…and it goes on. Got my first shot in the arm, cancelled my (admittedly ambitious) bike ride travel plans for the May Long Weekend, attended another remote meeting and thought about how lucky I am that I have a roof, a job, and an ability to do my work from home, while cursing the fact that this is all getting really stale and I just want to be around people again, while we had another Council Meeting. But it as a mercifully short agenda.

The following items were Moved on Consent

COVID-19 Pandemic Response – Update and Progress from the Five Task Forces
Here is our regular update on our Pandemic task forces. I think a year ago when they were put together, we had hoped they would be disbanded by now, but that’s not where we are. There are details in here about the ongoing work in the community to help vulnerable groups, including the support form senior governments we have managed to secure to fund some of these programs.

Update to Interim COVID-19 Food Truck Policy
Council decided last year to adjust how Food Trucks are regulated in light of the pandemic, and this resort is recommending we (for the most part) maintain those changes through 2021. I have a (I think pretty entertaining) rant about how irritated I am about our entire food truck program right now. My entire time on Council Food Trucks have been talking about food trucks, starting with two years of comprehensive public engagement to determine if and how we should allow this outrageous idea that is common around North America to operate in our City. Through that we created byzantine program that made it too difficult and costly for most operators to deal with, so very few took itup, yet still every time one did, we had push back from the same business community that guided us to the byzantine program we set up.

The first principle of the program we set up was, and I quote: “Encourage a variety of street food businesses to facilitate a vibrant and lively street, provide more local food choices in the community and promote social connectedness through the sharing of food.” And then everything we have done since has been opposite to this principle. Yet here we are, 6 years later, and our plan is to extend the current malaise to 2022, when I am sure we are going to spend much, much more time reviewing Food Truck policy than and Food Truck will spend operating in New Westminster. What a dismal failure.

320 Ewen Avenue: Cedar Island Remanufacturing Ltd.
There are people in Queensborough who live on the residential/industrial interface, and have some concerns about the impacts on livability from those industrial activities. On one hand, the industries were there long before the residential development encroached on their area, and there is a certain caveat emptor aspect to residents willing to deal with some impacts in exchange for reduced housing costs. However, we also expect all property owners to respect existing Bylaws which constitute the community standards we all agree upon (except railways, they get to do whatever the hell they want). In this case, the company is allowed to operate and do their work, but they are expected to adhere to City Bylaws (including noise Bylaws applicable to them). So there is some work to do here to assure they are compliant.

The Plywood plant was previously found to be exceeding noise levels permitted under the noise Bylaw, and are working to address those concerns though an acoustic consultant, and our Bylaws officers are on the case. Other concerns raised have been passed on to the appropriate regulatory agencies – Metro Vancouver for dust, Fraser Health for vector pests)

Metro Vancouver New Westminster Annacis Main No. 5 (North) Alignment
More big-time infrastructure work is coming New Westminster’s way, this time upsizing the water supply to areas South of the Fraser. This means a new line through the West End/Moody Park/Brow of the Hill, and after evaluating various routes, it looks like 13th Street is the best route. It is a quiet street with not much traffic, and has a really wide (30m!) right-of-way. This will no doubt be disruptive work for the residents, but Metro Van will keep access open and do their best to manage traffic impacts.

As the road is going to be dug up, the City is going to shift some of its sewer separation planning to this location, effectively doing this section of storm sewer installation and separation work before it was initially planned, so the road only needs be dug up once. There is also potential here for us to actually reduce the curb-to-curb width of 13th street, which is frankly too wide for such a low-traffic local-serving road. This gives us a chance to make it better for pedestrians and cyclists (it is a relatively low-grade hill through the West End), a chance to reduce the amount of the city covered with asphalt, and a chance to add more green space.

This is relatively preliminary (the actual construction will not likely start until 2022 or 2023) so there is engineering work to do, but we are on it!

2021 Spring Freshet Council Report – April 1st Snowpack
The Fraser River Basin snow pack is a little above normal, and the freshet flood risk is consequently a little higher than average, but nothing to panic about yet. The weather of the next few weeks will likely determine if we need to ramp up and kind of flood preparation. Nothing to panic about yet, but don’t pack the galoshes away just yet.

Queen’s Park Farm – Pilot Project to Transition towards Local Sustainable Food Production
Staff have been looking at transitioning the Queens Park Petting Farm to something a little more… uh… modern, which is always a scary term to use in the same sentence as Queens Park. The idea of a “petting farm” is a bit of a throw-back, and modern animal welfare practices and health standards have increasingly limited how such a facility can operate. That said, the idea of connecting people to the food systems that support us is part of the City’s larger food security vision, so there is a role here for some modified programming that is centered around food systems and education more than a petting zoo can provide. We have a bit of time to go through this, as the petting farm will not be opened in 2021 (due to COVID restrictions), but there are some great ideas in this report, which align well with some ideas I saw in Dartmouth, NS during an FCM trip a few years ago. Fun stuff coming!

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Appointment of Acting Director of Engineering
Our Director of Engineering is retiring after a distinguished career working for several Municipalities – 17 years with New West. We are looking for a replacement, but in the meantime, there are some regulated roles the Director Engineer plays in various Bylaws, so someone has to be delegated that authority in the meantime. We have a three senior Managers who are going to split those duties in an acting role until a new Director is hired.

330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment): Request for Construction Noise Exemption
The Hospital Project is asking to start work earlier on Saturdays that strictly permitted in our construction Noise Bylaw. In reading the report, I’m willing to accept this as reasonable in the scope of the project, and its potential impact on accelerating the program completion for what is a regionally-important project.

Recognizing that we are still likely to hear neighbourhood concerns, we are going to give them a year and ask them to re-apply before year two, so they can demonstrate they were proactive in addressing community complaints, and acknowledge what kind of feedback they are receiving in receiving and how they addressed that feedback. So we are giving them some slack, and are asking for some assurance of accountability in return.

New Westminster Outdoor Swimming Pools – Summer 2021
This is a follow-up on our previous discussion (resulting from a community petition) about Hume Pool not being open in 2021, with a lot more detail from staff. The short version: it will be expensive from both and operational and capital budget sense, we do not anticipated it will be very useable for most of the year due to ongoing Third Wave restrictions, and we may be challenged to even find staffing for the pool if we did open. The operating subsidy for Hume would be twice that per swim of the Moody Park pool, and there would actually be limited use with some significant staffing constraints. At this point opening Hume in 2021 will harm our ability to do some of the capital maintenance work that will support it re-opening in 2022. The recommendation is to no open for 2021, and I support it.

Education and Enforcement Working Group COVID Compliance Hotline – One Year Review
During the early days of the Pandemic, information was hard to come by. Everyone was making things up as we went along, and rules were changing, and were not necessarily being communicated effectively. One of the truisms of government is that angry people don’t call Ottawa, they call City Hall. So we responded by setting up a response line where people could ask questions, submit complaints or concerns, or at least get pointed to the best resources. This report shows the impact of that phone line after a year of operation. Lots of data bout the types of calls we got here, but in short, calls were fast and furious at the start then tapered off, with a bit of a surge as we entered the Second Wave back in November, and are now just over one call a day.

