Acting Mayor, members of council, thanks so much for this opportunity to appear before you. My name is Graham Clark. I represent the Vancouver Harbor Flight Center, which is a longstanding tenant in the harbor and part of a group of companies that's been operating in these waters for over a century. We come before you with a proposal that we believe is uniquely suited to Vancouver, a city that's globally recognized yet physically constrained in how it can grow. The question before you is not simply whether to approve another hotel. It is whether Vancouver can continue to evolve its waterfront in a way that's economically meaningful, environmentally responsible, and publicly accessible. This project does exactly all of those things. A floating hotel allows the city to add high-quality accommodations capacity, something that Vancouver consistently needs. Without consuming scarce land and without displacing existing uses, and without creating a permanent footprint on the shoreline, it is, in many respects, a reversible and adaptable form of development. From a public benefit standpoint, the project will generate significant economic activity, construction jobs, long-term employment, increased tourism spending, and ongoing tax revenues, all while strengthening Vancouver's position as a premier destination for the Pacific. Just as importantly, this is not a speculative, untested concept. Our group has operated in Vancouver's waterfront for over a century. I acquired the company 50 years ago. And Sunborn, the proponent, is an international leader in floating hotel developments with successful projects operating in major cities. This is a partnership that combines local stewardship and global expertise. We understand that the waterfront is a shared civic asset. Our intention is not to privatize it, but to enhance it, to add animation activity and economic vitality in a way that complements the convention center and the surrounding public realm. With that, I'd like to introduce our partner, Mr. Hans Nemi, CEO of Sunborn International, who can speak directly to their experience, and I will be available to answer questions later if you wish. Thank you.

Mayor and councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Hans Niemi, and I'm the chief executive officer of Sunborn International. We're headquartered in Finland and come from a long background of real estate, hospitality, maritime development.

The background to this proposed development is stemming back to the times of the Coal Harbor regional plans. And subsequently, Vancouver Harbor Flight Center developed a plan for a marina for the site, a private marina that Graham Clark always says that was not in the heart of what he wanted to do as a legacy. a private megayacht marina that would not be publicly accessible. This proposal builds on that previous marina development idea, and we're creating a public-use hotel and ancillary services in this site. The site is very suitable because it already contains some of the infrastructure that was originally intended for the water uses in this area, including the dolphin and the connection points. Can we have the next slide, please? Sunborn's background dates back almost 55 years. We have been developing real estate, hospitality, maritime assets in multiple countries, like many hotel and hospitality companies do, operate globally. We tend to do landmark, high-quality, long-standing properties that we own and operate. We're an opco, propco. Our background is a family business owned and run by our family. And the company in question doing this is our public listed company listed on Helsinki Nasdaq stock exchange.

The other back story to the proposed development is our very similar circumstances hotel operation in London. We've been operating in London. This particular hotel asset and one hotel ship before that for 23 years successfully. This is the best performing hotel in the London Convention Center XL campus for the last 10 years based on third party studies with the best repars, ADRs and occupancies in the comp set. And this is very similar to the proposal what we're making for Vancouver in the sense that this hotel is connected to the exhibition center. It provides a critical service for the conference market. It is tied into the infrastructure of the convention center in London, just like we're proposing to do here in Vancouver. We're piping in. We're getting our power. We're putting our blackwater into their system. And we're utilizing an otherwise unused water space in this very critical location. Next slide, please.

So the location for the proposal here is located between the cruise port and between the Harbor Flight Center seaplane terminal and the recently built hollow travel hub for the ferries. And so it's a very appropriate location in our view for a maritime asset, which is temporary in nature. And just like in London, connects to the convention center and benefits from the existing facilities, infrastructure, parking, and access points that have been built already.

What we're seeking is a text amendment to allow the use of the hotel. in this area. The hotel would have 250 rooms. It is a high-quality hotel. What we are running in London currently is a four-star deluxe property. This would be a slightly higher standard. This is not a super expensive, very exclusive, unattainable product. We understand the market and the location, and we will work hand-in-hand with TAFCO, providing services to their clients. So the pricing point and our access to the market at the right commercial levels is very important to us.

The connection to the VCC is also critical, as we have the parking, which is located in the VCC building, and most of the infrastructure is going to be in the undercroft that we're going to be tapping into. quite a large portion of our clientele to come directly from the convention center, but this is also a hotel for leisure clients and corporate clients alike.

One point to make is that even though it is fixed with our mooring system, it is a temporary in nature proposal. The benefit of that is we are not taking away space from the land side. or other critical uses that the city may have, affordable housing, among other things. As a temporary in nature proposal, it means that we are going to be operating here as long as we are wanted, and there's a demand for this product. And it allows for the future development opportunities in this site years ahead. We're not taking opportunities away from the city. The maritime nature of this asset is also complementary to the city's hotel development plan. I remember reading specifically that the hotel development plan is seeking variety in accommodation and hotels. Well, this truly is something of different variety to the rest of the normal land-based hotels. And it's a very fitting... asset class as a maritime yacht and a vessel for the port. And suitable sites for these kinds of operations are very, very hard to come by. And this is one of those locations where these requirements seem to fit really, really well in this location specifically. The new public dock that we're proposing to be built ancillary to the hotel is going to be under building permit. It is a more permanent in nature structure as a concrete floating structure, also attached with our fixed mooring system. This is open to the public. One of the aspirations here is that we will increase the access to the waterfront and provide new type of access points to the water level, and adding almost 100 meters of basically public walkway and viewpoints.

The current situation in Vancouver, as we understand it, is there is a shortage of hotel rooms. In the last city investigation, it was around 6,000 bedrooms in shortage. New applications have been processed, clearly. We will provide our piece of the missing hotel rooms, and doing so without taking those opportunities away from the land side. We will be supporting Vancouver conferences by providing these rooms to PEVCO and our visiting international conference clientele. We will be employing around 200 full-time employees, plus the indirect employment opportunities that come from all the ancillary services. Typically, we would use a ratio of 1.5 to the FTEs to scout out the overall staffing requirement. Also importantly, this is a very environmentally-hearted development.

targeting for us is at the heart of the design of this product. This is a product that we're designing for Vancouver. It will be bespoke built for this site. And in the center of our design process is the fact that there's no discharge, there's no oil, there's no permanent engines on board or anything that's going to be dripping into the water. We're fully connected to the infrastructure of PAVCO. And so the environmental impact has been assessed by the company, and we've tried to identify any risk points, and there are very little to report.

We're hoping that this destination hotel will become an experiential hotel that will add to the invigoration of the waterfront. This is a hotspot. in Vancouver, as I've spent some time here now. It's a very fluid location with lots of pedestrians, bicycles, activities, tourists, cruise line passengers. And so this will provide its part in providing ancillary space and spaces for the local Vancouverians and the tourists to enjoy this location. And importantly, this vessel will be built off-site. That means that this will minimize the disruption that you would normally associate with building a 250-bedroom hotel. Yes, granted, there will be some piling works that we will have to coordinate with our authorities. But for the most part, the disruption will happen elsewhere. The floating dock, the public access spa and cafe we're planning to build here in Vancouver,

And we can flick through some of these viewpoints just to provide a view on the access and the visibility from the promenade.

