Approve Item 4 Downtown Towers

Statement Watch

I am.

Jess, I know that you're not a resident of Vancouver. Is that correct?

I'm a resident of West Vancouver, but I was born about five minutes from where you're sitting.

You bet.

No worries. I just need to ask that question.

Go right ahead, Jess.

Thanks very much, and good evening, everyone. While I currently reside on the North Shore, I was born at VGH, just up the street from where you are. But I was honored to be the... I moved to Vancouver to be the vice president of Exploity Six Corporation. I've worked on bringing the 2010 Olympics to Vancouver for 12 years. I was a proud member of John Furlong Ambassador... committee for many years and was a member of the Vancouver Convention Center Expansion Task Force. And I'm currently on the task force attempting to locate the International Defense Security and Resilience Bank in Vancouver. So I think that I qualify as a proud resident of the community. a community that I often refer to as the best and most beautiful place on Earth, and we need to protect that. So I'm also co-founder of the Save Our Streets Coalition, which advocates for solutions to the crime, violence, and public disorder that we see far too often on our streets, not only in Vancouver, but throughout our province. One of my favorite views all my life has been a drive from the Stanley Park Causeway past the lines and onto the Lionsgate Bridge. When you see the bridge structure up against the broad inlet North Shore Mountain backdrop, just I find it stunning every time. And it reminds me of the importance of architecture in connection with our natural beauty, our natural setting, and I find that very captivating. This particular project captured my attention and I support it for a number of reasons that somewhat relate to that, if you will indulge me for a moment. I've had the privilege and the pleasure of visiting many of the great cities of the world, and history can furnish for us that architecture is central to how many urban areas are viewed or perceived. I think of Hong Kong, Shanghai, Xi'an, Beijing, Tokyo, London, Paris, Rome, and of course New York. When you think of those cities, you often envision their architecture. It's a big part of your impressions of those urban areas. I've had the great pleasure on a couple of occasions of doing the architectural tour on the river in Chicago with the Architectural Society. I can't recommend it more highly. It was a real highlight for me and it brought into focus the contribution that architecture makes to great cities. The project we are considering today, I believe, promises to be iconic architecture, a real statement on the skyline of the community. The sheer scope of it, we have already been discussing this evening, but the unique, I think highly creative design inspired by the beauty and ingenuity actually of our natural surroundings is just brilliant. I think the open, bright and usable plaza for community oriented events will contribute to a vibrant, people-friendly and safe city core, as was so evidenced most recently during the FIFA World Cup events that we were all so proud came off so well in the city. I think of architecture in Vancouver today like the Shangri-La or Vancouver House, the Butterfly, the Stat, the Alberni, and Tower of Vancouver. I think it all really adds to an interesting skyline and maybe even exciting. It's kind of above the rest when you look at other communities. The proposal, I believe, responds to real practical needs such as the largest hotel in the city. hotel space. We do need more conference space. In fact, I believe that we even need to further expand the convention center for that very important business in Vancouver. And of course, we need additional housing.

So, you know, I think that

It all provides for a new, exciting, iconic city centerpiece that visitors, I think, will be awed by.

Sorry, Jess, I'm afraid you're out of your time. So we're going to have to move on to the next speaker. Thanks for calling in.

Statement Watch

Hello, I'm Ash McLeod, resident of Vancouver and business owner of Save On Meats, executive director of A Better Life Foundation, neighbors to, well, part of this project. And I'm really, quite frankly, excited. It's exciting to hear this dialogue and I'm confident in our city's leadership in asking these questions and I'm very impressed by... the applicant's answers. And I'm excited for the positivity that it'll specifically bring our block to Hastings Street. And of course, the city. It's a major project. It's beyond our block, but... My perspective comes from specifically between Abbott and Carroll. You know, a lot of folks are familiar with Save On Meats, been on that block since 1957. We just recently, like within the last month, we opened our token window, which provides dignified access to meals for street-entrenched people, but also people that just need good, accessible food. And the positivity from that... Comparatively, a small act has been very encouraging. So many residents of the neighborhood are saying it's so good to see this space, the shutters open, and activity, and people coming, and people going, and people engaging, and just in positive manners. And of course, accessing food and a basic human need. When I think about social housing of this scale, just four doors down, I can only imagine the positivity that it brings to our neighborhood and the excitement that would generate. It's invigorating. One of the slides said, if not now, when? And that really speaks true. That has been a troubled parking lot for quite a long time, almost as long as I can remember. And, you know, I don't want to oversimplify it, but... We can do better than that. I'm certain of it. And, you know, to me, it also comes down to a bit of a safety issue. People need housing. People need good food. They need good housing. They need good jobs. They need a bunch of things. But to be able to provide this good housing creates a balance for a lot of folks in the neighborhood. A lot of folks that are living in support of housing around the corner at Sorella, just further up a block away on Abbott. The good folks at Bob and Michael's across the street. that don't feel safe in their neighborhood right now because, for a lot of reasons, they aren't. Bringing more folks that represent a diverse representation of housing makes that block a lot safer, and that block is a core block. That has a ripple effect throughout the downtown east side. So, again, I'll use the word excited, and I hope you guys... Encourage this to happen. And the last thing I'll talk about is also a Better Life Foundation's relationship with Holborn specifically. The applicant leading up to this, not related to this, I don't believe, but has been one of many organizations that has come and shown up physically for a Better Life Foundation by helping us produce meals. And I don't mean sponsoring necessarily, that's a component of it, but actually being there in person. They've done this numerous times. The entire C-suite, the executive team, has been there multiple, multiple times, not waving their logo or their banner to say this is what we're doing and trying to make it a consultation thing, just to help out. And I've gotten to know that team, and I'm very enthused and encouraged about their integrity. And when they plan to do something, again, of this scale and change our skyline like this, For the last time, I'll say I'm excited. Thanks, all. Do I get to answer questions?

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Michelle, and I'm a proud resident of Little Mountain. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my story tonight. I'm here tonight to support Holborn's project, particularly the affordable housing building. With childcare on Abbott Street, projects like this could really change lives. I currently live at the new little mountain building with my two children, who are now 11 and 9 years old. I truly believe that moving here changed the course of our lives. When I was just 23 years old, my children's father left us. Overnight, I found myself raising a newborn baby and a 2-year-old completely on my own. We had relied on his income to survive, and suddenly I had no financial stability, no career, and very little support. There was nowhere for me to turn. The only housing available to us was in the downtown east side. So that's where we lived for six years. If affordable housing hadn't been available, I honestly don't know where we would have ended up. We could have become homeless, and I truly believe I might have lost my children because I wouldn't have been able to provide them with a stable home. Every day, my children witnessed things that no child should ever have to see. Open drug use, drug dealers selling on almost every single block, people experiencing mental health crises, violence, crime, and homelessness. Every time I stepped outside with my double stroller, I had to prepare myself for whatever we might encounter. One specific story has stayed with me. In 2022, the body of a 14-year-old girl was discovered in the SRO directly across from the building where my children and I lived. She had been there for months before her body was found. Knowing that we were living just across the street while this tragedy took place broke my heart. Unfortunately, that is just one of hundreds of heartbreaking stories I could tell from those six years I lived on East Hastings. I don't bring this up to traumatize you, but to spread awareness of the harsh realities for people living on the downtown Eastside. As a mother, I constantly worry not only about my children's immediate safety, but about the lasting impact those experiences would have on them as they grew up. When we were finally offered a home at Little Mountain, everything changed. For years, I fought to relocate to a safer neighborhood. With the housing crisis and thousands of people waiting to get into BC Housing, it often felt impossible. As a previous resident of Little Mountain Projects, we were promised housing when the new development was finished, but BC Housing had a loophole. Only the parents that were on the original lease were allowed to move back and not the children. I contacted city council, community organizations, BC Housing Management, and even shared my story on the radio. But the answer was always no. I spent countless hours advocating for my family, hoping someone would listen. And then Joo Kim from Holborn heard my story and personally reached out to me. He stepped in and helped me make it made it possible for my family to move into the first new affordable family development at Little Mountain, the community where I grew up. That opportunity changed our lives, and having secure housing also changed my future. Because I had stability, I was able to return to college and complete the healthcare assistant program. Today, I'm proud to work as a healthcare assistant, caring for others while providing for my own children with dignity. I truly don't believe I could have accomplished that with first having a safe, affordable home and a supportive community. Affordable housing is about so much more than paying less rent. It creates opportunity. It gave us a place where we could flourish instead of simply survive. Being given the chance to return to the community that shaped my childhood means more than I could put into words. It fills my heart knowing that my own children are now growing up in the exact same neighborhood where I once lived and played. They even attend the same elementary school that I did. For the first time in many, many years, I finally feel like I could breathe and I want to acknowledge Holborn for helping make this possible. We were given safety, stability, hope, and a place where we could truly belong and be proud to call home. But our story is not unique. There are still countless families living in the Downtown Eastside who deserve the same opportunity that my children and I were given. What the Downtown Eastside desperately needs is more safe, affordable housing. Too many people in the Downtown Eastside are living in aging, unsafe buildings. I've seen firsthand the state of most of the SROs. I've been in apartments in the downtown east side infested with rats and bed bugs and homes so old they are completely falling apart. Living in the downtown east side is hard enough. If you can give people safe, stable housing while living there, it can make life a lot easier. That is why I support this proposal. I'm just going to speed it up. Yeah, I guess I support this proposal. Thanks very much, Michelle.

Statement Watch

Good evening.

My name is Shannon Bose, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Gastown Residents Association. The GRA is dedicated to promoting the health, safety, and well-being of the residents of Gastown and Railtown. Over the past year, our executive and our members have met with Holborn and the city staff. and we've had extensive discussions with our membership. The position I present today is not simply my own. It reflects the views of a broad cross-section of Gastown and Railtown residents who have thoughtfully considered this proposal over many months. We are opposed to this development, but let me make one point clear. The Gastown Residents Association supports social housing. and affordable housing. We recognize that Vancouver is facing a housing affordability crisis, and we believe every neighborhood should contribute to the solution. Our concern is not that affordable housing is being built. Our concern is how it is being delivered. For years, the city has acknowledged that concentrating poverty and subsidized housing within a small number of neighborhoods has not produced the outcomes anyone has hoped for, not for vulnerable residents and not for communities that have carried the responsibility for decades. The city's planning direction has increasingly emphasized complete, mixed-income communities because people thrive when neighborhoods include a diversity of incomes, housing choices, services, and opportunities. We agree with this vision, which is why this proposal is so troubling. The Georgia Street redevelopment is one of the largest and most valuable redevelopment opportunities in Vancouver. It receives the additional density and land value created through rezoning. yet the affordable housing contribution that supports that redevelopment is located entirely in Gastown. In effect, Holborn receives the redevelopment benefits on Georgia Street, while Gastown receives the entire affordable housing obligation. Affordable housing should be integrated into redevelopment, not isolated from it. If affordable housing is truly considered an essential public benefit, and we believe it is, then why isn't it incorporated into Holborn's flagship Georgia Street development? Why is every affordable unit being placed in Gastown? And perhaps most importantly, what precedent does this set? If Council approves a rezoning that allows a developer to locate the entire affordable housing component of a major downtown redevelopment in Gastown or Railtown, what is to stop further applicants from proposing the same thing? Council should be concerned not only with the impacts of this application, but with the precedents it establishes. Gastown and Railtown have already accommodated a disproportionate share of the city's subsidized housing for decades. We should not create a planning precedent that encourages future developers to satisfy affordable housing obligations by concentrating them once again in the same neighborhoods while the benefits of redevelopment accrue elsewhere. That is not a vision of an integrated, inclusive society. That is simply continuing the patterns of the past. We also recognize that today's application is described as affordable rent housing, not supportive housing. However, residents remain concerned about what happens after rezoning. During our discussions with Holborn, we were advised that many of the detailed housing agreements and covenants would largely be negotiated after Council approves the project. that creates uncertainty. Residents deserve to know that what is approved today is what will exist 20 years from now. Accordingly, If Council approves this application, contrary to the GRA's position and recommendation, we respectfully ask that several conditions be attached. First, register a legally binding covenant that permanently restricts this building to affordable rental housing as presented today. It should not later be converted to supportive housing or an SRO or another housing model without returning to Council and the public through an approval process. The protection provides certainty for both existing residents and future tenants. Second, require neighbourhoods serving retail at street level. Gastown has steadily lost many of the everyday services that make a neighbourhood livable. The development presents an opportunity to resource some of those services, like a pharmacy. Third, if Gastown is being asked to accommodate this development, then Gastown should receive the corresponding public investment. We understand the rezoning package also includes a significant cash component. Those funds should first be invested in Gastown and Railtown. I will finish by saying the approach proposed by the Holborn rezoning application will simply perpetuate the status quo in Gastown and Railtown. It does little to transform much of the area from what many Vancouverites still perceive as a no man's land. If that is ever going to change, the city must take bold, consistent action with every major development to create a more balanced, vibrant, and inclusive community. This project should be the place to begin. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thanks, Shannon.

