Tag: Planning

Anecdotes and Data

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I don’t usually dip into media criticism here – there is an old saying about politicians not pissing off people who buy ink by the barrel – but every once in a while an article comes out that needs a response.

In this case, a predictable Douglas Todd article mentions New West. For those who don’t know him, Todd is Post Media’s go-to guy for anti-immigration and anti-urbanism opinion. As in this article, he often taps Patrick Condon, a UBC Landscape Architect who feigns “housing expert” status by pining for Vancouver’s pastoral past.

The reason I highlight this story is that I wanted to test the central premise – that increased growth and increased density means increased taxes. Todd is an opinion writer, not a journalist, because a journalist would do a bit of research to test their idea against data, while an opinion writer is comfortable relying on anecdotes that fit the narrative he is trying to craft.

I’m not a journalist, but I do love data. So I dug through news articles and budget documents from 20 Lower Mainland municipalities (all but Anmore – because their data was hard to find, and after a bit of digging, I decided meh Anmore) to determine what their tax rate increases have been over the last three years, since the beginning of this council term. I do this all the time anyway because I see it as part of my job. I really should know where we stand in comparison to other cities, even if I am the first to acknowledge, it isn’t a competition. I also took the short term rate of growth data from the Metro Vancouver Population Projections report for 2024. Plot the two against each other, and this is what you get:

I don’t want to get all Stats 101 on you (the R-squared here is 0.07), but that distribution is pretty close to a circle, meaning there is no correlation between rate of growth and tax increases. The highest tax rate increases over on the right in red (Bowen Island, Langley City and Surrey) are cities pretty close to the middle in growth-wise and the three fastest growing cities up top in green (New West, North Van City, and Langley Township) are mid-to-low in tax rate increase.

Another common Todd/Condon argument is that density of population leads to tax increases. Data on population density is easy to find, so here goes plot number 2:

Again, the cluster of four highest-density cities up top (Vancouver, New West, White Rock, and North Van City) are about the middle of the tax increase range, and the tree highest and three lowest tax increase cities are across the spectrum of density, with none of them in the top 4 growth wise. With an R-squared of 0.003, the data here just doesn’t correlate.

The data does not tell the whole story, as it never does in these comparisons, because these are 20 different municipalities with different pressures and priorities. Some cities are intentionally running their reserves down to avoid tax increases, while others are building reserves. Some are making up for previous council underfunding of services, others are paring back on services. Langley City increasing taxes at a high rate doesn’t tell you that they have gone from the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in the region to the third-from lowest, or that West Vancouver at one tenth the density of New Westminster and with the lowest rate of growth in the entire region is still the highest-taxed municipality in Greater Vancouver, despite its relatively modest tax increases in the last few years. There are stories to be told in this data beyond the simple scatter graph; the anecdotes that Todd relies on belie those details.

His narrative is that density and growth are bad, and he will find any ill the public has concerns about, and blame it on density and growth, facts be damned.

The last time Douglas Todd wrote about New West, he lamented there are no cafes on Carnarvon Street, when there are at least 4 places to get coffee in the 500m stretch of Carnarvon he was describing. I just don’t know where Mr. Todd gets his bad information about our City. He sure never calls me.

If you want to read more into the data above, here’s my table. If you find a wrong number, or have Anmore tax data and really want me to include it, let me know!

Action

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Full report to follow, but last night Council endorsed a comprehensive package of actions arising from our ongoing Crises Response Pilot Project. After more than a year of coordination with provincial and non-profit partners, consultation with health care professionals and other jurisdictions, and conversations with residents and businesses in the community, staff have developed a road map of actions for the year ahead and beyond. And there is a lot there.

These two overlapping action plans, a Prevention, Support and Transition Services Plan and Supportive Housing and Wrap-Around Services Plan are about addressing the needs of people who are experiencing the three crises with a focus on supportive housing, and addressing the externalities associated with the three crises that impact other residents and businesses.

There are more than a dozen specific actions – too long a list to include here (though you can read the comprehensive report here). This includes introducing a situation table approach to connect people with services, supporting seasonal and temporary shelter capacity, a Health Connect and Resource Centre, improved harm reduction services, working with RCH in discharge planning, expediting construction of supportive housing with wrap-around care and a continuum of care from detox (where needed) to recovery (where appropriate), trauma informed and culturally-safe Indigenous housing, and much more. At the heart of this work is better coordination with and between the existing Assertive Community Treatment Team, the Integrated Homelessness Action Response Team, the Peer Assisted Care Team and the Substance Use Services and Access Team. All of this in collaboration with BC Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Fraser Health Authority.

What we didn’t discuss much last night was the work that out Operations Support Teams are doing to address waste management, hygiene, and Bylaw compliance or the work of our Community Liaison Officers in support of local business and residents who are also impacted by the three crises.

The community has been asking us to act, and we are acting. We are not pointing fingers, we are not punching down, we are not kicking this down the road or giving up in defeat. We are showing leadership. We are working with our partners in the province and supporting our community using evidence-based approaches. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel here, we are applying the knowledge gained and learning from the experiences (good and bad) of other jurisdictions, and are approaching this work with clear purpose. We are putting resources where they are needed, and better supporting the resources already out there, and are advocating ceaselessly with senior government to better fund the long term solutions our community and every community needs: housing and healthcare.

I want to thank the many members of the community who showed up yesterday at Council and those who wrote to Mayor and Council expressing support for this work. I also want to thank the many business owners and residents who helped guide us through this planning process. You asked hard questions and deserve clear answers, and I expect you will continue to hold us accountable. We hear you, and will continue to listen and adapt as the conditions on the ground change. As was emphasized at the Economic Forum last week, we are a community, and only by working together will we assure everyone is supported, kept safe, and able to prosper in this incredible, proactive, compassionate and engaged community.

2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Is it just me, or did the Christmas break seemed a little extended his year? Maybe it’s the pace of media events unfolding faster than real life, maybe it’s the mid-week Christmas and New Years day that seems to encroach on two weekends, maybe its the existential dread…

This first week I was really back at it in the office, and it involved quite a bit of planning for what is coming in 2025. It looks like it’s going to be a big year, so I thought I would jot down some thoughts about what is on the horizon for New Westminster in 2025.

The biggest body of work in front of us right now are updates to our Official Community Plan to comply with the provincial housing regulations introduced last year. We have several interim measures in place to address SSMUH, TOA development and Amenity Funding, but much has changed, such that our understanding of the legislation and how it integrates with the City’s existing policies and Bylaws, that those three links I just pointed to are probably no longer very accurate. By December, 2025, we will need to have updated our OCP to include SSMUH across the City and TOA, to align our OCP with the newly regulated Housing Needs Assessment reports, and to figure out where townhouses and row homes fit in this new model. There will be some level of public consultation in regards to these OCP updates, so keep tuned to Be Heard New West if you are interested.

We will also be bringing forward new policies to address the provincial regulatory changes in how we finance growth. With new housing comes new infrastructure needs, from roads to sewers and parks, and new amenity needs like recreation and childcare. We use DCCs to pay for the former, but now have the tool called ACC to pay for the latter. However, this new tool comes with complications, and impacts our Density Bonus and other programs. We have an interim measure in place now, but by mid-2025 will have to have new ACC and Density Bonus policies in place, and will need to have a better understanding of the community need projected for ward a decade so we know what exactly it is we are trying to finance.

Fortunately, we are almost completed our new Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and expect to adopt a plan in 2025 that will set the course for the next generation of Parks and Rec investments. We have already been through some extensive public consultation on this, both from the “general public” and directed consultation with user groups like organized sports teams, youth, seniors, and neighbourhood groups. There is a tonne of reporting out you can read here. This consultation will be backstopped by detailed analysis by staff and consultants on anticipated needs for the decade ahead, recognizing the recreation space is different than it was even a decade ago as our population grows and demographics shift, as youth gravitate to less formal sports structures, as the regional offerings of fields, rinks, and pools has evolved, and as emergent trends (pickleball, anyone?) and shifting interest in park use towards more passive uses mean what we used ot need is not what we will be needing looking forward. I’m really excited to see where this study takes us as a community.

You may have heard the news that Lisa Spitale is retiring at the end of 2025, and the hiring of a new CAO is a pretty significant piece of work for Council – the only time we really get involved in HR projects. I also can emphasize how much of a shift this represents. Lisa has worked for New Westminster since 1992, and was appointed CAO in 2013. She has worked for five different mayors, and seen the population of New Westminster double during her New West career. She is one of the most respected City Managers in the province, highly respected by her staff, by the business community, and by the professional and academic planning communities. She is also a pleasure to work with. Council will have our work cut out for us filling those shoes.

The City is working with the Chamber of Commerce on an Economic Forum this February. The idea is to bring local and regional business leaders together for the first time in the Post-COVID world and discuss challenges and opportunities for both the local and regional economy. With the integration of Economic Development and Arts and Culture under the new Community Services department, and with our local economic indicators all trending in a positive direction (even compared to numbers from before the COVID dip), there are a lot of reasons to be positive about economic growth in New West. But there is still nervousness around affordability and with the chaos down south and in Ottawa, we are looking at uncertainty in the future. The conversations at the forum about how we can better support and future-proof local businesses should be a positive one, and should help us set a course for EcDev work for the rest of the term.

I am also excited to see where the Youth Climate Leadership Team will be taking us in 2025. This new program brings a group of local folks between 15 and 24 years old to work on a project of project s of their own choosing with City support, with the goals of giving youth some leadership experience, and moving the needle on climate action in the City. There have been two meetings so far, and the group is deep into the forming and visioning stages, with a plan to come to Council before the beginning of summer with project proposals.

