Okay, everyone. We need the quorum. Anyone online?

Okay, I'll ask them. Yeah, Councillor Montague, Councillor Black, can you turn on your video?

All right, so we're going to move on to the report number three, Annual Procurement Report 2025.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Please go ahead whenever you're ready.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Rachel Magnuson. I'm the Associate Director of Street Activities, and I'm here with my colleagues in engineering, as well as Joe Fry from HAPA Collaborative, to present today the Gastown Public Spaces Plan.

We're bringing three recommendations today to council, and I'll talk more about them a bit later in the presentation, but very quickly, one of them is to approve the plan, the second is to advance the first priority project of Maple Tree Square, and the third are a few actions that we're recommending advancing in the neighborhood. Today, I'm going to go over a bit of background and overview of the plan, as well as our process and learnings. Then I'm going to pass to Joe Fry, and he's going to walk through the plan directions. And then finally, we'll get into recommendations and next steps.

So a bit of an overview. This plan was initiated by council back in 2023 as a part of broader investment and focus on the Gastown neighborhood. And you asked us to work with a design and placemaking consultancy. You asked us to explore a bold vision to pedestrianize Water Street and to do this through testing through pilots. This last direction was really, really important and really formed the basis of how this plan came together. So beginning in summer 2024, we did our first pilot. And then based on that and the learnings from that, we received further direction from you to focus on how can we think about Water Street as continuing to have vehicle traffic but still improve public space, the pedestrian experience. Can we look at two-way Cordova and think instead about the pedestrian zones as a more recurring event? So the timeline for this work has been, we kicked it off right in 2023 with a round of public engagement. We then did these two really key pilots. And these were both opportunities for us to collect data, monitor and learn, but also learn from the public and businesses about the very real things that they were experiencing in the neighborhood. We then took those learnings in the fall, worked closely with the Gastown Business Association and others to bring the plan that we're presenting for you today.

In addition, we've been investing in the neighborhood throughout this time. So key things are sidewalk repairs, and there's some more coming this fall. We also did the interim repairs to the roadway and Maple Tree Square, and that was in advance of that summer 2024 pilot. And right now we're in the process of finishing up construction in Trounce Alley, and that is a renewal project connecting to Blood Alley Square. We've also made investments in the neighborhood through our summer pilots, so various placemaking improvements, cycling improvements on Water Street and such. So what's the scope of this plan? Really, it is a public spaces plan. So that's looking at all the streets, laneways, squares, plazas within the neighborhood, all the way from the rail tracks to the north to the lane north of Hastings and Richard to Main Street. And then our kind of core design focus has been Water Street and Maple Tree Square. And so really what this plan is, is a neighborhood level framework that is intended to guide future investment in the neighborhood. And it lays out a vision for how all the different areas and streets and spaces work together. It outlines six big moves for the neighborhood. And then it looks at kind of conceptual visions and drawings for particularly Water Street and Maple Tree Square, as well as some guidance around approach to things like materiality, furniture in the neighborhood.

So in terms of how we did this work and our process, really foundational was our relationship with the three nations. We knew this work both had immediate opportunity for the nations, but also really a long-term potential. So we tried to do things a bit differently and... build a longer-term partnership with nation staff for work in this area. And so that looked like both involving them in the project scoping and process development. We had site walks. We had various kinds of knowledge-sharing opportunities. And we've learned a ton both sort of substantively through this process as well as about how to do this work. Some key things from those discussions and relationship building. For each nation, this area is very important as a part of their territory, but also because it is a national historic site and an important place for tourism. It forwards a really important opportunity for visibility for each of the nations, for cultural learning, but also as a place to welcome back their members and make them feel welcome in the future.

In terms of public engagement, that kicked off right in 2023. We've been doing previous work in the neighborhood, so we're able to bring out project objectives, test those with the community, and we heard strong support for those and a few extra things.

In particular... to really think about safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood in the context of a public spaces plan. Another kind of key theme that was really important is just how much the public and businesses value the kind of unique feel of the place today and to make sure that we were retaining that in the future. In summer 2024, we did the city's first pedestrian pilot, pedestrian zone. And that involved two car-free blocks for the summer, as well as car light blocks. And we learned a lot from this experience. So broadly, there was a lot of public enthusiasm for the pedestrian zone. And also with businesses, the feedback was much more mixed. And there were significant concerns around neighborhood access, but also topics like safety in the neighborhood. Based on, as I said, our direction from you after the summer 2024 pilot, we changed our approach for the 2025 pilot. And that was to let's keep vehicle traffic on Water Street. Let's see how we can expand that public realm. we can make cycling safer on Water Street and test that out. We also tested a two-way Cordova and from Richards to Gore, as well as a recurring Sunday pedestrian zone. And again, really strong support from the public, particularly around the pedestrian zone, and notably businesses. Their support for the pedestrian zone went up from 59% to 81%. There was also support for the changes we made on Cordova. So all of this learning and engagement then formed the foundation of the plan that we pulled together in the fall. We worked very closely with the Gastown Business Improvement Society. And in kind of refining and confirming those directions, we also connected with our partners at the nations, civic advisory committees, and some key Gastown stakeholders. Importantly to note, this is a high-level vision and plan for the neighborhood, and future projects will need more public engagement and business engagement as they get into the details.

So I'm going to turn it over now to Joe to walk you through the plan directions.

Thank you, Rachel, and thanks to Mayor and Council for your time this morning. My name is Joe Fry. I'm a landscape architect with HAPA Collaborative. We're the prime consultant for the Gastown Public Space Plan. We're also representing a host of other consultants in support of us, including Lance Berelowitz at Urban Forum and Gale Studio in support of our work, engineers, and a whole myriad of other team members.

I'M JUST GOING TO WALK THROUGH OUR PLAN DIRECTIONS, AS RACHEL MENTIONED, SIX BIG IDEAS THAT WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPING AS PART OF THIS FRAMEWORK, AND WE WILL BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT OVER THE NEXT PHASE OF WORK. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THESE IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, BUT I THINK AS RACHEL MENTIONED, THE FIRST I principle or plan direction I think is really prominent and important as part of our initial work. It's really establishing the cultural visibility of the nations, of all three nations, Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh in Gastown, and really deepen our understanding of our history in a site of importance, of prominence. So really foregrounding their presence. And we've identified Maple Tree Square, but also the Western Gateway, where Water Street and Cordova come together, and Eastern Gateway at Columbia and Powell, which is an entrance into Gastown from the east. These are three prominent locations where we want to see a little bit more presence and cultural visibility of the nations, as we've been testing through the pilots. What does this look like? It looks like interpretive opportunities like we've seen during the pilots. It looks like material choices and patterning and furnishings, planting, public art, all of these things embedded in the work that we'll continue to do. And also providing place and room for programming after the work is done throughout the life of the neighborhood. And that's obviously a relationship that will be developed over time and continue through our process, through the design work. Principle number two is to really enhance the public space network of Gastown with real focus on the key spaces of the gateways, the east and west gateways and Maple Tree Square that is really built around public life. And when we say public life, pedestrians prominently, but also looking at the range of mobilities. So this image here showing the Western Gateway existing, some laning that we think is redundant in terms of vehicular traffic, crossings that might be a little bit ambiguous in terms of how pedestrians move, street trees that have actually, some of which have already died in the last year or so and are failing and should not be failing after 50 years. They should be lasting much longer. So we're really interested in reviving this new proposed vision for the Western Gateway. to enhance the pedestrian experience, narrow crossings over Cordova, widen the pedestrian experience around the landing building as you're arriving from the CPR station, and really look at enhancing that entire experience with pedestrians in mind. What that also means is giving us opportunities to enhance, and this is the eastern gateway from the other side looking down Powell Street into Maple Tree Square. Again, some very interesting conditions of the street in that location with the CPR crossing and a diagonal gives us a lot of opportunities to identify this as a moment of introduction as you head from the east into Maple Tree Square.

So we're quite excited about those opportunities. Maple Tree Square is obviously the center of attention for a lot of our work. You can see we've developed these principles on the right-hand side, and those qualities and characteristics are already present in Maple Tree Square. Really great edges, lots of activity at the ground plane. SCALE THAT WORKS FOR TWO PEOPLE SITTING HAVING LUNCH OR 5,000 PEOPLE GATHERING FOR AN EVENT. ALL OF THESE QUALITIES ARE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO AMPLIFY THROUGH THE WORK THAT WE DO IN THE NEXT PHASE AND REALLY TRY TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SEATING. WE TESTED DURING THE PILOT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SEATING AROUND the mound at the center on the west side of the square. We've looked at opportunities to kind of enhance the cycling network as well. And really, with the work with the GBIS, help to plan for events like Meet Me in Gastown and the Gastown Grand Prix, making sure we're testing all of the viability of those events long term. So we're really talking about centering the design around public life and making this a more delightful place to be. The third principle is a people-first, safe, multimodal corridor along Water Street. We want Water Street to really function... in a way that emphasizes pedestrian and cycling mobility. And in doing so, we really want to define what a flexible street is. And so we spent a lot of time thinking about that. The idea here is to really accommodate a range of uses that might change over time. And when we say time, it might be from... WEEKDAY TO WEEKEND. IT MIGHT BE MORNING TO EVENING. IT MIGHT BE OVER THE COURSE OF 10 YEARS OR 20 YEARS WHERE OUR PRIORITIES MIGHT CHANGE, WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO SEE A BIT MORE PEDESTRIANIZATION ALONG WATER STREET. SO OUR DESIGN NEEDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE WHOLE RANGE OF FLEXIBLE CONDITIONS. LOOKING AT REDUCTIONS TO VEHICULAR VOLUMES SO THAT You were really narrowing the street edge using site furnishing to create what I like to call friction along the street edges that encourages drivers to slow and to provide more room and protection for pedestrians and cyclists. And a flush condition along the surface, so no curbs. If you've walked along Gastown, you may have... your ankle on one of the curbs that are there now. We would like to eliminate all of those and create a more of a flush surface condition that's fully accessible and resilient. So part of that is looking at our cycling network as well. You can see in this diagram that Water Street is a key linchpin connection between the Portside Greenway to the east, the future Seaside Greenway to Coal Harbor and around uh around stanley park and the richard street and carroll street greenways to the south so we're really interested in working with staff with gbis with cycling advocates to make sure that this connection along water street fulfills that connection and there's we've had a lot of good interesting discussions already we will continue to do that in our in our next phase of work

SO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF WATER STREETS, SO THIS IS THE AFTER IMAGE SHOWING WHAT WE THINK COULD HAPPEN. A NARROWER ROADWAY FOR VEHICLES, A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM FOR CYCLISTS AS WE'VE TESTED OUT DURING THE SUMMER PILOT, AND MORE ROOM ON THE SIDEWALKS TO ALLOW FOR BUSINESSES TO OCCUPY THE SPACE FOR PATIOS AND TEMPORARY ACTIVATIONS, RETAIL WEARS SPILLING OUT ONTO THE STREET. bringing as much life and vibrancy from the building edges onto the sidewalk and to the public realm. Obviously thinking about curbside management and loading, unloading, parking provisions potentially as well. And the last thing is improving the street, the urban forestry approach so we can actually, with the repair and replacement of the paving, go in, add structural soils and soil cells to allow these trees to thrive for a century, not half a century. And that flexibility built in by removing curbs allows for Meet Me and Gas Down events like we're illustrating here to really function in a much more fluid and integrated way and just using devices like bollards or street furniture to help control movement and traffic. So this is sort of the core of our work, I would say, and I think we're excited to explore that as we move into the next phase. Principle number four. MAKING CORDOVA A TWO-WAY, IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A TWO-WAY STREET AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY OBSERVED SINCE THE PILOT IN 2025. WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK FROM SHOPKEEPERS PARTICULARLY ON CORDOVA WHO ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS DIRECTION. IT HAS SOME CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF TURN RESTRICTIONS, BUS ROOTING AND OTHER ELEMENTS, BUT WE SEE THE BENEFITS OF THE ACTIVATIONS AND THE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT AS OUTWEIGHING THOSE CHALLENGES. It also may have some implications for two-waying of Cordova to the east, which staff has indicated an interest in extending a study towards the east. And it may have some implications for Powell as well as a one-way corridor and looking at lane reductions or perhaps reconfigurations. We'll say that... Chris can probably confirm this, is that because of this two-waying, we've seen a 45% reduction in cars entering Water Street over the course of that pilot during the summer months when we were testing. So we're seeing that shift in emphasis of mode on Water Street towards pedestrian and cycling already. So this is Cordova looking west in the previous condition, one way heading out of downtown. Now looking at ways to enhance the pedestrian edges, this is La Maga's N-Alley towards the Western Gateway. We really can grab a lot more area of the street right-of-way for pedestrians, introduce street tree planting, which hasn't been there for a while, and bring some of the material design quality over onto the south side of Cordova as well.

The fifth principle is to strengthen Gastown's unique streetscape character. Now, as Rachel mentioned, the public realm of Gastown is acknowledged as a national historic site. It's based on the materials of paving, street furnitures, et cetera. All of these were built in the 1970s, so I think that we've had a long debate about the validity of that style of public realm enhancement, you know, a Victorian era of... design built in the 1970s so but I think there's no debate that this work that was done in the 70s is really valuable in terms of establishing a character for the neighborhood and to actually fly in the face of some of the planning decisions that were being made in the 1960s and 70s which included highways and freeways through through Maple Tree Square, actually. So the value of this is really acknowledging the importance of those improvements, despite their character, and then adding and weaving into that stories that are a little bit more, let's say in a contemporary context, a little bit more representative of our broader history. So we actually spent a bit of time to explore material choices. We reached back to think about what are the materials of Vancouver? And looking at forest, mountain, sky, and ocean as our inspirations, what would that look like in the street? We would use wood for site furnishings, for seating. We might use stone for paving. We would really explore lighting in a particular way in the uniqueness of our skies and our light of our sky. And thinking about water and representing water, which actually lapped up against the edge of Water Street 500 years ago. All of these things will be serving as an inspiration for us as we get into the next layer of detailed design. We're really excited to be able to share that with all of you and also work with the nations, which we think there's some alignment in terms of our thinking with materials. We've also narrowed our selection of paving materials to equal to or better than what is there today. And so we're looking at granite pavers, which you're seeing now installed at Trails Alley. We're looking at concrete unit pavers, which have an engineering standard, perhaps in roadways, or maybe repurposing some of the clay brick that we see out there today and a lot of people in the neighborhood still love, right? So I think we need to think about all those things, and we'll try to explore that in our... in our next round of work. Also thinking of the visual consistency and cohesiveness with site furnishings, bollards, seating, lighting, all of the things that enhance and are part of the experience of the public realm. We'll also be looking at how we can integrate best management practices for accessibility, looking at directional wayfinding

we call a tactile warning at the edges of intersections that give and we've had some good site tours with people who from the CNIB and who use mobility aids who've given us some great guidance on how to integrate those particularly in a curbless environment that we're proposing so this is all stuff that we'll be continuing to work on and we think could be really well integrated into materials we're choosing We've gone through a lot of precedents in our work. The one in the middle here from Seattle is the one that resonated, I think, the most with our team. It's really a granite paving surface through both vehicular and pedestrian areas that extend right through the curbs. It was built in the 1980s. Lori Olin was the landscape architect. And it's based on a Coast Salish basket weave pattern as well. So it has three different colors. We think that this is an appropriate precedent that we'd like to explore and enhance, obviously with the input and advice of the nations as we move forward. And our last principle is looking at the neighborhood experience. After the design work is done, after construction is complete, the work is not yet done. We'll be working with GBIS to look at the neighborhood experience, looking at waste management strategies, which have been a longstanding issue in Gastown, looking at cleaning and sanitation requirements, working with all of the local neighborhood associations who have a stake in the work here. and prioritizing how we manage and maintain the work over time. And that includes other amenities like Portland Loo washrooms that we're studying right now, filling stations, climate reprieve or heat reprieve is something that we're thinking about as well. So all of these things will contribute to the management and maintenance of the work we do so that As designers, we're not leaving the room when the drawings are complete. We're maintaining a relationship long-term. So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I'll pass it back to Rachel.

So... Finally, recommendations for council. So as I said, our first recommendation is to adopt this holistic vision and framework for the neighborhood. A couple of key things to note. This is a long-term plan and will require a prioritization around which projects to advance and... investment over multiple capital plans. We are also extremely conscious of the construction impacts in the neighborhood, especially in a business neighborhood like Gastown, and just how that has to be at the forefront of our thinking and we'll be making sure that it is in our next steps. The other piece here is around continued engagement.

So this is a vision that captures the direction for the neighborhood As a project advances, we'll need to work with local businesses, residents, and others around the details of that design.

Next recommendation is to advance Maple Tree Square as that first project. As Joe highlighted, this really is the preeminent public space in Gastown. There's a huge opportunity here to really highlight and make this an even better space than it is today with key features in the neighborhood as well. It can act as a draw. A lot of people today kind of get stuck at the steam clock. What's going to make them move through the neighborhood? And, of course, there's a significant opportunity to work with the nations.

In terms of the next steps, there are quite a few design challenges still to work through, particularly thinking about how we balance the need for movement through the space on a day-to-day, so vehicles traveling through the space, cycling, with the public life needs of the square, and thinking about how we adapt the square easily to become a car-free public space for events, pedestrian zones, etc. And as I noted, the construction impacts of a project like this are something that we really need to think through from the beginning. At this time, we think a project like this will cost on the range from $20 to $25 million. However, we can, within our current budgets, move forward the design.

Finally, our last recommendation is for other actions in the neighborhood. Particularly if we are focusing the first project on Maple Tree Square, we have interim improvements on Water Street. That includes things like concrete barriers. We know that that's not going to last in the neighborhood, and we need to make it look nicer and more fitting with the neighborhood context. So we're suggesting that this is an important action that we take on in parallel with the work in Maple Tree Square. In addition, there's other more targeted investments we could make to enable pedestrian zones. So things like retractable or removable bollards, these could also bring down the costs, the operational costs of pedestrian zones significantly. The second action that we're recommending here is to regularize the Sunday pedestrian zone program. It's been a really big success in the neighborhood, and we'd like to move it from kind of a pilot to our regular business. And finally, as Joe mentioned, we're recommending, based on the success of two-way Cordova so far to Gore, what might be the opportunity to extend that to the Powell Street overpass and work with those communities as well as Gastown on some of the benefits that could bring.

And that is it for the presentation.

Before we go to the question queue, Councillor, please go ahead. Yeah, just have a potential conflict of interest here, so just out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to recuse myself for the remaining speakers and the vote. My parents own property in Gastown. Thanks. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Chair, and thanks to staff for a terrific presentation. I have a number of questions. I'm going to try to fire through them. The first one is really around the design changes, and you referenced use of bollards. I remember bringing this up before when it gave a lot of the previous direction you mentioned, 2023, on Gastown, and I was in Portugal last month. and saw how effectively they use, very flexible in terms of being able to come down to allow for deliveries at key delivery times and to go up for events and reduce sort of, they provide safety, but they reduce the things like some security and other costs for the BIAs in the area. How likely are we to see those, and would Gastown potentially be a first pilot where these could be extended to other areas in the city? Yeah, that's absolutely what we want to explore here in Gastown. We're really excited. There's a number of options, and we're looking at them that could apply also citywide. Okay, it was really great to see them in action. I've got lots of great photos, and I'll share those with staff. My next question is around the two-way Cordova, and just based on observation, I'm curious in terms of staff observations and or any data that we are collecting. It does seem to have provided a bit of a calming effect in terms of the speed of cars going through there. It used to be the one way that it was a great way to sort of hightail it out of the city, so to speak. Is that, are we tracking that and is that an empirical result? Because that's my kind of observational. Yeah, great. Thank you for the question. My name is Chris Darwin, the Associate Director of our Transportation Design Group. And so what we are tracking through the area there is travel time, which is directly related to speed. And yet as travel time has gone up through the area there, that would mean the speed would be going down. Okay, so all in all, we would see that as a good result? As a positive, yes. It's provided some calming. And in terms of, I really want to talk a little bit around timing, because I know that we were going out of the gate a bit more quick. We had some concurrent construction and other things that were happening. We wanted to take some time to test the pilots. That was direction that was given. What I'm looking for now in terms of, I appreciate the acknowledgement around construction going forward, and I heard some references in the presentation to over time we'll do this. is also a desire to sort of get some of this done. So I hear both from the local businesses. So what can we expect in terms of phasing? What changes are coming first that we can see material benefits from the capital investment that council is putting aside? Yes, so two pieces. So as I said, the near-term actions, so we can see some improvements on Water Street from the materials that are out there within the next year. We'd also be advancing the design for Maple Tree Square, assuming that passes today, and getting into the detailed design and construction conversations. And so then we would have engagement likely early 2027 on those. Okay, so reflecting back then, we could see, public would see material changes on Water Street the next year, and we can see completion potentially Maple Tree Square the next capital plan? Yes, that's correct. Okay.

My next question is really around...

With respects to the pedestrian pilot being very popular and in terms of balancing the needs with businesses, do we see the ability to continue extending that? I know that we tried full weekends. We reverted away from Sundays. But what does that look like in terms of a trajectory over time? Yeah, great question. There's a lot of potential. So as Joe was mentioning, a core cornerstone of the design thinking is that flexibility so that it can adapt over time. And so we'd be working closely with businesses in the area and other community groups. And there has been some interest in, for example, this summer extending the hours a little bit. We could see over time maybe it's weekends. And we'll be really working closely with the neighborhood to figure out what's the right fit. Okay, but when we have some infrastructure potentially, we could see, let's say it's Ballard or something else, we could see, for example, summer evenings or other options. Absolutely. Reflexed based on engagement with the businesses. Exactly, yeah. Okay, thank you. I'll leave it there. I appreciate all the work.

So that was one of the key things we were testing last summer with the Sunday pedestrian zones is kind of a range of programming. And it's true that some activation of the street is really important. We are providing some funding to the GPS for that. And I know it's a challenge for them to provide that potentially the scale of programming that they'd like to see.

That answers your question.

Yeah, that's something we can definitely work with the DBS if they're interested in kind of a wayfinding piece around the neighbourhood. Yep.

Yeah, great. Thank you for that question. So in the interim design, we're looking more at improving the sort of a lot more in the aesthetic side of things and how to make it easier to remove things and put them back for events like the Gaston Grand Prix. and things like that, as well as the bollards that we had mentioned before that we could potentially put in there. For the larger improvements on cycling, we'd be looking to do that in the larger rollout of the vision.

So definitely on the automatic bollards, one of the factors is going to be what's underneath there, but also just sort of the maintenance. There could be other options that we look at that are maybe less automated. But doing a survey of what bollards are out there as well, as these become more popular, there's also shallower type bollards that can use as well that don't go as deep. And so those utility concerns can be mitigated.

Yep, absolutely. We're on the lookout for that.

Thanks, Chair, and thanks, staff. I know that this is arguably one of the most comprehensive plans we've had brought to us, and you can clearly see the intense amount of work that's gone on the last two and a half years, so a lot of appreciation to our team for that. And also, you know, we're still going to hear from speakers, but our recent meeting with the GBIS, you know, signaled to me that we made a lot of progress in terms of how the city has been working very proactively and positively with the neighborhood. And there's probably not many neighborhoods that we ask so much of than we do have grasped down in our entire city. So I'm going to fire through a few questions. I want to maybe just get a quick sense of the learnings from our two-waying of Cordova. I realize at the very beginning there was some frustration. But I think it's been actually very positive, just I'm observing it myself. And from the sounds of the traffic planning, it's going very well. So maybe you can give me a few points on that. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, the data sort of supports your experience out there as well. As soon as we closed it in June there, we were seeing delays of like 70% in the eastbound direction. And those have significantly reduced. And the volume that previously was traveling eastbound on Cordova has redistributed throughout the network. So eastbound volumes are down on Cordova as well. And construction, I think it was Salvation Armory's building over on just near Main Street was causing a lot of choke points there. That was one of the bigger challenges at the beginning. I'm just going to talk to you about pavers. I kind of half-joked. I said that when we started doing the big work that we did at Maple Tree Square, replacing the pavers from the asphalt, that we would be ordering them in from some far-flung place, and we were going to get them customized. But clearly, we were very cost-conscious. I see some of the pavers that we replace them with are different mismatched colors and things like that. Sounds like we have a plan to have some more kind of consistent look of that in the future.

Okay, all right. Then by looking at the renderings, I'm actually impressed at how much space we are not currently using versus what we might use in the future. the maple tree square renderings and the potential for a stage and having music there. I know that there's been a lot of really great activity there in the past, but the idea that it could be like a little mini venue for music performances and things like that is very exciting. How do we plan to make sure that that is something that could be, just in terms of any infrastructure, like connections and hookups for power and that sort of thing, if we need to do that on a more regular basis? Yeah, so that's a fundamental part of the renewal of the square there, is thinking about that infrastructure to support events, but also enable placemaking, enable, make sure there's good water access. All of that would be a part of the design. The sidewalks, when I look, there's a rendering that shows the corner of Cordova and water at the western edge. And it's striking to me how much more pedestrian space is envisioned for that than it currently is right now. Is that just because we're going to occupy some of that place where the barriers are now and expand the sidewalks in that area? I mean, it looked to me like it was actually quite a bit wider. In fact, there's a tree that was planted kind of where the street currently is now with some of the barricades around it. On Cordova you're talking? That's right. Right next to Steamworks there. Yeah. Oh, okay, yes. Yes, there's opportunity there to expand the sidewalk and expand that space, yeah. I'm just curious. I'd heard about some of the loss that's happening with the mature trees in the area, and I'm wondering if there might be some explanation for that. Obviously, we treasure our trees, but why we're starting to see some of that canopy struggling. I'm not sure if... I did hear that from Joe, I think, yeah. Thank you for the question, Councillor Meiszner. I think urban forestry standards of the time in the 1970s were probably, in fact I can attest to that, that we likely had very little soil volume that was placed in support of those trees at that time. If we were to follow current urban forestry standards in the city of Vancouver, and with this opportunity to do improvements, we would look at 29 to 35 cubic meters of soil per our city bylaws, and that would be through silvicels or structural soil underground. So the idea is that these trees will last 80 to 100 years, not 40 to 50. Okay. Great. That's my time. Thanks very much, Chair.

That's a good question. So we're putting in the first Portland Loo at Main and Powell, and that should be in the next month. And we should learn a lot from that. And then if that pilot works well and we're seeing that infrastructure kind of hold up in that context, we'll be advancing further projects.

Yeah, so right now our sanitation service levels do increase in the summer, and we work closely with our colleagues to think about when we're seeing a higher volume of activity. So, for example, during FIFA, there'll be enhanced service, and that kind of responsiveness is going to continue.

I'm the director of streets and engineering services. Over the course of many years, it's been very difficult to source the specific clay tile brick that is found in Gastown. We are also disappointed with the mismatch that we sometimes run into. We're often not given a lot of... lead time when a third-party utility, for example, needs to cut the road. And rather than, you know, doing an asphalt repair, we've felt that more often than not, it's better to go in and try to match as closely as possible. Moving forward, because we recognize that, you know, the changes that are contemplated in the plan will take time, we're sourcing directly now. We're working on a plan to source the exact correct brick for Gastown. So moving forward, even with the historic materials, we'll have supply of the correct clay tile.

It's something that we could look at.

So with two-way Cordova, we see the traffic volume being about the same on Cordova. It's just in two different directions now, so roughly about the same. In terms of the pedestrian crossings, I can see that maybe it feels some difference with cars coming from both directions. But what I can say is we look to sort of explore getting two-way Cordova going out to the east. Part of that work, we can also include taking a look at what are some of the existing conditions that we can maybe tweak up a little bit on the section we've to wait already.

So with this new plan here, tour buses, and this is something we'll work out along the, I guess, the Water Street full design. It's where those could fit on the street, on Water Street itself. In the interim here, we also have introduced tour bus zones on Cordova itself in the westbound direction. And so that can function on days when Water Street is completely closed. But we found last year is the majority of tour buses actually use the stop up on Richards Street. so just south of Cordova there on Richards.

With Port of Vancouver, and we've communicated this with our tour bus stakeholder group.

Yeah, and there's been some interest, particularly along Carroll Street, to think about that connection between the two neighborhoods. And so, yeah, if the BIAs are interested in having that conversation, including Hastings Crossing, we're happy to support.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. A lot of thorough work here. I just have a couple of questions. You mentioned the short-term, interim treatment of Gastown. And I think I heard the response would be likely within a year. And I ask in the context of we've done a lot of great work, but it still looks a little bit sort of temporary, if you will. And so... realistically we're probably a year out from seeing more permanent sort of treatment to that area? Would that be a fair? Yes. Yeah. Okay. And then I also heard in your presentation that really this renewal really will have to span multiple capital plans. But I'm curious, I'm always a bit driving about how can we do things faster? And What are the opportunities to deliver more than just the first phases and in the next capital plan or in over two capital plans as opposed to, I heard kind of multiple, which in my mind it starts to signify three or four, and then we're talking, we're 20 years out. So what are your thoughts on that and how we could collaborate maybe with other partners to drive that change more quickly? I think there are two core challenges. One is just the scale of budget. So if we're looking at water and Maple Tree Square together, that could be on the range of $50 to $80 million. And then the other piece is just there is a bunch of design work that we need to work through, and that's going to take some time. Okay, fair enough. And then I have two more granular questions. And one, you referenced the greenway and the connections for the cycling. Right now, I think it's been a little bit confusing that there's a two-way portion of cycling along Water Street. And I'm just curious, will that be addressed as part of sort of working through sort of how we manage pedestrians, vehicles, and cycling infrastructure? Because I think right now there's a little bit of confusion. There's a portion where you're going two-way. And in many instances, you're only going one way in other parts of the city on some of our greenways. So could you just speak to that? Yeah, so as a part of the longer-term vision for Water Street, we'd absolutely be looking at how to improve conditions along water for cycling. Okay. And then my last question is, there's an incredible amount of history in this area, both indigenous history as well as colonial history, if you will, in terms of... And I'm curious if we will... be doing more to showcase those pieces. I walk a lot. I was in North Burby recently, and they've got a lot of placards up where you stop at a certain point. It's like, here's a history of, you know, there used to be a train railway here. And I think it is part of bringing neighborhoods alive is... To create those spaces, whether it be signage or in this day and age, you know, you could be doing QR codes, but to really showcase the multifaceted history of a neighborhood, I personally find it intriguing.

I think a lot of other people do. So will that be encompassed in our sort of work that's just not, it's not just about the physical infrastructure in Gastown? Absolutely. And a lot of our conversations, as I noted, have started with the nations about that. So they're very interested in being able to kind of tell the story of their history to the area, but also their future. And so that they each, so we've been working with Squamish on a project and both Musqueam and... A slave of tooth will also have something like that. And then I think to your point, there's more opportunity for those things. And especially because it's a national historic site, we can work with our colleagues at Parks Canada, and there may be additional information that we could have in the neighborhood. Yeah, I think that'd be fantastic. I'll leave my questions there. I know we have quite a few speakers. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, the data we receive is from ICBC, so there'll be a lag in that. But definitely that's something that we want to have a keen eye on and know if there are 311 requests as well, if those reports come in, so we can investigate if there's something happening out there.

So the area in, I guess, we're probably looking at the most is east of Gastown here. So when we're looking at the extension of two-way Cordova east of Gore, we would also take a look at Powell Street there as well to see how that would function through that space.

No, absolutely. And we've heard that concern as well with some of the existing pavers that are out there. You know, I think the technology out there with getting those smooth pavers has increased quite a bit. And so if you looked at even what we're putting in a trounce alley, that provides a much smoother experience. And so we'll be looking to do, you know, similar treatments and similar smooth paths in the Water Street area as well.

Maybe just to clarify, if your previous question was about are there things we can do with the existing papers in advance of the sort of replacement that the Gastown Public Spaces Plan might envision, I think the short answer is no. We can restore the surface so we can remove trip hazards and other things, but the existing surface, I think, kind of is what it is. I don't think that there's much we can do with the gaps or the grout in any sort of meaningful way, unfortunately.

Absolutely. So any new surface, whether it's the granite or the concrete or whatever new paving technology we might use, will be fully accessible. And an example of that would be the work that we've done in Trounce Alley.

Okay, so Councillor Bligh, we need you to be on the camera.

Chair, if my camera's on, just, sorry, Chair, on a point of privilege.

I'm just, I'm dealing with recovering from a surgery. My camera's on, I'm sitting right here. And I just like the understanding of the, of the council and the chamber in this instance, given we did not have quorum for today, technically on a medical leave, but I joined the call. So I just like some flexibility. Thank you.

Um, hi, good morning. Um, Thank you, everyone. My name is Eva Tichelska. I'm a resident of Gastown and I am today representing the Gastown Residents Association, a united voice of our growing residential community. We support thoughtful revitalization of Gastown, but residents, again, were not included in this process. While the business association was consulted, as it is always the case, us people who live here were not brought into the dialogue. I would like to remind everyone that Gastown is not just a commercial district. It's home to many families like myself. We are asking to include the Gastown Resident Association in ongoing planning and decision making. Not after the fact, but as part of the process. As residents, our priorities are clear. Safe, clean, and well-maintained streets and sidewalks. Healthy street trees, and especially responsible and effective management of the excessive nighttime noise that we have to deal with on a daily basis. A balanced approach that supports both the economy and livable conditions for those who call gas down home. Thank you. That's all from me today.

Good morning. Yes, my name is Gail Liebert, and I've been living in Gastown for the past 26 years. I would like to be supportive of the public spaces plan, but I cannot support any plan for Gastown that so blatantly ignores the residents of Gastown and their best interests. We are an active and vibrant community of homeowners and renters, and we care deeply about the health and welfare of our community. We are major stakeholders, not an afterthought. It's beyond me the ignorance and or entitlement shared by planners and politicians alike that would have them walk over such crucial stakeholders, in an area they're hoping to successfully redesign. Thank you.

Speaker number three is Alice Yukoski.

Hi there. Yes, my name is Elise Yarkowski, Executive Director of the Gaston Business Improvement Society, representing over 600 businesses and property owners. On behalf of the GBIS, we support advancing the Gaston Public Spaces Plan. We see this as an opportunity to shape Gaston into a more vibrant, livable, and economically resilient neighborhood. The Gaston Public Spaces Plan has been a lot of years in the making, and I want to acknowledge the collaboration that got us here between city staff, the consultant team, and the GBIS. as well as First Nations and other key stakeholders. Over the past several years, we've tested ideas in real time. We've seen what works and what doesn't. We've had difficult conversations, made adjustments, and kept moving forward. While it hasn't always been perfect, it has been meaningful progress, heading to the most coordinated approach Gastown has seen in years. From expanded seating in Maple Tree Square, to patio expansions, to programming that brought over 100,000 people into the neighborhood last summer, we are seeing the potential. But today is not the finish line, it's the starting point. There are four key considerations we want to reinforce as we discuss moving into implementation. First, phased implementation. Construction and change cannot come at the expense of the businesses. A dedicated construction advisory lens will be critical. Second, interim infrastructure investment. We need to move beyond temporary pilots and begin reflecting the long-term vision on the ground. Third, consultant continuity. Ongoing investment in the consultant team is critical to maintain continuity and design integrity. Fourth, event-based closures and programming. What we learned is closures alone don't drive success, programming does. Sufficient investment is essential to sustain momentum and economic activity. There are also key elements of the plan that we strongly support. A flexible, multimodal water street that prioritizes people while still supporting vehicle access, cycling, and movement. A holistic design approach that treats Gastown as a connected neighborhood, including side streets and a two-way Cordova, not a series of isolated interventions. A commitment to heritage and material integrity, including the current red, black, and granite pavers, while integrating First Nations design and cultural recognition. and a focus on operations and service levels. Gastown is one of Vancouver's most cultural and economic assets. It is often the first place visitors experience, an entry point into the city, recognized globally. The pilots have shown what's possible. The collaboration has built trust.

The plan gives us direction. Now is the time to build on that momentum, not lose it. We encourage council to support advancing this plan while ensuring it is backed by the investment, coordination, and care required to deliver it successfully. Thank you, councillors, for your time today and for all of your support. We would not be here today without it.

Hello. Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Paroj Fakhre. I'm a principal at PH5 Architecture. Our office is located in Gastown, and we've been actively engaged in advocating for thoughtful improvements to the neighborhood's public realm. I'm speaking in support of the Gastown Public Spaces Plan today. Similar to the previous speaker, this is a strong and comprehensive framework, one that reflects the lessons learned from previous pilot projects and responds in a balanced and practical way to the many competing needs in Gastown access by foot, bike, and vehicle, better everyday experiences in our public realm, cultural representation, and support for local businesses so they can continue to contribute to a vibrant neighborhood and healthy local economy. Importantly, the plan recognizes that Water Street should function as a flexible and multimodal street. This flexibility allows it to serve day-to-day needs while also creating those opportunities for pedestrian-only days, special events, and seasonal programming. As demonstrated through the pilot project, pedestrian zones can be highly successful, but they do not succeed through the street closure alone. They do require programming, animation, and ongoing support to bring people in and create the reasons why they stay. A multimodal approach gives the city the ability and the neighborhood, the ability to scale these initiatives based on available resources, changing neighborhood conditions, and future opportunities. This is why the plan is so valuable. It's realistic, achievable, and adaptable. It provides a solid foundation to guide future investments while ensuring infrastructure improvements made in Gastown remain resilient over time. For many years, funding was discussed for needed upgrades to Gastown's aging streets and public spaces, and it's encouraging to see this work move forward. And I'd like to acknowledge the Council, staff, and the consultant team for bringing the project to this stage. At the same time, it's really important that this momentum is not lost. And while today's report does not request additional financial resources, I encourage Council to ensure sufficient funding is available for several key next steps, the interim design, continued plan development with the staff and consultants, continued engagement, and funding pedestrian zone programming and ensuring maintenance and repair. Gastown is one of Vancouver's most iconic neighborhoods, and this plan helps strengthen it as a destination for locals and tourists alike. This plan moves us forward in a thoughtful way, and I encourage Council to support it. Thank you.

Nathan?

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Nathan Davidovich. This important report is rushed through without proper discussion. The Gaston BIA already produced a report, a planning report in 2023, which there's no reference in your report or no copies of that important report. And now you hired a consultant, you know, which is shown in small letters at the bottom of the page or whatever, 200-page document. Each page probably cost $1,000, including extra staff time and so forth. You know, it's just unbelievable.

