January 13 Burnaby City Council meeting
Hello readers. It’s a new year, and that means a new way of doing things for Eyes on Council. Last year I reported on what was happening at City Council regarding housing issues in Burnaby. I’ll still be doing that, but I’ll also be adding my gloss on the situation and what I think will happen going forward. I’m also going to try and organize the blog a little more, so each item will be fully separated out from the others to keep things a bit more coherent. The last change is going to be to actively name who’s saying what at council. This isn’t necessarily to give any grief to the councillors and staff, but these are our elected representatives and we do have a right to know what they’re saying as part of the public record, and I think it’s important to see what kinds of issues the councillors present and think about when they’re working through housing issues in Burnaby.
Despite being a relatively short meeting, the January 13 meeting was dominated by housing issues, so let’s get started.
Complex care petition re: 5389 Imperial Street
BC Housing and the provincial government proposed placing a supportive and complex care housing facility in Burnaby, at 5389 Imperial Street. There’s been a lot of public concern about the complex and this will be the second time that it’s come up before council, and the second time that there is significant public concern and backlash to the project. Opponents have flooded the council chambers to voice their opposition, and have included a petition with thousands of signatures opposing the proposal.
Mayor Hurley proposed a motion that BC Housing present a comprehensive public engagement plan to council before any consideration of rezoning or lease of the property. Mayor Hurley noted that the city gets a significant number of complaints about homeless people in public spaces, and that the courts have been very clear that the city cannot move unhoused people from these public spaces unless the city has a place where they can be sheltered. The mayor notes that this is the responsibility of senior governments, and that the 5389 Imperial project is a project of BC Housing and the provincial government. It is therefore their job to liaise with the community in a meaningful way to reassure the community that they can successfully manage these supportive housing buildings. This motion is carried, and the initial petitions will be sent to BC Housing as requested by Councillor Wang.
Councillor Lee had two separate motions regarding the housing facility. The first was a declaration of procedural deficiency, arguing that BC Housing and the provincial government had not done a good enough job reaching out to the community to address the concerns of local residents. Councillor Lee’s motion notes that engagement by BC Housing was limited to a small geographic area immediately surrounding the proposed facility, even though the project will have an effect on a much larger part of the community, and that those who are potentially affected should have an opportunity to speak to the project. Specifically, Councillor Lee’s motion requires BC Housing to conduct engagement with residents within five kilometers of the proposed project. The motion also requires the city to remind senior governments of the expected level of engagement for public projects within Burnaby.
The motion was tabled by council, citing the mayor’s previous motion that effectively covers much of what was in Councillor Lee’s motion to council.
The second motion was to suspend further municipal action regarding the proposed care facility due to inconsistencies between public statements made by municipal elected officials and the directions that council staff were given. Councillor Lee noted that council had provided authorization to proceed with negotiations, but that subsequent to that, the mayor indicated that city staff had been directed not to communicate with BC Housing regarding the proposal until community engagement had taken place. Councillor Lee’s motion also notes inconsistencies and incomplete information about the process has led to a reduction in public trust regarding the proposed supportive housing complex.
Councillor Lee’s motion requires council to acknowledge the inconsistency between what was voted on and what was publicly stated, declare there was procedural unfairness in the site selection process, formally cease negotiations with BC Housing on the proposed site, create criteria for future project selection processes and clarify how previous council motions were interpreted by city staff. The motion was not seconded, and therefore not debated by council.
I’m going to preface my comments about this by saying that I’m a strong supporter of community integrated housing, and that includes housing for people with complex health needs. There’s been endless commentary in Metro Vancouver and Burnaby specifically about unhoused people and how to support them, going back at least a decade when comments made by the previous mayor caused a furor in the community. Mayor Hurley correctly points out that the city is limited in what they can do to support the unhoused population or remove them from public spaces if there aren’t any shelters or housing for them.
