We had a Thursday Council Meeting. One of the half dozen times in my time on Council where we had more work to do than staff figured we could comfortable fit on a Monday night. In this case, we had two Public Hearing topics to cover:

Official Community Plan Amendment (514 Carnarvon Street – Holy Trinity Cathedral) Bylaw No. 8088, 2022,
Heritage Revitalization Agreement (514 Carnarvon Street – Holy Trinity Cathedral) Bylaw No. 8089, 2022, and
Heritage Designation (514 Carnarvon Street – Holy Trinity Cathedral) Bylaw No. 8090, 2022
This project is to build a 30 storey tower with 271 market condo homes and 14 secured rental homes on the space where the current Holy Trinity Cathedral parish hall stands. The building will include a replacement (and improvement) of the parish hall and accessory rooms as part of the base of the residential tower. The project will include a massive restoration and seismic upgrade of the historic cathedral, and a re-imagining of the space around the cathedral, with an expanded public plaza, a fully accessible (with public elevator to address the grade) public promenade connecting Carnarvon and Church streets.

This project has been on the books for several years, and has been though a few different iterations over that time, and there have been a half dozen public meetings to take comments on the plans. At one point, there was non-market housing component, but neither CMHC or BCHousing were able to fund this project, as the first did not have a category that fit, and the second was simply oversubscribed in the current funding year.

The project is aligned with the Downtown Community Plan, and was supported by the Community Heritage Commission, the New Westminster Design Panel, and the Advisory Planning Commission. We had six pieces of written correspondence, mostly in favour, but a couple opposed over density concerns and lack of affordable/subsidized units. We also had correspondence from a series of public service agencies in New Westminster, who spoke to the value of the services and space provided by HTC to the community. We also had about a dozen presentations to the Public Hearing, almost all in favour, though a couple of people expressed caution about some aspects of the project while not opposing it outright.

To be honest, I’ve been on the fence about this project since I first saw and earlier iteration a few years ago. My record shows me about as pro-housing as a Councilor can be, but this seemed like a lit of density in a tight spot in a neighbourhood that is feeling a lot of pressure from recent growth. I reached out to some neighbours I knew, and though they didn’t specifically oppose the project, there is a feeling of construction fatigue in that area, and that block of Carnarvon especially has some quirky public realm issues.

That said, housing of this scale – 128 family friendly units, 285 new homes, in a car-light design virtually on top of a Sky Train Station with frequent service in three directions is aligned with the City’s Transit Oriented Development strategy, and with the region’s larger strategies around more sustainable development. I also believe the ground expression of this site – the public plaza and more accessible connection through the site – will be a huge improvement for the neighbourhood, and when TransLink gets around to making Columbia Station accessible, this project will add to that accessibility.

I’m not a religious person, but I was nonetheless compelled by so many delegates coming to the Public Hearing to talk about the Heritage of Service to the community that HTC and the importance of the parish hall to the community. There is no doubt the existing building is at end of life, and the loss of it would be a real harm to many service providers, and it is hard to fit this type of community benefit into the Pro Forma evaluation of amenity value we do with new significant projects.

In the end, I voted along with the rest of Council to approve the project.

Zoning Amendment (1321 Cariboo Street) Bylaw No. 8345, 2022
This project would see a 5 storey building with 15 units of secured market rental housing in the lower slopes of the Brow of the Hill neighbourhood. The current site has been vacant for a significant amount of time. The project is consistent with the Official Community Plan, had general support during public consultation, and was approved by the New Westminster Design Panel.

We had two pieces of written correspondence for neighbours – both in favour of the project, and we had three delegates, two related to the project, and one expressing that they would prefer affordable subsidized housing on the site. Council voted unanimously to support the project.

---

And in the Regular Meeting following the Public Hearing, we moved the above projects along and read a few Bylaws, including the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Housing Agreement (1321 Cariboo Street) Bylaw No. 8346, 2022
This is a bylaw that secures market rental tenure for all 15 homes in the above-discussed development project in the Brow of the Hill . This agreement was adopted by Council.

Housing Agreement (514 Carnarvon Street – Holy Trinity Cathedral) Bylaw No. 8338, 2022
This is a bylaw that secures market rental tenure for 15 homes in the above-discussed development project in the Downtown. This agreement was adopted by Council.

Housing Agreement (823-841 Sixth Street) Bylaw No. 8316, 2022
This is a bylaw that secures non-market (subsidized) rental tenure for 96 homes in this project already approved in the Uptown.

Road Closure and Dedication Removal (Queensborough Eastern Neighbourhood Node) Bylaw No. 8347, 2022 and Zoning Amendment (Blackley Street) Bylaw No. 8351, 2022
As discussed at our previous Public Hearing, these Bylaws that officially close and rezone two road allotments in the Eastern Node area of Queensborough were adopted by Council.

Elections Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 8355, 2022
This Bylaw that officially codifies the Special Voting Opportunities and mail-in-ballot voting for the October elected was adopted by Council.

Climate Action Reserve Fund Bylaw No. 8321, 2022
This Bylaw that sets up a reserve fund for Climate Action (mitigation and adaptation) in the City was adopted by Council.

---

And that was the end of Public Hearings for this Council Term! Happy Summer everyone!

Its summer time in New West Council, and things get a little more casual in the chambers, but we had a long Agenda and a decent crowd show up to enjoy the air conditioned spaces and to hear the presentation of the Annual Report. I will put off blogging about the report for a later post, because there is a lot of good stuff in there, and we had three Public Hearing items to get to:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8341, 2022 for 735 Eighth Avenue (Massey Theatre)
The Massey Theatre Society wants to change their license to get more flexibility and less hassle at the times they want to serve alcohol as part of their events schedule. This is not going to change how they operate much, or any aspect of the building, but it will make it easier for them to operate For the Province to give them that license, it must be permitted in the zoning language, which means if the City supports it, we need to add this language to the zoning, which requires a Public hearing. Here we are.

