Section 105

Posted on November 4, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Most of you have heard by now that the City’s Ethics Commissioner ruled on a complaint about my participation at the Local Climate Action Summit and COP28 last year. Our (New! Updated!) Code of Conduct process requires Council to receive and consider the ruling, and any suggested remedies. That happened in Council today, and I have been reluctant to write too much about this before Council completed that process today.

If you want all the lengthy details, there is a long report on the complaint here, including all of the spaghetti-at-the-wall complaints that were dismissed by the Commissioner.

A summary report from the Ethics Commissioner here outlines the issue that was the subject of the investigation.

And a link to my formal response (written to the EC and Council) here.

The short version in that response covers all I need to say to the process. Our Code process allows the option for me to attend the Special Council meeting and plead my case, but I don’t see that as a useful way to spend Council or the Commissioners time when I fully agree with the findings and recommendation (I have nothing the “plead”). I think the brief response makes that clear, and better for Council to deliberate on that report without me staring them down or seen to be putting my finger on the scale. That said, now that is over, I can expand on that brief response and talk to the community about process and what I see as some initial learnings may be.

First off, I do think it is important to apologize for getting us all involved in this process, and I am disappointed that the adjudication process makes it difficult to do so before now. I honestly had no suspicion that my actions constituted a breach of Section 105, and (as the Ethics Commissioner clearly states in her findings) there was no reason for me to doubt the soundness of the advice that I had received. Still, no-one but me holds the responsibility for my actions, and for the downstream results of them. There was a breach of the Charter, and good faith or not it has been an un-needed distraction from the important work we are doing, and need to continue to do, on climate action. I take responsibility and apologize for that.

It is important to clarify where the breach occurred, because it is not clear in most of the reporting around this issue. The Commissioner determined that there was no problem with the City’s participation in the Local Climate Action Summit or COP28, with the way I communicated about this event with staff, Council, or the public, or with the travel itself. The commissioner found that I acted in good faith with the motivation to further Council’s stated goals relating to climate action, and that my participation was consistent with the duties that accompany the office Mayor.

Even the receiving the benefit of the participation in COP28 was determined to be “received as an incident of the social obligations that accompany the office of Mayor and consistent with his duties” and therefore not a breach of Section 105, which is consistent with the legal advice I received from counsel at the time. However, it was the “luxury” nature of the travel – that being Business Class travel and what is being interpreted as a luxury hotel – was not consistent with these duties, and that part of it constituted a breach of Section 105.

This is definitely a nuanced legal interpretation, and I leave it to the lawyers to debate that. I appreciate the Commissioner’s recommendation that coaching be offered on this, and I’m sure it will be in interesting conversation as the detail is all in how one interprets the sections of the Charter, not the language of the Charter itself. As I mentioned in my response to the Commissioner, a request for coaching on Section 105 was adopted by Council back in January. Now that this review is behind us, we can get on with that.

Finally, I do commend the Ethics Commissioner for the thoroughness of her work, and to staff and counsel who helped Council develop this (New! Updated!) Code of Conduct process. I can’t claim to be happy that I am the “respondent” to the first complaint to make it to this resolution stage, but I am proud that we have a process that brings procedural fairness, transparency, and arms-length review. When we see how Codes of Conduct and ECs are facing challenges around the province, I am happy New Westminster is once again showing leadership. I might further argue that these processes would operate better, and would build more public confidence, if they were led consistently by a Provincial body, and not by local Councils, but I also know we are not a City that shrinks away from doing important work because it is “someone else’s job”.

That includes Climate Action. As COP29 starts next week in Baku, there is no Local Climate Action Summit component, with the LGMA mandate being fulfilled through the CHAMP process that was ultimately the product of LCAS at COP28. We will have some better idea about the success of this model when Belém hosts COP30 next year. Until then, Local communities will still be leading the way in direct climate action, in empowering youth to take power over their future, and in addressing the impacts of a disrupted climate.

Columbia Square

Posted on October 29, 2024October 30, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

We had a special meeting on Monday to decide on whether to give three readings to a rezoning bylaw for Columbia Square. This was a decision deferred from last week, where there was some robust discussion and some adaptation of the proposal rising from that discussion, so Council taking an extra week to chew on it was probably a wise move. It is also the highest-profile project since Pier West was approved back in 2017, and is the largest single development to reach this level of approval since I started on Council a decade ago, so it is worth spending some time writing out the details and addressing some of the feedback, as I did with Pier West all those years ago. The reports for Council are all here if you want to read all of the details.

Not to bury the lede, Council voted 5-2 to support the three readings. It is a slightly unusual process we are going through, so I want to be clear what that means. Voting against these three readings would effectively kill the project as proposed, though the developer could come back at a later date with a revised proposal which would be a lengthy process. Approving the three readings will launch a development planning process to determine how the objectives of the proposal will be met within the density and land use allocation included in the zoning bylaw. After that process, Council would have the option to Adopt the Bylaw (“final approval”) or reject it. This planning process will take several months or longer. In approving three readings, Council effectively said “we like where you are going here, prove you can keep all of the commitments to the community as you build”.

The details of the project are that the strip mall and parking lots on the 7.2 acre site would be replaced in a phased process. When built out, it would include up to 3,000,000 square feet of residential floor space in up to 8 towers. The existing 122,000sqft of retail space would be replaced, in a phased process so that every operating business has first right to refusal to relocate to the new spaces, starting with the major grocery store. There would also be 42,000sqft of Class A office space, a 9,500sqft non-profit childcare, and up to 12,000sqft of additional childcare. The current parking lot and strip model urban form would be replaced by towers-on-podia, with 25% of the ground space dedicated to public green space, including a 50,000sqft public square.

The housing tenure is one of the things that will be further refined though planning, but as current proposed, it would be about 3,800 residential units that meets the City’s Family Friend Housing policy n regards to two- and three-bedroom units. At minimum, 20% of the units would be Purpose Built Rental at market rates, and a minimum 20% of these would be non-market affordable housing operated by a non-for-profit at HILs rates.

One of the complicating factors here is the desire for a school site downtown. The developer is committed through this agreement to work with School District 40 to accommodate a school site on the property. For practical reasons, this would likely involve an “air space parcel” in one of the podia. However, the developer cannot commit that the School District or the Provincial Ministry of Education will agree to this model, or even if the School District will want this (as they may come up with alternate plans on a different site), so the extra 12,000sqft of childcare space on site will be delivered by the developer if the school site is not.

My reasons for voting to approve may be different than those of other members of Council, so I am only speaking for myself here. Recognizing some details we need to work out, the question before us was whether we want 3,800 homes or a car-oriented strip mall one block from a SkyTrain Station and in the centre of our Downtown. We have seen other neighbourhoods from Broadway and Commercial to Braid Station remain parking oriented because proposed development in these key transit hubs have always fallen short of perfect and ended up the enemy of good. We need homes in this region, and in this City. Our own Hosing Needs Assessment demonstrates the need for market housing that this will go a long way toward fulfilling (recognizing that it will not address as much of our non-market housing need, but more on that later).

In this project, I see that the retail is protected, not just the space, but in a phasing plan that allows the retailers and service businesses there to remain whole though redevelopment. We have a unique opportunity to secure a school site (not to mention several million dollars in School Site Acquisition Charges directed to the Provincial Government). I also see the re-imagining of 7 acres of parking lot and strip mall as vibrant public space just steps from a SkyTrain station. The project will also provide tens of millions of dollars DCC funding to upgrade the adjacent water, sewer and transportation infrastructure, including more than $10 Million in Park Land Acquisition DCC funding.

The affordable housing math on this site was always a stumbling block. With the commitment of 4% of the total residential space as true non-market affordable housing secured for 60 years, we could have between 140 and 170 units (depending on unit size and breakdown) of affordable housing on site – that is equivalent of two Móytel Lalém projects (the new Affordable Housing building across from the High School). It also includes an estimated $60 – $70 Million in Density Bonus money, the bulk of which Council has committed to land acquisition to support affordable housing development. It’s a bit “inside baseball” here, but the City is less successful than we could be at securing senior government affordable housing support simply because we don’t have a lot of City-owned land to put forward. Having access to these reserve funds as seed to new affordable housing investments could turn the table on affordable housing development in our city, and might be the best tool we have to reach our housing targets for non-market housing. This is a really important step for the most pressing need for our community, and will put New West in the driver’s seat with BC Housing and BC Builds.

I’m not satisfied waiting when housing is in such a need in our community and in the region. We can wait for a market to shift to eke out a few dozen more on-site affordable homes, but waiting does nothing to get affordable housing built now when the need is so acute, and does nothing to get the market housing we also need to get built. The region is growing, 1,000,000 new people by the 2040s, and not building high-density high-service housing nest to SkyTrain station in our Downtowns simply pushes the need out to the fringes of the Lower Mainland. It adds pressure to sprawl outside the Urban Containment Boundary, and not only erodes our farm and ecological lands at the periphery, but exacerbates our regional transportation challenges, undermines our Climate goals, and puts enormous cost pressure on our utilities and infrastructure. Homes on Skytrain is not only our OCP, it is our regional plan.

This is a big project, and many concerns were raised about it, so it only fair that I respond to the ones I heard the most. I am not going to engage in silliness like comparing this site to Revelstoke (it’s not a comparable, nor are Chetwynd or Lloydminster) or “Four World Trade Centres!”. That king of misinforming rhetoric is pure politics and best responded to in my Newsletter (subscribe here). But there are real concerns from residents that deserve response, and I can pull most from just one Facebook thread (citations removed to protect the innocent, this isn’t about punching down, it’s about addressing concerns)

“The City has no proper infrastructure to support thousands of more people! Schools, hospitals, policing, fire, and city services”
This project will provide tens of millions of dollars in DCC funds to upgrade the water sewer and transportation infrastructure around the site. There will also be upgrades to electrical and other infrastructure along with the project. There is an opportunity for a school on the site and the project will provide School Site Acquisition Charges at the maximum level permitted by Provincial Law. RCH is current in phase two of a massive expansion, more than doubling its size, but its ability to serve the community may be limited by the lack of housing for critical workers who run a hospital, this housing may help with that. Policing, Fire, and city services are primarily paid by property taxes, and the annual property taxes paid for this site will (by Councilor’s McEvoys back-of the-envelope estimate) increase by almost $5 million a year, while the cost to service high density residents in high rises is the lowest per capita.

