Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Edna Cho, Senior Planner in Housing Policy in Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability, and I will be taking you through a short presentation on the proposed zoning changes to fast-track rental housing and small hotels. I'm joined by my colleagues in PDS and Legal Services who are available to answer any follow-up questions from Council.

This presentation will go through an overview of the current state, recommendations in the report and what we heard in engagement.

The core recommendation of this report is to establish a new streamlined mixed-use commercial C2A zone, which is intended to eventually replace the current array of repetitive and very similar C2, C2B, C2C, and C2C1 zoning, thereby reducing complexity and redundancy. As part of these changes, this report also includes necessary consequential updates to the Rental Housing Stock ODP, the secured rental policy, and other related bylaws.

A little bit of background on existing C2 zones. So C2 is one of the oldest zoning districts originally created in 1956. Over time, the rules have become increasingly complex with minor differences in frontages and height across different areas. As mentioned in the previous slide, there are four C2 type zones, C2, C2B, C2C, and C2C1. We refer to these colloquially in planning as the clone zones. Most sites in these C2 zones can achieve six stories for rental and four stories for strata, but some sites in older community plans still need to go through a rezoning process to achieve six stories for rental. As for hotels, they are permitted in C2 only and limited to four stories.

In terms of the policy context, the Secured Rental Policy, approved in 2019, promotes rental housing that is essential for economic stability, social diversity, and encourages low-rise, missing middle housing forms that are six stories and under. The 3331 permitting targets and 2025 development viability report aim to modernize and expedite approvals with measures to enhance project feasibility amidst challenging economic conditions. These challenges include softening market trends and high construction costs, which greatly impact the viability of housing projects. Additionally, the new 2025 hotel development policy encourages increased density for hotels up to six stories on commercial streets outside the downtown core to alleviate the city's hotel accommodation shortage.

The main proposal today is to rezone approximately 2,400 properties representing the vast majority, 88% of C2, C2B, C2C, and C2C1 commercial district sites into a new streamlined C2A district. So why 88%? Why not all the sites? So sites in transit-oriented areas tiers 1, 2, and 4 are excluded because provincial legislation requires minimum densities up to 20 stories and 5 FSR in tier 1, which far exceeds the height and densities proposed as part of today's C2 changes. So out of scope. Select sites within community plans, such as the commercial drive area, are also excluded based on local priorities that were identified during the community planning process. So the maps shown here are the existing C2 and Clone Zone sites in yellow, orange, and red.

Okay, the next map here shown in green are the sites that are proposed to be consolidated into the new C2A district schedule, which will become the primary low-rise mixed-use commercial schedule for the city moving forward. So let's move, let's go into some details about the specific changes. So starting with rental housing, while most C2 sites already allow for six-story market rental projects, certain areas within community plans still require more time-consuming rezoning process. The proposed changes will include 232 previously excluded parcels, so those are shown in the dark green on the map, to permit six-story 100% rental buildings through a faster development permit process. This update aligns these previously excluded sites with the majority of C2 zone sites. Those are the parcels that are shown in the light green on the map, creating a more consistent, understandable, fair, and streamlined regulatory framework.

Moving on to small hotels, the proposal recommends increasing the hotel height limit in the new C2A district from four to six stories. Six-story hotels are currently allowed through a lengthier rezoning process through the 2025 hotel development policy. By removing the rezoning requirement, this update encourages new small hotels outside the downtown core on commercial high streets. In terms of uptake, since market rental housing generally performs better financially, staff expect these sites to attract specialized hotel operators rather than directly competing with rental housing development.

The proposed updates also modernize and simplify existing districts while ensuring compliance with provincial transit-oriented area TOA legislation. To achieve this, staff clarified district schedule rules by removing duplicate, regularly relaxed, or ambiguous regulations. These updates follow the model of newer residential district schedules, particularly the R3 and R5 districts that were recently approved by this council fall of last year. Finally, the new C2A district includes provisions for building heights up to eight stories, but at the same densities as the six-story rental form in Tier 3 and 5 transit-oriented areas, which are necessary to comply with provincial requirements. So that covers about 625 parcels, about 25% of the new C2A district.

Under the Vancouver ODP, sites proposed in the C2A district are designated as mixed-use low-rise. That means that all new developments must include non-residential uses intended to encourage commercial and office vitality. To align with the ODP, mixed-use buildings in the new C2A must provide at least 0.35 FSR ground floor retail, office space, or other non-residential uses. Consequently, new residential-only projects will no longer be permitted, though legacy uses existing at the time of enactment will continue to be permitted.

Let's move on to engagement. So staff engaged residents and stakeholders through online sessions and comment forms, generating approximately 2,900 touch points. This included a Shape Your City page, a virtual open house, and targeted sessions with the development industry and business improvement associations, as well as letters to over 7,200 property owners. Feedback revealed public support for low-rise six-story buildings and simpler approval processes for housing and small hotels. Additionally, the development community were highly supportive of the updates, urging the city to streamline the regulations and implement the changes as quickly as possible.

There were some concerns raised by the public, which I'll go through here, as well as staff's response. While some residents expressed concern regarding the impact of six-story buildings, these heights have been permitted on most parcels in C2 zones since 2021. This proposal primarily streamlines the approval process and is not changing heights on the majority of sites, though eight-story heights are now included in Tier 3 and 5 transit-oriented areas to comply with provincial legislation. It should be noted that take-up of the eight-story option is projected to be very low, as no increases in density is provided with the eight-story option. So there's no incentive for developers to choose to build in a higher, more complicated, and more expensive form without an offset. We heard concerns around the impact of infrastructure and amenities. The proposed changes are largely administrative and do not grant significant new development rights beyond what current zoning already allows. To support growth, new amenities and infrastructure will be delivered through future city capital plans and funded through development cost levy spending. And finally, we heard concerns around displacement of existing renters. To protect existing renters, all projects involving current tenants remain subject to the city's tenant relocation and protection policy. As well, the rental housing stock ODP continues to mandate one-for-one replacement of existing rental units so that new residential developments do not result in a net loss of rental housing.

So in conclusion, the proposed changes are to consolidate four older commercial zones into a new simplified C2A district by rezoning approximately 2,400 parcels today. This report achieves the vast majority of this transition in one move. The shift accelerates the delivery of six-story rental housing and low-rise hotels while ensuring compliance with recent provincial transit-oriented legislation. If approved, bylaw enactment is scheduled for May 19th, allowing staff to immediately process new applications and transition existing projects. Looking ahead, the new district will serve as a template for future initiatives, including the Villages Planning Program to support low-rise mixed-use growth. So thank you. That concludes the presentation. And Council, please note there's a yellow memo attached to the report, and staff are available to answer any follow-up questions you may have.

Sean Martinez, Employment Lands team in the Planning Department. Thank you, Councillor. So we do believe that it is feasible. They won't be very widespread as hotels at this size will probably require very specialized developers who have experience doing this type of hotel. The six-storey built form does provide some advantages in that it can be built... with the mass timber and other, you know, essentially less material in that it is a lower-rise form.

Exactly. We do not expect this to be a large influx of new hotels. Currently, there's only about six hotels outside of downtown in Vancouver, and they're usually around three or four stories. So this is not a very high-volume type of... type of deployment of the hotels. They are essentially very specialised and only certain operators can operate within this size.

We do not expect that to be the case. Currently, with our economic testing, the highest and best use is still to do residential development. As I said, the hotel take-up will probably be very limited to some developers who are able to actually specialize and likely have already operations of this size that can actually do this type of hotel.

Yes, Councillor Zhoush White, General Manager of Planning. Yes, we expect... THE COMBINATION OF MORE AREAS OF VANCOUVER INCLUDING SOME OF THE REGULATORY CHANGES WE'RE MAKING HERE AROUND THE SIX STORIES BUT ESPECIALLY THE VILLAGES INITIATIVE WHICH AS YOU ALLUDED TO BRINGS A LOT MORE OFFER TO OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH THAT PROGRAM IN COMBINATION WITH THE SINGLE REGULATORY CHANGE WE THINK WILL BE AN IMPORTANT ADVANTAGE BOTH on commercial main streets as well as the residential side streets for unlocking this type of low-rise product in a variety of forms that we've not yet experienced, including smaller lot products as opposed to large consolidations and land assemblies. Okay, thanks. That's it for me for now.

Thank you, Councillor. We're expecting between 80 and 150 rooms, depending on the size of the assembly.

So we do know that at this built form, it can be completed within mass timber.

Yes, there is interest. As I said, very specialized interest with regards to...

I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY AT SIX STORIES THE BUILDING CODING WOULD STILL ALLOW YOU TO USE CONVENTIONAL STICK BUILT PRODUCTS UNDER THE BUILDING CODE TODAY SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. IT'S NOT JUST MASS TIMBER PRODUCTS.

It is economically feasible. It is not so feasible that it would outstrip a comparable housing project. There are these specialized developers who will be able to take it up, and we do have interest from those limited parties who are looking at that size of hotel.

These would be developers that have operated hotels of modest size, usually of limited service. So these are the ones who will not be providing large convention spaces or things like that. They are specialized in essentially families or tourists who want a simple room. Maybe there would be like a breakfast room, something like that. But that's usually the focus of it is usually just tourist accommodation.