We received 23 written submissions on this request, all on favour. We had no-one come to address the Public Hearing. The MTS has been operating with event licences for years with no problems, so no surprise. Council voted to adopt the bylaw.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No. 8339, 2022, Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 8340, 2022, and Road Closure Bylaw No.8350, 2022 for 108-118 Royal Avenue and 74-82 First Street
This project has taken a couple of years to evolve from a smaller iteration to where it is now. This will see 189 new strata apartments on Royal Ave in the Downtown, the preservation of a heritage house, and a pretty significant upgrade in the surrounding active transportation network. This includes a long-sought moderate-grade connection from Agnes to Royal via Cunningham and adjacent improvements that addresses some “gaps in the map” for active transportation in the downtown and safe routes to QayQayt.

Every project bring different benefits, this is decent density that will fill a need in the market, homes for 189 families, really important transportation connections, preservation of a couple of historic homes, and though there is maybe more parking than we might need in 2022, they will be 100% pre-wired for EV charging..

We had two written submissions and 6 speakers. Most speakers were in favor, but there was a discussion about the loss of trees on the site. It is very green right now with a variety of trees and almost completely surrounded by hedges, but the arborist report indicated most trees on site were in poor health due to a variety of issues (ivy infestation, historic pruning issues, root concerns, etc.). As per the City’s Urban Forest Management Strategy and Tree Protection Bylaw, the trees will be replaced on a 2-for-1 basis, with 56 new trees on site and another 64 planted around the neighbourhood to add to the citywide tree canopy.

In the end, Council voted to give the project and the Bylaws Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment (Blackley Street) Bylaw No. 8351, 2022 and Road Closure and Dedication Removal (Queensborough Eastern Neighbourhood Node) Bylaw No. 8347, 2022
This is a part of the larger Eastern Node project in Queensborough, which will (eventually, because it is taking some time) provide mixed use housing and some retail commercial to the border of the Port Royal neighbourhood. The Public Hearing today is only in regards to closing, selling off, and rezoning two undeveloped road portions to permit the re-planning of the neighbourhood to facilitate the Eastern Node concept. We had no written submissions or speakers to this issue at Public Hearing, and voted to approve.

---

Council then moved the following items On Consent:

2021 Statement of Financial Information
Every year we do the SOFI – this is the simplified but formal part of our financial reporting, along with the reporting out on salaries, benefits, and the Audit Report. Short news: The City collected about $244 Million in revenue and spent about $211 Million, meaning we put about $33 Million into reserves (which is there now to apply to our significant Capital Plan). The City has about $103 Million in investments with the Municipal Finance Authority, about $61 Million in long-term debt, and almost $700 Million in tangible capital assets.

My remuneration as a Councillor (which rises a bit every year with CPI) was just under $54,000, and I had $700 in expenses, which were registrations for on-line conferences like Lower Mainland LGA and UBCM.

Amendments to the Elections Procedures Bylaw No. 7985, 2018
The Bylaw required to set out voting procedures in the October election needs to be adopted by July 5. Staff have made some changes to the Bylaw to allow mail-in voting, and to set the dates for the advance voting opportunities. We approved in principle a few meetings ago, but they were run through external counsel, and a few minor edits in language to improve clarity were recommended. So here we are approving as amended. Get ready to get your vote on!

Approval of Climate Action Reserve Fund Bylaw No. 8321, 2022
The City has a bold plan for Climate Action, with aggressive but attainable targets for 2030. These are more important (in my mind) than the 2050 targets, because the shorter-term ones reflect action we need to do now, and cannot rely on some future hopeful technology. If we want to make 2030 targets, it’s gotta be in our budget and operation plans today. It is the Decade of Climate Action according to my friends at the CEA, which means there is some capital investment we need to make today, recognizing in the longer term it will save us money overall ,and that there is significant funding from senior government and other sources to do this work today.

I often make the point to people who will listen that Climate Action is not as much an environmental concern anymore, it is an economic concern. Getting to 2050 with a climate that supports human prosperity will require re-structuring major parts of our economy, and local governments are where the real action needs to occur. The winners in this transition will be those who go into it with their eyes open, their ducks in a row, and (enter third “getting your shit together” metaphor here).

One way we do this in the City is set up dedicated Reserve Funds, like we have for other priority areas. Council can dedicate a portion of annual surpluses to this fund, or can determine other funding sources, such as selling low carbon fuel credits, money received through the CleanBC Local Government Climate Action Program and other senior government supports. This is a mechanism that gives Council oversight (and transparency to the public) to assure money being invested in Climate Action is going towards Climate Action, because it requires Council resolution to draw from this Reserve Fund.

Development Approval Procedures Amendment Bylaw No. 8342, 2022 and Delegation Amendment Bylaw No. 8344, 2022
One of the ways the City is accelerating the development approval process is by delegating some minor development variances to senior staff. If the variances meet established criteria, set out in the Schedules to the Bylaw, then Staff can approve without writing a council report, waiting for a slot in our Council schedule, and asking us to grant the variance. This is not only more efficient and saves everyone time, it is more transparent to applicants and provides more predictability for them, which saves everyone money.

Komagata Maru Dock water lot lease agreement renewal – Amending Agreement No. NEW326-10551F-002
The Dock where the QtoQ lands on the Queensborough side is on a water lot leased from the Port, with a 5-year renewal term. And it’s been 5 years. So we are renewing.