We will also be striking a Vision Zero task force this spring to shift the mindset around road safety in the city. I don’t expect there will be a lot of public-facing results from this task force right up front, as the first phase of work involves bringing partners and stakeholders together (engineering, police, fire, and provincial agencies involved in transportation and public health) to understand who is doing what, who holds jurisdiction where, and who is collecting what data. This aligns with the multidisciplinary and data-driven approach that makes Vision Zero different than the traditional models of road safety. I’m excited about this work!

And then there are ongoing programs that are ramping up in 2025: continued implementation of the Active Transportation Network Plan that hopes to bring mobility lanes to all major destinations and within 400m of every home in New West; full staffing and activation of the Crises Response Pilot Project; continued work with the development community, senior governments and the non-profit community to address our Housing Needs Report; and more.

It’s going to be a busy year, and let’s hope the political distractions (federal elections, American instability, social media enshittification, etc.) don’t distract from the value of this good work, and our ability to meaningfully engage the community in a positive and proactive way about the work.

Halfway

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The half way mark in this Council term arrived yesterday, and an interesting two years it has been.

People often ask me if it what I expected, and my honest answer is not really. The job is different than the Councillor job, and there is no doubt we are in a different political environment now than we were two years ago. Folks who followed my path here (Hi Mom!) know that I got into this work without a “politics” background, but a background of working and volunteering in the community. When your mindset to problem solving has always been what works best practically (follow the evidence) and where does the community want to go here (follow the community), the shift to include how will this be torqued for political speaking points (follow the meme) takes learning a new set of skills, and a tremendous amount of patience. Not being a trained political lobbyist, this is a steep learning curve.

That said, there are many successes to celebrate from the last two years, and more clarity on the challenges facing us in the next two. In my mind, there are three big news stories in the first half of the term:

Changing Legislation. The provincial government took some bold action on the overlapping housing crises that have been plaguing our region for a decade or more. There was a lot of talk about this, and some pitched political battles between a few local governments and the province. I didn’t stay out of the fray. I said at the time, and continue to believe, that big changes had to happen, and to my Mayor cohort who were gnashing teeth and rending garments, my response was mostly to say “you really should have seen this coming”.

The path we were on was not sustainable, and as radical as the changes proposed seemed at the time, they are not immediate shifts, but long-term system changes that will take a decade or more to demonstrate their value. I am still concerned that the changes they emphasize the wrong tool (“the market”) to solve a problem caused by overreliance on that same tool. None of these changes will make a substantial change unless we have senior governments significantly increase their investment in building non-market housing. And I continue to push to province on our need for investment in schools, child care, and other infrastructure the needs to come with new housing.

Like in other Cities, the sudden legislative changes caused significant work load challenges for staff. Unexpected and foundational shifts in our OCP and Zoning bylaws are not easy to implement, and our new Housing Division did incredible work, met our regulatory deadlines, but also set a path to a new OCP that fits in our community. We were also fortunate to have secured Housing Accelerator Fund support that overlapped with this work, and allowed us to staff up and bring in additional resources to get the job done.

Opening təməsew̓txʷ. No doubt the opening of the single largest capital investment the City has ever made is big news. The doubling of aquatic and recreation space is an important investment, as our population has almost doubled since the CGP was opened in 1972. As expected with a state-of-the-art facility (filter and water management technology that is first in Canada, being the first Zero Carbon certified aquatic facility) of its scale, there were a few technical teething problems, but they are being managed under warranty, and have not taken away from the popularity of the facility. To find out it was listed by the Prix Versailles as a 2024 Laureate is unexpected and something the City of New Westminster should be proud of.

The big decisions about təməsew̓txʷ were made by the previous Council (including the critical “Go-or-No” decision during the uncertainty of summer 2020 that almost certainly saved the City a hundred million dollars), but the opening of the pool means that a myriad of operational decisions, and finding room in the budget for the new staff compliment, is something this Council oversaw. And now with the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan being developed to envision the next decade of recreation investments, it is an exciting time for asset renewal in the City.

One Man Down: Jaimie McEvoy having a serious heart attack and missing a big portion of this year was also something the framed how Council operated, and the work that the rest of Council was able to get done. It also created some procedural uncertainty around what we do when a Member of Council needs to take a medical leave longer than a few days – believe it or not, we didn’t have procedures around this, nor does the Community Charter, or (as best we can tell) any other local government in BC. We are glad Jaimie is now able to transition back into the job and provide his voice to Council, and do those many other things in the community that keep us all grounded.

Halftime is also a goodtime to measure how we are doing in the goals we set for ourselves as a Council. Fortunately, we have two recent reports to Council on this. At the end of September, we received a report called “Council Strategic Priorities Plan Quarterly Status Update” which outlined staff’s assessment of where progress is on the 5 Strategic Priorities and the 49 action categories, using a traffic light model. The majority of items are “green”, indicating we are on track and meeting our performance indicators. Sixteen are “yellow” – meaning at least one performance indicator is falling behind and there are concerns to address. There are seven items that are “red”, indicating we are not on track, and there are concerns about our ability to achieve them.

The biggest challenge in the “red” category is simply resources: staff time and the ability to finance more staff time. There are also some senior government regulatory and funding issues we need to be more effective in advocating toward. However, progress on track or near track for 86% of our objectives is an excellent measure.

The bigger question isn’t how staff feel we are doing, but how the community feels about it, and the good news here is found in our recently-completed Ipsos Survey of the community. This was discussed in Workshop last week, and you can read it all here.

These kind of things always work better graphically, but the short story is that 88% of New West residents find the quality of life in new Westminster Good or Very good, 77% are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with the level of service they receive from the City, and 78% think they get Good of Very Good value for their tax dollar in New Westminster.

On Council Strategic Priorities, most residents feel are doing a good job on most of the priorities:

Meeting the City’s housing need is the only area where the majority feel we are not meeting community expectations, but traffic safety also comes in lower than most. It is perhaps no surprise that housing affordability, homelessness, and traffic are the biggest issues in the community in the extended survey questions. We know this, we can feel it when we talk to folks, but it is good to have come confirmation that what we hear in the bubble is connected to what is happening in the community. With all due respect to Facebook comments and partisan jabs, it is valuable to have actual random survey data that connects with the community and gets a defensible “mood of the room”. If I can summarize: we are doing well, mostly on target, but most certainly have some work to do. That is a good half-way mark check in.

The one thing we are not doing as well as I would like to celebrating our wins. There has been great foundational work this term – region-leading work – that hardly gets the fanfare it deserves, because it is hard stuff to “cut a ribbon” in front of. Our new Code of Conduct Bylaw and functional Ethics Commissioner; bringing the Electrical Utility and Climate Action together into a new Department of Energy and Climate; amalgamating various service areas into a new Department of Community Services; changes that fast-track Childcare and Affordable Housing approvals; our provincially-recognized and lauded Community Advisory Assembly model. This is progress that builds us for future success.

No resting on laurels, but I do feel proud of the work we have done to date, especially considering significant political headwinds and a surprises like the new provincial housing regulations. On to year three!

Columbia Square

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

We had a special meeting on Monday to decide on whether to give three readings to a rezoning bylaw for Columbia Square. This was a decision deferred from last week, where there was some robust discussion and some adaptation of the proposal rising from that discussion, so Council taking an extra week to chew on it was probably a wise move. It is also the highest-profile project since Pier West was approved back in 2017, and is the largest single development to reach this level of approval since I started on Council a decade ago, so it is worth spending some time writing out the details and addressing some of the feedback, as I did with Pier West all those years ago. The reports for Council are all here if you want to read all of the details. 

Not to bury the lede, Council voted 5-2 to support the three readings. It is a slightly unusual process we are going through, so I want to be clear what that means. Voting against these three readings would effectively kill the project as proposed, though the developer could come back at a later date with a revised proposal which would be a lengthy process. Approving the three readings will launch a development planning process to determine how the objectives of the proposal will be met within the density and land use allocation included in the zoning bylaw. After that process, Council would have the option to Adopt the Bylaw (“final approval”) or reject it. This planning process will take several months or longer. In approving three readings, Council effectively said “we like where you are going here, prove you can keep all of the commitments to the community as you build”.

The details of the project are that the strip mall and parking lots on the 7.2 acre site would be replaced in a phased process. When built out, it would include up to 3,000,000 square feet of residential floor space in up to 8 towers. The existing 122,000sqft of retail space would be replaced, in a phased process so that every operating business has first right to refusal to relocate to the new spaces, starting with the major grocery store. There would also be 42,000sqft of Class A office space, a 9,500sqft non-profit childcare, and up to 12,000sqft of additional childcare. The current parking lot and strip model urban form would be replaced by towers-on-podia, with 25% of the ground space dedicated to public green space, including a 50,000sqft public square.

The housing tenure is one of the things that will be further refined though planning, but as current proposed, it would be about 3,800 residential units that meets the City’s Family Friend Housing policy n regards to two- and three-bedroom units. At minimum, 20% of the units would be Purpose Built Rental at market rates, and a minimum 20% of these would be non-market affordable housing operated by a non-for-profit at HILs rates.

One of the complicating factors here is the desire for a school site downtown. The developer is committed through this agreement to work with School District 40 to accommodate a school site on the property. For practical reasons, this would likely involve an “air space parcel” in one of the podia. However, the developer cannot commit that the School District or the Provincial Ministry of Education will agree to this model, or even if the School District will want this (as they may come up with alternate plans on a different site), so the extra 12,000sqft of childcare space on site will be delivered by the developer if the school site is not.

My reasons for voting to approve may be different than those of other members of Council, so I am only speaking for myself here. Recognizing some details we need to work out, the question before us was whether we want 3,800 homes or a car-oriented strip mall one block from a SkyTrain Station and in the centre of our Downtown. We have seen other neighbourhoods from Broadway and Commercial to Braid Station remain parking oriented because proposed development in these key transit hubs have always fallen short of perfect and ended up the enemy of good. We need homes in this region, and in this City. Our own Hosing Needs Assessment demonstrates the need for market housing that this will go a long way toward fulfilling (recognizing that it will not address as much of our non-market housing need, but more on that later).

