This is a machine-generated transcript. It was auto-transcribed from the council video, so names and wording contain errors (e.g. spelling of speakers' names) and should be checked against the official video before being quoted. The City's minutes are authoritative for who spoke. The timestamp links (▶) jump to roughly the right spot in the official video and may be off by a few seconds.
[00:00:31] ▶Speaker 0: Hi, counselor Claassen. Can you hear us in the chamber?
[00:01:56] ▶Speaker 1: Hi, counselor Klassen. It's Kevin here in the chamber. Can you hear me okay?
[00:02:31] ▶Hi, counselor Klassen. It's Kevin in the chamber. Are you okay able to hear me okay?
[00:02:38] ▶And are you able to turn on your video?
[00:03:17] ▶Hi, counselor Joe. It's Kevin in the chamber. Can you hear me okay?
[00:03:26] ▶You can't hear me.
[00:03:47] ▶Speaker 2: Hey, Kevin. It's Councilor Joe. Can you hear me?
[00:03:51] ▶Speaker 1: I can hear you. Can you hear me alright?
[00:03:55] ▶I can't hear you. You can hear me.
[00:04:08] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Good evening, everybody.
[00:04:10] ▶I will now call the public hearing of Tuesday, 06/02/2026
[00:04:16] ▶to order, and we'll note that this meeting is being held in person by electronic means.
[00:04:18] ▶Council members and the public may participate by either method.
[00:04:22] ▶Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum and
[00:04:29] ▶sorry. We're just in the controls, and we are barely at quorum. So I'm gonna just remind the counselors online that would be very helpful.
[00:04:37] ▶Please note the meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and on YouTube. Meeting progress will be updated on x and on threads of Van City
[00:04:44] ▶Clerk. Though due to new posting limits,
[00:04:46] ▶please note that updates will only cover essential items such as vote results.
[00:04:50] ▶All speakers are encouraged to monitor the livestream to track the meeting progress, but please note the livestream is slightly delayed, So you can call in or arrive soon after receiving your email
[00:05:00] ▶reminder,
[00:05:01] ▶so that you are ready when it is your your name is called and it's your turn to speak.
[00:05:06] ▶In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, please note there are two exits located beyond the glass doors into the left in chambers.
[00:05:12] ▶If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the chamber.
[00:05:17] ▶Do not use the elevator. Use the stairs instead. And if you require mobility assistance, please remain where you are, and security staff will guide you to a safe location.
[00:05:25] ▶A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside the council chamber.
[00:05:30] ▶I wanna acknowledge that we are on the unceded homelands of Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil Waututh people. We thank them as always for having care for this land and look forward to continuing to work in partnership with them as we build our great city. I also wanna take a moment to recognize the tremendous contributions of our city of Vancouver team who work hard every day to help make our city an incredible place to live, work, and play.
[00:05:51] ▶Speaker 1: With that said, Clark, can we have the roll call, please? Yes. Mayor Sim has a leave of absence for civic business from 5PM onwards. Deputy mayor Kirby Young is in the chair.
[00:05:59] ▶Councilor Domino has a leave of absence for civic business from 5PM onwards. Councilor Bly has a leave of absence for civic business from 5PM onwards.
[00:06:08] ▶Councilor Frey has a leave of absence for civic business from 6PM onwards. Councilor Montague?
[00:06:13] ▶Councilor Klassen?
[00:06:16] ▶Speaker 6: Present.
[00:06:17] ▶Speaker 1: Councilor Meissner?
[00:06:18] ▶Councilor Jo?
[00:06:20] ▶Present. Councilor Orr? Councilor Maloney?
[00:06:24] ▶Speaker 3: You have quorum, deputy mayor. Thank you very much. So before we begin, we begin a few further announcements. Please note the public may speak in person or by phone or may submit written comments to the mayor and council.
[00:06:36] ▶Speakers may only speak once. We'll have up to five minutes to comment specifically on the merits of the application,
[00:06:41] ▶and please state whether you're in support or opposition of the application and if you are a Vancouver resident.
[00:06:47] ▶Those who are representing four or more individuals or groups, including yourselves, may speak for up to eight minutes.
[00:06:53] ▶However, please know that each person being represented must confirm their name and presence either in person or by phone and cannot speak separately.
[00:07:01] ▶Written comments can be submitted to the public hearing feedback form on the city's website.
[00:07:06] ▶If you did preregister the presentation, you can say next to have the clerk help and advance your slides.
[00:07:12] ▶And a reminder to everybody at public hearings that council does act as a quasi judicial body and must focus solely on the merits
[00:07:19] ▶of the rezoning or the heritage application.
[00:07:22] ▶Council members may ask clarifying questions of staff or speakers,
[00:07:25] ▶including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has closed.
[00:07:30] ▶After hearing from speakers,
[00:07:32] ▶council may
[00:07:33] ▶either approve the application in principle, approve the application in principle with amendments, refuse the application,
[00:07:39] ▶or four, refer the application to staff for further consideration.
[00:07:43] ▶And finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening,
[00:07:46] ▶and I will note for council that we have very, very limited reserve dates, the public hearing will recess and reconvene on June 10 at 3PM, which will make it not available for completing,
[00:07:57] ▶other council business,
[00:07:59] ▶that may be left over this week.
[00:08:02] ▶Okay. So item number one is the 2026
[00:08:05] ▶financing growth update, bill 16 compliance update to density bonus provisions and inclusionary
[00:08:10] ▶zoning.
[00:08:11] ▶Before we begin this agenda item, if anybody believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it.
[00:08:17] ▶Does anyone have a conflict?
[00:08:20] ▶K. Seeing none, we'll now ask the clerk to read the application and summary of correspondence received, please.
[00:08:26] ▶Speaker 0: This is an application by the general plan
[00:08:28] ▶manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability
[00:08:31] ▶to amend the zoning and development by law to complaint comply with provincial requirements to update the city's bonus density provisions before 06/30/2026.
[00:08:41] ▶Amendments include removing density bonus provisions,
[00:08:44] ▶removing heritage amenity share provisions, and adding inclusionary zoning provisions
[00:08:51] ▶to the following districts. R one one, r three, r four, r five, r t three, r t five, r t 7, r t 9, r T 11,
[00:09:00] ▶r m one, r m three a, r m four, r m five, r m five a, r m 5 b, r M 5 c, and r M 5 D,
[00:09:10] ▶r M 7 and r M 7 A, r M 8 and r M 8 A, R M 9 and r m 9 b,
[00:09:17] ▶RM 10, RM 11, RM 12, FSD,
[00:09:21] ▶c three a, c five, c five a, and c six,
[00:09:25] ▶FC two, I one, I one a,
[00:09:28] ▶I one b, I two, I three, I c two, I c three, MC one, and MC two.
[00:09:35] ▶To amend the regulations for lands governed by the downtown official development plan to comply with provincial requirements to update the city's bonus density provisions
[00:09:44] ▶before 06/30/2026.
[00:09:46] ▶Amendments include removing density bonus provisions, removing
[00:09:50] ▶heritage amendee share provisions, and adding inclusionary zoning provisions.
[00:09:54] ▶In addition, amendments to density calculations are proposed to encourage new hotels to include event and guest amenity spaces.
[00:10:02] ▶The full following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing.
[00:10:06] ▶35 pieces of correspondence and support, two pieces of correspondence and opposition.
[00:10:11] ▶This represents all
[00:10:13] ▶correspondence received up to 5PM today.
[00:10:15] ▶Correspondence is presented as submitted and may include multiple or duplicate entries.
[00:10:23] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thank you very much. I will now make my first call for speakers. Should you wish to speak to council about this item, the number to call toll free is +1 (833)
[00:10:32] ▶353-8610
[00:10:34] ▶followed by participant code 1061445Pound.
[00:10:38] ▶Before close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on x and will be displayed during the recess.
[00:10:43] ▶There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We now have staff from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application.
[00:10:53] ▶Hello.
[00:11:01] ▶Speaker 8: K.
[00:11:02] ▶Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Nate Buneo, planner with the finance and growth team in planning, design, and sustainability.
[00:11:09] ▶We're here to present the first of two reports for the 2026 finance growth update, which will update the city's development contribution tools. This report for your consideration is updates to the density bonus and inclusionary zoning tools.
[00:11:24] ▶The report's recommendations take into account the wider financing growth update to all development contribution tools as well as responding to recent provincial legislative requirements to amend existing density bonus zoning by 06/30/2026.
[00:11:37] ▶There are three key changes included in this report,
[00:11:40] ▶removing all cash only density bonus contributions.
[00:11:44] ▶In select cases, introduce an inclusionary zoning requirement for affordable housing. And finally, for the existing in kind affordable housing bonuses,
[00:11:51] ▶confirm these as inclusionary zoning requirements and report back with an update on the city's inclusionary zoning framework.
[00:12:00] ▶As staff undertake the 2026 finance growth update, there are a number of guiding principles informing the recommendations.
[00:12:06] ▶Firstly, staff aim to strike a balance between continuing to support a number of development viability initiatives that have been approved recently and continue to support the delivery of new housing and job space, while at the same time ensuring the city is able to invest in infrastructure and amenities needed to support new development.
[00:12:24] ▶Secondly, the city's financing growth framework should be simplified, become more predictable and transparent on how charges are set and how revenues are spent.
[00:12:32] ▶Lastly, impacts to in stream projects should be minimized as much as possible to avoid any increasing costs and ensure the pipeline of development continues to advance.
[00:12:42] ▶The financing growth update is a comprehensive update of all of the city's development contribution tools and is being undertaken in coordination with the capital plan.
[00:12:50] ▶And it provides a recalibrated framework that takes into account recent legislative changes, current market conditions, and investment needs. The five tools that are the focus of the finance growth update are shown in the table on this slide. Tonight's report focuses on inclusionary zoning and density bonus shown in green.
[00:13:07] ▶Inclusionary zoning is a new tool introduced by the province that allows cities to require a portion of affordable housing to be included in the development, including a portion or a percentage of social housing or a percentage of below market rents.
[00:13:20] ▶Density bonus zoning allows additional development opportunities
[00:13:23] ▶in exchange for providing affordable housing or a specified amenity.
[00:13:27] ▶Both inclusionary zoning and density bonus
[00:13:29] ▶are included within a zoning district.
[00:13:32] ▶Staff are bringing updates to density bonus zoning and inclusionary zoning in an early report as the province is requiring cities to amend existing density bonus zoning by June 30.
[00:13:42] ▶Staff will be bringing another report on July 28 in tandem with the four year capital plan, which will update the remaining tools.
[00:13:49] ▶These include updating development cost levies and introducing amenity cost charges or ACCs.
[00:13:55] ▶ACCs will operate very similarly to DCLs with a key difference in what types of assets it's eligible to fund. The community made a contribution policy that applies to rezonings will also be updated as part of the July 28 report.
[00:14:10] ▶As part of bill 16 approved by the province in 2024, there are key changes to how cities can use density bonus zoning.
[00:14:17] ▶Firstly, density bonus contributions must be based on an in kind offering, or in other words, an amenity or affordable housing provided on-site.
[00:14:25] ▶Instead of delivering an in kind offering, cities can include a cash in lieu option.
[00:14:30] ▶However, cities can no longer use density bonusing as cash only charges.
[00:14:36] ▶Secondly, density bonus zoning cannot be used within the minimum transit oriented area densities, which are the first three to five FSR depending how close you are to a transit station.
[00:14:47] ▶Bill 16 also introduced a new tool called inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is exclusively an affordable housing tool.
[00:14:54] ▶Cities can require a portion of affordable housing to be built as part of a development. Cities can choose the type of affordable
[00:15:01] ▶affordable housing,
[00:15:02] ▶including a proportion of social housing, below market rental units, or affordable home ownership.
[00:15:07] ▶Similar to density bonusing, inclusionary zoning must be based on an in kind offering,
[00:15:12] ▶but can also include a cash in lieu option. A key difference between inclusionary zoning and density bonusing is that inclusionary zoning can be used within the minimum transit oriented area densities, making it a more permissible tool.
[00:15:25] ▶Bill 16 requires that cities amend their existing density bonus zoning tools to align with the new legislative requirements by 06/30/2026,
[00:15:33] ▶which again is the purpose of this report.
[00:15:36] ▶As staff considered updates to density bonus contributions and inclusionary zoning, there are a number of factors that were considered.
[00:15:43] ▶Challenging market conditions, including high costs and low demand, are impacting development viability across the city, and the city continues to explore ways to continue to support development viability.
[00:15:54] ▶The province has amended and introduced a number of development contribution tools, which will change Vancouver's financing growth framework.
[00:16:01] ▶There's a focus on investments in core infrastructure and facilities seeking to advance the council directions on the upcoming capital plan.
[00:16:07] ▶And finally, the financial feasibility analysis, which informs the recommendations found
[00:16:12] ▶that most development could not support the existing density bonus contribution, particularly when considering the proposed amenity cost charge that would come into effect later this fall if approved.
[00:16:22] ▶In three zones, it was found that development could support a new inclusionary zoning requirement. However, it's important it's important to note that most of these new inclusionary zoning requirements result in lower contributions
[00:16:33] ▶compared to the current density bonus contribution, which, again, reflects current market conditions.
[00:16:40] ▶Okay. So the first key change in this report features the city proposing to remove all cash only density bonus contributions.
[00:16:46] ▶Again, as per the new legislation, the city cannot use cash only density bonus contributions.
[00:16:51] ▶Most of the city's existing density bonus contributions
[00:16:55] ▶are nominal rates applied to lower density forms, such as multiplex and townhouse forms of development, making it very difficult to secure any type of in kind offering.
[00:17:05] ▶The testing shows most zones can't support additional contribution beyond the proposed DCL and ACC,
[00:17:10] ▶and therefore, the density bonus will be removed while still allowing additional development opportunities.
[00:17:16] ▶Heritage amenity shares, which are offered in select areas, is a form of cash only density bonusing, which is no longer allowed and, therefore, recommended to be removed. However, it's important to note that the other heritage funding tools and incentives remain unaffected.
[00:17:32] ▶The second key change is to transition the previous density bonus contribution to an inclusionary zoning requirement in three zones.
[00:17:39] ▶Inclusionary zoning was seen as the ideal tool for these areas as the city could secure a portion of the floor area as social housing.
[00:17:46] ▶Additionally, these zones overlap with transit oriented areas, which restrict restricts the use of density bonusing,
[00:17:52] ▶but allows inclusionary zoning.
[00:17:54] ▶The in kind social housing requirements range from 5% of the floor area in multiplex developments,
[00:17:59] ▶8% in townhouse developments, and 10% in the FC 2 E zone, which is a, block in False Creek Flats area.
[00:18:08] ▶A cash in lieu option is being provided in all three of these zones, which is based on the capital cost of providing the social housing component.
[00:18:16] ▶When this capital cost is applied to the total FSR, it works out to $27.50
[00:18:20] ▶per square foot for multiplex developments,
[00:18:23] ▶$44 a square foot for townhouse developments, and $60 a square foot for the FC2e
[00:18:28] ▶zone.
[00:18:29] ▶We do expect most applicants,
[00:18:32] ▶while having the option of the in kind, will pursue the cash contribution.
[00:18:36] ▶Important to note that for multiplex developments, the inclusionary zoning requirement only applies to large lots, so those above 6,700
[00:18:43] ▶square feet on the West Side Of Vancouver.
[00:18:46] ▶By limiting this to large West Side lots, 90% of multiplex lots will not be subject to the inclusionary zoning requirement.
[00:18:53] ▶Similarly, for townhouse developments in the RM 8 A zone, the inclusionary requirement will only apply to large lots on the West Side Of Vancouver, and it only applies to single lot developments.
[00:19:04] ▶If there's assembly of two or more lots, the inclusion requirement does not apply as the testing revealed that with the additional land acquisition costs involved, the an inclusionary requirement is not supportable.
[00:19:14] ▶So this would result in 75%
[00:19:16] ▶of townhouse lots not subject to inclusionary zoning.
[00:19:19] ▶In most cases, the new inclusionary zoning requirement that is applicable is less than the existing density bonus contribution.
[00:19:27] ▶Finally, the last key change is to transition existing in kind housing density bonuses to the new inclusionary zoning tool to align with legislation.
[00:19:35] ▶A number of these existing in kind housing density bonuses can be found in the West End and downtown areas, and many are geared towards nonprofit led developments.
[00:19:43] ▶The first phase is to comply with the provincial legislation to remove the density bonus construct and replace with an inclusionary zoning requirement.
[00:19:50] ▶Second phase will explore changes to support development viability as a part of a wider inclusionary zoning framework review with a report back in fall twenty twenty seven.
[00:20:01] ▶In regards to in stream rate protection, the changes are envisioned to be effective 06/30/2026,
[00:20:06] ▶to align with provincial legislation.
[00:20:09] ▶In stream applications that get their building permit issued after June 30 will no longer be subject to the existing density bonus contribution
[00:20:16] ▶and will be protected against the new inclusionary zoning requirements.
[00:20:19] ▶Only new applications submitted after 06/30/2026
[00:20:22] ▶will be subject to the new inclusionary zoning requirement if it meets the applicable criteria.
[00:20:27] ▶Staff provided notification of these changes through industry stakeholder groups, website updates, as well as notifying all in stream development permit and building permit applicants that the that are currently subject to the existing bonus contribution.
[00:20:43] ▶So in summary, this is the first of two financing growth update reports to update density bonus contributions
[00:20:48] ▶and inclusionary zoning to align with the provincial legislative requirements.
[00:20:51] ▶The key changes include removing all cash only density bonus contributions,
[00:20:56] ▶introducing an inclusionary zoning requirement in three zones, and transition
[00:21:01] ▶in kind housing bonuses to the new inclusionary zoning tool. With our future report back on the city's inclusionary zoning,
[00:21:08] ▶framework.
[00:21:09] ▶So you'll note that these changes are meant to meet the June 30 deadline, and, therefore, it is on the June 3,
[00:21:16] ▶standing committee agenda tomorrow,
[00:21:18] ▶if approved
[00:21:20] ▶if approved here in tonight in a public hearing. In whole, the city is significantly reducing density bonus charges across the city, which will pave the way, for other tools to be established such as the ACC,
[00:21:31] ▶while also reducing overall development contributions for most development.
[00:21:35] ▶Further updates to the DCL, ACC, and CAC tools will be brought forward for council consideration on July 28.
[00:21:43] ▶So before I wrap up the presentation, there are a couple minor errors within the body of the council report that I'd like to bring your attention to.
[00:21:50] ▶Table one on page seven should also include the I one and I c two density bonus zones found in the Broadway plan found in the employment zones, which is also recommended to be removed.
[00:22:00] ▶Also on page 11, when referring to the rep recommendation to convert the existing
[00:22:04] ▶15% density increase to a 20% density exclusion for hotels,
[00:22:09] ▶hotel amenity space in the downtown district, it should refer to recommendation b sub III
[00:22:15] ▶instead of recommendation c sub II.
[00:22:17] ▶So that concludes the presentation. Staff are available to answer any questions.
[00:22:23] ▶Speaker 3: Thank thank you very much.
[00:22:26] ▶Appreciate that from staff. And also noting that the applicant for this item is the GM of planning, urban design, and sustainability. So does the applicant have any further comments? No. No. At this time? Okay.
[00:22:37] ▶Okay. Council, are there any questions from council to staff or the applicant?
[00:22:41] ▶Yes, councilor. Please go ahead.
[00:22:43] ▶Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation.
[00:22:46] ▶Already answered a lot of my questions in terms of mainly, this is just to sort of, align with the province. Right? So,
[00:22:55] ▶just notice noting that there is a lot of, interest in this,
[00:22:59] ▶item today. But,
[00:23:02] ▶basically, this is this will mean that we will be,
[00:23:05] ▶sort of replacing the, voluntary
[00:23:08] ▶negotiation process to more of a mandated
[00:23:11] ▶upfront
[00:23:12] ▶requirement for developers to include affordable housing in new market developments. Is that accurate?
[00:23:18] ▶Speaker 8: In in this report, it's it's more talking about switching the density bonus tool to the inclusionary zoning tool. But in the July twenty four twenty eighth report, we'll all we'll also amend the CEC policy,
[00:23:29] ▶Speaker 9: as well. Thanks. And I think just in general, I mean, people would wanna know if this this will,
[00:23:34] ▶increase the amount of below market housing
[00:23:37] ▶generally.
[00:23:38] ▶Yeah. There are new three new inclusionary zones, both in kind and, cash contributions that would be dedicated to affordable housing. And so yeah. So that was my next question. For the cash in lieu option, that is that is strictly for affordable housing. So this is this is a good thing.
[00:23:55] ▶For
[00:23:56] ▶for the deadline,
[00:23:57] ▶you know, I I noticed there's a hard deadline. How much of what's in this packet package is sort of strictly required by the province, and how much sort of is is is the city adding kind of on its own initiative?
[00:24:09] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. I'd say there's kinda two key drivers. One is the provincial requirements, which do restrict the use of density bonus zoning for cities going forward, but it is wrapped up. I know it's separated into two reports, but the wider financing growth, framework, we did consider changes to all five of those tools that were shown on the slide before. So it does take take into account the changes across all the tools, together.
[00:24:30] ▶Speaker 9: Okay. And so for for density bonuses and heritage amenity shares, what just can you remind for people what community benefits do they currently generate,
[00:24:41] ▶and and what,
[00:24:42] ▶what
[00:24:44] ▶how much will inclusionary zoning sort of replace them at an at an equivalent kind of value
[00:24:49] ▶or more or greater value?
[00:24:51] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. So density bonusing can be used for a wide variety of things. It can be used for a wide range of amenities, but also, affordable housing.
[00:24:59] ▶Heritage amenities shares is a cash contribution specifically for Heritage.
[00:25:04] ▶But going forward, these will be replaced by the amenity cost charge, tool going forward
[00:25:09] ▶as well,
[00:25:10] ▶as inclusionary zoning replacing density bonusing,
[00:25:13] ▶together.
[00:25:14] ▶So,
[00:25:16] ▶yeah, in terms of the the value, I think it's
[00:25:19] ▶we expect the density bonus in revenue to be fully replaced by the ACCs and inclusionary zoning going forward. Okay.
[00:25:27] ▶Speaker 9: And then,
[00:25:29] ▶I guess, sort of what percentage of units,
[00:25:33] ▶you know, you you said there's there's an applicable sort of across the city. You know, there's there's a,
[00:25:38] ▶you know, not not every sort of multiplex
[00:25:41] ▶or or or townhome will have to do this. But,
[00:25:45] ▶you know, what
[00:25:47] ▶what are we sort of expecting the uptake to be in terms you said more people will, choose the cash in lieu, but I'm just thinking in terms of roughly of the uptake of of how many sort of affordable units we'll get out of this.
[00:26:00] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. In terms of these specific changes of the three inclusionary zones, we do expect most applicants will choose the cash,
[00:26:07] ▶contribution.
[00:26:09] ▶The the range of development,
[00:26:11] ▶or the revenue coming from that will vary depending year by year on on applicant volumes.
[00:26:16] ▶Yeah. I I don't think we would expect a lot of in kind, social housing,
[00:26:21] ▶Speaker 9: for the multiplex. And then, yeah, my last question, and I I
[00:26:26] ▶assume maybe some of the speakers might be here for this, but the the hotel amenity bonus amendment adds a a 20% floor area exclusion for hotel amenity spaces in the downtown.
[00:26:37] ▶Is this part of bill 16? Can you can you explain how this sort of this kinda fits into this? This this seems kind of, like,
[00:26:46] ▶not
[00:26:46] ▶part of bill 16. It seems like an extra to me. Yeah. I'll I'll let, Sean Martinez answer that question.
[00:26:52] ▶Speaker 10: Thank you, councilor Sean Martinez in the employment lands team. It is not directly required by bill 16. We found that it was,
[00:27:00] ▶well aligned with regards to this report to have it done,
[00:27:04] ▶as the ODP the downtown ODP was going to be amended.
[00:27:08] ▶It was roughly aligned.
[00:27:10] ▶The,
[00:27:11] ▶the current there was an existing 15%,
[00:27:15] ▶extra density already provided for hotels
[00:27:18] ▶in that regard. So it made sense for us to to,
[00:27:22] ▶include it in this report to,
[00:27:24] ▶add that for incentivizing,
[00:27:26] ▶Speaker 9: event spaces in the downtown core. K. Thanks. That's pretty much my time. So
[00:27:32] ▶Speaker 3: thanks very much. Councilor Maloney.
[00:27:35] ▶Speaker 11: Can you just explain to me,
[00:27:38] ▶what's the difference between the cash only charge and the cash in lieu option, and and why is the provincial legislation
[00:27:48] ▶requiring this change? Like, what what public benefit does it bring?
[00:27:52] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. I don't know if I can
[00:27:54] ▶fully speak for the province, but I think the cash only contribution is referring to the cash only density bonus,
[00:28:01] ▶tool. So with the provincial changes, that is now required to have an in kind offering attached to any density bonus contribution. Cities can have a cash in lieu in in lieu of that in kind, but it must be centered around an in kind offering.
[00:28:15] ▶The inclusionary zoning is is similar. It has to have an in kind affordable housing,
[00:28:20] ▶opportunity,
[00:28:22] ▶and it could have a cash in lieu,
[00:28:24] ▶option attached to it. The the inclusionary zoning cash in lieu
[00:28:28] ▶contribution or inclusionary zoning in general is a bit more,
[00:28:32] ▶amenable to this update because you can,
[00:28:35] ▶tailor the amount affordable housing,
[00:28:38] ▶required,
[00:28:39] ▶when you think about an amenity in kind amenities such as childcare. You can't really scale a childcare as much as you can a percentage of affordable,
[00:28:47] ▶floor space. So that's kinda the the the key differences there. Oh, it kind of just gives us extra options. Correct. Yeah.
[00:28:55] ▶Speaker 11: I think a lot of the, public interest in this does stem from,
[00:29:00] ▶counselor Orr mentioned the,
[00:29:03] ▶inclusion of the,
[00:29:05] ▶hotel amenity bonus
[00:29:08] ▶provision. So I'm just gonna ask, some questions about that,
[00:29:12] ▶in anticipation
[00:29:13] ▶of what public speakers are gonna wanna talk about.
[00:29:18] ▶So
[00:29:20] ▶the
[00:29:21] ▶and this is a hotel,
[00:29:24] ▶question
[00:29:25] ▶in case you just wanna pop up.
[00:29:28] ▶So
[00:29:29] ▶I guess it's been put to me that,
[00:29:33] ▶there there are objections
[00:29:34] ▶that the,
[00:29:36] ▶it's an unrelated incentive to downtown hotel
[00:29:40] ▶developers that allows them
[00:29:42] ▶to increase the density bonus
[00:29:44] ▶for amenities commercial amenities spaces such as pools, gyms, business centers. Can you,
[00:29:50] ▶talk about why this
[00:29:52] ▶is,
[00:29:54] ▶felt to be required?
[00:29:56] ▶Speaker 10: So,
[00:29:57] ▶currently, there is an existing 15%
[00:30:00] ▶Yep. Already extra density that is provided.
[00:30:04] ▶We are swapping
[00:30:05] ▶that into a,
[00:30:08] ▶into an exclusion,
[00:30:09] ▶which is more aligned with the way that we would want to incentivize
[00:30:13] ▶these types of spaces at the downtown.
[00:30:16] ▶These
[00:30:16] ▶these, this exclusion is only limited to a very small portion of the core of downtown.
[00:30:23] ▶As it says in the recommendations, it only applies to sub area a, b, c one, c three, f o,
[00:30:30] ▶and certain portions of g.
[00:30:33] ▶These are the exact same areas where the extra density was applied previously.
[00:30:38] ▶So this is essentially a direct transfer of that, and the only increase is 5%.
[00:30:44] ▶So for 15 to 20%.
