Coming Up: Aug 9
Council meets on Monday. The most significant items on our agenda:
Naming Rights for Downtown Events Centre
Gursikh Land Request
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Hidden Valley Area Structure Plan (ASP)
Following is more information and my take on agenda items.
As always, any mistakes or opinions belong to me and me alone, not to Council or City staff.
While I express my current views below, I work hard to go into meetings ready to listen and with an open mind. I learn new information and participate in debate. This always informs, and sometimes changes, how I vote on issues.
If you would like to watch the meeting or read any of its supporting material for yourself, you can do so by clicking here. The City will post the highlights of Council’s decisions here.
NAMING RIGHTS
The Downtown Events Centre is currently called Revolution Place. However, the agreement on naming rights with Revolution Auto Group has come to an end.
Earlier in the year, Administration put out an Expression of Interest for new naming rights partners. Ultimately, this led to Bonnets Energy Corp making an offer that Administration is recommending Council approve for a 10 year term. Administration has evaluated it as the best available offer, and as being in line with what other municipalities receive in their partnership agreements for similar facilities.
I’m likely to support this partnership. Selling naming rights allows the City to reduce the burden it places on taxpayers. I am confident that this offer is fair and the best available to the City.
GURSIKH MISSIONARY SOCIETY LAND REQUEST
The Gursikh Missionary Society operates a Religious Assembly Building in the Smith subdivision. Historically, it has relied on street parking during services. As the neighbourhood grows, street parking is creating challenges for the Society and its neighbours.
The Society has purchased a lot to the north of its building to use for extra parking. However, there is a Public Utility Lot (PUL) between the building and this new lot.
Map taken from this staff report.
The Society has requested a 25 year agreement with the City to use this PUL for parking. Conditions of the agreement include the Society allowing utilities to be maintained and for the public to be able to still walk through the PUL: it could not be fenced like the existing parking lot.
Overall, I am fairly confident that this agreement would be a positive for the surrounding community by creating more street parking during religious services. However, I am concerned that the neighbourhood has not been consulted at all.
My understanding is that, prior to the PUL being converted to parking, a Development Permit application will have to be made. The neighbours would be circulated prior to that Permit being approved. I need to learn more about what recourse neighbours would be available to neighbours at this stage if they have an objection. If neighbours will still have a realistic opportunity to make potential concerns heard: I’m likely to support the licensing agreement. If neighbours will not have a realistic opportunity, then I am likely to oppose it.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION & PRIVACY POLICIES
Freedom of Information & Privacy (FOIP) policies are very important in government work. There is a lot of information which members of the public have a right to access. At the same time, the City needs to protect the privacy of individuals and other entities whenever it releases information. Balancing transparency and privacy is a complicated (and expensive) process.
To make sure that it is doing things right, Administration has undertaken a review of the City’s FOIP policies. It is recommending a modernized framework for Council approval. You can read what is proposed in this agenda package.
I appreciate staff’s work to be diligent in both the sharing and protecting of information.
HIDDEN VALLEY AREA STRUCTURE PLAN (ASP)
Council will be debating a proposed revision to the Hidden Valley Area Structure Plan (ASP). This covers land north of the new hospital, on both sides of Bear Creek. Here is what is proposed:
Picture taken from the proposed Hidden Valley ASP.
An earlier version of this ASP was considered by Council in late 2019. It had a number of issues which led to Council ultimately rejecting it. You can see some of the concerns in this staff report.
I do not know whether or not I will be supporting this newly proposed ASP. It has been improved since it was last presented to Council. However, I still have some reservations about it. Before I explain those reservations, a bit about process:
An Area Structure Plan provides is a very high level plan for a large amount of area. Prior to development happening anywhere, Council also needs to approve Outline Plans (OP). These OPs cover smaller portions of the ASP area and include much more detail, including a rough map of the local road network and lot layouts.
A lot of my concerns about the Hidden Valley Area Structure Plan exist because we don’t have Outline Plans yet.
My concerns include:
Typically the City requires 35% of the top of bank for Bear Creek to be adjacent to public facing roads, not to private residences. This provision exists to provide the public with access and views into the Bear Creek Valley. The Hidden Valley ASP proposes to relax this top of bank policy. And this relaxation may be fair since this ASP area will have a lot of land dedicated to public use in the valley itself. Furthermore, parts of the Bear Creek Valley in this ASP area have minimal elevation change and views. This makes top of bank in parts of Hidden Valley less important to preserve for public use than top of bank in other parts of Bear Creek. However, I’m hesitant to approve a reduction to top of bank road without more details, such as would be seen in an OP.
This ASP has no park space in the north east corner. This may be ok depending on how the community is planned at the OP stage. There is potential that Public Utility Lots and trail connections to the Bear Creek Valley may give people good opportunity to get into green space. Or there is potential that families will need to walk many blocks and cross and arterial road to get to park space.
This ASP says that a bridge will be built across the Bear Creek, that the City will explore getting government funding for this bridge, and that this bridge is required by the Northwest Transportation Study. It is worth noting that the Northwest Transportation Study doesn’t actually call for this bridge: it presents both pros and cons for a bridge without making a firm recommendation. It also pegs the bridge at a cost of $4,000,000 and says that the bridge will have a limited impact on the City’s arterial transportation network. I need to know more about what analysis went into deciding this bridge is worth investment.
This ASP has no real plan for an Active Transportation network. We should be planning how not only cars, but also how pedestrians and bikes will move through the community.
There are a lot of details within this ASP that are usually not decided on until the Outline Plan stage of Council approval. I am concerned that having these details decided now without Outline Plans completed will cause complications and conflict in the future.
I’ve got a lot of questions to ask and thinking to do before I know whether or not I will support this ASP.
That’s what is on our agenda for Monday. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
You can comment below. Or, you can contact me at dbressey@cityofgp.com or 780-402-4166. I'm happy to talk online or over the phone. I'm also always willing to setup a time to meet for coffee.
We also always have great conversation in the GP Round Table group on Facebook.
After Council meeting, you will be able to find highlights posted by the City here.
Thanks for reading!
-Dylan