In this project, I see that the retail is protected, not just the space, but in a phasing plan that allows the retailers and service businesses there to remain whole though redevelopment. We have a unique opportunity to secure a school site (not to mention several million dollars in School Site Acquisition Charges directed to the Provincial Government). I also see the re-imagining of 7 acres of parking lot and strip mall as vibrant public space just steps from a SkyTrain station. The project will also provide tens of millions of dollars DCC funding to upgrade the adjacent water, sewer and transportation infrastructure, including more than $10 Million in Park Land Acquisition DCC funding.

The affordable housing math on this site was always a stumbling block. With the commitment of 4% of the total residential space as true non-market affordable housing secured for 60 years, we could have between 140 and 170 units (depending on unit size and breakdown) of affordable housing on site – that is equivalent of two Móytel Lalém projects (the new Affordable Housing building across from the High School). It also includes an estimated $60 – $70 Million in Density Bonus money, the bulk of which Council has committed to land acquisition to support affordable housing development. It’s a bit “inside baseball” here, but the City is less successful than we could be at securing senior government affordable housing support simply because we don’t have a lot of City-owned land to put forward. Having access to these reserve funds as seed to new affordable housing investments could turn the table on affordable housing development in our city, and might be the best tool we have to reach our housing targets for non-market housing. This is a really important step for the most pressing need for our community, and will put New West in the driver’s seat with BC Housing and BC Builds.

I’m not satisfied waiting when housing is in such a need in our community and in the region. We can wait for a market to shift to eke out a few dozen more on-site affordable homes, but waiting does nothing to get affordable housing built now when the need is so acute, and does nothing to get the market housing we also need to get built. The region is growing, 1,000,000 new people by the 2040s, and not building high-density high-service housing nest to SkyTrain station in our Downtowns simply pushes the need out to the fringes of the Lower Mainland. It adds pressure to sprawl outside the Urban Containment Boundary, and not only erodes our farm and ecological lands at the periphery, but exacerbates our regional transportation challenges, undermines our Climate goals, and puts enormous cost pressure on our utilities and infrastructure. Homes on Skytrain is not only our OCP, it is our regional plan.

This is a big project, and many concerns were raised about it, so it only fair that I respond to the ones I heard the most. I am not going to engage in silliness like comparing this site to Revelstoke (it’s not a comparable, nor are Chetwynd or Lloydminster) or “Four World Trade Centres!”. That king of misinforming rhetoric is pure politics and best responded to in my Newsletter (subscribe here). But there are real concerns from residents that deserve response, and I can pull most from just one Facebook thread (citations removed to protect the innocent, this isn’t about punching down, it’s about addressing concerns)

“The City has no proper infrastructure to support thousands of more people! Schools, hospitals, policing, fire, and city services”
This project will provide tens of millions of dollars in DCC funds to upgrade the water sewer and transportation infrastructure around the site. There will also be upgrades to electrical and other infrastructure along with the project. There is an opportunity for a school on the site and the project will provide School Site Acquisition Charges at the maximum level permitted by Provincial Law. RCH is current in phase two of a massive expansion, more than doubling its size, but its ability to serve the community may be limited by the lack of housing for critical workers who run a hospital, this housing may help with that. Policing, Fire, and city services are primarily paid by property taxes, and the annual property taxes paid for this site will (by Councilor’s McEvoys back-of the-envelope estimate) increase by almost $5 million a year, while the cost to service high density residents in high rises is the lowest per capita.

There are many versions of “we don’t have the services to support housing” argument around the region, and in other high-growth cities from Surrey to Toronto . But there is a false math in this, the presumption that people will only come if we approve housing. The simple and measurable fact is that both this city and this region are increasing in population faster than the rate of housing growth – much faster. People are increasingly underhoused and facing terrible housing security as the vacancy rate bounces around 1% and prices spiral out of reach. Its not just that people need schools and childcare and hospitals; they need these things AND they need housing. Not building housing will not get those other things built faster. The City doesn’t build hospitals or schools, but we can be supportive and advocate for their being built (like we are right now with the RCH expansion, the expansion of the elementary schools at Queensborough, the upcoming Simcoe Park school, and our work to leverage a school site out of this project). And the people who work in those hospitals and schools are going to need homes – that is the part we are responsible for providing as Cities.

“It’s already a traffic nightmare and now you want to add even more traffic to the roads downtown new west.”
The biggest challenge we have with traffic in New Westminster is through-traffic, not residents. This project is completely in line with the regional plan (Metro2050) and Regional Transportation Plan (Transport2050), both of which emphasize building more housing on rapid transit, reducing parking requirements, and providing full-service communities to reduce the need for people to be automobile dependent. The success of those plans can be seen in New Westminster growing by 9% between the last two TransLink Trip Diary surveys, and our use of automobiles not increasing a single percent during that time. People are moving to the region, and need homes. We can choose to build high-service high-density homes near work places and near SkyTrain stations, or to build those other forms on the periphery of the region that give people no option but to drive for their daily needs. One of those two options creates more traffic. Those school and hospital workers, the people working in the retail and office spaces here in New West, if they all need to drive from Langley to get to work we have created the North Shore model of traffic congestion and harmed the livability of our city and others.

“Translink really does need a major upgrade to handle this kind of population increase, more bikelanes and greenways would be nice too”
I hear you. TransLink’s current expansion plans include a doubling the Expo Line train service and more than doubling regional bus service. It isn’t completely funded, but the Mayors Council is working hard to secure the capital investments and a secure operational funding model to meet these needs. I am confident the governments will see their way to support Transit, as it is the only real solution to getting around our growing region. Replacing a strip mall parking lot with open greenspace people can more safely walk, cycle, and preamble through will be a benefit of this project, as are the millions in Transportation DCCs this project will provide. Providing full-service neighbourhoods is why we work to leverage protection of the existing businesses and childcare out of sites like this.

“How about building more low income housing for those waiting on bc housing list? ”
This project will have between 140-170 non-market affordable homes. Saying “no” to this site right now will do nothing to add to the affordable housing stock. The biggest benefit to affordable housing will be the City’s commitment to use the bulk of the Density Bonus money to secure land and leverage senior government affordable housing investment here in New Westminster.

“What happens to all the businesses currently in Columbia Square?”
With the phasing of the project, there will be opportunity for the businesses to relocate to new spaces, starting with the large grocery store. The retail will be replaced one-for-one and the current operators will have first right of refusal on new sites.

The bigger question about businesses downtown is also relevant, as the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown BIA provided letters of support for the project. Aside from preserving the businesses on site, it shouldn’t be hard to see that 7,000 new customers a 5 minute walk from your doorstep every day should be a good thing for customer-serving businesses? And this means more business success and variety for the rest of us to enjoy as well. A vibrant commercial community needs a local customer base.

There is general anxiety about the rate of growth, in New Westminster, in the Lower Mainland, and in Canada. I hear it. and I’ll let the economists argue the benefits of this to capitalism, but also suggest that in an increasingly uncertain post-pandemic global order of climate disruption and authoritarian uprisings, Canada will only increasingly be seen as a safe harbour of stability, and the pressure in immigration will only increase. That said, I circle back to this project being consistent with the growth envisioned in the City’s 7-year-old Official Community Plan and completely in line with the anticipated growth in our Regional Growth Strategy, with the housing need identified in our community for the decade ahead. The project as proposed gives us access to infrastructure and amenities the community wants, either directly (childcare, school site, DCC funding) or indirectly (density bonus, increased tax revenue), and is a good deal for the community.

Now that Council had given the rezoning three readings, there will be a Master Plan process that will include community and stakeholder engagement. This is where the real details of the site will be shaped, and I hope people continue to engage.

Council – Sept 9, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

September’s first meeting continued our tradition of holding one fall meeting in Queensborough every year. It is a bit of a logistical challenge, and if you watch the video you see us managing as best we can with unfamiliar tech and layout, but I think staff did a great job in supporting us and it was good to see a full Queensborough audience at the event.

There is also something nice about holding a Council meeting in a room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a green park with young families and seniors walking by and kids playing on the playground equipment. It reminds you of the work we do, and how it impacts people’s daily lives, even if they don’t realize we are doing it right now on the other side of that window.

Our agenda started with the following items Moved on Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
There are major regional sewer lines under Salter Street, and they need nighttime (when the water is low) inspection, which requires a construction noise exemption for two weeknights, which Council is granting.

2024-2034 UBCM Canada Community Works Fund Agreement
The City will be getting a grant of about $160K to support infrastructure investment in the City, but need to sign this agreement to get the cash, and agree to spend it on qualifying projects as per the agreement. Easiest grant ever.

We then had these following items that were Removed from Consent for Discussion:

2025 Permissive Property Tax: Exempt Properties – Review of Application Result
There are two types of properties that are exempt from Property Taxes – Statutory and Permissive. The first are by Provincial Law, and are why most churches and private schools are exempt. The second are at the pleasure of the Local Government, land use we can choose as a City to exempt from property taxes. These could include social housing, sports clubs, social service not-for profits, and the such. They must apply every year, and in my time on Council, we have not added many to the list of permissive exemptions, though we often get new applications. As a policy, the City directs not-for-profits to the City’s generous grant program if they need financial support, as that is a more accountable process.

The current list of permissive exemptions equals about $1 Million (this is reported every year as part of our annual report), and this year we got applications for 6 more, totaling $244,000 more. Two new applications (both established church properties with new congregations) totaling about $30,000 were added to the list of exemptions as per the established policy.