This housing complex from BC Housing is an attempt to at least start addressing the problem. It’s recognizing that there are legal requirements in place and it’s attempting to address a societal problem in a humane manner, and it’s been completely taken apart in social media and other online commentary about what’s being proposed at the complex. Mayor Hurley’s motion to require a comprehensive public engagement plan from BC Housing is a good and welcome step, but at this point its completely irrelevant. The public’s imagination has been hard-wired to assume the absolute worst about this project, and there’s no consultation process that’s going to convince people screaming about keeping drug houses out of their neighbourhood that’s going to convince local residents to support this project, or even to dampen their outright hostility to the project. I would imagine with council voting to demand a consultation process, this project will get buried in opposition and quietly get withdrawn. This is ultimately to the detriment of the city, and I hope that at some point in the future once the outrage over this facility dies down, another attempt is made that includes far more comprehensive public outreach and a media strategy to ensure that this kind of supportive housing can be built in Burnaby.
Non-residential zoning districts
Burnaby City Council, as part of the changes to the official community plan and the OCP 2050 plan, has been working to create numerous new zoning categories that better accomplish what city council is trying to accomplish with their growth plan. Previously in 2025, city council was able to complete the process of defining what the residential zones will look like and what their individual purposes will be. This bylaw amendment is meant to clarify and create the new non-residential zones for commercial, industrial, parkland, agricultural and institutional zones. These will include definitions of what the land can be used for as both its primary purpose and any allowable secondary purposes that the land can be used for.
Councillor Tetrault noted that there were improvements made to where self-storage can be situated, in particular noting that it wasn’t the best use of land space for transit oriented development and that it’s not an ideal use of ground floor space in industrial areas. Councillor Tetrault also asked how primary and secondary use would be differentiated and what that would look like. He suggested that the designations would allow for much more mixed use of zoned districts, and that the goal would be to create more complete communities, even through industrial areas. Staff supported that this was in line with what they were looking to do, and that this would also allow businesses to expand and create complementary secondary uses that may not have been originally intended through the original zoning that would expand the scope of services offered by any individual business.
Councillor Tetrault also asked if there were any ability through the bylaw amendments to require or prevent certain uses at ground level for these new zoning developments. The concern was that, especially in new developments, ground level use was being bought up by businesses that could better be used on the second floor of a development. Staff indicated that there are such restrictions, though less of that in these non-residential zoning bylaw amendments.
Councillor Dhaliwal asked about the industrial bylaw and how different uses are being proposed, and how parking trucks and storage is zoned and whether there will be a differentiation between light and heavy industry. His concern was whether there would be a provision for industrial zoning require truck parking and storage of heavy equipment for tradepeople who are working in Burnaby. Staff noted that there were multiple zones that were amalgamated into the single industrial district, but that there were sub-districts that could be used for heavy industrial types of uses that require specific considerations or conditions of use for approval, or separation from other things. Staff also noted that the bylaw rewrite was to give as much flexibility as needed for the industrial zones to work as industrial zones, and not to be redeveloped into other residential or commercial zones. There would be more flexibility for commercial fleet parking in the industrial zone. The intent of the new district is to be less prescriptive and more flexible about which trades can park and use those zones. Staff noted there’s nothing in the proposed bylaw that would prevent an applicant from being able to provide parking that they would need for their industrial application.
Councillor Dhaliwal followed up by asking if there’s been any outreach to industry about what their needs are, especially as the OCP is meant to project out for the next 25 years. Staff indicated that there have been some interactions with individual business owners to be aware of what their needs are. Staff also suggested that fleet parking and other storage could be an acceptable secondary use of the property, as long as it directly aligns with the primary use of the property and industrial zone.
Councillor Gu asked about primary and secondary use definitions, and that sometimes those definitions have clear delineation of square footage use or other direct measurements, and asked how the city would regulate primary versus secondary use when those direct measurements are not available or appropriate. Staff said there’s no real floor area usage number and that it’s meant to provide more flexibility. Staff also suggested that in the future there may be a need to provide thresholds but right now there’s no need to have arbitrary requirements, and that the secondary use is something that has to be related to the primary use in some way, and that it could not exist on its own on the property.
Councillor Gu noted that there’s a scarcity of industrial land, and that this lack of firm commitment of what is primary and secondary use can have a negative impact on the use of industrial land. In particular, concerns about how some other forms of land usage could increase the price of land and make it difficult to use the land for its intended purpose. Councillor Gu suggested that a solution would be to add an overlay that you meet the institution or industrial zoning first, before achieving market rentals or other secondary uses of the land, or to have clearer descriptions of what primary and secondary use of the zoned land would be. Councillor Gu also noted that the proposed regulations would not be enough to protect A1 agricultural land and more regulation needed around building residential in this area.