Currently in the C2, hotels are allowed up to four stories.

That's correct. The main thrust of this is really simplification and alignment of the zones. So it doesn't change the heights and densities. That's proposed.

Other than what's enabled right now, except for those 232 sites that were previously excluded from going up to six stories, but were allowed through a rezoning for rental. And then, you know, because of the TOA legislation, we had to allow the eight-story height for the sites that are within the Tier 3. Okay.

Good evening, Chair of Council and Council Members. I do have a USB and a really quick PowerPoint, if I can display this onto the projection.

I did also submit it online. I'm not sure if you guys have it.

As well, yes.

believe it was last week when I signed up for it, for the speaking and also the... All right, we'll just pause for a moment and see if that can be identified.

Oh, it's not part of it? Can I upload it now to present?

Okay, that's fine. I do have a paper copy of it, if that helps.

Sure, yeah, I can go ahead with it first then.

So my name is Jordan Su. I'm part of the CAPE group, local developer.

So we have a site on Charles and Nanaimo right on the corner there. It's located within the Grandview Woodland community. The address is 2336 to 2366 Charles Street. Currently zoned primarily C1 with a small portion RT5.

So as per... As per the design policy under the Grandview Woodland Plan, policy supports our proposals to strengthen the area as a local shopping node with retail at grade and housing above. There is an image that shows, but I can submit that afterwards. And also within the urban design policy, the Grandview Woodland Plan identifies key urban design priorities, including a mixed-use building of up to six stories, as noted, presented previously by the staff. So our site falls within the Grandview Woodland shopping node, including the balance of our block and the blocks to the north and south. The intent is to emphasize this as an emerging commercial street and local shopping node. The Granville Windland Plan identifies housing policy intended to increase housing options, supply, including ownership and market rental on our site. We're hoping to proceed with market rental as part of the proposed development and retail at grade. For us, we would like to move ahead with a mixed-use building that aligns with the Grandview Woodland Community Plan and the proposed C2A zoning. We think this can greatly improve the opportunity for enhancing the local shopping street and provide secured market rental housing above. The pre-zone approach allows us to move forward in an efficient manner and work to secure the necessary development and building permits to begin construction and deliver the product to the public as soon as we can. Oh, sorry. Without the picture, it's a little bit hard to visualize this, but specifically, if we're referring to the staff report, Map 58 of 60 in Appendix A, Schedule B of the staff report, we're asking it to be amended to include the remaining portion of the block face on the west side of Nanaimo between Charles Street and Kitchener The municipal address is 2336 to 2366 Charles Street. So that's four lots, four standard lots as C2A to ensure a consistent retail frontage to kind of give council members and everybody else a quick snapshot of what we're talking about without visuals here. There is currently the catchment right on Nanaimo where There are catchments where the properties are being included in the C2A proposal. And we are four lots adjacent to sharing one lane just on the north side of a site that is already included in the C2A zoning that's being proposed. And we're just asking to have our site also to be included and finish that block off and to keep it consistent. Or else the zoning just south of that lane would be different and inconsistent with ours. And for us to move forward quickly and be able to deliver a product for the public use for retail and rental housing as well. That kind of provides a better context and idea of what we're asking for, if that makes sense. And in closing, Cape Group supports the proposed C2A zoning and appreciates your time and consideration also to include our site in this exciting new zone. Thank you and happy to take any questions.

Okay. Thank you.

My name is Michelle Travis. I'm a resident of Vancouver and a representative of Unite Here, Local 40. I also live near one of the affected corridors that will be targeted by this proposal. This is perhaps one of the largest mass rezonings that many residents probably haven't heard about. It calls for rezoning nearly 2,400 parcels along some 20-plus neighborhood corridors, which is sweeping. We are opposed to this proposal. This is not a housing affordability plan. It's a developer fast pass. It prioritizes speed and developers' bottom lines over people and does so on a large scale. It's unusual to see market rentals and hotels coupled together in this way, and it's concerning. Council is being asked to approve this without a clear, stand-alone analysis of impacts on neighborhoods, tenants, or affordability. That's not careful planning. It's reckless. These corridors include renters living above shops, mama-pop stores, and workers. Upzoning like this can drive land speculation, raise land values, and lead directly to displacement. Existing relatively affordable rental units could be demolished and replaced with significantly more expensive ones. This could push out people faster than it houses them. There are no requirements for below-market rentals and no guarantees for lower-moderate income households. Worse, the related proposal coming to Council on May 19th threatens to weaken below-market rental requirements further. What this is likely to bring are expensive market-rate units that many residents cannot afford. Even more troubling, the proposal fast-tracks hotels alongside housing, as if hotel rooms are so sacrosanct they deserve special treatment. Council has already approved thousands of hotel rooms, and thousands more are already in the pipeline.

The question really we have here is why are we fast-tracking hotels instead of affordable housing? You can downplay the impact, but it is significant. If we don't anticipate many hotels coming through the pipeline, then why do they need incentives, and why should they be allowed to bypass public hearings? If developers or investors want to build hotels, they should be treated like any other investor in a risky asset class. The city doesn't need to provide a safety net for hotel developers. This proposal further erodes what little public input remains in the rezoning process. Public hearings have already been limited for many residential projects. This would also allow hotel developments to bypass public hearings entirely, regardless of community impact. At the same time, consultation on this proposal has been targeted to property owners in the corridors, but local area residents have not been meaningfully engaged. It's stunning that city staff has held a special presentation for developers, but City Hall provided no direct notice to residents who live in the surrounding neighborhoods. It's not inclusive planning. We're being asked to take this on faith while the city doubles down on policies that have so far not delivered the affordability that working people need. If you're serious about affordability, then we want you to show us. Don't fast-track market rentals without any affordability requirements. Don't prioritize hotels over affordable homes. Don't strip away public oversight so that we can reduce costs for developers. This is not a housing solution. It's another developer giveaway, and we ask that you reject the proposal or send it back to staff. Thank you.

Yes. Hi, Mayor and Council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this today. I'm Stephen Von Zachowski. I'm the President of the Vancouver and District Labour Council. We are a local union federation representing approximately 90 local unions and about 60,000 union members here in the city and neighboring municipalities.

