Item 1 Remainder: Bill 16 Density Bonus & IZ Amendments

Statement Watch

Good evening, council and everyone. My name is Yumi Yamagami, and I live in Kitsilano and Fairview area. I support adding more housing and rental housing in Vancouver. However, I am concerned that the current tower-heavy approach proposed for this project is not balanced, family-friendly, or compatible with a long-term livability of the neighborhood. The proposed neighborhood has already accepted substantial density. There are already several 11-story apartment buildings surrounding this site. The question is not whether we add housing. The question is why the next step must be towers nearly three times as tall. There is a reasonable middle ground. The proposed development at 1745 West 8th Avenue would introduce two towers of approximately 29 and 31 stories, along with approximately 500 parking and loading stalls into an area that was never designed for this level of intensification. Residents are understandably concerned about the additional vehicle traffic congestion and impacts on local streets that could result from development of this scale. I would like to understand whether the City of Vancouver and applicant seriously evaluated mid-rise alternatives that could provide substantial housing growth while reducing demolition waste, construction complexity, shadowing, neighborhood impacts, and embodied carbon by utilizing existing level 2 parkade. Residents are concerned about increased shadowing, wind impacts, traffic, privacy concerns, and additional pressure on parks, schools, and public infrastructure. Population growth must be synchronized with infrastructure investment, not approved first and addressed later. I am also concerned about the practical liability of these towers. The proposal appears to include only two elevators per tower for buildings approaching 30 stories. This may seem like a small detail, but it directly affects daily life. I currently live in an 11-story building with approximately 100 units and two elevators. Even in this building of that size, elevator wait times can already be significant, especially when one elevator is out of service or being used for move-ins and move-outs. That experience makes me question whether two elevators are sufficient for towers nearly three times as tall. Urban design directly affects family life and community well-being. Human-scale neighborhoods encourage children to play outdoors, interact with neighbors, and develop social connections. In high-rise environments, families can become more dependent on elevators, spend less time outdoors spontaneously, and face additional barriers to everyday community interaction. Vancouver should carefully consider whether tower heavy planning creates a kind of trad-friendly communities we want in the long term. I believe Vancouver can add housing through more balanced forms of density, including mid-rise apartments and other forms of missing middle housing that add density while preserving livability and neighborhood character. The city once recognized that preserving neighborhood scale was important to urban livability. We should not abandon those lessons. Growth should enhance communities, not erase qualities that make them successful, livable, and attractive in the first place. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Statement Watch

