Monday’s meeting was relatively brief compared to many this term, but it involved some pretty meaty discussions on issues small and large. You can always watch the video here and enjoy the full experience to hear the many points I can’t possible condense here in my regular reporting out. The Agenda started with one item carried over from the previous meeting that ran too long for us to get to it:

Relocation of Loading Zone on Sixth Street
This has been an interesting discussion over the last few weeks. The bus stop on Sixth Street at Sixth Ave is the busiest bus stop in the City that isn’t at a Skytrain Station with more than 1,200 transit users boarding and alighting there every day. The 106 route is also one of the busiest routes in the region, and shares this stop with the 105, while connections are made here to the 101 and 155. The 106 has specifically been a target for Speed and Reliability measures for some time. The preferred approach is to move the bus stop as close as possible to the Sixth and Sixth corner while still maintaining safe movements around what is also one of the busiest pedestrian intersections in the City. There is also a desire to build a modern, accessible, and sheltered bus stop that is “future proofed” for pending bus service improvements at this busiest stop in the City.

Unfortunately, these changes were not transmitted by the City or TransLink to the residents of an adjacent building, and they aren’t happy about that, mostly because a loading zone was near the entrance of their building was proposed to be moved to where the previous taxi queue was.

There was a pretty robust discussion around this, but I cannot help but mention there was quite a bit of misinformation circulated early that added to the resident’s anxiety and concerns, and despite staff and some of Council’s attempts to correct that information, we are deep into Betteridge’s Law by now. One example was access to HandiDart – and the need to clarify that the new longer bus stop will accommodate regular bus movements and HandiDart services, actually improving proximity to the building for HandiDart users (and providing a sheltered place for HandiDart users to wait for their ride). Indeed with the loading zone moved, HandiDart will be able to access the entirety of the curb from Princess Street to Sixth. Similarly, concerns that the changes will hamper ambulance of fire access were clearly refuted by the Fire Chief last meeting.

The biggest concern expressed by residents was that the loading zone at the Princess Street end of their street frontage present since the building was opened (and expanded in 2021 when some pay parking was stripped then modified further when a temporary bust stop was installed) would be lost, relocated to the south end of the blockface to replace the taxi queue area. Through discussion with staff, it was determined that returning this loading zone to the pre-2021 condition was viable, and would not seriously impact bus operations. There is some detail here to work out, as HandiDart access is still a primary concern, and we want to assure that still works with any modification, but it looks like Council has found a compromise between the needs of transit users and the needs of the building residents. If there is disappointment here, it is that we probably could have found this solution if we had taken a bit more time to talk to folks prior to starting the redesign work, but we got here now, and I’m glad Council took the time to listen an understand the problem, and staff were able to find a workaround. Sometimes it works, folks.

---

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Bylaw Amendments to Reflect Community Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8529, 2025
Council adopted (unanimously) Bylaw 8529 in late September, a Bylaw that collects various user fees together under a new Bylaw to align with our new departmental structure. This means edits to three other Bylaws to finish the move: these are those three Bylaws.

Downtown BIA Renewal 2026 – 2029
Business Improvement Areas are non-profit organizations regulated by the Community Charter. The members (defined as businesses property owners within a geographic area) agree to a taxation level, usually based on the frontage or area of their property, the City collects those taxes and returns them to the BIA to do “business improvement” activities defined in the Charter. This agreement between the city and the BIA must be renewed every four years. Last month, the members of the Downtown BIA unanimously approved a four-year renewal term, and a pretty significant increase in their levy, the City need to pass a Bylaw to make this a reality.

---

The following two items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Response to Council Motion – Limiting Business Licences for Vape Stores
There has been community concern raised about vape technology, both as a public health concern for youth and about the prevalence of new shops opening up in New West. Tasha Henderson has been working with colleagues across the province to advocate for the Province to take better control of the industry, recognizing that municipal borders don’t mean much to a supply chain like this, but there is something we can do locally to stem the tide a little. There are “age restricted” vape shops in New West – a category that doesn’t include gas station convenience stores or other retail places where vape products may be available, but they are not displayed, much like cigarettes are managed.

Regulating retail for an undesirable but legal products needs to be approached carefully. Sometimes it points to a moral panic (see video game arcade restrictions that were a hassle to overturn a few years ago), and sometimes it opens the gates to Council having to draw lines in gray areas with imperfect knowledge (are vape stores worse than cigar stores?) and without fully understanding the outcome being sought. This is a good example, if vape shops are age restricted, is this about keeping those products out of the hands of youth? Or do we just not like the aesthetic of vape shops? Politics is about the grey.

The City hosted a Retail Strategy roundtable this summer with many businesses and commercial property owners there, and they overwhelmingly supported some restriction of Vape shops because of a perceived impact on street vitality. We also received correspondence from the medial health officer supporting further restriction. So staff are recommending we update our zoning bylaw to limit expansion of new age-restricted vape shops, recognizing that the existing one are “grandfathered” in – we don’t have strong legal grounds to shut them down. And Council agreed.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit Applications: 801 Columbia Street
The vacant lot at Eighth and Columbia is one of those challenging spots in the City. It was an area of, to be generous, underperforming retail prior to being demolished by the City to support the staging of adjacent construction (including belonging to the city to support staging for Anvil Centre construction). The City (in hindsight, probably not wisely) sold the property off, and in 2016, considered a Development Permit to build a three-story commercial building on the site.

Alas, the developer of that plan never competed their planning, and the property was sold off again, and still sits as an empty lot in the middle of the downtown. The current owner now wants to build a rental high-rise on the spot with two stories of retail at grade and (this is a first for New Westminster, and no surprise considering the adjacent SkyTrain and new Provincial Transit Oriented Development regulations) no residential parking.

This is a preliminary application, but Council did not sound particularly excited about it. There were a number of concerns raised, mostly around buildability (there is nowhere except busy streets to stage construction of a building this scale), and a general lack of amenity value for such a large development.

The purpose of this preliminary review is not to say yes or no (as this is not a complete application or proposal and there are numerous details to work out), but for Council to let staff and the developer know if there are significant concerns that need to be addressed prior to consideration of rezoning, and to set some expectations for community amenities or other conditions that should be included if a rezoning application comes to Council. In the end, that list seemed longer than Council was comfortable drafting in a council meeting, so the decision was to defer this item until next Council meeting so Council can show up with a more considered list.

---

And that was the end of the very short agenda. Happy Diwali everyone! Go Jays Go!

Back for the UBCM (report soon) and back to your regular Council schedule. Our Monday meeting had a fairly light Agenda, though we first had a presentation from TICorp on progress on the Pattullo Bridge Replacement project. Details here.

Council moved the following items On Consent:

Licence Agreement with BC Transportation Financing Authority for Construction of a Multi-Use Path in Grimston Park
We are building a bike lane in the West End. Don’t panic – this is a short connection between the foot of the Stewardson multi-use overpass and Nanaimo Street beside Grimston park. It’s a small project, but it is on Ministry of Transportation land, so we need a licence agreement to put a path on their land.

Local Government Climate Action Program 2024 Reporting Year and Corporate Emissions Inventory Update
The City is part of the Province’s Local Government Climate Action Program (LGCAP), meaning we get annual funding from the Province (~$300K/year) for our climate action work. We are required to report back on how we spend the money, but also provide reporting on our Greenhouse Gas Emissions and actions towards our Corporate Energy and Emissions Reduction Strategy. This is that annual reporting – all 24 pages of the work we are doing.

Our emissions have been reduced 32% compared to the 2010 baseline, and we are on track to meet our CEERS goal of 45% reduction by 2023. We are not on track to meet our “stretch goal” of Net Zero by 2030 in our Seven Bold Steps, and the path to get there is a body of ongoing work.

Report Back on School Streets and NASSI Opportunity
This NASSI program creates “pop-up” School streets for a week around schools in some communities as a bit of a demonstration of a different way to traffic calm and reclaim road space around schools. We had previously looked at participating in the 2025-26 school year, but Council decided it was not cost-effective, and was not the highest priority for limited resources. At that time, staff received some new info about the program just as the report was coming to Council, and promised a report back. This is that report. In short, the program needs a 9-month lead time, significant City staff time, and the $12,500 available for funding the program would not cover a substantial amount of the cost, and Council have decided that this effort an investment is better spent on existing road safety work.

