Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Well, after about 17 years, the city of Vancouver finally got an experienced city manager. The previous manager did not have any previous experience in municipal governments in BC. At one time, Vancouver had the best city managers and staff in BC. Fritz Bauer served as city manager from 1977 to 1990, and in my opinion, he was the best. The new city manager, who is absent tonight, I presume, he knows all the questions that you ask, he could have answered if he was here instead of the staff, because Pretty much none of these staff worked at any municipalities, but that new city manager... Nathan, Nathan, Nathan. Okay, don't worry about it. The city manager knows all the answers.

neighborhoods and by UBC professor Patrick Condon. While the BC government deadline is June 38th, There could be an extension. There's been many deadlines on many acts of the provincial government that they've made. They changed the dates. And I've posted some comments on the city website comparing Vancouver ODP to OCPs in Victoria, Kelowna, and Surrey. Just look at the little information provided on sustainable transportation. Only about four pages. City staff just copied the bad, unambitious Transport 2050 report from TransLink. TransLink credibility is the same or even worse than BC Transit credibility. On March 1st, 2026, the editor of the Time Colonist in Victoria called these transit planners amateurs. The city, TransLink, BC Transit, and the BC government should use world experts instead of amateurs. Tonight, there is a citizens' meeting on transit in Victoria with international expert Todd Littman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Since 2019, transit ridership per capita in Metro Vancouver has gone down from about 100 If this is not a definite sign of the failure of our transit system, I don't know what it is. Look how successful the Whistler transit system is because the city council there is supportive of transit. Vancouver City Council has not made transportation a priority. Read the March 2nd, 2026 comments by the mayor of Kelowna.

Registered. What?

I'm not out of time.

Thank you. Hello, Mayor Sim and Councillors. My name is Laura Carey. I'm the Executive Director of Vancouver Heritage Foundation, one of your civic agencies. I am a Vancouver resident. I am opposed to the current draft of the ODP. I have concerns about the absence of heritage conservation in the draft document. The City of Vancouver has a robust heritage program that is not reflected in the ODP. The content specifies some cultural heritage priorities, which is, of course, a step in the right direction, but completely neglects addressing heritage conservation. The sole mention of the term heritage conservation in the entire document occurs on page 156 in reference to direction 8.3 in heritage stewardship policy. 8.3.5, which is to encourage heritage conservation, including through adaptive reuse of historic buildings and accommodating arts, cultural and community serving uses whenever possible. This policy is a surface level observation, and the ODP does not reflect or incorporate relevant material from the Vancouver Heritage Program. The Heritage Program is only mentioned twice in the ODP, neither time with any specificity. Heritage conservation is not a sentimental exercise. It's practical for environmental and economic reasons. The heritage adage that the greenest building is the one that is already built are words that should carry weight in the context of Vancouver's green goal. Heritage conservation is urgent. Once it is gone, the loss cannot be reversed. The heritage that makes up Vancouver's unique identity as a city is fragile and needs to be protected from rapid change. If heritage conservation remains a priority for the city of Vancouver, Why is it not addressed in the ODP? If heritage conservation policies are not codified in the document, the message is that heritage conservation does not matter in the next 30 years of land use planning. With all due respect to the staff for all the work they've put into the document, I urge Council not to pass the draft ODP as is and return it to the Heritage Planning Department for further input with the goal of integrating existing heritage conservation policies from the Heritage Program into the ODP. Thank you, Mayor Sim and Councillors, for your time.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I still live in Vancouver right now, and I don't support the current ODP in its... Well, I don't support the ODP in this current form. While I understand the sense of urgency given the deadlines imposed by the province. I still don't think this plan is ready for primetime. This document goes far beyond what the province requires for the detriment of local democracy. Not that I think you care about it anyway, regardless of your ability to get reelected. First, this is gold plating. The city is implementing BC zoning bills far more literally than required, creating capacity that exceeds our 20-year housing need. By codifying this fuzzy 2022 Vancouver plan into binding generalized land use maps, you're creating a legal mechanism to bypass future public hearings although this is probably something that those so-called housing advocates would clap for once this map is adopted any development deemed consistent with it will move forward without public input this plan is also a catalyst for land speculation We're already seeing aggressive land assemblies by numbered companies in proposed villages, village zones. This inflation doesn't create affordability. It. Triggers the demolition for of existing low house, low cost housing. Furthermore, the city's own report admits to a significant infrastructure renewal funding deficit. So you're planning for massive density without a funded roadmap for the sewage backlog, lack of parks, and lack of schools, not to mention that you guys are selling off school properties required to support it, unless you're assuming that the occupants are all international students and temporary foreign workers who don't need those things. Third, the data used to justify this scale of expansion is compromised. Instead of using government data, you're using data from the real estate firm Rennie. If you're doing this, why don't we just let Rennie be the city council instead of you guys here? Anyway, these projections are substantially higher than regional norms. Our current development pipeline is already sufficient to meet growth targets until 2034, rendering these extreme capacity expansions unnecessary. The lack of transparency is unacceptable. This plan affects 100,000 land parcels, yet there's no direct mail notification to the residents and renters whose lives will be upended. You may have all brought this as expropriation and stealth. This ODP is an unfunded, speculative leap based on private sector data that erodes democratic oversight. I urge you to refer this back to the staff for a meaningful participatory process that puts citizens before speculators.

There should be a presentation. Thank you.

My name is Russell Wong. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I don't work in real estate or development. I'm speaking in support of the official development plan. I think the ODP is long overdue. Back in the mid-'80s, the BC government pushed municipalities to adopt official community plans to plan for growth and to ensure that planning decisions wouldn't end up being made on the fly. Forty years later, Vancouver still doesn't have a citywide plan. As I understand it, the ODP is basically the same as the Vancouver Plan passed by the previous Council in July 2022. I read through the whole thing and a lot of the text is exactly the same. The main benefit of making it an official development plan is that a project consistent with the ODP won't have to go through a public hearing. Almost every public hearing turns into a kind of miniature political battle over how much housing to build. I think it makes much more sense to do this as a citywide policy rather than having the same battle over and over again over every individual project. Next slide, please.

I understand that there's an open letter from 30 housing experts, mostly retired planners, saying that Vancouver doesn't need that much additional housing. I find this very puzzling because there's lots of people who want to live and work here. People move where the jobs are. And Vancouver's a nice place to live with mild weather, so lots of people also want to retire here. Whenever somebody retires from a job in Vancouver... Say they worked as a nurse or they worked as a doctor. Somebody else needs to move here to fill that job. Because we have an older population, we also need a lot of people to work in health care. So the city needs to grow. Land in Metro Vancouver is limited because of the ocean and the mountains. So to add housing, we need to build up. And land in Vancouver is also extremely underused, as you can see from the picture. Most of the land in the city of Vancouver is currently reserved for low-density housing. Next slide, please. This is a 3D zoning map by Robert White. It includes renderings for rezoning applications. It doesn't appear to be completely comprehensive, but it does show that most of the rezoning applications underway are limited to a very small part of the city. Next slide, please. An alternative to only building high-rises in a relatively small area would be to allow four to six-story buildings everywhere. There was a poll of Vancouverites in December, and that was the most popular option. In Montreal, for example, you see a lot of three- and four-story apartment buildings on a single lot with one family-sized flat per floor. This policy would have a lot of advantages compared to the ODP, which still restricts a lot of the residential land to no more than 1.0 FSR. But at this point, that would require a significant change to the ODP. At this point, I think it would be reasonable to pass the ODP more or less as is and to leave anything beyond that to the next council. Thank you.

