A major redevelopment of Columbia Square Plaza is moving forward – with some changes to the way it was originally proposed.
In June 2023, city council received an introductory report about EDGAR Development’s plan to redevelop the Columbia Square site at 88 10th St. The development, which would be done in phases, was envisioned to include 2,000 to 4,000 residential units in six to eight towers, office and retail uses, and community and public space.
At that time, council directed staff to work with the applicants to revise their proposal to meet the city’s inclusionary housing policy and secured market rental expectations, or to identify an alterative proposal for achieving inclusionary and secured market housing in the project. Council also directed staff to work with the applicant to secure development of affordable units, and to work with the applicant (as part of discussions with the school district) regarding the need for a school site in the area.
Since that time, the province has introduced a variety of changes to housing regulations in B.C.
At its April 8 meeting, council received an on-table recommendation from staff. The motion recommended that council direct staff to:
- Work with the applicants to revise their proposal for the 7.2-acre site, as outlined in a June 2023 council report, to include 20 per cent secured market rental, a childcare, and zero per cent affordable rental units or related land dedication, in exchange for which the future density bonus charges would apply across the entire site, generally consistent with the city's interim development application review framework, and which council could use to fund future affordable housing developments in this city.
- Prepare a basic zoning bylaw to authorize that revised proposal for consideration of council within 2024, and which secures requirements to complete a master planning process prior to construction.
Mayor Patrick Johnstone said approval of the motion does not mean council will approve the proposal when it comes forward, but it allows staff to work with the applicant.
“We are just asking … staff to start to prepare that rezoning process, recognizing that there would be public consultation and there would be a rezoning process, and a rezoning bylaw would come to council,” he said.
In a 4-2 vote, council approved the motion. Johnstone and councillors Ruby Campbell, Daniel Fontaine and Paul Minhas supported the staff recommendation, while councillors Tasha Henderson and Nadine Nakagawa were opposed.
“I simply cannot support a project that has zero affordable rental units,” said Nakagawa. “I understand that the density bonusing may be directed towards that, but all that does is shift the responsibility from the developer, in a difficult financial environment, onto us. It's not going to be easier for us to build affordable rental with that constrained amount of money. And if they felt that that was enough money to do it, they would be doing it.”
Nakagawa said the city has clear guidelines about what it’s looking for around affordable housing. She said she’s not willing to give up the opportunity of creating affordable housing on this site, noting the city has few sites where it can build.
“I'm also not willing to give up the community amenities on this site,” she said. “The community needs and wants a lot of things. The community deserves a lot of things. We need childcare. We need parks. We need benches and bus shelters, and active transportation and sewers and all those sorts of things. And so, it just isn't good enough for me right now.”
Nakagawa said she recognizes it’s a challenging financial environment for developers at this time.
“I would rather save this site for the opportunity to actually get something that we need for the community,” she said. “And this just isn't enough.”
Henderson agreed that the “economics of development are hard right now” but said that doesn’t compel her to bend on ensuring the city gets what it needs out of large developments.
“These larger pieces are really where we have a bit more push and pull, or we have had historically,” she said of the seven-acre site.
Henderson said this site is a “prime location” for a school, and that’s “right off the table” with the motion before council. While schools are not the city’s jurisdiction, she said the city is responsible for building complete communities.
“While I do hope that we can support building affordable housing, we also need a lot of other things. If all of our amenity contributions are going towards affordable housing, it means we're not getting other things like park spaces, like childcare, like all sorts of things that the community has asked for,” she said. “So, this is not strong enough for me. I feel like I can't go to the community and say that I supported a motion in which it literally says zero per cent affordable rental units.”
Even if the city receives money that could be put towards affordable housing, Henderson said she believes the current plan “misses the mark.”
Why the rush?
At its April 8 meeting, council considered the matter as an on-table recommendation from staff. No staff report was provided, which is the usual process.
Fontaine questioned the urgency of dealing with the staff resolution at the meeting and wondered if council could get more information back and vote at its Jan. 22 meeting.
“While I'm generally in support of this, I am struggling tonight with the timeliness of this and the fact that we're dealing with this without a staff report,” he said. “I'm still not sure 100 per cent what the urgency is of doing it today versus say, in two weeks from now.”
Jackie Teed, the city’s director of climate action, planning and development, said staff’s understanding from that the applicant is that they have certain commitments that required a response at Monday’s meeting.
“The sensitivity is in relation to the timeline,” she said. “In order for this application to be viable, the applicant has identified that they do need to complete a basic zoning bylaw for council consideration this year. So that's a very tight turnaround. … That's the primary reason for bringing it forward today – we don't have a lot of time, and we need to move forward.”
Teed said the resolution isn’t to approve the application, but to help give the applicants instructions from council so that they can prepare their application. She said it would also allow staff to proceed with the work they would need to do in order to craft a rezoning bylaw.
“There's still a significant amount of work there, and council will certainly have a full report with all of the required information as part of the deliberation process, when a bylaw would be brought forward for consideration of council,” she said.
Housing regulations changes
Fontaine noted the resolution stated there would be zero affordable rental units or land dedication for that type of housing. He questioned how this relates to city policies around housing.
When this development was last presented to council for its consideration, Teed said council had directed staff to go back and do some work to create a proposal that was either consistent with the city’s inclusionary housing policy or was supported by the director of climate action, planning and development.
Teed said the City of New Westminster’s inclusionary housing policy would require 20 per cent affordable rental units in the development. She said the applicant had originally proposed 10 per cent could be accommodated on the site.
“However, they had proposed not constructing those, but providing a piece of property on the site that could then be used to construct those affordable units,” she said. “In this proposal, they would not be providing the land but instead – consistent with the new interim development application review framework that flows through from the new legislative changes – would be providing the density bonus charges, which then the city could use instead.”
According to Teed, the percentage of affordable rental units those density bonus charges would provide isn’t known at this time.
After a series of questions to staff, Fontaine supported the recommendation. He said staff should be “applauded for being a bit creative and working a little bit out of the box” on this development.
“The economics of these projects are very challenging,” he said. “I'm sure everyone on council has heard that from a number of folks who are in that sector, that with high interest rates and a whole range of other things, that building projects with a high threshold of inclusionary housing can often just financially no longer work in this economic environment.”
Changing goal posts
Johnstone said he said timing is an issue when considering these types of projects because of housing legislation changes that have been introduced by the province, including development in transit-oriented areas.
“We're in an area where pressures on locations like this, adjacent to SkyTrain stations, are changing;” he said. “The goalposts are moving.”
With “a lot of things in flux” right now, Johnstone said the city and the applicant are stuck in a situation where they need to made decision at a time when things are shifting.
Johnstone said he’s not interested in the city using the density bonus money, in lieu of inclusionary zoning, to become an affordable housing developer. He said one of the city’s challenges is its lack of land.
“This may give us ability to receive some money, through density bonus, that allows us to actually purchase property, which would then be able for us to leverage affordable housing,” he said. “Because that is really what BC Builds, what BC Housing are anticipating municipalities to provide to housing is land.”
Given that this is the beginning of discussions about the future of this site, Johnstone supported the staff recommendation.
“I don't want to stop that process right now, especially where we are in in those various overlapping housing regulation changes that are happening,” he said. “So, I will be in support of this at this time, but not without concerns about the ability to figure out how the city is going to leverage affordable housing out of it.”
