CVN Letter to City – 2026-03-10 Official Development Plan ODP Public Hearing. Download PDF.

March 9, 2026

City of Vancouver
Dear Mayor Sim and City Council,

Re: City of Vancouver Draft Official Development Plan (ODP) Public hearing March 10, 2026

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) is opposed to the Official Development Plan (ODP).  While we recognize the need for citywide planning, we are greatly concerned about both the process this has undertaken and the proposed ODP content.

Process: First, we would like to address the process. Both the ODP and Vancouver Plan have not had meaningful public engagement or consultation that has instead focused on development industry and related groups interests.

Even though the ODP has such a major impact on the city for the future, there have been no mail out notices of this public hearing to the 100,000 properties citywide affected by this plan. Only the very minimum for a public hearing notice, and even that is questionable given that the City posted the wrong version of the referral report on the public hearing page up to only four business days before the hearing.

The general public is largely unaware of the Vancouver Plan or the ODP. The very limited engagement on the Vancouver Plan did not address the many concerns raised by the public, including our comments. There was only one draft ODP engagement in October 2025. It was 204 pages, much of it techincal, with many other related documents and displays, but the public was only given about two weeks to review and ask questions. Only four poorly advertised and lightly attended open houses for the whole city over the two weeks. Again, no mail out notices to the affected properties.

The Vancouver Plan Urban Growth Strategy map has now been relabelled as Urban Structure Strategy. This is misleading since it is in fact the transit oriented development urban growth for the future and is buried in the document as if it is inconsequential.

Most people who look at this document, if they see it at all, they will have no idea what it all means to them or the future of the city. In fact, our groups and members are still struggling to understand it all.

Our previous draft ODP comments and concerns have not been addressed in the current ODP referral report and can be found here for reference.

This is not a legitimate process for the only public hearing on this substantive plan . Once adopted, there will be no further public hearings on any rezonings consistent with the ODP Generalized Land Use provisions.

Here is a small selection of our many previous concerns with the Vancouver Plan and draft ODP, that now also apply to the ODP public hearing as follows:

1. No Neighbourhood-based Planning – One Size Fits All

Policies are too broad-brushed and rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. The Urban Structures / Urban Growth plan draws lines on the map of  Vancouver in swaths of mauve and purple showing large areas of the city scheduled for redevelopment — yet each neighbourhood is unique. Areas where added density can work may be in smaller pockets in particular parts of a neighbourhood. The draft plan places too much emphasis on increasing the number of housing units, and not enough on different types of housing. Neighbourhood-based planning from the ground up would have procured opportunities for densification that respect existing neighbourhoods and fit into the local context.  The ODP plan, if approved, results in repealing/amending all existing neighbourhood Community Plans and Community Visions, which were based on years of neighbourhood involvement and extensive participation done in good faith. Excessive literal implementation of  the BC zoning bills goes far beyond provincial mandates and is unnecessary to meet population growth projections.

2. Lack of Urban Design

The plan does not prioritize good urban design. Some of the suggestions, like six storeys in shopping districts purportedly to preserve sunlight access but 12 storeys along residential streets, minimize the impact of high buildings on sunlight and livability on shopping, but not on living. Former senior planners with the City are expressing their concerns over poor urban design. Ralph Segal says, “…approval of the Vancouver Plan and its approach to planning and affordable housing, will nail it as a disaster.” (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/article-generation-density-past-planners-speak-out-on-urban-development/) We are seeing this in the Broadway Plan area that is now part of the ODP, and is being spread throughout the city.

3. Excessive Population Targets

The population targets chosen are too high and the plan does not give enough recognition to possible changes in economic conditions currently underway and over the next thirty years. The Region has provided updated population growth projections to 2050 for the City of Vancouver as of September 2025, with a low of 130,000, mid of 195,000 and high growth of 252,000 people. However, Rennie in Appendix G of the report, states …”rather than a traditional approach of using regional population as allocated to the City, population additions have been determined by the capacity of the existing and new housing stock to accommodate people.” This is a major  unusual shift. And they assume much higher growth of 271,000, the highest option, and far beyond the historical average increase of 1% per year. And they show that the entire projected growth to 2050 could be accommodated by the development currently already approved and in the pipeline. this puts in question the need for so much new growth in the ODP. Such a high target puts more and more pressure on neighbourhoods and infrastructure to absorb more and more housing.

4. Lack of Consideration of Existing Capacity

The plan includes very little recognition of existing capacity in existing zoning, and of the potential population increase in large sites and projects already being planned, such as Jericho Lands, Heather Lands, , Sen̓áḵw, Rupert station, or Cambie Corridor. It also fails to consider the massive increases of development in the ODP of primarily apartment buildings from 6 storeys to high towers, and the change to allow new duplexes in RS zones, now increased to multiplexes in R1-1.

5. Too many Rental Towers (mainly for REITs) and too little Ground-Oriented Family Housing

The plan does not give enough consideration of different types of housing, including ownership, co-op, and rental, that will be needed over the next 30 years for families, as well as single people and couples.

As the years pass, more and more single people who currently seek apartment rentals will be forming families and wanting housing that is ground-oriented and large enough for a family with one or two children to live in over the long term. Many will want the chance to buy a home or a co-op unit where they can feel securely housed.

Over and over in the plan, planners prioritize rental and social housing, with an excessive emphasis on the tower form. There are very small number of areas left in the city proposed for multiplexes that do not currently have towers (such as the RT character areas of Kitsilano, Grandview-Woodlands and Mount Pleasant) and the RT zones are being eliminated. Even in the multiplex areas, planners also leave open the option for apartments, thereby undermining the potential for multiplexes to be built.