You have a couple of questions from councillors. Councillor Orr?

Yeah, just a question to the speaker. You said this project is located entirely within Gaston. You're aware, of course, that... Technically, Gastown ends at the alley south of Cordova. This is not in Gastown?

Well, I'm talking about how the Gastown Residents Association defines our neighborhood, and it is part of our neighborhood if you look at our website, and that's how we've defined it.

You've defined Gastown as?

As the Gastown Residents Association, we have created a catchments area.

Where does that go? How far does Gastown go?

It goes to that block.

Does it go all the way up Hastings? No, no. Just that block, Abbott between Carroll?

And then down to Cordova and then east on Cordova and into Railtown.

I'll refer you to the website. It includes Railtown as well?

Yes.

Okay, thanks. Okay, thanks very much, Councillor Kirby Young.

Hi, Shannon. Thanks for speaking. You probably heard earlier that I asked a question about logging for Gaston. And I appreciate that, if I'm understanding correctly, you're concerned about concentrating, say, 100% supportive housing. Did you have any more comfort in terms of hearing that the intention from the city would be a mix in terms of a third, a third, a third, so you would have some low end of market, some housing income limits, and not all shelter? Does that provide...

It is some. I mean, we met with the city beforehand, and they said the same thing. What our concern is that it could be flipped, depending on who's on council. The philosophy of the building could be flipped. Okay. You're looking for just perhaps some assurance on that. We would look for some assurance on that. We also... this gets approved we want to start and this is something that the GRA is starting to advocate now is for good neighbor policies that if there is funding for affordable housing that it is contingent on a good neighbor policy that is signed and reviewed every year no more money goes to some of these these buildings that don't look after the front of their buildings.

Okay. We can follow up on that because Council has passed some policy around that, but I have to stay focused on this topic. I understand very clearly the retail grade. In terms of your suggestion to allocate some of the public benefits, one of the things Council has been investing in, and we just passed a recent capital plan, has been in upgrading the public realm in gas towns with the cobblestone, blood alley, the improvements for Water Street, et cetera. Is there any particular... amenities that you would see would be positive for the neighborhood or kind of goals that the Residence Association has? Does it continue to do more of that? Is there anything else?

We appreciate everything that you're doing in Gastown right now. More of that, for sure. And then also just Abbott Street itself is just being detracted a lot. So that's where we were thinking of some of this money. It could go to some sort of a public... Walkway access right through into Chinatown and create some sort of a tourist Okay, we could definitely take that away and ask about about options and intention, okay, thank you appreciate it Thanks.

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My ancestral name is Khaliq, son of Khatlanu from my lineage. My chieftain name is Sukyo. I'm a hereditary chief from the Squamish Nation. My lineage is from the Squamish and the Musqueam people. I come here today wearing my regalia to celebrate Amalgamation Day of the Squamish Nation, July 23, 1923. Thank you for having me this evening. I'm here to speak in favour of the development. I spent 25 years as one of our lead negotiators for Squamish Nation on a number of land development projects. 25 years ago was a different world where there was no reflection of Indigenous history and culture. And in fact, when we go back to early Vancouver and this site, We were forcibly removed from this area from Chichelmen, from Pakals, from Kam Kamalai, Lak Lakay. And I hope many of you know these ancestral names because those are the original names of what is now Abbott Street, Water Street, all of these areas now near the area of Gastown. In 1900, we were deemed as squatters and removed from our lands to make way for CP Rail. for Western expansion. So Vancouverites have certainly benefited from the growth and development of our beautiful city here. So I really speak in favor because the proponents have engaged my relative, Gordon Grant, who I've known him and his family my entire life from Musqueam, to start to correct erasure, to start to look at how we balance our canoe moving forward, to reflect the beauty of our history and culture that doesn't just start with Narvaez coming to this part of the world in 1791. So I really believe that the opportunity to celebrate that it's not us and them, it's us together as we build this city includes Squamish, Musqueam, TTsleil-Waututh voices and presence, again, to counter erasure and to celebrate the rich mythology, ecology, and history of this part of the world. This area was very rich with Douglas firs and western red cedars. The sloughs that connected Columbia Street were rich with elk and wildlife that provided our families for innumerable generations. We can't do what we did during our grandparents, great-grandparents' era. We have to innovate. We have to transform. And this project allows the opportunity to provide safety and adequate housing for our members in the downtown east side. I also want to touch on the design of the glass sponge reefs. I think this is a cool dynamic that is being illustrated on the Georgia component. And the glass sponge reefs are something that are very important to us because they're the building blocks of our environment. We actually have glass sponge reefs right up here in Alcatum, which you may know as Howe Sound. These are ancient, ancient reefs that provide the building blocks to sustain our environment. We're seeing a revitalization of atlcatsum with the return of heron biomass and cetaceans like orcas that we're seeing coming into Burrard Inlet. So we're part of this trend to celebrate that history that... Glass sponge reefs aren't something of the past. I don't think many people, when I spoke to the proponents, even knew what a glass sponge reef is. But to see the design of the city with buildings that will reflect that connection, I think is a pretty cool feature. So I hope you'll consider the tangible and intangible benefits that this project will bring. in collaboration with our three families, the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh, in talking to many of my relatives. Preliminarily, they speak in support of this type of product that allows us to collaborate, again, to move forward together. So I really want to thank the presenters for telling that story on how you've engaged with our families and how you intend to continue to do so. I hope you'll celebrate Squamish Amalgamation Day with me. It's an honor to be here this evening. I know you've been doing a marathon of meetings, so I wish you well the rest of the summer. Thank you for having me. Oh, my God.

Statement Watch

Great. Good evening, yes. Mike Biscar, resident of Vancouver, calling in opposition to this project. There's a few different reasons that I would outline my opposition to this project. I think one of them is I think this is the wrong time. I think that... You know, I know that I think I agree with, I think, many Vancouverites who feel that the discussion and the review of the tall buildings policy in downtown ought to be finished before a project of this magnitude comes to Council for approval. And so I think that that process needs to finish first. Don't really understand why the project is before council now and why that process wouldn't be finalized before proceeding with this application. I also think that given the affordability crisis that we are facing in the city, I think that the benefits that are being offered and the scale of the benefits that are being offered for the scope of this project are really just crumbs. A project of this magnitude ought to go much, much further in addressing issues that people are facing when it comes to child care, when it comes to housing, when it comes to issues where the average working people living in Vancouver can't afford to live here. And so given that we're talking about over 2,000 units of luxury hotel rooms and luxury condos and just a couple hundred units of housing. That's really just nothing given the scale of the project. I also think that I know a number of people in the lead up to this application have been talking about the fact that given Holborn's track record in Little Mountain, really ought to have to have actually built the social housing that they're saying they're going to build prior to getting approval for the rest of the project. That hasn't happened here. And I recall even watching some of the discourse with council when I think council was making the decision to approve the deconstruction or the tearing down of the Dunsmuir Hotel, and there was a lot of frustration and anger at at Holborn for how that process transpired. And I don't know that that's ever really been resolved. And it seems like given their track record in the city and promises that have been broken, there really ought to be a different timeline for how this process is rolled out. So I think that's another reason. And then I would also just add, you know, on a personal note, as a father of three who's living in downtown, I think one of the real challenges One of the real challenges that downtown families face and have faced for decades is a real shortage of available child care space and school space. And I think that when it comes to the school space, it's unfortunate because there's really three different forces here. There's the province, there's the council in Vancouver, and there is the school board. And there's a lot of finger pointing amongst the three different bodies about who's to blame for the lack of schools. I think people are aware that it took you so many years for the Olympic Village School to happen. But I think that when it comes to Vancouver Mayor and Council, this body, your real ability to ensure that we have adequate infrastructure for families that live downtown is through processes like this. You have the ability to reject additional density until there has been proper infrastructure, whether that be funding from the province, whether that be actions that are needed from the Vancouver School Board. You have the ability to weigh in on density and to require that there be enough infrastructure. Because I see projects like this, and there's going to be some amount of families. I don't exactly know how many of the units and what's being proposed would be two-bedroom or three-bedroom, but we know in a project like this, there's going to be a number of families. And where are these people going to go to school? This was the first year that we didn't have a wait list at L.C. Roy. And I think the first year in the history of L.C. Roy. And so where are we going to take the influx of additional students that are going to come out of these families? And I think that's something that this council really has to face in a real way. And it doesn't seem to me that that's happened. And I think this project is sort of just yet another example of that. Council I think sort of pointing and saying that someone else that someone else's issue to figure out and I think that's incorrect So that would be one of the kinds of community.

Statement Watch

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak this evening. I am in opposition of this amendment for several reasons. The first is that it directly affects me as the owner of a business located at 698 Seymour Street. Our company has been in this location for over 30 years, and our clients and staff appreciate the central location and the access to transit. Of course, it would be potentially devastating to the business if we were forced to relocate, as it would be for many of the other businesses within the area affected by this plan. I know that it's easy to see this block as just a parkade and a dollarama, but it also is home to dozens of small, locally owned, independent businesses. We may not carry the clout of a billion-dollar international development company. but I do believe that we are part of what makes Vancouver a vibrant and livable city. As the speaker who was representing the Gas Town Association mentioned, the loss of these small businesses is detrimental to a city like Vancouver in the downtown core. Secondly, I don't feel that it's fair for an amendment to be made to the official development plan to allow Holborn to reduce the number of social housing units and shelter units and increase the height of this development. When the local government goes back on its stated platform of making Vancouver a more livable and affordable city for all, people lose faith in them. This is doubly so when it is done at the request of an extremely wealthy company with a terrible reputation for not following through on its promises. Clearly Holborn has no stake in the improvement of our city for the average person, which is why we depend on our elected officials to hold them accountable. My final reason for opposing this amendment is that I had never once heard anyone complain about the lack of ultra luxury hotel rooms in this city. I work in a field where I regularly speak to wealthy clients hosting large events at hotels. There are plenty of options. already existing at the top of that price range we may need more moderately priced hotel rooms but i don't really see a need for pushing through with ultra luxury hotel spaces meanwhile most working people can't even afford to live within an hour of their downtown job and every year the demand for social and low-cost housing increases And I'd like to ask who is actually served by ultra luxury hotel complexes in Vancouver. I don't think that it's the average voter who lives and works in this city. In summary, in light of all of the issues that have been raised tonight, I just don't think that enough consideration has been given to the repercussions of this decision. And I urge the council to vote no on this amendment. Thank you for your time.

Speaker, you have a question from Councillor Dominato.

Hi, Alison. I just have a really quick question. You mentioned a number of businesses in that block, including the Dollarama. Which business are you representing? Are you representing multiple businesses?

No, no. I'm just representing myself as an owner of a business. Oh, okay.

And you didn't want to name the business that you own and operate?

Statement Watch

My name is John Metcalf. I live in the Hudson building directly across Seymour Street, and my balcony faces it. Almost all of the information that I'll pass on is from the city's own documents. I have copies, and I'd be happy to share them. And should anyone wish to follow up, I'd welcome the conversation. Without proper assessments, I oppose. Three reasons. One, studies that should exist do not. The proposed hotel tower would be 315 meters tall. That's 114 meters taller than anything now standing downtown Vancouver. And it would be at one of the busiest pedestrian corners in the city. I filed a freedom of information request for the wind study, shadow rationale, and view cone study for the consolidated site. Consolidated site. On July 7th, 2026, the city emailed to say that no such records could be located. Rezoning center staff had advised that the wind study was not required as part of the application. The only shadow and view cone analyses on file were prepared for the original. application before the site was consolidated. Now, you may be told that these studies come at the development permit stage. The problem with later than earlier or tonight is when leverage exists. Once density is approved, the ability to require meaningful reductions to height or scale reduces significantly. And studies that could reveal a safety problem must come before the decision, not after it. Number two, the density appears to have been engineered. Density number. Permitted floor space ratio on this site is 7.0. Residential application was filed on June 11th, 2025 at 31.29, four and a half times what current zoning permits. That figures on both the Shaper City site and application signs on Richards and Dunsmuir Street. On April 7th, 2026, an addendum, consolidated the residential and hotel sites, and absorbed the city lane between them. Larger lot, new number, 27.4 FSR. The addendum itself states that no changes to height or uses are proposed. Same towers, same size. Component, that was 31.29, did not become less dense. The same floor space was simply spread over a bigger lot. When I read the referral report, Appendix B, I found it gives no FSR number for this site at all. The numbers the public were given, 31.29 and then 27.4, appear nowhere in it. The Abbott Street site has its 16.2 FSR density stated plainly, but the proposed tallest building in Western Canada does not. Three, protected spaces. Now, this one didn't get mentioned before, so I'd like to highlight it. On the other side of Richard Street stands the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, protected as a Category A heritage site since December 1974. Referral report never mentions it, covering only the Randall Building. The city's own solar access guidelines say new development should cast no new shadow on parks and school sites between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on the fall equinox. Exceptions require detailed study at 15-minute intervals. For this consolidated site, as confirmed by my FOI request, no such study exists. The city has required and enforced these studies before. At 1166 West Pender, a tower was cut from a permitted 137 to 120, and its top ten floors terraced to protect a park 230 meters away from a shadow roughly 200 square feet, lasting around half an hour twice a year. That is what action looks like. So I leave you with two questions nobody appears to have been required to answer. Which protected public spaces will the development put in shadow? And why has no one been required to find out? You can require these studies.

