Item 1 Motion B(iii): Hotel Amenity Bonus DODP Amendment

Statement Watch

Hi.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Michelle Travis, and I'm a resident of Vancouver and a representative of Unite Here Local 40. I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed downtown ODP amendment regarding the hotel amenity bonus provisions contained in this report on Bill 16 compliance. Well, this is presented primarily as a technical response to the Provincial Bill 16 requirements related to inclusionary zoning and the housing-related density bonusing. The hotel ODP amendment is quite different. They created a significant new incentive for hotel development that is neither required by provincial legislation nor supported by any evidence in the report. Staff are proposing to replace the existing hotel density bonus with a new exclusion that would allow up to 20% additional floor area for hotel amenity, conference, and event space. Our concern is that council is being asked to approve this development incentive without sufficient evidence that it's needed, without a clear understanding of its value, and without meaningful accountability for the public benefits that will be reduced as a result. The report does not demonstrate that hotels are currently unable to provide conference space or guest amenities under existing zoning rules. It does not identify hotel projects that failed because of current floor area limits. And it doesn't explain why a 20% exclusion is the appropriate solution. Instead, council is being asked to accept the assumption that more hotel development incentives will produce better outcomes. There's no meaningful analysis demonstrating that the incentive is necessary. Staff rely on financial feasibility analysis when discussing other development regulations and contribution programs. Economic testing is repeatedly cited as a basis for major policy decisions. Yet there's no comparable analysis presented for this hotel incentive proposal. Council is not told the financial value of the exclusion or how many projects are expected to benefit or whether the projects require the incentive in order to proceed. Those are important questions. Moving from a 15% exclusion to a 20% floor area exclusion is not minor. In the downtown core, additional floor area has substantial value. Before granting the value, council should understand the cost and the expected return. Furthermore, the claimed public benefits are largely speculative. The report refers to economic development opportunities, but it does not quantify them. This risks becoming a loophole that allows substantially larger hotel developments while reducing the value captured for the public. Thanks to, in addition to the city's hotel policy last year, floor space for these amenities are exempt from the calculation of community amenity benefits. That means hotel developers will be allowed to build larger without a comparable return in public benefits. Perhaps most concerning is the process itself. Staff acknowledge that this hotel proposal originates from separate council direction arising from the hotel development policy review. It is not required by Bill 16. Yet it's been folded into a large, highly technical compliance package dealing with provincial legislative changes to housing bylaws. A major policy change that provides new incentive to hotel developers deserves its own public discussion, its own economic analysis, and its own transparent evaluation of costs and benefits. For all these reasons, I urge councils to defer or remove the proposed hotel amenity exclusion. It requires staff to return with a separate report that clearly demonstrates the need for the incentive, the value of grants, the public benefits expected in return, and the safeguards necessary to protect the public interest. Thanks.

Statement Watch

Thank you. Mayor and council, well, whoever's in the chamber and online anyway, I'm actually surprised that there is a public hearing, even especially given the ODP already, although I suppose the applicant... because of how the financial situation is unfolding. I guess they're not making enough money for the existing zoning to proceed. Therefore, they need to ask for more bonuses. But I think I really like the previous speakers. I really like how the previous speakers' articulation of a lot of the troubles that, a lot of the concerns that I probably won't bother repeating. But it's worth mentioning that the provincial legislation isn't asking for whatever's being discussed here. I think there's a lot more bonuses on the table without a fair assessment of, or without a fair balanced assessment of the cost and benefits to all parties versus certain parties. So I am concerned about the unintended or the intended consequences of the follow-on effects of further reckless blanket up-selling way more than necessary. And I suppose you guys are working hard to get as many of these through as possible before most of you are getting fired in the next election.

Stanley, can I ask you to please focus your comments on the specifics of the application and not political commentary?

I'm almost done anyway. But I'm basically shocked that you guys are having... still having public hearings, even though you're trying to cancel most public hearings. But have a nice day and have a nice evening.