My name is Brendan Bostrovansky. I'm a commissioner on the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. So my position on the plan, I'll have it done as the other. So it's not opposition. And I support the direction of the official development plan. Vancouver needs housing. We need more people living near jobs and transit. But I can't support adopting this plan without stronger coordination and commitments for parks and recreation infrastructure. The Park Board has not been involved in the development of the official development plan. And so this plan locks in growth for decades, but it does not lock in the parks and recreation infrastructure required to support that growth. Community centers, sports fields, and pools are not optional amenities. They're core civic infrastructure. Growth planning and recreation planning must move together. In the 1964 Vancouver Natural History Society talk, the point was made simply. Wherever there is an increase in population, parks should be established as they are the lungs of the city. That observation still holds today. Parks are not simply land use. The public health infrastructure, climate resilience infrastructure, and the shared space for community life happens. Growth creates demand and citizens need breathing room. Vancouver already has a densest area in downtown in Canada. In the 2021 census, Vancouver had 18,837 people per square kilometer. And we all want the same thing, a growing city that remains livable. And livability is not at the core of this development plan. These concerns are not theoretical. They're reflected in the city's own planning and oversight reports. The city's auditor general recently reviewed how Vancouver manages recreation facilities and found that the city and park board do not currently have a comprehensive capital asset management framework for recreation infrastructure. The audit also found that service level targets and performance indicators for recreation facilities are not consistently defined or reported. In other words, we do not yet have a clear system that ties population growth, infrastructure capacity, and long-term capital planning together. And that gap matters because when population increases but facilities stay fixed, access shrinks. That is not a theory. People already feel the shortage. On registration day, recreation programs can fill in minutes. Parents are left wondering whether their kids will get a spot because capacity is already maxed out. A recreation system is already operating at or near capacity in many neighborhoods. And Vancouver has used measurable standards before. Van Play identified 1.1 hectares per 1,000 residents. In the Broadway plan, there's only a third of a hectare of park space per 1,000 residents. They need 13 more hectares of new parkland to satisfy that in the Broadway plan. And even van play, they identify ways that you can measure it. 105 hours of use for sports turf field. And within the community center strategy, there should be 1.2 square feet of community center space per resident citywide. And as that density grows, that per person space shrinks unless council expands it and funds it. Equity and recreation is not abstract. It's whether a child can access swim lessons, whether youth teams can book field time, and whether community programs remain accessible. And recreation is where kids build confidence. Seniors maintain independence and neighbors meet each other. And people can live with change. What they can't live with is being asked to believe this is all going to get better while programs fill up faster and fields stay overbooked. So before adopting this plan, I asked council to strengthen it in three ways. First, implement the Auditor General's recommendation to establish a comprehensive asset management framework for recreation facilities. Don't tie long-term planning for parks and rec infrastructure in the population growth. Publish an annual public scorecard so residents can track whether parks and recreation capacity is keeping pace with that growth. And report clear capacity measures, including park space and community center space per resident. Livability should be measured with the same clarity that we measure density. And if we can't measure it, we can't manage it. If we can't manage it, we can't ensure that Parks and Recreation keep pace with the growths envisioned in this official development plan. So I'm asking council to include Park Board in this and lock in the needs of Parks and Rec with the people.

thank you thanks very much our next speaker is peter dowdy hello hey peter my name is peter dowdy hi my name is peter dowdy i'm a resident of vancouver and a member of the vancouver area neighbors association i'm calling in to support this proposal A few decades ago, the city downzoned most of its land. And since then, our zoning system has only gotten Byzantine and complex. There are now hundreds of different zones. And what's really going on is really a distortion of what zoning was intended to accomplish. It's what CMHC economist Jens von Bergman calls fiscal zoning. artificially restricting the zoning of most of the city so that giving that zoning back can serve as a source of revenue. And revenue includes non-cash policies like public realm improvements or inclusionary zoning. Vancouver, as a result of these changes, stopped building much housing for a very long time. These kinds of discretionary measures are basically taxes. They raise the cost of building, and that means that rents need to get higher in order to make it possible to build. Eventually, late in the Gregor Robertson mayoralty, rents reached a level so extreme that they could overcome this enormous bureaucratic firewall that we built up over the decades. We started building again, and rents have started falling. Someone recently said that all of these extractions, all of these conditions, all of these concessions are ultimately paid for by renters. And that's true. Affordability is the currency that we spend to buy all of this discretionary power that we have over our housing market. So renters pay for it. Some of it is warranted. Renters are paying for sprinklers. Sprinklers save lives. Taking five years of approvals in order to build a mixed-use, low-rise apartment does not save lives. Is it really worth it? This is one small step towards fixing that, towards moving towards a land-use regime that's based on rules. It's not enough. So much of the land in this plan is still subject to this artificially restrictive fiscal zoning that is causing our neighborhood to wither and shooting our rents up through the roof. But if we can do this, if we can then commit to land use reform on the back of this plan, maybe eventually we can create a system of land use that is based on rules and not on deals. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kay, and I am a resident of Vancouver. I generally support the ODP and the allusions to higher density, but I feel there is much more that needs to be done in light of the severity and urgency of the housing crisis. In the next five minutes, I want to remind everybody how expensive it is living here, speak a little bit about the consequences of this on affordability, and offer a few suggestions. I would like to start a family in here. And let's not even get into renting. Let's say I want to buy. The bare minimum I would need to afford a compact 800 square foot two bedroom, I would say this is a minimum, is mid to low end $800,000. With a 10% down at 4.5% interest, mortgage would roughly be $4,600, including property tax, strata, et cetera. Combined shelter is $5,600, roughly. To be able to afford this at the age-old rule of 30% of take-home income, I would need a combined household income of $220,000. Now, if that home was built in the last few years, the developer may have paid $100,000 or more per unit just for the right to obtain the right to build that condo. Now, we know that developers are not paying these fees out of the goodness of their heart. They pass on these costs to the buyer. If the market does not have the appetite to bear the cost, the developer will simply not build the project, as we have seen with the construction slowdowns recently. In those cases where the buyers have borne $100,000 per unit, that is equivalent to more than 10 years worth of property tax of a $2 million home. Now, I know this fee varies, but I also know that this $100,000 per unit levy is not out of the ordinary and not at the highest end of the spectrum. So while I was reviewing the ODP, I noticed two of its foundational principles are equity and resilience. So I ask myself, does this seem equitable? Is it fair that a first-time homebuyer must be in the roughly 90 to 95th percentile of earners to afford property in the city? Are development fees this high, costs that are directly passed on to the buyers, a fair way of distributing the municipal tax burden? Is this a resilient way of funding city services? As we have seen with new construction pools, the city appears to be running ever higher budget deficits. And what are the consequences of the unaffordability? High rates of homelessness, health care and other essential workers being pushed out of the region. The spirit and culture of the city feels hollow. Prospects of settling down are bleak, and young people start to feel transient and apathetic. Those who stay in the region are pushed to live further out, to afford homes with sufficient living space, and to commute for longer and to clog up the roads with cars. In truth, I will probably be one of those people. I cannot stay in the city of Vancouver. Because in the long term, I cannot afford it. I'm here today to speak for those who may come after me. I believe that supply is one of the only meaningful levers the city has to alleviate the housing crisis. And I recognize that the housing supply is still, for the most part, gatekept by fees, zoning, bureaucracy, and a public consultation process that disproportionately over-represents those who are already housing secure. I think the ODP is a good step forward, but I'd like to see the following changes as part of an expanded scope and or as part of future measures. A timeline for city-initiated rezonings. less taxes on first-time homebuyers in the form of development fees, more outright approvals of low- and mid-rise apartments within respective zoning schedules, relaxation of restrictive SFR limits and setback for low-rise apartments and other forms of missing middle housing. And finally, I would like to see some more honesty. The city of Vancouver has one of the most expensive and restrictive housing regimes in the world. If it does not want to do what it must do to make housing truly affordable, at least please stop pretending you care about equity. Thank you.

