This is the second part of my report on the June 12th meeting, the first part is available here, and as there are were spicy conversations around some of these issues, I should probably add a bit of a caveat once again. This blog is written by me and me alone and not only does it not constitute official City communications, it also has inherent to it my biases. I make no claim to objectivity, even when I try my best to be objective. As always, you can watch the video here and see how the conversation itself went down, and can judge for yourself.

This Part 2 covers our various Motions from Council:

Supporting the victims of random and violent crimes in New Westminster
Councillor Minhas

BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to the Federal Minister of Justice, the Premier of British Columbia and the BC’s Solicitor General requesting that every effort be made to reform our ‘catch and release’ justice system which is facilitating repeat and prolific offenders being allowed to roam New Westminster’s streets; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council endorse a request made in February 2023 by the Business Improvement Areas of BC to establish a new provincially funded program which supports initiatives aimed at curtailing the impacts of vandalism and property crime; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council request an urgent meeting with the New Westminster Police Board to develop a joint strategy and determine what additional initiatives can be immediately implemented to ensure our streets remain safe from further violent crime.

This was an item delayed from the meeting two weeks ago when members of Council voted to not continue past 10:30, and this item got put aside halfway through. We already addressed the first Resolution (see link here), but had yet to address the last two.

On the second Resolution, it was amended to not just “endorse” the BIA of BC request, but to send letters to the appropriate members of the provincial government to add advocacy to the provincial government to our endorsement. All members of Council voted in favour of this advocacy to the provincial government make that endorsement clear.

On the third resolution, I was prepared to argue that this was inconsistent with the roles of Council and the Police Board. The Police Act makes very clear that there be a firewall between Police activities and City Council, to prevent exactly this kind of political interference in the operation of Police Forces. Indeed it was argued last meeting (incorrectly, in my opinion), including by council members advocating for this motion, that this firewall should prevent Council from being involved in discussions with the Police Board around budget matters, which is the one part of the Police Act where Council actually has a role. So the contradictions here are byzantine.

In my discussions with the Police Board, they appear very interested in meeting with Council to build a better budget consultation process, as police budgeting is meant to be a collaboration between the Police Board and Council, but when we start to veer into policy and operations, the Police Board will likely push back, as will the management of the police department as per the Police Act. That said, this request is to ask the Police Board for a meeting, and I have no problem with making that request to see where it goes. Council moved unanimously to move this.

Implementing initiatives to reduce catalytic converter thefts in New Westminster
Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED that staff work with ICBC and the New Westminster Police Department to determine the feasibility of replicating Surrey’s “Etch It, We Catch It” campaign in our city; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report back regarding the feasibility of implementing a by-law that would place a temporary ban on the resale of catalytic converters and impose serious fines to those individuals and/or businesses who knowingly sell stolen catalytic converters in our city.

Again, this is a matter (in my thinking) for the Police Board, not City Council, and would have benefitted from some communications with the Police Board or leadership in the police department before it came to Council. It is also problematic that the reselling of catalytic converters is not a currently licensed business in New Westminster, and the Surrey Bylaw (which you can read here) is part of its business regulation of scrap car recycling – a business type we don’t have in New Westminster. The suggestion here is to create a Bylaw to regulate a business type we don’t have. I’m not sure adding bureaucracy to regulate a business we don’t even have would be helpful, or aligned with our overall goal to simplify and streamline our business licensing.

I was also influenced here by a presentation at the Metro Vancouver Mayors Committee last week from the Chief Constable of the Delta Police Department (see meeting agenda and minutes here) on this very topic. It was very clear in his presentation – and I took the time to confirm this with him during our Q&A – that local government Bylaws are not a useful tool in addressing this issue. Instead, he emphasized in no uncertain terms that we are in a place where we need a change to provincial regulation, and was asking the Metro mayors to do that advocacy work. He indicated a patchwork of local bylaws can’t address the drivers of this crime, because they are impossible for police to administer, and would only catch people trying to sell a converter into legitimate recycling businesses, which is not the situation we are facing in BC. The vast majority of converters are stripped for precious metals and/or put into containers for overseas transport. This is an organized crime operation, not a petty crime operation, and petty crime approaches do not work.

So, although I fully recognize that catalytic converter theft is a real problem and cost in our region, and hear from people in the community concerned about it, I could not support this motion because it doesn’t meaningfully address the problem. That’s not me talking; that is the advice from regional law enforcement, the experts on the matter.

The majority of Council voted to not support the motion.

Enhancing Livability in New Westminster
Councillor Nakagawa

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council directs staff to report back on opportunities to bring a program similar to the Chinatown Stewards model to New Westminster.

The Chinatown Stewards are a model of community involvement in Vancouver where local residents with employment barriers are trained and employed to do a bunch of different things to make the urban space more friendly and attractive. This is similar to the I’s on the Street program we run in New West, but with an expended suite of services, which means more services for the commercial area and more diverse training for the staff.

This is a request for a report back to Council on opportunities (and, presumably, challenges), not a commitment to the model, so I was happy to support. The majority of Council voted to support this.

The Right Person, the Right Time, the Right Place Report
Councillor Campbell

BE IT RESOLVED That Staff provide a report back to Council on opportunities to action the local government recommendations presented in the Century House Association report The Right Person, the Right Time, the Right Place; and That City Staff work with Century House Association, Senior Services Society and other New Westminster senior support agencies to develop a senior government advocacy strategy to support the additional recommendations in the report.

Council had a presentation a few weeks ago from representatives from a group at Century House to speak to the report named here, which resulted from a webinar event at Century House supported by the United Way that discussed the state of long-term care in BC, the disaster that was long term care during COVID, and the work governments need to do to assure seniors in our community have affordable, safe, and dignified options for aging in our community.

The report came with recommendations for the Federal Government, Provincial Government, Health Authorities and Local Governments, developed by Gerontology experts from SFU, the Seniors’ Advocate for British Columbia, and other subject matter experts. There are four specific recommendations for local government, which this motion requests staff review for practicality. It also suggests senior government advocacy on the other recommendations, which is (much like the first motion we discussed this day) a pretty normal thing for motions from Council to ask for.