[00:30:46] ▶And this is to,
[00:30:48] ▶essentially,
[00:30:48] ▶with our engagement,
[00:30:50] ▶in the hotel,
[00:30:52] ▶development task force as well as the industry.
[00:30:54] ▶It's been clear to us that the extra the extra incentive was required in order to provide more of these types of event spaces that the city is is needing in order to be able to be to be competitive within the event
[00:31:07] ▶market, which we compete with other major cities on. So
[00:31:11] ▶Speaker 11: what you're saying is that it changes the form of the incentive
[00:31:15] ▶and only adds 5% to the incentive?
[00:31:18] ▶Speaker 10: Correct. And it also better aligns it with,
[00:31:21] ▶other the other incentives that we have, currently as in the downtown ODP.
[00:31:26] ▶Speaker 11: And so it it's not about whether we need more hotel rooms as such, but rather the though these amenity spaces,
[00:31:34] ▶these function spaces. Correct.
[00:31:36] ▶Speaker 10: It is a this is a direct incentive for the event spaces, not for hotel viability.
[00:31:41] ▶Speaker 11: Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you.
[00:31:47] ▶Speaker 3: Thanks, councilor Maloney. Seeing no other councilors on the queue for questions, I will now make my second call for speakers.
[00:31:53] ▶If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call. The number again is +1 (833)
[00:31:58] ▶353-8610
[00:31:59] ▶followed by the participant code 1061445
[00:32:03] ▶before close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. We will now proceed to hear from the public. Any speakers that are in the council chambers can now come forward to the podium,
[00:32:14] ▶when it is your turn,
[00:32:15] ▶noting the podium height can be adjusted using the controls on the right hand side. And if you are phoning in, those speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to make comments and should limit your comments, please, to the merits of the report being considered.
[00:32:30] ▶Our first registered speaker this evening is speaker number one, Michelle Travis.
[00:32:38] ▶Good evening. Please go ahead when you're ready. Hi. Good evening, mayor and council.
[00:32:42] ▶Speaker 13: My name is Michelle Travis, and I'm a resident of Vancouver and a representative of Unite Here Local forty. 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.
[00:32:57] ▶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
[00:33:06] ▶ODP amendment is quite different.
[00:33:08] ▶They created a significant new incentive for hotel development that is neither required by provincial legislation
[00:33:14] ▶nor supported by any evidence in the report.
[00:33:16] ▶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 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.
[00:33:40] ▶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 fail because of current floor area limits, and it doesn't explain why a 20% exclusion is the appropriate solution.
[00:33:56] ▶Instead, council is being asked to accept accept the assumption that more hotel development incentives will produce better outcomes.
[00:34:03] ▶There's no meaningful analysis demonstrating that the incentive is necessary.
[00:34:07] ▶Staff rely on financial feasibility analysis when discussing other development regulations and contribution
[00:34:12] ▶programs.
[00:34:13] ▶Economic testing is repeatedly cited as a basis for major policies policy decisions.
[00:34:19] ▶Yet there's no comparable analysis presented for this hotel incentive proposal.
[00:34:23] ▶Council is not told of financial value of the exclusion,
[00:34:27] ▶or how many projects are expected to benefit
[00:34:29] ▶or whether the projects, requiring require the incentive in order to proceed.
[00:34:34] ▶Those are important questions.
[00:34:36] ▶Moving from a 15% exclusion to a 20%
[00:34:39] ▶floor, area exclusion is not minor. In the downtown core, additional floor area has substantial value.
[00:34:46] ▶Before granting the value, council should understand the cost and the expected return.
[00:34:51] ▶Furthermore, the claimed public benefits are largely speculative. The report refers to economic development opportunities, but it does not quantify them.
[00:34:59] ▶The risks, this risk becoming a loophole that allows substantially larger hotel developments while reducing the value captured for the public.
[00:35:07] ▶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.
[00:35:15] ▶That means hotel developers will be allowed to build larger without a comparable return in public benefits.
[00:35:20] ▶Perhaps most concerning is the process itself.
[00:35:23] ▶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.
[00:35:32] ▶Yet it's been folded into a large, highly technical compliance package dealing with provincial legislative changes to housing bylaws.
[00:35:39] ▶A major policy change that provides new incentive to hotel developers
[00:35:43] ▶deserves its own public discussion, its own economic analysis,
[00:35:47] ▶and its own transparent evaluation of costs and benefits.
[00:35:51] ▶For all these reasons, I I urge councils to defer or remove the proposed hotel amenity exclusion.
[00:35:56] ▶It requires staff to return with a separate report that clearly demonstrates the need for the incentive,
[00:36:01] ▶the value it grants, the public benefits expected in return, and the safeguards necessary to protect the public interest.
[00:36:07] ▶Thanks.
[00:36:10] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker number two is Stanley Li.
[00:36:14] ▶My phone.
[00:36:15] ▶Speaker 14: Good evening. Can you guys hear me? Yes. We can. Please go ahead.
[00:36:20] ▶Speaker 4: Thank you.
[00:36:23] ▶Speaker 14: Mayor and council, well, whoever's in the chamber and online anyway,
[00:36:28] ▶I'm actually I'm actually surprised that there is a public hearing even especially given the old,
[00:36:36] ▶the ODP already. Although, I suppose the applicant,
[00:36:39] ▶because of the because of how the financial situation's unfolding, I guess they're not making enough money for the
[00:36:47] ▶existing zoning to proceed. Therefore, they they need to ask for
[00:36:51] ▶more bonuses.
[00:36:53] ▶But
[00:36:54] ▶I think I really like the previous speakers.
[00:36:58] ▶I'll
[00:36:59] ▶I I really like how the previous speakers,
[00:37:03] ▶articulation
[00:37:04] ▶of a lot of the troubles that a lot of the concerns that I probably won't bother repeating.
[00:37:10] ▶But
[00:37:10] ▶it's worth to it's worth mentioning that
[00:37:14] ▶the provincial legislation
[00:37:16] ▶isn't asking for
[00:37:18] ▶whatever
[00:37:19] ▶whatever's being discussed here. I think there's a lot more bonuses
[00:37:24] ▶on the table
[00:37:25] ▶without a without a fair
[00:37:27] ▶assessment
[00:37:28] ▶of or without a fair balanced assessment
[00:37:32] ▶of the
[00:37:33] ▶cost and and benefits to all parties versus
[00:37:37] ▶certain parties.
[00:37:39] ▶So
[00:37:40] ▶I am concerned about
[00:37:43] ▶the
[00:37:46] ▶unintended or the intended consequences
[00:37:48] ▶of the
[00:37:49] ▶of of the
[00:37:51] ▶Speaker 4: of the of the follow on effects
[00:37:54] ▶Speaker 14: of the of the of further
[00:37:56] ▶reckless
[00:37:57] ▶blanket
[00:37:58] ▶of zoning
[00:38:00] ▶way more than necessary.
[00:38:02] ▶And I suppose you guys are working hard to get as many of these through as possible before
[00:38:08] ▶most of you are getting fired in the next election.
[00:38:12] ▶And
[00:38:12] ▶Speaker 3: Stanley,
[00:38:13] ▶can I And can I ask you to please focus your comments on the specifics of the application and not political commentary?
[00:38:20] ▶Speaker 14: I I'm almost done anyway. So but but I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm basically shocked that you guys are having
[00:38:27] ▶public still having public hearings even though you're trying to cancel most public hearings. But have a nice day, and have a nice evening.
[00:38:35] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
[00:38:37] ▶Okay. Speaker number three is Steve
[00:38:39] ▶Cashmore.
[00:38:41] ▶Speaker 15: Yeah. I'm here. Hi, Steve. Go ahead, please. Hi. Good evening, Mayor Tom. So my name is Steve Cashmore, and I work in the Vancouver hotel industry.
[00:38:48] ▶I'm also a resident of Vancouver.
[00:38:51] ▶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.
[00:38:58] ▶Bill 16 was introduced by the province to help speed up housing development and support housing affordability.
[00:39:03] ▶A barrier in the city's referral report is the proposal that has nothing to do with housing.
[00:39:08] ▶Staff are proposing to increase the hotel amenities from 15 to 20%
[00:39:12] ▶and plan to guest and event spaces in Downtown Vancouver. I don't believe that belongs in the bill 16 compliance report.
[00:39:19] ▶The report makes it clear that the purpose of this amendment is to comply with
[00:39:23] ▶provincial legislation regarding changes to density bonus provisions and inclusionary zoning
[00:39:28] ▶zoning rules. And one of the major amendments is before council is new intended for hotels.
[00:39:34] ▶The hotel and tourism sector is an important part of our local economy.
[00:39:38] ▶Excuse me. I work in a hotel, but this public hearing is supposed to be about inter money, provincial housing legislation, not creating new developments for
[00:39:46] ▶completely different land use. If council wants to debate new hotel incentives, that it should that should happen through a separate process with its own analysis, consultation,
[00:39:55] ▶and public discussion.
[00:39:57] ▶Instead, this proposal has been folded into a report whose primary report
[00:40:01] ▶whose primary purpose is housing policy.
[00:40:05] ▶But there is no there is no corresponding
[00:40:07] ▶requirement for affordable housing.
[00:40:10] ▶No requirement for communities, facilities,
[00:40:12] ▶no requirement for public amenities,
[00:40:14] ▶no requirement for worker protection,
[00:40:17] ▶no requirement for affordability benefits.
[00:40:20] ▶As a hotel worker, I find that just difficult to justify.
[00:40:23] ▶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 to development, the public should expect some meaningful
[00:40:34] ▶something meaningful in return. The principle seems to be missing here. I ask counsel to remove the hotel intended from bill 16
[00:40:43] ▶implementation
[00:40:44] ▶package and bring it back separately if you wish to consider it. At the moment, do not approve
[00:40:49] ▶an increase in hotel infusion unless there's a clear and measurable public benefit attached. Thank
[00:40:56] ▶Speaker 3: you. Great. Thank you. Thank you for speaking to council.
[00:40:59] ▶Speaker four, Mikaela n Smith.
[00:41:02] ▶Speaker four is not on the line. Not on the line? Okay. Speaker five, Alfina Lambertus.
[00:41:09] ▶Hello? Is that Alfina?
[00:41:11] ▶Hi. Hi, Alfina. Yes. Can you hear me? We can hear you just fine. Please go ahead when you're ready.
[00:41:16] ▶Speaker 16: Okay.
[00:41:17] ▶Good evening,
[00:41:19] ▶My name is Alfina Lambert,
[00:41:23] ▶and I live in and work in Vancouver.
[00:41:27] ▶I want to begin in by saying that I support
[00:41:30] ▶tourism.
[00:41:31] ▶My
[00:41:32] ▶livelihood
[00:41:33] ▶depends on it.
[00:41:35] ▶But supporting hotel
[00:41:37] ▶is not the same thing as supporting every request that come from the hotel industry.
[00:41:43] ▶As a hotel worker, I find it difficult
[00:41:46] ▶to understand why council is considering
[00:41:49] ▶new,
[00:41:51] ▶in
[00:41:54] ▶incentive
[00:41:55] ▶for the hotel developer at
[00:41:57] ▶a time when many workers are struggle with the cost of living.
[00:42:02] ▶Many people who work in the hotel
[00:42:05] ▶cannot afford to leave close to their job.
[00:42:10] ▶Many
[00:42:10] ▶are renter who have watched
[00:42:13] ▶housing contracts
[00:42:14] ▶year after year.
[00:42:16] ▶Many are spending more and more time
[00:42:20] ▶committing because, living in Vancouver has become
[00:42:25] ▶unaffordable.
[00:42:27] ▶Some worker have left the city
[00:42:30] ▶altogether.
[00:42:33] ▶There those are the real challenge facing worker
[00:42:38] ▶people today.
[00:42:40] ▶This is why I find it
[00:42:43] ▶terrible in that this proposal
[00:42:45] ▶appear in a report that is support to be
[00:42:49] ▶about bill 16.
[00:42:52] ▶Bill 16 was introduced by the province to help
[00:42:56] ▶address
[00:42:57] ▶housing challenges.
[00:42:59] ▶Yet
[00:43:00] ▶between this report is a proposal that will increase a hotel
[00:43:05] ▶floor area
[00:43:08] ▶exclusion to 20%
[00:43:09] ▶for guest
[00:43:11] ▶amenity and event space.
[00:43:14] ▶The report described those are
[00:43:18] ▶confirmed facility,
[00:43:19] ▶event space, and guest amenity.
[00:43:22] ▶Let's be honest about what those space are.
[00:43:26] ▶There are amenity
[00:43:27] ▶that help hotel
[00:43:29] ▶attract guests and
[00:43:31] ▶interest
[00:43:33] ▶review.
[00:43:35] ▶There is nothing wrong with that,
[00:43:37] ▶But there are commercial amenity.
[00:43:40] ▶There are not public amenity.
[00:43:43] ▶But most resident of Vancouver will never use those space.
[00:43:48] ▶So the question becomes,
[00:43:50] ▶why should
[00:43:51] ▶they receive additional
[00:43:53] ▶development
[00:43:55] ▶incentive?
[00:43:57] ▶New development should contribute towards the
[00:44:00] ▶port
[00:44:01] ▶public interest.
[00:44:03] ▶This is why the city
[00:44:06] ▶has
[00:44:07] ▶traditionally
[00:44:09] ▶been linked to affordable housing community amenity.
[00:44:13] ▶The idea is straightforward.
[00:44:16] ▶When, the developer received additional value,
[00:44:19] ▶the public should receive something meaningful in return.
[00:44:23] ▶This proposal break the connection.
[00:44:26] ▶The public benefit is unclear.
[00:44:29] ▶The private benefit is obvious.
[00:44:32] ▶As a hotel worker,
[00:44:34] ▶we want travelling
[00:44:36] ▶communities.
[00:44:37] ▶We want worker to be able to afford housing and family to be able to stay in Vancouver,
[00:44:43] ▶and we want grow to contribute
[00:44:46] ▶towards
[00:44:47] ▶those goals.
[00:44:48] ▶It should be not come at expenses of public benefit.
[00:44:54] ▶Council has opportunity tonight to keep the focus where it belong,
[00:44:59] ▶affordability,
[00:45:00] ▶housing, and the public interest.
[00:45:02] ▶I respectful
[00:45:04] ▶as you to remove this hotel
[00:45:08] ▶amended from the bylaw package. Thank you.
[00:45:13] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thank you very much. Speaker number six, Betty Kilban.
[00:45:18] ▶Kilban?
[00:45:19] ▶IPhone?
[00:45:20] ▶Speaker 1: Do we have Betty? Just checking the line share.
[00:45:25] ▶Speaker 3: Speaker six is not on the line. Okay. We'll go to speaker seven, Glenda Mihalatos.
[00:45:33] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker seven is not on the line. Thank you. Speaker eight, Carmelita Gallopin.
[00:45:40] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Hi, Carmelita.
[00:45:41] ▶Please go ahead when you're ready.
[00:45:45] ▶Speaker 16: Hi.
[00:45:46] ▶My name is Carmelita Galapine.
[00:45:48] ▶I work in hotel in Vancouver,
[00:45:50] ▶but I live in Coquitlam.
[00:45:52] ▶I am speaking tonight because I think my situation say a lot about the challenge facing workers
[00:45:59] ▶in this region and why I am concerned about the people who are before you.
[00:46:05] ▶Like many hospitality
[00:46:07] ▶workers,
[00:46:08] ▶I would love
[00:46:09] ▶to live closer where I work. It would mean less time commuting and more time with my family.
[00:46:17] ▶It would mean slower transportation
[00:46:19] ▶cost and would allow me to
[00:46:21] ▶live closer to downtown hotel
[00:46:24] ▶I work in.
[00:46:26] ▶But I, like many workers, simply cannot afford to live in Vancouver.
[00:46:30] ▶Housing could be
[00:46:32] ▶farther and farther away from my workplace.
[00:46:35] ▶Today, I travel from Vancouver.
[00:46:39] ▶Sorry. From Cook It Land into Vancouver to help support an industry
[00:46:43] ▶that depends on thousand of workers just like me.
[00:46:47] ▶Every day, hotel workers clean room, prepare food,
[00:46:51] ▶serve guests, maintain facilities,
[00:46:54] ▶work from this, provide security,
[00:46:57] ▶and help visitors
[00:46:59] ▶enjoy everything Vancouver has to offer.
[00:47:02] ▶But
[00:47:03] ▶increasingly,
[00:47:04] ▶the people who make Vancouver work cannot afford to live in Vancouver.
[00:47:09] ▶That is the reality behind all the statistic and policy report.
[00:47:14] ▶The city say this bylaw change
[00:47:17] ▶are needed because of bill 16 and change
[00:47:20] ▶the provincial
[00:47:21] ▶housing registration,
[00:47:23] ▶housing in the challenge of keeping
[00:47:26] ▶people in our community
[00:47:28] ▶and
[00:47:29] ▶the reason we are here.
[00:47:31] ▶Yet one of the proposal
[00:47:33] ▶being considered would increase the floor area exclusion for hotel
[00:47:38] ▶amenities from 50%
[00:47:40] ▶to 20%.
[00:47:41] ▶The report say this is intended to encourage larger events, space, and guest amenities.
[00:47:48] ▶As someone who work in hotel,
[00:47:50] ▶I understand
[00:47:51] ▶why hotel owner would want that.
[00:47:54] ▶Bigger conference facilities can attract more events.
[00:47:58] ▶More
[00:47:59] ▶amenities can
[00:48:00] ▶attract more guests.
[00:48:03] ▶Those things may help hotel business,
[00:48:06] ▶but I struggle to understand how they help broker
[00:48:10] ▶who can't afford to leave near their job. I struggle to understand
[00:48:15] ▶how they help young families trying to remain in the city.
[00:48:19] ▶The reality is that hospitality
[00:48:22] ▶workers are living
[00:48:24] ▶the affordability
[00:48:25] ▶crisis every day. Many of us would love the opportunity to live closer
[00:48:30] ▶to our job is more affordable housing
[00:48:33] ▶expected.
[00:48:35] ▶That is why it's still wrong
[00:48:37] ▶to be discussing additional incentive for hotel developments
[00:48:41] ▶without discussing with benefits
[00:48:45] ▶they will deliver back to the community.
[00:48:48] ▶If developer receive additional value, the public should receive something meaningful
[00:48:54] ▶in return.
[00:48:55] ▶What concerns me about this proposal is that the benefits of where should flow primarily
[00:49:01] ▶in one direction.
[00:49:03] ▶And I don't think those answers should be hidden within a technical report about housing legislation.
[00:49:11] ▶Where there are policy choice to be
[00:49:13] ▶made, I hope council choice housing affordability
[00:49:17] ▶and community
[00:49:18] ▶benefit over additional
[00:49:20] ▶incentive and commercial developments.
[00:49:23] ▶I urge you to remove this hotel amenities exclusion from buy low package and keep
[00:49:30] ▶the focus on housing,
[00:49:32] ▶affordability,
[00:49:33] ▶and needs of the people who make this city work every day. Thank you for your time.
[00:49:40] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you, Carmelita.
[00:49:41] ▶Speaker number nine is Jonathan Narisma.
[00:49:49] ▶Hello, Jonathan?
[00:49:51] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker nine is not on the line. Okay. Speaker 11, Suman Choi.
[00:49:59] ▶Speaker 18: Hello?
[00:50:00] ▶Speaker 3: Hi, Suman. Can you advise, are you a resident of Vancouver or not?
[00:50:05] ▶Speaker 19: Oh, yeah.
[00:50:06] ▶Speaker 3: Can I tell now? Yes. I just need to note for the record if you are or are not a resident of Vancouver.
[00:50:14] ▶Oh, I'm living in Burnaby now. You're in Burnaby. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. You're you can go speak when you're ready.
[00:50:20] ▶Speaker 19: Okay.
[00:50:23] ▶Hello. Good evening, Major and Council. Thank you for letting me to speak today.
[00:50:29] ▶My name is Sue, and I'm living in Burnaby. I am local and our resident in this area.
[00:50:36] ▶I'm speaking today because I strongly project this new proposal.
[00:50:42] ▶Right now, housing costs are too high for everyone, and it is major challenge in our daily lives.
[00:50:49] ▶I understand that the city need to change its rule for
[00:50:53] ▶rules to follow the new propane cigars.
[00:50:57] ▶However, I am concerned that this port report goes further than necessary.
[00:51:04] ▶It includes extra benefit
[00:51:06] ▶for the hotel developers.
[00:51:08] ▶At the same time, many regular restaurant
[00:51:10] ▶are struggling
[00:51:11] ▶every day with Thailand and
[00:51:14] ▶rising cost of living.
[00:51:16] ▶And the fact Vancouver used developed to help the public,
[00:51:20] ▶it helped build important asset like park,
[00:51:24] ▶children care space.
[00:51:26] ▶This investment make our neighborhood
[00:51:28] ▶good place to live for everyone.
[00:51:32] ▶But this new plan with this system,
[00:51:35] ▶it'll reduce public benefit and give more help to apply by hotel business instead.
[00:51:42] ▶This issue is very important to me because I came to Canada from South Korea on a working holiday visa.
[00:51:49] ▶Like many other young people,
[00:51:51] ▶I came here to experience Canada's environment,
[00:51:55] ▶meet new people, and learn the culture.
[00:51:59] ▶However, since I arrived, housing has been my biggest challenge.
[00:52:04] ▶Finding a place to live was difficult, and the rent is very high.
[00:52:09] ▶Even though I work hard full time, rent takes away most of my mental income.
[00:52:15] ▶After paying my land, I have very little money left for daily
[00:52:20] ▶Speaker 16: expense or saving,
[00:52:23] ▶even though I work hard full time.
[00:52:29] ▶Speaker 19: Yeah. This financial pressure makes me difficult to plan for my future
[00:52:34] ▶of travel
[00:52:35] ▶here
[00:52:36] ▶instead of fully
[00:52:38] ▶financing in local life. I have to focus heavily on housing cost.
[00:52:45] ▶I see many of my friends and coworkers
[00:52:48] ▶experiencing
[00:52:49] ▶the exact same situation.
[00:52:51] ▶They work hard every day, but Highland is constantly worried.
[00:52:57] ▶Some of them have to move power far away
[00:53:00] ▶to find cheaper housing
[00:53:03] ▶resulting in long commutes.
[00:53:05] ▶I don't try to leave Canada completely because they could no longer afford to cost of living.
[00:53:13] ▶It is, unfortunately,
[00:53:16] ▶to see
[00:53:18] ▶hardworking young people leave this city. We are losing Thailand because of the housing crisis.
[00:53:24] ▶And the regular resident and young workers are facing these challenges,
[00:53:29] ▶the council should not prioritize
[00:53:31] ▶private hotels.
[00:53:33] ▶So I want to ask the council three important question.
[00:53:37] ▶First, why are these hotel benefit include in this plan?
[00:53:41] ▶Second, what clear benefit to regular residents get from this report?
[00:53:47] ▶Third, how does this help renters young
[00:53:50] ▶people to want to stay in this city?
[00:53:54] ▶Growth should benefit the ordinary people who live in the world here, not just in the developed.
[00:54:00] ▶I ask the council to remove this hotel benefit. Please focus on protecting public benefits.
[00:54:06] ▶Thanks for your time.
[00:54:08] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 12, Hao Naguyen
[00:54:12] ▶Naguyen?
[00:54:14] ▶Yep. I'm here. Hi, Hao. Can you are you a resident of Vancouver?
[00:54:19] ▶Speaker 19: I'm I'm not a resident of Vancouver, but I'm a student here. Okay. No problem. Please go ahead and make your comments.
[00:54:27] ▶Hello. Thank you for giving me the opportunity
[00:54:30] ▶to speak today.
[00:54:32] ▶My name is Hao, and I'm a student
[00:54:34] ▶in Vancouver.
[00:54:36] ▶I'm speaking today because I am concerned about the direction,
[00:54:41] ▶this proposal could take Vancouver,
[00:54:43] ▶at a time when affordability
[00:54:46] ▶remains a pressing issue for many residents.
[00:54:51] ▶The fact is,
[00:54:52] ▶many,
[00:54:53] ▶Vancouver residents right now are still struggling with rising housing costs and financial pressures.
[00:55:00] ▶Developers are being developed are being allowed to build larger projects while the public receives fewer benefits in return.
[00:55:08] ▶For many years,
[00:55:10] ▶Vancouver has used, development approvals to secure valuable community benefits, including dry care spaces,
[00:55:18] ▶parks, community facilities, affordable housing, and heritage preservation.
[00:55:22] ▶These investments
[00:55:24] ▶help ensure that growth strengthen
[00:55:26] ▶strengthens our neighborhood and improves quality of life for our residents.
[00:55:32] ▶However, this proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to secure those benefits while providing additional,
[00:55:39] ▶incentives for private hotel development.
[00:55:43] ▶I am a student who is trying to build a future here in Vancouver.
[00:55:47] ▶Speaker 16: I love this city, and over the years, I have built friendships
[00:55:50] ▶Speaker 19: and a sense of belonging here.
[00:55:53] ▶However, the cost of housing makes it increasingly difficult to imagine being
[00:55:57] ▶able to remain in the city after graduation,
[00:56:01] ▶and many
[00:56:02] ▶people my age share the same concern.
[00:56:04] ▶Our conversations
[00:56:06] ▶about future careers
[00:56:08] ▶often revolve around whether we can
[00:56:11] ▶afford to live in the city, whether we will have to leave the city altogether.
[00:56:16] ▶Some already face long commute because housing closer to school and work is simply unaffordable,
[00:56:22] ▶and others assume that owning a home or even renting independently
[00:56:26] ▶will remain outreach for the foreseeable
[00:56:29] ▶future.
[00:56:30] ▶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
[00:56:43] ▶future workers, professionals, volunteers, and community members.
[00:56:46] ▶It becomes harder to build diverse and resilient neighborhoods
[00:56:51] ▶when the people who want to
[00:56:53] ▶live here cannot do so.
[00:56:55] ▶And that is why I believe decisions about land use and development should prioritize
[00:57:00] ▶housing affordability
[00:57:02] ▶and long term public benefits.
[00:57:05] ▶Both should help create a city where people can continue to live, work, and participate in their communities
[00:57:11] ▶rather than
[00:57:12] ▶one where opportunities are increasingly reserved for only those who can afford to live here.
[00:57:18] ▶At a time where many residents are struggling with housing affordability,
[00:57:22] ▶ChiCare shortage
[00:57:25] ▶and increasing pressure of on public services.
[00:57:28] ▶I do not believe the council should be prioritizing
[00:57:32] ▶additional incentives
[00:57:33] ▶for private hotel development.
[00:57:35] ▶My understanding is that thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved in Vancouver
[00:57:40] ▶with thousand more currently proposed under development.
[00:57:44] ▶If that is the case, I question whether further incentives are necessary
[00:57:48] ▶and whether they serve the broader public interest.
[00:57:51] ▶Vancouver
[00:57:52] ▶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.
[00:58:01] ▶I urge the council to remove these hotel incentives and focus on protecting the public benefits that
[00:58:07] ▶make Vancouver a livable city.
[00:58:09] ▶Thank you, and have a nice day.
[00:58:11] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 13, Charles Okongo Aiea.
[00:58:22] ▶No, Charles?
[00:58:25] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 13 is not on the line. Thank you. Speaker 14,
[00:58:29] ▶Speaker 3: Kirsten Lebron?
[00:58:32] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 14 is not on the line. Thank you. Speaker 15, Kira Harkins.
[00:58:38] ▶Speaker 3: Hello? Hi, Kira. Can you, Hi. Yep. We can hear you. Please go ahead.
[00:58:43] ▶Speaker 17: Okay. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
[00:58:47] ▶My name is Kira. I live in Mount Pleasant.
[00:58:50] ▶I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the direction that this proposal is taking Vancouver when affordability is in the forefront
[00:58:57] ▶of many people's minds in the city, especially people in my generation.
[00:59:02] ▶I understand that the city needs to update its policies to comply with provincial legislation.
