Author: Patrick Johnstone

Council, May 11, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

May is a busy month for many reasons, and we had a lot of delegates at Council this week talking about some of the fun activities over the next couple of weeks that will make it busier. But our Council agenda was way less fun that that, starting with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw No. 6926, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8556, 2026
When the City changes Business Regulations, we generally have a Public Hearing-like process. Not a true “Public Hearing” (those are regulated differently under the Local Government Act) but an opportunity for businesses impacted by the regulatory change to make presentations to Council about the regulation. As our proposed bylaw around protecting tenant from heat is a business regulation, we had an opportunity to make representations. We received two pieces of correspondence (one supportive, one expressing concerns but not strictly opposed), and no-one came to present to council on the topic.

We approved the following items On Consent:

2025 Financial Statements
We are required, under Section 167(1) of the Community Charter to provide financial statements to the Province which outline our current financial position and a review of our books for the previous year. These statements have been audited and we received “clean” audit (nothing untoward was found by the independent Auditor), and our books are in pretty good shape.

The City has $414 Million in financial assets, mostly this is in our reserves. Our reserves have gone down ever so slightly (less than 0.2%) since the end of last year, but we have been building a lot this year, and reserves are there to support this capital investment. Our liabilities amount to just under $307 Million, which includes our long-term debt, which has gone down 6% to $150 Million. Overall, our net financial position is $139M in the black. Our Accumulated Surplus is over $1.1 Billion, but the largest portion of that is $952 Million in Tangible Capital Assets (buildings, roads, pipes, and computers).

When it comes to the operations side, we collected a little more (1.4% more) revenue than anticipated, due to increased utility revenue (new people moving to town), more recreation revenue as TACC is filling up, and timing of grant revenue from senior governments. Meanwhile we spent a little (2%) under what we anticipated, mostly in salary savings as hiring has been slower than anticipated, offset a bit by higher costs to deliver utility and recreation services (see increased revenue above).

We are in good shape overall, though we are still in the growing-reserves phase and have a lot of capital spending in the next few years. Nothing a few senior government grants couldn’t help with!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Transit Oriented Development Area Extensions and Regional Planning
We previously met the “letter of the law” when it comes to provincial regulatory changes for housing approvals, specifically Bill 47 changes to encourage higher-density use around SkyTrain stations (“Transit Oriented Development” or TOD). We are now looking at changes based on our extensive public consultation process to meet the spirit of the law, and make it fit better into the New West context. The conical results of the TOD regulations don’t fit smoothly into a rectangular street grid, existing subdivision and neighbourhood patterns, or topography, so we are adjusting the edges of those circles to make the results more practical and logical. This means changes to the Official Community Plan impacting about 100 properties.

We are also drafting a new Regional Context statement that aligns with the Regional Growth Strategy, and integrates our Community Energy and Emissions Plan to the OCP, to meet Metro Vancouver requirements. These changes are subject to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments on them until then to respect that process. If you have opinions, let us know!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of the Infill Housing Program
We have also met, as an interim, the letter of the Law for changes under Bill 44 (“Single Site Multi Unit Housing” – SSMUH) but had significant work to do, both technically and in community consultation, to make these changes fit the New Westminster context, including the heritage Conservation Area in Queen Park. We received support from the Federal Government under the Housing Accelerator Fund to do more detailed work on infill density, and are ready now to take these bylaw changes to Public Hearing.

These OCP and Zoning Bylaw changes would impact about 3,000 residential properties, not those in the TOD area (above), not those covered by previous townhouse implementation, and not those in Queensborough (as there are extra engineering works we need to do to deal with drainage and sewer works to implement these changes there). Based on the Provincial regulations, some would now permit fourplex (about 1,900 properties), some sixplex (about 1,100 properties), depending on their location relative to Frequent Transit, and depending on if they can make the Development Permit guidelines (height, density, setbacks, etc.) work on their lot.

Again, these Bylaws will be subject to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments until then to respect the process.

Metro 2050 Type 2 Amendment Application: City of Maple Ridge (North 256 Street Industrial Lands Area Plan)
Greater Vancouver has a regional plan. Much like our Official Community Plan, the region has a master plan for growth that reflects and is reflected in our 21 individual Official Community Plans (see “Regional Context Statement” two items above). Making significant changes in that plan, even at the local level, requires some regional buy-in. This is because the region shares a water supply, sewer systems, a transportation system, and an airshed. Changes in Maple Ridge impact us, and changes in New West impact Maple Ridge.

The Regional Growth Strategy includes an “Urban Containment Boundary”, a tool to permit intensified urban growth within the already built-up area within a fixed boundary, but requiring regional buy-in before expanding that UCB, or building more intensive land use outside the UCB. There are practical reasons for this (running sewer and water and roads and transit to far flung regions is expensive) and less tangible reasons (plowing down greenspace, covering farmland, impacting protected watersheds makes our region less resilient).

This application from Maple Ridge is to shift an area outside the UCB to more intensive industrial use. Much of it has already been industrialized (and old gravel pit and newer light industrial properties), though much of it is still relatively pristine forest and watershed with significant ecological values. The proposal will preserve some high ecological value areas for the long term, but does represent a significant shift in the UCB but for purposes that are aligned with the spirit of the regional plan (intensifying existing industrial space in a region lacking in it). Following staff’s advice, we are sending a note to Metro Vancouver expressing some concerns but not strongly opposing the application, in the hopes that the Regional Board will take those concerns into consideration and evaluate efforts by Maple Ridge to mitigate those concerns.

Metro 2050 Type 2 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (Hazelmere)
This proposal is similar to the above in process, but the proposal is quite different. Surrey applied to have these mostly green rural properties added to the Urban Containment Boundary a decade ago and was firmly turned down for a variety of good reasons. Here they are returning with exactly the same application, and have provided no good reason for us to agree now. The proposal is to build a neighbourhood of low-density single family homes near the US border a long way from the nearest edge of the Urban Containment Boundary, never mind sewers and pipes. This has all the negative impact of intensifying land our in rural areas (costs uploaded to government, environmental impact) while providing no regional benefits whatsoever (the region isn’t really lacking single family homes), and flies in the face of the regional plan. The City is sending a letter opposing this application, hoping the board at Metro Vancouver (at least 34% of them, as this change requires a 2/3 vote of the Board.

Updated Approach to Setting Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges and Access and Inclusion Policy
We update our fees and charges bylaw for recreation every year, this time staff want to have a bit of a review of how we do that work. Part is to make sure we are being fair and inclusive, including how we apply our financial assistance program. There is a structured approach here – with some programs with great public benefit (e.g. children’s swim lessons) receiving higher taxpayer subsidy than programs that only benefit a few individuals (e.g. private or specialized training). Overlaying these principles is the recognition that parks and recreation services are subsidized by the taxpayer – and cannot be 100% cost recovery if we hope for them to be accessible. We also have an inclusion policy that seeks to remove economic barrier to participation for everyone in the community who might need this support.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Response to Council Motion: Implications of Housing Legislation on Curbside Management
This is about parking, but a lot more, because the curbside is some of the most valuable land in the City, but people tend to care most about it when they want to park there. With the introduction of some new provincial housing regulation, our system of managing residential parking is going to need an update. If we are required to permit higher-density housing and will not be able to require off-street parking for much of it, people are going to expect that they can use public space for parking their vehicle, and there will be a commons problem, because we simply don’t have enough public space for everyone to park a car on, and there are many other demands for that public space that serve the common good better than the storage of private chattel, such as loading zones, mobility lanes, bus stops, etc.