The majority of council voted to support the motion.

New Westminster: a 15-minute City
Councillors Henderson and Nakagawa

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster endorse the concept of becoming a 15-minute city and create a plan to implement the plan by 2030.

This was a motion brought to Councillors (and Council) by the community, and the community in question call themselves the Monkey Rebel Group – youth activists looking to (selfishly!) support building a better City for the future. We had a delegation of from the group present to Council, and have seen a bit of correspondence for and against since the motion was presented as a notice two weeks ago. In my 8+ years of this work, I cannot recall a motion where the vocal opposition was so detached from the actual thing being asked for in the motion, but that’s the post-information environment we are in.

The idea that we should be planning and building our cities so most of your daily needs can be met in a short walk or cycle is not a new one. Indeed, this was the model for almost all city building for thousands of years prior to Motordom. Preparing to discuss this motion took me down a deep rabbit hole of using an on-line tool to look at 15 minute walk-sheds and cycle-sheds in New Westminster. And fortunately, there are provincial support programs that speak directly to the first phase of work we would need to do here, which is essentially a mapping exercise to see where we fall short. Yes, we all know some areas we fall short (the High School is more than 15 minutes bike ride from Lower Sapperton and Queensborough), but there are also details beyond the obvious, and perhaps our planning can better address these. Let’s have the talk.

The majority of Council supported this motion.

Implementation of a temporary Low-Income Energy Assistance Program in 2023
Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED that effective June 1st, 2023 the New West Electrical Utility be directed to provide a one-time reimbursement of up to $500 to low income residents to install a new or replace an older non-functioning air conditioning unit; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that New West Electrical Utility establish a low-income energy assistance program effective June 1st to provide up to $500 in credits for eligible residents who are facing markedly higher energy bills due to increased consumption during the summer season (June through September); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the definition of low-income mirror that of the Province of BC which is defined as individuals with an income of $39,115 or less, and families with a household income of $50,170 or less in 2022; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that up to $500,000 be sourced from the Climate Action Reserve Fund to cover the cost of this temporary program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on urgent basis the CAO be authorized, in consultation with the Mayor, to establish the streamlined program eligibility and temporarily reallocate the necessary internal resources to support the operations of this program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor write a letter to the Premier of BC requesting the 14 recommendations contained in a June 7, 2022 BC Coroner’s Office report titled “Extreme Heat and Human Mortality: A Review of Heat-Related Deaths in B.C. in Summer 2021” be fully implemented in an expedited manner

On the face of it, support for air conditioners for low-income folks, and evaluating our opportunities to have means-tested reductions in utility rates for very low income households are things I can support. Unfortunately, the language in this motion make it seem both over prescriptive and underdeveloped.

As an example, using the $50,170 household income threshold to determine eligibility would make (based on 2021 Census data) more than 9,600 households eligible, meaning (even if we agreed that this is an appropriate use of Climate Action Reserve funds), the proposed $500,000 would represent a small proportion of the overall cost. This looks to be a plan sketched on a napkin without consultation with the Electrical Utility Commission or anyone in finance, and one that commits us to immediate spending of multiple millions of dollars.

This also (as was pointed out by other Councilors and the Renter Union) not addressing the core issue with rights for the most vulnerable in our community, many of whom are actually banned from installing an air conditioner. We need an approach here that is set in the realistic experience of people who are living in lower-cost rental or living in isolation (the identified factors in Heat Dome deaths).

The City and the Province are taking a number of proactive measures to prepare for the next Heat Dome and assure we don’t have the same disastrous impact on people’s health. We are working through Emergency Management, in partnership with the Health Authority, and are implementing many of the measures outlined in the Coroner’s Report following the Heat Dome event. These measures have been reported on openly by the City (see here, only a few meetings ago) and the Province. We are also exploring alternatives as direct action and senior government advocacy towards regulated cooling in buildings. There is a lot going on in this space right now, it is unfortunate that this motion was characterized as the one thing the City could and should do to make people safer, as that is simply not true.

Reflecting that most in Council think there is a nugget of a good idea in here, the majority of Council moved to refer this idea to the Electrical Utility Commission so they can address many of the questions raised: What would be the cost? How feasible is this? What is a practical timeline of taking this approach? Does the Utility even collect the data to go this direction? So more to talk about.

And that was the end of the excitement section of the evening’s meeting. Except for that motion to extend past 10:30, which council unanimously supported this time around.

We had a busy Council day on Monday, and a lot of great work got done, some of it even before it got too late. There was enough there that I will probably do two posts, the first half covering the part of the Agenda that is city business, and I’ll get to the Motions from Council in a follow up after I have time to write some more extended thoughts ab0ut them. First the scheduled business of the night that started with a couple of Reports:

Massey Theatre Renovation – Scope, Schedule and Budget
When the City agreed back in 2015 to take over the Massey Theatre from the School District and protect it from demolition, there was some recognition that there would be costs to bringing the old building up to acceptable standards for long-term use. This means addressing long-neglected maintenance (that’s not a criticism, the School District was not planning to keep the building so why spend money maintaining what you are about to tear down?) and necessary upgrades to the function of the building and seismic safety. By 2019, City staff had estimated the cost of needed repair at about $22M – this for a “Minimum Viable Option” – not a bunch of nice-to-haves, but basic required work to keep the building safe and operational for another 25 years.

That number has bounced around a bit over subsequent budgets, both as scope changes happen, and as the City finally took over the building in late 2021, and were able to start doing detailed analyses of the building systems (it didn’t help that the School District reneged on their promise to contribute $1.2M to the cost of demolition of the old gym side of the complex). The current capital budget (approved this spring) has $14.1M earmarked for Massey upgrades. Staff are now asking us to increase this amount to $20.1M, both to address the critical building systems that we already agreed were needed, but also to do more intensive roof and envelope work, and to make important accessibility upgrades so the full building will be (for the first time!) accessible to people with mobility barriers.