Bus number 50, Falls Creek South, used to serve Gastown and Water Street prior to July 2025. The initial cost of this important bus route that was started in the 1970s was paid by the city and the residents of Falls Creek. And therefore, it needs a special engagement, not just to brush it off or walk to Cordova Street and get the bus there. No, no. We need accessibility. There's a BC Accessibility Act, and you contravene the act. Well, not you, but many cities actually contravene the act because there's no penalties in the act. I mean, the way the transportation system is done in Vancouver is different than other cities. And the city manager can tell you how the city of Delta does it. If you ask him the questions, and you'll find out that it's way different than the city of Vancouver. And every other city in BC has done it differently. They don't give unlimited power to the city staff to do whatever they want. But that's what we have here. And some of my suggestions are a 12-passenger golf cart to serve Water Street, which has been discussed on commercial drive. Instead of a regular bus service, we could have the golf cart service. There'll be a whole bunch of problems once the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts are closed. Well, where is the traffic going to go? Well, there'd be way more traffic on Hastings Street, Cordova Street, and so forth. So there's a whole bunch of problems. And unless we have a proper transportation plan, you know, and eliminate the one-way streets, like I sent you an email about that, you know, it just creates more pedestrian fatalities.

And so thank you very much for listening to me.

Speaker number six is Pamela Saunders.

Good morning, Chair and Councillors. My name is Pamela Saunders, and I lead Microsoft's engineering presence here in Vancouver. Before I detail why we support the Gastown Public Spaces Plan, I wanted to share my own reason for being here today. 12 years ago, before I joined Microsoft, I worked for the Gastown Business Improvement Society. I walked our blocks every day. I got to know the merchants. I came to understand what makes this neighborhood unlike anywhere else in the city. So when I speak to you today, I speak as a Vancouverite who appreciates the work that I've done. Sorry, I think it's okay. I have a point of privilege. I was having trouble hearing the speaker with the noise in the gallery. I just wonder if we could give some grace to the speaker to start over.

Thank you.

I speak to you as a Vancouverite who truly understands Gastown, as a member of the Gastown Board of Directors, and a business leader who advocated for the office space that we established there in 2021. Gastown is not just one of our addresses. It's a community that we're part of. Microsoft occupies space above street level, which shapes how we see this plan. Our focus is on two things, access and vibrancy. Access because our employees, partners, visitors, and customers, move through Gastown every week, arriving by transit, by bike, on foot, and by car. And vibrancy, because the streetscape below our workplace is a key reason talent wants to be there. We need restaurants and patios and owner-operated retail spaces and services, things that are directly impacted when the street is closed or when there's disruption. And that's why I'm adding my voice in support of advancing this plan. We agree that the vision for a multimodal Water Street balances pedestrian movement with transit, cycling, car, and service access. and is the ideal outcome for how the neighborhood flexes from daily operation to special event setup. I also support the plan's design approach that treats Gastown's full public realm as a connected whole, and its commitment to heritage and material integrity that gives the district its character. As you move towards implementation, we ask council to keep a few things in mind. A phased approach that minimizes disruption to businesses and residents. Funding for interim infrastructure that gets us beyond the pilot phase and builds on positive perception. Continuity in the consultant team that built design integrity into this plan. Continued investment in event-based closures and programming because closures without programming impact both the momentum we've earned and the vibrancy we're aiming for. And cross-department alignment inside the city so that engineering, planning, arts, and culture move together. Microsoft is proud to be part of Gastown's future. We thank city staff, the consultant team, and council for the genuinely collaborative process that brought us to this point, and we look forward to the partnership ahead. Thank you.

My name is Chris Kanuka, and I am the chief operating officer of Old Spaghetti Factory Canada Limited.

I am. I'm speaking on behalf of myself, Mr. Peter Buckley, Mr. Hunter Wiley, and Mr. Chris Sui.

Can they identify themselves individually?

They're all on the call.

Yeah, just say their name so we can give you five minutes to speak.

Sure, they just need to say their names. They're all listening.

Peter Buckley is present. Thanks. Chris Suey is also on the call. Hello, this is Hunter Wiley. I defer to Chris Kanuka.

No problem. As I said, the Old Spaghetti Factory has been in business for 56 years. And our Gastown location employs 100 to 150 people, depending on the season. So when I speak about Gastown, I do so as someone with decades of lived experience in this neighborhood. Today I am speaking in support of the Gastown Public Spaces Plan. I support the overall direction because it recognizes something important. Gastown's future depends on vibrant public spaces, but also on access, safety, and a design that works for the businesses, employees, residents, and visitors who keep this neighborhood alive every day. The report itself moves in that direction by recommending Maple Tree Square as a priority, continued improvements to Water Street, regularized Sunday pedestrian zones with programming, and further work on two-way Cordova to support access. But I want to be clear. Support for this plan should not be mistaken as support for a return to the full 2024 street closure model. We lived that pilot, and we experienced it firsthand. as our business was impacted devastatingly. In 2024, our traffic was down 24%. We hired 30 fewer employees than we normally would have, and then lost a further 20. From my own conversations with major merchants in Gastown, the large majority were impacted as significantly as we were, or worse. Sales went negative, access became harder, customers were frustrated by the lack of parking, and the confusion around how to enter the area. We saw more visible drug activity, more disorder, and a decline in the overall sense of safety for our staff and our guests. Drug overdoses and tents on the street became a regular overnight reality, and the local market turned away from Gastown. To your credit, the plan appears to have learned from those mistakes. It explicitly says Water Street should be a people-first, safe, multimodal retail corridor, and that curbside planning must include parking, loading, and tour buses while balancing public life needs. And further to that point, vehicle access matters. Street parking allows people to access our restaurant directly, which is especially important for elderly guests and people with disabilities. A large portion of Gastown's visitors come from across Metro Vancouver year round, not just during tourist season, and many rely on vehicle access. In particular, I strongly support Maple Tree Square being treated as the focal point and gateway of Gastown. If we want a stronger Gastown, we need an inviting centerpiece that draws people beyond the steam clock and supports more businesses throughout. I also support the plan's emphasis on continued street repairs and better streetscape design. Gastown's charm is one of its greatest assets, but the area also needs durable materials, safer surfaces, better lighting, greenery, seating, and overall curb appeal. And finally, I support summertime Sunday street closures, but only with the right conditions. Sunday-only closures were very different from full closure.

The plan zone findings show stronger support for Sunday-only closures than for the 2024 model, especially where there was programming. We supported that spirit ourselves in 2025 by running a 360-degree photo booth to help add activity and energy to the street. Our own Sunday results in 2025 showed that when Sunday street closures ran without programming, they were negatively received by the end of the summer. If Sundays cannot be fully and successfully programmed, then there is no basis for considering anything beyond that. So if Council proceeds, I urge you to make the model explicit with these four support points. First, support Maple Tree Square as the focal point and gateway. Second, support Water Street as a true multimodal retail corridor that remains accessible to vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, deliveries, tour buses, and customer parking. Third, support continued repairs, improved safety and beautification. And four, support Sunday summer closures only where there is real programming, active management, and free parkade parking to make the area workable for merchants and welcoming for the public. Gastown needs a balanced plan, one that improves the public realm without sacrificing the businesses that keep it alive. That is why I support this plan with clear conditions. Thank you for your time.

Hi there. This is Suraj. Are you able to hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Yes. Again, my name is Suraj Gupta. I own the properties located at 339-341 Water Street, as well as the property that's located at 123 Tambi, which is the corner building where this theme park is located. And then our family also runs two retail shops. One is called Hudson House Trading, which is at 321 Water Street. And the other is at 339 Water Street. And we've been part of the Gaston fabric for over 50 years. The pedestrian plan of 2024, where the The area was all pedestrian was was very, very difficult time for us. And it we incurred a lot of.

We put a lot of loss in revenue because of that plan. Last plan of 2025 was a lot better in which the Sunday closures. allowed for the pedestrianization during that day, but it also allowed for the proper business activity to continue during the course of the week, including deliveries, tour buses, being able to come into the area so that the tourists can actually see the stores and then come back if they decide to come back. I am in support of the current plan. I like the idea. of sunday uh only closure uh i think it's a it's a nice balance between going all going all out and not going at all uh i think the city needs to spend a little bit of time sort of discussing the programming and what to do so that that time that the city that the street is closed it's actually beneficial to to the merchants, to the people living here, to the people that are visiting here. And they're able to enjoy that whole experience. So I am in support of the Sunday-only closure. I do think, like one of the speakers did mention, there needs to be a more concrete long-term plan. This is my third time speaking with regards to this issue. And I think it's taking up a lot of city time, a lot of money. And I think it's important that we come to some sort of conclusion as to the direction and which way we want to go for the coming years. Thank you.

Oh, thank you. My name is Al Jessa. I'm the owner of the local public eatery in Gastown. And I'm not a resident of Vancouver. First, you know, thank you for the opportunity. And I'm going to take at least one minute just to acknowledge the council members. I met with... you know, I think six or seven council members a couple weeks ago, and I've never been more impressed with the dedication. You know, politicians never occurred to me like people who work, and they just completely altered my view. They care for the city, and they care about, you know, what happens in the vision in Vancouver. So I was just deeply appreciative to the council members. The other thing that I want to really emphasize is that the city staff have put a home run plan together. I mean, we've learned a lot and as Chris said, but This plan is a real home run. And as you go through it, the plan for Gastown that I see forward that the staff have put really will put Gastown at the forefront, at the hub of one of the major attractions in Vancouver. So I really take my hat off to them. The thing that I want to reiterate is what Chris said, which is that the 2024 plan was devastating for us. We had just like them negative sales trends, increased drug and unhoused people on the streets. Our staff faced safety concerns. In fact, several of them stopped working for us. There was frustrated customers with no access to parking, right? So going back to a complete closure, This whole thing about multimodal is just what we've discovered is the ideal solution. And I hope that you follow staff's direction towards that because that's really what's hit it. And then my last comment is I really do believe like others that Maple Tree and the staff does too, that Maple Tree Square is a real focal point for this area because the public kind of gets stuck at the top of the street. And if we can get this street moving all the way down again, it's going to just be super vibrant. So those are my big comments. And again, just deep appreciation for the work council and staff have done for our businesses in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Yeah, hi there. My name is Eddie Emmerman, and I own the building at 214 Carroll Street, which is a mix of commercial and residential. I've lived in that building for 20 years and also run the Barney Stone Pub for many, many years. And I've seen many iterations of plans for Gas Town over the years, and I really do think that this is one of the strongest proposals. um i'm not going to go into what i think of the strength proposal but i just want to go into some of the things to to add on to the proposal that some others have mentioned and that i think would be great additions and and things for the execution of this proposal one um as other people have mentioned is is maple tree square and um the addition of some type of art insulation um since the removal of gassy jack which i i think was a was a good idea but we've also been talking for a number of years about the nations coming together and putting something that reflects the culture their cultural significance to the area and um you know as a business owner and resident of the area i would also like to see another uh sort of photographic opportunity aside from the steam clock which was a central part of maple tree square and i think again it's a great um a great opportunity to promote the nations and their tie to the area. And we'd like to see that added to this proposal. The next thing I want to talk about is the cycling. And we've heard about... you know the focus on cycling and having a cycling corridor through gaston and i think it's a great idea um you know the pedestrian focus um and the economic development focus of this proposal is i is i think important and the idea was to make maple trees maple true sorry um water street a traffic controlled area and i think that also should include cyclists so um cyclists zipping through their commuter cyclists zipping through there i think should be discouraged maybe even we have a cycling slowed corridor or a dismount corridor just to keep the safety of the pedestrians which is supposed to be at the forefront of this proposal um In terms of the two-way of Cordova and two-way streets in general, I think that the two-way of Cordova has been amazingly successful. As was mentioned earlier, the number of cars utilizing the street is about the same, but the speed of those vehicles has slowed down. which has contributed greatly to the safety um councillor maloney talked about this incident at columbia and hastings street which again although not part of gas town also reiterates the importance of the two-way streets and this one-way street anomaly on columbia between hastings and pender which the city has been talking about changing but hasn't been changed and i think that needs to be a great focus which will also help traffic in and out of gas town and the safety of that intersection um so i'd like that to be considered maybe not in this proposal but separately um the last thing i want to talk about that's your time you're already you're already over 20 seconds over

Thank you. Okay. Just one final thing, please. It's just the execution with the dumpsters when the dumpsters were moved from Trounce Alley into Carroll Street for the construction of Trounce Alley engineering and bylaw enforcement.

Thank you for your time.

Yeah, Chair, before we get into sort of substantive discussion in the report, I'd like to move what I think is a simple amendment. Do you want to move us to an amendment queue?

There we go. All good? Great. Thank you. And this is a simple amendment, so I'm hoping it's straightforward for council. And I know that staff has done engagement with some of the residents. It's been very fulsome with the business community as well. I think we hit the sweet spot when we have everybody kind of coming together and feeling that their input is included in the plan. And so it's a fairly simple amendment to build on the work that's been done, but just to embed this as an ongoing principle. In the work and it reads that council direct staff to include residents including organizations such as the gas town residents association by way of example and Ongoing consultation initiatives related to gas town investments and improvements Thank you.

We'd be planning with any future project to engage the GRA, other stakeholders, Gaston Business Associations, residents, businesses.

Council, please register your vote on the voting panel.

Okay, so the amendment passed with Councillor Maloney in opposition.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'll take this opportunity to comment on the report overall. And first of all, I want to thank staff for the work. I know this has been ongoing for some time. And it was referenced. I mean, we're coming to the end of this term now, 2026. I think direction was given over a couple of council terms. I remember making the motion to advance $10 million in the capital plan last term. And then in 2023, as was mentioned earlier, This council gave very clear direction around looking at opportunities to invest in, upgrade, give some love to Gastown, give it some TLC, recognize the historic nature and importance of the neighborhood. And I think we're starting to see that come together now. It's been a process in terms of an iterative process in terms of Going forward with the more robust pedestrian closure, then sort of taking some learnings from that, hearing from the business community, looking at opportunities and recognizing that we couldn't just look in Gaston in isolation. We needed to look at the circulation in and around the area, and that resulted in staff piloting the two-way Cordova project. All in all, I think we've gotten to a really good place right now in terms of a vision for the plan, and I really appreciate a lot of that work. There's a lot of wins in here for me in terms of regularizing the pedestrian Sundays. That's exciting. Looking at ballers, I think, makes sense, not just in our current safety environment, but in terms of flexibility for use of the street. It's great to see some of the initial near-term investments that were done on the sidewalk repairs and trounce alley. I think now it is time to really move it forward and dial it up a notch so that people can actually see the investment coming. So it's heartening to hear that we'll start to see those tangible improvements on the street in the next year. And I think people would really appreciate seeing things like Maple Tree Square moving forward tangibly and finished, the things that people can see and touch. I know there's been a lot of good work done, but I am really, I think what's really important here is recognizing how important our neighborhoods are to residents who enjoy them, to visitors who come in, to the local businesses who want thriving, great businesses, and reasons for people to come out and still shop in bricks and mortars and support and enjoy our neighborhood and sit on a patio. It was great hearing from some of the local businesses. I think it was described by a couple of different individuals. I think Al and Jessa have described as a home run plan. Another speaker said it's one of the strongest proposals. And I think when you have people wanting to augment an ad, such as suggesting additional public art, which I think is a fantastic opportunity, hopefully our public art team will take that away. I know they're also always looking at opportunities. I think that's when you have a win because people are enthusiastic and excited about it and they're looking to sort of add to it and dialing up. But I do think it's really important now that we start seeing some of the implementation completed. I think staff have done a lot of great review of different jurisdictions and that we've had engagement from a public space consultant. It was interesting to look at the example from Pine Street in downtown Seattle of how that sort of mixed in a difference in paving colors and that so that we could sort of keep the character of Gastown but provide some durability of surfaces and something that will hold up over time.

But again, I'm just really wanting to see some of this work continue to advance. People really want to get outside and gather and the opportunities for people-focused public spaces in the city. have been improving. We've got, for example, expansions to Robson along there. We've got the additional plaza, the art gallery. We've got this space going in. But we need to continue moving that work forward and get it delivered. I'm very happy to see the progress. I think, you know, again, looking at it holistically makes a lot of sense. And I do want to thank the Gastown BIS and all of the different businesses that have been engaged in that process for their collaborative engagement, for the Gastown residents, for their passion for the neighborhood. And I think the reason people are so passionate is that Gastown matters. They care about it. We all care about it. It is a great place to be and to shop. It's usually then the odd time that I find I have a free hour, which is not very often, where you can find me hitting a couple of stores and enjoying some of the local restaurants. And I think it's a jewel that we have, and we want to take care of it and support it. So I'm looking forward to seeing some of this work come to fruition, and I'm grateful to everybody who has weighed in on the plan. And I know staff are going to move this forward. They've been very responsive to feedback as well, and I'm grateful and recognize that too. Thank you.

Yeah, so as is planned here with two-way Cordova, we had moved the number 50 bus onto Cordova and we've been monitoring sort of any complaints we've gotten from the process as part of that and it seems to be working fairly well.

So we typically have riders want to slow down through the space there. In terms of what long-term looks like in Gastown or the design looks like in Gastown, that's something we'll be working through lots of the details with, the detailed design, because there's a lot of, like, subtle cues and how to get that slow cycling without sort of, you know, going too extreme the other direction.

Well, we typically do a slow your roll as more an advisory, and we often indicate the shared path to yield to pedestrians.

Thanks very much, Chair. I want to thank the speakers who came today, representatives from the Business Association and also... local residents. It was really great to hear from them and because I know that they're all very passionate about this neighborhood as I think a lot of Vancouverites are and there's been an incredible amount of work that has been done over the last two and a half years since this process begun. And while there's still a lot more work to go, I think we can safely say that things are going in a very good direction with Gastown and really looking forward to seeing the improvements that will be added to the streetscape there over time. that will improve activation and vibrancy. We see through the renderings the improvement of the pedestrian experience that is forthcoming and the cycling infrastructure that will help to keep an important connection east-west. through the portside cycling route. I've also been pleasantly surprised. I was a big advocate in the early going of the two-waying of Cordova Street, and while I realized that there were some initial bumps at the beginning, it seems to be moving forward, so I'm looking forward to seeing that going from... a pilot phase to a more permanent phase. So, uh, just again, uh, the, the plan that we have here recognizes that there's still a lot more work to do on safety and operations and ensuring that businesses and residents, uh, benefit from these changes. Uh, but overall, I think this is a very strong framework, uh, to move forward with and, uh, has a lot of ambition and I'm very much planning to support this. Thanks.

Can I please have a vote assistant favor? Yes. Noted. Thanks mayor.

Okay, Counselor Frye and Counselor Wu.

Okay, so Counselor Frye, we notice you are on the line. So if you want to vote, please turn on your video.

That's okay, yeah.

And the Counselor Wu is a couple of interest.

All right, thanks.

Thanks.

Perfect, please go ahead.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Councillor, for your question. Alexander Ralph, Chief Procurement Officer. So, obviously, we have been having significant cost pressures, and we've been seeing over the last couple of years that the bids are coming up with additional cost and prices are increasing significantly. The city has a strategy of trying to fix our contracts and the fixed price contracts to be able to make sure that we have certainty in terms of price just for at least for the initial term of those contracts. Typically the contracts have an average of four year initial term and then with options to extend. So that's how the city is able to mitigate some of these cost escalations. But sometimes vendors are not able to supply just at the contracted price. So we would have to work with them to be able to try to get into an agreement in the case that we would accept any price increases. An example of that would be last year with some of the retaliatory tariffs that the Canadian government established. We needed to make sure that if we wanted the supply, that we work with our vendor partners to be able to make sure that we were able to get those goods and services.

Yes, thank you for your question. And we do, as part of the supply chain management work, we do inventory planning. So depending on, as well, just how much do we forecast that we were going to be needing, and as well, taking a look at some of those price trends, we make decisions in terms of determining the levels of inventory, especially for critical items that we know that we will require. Sometimes there are space constraints, for example, in our warehouses. So we work with our vendor partners as well to see if they have some space to be able to as well just keep inventory for the City of Vancouver.

Yeah, and I think obviously the whole world is taking a look at what's happening geopolitically and with just many things in terms of escalation of costs. So we are being cautious and we're not trying to be reactive. We're trying to observe and depending on... the things that we know that we need to spend on, then have a better strategy in terms of being resilient and being able to work in conjunction with our partners to be able to make sure that we meet the needs of goods and services for the City of Vancouver.

Thank you, Counselor.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, for the question. Yes, the savings that we are showing on the report, as you well mentioned, are based on what we originally budgeted for. By doing a public competitive process, we just save in several ways. One, making sure that we consolidate the complete volume of the city needs so that we actually work together with the vendors and just and there's a larger just make it more attractive for them to be able to just improve their prices during their bids. As well, having that competitive tension during a competitive bid process helps to be able to reduce some of those costs as well. So although the metric in terms of savings that we're showing, it's based on what we originally estimated in terms of budget. We as well are able to produce some metrics in terms of how much we have been able to negotiate based on that bid price that they set up originally as part of the RFPs, or as well in the case of ITTs, we do have a comparison in terms of the gap between each one of the different bid proposals, and we're able to see if there's a large spread. or if there's not so just there's other saving metrics that are not reported here but are available if um just if council wants to take a look at some of those okay so with compared to other metrics we do have some saving there as well And it is correct, yes.

Yes, so the city obviously comes out just to an RFP with a specific scope of work, and we try to stick to that scope of work. In the case of, for example, construction projects, it's typical that until you actually... OPEN UP THE GROUND OR REALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, THERE MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED AND IT'S TYPICAL THAT FOR EXAMPLE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THERE ARE CHANGE ORDER. SO JUST WE CONSIDER AS PART OF OUR BUDGET SOME CONTINGENCY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MITIGATE SOME OF THAT. just potential change orders and as well but we have a similar process in terms of approval we consider change orders as awarding an additional contract and if for example for large change orders they will go either to bid committee or bring them to council if they're more than three million dollars to be able to get that approval so that way we make sure that there's transparency in terms of those change orders but as well that there's some control and mitigation to avoid escalation of those change orders.

We currently do not track that, but we're able to produce some metrics.

Yeah, thanks. Quick, a couple questions. So for the equitable operations designation, is living wage a prerequisite for that designation? Yeah, so we work with many organizations that are living wage certified. The city decided just a couple of years not to pursue the living wage certification itself. And we have a fair wage program that we actually ask our service providers over $250,000. that they are obligated to be able to pay their workforce a fair wage. But it's not a requirement. If somebody is actually, one of our vendors is living wage certified, we would take that into consideration as part of the evaluation criteria, and we would give them additional points as part of the contract award. Okay, so the report says 54% of contracts were awarded to equitable businesses. Would those be the fair wage businesses, or is it just other considerations that go into what makes an equitable business? Yeah, so that 54% pertains to our sustainable social procurement program. And what it means is that... 54% of the contracts that we awarded in 2025 were awarded to a social or a diverse business. And we identify those social and diverse businesses as being owned by, for example, an equity-seeking group or that they actually have a certification like B Corp or a social enterprise certification. so that we can actually identify them as one of these social or diverse businesses. Okay, so there's a number of different factors that go into it to the designation. I understand that. In the future, would it be possible to get a breakdown of vendor wage standards in the report just to have more information on what that looks like? Yeah, for sure. We can definitely. Great, thanks. That's all my questions.

I have them up on my screen and I'm sharing. Perfect. Rich. Excellent. Good morning, everybody. My name is Megan Pate. I'm the Associate Director of Integrated Projects and Engineering Services. I'd just like to note that we do have two representatives from Circle Ferries who's involved in this project here with us as speakers today. So very pleased to be able to provide you an update on this opportunity to establish electric passenger ferry service adjacent to Harbor Green Park and Coal Harbor.

The city received a proposal from Circle Ferries, which is in alignment with Council's March 2025 motion. Today I'm going to provide you an overview of the proposal, the city's review of this proposal, as well as outline a proposed approach and next steps if Council supports proceeding and authorizing staff to negotiate an agreement enabling use of city land for this service.

SO ON THE SCREEN HERE IS YOUR MOTION FROM MARCH 2025 TO EXPLORE THE FUSIBILITY OF AN ELECTRIC FERRY SERVICE, CONSULT WITH THE LOCAL NATIONS AND REPORT BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. PARK BOARD HAD A VERY SIMILAR MOTION IN FEBRUARY 2025 ASKING STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE THE USE OF HARBOR GREEN DOCK AND WORK WITH PARTNERS INCLUDING US.

TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM CIRCLE. IT'S HERE ON THE SLIDE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPONENT OVER THE LAST YEAR TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS INITIATIVE. SEVERAL LANDING LOCATIONS FOR THE SERVICE WERE CONSIDERED AND ACCOMMODATING A FERRY SERVICE AT HARBOR GREEN WAS FOUND TO BE THE MOST FEASIBLE OPTION. This concept would be supported by various marine and land-based infrastructure that I'll show you on a subsequent slide. The land-based infrastructure specifically does include a large electrical service, of course, with an electric ferry, this is important, and it would be trenched through Harbor Green Park, which is care, custody, and management of the park board. So if this work proceeds, we would continue to work with our park board colleagues to facilitate this work while minimizing impact to the park and the seawall. The Harbor Green dock infrastructure is proposed to be reconfigured and largely replaced with a new dock. And it could make potential reuse with some gangways, but primarily a new facility. The proposal does include a viewing platform and a recreational boat moorage, which I'll show you in a couple slides. And this is in alignment with the Cole Harder ODP that requires these public amenities. The proposed service itself would connect Vancouver to Bowen Island and the Sunshine Coast at Gibson's, and the target service commencement is in 2028.

THIS SLIDE HERE SUMMARIZES THE WORK COMPLETED TO DATE GOING BACK TO LAST YEAR WHEN WE STARTED THE DISCUSSIONS WITH CIRCLE. SO THROUGHOUT 2025 CIRCLE HAD A CONSULTANT TEAM LOOKING AT THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND THIS PRODUCED THE PREFERRED ARRANGEMENT FOR THE DOC SITE ITSELF. THERE IS CONTINUED COORDINATION WITH VC HYDRO AND US AS WELL AND THAT WILL CONTINUE IF THIS PROJECT PROCEEDS. Circle Ferries has engaged with Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Nation, and TTsleil-Waututh Nation around their proposal and potential opportunities to have involvement or representation, and they've also performed market research to confirm that there is ridership interest.

and plan to continue public engagement. Similarly, city staff have notified the local nations, and we are also planning public notifications for residents, businesses, and key interest holders, for example, the Vancouver Rowing Club, who is close to this site, if this project proceeds. last week on monday april 13th the park board did endorse this concept for changes to harbor green dock and to enable this ferry service they indicated support for us to negotiate an agreement with circle ferries and they approved the transfer of the dock ownership including operation and maintenance to engineering services contingent on an executed agreement so that we could proceed They also did request a share of the revenue that the city receives as part of this service, and that's something that we will work with them on. So this brings us all to today, where we are seeking council authorization to negotiate and enter into a licensing and operating agreement with Circle. So to give you a bit more detail on the project location itself, so this figure shows an aerial view of the existing dock, as well as the boundary of the city lot that we're proposing to have this service land in. The proposed location of the reconfigured dock would be in that blue box. So in this image, you can see the adjacent Harbor Green Park, the float plane terminal, as well as the edge of the convention center. Placing the dock on the eastern edge of this water lot does mean that it is closer to the rapid transit that is in this area. And then as I mentioned on the last slide, the existing dock that you can see in the image there will be removed and reconfigured as part of this proposal. Over time, the existing facility has experienced significant wear due to site conditions and usage beyond its original design capacity. And this has meant that ongoing maintenance has been required and that the dock has been closed for quite some time. A KEY BENEFIT OF THIS PROPOSAL IS THE DELIVERY OF A RENEWED DOCK WITH MAINTAINED PUBLIC AMENITIES AT NO COST TO THE CITY.

Okay, so on this slide, we do have a digital rendering showing the proposed concept. This is subject to further refinement and detailed design, but it does show the key elements of the proposal. In the orange there is the charge barge. So this is where passengers would wait to get onto the ferry, and it also has large batteries that would then charge the electric vessels. You can see the ferry departing there in the bottom left of the screen. One of the benefits of having the vessels dock for a long time in charge is that passengers would be able to actually go on the vessels early, use washrooms and amenities on board, and this would take some pressure off of the amenities in the adjacent area.

In green there up on the screen, you can now see the public access areas of the new dock. So there is an elevated viewing platform there in that circular shape, as well as a new dock for public moorage. And the good news is, is that with the new design, we can make sure that all of the gangways and areas are accessible to the public.

So on to our proposed approach.

So the Circle Ferries proposal under the city's procurement policy is considered an unsolicited proposal. Recognizing that this does align with the city's corporate and policy goals as well as your motion, Engineering Services is supporting this pursuit as an initiative under a permitted single supplier sole source. And this means that once an agreement has been negotiated and finalized with Circle, we would do a notice of intent to contract with them. And this notice of intent to contract would notify the market that we intend to have a contract, and this would provide an opportunity for others to lodge complaints or concerns in response to this. Any responses that we would receive from the market in response to this would be presented to Council for review along with the final decision on whether to proceed with a sole source.

SO STAFF ARE SEEKING A COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TODAY TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. THIS SLIDE HERE HIGHLIGHTS THE KEY COMMERCIAL AND OPERATIONAL TERMS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT. IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST AND THE FINAL TERMS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE OUTCOME OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, BUT WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE KEY PIECES. So this service will be at no direct cost to the city, with the city's contributions being in kind. So that includes providing Circle Ferries with access to the licensed operational area. We are proposing an initial term of 10 years for this service, with the potential for future extension. We would do the review and permitting ancillary infrastructure upgrades. So this could look at wayfinding or perhaps loading zones to support this service on adjacent streets. And then we would also like to explore opportunities for the city to provide operational support for the publicly accessible infrastructure. So this could mean continuing our bylaw enforcement that we do now for Harper Green. On the Circle Ferry side, they are going to be responsible for designing, constructing, and delivering all infrastructure, including the public areas, per permits and regulatory requirements. They would operate and maintain all infrastructure. And then they would also be sharing some revenue with us. So their proposal includes $1 per passenger. And with 1,000 passengers estimated per day, this would equate to over $300,000 a year. Of course, they would indemnify us and obtain all appropriate insurance policies, and they will continue to engage with the local nations.

So with that, we have recommendations here for your consideration. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks very much for the presentation. I appreciate the work. I've got a couple of just clarifying questions, and they're really around roles and responsibilities. So I understand it's the proponent's responsibility to construct, maintain, et cetera, the dock. In the event that the service doesn't sustain, who owns the dock? Yeah, so we are going to build in terms into the agreement that we would have the ability to take over the dock, but we would also like to build in terms that they could remove it. So we're going to build out a number of options that would allow us to have flexibility if and when the service would end. Okay, so what I read from that is that the specific terms of an agreement, including a license to use the dock, still need to be finalized, and then will that license agreement be coming back to Council for approval? Yeah, so with the notice of intent to contract process, we would finalize the agreement, we would do the notice of intent to contract, and we would bring it back to you for final approval. Okay, in that vein, my other question around financial implications, and I appreciate it, I'm sort of thinking about the Lime example, right, in terms of similarly no cost to the taxpayer, but it's actually a revenue positive. I know that there's a proposed passenger fee share here of $1 per passenger, and there's some city in kind. The license agreement to utilize the space, will that carry a... Is that proposed to be at cost and at market rate? I don't see an explicit reference to that in the report of your presentation. Yeah, so we're not recommending a license fee for this. We are expecting the revenue share and the in-kind contributions of the dock to be the contribution from Circle in that sense. For perspective, Harbour Green Dock has cost about $1.4 million just to maintain over the last 10 years, and so there is great value in having them rebuild the facility and also maintain and operate it for us. Okay, so reflecting back, let's see if I've got this clear. We're applying a different standard to this than to Lime, where they are paying us a revenue share but also paying for use of docking stations, for example, and use of access to city-owned and managed space because we feel there's value in the dock. So they are getting a break on anomalies, whereas Lime did not. Correct.

And $1.4 million was the total maintenance cost over the 10 years total? Yes. Correct, yeah. So the maintenance of Harbour Green has been escalating over the last number of years. The challenge with the wave conditions in the harbour is that the dock in its current state is not designed for its current environment. So we see getting a new facility that would be well over $1.4 million is good value for the city. Okay. My other question is it suggests that the hours for public access will be commensurate with the operating hours of the ferry service. Can you notionally tell us what those look like? Does that mean daily access for the public or what is from morning till evening? What does that look like? Yeah. So the ferry service is intended to operate 365. And so it would be morning to night that the publicly accessible areas would be available.

Okay. And does that differ or is that consistent with what we've had previously? Generally, yes. The current access for Harbor Green is from dusk till dawn. So that varies seasonally. Whereas Circle Ferry's hours of operations would be more consistent. And I believe that it's around like 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. So they've kind of got a 12 to 14 hour operational day. So they'll actually likely have longer access in the winter compared to the dusk to dawn that exists today, but perhaps slightly shorter in the summer when, for example, dusk is not until 10 p.m. So there might be an hour gap in there. But that is something that we can explore with Circle if needed. Okay, and so last final question, just to be crystal clear about it, is that Council's approving this notional direction. You still have a sort of whatever the terminology was, a notice of intent going out to the market, but Council still has the ability to approve or not approve the license if we don't like the terms of the agreement as they are proposed, for example, around what happens to the dock, that kind of thing, right? Okay. Hi, Steve Brown, Director of Engineering Projects and Development Services. We're getting the authority today to negotiate and finalize that contract. The only reason why it would come back is if there was, through that notice of intent to contract, if someone comes forward then. Sorry, can I just clarify that before I run out of time? I was told, I just want to be clear, the contract will come back to Council? The contract will not come back to council. You and your colleague just said two different things. Yeah, I know. I just wanted to actually clarify that. I'm going to ask for a second round, Chair, before I run out of time. So I ask this question.

So how does council have confidence without giving additional direction, is my question, while I have time, that we are going to be happy with the agreement around the dock at the end of the day?

That's right. The parameters are getting approval today to then be finalized through the GMs. And I get, I'll come back on for the other question. I want some further information on that.

I have a question.

My clock has been running since five minutes.

Okay. Oh, their programmation. Okay. Okay. So let's stop at 12.

So just need a motion on the floor. Who is going to propose an emotion? Okay. We need to... We haven't seconded yet.

Okay. So we're going to stop at 12.

Thanks. Yeah, kind of following the same line there that Councillor Kirby Young was talking about. So the $1 per passenger there, what ridership assumptions is that based on? And what happens if those projections don't materialize? So Circle Ferries is projecting about 1,000 passengers per day. So their vessel is 150 people, and they're expecting about 50% full on each sailing. With 1,000 passengers per day times a dollar, with 365, we're looking at around $350,000. If they do not have 1,000 passengers per day, we would not see the increase. We would not see that guaranteed amount. So the revenue share is dependent on how many people are riding their boat. So our revenue share would decrease if... Okay. Yeah, if their service is not... But the ridership numbers are based on Circle's own ridership? Yeah, their market research study. Okay.

Obviously, there's been talk recently about privatizing our sort of public space and our waterfront space, and I know this council has debated this before. So what are we kind of displacing in terms of public use and... And how are we measuring those impacts? I know we're coming back in 10 years, but I mean, what are we doing today to mitigate that? So the proposed dock, the reconfigured dock, does continue the public amenities in principle that are outlined in the Coal Harbor ODP. So the Coal Harbor ODP requires public moorage and then also access for the water to the water for the public. So today we did some work to look at how many people are actually mooring on the existing Harbour Green dock. And what's proposed is a three vessel, recreational vessel space. And that's consistent to what we kind of see is the maximum of use at Harbour Green. So we believe that this new dock provides comparable public access. Okay. So why is this location being prioritized when staff acknowledge that better transit connection locations Are we kind of locking ourselves into a suboptimal site in terms of those connections? So this site, there were three sites that were considered, one being the Hello Terminal, one being the Seabus Terminal and Harbour Green. Both the Seabus Terminal and Hello have existing agreements with different operators. And so we weren't able to proceed with either of those options. The infrastructure that Circle is proposing, the charge barge, for example, it can be relocated. So if at some point there was an opportunity closer to rapid transit, we would be able to look at moving it. But Harbour Green was the most viable location at this time. Okay. So in that case, if we do move the charge barge or whatever, what if this plan fails or what sort of liabilities? I know the city is indemnified, but just in terms of stranded infrastructure, so they move the barge, they find a different site.

that works better, maybe there's a new CBUS terminal, what happens with that infrastructure? So we would be requiring Circle to get appropriate insurance to cover us if their service terminated. So we would have insurance in order to be able to remove the infrastructure that's there. And again, our intent is to be able to provide us an opportunity to also choose to take on the ownership of the facility if the service was to fail. Okay, there's an option to take on. Okay, that's interesting. How does this integrate with the broader transportation network? It just kind of seems like a standalone service with limited connectivity to the rest of the network.

Lon LeClaire, General Manager of Engineering Services. I did want to mention that this location in the dock in the community plan, the kind of official community plan that was originally developed, did envision this dock to be used for ferry services. Similar to what we would see in Falls Creek where we see aqua bus or Falls Creek ferries, we envisioned that that type of service might start in that location providing service to... Stanley Park or something like that. As part of the broader network, it is a little far from the Seawest Terminal, which is where we would want it to be. The fact that it is a barge and potentially quite movable, as soon as TransLink has the ability to accommodate them at that location, we would like to see them move for sure. Okay, that's good to know. And then last question is just on fare equity in terms of... Is there going to be sort of, you know, low-income fairs for seniors, children, people with disabilities, things like that? So we haven't gotten into those specific details with Circle Ferry, and they would be better able to answer that question, but it's certainly something we can raise with them. Okay, thanks.

