Did you get it? The photo bomb? All right.

All right. Do we have quorum?

Councillor Montague, if you can put your camera on.

Okay. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Vancouver City Council meeting of Tuesday. Tuesday, July the 28th, 2026. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any members joining electronically are reminded to enable their video to confirm quorum. The meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube. Meeting progress will be updated on X and threads at Van City Clerk. Though due to new posting limits, updates will only cover essential items such as vote results. Speakers are encouraged to monitor the live stream to track meeting progress. But please note there is a slight delay. So call in or arrive soon after receiving your reminder email so you are ready when your name is called.

In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, there are two exits located beyond the glass doors and to the left. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the chamber. Do not use the elevator, use the stairs instead. If you require assistance, please remain where you are and one of our super friendly security team members will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside the chamber as well, just down the hall there. I do want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations and do want to thank them for their generosity and hospitality. and love and share. They show this great land that we get to live, work, and play on. I also want to recognize our incredible team members throughout the City of Vancouver who choose to work at the City of Vancouver every single day, and they do it with passion, and they really care about making this place a way better place, and we couldn't be more thankful. So with that, can we please have a roll call?

Present.

Today we get to do a very special proclamation. And so today we acknowledge Emancipation Day. Emancipation Day is both a day of remembrance and recognition. It marks the abolition of slavery across the British Empire on August 1, 1834, while acknowledging the ongoing impacts of systemic racism and discrimination faced by Black communities today. It's also a time to celebrate the resilience, leadership, and contributions of Black Canadians and Black and African Dyspora communities. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to advancing equity and confronting anti-Black racism. In April of 2026, Vancouver City Council received the Anti-Black Racism and Cultural Redress Framework and Action Plan, developed with the guidance and leadership of the Anti-Black Racism and Cultural Redress Community Advisory Committee. This marked an important step in guiding the city's continued work toward meaningful action and lasting change. It is my pleasure to invite Dr. Handel Wright to accept the proclamation on behalf of the community and share a few remarks after we read the proclamation. Dr. Wright is a professor in UBC's Department of Educational Studies and Director of the Center for Culture, Identity, and Education, an internationally recognized scholar in Black Studies, Anti-Racism, and Cultural Studies. He led the research for the City of Vancouver's Black History in Vancouver historical vignettes, helping to preserve and share the rich history and contributions of Black communities in our city. So, Council, if you'd like to join me in reading the proclamation.

So with that, our team is going to read this proclamation.

Thank you very much.

Now, therefore, I, Ken Simmon, the Mayor of the City of Vancouver, on behalf of all of our elected officials and team members throughout the City of Vancouver, do very humbly and proudly proclaim August the 1st, August the 1st, August the 1st, 2026 as Emancipation Day in the City of Vancouver.

Do you want to say a few words?

You can do whatever you want.

Just say a few words. Okay.

I'd like to say a few words.

Good day. My name is Neville Thomas.

Also, the presence of Dr. Andrew Wright, nice meeting you.

I would like to start by saying thanks to group for your contribution, participation over all these years.

This occasion is a historic one.

Wait a sec.

There you go. I'm going to move you up a bit.

Okay, thank you, everyone. Okay, so the plan for today, we're going to break at noon for lunch, followed by the in-camera meeting. Return at 3 p.m. to continue.

council as team members are recommending that the application be referred back to team members for further consideration. We're also going to hold reports 25 and 26, which are related to approval of unfinished business item number three. Council may adopt the recommendations for reports one through five, seven through 18, and 20 through 24 in consent. Does any member wish to hold any of these items for questions to team members or debate?

A second?

Yeah, I'd like to pull 7, 14, and 21, please. And sorry, Mayor, if I may, I missed what you said when there was one being pulled for staff were recommending to refer back. Oh, okay, never mind. 19?

Okay, thank you. Thanks, Clerk. Thank you. Thank you, Clerk. Okay, so Councillor Fry, 7, 14, and 21. Perfect. Councillor Domenato.

Yes, Chair, I'd like to hold reports 3 and 5 for questions.

Okay, Councillor Domenato, 3 and 5. Councillor Orr.

Report 1, 2, 4. Sorry, I'm just trying to... 7 was pulled. 12, 14, 16, 18.

And, yeah. So, Councillor Orr, 1, 2, 4, 12, 14, 16, and 18. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Montague.

Yeah, Mayor, sorry, just confirming that the unfinished business isn't on the consent agenda, is it?

No, it is not.

So if you can, thank you, Councillor Montague. If you can just bear with me for one minute, please.

Yes.

Mayor if you would just recap for council all the items that were held just yeah, I'm stuck working on that right now, so Thank you Yes counselor Joe yeah, so I also like to pull report number eight please Thank You Councillor Zhou item number eight

Okay, so we have reports 9 through 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 22, 24 for the consent approval. So I'm going to repeat that.

I said 22 through 24. Yes, that includes 23. Awesome. So once again, we have reports 9 through 11.

Yeah, actually, so I was, as I recall, speaking in support of the amendment, and then I had actually submitted an amendment to the amendment. Now, that may have gotten lost somewhere. I do see that I sent it, but I'm going to resend it.

So, Councillor Bligh's amendment, which I certainly supported, talked about metrics on specific outlines, outlined in the motion. And I added an amendment to include a public accessible rental registry providing access to information on rents in Vancouver, similar to the program in Quebec. And this is just, as we're calculating that kind of information and providing metrics, I think one of the useful things that we've seen, especially coming out of Quebec, is an actual rental registry. And and keeping track of what rents are and how they're changing, which has ample benefit for renters and policymakers as well.

Thank you very much.

Let me get the amendment on the screen.

Do we need to move to amendment?

Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. Just a point of information through you, Chair, to Councillor Fry. I'm not familiar with the program in Quebec. I wonder if you could just offer a little bit more sort of framing or detail in terms of who's registered. And what information on rents? Is it sort of general averages or specific to addresses?

Yeah, it's specifically any licensed renter or rental provider. So any licensed landlord would submit essentially what would be commonly referred to as a rent roll. And it's just a tool to aggregate rental trends.

And this would be just a quick follow up is and would this be something that a landlord would elect to complete or is it something they would be mandated as part of some other process we do at the city?

I think it would be probably mandated as opposed to elected to, because I'm not sure what the compliance would be if it was elected, and I'm not sure that would be good data. And as it's a report back, I think that staff could determine what the best practice is in that capacity. I believe that in Quebec, it's a matter of like a bylaw that compels landlords to report a rental.

Yeah, okay. Well, so how I read this amendment is it's a report back to council annually on the function of the renter's office. What I would like to have seen in this amendment is asking staff to report back on the mechanism to create this essentially rent rule, sort of the equivalent of a provincial rent rule here for the city of Vancouver. So my only concern is it's quite prescriptive without a lot of detail in terms of what... information would be captured and how it would be reported into City Hall and how that would sort of benefit, you know, our ability to measure the success, or I should say the effectiveness of a renter's office in this new iteration. So, I'm not sure I'm going to support something that I don't have enough information on in terms of how it would actually, like what's the mechanism to gather this data. If it was asking of staff to report back on best options to do that with more explanation on other programs in Canada that are doing this and the benefits there, I'd be much more, I would feel more comfortable supporting, but I just don't have enough information.

Thank you, Councillor Bligh. Seeing no one else in the queue, we will put the amendment to the amendment to a vote. Oh, sorry, we need a seconder. Is there a seconder? Okay, thanks, Councillor Maloney. And so we will put Councillor Fry's amendment to the vote.

okay um that fails with myself uh counselors kirby young dominato um montague classen meisner and joe in opposition and counselor blight abstaining great okay so um counselor fry oh that's a holdover thanks okay that's it okay counselor montague

uh yeah thanks america just uh i'm assuming we're speaking to the main motion now um no this is just to the amendment uh sorry which amendment again we can have it on screen then um yeah okay thanks i'll i'll wait till the main motion okay all right um

Okay, so we'll put the amendment to a vote.

Great, and that fails with myself, Councillors Kirby, Young, Domenato, Montague, Classen, Meisner, and Joe in opposition.

So I will go back to the main queue now and we'll add Councillor Montague. Councillor, please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

The rationale for the motion is challenging. It claims that since the elimination of the renter's office, renters in Vancouver are worse off. And it states the rationale is that rents have increased significantly. And I find this confusing because the renter's office closed in January of 2023, I believe. And since August of that same year, rents have fallen for 29 consecutive months. Some public communication from the province last month, I think it was early June, June 2nd, confirmed that. And it also advised that the average asking monthly rent in Vancouver is more than $650 lower than that 2023 peak. And that today, the average asking rents for apartments and condos is about 20% less than 2023 peak as well. And we've been down this road before. I feel like this is deja vu. And we need to focus on the results and actually delivering services that people rely on. So it's disappointing that council is once again debating this issue that was tried under the Kennedy-Stewart administration and failed. The renter's office operated for three years at a cost of $1.8 million to taxpayers. During that time, It averaged, I believe it was less than one phone call per day. It didn't help build a single new unit of housing. It created duplication of services that other existing, experienced, and very capable agencies already deal with.

So recreating a bureaucratic office that has already failed once won't improve it won't improve affordability or deliver better outcomes for renters.

British Columbia already has some of the strongest rental protections and responsibility for residential tenancy law and rental regulations rests exclusively with the provincial government. As a city, we should focus on the responsibilities that are uniquely ours. And this isn't a uniquely our situation. This is a provincial situation.

I'll continue. Not me. So I would say that.

Creating another city office doesn't change provincial tenancy law. All it does is, well, let's just say that in doing that, renters aren't better served by another layer of administration. So this motion, it's asking taxpayers to fund a second attempt at a bureaucracy that failed once will fail again. And I'd rather see those dollars invested in improving and delivering services for renters that actually work. So I feel this is yet another looks good on paper, but solves nothing motion. And I won't support. I just can't. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councillor.

Yeah, thanks for the discussion. I think in the previous, in the counselor's statements, there was a bit of a contradiction in terms of the difference between actual rents and asking rents. Actual rents aren't down. They go up. the maximum every year. Asking rents are down, which the counselor did mention. And of the asking rents, the vast majority of those that are down are in brand new builds, which are out of reach of the vast majority of renters. So I think it's a little misleading to say across the board, rents are down. I also think it's a little disingenuous to say that renters won't be better served by a renter's office or that this won't improve outcomes for renters. The emails that we get, the stories that I hear from people, that doesn't compute. People are nervous every day. They don't know how to navigate the TRPP. They're increasingly reaching out to the Vancouver's Tenants Union, which is great, but they don't talk with the residential tenancy branch or track. So it would be great to have a singular office. to coordinate all of that. And this office was also created before a lot of these applications were coming through the pipeline, specifically in the Broadway plan. And I think it behooves us to do the right thing here. do the best that we can as one of the biggest cities in Vancouver to help renters who all I've heard from people are struggling and don't understand the system and need help navigating that system. So I will be supporting it. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. This has been a long discussion over many, many years relating to the effectiveness of a specific Vancouver renter's office. And I have seen both sides, actually, of this argument and supported reframing how we looked at the renter's office many years ago to better support the services that are essentially staffed and tooled up to deal and to support renters in terms of legal supports and information and understanding the system. But that didn't work either. And so we didn't see any relief in terms of reporting issues back to the city in terms of... helping renters navigate their rights and also making sure that they understood what has since been brought in, a very complex tenant relocation protection policy. And since the Broadway Plan was brought in, the TRPP is dependent on in terms of how we navigate renters' rights and obligations of landlords and potential development displacement. And I have heard from actually builders across our city that they think that renters need more supports internally in the city as well. And that our planners are trying to manage TRPP program off the side of their desks because there isn't a department within the city where this work lives in a way that interfaces with renters directly. So I think that we aren't talking about the same situation we were four years ago. I think we're talking about a very different situation now. And I think what we're talking about is being responsive to an incredible amount of development pressure that has been brought in because of decisions we make here at this council. And so I think we have a responsibility to provide the services and supports for renters and not... sort of in opposition to landlords, but in partnership. That's the point. This is not necessarily to solely focus on renters issues. It's to daylight where we may be creating policy that could be creating more problems than solutions. And so for those reasons, and for the reasons, again, as I've heard that all sides of this debate, renters advocates, as well as those working in the development sector, as well as landlords, are looking for better clarity and more proactive communication and supports coming out of the city. And if we don't establish an office that can be funded appropriately, we're not going to learn about what the current issues are so that we can continue to iterate. Essentially, what is the foundational premise of this office, which is recognizing that over 70% of net new residents in our city are renters, over 55% of residents in our city are renters. It would make sense based on that virtue alone that we have a renter's office that supports these issues. So I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Councillor Frye.

Yeah. Just to jump back on a little bit of clarification, when the original renter's office was discontinued by this council, it was against recommendations of staff to continue the work. And it was funded then, as is proposed here, it was funded entirely by the empty homes tax. This is not coming off the backs of taxpayers or out of the zero means zero budget. This is... mandated through the actual mandate of the empty homes tax is to support housing needs and and that's how this was framed to be funded again in this motion as well funding it through the empty homes tax now I have maybe perhaps a distinct bias. You know, I sit as a liaison on the renter's advisory committee and I regularly attend those meetings. And I hear specifically some of the issues around tenancies in the city of Vancouver and how things have changed and how things are incredibly challenging. I regularly get emails that I'm responding to with folks who have issues with tenancies in the city of Vancouver, standards of maintenance violations that... go unmitigated. Recently, I brought a motion to this council looking at the conversion of apartments with partition walls to create a three-bedroom out of a one-bedroom, a flex apartment that is apparently 100% legal because it exists as not a structural change, so it's not actually a permitting issue. There are a myriad of issues that are reflecting. I mean, just the volume of public hearing correspondence that we typically receive is often from folks who are fearing displacement in our city. And what we don't have right now is a strong policy framework to reflect those needs. We hear all the time from the industry. We hear from builders. We hear from developers. We hear from their lobbyists. They have access to the levers of policy development at the city of Vancouver. There's no avenue here that is advocating with very specific intention around the myriad of issues that affect tenancies in the city of Vancouver. And I did certainly try and illuminate that by illustrating some of the various different functions that tenancies experience and where a renter's office could kind of lean in. And I just really want to reiterate that this is like a real function of our job. This is a real... demand from the folks who live, the majority of Vancouverites who rent in the city of Vancouver, and I think we're obliged to deliver those kind of services as well and have at least that fulsome investigation and articulation of what the issues are and providing the supports in a thoughtful, cogent, and policy kind of direction. But just to reiterate, this is not a proposal to waste taxpayers' money. This is coming out of the speculation tax, the empty homes tax that is supposed to deliver fairness to the City of Vancouver. Thank you. Councillor Maloney?

