My name is Angela Zuo and my father is the registered property owner of 1868 West 37th Avenue. I'm speaking on behalf of my family and my neighbors, the applicants for this proposal. We respectfully ask council to support the proposed reclassification of these properties. While we understand the current policy aims to maintain subdivision categories by the block, current large lot designation often leaves homeowners with only two realities, sell to developers to build six to eight unit multiplexes or retain a large single family house. Our three families share a different vision, owner-led redevelopment that creates modest single-family lots for multigenerational living, allowing children, parents, and grandparents to remain close while preserving neighborhood character. Subdivision would enable gentle densification consistent with the intent of the R1-1 zoning while mirroring the housing pattern of our neighbors directly across the street. The staff report places considerable weight on concerns from four neighboring property owners regarding traffic, parking, neighborhood character, and density. We take those concerns seriously and made every effort to speak directly with as many neighbors as possible. What we found was telling. Many neighbors misunderstood the application, believing it would introduce a new housing form or substantially increase density. Once they understood our intentions for seeking this reclassification, support was overwhelming. We have since collected 12 signatures supporting the application, which I can share with staff and council. Some who previously submitted written objections have since revoked their opposition and have expressed their support, which you may have received recently in writing. The staff report states that reclassification will result in additional driveways to serve each subdivided parcel, contributing to traffic and pedestrian impacts. Respectfully, I believe this statement is incorrect, as our properties are served by a rear lane rather than front driveways. Our proposal would generate little measurable change in traffic volumes, parking demand, and neighborhood dynamics. The report suggests approval could set a precedent that transforms the neighborhood's lot pattern. Respectfully, this overlooks the fact that the block directly across West 37th Avenue already consists of smaller lots in lower subdivision categories, and that the neighborhood is already evolving rapidly under R1-1 zoning. In closing, our proposal integrates with the existing neighborhood while achieving gentle density and opportunities for independent ownership. By providing subdivision potential, Council would allow for more diverse redevelopment options and provide existing families with long-term flexibility and the opportunity to leverage existing assets to better meet housing needs. For these reasons, we respectfully ask Mayor and Council to support this application and consider the staff report with these clarifications in mind. Thank you.

I'm on the line. Can I be heard?

Please go ahead. Interestingly enough, I was not approached by the previous speaker. I am an adjacent neighbor in a rebuilt heritage home. And at first glance with the civic notice that came to our house, I vehemently opposed this project in an uneducated manner. And I think it's based on current redevelopment done within the neighboring blocks or jurisdictions that we've seen a number of multiplexes. So my immediate fear went to we're getting a multiplex on the 37th, an additional one, of which clearly I believe most of us would not approve of. In reading the documents this morning and doing a little bit more discovery, strangely in the last hour, I might flip in support of the previous speaker that... In my honest opinion, what they're proposing is the lesser of two evils, that if we do not approve what they are seeking to do, it will revert back to a potential rezoning in a multiplex potential environment. So given that I think her terminology is soft, gentle re-densification, I actually would probably more support uh their immediate use and uh and not the future risk of a multiplex development on that same uh residential block and i i think this is somewhat uh consistent with last night's council meeting over the neighborhoods plan where uh the risk of it being very binary of uh no individual housing lots or laneway houses and only of multiplex so I have to voice my support of this plan, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

What stops someone from subdividing and selling off each parcel?

What stops somebody from subdividing the lots and then selling?

So is staff concerned that by setting a precedent you could have homeowners subdividing and then selling off those lots?

What staff are bringing forward today is a decision on a recommended contract or an award of a procurement. Should either council or the park board reject the recommendation, then what they're rejecting is the award of a contract.

It could. We haven't deeply contemplated that. We there's multiple things that could happen, but we also do have a building that is in very poor condition. So part of the next step of this would be the chief building officer regularly visiting the site to ensure that that building is still safe to stand. And then the decision around what happens with that facility is under the jurisdiction of the park board.

Right. So, I mean, that specific question is outside of the scope of this report. Sure. Yeah, we're here to talk about the procurement.

That's one of many potential options. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. So yeah, I think we all understand that the number one requirement from the plebiscite was a 50-meter pool. And yeah, so what we found is that management buried their own engineering report that clearly stated that a refurbish is possible and practical. This would get rid of all this problem here about demolition. My main concern is the Thurber report, which pointed to potential serious contaminations underneath the site that once the wrecking ball comes in, releases those chemicals into the beach, the adjacent beach. And I would hate to see the beaches have to be closed for a substantial period of time because of released petrochemicals. The Thurber report clearly stated that a full environmental review should be completed before this project moves forward into demolition. That has not been completed. And in fact, the city's reports say that there is only a danger of asbestos and doesn't mention anything from the Thurber report. That's a serious concern. Multiple trees are to be removed. I think it's between 60 and 70.

We're trying to increase our tree canopy in this city. We don't want any more heat islands. The current plan would see the pool closed for at least four years and a huge construction zone in the west end. That seems pretty unacceptable when a refurbish is possible. There is, as Councillor Orr stated, a legal case pending.

I think the next couple of speakers will speak more fulsomely to this, but there are serious concerns about staff coordinating with the architects what they called a pathway to yes with the architects and pushing the safety narrative. Your own reports say that there's no safety problem with the Vancouver Aquatic Center. Your own engineering report says there's no safety concerns, there's no structural concerns, and there's netting in there. There haven't been any more tiny flakes of concrete falling. And as we've seen, it's been open for children swimming in there very recently at a private event. We have only recently found some of these documents. We are reviewing them. They've been in a massive freedom of information dump. We are reviewing them.

But my sense is that these backroom dealings may even rise to the level of criminality. and potentially even perjury in court. So my recommendation is that we just hit the pause button on this demolition, because once you start demolishing something, those chemicals are released. There's no bringing that back. And we have a look at how this misconduct will be handled. It's clear misconduct, whether it rises to the level of criminality is... yet to be decided, I guess, once we've had a chance to talk to the VPD and our lawyers. I would also remind councillors that according to the Vancouver Charter, an abstention is a yes vote. It is counted as a yes vote. That's a weird little law that you have in the Vancouver Charter. So I would encourage councillors not to abstain on this vote. This is very, very important for the safety of people in this city. I know our mayor... has promised that children can have swimming lessons. My children took swimming lessons at the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. If you go there during lesson time, it is full of multiple, multiple kids getting swimming lessons. That is not possible in a 25-metre pool. That is not possible in a lazy river. And, yeah, I just I encourage you to give this to the kids. You know, these kids, we want we want our kids to be able to train in a facility where they could potentially go to the Olympics, where they could potentially, you know, reach their dreams. And they're not going to do that in a lazy river. They really aren't. I understand this isn't necessarily about the lazy river. This is about the safety of the public. And this is about doing the right thing and maybe avoiding.

Just before I begin, I want to make sure that you all have the document I sent in to the clerk yesterday night. I sent it at 4.40 p.m. ahead of the deadline, and I never received an email reply. So my time is running. I don't want my time to start because I'm discussing a matter here. Well, okay, I'll pause yours. Yeah, thanks.

So can you confirm if you have the slide I sent the document? Clerk, can you confirm we received the presentation?

Okay, good morning. My name is John Gerard. I'm Managing Director of Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Center Society. I'm currently suing the City of Vancouver and the Park Board, as you probably know. That decision is under judicial review and the decision is reserved. I'm here to ask you a simple question and to put your answer on the public record.

Why is this contract in front of you today, regardless of if they're going in there tomorrow to demolish or not, the fact that a contract to approve the procurement while the matter is still before the Supreme Court of British Columbia? That is the question. The lawfulness of this project is under judicial review right now. Justice Christopher Jayashi has heard the case and reserved his decision and under reserve for over a month now. The very validity of the project under the borrowing authority on whether it will proceed at all, that question is not settled. It is live. and it's in his hands as we speak.

Yet today, we're here because the contract to demolish this facility is up for approval.

The optics of that decision are going to have repercussions, especially with upcoming elections, as I'm sure you're aware.

No reputable city approves a contract to demolish the very thing a court is still ruling on. It's that simple. No reputable city approves a contract while that decision is under judicial review. Demolition is not a delay you can reverse. It's not a decision you can revisit if the judgment goes against you. Once the building's down, that's it. The renovation is off the table.

And as we know from city staff emails that we've made public, renovation was, in fact, a tangible option.

It was removed by way of improper channels.

If you approve this contract today, you're not left waiting for the rule of law. You're racing to outrun it. The transcript in front of you is shocking. We've uncovered that from our discovery documents. I'd like you all to look through it, but the architects in that transcript use words like the 50-meter pool looks so reasonable. They discuss how to make it look less reasonable for the park board commissioners who then based their decisions off of that.

I'd like to start by asking who you are second here on the bench that's scoffing and laughing while people are presenting. No, you have no name? Just...

My name is Mayali Alvarez. I'm here representing the Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Center Society. I've been a Vancouver resident for over 20 years. I've used the Vancouver Aquatic Center in various capacities over the decades, and I competed there. I have not trained at that facility for over a decade, but I'm still standing here defending it because I believe this city deserves this pool. And it's outrageous that in the year 2026, the city of Vancouver is still pretending that buildings are not rehabilitable. Like, I don't know what you're sitting over here, what your positions are, but you're scoffing at things that you think we don't know about. We have the documentation. We have the colluding script, the transcript that you just had up. If you all bothered to read through it... John's been so kind to even highlight some points. It is clearly, excuse me, I'm not talking until Ken Sim comes back in here. You can stop my time.

I'm not canceling my opportunity to speak. You can give me my two minutes back once this paper is full again. I didn't come here to speak to, what, does this five of you? One of you doesn't even live in the city, so I'm waiting.

Hello. My name is Greg Gale, and I live in the West End here in Vancouver. I am here today to voice my opposition to the proposed demolition of the Vancouver Aquatic Center at this time, while the BC Supreme Court's decision is still reserved. As a member of the English Bay Masters Swim Club, I feel not enough has been presented to me to prove that the present facility is not able to be renovated and modernized. The layout of the aquatic center at present is ideal for the many clubs and the general public to use at the same time. During our practices, other club members and the public taking swimming lessons are all using the pool. This is due to it being an adaptable 50-meter pool. The proposed 25-meter layout is not appropriate to accommodate all users. Thank you for your time.

Yes, can you hear me?

Okay. My name is Laura Lamb. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I oppose the recommendations. I'm mystified by this plan to tear down the aquatic center. It doesn't stand up to common sense. I can't understand why this plan is ignoring the wishes of the citizens who stated clearly in the consultation that they want a 50-meter pool. Your councillors are here to... represent those people and should do the right thing by stepping away from this ill-conceived plan. I can't understand why the planners are ignoring how much easier and more sensible it is to preserve and protect the asset we already have by simply making repairs. I can't understand why they are advocating to destroy a valuable community asset that is already in place. On top of the cost of constructing this needless project, tearing down the present building would waste multi-thousands of gigabytes of embodied energy. Embodied energy, as I'm sure councillors are aware, is the sum of all the energy required to produce a good, in this case the aquatic center as it exists. At a time when we are facing climate catastrophe, we need to be prudent and make sensible decisions and not participate in mindless consumerism on a multimillion-dollar level. Why would we want to waste millions of dollars and harm the environment for a fancy bobble the community doesn't want or need? It is especially obnoxious when, at the same time, the city is clawing back community services in other areas, claiming that we can't afford them.

Finally, I can't understand how planners could completely ignore the added risk to the public of various contaminants that may be present in the ground underneath the building. I urge the council to step back and order appropriate assessments, including an embodied energy assessment, before taking any further action towards this wasteful and ill-conceived destruction of a community asset. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Maria Luisa Alvarez. I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in opposition of the demolition contract you are planning to award today to erase the Vancouver Aquatic Center. Unlike any of you here today, I was at the VAC's closing day. Let me rephrase that. I was there on the last day the VAC was open to the public. We now know, of course, that the pool was rented out not only once, but twice to private groups. So I guess safety is not actually an issue here. On the last day that the VAC was open to the public, I spoke with many of your heartbroken, tax-paying voters. One gentleman has really stuck with me. He shared lovely stories of his time at VAC, he was a part of a Big Brothers program, and he first went to VAC as a nine-year-old boy. What stuck with me most about our conversation was a quote he shared with me from a plaque that he loves in New York City. Unlike Vancouver, New York City is, of course, a place that cherishes its history. The quote is, Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis I ask you all to contemplate this quote as you prepare to demolish yet another of the city's historic landmarks. The engineering reports commissioned by the city itself called remediation, and I quote, feasible and practical. Throughout this undemocratic process, I continuously keep hearing that the VAC has reached the end of its life cycle. Oh, how I wish that this undemocratic process could come up with less mediocre excuses. There are many pools around the world that are much older than the VAC, many still standing strong in cities that have survived major and catastrophic earthquakes. and yet these cities recognize the value and cultural significance of these pools. Unlike any of you, I was also at the Supreme Court hearing, a hearing funded by taxpayers and the incredible and relentless work of the Protecting Our Vancouver Aquatic Center Society. I was witness to the judge asking the city's lawyer to provide evidence of the city's safety issue argument. Sure enough, your lawyer never provided actual evidence, only opinions given by people who are not experts in this matter, nor are they qualified engineers. What is public record is that the city's own commission engineering reports state that there is no structural issue with the VAC. Therefore, if this is untrue, would it not be absolutely cynical to allow the public to continue using the facility? as long as it did since those reports. I guess it only became unsafe on June 28th. Oh, let me rephrase that. It became unsafe after the two private rentals. I ask that you defer this decision today until the court has ruled their verdict, until procurement questions are answered for the public, until voters have had their say in October. And after that damning bombshell that landed in your inboxes yesterday, I would hate to be on the wrong side of this. You carry the weight of this decision the rest of your lives. Please, make the right choice. Thank you.

Speaker 11 has withdrawn.

I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I oppose the recommendations. When I was growing up here in Vancouver, I learned to swim at swimming lessons at a local pool that was only a few blocks away. I find it appalling that chicanerous actions have been taken to demolish this historic, structurally sound indoor pool and build a new one. Going through with demolishing this pool would be a misdeed committed against residents of our city, due to them not having a pool near their homes while they await construction of a new one, which will take longer than renovation. It would be a misdeed against democracy because those who participated in the process had faith that their voices would be listened to and that taking part in it was meaningful. Lastly, it would be a misdeed against our city's reputation for striving to be the greenest city, which was earned through a decade-long city-run initiative.

When our stadium, BC Place, was in need of repairs, we didn't knock it down and build a new one. We did the logical thing by renovating and upgrading it. I suppose at that time, our politicians weren't lacking in common sense.

I sincerely implore you to save our VAC pool by awarding a contract to renovate this facility.

Okay, first of all, we are on a very important subject. And I just noticed that a lot of council members stepped out. But anyway, I don't feel like speaking in front of the public, but I must have my voice heard because we are dealing with something very important to the benefit of people living in downtown Vancouver. We are trying to preserve the one and only legacy 50-meter indoor swimming pool in the downtown core. Multiple generations of Vancouver residents have benefited from this pool for the past 52 years. We are not against the demolishing of the aging pool, but just that there are too many ambiguities and unanswered questions in the process. The 15-meter pool is already there. Why reduce it? With lack of clarity, I'm asking the City Council. to defer your decision in demolishing the pool until the outcome of the Supreme Court. Once it's demolished, there's no turning back, as we know that. Last but not the least, we hope in one way or the other, we can keep the 50-meter pool. This is the only 50-meter public pool in the core of downtown Vancouver.

I'm Matthew Ho. I'm a water polo player with three clubs based out of Vancouver and UBC. I'm also the grants coordinator for the Whiskey Jacks Water Polo Club, which is the LGBT water polo club here in Vancouver. Most of our team has just competed internationally at the Gay Games in Valencia in Spain. And last month, we hosted our inaugural tournament. featuring over 200 athletes across North America, which unfortunately had to take place at the UBC Aquatic Center because the city of Vancouver simply has no facilities that could host an event such as that. I used to live in Vancouver, but currently have been priced out and reside in Richmond. But I play water polo in Vancouver because that sport is not available down in Richmond. I oppose the demolition of the VAC, not because I don't think the VAC shouldn't be renewed. At the core of the plebiscite issue, I don't think a lot of people necessarily want the VAC to be just running as it is for the next decade or so, and probably would agree with me. I oppose the demolition of the VAC because of the irreparable harm that both the demolition and the current renewal plans of the facility does to water polo in Vancouver, and by extension, the aquatics community. Without the VAC, the community has gone from additionally renting out the dive tank to accommodate new intakes to clubs fighting just to survive because the VAC is closed and carousels not open and families are pulling out from clubs. In tearing apart these communities, there's just no going back and this is not the Vancouver I hope to see. If the city of Vancouver wants to continue hosting aquatics or lessons or world sporting events, removing the VAC and promoting Hillcrest as the way forward, a 50-meter pool that doesn't even allow for competitive swimming, let alone water polo, is not the way forward. If pushing the city to be a more affordable city, forcing clubs to go outside to pay out of municipality premiums, if those municipalities allow it, when players' insurances have been going up, or going to pools at UBC where lifeguards are paid half of what City of Vancouver lifeguards receive, that's not the way I think should be going forward. and if it's pushing itself to be a more accessible and green city, I don't think forcing kids here in Vancouver to be driven an hour out to UBC, Surrey, or Coquitlam is the right direction we should be going either. I've seen firsthand how trust in municipal institutions is eroding, including at Parks Board and here at Council, and ignoring the plebiscite is an example as to why this is happening. And at the end of the day, I believe delaying the demolition in the interior in order to preserve the aquatics communities and bringing back transparency and accountability in building a 50-meter pool earlier than what's being currently planned and proposed in the 2030s as per the draft capital plan would, I believe, would be the first step in doing so. That's all.

Hello, my name is Dante Prince, and I'm here to implore the committee members to oppose the demolition of Vancouver Aquatic Center. I play for two local Vancouver water polo clubs, the Whiskey Jacks and the Vancouver Seniors, and I also sit on the Provincial Water Polo Board of Directors, where my goal is to advocate for the younger generations, which is also what I'll do here today. I'm a proud Vancouverite. This is a world-class city. We hosted Olympics and just recently we hosted the World Cup. Despite that, as of two weeks ago, we can't host a single game of water polo. For our facilities, we had the Vancouver Aquatic Center, which was a world-class facility capable of hosting water polo competition along with a ton of other sports that we've heard about today. And then for our children, they were trained in Karisdale, which is also currently closed. I understand there may be safety concerns with the Vancouver Aquatic Center, but what I have not been convinced of is that demolition is the only way forward, and there is not a solution for a refurbishment. I've looked for these documents. I haven't found them. I've heard from other speakers today that maybe there's a more insidious situation going on there, but I have not been convinced that this needs to be taken away from our community. In addition, the replacement pool that will be proposed, or has been proposed, that is not even here yet, will not support water polo. So even if that is somehow, we've convinced you that our needs matter in the future, we will still be without facilities for years. For our clubs in the city, this means two things. Either death, or they become Vancouver clubs in name only. I know teams who are practicing at UBC, Surrey, Burnaby, and this has a number of impacts on the teams. First of all, the travel times, the costs go up. There's out-of-city penalty or premiums because they're not Burnaby residents. And there's also overcrowding because these cities also have residents that they built these facilities for not to take care of Vancouver's residents because we don't have our own facilities. As I mentioned previously, I'm here to advocate for young people, so I want to give a few examples of what impact this will have. For our elementary school age kids, this means not having the opportunity to learn a team sport, which is all about teamwork, friendship, building confidence, and having a place to belong. For our teenagers who have aspirations of representing Canada in the Olympics or internationally, or getting scholarships for their universities or colleges, They are not able to reach the potential they could if they had the facility and the ability to train in their home city. They have to go far. They have to pay more. It becomes a burden on their family and on their skill, and they will not reach the heights they could. And for myself, for the young adults, Most of us, we found a sport for life. This is something I hope to play for the next 40 years. We're being signaled by the city that this is not possible, and we need to move on and find something else. We're losing these connections. We're losing these decades of health, wellness, fitness, community. This is being taken away from my generation. So I urge the council to delay this demolition until we are able to explore whether the VAC is able to be refurbished so that our generation can have this. And furthermore, to oppose the 25-meter plan. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kathy Wolverton. I'm a Vancouver resident and voter. My perspective is as a former lifeguard, competitive swim coach, synchronized artistic swimmer, water polo player, and former president of the Vancouver Kids Water Polo Club. 20 years since the build on Hillcrest, and over 50 years ago when BAC was built. Those are the only 50-meter pools. The new proposed pool and Hillcrest do not meet the needs of competitive swimming, artistic swimming, and water polo, the competitive athletic sports. I also have extensive experience in procurement and on boards. I'm one of the many that's demanding that you halt the demolition of Vancouver Product Center and defer any irrevocable action until this serious unresolved questions about how this decision was made has been investigated independently. Demolition and issuing a demolition contract is foolish at this point in time. It's one that cannot be Demolition cannot be undone. Wrong for three reasons. The Supreme Court of D.C. has not ruled yet. The safety claim is based on unqualified evidence and conflicts with the city's commissioned engineering report, as well as serious misconduct on how this process has happened. Therefore, I call on you to immediately pause the approval of any demolition and halt that until... That must not proceed while the courts and the public still have unanswered questions.

Defer it until the process has been investigated independently through the Office of Auditor General and the pending outcome of the litigation of the Supreme Court. And demand full transparency from your own administration and city staff who are providing misleading information to the Parks Board and the City Council. No reasonable city approves a contract and destroys an asset while under Supreme Court review. A vote for pause is a vote for democratic accountability, evidence-based decision-making, and integrity.

Yes, my name's Bruce Gibson. I'm a city of Vancouver resident and long-time user of VAC. I'm here to say pause this demolition until the Supreme Court rules on this issue. This is nonsense. This should not be happening. This has to be stopped. There's serious concerns... of the process that's been reached and communicated to the citizens of Vancouver. so far uh for pool renewal renewal uh there's serious concerns about corruption of process from management down to senior city uh city of vancouver staff uh things uh senior city staff have breached their duty of full transparency transparency to the public this demolition has to be stopped i strongly oppose we have to wait for the Supreme Court decision. Thank you.

Speaker number 23 has withdrawn.