6. No Policy for Heritage Buildings and Character Retention Incentives Undermined

The plan makes no clear statement or indication that buildings on the Heritage Register (whether or not legally designated as heritage) will be protected from demolition and redevelopment. The plan offers very little recognition or emphasis on the city’s heritage buildings, and no strategy as to how they can be retained. The plan mentions making the Heritage Register more equitable but offers no description of what that might entail.

By adding so much new larger development it undermines current character house retention incentives, increases in embodied carbon, and loss of neighbourhood character and streetscapes. There is still no option to add two secondary suites as an incentive for character house retention.

7. Not Enough Provision of Green Space (Private and Public)

There is not enough consideration given to the serious impacts of redevelopment proposed by the plan on green space and tree canopy, with implications for carbon capture, rain run-off and the urban heat island.

8. Embodied Emissions

The plan does not adequately consider carbon footprints and embodied emissions associated with new development, especially the use of concrete and glass in new tower buildings. It offers no consideration of policies to actually mitigate embodied emissions. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-the-hidden-climate-costs-of-b-c-s-burgeoning-highrises-part-ii

9. City Services

The plan contains no significant consideration of how the City will provide the amenities, green space, and services such as schools, that will be needed if the population expands to meet targets stated in the plan. There appears to be no acknowledgement that the need for green space and community centres will increase even more due to high density tower development.

10. Lack of Social License

There were no advertisements, articles, or notices in newspapers or other mainstream media that the Vancouver Plan came to Council on July 6, 2022, in the middle of the summer when people are on holidays right before the election in October 2022. Then it was a landslide election, wiping out almost all of previous council, clearly signalling a desire for change. Unfortunately, the public did not get that change. Instead the ODP is now just a repeat of the same plan but worse, and again only two weeks to respond to the huge draft ODP without any public notices mailed or meaningful opportunities for public input or consultation.

At the time of the Vancouver Plan, the Ipsos Read Survey referred to in the report is the only randomized survey that has been conducted with under 200 people. Only 15% of the respondents said that they strongly support the Land Use Strategy. Everyone else had some or many concerns.

Throughout the Vancouver Plan process the level of public support was misrepresented. The ODP process relies almost exclusively on this prior Vancouver Plan process.

We would also like to voice our support for the HousingReset.ca letter from the 30 urbanists, urban planners, architects and UBC/SFU academics, with decades of experience.

They raise many important issues with the ODP, that also reflect our concerns. file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/2026-02-25-housingreset-cov-vancouver-official-development-plan-odp-ph-1-2.pdf

Please do not approve this flawed plan. Instead, refer this back to staff for a participatory public process to reflect meaningful local neighbourhood based planning in the ODP. Provide for realistic population growth, and strive for: livability in the context of local character; address environmental impacts; include measures to avoid displacement from existing relatively affordable housing; and give adequate consideration to more affordable housing options, including ground-oriented housing for families, co-ops, and other models for both renters and owners, with amenities and adequate infrastructure in each neighbourhood.

Sincerely,
Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,   Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Public Hearing Reference Links:

Public Hearing Agenda: https://council.vancouver.ca/20260310/phea20260310ag.htm

Referral Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20260310/documents/phea1rr.pdf

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

Download PDF:  CVN Letter to City – 2025-11-27 Social Housing Initiative PH V2

November 27, 2025
Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Vancouver’s Social Housing Initiative (Public Hearing November 27)

Agenda: https://council.vancouver.ca/20251127/phea20251127ag.htm
Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20251127/documents/phea1rr.pdf

While we acknowledge the need for social and affordable housing, we are writing to oppose “Vancouver’s Social Housing Initiative” going to Public Hearing November 27 since this initiative takes the wrong approach.

Some of the many concerns about this proposal are:

• There was no meaningful consultation with affected residents.
• The area affected is very significant. While not stated in the documentation, staff revealed just the day before the Public Hearing that the policy affects 52,729 land parcels in Vancouver — nearly 26 square kilometers, and over 49% of Vancouver’s residential land area. Residents living with any form of ownership or renting in these areas received no notification of the policies or even the Public Hearing.
• The one-size-fits-all approach of random towers is without any local planning context.
• The policy ignores local area plans, which had been carefully planned by neighbourhoods over many years.
• These towers are out of character with most of the areas identified for this initiative.
• Public oversight and a democratic means of having a say will be undermined, public hearings would be prohibited, and proposals would go directly to Development Permits, in some cases to be decided by one person, the Director of Planning.
• Only 30% will be social housing, the rest will be 70% expensive market rentals.
• The supposed “viability” of projects is based on pro-forma spreadsheets that are not subject to independent scrutiny, so the public and even Council cannot be assured of the value for value.
• Supportive housing at large scales have proven to be a failed model; but if approved, this initiative significantly reduces opportunities for meaningful community input and influence in outcomes.
• This initiative risks displacing many existing tenants in current social housing or existing older rentals (purpose built-rentals as well as secondary suites, both authorized and unauthorized — potentially affecting tens of thousands of renters).
• Opposition to this initiative is greater than support, as shown in the public feedback. The June/July 2025 engagement, when more details were finally provided, shows the majority of respondents were opposed.
• The initiative undermines the intent of the Heritage Conservation Area Bylaw and First Shaughnessy area that are intended for more density through heritage retention options for multifamily conversions and complementary infill, not out of scale towers.
• The initiative contradicts or ignores many policies and programs put in place by three levels of government to promote solar PV renewable energy generation. Threatens the viability of existing and future solar PV installation in the entire Social Housing Initiative area and vicinity, due to potential shadowing.