Thanks. Yeah, I am supportive of this motion because it really sets out a very thorough... well-explained list of areas that the renter's office should be dealing with and needs to be dealing with. And just to read through a couple of the headings, one window renter support, partnerships and coordination, data monitoring and transparency, enforcement, policy development and advice, equity and outreach, and support for all rental types. Now, that sounds like it's not a list of needed services that depends... on or can be measured by a phone call count.

I am one of the two council liaisons for the Seniors and Elder Persons Advisory Committee and I can tell you that the absolute number one concern they have is housing precarity, homelessness and housing affordability for seniors. They've just lost their full-time strategic lead this year and a renter office would go some way of filling that gap on their most important issue. I know that the very successful City of Vancouver Chinatown office primarily helps Chinese seniors facing homelessness. That might not have been its original purpose, but that's what it's become and it provides an incredible service. And it's not just Chinese seniors that need connections and support. We know that the TRPP review needs to deal with how difficult it is for seniors facing eviction to deal with everything, especially since things are online and they might not be as adept as other groups in society of navigating what their rights are and knowing what their rights are and knowing how to get help. And this could fill that gap. And with regard to this idea that I've heard many times that it was justified getting rid of the renter office because it was answering one phone call a day, I know that we wouldn't even dream of getting rid of our dedicated business liaison staff member on the basis of their average daily phone call count. They do a much wider array of needed services to address the concerns in a timely way that are raised by the business community. And we all agree, most of us agree, I don't know, I'm speaking for myself really, that that is a good thing. And it is the same with the renter office. We need a renter office because renters in Vancouver, especially our very vulnerable community members, need help and support in all that array of areas that Councillor Fry has very clearly set out in his motion to help them avoid becoming statistics in our ever increasing homelessness count.

Thank you, Councillor.

Seeing no one else on the queue, I'm now going to call the vote. A reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to section 14.13 of the procedure bylaw. So can we please go to the voting panel? Okay, and that fails with myself, councillors Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague Classen, Meisner, and Joe in opposition.

Okay.

So the next item on the agenda is item number three, Villages Planning Program, Villages Plan City Initiated Rezoning and Vancouver Official Development Plan Amendments. At the public hearing on July the 14th, 2026, Council heard from the team member presentation, asked questions of the team members, and heard speakers from 1 through 25 for item number one. On July the 20th, 2026, council heard speakers from 26 through 91. On July the 22nd, 2026, council heard remaining speakers close the speakers list and proceed to public comments and heard closing comments from team members. Subsequently, council referred questions to team members. and debate and decision to the council meeting on July the 28th, 2026 as unfinished business. Councillor Bligh and myself missed a portion of this public hearing and will need to confirm that we've reviewed the proceedings to be eligible to vote. Councillor Bligh, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting?

And I have and I will. So before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody have a conflict to disclose? If I can just get a show of hands as opposed to the panel here. Great. Thank you. Does council have any final questions for team members noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted?

Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. We heard a lot of speakers talking about how they'd like to see organic growth of villages areas. But my understanding is that with restrictive zoning that we have, that that wouldn't be possible unless we had a broad relaxation of zoning requirements across the city. And then we would see where these villages areas sprung up organically.

And I heard people say that perhaps we don't need the villagers' plan rezoning because we have already multiplexes and low-rise apartment buildings coming up and basement suites and laneway homes in some areas. So it must be unnecessary. But I understand that all of those things were as a result of conscious rezoning relaxations that allowed these housing options to be built in the single-family home areas.

Right, and one other thing that we heard from speakers was that they are concerned about a one-size-fits-all approach across the many Villagers Plan areas. I know, though, that Grandview, Woodland, Mount Pleasant, Kitsilano and Marpole, which are very different neighbours, they all have the same RM3A and RM4 zoning. So how does that... development happens so differently with the uniform zoning.

Yeah, thank you. I'd like to move on to affordability. So this plan allows a great deal more... missing middle housing than the status quo, which is a lot more affordable than is currently allowed in the plan areas. Is that right? Can you?

And what about... We know that there's only some below-market housing included on the west side, but that still does contribute to some additional housing affordability?

And this might help much smaller developers and prevent our reliance on mega developers. by legalizing smaller housing forms. Is that right?

Yeah, thanks. I just wanted to confirm. I went over the questions period and just wanted to confirm something. I believe there was – this village's plan will affect 9,000 renters, 2,000 of whom live in purpose-built rental apartments, 900 who live in – non-market housing, that leaves about 6,100 that won't be covered by the TRPP, right? Because they're in single lots.

Okay. I guess my question is, yeah, because there's the TRPP review coming, I just think. why are we doing this before that? But I mean, I want to ask that question. And then the other question is, can you confirm that it's about, I think 15% of all of the lots will have inclusionary zoning? That's correct, yes. That's correct, okay. And then just around transit too, I mean, I was looking back over the things and it said... that bus service improvements referenced in this plan aren't fully funded out. We just sort of are kind of hoping they will be funded and that they will materialize. So are we being asked to approve this density on the assumption? THAT TRANSIT SERVICE WILL SORT OF MATERIALIZE.

Okay, that's interesting. Oh, I might come back on, but that's enough for now. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Bligh?

Yeah, thanks very much. So I have a question really more generally, and it's the tenor of the public sort of opposition to this. And I wonder, you know, having been in this chamber now for eight years and lots of major citywide planning issues, discussions um but something that stuck out for me and i really like your um perspective on what you've heard as well through this process is that those that were affected by the villages felt quite sort of i i um i don't want to say called out but they sort of felt singled out let's say is is my impression that their neighborhoods were now uh sort of out of the whole city 17 was picked and now those neighborhoods are going to be significantly impacted separate from the rest of the city it From a planning perspective, when it comes to public engagement, neighborhood planning, tell me what your expertise is and how you would resolve to address that.

Okay, so given what you shared, and thank you for that, and as a very thoughtful answer to maybe a... a question that's tough to answer at times in these conversations. So did we meet the threshold of that public engagement that you spoke about at the beginning of your answer, given the time constraints, as you mentioned?

And I'm hearing that opening up various neighborhoods to sort of an equitable share of housing doesn't necessarily guarantee affordability, right? This plan, you know, it's one thing to make sure that different types of housing are able to be built in different neighborhoods, but that doesn't necessarily compel that housing to be affordable.

Right, okay, but that's not, yeah, that doesn't necessarily mean that people that are on various incomes across our city can afford that housing. So there's two different conversations there.

Can I actually just move for a second round, please?

Is there a seconder? Okay, Councillor Maloney. Any discussion? All those in favor say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, second round.

I'll come back on. Thank you now.

Great, thank you. Councillor Frye.

Yeah, and I'm just parsing through a pretty significant amendment that I've seen come through as well and reflecting on what that would look like. So I do want to just first off acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that staff have put into this and that it was to given by Council in October of 2023 to accelerate the Villages Plan. Obviously, we've heard a lot of feedback, and I think you've responded to Council Bly's questions around the... how the engagement worked and stuff. And so I'm just trying to parse through this amendment that's coming versus what I wanted to ask you. But I'm going to just talk about, you know, first and foremost, one of the things we did here very clearly was the excess amount of commercial space that was being kind of designated through the planning and that that would have negative impacts. We heard from the BIA Association partnership that they were stressed about that. Does this plan as contemplated have the ability to eliminate that commercial component or make it more flexible so that it's not necessarily commercial up front, but it could be?

So building off that, that's sort of like what we see downtown where it's either, it could be a personal home or it could actually be a business and it seems to be kind of flexible on that street frontage.

Yeah. One of the other things we heard concerns around was that by the specificity of the villages, and again, I'm recognizing this was what you were tasked with by this council in October of 2023, but the specificity was going to lead to speculation in those areas and disproportionately impact assessments there. Can you speak to that versus like why we didn't just go citywide and say, hey, let's just build apartments everywhere?

Okay. But given that that's the perception nonetheless, and certainly I think folks didn't... hear that or get an opportunity to articulate in the communication, why could this not have been more of a just blanket citywide approach that rather than the specificity of villages just say, you know what, we're just going to go with apartments everywhere.

I want to ask a bit about infrastructure capacity because we also heard that maybe there wasn't the infrastructure capacity to support this level of growth, and I appreciate that it was always framed as a long-term build-out, but how do we reconcile infrastructure capacity with a 30-year build-out?

Yeah, thanks very much. There was a lot of commentary, appropriately so, I think, in terms of concern around the tree canopy. And if you lay in a very unscientific way, I sort of laid the Broadway plan, the villages plan, the Vancouver plan, all in different highlighter on a map of the city. And it pretty much covers the entire city outside of, let's say, the downtown core. Should all of those plans be built out as designed? Do we have a clear picture of what the impact of our tree canopy really looks like in, say, 20 to 30 years? And what... You know, of course, we have a number of strategies, but I don't think there's clarity in terms of how we can ensure that that doesn't become a very significant and unintended consequence of us fulfilling on all of these plans.

Okay. And I see there's maybe a comment here. Thank you.

Yeah, I think it would be interesting to get when we get those updates that we're seeing the difference between a full grown tree canopy and an emerging tree canopy, because the experience and the value to the city from a cooling perspective, but also just, you know, general livability and what we're talking about in terms of what we value in Vancouver is different. Right. In terms of compromising. Yeah. large full growth trees and brand new trees that one day will be that, but we're looking at 40, 50 years down the road. So I think it makes a difference in terms of how residents experience the city. So that would be great. One last question. Thank you. And that's great. That's all on trees. One last question was around the notion of piloting one of the villages. So I don't know who wants to respond to that. I can respond to that. Yeah, perfect. Great. So there has been some discussion around where there is not a lot of commercial retail available and there maybe are one or two communities that might be quite amenable just based on the surrounding conditions to this. How would staff respond in terms of how we can... either direct the next phase of this work or what you've heard through this process of public hearing, the opportunity we have to pilot one or two areas to see what we can learn from that as we maybe go back to neighborhoods and get more feedback on this overall plan.

Do you have a sense of what there are?

Are you able to share which ones you would recommend?

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks very much. I just want to ask some questions about the concerns people raised with the retail areas. And I'd just like to know what rezoning work have we done to bolster... the customer base, the walkability and different housing types around the existing retail that we have? And is there a gap there that might need to be filled?

Yeah, and what, I mean, I know this is a difficult question to ask, but... to answer, but we know that we've had a lot of strain put on our existing retail by things like online shopping and just tariffs and the state of the economy. Do you think that, because I know that some speakers said, well, we haven't actually had a net decrease in population, so why would we need I can't remember what it was, whether it was we don't need more retail or why is our retail struggling? It's some different thing. But we heard clearly from staff that... additional population around retail areas is the single thing that provides more support to our beloved independent retail.

And is that a piece of work that's already on the agenda for the planning department or is that something you would need direction for?

The existing shopping.

Yeah. And you provided council with some options about more restricted areas group of five neighbourhood villages. And can you take me through what those are and what was the reasoning behind that, noting that I've got just over a minute?

Okay, so no one else in the queue. Council will now make its decision on this application. Do we have a mover of the recommendations?

Councillor Frey, thank you very much. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Kirby-Young. Oh, sorry.

Councillor Kirby-Young.

Yeah, thanks very much, Chair. It's my intention to propose an amendment off the back before we get into sort of substantive discussion on the plan. So I don't know if you'd like to move this to amendment queue, Chair.

And can we add Councillor Kirby-Young to the amendment queue?

Thank you the intention of this amendment is really to focus on Sort of the I think the intention that was originally behind some of this work, which is around providing More options and more homes not simply an arbitrary number of floors, but enabling more housing choices More good quality more livable more diverse and more attainable housing choices in neighborhoods Some may recall that I had brought forward the motion for to look at advancing the SES or single egress stairs typology, an option for housing. We took some time, and that was a very considered process. It came as a motion. We had a report back from staff. to do some more work. It was given the time that it needed to breathe. It had support from our fire department. And what we learned through that process is that SES can provide, as I said, better quality homes, more cross ventilation, some larger size family units. It can provide more options, more choice, more attainability in neighborhoods across the city. I think what's really interesting about it is that it can provide the type of homes that people want and that neighborhoods will also welcome with interesting forms and interesting designs. Single egress stairs unlock small lots. They eliminate the need for the second staircase, which means that they can be built in narrow or regular urban infill lots. It means that we don't create and provide unnecessary pressure for lot assembly. It means that we don't have to have boxy, consistent formulaic six-story rental buildings everywhere with one typology. It opens up a lot of choice. There, it's better for climate because it provides cooling with the cross ventilation for windows. It's better for families. It's better for communities because people can connect more. And some of the design opportunities are actually very inspiring. So the amendment that is on the floor, and I'll sort of walk through it to provide council with some context in terms of the mechanics. And I am going to ask off the top that we sever recommendations A through J. Then add this new one that would allow the single egress typology to be enabled across the city of Vancouver. There's a lot of legalese in here. It's not written necessarily in layman's terms. This is on consultation with planning staff and legal. But what it means in plain language is that it's a sort of, if it were to pass, it would be a continued... sort of clear and resounding support that council has previously shown for the SES typology to open up smaller lot opportunities and interesting forms and larger homes with the single egress typology. And that regardless of council's decision on the villages today, that this will continue that work in allowing this new form of housing choice. across the city. I think it's exciting. We often hear from lots of folks, well, I see that in other cities in San Francisco and Europe. The architecture and the form is more interesting. The units can be bigger. Again, they're better ventilated. They don't require that sort of pressure on neighborhoods. They're gentle infill, and they can really be welcomed in, and it creates quite interesting cities, I think, in terms of visual diversity and identity. And so that is what this would propose and enable to do, and that is the amendment that I am putting forth for consideration. Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks. Appreciating that we're just seeing this for the first time and it is fairly substantive and I'm working off the assumption that by severing recommendations a through j that's in order to uh oppose those recommendations otherwise why would you sever it can i ask through you maybe to the staff what what does this look like if if uh recommendations a through j are are are severed and and and voted against and the substance of this amendment because i'm trying to wrap my brain around it it is pretty substantial in my read

So not as broad in scope?

Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah, I mean, I think this is... while I support the idea of the SES, and I appreciate the work that's been going into single egress stairs because it has resulted in something that's now supported by Vancouver Fire Rescue as opposed to the sort of arbitrary style that was originally proposed, and now we've worked and come up with some really great options. But I think that this... you know, let's call it what it is. I think that if the intention is to sever A through J in order to presumably vote against it, then this effectively kills this entire village's plan, which was very clear direction from this ABC council that I did not support. It was an urgent motion from the mayor at the time, as I recall, in October of 2023. Councillor Carr and I abstained because it was brought without any opportunity for public consultation because it was an urgent motion. So I think that I feel like this is kind of flipping the script and seems like a colossal waste of staff resources and time if that is indeed the intention to sever A through J to vote against it.

Yeah, I just have a point. So I actually, this is a, where do I want to go? I have a question, but I also am looking for a recess because this is an amendment that we've just gotten, and there is obviously implications. And the singles dairy grass is a citywide policy, and now we're applying it to villages. That seems like two different issues. It applies to R3 within villages, but it also applies to the city as a whole. So I'm hoping to have a recess, but I see Neil stood up. So I just want to get a decision from you, Mayor.

I'll ask the question first and then I'm going to ask for a five minute recess. Thanks.

That's outside of the villages.

If this passes and A through K does not... Kind of back to square one, where SES applies anyways.

Okay, okay. Okay, yeah, a recess would be great.

Chair, I'd like to ask a point of parliamentary procedure before I move to recess. And I know I have to be on the queue for that. I can't.

So my time is still going.

Okay.

Recess. Okay.

We'll take a five minute recess.

All right, so, Councillor Bligh, you wanted to get off the queue?

Councillor Orr?

Yeah, I just had a question on what this means, essentially, including SES would not have to include land assemblies. So essentially, what we would then have is those 6,100 renters on single... FAMILY LAW SO SECONDARY SUITES WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE TRPP OR ENHANCED TRPP.

I asked my point of parliamentary procedure earlier with the clerks, but if the rest of council wishes to hear it, I could repeat it. It simply was to clarify that with this resolution... If we vote on this it's an amendment to the report and we would be moving back to the main queue for regular Debate is that current clerks could you confirm that?

Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Elsa Maloney Thanks, if I could be moved to an amendment queue.

I've got an amendment to the amendment, please Right amendment to the amendment, please go ahead councillor.

Thanks I'll just read it out. I'm not sure exactly where it can be added most appropriately, but it's further that council directs staff to commence a review of zoning around existing retail centres in the established neighbourhood centres with a view to bolstering the health of existing retail and improving community connectedness, walkability and the availability of more accessible and affordable housing options. Now, the reason why I've proposed that is because our existing retail we all value very much. And, I mean, I personally find it very sad and depressing when I lose my beloved independent businesses from around the downtown peninsula where I live and in the West End. And, you know, we heard clearly from staff that the additional customers does help bolster and ensure the good health of local businesses, ensuring local employment and community connectedness. And I think we've got an opportunity. I suspect that the Villagers Plan itself is going to be voted down as a result of the intention to sever in the... Councillor Kirby-Young's amendment. But I think this is an opportunity for us to address one of the concerns raised by speakers, that they're worried about competition with existing retail in the Villages Plan. Now, I think this Council got it back to front and that we should have perhaps suggested a body of work around bolstering existing retail and looking at zoning around existing retail areas rather than prioritising the villagers' plan because of how much staff time it's taken up. You know, I know that it was an election promise by the majority and I know that it's... since been prioritised a number of times, but I think it's a real gap that we haven't done much planning work around existing retail. So this amendment is to deliver more density in customers, therefore customers, to our existing retail to help them deal with things like online shopping, tariffs, the state of the economy, how much... people's income they have to put into housing and how little they have left over to spend at their local shops. So we have secured rental policy along the arterials, but we don't have a specific body of work concentrating on existing retail. So I hope that council will vote in favour of this amendment.

Thank you. Councillor Orr.

Thanks. Just maybe a point of information through the chair to the mover of the amendment. Just a little confused as to the placement of this particular amendment in terms. So this would be, would this be a new letter or would this be under M? So we're amending the amendment, which adds M and severs the rest. So would this qualify as an amendment to an amendment or would this be an amendment to the main queue? I'm just a little confused at the placement.

Can I ask that point of information possibly through the chair to the staff of where the best placement would be an extra letter?

Okay. That's all my questions. Thanks for the clarification. Thank you.

Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much and appreciate the amendment being brought forward by Councillor Maloney. I think that the assumptions on sort of where decisions are going to land today makes this amendment timely and appropriate. And I think, you know, it's not to be prescriptive about what those outcomes look like. It's to continue some of the work, the citywide work, around how we are going to grow as a city. And I appreciate looking at the review of zoning around existing retail centers, recognizing that we do have areas that have thriving retail, we have areas that have struggling retail, and we have areas with no retail. And so there is a lot of nuance to this. And I think some of the objection I heard with the villages plan is just the sort of homogenous nature of the policy itself, risking some of the nuances that actually are how people experience local serving retail in their neighborhoods. We aren't sort of a vast, geographically vast city. Our city is highly walkable. We can access retail as it stands right now. What I hear from customers is what they want is more, or from retail and businesses, are more customers. And I also hear from people who would like more options to... have street access like townhomes with rental and multi-unit development above them and not just have to have retail on arterials. And so whether it's through setbacks or urban design sort of parameters, there's an opportunity to create more street-level residential, which I don't think we should take off the table entirely because that too... lends to livability and housing choices. And at the end of the day, can sort of offer some support to the existing retail that needs more customers at the end of the day. And in doing so, will evolve the offering of the various retailers. Because one of the things that's not identified in the Villages Plan is there's no way for us to manage or... sort of dictate whether we want to or not, and I'm not suggesting we do want to, whether or not they're multinational chain businesses that move in or whether or not they're dentists. Nothing against dentists. We all need them. But, like, maybe they're better on a second floor. Maybe that's not the kind of experience, public realm experience we're trying to create. And so there's nothing in the Villages Plan that stopped... that from happening and we do see it happening across the city already you know uh public like some sort of health whether it's dentists or physio what have you they're very stable they're usually better funded than a a risky small business that's opening a cafe but the cafe or something like that the grocery store has is offering something very different and unique to residents across the city so I think in my ramblings, perhaps, about how I want to support this motion is because it just feels like there's a lot more work to do. to make sure that we strike the right balance. And I don't want this work to end. I think it needs to continue because we have existing opportunities across our city where more residents and better support for existing retail and then making sure retail exists where it is not currently in the five pilot areas that were highlighted by staff are not identified in here, but I suspect will be part of that future work. So again, all that to say, that's part of my closing remarks on the villages plan itself, but... I support this amendment for those reasons.

Thank you. Councillor Dominato.

Thanks, Mayor. I move to sever O, the amendment to the amendment, as part of the vote.

So do we have to, sorry, do we have to vote on O first?

Or are we just going to deal with it? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. We're just voting on O right now. Okay. Thank you. The amendment to the amendment as proposed by Councillor Maloney. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, we are going to vote on Councillor Maloney's amendment to the amendment.

And that fails with myself, councillors Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Claston, Meisner and Joe in opposition.

So I'm going to go back to seeing no one in amendment Q2. I'm going to go to amendment Q1. Councillor Maloney.

I am going to move another amendment. Actually, no, I'm not. I'll save that for after this. Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Orr. Thanks. Yeah, I believe, yeah, I sent through an amendment, which I believe is a further that on M. I could be wrong. That could be a point of information to staff as well. It's essentially addressing the question I asked earlier around single family lots that wish to proceed with single egress stairs or small density apartments. And the tenant relocation policies around those lots. So potentially tens of thousands of renters that would be affected by this amendment. So I believe this is M, but I could be wrong. And I do see an email that has come through around questions, concerns around the lawfulness of this. So maybe we could take a... recess. Also note that we're not in the, are we in the amendment queue? We would have to go to the amendment queue. Amendment to the amendment queue.

It hasn't.

I have a point of procedure, and it might relate to Councillor Orr's comment about the lawfulness of this one, but I wonder procedurally if we can get guidance from the clerks if we should be dealing with the amendment on the floor first, and this is a separate amendment in its own right because it doesn't relate specifically and only to SES or to the zones being proposed. It's more of a blanket, so I wonder if this should be considered separately and we should be dealing with the amendment on the floor first procedurally.

Through me to legal?

Yeah, can I just get clarification from the clerks or legal? It seems like this would be a separate matter.

Okay, so it sounds, Chair, just following up on that, and I appreciate that, it sounds like it's a separate conversation, separate from the amendment council's considering, so it sounds like we should, when I'm hearing this, we should proceed with disposing of this amendment first.

So just administratively, if I have this correct, because there is no seconder, there is no motion on the floor, and we can dispense with it and go back to the amendment. Is that correct? Okay. Councillor Orr, you're good with that? Yes, I am. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So I'm going to go back to... Amendment Q1 and all the speakers on Amendment 2Q don't, it's irrelevant. So, Councillor Orr, any other comments?

I will submit an amendment on the main queue rather than amend the amendment. Okay. Okay, thanks.

All right. So, there we go. So, we're back to the main queue. Councillor Kirby Young. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yes, we have to vote. Sorry, I lost track of that. There's a bunch of things going on. So just so we're all clear, we are discussing on the motion or the amendment on the floor is Councillor Kirby's Young. Councillor Kirby Young's amendment, which is also up here right now. Okay. So seeing no one else in the queue.

No, I was. I got kicked off the queue. Sorry.

All right. Councillor Maloney, please go ahead.

Thank you. Yeah, I am very much supportive of including single-stair egress options as a typology in our planning. That's why I have moved a previous MOSH amendment to make sure that's included. So I'm definitely supportive of this. I think that single-stair egress options really improve our flexibility to build... housing on smaller blocks that's more liveable, that has more flexible design possibilities and can be built by smaller developers so that we aren't stuck in this situation that we constantly hear about from speakers at public hearings that we've only got low-rise housing housing stock or towers. So this is very important work and I'm very supportive of it. With regard to severing all, I think it's A to J or whatever it is, A to J, it appears obvious that the majority on council want to do that so that they can vote against the villagers' plan and I don't want to presume that but it seems like that's a possibility. And if that is what comes to pass, I think it's important to remember that staff were directed by this council to accelerate the timeframe and it's relevant for this work and it's relevant that... I think staff have done a fine job of dealing with this despite staff cuts. During the 2026 budget, the planning department's budget was cut by 15%. I know there's been criticism about how much consultation, deep consultation on a village by village basis took place, but I don't I think that really Council set staff up to fail on that point. And I think that if this is voted down, I think it's an incredible waste of resources. You know, staff have been focusing heavily on the Villagers Plan as directed by Council for a long time. And as a result of that, other work has been deprioritised. So this... If it's the case that the majority on council votes against its own villagers' plan, I think it will be a pretty massive waste of taxpayers' money. So although I will be definitely voting in favour of this amendment, I'm a little bit concerned about what it means for the work that's being prioritised and resourced within the city when we don't have a lot of... staff time to waste. Thanks.

Councillor Meister.

I'll be quick. My colleague was just lamenting her concern around staff time and staff resources, but I just want to be clear that what takes precedence to me is listening to Vancouverites, listening to the hundreds of speakers that came out to speak on this issue, reading their correspondence. So that's where my focus is. Staff are here. Staff are well resourced. I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the work that they do. But what is paramount to me is listening to Vancouverites, not lamenting the loss of staff time.

Thank you very much. Councillor Bligh.

Thanks. I just – I'm not going to restate a lot of very good points that have been made around the benefits of the single-stair egress policy that we've been debating at council for some time. I've seen many of the renderings that show what's possible when we enable that type of design and – built form. And, you know, the livability, the bigger units, the accessibility to solar access, making sure that, you know, it eliminates oftentimes the need for an inboard bedroom. These are things that, smaller units, of course, these are things that really impact livability. And so the idea that we can look elsewhere outside of even our continent to places where These homes are being built with the emphasis on livability and benefiting from single-stair egress is a debate we've had here. It's something I've supported in the past, and I will support it in this motion. I think the broader conversation around the villages plan, and we definitely, I agree, we've got to listen to the many, many hundreds of speakers, and I have a lot of my own personal reservations around villages given the My experience working across the city over 30 years in support of small businesses and in those small business retail hubs and understand sort of since the late 90s how the evolution of these retail areas have come to be, but also recognizing there are parts of our city where there is zero retail. And that that is also a gap for many residents and that they wish there was more retail. And so how do we continue this work without having residents feel like their neighborhoods or their communities are under threat? So there's a lot we've learned from this process. And one of the things we heard from staff despite their good efforts and a lot of earnest work on this council directed policy is that there's more what I hear from it is that there's more to do there's more work to do there's more engagement and so just to and again I don't want to preempt what's going to happen with a decay but just to sort of lift up council Maloney's point is that this isn't just simply lamenting, as was stated by Councillor Meiszner. This is about recognising that there is still an opportunity here, but we have not yet fully met the threshold of neighbourhood engagement on what's being proposed. And so we should continue that work and maybe even identify, rather than 17, what are three? two or three pilots that we can learn from. And that's how our city can grow in a way that's both thoughtful, that includes residents, but make sure that we do keep going forward. And what I fear is because of, you know, we're on the dawn of an election, that this is going to get punted completely and it'll be a blank slate and a starting over for those reasons.

And I always think that we should be not making reasons for any political issues.

gain in this chamber. We want to be making decisions at this local level in the best interest of what it means for residents in the future of our city. So we haven't hit the mark with this as it's been presented, despite good work from staff. We should shrink the offering. We should look at one or two pilots and learn from those. And unfortunately, with this amendment, I don't think that's what's going to happen.

Thank you, Councillor Frye.

Yeah, you know, I will reflect that there's no full-throated support for this plan from me for a variety of reasons that I've sort of alluded to and touched on. But I do also want to reflect that we've overcomplicated what actually is a very natural process. And, you know, I do live in Strathcona where we have an abundance of four-story apartments with corner stores built into them and the opportunities to do those kind of things. And I think where this had kind of gone wrong was the overly prescriptive nature of it and where we could have possibly more organically delivered on villages. But I really want to focus more specifically on the comments to Councillor Maloney's points about lamenting the wasted staff time. I think it it behooves this council to recognize it's about accountability and transparency. And this staff were very clearly directed. And I'm looking at the motion, the urgent motion that the mayor presented in October of 2023 that specifically directed staff to accelerate implementation of the 26 village areas outlined in the Vancouver Plan, multiplex buildings, townhouses, mixed-use, low-rise, three to six stories, complete, inclusive, resilient neighborhoods, people with different incomes and backgrounds, adding shops and services. This was all the direction of the mayor, supported in full by the council of the day.