The access to the hotel, if we stop here for a second. The access to the hotel clients and visitors alike to the food and beverage offerings, the spa and cafe, will be mostly coming from the promenade level. We will be having an access point in PAVCO where there will be parking available and there will be a concierge station so you can walk directly from the convention center. into the promenade and from there onwards with this gangway system that we have. And then we're also building, using the existing dolphin that was built already years ago in anticipation of development on the site, will be used to build a very similar type of elevator and staircase access point that we have for the Harbor Flight Center at the moment. And this additional access to the waterfront and the dockway or the pier and the public walkway is a contribution. We do not need such a large dock, but we've designed it very much with the public use case in mind. And this will be a sizable investment for the company. But in lieu of some of the normal building permitting related payments to the city, we hope that this will be considered as a contribution of kind. We're estimating this dock and the access points to cost in around $15 million Canadian dollars alone.

The public dock proposal, we've taken inspiration from, in fact, the MoMA in in Lisbon, where you have a public building and the rooftop of it is walkable. So it's become a bit of a destination for visitors to walk over the rooftop of the building. That same principle we're trying to apply here to make as much of this and different levels accessible to the public and they can enjoy the viewpoints, have a coffee, enter the spa, enter the cafe, and so forth and so forth.

And this is a vantage point and an access point that currently does not exist. So we're seeing this as a positive addition to the site.

This is one of those points where we are enhancing the views of the surrounding area. And hopefully, this will assist in some of the viewpoint concerns that, from some vantage points from the promenade, we may be taking away.

And this is from the roof level of the spa building. will have different levels and a bit of a garden feel to it with really, really great viewpoints from there.

So this vessel has been designed with a target of reducing our energy consumption compared to normal landside or similar structures and hotels by 70%. a 70% reduction in energy consumption, fully using renewable energy sources, and we are going to be piloting some of our patented tidal technology here to convert, also use the tidal range that we're facing, which is a technical challenge in this site, but we're also turning that into an interesting energy converter system. We are using thermal energy systems. That means heat pumps. These have come a long way over the last year, so we're expecting those to also keep on developing as we're building this. So this will be a low-carbon hotel. It will have no discharge to the water. We will hold no oil or fossil fuels on board whatsoever. That will also mitigate and de-risk any environmental concerns of leakage or oil or things that normally you would associate with vessels and maritime assets. We're also located in the cruise port. And so just to give you a flavor of the sizing of this vessel, this is not a large vessel at the end of the day. If you compare it to the Norwegian cruise lines or other passenger vessels that frequently visit this site, They are around 150,000 gross tons, up to 300 meters in size, 20 decks, and frequently in the port. Our vessel is 12,500 metric tons, GT. So it is a fraction of the sizing of these passenger vessels. We will not have the engines, the propeller systems, or any other mechanics. that would normally leak into the water. We've made it a monohull, meaning that there's no piercings in the hull, and there's nothing that would ever leak into the water from the ship. We're not using generators or engines. We're completely tapped into renewable power sources from shore and in our own energy systems.

And the whole vessel is also designed for ultimately to be recycled. There are no hazardous materials on board. as you would normally associate with maritime vessels. And the design of the vessel is hotel first, maritime asset second, meaning that we're trying to not compromise on the public features of the hotel. It needs to run as a hotel, but it also needs to be technically very durable and safe. And that's where the DNV classification and the high maritime standards are always applied to these vessels. So I would say that this is a safer, technically superior product to landside hotels in terms of health and safety, fire safety, and systems.

And we are also contributing to the VCC very advanced recycling systems, blackwater holding systems, and other capacities that they have built with the frame in mind early that there will be further development on site. So there is capacity in the Pavco systems that we can tap into. And that is a great thing. So we don't need to build much more. And the access points are already there.

We are proposing a 250-bedroom hotel, an experiential, maritime-themed hotel in the port district, including around 200 full-time employees plus indirect jobs, off-site construction to mitigate any disruption to the site during the development phase of this. We will be coordinating with the local authorities and planning permitting, Nav Canada, Transport Canada, for all the prerequisite requirements and certifications that we need. So at this stage, we're just seeking the next amendment for the rezoning. And this will be the energy efficient, environmentally friendly hotel. in Vancouver, if not the best, among the very best in Canada in terms of our energy targets. We will build a publicly accessible pier and structure as a contribution, and of course it will have some commercial uses as well. We hope that this will all become a destination in its own right in this fantastic location. We understand the sensitivity of the site and the viewpoints. We have carefully studied the location, and the alignment of the vessel with multiple revolutions of designs to accommodate the viewpoints of the port, of PAFCO, of city staff. And we feel that this particular alignment and location fulfills all of those concerns.

Happy to answer more questions if there are any. Thank you so much.

13,000 square feet.

The renderings that we've shown in the presentation, they're all of them at geodetic tide. And the tide variance is around 15 feet at maximum. That's not average, but sort of maximum range. And so it is a moving target, in a sense. The entry point for the hotel is on deck three. And that's pretty much parallel to the promenade level. And the hotel has six decks altogether. One of them is below water as well.

If that gives some sense into that. So if you imagine on a normal day where the average tide is, where it's normally hitting, you're looking at sort of two stories above.

It's a good question, and thank you for it. The nature of the proposal is a maritime asset. is temporary in nature it is not fixed and it may actually be moved depending on the demand situations and what may happen but as in the non-permanent development it's hard to to align with the normal permanent building structures that we would normally develop on the land side because you have you know the value appraisal of your asset going up and the land And it makes sense to have these sort of building permits related payments. But when you're talking about a ship in the port, we don't know how long it's going to be there. We hope it's going to be there for a long time. But that's the rationale for that. We tried to find something that we can contribute otherwise in kind. And we feel that we've made a reasonable attempt to do that with the public dock and the amenity and the destination.

Okay. As far as we consider the peer structure, the public amenity structure and the cafe and the spa structure, we consider that to be more of a permanent and that is subject to building permission as well.

I would maybe refer back to the example of London, where we've been operating for 23 years.

There we have a similar situation with a classification, maritime standards, regulations, oversight, annual inspections, but also very close cooperation with the local fire department. in ensuring, and there will be always, you know, incidents happening where you need to get an ambulance, you need to get the fire department to come in. But what makes this very different, as a maritime floating asset, you have to imagine the situation with the passenger vessels that are in the cruise port.

But so just to conclude on that, we have a very good sort of benchmark in the way we've done that in London. We've had no problems. And it is really just cooperating with the local fire department and making sure that everybody is fully aware of what's going on and how we're going to operate this.

So we have a similar situation where you have the vessel is classified by the classification society. which is regulated under IMO. And flag states have sort of delegated powers to the classification societies. We always work with the local fire department. We will go through the fire evacuation plans, get their viewpoints on that, make sure that they're happy with all the gear. And so the certification comes from Classification Society. To a certain extent, there may be local certification or operations or business licenses that we will, alcohol licenses that we will have to apply just like any other hotel. And so because it's a unique proposal, this is not atypical. So we're always having to, in every jurisdiction, find the right way of working with the local authorities because it's quite unique wherever we go with this product. And so far, we've had no problems.

And they will, in all cases, surpass the land side regulations. This is typical for aircraft and maritime assets that the certification regulations are much more stringent because of the nature of the operations on sea or in air. And so we will fulfill the equivalent or surpass the local regulations.

We will engage with the local unions and our staff. We are planning to 100% local employed staffing. The local arrangement with the unions are, of course, very important wherever we go. We are not at that stage yet. We haven't reached out to our counterparts in the unions, but we will get there at a later stage, and we will definitely consider that as well.