Temporary Use Permit: 30 Capilano Way (Amusement Arcade)
There is a funky little business in the Braid Industrial Area that fixes and maintains pinball machines and video game consoles, and at the same time operates as an arcade where people can play the games. This doesn’t align with Industrial Zoning, so Council (in a fit of COVID enthusiasm, and in a split vote if I remember) issued a Temporary Use Permit to allow the business to add “amusement” to their industrial designation. We are now considering extending the TUP to mid-2027, which is the longest period we are allowed to grant a TUP without doing a full rezoning.

In 2027, the applicant will need to apply for a rezoning if they want to stay. Before that date, we hope to have a new Industrial Lands Strategy which should help inform the Council of the time on where this kind of niche use fits in our limited job-creation lands.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Housing and Land Use Planning 2025-2026 Work Program.
This report is an annual staff checking in with Council on the work plan, no doubt as they plan for upcoming budget discussions and Council’s need to know what is included in our existing (budgeted) work plan. Of course, housing and land use planning have been busy files this term, with our Housing accelerator Fund programming, the Provincial housing regulations, and work around the Crises Response Pilot Project that included this department.

There is a lot here for our relatively small but nimble Housing and Land Use Planning staff compliment, including work to address homelessness, to fast-track affordable housing, to build more homes near Public Transit (TOD areas, including the 22nd Street vision), starting the process on a new Downtown Community Plan, Infill and Townhouse programs, Rental replacement and secured market rental policies. There is also liaison work being done to support School planning, and whole lot of tracking and reporting out on progress ot both provide Council transparency, but also to demonstrate to our funding partners that their investments are well made in New West.

Implications of Housing Legislation on Curbside Management
I’ve written about “Curbside Management” before – this is a more comprehensive way to view street parking strategy. The City has 400+km of curbside space, and curbside in some of our neighbourhoods are the most valuable real estate in the City: needed for transit prioritization, for active transportation, for commercial loading zones, for accessible parking, for deliveries and for trash removal, and (if any space is left over), good old fashioned parking. Right now 67% of our curbspace in the City is unregulated (you can park a car there with no cost or restriction).

The new provincial housing regulations have thrown a bit of a wrench on how we manage street parking demand. When we can no longer require off-street parking with new development, and off-street parking being so expansive to build (a single underground parking spot can cost $50,000 or more to build), it is likely there will be more demand for street parking. Of course the changes in new housing form will take years – decades even – to become common, so we have some time to address the anticipated challenges. People who really care might want to spend a bit of that time reading the bible of parking policy, because the plan here is to start talking to the community about curb space priorities, look at changes in waste collection, parking enforcement, and permitting systems to assure we are meeting the community’s expectations regarding curbside use. This is surprisingly complicated policy work, with perverse incentives and unintended consequences on every curb, which is why staff asked Council for the resources to do the background policy development work before bringing recommendations. Council agreed to this.

Alas, a motion came from Council that seemed to undermine a lot of this, proposing a suite of new policies bereft of the background work to understand the implications for the community. Fortunately, Council voted against immediate implementation, and asked staff to report back on the resources required for some of the policy changes, while dismissing others that were clearly more populist than policy.

---

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992, Amendment Bylaw No. 8491, 2025
This Bylaw that changes how we manage Construction Noise Bylaw exemptions was adopted by Council.

Community Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8529, 2025
Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8534, 2025
Fire Protection Bylaw No. 6940, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8535, 2025
Planning & Development Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 8541, 2025
Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8546, 2025
These Bylaws that set various fees and rates for 2026 were adopted by Council.

2026 Permissive Property Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 8542, 2025
This Bylaw that designates what properties in the City get an permissive property Tax exemption was adopted by Council.

We had our now-twice-annual Council Meeting in Queensborough, at the always-active Queensborough Community Centre. Items related to the start of our 2026 Budget process dominated our full agenda. However, we started with a bit of Unfinished Business from previous meetings interruptus:

Riverfront Vison Update – Westminster Pier Park to Sapperton Landing Park
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS the Riverfront is the City’s most significant cultural, economic and natural asset, home to vibrant and diverse public spaces, high quality recreation, business and housing, and significant natural features and is an integral component of the local economy, providing employment, services and tourism opportunities while providing a living link to the city’s past; and
WHEREAS the City of New Westminster’s Riverfront vision, as adopted by City Council in February 2016, includes goals to create a continuous network of attractive Greenways and parks, provide connections from all neighborhoods to the river and to programing and animating the riverfront with an active, engaging and dynamic series of experiences compatible with existing industrial uses that entice visitors to explore its many destinations and adjacent amenities; and
WHEREAS the envisioned riverfront pedestrian connection between Westminster Pier Park and Sapperton Landing Park is a vital component of the overall Riverfront vision; and
WHEREAS the imminent completion of Pier Park West and expanded esplanade and the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge is nearing completion;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff provide Council with an update on the implementation status and overview of the logistical considerations, and challenges that need to be addressed in order to complete the riverfront pedestrian connection between Westminster Pier Park and Sapperton Landing Park.

This is a topic that comes up frequently when I am talking to the community – is it possible to connect Pier Park to Sapperton Landing with multi-purpose path? The City did some work a few years ago to look at the feasibility, and the answer was, “probably, but it won’t be easy”. Then we had the Pier Park fire (which made the distance farther), the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project (which was in the way of doing any significant planning), and the expansion of Pier Park West (which was a higher priority for limited parks planning staff). Council back in October of 2023 agreed unanimously on a more careful path forward on the Pier Park replacement related to some of these challenges.

It’s worth mentioning the many challenges in the way to make this connection work, starting with the City not owning large parts of the land (or water) where the trail would need to go. There are jurisdictional challenges with the Port, the railways, Metro Vancouver, the Province, and First Nations rightsholders. There are engineering challenges with constrained space, a tidal river with significant industrial use, rail proximity and the significant challenge of there being a train bridge that you cannot easily get under or over. See above where I said “it’s not easy”. But with the Experience the Fraser project picking up regional steam, Metro Vancouver looking at parks expansion, and other adjacent projects beginning to wind down, it is time to start the conversations again about this missing link.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

2026 Permissive Property Tax: Exempt Properties – Review of Application Results
We annually approve a Bylaw that exempts some properties from all or some of their property taxes. This is a provincial regulated process, and most exemptions are regulatory (we are required to provide exemption – like churches) and some are permissive, or at the pleasure of Council (like Honour House and the Sapperton Pensioners Hall). This is the Bylaw that codifies and costs that list.

Construction Noise Bylaw No. 6063, 1992, Amendment Bylaw No. 8491, 2025
Regular readers will recognize we do a lot of Construction Noise Bylaw Exemptions at Council, often multiple for a single project (such as SkyTrain station construction work that must happen when the tracks are closed). Our Current Bylaw says only Council can grant these, and in part that is because Council are often the ones who receive complaints, so they should know what’s happening. That said, it is a lot of work to put a council report together, and construction can be delayed while builders wait for the Council process to unfold. This is one of those “red tape” things people talk about often with Local Government.

Staff are recommending that we delegate the authority to permit these exemptions for “Public regional service Providers”, which essentially means various levels of government building hospitals, transit, and the such. The Bylaw still applies to them, they still need to get an exemption approved, but staff will be able to grant those approvals.

