Villages ODP Amendment – Amendment Adding Tenant Orgs
Motion 19 · Council Meeting, March 31, 2026
Summary
- Amendment to also include tenant organizations, community housing organizations, and land trusts in the Villages ODP amendment consultation.
- Councillor Orr argued these groups have a direct stake in redevelopment scenarios within village areas.
- Councillor Kirby-Yung and staff noted this report addresses statutory consultation requirements, not exhaustive stakeholder engagement; more specific consultation occurs at the project level.
- Councillor Maloney sought clearer wording to avoid delays to the July 14 Villages council decision; staff asked for more specificity on which organizations would be included.
- Defeated on a tie vote.
Vote
Transcript
31 segments
Okay, so that passes with everyone here in favor. All right, so we'll go back to the main queue. Any other further comments, Councillor Orr?
Yeah, just a similar sort of question around, consultation around tenant organizations as well as community housing organizations and land trusts, which would include nonprofit housing associations and cooperatives, if that consultation has been taking place.
For clarity's sake, I think this was moved and seconded, so you're directing the question to the chair. Okay, sorry, directing questions to the chair. Okay, go right ahead.
Yeah, thank you for the question. So again, as part of the planning process, we've identified these type of housing units within the villages areas. And we've established conversations in terms of like the opportunities for redevelopment through our housing colleagues.
Okay.
We'll take you to the amendment queue and advance you. I'm sure you probably want to quickly type something.
Yes, just to include tenant organizations and community housing organizations and land trusts.
Yeah, I have a similar question as last time. So do you consider that...
Sorry, we need a seconder on that. Councillor Zhou, second. Okay. And again, through the chair.
Yep. So what I'm interested in asking is... Do you see that adding this language would allow you to communicate by letter and consult by letter without adding, you know, what I'm interested in preventing is any delays in the villages planning process being coming to council for decision in July?
Thank you for the question and the comment. And I think that what would be helpful for staff would be clarification on what organizations we're seeking feedback from. Again, because we do have a four-week turnaround period, and we would like to give and serve justice to... giving enough time for them to consider the information and getting back to us. So getting some clarity around, like, what organisations specifically would be part of the scope would best let us reflect the timing constraints for that.
Okay. In that case, I would probably want to give staff a little bit more clarity just so that it's not a... There's more certainty about what staff are required to do to fulfil that obligation. So I don't know quite how to proceed with that. Perhaps I could ask for a brief recess and perhaps staff could suggest some wording. A couple of minutes. just to give staff certainty about exactly how to fulfil this. Otherwise, I'd feel conflicted in voting in favour of this.
I mean, I absolutely support the intent, but I would want to make sure that it was very clear to staff how to fulfil this direction without adding unnecessary
time uh staff time in position okay thanks uh also kirby on the amendment yeah chair if i might ask uh point of information through you um if that's okay yeah go ahead uh yeah i'm just looking for clarification from staff i understood that the intent of these two reports the one we're considering now is alignment with the provincial bill and requirements for the organizations that were outlined in the legislative requirement and the bill, not necessarily to be an exhaustive list per se, but a list of organizations at minimum that the city, according to the new provincial legislation, has a requirement to participate in. I'm just wondering if staff can provide some clarity on that, because there's obviously many organizations at different types of planning exercises and applications that stakeholder groups that will vary from project to project. So I'm just looking for a bit of clarity around what the intent of this report is. It was simply to align with the requirement as indicated in the province's bill.
Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, I do think that... It is worth clarifying the intent of the recommendation. So we are following the legislative requirement to engage with certain organizations, and there is a curated list of what those organizations are. And what we're putting forward is a recommendation from the curated list of those that have a relevant... impact through the villages plan. So other organizations such as Metro Vancouver we haven't included because there are no designations that are being changed from the Metro Vancouver designations. We're not including adjacent municipalities because there are no villages that fall within those jurisdictions. So the ones that we've recommended are the ones that we are required to consult with. as part of meeting that legislative requirement. Any additional organizations that might be proposed by council will be additional extra to what we are required to do through the legislation.
Right. And maybe if I may ask a follow-up point, Chair, through you, is it fair to say that this is more of a high-level land use planning exercise and that with respects to how the city is growing and ensuring the piece of rdp are fitting together and if and when we get to any specific project should council enact a new villages program that based on those projects or initiatives that so a more macro a more micro level of different stakeholder organizations could be things like track could be uh non-profits could be a whole host of groups but they would have a chance to comment on projects i'm just trying to reframe this in terms of the bigger picture land use piece versus specific consultation when we get to projects or areas where we might have projects that might impact existing tenants. Can you help?
Yes, absolutely. So you are correct. The GLU designation changes are simply a requirement to be able to consider the villages plan as a whole prior to approval. It does not necessarily on its own enable any development to occur. It is the villages plan that will bring the opportunities for redevelopment and the villages plan could be engaged on through the public hearing process as well as any individual applications that come after
depending on the different scenarios of development that may occur right that's very helpful um for me and hopefully for council in terms of when the more detailed level of stakeholder engagement comes in and just thank you for level setting that i appreciate it uh thanks uh counselor i'm going to um cede the chair to uh deputy mayor kirby young for a moment here and just ask a couple questions of my own um i'm getting a pretty clear picture here that What we have in front of us in terms of the main item is legislative in nature. It's an important part of the overall process. This is confirmation because ODP is clearly a legislative requirement for the city. And so it sounds to me that we can certainly find sundry opportunities to work with stakeholder groups And these ones are obviously very jurisdictionally based. The ones that are in the amendment are more broadly sort of groups that would be from potentially the whole city rather than the actual neighborhood villages themselves.
That is correct.
Thanks very much. Thanks a lot. I'll take the chair back, Councillor Kerbiong. Councillor Maloney, on the amendment.
Yeah, that... Thanks to my fellow councillors for asking questions that clarified that the positioning of this is a more high-level exercise in consultation and more statutory in nature. I think I'll withdraw my intention of... I think that I'd prefer to just leave it at the statutory obligations rather than imposing additional obligations to staff, knowing that we really need to not go beyond the four-week consultation period, but also that further detailed consultation will take place at a future date.
Yeah, I think I'll just say that I agree with Councillor Maloney on this particular amendment and won't repeat what she said, but agree with that. So I won't be.
Okay. So we will call the vote on this one. Thanks very much, everyone. For the voting panel, please clerk and vote assist.
Vote assist in favor. Thank you, chair.
So this is Mr. Domino, oh she stepped away Okay, so Sorry