---

And that was the full Council experience. See you again next week!

Oh, boy I’m late getting this report out. There is a lot going on right now in the rest of my life, and I lost my notes in an age-related software-user interface problem, so here I am on an exciting Friday Night writing a shorter-than usual Council Report. We had a Public Hearing way back on Monday, and there was only one item on the agenda:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (416 East Columbia Street – Cannabis Retail Location) No. 8256, 2021

A couple of years ago, the retail sale of cannabis for recreational purposes was legalized in Canada. Like many other Cities, New West set up a process to filter through the many applications for new businesses that applied. It was uncharted territory for all of us, and the Province ultimately created the legislative framework the City needed to follow, but how we followed that framework was pretty much up to the local government. Which is why the roll-out of these stores is so spotty across the region.

In New West, we decided the best way to manage the potential Gold Rush type onslaught of applications (for the industry, for our residents, and for the work load of staff in City Hall) was to set up a pre-qualifying criteria and pre-approve one location in each major commercial district (which we modified by allowing a Government Store, which is on a different stream). Of those 5 initial “short listed” applicants, two are opened (Downtown and Q’Boro), one is all approved but have not yet got their doors opened (the West End), one had to withdraw and the “second place” applicant was permitted to take their spot (Uptown), and we now addressing Sapperton.

The pre-approved applicant in Sapperton apparently ran into some issues with getting their Provincial approvals. It may have been as simple as missing a deadline to file some paperwork, but the province has indicated a new application needed to be restarted, which means the City application process is suspended. So the City is giving the opportunity to the “second place” applicant, as they have apparently completed their Provincial Approvals.

We had a number of people correspond to us about this, the majority opposed. We also had several people come to the Public Hearing and speak in favour or opposed. Council moved, ultimately to approve the application (giving the Bylaw Third Reading in a split vote), but I do want to talk about some of the concerns I heard expressed through the Public Hearing.

Some people are not comfortable with cannabis being in their community, and have a fearful about a myriad of harms that normalizing cannabis will cause. I hear that. I am not convinced the worst fears are well founded, but there is a good reason why people carry these fears: the Government of Canada spent almost a century telling people that “Marijuana” was a deadly blight on our communities that would kill their children, or at least ruin their families. Canada fought a war against Cannabis for decades, and threw a lot of people in jail for buying, selling, or using it. It as a menace to be eradicated for the good of society. Then, one Wednesday in late 2018, they said: Just kidding! It’s fine now.

I do not blame the Government of Canada for making cannabis legal, for ending the prohibitionist approach to management or it. I blame them for not being honest in the decades before (indeed spending Billions of dollars being dishonest) and for not taking a more proactive educational approach during the years of transition to help people understand what has changed. Spreading fear for decades then saying “maybe not” is bad governance, sows distrust, and makes people uncertain. Oh, and while they are at it, they could maybe pardon those Canadians carrying criminal records because of that prohibition, but meh.

I also heard mixed messages from the Sapperton business community, where on one hand the message was that this was an acceptable business for Sapperton, but perhaps a location a block further north was better, but then I heard that open consumption of the products in the neighbourhood was the main concern, and I cannot quite figure why moving the location a block north would change that.

Finally, there were a few concerns that pointed back to the original criteria the City put together (and Council approved) a few years ago when we put the first Cannabis regulations together. For example, this site met the criteria from child-oriented locations and parks, and the location in no way precludes Council reviewing subsequent applications for Government-run cannabis stores, and Council has already decided to permit both public and private stores to operate in the City.

So the decision before us was whether to permit a location that met the criteria set out a little more than 2 years ago by Council, or to find a special reason to not permit this location. As I already mentioned, Council voted to support it.

The weather is getting warmer, the days are getting longer, and the Council meetings are getting more frequent. We have a busy month ahead, starting with a pretty meaty agenda this week, that started with a presentation:

Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project – Multi-Use Pathways
This was a report from the project team delivering the Pattullo Bridge on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation. The major touch-point here is the active transportation integration of the project. Both the project team and Council have received correspondence from the local HUB chapter and the Walkers Caucus, and I understand their points of contention.

There is a much longer back-story here and probably deserving of a stand-alone blog post (or an entire chapter in my memoir “Bike Lanes vs Motordom; repaving the road to Post-NeoLiberalism”), but in short, the project has made some great improvements to the pedestrian and cycling connections to Royal Ave and Agnes, but the Central Valley Greenway part of the project needs more work.

Later in the meeting (after Public Delegations from HUB and the Walkers Caucus), we has some discussion about this, and Council voted to support my motion:

That staff continue to engage with TiCorp and the Active Transportation advocacy community to improve the usability of the Central Valley Greenway connections through the Pattullo Bridge replacement project area, and

That Council correspond with MLA Whiteside and the Minister of State for Infrastructure to express support for the concerns raised by HUB and the Walkers Caucus in hopes that more creative solutions can be found here.

More to come here.

---

The following items were Moved on Consent:

515 St. George Street: Heritage Revitalization Agreement – Preliminary Report
The owner of a house in Queens Park wants to build a laneway house, and as the current zoning (RS-6, where most of Queens Park is RS-1 or RS-4) for this lot does not allow, they wish to use an HRA and permanent designation of the existing 1912 house as the tool to adjust their zoning. They need to remove one large tree and need a parking relaxation. This is a preliminary application, requiring some internal and community consultation, I’ll hold my comments until then.

97 Braid Street: Temporary Use Permit (TUP00012) Amendment for Food Truck Events
The parking lot by Braid Station has been approved for an off-site parking facility to support the RCH expansion project. There have been a number of “pop-up” drive-through food truck events held on this lot when it is not being used for the RCH workers (e.g. long weekends). Surprisingly, the previous events occurring here were in violation of the Zoning Bylaw. However, there were no real problems identified, so this will go to a request for public input and Council will consider the TUP in early May. Have an opinion? Let us know!

445 Brunette Avenue: Temporary Use Permit (TUP00024) for Off-Site Parking During Construction of 100 Braid Street
Similarly, the construction of the Purpose Built Rental building at 100 Braid will require a place where workers and staff for Urban Academy can park offsite. They would like a TUP for an… uh… currently vacant parking lot that used to be a car dealership band is zoned light industrial and therefore requires a TUP. Council will consider this one in May as well, if you have opinions, let us know.

New Westminster Arena Strategy
The City has two ice arenas, and have as part of our long-term infrastructure planning, had an external consultant do an evaluation of the community need. We are a growing City – when do we need to increase ice availability? Turns out, not as soon as we might have expected. The report is pretty detailed, and you can read it at length (attached to the agenda), but the short version is that per capita demand for ice is going down at about the same rate, or slightly faster than, population growth. The market for ice is regional (makes sense) and the need is essentially fulfilled, so there is no pressing need for us to add new sheets of ice in our current 5-year capital plan.