Developing new policy here is going to be a complicated technical project, and will require extensive consultation with neighbourhoods. Staff is going to start the process working with consultants and have estimated about $200,000 for the technical work and the public consultation, which staff will include in the 2027 budget. Expect quite the public discussion around this over the next year or more, as this work progresses. And if you are really interested, here’s the book you need to read. Yes, 800 pages of parking policy, and it’s glorious!

New Media Gallery Environmental Scan Results and Next Steps for Exhibition Program
The New Media Gallery has been on a bit of a hiatus for a year since the previous Director-Curator team left the City for other opportunities. The space has been used with our Artist-in-Residence program, and in supporting the very popular learning lab in the Anvil Centre. Meanwhile, the opportunity of the hiatus was to do an environmental scan and determine the best course for both the Gallery as an operation, and the Gallery as a space. This is the result of that work.

The analysis confirmed that the New Media Gallery is a unique and highly valued gallery offering locally and on the regional arts scene. A unique offering, as the only gallery in the region (and one of the few in Western Canada) concentrating on new media arts, and as a result it was one of the most popular galleries in the Lower Mainland during its first ten years of operation. This not only provides a valuable cultural asset contributing to New Westminster’s civic identity, it is also a contributor to the Downtown economic and cultural vitality. The decision by Council is to continue operating the Gallery within the existing budget, and start the search for a new director.

We then had two Motions from Council:

New West Schools and City of New Westminster Joint Working Group Terms of Reference
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS the New West Schools and City of New Westminster joint working group is a forum for collaboration on issues that impact the City, District, and community
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the working group Terms of Reference be amended to include three representatives from the School Board in alignment with the three representatives from the City.

We have a joint working group of City Council and School Board that help coordinate between the two bodies on things like new school sites, joint use agreements, and other areas of common interest. The group (through the Chair) has asked that the Term of Reference be adjusted to make it more equitable between the two bodies.

Consultation with Railway Association of Canada: 502 Twentieth Street
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS new information has been provided to Council by the Railway Association of Canada and several rail operators regarding the potential safety risks posed by the installation of a Tiny Home village adjacent to active rail lines; and
WHEREAS the railway companies indicate they were not adequately consulted prior to the approval of BC Housing’s Tiny Home village; and
WHEREAS Council’s top priority should be that we receive all critical information necessary to make decisions that may impact the safety of New Westminster residents – prior to a final decision being made
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff on an urgent basis to coordinate a public meeting within 30 days whereby we invite the Railway Association of Canada and other affected rail operators to present their concerns regarding safety issues pertaining to the installation of the new Tiny Home village in our West End.

Council has received correspondence from the Rail Association of Canada, and an adjacent railway operator about the Tiny Homes Village proposal. This has precipitated the City coordinating meetings between the RAC and BC Housing so their concerns can be addressed. As BC Housing is developing the Operations Plan, and is setting up the terms through which an operator will operate the village – these safety plans are a vital and important part of this. RACs request is that BC Housing develop a Rail Safety Plan, and BC Housing has confirmed to us that both a Rail safety assessment and an industrial Safety Plan will be undertaken, and BC Housing intends to convene a meeting with all stakeholders to review those findings and determine next steps collaboratively, as the safety of the operation of the site is paramount for its success.

So this motion is somewhat redundant to the work that is ongoing (and yes, the Councillor who moved this motion has all the information I have about this) so Council amended the motion above from “direct staff…” to “request BC Housing…” so the right people are doing the work, and increased the timeline to better coincide with the existing work. In short, Council unanimously agreed to ask BC Housing to do what it is already doing because we have already made this request of BC Housing. But, hey, politics.

We had one Bylaw for Adoption:

Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8576, 2026
This Bylaw that formally sets property taxation rates for 2026 was adopted by Council.

And we had a single item of New Business:

Motion for reconsideration – 800 Queens Ave
This is a bit of a deep dive, but let me keep it simple. The building of a new school at Simcoe Park needs a Development Variance Permit as it is bigger than anticipated (yeah! Building for growth!) and there are some parking and other requirements that need to be addressed. The province has the power to override the need for a DVP if conflict arises, but the School Board and Council (through the Joint Working Group – see above) are working well, and the DVP is not causing any specific delay, so we are following the normal path. At the same time, the City and the School District are working on a new Joint Use Agreement framework. Simcoe Park is heavily used by the existing Fraser Middle, and will see more use with the upcoming elementary school, and there are other spaces belonging to the City that the school will impacts during construction and ongoing, so it is good practice for the two governing bodies to clarify join use, rights and responsibilities. The City agreed recently that the Joint Use Agreement itself (which involves lawyers and such on both sides) might take too much time and muck up works, so agreed to co-develop the framework for the JUA (that is, the terms of the JUA at a principles level, without specific agreement language) prior to the DVP being issued. This Framework has been completed and agreed to by the City. So there is no reason to tie it to the DVP, and it is easiest to simply rescind the requirement for the JUA, and not have its language mucking up the DVP approval that is just around the corner. That’s all a complicated way of saying the School Board and the City are working well together to get the new School approved and develop new Joint Use Agreements for not just this school, but others in the district. The Working Group has been earning their pay!

And with that good feeling, another Council meeting comes to an end

Scar tissue

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

There’s this is podcast that I’ve been listening to for several years called the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe. It’s a science podcast, talks mostly about science-y stuff, but it’s also about critical thinking, misinformation, and about skepticism as a practice.

Even the word “skeptic” itself needs to be defined clearly in polite conversation, because the misinformation merchants have made lucrative the disingenuous “do your own research” line of cynicism which is conflated with skepticism. The best definition I’ve heard is skepticism is the marriage of scientific method and consumer protection, personified by the approaches of James Randy (a reformed magician who turned his career into teaching people about how your own mind fools itself) and Carl Sagan (who turned his immense scientific knowledge and talents into public education and the generation of wonder).

But this isn’t about the podcast. If you like that stuff, listen to it. If you don’t, go back to Joe Rogan. I raise it because there was a recent episode where they talked about the regrowing of limbs, and the shifting scientific understanding of why some animals, like the axolotl and some salamanders, can regrow entire limbs. While other animals, like mice, for example, can grow back single digits if they’re cut off, and humans have very limited ability to do this. Apparently, we can replace a fingertip, and it will usually grow back fine as long as the nail bed remains intact. Take it past that first phalange, though, and no luck. And it’s not just limbs, but also organs. We can rebuild our livers from a relatively small amount of tissue, but not so much with our hearts. There are different limits with different animals.

Turns out there is a lot of recent research about why this is, at least partly to determine if modern medical technology could allow us to grow back severed limbs or organs. There are a few different ideas about how to undertake this as a bio-engineering exercise, but again, I don’t want to talk about that here. It’s just that in podcast I learned something new (sorry medical folks out there for whom this is obvious and perhaps for my brutal simplification). There are specific sets of genes (SP6 and SP8) that encode for growing new or replacement limbs, and humans carry those genes. Our common ancestors with the salamander and the mouse had them, and they carry on with us because they are an important part of embryonic development. But in humans they are shut off at some point, which probably prevents cancer and other bad things. Meanwhile, there are other genes that we have that are turned on that are responsible for growing scar tissue.