We encourage Council NOT to approve this initiative due to its many flaws, and NOT to incorporate it into the Official Development Plan. Instead, initiate a proper, transparent, open public discussion on the objectives of the Social Housing Initiative, and work with communities to find better solutions than what are proposed here.

Sincerely,

Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee, Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

PDF version of this letter at this link.

From Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) info@coalitionvan.org

October 29, 2025

Via Email:  josh.white@vancouver.ca,  odp@vancouver.ca, Mayor and Council

City of Vancouver
Attention: Josh White, General Manager, Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability

Dear Mr. White,

Re: City of Vancouver Draft Official Development Plan (ODP)

On behalf of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN), we have the following comments on the Draft Official Development Plan (ODP).  While we recognize the need for citywide planning, we are greatly concerned about both the process this draft has undertaken and the proposed draft content.

Process: First, we would like to address the process. This draft ODP is 204 pages, with many other related documents and displays, but the public is only given about two weeks to review and ask questions. Only four open houses for the whole city over this two weeks.

The City did not send out mailed notices or posters to ensure that people knew about it. Most people would have no idea what this ODP is or how to interpret all of the documents.

The documents for public review are very long, but are misleading and incomplete.

For example, On page 86 of the ODP, there is a reference to Map B7 in Appendix B.

” Non-profit and government organizations may be permitted to build social housing buildings from 6 to 20 storeys in most residential areas, depending on neighbourhood type (see Map B7: Social Housing Initiatives in Appendix B). Compatible nonresidential uses are permitted throughout residential neighbourhoods to support complete neighbourhoods.“

There is no map or any appendices on the draft plan ( https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/odp/draft-vancouver-odp-eng-full.pdf).  However, in small print on the table of contents, it says these are not in the draft plan but will only be included in the final plan. This is a major omission. People need to see the Map B7 now to see what height of social housing would be allowed in their neighbourhood.

Also, the Vancouver Plan map has now been relabelled as Urban Structure Strategy. This is misleading since it is in fact the transit oriented development urban growth for the future and is buried in the document as if it is inconsequential.

Most people who look at this document, if they see it at all, they will have no idea what it all means to them or the future of the city. In fact, our groups and members are still struggling to understand it all.

This is not a legitimate process for public input.

The ODP has not addressed the issues in the Vancouver Plan:  The ODP is relying mostly on the Vancouver Plan that has not addressed any of the concerns raised previously. The Vancouver Plan was also a flawed process. The main stakeholders who have been consulted are industry and development related groups, without involving the public in any meaningful way.

The following are our previous concerns raised in July 2022 when the Vancouver Plan, which we opposed, was rushed through for Council approval with only a few days notice. We do not see that any of the concerns we raised at the time have been addressed and we only see it as actually worse.

We continue to ask for staff to include local neighbourhood planning that considers livability in a local character context, environmental impacts, measures to avoid displacement impacts on existing more affordable housing, and other affordable housing options, including ground-oriented housing for families, co-ops, and other models for both renters and owners. A plan of this magnitude, especially as it is now the draft Official Community Plan (OCP), and that it will allow rezonings without public hearings, should not just implement the flawed Vancouver Plan.

Here is a small selection of  our many previous concerns that now apply to the ODP as follows:

1. No Neighbourhood-based Planning – One Size Fits All

Policies are too broad-brushed and rely on a one-size-fits-all approach. The plan draws lines on the map of  Vancouver in swaths of mauve and purple showing large areas of the city scheduled for redevelopment — yet each neighbourhood is unique. Areas where added density can work may be in smaller pockets in particular parts of a neighbourhood. The draft plan places too much emphasis on increasing the number of housing units, and not enough on different types of housing. Neighbourhood-based planning from the ground up would have procured opportunities for densification that respect existing neighbourhoods and fit into the local context.  The draft plan, if approved, will result in repealing all existing neighbourhood Community Plans and Community Visions, which were based on years of neighbourhood involvement and extensive participation done in good faith.

2. Lack of Urban Design

The plan does not prioritize good urban design. Some of the suggestions, like six storeys in shopping districts purportedly to preserve sunlight access but 12 storeys along residential streets, minimize the impact of high buildings on sunlight and livability. Former senior planners with the City are expressing their concerns over poor urban design. Ralph Segal says, “…approval of the Vancouver Plan and its approach to planning and affordable housing, will nail it as a disaster.” (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/article-generation-density-past-planners-speak-out-on-urban-development/)

3. Excessive Population Targets

The population targets chosen are too high and the plan does not give enough recognition to possible changes in economic conditions over the next thirty years. Consultants have produced several different possible scenarios for future population in 2050, ranging from an increase of 173,000 people to a high target of 286,000. The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth strategy calls for 164,500 in Vancouver. However, the Vancouver Plan calls for an increase of 262,000 people, almost the highest option, and far beyond the historical average increase of 1% per year. Such a high target puts more and more pressure on neighbourhoods and infrastructure to absorb more and more housing.

4. Lack of Consideration of Existing Capacity

The plan includes very little recognition of existing capacity in existing zoning, and of the potential population increase in large sites and projects already being planned, such as Jericho Lands, Heather Lands, , Sen̓áḵw, Rupert station, or Cambie Corridor. Other examples of important factors not adequately considered are the recent changes approved by City Council to allow six storey mixed use rentals along local shopping streets, the Streamlining Rental program (allows 4 and 6 storey apartments on arterials and local streets throughout much of the City), the large potential for laneway rental houses and the change to allow new duplexes in RS zones, now increased to multiplexes in R1-1.

