Port Moody council narrowly rejects attempt to delay adoption of new environmental building requirements 

A last-ditch attempt to push back adoption of stricter efficiency and emissions requirements for new developments was narrowly defeated at Port Moody council.

Before passing the new bylaw on Sept. 24, Coun. Callan Morrison introduced an amendment to delay the implementation date by six months to June 1, 2025, citing the tight window for the development industry. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 4-3.

Mayor Meghan Lahti, who was the deciding vote, noted no developer had complained about the change.

“We haven’t heard anything from any of the developers,” Lahti said. “We’re kind of like making up something to be upset about.”

Council had approved revising their building requirements on Aug. 20 in order to achieve their climate targets. Port Moody’s Climate Action Plan has set a target of reducing the city’s emissions by 40 percent by 2030 (from 2007), and building emissions account for 46 percent of the city’s total output.

The bylaw update would mandate all new developments be carbon neutral by the start of 2025, and achieve the highest efficiency standards by the start of 2027 – putting the city five years ahead of an update to the BC Building Code in 2032.

It passed by a 5-2 vote, with Couns. Morrison and Diana Dilworth opposing. The issue was then re-debated at the Sept. 24 meeting following Morrison’s amendment, with Coun. Kyla Knowes voting in favour of delaying.

While all said they were supportive of the stronger regulations, Morrison, Dilworth and Knowles said they thought the timeline was unfair to developers, and could impact affordability for home buyers.

Morrison questioned whether Port Moody will even be able to hit its 2030 climate targets, and if progress would be hurt by delaying adoption.

“It’s not going to affect our climate action goals,” Morrison said. “It’s about the environmental side and not necessarily about the people, and that’s who I want this to be about – the people we’re providing housing to, in the most affordable way possible.”

Dilworth said council is giving developers less than four months to get their applications past second reading or pivot to electrical-based systems, stating she cannot remember the city passing a policy with such a short grandfathering window.

She said staff cannot even inform council of how many in-stream units would be affected by the policy, and many projects may require redesigns.

“To say there’s no impact on affordability is just foolhardy,” Dilworth said. “Any delay means money.”

Kate Zannon, Port Moody’s general manager of community development, said staff have not been able to identify any applicants who have said the policy change would be a major concern.

Most developers working with the city have been “quite proactively” trying to ensure their buildings are as energy and carbon efficient as possible, according to Zanon.

She added, however, that a contingency plan is in place, and staff will ask for exemptions for projects that are significantly challenged by the new regulations.

Coun. Amy Lubik noted that Port Moody has been pushing for low-carbon energy systems for years, and most builders have been compliant.

She said staff have been clear that changes will not impact affordability, and the city needs to be sending a signal to the industry that it is a priority for council.

“Yes, we’re giving them four months notice, but we’re also giving them four months notice that we will keep working with you if this is a problem,” Lubik said. “So I don’t think delaying it makes any sense.”

Lahti agreed, stating that larger development coming online are going to use a district energy system.

Staff have previously said the zero-carbon step code will increase construction costs by a range of 0 to 2 percent, noted Coun. Samantha Agtarap.

Knowles, on the other hand, said she thought delay was the appropriate compromise, stating it outweighs the costs of being unable to deliver affordable housing in the short term.

She also noted her concerns with the upcoming provincial election, and what changes could be enacted related to the province’s stance on climate change.

“I would hate for us to be locked into a policy that might not exist in a month from now,” Knowles said. “We are not prioritizing development. We’re prioritizing people who need homes.”

And while city staff may not have heard many concerns from developers about the policy, she said she has.

Dilworth and Morrison both agreed, referencing other municipalities, such as the cities of Vancouver and Richmond, walking back their previous zero-carbon commitments due to development stalling.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki re-emphasized that no concerns to the city have been raised by developers, describing the whole discussion as “embarrassing.”

“There is no tie to this decision and affordability in Port Moody, we’ve heard that,” she said. “The only thing we achieve by delaying this six months is signaling, ‘Hey, we don’t take climate that seriously and we’re going to prioritize the development ahead of everything else.’”

Lahti said that while she did not have a problem with extending the deadline for six month, she did not feel it was necessary.

She added the bylaw changes had been subject to “misinformation” and “fear mongering” spreading around the community, noting that it will only affect new developments.

“We are on the cusp of building a lot of new development,” Lahti said. “It’s important for us to bring these amendments in now.”