(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything)

The Council meeting on Monday started with a Public Hearing (well, two actually), which is less common these days since the Province changed the rules a few years age and prevented cities from holding public hearings for residential rezoning that are complaint with the Official Community Plan.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of the Infill Housing Program
The first Public Hearing addressed the City’s updated response to Bill 44 Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (“SSMUH”) regulations from the province, and our Infill Accelerator program sponsored by the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. This requires an OCP update (hence, requiring a Public Hearing) and an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw.

The effect of these changes is to update the Land Designation under the OCP for about 3,000 properties in the City to permit up to a sixplex where there is currently a single family home or duplex, and to change the zoning of about 1,900 of those properties for four-plexes, and the remaining 1,100 for six-plexes. Most of the differentiation between four- and six-unit areas are related to the provincial regulation (six-plexes are required within a certain distance of frequent transit), though a small number (~200) are different that provincial requirements to fit specific technical context such as access to a laneway or unique lot dimensions, and the result of public consultation.

These changes are not simple integration of the provincial regulations, they represent a made-in New West response that addresses our specific context. This means significant technical analysis was done around managing the infrastructure impacts and buildability issues related to our unique geography. We did three rounds of Public Engagement on these changes as they were i9terated over time, in spring and winter 2025 and with a final round in March of this year. We have some infrastructure challenges here, in that most “single family’ neighbourhood are designed to allow up to the three units per lot (a main house, rental suite, and a laneway/carriage house), and increasing to 4- or 6-units means increased in-ground infrastructure needs. Though the City will be gradually upgrading these systems, this will be an economic and practical delay on wide-spread implementation of these changes, as it will put extra onus on boulders to pay for upgrades if needed before the City has done the work.

At the Public Hearing, we received about 9 pieces of correspondence, all opposed in one way or another to increased density in New Westminster, and we had about 25 people come and delegate at the hearing: a few in support, several with concerns, and the majority expressing opposition.

Issues raised were not surprising, but are worth exploring a bit more.

Several folks raised concerns about growth happening faster than schools can plan. However, City’s OCP and the Schools long-term Capital plan are in synch and nothing in this update to the OCP will substantially shift that. The schools are not lacking for planning, they are lacking for investment by the Province in new school sites. Fortunately, this situation is changing as there is a major expansion of Queen Elizabeth happening right now, the District is about to break ground on a new downtown elementary at Simcoe Park, and they are now in business case development for major expansion in the West End that will end an era of portables for the district.

The schools discussion was aligned with a general notion that infrastructure can’t keep up with this growth, and the report clearly outlines (as I mentioned above) how the City plans to deal with this. Simply put, we are upgrading and expanding infrastructure as growth occurs and are expecting much of this cost to be covered by the growth. There was some concern raised about the Burnaby experience, with concerns that these multi-plexes will be built to the four corners of the lot and completely change the streetscape. However, the reports details the guidelines that will be applied, with 50% lot coverage and property line setbacks consistent with current practice to make sure these plexes fit the existing streetscape, though they are likely to be taller than previously seen in single family lots.

The one challenge we don’t have an immediate answer to is the parking challenge – there is no doubt over the long-term these changes will put more pressure on street parking, especially as the province limits our ability to require off-street parking for much of the area, and for all buildings with the TOD areas (see below). This is ongoing work Council has asked staff to work on recognizing that it will be years (likely a decade or more) before multi-plexes arrive in most places at enough concentration to create these challenges. A City-wide review to residential parking and curbside management is a major piece of work the City is beginning now, and will inform our response to this.

In the end, Council gave third readings to these bylaws, and added an advocacy part about reminding the Province that we will need investment in their part in infrastructure to support this shift in our OCP.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Transit Oriented Development Area Extensions and Regional Planning
The second Public Hearing followed on our previous work meeting the letter of the law on the Province’s Bill 47 changes to encourage higher-density use around SkyTrain stations (“Transit Oriented Development” or TOD). Here the City is trying to make the circles fit better into the mostly-square street grid context by squaring off the circles created by the 800m buffer the province drew around SkyTrain stations. We don’t have the legal ability to skim some properties off the periphery where it might not make sense, so in effort to adapt them to the street grid, existing subdivision and neighbourhood patterns, or topography, the circle was slighty expanded in a few places along the edge – meaning about 100 properties just outside 800m are included within the TOD area designation.

At the same time and attached to this, we are updating the OCP for a few regulatory reasons. We are required to draft a new Regional Context Statement that aligns our OCP with the Regional Growth Strategy, and are now required to integrate our Community Energy and Emissions Plan to the OCP, both of these to meet regulated Metro Vancouver requirements.

Much like the item above, we did multiple rounds of public consultation around these changes, and it showed that 70% of people who engaged supported these changes. We received a few pieces of written correspondence, and had about a half dozen delegates raising concerns, though some also expressed support. Council voted to support the Third Reading of these changes.