5. Too many Rental Towers (mainly for REITs) and too little Ground-Oriented Family Housing

The plan does not give enough consideration of different types of housing, including ownership, co-op, and rental, that will be needed over the next 30 years for families, as well as single people and couples.

As the years pass, more and more single people who currently seek apartment rentals will be forming families and wanting housing that is ground-oriented and large enough for a family with one or two children to live in over the long term. Many will want the chance to buy a home or a co-op unit where they can feel securely housed.

Over and over in the plan, planners prioritize rental and social housing, with an excessive emphasis on the tower form. The small number of areas left in the city proposed for multiplexes do not currently have towers (such as the RT character areas of Kitsilano, Grandview-Woodlands and Mount Pleasant). Even in the multiplex areas, planners also leave open the option for apartments, thereby undermining the potential for multiplexes to be built.

6. No Policy for Heritage Buildings and Character Retention Incentives Undermined

The plan makes no clear statement or indication that buildings on the Heritage Register (whether or not legally designated as heritage) will be protected from demolition and redevelopment. The plan offers very little recognition or emphasis on the city’s heritage buildings, and no strategy as to how they can be retained. The plan mentions making the Heritage Register more equitable but offers no description of what that might entail.

By adding so much new larger development it undermines current character house retention incentives, increases in embodied carbon, and loss of neighbourhood character and streetscapes. There is still no option to add two secondary suites as an incentive for character house retention.

7. Not Enough Provision of Green Space (Private and Public)

There is not enough consideration given to the serious impacts of redevelopment proposed by the plan on green space and tree canopy, with implications for carbon capture, rain run-off and the urban heat island.

8. Embodied Emissions

The plan does not adequately consider carbon footprints and embodied emissions associated with new development, especially the use of concrete and glass in new tower buildings. It offers no consideration of policies to actually mitigate embodied emissions. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-the-hidden-climate-costs-of-b-c-s-burgeoning-highrises-part-ii

9. City Services

The plan contains no significant consideration of how the City will provide the amenities, green space, and services such as schools, that will be needed if the population expands to meet targets stated in the plan. There appears to be no acknowledgement that the need for green space and community centres will increase even more due to high density tower development.

10. Lack of Social License

There were no advertisements, articles, or notices in newspapers or other mainstream media that the Vancouver Plan came to Council on July 6, 2022, in the middle of the summer when people are on holidays right before the election in October 2022. Then it was a landslide election, wiping out almost all of previous council, clearly signalling a desire for change. Unfortunately, the public did not get that change. Instead the ODP is now just a repeat of the same plan but worse, and again only two weeks to respond to the huge draft ODP without any public notices mailed or meaningful opportunities for public input or consultation.

At the time of the Vancouver Plan, the Ipsos Read Survey referred to in the report is the only randomized survey that has been conducted with under 200 people. Only 15% of the respondents said that they strongly support the Land Use Strategy. Everyone else had some or many concerns.

Throughout the Vancouver Plan process the level of public support was misrepresented. The ODP process relies almost exclusively on this prior Vancouver Plan process.

Please do not continue implementing this flawed plan. Instead, reflect meaningful local neighbourhood based planning in the ODP. Provide for realistic population growth, and strive for: livability in the context of local character; address environmental impacts; include measures to avoid displacement from existing relatively affordable housing; and give adequate consideration to more affordable housing options, including ground-oriented housing for families, co-ops, and other models for both renters and owners, with amenities and adequate infrastructure in each neighbourhood.

Sincerely,

Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,   Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Reference Materials:

ODP – Shape your City  https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/odp
Full Draft ODP https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/odp/draft-vancouver-odp-eng-full.pdf
Summary  https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/odp/summary-sheet-eng.pdf
Open House Boards https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/odp/information-boards-eng.pdf

PDF format of this letter:

CVN Letter to City – 2025-10-29 Draft Official Development Plan ODP

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

PDF version link here: CVN Letter to Council – 2025-09-15 Broadway Plan Rezoning Public Hearing

September 15, 2025
City of Vancouver

Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Standardized Apartment Districts and City-Initiated Zoning Changes to Implement Broadway Plan and Cambie Corridor Plan

Agenda:  https://council.vancouver.ca/20250916/phea20250916ag.htm
Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20250722/documents/rr1.pdf
Yellow Memo:  https://council.vancouver.ca/20250916/documents/phea1memo.pdf

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly opposes this rezoning for many reasons.

Please do not approve this rezoning as proposed, and instead refer the report back to staff for more public engagement and a new approach. The Broadway Plan was always flawed in its approach, and this area-wide City initiated rezoning embeds those same flaws and only makes this worse.

The rezoning continues to favour more of the wrong supply that is not needed. The housing crisis is a lack of affordability, not just more supply. Housing supply is already over capacity for the kind of housing this rezoning would produce as proposed.  The zoning is designed for small expensive units in large towers . The tower scale densities are economically tested to ensure they will be large enough to incentivize demolition of existing more affordable rental buildings.

The Broadway Plan area has 25% of the existing rental stock in the city,  and this rezoning puts this at risk of demolition that will displace thousands of people. It will completely destabilize those affected neighbourhoods and peoples’ lives for no net gain of affordability or the kind o family oriented housing that is so desperately needed. The best tenant protections are to protect the existing rental buildings to avoid creating so many victims. Current tenant protections are untested and unproven.