Yeah, thanks. And if you can reset my timer, that'd be great. I think it was five minutes. My follow-up question is around the lease. So I just want to be very clear, because I know that in other scenarios, and I'll be careful about what happens in camera and what doesn't, but generally speaking, other significant agreements that contemplate use of public space have come to Council for approval. So just looking for clarification that Council can direct having the lease come back for approval of the terms. Is that correct? Because they are... not fully formed in this report. Thank you, Councillor, for your question. Alex Ralph, Chief Agreement Officer. So, yes, in other large, similar type of contracts, we have come to Council to ask for permission to be able to enter into negotiations so that we can start talking about the initial agreement. And we, in those cases, we have come back to Council to be able to brief you on those terms and conditions that we have actually agreed upon and then ask at that point for just approval of the actual contract award. In that case as well, if there's any challenges to the notice of intent to contract, we would have to bring those to council to be able to inform you about them. So that would be consistent with our past practice? It would be consistent instead of deviating from it, correct? That is correct. Thank you.

Yes, hello. I am a resident of Vancouver. And I'm here to voice my support for the Circle Ferry, the electric service ferry to run from Coal Harbour and will serve Bowen Island and Gibsons. This was brought to my attention by the advocacy of Councillor Bligh. I think it's great that it's electric. It means a lower carbon footprint and a quieter engine than a fuel-based boat. I think Vancouver needs more ways in and out of the city especially if we want Vancouver to continue to be the hub of this region. Gibsons and Bowen Island could certainly use another ferry option, and frankly, I'm very excited about this, and I see nothing but benefits, and give my wholehearted support for this service, which I hope will be a viable enterprise. Thank you for your time.

I'm not arrested. Okay, that's okay. Please go ahead.

Great, thank you. So my name is Calum Campbell. I'm co-founder and CEO of Circle Ferries, and thank you for having me here today. Last year, through motions with the Park Board and the City Council, we were offered an opportunity to work with city staff to explore whether Harbour Green could support an all-electric, passenger-only ferry service connecting downtown Vancouver to nearby coastal communities. And we fully leaned into that opportunity, bringing our own resource to the table. We've engaged with leading Vancouver-based marine engineers, naval architects, and BC Hydro to assess the technical feasibility of reconfiguring the dock. We've also worked closely with city staff to understand the history of the site, as well as the financial and public benefits of reconfiguring the dock. We've also worked closely with staff and a local naval architecture firm to bring all of this together in a design that balances sustainability, public benefits, and a viable operation. What we're bringing now is a design that allows a ferry landing, but just importantly, improves public access to the dock. It's safer. It's more accessible. It adds a new viewing platform connected to the seawall and helps revitalize the space for the public. And more broadly, this decision helps to create a more connected city, while offering real benefits to local residents. Through an all-electric, passenger-only ferry service, we'll introduce new connections from Coal Harbor to Gibsons and Bowen Island, building on the transportation network that Vancouver has developed for decades, and extending it over the water. These are individual communities coming together, shaping their own future, and I'm really excited about how these pieces are coming together. Deployment is desirable, viable, and within reach. We're really proud of the work we've done with city staff to get to this point, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here. We're excited about this ferry service, tailor-made for Vancouver. It's going to offer new transportation options for coastal residents.

Thank you. All right, speaker number three is Darren Piera.

Yeah, please go ahead. I'm Aaron Council. I'm a resident of New Westminster.

Okay. I'm speaking. I am the co-founder of Circle Ferries, just to clarify that. We've been working on this for the past four years on Circle Ferries and four years ago this was essentially just a vision with toner ink on printing paper and we keep getting closer to making this an operational reality. The motion that you passed last year, which was unanimously voted yes, and big thank you to that, has brought us closer, and it's brought us closer to bringing, to working with city staff and First Nations and communities who've all bought into the vision and realized this is a big need, especially for communities who are outlying. They really need this service. Revitalizing Harbor Green is going to help them, It's also going to give Vancouver the chance to also stand shoulder to shoulder with other cities around the world who have embraced this technology. Zero emissions is here. We used to run from coal ships to diesel ships to now electric ships. And trust me, my first ship was a steamship. So I fully understand the transition to zero emissions. And Transport Canada is also pushing for a zero emission 2050. It's been a really long road climbing a mountain, but we keep getting closer. And I do hope that you do envision what we're going to do and hopefully vote yes for this. We're very excited, and I really thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker number four is Louise Mercier.

Speaker four is not on the line. Okay. Speaker number five is Nathan Davidovich. Nathan?

Thank you, Chair and members. I spoke at the Parks Board on April 13th. You know, the report doesn't even give you the minutes. I just send you the minutes. You know, I mean, that report by the city staff here is not complete. And it doesn't address, you know, BC Ferries. 2050 plan to implement passenger-only ferries on various routes. We want public transit. We do not want private transit. That's why we have next Tuesday, the 28th of April, we have the launch of a new group called Public Transit Alliance of BC. And we have the Parliamentary Secretary for Transit, George Anderson, the main speaker.

He does not agree with the Minister of Transportation, who does not seem to support public transit. So that's the position of city council. They should support BC Ferries' report of public transit on ferries and building passenger-only ferries owned by the BC government. And, I mean... To add insult, on February the 2nd, we have the city manager and assistant city manager signing off to cancel the bus stops on Pender and Turlow and Pender and Butte, which would access this particular dock. So how are we going to have accessibility when the bus stops have been canceled already? You know, and I mean, this is whole, you know, I mean, I've written so many things to the Parks Board about this, you know, proposal, you know, and you have, and I spoke to city council on April 13, 2022, on the RAF bylaw number 13323, that does not allow private companies to use the city docks, you know, and I mean, Councillor Kirby Young spoke about it back four years ago, and Councillor Wiebe also opposed that. And here we are, the city staff, doing completely opposite what, you know, the city council asked in 2022. You know, it's just amazing. You know, and as I said, you know, I mean, this RAF is one, as was mentioned, is one possibility, but the CBUS terminal is the best one. And we can expand the CBUS terminal. We can get a new terminal to do it. So, anyhow, thanks very much for your help.

Thanks everyone.

Welcome to TELUS Conferencing.

To join the conference, enter your access code followed by the number sign.

Hi Tamara, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Excellent. I can hear you too. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

everyone we don't have quorum right one two three four we need two more

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, perfect.

There we go.

So moved, Councillor Bligh.

No problem. Okay, so Council Committee members, is there any discussion? Okay, so Councillor Kerbion on the queue. Can we put Councillor Kerbion on the queue?

That's okay.

Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Before we get into any further discussion, I did have an amendment that I wanted to propose. Chair, if you want to move this to amendment queue. Okay, sure. Yeah, please add yourself there.

Yeah, please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so the amendment's a fairly simple one. And as we heard in questions earlier to our procurement staff, normal practices for similar style contemplated partnerships and relationships usually involve the terms and or lease being brought forward to council. And I think that that's important due diligence that council does with respects to... having clarity around use of the dock and sort of the proposed lease terms sometimes I know that happens in steps sometimes a summary of terms is brought forward to council and then a legal agreements completed at a later date for example but I think council would be remiss and not doing that due diligence as has been consistent past practice and we have done with other types of services that also access and utilize public space. And so that essentially is the substance of the amendment that I sent in. It's just that that piece come back to council, which I assume since staff are fairly far along in these discussions should not be an onerous piece in order to bring back a summary of those terms, et cetera. So that's the amendment on the floor. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. A point of information through you to staff or the city manager. Just curious if staff can comment on the ability to bring back proposed terms prior to the end of July. Because I think this is a good idea. I think the services would be a real benefit to the existing transportation hub that we have there in the harbor. But I would like to understand the ability to bring it back, whether it would come in camera or would it come in open, and the ability to meet an expedited timeline.

Please go ahead. Okay, no problem. There we go. Thank you. Through to the Councillor. So, yes, that, in fact, would be our effort. As it will be a legal agreement, we will bring it in camera. It will be endeavoured to be done before July, so before the end of July. During that time, of course, we'll finish the legal drafting as well as proceed with the notice of intent. Okay. And just, Chair, a follow-up to that question is, I guess, I just want to reframe back what I'm hearing, though, is I'm getting some assurance, though, that this would not jeopardize this advancing, that it would be taken into account that we want this done expeditiously. You're certainly getting the assurance that city staff will... do this expeditiously. I can't speak to any impact this may have on the proponent, but the legal drafting as well as the notice of intent will happen as quickly as possible to get back. It has to happen anyways, right? So it would just be an extra step of having in-camera meetings to be called as well on short notice. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Chair.

We'll have a seconder for the amendment. I'll second. Okay, seconded by Councillor Domonato. All right, Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. I wonder if it would be appropriate, based on the city manager's question or comment to Councillor Domonato's question, to put in an amendment to the amendment that basically says, you know... that bring back the proposed terms before the end of July, contingent on whether or not that can happen before the end of July. And I mean, generally speaking, I don't think this is necessary. I think the terms by which the agreement are going to be negotiated are in the report. And I don't actually agree that something that requires this much upfront capital to build the infrastructure to even allow this project to go forward is not commensurate to other examples that have been raised like Lime Scooter. There was no roads needed to be built by Lime. There were no parklets that needed to be established. with significant multimillion-dollar infrastructure capital investment before even getting going. So it's actually not the same thing at all. And I do have concerns that if we don't get this back by July and the two parties negotiating, it's already the end of April. In May and June, to have something back by July actually isn't likely from my perspective. then it risks this project. This project is funded, capital investments have been funded. This is all very transparent, has been discussed for the last year by interested parties. It has huge benefits related to reducing GHG emissions, opening up regional transportation. I don't understand why we would actually risk this project to satisfy, you know, maybe just one or two, I don't even know if there are two, folks on council who don't feel as confident in it. I mean, at the end of the day, we are responsible to make sure that these projects are not, that we're not sort of hindering the progress. So unless there's some language that says that if it can't come back by July, that staff have the ability to negotiate the terms and keep the project moving forward. I can't support this. I actually think it creates a lot of risk around the project.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, thanks very much. Listening to the conversation, and I think Clause A in the recommendations is what provides the comfort that council is, if it supports this, and I fully expect they will, it was unanimous vote on the motion, and Clause A actually states that And since the signal that council is endorsing this service, it says that council authorized staff to negotiate the terms of a license and operating agreement with Circle Ferries Incorporated for the operation electric passenger ferry generally as described in the report. That recommendation stands. I think that signals council's very clear intent that this would be the second approval from council towards that step. One, in terms of considering the idea of the motion. Two, now that it recommends moving forward with an agreement. I think, again, it's important that the due diligence is done here with respects to to utilization around public space and providing some answers to those questions. We've heard from staff that they're moving and making their best efforts to do that. I don't see why this would risk the project at all with a resounding support from council. So to me, that doesn't present a material risk, but it does allow council to do its due diligence. And so I thought I would provide that additional perspective. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the due diligence component. I am going to propose we put a timeline on this. I'm appreciating that the city manager has spoken to this, but I think it would be appropriate to do so. So I'm going to offer an amendment. I'm just sending it along here. It would be just to add to the amendment that the terms and lease be provided to Council for approval by June 30, 2026. If that is an unreasonable time frame, I certainly would welcome staff speaking to that now before I send it through, but I am going to move that. That would give us the window of July for it to be put on an agenda.

I'll put it through. Council can deliberate, but I think... I think it would be appropriate just so that everyone has assurance that, one, we've done the due diligence, and two, that we're meeting the timeline to satisfy the project.

Yeah, thank you. I mean... I think it's important just to hear from staff. I appreciate Council Dominato's timeline. Interestingly enough, put forward an amendment that I haven't had a chance to move that states a timeline of July 15th. And if unable to meet the timeline, approval will be granted to proceed with the agreement without further council approval. We are in an election year, of course. In October, there will be a blackout period of any decisions of council until after the election. Whatever happens, then there's a budget likely this would not come back until Q1 of next year, which, as I say, I think puts enormous risk on this project. I also have a concern about sort of manufactured timelines, if you will, that are going to accelerate agreements and. and not provide staff the time needed for their due diligence uh legally and otherwise so i wonder if there is uh an opportunity for just a quick legal opinion through the city manager through you chair as a point of information as to whether or not um this timeline works as put forward by council donato in which case if it does i'm happy to support it um and more so for the legal due diligence um in negotiating these agreements i know that they do take some time

So city manager. Thank you. Thank you to the council members.

Realizing the June 30th date, I believe the last and I'm just getting the deputy city manager looking up our last date in June. That timeline might be a little tight. I certainly think council has been very clear that it needs to come back no later than July, but there's no council meetings. I'm just looking at the last one that may exist. I think it's mid-June. So the mid-July date would, in fact, be better just in terms of timing. I will say in practice, just... not via motion, but in practice, if for some reason there were unforeseen circumstances that arose throughout this process, staff would certainly be bringing back an update to council no later than July anyways to probably seek the same sort of assurances that, I see there's two amendments that have been proposed, but if there was unforeseen circumstances, we'd probably seek a similar arrangement to the one that we've just requested as part of the recommendation. I don't know if I've been direct or clear, but we would probably, if something forbid us from getting the terms of reference, sorry, the deal done, we would come back to council in July regardless.

Okay. Well, okay. Well, so yeah, I'm not going to support it only because I think the timeline is too short for it to be as I think helpful as was intended by council dominato. So I do appreciate the intent for sure. I'm not going to support it. And I think it just speaks to the role that we have as council. We've endorsed the proposal. We've endorsed the idea, micromanaging the agreement between the two parties, city of Vancouver, that we, sort of delegate negotiating authority to our very competent city staff that worked through the park board already. And now we've just basically at that finish line, I think what it does is it really tells the proponents and their investors that we're serious about not standing in the way of this project. And, you know, we all sit in, in our realities, but the reality out there is that these are very, you know, difficult times and investments and, and, projects like this can feel, can be jeopardized by just a delay of three months without the certainty. Approving this report without any amendments today both protects the city and also protects the project and provides certainty that come July, there wouldn't be some change of heart or some change of direction, which happens not just at our council, but just happens generally. So yeah, I'm not gonna support amendments i think we should just approve the um i think we should just approve uh the proposal is put forward as i say i think i just really have not heard any sound rationale as to why this is needed okay thanks counselor so seeing no one else on the queue

Seconded by Councillor Klassen. Yeah.

Chair, can I please get a vote of system paper, please?

Councillor Montague?

Yeah, just having an issue with my computer.

Okay, so it's a tie.

No, that's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, can we project on the screen?

Vault.

All right, so going back to the amendment queue.

Yeah, it's over there.

Where's the tie?

Unless we have further questions?

Councillor Bligh, you have an amendment. Do you want to speak to your amendment, Councillor Bligh? No, I haven't put it on the floor of the chair.

Thank you, though.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor, please? Noted. Thanks, Mayor.

Okay, it's there. Perfect. Going back to the main queue, Councillor Kirby.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Tara. I'll just say it is the job of council to do the due diligence, and this is an important public asset. I was not able to receive a material response to my question around what are the agreed upon parameters for what happens to the dock in the event, and this is a 10-year lease that's contemplated for the initial term. And then what happens in the event that, and we hope, and I know there's demand for the service, that they fully hope that it is successful. But in that event, I think that's a pretty material question because they are being provided preferential leave terms in acknowledgement of the... benefit to having that dock be one that can be accessed by the public and I think that's a really good thing so to me this is due diligence and I have a hard time in voting for something when we don't have a material answer on a key component of the agreement at this point so I will leave it at that at this for now thank you

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor, please?

We're going to move on to the members' motion.

Thanks, Chair. And I won't take the full two minutes. I know there's a number of speakers and I know it's a complicated agenda. I'm actually in Victoria right now and running a pretty tight schedule myself. Since I did introduce this motion a couple of weeks ago as urgent business and it's now coming to us today, I do want to underscore the real timing importance to get this funding approved so that we can actually onboard lifeguards. in time for beach season, which is happening very quickly, as we can tell by the weather recently. And I just want to also underscore that in the time since I brought this motion forward, I've really had a lot of interesting conversations with lifeguards and lifesavers who work on our beaches. And the extent of work that they do in proactive safety is quite humbling to bring this forward and really to... uh respect the really critically important work that they do to keep folks safe at our beaches and uh i i know that this council supports public safety in all its forms and i think this is a really crucial investment uh i was we recognize that park board is struggling with some of their budget constraints uh it's crucial that we we ensure that we have lifeguard protection at our public beaches uh for everyone to enjoy we're coming into a remarkable summer season we're gonna have visitors from around the world We know it's often visitors and folks who aren't familiar with our beaches that are most likely to get in trouble. We also want our lifeguards there to inform folks as they come and enjoy the beaches about safe practices when enjoying our beaches here in Vancouver. And I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

In person? Michael?

Please go ahead, Michael. You have three minutes.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Michael Robinson. I'm the President-elect of QP Local 1004, representing over 1,500 City of Vancouver workers, including the outdoor lifeguards who keep Vancouver's beaches safe every summer. I'm also a Kitsilano resident who spends a quality amount of time swimming at and enjoying our beaches with my young family. I'm here today to urge you to support this motion and restore lifeguard services to all of Vancouver's beaches, including Spanish Banks East and West, Sunset Beach, and Third Beach. These are some of the busiest beaches in our city. Thousands of people use them every day in the summer, including families, children, seniors, residents, and visitors alike. When people think about lifeguards, they think about rescues. But the reality is that most of the work they do is prevention. It's calling a child back when they've strayed too far into the water. It's warning swimmers about a sudden drop-off or an unbeknownst to them current. It's clearing a safe path through rocks so people can safely enter the water. And it's spotting a dangerous situation before it becomes an emergency. Our lifeguards know our beaches intimately. Their currents, their hazards, and their blind spots. They are more times than not the first to respond when something goes wrong. At Spanish banks, for example... There are long mudflats and a sudden drop-off that can catch people off guard. At Sunset Beach, there are powerful currents and heavy vessel activity near the creek. These are not simple environments to navigate, especially for visitors or people who are unfamiliar with the water. Lifeguards routinely and skillfully deal with complex situations. When a boat capsizes and multiple people need to be pulled from the water at once. When a serious injury at the beach requires immediate first aid. When a child is separated from their family, they're quickly located and reunited because lifeguards know exactly where to look. Without these trained professionals at our beaches, response times increase, and so do the risks to beachgoers.

Lifeguard services are a core public safety function. The cost to restore them is modest relative to the scale of impact and the level of risk. And they are a cost-effective investment. Lifeguards prevent emergencies and reduce the need for response from paramedics, fire, and police. Ultimately, this is about the kind of city Vancouver wants to be. A city that welcomes visitors, a city that supports recreation and public health, and a city that takes public safety seriously.

I was under the assumption that speaking on behalf of multiple people, on behalf of all of 1004I, would be granted five minutes.

Oh. Okay.

Please go ahead. Hi. Can you hear me?

Hi there. Am I on the line?

Thank you. My name is Gabby Tremblay, and I'm here in support of Pete Fry's motion, Restoring Lifeguard Services at Key Vancouver Beaches. I'm a born and raised Vancouverite. I grew up learning to swim at Vancouver's beaches and outdoor pools, places that have shaped who I am today. I have three key points for council on why lifeguards should be restored at Spanish Banks East and West, Sunset Beach, and Third Beach. The first is youth economic opportunity and character building. I began as an outdoor lifeguard in 2014. As a youth at the time, I learned discipline, respect for knowledge and guidance of senior staff, and ultimately was able to make money to pay my way through my undergraduate degree. I was able to pay off my $16,000 student loan without accruing any interest on the debt because of lifeguarding. This set me up for success in my career. In this current economic climate where youth fresh out of high school make very little in the entry-level job market, This opportunity stands out against the rest. If you cut lifeguards, only more senior staff will be working this summer, drying up opportunities for youth and creating a bottleneck for budding outdoor lifeguards at the city. Number two, prevention, prevention, prevention. Most of my work as an outdoor lifeguard with the city from 2014 to 2020 entailed prevention. As the relief head lifeguard at both Sunset Beach and Spanish Banks East over the years, meaning I was in charge of the beach for two days and second in command for three. I taught my staff to be extremely perceptive to situations before they became major incidents and to watch the entire beach, 360 degrees, not just the area between the flags. We stopped intoxicated folks from attempting to swim across the boating channel at Sunset Beach, and we would make sure kiddo at the drop-off at Spanish Bank found mom, who was 300 meters away on dry sand. We responded to many aquatic emergencies, but also dealt with major land-based emergencies. Without lifeguards, incidents will increase, placing more strain on paramedics, of which 30% on average are currently off work due to mental health reasons and so are already understaffed, and on police, of which I have seen many situations escalate when they have gotten involved at the beach, rather than us, the lifeguards, who are trained to de-escalate tensions and take a community public health approach. often knowing common beachgoers by name. The third and final point I would like to leave you with is this. During my seven years as an outdoor lifeguard, my staff and I stopped several near-death aquatic experiences in the ocean. It might have been a child, a non-English speaker who could not read the signs, an elder adult, or even a fatigued experienced swimmer. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when aquatic death at these beaches occurs if the lifeguards are not reinstated. And that will be a direct result of those of you who do not vote to pass this motion.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Speaker number two is Lenia Grace.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Linnea Grace. I'm the Executive Director of the Life Saving Society, BC and Yukon Branch. I'm here to speak in favor of today's motion to restore funding for lifeguards at public beaches in Vancouver, a critical issue affecting public safety. At the Life Saving Society, our mission is to prevent drowning through education, training, and public awareness. We are Canada's water safety experts, the certifying body for National Lifeguards, and the leading provider of swim lessons across the country. And while we understand the city's pressures, drowning prevention requires continuous investment to avoid tragedy and injury. Today, we strongly urge you to invest in public safety. There is one statistic I ask you to remember today. Only less than 1% of drownings in British Columbia occur in lifeguard supervised settings. That means 99% happen when lifeguards are not present. That's not a coincidence. It's evidence that trained supervision works. Lifeguards do far more than respond when somebody is already in crisis. They prevent emergencies before they happen. They intervene early, educate the public, de-escalate unsafe behavior, and they provide immediate skilled response when seconds matter. Without trained lifeguards, minor situations can become life-threatening very quickly. And when that happens, the burden shifts to other emergency responders, paramedics, firefighters, and police who are already stretched. Risk factors in Vancouver in particular mean that lifeguard supervision is especially important. These include changing tides, currents, weather, tourists and visitors who are unfamiliar with local conditions, children or newcomers who haven't yet accessed swimming lessons, and other risks. And while the value of someone's life is immeasurable for that person, their loved ones, and network, the cost of drowning is not only human, it is economic. To share data from the Drowning Prevention Research Center, each fatal drowning in Canada carries an average cost of $623,000. $623,226. And when you consider that figure, investing $600,000 to ensure safety for thousands of beach visitors and countless preventions seems more reasonable, doesn't it? Vancouver beaches have long served as a nationally and internationally respected model. For over a century, this city has invested in public safety, beginning with Joe Fortes, Vancouver's first official lifeguard. I urge council to continue that legacy today in restoring the funding, restoring these essential core lifeguard services, and investing in public safety.

And the Life Saving Society stands ready to continue working with you to support safe, supervised, and welcoming waterfront spaces for everyone. Thank you very much.

Speaker number three is withdrawn. Oh, okay. Speaker number four has withdrawn as well. Speaker number five is Annalise Hoffman.

Hello, my name is Annalise Hoffman. I am here as a concerned citizen. I grew up on the Vancouver beaches, swimming, sailing. I'm one of the lucky ones who does know what it's like and how to be safe out on the waterways. I wanted to really highlight how Vancouver has been a leader in water safety for many years, dating back over 100 years now, back to Joe Fortes. He was the first lifeguard. He started as a volunteer. Like many of the current volunteers, they also volunteer in their community and are large contributors. Vancouver hosted the World Conference on Drowning Prevention in 2017. It was the largest conference of its kind at that moment. We were leaders. It also was the first drowning prevention conference hosted in North America. Their slogan was, share globally, prevent locally. In Canada, we're lucky many people have access to swimming lessons. However, others around the world are not as lucky. We are also a very diverse group of people here in Vancouver, visitors, new immigrants, and we want to make sure that everyone is kept safe. Other fun facts about lifeguards are that in other places, such as San Diego, lifeguarding is considered a first responder role, and they are part of the firefighting service. So they're recognized as a critical part of first responder and emergency response. Also in Hawaii, there is currently a motion at one of the locations for the lifeguards to also join the fire department. I urge you to make sure that the Vancouver lifeguards are returned to the five locations, Spanish Banks West, Spanish Banks East, Third Beach, and Sunset Beach. These are very important beach locations. There are numerous rescues that occur every year. And as everyone has said, most importantly, preventions. Lifeguards are able to identify very quickly what could escalate into larger emergencies and prevent those from happening. They're also the ones helping to helping the paramedics and the fire to navigate to where these people are located in a quick manner. The lifeguarding service has also developed many people over the years into paramedics, police, fire, doctors, lawyers, you name it.

There's somebody who is now in that profession who learned their leadership skills as a lifeguard on the beaches or pools. It is a critical public safety resource, and I urge you to vote to restore lifeguards immediately. Thank you.

Hi, my name is James Rees. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm calling in support of Pete Fry's motion to restore lifeguard services at key Vancouver beaches. I'm in support for the following reasons. Firstly, we need to be preventative rather than reactive when people's lives are at stake. All too often, authorities react after something bad happens or someone dies. We are here today privileged with the position and the opportunity to do something about it. Secondly, let us imagine a world where money didn't matter. Would you want the best and bravest on our shores? Would you want highly experienced first responders equipped with AEDs to come to your rescue or a beloved family member? If you cut the funding, those lifeguards will seek other positions. And if the funding was then reinstated, you would have those positions built by newer, less experienced lifeguards who don't know and understand these specific locations. Many of the lifeguards are highly skilled and experienced because they've worked for years at the same locations. Further, if you do require help, the chance of survival from a drowning or a heart attack without a rapid response time is very slim. Thirdly, ostensibly this is a budgetary discussion. But what price do you put on a human life? Yours? A family member? A tourist from another country? In Australia, where I'm from, we wouldn't dream of cutting services. If anything, our life notes should be paid more. I'll tell you one thing. I'm not doing it for the money. They are holding high regard for the invaluable public service they offer. Additionally, I am very familiar with one of the locations, Spanish Banks West. It's a spectacular place with kilometers of beach to explore, especially at low tide. If you know this spot, you will know it has very strong currents, and the tide comes in quickly, often stranding people on the sandbars, including little kids. Lifeguards at that location have a huge job. They monitor everyone from kiteboarders to canoers and kayakers to swimmers, and are available as frontline first aid for walkers, joggers, and cyclists using the foreshore path. Our world is changing. We need to change and adapt with it. Populations are rising as are global temperatures. The city is growing too. More and more people are coming to the city and living in smaller footprints as well. Where do these people go when they want to recreate and enjoy the weather? They are going ahead to our spectacular beaches and lakes. In closing, prevention is the best cure. Let us take responsibility for the lives of our citizens, our visitors, and the irreplaceable skills of our venerable lifeguards and reinstate them at all five locations. Thank you for your time.

Speaker number nine has drawn Irvin.

Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Council and members of the public and staff. I'm John Irwin, a resident and a former Park Board Commissioner. I represent myself and I'm speaking in support of the motion. If we had a reasonable operating budget for the Park Board, we would not be here asking for money to fund an essential service. Lifeguards at Sunset, Third Beach and Spanish Banks. Staff at the Park Board are doing their best to meet the challenges of a $12 million shortfall caused by the last operational budget. We in the community appreciate the extra funding that prevented fee increases to meet these challenges. Thank you. Basically, alcohol and water mix well at home and in bars. On an ocean beaches, they only mix well with dedicated lifeguards on our beaches. Alcohol can lower inhibitions and lead to injury or tragedy. Lifeguards can intervene to save lives.

As a younger father, yes, I was a younger father, obviously, many hours were spent at sunset and through beaches with my twin boys and slightly older daughter when they were very young. I always kept them at arm's reach, but we only waited and swam in the lifeguard zone for added safety. The lifeguards were there and made our visits to the beach much more secure. Please fund these lifeguards for this season and those that follow. Not leaving enough room in the operating budget for the park board erodes its independence and jurisdiction. I have to also give a shout-out to my older sister, who now is much older. She was our lifeguard in a small community pool where I grew up in a small town in Alberta. That pool was our temple. We swam there every summer day, and they had two full-time lifeguards on duty all the time. Lifeguarding is essential. Service, you know, we live in a very crowded city. As people have mentioned, there's going to be visitors here. for FIFA and, you know, the tourist season is coming upon us. Please, you know, put this funding in and get the lifeguards working on our beaches. Thank you.

Hey, speaker number 10 is Philip Skinder.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Phil Skinder. I'm the Director and Head Coach of the largest life-saving sport club in BC. I'm here in support of the motion. We operate in city pools and beaches and have taught thousands of Vancouver children to swim, race, teach, and save lives. Many of them right here on these beaches. I want to speak clearly about the proposal to remove lifeguards from half of Vancouver's beaches. I am here in support of the motion. This is not a cost-saving measure. This is a risk decision. Let's be clear, it transfers risk away from the city's budget and puts lives and Vancouver's reputation at stake. And this isn't just my perspective. BC's paramedics have warned that removing lifeguards also creates avoidable risks and shifts the burden out to an already strained emergency system. And because when something goes wrong in an unguarded environment, and it will, the result is not savings. It's a more complex rescue or preventable tragedy. The vast majority of drownings in BC happen in unguarded waters during the summer months, the exact conditions we're trying to address. And only a tiny fraction happen when lifeguards are present, as Linnea already mentioned. This is prevention working. This city is rapidly losing pool space. Access to swimming lessons is declining. Therefore, fewer children are learning to swim. So the risk doesn't disappear, it increases. And we're going to see more children in open water and beaches because they don't have pools. So at the same time, more families will be relying on beaches. We're moving in the wrong direction. This risk is escalating. See, this is what I do for a living. We save lives by preventing drowning and teaching children to swim, teaching them to guard. We know that prevention is the most cost-effective approach. Because once something goes wrong, the costs escalate quickly. So I would ask, what is the value of a life? Because once something goes wrong, this is no longer a budget question. We are also entering years of critical pool shortages. Access is going to get worse, not better. And that means more risk at beaches. So we need to be clear about priorities. We may want landmark facilities. Do we really need them? What we need is simple. We need guards on the beaches, guards in the pools, and children safe in the water. Because people can find recreation anywhere, but they cannot learn to swim, they cannot have fun in the water without access to supervised ocean space. And one final point, Vancouver's reputation. We're about to welcome the world. A preventable incident doesn't stay local. The impact of one high-profile tragedy can outweigh years of savings. And when the world is watching,

Prevention is not optional. Keep the lifeguards on our beaches to make them safer and more welcoming, because over the next several years, more people, not fewer, will depend on them. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker number 11 is Andrea Nicholson.

Thank you, Chair and Council. My name is Andrea Nicholson, and I'm in support of this motion. I'm a former head lifeguard on our Vancouver beaches, and I grew up learning to swim at our outdoor pools and beaches, all staffed with lifeguards. As a result, my passion for lifeguarding, public safety, and pride in our city began six decades ago. I was part of the group of presenters in 2012 when city councillors and park board commissioners recognized the importance of a similar motion. Quite frankly, I'm appalled that we're here again. It's clear that due diligence has not occurred, either in the funding for the Park Board, in the position of City Council, but either way, we hope that you've reviewed our submission as former lifeguards and head lifeguards, and that you will carefully choose your decision today.

Lifeguards are not negotiable. Vancouver's beaches are celebrated for their beauty, and because of decades of preventative work by our lifeguards, our city is known internationally for the safety of our beaches, an obvious fit for let's keep making Vancouver safer. Are we expecting the public to visualize an imaginary boundary between Spanish Banks East and Locarno, especially when the tide is out? Does the Locarno lifeguard now have to choose between swimmers in their designated area and someone drowning in the unguarded Spanish Banks Bay? Do you understand how the tide moves on the western beaches? How are boats moved to adjust to that? Or that there's a 30-foot drop-off and sandbars surrounding? If lifeguards are considered essential service during a strike, job action, or other emergencies, then the importance must be reflected in the budget for that service. This is especially true when we're welcoming the world for mass events such as FIFA, and when the city continues to grow through increased housing density and our community pools have been closed. Your decision on this motion has life-threatening consequences. Politics and contempt have no place in decision-making when public safety is at stake. If funding is not approved, the consequences will be measured in preventable tragedies and the accountability that follows. You'll certainly need to clear your calendars for the onslaught of coroner's inquest summons because they're going to be coming, and they will keep coming. That is unlikely to be the legacy that anyone would wish to leave. Making the right decision, please do. Support funding and sustain lifeguards on all Vancouver beaches. Thank you.

Speaker number 12 is Cameron Grierson. Cameron. Speaker number 12.

Number 12.

Oh, 12 is not speaking. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Council. I am here in support of the motion to restore the lifeguards to the beaches. My personal interest is one that I think is more universal in the city. I lost my leg six years ago. I'm a right leg amputee. Getting into the water is very difficult, especially on beaches where there's no structures or docks or whatever. And until you can get a waterproof leg in there, $15,000 to $20,000, you're kind of stuck with what you've got. And the lifeguards have things on the beach in their huts. that are sort of plastic three-wheeled vehicles that can get you into the water, wheel you out, the lifeguards help you out there, and they can get you into the water. So for the first time in five years, I was able to go swimming again, which was extremely important to me psychologically, but also I know to any amputee, anybody. So it's a disability issue. At the root of one of the things, all the other cases that have been made for lifeguards, it's an essential service. I know you're looking for $100 million in efficiency cuts and things like that. This is not an efficiency cut. This is exactly the opposite. Lifeguards are essential services. They're first responders. That's exactly what they do. And they also provide an opportunity for people with disabilities to be able to get into the water and enjoy the water safely. And that's not been thought about. It's a very ableist kind of decision to cut things like that without thinking there's other people besides children and beachgoers and people partying on the beach. And it seems to me that The word efficiency has come up in many of the articles about this. It just seems really daft. And it seems odd to be cutting such an essential service. And I think that also when we look at duplicating services, which is another thing that's come up in news articles, we're not duplicating services with having lifeguards. In fact, there could be more. The beaches could use more lifeguards, not less, and not fewer. And so I think essentially, I think it's an essential thing, especially with FIFA, the world coming here, more Americans coming here because they don't want to go in their own country, and it's a safe place to come. So there's people coming here, and they don't know our beaches, they don't know our places. And it's a sign of safety to them that we have lifeguards present. It's like having police on the streets. It's like having anything that's visible, fire trucks and fire things available. I think it's really essential that we recognize that lifeguards are not a frivolity. They're not a luxury. They're not excessive. They're not duplicating services. They're essential services. And I think that's one thing I'd like you to think about. I would also like to thank the councillors who are actually here today because it's important when an issue like this comes up that the council is represented. So I appreciate you being here in the room and I appreciate you hearing me. Thank you very much.

All right. Speaker number 14 is Jacqueline Robbins.

So we happen to be two. We're twins. My sister is. I'm Joyce Robbins. And we're going to be speaking together. We are really clients of lifeguards. I just need a point of clarity. I just want to thank British Columbia. I believe this is a Nobel issue that we've managed to control the tides. That's what I heard. I was told that the riptides are controlled. The tidal pools are controlled. I was told that the weirs are controlled, and I was told that every child born will be receiving a diving mechanism, so that we're all going to be perfectly safe. So I honestly believe that lifeguards are absolutely redundant.

Oh, excuse me. You can't believe what you always hear on the internet. I guess I'll have to reverse into a Gilda Ratner. Never mind. We're here to support the lifeguards. And the reason being is that we are indeed clients of lifeguards. And our story began very quickly. We're from Calgary, which is very landlocked. We used to spend our summers here in Vancouver. And under the graciousness of the sun in the province, we offered free swimming programs. My sister and I took all those courses for many years and 14 years with the YWCA in Calgary and together collectively we both sink like a stone. We are literally our specific gravity is below zero and we would have made great anchors on the Titanic but it went down quickly. We would have brought it down even faster. But that's why we need lifeguards more and more. We do support them. They are indeed an essential service. My sister and I are not statistics. And we cannot schedule a heart attack. We cannot schedule an event that requires instant and immediate intervention. Therefore, we are really spreading ourselves thin. It can't really be just a money issue. in this particular case. We are in very much support of the lifeguards and we also do not like the fact that some voices here have been suppressed. As far as we remember this is still a democracy. Please support the lifeguards. Go ahead. Thank you, Joyce, and thank you to the counselors who are here, and thank you for the mayor, and thank you for doing our city's service. It is a very essential service, and I must say that children live what they learn. Children will learn that if no one is there to protect them, that they can make up their own rules. Children need structure. Lifeguards are structure. Rules are important. And it is also very important to remember that children are our future. We need to protect them. This is not artificial intelligence. This is intelligent people who are doing their jobs after they have been well trained. Prevention is the number one tool of a lifeguard.

And if these tragedies cannot be cannot be stopped because we did not offer prevention through lifeguards. We are definitely in for a series of unfortunate events. Please, please restore the lifeguard services to Vancouver. Thank you for listening.

Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Patricia Valadez, a Vancouver resident, and I support the motion to restore life course services at key Vancouver beaches. I'm speaking here today to share my experiences and concerns as a deep water swimmer and a water sports enthusiast who enjoys very much the waters of all Vancouver beaches. especially Spanish banks, Pearl Beach, and Sunset Beach. One of the greatest dangers for deep water swimmers is being exposed to motorized watercrafts like jet skis and recreational boats who, at high speed, cut through and trespass the protected swim zones. Additionally, these motorboats, jet skis, and even sailboats often attempt to reach the shore or to anchor in the swimming areas. creating a big hazard, including when swimming closer to the beach. This, combined with the fact that a lot of visitors and locals are able to rent guest keys and motorboats without proper knowledge of marine navigation rules and regulations, makes this hazard even greater. Lifeguards keep swimmers safe by monitoring these areas and deterring vessels away from them. educating their users when possible, and reporting dangerous behaviors to the proper authorities when necessary. This represents especially a problem for Third Beach, Spanish Banks, and Sunset, since their swim zones are very exposed to marine traffic due to their location and geography. As a deep water swimmer, I feel safer when I know that there are lifeguards looking out for me. and I know for a fact that every other swimmer feels the same. There is nothing more distressing than to hear and see a motorized watercraft approaching at high speed when enjoying my swims, and I must mention that this happens very often. In recent years, there has been an increase of interest in open water swimming, with triathlons in Vancouver becoming more popular. These events attract participants who are new to open water swimming and go deep with little to zero experience. As an experienced open water swimmer, I am very familiar with the highlights and dangers of the locations that will be left unsupervised if not restoring the lifeguards who keep them safe. Many locals and visitors are not. With their presence, lifeguards provide the reassurance that people need and appreciate when learning and practicing water sports and recreational activities. They also prevent accidents by providing education and information to all public involved in such activities. By maintaining lifeguards at all Vancouver beaches, the city provides equal access to vital public spaces for everyone, especially for vulnerable and marginalized communities.

to safely enjoy the Vancouver beaches and waterways. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Roseanne Persaud. I'm a Vancouver resident. And I support the motion to have Vancouver lifeguards at various key beaches.

