It was quite the Council meeting on Monday, not because of the regular business of Council, which was pretty straight forward, but because the level of political performance that occurred in the last half of the evening was outstanding. Some of my more unfiltered feelings about that part are best saved for the Newsletter (subscribe here, its free!), so I’ll keep to the straight goods on the agenda here.

We started with one piece of Unfinished Business.

Metro 2050 Type 3 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (7880 128 Street)
When a city in Metro Vancouver makes an Official Community Plan change that impacts the Regional Growth Strategy, it requires an RGS Amendment to be approved by the Metro Vancouver Board. There are a few different types of amendments, and Type 3 amendments require “consultation” with the member communities of Metro Vancouver. We are able to ignore this, respond to it saying “hunky dory”, or reply saying we don’t support it. The Metro Board will consider our feedback when making a decision, though they are not required to follow our recommendation.

This Type 3 amendment in Surrey is pretty minor in its regional impact, but New West Council asked for more info on it before sending feedback. Surrey declined to provide more info or present, and Council voted to send a note indicating we do not support this amendment.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Extension Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
There has been significant traffic disruption as underground and surface paving works have been occurring around the RCH expansion. The priority here is always assuring emergency vehicle access and the safety of pedestrians in such a high-traffic area. This means convenience for through drivers has suffered quite a bit, but this is a unique place to do major road works. The final paving will be happening in October, and they need to do some of it at night in order to manage the traffic and assure road safety and emergency vehicle access, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption. There will be *significant* disruption for a three-night window here, so plan alternate routes if you can, folks.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 100 Braid Street (Wesgroup Contracting Ltd) – Crane Removal
The crane on 100 Braid Street is coming down, and its proximity to one of the busiest intersections of the City makes this much more viable at night, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption.

Expanding the Metro West Inter-Municipal Business Licence to Include Health Care Professionals and Services, and Annual Licence Fee Increase
The City works with our adjacent municipalities to allow shared business licences for those types of businesses that move across City boundaries, and we are adding home care providers to that list, meaning health care professionals can get just one license to operate in Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta, Richmond and Surrey. This simplifies their lives considerably. This report reads the Bylaw but provides an Opportunity to be Heard at the November 4 Council meeting before we adopt it. If you have opinions, let us know.

Licence Agreement at 203 Pembina Street
Folks are building townhouses in Queensborough, and need to pre-load a laneway, and will need to bypass a sanitary sewer through that laneway during pre-load, meaning they need to get a license agreement with the City to manage risk and liability.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Guidelines and Decision-Making Matrix for Designating Municipally Significant Events
British Columbia’s liquor laws are archaic. Several events in the City over the last two years have sought to be designated “Municipally Significant” so they can serve a different sized beer (believe it or not) and can set a price for alcohol that actually makes them a bit of money running a beer garden as part of their event. But there are no criteria for what is considered “municipally significant”.

This criteria (and delegating the authority to staff) is a first step, but in the report it is clear staff are working on some more comprehensive liquor licence reforms in the City, because the current provincial/municipal interface on this is Byzantine.

Update Regarding Council Motion Re: Improving the Public’s Access to Trees during the City’s Biannual Tree Sale
This report is no report – they are just to report that staff are going to report back once they have had the time to do the work required to inform the report.

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Anvil Theatre Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8209, 2020, Amendment Bylaw No. 8482, 2024;
Climate Action, Planning & Development Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 8478, 2024;
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8477, 2024;
Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8476, 2024;
Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8472, 2024;
Fees Bylaw No. 6186, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 8479, 2024; and
Fire Protection Bylaw No. 6940, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8481, 2024
These Bylaws that all set their respective fees and charges rates for 2025 were adopted unanimously by Council. Now we can start working on the budget.

We then had a full schedule of Motions from Council:

Requesting an Inquiry Under Section 765 of the Local Government Act regarding Metro Vancouver
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the governance model at Metro Vancouver is over 50 years old and an independent review should be undertaken by the Province of BC; and
WHEREAS the Inspector of Municipalities of British Columbia has significant statutory powers including the ability to investigate any bylaw, order, decision, or action of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board; and
WHEREAS to date the Province of BC has not agreed to undertake a governance review of Metro Vancouver;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write a letter on behalf of Council to the Premier and request the Province of BC to immediately initiate an independent review of Metro Vancouver’s governance structure.

This was a weird motion, as it was never explained what the relevance of Section 765 of the LGA was about, but we don’t vote on the “whereas” sections, so opportunity lost for clarity there. Council agreed to send this letter, though I wonder what the purpose is (other than getting another media cycle out of this horse well flogged) as we are now onto a year of a very few people asking the same thing (including pervious motions at this Council) and no leader of the three parties vying for the Premier job in two weeks have expressed any interest in undertaking this right now, as it solves no problems and we have actual problems to solve.

Supporting Increased Tourism in New Westminster through the Introduction of a New “Photographable” Sign on Pier West Park
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Pier Park West is now reconnected to the eastern part of the Quayside boardwalk and provides a pleasurable place for locals and tourists to enjoy views of the Fraser River; and
WHEREAS a number of cities around the world have used enlarged signage in highly visible and photographable areas to attract visitor and help market their cities; and
WHEREAS we have the opportunity to install a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront with the backdrop including several bridges and the Fraser River;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff reach out to Tourism New Westminster and advise that Council would be supportive of installing of a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront as one additional method of attracting tourists to our city and downtown district.

Yet another weird motion, as it seems like a notion someone had that could have been an email instead of a Council motion. The will result in an email saying we might support something that is not defined to an organization that has not clearly indicated any intent to do the thing, so innocuous enough. And Council voted to support it.