There are many versions of “we don’t have the services to support housing” argument around the region, and in other high-growth cities from Surrey to Toronto . But there is a false math in this, the presumption that people will only come if we approve housing. The simple and measurable fact is that both this city and this region are increasing in population faster than the rate of housing growth – much faster. People are increasingly underhoused and facing terrible housing security as the vacancy rate bounces around 1% and prices spiral out of reach. Its not just that people need schools and childcare and hospitals; they need these things AND they need housing. Not building housing will not get those other things built faster. The City doesn’t build hospitals or schools, but we can be supportive and advocate for their being built (like we are right now with the RCH expansion, the expansion of the elementary schools at Queensborough, the upcoming Simcoe Park school, and our work to leverage a school site out of this project). And the people who work in those hospitals and schools are going to need homes – that is the part we are responsible for providing as Cities.

“It’s already a traffic nightmare and now you want to add even more traffic to the roads downtown new west.”
The biggest challenge we have with traffic in New Westminster is through-traffic, not residents. This project is completely in line with the regional plan (Metro2050) and Regional Transportation Plan (Transport2050), both of which emphasize building more housing on rapid transit, reducing parking requirements, and providing full-service communities to reduce the need for people to be automobile dependent. The success of those plans can be seen in New Westminster growing by 9% between the last two TransLink Trip Diary surveys, and our use of automobiles not increasing a single percent during that time. People are moving to the region, and need homes. We can choose to build high-service high-density homes near work places and near SkyTrain stations, or to build those other forms on the periphery of the region that give people no option but to drive for their daily needs. One of those two options creates more traffic. Those school and hospital workers, the people working in the retail and office spaces here in New West, if they all need to drive from Langley to get to work we have created the North Shore model of traffic congestion and harmed the livability of our city and others.

“Translink really does need a major upgrade to handle this kind of population increase, more bikelanes and greenways would be nice too”
I hear you. TransLink’s current expansion plans include a doubling the Expo Line train service and more than doubling regional bus service. It isn’t completely funded, but the Mayors Council is working hard to secure the capital investments and a secure operational funding model to meet these needs. I am confident the governments will see their way to support Transit, as it is the only real solution to getting around our growing region. Replacing a strip mall parking lot with open greenspace people can more safely walk, cycle, and preamble through will be a benefit of this project, as are the millions in Transportation DCCs this project will provide. Providing full-service neighbourhoods is why we work to leverage protection of the existing businesses and childcare out of sites like this.

“How about building more low income housing for those waiting on bc housing list? ”
This project will have between 140-170 non-market affordable homes. Saying “no” to this site right now will do nothing to add to the affordable housing stock. The biggest benefit to affordable housing will be the City’s commitment to use the bulk of the Density Bonus money to secure land and leverage senior government affordable housing investment here in New Westminster.

“What happens to all the businesses currently in Columbia Square?”
With the phasing of the project, there will be opportunity for the businesses to relocate to new spaces, starting with the large grocery store. The retail will be replaced one-for-one and the current operators will have first right of refusal on new sites.

The bigger question about businesses downtown is also relevant, as the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown BIA provided letters of support for the project. Aside from preserving the businesses on site, it shouldn’t be hard to see that 7,000 new customers a 5 minute walk from your doorstep every day should be a good thing for customer-serving businesses? And this means more business success and variety for the rest of us to enjoy as well. A vibrant commercial community needs a local customer base.

There is general anxiety about the rate of growth, in New Westminster, in the Lower Mainland, and in Canada. I hear it. and I’ll let the economists argue the benefits of this to capitalism, but also suggest that in an increasingly uncertain post-pandemic global order of climate disruption and authoritarian uprisings, Canada will only increasingly be seen as a safe harbour of stability, and the pressure in immigration will only increase. That said, I circle back to this project being consistent with the growth envisioned in the City’s 7-year-old Official Community Plan and completely in line with the anticipated growth in our Regional Growth Strategy, with the housing need identified in our community for the decade ahead. The project as proposed gives us access to infrastructure and amenities the community wants, either directly (childcare, school site, DCC funding) or indirectly (density bonus, increased tax revenue), and is a good deal for the community.

Now that Council had given the rezoning three readings, there will be a Master Plan process that will include community and stakeholder engagement. This is where the real details of the site will be shaped, and I hope people continue to engage.

Council – Oct 21, 2024

Posted on October 24, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Some called it weird (it was a little), some called it unprecedented (it wasn’t at all), I call it another day at the office. We had a long and at times challenging council meeting on Monday, but we got a lot of good work done, and managed the full agenda.

It started with us moving the following items On Consent:

Acting Mayor Appointments for November 2024 through October 2025
Every year we create a schedule of acting mayors, members of council who do the specific things Mayors do (chair meetings, sign documents, represent the City at events) in the event that the Mayor is not able to do them. This is a repeat of last year’s schedule where every member of Council gets two months in the role.

Rezoning and Development Permit: 140 Sixth Street – Consideration of Additional Building Height
The Royal Towers site has been awaiting redevelopment for a long time. It is a large but challenging site for a number of reasons, and we don’t have a current development proposal in front of us, but regular council watchers (Hi Cathy!) may remember a pre-application report came to the City back in 2018 with two significant condo towers on the Royal Ave side, and two mid-rise rental buildings on the north side. At the time, the Land Use and Planning Committee (the project never got to all of Council) asked that tower heights be reduced, and the project appeared to have stalled.

As the owner is back looking at redevelopment of the site, though the only question in front of Council right now is whether we wish to maintain a 30 storey height limit on the site, or would permit up to 40 storeys to increase economic viability and the amenity value derived from the site. I have been consistent in having less concern for overall building height, as a few more floors 300+ feet in the air is much less impactful on the community than the groundscape and amenities that make up the bottom 5 storeys. Council agreed that additional height may be acceptable here.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Business Licence Bylaw No. 8473, 2024 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reading
Staff have been working to update and modernize our Business Licence Bylaw. We issue more business licences than ever before (up to 4,000 a year now). Though it was constantly being revised, this is the first top-to-bottom rewrite in almost 40 years, and definitely streamlines and simplifies the Bylaw while assuring staff still have the tools to regulate public safety and nuisance. There are also some new tools, like conditional licensing, which will allow businesses to start up quicker. There has also been consolidation of regulations to make things easier to interpret and enforce, and a wholesale review of our business licences fee structure to better match our cohort communities.

The most notable change is a reduction in most fees for liquor licensing, the one category where we were higher than our cohort communities. There is also some relaxing of regulations regarding moral panics of decades past (arcades, billiards rooms, etc.). Overall, Council supported these changes unanimously.

Rezoning: 88 Tenth Street (Columbia Square) – Zoning Amendment Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
This was our most complicated and time-consuming agenda item of the evening, and in the end we didn’t make a decision. The redevelopment of Columbia Square has been a project in development for almost three years, with the recognition that a (mostly) single-story auto-oriented strip mall within 100m of a SkyTrain Staion entrance does not fit with the model for a vibrant mixed-use urban centre envisioned in the Regional Growth Strategy or our Official Community Plan. That said, it is a challenging site with significant redevelopment challenges, from soil conditions (anyone else remember the old London Drugs here having a structural failure?) to the need to support the existing community-service businesses during redevelopment.

The proposal before Council was to replace the strip mall with up to 3,000,000 square feet of residential space in (up to) 8 towers, none taller than 53 storeys. 20% of the residential space would be Purpose Built Rental, all of the retail space (125,000 sqft) would be replaced with current tenants relocated through a complicated multi-phase development scheme. There would be 42,000 sqft of new office, between 9,500 and 23,000 sqft of childcare space, allowance for a new school, and 25% of the ground space dedicated to public green space including a 50,000 sqft public plaza. This would generate something between $20 and $30M in DCC funds for transportation, utility, and parks upgrades, and about $60M in Density Bonus money to the City as required under the Interim Density Bonus strategy and in lieu of non-market housing being provided.

This decision was to give the proposal three readings, and the process here is a little unusual because we are taking a pause between third and fourth readings (“adoption”) to do the master planning and hammer out details of the development plan.

In the end, Council decided to defer making the decision on this until a special meeting next Monday, so I will hold my further opinions on the merits/challenges of this proposal until after that, though I think I very tiredly telegraphed where I am at about 2:37 into the meeting video here. So tune in on Monday and see where this goes.

Rezoning and Development Permit: 140 Sixth Street – Consideration of Additional Building Height
The Royal Towers site has been awaiting redevelopment for a long time. It is a large but challenging site for a number of reasons, and we don’t have a current development proposal in front of us, but a pre-application report came to the City back in 2018 with two significant condo towers on the Royal Ave side, and two mid-rise rental buildings on the north side. At the time, the Land Use and planning Committee (the project never got to all of Council) asked that tower heights be reduced.

As the owner is back looking at redevelopment of the site, but the only question in front of Council right now is whether we wish to maintain a 30 storey height limit on the site, or would permit up to 40 storeys to increase economic viability and the amenity value derived from the site.

I have been consistent in not having concern for building height, as a few more floors 300+ feet in the air is much less impactful on the community than the groundscape and amenities that make up the bottom 5 storeys.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit: 65 First Street – Preliminary Report
Speaking of challenging sites, 65 First Street is an end-of-life strata residential building where the owners decided to “wrap up” the strata a couple of years ago and sold to a development company. At the time, many of the existing residents chose to remain and rent their suites until the development plan was put together, including a deal made with the developer and a housing agreement about what parts of the City’s tenant protection policies would exist between the 2021 sale and the approval for redevelopment.

We now have a report on the development plan for council to give a first review. As it currently looks, it is complaint with the Official Community Plan, and would have two towers, one strata and one market rental (with 10% below market rental). It would exceed the city’s requirements for family friendly units (2- and 3-bedroom). Parts of the adjacent streets would become redundant and be re-purposed as park space in a slightly expanded Albert Crescent Park.

Council agreed to move forward with this is a preliminary application, and it will go to both public consultation and internal review. If you have opinions, let us know!

Temporary Use Permit: 28, 32, 34 Sixth Street and 606 Clarkson Street (the Cliff Block Residence) – For Emergency Winter Shelter Use
This is an application to operate an emergency winter shelter in the Cliff Block for the winter of 2024-2025. This would address some capacity issues at the existing shelter on Front Street, and help keep people alive during dangerous winter weather. It would operate as a 24/7 shelter from November to the end of April.