102/104 Eighth Avenue and 728 First Street: Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning for Infill Townhouses – Preliminary Report
This is a proposal to build 10 townhomes in Glenbrook North on two fairly large single family lots. It is an interesting proposal in that this was an area identified for this type of infill in an earlier draft of the OCP, but not ultimately included at this density in the final Land Use Designation, largely due to community push back from the Glenbrook North community. The City has been planning a review of the implementation of this type of infill density, but as with a few other planning projects involving our “missing middle”, they have been deprioritized to emphasize work on affordable housing and COVID response.

So the question whether we should go through this process now or wait until we do that policy review is tied up with this report. As one of a couple of members of Council who thought the more-infill model for the Land Use Plan map was a better idea in the first place (because it better matched what I heard through two years of conversations with the community during the Our City process), I am happy to have this project move forward and be developed further. It will be going to Public Consultation, etc.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Council Resolution in Support of the City of New Westminster’s Application under the COVID-19 Restart Funding for Local Governments, Strengthening Communities’ Services Program
The pandemic has resulted in disproportionate impacts on the unhoused and under-housed residents of New Westminster, with the number of people without secure housing going up. The good news is that there is increased senior government funding to help local governments and non-profits to bring resources to this challenge. City Staff have been reaching out to faith-based organizations and social service non-profits to identify resource needs, and are coordinating applications for about $400K in funding for 10 separate programs. The money is not for the City, but for those organizations with the identified need, the City’s role here is to coordinate and support the grant process, and help get the organizations some funding.

Riverside Adventure Park Playground Upgrade
After much consultation with committees and the community a preferred concept has been found for the replacement playground equipment at Riverside Adventure Park. The budget is $250K, and should be done this year!

808 Royal Avenue (Douglas College): Academic Building and Student Housing – Preliminary Report
Douglas College wants to build a new building, including for the first time, student housing! The plan is to build on land the College owns on the other side of Eighth Street (where the old firehall used to be). As proposed, it would be a smallish high-rise (18 storeys), made of a combination of concrete and Encapsulated Mass Timber, and include up to 244 student residential units.

This is a preliminary application, and there is work to do in design, details, and consultation, but the early notes are interesting. It will definitely be more of an “institutional” looking building than a typical tower-on-podium residential or mixed use look we are used to in the Vancouverism world. However, the impact of having dedicated student housing on the local rental vacancy situation is a positive. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

---

Finally, we had one piece of New Business:

MOTION: Designation of Alcohol -Permitted Spaces

WHEREAS recent changes to the provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Act permit local governments to designate any public place where the local government has jurisdiction as a place where alcohol may be consumed; and

WHEREAS the Cities of North Vancouver and Port Coquitlam piloted successful trials in
2020 designating parts or all of designated City parks as places where alcohol can be consumed, and both have in 2021 moved to expand these areas and make the designations permanent due to positive public response; and

WHEREAS the six park areas listed below serve their respective neighbourhoods, have adequate space for varying users, feature safe and open spaces popular for picnics and family gathering, and have public restrooms available, therefore providing ideal conditions for initial designation as alcohol-permitted spaces;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to immediately draft the necessary Bylaws compliant with Section 73(2) of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act to designate areas in the following 6 parks where the responsible consumption of alcohol by adults will be permitted from 11:00 a.m. to dusk, seven days a week; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Staff review the program after the 2021 picnic season and report back to Council in early 2022 on challenges, concerns, public feedback, and/or opportunities to adapt the program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the 6 designated areas for 2021 be:
•Port Royal Park: Crescent field and picnic shelter north of the restrooms;
•Grimston Park: Open field and picnic area north of the Wading Pool;
•Moody Park: picnic area and grass field south of the Multi-use Path;
•Hume Park: Upper Hume Park south of the dog run and forested area;
•Sapperton Park: Open field portion of the park fronting on E. Columbia Street;
•Pier Park: the grass picnic field and adjacent grass knoll.

The first thing I want people to note here is that this is a motion to ask staff for draft the necessary Bylaws to satisfy the Provincial requirements to allow public alcohol consumption. So don’t pop your (outdoor) corks just yet, as the Bylaws will no doubt need to come back to Council in a couple of weeks for us to either pass them or not. The is just a first step, but the majority of Council voted to take this first step, so I hope it will all work out in the next couple of weeks.

Other than that, I will probably write a follow up blog post to address some of the questions that have already been raised (e.g. “why not Queens Park?”), unless you prefer to watch the Council meeting video and see the questions addressed there.

Back to long agendas full of important stuff. Put on the kettle, this will be a long one. Sorry, but there is a lot going on right now in the City. We started the Agenda with two big presentations that maybe I’ll push off longer discussions around to follow-up blogs, aside from mentioning them here:

New Westminster Aquatic & Community Centre: Project Update & Next Steps
This report outlines the result of the major construction procurement for the NWACC and steps forward for the biggest infrastructure project he City has ever done. The good news is we are basically within budget, and will be breaking ground next week and hoping for completion by the end of 2023.

City-Wide Bold Steps Work Plan 2021
Yep, we declared a Climate Emergency, and it was not an empty declaration. It was immediately followed by Council asking staff to come up with an actionable plan and viable targets – 2050 targets to meet the IPCC goal and our country’s commitments, and 2030 targets that require immediate action to achieve and will get us on the path to 2050. This report lists the many project areas under each of the 7 Bold Steps that the City is working on, by way of an update, and a 2021 work plan for the Climate Action staff at City Hall.

---

We then had a Temporary Use Permit approval:

Temporary Use Permit for 40 Begbie Street
Purpose Society and Fraser Health want to operate a Health contact centre to reduce risk for people who use drugs in New Westminster. This will include witnessed consumption, drug checking, harm reduction supplies, peer employment opportunities, education on safer drug use, and referral to treatment and health services, combined with the supports that Purpose already provides at the site. This requires a Temporary Use Permit to align with zoning.

The public consultation on this was (as expected with the Pandemic), mostly on-line, and we had a lot of response, including about two dozen pieces of written correspondence. Overall, the vast majority of feedback we received from residents and downtown businesses alike is support for this type of approach, and a recognition that we need to take action on the poisoned drug supply crisis, though some are concerned about neighbourhood impacts, with some adjacent businesses going so far as to suggest they will close or move.

I hope people will recognize this type of intervention will save lives (which should be everyone’s priority in a civil society) and by reducing the suffering and desperation of some drug users, a secondary benefit will be a reduction of the behaviours that make comfortably housed people less comfortable in their community. This program will also provide Purpose some resources to mitigate some of those community impacts around Begbie Street and Lorne Mews. Council voted unanimously to support the TUP.