To quote a colleague, I have a lot of questions around the actual proposal (do people actually travel to places specifically to get a picture of the place name? What is the evidence this will drive any of the massive spin-off economic development benefits the mover suggested, and how will those benefits be offset by the mover spending his time on regional media describing the neighbourhood as a dangerous, abandoned place few dare to tread? Isn’t this Tin Soldier Erasure? Wouldn’t it be more compelling and drive more regional interest if to have the sign say “Sto:Lo” or “sχʷəyem”? and many more, if we get to the point of actually reviewing a project).

Supporting increasing Cycling, Tourism and Economic Activity through a Pilot “Cycling Sundays on Front Street”
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia has already closed Front Street for extended periods of time and redirected traffic to other routes throughout the City; and
WHEREAS there is currently no ability for cyclists to easily and safely ride their bikes from Pier Park West to the Brunette Fraser Regional Greenway in Sapperton; and
WHEREAS other cities across North America have successfully closed roadways on weekends to permit alternate modes of transportation such as cycling and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back on the feasibility and operational issues pertaining to the development of a pilot project that would: during daylight hours, close Front Street on Sundays from May to September 2025 to vehicular traffic; and a during the period noted above, open up Front Street to cyclists, pedestrians and other forms active transportation while it is temporarily closed to vehicular traffic; b. seek interest from food trucks and other micro businesses who may want to set up on Front Street during the ‘Cycling Sunday’ closures.

This idea, first brought to you by Mayor Cote during COVID times as part of the “Streets for People” program of the time, is something the City always meant to explore further after the Pattullo Bridge project stopped occupying the space. It is still a god idea, not without its challenges, as there are significant costs involved, we need to work with the regional goods movement sector, the connections to Sapperton Landing Park still require Railway oversight, and the resultant impacts on Royal and Columbia Street of diverted truck traffic. Still, it’s a good idea to get a report back to Council on opportunities and challenges here. Council supported this motion.

Seek Support from the BC Ministry of Transportation to Undertake a Feasibility Study to Expand the Crossing Capacity between Queensborough and Connaught Heights
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster is currently undertaking a community consultation around the 22nd Street SkyTrain station which could result in up to 30,000 new residents moving into the neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS the residents of Queensborough can often suffer quality of life issues pertaining to delays crossing the four-lane Queensborough bridge during peak periods and beyond; and
WHEREAS it will take a significant amount of time, planning and inter-governmental discussions to undertake a future replacement or expansion of the Queensborough Bridge;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to develop a consultation plan to determine the level of interest from our residents/businesses regarding prioritizing the future expansion or replacement of the Queensborough bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any expansion or replacement proposal should prioritize the movement of TransLink operated buses, cyclists, taxis, ride-share and pedestrians across the bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write to the BC Ministry of Transportation to invite them to partner with the City during our Queensborough Bridge community consultation process.

This is one I will unpack a bit more in the Newsletter, because there are layers of weird governance ideas in here. In short, we just approved the Queensborough Transportation Plan in May after more than a year of public consultation and working with the Ministry of Transportation and are now implementing that plan. Consistent with the QTP, staff reported to us recently that active transportation and transit priority work is going on related to the bridge entrances, on both sides, both through the QTP and our recently approved partnership with TransLink on Bus Speed and Reliability program approved by this Council in July. So why this motion now, just as we are starting implementation of those plans?

I also have concerns with the language here, first because it asks the City to launch Public Consultation on a project that doesn’t exist to address a piece of infrastructure that doesn’t even belong to the City. Worse, it seems to envision expansion or replacement of the bridge, which is not consistent with our Transportation plans in the City, regional Transport2050 goals at Metro Vancouver or TransLink, or the Province’s own CleanBC goals, where the existing strategies for bus speed and reliability and active transportation are aligned with all of those.

Finally, I don’t want to get into a lecture here about the Fundamental Law of Traffic congestion, but adding lanes to a highway in an urban area has never solved congestion, and has almost always resulted in significant negative impacts on the communities through which those freeways are driven. This is not the first time someone has proposed that a community be plowed down and paved over in order to save that neighbourhood has been proposed, and in the end all that neighborhood got was more traffic, more congestion, more noise and pollution. The future here is alternatives, and the work that staff are doing to bring bus speed and reliability and safer active transportation connections on this route is the sustainable path that meets the Province’s CleanBC goals, the regionals Transport2050 goals, and the City’s Transportation, livability, and sustainability goals.

So Council severed this motion, didn’t support the first “Be It Resolved”, did support the second and the third, after the third was slightly amended to make clear the City will not lead a consultation. But if the province want to take this up, let us know.

Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster manages, maintains and prepares municipal infrastructure to protect our residents from future heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and other climate impacts, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of our residents and their property and as a result faces massive costs due to climate change, which are expected to increase; and
WHEREAS fossil fuel companies were warned by their own scientists decades ago that the ongoing burning of fossil fuels would cause massive suffering and climate costs, and chose to lobby against action on climate change so that the industry could continue to earn on average over a trillion dollars in profit each year in recent years; and
WHEREAS it is unacceptable and creates a perverse incentive for irresponsible fossil fuel development that local governments and taxpayers bear the full extent of these climate costs whilst multinational fossil fuel companies take no financial responsibility for the harm caused by their products; and
WHEREAS over 20 local governments in the United States and around the world, including nine local governments in BC, have filed lawsuits to recover a share of their climate costs (e.g. for loss and damage, adaptation, and climate preparedness) from fossil fuel companies, and Canadian legal experts recommend that Canadian local governments do the same;
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back on opportunity and cost for New Westminster to join the Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit and present potential cost and staff resource needs as part of the draft 2025 Operating Budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of joining the Sue Big Oil class action lawsuit be first assessed via the Climate Action Decision-Making Framework to determine the appropriate funding source.