Absolutely. Well, we have a similar setup in both London and, for example, Gibraltar, where we are located around 100 meters from the airstrip of the airport. And so one unique aspect of these maritime vessels is that they have very high insulation capabilities, U-factors, in terms of sound insulation and environmental insulation as well. And so we are taking that into account in our design specs. And we don't see that being an issue in our existing operations, and we don't see that being an issue with the seaplane terminal next to us.

I will have to come back to that. We have not gone into the detailed design inside. we can definitely consider that there will be washrooms there. And since these are public spaces, I would consider them to be public washrooms, yes.

We will maintain it.

Maybe I can help you with that. Not with the area, but the length. There's 315 meters of space on the north side of the convention center. We're adding about 130.

So the vessel is 18 meters in being. So subtract 18 from 315 and then add 150. That not only extends the walking area, but it means that you can look north, you can look south now and see the city skyline, which you couldn't before. You could look east to the Second Narrows Bridge and west to the Lionsgate Bridge and Stanley Park. Those are all new views.

If I may answer that, yes, we will have seating. You are not obliged to buy anything, especially on the roof levels and other parts that will be seating for the public without any requirement to buy anything.

There will have to be, not for stability or technical reasons, but for health and safety reasons. So we will have to have a mechanism in place. to manage the peak periods, because hopefully this will become quite an attraction, so we need to manage that.

Do you have any idea of what that number would be, based on the size of the dock? Yeah, it would definitely fit well above 100, 150 people at any given time. Okay. Depends on the final layout. And we will be developing these plans as we go forward. Okay. Thank you.

It is limited in time. I believe it's 30... 20... 2060. 2060, okay, thank you. And underneath it, you have the master lease that... Vancouver Harbor Flight Center has. That has a time limitation on it as well. And so that definitely sets the end limit to how long we can be there. Okay. Who would own the dock? It would be in the balance sheet of the Vancouver company that we're setting up for this project. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Good evening, Council. Yeah, DCL, this had this been a land site subject to traditional development, it would pay both the citywide and the utilities DCL, which would add up to, for commercial development, would be roughly $26 per square foot on each square foot of floor area. Those revenues would go to... off-site infrastructure and amenities. So they would fund towards the citywide utility system, transportation upgrades citywide, childcare facilities, affordable housing, parks infrastructure. So those would be the types of things that would be funded from DCLs that we're not getting. So there are no off-site improvements from this project because we're not collecting DCLs.

Perhaps I can answer your question as far as the utilities are concerned. There are no extra capacities required from the city, so there's no capital works to be paid for. There is more than what we need in the convention center already. So the gray water, the black water, the electricity, the only thing that would go up ever so slightly possibly is fresh water, but there's a gauge on that, and you pay for it by the cubic foot. There's no incremental cost.

As my background is a hotelier, I understand hotels and the hotel market is very homogeneous. Over a million hotels around the world, they're all very, very similar in style and standard these days. And so what every hotelier is looking for is that competitive advantage. How do you set yourself apart? And that's what we've learned in our previous operations, that these tend to have that natural appeal. a natural competitive advantage. It is a unique proposal. They complement the waterfronts. And so we tend to get clients who are looking for something out of the ordinary. It's about experiential hospitality. And so that gives us more leeway in terms of the segmentation. We're not reliant on any particular segment, but we are able to get the leisure clients, the corporate clients, the exhibition market, the convention market. And so keeping our prices yielding at the right levels to make sure that we're contributing to those segments and we're not pricing ourselves out of the market, that's been a lesson that we've sort of been learning and have mastered. That's one thing.

I think most of the clients are going to, just like I'm walking around the area, if I'm going to the hotels, I'm walking on the city street level. I think that's the main arrival point. People arriving by car, by vehicles, by taxis, are arriving at the designated areas inside PAVCO and then accessing the waterfront through that. It is a very busy area. We're carefully managing that bicycle traffic and footfall traffic, and it's very, very busy. I've been there a couple of times in the summer, and it's amazing how many people you can fit into that area. But that's the main access point. All the servicing... All of our deliveries are going to be in the undercroft or the loading bay area underneath the VCC. So that takes a lot of the pressure away from the promenade. So only the client access is going to be from there. And so we're going to manage that.

Absolutely. I think it's a... compelling story that probably the world's most sustainable convention center is coupled with a low-carbon, energy-efficient hotel. And then where, in fact, the way we've investigated connecting to the PAFCO systems, because they are lacking volume. for some of their thermal systems, for example, taking the heat exchangers from the wastewater. So we're going to be contributing to those systems because they were built for much larger capacity that is currently being used. So they work hand in hand, and there's a great sort of synergy between the two operations, technically. Thanks.

I think we haven't considered any live music. We're very conscious about the disturbance in noise and otherwise. We think that the spa and cafe and the public dock and the hotel will become a destination and attraction point on its own without having to have a circus inside it. We will consider those if those are acceptable to the city, and they are demanded. But at this time, we haven't really planned for it. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Good evening, Acting Mayor Zhao and Council. Royce Chouin, President and CEO of Destination Vancouver and Vancouver resident. I'd like to begin with a few concerns. Too big, blocked views, would feel like a wall along the shoreline, tacky, out-of-place structure, and it will disrupt the character of Coal Harbor and limit public access. Those comments are not about the proposal before you today. Those were the comments and more about the Vancouver Convention Center West, the world's first doubly platinum certified convention center. Today, that building is an architectural icon. It's a globally recognized facility and a cornerstone of our visitor economy. And in fact, it did not diminish the waterfront. It elevated it. It didn't reduce access. It expanded it. So we've been here before. The sunborn 250 room floating hotel proposal is another one of those moments. Yes, there are concerns. You've heard them. Environmental impact views fit with the waterfront. They're very valid and they deserve careful consideration. But this is not a careless project. If it was, Destination Vancouver would not support. This, we believe, is a very thoughtfully designed, publicly accessible, low carbon structure, as you saw in the presentation, that reflects Vancouver's values and needs. designed to integrate with the public realm and public access, supporting urgently needed hotel capacity, environmentally focused and grounded, and it complements, does not compete with the convention center. The existing sunborn floating hotels demonstrate that this can be done to an incredibly high standard, architecturally, environmentally, and operationally. So this isn't theory, it works. This is also about a very real constraint. As we know, we are short hotel rooms. That is a fact. And the Sunborn project would be a unique addition to our hotel accommodations and would bolster our global destination competitiveness. Vancouver's reputation was not built on always playing it safe. It was built on thoughtful risk, strong design and a willingness to do things a bit differently, especially on our waterfront. The convention center reminds us that early skepticism does not always predict the final outcomes. but the right design and oversight projects like the Sunborn Hotel can become assets we're proud of for years to come. And it also supports a $9 million annual and growing visitor economy and would add to the 70,000 plus jobs that have been created. So in closing, I would encourage Council to view this proposal not just from the lens of risk, but through the lens of opportunity, an opportunity to strengthen our visitor economy, enhance our waterfront, demonstrate leadership and sustainable design, increase our destination competitiveness, and once again, choose thoughtful progress over hesitation. Let's be a leader. We've seen what happens when Vancouver gets it right, and this is another chance to do exactly that. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Michelle Travis. I'm here on behalf of Unite Here, Local 40, and am a resident of Vancouver. We urge you to reject this proposal. As proposed, the structure would be roughly six stories high and as long as two NHL hockey rinks, permanently moored or semi-permanently moored along one of Vancouver's most iconic waterfronts. It would wall off public views, dominate the shoreline, and effectively privatize a portion of our shared harborfront for the benefit of a single developer. This is not a small or short-term addition. It's a large semi-permanent intrusion into a landmark public space. Its height is more than double what is currently permitted at the nearby marina. It would obstruct key sight lines along the seawall from the end of Burrard Street and from major public spaces like the Convention Center and Canada Place. These aren't incidental views. They're central to Vancouver's identity for residents and visitors alike. Cruise ships come and go, but this is long term. And it shifts public views from street level to dock level views away from everyday pedestrian flow. Second, the proposal raises safety and environmental concerns. Unlike other hotels, this hotel would not be subject to a building permit or an occupancy permit, which means the city would have less oversight over critical issues related to fire safety, structural integrity, and evacuation procedures. We're being asked to trust a third-party inspector based overseas. to monitor these standards. We're concerned how the city would stay on top of monitoring this third party. We're also talking about putting a large structure in a sensitive marine environment with unresolved questions about sewage management and environmental impact. Having looked at the application materials, there are many mocked up aerial views of how the flotel will look. None of them really illustrate just how much of the public views will be obstructed from public popular gathering spots along the parts of the seawall that will be affected. There are a few photos of viewpoints that would be affected, but it doesn't really give you a sense of the blocking of the public view. One could glance at the postcard that was notifying the public and area residents about the photo and assume it would have very little impact. We don't think the public has really been properly informed about what the impact is going to be on those views. Third, the public benefits offered are inadequate. In exchange for taking over public waterfront space, the developer is offering little more than the dock access, primarily to serve their spa and cafe. That is not a meaningful public benefit. It's a convenience for their business. Even more concerning, the developer has refused to provide the $3.6 million in contributions requested by the city. They avoid the standard development cost levies that other projects must pay. In effect, we're giving away public space without securing fair value in return. This proposal does not align with existing planning policy. The Coal Harbor official development plan did not anticipate a permanent or semi-permanent floating hotel in the water. Finally, I ask you to consider priorities. We're told this is necessary to address a hotel room shortage, but Vancouver has already approved about 3,000 hotel rooms. Meanwhile, we are in the midst of a real affordability crisis. Many Vancouver residents, especially hospitality workers, are being squeezed and struggle to afford to live here. So our question is, what's the rush? The city's hotel policy aims for 10,000 rooms by 2050, not 2026. Yet 3,000 rooms, as I mentioned, have been approved and another 3,700 are in the pipeline. And it's a very rapid influx of hotel rooms. We question if this is really what the council should be prioritizing right now, given some of the concerns that we've raised. We feel that this is a giveaway to a private developer with very little in return. We think they're not enough in terms of meaningful public benefits, and we're concerned about this proposal. I think it's a bad deal for the city, and we urge you to reject the proposal.