Not all animals are like humans, in that when we get a serious injury, our body’s first reaction to that serious injury is to grow scar tissue over the injured space, so that the wound can seal itself,  so that we can cut off infection, and so that the body can adapt to its new reality in more effective and probably efficient way. Turns out that growing scar tissue, from all of its benefits, is the very thing that cuts off the ability for your body to grow the limb back in its stead.

Sometime back in our mammal or primate developmental history, the forces of evolution decided that like most mammals, and in most cases, the growing of scar tissue instead of replacement limbs is the survival advantage that was selected for. And that’s the long preamble to what I want to talk about.

I’m not having a good time right now. There are some things going on right now where the work I’m doing and the place I’m in is wearing me down. I was recently at a conference talking with other local government leaders from around the region, and so many of them were also feeling this wearing down. Some were handling it better than others. I’ve always been in the former; right now I’m in the latter.

The common phrase we use around this kind of burnout, especially when it relates to elected officials, is “you have to grow a thick skin.”

Scar tissue.

I’m wondering if scar tissue is really the best way for us to heal when we’re losing pieces of ourselves. Maybe if we get past that idea, turn off the scar tissue meme and turn on the regrowth one, we can actually restore what we are losing? Why should the ability to thicken your skin – to grow a scar – be necessary? What is the opportunity cost of putting all that energy into scar tissue? Without change, even the scars are word thin, and what are you left with?

I was walking through Uptown today and ran into a young friend who has had a tough path for a few years, with their self-recognition and confidence and place in the world. But in the last year or so, I’ve watched them blossom into a confident and reflective young man. I was walking n bad mood, spiraling in my own stresses and self-doubt, grumbling down the street with the whole world feeling like a thundercloud out in front of me. I was building scar tissue.  After 5 minutes of talking to them, I felt something different. Maybe inspired. I didn’t see their scar tissue, I saw their regeneration – still an ongoing project for them, still hard much of the time I’m sure (ugh, High School) but they are doing good.

I walked away thinking “fuck scar tissue” and maybe building a thick skin is nothing to be proud of. Maybe I can do better and strive for regeneration. That way there will be more limbs to do the lifting, more hearts to do the caring, as we continue in the work of stopping the harms in the first place.

Take care of each other out there, folks.

Council – April 27, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Another Monday night special edition! Our Council meeting was a fairly quick one, with significantly more time spent on Public Delegations than the business of the City. The Agenda was actually quite short, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t consequential. We started by approving the following items On Consent:

Appointment of Financial Officer
We have a new Chief Financial Officer starting, and as this is one of those “officer” jobs that has defined duties under the Community Charter, and though they are hired by the CAO, they must be appointed to those specific duties by Council. This is that motion to do so.

Extension of Programs to Serve Isolated Seniors Funded by the United Way
The City has successfully applied for grant funding from the Untied Way to support three programs to help older adults in the community stay healthy and connected. This follows on the successful application last year that resulted in $245,000 being invested locally for Social Meals at community centers, Seniors Community Connectors, and Volunteer Coordinator programs in the City. The new funding ($470,000) will support continuation of these programs for two more years. This is good news for seniors in need in our community.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2026 Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8576, 2026
Section 165 of the Community Charter, requires municipalities to adopt the Financial Plan Bylaw (Which we did on February 23), and Section 197 of the Community Charter requires municipalities to adopt the Tax Rate Bylaw before May 15th of each year. After 6 months of meetings on the Budget – more than a dozen open Council meetings and workshops (the most transparent budgeting process of any local government in BC), we need to set the tax rates based on the change of property values presented by the BC Assessment Authority. This is a motion that falls under the category of “Fiduciary Duties”, so voting against this after 6 months of having no creative solutions to make this result different is an example of performative politics, not leadership.

Many people still don’t understand how the amount of property tax they pay relates to their property value. Though taxes are based on property value, the amount you pay depends on your property value relative to the other properties in the city. This year assessments City-wide went down a bit (3.1%), though your personal experience may vary. Here is a post I wrote about this a few years ago, the numbers are different this year, but the process is the same.

Procedural Information – Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Amendment Bylaw No. 8556
Back in March, we passed first three readings of our new Business Licence Bylaw amendments to regulate maximum temperatures in rental apartments. As part of the process of moving to adoption of those bylaws, we consulted with the Medical Health Officer at Fraser Health on the specific language of the Bylaw (we had consulted with Public Health and received endorsement of the bylaw as a concept earlier, this is more a specific language check it). The recommendation is to expand the Bylaw somewhat to be in effect for an extra month, and some minor language changes that don’t impact the Bylaw in operation. We are making those changes (which requires rescinding earlier readings and moving reading of the amended bylaw). There were some further recommendations that would require somewhat more work to adopt, so Council moved to refer these recommendations back to staff to consider the implications prior to Council considering adding them to the Bylaw.

Update to the 2026 General Local Elections Plan
Our New Elections Officer is making some recommendations on how to change how the election operates in the fall. With more advance polling opportunities, they are recommending reducing the number of locations on election day to13, and re-allocating staff to the remaining 13 to make it more efficient. Council didn’t think this was a good look, or at least didn’t have the data to support reducing the number of stations, so voted to keep the number as is.

And we had one item of New Business:

Rezoning Application: 140 Sixth Street (Royal Towers) – Amenity Framework
The Royal Towers is a long-standing project of concern in the City, a building that is past its useful life, falling apart as we watch, but is also providing (unsecured) affordable rental housing to more than 100 people. I mean unsecured, because there is no guarantee that those units will remain rented, and their rents are not controlled, but because of the nature and age of the building, they represent the lower end of market rents in the City. There is a desire to replace the aging Royal Towers with new buildings, but we also do not want to displace the people living in them and add to the homelessness crisis.

Here is the deal the owner of the property is trying to make work: Build a new building where the parkade currently sits and secure this as non-market affordable housing. Allow the people living in the current building first right of refusal on that new affordable housing at below-market rates similar to what they currently pay. No-one gets made homeless. Also build a second building to the west of similar sizer and scale that is purpose-built but market rental. Then knock down the old Towers building and build market condos with a couple of floors of commercial (retail/office at grade to pay for it all. The City get housing, the current residents are protected. Win-win.

A small problem is that the changes the Province instituted in how Cities negotiate amenities mean this project simply cannot move forward after June 30th. We need to approve that by then before the new rules kick in, or the City is required to collect ACC charges, the financial benefit that funds the affordable housing component goes away, and to put a finer point on it our ability as a City to demand the relocation of affordable housing goes away. Bill 46 folks.

Staff have been working with the owner of the property to save this project, and in this report we set out the amenity conditions that will define the deal between the owner and the City that Council will need to consider before June 30th. This is not final approval of the project; there is a *lot* more to the rezoning application than just this amenity deal (use of commercial space, DCC charges, design and density, etc.) but putting the amenity deal down on paper allows the owner and city staff to agree on a set of economic fundamentals that will make the project viable or not, and to inform the Bylaws Council will eventually have to approve or not.

Council of Councils

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Last weekend, Metro Vancouver held its Council of Councils. This is a the twice-a-year meeting where all members of City Councils from the 21 member municipalities, the representative from Area A, and the Council of the Tsawwassen First Nation are invited to come together to learn about what is happening at Metro Vancouver, and ask the various Board Members and staff of Metro Vancouver pretty much anything they want.