This also gets a mention in the newsletter, because I cannot square indicated concern about the cost of this motion with a weird attempt to strip the City of Millions of dollars of Low Carbon Fuel Credit revenue in an attempted amendment, but that’s just politics.

I supported this motion, and it was supported by the majority of Council after several public delegations and a bit of a raucous Council debate. I can only speak to my reasons to support. The costs are real and being downloaded onto communities from one of the world’s most profitable industries every day. The Municipal Insurance Association of BC and UBCM are both calling for funding to address unprecedented climate disruption costs. We don’t have the power to end fossil fuel subsidies or tax big oil to the level that would reflect their corporate responsibility. What we can do is join our cohort municipalities across BC to use the courts to hold them accountable through the courts.

There can be no doubt that the oil industry knew that their products would have catastrophic impacts on global climate, and spent decades funding doubt-sowing “research” and suppressing their own evidence about this reality. Not only emulating the tobacco industries “deny at all costs” strategy about the horrific impacts of their products, but hiring the very same people (seriously, google Fred Seitz and Fred Singer) to run the denial machinery. They knew, they lied, and local government taxpayers are paying the bills for that choice they made. That should not go unpunished.

Finally, this motion is well drafted to add our support notionally, recognizing we will not be out of pocket unless a class action occurs, and allows us the opportunity to fund this small cost (in the scale of the cost of climate impacts in our community, this is tiny) through money we receive from the oil industry through the polluter pays principle and our Low Carbon Fuel Credit program. We are going to use the industry’s own money to sue them, and there is some elegance in that.

Finally, we had one piece of New Business:

Reconsideration of September 23, 2024 Motion on adoption the Interim Density Bonus Policy
After the last-minute decision last meeting to amend the Interim Density Bonus Policy for the City, I had some conversations with members of Council and staff about the implications for numerous in-stream applications. I was compelled to bring the Policy back to Council for reconsideration, because as amended, it varied greatly from our long-established and successful practice of incentivizing Purpose Built Rental over Strata in new development by not by giving them a free pass from DCCs and other development costs, but by exempting only the Density Bonus charge for space used for PBR. In staff’s attempts to make simpler and more transparent this very strange time with Provincial housing regulations being blended into our existing process while approvals continue to move forward, Council inadvertently made it less clear and more confusing by turning back on one of our key policy directions of the last decade.

Recognizing this is an interim measure, and Council always has the prerogative to vary from policy when it comes to approving any development, in the interest in supporting staffs efforts to keep the wheels moving during the transition, I suggested we adopt the motion Staff recommended in September, waiving DB payments for PBR as a policy until the full set of growth financing policies complaint with Bill 46 can be adopted next year. Council voted to support the reconsideration.

And that wrapped Council right at 10:30, the hour at which we are required by Bylaw to move for extension if we go past. So we’ll call that a full day.

Council has been holding more “workshop” style meetings, with the idea that these meetings are where staff and council can dig into more details about programs, strategies, or ideas, prior to them coming to Council. There are a few advantages to this. They reduce the number of staff who have to come to evening Council meetings, which can go quite late, leading to significant overtime costs. They also allow us to have a bit more informal presentations and toss around ideas, raise concerns prior to Bylaws or strategies being fully cooked for approval at Council.

I rarely report out on Workshops, as these are generally preliminary things that will be reported out in the evening meeting when ideas are more fully baked. However, our workshop last week had 6 items that I thought were interesting to write about, and fit a bit with the theme of the evening meeting that I reported out on here (and complained about in the newsletter, for you subscribers). Workshops are public meetings, so you can watch them here and read the agenda if you like.

Massey Theatre Capital Project Additional Scope Items
The City made a decision more than a decade ago to “Save the Massey Theatre”. At the time, the theatre belonged to the School District and the School Board of the time decided that they didn’t want the hassle of updating or maintaining an end-of-life theatre with 1,300 seats, and determined it would be demolished with the old NWSS. A community uprising ensued, and City Council decided to take on the theatre in a land swap with the School District.

Of course, the Council of the day had no idea what the financial impacts of that decision would be. The Massey is a 75 year old building, and the School District did not spend a lot on maintenance or upgrades for quite some time, expecting the building to be demolished. We have already committed $22 Million in what we consider important life safety, building envelope, and accessibility upgrades, including the demolition of the north gym, for which there is simply no business case for preserving. That work is ongoing. It was hoped that the gym removal and envelope work would allow us to get a few more years out of the end-of-like HVAC systems (as it would significantly reduce the load on those systems). But it looks like the AC is failing sooner than we hoped.

Staff are going to develop a project plan for HVAC repair, upgrade, or replacement. Very preliminary estimates of replacing the heating and AC systems is $8 Million, but again, this is the kind of thing where estimating costs is not easy until you start doing the planning work. There is hopefully opportunity for us to avail ourselves of Green Municipal Fund or other senior government grants. There will no doubt be energy saving and greenhouse gas reductions coming with these upgrades (the Massey is now the largest single source of GHG emissions in the city’s facility stock, another unanticipated cost Council might not have thought of 15 years ago), and that combined with the Heritage and Arts and Culture aspects, make it a pretty attractive project for senior government partnership.

Council Strategic Plan – First Annual Report
A compliment to the Annual Report that was presented in regular Council, this report is more of a status report on progress toward the Strategic Priorities Plan that was adopted by Council in early 2023. There is a bit of a “stoplight” report here, with green for things on track, yellow for things falling behind, and red for things not moving forward enough.