---

We then addressed the following items, which were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism (DEIAR) Framework
This has been a big piece of internal work in the City that has perhaps not been as visible outside of City Hall, but has been ongoing for more than a year. A DEIAR Framework is both a strategy and a workplan to assure we have a workplace and a workforce that reflects the diversity and values of the community. The report is worthwhile read to understand how and why the way we serve our community needs to be viewed through a lens of equity and justice – from the way we recruit new staff to the way we support employees of the City to the way we engage the public and deliver programs. There is a bit implementation piece to come here, but at this point we are just receiving the report for information. More to come!

eMobility Strategy: Adoption
Another big piece of work over the last year has been doing the strategic groundwork on how the City will adapt to the e-mobility transformation happening. The technology and public expectations are changing fast in this space, and how we adapt to this change will impact our ability to meet our Climate Action goals, as transportation represents about half of our community GHGs.

There are 10 goals and 36 actions in this plan, some we can start right away, some will dip into that Climate Action Reserve Fund we approved today, some are longer-term. There are infrastructure changes proposed, policy changes, and areas for advocacy to senior governments. I could probably write another blog post about this topic (actually there is an Ask Pat in the queue that applies!), so I’ll write more on this under that heading.

Proposed Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2022
The Feds want to change federal electoral districts, and it means New Westminster is once again getting diced as the Feds try to balance population growth in urban areas with vast spaces where the population is just not increasing. This time is a little weirder yet, because after losing part of Coquitlam last redistricting, New West looks to be gaining part of Surrey while Queensborough is separated off. The last time the feds did this 10 years ago, I wrote this blog (My god, I’ve been doing this for that long?!) about how My New Westminster includes Queensborough. I still feel that way.

But there is another issue here in how a solid local-serving MP like Peter Julian does his work, and how this proposal hurts that. A big part of the work at a constituency office is connecting residents with supports they need, be they federal, provincial, or local. An MP’s constituency staff needs to know what services are available in the community they serve, and many of those services are municipal-based. Asking an MP to serve three major Municipal areas with varying supports, like Burnaby, New West, and Surrey, strains their networks, making those supports less accessible to people. I note the proposed MP for the new Richmond East riding would also be asked to represent parts of New West, Richmond, and Delta. It is untenable. An MP does not have the budget to provide a constituency office in every community, or the staff to expand their work across three major urban municipal jurisdictions. MPs are also expected to understand issues impacting local municipalities, and attend events in all of them – spreading an MP across three major urban municipalities just makes them less accessible.

So the City being asked for feedback on this proposal, and we are sending it: We want Q’Boro in the New West riding, and we don’t think our MP should be asked to also serve Surrey.

Temporary Working Space Agreement (GVSD590) for 590 Blackberry Drive to seek Council’s authorization to enter into a Temporary Working Space Agreement with Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and Onni Development (Victoria Hill) Corp. (the “Onni”).
There is a big stinking valve in the ground under the top part of the Glenbrook Ravine. Stinking because it directs where combined sewer flow goes. And stinkin because it needs to be replaced. It is located in a part of the ravine that still technically belongs to Onni as part of the Victoria Hill development but is slated to be turned over to the City as Park. So Metro Vancouver needs to enter into a Working Space Agreement – kind of like a short-term lease – to work on the space that doesn’t belong to them. They hope to do the work during “dry season” next summer.

We don’t know the impacts on the trial at this time, but I suggested this needs to come back to Council with more detail on that. The language in the agreement makes reference to reducing inconvenience, but closing that trail for an extended period during the summer will be much more than that. The Glenbrook Ravine is a vitally important park space in the City, and access needs to be secured for residents of the Victoria Hill, Ginger Drive and Sapperton community. So I am asking that we get clarity on maintaining trail access during these works prior to singing the agreement. Perhaps a little stung by another recent Metro Vancouver sewer project, I am sensitive to getting commitments and understanding in writing here. So we will hear back (hopefully) next meeting.

---

And we read a bunch of Bylaws, with the following Bylaw for Adoption:

Parks and Recreation Fees Amendment Bylaw No. 8343, 2022
This bylaw to adjust our fees to address annual inflation and keep our costs in line with regional comparators was Adopted by Council.

This rapped out first meeting of the week. Yes, you read that right, we are back at it on Thursday for a special crossover episode of New Westminster Public Hearing!

The Council meeting on June 13th had something a little rare these days – a full Council chamber! We had some folks there to speak to resolutions, a few other delegations, and others just there to watch the excitement of representative democracy in Local Government, and it was nice to see people out and engaged. Our Agenda started with a couple of Reports to Council:

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00699 for 823-841 Sixth Street
As I mentioned last meeting, The Province of BC (whom we afford is not going to fold up shop in the next couple of years) is indemnifying this Affordable Housing project in Uptown so they don’t have to provide financial security for offsite works, saving everyone money and hassle, but requiring a DVP because it changes the language of the existing Development Permit. We received no correspondence after giving notice of the variance, and Council moved to grant the DVP.

Library Board Letter
We had a presentation from the Library Board about mice, stick insects, and libraries, requesting we take a resolution on increased Library funding to UBCM and back it up with correspondence to the Provincial Government. We will not be the only city calling on the Province to do this, and I could get into a long diatribe about the UBCM resolution process and how this is a repeated resolution that seems to go unheard, but maybe I’ll find a less busy time to push those particular buttons. I support the Call, as did Council.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Bylaw Text Amendment for Secured Market Rental Housing: 616-640 Sixth Street – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
There are 4 things going on here, rescinding two Housing Agreements, amending a zoning, and waiving a Public Hearing, but the short version is that the owner of this property in Uptown is requesting a change in their development plan. As approved, it was a 29 storey building with 237 secured rental units. The request before us now is to boost the number of units to 338, and accommodate the extra density by adding a storey to the podium (without an overall increase in building height) and a 9% increase in tower floorplate. This will also allow a small number of developer-funded below-market rental apartments, and a below-market commercial space.

