Several projects in New West are getting a bit of a re-do after the city followed a faulty process.
On July 11, council took action to correct “an administrative error” in the process related to five recent rezoning applications. Zoning amendment bylaws impacted by the error relate to five bylaws that have been adopted or have received third reading: a mixed-use rental tower (with some affordable housing) at 616 to 640 Sixth St.; an infill townhouse development at 337 to 339 Keary St.; a triplex at 817 St. Andrews St.; a duplex at 122 Eighth Ave.; and parking reduction for patios.
“It came to staff's attention that there was a small administrative error in relation to the waiving of five public hearing for five zoning bylaws,” Emilie Adin, the city’s director of climate action, planning and development, told council Monday night. “And so, this is a repeal, a rescindment and a re-enactment of bylaws.”
According to a staff report, the error came in response to recent changes in the Local Government Act.
“Since November 2021, for projects where council has resolved not to hold a public hearing, notifications ought to have been sent out to neighbouring property owners and residents before first reading of the bylaws, per the ‘new system’ of Local Government Act (LGA) regulations as adopted under Bill 26,” said the report. “Instead, the city had continued to follow the process it had for decades under the ‘former system’ of LGA regulations, during which notifications went out between second and third readings.”
New Westminster resident Christopher Bell is baffled how this error could have happened.
On June 29, Bell emailed the city clerk questioning the proper public notice required for zoning bylaws that are having their public hearings waived. His query came after he read a media report discussing changes to the Local Government Act, in which the author noted public notifications must be done before first reading of the bylaws – and he realized that wasn’t the process being followed in New Westminster.
“I'm just shocked and appalled,” he told the Record. “It just seems absurd that such a thing could have happened in today's modern era of local government.”
Bell said he didn’t hear back from the clerk but he did receive a phone call the following day from Adin, who, he said, told him his inquiry had alerted the city to the fact it had been following the wrong process for several months.
Bell said he was even more troubled to learn that the city planned to move forward with consideration of third reading for the Sixth Street project at that evening’s council meeting – even though he’d warned the city that it hadn’t been following the proper notification process.
On July 4, Bell outlined his concerns in a meeting with Adin and Lisa Spitale, the city’s chief administrative officer, who said the city would be following the correct process going forward. He appealed to the city to rescind the bylaws that had been considered through the faulty process.
Serena Trachta, the city’s manager of inspections, emailed Bell on July 6 to update him on his concerns.
“As you are aware … this discussion impacts a number of bylaws, and we are seeking legal counsel as well as reviewing internal procedures and documents to understand the situation fully to put together a fulsome summary for city council,” she wrote. “Council has not yet been apprised of this issue as we want to understand the impact of our actions associated with the new legislation the province enacted regarding waiving public hearings. We are engaging in conversations with council in the coming week regarding alternative courses of action, as these bylaws have a material effect on the community and real projects in various stages of development.”
Righting a wrong
At its July 11 meeting, council embarked on a process to correct the errors related to the five.
City clerk Jacque Killawee said the repeal and replacement of the bylaws began at the July 11 meeting.
“Then, staff will provide notification through Aug. 18 through 29. And then we'll bring them back to the Aug. 29 meeting where council can consider a second and third reading on all of these bylaws,” she told council. “An additional meeting will be added on Aug. 31, for council to consider adoption on these bylaws. So all of these bylaws in this issue will be resolved by the end of summer.”
Adin noted on-table reports included an explanation about the error and the projects impacted by the process.
Coun. Chuck Puchmayr thanked staff for bringing the matter to council.
“I know it's a small technicality, but it is a serious one,” he said. “If we don't resolve it, it could expose us to litigation or liability. And so, I'm very pleased that you brought this to us.”
Bell said he’s grateful the city responded to his concerns and rescinded the bylaws. He said it shows that one person can make a difference and can be heard by the City of New Westminster on important issues.
Still, Bell is perplexed how such a thing could happen in the first place.
“The mind boggles at how that happened. It boggles,” he said. “Like how did this happen on such a grand scale, but apparently no one is aware of this until I read a reporter's story and alerted an entire city to this as a problem?”
Bell has written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs seeking a meeting. He is requesting a full ministerial review of what he calls a “failed process” related to the Local Government Act.