Clearly, the elephant in the room is the massive shift in housing regulations that we could not anticipate when developing our Strategic Plan, and the workload related to those changes in regulation. I think when it comes to the need to increase housing supply near transit, and diversity of infill housing, our approach to these provincial changes will support goals in the long-term, though the road may be a bit rockier than we anticipated. I am still disappointed in the lack of rapid funding for affordable and supportive housing, never mind our persistent lack of a 24/7 shelter, but we continue to advocate to the province for these.

One of our strategic Plan pillars was around making transportation safer, and though we are doing the engineering work, there are identified safety governance and culture challenge. I will be bringing a motion to Council by the fall that asks for support to commit New Westminster to become a Vision Zero community. Bringing a safe systems approach to road safety and that may be a test of our ability to coordinate between departments in the City and other government agencies. We have suggested this direction in our strategic plan, but I think we need clear direction from Council if staff are to make this a priority and commit the resources to make it happen.

I also note that the biggest risks identified to moving our priorities forward are staff and resource shortages. We have been hiring, and are filling positions as fast as possible in this hypercompetitive labour market, but we still have a lot of staff doing too much off the side of their desks, and are at the limit of what we can deliver as a City until we give staff some space to breathe. The other stress is increasing cost escalation for all engineering projects – construction cost inflation is much higher than CPI right now, and our capital plan will be strained to keep up.

It is worth while watching the presentation from staff here, as they did a great job framing not just the pillars of the strategic plan, but also talking about how staff are keeping us abreast of the “lenses and foundations” part of the plan – how we are assuring the things we are doing are being done in a way that aligns with the expressed values of the Council around reconciliation, DEIAR, and climate action (for example).

For reasons never made clear, because there were no question or comments offered by the members to explain why, two members of Council voted against receiving this report.

Comprehensive Public Toilet Strategy Council Motion: Confirming Direction
This was actually a short discussion, as the direction from last week’s meeting on the Public Toilet strategy was from Council directly, not from a staff report. So staff put a quick report together to reframe those instructions in a way that is clear for them and aligned with previous instructions, and gave it to us to approve. The majority of Council moved forward with, and get us to approve it, but two Councillors voted against moving forward with a public toilet strategy.

Budget 2025 Public Engagement Methodology
We are going to do a commissioned survey on budget priorities to help inform the next Budget discussion. This is external to the Public Engagement process we usually go through, as it isn’t really “public engagement” as it would be defined by IAP2. There is a good article talking about the challenges of surveys as engagement here. However, it has been a few years since we did a public opinion survey in the City (I seem to remember one in my first term of Council, 6 years ago?), and so I’m not opposed to going through this process. However, we do need to be sure we put it in the right context.

I also thought it was funny to see this exchange on BlueSky the week we approved this:

Procurement Policy Update
This is very Inside Baseball, but our procurement strategy has not been updated since 2013, and there have been significant shifts in construction costs over that decade. One part of the change is to align our thresholds for public procurement with those in the New West Partnership Agreement, a public procurement agreement that covers all of Western Canada. The second part is to update the values at which an emergency sole source contract can be awarded by the Purchasing Manager or CAO to align better with practices in neighboring communities and keep up with practical needs. A couple of Councillors voted against the second part here, but the majority of Council supported the update.

Development Application Process Review
One of the common narratives in the current housing crisis is that municipalities are to blame because we are slow approving new homes. There is no doubt that the steps to approve a new high-density building are complex, and include a huge number of geotechnical, engineering, building code, and other approvals to assure the building is safe, but also reviews about how a new building connects to the sewer system, the electrical grid, the road network, etc. The City of New west has been, since 2023, going through a Development Application Process Review to find out if there are redundancies, pauses, issues that make the process slower than it needs to be. The initial report from the Consultant is clear in its conclusion: “the City’s current development review process does not include any fundamental steps or requirements that would unnecessarily lead to slower approval times”. This is good. But there are opportunities to make things work smoother and more predictably in our approvals process, including better recordkeeping and increased digitization of records. These processes will require people to do them, but we fortunately have access to grants to pay for those people while the processes are updated, and permit fees for development should pay for most of their work going forward.

The purpose of this report is twofold. First, to seek Council’s endorsement of the results of the City’s Development Application Process Review, and second to seek Council’s endorsement of bringing new staff positions to the 2025 Budget discussion, recognizing the positions would be initially be offset by the UBCM Local Government Approvals Grant.

Council voted in a slim majority to approve this work, with two members voted against both receiving the report and doing anything about it, raising concerns about possible future impact on taxpayers. But I need to put this particular “no” into context. It was a year ago (May 29, 2023, I wrote about it here) when a motion asking for this very thing was proffered by a City Councillor. Council at the time voted it down because these processes were already going on, and the motion looked to be doing nothing but adding layers of bureaucracy to it. But Council voted that motion down knowing the work would go on because it was already happening. Now that the DAPR process has returned results, that Councillor who was so interested in “reviewing the effectiveness of and efficiency of our planning processes and procedures” opposes both the receipt of a report that outlines this, and the allocation of resources to make those processes and procedures work better. It simply baffles the mind.

After all that, the summary is that we are getting the work done, from Massey to DAPR, the City has a lot going on, and are making progress on so many fronts. I’m really proud of this work, but we have a lot more to do.