Statement Watch

Speaker 12, Mike Morissette.

Speaker is unmuted. Speaker, are you there? Speaker number 12. Go ahead. Okay. Speaker 13 is Matt DeMarci. Hello? Hello? Hi, is this Matt? Yeah, this is Matt speaking. Matt DeMarchi. Go right ahead. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you, Mayor and Council, for hearing us today. I'm calling Council today to oppose this. We need homes and not hotels. Council has moved this hotel zoning up in priority. I would like to know why. I think it's because it's clear hotels are the priority of this council right now. Holborn is a bad faith actor in our community. I lived several blocks from the north end of Little Mountain for a decade. What has been done to that former community is a travesty. And worse, they've been aided by this council, easing Holborn's commitments. Now Holborn puts in front of us more fanciful baloney. I don't think anyone believes this project will deliver what it's been promised. I don't think city staff, council, any of the speakers, or anyone would bet their paycheck on it. Holborn couldn't deliver it at Little Mountain in any sort of timely fashion, so why would council trust them to deliver it in this project? All of the bells and whistles and glitter and promises, they won't deliver it in any sort of timely fashion. So why prioritize this hotel over real housing? At this site on Dunsmuir, the owners allowed the heritage building to fall into disrepair. What is the consequence for this? Apparently, when you destroy Vancouver's heritage, you can build a hotel there. Different Vancouver councils have allowed developers to make a fortune selling tiny condos between 2010 and 2021. Now that the presale condo market is dead, There is far more money in hotels and all the developers are rushing to build hotels. The developers are following one gold rush after the other and council is helping them do it. When will housing for workers be the priority of the developers and this city council? The majority of the workers who will work in this hotel will not be able to afford to live in Vancouver. They'll likely have to live in Surrey or Langley or Maple Ridge, and they will have to commute for hours away from their family to serve the wealthy guests of this hotel because the city is too unaffordable for most workers. Workers deserve to live in this city. They deserve to have, some politicians say, workers have a space here. My position is that no new hotels should be built unless every worker in that new hotel is paid a wage where they can afford to live in this city. I know room attendants in this city that make $34 an hour and then cannot afford to live here. We cannot rely on the charity of this developer. We need real action from council now. Please reject this proposal. Thank you very much and have a great night council.

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Christina Figueroa, and I oppose Holborn's project. Before I begin, I would like to bring the Chamber's attention to the 8,000 petition signatures I have submitted from Vancouver residents that are calling on the city to oppose this project. They may not all speak tonight, but 8,000 people are joining me in opposition to this project. Additionally, 102 postcards have been submitted that outline specific reasons why this project should be rejected. Firstly, I'm speaking in opposition to this project because Holborn has a long history of tearing down social housing in Vancouver. How can we let them build more when they've shortchanged our city in the past? Holborn has denied Vancouver the access to 391 units of social housing by demolishing them at Little Mountain and Dunsmuir House. I want this council to imagine with me how 391 units of social housing could change our city right now. That's 391 unhoused folks that could have a place to sleep tonight. Does that matter to you? As a council member, do you care about our housing and affordability crises or not? In an election year, I'd encourage you to make your stance clear in your votes tonight. Holborn claims they will build social housing at 388 Abbott in conjunction with this project. However, after delaying the rebuilding of social housing at Little Mountain for years, why would we trust Holborn again? Please do not forget about the disaster at Dunsmuir House that prompted ABC counselor Kirby Young to question Holborn's actions. I found the council's critique of Holborn's Dunsmuir demolition to be noble and a true defense of our city's public interests. Despite Holborn's turbulent history, this council is now being asked to approve more developments from them. Why should we trust a developer that has acted in such poor faith? This new project invites further displacement of Vancouverites. Over the past couple months, I've become acquainted with hardworking people that work in small businesses on this site. Dozens of people will lose their livelihoods in the event that this hotel is passed. Additionally, across the street from the Holborn's proposed site is Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Cathedral. The cathedral is a pillar of our immigrant communities and their congregation has expressed concern about how this development will impact their space. The height of Holborn's proposed hotel will greatly overshadow the cathedral and impact lighting and the functionality of the stained glass windows. Additionally, many utilize the parkade on the site. Will this council deny churchgoers and Good Samaritans the right to access their place of worship with ease? I am pleading for this council to enact what is fair. Tonight's decision is easy. Should we neglect our small businesses and social housing programs to accommodate a billionaire developer? If your answer is to prioritize Holborn, then residents deserve to know that their public servants do not prioritize them. In conclusion, I have to ask, why should we trust Holborn? Why do we need luxury hotels and condos in a housing crisis? Why would such a huge project be approved right before an election? Shouldn't we wait till after the election to have a meaningful long-term review of this project? Does this council really believe Holborn won't shortchange us on housing yet again? What kind of legacy will Councillors leave behind by voting this project through today? I urge this council to learn from Holborn's history and reject this project and refer it back to staff. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I'm a Vancouver resident, and I am against this proposal. As you all very well know, Vancouver is in a housing crisis, and we do not need more unaffordable housing. What we need is affordable housing for the average Vancouverite. Vancouver is already home to many incredible hotels and beautiful luxury buildings that house our well-off neighbors. But where is the housing for young working adults like myself or families, for example? Many of my friends struggle to live and thrive in the city regardless of their education and occupations. Owning a house or an apartment is often spoken about like a pipe dream. This development will make the situation worse. Again, we do not need more luxury housing that doesn't benefit the majority of people in this city that are just trying to live a decent life. I understand the proposal includes building social housing, but quite frankly, I don't trust this developer to build it based on their extensive track record. Holborn bought Little Mountain in 2008, and it took them 15 years to even get close to finishing construction on it. Is the same thing going to happen to this development? Will it take another 15 years for the social housing part of this development to get built just because it's social housing? To quote BC's premier, David Eby, the Little Mountain tragedy resulted in a low-income community bulldozed an interest-free loan of hundreds of millions of dollars in a massive empty lot growing weeds in the middle of a housing crisis. Holborn got an interest-free loan of hundreds of millions of dollars and they still couldn't deliver on their promises in a timely manner. In my view, the age-old saying that actions speak louder than words rings especially true in this case. Holborn has shown through their actions over the past few decades where their priorities are, and as a consequence, lost the trust required to take on a project like this. So for these reasons, I urge you strongly to vote against this proposal. Thank you for your consideration and have a nice evening.

Statement Watch

Good afternoon or good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. I am absolutely thrilled to be here tonight on behalf of Hospitality Vancouver Association, which represents bars, restaurants, pubs, and other cultural contributors to our hospitality sector. In fact, we represent about a quarter of a billion dollars in annual economic impact and employ more than 10,000 workers. and tonight I'm very enthusiastically on behalf of all of those people supporting this exciting project. It's no secret that the hospitality sector has come under incredible adversity. The COVID pandemic... isn't a distant memory for us it is something that our sector is still working every single day to claw back from and to recover from the mortgages the second mortgages the personal loans taken out to help keep these companies afloat are still being paid back and it's no secret that our sector continues to suffer the effects of the chaos and street disorder plaguing our city But tonight, I am absolutely thrilled to be able to be here to support something good, actual investment into a project that checks the boxes across so many metrics. I would call it an unprecedented opportunity, and I will focus on the hospitality aspects of this project. And despite what you might think, why are businesses supporting more competition? The fact is our sector welcomes great operators. It welcomes... wonderful investment. We welcome projects that, by all accounts, balance the social aspects that Vancouverites value with real, tangible investment. Our city, our sector needs thoughtful development, and this project is extremely exciting. On behalf of the many businesses that make up our organization, as well as the thousands of staff they employ, please accept our enthusiastic endorsement of this project and we urge you to support it coming to fulfillment once built it will result in a stronger more vibrant vancouver investments like this strengthen our city's economy create jobs reinforce vancouver's reputation as a world-class city And again, I will wrap by saying I believe this is an unprecedented opportunity. And listening to both the project architect and as well as the city staff, it is so exciting to think of a project of this magnitude coming to our city. Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Statement Watch

All right, go ahead.

Hello. Go ahead. Sorry.

Yeah, my name is Michael Cook, co-founder of the Myron Manor Collective. I am strongly opposed to another hotel development that is being pushed through council before an election. I agree with the speakers who said that This is kind of unbelievable to go 100 meters over the tall buildings policy without a review on behalf of this real estate speculator who has been not delivering on promises of social housing for almost two decades. I think that any council member who has held a senior position at Destination Vancouver is in conflict whenever it comes to bylaw amendments or policy amendments that benefit hotel developers and real estate speculators exclusively. They're in conflict.

Hey, Speaker. Speaker, can I get you to focus on the merits of the... of the application. Thanks very much.

Chair, I just...

Okay, well, when it comes to the vote, when it comes to the vote, I'm saying that the councillors voting on it are in conflict. Speaker, I'm going to ask you just to... Wait a sec. We have a councillor wants...

I don't have the point of procedure point to reference in the bylaw, but it is wholly inappropriate to be referencing former employment in terms of our roles and decision-making at this table. And so I just want to acknowledge that. I think that it is a real stretch to be implying that people are at conflict. Each councillor has to make a decision as to whether they're in a conflict of interest. That is a due diligence that we undertake. But my colleague is not employed. I'm not implying it. I'm outright saying it. And I think there should be a public review of whatever ethics board makes that decision. Anyways, I think it's inappropriate. And I see Councillor Kirby-Young is on the queue.

You go right ahead.

Yeah, if you can advance me, I'm just going to address this head on. All counselors come from different walks of life and have different life experience. Some have owned small businesses. Some have worked in elder care. Others have worked at universities or media. They all have different backgrounds. It informs what they bring to this table. I have every confidence. Others have been lobbyists for hotel developers. Speaker, you do not have the floor. So if you would, we are affording you the respect of listening to you, and I would ask you the same. So the individual is clearly referring to me. I held a senior position at Destination Vancouver. I left Destination Vancouver, I believe it was 2009, just before the 2010 Olympics. It is 2026. My life experience informs just simply like everybody else. So I would request, Chair, if you could remind the speaker to focus on the merits or non-merits of the application as they see it, and not in terms of providing moral judgment upon the members of this council.

There's no shortage of luxury hotel rooms in Vancouver at all. We have an affordable homes crisis. My family, as I think you all know, is facing eviction because of a hotel development. Excuse me. When we look at the Vancouver skyline at night, we can see these buildings are mostly empty. The Shangri-La, the Wall Center, the Butterfly, all their lights are off every night. We don't have a shortage of luxury hotels. It's ridiculous. And Holborn's not going to build the thing at 388. The money doesn't make sense for it. Interest rates are too high. Construction costs are too high. They're just speculators. In 15 years, they're going to be making units even smaller, and these same kind of politics are going to be just handing them whatever they want, as always. And it's terrible for the future of our city. And I want to say again that these late meetings are a barrier for parents who are trying to find homes for their children. which one of mine is sleeping on me right now. I heard Mike Biskers' kids crying, and I agree with everything that... And I've also noticed that council will ask a lot of questions of Latino people when they disagree with the development and who pays them and who tells them what to say, but not when that person is advocating for the displacement of my family. And I've been told that I can't even be asked questions when I raise a common-sense amendment

Thanks very much, Speaker. Getting rid of hotel development policy 3.2.2.1D, which I'm saying for the third time tonight.

Thanks very much, Speaker. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello. Go right ahead.