Okay, sure, thank you. Yeah, thanks for the time this evening. So I'm Stephan von Tuchovsky. I'm the president of the Vancouver District Labour Council. We bring together over 90 local affiliated unions, approximately 60,000 union members in the city of Vancouver and neighbouring municipalities. I'm here today to speak in opposition to this proposal. And the reason really is that it doesn't truly address our affordability crisis. We, you know, supported, I remember, being at Council to support the increase in the requirement for 20% affordable housing in developments in the city. And that's a threshold which, you know, on its own would never lead even that threshold to... the number of affordable units we need to fix the housing crisis in the city, but it was a step in the right direction. This proposal really seems to toss that out. It doesn't align with our city's most urgent need, which we hear every day from our members, is housing affordability, the availability of housing they can actually afford to live in the city in which they work. There's proposed 165 rental units here that are to be market rate, and they don't meaningfully address the dire need for affordable housing. There's no below-market or non-market housing in this, and waiving that 20% threshold, the housing crisis hasn't lessened or gone away. It doesn't make any sense to step back from that commitment. You know, I think as we heard from the previous speaker, this is a case of incentivizing developers to build more of what we don't need, right? We really need to be incentivizing to build affordable housing, you know, below market housing, social housing, all the types of housing for lower and middle income folks across the city who are struggling, not for more unaffordable units, expensive market rentals or hotel rooms. also concerned about the the waving of community amenity contributions um you know this is uh we see that those don't match the value that's going to be increased by these developments and and that needs to be addressed we think you know those who can afford to contribute to the city need to need to do that and we don't agree with way waving contributions that normally should be required You know, at the end of the day, I think workers know today that a trickle-down is a myth, right? It doesn't work on our paychecks, and it doesn't work in housing either. We've seen decades of a theory that if we just build more, prices will drop. And as we've seen that theory put into practice year over year over year, we've seen the prices only rise. And we do need to build more. We need to build a lot. But we need to build the right stuff if we're going to make the impact that we want to make and, you know, make this place affordable for everybody. So I really urge council to vote no on this proposal and to really return and reorient the city's focus to strategies to build what we need and to increase affordability for working people and for everyone in the city of Vancouver. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor. Deputy Mayor Kirby Young, thanks for the opportunity to speak. Royce Schwinn, President and CEO of Destination Vancouver, resident of Vancouver, and yes, in support of item two, fast tracking of rental housing and small hotels. we had commissioned a study and it was released back in april of 2025 with cascadia partners a third party organization and what we wanted to try to understand was and we knew that one size fits all hotel everywhere is simply not going to work and we recognize there's different needs there's a lot of tension between affordable housing we also have a nine billion dollar visitor economy that employs 70,000 plus people in the city. Part of the economic engine of the city is the visitor economy. We know that there is a hotel shortage. We have gone in the opposite direction, 2,000 less rooms. We have the same amount of rooms today as we did in 2002. Meanwhile, the competition that we deal with has been building hotels. And so when we look at things like this or we look at hotel development, it's not to suggest that anybody wants a version of Las Vegas for Vancouver. but there is an economic engine here that has going in reverse and we need to reverse that and we know with this proposal and the study that we did which is the hotel community impact assessment we wanted to understand what types of hotel hotel typologies fit in different kinds of neighborhoods including smaller format hotels that were integrated in neighborhood commercial areas We know that they are not only economically viable under current zoning regulations and market conditions, but they can also function as local economic anchors. They can support jobs, activating streets, strengthening community vitality. We see that these are actual things that happen with some of these hotels. There's a lot of practical evidence in this particular space and it does do something to address the structural shortage of hotel supply. So different formats are critical. Downtown whole site hotel sites alone will not deliver the scale of affordability that we need in a range of different kinds of properties. And so there is some policy alignment here, allowing small hotels and mixed use districts. It's very practical to walk the supply. And I think a city staff noted earlier, we don't expect 1,000 developers to show up and overrun the city with these small hotels. That's not the case. They are specialized developers. I think what we see from what is item two here is that it's simply creating the conditions for the option to be able to do this if there are some developers that are offering to build this type of typology of a hotel. One of the other things that we know that something like this is that it perhaps could help displace some of the short-term rental demand on STRs where those are being used up, where perhaps those could be turned into necessary housing. And these types of hotels also, they're next to high-quality transit. So less cars in the street, more people using transit to move around the city. Lastly on this, small hotels will like them. There's daily foot traffic. They animate local streets. They support local retail, food and beverage, the small ma and pa operators who require that foot traffic in their areas. And they also contribute to street activation and safety in our neighborhoods by allowing the movement of people and some engagement in there. So we do see some alignment also in mixed-use commercial districts that are explicitly designed for the environment and economic activity. These types of small hotels, where applicable and where they make sense, is a good idea. So again, we support item two here, fast-tracking rental housing and small hotels, new mixed-use commercial district. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Good evening. I'm actually surprised that you're even holding a public hearing on this tonight, given ODP. Since I have the rare chance, I am speaking today to strongly oppose item two, even though I suspect that you'll just rubber stamp this in the dead of the night. While I agree that the city needs more hotel capacity, the process has been downright awful. providing another massive cynical bailout to the developers who own the city maybe they should be the government instead of you guys sitting in the chamber i mean grifter's got a grist right the up zoning and the hotel designation was specifically the hotel designation will cause further lift as if you haven't hiked the property taxes for the surrounding small businesses enough with the highest and best used valuation through BC assessment. Do you expect us to act like desperate peasants grateful for whatever breadcrumbs that the tourism industry may provide? Or are you trying to evict all the remaining small businesses to the Tri-Cities or to the Fraser Valley? I urge you to vote no on item two unless you've been ignoring what I've been saying while you guys are doom scrolling on your phones. Thank you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Okay, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, thanks for taking my questions here. Good evening. My name is Matthew DeCorby, and I do strongly oppose this project. I have worked in the Vancouver hotel industry for many years, and I am a very proud resident of the West End in Vancouver. I felt compelled to speak before you all today and hope that you will understand how difficult life has become for the working class people here in Vancouver. I would like you all to prioritize people over profits and developers. I work every shift I can, and I keep my costs as low as I can just so that I can simply continue living here. I am being fully pushed out by this affordability crisis as we speak. Not only me, but my neighbors, my best friends, and all the very elderly people that are in the West End. who have lived in Vancouver for decades are all being pushed out. It is not fair. There is a serious lack of investment for working class people in the city, yet developers have the ear of our mayor and council. There are new luxury projects getting approved regularly. However, decent paying jobs are disappearing in the city. Does our mayor and council even know this? Are good paying jobs ever in the discussion when the developers get approvals for their luxury projects? I do not hear anything if anything, from the City Hall about affordable housing. My question is why? Why is this not on your agenda? I will have to move out of the city along with thousands of others because we just simply cannot afford to live here and simply your priorities are not affordable housing. I sincerely hope you consider putting working people and their concerns above profits and developers. Thank you.

My name is Fabiola. I live in Vancouver. And I do not support this policy because I'm a working person. I work so hard in a hotel. And I show up every day. I do my job. And I struggle to keep my family together, to get the roof.

This is not a friendly city. family-friendly city. And when I see the council proposing to fast-track market rentals and small hotels across our neighborhood, I have to ask, who is this for? Actually, it's not for me, for my family. It's not for my neighbors, but they have family, too. Then what gets built at the end of the pipeline is market rate units that the working people cannot afford. And hotels do not house anyone at all. This is mass rezoning of our neighborhoods, and the public will have less and less. say each time. If Congress wants to fast-track anything, fast-track below-market homes, fast-track housing for lower-income workers, and don't use a streamlined process to give developers and hotel operators an easy-pass project that does nothing for the people at all and for families. We are in a housing crisis. The answer is not more incentives for hotel developers.

in Vancouver, but I don't support this plan because I want to be honest with council. I work in this city, but I cannot afford to live in it. I get up early because I live in Delta and I commute in. I put in a full day and at the end of it, I go home somewhere else because Vancouver has no place for workers like me anymore. That is not because I haven't worked hard enough. It's because every year decisions get made in this room that prioritize developers over the people doing the work. We should be investing in affordable housing, in real homes for working families, in a Vancouver that the people who keep it running can actually live in. I urge you to vote no on this proposal. That's what I will say, right?

Yes, I'm Felicima Belignon.

Okay. My name is Felicima and I live in Vancouver. I do not support this policy. Because me, my friends and families work hard and we are all struggling. Everything like groceries, hydro, gas and rent go up, but our paychecks are stagnant. Now council is proposing to first truck rentals and small hotels across the city. None of that helps people like us. The market price in Vancouver is already out of reach and a hotel is not a housing. This policy must resound by another name. It changes neighborhood policy quickly, and those people living in those neighborhoods get less of a say each time. If council wants to fast-track process usage for the housing this city actually needs, like housing for the lower-income workers, that is what would help my neighborhood. We need affordable housing, not hotels. I urge you to vote no on this policy. I thank you.

Hi, good evening, Councils. This is Angel. I work in one of the hotels in Vancouver. And I do not support this policy. This is a matter of zoning. It will reshape neighborhoods quickly with less public input. And the buildings it produced will continue the same trend. Units rise beyond working people and hotels that produce no housing at all. I commute into the city every day because I cannot afford to live in. By the time I get on my shift, I'm already tired. But if I'm going to get home, my day's gone. And Council's plan is to fast track more market rentals and more hotels or small hotels. That does nothing for me. It does nothing for the worker I commute alongside. If you are going to fast track anything, fast track below market housing, fast track homes for lower income workers, and stop giving incentives to hotel developers who do not build what we need. BOTTOM LINE IS WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOMES, NOT LUXURY HOTELS. I URGE EVERYONE TO VOTE NO ON THIS POLICY. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

Hello.

My name is Rajvinder Parmar, and I do not – I work in Vancouver. I do not support this policy. I do not have – I do not live in Vancouver because – I cannot afford to. Every year my commute gets longer because the cities around Vancouver are now expensive too. Full of workers like men who got pushed out and council's response to a regional housing crisis is to fast track market rentals and small hotels. This policy is mass rezoning. It will reshape Vancouver's neighborhood quickly, and the buildings it produced will continue the same pattern that pushed me out. Market units I cannot afford, and hotel incentives that produce no homes at all. If Council is going to fast track anything, fast track below market housing, fast track homes for the lower income workers, this region depends on. That is the only fast track that address actual crisis. So I urge you to vote no on this policy. Thank you very much and have a good evening.

My name is Connie, and I live in Vancouver. I do not support, you know, this policy because, you know, I think, you know, the government should provide citizens with a basic living life and housing is the first priority.

The government can provide affordable housing, not for the hotel. Because right now, the rent, the food, you know, the oil price, you know, all, you know, the living expenses are very high. You know, within, you know, the past year or two, the living expenses is increased more than 30% to 50%. Living expenses causes so many families to face a lot of financial pressure. If, you know, the government... should be you know uh facing you know they have to face the people that really need it there are affordable you know housing is very important to to our people can the government learn about in a housing policy from the singapore government

Take Singapore, you know, as a reference. You can live and work in peaceful and going out in much safety.

And nowadays, even the elder, you know, old people, you know, have to continue working to make a living.

Right now, it's not easy to afford living in Vancouver. The cost is too high. And I hope, you know, the government can support, you know, the people, not just a favor to, you know, the rich people.