Statement Watch

Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Steve Cashmore, and I work in the Vancouver hotel industry. I'm also a resident of Vancouver. I'm here because I'm concerned about a proposal that has been inserted into a report that is supposed to be implementing Bill 16. Bill 16 was introduced by the province to help speed up housing development and support housing affordability. Buried in the city's referral report is a proposal that has nothing to do with housing. Staff are proposing to increase the hotel amenities from 15% to 20% and apply it to guest and event spaces in downtown Vancouver. I don't believe that belongs in the Bill 16 compliance report. The report makes it clear that the purpose of this amendment is to comply with provincial legislation regarding changes to density bonus provisions and exclusionary zoning rules. Yet one of the major amendments before council is a new incentive for hotels. The hotel and tourism sector is an important part of our local economy. I work in a hotel, but this public hearing is supposed to be about implementing provincial housing legislation, not creating new developments for completely different land use. The council wants to debate new hotel incentives that should happen through a separate process with its own analysis, consultation, and public discussion. Instead, this proposal has been folded into a report whose primary purpose is housing policy. But there is no corresponding requirement for affordable housing, no requirement for community facilities, no requirement for public amenities, no requirement for worker protections, no requirement for affordability benefits. As a hotel worker, I find that difficult to justify. Many people who work in hotels cannot afford to live where they work. Many commute long distances because housing costs are so high. When the government provides incentives to development, the public should expect something meaningful in return. The principle seems to be missing here. I ask council to remove the hotel incentive from Bill 16 to implement the package and bring it back separately if you wish to consider it. At the moment, do not approve an increase in hotel infusion unless there is a clear and measurable public benefit attached. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Alfina Lambertus, and I live and work in Vancouver. I want to begin by saying that I support tourism. My livelihood depends on it. But supporting hotels is not the same thing as supporting every request that comes from the hotel industry. As a hotel worker, I find it difficult to understand why Council is considering new incentives for the hotel developer at a time when many workers are struggling with the cost of living. Many people who work in the hotels cannot afford to live close to their job. Many are renters who have watched housing costs rise year after year. Many are spending more and more time committing because living in Vancouver has become unaffordable. Some workers have left the city altogether. Those are the real challenge facing worker people today. This is why I find it troubling that this proposal appear in a report that is support to be about Bill 16. Bill 16 was introduced by the province to help address housing challenges. Yet, between this report is a proposal that will increase a hotel floor area exclusion to 20% for guest amenity and event space. The report described those are confirmed facility event space and guest amenity. Let's be honest about what those space are. There are amenities that help hotels attract guests and interest review. There is nothing wrong with that. But there are commercial amenities. There are not public amenities. But most residents of Vancouver will never use those space. So the question becomes, why should they receive additional development incentive. New development should contribute towards the public interest. This is why the city financing has traditionally been linked to affordable housing community amenity. The idea is straightforward. When a developer receive additional value, The public should receive something meaningful in return. This proposal breaks the connection. The public benefit is unclear. The private benefit is obvious. As a hotel worker, we want thriving communities. We want workers to be able to afford housing and family to be able to stay in Vancouver. And we want growth to contribute towards those goals. It should not come at expenses of public benefit. Council has permitted tonight to keep the focus where it belongs, affordability, housing, and the public interest. I'm respectful as you to remove this hotel amendment from the bylaw package. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi. My name is Carmelita Galapin. I work in hotel in Vancouver, but I live in Coquitlam. I am speaking tonight because I think my situation say a lot about the challenge facing workers in this region and why I am concerned about the people who are before you, like many hospitality workers. I would love to live closer where I work. It would mean less time commuting and more time with my family. It would mean slower transportation because it would allow me to live closer to downtown hotel I work in. But I, like many workers, simply cannot afford to live in Vancouver. Housing costs push me farther and farther away from my workplace. Today, I travel from Vancouver. to help support an industry that depends on thousands of workers just like me. Every day, hotel workers clean rooms, prepare food, serve guests, maintain facilities, work from this, provide security, and help visitors enjoy everything Vancouver has to offer. But increasingly, the people who make Vancouver work cannot afford to live in Vancouver. That is the reality behind all the statistics and policy reports. The cities say these bylaws changes are needed because of Bill 16 and changes to provincial housing registration, housing and the challenge of keeping people in our community and the reason we are here. Yet, one of the proposals being considered would increase the floor area explosion for hotel amenities from 15% to 20%. The report says this is intended to encourage larger event space and guest amenities. As someone who works in hotels, I understand why hotel owners would want that. Bigger conference facilities can attract more events. More amenities can attract more guests. Those things may help hotel business, but I struggle to understand how they help workers who can't afford to live near their job. I struggle to understand how they help young families trying to remain in the city. The reality is that hospitality workers are living... the affordability crisis every day many of us would love the opportunity to live closer to our job is more affordable housing expected that is why it's still wrong to be discussing additional incentive for hotel developments without discussing with benefits they will deliver back to the community If the developer receives additional value, the public should receive something meaningful in return. What concerns me about this proposal is that the BDPs offer to flow primarily in one direction, and I don't think those answers should be hidden within a technical report about housing legislation. While there are policy choices to be made, I hope council-choice housing affordability and community benefit over additional incentives and commercial developments. I urge you to remove this hotel amenities explosion from bylaw package and keep the focus on housing affordability and needs of the people who make this city work every day. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Hello. Good evening, Major and Council. Thank you for letting me to speak today. My name is Sue, and I'm living in Burnaby. I am a worker and a resident in this area. I'm speaking today because I strongly project this new proposal. Right now, housing costs are too high for everyone, and it is a major challenge in our daily lives. I understand that the city needs to change its rules to follow the new provincial laws. However, I am concerned that this report goes further than necessary. It includes extra benefits for the hotel developers. At the same time, many regular residents are struggling every day with high rent and rising cost of living. In fact, Vancouver Youth developed to help the public. It helped build important assets like parks, children's care space. These investments make our neighborhood a good place to live for everyone. But this new plan with this system, it will reduce public benefit and give more help to private hotel business instead. This issue is very important to me because I came to Canada from South Korea on a working holiday visa. Like many other young people, I came here to experience Canada's environment, meet new people, and learn the culture. However, since I am alive, housing has been my biggest challenge. Finding a place to live was difficult and the rent is very high. Even though I work hard full time, rent takes away most of my mental income. After paying my rent, I have very little money left for daily experiments or saving. Even though I work hard full time, This financial pressure makes me difficult to plan for my future or feel stable here instead of fully financing in local life. I have to focus heavily on housing cost. I see many of my friends and coworkers experiencing the exact same situation. They work hard every day, but high rent is constantly a worry. Some of them had to move far away to find cheaper housing, resulting in long commutes. Other tried to leave Canada completely because they could no longer afford to cost of living. It is unfortunately to see hardworking young people leave this city. We are losing talent because of the housing crisis. When the regular residents and young workers are facing these challenges, the council should not prioritize private hotels. So I want to ask the council three important questions. First, why are these hotel benefits included in this plan? Second, what career benefits do regular residents get from this report? Third, how does this help land the young people to want to stay in this city? Growth should benefit the ordinary people who live in the work here, not just the developed. I ask the council to remove this hotel benefit. Please focus on protecting public benefits. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Hello. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Hao, and I'm a student in Vancouver. I'm speaking today because I am concerned about the direction this proposal could take Vancouver at a time when affordability remains a pressing issue for many residents. The fact is many Vancouver residents right now are still struggling with rising housing costs and financial pressures. Developers are being allowed to build larger projects while the public receives fewer benefits in return. For many years, Vancouver has used development approvals to secure valuable community benefits, including dry care spaces, parks, community facilities, affordable housing, and heritage preservation. These investments help ensure that growth strengthens our neighborhood and improves quality of life for our residents. However, this proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to secure those benefits while providing additional incentives for private hotel developments. I am a student who is trying to build a future here in Vancouver. I love this city, and over the years, I have built friendships and a sense of belonging here. However, the cost of housing makes it increasingly difficult to imagine being able to remain in this city after graduation, and many people my age share the same concern. Our conversations about future careers often revolve around whether we can afford to live in this city, whether we will have to leave this city altogether. Some already face long commutes because housing closer to school or work is simply unaffordable, and others assume that owning a home or even renting independently will remain outreach for the foreseeable future. I worry about what this means not only for my generation, but for Vancouver as a whole. When young people who study, work, and contribute here are forced to leave because they cannot afford to stay, the city loses future workers, professionals, volunteers, and community members. It becomes harder to build diverse and resilient neighborhoods when the people who want to... live here cannot do so and that is why i believe decisions about land use and development should prioritize housing affordability and long-term public benefits both should help create a city where people can continue to live work and participate in their communities rather than one where opportunities are increasingly reserved for only those who can afford to live here At a time where many residents are struggling with housing affordability, GI care shortage, and increasing pressure on public services, I do not believe the council should be prioritizing additional incentives for private hotel development. My understanding is that thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved in Vancouver, with thousands more currently proposed under development. If that is the case, I question whether further incentives are necessary and whether they serve the broader public interest. Vancouver should be guided by the needs of the people who live here, who work here, who study here, and who build their lives here, not for profit. I urge the Council to remove these hotel incentives and focus on protecting the public benefits that make Vancouver a livable city. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Statement Watch

Okay. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Kira. I live in Mount Pleasant. I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the direction that this proposal is taking Vancouver when affordability is in the forefront of many people's minds in the city, especially people in my generation. I understand that the city needs to update its policies to comply with provincial legislation. However, I'm concerned that this report goes beyond what's required and includes additional incentives for hotel developers while many residents are struggling with housing costs and the rising cost of living. What concerns me the most is that developers are being allowed to build larger projects while the city may receive less in return for the public. Historically, Vancouver has used development approvals to help secure important public benefits like childcare spaces, parks, community amenities, affordable housing, and heritage preservation. Investments like these help make neighborhoods like my own livable and ensure growth benefits for everyone. This proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to secure those benefits while providing additional incentives for private hotel developments. uh... this issue matters to me personally because watched Vancouver become increasingly unaffordable over the last several years. I was born here, I'm a renter, and every time my lease comes up for renewal, I worry about whether I'll still be able to afford to stay in my home. Housing costs have gone up much faster than my income, and like many people in this city, I find myself spending more and more of my paycheck just to keep a roof over my head. What frustrates me the most is I did everything I was told to do. I have a university degree, I work hard, I contribute to my community, and I want to build a future here. But despite that, it feels like it's getting more difficult every year. I've also seen the impact that this has had on the people around me. Friends of mine have left Vancouver entirely because they can't find housing that they can afford or the housing that they can find is just not up to standard. Others have moved farther and farther away from where they work, which means spending more time communing and less time with their families and communities. When I think about the future, I worry about what kind of city we're creating. I worry that Vancouver is becoming a place where only the wealthy can afford to stay. I worry about young people trying to start their lives here, families trying to raise children, and seniors trying to remain in the communities that they have lived in for decades. This is why I pay attention to proposals like this one. When Council approves major developments, I want to see projects that meaningfully address affordability and help people stay in the city, not projects that primarily benefit those who are already doing well. I'm also trying to figure out whether I'll be able to stay in Vancouver after I graduate. I love this city, and I've built a life here, but the cost of housing makes it difficult to imagine a future for myself. Many of my classmates talk about leaving because they don't think they'll ever be able to afford living independently here. Some already commute long distances because it's the only way that they can find housing that they can afford. I think about what happens when talented young people are forced to leave. We lose workers, community members, and people who want to contribute to the city. When residents are struggling with affordability, child care shortages, and pressure on public services, I don't believe Council should be prioritizing additional incentives for hotel developers. My understanding is that thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved, with thousands more in the pipeline. If that's the case, I question why further incentives are necessary. I would ask Council, why are these hotel incentives being included as part of a Bill 16 compliance update? What public benefit will residents receive in exchange? How much value could be lost through reduced community contributions? How do these changes help renters, families, students, workers, and seniors? Why should private hotel amenities receive special treatment during a housing crisis? Growth should benefit people who live here, not just the people who profit from development. I urge council to remove these hotel incentives and focus on protecting the public benefits that make Vancouver an enjoyable and livable city. Thank you.