Answers sought
Ken Armstrong, mayoral candidate for the New West Progressives, is writing to B.C. Municipal Affairs Minister Nathan Cullen and asking him to initiate a “thorough and independent review” of the circumstances related to city’s actions. He also requested that an un-redacted copy of the review be released publicly prior to the Oct. 15 civic election.
In his letter, Armstrong said recent amendments to the Local Government Act allow local governments to waive public hearings on multi-family developments if they’re consistent with the official community plan, provided notice of the waiver of public hearing has been given at least twice prior to first and second reading of the enabling bylaw.
Armstrong said former Municipal Affairs Minister Josie Osborne commented on the changes in the B.C. Legislature on Nov. 3, 2021, when she said: “should they choose to do that — to not have a public hearing — they are required to provide public notice to the community, prior to first reading, so that the community is aware of what is proposed to take place”, even if the proposal is consistent with the official community plan.
Armstrong said city council supported at least five developments without a public hearing and didn’t provide the proper public notifications.
“The residents of New Westminster deserve to know how this happened, and what steps will be taken to ensure it won’t happen again, and I submit that requires an external review by the ministry,” he wrote.
Bell agrees.
Bell said he didn’t question the city’s process because of politics, but because he’s a firm believer in transparency, accountability and process. He said he’d like to know how the city followed the wrong process for more than half a year, especially considering the city would have received advice from its lawyers about the changes to the Local Government Act.
Bell questioned why the city considered third reading of the Sixth Street project on June 30, even though it knew it may be following the wrong notification process.
“My view here is public trust has sort of been broken,” he said. “Can we trust you? How did this happen? Will it happen again?”
Bell said he’s curious to know if other B.C. cities have that waived public hearings, as they’re now allowed to do in certain cases, have been following the new notification guidelines – or the old ones, as the City of New Westminster had been doing.
City responds
Killawee responded to a series of questions from the Record about the issue, such as how the city was able to follow the incorrect notification process for more than six months.
“As the city has talked extensively about publically recently, the city has been facing significant resourcing challenges,” she said. “Nevertheless, while we always strive to meet all legislative requirements, in this instance, we fell short. We are examining our processes to ensure a mistake of this nature does not occur again.”
Killawee said the city learned about the error “a little while ago” and corrected it as soon as it could.
“The administrative error was discovered when staff were investigating to answer a question from a resident regarding the city’s process for community input after third reading of a zoning bylaw,” she said. “Once staff discovered that our process was out of alignment with the new section of the Local Government Act, we worked to rectify the issue and have taken the five bylaws impacted back to the legislative starting point.”
Asked why the city considered third reading of Sixth Street project on June 30, even though concerns had been raised about the process, Killawee said: “We are correcting the issue now.”
Killawee said the bylaws were handled as laid out by the province – with the exception of the timing of public notification. Instead of being done between second and third readings of a bylaw, as was previously the case, she said
“They said you need to provide two weeks notice to exactly the same people as we’d been providing notice to previously, in exactly the same way as we’d provided notice to them previously, but we want you to do it before you do any readings; not between second and third, but before you do any readings of this bylaw. And then you can give all three readings of that bylaw on the same day,” she said. ‘So the same notification would go out to the same people. The same length of time for that notification would happen. It’s just when that notification happened.”
Killawee stressed that there was public notification for all five bylaws that have been now been repealed and are slated to be replaced.
“We received two pieces of correspondence during that notification period, accumulative for all five. So there is very little public interest in them,” she said. “But they did receive those notifications. Everybody received them.”
While the city thinks the issue was a minor administrative error, Killawee said it wants to do what’s right and make sure it’s “absolutely to-the-letter correct with the law.”
Killawee said the city works hard on its doing its processes correctly, and demonstrated that by restarting the process for the five bylaws.
“The city is committed to being transparent. When we make errors, we correct them. We work very hard not to make errors,” she said. “These are complex processes. But this is a minor error. Nobody was not notified about these applications. Everybody who needed to be notified was notified. Everybody had the opportunity to provide input. Nothing was done without complete and transparent notification to the public. Nothing was approved without public notification. The question that has arisen is when that notification occurred but the notification happened.”
Follow Theresa McManus on Twitter @TheresaMcManus
Email [email protected]