Council Strategic Priorities Plan – Second Semi-Annual Report for 2025
This is our semi-annual report on progress toward Council’s Strategic Priorities Plan, adopted by Council back toward the beginning of the term. I might write a follow-up on this as there is a lot in this report. In short, the work we planned to get done this year (aside from some of the emergent issues that have arisen during the term – like the need to adopt a new OCP because of Provincial Housing Regulations) is coming along for the most part. Of 51 work areas, the dashboard shows we are in the green (completed, or in progress as expected) for 30, are in the orange (progress has been made, but more to do) on 18, and three are in the red (We will be challenged to see them completed). When I look back at the chaos of the last couple of years – Federal and Provincial elections, fundamental regulatory changes, economic uncertainty from inflation, tariffs and likely recession) – I am actually a little surprised and pleased we have met so many goals. There is a theme here –among the chaos, we are just getting the shit done.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2025 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
Our quarterly reporting out on finances is generally positive. As one might expect with the global economy now, capital costs are up a bit (1.3%) due to inflation and delay, but staff have found some internal efficiencies and re-allocations to get that down to less than 0.4% impact on our budget. Meanwhile, we are projecting an operational surplus (taking in more money that we budgeted) of about 2.4%, almost all of this utility charges (because more people are hooking up to utility than budgeted) and increased interest earned on our reserves. At the same time our spending is 1.2% below projected, largely because if ongoing vacancies and time it is taking to fill some funded positions. Together, this adds up to about a $11.8M surplus, again mostly in Utility funds.

In short, the finances of the City are being well managed.

Budget 2026: Fees and Rates Review, Amendment Bylaws
One of the early steps of our annual budgeting process is to set next year’s “fees and charges” for everything from parking to building permits to cemetery services. We do this early because it helps finance staff with the modelling that goes into creating next year’s budget. It’s good to have those numbers in our pocket before we start talking tax rates.

These fees are overall meant to approximate the cost of providing the service, though some (like discounts for seniors or parking fees to manage a limited resource) are also set to fit a policy goal. Staff generally recommend that we increase fees every year to keep up with inflation (as measured by CPI), as that is a good proxy for the increased cost to deliver the various services. They also regularly do a regional scan to assure our fees re not out of scale with what other cities are charging. If we are way above or below others, that is probably a sign we are doing something wrong in how we cost the work.

Parking is something that often comes up in these conversations, and without getting into the weeds now (read Don Shoup!), staff are suggesting we do a more comprehensive parking strategy – actually a more comprehensive curbside management strategy – after the new OCP is adopted and we have adoption of the new provincial housing regulations as they relate to off-street parking.

As is typical for a Council with a $300 Million budget to discuss, we spent most of our time talking about a $10,000 item, the fares for the QtoQ. Staff proposed raising the fares by a quarter ($1.25 to $1.50 for concession fares, $2.25 to $2.50 for Adult). This is more than a CPI increase, but is still a pretty modest increase for a service that City taxpayers already subsidize to the tune of $800,000 a year (not including capital costs). In the end the majority of Council agreed to a smaller increase of the Concession fares to $1.30, and the recommended Adult fare increase.

Budget 2026 Process, Schedule, and Baseline Property Tax and Utility Rate Projections
This report does not “project a 5.3% property tax increase”, nor has “staff recommended a 5.3% baseline property tax increase”, despite the misinformation already being circulated by austerity mongers. This report is not setting even a preliminary tax rate; we are way too early in the process for that, and have not even seen the Police Board budget yet. This report is simply setting some groundwork and getting Council to agree to a process of workshops and meetings to work out the 2026 budget.

When staff present a 5.3% tax increase as the “business as usual” baseline, they are simply telling us that if we want a lower increase than that, something will need to be cut from the work we are already committed to doing, and if we want to deliver more to the community, the increase will need to be higher than that. Anyone who has watched this process over the last few years (once again, the most transparent budget decision making of any Council in the Lower Mainland), the reality is that we have yet to know what new commitments Council will agree to, or what savings will be found within the current budget, but almost certainly both will happen over the next three months before we know what the 2026 tax rate will be.

---

We had one Bylaw for Adoption:

Title to Highway (Portion of Keary Street) Bylaw No. 8533, 2025
This Bylaw that allows the creation of an air space parcel for the construction of an overhead walkway between Royal Columbian Hospital and the new office building at 230 Keary Street was adopted by Council.

---

And after appointing a number of people to City Advisory Committees and panels, that was the work for the evening!

Following last post, here is Part 2 of my long report from the Council meeting this week,. the “work we got done” part, starting with the items we approves On Consent:

22nd Street Station Area: Planning and Development Department Work Plan for Implementation of the reGENERATE Vision
The 22nd street Station area continues to be a work in progress. The City recognizes that single family homes adjacent to SkyTrain Stations are not a great way to support the Regional Growth Strategy, or any sustainable development principles of transit-oriented urban growth – not to mention the Provincial TOD legislation under Bill 47. However, the City also recognizes (and have heard clearly from the community) that we have one chance to get this area right, and community needs around infrastructure and amenities need to be addressed with any redevelopment of this area. This “study area” work involves Planning, Parks, Engineering, and other City departments, and is not done yet, though we have done quite a bit of public consultation around it.

The vision that resulted from more than a year of proactive community consultation was endorsed by Council in December of last year (unanimously) and the next steps are to develop design guidelines for new buildings to inform the Development Permit application process and design the eventual public space and streetscape design, This will coincide with high-level planning of a Transit Village around the 22nd Street Station, planning the shorter-term and longer-term vision for the BC Hydro lands that run as a green corridor (albeit, one with power lines over it) through the neighbourhood; and continued advocacy and collaboration with titleholders and stakeholders.

230 Keary Street and Royal Columbian Hospital Bridge Connection
As part of the last building in the Brewery District, the developer agreed to provide an accessible connection between RCH and the SkyTrain station through their property. For a variety of reasons, the best connection is an elevated walkway over Keary Street and the commercial fourth floor of the 203 Keary Street building. They would build this over City land, meaning we need to sell them an airspace parcel – 1350 cubic metres of air over public land. We are legally required to seek fair market value and balance that against the value of the public amenity. The value of a fully accessible connection between Sapperton Skytrain and the Hospital is clearly a valuable public amenity that would cost the City millions to build, so staff recommend we sell the airspace parcel for $1, with the agreement that we get it back if the bridge is removed when it meets end of life many decades in the future.

Construction Noise Bylaw Variance Request: 252 Brunette Avenue
TransLink needs to do some work on the Sapperton Skytrain Station to permit longer trains and improved service that can’t happen when the trains are running, and hoped to do it by now (we previously gave them a construction noise variance) but it has been delayed for a variety of reasons, including scheduling issues with the underlying railways. So we are letting then do construction work outside of construction hours to allow the work to get done.

Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 8327, 2022, Amendment Bylaw No. 8539, 2025, and Amenity Cost Charges Bylaw No. 8540, 2025
The City is updating its Development Cost Charges Bylaw and creating a new Amenity Cost Charges bylaw to align with Bill 46, the new provincial legislation that changes how Cities can extract money from new development to pay for infrastructure and amenities to support that growth.

Both DCCs and ACCs are strictly regulated by the province, as we are required to identify and cost the projects that the monies collected from these charges are spent on, not just “we are going to buy more pipes” but “we are going to upgrade Pipe X to Y capacity and Z% of that is due to growth”, meaning it is a technical exercise involving Engineering, Finance, and Planning departments. As such, these updates represent work done so far, and we expect there will be another more comprehensive update in early 2027, informed by our imminent OCP updates and the upcoming Parks and Recreation, Solid
Waste, and Utilities Master Plans.

Staff took these proposed Bylaws to both the development community and the general public for feedback. Now we approve!

Provincial Housing Target Order – Year One Progress Report
A year ago, New Westminster received Housing Target Orders. At the time, I told the Minister we would have no problem meeting them, but we would need more support from the Province for infrastructure and amenities – and where the hell are the schools? As we look at our one-year report, I note that 10 more cities were issued orders last week, and Richard Stewart’s response was to steal my bit (I joke! This is a bit we have all been sharing as regional mayors! More voices the better! Though I wish he also had this level of concern about affordable and supportive housing need in his community).

The good news is that we (as predicted) are meeting our ordered Housing Targets. Indeed, in the first year we exceeded our order, which is a good thing because not only are the order targets based on only 75% of the current actual need in the community, the recent downtown in the development industry suggests that completions towards the end of our 5-year Target Order window will not be as easy to come by, so good to get out ahead a bit. In short, we are 170% of our 2025 target, but have just completed about 26% of our 5-year target.