[00:59:07] ▶However, I'm concerned that this report goes beyond what's required
[00:59:11] ▶and includes additional incentives for hotel developers
[00:59:15] ▶while many residents are struggling with housing costs and the rising cost of living.
[00:59:19] ▶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.
[00:59:28] ▶Historically, Vancouver has used development approvals to help secure important public benefits like childcare spaces,
[00:59:35] ▶parks, community amenities,
[00:59:37] ▶affordable housing, and heritage preservation.
[00:59:40] ▶Events investments like these help make make neighborhoods like my own livable and ensure growth benefits for everyone.
[00:59:47] ▶This proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to secure those benefits while providing
[00:59:52] ▶additional incentives for private hotel developments.
[00:59:57] ▶This issue matters to me personally because I've watched Vancouver become increasingly unaffordable over the last several years.
[01:00:04] ▶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.
[01:00:21] ▶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.
[01:00:36] ▶I've also seen the impact that this has had on the people around me.
[01:00:40] ▶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.
[01:00:49] ▶Others have moved farther and farther away from where they work, which means spending more time commuting and less time with their families and communities.
[01:00:57] ▶When I think about the future, I worry about what kind of city we're creating.
[01:01:01] ▶I worry that Vancouver is becoming a place where only the wealthy can afford to stay.
[01:01:06] ▶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 here for in for decades.
[01:01:17] ▶This is why I pay attention to proposals like this one. When council approves major developments,
[01:01:23] ▶I wanna see projects that meaningfully address affordability
[01:01:27] ▶and help people stay in the city,
[01:01:29] ▶not projects that primarily benefit those who are already doing well.
[01:01:35] ▶I'm also trying to figure out whether I'll be able to stay in Vancouver after I graduate.
[01:01:40] ▶I love this city, and I built a life here, but the cost of housing makes it difficult to imagine a future for myself.
[01:01:46] ▶Many of my classmates talk about leaving because they don't think they'll ever be able to afford living independently here.
[01:01:53] ▶Some already commute long distances because it's the only way that they can find they can find housing that they can afford.
[01:02:00] ▶I think about what happens when talented young people are forced to leave.
[01:02:04] ▶We we lose workers, community members,
[01:02:07] ▶and people who want to contribute to the city.
[01:02:12] ▶When residents are struggling with affordability,
[01:02:14] ▶childcare shortages, and pressure on public services,
[01:02:18] ▶I don't believe councilors should be prioritizing
[01:02:20] ▶additional incentives for hotel developers.
[01:02:23] ▶My understanding is that thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved
[01:02:27] ▶with thousands more in the pipeline.
[01:02:29] ▶If that's the case, I question why further incentives are necessary.
[01:02:34] ▶I would ask counsel,
[01:02:36] ▶why are these hotel incentives being included as part of a bill 16 compliance update?
[01:02:41] ▶What public benefit will residents receive in exchange?
[01:02:46] ▶How how much value could be lost through reduced community contributions?
[01:02:51] ▶How do these changes help renters,
[01:02:54] ▶families,
[01:02:54] ▶students,
[01:02:55] ▶workers, and seniors?
[01:02:58] ▶Why should private hotel amenities
[01:03:00] ▶receive special treatment during a housing crisis?
[01:03:04] ▶Growth should benefit people who live here,
[01:03:07] ▶not just the people who profit from development.
[01:03:10] ▶I urge council to remove these hotel incentives and focus on protecting the public benefits
[01:03:15] ▶that make Vancouver
[01:03:16] ▶an enjoyable and livable city. Thank you. Thank you, Kira.
[01:03:21] ▶Speaker 3: Speaker 16, and is Neddy Yuta
[01:03:29] ▶not on the line?
[01:03:31] ▶Speaker 1: Just checking the line share.
[01:03:35] ▶Speaker 16 is not on the line. 16. Correct? 16. Correct. Yeah. Thank you.
[01:03:40] ▶Speaker 3: Speaker 17 is withdrawn. Speaker 18, Ziyu Zhang?
[01:03:46] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 18 is not on the line. Speaker 19, Ivan Diaz.
[01:03:58] ▶Speaker 19 is not on the line. Speaker 20, Esri Bohm.
[01:04:08] ▶Speaker 3: Hello? Esri, is that you?
[01:04:10] ▶Hi. Yeah. I'm here. Great. Thanks. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver, please,
[01:04:14] ▶Speaker 17: or not? Yeah. I'm a resident of Vancouver as in Sunset.
[01:04:18] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Please go ahead.
[01:04:21] ▶Speaker 17: I'm speaking concerned
[01:04:23] ▶about the direction this proposal takes Vancouver at a time when affordability remains one of the biggest challenges facing residents.
[01:04:31] ▶I understand that the city needs to update its policies to comply with provincial legislation.
[01:04:37] ▶However, I'm concerned that this report goes beyond what is required and includes additional
[01:04:42] ▶incentives for home health development while many residents
[01:04:46] ▶housing costs and the rising cost of living.
[01:04:49] ▶What concerns me is that developers are being left with larger projects, so the city may receive less return from the public.
[01:04:59] ▶Development approval to help secure important public benefits like childcare spaces, parks, community amenities, affordable housing, and heritage preservation.
[01:05:09] ▶These investments help make neighborhoods livable and ensure growth benefits everyone.
[01:05:15] ▶This proposal appears to weaken the city's ability
[01:05:18] ▶to secure those benefits while providing additional
[01:05:21] ▶incentives for for private hotel development.
[01:05:25] ▶This issue matters to me personally
[01:05:27] ▶because in the two years since I've graduated university, I've seen my classmates get priced out of the city,
[01:05:33] ▶whether having to move outside of Vancouver,
[01:05:37] ▶go back home and live with their families,
[01:05:40] ▶or even having to, like, leave the country.
[01:05:42] ▶I've just seen a lot of people I know leave.
[01:05:46] ▶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,
[01:05:54] ▶and even that isn't always, like, a guarantee.
[01:05:57] ▶So in my personal experience, my family rents, and last year, we were in danger of being evicted.
[01:06:03] ▶And it was very, I don't know, 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.
[01:06:16] ▶Just through all of these struggles and challenges,
[01:06:19] ▶I think that having this part of the bill is just completely taking things in the wrong direction.
[01:06:27] ▶I think that we need to focus on making Vancouver affordable for its residents
[01:06:32] ▶and not on making things easier for hotel development.
[01:06:36] ▶Thank you.
[01:06:40] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you.
[01:06:41] ▶Thanks very much. Speaker number 21, Abdulrahman Warasame.
[01:06:49] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 21 is not on the line.
[01:06:51] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 22, Catherine Fell.
[01:06:58] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 22 is not on the line. Speaker 23, Rhys Delios.
[01:07:08] ▶Speaker 14: Hello?
[01:07:09] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Is that Reese?
[01:07:11] ▶Yeah. Hi, Reese. Can you advise before you start if you're a resident of Vancouver or not?
[01:07:16] ▶Speaker 20: Yes. I live in the West End Of Vancouver's downtown core. Okay. Thanks. Please go ahead with your comments.
[01:07:22] ▶Thank you. I'd like to thank,
[01:07:25] ▶you for giving me the opportunity to speak today, counsel. My name is Reese, 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,
[01:07:37] ▶especially at a time when affordability remains, the biggest challenges
[01:07:41] ▶facing residents. I understand
[01:07:43] ▶that the city needs to update its policies to comply
[01:07:47] ▶with provincial legislations.
[01:07:49] ▶However, I am concerned that this report goes beyond what is required and includes additional incentives for hotel developers
[01:07:55] ▶while many residents are struggling with housing costs and the rising cost of living.
[01:08:01] ▶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.
[01:08:09] ▶Historically, Vancouver has used development approvals to help secure important public benefits like child care spaces, parks, community amenities,
[01:08:17] ▶affordable housing, and heritage preservation.
[01:08:20] ▶These investments help make communities livable
[01:08:23] ▶and ensure growth benefits for everyone.
[01:08:26] ▶I'm concerned that this proposal appears to weaken the city's ability to con to secure those benefits while providing additional incentive
[01:08:34] ▶for private hotel developments.
[01:08:37] ▶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 wanna 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
[01:09:30] ▶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.
[01:09:41] ▶I myself
[01:09:42] ▶live an hour's commute by any mode of transportation
[01:09:46] ▶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 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
[01:10:02] ▶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 the 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.
[01:10:23] ▶After sharing
[01:10:25] ▶after sharing this, I would like to say that when residents are struggling with affordability,
[01:10:29] ▶child care shortages, and pressure on public services, I don't believe council should be prioritizing additional incentives for hotel developers.
[01:10:36] ▶We are already
[01:10:38] ▶experiencing,
[01:10:40] ▶quite a bit of pressure
[01:10:42] ▶in the city regarding public services,
[01:10:45] ▶and I don't think that we need to be
[01:10:48] ▶making that worse. My understanding is that thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved with thousands more already in the pipeline.
[01:10:56] ▶If that's the case, I question why further incentives are necessary, and I would love to ask the council
[01:11:01] ▶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
[01:11:09] ▶of this needing to be its own issue brought to council and not packed into another bill.
[01:11:15] ▶What 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?
[01:11:24] ▶How do these changes help renters, families, students, workers, and seniors?
[01:11:29] ▶And how would private hotel
[01:11:31] ▶sorry, why should private hotel amenities receive special treatment during a housing crisis?
[01:11:36] ▶Closed should be benefiting
[01:11:38] ▶the people who live here, who work here, not just the people who profit from development,
[01:11:43] ▶especially since so many of those people who profit from this kind of development don't actually live in the city. I encourage council to remove these hotel incentives and focus instead on protecting the public benefits that make Vancouver a livable city. Thank you so much.
[01:11:57] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you, Reese. Speaker 24, Tori Cooper.
[01:12:08] ▶Speaker 1: No? Speaker 24 is not on the line. 25, Christina Figueroa.
[01:12:14] ▶Speaker 3: Oh, here in person. Please go ahead, Christina.
[01:12:17] ▶Speaker 21: Hi, friends.
[01:12:18] ▶You guys look lovely.
[01:12:19] ▶Thank you for giving me the chance to speak today.
[01:12:23] ▶So council,
[01:12:25] ▶I'm speaking in opposition to this item because I believe council is being asked to remove important public interest planning tools
[01:12:32] ▶before a clear and proven replacement framework is in place. I understand that the city must respond to changes in provincial legislation.
[01:12:39] ▶I understand that bill sixteen sixteen requires municipalities to update their density bonus provisions.
[01:12:45] ▶However, compliance with provincial legislation does not mean council should stop asking difficult questions about the consequences of these changes.
[01:12:53] ▶My concern is simple.
[01:12:55] ▶Vancouver is removing tools that have historically helped secure public benefits from development,
[01:13:00] ▶but we do not yet know whether the replacement system will deliver the same results.
[01:13:05] ▶For decades, density bonuses have been one of the many ways that growth has helped pay, that has helped pay for growth.
[01:13:11] ▶When additional density was granted, the public received something in return.
[01:13:16] ▶Those contributions have helped fund childcare facilities,
[01:13:19] ▶community amenities, public realm improvements, cultural spaces, affordable housing, and other benefits that
[01:13:25] ▶make Vancouver a more livable city.
[01:13:27] ▶The principle behind these tools is straightforward.
[01:13:30] ▶When public decisions
[01:13:32] ▶create additional land value, the public should share in the benefits.
[01:13:37] ▶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,
[01:13:49] ▶provisions across a wide range of zoning districts throughout the city.
[01:13:54] ▶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,
[01:14:09] ▶questions.
[01:14:10] ▶Will the new inclusionary zoning framework deliver the same amount of affordable housing as the current system?
[01:14:17] ▶Will it secure the same level of public amenities?
[01:14:20] ▶Will it preserve the Vancouver
[01:14:22] ▶preserve Vancouver's ability to support health care spaces, cultural facilities,
[01:14:26] ▶and community infrastructure?
[01:14:28] ▶I love the eye contact, Lucy. Thank you.
[01:14:30] ▶I do not believe residents have received clear answers to those questions.
[01:14:35] ▶I'm also deeply concerned about the removal of heritage amenity share provisions.
[01:14:39] ▶Vancouver has already lost too many heritage buildings and cultural spaces.
[01:14:44] ▶Once heritage assets are demolished, they are gone forever.
[01:14:47] ▶The city has spent years trying to balance growth and heritage preservation.
[01:14:52] ▶Removing a tool that has helped support heritage conservation without first establishing a proven
[01:14:57] ▶replacement strategy creates unnecessary
[01:15:00] ▶risk.
[01:15:02] ▶At a time when redevelopment pressures continue to increase, council should be strengthening heritage protections, not weakening them. I'm also concerned about accountability and public trust.
[01:15:13] ▶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 con to
[01:15:28] ▶contribute at the same level?
[01:15:30] ▶Will the public receive equivalent benefits,
[01:15:33] ▶or will more of the value generated by rezoning and development remain in private hands?
[01:15:39] ▶These are not theoretical questions.
[01:15:41] ▶They go directly to the heart of how Vancouver manages growth.
[01:15:45] ▶People are already struggling with affordability.
[01:15:47] ▶Community centers are stretched.
[01:15:50] ▶Child care,
[01:15:51] ▶remains difficult to access. Many neighborhoods need additional public amenities and infrastructure.
[01:15:56] ▶This is not the moment to weaken the city's ability to secure public benefits without a clear demonstration
[01:16:03] ▶that equal or better outcomes will be achieved, much less during the voting year. I am also troubled by the
[01:16:10] ▶sequence of this process.
[01:16:12] ▶The report proposes future consultation on inclusionary zoning after these changes are approved, but meaningful consultations
[01:16:20] ▶should help
[01:16:21] ▶shape policy before major decisions are made. Residents, community organization,
[01:16:26] ▶the community organizations,
[01:16:28] ▶heritage advocates, housing advocates, and the community and neighborhood 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.
[01:16:45] ▶The public deserves certainty. The public deserves transparency,
[01:16:49] ▶and the public deserves evidence that the replacement framework will be at least as effective as the tools that are being removed.
[01:16:56] ▶To be clear, I am not arguing that Vancouver should ignore provincial legislation.
[01:17:00] ▶I am arguing that council has a responsibility to protect the public interest while implementing it.
[01:17:07] ▶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. Thank you. Christina.
[01:17:22] ▶Speaker 3: Appreciate it.
[01:17:23] ▶Speaker 26, Luis Antonio Cerveza Bojorquez.
[01:17:29] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 26 is not on the line. Server. Okay.
[01:17:33] ▶Speaker 3: 27,
[01:17:34] ▶Lisa Natalia Torres Luna?
[01:17:37] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 27 is not on the line. 28. Katie Sirens.
[01:17:47] ▶Speaker 3: Hello? Hi. Is that Katie?
[01:17:50] ▶Speaker 16: Hi. Yes. Hi, Katie.
[01:17:52] ▶Speaker 3: Please go ahead.
[01:17:54] ▶Speaker 18: Hi. I am a resident of Vancouver.
[01:17:58] ▶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
[01:18:08] ▶public benefits in return.
[01:18:09] ▶For many years, density bonusing has allowed the city to capture some of the value created when additional development rights are granted.
[01:18:17] ▶That value has helped fund community amenities, childcare spaces, affordable housing,
[01:18:22] ▶public realm improvements, and other benefits that make growth more livable.
[01:18:27] ▶This report removes these tools across a wide range of zoning districts, yet the replacement framework remains under review.
[01:18:33] ▶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.
[01:18:42] ▶Vancouver is already experiencing a crisis of affordability,
[01:18:45] ▶pressure on community infrastructure, and a shortage of public communities in many neighborhoods.
[01:18:50] ▶This is not the moment to weaken the city's leverage without first demonstrating how those benefits will be maintained.
[01:18:56] ▶I'm also concerned with the about the consultation process.
[01:19:00] ▶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.
[01:19:12] ▶The question before council is not whether the city must comply with provincial legislation.
[01:19:16] ▶The question is about whether Vancouver is doing enough to protect the public interest while making these changes.
[01:19:22] ▶I urge council to slow down, complete the review of inclusion rezoning,
[01:19:26] ▶and provide residents with a clear understanding of how public benefits will be protected before moving forward. Thank you.
[01:19:33] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
[01:19:35] ▶Speaker 29, Wendell Castellan.
[01:19:42] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 29 is not on the line. Thank you. Speaker 30, Janet Budd.
[01:19:49] ▶Speaker 30 is not on the line.
[01:19:51] ▶Speaker 3: 31 Matthew Bradley.
[01:19:55] ▶Speaker 4: Hello? Hi, Matthew.
[01:19:56] ▶Speaker 3: Hi, Matthew. Please go ahead.
[01:19:59] ▶Speaker 4: Hi. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
[01:20:03] ▶As I said, my name is Matthew, and I live here in Mount Pleasant.
[01:20:08] ▶I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the direction this proposal takes. Vancouver
[01:20:13] ▶at the time of affordability
[01:20:15] ▶remains one of the biggest challenges facing residents.
[01:20:19] ▶I understand
[01:20:20] ▶the the city needs to update its policies to comply with provincial legislation.
[01:20:25] ▶However,
[01:20:27] ▶I am concerned that this report goes beyond what is required and
[01:20:31] ▶includes additional incentives for hotel develops
[01:20:34] ▶developers
[01:20:35] ▶while many
[01:20:37] ▶while many residents are struggling with housing housing costs
[01:20:41] ▶and the rising cost of living.
[01:20:43] ▶What concerns me most is that development
[01:20:46] ▶is being allowed
[01:20:49] ▶to build larger projects
[01:20:52] ▶while the city may receive
[01:20:55] ▶the less in return for the public.
[01:20:58] ▶Historically,
[01:20:59] ▶Vancouver has used development approval to help secure important public benefits like child care,
[01:21:05] ▶child care spaces, parks, community amenities, affordable housing,
[01:21:10] ▶and heritage preservation.
[01:21:12] ▶These investments help me
[01:21:15] ▶help make neighborhoods livable and ensure growth,
[01:21:20] ▶ensure growth benefits for everyone.
[01:21:23] ▶This proposal appears to weaken the city's,
[01:21:26] ▶ability to
[01:21:28] ▶share both benefits
[01:21:29] ▶while providing additional incentives
[01:21:32] ▶for private hotel developed
[01:21:33] ▶developments.
[01:21:37] ▶This issue matters to me personally because I have watched Vancouver become increasingly unaffordable
[01:21:42] ▶over the last several years. I'm a renter, and every time my lease comes up for renewal, I worry about whether I still have
[01:21:50] ▶I'll still be able to afford to stay in my home. Housing costs
[01:21:54] ▶have gone up much faster than my income.
[01:21:56] ▶And like many people in the city, I find myself spending more and more of my paycheck to keep a roof over my head.
[01:22:03] ▶What frustrates me,
[01:22:05] ▶I did everything I was told to. I work hard. I contribute to my community, and I wanna be here. I wanna build a future here.
[01:22:13] ▶But despite all that, it feels like getting ahead becomes more and more difficult every year.
[01:22:19] ▶I've also been
[01:22:21] ▶I've also seen the impact this has on the people around me. Friends of mine have left Vancouver entirely
[01:22:27] ▶because they couldn't afford housing
[01:22:31] ▶because they couldn't find housing they can afford.
[01:22:34] ▶Alyssa moved farther and farther away from where they were, which means spending less time
[01:22:40] ▶commuting
[01:22:42] ▶sorry. Spending more time commuting and less time with their friends and family and community.
[01:22:48] ▶When I think about the future,
[01:22:50] ▶I worry that
[01:22:52] ▶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 families here,
[01:23:03] ▶trying to save their lives, trying to raise children.
[01:23:05] ▶The seniors
[01:23:06] ▶trying to remain in the senior in the community they've lived for decades.
[01:23:12] ▶That's why I pay attention to the proposal
[01:23:15] ▶like this one. When council approves major
[01:23:18] ▶major developments,
[01:23:20] ▶I want to see projects
[01:23:22] ▶that meaningfully address affordability
[01:23:25] ▶and help
[01:23:26] ▶people stay in the city.
[01:23:28] ▶Not projects that primarily benefit those who are already doing well.
[01:23:33] ▶This issue matters to me personally because I'm raising a family in Vancouver.
[01:23:37] ▶Like my parents, I spend a lot of my time thinking about housing,
[01:23:42] ▶childcare,
[01:23:43] ▶and the overall cost of living.
[01:23:45] ▶Every year,
[01:23:46] ▶it seems like costs keep increasing while families are expected to make do with less.
[01:23:52] ▶I know parents
[01:23:55] ▶who have delays having children move away from from their support network,
[01:24:00] ▶but left the city altogether because we cannot make
[01:24:04] ▶the numbers work.
[01:24:06] ▶When council
[01:24:07] ▶considers large developments, I think it's important to ask
[01:24:11] ▶what they all mean
[01:24:12] ▶what they will mean to families.
[01:24:16] ▶Will they make it easier for ordinary people the same Vancouver, or will they make affordability
[01:24:21] ▶challenges
[01:24:22] ▶worse. The residents are struggling with affordability,
[01:24:25] ▶childcare
[01:24:26] ▶shortages, and
[01:24:28] ▶pressure on public services. I don't believe Calcutta should be prioritizing
[01:24:32] ▶additional incentives for hotel development.
[01:24:35] ▶My understanding is that thousands
[01:24:37] ▶thousands of hotel rooms are have already been approved
[01:24:42] ▶with thousands
[01:24:43] ▶more in the pipeline.
[01:24:46] ▶If that is the case, I
[01:24:48] ▶I question why further incentives
[01:24:51] ▶are necessary.
[01:24:52] ▶I wanna ask counsel,
[01:24:53] ▶why are these hotels being included
[01:24:56] ▶on part of bill six two compliance update? Up to you. What?
[01:25:01] ▶Benefits will you. Yes? I'm sorry to,
[01:25:05] ▶Speaker 3: to interject, but you are at time, and we have to be fair to everybody.
[01:25:08] ▶Thank you for speaking. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it.
[01:25:12] ▶Thirty two, Ronan Hannigan.
[01:25:18] ▶Hello? Hi, Ronan. Are you a resident of Vancouver?
[01:25:22] ▶Speaker 12: Not currently.
[01:25:23] ▶Speaker 3: No. Okay. Go ahead when you're ready, please.
[01:25:27] ▶Speaker 12: Yeah. Well,
[01:25:28] ▶first of all, I just needed to I would like to applaud counsel on how you know, just
[01:25:34] ▶intelligent,
[01:25:36] ▶this, you know, this proposal was.
[01:25:39] ▶You know, I felt like someone needed to splash a little water on me. I felt like I was in Ottawa, not Vancouver because he shoved this tiny little,
[01:25:46] ▶blurb in there about, hotels on c five, c five a, and c six into what is on the on the face of it a,
[01:25:54] ▶just a, just a measure to comply with,
[01:25:57] ▶new provincial legislation.
[01:25:59] ▶So, congrats on that. And, shout out to Sean for, Sean and Lucy for, picking up on that, you know, just calling balls and strikes. But,
[01:26:09] ▶so yeah. So tucked into this amendment
[01:26:12] ▶on c five, c five a, and c six district schedules
[01:26:17] ▶is this loophole that allows hotels existing on or before 02/04/2014
[01:26:25] ▶pardon me.
[01:26:27] ▶Hotels existing on or before 02/04/2014
[01:26:30] ▶are allowed to use more,
[01:26:32] ▶to use the greater of either their nineteen eighty six for floor space ratio or the current maximum.
[01:26:38] ▶Even more egregiously, hotels existing
[01:26:41] ▶on 09/30/1986
[01:26:44] ▶can receive a discretionary 5% density bonus above the maximum permitted for space rate ratio, a privilege denied to residential developers,
[01:26:53] ▶a detail which seems very suspicious
[01:26:56] ▶given the slump in the housing market recently and the sudden clamor by developers for more hotel rooms.
[01:27:03] ▶This means that a legacy hotel
[01:27:06] ▶from the nineteen eighties
[01:27:07] ▶can expand its density beyond what any new residential building could achieve while avoiding the affordable housing of obligations that this bylaw imposes on housing developments.
[01:27:18] ▶Residential projects must provide 20% social housing or pay substantial cash and loop fees. Hotels,
[01:27:25] ▶they get extra density simply for existing
[01:27:28] ▶and with no requirement
[01:27:30] ▶for workforce housing, no community amendment
[01:27:34] ▶contributions, and no affordability conditions.
[01:27:36] ▶In a city facing a severe
[01:27:38] ▶housing shortage,
[01:27:40] ▶this bylaw creates perverse incentive structure.
[01:27:44] ▶Land in the C 5, C 5 A, and C 5 the C 6 districts,
[01:27:49] ▶is already very scarce and expensive.
[01:27:52] ▶Or a very dense city as it already stands.
[01:27:56] ▶By allowing hotels to access grandfathered nineteen eighty six density rates plus an additional 5% bonus,
[01:28:03] ▶you're giving commercial hospitality
[01:28:06] ▶operators
[01:28:07] ▶a massive competitive advantage over residential developers bidding for the same sites. A hotel developer can now outbid housing developer for downtown land because their allowable density is higher and their costs are lower.
[01:28:21] ▶No affordable housing requirements.
[01:28:23] ▶No social housing commitments. Just pure commercial expansion.
[01:28:28] ▶Once again, that seems very suspicious given our recent market trends.
[01:28:33] ▶This isn't smart growth. It's actively subsidizing and displacing,
[01:28:38] ▶potential housing stock
[01:28:40] ▶by hospitality
[01:28:41] ▶uses.
[01:28:42] ▶During a housing emergency,
[01:28:44] ▶should we not be privileging tourist Oh, we should not be privileging tourist accommodations
[01:28:50] ▶over resident
[01:28:51] ▶accommodations,
[01:28:51] ▶especially now that
[01:28:53] ▶we've seen all of this it's,
[01:28:55] ▶apparently unnecessary
[01:28:57] ▶craze over FIFA. We've seen that,
[01:29:00] ▶hotel bookings are actually quite low.
[01:29:03] ▶So I don't understand why council is wasting time on throwing another bone to the hotel industry,
[01:29:10] ▶which has clamored and yelled and screamed at us about how they need more hotels.
[01:29:15] ▶And when
[01:29:16] ▶when, you know, it's, you know, d day, so to speak, FIFA comes to town,
[01:29:21] ▶they can't they can't fill their hotels.
[01:29:24] ▶So, like and I'd like to just examine the arbitrary nature of these car boats. Like, why
[01:29:30] ▶09/30/1986?
[01:29:32] ▶Why 02/04/2014?
[01:29:34] ▶These dates weren't selected through any public planning process. They appear to be designed to benefit specific legacy hotel properties,
[01:29:42] ▶likely large downtown hotels that have been lobbying for expansion rights.
[01:29:46] ▶This is in special interest legislation, plain and simple.
[01:29:51] ▶The five and I I the 09/30/1986.
[01:29:55] ▶Well, that reminds me of a certain thing, that, you know, maybe, my parents' generation would have remembered happening here is, expo.
[01:30:02] ▶The 5% but sorry. Going back into the, the new show rather, 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 5 A District where mixed use residential building space strict seven point o FAR limits and must include 20% social housing,
[01:30:22] ▶hotels can exceed even those generous limits with no public benefit attached.
[01:30:27] ▶This is a windfall for private hospitality interest. Yes. You are you are at your five minutes.
[01:30:34] ▶Speaker 3: I know it goes quickly. Thank you.
[01:30:37] ▶Speaker 33, Wilmarie Ayog.
[01:30:45] ▶Speaker 33 is not on the line. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 34, Haley Roy.
[01:30:52] ▶Hello. Hi, Haley. Please go ahead.
[01:30:55] ▶Speaker 17: Okay.
[01:30:56] ▶Speaker 3: Can you hear me? We can. You have up to five minutes.
[01:30:59] ▶Speaker 16: Okay. Sorry.