There are two strategies to fund this increase. We can take it from the $15.6M in Building Communities Fund money we received from the Province this year. Alternately we could defer some of the other items in our 5-year Capital budget and staff have provided us a list of things that might be deferred to make up all of part of the $6 Million (road works, street lights, etc.). We could then apply the BCF money to those things we deferred, I suppose, so this is all a bit academic, but the simplest and most predictable path is for us to use the BCF funds directly. Most importantly, we are making the commitment now so that Massey Theatre Society knows the timelines and path for our work to get done so they can proactively plan around the unfortunate but necessary disruptions to their programming while the work gets done.

This is a really good news story for Arts in the community.

2023 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is our new practice of Quarterly budget updates. The proposal is to add $6M to our Capital budget to reflect the Massey Theatre budget change. There are a few other adjustments of the Capital Budget, but the over-budget parts are offset by savings on other projects. On the operating side, we are a bit ahead of budget on revenues and a bit down on expenditures, putting us about $2M “in the black” above of our projected balance at this point in the budget year, but it is early in the year, and let’s not get too excited just yet!

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

327 Louellen Street: Sale of Abutting City Property
Some home lots in New West have back alleys, some don’t. In some places the City owns portions of what could be an alley right-of-way, but either the City property is not contiguous to provide an alley, or the City has decided that an alley is not needed for any technical reason (sewer, water, waste management, etc). Quite often, residents have knowingly or unknowingly encroached on to adjacent City-owned land. We also have areas where City infrastructure (like sewer lines) are under private property with a “statutory right of way”, meaning the City has rights to have the infrastructure there and rights to do maintenance work on it if needed, though it isn’t actually on our land.

In this case, the property owner has encroached on City land that is not connected to any other City land, and has no purpose for the City to own, as long as we can secure a Statutory Right-of-Way for the sewer line under it. So the owner has asked the City to sell it to them at a fairly agreed-upon price, which this report asks Council for the authority to do. Which we gave.

Advisory Committee Engagement Results
We are looking to shake up advisory Committees to a new and innovative model that more closely achieves true demographic representation of the community. We took this idea out to existing Advisory Committee volunteers to gauge interest, get feedback, and point out issues. This report is them reporting back to us on these concerns or ideas for improvement.

New Westminster Pesticide Use Amendment Bylaw No. 8403, 2023
The City has a Bylaw regulating cosmetic pesticide use – a bylaw that was written in 2008. There has been significant change in Provincial regulations on pesticides since then, most recently with amendments to the Integrated Pest Management Regulation adopted on February 2023. These minor changes to our Bylaw align it with the most updated Provincial regulations.

Rezoning Application for Infill Townhouse: 1032 and 1036 St. Andrews Street – Comprehensive Report
The owner of these properties in the Brow of the Hill wants to replace the two single family homes with 12 townhouses, which is consistent with the OCP, but needs a rezoning. There was a public meeting with the neighborhood about the project, a City-led consultation through Be Heard New West, and the Design Panel made some suggestions which the builder has addressed.

This is a detailed report that requests staff to put together the empowering bylaws for consideration next meeting, and for Council to waive the Public Hearing because the project is consistent with the OCP and City policy, and public consultation has been satisfactory. Council unanimously agreed.

Rezoning, Development Variance Permit and Development Permit: 114 and 118 Sprice Street – Comprehensive Report
The owners of these lots in Queensborough where there are currently two single family homes on large lots want to build ten (10!) compact single family homes on small lots in the same space. These are similar to (but more compact than) the newer units across the street, but similar in overall size and layout as found across the very-popular-for-young-families Port Royal neighborhood.

This is the comprehensive report that would inform Bylaw development for Council’s consideration. There was a public consultation and departmental and committee review within the City. Council is being asked to waive Public Hearing as public consultation has been completed and concerns addressed to Council satisfaction, and the project is consistent with the OCP and overall City strategies.

Subdivision and Development Control Amendment Bylaw No. 8369, 2023
This Bylaw regulates subdivisions in the City and how the City services new developments. The Bylaw is continually updated to reflect changes in practice and standards as the City evolves and provincial regulations evolve. This update introduces updated standards for roadworks related to new development, from the shape of curb radii to curb ramp design and sidewalk widths. These updates are bit technical, based on provincial standards and best practices around the region, and Council needs to approve Bylaw changes to apply them, which we are doing now.

---

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

2023 Council Remuneration
Our Remuneration Bylaw ties Council pay to the CPI and external review every few years. Last year’s CPI went up 6.8%, meaning the policy directs that our salary increase by 6.8%. That means $9,400 more for the Mayor and $3,600 for each Councilor. This is a report for information, not for approval, because the policy is meant to operate separately from Council, the very purpose of the policy was to get the politics out of this very sticky area, while maintaining transparency. Yet two people on Council voted to not receive the report, which is a bit baffling to me.

22nd Street Station Area Bold Vision Relaunch
The idea of a City-led Master Planning process for the 22nd Street Station area was part of the OCP approved in 2017. There was early development of the plan in 2019 that was set aside as Policy Planning staff were all-hands-on-deck with COVID response. With recent Policy Planning staff shortages and election timing, this was put back on the staff work plan for 2023, as was approved in our 2023 Budget discussions.

Changes to the Official Community Plan require consultation with First Nations, by regulation. This has traditionally meant First Nations are included with other “stakeholders” and are asked to opine on plans at different phases of development, which can make “engagement” feel very much like a box-checking exercise. Some nations have resources and interest in engaging, some don’t.

The scale and scope of the 22nd Street Station project, and the City’s renewed commitment to reconciliation, suggests this is an opportunity for us to do better. This report asks Council to approve such a better approach. As detailed in the report, this would be a master planning process that not only engages the community, it also focuses on Collaboration with First Nations and building climate resilience in to the plan. Council agreed on this path.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 660 Quayside Drive (Bosa Development)
Delivering crane sections to the Bosa development on the waterfront needs to happen when its impact on traffic is reduced, and subject to specific wind conditions, which means some construction work outside of regulated hours, for which the builder is requesting an exemption from Council.