My name is Naya Holers, and I live in Vancouver. I oppose this plan. We're being asked to give up part of our public waterfront in Coal Harbor for a huge private floating hotel. So what does the public get in return? From what I can see, very little. The main benefit being offered is a dock walkway to the hotel, but the walkway is needed to access the development itself. It serves the spa and restaurant uses and limits hours to the public from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. That's not a meaningful public benefit. at the infrastructure for the project. At the same time, the developer is avoiding contributions that other projects would normally make. There's no standard development cost levy because there's no building permit. They've refused the city's request for a $3.6 million contribution. So they're asking for policy changes, taking up public space, and contributing less than expected. That's not a fair deal. The public is giving up views, space, and access and getting a walkway to the Flotel that the Flotel needs for their businesses in return.

The council should be protecting public assets, not giving them away. The good news is you don't lose anything by saying no. You simply keep what already belongs to the public. This proposal does not serve the public interest. Please reject it. Thank you.

I appreciated the previous speaker's viewpoint. I'm a Vancouver resident in opposition to this proposal. I sincerely wish I could be in Vancouver as the former owner of West Coast Sightseeing. I know that this location can truly define the future of Vancouver. Imagine Sydney before the Opera House. Imagine Bilbao, Spain before the Guggenheim Museum and Chicago now with Millennium Park. Putting this hotel in this space does not achieve anything like that. I did submit a number of visuals, which I hope are being displayed at the moment. I see them now. Thank you. This is an overhead view of a proposal that was submitted at the invitation of the Vancouver Harbor Flight Center in 2018 and 2019. And using low-class advisors and resources, including Ken Hite Creative, PGAV Destinations, and Dialog, who I see sitting there today. Hello. The moniker that we had was, if you build it for tourists, the locals will hate it. If you build it for locals, the tourists will love it. And I'd appreciate it if you'd still show it from above. um that's a public park that's the roof it's a public park it's a tremendous public uh amenity of outdoor activations can happen people can do yoga there they can sit there during lunch they can increase their view and it can hold hundreds if not thousands of people um underneath it and we don't have a we don't you don't have the visual for that but uh underneath it is actually a hotel with about 180 very small rooms because the amenities include a couple of restaurants looking out over the water, a Scandinavian spa type thing, jumping, plunging into the water there. If you go to the next slide, you can see that there's space for water taxis. I think in the future you could imagine transportation to West Vancouver. We are announced now water taxis to Gibsons and Bowen Island. So many, many public amenities and attractions underneath that.

The things that made places like the Guggenheim and the Opera House and the Millennium that brought them together was they led with aspiration, not mitigation. We have lots of hotels rooms coming online. And they use a single catalytic project to reset global perception. That's the opportunity we would be giving up right now. They also delivered places locals embraced first because tourism followed. To the counselors there, I urge you to Google, look at your Google Maps to look from above at the Sunborn Hotels in Gibraltar and Sunborn London. It's not pretty. They're jammed into marinas as just another hotel. I think we can do much. We need to do much better than this in this iconic location. I'll finish with a few questions that I hope you will answer in your hearts around tonight. I noticed that this is called phase three and phase two in between is left blank. You could go to the third slide. The height of our former proposal, which I am no longer involved in, I want to be clear about this. I am no longer involved in this. This is now open to the public and others to achieve, is at the nine meter height. So it does not block any views. i see in my in my look at this that there's only an 850 square foot cafe for public use my reading is that there's only 3 000 square feet at about half the width of the seawall walkway above when i heard earlier that 150 people could use the public space That would equal about, I wrote it down here, 152,000 square feet. And my view is that there's 3,000 square feet of public space, not 13,000 square feet, which would accommodate up to 1,800 people standing. Why would the city allow minimal public benefit and block view lines and give up this iconic opportunity to define the city and its future as others great cities have?

My name is Alfina. I'm also a longtime Vancouver resident, and I work in a downtown hotel. I don't support this project. I know how important the waterfront is, not just for a visitor, but for all of us who live and work here. I can walk around the corner and take in the waterfront view down Burrard Street. I, like many others who enjoy it now, there's something we shouldn't take for granted. This proposal will put a large permanent structure right in that space. It will block view and change the feeling of the area. And for what? We already have hotels. We already have place for people to stay. What we don't have is endless supplies of public waterfront. Once we give that up, we don't get it back. What the developer is offering in the return is basically a public walk-away and spa and cafe. I understand the developer doesn't want to pay the 3.6 million community contribution the city asked for. The city shouldn't allow this project to move forward, especially if they won't pay the fair share. We need the city to focus on how to make our city more affordable and not for project like this that give away what we love about our city. This project give away too much to developer.