The Cliff bock currently offers 23 transitional and supportive housing units, and this area of the building has previously served as an emergency winter and extreme weather shelter. This would temporarily add 25 winter weather beds.

This is a preliminary request – notice will be sent to adjacent properties, and Council will consider issuance on November 4th. If you have opinions, let us know

We then moved on to Motions from Members of Council:

Increase Affordability by Temporarily Eliminating the New Westminster Developed Climate Action Levy on Electricity Bills in 2025
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS according to a staff report dated April 20, 2020, the City’s Climate Action Levy imposed on New Westminster Utility “costs electrical customers approximately $15 per 1,000 KWH” and
WHEREAS in 2023 the temporary removal of the Climate Action Levy would have helped local residents and businesses deal with inflationary pressures by reducing their electrical costs by almost $2M; and
WHEREAS there is no clear evidence that imposing ‘made-in-New Westminster’ levies, taxes or fees on green energy generated by BC Hydro will reduce our carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS even the BC NDP government has now backed away from its support of the costly and unaffordable carbon tax currently imposed on consumer products;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff incorporate into the City’s 2025 Operating Budget a temporary one-year elimination of the 3.5% Climate Action Levy imposed by the New Westminster Electrical Utility.

Here we go again. For the fifth(?) time in less than a year, the same Councillor has brought the same request. It is tiresome because every time it comes back, it seems to be less informed (or more misinforming) than the previous time. Every “whereas” clause here is factually challenged, rhetorical arguments made with no basis in fact, and Brandolini’s Law makes it challenging to unwwrap it all, so I’ll keep it brief.

The Climate Action Levy was a partial replacement of half of the 5% BC Hydro Rate Rider, it was not a new charge, but a shift from a rate rider that went into general electrical utility funds to one that was earmarked for a Climate Action Reserve Fund. After a COVID hiatus, it was lifted from 2.5% to 3.5%. The Levy costs electrical utility users about $4 per 1,000kWh, not $15. It collects about $2 Million a year, but removing it won’t “save” taxpayers $2 million, unless we stop funding the things the levy pays for: Climate Action staff and programs in the City. Primarily, the Energy Save New West program, which is funded from this, and saves New Westminster homeowners and renters money every day. It also demonstrably reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the community, because that is what the Energy Save New West program is designed to do. It is one of the very few tools we have to reduce community emissions (as opposed to corporate emissions, which will also be reduced through the Climate Action Levy, but I digress). This is not a carbon tax, nor is it an income tax or an inheritance tax or a property tax. To purposely conflate it with provincial or federal Carbon Taxes is intentionally misleading.

The mover of this motion has repeatedly opposed Climate Action in the City, and has tried several times to remove funding from climate action in the City. During his defense of this motion, he even invoked the John Rustad argument that “Taxes can’t fix the weather.” This is late-stage climate change denial writ large, folks, and has no place in serious discussion for policy makers in 2024. Council, for the 6th time in the last 12 months, agreed with following the Electrical Commission recommendations here and voted this down.

Produce at least One 2025 Operating Budget Option that is Pegged at No More Than 4.5% for Property Taxes
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Canada’s inflation rate is now 2%; and
WHEREAS property taxes have increased by almost 15% over the past two years and if this continued at the same pace property taxes could increase over 30% this term; and
WHEREAS countless property taxpayers in New Westminster are struggling under the weight of an increased cost of living;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed as part of the Budget 2025 process to develop at least one budget scenario for Council’s consideration that incorporates a property tax increase of no more than 4.5%.

In preparation for this discussion, I went through the motions and amendments just in 2024 that were moved or seconded by the mover of this motion, some that were endorsed by Council, some that were ultimately not supported by this Council, but all of them had a material cost for the city – a cost of staff time and resources, or a significant reduction in specific revenue streams in the City. My Back-of the envelope math adds all of the silent spending of these 20 motions up to $1.4 Million in new spending, and more than $3 Million in lost revenue. That’s an estimated $4.5 Million budget impact. Eerily close to a 4.5% tax increase on these motions along. And that does not include the $2Million potentially removed from our budget if the motion we just debated on the Climate Levy was supported.

This motion is an example of, as was mentioned in a previous meeting, council trying to “suck and blow at the same time”. The Member wants us to spend, spend, spend, and to not raise taxes. It’s either disingenuous, or an example of someone really now knowing how budgets work. I’ll leave it to you to interpret which.

That said, I support this motion (as did all of council), because it is completely in line with how we have done budgeting for the last few years (and the mover, having been in those rooms, must know that). It was our December 11 workshop last year when staff provided us the first budget numbers related to tax rates, outlined what the “baseline” number must be to meet our contractual requirements, then three options (5.5%, 6.6%, 8.5%) with different levels of program enhancement and demonstrated exactly what we could deliver or would need to cut to meet those levels.

It was always clear when we settled on 7.7% what we were paying for that put this above the baseline. including staff resources to do the business license program update (delivered this very meeting), a backfill strategy to address staff shortages in Police, the Crises Reponses Teams that are addressing the challenges in our downtown and across the City today, new Firefighting resources and more. What I like about the way we do our budget workshops in the City is that we are 100% transparent about what the public services people demand of us cost, and when we agree to provide them, we agree to pay for them. So, yeah, 4.5% might be one of the option next year, but I’m not sure the public is going to like what they see under that option.

And two months from now when we reach that stage in budget discussion, be ready for when a certain member of council starts saying “our tax increase was going to be 4.5%, now it has ballooned to [whatever number is actually possible]”, pretending that 4.5% was an actual budget proposal, and not a random number thrown at the wall long before any of the actual budget information was available to Council.

This Happened – September

Posted on October 11, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I haven’t done one of these in a while, doing more of these types of community-happenings updates on my newsletter (subscribe here). But I am iterating how I use my communications channels with the community, and as will sound familiar to regular readers (Hi Mom!) I am working on how to keep loving, hopeful and optimistic in the face of a pretty negative political atmosphere online at every level of government. And being in the community in New West is what actually builds that hope and optimism in me. So here are some of the things I did last month that are only peripheral to my actual work:

I was honoured to give opening remarks at the annual Terry Fox Run. We had a solid turnout in New West yet again, thanks to the efforts of a strong volunteer force. In my remarks, I spoke about Terry’s perseverance and how only a hopeful vision of a better world could have motivated him though that first lonely 900 km through central Newfoundland. We feel the inspiration that is Terry’ gift, but rarely think of how hard it must have been for him to believe at times. https://run.terryfox.ca/55710

A crowd sits in the Sapperton Pensioners Hall with a screen on the stage that reads “PechaKucha Night”

PechaKucha New West was back with its 33rd edition, and it had a bit of a “getting the gang back together” feel. For those who missed this event, where people talk for a tight 400 seconds (“20 slides, 20 seconds each”) about something that inspires them or challenges them, from Philippine food culture to Boy Bands to public toilets, there is another event November 16th. https://www.pechakucha.com/communities/new-westminster

The Wosk Centre in Vancouver was the host of a public forum on Citizens Assemblies, entitled Public Dialogue: How a Canadian Innovation Sparked Global Democratic Change. We learned about the history of Community Assemblies, from the initial BC Assembly on Electoral Reform to the current models with examples from Burnaby, Gibsons, and New Westminster. You can watch it here and be inspired! https://www.sfu.ca/dialogue/news/2024/bc-citizens-assembly.html

In September, I was also witness to the opening of Móytel Lalém, the affordable housing development on Eighth Street belonging to the Lu’ma Native Housing Society and Swahili Vision. The building and landscape are beautiful, and features 96 truly affordable homes in the heart of the community. The opening was spiritual and inspiring, and helped reinforce the many partners that are required to make a project like this succeed. It was an honour to represent the City and thank everyone for making this happen in our community. More info here: https://www.lumadevelopment.ca/projects

September also brought the Climate Strikes to Vancouver, and it was apropos to walk over from the wrap-up of the UBCM meeting on the Friday and join many New Westies at the Vancouver Art Gallery to talk about Climate Action. What I totally didn’t expect was an impromptu performance by Billy Bragg, and a chance to meet and chat with him. So here is a link of him playing my favorite song of his (and Woody’s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAq49dqNlY

Every September, local Tabla virtuoso and cultural ambassador Cassius Khan brings the Mushtari Begum Festival of Indian Classical Music and Dance to Massey Theatre, and every year it is a remarkable showcase of music and dance. You don’t need to know your Satvik from your Mohan to be dazzled by the skill of the players, and the meditative quality of the music. You should see this next year! https://www.masseytheatre.com/event/13th-annual-mushtari-begum-festival/

World Rivers Day is also in September, and the Fraser River Discovery Centre celebrate with RiverFest, which includes one of those unique New West traditions- The Lucille Johnstone (no relation!) Tugboat Parade, which is a little bit parade, a little bit rodeo, a little bit dance performance. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sZZfpzxLGJw

This was the first year of a new event – Ukrainian New West Fest! A celebration of Ukrainian culture and traditions, and a coming together of the region’s growing Ukrainian community, hosted by the Holy Eucharist Cathedral on Fourth Ave. and the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster. It was a great opportunity to tour the Cathedral with its remarkable art program, and to build solidarity with a community persevering through the horrors of a homeland wracked by invasion and war. https://www.heucc.co/

And finally, New Westminster really showed up for the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Day events at Queens Park. I appreciate this event because I get to attend, listen, and witness without having to give a speech or speak for the City. This is a day where Indigenous people are centred and speak about their experience of colonization and residential schools, and those of us without those experiences are asked to listen, learn, and reflect on what it means to the work we need to do here on these unceded lands. Spirit of the Children society put together the program, which both inspires and challenges the community. It is a really powerful day. https://www.newwestcity.ca/calendar-of-events/events/7875/2024-09.php

Council – October 7, 2024

Posted on October 8, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was quite the Council meeting on Monday, not because of the regular business of Council, which was pretty straight forward, but because the level of political performance that occurred in the last half of the evening was outstanding. Some of my more unfiltered feelings about that part are best saved for the Newsletter (subscribe here, its free!), so I’ll keep to the straight goods on the agenda here.