Hi. My name is Michelle Travis, and I'm a Vancouver resident. I oppose this project and strongly urge council to send it back to staff. This hearing is about a lot more than just the three towers. It's about whether council is prepared to rewrite the rules for one developer before you've even finished writing the rules for everyone else. You're being asked to approve three of the tallest buildings ever proposed in Vancouver before the higher buildings policy review is complete. This proposal prompted the policy review for the whole downtown peninsula, which is expected to conclude next year. So my question is why the rush? If the policy review is genuinely intended to answer questions about where super tall buildings belong, how tall they should be, what public benefits they should provide, then the largest proposal in Vancouver's history should be considered under that completed policy, not before. Otherwise, what message does it send? Citywide planning only applies until a major developer comes along asking for an exception. A decision like this doesn't have to be rushed. This public hearing is coming one week after it was referred to council. That compressed timeline alone is unusual. We just heard earlier tonight that NAP Canada is concerned about the height, but city staff need to push this through now. Holborn has made the city of Vancouver wait for over 15 years for social housing at Little Mountain, and they refused to pay the SRA replacement fee over a year ago when Dunsmuir House had to be ordered. demolished. They don't seem to have a problem making the city wait for the affordable housing we need. Why should City Hall be willing to settle for crumbs? We should be taking the time to get the project that we need for our city. In terms of social housing, they're only adding another seven units in addition to the 167 units they got to replace from Dunsmuir House. The 237 units fall below the 20% threshold you would typically see when you're seeing a project with almost 1,300 strata units. There are no below-market rentals being proposed. I can't imagine hotel workers or any hospitality worker would be able to afford to live in those towers. So the question is really, who's that being built for? So we think there's some questions, and the city's really got to demand more affordable housing with major projects like this. What's the community benefits agreement going to look like? There are a lot of unanswered questions here. We've also heard about their large conference and event space. This is not a public amenity. It's revenue generating space for Holborn. But that space is exempted from community amenity benefit calculation. I'd like to know what's the value of that exemption for Holborn. Will they also benefit from the 20% density exemption for private amenity spaces? That's another incentive recently approved by council. So what's the value of that exemption? Then there's the heritage space. The city's report concludes that the proposal does not comply with council approved heritage policies because it would, because it would substantially demolish a protected heritage building and just retain the facade. The heritage policy say rezoning should not result in demolition or major alteration. I understand the heritage designation bylaw in Vancouver under the Vancouver charter requires council to have a public report available addressing the property's heritage value, compatibility with community planning objectives. uh compatibility with its uses the condition and economic viability of the property uh whether financial support is needed for conservation so i have a question about whether a full heritage report has been made available about what the intention is for the heritage part of this project because the referral report mentions that a building condition assessment was taken based only on an exterior review using photographs taken from the street So how can council conclude that demolition is justified if the structure was never really examined or thoroughly examined? Frankly, there are a lot of questions here with this project. I would strongly urge you that you refer the application back until the higher buildings policy review is completed. Address some of the other questions in terms of making sure that there's more affordable housing as part of any sort of major project. consider what other aspects and the ways in which they run afoul of the official development plan. They need to have a thorough, transparent analysis of aspects of the plan. I would ask you not to put the cart before the horse. You have an option of sending this massive proposal back to staff, and I would urge you to do so. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello?

Go ahead.

Hi. Good evening, Council. I am Annika Anderson, and I am a first responder who works within the city limits of Vancouver. I am in opposition to this proposal of this building, another billionaire's project in the set of affordable housing and further care for the homelessness crisis we face in the metro area. Why is this government supporting the construction of a Trump allies building as we as Canadians are being threatened yet again by his tariffs, especially before an election as if to suspend the democratic process? As a first responder who has worked in the alleyways of Vancouver, seeing the difficulties that the less fortunate have hidden between the already unaffordable towers and complexes, there is no way that I would ever support a project like this. Holborn allowed the neglect and demolition of the Little Mountain social housing site that provided 224 social housing units. Then in addition, the Dunsmuir House, which held 167 single-room occupancies, was allowed to deteriorate into condemnation. Before voting to declare the site a public danger and demolition, several city Councillors accused Holborn of egregious conduct and questioned whether the company deliberately let the heritage structure deteriorate to justify its demolition. In what way is allowing the ultra-wealthy to build yet another speculative project going to serve society and serve the people? How is this building going to allow the less fortunate to survive? This ultra-high tower is just going to put more people experiencing homelessness into the shadows, out of sight, only seen by people like me who are actively trying to prevent overdoses or those trying to bring those people out of addiction. The city council has time and time again proved they do not care about anyone but the rich. They are not a council that are willing to help save the lives and allow our society to thrive. I believe this project should not be passed until another democratic process allows for a city council to be represented by those who care about the lives of Vancouver and not the pocketbooks of billionaires and Republicans. Thank you.

Statement Watch

I'm here from the seniors for one one part of the executive board we have People come in every day crying. Can we find them housing? Unfortunately, we do not do that, but we can give them the information where to contact. But, you know, this is how important it is that we do some affordable housing. You know, they didn't, it's just, kind of happened. The costs of everything went up. Their pensions are very low. But what we need is more housing units, not high-end luxury units and luxury hotels. Hotels in the area are complaining of low occupancy of these high-end... I am not saying that this area needs to be all co-op housing or rentals or purchase prices within affordable amounts, but that has to be our priority. I believe a much better solution would be to get the area around 33rd and Main prioritized for the average person and families can afford. I actually learned before that was closed, a lot of the people, because I came down, worked on, marine along Maine. And when they got told they had to leave, they were crying. So we spoke on the bus every day. It was so sad. And yet that land is still not completed. Was there any reason why they needed to kick everybody out? I don't think that was a wise choice. They could have waited till the developer was able to be, you know, get their plans all together and that.

Okay. Every day, yes, here's another thing, affordable housing.

Because they're coming in. We do get some food donations, but the need is so great that they come in to get food from us, from the Salvation Army, because they haven't got enough money to pay rent and food, which is very, very sad for seniors. They should be able to have a normal life. A perfect example of this was the new development at Broadway and Commercial Drive, where the developer has been given an exception to the rule of 20% below market rental units to allow only 10% and no mention of units for people with disabilities and only, I believe it was approximately 30 units of childcare spots. You know? It's very sad. Like, where I live, in the 300 block of East 7th, our closest high school for our kids is 2,500 block of Broadway. But if we lived on the other side of Broadway, we'd go to Tupper, which I grew up in. I was born in Vancouver. I've lived most of my life in Vancouver. But, you know, that's, you know, in 30 childcare spots, over 1,000 units.

Now, that didn't make a lot of sense.

Because it's the same firm that was supposed to be working on the 33rd and Main that I have very poor faith in.

Statement Watch

Hey, Zelda. Nice to hear from you again. Do you want to read out your full name?

Zelda Chan.

Okay. You know you have the privilege of being able to have a translator read your translated statement, and that would give you five minutes.

So I'm speaking for five minutes.

Okay. And I would like, I'm speaking in my native language, and I would like somebody to read my statement in English.

I'm the translator. I'm on call.

Your timer is running.

Can I just get your, can I get your residency, please? You're not a resident in the city of Vancouver, correct?

I am. Carry on. Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Ayelda Chen. I am the president of the Hotel Workers Union, and I am here today speaking as an individual. Alcalde y concejales, hablo en oposición a esta solicitud y les pido que no la aprueben en su forma actual. También les pido que adopten la recomendación alternativa y devuelvan el expediente al personal hasta que termine la revisión de edificios más altos. I am speaking in opposition to this application and asking you not to approve it in current form. I also ask you to adopt the alternative recommendation and refer the file back to staff until the higher building's policy review is complete.

Before discussing towers, we must discuss the people already here.

Más de una docena de negocios independientes podrían verse afectados. More than a dozen independent businesses may be affected. Algunos como Manuel Mendoza Couture han servido clientes de este lugar durante décadas. Some, such as Manuel Mendoza Couture, have served customers at this location for decades. ¿Dónde está el inventario público de cada negocio que será desplazado? Where is the public inventory of every business that will be displaced? ¿Cuántos empleos locales dependen de ellos? How many local jobs depend on them? ¿Cuántos propietarios son inmigrantes, artesanos o familias que no pueden pagar Una renta equivalente en un nuevo complejo de lujo. How many owners are immigrants, artisans, or families who cannot afford equivalent rent in a new luxury complex? Existe un plan de reubicación?

Is there a relocation plan?

Existe asistencia financiera? Is there financial assistance? ¿Existe un derecho real de retorno con una renta comparable? Is there a genuine right of return at comparable rent?

Si no existe, ¿por qué se pide a council que vote ahora?

If none of that exists, why is council being asked to vote now? El informe describe un proyecto de casi una manzana completa. con tres torres de 68, 79 y 68 pisos, una altura máxima de 300 metros, aproximadamente 920 habitaciones de hotel y más de 3 millones de pies cuadrados. The report describes a nearly full block project with towers of 68, 79, and 68 stories, a maximum height of 315 meters, approximately 920 hotel rooms, and more than 3 million square feet. ¿Cómo puede una decisión de esta escala avanzar con un calendario tan comprometido? How can a decision of this scale move forward on such a compressed timetable? El propio informe reconoce que las alturas no están complajadas por la política vigente y que el sitio queda fuera de los límites del Higher Building Policy. The report itself acknowledges that the heights are not contemplated by current policy and that the site is outside the higher building's policy boundaries. La revisión de esta política no terminaría hasta el 2027. That policy review is not expected to finish until 2027. Entonces, ¿por qué aprobar primero la excepción y completar después la política? Why approve the exception first and complete the policy afterward? También se presenta todo como un paquete de todo o nada que une dos sitios no contiguos. The proposal is also presented as an all or nothing package linking two non-contiguous sites. ¿Por qué Council no puede evaluar por separado la vivienda social de Abbott Street y las torres privadas de Georgia Street. Why can Council not evaluate the Abbott Street social housing separately from the private Georgia Street towers? ¿Por qué los beneficios comunitarios deben utilizarse para silenciar preguntas legítimas sobre escala, desplazamiento y procedimiento? Why should community benefits be used to shut down legitimate questions about scale, displacement, and process? Apoyar vivienda social no obliga a aceptar cualquier altura, cualquier diseño, o cualquier trato. Supporting social housing does not require accepting any height, any design, or any deal. La consulta produjo 223 presentaciones para una intervención que cambiaría el perfil urbano, el comercio de la zona y las reglas para futuros proyectos. The consultation produced 223 submissions for an intervention that would change the skyline, the local commercial environment, and the rules for future projects. ¿Es una participación suficiente? Is that enough participation? ¿Se contactó directamente a cada comerciante? Was every merchant contacted directly? ¿Se publicaron las condiciones de sus contratos y los plazos de desalojo? Were lease conditions and displacement timelines disclosed? ¿Se estudió el efecto de años de construcción sobre los negocios vecinos que logran permanecer? Was the effect of years of construction on neighboring businesses that managed to remain studied? Antes de cualquier demolición, Council debería publicar una lista de cada comerciante, su fecha de salida, la ayuda ofrecida y la garantía financiera correspondientemente. Before any demolition, Council should publish a list identifying every merchant, the expected departure date, the assistance offered, and the corresponding financial guarantee. ¿Quién verificará el cumplimiento? Who will verify compliance? ¿Qué recurso tendrá un negocio si la reubicación no funcionará? What remedy will a business have if relocation fails? Sin respuestas vinculantes, todo el riesgo recae sobre quienes menos pueden absorberlo directamente. Will support cover moving costs, lost revenue, temporary premises, and a genuine return at comparable rent? Council no debe tratar a los pequeños comercios como daños colaterales. Without binding answers, nearly all risk falls directly on the people least able to absorb it.

Voy a repetir.

Council no debe tratar a los pequeños comercios como daños colaterales. Council should require these protections before any permit, demolition, or tenant departure occurs. Una ciudad no se construye solamente con metros cuadrados, hoteles y torres. Se construye con relaciones, oficios y negocios que han sobrevivido durante décadas. Council should not treat small businesses as collateral damage.

Les pido que voten no.

or at least return the request to staff, complete the revision of higher buildings and demand a binding plan of protection, relocation and return for each affected business.

Sayalda.

Buenas tardes. Buenas noches.

Buenas noches. I noted your interview with Dan Fumano today from the Vancouver Sun where you acknowledged that the union that you represented asked American allies to phone into council this week. So my question is, have you once again asked American allies to call into this public hearing tonight? It's a yes or no.

Well, first of all, I'm not under the court of law. I'm not under oath. And you have no legal judicial responsibility. So I do not respond to questions with malicious intent.

I'm just asking the question based on reporting out today in the Vancouver Sun, which is a local newspaper, as I'm sure you're aware, where you admitted to asking U.S. allies to, quote, phone into Vancouver Council this week. So my question is, have you once again done that for this particular public hearing? And if so, will you be asking them to withdraw?

As I answered earlier,

Just now, your question seems to have malicious intent. And so I am not under the court of law. I choose to not answer your question. I am not here to answer your questions that have no relevance to my speech.

I would argue that it is relevant, but I'll leave it there. And anyone who would like to view that particular article is welcome to see that on the Vancouver Sun website. by Dan Fumano.

Have a great day.

