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. Leave a 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.

IWD 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Today is International Women’s Day, and it always feel weird to be “Mayorsplaining” the experience of women and girls to the majority of the City who are not cis guys. Especially as I am surrounded by so many smart, strong, and bold women who are leading in New Westminster. So I’ll take this opportunity to highlight a few of the books that have guided my learning about cities and hope some of the dudes who follow me do their own learning and work to support more equitable and just cities as a path to a more equitable and just world.

The obvious first book is Jane Jacobs’ “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”. Still relevant 65 years after it was written, the book was written as a critique (attack) on orthodox city planning and became an important part of the paradigm shift that changed the planning profession.  My own copy has suffered greatly from dog-earing and marginal noting, as I return to the many insights in here round the role of sidewalks as social places, the value of framing the experience of children in a public space, and the difference between a City designed for cars an one designed for people. https://tinyurl.com/5ezdpkx2

When Janette Sadik-Khan wrote “Streetfight”, she had just left her role as Transportation Commissioner of New York City, where she led bold (and ultimately highly successful) initiatives to give the streets back to the people of New York, a City where most people don’t include driving as part of their everyday lives, but most public space was still given to cars. She was instrumental in making New York a cycling city, in the redesign of Times Square and other public spaces to emphasize gathering and community in the most famous city in the world. And one quote in this book is burned in my head: “When you push the status quo, it pushes back. Hard.” https://tinyurl.com/bdaj7e8d

One thing these two books reference, sometimes obliquely, is that cities are traditionally designed to serve an outmoded ideal – the single male breadwinner of the nuclear family. This is simply not how most people live today, and we need to change how our cities work if we want to address the needs of today. This is more explicitly set out in Leslie Kern’s “Feminist City”. This book opens up new ways to see a city and a community (at least new to folks like me), and asks a lot of questions, even if I think it falls short of providing answers to those questions (I’m hoping for a sequel!) https://tinyurl.com/szt42f3y

Have a meaningful International Women’s Day, and pass the knowledge!

Council – February 23, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

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.

Council – February 9, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Ugh, it is hard to think about the dull procedure of a City Council Meeting on a week like this when the province is grieving an unimaginable tragedy. But we had a meeting on Monday with a lengthy Agenda, and here is the report.

The following items were approved On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 808 Royal Avenue (Douglas College Student Housing Project)
The student housing project at 8th and Royal needs to do concrete floor finishing, and some of that work needs to happen outside of construction hours, so we are permitting this (with appropriate notice to neighbours).

Council Strategic Priorities Plan – First Semi-Annual Report for 2026
City Council approved a Strategic Plan for the term back in early 2023, and this report outlines progress towards the goals of that plan. Overall, it is good news, especially considering the curve balls thrown at Council regarding new housing legislation that have eaten up a tonne of staff time (fortunately, offset somewhat by our successful Housing Accelerator Fund grants)

This report is presented as a “traffic light” model, with five priority areas and 71 objectives where a green flag means complete or satisfactory progress made, yellow means “not quite there” and red indicates there are still barriers to completion. The two red areas are completion of a Natural assets Management Plan and Culture Change in Transportation:

Overall a good report and demonstrates that staff got a lot done this term towards the strategic priorities set out for them. We have 6 months to move a few more of those yellows toward green.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation: 1121 Eighth Avenue – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
The owner of a small West End house built in 1909 want to build three more homes (one stand-alone, one duplex) on the largish lot, and preserve the exiting house through heritage designation. The lot is single family zoned, and this project will be higher FSR than permitted under current zoning which is why the HRA is being used. However the project is consistent with both the current OCP and the anticipated 2026 changes to the OSP, as the lot is designated for this type of infill.

This proposal would go to Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until then.

Kelly O’ Bryan’s, 800 Columbia Street – Application for Patron Participation Entertainment Endorsement
This pub and restaurant downtown wishes to have more fun while operating under their food primary licence – things like dancing, DJs, Karaoke, etc. that constitute “patron participation”. This requires a change in their Provincial Liquor Licence, which we must also approve. They jumped through the appropriate hoops and did a public notice (perhaps surprisingly, some members of the public wrote us to oppose this change). Our provincial liquor laws continue to be archaic and waste a lot of people’s time, as Council approved this change.

Next Generation 9-1-1 Base Funding 2026 Grant Application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Next Generation 911 is a pretty fundamental change in how emergency communications happen in the province, going from land-line based to Internet Protocol (“IP”). This will be good for emergency comms in the long term, but it means massive changes in physical technology and software, for which Local Governments are largely responsible. There are, however, grants available from the Province (administered through UBCM) to help us with costs, and we are applying for one.