My name is Michelle Spencer. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I will be speaking in favor of the official development plan. This plan creates one cohesive planning document, providing clarity and simplifying the approach to development. Once this plan is accepted, many forms of housing will no longer need to go through a costly and time-consuming public hearing. Treating every apartment building as though it is unique and has contributed to the housing crisis we face today. We've built a system that requires many buildings to be treated as exceptions to the rule. I would have liked to see a document like this provide the zoning for these areas, but this still represents an improvement over our current system. I like that this plan allows for greater housing density near neighborhood centers. There are some areas within Vancouver that have had very little growth or even declining populations. This has led to struggling businesses and underfilled schools. If our city as a whole had declined in population, you, as mayor and council, would be doing everything in your power to encourage economic growth. You should be doing the same for these shrinking neighborhoods. Housing is not a punishment. It is an opportunity. There are many ways, unfortunately, where this plan falls short. Equity is considered a key goal of the plan, yet the plan explicitly protects areas with the lowest needs from additional residents, while encouraging more growth in areas identified as requiring a high degree of resources. Maps 3 and 4 tell this story quite clearly, with Map 3 illustrating that downtown, east, and south Vancouver are areas with lower access to resources and higher risks associated with heat and poor air quality. Yet Map 4 shows that these areas will permit larger forms of housing and should expect more residents, while much of the west side will continue to be multiplex only. What will these residents in these multiplex areas do if they wish to downsize and remain in their familiar neighborhood? How will families stay near each other when young adults move out and there are no rentals nearby? This type of exclusive land use does not serve us in a modern urban area. Additionally, we continue to see restrictions on multi-use buildings, meaning that many neighborhoods will not have convenient access to shops and services. This is disappointing as we are locking in another generation of vehicle reliance for basic needs. This reduces independence for people without vehicles, including children and other folks who cannot drive. It makes everyday activities much less accessible. Having sat through my fair share of public hearings, we hear repeatedly that Vancouver should be adopting approaches to housing like we see in Europe. We go on holiday to places like Amsterdam or Italy and experience what higher density housing can look like. But what seems to be missing in this plan is that large areas of those cities have apartments. These aren't concentrated only in downtowns or along arterials. They are everywhere. There are little shops on every corner. You'll see ground floor commercial with five to seven stories of housing on top. This is hardly unique to big European cities either. My cousin lives in the UK and she lives in a small town, but even she is in a row house, not a single family home, despite being next to a farmer's field. In fact, this approach is mentioned twice in the small number of example comments that were included in the feedback section of this report, demonstrating that there is support for broader densification across the city. While this plan makes it clear that we need to be more permissive of different forms of housing and encourage job growth, it also reveals the inherent biases in our city, those designed to protect the wealthiest among us. I wish to live in a vibrant city that welcomes everyone to contribute in their own way. So after spending most of my comments on how this ODP falls short, why do I request that the council approves it? It's simple. Having an ODP, even with its limitations, is better than not having one. You need to ask yourself if this is the best. You do not need to ask yourself if this is the best possible ODP for Vancouver. You only need to ask yourself if it's better than the status quo. And I believe it is. The feedback process for the Vancouver plan, which the ODP is based on, began in 2019 and the plan was approved in 2022. Further engagement and consultation on the ODP was done in 2024 and 2025. We've been discussing some version of this plan for several years with dozens of workshops and open houses and thousands of responses to surveys. I think we've consulted enough. Let's adopt this ODP. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Tom Digby, Chair of the elected Park Board, and we've actually paused the Park Board meeting tonight so that Commissioner Basavansky and myself can speak with you on this important motion on which my official position is other. You are considering adoption of Vancouver's first citywide official development plan, and this document will guide how our city grows for decades to come. I'm pleased that the ODP recognizes that as Vancouver welcomes more residents and more density, that public infrastructure for parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities, it's recognized as essential for growth. When people move into a neighborhood, look, they look for the nearest park, the playground, the community center, the swimming pool, or the arena. And these are the places where children learn to swim, where seniors stay active, and where neighbors meet. As you know, housing builds density, but parks and recreation build community. So the ODP recognizes the importance of parks and open space in creating a livable city. But look, recognition in policy must be matched by investment in infrastructure. Many of Vancouver's recreation facilities were built decades ago for a much smaller city. and as our population grows the demand for parks pools arenas and community centers will grow with it if you pass this plan tonight you have a big opportunity to start putting this vision into action with the 2027-30 capital plan which will soon be before you as you know the four-year capital plan will be finalized by council in early july and voted on by residents of the city in october this year The capital plan is the place where you can commit to renewing aging facilities, expanding recreation opportunities, and acquiring parkland wherever possible. With my park board commissioner colleagues, I've had the chance to meet with some councillors and have been planning meeting with others to advocate for fair and reasonable investment in parks and open spaces and recreation. A plan that balances opportunities with our capacity to pay for it. And the dollar figure we're asking for is $773 million over the four-year capital plan. You will see that shortly if you haven't seen it already. And so my hope tonight is simple. If Council adopts this plan to guide Vancouver's growth, you will remain equally committed to investing in the parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities that make that growth work for the people who live here. A growing city only succeeds if the public spaces grow with it. Thank you, and good luck in your decision tonight.

Hi, my name is Simone Ardima, and I'm opposed to this plan. The ideology, scope, and aspirations of this ODP are not unique to Vancouver. It is showing up in municipalities, cities across Canada and the world, which leads me to believe that that is not a unique document created specifically for we, the people of Vancouver. This is not a gentle densification to be implemented at a balanced, livable pace. It is an aggressive intensification plan that will keep Vancouver in a state of construction chaos for years to come. This ambitious ODP will cost a lot of money and comes with no guarantee of affordable housing. This ODP is full of plans to develop all kinds of different density up-zoned housing options that we are left to assume will automatically be affordable just because we increase supply. Is this true? I once heard Sean Orr say, that if that was true, downtown should be a really affordable place. Patrick Condon, author of Broken City, points out that Vancouver has been leading North America in increasing housing and supplies since 1960, but it has never become affordable, but it has become more dense, and the land has become more inflated. So no matter what we put on, it has no guarantee it will be affordable. I don't see any clear plans in how to address our land inflation bubble. I found 21 words in a 200-page document that vaguely address how we are going to create affordability outside of adding supply. Citizens informed the city... In the state, unstated in the key findings summary that infrastructure should keep pace with growth, but this plan doesn't guarantee that either. Page 190, as the ODP is implemented over time, infrastructure investment in utilities, transit parks, and other community services will be considered. Paragraph 3 of the letter to City Council, January 2026. The City has identified a significant and growing infrastructure renewal funding deficit and funding challenges associated with expanding infrastructure and amenities support the growth given its limited financial capacity. The City will need to rationalize services. The plan... The plan wants to have complete neighborhoods, but it can't afford to bring new growth and infrastructure at the pace as identified by what we the people had required. This ODP states it is designed for a growing economy and a growing population, but we are neither of those right now. And when will this change is highly uncertain. Recent Stats Canada information says that the first time in 75 years, our birth rate and population growth is going down. And in the population projection models done by Rennie, in the general findings, it's concluding that the increased economic... There is increased economic and consumer uncertainty, uncertainty over the future levels of immigration, uncertainty over the number of homes in the city's pipeline that will move through to completion due to market uncertainty. Given global levels of uncertainty, Rennie states it is important to step back and restate the objectives of the forward-thinking works. The developers have headed... I have heeded this and taken a step back, parking their already approved projects till a more favourable, less risky environment, economic environment returns. This ODP is unaffordable in this economic environment. The Vancouver Charter Fiscal Policy, Lucy, says that before adopting the ODP, it must have finances in good order. They already stated that have... They already stated... that they have identified an increasing deficit and they can't guarantee a complete neighborhood. The plan states it is relying on development, capital investment and senior government to realize this vision. Our province has gone from a $5.7 billion surplus to an $11.6 billion growing deficit. Federal debt is also rising and unsustainable. Economists say we are in a global sovereign debt crisis for years of overspending. I'm not convinced that the senior government will be able to assist us in the required needs to make this a reality. The uncertainty and the uncertainty of Aboriginal rights has brought to BC and the lower mainland makes doing business and be risky and owning property here as long.

I'm so sorry. I didn't get through it all. My first time, hopefully not my last time.