Statement Watch

I'm speaking about the direction this proposal takes Vancouver at a time when affordability remains one of the biggest challenges facing residents. I understand that the city needs to update its policies to comply that this report goes beyond what is required and includes additional incentives for health development while many residents are struggling with housing costs and the rising cost of living. What concerns me most is that developers are being allowed to sell larger projects while the city may receive less in return from the public. development approvals to help secure important public benefits like child care spaces, parks, community amenities, affordable housing, and heritage preservation. These investments help make neighborhoods livable and ensure gross benefits to everyone. This proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to secure those benefits while providing additional incentives for private hotel development. This issue matters to me personally because in the two years since I've graduated university, I've seen my classmates get priced out of the city, whether having to move outside of Vancouver, go back home and live with their families. or even having to leave the country. I've just seen a lot of people I know leave. Basically, the only people I know who can afford to stay in the city are those like me who are able to live with their families in Vancouver. And even that isn't always a guarantee. So in my personal experience, my family rents, and last year we were in danger of being evicted. And it was a very scary and uncertain time, just not knowing what would happen. if we did get evicted, if I would be able to afford to live anywhere, if we could find anywhere else affordable in this city. Just through all of these struggles and challenges, I think that having this part of the bill is just completely taking things in the wrong direction. I think that we need to focus on making Vancouver affordable for its residents and not on making things easier for hotel development. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you. I'd like to thank... um you for giving me the opportunity to speak today council my name is race and i live again in the west end of vancouver's downtown core i'm speaking today because i'm greatly concerned about the direction this proposal takes vancouver especially at a time when affordability remains the biggest challenges facing residents i understand that the city needs to update its policies to comply with provincial legislations however i am concerned that this report goes beyond what is required and includes additional incentives for hotel developers while many residents are struggling with housing costs and the rising cost of living what concerns me most is that developers are being allowed to build larger projects while the city may receive less in return for the public historically vancouver has used development approvals to help secure important public benefits like child care spaces parks community amenities affordable housing and heritage preservation these investments help make communities livable and ensure growth benefits for everyone I'm concerned that this proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to secure those benefits while providing additional incentives for private hotel developments. This issue matters to me personally because I've watched Vancouver become increasingly unaffordable over the last several years. I'm a renter. I work as a public servant for the city of Vancouver, and every time my lease comes up for renewal, I worry about whether I'll still be able to afford to stay in my home. Housing costs have gone up much faster than my income, and like many people in the city, I find myself spending more and more of my paycheck just to keep a roof over my head. What frustrates me most is I've done everything I was told to do. I work hard. I've been making more money than I ever have been, and I contribute to my community, and I want to build a future here, especially as somebody who works... with the community very closely but despite that it feels like getting ahead becomes more difficult every year i've also seen the impact this has had on the people around me friends of mine have left vancouver entirely because they couldn't find housing they could afford i myself have had to leave vancouver for a period of three months at a time a few years ago because i could not find housing that i could afford others have moved farther and farther away from where they work which means spending more time commuting commuting and less time with their families and communities i myself live an hour's commute by any mode of transportation that i can access from my place of work When I think about the future, I worry about what kind of city we're creating, and I worry that Vancouver is becoming a place where only the wealthy can afford to stay. I worry about young people trying to start their lives here and families trying to raise children and seniors trying to remain in the communities they've lived in for decades. that is why i'm paying attention attention to proposals like this one when council approves major developments i want to see projects that meaningfully address affordability and help people stay in the city not projects that primarily benefit those who are already doing well um after sharing After sharing this, I would like to say that when residents are struggling with affordability, child care shortages, and pressure on public services, I don't believe Council should be prioritizing additional incentives for hotel developers. We are already experiencing quite a bit of pressure in this city regarding public services and i don't think that we need to be making that worse my understanding is that thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved with thousands more already in the pipeline if that's the case i question why further incentives are necessary and i would love to ask the council why these hotel incentives are being included as part of a bill 16 compliance update i'd love to echo the comments of the first speaker of this needing to be its own issue brought to council and not into another bill. I'd love to ask what public benefit will residents be receiving in exchange and how much value could be lost through reduced community contributions? How do these changes help renters, families, students, workers, and seniors? And how would private hotel, sorry, why should private hotel amenities receive special treatment during a housing crisis? Crows should be benefiting the people who live here, who work here, not just the people who profit from development, especially since so many of those people who profit from this kind of development don't actually live in the city. I urge council to remove these hotel incentives and focus instead on protecting the public benefits that make Vancouver a livable city. Thank you so much.

Statement Watch

Hi friends, you guys look lovely. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak today. So council, I'm speaking in opposition to this item because I believe council is being asked to remove important public interest planning tools before a clear and proven replacement framework is in place. I understand that the city must respond to changes in provincial legislation. I understand that Bill 16 requires municipalities to update their density bonus provisions. However, compliance with provincial legislation does not mean council should stop asking difficult questions about the consequences of these changes. My concern is simple. Vancouver is removing tools that have historically helped secure public benefits from development, but we do not yet know whether the replacement system will deliver the same results. For decades, density bonuses have been one of the many ways that has helped pay for growth. When additional density was granted, the public received something in return. Those contributions have helped fund child care facilities, community amenities, public realm improvements, cultural spaces, affordable housing, and other benefits that make Vancouver a more livable city. The principle behind these tools is straightforward. When public decisions create additional land value, the public should share in the benefits. That principle is especially important in a city like Vancouver, where development can generate enormous increases in land value. Yet today, council is being asked to remove density bonus provisions and heritage amenity share provisions across a wide range of zoning districts throughout the city. What concerns me is that the report simultaneously acknowledges that a comprehensive review of an inclusionary zoning is still needed. In other words, we are removing the old system before we fully understand what the new system will look like. That raises a number of important questions. Will the new inclusionary zoning framework deliver the same amount of affordable housing as the current system? Will it secure the same level of public amenities? Will it preserve Vancouver's ability to support child care spaces, cultural facilities, and community infrastructure? I love the eye contact, Lucy. Thank you. I do not believe residents have received clear answers to those questions. I am also deeply concerned about the removal of heritage amenity share provisions. Vancouver has already lost too many heritage buildings and cultural spaces. Once heritage assets are demolished, they are gone forever. The city has spent years trying to balance growth and heritage preservation. Removing a tool that has helped support heritage conservation without first establishing a proven replacement strategy creates unnecessary risk. At a time when redevelopment pressures continue to increase, councils should be strengthening heritage protections, not weakening them. I'm also concerned about accountability and public trust. Residents are repeatedly told that growth will help pay for the services and amenities our communities need. But if the city removes the mechanisms that help secure those benefits, people are right to ask what happens next. Will future developments continue to contribute at the same level? Will the public receive equivalent benefits? Or will more of the value generated by rezoning and development remain in private hands? These are not theoretical questions. They go directly to the heart of how Vancouver manages growth. People are already struggling with affordability. Community centers are stretched. Child care remains difficult to access. Many neighborhoods need additional public amenities and infrastructure. This is not the moment to weaken the city's ability to secure public benefits without a clear demonstration that equal or better outcomes will be achieved, much less during the voting year. I am also troubled by the sequence of this process. The report proposes future consultation on inclusionary zoning after these changes are approved, but meaningful consultations should help shape policy before major decisions are made. Residents, community organizations, heritage advocates, housing advocates, and neighborhood groups deserve an opportunity to understand what is being lost, what is being gained, and what the long-term impacts may be. The public should not be asked to accept major structural changes based on promises of future policy development. The public deserves certainty. The public deserves transparency. And the public deserves evidence that the replacement framework will be at least as effective as the tools that are being removed. To be clear, I am not arguing that Vancouver should ignore provincial legislation. I am arguing that council has a responsibility to protect the public interest while implementing it. I'm running out of time. For those reasons, I urge council to delay or reject this item until a comprehensive replacement framework is completed and residents can be confident that Vancouver will not lose essential tools for securing public benefits from growth.