Great. I'm opposed to this proposal. I fear this is another path to quasi-privatization. uh but that really is just the first problem here uh there's very little contribution uh to the city um and as we know our city has crumbling community centers and old playgrounds um you know when council is considering a plan here that allows for no or very little contribution for those kinds of things uh you know for example the gym at killarney center is like a closet uh the gym at renfrew center smells like asbestos to me and the gym at riley park is half the size it should be for the amount of demand it sees um all of this needs to be improved on and there's no money for it and we're not asking for any money for any of these developers for it And quite frankly, the city needs more money for these kinds of developments. And the city's finances are a complete mess because we've given away these kinds of deals to developers for decades through housing booms, through hotel building booms, through any kind of booms. We have all these sorts of giveaways and the finances take a hit every single time. and so the question is what about the residents the proponent talks about his competitive advantage what about our competitive advantage in the city why can we not level our levy our competitive advantage the ocean the views The mountains, the seawall, these are our competitive advantages. The hoteliers, the developers, they want a piece of that action. Why can we not demand money for our competitive advantage? The mountains, the views, they want a piece of it? Pay for it. We need new community centers. We need infrastructure. Pay for this kind of stuff. I'm opposed to this project, and I ask you to please oppose the project. And if people want to come and build these kinds of projects, then they need to help build the city. They need to help build the city. And the city is not hotels. The city is playgrounds and parks and community centers and things for the workers and people of the city. Thank you very much for your time. Have a great day.

That's right, yes.

My name is Pamela Fitzpatrick and I live in Vancouver. I oppose this motion. Sanborn's proposed floating hotel is a new territory for Vancouver and as such requires extraordinary examination. Reading the posted documents raises many issues for me. I'll start with emergencies. Emergency and service vehicles have no direct access to the building but must enter the basement of the adjacent convention centre which could be congested with people and vehicles. The personnel must walk from there via an elevator and a very long walkway. Did you know that not all elevators can accommodate a stretcher? Has anyone asked emergency or delivery personnel to review those logistics? Practicalities must be anticipated and addressed at this stage, not in afterthought. For emergency evacuations, there are only two outside exits, both on the east side and two interior stairwells. Additional stairwells and exits are essential to accommodate the potential chaos of a thousand people scrambling frantically to exit a long and narrow building. What effect do daily tides have on the horizontal angle of the walkways? Do they become tipped, impacting the public, the emergency access or evacuations, the daily fresh deliveries or waste removal, and any repairs or renovations? Again, operational impracticalities must be identified and addressed. The referral report makes no mention of how the building is assessed for taxes. Is this a lease situation? Does it have time limits? What about a review or renegotiations? It all leads me to wonder, does this building comply with the BC Building Code? Sunborn is to us an unknown foreign-owned corporation and will construct the building elsewhere, then tow it into place. The designs and inspections are to be provided by a foreign third party. Therefore, the city will not have the authority over design, oversight, or control for safety, fire protection, structural integrity, or evacuation procedures. During an infection outbreak, for example, our own health inspectors will have no authority, access, or control. It is imperative for the city to retain that power or it will become vulnerable. In the event of a health or safety issue that is not rectified promptly, the city, who may be unaware of the issue, proactively requires immediate removal of the building from the dock. How could that happen? This is not a ship fastened with mooring ropes. It's a building with at least six fixed attachments to the convention center and land, so promptly won't occur. Where are the far-off inspectors? What authority orders removal and what company or who is obligated to respond? What happens to the people on board? What about the suspended walkways? Where would the building be taken to? Will it wander aimlessly around the harbour? What if Sunborn doesn't or can't remove it? This requirement is weak, vague and impractical and again leaves the city vulnerable. Sunborn's intention is for proprietary fire suppression. If that becomes insufficient or fails, will our city fireboats be expected to come to the rescue? Again, vulnerability. Public benefits are almost non-existent from Sunborn. A minor fee of $225,000 for the West Dock. No community amenity contributions in spite of a city-requested donation of $3.6 million. Just a Westside Dock addition, with two for-profit businesses taking up half the space. What's a spa doing there anyway? Not only is there another spa within the building, but their clients lie down. They close their eyes and they have no need for or gain from a private view of the North Shore mountains. So where's the good corporate citizenship of a company asking for special permission to occupy our sacred public space? What does that say about future cooperation from Sunborn? Is the city being taken for a ride? What do you know about Sunborn apart from what they tell you? And what is the experience of London's similar project and how were any unexpected problems handled? How has the stated new technology been tested? This project prioritizes an invaluable and sacred public amenity which belongs to the public. The most significant issues mean that the project has not been sufficiently scrutinized, leaving the city at risk, and therefore needs further attention before a decision is made. Thank you.

Perfect. Good evening. I work in downtown Vancouver, and I am against this proposal. Right now, affordability is the defining issue in the city. Many of us are struggling to pay rent, to stay in our communities, and to build a future here. Against that backdrop, this proposal feels completely disconnected from reality. This hotel is far too large. It exceeds the intended height of the marina by more than double and introduces a permanent oversized structure into a space that was never intended for hotel use. The Coal Harbour Plan didn't even contemplate hotels in this area and are certainly not something of the scale. But beyond policy, there's the impact on everyday life. This project will block key public views along the seawall towards the North Shore Mountains and at the end of the Burrard Street. These are views that everyone enjoys, regardless of income. They are part of what makes Vancouver feel like it belongs to all of us. And what are we getting in exchange? A dock that mainly serves the flotel? That's not enough. Meanwhile, the developers have refused to provide $3.6 million in contribution requested by the city. At the same time, thousands of hotel rooms have already been approved, with thousands more on the way. Yet, people who live and work here are struggling to find housing they can afford. So, I have to ask, why is this the priority? Why are we bending policy, giving a public space and accepting minimal benefits for a project that doesn't do anything to address affordability? This feels like a giveaway to a private developer at a time when we should be focusing on housing, community, and livability so that more young people and working families can live here. I urge you to oppose this. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Steve Pashmar. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I work in our hospitality industry. I oppose this project. This project, the flotel is too big. It will block important sight lines along the seawall at the end of the Burrard Bridge, Burrard Street, and towards north, towards the North Shore and mountains. There are some of the most photographed and experienced views in the city. If we start chipping away at these views, we undermine the very thing that makes Vancouver special. It's also important to know that the city has already approved thousands of hotel rooms. Meanwhile, the people who work in tourism, servers, cooks, room attendants, and others, myself included, are struggling to find affordable housing. Many of us can't afford to live close to where we work. We are asked to accept an oversized development that takes up public waterfront space, blocks key views, and offers minimal public benefit. The developers even refuse to provide the financial contributions requested by the city. On top of that, the project won't be subject to the same city inspections as other hotels, no building permit, no occupancy permit, and less oversight on safety. That should concern everyone, especially in an industry where guest safety is critical. The proposal is wrong for a city. It does nothing to address affordability for the people who actually keep the city running. I urge you to regret it. Thank you very much.