The Board of Metro Vancouver has 41 members, all elected members of local Councils. The sum total of elected Mayors and Councillors regionally is ~160, so the Council of Councils (“CofC”) gives the 75% of local elected officials in the region who are not on the Board a chance to connect and provide feedback on important issues. At this April CofC meeting, about 120 members (75%) exercised that option, including 5 members of New Westminster Council.

The topic of this CofC may have interested those who chose to not show up, as it was dominated by discussion of Metro Vancouver governance review, a topic and area of work some members of our Council have spent a bunch of time talking to CKNW and Global News about, but have so far failed to actually show up when there is work to be done or progress upon which to provide feedback. No lights and Cameras, just action.

The External Review of Metro Vancouver governance performed by Deloitte (report here) made 47 recommendations on improved governance, reporting, transparency and function. Of those, 20 recommendations have already been undertaken, and 14 more are underway. There is a Governance Committee leading this work, and they have created an on-line progress tracking dashboard so interested members of the Public (or interested City Councillors) can follow along as this work is completed.

There was quite a bit of discussion this meeting about the fundamentals of the board structure. There are currently 41 members of the main GVRD Board based on Provincial legislation that provides one Board member for every member municipality, and one vote at the board for every 20,000 population, but limits any one member of the board to 5 votes. What this functionally means is that New Westminster with a little under 80,000 people (as per last census) has one representative who gets 4 votes. Coquitlam gets 8 votes, so they need two members if each person cannot have more than 5. Vancouver’s population-weighted 34 votes necessitate seven members on the Board.

There are several methods proposed to reduce this number, from limiting board seats to one per membership municipality (reducing the Board to 23 members) and keep the vote allocation the same, or capping members per City to three (34 members). There was the idea to increase the vote population threshold to 25,000 (reduces board members to 36) or allow 7 votes per member (34 members). Of course, combinations of the above are also possible. One of the reasons this is relevant right now is that the current formula requires that the number of board members to increase with population after the next Census, and there is pretty much no-one who thinks the Board to too small.

The Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Board has the same structure as the GVRD Board (and the same members), while the Water District Board and Sewerage and Drainage District Board each use the same voting and membership structure, but are smaller only because not every municipality are members of these Boards. There is an overall desire to reduce the size and complexity of these boards as well, and some discussion of hybrid Boards with subject matter experts (that is, non-elected people with specific water and sewer utility expertise) working alongside elected folks. This would obviously require some significant changes of Provincial regulations. Making change before the new Board is struck after the October election would be ideal.

All this to say the conversation is active and ongoing, as is determining what can be done with a simple Order in Council and what would require new Provincial Legislation. Watching the meeting and hearing the feedback, it’s clear that the members of the Board are aligned around making changes that reduce the complexity and size of the Board, but there are details to work out and talk through in a transparent and accountable way, led by external guidance and based on good governance principles. But that’s too boring to be newsworthy.

There was also discussion at the CofC meeting about a new phased approach to delivery of the require-by-legislation replacement of the Iona Wastewater Treatment Plant which should save ratepayers several hundreds of millions of dollars (in the medium-term), and about a new “re-pacing” of infrastructure DCCs which is a result of Development Industry lobbying and blows a $400 Million hole in the long-term capital budget for Metro Vancouver. I’d suggest these are both issues deserving of some media scrutiny. You can watch the entire CofC meeting here.

Chief Rhonda

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Sunday there was a public memorial service for Rhonda Larrabee, and it was incredible to see how the community showed up. Elected folks from all three orders of government (and more than a few former electeds!), leaders form other First Nations, business and social service organizations, institutions from the police to fire to post-secondary education. The room was full, and all there to pay respects to a person whose name has been synonymous with New Westminster for three decades.

I was asked to say some words, and it was one of the hardest things I have had to write speaking notes around. It is hard to know how to balance speaking about Chief Larrabee the Legend and Rhonda the person, because they were both there in the room with us. But as the Mayor I wanted to assure I spoke mostly about what Chief Larrabee meant to the City and the community, why it was that this one woman filled the commons area of NWSS with so many people after her passing. Here is a bit of a summary of my thoughts from the day.

As a relative newcomer to New Westminster, I have never known a New Westminster without Rhonda. She has always been present – always here to remind us of her history, of her family’s history, of all of our histories. Rhonda was also always there to bless the people and organizations doing good work in this community. There is simply no-one else, certainly not my lifetime, who has had as large an impact on New Westminster as Rhonda, who has touched as many lives as Rhonda.

Her goal was to reclaim her Nation and her history, but in doing that with equal parts strength and grace, she helped this historic and most colonial of cities redefine how we see ourselves. Through that she made us a stronger and more just community. And right to the end, in our last conversation just a couple of weeks ago, she reminded me we have much more work to do.

She showed us a path and she raised strong daughters to carry the torch. There are now four generations of QayQayt members who are here to assure that legacy is not lost. In this way she achieved her life’s goal: honoring her mother, marking her grandparents place on these lands, and assuring that her ancestors are not forgotten.

One legacy she leaves behind is that every school child in New Westminster over the last decade grew up knowing words Qay Qayt. Knowing what it means in the literal sense as “resting place”, but also understanding that it means that there is a deeper history to this place and there are traditional keepers of this land – not in the distant past, but here with us today.

As those children grow older, they learn how Rhonda’s family was separated from this land, how Rhonda was separated from her own family’s past, and they learn the story of a single powerful and brave woman who made it her life’s work to rebuild those connections. That itself is an inspiration – believe in yourself and your power to make change thought strong convictions. A Tribe of One can change the world.

The Legend of Chief Rhonda Larrabee will go on, and I am certain will grow over time. At the same time, there was a mosaic of photos and words form the family to help us all spend some time thinking about Rhonda the warm and caring human being. The proud Mom and Grandma (and great grandma and auntie), the softball player, the seamstress, the dancer and fan of classic rock (Elvis!), the companion and the friend.

I feel lucky to have known Rhonda, to have broken much bread with her at dinners and events, to have been the recipient of her advice, of her occasional chiding, of her forgiveness and her grace, and I have incredible gratitude for the kindness she showed me.

Rhonda gave a great gift to this community, and I hope us all holding in our hearts the inspiration of her story and the joyful memories of our times together is the gift we all give back to her.

Council – April 13, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This week was our semi-annual (Biannual? Two times a year?) migration to Queensborough Community Centre for a Council meeting that crosses the gap. We had a fairly short Agenda that started (after a half dozen public delegations) with a Presentation:

təməsew̓txʷ Aquatic and Community Centre Project Close-Out Report
This report ends the Capital project phase of the construction of təməsew̓txʷ, the largest single capital project in the City’s history. The community centre has been open for two years now, but the capital project didn’t end at opening as there was significant fitting out, working with the project delivery team to button up deficiencies and training on operational details. It also allowed a full year of operational evaluation after the initial launch and buffer time when operations and public use patterns were being established. We now are into standard operations for the next 50+ years, so a good time to provide a full reporting out.