I'm the president of Unite Your Local 40. I'm representing members throughout BC, mostly are in the lower mainland, and I'm against this proposal. Our members are commuting four hours. Some of them live in Maple Ridge. Some of them live in Surrey. Some of them live in Richmond. They wake up at all hours of the day to go to work. Some of them have to leave home at 4 a.m. There's no transit. Some of them have to, you know, they work great their shift. And they live in Surrey. And so many of our members cannot afford to live in the city.

actually have for people who work in Vancouver and who would very, very much rather live in Vancouver than commute three to four hours a day. They end up spending 12 hours away from home, and they work back-breaking jobs in the hotels. They're dishwashers. They're housekeepers. They, you know, and they're the best paid hospitality workers in the country because they really, really got involved and they went on strike a few years ago. But still, they're struggling to live. So there's a crisis that we're facing here in the city, and the crisis is an affordability crisis, but it's mainly a housing crisis. Many of our members cannot afford to rent or to buy homes, and the ones that do scrape up enough money to buy homes, they're living very far away. So what we need is for you to put proposals that are going to help... Have them have hotel workers and working people in the city have a life where they can thrive, not just survive. Many of our members can't save. Everything, they're just living paycheck to paycheck. Many of them work three jobs. Some of them work one job, but many work two to three jobs. Some of them are single moms. So you really need to be thinking about how do we actually make sure that Vancouver is not just a city that is welcoming tourists from all around the world, but really how is it a city that can take care of people who live and work here and people who are committed in making the city one of the best cities to visit. But the tourism workers in the city need you to stand for them. And so, you know, I'm against this proposal, and I'm urging you to really stand by working people's lives in the city and to make sure that you vote against it and really have a plan towards affordable housing, towards the cost of living. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Diego Reyes, Vancouver resident, and I'm opposed to this proposal. I work in hospitality, and I'm concerned about this plan. First, fast tracking often leads to bad designs. For workers, a fast building usually means tiny service areas, crowded hallways, and no space to do our jobs properly. We need functional buildings, no rush is one. And second, more small hotels and rentals built too quickly will put too much pressure on our local services. It makes the neighborhood crowded and harder to live in for those of us who actually work here. Please, let's prioritize quality and workers, not just speed. We need a district that works for everyone, not just a fast construction. Thank you for your time and have a good evening.

My name is Dominador Intuya, and I work in Vancouver Hospitality Industry. I'm here to post this resuming proposal in its started form. I want to be clear. I support new housing. But this proposal is not delivering the kind of housing that Vancouver workers actually need. Tax tracking market rentals and small hotel development without firm affordability requirements is not a solution to the housing crisis. It risks making it worse. Market rental in Vancouver is simply not affordable for most workers.

and similar policies may often see only small portions of units offered to below market rates, and even those are still out of reach for many people earning average wages in the hospitality, healthcare, and service sector. Meanwhile, workers are being displaced in my industry. It is now normal for employees to commute from Surrey, Barnaby, or Langley because they cannot afford to live in the city they serve. This has real impact on workforce stability, service quality, and people's quality of life. Even my 25-year-old daughter, a full-time licensed practical nurse who deliver and serve 20 to 25 patients every day all over Vancouver, cannot afford to live independently in Vancouver. It is essential workers cannot afford to live here, then our housing policies are clearly not aligned with reality. This proposal also prioritizes additional hotel and commercial uses without securing housing for the workforce that those industries are dependent on. That imbalance should concern council. So I ask, where are the guarantees? Where are the binding requirements for deeply affordable housing? to local income, not market rates. A meaningful percentage of units secured for social or non-profit housing.

Without this, this is not a housing solution. It is development strategy that leaves working people behind and urges the City Council to either reject this proposal or amend it and include higher mandatory affordability targets Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Robert Bader. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I strongly oppose item 2. I've worked in the hotel industry for 27 years, and I'm a proud member of Unite Here Local 40. We fought hard for our wages, protections, and working conditions. These proposals threaten these hard-won rights, and union and hotel workers, would be without proper representation. I also oppose it because it gives more freebies to greedy billionaires and developers. These so-called hotels are just a kinky loophole they use to push hard-working people out of their communities. Selling them hotels is laughable. This is just a plan to build more expensive, unaffordable housing and push working people out of the neighborhood. These people don't care about the neighborhood. They only care about the money. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, councillors and folks in the chamber. My name is Kabir. I'm a resident of East Vancouver and I work in the downtown Eastside. I oppose this motion. The motion to turn the various zones to zone C-2A raise a few concerns in my view. We are giving developers a valuable public asset, namely increased density, and asking for nothing in return except that they rent the units instead of selling them. market rents in vancouver are already unaffordable to most working people as you've heard already today this is not a housing policy it is a landlord subsidy this motion proposes to rezone 2348 parcels many of which contain older more affordable rental stock Fast-tracking development means fast-tracking displacement unless we build replacement affordable housing now. And this is something that many organizations, including the Carnegie Housing Project and the SL Collaborative, have been calling for for decades. Build affordable housing first and then displace people to build your market rentals. I don't need to be an urban geographer to know that upzoning increases land value. This proposal writes a check to property owners, many of whom are large corporate landlords with no clawback no community benefit agreements and no requirement to sell to the city at a fair price later we are making future social housing more expensive but doing it now i support building more rental housing i really do but this motion is not a housing policy it is a market stimulation policy it gives developers and landowners everything that they asked for that's faster approvals less public input more height and more density in return it asks for nothing except that units be rental and not strata i'd suggest if i may that recommendation a the staff report be amended require that any mixed-use residential buildings are developed under the new c-2a district schedule with the full space ratio exceeding 2.50 include at least 20 percent of dwelling units at below market housing with rents set at or below the bc housing housing income limits or hills for moderate income households secured in perpetuity through a housing agreement If 20% inclusionary makes a project unviable, then the density bonus you're giving them from 2.5 to 3.5 FSR is insufficient anyway. Raise the density further or accept that market developers must contribute to the public good in exchange for public density. We have a vacancy crisis, we have an affordability crisis, and a displacement crisis. This motion solves exactly one of those problems, vacancy. And it does so by kind of flooding the market with units at market rates that most Vancouverites still cannot and in the near future will not be able to afford. So please vote in favor of this motion. Thank you for your time.

Hello.

Awesome, excellent.

Hello, I'm calling in today against this proposal for a few reasons. Firstly, every dollar a hotel developer spends on a hotel is money that won't be spent on rental housing, especially affordable rental housing. They're competing for construction crews and supplies. And most of all, I'm against bundling the rental home and hotel vote together. This is undemocratic and not transparent. These two issues are not the same. Lack of affordable rental housing is an incredibly serious problem. It affects everyone that lives in the city, but also anyone who wants to live in the city but can't afford to. To put these two issues side by side does not do justice to all the people who can't afford to live here. It does not respect the struggles of the people working to survive in this city. It shows that the city itself does not have the solutions to the affordability crisis.

Aside from that, up to 150 rooms to me is a sizable hotel, and the communities affected should be notified. That's really a money-making machine, especially in the summer. Residents in nearby communities should know that a couple hundred guests a night, and really, now that more and more people are staying in hotel rooms, maybe three or four hundred guests a night could be staying on their block. That's a lot of people. The community deserves a proper understanding of what that means and the safety and security concerns and policing concerns that can come along with that. But at 150 rooms, I don't even understand how that won't suck money away from rentals. That's a very profitable hotel. I urge Council to vote against this and focus on the affordability crisis at hand. Separate these two issues and show affordable housing the respect it deserves. Thank you for your time. Have a great night.

My name is Faye Casas. I live in Vancouver and a taxpayer. I strongly oppose the proposal of the project. Vancouver is a very expensive city to live. The rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. The city should focus how to improve housing availability and affordability. We need affordable housing, not a hotel room for tourists. I urge you to vote no for this proposal. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Good evening. My name is Linda, and I'll post this proposal. I have worked in the hotel industry in Vancouver for many years. I would like the mayor and the council to stop giving handouts to developers and focus on making Vancouver an affordable city where people who work here can also live here. Wages have not capped us with living costs. That means paychecks do not go far for us. This has been happening for many years. People who make this city what it should not have to worry about moving out to another city so they can continue to buy grocery. Please making working class people a priority instead of developers. Thank you.

Hi, yes, my name is Preet. I strongly oppose this project. I grew up in Vancouver and I work in Vancouver. I drive three hours a day to and back from work because I can't find affordable housing in Vancouver.

I've been trying to find affordable housing for the past many years, but like my friends and many other people my age, it's nearly impossible. So my friends pay upwards of 60% of their monthly wages in rent. Not much is left for groceries and gas for their cars. And that's if they have one. Many of us are pushed out of Vancouver to the suburbs, with living in Vancouver increasingly becoming a far-fetched dream. Who are we prioritizing when we are fast-tracking proposals like this? The housing crisis impacts thousands of people in this city, and quite frankly, the future of the young people in this city. More hotels are not going to help them. I urge the Mayor and Council to prioritize working-class people. Give us affordable housing. Stop developer handouts. Thank you.