My name is Pamela Fitzpatrick. I live in Vancouver, and I oppose the ODP motion and want to focus on two particular objections. My first objection to the ODP relates to school planning and provision of adequate school facilities. Vancouver is entering a decade of accelerated residential growth. Already, almost all schools in Vancouver, especially in the downtown and Broadway areas, are either full or significantly overfull, currently operating between 90% and 171% capacity. So regarding the provincially predicted 1,128 new students moving into this area, where will they attend school in this stretched, strained, and structurally short school system? As I understand it, the ODP includes no school planning concurrent with development. This puts the education of children in Vancouver at great risk. Without a specific and definite provision in the ODP to improve and impose standards for future school planning, I also see blunders on a grand scale, such as that at the totally brand new Henry Hudson Elementary School, where, with students in attendance and before the paint had even dried, workers were blasting through the new exterior walls for a significant expansion of the school. To use some words from Melanie Chang, chair of the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council, when families cannot secure stable access to nearby school, migration patterns shift. Downtown demographic data already show significant losses in early childhood cohorts. The ODP as it stands promotes growth without coordinated school planning and therefore risks deepening this trend. Once density is approved in built-out neighbourhoods, land acquisition becomes exponentially more difficult and expensive. My second objection to the ODP relates to the loss of ironclad protection for school lands. The ODP provides for, quote, flexibility in school land disposition, end quote, which means throwing the doors wide open for land sales, doors that were already opened to developers at Fleming, Bruce, and Carleton elementary schools with decisions made in private meetings. The ODP has responded to the wishes of VSB, yet ignored the broader public feedback against such usage. Yes, the VSB may have a genuine need for additional funds, but selling off or long-term leasing school lands for any other purpose than education is a shocking and unacceptable solution. School lands loss equals education's loss. I urge you to vote against this adoption of this motion and to update the ODP, one, to require using transparent, coordinated, and evidence-based school planning across Vancouver. Two, to require the classroom space and densification grow together. And three, to lock in school lands for long-term public use. These issues are only two of those from a myriad of emails which have flooded my inbox recently in the past weeks, all opposing different aspects of the ODP. In addition, 30 current and expert professionals have sent you a strong open letter outlining systemic flaws in the ODP. I urge you to listen to all the complaints, vote against the motion, and widely revise the ODP to serve livability instead of destroying it. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and counselors. My name is Hawken Coyote and I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm calling in support of the Vancouver official development plan. This plan is critical to the future of our city, but it's also the bare minimum. Every other city in B.C. already has an equivalent community plan. And for too long, Vancouver has failed to articulate an integrated vision for its future. And that's why this is so important, because other cities are actively planning to eclipse us. As a proud Vancouverite, I'm worried about the future of our city. In the last six months, I have read multiple news articles about how Surrey is planning and will likely overtake Vancouver to become the largest city in the metro region. I don't know about you, but when my friends want to move to Vancouver, they want to move to Vancouver. And I think they should be able to. They don't necessarily want to have to move to Surrey. We need to build more homes in Vancouver so that people are not driving to work from the suburbs. We need more housing, more businesses, and more investment in Vancouver so that people can move here and build the lives that they want. want to. I've heard a few people talk tonight about how this plan doesn't include the investment in the community centers, schools, schools, or other amenities that people need in their community. But as a counterpoint, because more people right now are moving to Surrey, Surrey is actually building more schools, more community centers, more arenas. than we are in Vancouver. Vancouver is currently only building the Marple Community Center in South Vancouver, when other municipalities have multiple community center projects ongoing, including a very large investment in pools and community centers that's happening in North Vancouver right now. And so we've seen things like transit investment flow into other municipalities when, you know, if we were growing faster in Vancouver, that would be coming here.

So if there's a criticism of this official development plan, it's that it's not ambitious enough. We need to have a plan that articulates how we're going to grow larger and remain the lead city in the province and the center of our region. Being the center means we should have the most walkable, complete neighborhoods. We should have the best parks and the greatest amenities in our region. Ronald Reagan spoke about America, and he described it as a shining city on the hill. I believe Vancouver is literally a shining city by the sea. People want to move here, and we should let them. We should want people to move to Vancouver, not force them to move elsewhere because it's the only place that they can afford to buy a home or rent.

I work 12-hour days, sometimes 14 hours, and I'm lucky because I live in Vancouver. I have co-workers who work a 14-hour day and before and after drive an hour and a half from Chilliwack because that is the only place that they could afford to buy a townhome. So this official development plan isn't perfect. It fails to introduce generalized land uses as envisioned by the Vancouver plan. But it's a start. It creates a foundation that can be built on to create a walkable, complete city that citizens supported in the creation of the Vancouver plan. So if you believe in the future of Vancouver, and I hope you do, I strongly urge you to vote in support of the ODP. thank you for your time this evening thank you uh speaker number 16 has withdrawn speaker number 17 candace o'connor uh can you hear me we can hear you great please go ahead oh amazing i'm not going to say give the speech that i was going to speak on because everybody said everything that i was going to say but what i do here is that it isn't the document it could be. We need to postpone the vote on this. We need to listen to the voices of the 30 urban planners who see a great many faults with it or more important things that are missing. And as other speakers have mentioned, there are big holes that need to be filled. And I think that there is time. We need to think also in a way that's more simple, more affordable. We need to repair what can be repaired, upgrade and maintain what we have and use common sense, respect and kindness as our guiding principles. We have to get people off the streets. They're Canadians who cannot endure this any longer and I can't endure watching them. So I don't want to see our city become a playground for the wealthy. It needs to be a people city and to be great with an excellent plan. I'm sure that we can solve the problems and make it into the potential that it has in spades. And that's all I need to say. Thank you.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Okay. Hi. Thanks. My name is Francoise Ronay. I'm a Vancouver resident, a teacher and parent, and the vice president of the Vancouver Elementary and Adult Educators Society. First off, I want to acknowledge that despite my concerns, there's much in the ODP that I support. As a resident of the southern part of Victoria Fraserview, I appreciate that my neighborhood was designated an area in high need of resources. Having walkable services and real transit options would make a mind. Right now, transit in the southeast is deeply inadequate. The 100 is packed, the 80 barely runs, and there's no connecting north-south bus service past Victoria Drive. A walkable transit-connected neighborhood is therefore something I would truly welcome. That being said, I'm here because I'm extremely concerned about the section of the ODP that would allow the Vancouver School Board the flexibility it desires to repurpose or dispose of school lands for non-educational uses. I'm not asking you to scrap the entire plan, just amend this part.

Public lands must remain in public hands. In a city where land is extraordinarily expensive, once we give it up, we will never be able to buy it back. That's why it's imperative that public land be used for public good. And that absolutely includes schools. I noticed that amendments to the ODP explicitly require consultation with school boards and only consideration of consultation with others. This concerns me. The VSB does not have a strong track record when it comes to ensuring that neighborhood schools have space for students. Families across the city already struggle to get into their local schools, and added density will only make this worse. Despite 83,000 new homes projected in Vancouver over the next 10 years, the VSB is predicting declining enrollment. They voted to close Carleton Elementary right in the rapid transit area that will soon see thousands of new residents. Meanwhile, many families are sent far from home because their local schools are full. This does not inspire confidence in the board's ability to predict space needs or to determine which lands might be needed in the future. Another concern that I have is that in the October 2025 ODP draft, housing was explicitly not allowed on existing school sites except for Britannia and King George, but in the January 26 version, this language was changed to allow the VSB to dispose of any school site if they deem it necessary. That is a dramatic shift, and it suggests pressure from VSB management without consultation with teachers, staff, or parents. As a representative of the Vancouver Elementary and Adult Educators Teachers Union, I can tell you that transparency and meaningful consultation at the VSB are ongoing problems. Decisions are automated without full information being shared with all interested parties. Saying that the VSB wants to use school lands to raise capital raises huge red flags. Education land should not be treated like a revenue-generating asset.

Recent financial decisions also give me pause. The proposed 99-year lease of Fleming Elementary's basketball courts to a developer for only $11 million is one example. It's an extraordinarily low return for the public. I doubt any taxpayers would feel like the public was getting a good deal at a rate of $11 million in exchange for 99 years of public land use. Fortunately, the deal collapsed, but the process was opaque. Searching public records, I've also seen that the VSB has already applied for rezoning permits for a number of school sites. There's a rezoning application for a subdivision on the school field at Saks Smith Elementary, for example, two apartment towers and two townhouse clusters. I have also applied for a subdivision at the field at the recently closed Carleton School. I have no way of knowing whether there are more of these development permits out there since the VSB does not announce it when they apply for them. Furthermore, the VSB's community engagement processes are often described by participants as performative. Reports labeled as final drafts are shown at meetings, only to have major additions appear later without consultation. Without a trustworthy, transparent process, the VSB cannot realistically assess long-term community needs for school land. So I worry that giving the VSB the ability to rezone school grounds for housing development whenever they feel like it will result in a lot of heartache down the road. We already lost crucial public land before, like the Burrard Street site where the Wall Centre now stands. We still own that land. We could have relieved overcrowding at Elsie Roy, Crosstown and Roberts today. Please amend the ODP to ensure that Vancouver's school lands remain dedicated to education and the public good. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. Make sure that consultation is meaningful with all interested parties and not only school boards alone. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Cameron Thorn with Strand. First of all, I'd like to speak in support of the citywide official development plan. It's got a number of benefits. You've heard a lot of them tonight already. I'll just summarize a couple more. What I like about the plan is that it's going to provide... a unified transparent framework. As was referenced before, there's currently a patchwork of existing plans. Some of them are contradictory to one another. So having a single citywide plan is going to provide greater clarity and flexibility and transparency for residents and builders alike in terms of how the city will evolve. The second aspect is the long-term certainty. Certainty in land use policy reduces risks, it reduces speculation, and planning delays allowing us to build housing faster. and with greater clarity across multiple neighborhoods. More housing options is another important aspect of this plan. The plan provides opportunities, as you've heard, for more housing options across more neighborhoods rather than simply concentrating the growth in a few corridors. And then finally, the plan aims to coordinate land use with infrastructure. It's not perfect, perhaps, but I think it's going in the right direction where we're... creating complete communities rather than piecemeal development. So as a resident and as someone that's actively involved in the development community, I support the objectives and I hope you support the recommendations in the report. I would also like to touch briefly on the concept or on the topic of the ODP. I'd like to... go back and thank council once again for the unanimous support you provided for our project at 320 360 west second in late january so pursuant to that approval we look forward to delivering modern creative industrial space and more than 200 units of secured rental housing as quickly as possible The motion that you approved on January 27th required that at a follow-up public hearing, a motion be brought forward to amend the regional context statement ODP bylaw that would change the land use designations for the site from industrial... general urban and so this is a necessary prerequisite to allow us to enact the cd1 bylaw so council i'm i'm requesting tonight that as part of the odp public hearing that you bring forward and approve a motion to amend the regional context statement odp bylaw for this site so that we can move forward with this project and the associated public benefits city you approved on on january 27th of this year thanks so much great thank you cameron

Speaker 20 is not on the line.