I'm a concerned citizen and with the busy summer season that Vancouver usually has coming up. Also, it's predicted to be a very warm summer season as well. Having a reduced number of lifeguards at a lot of the busy beaches might not necessarily be the best idea. In my opinion, lifeguards are not just sitting in chairs waiting for someone to drown. Their primary role is prevention. They're constantly interacting with the public. They're educating, intervening and stopping dangerous situations before they escalate. For example, A parent letting a toddler play alone near the water is quickly reminded to stay within arm's reach, or a tourist unfamiliar with our beaches is warned about the sudden drop-offs, and families walking about during Spanish Rang Slow Tide are told that the sand beneath them will soon be surrounded by deep water. These are small, everyday interactions that prevent emergencies before they happen, and it's not just about water safety as well. Lifeguards respond to missing children, provide first aid, de-escalate conflicts and manage situations that would otherwise turn into 911 calls. And so without the presence of these lifeguards, those situations don't necessarily disappear. They escalate even further. So a missing child becomes a full emergency response or an injured cyclist becomes something more and you need to call an ambulance. A conflict between beachgoers can sometimes turn into a police matter. So these are all various examples of responses that are expensive, especially beaches where the response time can take more than 30 minutes. Thank you so much.

Speaker 18? He's not speaking.

Sorry, am I starting now?

Podium over there. Please go ahead. Thank you. It was early June, and the weather had been inclement the night before. There had been a big storm that went through. When I arrived for work as a head guard at the Carmel Beach, I was the only one working there. The wind had actually shifted and was now blowing from the west at 20 knots per hour. which caused the whole bay to form up in these very steep, choppy waves with white caps on top of them. The whole bay was covered like that. And I saw sailboats way off in the distance and decided to take a look with the binos. And as I was scanning for them, I noticed an overturned small boat with a man clinging to the back end about 400 meters offshore. I immediately got a hold of Spanish Banks East, the beach next to me, and said, can you watch my beach? I got a tarp that we kept. It was about a six by six, no, seven by seven squared blue tarp, loaded some gray blankets into it, rolled it up, got our very large baler, threw those in the boat, which had already taken down to most of the dry sand, ran the boat down the beach, kicked the dolly over, jumped into the boat just as a wave was pulling back, which fortunately caught the boat and pulled it into the water, was just able to get two strokes in and turn the bow slightly towards the west so we didn't get swamped over the side. This is a very special old wooden boat called a clinker, which was very stable in rough water. So I managed to roll like a madman, got out there in about five minutes, found him hanging onto the boat, his boat, and he had pulled himself up about halfway, so there was only a wave that was hitting his lower torso. I backed our boat up to the bow of his boat. crawled onto the back seat, reached over, and I could get a hold of him. And I pulled him very slowly and carefully to me, turned him over, got him into our guard boat, and moved him up to the front and wrapped him up in all of the tarpaulin and the blankets. I then jumped back towards the rear of the boat, and fortuitously, just as I was about to climb over the rowing seat, a big wave picked up his sabot, and it actually pushed the bow of his boat up over the transom. over the transom of the back of our boat. So I grabbed a hold of that, and all the water poured out of his boat, so I just quickly turned his boat over, and he had a long tie-up line that was there, so I let that out, tied that up to the back of our boat, rowed furiously back in, got him in close to shore, got out, and we caught a really good wave which brought the guard boat right almost out of the water. Pulled the boat, got him out, pulled the boats up, got him, got in front of him and got a hold of his shoulder and his, under his left knee. Pulled him onto my back and ran him up the beach to where we have a cold water shower just outside the first aid room.

What we have inside the first aid room, and I don't know if it's still there, is this beautiful hot water shower connection, which the lifeguards all used when they came in from a cold swim. So I started to hook all that up by first taking the cold water shower head off. Hold our hot water shower.

30 seconds? Thank you. Long and short, after a few minutes, he was totally warm, functional, talking to me. I got all his personal information, called his wife. She came down with a dry set of clothes and towels.

Got them changed, and he was very happy. Sorry, Jim. Thank you. That was the end of the story. Thank you.

Yes, I'm representing Vancouver Open Water Swim Association.

There's Keith Fisher, Courtney Cohen, and Andrea McCallum.

Yes, Keith Fisher is here, and I'm here on support of the proposal.

This is Courtney Cohen, and I'm also a Vancouver resident in support. Thank you. And one more. We need one more.

Iris, we need one more speaker. If we don't have it, I can just keep it to three. I think it's Andrea if she's having audio trouble.

Yeah, I can just keep it to three.

And yes, hi, I'm Iris Katowski. I'm a Vancouver resident. I'm president of the Vancouver Open Water Swim Association. And I'm in support of this motion to restore a lifeguard to Key Beaches this summer. At the Vancouver Open Water Swim Association, we are a local nonprofit. We're a community group. And we have a large community of open water swimmers. We swim every summer at Kitts Beach on Mondays and Thursdays, and we rely on the city lifeguards to provide safe access to our swims. They provide a great service to us.

And we've just seen, I just want to speak, maybe people have felt that there's not a demand for our beaches, but we've seen an increased demand. Our swims, which we offer lifeguards out in rowboats, there's a huge demand for safe, open-water swimming. We sell out within typically 15 minutes. We open our swims two days before. We've been selling out, and unfortunately, we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to swim with us. So we've seen a lot of demand, and we've also seen a lot of new and experienced swimmers taking up this hobby. You know, Vancouver is a very active city. We've got exciting new events like the T100 and many marathons and cycling events. A lot of these people are getting into open water swimming, and unlike things like pool swimming or... or running or other things, even if you're fit, there's a lot of unknown risks. So as other people are talking about, lifeguards play a huge role in educating and preventing tragedies by just informing people of the proper precautions they need to take with gear. with safety, with maybe routes that they're planning. I think it would be a huge loss to not have lifeguards available at these beaches. Absolutely critical for keeping our community safe. Our beaches are a huge asset. We're an expensive city, and our beaches are one of the most valuable things we have, and this is one of the greatest things that Vancouver has to offer people, and it would be such a shame to have preventable issues. that could simply have been prevented by just having, spending 600,000, which in the scheme of things nowadays is really not very much, to have our beaches properly staffed with lifeguards. So we would ask you, Council, to please support this motion and restore our lifeguards to the beaches. Thank you.

Speaker number 24 is Alvin Glare.

Speaker 24 is not on the line.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Please go ahead. Hi, Mr. Mayor. Hi, City Council. My name is Chris Fallon. I've been a Vancouver citizen since 2010. I spent 10 years as a Vancouver Beach lifeguard before I resigned to start my career in the fire service. I'd like to tell you a quick story of a day I was working at Spanish Banks Extension, a beach that is no longer staffed by Vancouver Lifeguards. For those of you unfamiliar with Spanish Banks, at low tide, you have the sand flats exposed that stretch for a kilometre or two or more, depending on how extreme the tide is that day. This day was a pretty extreme low tide, and as it started to come back in, a sandbar island was formed roughly two kilometres offshore. I saw somebody out there. So I decided to go and speak with them, just let them know the tide was coming in and it was going to get more and more difficult to get back to shore. As I got closer and made contact, I realized this person was a six-year-old boy out there by himself, no parental supervision, nobody else around to help him if he needed help. And the water between us and the shore was roughly three to four feet deep. It would have been up to his neck or over his head in some areas. And I personally have never met a six-year-old who can swim for two kilometers unassisted. Excuse me. i put him in the boat i walked back i told him in had a nice chat he got a nice little boat ride out of it i walked back i was thinking about how i was going to talk to these parents i was a little frustrated at their irresponsibility of letting him be out there by himself and when i got back to shore they ran up they were flustered emotional terrified because he had walked away from them when they were distracted by the birthday party they were hosting Something kids do, they walk away, they get lost in Walmart and parks. It happens all the time. So it's my belief that if lifeguards were not there that day, that the best case scenario would have been us finding the body and those parents getting some closure. Worst case scenario would have been those two would have been tortured for the rest of their lives, not knowing what happened to their son, where he is, whether he's alive or dead, whether he was kidnapped or worse. I'm very proud of my role in helping that family. And thank you for listening to my story. I hope you make the right decision.

Hi, can you hear me?

excellent thank you so much and thanks to the council i'm really appreciative of the time i also i'm aware that some of the things i might be saying are going to be things that you've already heard before my i'm a vancouver resident i'm a former lifeguard for the beaches and pools for the city of vancouver i'm a stand-up paddler and racer in local waters and currently i'm the director for professional practice for vancouver coastal health working in acute care So I come from a variety of viewpoints. I've been working on FIFA emergency planning, which I know other people have been bringing up. But I really, really feel like this is going to be a big problem. I'm supportive of... re-putting the lifeguards back. And I think that there is a really big piece of public safety, which we've talked about. Seasonal lifeguards are a frontline public safety service, and we have taken responsibility for that. We see the outflow into emergency, in the emergency department all the time, and both... in uh our health authority and others and um it's it's a really important piece i see it for the vancouver and i also think it's such a big piece of prevention um in a risk management situation i think it's responsible for us to put um the lifeguards back where they can do the best and the most prevention um and they are so integral to the community and it prevents so many people from coming and being in an emergency when they did not need to be there I think a seasonal risk is a really big piece. We know that the drownings occur most between May and September. We have a huge influx of people coming in. People are drinking more. We have a lot of adverse effects from drug supply coming into Vancouver. And we have the lifeguards doing a lot of frontline work in that area as well. And I'm super appreciative of them, along with all of our other emergency services. I feel like this is a small thing that has such a huge impact on our community, on the safety for our beaches, for families, for anybody who's using beaches in the local waterways. I feel like it's a due diligence. It's our duty to provide these safety services. And I'm speaking now from all these aspects, but also from a healthcare aspect, being in the role that I'm at. And I feel like it means that we have equitable access to beaches for people who may not be able to go there otherwise because their safety would be compromised. It's an inclusion piece. So I think I'm saying much the same thing that others have said. I think for tourism, for our reputation, for our public trust, I think we really need to go back and re-look at this. And I think that putting the lifeguards back on the beach is going to be the thing to do.

I think it's going to be really, really important. Thank you.

Yeah, please go ahead, Stephen.

Hi, my name is Steve Fulmer, and I'm in favor of this motion. In 1980, I started my first responder career as a lifeguard for the city of Vancouver. In 1993, I pivoted to the service with the Vancouver Fire Department. For 31 years, I worked as a firefighter, training officer, captain, battalion chief, acting chief, and founder of one of the founding members of CanTF1. I've since retired in 2024. but it can speak from experience that eliminating the lifeguards at key Vancouver beaches will significantly increase public safety or decrease public safety and place additional strain on the already overextended first responder system. Three of these beaches are remote, such as Third Beach, Spanish Banks, and Spanish West. Without lifeguards, police and fire crews will be required to respond to the incidents. that lifeguards currently prevent, manage, or manage on site. Lost children, medical calls, water emergencies, beach fires, to name some. At a time when call volumes in the downtown east side are already stretching resources, removing lifeguards will put police and fire units even farther away from where they're urgently needed. urgently needed. Sorry. It is also important to note that police and fire ambulance personnel are not trained to perform water rescues. As a former training officer with the Vancouver Fire, I can say that sending untrained responders into the water puts them, the public, and the public at serious risk. Lifeguards also play a critical role in fire prevention. in the beaches that are in question are adjacent to Stanley Park and Pacific Spirit Park, both high-risk, high-fuel-load environments. Lifeguards consistently enforce the fire bylaws. Last August, I personally witnessed a lifeguard talk to five separate groups about the fire bylaws and have them extinguish their fires. Without lifeguards, these calls would have fallen on Vancouver Fire Rescue Service, tying up crews and increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire in two of their most vulnerable parks.

In 1983, while working at Spanish banks as a lifeguard, I rescued Peter Gabriel days before his concert. Without lifeguards on this beach, it would have been a big tragedy. Lifeguarding has also proven a good pathway to policing and firefighting.

Many strong recruits come through the lifeguard program.

In short, lifeguarding simplifies. Lifeguardings are not simple beach staff. They are critical components of the Vancouver public safety infrastructure. They reduce the strain on police, fire, and ambulance, provide... Immediate first aid and early intervention to prevent incidents through education and enforcement, protect our parks and neighborhoods.

Thank you, City Council, for your time and consideration to hear my concerns on today's agenda item. My name is Mackenzie Perry, and I'm a citizen of Vancouver. I am calling today to express my support for the motion to restore lifeguards at key Vancouver beaches. While I am not a lifeguard for the city of Vancouver, I have been a lifeguard and instructor for nearly 10 years, a head lifeguard for six of those years, as well as a national lifeguard trainer. I'm also an avid swimmer and open water swimmer. I live in the West End, and during the summer months, I swim at the beaches nearly every day, and I am concerned at the risk to my personal safety as a citizen in Vancouver. Statistics pulled from the National Life Saving Society put drowning as the third leading cause of accidental death for people under the age of 60 in Canada. As of 2025, nearly 70% of these deaths occurred in unguarded open bodies of water. An overwhelming majority of these drownings occur between the months of May and September. In BC, less than 1% of fatal drownings occur in guarded environments. This clearly highlights the significant role beach lifeguards play in public health and safety. Lifeguards are an essential service that the city must invest in. If lifeguards are removed from these key beaches, the responsibility for responding to emergencies will fall to our emergency services. Paramedics, police, and fire department are not adequately trained on aquatic-related emergencies and how to respond to them. This would put an immense amount of stress on our emergency services in Vancouver, which are already stretched thin. These incidents will inevitably escalate to search and rescue missions. The average cost of a singular search and rescue mission is $150,000.

Preventing five incidents would more than cover the alleged savings from the budget cuts proposed. I urge the city to consider the ramifications of leaving these beaches unprotected. This is not a question of if fatalities will occur, but when and how many are going to occur. This cost cutting will lead to negligence lawsuits being filed against the city for not protecting its citizens and visitors. The cost of employing these lifeguards is nothing in comparison to the moral obligations you have to your citizens in Vancouver, not to mention legal costs that will accrue. A case I'd like to highlight is the lawsuit against the city of Windsor, which is a $5 million claim that highlights the scale of liability that you could be responsible for. The claim is finding the city negligent for inadequate safety measures and is responsible for the death of a teenager who died swimming at one of their beaches. This beach has a landscape that is not dissimilar to the landscape of Third Beach and Spanish Banks. As a lifeguard myself, I understand the many ways that lifeguards prevent and protect the public so that all swimmers can enjoy the beauty of our great city. In closing, lifeguards are not just teenagers in a red t-shirt working their summer job. They are essential emergency services, and we should not be taken lightly.

Thank you for your time and consideration, Council.

Good afternoon. My name is Greg Royal. I am a resident of Vancouver as well as the vice president of QP 1004. Public trust. That is what is at stake by not reinstating and refunding the outdoor lifeguard program. That trust has been built over decades of service by well-trained and competent lifeguards providing professional safety supervision. That supervision provides reassurance to community members that their families are protected and prevents incidents by identifying hazards before they can escalate. That supervision translates into superior crowd control. They enforce clear rules, curb risky behaviors, and organize groups in high-traffic areas. Given the number of visitors the city expects for FIFA during peak beach hours, it is counterintuitive that they would strip themselves of this valuable tool before needing them the most. Public trust. We have a collective duty, a set of obligations that we all adhere to. We pay our taxes, and we follow the rules. And up until now, the city has held up their end of the bargain by providing public safety and prevention on our beaches by employing lifeguards.

Removing lifeguards may be fiscally expedient, but it is short-sighted. Without clear authority and presence, you leave the beaches to the freedom of the user, leading to opportunistic crime, delayed emergency response, and increased risk to beachgoers. I call on council... to fund the lifeguard program and preserve the public trust and safety. Thank you. Thank you.

I just would like to say thank you for giving me the time to speak to City Council. As an immigrant from a country in South America, I see myself in another immigrant that came here in 1885. And he came here... He lived on a tent on English Bay. And he saw the tragedy of seeing people drown and the pain that caused to their families. Without any recompense, he decided to, you know, take it upon himself to do rescues and to teach children and adults how to swim safely. He was a man that knew the risks of being out there in the water, exposure to the sun. And he still did it without, like I said, any recompense. His name is Joe Fortes. And like the Vancouver lifeguards of 2026, he was a man who was from experience and living from... you know, living in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, able to recognize the hazards in the water.

I've besieged the city council and Mayor Ken Sim to essentially fund our lifeguards. They're an essential necessity for the residents of the city of Vancouver. And I think, you know, not having them around is essentially a shame in the memory and legacy of one of the best Canadians that we've ever had. And I will teach you the council and the municipality to keep their funding alive. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hello there. All right. President, I forgot to say that part. But yeah, I am in support. of having lifeguards in our city because we know that our public spaces, especially our beaches, bring in a lot of visitors, not just residents, including ones from all around the world, because we know that this summer there's going to be a FIFA World Cup. We also know that there will be alcohol involved because no matter what the rules are, there will always be. So lifeguards are an essential part in terms of making sure that tragedies are prevented. Because you will always have people who underestimate their own abilities when it comes to the water. You can see that in beaches all around the world. We will also have, for example, children. And if you've ever had to deal with them, you know that just one small lapse inattention is all it takes for them to wander off somewhere, potentially into the water. And case in point, when I was around three to four years old, I was that kid. If it wasn't for a lifeguard that scooped me out of the water, I would have been a tragedy that occurred. But no, I am here speaking, and I want to make sure that such tragedies that could have happened to me all those years ago do not occur to anyone else by not having lifeguards. It is a shame that not having lifeguard disease has been considered to begin with. And we need to make sure that they're funded by our city to protect not just the residents, but for any visitor that comes to this city forever. Thank you.

My name is Gabby. I'm a resident of Vancouver and a lifeguard for 11 years. I'm also an aspiring water safety professional. I hope to share a bit about my personal experience in the field and why I support reinstating lifeguard presence on our Vancouver beaches. There are so many angles as to why lifeguards on beaches are critical to public safety in our city during the summer. But one side we may not often consider is the emotional and mental impacts losing lifeguards will inevitably have on the members of our community. Having been in the industry for so long, I sometimes like to think that I've seen it all. But after a life or death rescue at my workplace in 2022 that required me to utilize my national lifeguard training, I started to struggle mentally. I couldn't eat, I couldn't sleep, and I had vivid flashbacks of holding a dying individual's head in my hands as I realized this person might die and there's nothing more I can do about it. I was quickly directed to counseling, where I was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result from this response. A year later, I responded to a similar life or death emergency, utilizing my training from the National Lifeguard Program once again. I continued to struggle after this with the feeling of breaking another human being's ribs during chest compressions forever etched into my brain. Despite having saved two human lives using training I've had ingrained in me for years, I struggled, and I continue to struggle, with the thoughts and feelings I have related to those rescues. I'm really someone in a best-case scenario when it comes to approaching situations like these. I have years of research-backed training. I'm already in the routine of identifying dangers and responding to it, and I have access to supports in the industry to help me debrief after major incidents. I am so remarkably better equipped than a good Samaritan walking onto the scene, and yet I will never forget that individual's bluish-gray head in my hands while feeling so helpless, or the cracks of another human being's ribs as I desperately tried to compress the light back into their body. My heart truly breaks at the thought of a well-meaning bystander in our city having to experience something like that, then having to navigate the after-effects of critical incident stress just because we removed the individuals who are trained to do it in the first place. By removing lifeguards from our waterfronts and our communities, you are not just removing a layer of preventative protection from recreation spaces. You are asking members of the public to step into first responder roles, first responder roles that will be the line between life or death this summer. Civilians do not have the training, resources, or support to deal with these complex, high-pressure emergencies, and we will be traumatizing and putting members of our community at risk if we're expecting them to step up to the plate. When we have access to highly trained, incredibly knowledgeable waterfront lifeguards, why are we actively choosing to jeopardize the mental well-being of our beloved community members, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers? I deeply encourage you that we consider reinstating lifeguard presence on the impacted waterfront. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Cindy. I am a resident of Vancouver. I am also a mother of a neurodivergent child, as well as somebody who lifeguarded in Vancouver, both in the indoor and outdoor system. I would like to say that I support the motion to restoring lifeguards at the key Vancouver beaches and would like to express disappointment that Trout Lake, the only beach in East Van, is not included in part of the motion. I would like to say that as a parent who have young children in Vancouver, There are already a lack of spaces for children to go, especially during the summer months. With recent cutting and funding, as parents have tried to get swimming lessons as being the game of thrones, our children aren't getting access to learning water safety, swimming to begin with, with less programming in the community center and also shorter opening hours at the libraries. The beaches is a great place for those of us with young family to go and enjoy what I feel like our poverty tax has paid for the city. So to think that it is a huge myth to not have a safety service such as lifeguards being the first responder in some of the busiest beaches we have in the city. I would like to let you know that A drowning can happen within 30 seconds. I am not sure in what likelihood that would be when any of the ambulances or firefighters can come. And specifically speaking about the neurodivergent children, 90% of preventable death in neurodivergent children are from drowning. So I would like to urge everyone to be in support of this motion. and thank you for your time.

Please go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Craig Amundsen. Thank you, Mayor Sim and councillors. I wear too many hats, but in the interest of time, I am here today because in 2016, as a volunteer of the Life Saving Society since 1983, and as a past national president of the Royal Life Saving Society's National Board, I was invited to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Royal Life Saving Society, which was created in 1891 in the UK. That memorable experience prompted me to become more active in our life-saving activities in Vancouver, in Canada, and abroad. It also prompted me to acknowledge that Joe Fortes started Vancouver Lifeguarding in 1888, three full years before the association we've all belonged to, was even established. His history establishes that 1888 was the year he started spending his summertime at English Bay teaching children and adults how to swim and rescuing drowning victims when required. 1900 is listed as the start of the Vancouver Parks Board lifeguarding with the hiring of Joe Fortes by the Parks Board. If you look around, if you're compelled by it, it is very difficult to find another jurisdiction with our unique history and such depth. And if you're curious as to why there is a passionate outpouring, I would say that this is part of it. Consider the impact of an Afro-Caribbean man in the 1880s and 1890s, teaching largely Caucasian Vancouver residents in a time of the Asian head tax and other racist policies and practices against Indigenous and people of colour. He created the Vancouver lifeguard system, an amazing legacy. followed by the Pantages family and the polar bear swim cub, all of which are part of our international reputation as a leader in water safety and a very nice place to visit. The various speakers here today are just standing before our elected leaders, arguing to maintain funding, just as Joe Fortes had to do several times during his time as a lifeguard and special constable of the Parks Board in those days.

It is frustrating to feel the necessity to defend lifeguarded beaches when the statistics are so clear. As stated nationally by many previous speakers and the Life Saving Society, 99% of drownings happen at unsupervised beaches. If we have unsupervised beaches, those numbers and statistics will fall on us. This is now your decision to make, and I can sympathize the challenges you face better than most. As a formal Chief of Staff to Mayor Diane Watts and an Executive Assistant to Daryl Masato and I know the budgets require compromise, but I urge you not to compromise public safety. Please return the required funding to Vancouver's beaches. Thank you, Mayor Sim and Council, and thank you, Councillor Fry, for bringing forward the motion. Good afternoon.

Hello. Thank you, Mayor Sim and Council. My name is Anna, and as a member of the community, I encourage you to support this motion. As the last speaker, I will be brief. Much of the public discussion has been about finances, and while maintaining the $600,000 worth of cost savings are noted, according to stats from the BC Injury Request and Prevention Unit, a single fatal drowning will cost hundreds of thousands of Vancouver taxpayer dollars, and that's not including a coroner's inquest. As well, a single non-fatal drowning could result in life-altering deficits that cost millions of taxpayer dollars in health care and living expenses. With the guaranteed rise in preventable injuries and death, the budget will not be saved in the long run. Apart from drownings, lifeguards also attend to major injuries in the parks and streets nearby the beaches, such as heart attacks, strokes, and overdoses. Having less frontline workers is a very dangerous move, especially during the current opioid crisis. and will make the city a less desirable place to visit. Lastly, having no lifeguards on the beach will also cause a fear of the water from locals and tourists, and it will affect one of the aspects that make Vancouver so special from the other Canadian cities. I urge you to restore the lifeguard budget, and thank you for listening. Thank you. Speaker 40 is Natasha Stolzgaard.

Speaker 40 is not on the line. Speaker 41 is Dominic Labrosse.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair and Council. My name is Dominic Labrosse. I'm a Vancouver resident. I'm also the General Manager of the Jericho Sailing Center, and I've been involved with its Jericho Rescue Team for over 30 years. I'm in strong support of the motion to restore seasonal lifeguard services at Spanish Banks East-West. sunset and third beaches. The removal of lifeguards from these beaches would create a significant and predictable gap in supervision at some of the most heavily used and geographically expansive waterfront areas in the city. At Spanish banks, low tide can expose an area of up to two square kilometers. On a typical summer day, that space can hold thousands of people. Without lifeguards, that becomes a very active and entirely unsupervised environment. Lifesaving Society of BC reports that 99% of drownings occur at unsupervised locations. Expanding the number of unsupervised beaches increases the likelihood of preventable fatalities. Locations like Spanish banks where alcohol consumption is permitted introduce additional factors that further increase the likelihood of incidents. Removing lifeguards from those environments multiplies risk. Lifeguards identify hazardous behavior before it escalates, and their presence alone changes behavior. They reduce the number of incidents that become emergencies. Without that presence, we are not just removing response capacity, we are removing prevention. From an operational standpoint, these incidents do not disappear. Based on our experience during the Kitts Coast Guard base closure, we can expect increased call volumes to other City of Vancouver services, including Vancouver Police, Vancouver Fire Rescue, and Park Rangers, along with continued reliance on BC Emergency Health Services and Marine Response Partners.

While highly capable, these are not substitutes for onsite lifeguards. Water-related emergencies are time critical. The difference between immediate intervention and delayed response can be the difference between a rescue and a fatality. Those responses require dispatch, travel time, coordination, and in many cases, multi-agency involvement. And in fact, removing lifeguards does not eliminate cost. It redistributes it, often at a higher per incident cost and with slower response times leading towards outcomes. This creates additional operational pressure on city services that are already managing competing demands during peak summer months. Lifeguards, by contrast, provide continuous on-site coverage with the specialized training to intervene immediately. They resolve the vast majority of issues before they escalate into the kind of emergencies that require a costly multi-agency response. In 2007, beach lifeguards were deemed an essential service, recognition of their role in protecting public safety. This motion proposes a $600,000 investment to restore that protection. In the context of the city's overall budget and given the scale of use and risk, this is a modest and targeted investment in a core service. the alternative is to accept a foreseeable increase in risk increased pressure and cost on city services and the very real possibility of preventable loss of life i urge council to support this motion to ensure lifeguard services are in place for the 2026 speech season thank you for your time thank you speaker 42 is strong cross hello uh hello my name is jonathan cross and I am a resident of Vancouver. Lifeguards save lives through prevention and intervention, and removing lifeguards from key beaches puts public safety at risk. On September 1, 2013, four people in two canoes, for example, were rowing past Spanish Bank West, and none of them were wearing life jackets. Both canoes tipped over, and all four people began to drown. Lifeguards responded immediately and were able to retrieve all four people from the water. Had the lifeguards not been there, all four of those people would almost certainly have died. Lifeguards prevent injuries often before they happen.

For example, on a hot summer day in 2019, a kite surfer repeatedly entering the swim zone in Spanish Banks East, he was moving fast and disregarding the numerous people in the water. At the speed he was going, it was highly likely that he would have caused serious harm, if not a fatality, to one or more of the swimmers had the lifeguards not been there. One lifeguard and a rowboat intercepted him and attempted to redirect him elsewhere, but when the kite surfer ignored the lifeguards, they coordinated with the Vancouver Police Department, which led to the kite surfer's arrest. In the coming hot summer months, there will be thousands of people on the beaches and in the water. If there are no lifeguards on our key beaches and someone gets hurt, untrained beach patrons will likely begin to make unnecessary 911 calls. These well-intentioned but untrained people are likely to make it

seem at times that like the injured people are in worse shape than they actually are. 911 operators will be uncompelled to send emergency medical services and or police, which will result not only a waste of city resources, but also taking these resources from people who might really need them elsewhere. Lifeguards are trained experts who are able to distinguish within seconds what type of treatment an injured or drowning person requires and whether emergency services are required. Untrained bystanders are likely to call for an ambulance for someone with an injury or symptoms that they don't recognize, diverting services away from someone elsewhere who may be having any number of serious conditions such as a stroke or heart attack where time really is of the essence. When it really counts, lifeguards are an economical solution to a multitude of problems that occur in the water or on the beaches and in the surrounding area. When any one person dies, countless other lives are affected. Families, friends, neighbors, classmates, workmates, or more, and more. A single loss of life can be devastating not only to families and friends, but to entire communities. That trauma can easily be prevented by having lifeguards on any of our key beaches. Yeah, I've been listening to everything everybody has to say, and it really does occur to me that the work of lifeguarding is going to get done no matter who does it. And Why not just have lifeguards do it? Because that's the easiest way to do it. I mean, police, fire, someone's going to do it. And why not just have lifeguards do it, you know? So thanks very much. Thank you, John.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm going to try and break this into two parts. One is a bit of a recap of the 2026 budget discussions in the fall. And myself and many, many other people in Vancouver came and spoke and urged caution by this council on that vote. Specifically, I talked about potential unintended consequences. that the Vancouver Park Board in particular was already a lean operation, that there was no fat to be cut from the system. And I was delighted to hear that that was a message that was well received, not just from my message, but others. I believe it was Councillor Klassen that had moved an amendment to secure extra funding for community centre hours. So again, thank you. I think when we dialogue back and forth, I think good things can happen. This lifeguard funding issue is one of those unforeseen consequences of the budget approach approved by this council. This was an issue that flared up during my time on the park board. I believe it was 2012. And again, in a cost-saving endeavor, staff had made some recommendations. We heard from the public. We heard from our frontline lifeguards and thought otherwise. So here we are again. didn't come up during the budget discussions in the fall because I think steps could have been taken then. It's a very stressful situation for our fabulous frontline workers, our lifeguards. I think we actually have the potential of losing many of them in this uncertain time. I also know that a lot of our lifeguards would have loved to be here to share their perspectives, but obviously... employees or you know potential employees I think they're a bit nervous about coming and speaking but I know that many of them actually had been signed up initially to speak to this so it's important that you've been able to hear from past lifeguards and from others and so I would urge you to to restore the funding and essentially that's what it is Steve Jackson the Park Board general manager has as I thought done his very best to try and make the budget work and and obviously it hasn't completely and so here we are with the big hole, 600,000. So I would urge you to approve this motion. You know, and as a parent, I have two teenagers and we have spent much of their lives at Locarno Beach and Third Beach. And I can tell you from firsthand experience, it's not just about water safety, but the number of times I've seen the lifeguards intervene in situations and whether it's a rowdy crowd, predatory behavior from people on the beaches. Myself, we had an encounter with an elderly woman who was going through some distress. We didn't know what it was, but the lifeguard was there in two seconds to intervene. And so, you know, unless we want to see more VPD up and down the beaches, if we are concerned about safety, I think the right decision to support the motion. So thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Graham Lewis, Vancouver resident, and I'm both a former Vancouver Beach lifeguard and paramedic. And I'm here today in strong support of keeping Vancouver beaches safe and maintaining lifeguard services. Having worked on Vancouver's beaches as well as in emergency medical services, I can say without hesitation, lifeguards are not a luxury. They're a critical component of public safety infrastructure. They prevent incidents through vigilance and education, and when emergencies occur, they deliver immediate and highly trained care in the moments that matter most. Without lifeguards stationed at beaches such as Third Beach, ambulance response times can easily exceed 20 minutes during peak summer conditions, particularly navigating through Stanley Park traffic. In medical emergencies like cardiac arrest, drowning, spinal injuries, those minutes are often the difference between life and death or between full recovery and permanent disability. Lifeguards bridge that gap. They are already on scene. They initiate rescues within seconds, begin life-saving interventions, and stabilize patients long before an ambulance can arrive. I have many personal stories of how trained lifeguards on Vancouver beaches have directly and positively impacted public safety and have saved lives. I'd like to share two with you today. In 2019, a man in his early 30s collapsed on the seawall between 2nd and 3rd Beach. A bystander alerted nearby lifeguards. My eldest daughter, who was working as a lifeguard at Second Beach that day, responded immediately with her partner. They performed CPR, administered oxygen, and delivered three shocks with an AED, restoring his pulse before paramedics arrived. The next day, his wife returned to thank them, saying the doctors didn't know if he would have survived without their intervention. I've also seen this impact on my own family. When my son was 13 at Second Beach and Stanley Park babysitting a family friend's child, he suddenly felt like he couldn't breathe. Panicked, he ran into the nearby washroom, where his condition quickly worsened. Thankfully, lifeguards were present. They recognized he was having a severe anaphylactic reaction, and they acted immediately. Their presence and critical intervention likely saved his life. These are not isolated incidents, but just two personal examples of the incredible service that lifeguards provide. Beyond safety, there's a broader civic and economic consideration. Vancouver beaches are a cornerstone of its identity as a world-class tourist destination. Visitors from around the globe are drawn not only to the natural beauty of these spaces, but also to the sense of safety, professionalism, and care that lifeguard services provide. The visible presence of trained lifeguards reassures families, supports tourism, and reinforces Vancouver's reputation as a city that prioritizes public well-being. Lifeguards also serve as ambassadors. They are often the first point of contact for visitors, offering assistance, information, and welcoming presence. The positive impact they project, competence, approachability, and safety is invaluable to the city's public relations and tourism economy. Please help keep Vancouver beaches safe by maintaining our lifeguards. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Sam, and as a Vancouver resident and local beachgoer, I am here to speak in support of restoring lifeguard services to key city and beaches. On July 25th, 2023, an elderly man died on dendritus in an unguarded area. On April 17th, 2025, a swimmer drowned at Wreck Beach. And in August 2025, another swimmer lost their life in the unguarded stretch between Jericho and the Cardinal. These are not distant or abstract events. They are recent local tragedies that highlight a clear and ongoing gas to public safety. Our coastline is beautiful, but it is also unpredictable. Currents shift, winds rise, and conditions can change quickly. Even experienced swimmers can find themselves in distress. Without lifeguards present, there's no one dedicated to actively monitoring the water, identifying risk early, or intervening in those critical first moments when a life can still be saved. This is why lifeguards matter, not only for response, but for prevention. Their presence deters risky behaviors, provides guidance to inexperienced swimmers, and creates a safer environment for everyone. And our beaches are busy. In the warmer months, they are filled with families, children, tourists, and people of varying skill levels, many of whom are unfamiliar with local conditions. When emergencies happen in unguarded areas, the response is slower and more difficult. Emergency services must be dispatched from elsewhere, often navigating distance, access challenges, and time constraints, especially at Spanish West and East, where shorelines extend over a kilometer. In water-related emergencies, those delays can be the difference between life and death. We should not accept these kinds of tragedies as inevitable. The deaths on July 25th, 2023, April 17th, 2025, and August 2025 are reminders of what is at stake when there is no dedicated safety presence. It points to a need for a more proactive, preventative approach. Restoring lifeguard services is a practical and necessary step. It strengthens public safety, reduces strain on emergency responders, and demonstrates a clear commitment to protecting both residents and visitors. I urge the Council to support this motion and take action to prevent future loss of life. Thank you.

Speaker 24 is Owen Glare. Owen?

Are you online, Owen?

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Over.

You're good? Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead. Awesome. Sorry about that. Thank you. I would like to start off by thanking Tom Digby, Tara, and the whole Parks Board for putting this forward initially as an urgent motion. Thank you to Pete Fry for bringing this forward to council as an urgent motion. I would also like to say before I start that we have already heard from the Parks Board a unanimous decision on this topic. My name is Owen Gore. I'm a resident of Vancouver for the last five years, and I'm also a lifeguard in the city. Funny enough, I've been pulled out of the water while I was mid-swim lesson teaching to speak to you today, which is quite a fun experience as I'm going to tell you why I believe we should keep lifeguards in Vancouver. When I first moved here five years ago, I was very shocked to hear that Vancouver had beach lifeguards. I'm originally from Manitoba, where before I was born, they had cut our beach lifeguard programming and replaced it with a program called the Beach Safety Officers. Now let me tell you, these programs do not work. The only way to truly prevent drowning is with proper supervision from a trained lifeguard. We have seen across this country... Thousands of times which lifeguards have saved the lives of children, families, weak swimmers, the water, but on the land. I myself jumped in for a kid two hours ago. This is not an uncommon occurrence. If we remove lifeguards, we lose it all. It's a big, scary thing. Think about how many children are going to swim who might not know how to swim, might get in trouble, and who's there going to be to help them? Their parents? Well, I can tell you, as someone who works in pools, their parents aren't always watching. It's our duty as lifeguards. to care and provide for our community, which is my big point I bring to you today. The beaches aren't just a place of water recreation. The beaches are a place of community. And by removing our lifeguards, we are doing nothing but joining in in the world of organized abandonment of our aquatic spaces. We've already seen the shutdown of numerous pools across Canada this year. We've seen a massive reduction in lifeguards. What are we going to do? Swimming, as you have probably heard, is the number two activity enjoyed by children in the summer. Drowning is the number two cause of non-intentional death for children in Canada.

These are terrifying statistics. It is not just me who is going to stand here today and read out to you facts from the National Drowning Report. Rather, People have already done that. I urge you to read the report and see the only way that we can truly guarantee a safe community space for everyone in this city. Those like me who only came here a few years ago, and those like many of my friends who are beach lifeguards who were born and raised in this city.

Yes, thanks, Chair. So, first of all, I just want to thank all the speakers. We heard a lot of I think important stories and important information that should really give us pause to think about how we want to make sure that we are always committed to public safety. And I know as a council... that we're strongly of the view that public safety is paramount in all its forms, including at our beaches. Which brings me to the fact that the Vancouver Park Board is the duly elected body responsible for setting service levels and allocating resources within its operating budget, including decisions related to lifeguard and staffing hours. And with that, I have sent into the clerk a referral motion

Yes.