Budget 2025: Fees and Rates Review
As a normal part of our annual Budget process, we need to set fee bylaws fort next year. This has to happen early, because financial modelling of cost recovery is part of what informs the rest of the budget, and cost recovery is obviously impacted by fees. If we reduce business license fees, for example, that’s not “free”, it impacts the tax rates we need to charge next year. Most rates are adjusted annually to meet CPI, as a proxy for what I costs us to deliver the service, and to avoid larger and more intermittent price spikes. CPI estimate this year is 3.0%.

There are others that need bigger adjustments, like the cost of providing brass plaques for the cemetery have gone up quite a bit, requiring a 24% increase to recover those costs. Others have external controls, such as our towing charges being set by ICBC. Yet other fees are adjusted to align to market conditions (on street parking not going up this year, short-term parkade parking rates going up a bit due to demand increases), and yet other being shifted to better align with regional municipal comparators (e.g. Fire Safety Plan Review fees).

All told, these changes average aout to about a 3% increase, driving an extra $450k in revenue. For context, $450K is about as much revenue as we would draw from a 0.4% property tax increase.

Business License Bylaw Modernization Update
Staff have been working on a Business License Bylaw update for some time now. Not just looking at fees, but making sure our approach to issuing licenses reflects the modern reality of the local business community. Business license counts are way up, we issue almost 4,000 a year, which is about 20% more than Pre-COVID 2019. Still, staff want to streamline the license process, remove outdated requirements, and provide more flexibility for start-up businesses so it is easier to start a business in New West. Regular readers will also remember that a comparison with surrounding municipalities was conducted and changes to the fee schedule are proposed to align better with regional trends.

There has already been several stages of engagement with the business community here, but there will be another check-in now that proposed changes have been developed. This report simply to update Council before it went out to consultation, and to check in for any red flags.

Response to Council Motion Regarding “Tenant Protections”
As per a motion put forward in a previous meeting, staff are going to update our tenant protection measures. There is an ongoing rental affordability crisis, and recent changes to provincial housing regulations may result in increased pressure to demolish and re-develop our most affordable rentals, which puts a lot people in a very precarious situation. Alongside this the Province has brought in new tenant protection powers through Bill 16. It’s time to update our progressive-in-2015 Tenant Relocation Policy to assure we don’t exacerbate the homelessness crisis.

We then had several Motions from Council (not necessarily in this order, as we delayed a couple until after Public Delegations because we had people come to speak to Council in favour of a few motions).

Regulate the Unsolicited Distribution of Graphic Images Depicting a Fetus
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS New Westminster residents have expressed concerns that unsolicited flyers showing graphic images of aborted fetuses are being delivered to homes and causing harm; and
WHEREAS a number of Canadian municipalities in Alberta and Ontario have established bylaws that; and
WHEREAS in accordance with British Columbia’s Community Charter, Section 8 (3) (i) A council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to public health; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT that staff provide council with proposed bylaw amendments to require all print collateral delivered to any premises or distributed to the public that shows, or appear to show, a graphic image of a fetus be delivered in a sealed opaque envelope with a graphic content warning, identify the name and address of the sender, and include measures to ensure individuals are not inadvertently exposed to graphic content on a leaflet, pamphlet, paper, booklet, postcard, or any other printed collateral.

This motion was driven by calls form the community we have received a few times over the last few years. I don’t have much to add to the wording above, except that this is just the beginning of a bit of a process Staff will have to go through to determine what our legal abilities are here, and how best to structure a bylaw so it is effective. I don’t know if anyone in BC has done this before, though local governments have been successful in Ontario and Alberta, so we will need to find a local context that fits with our Community Charter and Local Government Act. This was supported by all of Council, so more to come!

Lower Mainland Local Government Association Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS Local Government Associations, the Union of BC Municipalities, and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities advocate for issues that impact their member municipalities; and
WHEREAS municipal Mayors and Councillors are financially supported to attend these conferences in order
to advocate on behalf of their local constituents, yet there is no way for constituents to know how their elected representatives vote on motions and resolutions,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster submit the following resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association:
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lower Mainland Local Government Association begins tracking and reporting how attendees vote on motions and resolutions and that they submit a motion to UBCM and FCM advocating for those organizations to do the same.”

Your local government is represented at these regional meetings by elected members of Council, and advocate to senior government for policy changes. It is probably a good idea for you to know what your local elected officials are advocating for – or against. It seems like a good step towards improving transparency and accountability. There are some technical challenges that might be easiert to solve at the relatively small Lower Mainland LGA than the much larger UBCM and FCM, and it will involve some investment of resources by those parties, so it is appropriate to structure this as a request for those organizations to evaluate if that is something they want to do. Council moved to approve this.

Selecting an Inclusive and Accessible Site for the 2025 Canada Day Celebration and Festivities
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Canada Day offers the City of New Westminster an opportunity to celebrate and bring residents together in celebration and reflection; and
WHEREAS the Pier Park location for Canada Day festivities currently offers little opportunity for shade on hot days which often occur in early July; and
WHEREAS Queen’s Park has played host to previous Canada Day celebrations and offers more opportunities to keep participants cool on hot summer days;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff seek feedback from the public through our Be Heard system regarding their preference for the 2025 Canada Day festivities and celebrations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT several locations across the City be offered to the public as a potential site for the 2025 Canada Day festivities including at least one site in Queensborough.

This was a bit of a complicated conversation as Council got a bit into the weeds, but it was nonetheless a good discussion that will hopefully lead to a good community discussions, and I think the direction is clearer with some amendments.

Be Heard New West is part of a community engagement toolbox, not a public survey tool. As Councillor Nakagawa said, “Public Engagement isn’t just asking if a hotdog is a sandwich”, it is a process of sharing information and asking for feedback in ways that have meaningful input into decision making. The decision by Council was to have staff report back with resource needs to do a proper engagement on this.

There was a bit of preemptive discussion about locations as well. There is a complex history why the “main”
Canada Day program moved from Queens Park to Pier Park, and those decisions were made in consultation with the many partners that are required to make the event happen. In the pre-COVID times we got to a point where there were two locations, with some overlap. Post-COVID the Pier Park location became the primary location, and the numbers reflected a much higher interest in people being there than Pier Park (thousands instead of hundreds in attendance). However, it is important to note that Pier Park festivities were not the only events coordinated by the City at Canada Day in 2024. There were activations all long weekend in Queensborough, at Queens Park, at the Anvil, and other locations.

Finally, The City’s festivals budget is fairly limited, and massive expansions of the event would require budget decisions, and increased staff resources. Many events in the City are primarily run by partners (Uptown Live, Pride, Hyack Parade and Festival, Fridays on Front, etc.) with some significant City support, but City-run events have been pretty limited to “civic” dates, like Remembrance Day (our largest City-run event), Canada Day and Truth and Reconciliation day, where partners support the City more than vice-versa. But it is clearly a spectrum between the two end members here.

Anyway, this will be an ongoing discussion. Let us know what you think!

Increasing Openness and Transparency at City Hall by Registering Lobbyist Activities
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS lobbyist registries are intended to provide a public record that is accessible to residents of interactions between public servants, elected officials and lobbyists and to allow for rules regarding lobbyists to be enforced; and
WHEREAS British Columbia does not currently allow municipalities to use the provincial lobbyist registry nor does it extend the legal authorities municipalities would need to enforce lobbyist rules with a local registry; and
WHEREAS it is important for a functional local democracy that any lobbying efforts by entities such as corporations, labour unions, foreign governments or other similar foreign-based organizations be recorded and publicly reported in a timely manner
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City request the Province immediately take one of the following two actions:
The Province amend the Lobbyist Registration Act to cover the City of New Westminster and other similar mid-to-large-sized cities and administer the regulation of lobbying in the city; OR,
The Province amend the Community Charter to allow the City to establish a lobbyist registry and give the City the legal authority to register lobbyists, create rules for lobbyists’ conduct in their interactions with elected officials and public servants, as well as the power to enforce those rules. In addition, the Province further empower the Provincial Registrar of Lobbyists to work with the City to share information so as to reduce duplication and costs for both orders of government.

This was also a good discussion, and it was clear that everyone saw transparency and accountability as ideas worth supporting. There was a bit of procedural adjustment (to add this as an advocacy issue to the Lower Mainland LGA along with a letter to the province), but all in the interest in making our call for this louder.

I raised some concern about the difference between local politics and provincial/federal politics, and the need for us to clearly define what Lobbying is. I have dozens of conversations every week with people nt he community, residents, business operators, non-profits, and most some include discussions of City Bylaws or policies or practices. I would hate to think that every time I set up the Ask Pat booth at the Farmers Market that I would need everyone who asks me a question to register as a lobbyist. That said, there are clearly a few meetings I do have with people or organizations who are paid to advocate to me and fit the strict definition of Lobbyist. I just wonder if we can clearly draw a line between those two without finding exampled that straddle that line. So we have work to do there.

Finally, I added an amendment that asked that we engage the City’s new Ethics Commissioner, and ask them to report back on potential procedures or practices we could adopt as a form of practice disclosure for when we are being lobbied. I think the public is less interested in reading the names of lobbyists, and are more interested in what meetings we are taking and the purpose of those meetings.

So, more to come on that!

And with that we wrapped our Queensborough excursion, and considering the list of things above that ended with “more work to do”, I feel confident in saying we are back into the thick of it.

Council – July 8, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was a bit of a marathon day for Council on Monday, as isn’t uncommon as we try to get things done before the summer break. Its a long one, but trust me there’s some juice down there for those willing to scroll! We had a busy afternoon workshop with lots of items – so much so that I might break tradition here and post about a workshop in a follow-up, but first let’s try to get through the evening agenda!

We started the meeting with a Public Hearing:

Official Community Plan Amendment (801 Boyd Street) Bylaw No. 8448,2024
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (801 Boyd Street) No. 8449, 2024
The owner of Queensborough Landing wants to convert some unused buildings to self-storage, which is a slightly different land use designation, but different enough in class that it requires an OCP amendment to make happen, and therefore a Public Hearing. The request is to subdivide off the 1 acre corner of the much larger lot, and apply the OCP change to only that lot. OCP amendments are a bit of a complicated process, including significant consultation, which has been ongoing for more than a year now.