First of all, thank you for letting me speak. I want to remind, not that everyone's here, but I hope you're online. I do want to remind this entire council and the mayor that this is an election year. And I want you to ask yourselves, what does fast tracking hotel zoning in the largest density of local independent businesses do within Vancouver to help affordability? Who does it benefit? I also want to remind this entire council is that if you pass this map of rezoning, you are literally signing the death warrant of thousands of independent local businesses that employ, pay taxes, and more importantly, vote in Vancouver. Commercial real estate is not zoned like residential. If you zone these streets for hotel rooms, thousands of small family businesses will be unable to sustain the rising cost of property taxes. which then allows millionaire and billionaire developers, like some that are spoken in this room, to swoop in, buy buildings, pick out tenants with affordable rentals, small businesses, all just to build luxury hotels. Like, who does this actually benefit? Not the city. Local business owners invest in the local economy at 300 times the rate of foreign-owned chain stores and hotel conglomerates. Lucy, you asked if there are any developers interested in building hotels, and immediately the presenter said there was actually quite a bit of interest. So if there is interest or if there's significant interest, why are we blank at rezoning? If there was meaningful engagement with the public, why does the rezoning move to remove the ability for public input? Why not let a developer with a solid development plan request a small hotel if it's not meant to be a new gold rush for developers? People in this galley and from all over the lower mainland come to enjoy the unique independent small businesses and owners in these effective corridors of Little India on Fraser. Like, tell me you haven't been to some of those restaurants. or the countless small businesses on Main Street, Fraser, Commercial, and Kingsway, like Ann and Chi, or the gluten-free bakery in Fraser, or the independent grocery stores like Famous Foods, Stadium Market, East is West, Organic Acres, or the Neptune record store owner that found an original Beatles recording and personally gave it back to Paul McCartney. Bean Sprouts is a second-hand kids' clothing store that has been in the neighborhood for over 20 years, upcycling kids' clothing that would normally end up in the landfill. She has already had to move from 27th on Main to 33rd on Main due to the rising cost of rent. On Fraser and Kingsway, there is an empty brand-new commercial space that has been like that for two years. The only people on Main, Fraser, Kingsway, and Commercial that rent in these new builds are dentists, physio, which I went today, or fast food chains. Even today, in any new builds on Fraser or Main, you will find only chain grocers or chain pharmacies and banks. The new rental builds struggle to find renters for their market rate new builds, and there are empty new builds all over Main and Vancouver as we speak. So now that market rate rentals are not financially viable for these developers, we suddenly have a new manufactured crisis of hotel rooms in areas where families have moved and opened local businesses which are overwhelmingly supported by the community. Main Street landed among the top 15 coolest streets in North America and only one of two in all of Canada. Main Street, with its independent stores and independent eateries, was assigned the up-and-coming destination on the hippometer, whatever that means, which measures an area's developmental stage, livability, and retail flavor. Our demographics include 56% of renters. These are people you will displace if you do blanket hotel rezoning. People come to these neighborhoods not because it's filled with indigo books and Starbucks, but because we have unique, independent local businesses. We have an affordability crisis, not a hotel crisis. We are not going to build our way out of this crisis. If you approve this rezoning, you will be responsible for making the affordability crisis worse by making costs unaffordable for local businesses. If you approve this rezoning in its current form, I will personally go to every local business along the corridor and let them know that your decision to rezone their residential and commercial spaces for hotels is the reason the property taxes are rising and ensure all vote accordingly. The developers have lobbyists.

All right, thank you. So my name is Tori Cooper, and I'm a Vancouver resident, and I oppose this proposal. I am very concerned about the mass displacement that this rezoning will promote, and we cannot simply ignore the residents of this community and the independent shops in the area that will be negatively affected, and this proposal will worsen the housing and affordability crises that affect all of us. So please reject this proposal. Thank you, and have a good night.

One is faster tracking rental housing and one is redoing 896 Canby Street. As someone who works for a living, it is honestly getting harder and harder to get by in Vancouver. With inflation and gas prices so high, I have to work every dollar I spend. To buy a house, I have to put together my entire family's savings from decades of hard work. Right now I'm just barely staying afloat and I know it is going to get tougher when I retire. A lot of my co-workers are still working while part of 65 because they have no choice that's the reality of many of us the police is basically a majorly zoning of our city is fast tracking it subtracts approvals reduces public input and pushes more development toward the kind of building buildings that haven't worked for working people market rentals that low-income workers can't afford and hotels that don't at any real housing at all. If council is going to move this trust, it should be for something that actually helps, like building below market housing that let working families stay in the city. That's what we should be prioritizing. I urge you to vote against this proposal. Thank you.

Hi. Okay, perfect. Hi, my name is Shaylin. I work in Vancouver, and I strongly oppose this fast-tracking of these rentals and hotels because... quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing the news every day and being let down by the city of Vancouver. I am 27 years old and can barely scrape by to live here. And every day for people my age, the future is looking bleaker and bleaker. And I see all these wonderful things done by the mayors and counselors of other cities across North America. And I'm left wondering what is going on. The mayor of Chicago, his top priority is making communities safer, like building a brand new hospital in the South That's awesome. In New York City, the most famous city in the world. Well, somehow, it's more affordable than here. Thanks to the mayor of New York, the city has gone after bad landlords and won $30 million in settlements and has repaired over 6,000 units for low-income households. He just announced free Wi-Fi for thousands of households in the Bronx. And we're too worried about FIFA in June to take care of our own people? How about some affordable housing instead of more hotels? We don't need more hotels. I guess that everyone's freaking out about FIFA, and they should, because, like, look at what Vancouver was like in 2010 when we hosted the Olympics in comparison until now. The homelessness problem is astronomically worse. The price of everything is way too high. Smaller cell phone businesses are struggling more and more. This fast-tracking of the rentals and hotels will do nothing but put more money into the pockets of the richest of the rich in the city, and we've all had it with these handouts to the people that already have all the wealth they could possibly need. It is destroying our city, and we need to start helping the people that actually need it first. Then you guys can go nuts with building whatever you need, but don't build more business opportunities while people are sleeping on the streets outside of these establishments. Vancouver, the city I was born in, my family has been here for over 120 years, is becoming a city that I can't even recognize from 10 years ago. And I don't mean this by landmarks and new developments. I mean in character, in dignity, and morality. Please, for the younger generations of this city, don't leave us a bigger mess than we already have. I urge you all to oppose this. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Good evening, councillors. I'm Christina Figueroa. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I oppose this proposal. I'm concerned about this proposal's impact on public hearings specifically. I would like to begin by saying that I am a firm advocate for democracy, and it is truly disheartening that the council that represents me is considering taking away my democratic right to speak either for or against projects that directly impact my community. Public hearings should not be optional. They are a necessity for our city to remain democratic. A vote to fast-track hotel developments and bypass public hearings is absurd and sends a clear message. The opinions of your voters do not matter. I urge you to vote against this tonight. This is especially worrisome because this proposal cites rezoning on Main Street and East Hastings. Considering the vulnerable populations in the area, having public input will be crucial. There are dozens of social justice organizations that work in the downtown east side. Surely, they should be consulted and allowed to participate in a public hearing about these developments. Mass rezonings will completely change these neighborhoods and not allowing impacted folks to share their concerns is truly, truly disappointing. Please reject this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Acting Mayor and Council. Thank you for your time and for all this hard work that you do for the city. uh my name is uh jay i'm a vancouver resident and i i oppose uh this proposal um if i go to your to the city website uh to this item it says that this decision or these changes um are designed to help more people find housing and offer a wider variety of places to to live and stay So my point is that this fast tracking is presented as a way to prioritize rental housing, but it does so by reducing public participation. So I don't understand that equation of less public participation equals helping people find housing. In particular, in this case, where you're mixing hotels in the same bag. So beyond the obvious affordability crisis, I guess one of my main concerns is public participation and accountability. public hearings are one of the few formal mechanisms that we have to respond to specific developments in our neighborhoods reducing or removing them it does not in itself deliver secure or affordable rental housing it might speed up approvals but it does not ensure that the right kind of housing is built at the right price in the right places again that equation doesn't make sense So I know that it might be an assumption that less public participation will lead to more investment, and that more investment will result in better housing outcomes. But it's clear from our experience in Vancouver that such relation is just not true. In practice, increased investment without clear requirements has not consistently delivered affordability or housing security. Public confidence is also very important. When participation is reduced, it risks undermining trust in both the process and in public institutions, and I think we are seeing that. So that trust is essential. Even trusting the small things like, you know, changing items last minute, you know, it erodes confidence on the public. So beyond the process, there's also the question of priorities. Again, like you're putting hotels here. So this proposal combines hotel housing with hotels, two very different uses. So again, that doesn't make sense to me if you're actually looking at, you know, helping people find houses. So, yeah, same issues applies here, right? You have also, I think, thousands now of rooms approved and more on the pipeline after adopting the new hotel development policy calling for 10,000 rooms by 2050. So you're actually, you know, very ahead with that. So I don't know what is the need to mix those two things and reduce public... participation so prior participation should not be seen as a barrier to housing and it should be seen as a tool to deliver better housing So also, I heard that there might have been already some type of bot sending messages to the city's comment webpage. So, you know, with this all AI craziness where we don't know what's true, what's not true, I think, like, again, public participation is so fundamental to our democracy and our trust in institutions. So, I think just finally, I will say this, respectfully, decisions about process, they do save public trust, and process is important. um so as council approaches the upcoming municipal elections this will become part of your record so i would really urge you to consider whether reducing public participation like that in decisions of this scale is a direction you want to set and the record you want to you know give give people when they go voting so please please do not move ahead with this decision thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to speak

I am also here to oppose this proposal, primarily because it does nothing to address the affordability crisis. And a supply-side push doesn't... help if there's no requirements for below market rentals and I just really don't understand why there's so much you know push for market rate rentals when like no one can afford them and we're even going to lose the relatively affordable units that already exist on the above the street level retail and There's no effort to dedicate affordable housing or just below market. And many of these units will be out of reach for modest to low-income people. And not only that, but hotel developers don't need incentives and should not be automatically fast-tracked to get approvals without democratic participation from the people of the city. Council has approved hotel projects totaling 3,000 rooms with over 3,800 more in the pipeline and new projects announced by the day. In 2025, Council adopted a new hotel policy calling for 10,000 rooms by 2025, and we're likely to approach that number of approved rooms this year already at the rate Council is going. So why is the city prioritizing tourists and hotel developers over residents? Yeah, I really strongly encourage you to oppose this proposal.