Housing Need Report Update: 2021 & 2022
Like all municipalities in BC, New West is required to do a Housing Needs Assessment, and update it every 5 years. As housing is an identified priority of this Council, we update more often than that to annually track our progress towards meeting targets set out in the Regional Plan and addressing the need based on regional trends.

Good news is that we are meeting (and exceeding) our targets for market ownership housing and market rental housing. These is a bit of a complication here in measuring approvals as opposed to completions, as it doesn’t matter if the local government approves housing that never gets built, but much of that is out of our control, and should be leading us to a discussion about the Province giving us power to issue conditional permits we can withdraw if they do not result in building in a timely manner. But that’s another rabbit hole…

The bad news is we are not building enough affordable and supportive housing to meet demand, and that demand is going up with housing prices and rent. We have met our assessed need this year for shelter beds (though those are not permanent shelter beds, which will become a problem soon), but the supportive housing need is going up, and we need to adjust our targets to reflect that.

There are other details here on market ownership (new market ownership approvals are 78% apartments, 20% “missing middle”, and only 2% single detached) and Rental (75% purpose built and secured rental, 17% secondary suites, and 8% laneway/carriage house) worth digging into if you are a housing policy geek, and I know a few of them read this blog.

But this isn’t just an academic exercise. We have limited resources in the City to manage new approvals, and prioritizing by the most pressing needs is important. If it takes longer to get a market condo development through approvals because we are putting our resources into faster approval of supportive housing, that reflects a setting of staff priorities that had better be backed by an assessment like this. This also helps us make the case when we are talking to senior governments about the need for funding to support affordable and supportive housing in our community – the market is providing the market solution, but if we are ever going to meet our targets for non-market housing, the feds and province have to open up the purse strings and get projects in the city funded – including ones the City has already approved (I’m looking at you, 68 sixth Street).

Parks and Recreation 2024 Fees and Charges Bylaw Process
Setting Parks and Recreation fees is a complicated process. Really complicated. It requires balancing out factors such as recovering increasing cost of delivering the services, the amount the City is willing to subsidize services (they are almost all subsidized to some extent), discount formulas for minor sports and clubs, fairness to assure accessibility to all residents, using pricing signals to manage availability of resources vs. underutilized resources, and comparison to providers in adjacent municipalities and the private market. All this needs to be wrapped up in a Bylaw every year.

Our practice recently has been to fiddle with the current formula every year, adding between 0-5% to cost every year with a few bigger changes based on inflation, differential costs, and regional comparators. One of the results of this is that New West is actually quite a bit less expensive in many areas than regional comparators – meaning we subsidize our operations more than other cities. Especially as we bring in a brand spanking new pool and recreation centre, this may result in a major capacity problem as people for neighboring communities come to New West.

Staff are proposing a major streamlining of our fees system to coincide with the next Bylaw update, which must also be set up to accommodate the opening of təməsew̓txʷ. This is work that will be completed over the summer.

Potential process for updating the City’s corporate logo
The Branding of the City was adopted in 2008, and it replaced the old logo (which was based on our coat of Arms) that you still see around in a few places. It is time for an update, and this report provides an outline of a process to do that.

The City will engage a graphic design firm and a working group from the community as a first step before reaching out to the broader community, in a similar model that was used by the School District in recent school naming exercises. The entire process will take about a year, and cost something like $40,000.

Assuming we come to a satisfactory design, the City would then gradually begin introducing the new logo as older materials and equipment are phased out. The plan would not be to re-paint city vehicles or throw away current envelopes, but to use up the old resources and adopt the new logo as we bring in new resources, much like we did in 2008 (which is why you still see the old coat-of-arms logo about).

Rezoning and Development Permit (145 to 209 East Columbia Street) – Preliminary Report
The owner of several properties in Sapperton wants to build a 6-storey building with retail at grade, office on the second, and 92 secured market rental units above. This would be not-dissimilar in scale and use to the recently completed building further north on Columbia across form Knox Church. This is a preliminary report, and there will be departmental review and public consultation. If you have opinions, let us know.

Rezoning Application for Duplex: 926 First St – Preliminary Report
The owner of this house in Glenbrooke North would like to build a duplex, which is consistent with the OCP, but needs a rezoning. There are no variances from the interim infill density policy informing these types of applications. This is a preliminary report, and there will be departmental review and public consultation. If you have opinions, let us know.

---

We then read some Bylaws including the following Bylaw for Adoption:

Street and Traffic Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No. 8397, 2023
This Bylaw that updates the Street and Traffic Bylaw to change some definitions and clauses related to Cycle Network, Parking Regulations, Street Occupancy Permits and Use of Streets was adopted by Council.

---

And that is probably enough for now. The spicier Reports from Council will be in a follow-up blog post whenever I get time to write it.

We had quite an eventful Council Meeting this week, and I’d suggest you make sure you read to the end, but we didn’t get to the end, so surprise there: It will all make less sense when you get there, and you can draw your own conclusions. Nonetheless, the agenda was a full one, starting with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Inter-municipal TNS (Ride-Hailing) Business Licence Scheme Bylaw No. 8391, 2023
The City of New Westminster has an agreement with many other municipalities to share the business licensing of ride-hailing services. Essentially, the companies buy a license in Vancouver that applies to all municipalities, and we split the revenue. This change to that scheme would bring Mission, Kent and Hope into the fold. This change requires an Opportunity to be Heard. We received no written correspondence, and no-one came to speak to the change at Council. Council voted to approve the change.