Good evening, counsel. My name is Christina Figueroa. I live in Vancouver. I'm a resident. I'm here to speak in opposition to this plan. I'm concerned about questions related to safety and city oversight and public benefits being offered. If this floating hotel moves forward, it will not be subject to the same rules as other hotels in Vancouver. That means no building permit, no occupancy permit, and less direct oversight from the city. Instead, a third party will be responsible for overseeing the basic safety measures. To me, that is a huge red flag. We're talking about a huge structure that will be used by guests, staff, and visitors. Normally, the city ensures that buildings meet strict standards for fire safety, structural integrity, and evacuation processes. That's how we keep people safe. But in this case, the applicant is proposing to rely on a third-party inspector based outside of Canada. That raises serious concerns. Who are they accountable to? What standards are they using? And how can residents here feel confident that safety is being properly enforced? If something goes wrong, who will face the consequences? The staff report says that the third party will notify the city if they discover safety issues. But who will ensure this? Will the city be left to react after the fact? The city should not outsource inspections, especially for a massive floating hotel. Public safety should never be outsourced or treated as an afterthought. I'm also concerned that City Hall seems willing to trade away our public waterfront to a private full hotel developer and receive so little in return. How much would a comparable hotel project on land have to provide in development cost levies and community amenity contributions? The owner is refusing to pay $3.6 million that the city asked for. If this project is approved, our city will be shortchanged. Further, Vancouver is an amazing city. It's also an expensive one. A lot of people I know are struggling to afford rent, groceries, and basic living costs. So when I hear about a proposal like this one, a floating hotel for visitors, I have to ask, is this really what we should be focusing on right now? Council has already approved around 3,000 hotels with about 3,500 more on the way. That tells me that we're not exactly short on hotels. But we are short on affordable housing. We're short on options for working people, families, and young people like myself trying to stay in this city. This project doesn't help with that. It doesn't help make life more affordable. It doesn't create housing. And it doesn't deliver real public benefits. Instead, it looks like a win for the private overseas developer, while the rest of us are left wondering how we're supposed to keep up. And right now, we need housing, affordability, and investments that support people who live here, like myself. Please reject this proposal and focus on what matters most to Vancouver residents. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Sorry, not Mayor. My name is Tori Cooper, and I am a Vancouver resident, and I have some concerns about this proposal. It raises a fundamental question, who is this city being built for? The flotel is simply too big. It exceeds the intended height for the marina by more than double and introduces a structure that will block public views and privatize a portion of our waterfront. To allow this, council would need to amend some existing policies, policies that never anticipated a floating hotel right in the view line of the North Shore. and that should not be taken lightly. And what are we getting in return? Not enough. A public dock that primarily serves the development itself is being presented as a public benefit. Meanwhile, the developer has refused to provide the $3.6 million in contributions requested by the city. That is not a fair exchange. It's a giveaway. They're also being asked to accept reduced oversight, no building permit, no occupancy permit, and reliance on a third-party inspector overseas. For a project of this size that is simply not acceptable, then there's the broader context. Council has already approved thousands of hotels. At the same time, affordability remains one of the biggest challenges facing Vancouver residents. So again, we have to ask, is this council's priority, an oversized hotel that takes public space, blocks public views, avoids standard oversight, and contributes very little back to the community? Or should we be focusing on policies that support affordability, livability, and fairness? Unfortunately, this proposal fails that test, and so I urge you to reject this and protect Vancouver's existing waterfront for the public, not private gain. Thank you so much, and have a good evening.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Joshua Davidson. I'm speaking on behalf of the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, commonly known as Downtown Van. We represent 8,000 businesses across the Downtown core. I'm also a resident of Vancouver. Downtown Van is supportive of the proposed Sunborn floating hotel. At its core, this is about strengthening the visitor economy and supporting small businesses that rely on it. Tourism is a major driver downtown, but right now we are constrained by limited hotel supply and that limits our ability to fully benefit from the visitor demand. More hotel capacity means more overnight visitors, and that's essential. Overnight visitors stay longer, spend more, and support restaurants, retailers, and the entertainment venues across our district. To put it in context, last year, our main retail corridors didn't see growth. They just saw stabilization. So this isn't about adding excess. It's about unlocking economic activity that we're currently missing. There are also the broader benefits. More people downtown helps create a more active, animated environment, supporting vibrancy, encouraging people to stay longer, and importantly, contributing to the improved perceptions of safety. Now, I do want to acknowledge that there's been concerns around the waterfront, particularly around the views and the public access. While they're valid concerns and considerations, from our perspective, this proposal is not about taking something away. It's about adding to it. It introduces new public viewpoints, strengthens the connection to the water, and creates a more engaging, activated waterfront experience. And more broadly, this is about evolution. Cities like Vancouver cannot stand still, especially in key areas like our waterfront. Thoughtful, well-executed investments are what keep downtowns dynamic, competitive, and resilient. From our perspective, this is exactly that kind of investment. Thank you for your time.

I live here in Vancouver. I'm calling to express my opposition to this project. This project is too large. It more than doubles the permanent height and introduces a permanent structure that was never intended for hotel use. It was never envisioned by any city plan to build a hotel at its unlikely location. Oversized as it is, it would block public views along the seawall. The view is iconic. It defines Vancouver, and it cannot be replaced. A public accessible dock should compensate for the lost access and is presented as a public benefit. In fact, it requires people to go out of their way to try to regain a limited version of those iconic views currently available to anyone. Everyone, unlike cruise ships, the structure is permanent. Cruise ships come and go. They don't block the view permanently. The flotel will be there all the time, creating a permanent visual barrier. While having a huge housing crisis and more general and affordability crisis, this project will generate giant revenues for a private company that is not willing to provide the financial contributions requested by the city. The council should focus on making the city more affordable for working people. Instead, Council is considering an oversized luxury hotel. The question here is not just about this project. It's about what kind of city we are building and who we are building it for. Therefore, I urge to vote against this proposal. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Gervar and I'm a proud resident of Vancouver. I'm here tonight to speak in support of this proposal. We all know that our waterfront and our views are incredible assets, but I want to be honest with you. Views don't make a city, a view isn't an activity, a view doesn't pay the bills, and a view, and I can't live in a view. Right now, most of our seawall isn't lit, it isn't activated, and the only things you can do there are walk, bike, or sit on a bench. For a world-class city with a world-class waterfront, I think we can do better than that. If you look at great waterfront cities around the world, what makes them special isn't just the scenery, it's the destinations. Spas, public pools, restaurants, shopping districts, those are the things that draw people in and create vibrant living places. That's what we should want for Vancouver. More foot traffic is good for our local small businesses. As a destination, this project supports tourism and our hospitality sector. And as a hotel, it brings economic activity to the area year-round. And I want to point out, this proposal actually includes a public dock with seating and views, just like the seawall that people already love. So we're not losing anything. We're adding to it. I'd encourage the council to support this proposal. Thank you very much for your time.

Hi, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Raul Sansoya. I work at the front office at the Vancouver Hotel in Old Harbour. So I'm aware about the situation because we deal with our guests that go to that promenade all the time. And I'm a resident of Vancouver as well, literally a few blocks down. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND I REJECT THIS PROJECT. I MEET VISITORS EVERY DAY UNLIKE THE SPEAKER THAT CAME JUST BEFORE ME. WE WORK THERE. WE MEET VISITORS EVERY DAY. I HELP THEM CHECK IN, GIVE DIRECTIONS AND ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CITY. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT ALWAYS I RECOMMEND IS A SEAWALL BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLE VIEWS OF THE NORTH SHORE AND MOUNTAINS. SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME that we would allow a massive project that blocks those views to benefit a private developer. And what we are really getting in public benefit in return, the developer is offering a dock to their restaurant and spa. And as far as I know, I don't know if the speakers have worked in the hotel before, restaurant and spa, it's not a public space. You have to be their resident or you're using their facility. So I think that's kind of like ambiguous too. That does not seem good enough. There are also safety concerns since the developer will not be subject to same-city inspections at the hotel I work in. I'm actually shocked how come they were even allowed to get far this ahead. The developer says he will use an outside third party, and how will the city ensure they live up to standards? Why rush this project? There are already thousands of hotel rooms in the city and thousands of more hotel rooms that have already been approved. So it's not that we are running low. We have already approved cities already progressing with hotel rooms. This proposal takes away for something that public already has for little back in return. I would rather see the city prioritize other issues like affordability instead of approving projects like that and also the safety concern. If there's a heard a speaker saying. that objected if there is a fire situation in that congested area, people that don't work in, I want to retort that. I work in there for the last 10 years. If there is a fire situation in that area, it is going to have a huge impact on people, and we will not be able to get our emergency services on time, and a lot of people, casualties may come occur. So I firmly reject it, and I value your time. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Prakamesh. Can you able to hear me?