Statement Watch

Hi, I am a resident of Vancouver. Mayor and Council, I'm concerned that this proposal asks the public to accept significant planning changes without clear evidence that Vancouver residents will receive equivalent public benefits in return. For many years, density bonusing has allowed the city to capture some of the value created when additional development rights are granted. That value has helped fund community amenities, childcare spaces, affordable housing... public realm improvements, and other benefits that make growth more livable. This report removes these tools across a wide range of zoning districts, yet the replacement framework remains under review. Residents have been asked to trust that a future inclusionary zoning system will provide equal or better outcomes, but that evidence has not been provided. Vancouver is already experiencing a crisis of affordability, pressure on community infrastructure, and a shortage of public amenities in many neighborhoods. This is not the moment to weaken the city's leverage without first demonstrating how those benefits will be maintained. I'm also concerned about the consultation process. The report proposes consultation on future inclusionary zoning changes after these amendments are approved. Meaningful public engagement should help shape major policy changes before decisions are made, not after. The question before council is not whether the city must comply with provincial legislation. The question is about whether Vancouver is doing enough to protect the public interest while making these changes. I urge council to slow down, complete the review of inclusionary zoning, and provide residents with a clear understanding of how public benefits will be protected before moving forward. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. As I said, my name is Matthew, and I live here in Mount Pleasant. I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the direction this proposal takes Vancouver, at a time when affordability remains one of the biggest challenges facing residents. I understand the city needs to update its policies to comply with provincial legislation. However, I am concerned that this report goes beyond what is required and includes additional incentives for hotel developers, while many residents are struggling with housing costs. and a rising cost of living. What concerns me most is that development is being allowed to build larger projects while the city may receive less in return for the public. Historically, Vancouver has used development approvals to help secure important public benefits like childcare, childcare spaces, parks, community amenities, affordable housing, and heritage preservation. These investments help make neighborhoods livable and ensure growth benefits for everyone. This proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to share those benefits while providing additional incentives for private hotel developments. This issue matters to me personally because I have watched Vancouver become increasingly unaffordable over the last several years. I'm a renter, and every time my lease comes up for renewal, I worry about whether I'll still be able to afford to stay in my home. Housing costs have gone up much faster than my income, and like many people in the city, I find myself spending more and more of my paycheck to keep a roof over my head. What frustrates me I did everything I was told to. I work hard. I contribute to my community. And I want to be here. I want to build a future here. But despite all that, it feels like getting ahead becomes more and more difficult every year. I've also seen the impact this has on the people around me. Friends of mine have left Vancouver entirely because they couldn't afford housing. They couldn't find housing they could afford. others have moved farther and farther away from where they work, which means spending less time commuting... Sorry, spending more time commuting and less time with their friends and family and community. When I think about the future, I worry that... I worry about what kind of city we're creating. I worry that Vancouver is becoming a place where only the wealthy can afford to stay. I worry about young people trying to start new families here. trying to save their lives, trying to raise children, and seniors trying to remain in the communities they've lived for decades. That's why I pay attention to the proposals like this one. When council approves major development, I want to see projects that meaningfully address affordability and help people stay in the city, not projects that primarily benefit those who are already doing well. This issue matters to me personally because I'm raising a family in Vancouver. Like my parents, I spend a lot of my time thinking about housing, childcare, and the overall cost of living. Every year, it seems like costs keep increasing while families are expected to make do with less. I know parents... who have delayed having children, moved away from their support networks, and left the city altogether because they cannot make the numbers work. When Council considers large developments, I think it's important to ask what they will mean for families. Will they make it easier for ordinary people to stay in Vancouver, or will they make affordability challenges worse? residents are struggling with affordability challenges shortages and pressure on public services i don't believe council should be prioritizing additional incentives for hotel developments what i'm just saying is that thousands thousands of hotels are have already been approved with thousands more in the pipeline If that is the case, I question why further incentives are necessary. I would ask council, why are these hotels being included as part of Bill 16 compliance update?

Statement Watch

Yeah, well... first of all i just needed to i would like to applaud council on how you know just intelligent uh... this uh... you know this proposal was uh... you know i felt like someone needed to splash a little water on me i felt like i was in ottawa not vancouver because you shoved this tiny little uh... blurb in there about uh... hotels on c5 c5a and c6 into what is on the on the face of it a uh... just a measure to comply with new provincial legislation. So congrats on that. And shout-out to Sean and Lucy for picking up on that, you know, just calling balls and strikes. But so, yeah, so tucked into this amendment on C5A and C6 district schedules is this loophole that allows hotels existing on or before February 4, 2014... Pardon me. Hotels existing on or before February 4th, 2014 are allowed to use more, to use the greater of either their 1986 floor space ratio or the current maximum. Even more egregiously, hotels existing on September 30, 1986, can receive a discretionary 5% density bonus above the maximum permitted for space ratio, a privilege denied to residential developers, a detail which seems very suspicious given the slump in the housing market recently and the sudden clamor by developers for more hotel rooms. This means that a legacy hotel from the 1980s can expand its density beyond what any new residential building could achieve, while avoiding the affordable housing obligations that this bylaw imposes on housing developments. Residential projects must provide 20% social housing or pay substantial cash in loophies. Hotels, they get extra density simply for existing and with no requirement for workforce housing, no community amendment contributions, and no affordability conditions. In a city facing a severe housing shortage, this bylaw creates a perverse incentive structure. Land in the C5, C5A, and C6 districts... is already very scarce and expensive. We're a very dense city as it already stands. By allowing hotels to access grandfathered 1986 density rights, plus an additional 5% bonus, you're giving commercial hospitality operators a massive competitive advantage over residential developers bidding for the same sites. A hotel developer can now outbid a housing developer for downtown land because their allowable density is higher and their costs are lower. No affordable housing requirements. No social housing commitments. just pure commercial expansion. Once again, that seems very suspicious given our recent market trends. This isn't smart growth. It's actively subsidizing and displacing potential housing stock by hospitality uses. During a housing emergency, should we not be privileging tourist... We should not be privileging tourist accommodations over resident accommodations, especially now that... We've seen all of this apparently unnecessary craze over FIFA. We've seen that hotel bookings are actually quite low. So I don't understand why council is wasting time on throwing another bone to the hotel industry, which has clamored and yelled and screamed at us about how they need more hotels. And when it's D-Day, so to speak, FIFA comes to town, they can't fill their hotels. So, like, and I'd like to just examine the arbitrary nature of these car votes. Like, why September 30th, 1986? Why February 4th, 2014? These dates weren't selected through any public planning process. They appear to be designed to benefit specific legacy hotel properties, likely large downtown hotels that have been lobbying for expansion rights. This is special interest legislation, plain and simple. September 30th, 1986. Well, that reminds me of a certain thing that, you know, maybe my parents' generation would have HAPPENING HERE IS EXPO. GOING BACK INTO THE NEW SHOW, THE 5% BONUS MIGHT SOUND MODEST, BUT IN THE C-6 DISTRICT THAT REPRESENTS THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL SQUARE METERS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, IN THE C-5A DISTRICT WHERE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FACE STRICT 7.0 FAR LIMITS, INCLUDING 20% SOCIAL HOUSING, HOTELS CAN EXCEED EVEN THOSE GENEROUS LIMITS WITH NO PUBLIC BENEFIT ATTACKS. This is a windfall for private hospitality interest.