The big headline news is that the building was very close to being completed on time (a few months late due to extra time needed for geotechnical work one the excavation started), and actually came home slightly under budget (We budgeted $114M, spent just under $113M). These are remarkable feats considering the context of the procurement occurring during the early days of COVID, and construction occurring through challenging geotechnical conditions, a regional concrete strike, supply chain disruptions and massive construction inflation related to COVID and the realignment of global trade. There is also some significant comfort in knowing that waiting out COVID uncertainties and starting the project a year later would have near doubled project costs, as we are seeing in other similar-scaled recreation projects across the Lower Mainland right now.

The project has won numerous awards, provincially, nationally, and internationally, and though the global architecture prize got the most media, it is the dozens of awards for design, function, accessibility and environmental performance that are most exciting – the building is being noted regionally and across the country for how it delivers service, how the vision of a “community meeting place” worked out, how accessible the various functions of the building are, and how being the first Zero Carbon certified aquatic centre in Canada not only saves the City a tonne of operational money and reduces GHG emissions over the long term, but how this building helped develop the guidelines for Zero Carobn community centres across the country moving forward – New Westminster lifted the bar for environmental performance nationally with this building.

Meanwhile, the centre is serving three times the number of people as the combined facilities it replaced, with more than 1 million visits in the last year, and surveys of the visiting public are overwhelmingly positive. The operational capacity of the pools are much higher than the single pool they replaced, and community space more than double that of the Centennial Community Centre. Looking back at the feasibility of the pool that was developed in 2017, təməsew̓txʷ meets and exceeds every expectation. There were some challenges and learnings along the way, and the massive popularity of the facility means we are still dealing with some issues mostly related to unanticipated usage levels (partly related to Burnaby projects being delayed!) but “too many people” is the best problem to have when you open something new.

The following items were approved On Consent:

Application to Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund: Urban Forestry Plans and Studies
We had a delegate come to speak about how they appreciated the investment the City is making in new trees and biodiversity, and I tend to agree, but want to note that we have been really successful at getting Federal Government grants for much of this work – well over $2 Million already. This is a report outlining an application we are making to Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) Green Municipal Fund to support further work in this area.

Appointment of Interim Corporate Officer
The Corporate Officer is one of those jobs that has legislative responsibilities, and must be appointed by Council, there are some staff changes going on and we are appointing the Assistant Corporate Officer serve in an Interim role.

Community Advisory Assembly Updates and Recommendations on the Future Role of Libraries
This is a reporting back from the Community Advisory assembly on how the community views the roles of libraries in the present and future. After deliberating, they reported out to the Library Board, and are now reporting to Council.

This was an interesting discussion, as we all acknowledge Libraries are more than just book repositories, and serve a variety of functions in the community. However, the question for the Assembly is how the community (as opposed to the Library Staff, Board, or City) see that evolving role. This is especially timely as the Library is undergoing a Facilities Master Plan right now (see details and survey results here, and there has been increasing discussion of how to make new public spaces available in the Downtown along with realignment of the existing downtown community spaces, and a Downtown Library Branch is part of that discussion.

There are recommendations here worth reading if you are interested in Libraries! And who isn’t?

Issuance of Development Variance Permit for 430 Ninth Street
There is a 29-unit apartment building near Moody Park that is undergoing significant renovation from the envelope in. They propose to replace some redundant parking spaces with a couple more apartments, and as this would mean their parking is short of zoning requirements, they are willing to enter a Housing Agreement with the City to secure rental tenure for all 31 apartments. The requirement is for 19 spaces, and they will have 16 – variance of three parking spaces means 2 more homes, and secure housing for 31 families, which seems like a pretty good balance.

Retail Strategy Implementation: Active Streets Initiative – Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
There has been some work over the last year around The Dentist Issue. That’s a bit of a tongue-in-cheek reference to public concern that every new retail space is seeming to host a dentist office. There are a bunch of microeconomic reason for this, and cities always have to be cautious when wading into restricting specific business types, but recognizing that business supports business and vibrant streets mean a mix of business types that make streets interesting, and that there are lots of opportunities on second stories and above for medical and services, staff have put together some policies to encourage more active space use at grade in business areas. This is codified in the City through zoning bylaws, which can limit the types of activities that take place within retail spaces. It also allows business owners to apply for rezoning to allow a different use, but it definitely discourages dentists in every spot.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Development Permit Area Guidelines Update: Official Community Plan Amendment Consultation Requirements
The City is working on some Development Permit Guidelines to include in our Official Community Plan after the updates we undertook to comply with Provincial Housing Legislation. When we update the OCP, we have a legislative requirement to consult with many organizations outside of the city. This report reviews the organizations that we plan to consult with to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act. This follows up on the previous reports we have had at Council on these guidelines.

Development Variance Permit for 800 Queens Avenue (Simcoe Elementary): Update Report (DVP00745)
We are working with the School District to get approvals in place for the as-yet-unnamed new school at Simcoe Park, required to meet the need for elementary school spaces in the Downtown and Brow of the Hill. A Development Variance Permit is required because the height and density of the new school exceeds the zoning for the site. That might sound a bit bureaucratic, but the City is a regulator of land use, and needs to assure that the construction won’t too-negatively impact neighboring properties, that we can manage the sewer, water, electrical, and roadway needs of the project (which all increase with increased size), and the DVP is the tool we use to assure that the design is workable.

In recognizing that the construction phase will directly impact City-owned lands (they will be staging on City lands) and the planned land use will impact various aspects of how Simcoe Park works, Council also has a fiduciary duty to put constraints around that use of public lands and assets, and assure that impacts on City-owned lands is understood, and that agreements are in place around conditions of use and how property will be returned to the City after use. We are working with the School District to develop Letters of Commitment and are framing a Joint Use Agreement to more formally recognize City lands used by the school, and opportunities for City/Community use of School spaces. This is perhaps more complicated than it needs to be because there are multiple governments involved (City Engineering and Parks, School District, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Infrastructure), but all are agreed that the goal here is to get the DVP approved and ground broken on the School Site in June!

We then wrapped up the evening with the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Housing Agreement Bylaw (430 Ninth Street) No. 8532, 2026
This Bylaw that secures rental tenure for 60 years for the building at 430 Ninth Street was adopted by Council.

Sign Bylaw No. 7867, 2017, Amendment Bylaw No. 8577, 2026
This Bylaw that shifts the language in the Sign Bylaw to align the start of when election signs can go up with the start of the Campaign Period as designated by Elections BC was adopted by Council.

Elections Procedures Bylaw No. 7985, 2018, Amendment Bylaw No. 8579, 2026
This Bylaw that outlines the rest of the election procedures for the Local Government election on October 17 was adopted by Council. We are off to the races!

Protest

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

This story picked up some regional media, and I was asked to comment. As is common and necessary, my lengthy thoughts were edited for a short TV news bit, so I wanted to expand on the discussion publicly, as there are a lot of details in this story that are relevant to how we do public engagement and discourse in the City. I wantto talk aobut the difference between community engagement, and the “white noise” of this astroturf anti-housing group.

I had never heard of “Lets Vote” or their colleagues at “We Vote Canada” until the BC Housing announcement of HEART and HEARTH funding and a Tiny Homes Village model for transitional housing in New Westminster. As BC Housing began its work of community consultation, there was clearly some community concern raised, which is not surprising or different than community concern raised when Mazarine Lodge, Moytel Lalem, or the upcoming housing at Sixth and Agnes were addressed at Council.

But there is something different this time.