Around the room here, I think we're all on the same team. I think we all want what's best for Vancouverites. As you know, for over 50 years, the VAC has served as a training ground for athletes, Olympians, and competitive teams. It has also been my training facility for the past 15 years. And as a fin swimmer, access to a 50-meter pool for both training and competition in my unique discipline is not a luxury, but a fundamental requirement in my sport. I live directly across this street from the Vancouver Aquatic Center, and it has truly been my second home all these years. I honestly don't know where I will be able to continue my training, and I have no idea where West End residents can swim, exercise locally, where it won't be overcrowded for the next, realistically, five to seven years. While we wait for this massive project to be completed with its new features, I might add, such as a 25-meter swimming lane and lazy river, which frankly, nobody wants. If an independent poll were to be conducted today, it would show undoubtedly overwhelming support for preserving the existing facility while undertaking the upgrades necessary to ensure its safety, accessibility, and long-term viability. The community is asking for a modernized version of the facility it already values, not a fundamentally different recreation center. As you know, when public funding was approved to address the aging vac, the understanding was that the facility would be renewed while preserving its defining feature, the 50-meter swimming lanes. The commitment has been abandoned for reasons that many of us are deeply concerned about. I feel it's also worth mentioning that adding to these concerns, the proposal to demolish the Cherished Community Garden beneath the Burrard Bridge is going to go ahead. And for more than 20 years, dedicated volunteers have curated and cultivated the space, making it an important part of our neighborhood. The growing number of signatures to protest the garden reflects how deeply the community values this amenity as well. As part of my advocacy, I've spoken to various contractors and engineers who have insisted that the existing vac can be rehabilitated, structurally upgraded, and at a significantly lower cost and lower time than the new proposal. While I recognize that there are different opinions, I believe these alternative perspectives deserve meaningful consideration. Many residents have also expressed concerns about the transparency of planning, procurement, and decision-making process surrounding both the demolition and development proposals. I respectfully ask that you pause any further movement on this demolition until all available evidence and alternatives have been seen. And I encourage you to reconsider the current course of action. If a small group of concerned citizens can raise nearly $100,000 in donations to its defense, I say it's most well certainly worth a reevaluation.

Yes, I'm on the line.

Hi, I am Terry Meyer, Vancouver resident. I have lived on Beach Avenue for the past 14 and a half years. I strongly oppose the redevelopment of the pool to a smaller size and oppose the demolition of the building. The property needs to remain as a 50-meter pool for the people of Vancouver. I have a certificate in architectural technologies and building development. I have spent the last 45 plus years in design and project management. For example, here's a plot of dirt, build a grocery store, bank, quick service restaurant, commercial space, and hand it over to the owner. That's what my experience has been. In my opinion, the building has had very poor record in regards to maintenance. Simple paint peeling off of walls. is the easiest to maintain however apparent in many locations over the last decade was a structural assessment completed on any any sort of annual basis the building is made of concrete and should have a substantial lifespan providing provided the city completes regular maintenance and upkeep regarding the entrance overhang that fell a short while ago was there any regular structural inspections done prior to the fall again city's responsibility to maintain the building this should have been listed on the regular building maintenance schedule why has the building why has the building exterior not been maintained covered in moss should have been looked after with regular scheduled maintenance against city's responsibility to maintain our building in my opinion the building belongs to the people who are city to maintain our building cost to rebuild replace and the building is excessive given the lifespan of a concrete building is substantial and can stay in place with simple cost-effective upgrades refurbished do not demolish i believe the city is doing something very underhanded and illegal and this is such and this is still in the courts waiting for review to be completed this does not speak well for the city and how they are treating the process Why would you even consider issuing a demolition contract at this stage? Makes no sense. Stop lying or fabricating untruths to the people you work for. Very disrespectful and unprofessional. Perhaps you should do the right thing and step down. Lastly, stop wasting our tax dollars and do what you know is right. Shame on all of you. Thank you.

Speaker 26 is not on the line.

Hello, good morning. I am Charlene Robson.

My moon is in Cancer, so emotions are often right there.

And so in lieu of that, familiar places and faces provide a sense of security.

Okay, thank you very much for taking my call. Yeah, my name's Roseanne Wozni. I've been swimming at the pool most of the time since the 1970s when it was built and having a great time doing my laps, even though I'm now in my 70s. I'm just speaking today to say that... I'm against deciding today about awarding the contract to demolish the Vancouver Aquatic Centre. The reason is, as John Girard and others are leading this fight to save our pool, it's still within the hands of the Supreme Court. The decision is pending. you know, it might be disrespectful to demolish the pool at this point when the judge hasn't made his decision yet. Also, I'm worried about the fact that the true information hasn't really been given to the public because the lawyer at the court hearing did not give any actual professional... information that the pool apparently is totally safe. There was a survey and the pool is safe, but they used that argument. Unfortunately, the judge decided to close the pool anyway. But the thing is, then the very next day after the pool closed, apparently there was the swim club in there with kids. I don't know how old they were swimming. So the pool actually must be safe. Anyway, I'm urging you, because there seems to be some kind of big problem, very big problem with what's going on, lack of... lack of information to the public, because this is a democratic city, and I would like you to hold off on making the decision about giving the contract to demolish the pool until the judge has made his decision, and also, I guess, also until the elections, actually, would be great. Thank you for listening to me.

Ah, there we go. Yep. Good afternoon. My name is Colleen Hardwick. I'm a lifelong Vancouverite and lifelong swimmer in the Vancouver pool system. When I was a little kid, we all went through Red Cross swimming and had our lessons and earned our badges. When we got a little bit older, we started to swim competitively, first at Percy Norman Pool. From roughly 10 to 16, my siblings and I swam twice a day, before and after school, on weekdays and meets on weekends. Our lives revolved around the pool, originally with the Percy Norman Swim Club, then the Vancouver Amateur Swim Club. And when I was a teenager, the new pool was built, the Vancouver Aquatic Center in the West End. We then advanced to the Dolphin Swim Club, and several of our members became Olympic swimmers. 50 years later, the VAC is slated for demolition. And it's hard to believe that this was the new pool when I was a teenager. Clearly, maintenance has not kept up since the pool has been in such drastic disrepair. But be that as it may, the pool is up for replacement. And despite the original promise of replacing the 50-meter pool, suitable for training at the Olympic level, the current regime is cutting it back to a 25-meter pool. I suggest this is unacceptable. It is a betrayal of the public trust since the public voted in the plebiscite on the ballot for a 50-meter pool. And it is also, when you analyze it, ultimately it boils down to a business deal that ultimately trumps the public good. So I oppose making this contract for demolition and suggest if we need any confirmation that the public is behind a 50-meter pool, put it on the ballot for October 17 with the rest of the capital budget items for plebiscite. Thank you.

Speaker number 26 is not on the line.

Hello, Marco Quilicari, FM City staff. The pool is likely to be delivered by the end of 2030.

I can't speak to that, but I can say that we're just going by the...

So I call on a general manager of finance and supply chain. So there is some funding components within this that are contingent on plebiscite borrowing authority that is time constraints. However, I'd point out that primarily the urgency is around the timeliness of delivery and the costs of not proceeding in accordance with the approved capital project.

Okay, so...

May I begin?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council. I am speaking in opposition to this motion for the following reasons. First, when the strategic direction supporting and expanding Vancouver's tech hubs, clusters, and districts was proposed back in 2023, public understanding of the potential negative impacts of tech infrastructure, particularly those associated with artificial intelligence, was not nearly as robust as it is today. Indeed, we are witnessing a period of significant opposition to large-scale tech projects in the city, across the province, and across the country. In fact, in terms of recent submissions that were given to council regarding the rezoning of 111 East Fifth, up to 95% of the written submissions given to council were in opposition to the project. Given this general shift in public attitudes, I think it's inappropriate for Council to support the creation of a tech innovation hub, which undoubtedly would lead to the increase of artificial intelligence data centers, if not in this city, then in other regions of the province and the country. before it is first put to a public hearing. Second, this motion encourages looking into the province's strategic investment special account as a potential source of funding. In particular, it highlights the potential that this account could have for the city to increase funding to defense and mineral extraction technology. This is in spite of the fact that this fund could also support other types of industry, such as shipbuilding in the city, which would provide for high-quality, highly unionized jobs. Vancouver, as you well know, has a long history of environmental and anti-war activism and sentiment. Expansion of business related to military defense and mining technology, which have many deleterious impacts on both the environment and global security, also proposes a major conflict in terms of public consent for such a potential tech hub. and deserves to go before a public hearing. This motion also, as I mentioned, attracts funds both from the provincial and federal level that are earmarked for getting Canada and this province out of dependence on the U.S. However, it is unclear exactly how the funds will be used in that direction, given that the motion also supports increasing global access and increasing international opportunities in the city. Indeed, according to some recent reporting done by The Logic, the majority of infrastructure funding that has been earmarked for Canadian sovereign projects has gone to international companies. This is also true of many of the co-location centers in the city owned by CoLogix, which are owned by Google and opposite rep services. Sorry for the end there. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Council. My name is Scott Rose, and I'm here as the VP of Public Engagement for Vancouver Firefighters Local 8 Team. I'm here to support this motion and thank Councillor Kirby Young for bringing it forward, and thank all the councillors who have came out to our fire halls to see the conditions of them. Vancouver Fire Hall bay doors open right onto the sidewalks and bike lanes of busy streets. When the bells go, 90,000 pounds of apparatus comes out that door. On the other side, there's often a tourist who's never driven in the city of Vancouver, a kid on a scooter, or someone who's walking that street for the first time. Right now, there's not very much to tell them what exactly is about to happen. We're about to scream out onto the street to try and respond and help our fellow citizens. This city currently has minimal warning lights, often no signage, and very little cross-hatching that is inconsistent hall to hall. Burnaby and Richmond currently do this very well and have great models for making sure that people are able to see firefighters are coming. I can speak to this motion well from my personal experience as a firefighter and how hard it is to navigate these challenges, but I thought I'd say bring some words of my brothers and sisters. Pulling out of 17 Hall is a hazardous experience. Every time my crew gets out on the truck at Fire Hall 13, I fear a driver might try and drive up onto the ramp behind them. Someone is going to get killed. I've been at 6th Hall for three years now, and I would be hard-pressed to think of a shift in which one of our two trucks wasn't nearly hit returning to the hall. It is literally a daily occurrence. Firefighters do not want to be the emergency or the person causing an emergency. We have been lucky so far not to be the emergency and to not cause damage to our citizens. But I think with a little bit of investment, we can get to a place where that never potentially happens. The second piece is diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust causes us cancer. It seeps into our living spaces and it lays as dust. Our synergenic exposure during our work hours causes us cancer. For years, our union has worked in great collaboration with the city to make sure that we minimize those effects, but we have not crossed the finish line. We're about 90% there. I think today with this motion, we can work together to make sure that there's a cancer-free fire service. And I thank all of you for your work on this over the years on several motions, including the PFAS free turnout year. I just want to finish by saying thank you all for listening to me, and I respect your time and presence. Thank you.

Could this be raised a bit for me before my time starts, please? I'd appreciate that.

Thank you for the file up. I just want to address the city of Vancouver at this meeting. My name is Nadine Chambers. I'm a 35-year resident of Vancouver. I'm here in person as a neighbor to Fire Hall 11 and 9 in support of this motion. I'm going to open with my question, which is how is the city planning to work to incorporate safer traffic designs as we anticipate the impact on emergency services? with three planned demolition and or construction sites at East Pender and Commercial. Let me just say, on February 2nd, I emailed these concerns, following up on a community meeting at Britannia on January 30th with the city planner, store, and the director of transportation, and this was cc'd to Karen Fry on February 2nd. In the 90s, I remember noticing multiple fire sirens at work. I didn't know they were heading to my apartment building for alarm fire. It was demolished that night. I worked on Burnaby Mountain at the height of the university development, and the fire hall arrived a decade later. Who forgot the fire hall? As a 17-year resident off Commercial and Hastings, Fire Hall 11 is a new neighbor. I watched the median being cut to accommodate their ability to go west on Hastings last summer. Today, read point four of this motion. Please move to slide two. The other side of the crosshatch for traffic heading west... to commercial is non-existent. From my observation, the number one choice of ambulance and fire is to travel south on commercial. I have no issue with that. Victoria is traffic calm due to two schools and two parks. Two, the free parking on Hastings... which is on the left picture there, it's not a very good picture, I didn't want to get killed while trying to take pictures, takes up a lane for three quarters of the block in front of the median cutout for most of the day. The westbound number 14 and 16 stop has been moved to the tip of that northeast block in the last few months as if Fire Hall 11 is not there. The westbound R5 drivers probably hope and pray for space before crossing commercial to the stop on the other side. Hastings East-West. I was filming watching yesterday non-bus traffic heading west at 3 p.m. It's worse at rush hour. The traffic pause time limit can mean within 10 to 15 seconds, commercial and Hastings intersection is blocked right up to the median exit for truck 11. All lanes, including turning. Best videos I have are listed on my site. Never mind. The fire hall and its resident community need controls at the top of the hill at Hastings and Victoria, as well as at Commercial and Hastings. The trucks racing off the Port of Vancouver to approach Hastings and Commercial with little time to pump their brakes. It's also a slope. Nighttime, the intersection is a hazard. Please sift in the next slide. I'm out of time. I took these pictures February 2nd. Basically, when the trucks return to the hall, the crew members jump out to walk the truck in as it backs in. There's no traffic light controls for them, which means cars start slipping by. Fire Hall 11 needs lights like Burnaby Fire Hall 5. And that Yamaha sign there can be repurposed. I get it. It's very close. My apologies. The raised median at the two block, in the next slide, please. The raised median within a two block range for buses and drivers coming off Hastings makes a hell of a bottleneck. We have kids from Britannia coming down to get a seat on the 20. We've got indigenous co-ops and elders at 3 p.m. It's pretty wild.

Yeah, and we'll leave it at that. Thank you for your time.

All right, so this is the end of our speakers list.

Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Iona Bonamis, and my Chinese name is Kosi Wang. I am speaking in support of this motion as a long-time Vancouverite who's very concerned about the health of our residents and wanting to make sure we're taking care of everyone, including our most vulnerable populations, such as seniors and people with lower incomes, often most prone to heat-related illnesses and deaths. And I really appreciate this motion as it is very timely as temperatures are expected to rise today and we're expecting record temperatures this summer again. During the 2021 heat dome, which caused over 600 heat-related deaths across the province and over 100 deaths in the city of Vancouver, the downtown east side area and the city's eastern and southern neighborhoods suffered a disproportionately higher number of deaths. In Vancouver Coastal Health's report about the heat dome, this was largely due to a notable lack of tree canopy and green space compared to other parts of the city. While temporary shade canopies cannot bring all of the benefits of street trees, and street tree canopies should absolutely be increased throughout the city, they are a temporary solution that can be implemented quickly and can help save lives. And given that the city has stopped funding the distribution of cooling kits due to this year's budget cuts, they're even more important. I will also add that there are community organizations who are ready to install community-created canopies. They just need the city to issue them a permit to do so. The problem, though, is that, as Councillor Lucy Maloney said, our... These types of temporary structures are not covered by our city bylaws that govern the governance structures over streets. So as a result, the process to approve them is unclear and this is preventing community organizations from installing these important shade structures. So creating an easy to navigate system to permit. Community installed temporary shade structures would be very helpful, and so I hope you will approve this motion and help reduce the number of heat-related deaths we will see this summer and in future summers. Thank you.

Hello, Amanda Burrows, Executive Director of First United in the Downtown Eastside. I'm a resident of Vancouver and I speak in support of this motion. So just a few weeks ago, we marked the five-year anniversary of the heat dome. And like many people, I've been thinking about those days and being on the front lines in the Downtown Eastside. People who are unhoused had nowhere to escape the heat. People living in SROs came outside because their rooms were even hotter. So five years later, those moments haven't disappeared. Every summer, there are days where I'm back out helping people look for the basics. And of course, it can be incredibly frustrating because one of the things we're most often searching for here is one of the simplest, which is shade. And in the downtown east side where a tree canopy is among the lowest in the city, as we all know, that that shade can be incredibly hard to find. So That's why this motion matters and we know we need long term solutions, more trees, more climate ready buildings. more cooling centers, and we should keep investing in all those things like we're doing here at First United. And yet we know this takes time. And that's why I love this motion because it asks what we can do today. And we've already seen some examples like in places like Seattle where community organizations, artists, local governments, they've worked together to install safe temporary shade structures that provide immediate relief during extreme heat. They're practical and they can help bridge the gap while our long term climate investments continue to grow. And I can really imagine what this could look like here in Vancouver. And that's why I've gotten really excited and involved in this opportunity along with many of my colleagues in this community and some climate resiliency committees that I sit on for low income neighborhoods. Because I can really picture community groups coming together, peer workers, the artists, neighbors, volunteers gathering at places like First United in our cooling center to design and build these safe shade structures together. And I mean, imagine creating this type of shading and it not only would protect the people from the sun, but I think it could really reflect the creativity, dignity, and connection of the communities that made them. So of course, these structures must be safely installed. That's exactly what this motion is about. It's creative, flexible, it's cheap, and it removes unnecessary barriers so trusted groups can respond quickly when dangerous heat arrives. We know extreme heat is no longer rare. We know who is at most at risk, of course. And we know that something as simple as shade can save lives, but also really make people feel more comfortable. I hope you'll support this motion. Thank you so much. And I also want to extend my hope that all of you receive some rest this summer. I know some of you are going to have a busy fall. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Thank you, I would say Mayor and Council, but only Council today. Thank you especially to Lucy Maloney for your courage and leadership in advancing this motion. I am fully in support of this motion, and I urge Council to support it, and I'm a resident, a proud resident, a lifelong resident of Vancouver. Now, just a couple months ago, I spoke to neighbors in a neighborhood that just had their affordable out-of-school child care center close. I specifically spoke to a mother who held her baby in her hand, who was telling me that she couldn't find a space for her kids to go. She couldn't spend the money to afford the expensive childcare options, and she couldn't have the time to send her kids across town to get a more affordable childcare space. but they're not the only ones. Wait lists, especially for not-for-profit, $10 a day childcare are sky high. They're way too high than we need to have. Families should not be expected to either dull out money for more expensive childcare or wait years or drive the kids across town for childcare. As this motion recognizes, we need to use every single tool that we have to ensure that families and working families have the childcare that they need by changing zoning, to allow childcare by right across the city, by working with school board to advance out-of-school care, and by passing this motion. Working and everyday families need childcare in every neighborhood for all, not weightless and long drives. Again, I'd like to applaud Lucy and thank her again for this motion. And I urge council to support this motion. Thank you so much.

Hello, council. My name is Devin Harlos. I live in East Van. And before becoming a mom last year, I was a member of the Planning Institute of British Columbia. Seeing this motion come forward from Councillor Maloney, I have to say, is extremely frustrating and frankly insulting to parents in the Joyce-Collingwood neighborhood. It doesn't actually do anything that we don't already do through Vancouver's existing childcare policies. What we really need now is for council to fight for childcare when it matters most, when real projects are in front of you, such as the 3360 Van Ness project at Joyce-Collingwood Station. This was the perfect case study and exactly what this motion seeks to do. Integrate child care into high density projects as part of the rezoning. The project was successfully rezoned with a turnkey 37 space child care to be owned by the city close to transit in a high density area and affordable with the Collingwood neighborhood house as the nonprofit operator. These are all the very goals you outline in your motion. However, when the developer came to you in February this year and asked for an amendment to get them out of their child care obligations, every single councillor, including Councillor Maloney, who's putting forward this motion, caved and approved the amendment. None of you asked staff or the developer if they had sought child care grants to help fund the space. None of you asked if there were other future development sites near the station that could host this child care. which there are not because none have a floor plate big enough to accommodate their required outdoor space and none of you proposed at the very least a covenant to secure a for-profit child care who would build out at their expense and operate the commercial space in the building this motion is absolutely useless if you do not stand behind and uphold the child care agreements that are already secured through these rezonings in my opinion this motion functions more as a political signal that council supports child care than actually does anything new to deliver child care and it attempts to mask a voting history that council favors developer interest over community needs for child care if you really want to do something with this motion I suggest putting forth an amendment that looks at securing child care spaces and projects that are already designed and intended for child care, such as the Van Ness Project, through the use of covenants. The developer would be required to lease to a for-profit child care so they'd get closer to their desired commercial market rent, and the community would at least still be able to get the child care that they lost after your February 17th decision, albeit not an affordable one. Thank you.

My name is Cecil Wright. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm here to speak to you in favor of the motion. 71% of people in British Columbia oppose a data center being built near them. Two weeks ago, nearly 1,000 people marched on City Hall calling for a halt to this project. I was there, so I can tell you that I did not see a single counter-protester. Average working people in Vancouver do not want this. Let me tell you what we want. We want the city to be honest about who this is for, because we know it's not for people in Mount Pleasant or downtown who are going to be stuck dealing with the noise pollution. We know it's not for everybody who's going to see their BC Hydro bills go up. It's certainly not for the workers in Vancouver who are at risk of getting their jobs replaced by AI. Now, there are ways that this could be done that this motion stipulates that ensure that the people and the workers in these neighborhoods are the primary beneficiaries of this investment instead of TELUS. But we need the city to demonstrate that that is their priority. If you vote no on this motion, the people will know that the priority is bailing out developers like West Bank, which own the very expensive real estate that these two sites sit on, will know that your priority is instead making sure that the TELUS shareholders are able to profit off of this.