The New West Design Panel and Advisory Planning Commission approved the application. The Ministry of transportation expressed no concerns, and First Nations were consulted with no opposition to the application. The community meeting was not attended by anyone, and sparse feedback on the community survey had very low response, almost all negative. We received one piece of correspondence in favour of the application and had no-one present to the Public Hearing.

Council moved to approve third reading of both the OCP amendment and the rezoning.

We then had a Presentation from the CAO:

Presentation of the 2023 Annual Report
Unlike the Mayor’s State of the City Address, this is the *Official* annual report of the City. It is a summary of everything the City got done in the last year, and to me the best part is the numbers pages: 3,236 SeeClickFix requests responded to; 257 staff hired; 271,000 Library visits; 156,000 registered recreation participants; 240 Anvil Centre events; 3,890 Business licenses issued; 3% population increase; 600 large trees and 4,000 seedlings planted in City lands; 520 Street lights repaired; 64,000 QtoQ trips; it goes on and on, because there is a lot happening in the City every day. You can read the annual report HERE.

Council then moved the following items On Consent:

2024-2034 Canada Community- Building Fund Agreement
The City receives a little over $300,000 a year through the Canada Community-Building fund, and we need to sign an agreement with UBCM (who help administer the fund for the Feds and Province). This used to be called the Federal Gas Tax Fund, but has been rebranded as it isn’t really linked in any meaningful way to the gas taxes collected by the Federal government. We are a little limited on what we can spend it on (basically, infrastructure only), and will have that conversation during our budget deliberations. For now, we are signing the agreement to get the money.

Community Excellence In Service Delivery Award Application
We are applying for an award, in recognizing some great work our EMO is doing as a follow-up to coordination and communications challenges during the 2021 Heat Dome disaster. Cross your fingers!

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
Its Sewer maintenance season, and some work needs to happen at night when sewer flows are low. Sorry, folks, but this should not really be very noisy work other than a few vehicles and generators running.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 252 Brunette Avenue (Sapperton SkyTrain Station)
There is going to be some upgrade work at Sapperton Station this summer, and some of that work has to happen when the trains are not running, which means night work.

New West Pride Municipally Significant Event Designation LCRB Resolution
At risk of repeating myself, I’m just going to quote my comments from a couple of weeks ago, with a few words changed: “Our provincial liquor licensing regulations are ridiculous and archaic, and everyone involved (manufacturers, retailers, events coordinators, even cities) are always trying to find a way through or around them to make things happen while keeping letter-of-the-law legal. For festivals, especially, this can be daunting. For a festival, not only does the Province regulate the size of a glass of beer or wine that can be served, they regulate a maximum price it can be sold at – a maximum price that has not been raised in 9 years. So if a festival wants to charge a little more and make a bit more money from alcohol sales to pay for other aspects of the festival (like hiring talent, security, advertising, etc.), they can’t do that. Unless they are designated a “Municipally Significant Event”, whatever that means. The request here is to designate Uptown Live PRIDE as “Municipally Significant” so they can charge a little more for beer to help offset the other costs of a free to the public festival.

Proposal to Change Liquor Licence for The Royal Canadian Legion Branch No.2
More on liquor laws, this one is a bit easier to understand. The Legion has a private club liquor license that requires guests to sign in, and wishes to shift to a regular liquor primary license. There are no issues identified with the change, and the City is endorsing this application that needs to go to the Province for approval.

Riparian Areas Protection Miscellaneous Amendment Bylaw No. 8468, 2024
These Bylaws are required to keep the City complaint with the Provincial Riparian Areas Protection Regulation and regulate how development happens in the riparian areas (upland dry areas where plants, shade, and slope provide ecological function to the stream) of streams and rivers in the city. We are updating them to address a typographic error in the earlier adopted versions. Because law.

The following items were then Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is a regular update on our budget. No surprise to anyone dealing with capital projects right now, costs are going up, and some things we budgeted for in previous years are costing more to deliver in 2024 than we expected. However, the biggest change here (92% of the change) is carryforward adjustment for projects we simply didn’t get to completion in 2023. The money we didn’t spend in 2023 needs to be budgeted for in 2024, so we are therefore adjusting our $180.4M 5-year capital budget to $199.1M, though only $1.5M is an actual increase of overall costs. There are a few new capital item included in that $1.5M, like the need to reconfigure some City Hall spaces to deal with a space crunch ($250k), upgrades to the Columbia Station elevator to address chronic repair issues ($138k). One of the complications of Capital budgets is that we need to include things here that won’t cost the taxpayers anything, like a donation we received for the library to purchase an electric vehicle ($60K), upgrades to the QtoQ dock infrastructure to be paid by DAC funding form the province ($800K), and spending money to support development projects ($175K) that will ultimately be paid to us by the developer.

On the operating side, we are running a little ahead of forecast on both revenue and expenditure, with the combined variance leaning on the revenue side, which is good news. We are in good shape financially.

2024 Council Remuneration
Council gets paid. Our remuneration policy provides a cost-of-living increase every year, linked to CPI. This year, that means a 4% increase, which is essentially the same as the collective agreement the City has with union staff. This is policy driven, so Council doesn’t need to approve it. If they want to make changes, they need to change the policy.

It’s not a great system, elected people choosing their own salary, but it’s the system available to us under provincial regulation. Previous Council set up a process where changes to that policy be reviewed every term (so, every 4 years), to be implemented after the next election, so there is a bit of a political check-in around this policy before the elected receive any benefit of changes. We skipped the least review in 2022 because we were severely short-staffed in HR coming out of COVID, so we are overdue for a review. This report asks if Council wants to continue that practice – do a review before the next election to be applied after the election – or wants to follow a different path.

The big question Council needed to address – do we want to do the review now, recognizing that any change we implement won’t be applied until after the 2026 election, or have the review immediately before the election, which made me paraphrase Kim Campbell “an election is not time for serious public policy discussion”. Council agreed with the former Prime Minister, and agreed to start the review sooner

Bus Speed and Reliability Study
New West is a Transit City – likely the highest transit mode share of any municipality in BC. Alas, there is still too much through-traffic slowing the buses down, and TransLink has a region-wide program to boost “speed and reliability” of bus service through the region to make the system run smoother, and ultimately save the system money. They will cost share capital programs (up to 100%!) with the City to build infrastructure that improves BSR, and we have been successful in applications for BSR funds, so Staff are ready to get moving, because it will never be less expensive than now to do this work.

This report identifies 12 projects that can be implemented in the next 5 years to address bus delay hot spots. It is important to note many of these align with our Bold Step to re-allocate road space from car-primary use to sustainable transportation. It’s also the right thing to do, when Translink data shows 62% of the people travelling on Sixth Street during peak times (when there is congestion) are in a bus, and getting them out of the traffic of single passenger cars is a priority.

The majority supported moving this forward, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, an indication of a trend on the night.

E Columbia Street/Brunette Avenue Road Safety Review
There has been a lot of engineering work looking at East Columbia by Cumberland for the last year. It’s a difficult spot that has been an uncomfortable bone of contention for active transportation users for a decade or longer, but with no easy answers because of a variety of engineering constraints.

One interesting aspect of why it took so long to do this analysis once Council asked for it last year, and it has to do with conflicting ideas about what the real safety challenge is here. Statistically, it is not an “unsafe” piece of sidewalk, and data would suggest the highest safety priority here is reducing risk of car-truck collisions. However, it definitely “feels” unsafe on that sidewalk, and that creates a barrier to use for many people. Engineering stats also have a hard time counting “near miss” data, which is typical of many safety system analyses, but lacking in most road safety planning. So staff did some work to collect “near miss” data in this area using video-based conflict analysis.

As suspected, there are some short-term measures we can take to make the space a little more comfortable for active transportation users, but it is not going to be the big solution that some folks would like to see. We don’t have the authority or permission to close the sidewalk-adjacent lane to trucks, speed enforcement along here is difficult and only acts as a short-term measure (bring on speed cameras!) and there simply isn’t room to put in a physical barrier without increasing the risk of vehicle-vehicle collisions. Real change is going to come with a complete intersection redevelopment, which will cost millions, and involve partnerships with TransLink and the Ministry of Transportation as this is a Major Road Network corridor and a designated regional truck route.

Grant Review
The City has a generous community grant program, about $1 Million a year given to city organizations and groups to encourage community building, provide social services, support the arts and youth sports – more than any other surveyed City in the lower mainland. The program was last reviewed in 2018, and needs another review as things are changing fast in this space in the post-COVID world, and aligned with Council’s strategic plan to build “community belonging & connecting.” This has been run though the ACEDAC, community survey, a municipal scan, a focus group, and personal Interviews with people connected to the granting programs.

Through this engagement, a few changes to the grant program are going to be rolled out gently over a couple of years, not a big shock change all at once, starting with a non-line registration platform and tiering the reporting requirements based on the size of the grant received – instead of the same reporting for a $500 grant that we might expect for a $15000 one. A bit of a “small community Grant model for smaller grants for less sophisticated applicants will also be coming. Longer grant terms, earlier payment, and improved mentorship for emerging initiatives are things that will come a little later. We also need staff to do this work, as it has been off the side of desks for some time, and needs to be given proper support if we are going to properly serve the many organizations doing great work in the community.

Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw Amendment – Temporary Locations
Our Food Truck program is one of those things that got a little sidelined by COVID, in part because of the uncertainty around impact on existing brick and mortar restaurants during the health restrictions, and in part because staff were really busy with other COVID and Recovery work. However, they have spent some time over the last few months looking updates of our licensing to provide more flexibility and more locations for food trucks based on community feedback. This includes near park spaces, TACC, and a few others. This will be a change for 18 months, which gives enough time to test it out. Let us know how it works out, as even the “food truck” thing seems hit and miss these days, as the boom times of the early 2000s may be passing?