Mayor, Councillors, I'm going to go off script here because I, first of all, never received the notice. And I think it's a tragedy that many of us in the public realm haven't received the notice of this public meeting. with such monumental change in our city. That's the first thing. And it seems evident in this room from all the councillors that are asking questions and all the questions that came forward from everybody. It's just not very clear. I think it needs to be better communicated in terms of what's going on. As well as, you know, go back and amend this, that fast-tracking development is what I heard and that fast-track developments means fast-track development removal from people from their homes who are renting. So a lot of this is problematic. There's someone down in my neighborhood who's on 3rd Avenue, and they were evicted with one of the developments, given three months to find a place to live, three months to vacate after 30 years. I think that's a huge problem. I mean, where is our humanity? We need to be securing some of this affordable housing before we're just going forward to market housing, straight-up market housing, ensuring better rental protections, and also, you know, what everybody else said in terms of the infrastructure, the community amenities. I'm not seeing any of that here. As well as protection for our trees, they're the lungs of our city. I think we can do better. I think it should go back for amendment. Thank you.

all right so um i have heard a lot of comments today both in favor and um asking for reconsideration and my my name is ross neal a vancouver resident i do oppose the report recommendations in current draft odp as it is i think based on flawed vancouver plans not really reached the expected standard of meaningful public engagement and consultation i do agree with other speakers We're saying this process is rushed, and moreover, it's missing the opportunity to build more cohesion and consensus about where we want to go as a city. My remarks over the phone tonight don't give an opportunity to show a presentation. However, many people that I've spoken with in residence have... I've sent in photographs and articles to council for consideration and staff reviewing photos of some of the rapid development. It's a bit shocking. I haven't received any review or response to comments, but photo after photo of recent developments from east end to the west side that appear designed... not to address affordability or the missing middle but rather designed to have a maximum negative effect on neighboring properties it just seems like a far too fast and i'll talk specifically about um the relaxation of setbacks with new infills that often jut out 10 meters in front of an existing home long-standing setbacks that city planners have vigorously maintained over 25 years of peat appear to be thrown out and if the odp enshrines The pre-approved underlying source document of the Vancouver Plan, I think some of the cherished values of our city are being thrown out. It's the diversity of our neighbourhoods that I cherish. I've been a resident for over 25 years. I think trees, streetscapes and a sense of heritage is being lost. As a personal example, my dear friend and neighbor down the street occupied a perfectly adequate single-family home where multiple generations have lovingly maintained their property, growing food in a private garden space, saying hello to neighbors, and they were literally forced out. When the city approved development, that place was torn down within six months.

The current example, one of the photos I sent in, is a massive house towering over two stories above the small dwellings on either side. massive multi-unit house in the backyard, also now towers over the yards below, preventing direct sunlight. It's just this type of development is happening apparently haphazardly throughout the city, and if the Vancouver plan is further entrenching this type of development, I can't support it. I don't think the prices of these multi-unit homes are allowing livability or affordability. And I think the general land use designations are problematic developments. Like the one I'm describing should not be blanket approved just because it fits a GLU designation. So streamlining and unifying land use policy should not have the effect it is having, which is to fundamentally transform neighborhoods one property at a time with high magnitude and irreversible effects on residents. So speeding up the delivery of housing is a laudable goal, but not of any kind, not anywhere. It's the how and not the what. Proper planning that incorporates specific views should be the goal. So just regarding engagement, city staff may have held a few listen and learn sessions, but considering the long-term and irreversible implications of the ODP, It doesn't appear to have listened. It is not learned. And it is wrong to remove the ability of individual taxpaying residents to have some form of public hearing or review to reconsider a specific proposal that directly impacts them. This is, in my view, a removal of representation and an impact to the democratic process. Lastly, I'll just note that the villages plan, I think, is completely flawed and unjustified as existing mixed commercial use areas such as businesses along Dunbar. are suffering and will only suffer more if the villages plan is allowed to proceed so please listen to the comments from engaged voters on these issues as they will surely become a ballot box issue come october thank you very much for your time great thank you very much speaker number 23 is withdrawn speaker number 24 melanie cheng melanie are you there oh

I'm Melanie Chang. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I oppose the ODP as written. I'm the chair of the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council. I'm currently on leave. I was the active chair when the draft ODP was made and presented in October and when the revisions were done in January and February. I received no notice that the ODP was revised relating to schools. Parents have had no opportunities to look at the revisions that were proposed by VSB staff. It wasn't sent to stakeholders. It wasn't sent to the board. The revisions made to school land use on the draft ODP that you currently have were not seen, and we didn't have an opportunity to have public input. So today I'm going to share some of my public input with you.

If you look at the draft, page 99, the residential restriction on school sites is no longer in the policy language. If a school district deems it necessary to close an existing school or dispose of any school site or portion thereof, any change of use and or intensification beyond existing zoning will require an ODP amendment. So that change was made. without stakeholder agreement.

So we've seen how school subdivisions have happened in the last few years at my school community at Bruce Elementary, where a subdivision was proposed for our soccer field. We've seen condos on Fleming's basketball courts. We've seen a subdivision filed, undisclosed subdivision filed. at Carleton Elementary as well as Sexsmith Elementary. And in each of those cases, developments were proposed. Subdivisions were filed without public consultation by the VSB. Now, the VSB is a landowner. It's on registered title. But it doesn't have sole control over the disposition of school sites. It's subject to ministerial order. So I would suggest a change to your draft ODP. which would mandate ministerial approval before amendments to institutional land use. So this would ensure that before the VSB spends funds and time and energy going to a public consultation for disposition of land, that they're working together with the province, that the province authorizes or has some say in the disposition of the property. Because what is happening now is the VSB is taking steps behind closed doors, subdivide school sites, We go to public consultation. The public is outraged. And then they get approval from the ministry at the end. What I'm asking for is that a transparent, long-range facility plan be prepared, working together with the province, capital planning for school sites, planning for growth for the projected 83,000 new homes that will come according to the 10-year target of city council. And so that is my I have two proposals for you put on hold the draft ODP to permit trustees and school stakeholders to engage on the VSB staff comments Because public engagement is a requirement of a long-range facility plan so That's a requirement that the province has for its capital plans. Long-range facilities plans should have public consultation. In fact, in other districts, they do. And for some reason, we don't have an updated, transparent, long-range facility plan with public consultation in our district. It goes alongside this ODP. And also amend the draft ODP as written to specify that on a ministerial approval of a disposition of school land, then the Vancouver School Board can pursue other uses of school land through an ODP amendment process. So that school planning, school capital planning is done in coordination with the ministry. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, Council, I'm Mike Mangan, a retired real estate lawyer, author of the Condominium Manual, and a former adjunct law professor. I live in Mount Pleasant. I oppose this proposed Vancouver ODP. I'll call it the ODP.

Most Vancouverites don't know about this hearing tonight or its impact. There has been a grave lack of public consultation about the ODP, starting with a lack of genuine access to it. The ODP referral report is only available online. The ODP is not easily readable. In many cases, the font size is intolerably small. It's roughly 300 pages long. There's no table of contents for the entire document, no list of the 11 appendices, no index, and the slide in front of you is from the opening cover memo, which is readable, but its critical map is not. Appendix A is the ODP. It's 249 pages. Every two pages of ODP are condensed into a single PDF page. This makes most of the ODP difficult to read. Here are two representative examples. Next slide. Here's some sample text. This is how it appears when you read it online. Next slide. Here's a sample table.

Ma'am, sir, you need to go back to slide number four. Thank you. I was only able to comfortably read the ODP after I paid a printing service $83 to make me a hard copy. To make the ODP readable, my printing service had to print Appendix A on oversized 14 by 11 size paper. I'm holding it up to show you. It's a very awkward document, even in hard copy.