The not-as-good news, we are slightly below our proportional rental target (42% of new units where the target was 52%), but projections are we will get closer to the target with buildings currently under construction. The worse news part is (as I said to the Minister a year ago) we cannot meet our affordable housing targets without significant increases in senior government funding for affordable housing. Though we currently have two non-market rental buildings under construction, and a third about to break ground, none of these show up in the annual report this year.

Rezoning Application: 140 Sixth Street (Royal Towers) – Application Review Process
The owners of the Royal Towers have been working on a redevelopment plan for the site, and are working through a process of staged approval and development in an uncertain housing market. Their current proposal is consistent with the OCP, but would be a substantial rezoning well exceeding the density envisioned for the Tier 2 TOD area (within 400m of SkyTrain). The proposal is to build two 6-storey buildings, one secured non-market (affordable) rental, the other secured market rental, then demolish the existing Royal Towers moving the residents into the new building. This would be followed by a larger phase of building two large strata towers to pay for it all. The project would also include a commercial area, courtyard public gathering area, etc. The report right now is to update Council on their phasing proposal, and to give the basic details before the developer goes to public consultation to get some public feedback.

Section 219 Covenant for Statutory Rights of Way for Metro Vancouver at TACC
Metro Vancouver has a major sewer line that runs in the old Glenbrook Channel in front of təməsew̓txʷ, one of the constraints on how the building was designed to fit 110,000 square feet and two large pool tanks between the old Canada Games Pool and this right of way. We are updating the rights-of-way to address two utility access areas Metro wants to assure they can maintain their sewer line if and when needed.

Temporary Use Permit Extension for Royal Columbian Hospital Phase Two Construction Parking: 97 Braid Street
During the construction of the new RCH tower, the City has granted a Temporary Use Permit to allow construction teams to park next to Braid Skytrain station in recognition of a lack of parking near the hospital, and the project team has been running shuttles from the Braid station to the construction site. They are asking for a one-year extension of the TUP to see this phase of the project through to completion.

---

We had one item Removed from Consent for discussion:

Updated Terms of Reference for Community Advisory Assembly
The City is recruiting for the second cohort of Community Advisory Committee members, and based on learnings from the pilot project and feedback from the Assembly Steering Committee, have drafted updated and slightly modified Terms of Reference for the Assembly.

---

And we had one single Bylaw for Adoption:

Housing Agreement Bylaw (1923 & 1927 Marine Way) No. 8507, 2025
This Bylaw that secures 89 affordable rental housing units in a six-storey residential development by 22nd Street station was adopted by Council. Yes, we continue to approve affordable housing.

---

Go enjoy your Labour Day weekend, and Go Bellies Go.

Another eventful meeting with a pretty stuffed agenda. I am going to avoid some of the drama of the meeting, because it is more about the work than the disruptions, and we got a lot of good work done thought we did not get through our entire Agenda. Here is the summary of what we did get through starting with Unfinished Business from the previous meeting:

Exploring the Implementation of Quiet Zones in New Westminster
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS quiet zones in cities across Canada have been successfully used to reduce noise pollution, enhance livability, and promote public health, particularly in residential, institutional, and high-pedestrian areas;
WHEREAS the City of New Westminster currently lacks a formal framework for identifying or designating quiet zones, and increased urban density, traffic and train whistles have led to rising concerns about noise impacts;
WHEREAS the implementation of quiet zones requires careful planning, community consultation, signage, and possible bylaw adjustments to ensure equitable access and effective enforcement;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to explore the feasibility of introducing designated quiet zones in New Westminster, including a review of best practices from other municipalities, potential criteria for zone selection, necessary bylaw amendments, and options for community engagement and enforcement, and report back with recommendations.

Far from lacking a framework, the City has a Noise Bylaw that includes Quiet Zones in schedule B of the Bylaw, so I offered an amendment of the Bylaw to more fairly reflect this condition, and asks staff to come back with a review of that framework. I also wanted to make clear that any Quiet Zones would have no power over train whistles, which are federally regulated and required by the Rail Safety Act. That said, the major complaint we hear about noise is generally traffic noise (someone wise once said “cities are not loud, cars are loud”). Traffic noise is already regulated in our noise bylaw, and by the Motor Vehicle Act section 7a, but are traditionally difficult to enforce. So I offered the following amendment that was approved by Council:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to review how quiet zones in New Westminster are designated, and review best practices from other municipalities on enforcement of noise bylaws and the Motor Vehicle Act as they relate to traffic noise, necessary bylaw amendments, and options for community engagement and enforcement, and report back with recommendations.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8509, 2025 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8510, 2025
These Bylaws that permanently protect one house in Queens Park while the lot is subdivided and second home is built on the new lot were adopted by Council.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 7318, 2009, Amendment Bylaw No. 8526, 2025 and Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw No. 8077, 2019, Amendment Bylaw No. 8527, 2025
These Bylaws that allow us to enforce recent changes in our Business Licence Bylaws around permitting air conditioners in all rental apartment buildings was approved by Council.

---

We the moved the following items On Consent:

Appointment of City Officer
There are several jobs in the City that have statutory duties under provincial legislation, one of those is the Chief License Inspector. Although Council does not hire or fire people (except the CAO), we do have to appoint these “officers” through Council resolution. This resolution shifts the title of Chief Licence Inspector from our Director Community Services to our Manager of Economic Development.

Housing Agreement: 1923 & 1927 Marine Way (Affordable Rental Housing) – Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
Council previously approved the rezoning of this affordable housing project in the West End, this is the Housing Agreement that secures the terms of the “affordable” part of the housing for 60 years, and provides some capital support through our Affordable Housing Reserve Fund to help with some of the capital cost of the project as that fund was set up to do.

This project will provide 89 new homes, mostly directed at young people aging out of provincial care and young moms with kids, aligned with the mandate of Aunt Leah’s Society who are the operator here. 30% of the units will be market rents, 50% will be “rent geared to income” where the rent will be adjusted to reflect no more than 30% of the residents income, and 20% deep subsidy units where rent will be 30% of income or Maximum Shelter Allowance, whichever is lower. Truly affordable housing.

Parks and Recreation Fees Bylaw No. 6673, 2001, Amendment Bylaw No. 8531, 2025
This is our annual setting of Parks and Recreation fees, which Council workshopped back on June 16th, and supported unanimously. Increases are generally 2.5% to keep up with inflation, and we do comparators to adjacent communities with similar service levels every year – not because it is a competition, but just to assure we are not out of touch with the market. Turns out compared to the region, most of our admission rates (17 of 30 admission categories, or 57%) are lower than both the regional average and regional median, and most of our rental rates (41 of 51 rental categories, or 80%) are lower than both the regional average and median, with many of our rental rates among the cheapest in the region.

We are planning a more comprehensive review once the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is completed in the early fall, but for now we are just doing inflationary adjustments.

Memorandum: Participation at the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction Municipal Leaders Table – April 13 to 16, 2025
Councillor Nakagawa received an invitation to attend this conference on Substance Use and Addictions for Municipal leaders back in April. As this is not an FCM/UBCM conference, and it was out of province, our travel policy asks for a public reporting out of the activities and expenses. This is that report!

Statutory Rights of Way for Metro Vancouver at TACC
Metro Vancouver has a major sewer line that runs through the old Glen Brook Ravine adjacent to təməsew̓txʷ. They already have a right-of way along the line, and təməsew̓txʷ was built to respect that right of way, but Metro wants two small additions to secure maintenance locations if need be. So we are giving them those, agreeing not to build on those spots, and if they have to tear them up, they will put them back as they were.

Summary of Historical and Current Funding and In-Kind Support for Hyack Festival Association and May Day Community Association
The issue of how much support the City gives Hyack Festival Association and the May Day Festival Association has become an unfortunate political football (see motion below), with much rhetoric about the City both increasing and decreasing their grant in recent years. This report provides the facts.