Our Monday Council meeting was another long one with a fairly short agenda, but aside from a full list of public delegates, there were also quite a few speeches that needed to be made, so there we are. We started with a Development Variance Permit for consideration:

Development Variance Permit No. DVP00697 for 114-118 Sprice Street
The owner of these properties in Queensborough is rezoning to build 10 compact lot detached homes. Nothing unusual here, in fact when it came to Council for a comprehensive review almost a year ago, Council approved it on Consent without comment. The Bylaw also saw three readings by Council and adoption this year, all without comment. So I was a little surprised when this DVP (required only because the lot dimensions are such that that the frontage is less than 10% of the total lot circumference, which the Local Government Act says staff can’t approve without a Development Variance Permit) resulted in numerous questions from a single member of Council that were more related to the previous-approved rezoning than the DVP, but here we are. Nonetheless, Council approved the DVP.

We then had the following items Removed form Consent for discussion:

Building Safer Communities Fund Program Update February 2023 to March 2024
The City received BSCF funding (up to $1.7 million) from the federal government to implement a plan to address youth being at risk for gang involvement of violent crime. The working group established by the City to implement the plan, and incredible partnerships in our community – NWPD, the Lower Mainland Purpose Society, Dan’s Legacy, the School District and many others. Between the Situation Table model that is aligning agencies to address very specific and emergent needs to the Youth Hub at Purpose, we are building resiliency in our community here. This report is long, because there is a lot happening. I’m really proud of our community for doing this work, but it was effectively just an update for our consideration, not an action item for Council.

Development Variance Permit for Works & Services Security – 602 Agnes Street (68 Sixth Street) Affordable Housing Project – Notice of Consideration of Issuance
68 sixth street is moving forward, now addressed as 602 Agnes. This is a bit of government sausage-making, but the short version is we need a services agreement to connect any new building to City services (electrical, water, sewer) and usually collect a Letter of Credit to secure any unexpected costs the City may suffer from this connection. With a regular developer that is an important piece of security in case the development goes insolvent so the city (taxpayers) doesn’t get caught holding the bag. With BC Housing, we are pretty sure they are not going to go bankrupt, so we are asking for a letter of indemnity (a promise to pay, effectively) instead of freezing up their capital. This needs Council approval, which we are doing, because we want affordable housing built.

We then address several Motions from Council:

Tenant Protections
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS new provincial legislation is creating a path for increased development density around transit areas which will impact many more affordable New Westminster neighbourhoods due to our abundant transit services; and
WHEREAS Bill 16 (Housing Statutes Amendment Act) allows municipalities to enact tenant protection bylaws related to redevelopment, including within transit-oriented areas; and
WHEREAS tenants—especially those in older and more affordable rental housing— may be disproportionately impacted due to this new development; and
WHEREAS New Westminster has previously shown leadership in protecting vulnerable renters with strong actions to curtail demoviction and renoviction; and
WHEREAS the regional housing market is reaching new levels of crisis, increasing the risk that existing tenants will lose access to adequate housing through displacement related to redevelopment;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster update our tenant protection and relocation policies, using Burnaby’s as a model to provide support for tenants who may be displaced from their homes, including by redevelopment.

We had several people, including folks from the New West Tenants union delegate to Council about this issue, all in support of the motion. There is significant concern that the unanticipated impacts of the new Transit Oriented Development regulations from the province may impact our ability to enforce demoviction protections in the same way we have previously at the same time as it puts increased pressure on redevelopment near transit centers. Time for a review. This was also timely as Tasha and I had returned from FCM, where we both saw protesters calling for basic rental protections for Alberta (where there is almost none) and met with Councillors from Ontario that were using New Westminster anti-rennoviction bylaws as a model for their own similar regulatory approach to protecting the most affordable homes in their community. The contrast was shocking and reminded me of what side of this fight I want New Westminster Council to be on. Council voted to support this motion.

Making the Annual State of the City Address More Inclusive to Our Youth
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

Whereas a recent series of State of the City addresses by the current and past Mayor have taken place at a private venue that restricts entry only to those 19 years and older; and
Whereas the most recent State of the City address held on May 7th, 2024 was a ticketed event which also required people show government issued identification to enter the premises; and
Whereas the City of New Westminster is committed to supporting our youth and embracing inclusivity; and Whereas other Mayors within our region ensure their State of the City address is held in an open, no-cost, low-barrier venue such as at City Hall;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council prohibit the Mayor from hosting future State of the City events that are not fully accessible to all members of the public free of charge.

I cringe whenever we use possessives to describe a group of people, but we don’t debate the titles of these motions.

This motion seemed to be based on a strange idea about what the State of the City is, as an event. The word “official” kept getting applied to it by the mover for unknown reasons. There is nothing “official” about it. It isn’t in the Local Government Act or any other legislation in the City. This is not the Annual Report of the City (which is “official”, prepared by staff and delivered by the CAO of the City in Council Chambers).

Instead, the State of the City in New Westminster (like in almost every other City in BC where such a thing takes place, including Surrey, Vancouver, Delta, White Rock, Langley, North Vancouver, Burnaby, etc…) is a partnership with the Chamber of Commerce in the form of a ticketed business luncheon sponsored by valued local businesses. I think the participation by the Mayor in a Board of Trade or Chamber event of this nature is a win-win.

There are many events that I am asked to take part in where I talk to select groups of the community about the City. That’s one of the roles of Mayor. Last week I gave a (shortened and looser) version of the STOC to seniors at a registration-required event at təməsew̓txʷ, I have also met recently with several elementary and middle school classes to talk about local government and the City. Net month, I will be talking to the (Members only!) Rotary Club and next week providing a Keynote to the (registration required!) Active Transportation Summit. None of these were open and accessible to all for a variety of reasons, but are facilitated to address a specific group. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Mayor taking part in these types of events, and I can only speculate why some members of Council want to limit my ability to talk to different groups of the public.