[01:31:01] ▶Speaker 23: Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Haley Roy, and I work in the hospitality of Vancouver International Airport, and I also live in Richmond.
[01:31:10] ▶Every day, I welcome visitor to our region. I meet travelers from around the world who come here for business, tourism, and conventions, and family visits.
[01:31:18] ▶I'm proud of the work I do, and I'm proud of the role hospitality workers play in supporting our economy.
[01:31:23] ▶But tonight, I'm here because I'm concerned about the direction of this proposal.
[01:31:27] ▶This proposal is largely about implementing changes related to bill 16 and housing policy.
[01:31:34] ▶Instead, we are also being asked to support
[01:31:36] ▶an increase in the hotel and amenity in inclusion from 15% to 20%.
[01:31:42] ▶I don't believe that that belongs into housing focused by law update.
[01:31:46] ▶As someone who works in hospitality, I understand why hotel owners and developers might support this proposal.
[01:31:52] ▶It because it helps them. But the question before council, it should not be whether hotels would like to would like the incentive.
[01:31:59] ▶The question is should be whether it serves the public interest,
[01:32:03] ▶and that is where I have concern. I work alongside people from all over Metro Vancouver.
[01:32:08] ▶A common topic of conversation among workers is housing affordability.
[01:32:13] ▶People worry about whether their children will ever be able to afford to stay in communities where they grew up.
[01:32:19] ▶This is why I find it difficult to understand why a housing related report includes a proposal that would provide additional benefits
[01:32:26] ▶to hotel development without requiring public benefits in return.
[01:32:30] ▶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.
[01:32:41] ▶That makes sense because growth should help support the communities that accommodate that growth. The proposal before you changes the equation
[01:32:50] ▶and addition inclusion would apply to hotel amenities
[01:32:54] ▶and event spaces that currently serves guests and hotel operations.
[01:32:58] ▶Those are commercial amenities.
[01:33:01] ▶They are not facilities that most resident will ever use,
[01:33:04] ▶and the and they are certainly not substitute for affordable housing. As a worker and hospitality industry, I'm not asking counsel to oppose hotels, but support the industry
[01:33:14] ▶should not come at the expense of the public benefits, and it should not be inserted
[01:33:19] ▶into a BILO package
[01:33:21] ▶whose primary purpose is housing policy.
[01:33:24] ▶At the 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?
[01:33:34] ▶I see a clear benefit for hotel development and property owners,
[01:33:38] ▶but I do not see a clear benefit for the workers who keep those hotel running.
[01:33:42] ▶I ask council to stay focused on the original proposed of this agenda item, bill 16,
[01:33:48] ▶incentive to help address housing challenges.
[01:33:51] ▶Housing affordability
[01:33:52] ▶remains one of the most urgent issues facing our region.
[01:33:56] ▶That should be our priority.
[01:33:58] ▶I respectfully ask you to remove and propose the hotel amenity inclusion
[01:34:03] ▶from by this law package and keep post focus on affordability and meaningful public benefit.
[01:34:09] ▶Thank you for your time.
[01:34:12] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thank you for speaking.
[01:34:14] ▶Speaker 35, Jocelyn Stevens.
[01:34:17] ▶Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. We can, Jocelyn. Please go ahead.
[01:34:21] ▶Speaker 19: Alright. Thank you.
[01:34:24] ▶Speaker 16: Good evening.
[01:34:25] ▶Council.
[01:34:27] ▶Speaker 24: My name is Jocelyn Stevens. I am on the Vancouver resident, and I'm approving recommendations that we're
[01:34:33] ▶Speaker 3: Jocelyn. Just Hi, Jocelyn. Jocelyn. We're having Hi. Jocelyn, we're having a little bit of trouble hearing you. I don't know if it's closer to speak closer to your possible to speak closer to your phone. You're cutting out a little bit. Sure.
[01:34:45] ▶Do you need me to repeat what was said? Yeah. Just why don't you just start again? We can hear you now. Please go ahead. Sure.
[01:34:51] ▶Speaker 24: So my name is Jocelyn Stevens. I am a Vancouver resident,
[01:34:56] ▶and I oppose the recommendations before you today.
[01:35:00] ▶I urge council to oppose this item or at minimum delay approval until a comprehensive
[01:35:06] ▶replacement framework is in place.
[01:35:10] ▶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.
[01:35:21] ▶Density, bonusing, and heritage amenity contributions have helped deliver affordable housing, childcare spaces,
[01:35:28] ▶community amenities, and heritage conservation.
[01:35:32] ▶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
[01:35:41] ▶part of the current system before knowing whether the replacement will achieve the same or better outcomes.
[01:35:47] ▶I am also concerned about the loss of heritage provisions.
[01:35:51] ▶At a time of ongoing redevelopment pressure, heritage conservation should be strengthened and not weakened.
[01:35:57] ▶Growth should ultimately benefit the public and not just private landowners. And if the Vancouver continues to prove additional density,
[01:36:04] ▶residents
[01:36:06] ▶deserve confidence that will
[01:36:18] ▶Speaker 25: Great.
[01:36:20] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thanks very much. Speaker 36, Gabby Macau Macaua.
[01:36:25] ▶Hello? Hi, Gabby. Go ahead.
[01:36:42] ▶Speaker 26: Sorry. Can I interject? I'm gonna be translating for Gabby today.
[01:36:46] ▶She just said, hi. My name is Gabby. I'm here to oppose this project, and I'm a resident of Vancouver.
[01:36:52] ▶Continue, Gabby.
[01:36:53] ▶Speaker 19: Gotcha.
[01:37:00] ▶Speaker 18: I want the council to understand
[01:37:02] ▶Speaker 26: exactly everything that's in play.
[01:37:14] ▶I came to this country with wanting to find community and find a space that is
[01:37:20] ▶inclusive.
[01:37:34] ▶Vancouver gave me the impression that they would give me that chance to create community, to work hard,
[01:37:40] ▶and to move my family forward,
[01:37:43] ▶and I'm disappointed.
[01:37:51] ▶That's what made me,
[01:37:52] ▶wanna fight for this city, and now here I am fighting again.
[01:38:01] ▶Because what I see in this proposal,
[01:38:03] ▶profoundly,
[01:38:05] ▶Speaker 16: troubles me.
[01:38:17] ▶Speaker 26: Sorry. Can you repeat that? I see.
[01:38:43] ▶Speaker 19: Yeah.
[01:38:52] ▶Speaker 17: The,
[01:38:54] ▶Speaker 26: the, the density
[01:38:56] ▶is, like, not just,
[01:38:59] ▶and I didn't catch that at the end, but just, continue
[01:39:14] ▶A majority of people have heard this and they disagree
[01:39:17] ▶and,
[01:39:20] ▶can you say the last part again?
[01:39:30] ▶I understand that you're trying to do what the province is wanting you to do.
[01:39:36] ▶But that isn't the complete image.
[01:39:48] ▶Yeah. Inside of this proposal,
[01:39:50] ▶there's details that go against what the community needs and none of the community members don't know about it. And,
[01:39:56] ▶and then there should be, like, further review.
[01:40:18] ▶This allows,
[01:40:19] ▶hotels downtown to, grow to be built
[01:40:22] ▶bigger and and larger and more egregious
[01:40:26] ▶and,
[01:40:28] ▶and,
[01:40:29] ▶yeah. So and she doesn't like that.
[01:40:42] ▶Yeah. It's a it it's gonna allow for build like, large hotel builds, not for families, not for our communities.
[01:41:05] ▶I want the council today to think about
[01:41:07] ▶who's here. Like, who lives in the city,
[01:41:12] ▶and and are we actually accommodating them or not? Are we accommodating workers? Are we accommodating community members?
[01:41:18] ▶Yeah. Where's the equity for these folks?
[01:41:31] ▶I'm here because I believe this council should represent us.
[01:41:35] ▶These are the type of motions that I don't feel represented, that our communities don't feel represented.
[01:41:41] ▶So we urge that, Gabby is urging the council to,
[01:41:45] ▶to represent the workers and the working class people of this city.
[01:42:04] ▶The development of this city
[01:42:06] ▶should support the people that live in it, not just developers, not just the 1%.
[01:42:12] ▶These are developments,
[01:42:14] ▶that this bill will impact, you know, should be, for the working people.
[01:42:34] ▶When when bills like this passed,
[01:42:37] ▶it says to me that, you know,
[01:42:40] ▶the people of the city don't matter, and we can't accept that.
[01:42:58] ▶Yeah. So
[01:42:59] ▶as,
[01:43:01] ▶in the crisis of the housing crisis and the the affordability crisis that we're living right now, the victims of these bills that we pass through council
[01:43:09] ▶are real people. And and Gabby is wanting to remind you that these are real people that you're voting either for or against tonight with this bill.
[01:43:27] ▶Think of, the working people. Think about elderly people that can't pay their rent. Think about,
[01:43:34] ▶you know, young people that can't live here anymore,
[01:43:37] ▶all these groups that are either going to benefit or or be victimized by this bill today.
[01:43:55] ▶Sorry. Can you repeat that?
[01:44:07] ▶Got you. Can you can you guys consider, please, how this density and this incentive to developers,
[01:44:15] ▶incentivizes
[01:44:16] ▶these developers, basically? Like,
[01:44:18] ▶think about why why do,
[01:44:21] ▶why do these folks need to be incentivized? Why aren't we incentivizing them to build something more friendly for our communities?
[01:44:52] ▶The residents of Vancouver deserve more than this.
[01:44:55] ▶We should be advocating for them and the council,
[01:45:00] ▶and and we shouldn't be giving giveaways to developers.
[01:45:03] ▶And,
[01:45:05] ▶Speaker 17: yes.
[01:45:06] ▶Continue.
[01:45:10] ▶Speaker 26: Thank you. Same thank you. Bye now. K. Thank
[01:45:14] ▶Speaker 3: you for your time, Gabby. Speaker 37, Nasca Spasek.
[01:45:21] ▶Do we have Nasca?
[01:45:29] ▶No?
[01:45:31] ▶I'm not hearing, Nasca.
[01:45:33] ▶Speaker 1: Just checking, chair.
[01:45:39] ▶You are unmuted.
[01:45:41] ▶You are on the line and unmuted.
[01:45:43] ▶Speaker 3: Nasca, if you are on the line, it is your turn to speak.
[01:45:54] ▶Okay. I'm not hearing anything, so I'm gonna continue.
[01:45:58] ▶Speaker 38, is Richard Reddy?
[01:46:05] ▶Speaker 27: I'm a resident,
[01:46:06] ▶but I work in the city. I'm directly affected by the decisions made by this chamber. I'm here tonight to speak against this proposal.
[01:46:15] ▶I wanna focus on one thing, the hotel density bonus that has been inserted into bill 16 compliance update.
[01:46:22] ▶The provisions would allow hotel developers
[01:46:25] ▶to build at greater density
[01:46:27] ▶if they include meeting rooms and guest amenities.
[01:46:31] ▶It has nothing to do with affordable housing, nothing to do with community benefit,
[01:46:36] ▶and it is a commercial real estate incentive.
[01:46:40] ▶I understand that density bonusing
[01:46:42] ▶is a complex policy tool. I understand that there are many competing
[01:46:47] ▶interests around the table when these bylaws are drafted,
[01:46:50] ▶but the principle behind density bonusing is clear.
[01:46:54] ▶Extra density should be earned through contributions
[01:46:57] ▶to the public good. Affordable housing, childcare,
[01:47:01] ▶public space,
[01:47:02] ▶not hotel conference rooms.
[01:47:04] ▶When we bend that principle,
[01:47:06] ▶even once, even quietly,
[01:47:09] ▶we signal to every developer in this region that the rules are negotiable.
[01:47:14] ▶And in a housing crisis,
[01:47:16] ▶that signal has a real consequence for real people.
[01:47:20] ▶Remove the hotel density provisions.
[01:47:22] ▶Pass the clean compliance update. That's what I'm asking for tonight. Thank you for your time, counsel.
[01:47:28] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
[01:47:29] ▶Speaker, 39
[01:47:31] ▶Robert Bader.
[01:47:41] ▶Speaker 28: O 16 compliance update.
[01:47:43] ▶What it actually contains, in addition to compliance provisions,
[01:47:46] ▶is a new density bonus for downtown hotel developers
[01:47:50] ▶who add meeting rooms and guest amenities.
[01:47:52] ▶That's a commercial real estate incentive. It does not belong in a housing policy update.
[01:47:58] ▶Density bonusing in this city was designed for a specific purpose,
[01:48:02] ▶to incentivize developers to continue
[01:48:05] ▶to contribute to community needs in
[01:48:08] ▶exchange for the right to build greater density.
[01:48:11] ▶Affordable housing, community spaces,
[01:48:13] ▶public amenities,
[01:48:15] ▶that's the deal. That's what residents agreed to.
[01:48:18] ▶Hotel meeting rooms are not a part of that deal. They're not a community benefit. They're a profit center for private business.
[01:48:26] ▶Rewarding hotel developers with extra density for added to conference facility
[01:48:31] ▶is not housing policy. It's commercial zoning policy
[01:48:35] ▶and should be evaluated separately
[01:48:37] ▶with full public,
[01:48:39] ▶transparency.
[01:48:40] ▶I'm asking council
[01:48:42] ▶to remove this provision
[01:48:44] ▶tonight.
[01:48:45] ▶Do not bundle commercial
[01:48:48] ▶incentives inside housing compliance update.
[01:48:51] ▶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.
[01:49:02] ▶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. Vote against this proposal as written. Thank you.
[01:49:13] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you.
[01:49:15] ▶Speaker 40, Sean Lerbold.
[01:49:23] ▶Speaker 1: She's checking the line share.
[01:49:25] ▶Speaker 40 is not on the line. Okay. Thanks.
[01:49:28] ▶Speaker 3: 41 Fabiola.
[01:49:35] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 41 is not on the line. Speaker 42, Connie?
[01:49:46] ▶Speaker 42 is not on the line. Speaker 43,
[01:49:49] ▶Speaker 3: Angel or Angel. One of the two.
[01:49:55] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 43 is not on the line. Speaker 44 is withdrawn. 45, Allen.
[01:50:02] ▶Speaker 17: 45. Oh, yes. Al
[01:50:04] ▶Speaker 3: Colin. Before you before you begin, we don't have a last name for you and also,
[01:50:08] ▶wondering if you're a resident of Vancouver or not.
[01:50:12] ▶Speaker 28: Yes.
[01:50:13] ▶In Vancouver.
[01:50:15] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. And do you have a last name?
[01:50:18] ▶Speaker 2: My family.
[01:50:19] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks. Please go ahead.
[01:52:14] ▶And is that all of your comments?
[01:52:22] ▶Speaker, is you are you are concluded? You finished?
[01:52:26] ▶Speaker 22: Okay. I finished.
[01:52:29] ▶Speaker 3: You have. Yes. Do you under you know, so okay. So you understood that. Okay. Great. Thank you.
[01:52:34] ▶Speaker 46, Narita?
[01:52:43] ▶Narita?
[01:52:44] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 46 is not on the line. 47, Daniel Verma.
[01:52:50] ▶Speaker 3: Hello? Hi, Daniel. Can you just advise me if you are a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[01:52:56] ▶Speaker 29: I am not a resident of Vancouver. Okay. Go ahead. You have up to five minutes. Okay. Alright.
[01:53:02] ▶Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Daniel Verma,
[01:53:05] ▶and I work in the hospitality
[01:53:07] ▶industry in Metro Vancouver.
[01:53:10] ▶I'm not a resident of Vancouver, but decisions made here often influence planning policies across the region.
[01:53:16] ▶I support tourism, and I'm proud to work in the hotel industry.
[01:53:20] ▶What I do not support is confusing private commercial gain with public benefits,
[01:53:26] ▶and thus, I pose this recommendation
[01:53:28] ▶today.
[01:53:29] ▶The report before you proposes
[01:53:31] ▶a larger density exclusion
[01:53:33] ▶for developers adding hotel amenities spaces.
[01:53:37] ▶The city has typically used density bonuses in exchange
[01:53:41] ▶for a public benefit that supports the public good,
[01:53:44] ▶like affordable housing, public parks, child care, and so on.
[01:53:48] ▶But the amenities being discussed here are like things like hotel pools,
[01:53:53] ▶hotel fitness centers,
[01:53:54] ▶hotel business centers, locker rooms, meeting
[01:53:58] ▶rooms, banquet facilities, and convention spaces.
[01:54:02] ▶Those spaces primarily exist to attract paying guests. They are business assets.
[01:54:07] ▶They are not public amenities. They are not neighborhood facilities.
[01:54:11] ▶They are not community centers. They are not libraries.
[01:54:15] ▶They are not child care spaces,
[01:54:17] ▶and they are not affordable housing.
[01:54:20] ▶The city is effectively
[01:54:22] ▶being asked to provide additional development value because hotel includes facilities
[01:54:28] ▶that help it operate more profitably.
[01:54:31] ▶This is a very different proposition than providing community benefits.
[01:54:35] ▶When private businesses invest in facilities
[01:54:38] ▶that support their business model, that is normally considered part of doing business.
[01:54:42] ▶It does not normally grant for receiving additional planning incentives.
[01:54:47] ▶If council wants to proceed with this proposal, it should at least acknowledge what these spaces are.
[01:54:53] ▶They're commercial guest serving spaces. They are not community amenities,
[01:54:57] ▶and they should not be treated as though they are.
[01:55:00] ▶Thank you for your time.
[01:55:03] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 48, Saeed
[01:55:07] ▶Juan.
[01:55:09] ▶Speaker 27: Hello?
[01:55:10] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[01:55:14] ▶Speaker 27: I am a resident of Burnaby.
[01:55:16] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks. Please go ahead when you're ready.
[01:55:20] ▶Speaker 27: Hello, council. I am concerned that this proposal removes an important tool that has helped ensure growth benefits the public, not just private interests,
[01:55:29] ▶as well as adding unrelated and unnecessary amendments that were to only benefit the hotel industry.
[01:55:34] ▶For years, when the city granted additional density, Vancouver
[01:55:39] ▶residents received something in return. Through density
[01:55:42] ▶through density bonusing, the funding of childcare spaces, community facilities,
[01:55:47] ▶affordable housing, public amenities, and heritage con conservation
[01:55:50] ▶with Capable. These provisions within Vancouver have ensured that the city remains affordable. I understand that the city must comply with provincial legislation.
[01:55:58] ▶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,
[01:56:07] ▶as well as be used to sneak through approval for benefits to the hotel industry.
[01:56:12] ▶My concern is that we are being used,
[01:56:14] ▶we are being asked to approve the removal of proven mechanisms first and figure out the consequences later.
[01:56:20] ▶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.
[01:56:31] ▶What assurances do Vancouver residents have that future developments will continue to contribute at the same level to affordable housing, childcare, community amenities, and heritage preservation?
[01:56:41] ▶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, the hotel industry.
[01:56:56] ▶The public should not be asked to accept a tentative promise that replacement policies might achieve results someday. Council should have the substantive
[01:57:04] ▶evidence before approving these changes, especially the exclusion for hotel.
[01:57:09] ▶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 counsel 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,
[01:57:48] ▶as well as clearing up the actual purpose of this proposal rather than combining bill compliance and new hotel focused suggestions.
[01:57:56] ▶Thank you.
[01:58:00] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thank you very much.
[01:58:03] ▶Speaker 49, Pardeep Tandy.
[01:58:07] ▶Hello? Is that Pardeep? Meera, ma'am. Pardeep? Yeah. Meera, ma'am. Pardeep, can you Pardeep, before you begin, can you just let us know if you're a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[01:58:18] ▶Speaker 16: No. I live in Surrey. Okay. Thanks. Go ahead.
[01:58:25] ▶Vancouver
[01:58:27] ▶hospitality
[01:58:48] ▶Speaker 7: Hello?
[01:58:52] ▶Speaker 3: Hardeep?
[01:58:53] ▶We can hear you. Yeah. So
[01:58:56] ▶Speaker 16: Yes? Yeah. So other person, her name is Guljar. She can translate
[01:59:01] ▶for me.
[01:59:02] ▶Speaker 3: You have a translator with you?
[01:59:05] ▶Speaker 28: Yeah. Guljar.
[01:59:08] ▶Speaker 3: Okay.
[01:59:09] ▶Okay. Go ahead.
[01:59:13] ▶Speaker 16: Yeah.
[02:02:51] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Is and that that finishes your comments?
[02:02:58] ▶I think, my translator not add with me. You do not have a translator with you. Okay. Well, that thank you for speaking. That is your that is your time then.
[02:03:08] ▶Yeah. Thank you.
[02:03:10] ▶Okay.
[02:03:11] ▶Speaker number 50, Sandeep Power Core? I think it's Core.
[02:03:16] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 50 is not on the line.
[02:03:18] ▶Speaker 3: Fifty one. Loveprete Core?
[02:03:28] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 51 is not on the line. Okay. 52. Karen Jeet.
[02:03:46] ▶Speaker 52 is on the line and has been unmuted.
[02:03:51] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Is that Kiranjit?
[02:03:54] ▶Hello? Hi, Kiranjit. We don't have a last name for you, and can you also please let us know if you are a resident of Vancouver or not?
[02:04:01] ▶Speaker 16: No. I live in Surrey.
[02:04:03] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. And do you have a But, I will,
[02:04:06] ▶Speaker 16: speak in Punjabi because I have a translator,
[02:04:10] ▶Speaker 3: Is your translator with you?
[02:04:13] ▶Speaker 16: Yes.
[02:04:14] ▶Speaker 3: She's on the line. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you.
[02:04:18] ▶Speaker 16: Good morning, mayor and council.
[02:04:22] ▶Hospital industry
[02:04:54] ▶hospital
[02:04:58] ▶taxpayers
[02:05:02] ▶local
[02:05:06] ▶community
[02:05:50] ▶So may I ask the bell call again?
[02:05:53] ▶Thanks for the time.
[02:06:05] ▶Speaker 3: And speaker today
[02:06:07] ▶hi. Are you gonna provide transportation?
[02:06:13] ▶Speaker 16: Hello, Bill, Josh?
[02:06:16] ▶Speaker 3: Can speaker, can you advise us if that's the end of your remarks or if we're going to hear translation, or is that the the rest of your comments?
[02:06:26] ▶Speaker 16: I think is going to translate.
[02:06:35] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. We're not hearing that.
[02:06:37] ▶Do you have the person with you?
[02:06:46] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker disconnected, chair. Okay. Thank you.
[02:06:50] ▶Speaker 3: Before we carry on, I'm gonna ask,
[02:06:52] ▶counselors online if we can get you on video. We are just a bare quorum, and a couple of folks need to take breaks in and out of the chamber.
[02:07:00] ▶So if I can get
[02:07:01] ▶our counselors back online, thank you very much. That's great.
[02:07:05] ▶Okay.
[02:07:06] ▶Okay.
[02:07:07] ▶Speaker 53
[02:07:08] ▶has
[02:07:09] ▶was a duplicate.
[02:07:12] ▶So if there are any additional speakers at this point in the chamber, please come forward to the podium.
[02:07:17] ▶And,
[02:07:18] ▶I'm not seeing any in chamber, but we do have additional speakers on the line. And so we will now go to speaker
[02:07:26] ▶14, which was
[02:07:28] ▶Kirsten Le Brun.
[02:07:33] ▶Speaker 18: Hello?
[02:07:34] ▶Speaker 3: Hi, Kirsten.
[02:07:35] ▶Can you advise me Hi. If you're a resident Vancouver or not, please?
[02:07:41] ▶Speaker 7: I live in Pitt Meadows.
[02:07:43] ▶Speaker 3: I'm sorry. We're having a hard time hearing you.
[02:07:47] ▶Speaker 7: I live in Pitt Meadows.
[02:07:49] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Please go ahead with your comments.
[02:07:52] ▶Speaker 7: Yeah. So good evening, mayor and council. My name is Kirsten. I work in Vancouver's,
[02:07:57] ▶downtown
[02:07:59] ▶in the hotel industry.
[02:08:00] ▶I was actually born here at Saint Paul's Hospital.
[02:08:04] ▶I grew up in East Van and slowly been moving further and further out. So, obviously, Pitt Meadows is quite a long drive.
[02:08:12] ▶I had two little boys,
[02:08:14] ▶and,
[02:08:15] ▶day care was super expensive, and housing was ridiculous. So I just had to move out further. So my drive, it can be,
[02:08:24] ▶two to three hours a day.
[02:08:26] ▶And,
[02:08:27] ▶so I just feel like
[02:08:29] ▶the city is not really focusing on all of us workers
[02:08:33] ▶as much as just handing out things to,
[02:08:37] ▶wealthy and fast tracking things for the wealthy.
[02:08:40] ▶That's why I oppose this
[02:08:43] ▶project.
[02:08:50] ▶I'm still hoping that maybe things will turn around and then I could come a little bit closer.
[02:08:55] ▶So tonight, I'm gonna ask you if you can
[02:08:58] ▶make affordable housing,
[02:09:00] ▶top priority,
[02:09:01] ▶and,
[02:09:03] ▶I oppose this project.
[02:09:07] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks for speaking.
[02:09:11] ▶Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We all next, we have speaker 26, Luis Antonio Severa Bojorkas.
[02:09:24] ▶Can you hear me? Yes. We can, Luis. Please go ahead.
[02:09:27] ▶Speaker 2: Alright. Thank you.
[02:09:29] ▶As someone who works in this city, I look at every municipal policy through a very straightforward lens.
[02:09:34] ▶Who built this city? Who runs this city? And who actually gets to live in it?
[02:09:39] ▶Working people are the backbone of Vancouver.
[02:09:41] ▶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
[02:09:51] ▶are systematically
[02:09:52] ▶negotiated downward.
[02:09:53] ▶By rushing, and we are rushing, to repeal schedules f, g, and h of the zoning and development by law,
[02:10:00] ▶and also erasing key definitions from the downtown official development plan.
[02:10:04] ▶This council is trading public planning leverage for developer driven uncertainty.
[02:10:09] ▶Growth generates private wealth, and working families deserve a guaranteed return on that growth in the form of public infrastructure,
[02:10:17] ▶childcare, and parks.
[02:10:19] ▶Yet this report shows that the exact tools we're dismantling today, bringing to our city a five year average of $13,000,000
[02:10:26] ▶from density bonuses
[02:10:28] ▶and $400,000
[02:10:30] ▶from heritage amenity shares every single year.
[02:10:33] ▶Wiping out these revenue streams before our new amenity cost charge framework is even finalized
[02:10:40] ▶means council is intentionally voting us into a multimillion
[02:10:43] ▶dollar funding deficit.
[02:10:45] ▶We're giving corporate developers immediate relief while forcing working people to wait for the basic community spaces that they rely on.
[02:10:53] ▶Look closely at what's happening to our affordable housing framework. We're transitioning
[02:10:57] ▶our in kind affordable housing density options
[02:11:01] ▶into mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements.
[02:11:04] ▶But the city's own economic testing
[02:11:07] ▶exposes deep systemic flaws that directly hurt working people.
[02:11:11] ▶For one, it punishes transit oriented growth.
[02:11:14] ▶On the West Side, multi lot assemblies are completely exempt from the housing mandate simply because high land costs make it unviable for developers.
[02:11:23] ▶By protecting the profit margins of land speculators over the need for housing,
[02:11:27] ▶this policy actively discourages lot consolidation
[02:11:30] ▶and blocks the multifamily
[02:11:32] ▶transit adjacent homes that working families in the city desperately need.
[02:11:37] ▶The density targets are an absolute fantasy.
[02:11:40] ▶To make a 20% turnkey social housing requirement viable for a private developer under these rules, densities would have to artificially
[02:11:49] ▶skyrocket
[02:11:50] ▶to staggering heights just to break even.
[02:11:53] ▶Just for some perspective, we would need the density of a massive office tower in the West End.
[02:11:59] ▶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.