I want to say that I have friends in this city who work two jobs and can barely afford rent here at a time when we're talking about turning... real estate downtown onto data centers. You know, I've got friends who are nurses out there on the picket lines working through their breaks so that people don't die. And respectfully, this motion is a chance for you to articulate whose side you are on. Vote no on this and try and push these data centers through with no consultation, no regulation, no safeguards. That is on your voting record forever. And I promise that when that buzzing noise starts and when people's power bills start to go up and when the election rolls around, we're going to remember. On this subject, I would recommend listening to the people instead of your 11 AI assistants. You vote no here, you pick your side. That is you telling the working people of Vancouver that you have sold us out. Thank you for your time.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Perfect. Thank you. My name is Jules Fung, and I'm a Vancouver resident in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood. I'm calling in this motion. The mayor of Vancouver has previously stated that there needs to be balance when it comes to climate action. But what is the point of affordability, the economy, our investments in a so-called booming tech sector, when the place we call home is no longer inhabitable? It's a frightening thing to think about, but it is happening, and we need to wake up. People at kitchen tables are worried about heat domes. Five years ago in 2021, I'm sure many of you know that at least 6,019 people died in the heat dome. Most of them were elders and most died alone in their homes. There weren't enough ambulances to respond. People at kitchen tables are worried about climate change. In 2025, researchers from Health Canada, Oxford, and the University of Bristol published... a study where it found between 11 to 15 percent of deaths were caused by human emissions. Previous science found the 2021 heat wave would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change. People at kitchen tables are worried if you're even listening. The reason why this research is here, the science is here, is to help policymakers like you understand and truly understand the risks associated with climate change and take action. In the words of Counselor Zhou, those who oppose AI and data centers are risking our future. But I'd like to ask, what future would you like to create? The people want a future where we have clean drinking water. The people want a future where our elders are safe. The people want a future where our children are safe. We're not asking for much. I'm calling on you to please support regulation for data centers and safeguards for our community. I'm calling on you to stand up for our future. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Hi, my name is Sarah. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm here today to speak in support of Motion 5, addressing the risks of digital infrastructure. I'm a student. I'm a frontline worker. I'm a young person, but most importantly, I'm a concerned member for my community and all the people that live in the city. I'm concerned by the government's actions that are seeming to oppose the well-being of everybody that calls this place home. With the negative impacts of these data centers that are highlighted in Councillor Maloney's motion and well-documented elsewhere, such as high water usage, high electricity usage, heat generation and very little contributions to the local economy. I worry that, and I also know that our community will be the one suffering all of these consequences of the data centers while not getting any profit from it in our local community. We're the ones living here. We're the ones who are impacted directly by these proposed data centers. For example, the city is giving us water restrictions that we are all following as best as we can because we're heavily concerned about the droughts in Vancouver. Meanwhile, these data centers with very little regulation threaten our shrinking water supply. We deserve transparency and accountability from our local, provincial, and federal governments of all of the potential impacts, risks, and detrimental effects that these data centers will have on our health and the well-being of our environment and the land that we live on. And we also deserve to know where the profits of these proposed centers will be going. So I'm in support of Motion 5 as my community, who's most affected by the centers, deserve a council and government who can pause and take a step back and look at all of the effects before going ahead with a plan that could put us and our environment in further danger.

Hello, can you hear me?

Hi, my name is Desi Wahuni, and I'm a resident here in Vancouver. I'm here today to speak in support of motion five. I work in a downtown office, which is near the proposed TELUS data center at 150 West Georgia Street. My family of five also lives here in Vancouver. I've been following stories about AI data centers in other places. Lots have been reported about the devastating impact, including most recently a meta data center contaminating the city of Cheyenne's water system with rare bacteria. And this is in Wisconsin, United States. I also learned that AI data centers must avoid any downtime, so they must have backup gas generators, which means more noise and air pollution. Will telemedicine centers use those generators, and what will that mean to our quality of life? This motion will help me get some answers. I also learned what closed-loop cooling system actually means. TELA said it will reduce water consumption, but what they didn't say is it will mean an increase in electricity consumption, not to mention the wastewater from the use of chemicals to treat the water. Is our city ready to handle this? Again, the motion will help me get answers. The latest figures from Ireland's Central Statistics Office show that giant server farms now account for 23% of the country's metered electricity consumption. So this is almost a quarter of it. While back in 2015, it was only 5%. What can we learn from what's happening there? I demand an answer. This is about our immediate future. Like I said, Vancouver is home to my family, and I strongly feel I am responsible to do what I can to prevent a bleak future for my children. This is all feel like we, the residents of the city, are being asked to take the proposed data centers on space, and we refuse. You saw us on the streets protesting with No AI Vancouver. Communities across Canada in Regina, Saskatchewan, Grand Prairie, Alberta, Lornaville, Nova Scotia, and Hamilton, Ontario, are all saying no to proposed data center in their area. In Manitoba, Premier Webb Kinu has said he won't allow AI data center there. And just yesterday, the governor of New York signed an executive order imposing the country's first statewide moratorium on hyperscale data centers. We need the city to develop a data center public impact requirement. Stop the proposed TELUS data centers. I strongly ask you, all city Councillors, to vote in support of this motion. Vote in the best interest of our city's residents. Thank you.

Hello, Council. My name is Iona Bonamis, and my Chinese name is Tosi Wing. I am speaking in support of this motion because AI data centers require significant levels of energy and water usage, as many people have mentioned, and they take up scarce resources that could otherwise be used for purposes that would be more beneficial for local communities. According to a 2024 report by the Internal Energy Agency, on average, a single query run through ChatGVT needs nearly 10 times more electricity than a standard Google search. And according to a York University study, a typical 100-megawatt data center would consume approximately 400,000 to 700,000 megawatt hours annually, equivalent to the electricity consumption of roughly 40,000 to 64,000 Canadian households. Along with electricity, data centers also have a huge amount of water need for their cooling systems. UN report found that data centers globally consumed 4.5 trillion liters of water in 2025, enough to meet the needs of more than 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. While developers of modern data centers are planning to reduce their energy and water usage compared to traditional... Even if it's an 80% or 90% reduction, they will still require a high level of energy and water usage. And it's important we know what those levels will be and how they will impact our communities. As Councillor Lucy Maloney has pointed out, data centres also release pollutants into our air and create noise and typically lead to fewer jobs being created compared to other land uses. That means they bring in fewer economic benefits to the local community. So before we approve any data centers to come online, the responsible thing for us to do would be to require projects to be assessed by a third party on what their water, greenhouse gas emissions, air contaminants, and noise and heat impacts will be, and how they can mitigate those negative impacts. So in conclusion, I strongly encourage you to approve the motion and be responsible stewards of this city as you are elected to be. Thank you.

Okay. Hi. My name is Cindy Xiao, and I support Motion 5. I live in Vancouver, and I work as a computer programmer in the cybersecurity industry. Here's an argument I've heard. AI is the future. There's so much demand, the data centers are inevitable. If we regulate them here, they'll just be built somewhere else. The AI industry is actually in a very precarious place right now because they're running out of money. It costs billions to train and run AI systems, and companies are heavily subsidizing the costs of their services for users to keep them cheap and hoping to make you reliant on them. But they're now at a point where they have to raise prices. Because of the price increases, something interesting has happened in the past month inside big companies that previously went all in on AI, including Amazon, Adobe, and Accenture. In just a few weeks, Amazon went from having a leaderboard to see who could spend the most AI tokens to setting strict limits on employee AI usage. At these companies, employees were finding that their custom AI workflows, which they had become reliant on, were now too expensive to run. The industry is asking for a ton of resources, promising the moon, but actually struggling to deliver value that people are willing to pay those higher prices for. What it does deliver is worse than what already exists, incurs additional harms, and makes you reliant on AI. In October, the European Broadcasting Union published a study that found AI summaries misrepresent news 45% of the time. Meanwhile, actual news sites are seeing a 30% to 40% drop in their traffic after Google introduced AI summaries of their content. Worse outcomes, more harms. Next, agentic AI systems, such as the 11 AI agents that Mayor Sim enjoys using, are actually very difficult to design in a secure way. In March, Meta used an agentic AI chatbot system to replace parts of Instagram support. In June, hackers took over Sephora and Barack Obama's Instagram accounts just by asking the agentic AI support bot to reset their passwords. Even for using AI to code, we see problems. Anthropic, the makers of Claude, commissioned a study last year called How AI Assistance Impacts the Formation of Coding Skills. In their own study, they said this, quote, we find that AI use impairs conceptual understanding, code reading, and debugging abilities without delivering significant efficiency gains on average. They also said junior programmers are losing the skills they need to validate code written by AI because those skills are being stunted by using AI in the first place. I want to end with a quote from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. He said this at Davos this year. We will quickly lose even the social permission to actually take something like energy, which is a scarce resource, and use it to generate these tokens. If these tokens are not improving health and education outcomes, public and private sector efficiency across all sectors fall in line. Sorry, Cindy, that's your time.

My name is Alpha Yu. I'm an illustrator and teacher based in Richmond and I am speaking today in support of Motion 5 to assess whether it is really necessary to build an AI data center in Vancouver. You have heard the environmental impact on both water and noise is severe for such a development, obviously. The point is the water. We're in the middle of a water restriction. It stands to reason we should be hesitant to build this facility. We have video evidence of equivalent facilities in the U.S. making it even sleep difficult for nearby residents, so I am opposed to building the data center anywhere with a civilian population. You wouldn't want to build this next to your house, right? Not to mention, you have heard the aforementioned studies from the University of Maine that show a single Google AI search take over ten times the energy that a query without the AI function would have generated, so I heavily encourage Councillors to consider the fact that the average data center consumes the aforementioned hundreds of megawatt hours of energy, with the equivalent consumption of entire towns. Would such power, if it can even be obtained, not be better generally served across all of Vancouver? Sure, we have hesitancy to fund even cooling centers from previous motions, but we are okay with this level of energy subconsumption, so I urge consistency. But on top of that, there is an ethical concern about AI. I have lost my job to AI. We know Mayor Kinsen has stated he does most of his work with 11 AI agents. If this facility is built, councillors, let us stop him from adding a 12th, 13th, 14th, from replacing your job, honorable councillors. And if you think your job is automation-proof, consider that AI mostly targets automating entry-level positions. Yet multiple studies have shown that it costs less to simply hire an entry-level worker than to use the AI to automate that single worker's job. The stage of exploration is done. We have the data. So obviously, AI takes up Vancouverite's jobs, doesn't generate value for its users. So who gets the value? AI companies. And these are not Canadian companies. They would not bring sufficient value to Vancouverites. I won't take it that you want jobs or money that could be used to stimulate the economy, obviously, flowing out of it. OpenAI is on track to running a $14 billion deficit. Basically, nobody is benefiting from this. In the realm of data, this is a TELUS project through the Cloud Act. Data can be subpoenaed by the American government. So we've heard it said by AI investors that Canada cannot fall behind on AI. We've heard these companies say that AI is inevitable, so we should build as many data centers as we can. But that's the thing. These are the people who would stand the most to profit from such initiatives succeeding. The loudest voice is saying... The loudest voice is... saying we should explore ai are the people who have the most to gain from it they are not vancouver rights they would not benefit the city we aren't even saying that we don't want data centers although i certainly do not we are simply saying to give it measured consideration that is the way of rational people we your constituents know that you are rational people so counselors i urge you to support motion 5 and put serious thought into if this data center will be a contributor to our community i urge you not to oppose it you're better than that thank you okay speaker 11 suki sahota

Thank you, Chair. I support Motion 5, addressing the risks of digital infrastructure. Artificial intelligence offers enormous opportunities, but the infrastructure powering it is not impact-free. Hyperscale data centers require significant electricity, water, and cooling, generate continuous noise and waste heat, and occupy scarce industrial land while creating relatively few permanent jobs. This motion is not anti-technology or anti-investment. It is about ensuring innovation proceeds responsibly and in the public interest. It proposes a third-party public impact assessment covering water use, emissions, noise, heat recovery, and employment impacts, and asks whether facilities align with Vancouver's climate targets and should publicly report their ongoing impacts. These questions matter because British Columbia does not currently have a single comprehensive framework applying these standards consistently across community parties. While the province regulates aspects like electricity, safety, and environmental protection, there is no unified public interest test for whether a data center is an appropriate use of local resources. We have seen similar concerns before. In 2022, the province paused new electrical service for cryptocurrency mining due to concerns about allocating large amounts of clean electricity to an energy-intensive industry with limited economic return. Our identity centers raise many of the same issues, along with additional concerns about cooling, water use, and neighborhood impacts. However, Vancouver cannot address this alone. Without a consistent provincial framework, developers may shift projects to municipalities with weaker requirements, creating a race to the bottom. No community should feel pressured to lower standards to compete for projects that affect shared provincial resources like the electricity grid. I encourage Council to adopt this motion and also request that the province establish a comprehensive framework for major data centers across British Columbia. Such a framework should set consistent minimum standards for energy and water use, emissions, noise, public reporting, grid impacts, and community benefits, while allowing municipalities to adopt stronger protections where needed. Vancouver should lead, but not stand alone. A province-wide approach would provide certainty for industry, fairness for municipalities, and protection for residents and shared resources. For these reasons, I support the motion. Thank you.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes. No, I do not live in the city of Vancouver. My name is Brock Warren Smith. Okay.

I live in the city of Vancouver, and I support this motion addressing the risk of digital infrastructure, and I am in favor of a full moratorium.

But I do live next door in Burnaby, and these data centers are not only going to affect the lives of those nearest to the build sites. The effects of these centers are going to ripple out to all of us as well. The environmental impact alone should be enough to justify a moratorium. Provincial electric grids in most parts of Canada include a lot of fossil gas already, and we're lagging when it comes to building new renewable energy resources. Whenever we add a new load to the grid, we and wind projects from decarbonizing our energy system overall. We're only compensating for new projects rather than cleaning up the existing energy system that powers the rest of us. AI data center demand is also being used to support the creation of new fossil power plants and delay the retirement of old ones. This will directly affect the amount of pollution we produce and our power bills. In the U.S., in markets with heavy data center growth, customers saw their monthly bills go up as much as double digits. Ensuring Canadians' data sovereignty is quickly becoming the go-to justification for the data center build-out. Bell Canada describes its planned series of data centers as part of a sovereign AI fabric, while Telus deems its Quebec data centers as Canada's first sovereign AI factory. Just because it's on Canadian soil doesn't mean it's sovereign. Bell's proposed AI Fabric Data Center in Regina has been described by provincial governments as positioning Saskatchewan as a national leader in sovereign AI infrastructure. However, the facilities to identify tenants and owners of the facilities' means of compute are U.S.-based CoreWeave and Cerebras, both of whom would be subject to the U.S. Cloud Act. We cannot let the promises of some tech companies compromise our dedication to preserving Canadian nature and protecting Canadian citizens and their quality of life. Let us build the infrastructure that Canadians need. Affordable housing, green energy production, and libraries. Companies building data centers of this scale have money and lawyers to find every regulatory loophole and will abuse them for their profits at our detriment. According to Floodlight, at least 38 centers in Texas are using such regulatory loopholes to gain permits for on-site power sources representing northwards of 2,000 backup diesel generators and yearly emissions of 2,500 tons of nitrogen oxides, which are highly toxic gases. Please support this motion and pass a full moratorium on current and all future data center projects until we know the real risks involved here. Thank you very much.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Hi, City Councillors and Mayor. My name is Pearl Wong and I am a resident of Vancouver. I am here today in support of Motion 5. We are learning in real time the negative impact of a hyperscale data center. Polluted drinking water, constant low frequency noise that cause headaches and other health problems, and dead bees that harm our crops and therefore our food supply. These are only a few of the problems that hyperscale data centers have introduced to communities in the United States. It's only right that we learn from other people's mistakes and plan for and implement safeguards that will preserve our right to quiet enjoyment, our limited drinking water, and our electrical grid. I want us to keep Vancouver and other cities and towns in our province a pleasant place to live. Data centers operate 24-7. They don't produce or provide anything of real necessity to our communities. And I'm speaking as a software engineer. I know better than most people how data centers are used today. I know for a fact that we don't need these centers to improve the security of national data, the quality of internet search results, or anything that actually provides important things for regular people to live and thrive in real life. If anything, we are all seeing how these centers continually extract public resources from towns and residents. Since we're in a water shortage, Like most people, I am also very concerned by our city and province's prioritization of this limited resource. The water also powers our electrical grid. With record low rainfalls in our area, we should all be doing more to conserve water and build projects that Vancouverites actually need, like keeping our green climate goals, social housing, updating community centers, and increasing our support for local arts and culture. Just a few highlights from the capital plan survey results. It is our responsibility and the Council's responsibility to fully understand impacts for everyday people before signing off to build a mega warehouse of computer servers. Please support this motion. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Rachel, and I'm a community member that volunteers in Vancouver. I'm calling today to speak and support Emotion 5 when I learn about how AI data centers are going to be built through the advocacy group No AI Vancouver. Through investigative journalism, such as the TAI, your research has shown that the effects and impacts of AI data centers and AI factories have been not clearly addressed. When a public consultation was held in 2023, a majority of the people from Vancouver were not aware of the TELUS AI Center project, the one at 150 West Georgia Street. Until now, with advocacy groups like No Way at Vancouver leading protests about it each month. In support of Councillor Maloney's motion, the need to measure quantifiable and qualitative assessments on the quality of life the AI Center will impact, diesel usage in a mixed-use neighborhood, the strain the AI Center will have on our electricity grid, and especially our water usage, is very important. Other cities in B.C. will see Vancouver as a leader, so it's significantly, again, important for Vancouver to position itself as a climate-just city and leader. This motion is a step forward in proceeding with caution with a trending industry. When in doubt, slow down. I strongly urge Council to support this motion without any amendments that undermine the need of strong regulations. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council. My name is Caitlin Stockwell. I'm a Vancouver resident, climate advocate, and lawyer who has worked on both provincial and Indigenous-led environmental assessment policies. The emergence of AI data centers in cities, and in particular, hyperscale data centers with high energy needs, pose new potential risks that need to be properly assessed and weighed. That's why I'm speaking in support of this common sense proactive motion to require a new public impact assessment before council decisions are made on proposed AI data centers. This is not a moment that calls for a let's wait and see approach, but instead requires regulators to understand and proactively plan to ensure future decisions are made in the public interest. This motion helps support informed decision-making, ensures Vancouverites will have answers to important questions about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of data centers proposed in their neighborhoods, and provides accountability for any commitments made by data center proponents to water and power consumption levels. Critically, this motion will also require staff to report back on means for assessing whether any data center development applications are consistent with the city's climate targets. These targets are promises that have been made to Vancouverites for our collective current and future health. As would be required by this motion if it passes, the onus must be on AI data center proponents to actually demonstrate that their proposal will generate local benefits that outweigh harms and that they can appropriately mitigate and manage environmental impacts. Importantly, this motion further provides a pathway for ensuring that projected benefits of AI data centers such as jobs, contributions to the local economy, and community investment, are assessed as compared to other viable industrial uses for the land as a reference point. It also helps ensure that proponents are on the hook for providing community contributions, commensurate with the significant wealth these centers generate for private investors. As is standard for impact assessment processes in Canada, impact monitoring should not end at the point of approval. As proposed by this motion, if a data centre was approved after a robust impact assessment process, the City needs to ensure that any commitments made by AI data centre proponents, including on water and power consumption, are monitored through public disclosure and enforced. As more information is learned about AI data centers, this can be used to inform the questions asked by and the requirements of the proposed public impact assessment. In summary, this motion proposes a thoughtful path forward for regulating and dealing with the risks and uncertainties of AI data centers as the city anticipates a growth in AI data center development applications. This motion doesn't prejudge the outcome of future applications. It simply ensures council and the public have the information necessary to make informed decisions in the interest of the city's climate targets and environmental goals, community health, and economic interests. I want to thank Councillor Maloney for bringing forward this proactive motion, and I hope Council will vote in support. Thank you.

three-year resident of Vancouver, and I'm speaking today in support of Councillor Maloney's motion. In connection with the data centre public impact requirement and associated enforcement mechanisms, including a potential data centre-specific business licence proposed by this motion, I urge council and staff to investigate the appropriateness of the land use category under which AI data centres are currently zoned. Several AI projects scheduled for development in Vancouver have been classed as bulk data storage. This includes the TELUS hyperscale sites at 150 West Georgia, 111 East 5th, and the CoLogix co-location center at 3448 Cornette Road. This land use classification is inappropriate for two main reasons. One, AI data centers are fundamentally not storage facilities. The city's current zoning and development bylaws defines bulk data storage as the use of a wholly enclosed building for the storage of information on operating data servers. Bulk data storage is a subtype of the land use category transportation and storage uses. This includes other miscellaneous things such as cold storage plants, grain elevators, mini storage warehouses, packaging plants, etc. However, the activity of AI data centers is in no way analogous to these other uses permitted in this category. The function of AI data centers is to process vast amounts of data and produce novel outputs on-site using particular kinds of energy-intensive processing units to do so. On the contrary, none of the other types of facilities permitted under this category has as their primary function processing or production. Secondly, inaccurately classifying AI data centers as bulk data storage creates public misunderstanding and has the potential to unfairly limit informed participation in Vancouver's zoning and permitting processes. Use of the term storage to describe the primary function of these facilities implies that they are relatively low intensity and that on-site activity poses little risk of harm to the surrounding area. In contrast, AI data centers are high intensity, high energy demand facilities that require continuous operation and have been associated with a number of negative outcomes as we've heard from many previous speakers today. Vancouver residents deserve to have developments that are, sorry, the developments constructed in the city to be properly named and described in order for us to have the best opportunity to democratically engage in the city zoning processes. Therefore, I would like to request that the city review the classification of all bulk data storage facilities and bring them before a public hearing and also encourages the development of a new set of classifications related to AI storage centers in particular and data centers.

I'm not.