Response to Council Motion: Provincial Regulation of Electric Kick Scooters
Several months ago, Councillor Henderson brought a motion calling for action here in the City and advocacy to the Provincial Government for better regulation of e-mobility devices, especially electric kick scooters. This report includes a Resolution for the Lower Mainland Local Government Association so we can take that advocacy to the Province through UBCM.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Budget 2026: Consolidated 2026 – 2030 Five-Year Financial Plan
What we colloquially call the budget is actually delivered as a comprehensive 5-year financial plan that covers both our operational and capital budgets, both for “Utilities” (water, sewer, solid waste, and electrical) and the “General Fund” (everything else). This includes a $220 Million capital budget (over the 5 years) and a balanced (as required by law) operational budget over the same term.

This is (nearing) the end of a long process, with a half dozen open meetings and workshops where operational budgets were reviewed department-by-department and the 450+ line capital budget was reviewed. Our budgeting process in New West is the most transparent in the region, because it is important the community has the opportunity to understand the compromises, priorities, and decisions that go into the budget. Though there were a LOT of reports that went into this, the two major components are the Capital Budget (reviewed comprehensively in a draft form at the November 10 workshop here) and the Operational Budget (reviewed comprehensively in a draft form at the December 8 workshop here. There is a lot in here, and I hope to have time to write up some more detail about the budget in follow up posts.

This budget sets us up to support the very things our community has asked us to deliver – the things our community continues to ask us to deliver. Folks in this community know, and they tell us repeatedly, that well-funded core public services are what make New Westminster one of the most livable cities in Canada, and appreciate that we provide them here while remaining the most affordable City in the Lower Mainland. This budget delivers a 6% increase in Public Safety spending, a 10% increase in spending on Community Services, and 0% increase in corporate and planning services. We are investing where people can see the benefit in their day to day lives. and are saving where it makes sense.

At the Love New West event last weekend, so many people came to me and thanked the City for investing in public services and in supporting the organizations in the community that make us shine, instead of following the path of drastic cuts they see in Vancouver, and some other cities. More to come on this!

Cannabis Store Relocation Request – North Root Cannabis Ltd. (Update) and Next Steps for Zoning Amendment Bylaw (416 East Columbia) No.8520, 2025
Back when the City set up its regulations around Cannabis Retail, there was a bit of a Gold Rush feeling – lots of people wanted into this new business, and it was hard for governments to keep up or even understand the unintended consequences of the boom and inevitable bust. New West was pretty middle-of-the-road in managing this, not as rapid as some cities in permitting, not as conservative as some in resisting all cannabis businesses. Our process permitted one in each “commercial area”, and we had an arms-length applicant screen-and-approval process. In that sense, we approved both locations and business operators. In most locations this worked fine, but in Sapperton the approved operator ran into trouble with the approved location, and it has been a hard road for them to get past that, despite clearly good intention. At this point, the applicant was not able to secure a second lease and provide the (City and Provincial) licensing requirements, and their application is cancelled, and they will be refunded a portion of their fees, consistent with our Development Permit policies.

This decision, however, was what to do with the Bylaw impact on the first approved property. There were some questions raised at Council around this change, and the recommendation from staff did not look well supported, so the decision by Council was to defer decision-making until next meeting to give Council a chance to confer with Staff if needed and clarify the implications of the proposed change.

Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Plan Project – Phase Two
During the summer of 2025, the City was awarded a Federal Grant of $105,000 (one of the largest grants given out nation-wide under this FCM program) to fund the development of a new Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Plan. With Phase 2 of that work completed, this is a check-in with council before staff move on to Phase 3, which will include some public consultation.

This work is different than the other “climate work” we are doing to reduce corporate and community greenhouse gasses (“Mitigation” work), this is “Adaptation”, which is about understanding what the risks and impacts of climate change are in our community, and to prepare for those impacts best we can. This report includes a risk register that rates exposure to specific risks (e.g riverine flood, heat domes, drought), including taking into consideration the work the City is already doing to mitigate or adapt to these risks.

Construction Noise Bylaw Variance Request: 602 Agnes Street (BC Housing Project)
The affordable housing project at 6th and Agnes needs to do water system tie-ins, and some of that work needs to happen outside of construction hours, so we are permitting this (with appropriate notice to neighbours)

Financial Statements Audit Planning Report for the year ending December 31, 2025
Every year we hire an Auditor to go through our books and analyze our controls internally to assure that money is being responsibly (and legally!) managed. This is where they tell us what they plan to do, and staff ask Council to agree with the audit plan.

We then had a Report from Council:

Participation at the Strong Cities’ Sixth Global Summit: December 9-11,2025
Councillor Nakagawa was a presented at the conference on the invite of Public Safety Canada, who also sponsored her participation. As per our new out-of-Province travel policy, this is Councillor Nakagawa’s report on her participation and costs.