[02:12:08] ▶This policy just fails entirely. In the downtown district, the requirements for two thirds social housing is so broken that our your own consultants state that there is no density that can make it financially viable.
[02:12:21] ▶Meanwhile, piling more density onto a 100% social housing projects without senior government funding
[02:12:27] ▶doesn't help nonprofits
[02:12:28] ▶break even. It just creates a deeper financial hole.
[02:12:32] ▶Despite exposing a framework that is fundamentally broken on day one,
[02:12:36] ▶phase two of this review, the phase that was meant to actually fix the system, is being put on the back burner until fall twenty twenty seven. That is more than a year of policy limbo in a city that desperately needs housing.
[02:12:49] ▶Let's be clear.
[02:12:51] ▶While we lock in an unviable system for the future, this council is actively rubber stamping developer request to undermine affordability right now. Just look at the Westside Tower proposal on West 8th where the developer was permitted to slash social housing below the Broadway's plan's mandatory 20% minimum.
[02:13:09] ▶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
[02:13:19] ▶completed,
[02:13:20] ▶unsold luxury units sit empty across Vancouver.
[02:13:24] ▶This pattern of corporate handouts is
[02:13:27] ▶just as obvious in how we manage our downtown core.
[02:13:30] ▶Slipped directly into an affordable housing report,
[02:13:33] ▶Recommendation b eliminates the historical 15% hotel amenity density bonus, enhance hotel corporations an outright 20%
[02:13:42] ▶floor space
[02:13:43] ▶floor space exclusion
[02:13:45] ▶for private commercial amenities like pools,
[02:13:48] ▶fitness centers, and conference rooms.
[02:13:50] ▶Exactly what all the working people in Downtown Vancouver need.
[02:13:54] ▶Last year, this council exempted hotel amenities from community amenity
[02:13:58] ▶benefit calculations.
[02:14:00] ▶Now you're allowing hotels to build even larger
[02:14:04] ▶while providing less public benefit in return.
[02:14:07] ▶Hospitality workers
[02:14:10] ▶have explicitly called this out for what it is, an unnecessary
[02:14:14] ▶developer giveaway.
[02:14:15] ▶We're giving away valuable downtown air rights automatically with zero requirements that these spaces generate sustainable
[02:14:22] ▶Speaker 3: union wage jobs or public community use. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That is your five minutes. We we appreciate you speaking. So much. Thank you.
[02:14:31] ▶Speaker 29, Wendell Castellan.
[02:14:39] ▶Hello? Hi, Wendell. Please go ahead.
[02:14:42] ▶Speaker 30: Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening, council. My name is Wendell Castellan. I'm a resident of Vancouver.
[02:14:48] ▶I'm also the manager of sustainable destination development, and I'm speaking on behalf of Destination Vancouver.
[02:14:53] ▶I would like to express our support for the update to density bonus provisions in this item, specifically the proposed amendments
[02:15:00] ▶to the downtown official development
[02:15:03] ▶plan that would amend the hotel amenity bonus and allow for up to 20% floor area exclusions for specific hotel amenity areas.
[02:15:12] ▶This is a practical step that will help improve the feasibility of new hotel developments in Vancouver.
[02:15:18] ▶Destination Vancouver cochairs the Vancouver Hotel Development Task Force together with the BC Hotel Association.
[02:15:24] ▶And in,
[02:15:25] ▶2024
[02:15:27] ▶the fall of twenty twenty four, the task force was established in response to Vancouver's growing hotel room shortage
[02:15:32] ▶and brings together industry stakeholders focused on increasing hotel supply across the city.
[02:15:38] ▶As part of this work, we have engaged extensively with hotel developers, design professionals, investors, and project proponents.
[02:15:45] ▶A consistent message emerged from those conversations.
[02:15:48] ▶While there is significant interest in developing new hotels in Vancouver,
[02:15:52] ▶project economics remain challenging, particularly
[02:15:55] ▶in the current construction
[02:15:57] ▶and financing environment.
[02:15:59] ▶Today, Vancouver's hotel development pipeline stands at over 7,000 rooms. However, only about 800 or just over 800 are currently under under,
[02:16:09] ▶construction. Remaining projects,
[02:16:12] ▶are in rezoning and development approval, represent potential supply, but they're by no means assured to proceed.
[02:16:19] ▶In our research, developers told us that guest amenity spaces, meeting rooms, event facilities, ballrooms,
[02:16:26] ▶wellness amenities, and other common areas are critical to the success
[02:16:29] ▶of modern hotels. These spaces at 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
[02:16:41] ▶valuable floor area and without generating the same direct returns as guest rooms.
[02:16:47] ▶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.
[02:17:04] ▶This measure is aligned with council's April 2025 direction to explore regulatory changes that would encourage new hotels
[02:17:11] ▶and support the inclusion of events
[02:17:13] ▶and guest amenity spaces.
[02:17:16] ▶It responds directly to the feedback provided by the development community and reflects the realities
[02:17:21] ▶of hotel project feasibility.
[02:17:24] ▶Importantly, this amendment does not
[02:17:26] ▶simply encourage more hotel rooms. It encourages diversity of offerings within hotels, hotels that include meeting space, event facilities,
[02:17:34] ▶and amenities that support visitors, conventions, business travel, and major events.
[02:17:40] ▶As Vancouver continues to compete internationally for meetings, conventions,
[02:17:44] ▶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 and encourages council to approve it.
[02:17:58] ▶Thank you for your time and consideration.
[02:18:01] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you for speaking.
[02:18:03] ▶Speaker 37
[02:18:05] ▶is, Nasca Spaszek.
[02:18:09] ▶Yes. I'm here. Thank you. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver, please, or not?
[02:18:15] ▶Speaker 31: No. I live I live in Burnaby, and I will speak in my language,
[02:18:20] ▶which is Serbian.
[02:18:22] ▶You okay. And my speech is going to be translated.
[02:18:26] ▶Okay.
[02:20:24] ▶Now you're gonna hear my
[02:20:27] ▶translation
[02:20:28] ▶translated
[02:20:29] ▶Speaker 7: speech.
[02:20:41] ▶Speaker 3: Hi there. We're not hearing anything at this point.
[02:20:56] ▶Speaker, we can't we can't hear a translator.
[02:21:08] ▶Okay. Speaker, if you don't have, if you're not having your remarks translated, you can continue with your comments, or you can let us know if you have finished your remarks, please.
[02:21:27] ▶Okay.
[02:21:28] ▶We're gonna assume that you you have concluded your comments. Thank you for speaking.
[02:21:34] ▶Speaker 42,
[02:21:36] ▶is Connie
[02:21:39] ▶on the line?
[02:21:47] ▶Speaker 1: Just checking the line share. They may have disconnected.
[02:21:50] ▶Speaker 3: Okay.
[02:21:51] ▶Hang tight for a second.
[02:21:57] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 42 is on the line and is unmuted.
[02:22:00] ▶Speaker 3: Speaker 42 is Connie. Connie, can you hear us?
[02:22:11] ▶Hey. Connie,
[02:22:12] ▶ask you one more time before I move on. Can you hear us?
[02:22:17] ▶Okay. No. We'll move to speaker 43.
[02:22:25] ▶Angel, do we have 43?
[02:22:30] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 43 has disconnected.
[02:22:32] ▶Speaker 3: Okay.
[02:22:34] ▶Clerks, can you advise if we have any further speakers on the line at this point?
[02:22:39] ▶Okay. Speaker 33,
[02:22:42] ▶Wilmarie
[02:22:43] ▶Ayog.
[02:22:48] ▶Speaker 16: My speech is
[02:22:50] ▶is here. Good evening, mayor and council.
[02:22:53] ▶Speaker 3: Can you advise before you start if if you're a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[02:22:57] ▶Speaker 16: Yes. I I live in Burnaby, but work in Vancouver.
[02:23:01] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Alright. Please go ahead with your comments.
[02:23:04] ▶Speaker 16: Okay. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Wilmarie. I work and I work in Vancouver.
[02:23:10] ▶I would like to speak about priorities.
[02:23:12] ▶Every day, Vancouver residents are being asked to do more with less.
[02:23:17] ▶Housing costs continue to rise. Renters are struggling.
[02:23:21] ▶Young people are wondering whether they will be able to build a future in this city.
[02:23:26] ▶Families are making difficult financial decisions.
[02:23:29] ▶Workers are being pushed farther from their jobs.
[02:23:32] ▶Many residents feel that the city they love is becoming increasingly unaffordable.
[02:23:38] ▶Against that backdrop,
[02:23:39] ▶people are watching closely to see what city halls prioritize.
[02:23:44] ▶That is why this proposal concerns me.
[02:23:47] ▶The city is undertaking this process because provincial legislation
[02:23:51] ▶requires updates to density bonus rules and inclusionary
[02:23:55] ▶zoning provisions.
[02:23:56] ▶In other words, the starting point is housing.
[02:23:59] ▶The starting point is affordability.
[02:24:02] ▶The starting point is ensuring that development contributes to public growth.
[02:24:07] ▶Yet one of the most significant policy changes in this report is an incentive directed at hotels.
[02:24:14] ▶The report states that the purpose is to encourage larger guest amenities and event spaces.
[02:24:20] ▶I have no doubt that hotel operators would welcome that change.
[02:24:25] ▶The question is whether it should be a priority for Vancouver residents.
[02:24:29] ▶When residents think about what Vancouver needs most, I doubt many would put hotel conference rooms near the top of the list.
[02:24:38] ▶People are asking for affordable housing,
[02:24:41] ▶stronger public services, and investments
[02:24:43] ▶that make life more affordable.
[02:24:46] ▶Those are the issues that dominate public discussions and affect daily life. Yet tonight, council is being asked to provide additional benefits
[02:24:55] ▶for a sector that is already
[02:24:57] ▶receiving substantial attention
[02:24:59] ▶through hotel development policies and incentives.
[02:25:03] ▶At some point, residents are entitled to ask a simple question.
[02:25:07] ▶Who is this policy really for?
[02:25:10] ▶Is it for the people struggling to pay rent?
[02:25:13] ▶Is it for families trying to remain in Vancouver?
[02:25:17] ▶Or is it primarily for developers seeking additional flexibility and additional value?
[02:25:23] ▶I believe that is the question council should ask itself before approving this proposal.
[02:25:29] ▶Public policy should be guided by public need. And right now, the greatest public need facing Vancouver is affordability.
[02:25:37] ▶Every decision should be measured against that reality.
[02:25:40] ▶I have not heard convincing answers to those questions.
[02:25:44] ▶Until those answers are provided,
[02:25:46] ▶council
[02:25:47] ▶should reject this hotel incentive
[02:25:49] ▶and maintain its focus on housing affordability
[02:25:52] ▶and the public interest.
[02:25:54] ▶Thank you very much.
[02:25:56] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
[02:25:58] ▶Speaker 40, Sean Lerbold.
[02:26:03] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 40 has disconnected.
[02:26:04] ▶Speaker 3: Has disconnected. Okay. I believe that's all the speakers on the line at this point. I'm making my third and final call for speakers.
[02:26:11] ▶The number is +1 (833) 353-8610,
[02:26:16] ▶followed by the participant code of 1061445Pound
[02:26:19] ▶before close of the list, and the phone number will be displayed during the recess. We will now take a two minute recess for any additional speakers to come forward and return at 08:28.
[02:26:29] ▶Thank you, counsel.
[02:29:38] ▶K.
[02:29:39] ▶Alright. We have quorum,
[02:29:41] ▶so we will resume.
[02:29:43] ▶Clark, do we have any final speakers in the chambers or online?
[02:29:48] ▶Speaker 1: Sure. We have an additional speaker on the line, Matthew DeMarche.
[02:29:52] ▶Speaker 3: This one? Okay. Matthew, can you hear us?
[02:29:56] ▶Yes. Hello. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[02:30:00] ▶Speaker 12: Yep. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I work in Vancouver. Okay. Please go ahead.
[02:30:06] ▶Speaker 5: Hello, to mayor and council.
[02:30:09] ▶Thanks for having me tonight.
[02:30:11] ▶I am opposed to these this proposed change.
[02:30:15] ▶Firstly, it does nothing to hold the developers accountable,
[02:30:19] ▶to the people who live here,
[02:30:21] ▶or would like to live here. And by that, I mean, there is no guarantee
[02:30:26] ▶of units
[02:30:27] ▶that will be tethered to prices that an average forty hour a week worker can afford.
[02:30:33] ▶We have a massive problem in that workers can't afford to live near the city.
[02:30:38] ▶We need developers
[02:30:39] ▶to buy in on helping build
[02:30:42] ▶that housing for workers.
[02:30:44] ▶The only way to do that is for council to make amendments and demand accountability
[02:30:50] ▶on affordability.
[02:30:53] ▶And secondly,
[02:30:55] ▶this council is catering too much to hotel owners and developers.
[02:31:00] ▶We need to be able to get more out of these hotel owners and developers for our city.
[02:31:06] ▶Our city needs,
[02:31:07] ▶a lot more things,
[02:31:09] ▶more swimming and skating lessons, more fitness centers,
[02:31:13] ▶more affordable housing,
[02:31:15] ▶more parks and playgrounds,
[02:31:17] ▶more affordable community events so people can come together.
[02:31:21] ▶And what are the hotel owners doing to address these things? Are they grappling with these things like our residents are every day?
[02:31:28] ▶Is hotels really the priority
[02:31:30] ▶when they won't contribute to the needs of the city beyond Cipollae operating their business?
[02:31:35] ▶Could hotel owners be offering more to not only the city, but the workers they will employ?
[02:31:42] ▶We hear from hotel workers all the time that they live in the suburbs because they can't afford to live in the city
[02:31:49] ▶about all the time that they take commuting
[02:31:51] ▶to work
[02:31:52] ▶every day away from their family.
[02:31:55] ▶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.
[02:32:03] ▶Could hotel owners be offering more
[02:32:06] ▶on this front? I think so. I think so.
[02:32:10] ▶We all have to acknowledge that the hotel workers
[02:32:13] ▶will have to commute for hours every day for every new hotel job that's opened,
[02:32:19] ▶and 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.
[02:32:29] ▶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
[02:32:38] ▶want council to pass a lot of hotel rooms and make it easy to build hotels.
[02:32:44] ▶And that, I think, is
[02:32:46] ▶fine as long as the city and the workers
[02:32:49] ▶are getting what they need. And so the city needs affordable housing.
[02:32:53] ▶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,
[02:33:04] ▶whether it's,
[02:33:05] ▶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 wanna 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 kinda stand up and and go for that.
[02:33:22] ▶So I I ask council to oppose this and make a deal with the,
[02:33:26] ▶hotel owners that make sense for the city. Thank you very much.
[02:33:32] ▶Speaker 3: Alright. Thank you very much for your comments.
[02:33:37] ▶We're going back to I'm advised now that forty two and forty three have come on the line again trying for a third time. So here we go. 42.
[02:33:44] ▶Connie?
[02:33:45] ▶Speaker 19: Thank you.
[02:33:47] ▶Speaker 3: Connie, you have terrible echo.
[02:33:51] ▶Speaker 7: I hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear hear
[02:34:02] ▶hear hear hear
[02:34:04] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Connie, if you don't have a better sound system, we're not gonna be able to hear you speak properly.
[02:34:12] ▶Last last No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Okay. Alright. I'm gonna move on now. Sorry about that.
[02:34:18] ▶Speaker 43. Angel?
[02:34:22] ▶Speaker 22: Good
[02:34:23] ▶evening,
[02:34:23] ▶council. My name is Angel Bacon.
[02:34:26] ▶I work here before
[02:34:28] ▶Speaker 3: you begin, can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver, please? And do you have a last name?
[02:34:34] ▶Speaker 22: I am a resident of Coquitlam, but my workplace is in Downtown Vancouver. And my name is Angel Brayton.
[02:34:40] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Please go ahead.
[02:34:43] ▶Speaker 22: I may not live, within the Vancouver city limits, but
[02:34:48] ▶what happened in this city's housing policy
[02:34:50] ▶affects the entire region.
[02:34:53] ▶And I am here because I care deeply about getting this right.
[02:34:59] ▶The Lower Mainland is one interconnected housing market.
[02:35:03] ▶When Vancouver weakens its affordability
[02:35:06] ▶housing protections,
[02:35:08] ▶the pressure ripples
[02:35:10] ▶out toward Burnaby,
[02:35:12] ▶Surrey, Kwiklum, and beyond.
[02:35:15] ▶Families displaced from Vancouver do not simply disappear.
[02:35:19] ▶They move further out,
[02:35:22] ▶stretch the commutes, and strained communities
[02:35:25] ▶that are already under pressure.
[02:35:28] ▶So
[02:35:29] ▶when I see a proposal that claims to be about bill 16 compliance,
[02:35:36] ▶but quietly inserts a density bonus for hotel developers who add meeting rooms and guest amenities,
[02:35:44] ▶I have to speak up.
[02:35:45] ▶That is not a regional housing benefit.
[02:35:48] ▶That is a local developer
[02:35:50] ▶benefit dress up in compliance language.
[02:35:54] ▶Density bonusing
[02:35:56] ▶should be earned through genuine community contributions,
[02:36:00] ▶affordable housing units,
[02:36:03] ▶childcare,
[02:36:04] ▶spaces like,
[02:36:06] ▶parks,
[02:36:08] ▶public amenities, and so on.
[02:36:10] ▶Not hotel conference rooms, not commercial profit centers.
[02:36:16] ▶This region needs more affordable housing,
[02:36:19] ▶not more incentives for hotel developers
[02:36:22] ▶to build
[02:36:23] ▶bigger.
[02:36:24] ▶I urge council
[02:36:27] ▶to strip out the hotel density loopholes and pass a clean
[02:36:31] ▶and honest bill 16 compliance update.
[02:36:35] ▶The credibility of Vancouver's housing commitments matters.
[02:36:40] ▶Not just to Vancouver residents,
[02:36:42] ▶but for everyone in the region who is watching.
[02:36:46] ▶Remove the loopholes.
[02:36:48] ▶Keep the promise.
[02:36:50] ▶Thank you, counsel, and have a good evening.
[02:36:52] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. You too. Okay. And, number ending in 7330?
[02:37:03] ▶Speaker 28: For speaker number 37,
[02:37:06] ▶we got cut
[02:37:07] ▶Speaker 3: off. What was sorry. What was your speaking number?
[02:37:11] ▶Speaker 28: 37 Nazca.
[02:37:13] ▶Speaker 3: Nazca? Okay. And are you
[02:37:15] ▶you're are you did you I thought you spoke already, Nazca.
[02:37:20] ▶Speaker 28: Nasca spoke, but the translating
[02:37:23] ▶part of her speech
[02:37:25] ▶Speaker 3: got cut off. I I think that that the person had the opportunity at the time. We don't provide that after the fact, unfortunately.
[02:37:32] ▶You need to be present when the person is actually speaking.
[02:37:36] ▶Speaker 28: Okay? I was present. It got cut off.
[02:37:40] ▶Speaker 3: Yes. Unfortunately, we did provide an opportunity for that.
[02:37:44] ▶I made space for that, but we we can't do that after the fact. I'm sorry. That doesn't follow our procedure by law.
[02:37:50] ▶But thank you very much.
[02:37:52] ▶Speaker 4: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:37:55] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed.
[02:37:59] ▶Clark, can you advise if there has been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5PM?
[02:38:05] ▶There has not been. There has not been. Okay.
[02:38:09] ▶And at this point, I know that we've had a counselor join recently. I'm wondering if any council members need a short recess to review any additional comments.
[02:38:21] ▶No? Okay. I'm not seeing any.
[02:38:24] ▶It's, it's
[02:38:27] ▶Sorry. Councilor Domonado, are you trying to speak? You your audio is cutting out.
[02:38:32] ▶Yes. Sorry. I'm trying to turn the video off. We need a reset to Councilor Dominato,
[02:38:38] ▶you're Yeah. We're having difficulty hearing you.
[02:38:43] ▶K. Well okay. I will,
[02:38:46] ▶try to sort that on my end.
[02:38:48] ▶I will be ineligible to vote unless I can get a briefing on the speakers.
[02:38:54] ▶Okay. We can, we can we can send that to you.
[02:38:59] ▶Meanwhile, I'm gonna while that is taking place, I'm gonna close the receipt of public comments.
[02:39:04] ▶And seeing there are fewer no public comments received after 5PM, I'm now closing the receipt of those comments.
[02:39:13] ▶Okay. At this point,
[02:39:15] ▶as the applicant, does the GM of planning or the designate have any closing comments?
[02:39:24] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. Just a couple,
[02:39:26] ▶clarifications or comments.
[02:39:28] ▶We do recognize the, concerns around the supply of affordable housing.
[02:39:32] ▶We do note the report recommendations,
[02:39:34] ▶do not deter from this and will be,
[02:39:38] ▶re reported back in future inclusionary,
[02:39:41] ▶framework.
[02:39:42] ▶We also wanna clarify the hotel changes,
[02:39:45] ▶included in this report are required as per bill 16. The 15%
[02:39:50] ▶density increase in the downtown ODP is a form of density bonusing and does need to change to a new tool such as floor area exclusions to comply with legislation. So we do wanna clarify that. Thank you.
[02:40:01] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you for those helpful clarifications.
[02:40:04] ▶Do staff have any closing comments?
[02:40:07] ▶No. No.
[02:40:09] ▶Okay. Do council have any final questions for staff?
[02:40:15] ▶Counselor Maloney, please go ahead.
[02:40:18] ▶Speaker 11: Thank you.
[02:40:20] ▶So
[02:40:22] ▶thanks for that clarification
[02:40:23] ▶about that the the hotel,
[02:40:28] ▶the section regarding,
[02:40:32] ▶amenities,
[02:40:36] ▶bonuses for hotels is is actually required as part of the provincial
[02:40:41] ▶legislation. So it does have a place in in this document.
[02:40:46] ▶I listening to speakers,
[02:40:50] ▶I think
[02:40:52] ▶they'd probably appreciate,
[02:40:54] ▶some information about
[02:40:58] ▶why it it adds 5%.
[02:41:01] ▶So if it's,
[02:41:03] ▶a translation
[02:41:03] ▶of,
[02:41:04] ▶an existing requirement into the required new form by the provincial
[02:41:09] ▶legislation,
[02:41:10] ▶why why is there an additional
[02:41:13] ▶percentage?
[02:41:14] ▶Speaker 8: I'll turn that to Sean Martinez.
[02:41:17] ▶Speaker 10: Thank you, councilor, Sean Martinez with the deployment lines team.
[02:41:22] ▶So with the current 15%,
[02:41:25] ▶there has been no take up with regards to,
[02:41:28] ▶the that existing bonus. In the past, We do have direction in the hotel development policy,
[02:41:34] ▶section three point one point four to,
[02:41:37] ▶encourage,
[02:41:39] ▶event spaces,
[02:41:40] ▶to to assist with economic development in the city.
[02:41:44] ▶There's direction from, the report in April 15
[02:41:47] ▶with regards to creating incentives for,
[02:41:51] ▶event spaces in back of house.
[02:41:53] ▶So this the increase from, 15 to 20, the 5% additional,
[02:41:58] ▶is in response to council's direction with regards to,
[02:42:02] ▶with regards to incentivizing these types of spaces.
[02:42:05] ▶Speaker 11: And what's your view of the
[02:42:08] ▶so you're you're saying that there's been no take up of the 15%?
[02:42:12] ▶Speaker 10: Of Not since the hotel,
[02:42:14] ▶development policy
[02:42:16] ▶work has been initiated.
[02:42:18] ▶Just to be clear, councilor, the, the 15% is development under develop, under development permit.
[02:42:25] ▶So that would be under current zoning.
[02:42:27] ▶Speaker 11: Alright.
[02:42:28] ▶And,
[02:42:30] ▶so
[02:42:32] ▶can you remind us of the,
[02:42:35] ▶basis on which
[02:42:37] ▶council's direction was given,
[02:42:39] ▶a report or
[02:42:41] ▶evidence
[02:42:42] ▶that,
[02:42:44] ▶that there is a requirement for,
[02:42:46] ▶encouraging these amenities, spaces, or or facilities?
[02:42:52] ▶Speaker 10: As the speaker from Destination Vancouver had stated, we'd work closely with the hotel development task force as well as themselves.
[02:42:59] ▶It has been, through that engagement that,
[02:43:02] ▶it is clear that the,
[02:43:05] ▶event spaces are
[02:43:07] ▶are such that they are not being built.
[02:43:10] ▶The hotels in general are a higher risk,
[02:43:13] ▶asset class and hence,
[02:43:16] ▶the extra spaces such as event spaces and and amenities
[02:43:20] ▶do not generate the type of returns that would be directly attributable to, say, rooms. And so there is an additional incentive that is required with regards to, applicants being able to bring forward such spaces, which are needed with regards to just being able to provide spaces for weddings and
[02:43:36] ▶celebrations of locals and things like that.
[02:43:39] ▶We just do not have currently enough of these spaces,
[02:43:43] ▶in in the city.
[02:43:46] ▶Speaker 32: You know, I'm I'm sorry. I'll maybe just add, it's Chris Robertson, director of citywide and regional planning.
[02:43:51] ▶This was all conveyed,
[02:43:53] ▶through economic testing we did as part of our hotel development
[02:43:57] ▶policy
[02:43:58] ▶work. And,
[02:43:59] ▶you know, during that work, it was clear that there were,
[02:44:03] ▶constraints on on the provision of
[02:44:06] ▶hotel,
[02:44:07] ▶hotels in the downtown
[02:44:09] ▶and that there were efforts needed to help, you know, offset those constraints, and this is one of those measures.
[02:44:15] ▶So that's evidence or study that's been done by the city rather than That's correct. Yeah. That that work was done, by the city with an, an external consultant that we hired to do economic testing with. And, it was also further conveyed through the hotel development task force with,
[02:44:33] ▶the that group as well. So and their study work.
[02:44:36] ▶Speaker 11: Okay.
[02:44:39] ▶I think I think I've got only thirty seconds to go, so I'm I might leave it there. Thanks very much.
[02:44:45] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Thank you. Kelsey Orr. Go ahead. Thanks. So I'm
[02:44:50] ▶Speaker 9: did I hear you correctly say bills in bill 16, it mentions
[02:44:54] ▶hotels?
[02:44:55] ▶I can't find it anywhere in bill 16.
[02:44:57] ▶Speaker 8: It's it's more related to the fact that there currently is a density bonus for hotels in the downtown ODP that's no longer compliant with the the legislation. So that's we're switching it to a different tool. It's not in bill 16. It's not prov provincial. It's just that
[02:45:13] ▶Speaker 9: our ODP has to the downtown ODP has to stream be streamlined, or it's just I'm confused. It it doesn't say anything about it. It is in bill 16 in in the sense that it's a density bonus that needs to be changed. Yep. I see.
[02:45:27] ▶Can you get clarity on some comments, like,
[02:45:30] ▶that we heard? You know, if we remove these density bonus tools,
[02:45:34] ▶we need confidence that, the replacement tools will will continue to generate benefits. Like, we're we're basically, you know, putting the cart before
[02:45:42] ▶the horse year kinda thing.
[02:45:44] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. I think that it's important
[02:45:46] ▶to take this into account with all the other changes we're making to development contribution tools. So, in this report, we're,
[02:45:55] ▶replacing density bonus thing with a new inclusionary zoning tool, which is gonna support affordable housing. And then the future in July, you'll see, updates to the other tools and namely the introduction of the amenity cost charge, which will fund various amenities, going forward. So okay. So those are those are tools that the province has provided, and and so no one has tested it. No municipalities
[02:46:16] ▶Speaker 9: that has to do this, that has have tested them. Like, this is the opportunity now
[02:46:21] ▶to test them, essentially, and that's in accordance with the legislation. Yeah.
[02:46:27] ▶Can you remind me again if the maybe and for the record, just, you know, for for people because there's a lot of talk about affordability.