---

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Update on Non-Profit COVID Recovery Support Program for 2021
The not-for-profit sector has been hurt by COVID like most organizations, but are generally less able to receive senior government support or operate with cut-back resources, especially as volunteer availability has dropped markedly with Pandemic restrictions. The City’s Economic Development Team has taken a directed approach to identify specific needs of the NFP sector in New West through hosting “Virtual Education and Networking Night” VENN Events, and have identified an opportunity to support an educational program with bursaries (to be funded through our existing Economic Development budget) for people who work and volunteer in the NFP area.
The goal here is to build their capacity and strength so they are still here to help us with the recovery.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response – Update and Progress from the Five Task Forces
This is our regular update form the 5 task forces, read if you want to know ow the City is supporting residents, businesses and those in need through the Pandemic.

Updates to the Restorative Justice Committee
This Council term, we have shifted somewhat how our Council Advisory Committees work, as I’ve talked about a few times and don’t want to rehash here. The Restorative Justice Committee is one we have not been able to find a consensus on how to manage, as Council is generally in support of restorative justice, and recognize its valuable role in rectifying some of the harms our justice system inflicts on Indigenous people, the courts are very strictly not within our jurisdiction. That said, we are in the middle of a wider City-ride reconciliation process, and are undergoing comprehensive reviews of policing in the City, and it was thought this committee may provide valuable input to those two processes, so we will continue to support the committee for the time being.

Cancellation of the Section 57 Notices on 711 Walmsley Street and 1402 Seventh Avenue
Every once in a while, a property is found non-compliant with a building code or zoning bylaw and the owners are resistant to bringing their property into compliance, so Council puts a notice on the title of the property under Section 57 of the Community Charter. This mostly warns any future owners or mortgage holders that the property is non-compliant and serves to protect them from inheriting a non-compliant property. If the property is brought into compliance, Council can remove the notice on title. These two properties are now compliant.

Withdrawal of Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) Motion Concerning Local Government Candidates Access to Multifamily Dwellings During the Campaign Period
It doesn’t usually happen like this. We were going to advocate to the Provincial Government for changes to the Elections Act, but a few days after we drafted our resolution, the province went ahead and did it without us even asking. I wish it was always that easy!

Support for the Help Cities Lead Campaign
This is a campaign that many BC Municipalities are getting behind, asking for support from the Provincial Government in setting up local governments to help with our 2050 community climate goals by making changes in the building sector. The specific asks are: allowing local governments to regulate GHG emissions in new buildings (like we already can for energy efficiency under the Step Code); creating a home energy labelling requirement; introducing a PACE financing program; regulating GHG emissions from the existing building stock; and mandatory building benchmarking and reporting. These are all important steps towards addressing the ~17% of current GHG emissions that are from the housing sector in New Westminster.

This report is asking that Council endorse these ideas, and let senior government know. I will also be bringing a resolution to this effect to the Lower Mainland LGA as an Executive resolution.

Update and Next Steps Related to the Community Action Network Leadership Training Program
The City has worked with the BC Poverty Reduction Coalition to involve people with lived experience in poverty and homelessness in the Community Action Network Leadership Training Program, and the first cohort of leaders has completed the program successfully. There are some recommendations going forward to continue to support this cohort with their community leadership activities, and to continue to the program for new applicants.

1319 Third Avenue (Steel & Oak): Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment and Manufacturing Facility Structural Change Applications – Preliminary Report
Steel & Oak Brewery want to expand the seating in their lounge, which will take a zoning text amendment. This is a preliminary report, and would go to Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until then.

1324 Nanaimo Street: Heritage Revitalization Agreement – Preliminary Report
The owner of this house in the West end wants to subdivide and use an HRA and designation of the existing house, while building a second house of similar size on the lot. This is a preliminary report, and would go to Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until then.

MOTION regarding Liquor Primary Licence for 759 Carnarvon Street
We gave a Public Hearing to the zoning bylaw here last meeting, but when dealing with a Liquor Primary license the province requires a solemn declaration by Council that we really, really think it OK. Laws are funny.

Energy Save New West 2020 Impact Report and 2021 Initiatives
Did you know Energy Save New West is one of the longest running and most comprehensive community energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction programs in Canada? New Westminster punching above its weight again. This is a for-information report about the impact of the work that has been done, ongoing program offerings, and new initiatives for 2021 – including ways you can save money heating your home and water with help from the City.

2021 Spring Freshet and Snow Pack Level
It is the time of year where we start getting these snowpack reports and freshet forecast to let us know how ready we need to be for flooding come late spring. This is probably the least favorable forecast I have seen in a few years – the entire Fraser Basin is above average snowpack and the spring forecast is for melt to start late, so that means our flood risk is probably higher than on the average year. That said, freshet levels are impacted by lots of factors. We are not worrying yet, but are maintaining a cat-like state of readiness.

Mass COVID-19 Vaccination Implementation in New Westminster 2021
On the good news side, vaccinations are coming. They are already going on at Century House, but in early April they are going to shift to a larger facility at Anvil Centre, staffed 7 days a week from 7:30 am to 9:30 pm. The City is working with Fraser Health to make sure they have the venue they need, and we will be hosting an on-line Q&A session on April 8th to answer people’s questions and share information about the first mass vaccination in recent memory. I am so ready for this.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area: Application of Regulations and Status of the Implementation Program
This report is a for-information report to clarify some details of the Heritage Conservation Area in Queens Park in light of recent comments at more than one public delegation. This paragraph is most apropos:

“A Heritage Conservation Area is a policy in a municipality’s Official Community Plan (OCP), which is a high level visioning and policy tool. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) is a type of zoning that includes specialized regulations for heritage revitalization and protection. A Conservation Area policy promotes the protection of a distinctive heritage area, and defines the types of protection applied to that area. Regulatory tools, such as HRAs and Heritage Alteration Permits (HAPs) are needed to implement that protection. The use of one does not take precedence over, or impede, the use of the other.”

Though there is more detail in here worth reading if you care the least about Heritage houses in the City.

Cannabis Retail Locations: Sapperton Area Application Update – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
The City approved several locations for cannabis retail back in 2019, and a few of them have not yet opened. Turns out the provincial license for the proposed Sapperton site was terminated by the Province after we provided First and Second reading of the zoning Bylaw, but before it came back to us for Third Reading. So staff are recommending we rescind the First and Second readings (though the application remain suspected instead of closed, which I don’t understand)

The “second place” applicant for Sapperton is apparently still interested, and already have passed their Provincial hurdles, so Staff is suggesting we start the process with them, which seems fair to me. There is a bit of community concern about the location, but as those can be tested at the Public Hearing, I will hold my comments until then.

Hume Park Outdoor Pool – Summer 2021 Status
Hume Pool is not planned to be open in 2021. This is disappointing to many people who live on the east side of the City, but there are practical reasons that staff recommended this to Council back in November during our open budget deliberations. These reasons are related to both limitations on the operation related to the Public Health Orders and how those made the math of operating the pool not great in a cost-benefit sense for 2021. Part of this is the age and layout of Hume would limit occupation to 15 people (pool and deck area) and only two people per change room at any given time, making it a marginal operation. Add to this the difficulty of staffing in 2020 (it to with how Lifeguards are trained up) and the need for some long-awaited maintenance work that is better to be done during the summer, and the decision to not open in 2021 made sense from the Parks and Recreation operations standpoint.