There's been a lack of public consultation. Appendix F summarizes the city's efforts to consult Vancouverites about the ODP. I'll call it the summary. The ODP affects approximately 100,000 separate parcels of land. Staff concede that they did not provide citywide postcard notices to affected property owners. Instead, they mainly relied on leaving material at community centers, email to certain online subscribers, social media, and digital advertising. There was also a web page, an online survey, and barely any open houses. To the best of my knowledge, there was no radio or TV advertising, no newspaper advertising, no billboard advertising. There was inadequate online advertising. The city placed an advertisement across multiple platforms. The city spent less than $9,400 on advertising. It's difficult to track unique reach, as users can encounter the same ad multiple times on different platforms. The advertisement invited the viewer to take a survey or go to an open house. It did not tell residents that if the ODP is adopted, they will lose their rights in most cases to a public hearing. Next slide. Inadequate online media. Using the city's figures and Statistics Canada's 2021 census numbers... for Vancouver. I calculate that less than one tenth of one percent of Vancouver's population clicked on the city's advertisement. At the city's ODP web page, less than two tenths of one percent of Vancouverites used the link to view something in the ODP. The online survey was inadequate. Next slide, number six. 952 persons with a Vancouver postal code completed the survey. So only 14 one-hundredths of 1% of Vancouver residents responded to the survey. And there were six open houses, including one virtual, and six pop-up events in October 2025. As far as I can tell, these were the only times staff actually met and spoke in person with residents. So in each of 11 neighborhoods, there was only one event in a city with many neighborhoods and nearly 700,000 people. Just one event per selected neighborhood. Now, if attendance had been sufficient, had been robust at those events, I'm sure the staff would have told you so. By all reports, turnout was dismal, in some cases as few as five persons attending. This doesn't reflect disinterest. It means the city failed to broadly tell the public about these events and their great significance. Compare the much greater consultation for the Vancouver plan in 2019-2022. Last slide, please. Last slide.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

and that it rests on a simple but mistaken premise that adding more housing supply will make housing more affordable. It is an appealing idea. But Vancouver's own history shows it simply isn't true. For more than 50 years, the city has been the most aggressive builder of new housing in North America. Since the 1960s, our housing stock has increased by 200%, while population has grown by only 78%. We have densified our neighborhoods, built towers, embraced mixed use, and added units at a pace that outstrips most comparable cities. In fact, no other sunny city matches this feat. And yet our housing, when measured against average household income, is the least of what I say was supplied to council in the data provided by mail. Working families, the very people who make the city function, are being pushed out. Density has brought real benefits, lower emission, healthier communities, better transit, but affordability has not followed supply. The market does not naturally produce housing ordinary wage earners can afford. It produces what the highest bidder can pay for. That is why this plan needs a different foundation. If we want a city that still houses its teachers, nurses, trade people, and young families, then I suggest at least half of all new housing must be permanently affordable, costing no more than 30% of average income. members of council we have tested the supply theory for decades vancouver's own experience tells us it's time to try something that actually works setting specific affordability targets for all new housing has been shown to work in other localities around the world it's time for vancouver to do the same thank you very much great thank you very much

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Hugh Stimson. I am an environmental consultant and member of the Vancouver Area Neighbors Association. I'm speaking in support. I grew up in a small town. I moved to Vancouver, and we eventually bought a house in Strathcona. That house was built in 1905 by a man named Otto Jarsch, occupation plasterer. I looked this up in the archives. Every time I knock a nail into the wall, I hear a little more of Otto's plaster fall off the lathe behind the paneling. Over a decade in that house, I feel I have built up a communion with Mr. Yarsh and his family. I think of him thinking of all the families that will have lived in the house he built across the street from the school that was built that same year, 1905. And thanks to that communion, I'm reasonably confident that if that place got knocked down tomorrow, 120 years later, to, say, put up a six-story, single-stair, multifamily apartment block with nice views and a little flower shop on the ground floor, Otto would think, what took you so long? I think, and truly, apologies to Otto if I'm misspeaking for him, but I think that he would look at our ODP map and think, the plan being made in 2026 for the future of Vancouver is a city of houses? I think he would think, did something go wrong? Do people not want to live in Vancouver anymore? Did people stop having children? Do they not want their children to be able to live near them? Did they stop getting old? Do they not need nurses? Did Canada switch back to an agrarian economy? Did we cancel immigration? Do we not want tradespeople to build homes that tradespeople can live in? Do we have something against plasterers?

Or maybe we tolerate them as long as they live in smoky, noisy arterials. Or maybe arterials are nice places to live in the future? This is a little gift Mr. Yarsh left me in the walls. It's a 1903 Dodds almanac. Came across it during a kitchen reno. Would have been a little out of date at the time. I'm not sure why he chose 1903. I did learn that Dodds made dyspepsia tablets. Back when he was chuckling over this thing, Mr. Yarsh would have thought that he knew what the future of Vancouver looked like. Because back at that time, it was permissible to build a place like the Shaughnessy Lodge on 10th. I biked by every day. Side street, three stories, lovely brick building. It was announced in August. It was broke ground in May and completed in September. This was in Canada. It had a population of 6 million people. Now we're at 40 million. But unlike then, you can't build that. Not in months. Not in years. Not at all. Not permitted. And according to this future plan we're looking at, throughout most of the city, you still won't be able to. No lovely six-story, single-stair, single-lot apartment block full of families to give Otto's little lot a second act. Nothing but house for house. So, yes. Please pass this plan. It's procedural. We have to do it. Then, I hope, actually do some planning for the future. Not a city of villages. Mr. Yarsh didn't, I think, come to the city for villages. And neither did I. We came for a city of city. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. I've been advocating for a reboot of the citywide planning process since 2005. The original city plan in the 1990s, led by former co-director of planning Anne McAfee, was one of the most ambitious civic planning exercises Vancouver has ever undertaken. More than 100,000 Vancouver residents participated before the internet. Compare that to today's statistics. City plan was rooted in neighborhood-based planning. It recognized that Vancouver is not a blank slate, but a city of distinct communities, each with its own character, needs, and aspirations. Over decades, planners and residents together developed neighborhood plans and community visions that carefully balanced housing, transportation, amenities, green space, economic activity, and affordability. It was participatory planning at its best. unfortunately after political and administrative changes in the early two thousand momentum behind completing city plans stalled out and so when i ran for council in twenty eighteen i campaigned on rebooting city plan building on the exceptional work already done across vancouver's neighborhoods in fact when i was elected the first motion i prepared was to restart that process but instead council directed staff to create what became the vancouver plan i supported that motion at the time because i hoped it would continue city plans legacy but the result was something very different rather than neighborhood-based planning the vancouver plan adopted a top-down so-called values-based approach instead of reflecting the nuance of neighborhoods The plan imposed citywide development typologies largely without local context. Neighborhoods themselves were barely mentioned at all. And public engagement became largely symbolic as residents increasingly found themselves dismissed as obstacles or labeled as NIMBYs. But Vancouver is not a blank slate. It's a city built by generations of residents who care deeply about their communities. In 2020, in response to this, I launched the 50 Neighborhoods Project, visiting neighborhoods across Vancouver to highlight the importance of planning for growth, including using transparent data and genuine community input. Because planning must be evidence-based. Yet, throughout my entire time on council, when I asked staff for housing data behind the growth assumptions, including zone capacity, development pipelines, rental supply, and population projections, that information was never fully provided. Without transparent data, planning becomes aspirational rather than analysis. Meanwhile, the city increasingly adopted the assumption that expanded development entitlements would solve the housing crisis. But simply increasing supply does not necessarily create the right housing for the right people at the right place. Planning should serve the public interest, not primarily the financial interests of the property development industry. The official development plan now before Council stems directly from the Vancouver Plan framework approved in 2022, a framework developed without meaningful public participation. It continues to rely on the same flawed premise, expanding development entitlement in ways that inflate land values, displace residents, and fail to deliver affordable housing. Let me be clear. Vancouver absolutely needs a citywide plan, but a legitimate plan must build on the extraordinary work of the past, the neighborhood plans, the community visions, and the decades of participatory planning that shaped this city. And it must genuinely reflect the voices of Vancouver residents because the future of our city should not be imposed from the top down. It should be built from the neighborhoods up. For that reason, I urge council to withdraw the proposed official development plan and refer it back to staff for reconsideration through a truly democratic participatory planning process. process that restores Vancouver's tradition of community planning and ensures that we build a livable, affordable city of neighborhoods for generations to come. We've done it before. If we could engage with 100,000 Vancouverites pre-internet, think of what we could do now if we actually believed that it was important to consult with our residents in choosing the path for 30 years.