[02:46:33] ▶My understanding from the questions I was asking that this there's a potential that this will increase affordability or increase the housing stock.
[02:46:40] ▶Speaker 8: Yeah. Particularly with the inclusionary zoning tool, it you know, again, staff envision this will be cash contributions for affordable housing, which will advance, yeah, our affordable housing goals. And then can you just sorry.
[02:46:53] ▶Speaker 9: On the present on the presentation,
[02:46:56] ▶it says,
[02:46:58] ▶the city can choose the housing type, like, the the the affordable housing type.
[02:47:03] ▶Can you just,
[02:47:04] ▶provide some more color on that? Yeah. For sure. So inclusionary zoning,
[02:47:08] ▶Speaker 8: there's kind of three different types of affordable housing you can,
[02:47:12] ▶require. So it's a percentage of social housing,
[02:47:15] ▶a percentage of below market rental,
[02:47:18] ▶and then also a percentage of affordable homeownership. So those three types are are, And when and when does that come into play? When does the city,
[02:47:26] ▶Speaker 9: make that sort of call or
[02:47:28] ▶Speaker 8: requirement? Yeah. With with the zoning changes that it would do. So for for example, the r one and FSD,
[02:47:34] ▶RM eight a and FC two e, it's a it's a social house percentage of social housing that we're we're offering. So we're really these we're really increasing opportunities for for social housing and and normal nonmarket housing. Correct.
[02:47:46] ▶Speaker 9: Okay.
[02:47:47] ▶And then, I guess, sort of, with my time remaining, you know,
[02:47:51] ▶similar to sort of the adoption of the ODP
[02:47:54] ▶and and the questions around that, what if we voted no on this?
[02:47:58] ▶Speaker 8: Well, I think you would run the danger of not being compliant with,
[02:48:02] ▶the the legislation.
[02:48:04] ▶I think this is also an opportunity to use a tool that the province has, provided to municipalities, inclusionary zoning, and making that sure that's in place,
[02:48:13] ▶you know, after June 30 to to,
[02:48:16] ▶secure that for affordable housing going forward. Okay. Thanks. That's all my questions.
[02:48:21] ▶Speaker 3: Okay.
[02:48:22] ▶Thank you. Councilor Klassen?
[02:48:26] ▶Councilor Claassen, you're muted.
[02:48:31] ▶Speaker 6: Thanks very much. Can you hear me now? You can. Go ahead. Pretty good. Yeah. Thanks very much, chair.
[02:48:36] ▶Just, first,
[02:48:38] ▶two,
[02:48:39] ▶staff in the room there. Are members of our,
[02:48:42] ▶legal team,
[02:48:44] ▶available? And I just I know sometimes it takes a a moment to to get their attention if they are. I have a question for them, but I'll start with other questions. I just wanna make, make,
[02:48:54] ▶you aware that I was gonna ask a question of our legal team.
[02:48:57] ▶I just and, the sort of the recurring theme that we heard from speakers
[02:49:03] ▶throughout,
[02:49:04] ▶the evening and past public hearings
[02:49:06] ▶is,
[02:49:08] ▶whether hotels
[02:49:10] ▶place
[02:49:11] ▶a unique pressure on the availability
[02:49:14] ▶of
[02:49:15] ▶housing availability and particularly
[02:49:17] ▶affordable housing. I just wanted to know if perhaps
[02:49:20] ▶the director of planning is there or other
[02:49:24] ▶team members who can sort of speak to
[02:49:26] ▶that thread, that conversation, if that is something that we,
[02:49:30] ▶as a council, have to be aware of or live to or need to,
[02:49:35] ▶discuss with the with the applicants or with the, with the speakers? Yeah.
[02:49:40] ▶Speaker 33: Councilors, Josh White here, general manager planning.
[02:49:45] ▶Whether it's our ODP,
[02:49:47] ▶our area plans, our Housing Vancouver strategy,
[02:49:51] ▶our hotel development strategy.
[02:49:54] ▶We believe through the changes we're making, we're creating sufficient capacity to deliver both outcomes,
[02:50:00] ▶both, sufficient delivery of housing to meet our targets,
[02:50:04] ▶but also council's priority for
[02:50:06] ▶hotels. We don't believe that's a zero sum equation.
[02:50:10] ▶Speaker 6: Thanks very much. I recognize that it it it was referred to as council's priority, but this is a a local priority to make sure that we have a vibrant economy. I believe the Look West strategy for the province,
[02:50:21] ▶sites,
[02:50:23] ▶an increasing,
[02:50:24] ▶of our tourism a destination tourism economy. Hotels are a key part of that, I presume?
[02:50:29] ▶Speaker 8: Correct.
[02:50:31] ▶Speaker 6: Okay. So essentially creating jobs is is the the the way that we would, see some level of prosperity to come from the notwithstanding the fact that we understand that people,
[02:50:42] ▶who, work in the hospitality sector,
[02:50:44] ▶may face some struggles around affordability.
[02:50:48] ▶So that question I asked earlier is Yes. Do we have a member of a We do have legal counsel, Klaasen, if you wanna go ahead. So I have a I have a, so, it's my understanding from recent news reports that Unite Here 40,
[02:51:00] ▶did,
[02:51:02] ▶are now
[02:51:03] ▶engaged in a legal dispute with,
[02:51:06] ▶the city of Vancouver over a recent approval of an application.
[02:51:10] ▶Does that preclude,
[02:51:12] ▶City
[02:51:13] ▶engaging
[02:51:14] ▶in another level
[02:51:16] ▶with,
[02:51:17] ▶to try and maybe inform them a little bit better around our work around affordable housing, or do we have to kinda keep a a distance, out of, as a precautionary principle?
[02:51:30] ▶Speaker 3: So this is Stacy McFarland with legal services.
[02:51:33] ▶Counselor, I can't speak specifically to that,
[02:51:37] ▶issue right now. What we can do is, report back to council on that and what the opportunities are.
[02:51:42] ▶Speaker 6: Okay. Thanks very much. Yeah. No. It it's,
[02:51:45] ▶Unite Here 40 who've made them their presence known over the recent meetings, and, a lot of the speakers have,
[02:51:52] ▶are my understanding are here as a result of their advocacy,
[02:51:56] ▶have been,
[02:51:58] ▶and in fact, I think the opening speaker tonight,
[02:52:01] ▶was a a leader from from that organization, and they did bring up specific,
[02:52:06] ▶concerns around whether the policy conflicts with,
[02:52:10] ▶the desire around improving housing affordability.
[02:52:14] ▶I I do think it would be beneficial for the city to engage
[02:52:18] ▶with the organization.
[02:52:19] ▶But, anyway, I won't go any further in there. I hear you, chair, very much. Thanks very much. I,
[02:52:25] ▶I guess,
[02:52:27] ▶Speaker 3: what I just want I just want you to be able to use your question time specifically for questions, council council Yeah. No. I hear that. I've got I've got I've got sixty seconds left here.
[02:52:36] ▶Speaker 6: With regards to our thanks very much,
[02:52:41] ▶very much, Stacy, for that.
[02:52:43] ▶Just back to our planning staff. In terms of,
[02:52:46] ▶conveying,
[02:52:48] ▶how affordability
[02:52:49] ▶affordable housing
[02:52:51] ▶policy does integrate with our overall
[02:52:54] ▶drive to
[02:52:56] ▶improve the availability of hotel and housing, is there a way that we can get that message across,
[02:53:03] ▶in a fashion that, you know, maybe we can get some of these questions answered before people come in here?
[02:53:16] ▶Speaker 33: Councilor Josh here again. I I I I think you're,
[02:53:19] ▶that I think that's a matter of communication, and I think, we can endeavor as staff and as a municipality to
[02:53:25] ▶speak proactively about how we can achieve those ends. If that's what you're seeking, we can take that away and, and consider how to how to best do that.
[02:53:34] ▶Speaker 6: Thanks very much. Yeah. Those are are two areas that, I've put forward in these comments here. Much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, councilor Klassen.
[02:53:43] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Clerk, have we received any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
[02:53:53] ▶We have not. Okay. Thank you. And just checking in with councilor Dominato if you were able to receive your requested summary
[02:54:00] ▶and
[02:54:01] ▶review that. You feel you're able to vote?
[02:54:05] ▶Yes, chair. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for confirming. Council, we will now make the decision on the application. Do we have a mover for the recommendations?
[02:54:12] ▶Moved by councilor Meisser,
[02:54:14] ▶seconded by councilor Montague.
[02:54:17] ▶Council members, is there any discussion?
[02:54:20] ▶Councilor Orr.
[02:54:22] ▶Speaker 9: Yeah. Thanks, thanks to staff for bringing this forward, and thanks, for answering all the questions, and thanks for all the speakers.
[02:54:29] ▶I'll I'll be supporting, but with some reservations. I know that this is really,
[02:54:35] ▶not really optional in terms of,
[02:54:38] ▶the province's bill 16 requiring municipalities
[02:54:40] ▶to update their density bonuses by by June 30. And if we fail to do so, we risk creating,
[02:54:47] ▶uncertainty and,
[02:54:49] ▶and that there's a lot of positives here in terms of density bonusing, you know, is has always been or has been criticized as being opaque
[02:54:57] ▶and unpredictable
[02:54:58] ▶and difficult to for the public to understand,
[02:55:03] ▶and that this kinda moves us,
[02:55:05] ▶toward a a more clearer system of inclusionary zoning that may provide greater certainty,
[02:55:12] ▶for housing delivery and for more affordable housing income, outcomes.
[02:55:18] ▶And I'm I'm encouraged to hear that, you know, there's been attempts to preserve affordable housing requirements,
[02:55:25] ▶while reducing that complexity in system.
[02:55:29] ▶And that and I'm encouraged by the new inclusionary zoning tool as well, and that could,
[02:55:34] ▶potentially deliver more nonmarket and and social housing.
[02:55:39] ▶But,
[02:55:41] ▶you know, ultimately, this was a compliance measure. It's and it's not the final word on how growth should pay for
[02:55:47] ▶infrastructure, amenities, and and affordable housing. So,
[02:55:51] ▶you know, there's there's always opportunity,
[02:55:53] ▶to to revisit that with the financing growth update,
[02:55:58] ▶later later on this year.
[02:56:00] ▶So with that, I will be supporting, but I would like to ask the clerks to sever out,
[02:56:05] ▶recommendation
[02:56:06] ▶b,
[02:56:07] ▶subsection,
[02:56:08] ▶three.
[02:56:09] ▶Speaker 3: B three. Is that correct? Thank you, councilor. And that concludes your comments? Yeah. Thank you. Councilor Maloney.
[02:56:17] ▶Speaker 11: Thank you. Yeah. I,
[02:56:20] ▶I just wanna
[02:56:21] ▶particularly acknowledge all the public speakers that called in tonight that are enduring long commutes to work in in the city. And,
[02:56:30] ▶I know that the city is doing a lot to increase the supply of affordable housing,
[02:56:38] ▶but I know that,
[02:56:39] ▶the decades of,
[02:56:42] ▶lack of senior government,
[02:56:44] ▶investment in social housing
[02:56:47] ▶is,
[02:56:50] ▶not only
[02:56:52] ▶a real problem, but not looking like it's changing enough anytime soon.
[02:56:58] ▶So I'm
[02:56:59] ▶very deeply sympathetic to the people who are frustrated
[02:57:03] ▶that they can't live close to the city. They can't afford it.
[02:57:07] ▶I I was,
[02:57:09] ▶reassured by
[02:57:12] ▶the
[02:57:14] ▶staff
[02:57:16] ▶assuring us that the,
[02:57:19] ▶the amenities in hotels are,
[02:57:23] ▶not profitable and need incentivizing,
[02:57:26] ▶and they
[02:57:29] ▶they are something that the city needs for
[02:57:34] ▶things like events and weddings.
[02:57:36] ▶So that explanation was very helpful. So
[02:57:41] ▶if we don't vote in favor of the this,
[02:57:45] ▶we will be out of compliance,
[02:57:47] ▶and I think that's what this
[02:57:50] ▶public hearing is about.
[02:57:53] ▶That being said, I think that there are some really legitimate concerns being raised by our public speakers who are calling in and probably lack
[02:58:02] ▶a a forum to,
[02:58:03] ▶express their frustrations,
[02:58:05] ▶elsewhere and feel heard. So thank you.
[02:58:09] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Maloney. Councillor Klassen.
[02:58:13] ▶Speaker 6: Yeah. Thanks very much.
[02:58:15] ▶Thank you, staff, and thanks to the speakers. And and and there is a,
[02:58:19] ▶a risk of of people,
[02:58:22] ▶losing faith in in in the process here. So, I mean, our our,
[02:58:29] ▶our currency is really on communication and making sure that
[02:58:33] ▶the
[02:58:34] ▶the the public is aware of the initiatives that are going on.
[02:58:39] ▶And as we know, affordability doesn't end at Boundary Road. It exists in,
[02:58:44] ▶challenges exist
[02:58:46] ▶in Burnaby, Coquitlam, Surrey, and other communities around the Lower Mainland.
[02:58:51] ▶But the work that we're doing here in the city, I think, is laudable.
[02:58:55] ▶It But, the ability to try and get that point across so people are not feeling left out, understanding that there is a dedicated attempt to try and make sure that we are complying both with provincial policy. And my understanding of the history of this policy is that it extends back to the Premier himself, who is housing minister, met with, industry
[02:59:16] ▶leadership,
[02:59:17] ▶regularly to try and formulate
[02:59:19] ▶a kind of clarity that the ACCs and other,
[02:59:23] ▶these policies are
[02:59:25] ▶attempting
[02:59:27] ▶to bring forward to make sure that people are really clear that where public benefits exist. So
[02:59:32] ▶I'll stop there only to say that, I appreciate
[02:59:35] ▶the very clear message that we have to work hard on both growing our economy, whether it's through hotel development or otherwise, and making sure that we have an ample supply
[02:59:45] ▶of affordable housing and the policies in place, to support it. And I think, supporting this,
[02:59:51] ▶goes to in some, length to try and accomplish that. Thanks very much. Thank you.
[02:59:57] ▶Speaker 3: And thanks to councilors online for ensuring your video is enabled to, ensure eligibility for voting. I'm now gonna call the vote.
[03:00:04] ▶Councilors, if you can please vote online
[03:00:07] ▶on oh, I'm sorry. I should specify.
[03:00:10] ▶We are voting first on b three, which was asked to be severed, so we will do our first vote on b three only.
[03:00:17] ▶Sure. I'll take a vote assist in favor because my Crestron,
[03:00:20] ▶platform isn't working. Thank you. Okay.
[03:00:24] ▶I think the clerks have that. Correct?
[03:00:28] ▶Okay.
[03:00:29] ▶That passes with councilor Orr in opposition,
[03:00:32] ▶and now we will move to vote on,
[03:00:35] ▶all of the remaining
[03:00:37] ▶clauses
[03:00:38] ▶as a collective.
[03:00:39] ▶If you can please vote on screen.
[03:00:43] ▶And, again, I'll take a vote assistant favor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, councilor Domino. And that passes with
[03:00:51] ▶none in opposition and mayor Sim, councilor Bly, and councilor Frey,
[03:00:55] ▶absent.
[03:00:56] ▶Okay, everybody. That, completes item number one this evening.
[03:01:01] ▶We will now move on to item number two,
[03:01:05] ▶which is a Vancouver ODP amendment and CD one rezoning for 1745
[03:01:10] ▶West 8th Avenue. And before we begin this item, if anybody believes they have a conflict of interest,
[03:01:16] ▶now is the time to declare it.
[03:01:19] ▶Does anybody have one to disclose?
[03:01:22] ▶I am not seeing any.
[03:01:24] ▶I will now ask the clerk to read the application and the summary of correspondence received.
[03:01:28] ▶Speaker 0: This is an application by Amicon Construction
[03:01:31] ▶for the site at 1745
[03:01:34] ▶West 8th Avenue to change the generalized land use designation in the Vancouver official development plan from mixed use high rise one to mixed use high rise two and to rezone from c 3 A District to C D 1 District to permit a thirty one and twenty nine story mixed use development containing
[03:01:52] ▶441
[03:01:53] ▶strata titled residential units,
[03:01:56] ▶98 in kind social housing units, and 37 space in kind childcare facility,
[03:02:01] ▶and a commercial space on the Ground Floor.
[03:02:04] ▶A floor space ratio of 8.56
[03:02:06] ▶and a height of a 102 meters are proposed.
[03:02:09] ▶The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation of the yellow memorandum
[03:02:18] ▶dated 05/29/2026
[03:02:20] ▶entitled
[03:02:21] ▶Vancouver ODP amendment and CD one rezoning 1745
[03:02:25] ▶West 8th Avenue.
[03:02:26] ▶Council considerations when amending an as an ODP
[03:02:30] ▶ODP.
[03:02:31] ▶The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing.
[03:02:35] ▶44 pieces of correspondence and support, 36 pieces of correspondence
[03:02:39] ▶opposition, and one piece of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application.
[03:02:44] ▶This represents all correspondence received up to 5PM today.
[03:02:48] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thanks very much. I will now make my first call for speakers. Those who wish to speak to council about this item can please call toll free +1 (833) 353-8610,
[03:02:57] ▶followed by participant code 1061445
[03:03:00] ▶before close of the speakers list, and the phone number will also be displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list.
[03:03:11] ▶We now have staff from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application. Please go ahead.
[03:03:18] ▶Speaker 34: Thank you very much. Good evening, council and acting chair. My name is Chi Chan. I'm on the re I'm the rezoning planner for this application.
[03:03:29] ▶The site is outlined in red, is a single parcel bound by West 8th Avenue, Pine Street, and West 7th, and a rear lane.
[03:03:37] ▶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
[03:03:46] ▶as well as rental and strata buildings.
[03:03:48] ▶The future, South Granville SkyTrain Station is located 400 meters to the southeast at Broadway and Granville Street,
[03:03:57] ▶just off the screen to the bottom right.
[03:04:02] ▶Under the Vancouver official development plan, this site is currently designated as mixed use high rise one, which supports building heights up to 26 stories.
[03:04:14] ▶An amendment to
[03:04:15] ▶the ODP to change the designation to mixed use high rise two, which permits building heights greater than 26 stories, is required to support this proposal.
[03:04:28] ▶The proposal is being considered under the Broadway plan. Redevelopment under the plan anticipates
[03:04:33] ▶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.
[03:04:42] ▶Provision of a privately owned public space was also anticipated by the plan for this site.
[03:04:52] ▶This application is for a mixed use development with,
[03:04:55] ▶thirty one and twenty nine story towers connected by a podium.
[03:04:59] ▶The recommended bill billing height is three hundred and thirty five and three hundred and two feet respectively, for the two towers,
[03:05:05] ▶with a density of 8.56
[03:05:07] ▶FSR.
[03:05:08] ▶The application proposes 441
[03:05:11] ▶strata units, 98 in kind social housing units, a 37 space in kind childcare facility,
[03:05:18] ▶commercial retail space along West 7th Avenue and Pine Street, and a 5,000 square foot privately owned public space at the Southeast Corner.
[03:05:27] ▶Please note there are no hotel units in this application.
[03:05:31] ▶The relaxations of the plan's maximum height and FSR are supported here in order to help to deliver the social housing,
[03:05:38] ▶childcare, and larger privately owned public space.
[03:05:45] ▶Under the Vancouver Charter, consultation opportunities must be provided for persons, organizations, and authorities affected by an ODP amendment.
[03:05:52] ▶Council directed staff to consult with the Vancouver School Board, the Conseil Scholar Francophone,
[03:05:57] ▶and the Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Nation, and Tsleil Waututh Nation.
[03:06:02] ▶Following those consultations, the school board noted that there are some capacity shortage shortages anticipated at the secondary catchment school of Kitsilano Secondary,
[03:06:11] ▶but not at the primary school.
[03:06:13] ▶VSB,
[03:06:15] ▶employs several strategies to mitigate enrollment pressures, including reducing out of, catchment enrollment,
[03:06:20] ▶relocating district choice programs, adjusting catchment boundaries, undertaking renovations, and deploying portables.
[03:06:26] ▶No other comments were received from the other groups by the end of the consultation period.
[03:06:33] ▶During the public engagement period for this rezoning application, support was expressed for new housing
[03:06:39] ▶for the suitability
[03:06:41] ▶of the location for additional density, and that is well served by existing amenities and transit in the area.
[03:06:46] ▶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.
[03:06:55] ▶In response, the proposal meets the intent of the Broadway plan and the increased height supports the delivery of the in kind social housing, the childcare facility, and the larger privately owned public space.
[03:07:06] ▶The proposals
[03:07:07] ▶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.
[03:07:16] ▶On infrastructure, the Broadway plan contains a public benefit strategy outlining the public amenities and infrastructure sought over the thirty year life of the plan.
[03:07:25] ▶And in terms of traffic and safety, this proposal is well cited in in proximity to the future rapid transit station and along current bike routes to reduce personal vehicle use.
[03:07:34] ▶New expanded sidewalks are also ex planned along all street frontages,
[03:07:38] ▶adjacent to this development.
[03:07:44] ▶The total anticipated public benefits from this project is approximately $70,000,000.
[03:07:49] ▶This is comprised of approximately 57,000,000
[03:07:52] ▶for the in kind social housing and childcare facilities,
[03:07:54] ▶12,000,000 in DCLs, and 800,000
[03:07:57] ▶in public art. The other public benefit is a new, 5,000 square foot privately owned public space.
[03:08:06] ▶In conclusion, the proposal meets the intent of the Broadway plan, and staff support this application subject to the conditions contained,
[03:08:12] ▶in the report. Please note there is a yellow memo with this, attached to this application.
[03:08:18] ▶Staff and the applicant team are available to answer your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Alright. Would the applicant like to present the application?
[03:08:29] ▶Speaker 35: Good evening. May I am counsel deputy may I am counsel?
[03:08:33] ▶My name is Dipank Dog, and I'm vice president at Amicon.
[03:08:37] ▶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.
[03:08:49] ▶I have with me here tonight our applicants team,
[03:08:52] ▶including John Reed, development manager, as well as the, team from CDA, our architect.
[03:08:58] ▶Staff have done a great job of, highlighting the project, but I just wanna highlight some things that we are particularly proud of.
[03:09:06] ▶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,
[03:09:17] ▶objectives laid out, by city planners in the Broadway plan.
[03:09:21] ▶Now we often hear the term highest and best use, a somewhat abstract concept that doesn't immediately connect to meaning and describe results.
[03:09:30] ▶So let me tell you why we think this proposal is, in fact,
[03:09:34] ▶the highest and best use proposal for this site.
[03:09:37] ▶First of all, outside of the benefits of market and commercial uses, there are almost a 100 units of turnkey
[03:09:44] ▶to the city, nonmarket housing, which could be homes for first responders,
[03:09:48] ▶health care workers, teachers, seniors, and families.
[03:09:52] ▶One of the,
[03:09:53] ▶it's one of the few, if not the only projects in the in the Broadway Corridor that delivers this kind of public benefit.
[03:10:00] ▶Then there's a childcare facility for 37 children, which, with the state of the art indoor and outdoor spaces.
[03:10:07] ▶Again, turnkey to the city.
[03:10:09] ▶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.
[03:10:22] ▶Add to that, there's a large outdoor publicly accessible green space with a plaza for people to gather and take in their neighborhood.
[03:10:30] ▶Combined between the public green space and the secured outdoor childcare playground,
[03:10:34] ▶over 20% of the site's footprint
[03:10:37] ▶is dedicated to just the outdoor components of public amenities.
[03:10:42] ▶All in, as you've seen, staff value these contributions to be more than $70,000,000.
[03:10:47] ▶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,
[03:10:58] ▶any at all,
[03:10:59] ▶existing tenants,
[03:11:01] ▶meaning no displacement
[03:11:03] ▶and the challenges that are presented by that to residents.
[03:11:07] ▶All of this just steps away from transit,
[03:11:10] ▶community centers, schools, libraries, Seawall, Granville Island.
[03:11:14] ▶And so with this proposal, we believe you have an opportunity to take a meaningful step in building a greater city.
[03:11:21] ▶I think you'll agree with me that place making is ultimately about people.
[03:11:25] ▶And long after this council is gone and the project is built, young families will move into this neighborhood.
[03:11:31] ▶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.
[03:11:39] ▶And while they may not know the people who made that possible, they will know the great places that gave them best lives.
[03:11:47] ▶We think this project does just that.
[03:11:49] ▶Thank you very much, and we look forward to answering any question you have.
[03:11:53] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thank you very much for the presentation.
[03:11:56] ▶Okay, counsel. Are there any questions to staff or the applicant? And I will note remind counsel this is the only opportunity for counsel to ask questions of the applicant. Councilor Ory, you have the floor.
[03:12:05] ▶Speaker 9: Yeah. Thanks.
[03:12:06] ▶My question is gonna be about,
[03:12:08] ▶the the original proposal having a 107,
[03:12:12] ▶social housing units, which, was 20%
[03:12:15] ▶of the residential floor area. And the
[03:12:18] ▶the new proposal,
[03:12:20] ▶being 98 and only having 17.9.
[03:12:25] ▶And whether or not,
[03:12:27] ▶that's because the previous proposal didn't meet several sort of, objectives of the Broadway plan
[03:12:33] ▶and that the new,
[03:12:35] ▶the new proposal meets the like, some of the other,
[03:12:39] ▶sort of objectives, like, the the public space
[03:12:43] ▶and the and the and the larger childcare,
[03:12:47] ▶facilities. Is that is that accurate?
[03:12:49] ▶Is that it just, like, there's a trade the the you did a, sort of a trade off to to to get more out of it kinda thing? Or
[03:12:57] ▶Speaker 34: yes. Thank you very much for the question. It is essentially a trade off, and staff judged that it was a fair trade off.
[03:13:03] ▶Speaker 9: Okay. So we're we're still getting, you know, 98 units of social housing units on, you know, an location that didn't have any,
[03:13:12] ▶displacement as the as the applicant,
[03:13:15] ▶talked about. And,
[03:13:17] ▶do we have any sort of, I I guess, probably not at this point, but any sort of,
[03:13:22] ▶and this maybe could be for the applicant on what the the privately owned, public space could look like?
[03:13:28] ▶Do we have any sort of window into that?
[03:13:31] ▶Speaker 34: At this point, we do have a sort of a open design, but it will be developed further at the development permit stage. Yap and could speak to that if they wanted to.
[03:13:41] ▶Speaker 35: Yeah. I think we would defer to staff on design components that would be required, but I assume it's predominantly green space.
[03:13:48] ▶Speaker 9: Predominantly green space? Okay.
[03:13:51] ▶Thanks for that. That's,
[03:13:53] ▶all my questions. I might have more, after. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, councilor Orr. Councilor Maloney, please go ahead.
[03:14:01] ▶Speaker 11: Thank you. I just had a question about the childcare
[03:14:05] ▶facility.
[03:14:07] ▶Is that,
[03:14:08] ▶a private,
[03:14:10] ▶childcare facility?
[03:14:12] ▶If so, is it guaranteed
[03:14:14] ▶within
[03:14:15] ▶the the bylaw? Will it be, or is it just a commercial space that's contemplated to be used for childcare? Thank you for the question. It's an in kind facility that's being turned over to the city. Fantastic. Thanks very much.
[03:14:29] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Council Meiser.
[03:14:32] ▶Speaker 36: Yes. Thank you. Just a question for staff just so I'm understanding,
[03:14:36] ▶the application correctly.
[03:14:39] ▶They are seeking
[03:14:40] ▶additional height, and that's why we're here to do the ODP amendment.
[03:14:44] ▶Is it the,
[03:14:47] ▶privately owned public space? Is it the childcare? Is it the social housing? I'm just wondering what aspect
[03:14:53] ▶or public benefit in this project is, allowing for that additional height or why you're recommending,
[03:14:58] ▶approval.