Sorry to interrupt you, Councillor Frye. Are you speaking to the amendment or the main motion?

I'm speaking to the amendment, which is moving to sever the motion, and it's kind of a finalization piece.

Yep. Yeah, no, I think in fairness, this amendment seeks to sever recommendations A through J, so the only possible reason to sever those motions is to vote against it, if I'm not mistaken.

If you're speculating, yeah, but everyone in this chamber is entitled to vote however they want, yay or nay, on the severing. They may even resever more.

I have no idea.

But in general, speaking to the substance of that is, you know, severing these particular pieces that were directed by you through an urgent motion in October of 2023. So, you know, I will say that I don't think it's so much lamenting the work that staff did, but recognizing that there is a tremendous amount of work that staff did at the direction of council. And I think that needs to be recognized. And I think there's a lot of good work in there. And it's unfortunate the timing, being what it is, is, you know, probably not... allowed it to come to full fruition because the opportunity to fully engage with the public perhaps wasn't there. But again, there was very specific direction from a very specific council to deliver on this. So I'll leave it at that.

Councillor Maloney?

I have a question. Am I permitted to move another amendment to the amendment box?

Yes, you are.

In that case, can you please take me to an amendment queue?

Can I clear amendment queue too?

Please go ahead.

Thanks. While it is speculation, firstly, I'm very grateful to Councillor Meiszner for raising the issue about how important it is that we listen to members of the public, and I obviously share that high priority. And, in fact, I'm very sorry that we didn't... as a council, listen to the over 600 speakers that would like us to have done something different with the budget last year. But moving on, I would like to amend this amendment to refer recommendations A to J back to staff so that further deep consultation can be undertaken. I'm sure that Councillor Meiszner will be very supportive of that. given the sentiments that he just relayed to us all, which I agree with intensely. So this would also be a way of making sure that all this work isn't just discarded and wasted, that we do undertake further consultation with the communities around the 17 villages that have been proposed by staff. And that is definitely something that we heard from public speakers that they had an expectation of more consultation being undertaken. So I'm expecting enthusiastic support on this referral.

Seconded by Councillor Fry. Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, I'll be quick, just in response to my colleague. I don't believe this is a consultation issue, although I certainly do agree that consultation could have been much more robust. I personally believe that this plan as presented is flawed, so I won't be supporting Councillor Maloney's amendment for, quote, deep consultation.

Thank you very much.

Everyone, we're going to restart.

So sorry.

And just...

recess us and maybe we have a motion to extend to complete this item.

Okay. So we should just vote on the amendment.

I know you should have the floor, but I recognize we only have three minutes. I'm hoping that we can find a procedural way to create some space to move to extend past noon to complete the item.

I'd look for guidance from you. Is there a seconder? Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Great, okay, so we will extend. And so, clerk, is the simplest option right now just to vote on the amendment to the amendment?

Okay. All right, Councillor Maloney, any other comments?

No. Okay.

I'm sorry. I did forward some suggested amended wording by staff that council, I don't know how I incorporate that best in my amendment, but it was to replace the original wording with that council strike that councillor

council sever recommendations A through J and replace it with the following, that council refer recommendations A to J back to staff so that further deep consultation can be undertaken.

So clerk, you were shaking your head there.

So is that what you'd like to do, Councillor? I'm happy to do that. Okay, so the motion, great. All in favour of withdrawing the amendment to the amendment? Sorry, I said all in favour, right? All in favour? All opposed? Okay, so that amendment to the amendment is being withdrawn. Councillor Maloney, you're still on the queue. I'm assuming you are going to file a revised amendment to the amendment. That's right, thank you.

And thank you very much to staff for that improved wording.

Yes, so I have already distributed that recommended wording and I would like to move that amendment that council strike, that council serve as recommendations A through J and replace it with the following, that council refer recommendations A to J back to staff so that further deep consultation can be undertaken.

Great, that was seconded by Councillor Frye.

if we can get it up thank you very much okay uh seeing no one else in the queue uh we'll bring that one to a vote and that fails with uh myself counselors Kirby Young, Dominato, Montague, Claston, Meisner, and Joe in opposition. Okay. So we will go back to the amendment queue. Councillor Maloney?

I do not wish to speak more. Thank you.

Okay, great. So just so we're all clear again, we are voting on Councillor Kirby Young's amendment. Seeing no one else in the queue, we're going to bring that to a vote.

And that passes with Councillor Orr in opposition and Councillor Frye abstaining. Okay. Councillor Kirby-Young, anything else on the amendment?

No, I'm going to the main queue now.

We're going to go to the main queue now. Councillor Kirby-Young, anything else on the...

Yeah, so I understand now we're back in debating on the main motion, which is going to be severed, and just so everybody knows, now has a supported implementation of the single egress stairs typology. I will be very clear personally where I'm at on this. I think the idea of the villages plan was good. I think that the... and the execution was unfortunate at best and did not reflect the standards of the city that I believe that the residents should see. It was a tsunami or a landslide, pick your analogy, of opposition to this plan. I have seen lots of robust, spirited, and healthy debates on land use and planning in the city of Vancouver. Typically, there's two sides. Sometimes there's a sort of strong sentiment in favor or against. But I don't think I've seen anything, notwithstanding the American tactics that flooded part of the public hearing. When you filter those out and listen to generally to Vancouver residents, what they felt was that this. The way that this was done came at them like a tsunami. And it was just there were so many egregious points along the way for sort of 700 property owners to get something that didn't set up incentives and entitlements for people to move forward with modernizing their properties, but literally took away their ability. to do what they wanted to do with their single family homes. When we implemented multiplex across the city and moved away from single family zoning only, it was an incremental additional choice. It was not a taking something away from somebody. And for those letters to go out in the way that they did, peremptorily, without good engagement, to specific pockets of the city and not broadly, I think was very troublesome. And I understand why people were genuinely upset. I would be upset. So quite honestly, this was not ready for prime time. I think the intention was good. The execution was not. And that is our job sometimes. It doesn't mean simply because staff spend time on doing some work that council has to adopt every report that comes in front of us. That is not our job to rubber stamp things. Our job is to look at, was it a good quality execution? What resulted from it in terms of what is being proposed? Is it going to be better for the city? And is there any type of social license to move forward on it? And quite honestly, on this, there is not. I think that our council has been very bullish and very supportive of housing. We have enabled different housing choices. We just talked about the SES. We have approved record numbers of rental homes. We have put in lots of efforts to make development more viable. We have implemented multiplexes. We learned from that. We sent them back to refine the design guidelines. And that's what the process of governing is. It's listening and adapting. Our city is seeing an extraordinary amount of change. There is a lot in the pipeline with respects to new projects. We also heard a lot from a lot of the existing neighborhood centers and retail areas that are having their challenges with respects to vacancy and otherwise. There was a lot of good work already done around shoring up and supporting those neighborhood centers through the official development plan that council adopted. And so I think really this is about giving time for the initiatives that we have put forward to come to fruition. And it is about, I'm actually super, super excited about the opportunity to do single egress stairs. I think it's the kind of thing that everybody can align around and what people have been looking for. It's not boxy. It can be really innovative. It can provide simple things like cross ventilation and having windows on both sides, using single family lots and taking pressure off land assemblies. welcoming more interesting and sort of different variants of forms in the neighborhoods just makes a whole lot of sense to me. So I want to thank all the speakers that came out and I think genuinely spoke to something that personally impacted them very directly and very viscerally. And you were heard very much from my perspective. And I hope that I'll be interested in the questions or sorry, comments around the table. But I hope that my colleagues equally felt that just the... level of pushback and dismay in terms of how this was executed and what the final recommendations were. I don't think that we should be forcing anybody to think that their home is not their home or that things are going to move forward in a way that council would make a decision regardless of just a storm of clear opposition. This is not a split perspective. This is just overwhelming. It's pretty clear and pretty easy to To hear that and I hope that the rest of council does as well. Thank you.

Thank You Councillor Meiszner Yeah, thanks. Like my colleague, Councillor Kirby Young, I've been listening closely to Vancouver residents, the hundreds of whom have come to council to speak on the Villages Plan, as well as reading all of your correspondence. And I want to be clear that I'm also opposed to the plan as presented. Vancouver is an incredible, beautiful and dynamic city, and it's made up of many unique neighbourhoods, each with its own character and built form. And those neighbourhoods have evolved over time. and I think that evolution has really served our city well. But it also demonstrates to me that a one-size-fits-all approach to city building as proposed in the Villages Plan is not the right answer for Vancouver. In my opinion, the plan is an overly sweeping blanket rezoning policy that doesn't make sense for our city. I want to be clear that I do think that density should be added to our existing villages, and some of that work is already happening. And I support making it easier to strengthen our existing neighbourhoods with new housing and small businesses. and make those communities more vibrant. So when I first heard about the Villages Plan and the motion, I approached it with an open mind. Obviously, I believe that adding new homes and commercial space within existing village areas is a good idea, and I also believe that it's something that most Vancouverites would support. However, the plan that was brought back to Council is, in my eyes, built on a one-size-fits-all approach. And I strongly believe that we should work on strengthening our existing neighborhood centers rather than establishing entirely new ones at this time. As proposed, the plan would dramatically expand village areas, in many cases extending the village area five blocks in every direction from an existing center. This would represent a significant change to our neighborhoods and could lead to unintended consequences, including widespread land speculation. as investors rush to assemble single-family lots, the loss of mature tree canopy, orphan properties, and much more. That's why during the question period a few weeks ago on this topic, I asked staff, instead of proposing sweeping citywide changes, why not begin with one or two commercial or village areas that could benefit from additional housing, commercial space, and revitalization? And I know we all know that there's a couple of village areas existing around Vancouver that really could benefit from some of that extra infusion of housing and commercial space. This would allow us to identify what works, what doesn't, and make informed decisions before expanding the approach. Like my colleague who has spoken, I also have serious concerns around the public engagement process. Many speakers that came to council, despite being in the impacted areas, expressed surprise that this planning process was underway, and I suspect that's because many homeowners are older and not necessarily online chronically like many of us younger people. You know, if my parents were impacted by this, for example, my mom doesn't have a cell phone. I mean, they don't really use the internet. So I think there's a gap in the engagement there from my perspective because the engagement process really relied heavily on online platforms. And to the letter, councillors, as I've stated previously, were not aware of the contents of the letter that was sent out by city staff to homeowners in advance. And I think homeowners who receive this letter deserve an apology for the alarm and concern that that letter caused. Many interpreted that letter as the city telling them what they could or could not do with their property. In many cases, they've lived in it for decades, telling them things like they couldn't add a laneway house or they couldn't build an addition or they couldn't do a multiplex, but would instead be expected to build a four to six story mixed use building or ground floor retail. So clearly that would be quite shocking to receive in the mail. I will close on just saying that as a councillor over the past three and a half years and continuing, I feel an immense responsibility to make well-considered decisions about development in our neighbourhoods. I feel a strong responsibility because these decisions will have lasting impacts for decades and even longer. So in opposing this plan, I want to acknowledge that this council has taken significant steps to address the housing crisis from the Broadway plan to Sunox, to the Heatherlands, to the Canby Corridor, to multiplex zoning, to streamlining permitting, to eliminating unnecessary red tape. I'm proud to be part of a council that's taking serious action on the housing crisis, but I also will always stand up for thoughtful planning, and I will always listen to residents, and the message from Vancouverites has been clear. They do not support the Villages Plan as currently proposed, and I, as a result, will not be supporting this proposal today, and I'll be voting against it. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bligh?

Yeah, thanks very much. I will be quick. I've already spoken on a number of dimensions to this report. I do not feel like we landed in the right place with the villages plan. And so support not moving forward with it as it's been laid out. But I do want to just say that. And it really is just an appreciation to staff who have worked on this plan. Our planning staff have tackled a lot of major projects and plans, particularly needing to deliver here in July at the end of this council term. And I can't imagine what it must feel like to sometimes sit and have to listen to a lot and not be able to say a whole lot in terms of what has gone into this. I think we've all learned, whether it's communication that's been disseminated to affected communities, what we can learn from that, where we engage and how we engage. But when... something is directed to staff to do a planning exercise with some urgency, I think that's exactly what staff responded to in terms of their direction. And it's a good lesson to this council and any future councils that when we are moving things forward for what might appear to be political expediency at the time can often result in a lot of wasted staff time. We need to be pragmatic in how we... foreign policy and we need to be responsive to how people feel about it. And sometimes that means we need to slow down to speed up. So part of this, I think, exercise has been an incredible learning. And one of the pieces that I think is very important is to recognize at the end of the day, livability for folks means that they can walk and roll to the daily things that they need in their communities. And that means It enhances livability greatly. And so for the goal of increasing different housing choices across our city, I think there is still a lot of work to do. And we have a number of planning exercises underway. as well as decisions that we've made around zoning that allow us to continue on that work. I think hitting pause now on this work and essentially not supporting it entirely means that this doesn't become sort of a distraction, let's say, in terms of the broader issues that our city is facing in terms of how we grow, how we get around the city. and how we make sure that the city is somewhere that people can afford to live. And not one particular zoning is going to solve all those issues, but those issues still exist. And so I think at this particular moment in time, the right call is to not move ahead with the village's plan, although I do think there's a tremendous amount of value in terms of what's been learned through this process. that both city staff can take away and also fold into future work that will allow us to increase housing choices, to increase available retail, and to make sure our city grows in a way that is thoughtful, is responsive. and make sure that neighborhoods and communities do not shoulder the burden of the growth of the city, but they're part of it. And I do still firmly believe there's a way that we can do that. So again, just to close, thank you very much to staff and thank you very much to the speakers that waited many until midnight after midnight to have their voice heard because this mattered that much. And that's an incredibly invaluable process that we get the privilege of being on council to listen and also respond to what it is that we hear. And I think hitting pause on this plan is a response, a clear response to what we've heard and believe that this work will continue in some form so that it will serve the future of our city.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. I've distributed an amendment that staff provided to us in response to some of the... Staff have been extremely helpful. They provided us with proposed wording of amendments that we could use if we wanted to respond to the various concerns raised by public speakers, and one of those was something that I asked staff about during questions, which is... picking a pilot of five village areas. Now, I wouldn't be moving this if members of the majority hadn't already suggested that they're voting against the original plan. But I do want to, and I'm somewhat concerned about limiting the villages area plan to a pilot because I know that that could result in, it's just better to, as we heard from staff, to have a broader rezoning to allow more access to development opportunities across the city. But I'm going to move this anyway because I feel very strongly that we did, there's been some very thoughtful work done by staff. This is a compromise. And I think rather than dismissing the plan in its entirety, that it looks like we're heading towards that we have an opportunity for a pilot to learn from. Thank you.