That ended the Public Hearing, and as mentioned, I’ll write another post about everything else that happened at Council in a follow-up.

---

Our regular council meeting for this week went by fairly quick once we completed the Public Hearing part. The Agenda was fairly light, and started with the following items moved On Consent:

Balai in the Borough, T115-805 Boyd Street – Application for Patron Participation Entertainment Endorsement
The operator of this restaurant wants to have entertainment (karaoke) along with their meals which requires a different type of liquor license which requires the local City Council to pass a resolution supporting it, because our provincial liquor laws are archaic and ridiculous. Council approved the resolution.

Temporary Use Permit: 102 – 128 East Eighth Avenue and 721 Cumberland Street
The owners of these properties at 8th and Cumberland received approval to build townhouses recently, and no wish to use one of the existing single family homes as a sales entre to market those townhouses. A marketing centre is not in the single family zoning allowable uses, so we are issuing notice that we will consider a temporary Use Permit. IF you have feedback, let us know!

---

The following item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

Update on FIFA Budget and Activities
Council previously approved funding to hold community-building and gathering events along with public viewing parties during the upcoming World Cup. I know there are a lot of concerns about FIFA and the sketchy way they exploit communities and athletes, but the Beautiful Game is as popular in New West as any other, and there can be no doubt people are excited to see Canada play, and for many people in our community to see the nation of their ancestors represent (sorry, Italy).

There are going to be a great series of events here in New West –reasons for you to get together with the community, meet your neighbours, and cheer on some Football.

June 6: the Kelly Duke Memorial Tournament will feature fun for youth, a bouncy castle, food trucks and beer garden, and start off the World Cup Season with locals flair;
June 12: Watch Canada play against Bosnia at Queens Park Arena – rain or shine;
June 18: Watch Canada play against Qatar at the Queensborough Community Centre, along with a Queensborough Neighbourhood Connection Party;
June 24: Watch Canada vs Switzerland (that might be a tough one!) at Queens Park Arena;
July 19 Watch the Tournament Finale at two different locations in New West – Queens Park Arena if you want to be indoors, Pier Park if outside is more your thing.

Staff are also saving a bit of resources and money on the hopes that Canada advances out of the Group Phase, and will hope to be able to provide further viewing opportunities to meet community expectations.

The good news is that we have secured senior government grants (sponsorships are strictly regulated by FIFA and are largely unavailable, grumble grumble) to cover a lot of these costs, and much of the budget goes towards purchasing things (like screens and projectors) that can stay in the City’s inventory and help us provide lower cost community events in the future. We also provided 38 grants of $1,000 each to a variety of community arts, cultural, and sport organizations to get them Fired Up about Football.

All the details are here: www.newwestcity.ca/fired-up

---

And we finished our meeting with Bylaws for Adoption:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1121 Eighth Avenue) Bylaw No.8550, 2026 and
Heritage Designation (1121 Eighth Avenue) Bylaw No. 8551
This Bylaw that will permit construction of a new ground-oriented infill house and a duplex, with all new units providing three or more bedrooms, while permanently protecting the 1909 Callow House on the same lot was adopted by Council.

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

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 itema 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.

---

And 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!

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

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.

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

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 had 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!

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

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 consentfor 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.

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.

We had a longish meeting on Monday Night, and there were a few moments of tension, and as always I recommend you watch the video for details and to get the tone of the room during some of the deliberation, instead of reading through my filter here. After a notable delegation period, our regular Agenda began with a Presentation:

BC Housing Tiny Homes Village
The City has been designated a HEART and HEARTH City by the Province. This program helps deliver programs to support both shelter for people entrenched in homelessness through “Homeless Encampment Action Response Team” funding (which is a compliment to the City’s Crises Response Pilot Project) and “Homeless Encampment Action Response Temporary Housing” which brings us this announcement of transitional housing for residents transitioning from entrenched homelessness or temporary shelter to a more supportive housing environment.

The Tiny Home Village model is one that has been successful in other communities in the province such as Duncan, where residents are given a warm, safe, insulated and secure shelter of their own (not having to share with others) while common spaces provide kitchens, washrooms, laundry, and common social and support spaces. This bridges an important gap for some folks who may want to get out of entrenched homelessness, but don’t have the life skills to move into a more traditional supportive or non-market housing situation. This site will have 30 “tiny homes,” 24/7 staff on site, and access to health services and other supports if residents need them the “wrap around support” model.