Okay. This is Gulzar Grewal. Good evening, everyone. I am a resident of Surrey, and I'm working in Vancouver a long time. And every day I travel like three to four hours to go to work and come home. I like to be close to my work, but I cannot afford it. So, I strongly oppose this proposal for the project. Vancouver is already facing a serious housing affordability crisis. Many residents, including myself, are struggling to find stable and affordable housing. Building more hotels does not address this urgent need. Instead, the city should... prioritize developing affordable housing for the people who live and work here. While tourism is important, it should not become at the expense of residents' ability to live in their own city. I urge that cities to reconsider this project and focus on the solutions that improve housing and I strongly oppose this proposal, the hotel proposal. Thank you.

Yeah. I am Taldeep Thandi. I am a resident of Surrey. I am working in Richmond. I like to live close to my work, but I can't. You know, every day, back and forth, about four hours. We can on the road, but too hard for us. So we want to live close to my work. It's very, very tough. because i can't afford everything so we don't want any more hotels so we need affordable housing so you know young generation they very hard to buy anything so my daughter she working in vancouver but she live in surrey too it's very hard to afford everything in vancouver so i am I am engaged the project. I oppose this project. We can afford anything in Vancouver. Please look at look something for everyone. So we are working full time six days, but I can't hold it. So how can how can afford young generation? Please look something.

Thank you.

Okay. My name is Karen Jeet, and I am working in the regiment at Edison Blue Hotel. And I live in Surrey. I go to the regiment more than one hour. So I wanted to... They live in Vancouver, but I can't because I cannot afford it. It's very expensive. Back in the days, we were there. I was living in Vancouver, but now I am in Surrey. So Vancouver should be affordable for everyone. So we are strongly against this project.

Yeah. Okay, great. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for letting me speak on this issue. So, first of all, like the other speakers have talked about, you know, we really need to focus on on affordability so i think with this uh proposal there's certainly some some homes that can apartments that could go ahead without these recommendations so i would say let's let those go ahead the the developers who are creative or have great locations that other people want to live in that can support the non-market housing let those go ahead And then for the ones that can't, that could be lots of sites, and those will be likely in good places in the city that aren't too hot, that have parks nearby or near the ocean. Places like West 4th Avenue can probably support the 20% below market housing. So let's stick with that. And then for the other areas, let's figure out, okay, how many floors do we need to get up to at least the 20%? affordable housing. So I think that's a much better, more equitable solution that will enable people with lower incomes to live in every part of the city, unlike the market rents. The people that can afford to live in a nice area of the city will pay the market rent, leaving everyone who can't, you know, for forcing them to commute from wherever. The other thing I think we need as part of this, or in general, is to fix up the streetscapes of the city. We need two rows of trees. We need rain gardens. We need protected bike lanes so the streets are safe and usable and comfortable to live on in all types of weather, especially in the summer. It's only happening in a few streets like Canby, and it's not happening anywhere else in the city. And it's really inequitable, and it's really unfair. We need really to take... extreme heat seriously. It kills people. It makes them more irritable. It causes violence, I just learned. So let's focus on making the arterioles nicer places to live and more people will want to live on them, people that can't afford to subsidize the uh the rents of uh of of the of people with lower incomes who can't afford to pay so let's let's work on that let's come come forward with a great proposal that's inclusive and figures out how to make the city more affordable and the uh you know the proposal before you right now certainly does it so i think uh you gotta need to everybody needs to sharpen their pencils and figure out something that actually works for uh everyone and thank you very much

I'm speaking on behalf of Costco.

Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I'm here to speak in opposition of this proposal. I'm here on behalf of Costco, B.C., and that's not the ones that sell the hot dogs. This is the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., We are an umbrella organization that brings together older adults to work on common issues, and this includes 65 affiliate groups representing over 85,000 members, and we're all seniors. Costco is affiliated with a million-member National Pensioners Federation. and we promote all of these issues that are important to us on national level as well. One of our main goals is to advocate for safe, adequate, and affordable housing for seniors. It is unacceptable to Costco members that this development proposal ignores affordable housing altogether. Vancouver's most urgent need is affordable rental housing. The City of Vancouver should not be removing the requirement for 20% below-market rentals. We have a housing crisis, and an adequate and affordable rental stock can help to alleviate this. Expensive housing affects everyone, but especially seniors who rent. Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic in BC, and the numbers will continue to grow. This should not be a surprise that baby boomers in the 50s are now seniors in the 20s. The BC Seniors Advocate Research Report shows that half of all BC seniors live on less than $35,000 a year, and a quarter of these seniors live on annual incomes of less than $23,000. Affordable housing is defined as no more than 30% of income. For a senior on this income of $35,000, work it out. Affordable means a little over $10,000 a year and less than $1,000 a month. This development would rent a market studio rental for about $2,300, and that's well out of the question for a Vancouver senior. Also, the 411 Senior Centre in Vancouver reports that seniors who are renters have predominantly been renters all their lives. They are disproportionately lower-income. They're more likely to be women and more likely to have been divorced or have been single all of their lives. Providing safe, adequate, and affordable housing is a task that cannot be entrusted to private industry. The voting public needs the City of Vancouver to restore their policy that reserves 20% of new units and below-market rentals. This city council has been a leader in setting aside a percentage of units that are below market, and I can say I'm from Richmond, and I speak to Richmond City Council, and we look to you as being leaders in this regard. So for these reasons, Costco members urge city councillors to vote no on this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you so much. My name is Jack Bernard. I am a resident of North Vancouver. I work with the Cape Group. My colleague, Jordan Su, had spoken earlier about a proposal that we have in, and we're in full support. of the extended C2A zoning. I'll be brief and not to be too redundant. All councillors have now received the previous mentioned slide deck that wasn't able to be shown. So just for clarity's sake, on page seven of that slide deck, there's a clear understanding of what it is that we are requesting, which would be a motion to include us within the C2A zoning and extend the zoning on the block of 2336 to 2366 Charles Street. All of the lots to our south directly adjacent to us are part of the proposed zoning and we are just looking to be included in the new proposed zoning. So I just wanted to bring clarity as to where they would seek the information Jordan had requested earlier and then reiterate that we are in. Full support of this proposal and we appreciate everyone's long night. So sorry if I'm being redundant Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Good evening, Councillors. My name is Rohan Wang. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I support this proposal. I've been sitting here listening to quite a few of the preceding speakers, and frankly, I'm just a little confused. There were a lot of fears about how this proposal isn't creating enough affordable housing, and just generally a lot of doom and gloom about the extent of it. It makes it sound like this is some gigantic zoning change that's going to ruin our city or whatever, and I honestly just don't get it. At its heart, what this proposal really just does is simplify some existing zoning where mid-rise apartments are already generally allowed to create more consistent rules, simplify some red tape, and enable the kind of gentle density that we all want in our cities. Dear councillors, you know better than anyone else in this city that towers are divisive. You've sat here at dozens of public hearings where speaker after speaker says the same thing. we don't want towers we want more gentle density well here is your gentle density uh here are your six-story apartments uh that are you know generally in these locations replacing single-family homes or you know legacy commercial lots with you know um that are reaching end of life so this is you know not going to create um much displacement, far less than some previous proposals as an advanced would. It would enable housing to be built faster, more consistently in more areas. I will admit this is not my favorite proposal in the world because it does still limit us to the grand bargain where a lot of housing is mostly concentrated on our curio. But it is the bare minimum. Like, if we can't even get some housing permitted on our arterials without a gigantic public hearing where everyone says, no, no, no, no, no, then I don't know how we're going to get anywhere in solving our housing crisis. And yes, this proposal does also allow some hotels. But I don't see the issue. The idea that hotels and housing compete against each other implies that we have a small and finite and scarce amount of land to build housing and to build hotels, which is not true. the vast vast majority of the city is single family homes in fact um three weeks ago this council unanimously voted to replace a single shaughnessy mansion on granville with 31 apartments we have so much land in the city that is being utilized for you know very unproductive uses that could be new housing new hotels and we can and should have both because if we don't build hotels we encourage the proliferation of illegal airbnbs all over the place tourism is not going to vanish overnight just because we managed to nimby away new hotels uh far from it um i think i've said all i need to say so uh i strongly support this proposal again and thank you for listening

