Monthly Update - January 2026

A new year, January updates and commentary

Author

Samantha Agtarap
February 03, 2026

Dear readers,

As we are now one month into the new year, I have several updates on Council business.

I had intended to include a recap of 2025 initiatives and motions, but it’s not in this edition due to other timely topics. I will provide an update on that soon. In the meantime, if you missed my earlier post Budget Consultation Revenue Ideas, you can find that post here.

Reminder: tonight (Feb 3) is the public hearing for the Official Community Plan. Instructions on how to participate can be found on the publicly available agenda package [link].

In this newsletter:

Council Highlights

Previously, I was sharing emails from the city manager that summarized Council activities and decisions. Now, we also have a webpage called Council Highlights that shares the “Coles’ notes” version of the most recent council meeting, along with links to the relevant video and agenda sections. I hope this helps make finding information easier for folks who are interested.

  • The city is off Twitter/X (Jan 13): I introduced this motion at the Jan 13 meeting, asking my colleagues to amend the agenda, which they graciously did, to add a motion to cease using X. This was unanimously supported, and on Jan 14, the city issued a statement about it.

  • Continuation of the budget discussion (Jan 22): This was my first meeting as Chair of the Finance Committee. Through discussion, we reduced the provisional budget increase to 4.25%. You can read more here.

  • Online resource: Council Highlights. This webpage shares the “Coles’ notes” version of the most recent council meeting, along with links to the relevant video and agenda sections. Past meetings are at the bottom of the page.

Task Force on Social Media Guidelines

Last week, the Mayor announced the creation of the Mayor’s Task Force on Public and Social Media Communications Guidelines for Elected Officials and Candidates, created by a motion of council. The intent is to develop non-binding guidelines that encourage respectful and professional dialogue online while protecting robust debate. 

Over the weekend, the appointed Chair shared serious concerns about the process, timing and potential impacts on public discourse. I don’t agree with the conclusions, but I do take these concerns seriously.  

It’s also worth noting that this Council has convened similar advisory task forces in recent years on Arts and Business, using the same appointment process under the Community Charter. Municipalities like Kingsville, Ontario and Devon, Alberta already use similar voluntary guidelines to set professional expectations without limiting speech.

As the Vice-Chair, my focus will be on ensuring that the work of the committee is practical, evidence-based and clearly aimed at supporting democratic engagement. I will not support vague, punitive or partisan recommendations.

All Task Force meetings are open to the public with agendas and minutes posted online, as we do with any other committee. Residents can expect clear updates on our work, and a final set of recommendations will be presented to Council for full discussion.

Investing time in improving the quality of our public communications is not a distraction; it is foundational to maintaining the public trust necessary to advance all other priorities successfully.

The first agenda can be viewed here. I look forward to working with all members of the Task Force.

Clarification of My Position on Bylaw 3525 Anthem Properties (Moody Centre TOD)

At the January 27, Council supported the first reading of Bylaw No. 3525 – Rezoning (Moody Centre TOD) – 2914-2934 St. Johns Street, 85-87 Williams Street, and 2911-2925 Spring Street (Anthem Properties) with specific comments and a request for a modest compromise before final adoption.

While I appreciate that this is 100% rental building, which includes 321 units and significant commercial space, supporting an estimated 175 jobs, my support at first reading was conditional. My primary concern is the size of 3-bedroom units, intended for families.

Brief Background

On March 18, 2025, during the City Initiatives and Planning Committee (CIPC) review for early input, Council advised that unit sizes should reflect the minimums outlined in the BC Housing Design Guidelines and Construction Standards, which, in my opinion, is a reasonable benchmark in the absence of a municipal policy: Unit sizes should be updated to reflect minimum sizes as outlined in the BC Housing Design Guidelines and Construction Standards.

The applicant’s response showed a significant shortfall in the 3-bedroom size:

  • 100% of the studio units meet minimum size

  • 90% of the one-bedroom units meet minimum size

  • 94% of the two-bedroom units meet minimum size

  • Only 12% of the three-bedroom units meet minimum size

Benchmarking and Personal Perspective

In preparation for the meeting, I reviewed policies from local municipalities:

From personal experience living as a family of four in 83.8 m2 (902 ft2 ), I know smaller units can be functional with clever design. However, I believe units significantly smaller than 900 ft2 for 3-bedrooms are not ideal for long-term family liveability.

Given the lack of a formal policy, I proposed what I thought was a reasonable compromise: 50% of 3-bedrooms be designed to meet BC Housing Guidelines. Council supported this direction, and the first reading was passed with two other design-related comments. I look forward to reviewing the revised proposal that addresses this point.

Some community members have expressed the view that Council should not “get into the weeds” of an application. I respect this perspective. I see my role differently: not to judge the commercial viability, but to guide applications toward better alignment with our formal feedback. Improving the liveability of family units, even in the absence of a formal bylaw or policy, is consistent with that guiding function, in my opinion.

OCP Compliant Applications = No Public Hearing

At the January 27 meeting, during the discussion of the Anthem application, I asked staff to clarify some apparent confusion regarding public hearings, the Provincial Transit Oriented Area (TOA) legislation and compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP).

For clarity, provincial legislation states: A local government must not hold a public hearing if a proposed zoning bylaw is consistent with the official community plan (OCP) in effect for the area.

There was the following question (paraphrased): Is there any piece of provincial legislation that requires Council to approve this development?

Staff replied:”…You cannot defeat an application due to height and density, but if there are other policies that it’s not meeting, you could request changes or defeat that bylaw.” [This is referencing the TOA legislation, which provides height and density entitlements based on distance from transit stations.]

The follow-up question asked about the height of the application (again, paraphrasing): The application is 26 storeys, so it exceeds the provincial TOA legislation (20 storeys within 200 m), so the TOA legislation doesn’t apply.

There was more back and forth between staff and council regarding the TOA legislation, which “set[s] out details such as the minimum allowable density and applicable distance from the stations." [Watch the full discussion here]

It is important to distinguish between these two separate matters:

  1. The OCP (2017), which is being used to assess the project’s compliance. Because the project is consistent with the 2017 OCP, a public hearing is not permitted.

  2. The TOA legislation, which sets provincial minimums for height and density near transit stations.

In this case, the TOA legislation is not relevant because the project complies with our current OCP, which already permits greater height than the TOA minimums. If, however, our OCP allowed a lower height and density than the TOA minimums, the provincial standards would apply, and Council could not refuse the project solely on height or density. We can refuse if it does not meet other policies, like stream setbacks, etc.

I hope this example and explanation clarify the relationship between our OCP and provincial TOA legislation. For full context, I encourage everyone to watch the meeting’s recorded video for the complete discussion on this item.

Other useful things

  • Real Acts of Caring is February 8 - 14. Learn more here.

  • Do you need a doctor? Register at the Health Connect Registry. The ministry uses this to measure need in a region. Signing up helps to demonstrate that primary care physicians are needed in specific areas.

  • Have you signed up for the Port Moody Events Newsletter? If not, email [email protected]. (I am not affiliated with the newsletter, just sharing a community resource.)