There were suddenly small groups of people leafleting the neighbourhood, then at elementary schools across the City during student pick-up times. “Literally forcing pamphlets into parents’ hands” is how it was reported to me by a concerned parent. When one of these pamphlets was circulated to me, I scanned the QR code, and found an invite to join a WhatsApp group, which I briefly did to see what it was about before I was removed, presumably because the organizers recognized my name and their model of public engagement didn’t include engaging with decision makers.

Then a planned protest showed up at one of the BC Housing open houses. A small group with pre-printed signs and a “LetsVote” banner, along with a PA system to provide opportunities to speak for several members of the BC Conservative Party from Richmond and Abbotsford. At this point, some colleagues from around the region contacted me and let me know that this appeared to be the same group of people who protested supportive housing and shelter projects in Burnaby, non-market housing in Semiahmoo Village in South Surrey, and against the very idea of “supportive housing” being included in White Rock’s Official Community Plan update. Same people, same signs, same anti-drug rhetoric used to oppose four (now 5) very different housing proposals in four different cities:

The same members (carrying the same signs) then showed up at New Westminster City Hall to protest before a Council meeting when the Tiny Homes Village was not even on the agenda. A New Westminster resident sent me a note of concern, as they has also received the pamphlet at the elementary school and had been following along with the “protest movement” out of curiosity, and sent me this image of the agenda for this protest:

Again, it was courteous of them to leave space at the end of the program for “New Westminster Locals”, but I am going to suggest that the purpose of this protest at New Westminster City Hall was not to relate the concerns of New Westminster residents to members of Council or staff at the City or BC Housing, but to put up their banners and platform an organization that is using misinformation and fearmongering to drive membership for the BC Conservative Party, predominantly in the ethnic Chinese community.

Part of me thinks this is all fine and good. Folks can organize politically and use their messaging skills to drive engagement, and the public can decide if they like or don’t like that message, and react accordingly. That’s democracy.

The other part of me is disappointed that this “white noise” is drowning out an important conversation the community needs to have. As we in the City engage with community and BC Housing around the delivery of transitional housing (and all housing, for that matter) it is important that we hear from community members and have an opportunity to share information and address legitimate concerns. We had a delegate at the same Council meeting as the protest, a resident from the Riverview area, express heartfelt concerns with questions about the impact of this project on his community. You can believe or not believe his concerns are legitimate based on the scope of the project, but it is our job to hear them, and address them the best we can. Having people with a political agenda and partisan bone to pick shouting mistruths and fearmongering is not conducive to that respectful dialogue. I also should note there were several locals from New Westminster at the protest, and I’m not sure if they had microphone time, but many of them came to Council Chambers afterward even though the housing was not on the the Agenda, and Council had no decision-making to do regarding the project at that time.

I have received a lot of correspondence on this file, both raising concerns and expressing support. The overwhelming response is “we need to do something about homelessness”. Some would like us to do it somewhere else other than here (though the notion of “where” is somewhat fuzzy), some would like us to do it in a different way, but very few are telling us to do nothing. Though most unhoused people in New West – those who will be prioritized for housing at the Tiny Homes Village – do not have active addictions to illegal drugs, some of them might. Just as some of the people in the apartment building where you live, perhaps in your very home, may have addictions. Telling a person that they cannot have a safe place to sleep because they have an addiction – be that to alcohol or cigarettes or opioids – is not a solution, it is exacerbating the problem. A safe place to live while they work though their addictions, their trauma, their mental health challenge, and find support to deal with those issues is not only the right thing to do morally, it is the proven path to a healthier community.

I find it a bit ironic that much of the correspondence from outside of New Westminster is concentrating on the need for drug-free housing options, suggesting the City should instead support drug-free / sober living and the recovery community. These folks are apparently unaware New Westminster is considered a national leader by the recovery community, and does more than most cities in Canada to support the recovery community in words and action, including having more sober living beds per capita than any other City in the Lower Mainland. There is nothing in the Tiny Homes Village that takes way from those efforts, or directs funds from those efforts. The simple reality is that we need every resource we can get our hands on to address homelessness – which is a very different set of tools than needed to address addiction, because they are not interchangeable crises. There is definitely some overlap between them, and where they overlap we need a range of tools because people in addiction are not a monoculture. We need complex care beds for some, we need detox and recovery for some, we need stability and access to counselling for some, we need medication for some, and for most we probably need some combination of those things.

The Tiny Homes Village is a work in progress. As a City, we have engaged with the railways and industrial neighbours, and are connecting them with BC Housing to determine what measures can be put into the Operations Plan to manage existing security and safety issues around their operations, and to assure the transitional housing reduces these concerns. I say existing, because there is already a history of informal encampments near this site that have been challenging for the Province and City to respond to, and this project provides us an opportunity to bring new and different tools to that challenge.

We are also looking forward to the results of the BC Housing engagement process, and the City will be using that information to inform not just the Operations Plan, but the Neighbourhood Inclusion process we are setting up with BC Housing to provide proactive management of issues around the village once it is set up in the fall. We are taking guidance from other jurisdictions where this model has been successful in similar settings, and learning from the example of others where there were issues that needed addressing. And the conversation with the community continues.

Council – March 30, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Apologies to regular readers (Hi Mom!) for being so late at getting this Council report out. It has been a hectic week, with lots of exciting things going on, some big and public, some more about ongoing conversations that are just starting to see public news release, or aren’t ready for new release yet. It’s been busy!

Last week’s Council meetings was not without its drama (I could write an entire report just on the delegations!), and there will be some more fallout of that, but we also got a lot of great work done from a relatively concise agenda, and that’s what this report is about. It started with a Presentation from Staff:

People, Parks and Play: New Westminster Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
This term of Council, following on the heels of the opening of təməsew̓txʷ, there has been a lot of work in the background and through several phases of public consultation on a new master plan for parks and recreation in the City. This is the culmination of that work, and sets the path for the next 10 years in recreation and parks investment in the City. It’s an exciting time of looking forward.

As our last Parks Plan from 2008 demonstrates, there has been a lot of change in 18 years, and the recreation needs of the community have evolved. It’s not simply a matter of “we need more of everything”, we have had to shift and adapt to long-term trends in recreation and parks use, driven by shifts in our demographics, to assure what we can offer in our limited 15 square kilometres best meets the needs of our residents.

Much like our Council Strategic Plan, this master plan is structured around clear goals (six defined goals in this case) and the three foundational lenses of Reconciliation, Equity and Inclusion, and Climate Action are used as lenses to define how we achieve those goals. Not surprisingly for a City that has grown in population by about 50% since 2008, out park-space-per-capita has gone down, though most residents still live within a 10 minute walk of an active park, only about half live within a 5-minute walk, and acquisition of new park land, especially in denser areas like the Brow of the Hill where most residents don’t have back yard, is a priority.

But to me the exciting part of this report and Council’s resolution to move forward rapidly on high priority projects is the commitment to the next phase of recreation infrastructure investment following təməsew̓txʷ.
New sports courts Simcoe Park, Grimston and Moody Park, and a new multi-purpose covered outdoor sport court, replacing our aging collection of outdoor lacrosse boxes; major upgrades at Westburnco; commitment to a third sheet of ice to compliment Queens Park Arena and Moody Arena; and commitment a new (2,800 square meters?) multi-purpose community center in the downtown.

The next 5 years are going to be a period of rapid parks and recreation growth in the City, and this plan is the roadmap we need to see that growth succeed.