[03:15:01] ▶Speaker 34: Thank you for the question. I'm not 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 these public benefits,
[03:15:16] ▶Speaker 36: we need just a little bit more height and density. Okay. And how unusual is it in Broadway plan right now to have a a large strata, a proposal come forward like this?
[03:15:29] ▶Speaker 34: It is
[03:15:30] ▶not unusual.
[03:15:34] ▶Sorry. I will turn that over to my colleague, John Grattenburg too.
[03:15:41] ▶Speaker 9: John Grotenberg, Broadway plan team. If I can just clarify, you asked,
[03:15:45] ▶is this an unusual type Yes. In Broadway Plan. It is. Yes. There are very few, if any, projects like this. Okay. So just
[03:15:53] ▶Speaker 36: so I'm recalling correctly with rental projects, for example, we would not be able to,
[03:15:58] ▶say, deliver, like, childcare in a publicly owned space and social housing. Usually, we'd just be below market. Right? That's correct. Yes. K. Okay. Thank you.
[03:16:08] ▶Speaker 3: Thanks, councilor Meiser. I'm gonna take the opportunity to ask the question myself.
[03:16:14] ▶And this is probably the staff, I think, best. So allows up to 26 stories. This is twenty nine and thirty one, simplistic,
[03:16:22] ▶I guess, summary, but it's fair to say that if it was less height, less community amenities. Is that a fair statement?
[03:16:30] ▶Speaker 34: It is a it is a possible trade off. The one of the community amenities that we couldn't flex on is the childcare. We 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 that's not what staff were seeking either. No. But I'm saying if, if the if the proposal was not at, the height that is being requested, we would the city would not achieve the,
[03:16:54] ▶Speaker 3: full package of community amenities likely. Is that a fair statement?
[03:16:58] ▶Speaker 34: That is a fair characterization of the proposal in front of us. Okay. So it is a it is a trade off.
[03:17:04] ▶Speaker 3: Okay.
[03:17:05] ▶That's clear. Thank you.
[03:17:07] ▶Okay. I'm not seeing any further questions from counsel at this point, so I'm gonna make my second call for speakers.
[03:17:13] ▶The number is +1 (833) 353-8610.
[03:17:17] ▶The participant code is 10614450.
[03:17:21] ▶Before the close of the speakers list, this phone number will be displayed during the recess. We will now hear from the public.
[03:17:27] ▶If we have any speakers in the council chamber, they can come forward to the podium on the left when it is your turn.
[03:17:32] ▶Reminder, you can adjust the podium height for phone in speakers. Please remember,
[03:17:38] ▶we will unmute you when it is your turn to speak. All speakers have up to five minutes maximum to make your comments.
[03:17:44] ▶Should limit them to the merits of the report being considered. And our
[03:17:48] ▶first speaker has withdrawn.
[03:17:51] ▶So we will start with Yumi Yamagami
[03:17:55] ▶in person.
[03:17:56] ▶Hi.
[03:17:57] ▶Hello. Please go ahead when you're ready.
[03:18:00] ▶Speaker 37: Good evening, council and everyone.
[03:18:02] ▶My name is Yumi Yamagami, and I live in Kitsilano in Fairview area.
[03:18:08] ▶I support adding more housing and rental housing in Vancouver.
[03:18:12] ▶However,
[03:18:13] ▶I am concerned
[03:18:14] ▶that the current tower heavy approach proposed for this project is not balanced, family friendly, or compatible with a long term liability
[03:18:24] ▶of the neighborhood.
[03:18:25] ▶The proposed neighborhood has already accepted
[03:18:29] ▶substantial density.
[03:18:31] ▶There are already several 11 story apartment buildings surrounding this site.
[03:18:36] ▶The question is not whether we add housing.
[03:18:39] ▶The question is why the next step must be towers
[03:18:43] ▶nearly three times
[03:18:45] ▶as tall.
[03:18:46] ▶There is a reasonable middle ground.
[03:18:49] ▶The proposed development
[03:18:50] ▶at 1745
[03:18:52] ▶West 8th Avenue
[03:18:53] ▶would introduce two towers
[03:18:55] ▶of approximately twenty nine and thirty one stories,
[03:18:59] ▶along with approximately
[03:19:01] ▶500
[03:19:02] ▶parking and loading stalls into an area that was never designed for this level of intensification.
[03:19:10] ▶Residents are understandably
[03:19:12] ▶concerned
[03:19:13] ▶about the additional vehicle traffic, congestion,
[03:19:17] ▶and impacts on local streets
[03:19:19] ▶that could result from development
[03:19:21] ▶of this scale.
[03:19:23] ▶I would like to understand
[03:19:25] ▶whether the city of Vancouver
[03:19:28] ▶and applicant seriously
[03:19:30] ▶evaluated
[03:19:31] ▶mid rise of alternatives
[03:19:33] ▶that could provide substantial housing growth
[03:19:36] ▶while reducing demolition waste,
[03:19:38] ▶construction complexity,
[03:19:40] ▶shadowing,
[03:19:41] ▶neighborhood impacts, and embodied carbon
[03:19:45] ▶by utilizing
[03:19:46] ▶existing level two parkade.
[03:19:48] ▶Residents are concerned
[03:19:50] ▶about increased shadowing,
[03:19:52] ▶wind impacts,
[03:19:53] ▶traffic,
[03:19:54] ▶privacy concerns, and additional pressure on parks,
[03:19:58] ▶schools, and public infrastructure.
[03:20:02] ▶Population growth must be synchronized
[03:20:04] ▶with infrastructure
[03:20:06] ▶investment,
[03:20:07] ▶not approved first and addressed later.
[03:20:10] ▶I am also concerned
[03:20:13] ▶about the practical liability of these towers.
[03:20:17] ▶The proposal
[03:20:18] ▶appears to include only two elevators per tower for buildings approaching 30 stories.
[03:20:25] ▶This may seem like a small detail,
[03:20:28] ▶but it directly affects daily life.
[03:20:31] ▶I currently live in an 11 story building with approximately
[03:20:36] ▶100 units and two elevators.
[03:20:40] ▶Even in this building of that size,
[03:20:43] ▶elevator wait times can already be significant,
[03:20:47] ▶especially
[03:20:48] ▶when one elevator is out of service
[03:20:51] ▶or being used for move ins and move outs.
[03:20:55] ▶That experience
[03:20:56] ▶makes me question
[03:20:58] ▶whether two elevators are sufficient for towers nearly three times as tall.
[03:21:04] ▶Urban design
[03:21:05] ▶directly affects family life and community well-being.
[03:21:11] ▶Human scale neighborhoods
[03:21:12] ▶encourage children to play outdoors,
[03:21:15] ▶interact with neighbors,
[03:21:17] ▶and develop social connections.
[03:21:20] ▶In high rise environments,
[03:21:23] ▶families can become more dependent on elevators,
[03:21:26] ▶spend less time outdoors spontaneously,
[03:21:29] ▶and face additional barriers to everyday community interaction.
[03:21:34] ▶Vancouver
[03:21:35] ▶should carefully consider
[03:21:37] ▶whether tower heavy planning
[03:21:39] ▶creates the kind of child friendly communities we want in the long term.
[03:21:44] ▶I believe
[03:21:45] ▶Vancouver can add housing
[03:21:48] ▶through more balanced forms of density,
[03:21:51] ▶including mid rise apartments
[03:21:53] ▶and other forms of missing middle housing
[03:21:56] ▶that add density
[03:21:57] ▶while preserving liability
[03:21:59] ▶and neighborhood character.
[03:22:02] ▶The city once recognized
[03:22:05] ▶that preserving neighborhood scale was important
[03:22:08] ▶to urban liability.
[03:22:10] ▶We should not abandon those lessons.
[03:22:14] ▶Growth should enhance communities,
[03:22:17] ▶not erase qualities
[03:22:19] ▶that make them successful,
[03:22:22] ▶livable,
[03:22:22] ▶and attractive
[03:22:24] ▶in the first place.
[03:22:25] ▶Thank you for your time and consideration.
[03:22:28] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you, Yumi, for speaking to counsel.
[03:22:30] ▶Speaker two is, Roden Hannigan on the phone?
[03:22:36] ▶Speaker 4: Yes. Hello.
[03:22:38] ▶Speaker 3: Sorry. Sorry. I got one one Hello? Yes. Thank you. Yes. We can hear you. Please go ahead.
[03:22:44] ▶Speaker 4: Hi.
[03:22:45] ▶Hi. Good evening.
[03:22:48] ▶Speaker 12: Yeah. I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal, not because Vancouver doesn't need more housing,
[03:22:55] ▶but because Vancouver needs more affordable housing. And I've got a you know, I the,
[03:23:01] ▶my Don Draper award of the evening goes to the, applicant
[03:23:05] ▶who somehow managed to
[03:23:08] ▶convey,
[03:23:09] ▶requirements
[03:23:11] ▶that the city puts upon developers to provide in kind, you know, amenities to the city and the population of Vancouver
[03:23:18] ▶as something that they were, you know, doing out of the kindness of their hearts
[03:23:22] ▶and,
[03:23:23] ▶you
[03:23:24] ▶know, things that they stand to make a great deal of money on,
[03:23:28] ▶such as, you know, building this development as some sort of public service.
[03:23:33] ▶In reality,
[03:23:35] ▶for years, residents have been told that if we just keep giving the real estate development,
[03:23:40] ▶industry what they want,
[03:23:42] ▶they will eventually make housing affordable.
[03:23:45] ▶Rents have continued to rise, homeownership continues to
[03:23:49] ▶decline and move into the hands of only the wealthy,
[03:23:52] ▶and working class people are moving out of our city.
[03:23:56] ▶This proposal follows the same pattern.
[03:23:59] ▶This
[03:24:00] ▶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
[03:24:15] ▶far less certain
[03:24:17] ▶to,
[03:24:18] ▶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.
[03:24:34] ▶Speaker 28: The developer spoke about,
[03:24:36] ▶Speaker 12: you know,
[03:24:37] ▶first responders
[03:24:38] ▶and, you know, service workers and, you know, all these people, like,
[03:24:42] ▶we we like to lionize,
[03:24:44] ▶living in there. Well, I'm gonna 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.
[03:24:54] ▶The people with fixed incomes are not going to be living there. Young families
[03:24:59] ▶well, young families of perhaps, people with $300,000
[03:25:03] ▶a year salaries,
[03:25:04] ▶might be, moving into these places.
[03:25:07] ▶But I can tell you that lot young families are leaving Vancouver,
[03:25:12] ▶and, Avicom knows that. And they know that young families don't have the kind of purse strings that is needed to buy their developments.
[03:25:21] ▶Many of these residents earn
[03:25:23] ▶and many of these residents that, they were speaking about often don't qualify for subsidized housing.
[03:25:30] ▶This project does nothing to address any of these things.
[03:25:33] ▶We are repeatedly
[03:25:34] ▶told that private development will solve the affordability crisis, yet the affordability crisis has continued to worsen during the one of one of the largest development booms in Vancouver's history. More luxury and market housing has not translated into affordable housing for ordinary residents.
[03:25:53] ▶The council is prepared to grant significant
[03:25:57] ▶increases in height, density,
[03:25:59] ▶and land value,
[03:26:01] ▶then the public should receive a stronger benefit in return.
[03:26:06] ▶That should mean a substantially
[03:26:09] ▶larger portion of permanently affordable housing,
[03:26:12] ▶not simply the minimum amount necessary
[03:26:16] ▶to make the project excess acceptable,
[03:26:19] ▶and in fact, in this case, a little bit less.
[03:26:23] ▶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,
[03:26:34] ▶not by what maximizes
[03:26:36] ▶returns for developers like Amicott.
[03:26:38] ▶Vancouver's
[03:26:39] ▶housing prices is the prime is not primarily a shortage of investment opportunities.
[03:26:45] ▶It is a shortage of homes that ordinary people can afford.
[03:26:49] ▶Council has had an op has an opportunity to send a clear message that future rezonings
[03:26:56] ▶must deliver real affordability
[03:26:58] ▶until this proposal contains a significantly
[03:27:01] ▶greater commitment
[03:27:03] ▶to permanently
[03:27:05] ▶affordable housing, I don't believe it serves the public interest.
[03:27:11] ▶perhaps
[03:27:12] ▶I perhaps futilely
[03:27:14] ▶urge council to reject this application in its current form and require a proposal that puts affordability
[03:27:21] ▶first. Thank you.
[03:27:22] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you, Ronan. Speaker four, Josephine Christie.
[03:27:27] ▶Hi. Can you hear me? We can. Can you advise if you are a resident or not of Vancouver, please?
[03:27:33] ▶Speaker 24: I'm a resident of Coquitlam.
[03:27:35] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Please go ahead.
[03:27:38] ▶Speaker 24: Hi.
[03:27:39] ▶Okay. So I am speaking in opposition to this proposal.
[03:27:44] ▶Like many people in Metro Vancouver, I want to see more housing built, including affordable and social housing.
[03:27:51] ▶That's why I think it's important to ensure that when major exceptions to existing plans are granted,
[03:27:57] ▶the public benefits are truly proportional to what is being approved.
[03:28:01] ▶I'm concerned about the scale of the changes being proposed and what they could mean for the integrity of the planning process,
[03:28:08] ▶the surrounding neighborhood,
[03:28:09] ▶and public confidence in how development decisions are made.
[03:28:13] ▶This proposal would increase the allowable build building height from 30 feet to three thirty five feet. That is more than a tenfold increase and represents a dramatic departure
[03:28:24] ▶from the existing zoning framework.
[03:28:26] ▶The project also requires both an amendment to the official development plan and a site specific CD one rezoning.
[03:28:34] ▶While planning policies can evolve over time,
[03:28:37] ▶repeatedly creating site specific exception
[03:28:40] ▶risks undermining
[03:28:41] ▶the predictability
[03:28:42] ▶and consistency
[03:28:44] ▶that residents expect from the planning process.
[03:28:47] ▶This proposal would substantially increase the density allowed on the site, nearly tripling the amount of floor space that can be built.
[03:28:55] ▶Such a significant increase creates considerable additional development potential and land value.
[03:29:01] ▶In my view, council should carefully consider whether the public benefits being offered are proportional to the value being granted.
[03:29:09] ▶I recognize that the project includes social housing and child care spaces,
[03:29:14] ▶both of which are important and worthwhile objectives.
[03:29:17] ▶However, my understanding is that of the 539,
[03:29:21] ▶I believe, housing units proposed,
[03:29:23] ▶only 98 would be social housing, while the majority would be market strata units.
[03:29:28] ▶Given the scale of the requested increase in height and density,
[03:29:32] ▶it's reasonable to ask whether the public benefits justify the extent of the exception being solved.
[03:29:39] ▶I'm also concerned about the broader impacts of a development of this size.
[03:29:44] ▶Nearly five forty housing units, along with commercial space and childcare facilities,
[03:29:50] ▶will place additional demands on local streets,
[03:29:53] ▶transit,
[03:29:54] ▶parks, schools, and other community infrastructure.
[03:29:57] ▶These impacts should be carefully considered alongside potential benefits of the project.
[03:30:03] ▶There's also questions about neighborhood fit and livability.
[03:30:07] ▶Two towers of twenty nine and thirty one stories
[03:30:10] ▶may be out of scale with surrounding developments and could set a precedent for similar tower rezonings in the future.
[03:30:17] ▶Buildings reaching 335
[03:30:19] ▶feet can affect sunlight,
[03:30:21] ▶views, privacy,
[03:30:23] ▶and the overall experience of nearby residents
[03:30:26] ▶and businesses.
[03:30:27] ▶More broadly, I'm concerned about planning by exception.
[03:30:31] ▶When height and density limits are repeatedly exceeded through site specific amendments and rezoning,
[03:30:37] ▶it can create uncertainty for residents and weaken public confidence in long term planning policies.
[03:30:43] ▶For these reasons, I believe this proposal will result in an extraordinary increase in height and density
[03:30:49] ▶through a site specific rezoning
[03:30:51] ▶while delivering predominantly market rate housing rather than a significant amount of affordable housing.
[03:30:58] ▶I'm concerned about the precedent it may set, its fit within the surrounding area, and whether the public benefits are proportional to the value being granted to the developer.
[03:31:08] ▶I urge counsel to reject this proposal. Thank you.
[03:31:14] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Okay. Speaker number five, Steve Cashmore.
[03:31:19] ▶Speaker 15: Hi. And hi again. Thank you. My name is Steve Cashmore, and I live in and work in Vancouver.
[03:31:23] ▶I'm here because this project reflects a larger problem facing workers and people in the city.
[03:31:28] ▶The proposal contains 41 441
[03:31:32] ▶strata condos.
[03:31:33] ▶Most of those units will be sold in one of the most expensive housing markets in North America.
[03:31:37] ▶Meanwhile, the amount of social housing has been has been reduced below the minimum standard established in the Broadway plan. Workers are constantly told that new housing supply will will solve
[03:31:49] ▶affordability, but many workers cannot afford new market condos.
[03:31:53] ▶The people who keep the city running, hospitality workers, health care workers, childcare workers,
[03:31:58] ▶retail workers, trade tradespeople, service workers, needs housing they can actually afford. Which is why the 20% social housing requirement matters. The original proposal met the requirement.
[03:32:09] ▶The revised proposal does not. At some point, the requirement that is frequently waived stops being a requirement and becomes a suggestion,
[03:32:16] ▶and that undermines public confidence in the planning process.
[03:32:19] ▶I believe Vancouver needs more housing,
[03:32:22] ▶but we need the right mix of housing.
[03:32:25] ▶Approving hundreds of additional market condos while reducing the affordable housing component is not the right direction.
[03:32:31] ▶If this project is going to receive additional height and an additional density, then the public should receive the full affordable housing benefit that the city policy requires.
[03:32:40] ▶I find it troubling that the changes made to improve the project resulted in more condos and fewer social housing units.
[03:32:48] ▶If the council if the council is going to grant substantial increases in height and density, the public should receive more to more affordability,
[03:32:55] ▶not less.
[03:32:57] ▶Approving this application will will sorry. Excuse me. Would reward a developer for reducing the affordable housing comp component
[03:33:04] ▶while increasing the market component.
[03:33:07] ▶This is the opposite of what residents expect during a housing crisis.
[03:33:10] ▶I urge Castle to defend its own policy and require full compliance with the 20% social housing requirement. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Speaker six, Michelle Travis.
[03:33:25] ▶Speaker 3: Hello, Michelle?
[03:33:30] ▶Speaker 16: Hello?
[03:33:31] ▶Speaker 3: Is that Michelle? Hello?
[03:33:33] ▶Yeah. Can you hear me now? Yes. We can. Please go ahead.
[03:33:36] ▶Speaker 38: Okay. Thanks.
[03:33:38] ▶Yes. My name is Michelle Travis. I'm a resident of, Vancouver.
[03:33:42] ▶I'm speaking in opposition to the rezoning at 1745
[03:33:45] ▶West 8th unless significant changes are made to strengthen its social housing commitments.
[03:33:50] ▶To be clear, I recognize that the revised application includes one prevent's child care
[03:33:55] ▶child care facility has been expanded to a a full 37 space child care center, which is what's required.
[03:34:01] ▶However, this should not come at the expense of the project social housing commitment.
[03:34:05] ▶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.
[03:34:16] ▶While the project simultaneously seeks substantially more height and 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%
[03:34:38] ▶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.
[03:34:47] ▶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 the reduction is necessary to support project viability, but the public is not provided with the evidence needed to evaluate that claim.
[03:35:02] ▶Council is being asked to accept a reduction in public benefit based on viability claims that, we don't need more information about.
[03:35:10] ▶Repeat the report repeat repeatedly refers to the units,
[03:35:15] ▶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 78% may be rented at rates
[03:35:26] ▶up to market.
[03:35:28] ▶Just a question about, you know, 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?
[03:35:36] ▶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.
[03:35:46] ▶Yet there are no binding commitments guaranteeing deeper affordability for low income house
[03:35:51] ▶low income households or residents,
[03:35:54] ▶at risk of displacement.
[03:35:56] ▶Instead, the staff state that they intend to work with senior government to look for opportunities to deepen affordability down the line. I'm
[03:36:03] ▶also concerned that certain elements of the social housing component
[03:36:07] ▶remain unresolved.
[03:36:09] ▶The conditions of approval identified deficiency requiring further work, including inadequate amenity space,
[03:36:15] ▶missing support facilities, and other issues.
[03:36:18] ▶They go directly to the livability and long term success of the social housing component.
[03:36:23] ▶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,
[03:36:32] ▶much of it, and much of it is still operating at market rents, the justification for those exemptions,
[03:36:37] ▶become a bit weaker.
[03:36:39] ▶At a minimum, we think, get council should require full public disclosure of the financial viability here,
[03:36:45] ▶used to justify reducing the social housing component below the Broadway plan expectations,
[03:36:51] ▶and ensure that they're binding affordability commitments
[03:36:54] ▶prior to approval and resolving outstanding social housing design issues.
[03:36:58] ▶We think, council should be very cautious about establishing a precedent where developers receive additional height and density while negotiating down the very public benefits that were intended to justify those exceptions.
[03:37:12] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you.
[03:37:14] ▶Speaker seven, Alfina Lambertus.
[03:37:19] ▶Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. We can. Please go ahead.
[03:37:23] ▶Speaker 16: Yeah. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Athena
[03:37:27] ▶Sambertus. I live in Vancouver, and I'm a
[03:37:31] ▶single mother working in Vancouver hospitality
[03:37:34] ▶industry.
[03:37:35] ▶I am here tonight because this application
[03:37:39] ▶raises a question that
[03:37:41] ▶is very personal to me. Who is Vancouver being billed for?
[03:37:45] ▶I work hard. I pay my taxes.
[03:37:49] ▶I raise my child. I contribute to
[03:37:52] ▶the economy and to this tourism industry
[03:37:55] ▶that this city depends on.
[03:37:58] ▶But it depends
[03:37:59] ▶working full time.
[03:38:01] ▶Housing is the concern source of stress in my life.
[03:38:05] ▶Every month, I worry about my rent.
[03:38:08] ▶Every month, I make difficult choice about children,
[03:38:12] ▶childcare,
[03:38:13] ▶grocery, transportation,
[03:38:14] ▶and household expenses.
[03:38:17] ▶Like, mainly hospital worker,
[03:38:20] ▶my wage has not keep up with housing
[03:38:24] ▶costs.
[03:38:26] ▶I know coworkers who have moved further and further away from Vancouver
[03:38:31] ▶because they simply cannot afford to live near their job
[03:38:36] ▶anymore.
[03:38:38] ▶Some spend hours
[03:38:40] ▶committing
[03:38:41] ▶coming
[03:38:42] ▶every day.
[03:38:43] ▶Other have left the city altogether.
[03:38:47] ▶So when I heard that, development is proving
[03:38:53] ▶social housing, I pay attention
[03:38:56] ▶because
[03:38:57] ▶social housing is not,
[03:38:59] ▶abstract
[03:39:00] ▶planning concept to people like me.
[03:39:03] ▶It represent opportunity.
[03:39:05] ▶It represents stability.
[03:39:07] ▶It represent the possibility that working family might actually be able to remain
[03:39:13] ▶in the community where they work.
[03:39:17] ▶That's why I was disappointed
[03:39:19] ▶to learn to learn that
[03:39:21] ▶the original proposal for this project, including more social housing
[03:39:26] ▶than what
[03:39:27] ▶is present
[03:39:30] ▶to present to you tonight?
[03:39:33] ▶The original application including
[03:39:36] ▶one zero seven social housing units
[03:39:39] ▶and meet the broadway plan
[03:39:42] ▶requirement
[03:39:43] ▶that at least 20% of resident
[03:39:46] ▶resident
[03:39:48] ▶floor
[03:39:49] ▶area being
[03:39:50] ▶social housing.
[03:39:54] ▶The reverse proposal
[03:39:56] ▶reduced the social housing
[03:39:58] ▶component to 98 unit
[03:40:02] ▶or
[03:40:03] ▶19
[03:40:05] ▶17.9%
[03:40:07] ▶of
[03:40:08] ▶resident
[03:40:10] ▶floor area.
[03:40:12] ▶At the same time,
[03:40:13] ▶the number of strata unit increased.
[03:40:17] ▶In order
[03:40:19] ▶in other words,
[03:40:20] ▶the affordable housing portion
[03:40:24] ▶went down while the market housing
[03:40:26] ▶position went up.
[03:40:29] ▶I find that difficult to understand.
[03:40:32] ▶Council offer
[03:40:34] ▶offer
[03:40:35] ▶here that we are in the housing
[03:40:39] ▶affordability
[03:40:39] ▶crisis.
[03:40:41] ▶I think everyone in this room agree that it is true.
[03:40:46] ▶If we are in a affordable crisis,
[03:40:50] ▶should we be be trying to maximize
[03:40:53] ▶affordable
[03:40:54] ▶housing rather than
[03:40:57] ▶reducing it?
[03:40:59] ▶If a project
[03:41:01] ▶is
[03:41:02] ▶receiving additional
[03:41:03] ▶height
[03:41:05] ▶and then derived
[03:41:07] ▶beyond
[03:41:08] ▶what was original
[03:41:09] ▶plan,
[03:41:11] ▶Shouldn't the public benefit
[03:41:13] ▶be increasing rather than shrinking?
[03:41:17] ▶I understand that staff have
[03:41:21] ▶conclude this reduction is
[03:41:26] ▶affordable
[03:41:27] ▶because of project
[03:41:29] ▶variability.
[03:41:32] ▶But I will ask council to think about
[03:41:36] ▶the variable
[03:41:37] ▶of working family.
[03:41:40] ▶The Broadway time, stability,
[03:41:43] ▶a clear
[03:41:44] ▶extension
[03:41:46] ▶for the social housing.
[03:41:49] ▶If council approves a lower amount here,
[03:41:53] ▶future application will be
[03:41:55] ▶undoubtable
[03:41:57] ▶point to this decision
[03:41:58] ▶and ask for similar expectation.
[03:42:02] ▶Over time, those expectation add up add up.
[03:42:07] ▶A few units here, a few units
[03:42:10] ▶there. Eventually,
[03:42:12] ▶the city
[03:42:14] ▶falls short of the affordable housing goal it promised,
[03:42:18] ▶residents.
[03:42:20] ▶I am not asking council to reject housing.
[03:42:24] ▶I support more housing.
[03:42:26] ▶But I also believe that
[03:42:28] ▶when the city has a opportunity to speaker.
[03:42:32] ▶Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker. Yes. Thank you for speaking. You are at time. We have to be fair to everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening. Yes. You too.
[03:42:40] ▶Speaker number 10, Hal Naguyen.
[03:42:48] ▶Speaker 1: Oh.
[03:42:51] ▶Speaker 3: Oh, sorry.
[03:42:53] ▶I should have said, speaker number eight, Betty Kilban.
[03:42:58] ▶Speaker number eight is not on the line. Not on the line. Okay. Speaker 10. How I go in. Speaker 10 is not on the line. It's not on the line. Speaker 11, Soo Min Choi?
[03:43:12] ▶Speaker 16: Can you hear me?
[03:43:13] ▶Speaker 3: Yes. We can, Suman. Can you advise if you are a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[03:43:19] ▶Speaker 19: Oh, I'm living in Banarjee.
[03:43:21] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Please go ahead.
[03:43:24] ▶Speaker 19: Okay. Hello. Good evening.
[03:43:26] ▶My name is Sue, and I live and work in this area.
[03:43:30] ▶I am speaking today because I'm concerned about the purpose to be joining at
[03:43:36] ▶1745
[03:43:38] ▶Western 8th Avenue and what is that? What it says about the city's approach to housing.
[03:43:44] ▶Vancouver is facing a housing crisis.
[03:43:47] ▶People are struggling to find homes they can afford.
[03:43:51] ▶Rentals are
[03:43:52] ▶facing increasing costages, and many residents are worried about whether they will be able to remain in this city long term.