I'm turning it off right now. Okay. Hello. My name is Sharon Saunders. I'm 49-year resident of the Cosmos Village Cooperative. Our land lease is one of the first in the area of Champlain Heights to be renewed, and we could be subject to wholesale real development, so you can really see my concerns, and I am against this ODP. The city needs more affordable housing. We need more housing, but current policies don't build for affordability. I wholeheartedly support initiatives to find better policies. The ODP should be voted down. The next council should be pledged to have a serious look at the blanket rezoning policy, for example, that in part relies on tearing down existing affordable housing and replacing it with more expensive and much smaller units. And I don't think that just supply and demand are the only factors that determine cost of housing and affordability. Champlain Heights is a family-oriented development with an extensive tree canopy creating a park-like setting. I'm not sure of the staff's intent to redevelop the area and the other sites identified for social housing. I draw your attention to a yellow memo that was just sent out and proposed that policy FG1.76 be changed. And sorry to get into the weeds here. They say remove the tax that states that social housing sites can have up to 20 stories. And that's been our concern in terms of Champlain Heights. Staff is directed to report back with proposed improvements to the social housing or rental 10-year program. That change does not give me any comfort. With the current council and current staff, I anticipate a tweaking of the social housing initiative that was turned down, and I bet we will not see a substantial change from what was rejected. Plans can change, and you can't be assured that agreements made would not be significantly reversed. Council policy and staff who implement these policies are vitally important. It's been stated repeatedly that community resources are very important to support increased density, but West Group is applying for yet another change to East Fraser Lands ODP asking for increased building heights. Still, there is no community center or schools or playing fields and just one daycare in the River Districts. And I fear that Champlain Heights will, in the end, look more like the River Districts. One additional point. I'm working with co-ops in my neighborhood and throughout the city. We are organizing to assist each other in our dealings with the city. and to influence land lease renewals and, more importantly, redevelopment and or preservation. We are sharing information and resources. I bring to your attention that co-ops are being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements with the city when they sign new leases, so we cannot share information. I ask that the Council look at this requirement and allow co-ops to share their knowledge and experience. Thank you.

Please go ahead. okay good evening mayor and council my name is massoud i am a vancouver resident and someone who cares deeply about the future of our city. I want to speak in support of the official development plan and the village concept because I believe it is a responsible step toward addressing Vancouver's biggest challenge, housing and livability for the next generation. Many people speaking tonight are worried about change. I understand that. Vancouver is a beautiful city and we all want to protect what makes it special. But we must also be honest. The status quo is not working. Our children cannot afford to live here. Young families are leaving the city. Workers commute hours because they cannot find housing near their jobs. doing nothing will not protect vancouver it will slowly turn it into a city only the wealthy can afford this plan begins to address that reality growth is happening whether we plan for it or not Some comments argue that population projections are uncertain or inflated, but Vancouver has been growing for decades and will continue to grow. If we do not plan for growth, the results will be worse. Unplanned development, speculation, and even higher prices. a city-wide plan actually brings clarity and stability it tells residents builders and investors where growth should happen and how it should happen planning growth is always better than reacting to it the village concept strengthen communities One concern raised is that density will destroy neighborhoods. In reality, the village concept does the opposite. Instead of forcing everyone to travel across the city, villages allow local shops, small businesses, day care and services, community gathering spaces within walking distance for where people live. This creates more vibrant neighborhoods, not less. Families should be able to live near schools, groceries, and parks without needing a car for every trip. More housing supply is necessary. Some critics say more housing will not improve affordability, but every credible economic study shows that when supply is limited, price rises. vancouver's housing shortage is one of the worst in north america approving more housing options multiplexes meteorized buildings and village centers increase supply and reduce the pressure that pushes prices higher no single policy will solve our affordability overnight but refusing to build more housing definitely will not solve it density can protect the environment Another concern raised is environmental impact of loss of trees. But compact cities are actually better for environment. When people live closer to work, transit, and services, transportation emissions drop. Infrastructure is used more efficiently. Urban sprawl into forest and farmland is reduced. Small density protects the border environment. broader environment planning city-wide improved fairness right now development often happens though stop rezoning and case-by-case negotiation that process can actually create more uncertainty and more speculation a city-wide framework is more transparent and predictable everyone everyone understands the rules so my final message vancouver has always evolved at different moments in history we built streetcar neighborhoods apartment districts and downtown towers each generation had to make difficult decisions to ensure the city remained livable now is our turn if we want our children and grandchildren to live here if we want a vibrant neighborhood and local businesses if we want a city that welcomes the next generation, then we must plan for growth responsibly. The Official Development Plan and the Village Concept are an important step in that direction. I encourage Council to support it and continue to improve it with community input. I would like to thank everyone on the Council and the Mayor for giving us a chance to talk about our concerns or our supports. Thank you very much. I give it to the next speaker.

Great, thank you. So I'm calling to support the ODP, and I'll start off with the positives. You are probably complying with the bare minimum legal requirement. The end. Okay, with that out of the way, let's get real. This is not good. The Vancouver Plan started in 2019, about seven years ago. Since then, it has led to virtually zero actual implemented changes to Vancouver's land use. I don't include multiplexes. Those actually came from Kennedy-Stewart's making home motion. And anyways, they're only adding a couple of hundred new homes per year, not even a drop in the bucket of housing need. Meanwhile, Bill 18, which is why we're having this hearing now, was passed in 2024, almost two years ago. So here we are looking at an interim ODP, which doesn't really do much. It just consolidates existing plans. And critically, it does not expand housing options anywhere. So just for comparison... Let's compare this to Auckland. Auckland's unitary plan. That was launched in 2010. In 2013, there was an interim zoning in place that was actually actionable, that people could actually build housing under that interim plan. And it was fully in place in 2016, just a bit over five years after it was first proposed. And that unitary plan led to real impact. It actually upzoned substantial parts of the city. It led to a building boom that particularly focused housing in Auckland's inner suburban areas, furthering the goal of more transit-friendly compact urban forms. It led to a significant increase in non-market housing as public developers took up the development opportunities created by the upzoning. And most importantly, academic research has shown that this building boom had a causal impact on lowering rents and prices. Six years after these reforms, rents would have been 28% higher than if the upzoning had not occurred. So, in Auckland, they could develop and partially implement a comprehensive plan that upzoned substantial parts of the city in about three years, and fully implemented in about five. And that directly led to a building boom that substantially lowered rents and prices. We've been in the Vancouver plan for a substantially longer period of time, and we have much, much, much less to show for it. We know that even if adopted, this ODP will not make a significant difference to housing production. It will not increase housing production. It will not lower rents. So this leaves... The obvious question, of course, right, is what's wrong with us? Does anyone really believe we're in a housing crisis? Does anyone in power really believe we're in a housing crisis? Because it doesn't feel like anyone believes that and is acting on it. Certainly this ODP isn't the product of, you know, acting and believing that people believe we're in a housing crisis. So, yeah, I hope you pass this. Please don't congratulate yourselves. It's a bit embarrassing to congratulate oneself for not breaking the law. But more seriously, I hope that we all realize that this is only a tiny step towards building a more affordable and prosperous city. Thank you.

Louis Villegas, I'm a Vancouver resident, practicing urbanism in Canada and the U.S. for 40 years. I oppose the ODP. Could you move back a slide, please? Thank you. During Vancouver's Olympic Spring of 2010, we came this close to making good urbanism with four-story build-out, a linked sequence of urban rooms, and distributed LRT streetcar. Then real estate stepped in. After I presented the Olympic Village concept plan at a PIBC plant talk, a City Hall real estate manager approached me. Lewis, he said, we can make a lot more money building towers. I agreed, but it wouldn't make good urbanism. And that still applies 22 years later.

Canada is the largest democracy by land mass. We have not run out of land. We have run out of imagination and a little common sense. Next. The SkyTrain Towers Paragraph created the housing crisis. Government created the crisis. And government can end it. Next.

This ODP manufactures land that hides mountains, blocks sunlight, and builds shadow canyon streets designed like traffic sewers. It crams families into tiny apartments, turning homeowners into renters, and stealing their nest egg. Next. The ODP is the bylaw that sets it all in motion. Tonight is not about one tower. Tonight is about the bylaw that makes every tower inevitable. Passing this ODP locks in zoning, perpetuating land left. Towers follow automatically. Baudelaire had a phrase for the unchecked use of the instruments of modernization, the flowers of evil.