Yeah, my name is Joan Jacquard. I am a resident of Vancouver. Once again, and I oppose, I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal. Once again, I am appalled but not surprised by this council's determination to shut out the citizens that you were elected to represent through under the public radar, fast-tracking this targeted rezoning, which will fundamentally erase Vancouver's landmark neighbourhood commercial high streets. unfathomably council and the planning department have already disregarded vancouver's foundational economic and social structure by erasing any acknowledgement or reference to our neighborhoods in your recently approved odp vancouver is closely identified with geographically defined areas they live in the city by reference to for example mount pleasant keresdale marple granville woodland cedar cottage etc these are not arbitrary names that reflect the developmental history of this place Great cities are not made by obliterating their foundational beginnings. Take a look around the world and imagine if all historical references, buildings, and placemakings were urban renewed. That now maligned mid-century North American model of urban renewal was proven to be untenable and destructive to healthy urban life and was largely resisted in Vancouver through public protests against inner-city freeway projects in the 1960s and 70s. a more civic-minded and enlightened council of the time, listened and responded to public outcry. Consequently, historical neighborhoods like Strathcona, Chinatown, and Kitsilano remain and have evolved over time. Urbanist Jane Jacobs' seminal book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, should be required reading for all politicians and urban professionals. Um, coincidentally, council members may have taken the opportunity this past weekend to be sensitized to urban activist Jane Jacobs' work, who fought urban renewal and its destruction of vibrant on-the-street commercial spaces and social connectivity in New York City and later Toronto. I decry Council's lack of respect for citizen input into our own neighbourhoods with your now normalized lip service to public engagement through scant and short public notice of this unprecedented rezoning. The economic fallout of this uplifting of land values will have immediate impacts through raised taxes and the resultant decimation of our vibrant, small-scale storefront shops. This is a direct assault on Vancouver's historically evolved and beloved commercial streets, And for what reason? These are the heart of Vancouver's 22 neighborhoods, which reflect the evolving cultural identities and distinctiveness of the places we call home. The hodgepodge of our public living room spaces and shops are where we engage in the public realm with shopkeepers we know. These low-rise streetscapes are pleasant places to be, with sun penetrating the sidewalk and street trees creating canopy. Six, eight-story buildings will kill that street market ambiance-creating shade in our northern latitude city. The character of our commercial streets with their abundance of small-scale, independently-owned lease shops provide the essential needs of a walkable neighborhood. Many are thriving. The Drive, East Hastings, Fraser and Main Street, Denman Street, because of their diversity and character. And some need urban planning support to reinvigorate what makes these existing commercial streets the desirable social communities they have and can be. The solution is not in unaffordable new builds where larger retail space destroys small, independent business opportunities, promoting change, characterless retail. The passing of this ill-conceived rezoning proposal, generated, I assume, by a manager of planning who is a recent immigrant to the city and clearly has no grasp of nor taken the time to appreciate and respect what is good about and working in the urban fabric of Vancouver. This mandate to fast-track all recent zoning regulations, which are clearly intended to support developer needs without any priority of providing affordable housing, is a disgrace of this civic regime. The only housing that is needed in this city is affordable housing in its multitude of built forms. I implore you to withdraw this community-destroying rezoning initiative. Thank you.

Sure. My name is Gudrun Lankov. I am a resident of Vancouver. I live in Marple, and I'm lucky enough to live in a housing co-op. My cohorts are boomers, just like I am, and we... find that affordable housing is almost non-existent unless you go to the substandard basements or whatever and it's really important to to um i mean i'm trying not to fall into the baffle gap of of planning speak because i don't do that very well We simply need affordable, accessible housing. And I don't understand how building or making it possible for more hotels to be built without any public input is going to be useful for us. I really urge you to vote against this and not to use this particular proposal as a good one. You've heard from a lot of people who've sort of said what I've said. We need more affordable housing, not more hotels. I don't know who lives in hotels.

Why are we talking about, you know, world-class cities, which is just... When you don't have enough housing for people, that's ridiculous. In any event, I wish everyone had the opportunity to live in affordable housing like I do. Our community is a really nice one, and it's really important because we are community building when we are in social housing like that. And anyway, I just want to reiterate what many of the speakers before me have said, and I wanted to leave that with you rather than, you know, let's have more B&Bs because I don't think that's going to be worthwhile either.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Russell Wong. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I don't work in real estate or development. A number of speakers have mentioned the need for affordable housing. There is a close connection between housing scarcity and housing unaffordability. Because we make it pretty difficult to build new housing, prices and rents have to rise to unbearable levels to push people out. I support this policy change. As I understand it, the proposed C2A zone basically covers the same area as the existing C2 zones which allows six-story rental buildings in local shopping areas. This was passed back in 2021. The main effect of this change is to have a simpler and more uniform set of rules. More generally, it's better for a council to focus on passing citywide policies, even if there is a lot of discussion, as we're seeing now, rather than repeating the same battle over and over again on every individual site-by-site rezoning. In terms of public opinion in general, there was a poll of City of Vancouver residents in December by Leger asking people how they wanted the city to grow. 14% wanted to limit growth and keep the city low density. 26% wanted to continue with concentrating density and high-rises near transit nodes. The most popular option, I think about 46%, was four- to six-storey buildings across the city.

In terms of requiring below-market housing, my understanding, based on analysis by Coriolis, is that six-story rental buildings typically do not include enough land lift to support below-market housing. I don't have strong opinions on the change to allow a hotel with the same size and floor space, but the city does need hotel space.

Hello?

Yes, I'll do that. Yeah. Thank you. My name is Sal Robinson. I am a resident of Kitsilano for the last 45 years or so, and I operated a licensed bed and breakfast in Kitsilano for about 17 years until COVID put an end to that. So I do recognize the need for hotel options outside of the downtown core and the regular places that we find them. However, I oppose this application because it is one more nail in the coffin of resident input into how our neighborhoods develop. I can think of appropriate places for small-scale hotels outside of the areas where you're accustomed to finding them, but I truly believe residents should have a voice in welcoming them or not. And I am just so sick and tired of everything being done top-down, mass, everything. And as a resident for my whole life here, I feel like I have never had less support voice in what happens to the city that i and my parents and my grandparents have all lived in through our lives and it's terribly sad so i really hope that you will vote against this and let the neighborhoods decide how they will develop thank you thank you okay next speaker with the last four digits 7304 please unmute and go ahead

Thank you. Yes. Good evening. My name is Raul. I am a resident of Vancouver here in West End. I strongly oppose this proposal. I have lived in Vancouver for many years and I feel that my city representatives are not addressing the affordability crisis well at all. So I believe that every other day I hear about like flashy luxury development that's coming over, but we don't make an effort to have the say about affordability that people that are like, you know, that addresses affordability. I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS PREVIOUSLY AND I WAS HEARING THERE'S ONE THAT WAS SAYING THAT, NO, WE NEED MORE. I WORK IN A HOTEL AND I WORK FOR A DEVELOPER. I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE, THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AT ALL. SO LET ALONE OUR CITY SHOULD BE VERY MUCH ALERT ON THESE. I WOULD ASK THEM TO FOCUS ON AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. I WOULD ASK THE SPEAKER FROM COSTCO THAT REPRESENTS THE SENIOR CITIZENS TO HEAR THAT PERSON PROPERLY THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS ALSO FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. Number three, we should also address, Mayor Kensim should address the safety issues that we have in Vancouver. I can't walk in east at night. Also, I can't walk on Granville. I don't feel safe at all. So that's a serious concern as well. They should be focused on that. 2300, I heard one of the speakers saying 2300 Forest Studio. I live in downtown. 2300 Forest Studio. IS ACTUAL PRICE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. SO I'M ACTUALLY SHOCKED THAT THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT FLASHY LUXURY HOTELS AND I WORK IN ONE FOR LAST 15 YEARS. THEY SHOULD BE MORE FOCUSED ON AFFORDABILITY HOUSING THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKING THROUGH TWO HOURS IN AND OUT TRANSIT TO GET TO THEIR HOME. THIS IS PUSHING PEOPLE MORE AND MORE OUTSIDE THE CITY THAN BEING IN CORE. I LIVE IN WEST END AND WEST END HAS A CULTURE It's a very nice neighborhood, but I'm afraid it might not be the same the way it was earlier. Like the lady before me was saying about Kitsilong, that's changing as well. So I really, really hope that this gets dealt with. Affordability crisis has to be dealt with first. And yeah, yeah. So I oppose this, and I don't think it's the right one to look for. pumping in more and more hotels than addressing the affordability crisis. Mayor Ken has to say that. He has to address that. And we are the people in the city that are saying it. And we want him to hear that affordability is a top agenda that he should be having, not the luxury hotels. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Laurel Stranahan, and I'm calling to oppose, to register that I am opposed to this fast-tracking zoning. Two reasons. One, mostly for the same reasons that all the other people are opposed, is we have a lack of affordable, dignified housing situation crisis in the city and that needs to be addressed. There was a caller that identified Singapore and said that perhaps people should look at Singapore. Another caller referenced European cities and there are solutions. There are This is a problem that needs to be solved. It's no good having people have to commute for hours and have two jobs to put a roof over their head and food on the table. And I mean dignified housing, not a 325... If it hasn't been, well, I'm living in a repurposed 325-square-foot place, and because it's been repurposed, it's perhaps not laid out as efficiently as it could be, but it's not enough space for a real life for an adult as sports equipment, hobbies, whatever, and family relationships and social life. It is just not. So I think that needs to be considered as well. And I see the older housing has much more accommodations for a real life. And I'll make that point. The hotels, I think those should be left to the individual communities. And having this fast-track rezoning thing with no further inputs after tonight's meeting, period, that's asking for the destruction of each individual neighborhood has its own individual characteristics. Those need to be enhanced, not changed and, you know, cookie-stamped with the market housing and the big chain, the moms and pops and so on, the private businesses being So I think maybe the city could appoint somebody. There's a book that was referenced. I have not heard talk in the last 10 years or the last 15 years, really, of a... solution offered for affordability and it just needs to be addressed and I'm sure that it can be. It's just not dignified to have people working and getting up at 4 in the morning to get to work at 8 so that they can work in a hotel. There's something wrong with that picture. So nurses can't afford housing either. That's what I called in to say. And I really oppose limiting public input. There was very little public input for this particular thing that you want to put through, the rezoning thing. You did with homeowners, but there's a lot of people that live there that are not owners. So I would hardly call that... public input, although I do appreciate being able to speak tonight. Thank you very much.