[03:44:01] ▶Because of that,
[03:44:03] ▶I believe the
[03:44:05] ▶land council
[03:44:06] ▶approves major increases
[03:44:08] ▶in height and density should be clear and substantial
[03:44:12] ▶public benefit.
[03:44:14] ▶But concern me about the proposal this proposal is that it remains heavily weighted toward market condominium development.
[03:44:23] ▶That raises an important question.
[03:44:25] ▶If the project is going larger, why is the amount of non market housing getting smaller?
[03:44:32] ▶Before I'm moving here, I saw the exact same housing crisis in South Korea.
[03:44:37] ▶In South Korea, many luxury high rise buildings are constantly
[03:44:42] ▶built in the same city center.
[03:44:44] ▶However, the price is too high for ordinary people and you to afford.
[03:44:50] ▶In the end, those new buildings apparently mainly
[03:44:53] ▶remained empty.
[03:44:55] ▶They built taller buildings, but they did not consider the actual people who need housing.
[03:45:02] ▶When I look at this proposal, I see the same pattern here in Vancouver.
[03:45:07] ▶Housing supply should not just be about developer pocket. It must be about whether originally resident can actually afford it.
[03:45:16] ▶Young newcomer like me face a huge financial barrier as soon as we arrive.
[03:45:22] ▶We work hard in essential service sector in
[03:45:25] ▶cafe, restaurant, local shop, and print shop,
[03:45:29] ▶providing the call letter that keeps this city running.
[03:45:33] ▶Yeah. We with satisfactory
[03:45:35] ▶raises, it is very difficult to afford the current rent in Vancouver.
[03:45:40] ▶Because of this housing insecurity,
[03:45:43] ▶many young people around me have to move multiple times
[03:45:47] ▶or live in overcrowded
[03:45:48] ▶and poor conditions.
[03:45:51] ▶Many young people come here because
[03:45:55] ▶they left Vancouver, but they live earlier simply because they cannot afford the housing cost.
[03:46:01] ▶If young workers continue to leave, Vancouver's worker economy
[03:46:05] ▶communities
[03:46:06] ▶will lose their vitality.
[03:46:08] ▶I understand that Vancouver needs more housing.
[03:46:11] ▶However, not all housing addresses the crisis in the same way.
[03:46:16] ▶The housing we're facing working people, students, and families
[03:46:20] ▶is not a lack of luxury condominium.
[03:46:24] ▶It is need to it is need for housing that people can actually afford.
[03:46:29] ▶I am worried that this project is that's taller buildings, but it does not give enough public housing.
[03:46:36] ▶I want to ask councilor to question,
[03:46:39] ▶why do we get more luxury condos and less social housing?
[03:46:44] ▶And how does this project fix and converge housing problem?
[03:46:48] ▶If the city are bigger buildings, the public must get real affordable housing in return.
[03:46:56] ▶Please think about this balance carefully. Thank you so much.
[03:47:00] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks. And before we continue with speakers, I just wanna outline a couple of options for council this evening. I'm advised by the clerks that we just have a handful of speakers on the line.
[03:47:10] ▶A reminder to council that we have the option we have three options in front of us, which is to finish at 10:00 and go to reserve date.
[03:47:17] ▶We can extend to here remaining
[03:47:20] ▶speakers.
[03:47:21] ▶We have a few. We could have a few more joined, but we wanna have a few now.
[03:47:24] ▶That requires a two thirds vote of the councilors present, so that would be six of eight councilors.
[03:47:29] ▶And it would be unanimous vote to hear debate and decision.
[03:47:32] ▶I also wanna let council know when considering their options that should we finish tonight,
[03:47:38] ▶the decision and debate if it is not unanimous to finish including voting,
[03:47:43] ▶The decision could be either go to tomorrow's council meeting or it could go to a reserve date on June 10.
[03:47:49] ▶So those are the options in front of council. And before we proceed further, I'd like to,
[03:47:54] ▶see what the will of council is and see if any council would like, council member would like to make a motion
[03:47:59] ▶on any of those options.
[03:48:04] ▶K. I I'm gonna take the queue first, council Meiser. So councilor Montague, you have the floor.
[03:48:11] ▶Speaker 1: I'll let councilor Maloney go first here.
[03:48:15] ▶Speaker 3: Councilor Maloney?
[03:48:16] ▶Speaker 11: I,
[03:48:18] ▶will not be staying past ten and don't agree to extend past ten.
[03:48:24] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. And that
[03:48:25] ▶okay. Including for hearing speakers?
[03:48:28] ▶Speaker 11: Including for anything. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Meiser.
[03:48:33] ▶Speaker 36: Move to complete.
[03:48:35] ▶Speaker 3: You are moving to clarify to complete Complete the item.
[03:48:39] ▶Complete the item would require unanimous. So that's I understand.
[03:48:43] ▶Speaker 36: But
[03:48:44] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Well, we'll we'll put that motion first. Anyways. It will be the will of the body, so we'll that will likely fail based on what we've heard. But you still wanna move that motion?
[03:48:53] ▶Speaker 36: I guess not. Yeah.
[03:48:55] ▶Sorry. It's been a long day. I understand.
[03:48:57] ▶Speaker 3: Would you like to move to complete speakers?
[03:49:02] ▶I would.
[03:49:03] ▶Yes. So that's moved by councilor Meiser and that's seconded by councilor Dominato. Is there any discussion on,
[03:49:09] ▶extending to complete the speakers?
[03:49:16] ▶And and then
[03:49:17] ▶and, also, council Meiser, are you adding to that? And then
[03:49:20] ▶refer debate and decision to tomorrow's council meeting or to the reserve date on June 10
[03:49:29] ▶To make sure we cover all of our procedure here.
[03:49:32] ▶Speaker 36: I think it would I'm not sure we'll have quorum tomorrow due to FCM.
[03:49:39] ▶Yep. But several of us are leaving tomorrow.
[03:49:43] ▶Speaker 1: So,
[03:49:45] ▶Speaker 3: I'm not sure if I'm best placed to make a decision as Okay. We can do this. Let's do this in two parts. Maybe they'll make this a bit simpler for everybody. So we've got a motion on the floor from councilor Meiser, seconded by councilor Dominato,
[03:49:55] ▶to extend past ten to complete Speakers. Speakers.
[03:49:59] ▶And councilor Klassen, do you have comments on that before we vote?
[03:50:05] ▶Speaker 6: Just to clarify
[03:50:06] ▶based upon
[03:50:08] ▶customer Meiser's comments, would this,
[03:50:11] ▶Speaker 3: council item be moved to the beginning of the standing committee agenda tomorrow? Can the clerk confirm that? We are going to deal with that. I was mentioning we're gonna deal with that separately. We're gonna deal with extending for speakers, and then we'll come back to that. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Alright. Okay. So I'm asking,
[03:50:26] ▶we're asking for a vote now. I'll go this vote
[03:50:30] ▶councilor Domonado? I don't see you on the queue. Alright. You are. Yes. You are now. Okay. Go ahead, councilor Domonado.
[03:50:36] ▶You know what, chair? I'll come back on for the second portion of this vote. I'll get the clerks to Abby Dunn on for the second portion of the vote. Thank you. Okay, everybody. If you can just please vote on screen with respects to extending to here complete speakers this evening.
[03:50:49] ▶I'll take a vote assistant in favor, please, clerks.
[03:50:53] ▶Okay. Thank you.
[03:50:55] ▶So,
[03:50:58] ▶sorry?
[03:50:59] ▶Councilor Ora, can you register your vote?
[03:51:05] ▶Okay.
[03:51:06] ▶So that
[03:51:08] ▶passes because it requires a two thirds vote, which is six of eight councilors participating with councilors Ora and Maloney in opposition.
[03:51:15] ▶So we will,
[03:51:17] ▶extend tonight to complete the speakers.
[03:51:19] ▶We will now,
[03:51:21] ▶deal with the,
[03:51:22] ▶with guidance from the clerks
[03:51:24] ▶with respects to when the decision
[03:51:27] ▶can be referred to.
[03:51:29] ▶Speaker 1: Thank you, chair. So, debate and decision could be referred to the,
[03:51:35] ▶council meeting following standing committee tomorrow, Wednesday, as unfinished business.
[03:51:41] ▶Speaker 3: Okay.
[03:51:43] ▶Can I please be added to the queue,
[03:51:45] ▶chair, for this item?
[03:51:47] ▶Yep. Just one second, Councilor Domino. Clerk, so just add you on. Yep. Please go ahead.
[03:51:53] ▶Clerks, I
[03:51:55] ▶I I I am I'll be, I think, sharing the majority of tomorrow's meeting, but I I understand, I mean, we have a presentation,
[03:52:02] ▶and I'm just wanting to get a sense of how many hours we anticipate tomorrow's
[03:52:06] ▶standing committee meeting will be because I think we also have a number of member motions, and that'll determine, whether I because I was actually gonna suggest that we refer this next week,
[03:52:16] ▶just given tomorrow's agenda.
[03:52:20] ▶Speaker 1: Councilor Dominato, so tomorrow's standing committee meeting does have a fairly full agenda and is expected to go,
[03:52:28] ▶possibly past five into the evening,
[03:52:30] ▶the next reconvene date would be, the next reserve date would be June 10. But since today's council meeting is reconvening to June 9, the only remaining reserve date before the break that takes place in June
[03:52:44] ▶is is, June 10. So if
[03:52:48] ▶this council meeting or sorry. If this public hearing needed to reconvene to June 10, that would remove that as a reconvene option for tomorrow's standing committee meeting, which may also need that date.
[03:53:00] ▶So if,
[03:53:02] ▶today's,
[03:53:03] ▶if debate and decision for this public hearing
[03:53:06] ▶were referred to
[03:53:08] ▶tomorrow's
[03:53:09] ▶council meeting following the standing committee
[03:53:12] ▶meeting, then it could be included as a full parcel.
[03:53:16] ▶And if needed, tomorrow's standing committee meeting could be then,
[03:53:22] ▶recessed until
[03:53:23] ▶that June 10 reserve date with
[03:53:27] ▶debate and decision from today's public hearing included.
[03:53:31] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. I see I see your point. Okay. Well, in that case, I would share a move that we,
[03:53:38] ▶refer
[03:53:39] ▶debate and decision of this item to tomorrow's standing committee meeting as unfinished business.
[03:53:47] ▶K. So moved by councilor Domino, seconded by councilor Montague. Is there any discussion?
[03:53:53] ▶Okay. Seeing none,
[03:53:55] ▶we'll take that to a vote.
[03:53:58] ▶And clerks, I'll take a vote. Assist in favor, please.
[03:54:03] ▶K. Can I get councilor and councilor Maloney to register your votes, please?
[03:54:09] ▶Councilor Maloney, we're not showing yours at this point. Oh, we are now.
[03:54:13] ▶Thank you. Okay.
[03:54:15] ▶So that passes
[03:54:17] ▶with only councilor Maloney in opposition. Okay. Thanks, council. We've completed the housekeeping. We will now move on with speakers, and that brings us to speaker number 12. Correct, clerks?
[03:54:29] ▶Okay. Speaker 12, Charles Okonga Aiea.
[03:54:35] ▶Speaker 12 is not on the line. Not on the line. Speaker 13, Kirsten Lebron.
[03:54:43] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 13 is not on the line. Speaker 14, Allison Hartford.
[03:54:53] ▶Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Hi, Allison. Yes. We can. Can you Hi. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver or not, please?
[03:54:59] ▶Speaker 39: No. I'm a resident of Burnaby.
[03:55:01] ▶Okay. Great. I'll I'll try to be quick.
[03:55:05] ▶I'm a resident of Burnaby. I own a business in Vancouver. I'll be speaking in opposition to the report recommendations.
[03:55:11] ▶My first concern is that the rezoning proposal does not meet the 20%
[03:55:16] ▶social housing requirement.
[03:55:18] ▶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.
[03:55:26] ▶Time and again, developers have chosen to prioritize
[03:55:29] ▶profits over the needs of Vancouver citizens
[03:55:32] ▶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 and ensuring that they meet these requirements.
[03:55:45] ▶The market strata
[03:55:47] ▶units will be priced out of reach for most families and working people.
[03:55:52] ▶This does not work towards the city's goal of increasing access to housing for its residents.
[03:55:57] ▶At this time, there's no shortage of luxury condos available for purchase in this city.
[03:56:03] ▶What is in short supply is social housing and affordable housing.
[03:56:07] ▶It would be nice if more people who work in Vancouver could also afford to live here.
[03:56:12] ▶As a business owner, I can say that years ago, all of our employees lived in the city of Vancouver,
[03:56:17] ▶and now none of them do.
[03:56:19] ▶My next concern is that this rezoning will allow for a market change in this neighborhood with tall towers, increased density, and traffic congestion.
[03:56:29] ▶Thousands more people in this area will add stress to infrastructure and utilities. We are already in stage three water usage restrictions.
[03:56:38] ▶How does increasing the strain on our systems address long term sustainability?
[03:56:43] ▶The plan does include the childcare 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.
[03:56:56] ▶Towers this tall will drastically change the look and feel of the neighborhood and surely pave the way for more developments of this size
[03:57:04] ▶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.
[03:57:20] ▶In addition, I feel that making these changes to the official development plan
[03:57:25] ▶will erode the confidence that citizens
[03:57:27] ▶have in the future of their city and the trust that they have in council.
[03:57:31] ▶The long term livability of Vancouver should be considered for all of its residents, not just the very wealthy.
[03:57:37] ▶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.
[03:57:47] ▶Speaker 17: Thank you for your time.
[03:57:49] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you for yours.
[03:57:50] ▶Speaker 15, Carmelita Gallipin.
[03:57:58] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 15 is not on the line. Okay. Speaker 16, Nnedi Uday.
[03:58:06] ▶Speaker 3: Speaker 16 is not on the line. Speaker 17 is withdrawn. Speaker 18, Ziyu Zheng.
[03:58:16] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 18 is not on the line. Speaker 19, Ivan Diaz.
[03:58:23] ▶Speaker 19 is not on the line. Speaker 20, Esri Bone.
[03:58:33] ▶Speaker 7: Hello?
[03:58:34] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Is that Esri?
[03:58:36] ▶Hi. Yeah. I'm here. Great. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver, please, or not?
[03:58:41] ▶Speaker 17: Yes. I'm a resident of Vancouver. Great. Please go ahead.
[03:58:45] ▶Hello. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak today.
[03:58:50] ▶I'm speaking today because I'm concerned about the proposed rezoning at 1745
[03:58:56] ▶West 8th Avenue and what it says about the city's approach to housing.
[03:59:00] ▶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.
[03:59:11] ▶Because of that, I believe that when council approves major increases in height and density, there should be a clear and substantial public benefit.
[03:59:19] ▶What concerns me about this proposal is that it remains heavily weighted towards market condominium development.
[03:59:26] ▶While this project includes social housing and childcare space, the revised proposal increases the number of market condominium units while reducing the number of social housing units.
[03:59:37] ▶That raises an important question. If the project is getting larger, why is the amount of non market housing getting smaller?
[03:59:45] ▶This is an issue to me just because I am 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.
[03:59:59] ▶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.
[04:00:07] ▶Even small rent increases make a big difference when wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.
[04:00:13] ▶I've also had to make changes in my life to manage costs by being more careful with spending, billing savings goals, and adjusting my expectations about what kind of housing I can realistically access in the city.
[04:00:24] ▶What worries me most is that this doesn't feel temporary anymore. It feels like a long term trend we're seeing in Vancouver is becoming harder unless you already have a lot of financial security.
[04:00:34] ▶I pay attention to decisions like this because they directly shape whether people like me can continue living here or not.
[04:00:40] ▶In addition to this, many people I know have had to leave the city because of rising costs,
[04:00:46] ▶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.
[04:00:54] ▶I understand that Vancouver needs more housing. However, not all housing crisis
[04:00:59] ▶have not all housing addresses the crisis in the same way.
[04:01:02] ▶The housing shortage facing working people, students, seniors, families, and low income residents
[04:01:08] ▶is not primarily a shortage of luxury condominiums.
[04:01:11] ▶It's a shorting of housing that people can actually afford.
[04:01:15] ▶When council approves projects of the scale, residents should expect a significant public benefit in return.
[04:01:20] ▶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.
[04:01:30] ▶I would ask council, why does the revised proposal contain fewer social housing units than the previous version?
[04:01:37] ▶Why is the number of market condominiums increasing while the number of social housing units is decreasing?
[04:01:42] ▶Does the revised project meet the city's stated social housing objective?
[04:01:47] ▶How does this proposal help address Vancouver's affordability crisis?
[04:01:51] ▶What guarantees exist that the social housing component will remain a meaningful part of the project?
[04:01:56] ▶If additional density is granted, why isn't more non market housing being secured?
[04:02:01] ▶I believe that growth should serve the people who need housing the most. If council is going to approve taller buildings and increase density, the public should see substantial affordable and nonmarket housing benefits in return. I urge council to carefully consider whether this proposal achieves the that balance.
[04:02:17] ▶Thank you.
[04:02:20] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker number 21, Abdulrahman
[04:02:24] ▶Warasamy.
[04:02:32] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 21 is not on the line. Speaker 22, Catherine Bell.
[04:02:42] ▶Speaker 22 is not on the line. Speaker 23, Rhys Delios.
[04:02:55] ▶Speaker 27: Hello?
[04:02:56] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Is that Reese?
[04:02:57] ▶Yeah. This is Reese. Hi, Reese. Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver?
[04:03:02] ▶Speaker 20: Yes. I live in Vancouver.
[04:03:03] ▶Speaker 3: Okay. Please go ahead with your comments.
[04:03:06] ▶Speaker 20: Okay. Thank you.
[04:03:08] ▶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.
[04:03:16] ▶I'm speaking today,
[04:03:17] ▶because I'm concerned about the proposed rezoning at 1745
[04:03:21] ▶West 8th Avenue and what it's saying about the city's approach to housing.
[04:03:27] ▶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 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.
[04:03:51] ▶And while the project includes social housing and child care space, the revised proposal increases the amount of market condominium units while reducing the number of social housing units.
[04:04:02] ▶That raises,
[04:04:03] ▶the question for me if the project is getting larger,
[04:04:06] ▶why why is the amount of nonmarket
[04:04:10] ▶housing not also increasing
[04:04:12] ▶alongside of it?
[04:04:14] ▶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.
[04:04:29] ▶These are moments that I've that I've had moments where I seriously worried about whether I'll be able to renew my lease, whether I'll be forced to move farther away,
[04:04:38] ▶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.
[04:04:47] ▶I've also had to make many, many changes in my life in order to manage costs by being more careful with spending, delaying my savings goals,
[04:04:55] ▶and adjusting my expectations about what kind of housing I can realistically
[04:04:58] ▶access in this city.
[04:05:01] ▶What worries me most is that this doesn't
[04:05:04] ▶this is not no longer feeling temporary.
[04:05:07] ▶It feels like a long term trend where staying in Vancouver is becoming harder unless you already have a lot of financial security.
[04:05:13] ▶I pay attention to decisions like these because they are directly shaping whether people like me and my community can can continue
[04:05:21] ▶to live here in Vancouver.
[04:05:25] ▶I understand that it is really important that Vancouver gets more housing.
[04:05:29] ▶However, it's clear that not all housing is addressing
[04:05:33] ▶the housing crisis in the same way. The housing shortage face
[04:05:37] ▶the housing sorry. 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.
[04:05:50] ▶When council approves projects of the scale, residents
[04:05:53] ▶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.
[04:06:06] ▶Questions that I would hope that council thinks about when making a decision
[04:06:11] ▶is why does the revised proposal contain fewer social housing U units than the previous version, and why is the number of market condominiums increasing while the number of social housing units is decreasing?
[04:06:22] ▶And why does the revised
[04:06:25] ▶sorry, and does the revised project meet the city's stated social housing objective?
[04:06:30] ▶How does this proposal help address Vancouver's
[04:06:33] ▶affordability crisis, and what guarantees
[04:06:36] ▶exist that the social housing component will remain a meaningful part of the project?
[04:06:40] ▶If additional density is being granted, why isn't more nonmarket housing being secured? And what messages is it sending to other developers,
[04:06:49] ▶regarding
[04:06:50] ▶the
[04:06:52] ▶the,
[04:06:54] ▶the needs of the city in terms of social market housing and what they are allowed
[04:06:58] ▶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,
[04:07:06] ▶the public should see substantial affordable and nonmarket housing benefits in return. I urge council to carefully consider whether this proposal achieves that, that balance. Thank you.
[04:07:17] ▶Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. Speaker number 24, Sean Lerbold.
[04:07:24] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 24 is not on the line. Speaker 25, Christina Figueroa.
[04:07:30] ▶Speaker 3: Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. We can. Please go ahead.
[04:07:34] ▶Speaker 31: Hi. Good evening, council.
[04:07:36] ▶Speaker 26: As you just said, my name is Christina, and I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed rezoning
[04:07:41] ▶at 1745
[04:07:43] ▶West 8th Avenue.
[04:07:45] ▶I believe this application highlights a growing problem in Vancouver's planning approach.
[04:07:49] ▶We are increasingly being asked to accept enormous increases
[04:07:53] ▶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 twenty nine and thirty one stories,
[04:08:05] ▶increased,
[04:08:06] ▶the allowed the allowable density from three point zero
[04:08:10] ▶FSR to 8.56,
[04:08:13] ▶FSR, and
[04:08:15] ▶amend the official development plan itself.
[04:08:18] ▶These are significant changes that deserve careful scrutiny.
[04:08:22] ▶The central question is not whether housing is needed. We all know Vancouver needs housing.
[04:08:26] ▶The question is whether every proposal that includes housing should automatically be approved
[04:08:31] ▶regardless of its scale, regardless of how dramatically
[04:08:34] ▶it it departs from existing policy, and regardless of whether it meaningful meaningful mean meaningfully
[04:08:41] ▶addresses affordability.
[04:08:43] ▶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,
[04:08:55] ▶young families, essential workers, and even more professionals,
[04:09:00] ▶and many professionals.
[04:09:02] ▶We are repeatedly told that adding market housing will improve affordability, yet year after year,
[04:09:08] ▶housing costs continue to rise.
[04:09:10] ▶Residents are being asked to accept larger buildings,
[04:09:13] ▶increased density, and significant changes to their neighborhoods while seeing little improvement
[04:09:18] ▶in their own ability to afford a home.
[04:09:21] ▶This proposal also raises concerns about the incremental erosion
[04:09:26] ▶of long term planning.
[04:09:28] ▶Official development plans are intended to guide growth and provide certainty.
[04:09:33] ▶When major amendments become commonplace,
[04:09:36] ▶planning begins to feel reactive rather than strategic.
[04:09:40] ▶Residents participate in planning processes because they believe the resulting policies will guide future development.
[04:09:46] ▶If those policies can be substantially altered project by project, public trust in the planning process is significantly weakened.
[04:09:54] ▶I'm also concerned about infrastructure and livability.
[04:09:58] ▶Hundreds of additional households will place
[04:10:00] ▶increased demand on transportation network, parks, public spaces, community facilities, schools, and utilities.
[04:10:07] ▶While the project
[04:10:09] ▶includes a child care facility, council should ask whether the broader impact of this scale of growth have been fully addressed.
[04:10:17] ▶Growth should not be simply measured in the number of units produced.
[04:10:21] ▶It should also be measured in the quality of life created for current and future residents.
[04:10:25] ▶Vancouver deserves housing solutions that are affordable,
[04:10:28] ▶thoughtful,
[04:10:29] ▶and aligned with long term planning objectives.
[04:10:32] ▶Approving ever taller
[04:10:34] ▶towers and ever greater,
[04:10:37] ▶density bonuses is not by itself a housing strategy.
[04:10:41] ▶For these reasons, I urge council to reject this rezoning application
[04:10:45] ▶and instead pursue housing policies that deliver genuine affordability
[04:10:50] ▶while respecting the integrity of the city's the city's planning framework.
[04:10:55] ▶Thank you for your consideration.
[04:10:58] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you.
[04:10:59] ▶Speaker number 26
[04:11:01] ▶is Sam Carroll.
[04:11:11] ▶Speaker 1: Speaker 26 is not on the line.
[04:11:13] ▶Speaker 3: Speaker 27,
[04:11:14] ▶Aiden Hannigan.
[04:11:18] ▶Speaker 4: Hello?
[04:11:20] ▶Speaker 3: Hi, Aiden.
[04:11:22] ▶Please go ahead.
[04:11:24] ▶Speaker 25: Hi. Yeah. I'm a resident in the West End, and,
[04:11:28] ▶I'm calling about the development on
[04:11:32] ▶on West 8.
[04:11:35] ▶Speaking and opposing the proposal.
[04:11:38] ▶For years, residents, we've been told that the
[04:11:42] ▶that approving larger and larger developments will eventually make housing affordable,
[04:11:47] ▶yet rents
[04:11:48] ▶they they continue to rise.
[04:11:50] ▶Homeownership
[04:11:51] ▶continues to move further out of reach, and working people continue to be pushed out of the city.
[04:11:57] ▶This proposal,
[04:11:59] ▶I believe, follows that same pattern.
[04:12:02] ▶The project, it delivers a substantial amount of new market housing while only a limited portion
[04:12:07] ▶is secured as social housing.
[04:12:10] ▶The result is a development
[04:12:11] ▶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.
[04:12:22] ▶The question before council should not simply be whether this project adds housing,
[04:12:27] ▶but whether it adds the kind of housing Vancouver desperately needs.
[04:12:32] ▶Teachers, health care workers, tradespeople, and artists,
[04:12:35] ▶and young families, and longtime residents are all finding it harder to remain in Vancouver.
[04:12:40] ▶Many of these residents
[04:12:42] ▶earn too much to qualify for deeply subsidized housing, but far too little to afford newly built market rate homes.
[04:12:49] ▶This this project does little to add to address that gap.
[04:12:54] ▶We are
[04:12:56] ▶repeatedly told that private development
[04:12:59] ▶will solve the affordability crisis yet the affordability crisis has continued to worsen during one of the largest development booms in Vancouver's history.
[04:13:09] ▶More luxury and market housing is not translated into affordable housing for ordinary residents.
[04:13:16] ▶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
[04:13:28] ▶proportion of permanently
[04:13:29] ▶affordable housing, not simply the minimum amount necessary to make the project
[04:13:35] ▶acceptable.
[04:13:37] ▶Public policy should be guided by the needs of residents,
[04:13:40] ▶not by what maximizes
[04:13:42] ▶returns for developers.
[04:13:44] ▶Vancouver's housing crisis is not primarily
[04:13:47] ▶a shortage of investment opportunities.
[04:13:50] ▶It is a shortage of homes that ordinary people can't afford.
[04:13:54] ▶Council has an opportunity to send a clear message that future
[04:13:59] ▶rezonings
[04:14:00] ▶must deliver real affordability.
[04:14:02] ▶Until this proposal contains a significantly greater commitment
[04:14:07] ▶to permanently affordable housing,
[04:14:09] ▶I personally don't believe it serves the public interest.
[04:14:12] ▶I urge council to reject this application
[04:14:15] ▶in its current form
[04:14:17] ▶and require a proposal that puts affordability
[04:14:20] ▶first.
[04:14:20] ▶Speaker 24: Thank you.
[04:14:22] ▶Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 28, Kira Harkins.
[04:14:27] ▶Speaker 17: Hello?
[04:14:28] ▶Speaker 3: Hi, Kira.
[04:14:29] ▶Can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver?
[04:14:32] ▶Yes. I am. Okay. Please go ahead.
[04:14:35] ▶Speaker 17: Okay. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
[04:14:39] ▶I am calling in opposition
[04:14:41] ▶of the proposed rezoning at 1745
[04:14:44] ▶West 8.
[04:14:46] ▶I'm not pretending to be an expert on policy, but when council approves may major increases in height and density,
[04:14:53] ▶I believe that there should be a clear public benefit,
[04:14:56] ▶especially when those approvals are being justified as part of