The area-wide prezoning expedites this flawed model while reducing transparency and accountability.  Developers will then go directly to development permit application without requiring rezonings or public hearings for projects meeting these regulations. The intent is also to use these new zones for non-pre-zoned sites, so that developers will no longer be required to submit building plans for future site-specific rezonings and public hearings. Public notification and on-site signage for development applications will not be mandatory, but rather required only at staff’s discretion.

There is a complete lack of neighbourhood-based planning. Proforma-driven Broadway Plan Rezoning Districts are too heavily relying on proforma numbers that are creating plans that are based on assumed financials of a moment in time when area-wide plans should be planning for many decades of growth. Planning should be based on many considerations for built form, not just proforma numbers that will change over time. For example, community needs, infrastructure, the impacts on the climate of removing mature trees, demolition, embodied energy and concrete construction in large towers.

The right supply is livable, secure, and suited to local neighbourhoods and larger units for families, without triggering demovictions. Even Transit Oriented Areas (TOAs) require a mix of housing forms to meet local needs and context, including such forms as infill, townhouses and low to midrise apartments.

The plan still allows spot rezoning for towers in lower density areas, so no stability or livability for these neighbourhoods.

The RT-5 (Fraser area), RT-6 (Main and Cambie areas), RT-7 & RT-8 (Kitsilano and South Granville) zones provide a good source of rental and ownership housing that uses heritage and character house retention options for multifamily conversions and infill that is in high demand for family oriented housing in larger ground oriented units. These zones should be retained with future updates, not replaced with R1-1 zoning (all of the RT zones are proposed to become newly designated as multiplex R1-1 zoning) that does not address the local context.

Cities are built on grids, not arbitrary circles around transit which should only be a guide in principle, not for literal implementation. This does not consider the local context.

We are extremely concerned that the public no longer appears to be considered a stakeholder by the City, and instead prioritizes the development industry as stakeholder partners. There has been no meaningful input by the public in this proposed prezoning.

Please do not approve this as proposed, and instead refer the report back to staff  for public engagement  and a new approach. Direct staff to use more discretion for form of development near transit to better align with infrastructure, amenities, and community local context. Avoid one-size-fits-all approaches.

Avoid making towers the default solution. Towers have their place, but they are not always the best form. The right supply is livable, secure, and suited to local neighbourhoods and larger units for families, without triggering demovictions. Even TOAs require a mix of housing forms to meet local needs and context, including such forms as infill, townhouses and low to midrise apartments.

This will support the forestry sector through the use of affordable sustainable wood frame construction at a variety of scales, including character/heritage multifamily conversions.

Sincerely,
Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,   Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

PDF version LINK HERE.

May 13, 2025
City of Vancouver
Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: BC Bill 13 (Misc. Statutes Amendment Act) and Bill 15 (Infrastructure Projects Act)

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly urges Mayor, Council and City staff to oppose BC Bill 13 (Misc. Statutes Amendment Act) and Bill 15 (Infrastructure Projects Act) currently proposed by the provincial government. These bills are misleadingly named and in fact, are a major overreach of Provincial powers to transfer municipal authority over land use planning and development to the Province.

The Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) has raised concerns about the lack of consultation with municipalities and substantial consequences. However, since many of the amendments directly affect the Vancouver Charter, the City of Vancouver should publicly demand that the legislation not proceed further without substantial meaningful public and stakeholder consultation, including affected municipal governments and local communities .

Time is of the essence since Bill 13 has already received Second Reading and is now in Committee.

Bill 15 has received much more attention, but Bill 13 is of equal concern and consequence.

Bill 13 – Clause 9, 10 & 11, amends the Housing Supply Act to include all City of Vancouver by-laws defined as “Vancouver land use provision” that covers provisions in the Vancouver Charter including the following and allows the Province to control them directly.

(a) section 292 (1) [subdivision control];
(b) section 306 (1) [by-laws respecting building regulation];
(c) section 562 (1) [Council powers respecting official development plan];
(d) section 565 (1) [zoning by-law];
(e) section 565.14 (1) [providing affordable and special needs housing units elsewhere];
(f) section 565.192 (1) [providing affordable and special needs housing units elsewhere];
(g) section 565.2 (1) [housing agreements for affordable and special needs housing];
(h) section 565A (1) [by-laws];
(i) section 565D (2) [occupancy of phase out suite];
(j) section 565F (1) [landscaping requirements];
(k) section 571A (1) and (1.1) [sign by-laws];
(l) section 571AA (1) [relaxation of sign by-laws].

Bill 13 – Clause 47 – Changes the Vancouver Charter to deem that for City by-laws, “a provision of a by-law has no effect if it is inconsistent with a Provincial enactment.“

The proposed changes to the Vancouver Charter also appear to mean that even if an existing Vancouver by-law has not been changed to meet a Provincial enactment, or the City enacts a new bylaw that is inconsistent with the Provincial mandates, an applicant (developer) can apply for what is allowed by the Provincial  enactment regardless of the City’s by-laws, and the City would be forced by legislation to approve it.

For instance, in an existing zone in Vancouver (RT multiplex character conversions, or RM4 four storey rental apartment and condo buildings) that may not allow what the Province has enacted for 20 storeys and density of 5.5 FSR near but several blocks away from a transit station on a side street, a developer could still apply for development to the City for this, and the City would be obligated to process the application.

This would create confusion and undermine City authority since there may be legitimate planning reasons for why the City would not allow this on a particular site due to infrastructure, lot configuration, too small a site, park shadowing, mid-block without a lane, heritage buildings, significant trees, or local context. Or the City may not have yet been able to do the necessary planning work to change the zoning.