Hi, good evening. Yeah, I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal, not because Vancouver doesn't need more housing, but because Vancouver needs more affordable housing. And I've got a, you know, my Don Draper award of the evening goes to the applicant who somehow managed to convey requirements that the city puts upon developers to provide in-kind uh you know amenities to the city and the population of vancouver as something that they were you know doing out of the kindness of their hearts and you know uh things that they stand to make a great deal of money on uh such as you know building this development as some sort of public service uh... in reality for years residents have been told that if we just keep giving the real estate development uh... industry what they want uh... they will eventually make housing affordable you can't rent that continue to rise homership continues to uh... big uh... decline and move into the hands of only the wealthy and working-class people are moving out of our city uh... this proposal follows the same pattern uh... do this project delivers a substantial amount of new market housing while only a limited portion is secured as social housing this result is this the result is a development that will generate significant value for our developer friend but is uh far less certain to generate anything that addresses the affordability crisis in Vancouver. The question before council should not simply be whether this project adds housing units. The question should be whether it adds the kind of housing Vancouver desperately needs. The developer spoke about you know, first responders and, you know, service workers and, you know, all these people like we like to lionize living in there. Well, I'm going to tell you right now that they're not going to be living in there. They're going to be commuting an hour and a half from Surrey like they are already. People with fixed incomes are not going to be living there. Young families... Well, young families of perhaps people with $300,000 a year salaries might be moving into these places. But I can tell you that a lot of young families are leaving Vancouver. And Amicon knows that. And they know that young families don't have the kind of purse strings that is needed to buy their developments. Many of these residents earn... And many of these residents that they were speaking about often don't qualify for subsidized housing. This project does nothing to address any of these things. We are repeatedly told that private development will solve the affordability crisis, yet the affordability crisis has continued to worsen during one of the largest development booms in Vancouver's history. More luxury and market housing has not translated into affordable housing for ordinary residents. council is prepared to grant significant increases in height, density, and land value, then the public should receive a stronger benefit in return. That should mean a substantially larger portion of permanently affordable housing, not simply the minimum amount necessary to make the project acceptable. And in fact, in this case, a little bit less. Public policy should be guided by the needs of the residents and including many of the people who live along Broadway who may or may not be calling in tonight, not by what maximizes returns for developers like Amicot. Vancouver's housing crisis is not primarily a shortage of investment opportunities. It is a shortage of homes that ordinary people can afford. Council has an opportunity to send a clear message that future rezonings must deliver real affordability. Until this proposal contains a significantly greater commitment to permanently affordable housing, I don't believe it serves the public interest. I perhaps futilely... urge Council to reject this application in its current form and require a proposal that puts affordability first. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi. Okay, so I am speaking in opposition to this proposal. Like many people in Metro Vancouver, I want to see more housing built, including affordable and social housing. That's why I think it's important to ensure that when major exceptions to existing plans are granted, the public benefits are truly proportional to what is being approved. I'm concerned about the scale of the changes being proposed and what they could mean for the integrity of the planning process, the surrounding neighborhood, and public confidence in how development decisions are made. This proposal would increase the allowable building height from 30 feet to 335 feet. That is more than a tenfold increase and represents a dramatic departure from the existing zoning framework. The project also requires both an amendment to the official development plan and a site-specific CD1 rezoning. While planning policies can evolve over time, repeatedly creating site-specific exceptions, risks undermining the predictability and consistency that residents expect from the planning process. This proposal would substantially increase the density allowed on the site, nearly tripling the amount of floor space that can be built. Such a significant increase creates considerable additional development potential and land value. In my view, Council should carefully consider whether the public benefits being offered are proportional to the value being granted. I recognize that the project includes social housing and child care spaces, both of which are important and worthwhile objectives. However, my understanding is that of the 539, I believe, housing units proposed, only 98 would be social housing, while the majority would be market strata units. Given the scale of the requested increase in height and density, it's reasonable to ask whether the public benefits justify the extent of the exception being sought. I'm also concerned about the broader impacts of a development of this size. Nearly 540 housing units, along with commercial space and childcare facilities, will place additional demands on local streets, transit, parks, schools and other community infrastructure. These impacts should be carefully considered alongside potential benefits of the project. There's also questions about neighborhood fit and livability. Two towers of 29 and 31 stories may be out of scale with surrounding development and could set a precedent for similar tower rezonings in the future. Buildings reaching 335 feet can affect sunlight, views, privacy, and the overall experience of nearby residents and businesses. More broadly, I'm concerned about planning by exception. When height and density limits are repeatedly exceeded through site-specific amendments and rezoning, it can create uncertainty for residents and weaken public confidence in long-term planning policies. For these reasons, I believe this proposal will result in an extraordinary increase in height and density through a site-specific rezoning while delivering predominantly market-rate housing rather than a significant amount of affordable housing. I'm concerned about the precedent. set, its fit within the surrounding area, and whether the public benefits are proportional to the value being granted to the developer. I urge Council to reject this proposal. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi. Hi again. Thank you. My name is Steve Cashmore, and I live and work in Vancouver. I'm here because this project reflects a larger problem facing workers and people in the city. The proposal contains 441 strata condos. Most of those units will be sold in one of the most expensive housing markets in North America. Meanwhile, the amount of social housing has been reduced below the minimum standard established in the Broadway plan. Workers are constantly told that new housing supply will solve affordability, but many workers cannot afford new market condos. The people who keep this city running, hospitality workers, healthcare workers, childcare workers, retail workers trade trades people service workers needs housing they can actually afford this is why the 20 social housing requirement matters the original proposal met the requirement the revised proposal does not at some point a requirement that is frequently waste stops being requirement it becomes a suggestion and it undermines public confidence in the planning process i believe vancouver needs more housing but we need the right makes of housing Approving hundreds of additional market condos while reducing the affordable housing component is not the right direction. If this project is going to receive additional height and additional density, then the public should receive the full affordable housing benefit that the city policy requires. I find it troubling that the changes made to improve the project resulted in more condos and fewer social housing units. If the council is going to grant substantial increases in height and density, the public should receive more affordability, not less. Approving this application would reward a developer for reducing the affordable housing component while increasing the market component. This is the opposite of what residents expect during a housing crisis. I urge council to defend its own policy and require full compliance with the 20% social housing requirement. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Okay, thanks. Yes, my name is Michelle Travis. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm speaking in opposition to the rezoning at 1745 West 8th, unless significant changes are made to strengthen its social housing commitments. To be clear, I recognize that the revised application includes improvements. The child care facility has been expanded to a full 37 space child care center, which is what's required. However, this should not come at the expense of the project's social housing commitment. The central issue is simple. The project is being justified on the basis of delivering public benefits, yet the most important public benefit, the social housing component, has been reduced below what the Broadway plan contemplates, while the project simultaneously seeks substantially more heightened density than the plan allows. The Broadway plan anticipated the projects proceeding under the inclusionary housing option would provide a minimum of 20% of residential floor area social housing. The original application met that target. The revised application does not. Instead, social housing has been reduced to 17.9% of residential floor area. And at the same time, the project is seeking tower heights up to 31 stories where the Broadway plan contemplates 26 stories. In other words, the public benefit is declining while the development value is going up. Staff acknowledge that the social housing component has been reduced and state that a reduction is necessary to support project viability, but the public is not provided with the evidence needed to evaluate that claim. Council is being asked to accept a reduction in public benefit based on viability claims that we need more information about. The report repeatedly refers to the unit's Sorry, under the city's definition, 30% of the social housing units must be rented to households at or below BC housing income limits, and the remaining 70% may be rented at rates up to market. Just a question about whether the 70% of those units will be rented at below market rates, or will they be allowed to rent it at the market rate? The report also acknowledges the extraordinary cost of housing on Vancouver's west side with rents approaching $4,900 a month for newer three-bedroom units. Yet there are no binding commitments guaranteeing deeper affordability for low-income households or residents at risk of displacement. Instead, the staff state that they intend to work with senior government to look for opportunities to deepen affordability down the line. uh i'm also concerned that certain elements of the social housing component remain unresolved the conditions of approval identify deficiency requiring further work including inadequate amenity space missing support facilities and other issues they go directly to the livability and long-term success of the social housing component council is being asked to approve a project that exceeds the broadway plan limits because of its public benefits but once the social housing contribution falls below policy expectations much of it and much of it still operating at market rents the justification for those exemptions become a bit weaker at a minimum we think council should require full public disclosure of the financial viability here used to justify reducing the social housing component below the broadway plan expectations and ensure that they're binding affordability commitments prior to approval and resolve the outstanding social housing design issues We think Council should be very cautious about establishing a precedent where developers receive additional high density while negotiating down the very public benefits that were intended to justify those exceptions. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Alfina. I live in Vancouver, and I'm a single mother working in Vancouver hospitality industry. I am here tonight because this application raises a question that is very personal to me. Who is Vancouver being built for? I work hard. I pay my taxes. I raise my child. I contribute to the economy and to this tourism industry that this city depends on. but it puts working full time. Housing is a concern source of stress in my life. Every month, I worry about my rent. Every month, I make difficult choice about children, childcare, grocery, transportation, and household expenses. Like many hospital worker, my wage has not keep up with housing costs. I know co-workers who have moved further and further away from Vancouver because they simply cannot afford to live near their job anymore. Some spend hours commuting, coming every day. Others have left the city altogether. So when I heard that development is proving social housing, I pay attention. because social housing is not abstract planning concept to people like me. It represents opportunity. It represents stability. It represents the possibility that working family might actually be able to remain in the community where they work. That's why I was disappointed to learn that the original proposal for this project, including more social housing, then what is present to you tonight? The original application including 107 social housing units and meet the Broadway plan requirement that at least 20% of residents for area being social housing. The reverse proposal reduced the social housing component to 98 units, or 17.9% of resident floor area. At the same time, the number of strata units increased. In other words, the affordable housing Portions went down while the market housing position went up. I find that difficult to understand. Council often hear that we are in the housing offerability crisis. I think everyone in this room agree that it is true. If we are in affordable crisis, Should we be trying to maximize affordable housing rather than reducing it? If a project is receiving additional height and then beyond what was original plan, shouldn't the public benefit be increasing rather than shrinking? I understand that staff have Conclude this reduction is affordable because of project variability. But I will ask council to think about the variable of working family. The Broadway plan stability, a clear expectation for the social housing. If council approved a lower amount here, future application will be undoubtable point to this decision and ask for similar expectation. Over time, those expectations add up. A few units here, a few units there. Eventually, the city falls short of the affordable housing goal It promised residents. I am not asking council to reject housing. I support more housing. But I also believe that when the city has an opportunity to... Speaker, thank you for speaking.