Anyway, Council defeated this motion. And for those curious, the State of the City is recorded and streamed on the City’s website, anyone can watch it any time they want, which I think is a nice benefit for every one of the Chamber providing their partnership for this event.

Undertaking a review of the City’s outdoor events policies, procedures and permit fees
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

Whereas the process, procedures and policies linked to the establishment of outdoor events in New Westminster has been described at complex, costly and a challenge to overcome; and
Whereas there is a desire on the part of the City to encourage more outdoor events on a regular basis throughout the year; and
Whereas it is good practice to regularly seek feedback from the community regarding whether there are opportunities to streamline our processes in order to reduce red tape;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council establish a citizen-based taskforce to review our policies, procedures and permit fees regarding how they may be impeding the development of new and/or putting into jeopardy existing outdoor events; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the taskforce make recommendations to Council regarding how we can streamline our processes and reduce red tape to help facilitate more outdoor events on a regular basis.

This resolution seemed to be a solution looking for a problem. Rather like some recent discussions about businesses abandoning New Westminster while our business license count shows we are growing new businesses faster than ever, this motion seems to be about a nostalgia for events that no-one in the community was interested in running (Show and Shine) without recognizing that we have organizations running literally dozens of events in the City, from well-established events with long history like the Hyack Parade and Nagar Kirtan, to the new traditions of Uptown Live, Pride Week, and Recovery Day, to emergent new events like On Your Block, National Indigenous Peoples Day, and Blocktober Fest. The best part is to see the recovery after COVID and how people in the community show up for these events.

It seems the mover didn’t speak to the organizers of these events putting this together, or otherwise did not recall the work the City is doing in this space, endorsed by Council in February. The mover is a member of the Arts, Culture and Economic Development Advisory Committee, where much of this work is being coordinated (as Festivals are the perfect interaction od Arts, Culture, and Economic Development), and would have benefited from getting caught up on what’s happening at that committee.
Staff have created a FEST team to coordinate though a one-stop-shop the fire, police, engineering, traffic and Fraser Health requirements that are often the biggest logistical step for festivals. There are other concerns related to policing and safety costs, which is where the City’s current work on updating our Grants process has a role. We are also building back our volunteer coordination resources after COVID, as volunteer support is one of the areas where many festival organizers are feeling pinched. I don’t want us to take people off of those work areas to coordinate another task force. It seems that adds to instead of reducing complication and bureaucracy.

Council did not support this motion.

Requesting that Metro Vancouver conduct an independent review of the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plan cost overruns
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

Whereas Metro Vancouver’s North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant project is now estimated to cost nearly $4 billion dollars, a massive cost overrun compared to the original $500 million dollar budget; and
Whereas the specific circumstances that led to one of the largest cost overruns of any public infrastructure project (on a percentage basis) are still mainly unknown; and
Whereby given Metro Vancouver is about to undertake several other mega projects that will cost Metro Vancouver taxpayers billions of dollars;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Mayor Patrick Johnstone, as our representative on Metro Vancouver, be asked to submit a motion to that governing body calling for a full, independent public inquiry into the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant cost overruns.

This motion may have benefitted from the mover talking to their colleagues on Council or on the Metro Vancouver Board instead of spending all their time talking into various TV cameras. And the conversation about it in Council was equally frustrating, because it never seemed to get through that the motion (if approved) was not going to deliver what the mover seemed to insist would be the result. On that failure to understand the situation, I prefer to invoke Hanlon’s Razor.

Like the mover, I also have significant questions about how the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plan was approved at just over $700 million, and the conditions that led to the firing of the main contractor in 2021 – events that presaged the current budget on the order of $3.8 Billion – because I was not on the Board when those events occurred. But I do know (and it has been widely reported) that we are currently in the middle of a legal fight with that contractor – suit and countersuits that will no doubt preclude any full public disclosure of the conditions that led to those lawsuits until people get their day in court, because that is how legal processes work. One would expect Metro Vancouver, having several hundred million public dollars at stake in those legal proceedings, do not want to do anything that might jeopardize them. So, calls for a public inquiry at this time will not be heard by anyone in a position of responsible governance.

I know that isn’t a satisfying answer to anyone, it isn’t a satisfying answer to me. But that is where we are, and when I serve on the Board of Metro Vancouver, I have a legal duty of fidelity to that organization, and cannot ask for things that would threaten that.

What I can say is that this situation is not representative of how Metro Vancouver delivers large infrastructure projects. Metro is commonly delivering numerous large and complex infrastructure projects in the hundreds-of-millions scale, from water treatment to major region-spanning pipelines, and has a strong record of delivering on time and on budget. The Metro board has also committed to internal review and addressing concerns that led here so they don’t end up in the same boat on future major capital projects. There is no reason to believe that this is a new normal, or a situation that will be repeated in future capital investments.

In the end, Council did not support this motion, as it would not deliver what the mover wanted to insist it would deliver. However, this is not the last we will be talking about this project.

Supporting families, people with mobility challenges and/or a disability to access New Westminster’s waterfront
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

Whereas access to our City’s waterfront should be something accessible to all residents, regardless if they have mobility challenges or not; and
Whereas there are several City owned-operated elevators that connect our downtown to the waterfront which have been out of service for periods of several months at a time; and
Whereas a lack of elevator access can prove challenging for people with mobility difficulties to access our waterfront
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council regarding the status of our City owned-operated elevators (connecting our downtown to the waterfront) over the past year including how many days they have been out of service; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back with an action plan to ensure that at least one City owned elevator always remains operable to ensure a minimum level of access to our waterfront.