We started with one piece of Unfinished Business.

Metro 2050 Type 3 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (7880 128 Street)
When a city in Metro Vancouver makes an Official Community Plan change that impacts the Regional Growth Strategy, it requires an RGS Amendment to be approved by the Metro Vancouver Board. There are a few different types of amendments, and Type 3 amendments require “consultation” with the member communities of Metro Vancouver. We are able to ignore this, respond to it saying “hunky dory”, or reply saying we don’t support it. The Metro Board will consider our feedback when making a decision, though they are not required to follow our recommendation.

This Type 3 amendment in Surrey is pretty minor in its regional impact, but New West Council asked for more info on it before sending feedback. Surrey declined to provide more info or present, and Council voted to send a note indicating we do not support this amendment.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Extension Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
There has been significant traffic disruption as underground and surface paving works have been occurring around the RCH expansion. The priority here is always assuring emergency vehicle access and the safety of pedestrians in such a high-traffic area. This means convenience for through drivers has suffered quite a bit, but this is a unique place to do major road works. The final paving will be happening in October, and they need to do some of it at night in order to manage the traffic and assure road safety and emergency vehicle access, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption. There will be *significant* disruption for a three-night window here, so plan alternate routes if you can, folks.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 100 Braid Street (Wesgroup Contracting Ltd) – Crane Removal
The crane on 100 Braid Street is coming down, and its proximity to one of the busiest intersections of the City makes this much more viable at night, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption.

Expanding the Metro West Inter-Municipal Business Licence to Include Health Care Professionals and Services, and Annual Licence Fee Increase
The City works with our adjacent municipalities to allow shared business licences for those types of businesses that move across City boundaries, and we are adding home care providers to that list, meaning health care professionals can get just one license to operate in Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta, Richmond and Surrey. This simplifies their lives considerably. This report reads the Bylaw but provides an Opportunity to be Heard at the November 4 Council meeting before we adopt it. If you have opinions, let us know.

Licence Agreement at 203 Pembina Street
Folks are building townhouses in Queensborough, and need to pre-load a laneway, and will need to bypass a sanitary sewer through that laneway during pre-load, meaning they need to get a license agreement with the City to manage risk and liability.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Guidelines and Decision-Making Matrix for Designating Municipally Significant Events
British Columbia’s liquor laws are archaic. Several events in the City over the last two years have sought to be designated “Municipally Significant” so they can serve a different sized beer (believe it or not) and can set a price for alcohol that actually makes them a bit of money running a beer garden as part of their event. But there are no criteria for what is considered “municipally significant”.

This criteria (and delegating the authority to staff) is a first step, but in the report it is clear staff are working on some more comprehensive liquor licence reforms in the City, because the current provincial/municipal interface on this is Byzantine.

Update Regarding Council Motion Re: Improving the Public’s Access to Trees during the City’s Biannual Tree Sale
This report is no report – they are just to report that staff are going to report back once they have had the time to do the work required to inform the report.

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Anvil Theatre Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8209, 2020, Amendment Bylaw No. 8482, 2024;
Climate Action, Planning & Development Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 8478, 2024;
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8477, 2024;
Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8476, 2024;
Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8472, 2024;
Fees Bylaw No. 6186, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 8479, 2024; and
Fire Protection Bylaw No. 6940, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8481, 2024
These Bylaws that all set their respective fees and charges rates for 2025 were adopted unanimously by Council. Now we can start working on the budget.

We then had a full schedule of Motions from Council:

Requesting an Inquiry Under Section 765 of the Local Government Act regarding Metro Vancouver
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the governance model at Metro Vancouver is over 50 years old and an independent review should be undertaken by the Province of BC; and
WHEREAS the Inspector of Municipalities of British Columbia has significant statutory powers including the ability to investigate any bylaw, order, decision, or action of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board; and
WHEREAS to date the Province of BC has not agreed to undertake a governance review of Metro Vancouver;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write a letter on behalf of Council to the Premier and request the Province of BC to immediately initiate an independent review of Metro Vancouver’s governance structure.

This was a weird motion, as it was never explained what the relevance of Section 765 of the LGA was about, but we don’t vote on the “whereas” sections, so opportunity lost for clarity there. Council agreed to send this letter, though I wonder what the purpose is (other than getting another media cycle out of this horse well flogged) as we are now onto a year of a very few people asking the same thing (including pervious motions at this Council) and no leader of the three parties vying for the Premier job in two weeks have expressed any interest in undertaking this right now, as it solves no problems and we have actual problems to solve.

Supporting Increased Tourism in New Westminster through the Introduction of a New “Photographable” Sign on Pier West Park
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Pier Park West is now reconnected to the eastern part of the Quayside boardwalk and provides a pleasurable place for locals and tourists to enjoy views of the Fraser River; and
WHEREAS a number of cities around the world have used enlarged signage in highly visible and photographable areas to attract visitor and help market their cities; and
WHEREAS we have the opportunity to install a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront with the backdrop including several bridges and the Fraser River;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff reach out to Tourism New Westminster and advise that Council would be supportive of installing of a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront as one additional method of attracting tourists to our city and downtown district.

Yet another weird motion, as it seems like a notion someone had that could have been an email instead of a Council motion. The will result in an email saying we might support something that is not defined to an organization that has not clearly indicated any intent to do the thing, so innocuous enough. And Council voted to support it.

To quote a colleague, I have a lot of questions around the actual proposal (do people actually travel to places specifically to get a picture of the place name? What is the evidence this will drive any of the massive spin-off economic development benefits the mover suggested, and how will those benefits be offset by the mover spending his time on regional media describing the neighbourhood as a dangerous, abandoned place few dare to tread? Isn’t this Tin Soldier Erasure? Wouldn’t it be more compelling and drive more regional interest if to have the sign say “Sto:Lo” or “sχʷəyem”? and many more, if we get to the point of actually reviewing a project).

Supporting increasing Cycling, Tourism and Economic Activity through a Pilot “Cycling Sundays on Front Street”
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia has already closed Front Street for extended periods of time and redirected traffic to other routes throughout the City; and
WHEREAS there is currently no ability for cyclists to easily and safely ride their bikes from Pier Park West to the Brunette Fraser Regional Greenway in Sapperton; and
WHEREAS other cities across North America have successfully closed roadways on weekends to permit alternate modes of transportation such as cycling and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back on the feasibility and operational issues pertaining to the development of a pilot project that would: during daylight hours, close Front Street on Sundays from May to September 2025 to vehicular traffic; and a during the period noted above, open up Front Street to cyclists, pedestrians and other forms active transportation while it is temporarily closed to vehicular traffic; b. seek interest from food trucks and other micro businesses who may want to set up on Front Street during the ‘Cycling Sunday’ closures.

This idea, first brought to you by Mayor Cote during COVID times as part of the “Streets for People” program of the time, is something the City always meant to explore further after the Pattullo Bridge project stopped occupying the space. It is still a god idea, not without its challenges, as there are significant costs involved, we need to work with the regional goods movement sector, the connections to Sapperton Landing Park still require Railway oversight, and the resultant impacts on Royal and Columbia Street of diverted truck traffic. Still, it’s a good idea to get a report back to Council on opportunities and challenges here. Council supported this motion.

Seek Support from the BC Ministry of Transportation to Undertake a Feasibility Study to Expand the Crossing Capacity between Queensborough and Connaught Heights
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster is currently undertaking a community consultation around the 22nd Street SkyTrain station which could result in up to 30,000 new residents moving into the neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS the residents of Queensborough can often suffer quality of life issues pertaining to delays crossing the four-lane Queensborough bridge during peak periods and beyond; and
WHEREAS it will take a significant amount of time, planning and inter-governmental discussions to undertake a future replacement or expansion of the Queensborough Bridge;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to develop a consultation plan to determine the level of interest from our residents/businesses regarding prioritizing the future expansion or replacement of the Queensborough bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any expansion or replacement proposal should prioritize the movement of TransLink operated buses, cyclists, taxis, ride-share and pedestrians across the bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write to the BC Ministry of Transportation to invite them to partner with the City during our Queensborough Bridge community consultation process.

This is one I will unpack a bit more in the Newsletter, because there are layers of weird governance ideas in here. In short, we just approved the Queensborough Transportation Plan in May after more than a year of public consultation and working with the Ministry of Transportation and are now implementing that plan. Consistent with the QTP, staff reported to us recently that active transportation and transit priority work is going on related to the bridge entrances, on both sides, both through the QTP and our recently approved partnership with TransLink on Bus Speed and Reliability program approved by this Council in July. So why this motion now, just as we are starting implementation of those plans?

I also have concerns with the language here, first because it asks the City to launch Public Consultation on a project that doesn’t exist to address a piece of infrastructure that doesn’t even belong to the City. Worse, it seems to envision expansion or replacement of the bridge, which is not consistent with our Transportation plans in the City, regional Transport2050 goals at Metro Vancouver or TransLink, or the Province’s own CleanBC goals, where the existing strategies for bus speed and reliability and active transportation are aligned with all of those.

Finally, I don’t want to get into a lecture here about the Fundamental Law of Traffic congestion, but adding lanes to a highway in an urban area has never solved congestion, and has almost always resulted in significant negative impacts on the communities through which those freeways are driven. This is not the first time someone has proposed that a community be plowed down and paved over in order to save that neighbourhood has been proposed, and in the end all that neighborhood got was more traffic, more congestion, more noise and pollution. The future here is alternatives, and the work that staff are doing to bring bus speed and reliability and safer active transportation connections on this route is the sustainable path that meets the Province’s CleanBC goals, the regionals Transport2050 goals, and the City’s Transportation, livability, and sustainability goals.

So Council severed this motion, didn’t support the first “Be It Resolved”, did support the second and the third, after the third was slightly amended to make clear the City will not lead a consultation. But if the province want to take this up, let us know.

Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster manages, maintains and prepares municipal infrastructure to protect our residents from future heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and other climate impacts, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of our residents and their property and as a result faces massive costs due to climate change, which are expected to increase; and
WHEREAS fossil fuel companies were warned by their own scientists decades ago that the ongoing burning of fossil fuels would cause massive suffering and climate costs, and chose to lobby against action on climate change so that the industry could continue to earn on average over a trillion dollars in profit each year in recent years; and
WHEREAS it is unacceptable and creates a perverse incentive for irresponsible fossil fuel development that local governments and taxpayers bear the full extent of these climate costs whilst multinational fossil fuel companies take no financial responsibility for the harm caused by their products; and
WHEREAS over 20 local governments in the United States and around the world, including nine local governments in BC, have filed lawsuits to recover a share of their climate costs (e.g. for loss and damage, adaptation, and climate preparedness) from fossil fuel companies, and Canadian legal experts recommend that Canadian local governments do the same;
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back on opportunity and cost for New Westminster to join the Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit and present potential cost and staff resource needs as part of the draft 2025 Operating Budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of joining the Sue Big Oil class action lawsuit be first assessed via the Climate Action Decision-Making Framework to determine the appropriate funding source.

This also gets a mention in the newsletter, because I cannot square indicated concern about the cost of this motion with a weird attempt to strip the City of Millions of dollars of Low Carbon Fuel Credit revenue in an attempted amendment, but that’s just politics.

I supported this motion, and it was supported by the majority of Council after several public delegations and a bit of a raucous Council debate. I can only speak to my reasons to support. The costs are real and being downloaded onto communities from one of the world’s most profitable industries every day. The Municipal Insurance Association of BC and UBCM are both calling for funding to address unprecedented climate disruption costs. We don’t have the power to end fossil fuel subsidies or tax big oil to the level that would reflect their corporate responsibility. What we can do is join our cohort municipalities across BC to use the courts to hold them accountable through the courts.

There can be no doubt that the oil industry knew that their products would have catastrophic impacts on global climate, and spent decades funding doubt-sowing “research” and suppressing their own evidence about this reality. Not only emulating the tobacco industries “deny at all costs” strategy about the horrific impacts of their products, but hiring the very same people (seriously, google Fred Seitz and Fred Singer) to run the denial machinery. They knew, they lied, and local government taxpayers are paying the bills for that choice they made. That should not go unpunished.

Finally, this motion is well drafted to add our support notionally, recognizing we will not be out of pocket unless a class action occurs, and allows us the opportunity to fund this small cost (in the scale of the cost of climate impacts in our community, this is tiny) through money we receive from the oil industry through the polluter pays principle and our Low Carbon Fuel Credit program. We are going to use the industry’s own money to sue them, and there is some elegance in that.

Finally, we had one piece of New Business:

Reconsideration of September 23, 2024 Motion on adoption the Interim Density Bonus Policy
After the last-minute decision last meeting to amend the Interim Density Bonus Policy for the City, I had some conversations with members of Council and staff about the implications for numerous in-stream applications. I was compelled to bring the Policy back to Council for reconsideration, because as amended, it varied greatly from our long-established and successful practice of incentivizing Purpose Built Rental over Strata in new development by not by giving them a free pass from DCCs and other development costs, but by exempting only the Density Bonus charge for space used for PBR. In staff’s attempts to make simpler and more transparent this very strange time with Provincial housing regulations being blended into our existing process while approvals continue to move forward, Council inadvertently made it less clear and more confusing by turning back on one of our key policy directions of the last decade.

Recognizing this is an interim measure, and Council always has the prerogative to vary from policy when it comes to approving any development, in the interest in supporting staffs efforts to keep the wheels moving during the transition, I suggested we adopt the motion Staff recommended in September, waiving DB payments for PBR as a policy until the full set of growth financing policies complaint with Bill 46 can be adopted next year. Council voted to support the reconsideration.

And that wrapped Council right at 10:30, the hour at which we are required by Bylaw to move for extension if we go past. So we’ll call that a full day.

Council – Sept 23, 2024

Posted on September 26, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

September 23rd is one of the most important days in the calendar (Happy Birthday Mom!), but for New Westminster Council it was another day at the office. Not just another day, but a relatively low-key return to Council of Jaimie McEvoy, which is a great thing for us as an organization, and for the community. The Agenda was fairly short, and started with us moving the following item On Consent:

Budget 2025: Fees and Rates Review, Amendment Bylaws
We received memos last meeting on the annual fee adjustments, and discussed them then. Staff has now taken that work and drafted bylaws to implement the changes. These are those 7 Bylaws. Council gave them all three readings today.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is our regular quarterly update on the capital and operational budgets. We are making a relatively small ($0.7M) adjustment to our annual Capital budget to $199.8M, but are not changing the multi-year budget (are just moving anticipated expenditures across years). There are lots of details in these reports about everything from the last phase of work (street front improvements on East 6th Ave) for təməsew̓txʷ starting this fall to where we are in our $4.5Million pavement management plan for the year. Our annual operating budget is trending a bit high in both revenue and expenses, but well within 1% of budget.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: New Westminster Interceptor – Columbia Street Sewer Maintenance Project
Camera inspection of sewers generally has to happen at night when sewer levels are low, and we are granting a construction noise Bylaw exemption so this work can happen at night.

Council Strategic Priorities Plan Quarterly Status Update
This is the first term where Council is actively tracking progress on our Strategic Plan on an annual basis. The red-yellow-green stoplight model is a good visual of where progress is being made, and where we are falling short. The overall result is demonstrably that we are getting the work done, though have much more to do. Our major challenges are staffing and workload (which we knew was going to be a challenge from day 1, and managing the work load surprise of the Provincial Housing regulations.
We had a short debate at Council about whether these reports should be annual or semiannual, and council decided the more frequent option was useful.

Interim Density Bonus Policy and Revised Interim Development Review Framework
The introduction of Bill 46 (along with Bills 44 and 47) has thrown a bit of a curveball into how we finance infrastructure related to growth in every municipality in BC. Though the bills are now enacted, the Province has provided cities the ability to use an “interim approach” for pending applications while we get all of our updates done – they don’t want all housing approvals to stop while cities figure out how to make the new regime work. This report provides a proposed “interim approach” for the City to use until last 2025 when a more permanent regime aligned with Bill 46 will be brought in.

Quick recap: Cities used to collect Development Cost Charges and Voluntary Amenity Contributions from development to pay for infrastructure needs required to support population growth, under the philosophy that “growth pays for growth”. The VACs are no longer permitted in the new regulations, though we will still be able to apply Density Bonusing (DB), and have a new tool called Amenity Cost Contributions (ACCs). There is planning, engineering, costing and finance work to do to inform these approaches, so this interim approach will give staff the time they need to get there.

In short, we are going to apply a Density Bonus charge of $50.sq.ft for most development above existing entitlements. For this short period of time until the more permanent financing model is completed, all funds collected by DB will go into a reserve fund earmarked for land acquisition for future City projects (Parks, community amenities, etc.). Developers could also have this charge waived if they provide non-market (“affordable”) housing that meets the standards of our existing Inclusionary Zoning policy.

The debate that arose at Council was whether the City should continue to provide DB waivers to Secured Market Rental (or “PBR -Purpose Built Rental”) development. This is a significant part of how the City has managed to encourage Secured Market Rental to get built in the City, as it fundamentally shifts the economics of Secured Market Rental to make it viable even where strata condos may not be. In a split vote, Council decided to change this policy, which will have some repercussions for how the City develops that I simply cannot predict now. More to come.

Metro 2050 Type 3 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (7880 128 Street)
Cities hoping to amend the Regional Growth Strategy can apply to Metro Vancouver to do so, and some of those applications (“Type 3”) amendment. Asking all 20 municipalities in Metro to comment is part of this process. Staff recommended against this application for a variety of reasons, mostly around erosion of viable industrial lands and potential transportation and GHG impacts.

Honestly, I could go either way on this application. Though it meets many Metro needs around integrating commercial space with other uses, and meets several Metro2025 goals, the uses are as in demand as the industrial use it is displacing, and there will be a significant increase in trees and green space, and there is little anticipated impact on the regional water and sewer networks. In general, I am reluctant to oppose local zoning requests unless there is a clear and notable regional impact (like an earlier Surrey Proposal to expand heavy industrial land into greenspace outside the Urban Containment Boundary), and this doesn’t meet that threshold for me.

In the end, Council decided to defer the decision and ask Surrey if they want to provide us a presentation or more detail than exists in the reports received by Council. We will see this again next meeting, presumably.

Report Back on Council Resolution to Develop a City-Wide Public Toilet Strategy
The topic of Public Toilets is never boring. I’ll extract straight from the report here, because I can’t say it any better:

“Access to public toilets is a human rights, dignity and public health issue, and is essential to facilitating independence for seniors and people living with disabilities and underlying health conditions. It is also often the only option for people who are unhoused, who otherwise must use public and private spaces, which negatively impacts overall community health and wellbeing.”

The community needs better access to public toilets, including the ones we already operate and very likely some new ones we need to invest in building. They are not cheap to build or operate (and as we recently learned) are not without community concern. So we are taking a holistic view to how we enhance the service we have, and will ask the community and subject matter experts in gerontology and disabilities, and come back with some recommendations for us to do better in meeting this vital need.

That all said, Public Toilets are a challenge in most of North America, and I have (believe it or not) read a couple of books that delve into why this is. It’s a long complex history rooted in ableism, patriarchy and austerity, and if you are interested, here’s a really great summary with lots of links for a little bathroom reading

We then had a single Bylaw for Adoption:

2025 Permissive Property Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 8474, 2024
There are some properties in New Westminster whose exemption from property taxes is permissive (not statutory), and this bylaw lists the properties proposed to be exempted in 2025. This bylaw was adopted by Council.

UBCM 2024 (part1)

Posted on September 22, 2024September 23, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The annual Union of BC Municipalities meeting was held last week in Vancouver. If I was slow to reply to an email or message, it’s because the UBCM is a chaotic time that challenges my calendar the most. Now that we are wrapped, I have a bit of time to report out on what we saw and did at UBCM, as I have in previous years. This is probably going to take more than one post, so instead of doing it in the order things happen in the calendar, I’ll cover it by themes.

I’m going to start with the fun (for policy nerds) part: the resolutions sessions. Every year, municipalities put forward resolutions and ask the membership to support these resolutions. They are generally motions calling for changes in policy, regulation, or funding from senior governments, predominantly the provincial government. The resolution session this year included more than 250 Resolutions, and through a slightly complicated process, some are moved in “blocks”, some are defeated in a “block”, and a large number are debated in order, one at a time. Overall, the membership decided on about 200 resolutions, more endorsed than defeated.