Hello, Council. Thank you for listening to us and having us here today. I am here in support of Councillor Maloney's motion, and I'd like to thank her for bringing it to the floor here. And I'm also going to invoke the classic refrain that I believe it does not go far enough yet at the end of the day. We're advocating for direct democracy in an issue that people care a lot about and that people are paying attention to. And I can do nothing but support that while also calling for a moratorium on these data centers. The reason that I'm here to do that is, well, I could talk about the heat radius that's been shown around them. We could talk about the effects on cognitive decay. We could talk about the effects on kids in schools. We could talk about... what it's doing to the environment, what it's doing to labor, what it's doing to jobs. I can't even thoroughly complete this list of all the concerns. Surveillance, that's another one. All of which people are paying attention to across the political spectrum. And the reason that I know that is not just because I spend way too much time on the internet, is because I am one of the co-organizers of the No AI protest movement that you... may have seen us on the street in front of there before. We've had about 500 people come out to our first event. We had about 1,000 come out to our second, and I hope to see more on our third on July 26th at 1 p.m. in front of the art gallery. And in those meetings, people have come up to me from across the political spectrum and said, hey, I don't think I normally would agree or identify with you on very much, but I agree with everything you said while we were talking, while we were listening, relaying their concerns. So the message I have for council is really not on terms of policy or procedure, which you know better than I do. not in terms of the issues, which I'm sure you also know better than I do, I would like to discourage you from normalcy bias, whatever it is, the momentum that you're used to seeing on this floor, especially in regards to this issue. People are paying attention. They are waking up. They are participating in democracy and making sure their voices are heard in ways they haven't before. So if nothing else, I would encourage, for the sake of what happens in the next election, people will pay attention. I can't imagine the amount of pressure that you're getting behind the scenes from the other side of this issue. And I know that the provincial and federal government are also pretty keen on these data centers as well. And so that is pretty scary to try to consider bucking that or going against that. And maybe you don't even have the power to do so. And maybe that's true. But still, I would say make them hold the bag. Be clear about your position and make them overrule you. People will see that, and we will remember that when we are in the ballot box. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

can you hear me okay yes we can please go ahead okay great um hi my name is erica miles i'm a resident of vancouver in the mount pleasant area and i'm calling in support of motion five i live about a block away from the proposed data center at 111 east fifth avenue the building i live in consists of 145 rental homes all of which are either housing income limit units or lower end of the market housing Many of the residents are young families or people with disabilities, including myself. And that is just one building out of many in the area filled with families and young working professionals. In addition to many businesses, shops and restaurants that make Mount Pleasant such a vibrant community and place a great place to live. I'm very concerned about the potential impacts of hyperscale AI data center being built in the neighborhood. Reports have shown that hyperscale data centers have a very negative effect on the environment. They use an incredible amount of water to cool the machines, and we're already in stage three water restrictions, and it's only the beginning of the summer. Even centers that use a closed-loop system eventually deflesh the systems to prevent buildup and can leach harmful chemicals and contaminants into the water supply. There have been reports that the constant noise from the hyperscale data centers have negatively affected nearby residents, giving them headaches and keeping people from being able to sleep at night. They've also been shown to create heat islands with the constant need to run cooling systems that place an enormous strain on the electrical grid. I live in a building without built-in air conditioning, and the summers are already incredibly challenging with the rising temperatures, and having additional heat added onto that from a nearby data center would have a terrible effect on my community. In addition to living nearby the proposed site, I also work in the animation industry and have worked in the Mount Pleasant area for the past 10 years, also just blocks away from the proposed site. Generative AI has been incredibly harmful to my industry and has threatened the livelihood of many people working in animation and film. It has been largely unregulated, both in the way that many of the large learning models have been trained off of scraped and stolen work from artists like myself and my colleagues, and also in the building of the data centers where they are housed. The AI industry as it is currently run mainly benefits tech companies and billionaires while taking jobs from people in the communities and providing little additional benefit. I urge the council to slow down and put a pause on rushing the approval of all of the data centers and AI infrastructure before they can properly assess the impact they will have on the community around them and create adequate regulations to protect the people of the city. I strongly support the motion to follow the report recommendations and make sure that the proposed data centers would not cause harm to the surrounding communities before any of the permitting is approved. And thank you for your time.

Hello, can you hear me?

awesome uh good afternoon counselors uh mayor sim uh thank you for taking time in your busy schedules to hear from your constituents and enact their wishes my name is phelan times mcdonald and i am a resident of vancouver i'm calling in today to speak in support of the motion to explore developing a data center public impact requirement as well as other measures to ensure that data centers specifically artificial intelligence data centers do not harm the communities they intend to support I'm a professional journalist and an editor who has spent the past three years covering Canadian technology policy for a national news outlet. The research is clear. AI data centers are resource-intensive warehouses that require energy, water, real estate, and many other essentials that are also needed by city residents. I understand, especially as city councillors, the appeal of a, quote, world's most powerful and sustainable AI infrastructure, as well as particularly with our country's push for, quote, sovereign AI solutions. However, there's nothing requiring these centers to abide by any of those claims. Proponents have touted their closed-loop liquid cooling systems, which they say will consume 90% less water than traditional data centers. While they appreciate their supposed concern for water use, this claim is deliberately misleading. Using outdated comparison data center models that are so old, they're effectively ancient. proponents' claims don't address are the increased energy use that such cooling systems need. The fact that EC Hydro's own chief regulatory officer declared that the province's utilities company is facing a significant power shortage within the next four years, so significant that it's considering undermining the province's climate regulations. along with a number of other issues um as counselor kirby young stated during the first motion uh earlier in this committee meeting this motion is exploratory and if these data centers will be truly beneficial to the city of vancouver then there should be no issue uh you know considering rules to implement rules that they might need to abide by good proposals are not afraid of good rules Good companies are rewarded by such good rules. They get an enduring market advantage against sloppy vendors who might be happy to cut corners. Good investments also prefer stable regulatory environments. Right now, we're in the Wild West when it comes to AI data centers, and that's not an environment for stable investment. This motion could lead to us fixing that. I urge you all to vote in support of it. Thank you.

My name is Eddie Padrera. I'm the president of the Canadian Animation Guild, Local 938 of the International Alliance of Theatre and Stage Employees. I'm not a Vancouver resident, so I'm speaking today in my capacity as president of my union, and I rise in support of this motion. Our union represents around 1,400 animation VFX and digital arts workers in the Lower Mainland. the bulk of which live and work here in Vancouver. Our members interact with fairly advanced and specialized commercial software, and they're no strangers to tech change. Though many of our members are directly employed as artists, our sector also includes a significant number of production technology specialists who, in very general terms, are tasked with taking the newest advances in computing technology and adapting them to fit the needs of a production pipeline. So it's from this position that I feel quite confident in saying that our members do not oppose this current cycle of data center investment out of fear or from alarmist sentiment. These are folks that are quite used to new tech. On the contrary, we oppose it because we are seeing a drive from industry and government to direct a lot of resources onto technology that has not proven itself at an industrial scale. the largest firms behind the development of artificial intelligence are still working on use cases, and we should not mistake marketing for proof of viability. When it comes to generative AI, for instance, there's a lot of flashy stuff on the market, but our folks who provide that service work to Disney, to Netflix, to all the big giants, we have not seen these tools deliver on a lot of their promises. And in terms of job creation as well, we see a lot of figures from TELUS and from the federal government around, you know, the job creation figures around this. And we find that the bulk of these jobs that could be created are temporary jobs in construction. Now, as a union rep, I got a lot of buddies in the building trades, and I guarantee you these folks would be just as happy building homes. They'd be just as happy building hospitals and schools. In terms of permanent employment, the job creation of projects like... projects like this tend to be quite small. So with all this in mind, I do not believe it would be wise to fast-track developments that will come with a heavy burden on our electricity infrastructure when those developments cannot promise economic or job growth to offset those burdens. Whether those investments continue is beyond the scope of this motion, so I only ask that as those developments go forward, the material needs of Vancouverites are taken into consideration. By passing this motion, City Council will be sending a strong message to the workers of the city that Yes, Vancouver is a world-class center for technological innovation, but this innovation will never come at the expense of its workers, health, safety, or livelihood. I think this is not a maximalist motion. I think it's not radical. I think it's simply good governance. Thank you.

My name is Cordy Matsumoto. I'm a Surrey resident, but I've lived in East Van and New West. I'm disabled, and I'm part of core staff in a non-profit social club that brings together tech workers, 2SLGBTQIA, and all sorts of diverse people as young as 10 and as old as 45 over shared hobbies, creating and maintaining a safe, accessible, local community space. The vast majority, if not all of them, are eagerly waiting for the AI bubble to burst. Every day, another shared experience about AI causing problems from top to bottom of company structures, from indie studios to multinational corporations. Eroding user trust, demoralizing employees, we can no longer trust whether anyone is truly communicating. is substantially widening holes in hiring processes and career paths. Holes that require hiring back the humans AI promised it will replace. Forcing companies to spend far more money rehiring and retraining for jobs that have been restructured to value their experience less and pay them less for it. The government of Canada warns us against cryptocurrency scams, yet buys deep into its political sphere of influence with decisions like this proposed data center. We pretend libraries are relics of an earlier time, even as it bursts at the seams with new, original thought, while AI guzzles our dwindling drinking water and regurgitates the reading material we've already created sustainably and responsibly. What... is AI truly responsible for? What can AI truly be held accountable for? It is a lose-lose gambit for our communities, for our local companies, and a win-win for world powers looking to kick the legs out of our infrastructure and pressure Canada to pay out the nose for private companies looking to profit off of Canada's resources. To sum it up, generative AI and AI data centers as a whole come at a massive loss of profit and morale for wherever hosts them. It is unwanted by the people. It is an unnecessary liability disguised as a profitable investment. I cannot emphasize enough how it undermines our jobs, our societal progress. It is an inefficient use of our most strained resources, and it is easily exploitable. It is simply a scam. I'm begging everyone here to pass Motion 5. Thank you.

Hi, can you hear me?

Thank you. Hello, councillors. Thank you so much for your time and listening today. I'm speaking in support of Motion 5. I'm a resident of Vancouver, living close to BC Place and the location of the Plan New AI Data Center site. I am concerned about the effects data centers will create on the quality of life for local residents and its environmental impact. I'm concerned about the rise of costs of electricity in order to sustain the energy demands of the data centers. I'm concerned about the noise pollution that will be right outside my home, which is linked to increased stress and anxiety, elevated heart rate, hypertension, immune issues, reduced sleep, reduced cognitive ability, and much more. As an example, on a microscopic scale, Data centers produce artificial EMF fields that researchers say disrupt the magnetic navigation systems that bees rely on, causing reductions on colony size and breeding. But on a human level, EMFs are linked to childhood leukemia, nervous system tumors, brain cancer, breast cancer, Alzheimer's, cognitive dysfunction, miscarriage, DNA and cell damage, and more. Data centers can raise the local daily temperature by an average of 3.6 degrees and increases the risk of local fires. There are numerous examples in the communities in the U.S. that have suffered from introducing data centers into their environment. Many testimonials that I don't have the time to speak on today, but I would appreciate this council to consider how data centers may not fit into the current zoning that it is in now. At the very least, It should be in a voting category of its own. The impacts of these centers on residents should be carefully considered, and strict regulation should be put in place before any movement to building is taken. On a macroscopic level, AI does not create jobs. It takes jobs away from citizens and supports the growth of technology billionaires. As an artist myself, I'm highly aware of how AI feels real artists work without their consent. No one needs generative AI, especially given the harms on people and the environment. Thank you for listening to me today, and I urge you to support Motion 5. Thank you.

Hello. Yes, I'm on the line. Can you hear me?

Wonderful, thank you. My name is Garrick. I'm a resident of Vancouver and I'm also a software developer and designer by trade. I support motion 5 and I would further urge Council to impose a moratorium on hyperscale data centers until the regulations described by the motion are set in place. Hyperscale data centers are materially different from the offices and other industries accounted for under light industrial zoning, as previous speakers have indicated. Critically, we know that they're hugely energy intensive, at least 10 times more so than traditional data centers that they're often confused with. This energy intensity has important downstream effects on the grid, effects which are not regulated. We have no firm guarantees that energy costs will not increase as BC Hydro faces increased grid strain over the next years. And further, we know from cases in the United States that hyperscale AI data centers are closely associated with increased disruptions to electrical harmonics, which can damage electrical hardware and infrastructure in the local area. There's currently no real regulatory environment around hyperscale data centers, and I don't support corporate lawlessness. The developers and managers of hyperscale data centers should be held to high standards of transparency so the community can judge these novel projects in an informed way. They should be held accountable for promises about resource use and local impact with penalties if they break those promises. And they should be subject to democratic oversight and consent in their ongoing operation. Furthermore, AI data centers represent a poor use of very limited public space in the city of Vancouver. Vancouver is in critical need of housing, healthcare, and accessible community spaces. But these data centers create few permanent jobs and no local amenities. They're a missed opportunity to build things we actually need. They're dead weight in the heart of our home. Finally, in many ways, the construction of these data centers is an affront to the dignity of a lot of Vancouver's critical cultural and economic sectors. I've attended the protests, and in speaking to protesters, it's clear that beyond the data centers themselves, many Vancouverites feel these projects are a symbol of a much larger imposition of generative AI by the Liberal government and the North American tech industry, primarily geared to bolster and protect the investments of a few large American tech companies. They don't feel excited when the government says that AI is an inevitable part of their lives or schools or neighborhoods. They feel assaulted. And that feeling will persist into the October elections. I would urge council to exercise leadership and put an end to corporate lawlessness. Show us that the human beings who live in Vancouver matter more to you than the lobbyists and business interests who see our home as just another opportunity to grow their investment portfolio. Please support motion five.

Can we turn on?

Thank you, Councillor Orr, and thank you, Council, for hearing my remarks on this matter. I really want to focus not necessarily on the planning part of this, but I want to tell a story about a whale. Until about 2024, the gray whale was one of the most successful conservation stories in the world. It's a mammal with the longest migration in the world, going from the Gulf of California all the way to the Arctic off Alaska. But starting in 2025, there is a mass die-off event. And in between 2025 and the first half of 2026, a conservative estimate of 2,500 gray whales have starved to death. In those same years, gray whales have returned to English Bay for the first time in decades. Now, this isn't necessarily a good news story because we believe that a lot of those whales are coming in emaciated, feeding on the seafloor around English Bay as a last resort to make their way up to the Arctic. And that's why it's key that we have a unified governance structure and a unified plan for Falls Creek. Because whatever comes out of Falls Creek during the tide falls into the sediment at English Bay. And at this point, every whale matters. We saw the outcry when that one of the whales was hit by a jet ski this spring. But the longer-term issue with whales in our harbor has to deal with water quality. And unless we get serious about dealing with water quality, not just in Burrard Inlet, not just in the Salish Sea, but specifically in False Creek, we'll continue to see dead whales washing up on the beach. in BC, Washington, Oregon, and California.

Now, this isn't all bad news. We've seen, because of decades of work by committed community members, that herring have returned to Falls Creek, that orcas are starting to return to Falls Creek. But this healing can only happen, can only continue, if we continue to take the steps, not just at an individual level, but at a governance level, to make sure that our city is happy, healthy, and welcoming of all, both human and non-human. We're lucky to live on an amazing migratory corridor. We're blessed with all kinds of life in our city. And it's our duty as people who live here to be good stewards of those lands and waters. And that's why I urge you all today to vote in support of this motion. Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm in support of this motion. My name is Brian McBay. I am one of the City of Vancouver Arts and Culture Committee appointees, as well as a member of the BC Arts Council, former trustee with the National Gallery of Canada. I'm a co-founder of 221A, and we operate over 140,000 square feet of affordable artists, studios, housing, and cultural facilities. For more than 20 years, we've been asking this one practical question. How do we keep the arts in Vancouver? We're a homegrown solution to this art space crisis we find ourselves in, and we continue to work very closely with the city. Three of the facilities that we operate are in partnership with the city of Vancouver, which we deeply appreciate. But we also know the city can't do this alone. The infrastructure deficit has grown too large. And so over the last eight years, we've been researching a collaborative succession model for the work that we've been doing. We need the scale and complexity of investment for the city of Vancouver. So we found the Cultural Land Trust as one practical answer. Just last week, senior governments have been investing in arts and culture across the country. across Canada. Contemporary Calgary received a $40 million federal capital grant through the Carney government. The question is whether Vancouver has the right investment vehicle to attract and recycle this capital. These funds are typically geared towards large-scale investment, and small and medium-sized nonprofit organizations are unable to access these funds. So the Cultural Land Trust is being used in 15 cities across the world, as mentioned, London, but also Sydney and Calgary and Austin. This responds to affordability crisis, but also drives strategic investment so that it's held within the private real estate market as well as collaborating with government. For us, we see it as a permanent platform for community control, enabling arts organizations to access these opportunities that otherwise remain out of reach. We have some momentum. Last month, a private donor entrusted us with a $2.7 million asset. We welcome the opportunity to work and contribute with the city on governance and planning, which this motion is really about. We are hoping that this motion is ultimately about the city trying to unlock and leverage more investment from senior government and philanthropy than the city can achieve on its own.

Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. My name is Jesse McKee, and I'm head of strategy at 221A, where I've been building the institution for the past 11 years of my career alongside colleagues like Brian and others who will speak today. As Brian mentioned, we're a nonprofit arts organization located in a city-owned facility at 825 Pacific. I live in Vancouver's West End, and I'm here in support of Motion 7. Brian spoke to the capital architecture. I want to speak to what this framework makes possible for artists and to what other cities have already figured out. I also work a lot outside of our city. I co-founded a digital studio in Paris that works with leading cultural institutions and fashion brands in Europe. What strikes me every time I come home is not that Vancouver lacks talent. I live here because the artist community is so rich and vital to my life. What's different is that other cities built institutions to hold on to their talent, and we haven't yet. The Creative Land Trust in London was founded in 2019 by the Mayor of London, Arts Council England, and a private foundation. It since has bought a 33,000 square foot used building in Hackney Wick and secured two more. Seattle chartered the Cultural Space Agency. San Francisco has CAST. This motion names those solid precedents in other cities living through an even harsher financial reality than Vancouver. I'm a curator by training. To curate means to care for the artwork. From Latin's curare, which means to take care of. In ancient Rome, a curator was essentially a civil servant responsible for caring for public goods, like aqueducts, while medieval church curates were responsible for caring for souls. Tutu and A's mission is to care for the artists themselves so that they can keep creating and making what contributes to our lives and makes them more livable here. Every year I watch what precarity costs artists. An artist spends a decade building a practice and an audience here and can lose that traction in a month's time with the foreclosure of a cultural space. This is not a market outcome anyone chose. It's the absence of an institution. Last month, a private donor left 221A a home on the city's west side, a $2.77 million asset. It's now the first cultural land trust property in Canada, and that happened because someone believed this institution would still be here in 50 years. That's what permanence buys, and it's what you can't buy with a grant. Motion 7 asks for very little. A staff report by Q1 next year, two letters from the mayor. In May 2024, this council voted unanimously to direct staff to report back to the city how they can support an independent cultural land trust. That working group has now reported back. It's motion nine today. Motion seven is simply the follow through on the work you already started. The federal and provincial interest named in this motion is real. I'm doing an interview with Radio Canada on Friday. The letters in clause B cost nothing and may unlock a great deal. Thank you. Please support motion seven. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse.

Hello. My name is Teresa Frizzle. I live in Vancouver. I've been the owner of Rath Arts Supplies at 8th and Main for the past eight years. I support the motion to establish a cultural land trust in Vancouver. Rath Arts Supplies has a 38-year history and has served Vancouver's arts community for the past 21 years. We survived COVID and five years of SkyTrain construction by taking on debt to keep our doors open. Now we face a new threat. The owner of our building has passed away, and our building may be sold. This is the WASC building, the triangle building at Main and Kingsway. We're afraid we'll be priced out of our location or evicted, and it's not just my business at risk. The entire upstairs is home to several artist studios and the CSA Space Gallery. There are 20-year-plus tenants in the building, including Gene Cafe, Budgie's Burritos, and Pulp Fiction Bookstore. At Rath, I talk to artists every day, all day long. We serve thousands of artists, teachers, and students, and I hear the same story over and over. Artists have already lost studios and homes or are at risk of losing them. They talk about leaving the city, especially as they age, because they can no longer afford to stay. I have those thoughts as well. I'm 55. I have my own future to think about. Will I have to leave Vancouver to survive into retirement? I've spent nearly a decade keeping this business alive, but it's getting more challenging every year, and it is not contributing to my retirement. And if I go, there's a very good chance the store doesn't survive. And I can think of dozens of art supply stores, retailers, manufacturers, and distributors that have closed since 2020. And I'm trying really hard to stay off that list. In a Globe and Mail article published this May, the City of Vancouver's Arts and Culture Working Group submitted to Vancouver City Council the following statement. Vancouver's 37,000-plus jobs in arts and culture are at urgent risk. They go on to highlight that Vancouver has the highest population of artists and cultural workers in the country, yet the industry continues to grapple with a lack of funding, housing affordability, and the loss of space and talent. Artists need spaces to live and work, to show and sell their work, to source materials, and to access knowledge and skills. At Rath Art Supplies, we provide custom services, hard-to-find items to artists all over the province and across Canada. But we're more than an art supply store. We donate to arts and culture organizations. We provide a free display space every month. We connect artists to each other, to exhibition opportunities, and to resources all over the city. We're an important hub for Vancouver's creative population. I encourage you to support the motion to fund a cultural land trust in Vancouver. If we want artists to stay, we need to protect the places that allow them to make a living. This motion gives me hope that there may be a way to protect creative places like ours before they're gone forever. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Chloe Leslie. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I'm speaking today in support of this motion. I've had the really sincere privilege of speaking to artists across every discipline lately. That includes musicians, visual artists, actors, dancers, photographers, and cultural orgs. And despite how different all of their work is, one thing they shared has been really consistent, and that's that they don't have enough space to create. They've noted that studios have closed, rehearsal spaces have disappeared, affordable workshops have become luxury developments, and these artists aren't leaving because they're running out of ideas. They're leaving because they've run out of space. Since the 2010s, Vancouver has lost more than 400,000 square feet of artist studio space, and I really think that should concern all of us. I'm 32 years old, and I have regular conversations with people around why they want to live here and if they're going to be able to continue to live here. And in every single one of those conversations, people talk about why they love Vancouver. And it's the live music, it's the DIY venues, it's the theater, it's the creative energy, and it's the incredible talent that makes the city feel alive. I want young people to feel confident that their mayor and council are committed to protecting that. I want them to know how council understands that arts and culture are not an afterthought. They're a key reason why people choose to build their lives here. Vancouver is full of extraordinary talent. I'm sure you all know that. And there's so much creativity and people who want to contribute to the city's cultural life. But talent alone is not enough. Creativity needs somewhere to exist. It needs rehearsal rooms, jam spaces, studios, workshops, galleries, and places where these ideas can be tested, shared, and brought to life. I believe it's Council's responsibility to ensure artists have what they need to thrive. Because these are the people who create the music we love, the murals we admire, the performances we attend, and help build the creative neighborhoods that people from all around the world come here to visit. This motion gives us the opportunity to think beyond temporary grants and short-term leases. It asks to explore a permanent solution, protecting cultural spaces that remain affordable for generations to come. I don't think this is a radical idea. I think it's a really practical one. Cities like London, San Francisco, Helsinki have shown that permanently protecting cultural space is possible. And here in Vancouver, these lovely folks at 221A have done this groundwork. I think the opportunity is here. What we need now is political will. If we continue allowing artists to be displaced every time land value is increased, we shouldn't be surprised when Vancouver becomes less vibrant. To conclude, I don't think culture happens by accident. It happens when people have space to create. Let's make sure the next generation of artists can build their future here instead of being forced to build it somewhere else. I encourage you to support this motion. Thank you.

Okay, speaker number five is Ryan Hunt.