The HFA has done more than the Parade each year, but the number of different things they delivered each year has shifted significantly, and so has the grant the City provided them. At the same time, the City has evolved to a much more transparent and accountable granting mechanism, because these are public funds, and both the taxpayer and the auditors demand that we are transparent in how that money is allocated. It is no longer standard practice to provide free in-kind services out of operational budgets. In 2025, we received $1.8M in grant requests, and awarded about $1.0M in grants.

Since 2019, HFA has asked for support for their Ambassador Program, the Farewell to Summer fireworks, and the Hyack Parade. The Ambassador Program was suspended in 2022, meaning their grant request went down a little, but since 2022 HFA’s grant has gone up every year, from aobut $45,000 a year to about $68,000 in 2025. This is less than a peak of $88,000 in 2016, but again, HFA is offering fewer programs than they did in 2016 and (this important) their 2025 request was for a little over $72,000, of which they were awarded a little over $67,000. They received 93% of what they requested in 2025.

The May Day Community Organization has a very different history. This used to be a program run by the School District, and the City contributed grants to the School District to help support a very large district-wide event, and again we funded aspects of this operation (an annual banquet for example) out of operational funds with, at best, vague accounting for the costs. When the School District stopped running a District-wide event, a volunteer community group took over, and since 2021 have asked for grant support from the City. They have received between $3,000 and $8,000 every year since. In 2025 they requested $5,700, and were granted about $3,500.

This is just a data report, but that date become important as we talk about the motion regarding grants that comes up later in the meeting.

Zoning Amendment (102-128 East Eighth Avenue and 721 Cumberland Street): Bylaws for First, Second and Third Readings
The owners of a land assembly in upper Sapperton (by Resident Association maps) or Massy Victory Heights (by planning boundary) want to replace 10 older single family homes with 55 family-friendly townhouses. This is a project that has been in the works for several years, first appearing in front of the land use and planning committee in 2019, and looks to provide one of the most sought-after but hard to pencil out building forms in the city – townhouses on the mainland! The overall result is 55 homes where up to 30 are currently permitted.

The project is compliant with the OCP, but requires a rezoning. It is mostly complaint with the proposed zoning (1.03 FSR, heights and setbacks, parking, family friendly housing mix, etc.) but will require removal of many trees, mostly in fair to poor condition, so in the long term a healthier tree canopy will exist with the proposed 60 replacement trees. The public consultation was mixed as one would expect, a little more than half in support and a little less than half opposed.

The step we are at here is three readings of the rezoning bylaw, and council provided those three readings.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Consolidation of Public Compensation for Council Members
This is a report for receipt, and a type of addendum to the Statement of Financial Information the City provides (as do the other government organizations listed in the report) showing not just Council’s wages and expenses in the City, but their wages and expenses from external agencies that Council appoints members to serve. Elected people get paid to do their work, and to quote a locally-famous former civic blogger: “Given how much we pay [local government politicians], I think we’re getting good value for money. It’s clear that major cities across Canada pay their civic politicians peanuts, I think it’s time we seriously consider giving them a raise”

Crises Response Pilot Project: Q2 2025 update
We are about a half year in to the CRPP, and staff are reporting back to us on successes and challenges of bringing the program online. As we both received significant funding support from the Federal Government and have underspent in the first half of this year, we have sufficient budget to extend the program to the end of 2026.

Again, this program has just launched, but there are some great stories of success in here. The Outreach Team has connected with a lot of people and made hundreds of referrals, including helping a couple who were continually sheltering in the Sapperton Park public toilets connect with the supports they needed to get into safe permanent housing in the City and have safe permanent housing. The Operations Support team has seen training of frontline workers and increased street cleanliness work, while the Community Liaison Officers are supporting community concerns and now have a one-number Community Support Line to assure residents and businesses have 24/7 response to concerns. This is real work helping people in our community –exactly what the community is asking us to do in the face of the overlapping crises we are facing. On top of this, the advocacy team was instrumental in getting New Westminster the only Federal EFT funding to any community in British Columbia, reducing the cost to local taxpayers of this program to the tune of $1.46 Million.

There is a lots of work to do yet, and we know the long-term solution here will be senior government investments in housing and healthcare, but our CRPP is saving lives, reducing suffering, addressing community concerns, and saving the City money. I’m really proud of this City for doing this work.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Housing Legislation and Housing Accelerator Fund Initiatives – Next Steps
The City has been working on addressing two sets of priorities – meeting the letter and spirit of the Province’s housing regulations (I wrote about <ahref=https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2023/11/housing-bill-44.html>Bill 44, Bill 46, and Bill 47shortly after they were passed) and meeting the terms of our $11.4 Million Housing Accelerator Fund grant from the Federal Government, both of which mean an update to our Official Community Plan. Council ran into some procedural challenges when this report came to Council in Workshop back in June 2, and we had really hoped to be at Public Hearing by now, but we are working those issues out and we have an updated approach and timeline to completing the OCP work.

The decision before us today is not the entire OCP update, just the process for us to review it and get us to that Public Hearing in September. Staff have recommended a structure of the discussion (not breaking up the OCP into sections, but doing it omnibus), and a timeline that is now a few months behind schedule (note – it is not staff behind schedule, they had these reports ready in June, it is Council that is behind). Still, we don’t like to do Public Hearings in August, so September is the best timeline, and we have already reached out to both the Province and the Federal government to apologize for missing our end of July deadlines and warning them we may not make our December 31 deadlines with the Public hearing in September, but have assured them we are acting in good faith and doing everything we can to get to Public Hearing by September.

Proposed Climate Action Priorities for Submission to the CleanBC Review Process
I have opinions about CleanBC. I think it is as aggressive a climate plan as any subnational government in North America has proposed and yet I have almost no confidence the Province will do the difficult work required to implement the plan in time ot make the targets they have set. BC is doing incredible work on climate that often goes underappreciated, from the zero carbon building code to funding the Local Government Climate Action Program, but we are still falling far short of where our targets need to be if we are going to meet our commitments to GHG reduction (and don’t get me started on the LNG carbon bomb that will almost certainly offset any gains we make by 2025).

With that as preamble the province is engaging in a review of CleanBC and is looking for feedback from the public and from municipalities and other stakeholders. Our Climate Action staff have provided a draft response here. I added a few comments for staff regarding the CleanBC commitment to vkt reduction datasharing with municipalities on vehicle emissions, and on needing more equity and adaptation language.

If you have opinions, share them with the province here.

Remedial Action Requirement: 53 Fourth Street
This older three-story apartment building downtown is falling apart. City buildings staff and Fire Inspectors have been keeping an eye on it for several years, and have been in touch with the owners and tenants. For a long time it seemed crooked but stable, but it is now at a point where emergency repairs and shoring are needed to assure the safety of the residents. The owners have not been moving at repairs at a pace that fills our building inspectors with confidence, so we are putting a remedial order on the building – essentially setting a deadline and saying “fix the building or we will do it ourselves and send you the bill”.

Rezoning Application: 912 Queens Avenue and 129-137 Tenth Street – Application Considerations
This is a challenging situation. A small developer has bought up several lots on the corner of 10th and Queens where there are some older buildings and want to build an 8-storey 75-unit residential and commercial building. When initially approaching the City back in 2023, they were told that they would need to address tenant displacement from the one multi-unit rental building on the site, and that the City was not likely to approve a large project that didn’t include a fifth property that is effectively surrounded by the proposed development. Though the project is in the 800m TOD area, the development as proposed would require both an OCP Amendment and a rezoning, and that the City’s interim treatment of TOD areas is that only rental will be approved, where this is predominantly a market strata proposal. There are also heritage considerations with a house on the proposal property and the potential locked-in property, as both are 19-centruy houses of unknown heritage value.

Overall, staff are only asking here that we ask the developer to come back with a revised proposal that includes the locked-in property, includes rental and non-market rental to address the loss of affordable rental with the demolition of the multi-family building on site.

Rezoning, Development Permit, and Development Variance Permit Application: 317-319 Howes Street – Additional Information
This is a new look at an older application that was sent back from Council back in 2023 due to a variety of concerns including site access and tree loss. At the time, the owner was hoping to put in 24-26 townhouses on a lot that is a bit locked in by the development next to it.