That said, Council has heard the community on this, and have asked staff to provide us some options and outline a pathway to opening. This doesn’t mean it will open, but just that we want to assure we are making an informed decision either way that we can defend to the community. We’ll be back at this next meeting.

E-Comm Correspondence
The regional E-Comm service is run by a Board, and New West has intermittent representation on this Board, along with our regional partners. There is a whole bunch of backstory here, but we have been trying for something like two years now by various approaches to get Board representation that is better reflective of our region. Even getting diversity by gender is turning out to be challenging. We push, our cohorts in adjacent Municipalities have pushed back. But we will continue to push.

---

We then adopted the following Bylaws:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (221 Townsend Place) Bylaw No. 8253, 2021 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (221 Townsend Place) Bylaw No. 8254, 2021
The Bylaws that support the permanent protection of a Heritage house in Queens Park and subdivision of the lot to permit the building of a second house as was discussed at Public Hearing last week were Adopted.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (466 Rousseau Street – Urban Academy Text Amendment) No. 8211, 2020
The Bylaw to permit and expansion of the Urban Academy school in Sapperton that was given a Public Hearing back in October of last year was Adopted.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1135 Tanaka Court) No. 8250, 2021
The Bylaw to support the use of an industrial building in Queensborough for making cannabis-infused food products was adopted by Council.

---

Then we had three pieces of New Business

MOTION: Advocacy and Support for the Arts Sector

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor writes to the Premier and Provincial Health Officer on behalf of Council, advocating for a clear plan and schedule that outlines a 2021 opening for the Arts and Culture sector and an anticipated schedule for communicating this plan to the Arts and Culture Organizations across the region such that they can begin the preparation for re-opening with sufficient lead time to be successful.

The Local Arts community has reached out to us expressing concern about the re-opening plan, and their inability to plan for re-opening with sufficient lead tim to get their artists, performers, producers, support and technical staff, together and start programming. Putting on a performance isn’t like re-opening a restaurant or hockey arena, and clear guidance from the government is seemingly lacking.

Update on Pier Park Opening
After some slightly heroic work in making arrangements with the railways and emergency services, staff are able to get the Pier Park opened in time for the upcoming long weekend. We recognize it has been really hard for residents, especially those who live downtown, to be without this important public space for the last few months, and yes it is a somewhat reduced public space from what it was before the fire, but ire ally is the City’s outdoor living room, and we missed it. The good news is that the playground replacement within the new ramp entrance is also nearing completion, and it is going to be epic. Have fun!

Appointment to Electrical Commission
Finally, we had an opening on the Electrical Commission, and we found a great Commissioner who will bring a wealth of knowledge in community energy planning to help lead New Westminster Electrical through the next couple of years when they will (hopefully) play a pivotal role in us meeting the goals of our Seven Bold Steps.

---

And that was it for the evening. Mostly good stuff, a few things to be excited about, and a lot of work yet to do. Same as it ever was.

Building on a trend of more, shorter meetings, we had a Public Hearing on Monday and not much else. Well, one more item, so let’s cover that before we get into the fun part of the meeting:

Funding Submissions to the Provincial Community Emergency Preparedness Fund for Evacuation Route Planning and Update the New Westminster Emergency Evacuation Plan
We are applying for a grant from the Provincial Government to help pay for some updated emergency planning work. Staff in Fire & Rescue have identified Queensborough and Quayside are areas where we need to put a little more emphasis on updating evacuation plans in the event we have a serious incident, thinking about flooding, a hazardous materials incident, or in the event of a major regional event that impacts critical transportation links like the Queensborough Bridge or one of the rail overpasses.

Council moved to support the application!

---

We then had a Public Hearing on two relatively small applications:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (759 Carnarvon Street) No. 8255, 2021
The Metro banquet/event hall on Carnarvon in Downtown has operated for more than a decade on special event licenses when an event requires alcohol licensing. They want to get a Liquor Primary license to remove that specific hassle that they deal with 100+ times a year. They are not planning to change their business model or operations as part of this, and their operation has not caused hassles for staff or police in the past, so there is no reason to assume that it will now.

We received no correspondence on this, and no-one came to speak to Council on the application. Council moved to support the application, and in the subsequent meeting gave the Bylaw change Third Reading and Adoption.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (221 Townsend Place) Bylaw No. 8253 and 2021 and Heritage Designation (221 Townsend Place) Bylaw No. 8254, 2021
The owner of this house on a small side-street in Queens Park wants to subdivide the property and build a second house on what is currently their side-yard. As the existing house has heritage significance, a Heritage Revitalization Agreement was the chosen pathway to this, and the approach was endorsed by the Community Heritage Commission. In exchange for designation, some restoration, and permanent protection of the heritage house, a subdivision would be granted and a similar-sized house built.

There are some details in here. The subdivided lots would be 2,380 sqft., which is quite a bit smaller than the minimum for the designated zoning (6,000 sqft), which is the major relaxation being requested here. There are a few other relaxations, such as decreased set-backs for the existing house (it is not moving, the house is currently non-complaint, and permanent protection would mean it would be non-compliant forever), as minor set-back relaxation for the parking pad (though the project meets standards for off-street parking), and a very slight increase in lot coverage (35.7% instead of the 35% allowed). The “density” if measured by FSR is 0.71, compared to 0.70 that would be the max permitted on site, the “density” if measured by living units will go from 1 to 2 (neither house is being designed to have a secondary suite) where the zoning entitlement would be up to three (a house with secondary suite plus a carriage house).

We had quite a bit of correspondence on this application (around 50 pieces total, mostly opposed), and had about a dozen people come to speak to Council on the application, again the majority opposed. It is always dangerous to try to paraphrase and condense the many thoughts offered by the community, but I will try to address the most commonly heard concerns (speaking for myself, as always, and not all of Council).

Street parking is oversubscribed, traffic congestion, safety of children. The application meets the requirements for off-street parking, one per residence, and presumably the permitted three residences would produce more traffic than the two we are permitting. Competition for unassigned common space to store automobiles is never a compelling argument to stop new housing being built in my mind.

The density is not consistent with the neighbourhood. The increases over permitted density are minuscule. These small lots may not be common in Queens Park, but they are not unique. There are many ~2,000spft lots in the community dating back to the late 19th Century, with similarly small homes, and they are every bit as important to the heritage of Queens Park and the grand Victorian on the 8,000 square foot garden lot. Indeed both of these lots will be larger than the immediately neighbouring lot (at 1,800sqft). Housing variety like this is not an anomaly, but is part of the character of Queens Park.

A loss of green space. This is, of course not public green space, but a private lawn with a garage on it in a neighbourhood with ample green space, both public and private, compared to any other neighbourhood in the City. Again, the primary measure of private green space is the 35% maximum permissible lot coverage under the zoning, and the two lots will have 35% and 35.6% lot coverage.