The following items were then approved On Consent:

2026 Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel for Local Area Services
Parcel Taxes are the method through which the City collects money from some landowners to pay for a specific service, based on lots size or frontage as opposed to assessed value. In New Westminster that is limited to funding the BIAs Uptown and Downtown though a tax that applies only to members. As a matter of legal practice, we must review the Parcel Tax Roll every year, and province a venue for owners in the parcel tax area to appeal if they think it shouldn’t apply to them. This report is just outlining that process, and giving public notice that we will formally review the poll in an upcoming Council meeting.
FCM Resolution Amendment – Modernizing Federal Small Business Policy to Support Local Economic Stability and Succession
The way the FCM (our national advocacy body as local governments) managed resolutions is bit different than the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (our local body) and the Unions of BC Municipalities (our Provincial body). After reviewing the resolution we submitted, they are making some recommendations for modification of the resolution that doesn’t change the meaning or nature, just the process of its consideration at FCM. We approve.

Response to Council Motion: Municipal Practices for Allocation of Filming Revenue
There was some discussion in council recently about the “excess revenue” the City collects for filming in the City. Most of the revenue we collect is cost recovery (covering the costs of police attendance, traffic management, engineering support, etc.) but we do make a little but of extra revenue every year that goes into general revenues. This idea was whether some of this could be earmarked for new initiatives, likely through a reserve fund. Staff have looked around the region and found that the way we manage excess revenue is pretty typical region-wide, but will take the idea of earmarking some of the revenues to the ACEDAC.

Westminster Pier Park Westward Expansion- Additional Fee Request from PFS Studio
We effectively sole-sourced this phase of design work for the Pier Park western expansion, because there was a design team we were working with that knew the complexity of the site (building a park on top of a parkade structure!) and had been partnering with us through this work The total in fees now exceeds what were are able to sole-source without Council authorization, so here is staff seeking that authorization. This is not a budget change – the project is on budget, and will be completed this spring!

The following items were Removed from consent for discussion:

Budget 2027 Public Opinion Survey Methodology
Every couple of years, we pay for a formal scientific poll of the community as part of our budget consultation process. This is different that the workshops, opportunities to be heard, Facebook (oh, god) comments, and other processes we do, as it is actually a scientifically defensible survey of public opinion on the budget, taxes, and level of service in the community. The last poll in 2025 showed people are generally satisfied with the value they get for their tax dollar in New Westminster and are not in favour of cutting services to keep tax increases down. We will repeat this process in 2026 to survey the community and hopefully use that feedback to frame our discussion about the 2027 budget. Public polling like this, to get reliable results, costs money, but as part of a broader strategy of hearing from the community, it is worth while doing these check-ins every couple of years.

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw Cooling Amendments and Next Steps
I don’t have to remind regular readers about the 2021 heat dome, and the devastating impact it had on our community. I wrote about it here, and after 33 coroner-confirmed direct deaths (and other related to the event), I am still committed to the City doing everything within our power to prevent a repeat. We have already taken many actions, from expanding our heat emergency response efforts, reevaluating how we operate and advertise cooling centres, and working with residential property operators on “one cool room” and other strategies to assure that older and less efficient buildings in the City don’t become death traps during the next major heat event.

We have done a lot of work, and have implemented several “carrots” to support residential property managers to make homes safer. We have struggled with the “sticks” part of that same policy goal. We have already passed a bylaw regulating that landlords cannot arbitrarily ban air conditioners from rental apartments, we are now moving forward with what we think is a pragmatic and defensible position that landlord are required to maintain safe indoor temperatures in at least one living space in a rental unit. We already have laws that require heating to a safe temperature be provided, we are adding to this that beyond a safe minimum temperature, there must be a safe maximum temperature.

Alongside this, and as part of our ongoing Vulnerable Buildings Assessment project, a pilot project is simultaneously being developed to support building owners and tenants to identify, access and implement indoor cooling solutions on a case-by-case basis.

This report brings the first three reading of the Bylaws, and we have some work and consultation to do prior to adoption, then we will have some communications work to do following adoption, but I think this is another example of New Westminster going above and beyond to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, and I’m proud that staff were able to find a bold and pragmatic approach that might just save lives.

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application: 807-823 Sangster Place and 39 E Eighth Avenue – Application Update
This is a challenging project that has been under development for several years, and has run up against the deadline of June 30 that the City has for implementing our Bill 46-mandated funding structure for DCCs and ACCs. In short, after that date we are no longer able to negotiate Community Amenity Contributions, and instead must charge Development Cost Charges and Amenity Cost Charges to get funding for amenities from developers. This project was developed without the updated DCC and ACC costs included, and the developer was given the option to proceed under the new rules or under the old rules, on the condition that in the latter case all work required be completed in time for Council to provide approval before June 30th. The developer chose that second path. That has resulted in the unusual situation where staff are bringing the project to Council while not recommending approval.

To the biggest point here, the applicant has missed the deadline to provide the information necessary to prepare the Bylaws. As this project is not just a rezoning, but necessitates an amendment of the Official Community Plan, legislations requires significant external agency consultation and public consultation leading to an Public Hearing based on the prepared Bylaws, and now the timelines to get all of that done by June 30th are too tight.

That is a process problem, and what led to Council making the decision to vote against advancing this application, but there are some other problems with the development that can be summed up as it representing an OCP amendment without public amenity contribution sufficient to warrant OCP update. The applicant can re-apply at a future date, but the project will now be subject to the new DCC and ACC regulations.

Planning for the 2026 General Local Elections
Hey! There is an election coming in October! And the City has to run the election for both Council and the School Board, so this report outlines the election plan from the our Corporate Officer. There will be some changed arising out of the post-election summary provided to Council back in, and the only recommendation coming out of that that council did not agree with was moving the date for installing lawn signs forward to the start of the nomination period. Instead lawn signs will be permitted at the start of the 28-day campaign period to align with provincial practice.

And that was Council for March. I cannot believe it is April already. Happy Easter everyone.

Trip Dairy 2023

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I could have sworn I already wrote this post, but looking through the archives, I apparently never did! It is the long-awaited follow up to this post, where I reported on the results of the 2017 TransLink Trip Diary and what is says about how New Westies get around.

The Trip Diary (2023 results here) is the most comprehensive survey of regional transportation use in the TransLink area. Unlike the census data that only asks folks their most common way of getting to work (or school), the Trip Diary counts all trips over a week, and asks that people report on all modes used, not just their most common mode, and also collects more data about trip distance, municipal-level data, and more.

That last post I did in 2019 (there were actually two, here and here), reported that between the 2011 and 2017 Trip Diaries, New Westminster had grown 8.9% in population, the number of trips taken by New West residents during the survey went up a little more than this, but the number of car trips actually went down. All new trips generated were by transit, walking or cycle. In the second post, I dug a bit deeper to show that the change in the number of car trips does not correlate with population change. Turns out there are many factors driving traffic and traffic congestion other than the simplistic rubric that population=traffic.

The data form the 2023 Trip Diary has been out for a while now, so I can update those tables to see how things have progressed, and there is both good and bad news for sustainable transportation. Here’s the chart:

Though population continues to increase in New Westminster (30% between 2011 and 2023), and the number of trips over the same period increased by about the same amount, the headline is that the number of trips as a driver has only gone up 4%, and the driver mode is now less than 50% of all trips. We can now confidently say most New Westies don’t drive for most of their trips. But there is a lot of detail hidden in this chart.