I obviously can’t discuss all 200+ here, but I can cover the 5 resolutions brought to UBCM by New Westminster, and one other I sponsored through my role on the Metro Vancouver Climate Action Committee.

EB4 Additional Funding for Overdose Prevention Sites across Local Governments

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the Province of British Columbia to increase funding for Health Authorities to augment existing, and to open new, supervised consumption and overdose prevention sites, including related inhalation services, across British Columbia and including local governments which do not currently offer this service to residents.

This resolution was endorsed by the Lower Mainland LGA when we met in the spring, and was endorsed as part of the “Endorsed Block” at UBCM. This block works like a Consent Agenda, where members can “pull” items, but otherwise they are approved en masse without debate.

EDIT: since I first hit publish on this post, looks like at least one Provincial leader has decided to do the opposite of what the Cities of BC are collectively asking for and what the entirety of the public health community and the overwhelming body of evidence suggests we should do, and has announced he would close all of the existing sites if elected. Make no mistake, this ghoulish move would kill people and cut off one of the primary pathways to treatment services.

EB13 Eliminating Barriers to Publicly Owned and Operated Home Care Services and Long-Term Care

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the Province to eliminate financial and accessibility barriers by investing in more publicly owned and operated and not-for-profit home care services and social supports required to age in place, and by further investing in publicly owned and operated and not-for-profit long-term care to ensure seniors are well supported in the continuum of care.

This resolution was also endorsed as part of the Endorsed Block, and there were similar resolutions from the North Coast Local Government Association (with a bit of a “rural flair” put on it) and by the City of Burnaby which spoke more to the need for a standard funding formula for these services, and those were also endorsed.

EB40 E-Comm Governance Review

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the provincial government to engage local governments in a comprehensive review of the governance structure and delivery model of 911 emergency call taking, related nonemergency call taking, and emergency dispatch services across BC with a goal to assure reliable, affordable, and sustainable services for all communities.

This resolution was not only endorsed by the membership through the Endorsed Block section (after receiving endorsement from the Lower Mainland LGA and the UBCM Resolutions Committee), but came back to the members as a commitment from the Premier during his speech at UBCM:

I have to take a moment to pull that out: both the City of New Westminster (through Council and with support from our Fire and Rescue Services) and the New Westminster Police Department (through the Police Board) have been banging this drum for some times now. The reliability of 911 services was a critical issue during the Heat Dome of 2021, and the cost of 911 call taking and dispatch has been rising significantly over the last couple of years. At the same time, our non-emergency call service was so unreliable we had to pull it from E-Comm and take that in house at our Police Department, again adding to our costs. With the pending introduction of “Next Gen 911”, which brings 911 into the modern communications era with text messages, video calls, and fewer people having phones plugged into walls, the ongoing cost and reliability concerns could be exacerbated. We need a comprehensive review of the governance of Emergency Communications services to determine if E-Comm is still a viable model.

I’m glad the Minister of Public Safety and the Premier heard our calls.

NR78 Allowing Local Governments to Apply Commercial Rent Controls

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the Province of British Columbia to provide local governments with the legislative authority to enable special economic zones where commercial rent control and demo/renoviction policies could be applied to ensure predictability in commercial lease costs, so local small businesses and community-serving commercial tenants can continue to serve their communities.

After a firey debate and close vote to endorse at the Lower Mainland LGA, this resolution didn’t disappoint at UBCM. It was one of the better debates on the Friday resolutions sessions, with some concerns raised, and folks from the Island, from the Interior and Fraser Valley all arguing how this tool might help their community, if cities choose to apply it. It was also interesting to see this was not a clear “left vs right” debate, but people across the spectrum wanting to support small community-serving businesses in their community. The quality of the debate was helped by Councillor Henderson’s leadership in framing the issue with facts and passion. In the end, I don’t even think the vote was that close, it was clearly endorsed by a large majority of the members.

RR17 Creating Safer Streets for Everyone with Intersection Safety Cameras

…be it resolved that LMLGA and UBCM call on the provincial government to expand the implementation of speed and red light intersection safety cameras in local governments across BC, prioritizing intersections near schools and those with a high rate of crashes that result in injuries or fatalities as identified by ICBC, and that the provincial government provide all revenue from additional speed and red light cameras to local governments as grants to be invested in implementing local and safety improvements; And be it further resolved that the UBCM request that the provincial government allow BC local governments to install speed and red light cameras at their own cost and set and collect fees directly to be earmarked for road safety improvements.

This motion was endorsed by the Lower Mainland LGA, but was not even debated at the UBCM because it was considered redundant. This is because there were no less than five other resolutions (EB41 Dawson Creek, RR14 Delta, RR15 Lake Country, RR16 North Vancouver City, RR18: Saanich) that asked for some version of the same thing. Only the Dawson Creek one was endorsed through the Endorsed Block, while the rest were considered redundant.

If nothing else, this reflects that the support for increased automatic road safety enforcement is broad across the province, and reflects the increased public sentiment around this. I would be surprised if the new government after the upcoming election does not look at this program for massive expansion, if not a re-write to bring more local control as most communities (like New West) are asking for. Watch this space!

NR81 Provincial Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure

…Therefore be it resolved that UBCM urge the Government of BC to expand funding for active transportation infrastructure to at least $300 million annually over the next ten years to support the development of protected, connected, and accessible local cycling and walking infrastructure networks across BC, that are integrated into larger regional active transportation and public transit networks.

This resolution was put forward by Metro Vancouver, and as vice-Chair of the Climate Action Committee, I was asked to speak as sponsor toward it. If you are a frequent reader (Hi Mom!) you have heard my spiel on this before, you can read more of it here. This was endorsed by the members of the UBCM.

So overall, a successful resolution session for New West. All of our resolutions were supported (directly or by proxy) and one was responded to with concrete action. Of course, we won and lost other debates regarding the other resolutions put forward by our colleagues across the province, and quite a few important resolutions never made it to debate due to the resolutions session running out of time on the Friday, but it was a good year overall.

I’ll follow up this post with one about the other parts of the convention, the workshops and other learnings I attended, and the political part. I will also likely circle back to some more of the politics at my Newsletter, for those that subscribe (its free!)

Council – Sept 9, 2024

Posted on September 10, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

September’s first meeting continued our tradition of holding one fall meeting in Queensborough every year. It is a bit of a logistical challenge, and if you watch the video you see us managing as best we can with unfamiliar tech and layout, but I think staff did a great job in supporting us and it was good to see a full Queensborough audience at the event.

There is also something nice about holding a Council meeting in a room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a green park with young families and seniors walking by and kids playing on the playground equipment. It reminds you of the work we do, and how it impacts people’s daily lives, even if they don’t realize we are doing it right now on the other side of that window.

Our agenda started with the following items Moved on Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
There are major regional sewer lines under Salter Street, and they need nighttime (when the water is low) inspection, which requires a construction noise exemption for two weeknights, which Council is granting.

2024-2034 UBCM Canada Community Works Fund Agreement
The City will be getting a grant of about $160K to support infrastructure investment in the City, but need to sign this agreement to get the cash, and agree to spend it on qualifying projects as per the agreement. Easiest grant ever.

We then had these following items that were Removed from Consent for Discussion:

2025 Permissive Property Tax: Exempt Properties – Review of Application Result
There are two types of properties that are exempt from Property Taxes – Statutory and Permissive. The first are by Provincial Law, and are why most churches and private schools are exempt. The second are at the pleasure of the Local Government, land use we can choose as a City to exempt from property taxes. These could include social housing, sports clubs, social service not-for profits, and the such. They must apply every year, and in my time on Council, we have not added many to the list of permissive exemptions, though we often get new applications. As a policy, the City directs not-for-profits to the City’s generous grant program if they need financial support, as that is a more accountable process.

The current list of permissive exemptions equals about $1 Million (this is reported every year as part of our annual report), and this year we got applications for 6 more, totaling $244,000 more. Two new applications (both established church properties with new congregations) totaling about $30,000 were added to the list of exemptions as per the established policy.

Budget 2025: Fees and Rates Review
As a normal part of our annual Budget process, we need to set fee bylaws fort next year. This has to happen early, because financial modelling of cost recovery is part of what informs the rest of the budget, and cost recovery is obviously impacted by fees. If we reduce business license fees, for example, that’s not “free”, it impacts the tax rates we need to charge next year. Most rates are adjusted annually to meet CPI, as a proxy for what I costs us to deliver the service, and to avoid larger and more intermittent price spikes. CPI estimate this year is 3.0%.

There are others that need bigger adjustments, like the cost of providing brass plaques for the cemetery have gone up quite a bit, requiring a 24% increase to recover those costs. Others have external controls, such as our towing charges being set by ICBC. Yet other fees are adjusted to align to market conditions (on street parking not going up this year, short-term parkade parking rates going up a bit due to demand increases), and yet other being shifted to better align with regional municipal comparators (e.g. Fire Safety Plan Review fees).

All told, these changes average aout to about a 3% increase, driving an extra $450k in revenue. For context, $450K is about as much revenue as we would draw from a 0.4% property tax increase.

Business License Bylaw Modernization Update
Staff have been working on a Business License Bylaw update for some time now. Not just looking at fees, but making sure our approach to issuing licenses reflects the modern reality of the local business community. Business license counts are way up, we issue almost 4,000 a year, which is about 20% more than Pre-COVID 2019. Still, staff want to streamline the license process, remove outdated requirements, and provide more flexibility for start-up businesses so it is easier to start a business in New West. Regular readers will also remember that a comparison with surrounding municipalities was conducted and changes to the fee schedule are proposed to align better with regional trends.

There has already been several stages of engagement with the business community here, but there will be another check-in now that proposed changes have been developed. This report simply to update Council before it went out to consultation, and to check in for any red flags.

Response to Council Motion Regarding “Tenant Protections”
As per a motion put forward in a previous meeting, staff are going to update our tenant protection measures. There is an ongoing rental affordability crisis, and recent changes to provincial housing regulations may result in increased pressure to demolish and re-develop our most affordable rentals, which puts a lot people in a very precarious situation. Alongside this the Province has brought in new tenant protection powers through Bill 16. It’s time to update our progressive-in-2015 Tenant Relocation Policy to assure we don’t exacerbate the homelessness crisis.

We then had several Motions from Council (not necessarily in this order, as we delayed a couple until after Public Delegations because we had people come to speak to Council in favour of a few motions).