Yeah, it's the wording that was provided to us by staff.

Great. So I'm going to put that to a vote. If Council, if you can go to the voting panel and vote on Councillor Maloney's amendment.

Great, thank you. And that feels with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Dominato, Montague, Claston, Meisner and Joe in opposition and Councillors Bly, Fry and or abstaining.

Okay, so we'll just go back to the main queue. Councillor Maloney.

I'll pop off further.

Thank you, Councillor Zhou. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. So first, thanks Planning Department for presenting this plan to Council and to the public. I know there's a lot of work and a lot of effort behind you, so thank you for this. And also thanks for all the speakers who stayed really late with us together. I understand your passion, your concern. You deserve to be heard. I want to begin by making one thing very clear. I support building more housing in Vancouver. We need more homes. and more housing choices for the current and future residents. But it does not mean supporting every housing proposal. It does not mean supporting every plan. I understand the rationale of the village plan. I do. I support the intention, which is to create workable neighborhoods for all the residents. But our responsibility as council is not simply approve more density. Our responsibility is to ensure we get the planning right. Over the past few months, I have attended multiple community meetings, engagements, met with hundreds or perhaps a thousand residents, business owners, and neighborhood organizations regarding the village plan. Some support additional housing, some oppose aspects of this proposal, but regardless of where they stand, they all ask one thing, to be heard. I think good planning does not begin with zoning. Good planning begins with listening. The principle has guided my thinking throughout this process. The proposal would rezone more than 13,000 properties across 17 very different neighborhoods in a single vault. Every one of these neighborhoods is very different. They have different transportation networks, different commercial districts, different infrastructure capacity, different housing markets, different tree canopy, and a different community character. Let me tell everyone, I've visited all those 17 villages myself. For example, Mackenzie Heights on 33rd has no traffic lights, only one single lane on each direction, no rapid bus. This is very different from Granville on the 41st. Yet, we are being asked to apply essentially the same planning framework across all of them. It doesn't make sense. So I'm not convinced that the one-set-fits-all approach is the best way to plan a city as diverse as Vancouver. I'm also concerned about whether this proposal delivers what it was promised. The stated objective is affordability, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that this plan will guarantee homes that middle-income families can actually afford. Absolutely alone does not automatically create affordability, and many residents have questioned whether affordability outcomes are adequate built into this proposal. Also, as you can tell in my question, infrastructure is another major concern I have. Housing is not just about the buildings. It's about water, sewer capacity, roads, transit, parks, childcare, schools, community centers, and public safety. Many residents ask a simple question, can our infrastructure keep up? It's a very fair question, and I believe it deserves a clear answer before we undertake a citywide rezoning of this scale. The discussion is also bigger than the village plan itself. Over the past several years, the council and the previous council have adopted a series of significant citywide land use changes. Many were introduced with very good intention, no doubt about that. But we are already reviewing some of those policies because of the concerns about implementation and also the unintended consequences. Just like the multiplex policy, which is under review right now because of our motion due to the concerns for our residents. We need to make sure that our planning works are evidence-based, financially realistic, supported by the infrastructure, and shaped through meaningful public engagement. This is not slowing down housing. It's about responsible planning. I'm not advocating for doing nothing. I'm advocating for doing it better. A phased neighborhood approach will allow us to prioritize areas that are ready, strengthen affordability requirements, ensure infrastructure, keep pace with the growth, and also continue engaging community as the partners. We all want Vancouver to remain as a livable, inclusive, and affordable city. But we cannot build a great neighborhood if we lose the trust of people who already live in them. Again, I want to reiterate, good planning does not begin with zoning. Good planning begins with listening. So for that reason, I'm not going to support this village plan. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Clausen.

Thanks very much, Mayor. Just before I begin, it has been referenced, the original direction from council, which took place one year into this mandate. So it was pretty much about three years ago. There was an omnibus housing motion, and I'll just outline really quickly. It was not only in addition to exploring opportunities for villages, it included harmonization of Vancouver's building bylaw with the provincial building code, updating guidelines around shadowing impacts, expansion of the use of certified professionals, obviously for affordability and speeding up permitting times and development. review of floor plate sizes for affordability and efficiency, and exploring opportunities for more mixed use around sky train stations. That was supported unanimously with Councillors Frey and Carr abstaining. So that's just a little bit more background context on what that came. So over the last several weeks, we've heard from hundreds of speakers and received thousands of emails and comments from Vancouver residents who care deeply about their neighbourhoods. And I want to sincerely thank everyone who took time to participate in this public hearing. There are a few conversations that have stayed with me. In Marpole, I met on their doorsteps with community members Edwina, Sue, and Grace, who each spoke passionately about the community they've helped to build over many years. They weren't opposed to change. They weren't opposed to welcoming new neighbors. But they were deeply concerned that the village's plan threatened the qualities that make their neighborhood feel like home. I also want to thank the residents of the Mountain View neighborhood, as well as Mackenzie Heights, Victoria Drive, Grandview Woodlands, and Killarney, literally from right across the city, who came into the chamber or wrote to me and thoughtfully explained why this proposal did not reflect the future they envisioned for their communities. Those conversations echoed what we heard throughout this public hearing. For many people, this wasn't a debate about zoning maps or planning policy. It was about the future of the places they call home.

The message we heard was remarkably consistent. Residents told us they understood the need for new housing to develop in our city, but not through a one-size-fits-all plan that treated very different neighborhoods as though they were the same. They expected neighborhood planning that reflected the unique character of their communities. They expected to have a meaningful voice in shaping that future. Instead, they felt they were being asked to respond to decisions that had already been made. They spoke about the character of their streets, the future of local shopping areas, the places where they raise their families, and the communities they have invested in for decades. These were not abstract planning discussions. They were deeply personal. After listening carefully throughout this public hearing, I've come to one clear conclusion. The village's plan is not the right plan for Vancouver. It does not reflect what Vancouver residents told us they expect from neighborhood planning, and it did not earn the confidence of the communities it was intended to serve. The people who came before us were not simply defending zoning or opposing change. They were standing up for the neighborhoods that they have cared for, invested in, and helped build over many years. They wanted to know that the future of those communities would be shaped with the input of community members and not decided for them. I believe that expectation is not only reasonable, it's non-negotiable. We must continue building homes for young families, seniors, and future generations. Shopping and amenities like grocery stores, medical offices, and places to meet and gather should be a part of our neighborhoods. But we must also respect the communities that make Vancouver the city people choose to call home. No resident should feel that the future of their neighborhood has already been decided before their voice has been heard. For those reasons, I cannot support the Village's plan

and will be voting against it. And again, thank you all to those who made their voices heard during this public hearing process. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Orr?

Yeah, thanks. Can I be moved to Amendment Q?

Sure.

Please go ahead.

Thank you. Yeah, we've all seen this amendment. It's because the single-acre stairs is still on the docket, and it's about applying the TRPP to those sites as well. Probably don't have to debate it much further, but that's the amendment.

Thank you. Do you have a seconder? Great. Councillor Fry seconded. Seeing no one else in the queue, why don't we put it to a vote? Sorry. Sorry. Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks. I appreciate the spirit of this amendment. I actually think it opens up a number of risks. And one of the main risks is that the... tendency uh for landlords to be willing to vote out to rent out their basement suites if they are compelled through a trpp actually and we've we've actually looked at this before and we've gotten feedback from staff that this so before we implement i think It really needs to be talked about and analyzed with what does the data show us? Because while I appreciate the spirit of it in protecting the tenants, what happens is landlords are less likely to rent out their basement suites if they are going to be accountable to what is often tenant protections that they can't necessarily fulfill. My concern in the past when we've looked at this is that There may be an unintended consequences if landlord might, you know, use Airbnb or something to generate revenue for their basement suite instead of actually allowing a permanent tenant to be. So while it may support existing tenants, I think it actually harms our available affordable rental stock in the long run, or it could. And so without that data, I can't just simply support that asking staff to bring back amendments. I'd much prefer a report back to better understand what are these conditions looking like today and how do we address. I think the spirit of this amendment is trying to protect tenants, which I agree with. But the unintended consequence can be actually reducing affordable housing stock for renters across our city at a time we can't afford to lose any of that space. So I can't support it because I think the way it's been drafted is too prescriptive.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, I also have similar concerns because what we need to do is make sure that these are viable. And I think we've heard several times in recent months from staff that apartments just aren't being built. Small scale apartments just aren't being built where there is a requirement that inclusive zoning or other impositions be put on it. And I absolutely agree that we need to be looking after tenants more. We need so much work to be done. There's a lot of other things that are available to us, like the social housing initiative that was voted down, like building... more affordable housing in conjunction with funding from senior levels of government. And we heard that from staff this morning, that a deeper level of subsidy from senior levels of government is required to make sure that all levels, we're providing housing with all levels of affordability. And I think that's the thing about The Villagers Plan and my proposed body of work that was voted down in relation to supporting retail areas with more accessible, affordable housing choices is that we need more housing supply at every level of affordability, but we don't want to make sure that single-stair egress housing can't be built because it's not viable or it discourages people from entering into that because of additional restrictions that aren't currently on those forms of housing. So that was a little bit garbled but I'm just trying to explain that I really appreciate the intent of this and I care very deeply about providing more affordable housing options. But if people aren't willing to...

either develop or open their homes to tenants, then we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot. Mr Fry?

Yeah, I do support this amendment wholeheartedly. I... Like a lot of us, I think I've been out there doing a lot of door knocking. And I am actually flabbergasted the extent to which there are still so many shared houses with tenants across our city from Dunbar to the drive. It's there's a lot of folks who are living in this. sort of secondary rental stock, which may or may not have been legally converted into multiple apartments within a house, but there certainly are a lot of them. And I think as we contemplate how the single egress stare kind of vernacular would... potentially accelerate the interest to knock down these houses and build replacement apartments in their stead. I think we do need to recognize that there's folks living there and that we are potentially creating interest in developing those lots. And I think that we've long talked about extending TRPP to more of that secondary stock and recognizing that... There are a lot of people, and I think the villagers' plan, and it was originally contemplated, there was, what, 7,000 people that were potentially at risk, tenants, renters in our city that could be kind of displaced. I think this is an important consideration that staff could report back on, and so I do support it.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. I just want a point of information through you to the chair is, to staff, sorry, is the interpretation of this amendment.

Because it's asking staff to prepare amendments, not to report back. And I just want to make sure all counselors, because some of the comments have sort of suggested that we're going to get some information back. And that's not what this is asking for. It's asking for amendments to the TRPP.

Right, but amendments, okay, I didn't necessarily read that as a report back so much as it would be amending it, which can be quite different, right? We get a report back, we make a decision, we shape it, and then we amend it. And so maybe it doesn't need clarification from staff, but yeah, I think I'll, well, actually, I would like to hear from staff their interpretation of it.

Okay, that's helpful. And part of that review, sorry, Dan, part of that review right now includes expanding to single-family lots, essentially.

But you don't have that decided yet?

Yeah, okay, okay.

Well, thank you very much, Dan. Yeah, I appreciate that.

No, I appreciate the, as I've alluded to, and I, you know, in other comments, Councillor Frye and others speaking quite confidently about this approach. I don't think we have that data, and so I'm not sure how you could be quite so confident that this is not going to have an unintended consequence of reducing available affordable rental stock, and that's my priority. So, yeah, I mean, I'd be happy to get that information back. It sounds like it's already coming back from staff at a future time regardless. So I'll probably just abstain at this point because I feel like this work is likely to be underway. And I don't think I have enough information to support it outright. But I'm certainly not opposed to it outright.

Thank you. Councillor Maloney.

Point of information to staff through the Chair. Yeah, I'm interested in knowing would the TRPP review, if this was incorporated, include an economic impact or impact on viability so that we could make an informed decision about whether it was going to have a negative effect on the supply of Housing.

All right. Well, look, that would allow a bit more informed decision to be made. So I'm persuaded I'll support this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so why don't we put that to a vote?

Okay, thank you. And that fails with myself, Councillors Kirby Young, Don Minato, Montague Claston, Meisner and Joe in opposition and Councillor Bligh abstaining. Okay, so going back to the main queue, Councillor Orr.

Thanks so much. After hearing from several hundred speakers who came out to voice their opinion, and thank you for doing so, we've heard concerns around affordability, housing mix, empty retail. I think when trying to tackle the housing crisis, we need bold policy ideas. To paraphrase what the mayor said when this idea was born at a press conference in 2022, it is true that this policy is bold, but bold is not always good, as we can see. I support wholeheartedly building more affordable housing and, in fact, have put motions forward to allow for more affordable housing to be built. On top of this, I support six-story apartments. I support neighborhood corner stores and mixed-use communities where people can walk to everyday services. Those are good planning principles, and I don't think we should be afraid of them. We also don't know... We also know this plan could result in significant tenant displacement... What really gives me pause here is that, as we just talked about, as much as 7,000 renters could be displaced over time with this, I think the lack of affordability and protections that leaves these individuals priced out of the neighborhood that they've rooted their life in and built relationships in, that should remind us all that unfettered growth has real consequences. While improvements have been made to tenant protections, I remain concerned that those protections are not applied consistently across every village and that renters in different neighborhoods could receive different treatment. I am concerned also about speculation by pre-zoning roughly 13,000 parcels. I think we're creating substantial new land value. I know that staff said that that's not the case, but we also heard that about the Broadway plan. And once value is captured privately, it's much harder for the public to capture it for affordable housing. I continue to believe that the city should be looking much more seriously at acquiring land strategic sites before speculative land values makes that possible. I would have also moved an amendment on that, but I don't want to waste any more time. There's still no guarantee that this wave of zoning will produce the permanently affordable housing our city desperately needs. How much time do I have left? The balance between housing and commercial space also deserves attention. Your thoughtful presentations around the village areas include more commercial capacity than local demand supports. I do agree with that. Finally, I think it's important to acknowledge a broader contradiction in our housing debate. We hear repeatedly that we're doing everything possible to address the housing crisis, yet when opportunities have come before council to expand social housing or supportive housing across the city, those proposals have not received the same level of support. Market housing is an important part of the solution, but it cannot be the entire solution. If we're serious about affordability, we have to be equally serious about building non-market housing, supportive housing, and permanently affordable homes. So while I support many of the planning principles in this report, more apartments, more mixed-use neighborhoods, and more complete communities, I remain concerned that this plan places far more certainty around upzoning than it does around affordability, tenant protections, public amenities, and non-market housing. Ultimately, this plan shouldn't be judged by how many parcels it rezones. It should be judged whether 10 or 20 years from now, ordinary working people can still afford to live in these neighborhoods. And that's the measure that matters. Thank you.