Statement Watch

Okay. Sorry. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Hayley Roy, and I work in the hospitality of Vancouver International Airport, and I also live in Richmond. Every day, I welcome visitors to our region. I meet travelers from around the world who come here for business, tourism, and conventions and family visits. i'm proud of the work i do and i'm proud of the role hospitality workers play in supporting our economy but tonight i'm here because i'm concerned about the direction of this proposal this proposal is largely about implementing changes related to bill 16 and housing policy Instead, we are also being asked to support an increase in the hotel amenity inclusion from 15% to 20%. I don't believe that that belongs into a housing focused by law update. As someone who works in hospitality, I understand why hotel owners and developers might support this proposal. It's because it helps them. But the question before Council, it should not be whether hotels would like the incentive. The question should be whether it serves the public interest. And that is where I have concern. I work alongside people from all over Metro Vancouver. A common topic of conversation among workers is housing affordability. People worry about whether their children will ever be able to afford to stay in communities where they grew up. This is why I find it difficult to understand why a housing-related report includes a proposal that would provide additional benefits to hotel development without requiring public benefits in return. When developers receive additional value, the public receives something in return. The return might be affordable housing or other public amenities that improve quality of life of the residents. That makes sense because growth should help support the communities that accommodate that growth. The proposal before you changes the equation and addition inclusion would apply to hotel amenities and event spaces that primarily serves guests and hotel operations. Those are commercial amenities. They are not facilities that most residents will ever use. and they are certainly not substitute for affordable housing. As a worker in hospitality industry, I'm not asking council to oppose hotels, but support the industry should not come at the expense of the public benefits, and it should not be inserted into a bylaw package whose primary purpose is housing policy. At a time when government at every level are talking about affordability, every policy decision should be measured against the simple question, how does this help the ordinary people? i see a clear benefit for hotel development and property owners but i do not see a clear benefit for the workers to keep those hotel running i ask council to stay focused on the original purpose of this agenda item bill 16 intended to help address housing challenges Housing affordability remains one of the most urgent issues facing our region. That should be our priority. I respectfully ask you to remove and propose the hotel amenity inclusion from by this law package and focus on affordability and meaningful public benefit. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

My name is Jocelyn. I am a member resident.

Jocelyn, we're having a little bit of trouble hearing you. I don't know if it's possible to speak closer to your phone. You're cutting out a little bit.

Do you need me to repeat what was said?

Yeah. Why don't you just start again? We can hear you now. Please go ahead.

So my name is Jocelyn Stevens. I am a Vancouver resident and I oppose the recommendations before you today. I urge council to oppose this item or at minimum delay approval until a comprehensive replacement framework is in place. While this report is presented as a response to provincial legislation, its practical effect is the removal of tools Vancouver has long used to secure public benefits from private development. Density bonusing and heritage amenity contributions have helped deliver affordable housing, childcare spaces, community amenities, and heritage conservation. My concern is that Council is being asked to remove these tools before the inclusionary zoning review has been completed, and we are being asked to dismantle part of the current system before knowing whether the replacement will achieve the same or better outcomes. I am also concerned about the loss of heritage provisions. At a time of ongoing redevelopment pressure, heritage conservation should be strengthened and not weakened. Growth should ultimately benefit the public and not just private landowners, and if Vancouver continues to prove additional density, residents deserve confidence that growth will continue to support affordable housing, community amenities, and heritage preservation. For these reasons, I urge council not to approve this item in its current form. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello. Hi, Gabby. Go ahead. Sorry, can I interject? I'm going to be translating for Gabby today. She just said, hi, my name is Gabby. I'm here to oppose this project and I'm a resident of Vancouver. Continue, Gabby. Gracias. Y quiero que cada miembro de este consejo entiende exactamente lo que está en juego. I want the council to understand exactly everything that's in play. I came to this country with wanting to find community and find a space that is inclusive. Vancouver gave me the impression that they would give me that chance to create community, to work hard, and to move my family forward, and I'm disappointed. That's what made me want to fight for this city, and now here I am fighting again. Because what I see in this proposal profoundly troubles me. Esta ordenanza se presenta como una actualización de cumplimiento del proyecto de ley 16. Sorry, can you repeat that? Esta ordenanza se presenta como una actualización de cumplimiento del proyecto de ley 16. The, uh, the... The density is, like, not just, and I didn't catch that at the end, but just continúa. La mayoría de las personas escuchará estas palabras y confiará que el Consejo simplemente está haciendo lo que la provincia necesita. The majority of people have heard this and they disagree and, can you say the last part again? I understand that you're trying to do what the province is wanting you to do. But that isn't the complete image. Yeah, inside of this proposal, there's details that go against the community needs, and none of the community members don't know about it, and there should be, like, further review. Es una bonificación de densidad para los desayunadores de hoteles del centro de la ciudad, que les permita construir edificios más grandes, más altos y más rentables si agregan salas de reunión y instalaciones para ustedes. This allows hotels downtown to be built bigger and larger and more egregious. And, yeah, so, and she doesn't like that. Yeah, it's going to allow for... BUILD LIKE LARGE HOTEL BUILDS, NOT FOR FAMILIES, NOT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. I want the council today to think about who's here, like who lives in this city, and are we actually accommodating them or not? Are we accommodating workers? Are we accommodating community members? Yeah, where's the equity for these folks? No, estamos aquí porque sea fácil. Estamos aquí porque creamos que este consejo debe representarnos. I'm here because I believe this council should represent us. These are the type of motions that I don't feel represented, that our communities don't feel represented. So Gabby is urging the council to represent the workers and the working class people of this city. The development of this city should support the people that live in it, not just developers, not just the 1%. These are developments that this bill will impact should be for the working people. Cuando empezamos a hacer excepciones para hoteles, para salas de conferencia, para ganancias comerciales, estamos diciendo que la gente importa un poco menos y yo no puedo aceptar eso. When bills like this pass, it says to me that, you know, the people of the city don't matter and we can't accept that. Cada laguna legal tiene un costo. Cada excepción tiene una víctima. Y en una crisis de viviendo tan grave como lo que estamos viviendo, las víctimas son personas reales. Yeah, so in the crisis of the housing crisis and the affordability crisis that we're living right now, the victims of these bills that we pass through council are real people. And Gabby's wanting to remind you that these are real people that you're voting either for or against tonight with this bill. Think of the working people. Think about elderly people that can't pay their rent. Think about young people that can't live here anymore. All these groups that are either going to benefit or be victimized by this bill today. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? got you can you can you guys consider please how this density and this incentive to the developers um incentivizes these developers basically like uh think about why why do um why do these folks need to be incentivized why aren't we incentivizing them to build something more friendly for our communities APROVAN LAS PARTES DEL CUMPLIMENTO DEL PROYECTO DE LA LEY 16 QUE NECESITAN APROVARSE, PERO NO USEN EL CUMPLIMENTO COMO COBRITURA PARA UN REGALO A LOS DESARROLLOS COMERCIALES. LOS PRESIDENTES DE VANCOUVER MERECE ALGO MEJOR QUE ESO. PROSTEJAN LA DONIFICACION INCLUSIVA. Um, the residents of Vancouver deserve more than this. Um, we should be advocating for them in the council. Um, and, and we shouldn't be giving giveaways to developers and, um, yes, continue. Thank you. Saying thank you.