No heritage win, or a violation of the spirit of the Bylaws. This may be a bit more subjective than the others, but it is a theme heard for every HRA application in Queens Park. So it is worth talking about again. The Queens Park Heritage Conservation Area does not permanently protect homes, it instead gives Council a set of tools to protect homes that have significant heritage value. It is still at the whim of Council (this, or the next, or the one after that) if and how to apply those tools. Before the HCA, there was nothing Council could do to prevent a heritage home from being demolished if the owner wanted to do that. With the HCA, Council can prevent some demolitions, and it also has enforcement powers to prevent “demolition by neglect”.

A Heritage Designation provides a higher level of protection. With a Designation on title, the owner cannot demolish a house, and has an obligation to replace it if it destroyed by, say, a fire or flood. It is a legal agreement that binds the owner (and future owners) and Council (and future Councils). When an HRA is completed, the house is designated, and is protected at a much higher level than being an identified heritage asset within an HCA.

Typically, and HRA comes with the owner of the building seeking a relaxation from a zoning bylaw limitation on the use of their property in exchange for that designation. So saying “HRAs are being used to violate zoning laws!” is to actually say the HRA is being applied exactly as they are intended. If there are no zoning relaxations, there is not HRA. In this case, the heritage “win” is relatively minor – a house of heritage merit is permanently protected and the owner is bound by a legal agreement to protect it which passes on to all future owners – in exchange for what are relatively minor relaxations of the zoning law that are otherwise reasonable and not onerous on the community. That’s the deal.

Overall, I am comfortable with this application, especially when shown the other options for the site that the owner chose not to follow (such as expansion of the house and the building of a lane way house). I have always expressed my feeling that the HCA should not “freeze” Queens Park in place, but that we should still explore opportunities to expand the variety of housing in the neighbourhood, including small lot infill like this, laneway/carriage houses, and (yes) even stratification of some of the larger houses that have been divided into multiple units for years, if possible with our stringent building codes.

In the end, Council voted 5-2 to support this application and the heritage designation, and gave both Bylaws Third Reading in the subsequent Council meeting.

Almost a year after our last full meeting of City Council before the Pandemic shut us down, we seem to have this virtual meeting things sussed. We even had smooth public delegation, though it just doesn’t carry the weight of having people in the room. In the meantime, we had a full agenda, starting with two Development Variance Permits:

DVP00674 for 34 South Dyke Road
There is a 16-unit townhouse project on an empty lot in Queensborough that was given rezoning approval last year. Unfortunately, in spite of the project having tandem-style parking, there was an error and the rezoning failed to include that in the language, so we now need to do a DVP now to correct that. We gave notice a month ago, and received two pieces of correspondence from a neighbor asking about unrelated aspects of the already-approved development. Council voted to approve the DVP.

DVP00683 for 805 Boyd Street (Walmart)
Walmart in Queensborough wants to put some directional signage up on their building that is not aligned with the sign bylaw, which requires a variance. We gave notice last month, no-one wrote us any correspondence about this, and Council voted to approve the DVP.

---

We then had a Report for Action:

Police Reform Framework – Input from the Reconciliation, Inclusion and Engagement Task Force
The provincial government is looking into updating and/or reforming the Police Act, and New West wants to take part in this. We have a Reconciliation, Inclusion and Engagement Task Force that is digging deeper into this, but they wanted to bring this part of the discussion to the larger Council.

There is a whole lot going on here, and I can’t possibly summarize here. The provincial Special Committee is looking at not just the Police Act, but also the Mental Health Act, the way the RCMP work in the province, and how all of the above relate to UNDRIP. Alas, the “key drivers” for this deep dive into police operations do not directly include addressing systemic racism in policing, but instead dances somewhat around the edge of that. Perhaps more concerning, the UBCM advocacy paper submitted seems directed towards various ways to increase policing spending (though asking for the Province to contribute more to that funding, of course). Read the room, dudes.

There is more coming here, but in the short term, we are going to strike a small working group including members of Council, staff, and likely a few key community stakeholders to provide feedback to the Province on the tight timelines.

---

We moved the following items On Consent:

Local Government Election Candidates: Access to Multifamily Dwellings during the Campaign Period
Door-knocking has always been an important part of electioneering in New Westminster, and a part of the campaign I really enjoy. A few of my council colleagues and I have even (before COVID, of course) gone door-knocking outside of election period to get the pulse of neighbourhoods on specific issues. But more than half of New West residents live in apartments, and door-knocking in apartments is difficult. There are federal and provincial law that say stratas and building managers cannot restrict access to campaigners who want to knock on apartment doors in multi-family buildings for elections at that level. For local elections, the Residential Tenancy Act gives renters the same access, but the Strata Act does not. As a result, people who live in single family homes get better access at elections than those who live in multi-family.

The City is proposing some steps to improve this access in time for the 2022 election, and are going to take a resolution to the Lower Mainland LGA and UBCM asking that Local Election candidates have the same right to access as Federal and Provincial candidates to strata properties.

City Consistency with Ministerial Order No. M192/2020 and the Provincial Health Officer Gatherings and Events Order
This is an update on the process for Council and Public Hearing meetings as the Pandemic and resultant Provincial State of Emergency is ongoing. Nothing particularly new here, just an update to clarify the legal orders under which we have been operating and an endorsement to continue in this mode until we are confident the public health emergency is over. A year, in folks…

733 Thirteenth Street: Rezoning Application for Child Care – Preliminary Report
A childcare operator in the West End wants to move their operations to a house around the corner. This requires a rezoning of the current large single family house on the lot and minor changes to the building. This is a preliminary report that will go to public consultation.

759 Carnarvon Street (The Metro): Zoning Amendment Bylaw to Allow a Liquor Primary Licensed Establishment – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
A downtown events hall wants to formalize their Liquor License situation with a stand alone liquor primary instead of the special events licenses they have relied on for more than a decade of operation. This will require (by Provincial Law) a Zoning Amendment, and we will take that to Public Hearing, likely on March 22. Call us up and let us know what you think!

221 Townsend Place: Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw for First and Second Readings
The owner of a house in Queens Park wants to restore and preserve at 1907 house permanently in exchange for a subdivision and building an infill house on their side yard. This will go to a Public Hearing, not yet scheduled, so let us know if you have feedback.

Regional Growth Strategy Amendment: Metro 2050
Metro Vancouver is working on an update to the Regional Growth Strategy, currently called Metro 2040. As a signatory Municipality, we are required by law to have a Context Statement in our OCP that addresses the regional plan, but have until 2023 to make that change (though I suspect out current context statement will still fit pretty well). This report is just for information on the process Metro is undergoing. There is a lot of emphasis on industrial land agricultural land protection more than major changes in housing policy, some increased emphasis on ecosystem services and social equity, and though there isn’t a specific emphasis on it, Climate Action is a thread running through the rest of the document. Good reading here if you want to know about the future of the region.