This is an email, not a resolution. In fact, this comes on the heels of an email provided to Council on the status of the McInnes elevator (repaired and still under warranty). We don’t need an “Action Plan” developed on elevator maintenance for two elevators, this is an operational item that is not something Council needs to meddle in. We are a policy body, not managers. Our goal as a City is to maintain assets in a way that best applies our limited resources, and our goal is to have all of the elevators operational at all times. Recognizing that, maintenance of elevators is complex and outdoor elevators do occasionally break down, and as anyone who lives in a high-rise knows, when things go wrong, there is sometimes a wait for parts and people who can fix them. I have confidence that staff take this work seriously, and are doing all they can to be responsive to maintenance challenges.

That saying, we also recognize that broken elevators are problematic for access, and this is why we made the decision to not rely on an elevator for the west Pier Park access built for the City by Bosa, but invested instead in the bigger, more expensive, and maximally accessible ramp. It is also why we put so much emphasis on assuring the new access across the tracks at Begbie will be fully accessible.

This resolution was amended to change from a report to an email (saving staff time and energy) and asked that other issues regarding accessibility to the waterfront be referred to the Accessibility Committee. The Amended motion was approved by Council.

And to wrap we had one piece of New Business:

EComm AGM representative
New Westminster is member of the EComm “syndicate” and we need to assign a member to attend the AGM and vote on our behalf. Council appointed Councillor Fontaine to be this representative.

As Mayvember moves in Juneuary, we spent Monday cozy and warm in Council Chambers with a regular agenda we moved through relatively quickly.

We started with moving the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
The RCH project has been operating at extended hours on Saturdays for some time, and it has only resulted in two noise complaints, both resolved. They are entering a phase where deliveries may need to occur as early as 7:00am on Saturdays to keep things moving, and council is granting them a construction noise exemption to permit this.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 612 Seventh Avenue – Marcon Construction
A large slab pour is required for the new mixed use tower being built Uptown. This work site had a few early noise complaints where the operator paid fines, but not complaints have been received in some time. Council is granting them a one-time expansion of work hours to facilitate a single large pour.

Development Cost Charge Bylaw – Inflationary Amendment Resubmission
DCCs are funds we collect from developers to help cover the cost of supplying infrastructure related to growth resulting from their developments. They are strictly regulated by the Province, and the money must pay for the specific infrastructure we identify as being needed to support that growth. As the cost of building that infrastructure goes up, we are able to do inflationary increases to our DCC rates. This Bylaw does that. We passed a similar one back in March, but the Provincial inspector of these things didn’t like the language we used around the date the change becomes effective, so staff have redrafted a version to the inspector’s liking, and we are moving it again.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw for 310 Blackley Street: Bylaw for First, Second, and Third Readings
The “Eastern Node” is a long-coming and slow –developing project in Queensborough. There is a master plan for townhouses, apartments, and commercial spaces in the area just west of Port Royal, and this single lot is part of “Phase 3”. The property is included n the land assembly, and is now coming to us for rezoning to match the masterplan.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw for 1005 Ewen Avenue: Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
This 23- unit townhouse project in Queensborough came to council for three readings back in 2019, but has been somewhat redesigned to better fit the site, so those three readings are being discarded, and a new bylaw to reflect the new alignment of the property is being brought to council for three readings.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Queensborough Transportation Plan
Transportation staff have been engaging the Q’boro neighbourhood on the first transportation plan specific to that neighbourhood, recognizing it has unique transportation challenges. The first being that there are no plans to replace or expand the (provincial) Queensborough Bridge any time soon, and much like the adjacent Hamilton neighbourhood of Richmond (and downtown, for that matter), moving around within the community is challenged by twice-a-day through-commuters. The new Plan includes priorities to address some of those unique challenges of Q’Boro, and identifies some of the pains of growth in the community.

The depth of consultation here is something to behold: lots of info on the Be Heard New West project page, direct outreach to 25 identified interest groups, community pop-ups, social media, advertising in the record, on the digital billboards and at community bulletin boards, and 4,000 direct mailings. The resulting report is a really good read, and identifies strategies to address the walkability and transit access on Lulu Island.

One of the key issues in Queensborough is the intersection of Howes and Highway 91A, which is statistically one of the most accident-prone intersections, is a comfort and safety barrier to pedestrians walking to Queensborough Landing from south of the freeway, and has abhorrently bad bus stop conditions for such a key bus stop location. The City has little more than advocacy power on the intersection, because it belongs to the Ministry of Transportation, but we need to be taking that advocacy to a new level to get this gap fixed.

One other key topic in Queensborough is the general lack of sidewalks in many of the residential neighbourhoods. This is a long-standing grievance, and though the City has had preiovus plans and policies ot address this gap (mostly waiting for redevelopment of older neighbourhoods, or doing a special assessment to share costs with homeowners), it is complicated by Lulu Island’s special conditions – soft soils and open ditches. Very long story made much shorter it costs a LOT to cover ditches, and it is simply not possible in some areas, and traditional road-curb-sidewalk structures would need enclosed storm drainage, meaning $500/m sidewalks become $10,000/m infrastructure programs.

We asked staff to come back to Council with some updates on how we might prioritize some of this work. “It’s expensive” is a good argument against making a quick commitment to just do it, but I think folks in the ‘Boro have reasonable expectations that at least one side of a road has a sidewalk of we expect the neighbourhood to be walkable and safe for everyone.

This report also talks about a commitment the City is making to the QtoQ ferry, and though it’s cost is increasing (diesel and staff costs are not going down!), its ridership is rebounding a bit after COVID. Some folks rely on this service, but we are going to have to continue to keep an eye on costs. The provider contract is running out this year, and we will have to go to RFP for a new contract, and that process should give us some clarity on the future of the service.