The majority supported moving this forward, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it after their attempts to re-write the bylaw in the middle of the meeting surprisingly couldn’t come up with a better output than the professional work of Economic Development staff working with the business community to determine a practicable bylaw.

Parks and Recreation 2025 Fees Bylaw Amendment
Every year, we review Parks and Recreation fees, based on inflationary increases and year staff analyze how our fees compare to other neighboring municipalities in a public report, to assure we, as best as possible, balance cost recovery with service and accessibility while managing the amount of subsidy we provide to recreation programs. We do this a bit out of cycle with other budget work and review of engineering or development fees, because of the seasonality of program development and registration that doesn’t really line up with the budget process.

Not much changed this year in our regional comparison except that Burnaby reduced their recreation centre fees by almost 27%. This might be hard to compete with, as we have a brand new recreation facility that is already seeing huge crowds, while Burnaby is delaying of cancelling their recreation centre expansion projects. That said, we will still be within the regional means for recreation passes.

Report on Council Motion: Cooling Bylaw in Rental Units
The first really warm weekend just passed, and this has again raised the conversation about the work the City is doing to address the 2021 Heat dome disaster. The response form staff in the Emergency Management Office and other departments, working with external partners like Fraser Heath, has been impressive (communications to vulnerable communities, one cool room program, subsidized air conditioner program for vulnerable people, a connect and prepare program, a new Emergency Monitoring Centre and improved medical responder training, etc., etc.). We are better prepared to respond to the emergency now, but it would be preferable if heat events didn’t constitute an emergency, because our housing stock was resilient enough to manage what will be a more common occurrence.

Every rental building is required, by law, to have a heating system than can maintain a life-reserving temperature in residential units. No such requirement exists for cooling, and during the heat dome we learned that many apartments were so hot that they were deadly. The question arises: shouldn’t life safety be a rental license requirement? The BC government is taking action here with updates to the BC Building Code to require one cool room in new buildings, and are developing a path to encourage the updating of existing buildings. That’s a big challenge. In New west we have started a vulnerable building inventory and are going to push the province to accelerate their building renewal program. We are also going to ask staff to do some further work on regulatory approaches available to us as a City, because when people die in your city, you need to take action.

The majority of Council supported moving this three-prong approach, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, continuing the trend of the night.

Response to Council Motion Regarding Fee Summary for Development Applications
In a previous meeting, Council asked that all rezoning applications include a comprehensive list of all fees, charges, and levies related to that project. I tried to make the point that we already get such a report as best as staff can estimate at the time of rezoning, because there are other steps in the development process (development Permit, Building Permit, etc.) that include fees and levees, and every project is different, meaning that a separate report would have to be generated for each project based on myriad of factors – how many trees are on the site, what is the grade? Is the available sewer connection on the upslope or downslope side of the property, does the builder want fiber optic connection, and does that require trenching across a city road? It’s complicated, and the cost and complication of providing this report ahead of time (for what reason exactly?) will doubtlessly increase the cost of development, because someone has to do the work, and on principle, this is a cost that should fall on development, not on taxpayers.

So the best we can do is estimate fees and apply deposits on the cost-for-service parts that are less certain at the time of rezoning, like the current Engineering and Service Memo attached to every rezoning already does. But as is common of motion made up on the fly in the heat of a Council meeting, those complications could not be fully considered by Council prior to voting on the motion, and that is a recipe for bad decision making.

In this report, staff are recommending that the recently-completed Development Application Process Review output of moving to more electronic approvals might give us tools to better estimate these numbers, at least as far as fixed fees go, this work will be rolled into that.

The majority of Council supported this sensible approach that best utilizes staff resources, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, keeping the trend alive.

Westburnco Reservoir License of Use Agreement Renewal
There is a big underground water reservoir belonging to Metro Vancouver on the top of New Westminster called Westburnco. On the roof of this reservoir are some sports courts that were installed more than a decade ago by the City, under a license agreement with Metro Vancouver. It’s time to update that license agreement.

That said, the courts are looking pretty beat up, and I asked staff to initiate a conversation about updating the offerings in those courts, and my mind is on Pickleball. There is a unique opportunity here for us to build a multi-court pickleball facility to serve the growing community. As we are currently undertaking the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan process, I confirmed with staff that is the appropriate channel through which to develop this idea, especially as there is likely to be a significant capital component in renewing the surface treatment on the reservoir. Staff will also check timelines around the membrane replacement or other renovation at the reservoir to determine if the timing or this type of capital investment is good.

Cross your fingers, there is a pickleball opportunity here

Zoning Bylaw Amendment: 1923 & 1927 Marine Way – Bylaw for Three Readings
Aunt Leah’s society wants to build a 90-unit affordable and supportive housing building on a couple of lots where land assembly is occurring near 22nd Street station. The project looks exceptional in how it meets a pressing housing need identified in our community, providing three levels of affordability (50% Rent geared to income, 20% deep subsidy at shelter rates, 30% below market) to serve the needs of youth aging out of care and young moms with families. This is within the Transit Oriented Area designation from the Province’s Bill 47, so the thought here is to rezone to that density (12 storeys/4 FSR) which is a bit bigger than Aunt Leah’s is trying to build (5 storeys / 2.2 FSR). There are tight funding deadlines here (the project has been approved by BC Housing to receive financial support!), and the project aligns with the OCP, so we are did our best to fast-track to third reading through our Affordable Housing Acceleration Initiative to meet those deadlines.

The majority of Council supported this much needed and already-funded affordable housing development, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for reasons, as best as I could interpret, because they were afraid it might reduce the profitability of future land speculation on adjacent properties.

We then read several Bylaws, including the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Development Cost Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 8456, 2024
This Bylaw that makes inflationary increases to our DCC bylaw – the infrastructure costs we put on developers for new growth – was adopted by Council.

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8459, 2024
Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 8458,2024
These Bylaws that will facilitate the launch of a Shared Mobility Service (Bike Share!) in New Westminster were adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (310 Blackley Street) No. 8450, 2024
This Bylaw that rezones a portion of the Eastern Node in Queesnborough to facilitate the building of townhouses was adopted by Council.

Then we launched head-first into Motions from Council:

Improving Public Safety through a Community Ambassador Pilot Program
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

Whereas the City of Vancouver previously partnered with Business Improvement Areas to implement and expand an Ambassador Program whereby Community Ambassadors provide assistance to business owners, customers, residents, and visitors in the BIA area by providing hospitality services and addressing community safety; and
Whereas Community Ambassadors’ primary functions include connecting those in need to resources, conducting community patrols, contributing to increased safety and order on the streets, and contributing to social responsibility; and
Whereas Community Ambassadors can work closely and collaborate directly with the City’s bylaw officers as well as the New Westminster Police Department and can become an integral part of a proactive recruitment strategy;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster prepare a business case to determine the feasibility of piloting a made-in-New Westminster Community Ambassador program by 2026;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the local Business Improvement Areas be consulted regarding their potential role in supporting or operating a fully funded Community Ambassador pilot program on behalf of the City of New Westminster.

At first glance, this appeared to be  a repeat of a motion brought by Councillor Nakagawa this time last year about emulating the Chinatown Stewards model, a motion that led to a decision by Council to instead advance the I’s on the Street program, both motions that the mover of this motion voted to support at the time.

But at second glance, it appeared this was a very different program, one that is a resurrection of a failed program from Sam Sullivan’s Vancouver mayorship, the City’s partnership in it abandoned after complaints about it violating the human rights of targeted indigenous people, people with addictions, and those suffering mental and physical disabilities in a way that constituted discrimination according to a BC Supreme Court ruling, resulting in costs being awarded against the City and the BIA. Of course, Mayor Sullivan and his Chief of Staff were voted out of office before those costs were ever awarded, so out of term, out of mind, I guess.

Council did not vote to support this initiative.

International Travel by Members of Council
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

BE IT RESOLVED: That international travel by members of Council to attend conferences, events, and meetings on behalf of the City of New Westminster be subject to Council approval which includes a summary of request to Council in an open meeting including:
• projected travel and other expenses related to attendance to be charged to the City;
• name of the attendee(s) and relevance to Council or Committee roles; and
• a statement of expected value to be derived as a result of attending the function from the attendee; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That any participation by members of Council at conferences, events, and meetings (aside from LMLGA, UBCM, and FCM) which require overnight accommodations or travel outside of the province but otherwise fall within allowable Council expense limits shall require a written summary to Council by the attendee(s) in an open meeting within 3 months of the completion of travel which includes:
• a summary of actual expenses incurred; and
• a description of participation, learnings, and value derived from participation at the event; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That staff be directed to bring back to Council for consideration revised travel policies for Council members that is consistent with the above resolutions, including any recommended changes to existing policies, expense limits, or reporting requirements that recognizes the benefit of Council participation in exchange and learning.

I think the motion speaks for itself. There is more interest in public transparency around these types of events than in the past, and it is a good idea to update our policies to reflect that. I have always had the practice of reporting out publicly on my attendance at conferences, including UBCM and FCM, the Canadian Association for Police Governance and the Local Climate Action Summit last year, even local conferences like the recent Active Transportation Summit, because I think they are valuable learning opportunities, and I think the extra l value found in them is being able to share your experiences and things you have learned with your colleagues and the community.

This parallels a motion I sponsored at Metro Vancouver that was referred back to staff. Here it was amended by Councillor Campbell to include considerations around travel funded by third parties or by the member themselves, as I have travelled to attend Municipal Finance Authority meetings and the City doesn’t pay for that, so our policies need to reflect those types of situations. The next step here will be for staff to conduct a review of existing policies and integrate the changes as proposed for Councils consideration.