Hello, my name is Ryan Hunt. I'm the CEO of the Museum of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in favor of this motion. I think you only have to look at the list of motions that are being discussed today to see that the arts and culture sector in Vancouver is in crisis. We are losing spaces. Artists are being displaced. We are seeing a talent drain. And if we continue on this trajectory, we'll not only lose cultural vibrance, we will lose economic sustainability, and we will lose a lot of what makes Vancouver a world-class city. And I think that if we continue to put Band-Aid solutions on crises as they occur, it reaches a point where the Band-Aid can't hold back the bleeding and the patient will die. And I think that the Cultural Land Trust is something that we can do that actually makes progress in getting ahead of a lot of the issues that we're facing. in that it helps to unlock a mix of philanthropy, private investment, and is a force magnifier for investment in the arts. It doesn't rely on any one donor or any one level of government to provide support. It is an investment in the future of Vancouver's cultural vitality and will make a significant impact on the broader creative economy in our community. From my perspective, we work with dozens if not hundreds of artists per year, and every one of them is in a different state of precarity. This motion is based on evidence, is based on research, is replicating systems that exist in other communities that have found success, and I strongly encourage council to support this motion.

Hi.

Yeah, my name is Carlin Jackson. I know quite a few of you on the council. I've worked with a few councillors. I am a world-renowned sports and human rights artist from Vancouver, and I am one of the artists that Sean speaks of that's leaving the city. And I am in favor of this cultural land trust, and I'm going to elucidate four different departments of the government that I feel as though have let artists down, specific to some projects that I was a part of. My work is currently inside the Perez Art Museum. It's in Miami. It's one of the top ten museums in North America. I'm being shown alongside Basquiat, Monet, Picasso. I created four pieces in collaboration with Pele's family, which are our own local Thomas Muller and Gilberto Silva, who all won World Cups or participated in. And these were the pieces I did for this museum exhibit. The BC Arts Council, which is peer-reviewed. did not give me a grant for this. It cost me $25,000 to produce videos and works for this exhibit. The grant was for $15,000, and peer review is insane to me in 2026. And the rationale for denying the grant was that basically the reviewers didn't understand the impact I'm making in the sports art world. So that's one. Number two, many of you are aware that you voted on Sunset Beach Court, which is close in my neighborhood. around the corner from English Bay. There's a current makeshift court that is lined with concrete barriers that is not safe for kids to play, not accessible for disabled people. It has safety issues. It needs to be redone. Two years ago, I started on this road because youth in my community came up to me who are refugees and immigrants from around the world to play street soccer every Monday. And they said the city is going to get rid of this court. It was there were like three plans, two or three were going to get rid of the court. And they came to me and asked for my help. I had just had spine surgery. I'm actually now disabled with a spine injury. I work full time. People don't know this. I don't share this routinely. But I right after spine surgery, even though I wasn't allowed to, I went to parks board and I gave a hell of a speech. Unanimous. Yes. In the in the series of that, though. there's an indigenous artist who's right next to the court who's working right next and the parks board tried to use falsified information pertaining to her um artwork and timeline to try and prevent my court from the disabled arts going forward so that's the first thing and i had that in email writing um the second thing i know the city council voted for sixty thousand dollars for this court this court has been um MST is fully in favor because my land acknowledgement is actually a physical land acknowledgement for the piece where three artists from MST actually design a two-foot border to go around the court. So when you step on it, you're actually acknowledging you're on the unceded territory of the Musqueam, TTsleil-Waututh, and Spomish peoples. I mean, it checks every box. And I just found out that Ken Sims gives $5 million to extend Granville Street beyond the World Cup, but we didn't have 800 grand for this court, which is insane to me because we just closed the aqueducts that are 100 feet from the court. That's the second thing. The third thing, the mural program. I was told that proposals commemorating specific public figures or high-profile athletes, particularly when they are clearly associated with major international events, are not prioritized. So essentially, or what do you call it? They're cautious. The city is cautious. Thanks, Carly, and that's your time.

Hi. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Michelle Fu, and I am co-founder of 221A, where I spend my days inside the leases and rent rolls that keep artists in these cities. I'm also a designer, an arts administrator, and a mother. And it's from these three spaces that I speak to you. When we talk about artist spaces, I think it's easy to picture a lone painter in a studio and to imagine that that is what is at stake. But that's not what I see as a cultural space operator. What I see is how far a single space reaches. These spaces aren't just where an artist works. It's where the classes for seniors are, where your kids go after school and learn how to create and explore, where performances rehearse enough times to finally become a real play we can all attend. Artists create for the whole city. So when a space disappears, it isn't one person that loses it. And spaces do disappear. At 221A, we steward roughly 140,000 square feet across nine properties. We serve around 1,250 artists. And none of these spaces we own. They are all leased. This means that every few years, I get to sit across from a private landlord, negotiate specifically for our tenants' survival, and then I'm the one that goes back to deliver the hard news, which is inevitably the rents rise for the artists, and they have to go back and do the math if they can stay. Some find a way to stay, but more and more leave the city. And every time an artist leaves, we see the work and the programs that they share with us Everything they steward, it goes with them, and we all end up feeling the loss. This isn't the failure of a single landlord. This is a failure of structure. We ask cultural organizations to compete in a speculative land market with no capital position of their own, and we're surprised when they lose. But it's simple, and we know this. We can't lease our way to permanence, so we need to invest in a better structure. The Cultural Land Trust isn't about a temporary subsidy, as it's been said before. It's not a gap. It's not a gap filler. It's not a grant program. It's not a Band-Aid. It is about permanence. I've had the privilege of speaking to cultural land trust operators from these cities like Helsinki, San Francisco, and it's clear. We agree that ownership is the one form of affordability that doesn't expire. It's the form that lasts generations. I've spent 20 years buying artists a little more time, one lease at a time, one, two, five years at a time. I'd like to spend the next 20 years helping build something that finally lasts, not just for the artists, but for my kid who will be here, and I want them to see the city I grew up in, and for all of us who... partake in these programs who want to see our grandmothers, our daughters, our sisters, and our friends together in spaces and watching plays and watching movies. I respectfully ask for you to support this motion. Thank you.

Testing, one, two, three.

No, I don't currently live in Vancouver. I'm joining today as the chair of board for 221A.

Great. Good afternoon, mayor and council and everyone joining us today. Really grateful for your time. Just want to raise my hand in local custom of gratitude for everyone's great words on this really important issue. I'm here to speak to something a little bit more drier, focusing on the economic case. for creating a cultural land trust in Vancouver. First, cultural space is more than just infrastructure. It's an economic driver. Permanently affordable studios, rehearsal rooms, galleries, and small cultural venues are essential inputs for a thriving creative economy, one that produces jobs, entrepreneurship, and tourism. A cultural land trust is a long-term investment in this economic activity and beyond. Second, a cultural land trust multiplies investment, creating an arms-like entity that stewards property for cultural uses, turns a city's contribution into a fulcrum that meaningfully leverages provincial and federal capital, philanthropic and private partnerships. Third, a cultural land trust creates measurable economic spillover. Secure, affordable cultural space generates construction and renovation work. It sustains local spending by audiences and artists. It relates new business ventures, such as studios, makers, suppliers, and, again, increases tourism. Those activities broaden the tax base and support jobs across multiple sectors. Fourth, a portfolio approach reduces fiscal risk. Rather than funding isolated projects that are more vulnerable to market pressures, a trust can spread costs across a diversified asset base. It can better plan, and it can reduce the need for repeated short-term operating subsidies. This fiscal prudence means better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Fifth, permanence encourages investment and growth. When arts organizations and creative entrepreneurs can plan with confidence, And if their spaces will not be lost to speculation, we invest more in programming, in workforce development, and in local partnerships that generate ongoing economic returns for the city. Finally, this motion is appropriately scaled, reasonable, and practical. It asks staff to report back on an internationally proven framework with domestic support, so that the costs, risks, and benefits are before council to make an informed decision. It also asks the mayor to convene government leadership on a shared priority. These relational, responsible, and evidence-based next steps will allow Vancouver to examine and shape an opportunity capable of unlocking outside capital and increasing in a resilient, diversified Vancouver economy. I respectfully urge Council to approve this motion and to signal that the City of Vancouver is striving to build a more prosperous and more creative Vancouver. That's it, Scott. Thank you all.

Hi, can you hear me?

uh... perfect thank you are good afternoon mind that the boss i don't live in vancouver i do live in new westminster though uh... i do support the cultural and trust motion seven i'm gonna be looking at this issue to issue through uh... to very different lenses today uh... professionally i work in commercial property management handling the security and life safety areas and major downtown complex uh... but personally i also play in a couple of local music groups and I have here for the last fifteen or sixteen years. I live in both of these two worlds which means I see exactly why our city's cultural spaces are dying. I know the math behind commercial real estate in the city and I know exactly what it costs to keep an independent arts venue alive. Right now those two realities are fundamentally and mathematically incompatible. You've likely heard from dozens of artists asking for temporary subsidies or grants or zoning tweaks, minor or major. But with all due respect, from a property management perspective, those are just band-aids on pretty much a severed limb. The only structurally found way to keep venues open in Vancouver is the Cultural Land Trust. This isn't exactly a plea for charity. It's a... infrastructure solution a permanent solution we have to remove these physical spaces from the speculative real estate market if we don't the independent venue will always and inevitably lose to a condo developer or some sort of retail chain i also want to address this from a public safety perspective because this is what i do for a living right now I'm sure council talks a lot about neighborhood safety. So what happens when artist venues or establishments close? The neighborhood essentially goes dark. So active, well-managed cultural spaces keep eyes in the street. They keep foot traffic moving. They keep communities engaged, oftentimes very late into the night. So when you let venues get bought out and or boarded up, you create dead zones. and deactivating a neighborhood is a security liability, and funding the land trust is a proactive investment for community safety. Vancouver loves to call itself a world-class city, I'm sure, but you cannot build a global art scene if you pave over the entire grassroots ecosystem. When venues disappear, artists face a pretty simple choice, either give up or relocate, and oftentimes it's out of the lower mainland entirely. The math is clear, I see. The safety benefits are clear, I see. I urge you to support the Cultural Land Trust and invest in the infrastructure. Thanks for your time.

Hi there. Thanks to the committee. I'm an arts operator and member of the city's arts... and culture advisory committee and i'm speaking in support of this motion because it addresses an ongoing permanent loss of cultural infrastructure in the city spaces that house artists and small cultural operators are regularly redeveloped or priced out and the market as it exists doesn't replace the loss of these spaces it accelerates that loss and art spaces are disappearing and once they're gone they typically don't come back cultural land trusts can be a structural answer to that problem. It takes spaces permanently off the speculative market. and holds them for cultural use in perpetuity so not just for a grant cycle or the term of a below market lease that then gets renegotiated when a building sells but on an ongoing basis and this motion is compelling because conditions for its success are already there federal and provincial governments have both expressed interest in participating uh looks like there's philanthropic capital 221a has already done all of this feasibility work and the model is uh showed to work in other cities the pieces are all there just what's missing is a council signal that vancouver wants to make this happen this motion provides that signal and it directs staff to bring back a real framework so vancouver has an opportunity here to act on a basically ready program aligned government interest private capital an organization that has the experience to drive the success of a cultural land trust I'd encourage council to move on it decisively. So thanks a lot. Thank you.

Hi, so I'm Keegan. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm in favor of this motion for cultural land trust. I want to say that there's a lot of romantic notions about the production of art and culture and the ideas of what an artist does, but fundamentally the production of art depends on material conditions. Art, like any other profession, is a kind of labor, and that labor needs to be economically viable no matter how dedicated someone is to the medium. This is a practical solution to the problem of disappearing cultural spaces that we've seen so much in the city. If we only value what developers value, every live music venue, an artist studio, or any space of cultural production in our city will continue to become unaffordable housing, hotels, and retail spaces that only businesses like a shop or a drug market can afford to occupy. There's a lot of focus on development in our city with the Broadway plan and such, and if we want to develop in our city, let's make sure that we do so in a way that actually makes it more livable, more enjoyable, and in a way that benefits people and not just corporations. Cultural land trusts will create opportunities and enrichment that will reverberate throughout our city. It will make our production viable by ensuring the value of artists' labor is returned to them instead of landlords who only extract. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council. My name is Natasha Henriksen, and I am here to speak in support of this motion. My motivation for speaking comes from personal experience. Growing up in both Canada and Finland has given me the opportunity to reflect on aspects of Helsinki that I believe would be beneficial for Vancouver. One of these examples would be to follow Helsinki's lead and implement a cultural land trust. Helsinki was an early adopter of this model, and time has proven its success. One of the sites I have visited many times is called the Cable Factory. As you can probably guess, it's an old industrial space that has been transformed into Finland's largest cultural sector. You can find museums, theaters, galleries, dance halls, and plenty of space for independent artists. It's world-renowned, self-sustaining, and serves as a pillar for arts education. This is just one example, of course, and the scale could look completely different in Vancouver, but the importance and the impact remains the same, and that is to create a sense of permanency for artists. Furthermore, implementing a cultural land trust would be an easy win for Vancouver, as there is already support for this model from the provincial and federal government. Additionally, Vancouver would be adding its name to the growing list of cities. who champion cultural land trusts, such as Austin, San Francisco, and Melbourne. Another point I would really like to emphasize is that this is not just a smart move for the city, but an important investment in our local artists, many of whom are being pushed out due to high costs and lack of space. We can't expect the art scene in Vancouver to flourish in a one-sided relationship. For our artists, temporary spaces and platitudes are simply not enough. Thank you for your time and your consideration, and I encourage everyone to support this motion.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Hi. Thanks for having me today. Yeah, my name is Jess Stanley, and I'm a local artist who has called Vancouver home for the last 16 years. I'm calling to show my support for a cultural land trust. So I moved to Vancouver in search of more creative opportunities, something that was lacking in the North at the time. In my time here, I have found and am part of an incredibly creative, diverse, and stellar art community. Our community here rocks. It's also incredibly resilient. We always find a way to keep creating, even when the cards, or in this case, the city, are stacked against us. I'm struggling, and I know that many others are too. Over the years, it's gotten harder and harder to be an artist here. Studios, galleries, event spaces are shut down, and there are fewer and fewer opportunities for emerging and established artists. It's hard to keep our heads above water. We need support and stability, but instead, we are being priced out. Arts and culture breathe life into cities. By implementing a cultural land trust, you build a foundation for creativity and expression. You create opportunities for all artists. You create safe and necessary cultural spaces that aren't at risk of shutting down. Stable foundations bring communities together and give them space to thrive. Accessibility and representation matters. So as one struggling artist in a sea of many, I implore you to consider implementing a cultural land trust here in Vancouver. It's a win-win.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. With respect to the protocols of the Squamish, Musqueam, and the TTsleil-Waututh, I'd like to take this moment to respect that protocol and introduce myself before my time starts in this city of reconciliation. Thank you for stopping the time. My name is Vanessa Richards. My parents came from Trinidad and Tobago and Austria. Vienna, Austria, the impacts of war and colonialism in these territories. Thank you. I asked you to stop the time so I could do a protocol in this city of reconciliation.

Thank you very much for respecting the protocol of this city. my parents arrived in this place to these territories and these territories and the people of these territories welcomed them. And my hope for my comments today in support of this motion as a person born in this territory is that my words might go somewhere towards helping us make an advance towards reconciliation. And at this point, thank you very much. You can start my time now. I'd like to introduce myself formally to some of the people I've never met, like Councillor Montague, the gentleman beside you, or Councillor Claussen. For more than two decades, I have worked alongside the City of Vancouver across success. of councils and administrations to strengthen our cultural life. As a founding board director of the Hogan's Alley Society, I helped advance the transformation of our civic memory through the redress reflected in the Northeast Falls Creek Plan. I later served as a co-chair for the Northeast Falls Creek Knowledge Gathering Initiative. I've advised on the Vancouver 125 celebrations, helped establish the city's Black History Month Citizens Advisory. I've served on numerous city grant assessment committees and until May, I worked with ACCS delivering communities and artists shifting culture grants. These experiences have given me a remarkable view of Vancouver's artists and cultural organizations and a clear view of how stretched our cultural infrastructure has become. Like many artists, cultural workers, and citizens, I have been negatively impacted by the city's recent zero means zero budget choices. Yet I stand before you today not to revisit your decisions, but because I remain deeply committed to what this council's leadership could still accomplish. in teamwork alongside organizations such as 221A, the Eastside Arts Society, and others. Thank you, Mark, for that message now on my phone. The local groundwork has already been laid through years of advocacy, planning, and community expertise. Thank you. And the global model is working and I've experienced it. You know, when you go to travel and you visit the other cultural centers that cities have invested in? Yes, I've seen them working and so have you. So now is the time to get this show on the road and strengthen the entire ecosystem that allows a healthy society to flourish. We benefit residents and visitors alike by building the conditions for people to encounter our timeless... and uniquely human need for the arts, creativity, and collective experience. The city has shown it can find millions of dollars to activate public space for a single summer. Imagine that same commitment directed towards creating the conditions for arts, culture, and public space to thrive year after year. I ask you to trust and empower your arts, culture, and community services staff. Trust and empower the expertise within the arts sector and trust and empower the ideas and people with vision and capacity to do this work well. I encourage council to support the motion before you by formally inviting provincial and federal partnership in establishing an arm's length cultural land trust for Vancouver. The future of Vancouver's cultural infrastructure is not one destination or precinct. It is a constellation, including the constellation of stories we tell ourselves of the kind of leadership and teamwork that can rewrite a future for the arts in Vancouver. Thank you for hearing me.

Thank you. My name's Kathleen. I live and work in Vancouver, and I'm speaking in favor of the motion to create a land trust for artists here. I've worked in the film and television industry in Vancouver for almost 10 years. I'm an animator, and I work alongside many artists.

Painters, animators, comic book makers, game developers, writers, you name it. Most of us come here to Vancouver to join the arts and culture scene that was here and still is, but it's hollowing out. This is something myself and my artist friends have spoken about increasingly as the years go by. I can think of places along Main Street, for example, that used to have studios where local artists could split the rent and create their work, but a lot of these places don't exist anymore. As has been mentioned by other people here, artists need a place to create, and my hope is that this land trust can provide that. I can think of a place in Vancouver that is still doing this fairly well, and that's Granville Island. It provides discounted rentals for artists, and as a result, it is one of the most interesting and eclectic spaces to walk through, not to mention a massive tourist draw. Artists make Vancouver colourful and a desirable place to be, but they're leaving. I'm in support of any measure that can keep us here and to take the intense financial pressure off of us and especially new, younger artists so that they can do what they want to do, so they can actually create and be contributing to making this city a great place to be. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Joseph Haag, and I live in Vancouver, and I support the motion number seven of Sean Orr's Cultural Land Trust. I'm a multimedia artist and musician with a studio in the Triangle Building. at the junction of Main and Kingsway Streets in Old Mountain Pleasant Village. I've had this studio for 25 years. The triangle formed by this intersection is referred to as the heart of Mount Pleasant heritage. The northern triangulated building was built in 1947 by Ben Wask and designed in the unique streamlined art modern style. This design incorporated vitreolite exterior skin of pigmented structural glass along with stainless steel windows, frames, and doors. While the street level supported commercial storefronts during the 50s up to the 70s, the upper floor was occupied by community groups such as industrial workers associations, credit unions, and at one time the Canadian Jewish Outlook magazine. In the early 80s, the building was sold to the Wilkes family. Since then, the upper floor has been predominantly occupied by artists and cultural groups. in the 90s public dreams was located there and currently the csa gallery and a ubc student literary group are occupants the lower street levels houses jeans cafe at the point a couple of vintage clothing and collectibles outlets wrath art supply also included is a noteworthy pulp fiction bookstore along with budgie's vegetarian burrito outlet The creative juices of this area are and have been manifest over the years by the gathering of neighborhood residents, co-mingling with local artists, including the artists in triangle building studios. The vibes grow and permeate the spirit and creativity in this area. Coffee clashes gather on daily basis on a sidewalk beside Gene's Cafe and have done so for years. Artists with various levels of recognition and involvement in every medium gather there. These include internationally recognized artists such as Aboriginal visual performer Lawrence Paul, Paul Wong, a film and media artist, and Governor General Award recipients Glenn Altine and Eric Metcalf. Hank Bull of the Western Front gathered frequently on the sidewalk and visited the upper studios. Noted literary artist Colin Brown occupies a studio upstairs. The cultural community of Vancouver has benefited over six years by the Wask and Wilkes family support of cultural activities in their building. The result has led to creation of a current artist and cultural hub at the meeting point of Kingsway in Maine. It seems to me that the heart of Mount Pleasant Heritage creative spirit is located right there. in the triangle building. It looks like this building would be a prime recipient of how the city of Vancouver could benefit by supporting Sean Orr's motion number seven to pursue a cultural land trust. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Abelardo Mayoral, a Vancouver resident from the Kitsilano neighborhood and Vancouver business owner of the Invisible Orange, a live music production and promotion company based in Vancouver, producing over 120 events a year now, 80% in Vancouver still, and hopefully we can still do more here. I'm here to support the motion to create a cultural land trust for Vancouver. This motion is looking at the long-term conservation of the soul of Vancouver. This is a defining but also a protection motion. I see this motion as necessary not only to transform Vancouver, not to transform Vancouver into something new, but to conserve the aspects of the Vancouver that we love. Many of us have had the privilege to travel to cities around the world, and we see things like the views and the food scene, things like that, but things that stick out... many times is the culture, the people, the vibes that we see. That's the heart of what we are trying to conserve. So a cultural land trust will give us assurance on the sustainability of the arts and culture scene, which is threatened these days by real estate affordability. As a producer of live music events in the city for nearly 20 years, I have seen many spaces disappear as was quantified by the motion. Well, I see a few new ones that try to come up later on and really struggle to take off. mostly of the new spaces are actually, like, revamps of previously existing spaces. Net new, I really, like, look back, and I see a lot less spaces. Let's say in Kitsilano, where I live, I remember having more spaces in West Broadway, West 4th, down you. Now, I don't know, we have the Hollywood Theater as a venue concert, which is protected just by legislation. It's like... It was just because it had to stay there, not because of a business decision. I support this motion in its form as well. Directing the staff to establish the framework for an arm's length nonprofit with adequate policies, frameworks, and operational model is thinking long term to protect the soul of the city in a responsible manner. So please approve motion number seven. to create a cultural land trust in Vancouver. Thank you.