Again, I believe your questions come from an intention of representing not the voices of marginalized people. And so I refuse to answer your question. Now, if you change your perspective, I would like to answer your question, but I'm not required. Would I like to answer questions with malicious intent?

Well, by all means, go ahead, because my intention... is to ensure that local residents who are directly affected, which is our public hearing procedure by law, the intention of our procedure by law, that local residents who are directly affected by matters have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process and address council. And since you purport to represent your members, my question is, do you think it is reasonable to prevent them from that opportunity? And will you be asking them to withdraw? And I guess my final question, and I'll leave it because it seems you're unwilling to answer them, is simply that I would suggest that the malicious intent is coming from preventing local speakers to have the opportunity to speak about a city in which they actually live. Thank you.

Councillor Zhou has a question for the speaker. Councillor Zhou.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Thanks, Speaker, for speaking to City Council. Just a quick question. So from what you answered, Councillor Kirby and Councillor Mason's question, it seems like you speak very good English and you understand English really well. I'm just curious, just curious. Hopefully it's not a malicious intention. Just curious why you are using a speaker. You are using an interpreter.

Well, just to be very frank with you, I speak four languages. English is my fourth language. We live in a multicultural city where I believe diversity is embraced. And so it is my choice to speak my own native language, which I can read and write and speak fluently in. It is my choice, as it is the choice of many marginalized people, to speak the language that they feel the most confident, and the most capable of expressing their most concerns. And in this case, we're talking about people's livelihoods, which is where they work, where they live, how they will retire in the city. And the decisions that you're making today are decisions that will affect multiple, multiple decades and generations from now.

Thank you.

So like many working people, I choose to speak in the language that I learned when I was a baby. Thank you so much. And it is my choice. And I think that choice should be embraced. Absolutely. Why is it even a question? Why is this choice even a question?

Statement Watch

Mayor and council, I am speaking in opposition to this application and asking you to refer it back to the higher buildings policy review is complete. This is not an ordinary rezoning. The proposal would create three towers of 68, 68, and 79 stories, including a 315 meter tower. The staff report says... that the project exceeds the height anticipated by the downtown zoning policy that sits outside the current higher building policy area and would introduce a scale not previously realized in Vancouver. Yet the city is still developing the very rules that are supposed to answer when ultra-tall buildings belong, how high they should be, and what public benefits they must provide. My first question is simple. Why approve the exception before finishing the policy? Staff say approval should not be treated as precedent, but future applicants will point to this decision once council allows one project to more than double nearby policy heights. How can it be credibly refused the next developer asking for the same treatment? My second question is about benefits. The Georgia Street site proposes about 1,270 strata units and roughly 276 market rentals, but no below-market rental housing there. The social housing is moved to a separate site at 388 Abbott Street. Across the combined package... 237 housing units represent only 13% of the roughly 1,783 proposed homes. Even using the city recent 20% social housing benchmark in the downtown East Oppenheimer district as a comparison, why is the extraordinary rezoning producing a smaller social share? The city's permit record also shows that the earlier Abbott Street application proposed 378 social housing units. The current referral contains 237. Why did the public benefit fall by 141 homes while the request for exceptional height remains enormous? There are also serious heritage concerns. Staff state that the façade-only retention of the Randall Building generally does not comply with Council-approved heritage policies. Why should Council remove the full building's heritage protection and preserve only a skin when the report says the building is generally in good condition? Finally, the hotel can proceed before the residential and social housing components. Why should a 920 room hotel be allowed to advance without direct requirement that the social housing advance at the same time? Council does not need to reject tall buildings forever. It needs to make the rules first, require a fair public return, and then apply those rules consistently. Please adopt the alternative recommendation and refer this application back. Council should also publish a written decision explaining how this approval would be reconciled with the unfinished policy review. If the answer is that this site is exceptional, define what exceptional means. Facts and the minimum benefits attached to them. Otherwise, the public will reasonably conclude that the new policy is being decided through this application rather than through the promised city-wide process. Thank you.

Statement Watch

my last name is perry and i'm currently a resident in richmond however hopes to uh soon change to become a vancouver resident thank you carry on uh my position is strongly opposed this proposal is unjust and should not be approved i want to be clear i'm not opposed to development and i'm not opposed to building more homes vancouver desperately needs more housing it must be housing that the people who live live here and work here can actually afford we do we do not need more luxury con we do not need more luxury condos designed mainly for wealthy investors we need permanent affordable housing social housing and homes for working people and families more than 100 people are prepared to speak against this proposal tonight are you still going to approve it anyways if council ignores that Many residents working and then the community members. And what does that say about the voices that actually matter within the city? Do you care about the people who currently live in Vancouver? Are the working people who would love the opportunity to live here someday, like me? Developers continue getting richer and richer while the workers who actually run the city are being priced out. This issue is extremely personal to me. I work in Vancouver, but I commute more than an hour because I cannot afford to live here. I would love to call Vancouver my home, but on a single income, I may never be able to afford it. These workers that run these luxury hotels that clean the room, cook the food, maintain the buildings, and provide service that makes luxury hotels profitable. Yet many cannot afford to live anywhere near their hotels where they work. Instead of standing with working people, Council appears more interested in helping wealthy developers who have done very little for Vancouver's working class. repeatedly told that FIFA would fill Vancouver's hotels and bring enormous economic benefits. Yet, we heard that some luxury hotels were operating at around 50% occupancy. Even under normal circumstances, Vancouver's existing high-end hotels are not continuously operating at full occupancy. If the luxury hotels were already and have not... are not regularly full, even during major international events. Why is another high-end hotel being pushed through with such urgency? Who is this development really for? What evidence shows that Vancouver needs another luxury hotel more than it needs affordable and social housing? Why is Council moving with such urgency to meet the demand of a powerful developer while working people have waited decades for affordable housing? Where is the social housing? Vancouver has been promised all these years. Working people are repeatedly told to be patient, that affordable housing is coming, and future development will solve this crisis. Yet, every year, more luxury projects are approved while workers are pushed further outside the city. Why are promises to developers treated with urgency while promises of social housing are delayed for years and never fulfilled. I'm also concerned about how much access and influence powerful developers appear to have at City Hall. Why are major proposals being pushed forward? Why residents have to fight just to be heard? I also have no confidence that Holborn will uphold its end of the bargaining. Based on everything we have heard from previous speakers, Holborn's past record speaks for itself. We have heard serious concerns about promises not being fulfilled and a lack of accountability. Why should the public be asking to trust more promises when Holborn has not demonstrated the willingness or backbone to live up to its previous commitment? Verbal assurance, attractive renderings and promises to work out the details later are not enough. Every commitment must be specific, public, legally blinding and enforceable before approval is granted. There must be clear deadlines and serious consequences if Holborn fails to deliver. What about the workers who operate this proposed hotel? Will it be unionized? Will employees receive living wages, benefits, job security, and fair working conditions? Will the right to organize a union be respected without intimidation or interference? These questions should be answered before the hotel is approved, not after it's built and the developer has already received what it wants. The proposal. both plaza is being described as a public benefit, but it will remain privately owned. Privately owned public spaces can be valuable, but they can feel controlled, commercialed, and conditional.

Statement Watch

Yes.

And, okay, thanks very much. And are you a resident of the City of Vancouver?

No.

All right, go ahead.

Great, and I have my translator here with me today.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Preet. I grew up wanting to live and work in Vancouver. Today, I don't because I can't afford to. Every morning, I wake up at 5 a.m. I drive two hours to get to work in Vancouver and two hours back at night. Four hours a day in my car, that's 20 hours a week. That's a part-time job, just commuting. I'm not here because I hate development. I'm here because I'm tired of development that doesn't build homes for people like me. Point one, 500 tons mirror does nothing for affordability. Let's call this what it is. This is not a housing project. This is a luxury investment project. Where are the affordable units? Where are the homes a tradesperson, a transit driver, a teacher, a nurse can actually live in without being house poor? This application does not exist. In this application, there is a $1.5 million condo and 300,000 market rentals. They're not in this application. What is in this application are $1.5 million condos and 3,500 market rentals. Most of the time, they don't even live here. Holborn isn't building for working class people. They're building for investors who don't even live here. Council, if you approve this, they won't give you the supply. You're lying to people like me. After all, this is a luxury tower. Our people don't call it Vancouver. Council, If you approve this and call it supply, you're lying to people like me. Because more luxury towers does not mean I get to come home to Vancouver. Second point. The developer should also have some responsibility, some accountability. There shouldn't be any delay at all times. We've all seen it. The developer promised 15% affordable housing in the beginning so that they could rezone. Then after two years, they come back and tell the council that the cost has increased, the market conditions have increased, so we have to stand up now, we won't make it. Point two, hold developers accountable. No more bailouts. We saw it. Developer promises 15% affordable to get the rezoning. Then two years later, they come back crying about rising costs and marking additions. and council lets them pay a fee instead, or delays it, or cancels it, not this time. Holdburn is one of the richest developers in Canada. If they can't build affordable housing, nobody can. So put it in the law, on site, build first. No cash in lieu, no buyouts. Trump Hotel Vancouver. And we should also be honest about who Holborn is. The Holborn group used the brand name Trump on the Trump Hotel Vancouver. Do I have to add much more to this fact? Even councillors in these chambers have asked why this is being rushed. They sold the most expensive towers in Vancouver. I don't know who they sold it to, because the common people like us had to move to Abbotford. Trump used to say, don't bring your naa to the Luxury Hall, keep your ego for profit. Point three, this is Horne and Trump adjacent, and I mean that. It's Horne. Build the tallest, sell to the richest, and tell everyone else to move to Surrey, Langley, and Abbotsford. It's Trump. Slap a luxury brand on it, make it about ego and profit, and say, if you can't afford it, that's your problem. That's not Vancouver. Vancouver should be a city where the people who build it, drive the buses, teach the kids, can actually live here. It takes me two hours to get to this city. Right now it's not. Right now it's a city I have to drive two hours to get to. So I would like to suggest something to the council. First, send them back. It won't be good enough. Secondly, mandate the real affordability. 50% of the units should be affordable. which should be tied to income and below market by 250. My third point is that if you don't approve the towers, we will think of it as a housing plan. So I'm asking council to do three things. Send this back. It's not good enough. Mandate real affordability. 30 to 50% of units tied to income not below market. That's still $2,800. I don't want to spend my... You have the power to make that possible. Or you can approve 500 Dunsmuir and tell me to keep driving. Please don't tell me to keep driving.

Statement Watch

Yes.

Shalen, can you tell me your last name?

Arnold.

And can you tell me if you're a resident of the City of Vancouver?

I'm not. I'm in Burnaby.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Shaylin, and I am here today to urge you to reject this proposal. This isn't because I oppose development. Cities grow, skylines change, and redevelopment is part of that, but development is built on trust, and I don't believe this developer has earned the public's trust. When Council is asked to approve a project of this size and significance, you aren't just looking at architectural drawings or economic projects. You're deciding whether the company standing before you has demonstrated that it can be trusted to follow through on its commitments and be a responsible steward of Vancouver. Unfortunately, Holborn's history raises serious questions. The first thing that comes to mind for many Vancouver residents is Little Mountain. Little Mountain should never be forgotten. Hundreds of people were displaced with promises that new housing would be built. Instead... One of the most valuable pieces of land in Vancouver sat largely vacant for years. While people debated who was responsible for the delays, the public watched an empty site become a symbol of broken promises. Whether those delays were caused by financing, market conditions, government approvals, or any other explanation, the result was the same. Years passed. Public confidence disappeared. and Vancouver residents were left wondering how something so important could be allowed to stall for so long. That's the legacy many people associate with Holborn. Then there's the Dunsmuir House. For years, Vancouver watched a historic building deteriorate until demolition became the outcome. Many people believed it should have been better protected. Others questioned whether enough had been done to preserve an important piece of the city's history before it reached the point where demolition was considered unavoidable. Regardless of where people stand on the details, the controversy damaged public confidence once again. These aren't isolated incidents. They're the reason so many people are so skeptical. Every application is judged not only on what's being proposed, but also on who is proposing it. That's true for small businesses, it's true for homeowners, and it should absolutely be true for billion-dollar developers. A good reputation takes years to build and only a short time to lose, and public trust matters. When residents hear the name Holborn, many don't think of successful developments. They think of Little Mountain. They think of Dunsmuir House. They think of years of controversy that have never fully been put behind us. And that should matter. Approving a project of this scale sends a message. It tells the public that past performance either matters or it doesn't, and I believe it should. Developers should be held for the same standard as everyone else. If commitments aren't delivered, if projects become symbols of public frustration, and if a company's track record repeatedly raises concerns, then Council has every reason to ask difficult questions before granting approvals for another landmark project. Vancouver deserves developers whose strengths in public confidence, not tested. This proposal may promise jobs, it may promise investment, it may promise to transform the downtown core, but promises aren't easy. Or promises are easy, excuse me. The real question is whether the public has reason to believe those promises will become reality. Given this company's history, I don't believe that confidence exists. As elected officials, your responsibility isn't simply to approve large projects because they're impressive. Your responsibility is to protect the long-term interests of the people of Vancouver. That includes protecting public confidence in the development process itself. Once trust is lost, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. Tonight, I ask you to remember the lessons of Little Mountain, remember the controversy surrounding Dunsmuir House, and remember that public confidence is earned through actions, not presentations. For those reasons, I urge you to reject this application. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Okay. I'm opposed to this massive Holborn project. First, there's the procedural point. I think you've heard it from a number of speakers tonight. I think it came up in the Councillor's discussion with staff. I believe that bringing this proposed project to a hearing and council vote is premature. The project is noncompliant with multiple policies. The proposed tower significantly exceeds height restrictions and should be dealt with after the high buildings review. complete this review and then revisit the proposal this should all take place after the municipal election and by early 2027 based on what the staff has put forward it seems completely reasonable and recommend that that's the path to take next i would point to civic responsibility again you've heard this from multiple people who've called in and been in chambers. We're faced with an existential housing and affordability crisis, and we just do not need more luxury condos and hotel rooms. The people that live and work in Vancouver need genuinely affordable housing, especially the poor, lower and moderate income individuals and families. I hear this constantly from my neighbors, from longtime residents of newest comers from Calgary and Montreal. I hear it from new workers from India, the Philippines, Ukraine, Latin America. They come to Vancouver and struggle to be able to afford to live here. And then we talk to people that are longtime residents. They're teachers, they're care aides, nurses, social workers, bus drivers, retail workers, janitors, baristas and servers. And they constantly share with us in conversation over and over again that what they really need are affordable rents, affordable apartments, and they need those now. The whole generation of people that not only want to be able to live in the city, but they'd really like to live in a one-bedroom apartment on their own instead of living with two and three roommates to be able to make ends meet.