Councillor Lee asked about the Agricultural Land Reserve and how minimum permitted lot size within ALR would be 220,000 square meters and that outside the ALR would be 5,000 square meters. Councillor Lee asked if this was a provincial requirement. Staff indicated that the Agricultural Land Commission gives final approval for any subdivisions within the ALR, and that staff chose the lot size in question to protect existing agricultural land from subdivision except for the largest lots. Councillor Lee then asked if there would be any grandfathering of lots, and staff indicated that they would be allowed to develop within the existing bylaws. Staff indicated that the subdivision regulation would only apply to the largest properties.
Councillor Lee then asked about school sites and potential school sites. He wanted to know what would happen if someone had a townhouse development and then it was overlaid with a school designation what would happen. Staff indicated that the OCP would still permit the residential use, but if you want to use it for institutional purposes it would have to be for a school, meaning that residential could still be built. Staff indicated the school would have to acquire the land and go through rezoning before building the school, and that potential rezoning strategies would be brought back to council later in the year.
Councillor Calendino asked about building residential on agricultural land and how in other cities we see very large residential structures being built with associated secondary buildings, and whether the Burnaby bylaw limits the size of residential buildings that can be built in agricultural plots. Staff indicated that under existing bylaw, they can permit up to 500 square meters in floor area, no lot coverage conditions or restraints other than being 2.5 storeys in height. That 500 square meter aligns with provincial ALR regulations. New bylaw keeps 500 square meter value, but it applies to all single family residential and the accessory buildings, meaning each building will be smaller. The new bylaw also set value of 250 square meter footprint, or about 2700 square feet for the single-family dwelling and the accessory building. Staff stated it would be a total of about 5300 square feet of buildable area, which is smaller than other nearby municipalities.
Councillor Calendino also asked about mixed use industrial properites, noting that Metro Vancouver wouldn’t be opposed to seeing light industrial with residential on top within transit-oriented development areas. Staff indicated that employment districts would be permitted but not necessarily industrial, and ground level must be principal employment use. A portion of the rental units would also have to meet the affordability levels of inclusionary housing bylaws. Councillor Calendino asked to clarify that within the 200-meter radius of skytrains whether there would be any heavy industry zoning, or if it would just be employment zoning and staff indicated that was correct, though there are some heavy industrial uses in the city.
Councillor Gu asked about recycling and waste processing facility criteria and how they must be on publicly owned or operated lands. Staff indicated that they didn’t want to see a privately operated facility that may have less review, and to support municipal oriented waste disposal facilities. Bylaws would still allow for smaller scale recycling but larger scale sites would not be allowed under the proposed bylaws. Councillor Gu asked what the implications would be if there were to be subsidies for private facilities that were on publicly owned and operated lands and how those lands could be taken advantage of by those operators. Councillor Gu also indicated that the siting of the land may be more important than the ownership of the land.
Councillor Dhaliwal commented on employment and industrial zoning setbacks, and how they have been reduced to a one-third of what they used to be under the previous bylaws. Councillor Dhaliwal noted that there’s no current restriction on how much of the lot can be built on, and had concerns about whether it is appropriate to not necessarily space for landscaping or a tree canopy on the lot. Councillor Dhaliwal asked if there were any discussions about what impacts there would be about losing some of this green space. Staff indicated that there were consultations about how industrial and employment sites were used. Most of the zones went through a comprehensive development process that allows the city more of a say in how those setbacks are used. For individual zoning most of those setbacks are already paved, but city will have an opportunity to say how the setbacks are suitably landscaped through other parts of the bylaw and regulations. Staff noted that the tree bylaw coming out of the urban forestry strategy that will also impact development, and development permit guidelines will further impact development.
Councillor Dhaliwal noted that the OCP talked about having adequate space for tree canopy and other green spaces on lots, but this bylaw proposal is the first time seeing what the setbacks are for these zones, and asked when the public would see those setbacks if there’s no public consultation. Councillor Dhaliwal wanted to see a reasonable explanation for why the lowest standard of setback was being used as the standard, and that the city should be prepared to receive zoning applications that will cover as much of the buildable land as possible, except for the required setbacks because there’s no maximum coverage of the lot within the bylaw. Councillor Dhaliwal wanted to see a process that did not rely on CD zoning or staff discretion. Staff indicated that the proposed industrial district setbacks align with heavy industry setbacks, and that the major changes are for the employment districts. Staff also indicated they will be bringing in an interim measure focused on residential districts, but that pervious surface requirements come from the next phase of the zoning bylaw rewrite process. Those supplemental regulations will be what will determine how much of the lot can be impermeable construction.