This being one of the few applications for new housing in the Uptown we have seen in my 8 years on Council (the other being the 6-storey building on Bent Court completed in 2020), and it being so well aligned with OCP goals, staff are recommending we waive the Public Hearing. This building has been through a Public Hearing regarding the DVP issued in 2020 when it went 100% rental, Design Panel supported the change, and the public engagement on this change has resulted in mostly neutral feedback and several supportive pieces of correspondence. My main interest right now is in getting the housing built. Council agreed to waive.

2021 Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report
We get an annual reporting to Council (and the public) on our water sampling program to assure our potable water system is safe, high quality, ad within senior government health standards. We have 15 sampling stations in the City from which 1,215 individual samples were collected and analyzed for bacteria, but also for residual chlorine, turbidity, metals, and other parameters. Despite a couple of recent turbidity events related to Metro line breaks, the water is safe and meets all health standards.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement, Heritage Designation, Road Closure and Land Sale: 108 – 118 Royal Avenue and 74 – 82 First Street – Bylaws for Consideration of Readings
This is an interesting project to build 189 market strata units on Royal Ave, just east of Qayqayt School. It would preserve an historic house on the site, and would provide new active transportation links around the building where currently there are some sub-optimal pedestrian and bike routes. These connections would include us selling some land to the developer where there is currently a seldom-used laneway, and in exchange their dedication of some surrounding land for refreshed Active Transportation routes.

The request here is to support two readings and sending the project to Public Hearing, so I will hold comments on the overall merits of the project until then. However, this is an important location in regards to active transportation between downtown and uptown, and between the surrounding neighbourhood and Qayqayt, so the efforts to make the routes around the proposed housing accessible and safe, and as comfortable as possible, is a huge potential win for the City.

Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 8316, 2022 for 823 – 841 Sixth Street (Affordable Rental Housing) – Bylaw for Three Readings
The City sometimes approve Affordable Housing projects, like this one in Glenbrooke North, and a “Housing Agreement” is the legal agreement between the owner of the property and the City to guarantee it will remain subsidized/affordable housing for the “life of the building”, which in this case is 60 years. The agreement is secured with a Section 219 Covenant, which is a reference to Section 219 of the Land Title Act – securing that this commitment not only legally binds the current owner. But all future owners of the property. As the details of the Housing Agreement have been worked out, and now needs to be read into a Bylaw.

Official Community Plan Amendment Application, Heritage Revitalization Agreement, Heritage Designation Bylaw, and Housing Agreement: 514 Carnarvon Street – Bylaws for Consideration of Readings
This project would see a 30-storey residential tower built downtown adjacent to the Holy Trinity Cathedral. It would mostly be a market strata building, but would also include 14 market rental units. The proponent was not able to secure BC Housing support to include an affordable housing component in the plan. The main amenities offered to the City are a new plaza to connect Church Street (and The Columbia SkyTrain Station) to Carnarvon though the site with a fully accessible (via public elevator) breezeway and some Indigenous-themed and sources Public Art. The significant investment here in the seismic and energy efficiency remediation of the historic Cathedral means there simply isn’t enough money on the table to leverage more community amenity out of this site. Arguably, the provision of 285 homes immediately adjacent to a Skytrain station is in itself an amenity to Transit-Oriented Development.

This is a significant change in land use for the site that will require an OCP amendment, and will go to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my further comments until then. If you have opinions, let us know!

Parks and Recreation 2023 Fees and Charges Bylaw Amendment
Annually we adjust our recreation fees for things like room or ice rentals. We have put off a few increases over the last few years due to COVID, but like everything else inflation is starting to be more noticeable, so fees are being adjusted in line with CPI, on average about 4% across the board. New West still has some of the lowest rental rates in the Lower Mainland, and waives or reduces many fees for youth and not-for-profit organizations.

Q1 2022 Capital Budget Adjustments
The City’s 2022 Capital Budget is $170Million. We are building a *lot* of stuff, from a big new pool and rec centre to a new electrical substation to sewers and water mains throughout the west end, active transportation improvements Uptown and improved greenspaces in Queensborough. In part because of the number of capital items we have going on, and in part because we often have capital projects the stretch beyond a single budget year (we had $56M in carry-over from 2021 as part of that $170M) the Finance Department is now giving us quarterly updates on progress with the plan, and we are going to start doing adjustments on a more frequent basis, as is better budgeting practice. We are also putting more budget room in the contingency for təməsew̓ txʷ and increasing the sewer separation budget, moving our 2022 Capital Budget to $189M.

Rezoning and Housing Agreement: 1321 Cariboo Street – Bylaws for Consideration of Readings
This proposal would see a 5-storey Purpose Built Rental apartment constructed on an abandoned lot on the western edge of the Brow of the Hill. 15 rental units, secured for the life of the building. This project will go to a Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until then.

Road Closure and Disposition Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw Amendment: Surplus Road Allowances Queensborough Eastern Neighbourhood Node – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
The oft-discussed but slow-to-develop Eastern Node in Queensborough would bring mixed use development, and (finally!) some local-serving commercial buildings, to the edge of the Port Royal neighbourhood. The redevelopment will also re-align the road and drainage of the triangle of land where the development occurs, and this means “closing” some City roads. The roads in this case were never really developed, but were pieces of land being held aside with the intent of putting roads on them. So “closing” means changing the lot designation from road allowance to fee simple, and selling them. The City needs to do a Public Hearing to dispose of surplus roads, if you have opinions, c’mon out and let us know.