This is a program run by and funded by BC Housing, though the City is working with the Province through our Affordable Housing Reserve Fund to provide support for the site lease and for capital support (up to the limit set by our AHRF policy of $500,000). The nature of leasing space for the site also means it is a temporary program, three years with the option to extend for 3 more years. There will be a Letter of Commitment setting out community expectations of the operation, and Operations Management Plan the provider will need to abide by, and a Neighbourhood Inclusion Table to address any neighbourhood challenges. This serves as a transition both for people who need the homes, but also in the housing supply matrix, and gives time for us and the province to fund and build more supportive housing in a more permanent location.

It was not a great provincial budget last week when it comes to housing, but we are fortunate now to have 24/7 shelter and this transitional housing funded by the BC government, while two other supportive housing projects are under construction – we are getting people off of streets and into secure homes in New West, and working well with the province to make it happen.

---

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Development Cost Charges Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No.8572, 2026
DCCs are funds the City collects from developers to offset the cost of infrastructure related directly to “growth” – the bigger sewers, waterlines, transportation and parks projects required to accommodate the needs of a growing population. Every year we report out on how those funds were applied, this is that report.

Of the 2026 Capital Budget anticipated spend of $104 Million, we anticipate that $10.5 Million, or 10%, will be funded by DCCs.

Vulnerable Buildings Assessment Pathway One – City-Funded Cooling Assessments for Rental Buildings
Part of our response to heat emergencies and our Climate Resilience Plan, the City has identified “vulnerable buildings”, where the residents are as significant risk of harm in the event of a protracted or intense heat emergency. Staff are also leveraging the Federal/Provincial Rental Apartment Retrofit Accelerator (RARA) program to pilot assessments of 10 buildings for retrofit work to make them safer along with the existing program to make them more efficient and reduce their carbon footprint.

This is one of those unique opportunities New Westminster has to leverage our Electrical Utility and Energy Save New West program (funded by the City’s Climate Action Reserve Fund) to see senior government funds invested here in New Westminster to make buildings where lower income people live more efficient, and safer. This is one of those areas where New Westminster delivers beyond other cities in the region.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent

2025 Filming Activity
This is our annual report on filming activity in the City, and the costs and revenues related to hosting filming in the community. This year the city billed about $1.2 Million to film productions, with our net revenue after expenses being about $450,000. This does not include the revenues that residents and businesses in the city receive for leasing heir homes of buildings for filming, nor does it include the millions of dollars that residents in New Westminster earn working in the film industry. Film is big business in “Hollywood North”, and New Westminster gets its share, with 9 feature films, 33 TV series, and more than a dozen other productions in 2025).

Community Grant Program Update 2025-2026
This is the annual report from our Community Grant program, where staff report out on the grants provided to the sports, arts, and social service organizations that do great work in the city – the organizations that are most in need and most valuable at a time when other levels of government ate engaged in austerity. The one thing we know for sure – every dollar we invest in community organizations through these grants is paid back 3x or 10x in services to the community, through everything from volunteers these organizations empower, to their ability to leverage sponsor ship and matching grants for these programs. This is where “investment in the community” matters most.

In 2025, the City granted just a bit over $1 Million to 68 community partners, having receive 91 applications. The City also held a one-day “Love New West” event where 2025 partners were invited to set up a booth and share their success, and ideas for next year, with each other and the general public.

In 2026, $1.4 Million was awarded to 71 community partners, from 99 applications:

On top of this, we have allocated $50,000 in community grants specifically for community activation during the World Cup (applications open now!)

---

We then had several Motions from Council, three of them directly related to the upcoming Lower Mainland LGA conference:

Advancing a Vision Zero Approach to Road Safety
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

WHEREAS injuries and deaths on BC roads have untold impacts on thousands of BC lives every year, strain local government first responder resources, and result in more than $500 Million in direct health care costs in British Columbia every year; and
WHEREAS the Province’s BC Road Safety Strategy has referenced a Vision Zero approach to road safety starting with the belief that no loss of life on our roads is acceptable and implementing a collaborative Safe System Approach to road safety relying proactive data collection and sharing as the globally recognized path to achieving Vision Zero;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster submit a resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association calling on UBCM to request the Province to advance its commitment to Vision Zero and further support local government partners through:
• expansion of the Vision Zero Road Safety Grant program by providing additional funding to introduce a third funding stream with a cap higher than the current $20,000 limit to fund more ambitious local government and First Nation community road safety initiatives; and
• undertaking a comprehensive review of data collected by provincial ministries and agencies in relation to motor vehicle injury and death incidents, and develop strategies for proactive data sharing between those agencies and local governments to inform local road safety improvements.

This resolution for the Lower Mainland LGA conference puts together advocacy work that road safety advocates at Vision Zero Vancouver have been asking for (the increased funding for road safety projects) and the work that the City’s Vision Zero Task Force is working on, and follows on the heels of advocacy last week in Victoria where I was able to meet with Nina Krieger the Minister of Public Safety and staff from the Ministry of Transportation to advance Vision Zero Collaboration.