You're talking about the amendment, not the motion.

Amendment. Okay.

Okay, we need a seconder for the referral amendment.

No, for the Council Classes Amendment.

So let's take five minutes recess. Chair, just for the online folks who have joined, could you, it was not audible. What's just happening here? Is it a point of order?

Okay, and is there a section of the procedure bylaw we can reference?

Yes, I said that under 8.7E, that has been referred to a committee or postponed to a later date and time so that this motion has been referred to us from the park board. And F is incorrect in that council is actually responsible for funding decisions.

Okay, thank you very much. Thanks, Councillor. We're going to be back in five minutes.

All right. Yeah. Maybe Councillor Fry can speak more to this, but Yeah, in terms of that, it's asking counsel to do something. It's asking us to make a decision, not another body to make a decision. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it's asking us to make a decision, not another body.

No, you can scrap that, but the motion is asking... There was also two things, too, that I... There was also F. Do we have a ruling on F?

It was E and F.

Well, dilatory would mean to delay further. And this motion was originally an emergency motion, so this causes further delay. Incorrect in that the motion is allocating resources and says that the council's job is to allocate resources in this case.

Okay, so again, we need to take five minutes' recess above F. We're going to be back in five minutes.

Councillor Clausen? Thanks very much, Chair. So as I began, just the responsibility for setting service levels and allocating resources is within the operating budget of the Vancouver Park Board, and that includes lifeguard staffing and hours. Over the past three budgets... Over the last three budgets, the Park Board's overall budget has increased each year, providing additional resources, flexibility to manage core services like aquatics and beach safety. Given this, sustained growth in funding decisions about how to best allocate those resources, including whether to maintain, expand, or adjust lifeguard services, properly rest with the Park Board. Referring the motion back respects the governance and roles and avoids council directing operational decisions that fall within the park board's mandate. And this approach assures that service level decisions are made by the body that is with most direct oversight of parks and recreation operations. informed by operational expertise, staffing considerations, and on-the-ground needs. A referral allows the Park Board to fully assess impacts considered to the trade-offs across its system and report back with recommendations grounded in its approved budget and service priorities. Where we find ourselves today has nothing to do with a 0% property tax increase. This has everything to do with the park board not properly prioritizing lifeguards at our beaches. No money has been taken away. If a park board is truly prioritizing these services, they would have properly and funded this appropriately at their last meeting where they had an emergency motion to discuss this topic. Thanks.

Councillor Frye.

Counselor Frye?

Counselor Frye, we can't hear you. Maybe you are mute on yourself.

Counselor Frye there. Okay, so Counselor Frye, we can't hear you.

Okay, I'm going to move on, Counselor Fry. Maybe I do it myself later.

Yeah, thanks. just trying to get a sense of here, of what's happening here. I just think this is being unnecessarily politicized. I feel like this, we can't delay. I mean, if this is, we're talking about lives, you know, and we're talking about the summer season right upon us. I mean, like we noted the weather today. I mean, I just think this is, it behooves us to act immediately. I'll go on with my other remarks that I was going to say back when I thought this was going to be supported unanimously. But we heard from QP 1004, BC Paramedics Association, lifeguards, boaters, open water swimmers, and more. We heard all about the beloved Joe Fortes. We heard that this is all about public trust and public safety. And I agree. We heard that it's all about prevention. we heard from the twins that this would be a series of unfortunate events. I'm a big fan of your work, by the way. And we heard that we almost lost Peter Gabriel, which would have been a real sledgehammer. So as someone who has lost a friend... In a drowning accident, RIP Gary Duong, back in 2015, I feel like this motion was easy to support as it originally stood. I don't think $600,000 in the grand scheme of things, considering we'd already taken out of our reserves for a number of other things, is a lot when life is on the line. Thank you very much. So I won't be supporting the referral.

Thank you. Council apply.

Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Okay. Yeah, I'm not supportive of the referral. I think that there were constraints on the park board budget, and I do think that this is an opportunity for us to... state our priorities when it comes to what needs to be funded in terms of public safety measures across our city. I think public safety expands to a lot of different services the city provides including the obvious of course with policing and that includes in my opinion lifeguards at beaches. My hope with this motion is that it would trigger an opportunity to engage with Park Forward leadership to understand how they prioritized what I think is a perception or a reality. I think it's a reality of a reduction in funding as per the 0% budget and what it's going to take to reinstate this.

I mean, we are a coastal city. We're a tourism hub. The numbers show that there is a staggering increase in risk when it comes to beaches that do not have lifeguards, you know, attending to safety risks during, you know, peak hours and daytime hours where the public is using the beach. So I'd like to see this move forward. And I think a referral back to Park Board shows a lack of workability. We have to show some leadership here. We essentially assign a budget to Park Board if they have made decisions that restrain lifeguard services. As part of that, we need to lean in, not just toss it back to them as their problem. Because any... Obviously, we hope for nothing to come of any urgency or risk to the public in terms of what happens at our pools and on our beaches. It really is on us in terms of this being a city service that... ultimately comes down to, was their funding allocated and prioritized for the service? And I believe that there needs to be. You know, we've heard personal stories of people who have experienced near tragic situations and tragic situations, and they are preventable deaths and they are preventable accidents. And If we say that we prioritize public safety, we need to prioritize funding for lifeguards at beaches.

So I'll leave it there for now. But I just I hope that we we know that this referral really doesn't offer a productive process in terms of engaging with Park Board. It essentially says this is your problem, not ours. And I think we can do better than that. So I won't be supporting the referral.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. You know, when... When my family moved to Canada, one of the very first things that my mom did was put me into swim lessons. I think I was six and a half, almost seven, around the importance of ensuring that people have skills, and particularly living in an oceanside city in Vancouver. And I was really glad that she did that. And I'm really glad that we're having a debate about public safety today and keeping people safe when they're out and enjoying our city is incredibly essentially important. It is the right debate to be having. It is the wrong place to be having it, in my opinion. It should be the park board that should be tackling this issue. thought it was interesting that we didn't hear I know we're hearing later from the part board chair but we didn't hear from them on this issue and so I went back in terms of doing a bit of my homework and I was looking at some of the previous comments made by the chair sorry losing my voice a little with respect to this decision. And there was a CKW interview, for example, on March 17th, where the chair made a comment that said, most beaches across the Salish Sea on Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast, for example, don't have lifeguards. Vancouver is a bit of an anomaly, and many communities take a swim at your own risk approach. Similarly, in a radio interview on March 18th, the chair made similar comments and also suggested that ocean swimming is often at your own risk. I think that that is not sort of a commentary that exemplifies taking public safety seriously and causes me to question why the park board wasn't holding... that was a priority for them to invest in it. The park board budget, people keep saying that it has been cut, but it has been raised for three years. There was an additional $1.2 million additionally that was provided for that. Again, I think public safety is important. If I was on the park board, and I have been and served on the park board, it's often been important to listen to people and to do that. But I haven't seen them looking at prioritizing and solving this issue. We certainly prioritize public safety within our funding envelope at council. And we want to ensure that Park Board has the opportunity within its operational jurisdiction and its independence to be able to do that as well. And I'm not seeing that here. What I'm seeing simply is a request for funding, but not an ownership of the issue and a prioritization. And management will prioritize what its elected body and Park Board directs. And they have not, in my opinion, directed that and done that in this case. They've sort of simply taken the easy way to go to mom and dad and ask for more funding. But what it's really about is prioritizing and spending on things that the public wants. And clearly, we've heard from the public, 46 plus speakers today, how exceptionally incredibly important this is to people. STAFF PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS. ULTIMATELY THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE PART BOARD AND IT'S THEIR JOB TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THOSE OR IF AN ISSUE COMES UP TO LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BE RESPONSIVE TO IT. SO I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE OPERATIONAL JURISDICTION RESPONSIBILITY AND OBLIGATION OF THE VANCOUVER PART BOARD.

to ensure that it keeps residents safe when it's enjoying recreational and swimming facilities. And I would encourage them vociferously to do that. It's really important and perhaps to be a bit thoughtful in responding before perhaps some of those comments because clearly this is really important to people and I would encourage them to direct their resources accordingly because I think that that is where that conversation should and could happen. So thank you everybody for coming today. that voice and should be directed to the Park Board and you should be encouraging them to put those resources where you want them to go. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Fry. Councillor Fry, we can't hear you. Yeah, sorry. There we go. I'm just, yeah. Excuse me one second. I'm just stepping out of a meeting with the Minister.

Folks, I think this is really, unfortunately, distracting from the essence of this motion. And I do want to acknowledge Commissioner Jensen, who brought this to my attention. And I gather that Councillor Kirby-Young was just mentioning the chair's somewhat flippant remarks about lifeguard safety, which he's since recanted and actually came back with some more thoughtful considerations. But... I want to just focus on the essence of what this motion is. And it's recognizing that there is a funding gap for the park board and that they are being tasked with a significant reduction in services as a result of reduction in budget allocation. And so recognizing that they, that this is a staff recommendation to cut, cut lifeguard staffing. in order to meet those budget constraints that they're faced with. I think the operation here, and I'm frankly surprised that this motion was not ruled, sorry, this amendment wasn't ruled incorrect, because in reality, we can't refer a request for council to approve funding to the park board back to the park board. That makes absolutely no sense. The essence here really is whether or not you support adequately funding through our allocation of funds to... the park board in order to facilitate lifeguard safety in our Vancouver beaches. And I think we all, and I haven't had the opportunity to listen to everybody speaking from council, but I do think we all support public safety. And I think this is an opportunity for us to be magnanimous in our approach to allocating the funds appropriate to staff. And I'm so sorry that I'm in these meetings right now, but I can't speak much longer. Thank you.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist? Vote assist opposed to the amendment, please. Okay, Mayor Sim. Vote assist in favor. Please.

Okay. Mayor Sin's vote assists in favor.

Yes, thank you

Okay.

Hi, folks. We're going to get underway here. The motion will be introduced by Councillor Zhou, who has relinquished the chair for me for this item. Councillor Zhou, please go right ahead. Oh, sorry. Let me put you on the queue here. And... I've got your mic on. Perfect.

Here you go.

Thanks very much, Councillor. And just I should have asked to make sure that nobody has a conflict of interest to declare on this item. Seeing none, and it's not common practice that the chair seconds a motion, but I did check. It does happen in some circumstances, and so I would be in my honour to second this motion with Councillor Zhou. And I also, just before we... I just wanted to acknowledge, and I believe he'll be speaking, that we have the ambassador of Ukraine who's come into Vancouver to speak to this item, and we're very pleased to have him. Ambassador Plotniak, very pleased to have you here. And we'll have to go to our speakers list. So we'll just make sure. Of course, you are the first speaker, so welcome, and you can come to the podium here. Thanks.

Dear Mr. Vice-Chair, distinguished members of the City Council, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. I stand before you in support of establishing the Holodomor Memorial in Vancouver, a memorial that would honour the memory of millions of innocent lives lost to starvation under the totalitarian Soviet regime. The Holodomor was a man-made famine, the result of deliberate policies designed to break the will of the Ukrainian people and to silence their aspirations. Hunger was used as a tool of repression. Access to food was restricted by policy, enforced by law, and backed by violence. Even the smallest acts of survival, such as picking a few stalks of grain from a field, was punishable. This was a profound tragedy that left a lasting imprint on Ukraine's national identity. For decades, this crime was denied, first by the Soviet Union, later by Russia, suppressed and erased from public consciousness. Families carried this memory privately, often in silence. It is only through the work of historians, survivors, and the communities, including the Ukrainian-Canadian community, that the truth has been restored and recognized as an act of genocide. Allow me also to express my sincere appreciation to the province of British Columbia for its historical decision in 2019 to recognize the Holodomor and to establish a Provincial Day of Remembrance. This was an important and principled step, and today's discussion is a natural continuation of that commitment. Remembrance matters. Canada has shown leadership in recognizing the Holodomor as genocide in 2008. Vancouver, a city that values diversity and human dignity, now has the opportunity to join many Canadian cities that have created places of public remembrance for the victims of Holodomor. But it's not about history. Today, Ukraine is once again facing a brutal war of aggression. Once again, we see attempts to destroy Ukrainian identity, to manipulate history, and to deny a nation the right to exist.

A memorial such as Bitter Memories of Childhood would remind us that unpunished evil returns and that crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations. It would serve as a place of learning for young people and future generations about the danger of totalitarianism and the consequences of indifference. Importantly, it would also send a message. of solidarity to the Ukrainian community in Canada and around the world, to Ukrainians in Ukraine who are fighting every day and night for their survival, and to Vancouver's sister city of Odessa, which continues to endure the horrors of Russian aggression. Memorials do not change the past, but they shape the present, and more importantly, the future. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Councillor Lenny Joe for bringing forward this important motion, to the Holodomor Committee, to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress Vancouver branch for this initiative, as well as donating the bronze statue created by Petro Drozdowski. I respectfully ask you to support the establishment of the Holodomor Memorial, Peter's Memories of Childhood in the City of Vancouver. Thank you so much for standing with Ukraine, and thank you a lot for your attention. Thank you very much, Ambassador. So our next speaker is Marianne Plipchuk.

Welcome. My name is Marianne Plipchuk, and I represent the Ukrainian Studies Foundation of British Columbia. I support the report... that's recommended. Dear Honourable Council Members, I would like you to think of the photo that you saw before of the little emaciated girl. That girl was my mother 93 years ago and millions of other children like her throughout Ukraine in 1932-33. Both my father and my mother were survivors of the genocide targeting Ukrainians orchestrated by Stalin and Soviet Russia. My mother's two sisters, her father, and my brother's twin baby brothers all perished in the Holodomor. I am speaking today as the daughter of the survivors because they are no longer here to speak of it themselves. My parents came to Canada as displaced persons after being prisoners of war in enslaved labor in Nazi Germany during World War II. For most of their lives, they never talked about the horrific pre-war experience in Soviet Ukraine. Our family adopted and embraced a Canadian way of life. And in the freedom provided by Canada, we cherished our Ukrainian heritage that Stalin had tried to erase. Only after the fail of Soviet Union did my mother, now free from fear, begin sharing her Holodomor experiences. I hold here in my hand my mother's memoir of the Holodomor.

My mom described how the Russians and their proxies came and took all the grain, but they did not stop there. They took other food, belongings, livestock. They prevented people from foraging or going elsewhere to obtain food. 28,000 people a day died over a seven-month period in 1933. For the rest of my mother's life, the words of her baby sister, Mama, Amu, Mama, pleading for food, never left her heart. My mother wrote, Christmas had not yet come, but already we were afraid to go outside, even in the daytime, let alone at night. The village appeared deserted as though burnt out. People were dying in the streets. Whoever collapsed alive soon froze to death. The corpses were picked up in wagons and all thrown into one hole. On more than one occasion, those who were digging the trenches and the holes were themselves left in the hole. Russia continuously refuses to acknowledge that Stalin had created a genocidal famine. Anyone in Soviet Ukraine who dared to discuss...

Sorry.

Just to remind you that you are over time right now, but if you would like to close... So anyone who dared to discuss that their family had starved or that they could not mark the mass grave were quickly taken away to the far reaches of Russia. The statue, Bitter Memories of Childhood, is a reminder not just of the horrible past, but that in our present day world, food should never be used as a weapon. Today, in keeping with the values of Canada, where we celebrate democracy, truth, human rights, and our multicultural heritage, we ask that Vancouver honor the memory of the millions who perished in the Holodomor by providing a home for our bronze little girl. Thank you very much. Okay. Our next speaker is Alexander Portnick. And on the phone. So we'll go on to the next speaker. Mir Hucalak.

Hello, sir. Yes, Mr. Deputy Mayor. It's Mir Hucalak. And I was the Honorary Consul of Ukraine for 19 years. Just recently retired from that position. I've lived in Vancouver for over 78 years. And I think most of the counselors are not even that old.

Anyways, I saw the floods of Fraser River in 1948. I saw Vancouver when it was still a growing city. We had the Woodward's department store. We had the streetcars here. Wonderful city. I'm pleased to be living here. The Ukrainian population, according to the latest statistics, are over 60,000 people of Ukrainian descent in Vancouver. But now I believe it's over 80 or even 100,000 people because of the influx of the Ukrainians that came from after the war. My father took his family from Ukraine when the Russian Red Army was... advancing and as because he was a professor he knew he'd be in trouble so we came to Vancouver because my aunt was here my grandfather and grandmother both the grandfather died in Siberia I didn't even know him and my grandmother came back for one year and died shortly thereafter so you can see the horrors of what's happening in the world especially in that part of the world I of course support the motion because I am the chair of the Hall of the Memorial Committee and I want to say that the statue should be displayed in a prominent place where there's lots of foot traffic so people of all nationalities could see what was happening. not just Ukrainians. So I would urge you to find us a nice place for this statue. And Consular Zhu and I, we did a tour of this downtown area and we found a beautiful place at the foot of Hornby Street at Hastings Street. And that is a thoroughfare to go to the Canada Place. So that's my number one area that I'd like the statue to be erected. All we need is 10 feet by 10 feet. We don't need much space. So thank you very much. I still have half a minute, but I'm not going to take up your time. I'm sure you're all tired. Thank you very much, Mayor. Ken Charco.

Thank you. I have a cold, so if I start coughing, I'll... I have to leave. I apologize for that. But I, of course, did not want to meet this. First off, I'm not going to talk much about the statue because there's... Learned individuals here that know more than me. But I do want to talk about the process. First off, I want to thank the ambassador for coming here. And I want to let you know that his coming here was directly related to this being put forward. So his timing and everything like that. Since he's been here, we've had multiple meetings with hundreds of people. Always this on the topic.

A few things in the SRE are on there, but that's been on the topic. I also want to let you know that dealing with the staff here has been great. Trevor was good. Andrew was good. And Connor was also really good. This is a new thing, so it was really good. So I want to let you know that you're well serviced for that. For those people that haven't been outside, and also for those that are not here in person, like Pete Fry, I think Ken Sim is there, is that they are, I want to let them know that outside There has been hundreds and hundreds of people in support of the statue outside. And there hasn't been a single person not in support of that. And those hundreds and hundreds of people have been circulating all day. Because what we did is we didn't know when to have, when it was going to happen. So we just said, just come during the day when you can. So people took off their lunch hours. We had hundreds and hundreds of people that came there. So I want to let you know that I've talked to almost everyone in here. And I hope that you would consider voting for this because this is important to a community that feels under attack. They're under attack not only physically as it relates to the war, but they're under attack because people aren't remembering what's happening. So we need a place for the community to go there. So thank you so much. And I do have one thing because I know I do have two minutes left. Is someone on the speaker's list? This is a question for the chair, I think. Someone on the speaker's list that can't attend has left a note with someone else here. Are they able to read that as an addition to their time? Everyone has a three-minute. Okay, that's fine. I said I would ask that. I'm good. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks very much, Ken. Okay. Thanks for coming in. Our next speaker is Olga Zuridina.

Dear members of the City Council, my name is Olga Zarudina. I'm the president of Ukrainian Canadian Congress Vancouver branch. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, and thank you for bringing the motion forward. If you had a chance to look outside today, you would have seen a big crowd of Ukrainians coming out in support of the motion, which testifies to the importance of this whole thing that we're all doing today to our big Ukrainian community in Vancouver. And it is even more notable because it is being done in the middle of the week and in the middle of the workday. As some other speakers before me have mentioned the statistics of the genocide, the atrocities of the Holodomor are simply beyond human. And our task today is to ensure that this never happens anywhere in the world ever again. Passing the motion, of course, will not change the past, but it will become part of the prevention force by, A, acknowledging the tragedy, B, recognizing the educational weight of it, and three, demonstrating that we're all on the right side of history.

Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you for coming in. Okay, our next speaker is Roman Sawici. Sawici? You're going to have to say it, sir. Sawiki. Sawici?

That's close enough, Mayor. Thanks very much. I'll go right ahead. Honourable Mayor Kim Sims, Honourable Councils, you've heard more of the history of the Holodomor from my predecessors speaking before me here. And all I wanted to do is certainly indicate that, one, this statue has been in Vancouver for quite a while. It needs a home badly. It needs to be recognized. I brought this statue to Vancouver eight years ago, and we're looking for a proper home. It depicts an era in the world that we should learn from the history. We should learn and not have it repeat again. I was thinking when I brought the statue is that it has to be in a prominent place, somewhere where people can see it and learn about it. And it's history, and it's something we should learn from. And I basically got that impression when I was traveling in Boston, and I saw the statue and the memorial that they had for the Irish potato famine. And it was very interesting, and I learned a lot from it. And I would like to think that a lot of people will learn a lot about Ukraine and what Ukraine has gone through and is going through now. And we need a prominent place for it. So I hopefully feel that, you know, it will serve as a place of remembrance for one and an education for other people. So I encourage and I... Trust that the council and the mayor will agree and give us our location and find a home for our little girl. Thank you. Thank you for coming in today. Our next speaker is Ola Proden.

My name is Olga Prodan. I'm vice president of Ukrainian Canadian UCC Vancouver branch and also a president of Ukrainian Canadian Advocacy Group. It is a great honor to stand here today on behalf of the Ukrainian Canadian community in Vancouver. We are here for more than a monument. We are here for memory, for truth, for the right to be seen, to be heard, and to have our history recognized in this city.

For decades, over 200,000 Ukrainian Canadians in British Columbia have contributed to building this province. Yet our story has too often remained unseen. Today we ask for a rightful place in Vancouver's public memory. Many in our community are descendants of survivors of the Holodomor, a man-made famine that took the lives of millions of Ukrainians. This was not just a tragedy. It was a deliberate attempt to erase a nation. Those who survived carried that memory across oceans. They came to Canada and helped build this land, working the soil, growing wheat, feeding communities, and contributing to the prosperity we share today. To stand here now is to carry their voices. It is to honor those who could not speak, and it is to ensure that their truth is not forgotten. Memory is not political. Memory is human. And without it, there is no justice and no future built on truth. This monument is not only about the past. It is about who we are today and what we choose to remember as a city. So today, I ask all of you to stand with us. Stand for memory. Stand for truth. Stand for the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians in British Columbia, whose history is a part of Vancouver's story. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Troy Abramathias.

Dear city councillors, I'm just wondering if I will be able to read the letter on his behalf since Troy is just simply being late. It will be within the time limit. I think clerk will allow the statement to be read. Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you. So I do have the permission. Yeah, go right ahead. Thank you. Dear Mayor and Council, my name is Troy Macbeth Abramitis, ancestral name Lachman Drynock of the Lytton First Nation and a member of the Urban Indigenous Committee for the City of Vancouver. I write to you today in strong and heartfelt support of the proposed installation of the Holden War Memorial in the City of Vancouver. This is more than a request for a monument. It is a call to remember, to honor, and to stand in truth. The Holodomor represents one of the most devastating and deliberate human tragedies in modern history. Millions of Ukrainian people suffered and perished under the conditions that were not accidental, but imposed. The weight of that loss carries forward through generations, held in memory, in history, and in lived experience of families and communities today.

To acknowledge the Holodomor in a public and permanent way is to affirm that those lives mattered and their suffering is recognized and that their stories will not be erased by time. As an indigenous peoples, we understand this in a deeply personal and lived way. Our histories are also marked by loss of land, of language, family, and of life. We know that it means to carry intergenerational trauma, but we also know the strength that comes from the remembrance, from ceremony, and from creating spaces where truth can be held with dignity. Memory, when honored properly, becomes a pathway to healing. In that spirit, the installation of the Holdenmore Memorial in Vancouver represents something profoundly important. It is not only an act of recognition of the Ukrainian community. It is the gesture of solidarity across cultures and histories. It reflects a shared understanding that one community's truth is honored. We all move forward together. Vancouver is a city that continues to grow in its commitment to reconciliation, inclusion, and cultural respect. It is a city built on the tradition and unceded lands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Selwyn nations. that's shaped by the contributions and histories of many peoples from around the world. Within this context, public memories carries great significance. They're not simply objects in space. They're living markers of who we are, what we value, and how we chose to remember. The Holdemore Memorial would stand as a place of reflection and education. It would invite people to pause, learn, and to connect with a history that must never be forgotten. It would create a space of dialogue for empathy and for deeper understanding among communities. And importantly, it would send a very clear message that Vancouver is a city that does not turn away from difficult truths, but instead chooses to face them with integrity and compassion. Supporting this memorial is also an act of leadership. It demonstrates that the city is willing to stand alongside communities who have carried the burden of historical injustice and to recognize their experiences in a meaningful and lasting way. It reinforces the principle that remembrance is not passive. It is active, intentional, and necessary. There is also something deeply human in this monument. When we acknowledge the suffering of others, when we create space to honor their history, we strengthen the fabric of our shared community. We build bridges rooted in respect. We affirm that no story is too distant and no loss is too small to be recognized. I respectfully encourage Mayor Kinsim and Council to support the installation of the Holdemore Memorial to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian community in this important act of remembrance. In doing so, you will not only honor the past, you will help shape a more understanding, compassionate, and united future for our city. With respect, Troy Macbeth Abramides. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thanks to all the speakers coming.

I'll just go back to speaker three.

Yes, Speaker 3 didn't phone in. Alexander Bortnick. And if they're not there, we're fine. Okay.

Okay. All right, so that concludes our speakers list. Speaker 10 is withdrawn.

Yeah. Okay. Council, is there a committee? Is there any discussion?

Going back to the main queue. Very good. Well, sorry. Just add yourselves again. Counselor Orr and Counselor. I didn't see the second name. Maloney. Okay. Counselor Orr. Counselor Orr. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for all the speakers that came out. Thanks for the motion. Just note that the staff feedback for this one says that the plan for this commemorative proposal being considered after the commemoration framework is decided on by council scheduled May 5th. The proposed framework outlines the process by which city receives reviews and approves commemoration proposals such as this. Subject to council decision, the framework will recommend prioritization of commemorations that are locally relevant, local to Canadian or BC history. As Holodomor is not a Canadian or local incident, the Ukrainian... Canadian Congress should be encouraged to either look at non-city land, such as the Ukrainian Cultural Center property for a memorial or refocus a memorial on the local events or history of the community. I just wanted to know why we don't wait until, to us through the chair to the mover of the motion, why we don't wait until that framework comes out.

Okay, yeah, but there is another council meeting after the May the 5th. Well, I couldn't wait until the May the 22nd. Yeah, there will be other council meetings for this topic. Right, but we're getting it on May 5th. So I'm just saying, like, why are we making this decision before that commemorative framework is presented to council?

Okay. And then maybe this is for staff or maybe for the mover of the motion. How does this align with UNDRIP? I mean, I'm just thinking we're talking about genocide and absolutely valid comments from everyone. But, I mean, if we're using city land to commemorate a genocide, how do the First Nations feel about considering there's a genocide in Canada, an ongoing genocide in Canada to First Nations? And we're... memorializing this one before using city land to commemorate the Canadian genocide on our soil.

Okay.

For sure. Okay. Good to know. You did say that this is not a controversial motion, but I did Google the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, and there is a long list of controversies associated with this group. Could you speak to that at all? If you've looked it up, there's many incidences of controversy.

Okay.

Okay, I understand the reasoning. I think there's some members of the community who might not feel that way. I really want to support this. As somebody from Ireland whose family did suffer through the potato famine, I think it's important to recognize. I'll leave that there.

Thanks very much. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks, Councillor Kirby. Yeah, thank you. I will speak briefly because I don't think that I can... say anything more eloquent than a number of the speakers that are here. I just want to express my appreciation and gratitude for everybody speaking today. It's not easy to speak about such difficult circumstances and to speak from the heart. And I felt that deeply, and I'm just very appreciative of people generously sharing their real lived experience. And this is not an anonymous situation. This is something that has touched people personally, oftentimes their families or friends, people that you know. And I do think that I appreciate the review of different locations. I do think that recognizing the special relationship that Vancouver has with Odessa is one of our five and first sister cities. I think that citing City Hall. on city hall grounds is actually particularly appropriate because I think it really does speak to that sister relationship and solidarity that we have with Odessa. And we're really grateful for that. That is a longstanding relationship. And I think that when you have friends, you stand together with them and our friends are asking us to do that. I think that the world has stood with Ukraine, and I think this is an opportunity for Vancouver City Council to stand with you as well. And I am proud and humbled to be able to support this. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. I'm going to see the Chair to Deputy Mayor Kirby Young, and I'll just be very, very, very brief. Thanks very much. All I want to say is I'd be very pleased to support this. And I think many of us have been following the plight of and also the strength and resilience of the Ukrainian people over the last several years. But this statue, I think, is an important symbol of the people. And I would be very pleased to see it prominently displayed somewhere in the city. in public um and uh it's not every day that we actually have an ambassador that uh comes visit us here so uh uh ambassador uh so pleased to uh meet you uh today and uh i'll uh again be proud to support this uh so with that i will uh take the chair back and advance mayor sim

I'm muting him. Okay. Sorry, you think after all these years, we'd be able to figure that one out. I just want to thank Councillor Zhou for bringing forward this motion.

And I do want to thank the members of the Ukrainian Canadian community who've spoken to council today, as well as those who've come to City Hall to make their voices heard. Vancouver stood and will always stand with our current Ukrainian community. We're really proud to raise the Ukrainian flag just outside of these chambers. When you come to the chambers, you'll notice that it's prominently displayed. And Vancouver's oldest sister city relationship is with Odessa, and we've been international partners since 1944. Only a decade earlier, Ukraine had to face one of its darkest chapters. The Holodomor was a horrific atrocity, which still has impacts to this day. And there are still those who hold this memory fresh in the stories that their family and friends have passed down through generations. And this presents an opportunity for the City of Vancouver to follow the federal and provincial governments informally recognizing this genocide. By accepting this gift at City Hall, Vancouver can continue to stand in solidarity with Ukrainian Canadians in our city, share their stories, and educate our wider community while providing a place of solemn contemplation for those who wish to remember and reflect. Slava Ukraina.

Thank you, Mayor. Okay. So with that, seeing no other speakers on the queue, we now call the vote. Can I please get a bold assist in favor? Absolutely.

Okay. So that motion passes with councillors Frey and Meisner absent and councillor Orr abstaining. Thanks very much. And we'll move on to the next item.

Do I have quorum?

No. I need one more.

Thank you, Chair. I am truly thrilled to bring forward this motion today for Council's consideration. Vancouver's four-year capital plan is one of the most important decisions made by any Council, determining how billions of dollars in public investment will shape the city's infrastructure, public spaces, and quality of life for years to come. For too long, critical investments in core infrastructure and community facilities have not kept pace with the needs of our growing city. Decades of underinvestment have contributed to mounting infrastructure pressures and service gaps that residents now experience. This is something I've consistently fought for during my time on council, making motions to quantify our infrastructure deficit to daylight the sheer magnitude of the infrastructure gap. The motion back to community seeks to address seriously underfunded and underserved community infrastructure and underserved communities in a thoughtful way. Today is about investing in Vancouverites, starting with community centers because community centers are some of the most important and heavily used public assets that we have. And yet, across Vancouver, many of them are in a state of disrepair. decades old and operating beyond their intended lifespan. In short, this is about prioritizing what matters most to Vancouverites, about getting back to basics and back to community. It's about where we put our money and making sure it shows up in the places residents actually feel and want. As we begin shaping the 2027 to 2030 capital plan, let's make it stark investments in our community. The motion seeks to make this upcoming capital plan the first phase of prioritizing our community centers. And with a $400 million injection into rebuilding five community centers, we will be making the largest investment in the history of Vancouver, including full replacements and modernization. It is not the end, but the start. And by being bold and making this a priority and setting a new pace for community center renewal, we can meaningfully tackle old and decrepit facilities, I believe, in the coming 10 years. is our job to ensure also that past inequities are corrected. Today, if you draw a straight line across 49th Avenue, there is not a single pool south of that line in South Vancouver. That is the very definition of what inequity looks like. Sunset Park used to have a pool. When it was removed, the community was promised a new one, and it never came. Today with this plan, the Mayor and Council have the opportunity to address historic inequities, particularly in South Vancouver. This motion is about addressing these needs across the city, not just there, but from north to south and east to west. It prioritizes real investment. It is core to delivering a livable city with quality services for the people who call Vancouver home, families, kids and seniors, growing neighborhoods, higher participation in recreation, more demand for childcare, fitness and programming. are all competing for needs, and our infrastructure is simply not keeping up. Let us make sure the next capital plan delivers tangible upgrades. Residents can see new and better community centers, public spaces, decent instead of deplorable washrooms and kits in second beaches, and enhance Gastown, the Chinese Garden Pond renewal, and much, much more. Let's give people a great city with great amenities that they love and they deserve. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Is that mic good? End timer. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Digby, and I'm speaking as chair of the elected park board. And you know what? There's a lot of good things in motion three. So I support some of it. But what I'm going to do today is ask you to refer it back to staff for further consideration. That's my position on the motion. So here's a quick review of the great and what's not so great about this motion. The $400 million is a real commitment to community centers. That is a significant commitment. And so we thank you for the $400 million commitment. Now, the going rate for a new community center is $120 million. So with $400 million, you can replace three of our top priority community centers, you know, the ones in the heart of the highest growth neighborhoods with the highest recognized community needs. So that part of the motion is, of course, excellent, and it corresponds to what the park board called for. Two weeks ago, we called for $400 million for community centers, and we also called for another billion dollars to go into swimming pools, skating rinks, and other parks and open spaces across the city. So at our public meeting we had at the park board, we had 63 speakers. They came from all across the city. and representing all different aspects of the park board system. And many of them are here again tonight to speak to this $1.4 billion of investments that are badly needed across the city. Now, there's some deep flaws with the motion, which is why I'm asking you to refer it to staff for further consideration. There is no commitment in the motion to repair and renewal of existing swimming pools, and I would like to highlight the Kitsilano pool that needs renewal and the new 50-meter pool. By referring this to staff, you could be heroes, councillors. You could be the ones to find a place for a 50-metre pool, and two of the community centres you identified, namely Kensington and Hastings centres, would be very well suited for a 50-metre pool. That could be your decision in this motion if you send it to staff. The motion provides no substantial commitment to Britannia. Okay, you had a unanimous motion here that you all supported to support that. We see a very modest support of Britannia in there. Earlier this afternoon, you received the 2025 financial statements. I've read those statements very closely, and councillors, you can afford to borrow a billion dollars based on that without increasing the debt service levels. And this is something I do want to talk to the mayor about. If we ever get an invitation, we'll be happy to talk to the mayor. So the biggest flaw in the motion is a risk that it will be seen as improperly influenced by political choices that are not necessarily in the best interest of the city. Please vote to refer this motion to staff for further consideration so the public can vote confidently when it comes time to vote in October.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Mayor Kensim, member council, and fellow speakers. My name is Balwinder Singh Varad.

I'm representing the Sunset Community Association.

I'm glad to hear that, but I'll try to stick to three minutes. But if I have some other questions, I'm honored to hear that. Yeah, sorry. I'm going to restart your call. No problem. You want me to start again? Sure, yeah. There it goes. It's all written in here. Good afternoon, Chair, Mayor Kensim, Member of Council, and fellow speakers. My name is Balwinder Singh Varadj, President of Sanseh Community Association, resident of City Vancouver. I'm here in support of motion number three. I want to begin by recognizing the vision and leadership this chamber has shown. Your commitment to long-term planning, equity, and building is a stronger city because strong community don't happen by accident. They are built through investments. by maintaining and renewing existing community centers and by delivering new facilities where they are needed most. And right now, Sunset is one of those places. Sunset is one of the fastest growing community in South Vancouver, full of families, youth and seniors. But we do not have access to a modern aquatic facility in our own neighborhood. Families travel across the city for swimming lessons. Seniors miss out on low-impact fitness and rehabilitation. Youth lose opportunity to stay active in safe, structured space. For many, access simply becomes out of reach. That is not equity. A 25-meter pool is not a luxury. It is a basic standard amenity for the South Vancouver community. It supports swimming lessons that save lives. It provides space for fitness, therapy, and community programming. It serves all ages and abilities. Our community centers are full. Our parks are busy. The demand is clear. This motion is about priorities, and this is where your leadership matters most. Equity means recognizing where the gaps are and closing them. In Sunset Community, that gap is clear, and it's been clear for many years, approximately 30 decades, or 30 years. We are encouraged by progress, including the new senior center that shows what's possible when vision turns into action. But a complete community also need access to aquatic facility. So here is the ask. As you finalize the 2027-2033 capital plan, prioritize a modern aquatic facility at Sunset Community Center, anchored by a 25-meter pool. With the leadership this chamber has shown, I'm confident you will take the next step and deliver a 25-meter pool for South Vancouver.

Thank you for your leadership. Once again, I fully support this motion. Thank you.

Speaker number two is Carola Mansfeld.

Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, councillors, other speakers. I echo everything that the previous two speakers have spoken about, but I'm here as a representative of the Canadian Dolphin Swim Club, which has been in existence for 70 years, anchored at the Vancouver Aquatic Centre and representing hundreds of families and children and also master swimmers who have swum with the club for the past 70 years. The pool capacity shortfall in the city is becoming critical with five of the nine existing indoor pools currently considered at end of functional lifespan. Of those nine, Carisdale Pool is currently closed indefinitely and the VAC will be closing in two months. No new facilities have been produced under the 2019 van splash plan to date. With the VAC closing, we not only lose our 50-meter pool, but we are left with no pool in the city of Vancouver capable of hosting a swim meet of any size. And when it reopens, we will still have less lane capacity than we do now. While I applaud the motion to include renewing community centers in the capital plan, I believe that thought should be given to which of those centers could include a 50-meter pool. For example, building a 50-meter modular pool as part of the Hastings Community Center renewal would add less than $30 million to the cost and provide additional pool capacity to the area for the immediate future and for when the nearby Templeton pool will need to be replaced.

If the cost of rebuilding of the VAC at a minimum of $175 million is the standard, the city will never be able to catch up. The effect of kicking the provision of more capacity 10 years down the road is this. Children currently of less than age will be graduating from high school in 10 years and will never learn to swim. And young, aspiring competitive swimmers will never be able to swim in a 50-meter pool. I've spoken about modular pools before, and we've even met with the Councillor Kirby Young and Classen and Councillor Zhou in the past and presented some designs to you. The cost of building modular pools with 40-year lifespans is around a sixth of the cost of building conventional pools. We need to move beyond spending tens of millions on architects and consultants, hundreds of millions on construction, and multiple years to produce architectural award-winning pools. I want to be clear that I'm not speaking against the proposed South Vancouver pool. The more pools, the better. I understand that the petition for that pool has received some 3,000 signatures, but I would like to remind everyone that the petition for a 50-meter pool was signed by more than 16,000 people.