---

The following item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

Council Resolution in Support of the City of New Westminster’s Application under the Age-Friendly Communities Grant Program
The BC Government has a new grant program to support “Age-Friendly Communities”, which sounds weird (we don’t have height-friendly or width-friendly grants) but relates to efforts to support older people aging in place and achieving better health outcomes. As the City already has an “Age Friendly Community Strategy”, this grant is designed to fund some of the efforts described in that, and we are paying for some money. The emphasis here is connecting seniors to make the community more resilient in the face of events like last year’s heat emergency.

---

We then had a grand total of 32 Readings of Bylaws, not including the following Adoptions of Bylaws:

Heritage Designation Bylaw (328 Second Street) No. 8310, 2022
To designate the 1889 house at 328 Second Street as a protected heritage property.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (122 Eighth Avenue) No. 8325, 2022
To enable construction of a duplex at 122 Eighth Avenue.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (817 St. Andrews Street) No. 8323, 2022
To enable construction of a triplex at 817 St. Andrews Street.

---

…and we closed with this Motion from Council:

Advocacy for Legislation to Protect Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Health, Councillor Nakagawa

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster calls on the Province of British Columbia, in partnership with Indigenous leadership, to develop and communicate in a timely way the process and timelines through which they will develop new legislation to protect and restore biological diversity and ecosystem health, in a manner consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and with the involvement of local governments, civil society groups, Indigenous and western scientific experts, and the concerned public.

We had a presentation from West Coast Environmental Law during Public Delegations to speak in favour of this resolution, and you should watch the video</>A, because they frame this much better than I can.

The last Council meeting of the month is often a Public Hearing meeting, and May 30th was no exception. We had a single Public Hearing this month:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (328 Second Street) Bylaw No. 8309, 2022 and Heritage Designation (328 Second Street) Bylaw No. 8310, 2022
The owner of this 1889 house in Queens Park wants to extensively restore and permanently protect the house, subdivide the lot, and build a second infill house on the property. No secondary suites are being permitted meaning two housing units where three would ostensibly be allowed. Application is consistent with OCP, and was approved by the Community Heritage Commission. Relaxations being sought are mostly the lot size (both resultant lots will be smaller than 6,000 sqft), and the “panhandle” shape of the new lot that allows a narrow frontage to a front/back subdivision to allows the heritage house to stay where it is unmoved. The two properties would share a common driveway with an easement securing this.

There was a high response rate to the public consultation, weighed heavily in support. We also received 20 pieces of correspondence, mostly in support. The Public Hearing brought some concerns from neighbours about the density increase being too much, potential tree removal (turns out most will be protected), and some confusion about the easement for a shared driveway, which is not really that uncommon a process. I think, in hearing the arguments for and against, and reading the correspondence, this proposal balances well two differing opinions in the neighbourhood about preserving the heritage houses in the neighbourhood and the need for more housing options. The majority of council voted to support the project.

---

We also had three projects that went to third reading with a waiving of the need for a Public Hearing because they met the OCP and City policy:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8325, 2022 for 122 Eighth Avenue
This proposal is to build a duplex on a large lot on Eighth Ave in Glenbrook North where an older house current sits. Again, no secondary suites here, so two homes where three may be permitted. We received a couple of pieces of correspondence from neighbours concerned about the loss of a mature faux-cherry tree, but the tree was assessed by the City arborist as near-end-of-life, and replacements will be planted. Council voted later in the meeting to approve Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8324, 2022 for 337 and 339 Keary Street
This proposal would see nine ground oriented and family-friendly row-home style townhomes in Sapperton where there are currently two houses. It generally fits RT zoning, complies with the OCP for that block and design Panel approved it. Again, we received correspondence in favour and opposed. Council voted later in the meeting to give it Third Reading.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8323, 2022 for 817 St. Andrews Street
This project would replace a pretty run-down 1926 house in the Brow of the hill with a Passive House standard (very high energy efficiency) triplex. The density (FSR 0.785) takes advantage of the bonus the City provides for building to Passive house. This fits well in to the slightly funny spot, nestled between other older SFD and a three-story apartment building with a taller tower right across the street. FSR 0.785 (includes allowance for Passive House). We received some correspondence, ranging support to calling this triplex a “monstrosity”. Nonetheless, Council voted later in the meeting to give it Third Reading.

---

Flipping over to the Regular Meeting Agenda, we started by moving the following item On Consent:

British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission Reform Submission – May 2022
The Provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission is looking at adding seats to the provincial legislature to keep up with population growth, potentially adding up to 6 new seats province wide. We are sending the commissioners a letter to make sure they are aware that New West is growing fast – much faster than the provincial average – and if we are looking at increased representation, we have a claim on some of that.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: New Westminster Interceptor – Columbia Sewer Rehabilitation
The ongoing and disruptive sewer rehab project has mostly left Columbia Street downtown, but the project is not done, and more work needs to happen both downtown (work that will be suspended until the fall) and in the more eastern parts of the project towards the Albert Crescent Park. This eastern part is where the current noise exemption is being requested as they may need to do some of this work at night a day or two a week to get the slip-lining done when the water level in the sewers is low enough.