Statement Watch

I'm directly affected by the decisions made by this chamber. I'm here tonight to speak against this proposal. I want to focus on one thing, the hotel density bonus that has been inserted into Bill 16 compliance update. The provisions would allow hotel developers to build at greater density if they include meeting rooms and guest amenities. It has nothing to do with affordable housing, nothing to do with community benefit, and it is a commercial real estate incentive. I understand that density bonusing is a complex policy tool. I understand that there are many competitive interests around the table when these bylaws are drafted, but the principle behind density bonusing is clear. extra density should be earned through contributions to the public good affordable housing child care public space not hotel conference rooms when we bend that principle even once even quietly we signal to every developer in this region that the rules are negotiable and in a housing crisis that signal has a real consequence for real people remove the hotel density provisions pass a clean compliance update that's what i'm asking for tonight thank you for your time council thank you very much speaker 39 robert bader post 16 compliance update what it actually contains in addition to compliance provisions is a new density bonus for downtown hotel developers who add meeting rooms and guest amenities That's a commercial real estate incentive. It does not belong in a housing policy update. Density bonusing in this city was designed with a specific purpose, to incentivize developers to continue to contribute to community needs in exchange for the right to build greater density. Affordable housing, community spaces, public amenities, that's the deal. That's what residents agreed to. Hotel meeting rooms are not a part of that deal. They're not community benefits. They're a profit center for a private business. Rewarding hotel developers with extra density for added conference facility is not housing policy. It's commercial zoning policy, and it should be evaluated separately with full public transparency. I'm asking council to remove this provision tonight. Do not bundle commercial incentives inside housing compliance updates. If this housing, if this hotel density bonus has merit on its own, bring it forward on its own with proper notice and public consultations. Residents are paying attention to how density is being allocated in the city. They deserve a clear answer about whose interest the council is serving. Voting against this proposal is written. Thank you.

Statement Watch

I'm a resident of Vancouver.

Okay, and do you have a last name? Okay, thanks.

Please go ahead. Sorry? The challenge of housing in Hungary is not only a local problem, but also a regional and inter-regional problem. Tonight, I made a decision in this conference room to build the city of Hungary for the next 10 years. This is why I am here. I reviewed this proposal. The 16th draft rule is necessary. But I don't think . . . . . . . And is that all of your comments?

Statement Watch

You have up to five minutes. Okay. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Daniel Verma, and I work in the hospitality industry in Metro Vancouver. I'm not a resident of Vancouver, but decisions made here often influence planning policies across the region. I support tourism, and I'm proud to work in the hotel industry. What I do not support is confusing private commercial gain with public benefits, and thus I pose this recommendation today. The report before you proposes a larger density exclusion for developers adding hotel amenity spaces. The city has typically used density bonuses in exchange for a public benefit that supports the public good, like affordable housing, public parks, child care, and so on. But the amenities being discussed here are things like hotel pools, hotel fitness centers, hotel business centers, locker rooms, meeting rooms, banquet facilities, and convention spaces. Those spaces primarily exist to attract paying guests. They are business assets. They are not public amenities. They are not neighborhood facilities. They are not community centers, they are not libraries, they are not child care spaces, and they are not affordable housing. The city is effectively being asked to provide additional development value because hotel includes facilities that help it operate more profitably. This is a very different proposition than providing community benefits. When private businesses invest in facilities that support their business model, that is normally considered part of doing business. There's not normally grounds for receiving additional planning incentives. If council wants to proceed with this proposal, they should at least acknowledge what these spaces are. They are commercial guest-serving spaces. They are not community amenities, and they should not be treated as though they are. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Hello, Council. I am concerned that this proposal removes important tools that have helped ensure growth benefits the public, not just private interests. as well as adding unrelated and unnecessary amendments that work to only benefit the hotel industry. For years, when the city has granted additional density, Vancouver residents received something in return. Through density bonusing, the funding of child care spaces, community facilities, affordable housing, public amenities, and heritage conservation was capable. These provisions within Vancouver have ensured that the city remains affordable. I understand that the city must comply with provincial legislation. However, compliance should not become an excuse to weaken the public's ability to afford the city and make it harder to live in Vancouver as a regular person. As well as be used to sneak through approval for benefits to the hotel industry. My concern is that we are being used. We are being asked to approve the removal of proven mechanisms first and figure out the consequences later. The report proposes a future review of inclusionary zoning, future consultation and future policy work, but no guarantees. Once these existing tools are gone, they are gone. What assurances do Vancouver residents have that future developments will continue to contribute at the same level to affordable housing, child care, community amenities and heritage preservation? At a time when residents are struggling with housing costs, strained public services, and a rising affordability crisis, this seems like the wrong moment to test the city's ability to contribute to these community funds, as well as aid to the hotel industry. The public should not be asked to accept a tentative promise that replacement policies might achieve results someday. Council should have substantive evidence before approving these changes, especially the exclusion for hotels. um growth creates enormous value that value should be continued to be shared with the communities that make vancouver what it is personally speaking the rising affordability crisis within vancouver has put into question my ability to remain in the city after i graduate and many of the people within my life also struggle with this reality every day as the cost of living increases and the housing crisis is made worse my ability to remain in the city is made more precarious and the same can be said for many of my peers For these reasons, I urge council to oppose this item or defer it until a complete replacement framework is ready and the public can be confident that Vancouver will not lose vital tools for securing community benefits, as well as clearing up the actual purpose of this proposal, rather than combining bill compliance and new hotel-focused suggestions.

Statement Watch

Hello? We can hear you.

Yeah, so other person, her name is Gulzar. She can translate for me.

You have a translator with you? Yeah, Gulzar. Okay.

Okay, go ahead. But when my duty is over, I ask thousands of other workers to face the same problem. The cost of living in Vancouver is huge. Many hotels are struggling to pay the cost of working. Some of us have to do other jobs.

A lot of people in our community are suffering a lot.

Because they are not able to find a job. When I came to know about this report, I asked myself a simple question. Why are women going to hotels for this report? . . . . . My children are starting their career. They want to live in Vancouver. But Vancouver's hotel developers are demanding a share cut. These policies make the workers stand in front of them. They don't solve the problems. They don't make a good job. The report says that this change is leading to economic development. But people should get the benefits of economic development, not just the developers. When the government supports poverty, the public should see the benefits of it. This is especially true when there is a crisis in terms of accommodation. The workers are constantly told that there is not enough money for accommodation and services. Still, in some way, the Hotel Vikas Project has become a place to give new opportunities. Without the fact that they will be asked to return, I have sent a wrong message. I have been busy with my daily work. I have not been able to provide support for the poor. By the grace of God, please help this project to succeed.