Small business, not towers, is the backbone of Canadian economy. Yet when housing costs double, disposable income is cut in half. Shops close. Jobs disappear. Empty storefronts are the warning sign. Today, empty storefronts are all around us. Next. This year, home price to income ratio will reach 14 to 1. 467% above affordability. Under these conditions, 20% below market, meaningless. 40% attainable, a wink and a nod to the rich.

Reversing Mount Everest will require recalibrating this ODP to deliver housing that is actually affordable. Next. The answer is GAP, Guaranteed Affordable Houses in Perpetuity, a CMHC formula removing the cost of land, locking rent and resale to inflation, Homes selling at three years household income for the first buyer and for every buyer afterwards. LRT streetcars hardwiring every door to the core.

Skytrain built 80 kilometers in 40 years. LRT streetcar will build 820 for the same cost. One technology concentrates land value. The other is the engine of wealth for all Canadians. Next. The logic finally lands on Trout Lake, where we are being asked to trade sunlight for speculation. No, we must live below the treetops, preserving sunlight, preserving views, guaranteeing affordability, and prioritizing people over the financialization of land.

Gap reverses the land lift, restoring housing markets to normalcy.

Thank you. Canada's greatest wealth is not its banks, but the land beneath our feet. Yet the sky trains cannot reach it. A different technology is needed. Next. LRT streetcars reach 200 kilometers, operating four interregional lines, housing four million souls. Homes are secured behind gap doors forever. Next. Vancouver wins as the regional hub by anchoring supply lines, providing intellectual capital without building a single tower outside the downtown. Next.

Less is more. The good city is the handmaiden of simplicity, sunlight over scale, neighborhoods over corridors, guaranteed affordable housing in perpetuity. The moment we remove land from the price of housing, That's the moment the crisis ends.

I am on the line, and can I have my presentation up? Yep. Okay. So, yes, hello. My name is Stephen Bohos. I'm a renter, a Vancouver resident, and I oppose the ODP. Here I have a slide showing Champlain Heights open house, which was so sparsely attended. There were more staff than residents. Next slide. And on the panels, there wasn't a lot of information. And essentially, this was an information session. It was not really an open house or public feedback. I asked questions. I did not get the answers. I tried to follow up. I still didn't get the answers. So this is a staff plan, staff directed staff to make the plan. via a council report that staff wrote. Next slide. So in terms of the boards, this is an easy solution. It would actually start with the existing zoning and codify it as an ODP, zoning one per one with the GLU. And you meet the legislative requirements, and you would not have to change anything, and it would be very, very straightforward. Next slide. So rental housing is one of the possible targets, and I'm very concerned as a renter that there isn't really a provision to preserve rental housing, and rental rights would be really going the same way as the entire Broadway plan for the entire city. So that's a very poor policy. In terms of the few information sessions we had, when you hear the word robust consultation, I think one of the previous speakers said that it's not statistically relevant. It's not engagement. And this is a top-down approach that has been used for the last few years. It's a plan that Robert Moses would be proud of. It's a large departure from, let's say, 10, 15 years back with grassroots bottom-up planning. And you've created a huge amount of development entitlement here. I think that's really misinformation that suggests otherwise. Next slide. So you should see a slide of the Broadway Plan 3D model that I created over the years to actually show kind of the development potential that you could in one section of the city, and I haven't seen planning do anything like this for the Vancouver ODP. I know you did this a long time ago for the West End Community Plan, and there is a 3D model that was shown at that time, and now everything is behind closed doors and you're not really seeing the model. I think for transparency, people really need to see the kind of typologies that are being proposed for their neighbourhoods, like I'm trying to do here for the Broadway Plan, to show what a build-out would look like. Next slide.

This is a new rezoning sign in the Broadway plan, and there's no specific design. There's no Q&A in Shape Your City. Send your comments to the rezoning planner, and then it's a black box. So you're going away from actually publishing plans in the DP process, publishing shadow diagrams in DP process, and all the decisions are being made in-house. away from public oversight. Next slide. You can see the site there with no information. Next slide. Here's an overview of this part of Kitsilano, and Kitsilano will be essentially forever changed by the Broadway plan and very negative impacts on planners. Next slide. And here's another 3D view of just Kitsilano, and now I'm saying let's take a look at the entire city. I'm really concerned that with the release of the Auditor General's report on finances, that there are millions of dollars lost, if not tens or hundreds of millions of dollars lost in underpriced real estate sales. And it really, I didn't find any information on the ODP on what do you intend to do with transparency, because there aren't any anti-corruption measures in place. And Once you take things behind closed doors, it's much easier to not be accountable. Next slide.

There's the concern of public open spaces and things that are actually functioning as parks being shaded by high-rise towers. There's the issue of the sale of school lands that have been brought up and that's essentially being enabled by this draft. Next slide. Another slide of, you know, what is kind of in the queue for Kitsilano and now perhaps more of the city. Next slide. This is Mount Pleasant, one rezoning that you've approved. Next slide. Consistent with an ODP. You can have a tower or all towers there on Main Street and shade everything. Next slide. Huge impacts on livability. on human scale and on renters being displaced. So, counsel, I would really urge you to not pass this ODP. You can do one-to-one implementation using existing zoning. Thank you.

Hi there.

yes while we need to streamline the approval of development projects to address the lengthy and time-consuming process of development applications we should always keep a lens on who we're prioritizing in our official development plan and i ask you to reject this draft to solidify some areas of concern for renters I have some grave concerns that this plan will prioritize excessive development without including affordability. As the city's definition of social housing doesn't include shelter-rate housing, this plan will encourage developing what little affordable housing stock we still have, like the three-level walk-ups that we're rapidly losing across the city. These units will be replaced with smaller, more expensive units. These older buildings are 30% cheaper than new construction, but that affordability rate increases for renters who've been living there for decades. This is why renter anxiety is a real thing, particularly as seniors and long-term residents are the most at risk of aging stock vulnerability. The tenant relocation protection policy isn't strong enough for us to rely on during mass displacement across the city. An explosion of development will lead to a spike in land value and mass displacement. As below-market units are still unaffordable for many, I can't see how we can have thousands of low-income renters seeking something affordable at the same time. The Broadway Plan has given us current stats on how the TRPP is functioning. Of displaced residents along the Broadway Plan, depending on the building, 9% to 16% of displaced renters do not qualify for the TRPP protections. plan cannot and should not proceed without vacancy control across the city we need city council to push the province to enact this protection because without it land value across the city will balloon as speculation increases and more renters will be displaced out of the city Losing our community voice at public hearings gives way to concerns about transparency and accountability. Getting rid of public hearings mean that tenants lose an opportunity to talk about whether the TRPP is working for them, but the city also loses an opportunity to save more affordable buildings. Public hearings aren't just about what you're building. It's also about what you're taking away. In this case, affordable housing across the city. I have concerns that we're going to be lagging and keeping up with our growing need for parks, schools, and community centers, particularly as the city is currently experiencing a $500 million infrastructure gap that we don't have embedded measures of how to address that gap. I'm also really concerned about the protections of parks under the ODP, as although we have over 250 parks, only a portion of these enjoy permanent protection. We have approximately 90 designated green spaces that have no designated protections as permanent parks. therefore they are highly susceptible to development example of these spaces are venue park crab park david lamb park charleston park and creek side park to name a few notice that many of these unprotected green spaces are located on waterfront property we need all green spaces in vancouver to enjoy the same level of protections as parks otherwise we're going to lose major public spaces like david land park to development and will never get that land back ever in the past decade vancouver has experienced a continual loss of affordable housing the shrinking low rent stock is an acute problem for vancouver as units under a thousand dollars a month fell by 19 over the same time period this means that units that we've been building in vancouver have been unaffordable for 80 percent of the public A 2023 report showed that only one in 100 rental units were affordable to the lowest 20% of income earners. To rectify this, we need inclusionary zoning across the city of a 20% social housing component that includes shelter rate housing. As the city has stated that they'd like to focus on building mixed economy neighborhoods, inclusionary zoning would make this possible. the city's definition of social housing should require shelter rate housing i distinctly remember these ideas being passed along to staff during each and every urban indigenous engagement session yet i see no mention of these measures there are components in here that are needed but i'm asking you to reject this draft so that more detailed work can be done to protect renters to protect Vancouver school board properties, to ensure that infrastructure needs can be met, and to prevent land price escalation with increased density. We need to build our city with rental units that can attract families and workers that keep the city moving.

Thank you for listening.