Single-Use Item Regional Regulation Resolution for UBCM
The Province has given local governments some increased authority to introduce ban on the sale or use of single-use plastic items in an effort to reduce plastic waste and burdening our solid waste systems with a complex mix of hard-to-recycle materials. In a previous discussion, Council asked that this authority be given to regional governments, as having a Metro Vancouver region with 21 different sets of regulations is a ridiculous approach for consumers, businesses, and suppliers. Staff have drafted a resolution that we will take to the UBCM conference to reflect that request.

Canada Healthy Communities Initiative Grant Application Approval
We are applying for a Federal Government grant to help pay for an outdoor seating intuitive in the City. I’m all for it!

819 Milton Street: Rezoning Application for a Duplex – Preliminary Report
The owner of a largish lot in the Brow of the hill with an older house on it wants to replace that house with a pretty funky looking duplex that is “suite ready”. This requires a rezoning, and will have some public consultation coming, and there may or may not be a Public Hearing (this one might get waived). If you have opinions, let us know!

723 Fourth Street: Demolition and Temporary Protection Order
The owner of this house in Glenbrooke North wants to knock it down and replace it. There is no other application, so I presume they are planning to replace with a new single family detached, but it is only coming to council because the existing house is more than 100 years old, and our policy is to circulate the application to committees and council and the applicant if they really, really, want to demolish it before we give them a permit. Council moved to allow them to have a permit.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Naming of City Asset in Commemoration of the Komagata Maru
There has been some interest locally and regionally in commemorating the Komagata Maru incident. We had a request a year ago to consider the New Westminster context, and our Museums and Heritage staff doing some research into both the locals in the South Asian community who supported the passengers of the Komagata Maru, and local elected people of the time who took actions to support those who would prevent the passengers from having safe harbor here in British Columbia. There was even a special community meeting in New Westminster, led by Mayor and Council, asking for the “total exclusion of Asiatics from this country”.

One request from the local South Asian community has been to find a City asset that could appropriately be re-named in commemoration of the Komagata Maru, with the Facilities, Infrastructure and Public Realm Task Force recommending something on the Q’boro water front, but also on the “mainland”. Staff have suggested the QtoQ dock infrastructure and the adjacent walkway (we have taken to calling “the dock and walk”) on the Queensborough waterfront, as it could be seen a symbolic to the action to prevent the passengers from being able to dock and walk on Canadian soil, is appropriately located, and also provides an opportunity for interpretive signage. ( I note with some irony that the MV Sun Sea was docked across Annacis Channel there for a decade)

In light of the research our staff uncovered, and recognizing the harmful impact that the actions and words of the 1914 City Council had on so many residents of our community, Council also moved that we draft a formal apology to the community, families, and descendants of those impacted negatively by those actions and words.

Proposed Retail Strategy Workplan
Our Economic Development staff are working on a strategy to guide the City to better supporting local-serving retail at a time of rapid transition in how people shop. This work will occur over 2021, with a report back to Council in early 2022.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response – Update and Progress from the Five Task Forces
Our regular update from the Pandemic Response Task forces, including work to support vulnerable and at risk people, where we recently introduced some hygiene services to make it easier for under-sheltered people to have a shower, do laundry, and get basic hygiene supplies through the Reaching Home Program. We also had a bit of a longer discussion on efforts to increase the amount of emergency shelter space in the city.

108 – 118 Royal Avenue and 74 – 82 First Street: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Special Development Permit Applications – Preliminary Report
This project would see some older houses on the south side of Royal Avenue replaced with a 6-story strata apartment building, with the preservation of two heritage homes on the site. Although I had a few technical questions about the process, this is a preliminary application that would see a Public Hearing before approval, so I will hold my comments until then.

40 Begbie Street (Lower Mainland Purpose Society): Temporary Use Permit for a Health Contact Centre (Overdose Prevention Site) – Notice of Issuance
Purpose Society and Fraser Health are proposing a Health Contact Centre in this property downtown, where Purpose has been operating various services for several years. This will include various overdose prevention services (observed consumption, drug testing, harm reduction supplies, and access to peer counseling, education and referral to treatment services). The City is considering a Temporary Use Permit as opposed to full rezoning to accommodate this for a three-year trial period.

There has been some community engagement on this proposal, including with the Residents Association and downtown businesses. We will consider the TUP at out March 29th meeting, if you have questions concerns or feedback, provide it before then!

---

We then adopted the following Bylaws:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (404 Second Street) Bylaw No. 8235, 2020 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (404 Second Street) No. 8236, 2020
These two bylaws that support the renovation and preservation the butcher shop in Queens Park were Adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (837 – 841 Twelfth Street) No. 8139, 2019
This Bylaw that permits the construction of a 5-story 29-unit apartment building on an empty lot at 12th and Dublin which was given a Public Hearing back in October of 2019(!) is now ready to be adopted by Council.

---

Finally, we had these resolutions as New Business, and it being a long agenda, I will only report the motions and let you write the authors or watch the council video if you want to understand more about these issues:

Motion: Support for Farmers in India Councillor Puchmayr
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the New Westminster City Council stands with the Indian farmers, and asks the federal government to continue to speak out against these regressive laws, and to accelerate the message of concern to the Indian government up to and including imposing economic sanctions against India.

Motion: Poisoned Drug Supply Crisis Councillors McEvoy and Nakagawa
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster calls upon the Government of Canada to declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency so that it is taken seriously and funded appropriately as well as to immediately seek input from the people most affected by this crisis and meet with provinces and territories to develop a comprehensive, pan-Canadian overdose action plan, which includes comprehensive supports and full consideration of reforms that other countries have used to significantly reduce drug-related fatalities and stigma, such as legal regulation of illicit drugs to ensure safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs, and decriminalization for personal use.

Motion: Lifting Restrictions on Farmers Market Vendors Councillor Johnstone
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor and Council write to the Minister of Health and Public Health Officer requesting that the arbitrary restriction of non-food vendors at Farmers Markets be lifted in time for the 2021 summer Farmers Market season, and that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, and the MLA for New Westminster receive copies of that correspondence.

Motion: Support for Laid-off Hotel and Tourism Industry Workers Councillor Nakagawa
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster affirms that people should not lose their livelihoods due to the pandemic; and
THAT the City of New Westminster write to the Ministers of Labour and Tourism expressing our support for the right for laid off workers to return to their jobs when the pandemic eases; and
THAT this letter be forwarded to all BC municipalities asking to write their support; and
THAT the City of New Westminster writes to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association and Union of BC Municipalities encouraging them to host future conferences and events in venues that respect worker rights and pay at least a living wage.

We had a bit of a lengthy Council Meeting on Monday; an Agenda heavy with Public Hearing and Opportunities to be Heard. It is telling about the unpredictability of City Council that we had two really big topics – the annual budget and a change to the Secondary Suites program that effectively impacts every single family detached home in the City – and no-one came to speak to those, but we had three hours of delegations on the renovation of a butcher shop. This job is strange.

