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.

Patrick Johnstone

Fan of cities; Mayor of a great one.

Month: October 2024

Columbia Square

Council – Oct 21, 2024

This Happened – September

Council – October 7, 2024