---

We then had a Report for Action:

Rezoning Application for Conversion to Supportive Housing: 422 Sixth Street
This is a building in the Brow of the Hill that has operated as an office building, but is already zoned mixed use (it can have residential and office use above the commercial at grade). The owner wants to operate it as supportive affordable housing on the top two floors and continue to operate an office on the ground floor. This is compliant with the OCP and zoning, except the zoning language does not include “supportive” housing, so this is the rezoning request to add that language. This came to Council as a detailed report on the nature of that rezoning, with staff asking for anything we want added ot the empowering Bylaws, so we can consider approval at a future meeting. There was also a request to waive the Public Hearing, as the project is compliant with our OCP and stated City priorities.

We had some delegates speak for and against this project, and unfortunately, incorrect information circulating in the neighbourhood about the project appears to have taken a foothold. There was a lot of conflation between this type of supportive housing and emergency shelter, which demonstrated the need for us to have a public meeting and do further outreach about the truth of the project.

Council voted to approve the bylaws being prepared and the project to come to a future Council meeting for a vote on approval or rejection. In a move I do not remember seeing in my 8+ years on New West Council, we had council members voting against even considering bylaws on an affordable and supportive housing project. The same members voted against an amendment to have a public meeting about the project so the community can more clearly understand the project and Council can hear from the public in a constructive dialogue. Fortunately, the majority of Council voted for consultation, and will consider the approval after that consultation.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent

Rezoning Application: 805 Boyd Street (Queensborough Landing) – Preliminary Report
The Queensborough Landing commercial area wants to expand its offerings and are requesting expanding the permitted land uses on the site to include breweries, wineries, arcades, commercial schools, and more. They are all pretty typical of this type of “highway commercial” areas, and are not likely to conflict with other land use on the site.

This is a preliminary report, as this application will go to internal review and public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP, we will waive the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know.

Rezoning Application for Duplex: 902 First St – Preliminary Report
The owner of this property in Glenbrook North wants to build a duplex where there is now a single family home, which is consistent with the OCP, and no variances from the Interim Policy (based on RT-1), but needs a rezoning. This is a preliminary report, and will go to some public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP, we will waive the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know!

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendments for Three Readings – Bylaw 8397, 2023
This is a bit of a housekeeping change to the Streets and Traffic Bylaw, updating some of the language to match the new Active Transportation Network Plan, remover reference to insurance expiry date stickers as they don’t exist anymore, and other minor updates.

Sustainable Transportation Zoning Bylaw Amendments –Transportation Demand Management and Right-Sizing Parking
This is a zoning amendment bylaw to update our requirements for off-street parking in new multi-family development. This is part of a longer process we have been undergoing to modernize our off-street parking requirements, as part of our ongoing and constant review of Policies, Procedures, and Processes to assure they are current and appropriate. This part seeks to better balance the modern (and reduced) need for parking with the (increasing) cost of building and our other climate and livability goals (which both require less dependency on cars).

The change in requirements is based on analysis of vehicle ownership trends in New West and in our cohort communities, and through benchmark comparisons with other Metro Van jurisdictions, and through consultation with the development industry.

In short, the proposal reduces the number of parking spots that need to be built in in secured rental, in the Downtown neighbourhood, and in areas with high transit service, along with requiring better end-of-trip facilities for other modes (Bicycle storage rooms in residential, other facilities in Commercial). We are also removing the part of the bylaw that limits reductions in parking spaces – if a development can make the case for any level of reduction, we will hear that case instead of there being an arbitrary minimum. This opens the door a bit more for parking-free developments in the City.

Or more this is a preliminary report on a proposed change that will, again, go to public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP, we will waive the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know!

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Extension of Committee Member Terms
As we look to implement new model for Advisory Committees, including an Advisory Assembly model, staff are outlining the time that will be required to get us there, and we need to set up a schedule for the existing Advisory Committees and Grant Committees so we don’t have a gap in functionality.

Liquor Primary Patio Application (Thirsty Duck Pub) for 606 Twelfth Street
The Thirsty Duck has been operating a seasonal outdoor patio since COVID led to a shift in regulation of patios. They have not caused any problems, or generated any complaints, and the Duck now wants ot make this patio a permanent feature. So Council needs to approve and needs to send a resolution to the LCRB to assure them we are fine with the liquor license operating in this way. So we are doing both.

New Westminster Rent Bank Funding Request
The Rent Bank is a program that started in 2017 in New West, and is now funded primarily by the Province (an example of uploading?) and is operational in many municipalities across BC after New West set the example. It is an emergency short-term interest-free loan program to help people who get into Rent or Utility arrears such that they run the risk of being evicted and made homeless. This is proactive avoidance of homelessness. It is also a contact point for community-based programming for people who are precariously housed, including credit counselling and food security and health care services.

This program is a partnership, and the City has been contributing $35,000 per year to cover a portion of the administrative cost, which allows the Rent Bank to operate 5 days a week. This report is asking the city to continue this commitment for three more years, and was supported by Council.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit: 808 Royal Avenue (Douglas College) – Preliminary Report
Douglas College wants to build a new building on the empty lots across 8th Street from their New West Campus. The plan is to have a 20-storey building with 244 student housing units and academic spaces on the lower floors. This is consistent with the OCP and the Downtown Community Plan, but the site needs a rezoning.

This is a preliminary report outlining the plan, and the project will need internal review and public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP and meets City Priorities, we will be waiving the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know.

Welcome Centre Update and Funding Request
The Welcome Centre at NWSS is a partnership between the City, the School District, and service organizations supporting newcomers and their families. The City funds a “navigator” position to work in the centre and direct clients toward services they may require. We have applied to IIRC (the federal government) to help fund this position, as we are somewhat making up for gaps in the immigration systems that make it hard for recent arrivals to access these types of services, however we were not successful in getting the position funded for 2024. We will re-apply for 2025-2026, but need to commit to the position beforehand, which Council did.