Paradoxically, though the majority of Council supported this amended motion, the two “progressive” members of Council who have spent the last 6 months bombarding the regional media calling for this kind of transparency and accountability, voted against it for apparently not understanding the term “third party”, despite staff’s repeated attempts to clarify that a third party is anyone other than the City or the traveling member. It was a sight to see.

Increasing Accountability and Transparency regarding Travel for Municipal Elected Officials
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS Mayor and Council have an interest in the information and outcomes of member-attended conferences, events, study tours, and meetings; and
WHEREAS transparent and equitable policies should be created for use of all City resources applied to Mayor and Council representation at such functions; and
WHEREAS the above is in service of good governance, transparency, and strong relationships between Mayor and Council, our community, and the public they serve in the disposition of limited resources;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT international travel to attend conferences, events, study tours, and meetings on behalf of the City of New Westminster by the Mayor or Councillors be subject to prior approval by Council which includes a summary of the request to Council in an open meeting including:
• Name of the attendee and relevant Council or Committee role(s);
• A statement of expected value to be derived because of attending the function from the attendee and staff;
• Projected travel expenses;
• Projected remuneration expenses; and
• Projected amount of other expenses expected to be incurred; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any participation by the Mayor or Councillors at conferences, events, study tours and meetings that would incur overnight accommodation outside of British Columbia shall require a written report of the function by the attendee(s) in May or October of each calendar year. This report shall be provided at an open meeting of Council, and include:
• A summary of the event and key activities;
• The value to the City of New Westminster because of
• the attendee’s participation in the event; and
• A summary of actual expenses incurred; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this new policy would apply to all city-paid travel or travel incurred as part of a ‘sponsorship’ intended to be paid for by a 3rd party; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the case of any sponsored travel, the attendee would be obliged in an open meeting to seek prior approval from Council to receive these funds and this would include full details regarding the source of funds and financials related to the entire sponsorship package being offered.

I’m not sure what cliché to use first – deja vu all over again? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? The member here literally cut and pasted my Metro Vancouver motion, with some minor amendments, and put their name on it. For the record, they were informed that the motion above was on the agenda, but still chose not to withdraw the notice of motion, wasting a bunch of staff time, because every notice requires staff policy and legal review prior to going onto the agenda. Then after NOT voting to support the almost exact same motion above, they decided during the meeting to withdraw this motion. I simply cannot explain this behavior, but am no longer interested in trying.

Increasing Council Oversight and Involvement in the Issuance of Official Public Statements
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS excluding any statutory powers provided to the Mayor through the BC Community Charter Act, all other authority is delegated to the Mayor by Council; and
WHEREAS the Mayor is designated by Council as the chief spokesperson who will speak on behalf of the entire Council on matters relating to City business; and
WHEREAS not all members of Council are routinely notified in advance nor consulted regarding non-emergency communications issued by the Mayor through the City of New Westminster Communications Department;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the effective immediately the Mayor and the Department of Communications conduct timely, adequate and thorough consultation with all members of Council in advance of the issuance of any public statements, media advisories or media releases that are non-emergency related.

At one end of the spectrum, this appears to be a censure measure against the Mayor that seeks to silence me and keep me from doing the job I was elected to do for reasons I can only assume are political. At the other end, it appears to put an unreasonable block on all City Communications, severely limiting the City’s ability to talk about what is happening in the City. There is no City in the world that waits for Council approval before posting (to quote the motion) “any public statement” because it would not allow the City to function in the modern sense. This Council meeting is July 8th, our next official meeting is August 26th. We can’t have the City wait 6 weeks for “thorough consultation with all members of Council” before putting out their regular daily communications or responding to media inquiries. It boggles the mind to think how this would work, never mind the extra communication resources it would require to work.

The majority of Council did not support the motion, so conversations like this one can go on.

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS between 2016 and 2021, the number of seniors living in New Westminster increased by 17.2%. By comparison, the overall population increased by 11.2%; and
WHEREAS In 2021, 24.1% of New Westminster’s seniors lived in unaffordable housing (30%+ of income spent on housing costs) including 42.8% of senior renters and 16.9% of senior owners; and
WHEREAS the Office of the Seniors Advocate Report Ageing Matters: What We Heard From BC Seniors released in June 2024 states the Provincial Government’s Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters subsidy program does not address the financial pressures experienced by seniors who rent;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council write a letter to the Premier of BC, Minister of Housing and Minister of Health asking for immediate financial relief for low-income senior renters by redesigning the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program so that seniors’ rents are 30% of their income and rent ceilings are adjusted to reflect the current reality of the rental market.

This is advocacy that grew from work Councillor Campbell has been doing with seniors in the community, and based on calls from the Seniors Advocate, and a report they released last month. Council voted to send this advocacy to the Provincial Government.

And that was all the work done during the evening meeting. As I suggested, I might follow up with a report on the workshop, because is covered interesting things, and continued a bit of the trend of the evening meeting. Until then, go outside and enjoy some sun, we miss it when it’s not here.

Housing and Growth

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The discussion around provincial housing regulations hasn’t slowed down, as the first of several deadlines related to bills 44, 46, and 47 came and went. Some Cities have complied, some have chosen a different path. In New Westminster we adopted two Bylaws in June that make us complaint, and staff are busily working on the next steps- a renewed Housing Needs Assessment, OCP updates, and revising our DCC, ACC, and Density Bonus programs.

City staff are also working with provincial staff on their Housing Target Order methodology, so we can respond on the expected timeline, likely in August. I was on the radio last week alongside the Mayor of Langley Township talking to Belle Puri about this (you can listen here!), and we had slightly different takes on the core issue. I actually agree with the Minister that the introduction of Small-scale Multi-Unit Housing and Transit Oriented Area regulations will be a good thing. IT is clearly a massive hassle and staff time suck to implement, and will likely slow down development for a short period of time while everyone finds their path through the massive changes, in the end it will be a positive for the reshaping of the next era of regional growth.

My problem remains that we have had some significant tools taken away that we have used to fund infrastructure and amenities in our community. Equally troubling is that our ability to compel developers to build childcare, to provide spaces for new schools or parks, or to include affordable housing as part of their developments, has been eroded at the same time that the cost for development has gone up. It is unclear whether the Province is going to give us the money needed to make up for these shortfalls, or expect property tax to fill the void.

That said, I did appreciate the Minister’s thoughtful responses the next day (you can hear them here!). We are all trying to get the same thing done on housing, and I hope that the province brings the kind of aggressive, proactive change to our funding model that they did to our building approvals model. Dare to dream.

There was another related piece of news that snuck out last week, and it was related to a report we received at Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee. Metro staff working with academic demographers have created updated regional growth projections. These are not “targets” the region is aiming for, but instead projections of what is likely to happen given demographic changes, birth/death statistics, immigration, and inter-regional and inter-provincial migration patterns. The numbers are all here in this report.

The local angle on this might surprise some folks, especially my colleague on the radio last week from Langley Township who always refers to his community as the “high growth region”, that the City projected to grow fastest over the next 6, 16, and 26 years is New Westminster. Here’s the numbers:

These are numbers for the medium-growth scenario, but both the low-growth and high-growth scenarios have us in a similar spot: top of the charts for proportional growth.

There are a lot of factors that drive this, including our commitment to Transit Oriented Development and the large proportion of our City that is near that transit, but also the balance of housing types, the “sweet spot” between affordability and location on the north side of the River, and the attractiveness to both young families in the growing stage, and new arrivals to Canada and the Lower Mainland – for every reason you choose to live here.

This speaks to our Housing Needs Report, but it also speaks to our need to invest in infrastructure now to support that growth, and the community amenities that residents want in a thriving, growing community. Adding austerity to this trend will be a disaster for the livability of our community, we need to show leadership to shape a community that serves today/s residents, and the people arriving tomorrow.

Mixing Business

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As a follow-up to my Council report from last week, there were two items I promised to circle back to, like how I circled back to the preposition at the end of that sentence.

English teachers will find that last sentence fun. Hi Mom!

The two items spoke to supporting local businesses and streetscapes. We had a report on Bill 28, and the opportunity for us to explore whether Bill 28-style property tax relief might be a useful tool for our community, and we had a motion from Councillor Nakagawa to review our development and zoning policies to better support local community-serving small businesses. Both of these linked back to some recent chatter in the community around street-level commercial spaces, with people wanting to see more experiential retail and entertainment, and less service and office, to “liven up” the street (I got through all of that without mentioning dentists once). So I want to unpack each item a bit and discuss not just what a city/council can do, but more about the varying ideas about what a city/council should do.

Bill 28 – Property Tax Relief Legislation
I have written quite a bit over the last 9 years about how property tax works (examples here, here, and here). This new legislation changes this a bit for one category of properties, allowing us to provide some short term (5 year) property tax relief for some commercial property owners.

To review, the City sets tax rates, but the tax paid on property is based on BC Assessment Value, determined by “Highest and Best Use” – not necessarily the current value of the property, but the value the property would have if the owner sought to maximize that value. The change with Bill 28 is pretty specific, limited to properties where the “Land-value ratio” greater than 0.95, which means the value of improvements on the land (the existing building) is less than 5% of the total assessed value of the property. Where it is flexible is in how the local government can apply tax relief, and how much.

Some folks would suggest any tax relief for business is good, but we need to be clear this tool provides us a potential tax shift – giving one type of taxpayer some relief transfers that taxation to other taxpayers – not an overall decrease in the revenue on the part of the City. We are taking a more cautious approach here, because not only are there more devils in details, there are likely perverse incentives in there as well.