The number driver trips did increase slightly from 2017 to 2023, which offset the decrease over the previous 6 years, while passenger trips have gone up steadily. This may have something to do with the rise of ride share services (which would translate to more cars on the road and worsening traffic), but may also represent an increase in carpooling (which would not result in more cars on the road).

The number of trips by Transit has gone up 19% over the same 12 years, even as it has gone down slightly over the second half of that period. No doubt the impact of COVID is showing up here, and though post-COVID ridership recovery was well on it way in 2023, it wasn’t until 2025 that ridership across most of the region returned to pre-COVID levels. Unchanged from 2017 is the headline fact that New Westminster has the highest Transit ridership of any City in the Lower Mainland (see below).

Where we see the biggest shifts are in Active Transportation – walking trips up 153% over the 12 years and cycling trips up 338%. Overall active modes doubled over the 12 years and were clearly the biggest growth area. New West has always been a walkable city, and is slowly becoming a cycling one (and yes, E-bikes are a big part of this, because hills). Here are the major modes compared across the region:

Yellow highlights three highest numbers in the region, green highlights the three lowest numbers.

New Westminster, when compared to the region, has the highest transit ridership, is third highest (after only Vancouver and North Van City) in walking, is seventh out of 17 for cycling, has the third lowest (after Vancouver and Burnaby) number of drivers and the second lowest (after Vanouver) number of people in cars. As one would expect from a compact, dense, livable community with exceptional transit service.

Council – March 9, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This week’s Council meeting was relatively short one, with a shortish Agenda that started with a less-common-these-days Public Hearing:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1121 Eighth Avenue) Bylaw No.8550, 2026
Heritage Designation (1121 Eighth Avenue) Bylaw No. 8551, 2026
The owner of this property in the Moody Park neighbourhood want to build a new house and a duplex on this lot while also granting permanent protection to the heritage home on the lot. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement is the tool to do this, it works similarly to a rezoning, with the heritage preservation as the “community benefit”. Unlike most residential rezoning in the City where public hearings are forbidden by Provincial regulation, an HRA requires a public hearing, despite the compliance with the Official Community Plan.

The 1909 house on the site would be permanently preserved and restored, a new 1,500sqft detached house would be build beside it, and a new 3,600sqft duplex would be built on the back of the lot, facing the alley. This mean 4 homes where three are currently permitted (though the City is working on a response ot the new provincial housing regulations that would permit up to six units on this property). This property will have an FSR of just under 1.0, and the new housing regulation would permit up to 1.0. The model here is to stratify the four units.

We received no correspondence and no-one spoke to the Public Hearing. Council voted unanimously on third reading of the Bylaws.

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Appointment of Acting Financial Officer
Our CFO has taken another job, and this is one job that Council has to officially appoint as it is a “statutory position”, meaning they have legislative responsibilities under the community charter, so we are appointing the Senior Manager of Financial Services as the interim while HR does the work of getting a CFO hired.

Housing Agreement Bylaw and Development Variance Permit to Vary Residential Parking Requirements: 430 Ninth Street – Bylaw for Three Readings
This 29-unit rental building in the Moody Park neighbourhood is going through a significant renovation of the envelope, windows, accessibility and including mechanical cooling (!), and they want to also include the addition of a couple of suites, to raise the number to 31, and remove a couple of parking stall that mean they will have 3 fewer than required by zoning, therefore requiring a Development Variance Permit. In exchange they will sign a housing agreement guaranteeing rental tenure for 60 years or the life of the building (whichever is longer).

Then we addressed these items that were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application: 807-823 Sangster Place and 39 E Eighth Avenue – Application Update
This application is a bit of an unusual one, and led to a bit of discussion at Council, as it is not common for Staff to bring a project to Council while also recommending against its approval. However, there are various overlapping issues here that required some time for Council to unpack. The proponent however communicated with Council and requested that we defer decision making until next meeting so they could get some stuff sorted out, and Council voted to defer.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Transit Oriented Development Area Extensions and Regional Planning
The City recently adopted its response to the Transit Oriented Development regulation of the Province from Bill 47, but for technical reasons related to other decisions the City has to make about townhouses and infill density, we did not include the “edge cases” of the circles drawn by the provincial mandate of 800m from a SkyTrain Station. The circle-on-a-map process means there are many blocks where part of the block is under TOD (permitting up to 8 storeys) and parts are not. Through some public consultation, staff have identified 104 properties that are “on the edge” that they recommend be included in the TOD areas, to “square the circle” so it fits into the context of existing neighbourhoods.

There are also some changes here to the statement about how our OCP aligns with the Regional Growth Strategy and adoption of some climate action into the OCP. This is first and second reading, and these changes to the OCP will go to a Public Hearing, so I won’t comment too much more until that process occurs.

The New Westminster Age-Friendly Strategy
I recently attended an event at Century House where Alison from the Senior Services Society and Dan Levitt the provincial Seniors Advocate spoke about the challenges facing many older adults in our community, from housing precarity to the lack of senior government supports to make aging in place an option for more people. This is an increasing concern as the “baby boom” generation journeys though older age, and as austerity governments resist investing in the supports this growing community needs.

The City got a grant in 2024 to update our Age Friendly community policy, and here it is. There are 59 recommended actions in here, and one of the first ones is to appoint a community working group – a task force of Older Adults from the community to oversee and prioritize the implementation – which I see as a key to making this work. And though I appreciate the 28 people who helped put this together, I think the implementation working group could be smaller and centre the older adults in the community.

We then had a single Motion from Council:

Queensborough School Bus Program
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS over 230 Queensborough based students and their families rely on the Queensborough bus service to enable students to attend New Westminster Secondary School in a safe, secure and timely manner, without which journeys take three times as long and students are often passed over by overcrowded buses causing them to arrive late or not at all; and
WHEREAS a pilot service launched in January 2024 at cost to parents is slated to end on June 30, 2026 despite a campaign promise made on October 8, 2024 that if the NDP government were re-elected, this service would be made ‘permanent and free’; and
WHEREAS New Westminster is the second most dense city in Canada, with only one high school, and the acceptance of this density should have already unlocked new funding from senior orders of government;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor be requested to write to our three government and opposition MLAs asking they advocate to secure the necessary provincial funding to ensure the Queensborough school bus program becomes ‘free and permanent’ as previously promised; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Mayor write to the Minister of Education and Child Care requesting that additional funding be granted to School District 40 for the Queensborough school bus service to continue and be made permanent (beyond June 30,2026) and without cost to local families until such time as a new high school is built in the Queensborough community.

Advocacy for this service has been consistent and relentless since the previous dedicated transit service was cut in 2013, and thought the School District was able to secure support for the pilot project, in my mind, you run a pilot to determine if a project works and has community support. It is clear after two years that the students and families of Queensborough support this program, and it’s time for the province to step up and make the bus service sustainable. I have a meeting booked in early April with Minister Beare, and along with discussion of future school sites and advocacy for seamless childcare support in the community, the bus issue is on the agenda.

And we closed with a single Bylaw For Adoption

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 8572, 2026
This Bylaw that authorizes applying $10.5 Million from our DCC reserves to our 2026 Capital Plan was adopted by Council.

And believe it or not, we were out of there by 7:00, just like the old days.