Correspondence: Metro Vancouver letter dated May 16, 2023 regarding Land Use Designation Amendment to Metro 2050 Township of Langley – Gloucester Industrial Park
This is an application before Metro Vancouver to have 14.6 acres moved from Agricultural use outside the urban containment boundary to turn it to industrial land. This is adjacent to the Gloucester Industrial Park, but the land was previously (until recently) protected by the ALR. This change of the Urban Containment Boundary requires an amendment to our regional plan, which requires support of 50%+1 through a weighted vote at Metro Vancouver Board to be approved. This correspondence is our notice that we have until July 4, 2023 to the Board (as do members of the public and affected stakeholders).

Council moved the following resolution in response:
“ Council write a letter to Metro Board expressing concerns about erosion of the Urban Containment Boundary, citing its vital role in maintaining a stable, long-term footprint for urban development while reinforcing the protection of agricultural, conservation and rural lands for ecological and climate values. Sprawl of developed land outside of the UCB, whether for residential or commercial purposes, increases the cost of servicing these lands, undermines our regional transportation goals, and challenges our regional sustainable growth goals”

---

We then Read some Bylaws including the following Bylaw for Adoption:

Inter-municipal TNS Business Licence Agreement Bylaw No. 8393, 2023
As discussed above, this bylaw that expands the agreement among participating municipalities regarding an Inter-municipal Transportation Network Services (i.e. Ride-Hailing) Business License program was Adopted by Council. It’s the law of the land now, if the other 30 Municipalities agree.

---

Then on to everyone’s favourite section of the evening, Motions from Council:

2024 Police Budget
Councillor Nakagawa

Be it resolved that New Westminster City Council writes to the Police Board requesting to engage in collaborative dialogue about the 2024 Police Budget on an ongoing basis beginning in spring 2023.

City Council is required by law to approve a police budget, but we are not deeply involved in the creation of that police budget (though it represents the largest single departmental budget in the City). That is the work of the Police Board, along with setting the policy of the Police department. Under the Police Act, the Police Board is struck to specifically keep City Council (and therefore politics) separate from police operations, but the relationship over the budget is a bit more nuanced.

The idea that the Police Board and the City Council should have a collaborative dialogue about the budget during its development seems common sense. That said, it is up to the Police board to determine the budget development process that works for them, so this is an invitation from Council, and it will be up to the Police Board to decide what to do it. Council approved this request, and we will see where it goes.

I do note that the Police Act creates this weird situation where I, as the elected Mayor, am the spokesperson for both Council and the Police Board, so I should clarify here my comments are as Mayor and chair of City Council (though, of course not official City Communications, as this is my blog, not a city website), and not as Chair of the Police Board. Maybe I’ll blog out later how the Police Board reacts, but in the meantime, no-one is more aware than I of the weirdness of my conflicted position, and the role of Provincial Legislation in creating this conflict, and the challenges of doing this kind of open and transparent discussion with residents while I am doing these two jobs. Government just isn’t set up for this kind of direct and informal communications, but here we are.

Establishing a new Planning Policies, Procedures and Processes Working Group
Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED that Council establish a Planning Policies, Procedures and Processes Working Group; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that once established and members of the Working Group are appointed, it be provided with up to 120 days to prepare a report to Council which includes recommendations regarding possible revisions, updates or the elimination of any unnecessary, outdated, costly or ineffective planning by-laws, policies, procedures and processes;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council appoint two city councillors to co-chair the Working Group and that they develop the terms of reference, and prepare a budget (if required) for approval by Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the co-chairs will recommend to Council the overall composition of the Working Group; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all efforts should be made by the Working Group to utilize external resources as a means of limiting staff time required to support this initiative; and
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED the representatives of the Working Group will represent the diversity of our community and that the consultation they undertake will be done so in an equitable manner

I was challenged with this set of recommendations, and was happy Council did not support this motion. It seemed to want to duplicate processes that are already going on in the City by adding a layer of bureaucracy, and appears to me to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what those processes are, which is disappointing after the work we did to onboard Council.

For example, earlier this meeting we had the item called “Sustainable Transportation Zoning Bylaw Amendments” which was part of exactly this – an updating of significant planning policies and procedures that came from staff continued effort to update and streamline policies, procedures and policies. We also recently approved a budget that included specific line items that addressed exactly this, from the update to the infill housing guidelines and new draft development permit guidelines and the new duplex/triples application approval process, to our planned “one stop shopping” eGov services program and transition to digital submissions of permit applications for review, inspections and approvals including digitization technology and resources. The conceit of this motion is that a couple of Councillors will direct this continuous improvement better than the professional staff doing this every day.

We have a process to (for example) continually review and update our zoning bylaw and processes that underlie it, including the recent changes that have provided more flexibility to waive Public Hearings and to fast-track affordable housing projects in the City where there are senior government funds on the table (something the mover of this motion seemed to express concern with in earlier conversation in this very meeting).

The point it, this work needs to be (and is) directed toward identified process problems or delays and are prioritized based on our Housing Needs Assessments. If, as this motion suggests, there are “concerns expressed about processes, procedures and policies”, then let’s have a conversation about those items. But the solution is not and un-costed and unclear fishing expedition led by a new layer of bureaucracy to add to the work load of staff already engaged in this work, especially as we are resource challenged right now.

Supporting the victims of random and violent crimes in New Westminster
Councillor Minhas

BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to the Federal Minister of Justice, the Premier of British Columbia and the BC’s Solicitor General requesting that every effort be made to reform our ‘catch and release’ justice system which is facilitating repeat and prolific offenders being allowed to roam New Westminster’s streets; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council endorse a request made in February 2023 by the Business Improvement Areas of BC to establish a new provincially funded program which supports initiatives aimed at curtailing the impacts of vandalism and property crime; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council request an urgent meeting with the New Westminster Police Board to develop a joint strategy and determine what additional initiatives can be immediately implemented to ensure our streets remain safe from further violent crime.

As these three measures appeared quite disconnected, it was moved to sever into three separate motions.

On the first resolution, there was some concern expressed by council about the suggestion that the Mayor should send opposition party speaking points (both Provincial and Federal) to the governments, as this did not seem conducive to a clear outcome, bereft of context or a clear ask.