Statement Watch

I live in Pit Meadows.

Okay. Please go ahead with your comments.

Yeah, so good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Kirsten. I work in Vancouver's downtown in the hotel industry. I was actually born here at Saint Falls Hospital. I grew up in East Van and slowly been moving further and further out. So obviously, Pitt Meadows is quite a long drive. I had two little boys and daycare was super expensive and housing was ridiculous. So I just had to move out further. My drive can be two to three hours a day, and so I just feel like this city is not really focusing on all of us workers as much as just handing out things to wealthy and fast-tracking things for the wealthy. That's why I oppose this project. I'm still hoping that maybe things will turn around and then I can come a little bit closer. So tonight I'm going to ask you if you can make affordable housing a top priority, and I oppose this project.

Statement Watch

Thank you. As someone who works in this city, I look at every municipal policy through a very straightforward lens. Who built this city? Who runs this city? And who actually gets to live in it? Working people are the backbone of Vancouver. And yet, under the ABC party majority, we're seeing a troubling pattern where corporate developers receive relentless perks while affordable housing and community benefits are systematically negotiated downward. By rushing, and we are rushing, to repeal schedules F, G, and H of the zoning and development bylaw, and also erasing key definitions from the downtown official development plan, this council is trading public planning leverage for developer-driven uncertainty. Growth generates private wealth, and working families deserve a guaranteed return on that growth in the form of public infrastructure, childcare, and parks. Yet, this report shows that the exact tools we're dismantling today bring into our city a five-year average of $13 million from density bonuses and $400,000 from heritage amenity shares every single year. Wiping out these revenue streams before our new amenity cost charge framework is even finalized means council is intentionally voting us into a multi-million dollar funding deficit. We are giving corporate developers immediate relief while forcing working people to wait for the basic community spaces that they rely on. Look closely at what's happening to our affordable housing framework. We're transitioning our in-kind affordable housing density options into mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements. But the city's own economic testing exposes deep systemic flaws that directly hurt working people. For one, it punishes transit-oriented growth. On the west side, multi-lot assemblies are completely exempt from the housing mandate simply because high land costs make it unviable for developers. By protecting the profit margins of land speculators over the need for housing, this policy actively discourages lot consolidation and blocks the multifamily transit adjacent homes that working families in the city desperately need. The density targets are an absolute fantasy. To make a 20% turnkey social housing requirement viable for a private developer under these rules, densities would have to artificially skyrocket to staggering heights just to break even. Just for some perspective, we would need the density of a massive office tower in the West End. We would also need the hyperdensity you only see in places like Manhattan's Financial District or Hong Kong, in Mount Pleasant and the Falls Creek area. This policy just fails entirely. In the downtown district, the requirements for two-thirds social housing is so broken that your own consultants say that there is no density that can make it financially viable. Meanwhile, piling more density onto 100% social housing projects without senior government funding doesn't help nonprofits break even. It just creates a deeper financial hole. Despite exposing a framework that is fundamentally broken on day one, phase two of this review, the phase that was meant to actually fix the system, is being put on the back burner until fall 2027. That is more than a year of policy limbo in a city that desperately needs housing. Let's be clear. While we lock in an unviable system for the future, this council is actively rubber-stamping developer requests to undermine affordability right now. Just look at the West Side Tower proposal on West 8th where the developer was permitted to slash social housing below the Broadway's plans mandatory 20% minimum. At the exact same time, this council is moving to expand exemptions for the empty home tax, giving retroactive tax breaks to developers while nearly 750 completed unsold luxury units sit empty across Vancouver. This pattern of corporate handouts is just as obvious in how we manage our downtown core. SLIP DIRECTLY INTO AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPORT. RECOMMENDATION B ELIMINATES THE HISTORICAL 15% HOTEL AMENITY DENTITY BONUS AND HANDS HOTEL CORPORATIONS AN OUTRIGHT 20% FLOOR SPACE EXCLUSION FOR PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AMENITIES LIKE POOLS, FITNESS CENTERS AND CONFERENCE ROOMS. EXACTLY WHAT ALL THE WORKING PEOPLE IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER NEED. Last year, this council exempted hotel amenities from community amenity benefit calculations. Now, you're allowing hotels to build even larger while providing less public benefit in return. Hospitality workers have explicitly called this out for what it is, an unnecessary developer giveaway. We're giving away valuable downtown air rights automatically with zero requirements that these spaces generate sustainable union wage jobs or public community use.

Statement Watch

OK, great thank you. Good evening Council. My name is Gwendal Castellan. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm also the manager of sustainable destination development and I'm speaking on behalf of destination Vancouver. I would like to express our support for the update to density bonus provisions in this item, specifically the proposed amendments to the downtown official development development plan. would amend the hotel amenity bonus and allow for up to 20% floor area exclusions for specific hotel amenity areas. This is a practical step that will help improve the feasibility of new hotel developments in Vancouver. Destination Vancouver co-chairs the Vancouver Hotel Development Task Force together with the BC Hotel Association. And in 2024, the fall of 2024, the task force was established in response to Vancouver's growing hotel room shortage and brings together industry stakeholders focused on increasing hotel supply across the city. Part of this work, we have engaged extensively with hotel developers, design professionals, investors, and project proponents. A consistent message emerged from those conversations. While there is significant interest in developing new hotels in Vancouver, project economics remain challenging, particularly in the current construction and financing environment. Today, Vancouver's hotel development pipeline stands at over 7,000 rooms. However, only about 800 or just over 800 are currently under construction. Remaining projects are in rezoning and development approval, represent potential supply, but they're by no means assured to proceed. In our research, developers told us that guest amenity spaces, meeting rooms, event facilities, ballrooms, wellness amenities, and other common areas are critical to the success of modern hotels. These spaces add jobs, enhance the guest experience, support business events, and generate economic activity throughout the city. Yet, they are often difficult to justify financially because they consume valuable floor area and without generating the same direct returns as guest rooms. The amendments before Council directly address this challenge by excluding up to 20% of the floor area for qualifying hotel amenity spaces. The City is recognizing the unique economics of hotel development and reducing a barrier that can determine whether a project proceeds or remains on the shelf. This measure is aligned with Council's April 2025 direction to explore regulatory changes that would encourage new hotels and support the inclusion of events and guest amenity spaces. It responds directly to the feedback provided by the development community and reflects the realities of hotel project feasibility. Importantly, this amendment does not simply encourage more hotel rooms. It encourages diversity of offerings within hotels, hotels that include meeting space, event facilities and amenities that support visitors, conventions, business travel and major events. As Vancouver continues to compete internationally for meetings, conventions, and visitors we need both additional room supply and the spaces that enable those visitors to gather meet and do business for these reasons destination vancouver supports the proposed amendment encourages council to approve it thank you for your time and consideration thank you for speaking uh speaker 37 is nasca spasic yes i'm here thank you can you advise if you're a resident of vancouver please or not No, I live in Burnaby and I will speak in my language, which is Serbian. And my speech is going to be translated. Dobroveče. Moje ime je Naska. Večeras sam ovde da govorim protiv ovog predloga. Moj maternji jezik je srpski, a večeras želim da budem jasno shvaćena, pa ću govoriti na srpsko. I came to Vancouver because this city gave me something I believed in. A place where workers can build a life. A city that values the community more than profit. A city that has made space for people like me. When I hear that housing policy is a hidden bonus for hoteliers, which allows them to build larger buildings by just adding a meeting room, I feel that this promise is being violated. Not dramatically, not suddenly, but slowly, part by part, in a technical language that most people will never understand. Inclusive zoning is one of the reasons why I still believe in this city. It is a rule that says that development must return something to the community, so that when someone profits from the construction in Vancouver, the community also needs to get something. Accessible houses, places for families, that principle must be protected. In the evening, please remove the support for the density of hotels from this department. Now you're going to hear my translation, translated speech.