I think people want a real quality of life to match all the potential that Vancouver holds out.

People want to be here, but they want to be here if they can afford to actually live in the city. and not just survive but to thrive in this wonderful place and i have to say that i i worry about affordability on a regular basis for my teenage son and his friends i want him and his generation to be able to afford to stay and live in this amazing multicultural city at the water's edge in the shadow of the mountains but to do that We need elected leaders to put the needs of residents first. We need projects that are required to deliver the low market rental housing that provides social housing for the most vulnerable in Vancouver, along with more market priced housing options. If a developer wants to build in our community, they should respect the needs of all the residents for affordable housing. green spaces, and frankly, to be paying their fair share of for public infrastructure, for the roads and sewers that they depend on to the community centers and libraries and schools that make neighborhoods and communities vibrant. And I think my last point, and you've heard it over and over again, and I trust you will tonight and in future meetings, We can't trust Holborn. Holborn's record in Vancouver is appalling. Their destruction of the Little Mountain community, their first actions were to come in and to tear down that community. And what we lost with that was a vibrant and affordable community for families and seniors. And it left them scattered. Removed when the earlier speakers they talked about what a traumatic loss it was I'm speaker.

Thanks very much for calling in speaker. I have a super quick question You have a question from counselor Kirby young.

Yeah, sorry, just a quick question I wasn't sure if I heard you correctly earlier may have been static on the line. I'm sorry. What neighborhood did you say you lived in?

Speaker

Speaker?

Is the speaker on the line?

Statement Watch

Kira, I'm a working class renter living in Mount Pleasant, and I strongly oppose this proposal for three reasons.

Can you spell your last name for me, please?

All right. It's H-A-R-K-I-N-S. Great.

Please go ahead.

Okay. Yeah, as I was saying, I strongly oppose this proposal for three reasons. First, it prioritizes commercial development over the urgent need for housing. Second, it fails to guarantee that the public benefits used to justify this project, particularly social housing, will be delivered before the hotel. And finally, I do not believe Holborn's track record and corporate relationships reflect the values Vancouver should be rewarding. with one of the most significant developments in our city. I'm asking you to reject this proposal and send it back to staff because I believe Vancouver has to put homes before hotels. As you know, we've collected around 8,000 signatures in opposition of this project. For months now, I've been canvassing and talking with people in the community through both this campaign and another housing affordability campaign. I'm hearing from literally thousands of Vancouver residents about the challenges that they've been facing. The stories I've heard have been remarkably consistent. I've met people working full-time who still can't afford rent. I've spoken with seniors who expected to age in the homes that they've lived in for decades but are now facing displacement. I've met hospitality workers commuting hours each day because they can't afford to live anywhere near the jobs that help keep the city running. But what has been the most impactful for me is that people I've met aren't just concerned about rising housing costs. They're worried about losing their communities. So the neighbors they've known for decades, the local businesses that they rely on, and the places that have become home for them. What I've learned from these conversations is that people aren't asking for luxury. They're asking for security and stability. They're asking for the ability to stay in the neighborhoods where they have built their lives. remain connected to their communities, and plan for their future without constantly wondering if they'll be forced to leave. And most importantly, I can say with confidence that not a single person has told me that Vancouver's biggest problem is a lack of hotel rooms. People tell me over and over again that it's the lack of affordable housing. Yet this proposal allows a 920 hotel to move ahead before the social housing. The commercial opportunity comes first. while the public benefit is left for later. If social housing is the reason that this project is being justified, why is it not the first priority? Why isn't the first shovel in the ground for the homes that people actually need? And why should the public simply trust that those homes will come later? Holborn has made housing promises before. At Little Mountain, 224 social housing homes were demolished in 2009 with promises that they'd be replaced. 17 years later, the lot is still largely empty and many former residents are still waiting for those promises to be fulfilled. Now this proposal reduces the social housing commitment even further from 378 units in earlier plans to just 237 units. If housing is really the public benefit that justifies it here, then why is this commitment continuing to shrink? I'm also deeply concerned about who we are entrusting with some of the most significant developments in our city. Holborn's relationship with the Trump Organization is well documented. Quite frankly, I don't think I need to explain why many Vancouver residents would be deeply uncomfortable giving a company with those ties such a significant role in shaping our city's future. Developments of this scale will shape Vancouver for generations, and so they should reflect... is residents' values and needs, not maximizing private profit while public benefits remain uncertain. This proposal also sets a significant precedent. Council is being asked to approve three super tall towers before the city's higher buildings policy review is complete and not, or sorry, and after only a short period for the public review, sorry, for the public to review a project that will significantly reshape our city. A decision of this magnitude deserves careful consideration, not an accelerated timeline. Hospitality workers, teachers, nurses, child care workers, artists, seniors, and young families deserve more than being told that they'll benefit someday after another luxury hotel is completed. I ask you to remember that every housing unit represents someone's future. It represents the possibility that a young person can stay in the city that they grew up in, that a family can put down roots, or that an older adult can remain in the neighborhood that they helped build. Those are the outcomes that this council should be prioritizing. Housing should never be treated.

Statement Watch

Go ahead.

Good evening, Council. My name is Angela Loon. I'm a resident and a voter in the city of Vancouver, and I'm speaking tonight to oppose this project. And clearly, I'm not alone. Over 200 people have signed up to speak tonight, and another 190 people wrote in, with a 75% opposition rate. An earlier speaker tonight actually said that there's a petition that's now been submitted with over 8,000 people opposing this project. It's now almost 10.30 at night on a weeknight. And everyday people are still here on the line waiting to voice our concerns and opposition to this project to council. As many speakers have pointed out tonight, the developer Holborn has a terrible reputation in the city. People here don't trust them. Given the outrage due to the delays from the Little Mountain Social Housing Project and Dunsmuir House, as we know, Holborn let the building rot so badly that the city had to condemn and demolish. a bunch of units for social housing or for low income housing. I'm not making this up. This is just the truth about how Holborn has consistently deprioritized below market units. And now with this new proposal for the tallest hotel in Vancouver, they've already flashed nearly 40% of what was initially proposed as what social housing units that they were going to build. All of this before a single shovel has hit the ground. Vancouver is still reviewing its higher buildings policy. as we know so why are they proposing and putting this to council now i'm really wondering why the rush on this project because i have some serious safety concerns on top of everything else that's going on so in these final months i urge council to vote against this project and refer this back to staff for more reviews on how we can help our low-income residents given the fact that homelessness is now at an all-time high in the city me the priority is to house our city so we can make a livable city for everyone including those who need it the most thank you very much speaker 78 alexandra fiziki

Statement Watch

My name is Alexandra Fiziki and I'm a Vancouver resident. I want to start by saying that I don't actually have a problem with tall buildings. It is totally normal for cities to evolve and skylines to change and density is important. Great architecture can become a part of a city's identity and none of that concerns me inherently. What concerns me Is that when we become so captivated by the scale of a proposal and the promise of tourism that we've literally never needed, that we stop asking what the city is actually trying to serve and is it trying to serve the people who actually live here? Because we're not here to ask the question of will this redefine Vancouver skyline or will it be impressive? The question is whether this project represents good city building. And those two things are not the same. For years, Vancouver has talked about becoming a more livable city, a more affordable city, a city where people can build their lives, not just invest in real estate. In fact, most of you ABC counselors ran on that platform. So when we consider a project that would fundamentally reshape our skyline and invest in our guests and not our people, I hope we're also asking equally ambitious questions. Who is this really for? What problem does it solve? What public benefit is proportional to the extraordinary private value being created for shareholders? because extraordinarily extraordinarily approved. Sorry, because extraordinary approvals should come with extraordinary public value. I also think we need to be honest about trust. This application isn't arriving in a vacuum. It's arriving in a city where residents increasingly feel that decisions are made to communities rather than with them. And when people wonder whether public engagement actually changes outcomes, where confidence in the planning process has been strained for years and increasingly complex rezoning and negotiations. This doesn't mean that this project shouldn't necessarily move forward, although I really think it shouldn't. It means it deserves the highest level of scrutiny. and your job as city councillors is to represent the people who live here and we ask you to do that by approaching this proposal with us in mind a project of this magnitude should be evaluated not because it's iconic it should be evaluated because it demonstrates the advancement of public interest if the answer is yes then great But we are being asked to grant unprecedented height, unprecedented density, and enormous increases in land value that Vancouver residences will not benefit from. And we deserve to have clear answers to what it is that we will be receiving if it is that you decide to move forward with this. Not in marketing language or glossy renderings, in measurable public benefit. Housing people can afford, public space people genuinely want to use. infrastructure that keeps pace, and transportation that works. community amenities that will matter decades from now. Because this decision really isn't about whether Vancouver gets the tallest tower. Who cares? It's about setting the standard for every conversation that follows this one. Every future applicant will point back to this moment. Every future negotiation will begin from whatever precedent you establish here. And so my request is simple. Approach this proposal with the same ambition that asks of the city. If the developer is asking Vancouver to think bigger than it ever has before, then Council should ask more of the developer than it ever has before. Not because we oppose ambition, but because Vancouver deserves ambition that serves the public as much as it serves some iconic skyline. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Okay. Hi. Thanks, Councillor. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. I was hoping to be, but that just didn't materialize. I'm here to speak in favor of this proposal, and I'm doing it on two fronts. um first of all like maybe i should just give a little bit of background for me long time city Councillor new west uh was a mla for one term the labor critic for the NDP opposition. I'm the chairman of Lookout Society, just re-elected again on Tuesday, but I'm not speaking on behalf of Lookout, but I will be speaking on behalf of housing and homelessness. This proposal is, when I first saw the iconic... I was quite impressed. My wife and I, we love New Westminster. We'll probably never move out of New Westminster, but my second choice would always be Vancouver. And often we'll take staycations in Vancouver maybe twice a year and we'll stay in a hotel, walk around, go to some of the restaurants and enjoy what Vancouver presents. this project uh first of all the 900 plus room hotel um those are you know there's about a thousand direct hospitality jobs there um and about a thousand indirect hospitality jobs um If I was representing hospitality workers, I would definitely be encouraging this. I was once the head of the Brewery, Winery, and Distillery Workers Union, and when projects came forward in different areas and different communities, that were related to our industry, we always supported them because we knew that eventually there's a good chance that we could organize them and bring them into our union, and often that did happen. And so... The jobs created aren't only the jobs in the hotel. The jobs created in the construction of those three projects and the public courtyard... We're talking about millions of personal hours in construction. We're looking at trades. We're looking at apprenticeships. We're looking at trades training. This is a positive for our communities, and this is a positive for Vancouver and related communities that would benefit. The social housing, the City of Vancouver's pretty tough on amenities for density and social housing. It causes a lot of developers not to be able to go forward. When I saw the social housing, I was thrilled to know that some city of Vancouver is going to own it and some organization will partner and they'll deliver those housing units for people. in need of those units. I like the model of third, a third, a third. It's great. We just opened Powell Street Horizon. Please come down and see it. Any of you, you're welcome to come and see it. And, you know, we've had people come in there and see the mainstream housing. One woman with two kids, single mom, she literally fell to her knees and started crying. She was so, so pleased that she was successfully accepted to live in that building in the downtown east side. This will happen on Abbott Street as well. To people that are marginalized or people that are struggling, the Abbott Street project, those are luxury homes for somebody that's coming off the street or coming out of an SRO. That is such an incredible benefit to somebody that wants to continue to live in the Downtown Eastside but can't afford the mainstream rents and I think Holborn providing that is nothing but short of a win for the City of Vancouver. and a win for the nonprofits that work in Vancouver. And so I strongly support this. I know there's some bad information going around. I always say the first victim of war is truth, and there's some bad information that's going around about Holborn, and there's some bad information going around about Mount Pleasant. People don't understand. some of the things that happened there and the delays by different levels of government. So I totally support this, and thank you guys for listening to me.