My name is Botchman Jomo. I go by Bo. I am not a resident of Vancouver. I oppose the proposal. It's very bothersome to me that the table proposal is fast-checking rental housing and small hotels. The small hotels being the alarming piece in this. Vancouver has a housing crisis. Hotels are not the way to address this crisis. The influx of interprovincial migration away from Vancouver to Calgary is testament to this crisis. So I implore you, please pump the brakes on the fast-tracking rental housing and seek a humane solution to this crisis.

Yes, those are my comments.

I have to commute from Richmond to Vancouver. I work in Vancouver, and it's painful in my pocket.

Hey, this is Taylor Curran. I am a resident of Vancouver and I'm calling in to support this. I listen in to a fair bit of these public hearings. And whenever a proposal for a tower or some other dense form of housing comes up, we hear the same people speak in opposition to those projects and say that they would be supportive of low and mid-rise density six stories along commercial streets. This is exactly what is in front of you. I think this would be great for the city, and we absolutely need more rentals. I just want to speak a little bit about the hotel component. I've heard a lot of speakers. essentially say, we don't need any more hotels. Hotels don't benefit us. It's just a giveaway to a big hotel or something like that. I don't agree. I think just like a lot of the small businesses that are already on these streets, I think hotels are also amenities that provide services and jobs to residents. Of course, lots of people work in hotels, but I'm getting married in two weeks. We have friends coming from all over the world. And they are looking at $300, $400, $500 a night to stay in hotels in the central parts of the city along these same nice commercial streets or downtown. When housing is so expensive, people don't have spare bedrooms when their friends and family come to visit. I live in a one-bedroom with my partner. All of my friends, they don't have spare bedrooms. They don't have extra places for their friends and family to visit. So there being hotels and places for these people to stay are incredibly important to people living here and enjoying their time here. And of course, it's a huge part of our tourism industry too. It will bring people that would normally stay in a hotel downtown and only patronize the businesses downtown. It would bring them over to Commercial or over to Main Street or over to East Hastings or all these different business areas. and spending their money at all these small local businesses in these great communities that they would never probably venture out to otherwise. So I just wanted to support the hotel component specifically as well. I think it's great to have more hotels, small hotels, integrated into communities, spread out across the city, not just concentrate all of that downtown. So I urge you to support this. I think it's a... small step forward, but a worthwhile one nonetheless.

Thank you. So tonight we are recommending the rezoning of 2,400 parcels into a new consolidated C2A district. By allowing six-story rental homes and small hotels on major arterial streets without site-by-site rezonings, we can streamline the process to deliver housing options and small hotels faster. I want to thank all the speakers for joining us and sharing their feedback. Your perspectives are important to the process. We heard several key concerns that I'd like to address. On affordability, we heard concerns around the difficulties working class residents face in affording to live in our city. While today's proposal focuses on streamlining the C2 district schedule and allowing small-scale hotels, we remain committed to increasing affordable housing, which are separate ongoing initiatives that are not part of tonight's changes, but that specifically increase below-market and social housing in different areas of the city. we also heard some concerns that this proposal is removing affordability requirements we just want to clarify that no affordability requirements are being removed through these changes On the rezoning process, we heard concerns around the loss of individual rezonings for these projects. We want to note that the vast majority of C2 projects already proceed without this step. This proposal extends that same allowance to 232 previously excluded sites, representing about 10% of sites in the new proposed C2A. Regarding hotels, four-story hotels are already allowed to proceed under existing C2 zoning without a rezoning. For new six-story hotel applications, staff note that the building form regulation proposed are identical to that of the current rental projects already allowed under the existing zoning. And through the DP process, the City still engages the public through public notification. On the issue of hotels versus housing, we heard concerns that hotels might outperform or replace rental housing. Our financial testing confirms that hotels do not outperform rentals. This update today ensures a viable path for small-scale hotels to operate outside the downtown core. So in closing, the proposal today consolidates four nearly identical C2 zones into a new C2A district, and it accelerates and streamlines the delivery of six-story rental housing and small-scale hotels. Thank you.

Yes, they do.

That's correct.

Yeah, there's projects that are in stream currently that we would have to transition. I think, are you talking about hotel projects?

Right. Of course. So it's primarily to consolidate, you know, four kind of nearly identical repetitive zones into one to establish a new C2 zone that's updated and modernized. And it is to bring those 232 previously excluded sites that still required a rezoning process to no longer require that process and to allow for for six-story hotels. Yeah. But it doesn't change fundamentally any form of development regulations that's already allowed in most of the zones.

Good evening, Councillor Sean Martinez from Employment Lands. I wouldn't believe so. We do monitor all retail areas in the city through the storefront inventory every year, so we would know if there were any drops or sudden increases in vacancies within the area. New developments do also help with allowing for new retail spaces to be placed into these neighborhoods so that... so that there is room for stores to be able to relocate and stay within the community. Without that allowance, if there is no slight vacancy, then we will get displacement and they will have to move away from other places.

I think I'll reiterate what my colleagues have said, that at this point this is more of an update to this existing zone and reviews of things whereby looking at uses and looking at size of these units will be further addressed in things like the citywide design guidelines and other related work coming down in the future.

The Employment Lands team is working with our development planning stage to look at and make sure that we are, to the extent that we are able to regulate these spaces.

We do already do that through the storefront, the annual storefront inventory, yes. And I believe that will be coming to council soon.

So we know that hotels are able to assist with regards to just allowing more leverage into an arterial shopping street by providing more, not just the, so the residents kind of provide a certain amount of traffic and then our hotels would provide additional traffic that can expand the amount that would be supported within the street. So providing more options, more restaurants and things like that because you do have that transient nature. In addition, with hotels, they kind of have a self-limiting property in that you wouldn't get more than probably one in a specific area because that would be sort of the demand in the area. I'll invite my housing colleagues to speak to the housing demand portion. Adding housing to these vibrant commercial areas is part of our complete communities initiative. So it's really trying to create complete equitable communities across the city where adding housing will increase vitality, bring residents to shop and walk in their local business areas.

Thank you, Councillor. So the city does have the Commercial Tenant Assistance Program. So this is a website that was launched in 2022. And the applicants are asked to provide information from a website that provides information to all tenants prior to them being displaced. So if there is a development happening... We request that all the applicants provide this information to their tenants. The information is translated into five different languages, and it provides essentially information with regards to tenant rights, what they're able to negotiate with regards to their leases. and allow them the assistance to help them find a new space. Unfortunately, we do not have the same purview with regards to commercial leases as we do for residential leases. So this program has been in place since 2022.

There is still the notification process that happens through the development permit application. And so the public gets notified through that process and can send in comments to staff.

So in terms of the rental housing, this is already allowed through the existing zoning. So there is really no additional density here that's being provided. So there isn't any additional incentives here. As to the hotels, I think, John, did you want to? So as our colleague has already mentioned, the hotels are only filling up to the same density that is allowed for housing. So there is no new density being provided here. So the highest and best use would still be, with regards to that, the housing provision to the six stories, which is already allowed. Thank you.

It wouldn't work. So nobody would choose to build that right now. It's particularly because there already is a six-story option for market rental. Or if you just changed it to below market rental, then people would just... just choose to do the strata option that's already allowed under zoning. And you would get no, you wouldn't get the rental. But regardless of that, we've done the economic testing in six stories. A below market rental at 20% wouldn't work. Through our other initiatives, we've done a lot of economic testing, and we know that you would need significantly more incentive to make below-market rental work, which would bring you into a tower form, much like our experience through the MERP, the Modern Income Rental Housing Pilot, and through the Broadway plan. So you're looking more at tower forms.

Yes, that's the intent. It's to increase, increasing supply will have a moderate impact on rents. We're actually seeing that now in new market rents. We have seen that rents have, new market rents have gone down for the first time in a very long time. So for renters, that's actually good news. That means more choice and better affordability.

That's correct.

That's correct, yeah. Noting again that the majority of sites in the C2 already allow that for rental. We're just bringing in the 232 previously excluded sites.

Maintaining the status quo, for those 232 excluded sites, they would have to go through a longer process and add to their time and cost.

Our zoning districts for the C2, they will continue to be complex with rules that are out of date. Further, one of the consequences is that this C2 zone is going to be used as a new basis for the C2 for the villages program. So this is helping to bring that forward. It's also making sure that this new C2 is ODP compliant. So we had to make a change to ensure that there's ground floor non-residential uses just to ensure that it's compliant with ODP.

That's correct.