Development Variance Permit for Works & Services Security (823-841Sixth Street Affordable Housing Project) – Notice of Consideration of Issuance
This might be a bit more of the detailed sausage-making of development governance than people want to read, but I’ll try to keep this short. When developers build new buildings, the City makes them do stuff on City land to support the integration of the development with the community – sewer tie-ins, road and sidewalk improvements, street trees, boulevard restoration, etc. To make sure this work gets done, the City asks for security – we ask the developer to give us money or a secured letter of credit for 120% of the estimated value of the work. We give that money back when the work is done, or (potentially) we use the money to do the thing the developer didn’t do if they fail to do it. It’s not that we don’t trust the developer, it’s just that the nature of development finance is that sometimes things go wrong, and if the developer goes broke or folds, we don’t want the taxpayers holding the bag, or wasting money in court trying to recover this money. So we get security.

This Affordable Housing project Uptown is backed by BC Housing (The Province of British Columbia) and they have provided us an Indemnification Agreement instead of security. Essentially, the Province agrees to cover the cost of this work if things go south. We are confident BC won’t go broke, so we don’t need extra security and there is no reason for the non-profit housing provide to tie up that capital, so Council is agreeing to waive the security based on this Agreement. Waiving that security changes the terms of the Development Permit, so we need this variance to get that done.

Downtown Livability Strategy – Update
This is an information report on the ongoing downtown support program. It outlines some of the challenges with making public toilet facilities more available, and some of the successes in improving street cleanliness and in securing senior government support for addressing homelessness, our ongoing on-staffing of more Bylaw officers and our participation in the provincial pilot PACT program.

Regional Growth Strategy Update: Metro 2050 Acceptance
The City is a “member jurisdiction” of Metro Vancouver, and are therefore party to the Regional Growth Strategy that defines the regional planning goals. The once-a-decade update in the RGS is called Metro 2050, as it looks forward to what the region will look like in three decades. This long-look is important, because multi-Billion-dollar infrastructure like sewer treatment plants and water reservoirs and the pipes that connect neighbourhoods to them, take decades to plan and finance. So we need to know about where the buildings are going to be, and how many of them there are going to be. The way the City’s planning intersects with the Regional Growth Strategy is through a “context statement” in our Official Community Plan, stating that our OCP is aligned with the RGS. This Context statement will now be prepared by staff.

We are also sending Metro Van a letter telling them we agree with the RGS, and reminding them that our Council would prefer that “projections” for new housing in a city-by-city basis be re-framed as “targets”, which puts a bit more onus on each member municipality to do their part to address the regional housing crises. Alas, it is going to look like the consensus of member municipalities is to be less accountable in the face of the crises, which is disappointing, but not surprising. I hope this is a conversation in every municipality during the fall elections.

Rezoning and Development Permit for Infill Townhouses: 102 – 128 East Eighth Avenue and 721 Cumberland Street – Preliminary Report
This is a preliminary report to Council to get a check-in before this project moves to committee and public consultation. The project would see 10 single family homes on East Eighth Ave replaced with a 55 townhouse-form homes. It’s an interesting location as it is on a significant slope, so the built form will be pretty unique. The block is designated for this type of building in the Official Community Plan, and the project does not exceed RT zoning for FSR, ground coverage, height, offsets, or parking, but this application will still require a rezoning. As this would likely end up at a Public Hearing, I’ll hold my comments until then.

Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Event-Driven Liquor Primary Licence: 735 Eighth Avenue (Massey Theatre) – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
The new Arts Hub at Massey Theatre wants to change their liquor license to better suit their operations. This type of Liquor Primary license requires a Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until then. If you have opinions, let us know!

---

And the following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Budget 2023: Proposed Framework and Timelines 101
Just as 2022 Property tax bills are being delivered, we are already working on Budget 2023. A major focus of this council term has been to open up the budgeting process and engage the public early in our very open budget deliberations. That means starting the conversation earlier, but it also means running the conversation through an October election, so Staff are making some recommendations about the decisions that need to be made before the election period to give staff enough guidance about their budgets and ability to deliver their services, while also giving staff a chance to onboard the new Council so they can make informed decisions in early 2023 on approval of the final budget. The balance is between doing the work we need to do without unnecessarily tying the hands of the new Council.

The proposal staff put forward is to approve User Fee changes and the 2023 Capital Budget before the election, and defer the Utility Rates and Operation Budget (and therefore, any tax rate changes) until after the election.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street
The company building the new RCH are asking for an exemption from the Construction Noise Bylaw for up to six nights a month to complete the refinishing of concrete floor pours. The concrete pour work will be done within permitted times, but the sometimes need to go past 8pm with those power-trowel things to assure a smooth concrete surface. This means a humming noise that may be heard by neighbours after 8pm.

We received correspondence from the Residents Association, and it appears the construction company has been responsive to the RA on ongoing construction impact concerns, so there were some more restrictions added to this Exemption based on the discussions with the RA.

Staffing Resource Challenges and Implications on Departments’ Service Delivery Work Plans
You no doubt have read about the labour shortage facing the region. I can go on at length about potential causes (the “great resignation”, local cost of living, shift in demographics), but you see the results all around: BC Ferries is cancelling sailings for lack of crews, restaurants are reducing hours, shortages in medical services, delays in construction projects, etc. Cities are not immune to this, and in some ways are on the leading edge, exacerbated by decades-long austerity-driven gaps in hiring and shifts in the labour market where “secure job with a good pension” is not the motivator it once was. This was one of the main side-bar conversations at the recent Lower Mainland Local Government Association conference – “How is your city dealing with the labour shortage?” Turns out the smaller the local government, the more critical the situation right now – we aren’t the worst off, but we are definitely feeling it.

Unlike a construction company or restaurant, a City can’t just reduce operating hours or bid on fewer jobs, but with short staff we need to re-set our priorities and choose what things don’t get done or are delayed because our staff simply don’t have capacity. The HR process in this super-tight market adds to the challenge of back-filling and training up new people, so the solutions are not quick.