Statement Watch

Okay, hello, good evening. My name is Sue, and I live and work in this area. I am speaking today because I'm concerned about the proposed rejoining at 1745 Western 8th Avenue and what it says about the city's approach to housing. Vancouver is facing a housing crisis. People are struggling to find homes they can afford. Ventura facing increasing cost and many residents are worried about whether they will be able to remain in this city long term. Because of that, I believe that when council approves major increases in height and density should be clear and substantial public benefit. What concerns me about this proposal is that it remains heavily weighted toward market condominium development. That raises an important question. If the project is getting larger, why is the amount of non-market housing getting smaller? Before I move in here, I saw the exact same housing crisis in South Korea. In South Korea, many luxury high-rise buildings are constantly built in the city center. However, the price is too high for ordinary people and youth to afford. In the end, those new buildings apparently remained empty. They built taller buildings, but they did not consider the actual people who need housing. When I look at this proposal, I see the same pattern here in Vancouver. Housing supply should not just be about developer profit. It must be about whether ordinary residents can actually afford it. Young newcomers like me face a huge financial barrier as soon as we arrive. We work hard in essential service sector in cafe, restaurant, local shop, and print shop, providing the core that keeps this city running. Yeah, with service sector raises, it is very difficult to afford the current rent in Vancouver. Because of this housing insecurity, many young people around me have to move multiple times or live in overcrowded and poor conditions. Many young people come here because they love Vancouver, but they live earlier simply because they cannot afford the housing cost. If young workers continue to leave, Vancouver's worker economy communities will lose their vitality. I understand that Vancouver needs more housing. However, not all housing addresses the crisis in the same way. The housing risk facing working people, students, and families is not a lack of luxury condominium. it is native it is need for housing that people can actually afford i am worried about this project is that total buildings but it does not give enough public housing i want to ask council to question why do we get more luxury conduct and less social housing and how does this project fix and converge housing from if the city of bigger buildings the public affordable housing and return. Please think about this balance carefully. Thank you so much.