Triple Net Lease Reform
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS triple net leases shift the responsibility for property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs from property owners onto commercial tenants, creating financial instability and unpredictability for small and local businesses; and
WHEREAS municipalities rely on vibrant local businesses to support complete communities, economic resilience, and main street vitality, yet lack the legislative authority to regulate commercial leasing practices;
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of New Westminster submit a resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association calling on the Province of BC to review and reform commercial leasing legislation, including the use of triple net leases, to improve transparency, fairness, and protections for commercial tenants, particularly small and locally owned businesses.

This resolution is a result of a lot of work Councillor Henderson has been doing in our community and with business organizations across the province to address the uncertainty and risk asymmetry that Triple Net Leases represent. Small local-serving businesses (like that run by the delegate this evening) just want transparency and predictability, and similar lease protections as residential renters benefit from in this province. The debate here was… strange, as opponents on Council seemed to spend their time arguing against things that are not included in this resolution to the point of fearmongering. They didn’t hear the delegate from earlier in the evening, nor did they, apparently, read the resolution. Fortunately, the majority of Council supported this motion, and I look forward to a great discussion at UBCM.

Enhanced Mental Health Supports Following Infant Loss
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS infant loss, including miscarriage, stillbirth, and the death of an infant can result in profound and long-lasting mental health impacts for parents and caregivers; and
WHEREAS access to timely, specialized, and trauma-informed mental health supports following infant loss varies across the province, leaving many families without adequate care during an acute period of grief;
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of New Westminster submit a resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association calling on the Province of BC to ensure ongoing provincial funding for research related to pregnancy loss and bereavement care, to provide standardized education and training for health care providers on how to deliver trauma informed, evidence-based care, and to fund bereavement support programs for families who experience pregnancy loss, infant loss, embryo loss, or failed fertility and IVF treatments.

This resolution speaks for itself, and is here thanks to some powerful advocacy from folks in our community, and I look forward to us taking this to UBCM where it should be an obvious endorsement.

Memorandum of Understanding with Century House Association
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS Century House Association (CHA) has been a valued community partner since 1958 in assuring that Century House provides inclusive, welcoming, and relevant activities and social connection for older adults in New Westminster; and
WHEREAS early in 2020 the City and CHA completed its first Memorandum of Understanding as a basis for sustaining and enhancing this proven relationship between two trusted partners for the delivery of those services; and
WHEREAS there have been changes at the CHA and across the community since the initial MOU was completed prior to the COVID pandemic, including expansion of recreation services in the City, the launching of the City’s Friendly Seniors Strategy and the recent adoption by the CHA of a new Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS the CHA recently sent a letter to Mayor and Council suggesting the timeliness of a review and potential update of the MOU;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff engage with leadership of the Century House Association to explore updating the current Memorandum of Understanding between the City and CHA with the intent to strengthen collaboration in delivering services to an increasing diverse older adult population in the City.

This is not something for Lower Mainland LGA, but a motion asking staff to do some work in producing and updated MOU with the Century House Association, the non-profit group of volunteers who partner with the City in running Century House. The association sent us a letter, and I have had a few conversations with the President and Past President about changes since COVID, since the City opened təməsew̓txʷ (and made adjustments to staffing in recreation centres) and with the pending return to Sunday Opening at Century House. It’s timely, and Council was happy to support it.

---

We finished up out night with several Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Retail Sale of Cannabis (416 East Columbia Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 8520, 2025
This Bylaw that removes cannabis sales as a permitted use from a property in Sapperton where the initial approved proponent was not able to secure a lease was adopted by Council.

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Provincial Housing Legislation Integration) No. 8522, 2025
This Bylaw that Transit Oriented Development Areas in compliance with the Provinces Bill 47, integrates the City’s Interim Housing Needs Report into the OCP, and makes minor administrative changes to the OCP was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Non-Profit Housing Development, Phase 2) No. 8528, 2025
This Bylaw that allows non-profit affordable housing of up to six storeys in all Transit Oriented Development Areas without rezoning was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Land Use Designation Alignments) No. 8530, 2025
This Bylaw that makes minor administrative changes to our Zoning Bylaw was adopted by Council.

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Townhouse Accelerator Initiative) No. 8547, 2025
This Bylaw that enables the development of Townhouses on approximately 900 properties across the City and allows non-profit affordable housing projects of up to six storeys to be considered without an OCP update on those same sites was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Townhouse Zoning Update) No. 8524, 2025
This Bylaw that pre-zones approximately 570 properties to speed up the approval of townhouses, and updates regulations for townhouse developments was adopted by Council.

Five-Year Financial Plan (2026-2030) Bylaw No. 8571, 2026
This Bylaw that approves our consolidated Financial Plan for 2026 through 2030 was adopted by Council.