So maybe we can make all of those 20,000 people happy and produce a 25-meter and a 50-meter pool in the coming capital plan. Thank you.

yes can you hear me yes we can please go ahead okay great uh good afternoon um councillor our mayor and councillors i echo what tom the vendor and corolla have just said um my name is lexus fluvog and while i support further investment in rec centers and aquatic facilities i'm very frustrated as a vancouver resident a parent a swimmer and a member of a community that depends on vancouver facilities I'm just frustrated that after ongoing discussions and community feedback, a 15-meter aquatic facility is still not in the plans. I see a 25-meter pool in the Sunset area, and that's great, but that's not what many Vancouver swimmers have been asking for. The VAC is scheduled to close on June 28th of this year, and when that happens, Vancouver will lose its only publicly accessible 50-meter pool for training and competitions. For many families, including mine, the loss of a VAC is deeply personal. My son, Lucas, who's 12, swims with the Canadian Dolphins Swim Club. Like so many kids, he spends hours each week in the pool working hard, setting goals, learning discipline, and being part of a team that supports him. But this story actually starts a generation earlier. Swimming with the Canadian Dolphins helped buoy my husband, Adrian, as he navigated dyslexia as a young person. School was not always easy for him, but in the pool he found structure, purpose, and confidence. The swim club gave him a place where he could succeed, and that confidence carried into the rest of his life. Now, as parents of a child with dyslexia who also swims with a dolphin, we're counting on the same community to now buoy our son. I speak with parents all the time to say the same thing, that the pool is where their children thrive, where they feel strong, where they feel like they're part of something bigger than themselves. And as parents, we hear the same messages. We need to get our kids off the phones. We need to protect their mental health. We need to keep them active. This is Vancouver's chance to support these kids. We have the solution. And it's not just about swimming. It's about mental health, belonging, and opportunity. And it's about access for everyone. Aquatic centers are not luxury amenities. They're essential public infrastructure. They serve children learning to swim, seniors maintaining mobility, people recovering from injury, families connecting, and entire communities staying active and healthy. But not all pools are created equal. A 50-meter pool can be used by everyone for recreation, for lessons, and for lane swimming, and for competition. A leisure pool cannot replace that. When you replace a 50-meter pool such as the VAC with a leisure-focused 25-meter facility, you're not just changing a design, you're removing a critical piece of infrastructure from the city. And right now, there isn't a clear plan to replace it. So what happens next while this capital plan is being debated? Where do the kids go? Where do these teams train? Where does this community gather? And the reality is, there is nowhere else. Vancouver's pools are already full.

There's no available capacity and no equivalent facility. In a city like Vancouver, a city that values health, community, and excellence, it's hard to understand how we could allow this to happen. But there's still time to change course. There are innovative, cost-effective models like the module pools that Carola mentioned that can deliver a 50-meter facility quickly, within 15 months. For our swimmers who are some of Canada's best and they're looking forward to L.A. 2028, this is the option they need.

My apologies. Thanks for listening. I'll end it there.

Thank you very much. Aaron Jasper, former Park Board Commissioner and Chair. I have grave concerns about the motion that you are considering today. And I'll just be very blunt. To me, it looks like a political document. The park board staff, along with the community center associations, have worked tirelessly to come up with a fact-based list of community centers, ranked list, in need of renewal. And that's not to say that all the community centers couldn't use a bit of upkeep. But they've already prioritized the list. And I want to back up two steps. I do applaud Mayor's commitment to $400 million. On April 7th, Park Board had a special meeting. I was one of the speakers. It was amazing to see the turnout of people. $400 million was approved in the ask at that meeting. The mayor a few days later, I believe it was at a Board of Trade, made a similar announcement. In fact, Ed Visaki... In Vancouver, I went up to our mayor and I shook his hand. I said, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, for your commitment to $400 million towards community centres. I think it really showed, at least for me, a glimmer of hope that we could work collaboratively and put the politics aside. But I challenge this council to produce that document, the staff document, because, as other speakers could speak to, Park Board staff... had no input into the list that was referenced by the mayor. The community centers had no input onto the list. So the list that you're being asked to consider today, we don't know. It's a mystery as to which staff came up with that list. So, you know... It's nice to hear when council respects the jurisdiction of the park board in the last motion, the regarding lifeguard funding, that whole issue is referred back to park board because it's their jurisdiction. And I would ask that in that same spirit, that this motion in some iteration is referred to park board, defer to the experts, refer to the park board staff, defer to the communities and associations that worked many, many hours to come up with this list. Again, the list that was provided by Park Board commissioners was a fact-based document with several different criteria. And I think that really, those are the experts referred to that list. What we see here today, what's being voted on is a political document. It's disappointing to see, because I think there is enough credit to be taken. I said that to our mayor when I saw him at Fusaki. I said, you know, the legacy is for everyone to work together, pulling in the same direction. And I really hope that this gets punted back to Park Board, or at least you refer to the work that they've done With respect to aquatics, you know, it's unfortunate. I think Sunset deserves there. They lost their pool years ago, but if I'm not mistaken, Marple Community Center was also supposed to have a pool, and that's not in there. So where it comes to aquatics, where it comes to community centers, I implore you, refer this back to Park Board, refer to the experts, and work together. Thank you.

Thank you, Aaron. All right, speaker number five is Paul Bisla.

Hey, can you folks hear me?

Thank you. My name is Paul Beasley. I'm a resident of Sunset Area, which is on Musqueam Lines. I'm calling today speaking on behalf of Cost of the Want Society. I'd like to start off by saying, dear Mayor, Tim and Council, I do fully support Councillor Kirby Young's motion, particularly the commitment to build a 25-meter pool at Sunset Park. Southland is used to having things taken away, as the previous speaker alluded to. This is what happened when the old centre shut down about two decades ago. All we're asking for is what once was. We need our outdoor pool back.

Studies were cited. There have been city studies that have been done by staff that identified this area for investment, particularly for a pool. Southland's investments are unfortunately constantly politicized, yet everyone looks to us when support is needed. For years, we've been leaned on during election cycles and overlooked afterward. We do appreciate that this has started to change under the current administration, and if there are questions about the supports being delivered, please know that we're keeping track. To the comments about studies and facts, elections and community excuse me elections and election cycles are community engagement themselves and an exercise in information gathering i know for a fact that mayor and council were out during this past osaki which was again mentioned by my by the previous speaker and questions were asked and community members were loud about the things that we need and the infrastructure that we deserve this motion is reasonable It's overdue, and it is grounded in evidence. Please support it. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time.

Hello, hello.

I don't know. I have to test the height of the mic here.

Dear Mayor and Council, my name is Henry Hung Lu. I'm the Executive Director of the Dr. Sanyasin Garden Society of Vancouver, which governs the Dr. Sanyasin Classical Chinese Garden. I'm here today to express our strong support for the motion to establish strategic priorities for the 2027 to 2030... capital plan and in particular for the priority investment in the renewal and upgrade of the doctor seniors and classical chinese garden pond The garden draws tens of thousands of visitors annually, and it is a national treasure and consistently recognized as one of Vancouver's most significant cultural destinations. The pond, located predominantly within the public Dr. St. Vincent Park under Vancouver Park Board jurisdiction, is central to that experience. In the Ming Dynasty landscape tradition, water is not decorative. It is foundational. A pond in decline diminishes everything around it. The ongoing decline of the pond is not a new concern. It has been documented since at least 2002. And in 2008, with the expertise of the garden's architect, landscape architect, and senior park board staff, the proposal did not make the capital plan that cycle. And the pond has continued to decline since. The renewal and upgrade now included in your motion will enable the scope of work that has been needed for nearly two decades, including draining the pond, removing organic matter, repairing clay liner, and installing a water recirculation system. The garden pond is a high value investment that can be delivered within the capital planning framework. It is a well-scoped project with a long paper trail serving a public asset that draws visitors from across the city and around the world. This is a visible, meaningful win for Chinatown, for Vancouver's cultural infrastructure, and for the communities that this council serves.

A pond restoration project will return the garden and the park to its original beauty and protect the investments that the citizens of Vancouver and beyond made many years ago for many more decades. And this year, as the garden celebrates its 40th anniversary, you know, the garden opened to the public during Expo on April 24th, 1986. We are grateful that this council has recognized the pond renewal as a priority public asset investment, and I urge you to pass this motion.

Thank you so much.

Hi, can you hear me?

Perfect. Good afternoon, everyone. Mayor Sim and Council. My name is Amandeep Bisla. I strongly support Councillor Kirby Young's motion, especially the inclusion of a 25 meter pool at Sunset Park. I'm just going to go off script a bit. I actually grew up in Sunset and I remember going to the pool when we were kids. It was a sense of belonging for us. It was a sense of community. It brought out all the neighborhood kids. And so just reflecting on all those fond memories as well. Sunset has gone 18 years without a pool. An entire generation in a dense, diverse, working-class neighborhood has grown up without access to one. Despite years of community advocacy, this need has been acknowledged but not acted on. At the same time, South Vancouver has seen a clear pattern of under-investments.

The urgency is real. The 2021 heat dome showed the deadly impact of lacking cooling infrastructure, and city reports identify South Vancouver as a priority for water access. A pool at sunset isn't a luxury. It's essential public health infrastructure. The motion is a practical, achievable step. It addresses inequality, aligns with city data, and supports families with recreation and heat relief. We ask you to vote in favor of this motion. South Vancouver has waited long enough. The need is clear, and the time to act is now. Thank you.

Yes, Chair, I wanted to propose that we extend to 6 p.m., and then I think we have to take at least a 30-minute break. Is that right? Okay, so... Or 45 minutes, just confirm. One hour. Okay. 40 minutes.

I propose that we extend to 6 p.m. and then take a 45-minute break.

I'm not sure where. Do we have people voting online? I don't know.

Oppose say nay. How many nays we have?

Okay, so let's do a recorded vote. All right, so everyone please vote on your voting panel.

Councillor Bligh, Mayor Sim is on the line right now. Okay.

Thank you, Councillor. My name is Brennan Bastiovansky, Vice Chair of the Elected Park Board. My position on this motion is other. I requested this motion be referred back to staff so they can it can align with the park board capital plan. The park board capital plan voted on April 7 is based on adopted strategies, primarily the community center strategy van play van splash in the field sports strategy and I requested Council commit to the $1.4 billion, 1 billion of which is investment in recreation and pools required to begin restoring and renewing the system. One concern is that the list of community centers in this motion does not align with the priorities determined by the community, nor does it follow existing strategies. The project list does not reflect where the need is greatest across the city. Community centers with higher needs are underrepresented or missing, and it's not clear how this list was developed as it does not align with the council adopted community center strategy or with growth areas in the city. Even senior park board staff and REFM staff have confirmed they did not provide this list of priorities to Council and that staff recommendations remain grounded in the publicly adopted community center strategy. The order of renewal in the park board capital plan was determined with the 24 community center associations representing hundreds of thousands of residents. This process enables communities to define the needs of their neighborhoods and how these spaces are used every day. Community center associations identified Hastings, Renfrew, and Kensington as the highest priorities for renewal, aging, heavily used facilities in areas of high demand. Though these are deliverable in the next term with proper funding of $400 million. And Vancouver is growing along the Canby corridor, Oak Ridge, and the Broadway plan, but the core infrastructure that supports daily life like community centers, sports fields, pools, and parks has not kept pace. This capital plan is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address that gap. In East Vancouver, facilities are aging and require renewal. In South Vancouver, we're seeing rapid population growth without matching expansion. The Park Board capital plan reflects this reality. And Britannia also requires significant investment over multiple capital plans, starting with the $200 million commitment needed now. Council's role is to fund these projects. The Park Board role is to set priorities based on condition, demand, and community need. And that balance has existed for over 135 years for a reason. So the capital plan priorities reflect system-wide needs and community input, not a list based on political discretion. This capital plan will shape the future livability of Vancouver, and this is the moment to get it right. Thank you.

All right, so speaker number nine is Rick Sidhu.

Speaker nine is not on the line. Speaker number 10 has withdrawn. Speaker number 11 is Daniel Jackson.

Hello, my name is Daniel Jackson. I represent the Strathcona Community Center Association, and I would just like to share the view from my neighborhood in Strathcona. As has been mentioned in 1922, the Park Board, working closely with 24 community center associations, released a community center strategy, which prioritized renewal of community centers based on their current condition, ability to meet service targets, equity, and site synergies. The Strathcona Community Center tied for third on that list with Hastings. Our building is over 50 years old. It does not have a pool, an ice rink, racket courts, a senior center, outdoor electric signage, outdoor space, or a parking lot. We share a gym with a school, which is only available for the community center on evenings and weekends. We have only two rooms that can be used during the day for programming. We are the closest community center to an estimate 75% of the social housing in Vancouver, serving a population which has few options for recreational or community space. We have one of the largest single-site childcare programs in the city and the largest food security program of any other community center and offer many programs for free for people who otherwise couldn't afford them. Our building is rented from the Vancouver School Board, which in practice means that the VSB, that neither the VSB nor the Park Board pay for improvements. In the last five years, the community association has to use its own funds for any building improvements. We make the best use of what we have, but in comparison to other community centers in Vancouver, it is not enough. We strongly support the recognition that significant capital funds are needed for our city to maintain, much less improve our existing infrastructure, particularly community centers. But we are stunned that the council is ignoring the recommendation of the Park Board and other community center associations, and for reasons we can only speculate, has dropped Strathcona from its capital plan list. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Mayor Sim, Councillors, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. My name is Costa Chatsy-Spiros, and I'm the VP and also the kids on the Showboat Society and also the chairperson of the Showboat Building Committee.

My relationship with Show Boat started when I was at Kitts High in the 1980s. I'm one of the thousands of volunteers that have supported Show Boat's simple founding dream to be the Kitts Beach gathering place to enjoy free summertime entertainment.

Although Show Boat does not receive arts and culture funding, the support and ongoing partnership with Parks and the City of Vancouver has always been stellar and is immensely appreciated.

As the KITS renewal project shareholder, we've been engaged with staff in the assessment of the current state of the Showboat facility and considerations for its future requirements. Since 1935, Showboat has been a self-funded, turnkey operator delivering significant summer programs with over 100,000 visitors each season and over 1,000 performers each year. The current tired facility is over 75 years old and has extensive water and fire damage. Park staff have erected a creative and safe backdrop that allows us to continue using the stage in a limited capacity. For now, audiences are shielded from the damaged main building hidden behind the backdrop.

By including Showboat in any rebuild, refurbishment, or modernization capital budget, we can continue being the summer heartbeat for thousands of local performers, all while focusing Showboat on producing free and easily accessible entertainment for everyone to enjoy. As Showboat sets course for our 100th year in 2035, we have an opportunity to protect Vancouver's cultural legacy and renew the theatre for future generations to proudly use and enjoy. For these reasons and comments you will hear from the next speaker, Showboat President Barry Lineback, I respectfully request that capital for Showboat be specifically included in the City of Vancouver 2027-2030 capital plan and any kids pool planning. Thank you.

45 years, but not right now. That's okay. Yeah, thank you.

I was for, oh gosh, 50 years. That's okay.

Not right now. Right now, I'm representing Showboat.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everyone. Mayor Sim, councillors. I am Barry Lineback, president of the Kitsilano Showboat Society. I'm also a 68-year volunteer at the Kitsilano Showboat. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in support of the City of Vancouver Capital Plan motion. And we are respectfully requesting an amendment to please include the Vancouver Kitslanta Showboat as part of the budget and the Kitspool Plan. Since 1935, Showboat has been a beloved jewel in the City of Vancouver. You all know Showboat, I'm sure, and I'm sure that you all have fond memories of attending performances with family members or possibly even performing on our stage. In our 91-year history, we have facilitated over 4,500 nights of entertainment in over 8,000 diverse groups. Showboat is and has always been all-inclusive. Showboat is also the leader in promoting the performing arts in Vancouver and is run by dedicated volunteers at zero operating cost to the city. In our 91 years, we have never missed a season, not even through wars, renovations, king tide floods, or even COVID-19. But then we had the devastating fire of 2023. The theater was gutted, burned out, and it was a shock to all Vancouverites. The community support was overwhelming. The building was deemed to be unusable, and the entire site was slated to be demolished. The city of Vancouver and parks were eventually able to save the stage, two dressing rooms, and two washrooms. But the larger center portion of the facility, the building was totally lost, totally burned out, holes through the ceiling, rain getting in, it's done. Despite this, Showboat carried on, and in 2023, we still produced a season in front of a burned out building. This year, we are back to producing 50 nights of free summer entertainment over the summer. In our 91 years, Showboat has proven itself, and I believe has earned a spot in the City of Vancouver budget. We are respectfully requesting that a motion be made to name the Kitsilano Showboat in the capital budget and in the City of Vancouver Kits Pool Plan. and to allocate funds towards a new showboat theater. We are in this all together and securing a home for a Vancouver institution that has proven itself in over its 91-year history has stood the test of time. Thank you very much for your time.

Hello. Yeah, please call Jerry. Okay, thank you. My name is Jerry Fast. I chair the Association Presidents Group representing 19 Vancouver Community Center Associations. I am a resident of Vancouver. I speak in opposition to the motion, in particular, the list of five community centers you have identified for renewal. First, I would like to thank Council for committing $400 million for the renewal of some of our aging community center facilities. much needed. Our objection concerns the five centers you have identified for renewal. These five as a group are not the centers identified as the five priorities for renewal in the community center strategy completed in 2022. Community center presidents worked closely for over many months with park board staff and a specialist consulting firm to do an exhaustive in-depth study of each center. I think the team did a brilliant job of creating an objective evidence based basis for prioritizing renewals by identifying four guiding principles and 14 criteria to give expression and guidance for the application of these principles in each community center context. Numerical values were assigned to each criterion. and an overall numerical score was assigned to each center. From this detailed analysis, the top five centers identified for renewal are Hastings, Kensington, Renfrew, Strathcona, and Thunderbird. It is noteworthy that all five are located in East Vancouver. This result confirms the analysis in the 2019 Van Play Master Plan. which showed that there has been, historically, a serious underfunding of community center infrastructure in East Vancouver. Only two Eastside centers are on your list. Two others are on the list of 11 centers identified, but are much further down as priorities. And one of your centers is not even on the list of 11. None of these three associations were consulted before this decision was made. All three associations support the community center strategy priorities. We were disappointed to hear Mayor Sim claim that the data in the strategy is outdated. The complex and nuanced analysis in the 600-page strategy report has not changed. The same centers identified there are the priorities for renewal today. We want an objective evidence-based method for identifying priorities for community-centered renewal. We do not want decisions about major infrastructure investments based on political considerations. For the communities left out, this looks like favoritism and special treatment. We ask that you reconsider your priorities for renewal to align with the strategy.

Presidents are upset that the many months of work given to developing an evidence-based strategy has been ignored by Council. Thank you for your consideration.

Yes, good afternoon, Chair and Council, Mayor and staff. Yeah, I'm speaking mostly in opposition to this motion. I feel that the amount, you know, $400 million put towards the capital plan for renewal of community centres is not enough and i'd also like to point out that earlier on everyone was talking about how you know the park board should have its own jurisdiction its own say so i think it's kind of interesting this feels a little bit like putting the proverbial cart before the horse to do this kind of motion this way instead of consulting with staff and the park board as i think was at least the practice when i was on the park board yes i'm a resident of vancouver former park board commissioner um sorry i forgot to say that just kind of got home after spending part of the day there at city hall um yes and so i think that that basically you know it as um you know uh jerry fast just mentioned it uh you know corrupts the list that we spent so much effort you know during my term creating that list of priorities and in this new list uh basically pretty much ignores all that groundwork that we did for for at least a couple of years to to get that uh lined up um yeah so so I think we could also do more like if you're if you're gonna fund this like fund it to the tune of you know 800 million to a billion you know more in line with what the park board uh has has asked for and uh yeah I think I think it would be better to uh not get into motions on the capital plan until internal discussions have been concluded between the two boards. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Marjorie Duda, and I'm a Vancouver resident representing the Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association. We're not in favour of the proposed motion as it stands. I'm here to speak about Mount Pleasant Pool in the context of the 2027-2030 capital plan. We've been advocating for this project since 2003, long before it closed in 2009. That's over two decades of plans, reports, and repeated assurances that it's coming. And yet, here we are again, with no mention of Mount Pleasant Pool in the current plan before Council. What's difficult right now is not just the delay, it's the uncertainty, as it's not in alignment with long-standing priorities in the aquatic strategy, which Mount Pleasant Pool is featured prominently in. At the same time, new aquatic proposals are being introduced, and communities are left wondering what happens to projects that have already been planned and prioritized. Mount Pleasant Pool is ready. It is approved in a permanent designated park. It requires no costly land acquisition and has gone through extensive consultation. This means it can be delivered relatively quickly, providing a much-needed public amenity that years of time and resources have gone into planning for. Sidelining the aquatic strategy risks further delays, not just for this project but for many others, including the new ones that have just been introduced and would need years of planning to reach this stage. The motion notes that the last new full-service indoor public pool was built in 2011. But it's important to recognize that the only three remaining outdoor swimming pools in Vancouver were originally built in the 1930s. Meanwhile, five outdoor pools that were built in the 50s and 60s have been demolished and not replaced. So no new pools, only fewer pools. As a result, Vancouver is now the most underserved major city in Canada for outdoor swimming pools. This is an essential investment in a fast-growing community that is weighted and continues to rely on aging, hard-to-access facilities that no longer meet demand. It's an opportunity to provide cooling and recreation within the city's net zero emissions policy and much needed access to public washrooms that are lacking in this community park. This project creates equitable access for people who do not have private alternatives or even access to the aging waterfront pools that are at continued risk of damage from sea level rise. Mount Pleasant Pool should not continue to be deferred or lost in shifting priorities. as it benefits the broader community, not only Mount Pleasant. We're asking Council to ensure that established commitments like Mount Pleasant Pool, with 20 years of plans and promises, are included for capital funding so that we can begin to address the aquatic services gap and the inequities identified in the aquatic strategy. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for your time.

These are valuable public assets, but without a reinvestment and modern strategy, performance declines and opportunity is lost. And that matters because capital investment and revenue strategy must work together. So I'll close with this. We have the roadmap. It needs alignment between planning, funding, and execution. That's where success will come from. We need to follow it properly and with discipline. Thank you.

Thank you, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this motion. My name is Amir Bajekian. I am a resident of Olympic Village for the past 14 years, and I want to speak in opposition to this motion. As many of my fellow Vancouverites in this meeting said, this motion is not in line with the priorities already set in the community center engaged strategies as prepared by the park board. And to me, what matters is that we got to follow procedures and we got to set our priorities right and we got to talk about what's missing. So the procedure, I think it's the right way to go about these things is that you've got to start from the park ward where the expertise lies and where they engage the stakeholders, which includes the community center associations. They analyze where the growth is, where the needs are. And with the status of our current infrastructure, when we see crumbling infrastructure in this city, it's a ticking time bomb. And if we don't follow proper procedure, it would be impacting all of us. So it is very surprising to see that Roundhouse, Harrisdale, and Dunbar are there, while Renfrew is not listed, despite being listed as a priority for the community center upgrades and renewal. And we're talking about renewal, not just... which can mean anything. Just a new paint can be renovation. I would like to also mention about what's missing. Like we talked about the washrooms. Just one personal example of what could be in this motion, but it's not, is I live in Olympic Village and my father stays with me, a 17 to 7-year-old senior man, who takes daily walks from Olympic Village all the way to Granville Island. And he's a cancer patient, and there's no washroom, not even a single public washroom in that path. Another example that could be covered is covered space in parks, but it's not there. And the last one that many people mentioned is... you know, the 50-meter pool. But that's not in this plan either. So I would like to ask this council to reject this motion, to defer all these decisions to the motion that has already been voted by the park board, and let's do things the right way. The park board is delegated to do that. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Speaker 23 is Bin Chuan.

Dear Mr. Chair, I am Binh Tran, chairman of the Vietnamese Cultural Activity Center, founding member of the Little Saigon Vancouver Foundation, and member of the Vietnamese community in Vancouver, most established on 80 decade on 20th century. And for a long time, after we landed on the Vancouver soil, Vietnamese like me try to learn and working hard to afford the basic things for life. But most important, we found our Canadian society with multicultural legacy. Give us happy life and opportunity to develop better life standards. In the same way, sometimes our community keeps the traditional activity to join the multicultural legacy of Canada. In 2013, with help of MLA, PM, and Vancouver City Council, we succeeded to take the name Little Saigon Vancouver Foundation for the business area on Kingsway between Fraser Street and 9th Street. In 2017, we succeeded to stand the Vietnamese boat people statue on the McAuley Park on the corner of Kingsway and Fraser Street. But in over 46 years being in Vancouver, Vietnamese community still no home. Until now, in 46 years, we still rent home from correction center. render hall from Italy Center, render hall from Polish Hall for traditional activity like Lunar New Year Festival, Lantern Children Festival, and Vietnamese Ancestor Commemoration, et cetera. In general, in 46 years, Vietnamese community has been a homeless community. Longest time homeless in Vancouver history. Today, it might be a good day for us while Vancouver City Council take a look on an idea and project back to basic, back to community.

Right now, outside of the Vancouver City building, Cherry Tree Blossom make Vancouver becoming the beautiful city in the world. Back to basic. Back to community. We fertilize the crops of the Vancouver society in near future. Because community society is the heart of the multicultural legacy. And the least, but not least, our Vietnamese community. We have the home. We will have the home, and our home, and our homeless status will be push back to the history. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bing.

Yes. Thank you, chair and council, for giving us an opportunity to speak on this motion. uh my name is paul cheng i'm the first vice president from the renfrew park community association we support the principle that many of our community centers are aging undersized and struggling to keep pace with population growth and indeed the need for discipline prioritization And we're glad to see community centers like Hastings and Kensington also identified by Park Board in their comprehensive community center strategy 2022 as priorities for renewal. But we are confused and where we now speak in opposition to the motion. But Renfrew, which ranked priority number two under that same report, was not even mentioned or include in the city list at all. I also want to highlight that last July, Vancouver City Council had approved the Rupert and Renfrew SkyTrain Station area development plan. The development allows for significant density, including towers up to 45 stories of potential for 10,000 new homes. In early January, the city also approved zoning changes for six-story multifamily residence building covering a large area surrounding both stations. And our community centers, it's just within a few blocks between these two stations. I spoke at council meeting about our challenges at that time and the impact that development will have on our center. Now, we rank number two under the Park Board renewal for many reasons. We serve a neighborhood of over 50,000 residents. Our center was 62 years old. We have a serious seismic risk as we are situated next to Still Creek. We have three elementary school and a high school within walking distance. Our programs are consistently full and we have a water leak in the building that we cannot fix. So was Council thinking that there would be development funding for Renfrew Community Centers instead? But we do know that the community amenity funds were not available and the amenity cost charges will be very limited indeed. I'm a volunteer and our goal is to serve our community needs and we need to plan for these pending population expansion with our already old and congested building. I would ask the city to reconsider and work with Park Board to prioritize the list and put Renfrew back on and enable us to support the health and the growth of the Renfrew Collingwood area. So thank you for this opportunity to raise our concern. I just want to add this little note in closing. As an apolitical citizen, I observed earlier a discussion about park board responsibility, funding of the lifeguard. I'm just very curious, and there's a bit hypocritical there, why park board is not included in prioritizing the community center's renewals.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Katie Finley.

I'm not a resident of Vancouver. I'm a business owner.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Katie Finley, and I'm the founder of Vancouver Performing Stars, better known as VPF. Since 2012, VPS has been a community staple, providing high-caliber arts training to over 1,500 students weekly across our city's community centers and our own ADC Black Box Theater and Performing Arts Center in Mount Pleasant. I want to take this opportunity to thank city staff, the Parks Board, and this council. Your belief in VPS has allowed us to bring accessible, high-caliber performing arts programs to every corner of Vancouver. I speak to you today. As a facility operator who knows the fundamental truth, quality drives demand, and that should be accessible to all. For 15 years, VPS has provided anchored programming in centers like Kensington, Hastings, and Renfrew Park. I've seen firsthand how these aging spaces can fail to serve families and generate revenue. I support the prioritization of these rebuilds and the transition to construction phase, ensuring that these essential facility improvements move beyond the planning stage and become a reality in this capital plan. By working with proven community anchors to create high spec multi-use venues, you are investing in assets that are revenue positive from day one. Your motion for the 2027-2030 capital plan identifies an urgent need for discipline prioritization. I believe that by working with proven community anchors to create high spec multi-use venues, you are investing in assets that are revenue positive from day one. By including technical specs in a multi-use space, such as sprung floors, acoustic soundproofing, mirrors with black curtains, lighting, and retractable seating, you transform a generic multipurpose room into an ordinary studio for use of after-school programs into a premium venue for theater companies, school productions, school groups, improv troops, film rentals, specialized programs, and even weddings. We must also address the economic reality of today's families. With rising costs, parents increasingly prioritize high-caliber programming in modern environments. In an era of full-time employment and subsidized childcare, families require significant lead time to manage budgets and logistics. I would like to see creative activation of these renewed spaces through year-round youth programming, flexible rental options and users, and adaptable registration models. I'd also like to urge Council to expand the current motion to include Kitsilano Show Boat in the Kitsilano Pool replacement. We see an immense opportunity to preserve this cultural gem by integrating a modernized weather-protected stage that features a multi-use backstage studio. Such a facility would serve as the year-round revenue engine for arts organizations like CPS, providing stability needed to directly subsidize and protect the Show Boat's beloved free summer season for generations to come.

We must ensure these centers are built to serve as the high-functioning, revenue-positive hubs our city needs.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, this is Andrea.

Sorry, I'm just on the bus right now, but I'm hopping off in a minute. My name is Andrea. I'm a Vancouver resident in Hastings Sunrise, and I spend a lot of time at the Hastings Community Center, usually two or three times a week at the fitness center and the occasional event there as well. I love my community center. and it's also in very real need uh renewal it's in the basement of the fitness center is in the basement of the building uh split between two rooms the weight room is at capacity most of the time and the need for a bigger space uh more and upgraded equipment and a more functional for the space is very apparent to me every time i'm there i'm really pleased to hear that the vancouver to commit 400 million dollars to the renewal of pacing and and rent through. But I guess I was confused by Mayor Simms' announcement that the $400 million would be designated for Roundhouse, Carisdale, and Dunbar as well. And removing rent through seemed kind of confusing to me. And I guess I'm concerned that Hastings Community Center is also at risk of losing designated funds. The Park Board recommendations are in line with the community center strategy report from 2022 which came out of a lengthy consultation process i'm concerned that in this election year financial commitments are being made for political reasons rather than in keeping with the recommendations from the strategy from the strategy report and the parks board that are based on well demonstrated community needs so i just want to call on City Council to commit to prioritizing the rebuilding of Hastings Community Center as well as Renfrew and Kensington as recommended and to ensure that the city's financial designations reflect this commitment. Thanks for your time.

Hello. I'm Anthony Abrahams, founder of Kits Pool Swimmers. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to talk. I want to emphasize the global significance of Kits Pool and the strategic importance of its renewal within the 2027-2030 capital plan. Kits Pool Swimmers is a grassroots, volunteer-led community group formed to honor and enhance the Kits Pool experience. With thousands of supporters and a collaborative relationship with the City of Vancouver and its Parks Board, the group is committed to ensuring that the renewal of Kitts Pool honors this experience and elevates its legacy. Our vision is to create the greatest swimming pool experience in the world, open year-round and powered by architectural innovation and sustainable technologies. We believe Kitts Pool and its surroundings can become the signature image of the City of Vancouver, akin to the Sydney Opera House. Kitspool is more than a swimming facility. It's a civic icon, a global landmark, and a public asset that embodies the spirit of Vancouver. At 137.5 meters, Kitspool is the longest outdoor saltwater pool in North America, a defining feature of the city's identity, and a point of pride for generations of residents and visitors. The Kitspool experience cannot be replicated. Its length, oceanfront setting, and history create a distinctive and irreplaceable destination. Transforming Kitts Pool to a year-round operation is a smart, future-focused investment in both community well-being and city infrastructure. By maximizing the use of an already iconic facility, we ensure that the public dollars go further, delivering greater return on investment, increasing access, and relieving pressure on other overcapacity aquatic centers in the city. A year-round KITS pool transforms seasonal underutilization into continuous community benefit, making it a cornerstone of equitable, efficient, and sustainable planning. The theme, 137.5, represents both the length of the pool and our shared commitment to go the distance in its renewal. This defining dimension is critical not only to preserving the physical identity of the pool, but also to protecting the exceptional swimming experience it offers. Go the distance is our rallying cry to honor the kids pool experience and push beyond conventional limits in the pool's renewal. We believe that renewal is not just about replacement. It's about building a visionary future that honors what kids pool is and what it can become. The renewal of Kits Pool is an opportunity to create a showcase, not just of architecture and technology, but of civic collaboration. This collaboration can deliver an outcome that neither of us could achieve alone. A world-class facility that reflects the values, creativity, and aspirations of the City of Vancouver. The Kits Pool renewal can be a beacon of civic ambition, innovation, sustainability, and inclusion. Kitspool's renewal is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for you all to make a decision on. Working together, we can make this project a global model for city-community partnerships, and the outcome will shape the city's landscape, reputation, and community experience for the next 75 years.

Thank you very much.

Only for myself.

Dear Mayor and Councillors, the Vietnamese Association was established in 1980, five years after the fall of South Vietnam, into the hands of the communist regime. I am representing the Little Saigon Vancouver Foundation and would love to ask the support of all councillors for the $100,000 to build the interior of the Vietnamese Cultural Center. For 45 years, we always have to rent any space available in Vancouver to organize the Lunar New Year and the seven events yearly.

We also using the place to buy, sorry, we also using the money to buy the equipment, tables, chairs, books for the Vietnamese class in the Vietnamese cultural center. Your incredible support for us in Vietnam. our Vietnamese community will be deeply appreciated. Thank you so much. Linh Nguyen. Thank you, Linh. Okay, speaker 29 is Matt Penn.

Matt? Okay, we're going to come back. Speaker 30 is Jaspreet Verdi.

Hi, everyone. My name is Jas Verde, and I'm a Park Board Commissioner, and I'm proud to rise in strong support of this motion, and in particular, the long overdue investment in a new swimming pool at Sunset. For years, residents in South Van have spoken with clarity and consistency. They are asking for a modern, accessible recreational facility, and a pool at Sunset remains at the top of the list. It's not a nice to have. It's an essential infrastructure. Pools are where children learn life-saving skills. They are where seniors maintain their health, mobility, and social connection. They are where families, especially dense, growing neighborhoods, can access affordable health and recreation close to home. Yet today, that access is not equitable across the city. Sunset lost its pool with a clear promise for its return, and later they lost the pool at YMCA. And still the replacement has not materialized. The gap is not just an inconvenience, it's a failure to deliver on a commitment that was made long ago. The Park Board has already recognized this need.

I moved a motion last year for a pool at sunset, and it was supported by all the commissioners, and it was passed. And various community members wrote in support of this. There were members of Parliament. There were members of the Legislative Assembly. There was the Sunset Community Center, Langara College, seniors groups, local temples, the Punjabi Market Collective, and SVNH, the South Vancouver Neighborhood House, just to name a few. And the demand continues to grow. In just a short time, the Sunset Pool Coalition has about 3,500 signatures, and that was just started a couple days ago. And to those who suggest South Vancouver is not an underserved area, I suggest you drive through the area, you see the parks, you see the facilities there, and compare them to the rest of the city.

This is why the motion for the $400 million investment is such an inspiring and significant one, and it comes at the right time. This is a historic commitment. It's unprecedented in its scale, but equally important, and it is achievable. Only weeks ago, I saw a motion for $1.43 billion, and it was an ask at Parks and Recreation for infrastructure. While this is ambitious, it came without a clear and credible funding plan. There was little discussion on where this money was going to come from. Was it going to come from increased property taxes? Was it going to be borrowing? But this plan is realistic, and it comes with a plan. And we know money is going to come, and it's… That's your time, Josh. Sorry, that's it? Yeah, that's your time.

Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you all for this opportunity. My name is Amar Randhawa. I'm a board member with South Asian Community Hub. I'm also someone who's been involved quite deeply in the recovery community in Vancouver. But more so, I'm a lifelong Vancouverite, born and raised in East Vancouver, Southeast Vancouver. Kensington Community Centre, you know, was our community centre when we were kids. We'd walk up that street and we'd jump in that pool there. We'd ride around those parks, ride our bikes on those streets. So I'm coming here today to speak in strong favor, you know, to support the Sunset Pool, but more so on the bigger piece around the investment in community centers. Community centers are the heart, you know, of our community. In a time, I believe, personally, you know, where health and wellness, you know, is a priority for a healthy community, for a strong community, these are the investments that should be made, and they should continue to be supported by all members of council. You know, we're facing unprecedented times, as many of you know as elected officials, with, you know, economic headwinds all over the place, uncertainty, you know, throughout communities. But that's a time, you know, when we know that supporting our communities through, you know, investments in health and wellness is critical. So, you know, as I mentioned, you know, as the speaker before me, Jazz, mentioned, you know, it's not just a pool and it's not just a... community center it is our community you know i have my young two young kids now who i raise and we had all these community centers and uh and that's the places where you know we can be without uh you know um the distractions that are out there you know day and night and as i mentioned in the onset you know i i do work uh you know and i don't say work it's more service to many, many individuals who are going through many struggles in their life at this moment, through mental health, through addiction, through other pieces, housing, you know, myriad of issues. And, you know, I see it day to day when they go to the community center and they have that space there, you know, how much it helps them, you know, as well too, right? And so I'm not here to get into the nuances of, you know, the divide in certain areas or certain neighbourhoods. But I'm here just as a person who's, you know, as I mentioned, a lifelong Vancouverite and who's got a deep love for this city and someone who's, you know, involved in the ecosystem of mental health and wellness. And so the support for the Sunset Pool and the larger, you know, initiatives around the community centers is critical and needed and hopefully supported by all you guys and everyone here.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate the time.