Statement Watch

I want to start by saying Vancouver doesn't need more hotels. I am opposed to this. The city just hosted one of the largest sporting events in the world, and hotels weren't at capacity. Um, hotels aren't a basic need. People don't need hotels. People do need homes. Um, and I, in my view, I think that prioritizing resources to building more hotels, 900 rooms of hotels, um, uh, it's just resources that could be spent on homes. Um, and you know, uh, whole born group, they, they're, they're touting social housing for this and that would be great. Having more social housing in the city would be an amazing thing. But in 2009, they demolished 224 social housing units with the promise of building more in Hillside, a little mountain. And they still haven't been built. They're not finished. 17 years later, 700 low-income tenants were evicted. in 2009 and uh there hasn't been anything to replace that um i think that that track record just shows that you know it's probably not a good idea to put all of your faith in um in this group in their social housing um because for for 17 years they've held on to this this this property um while the the land has inflated and they've reached the the rewards of that and they've begun building recently. But it is still not... There's no social housing. There's still no social housing there. And despite holding this meeting late on a weeknight, where most people in Vancouver will have to get up early for work in the morning, despite holding the earlier meeting through the middle of a workday, where most people are unable to attend, I love earlier that... Councillor Kirby-Young has shown a strong commitment to local Vancouverites being able to take part in the democratic process. I think that, you know, it is inconsiderate to have these meetings during a time that people aren't, you know, it's not very accessible to people. People aren't able to come when they're working.

Statement Watch

Okay, thank you. Okay, so you can hear me, that's fine. Okay, I have some slides. Can you bring them up, please, here?

Yeah, they're coming up.

Okay, so, yeah, I'll start, yeah. I am a Vancouver resident. My name's Stephen Boas. I have a degree in landscape architecture, and actually, during the previous higher buildings policy, a few councils ago, I... actively took part, and I saw that there was a very, very big desire on the part of Vancouverites to save our current skyline. And that high level of support for the skyline came up. Just so you know, Chair, I am seeing a red block on my video stream, whereas I have a staff panel at QE Park showing for the meeting. But, yeah, you can bring it up. So this is a photograph of the public consultation of the higher buildings policy that started earlier this year. And this was what was shown to the public. It's a slide of the panel at Keeley Park. And I think there is a technical issue here.

Hold the line here. We're just trying to figure this out.

Okay, thanks.

How do I stop this? Hang on. Yeah, Ken just went for a little tinkle, I think. Okay, it's still black. You have to turn it back on and off, okay.

Um, Stephen, we're having technical difficulties here for some reason. Um, we're doing everything we can here, but you have sent in the debt. We're going to make sure the presentation is set to all the council and we're just going to have to go through it at some point. And then we'll post it, make sure we post it, uh, with all of the correspondence on the site.

Is it possible to just email it to council? We have it right now. Stephen can talk through it.

Yeah, I think we should do that. Okay, I'll talk through it. Great photos, by the way, Stephen. Well done. Okay.

Okay, so I have some slides, and you'll see them later. Okay, so these are slides of QE Park and of the consultation that was happening a few months ago. And the point that I really wanted to make is that it's not just the spectacular views of QE Park, and that is definitely a highlight of Vancouver, but these view protections provide protections for many, many, many views across the city. And the key point to note is that this higher buildings review is ongoing right now. So I would suggest that council defer any decision on a higher building of this scale until that body of work is done. And also the election could be used as a way of gauging what the public think, maybe via a plebiscite question about higher buildings. So there are lots of opportunities there. So that's the first thing. The requested height is far in excess of anything in the city. And the view impacts would be enormous. And Vancouver is one of our main selling points, is spectacular. views that we have of the North Shore. That's what you see in the tourism literature. That's what you see in the real estate literature. That's what you see everywhere. And this is essentially the thin edge of the wedge to go beyond before a policy review and make it a public policy if it is passed. So I would caution council not to go ahead. And I'm also very concerned that this public hearing agenda was just like... published recently and the item was referred nine days before the public hearing and I think speakers list was supposed to be open 10 days before. So I'm really concerned about not having 14 days notice, which is at least a minimum that we've been expecting from council. This is really being rushed through very, very quickly. One of the slides that I included, and it's also from the staff report, it's an image of what the skyline would be. I asked staff for the 3D models that they use for So, you know, I don't have to remodel them. But I think that Toronto provides that information. I think it would be very helpful to look at other locations in Vancouver. And one of the slides I have is of Jonathan Rogers Park and just insert that model and see what the skyline would look like. I've got the same set of photos from City Hall. And that'd be another good location looking over the square. And there are so many other views where you get the views of the mounds over downtown. And I don't think an adequate study has been done on the view impacts here. And that work really needs to be done before we can have an informed vote on the impacts of this proposed tower. So that is, I think, a prime concern of mine that that information is not being shown and it's... You know, a little bit of work to do the 3D modeling yourself and do it over and over again. And there hasn't been a lot of time to digest this. So I would ask council to defer this decision. Don't make the decision now. Put it off. Have a discussion over the election. See what people think. Allow the higher buildings policy to be completed. And then you would have a better gauge of what support is there for changing the skyline and really... altering Vancouver potentially for future generations. And I think we've also heard the concerns about Holborn's prior projects and Little Mountain and the Trump Tower and so on. There are concerns with the developer. But I think, first and foremost, let's look at our skyline. Let's try to preserve our skyline. And that's actually very important for tourism, for the residents, and for everyone else. Thank you so much. Thanks a lot, Tim.

Statement Watch

Hey, good evening, Mayor and Council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I apologize for any loud noises. I'm just working at our outdoor movie night here in downtown. Everyone, my name is Winky McDougall. I'm the Director of Strategy and Development with the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association. Today I'm speaking on behalf of our President and CEO, Gene Talbot. We represent more than 8,000 businesses and property owners across downtown. We strongly support this rezoning application. This is an opportunity to transform one of downtown's most underperforming blocks into a destination that attracts people year-round, not just during major events. This proposal delivers meaningful public benefits, active retail, a public plaza, streetscape improvements, rooftop attractions, new hotel and conference space, and, personally, my favorite, a new entrance for Granville Station. Together, these investments will make downtown more vibrant, welcoming, and economically resilient.

and for those reasons downtown van encourages council to support this application thank you okay thanks all right uh speaker 118 is nikki ishikawa speaker 118 is withdrawn okay wd uh speaker 119 kathy wallace

Statement Watch

Okay. So you are, are you Derek Sahota?

I'm Derek Sahota. Yeah. I thought it was one, two, nine or one, two, eight. Yeah. I'm ready. hi thanks for uh taking the time to hear from me uh my name is derek dr derek sahota i'm born in vancouver and split my work time between vancouver and burnaby hope one day to work move back to vancouver and i'm also a vancouver and district labor council delegate for the teaching support staff union representing over 3 000 workers between burnaby vancouver and surrey all who work for do teaching and research for simon frase university i'm calling today to oppose the rezoning and to send it back to further for staff to examine whether this is in the best interest of the public and in the best interest of what we need in terms of affordable housing to support both workers students and others to live in the city to build the city we need and i want to give a little bit of a story so i've act this is not the first my first time on a public council uh hearing i I spoke up many times in Burnaby over the years when our city council here was also doing things that weren't in the public interest. And at that time, we had a mayor in charge. His name was Derek Corrigan. And we had a whole lot of affordable rental buildings all over the metrotown area. And that city council decided that it wasn't in the interest. of the people to keep those rental buildings. Instead, they were acting in the interest of big developers who said, hey, we can take these spaces that are for families, immigrants, others who need or are living together and paying rents, you know, maybe $1,000 to $1,500 a month for several bedrooms, and we're going to turn those into luxury condos. And that was the name of the day for many years, and thousands of... renters were demovicted, including our members. And I started to speak up because that was not in the public interest. Ultimately, our local councils need to be working to make sure the people who live here, the people who work here, have actually a place to remain living here. And that's what I don't see in this development. What I see from Holborn, as proposed, is to build more luxury condos. more luxury more luxury hotel suites build something the biggest and the brightest and tallest that's not what we need we need places for people to live the people of vancouver the people of this city the people of this region people like myself who can't want to live in vancouver but can't find the place that's affordable and so that was our mayor in burnaby derek corrigan And that's my, as you might know, I share a first name with that mayor, Derek Corrigan, former mayor now, thankfully. My last name was Sahota. And one of the stories I like to tell during public council hearings in Burnaby was also about my last name, because we also know that the name Sahota, unfortunately, has a notorious ring to it for renters. And that's because some of the most notorious homeowners in Vancouver... share my last name thankfully not related to them but it took a long time for us to actually work together at various levels government to get rid of the sahota sun lord and so when i was speaking up in burnaby um i used to talk about how basically what garrett corgan was using my first name and the solar summers were losing ruining my my last name And why don't we actually, but really it's not, what we need is we need people across the city standing up to say, hey, we need to actually change what we're doing, not just put public interest, not just put developers' interest first, but put the public interest first. And so I want to speak a bit to this particular developer, Holborn. We know they have a history. We know about Little Mountain. We know that there's still no social housing there, as they promised way back in the day when they got a sweetheart deal from our provincial government to take over that site. This is not just any developer. This is a developer we should trust the absolute least. And that's because of their history. And so let's look at this site itself. Think about the Sahota slumlords. These Holborn slumlords led a heritage building, a listed heritage building, brought to the ground to the point it had to be torn down by the city because of health and safety. That's atrocious. And now they come to us to say, hey, we should actually ram through the city council. You should just ram through. this proposal to build the tallest towers, more luxury condos, and forget about all the things of the past. We'll piper over those and it'll just all be fine. That's not acceptable. And it's not acceptable because that's not the city we need, but also because, let's be realistic, we're just in the lead up to what we know is a municipal election.

Statement Watch

Hi. Hi, my name is Roebuck. I just have been inputting here.

Roebuck. Hello? Yeah. Are you a resident of the city of Vancouver?

I live in Alberta, but I work in Vancouver. You live in Alberta.

Okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. Good evening, everyone. My position is opposed to this project because the main reason is, you know, it's... In Alberta, at least we can buy a condo here for $250,000. In Vancouver, we can afford to live there. So if there's land, we can use this for, you know, for those people in need of those affordable housing, this will be great for the people. And, you know, it's not about building more hotels there. And, yes, it's good. This will create jobs. But, you know, if the demand of the hotel is too much hotel already in Vancouver there, and without supply, without guests, I've been in the hospitality industry working. You know, during low season, what will happen is the company will just send us home because there is no business, right? Some of us working from traveling one hour to this outside of Vancouver. And then we just work three, four hours. And then the company just send us home because there's no business. So I think the demand of the hotel rooms in Vancouver is more than enough, rather than the guests that we have there. So that's my point there.

Thanks a lot.

Yeah. You need two or three jobs there just to live in Vancouver. Okay. Especially for us, like a minimum wage worker, we can afford to live there.

Okay. All right.

Statement Watch

To me, this issue is quite complicated.

To me, this issue is quite complicated. Hey, Jerry, you've got to turn your screen.