Then we had a Motion from Council:

Developing a City-Wide AI Policy
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS there has been a sharp increase in the availability and accessibility of AI technologies; and
WHEREAS many organizations including local governments are increasingly using AI tools to support their work; and
WHEREAS the data centres that power AI technologies have a significant environmental impact related to massive energy consumption, high water use, and air and noise pollution; and
WHEREAS significant legal and ethical issues related to the rapid adoption of AI tools have been raised, including but not limited to algorithmic transparency and related liability, cybersecurity and privacy vulnerabilities, bias and discrimination, intellectual property, and impacts on workers;
BE IT RESOLVED that staff develop a city-wide AI policy that provides clarity and direction for staff members and transparency to the public around appropriate use of AI technologies.

This is a timely request for something that cities are generally not good at – addressing emergent technology change. There is no doubt the AI bubble is at the centre of much innovation and venture capital today, and we are only beginning to understand the long-term implications. However, as a City serving the public interest, it is a good idea to be careful about how this rapid change is integrated into our operations. It’s not about resisting good tech, it’s about using it in mindful ways that align with our values and our community, and being transparent to the community about how it is being used (if it is)

Council – Jan 26, 2026

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Monday’s meeting featured a Public Hearing. Two actually. This is something the City doesn’t do as much anymore since the Province changed the rules and limited our ability to hold them for routine rezoning applications. These OCP and Zoning changes were not routine, however, but represented a big step forward in housing variety and affordability in the City. So Public Hearing we go.

The full Public Hearing Reports are here, and there is much more info available here about the 18 month process that got us here, which doesn’t all fit in the Agenda. In this report I will try as best I can to stick the facts, and save most of the (good and bad) politics of the meeting for my Newsletter (Subscribe here if you want to read that stuff).

Public Hearing 1: Integration of Provincial Housing Legislation
Our First Public Hearing addressed three separate Bylaws:

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Provincial Housing Legislation Integration) No. 8522, 2025
This change to the Official Community Plan related to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) that creates new “Land Use Designations” within the 200m, 400m and 800m buffers around SkyTrain Stations that meet the requirements of the Province’s “Bill 47” (which I wrote about here when it came out). There is quite a bit of detail in here about how we integrated these into our existing Official Community Plan, and I am comfortable in saying this is a made in New West approach and not the one size fits all approach that some other communities have been bemoaning. The most obvious example being that this does not apply to the TOD areas around 22nd Street Skytrain station, as that area is already going through an OCP update process, and will require extra technical work to address infrastructure, transportation, community needs and consultation before we can confidently move forward. Another example is how this OCP designation interacts with the Queens Park Heritage Conservation Area, where protected heritage homes are still protected and design guidelines for non-protected properties still apply, though we are not legally permitted to restrict density if builders can find a creative way to thread that needle.

Another change included here is to assure that the OCP accommodates the need for new housing outlined in the City’s Interim Housing Needs Report. This is really just a text adjustment, as the OCP (with changes required by legislation) already provides for sufficient homes to be built in the decade ahead, we just need the OCP to spell out that math clearly.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Non-Profit Housing Development, Phase 2) No. 8528, 2025
This change to our Zoning Bylaw would pre-zone all areas in TOD Tiers 2 and 3 (areas already designated for 8- to 12-storey buildings) to allow non-profit affordable housing of up to six stores. This is a big step to assist non-profit housing providers in getting senior government funding approved for non-market housing, as the zoning step is often a barrier to funding commitments. There will be design guidelines, Development Permits, and other authorizations required, but this could significantly accelerate the approval of new truly affordable housing in the City.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Land Use Designation Alignments) No. 8530, 2025
Finally, there are some administrative changes to the zoning bylaw required to update the language, to assure a few slightly complicated sites are aligned with the goals of the changes above, and to allow “Public School” in the majority of residential and mixed use lands, simplifying the School Board’s process for acquiring lands and approval of new schools.

We had about 50 pieces of correspondence on this item, about equally split between supportive and opposed, and we had about 20 delegates at Council speaking to it, a small majority of them speaking in favour. Concerns raised were mostly concerns around increased population density and its impact on infrastructure planning, while supporters generally spoke of increasing housing variety, the need to address a chronic regional housing shortage, and the need to streamline affordable housing.