Speaker 32 is Jason McGarry.

Speaker 32 is not on the line.

So I'm really hoping that, you know, the mayor has indicated that he values the work. Okay, I just want to see the mayor.

I just want to see if there's interest to extend to finish the speakers.

Oh, Councillor Kerbion, please go ahead. Yeah, I know that we queue up speakers, and it's always awkward when we have a flow and we kind of break for dinner, but given that they seem to be pacing quite quickly, and we're going quite well, and there were some folks queued up, I would support extending to complete the speakers, Chair.

Sure, I'll move that for Council's consideration.

Okay, so we have to reconsider the previous motion. We need to retract or...

Okay. Okay, so let's do that. So am I correct? You want me to make a motion to reconsider the previous motion first?

Do you need to be on the queue? No, that sounds weird. So let's do a recorded vote. Chair, can you restate what this... Sorry, Sean. Sorry, Sean. I'm confusing you with the point of procedure. Sorry. Point of order. I think you're right. Point of procedure.

I'm just wondering if the... This is Councillor Blank. Is the point of...

Chair, I'm just wondering if you can please restate what we're voting on. We need to do a recess.

Okay, so you need to let us know which section that is violated, and then we can rule out of the order thing.

Okay, correct. Do we need to take a recess for this? No, you can determine.

Okay, procedurally, what do we should do? Let us know.

I'm in conflict of interest.

Okay, so let's take a break and let's come back at 6.40.

but there's something clerks can we just get clarification are we on a dinner break

Okay. Hello. This is the city moderator. We will be returning at 640. Thank you. Yeah, it's already 6.

Yeah.

Hi, Tamara. Can you hear me now?

Hi, Tamara. Can you hear me now? Hello?

Hi. Yes, I can hear you now. Okay.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Okay, thank you. My name is Linda Dallow, and I'm a member of the Hastings Sunrise Community, and I'm a board member on the Hastings Community Association. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for this opportunity to speak. I echo a lot of what others have said, including Aaron Jasper and Yuko Avorma and several others. um i support the rebuild of async's community center however i don't support this particular motion 3 as it stands because of the fact that it doesn't align with the community center strategy plan for the 20 27 20 30 capital plan um I was greatly encouraged by the Park Board passing a recommendation to commit $400 million in the next capital plan for the renewal of three community centers, namely Hastings, Kensington, and Ren Group. This was in line with the community center strategy report. However, I'm concerned that $400 million is not sufficient enough to rebuild five community centers that were listed, and these community centers are not the same ones that were in the strategy plan. So I'm a little bit concerned. In general, I want to make sure that the async is completely rebuilt because our community is growing massively with lots of new builds, multiplexes, high rises, et cetera. The center is almost 90 years old, and we really need a larger, safer facility with more capacity for future growth. so anyways sorry i'm actually just outside of the meeting at the news center right now um so anyways i just wanted to say that um i don't agree with the motion standing as it is and uh would like to see it referred back to park board uh especially in regards to the list of community centers that are being focused on um it's only fair that the strategy plan be followed as such And yeah, that's about it. Thank you for letting us speak to this.

Hello. My name is Sasha Burton, and I live in the Renfrew neighborhood, which is situated on unseated Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh territories. And my position on this motion is other. I'm calling today to bring further attention to the list of community centers highlighted by Council for investment in this capital plan, as well as to the scale of investment that's required. In my day job, I advocate for evidence-backed policy that would improve quality of life for people living below the poverty line in BC. And I can say with confidence that robust investment in community centers is a worthwhile endeavor. These spaces provide low and no-cost opportunities for people to gather year-round while strengthening connection between neighbors and improving access to exercise, food security, and personal development. While the $400 million for community centers in this capital plan is a significant and commendable sum, it falls far short of the $1.4 billion in renewal funds that the Park Board has recommended to Council. It's crucial to acknowledge that while all community center doors are open to residents from across the city, there are spaces, particularly in South and East Vancouver, that are more often used by low- and moderate-income households. There's an obvious and unfortunate discrepancy between the community centers that the Park Board and community center associations have deemed as the most urgently in need of renewal and the centers that are prioritized in this motion. In particular, Thunderbird Community Center, Strathcona Community Center, and the Renfrew Community Center are all left out of this proposed capital plans investment strategy, despite being three of the top five community centers in need of investment and renewal. As I mentioned, I'm a resident of the Renfrew neighborhood, and I'm a regular at my community center. I've seen firsthand that our community center is where my neighbors get together to swim, dance, play soccer, practice yoga, share meals, and blow off steam. And I know that the Renfrew community center is a well-loved and well-used space, but it needs improvement. Our community centers are where we pop our isolated bubbles and remind ourselves what it's like to live, grow, and break a sweat alongside our neighbors. People in Renfrew, Strathcona, and Hastings-Sunrise deserve spaces that will continue to meet our needs, as do residents across East and South Vancouver, whose community centers and spaces have not made it into this plan. The City's capital plan must ensure investments are made where they are most needed, not just where it's politically convenient. I urge Council to reassess your list of priority spaces to more directly align with community need, and I echo the call to refer this motion back to staff. It's imperative that council heeds the guidance of your colleagues on Park Board, listens to community center associations, and works to meet the needs of the people who use these aging and vital community spaces. It's council's job to meet the needs of the many, not this fall's most likely voters.

Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 36, Jim Jones.

Am I on, please? Yes, please go ahead, Jim. Oh, great. Thank you. Hi. Good evening, councillor and mayors. I'm Jim Jones. I am a resident of Vancouver. I'm vice president of the Vancouver Field Sports Federation, the VFSF. I'm speaking today on behalf of our members and delegates representing 14 different amateur field sports and 25,000 plus amateur sport participants across the city of Vancouver. We are supportive of the 2027-2030 capital plan motion provided there are amendments to include the renewal and improvements of sports fields and park space in the city. VFSFF is a 20-plus year umbrella advocacy organization that works to improve the quality and quantity of organized amateur field support resources in Vancouver and to inform both the Parks Board and City Council policy and resource allocation procedures. We are very glad that the City Council motion and the Park Board motion of April 7th recognize that community infrastructure and facilities in Vancouver are aging and not being renewed and expanded to meet the growing city population. As our population increases and our limited facilities, including sports fields, are not renewed, it leads to limited playable sports field hours for Vancouver residents, both adults and children. Without additional capital investments, not all residents who want to be involved in amateur or recreational sports will be able to do so. We are glad that the Beaconsfield Park artificial turf upgrade is included in this motion today. The addition of a new artificial turf field with lighting will be very helpful to rectangular sports field users such as soccer, rugby, and even ultimate. It will significantly increase the number of playable weekly hours for these sports in Vancouver. It is appreciated. But as the only sports field project mentioned, we need to upgrade more existing gravel fields and artificial turf fields and renew existing park sports fields, grass and otherwise, to keep up with aging and decaying facilities. The City of Vancouver, via council decisions and park board decisions, has been underfunding sports fields and related park infrastructure projects in the past few years. We need to do more than just essential maintenance on our existing sports fields. And with population growth in Vancouver, we need park renewal projects to provide more sports fields in the same physical footprint. As outlined in the Park Board's sports field strategy in 2024, we request that funding be allocated for projects such as the future John Henry Trout Lake artificial turf field, the Columbia Park renewal, which includes a new sports field, a future cricket field at Douglas Park East, and improvements at existing grass sports fields. Considering that the beacon field sports field and related work will cost $9.8 million just for a single field, it's clear that a four-year capital plan needs to allocate more for sports field upgrade renewals. I suggest $40 million would be an excellent start. We realize that the Park Board manages park space and community sports fields in Vancouver, but City Council ultimately controls the capital plan. We've requested the Council support an amendment to clearly add sports fields and park space renewal to this motion. On behalf of the 25,000-plus amateur recreational outdoor sports participants in Vancouver, I thank you for your time.

Hi, thank you. This is Angela Hare, Vancouver Park Board Commissioner. Good afternoon or good evening. I'm here today, I'm supporting or expressing my support for moving this motion forward with funding for all facilities and infrastructure. I especially want to speak... about the sunset pool. So I would like you guys to move forward with the funding for an outdoor pool at sunset and to briefly place a historic record on file as well. The history of sunset outdoor pool is well documented. In the early 2000s, Vancouver Park Board adopted an aquatic renewal strategy that identified smaller outdoor pools, including sunset, for closure at the end of their functional lifespan. On January 29, 2007, a park board report confirmed this direction. That report also referenced the 2005 board resolution stating that if the Sunset community identified retaining an outdoor pool as a priority, staff would consider extending the life of existing pool and identifying capital funding for a replacement. On January 9, 2007, planning committee minutes recorded community concern. Residents expressed that they had not been given a meaningful opportunity to advocate for their pool and requested that an outdoor pool be considered in the future capital planning. Despite this, the pool was ultimately closed at the end of its lifespan. On November 16, 2015, the Sunset Park revised concept plan confirmed that public consultation continued to show strong interest in water amenities at Sunset. However, staff indicated that a... POOL WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED AT THE SITE AND WOULD INSTEAD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A BROADER AQUATIC STRATEGY. ON OCTOBER 28, 2019, THE VAN SLASH AQUATIC STRATEGY FORMALLY CONFIRMED THAT THE SUNSET OUTDOOR POOL HAD BEEN DECOMMISSIONED AT THE END OF ITS FUNCTIONAL LIFESPAN. On March 31st, 2025, the Park Board directed staff to review the historical context of the pool's removal, including any past commitments related to its replacement. So I know I am supporting this motion, but I wanted to highlight the pool at Sunset and how this community has been... I think they've... They've been not serviced properly. They were not heard and they lost a swimming pool. So I'm looking forward to a pool at sunset. And so the record shows that three things clearly that there was a policy decision to close the pool. There was consistent and documented community demand for water access and there was a stated pathway to consider replacement. What we are considering today is not new. It is a continuation of a longstanding community request, and this is an opportunity to follow through. So I do support this motion. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Cushing. I'm a Vancouver resident representing myself in opposition to the motion as currently written. First, thank you to staff and elected officials at both City Hall and Park Board for your work on the capital plan. It's a critical process for moving the past four years of decisions into implementation. I also appreciate the increased attention to the need to fund recreation infrastructure. However, that funding should not come at the expense of Park Board authority and independence, nor should it undermine the significant public engagement that has already shaped priorities. As an avid follower of the Park Board for at least a decade, I've listened to countless staff presentations and public speakers. Park Board has developed detailed strategies grounded in data, comparative research, and extensive public input. Those documents already establish clear priorities and should remain the foundation for decision-making. By naming specific projects in this motion, Council risks signaling that these ad hoc directions carry more weight than existing work. It also risks pitting different communities and recreation groups against each other when some are named and others are not. Both Sunset Park and Mount Pleasant pools are long-promised, and deserve funding. Listing one but not the other creates uncertainty and competition. My request is straightforward. Please amend the motion to explicitly prioritize alignment with existing park board strategies, policies, and approved plans. In particular, I'm concerned about the naming of priority community center renewal. The community center strategy found that 11 of 27 community centers need urgent renewal. In prioritizing these 11, additional factors including equity and population growth were considered. This approach seeks to maximize the impact of investment in areas historically underfunded by the city and increases service levels in densifying areas. The two community centers named as your top priorities are neither in equity initiative zones nor growth areas. Rather than picking alternate priorities, I ask that you support either the priorities in the strategy or the 14-point criteria by which they were selected and simply update the analysis. More broadly, at this stage in the capital planning process, specifying individual projects is unnecessary and inefficient. High-level direction, such as investment in pools and washrooms, is inappropriate. Project-level prioritization... should remain grounded in established plans and technical analysis led by the organization with jurisdiction, the Park Board. Parks and recreation facilities are nearing a crisis. Solving it will take cooperation between the Park Board and City Hall. This capital plan is an important opportunity to signal a willingness to work together. But as written, the motion could deepen jurisdictional and bureaucratic arguments. I hope you will put aside operational details and direct staff to ensure sufficient capital funding for the shared priorities of Council, Park Board, and Vancouverites. Thank you for your time.

Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Tracy Bestland-Bonnie, and I am a resident of Vancouver and co-chair of the Broadview Community Association. I am here to express BCA's strong support for keeping a properly designed, accessible spray park at Broadview Park in the 2027-2030 capital plan. Broadview Park is a well-used community hub for neighborhood families, including Harborview Daycare. The waiting pool has been a much-loved part of summer for many years, and it is now at the end of its useful life. Our community needs a meaningful replacement and a properly designed accessible spray park to provide an important summer water feature for local children and families. I also want to express support for the Hastings Community Center remaining a priority and receiving a full funding needed for an appropriate complete rebuild. Hastings is our local community center and an essential part of community life. It provides recreation programs and gathering spaces for all ages. The city should continue to follow the community center strategy and invest based on established need and objective criteria. Thank you.

No, not on the line. Speaker 17, Michelle Martinez.

Yes.

Yes, Speaker 17 is on the line.

Good evening. My name is Michelle McInnis, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. I do not support the renewal of the five community centers. I do, however, support the capital budget that the Vancouver Parks Board presented to the city recommending the three community centers, Hastings, Renfrew, and Kensington. My roots in the cities run deep. My grandparents lived in the Hastings community. I'm not certain if my Nana used the amenities at the Hastings Community Centre. My family, my neighbours, and my friends all do. Hastings Sunrise is a rapidly growing neighbourhood, rich in cultural diversity. As our population expands, so must our amenities. We need a community centre that we can keep pace with our evolving needs. A space that is welcoming and accessible to all ages, backgrounds, and interests. The community center is more than just a building. It is a gathering place in a neighborhood where teenagers meet friends after school, toddlers learn through play, families celebrate milestones, and seniors participate in wellness programs. The community center provides exercise opportunities, social connections, and educational offerings that help everyone thrive. Hastings Community Centre has ample outdoor park space. The tennis courts to the west are long overdue for a refresh. The Hastings Little League baseball field on the east side is a cherished venue for our young athletes. In the 2022 Community Centre Strategy Report, over 500 pages thoroughly reviewed the community centres across Vancouver. Hastings Community Centre sits at the top of the list, urgently requiring renewal. This is not just about the brick and mortar. It's about investing in our collective well-being and ensuring everyone has access to safe, modern spaces. We need a community centre to enjoy cultural events and a modern space to celebrate milestones. We need a new facility for our children and teens. where they can play and discover new things. A center with programs that come together to all cultural backgrounds and making everyone feel welcome. I urge each and every one of you to look closely at the needs of our community, consider the funding, and think what is investment means of the Hastings Sunrise future. I ask that our neighborhood gets the new community center we deserve. Investing in the new community center is not only a commitment to our present, but a promise to our future generations. Thank you for your attention and support.

Thank you. You don't do that. Speaker 20 is not online. I was telling you that my speech is done.

Not on the line. Speaker 32, Jason McGarry.

Hello?

Okay yeah hi my name is Jason McGarry I'm a resident of Vancouver and I don't support the motion in its form I do support it in principle but in its original form as presented April 21st 2022 with the uh top five that were recommended but particularly Hastings Renfrew and Kensington um those are the three that were prioritized with much consultation between community center associations the public as well as the park board and uh city staff uh refm and those were the three that were considered at the highest needs i don't know how these other three made it into there i think it's mostly to garner some votes for ken sims unfortunately A complete rebuild is the priority, I think, that should be done for Hastings Community Centre, and there's a vacant lot at the corner of Hastings and Renfrew that is perfectly suitable. You can build it as high as you want and add multiple floors for different facilities, possibly a couple floors for childcare, a couple maybe for seniors, some Indigenous groups, and have parking down below, free parking for... people in the neighborhood attending and also include some low-income housing why not make it a whole community hub the properties there the plans are in place it should something that could be implemented sooner than later uh thank you for your time that's all i have to say thank you speaker fortis tash singh joe hall

and also includes some low-income housing. Why not make it a whole community hub? We have properties there. The plans are in place. It should be something that could be implemented. Thank you for your time. That's all I have to say.

Speaker 40 is not on the line.

Yeah, before we get into discussion, I'd like to move this as out of order. Under 8.7A and 8.7B... And if you would like, I would like to describe why. Yes, please. Proposing these community centers is in direct conflict with the city's ODP. In policy FG1.10.2, the mandate is the city prioritize equity-focused service improvement planning in areas of the city with the highest unmet need. The Vancouver Plan also used the same language. in L1.9.2.

It specifically labels Dunbar, Carisdale, and Roundhouse as opportunity areas, which basically means that there's lots of existing services and amenities and a low concentration of renter households. The ODP says... that the priority for opportunity areas is creating more rental housing and affordable options, which isn't what this plan proposes. So this is basically bypassing ODP requirements to prioritize public investment in priority areas. It's 400 million being directed against the ODP. The ODP also specifically states that the status quo approaches will not solve the city's problems. And also in terms of the rule of law, good governance, and geographic equity, the Vancouver Charter says that development and investment must not be contrary to or at variance with the ODP.

Thank you. So let's take five minutes recess so we can rule this.

Okay.

All right, so we need to get Councillor Carpiano here.

Okay.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I wanted to provide a couple of comments. First of all, thank all the speakers that we heard tonight, and I think given by the fact that we have such interest in our community facilities, it really attests to how important they are. There was a number of comments that were raised by speakers, and I thought it would be helpful to provide... some clarifying information. First of all, we had one speaker that talked about the importance of renewing Kitts Pool. Absolutely concur with that. Council will recall there was a previous motion brought forward by Mayor Sim and I, which was roundly supported by Council to ensure that that is included in the upcoming capital plan, so that previous direction exists. With respects to conversations or comments around the facility condition announcement, yes, a lot of our community centers are in need of some TLC and Levin investment, and we can't do them all in one plan. This proposes a significant investment instead of the previous kind of one per capital plan to do five. It was based objectively on the most recent FCI, or Facility Condition Index, which is produced by the RFM, or Real Estate Facilities Management Team, for those who don't know. which serves both the park board and the city of their assets. In the April 6th to 10th council correspondence, all of council received the most recent FCI facility condition index report, and that is really what the selection of community centers is based on. That not only indicates the severity, the state of it, good, fair, poor, et cetera, the severity of deterioration, but it also looks at, identifies where they're located geographically. It also looks at the usage in terms of drop-in visits, things like program wait lists, et cetera. And if you look at that data that all of council received, it is the most recent, and a number of the speakers may not have access to the most recent one. Perhaps they're working on previous information. But it does clearly support the selection of the five community centers that are proposed here. It does not mean that the others are not worthy candidates for investment and renewal. And in fact, they are. We need to move forward, which is why I said this is the first of a significant investment. And if council decides to take this bold move. direction now and sort of accelerate the pace of community centers, then we would be able to renew a next batch of them in the subsequent capital plan after that. So I thought that was important to articulate. It's really sort of the objective empirical data and the assessment by staff that suggests this. It is based on that. an ongoing, a long-standing community input. It is not a political assessment. And in fact, I think happenstance, we end up with some community centers that go sort of east, west, and north, south when you look at the renewal in terms of that. Renfrew specifically, well, again, a candidate came in, I think, at about a 10% on the index, whereas others were about 45% to 57% in favor of renewal in terms of the condition, or I should say, perhaps deterioration is a better phrase for the center. So That's sort of the factual empirical basis for some of the information.

With respect, the other comment I'll say we heard from things like the Field Sports Federation, this does contemplate inclusion for Beaconsfield Park. And again, this is not the entire capital plan, which is about $3 billion. This is a $400 million envelope for community centers. But there will also be in that capital plan investment in park renewal and other components. that comes forward naturally as a matter of course. So we'll see some of that work coming forward as well. And I thought I'll leave it there for now because I'm sure there'll be additional comments, but I thought it'd be helpful to provide some of that perspective. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks very much, Chair. And just thanks, Councillor Kirby, for the clarification. A lot of the speakers cited a 2022 report. It's four years later and we know that we've got more up to date information around the state of facilities and they very much align with the five that were prioritized at this particular point in time. And I know that really what we're seeing and have been sort of understanding from talking to people in community that this is really getting back to what matters most to Vancouver. and to people in communities. And a part of that is just really being really honest about the state of our infrastructure and particularly our community centers. The data we've seen makes it really clear. So we've got the Auditor General's report. Many of our facilities are decades old and poor condition and carrying significant deferred maintenance. At the same time, they're heavily used and in high demand. They literally are, as some speakers said, the heart of many communities. And they do add quality of life and in the case of older adults, longevity and their ability to have connections with their own community and keeping active. So when we talk about prioritization, it really just can't be based on anecdotes or old reports or individual preferences. It has to be grounded in objective measures, condition, age. usage and community need, which is something that Councillor Kirby-Young identified. And so that's exactly what this plan reflects. It's more of a disciplined approach to making sure we're investing where the need is greatest and where we can have the most impact across our neighbourhoods. And I understand there'll be a variety of views about which projects should move first, but what residents expect from us is not to do everything at once, but to make clear, transparent, and defensible choices. And I believe that those are embodied in this motion. And I think it not only aligns the investment choices aligned with real data, real demand, and the reality of the infrastructure needs that the city are facing today. And it reinforces that as our city grows and our city is definitely still growing, I mean, we're sort of experiencing some pressures on the capacity to develop right now, but we know that housing, those neighborhoods are gonna continue to evolve and grow. And that growth has to really be translated into our ability to develop and update recreation centers and other many aspects that are included. in this robust motion. So at its core, it's really about strengthening our communities through facilities, services, and infrastructure. And that's our goal is really to continue to make our city a vibrant place and bringing people together.

So this capital plan, I think, is grounded in real needs, real data, real priorities. And so I'm really very pleased to support moving forward on this one and getting back to community and letting Vancouverites have what they've been missing for, it feels like, a long, long time is up-to-date, state-of-the-art recreational facilities and other community amenities. Thanks a lot.

Yeah, thanks. Question through the chair to staff, I suppose. The feedback on this one was, in order to meet this objective, trade-offs will need to be made such as lower priority be assigned to investments in new infrastructure projects outside of municipal responsibility until senior governments restore funding commitments to levels sufficient to enable municipal investment. So that's, I'll ask what those trade-offs may be. And then there are areas of alignment or divergence between priorities previously directed by the park board and library board. Council can choose whether to fund or not fund park board and library board priorities. And staff know that appropriate due diligence will be required before specific costings can be confirmed for project budgets. As part of capital plan development, staff will assess funding availability and reasonable cost assumptions based on available information. And the draft capital plan may include recommendations to phase work or adjust scope. So I was wondering if you'd talk on the trade-offs, and I was wondering if you could talk on the costing, sort of maybe addressing some of the comments by Park Board Commissioner around the cost being 1 point, I think it was 1.2 million, and that we can't get five new renewals based on that costing. So I was wondering if you could kind of expand on that for me, please.

Thank you. Through the chair, if I can just lay the context out to say the last plan was the 2023 to 2026 plan based on an additional $400 million found for these recreation facilities. There will have to be trade-offs. So the last plan, for example, had $600 million in it for housing initiatives. Now, some of those are funded through a variety of sources, through CHIP grants, but some of those are through property tax funds that could be redeployed to areas within the city's jurisdiction, like rec centers. So those are the sort of trade-offs. Staff, you referenced the memo provided to Council, will be coming back to Council should this pass with a variety of... a proposed solution how to best fund that the second comment uh sorry i'm just writing checking my notes here your second comment I believe was on the costing package. So a lot of these, even within each of those projects, there's trade-offs. We'll have a large envelope should this pass from which to fulfill a variety of functions with each of those rec centers. I'd also note that there's a significant community engagement component that needs to be done. So it would be staff's understanding should this pass that we need to go out over the... coming months engage with the community and fill council's wishes within the funding up so those details will be worked out so thanks yeah i'll come back on with uh my final comments thanks council apply

Apologies, just coming off mute there. So I thank you very much and I appreciate the dialogue. I appreciate hearing from the speakers. Clearly there are multiple interpretations of where things stand with the analysis and the data that is supporting the facilities, the community centers and amenities that have been identified as being a top priority that are both That are in this motion, but also not in this motion and I have moved to referral amendment and. I'm moving this referral amendment, because I think that this motion. Whether there's a precedent already for council directing.

The work of park board, I mean, I think there is generally speaking, we've seen it even throughout this term, but I think. But I think that what I'd like to see is us uphold the framing that's in this motion, the priorities that are in this motion that maintain respect of Park Board's authority and decision-making power. I think this referral motion back to Park Board identifies Park Board as the decision-making... body to direct this work. We, as a council, can assign budget to the work, of course, but I do think... We lost you, Councillor Bligh. Oh, sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. So just to say that I think that this referral motion basically says to send back to Park Board to analyze the motion that's been put forward in the back to community establishing strategic priorities and then overlay that with an assessment of the condition and the capacity of service gaps in existing centers, as well as what we could be adding, like the sunset pool, and then ask Park Board to recommend priority projects. And I also think we should be looking at the bigger ask of over a billion dollars that has been identified and needed for infrastructure upgrades as it pertains to community center pools and amenities. And we need to start to plan multi... across multiple capital plans to make sure that every four years, you know, there isn't sort of a reset of what these priorities look like. And I think that's what has perhaps been frustrating for some of the speakers who signed up to speak that said that they were neither for or against this motion and that their position was other. And what they really want to see is, I think, what I heard, generally speaking, a clear plan. and a clear plan that maintains the authority of the park board. So I hope that this will be supported as a bridge, really a defensible bridge as we look at the capital plan process and really help us as council frame direction without dictating projects, which is really not our role.

So I hope it'll be supported and I'll leave it at that. And I suspect that was all in an amendment queue, Chair.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in opposition? Thanks, Northern Mayor. Thank you.

Please add yourself there.

OK, let's go ahead.

I'll second the... Second the Council of War. Okay, great. Yeah, I think it's... I mean, based on what we're hearing and based on picking winners and losers, I think this is a pretty well thought out motion to refer back to the community. It's... Yeah, I'm just looking it over now. It seems very thorough, and I think this is good governance and doing our due diligence here and really taking a hard look at our infrastructure and trying to find that data that Councillor Klassen was looking at. This would sort of, I assume, would come up with that because I haven't seen that data. So I'll support this. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks very much. Just a point of information through you, Chair, on that question, actually, that Councillor Orr was just alluding to. There has been some comments by Councillor Kirby-Young and Councillor Klassen that there is new data that has identified a different order of priority is really what I've inferred from this. Is that public information? Is this new data that seems to be referenced available for the public?

Point of information, Chair, through you to the City Manager. Yeah. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. No, this data has not been made public yet. It will be done so through proactive disclosure. It has gone out in the Q&A. Of course, they counseled the memo most recently on the capital plan. I believe it's on our website under the City Manager's memo. We'll include this Q&A response in a memo as well under the City Manager's heading as well.

So this motion is based on information that's not yet been shared with the public, but by adding it in this motion, we're essentially sharing it with the public, but it's not actually been shared.

That seems like a very odd order of things. Could you comment on that?

Yes, the data on usage and facilities was requested by a member of council, or I can't recall even which member of council, and was shared with all of council in the Q&A. The Q&A goes to all of council, and then if used often is included in a memo, which we share then more proactively. So we will do that, of course, after that. Okay, and I'm sorry if I missed it in the roundup of questions. Was it identified as confidential in that Q&A?

Sorry. And then this morning, this morning, Deputy City Manager Amroli sent a memo, I think, following a conversation with an additional council member that related to seismic information. So I wanted to make sure all of council had that information. That was sent this morning. Okay, but to my question at the Q&A, was that listed as confidential in the Q&A or was it available to share? That was not listed as confidential, that particular data. Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate the clarity. I got to say that it raises a lot of concerns for me that rightfully so, there's a lack of confidence, there's a lack of trust, because there's a lack of transparency. And that is... That's a choice that certain groups, I think, put on this council drive now.

It's very frustrating. We've got presidents that dedicate their time, volunteer time, that manage community centers through their associations. We've got park board commissioners themselves. We've got the chair of the park board. And it appears nobody has the most up-to-date information that's guiding this motion. And yet we don't really have the jurisdiction. um and the authority that's outlined under the the vancouver charter that the park board has to work to to make these decisions um to me this is a gross uh lack of judgment and um in good governance and i think that it inspires a lack of trust and it's exactly what people are concerned about In government is decisions being made behind closed doors with partial information. So, sorry, I'm speaking to your emotion. I guess I support your motion, but it's. Through this process, just in the last 20 minutes of various comments. it has become very clear to me that I agree fully with the public that I wouldn't trust this process either. And so I'm supporting the amendment by Councillor Maloney, but I think what we're highlighting here is all of this good work that's done by the citizens of Vancouver to uphold our community centres and facilities and amenities is undermined by a handful of councillors in this chamber. And I think that's a disappointment and a disrespect to what we're supposed to be doing here in governing. So I'll leave it there. Okay. Councillor Kirby.

No, sorry. I'm supposed to be after that.

Yeah, just a quick question on sort of that kind of running with that theme there on transparent. Just a question through the chair to staff. For Part 2, Section 2G of the Code of Conduct Bylaw No. 12886, that members conduct their duties in an open and transparent manner and to fulfill their role as keepers of the public trust under Section 1.1. Sorry, yeah, and keepers of the public trust under Section 1.1. Would this sort of violate that, in your opinion, or in legal's opinion?

I'm not an expert in the code of conduct and don't have it in front of me, but certainly council is well within its authority to direct staff on how to prepare a capital plan, certainly within its authority to determine what it funds and what it doesn't. So I'm not sure if I've captured your question, but I don't believe there's any violation. Okay.

Okay, I'll leave it there. Councillor Maloney.

Sorry, yeah, thanks, Chair. I don't think that we're necessarily hearing a lot new at this point in the debate. I think that people have expressed their perspectives on it. I just want to provide a couple of kind of comments, hopefully, to sort of tie this together. And to some of the points that were raised about this being a closed-door decision, it's not. It's an open one. This is happening in open council. It was a notice of motion. It was prepared. It was publicized. It was brought forward. It was based on information that councillors requested. This is a common practice in putting motions together and this is why we're having this public debate. With respects to the jurisdictional comments, I will note that the city owns the assets. They are all city assets on the city's balance sheet. The city is responsible for setting the capital plan. That is our ultimate authority and responsibility. And I'll also note, too, that this is not the final consideration that council will have on the matter. There will be a fulsome Report on the capital plan that will come to council in June that will provide I expect a traditional level of detail that comes with the magnitude of a four-year capital plan and that will include assessment by staff and Proposed allocations and further diligence and work and it will take all of the other previous council directions some was mentioned We've had them on the turf field. We've had it on roads. We've had on kids pool and We're now also indicating that community centers, for example, are important there. And all of that will be pulled together in one fulsome report with a lot of detail and consideration and time allocated to it for council to go through the details on there. And staff will present that, and they will present the rationale for what that looks like. think that's all fairly clear there I think that this this debate has been fulsome I think that what we've heard from community is a great desire to renew community centers and this is exactly what's happening we've it's been said that we've under invested in them for a long time and now we're going to increase that investment multiple fold and again the largest investment in community centers along with a lot of other good things in this proposal In the city of Vancouver's history, $80 million would do one brand new community center based on a healthy assessment around 2,000 per square foot and a 40,000 square foot community center. So it's fairly easy to do the math. It's a funding envelope, and it's based on information. So with that, Chair, I will conclude, and I would like to call the question.

So, Chair, we have to vote on whether or not the question is approved to be called.

You can't just call the question without voting on calling the question.

Chair, is that debatable?

I'm asking if that's debatable.

I'm asking if the calling of the question that's been seconded is a debatable motion.

Okay, so Councillor Blight is not debatable nor amendable. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Thank you.

Sorry, I just want to make sure I know what I'm voting on here. Are we voting on Councillor Maloney's?

So the main motion.

Okay, so we're voting on Councillor Maloney's amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor? Yeah, thanks.

Consular Fry, are you there?

Consular Fry, if you want to vote, please turn on your camera.

That's okay.

Chair, can I get a vote assist against, please?

Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Chair. First, I'd like to thank all of the speakers who came out to speak to this motion and my teammate, Deputy Mayor Kirby Young, for bringing forward these priorities for the capital plan. For too long, previous councils have spent more and more taxpayer dollars on provincial and federal responsibilities outside of our jurisdiction. At the same time, our court infrastructure needs fail by the wayside and the infrastructure that we're responsible for has deteriorated. I'm talking about roads, sidewalks and community centers that Vancouver rights rely on every single day. Past councils have failed to fund the basics, but we've been incredibly clear over the course of this term that City Hall needs to get back to basics and back to community. This means supporting our residents and businesses with controlled spending and focusing on core services. So already we've committed $104 million to upgrade roads and sidewalks across Vancouver. This represents a 204% increase over the previous administration's $34 million allocation. Because when we take care of roads and sidewalks, we make our entire city more accessible. This motion builds on those commitments. The Auditor General's report found that 72% of Vancouver's community centres were in poor or very poor condition after decades of underinvestment. The $400 million new funding in this motion will rebuild or fully renovate five community centers across the neighborhoods of our city. This is the largest and most ambitious funding package for community centers in the history of our city. But we're not stopping there. Included in this motion are investments that are going to address long-standing needs that have been ignored. We're going to continue advancing the renewal of Britannia Community Centre while exploring new models and partnerships that can build a generational foundation for that community. We're going to continue this Council's prioritization of Gastown with investments that will build on the success of our pedestrian pilots and elevate the neighbourhood into one of the best historic areas in North America. We're going to deliver essential upgrades to the Dr. Sun Yat-sen classical Chinese gardens, the Kitts Beach and Second Beach washrooms, and a spray park at Burrard View Park. And we're going to deliver the pool that South Vancouver has been waiting for, as well as explore sites for a new 50-meter competition pool that any world-class city needs. This is back to community. This is how we prioritize the core services that Vancouverites use every day, by investing in our roads, our sidewalks, our community centers, our parks, and our public realm. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I'd also like to acknowledge all of the speakers who came in person and spoke to the motion. I thought it would be helpful in light of questions and concerns raised by members of the public, but also queries that came up during the council debate to address a few things and just... level set and provide some facts. For context, the current capital plan, 2023-2026, is a $3.2 billion capital plan. And what we're working on is the upcoming capital plan, which reasonably any councillor can expect that the next capital plan will be at the same value or more, considering infrastructure demands, inflation, and so on. And what we're dealing with today in the motion is only a sliver or fraction of that in terms of identifying some priorities that we would like staff to embed in a draft capital plan, overarching plan, that comes to Council for decision. And noting on that point, when we speak about authority, there's been questions about who's authority, and it is squarely within the purview of Council to drive direction about what they want to see in the capital plan, and it is also Council's authority to approve a capital plan to which a portion of that will end up on the ballot for consideration. And so I think important to level set those points. We are one of the oldest cities in the region, and so we do have aging infrastructure. And this is backed up by facts. A $500 million annual infrastructure deficit that's been identified. Auditor General's report noting that 72% of recreation facilities are in poor or very poor condition. And noteworthy is that we have undertaken prudent financial planning, including a 1% annual infrastructure levy so that we can support our infrastructure needs. But I think it's also worth noting... is that if you look at the evolution of the city of Vancouver and its capital plan, this is the 2003 to 2005 capital plan in my hands. And at that time, parks and recreation represented about 16% of the pie. If you go to the 2015 to 2018 capital plan, parks, open spaces, recreation represented 11% of the pie. And I can tell you, if you go back and look historically at the capital plans for the city, you will see Increasingly, parks and recreation, community facilities became squeezed out by increasing focus on funding both housing and childcare, which have always been the purview of the provincial government and the federal government of transfers. So just noting those. Again, these are facts. And then finally, to the questions of the facilities, staff circulated a memo noting that assessments include the year of construction, construction type, building size, structural irregularities, occupancy type.

And when it comes to prioritization, they noted program need and utilization, equity and geographic service coverage, facility condition, seismic and accessibility considerations, project readiness. And appreciating members of the public and some of the community associations were representing 2022 community center strategy. I think it's important to note it's 2026. A lot has changed in the world. Staff have done further review of those facilities and what the needs are. And I think what I heard today, interestingly enough, is when I ran in 2018 and in 2022, the community of Hastings Sunrise, residents were pleading for Hastings Community Center to be rehabilitated and to have a new one. Today, I didn't hear anyone say, please take Hastings off the list and give it to Renfrew. I heard I have concerns that you didn't include Renfrew and that you didn't include other community centers. But at the end of the day, this provides solid direction to address the needs of five community centers in the capital plan, which we haven't seen before. And again, I think at the end of the day, we're trying to find a balance here. And there's a whole bunch more that we haven't dealt with because it's going to come in the overarching capital plan in terms of streets and roads and cycling infrastructure, transportation, water, sewer, drainage, waste collection, all of those things that are not sexy but are part of a capital plan. So this is only a sliver, and I think it strikes a balance in addressing needs across the city. So with that geographic equity, which I think is also a principle that is guided in our ODP and other plans. And so for all of those reasons, I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor.

Yeah, thanks for the robust debate and the lessons on how things are going to go. Obviously, this is my first capital plan, so it's good to know how things are going to work coming up. I'm not being facetious. But I am struggling with this one. It does seem that the Park Board has already done the work. They've published a clear list of community centers that are in disrepair and need renewal, and I appreciate Councillor Dominato saying things have changed, but Um, just going based on what I've, what I've heard. And, um, I, you know, the things that we already heard that this sounds like a political decision, um, about which communities get investment and which ones are kept waiting. Um, uh, and you know, we heard about outdoor pools. Montreal has 63 outdoor pools. Vancouver is three. Um, we have, we're a city over 680,000 people. That's more than 200,000 residents per outdoor pool. Um, We still don't have a proper 50-meter public pool to meet demand. Long-promised projects like Mount Pleasant pool haven't materialized. You know, we talked about the community centers that are not included, and I think they do deserve to be mentioned. Raycam, I think, deserves to be mentioned. Thunderbird, Strathcona, Douglas Park, even Champlain Heights, all of them need attention. I understand that this is what this motion is. is attempting to do. But yeah, I still don't think we should be prioritizing investments based on, I think we should be prioritizing based on need, condition, and access and not jumping the queue. And as we heard just recently, I don't think the public has enough information hasn't seen this data. I appreciate that we were given that data. I haven't had time to look into it. I do feel a little backed into a corner here in terms of, like, having to pick winners and losers, and I don't want, you know, anybody to lose out.