Financial Plan, 2021 – 2025
The 5 year financial plan bylaws have been sketched up, and we had an Opportunity to be Heard on the Bylaws. We received two pieces of correspondence asking questions, but nobody came to delegate or clarify on points in the plan. I have a follow up blog to go into a bit more detail about the feedback we received in the last month or so as the annual budget was finalized, but for now I just want to note it was a challenging year to do this work, and I have to send kudos to our staff for getting this work done swiftly, fur the extraordinary efforts they took to engage the public in the budget process, and the quality of the presentations that Council has received that allow us to understand the finances well enough to not just vote on it, but to explain to our constituents about how and why we made the decisions we did.

Council gave the Bylaw three readings and adopted it. On to 2021!

---

We then had three Public Hearings:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Secondary Suite Requirements) No. 8154, 2021
We are updating and streamlining our Secondary Suite program. There are currently more than 800 authorized secondary suites in ostensibly “single family homes” in the City (likely more, as there are undoubtedly many unauthorized units in the City). Most new houses are built with a secondary suite, or to accommodate a secondary suite if the owner so decides. With changes in the BC building Code on 2019, staff saw a need to revise our Zoning Bylaw to make it easier for compliance and approval. In short, these changes streamline and simplify approvals of secondary suites.

There are slightly different standards for secondary suites in buildings that already exist and for new secondary suites to be built after September, 2021. Base-line life safety standards exist for both, but as we can be more prescriptive on new builds we are adding further livability requirements, such as limiting ventilation between the main and secondary living units, assuring tenants have control of their own utilities and heating.
In the end, this a Zoning Bylaw amendment will replace more complicated documents and processes while assuring life safety and livability standards are met and avoid some redundancy with the BC Building Code. This also requires amendments to our enforcement bylaws.

We received a couple of pieces of correspondence about this, more inquiries about details than opposition or support, and no-one came to speak to the issue. Council voted to support the changes.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1135 Tanaka Court) No. 8250, 2021
There is a business that would like to start manufacturing food products that include cannabis ingredients in a Light Industrial property in Queensborough. If there wasn’t cannabis involved, this kind of use would be within zoning and no public hearing would occur, but Provincial Regulations and our own Bylaws around the devil’s cabbage are still peri-prohibitionist. So a zoning language amendment is required to permit this use.

There is no growing of cannabis, or retail sales of the product anticipated at the site. There shouldn’t be any specific odour or security concerns apart from any other light industrial manufacturing site, and their operations will be licensed by Health Canada.

We received one piece correspondence (the applicant, in favour), and we had no-one come to speak to us on this application. Council voted to support it.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (404 Second Street) No. 8235, 2020 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (404 Second Street) No. 8236, 2020
The owner of the little butcher shop that has been (in various forms) on the corner of Second Street and Fourth Ave in the middle of Queens Park for more than 100 years is looking to do some building improvements and expansion to make her business operate better. This includes a small expansion on the Fourth Ave side, the completion of a full basement, and some building restoration and rejuvenation to bring it back to its Mid-Century glory (but not its original 1920’s form). As the current use is non-conforming with the zoning bylaw (because the current use is decades older than the zoning bylaw itself), this expansion either required rezoning for formalize that use, or a Heritage Restoration Agreement which provides essentially the same function as a rezoning, but adds permanent protection of the historic building. The application was for the latter.

We received 79 pieces of correspondence on this (about 55% in favour and 45% against) and had 24 speakers (about evenly split between for and against), with significant overlap between the two. I cannot go through all of the comments (you can watch the hearing if you really want to dig in), but do want to paraphrase some of the major concern I heard, with my own (editorializing?) responses.

This is a violation of the rules (OCP, zoning, HRA), or of the spirit of the rules: This application complies with the language and spirit of the Official Community Plan. It is indeed non-conforming with the Zoning Bylaw, but the Heritage Restoration Agreement is a tool to bring this into compliance. This is the exact purpose of HRAs, and it is being used appropriate, both within the Local government Act and out local Bylaws.

Tripling the FSR is too much: The current FSR is 35%, and with the expansion planned the FSR above grade will be 50%. This is in line with form common in the neighbourhood. The full FSR will be 100% only when a full basement is added, and the FSR below grade will have no impact on the street expression or massing of the building. Allowing a full basement for storage and preparation is a reasonable request to me considering it has no impact whatsoever on the neighbourhood or form of the building.

Parking is insufficient: Yep, we are giving a parking relaxation, recognizing this business has operated at this site for almost 100 years, and in its current setting for about 70 years, and is not noted for creating parking chaos. Second Street is a quiet street with curbside parking almost always available, and this is a local small business that mostly serves local customers in a cycling- and walking-friendly neighbourhood. Parking can’t stop us having good things, or all we will ever have is parking.

Too many alternate uses possible: The current non-conforming retail use of the site is being formalized through the HRA, but the HRA does not fundamentally change the possible uses. As the current non-conforming use predates the zoning bylaw, another form of retail/commercial would be able to operate in the site (pending compliance with business bylaws, health code, etc.) if the butcher shut down even before the HRA. Notably, many people from the neighbourhood suggested a café or expanded retail might not be a bad thing for the community, but a welcome addition. That said, the owner has indicated they plan to operate a butcher and deli similar to the current operation for the foreseeable future.

Why 1950s and not 1920s: Many Heritage advocates would prefer if this building was re-shaped to better reflect the pre-1940 fashion of the bulk of the preserved residential houses in the neighbourhood. The problem with this is that most of the building is not from the original 1920s structure, but was added in the extensive 1951 renovation, that is the form that exists to be preserved. I was also compelled by some correspondence and the heritage statement that talks about architectural diversity, 1950s examples being an important compliment to the pre-war heritage of the neighbourhood, and speaking to the importance of the retail strip that used to exist along this block of Second Street before the others were torn down to build modern residential houses. There is a mid-century story being told by this building that is as important from a heritage point of view as the aesthetics of the pre-war period.

What is heritage win?: Some neighbours feel there was a lot given the landowner here (essentially FSR and reduced setbacks on two sides) for little community benefit. Aside from the community benefit of having this business operating in the community (the value of which many neighbours came to speak to), the HRA will assure permanent preservation of a mid-century small retail space, the last of its type after similar businesses were demolished along this block. Fundamentally, preservation of a building of demonstrated heritage value is the “heritage win” of any HRA.

There were other concerns raised, and indeed many came to speak in support of the project. The discussion even got a little philosophical at times as we delved into the balance between heritage as physical objects and heritage and intangibles (it is, most would agree, both). This was put into context by the final delegate whose father used to operate the butcher in question, and who actually grew up in the attached residential unit.

In the end, I supported the land use question put before us. And was comfortable that the HRA was an appropriate tool appropriately applied in this case. I hope the butcher can continue to provide a valued local service in Queens Park. Council voted unanimously to support the application and gave Third Reading to the Bylaws.