The proposal included doing significant soil prep on the site as is typical in Queensborough, including lifting the site to flood level with fill over the entire lot, which obviously make tree retention impossible. An updated survey shows parts of the property don’t need to be raised, and trees on that part may be preserved. However, I am still concerned about site access, as a single right-in right-out only access to an already challenging intersection at Howes and the Highway onramps does not appear it would serve the needs of the residents, and would likely result in a number of illegal and unsafe movements as people try to access the property. It would also create a less safe situation for folks access the transit stop, with nothing in this project projected to improve that stop.

This is a preliminary report, a check-in with council, and the message I have for the developer is that it will be hard to convince me that the site access here can be done in a safe way, but I would like to see what they develop to address this challenge (including, if possible, securing right of way through the adjacent property).

Westminster Pier Park – Activation and Community Re-Engagement
With the opening of the Esplanade and pending expansion westward of Pier Park, we are also assuring Pier Park is as accessible and welcoming as possible. We have had some challenges with vandalism (not something you only see in Pier Park, of course) and rare occasions of poor public behavior, mostly related to overconsumption of alcohol (and, noted clearly be staff, not related to homelessness). With the Afro World Expo, the Dia de Campo, and other events programming the space, we are getting more folks down there, so it is a good time to review how we do eyes on the park and address community standards. We are boosting some resources for cleanliness and introducing a Park Liaison Officer model, similar to the CLOs that are operating downtown.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Retail Sale of Cannabis (416 East Columbia Street) Amendment Bylaw No. 8520, 2025
The City first approved Cannabis retailers back in 2019, through a cautious process that permitted retailers to operate, but managed the number of retailers during those early “gold rush” days of cannabis legalization, permitting one location per commercial district and screening the operators. The site in Sapperton was never activated as there was a falling out between the operator and the business owner, and back in late last year, Council agree to allow the approved operator to locate in a different location in Sapperton. Now that this application has been received, we are removing cannabis retail as a zoning use in the original property, to keep consistent with our policy.

---

We then had several Motions from Council:

Bus Shelters
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS the Safe Movement of People is a priority in the City of New Westminster’s 2023-2026 Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS protection from the elements as well as the noise from street traffic while waiting for a bus improves people’s experience of taking public transit and makes it a more viable option for more members of our community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City include the cost for building a minimum of three bus shelters with seating for consideration in the 2026 budget process; and THAT the bus stop adjacent to the Queensborough Connector be set as a priority for a shelter.

The jurisdictional gaps between the City, TransLink and bus shelter operators is not a great one, and it isn’t just New West where this is a problem. TransLink for the most part doesn’t do bus shelters, they rely on the local government to provide what is functionally an essential part of public transportation. So the city tries to provide them from our much smaller pot of capital money, but we save a lot of money by having a third party build and operate them as a platform for selling advertising. Unfortunately, these third parties put them where it makes sense from and advertising perspective, not from a what-the-bus-user needs perspective. Complicating this, one of the most in-need locations for shelter is on the Highway 91A and Howes Street interchange, which is not City land but Ministry of Transportation land, meaning we can’t install a shelter there without their approval.

Anyway, we need more bus shelters, and this site is definitely a priority, so I was happy to support this, and we will have a deeper conversation during the 2026 budget deliberations about whether capital cost is really the limiting factor.

Supporting Longstanding Civic Non-Profits through Prioritized and Multi-Year Funding
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS non-profit organizations such as those behind the May Day celebrations and the Hyack Parade have been delivering signature community events in New Westminster for over 50 years, contributing significantly to the city’s cultural identity, civic pride, and tourism economy; and
WHEREAS over the past decade, funding for these legacy events has been dramatically reduced, including a decrease in annual City support for the Hyack Festival Association from $150,000 to just $15,000 per year; and
WHEREAS these long-standing non-profits are now forced to compete for limited grant funding against newly formed organizations, creating barriers to sustainability and threatening the continuity of historic civic traditions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster direct the Grants Review Committee to prioritize funding for long established non-profit organizations that have demonstrated sustained contributions to civic life and cultural heritage over several decades;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Committee explore the implementation of multi-year funding agreements, for up to three years, to support the financial stability and long-term planning of eligible legacy organizations.

This motion got on the table, and I amended to add the following:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be instructed to include a 50% increase in the Community Grant funding envelope for 2026 as part of the 2026 Budget deliberations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City continue to actively advocate to the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to increase the B.C. Fairs, Festivals and Events Fund and also advocate to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation to provide increased support to local festival organizations, including arts and business improvement organizations who activate our communities, support cultural exchange and connection, and boost small business prosperity through festivals, fairs and events.

However the debate was cut short when Council failed to have quorum for the required 10:30pm vote to extend Council, so this item and the remaining few items on the agenda will appear on the next Council agenda in August. So… happy summer everyone?

Council this Monday was long, and this week has been full of meetings, events, and surprising challenges, so I am late reporting out on it. We didn’t have a particularly long agenda, though there were a few thorny items that deserved lengthy discussion (see below), but we still ended the meeting before completing the agenda, and time management is again a procedural conversation we are going to have to have at Council.

The meeting started with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Amendment Bylaw No. 8525, 2025
The City has been doing a lot of different things to avoid a repeat of the 2021 Heat Dome disaster, where 28 members of our community died. As we are informed by public health estimates that a heat dome has gone from a once-in-1000-year event to a once-in-a-decade event due to climate change, air conditioning is becoming less of a comfort issue, and more of a health issue. To quote our Medical Health Officer directly: “Cooling related bylaws are a key policy lever municipal governments can use to protect their citizens from heat-related negative health outcomes.” In that vein, we are taking measures to make it easier for people to get air conditioners, and (in this case) make it illegal to forbid air conditioners in rental units unless the landlord can demonstrate they are not viable to the satisfaction of the City’s buildings staff. These bylaw amendments make that the law in New Westminster, with fines for landlords who don’t comply.

Staff are also proposing we provide some increased resources to our Bylaws department, specifically to address rental building support and enforcement and the protection of vulnerable renters. Two bylaw officers focused on tenant support and life safety, and one outreach worker to provide in-reach support to vulnerable tenants. These positions will be considered in context of our 2026 budget.

We received two pieces of correspondence on this, one from a building managers lobby group, and one from a tenants rights organization, I leave it to you to infer which was against regulating building conditions to save lives, and which was for it. No-one came to speak at the Opportunity to be Heard and Council voted to support these measures.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 1031 Quebec Street, New Westminster – Metro Vancouver Annacis Water Supply Tunnel, Fraser River Crossing
Metro Vancouver has been building a water supply tunnel under the Fraser River, which involved drilling a 2.4km tunnel. As they are wrapping this drilling up, the builders need to remove the Tunnel Boring Machine from the shaft on Auckland Street, which will require some work outside of permitted times over a four-week period. The work will involve running a crane and some generators, not particularly loud work, but a notice exemption is required.

Distributed Antenna System to Improve Cellular Network Coverage within Anvil Centre
The Anvil Centre is built in a way that makes cell phone signals weak inside. Telus already has antennae inside the building to boost their signal, this is an agreement to let Rogers do the same thing. The cell company pays us for the electricity they use plus a small monthly rack space rental fee, as the City needs to charge fair market value for use of public space to private entities.