Hello, Council. My name is Solomon E. Kieran. I'm speaking in favor of this motion today because every year, so many young artists move to Vancouver, only to be let down by a city that prices artists out. To end Vancouver's reputation as a no-fund city and a cultural land trust is the best way to do that. Vancouver's history has been defined by its artists and musicians. This was a city where Emily Carr redefined Canadian art, and where Bill Reed introduced the world to the traditional art of the Northwest Coast. This is a city where Spirit of the West, Petunia and the Vipers, Carly Rae Jepsen, and so many of their big names got their start. but it has never been harder to move here as a young artist. Over the last decade, Vancouver artists have lost over 400,000 square feet of space due to rising commercial rents, unstable short-term leases, and permitting processes that have become difficult to navigate. This means artists get squeezed out and moved to other cities, they take their art with them, and Vancouver loses out on the enormous cultural and economic benefits of a vibrant art scene. In 2018, artists produced $7.9 billion of GDP right here in BC. That amount was comparable to agriculture and the service industry. In Vancouver, music alone brought over 14,000 jobs and brought in over $690 million of economic activity. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce published a report last year stating that every dollar invested in the arts generates $29 in economic activity. Investing in Vancouver's art scene isn't a luxury, it isn't a nice-to-have, it is a necessary investment for a stronger economy. Artists give so much to this city, but as rents for commercial spaces go up, and permitting gets more and more difficult, and artist grants keep drying up, it gets harder for them to keep breathing life into the city. It's time for a change. It's time we gave a little back to the artists who helped build Vancouver. Right now, grants and funding for artists go directly into paying rent for private landlords, meaning the art grants aren't paying for art. But with a cultural land trust, rents could stabilize, meaning municipal funding opportunities would have a larger impact for artists and venues. Vancouverites will see those impacts when they go see a new band, check out a new play, or go to a new gallery. A cultural land trust will afford artists, especially younger artists, the ability to breathe a little easier and focus on making art that Vancouverites can enjoy. Vancouverites deserve a city that protects the arts, that keeps our city livable and fun. So I'm urging council to vote to approve Councillor Orr's motion to establish a cultural land trust in Vancouver and help fix Vancouver's no fun reputation. Thank you.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ZACH ALFSON. I RECENTLY MADE VANCOUVER MY HOME AFTER NEARLY TWO DECADES WORKING IN NONPROFIT ADMINISTRATION, EDUCATION, PLACE MANAGEMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMUNITY BUILDING. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT MOTION 7 BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUTURE OF VANCOUVER THAT IS NOT MADE BETTER BY ARTISTS. Artists define the culture of a place. They tell our stories, shape our neighborhoods, and help children discover who they are. But to do that, they need places to live and places to create. As we look, it's clear that Motion 7 is not separate from the work before you. It advances many of the same goals. Motion 1 recognizes that innovation needs a place to grow. Innovation begins with creativity. A cultural land trust helps train and retain the creative workforce that fuels innovation, entrepreneurship, and commercialization. Motion 4 recognizes that children deserve every opportunity to thrive. If we want young people who are brave, empathetic, and ready for the future, access to arts education must be part of that conversation. They need teaching artists, and those educators need places to live and to create. Motion 6 and 10 recognize... That stewardship means protecting the places that define Vancouver before they're lost. Cultural spaces are vital to our identity and sense of place. Motion 11 recognizes that festivals strengthen neighborhoods and local economies. But festivals begin long before the crowd show up. They begin in rehearsal halls, studios, workshops, and creative spaces. Protect those places, and you protect the festivals that bring the city to life. Motion 15 recognizes that renters deserve more than housing. They deserve belonging. Through my work in community arts, I've seen people who may never own property build deep roots by creating together. Arts participation transforms residents into neighbors. Culture is not something that cities enjoy after they become successful. It's one of the reasons they become successful in the first place. As you've heard, cities around the world are embracing the idea. London has adopted a cultural infrastructure map, a culture at risk office and support for creative land trust and planning policies that recognize cultural space as essential infrastructure. Melbourne has embedded cultural infrastructure into city planning. has mapped its cultural assets as a guide to planning and prevent displacement motion 7 gives up vancouver the opportunities to join those cities and recognizing that cultural space is not an amenity it is essential infrastructure for generations artists have invested in vancouver asking little in return supporting motion 7 helps ensure they can continue creating identity relationships and opportunities that make the city stronger because there is no future of Vancouver that is not made better by artists.

Can you hear me?

Thank you. My name is Denzel John Asher. I'm a resident of the city of Vancouver in the West End. I moved here in 1988 as a young musician, and my husband was an art furniture designer. At that time, Vancouver had a vibrant, rich, and participatory I say rich, but it was rich with talent and creativity, not with money. It's the art scene which attracts people to a city, not just dollars. People want to live where there is light, color, music, and things happening dynamically and spontaneously. It gives people a chance to be proud of their city. Since 1988, almost all of the artists I knew, have been forced out of the city by property developers as the price of real estate skyrocketed. There were no more warehouses for studios and practice spaces. There are no affordable apartments available. Underground and independent performance spaces, which are just starting to resurge a little, are being threatened. Musicians and artists left for the north, the islands, the prairies, the maritimes, where living was possible, and the city is poorer in culture for this exodus. Art and music generate cultural worth, and cities where the arts thrive create more art, more culture, and a richer population, and also attract people from around the world who want to participate and see the great art that we have to offer. This motion for a cultural land trust would allow artists space to live, to hone their skills, and to perform and hold events, benefiting the whole city, making it rich in culture. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My name is Adriana Cumming-Teicher. I'm a community and labor organizer here in Vancouver, and I am speaking today in support of Motion 7, Keep the Artists In, Creating a Cultural Land Trust for Vancouver, as put forward by Councillor Orr. Whereas my fellow speakers have opted to offer you moral, ethical, and community-based rationale in support of this motion, arguments that I nevertheless agree with, I seek to take us on an altogether separate line, an economic one. To start, I wish to address the material reality of British Columbia, and of Vancouver and its position as BC's largest urban center. BC is, unequivocally, a stagnating resource economy. Much of the municipal, provincial, and even federal initiatives in the past 10 years pertaining to this province have sought to prevent the flight of resource and trade companies, to which we have seen middling results. Refining our scope down to Vancouver, much of this dovetails into our unfortunate reputation as a no-fund city, in part due both to our aforementioned unwavering industrial commitments and the artificial hurdles many before me have described put up before artistic and cultural institutions. These hurdles often prevent the full legal functioning of venues and projects within our city, and in the instances where they do succeed, create conditions wherein any unexpected occurrence will immediately sink them. As mentioned by the speakers before me, on the labor side of this reality, we see creative professionals continually sunk below the poverty line, unable to find stable access to paid work. Where they do, they find themselves working below market rate for organizations struggling to stay afloat. Ultimately, it is my belief that our only pathway as a city to exit this crisis is through a cultural infrastructure. When it comes to retaining young professionals, expanding international funding avenues, and attracting greater tourism, we have no option both as salient and as substantively affordable. As outlined by Councillor Orr in both 7.4 and 7.5, this model has been successful elsewhere and has both the necessary external financial support to get it off the ground, as well as the logistics available from a productive capacity in this city. This funding will also benefit other linked industries, from our restaurant and life sectors to our existing tourism infrastructure. If this council has any desire to work towards a better city, I implore you to vote in support of this motion. Thank you for the time.

good afternoon mayor and council my name is nate stanley a resident of vancouver and i am calling in today to speak in favor of this motion while i may not be an artist in vancouver many of my friends work in the arts and a common experience for all of them is the struggle of just getting by in this expensive uh city photographers animators musicians and more are our arts and culture scene in vancouver is in crisis local artists can't afford their rents for their personal residence or relevant to this motion or for the space to do their work they can't afford the skyrocketing cost of living and many are pushed out of the city and the surrounding area This motion seeks to rectify that by protecting land and putting it in the hands of the public so local artists and more have spaces to create now and into the future. It creates economic stability for these artists and residents, allowing them to thrive in Vancouver. It will give many in the arts and culture scene the assurances they need for long-term success. Today, many speakers have already highlighted cities like Helsinki and San Francisco. and the successes they have already had with their cultural land trusts. Many other speakers have also highlighted the personal stories and struggles trying to produce the art they love while living in Vancouver. I'm just calling in to say I stand in solidarity with these artists who make this city a much more vibrant place to live, and I urge council to vote in favor of this motion. Thank you.

Yep. Thanks to the committee for giving me time to speak. Again, arts operator of Little Man Gallery in Gastown and member of the city's arts and culture advisory committee uh speaking in support of this motion and why it's important um i do want to thank city staff for their work on the arts and culture sector working group over the last several months and for counselors kirby young and fry for bringing forward this motion The motions, the results of work directed by council last year on a different motion from the arts community to create the arts and culture sector working group, which completed a full jurisdictional review of other cities, documented the sector's challenges, and produced a prioritized set of solutions that was built collaboratively with that city staff. It represents real effort from a lot of people who are also trying to keep their organizations and their practice alive at the same time. And the motion asks council to acknowledge that work that was done and endorse those solutions. And the motion really gives staff direction on items that still lack that direction, that mostly come out of... The culture shift and making space for arts and culture, arts plans that the city has. Things like that regulatory reform for small venues, events licenses, navigator support, which is really important, and cultural space affordability tools. I think that there's a lot of direction here for staff and a lot of great things that can come out of here. Vancouver's cultural sector is, as always, asking for systems that will continue to work and for council to say clearly that arts and culture belongs in the city's future. So this motion is a step forward to that. Thanks, council, for supporting it.

Hello. I'm here, but I believe they're going to change me.

Thanks, Chair.

Hey, Abelardo Mayoral, or Mayo for short, Mayo for short. I'm a Vancouver resident from the Kitsilano neighborhood and owner-operator of a live music production and promotion company based in Vancouver. I'm here to support the motion for the prioritized solutions from the arts and culture sector working group. I've been in the arts and entertainment scene for 20 years or more, if we count as a fan, which is what drove me into it. But, well, yeah, working as a business owner in there, like, yeah, I was not aware of, like, that... great work that seems to have been done by this working group and looking at the recommendations and the topics we cover gave me a lot of hope for the protection of this strong creative scene that we have in the city. Sustainability, affordability, facilitation of reduction of administrative barriers of permits for zoning, the investment tools. So I believe then this goes hand in hand with the motion number seven that looks at the long term terms, sustainment, so that, like, here's a lot of, like, things that we can do in the short term to continue to strengthen the arts and culture in Vancouver. So we have a lot of assets to rely on. We have a lot of creatives in the city, a lot. Like, they're world-class, and I can speak that by experience, that the... artists in Vancouver are, sometimes we have a ratio of more artists to fans than anything else in many of the events I see. And the quality of the arts that are produced by Vancouver's creatives is... the hook is really world-class so then we have that asset ready to rely on so then I as a consult to support then all these initiatives that help being a facilitator or enabler into what already exists here that has the potential to be to make Vancouver world-class cultural hub We also have the fans that crave this as well. So then it will be a scene that can sustain on its own. And if we can facilitate that and help it through all these recommendations from the working group. Yeah, it is a huge bang for the buck to invest in arts and culture, as we have seen. I know that at least 4BC generates about half a billion dollars a year.

The arts sector, so I'm sure Vancouver is a big part of that. So please go ahead and support the motion. Thank you.

Sorry about that. That's okay. Thank you, Honorable Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to speak to this very exciting motion, which I wholeheartedly support as the executive manager of the False Creek Friends Society. False Creek is today, and has been for over a century, cloaked inside of a somebody else's problem field. A field such as this, applied to any place which would otherwise be difficult to rationally accept, makes it second nature to ignore. This precious urban waterway at the literal and metaphorical heart of our city is in a perpetual state of quiet dysfunction with unsafe waters, unregulated vessels, and, crucially, an overall lack of holistic, proactive management. I want to dwell for a moment on just how beloved False Creek is for this city and how iconic, because if you do an image search for just Vancouver, count how many pictures prominently feature False Creek. In my experience, it's about two-thirds. It's no exaggeration to say that False Creek represents Vancouver as a whole, both outwardly to the world and in the minds of all Vancouverites. At this wide-angle scale of landscape photography, False Creek is stunningly beautiful. But if we zoom in, walk along the seawall, notice. Notice the hardened shoreline, largely devoid of intertidal life. Notice how few places there are for people to actually be in safe contact with the water, to develop a relationship with the Salish Sea that we are all so privileged to live beside. Notice a space that has fallen victim to a Gordian knot of overlapping, fragmented jurisdictions. Let's consider the different governments and agencies who have interests in False Creek. Specifically, it's nature, water, and health, or it's lands and docks, or it's vessel traffic and safety. There's no shortage of regulators, but there is not one which stands for False Creek as a whole. This motion points the way for the city of Vancouver to take leadership in finally solving this issue and to do so in true partnership with the nations of Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh, the province of British Columbia, and the federal government of Canada. Together, we can achieve a future for False Creek that has a clear point of coordination for all matters of regulation, stewardship, and planning. Not only would this mean more efficient, transparent, equitable, and effective management, it would pay dividends economically, culturally, and ecologically, supporting every dimension of Vancouver's public health. Please vote in support of this motion and in support of the False Creek that all Vancouver needs. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm an instructor at Langara College. I'm also one of the research leads doing collaborative research with the False Creek Friends Society, but today I'm speaking from my own perspective. When a scientist looks at a place to leverage their expertise, the funding that's available, and the support from the community to do research, they look for exciting opportunities. I think that's self-evident. When people look for those opportunities within False Creek, they are met with a rat's nest of overlapping bureaucracies and no clear place to start. This is the case for myself and my co-investigator, Langer College, even though we knew the incredible potential for leveraging federal funding dollars to conducting ecological research next to one of a world-class city and our home. In order for Vancouver to seize the incredible opportunity of its local expertise, Vancouver is a world leader. BC especially is a world leader in ecological research and other forms of science. In order for us to leverage that opportunity, scientists need to, researchers, community groups, need to decide that it is worthwhile to take a hack at the so-called Gordian Knot. and to nod it with their teeth to try to figure out where did they even start? Who do they talk to? Without long-established relationships with False Creek Friends Society or other nonprofits and a considerable investment of time, these startup costs in terms of energy and bureaucracy and the wait times associated with that are often enough to dissuade them from doing research in Vancouver on False Creek. Councillor Orr's motion, which I'm speaking in support of, is the important first preliminary step to establishing a clear channel for local expertise and federal and provincial research dollars, as well as money from other non-profit foundations, to flow into this city and to take advantage of the incredible enthusiasm that Vancouverites have for False Creek. As we've been doing our preliminary research so far, we're in the first year of our project, one of the things that jumped out at me is this almost miraculous consensus that people have that False Creek is worth knowing more deeply. There's only been maybe one person out of dozens of people that isn't incredibly excited to learn more about what is right next to them. This preliminary study that Councillor Orr's motion supports is a really important first step to getting to that place and taking advantage of, again, world-class, homegrown expertise and taking advantage of funding from other places to invest in the heart of our city. Thank you very much for your time.

Hello, Marin Council. My name is Grace Nombrado. I'm a Vancouver resident and the Executive Director of Free the Fern Stewardship Society, and I'm speaking in support of this motion. False Creek tells two stories. One is a story of industrialization, habitat loss, and environmental degradation. The other story is still being written, a story of restoration, stewardship, and collaboration. For thousands of years, the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Wautuths hunted, fished, and gathered along the shores of False Creek. Then industrial development transformed the shoreline and polluted its waters. While much has changed over the past several decades, False Creek remains one of Vancouver's most visible reminders that restoring an ecosystem is far more difficult than degrading one. The issue is personal to me. For 10 years, I paddled on a dragon boat team that launched from the docks beside Science World. During that time, I experienced reoccurring skin rashes, eye infections, and the occasional gastrointestinal illness while spending countless hours on False Creek. In the summer, the smell could be overwhelming, and there would be even days when practices had to be canceled because of water quality concerns. Water quality struggles with high E. coli chemical contamination due to combined sewer outflows during heavy rainfall, illegal boats, sewage dumping, and stormwater runoff. Despite these challenges, I've also seen what restoration can look like. The naturalized shoreline of Olympic Village, with its native trees, shrubs, wetland plants, and Habitat Island, demonstrates how thoughtful ecological design can create wildlife habitat and reconnect people with nature. I have fond memories of scrambling over the rocks and exploring Habitat Island with my son when he was a toddler. Those projects demonstrate what is possible when the city invests in ecological restoration, but the city cannot do this work alone. As the executive director of a stewardship organization, I know that lasting environmental restoration depends on partnerships. I've had the opportunity to meet with Mendel Skulski, who just spoke earlier, and David Greig of False Creek Friends, whose passion and knowledge of the ecosystem are inspiring. Their work demonstrates the invaluable role community stewardship groups can play. We must also strengthen collaboration with Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh Nations. The TTsleil-Waututh Nations Stewardship Department is leading extensive ecological restoration and monitoring throughout its territory. including efforts to restore burrard inlet in the indian river watershed so that the traditional harvesting can one day return as council considers the future of false creek we have an opportunity to build genuine partnerships that combine indigenous knowledge community stewardship and government action today's stewardship of false creek is fragmented across more than 20 government agencies and jurisdictions no single organization is responsible for the health of the entire inlet if we are serious about restoring false creek we need a coordinated approach i encourage council to support this motion and establish an inter-jurisdictional working group to improve coordination strengthen stewardship partnerships and build a healthier more resilient false creek for future generations thank you thank you thanks chris okay speaker number four is ryan hunt

Good evening. Yes, I'm Brenda Lotzkar, and thank you to Mayor and Council for hearing us tonight. I received your letter today letting me know that government is working on this issue. I have to tell you I'm actually coming at this from... a resident here in Vancouver living on False Creek, and I can tell you, living here just shy of 11 years, nothing has changed, except prior to FIFA. As I stated in my letter, VPD and RCMP boats manned and sat on the west side of Canby Bridge the entire time during FIFA, not allowing any boat that wasn't moored in False Creek to enter, other than continuous VPD, RCMP, and Coast Guard traffic. Not four days after the guards left, there was a jet ski towing these derelict boats back in. The City of Vancouver website states, boaters need to get a permit to anchor False Creek when they are anchoring for more than eight hours during the day, from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., or anchoring any time between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m. the following day. The City of Vancouver website states it is illegal to dump untreated sewage in Vancouver's surrounding waters. They never leave. In the summer is the only time pump boats come through the creek, and they come through in 10 minutes. No pumping of gray or black water is occurring in that amount of time. The permit... Again, the permit will allow boaters to anchor a maximum of 14 full or part-time days of 30 days during high season, April 1st to September 30th, and 21 days of 40 days in low season, October 1st to March 31st. The only time these boats have moved in almost 11 years is for FIFA, with VPD and RCMP guarding the waters. They are shuffled around during Dragon Boat Festival in June. Other than that, they are permanent fixtures. Falls Creek is continuously used by stand-up paddleboarders, kayaks, tiki tour operators, barbecue boats, pirate tour boats. That means they are all navigating in sewage. The water exchange at low tide and high tide is not effective. There is nowhere for the water to go, as you can see closer to the mouth of English Van Third Beach. Pulse Creek is unique on how it ends. The derelict boats stay until they sink in bad weather. Then the remaining fluid, oil, and tanks leak into the creek, along with all the piled high debris floats that have to be cleaned up. Often booms have to be put around to contain the mess until such time someone, comes and refloats and drags the mess out. This happens several times a year. We pay taxes. The VPD boats come and patrol and do a look around and leave. We then pay more taxes for the cleanup and the removal once they sink. Thanks, Brenda.

Thank you, and good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Brent Page. I'm speaking in favor of this motion. I live in Vancouver in Yaletown. And False Creek is my backyard. I live on the waterfront, walk the seawall daily, hold an annual aqua bus pass, and kayak year-round with Creekside Passing Centre. For 14 years, I have seen this waterway from every possible angle, every single day. Right now, the heart of our city's waterfront is trapped in regulatory deadlock. Let's be honest. Governments created this mess. By splitting responsibility across some 22 municipal, provincial, and federal bodies, our institutions built a bureaucratic maze. And when everyone is responsible, nobody is. But government also exists to solve big problems. And this is a massive, multilayered one. Falls Creek defines Vancouver, its waterfront identity, its public life, even how we showcase ourselves to the world. Overlapping jurisdictions cannot remain an excuse for inaction. It's time for the city to step up and get the ball rolling. As a year-round kayaker, I see the consequences up close. Derelict, unlivable, unseaworthy boats, most loaded with junk and trash, and usually with a half-submerged dinghy. Despite anchoring permits, the same vessels remain for years. Several have sunk right offshore from my condo. This is a direct threat to public safety and the environment. Unmanaged anchoring stirs toxic sediment. Unmonitored vessels pollute our waters. I have even been warned by paddling staff to steer clear of specific derelict boats because of unsafe, hostile behavior of their owners. This jurisdictional vacuum is not a quirk. It is actively harming our shared waters. This motion is Council's opportunity to lead. It is not a top-down solution. It starts the collaboration needed to fix this. It directs staff to work with senior governments and, crucially, the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh Nations. A co-government framework can create a unified False Creek Harbor Authority rooted in Indigenous stewardship and true reconciliation. The requested Q3-27 report will give Council a roadmap to consolidate Seabed 10

Governments created this bottleneck, but the city can kickstart the cure. Let's stop passing the buck and commit to taking responsibility for the waterway that defines us. And in doing so, acknowledge commitment is not a word. It is an action. I strongly urge council to pass this motion unanimously, and I sincerely thank you for your time.

I was going to speak against the motion, but I found Councillor Orr and Mendel's speech quite compelling, so I've changed my tack, and I'm going to speak in favor of it.

I've been banging the drum for Falls Creek to have a harbormaster for years. My name is Steven Paco. I have a company called Spookum Yacht Services. My brother and I repair boats in the Granville Island Boatyard. We've been doing it for 20 years. I'm a commercial diver. My dive crew and I have logged about 200 to 300 hours a year diving in Falls Creek for 20 years. There's no human alive who spent more time in that water than I have. And if you can prove it, I have good dive logs. If you can prove it, I'd eat my wetsuit. We run the free mobile pump-out service for the city of Vancouver. We installed the navigation channel markers for the city. We maintain them. And in the last five years since the beginning of the pandemic, we've removed just a little over 100 derelict, abandoned, and sunken vessels on behalf of the city. You, we have a contract with you, but mostly for Transport Canada and the Coast Guard.