There is a general feeling that high lease rates and tax rates make it harder from small neighbourhood-serving business to set up shop, and that is surely a factor. The diversity of business types on Twelfth Street is almost certainly a product of low per-foot lease rates. So one part of the thinking here is that if the lease cost (including taxes) was lower, we would more likely get smaller, more diverse, and more interesting business types setting up. Instead of dentists (there, I said it).

One potential challenge with the Bill 28 approach is the recognition that property owners pay taxes, not business owners. Sometimes a business also owns the property they operate out of, but for most small neighbourhood businesses in New West a lease is paid to a landlord. It is the common practice for the landlord to pass the property tax bill directly to the tenant (through “triple net leases”), but there is nothing in Bill 28 or elsewhere that forces a landlord to pass any tax relief savings down to the small business person, so a tax incentive may not get to the small business types we are trying to support, and might actually make the situation worse for the business owner, but better for the Landlord. It may also be a disincentive to upgrading, repair, or improvement of marginal buildings, reducing the attractiveness and safety of commercial spaces.

The City of Vancouver is the only City that has taken on a Bill 28 approach, and we are going to hope to learn from their example as staff bring some data and analysis back to council to see if this approach can be made to help. It may be a useful tool, if we can wield it creatively enough.

Ensuring that ground level retail spaces in new developments prioritize community-supporting businesses and organizations
This motion from Councillor Nakagawa was a bit more all-encompassing, and completely within our jurisdiction. It was asking that the City “review and refresh current policies relating to ground level retail” and “develop policy to ensure that future ground level retail spaces in new development are built to prioritize community-supporting businesses and organizations in alignment with the retail strategy.”

When people ask what Council can do to assure a (insert type of business you want to see) opens in a specific location instead of a (insert type of business you don’t want to see), I often retort with the question: are you sure you want to give me the power to do that?  Council has some power to restrict different business types through zoning, but do you really want 7 elected people picking and choosing the businesses in your downtown? Are we the wisest ones to choose this, or is this somewhere we need to ask “the market” to address? Clearly there is a huge spectrum between completely hands-off and being so prescriptive that we end up with streets full of unleased spaces because Council of the day fails to understand the market. Personally, I would love to see a small hardware store downtown. But we had one for a few years, and it was really great, but it was not supported enough to stay open and now you can buy discount shoes in that spot. The reasons for that specific store closing may be complex and global (as they were part of a nation-wide chain that changed its focus and has now closing many Big Box offerings across Canada as well). The City saying “only hardware stores here” would not change those global forces, and we would likely have an empty space in its place, and angry landlord, and a decaying business district. That said, we do exercise limited powers to restrict uses like cannabis or liquor stores (for example) to address perceived or suspected risks.

Nothing against dentists, but mine is Uptown and on the second floor, which is probably a better space for the kind of use that doesn’t really “activate” the street or lead to good walking-around experiences. One thing we can all agree is that a street is more fun to live near and shop on if we have a variety of interesting retail and service experiences along it. As part of our Council Strategic Priority Plan, we talked about supporting a people-centered economy, supporting retail areas that address the needs of the local community.

When Starbucks made a global decision to close thousands of stores including Columbia and 6th, people lamented this loss. Since that time, three new coffee shops have opened downtown, and the old Starbucks location is a popular Italian deli. There are literally dozens of businesses Downtown that were not there at the beginning of the Pandemic, and there is not a lot of lease vacancy. By many measures, the business environment Downtown is pretty healthy. Still, the community is engaged in a conversation about retail mix, though it’s not clear how the community wants to get there.

There are two policy areas inherent in this motion we can look at. We can look at how we approve new street-facing spaces in new mixed use developments like 618 Carnarvon, where a brand new dentist office is opening in a space where folks might have wanted to see a coffee shop, or boutique, or other more experiential use. The other is to look at policies that rezone existing spaces to limit the variety of uses possible when businesses turn over, much like we do with liquor stores. To traditional businesses this sounds like a lot of “red tape”, and may result in an incredibly complex zoning bylaw that makes it harder for any business to find the right space. One can imagine this resulting in any new and innovative business types wanting to set up in town having to come to Council to ask permission, because their specific type that doesn’t fit the Bylaw. We went down that path with a video-game arcade that wanted to serve alcohol – and it was a massive pain in the ass for staff, a difficult challenge for the business owner who felt unsupported, and left everyone feeling soured. And that was for a business idea that that everyone on Council liked!

There is a guy I have had lunch with (Hi John!) who suggests the City should simply open more restaurants downtown. I don’t think it is that simple, because I don’t know what the role of the City is in doing that. Restaurants are permitted in almost every business storefont on Columbia Street, there are no rules or regulations preventing them from opening now. At the same time, we cannot force the landlord to kick out the current tenant and put in a restaurant. Reducing taxes of set-up costs will not have any positive effect on a restaurant business model that it doesn’t equally have on a nail salon or dog grooming business model. Further, we are limited by Section 25 of the Community Charter (the part that says it is illegal for a City to “provide a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance to a business”) from directly incenting a specific business owner to do a specific thing. We could, I guess, buy up the land and start leasing it to the business types and business owners we like, but I’m not sure that is the best role of a City government.

All this to say, there is an interesting bit of policy work we can do here, but we are also limited in our powers by legislation and common sense. This also speaks to and augments existing work we are doing around the recently-adopted Retail Strategy.

Housing & Bill 47

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I have been writing a series of posts about the changes in how housing approvals are regulated in BC as the provincial government rolls out a series of new legislation. I previously wrote about Bill 44 and multiplexes here, then about Bill 46 and the introduction of ACCs here. This is part three, which could have a profound effect on the shape of New Westminster in the decade ahead:

Bill 47: Transit Oriented Development
This bill requires local governments to designate Transit Oriented Development areas around rapid transit stations and other designated transit exchanges where higher density residential development must be permitted and residential parking minimums cannot be applied. By the letter o the legislation, we will need to update our Official Community Plan to designate TOD areas at all SkyTrain stations by June 2024.

As with other aspects of what’s been introduced, I think this is a transformational change that will make our region more affordable, more sustainable, and more livable, and it probably could have been introduced 20 years ago. But I am afraid we don’t have the human resources available to do an optimal job of implementing it by the deadline.

The province is prescribing a minimum density for these TOD areas, saying the local government can permit more density, and any property owner can choose to build smaller than the prescribed minimum, but the local government cannot restrict density to below the minimums. There are details in how density is distributed with prescribed minimum Floor Space Ratios, but for most folks it is easier to envision building heights. Within 200m of a Sky Train Station (red circles below), heights up to 20 storeys will be prescribed. Within 400m (yellow circles), the minimum is 12 storeys, and within 800m (the green circles), buildings up to 8 storeys will be pre-approved. Here are what those TOD zones look like in New West:

As far as the 200m and 400m TOD zones go, this will not be much of a change for New West excepting the 22nd Street Station area (though this looks aligned with where we anticipated the 22nd Street visioning going) and a bit of Sapperton around RCH. Our Downtown zoning is already in this scale, and aside from Sapperton Green, there isn’t a lot of developable space in Sapperton within the 400m circle that isn’t already being built up. The 800m TOD zone, however, could have huge implications for the West End, the Brow of the Hill, Queens Park and Sapperton.

The implications of Queens Park are perhaps most intriguing. Much of the Queens Park Heritage Conservation Area south of Third Ave is within the 800m TOD area. It is unclear to me at this point if this regulation will supersede a Heritage Conservation Area, but for complicated mechanical regulatory reasons, I suspect it will. I am equally suspecting that Designated heritage properties will be exempt, meaning the extra protection offered properties in Queens Park that have had HRAs applied will be important. But I am perhaps getting ahead of myself and the regulations, so we will wait for clarity when those arrive.

The second part of the regulatory change is that all residential parking minimums will be removed from TOD areas. The City will still be able to require commercial parking and some accommodation will be developed to allow cities to require accessible parking for people with disabilities, but overall the number of general parking spots in new residential will be determined by what the market determines it needs, not regulatory minimums.

This will significantly reduce the cost of developing near SkyTrain stations, and is aligned with the City’s Climate Action plans and the provincial CleanBC transportation goals. I am generally in favour, but again there will again be devils in details. It is unclear what this means to goals for off-street EV charging, and what this will do to increase the need for already over-prescribed public EV charging. This will exacerbate pressure for street parking and increase conflict in communities around precious curbside space. Allowing “the Market” to dictate parking need tends to assume people make rational choices, such as only owning the number of cars for which they have parking, and experience indicates this is not how people behave. Further, the “market” relies on pricing signals, and the amount of grief we get for $50 annual parking passes for street paring in some neighbourhoods suggests people aren’t that enamored with market solutions when they are used to getting something for free.

Finally, Transit Oriented Development assumes that there will be transit service at those stations. That assumption will be tested in the year ahead, as TransLink needs a new financial model to sustain its existing service level, even as transit is back to pre-COVID crowding levels, and the Province holds the levers that will allow the system to survive. As this TOD plan rolls out across the region, it is clear maintaining the level of service we have currently won’t suffice, and the $20 billion Access for Everyone plan will need to be funded to keep up with ridership growth.

With those caveats, I will sum up by saying I am glad to see that we have a provincial government who is willing to take serious moves to address a decades-long housing crisis. For a city like New West that has already been doing so much in housing, meeting and exceeding our Regional Growth Strategy targets, getting region-leading numbers of new Purpose Built Rental built, while protecting the most affordable housing, it is positive to see that the load is going to be spread more widely across the region. These are the kind of moves that housing advocates have been calling for, but probably gave up expecting from a provincial government in Canada.

There will be devils in the details, there will be hurdles and potholes on the way, but a decade from now we may look back at David Eby’s first year as the time British Columbia finally took the housing crisis seriously. Yes, the shape of our neighbourhoods will change, but the change will probably be more gradual that you think (there are only so many developers and builders in the region, and they are mostly already working hard), and ultimately, we will have stronger and more resilient communities because of the changes.