased density rezoning plans around the 22nd St. Skytrain Station?

Funny you should ask that, we just had a Council Workshop where we discussed the Land Use Map around 22nd Street and Connaught Heights. You can read the Report at this link, and follow the conversation at Council on video here.

First off, I need to correct the premise of your question a bit. What the City is doing now is an Official Community Plan update. The OCP is the overarching planning document for the City, which guides how the City develops over the long-term. It will inform how future rezonings are managed, but it is not the same thing as rezoning.  There are a few steps between then and now, which I will outline a bit further down.

The Council discussion was wide-ranging, although there was a pretty strong consensus on the major components of the Land Use Map, and Council unanimously approved the adoption of “Option 1” for the final Land Use Plan map:

22ndStLandUsePlanOpt1

This option would see up to 6 residential towers build on both sides of 7th Ave between 20th and 22nd, with a commercial node built into the pedestals, and the development of 7th Ave into a true commercial street. There would also be multi-unit residential buildings on two adjacent blocks (think 4-6 story wood frame buildings with underground garages) and a general shift to small townhouse developments south of Edinburgh Street. The townhouses are envisioned to be “infill” type, meaning smaller 6-8 unit townhouse (strata) or rowhome (fee simple) developments that will be designed to blend in with adjacent retained single family homes. This is very different than the neighbourhood-wide large townhouse development style we have seen at Port Royal and around Royal Oak Station.

Included in the Council Report were summaries of the various stages of public consultation, including the most recent discussions with the Connaught Heights neighbourhood about the proposed density increases. There was a wide range of opinions presented, and some significant concerns raised, but none of them specifically surprising. Traffic, green space, community amenities – these are all things that need to be accounted for when we start to contemplate increased density at the west end of the City.

There is also some recognition that previous efforts to bring more density to the area have not been successful. Some of that area has been designated for multi-family since the last OCP was adopted almost two decades ago, and no-one has come in to build that density. This, along with a general lack of housing variety in the Connaught Heights neighbourhood, have resulted in it being the only neighbourhood of New Westminster that had no population growth over the last two censuses. As part of the regional vision of building density around SkyTrain stations and major transportation hubs, this is a place New Westminster is falling short.

The proposal by staff to address the issues raised is to start a Master Planning process for the neighbourhood. This is a high-level but relatively intensive planning process where distribution of housing, transportation, commercial spaces, and amenities are designed based on a set of development principles developed by the community. It is not dissimilar from the process that larger development projects like Victoria Hill and Sapperton Green are designed through collaboration between City Staff and a developer. The only difference in this case is that there is no developer involved yet, so the City and the neighbourhood can work fairly freely to create a set of expectations for future developers to meet.

So “rezoning” and density increases at 22nd Street Station are still a bit of a way off, and there will be some significant neighbourhood consultation before any shovels hit the dirt (starting with a Public Hearing in early Fall to facilitate final approval of the OCP). However, the City will, in passing the OCP and launching this Master Planning process, send a pretty strong message that this density is on its way.