Bill 15 covers all provincially designated infrastructure such as the recent Bill 47 (2023) for Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD). Should it become law, it would allow the Province to directly administer and approve all land use permits and approvals for any infrastructure project and related provincially designated development areas such as Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD). This could affect many municipalities in the province. The Bill would give all of the legislative tools to the Province to directly approve and administer all permits for land use for Transit Oriented Areas in the province. In the city of Vancouver, these areas cover almost the entire City, including a vast track of land if the UBCx Subway Extension is approved. This bill could have huge implications for municipal finances as well.

These provincial powers are major overreach into municipal affairs. We urge you to take immediate action to address these issues with the Province and to work with other municipalities and UBCM to have these bills withdrawn.  Please see attached actual related text and direct links..

Sincerely,
Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,

Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods
Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Attachments

Reference:

CityHallWatch: https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2025/05/09/provincial-bills-13-15-undemocratic-withdraw-analysis/

Vancouver Sun, Erick Villagomez: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-when-local-planning-becomes-provincial-command

Vancouver Sun, Vaughn Palmer: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/bc-ndp-may-need-to-tweak-fast-track-law-as-greens-dig-in-their-heels

Bill 13: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/overview/43rd-parliament/1st-session/bills/1st_read/gov13-1.htm

Bill 15: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/overview/43rd-parliament/1st-session/bills/1st_read/gov15-1.htm

Progress of  Bills: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/overview/43rd-parliament/1st-session/bills/progress-of-bills

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

PDF version: LINK HERE

December 10, 2024
City of Vancouver
Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Broadway Plan Review and Implementation
Agenda 2024-12-11 https://council.vancouver.ca/20241211/cfsc20241211ag.htm
Report   https://council.vancouver.ca/20241211/documents/cfsc1_revised.pdf

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly opposes the recommendations in this report. We request that the Mayor and Council pause the Broadway Plan to allow a reasonable timeframe for public response, and for an approach that will properly address the affordable housing crisis rather than just making it so much worse.

The public has only had access to the 353 page report for 2 or 3 business days. On Wednesday Dec.4 was the first release online, then doubling the size of the report Thursday Dec. 5, and again amending the report on Monday Dec. 9.  There clearly has been no meaningful opportunity for the public to review the proposal and respond before Council consideration Wednesday Dec. 11.

Since the initial Broadway Plan was approved in 2022, the rampant tower speculation in land assemblies and rezonings have left many victims of demoviction and displacement in only the first two years. This is not the incremental growth projected to be over 30 years.

The increases of tower development contemplated in this current report amendment will escalate this.

Removing tower limits per block, adding height and densities in some areas, and adding hotel uses, that will overwhelm the area even more, by demolishing existing affordable housing, heritage and established communities.

As well as increased towers in the remainder of the RT zones around the edges of the plan area, many blocks away from transit, will eliminate many affordable ground oriented family units that the new towers do not provide.

Further adding towers to current C2 zones along W. 4th Avenue, Granville Street, and Main Street will put undue additional pressure on land values and property taxes that will force out local businesses.

As part of the Broadway Plan, there needs to be a thorough infrastructure review that is made public, including costing of upgrades and how it will be financed, to ensure that the growth will be sustainable, within the reasonable capacity of the city, and affordably implemented.

The increasing costs of the infrastructure deficit and land value inflation will put more pressure on property taxes that adds to the cost of living burden. The development fees are waived for these large rental towers, so most of the costs of growth are being downloaded onto property taxes.

There is no justification for the huge amounts of development in the Broadway Plan. It is mainly creating micro sized expensive rental units that we don’t need, massive demolition and displacement of older larger more affordable units, with no meaningful net increase to the affordable units we do need. This was confirmed by the City’s own Housing Needs Assessment from June 25, 2024.

Further, this massive increase in development is far beyond projected population growth given the slowdown of immigration, foreign students and  temporary foreign workers.

We request that you pause the Broadway Plan and consult with the public for a better outcome that allows for the needed affordable housing without the loss of existing communities and within the city’s reasonable infrastructure capacity.

Sincerely,
Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,

Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods
Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

Download formatted PDF version: Link here.

July 9, 2024
City of Vancouver
Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Procedure By-law Update to Remove Public Hearings – BC Bill 18
Agenda 2024-07-10 https://council.vancouver.ca/20240710/pspc20240710ag.htm
Report  https://council.vancouver.ca/20240710/documents/pspc2.pdf

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly opposes the recommendations in this reports since it proposes implementing the BC bills, even beyond provincial requirements, without ANY advanced public consultation process and only within days of posting them online.

CVN has sent Council letters advising that we have many concerns regarding the new provincial legislation Bills 44, 46 and 47, including their extremely flawed, biased, undemocratic conception that was then pushed through the legislature in November 2023. We find the current schedule for local and city-wide policy changes to be completely unrealistic and unreasonable. This now also applies to Bill 18, when the Vancouver Charter was amended in April 2024, to further implement the BC bills in Vancouver – again with no public consultation process.

We oppose the proposed removal of public hearings for rezoning. A rezoning consistent with the Official Development Plan (ODP) does not imply the local community has been consulted. The Terms of Reference for the ODP does not include public consultation as part of the process. The Vancouver Plan is a vague policy document that was created without any meaningful public involvement in the creation of the land use development plan or forms of development. Only the development industry and related lobby have been included as stakeholders. The public has been shut out entirely.

We further oppose that rezonings considered at a Council meeting will not allow speakers.  This is entirely anti-democratic and is no substitute for a public hearing that requires much more notice, legislative procedure and public process.