Regulate the Unsolicited Distribution of Graphic Images Depicting a Fetus
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS New Westminster residents have expressed concerns that unsolicited flyers showing graphic images of aborted fetuses are being delivered to homes and causing harm; and
WHEREAS a number of Canadian municipalities in Alberta and Ontario have established bylaws that; and
WHEREAS in accordance with British Columbia’s Community Charter, Section 8 (3) (i) A council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to public health; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT that staff provide council with proposed bylaw amendments to require all print collateral delivered to any premises or distributed to the public that shows, or appear to show, a graphic image of a fetus be delivered in a sealed opaque envelope with a graphic content warning, identify the name and address of the sender, and include measures to ensure individuals are not inadvertently exposed to graphic content on a leaflet, pamphlet, paper, booklet, postcard, or any other printed collateral.

This motion was driven by calls form the community we have received a few times over the last few years. I don’t have much to add to the wording above, except that this is just the beginning of a bit of a process Staff will have to go through to determine what our legal abilities are here, and how best to structure a bylaw so it is effective. I don’t know if anyone in BC has done this before, though local governments have been successful in Ontario and Alberta, so we will need to find a local context that fits with our Community Charter and Local Government Act. This was supported by all of Council, so more to come!

Lower Mainland Local Government Association Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS Local Government Associations, the Union of BC Municipalities, and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities advocate for issues that impact their member municipalities; and
WHEREAS municipal Mayors and Councillors are financially supported to attend these conferences in order
to advocate on behalf of their local constituents, yet there is no way for constituents to know how their elected representatives vote on motions and resolutions,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster submit the following resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association:
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lower Mainland Local Government Association begins tracking and reporting how attendees vote on motions and resolutions and that they submit a motion to UBCM and FCM advocating for those organizations to do the same.”

Your local government is represented at these regional meetings by elected members of Council, and advocate to senior government for policy changes. It is probably a good idea for you to know what your local elected officials are advocating for – or against. It seems like a good step towards improving transparency and accountability. There are some technical challenges that might be easiert to solve at the relatively small Lower Mainland LGA than the much larger UBCM and FCM, and it will involve some investment of resources by those parties, so it is appropriate to structure this as a request for those organizations to evaluate if that is something they want to do. Council moved to approve this.

Selecting an Inclusive and Accessible Site for the 2025 Canada Day Celebration and Festivities
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Canada Day offers the City of New Westminster an opportunity to celebrate and bring residents together in celebration and reflection; and
WHEREAS the Pier Park location for Canada Day festivities currently offers little opportunity for shade on hot days which often occur in early July; and
WHEREAS Queen’s Park has played host to previous Canada Day celebrations and offers more opportunities to keep participants cool on hot summer days;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff seek feedback from the public through our Be Heard system regarding their preference for the 2025 Canada Day festivities and celebrations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT several locations across the City be offered to the public as a potential site for the 2025 Canada Day festivities including at least one site in Queensborough.

This was a bit of a complicated conversation as Council got a bit into the weeds, but it was nonetheless a good discussion that will hopefully lead to a good community discussions, and I think the direction is clearer with some amendments.

Be Heard New West is part of a community engagement toolbox, not a public survey tool. As Councillor Nakagawa said, “Public Engagement isn’t just asking if a hotdog is a sandwich”, it is a process of sharing information and asking for feedback in ways that have meaningful input into decision making. The decision by Council was to have staff report back with resource needs to do a proper engagement on this.

There was a bit of preemptive discussion about locations as well. There is a complex history why the “main”
Canada Day program moved from Queens Park to Pier Park, and those decisions were made in consultation with the many partners that are required to make the event happen. In the pre-COVID times we got to a point where there were two locations, with some overlap. Post-COVID the Pier Park location became the primary location, and the numbers reflected a much higher interest in people being there than Pier Park (thousands instead of hundreds in attendance). However, it is important to note that Pier Park festivities were not the only events coordinated by the City at Canada Day in 2024. There were activations all long weekend in Queensborough, at Queens Park, at the Anvil, and other locations.

Finally, The City’s festivals budget is fairly limited, and massive expansions of the event would require budget decisions, and increased staff resources. Many events in the City are primarily run by partners (Uptown Live, Pride, Hyack Parade and Festival, Fridays on Front, etc.) with some significant City support, but City-run events have been pretty limited to “civic” dates, like Remembrance Day (our largest City-run event), Canada Day and Truth and Reconciliation day, where partners support the City more than vice-versa. But it is clearly a spectrum between the two end members here.

Anyway, this will be an ongoing discussion. Let us know what you think!

Increasing Openness and Transparency at City Hall by Registering Lobbyist Activities
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS lobbyist registries are intended to provide a public record that is accessible to residents of interactions between public servants, elected officials and lobbyists and to allow for rules regarding lobbyists to be enforced; and
WHEREAS British Columbia does not currently allow municipalities to use the provincial lobbyist registry nor does it extend the legal authorities municipalities would need to enforce lobbyist rules with a local registry; and
WHEREAS it is important for a functional local democracy that any lobbying efforts by entities such as corporations, labour unions, foreign governments or other similar foreign-based organizations be recorded and publicly reported in a timely manner
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City request the Province immediately take one of the following two actions:
The Province amend the Lobbyist Registration Act to cover the City of New Westminster and other similar mid-to-large-sized cities and administer the regulation of lobbying in the city; OR,
The Province amend the Community Charter to allow the City to establish a lobbyist registry and give the City the legal authority to register lobbyists, create rules for lobbyists’ conduct in their interactions with elected officials and public servants, as well as the power to enforce those rules. In addition, the Province further empower the Provincial Registrar of Lobbyists to work with the City to share information so as to reduce duplication and costs for both orders of government.

This was also a good discussion, and it was clear that everyone saw transparency and accountability as ideas worth supporting. There was a bit of procedural adjustment (to add this as an advocacy issue to the Lower Mainland LGA along with a letter to the province), but all in the interest in making our call for this louder.

I raised some concern about the difference between local politics and provincial/federal politics, and the need for us to clearly define what Lobbying is. I have dozens of conversations every week with people nt he community, residents, business operators, non-profits, and most some include discussions of City Bylaws or policies or practices. I would hate to think that every time I set up the Ask Pat booth at the Farmers Market that I would need everyone who asks me a question to register as a lobbyist. That said, there are clearly a few meetings I do have with people or organizations who are paid to advocate to me and fit the strict definition of Lobbyist. I just wonder if we can clearly draw a line between those two without finding exampled that straddle that line. So we have work to do there.

Finally, I added an amendment that asked that we engage the City’s new Ethics Commissioner, and ask them to report back on potential procedures or practices we could adopt as a form of practice disclosure for when we are being lobbied. I think the public is less interested in reading the names of lobbyists, and are more interested in what meetings we are taking and the purpose of those meetings.

So, more to come on that!

And with that we wrapped our Queensborough excursion, and considering the list of things above that ended with “more work to do”, I feel confident in saying we are back into the thick of it.

Labour Day ’24

Posted on September 2, 2024September 2, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The days are getting shorter, the evenings are starting to cool off, the PNE rains have come and gone. Though the Equinox is three weeks away yet, most of us are looking back at the summer that was, while everything we put off until “after the break” is starting to loom large in our calendars for September. Labour Day always arrives with a mix of feelings: summer’s last hurrah, excitement of a new school year and a new recreation schedule, imminent pumpkin spice.

Labour Day is not just another day off, it is a day off won by working people organizing and asserting their rights. It is a celebration of battles won, a reminder of the quality of life granted to all working people because of 100+ years of work and sacrifice and solidarity though organized labour. It is also a call to assure that the rights won and economic prosperity driven by fair wages are not lost to the imaginary economies of neoliberal austerity.

Workers continue to build this City, this Province, and this Country. At the same time, right-wing politicians at every level are working to protect the record profits of multinationals at the expense of working people. They may talk a long yarn about “affordability”, but they are conspicuously silent when we discuss the erosion of real wages, or how austerity hurts the very social fabric that makes a society livable. They speak about supporting workers, but their votes tell a different story.

In New Westminster, our community is served every day by the professionalism and dedication of members of CUPE, the IBEW, the NWPOA and the IAFF. In the broader sense, our community is also served every day by the Teamsters who are right now fighting the rail multinationals to protect their hard-earned workplace rights and the safety of not only their workers, but all in their community. Our community is also served every day by the ATU members fighting right now to assure reliable and publicly-operated para-transit service remains available to the most vulnerable people in our community.

I was proud to spend some time up at Edmonds Park today showing solidarity with my friends in the Labour Movement: the leaders at every level, and the folks who show up every day and quietly build community while they provide for their family. The fight goes on. Not just on Labour Day, but every day.

Council – Aug 26, 2024

Posted on August 28, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Our summer break slightly shortened, and the weather decidedly not summer-like outside , Council had its first meeting in 6 weeks, with a fairly short agenda.

We started with a number of items moved On Consent:

Application for Extension of Liquor Service Hours: #200-55 Eighth Street, Hyack Sushi
The owner of this restaurant downtown wants to extend their liquor service hours. There have been no issues with their current license, so the City is letting the Province know we are OK with this extension though a resolution that is required under provincial regulations.

Application for Grant Funding to the 2024 UBCM Asset Management Planning Program
The City often applies for grants from senior governments and those administered through UBCM or FCM. Some require a Council resolution to make the application complete. As we continue on our Asset Management journey as a City, there is some financial support available to do this work, for which we are applying. Cross your fingers!

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 32 Eighth Street (New Westminster SkyTrain Station)
Some work at the New West Skytrain Station needs to occur at night when trains are not running and the platform isn’t full of people. We previously gave a permit for this off-hours noise exemption, but the work is delayed, and they need an extension, which council granted them.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: Metro Vancouver Queensborough Pump Station – 304 Wood Street
Sewer upgrade work also needs to sometimes happen at night, because that is when sewer flows are lowest. This upgrade to vital pump station in Queensborough will happen over two days in September or October (when the weather is amenable, as that also impacts sewer flows), and requires a noise bylaw exemption, which Council is granting.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
There is a unique electrical conduit installation happening at the Hospital upgrade that takes about 24 hours to perform, and cannot be stopped once it is started, meaning they have to work through the night. This means noise bylaw exemption, which Council is granting.