very much councillor dominato uh thank you uh mayor and i'm gonna set my comments uh in both a global context and a local context in terms of uh reaching my decision i think it's helpful in terms of uh the villages program to set this back in the shifting global environment that we've been experiencing particularly since and i have the benefit of this since 2020 um is uh we went through covid We saw immigration restrictions, and now we're at a place of growing economic instability, which is really driving a conversation around cost of living. And over that time, we've also seen a shifting housing narrative. Particularly when I was first elected, it was all about supply, supply, supply. Then it was about, are we getting the right housing mix? And I would say today, arguably, and I heard this in a number of the speakers' comments, was it's not only about those things, it's about affordability. And are we getting the right housing that is affordable for people, regardless of the tenure? And since, even prior to me being elected, the laneways were introduced by a previous council. We were implemented in 2010. But since 2018... Successive councils have introduced the duplex zoning citywide. We adopted a citywide plan that laid the groundwork for the ODP, moved missing middle framework ahead, which led to some of the multiplex housing as well as provincially imposed legislation. around densification around transit-oriented areas. We adopted the Broadway plan in conjunction with the Broadway line, Rupert Renfrew plan. We adopted an ODP as well as significant permitting reforms to accelerate and make it easier to develop housing in the city. So I just wanted to set that out because I think it's really important in the context of what we heard from residents. And I will speak directly to the subject of public consultation and engagement. And I'm going to frame it a little bit differently than what you've probably heard, is that we heard very clearly from residents, and there was 209 speakers who spoke. over 2,000 pieces of correspondence received, that they were in some cases unaware of what was taking place, what the changes might look in their communities. And this isn't a knock-on staff. I think what the challenge is is trying to undertake urban planning citywide in multiple parts of the city that are all very diverse, with diverse neighborhoods, diverse concerns, and so it can be fraught with challenges. And that... a more focused neighborhood approach might be in order in future because I think it's incredibly challenging for people to be aware. People are busy just living their lives, trying to get their kids to school, trying to go to work, trying to put food on the table. And so I think the citywide approach of multiple villages didn't work, frankly. And I think... At the end of the day, the litmus test for me was beyond what I heard here, was that people were bringing this subject up in organic conversation without me being prompted. My neighbor stopping me as I'm walking my dog, asking about what this is, having sharing concerns. And it became very apparent from all of the concerns raised by the public, and I'm not going to go through them. You heard them already from my colleagues. that we don't have the social license for this plan. We simply don't have the social license. And what I also heard was that people are concerned about they support additional housing, they support new business, but they want it to be done in a sustainable manner. And that's what the original motion called for was responsible urban planning and really to look at sustainable growth across the city. And I think at the end of the day, we didn't quite land, we didn't quite get that right balance in this plan. And so for those reasons, I've listened carefully to all of the speakers and read the correspondence. I'm going to act today and I won't be supporting the villages plan.

Thank you. Councillor Frye. All right. Well, how did we get here? This is thousands of hours of staff time and public resources and goodwill and a lot of effort that's gone into thousands of touch points in consultation. So October 2023, Mayor Sim brought forward an urgent motion directing staff to accelerate the implementation of the villages areas contemplated in the Vancouver plan. That motion was very clear in its direction. It was accelerate the townhouses, multiplexes, low-rise, mixed-use buildings, strengthen local shopping areas, and create more complete neighborhoods across Vancouver. And at that time, the direction from the mayor was for 26 villages. And it should be noted that despite the lamentations I'm hearing about the failure to consult and stuff, it was brought as an urgent motion. So there was no opportunity for the public to speak to it. It was by design denied that opportunity for consultation. But that motion passed with the support of the ABC majority and became the political direction that launched this work. So a year later, October 2024, council was asked to approve the village's planning scope of work. And again. ABC majority supported moving forward. Staff were directed to undertake a citywide planning process. And they changed the land use plan to 17 villages from 26. They advanced the opportunities for housing up to six stories, commercial nodes, and come back with a comprehensive plan. The scope, timeline, and objectives were not hidden. They were publicly debated and endorsed by this council. That happened. And so for nearly two years, staff, residents, businesses, community organizations, everybody's been investing significant time and energy into the process. Public engagement was undertaken. Technical analysis was completed. Plans were produced. Expectations were created for communities who participated in good faith. And that's why I'm struggling with the outcome today, which is so difficult to reconcile, despite the fact that I actually don't support this plan. But I also, I didn't vote to support the work in the first place. that we're looking at didn't emerge unexpectedly. It was the direct result of direction provided by council in 2023 and again in 2024. Yet after initiating the process to finding the mandate and directing staff to proceed, the mayor and ABC majority appear poised to reject this plan that their own directions had set. So colleagues have talked about a lack of consultation and a failure to consult. And I think I even heard somebody say that the process did not meet the expected standards. And yes, consultation and social license matter, but I haven't seen that consistently applied by this council in the first place, be it the capital budget, the zero means zero budget, the banning support of housing or getting rid of the park board. Consultation has not been the barrier for this council. The villages plan and its various iterations have over 5,500 touch points. How much more consultation did it need? If council direct staff to undertake a major planning process and. put all the resources and years into it, we should have more compelling reasons to abandon the plan. I'll be clear in my own critique of the plan, not the process. I think it had too much commercial floor space. Village boundaries were too arbitrary. The application of apartments and opportunities should have been more broadly citywide. I worry about the tenant displacement. I worry about the tree canopy and the permeability. But I do want to see like the wood frame construction and a missing middle and apartments all over the city. But the lesson here is not about the villages, it's about governance, and it's about political expediency. Because at the end of the day, public trust depends on council providing clear direction and standing behind the process it initiates and being transparent when it changes course. What I see here is more around the politics of it. So whether one supports or opposes the villages plan, it's difficult to ignore that the process started in good faith by this mayor, this council. Vancouver's residents deserve more than two years of planning only to discover that the biggest complicate obligation to the implementation of this plan wasn't the the technical or the even the public opposition it was the politics and the lack of political commitment from the people who initiated this process three years later it seems like such a wasted wasted amount of time and resources that could have been done so much better and uh there we go else from maloney

Thanks. I've listened carefully to the concerns raised by members of the public, both for and against, and this could have been a useful jumping off point for deeper discussions about the kind of growth we want and how to achieve it. I've tried today to amend this to support our existing retail, require further deep consultation, and instead of... using any of the suggested amendment wording or compromised positions that staff were prepared to help us with to find a way of keeping going with this, but perhaps modifying it to incorporate the concerns raised by the public. It's being thrown in the bin. With regard to... My colleague's speech is saying that this is a one-size-fits-all approach. Our current zoning is a one-size-fits-all approach. but it doesn't actually fit all people. It fits people that can afford to buy incredibly expensive homes and it doesn't fit everyone else. Our neighbourhoods are changing whether we direct change that steers it in a particular direction or not. They are changing. We can't just ignore the fact that There are fewer and fewer people able to afford housing in our city. And this plan, it wasn't perfect, but it would have provided more affordable, accessible housing choices in more neighbourhoods. And if we want more affordable, accessible housing options, we need to actually allow them to be built. We need to make sure that families can find housing off noisy, polluted, dangerous arterial roads in neighbourhoods. This plan isn't about whether we change, it's about how we change, where and for whom. We need to give people a diverse range of housing choices. This plan was an implementation of the vision that we want people to have affordable, accessible housing and choices that are attainable to more people and can provide convenience so that more people are able to walk to what they need in their neighbourhoods. You know, we've heard from public speakers who said, I can already walk to things in my neighbourhood and that's great. We just want to provide that for more members of the community. This plan would have eaten into the stranglehold that mega developers have on providing the city's new housing. And I do want to reflect on affordability. This plan would have legalised a variety of housing types that are more affordable than single detached homes that predominate many of these areas today. Enabling these housing forms would have provided a lot of Vancouverites with hope for a future where they can stay and make a life in the city of Vancouver. Low-rise apartments are simply the most affordable form of market housing, and I'm glad that the single-stair egress projects will continue to be worked on, but we have to allow them to be built somewhere. Apartments, low-rise apartment buildings are the least expensive form of market housing to build, quickest to market and enable more types of builders, not only large institutional investors to participate in housing delivery. Also, non-market housing providers would be one of the significant beneficiaries since they often rely heavily on zoning entitlements to secure funding. And we would have seen more of this if other planning, work had been voted through by this council, like the social housing initiative.

In addition, non-market affordable housing benefits from the development cost levy or DCL funding. So market projects would have been making meaningful contributions to the development of city-led affordable housing. So while there are legitimate concerns that have been raised about housing affordability by public speakers, and my colleagues, this would have been a step in the right direction to providing more affordable, accessible housing types in our city. I've run out of time, but I'm going to symbolically vote in favour of this because we need more housing choices in our city.

Thank you. Thank you. Can I please see the chair? Thank you. Okay. Well, first of all, I do want to acknowledge our incredible team at the city of Vancouver for the incredibly, like the vast amount and hard work that you have put on this initiative. It's not lost on us how much work has been put in and you guys have done, you know, you've worked incredibly hard. And so for that, incredibly thankful. I also want to thank all the speakers who came in over countless days, long hours, late at night, early in the morning to have their voices heard by city council. Now, I think it's incumbent upon the city of Vancouver and the councillors to do the hard work. And then we review the hard work and we listen to the public. And then we debate. what is presented in front of us, having an open mind in this chamber. And then we vote on that work. And that is exactly what we've done, and that's exactly what we're going to do today. I do think that no homeowner should feel that City Hall is deciding the future of their property without their voice being heard. Now, this is a plan that... did not engage effectively with the public or respond to the serious concerns that were raised about these radical changes in their neighbourhoods. And we can't build more housing in the city while ignoring the residents who already make our neighbourhoods the vibrant places that they are. This plan did not strike the right balance between housing growth implementation, infrastructure and community confidence. And we've heard loud and clear that while many supported the objective of creating more housing, they also raised thoughtful concerns about the scale of the proposed changes, neighborhood fit, infrastructure, capacity, implementation and pace of change. This plan doesn't sufficiently address those concerns, and we need to be responsible to the issues that are raised by the community, and we have an opportunity to listen and to take action. And so, despite the hard work that we're incredibly thankful for, I will not be... supporting the villages plan thank you so can we please go to the voting panel and then can we please be clear what we're voting on because I think there's yes can we can we sever a through J yes please

Okay, and that fails with myself, councillors Kirby Young, Dominato, Bly, Fry, Montague, Klassen, Meisner, Joe, and or in opposition.

So now if we can go to the voting panel and vote on the rest of the motion.

Just a point of clarification, Mayor, that just looking for affirmation from staff that this enables the single egress stairs piece only, as was previously advised. Just looking for clarification on that.

I'm not clear. I'm going to need clarification before voting as a point of privilege.

Sorry counselor Kirby young you're on the on the floor.

Yeah, I'm just looking for clarification. I'm not looking to relitigate I just want clarification that the amendment was moved as as advised by staff that it would enable the single egress to Arizona and that was That specific recommendation along with other causes. I'm looking for clarification that what is left to vote is Needed solely to enable that

Does that answer your question?

Can I have that answer as a yes or no to my question?

Yes. If we vote yes on what is on screen and remaining, does that enable the single egress stairs only? That's all we're approving.

It does indeed, yes.

Thank you.

Yeah. Counselor Bly?

No, that's a holdover. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, so we're going to go back to the voting panel, and this is the motion as amended. And we've already voted on A through J, and that has failed, which was the villages plan. So we're voting on everything else.

And that passes with Councillors Frye and Orr abstaining. And that, I believe, completes item three of unfinished business. And so now we are going to... to recess for one hour, and then in-camera goes for 2 p.m., and then we'll come back here at 4 p.m. Thank you.

Sorry, hold on a sec. We're going to come back here at 3.30. 3.30.

All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for a bit of a delay. We're sorry that council business took a little bit longer than we expected it to take. But sometimes that happens. We are in our final week of council. And we have a lot to fit in. But it was very important to us that we find time to spend with all of you and to honor somebody who I think truly, truly deserves to be honored in this special way. And it's a small thing that we can do City Hall but I hope it's going to be meaningful to the community and the recipient because this is a person that certainly has contributed an awful lot to our city and particularly to their neighborhood so with that kind of little teaser I'm going to get us started on reading this proclamation which is the special reason we're all here today and I'm gonna ask my teammates to do this and we'll start with councillor Dominato

Sucha Sinclair Day, whereas Sucha Sinclair is a long-standing community leader and representative of the Punjabi community in Vancouver.

And whereas the Punjabi market, its legacy, is a cultural landmark in Vancouver in our city with restaurants, shops, and businesses that create the heart of the Punjabi community in the city today. So I, Sarah Kirby Young, on behalf of Mayor Ken Sim and all of Vancouver City Council, I'm very, very proud to proclaim July 28, 2026, Asuka Singh Clare Day in the city of Vancouver.

And we would love to invite anybody up. If there's a family member or Mr. Singh, if anyone would like to say something, you're more than welcome. And if not, we can jump to photos. But if you'd like to, that would be wonderful.

for any portion that you may have missed. Have you reviewed information and will you be voting?

I have, yes.

Great, thank you very much.

Okay.

So before we begin, oh, sorry, matter of parliamentary procedure.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'm looking at the agenda, and after this item, we've got a couple of other reports that were held. I know for item six, it's the only item that we have on the agenda that has speakers, and I know that they all came to the council last time and were waiting. I'm wondering if council would entertain a motion to vary the agenda to put item six at... The top of the agenda tomorrow when we reconvene on July 29th at 930 just to provide some certainty the speakers who have been held over for Multiple days now and item 6 is the arts culture and community services sublease lease and license agreements and grant approvals item And do we have a seconder Thank You councillor class and council.

Is there any discussion? Seeing none all in favor say yay All those all say nay Great, that motion carries and we will vary the agenda for tomorrow.

And by way of follow-up, will the speakers be advised of that? Wonderful, thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, so going back to item number four, before we begin this...

Does the applicant have any closing comments?

This is painfully slow, this thing.

Okay.

I see my clock is set at 420. Yeah, so question for staff just on the specifics of, and just so you can just clearly explain this, although I think I understand, because my understanding, under I-1 zoning, residential is a conditional application, but the issue here is because of the metro regional context that it would have to go through a GLU. Is that correct?

