Hi.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, I'm here.

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.

Hello?

Hi. Hi, Alfina. Yes, can you hear me?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi, yeah, I'm here.

Yeah, I'm a resident of Vancouver. I live in Sunset.

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.

Yes. I live in the west end of Vancouver's downtown core.

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.

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.

Hi, yes.

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.

Hello.

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?

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.

Can you hear me?

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.

My name is Jocelyn. I am a member resident.

Do you need me to repeat what was said?

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.

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.

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.

I'm a resident of Vancouver.

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?

I am not a resident of Vancouver.

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.

I am a resident of Burnaby.

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.

No, I live in Surrey.

Go ahead.

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

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.

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.

I think my translator not add with me.

No, I live in Surrey.

And do you have a last name? I will speak in Punjabi because I have a translator, Guljar Garewa.

Yes, Guljar Garewa. She's on the line.

Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Karenjeet and I work in the hospital industry in Metro Vancouver. I don't live in Vancouver, I live in Surrey, but I support tourism. I don't want taxpayers' money to go to one or two developers. The taxpayers' money should go to the general public. There should be affordable cars for the general public. There should be free public parking for children. There should be a hospital. Everything. But this money is going into the hands of some rich people. The taxpayers' money should be spent on the locals. There should be a community centre, libraries, hospitals... ...where children can receive child care benefits. These things should be spent on the locals. The benefits of the hotels should be given to one or two people. The locals should not be benefited. Thanks for the time.

I live in Pit Meadows.

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.

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.

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.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I live in Burnaby, but work in Vancouver.

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.

I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I work in Vancouver.

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.

Good evening, counsel. My name is Angel.

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

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.

37, Nazca.

Naska spoke, but the translating part of her speech got cut off.

I was present. It got cut off.

Thank you very much. Good evening, council and acting chair. My name is Ji Chan. I'm the rezoning planner for this application.

The site is outlined in red, is a single parcel bound by West 8th Avenue, Pine Street, and West 7th, and a rear lane. It's currently developed as a three-story commercial office building. The surrounding area consists of a mix of low- to mid-rise commercial and mixed-use buildings, as well as rental and strata buildings. The future South Granville SkyTrain station is located 400 meters to the southeast at Broadway and Granville Street, just off the screen to the bottom right.

Under the Vancouver Official Development Plan, this site is currently designated as Mixed Use High Rise 1, which supports building heights up to 26 storeys.

An amendment to the ODP to change the designation to Mixed Use High Rise 2, which permits building heights greater than 26 storeys, is required to support this proposal.

The proposal is being considered under the Broadway plan. Redevelopment under the plan anticipates strata residential housing with a minimum of 20% of the floor area for social housing, an FSR of 7.5 and a height up to 26 stories. Provision of a privately owned public space was also anticipated by the plan for this site.

This application is for a mixed-use development with 31- and 29-story towers connected by podium. The recommended building height is 335 and 302 feet, respectively, for the two towers, with a density of 8.56 FSR. The application proposes 441 strata units, 98 in-kind social housing units, a 37-space in-kind childcare facility, commercial retail space along West 7th Avenue and Pine Street, and a 5,000-square-foot privately owned public space at the southeast corner. Please note there are no hotel units in this application. The relaxations of the plan's maximum height and FSR are supported here in order to help to deliver the social housing, childcare, and larger privately owned public space.

Under the Vancouver Charter, consultation opportunities must be provided for persons, organizations, and authorities affected by an ODP amendment. Council directed staff to consult with the Vancouver School Board, the Conseil Scola Francophone, and the Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Nation, and TTsleil-Waututh Nation. Following those consultations, the school board noted that there are some capacity shortages anticipated at the secondary catchment school of Kitsilano Secondary, but not at the primary school. VSB employs several strategies to mitigate enrollment pressures, including reducing out-of-catchment enrollment, relocating district choice programs, adjusting catchment boundaries, undertaking renovations, and deploying portables. No other comments were received from the other groups by the end of the consultation period.

During the public engagement period for this rezoning application, support was expressed for new housing, for the suitability of the location for additional density, and that it's well served by existing amenities and transit in the area. Concerns were related to the building height, shadowing and views, and that existing infrastructure could not support the additional density and traffic and safety issues. In response, a proposal meets the intent of the Broadway Plan and the increased height supports the delivery of the in-kind social housing, the child care facility, and the larger privately owned public space. The proposed towers do not shadow any public schools, parks, or village high streets, and the towers don't enter into any protected public views. On infrastructure, the Broadway plan contains a public benefit strategy outlining the public amenities and infrastructure sought over the 30-year life of the plan. And in terms of traffic and safety, this proposal is well-sighted in proximity to the future rapid transit station and along current bike routes to reduce personal vehicle use. New expanded sidewalks are also planned along all street frontages adjacent to this development.