I work in Vancouver.

I work in Vancouver.

Okay. So I do agree with the previous speaker, Rahul. I almost agree with a lot of his point that he pinpointed. And I also do not support this plan. It will block the view of the harbor and the mountains along the sidewalls. And it impacts the public viewpoints like the end of Bullard Street. These are shared experience that belongs to all of us. And yet, what is being offered in return, a dock that mainly serves access to the flotel itself. This is not a meaningful public benefit. And also on top of that, the developer has also refused to provide the financial contribution requested by the city. So we are being asked to give up a public space and the public views in exchange for very little. I am also concerned about the safety. This project will not require a building permit or an occupancy permit. meaning less city oversights instead a third party overseas will be responsible for inspection and then there is a bigger picture that we cannot avoid the families in the vancouver are struggling with affordability many are being pushed out of the city along all together when some of the people are living in surrey and they come all the way to the vancouver so Why are we prioritizing an oversized luxury hotel that does nothing to address these challenges? We should be investing in housing, in community spaces, and in a city that works for families, not giving away our waterfront. I urge you to vote no on this proposal. Thank you.

Perfect. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Keith Garris, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. I oppose the proposed flotilla. It more than doubles the permitted height of the nearby marina, and its sheer scale will alter the experience of our waterfront that so many enjoy today. This isn't another cruise ship coming to town. It's permanent. What concerns me most is what we stand to lose. This project will partially obstruct views of the harbor and the North Shore Mountains along part of the seawall. Use it to find Vancouver. It will intrude on the panoramic sightlines at the end of Burrard Street and impact views of the Convention Center and Canada Place. These are not private amenities. They are shared public assets that belong to all of us. And yet, what is being offered in return? Dock access that primarily services access to the flotilla itself that is partially restricted to the public. That's an unequal exchange, I think. Selecting a private developer will be taking from the public while giving less back in return. I'm also troubled by the lack of proper oversight. This flotilla would not require a building permit or an occupancy permit. That means the city cannot ensure basic safety measures like fire protection, structural integrity, or evacuation procedures. Instead, we're being asked to trust a third-party inspector based overseas. Finally, I want to speak to priorities. Vancouver is in an affordability crisis. People are struggling to stay in the city. And yet, council is being asked to approve an oversized luxury flotilla that takes up public waterfront space, while the developer refuses to provide meaningful financial contributions to the community. This is not the kind of development we need. I urge you to reject this proposal, please, and thank you for your time.

I want to apologize. At first, I had an allergic reaction, so my eyes are a little blurry. Luckily, I used size 20 font on my speaking notes. Good evening, counsel. My name is Herminder Sinkhali, and I live here in Vancouver. Like I stated, since 1988. I'm also the Secretary-Treasurer of the BC Federation of Labour, representing working people across this province. And I'm here tonight to urge you to reject this flotel proposal. Our waterfront is one of the most important shared spaces that we have as a city. And it belongs to all of us – families, workers, people who walk the seawall and take in the views. This proposal takes that shared public space and gives it to private luxury, to a private luxury floating hotel. Many speakers have already talked about the size of the hotel and how it would tower over the adjacent marina. I won't go in there. I won't speak to that just to move things along. But once we give up that space, we don't get it back, apparently, until 2060. The waterfront has also been a place for working people. It's where this city was built. It's where people still make a living. And now we're being asked to put a luxury hotel right in front of that space. And who is it really for? Because it's not for the workers who built this city. And it's not for the residents who rely on that space every day for leisure and for work. Numerous speakers have talked about the safety concerns. This flotel would not be subjected to the same city inspections as other hotels and buildings. Many have talked about no building permit, no occupancy permit. It wasn't until I was sitting here today that I was alarmed to hear that the Vancouver Fire Department and the Paramedic Service do not have jurisdiction on this space. That means no direct city oversight on fire safety, structural integrity, or evacuation. Instead, this proposal relies on a third party based overseas.

Along with this job, I've also been a dock worker working on the waterfront for 20 years. Many of the ships that come in have certifications from overseas. That does not mean that they don't have any safety concerns.

We're also being asked to give up public waterfront space for very little in return. The so-called public benefit is access to a dock that leads to a private spa and cafe. And the developer has refused to provide the $3.6 million the city has asked for. When you build in Vancouver, you have the DCLs, you have the community amenity contributions. I was sitting in the back just doing some rough calculations on a 250-seat hotel based in downtown Vancouver, a luxury hotel, at a very modest occupancy rate of 78%. That will be there until 2060. Hundreds of millions in profit will go to this proponent. And yet... In a slap to the face of the residents of this city, they refuse a measly $3.6 million for amenities and infrastructure that this city is lacking in. We've heard it from previous speakers. Our community centers. We need child care space. We need affordable housing. We are laying off frontline service city workers, which means that the residents of this city aren't getting the same level of service or quality. So we give up our public space, we lower our standards, and we get less in return. To me, that is not a fair deal. People in this city are struggling. Housing is unaffordable, the cost of living is high, and working people are being pushed out. This is the moment to focus on affordability and livability, not fast-tracking projects that benefit developers. At the end of the day, this is about priorities and choices. We all have a choice. This council has a choice. Do you choose the residents of Vancouver or do you choose private developers? Do we protect our shared waterfront? Do we stand with working people and residents? Or do we give more ground to private development for very little in return? And I'm asking all the councillors here in the chambers today to stand with the people of Vancouver and reject this proposal. Thank you.

The developer is asking the city to give a valuable public waterfront space for a private development. This is a big ask, and when something like this happens, the public should receive meaningful benefits in return. but that's not what we're seeing here. The developer is offering walkway access to floating hotel as the main public benefit for a project of this size of impact that feels completely out of proportion. Even more concerning, the applicant refused to provide the 3.6 million in community contributions that the city requested. So let's be clear. We're being asked to give up a part of our shared waterfront, except the impacts on views, public spaces, In return, we get very little. That doesn't feel like a fair deal. It feels like a giveaway. At a time when so many of us are trying to afford the cost of living here, the project doesn't make sense. Why should the city give more to the developer than we get in return? Too many people can't afford to live here. The city needs to be addressing that affordability crisis instead of giving so much to another developer. If a project can't deliver meaningful public value, It shouldn't move forward. I urge you to reject the proposal and to stand up for what we need. Thank you.

Yes, I am.

Absolutely. My name is Devin Hasek, and I am a resident of Vancouver.

All right. I'm sorry I wasn't planning on speaking tonight. I didn't think I'd have time. I was up until 7 in the morning looking after my little girl. So I'm a little unprepared here. But as I've noted, my name is Devin Hasek, and I have to say I am the son of a proud woman who was a member of a union who fought for her brothers and sisters and saw the charity. And I support, and I too support the workers' movement.