If Council is working for the public interest, these provincial dictates and staff further recommendations would not be passed. The City has a duty to question these provincial directions and act in the best interest of its citizens, not to implement and surpass the provincial directions that were established mainly to further the interests of the development industry and profits at the expense of due process.

Sincerely,
Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,
Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

See our previous letter regarding the BC Bills 44, 46 and 47 online at:
https://coalitionvan.org/posts/20240522-response-provincial-legislation-bills-44-46-47/

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/05/23/citywide-opposition-bills-44-46-47-june30-deadline/

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

Download formatted PDF version: Link here.

July 9, 2024
City of Vancouver

Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Citywide Removal of Views through View Cone Amendments
Agenda 2024-07-10 https://council.vancouver.ca/20240710/pspc20240710ag.htm
Report  https://council.vancouver.ca/20240710/documents/pspc1.pdf

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly opposes the recommendations to reduce and remove public views in the view cones. This is privatizing public views for the interests of the development industry and the most wealthy who can afford these views.

We also oppose that this report is being brought forward in the middle of the summer with no meaningful advanced public process. This is not a legislated requirement of the Province, so the City cannot blame it on them. This is 100% an undemocratic process of the City.

The City of Vancouver used to be world renowned for the planning and development process that protected the public views, provided parks and amenities, and involved its citizens in a meaningful public process. If this Council approves this report, it is complicit in the destruction of this legacy.

Once the public views are privatized as proposed, there is no going back. Do not make this terrible mistake. Refer this report back to staff for further public consultation and a proper process.

Sincerely,

Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,
Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

Download formatted PDF version: Link here.

June 24, 2024
City of Vancouver

Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Implementing BC  Bills – Transit Oriented Areas, Parking Bylaw, Housing Targets
Agenda 2024-06-25 https://council.vancouver.ca/20240625/regu20240625ag.htm

Item 2. Housing Vancouver 10 Year Housing Targets and 3 Year Housing Action Plan
Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240625/documents/r2.pdf
Agenda 2024-06-26 https://council.vancouver.ca/20240626/cfsc20240626ag.htm

Item 1. Implementation of Transit-Oriented Areas (Provincial Housing Statute Bill 47)
Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240626/documents/cfsc1.pdf

Item 2. Updates to the Parking By-Law in Response to BC Bills and On-Street Pay Parking
Report https://council.vancouver.ca/20240626/documents/cfsc2.pdf

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly opposes the recommendations in these reports since they propose implementing the BC bills, even beyond provincial requirements, without ANY advanced public consultation process and only within days of posting online.

CVN has sent Council letters advising that we have many concerns regarding the new provincial legislation, Bills 44, 46 and 47, their very flawed biased undemocratic creation that was then pushed through the legislature, and how we find the current June 30, 2024 schedule for local and city-wide rezoning and implementation to be completely unrealistic. This schedule will neither allow for any legitimate public process, nor a proper infrastructure review. We requested that the City advise the Province that an extension is required, like other municipalities have done.

Housing Targets:

The City confirmed that Vancouver already exceeds the provincial five year targets based on the record number of developments currently in the pipeline. However, current  market conditions have put many new already approved projects on hold, so there is no imminent pressure to inflate housing targets that will drive rezoning without proper planning or an infrastructure review.

The City of Vancouver is likely already exceeding infrastructure capacity. It is crucial that an infrastructure review be undertaken before increasing targets or adding more rezoning.

The greatest need is for more affordable housing that is not possible without major provincial and federal funding. There is abundant supply of expensive condos and rentals, well beyond market demand. The main need is for affordable units  that are not being provided by the market.

Of further concern is there is no data of the existing zoned capacity, how much growth can be accommodated in existing zoning, and how much of this existing zoning could be affordable with the needed provincial and federal funding, since new market housing is too expensive to meet needs.

Why are industry groups consulted as stakeholders, and the legitimate community groups are not?

Implementing Bill 47 Transit Oriented Areas (TOAs):

The City is proposing to designate and approve Transit Oriented Areas (TOAs) citywide without any public consultation process in advance.

The report proposes increases in height and density beyond the provincial mandates and overriding community plans and area plans that will also be amended to comply along with this report or after the TOAs are approved.

There is no meaningful planning involved that considers the local context. It is just implementing large arbitrary circles around every station and bus loop for massive increases of tower development.

This includes amending the Grandview Community Plan, and other plans and policies, but the local community has had no consultation and most are not even aware this report is going to Council.

It also proposes Tier 2 for the Commercial Dr. station area to also be up to 20 storeys, so this is proposing much more 20 storey towers than any other station areas under the BC bills.

Onsite Parking Minimums Removed Citywide and Expanding Pay Parking:

This proposal is to eliminate all onsite minimum parking requirements, with maximums, in new construction for all uses citywide, including residential, hotel, commercial, and office developments. This goes way beyond the provincial mandates that only requires it for residential purposes in transit oriented areas.

Going forward, wherever developers choose to not put in adequate onsite parking, the surrounding areas will become so congested they will require on-street parking permits.

Over time, the parking permit fees are to align with market value of off-street parking like is mandated for the West End. Market value in the West End 2017 report is considered to be $50 per month or $600 per year. This significantly adds to the cost of living and is essentially a massive tax grab.

Vancouver residents made it clear in 2021 that they would not tolerate such a change.

Once again, we request that a proper planning process with public consultation, and an infrastructure review be conducted in advance.