So this is more of a for-information report about the issue, to let the public know what is going on, and to let staff know that Council is aware of the challenges staff are facing. There is some work going on in the background to address the shortage (some HR and staffing discussion happens in closed, because of Community Charter Section 90(1)(c)), but it is going to take a bit of time to get over this hump because there is a lot of it going around, and because even with on-boarding new staff, training is real thing in the City, so new folks will need a bit of time to get up to speed. Things you may notice: some lawns in parks are going to be mowed less often (good for the pollinators, I guess), permits for smaller building projects are going to take a bit longer, and some engineering projects will be delayed not for lack of capital funds committed, but for lack of project management staff to coordinate the work.

---

And on that note, and after reading a few Bylaws, Council adjourned while it was still a little sunny outside, which is a bonus.

There was an extra breath of New West normalcy in Council this week, as we had people in plaid jackets in the Chambers for the first time since the Pandemic lock-down started a little more than two years ago. This is because representatives of the Hyack Festival Association were there to talk about the return to the Hyack International Parade and Hyack Festival, May 28. It should be fun!

But it wasn’t all anticipatory celebration, we had business to do, and the first thing on the Agenda was moving the following items On Consent:

Downtown Livability Strategy Update
The Downtown has faced some challenges trough the Pandemic differently than other parts of the community at the same time as it is seeing significant residential growth. Last year, Council asked staff for some short- medium- and long-term tactics to address a suite of concerns raised by residents and the downtown business community. This report is only an update on some of those tactics – what is working and what is not.

Our Engineering “beat team” is working to address general cleanliness and litter, and some of the nuisance related to these. The Hyack Square portable toilet has been a target for vandalism, and this is an important learning point as we work towards a more permanent solution for public bathroom access downtown. The business support programs are going well, and are being well received, though we are all looking forward to the Metro Vancouver sewer project going away. The Downtown BIA, Pride, and Hyack Festival Association are planning a summer of events downtown (supported in part by City’s grant program), which is also a great piece of news.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (328 Second Street) Bylaw No. 8309, 2022 and Heritage Designation (328 Second Street) Bylaw No. 8310, 2022
The owner of this house in Queens Park wants to subdivide the lot and build and infill house, in exchange for restoration and permanent protection of the existing 1889 house. The City is working through new HRA policy guidance for the Queens Park HCA, but this application was in the queue before that policy review began, so this project is not subject to that pause.

A previous proposal for this lot to demolish the heritage house and build a larger home on the lot was “discouraged” by Council back in 2017, the proponent looked at carriage house model, but it was not economically viable. This is a third attempt at re-imagining the site, where the house has some historical significance but is in need of significant restoration.

This project will go to Public Hearing, so I’ll hold further comments until then. If you have opinions, let us know!

Memorandum: Release of Closed Resolution re Utility Commission Reappointments
The City has an Electrical Utility Commission to provide executive oversight of the operation of the Electric Utility. We are updating some appointments to the Commission.

Official Community Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Variance Permit, and Development Permit: 1135 Salter Street – Preliminary Report
This project would see 45 townhomes built on a large lot in Queensborough. This is an area in the Official Community Plan currently designated as residential low density (Essentially, single family detached homes, though there could be more than one living unit per home), and the townhouse form and density here (FSR 0.75) do not meet the OCP designation, so this will require an OCP amendment. This is a preliminary report, letting Council know about the application and proposal details that are going out to public consultation, internal committee review, and stakeholder consultation required for OCP amendment.

Period Promise Pilot Initiative
The City piloted this project last year to make menstrual products available in City washroom facilities. At the time, we asked for a report back after some time to see how it is working, as there were some concerns raised regarding excessive cost and potential for vandalism and theft. Short version of the report: no vandalism or theft problems, and the operational cost is well within existing operational budgets. So, success.

Phase One Infill Housing Program: Comprehensive Review Work Plan
When the City adopted its OCP in 2017, there was significant interesting the City opening up for more infill housing options like laneway and carriage houses to bring more “missing middle” options and ground-based rental options for families in the City. Some of the review work related to this got delayed by other priorities in the City (like many other things) in the last two years, but it is good to see the conversation re-started.

There is going to be quite a bit of public outreach and consultation on this, and I look forward to hearing from the community, but one thing I think a lot about is how the market for housing has shifted since we did the bulk of our OCP consultation in 2016. The million-dollar-line (for the “benchmark” single family house) swept east through New Westminster in 2016, and both land prices and construction cost make “missing middle” forms increasingly out of touch for many potential homebuyers. We are getting more applications now for townhouse and rowhouse forms, but laneways and coach houses are still a bit niche, and may only be serving to add value to the lowest density lands in the City, creating a barrier to more attainable densities. So it will be an interesting conversation in the community, and timely with our OCP reaching mid-life.

Rezoning Application for Duplex: 122 Eighth Avenue – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
This homeowner in Glenbrook North hopes to build a duplex where there is currently a single family home. The proposal meets the OCP designation for the neighbourhood, is within the permitted density (0.61FSR), height, and site coverage, however as it is duplex with two front doors (and not a house with a basement suite which would be permitted automatically) it requires a rezoning. Due to the consistency with the OCP and other lack of variances, Council agreed to waive the Public Hearing, though we have received a few public comments through the applicant-led consultation, and will continue to do so before the Third Reading. If you have opinions, please let us know.