Statement Watch

Hi there. We're not hearing anything at this point. Speaker, we can't hear a translator. Okay, speaker, if you're not having your remarks translated, you can continue with your comments, or you can let us know if you have finished your remarks, please. Okay. We're going to assume that you have concluded your comments. Thank you for speaking. Speaker 42 is Connie. on the line just checking the line share they may have disconnected okay hang tight for a second speaker 42 is on the line and is unmuted speaker 42 is Connie Connie can you hear us Connie, I'll ask you one more time before I move on. Can you hear us? Okay, no. We'll move to speaker 43. Angel, we have 43. Speaker 43 has disconnected. Okay. Clerks, can you advise if we have any further speakers on the line at this point? Okay. Speaker 33, Wilmarie Ayog. My speech is here.

Statement Watch

Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Wilmarie. I work in Vancouver. I would like to speak about priorities. Every day, Vancouver residents are being asked to do more with less. Housing costs continue to rise. Renters are struggling. Young people are wondering whether they will be able to build a future in this city. FAMILIES ARE MAKING DIFFICULT FINANCIAL DECISIONS. WORKERS ARE BEING PUSHED FARTHER FROM THEIR JOBS. MANY RESIDENTS FEEL THAT THE LAB IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY UNAFFORDABLE. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP, PEOPLE ARE WATCHING CLOSELY TO SEE WHAT CITY HALLS PRIORITIZE. THAT IS WHY THIS PROPOSAL CONCERNS ME. the city is undertaking this process because provincial legislation requires updates to density bonus rules and inclusionary zoning provisions in other words the starting point is housing the starting point is affordability the starting point is ensuring that development contributes to public goals yet one of the most significant policy changes in this report IS AN INCENTIVE DIRECTED AT HOTELS. THE REPORT STATES THAT THE PURPOSE IS TO ENCOURAGE LARGER GUEST AMENITIES AND EVENT SPACES. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HOTEL OPERATORS WOULD WELCOME THAT CHANGE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR VANCOUVER RESIDENTS. WHEN RESIDENTS THINK ABOUT WHAT VANCOUVER NEEDS MOST, I DOUBT MANY WOULD PUT HOTEL CONFERENCE ROOMS NEAR THE TOP OF THE LIST. people are asking for affordable housing, stronger public services, and investments that make life more affordable. Those are the issues that dominate public discussions and affect daily life. Yet tonight, council is being asked to provide additional benefits for a sector that is already receiving substantial attention for hotel development policies and incentives. At some point, residents are entitled to ask A SIMPLE QUESTION. WHO IS THIS POLICY REALLY FOR? IS IT FOR THE PEOPLE STRUGGLING TO PAY RENT? IS IT FOR FAMILIES TRYING TO REMAIN IN VANCOUVER? OR IS IT PRIMARILY FOR DEVELOPERS SEEKING ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND ADDITIONAL VALUE? I BELIEVE THAT IS THE QUESTION COUNCIL SHOULD ASK ITSELF BEFORE APPROVING THIS PROPOSAL. PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD BE GUIDED BY PUBLIC NEED. And right now, the greatest public need facing Vancouver is affordability. Every decision should be measured against that reality. I have not heard convincing answers to those questions. Until those answers are provided, Council should reject this hotel incentive and maintain its focus on housing, affordability, and the public interest. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Hello to Mayor and Council. Thanks for having me tonight. I am opposed to this proposed change. Firstly, it does nothing to hold the developers accountable. uh to the people who live here uh or would like to live here and by that i mean there is no guarantee of units that will be tethered to prices that an average 40 hour a week worker can afford we have a massive problem in that workers can't afford to live near the city we need developers to buy in on helping build that housing for workers The only way to do that is for council to make amendments and demand accountability on affordability. And secondly, this council is catering too much to hotel owners and developers. We need to be able to get more out of these hotel owners and developers for our city. Our city needs a lot more things. More swimming and skating lessons, more fitness centers, more affordable housing, more parks and playgrounds, more affordable community events so people can come together. And what are the hotel owners doing to address these things? Are they grappling with these things like our residents are every day? Is hotels really the priority when they won't contribute to the needs of the city beyond simply operating their business? Could hotel owners be offering more to not only the city, but the workers they will employ? We hear from hotel workers all the time that they live in the suburbs because they can't afford to live in the city. About all the time that they take commuting to work every day away from their family. We should be looking to make sure that if there are jobs in the city, that we have homes and housing for the people to live in the city too. Could hotel owners be offering more on this front? I think so. I think so. We all have to acknowledge that the hotel workers will have to commute for hours every day for every new hotel job that's opened. And that's not fair. People should be able to live in the city and work in the city and enjoy the city that they work in. WHY CAN'T THIS BE ADDRESSED? I THINK THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, BECAUSE IT SEEMS KIND OF SIMPLE. THE HOTEL OWNERS AND THE HOTEL INDUSTRY WANT CHANCELL TO PASS A LOT OF HOTEL ROOMS AND MAKE IT EASY TO BUILD HOTELS. AND THAT, I THINK, IS FINE AS LONG AS THE CITY AND THE WORKERS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY NEED. AND SO THE CITY NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE HOTEL OWNERS WANT HOTEL ROOMS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A DEAL TO BE MADE HERE. Like, why can't it be that we make a deal where... We're getting what we need as a city, whether it's community centers, whether it's swimming pools and ice arenas or affordable housing, and the hotel owners are getting what they want, which is we want hotel rooms and they want to make it easy to build hotels. To me, there's a way to make a deal here that works for everybody in a much better way, but council has to kind of stand up and go for that. So I ask council to oppose this and make a deal with the hotel owners that makes sense for the city. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Good evening, counsel. My name is Angel.

Angel, before you begin, can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver, please, and do you have a last name?

I am a resident of Coquitlam, but my workplace is in downtown Vancouver. And my name is Angel Brayton.

Okay, please go ahead.

I may not live within the Vancouver city limits, but what happened in the city's housing policy affects the entire region. And I am here because I care deeply about getting this right. The lower mainland is one interconnected housing market. When Vancouver weakens its affordability housing protections, the pressure ripples outward to Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, and beyond. Families displaced from Vancouver do not simply disappear. They move further out, stretch their commutes, and strain communities that are already under pressure. So when I see a proposal that claims to be about Bill 16 compliance, but quietly inserts a density bonus for hotel developers who add meeting rooms and guest amenities, I have to speak up. That is not a regional housing benefit. That is a local developer benefit dress up in compliance language. DENSITY BONUSING SHOULD BE EARNED THROUGH GENUINE COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, CHILDCARE, SPACES LIKE PARKS, PUBLIC AMENITIES AND SO ON. NOT HOTEL CONFERENCE ROOMS, NOT COMMERCIAL PROFIT CENTERS. THIS REGION NEEDS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT MORE INCENTIVES FOR HOTEL DEVELOPERS TO BUILD BIGGER I urge council to strip out the hotel density loopholes and pass a clean and honest Bill 16 compliance update. The credibility of Vancouver's housing commitments matters, not just to Vancouver residents, but for everyone in the region who is watching. Remove the loopholes, keep the promise. Thank you, council, and have a good evening.