Public Hearing 2: Implementation of Townhouse and Affordable Housing Accelerator Fund Initiatives
Our Second Public Hearing addressed the following two Bylaws:

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Townhouse Accelerator Initiative) No. 8547, 2025
This change to the Official Community Plan would designate Townhouse as an additional land use for about 900 properties in the City that are currently designated Single Family. These properties are mostly the “edges” around the TOD areas above, and some other areas where it made sense from a planning and utility servicing perspective 9modified as a result of some public consultaiton). This is previous to adoption (in an upcoming meeting) of our Small Site Multi-Unity Housing (SSMUH) policy to support the Province’s multiplex rules from Bill 44. In short, the decision was to either designate these sites Townhouse, or to wait and designate them SSMUH at the Province’s June deadline.

This Bylaw also designated non-profit affordable housing projects of up to six storeys as an approvable land use within these Townhouse areas. Unlike the Bylaw above, this is not pre-zoning for affordable housing, these sites will still need rezoning, but it does indicate that Council would consider such a rezoning if a non-profit housing provider could make a project work on these sites.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Townhouse Zoning Update) No. 8524, 2025
This amendment to our Zoning Bylaw would pre-zone approximately 570 of the 900 Townhouse properties above for Townhouse development. This will speed up the approval process if people want to build townhouse form on these properties, allowing them to skip to the development permit process, removing some uncertainty and delay from the process. This pre-zoning is not extended to all 900 because some of the properties (based on lot size, availability of a back alley for access, etc.) are not appropriate for development as townhouse without more complicated servicing/design/access work that is best secured through rezoning.

We received about 55 pieces of correspondence on these changes, with a moderate majority opposed and we had about 27 delegates at Council speaking to it, a small majority of them speaking in opposition. Concerns raised were similarly around increased population density and its impact on infrastructure planning, though there were a number of people whose properties were directly impacted or adjacent who didn’t want townhouses near their homes for aesthetic or character of the neighbourhood reasons. The supporters mostly spoke (again) of increasing housing variety, the need to build “missing middle” housing forms between houses and towers.

In the end, Council in mostly split votes approved third reading for all bylaws. The need to meet Provincial housing requirements, and the interest in both housing variety and speeding up truly affordable housing approvals were cited as reason for support. You are better to listen to the video than read my summary of the reasons expressed by some other members of Council for opposition, but it was basically an anti-housing anti-growth message, peppered with misinformation around our infrastructure planning.

The Public Hearing feedback was indeed mixed, but the public consultation prior to the hearing was more firmly in support of the direction the Bylaws presented, including allowing infill and townhouses within Tier 2 and Tier 3 TOD areas (73% in support) and in supporting 6 storey affordable housing in the OTD areas (75%) and the Townhouse areas (63%).

To put some of the deliberating of these Bylaws in context, it is important to note that the Provincial Regulations came out in November 2023, and the City received a Federal Housing Accelerator Fund grant in February 2024 to fund our work toward meeting those requirements, and accelerating affordable housing approvals in the City. In response to this Staff developed a work plan to do the TOD and Townhouse work that was approved unanimously by this Council on May 27, 2024, and a work plan to do this Affordable Housing work was approved unanimously by this Council on June 3, 2024. I include the dates, because the motions and unanimous votes are a matter of public record, you can look this up.

On November 4, 2024 Council unanimously endorsed the approach to early and ongoing consultation, which included in the Spring of 2025 on-line consultation with a survey and an on-line Zoom information event, and a series of Community Open Houses that were well attended and outlined preferences and concerns. On October 27, 2025 Council unanimously, and item-by-item, approved the bylaws above to be prepared for readings, and on December 15, 2025 Council unanimously endorsed the detailed plan, and gave first and second readings to the Bylaws.

Everyone on Council is of course free to vote their conscience or change their mind, but I think it is fair for to ask members of Council raising serious objections to these Bylaws at 50 minutes after the 11th hour (literally and figuratively) why they did not take any of those five previous opportunities over the last two years to raise concerns to staff and Council. If they had, staff and the rest of Council could discuss those concerns, understand those concerns, maybe even make changes and seek consensus on solutions to address them. How are staff able to develop policy that meets your concerns if you have never, over 5 meetings and almost two years, raised a hint that you had any concerns? They are not mind readers. In my opinion, sitting on your hands and ignoring staff in multiple meetings over two years when they are asking for input, then telling them they did it all wrong at the end is not just bad leadership, it is disrespectful to the public service, and to the community.

And I’ll stop with the politics now and put the rest of that in the newsletter.

After the Public Hearing Bylaws were approved, we had one more piece of business which was a Bylaw for Adoption:

Development Cost Charges Police Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw No. 8570, 2025
This Bylaw that establishes a reserve fund for Police infrastructure that will be funded through development cost charges (and is one small part of the answer to the questions “Are we planning for infrastructure growth? How are we going to pay for it?” was adopted unanimously by Counicl.

And with that we were adjourned a few minutes before midnight.