Councillor Lee also noted that setbacks could be an issue if there’s no public hearing. A public hearing could be an opportunity to hear back from stakeholders, and wanted to know if there was a possibility of more input so that bylaws and regulations could be less of a concern for industry.
Councillor Dhaliwal spoke to the recommendations regarding the report and the need for a public hearing. The staff recommendation was that there not be a public hearing regarding these changes to the bylaws, as they are consistent with the OCP 2050 plan which has already gone through public hearings and consultations. Councillor Dhaliwal noted that this is the first time that anyone has seen the bylaws and how they would change the way zoning is done, and asked how the public would be able to see this information and comment on it if not through a public hearing. Staff responded that they had consulted broadly about the needs of industry in Burnaby, and heard from them again at the mayor’s task force. Staff then translated that into what became the OCP and that this is the first time anyone has seen specific setback requirements, but that it’s not alien to most of the development under the current industrial districts. Staff also noted that other issues related on biodiversity and greenspace can be addressed through other phases of the zoning bylaw rewrite, and that it doesn’t have to be regulated through the setback regulations suggested by these new bylaw changes. Staff suggested that they had heard from industrial users and what their needs are, and that these changes are not significant enough to warrant a public hearing and that there wouldn’t be interest from industry or the wider community.
Mayor Hurley asked for a motion to refer the report back to committee to get more information from staff, in part because this was the first time this information was being brought forward to council. The motion was approved and staff will report back with additional information at a later council meeting.
There’s a lot to unpack in all of this, but I thought this was forty minutes of Council doing a really good job of trying to wrap their heads around what’s going to be really significant changes in the zoning process in Burnaby. Amalgamating previous zones into these five remaining non-residential zones is going to require a lot of finesse to ensure that currently acceptable land usage is given continuity in the new zones, or that a grandfathering system is adequately put into place to ensure there aren’t massive disruptions in current economic activity in the city.
I’m very interested in how determinations of primary and secondary use are determined for a zoning district, and think that this needs to be quantified in some way. My initial thought is that the secondary use should almost appear as at a future date as an amendment to the original rezoning application that a lot might go through, in order to obtain that secondary use designation, but I do think that something has to be done to ensure there’s an orderly process for how primary and secondary uses are determined. I’m also not entirely sure that housing is going to end up being one of those commonly determined secondary uses. I know that there’s a lot of thought being put into the idea of creating complete communities and there is something to that, but I have a hard time believing that people are going to choose to build homes in active industrial lands.
There was a lot of discussion about different setbacks and how to use the rezoning process to control for landscaping and other greenspace, and I think my biggest concern is from staff stating that they’re going come back later in the year with additional changes to the zoning bylaws that will be a more exact tool that council can use to try and ensure adequate greenspace and permeability on each lot. We saw in 2025 that each time an amendment came forward for small scale multi-unit housing that it prompted a public hearing and a significant amount of public pressure; it seems foolish to invite the same kind of process when staff and council could wait and create a comprehensive set of bylaw amendments that could be dealt with all at once, instead of piecemeal and subject to several different public hearing processes.
Buller Avenue rezoning application
A rezoning application came through the planning and development committee for an eight storey rental tower along Buller Avenue and Beresford Street. The proposal is for 183 market rental units to be constructed in a transit oriented development area. The plan was originally proposed under the previous zoning bylaw and has been resubmitted under the new residential zoning bylaws passed by council in 2025. Of note for the development is that it proposes only 0.29 parking spaces per dwelling unit, but includes a significant number of subsidies including $1000 per dwelling unit to subsidize purchases of two-zone transit passes, $500 per unit in car-share credits and a communications strategy for non-private vehicle transportation options. The application was approved for first and second reading at a future council meeting.
I’m excited about this project. As with other developments, there will likely be a component of below-market rental units that are eventually added to the project, and I love the idea of subsidizing transit options that aren’t a parking spot for private use in the building.
That’s all for this council meeting, and I’m really sorry it took so long to get this post out. The next council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 27th so I’ll try to have that one out by the end of January.