I felt the need to point out that the recent announcement by the provincial government around the creation of the Hub model in communities including New Westminster, where police, dedicated prosecutors and probation officers are working together as part of the Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative, demonstrates that the province is already taking this issue seriously and are taking new an innovative approaches to that issue. Further, the introduction of Bill C-48 represents as similar refocusing on the issue by the Federal government, focusing on bail reform in a way that keeps violent offenders of the street in a way that would survive a charter challenge.

Of course, I believe that everyone has the right to feel safe in our community, and the mutli-faceted approach that target the root causes of these types of crimes while assuring the justice system has the tools it needs to protect the public from those few who commit the most atrocious violence in our communities is the right approach. I support the work the provincial and federal governments are doing now, and am not convinced my sending them opposition speaking points now is going to make any material difference. Council did not support this resolution.

On the second resolution debate was cut short because the meeting hit 10:30pm, and our Procedure Bylaw requires 2/3 of the Council to vote to extend beyond 10:30. Much to my surprise, the member who brought this resolution, and the member who brought the following resolution on the agenda voted to NOT extend debate on their own resolutions, and instead wanted the meeting to adjourn. I can’t explain that.

So we wrapped at 10:30 with a bit of an abrupt ending to the meeting. The unaddressed issues will come back (presumably) at the next meeting, though there is a time sensitive item later in the agenda that will likely require an emergency meeting. So stay tuned!

Our Council meeting this week started with a Public Hearing, as is pretty typical for last-meeting-of-the-month. But that wasn’t the only item on the agenda, so join me on a journey.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8374, 2023 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8375, 2023 for 102/104 Eighth Avenue and 728 First Street
This project would see 10 townhouses built in two buildings where there is currently a single family house and a duplex in Glenbrook North. The overall FSR would be 1.03 (0.87 above grade) and all units would be three-bedroom family-friendly (1,700 -1,800 sq ft) with a single parking spot which meets the parking requirement for this type of development. The project would exceed energy efficiency required by the BC Energy Step Code, achieving Step 4.

This requires not just a rezoning (from RS-1 single family residential to RT townhouse) but an amendment to the Official Community Plan to change the land use from RD (single family detached and duplex) to RGO (Ground-Oriented Infill Housing). This designation was considered as part of the OCP update 6 years ago now, but Council in its wisdom chose to not designate the entire block, and instead to allow piecemeal applications if they come up.

Since 2021, this project has gone through the Land Use Planning Committee (which led to minor modifications), the Advisory Planning Commission (supported) and Design Panel (supported), and there was consultation with First Nations and the School District (as required for an OCP amendment). There was also active and passive public consultation, including virtual open house and communications through the Glenbrook North Residents’ Association. Most of the feedback was positive, noting the lack of family-friendly townhouse building form in this part of New West, with the main concerns being lack of parking (natch), the desire for more affordability, and infrastructure not keeping up with growth.

We had two pieces of correspondence and about a half dozen delegates speak to council, including the proponent. We heard opposition to any change to the OCP, and we heard some concerns about parking, rodent control and construction impacts, which were directed to staff.

Overall, I am in support of this kind of infill missing middle housing, as it fills an important gap in our housing supply – family-sized ground oriented units in a high-service neighbourhood so close to schools, shops, parks, and everything families need. This is the kind of infill housing I hear residents in New West asking for more of.

Council voted in favour of the application, and in the Council meeting to follow, gave the Bylaws three readings.

---

Following some announcements and proclamations, we go our first Report for discussion:

Train Whistle Cessation – Update
Staff have started a practice of making quarterly reports on train whistle cessation. They are attached as information reports on the end of Council Agenda (as there is no decision for council to make, we are just being informed), but as with all information reports, a Councilor may ask to have them raised to the next council meeting for discussion. This one was raised from April 3. Most of the information here is also freely available on the City’s public website about Whistle Cessation.

The new part here is the renewed activity in the Rail Technical Working Group, and a few more details about timelines for the rail crossings where we are currently working on cessation and clarity about the funding sources for that work.

There is also a notion in here worth calling attention to. There has been political conversation about the desire to end “unnecessary whistling” in the community. This report takes the time to point out that “unnecessary whistling” is already illegal by federal law, and there have been no reports of “unnecessary whistling” being a problem in the City. The whistling we hear is a regulatory requirement, and it is that regulatory requirement we are trying to address.

---

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Exemption: 651 Carnarvon Street – Signia Construction Ltd.
The Provincial Court House is being renovated with new cladding and roofing, increasing its energy efficiency. Because of the nature of other operations, construction work during court hours is not preferred, so they need to do some of their work outside of court hours. This means evening and weekend work that exceeds our construction noise Bylaw, which is why they are asking for an exemption.

Recruitment 2023: Appointments to the Accessibility Advisory Committee
We have an Accessibility Advisory Committee, to which we appoint people. Here is one of those appointments.

Salmonbellies Municipally Significant LCRB Resolution
There is a quirk in the LCRB rules about how you sell beer at a beer garden involving their fixed prices and sizes of containers and such where, in rare occasion, an event can get around some of the rigidity by the City deeming the event “Municipally Significant”. I’m not sure we have ever done this before, but if hosting the Most Famous Team in Lacrosse*, 24-time Mann Cup winners over a proud 130+ year history isn’t “Municipally Significant” for New Westminster, I don’t know what is. So in deeming them so, they have some new partnership opportunities that are theirs to announce not mine. Or, you know, check my Instagram.

---

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

2023 Tax Rates Bylaw No 8395, 2023
With the budget Bylaw prepared last meeting, staff can now set the Tax Rates to recover the required $102 Million in property taxes from the roughly $30 Billion of assessed real estate value in the City.

There are also reminders here that homeowners need to apply to the Provincial Government for the $570 grant to help offset property taxes, $845 if you are over 65. Also, anyone over the age of 55 can defer 100% of their property taxes, which means the Province will pay them for you, and you pay them back at some point in the future (presumably when you sell the property, but that’s up to you). The current interest rate for deferral is 4.45% simple interest.