I really like working for the city of Vancouver. You're a great customer. Unlike most of our boating customers, we have hundreds of boating customers in Falls Creek. They all have about 17 or 18 cents for every dollar their boat needs. The people for whom we work at the city, the engineers and the cops and the parks people, they just want good things to happen. So it's quite refreshing. You know, I'm in a world of bloody knuckles capitalism every day. Somebody wants to eat my lunch every day. It's really refreshing to work for people who give a damn, frankly, and it's nice. But I got to tell you, they don't always know what they're doing. In fact, they rarely do because most of them are engaged in other city activities, land-based activities for departments that have no maritime expertise or culture or direction, right? And I will tell you things that... It sounds like I'm being a little harsh, but I'm going to tell you things that... Your employees have told me, right? We're all just running Falls Creek off the side of our desks. I get that a lot, right? Because these are engineers who are in streets or in contaminated sites. And they've been tasked with overseeing matters about which they don't know very much. The cops will tell you the same thing. Someone at Parks told me many years ago that this is the only urban waterway in Canada that doesn't have a harbormaster. Somebody with a maritime background who understands the sort of whole picture, knows the rules that they are to enforce, understands the people and the watercraft, everything from 100-foot mega yachts with staff to the derelict boats everyone's mentioned to all of the human-powered craft in Falls Creek.

Talking to all of these departments with whom we work and for whom we work, it's quite clear that the city's probably wasting a fair bit of time and money. tasking people to enforce rules they don't know. And they're often at cross purposes with one another. So I am speaking in favor of the motion because I think the whole place really needs coordinated management. I think that's my three minutes. Thank you, Stephen.

Hi, Mayor Sim, council members. My name's Chris Arnold. I think we just got introduced. I'm here speaking on behalf of... Greater Vancouver Floating Home Co-op, housed at Spruce Harbour Marina. We are the only member-owned residence floating housing in False Creek. And as people who live on the water every day, I think we have a pretty good experience of the immediate way that False Creek operates. Every vessel in our marina is connected to communal sewer system that discharges into the city's sewer network, ensuring that no human waste enters Falls Creek. We actively support environmental initiatives, including heron spawning projects, oyster restoration programs, to ensure that we have a net environmental positive impact. Our marina is also home to otters, annual birthing grounds for seal pups, countless starfish and crabs, and a residence for our local heron, Henry. Wildlife is returning, reminding us that False Creek is not just an urban waterway, but is also a living ecosystem. False Creek is one of the defining public spaces. It is our home to thousands of residents, a destination for visitors around the world, and a place where people kayak, paddleboard, row, sail, dragon boat, commute by ferry, walk the seawall, and simply enjoy being beside the water. Few cities are fortunate enough to have such a vibrant recreational waterfront so close to our city center. Yet, despite its importance, False Creek has no single organization responsible for coordinating the long-term management. As False Creek Friends has identified, two of the most significant challenges are the untreated urban runoff and the unmanaged, often derelict vessels. The issue is not the people living on the boats. Many of us do so responsibility. The issue is the vessels that lack oversight, are poorly maintained and have no safe place to moor. Unlike many coastal communities of British Columbia, False Creek offers very limited transit moorage and also no legitimate alternatives to anchoring. Several years ago, volunteers from Blue Water Cruising Association, including members of our co-op, installed mooring boys. Sorry. Mooring buoys to provide a safer alternative. Unfortunately, without legal backing, removing these irresponsible boats, the program failed. The consequences are visible. Routine oil slicks from anchor vessels and waste in the water. I have personally removed plastic barrels, bags of rubbish, and even an entire two-person tent filled with a ton of marine waste. incompatible material. We also see vessels dragging anchor during storms and high tides, damaging public infrastructure, marine facilities, and neighboring boats. These situations affect everyone, not just those of us who live on the water. They create hazards for all Falls Creek users. They diminish the experience of visitors walking the seawall and undermine the image of one of Vancouver's most iconic public spaces. When these incidents occur, we call the Coast Guard, the city, and Vancouver Police. Although each agency wants to help, it's passed off as it's not their legal responsibility. Too often, action cannot be taken until someone is either in danger or an environmental disaster has already occurred. Many leading waterfront cities, including Paris, Copenhagen, Berlin, New York, Portland, and our own Ottawa and Toronto, have demonstrated coordinated governance that can transform these urban waterways into cleaner, safer, more vibrant public spaces. Vancouver has the opportunity to do the same. We support False Creek Friends' proposal to establish an organization with long-term oversight over False Creek, bringing together residents, indigenous nations, marinas, environmental organizations, recreational users, businesses, government agencies around the table. Such an organization would not replace existing authorities. Instead, it would... improve communication, coordinate action, identify emergency issues before they become crises, develop safe, regulated moorage, support environmental restoration, ensure that many groups who care deeply about Falls Creek are working together towards a common vision. As stakeholders ourselves, with adequate tools, we are ready to work with the city and assist in such programs. Our previous experience, community-led Mooring Boys, taught us an important lesson. Good ideas are not enough without lasting institutional support. This organization is to succeed. It must have full backing in the city and relevant agencies. Thank you very much for your time.

Hello?

Hi, sorry. Yeah, is this for speaker nine?

Hello, is this for speaker number nine to go ahead?

Welcome to TELUS Conferencing. Steph, can you hear me? Hi, is this for Speaker 9? Yes. Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council.

Oh, I apologize. Thank you.

One more.

Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Caitlin Stockwell. I'm a Vancouver resident, an environmental advocate, and an open water swimmer who is heavily invested in efforts to clean up Vancouver's waterways. I'm speaking in support of this motion. Falls Creek is one of the most iconic parts of our city. In any picture of Vancouver, you'll likely see it featured. It was also once a key fishing area for muskwim, Squamish, and slaver tooth, as well as for shellfish harvesting. However, despite this area's importance and the amount of civic life that is built around this space, from our Sea Wolf, Science Wolf, Granville Island, Habitat Island, to recent FIFA events, there is no coordinated plan in place for water quality management and environmental protection. The management of False Creek currently looks like that Spider-Man meme with each level of government pointing fingers at each other regarding who is responsible for different aspects of navigation, removal of derelict boats, enforcement of sewage tank emptying from boats, and environmental monitoring. This makes it much harder to address water quality, habitat restoration, derelict vessels, climate resilience, and public safety in a coordinated way. These waterways and Vancouverites deserve better. This motion is an opportunity for the city to take leadership on establishing a coordinated stewardship model for False Creek and to explore working with Squamish, Musqueam and TTsleil-Waututh Nations, the province and federal agencies to establish a single harbor authority with a clear mandate for proactively caring for the health of False Creek and responding to risks and hazards. While I appreciate the swimmability of Falls Creek as a longer-term goal, coordinating cleanup and management efforts and clearly establishing who will be responding to which issues and when, for example, through a single harbor authority, is an important start for improving water quality, improving ecological health, and supporting climate adaptation efforts. This in turn will have benefits for the health of current recreation users on Gulf Creek, such as paddleboarders, dragon boaters, other paddlers that currently come in close contact with the water, and support the health of marine life, such as the recently returned herring populations. In Canada, responsible water stewardship has returned swimability to Victoria's Gorge Waterway, 8 of 11 beaches in Toronto Harbour, the Rideau River and Dow's Lake in Ottawa, and the Halifax Harbour. There is precedent for cities taking the lead in ecological health and recreational access for urban waterways, and the City of Vancouver should join this charge. It would be great to see the level of coordination proposed by this motion in place in time to help implement recommendations coming back from the current study underway by the Metro Vancouver Regional District, the City, Falls Creek Friends Society and Raincoast that is looking at water quality conditions in Falls Creek and making recommendations on ways to improve water quality for fish, wildlife and people. And I understand recommendations on that are coming back in 2027. I ask City Council to support this motion and take steps today that will increase future recreation accessibility of the Falls Creek Waterway, support collaboration with host nations to support the stewardship of these waters, and care for Falls Creek as a beloved urban waterway. Thank you.

Hey, can you hear me okay?

Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Matthew. I'm a Vancouver resident and I'm speaking today in support of Councillor Orr's motion to establish a unified stewardship model for Falls Creek. I love Falls Creek. It's one of my favorite parts of the city. It somehow manages to be both vibrant and bustling and quiet and peaceful. I live right here under the shadow of City Hall and in the summers I like to ride my bike down Yukon Street to the seawall to the boats and the marina and people watch from the benches. If you bike down Charleston and onto Lamy Mills Road, you get a beautiful and quiet ride with a large tree canopy on one side and Charleston Park and the nice housing co-ops on the other. For those in this room that cycle, I really recommend you check it out. It's lovely. You see all sorts of folks walking along the seawall or visiting local businesses or picking up their kids from Falls Creek Elementary. This is community. I also know that the sewage issues around Science World mean that on a hot day, It is pretty unbearable to be around for long. During the World Cup, the Science World Soccer Ball has been a central part of the city's visible tourism strategy, and I wonder how many tourists have walked by and marveled at it, only to have that moment tainted by the smell of stagnant sewage. We're seeing across the globe multiple simultaneous, never-before-seen heat waves. Climate change is accelerating rapidly. We're set to have the hottest summer on record, and next year won't be any different. This problem is only going to get worse, and habitat degradation will only increase. Sea level rise threatens our vital seawall infrastructure across our city, and specifically within Falls Creek. We simply must address the fragmentation of Falls Creek governance that has led to these issues. Councillor Orr's motion also calls for exploring a co-governance framework developed in partnership with the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh nations. If we wish to claim that we are a city of reconciliation, as I hope we all do, we need to back that up with more than words. We need to lean on those nations who have stewarded and cared for these lands. Supporting this motion means supporting real reconciliation, it means strengthening climate resilience, and it means building up a truly vibrant tourism and cultural asset within Vancouver for all to enjoy for decades to come. Thanks for your time.

Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. My name is Shannon Otruba, and I am a resident of Vancouver and a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. I'm speaking today in support of this motion. I'm standing to support this motion because Falls Creek is a center of the social, environmental, and economic health of Vancouver, and its fragmented management has led to significant environmental and public safety concerns falling through the cracks between governments. Fortunately, the city of Vancouver is well positioned to initiate a process to move towards better governance and stewardship of Falls Creek. As with many coastal water bodies in British Columbia, Falls Creek is a place of overlapping jurisdiction in which the city, the province, the federal government, and the governments of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh Nations all have responsibilities to steward this important aspect of Vancouver's identity. For instance, in Falls Creek, the federal government regulates navigational safety, the province regulates water quality, the city regulates land use planning and zoning, and these authorities are subject to the rights and title of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh nations. These shared responsibilities demonstrate that all governments need to play a role in the stewardship of Falls Creek. It is also important to note that the province passed its first-ever coastal marine strategy, which identifies the need to collaborate with Indigenous, federal, and local governments to achieve the strategy's objectives, including shoreline restoration and addressing derelict vessels. If the stewardship of Falls Creek is to evolve to meet its potential, these governments must effectively collaborate, not pass the buck to each other. And the city of Vancouver, as a government located within and adjacent to Falls Creek, is well positioned to lead on this front. Of course, doing so will require closely collaborating with the Indigenous and other governments with jurisdiction in Falls Creek. But thankfully, there are examples of these sorts of collaborations happening elsewhere in British Columbia that demonstrate how effective it can be. For instance, the city of Victoria stepped up to improve the conditions of the Gorge Waterway in Victoria on the Kwangan and WSANISH territory. Despite the complexities of bringing together multiple governments to establish new and enhanced governance structures, the project put forward by this motion presents an opportunity for the city to provide benefit to all of us living in and around Falls Creek. This is a way forward that could leave a thriving waterway for the generations to come. a legacy that is legally achievable and socially and economically desirable. For these reasons, I support this motion. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Chair and councillors. My name is David Greig, and I'm a resident of Kitsilano for some 30-odd years, I guess. Okay, so I don't intend to go through the problems. I think that's quite clear. Most people are aware of the problems. But this is a pivotal moment in time, particularly given the attention during the FIFA World Cup celebrations. But... Governance is the key. It's the key to managing the inlet for all users, whether they be in a luxury yacht or wish to swim. Governance could lead to the inlet reaching a status, a higher status than it is now, a status such as an urban marine park. It would be the first in North America. That's in the near term. In the longer term, it could provide the basis for an ecological nursery for future aquatic life in English Bay. It's not too difficult to imagine that that may become a United Nations or UNESCO biosphere. Now, this is reaching, but how sound is already a UNESCO biosphere? as is Mount Arrowsmith by Parksville on Vancouver Island is also a UNESCO biosphere. And we have our neighbors in Washington State, Olympic Park, is another UNESCO biosphere. So we can imagine where we might be going with this. And in fact, given the number of UNESCO biospheres that could be, the Holden Salish Sea could become one of the world's largest UNESCO biospheres. And of course, the importance of that is given the extra traffic that comes through marine, oil terminals and LNG and so on and so forth. It's important for us to start the process off here in Vancouver.

As a retired engineer and urban planner, I know that every significant placemaking plan starts with a dream. Approval of this motion will give a kickstart to potential restoration of the inlet and beyond into the Salish Sea.

Hello. Thank you for this opportunity to talk about this topic. I'm a resident in one of the condominiums that are on Falls Creek, so I'm just speaking as a resident, a person that lives in the creek, sees what's going on there every day. As a resident, we're often frustrated because we can't figure out what to do when we see a boat start to sink. They don't often sink quickly. Sometimes they just start to go. And then later on, we see them retrieving the boat when it's already sunk. We call the Coast Guard. We've called the RCMP. We call the Vancouver Police. We keep getting shoved over from one jurisdiction to another. As a resident, it would be wonderful to have a central agency that we can communicate with when we have also loud disturbances on the creek or when we see these kind of environmental disasters happening when the oil starts to spill and the colors happen on the surface of the water. In my frustration, when I found out about the Falls Creek Friends Society, I was suddenly relieved to know that there was something we could do. And I think that's part of what we're doing here right now. And I feel really happy that we have a chance to speak to you about this and that we can address this situation. I would like to extend my appreciation for Zeta Schneider and Mendel Stusky for all the work they've done, and it's really a wonderful vision that people have for the Greek, and I'm 100% behind it. I want my grandson to be able to put his hands in Falls Creek someday. And for that, I would ask that you find a way to make a central authority over top of this creek so that we can have an actual human being that knows about marine law and about the laws for the creek and enforced. Because currently, Falls Creek is about the most lawless place in Vancouver, I would say, except maybe the Home Depot parking lot. So how do we pay for this? I would say we should do moorage fees. We have to pay for parking at Spanish banks. What's wrong with merge fees? We could do some income from the marinas could be diverted to having some preservation and protection for the creek. The marinas make millions of dollars, and I don't think that much money goes back into just for the staff, but otherwise there's not much done for Falls Creek from that income. That's city income that could be diverted to this. And, of course, the federal government and the provincial government should contribute as well. Then we also have the cost benefits of not having to have sunken boats that we have to retrieve all the time, even though Stephen does a terrific job of it. And then there's the kind of cost benefit of not having the environmental... spillage and the disaster of all that stuff that goes into the water. I mean, right now, the benthic environment, which is the ocean floor, is the responsibility of the province. But it crusts over. It's just a garbage dump, essentially, Falls Creek is. But it's crusted over. And so the anchors dragging is what's causing it to break up. So I would like to see a proper stewardship of Falls Creek, and I would love to see it be a place where we could have our children put their hands in the water and look at sea life. That would be fantastic. Thank you so much.

Council, Abelardo Mayoral, Mayo, Vancouver resident from the Kitsilama neighborhood, owner of the Invisible Orange, a live music production company. I'm here to discuss the motion for sustaining summer 2026 festivals. More discussion that I'm bringing in principle is something that will just simply support, right? When I see sustaining summer 2026 festivals is something that I personally as well, I attend and enjoy. in vancouver uh but i as i kept reading the motion i had some uh questions that i wanted to bring in uh something like i think i have some assumptions around them like the because the first one is like how was the list of festivals uh selected i hear is they're reaching out because of um their they're in a crunch. So, yeah, whether a mechanism exists, there must be an opportunity to formalize something like that and to find those that are staples of Vancouver to help them out then. Because many of them might not know this exists like, I don't know, like two days ago. Then I kept reading and then also just had some questions around the amounts being determined. Because from the numbers in the motion, I saw something from $0.30 per attendee to $2.50 per attendee. So I just wondered if it was based on their capacity to fundraise or their operational efficiencies. I don't know. And also just calling summer festivals. And there's some in the list that are in the fall, which I like. I know the majority are in the summer. So then, I mean, I would just... think, uh, something that supports festivals in Vancouver in general for Yarsen culture, then it's something that will excite me. Um, but I was just curious about around, um, the, the naming of, of the summer festivals, but yeah. Um, yeah, it feels silly to discuss the disappointment of like just 200 and so a thousand dollars for festivals. Like I would like to see that happen. I would like to see the summer festivals, uh, being supported. I just wanted to, uh, say that, yeah, in principle, I support it. I just wonder if there is more to do to formalize and to bring more transparency as well and make sure we support those jewels that we have in the festivals in Vancouver as well. So thank you.

Hi there. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Elise Yukoski, and I'm calling in on behalf of the Gaston Business Improvement Society in support of this motion. First, I'd like to thank Councillor Dominato and Chris Young for bringing this motion forward. As Council is aware, over the past several years...

businesses, and community partners to find the right balance for pedestrianization in Gastown. Together, we've learned that success isn't simply about closing a street. It's about creating a reason for people to come. Thoughtful programming and infrastructure, business billow, neighborhood character, local musicians, markets, performances, family activities, and festivals are all what make people want to stay. Many of those lessons have helped shape pedestrian zones elsewhere. INCREDIBLY PROUD THAT GASTON HAS PLAYED THAT ROLE. AFTER A SUCCESSFUL 2025 SEASON, AVERAGING MORE THAN 10,000 VISITORS EACH SUNDAY, WE WERE DISCOURAGED TO LEARN THAT PROGRAMMING FUNDING FOR WATER STREET HAD DECREASED WHILE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES WERE BEING SHIFTED TO THE GBIS. AS A RESULT, WE'VE HAD TO REDUCE OUR CAR-FREE SUNDAYS FROM 12 TO 10 DAYS AND CUT COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING BY ABOUT 80%. That means fewer opportunities for local artists, makers, businesses, and community partners. The very elements that made the previous pilot successful and continue to make Gastown Sunday Set successful today. This risks jeopardizing the work that we have done to date. We're also seeing the condition of our temporary infrastructure decline at a time when Gastown is welcoming thousands of visitors each week. While we know this infrastructure was never intended to be permanent, it reinforced...

as we work toward the long-term vision for Gastown. While we appreciate the city's continued investment in the Gastown Public Spaces Plan and are very proud to be a partner in that work, our concern now is really about certainty. As funding is reduced and operational responsibilities increase, it becomes harder to plan ahead, secure sponsors, book performers, and coordinate programming. It also means our team is spending more time managing operational responsibilities and less time directly focused on our core mandates. SUPPORTING OUR BUSINESSES. FOR ORGANIZATIONS LIKE OURS, LONG-TERM SUCCESS DEPENDS ON CONSISTENT INVESTMENT AS WELL AS CONFIDENCE THAT WE'RE BUILDING SOMETHING SUSTAINABLE TOGETHER. AS THE CITY CONTINUES INVESTING IN PUBLIC SPACES ACROSS VANCOUVER, WE HOPE IT ALSO CONTINUES INVESTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HELP SHAPE THE MODEL. THE GBIS REMAINS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE CITY. WE BELIEVE IN WHAT WE'VE BUILT TOGETHER, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING BUILDING ON THAT SUCCESS. and finishing what we started together. Thank you so much.

Anyway. So, yeah, it was very important for me to be here. I am a Vancouver resident. My name is Paola Murillo, founder and director of Latin Queer and Carnival del Sol. And I wanted to be here because I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to bring forward this motion. because on behalf of Latin Cuba and many other cultural organizations that serve our city, thank you for recognizing how important is the festival to Vancouver. This motion couldn't come at a more important time for us. We just finished Carnival del Sol this past weekend. Once again, we witnessed the incredible impact that cultural festivals have in our city. For the past 18 years, Carnival del Sol has brought communities together while generating... Sorry. What generates economic and social value? This year alone, we estimate that it was an impact of $2.5 million in economic impact for the city of Vancouver, including suppliers, vendors, sponsors, artists, contractors, security, the Vancouver Police Department, and many others. Producing a festival like this now costs over $1.2 million, and each year it becomes increasingly difficult to make it financially sustainable. This year, it was quite unique having FIFA credit, even that it was here. And we know that it was a very exciting and historic moment for Vancouver. And we were very proud to welcome visitors from around this world. is also great, but however, it did create also pressure for our cultural festivals. We compete for media attention, experiencing increased supplier's costs, lost sponsors, vendors, and saw lower attendance compared to previous years. At the same time, operational costs continue to rise, particularly for policing and city services. Those services are so important. And after all we understand what happened on April 26, And for us, it was very shocking what happened in Toronto with Salsa Sinclair Festival, which was very shocking for us. And a lot of the people that was coming to the festival was more and more asking for how much police and support we had and security. So we understand more than ever that safety is a priority. We are grateful for the guidance and support of the city and Vancouver Police Department in helping us to create safe and welcoming space for everyone. And this is why this motion is so important right now. Support the festival is not simply funding an event. It's investing in community belonging, public safety, local business, tourists, and Vancouver's cultural identity. Finally, I would like to express my interest in participating in any festival advisory commitment or working group, because I believe this is very needed, working together to find a long-term solution that ensures festivals remain sustainable while adapting to new realities. and increasing costs, the higher safety requirements, and changing economic conditions. Festivals are where strangers become neighbors, culture connects, and communities feel they belong. I hope we can continue working together to make this happen. Once again, thank you so much. This is very important. Gracias. Obrigada.

Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Karina Talvila. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in favor of this motion. which advocates for approval of plug-in solar panels in Vancouver. For me, personally, the issue is primarily about hastening our shift to renewable energy sources to reduce the climate-changing effects of burning fossil fuels. But it's not just about shifting to hydro-generated electricity over fossil fuels, because here in BC, we're feeling the effects of climate-change-induced droughts that are lowering the level of water in the rivers, and hence... reducing our ability to generate hydroelectric power. So it's not just about electricity, it's about solar-generated electricity. The plug-in solar panels are reasonably inexpensive, easy to install, and would help to reduce energy bills. The first U.S. state to allow use of the panels was Utah, not exactly a leader in the charge against climate change, but for that very Republican state, the panels were about an opportunity to save money. an excellent argument that we just as applicable here. The panels would also be very empowering for people. Urbanites have never been able to generate our own power before, but these panels would give average people that power and some control, power to do something easy about the climate and control over their electricity bills. For these reasons, climate change adaptation and mitigation, reducing electricity bills and energy empowerment I am in support of Councillor Frye's motion. Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for this opportunity to speak, and I'll be brief because you've had a long day. I've been a resident of Vancouver since 1983, and I am very excited to speak in favor of Motion 12. Thank you, Councillor Frye, for bringing this forward. Climate crisis is here now, and fossil fuels are the main cause of the climate crisis, hands down. And yet, our elected officials at all levels of government continue to keep citizens hooked on fossil fuels. And this council is no exception. Recently, they overturned a ban on gas for new bills. So with this motion, we have good news on clean energy, just as Councillor Fry outlined in presenting the motion. Earlier this year, I read articles raving about the IKEA plug-and-play solar panels. And as a renter, I look forward to taking those steps to have a solar panel on my balcony and taking control of my energy sources that reduce my emissions and match my values. This is truly a very positive initiative. And absolutely, I want to see the city get on board, look for ways to leverage this technology, form partnerships, engage with BC Hydro, get on board with this pilot project that Pete outlined, provide the staff the support they need to prepare the regulatory framework. I encourage all of you to vote in favor of this motion. It is so exciting. If you could see me, I was yelling yay after everything Pete said in his opening. So thank you very much. I look forward to the results of this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I am pleased to support Motion 12 because it looks ahead to how Vancouver can generate and use energy more affordably, sustainably, and reliably. Electricity demand is growing. Electric vehicles, building electrification, air conditioning during heat waves, and digital infrastructure are all placing greater pressure on the grid, while we are asking residents to move away from fossil fuels. Well, we should be. That transition requires not only more clean energy, but a more resilient and decentralized energy system. This motion recognizes that emerging plug-in solar technology could be part of that solution. Instead of relying entirely on centralized power generation, residents could produce a portion of their own electricity through small-scale balcony, patio, or backyard systems. The benefits are clear. In a cost-of-living crisis, households could reduce energy costs. Distributed generation could ease peak demand and strengthen grid resilience. When paired with batteries, it could even help residents to maintain essential cooling during heat waves or power outages. Importantly, plug-in solar could expand access beyond traditional homeowners. As mentioned in the motion, renters and people in apartments such as myself or strata buildings have largely been excluded from rooftop solar. This technology may offer a more practical and affordable way for them and me to participate in the clean energy transition. We can also look to international experience. In Australia, widespread rooftop solar adoption has reduced electricity bills and contributed back to the grid, while also requiring governments to update standards and grid management. It shows both the opportunity and the importance of planning ahead. What I appreciate about this motion is that it does not rush ahead without safeguards. Certification and testing are still underway, and the motion asks the city to work with BC Hydro and other authorities to ensure these systems can be introduced safely. It also calls for consideration of standards, permits, inspections, and equitable access. That is the right approach. Prepare early, follow the evidence, and remove barriers once safety is established. Climate action is not only about reducing emissions. It is also about affordability, resilience, and giving residents greater control over their energy future. This motion positions Vancouver to be ready rather than reactive. Thank you.

Hello? Can you hear me? Yes, we can, please. Okay, perfect. Hi, Mayor and Council. This is Annette Riley. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in support of Motion 12. This motion, to me, is about the future. Don't know about you. I'm a giant nerd. I love science fiction. My biggest fandom is Star Trek. Shout out to all my fellow Trekkies here, but... I digress. One of the things, though, that I love about sci-fi is that it imagines these technologies that make everyday life so much better. And, you know, most of those times those technologies stay fiction, but sometimes they become a reality like this. This motion is the start of a plan to give the residents of our city access to technologies that benefit all of us. And that has some serious Star Trek vibes. In a world where we've had these extreme heat events, wildfire smoke, atmospheric rivers, and all these growing concerns about whether our electrical grid can actually keep up with this increasing demand, this is exactly the kind of forward thinking that we should all be doing. In a political climate where so much of our decision-making has had to be reactionary, this motion looks ahead. It says, let's understand this technology. Let's work with BC Hydro. Let's identify the barriers now so that when the technology is ready, we are too. And that, to me, is smart planning. There's nothing I like better than a good, actionable plan. I would sign up for a solar panel on my patio in a heartbeat. Let me be a test subject here. I mean, actually, we use them when we're out camping with my friends and family. We use portable solar technology to recharge our lights, our phones, even speakers so we can have some music. And then we don't have to worry about disposable batteries or any noisy generators. So this technology right now, it's not in the distant future. It's not fantasy anymore. It's already here. And this motion is simply asking Vancouver to be ready for the next generation of it. Get it? It's about exploring ways for homeowners, renters, people in apartments, and those living in multifamily buildings to participate. This is not the final frontier, but it might be the next one. So let's be proactive instead of reactive. Let's embrace innovation. Let's prepare for what's coming. And let's help build a city that's more resilient and more sustainable and a little bit closer to the future we all imagined. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor and Council, thank you for having me here today. My name is Tasha Maynard, and I am the co-founder of Hayek Arts. Before we start, I want to highlight we are speaking about NZEVs. These are already Transportation Canada approved. You can drive and park on the road just like a regular car, and you need a driver's license to drive them. We're not talking about the green mobility scooters we see on the Greenway. Those are simply illegal. So when the city of Vancouver needed shuttles for people with mobility challenges during FIFA planning, they rented our carts. This matters because it shows these vehicles are not theoretical. They're already being used by the city for exactly the kinds of short, practical, accessibility-supportive trips we're talking about. The difference is that when the city operates a shuttle service, it can do so under its own authority. To date, HAYA carts have been privately and safely used for shuttle service by the Vancouver Pride Society, Ironman Canada, the Vancouver Marathon, City of Vancouver, Oak Ridge Park, Vancouver BIAs, Destination Vancouver, and even recently the Institute of Transportation Engineers Conference that was just held in Victoria. However, if HAYA wanted to provide the same kind of shuttle service to the public with commercially licensed drivers and vehicles inspected every six months through the commercial vehicle inspection program, we currently cannot. We are not asking for a loophole. We are not asking to avoid regulation. We are asking for a clear pathway under the existing passenger transportation license framework. So normally the approval process for a general passenger transportation license is roughly six to eight weeks. We applied last year and our application has now been sitting for months with no meaningful response. To be fair, as far as we know, nobody in BC has applied before to operate neighborhood zero emission vehicles for passenger service with commercial drivers. We understand that this may be new for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. We understand that staff may not know exactly where or how these vehicles fit. But right now, they're not asking us questions or giving us a pathway. The only answers we get is, keep waiting.

Meanwhile, these vehicles are already street legal, they're registered, they're Transportation Canada approved, they're ICBC insured, and operating safely as self-drive rentals. They're fully electric, quiet, low-speed, and right-sized for short trips in busy visitor areas. Driver-guided NZEV tours and shuttles would help visitors, seniors, families, cruise passengers, and people with mobility limitations experience more of Vancouver without needing a full-sized car, taxi, van, or bus. They could support Stanley Park, Canada Place, Coal Harbour, Gastown, and our local events. Approval of this motion would send an important signal that Vancouver supports safe, insured, inspected, and properly regulated NZEV passenger services. Thank you.

Thank you. Julie Struleski here, and I am in support of this motion. If you have seen the news, there are 800 active wildfires burning in Canada alone that are causing a lot of devastation right now. As we can see around the world, we are in a climate emergency. Hopefully this government will start taking this seriously as scientists have recommended. I think we have an ethical responsibility to take as much action as we can. NSAIDs have been around since the late 1990s. They're a proven solution, and it's long past time that all governments approve them for passenger services. If you are aware of the social and environmental impacts of EV battery life cycles, good news. The world's largest EV battery repurposing mega factory has opened in Surrey. and turns retired EV batteries into storage systems for hospitals, factories, and more. So I hope you will support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Vincent Kwan. I'm the Executive Director of the Strathcona Business Improvement Association. I support the direction of this motion because overdose prevention and harm reduction services are an important part of the broader response to the toxic drug crisis. That is also precisely why we need to get the implementation right. The motion begins to establish clear expectation around cleanliness, public order, operating plans, monitoring, and enforcement. If overdose prevention and harm reduction services are essential healthcare services, they should be managed with the same discipline, resources, and duty of care that we'd expect from every other essential public service.

Success is not simply opening a service. Success is delivering quality care while maintaining confidence among clients, neighboring residents, businesses, and the surrounding community. For this framework to work, there must be a clear chain of accountability across the entire system, from the operator to the city, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the province. The community should not be left trying to determine which institution is responsible when problems arise.

It should be clear when the operator must respond, when the city must monitor or enforce and when VCH or the province must become involved because additional authority funding or changes to the service model are required. That is where the good neighbor agreement becomes important. Although the agreement is between the operator and the city, it should also provide the surrounding community with a clear way to raise concerns and understand what happens next. And properly, the good neighbor agreement becomes a community-facing connection to the broader accountability framework. It should help ensure that concerns are assessed, recurring problems are recognized, unresolved issues are escalated, and outcomes are reported back. The community has an important role in providing honest and timely information as well about what is happening around the operation. While the responsibility for assessment, corrective action, and enforcement remains with the appropriate public institutions. The effective business improvement areas can also help connect those two sides.

As place-based organizations working closely with both its members and the city, BIAs can help ensure that agreement reflects actual conditions on the ground, recognizes recurring patterns, and gives community a practical way to reach the institutions responsible for acting. For that reason, we ask Council to ensure that the affected BIAs are formally consulted and invited to help shape the good neighbor agreement before it is finalized. That consultation should happen early, not after the agreement has already been written, so that the BIs can help shape how concerns are raised, the processes involved, recurring problems, how recurring problems are recognized, and resolve issues brought to the right authority. Ultimately, the measure of a good neighbor agreement is not written... Sorry, Vincent, that's your time.

Good evening, Chair. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Joshua Davidson. I'm the Director of Operations at the Downtown Vancouver BIA, also known as Downtown Van. I'm also a resident of Vancouver. Overall, Downtown Van is prepared to support this motion. However, we have outlined four recommendations for consideration that we believe would strengthen the framework. For many years, Downtown Ban has been advocating for greater accountability, consistency and transparency around the plans and operations of overdose prevention and harm reduction facilities. This motion moves us in the right direction. We recognise that the toxic drug crisis remains one of the most significant public health challenges facing our city. Harm reduction services save lives and are an important part of our health system. At the same time, we hear almost every day from businesses, employees, residents and visitors about the impacts that occur when facilities like these are not supported by clear operational standards and effective management of the surrounding public realm. What we appreciate about this motion is that it begins to establish expectations around licensing, operating plans, cleanliness, reporting, good neighbor agreements, and community accountability. Therefore, should staff develop this framework, we encourage council to ensure that it includes the addition of the four following elements. First, meaningful consultation before facilities are approved. Engagement needs to happen early, and it should include business improvement associations, local businesses, residents, and other affected stakeholders. Second, measurable operating standards with clear consequences when operators do not meet them. Expectations should be transparent and consistently enforced. Third, good neighbor agreements should be developed with the support of business improvement associations and the surrounding businesses, and they should include clear response times, complaint resolution processes, and ongoing communication. And finally, ensure that any locational criteria give appropriate consideration to neighborhood context, cumulative impacts, and the unique role of key commercial districts, which includes the Granville Entertainment District. Downtown Advance's position has always been that these conversations are not about choosing between compassion or accountability, they require both. When these services are properly located, appropriately resourced and well managed, they can improve health outcomes while reducing impacts on surrounding neighbourhoods. A clear regulatory framework provides greater certainty for operators, businesses, residents and the community, while helping restore confidence in how these services are planned and managed. We thank Councillor Fry for bringing this motion forward, and if Council adopts these four recommendations that I've outlined today, Downtown Barnet is pleased to support the motion. Thank you.

Hi, good evening. I'm also calling to support this motion. It's not surprising that many Vancouverites have become opposed to any safer consumption sites or OAT services in their communities. We've had a bad run of operators opening sites that aren't structurally adequate for client needs and which aren't adequately resourced. Then when trouble happens in the community around the site, operators shrug their shoulders and say that what happens outside isn't their problem. This is a dynamic that we see taking place over and over again in Vancouver. Critical services for at-risk people are inadequately managed. There are neighborhood impacts, and everyone is left to fight with one another while the people responsible, the funders and operators of the sites, including government, either steer clear or exploit the fallout. Eliminating these services will cause people to die. Let's not avoid that. And I am worried that there's an alarming cohort mainly but not entirely of online bots and trolls that say that they want drug users to die. There are people stoking that hatred at all levels of government. But I don't think that community members who don't want to deal with crime and nuisance around safe consumption sites want people to die. I think that mainly people want folks to get help. We need better service delivery models. People need to be able to get off the street. They also need immediate access to support services, including recovery oriented services. But we also need to do our best to make sure that people don't die. This is a route forward because at its heart, it's an accountability framework for everyone involved. There's accountability for the city, which is currently on a collision course with the federal government that we can ill afford. There's accountability for the province, for the health authority, for the operators, and for folks using the sites too. I think it's past time for everyone to come to the table to ensure that folks don't die and to ensure that service delivery models respect community needs. I don't think it's impossible, and I think it's incumbent on all of us to try. Thanks.

It's really difficult for me to read that. Can we zoom in or read it out, maybe?

All right. Everyone can hear me? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Nick Popel, and I'm speaking today as the co-chair of the Renter Advisory Committee, and we are speaking in strong support of this motion. Renters represent more than half of the households in this city. The renter office was originally created because renters facing eviction, displacement, or unsafe housing were being sent between city departments, provincial agencies, and nonprofit organizations, often while the clock was running out on the time on their homes.

The office gave renters a front door. It provided information, referrals, and coordination. Over the three years that it was running, it cost approximately $1.8 million, an average of about $600,000 per year. When it was reviewed in 2023, staff recommended that it continue. Instead, council eliminated it, setting concerns about efficiency, duplication, and which level of government should take the lead. The problem is when everyone is partly responsible, nobody is truly accountable. Council recently approved nearly $5 million to extend the Granville Street pedestrian pilot for seven weeks, including $1.25 million for programming that we're still figuring out what it's about. To be clear, I'm not arguing against pedestrian streets or public events. I'm a theater grad, and I love this stuff. It's a question of priorities. That seven weeks expenditure is roughly equal to eight years of the renter office at its previous average cost. And I'm going to be honest here. I'm not just speaking theoretically. Personally, I have fought through three arbitrations. I won them, but it was hell. But it was nothing like the nightmare I saw my apartment neighbors go through just before that.

We had a new owner come in, and they issued fictitious notices claiming everyone in the building had to leave. They told us they had secured permits from this city. Their generous offer to vacate was well below what tenants were legally entitled to receive.

I personally fought hard. I learned a lot about renters' rights and the RTA.

Almost every single one of my neighbors was scared out of their home. Seniors, single parents, immigrants, people who had been built their lives in that building. Only three of us fought back and remained. That building had 24 homes, almost 50 people. One call to a properly resourced renter's office might have protected not just me, but dozens of other people. Across Vancouver, that one call could protect hundreds. The motion today is not to bring the renter's office back. It's to have a study come back from staff that will likely go to the next council. The cost of studying is negligible. The cost of doing nothing is measured in people's homes.

Strongly support this motion, please.

Thank you, Chair. I support this motion because renters make up the majority of households in Vancouver. I'm also a renter, and they deserve accessible, coordinated support from their municipal government. Housing discussions often focus on building new homes, but we must also ensure that people already renting in our city can easily navigate the systems designed to protect them. Today, renters often have to deal with multiple agencies and organizations when facing maintenance concerns, displacement, relocation questions, or uncertainty about their rights. That can be confusing and difficult to navigate, as mentioned in the first speaker's experience. This motion proposes a practical solution. Re-establishing a centralized renter's office to improve coordination, provide clearer information, support enforcement efforts, and help renters access the services they need. Importantly, this office would not duplicate the work of the residential tenancy branch or community organizations. Instead, It will strengthen coordination, improve data collection, identify service gaps, and provide council with better information to guide future policy decisions. Good government should be easy to access. We already dedicate significant resources to working with developers, builders, and property owners. It is equally reasonable to ensure renters, the majority of Vancouver households, such as myself, have a dedicated point of contact within City Hall. Funding the office through empty homes tax revenues is also appropriate, given those revenues are intended to support housing-related priorities. Ultimately, this motion is about improving service delivery, strengthening accountability, and ensuring renters have a stronger voice within municipal government. For those reasons, I encourage Council to support the motion. Thank you.

Hello, committee members. My name is Vincent Shi. I'm a staff lawyer at First United Legal Advocacy Clinic. I'm also a resident of Vancouver's West End, and I'm speaking in support of the motion. For over 50 years, our legal advocacy clinic has provided support for tenancy issues for low-income renters in the downtown Eastside, including for unlawful evictions. Our advocates assist over 1,000 clients per year, including hundreds of renters. seeking urgent support to avoid homelessness. Nonprofit service providers like us take on enormous caseloads. Every day we work with people facing multiple barriers, such as disability, language barriers, low income, or just simply not knowing what their legal rights are. These community members need resources to avoid displacement and homelessness, and so we continue to be troubled by the decision to close the renter's office, given its critical role for the community. The renter's office had filled an important gap in resources. It provided advocacy and direct education to renters at risk of displacement and eviction. Importantly, the renter's office was not duplicative of the services that nonprofits like us provide. The office provided support where we couldn't and vice versa. For example, the office is the only place that can give direct information and assistance on the city's own tenant protection policies. No other organization is in the position to do so. Municipal policy is also outside the scope of what the RTB can help with. This becomes even more critical given the Broadway plan and downtown Eastside rezoning make TRPPs a fundamental part of the redevelopment scheme. And also, the terms of these policies are complicated and can be confusing even for a lawyer like me. While First United welcomes the expansion of TRPP coverage, it is just as important that city give information and assistance on these policies through a renter's office to make its protections accessible and meaningful. For us, the loss of the renter's office has eliminated a critical service and important partner for homelessness prevention. It's raised barriers to help that has been devastating to both our organization and the clients we serve. So we urge council to reestablish the office to ensure that renters are protected. Thank you so much.

Beautiful. Hi. Hello again. I'm Annette Riley. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I am here to speak in support of this motion. I will keep it short. It's been a long day for all of you. I would like to actually say thank you so much for all your hard work today. You're almost there. I just have one number for you. It's 165,455. That's the number of households in Vancouver that rent. That's not the people that live in those houses. That's just the households. Voting to bring back this renewed renter's office means that you are showing each person in each of those 165,000 households that they matter to you. City Hall has an open door for almost everyone involved in housing, builders, developers, engineers, property owners. Renters deserve access, too.

City Hall, I mean, I can sit here and I can extol the virtues of this new renter's office in City Hall. But honestly, I shouldn't need to because the previous version of this office was a success. The evidence is there. We saw it working. We know what it can do. And this is just a new and improved version of that. So please show the majority of Vancouver residents that you care about their needs. I would appreciate that as a renter being shown through a vote that you care about us. I urge you to support this motion. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Matthew Thiessen, and I'm the Managing Partner at Somerville Community Relations. Every day, my team is on the ground, working directly with residents to navigate TRPP and tenant plans. Our focus is simple, lead with empathy, prevent the loss of housing, and ensure renters are supported. Because we do this work every day, I'm here to speak in support of the intent behind Councillor Fry's motion. this motion correctly identifies a critical systemic flaw and problem, there is an unhealthy tension when the exact same department is responsible for writing policy. regulating it, and serving as the primary public-facing support for renters. Right now, that system is broken, and tenants are paying the price. Recently, I wrote to the general manager of planning, requesting urgent action on two frontline issues, greater clarity around tenant compensation, and more consistent communication on how the TRPP interacts with the Residential Tenancy Act. The response, we were told these critical issues were deferred to future review with no concrete timeline. That means 40 plus tenants were left in limbo. Instead of addressing this policy gap, the GM and the housing division chose to build a wall. They created a new unlisted city email account to communicate with our team. And quite frankly, it's completely invisible to the public. The messages sent from it are entirely anonymous, yet these anonymous emails contain official city instructions that developments must follow for approvals. Following this, we began receiving official housing division memos, documents confirming that applicants have met requirements to issue tenant notices. circulated with no signatures. Mayor and Council, anonymous emails and unsigned memos do not protect tenants. They do not resolve policy gaps. What they do do is shield public servants from accountability, create confusion, and slow down the delivery of housing and tenant supports. When the department responsible for tenant protections goes anonymous, it is a clear signal that the current system is failing. Whether the solution is a reestablished renter's office or a deep structural overhaul of the existing housing division, one thing is clear. The foundation of our housing administration must be built on transparency, accountability, and professional service. We cannot protect Vancouver renters with anonymous emails and deferred decisions. I urge council to support the spirit of the motion, acknowledge the deep operational issues within the housing division, and demand a return to accountability, transparent public service for renters and housing providers alike. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew.

So thank you very much. So in January, this council heard from tenants and tenant advocates about routine violations of the law in rental housing across the city. We heard tenants describe persistent threats to life and safety. We heard that there are landlords who avoid the legal consequence by outlasting an overtaxed, uncoordinated system, leaving individual tenants responsible for systemic failures. And at that time, council broadly supported doing more. This would be a really good way to do more. The reason we knew about many of the issues that council discussed in January was because of tireless organizing and reporting by tenants and allies at the Vancouver Tenants Union. Deep respect to the VTU for their work. But I would also say that the city shouldn't have to rely on crowdsourcing to get information about noncompliance with city bylaws. In my experience representing tenants, the lack of an adequate monitoring compliance and enforcement system coordinated with provincial partners and legal services has facilitated some of the routine abuses we see from exploitative landlords. I have a lot of respect for the work of city staff, but I have also represented tenants whose landlord was unlawfully emptying out a building in contravention of city bylaws under staff's notes. Staff in January thought that they were on top of serious fire safety issues in a building where tenants clearly reported the issues unresolved. Staff regularly report to council that tenant relocation and protection policies are operating as designed when tenants and advocates clearly know otherwise. We hear stories constantly of tenants who are struggling to get systems that nominally exist to support them and protect their rights to function the way that they should. We are still dealing with landlords I first dealt with many years ago who are still breaking the law in exactly the same ways over and over again. This is not a problem of individualized lack of diligence. These problems have persisted across many years of my work and practice in the field. These problems are systemic. We still owe it to Vancouver's renters not to leave them to individually fight off landlords who are well resourced and determined to break the law. We need to make better systems to give effect to the laws and policies that council already supports. The renter's office was the only entity I've ever encountered that was positioned to do that work. Please reinstate it. Thank you.