Shereen Samimi

My contribution to climate action has taken place through environmental advocacy, volunteer work, academic research, and changes in my own life. I have participated in environmental cleanups and have long been particularly concerned with plastic pollution, ocean and river health, food-system sustainability, and protecting natural ecosystems.

My academic work has increasingly focused on climate and environmental issues. I have researched food waste and the circular economy, ocean acidification, sustainable food systems, environmental justice, and the relationship between environmental conditions and human well-being. This work has shaped how I think about climate action: environmental policy cannot be separated from public health, affordability, or social equity.
In my personal life, I also try to reduce my environmental footprint through choices such as following a predominantly plant-based diet, reducing food waste and unnecessary consumption, and prioritizing reuse and circular-economy principles where possible. I believe individual action matters, particularly because it can establish habits and social norms, but I also recognize its limitations.

That is one reason I am running for City Council. I want to translate my environmental advocacy and research into systemic local action. Municipal decisions about transportation, buildings, land use, waste, tree canopy, waterways, infrastructure, and neighbourhood design can influence emissions and climate resilience at a scale individual choices cannot achieve alone.

For me, climate action means taking responsibility for my own footprint while also advocating for structural changes that make sustainable choices easier and more accessible for everyone.

I support increasing housing supply, but housing cannot be planned in isolation. As Coquitlam grows, we need to build complete communities, where infrastructure, transportation and amenities grow alongside the population.

From a social determinants of health perspective, where we build housing matters. Residents should be able to access groceries, schools, childcare, parks and nature, recreation, community spaces, transit and everyday services close to where they live. Wherever possible, we should also create mixed-use neighbourhoods that bring employment and local businesses closer to residents. Coquitlam's OCP already supports coordinating land use and transportation and creating walkable communities centred around transit.

Transportation also has to be planned alongside density. Adding thousands of residents without ensuring our transportation network can accommodate that growth risks worsening congestion and putting additional pressure on existing neighbourhoods. I would support improving transit, walking and cycling infrastructure while recognizing that many Coquitlam residents will continue to rely on vehicles. Transportation planning needs to occur alongside development, not after congestion has already become a problem.

I would also ensure that development contributes fairly toward the infrastructure its growth requires. Coquitlam already uses Development Cost Charges to help fund transportation, water, sewer, drainage and parks, while Amenity Cost Charges help fund facilities such as community centres, recreation facilities, libraries and public spaces. I support keeping these tools aligned with actual population growth and infrastructure costs.

An affordable home is only part of an affordable community. Residents much easily reach work, food, transit, recreation, nature and essential services.

For this one, I would emphasize that a newly planted tree is not an immediate substitute for a mature tree and then connect that principle to Coquitlam's new 2026 Urban Forest Management Strategy.
Planting new trees is important, but it cannot substitute for protecting healthy mature trees that already provide significant canopy, shade, cooling, habitat, stormwater management and other ecological benefits. My first priority would therefore be retention wherever reasonably possible, with replacement as the second option rather than the default.

Coquitlam adopted its Urban Forest Management Strategy in May 2026, including a measurable 50% citywide canopy target, annual reporting, expanded tree-planting requirements for development, and measures intended to strengthen tree retention and replacement. I support implementing that strategy, but I would also like us to pay particular attention to what happens to mature trees as development increases.

I would support requiring mature trees to be identified early in the development process, before site design is effectively finalized, so opportunities for retention can genuinely influence how a site is designed. When removal cannot reasonably be avoided, replacement should consider the future canopy and ecological value being lost, not simply the number of replacement trees planted. Coquitlam already recognizes that larger-growing replacement species provide greater community value than smaller trees.

I would also support measuring canopy at the neighbourhood level, in addition to the city's 50% overall target. A citywide average can hide significant differences between neighbourhoods, and that perpetuates environmental injustice.

I support Coquitlam moving toward early adoption of higher levels of the Zero Carbon Step Code, with the goal of reaching the highest emissions level, EL-4, ahead of the provincial deadline. However, I would like Coquitlam to think beyond operational emissions and apply circular economy principles to how we build.

Buildings constructed today will be part of our community for decades. Reducing the emissions associated with operating those buildings is important, but a truly sustainable building policy should also consider the materials used to construct them, how long those materials remain useful, how much construction and demolition waste we generate, and what happens to those materials at the end of a building's life.

I would like Coquitlam to explore policies that encourage adaptive reuse, renovation before demolition, deconstruction and material recovery, designing buildings for durability and future adaptability, and greater reuse of construction materials. The goal should be to keep valuable materials in circulation for as long as possible rather than continually following a linear model of extract, build, demolish and dispose. This would build on work Coquitlam is already undertaking.

I also recognize that Coquitlam urgently needs more housing, so implementation of higher Zero Carbon Step Code levels should be predictable and developed with builders, residents and technical experts while monitoring affordability impacts.

Ultimately, I want Coquitlam to ask two questions about new buildings: how little carbon will this building produce while it operates, and how intelligently have we used the materials required to build it?