So doing the math on this, if you are a 65 year old living in a house assessed at $1 Million, your Municipal taxes will be $2,500. Less Homeowner grant, that is $1155. If you defer your taxes, it will cost you about $51 in interest per year until you (or your heirs) decide to sell the house. As this interest is applied against your house, it is important to note that the value of the typical $1 Million house in New West went up 11% last year, or about $110,000. So for less than 0.05% of the amount the typical house value goes up every year, you could never pay property taxes again. Just saying.

City Hall Community Art Exhibition Program
This is the result of a Motion from former Councillor Mary Trentadue, and some work staff have been doing with partners in the Community since. The walls in the area outside Council chambers are kind of dull, and looked pretty uninviting. The thought was, as we are trying to invite more people into City Hall, it would be an opportunity to liven the space up while providing more space for local and regional artists to display their work. Staff coordinated with the Arts Advisory Committee and Arts Council of New Westminster to use these spaces to let folks know what works are happening at the other Arts Council locations.

City Hall is old historic, so we need to do a Hazardous Building Materials survey and install some appropriate hardware, but we should see Art in City Hall soon! Arts adds to conversations, it leads to deeper thinking, it fills our souls and gives us inspiration, and all of those things should happen in the entrance to Council Chambers.

Economic Impact Model Scope of Work
The idea here is that staff want to put together a new economic analysis tool. This way existing programs (in this case, the Anvil Centre, but it could be applicable to the Library, to the Queens Park Arena or Pier Park) could be evaluated for their impact on the local economy. The idea is that it could inform future civic initiatives.

I like the idea of an economic Input-output model, but I wonder about its usefulness as a decision-making tool unless it incorporates more than economic factors. We are not a business, we are a local government, and the economic lens can act like blinders limiting our analysis of social impacts of our work, of climate and environmental impacts, of cultural and community connection impacts, of health and happiness impacts. Little of what we do in the City serves only an economic goal. We could also get into a deeper discussion about the role of a Local Government in driving Fiscal Policy in a Monetary Policy epoch, but that way leads to rabbit holes.

Anyway, it is a small relative cost, and I do generally like staff to have good data to help guide our decision-making, so I am comfortable with Economic Development staff being given time and budget to do this work. However, like any tool, it is more important that we be judicious in its application.

Queen’s Park Farm Master Plan Adoption
This has been discussed a few times now in council and workshop, and this final report and ask for endorsement of the plan comes after a year-long two-phase community engagement and iterative design process. The results of that are a model to replace the old “petting zoo” with a new set of program elements and activity spaces for all ages. The theme is “habitat + grow” – a mix of learning and experience spaces around forest habitats and around the sources of our food. This will be a new jewel in the Queens Park space, and I am really proud of the work staff and the design team did in bringing a diverse set of elements together.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit (810 Agnes Street and 815 821 Victoria Street) – Application Consideration
This project downtown has been in the planning process for a couple of years. It includes a space that was an informal community centre for the Chinese community in New West more than 100 years ago, which was gifted to the City about 50 years ago by the Chinese Benevolent Society. The plan is to develop part of the site (that currently has older warehouse type buildings on it) for a residential tower, and create an outdoor public park that honours the history of the site and its importance to the history of Chinese people in early New Westminster. This has been on the books for some time, so much of the public consultation and design of the park amenity space has already occurred.

The development itself has been shifted from what was originally going to be market condos to 350 Purpose Built Rental suites in a 33 story building. This project saw the Land Use and Planning Committee and a Preliminary Report to Council in early 2018, has been through public open houses and consultation before the pandemic and again in 2022. As the results of that consultation were positive, it is consistent with the OCP, provides a much needed form of housing (market rental adjacent to a SkyTrain Station) and a well understood public amenity package, is consistent with City’s stated policy direction for housing development, Council agreed to waive the Public Hearing and will consider giving the Rezoning three readings in an upcoming council meeting following circulation of notice in accordance with the Local Government Act..

---

We then adopted the following Bylaws:

Building Amendment Bylaw No. 8388, 2023
This Bylaw that amends our Building Bylaw to align with changes to the BC Building Code was adopted unanimously by council, because we all love alignment.

Five Year Financial Plan 2023 – 2027 Bylaw No 8392, 2023
This Bylaw that formalizes our Consolidated Financial Plan for 2023 through 2027 was adopted by Council. The Budget is in the books. Bring on 2024.

---

Then we had one final piece of New Business

2023 Summer Heat Response Update
This report set out the various initiatives that staff in the Emergency Management Office and other departments in the City (working with partners at Fraser Health and in the community) have put together to prepare for heat related events. It includes expanded accessible public spaces to cool off, outreach to building managers, seniors, people with disabilities through a new communications strategy, a program to rent air conditioners out on a means-tested basis, and outdoor misting stations, and more.

This is good, but I have asked for us to look at going a step further. I have discussed with several people from being on a panel at UBCM with Dr. Bonnie Henry to recent meetings with Fraser Health, and organizations in town that support vulnerable people and seniors the idea of us applying regulatory tools not dissimilar to our fire preparedness legislation to address heat emergency preparedness. As such, I asked that staff explore our ability to regulate a heat response plan requirement for all Multi-unit residential building in the City.

I don’t know if we have the tools we need, or if we need to advocate for them from the province, but with the scale of the deaths New West faced in the 2021 Heat Dome, I don’t want our connect and prepare response to be one driven by and relying on volunteers. We don’t let building operators volunteer to have sprinklers or fire alarms, nor do we rely on volunteers to assure these systems are operational. They are fundamental life safety measures, and we have learned now that a heat emergency plan is also a fundamental life saving measure.

This first request is just to help us understand what tools we may have, there will no doubt be deeper discussions after to determine the viability of applying those tools, this is just information gathering at this time.

---

And that was the week that was, I can’t believe it’s almost May. Go outside, enjoy some spring sun. Or go see a lavish musical. I’m going to do both!