Update of Section 72 Remedial Action Requirement for 1823 Hamilton Street
A property owner in the West End was served a remedial order by the City a few years ago relating to some renovations of his house/property that did not pass inspection. The City also put a notice on his title about these deficiencies to inform a potential buyer if the owner decided to sell. Though much of the work has been completed now, the owner will not permit inspection to confirm it was done to code, so the remedial action order will be removed, but the notice of lack of inspection will remain on the title.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw and Cannabis Retail Store Licence: 416 East Columbia Street
There is no cannabis retailer in Sapperton, because the one the City approved was not able to maintain a lease, but instead a second operator has tried to set up in the property identified in the process the City went through to choose the first tranche of cannabis retail locations in the City. This is not consistent with the spirit or letter of Council’s intent when we went through an extensive process to approve new cannabis operations. The successful applicant is hoping to open in another nearby Sapperton location, and Council is now moving ahead with removing cannabis retail as a permitted use on the original site. That would take a zoning amendment, so the only step we are taking right now is instructing staff to prepare that zoning amendment for Council approval.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

40 Begbie Street: Good Neighbour Agreement and Issuance of TUP for Health Contact Centre
The Health Contact Centre downtown is a healthcare service that has saved scores of lives and made more than a thousand referrals to treatment and other health care services since it opened in 2021. But there has been a shift in drug use in the community, with smoking becoming the most dominant mode of intake. Though the HCC still provides lifesaving services to those who inject or orally consume drugs, they cannot provide the same support to those who smoke drugs in this location.

The City has been advocating to Fraser Health to include inhalation services, but we have been recently informed that it won’t work on this site for engineering reasons, so the City and Fraser Health are working on an alternative. In the meantime, the current HCC is applying for an 18-month extension of their permitting to facilitate the transition to a new service.

New Westminster has been a strong supporter of harm reduction, along with being a strong supporter of recovery and of increased funding for detox and transition beds here in New Westminster and across the province. Meanwhile, we are investing in direct crises response and non-clinical outreach. Befitting a public health emergency, we are taking every measure to keep our residents alive and assuring they have access to health care they need.

We have received feedback both pro and against this application (by my account, 60% of the correspondence we received was in support), as we do with many zoning application in the City. New Westminster is a compassionate community, and when I talk to residents and businesses downtown, they want the City to do more to help residents that are suffering, not less. Fundamentally, this is health care, and I have to follow the recommendations of the Public Health Officer, the coroner, and the health experts that say closing this HCC now will lead to unnecessary deaths.

Council spent more than an hour working though some details of the Good Neighbour Agreement, and amendments from several different Councillors were deliberated upon until we got to consensus on that language. In the end, the vote to support the TUP was not unanimous, but the majority supported the extension and the HCC will continue to save lives in New Westminster.

2024 Statement of Financial Information
Accompanying the Annual Report, here is our SOFI report, as audited by KPMG and required by Provincial regulation. This outlines our financial position at the end of 2024, and it is pretty solid.

Overall, the City is about $140 Million in the black, and our accumulated surplus (including the value of our assets after depreciation) is up 5% over last year, and just over $1 Billion. Our surplus last year was just under $50 Million, which is higher than the $38 Million budgeted. This is a result of a combination if higher than expected revenue, and lower than expected expanses. When you take assets and depreciation out of the math, our net financial assets went up about $27 Million. This is called a “surplus”, but remember this is the money that we use to pay for our capital plan for upcoming years. One big part of this is that we made more money than expected on our investments (~$18 Million) than we spent servicing out debt (~$8 Million).

We are still working on assuring we have sufficient reserves relative to the value of our assets, but overall the City’s financial picture is strong.

Massey Victory Heights Street Lighting Replacement Project Update

The engineering team have been working on replacing the lights in Massey Victory Heights for some time. For those who read my Newsletter, I described a bit of the history recently, but in short the existing light poles and wiring are from the 1950s, and well past their functional lifespan. Despite them not meeting modern standards for the primary job – lighting the street and sidewalk – and presenting challenges with uplight, backlight, and glare (“BUG”), they still have some aesthetic appeal to some folks in the neighbourhood.

Engineering were working on a replacement strategy, as even replacing the non-conduit underground wiring will be a technically challenging project, and the poles and bases are failing structurally – and it important to realize that there is a significant safety issue here. However after informing the neighbourhood about the first phases of this work, some in the community reacted that they value the aesthetic appeal of the existing light structures, though they had not been identified in the City’s heritage inventory (and had been significantly modified since their 1950s installation).

We did have the option to pause the safety repairs here while we talked more ot the community about the existing lights, but the report makes clear that the lights need to be replaced, there is no outcome here that has the existing lights preserved where they are and continuing to operate in the long term. They are simply end of life and becoming a safety concern. At the same time, pausing the first phases of this work will cost the taxpayers a lot of money for questionable gains. There is no heritage assessment that is going to tell us that the existing lights will become safe.

I have met with folks from MVH, and have heard their concerns, but I also talked with some people who were surprised to hear that the light upgrades might be delayed after all these years. I also went up there both in the day and in the evening to see how the lights along, for example, Churchill work as opposed to Jackson crescent and the area below Richmond where davit-style lights already exist. And it is easy to see the concern that Engineering has, and why this project is important for community safety.

So I moved a motion that might Community Services staff be directed to conduct the research and community consultation required to complete a heritage assessment of the street light standards in the Massey Victory Heights area and share the findings with council and the community. And in the meantime, Engineering Services staff proceed with scheduled Phases 1 and 2 while working with the heritage assessment and the community to protect and preserve the existing light poles as decorative elements where possible, in a way that celebrates the neighbourhood’s unique history. Council voted to support this.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit Applications: 611 Agnes Street – Preliminary Report
The owner of this office building on 6th and Agnes would like to replace it with a new building with 299 purpose built rental homes in a 37 storey tower with two levels of office and retail at grade, along with a childcare. That is a lot of density on the site (11+ FSR), exceeding by quite a bit that expected in the Transit Oriented Development Area. 300 rental homes near SkyTrain is a good thing, and consistent with many City needs, including the need for new secured rental in our Housing Needs Report. The ability to build new rental with zero displacement of current renters is a definite positive of this proposal.

The project has evolved quite a bit since first pitched to the City in 2018 (!), but essentially found this form just before COVID caused the proponent to put the project on pause in 2020. The developer is now concerned that the provision of two floors of office space totaling 32,000 square feet might make the project unviable. The current building has 55,000 sqft of office. So the question in front of Council at this early stage is whether we want to hold firm on 32K sqft of office, or whether we are willing to see flexibility in that part of the project.

The provision of office space here was established back before the Pandemic, and there is a good question if the current estimates of office need have kept track with the changes in how office space regionally is being developed. According to Colliers, New West has one of the lowest office vacancy rates in the region, well below the regional average.

In the end, Council referred this back to staff to work with the property owner and determine if there is an option to add supportive affordable housing in lieu of office. So expect this to come back to Council sooner than later.

Rezoning Application: 140 Sixth Street (Royal Towers) – Preliminary Report
The owner of the Royal Towers wants to replace it with a new residential development, and have come up with an innovative way to protect the existing affordable housing. They are proposing a two-phase development where they build two buildings on the north side of the property, one purpose built market rental, one affordable non-market rental. They would then offer the current residents of the towers a move to the new affordable housing building at the same rent they pay now (with inflationary increases as permitted by the RTA) before they tear down the Royal Towers to build 850 condo homes in two towers on the Royal Avenue side of the site, along with 65,000sqft of commercial space.

This project would provide a mix of market ownership, rental, and secured affordable homes that meets our housing needs and goals as a City, and avoids displacement of residents while a very much past its lifespan building is demolished.

This is the first Council review of the complete project (though Council saw an earlier draft and unanimously approved the 40-storey tower heights in principle last year), and there needs to be quite a bit of planning review and public consultation before Council can provide third reading to the Zoning Amendment, and as the market is very tight right now, there is a sensitive timeline on this project. This report is really to get Council familiar with the proposal so that planning and consultation work can begin. That said, there is some time pressure to get to third reading to secure the affordable housing commitment from the funder.

---

We then had this Motion from Council:

Transparency in Business Improvement Area Levy Communication
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Business Improvement Area (BIA) levies are collected by the City of New Westminster through property taxes on behalf of designated BIA organizations;
WHEREAS many business owners may not be fully aware that a portion of their property taxes is allocated specifically to fund BIA activities, particularly when taxes are paid by landlords rather than tenants;
WHEREAS improved transparency and communication can help strengthen accountability and awareness of how public funds are being used to support local business areas;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster develop and implement a process to proactively inform all commercial property owners and business tenants, on an annual basis, of the amount of property taxes allocated to Business Improvement Area levies, including a clear breakdown with their property tax notices or through other direct communication methods.