Statement Watch

I'll try to be quick. I'm a resident of Burnaby. I own a business in Vancouver. I'll be speaking in opposition to the report recommendations. My first concern is that the rezoning proposal does not meet the 20% social housing requirement. I feel like this sends the message to developers that meeting this requirement is optional and can be reduced on a project to project basis. Time and again, developers have chosen to prioritize profits over the needs of Vancouver citizens and have failed to ensure livability and affordability in this already expensive city, which is why the city government is responsible for holding them accountable and ensuring that they meet these requirements. The market strata units will be priced out of reach for most families and working people. This does not work towards the city's goal of increasing access to housing for its residents. At this time, there's no shortage of luxury condos available for purchase in this city. What is in short supply is social housing and affordable housing. It would be nice if more people who work in Vancouver could also afford to live here. As a business owner, I can say that years ago, all of our employees lived in the city of Vancouver and now none of them do. My next concern is that this rezoning will allow for a market change in this neighborhood with tall towers, increased density and traffic congestion. Thousands more people in this area will add stress to infrastructure and utilities. We are already in stage three water usage restrictions. uh how does increasing the strain on our systems address long-term sustainability the plan does include the child care spaces but what about all the other needs of a growing community and quality of life into the future including the overcrowding issues with secondary schools in the area towers this tall will drastically change the look and feel of the neighborhood and surely pays away for more developments of this size in other areas in this and other areas that value a more residential feel as opposed to a tightly packed downtown landscape just because it's the most profitable approach for developers doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good thing for residents in addition i feel that making these changes to the official development plan will erode the confidence that citizens have in the future of their city and the trust that they have in council The long-term livability of Vancouver should be considered for all of its residents, not just the very wealthy. I hope that the council will reject this rezoning application and instead focus on affordable housing options that are more appropriate for the city and its residents. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Hello. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak today. I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the proposed rezoning at 1745 West 8th Avenue and what it says about the city's approach to housing. Vancouver is facing a housing crisis. People are struggling to find homes that they can afford. Renters are facing increasing costs, and many residents are worried about whether they will be able to remain in the city long term. Because of that, I believe that when council approves major increases in height and density, there should be a clear and substantial public benefit. What concerns me about this proposal is that it remains heavily weighted towards market condominium development. While the project includes social housing and child care space, the revised proposal increases the number of market condominium units while reducing the number of social housing units. That raises an important question. If the project is getting larger, why is the amount of non-market housing getting smaller? This is an issue to me just because I'm a renter in Vancouver and housing costs have become one of the biggest pressures in my life. Every year it feels harder to stay in the city, even though this is where my job, my friends, and my community are. I've had moments where I'm seriously worried about whether I'll be able to renew my lease or whether I'll be forced to move further away just to find something I can afford. Even small rent increases make a big difference when wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. I've also had to make changes in my life to manage costs by being more careful with spending, building savings goals, and adjusting my expectations about what kind of housing I can realistically access in the city. What worries me most is that this doesn't feel temporary anymore. It feels like a long-term trend where staying in Vancouver is becoming harder unless you already have a lot of financial security. I pay attention to decisions like this because they directly shape whether people like me can continue living here or not. In addition to this, many people I know have had to leave the city because of rising costs. And I'm watching people I know from university not be able to stay in the city or pursue careers here because the city is so expensive. I understand that Vancouver needs more housing. However, not all housing addresses the crisis in the same way. The housing shortage facing working people, students, seniors, families, and low-income residents is not primarily a shortage of luxury condominiums. It's a shorting of housing that people can actually afford. When Council approves projects of this scale, residents should expect a significant public benefit in return. I'm concerned that this proposal dramatically increases height and density while delivering a relatively limited amount of non-marking housing compared to the overall size of the project. I would ask Council, Why does the revised proposal contain fewer social housing units than the previous version? Why is the number of market condominiums increasing while the number of social housing units is decreasing? Does the revised project meet the city's stated social housing objectives? How does this proposal help address Vancouver's affordability crisis? What guarantees exist that the social housing component will remain a meaningful part of the project? If additional density is granted, why isn't more non-market housing being secured? I believe that growth should serve the people who need housing the most. If Council is going to improve taller buildings and increase density, the public should see substantial affordable and non-market housing benefits in return. I urge Council to carefully consider whether this proposal achieves that balance. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Okay, thank you. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Again, my name is Reese and I live in the west end of Vancouver's downtown core. I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the proposed rezoning at 1745 West 8th Avenue and what it's saying about the city's approach to housing. um vancouver is facing a housing crisis and people are struggling to find homes that they can afford renters are facing increasing costs and many residents are worried about whether they will be able to remain in the city long term because of that i believe that when council approves major increases in heightened density there should be a clear and substantial public benefit what concerns me about this proposal is that it remains heavily weighted towards market condominium development And while the project includes social housing in child care space, the revised proposal increases the amount of market condominium units while reducing the number of social housing units. That raises the question for me, if the project is getting larger, why is the amount of non-market housing not also increasing alongside of it? um this matter is this issue matters to me because i'm a renter in vancouver and housing costs have become one of the biggest pressures in my life and in the life of everybody that i know who rents every year it feels harder to stay in the city even though it's where i work where my friends are and where i have community these are moments that i've i've had moments where i'm seriously worried about whether i'll be able to renew my lease whether I'll be forced to move farther away just to find a place that I can afford. Even small rent increases are making a really big difference when wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. I will try to make many, many changes in my life in order to manage costs by being more careful with spending, delaying my savings goals, and adjusting my expectations about what kind of housing I can realistically access in this city. What worries me most is that this doesn't This is no longer feeling temporary. It feels like a long-term trend where staying in Vancouver is becoming harder unless you already have a lot of financial security. I pay attention to decisions like these because they are directly shaping whether people like me and my community can continue to live here in Vancouver. I understand that it is really important that Vancouver gets more housing. However, it's... clear that not all housing is addressing the housing crisis in the same way. The housing shortage... The housing shortage facing working people, students, seniors, family, and low-income residents is not primarily a shortage of luxury condominiums, but rather a shortage of housing that we can actually afford. When Council approves projects of this scale, residents should expect a significant public benefit in return, and I'm concerned that this proposal dramatically increases height and density while delivering a relatively limited amount of non-market housing compared to the overall size of the project. questions that i would hope that council thinks about when making a decision is why does the revised proposal contain fewer social housing units than the previous version and why is the number of market condominiums increasing while the number of social housing units is decreasing and why does the revised sorry and does the revised project meet the city's stated social housing objective how does this proposal help address vancouver's affordability crisis and what guarantees exist that the social housing component will remain a meaningful part of the project if additional density is being granted why isn't more non-market housing being secured and what messages are sending to other developers um regarding the the um the needs of the city in terms of social market housing and what they are allowed to do with that. I believe that growth should serve the people who need housing the most, and if Council is going to approve taller buildings with increased density, the public should see substantial affordable and non-market housing benefits in return. I urge Council to carefully consider whether this proposal achieves that balance. Thank you.

