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.