I was sure that I read the I-1 and it had a conditional. I'll have to go back and... It's possible there's something in there related to caretaker suites, but it doesn't allow multifamily housing, no. Okay. And when was it zoned for industrial? Do we know when this site was actually zoned? Because obviously the building is 1961. I don't imagine it was zoned industrial when it was built.

1962.

The building was built in 1961, and it was zoned industrial in 62? Wow. Yep. Okay. All right.

Yeah, thanks very much, and I appreciate I can't ask questions of the applicant, so hopefully staff will be able to discuss. further clarify, and there has been some framing around, while not required by policy, there's a willingness to honor sort of the elements and intention, spirit of the TRPP. Is there any sort of more specificity or assurances that you can offer recognizing that returning to This exact location, given its change of use, won't be possible. But we know that it's not uncommon with the TRPP that people are moved to, you know, that they find alternate options for housing and they are comparable in terms of rent. And eventually when the new... redevelopment is complete they choose not to go back right because they're settled in a new home and their part and so that has worked let's just say because I really felt like I heard the concern of course of the residents that are living there and those that support their advocacy to remain there and recognizing again that there is an option here for the developer to elect to implement the TRPP in good faith, how can we be sure that's going to satisfy what feels like a pretty precarious situation of the residents that live in Myra Manor?

And will it keep people in and around the area of where they are now based on available units of housing?

Okay, but that does mean that that extends all the way to Vine, let's say, and this is at Main Street. So in terms of being able to access child care, access schools, we know that there are children and families living in this building. That is a pretty big area to sort of say we'll find something in and around. I can't even remember, 300 blocks, city blocks.

Okay. And in terms of blow market rents, can you just remind me how they compare to the existing rents in Iron Manor?

So a two-bedroom is $1,298? Yeah. And the low market rents that we'd be putting forward is a tenant relocation package or almost $1,000 more a month? That's correct. Okay, I'll leave it there for a second.

Thank you, Councillor Orr. YEAH, JUST WANTED CLARITY A LITTLE BIT ON, I THINK I MISSED THE ANSWER TO Councillor FRIED'S QUESTION, ESSENTIALLY ON, IS IT POSSIBLE TO REDESIGNATE 75 EAST 8TH TO GENERAL URBAN USE AS GRANTED BY THE METRO 2050 REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY 6.27A, IF COUNCIL SO WISHES TO DO SO?

Thanks. Other councillors have asked some of my initial questions, but I did think it was useful given some of the concerns raised by public speakers to ask a few questions about extended stay hotel accommodation and what that means.

I think yesterday or the day before, I can't remember, we had... examples raised of typical uses of extended stay hotel accommodation? Because although we've had this particular development promoted as being for tech workers, would there be any restrictions? And if not, who would be examples of the type of people that stay in extended hotel stay accommodation?

Is extended stay accommodation generally cheaper than ordinary hotel rooms? would you say?

And do you think that the availability of extended stay accommodation helps to prevent the proliferation of Airbnb type accommodation?

And the term medical tourist was used quite a lot. What do you interpret that as meaning and do you think that that's a phenomenon that exists in Vancouver? I mean, for me it's sort of... brings up images of people travelling for, I don't know, cosmetic surgery or looking for cheaper prices on surgery or... Yeah, that's an interesting one.

you know from northern communities down to Vancouver to use the hospital to receive medical treatment and that long-term stay can be an option for them yeah medical tourist doesn't seem like a very accurate way of describing those people thanks very much thank you very much okay so council will now make its decision on this application do we have a mover for the recommendations Councillor Zhoul thank you seconded by councillor claston thank you very much Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thanks. I was going to put forward an amendment. If we can just go to the amendment queue.

Councillor Orr.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, I sent it through. It's essentially that we refer this back to staff until the new TRPP policy is confirmed and can be debated under those auspices. That might not be the best language there, but... Further, that council asked staff to redesignate 75 East 8th Avenue to general urban use, as Templar sort of just eloquently explained using the flex clause there. So, yeah, that's essentially it. Just that I don't think that we should be doing this while the TRPP policy is still sort of being reviewed. Thanks.

Great. Is there a seconder? Great. Councillor Frye seconded. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Maloney?

Yeah, point of information to staff about the second part of the proposed referral.

Can you just run me through what the implications are for taking this, it's one block of this out of the... industrial zoning that's part of the regional growth strategy allocation.

And did you have something to add to that?

Okay. And can you just elaborate on what is the purpose of ‑‑ what are some considerations to take into account in designating parcels to come out of this allocation or not?

Okay. And just one final question.

Can you remind me that with the other residential development at the other side of the Mount Pleasant industrial zone, did we use this or did we ‑‑ I think we used this.

Okay, thanks very much. Can I ask that the two parts of this be severed and that we vote on them separately, please?

Sure can. Thank you. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, just further that line of questioning in terms of when to use this clause and when it's appropriate and what other considerations. Would a consideration be that it is currently not being used for industrial and that it is actually a residential building?

Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

Sorry, I just had a question and I just completely forgot it immediately.

Okay, Councillor Maloney again. You're on there twice. You're good. Okay, Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, just a point of procedure. Did I hear from staff that the second clause is written is essentially not lawful because it has to go to a public hearing and trigger a new... A new public hearing? So staff can't redesignate until such time as a new process unfolds?

Unimplementable, meaning...

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. That seems quite clear.

Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, sorry. I was going to ask, does this, what's the status of this use? Does it remain a non-conforming use barring any other interventions?

Thank you.

I'm now going to call the vote on the amendment.

So we are going to... Sir, if we can refresh that screen, the voting panel, please. We're going to vote on the first part, which is highlighted.

Okay, so that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Councillor Dominato, Councillor Montague, Councillor Claston, and Councillor Zhou in opposition. Okay, and then the second part.

Is that clear, everyone?

I didn't intend to vote in opposition. Actually, I'd like for the record for that to be corrected.

Are you okay? Okay. Thank you very much. So we're all good?

No, no, I think Councillor Orr still had time. Sorry, I think the queues got switched around.

I think I changed queues, yeah.

Can I just clarify that this is final remarks before voting?

Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be voting in opposition to this. And I want to be clear about what I took into account in coming to that decision. The Broadway plan projects have displacement. that have displacement include a right of return for tenants on top of compensation options. And that's the difference between this rezoning application and other Broadway plan projects. I was very much convinced by arguments that there's insufficient compensation or protection of existing tenants. I wasn't assured by the assurances of the applicant that we had enough certainty that got there. They said they'd go above and beyond the minimum requirements but that wasn't sufficiently detailed or enforceable to reassure me. As an aside, I'm pretty concerned about how many former tech workers we heard from, especially young people and that's definitely a reflection on how hard it is for young people to get jobs at the moment. I am in favour of a new hotel in this area. It's a great area for visitors to stay.

But I can understand why some people don't really care about the supply of hotel rooms. But the availability of affordable hotel rooms is actually, it does affect ordinary people. And extended stay accommodation, we heard, is crucial for people who need to be in Vancouver to visit family, to support family members who are in hospital, including people...

I'll just leave that. I would caution people about using the term medical tourist. I think that it demeans folks...

who are going through a very difficult time. I'm going to leave it there. Thanks.

Thank you. And thanks for that reminder, Councillor Maloney. It's not the best term, 100%. And thank you for your vulnerability as well, knowing what your family has been through. I know this hits on a personal note. But also, you know, I really want to thank all the speakers here. You know, again, also showing a lot of vulnerability. I'm thinking of residents like May Bickley and Will Barrowkin, especially, you know, having to come out, you know, and also, you know, over multiple days, couldn't have been easy. It's obviously, this is a strange one, non-conforming rental building, industrial zone land, where residents don't qualify for the right of return. I really think we should wait until the TRPP review is complete This council just chose not to do that. The staff have acknowledged that this is a gap to be addressed in the future policy. And I hope, you know, there won't be any other situations like this and we can actually address this gap. I know it is an outlier. But, I mean, I think if we recognize that the policy is inadequate, then why, again, are we rushing? one of these projects that exposes the inadequacy before we actually go and fix it. I just think, you know, there's been a lot of kind of rushing lately, and I just think we should do this right. And similar with the hotel development policy, and I did vote against that. And we heard, you know, a few speakers talk about subsection 3.2.2.1D, which declares all displacements of rental apartments by hotel developments to be... conformance with all community plans despite the stated intent of those community plans and the official development plan to minimize those displacements. And again, we've already done this. We've referred a very similar hotel project back to staff. In the West End, I think we should do that here. Even just last night, we had a project, which was a hotel, which included below-market rentals in it. So we know that this can be done. We know that there's options, that we could have these people return to this site if that's so wished.

It happened last night. But again, I think council has spent... years talking about preventing displacement, strengthening tenant protections, keeping renters in their neighborhoods, and this has to mean something when they're tested. And I think if we prove this today, we're essentially saying that those protections disappear whenever housing is replaced with a hotel instead of another apartment building. I don't think that's what council intended when we strengthened the Broadway plan, and I don't think that's a precedent that we should be setting. So I can't support that. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks. This is a challenging one in some regards, but also in others, not really challenging at all. I think at the end of the day, and I appreciate staff's work in listening to those affected, obviously the residents who actually live in this building and have made their homes there that we have not, in my opinion, sufficiently dealt with the risk of displacement and homelessness yet. And I hope that, and I don't know if I will be in the majority with my vote, but I just, in good faith, look, I'll just say Nicola Wealth, as a developer in the city, but also as a fund in the city, does a tremendous amount of philanthropic work. I've been at tables where they're talking about funding programs for food security. I know that there's opportunities for artists to invest in Nicola Wealth, very small amounts, so that they can set themselves up for retirement. That feels uncertain now. They do make their... fund accessible to people, not just billionaires, as it was framed throughout this public hearing. That might surprise some people. I have it, you know, in my experience and in talking to, on various topics of philanthropic work across the city, faith in Nicola Wells to actually sharpen their pencil and do better by these tenants. if that became an opportunity. And I actually firmly believe that they would. I just cannot imagine a family where two parents are working with two kids having to come up with an additional $1,000 a month for rent. That risks homelessness, in my opinion. Those families will end up in temporary... high-risk shelter housing. That's just the way it is. So I've been there myself as a young single parent, single income with children, and was grateful for steady housing that I was able to rent. But because I was there for a long time, over time, it became affordable when all of the housing around me was incredibly unaffordable. And the risk that that would have posed if the landlord had told me that I needed to move and the options were limited, I can't imagine it. And I'm grateful it didn't happen. So this is a real, this is a moment, I think, of doing the right thing for people. first, and the people here are families that are deeply impacted. And so I don't think that this should never change use. I just think we haven't done enough to make sure that the relocation of these tenants meets the threshold of making sure that displacement and unaffordability is not significantly worsened. And we know that in redevelopments that those are the tenants that fall into homelessness. Homelessness is up. by a significant amount in the last couple of years, and I think we don't always have the opportunity to track at this level of granular detail what happens with tenants when redevelopment happens, and we have an opportunity to do something different. So I support the work and the investment and what Nicola Wealth does across this city in many of the ways that I framed it already. We haven't met the threshold, I think, for what would be reasonable to approve this application as is presented right now, but I do think that we could. And so I don't want to give up on the people that live in Myron Manor, but I'm also not giving up on Nicola Wealth and what they do to build our city in partnership. So I hope we can keep going, but not approve this today.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I appreciate the work of staff bringing this forward. I appreciate the applicant, Mr. Anderson, for sitting through many hours of public hearing with us. And I appreciate all the speakers who came and spoke to this item and called in. And, yeah, I'm struggling with supporting this rezoning. And my challenge is not rooted in the opposition to the development or economic activity or even hotel use in general.

I'm not necessarily sure about this specific kind of hotel option, but I can see that Vancouver needs investment and jobs. But Vancouver also needs affordable homes. And I think the testimonies from the tenants and the community that came and spoke to us is pretty compelling. And since each application, when we come to public hearing, it's evaluated on its merits. And in this case, I believe that the public costs outweigh the public benefits. And I think that the unique historical zoning context here is a serious and weighty consideration. I was on council when we voted in favor of the Broadway plan with conditions. And even as many of those conditions I supported the Broadway plan on, like the pace of change, as those conditions have since been stripped away from the plan, I note that this particular application is inconsistent with the Broadway plan anyway, and the Broadway plan doesn't specifically enable hotel use for this part of Mount Pleasant industrial area, nor at this height. And then, you know, appreciating from the friends, residents, neighbors who all talk about how this will result in the displacement of a longstanding community, seniors, families, folks with roots in the neighborhood. And I'm not persuaded that the proposed land use here and the discretionary rezoning that we're asked to consider represents the highest and best public interest for this site. And I... particularly lament that this application could not have included replacement residential. This site occupies a unique position in our planning history. Although it's currently zoned industrial and sits in an industrial area, it has functioned as a residential housing for over 50 years, predating the industrial zoning from a simpler time in the heart of Mount Pleasant.

I think that rather than replacing existing renters with a hotel project, council should be asking if there's opportunities to retain housing on a site that has been a residential for more than 50 years. This application found ways to make the project work, even though it wasn't compliant with the existing Broadway plan policy. So ultimately, I'm struggling to justify the displacement of an established rental community and that we didn't find a way to make it work for the folks who are living here now. I just don't feel like the public interest test has been met here. And for those reasons, I will be voting against this application.

Okay. Okay.

And that completes item number four of unfinished business.

I did, yes. And a lot of my questions were answered by that excellent presentation. I think mostly I was very confused by the inboard rooms. And so what you're saying is if it's a one-bedroom apartment, an inboard room doesn't count to that one bedroom.

So we're not talking about not having windows for one-bedroom apartments. This is just an extra flex room or something. Okay. That's very interesting. And for studios, you know, we're talking about, like, studio doesn't mean a one-bedroom. So studio, is there relaxations around that?

Right, so studios currently don't have that one-bedroom designation. And so what you're saying, a studio could be two bedrooms because you could add an inboard? No.

Yeah, I live in one of those situations. And I was wondering, okay, so like you can't enclose it because then that would be a one bedroom.

Oh, fascinating stuff. Okay, thanks.

Yeah, just one clarifying question, and thanks, Ed, and I thought it was an excellent presentation as well. Just around, we've had a few experiences in the past where we've introduced changes, and unless we're kind of monitoring, you know, within a few years, sometimes we'll find that maybe what we intended isn't actually what's translating on the ground. I'm thinking about when we were dealing with... secondary suites and some changes we made over a decade ago. What's your thinking or staff's thinking on being able to sort of see this translated into action in terms of actually being implemented? Is there a way to kind of monitor or look at this in a couple of years and go, okay, what are we seeing in terms of actual final product? And I'm just curious about that. That's all.