Statement Watch

As you just said, my name is Christina, and I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed rezoning at 1745 West 8th Avenue. I believe this application highlights a growing problem in Vancouver's planning approach. We are increasingly being asked to accept enormous increases in height and density on the promise that some public benefits will be delivered alongside them. in this specific case council is being asked to approve two stories reaching 29 and 31 stories uh increased um that allowed the allowable density from 3.0 fsr to 8.56 fsr and amend the official development plan itself. These are significant changes that deserve careful scrutiny. The central question is not whether housing is needed. We all know Vancouver needs housing. The question is whether every proposal that includes housing should automatically be approved regardless of its scale, regardless of how dramatically it departs from existing policy, and regardless of whether it meaningfully addresses affordability. the reality is that the vast majority of units in this project will be strata homes sold on the private market in vancouver market strata housing is often priced beyond the reach of many residents including renters young families essential workers and even more professionals and many professionals We are repeatedly told that adding market housing will improve affordability, yet year after year, housing costs continue to rise. Residents are being asked to accept larger buildings, increase density, and significant changes to their neighborhoods, while seeing little improvement in their own ability to afford a home. This proposal also raises concerns about the incremental erosion of long-term planning. Official development plans are intended to guide growth and provide certainty. When major amendments become commonplace, planning begins to feel reactive rather than strategic. residents participate in planning processes because they believe the resulting policies will guide future development if those policies can be substantially altered project by project public trust in the planning process is significantly weakened i am also concerned about infrastructure and livability hundreds of additional households will place increased demand on transportation networks parks public spaces community facilities schools and utilities while the project includes a child care facility council should ask whether the broader impacts of this scale of growth have been fully addressed growth should not be simply measured in the number of units produced it should also be measured in the quality of life created for current and future residents Vancouver deserves housing solutions that are affordable, thoughtful, and aligned with long-term planning objectives. Approving ever-taller towers and ever-greater density bonuses is not by itself a housing strategy. For these reasons, I urge Council to reject this rezoning application and instead pursue housing policies that deliver genuine affordability while respecting the integrity of the city's planning framework. Thank you for your consideration.

Statement Watch

Hi. Yeah, I'm a resident in the West End, and I'm calling about the development on West 8th, speaking and opposing the proposal. For years, residents, we've been told that proving larger and larger developments will eventually make housing affordable, yet rents, they continue to rise. homeownership continues to move further out of reach and working people continue to be pushed out of the city this proposal i believe follows that same pattern the project it delivers a substantial amount of new market housing while only a limited portion is secured as social housing The result is a development that will generate significant value for the developer, but provides far less certainty that it will create meaningful affordability for the people who are struggling most. The question before council should not simply be whether this project adds housing, but whether it adds the kind of housing Vancouver desperately needs. Teachers, healthcare workers, tradespeople and artists and young families and long-time residents are all finding it harder to remain in Vancouver. Many of these residents earn too much to qualify for deeply subsidized housing, but far too little to afford newly built market rate homes. This project does little to address that gap. We are repeatedly told that private development will solve the affordability crisis, yet the affordability crisis has continued to worsen during one of the largest development booms in Vancouver's history. More luxury in market housing is not translated into affordable housing for ordinary residents. If council is prepared to grant significant increase in height, density, and land value, then the public should receive a stronger public benefit in return. That should mean a substantially larger proportion of permanently affordable housing, not simply the minimum amount necessary to make the project acceptable. Public policy should be guided by the needs of residents, not by what maximizes returns for developers. Vancouver's housing crisis is not primarily a shortage of investment opportunities. It is a shortage of homes that ordinary people can't afford. Council has an opportunity to send a clear message that future rezonings must deliver real affordability. Until this proposal contains a significantly greater commitment to permanently affordable housing, I personally don't believe it serves the public interest. I urge council to reject this application in its current form and require a proposal that puts affordability first. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello.

Hi, Kira. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver?

Yes, I am.

Okay, please go ahead.

Okay, thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I am calling in opposition of the proposed rezoning at 1745 West 8th. I'm not pretending to be an expert on policy, but when Council approves major increases in height and density, I believe that there should be a clear public benefit, especially when those approvals are being justified as part of