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for 1084 Tanaka Court: Preliminary Report
This is a bit of an unusual one. There is a vacant property in Queensborough near the casino that was originally zoned for Industrial use until 2018, when Council granted them a rezoning to permit the building of a 3 story commercial building including a banquet hall, offices, and retail spaces. The owner has now decided that project is not financially viable, and wishes to sell the property. They wish to rezone again back into industrial, probably reflecting the change in industrial land values over the last few years due to a regional shortage. So we are looking at an OCP Amendment and rezoning. This is a preliminary application report, and will see consultation and a Public Hearing (as required by OCP Amendments), so I’ll hold my comments on the merits of the application until then. If you have opinions, let us know!

Provincial Housing Target Order for New Westminster
As was widely reported, the City is subject to a Housing Target Order from the province. We received the order officially on July 30, and this is an information report updating Council and the Public on the details of that order and what comes next.

Unfortunately, the order increases, not reduces, the confusion related to the provincial intent here. The number (4,432 new housing units by 2029) reflects 75% of the total estimated housing need determined from some slightly opaque provincial methodology. Notably, this is a different Housing Need number than the City has calculated using the methodology the province requires us to use for our own Housing Needs Assessment Report. So we have two sets of estimates driven by different methodologies coming out of the same Ministry in Victoria. Though the province “encourages” us to meet 100% of their new assessed need, we are only “ordered” to meet the 4,432 number, which should have everyone scratching their head about why we are striving to meet 75% of need, and how the last 25% of housing need will be met.

For the even stranger part, these “orders” are for occupancy, the day people are able to move into a newly built housing unit, where previous metrics have been for approvals. This is a problem because Cities may approve housing, but we don’t build it. We have no tools to force landowners to build what is approved on their lot. Look at the Tanaka Court application above: the City approved the banquet hall project, but we cannot force the owner to now build it, we simply don’t have the legal ability to do that. If you come into City Hall to apply for a permit to build a laneway house, we can grant you that permission, can approve it, but we can’t force you to build it on our timeline just because you applied and were approved. It would be a very different market if municipalities held this power, and it is unclear how the Minister thinks we are going to force building to happen.

Further, large development projects at the scale that will be required to hit 5,000 housing units in 5 years take years to plan, design, finance, and build. The two large towers being completed on the riverfront right now are going to receive occupancy permits this year meaning those ~700 units will be all we need to hit our occupancy target in year one of the Provincial Order, but that project was approved in 2017 – more than seven years ago! It is safe to say that our meeting this “target” in years 2, 3 and 4 will rely on rapid completion of projects that are already either approved or so far down the approval road that these new targets are meaningless to their success. So what’s the point?

But that all seems Inside Baseball.

Looking at the report, it’s clear that aside from tracking numbers and reporting out, there is no fundamental change the City needs to make, or can make, to meet this housing order. We have enough “zoned capacity” in the City to accommodate this number of units, and are working on our OCP updates to comply with the provincial Transit Oriented Area and SSMUH regulations. We currently have about 6,000 units in process (under construction, approved, or under planning review), however, we simply cannot predict, nor have any legislative or coercive control over, which of these are completed an occupied in the next 5 years. So we are complying with provincial regulation, doing our job as ordered, then getting back to work on the important stuff like planning for the infrastructure needs of the City.

We then had a raft of Bylaws for Adoption:

Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6910, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No.8467, 2024
This Bylaw that brings out Council Procedure Bylaw in compliance with new provincial regulations on Public Hearings was adopted by Council.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (203 Pembina Street) Bylaw No. 8425, 2024 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (203 Pembina Street) No. 8435, 2024
These Bylaws that enable construction of six townhouse units at 203 Pembina Street and designate an Oak Tree as a heritage trees was adopted by Council.

Parks and Recreation Fees Amendment Bylaw No. 8465, 2024
This Bylaw that amends our Parks and Recreation fees (after comparison to other Lower Mainland communities – which is relevant to a later motion) was adopted unanimously by Council.

Riparian Areas Protection Bylaw Miscellaneous Amendment Bylaw No. 8468, 2024
These Bylaws that update the language of our RAP Bylaw to comply with Provincial language was adopted by Council.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8469, 2024
Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8470, 2024
These bylaws that simplify our ticketing an fining bylaw were adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1005 Ewen Avenue) No. 8452, 2024
This Bylaw that permits the development of 23 townhouse and duplex units and a commercial building in Queensborough was adopted by Council.

Zoning amendment Bylaw (1923 and 1927 Marine Way) No.8466, 2024
This Bylaw that permits the construction of a 90-unit affordable housing building near 22nd Street Station was adopted by Council.

Then we had three Motions from Council:

Enhancing Commercial Areas and Corridors in New Westminster
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS The City’s Retail Strategy identifies current and emerging trends in the retail ecosystem, namely Micro Retailing and Combination Stores, and the Retail Strategy further underscores that both retail concepts have direct positive implications on the evolution of commercial areas and corridors in New Westminster; and
WHEREAS Micro-Retailing includes multiple vendors ‘co-locating’ in a shared space, utilizing shared resources or may encompass individual retail units that are much smaller than the average, with the intention to provide entry-level ‘gateway’ for small businesses to establish a bricks-and mortar location, without the financial requirements and risks typically expected in a standard retail lease; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The City of New Westminster identify potential location(s), operating considerations, necessary resources and local partners to activate Combination Stores and Micro-Retailing commercial areas using shipping containers or similar concept to create a retail ecosystem that provides small businesses, artists, artisans, crafters and other vendors with affordable storefront locations and, at the same time, enhances commercial areas and corridors in New Westminster, with a report back to council on implementation feasibility.

This is an idea supported by our Retail Strategy, and discussed at and supported by the Arts Culture and Economic Development Committee. It also supports the nurturing of small local entrepreneurs by reducing risk and cost for set up, especially at a time where commercial lease rates are making it more difficult to find a place to start a brick and mortar operation in the City. The part I’m not sure about is what the role of the City is other than making sure we have a supportive permitting process, so I look forward to the reporting back form staff now that this was approved by Council.

Determine fee structure of New West business licenses and park and recreation programs compared to other Metro Vancouver cities
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS it is important for New West families and businesses to be charged fees for licenses, programs and services that are in line with other Metro Vancouver cities; and
WHEREAS there is no readily available and up-to-data analysis regarding how much our fees compare to other neighbouring municipalities; and
WHEREAS we strive to make New Westminster as affordable and competitive as possible;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to conduct a review of business license fees to determine how we compare to other Metro Vancouver cities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to conduct a review of the charges and fees imposed by the Parks and Recreation Department for similar programs and services that are also delivered in other Metro Vancouver cities. The review should encompass core services such as: a. Annual gym pass; b. Swimming passes; c. Exercise classes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this information be incorporated and provided to the public as part of the 2025/26 budgeting process.

This motion completely baffles me. I don’t know how to square it with paying attention in Council meetings over the last two years. Because this motion asks for us to do things we already do every year, including in the most recent Council meeting in July. This seems like something I can unpack a but more in my next Newsletter, but here’s a quick timeline with links to the relevant public reports:

June 12, 2023 we received a report on the process to adjust Parks and Recreation fees, including this quote: “This will align the resulting proposed fees with the City’s comparative neighbours and keep costs relatively similar for residents who may have utilized services in those communities”. That report was approved unanimously by this Council.

July 10, 2023 Council reviewed and voted to update fees based on the process approved above, with the report including a spreadsheet comparing our fees to comparative municipalities, prior to 2024 Budget adoption.

July 8, 2024 Council received a report on the 2024 fee schedule, including this quote: “The annual staff review of existing fees and comparative data from neighbouring municipalities suggests relatively few modifications are required to the existing Parks and Recreation bylaw.” an attachment entitled “Comparative Municipal Analysis of Admission and Pass Fees” was included in that report.

Aug 26, 2024 (this very meeting!) Council unanimously adopted the new fee schedule informed by the above report.

On the business licence side, this is a work item identified as part of the 2024 work plan for our Economic Development department and was included in the resource ask for 2024 budget enhancements in the December 11th and January 22nd workshop reports. Progress on the work was reported back in April to the Arts, Culture and Economic Development Advisory Committee, of which the mover of this motion is a member. The Agenda and the minutes of the meeting where this was discussed are online with a spreadsheet comparing our Biz License fees to cohort municipalities.

So this motion asks staff to do again what it just did, or are already doing. I simply don’t understand how someone present at Council meetings could be unaware of this, and just what they thought they were voting for when they raised their hand to support those several reports previously received. Its baffling, and perhaps a bit concerning. Council did not support the motion, it being redundant.

Provide long-term funding to support the Walking School Bus Program to support the City’s stated goal of tackling climate change
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Walking School Bus program reduces vehicle congestion around schools, greenhouse gas emissions as well as improves air quality in communities; and
WHEREAS the Walking School Bus program improves a student’s physical and mental health; creates an opportunity to make new friends through shared experiences; provides an inherent sense of belonging in being a part of a group; and
WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has a longstanding commitment to tackle climate change; and
WHEREAS the City’s Climate Action Reserve Fund has approximately $42 million as of Dec. 31, 2023;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with the New Westminster District Parent Advisory Council, Society of Children and Youth, TransLink and SD 40 to seek out opportunities to expand the Walking School Bus program to other neighourhoods throughout New Westminster; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT to reduce the impact to residential taxpayers regarding the expansion of this program, that the City’s Climate Action Reserve Fund decision-making framework be applied, and that potential partnership funds be sought from the School District, Translink, and/or senior government(s) before the City commit to long-term funding, and that the Society of Children and Youth be directed towards the City Grant application process.

I wrote the motion here as it was amended through a lengthy discussion at the Council meeting. The Walking School Bus is a good program run as a pilot at a half dozen schools in the Lower Mainland (two in New West) by the Society for Children and Youth of BC, with support from the City, the School District and TransLink. There is some uncertainty about its longer-term funding, never mind how we might fund an expansion of the program. It is important that we connect with the people whose program it is before we start barging in with changes, which is the nature of the amendments brought forward.

Council voted unanimously to support this, and will reach out to the partners operating the program and find potential funding sources.

And that was the end of business for a shortish agenda. Hopefully you get to go out and grab one more sunny long weekend of summer before we are back in the whirlwind of September.