I do not understand the motive of this motion, or why the mover is suggesting that BIA operations are anything but transparent and accountable. BIAs are strictly regulated under sections 215 and 216 of the Community Charter. All members of the BIA are already “proactively informed” of the levy charged to them on behalf of the BIA. It is line item on their tax bill under the category “City of New Westminster Municipal Taxes” with a line item that reads “Business Improvement Area” with both the rates and calculation of their charges.

Further, the BIA publicly reports their finances to their membership every year in an annual general meeting, which Members of Council are routinely invited to. They also provide reporting to the City when they do levy setting that sets the rates to be charged to their members, and include a public budget for Council’s review. Council should recall the November 4 meeting of last year when this Council unanimously and on consent approved those budgets for the City’s two BIAs.

Council did not support this motion, and speaking only for myself, I fear it sends the wrong message to the community about how this Council supports and values the work of our two Business Improvement Areas. It may even send the impression that they are anything but transparent and accountable to both the public and their members. And I leave it to others to interpret what it means when a Council starts challenging the funding mechanisms for organizations in the City that may coincidentally be outspoken about issues in the City.

---

We had a few more items on the agenda, but at 11:30 Council decided to adjourn. We had started out (closed) meeting at 1:00 in the afternoon, and after a dinner break, had been at Council for 5 -1/2 hours. Our regular Public Delegation period, where up to 10 people can sign up to talk to Council for up to 5 minutes each, took us 2 ½ hours to get through. With short breaks, we spent about the same amount of time dealing with items on the Agenda, but our Procedures Bylaw requires that we need Council to approve going on past 10:30. We added a half hour at 10:30, then another at 11:00, but the 11:30 vote failed, and we adjourned. All of the remaining items will be added to next agenda on July 7.

Our last Council meeting in May included a Public Hearing – not something we have as often as we used to since the Province banned them for residential developments that are aligned with the Official Community Plan, but Heritage Revitalization Agreements still require them. After the Public Hearing, our regular Council Agenda started with consideration of those Bylaws:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8509, 2025
Heritage Designation Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8510, 2025
The application here is to subdivide a lot on Sixth Avenue, do minor restoration and permanent designation of the heritage house, and build a complementary but slightly smaller second house in the newly formed lot.

Aside from the subdivision, the variances being requested are relatively minor, including shifting a bit of density from the existing house to the new one, minor variances on the garage, and the shape of one lot means the frontage is slightly below the 10% perimeter requirement. As the heritage house was build on the very edge of the exiting lot, the lot can be subdivided without moving the heritage house, and the spacing between houses will still be larger than that between the houses across the back alley that were subdivided decades ago. The result here will be three housing units in two buildings (two main houses and a rental unit in the new house) where three housing units are currently permitted.

This application was delayed by the City’s pausing then de-prioritization of the HRA processes to concentrate on more pressing housing issues, and is the first HRA in the Queens Park HCA in this Council term. Aside from the proponent, we had five people come to delegate on the application, four opposed and one supportive, all of them familiar faces at New Westminster Council on Queens Park heritage issues. There were concerns about whether the HRA is the right tool for this purpose (it is), about spacing between buildings, and appearances of the streetscape. Both immediately impacted neighbours expressed support for the application, one in person and one in writing.

In the end, Council voted to give these Bylaws third readings, effectively approving the applications.

---

Council then moved the following item On Consent:

Response to Council Motion: School Zone Time Limits
Following up on a request form Councillor Henderson, we will be updating out School Zone Speed Zone hours to align with those in Burnaby, meaning 30km/h is the speed limit between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on school days. Not quite 30 everywhere, but moving in the direction of improved safety.

---

And the following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Grants Program Update and Updated Terms of Reference for Grants Advisory Committees
The City’s Grant program has been evolving over the last few years from a partisan process where Council picks and chooses who gets grants to become a less political process where Council sets strategic goals for grants (community connection, economic development, etc.), and staff work with volunteer citizen committees to determine how to best meet those goals based on the applications received. The program continues to be refined as staff bring in better controls and accountability, based on recommendations approved by Council in July 2024, and are asking here for updated to the Terms of Reference for the three Grants Advisory Committees who advise Council on grant allocation. These have not been updated since 2020, and staff have done some community consultation to determine these changes.

Unsurprisingly, the non-partisan nature of grant awards rubs some people the wrong way, and there was a motion brought forward to put Council’s fingers on the scale and favour one or two “historic” organizations above others. There were vague suggestions that this would secure them more funding, but it was not clear if this would be an expansion of the grant program or taking from other awardees. In the end, Council voted to not create a new category at this time, as staff are already doing a lot of work to streamline and make more functional the existing process, and we have yet to see the results of the Community Advisory Assembly’s recommendations on Cultural Observances, which will no doubt interact with this process.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 Columbia Street – Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project
The cladding work on the hospital project is delayed for a variety of reasons, requiring an extension of their construction noise Bylaw exemption for the rare times that specific cladding work needs to happen outside of regular construction hours on Saturday Mornings. We have received exactly two noise complaints on this project since 2022, and both were resolved, I think the construction company is doing good work to address neighbourhood concerns, and the only message I hear from Sapperton now is they want this project done ASAP, so Council approved the exemption.

Response to Council Motion: School Streets Pilot Program
This program would be a partnership between the City and external organizations to pilot closing roads adjacent to a school during pick up and drop off times to create “safe Streets”. Staff recommended against us doing this pilot due to limited resources and higher cost priorities on road safety, but apparently there is a new grant available to pay some (all?) of those costs, so Council moved to refer this back to staff to review once more those funding opportunities and bring this report back. So we neither agreed to do it nor agreed not to, we will do one or the other in a future meeting once we have the updated info in front of us.

Temporary Use Permit: 40 Begbie Street – Health Contact Centre
The Health Contact Centre downtown is, to everyone’s agreement, not working as intended. As the site was operating under a Temporary Use Permit which now either needs renewal or replacement with a formal rezoning, it is giving us an opportunity to review that operation. The good news is that the centre is providing life-saving services every day, has reversed hundreds of toxic drug events and making more than 1,000 referrals to support, treatment, or detox services. As a provider of life-saving and life altering health care services, it is a positive story.

However the nature of the drug supply has changed in the last few years, and up to 77% of drug use is now by smoking, not injection or insufflation, meaning there are more people standing outside the Centre smoking dangerous drugs than inside injecting them. This is why the City has been advocating to bring inhalation services to the HCC. However, Fraser Health has determined the site is not suitable for engineering/cost reasons. So through negotiations, Fraser Health has agreed to wind down overdose prevention services at 40 Begbie Street and transition to an alternate overdose prevention service delivery model accommodating individuals who consume unregulated substances by inhalation, injection, nasal insufflation and oral ingestion. During this transition, the life-saving services of the HCC are still required, so Fraser Health is recommending a Temporary Use Permit for a further 18 months to allow Fraser Health and partners to transition to an alternate overdose prevention service delivery model.

A TUP will require consideration at an upcoming meeting, and Council agreed to Fraser Health’s recommendation on timing and transition. The TUP will be considered at an upcoming Council meeting.

---

We then had one Motion form Council:

Remove US Flag from Queen’s Park Arena and Replace it with City of New Westminster Flag
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS there are few if any formal occasions that require the American flag to be prominently displayed at Queen’s Park Arena;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to permanently remove and replace the American flag with the City of New Westminster flag at Queen’s Park Arena; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be authorized to temporarily reinstall the American flag if it is required to be displayed for official protocol purposes in relation to an event held at this facility.

I was pretty ambivalent about this motion, except that I found amusing that the mover, after several social media posts and radio interviews about the topic, now emphasizes the “quiet” removal of the flag. Clearly, the Councillor is passionate about this, so I have no problem supporting it.

---

Finally, we had a single Bylaw for Adoption

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
This bylaw that removes mini-storage as permitted use within some light industrial and zones was adopted by Council.