So I'll be abstaining. Thanks.

Chair, can I please get a vote? Is this in favor? Thanks, Mayor.

Councillor Ply? Chair, my voting screen is not working. Can I get a vote in abstention, please? Okay, thanks.

Thanks, Chair. I bring this motion on behalf of myself as well as Councillor Bligh. I think it's pretty straightforward. It's administrative. The City of Vancouver holds a seat on the FCM board for a two-year term. And so it is to seek continuation of my appointment for that period to complete that term, as well as to endorse Councillor Bligh to serve in the role of immediate past president up to June 2027 as well. And to cover our associated costs for traveling for meetings. Thank you.

Chair, can I please get a vote of system favor? Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Councillor Kerbion? Chair, can I also get a vote of system favor, please? Yeah, thanks.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm extremely excited to introduce this motion today. As we all know, Vancouver is a sports city full of Canucks fans, Lions fans, Golden Eyes and Rise fans, and of course, Woodcap fans. It's also a city full of baseball fans who spend their spring, summer and fall watching the Blue Jays, watching the Mariners. and visiting nat bailey stadium to cheer on our hometown vancouver canadians base baseball fans know that the mlb will potentially add two new expansion teams in the next few years and the commissioner of mlb has said that they're looking to add a team in the west This presents a once in a generation opportunity, and that's why I'm moving this motion to initiate an open and transparent expression of interest process for a Vancouver MLB team bid. I want to assure everyone that this motion did not come out of left field. Our office has been approached by serious proponents regarding a potential bid for the MLB. We're asking proponents to come forward, demonstrate their capacity and outline what a partnership with the city could look like. And we're asking our team members to bring that information back to council so we can make informed decisions. This is about doing our due diligence on a generational opportunity, one that could bring economic activity, civic pride and another world class amenity to our city. By supporting this motion, we're waving the flag and telling Major League Baseball that Vancouver wants a team. And so I do hope all of my fellow councillors can support this motion. Our chance has arrived and this should be a home run. Let's step up to the plate.

Speaker one is just withdrawn. Okay. Speaker number two is Scott McDonald.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Scott McDonald. I work at Jones Lang LaSalle Commercial Real Estate Services. Born and raised in the city and I still reside here. And I'm strongly in favor of this motion. First and foremost, my support here is rooted in being a family man. I have two kids, another on the way, the oldest was in T-ball, which I coach. And they love all things baseball, as I did growing up with my dad and mom. They like nothing more than going to Canadians games, as we did as a family growing up. And many of my core memories and experiences still talked about very fondly today with the family and friends. involved baseball. For example, I'll never forget literally my friends, family, parents, siblings. That was a great memories still talked about all the time. Can't wait to relive that with my kids and our friends and their kids. And I mean, I can't, I'll never forget one core memory. And again, this goes back to Hopping on a plane and incurring expenses to do so, but graduated high school. My dad took me down to Phoenix. We had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to watch Randy Johnson pitch to Barry Bonds. We still talk about that. People we've told about that still talk about that.

I know I'll forget when I graduated university, and my dad and I went to New York, watched the Blue Jays play the Yankees. What a core memory that is. And most recently, after game six of the World Series last year, my dad and I went to Toronto together to watch game seven. And for obviously a once in a lifetime opportunity, didn't get the result we wanted, but great game, great experience. There were a surprising number of Blue Jays fans at YVR that morning doing the exact same thing, which I think goes to show how much baseball is valued in our city. And as the mayor said, you have to look no further than Mariners games when the Blue Jays are in town. Canadian games. This is a baseball city. And I think we do deserve a franchise for sure. And L.B. better off. And I think our city was better off. I'm not trying to drag you down memory lane here. And I admit these are kind of self-serving and personal experiences and reasons. But I can't help but imagine what if families didn't have to hop on a plane and incur significant expenses for these experiences? What if we had 81 games a year? 25 series a year in our backyard to go and do this. And then playoffs are a different story altogether, as we all know. Vancouver truly is a world-class city.

And if we're fortunate enough for the chance for MLB franchise, the residual societal and economic benefits would be measurable. The opportunity to host 81 games, 25 series-ish, not including the playoffs, resulting in significant tourism increases. Oh, sorry, you're out of time.

We don't have quorum. Okay. No, we don't. Now we have.

Speaker three is not on the line.

good evening can you hear me yes we can please go ahead good good evening mayor and council my name is steve davis i'm a proud resident of the city of vancouver i'm the founder and ceo of a technology company based here in vancouver's downtown core i was born and raised here and i've lived here my entire life i've watched the city grow from the inside into one of the most extraordinary multicultural dynamic urban communities anywhere in the world Vancouver has always had a remarkable ability to seize defining moments and to use them as a rocket fuel. To look at a generational opportunity, say yes, and come out the other side fundamentally transformed for the better. I believe we are standing at one of those moments right now. I'm here not representing my company or any organization connected to this proposal. I'm here as a lifelong Vancouverite who wants to speak to what Major League Baseball could mean for the people who call this city home. because this city has been here before, and we know what it looks like when Vancouver is bold and decides to reach. In 86, Vancouver didn't just host the World's Fair. It repositioned our city on the global map, catalyzed entire new neighborhoods, drew investment and imagination from around the world, and fundamentally changed what Vancouverites believed was possible. The city that emerged from Expo 86 was a different city, more confident, more ambitious, and I was one of the children who ran through those gates believing this place could do anything. Then came 2010. The Olympics showed the world who Vancouver truly is. But beyond the games, the legacy was lasting in infrastructure, in civic pride, and in the story we told ourselves about the kind of city we could be. Every generation or so, Vancouver gets one of those moments. Major League Baseball is our next moment, not for two weeks every four years, but for 81 home games every season, building something permanent in the fabric of this city. Baseball is one of the truly last affordable major professional sports experiences in North America. In a city as beautifully diverse as ours, a ballpark is one of those rare places where every culture, every background, every generation can sit side by side and cheer for the same thing. That sense of shared belonging is something that this city deeply, deeply needs. The window is right now. For the first time in nearly 30 years, MLB is expanding and cities across North America are lining up. Vancouver is an exceptional market, but exceptional markets don't automatically win. The case has to be made. The Expo 86 showed us what we could build, and the 2010 Olympics showed us who we are, and Major League Baseball is the next great moment of positive propulsion for a city that has never stopped reaching. Let's seize this day, and let's bring baseball home to Vancouver. Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Thank you. I also want to speak in favor and hoping that the city of Vancouver gets behind this push. Piggybacking on what the mayor said, this isn't out of left field or a pie-in-the-sky dream. The MLB has really made it clear that this is going to happen. They are expanding. So I think the only question remains whether Vancouver is part of that process. So as for me, I'm a born and raised Vancouverite, attended UBC before living in the United States for some period of time. And I actually, as an undergraduate student at UBC, did a feasibility study on baseball in Vancouver over 20 years ago. Even back then, the numbers bore it out. And I've seen data cited recently that an MLB team in Vancouver has 10 to 1 support spanning all British Columbians. So it's pretty rare in my experience that you see that kind of support of something. And I think what crystallized the image for me was living in San Francisco as not really a huge baseball fan myself, to be honest, but becoming one and seeing what a baseball team can really do for a city. I know Vancouver just has spectacular summers, and we are always clamoring here for summer events that bring people out. And I can't imagine what a boon it would be to the city economically to see millions of people over the course of a summer. frequent, a hopeful baseball stadium we could put here. And again, what kind of boon that would do for our economy here. And as another speaker mentioned, the accessibility of going to a baseball game relative to other sporting events is something I also don't think we should overlook. So, you know, as I mentioned, this is really a matter of, to me it seems, just a question of Vancouver, whether Vancouver is going to throw its hat in the ring. And I would love to see our city get behind it. I think the economic case is there. I think public support is there. And I think it would be a great thing for the city. Thank you.

Rouleau, hi there. Yes, I'm Yasmin Rouleau. Just wanted to say I'm in absolute support for bringing this to Vancouver. In my humblest opinion, it's what our city needs. It's what my family needs. We need a place to go and hang out, something that's accessible. And I just really feel we need to bring the elevation here. of our city on a global scale. So I am in full, full support, and I'm really excited to see how this actually has a strong social impact in our community and can really just help from all aspects of economic growth and tourism. Thank you.

Speaker number nine is Ryan Chambers.

Hello?

Okay, yeah, my name is Ryan Chambers. I am not a resident of Vancouver. I live in Coldstream, B.C., but I'm the president of the Chambers Transportation Group. I felt compelled to call in because whilst I realize that this is very much an issue concerning Vancouver, a team of this magnitude is going to be embraced by the entire province. So I felt important that somebody from outside the great city of Vancouver called in to express my strong support for this initiative. I think those before me were really good at articulating how rare this is, how this really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Those that watch baseball know that Major League Baseball doesn't expand often, and it's unlikely this opportunity will come along again. I'm very pleased to hear that all the callers have been very supportive of this initiative. You know, oftentimes when people hear things like this, large things, they can get negative and say things like, well, it'll never happen, or we'll never get the support, or there won't be enough money, or we're not the city for it. And I just say, you know, why not us? Again, Vancouver is a world-class city, and I'm certain it'll be embraced by the entire province. To be perfectly honest, with all due respect to the great Blue Jays franchise, I'm getting pretty tired of cheering for a team from Toronto. So I think it's about time we had a team from Western Canada that we can all get behind. From a practical standpoint, again, the family benefits and social impacts... that this team will have been already articulated. But just from a practical standpoint, you know, I have season tickets to the Canucks. I come down personally. We use it for corporate events. We give it to employees. You know, this would be something we'd look at, you know, doing the same. You know, we would get season tickets for sure. I'd probably look at boxes, entertaining clients in a box at an MLB game is much better than any other professional sports experience. You know, it may not sound like much being just one person from Vernon, but, you know, I've heard numbers of 20% of the season ticket holders for the Seattle Seahawks are from Canada. So people do travel. They do bring their dollars to town, which I only see as a benefit for the city. So, you know, with that, I'll leave it at that. I really support it. So hopefully it works out. Good luck.

Oh, hi. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Brian Grange. I'm a Vancouver resident, a business owner and an entrepreneur. And through my company and the resort tourism and industry, we bring many people to the city and to British Columbia. We operate hotels, hotels and resorts. And bringing people in internationally is what we do on a daily basis. So I want to express my strong support for the city of Vancouver to move forward with a formal process to explore this opportunity of bringing Major League Baseball to our city. From a business and tourism perspective, this is one of the most compelling opportunities Vancouver and British Columbia could pursue. Baseball offers something unique among major sports, a consistent season that spans an entire summer. With games played almost daily, it creates sustained business over months, not days. This type of consistency is exactly what drives long-term tourism growth. In my experience, when people travel for sports, they do not come just for a single event. They build trips around it. They extend their stays, explore the destination, spend more time experiencing everything the region has to offer. I see this personally in my own travel. I always add extra days to taking a baseball game, and I fully expect visitors would do the same at Vancouver at a major league team. benefit to british columbia would be significant visitors would not stay in vancouver but they would also travel to whistler vancouver island and throughout the interior an mlb team would act as a central anchor encouraging longer stays and broader exploration across the province this translates directly into increased hotel occupancy restaurant activity and transportation usage Just as importantly, Vancouver is ready for this opportunity. We're a global city with infrastructure, corporate base, and international connectivity required to support major league franchise. We've demonstrated this with sustained support of professional teams, and we already see strong evidence of this demand with thousands of people going down to Seattle for major league games. especially when toronto's in town i i mean just the world series experience this past year was evidence of that with the amount of people uh traveling down for that one game and the amount of money spent is just unreal so the demand exists the opportunity is now to bring it home major league baseball signaling the future expansion to all cities across north america this is a great opportunity for us to compete and show what Vancouver is all about. So it's not simply about a sport. It's about tourism, economic growth, and positioning Vancouver and British Columbia on a global stage for decades to come. So I strongly support the city's decision to initiate process to explore this opportunity and encourage council to give it a serious consideration. Thanks for the long day and appreciate it a lot. Cheers.

Okay, there, I'm here.

Yeah, I am here to be the dissenting opinion here tonight. I am not in favor of this motion when we are dealing with one of the most difficult economic times that people have faced in decades. This is sports washing. Like, read the room. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019. You know, we can't keep shaping the city for the wealthiest. It's common knowledge that bringing in large sports franchises is building luxury arenas are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The owners never pay for that on their own. They're also given ample tax breaks that usually last forever until a city removes it, and then they threaten to move, and then the tax breaks return. So this will incur annual and longstanding expenses while incurring lost tax revenues. So we're publicly funding this, but the privatized profit will go into the pockets of billionaires. And in fact, this is another effort to turn billionaires into trillionaires. Subsidizing billionaires should not be explored while people are freaking out about the cost of groceries. We need community interest grounded in public good. This is truly your let them eat cake moment. I do not favor this motion, and I do not encourage sports washing. Thanks for your time. Have a good night.

Yeah, thanks. It's just a question through the chair to the mover of the motion. As we've seen with significant public money usually ends up going into these projects, especially billion-dollar stadiums, can there be an insurance that there won't be any public money involved?

Yeah, it's our intention, my intention at least, that there will be absolutely no public money involved. We are looking for expressions of interests to meet a timeline that Major League Baseball has said they want to expand. We've also had significant interest or interested parties that are incredibly credible that want to bring a team to Vancouver. Thanks. Can you declare who that is? Who's the group that has already reached out about a team? Because this motion calls for transparency, but there's no transparency on who's involved. That's the point of the motion. We're asking for expressions of interest so everyone discloses if they're interested. No, it's just that you said you've been talking to a group. No, I said people have expressed an interest. They're credible parties. Sorry. I'm just trying to answer the question. In introducing the motion, you said this motion hasn't come out of left field that you've been talking to someone. In introducing the motion, not just now, just in introducing the motion. Yeah, so just trying to clarify, Councillor Orr, people expressed an interest, they approach us, and so that's why we're pushing this motion to have transparency and to have multiple groups, whoever's interested, to express an interest and express it to council. So it's actually... Incredibly transparent. Okay. And then do we have any idea where a stadium would be? I heard in the news that there was four sites. Is there any consideration that this is going to be on public land, like city-owned land? Yeah, so if you're asking me an operational question, I'm sure there are numerous sites across the city that could be potentially used for a Major League Baseball stadium. With that said, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves here and buy it or bias the process. And so one of our top priorities will be to work with the successful proponent group to identify options for a stadium site and No tax, just to be clear, no tax dollars will be used to construct a stadium or pay for a team to come to Vancouver.

No, so no tax dollars will be used, but it could be on city-owned land, potentially. Like I said, we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. There are numerous sites that will work, I'm sure, but it's up to the groups, a group or groups to identify how everything would work and how it'd be a benefit for the city.

And then we, you know, that will come to council and then we could have conversations around that. Okay. Assuming all of this is successful and Vancouver's awarded a baseball team, how would this affect the Vancouver Canadiens? Do we know? Uh... You know, I don't know in terms of their, you know, you're asking me to predict something in the future. You know, it could be a benefit. It could be a midpoint or it could be, you know, disadvantageous. You know, when you have, you know, the argument for it could help is, you know, when you have more attention to the sport, it opens up other opportunities, just like, you know, the Canucks open up an opportunity for, you know, women's hockey to come here. Okay, thanks. Seeing as I only have a minute left and there's nobody else on the queue, again, I just feel like this is, as it's been sort of said in the news, kind of an unnecessary political. And again, as somebody who loves sports, I'm loathe to think how this might be weaponized, but Squire Barnes, Price and Sequeiras, Donnie and Dolly, Rob Fye have all said that there's just so many questions. Our $0.72... Our lack of corporate headquarters, which is why we lost the Grizzlies. We're at risk of losing the Whitecaps. Those questions on stadium, if they're on public land, to me, this just seems like a pop fly with no runs scored.

Thanks. Through to the Councillor, we have certainly a professional procurement department that is certainly capable of putting together a short expression of interest. And we certainly have professional staff that are able to evaluate that. Should this pass, would rely on their expertise to say if we need any additional outside support just around the evaluation of said bids. But the expression of interest, I think, is very easy, would be very easy for them.

Thank you. Through to the Councillor. Certainly professional sports expansions are very rare, so that part is unusual. Unsolicited bids or proposals to Council members or to the Mayor are is not unusual, and it is best practice often when things may require significant city future resources in terms of acting as part of a proposal, a bid committee, to in fact open up a process just to ensure that staff are meeting with credible individuals, that they're meeting with the right individuals, and that's not in any relation to any of the work that may have to be done by the proposed... the proponent on siting a stadium or the like. So this is, in fact, I would suggest calling best practice to go to an open and transparent process in receipt of a credible unsolicited.

Thank you. Councillor Blay. Yeah, thanks very much. Appreciate the discussion. Thank you to the speakers for calling in and sharing different points of view. I think this is, it actually... Reminds me, although scale, not the same, perhaps, as how the Green Line Ferry or now Circle Ferry proposal came to us over a year ago. Interested proponent, upfront capital, ready to invest in our city, needed to know that council is open. and more than open, an excited partner. And I think that this actually presents a similar opportunity to grow our city. We're a tourism-centered city, to grow our economy in terms of hospitality, hotel, creates jobs. It's a sport that is incredibly popular, growing in popularity. And I know that we've heard, actually, I would say probably over the last two years, that Vancouver's been on the radar for proponents wanting to bring an MLB team to Vancouver. I've certainly heard about it as well. So I'm actually quite supportive of this. I mean, the process to get here, you know, is what it is. I think to get this done, we really need to show a multi-partisan approach. I don't think this is a partisan issue that is owned by any one member of council or any one party represented at council. I think this is a broader issue or opportunity, I should say, that deserves sincere... sort of expediting through what an expression of interest could unfold and could daylight in terms of what's actually on the table and what the interest looks like and what the funding partners look like. I really think that the heroes on this issue are going to be those who can work together. And I'm certainly planning to vote in support to be part of a group of us as council of the day right now to really be open to this opportunity as it's obviously coming forward with a more serious proposal than we've seen in the past. i do understand concerns from the public i understand squire barnes and others who may in their uh commentary question um the the sort of viability of such a proposal but that doesn't mean that us as a council should not be open to it and so i also think that what i hear and some of the concern of the public is is this really a priority right now And I understand that there have been signals from this council that we are not prioritizing some of the basics. That has to also change, in my opinion.

But that doesn't mean we close the door on growing our city, growing our economy and growing our jobs. And that is really what's represented here. And it can be done in a way that provides a lot of backstop opportunities for local charities, for local groups that can benefit from a new sports team in our community, not to mention community development that can happen around these types of opportunities. So, yeah, we need to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I know sometimes as a council, we may not.

offer as many examples as we should, that we can do that and we can do it well. We need to do that better. But I really don't think that that means we should be closing the door to an opportunity of growing our offering in terms of a new sports team in our city. So I'm supportive and I'm interested to see where it goes.

Sir chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor? Okay.

Thank you, Chair. Vancouver is facing a housing crisis, and some residents are relying on vehicles as a form of last resort shelter. Current bylaw practices can create challenges for people in this situation while the city continues to balance safety, mobility, and public space management. People who are unhoused in British Columbia have a life expectancy estimated between 40 and 49 years, emphasizing the urgency of policies... that affect access to shelter. As a FIFA host city, Vancouver has an obligation to uphold human rights while maintaining safe and functional public spaces. Council has recognized FIFA as a one-time extraordinary event, warranting exceptional measures. This motion directs staff to report back with practical, time-limited options to reduce harm, improve access to services, and explore safe parking solutions during FIFA and beyond. And I will note to colleagues on council that this version of the motion is drastically different than the draft motion based on feedback from staff. And just wanted to note that, you know, took the criticism and came up with something that I think is a little more...

What happened?

Okay, but that's okay. You can continue, Councillor. Oh, my timer reset. I can keep going. No, I'm just kidding. It's been a long night. Let's get to the speakers. Thanks.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we have on the line Ryan, Kay, Fiona, and Athena.

Just say their name. Okay, I'm Kay. Thank you. I'm Athena.

okay thank you um good afternoon mayor and counselors i am speaking in support for motion six no no penalties for vehicle shelter during fifa my name is kylie and i work with a group of former crab park residents and the ice community bus ice is the squamous word for crab i'm here today because the issue is something that affects our group personally and is already happening i personally know of at least five former residents who have been displaced or threatened with displacement from an rv or vehicle where they are finding some safe or temporary shelter all of them are indigenous many are women and one is a veteran and in our group everyone has lived experience with homelessness housing instability and displacement For some people, an RV is the last form of shelter available, and yet the current bylaw framework, the maze of regulations, and enforcement makes it nearly impossible to shelter in a vehicle at night in Vancouver. Right now, bylaw enforcement focuses on vehicle size, time limits like the three-hour rule, and restrictions on parking near businesses or residences. The effect is to make sheltering in vehicles, particularly RVs, nearly impossible and subject to bylaw enforcement. So that means people are constantly forced to move with nowhere to go and also faced with targeted ticketing that spirals exponentially and ends up with towing, eviction, and loss of belongings. I just heard of another Indigenous woman, a mother, having her RV towed with all of her belongings inside. And I know of another who's been ticketed and terrified that by-law officers are going to show up late at night because they usually arrive around 10 p.m. and put her out on the sidewalk. As one former Crab Park resident said, as if we need more piled on our shoulders right now, how can we catch our breath and do anything about bettering our own lives when they keep us running in circles? Indigenous peoples disproportionately experience homelessness in Vancouver and due to ongoing impacts of colonization, residential schools and the 60s group and systemic discrimination. Courts have recognized this reality and they've also made it clear that governments must act with fairness, especially when enforcement affects vulnerable populations. When an RV is towed, someone doesn't just lose a vehicle, they lose their shelter, their belongings, and often their safety. That raises serious legal and human rights concerns, including the obligations under the Charter. However, the city has applied discretion in bylaw enforcement in the past. For example, the engineering department has stated that their practice is to limit RV impoundments during the winter. They've also extended consideration while someone is actively working on housing. And during the COVID pandemic, there was a temporary easing on enforcement. In fact, RVs were often used for quarantine in some cases. and there's a 2021 article in the thai where then sitting city councillor christine boyle visited an rv community and she commented on the amount of discretion applied in the bylaws so the question isn't whether discretion is possible it is

It also stands to reason that an extraordinary global scale event like the FIFA World Games in accompanying human rights obligations would also be a reason to extend added discretion. In the past, FIFA World Cup host cities, some visitors have ended up sleeping in cars or RVs when hotels are full. This is treated as a temporary and understandable. The difference is how they're treated. Tourists are accommodated or overlooked, while local people already living in vehicles face ticketing, towing, and displacement. At the same time, with a major global event approaching, there is a real fear in the community about being swept away, increased enforcement of displacement, and being pushed out of sight. What we are asking for today is reasonable. This motion simply asks the city to explore options to report back on how discretion can be applied in a way that is fair and humane. And also, it's an opportunity in a changing world to show that Vancouver can balance the needs of all citizens, housed and unhoused. We are urging a temporary pause on enforcement during FIFA, trauma-informed and culturally appropriate practices and an Indigenous liaison, and basic access for RV shelters and others to washrooms, sanitation, and water. Extending across to washrooms, sanitation, and water would be an act of compassion and also an opportunity for lasting legacy after the FIFA games. We also urge you to consider leasing the parking lot at Crab Park for a tiny home village in RV Park. We urge you again to pass motion number six, no penalties for vehicle shelter during FIFA. Thank you.

Oh, hi there. This is Tanya. I'm here to speak in favor of Councillor Orr's motion.

We really have not addressed... this issue as a city. With rising cost of living, the average one bedroom is $2,500. People are being increasingly priced out of housing. So this isn't just seniors and low-income folks living in vehicles, which in itself is not a good thing. But there are also working professionals that have been priced out or choose to do that rather than paying 50% to 70% of their income on rent. I, in fact, have worked with people that I was quite surprised to find out that they were doing van life because they just... couldn't afford groceries and rent all the time this is part of vancouver's hidden homeless these are folks that aren't part of our thoughts when we think about our homeless population but they should be You know, I do have concerns about bylaw officers focusing and targeting ticketing in order to possibly enforce towing prior to FIFA just to remove people off the streets altogether. With this being such a serious issue, this is something that we could do to show compassion, to show that the city has compassion. This is just a temporary pause. You know, the city's rolling out the red carpet in every other way. All we're asking for for the community is a little bit of decency, you know, a little easement. I cannot tell you how awful it is to go talk to an Indigenous elder that's living in a rundown RV that keeps getting ticketed while she's trying to take care of three grandchildren on shelter rate survival. This is a real issue, and at some point, hopefully, the city can work together with some nonprofits, hopefully some churches, and we can actually find some real space to actually house people safely while we build supportive housing and get other places in place. I, of course, support the Crab Park issue for tiny homes or space for people to shelter safely. But again, I just urge counselors to please allow this little bit of decency into the organization and just allow a little gentleness for some people that are probably going through probably some of the hardest times of their lives.

Speaker three is not on the line.

Are you there, Chloe?

Okay.

Hello? Speaker six has withdrawn.

Number six.

No, it's Emily. Yes, yes, yes.

Thank you, thank you. Yeah, I definitely do not withdraw. It's an important motion. Thanks, Councillor Orr, for putting it forward. I'm sure we're all aware of how much it costs to attend FIFA, hundreds and hundreds of dollars, not to mention the flights and accommodation, and we're seeing... Increasing amounts of homelessness, cost of housing, despite media, it has gone down, like, a little bit, but it's still not. It's still people. You can't find a place if you're on disability or welfare. You really can't. Even though it's gone up, it went from up to 500. Like, good luck finding anywhere for 500. So people are sheltering outside in RVs, and... It's a very, very, very, very, very... It's just asking for a break. And, well, it's such a dichotomy of all these people coming to Vancouver, spending all this money, having all this money, and there are still people who are being harassed, who cannot afford a place. Please, please, just give them a break. It's really not too much to ask. It really, really isn't. There's empty space, a lot of empty space in the city. And the crowd parking lot has been empty. I know there are rules and regulations and whatnot that need to be met, but ultimately it is empty space and people have built their lives in RVs as an option. So it just makes sense to put those things together. So I, yeah, I really, I really hope that this goes through. And that's all. It's really not very much to ask for. It's simply a break. Please.

Thank you. My name is Chloe Leslie, Vancouver resident. I want to emphasize tonight that for some residents in our city, a car or an RV is not a choice. It's the last place they have to sleep. And while I know we all recognize the city's responsibility to manage public streets for safety, mobility, and access, I think we also have a responsibility to ensure that our actions do not unintentionally make an already really difficult situation worse. For me, this motion does not propose a blanket suspension of enforcement. It does not ignore public safety. But what it does is ask staff to come back with options. These options are targeted, time-limited, and grounded in both operational reality and harm reduction. This motion asks us to look at whether there are safer, more stable ways to support people who are already here. These people are Vancouverites. They are already struggling, and they are part of our community. But it also asks us to consider something really basic, which is just access to services, like washrooms, water, and sanitation. I think we can all agree here that these are not luxuries. They're fundamental to public health and dignity for everyone in the city, and everyone in the city deserves them. And importantly for me, this motion acknowledges that Indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by homelessness, and that enforcement practices on unseated territory can carry real and lasting harm. Our commitment to reconciliation and to UNDRIP should guide not only what we say, but also how we act. I know we're preparing to host a global event, and FIFA is recognized as a one-time extraordinary moment, and we're making many extraordinary decisions here. This motion simply asks that we apply the same lens in a way that ensures that we're not leaving our most vulnerable residents behind. At its core, I feel it's a modest and reasonable request. It asks for information, for options, and a more coordinated approach that balances public safety with compassion. I really do believe that we can do both and I hope everyone supports this motion. Thank you.

Chair, can I have a vote in opposition, please? Councillor Gribio. Okay, noted.

Okay, Councillor Maloney, you have two minutes to introduce your motion.

Thanks very much, Chair. I'd like to second that motion. Is Councillor Klassen?

Yeah, good evening, good night, fellow councillors. and mayor i guess it's getting late but i'll be brief i live in vancouver and i am the chair of the opiac older people elder advisory committee i'm here on behalf of opiac to encourage you to support this motion your commitment to making vancouver in each friendly city aligns with council's vibrant vancouver priority OPIAC and seniors serving organizations have advocated for years regarding this adoption. This will confirm to making lives of older adults better in Vancouver. Seniors living in Vancouver face significant challenges, as we know, related to housing, accessibility, community services and resources, and climate resilience. This recognition presents a promising model for fostering positive change by bettering the quality of life for elders. Our community partners will benefit immensely. As the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Cuderas says so eloquently, as this year's theme reminds us that older persons are powerful agents of change, their voices must be heard. in shaping policies, ending age discrimination, and building inclusive societies. Just as a note, OPIAC's intention is not to request funding support at this time, but a recognition similar to the Sikh Heritage Month. So with this, I will end my participation. Thank you.

Yeah, just very quick. Thanks very much. Really appreciate this motion. I know that we've had conversations with our protocol team at City of Vancouver in the past. and uh this um bringing it to making an official observance that will happen at the beginning of october every year is something that's important to me i know it's important to members of the opiac committee and for adult older adults across uh the city i think it's an important recognition that we have to remain vigilant in terms of building an age-friendly city i know our staff team is doing a lot of work on that many others in the community as well uh but uh as we sort of face the growing sort of aging demographic in our city. This is something that will become increasingly important in everything that we do. So happy to support this and glad to see it moving forward if we get the council's support. Thank you.

All right, so the motion passed unanimously.

Thank you. All right. Let's end on a good one here. The province has given us mandatory housing targets and has now handcuffed us in our attempt to achieve those goals. Ironic, considering they can penalize us for missing those goals too. The pause in the community housing fund has stranded many non-market developments and left them in limbo. Many of these developers, profit and non-profit alike, are now left sitting on their hands looking for direction concerning how to proceed. This is especially true for non-profit developers who are now in over their heads and are moving towards insolvency. This motion aims in helping both the city not be penalized by the province and in showing that we care about the people in our city. I believe the motion is fairly simple. I urge council to support sending this under emergency measures to LMLGA and UBCM to help us fulfill these goals that the province has given us. Thanks.

Yeah, hi there. Tonya here. yeah so i am uh in favor of this motion uh because we can't keep hitting targets if we're not getting the funding to support hitting those targets uh the provincial housing supply act came into play in 2023 um but that also came with the community housing fund So as Vancouver was chosen as one of the municipalities with these mandated targets,

We were seeing rapid improvement with approvals. You know, I know that this June is the time that the province is going to check in to see how we're doing. But they removed $1.4 billion from this fund while maintaining the same mandated target. That makes no sense. We know that the types of housing that we need in the city are for the working class to ensure that no one spends 50% or more on housing. We need more co-ops, more shelter rate housing, more social housing with rent geared to income. Rent geared to income housing needs partnerships with the province and non-profits.

Developers are not going to build social housing. Developers will never build socialized housing. The province has basically stepped away from its responsibility and to allow speculators and developers to step in. This should not be the city that we want to build. Housing is a human right. Acting the funding for the Community Housing Fund has affected approximately 100 projects in Vancouver, 100 projects that are now in jeopardy or being paused, which affects thousands of units. the aboriginal housing management association is reporting the loss of 24 projects which affects 2 000 units now lost in a city of reconciliation it's city council's responsibility to use dripa to push back on the province on these cuts This is a catastrophic loss of funding. We have to reconcile the mandated housing targets. We need you to sit down with our housing minister, Christine Boyle, to reduce those housing targets or to show up with some money. Vancouver doesn't need fast-tracked housing that nobody can afford. This is our moment to reconcile this issue. Please, I urge everyone to support this motion. Thanks, Councillor Orr, for bringing it forward. Thank you, Tonya.

Hello, can you hear me?

Oh, hi. My name is Mona Stilwell. I've been a resident of Vancouver for 33 years. I'm grateful to live and work on the lands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh Nations. I'm in support of this motion because let's be clear what it actually is. It's to write the equivalent of an inter-office memo to UBCM, LMLGA, the Minister of Finance, Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. An inter-office memo. Real estate developers are well supported in Vancouver. They get tax breaks, breaks from empty homes fees. The land is being opened up in record numbers. For instance, down here on the side. In fact, so many units are out there that there are over 2,000 empty luxury condos. So I'm sure Vancouver's mayor and council members would want to support developers who have been cut off at the knees by the province's indefinite pausing of new intakes to the Community Housing Fund. which now leaves hundreds of affordable housing projects stranded. Imagine all the investment money that are now at risk. Imagine all the unrecoverable sunk costs due to canceled or delayed projects. So help out the development industry, just like we have all along, by writing a few letters. Support this motion. Thank you, and free Palestine.

Hey there, can you hear me okay?

Great, thanks. Good evening, Chair and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matthew. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm speaking in support of Councillor Orr's motion. I want to first propose to you an analogy, the relevance of which I promise will become clear. I'd like you to imagine that you're an employee in one of the city's many important service sectors. Perhaps you work in the libraries, or perhaps you work as a seasonal lifeguard at one of our many beaches. You have your clear responsibilities expected of you by your employer with the guiding values of providing safety and community enrichment for residents. now let's say you've just found out that your department's funding has been cut or frozen in the place of inflationary pressures what a shame oh well i suppose times are tough you might say you expect that might mean layoffs are coming and that expectations around service delivery will have to be adjusted after all it seems intuitive that it's harder for 20 people to do the work that 30 people once did You show up to the next all-hands meeting at work and you're informed that, well, yes, funding's been impacted. You are still expected, no, mandated to continue on with a skeleton crew. You've been told that you have to offer more with less. You know that this is either A, impossible, or B, means you'll soon be putting in many unpaid hours just to keep things functional. The province has done just this. They have mandated aggressive housing targets under the Housing Supply Act while simultaneously indefinitely pausing new intakes to the Community Housing Fund. They are asking you, Mayor and Council, to do more with less.

They are setting you up to fail. This is austerity in action. We desperately need more affordable housing in this city. We desperately need more non-market and below-market rental housing in this city. province's decision to suspend the program that these projects rely on, some already in planning or pre-development, leaves them stranded and frozen. It leaves us at great financial risk. Failure to meet the province's aggressive targets could even result in the province stepping in to rewrite zoning decisions, effectively hindering the autonomy of Vancouver to govern itself. I believe you should support this motion to urge the province to not only recognize this explicit contradiction in their policy, but also urge them to reinstate the community housing fund that municipalities like ours rely on to address the lack of affordable housing and deliver affordability for residents. As the mayor has said before when it came to free FIFA viewings, you'll never know if you don't ask. And that's why I urge you to ask. I hope the council views affordable housing with the same priority as public FIFA viewings. Thank you.

Councillor Claassen?

Hi there. Thanks, Chair. So thanks very much. Definitely feeling very supportive of the direction of this motion. I do have an amendment that I have sent in to the clerk.

Will do. Thanks very much. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. So clearly with the... cuts to the Community Housing Fund, we are in a real bind. There are projects that are being brought to a halt, and it's I think it's short sighted to think that we cannot get the funding that we need in play to try and make sure that we can keep housing projects, not nonprofit housing going in the city of Vancouver. And We've recently seen an agreement between the prime minister and the premier of Ontario that is directly addressing some of the cost pressures that housing is facing in the greater Toronto area. And I know that we as a council have already expressed our desire to try and see if we can match those dollars. We have done a lot as a city, including cutting our own community amenity contributions by 20% on our own. We've made several changes to try and address this so we can actually keep housing projects moving. And we know there are important not-for-profit housing operators. We've heard continuously from the advocacy of the BC Not-for-Profit Housing Association, very concerned about the failure to continue forward with this kind of funding at a critical time when we know we need this funding. And so I really... would like council to include this amendment to the motion, which I think is in the spirit of the motion, which is to continue to try and drive the development of new housing and new affordable housing in our city. And I think we need to send a message to Minister Boyle and the Minister of Housing and local government to really take this very seriously and work closely with Minister Robinson and the federal government to try and get a deal just like the government of Ontario has had that is now allowing them to get projects moving forward. And so I've brought forward this motion and I hope councillors will support it as it adds to the motion put forward by Councillor Orr. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks for the amendment. Seems friendly enough. Not sure how I didn't hear about this partnership, the Canada-Ontario partnership to build. I was just kind of going through it. 50% cut in development charges. It looks like something on HST. $8.8 billion joint funding commitment over 10 years. I mean, that's something that we should also do. I'm sorry. I'm tired. Yeah. Thanks to the mover of the amendment for bringing this forward. And hopefully we can get this on the floor of LGA. Was it next week? Next weekend? So I look forward to that. Thanks. Councillor Bligh. Yeah, thanks very much. And it's late. It's been a very long day. I just would, I think it's worth, because we hear about this desire to have the same deal as Ontario. And as many like to say, the devil's in the details. That infrastructure funding over 10 years, $8 billion, also extends to post-secondary institutions and healthcare. So I understand that we're sort of going, well, that looks pretty good. We need that here to reduce development charges. But I do recommend the best advocacy we can do for infrastructure funding is direct stream. This is not direct stream. This is a provincial. This is an opportunity for the federal government to work with the province, and then the province decides where that money is going to go. And it could mean pennies to Vancouver as a result. And so, you know, everybody here knows I work closely with the federal advocacy around infrastructure funding. And so I'm happy to get into more details when it's not 930 at night after a 12 hour day. But let's just not kind of be too basic. with what the headlines say and really look into the implications. We support any funding from the federal government, I understand, but it's new that it has to now filter through the province, which is less dollars going directly to municipalities, which makes it harder for Vancouver to forecast and plan and delivering on that funding for infrastructure or on that infrastructure based on how the funding comes into our city. I'm happy to talk more offline. I'll support this, but I think we've just got to be a little bit more nuanced and a bit more informed about what this actually looks like.

Thanks, Chair. I won't add much more other than, yes, there are various components to this agreement. Obviously, we're not talking about $8 billion because our... relative size as a province. But seeing that matching dollars, that commitment would be actually, I think, really vital and send a very strong signal to a housing sector that is really struggling right now. And it means that that affordable housing that I think this whole council wants to see built is going to kind of grind to a halt. I'll leave it there, but I appreciate the support for this amendment from our council. Thank you.

Councillor Clausen?

I'm concluded. Thanks very much, Chair.

Okay, so motion as amended passed unanimously.

Can I have a vote? Can I have a vote? Is this in favor? Chair, please. Thank you.