Sincerely,
Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,
Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

 Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods
Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

See our previous letter regarding the BC Bills 44, 46 and 47 online at:

https://coalitionvan.org/posts/20240522-response-provincial-legislation-bills-44-46-47/

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/05/23/citywide-opposition-bills-44-46-47-june30-deadline/

CVN Letter to Council – Implementing BC Bills-TOAs-Parking-Targets 24-Jun-2024

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print

Download formatted PDF version: CVN Letter to Council – Public Hearing – BC Bills Rezoning-Kits RT7-RT9-FSD 20240611

June 10, 2024
City of Vancouver

Dear Mayor Ken Sim and Councillors,

Re: Public Hearings – Rezoning to Comply with BC  Bill 44

Agenda 2024-06-13:  https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/phea20240613ag.htm

Item 4. Amendments to Restricted Zones (RT-7, RT-9, CD-1 371 and CD-1 463) to Comply with Bill 44 – Provincial Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) Legislation

Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240528/documents/rr1.pdf
Summary: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea4sr.pdf
Draft Bylaw: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea4zd.pdf
Yellow Memo: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea4yellowmemo.pdf

Item 5: Amendments to the First Shaughnessy District Schedule and Heritage Conservation Area Official Development Plan (HCA ODP) to Comply with Bill 44 – Provincial Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) Legislation

Report: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240528/documents/rr2.pdf
Summary: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea5sr.pdf
Draft By-law Zoning: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea5zd.pdf
Draft By-law HCA ODP: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea5hca_odp.pdf
Yellow Memo: https://council.vancouver.ca/20240613/documents/phea5yellowmemo.pdf

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly opposes these two rezonings since they are proposing to rezone entire neighbourhoods without ANY advanced public consultation process. There also are no red-line rezoning [to show changes to] By-laws for public or Council reference.

Report 4 rezones Kitsilano (RT7 & RT9) and Report 5 rezones all of the First Shaughnessy Heritage District, without opportunity for meaningful input from the public, the FS Advisory Design Panel, or the Heritage Commission. These proposed rezonings remove all character and heritage disincentives for demolition, without adequate incentives for retention options or guidelines.

Hours before the referral reports were posted online, 2024-05-22, CVN sent Council a letter advising that we have many concerns regarding the new provincial legislation, Bills 44, 46 and 47. We find the current June 30, 2024 schedule for local and city-wide rezoning to be completely unrealistic, as it will neither allow for any legitimate public process nor a proper infrastructure review. We requested an extension to at least the end of 2024 or preferably spring 2025.

See our previous letter attached and posted online at:

https://coalitionvan.org/posts/20240522-response-provincial-legislation-bills-44-46-47/

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2024/05/23/citywide-opposition-bills-44-46-47-june30-deadline/

The two Public Hearing Reports 1 & 2 above, coming forward without any public consultation process, only proves our point that the current schedule for rezoning of June 30 is completely unrealistic for any kind of legitimate planning process.

As we pointed out in our previous letter, the City confirmed that Vancouver already exceeds the provincial five year targets based on the record number of developments currently in the pipeline. However, current  market conditions have put many new already approved projects on hold, so there is no imminent pressure to rush further rezoning without a proper public consultation process.

The City of Vancouver is also likely already exceeding infrastructure capacity. It is crucial that an infrastructure review be undertaken as part of any further planning for more rezoning.

We also have specific concerns about the proposed rezonings as follows.

Item 4. Rezoning Kitsilano RT-7 & RT-9:

– We oppose the rezoning removal of disincentives to demolition and incentives for retention of character and heritage houses, without adding any incentives for retention other than waiving a few fees on Multifamily Conversion Dwellings.

– Houses and duplexes with suites, of less than three units gets no incentive for retention at all.

– For RT-7 the maximum density for a character retention house with an addition and a suite, or an MCD duplex, only gets 0.60 FSR, rather than 0.75 FSR in RT-9.

– RT7 should also be allowed 0.75 FSR like RT9 for character retention of two units or less.

– Retain the design guidelines that ensure quality design in both RT7 & RT9.

Item 5: First Shaughnessy District Schedule and Heritage Conservation Area ODP:

– Retain heritage area protections and zoning that incentivizes retention options for more units and infill, without loss of heritage as proposed. Allow growth and more units within the local context.

– Retain design guidelines and the First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel for this important area.

Therefore,  we request that the proposed rezoning reports be instead referred back to staff for a proper planning process with public consultation, with direction to staff to advise the Province that the current schedule of June 30, 2024 for local and city-wide rezoning is unrealistic for Vancouver, so should be extended in order to have a legitimate public process and an infrastructure review.

Sincerely,

Co-Chairs Larry Benge & Dorothy Barkley
CVN Steering Committee,
Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Network Groups of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods

Arbutus Ridge Community Association
Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours
Dunbar Residents Association
Fairview/South Granville Action Committee
Grandview Woodland Area Council
Greater Yaletown Community Association
Kitsilano-Arbutus Residents Association
Kits Point Residents Association
NW Point Grey Home Owners Association
Oakridge Langara Area Residents
Residents Association Mount Pleasant
Riley Park/South Cambie Advisory Group
Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners Assoc.
Strathcona Residents Association
Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
West End Neighbours Society
West Kitsilano Residents Association
West Point Grey Residents Association
West Southland Residents Association

Attached CVN Letter 2024-05-21 for reference below, with related map from the City reports.

Proposed Rezoning Areas

Attached for reference: Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods Letter dated 2024-05-21. Click link to open.

CVN Letter to Council – City zoning response to Bills 44-46-47 – 2024-05-21 -Final

Please share:

Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

email

Print