Rezoning Application for Infill Townhouse: 337 and 339 Keary Street –Bylaw for First and Second Readings
The owners of these properties in Sapperton are proposing to build two buildings totaling 9 townhouse-style family-friendly homes. This proposal meets the OCP designation for the location, but needs a rezoning. It is on a lot between some larger single family lots and some newer narrow-lot SFD houses, with an apartment building behind, and a pretty high walk-score part of Sapperton. Again, due to OCP compliance and density and mass generally consistent with the zoning, Council has agreed to waive the Public Hearing. We can still receive public feedback prior to Third Reading, so if you have opinions, let us know!

Rezoning Application for Triplex: 817 St. Andrews Street – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
The owners of this property in the Brow of the Hill is proposing to build a triplex to Passive House standard (the highest energy efficiency rating known to Christendom), bringing three family-friendly ground-oriented homes. This again meets the OCP designation for the location, but needs a rezoning. It is located next to a three-story apartment building and across the street from a high rise, but is a transition area in the neighbourhood. Council agreed to waive the Public Hearing in light of the alignment with the OCP. We can still receive public feedback prior to Third Reading, so if you have opinions, let us know!

---

The following items were then Removed from Consent for discussion:

Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 8327, 2022
We provided approval in principle for these changes last meeting, this is the drafted Bylaw to support the changes. Development Cost Charges are one of the ways that municipalities assure that development pays its way – that the cost of new development falls on the developer, not on residents already here (who, at least in theory, had similar costs applied to them when their home was built). DCCs are tightly regulated by the province, are typically charged based on unit count (number of new housing units) or square footage/meterage of new living space, and the money collected is directly applied to pre-approved projects (new sewer lines, new water lines, road improvements, parks improvements). The Bylaw sets the rates and formalizes the projects toward which the DCCs will be applied, giving us the power to collect these DCCs.

Because projects and growth rates change, our DCC Bylaw is periodically updated to reflect new costs. This update significantly increases our DCCs, as the last comprehensive update was more than a decade ago. The projected value of DCCs in the Bylaw is $87.7M for the mainland and $79.4M for Queensborough (who have a separate DCC calculation because of differing sewerage and drainage costs, and differing age of the existing infrastructure). This increase is significant, but New West is still moderate compared to our cohort communities, and a bit below average for commercial and industrial DCCs.

We had a bit of debate on Council about the application of DCCs to Institutional property, you can watch the video if you are intrigued by this debate. In the end, Council voted in a split vote to approve the new DCC rates and application to Institutional properties as recommended by staff.

Hume Park Master Plan: A 20-Year Vision
This is a project that has been delayed a bit as staff resources were re-directed to pandemic support and public consultation processes were re-designed to address health restrictions. We talked a bit about it in Workshop a couple of weeks ago, but this is the final “council approval”.

Hume Park serves multiple functions in Sapperton, and parts of the park clearly need some re-fresh. Many of the physical assets are past their useful service life, and there is a bunch of money in the Capital Budget for renewal (about $3Million in the current 5-year plan), so it is good to have this Master Plan process so we know works being done to update the assets meet bigger goals, instead of being ad-hoc. We heard *a lot* from the community about why and how they value Hume (there are 300 pages of public and stakeholder feedback – plus a detailed environmental assessment and independent transportation study), and I think the plan put together here by staff reflects very well the overall tone of those consultations.

The plan kind of envisions two Hume Parks: Upper Hume will continue (with new investment) to function much as it does, with programmed and active spaces to support organized sport (soccer, rugby, softball, lacrosse, pickleball, tennis) along with an aquatic area, spray park and picnic, playground, and dog run areas. At the same time, there is a desire to re-imagine Lower Hume as more of a passive use and ecological space. You can still picnic and touch nature, but it will connect better to the floodplain of the Brunette River, with restored forests of the bluffs, and a balance of accessibility through trails with preservation of high-quality habitat.

I was happy to move endorsement of the plan as it, but also moved that Council refer the plan to Social Inclusion, Engagement and Reconciliation Advisory Committee (SIERAC) to open up a discussion about Indigenous place-making opportunities along the Brunette River portions of the park, so we can better reflect the ecology and the pre-colonial history of the Brunette, and the importance of the floodplain of the River

Temporary Use Permit Extension: 30 Capilano Way (Amusement Arcade)
The operator of a video/pinball arcade in the Braid Industrial Area has been operating under a Temporary Use Permit for two years with no problems, and is asking for a two-year extension. I am happy to support this business operating in a way that works for them and their customers, and think they have demonstrated that this activity is appropriate for their land use. As such, I’d like us to explore how we can better support these types of “accessory uses” in Industrial land, and make things easier for flexible uses like this operator has made work.

This was also an interesting discussion at Council, because I can see both arguments. This might be an interesting part of the video to watch, because the answers are not cut-and dried. Industrial Land is at a premium, region-wide, with Industrial land increasingly encroaching on green spaces at the urban boundary. The Port and the Business Community love to remind us how Industrial land is rapidly running out. So, re-purposing Industrial land is a bad idea – commercial businesses should be encouraged to set up in appropriate commercial areas, not take up limited Industrial space. On the other side of the coin, there are many new business models that mix industrial activity with a commercial storefront. Breweries and distilleries are a good example, but there are crafters of all sorts, and even a unique business like this that does the industrial work of repairing and refurbishing amusement equipment at the same location where they make a customer experience of using the equipment. They don’t fit tightly in either commercial or industrial land use boxes, and zoning is really a process to assure things are in the right box. So we are asking staff to provide us a bit more guidance about how we can better support accessory uses while not threatening the valuable resource that is Industrial Land.

---

Finally, we read a few bylaws including the following Bylaw for Adoption:

Tax Rates Bylaw No. 8326, 2022
This Bylaw that established the 2022 Mill Rates for property taxes was adopted by Council. Budget 2022 done. Time to start budget 2023.