The total anticipated public benefits from this project is approximately $70 million. This is comprised of approximately $57 million for the in-kind social housing and child care facilities, $12 million in DCLs, and $800,000 in public art. The other public benefit is a new 5,000 square foot privately owned public space.

In conclusion, the proposal meets the intent of the Broadway Plan, and staff support this application subject to the conditions contained in the report. Please note there is a yellow memo attached to this application. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer your questions. Thank you very much.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor and Council. My name is Dipan Tharavan. I'm Vice President at Amicon. As you might know, Amicon is a second-generation Vancouver-based real estate development and hospitality company, and I know many of you have been to places we've built, own, and operate across Vancouver. I have with me here tonight our applicant's team, including John Reed, development manager, as well as the team from CDA, our architect. Staff have done a great job of highlighting the project, but I just want to highlight some things that we are particularly proud of. When we acquired this site several years ago, we knew that as one of the largest sites in Broadway Plan, our proposal would have to be exceptional on delivering objectives laid out by city planners in the Broadway Plan. Now, we often hear the term highest and best use, a somewhat abstract concept that doesn't immediately connect to meaning, describe results so let me tell you why we think this proposal is in fact the highest and best used proposal for this site first of all outside of the benefits of market and commercial uses there are almost a hundred units of turnkey to the city non-market housing which could be homes for first responders healthcare workers teachers seniors and families It's one of the few, if not the only, projects in the Broadway corridor that delivers this kind of public benefit. Then there's a childcare facility for 37 children with the state-of-the-art indoor and outdoor spaces. Again, turnkey to the city. This benefit is not a requirement of the Broadway plan, but we believe that in a city where finding a licensed space for your child is akin to winning a lottery, this contribution is essential to supporting a vibrant and growing city. Add to that, there's a large outdoor publicly accessible green space with a plaza for people to gather and take in their neighborhood. Combined between the public green space and the secured outdoor child care playground, over 20% of the site's footprint is dedicated to just the outdoor components of public amenities. All in, as you've seen, staff value these contributions to be more than $70 million. And last but certainly not least, unlike many proposals you've seen under the Broadway Plan that seek to renew aging housing stock, this proposal does not impact any, any at all, existing tenants, meaning no displacement and the challenges that are presented by that to residents. All of this just steps away from transit, community centers, schools, libraries, Seawall, Granville Island. And so with this proposal, we believe you have an opportunity to take a meaningful step in building a greater city. I think you'll agree with me that placemaking is ultimately about people. And long after this council is gone and the project is built, young families will move into this neighborhood. Children will make memories, grow up, fall in love, and start their own families and age in dignity in a home you have a chance to approve today. And while they may not know the people who made it possible, they will know the great places that gave them best lives. We think this project does just that. Thank you very much, and we look forward to answering any questions you have.

Yes, thank you very much for the question. It is essentially a trade-off, and staff judged that it was a fair trade-off.

AT THIS POINT WE DO HAVE SORT OF AN OPEN DESIGN BUT IT WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHER AT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAGE. THE APPLIANT COULD SPEAK TO THAT IF THEY WANTED TO.

NEW SPEAKER I THINK WE WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ON DESIGN COMPONENTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BUT I ASSUME IT'S PREDOMINANTLY GREEN SPACE. Predominantly green space. Okay.

Thank you. I just had a question about the childcare facility. Is that a private childcare facility? If so, is it guaranteed within the...

Thank you for the question. I'm not certain that we could tease out it was just one of those elements that required it. It was the combination of the three, definitely. And given the current market conditions that the applicant came to us and said, you know, to deliver these public benefits, we need just a little bit more height and density.

It is... Not unusual.

Sorry. I will turn that over to my colleague, John Grotenberg.

John Grottenberg, Broadway Plan team. If I can just clarify, you asked, is this an unusual type of project?

It is, yes. There are very few, if any, projects like this. Okay.

That's correct, yes.

It is a possible trade-off. One of the community amenities that we couldn't flex on is the childcare. We have a minimum 37 space size, and they needed to meet that. Certainly, there could be less social housing, but I think that's not what staff were seeking either.

That is a fair characterization of the proposal in front of us.

Hello.

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.

Yes, hello.

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.

Hi, can you hear me?

I'm a resident of Coquitlam.

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.

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.

Hello?

Hello? Yeah. Can you hear me now?

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.

Hello. Can you hear me?

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.

Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening.

Can you hear me?

Oh, I'm living in Bonaventure.

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.

Can you hear me?

No, I'm a resident of Burnaby.

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.

Hi, yeah, I'm here.

Yes, I'm a resident of Vancouver.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hello.

Yes, I am.

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