Report Back on Provincial Electric Kick Scooter Pilot Program
Electric kickscooters and other forms of new electric mobility are, for the most part, illegal in BC. This is because the provincial Motor Vehicle Act has not been updated to recognize them, and the City can’t really overrule provincial rules. The Province is running a Pilot Program in some communities to legalize them, with the local government committing to amending its local street and traffic bylaws, and aligning requirements with the MVA. Essentially, the scooters have the same rights and responsibilities as cyclists, except the rider must be 16 years old, and cannot exceed 25km/h.

The recommendation that New West join the Pilot is one I nominally support, but some good questions were raised around how enforcement works now, and how it will change if we enter the Pilot Program that could not be answered in the meeting, so we referred the decision here to allow more consultaiton with NWPD.

Response to Council Motion: Ensuring that ground level retail spaces in new developments prioritize community-supporting businesses and organizations
This is a follow-up to the discussion Council had regarding (ugh) dentist offices at retail grade. Staff are reporting back that they are prioritizing this component of the Retail Strategy, and will come back with some policy options in later June. There was a bit more instruction provided to staff from Council to not just report back on the Retail strategy components, but our planning and development policies and bylaws.

Response to Council Motion Regarding “Supporting Child Care Development Across the City”
This is also a follow up to an earlier motion from Council asking about opportunities to expand the range of properties in the City where childcare will be permitted without rezoning. It is noted here that New Westminster is already a regional leader in childcare-supporting policy, and as a result has one of the highest levels of childcare availability per capita in the Metro region (34.4 per 100 children, compared to a regional average of 25). The last time we expanded childcare zoning was 2011, and a re-look seems timely, especially as we are the fastest growing Metro Vancouver City in the “having kids” demographic of 25-44 years old.

Staff are going to review permitted childcare spaces as they implement the new Provincial housing regulations, as the pretty substantial zoning rewrite resulting from that regulation is a great opportunity to get it right at the same time. There are, notably, some (provincial) building code barriers to larger childcare facilities in typical residential buildings, but we want to make sure there aren’t municipal barriers if people want to make that investment.

Rezoning: 88 Tenth Street (Columbia Square) – Introductory Report
The owner of Columbia Square wants to redevelop the site to provide a significant number or residential homes, while maintaining the existing volume of retail and commercial spaces. We had a preliminary look at this back in April, and now staff want to work with the applicant to go to public consultation and move a more detailed design forward, so that rezoning can be considered by Council within this year.

This is a slightly different process, in that rezoning (which defines landuse, density, heights, and amenities) would be read three times, and if approved, some of the more detailed Development Planning part would come after. This two-phase process is more common in some other cities, but not as common here.

The challenge on this site is that the retail preservation and redevelopment and cost of building on the site do not provide economic viability if a significant below-market housing component is included. It being within the Province’s Transit Oriented Development Area defines in Bill 47 also complicates our ability to require affordable housing on the Site. We can receive Density Bonusing, which is money the developer pays the city to exceed the maximum density granted as right on the site, and the City can invest that DB into amenities.

The request from staff here is to work with the applicant to proceed with public consultation and the work needed to frame a rezoning Bylaw, which council will in turn be asked to consider some time later in the year.

Train Whistle Cessation Resolution at the Furness Street Rail Crossing
Whistle Cessation is complicated process. Once the engineering is done to make the crossing safe enough for the Railway and Technical Safety BC to agree whistles are not necessary, Council must pass a resolution deeming that whistles are not sounded. After significant engineering work (funded by an adjacent developer), and the City’s commitment to maintaining the engineering controls, we are ready to pass this resolution for a high-profile crossing in Port Royal. The train operator can still sound a whistle if they see a track intrusion or other hazard, but won’t sound it every time they cross, which should slightly improve the quality of sleep for a few folks in Port Royal.

We then read some bylaws including the one Bylaw for Adoption:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (114-118 Sprice Street) No. 8387, 2023
This zoning amendment to permit 10 new houses on compact lots in Queensborough was adopted by Council.

We then addressed a single Motion from Council:
Encouraging the BC Government to Terminate the Failed Decriminalization Experiment
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write a letter to the Premier and Minister of Mental Health and Addictions requesting they immediately halt the failed decriminalization experiment pilot project in BC.

This motion was, for anyone paying attention to the news, redundant when it landed, but the mover decided not to withdraw it, but to instead take some Council time to have their say on the topic. Because of this, we were treated to several well-worn BC United fearmongering speaking points, and an argument that instead of harm reduction, we need to equally fund all pillars in a “four-pillar approach”, which demonstrates a stunning ignorance about the very “Four Pillars” the mover is advocating towards.

This is not just because harm reduction (every aspect of which the mover steadfastly argued against for five minutes) is not only one of the four pillars – it is consistently the least funded of the four pillars. Don’t take my word for this, the Government of Canada tracks these things. So how do we unpack what the mover is actually arguing for? Clearly he is not asking that we increase by 7 times the funding we put into Harm Reduction (safe consumption, safe supply, etc.) to bring it up to the amount we spend on enforcement, so I have to read it as a radical Defund-the-Police motion advocating to cut by 80% our drug enforcement budget in order to bring it down to where harm reduction spending is. I’ll have to remember to ask the mover about that.

I have more to say about this entire debacle of a motion, and will perhaps follow up in another post if I can stomach it, because not only were people stigmatized by the comments in council, there was a woefully unfirmed argument in favour of stigmatization. Ugh. I’ll just wrap this report by saying Council wisely voted against supporting this redundant and ill-considered motion.