But my mom, when she was alive, she never celebrated when another plant in town closed down. It was a dark day. It meant their jobs were at risk. It meant another blow to the union. So I'm a little confused by the opposition tonight because I support unions. I support more workers. I think our economy should grow, and we should do it in a way that uplifts us all. I think this project will help us to do that. You know, when I last spoke to council last year, it was to support more homes. I believe in more housing in our city. We need it. It's depressing to hear so many people call in tonight and say, they're not residents of Vancouver, but they work here. Something's broken in our city when that happens. But I don't see, you know, if this was a strata building, a rental building on the water, That's not going to be very affordable either. This will give more people a chance to visit Vancouver, to work in Vancouver, as opposed to, you know, being the newest place for a pet auteur, for somebody coming in for a convention. And it is important to note, this is right next to the convention center. It's a great place for more hotels. You know, as some of you may remember, I was at Children's Hospital last year. I spent two months at Children's Hospital. It was a very tough time.

was tougher for other parents, parents that had to commute to Children's Hospital. People came in from other cities, from the north coast to Children's Hospital. And on the first day that we were given a piece of paper, it laid out where are other hotels in Vancouver. There weren't that many. Those hotels are where other parents would have to compete when there's a convention, when there's FIFA in town, when there's another sporting event. If this hotel goes in, It might not be that affordable, but it's going to be where you see other people come in. When you see The Rock doing Johnson in Vancouver, he's not going to be broadcasting from Shangri-La. Perhaps he's broadcasting from this hotel, but he's not going to be at the Sandman Hotel. That's going to be a family that I met at St. Paul's Hospital that are up north. They're going to be there and have a bit cheaper rate because they don't have to compete with a movie star now. That's worth approving for me. It's for my daughters also that I'm speaking tonight because, you know, I've been with them. I'm a Vancouver resident, right? I've been at the Seawall numerous times. You know, when you walk along South Falls Creek, it's private feeling. Yes, it's a public pathway to Seawall, but it's a whole bunch of patios that back onto it. That doesn't feel very public. If you're lurking around there, somebody's going to come and say, can you move along? It's kind of late at night. Obviously, the seawall downtown at the convention center is a little different. It's commercialized already. I mean, when the convention center was approved, you could have argued, why are we building the convention center? Why are we building counterplaces? This is privatizing the water. The convention center is amazing. I don't think any of us would disagree with that now. It doesn't have the best view sometimes when you're standing there. My cousins, when they came to town, they made us wait for half an hour to watch the Disney Carnival cruise ship sail out. Tell you, I cannot stand that horn now. It haunts me. But those views get blocked. It doesn't really have a good connection to the water either. This proposal will build a public dock, and it will be a public dock. The SRW will secure that. And if the developer ever violates that at the hotel owner, well, it's easy enough to revoke a business license. That means that one day I can stand with my little girl right next to the water, right next to Coal Harbor. Maybe she'll dip her hands in it. And we can look at Stanley Park. We can look at the mountains. And we can see the waterfront of Vancouver, how it was meant to be experienced. Not from, you know, 20 or 30 feet up. Right at the water's edge. I like to think for a better Vancouver. And I think this proposal will help achieve that. So for those reasons, I'm asking you to support it tonight. Thank you very much.

I thank the speakers for their contribution and comments. A couple of things I'd like to just address in the comments that I've heard. I would like to address the declined 3.6 million contribution. The issue at heart is that this is not a permanent land-based structure that we're building. And the normal way these things are done is related to development permits. It's related to building permits. This is a temporary in nature maritime asset, which is classified, is under a flag, is regulated heavily, and it is movable. There is no certainty that this asset will be here in one year's time or five years' time. And so the contributions that we're normally expecting to see in the land-based developments are in perpetuity. These carry land value appraisals and increases, and the real estate goes up in value. This is not the case with a maritime asset. It is depreciated in a very different manner, similar to mobile assets, aircraft, vehicles. And that is at the heart of it. There are examples in multiple jurisdictions, including Vancouver. where you have a similar setup, where we pay for the mooring. We've set up a mooring lease. We pay for that mooring. We pay for the connections to the PAVCO and to tapping into that infrastructure. And so that contribution, it is there, but it is in a different, separate manner, which is appropriate for a maritime asset.

I would point out that the multiple speakers spoke of a delegated authority to... a foreign entity in terms of regulation and control. That is not the case. DNV, that Norske Veritas, is one of the global leading classification societies, and it is a delegated authority of Transport Canada. It represents flag states as well, is regulated by IMO. These guys and their office is in Vancouver. These are local guys, local classification surveyors. And this is not a foreign entity. This is a global classification society with a local representation office that does all the work here locally. I think that's important to point out.

The insurance point and the removal of a wreckage type of commentation, I would say that... Yes, these are highly regulated. They're very high-tech, high-quality builds for very rough conditions. We have a standard insurance policy on all vessels that starts from a half a billion US dollars in cover for every single ship. And so that is definitely not an issue to be worried about. The nature of the operations, like we have in London, is a cooperation between the local authorities, fire department, and health and safety wise. This will be the case for this development as well. We have permanent structures. the cafe and spa and public dock, the access ways, they will be under normal building permissions. We will have to adhere to the local conditions and regulations to that effect. We will have close cooperation between the classification society and the local fire department, like we have in all the other jurisdictions as well. So it's just a different way... of administering something like this. If we start saying that, no, everything has to be built by the local building code standards, those cannot be applied to a maritime asset because the construction and the hull and the way these are built and designed is completely different. It's the same as saying that we're going to apply local building code to an aircraft. It's not possible. So, yes, it's a unique proposal in the sense that it steps outside of the norm. I think that's one of the strong points of this proposition. We're taking a space that is otherwise not developable. There is no housing opportunity on this site. We're not taking away these opportunities. I hear the objections in terms of focus on affordable housing. We are contributing to that. We're not taking anything away from those opportunities. I'd like to point that out. In terms of the viewpoints, this seems to be a major issue, that there are certain viewpoints on the promenade, on the seawall, where there will be a loss of a viewpoint from a particular angle. We are creating additional viewpoint angles of almost 130 meters in terms of the public space that we're creating. And let's keep in mind that this asset will be moving with the tide. It's a moving target. And it is a ship in the port. If we object to having ships in the port, in the cruise port area, I'm not sure what is a legitimate use of that water space. If that is not, I would point that out.

All right. Oh, please go ahead. I'd just like to put an exclamation mark on this because I don't think I focused on this enough at the beginning. But we had a development permit here because there's been a lot of discussion about a private developer. We have the rights to that water lot. I had a development permit in 2010 to make it a mega yacht marina, which had no access for the public whatsoever. And some of the people that own those mega yachts, those yachts might actually be bigger than this hotel, but you couldn't go there. It would be behind a gate. And at my age, this point in my life,

The legacy that I have for Vancouver is important for me. I've been on the waterfront for 50 years. Jack Poole was a friend. Jack Poole Plaza is the town square. And this use adjacent to the town square is a perfect complementary fit. Whereas a private mega yacht marina, which I have the permission to do, I could resurrect that. I could sell memberships to billionaires and clip coupons. That's what private use is. And I'll also tell you that I've been involved with the port master plan since 1978. We have 29 kilometers of waterfront seawall. This ship is 18 meters wide. If you want to see the sails and there isn't a 6,000-passenger megaship there, go 20 paces east to where the raindrop is and you can look at it. Or if you want, you can go out to the bow of this ship on a community amenity and look at it from there. So what I'm saying is that the arguments that have been made today don't sit well with me it flies in the face of the legacy that I wish to leave to Vancouver. So I rest my case.