Okay, that's great. Thank you for that. I don't see anyone else in the queue. I'm happy to move the recommendations.

Since I'm still in the queue, I'll briefly say I really appreciate the thoughtful steps being recommended by staff, particularly because a number of these points are addressing issues that have been, at least I heard about this term, last term. And so I feel it's very responsive and offers some more flexibility. And so I'm happy to support them.

Okay, item number two, citywide design and development guidelines and related actions. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Seeing no one's hand up, this item does have a presentation. Move to waive presentation. Thank you, Councillor Montague. Is there a second? Councillor Klassen, any discussion?

Councillor Maloney? Sorry, show us the first one in the queue.

Just that I would very much like to hear the staff presentation, please.

Thank you. Councillor Orr? I would like to echo that. This is a very difficult document to kind of digest. I tried. There hasn't been a lot of time that we've had in the last few weeks, as we all know, and I would really love the presentation to explain this so I can vote either in favour or against. We just haven't had enough time to really go through all this. We would really implore you not to waive this presentation.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Show of hands here. All in favor of waiving the presentation, say aye. Aye. One, two, three, four.

And is it a simple majority or is it?

Okay. One, two, three, four. And that passes with Councillors Bly, Frye, Orr and Maloney in opposition. So we will waive the presentation. Councillor Orr, you held this item. You have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members.

Councillor Bligh?

I don't have any questions. I'm just going to make a comment. Has this been moved? No, it's not been moved and seconded yet. Okay, I will hold my comments.

Okay, great. Would someone like to move a motion? I'm happy. Thank you, Councillor Meiszner. Seconded by Councillor Bligh. Okay, Councillor Claston, thank you. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Bligh?

Sorry, let's just, Councillor Pai, please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. I'm just going to register my objection to this process. It's, you know, I appreciate that there's a lot to do, but it has been our practice in terms of if a presentation is asked, to be seen by one member of council that we would hear the presentation. And I've seen us drift into this majority rules, which usually does not rule in the favor of people who are asking for more information. Yeah, I just find it very troubling, and I get this is our last meeting of this term, that with something this complicated where a member of our council has specifically asked for more information to see the presentation and to overrule that, just because you can, because you have the votes, is an... egregious disrespect to what we're doing here. And I just have to say it because I don't feel comfortable not saying anything when a member of this council is asking for more information so that they can properly vote on an item and to refuse that opportunity. I think whether it's our procedure by law or the charter that's deeply flawed, I think it's our procedure by law that needs to be changed. So I just think it's a very, very, very poor form from those that supported that. So I just needed that to be known. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Yeah, I agree. I would love if the members who voted against this could explain this to me in 60 seconds. Because you can't, I don't think. This is a very complicated document and report. And yeah, again, I recognize we are... We're all looking forward to August. But maybe a point of parliamentary privilege, can I get the presentation that you were going to give, the digital copy at least? But as, you know, before that, I don't know. I don't know how I can vote on this. I really wanted to hear the presentation.

Thank you, Counselor. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to call the vote. Reminder, if you're online, please turn on your camera. If we can please go to the voting panel.

Okay. Item two. Item three, below market lease extension to affordable housing societies for the street homes. Before we begin this agenda item, does anybody have a conflict they need to declare? Seeing no one's hands up, this item does not have a team member presentation. Councillor Dominato, you held this item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members.

My mic on. My counselor is already on the queue. That is a holdover. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Mayor, just in light of reviewing the report with interest, I was just curious if staff, given I was reading that the Affordable Housing Society operates quite a number of non-profit residential buildings in the city, and with quite a large number of units, I was just curious if staff could comment on their performance as a society, and just in a little bit more context.

Okay, thank you. That's all my questions. I'm happy to move the report.

Thank you. Would someone like to second it? Councillor Claston, thank you very much. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.

And that passes unanimously. Thank you. That completes item number three. Item number four, short-term below-market lease and grant to Northern Way Housing Cooperative at 675 East 5th Avenue. Council, are there any conflicts to declare? Seeing no one's hands up, this item does not have a team member presentation. Councillor Orr, you held this item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Just a couple questions in terms of the term of extension. It's only five years. Obviously, that's pretty short. Is this essentially sort of a stopgap, a short-term stopgap so we can revisit to maybe look at higher and best uses of the site?

And then, so in the meantime, the shortness of the lease extension, that would enable them to sort of borrow... you know, for repairs or things like that.

I see, I see, I see. And then just have we, does council get to hear from the co-op? I know, I mean, I guess they could have registered to speak at some point, but I mean, is there any sort of general, you know, temperature check that this is what they, that they're okay with this? You know, is there something that you could, some color there you could give us?

Right, okay, there was a vote. Okay, that's interesting. I actually didn't know that. All right, happy to move the recommendations.

Great, thank you very much. Is there a seconder? Councillor Domenato, thank you very much. Council, is there any discussion?

Okay, I'm going to call the vote.

And that passes unanimously. Okay, item five, 1475 Kitchener Street, lease extension and amendment to Luma Native Housing Society. Councillor, are there any conflicts to declare? Seeing no one's hands up, this item does not have a presentation. And Councillor Domenato, you held this item, so you have up to five minutes to...

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Main question is, reviewing this report, would it be fair to say that the reason in great part that we're seeing this come to council at this time and the changes around affordability of the units is due to the province pulling back, pausing provincial funding for supportive and social housing? Would that be the big driver here?

Okay, so we're really stepping up in the face of those provincial changes.

Thank you. That's all my questions, Mayor.

Thank you very much. Councillor Orr?

Yeah, similar sort of questions. I guess this is kind of, you know, a short-term extension. Is that essentially in case new funding models kind of come up from either the province or the federal government?

Okay. And then is there, I mean, if, say, there isn't that funding, you know, from the senior levels of government, what kind of options does the city have, you know, to sort of, for them to be able to maintain the current number of shelter rate units? Is there any CAC money or CHIP grants or anything from...

So more capital than the operating?

That's good to know. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Zhou, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Dominato. Thank you very much. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.

And that passes unanimously as well. Now, item number six, we varied the agenda. And so we're going to cover that first thing tomorrow morning, I believe. Is that correct, clerk?

Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. So the next item is number seven, miscellaneous amendments concerning various housing rezoning conditions and housing agreements. Council, are there any conflicts to declare? Okay, once again, this item does not have a team member presentation, and Councillor Fry, you held this item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. Item number seven, miscellaneous amendments concerning various housing rezoning conditions and housing agreements.

Okay, so we can, no questions then, Councillor Orr?

Yeah, I do have a few questions. I think mostly I'm just looking at 58 West Hastings on this. Probably expecting that. You know, the project continues to deliver 50% of the residential floor area at shelter rates. However, the housing agreement amendment will remove the affordability requirements for the remaining 50% currently at Hills to improve the financial sustainability of the project. Notably, additional affordability requirements are defined in the ground lease. So this is a pretty big drop in affordability for a very controversial site, one which I believe the federal housing minister, who was the mayor at the time, promised 100% social housing. on this site. There was this site of an encampment for a very long time. And now after, you know, basically, you know, receiving grants from the government, we're now reducing the affordability requirements once again. Would that be accurate? Or could you walk me through? Like, I know there's no presentation, but could you just give me a little bit more color specific on 58 West Hastings?

Okay, that's definitely interesting. So for the retail, I mean, it's struggling to sort of have retail, right? I know I think there's a cafe in there called Buns and Beans or something in a pharmacy as well, but other than that, there's quite a lot of unleased space.

Okay, thanks. And then just for some of the other ones, again, I'm sure I know the answer to this, but there's a couple where we're dropping below market from 20 to 10. Again, this is all to do with sort of the market and financial viability.

Okay. And then, so I think you just answered it, but what sort of effects do these amendments have on projects that are already in the pipeline that have agreed to the 20%? That's still on the table for them to come back and...

Okay. Okay, that's good to know. I was going to ask, I don't think I have enough time, what this means for Barkley and Burnaby site, but that's okay. No, it's okay.

Thank you. Sorry. No, no, it's fine. Go for a second round if you want.

No, no, happy to move the recommendation. Happy to move the recommendation. Sorry, Councillor Maloney.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I was interested in the answer to to that. So if you could answer Councillor Orr's question, perhaps you could repeat it to help me out.

Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion?

Councillor Claston, thank you. Is there a seconder? Councillor Dominato? Council, any discussion?

And that passes unanimously. Okay, moving along. Item number eight, 2027 business license, vehicles for hire, animal control fees. Before we begin this agenda item, any conflicts to declare? No? Okay, this item does not have a team member presentation. Councillor Zhou, you held this item, so you have five minutes to ask questions to team members. Thanks, Mayor. So before I start looking at time, can we extend past five to finish this item? Okay, so that's the motion on the floor. Do you have a seconder? Great, thank you. Councillor Meiszner, council, any discussion? Okay, all those in favor say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, we will complete this item as the last item today.

Councillor Zhou, please go ahead. Yeah, thanks Mayor. So just have a point of information through you to the city manager about this item. So I think we heard a lot unclear from the residents and also businesses as the affordability is the number one concern they are facing right now, especially given the uncertainties of the economic situation. Just wondering if there's any way we can maybe reduce the, maybe not even reduce, maybe waive the increase of the license fees for this year, for 2027.

Okay, so if there's no increase for the license fees, can City use the statability reserve to cover this additional cost?

Okay, thanks. All right, so with that, Mayor, so I'd like to move an amendment. Okay, I'm just going to go to the amendment queue.

Councillor Zhou, please go ahead.

Yeah, just circulate the amendment to everyone. please take a look. So I'll just prepare some quick remarks on this amendment. So first, I want to recognize staff. Sorry, can we pause for one sec here? I'm just going to stop your timer.

So we have to move the main motion first? Oh yeah, I'll move the main motion. Okay. Just on that, we do have other councillors in the queue, so... Clerk, what's the procedure there? Do we hear other councillors first or do we move the motion?

So Councillor Zhou can actually move the motion right now. Okay.

But he could also not. And he can also not.

Okay, sure. I'll come back to the queue. Mayor, if you can toss my timer. I'll come back to the queue. Let other people speak first. Thank you very much.

Okay, there you go. Thanks. Councillor Dominato.

Yeah, I just thought I'd reiterate a question. I asked a deputy city measure, and just in case people missed it, I had inquired about the liveaboard rates being frozen. So I thought maybe for the benefit of council, they might want to just hear the answer in case they didn't get a chance to read it. Yeah.

Okay, that's clear. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Frye.

Yeah. So one just curiosity that jumped out at me was the extraordinary revenue for FIFA that was reported in here. Could you give some colors to that?

So it was strictly licensed revenue, not fines or anything of that nature?

Great. Well, that's a bonus. I did have some questions around the animal licensing piece. And, I mean, it's been a while since I adopted my dog from Vancouver Animal Control. May she rest in the great dog park in the sky. It seems quite an extraordinary amount, though. I think it was like $420 to adopt a dog. Or $425. Is there a correlation? Have we gotten some feedback from the... pound keepers and advocates around what does that do for the adoptability of dogs? Do we end up having to keep dogs longer because people aren't adopting them when they're expensive? Is that a thing?

Okay. And do we have ability to relax fees on a hardship basis or is that...

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Councillor Zhou.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Now I'd like to table the other amendments.

I'll just move you to the amendment queue, please. Oh, wait, we have to move the motion. Sorry, that's...

I'll move the motion.

I move already. Is there a seconder?

Oh, great. Thank you very much. Okay, and then I'm going to go to the amendment queue. Counselor, Joe, please.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. So I just want to start by recognizing staff for the work they have done in bringing forward this recommendation through the city's annual cost escalation process. I appreciate the analysis and the effort that goes into ensuring our fees reflect the cost of delivering the services. I think council's role is not simply accept automatically increase. Our responsibility is to carefully consider whether those increased costs should be passed to Vancouver residents and businesses, especially during a time when the affordability remains a major concern for many residents and business. Our business continues to face significant financial pressure from many small businesses, especially those operating in our neighborhoods. And every additional cost matters. While an individual increase may appear modest, but those costs add up and contribute to the overall challenge of doing business in Vancouver. We all know small businesses are the backbone of our local economy. They create jobs, support our neighborhoods, and contribute to the unique character of our city. Supporting them means being thoughtful about every additional financial burden we place onto the small business. At the same time, Council has asked every department to look for efficiencies as part of our commitment to 0% operating budget increase. If we are asking our organization to fund saving and improve how we deliver services, it is reasonable that we apply the same discipline. when you're reviewing the annual user fees increase. This amendment is about encouraging continued modernization and innovation and a better business process rather than relying on the inflation adjustment every year. We are also asking the organization to look for opportunities to deliver service more efficiently to keep the cost down whenever possible. So this is very consistent with Citi's broader affordability objectives and our commitment to residents and the business that we'll make reasonable decisions with taxpayers' dollars. It's a balanced and measured approach. It recognizes the need for fiscal accountability while also acknowledging the real pressure facing Vancouver families, workers, and the business. So that's why I table this amendment. Hope to get support from council. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Councillor Bligh.

Sorry, sorry, Councillor. Can I pause you for one second? Got it. Thank you. Sorry. That's where I was a little confused. Do we have a seconder for Councillor Zhou's amendment? Great. Thank you, Councillor Fry. Sorry, Councillor Bligh. Please go ahead.

Yeah, I'm just curious. There was a comment, and I just want to get clarification that the adoption fee for dogs older than seven years ongoing medical conditions has been reduced. I'm showing in the report from 119 to 200.

Is it a percentage that's being calculated?

But it's lower.

Okay, yeah, that was not clear, but I understand what you're saying now. That's great.

And, yeah, actually, I think I'll leave it there for the minute. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no one else in the queue on Councillor Zhou's amendment, I'm going to call the vote.

And that passes with Councillor Orr abstaining. Okay, so that was the amendment. I'm going to go back to the question queue. Councillor Zhou, anything else? Yeah, thanks. Thanks for the support from Council. Thank you very much. Councillor Bligh?

That's a holdover.

That's a holdover? Okay. Yep.

Yep. So seeing no one else in the queue, we're going to call... A vote on the main motion as amended. Reminder, if you are online, please turn on your camera. I'm now going to call the vote.

And that passes unanimously, and that completes item number eight. And so, if we could please get a motion to recess until Wednesday, July 20...

Okay, so we are going to recess until Wednesday, July the 29th, 2026 at 9.30 a.m. right here in council, in the council chambers and online. Thank you.