Okay, it's up. Okay, thank you. So I find it complicated in that affordable housing isn't in this picture. Affordable rentals is not in the picture. And obviously we have lots of people that have to work. I think the social housing issue is... is inadequate. But I also think the location for social housing is not correct. I think this land at 388 Abbott is prime real estate and should be made for people that are working. and will need to get downtown. Social housing for people that aren't working, I'd say move them out further. But the Holborn group seems to be not reliable, and I would think that if this proposal is going to move forward, they must be encouraged to complete all their social housing at Little Mountain and all the social housing downtown before any of these other projects start. I think they've got a serious lack of credibility, and I think they have to prove to us that the people of Vancouver will come first. That's all I have. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Cool. Thanks. Yep. So thanks for your time. I appreciate it. I'll try to make it quick. I understand it's late. So it's definitely a conflicting point. I think that Vancouver needs more housing. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's not whether we build or who we're really building it for. Or, sorry, it's not whether that we build, but really who it's being built for. I think that the proposal has positive elements, you know, including commitment to non-market housing, childcare, public spaces. And then there's other community amenities that would also be worthwhile. But I think that there are some instances in the past that are definitely showing that promises have not been followed through. We're definitely in a housing crisis, which has been mentioned before. And I think that this proposal does add housing, but it's focused more or less on luxury homes rather than affordable housing. seems which is a big complaint that a lot of Vancouver residents definitely need. I think that this property is also a new height that we really haven't seen before and density. And I think it's also fair to consider the record from 2008 with the little mountain site that it hasn't been followed through yet. And rather than saying that this is a full objection, I just think that it should definitely be required from council to see an enforceable commitment with clear timelines and accountability from Holborn rather than just public good intentions that are being said. We need certainty that there's going to be affordable and social housing that are delivered. And after this close to 17 years, we're still waiting to see that from Little Mountain. I think that this is a great opportunity for the Council to show that we have learned from this, that Vancouver has learned that there's an experience by ensuring that projects of this scale deliver lasting public benefits and binding agreements and binding commitments, rather than just ambitious proposals. I think that there's definitely a great opportunity here for Holborn to fix all of that and to amend some of those promises that haven't been followed through. But it's going to need some support from council first. I hope that we can kind of see that happen. And I definitely have had some friends that have been forced out and chose to go back either home, whether to the States, Europe, Australia, because they felt like they can't afford it here. I'm fortunate that I have been able to afford my time here for a bit, but I hope to see that that is able to stay. And hopefully I can place down my own roots in the city, in this country. But at this point in time, it does feel like I'm better suited to go somewhere else. And I would hope that that doesn't maintain the case. But thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Statement Watch

Yes, my name is Dom and thank you for giving me a chance. to speak and opposing for this development.

Sorry, Don, I just need to check. Are you a resident of the city of Vancouver?

Yes, I am.

Good. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. So my name is Domen Toya again. I work in hospitality industry for more than 10 years. I am 2019 Vancouver Tourism Awardee for the entire Vancouver. I'd like to speak my own opposition for this development. I was originally an employee of the former Trump Tower and now Paradox with the same owner for the Holborn development. And for me, as a hospitality worker, we don't need more hotel rooms. We need affordable housing in the city of Vancouver. The hospitality worker is struggling financially, emotionally, and even we don't have time for our family because we have to work part-time jobs aside from our full-time jobs because of the affordability problem in Vancouver. We beg to the City of Vancouver, the City Council, to please revisit, reconsider approving this kind of development because the City of Vancouver, Based on my experience and based on the guest comments from other countries that we are very nature-loving, the city of Vancouver is not condensed. But if we keep approving development like this, the city of Vancouver is going to be condensed. There's more traffic. There's no more nature-loving community who cares for... you know, exercise for the parks and all this stuff. And what I'm saying is like, please reconsider, revisit your decision with this kind of development in the city. We need more affordable housing instead of this high-rise building, high-rise, more hotels. We have lots of hotel rooms empty in the city of Vancouver. We need rooms to stay after hard work. all after our hard work in the whole day i just finished my work right now honestly i'm walking from the sky train but i i tried to be myself available for this city council because i want you to hear from the bottom of my heart the sentiments of a regular worker in the city vancouver who provide who pay taxes And try to live by my means. But please, please reconsider this development. And thank you so much for giving me a chance. My name is Domen Tuya again. And hopefully you will give us a chance. You will hear our voice. Thank you so much. And have a nice night.

Statement Watch

Okay, Christy. And are you a resident of the city of Vancouver?

I was until recently, but had to move out.

Okay, fine. Okay, go ahead.

Okay, yeah, so I actually own a business in one of the Holborn buildings that's being proposed to be taken down. I started a small business. I have three kids. I went to school, became an RMT. opened up a wellness clinic. I think I did everything right. And I was living in downtown Vancouver and we were living in a one bedroom with one kid to start and tried to find a two bedroom several times, but ended up with another child. So I had two kids living downtown and we thought we'd be there a long time. I started my business there and Um, eventually like we just, we had to find another place, had another, another one on the way. So, um, and I asked my, my, my, my building that I lived in, in the West end, um, if there was any two bedroom, just a two bedroom anywhere that would be affordable for, you know, for us, but there was absolutely nothing that was even in my price range. And she even offered me to go look at buildings that other properties that they owned and that she would try to talk to the management to see if they would lower the cost. She did everything she could to try to help me find affordable housing for me and my kids. But it just couldn't happen. I had to look out further. And I ended up finding a place somewhere in White Rock. It costs the same what I'm paying here for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom, large place. Parking is like $25. It's so cheap for parking, which I couldn't find downtown. And I'm paying the same what I'm paying here for a one-bedroom I was paying in the West End. So I did get kicked out of Vancouver because of the affordable housing. And I am a hard worker. I went to school, got my certification. opened up a massage clinic in the Hollyburn building where I'm renting right now. I'm still renting there. And it looks like I might get kicked out of there too, ironically. So I'm really hoping that I can at least keep my business in Vancouver because I can't afford to live in Vancouver with my kids. And unfortunately, I'm a single mom now, but with three kids. So I feel like I've done everything right, but things have worked against me. I'm not rich. I worked hard. I did everything from scratch. I renovated my office and did a lot of do-it-yourself projects and didn't get a loan from anyone or the bank or nothing. And so I'm really proud of myself for what I've done. But it looks like, you know, it looks like the rich people always come in, take over. And what Vancouver is becoming is just for rich people. It seems like only rich people can live there and only rich people can have businesses there. No one can have small businesses. Families can't live there. I mean, it is completely, you're kicking everybody out. I've done everything right. been a good tenant, good renter, opened up a small business on my own. And yeah, I just can't believe that you're going to, again, shut down a bunch of small businesses who actually in my building, a lot of those businesses have been there for decades. And they've worked really hard to be where they're at and built a lot of clientele and they're well known in the area. and they service people in that area. And, you know, it's just sad that we're all going to get, potentially get kicked out for our hard work, small businesses, and it's just not fair, I think. And we don't need another huge hotel in Vancouver. Obviously, you know, as many people have mentioned, I don't need to... list off numbers or anything that's been done several times but obviously the hotels are not being booked out right now why do we need another gigantic hotel and it really sounds like they're just doing a little bit of social housing just so they can get approved because it doesn't sound like it's a lot thanks for calling in that's your time okay have a good night okay thanks

Statement Watch

Yeah. And I'm also like, I'm also like a peer base, uh, journalists on the megaphone, like, you know, megaphone magazine in downtown East side, you know, the shift newsroom.

Yeah. Cool.

Yeah. And also I work at wish drop in center and on all that. So yeah. And I've spoken before about like, you know, the Broadway plan stuff. So yeah.

Cool. All right. Go right ahead, Louise.

Yeah, so like for me, I'm upset about what happened, you know, way back in like the early 2000 and all that about a little mountain. I'm still upset about what happened. happened to, you know, the displacement of people at Little Mountain. And I'm also upset with what has happened to the Dunsmuir House. It's really upsetting for me as a longtime born and raised Vancouverite that, you know, our heritage buildings are being destroyed left, right, and center. And like the last thing that this city needs... is more like expensive rentals and stuff like that um and towers that you know it's geared to the rich and all that type of stuff um i'm actually Like, the native part of that development is nice. Like, I like the sounds of that. But it's just the bit with the housing that's, like, for low income, it's only 200-something units. Like, it should be way, way, way more than that. And then also just there should also be co-op housing for people to own and stuff like that because this city in particular lacks... co-op housing um and like no so i mean the rent to own um it's only great if people regardless of any income level can actually rent to own so this bit with like you have to only make 30 grand or whatever per year something like that in order to be able to buy anything or to rent something like it should be open to all income levels and also um just um Another thing is that the Woodward's building, one of my complaint is that I have friends of mine who they live in the Woodward's building and they live in the social housing part of the Woodward's building. They cannot access that very bougie hot tub at the very top. So to me, it's like segregation. It's like regardless of if you are in a social housing part, of the building, you should be able to be allowed to access that bougie little hot tub with the big W on it at the top. You know, that type of thing, right? Chair, we're not actually discussing the Woodward's building. I wonder if the speaker could direct their comments to specifically what they do or don't like about this proposal. Sorry, I'm just using that as an example. Sorry. An example? Yeah, just to say like... Well, just to say like... how some of the newer buildings that do go up in Vancouver, how, like, their social units and whatever, like, it doesn't really include, like, you know, so just say, like, the people who have the money on one area of the building, they have access to a gym, have access to a pool and stuff like that. So, you know, like, I'm just trying to say from that standpoint, like, regardless of if you're in a social housing... section you should have access to the pool the gym whatever that type of thing that's the other part that are paying more whatever should have like you know awesome okay all right thanks louise um yeah sorry but thanks yeah you bet take care uh speaker 271 misha george

Statement Watch

So, yes, I'm also calling in opposition to this project, as I'm sure you are tired of hearing by now, but I will repeat. The same group that is proposing this new project is the same one that still has yet to deliver. in the promises of the Little Mountain Project, and it's been over 15 years. So maybe before you consider a project of this magnitude, maybe you should tell them to actually deliver on the promises that they made on another project first, right? And I would also like to actually push back a little bit on the on the they saying that like it was not relevant on the previous color set about the About the example of the housing because from what I've understood in the during the presentation part That this project will be like part social housing part. I don't know mid-level housing or whatever that means and like market-level housing. And, yeah, it is a concern that, like, will all of them have the same access to the same things despite the different prices? Because that would be – it would be really – it would be very bad if you would be able to live in the same place but not be able to access the same amenities. And also another thing, a project of this ambition, this magnitude, is definitely not something that we need. You don't need to turn the city of Vancouver into Dubai, right? We don't need this in our skyline. Our city is pretty as it is because of... the people that live here and because of a beautiful Canadian coastal nature of British Columbia. And, well, yeah, that's it.

Statement Watch

Hi there. Sounds like a lot of Californians went to bed. Hello, my name is Sterling Richter. I live in the West End of Vancouver, and I support the report recommendations with caveats. And then I've written out something here. Hopefully we can all go to bed and sleep in. This development's design is outstanding, and in my opinion, long overdue for a city of our stature. While our city is blessed with natural beauty and breathtaking vistas, we must remember that this is indeed a city, not just a view of mountains, and not every view of them is from Queen Elizabeth's Park. Vancouver deserves to be a site of remarkable beauty in its own right, especially from the vistas of the east, west, and north of the city. where the only pinnacles cresting over the horizon are the city itself, such as the view from Lionsgate Bridge. The hotel component with its glass sponge massing is exceptional, and in that regard will contribute greatly to the local storefronts in that neglected area of West Georgia, not to mention the development's future residents. This project is a bold and commendable step toward Vancouver's skyline being every bit as extraordinary and monumental as the landscape it inhabits. This proposal, too, is timely, as our own suburbs have already begun to eclipse us not just in height, but ambition in urban design. After all, Metro Vancouver used to be New Westminster District. Who's to say that one day it won't become Metro Surrey for the urgency and ambition Surrey is building out with? Further, Vancouver needs more affordable housing, and large mixed-income builds like this contribute to easing the housing crisis, namely by soaking up the middle and higher-income earners who move downtown or upgrading to newer condos so that lower-income residents and families throughout the city aren't competing with incoming professionals for the same aging housing stock. Purpose-built affordable housing is essential in crisis, but today's new market condos become next decade's affordable... affordable apartments. Taller buildings mean the developer can afford to make more units middle-income or affordable after construction costs. That said, this development should at least replace all of the low-income units lost in the Dunsmuir Hotel. My worry about this project is that its generous public amenities, as promised in this design, aren't built, are reduced, or closed to the public upon its completion, much as has been done with regards to West Bank's Vancouver House. To me, the vision of the proposed plaza with the egg-shaped restaurant and transit access structure in the corner of Georgia and Seymour is, design-wise, the best proposed version should Holborn be trusted to realize the work of the architects. I may not be able to one day afford living in this building, but would love to relax in this plaza, the rooftop, and dine with friends at this restaurant and cafes as visualized in their renders. I would like to see the developer held to these ambitious promises and all its amenities making it to completion, if anything because the heritage loss of the Dunsmuir Hotel and its social housing must be for the utmost common good. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

okay um yeah i oppose this proposal for um holborn's super tall towers um firstly these towers do not comply with city rules as they stand um i want to ask why has the city not completed its public review of its tall buildings policy prior to holborn's proposal which We are all currently here for tonight. It begs the question why Holborn seems to be receiving special treatment and why this project in particular is being fast tracked. Perhaps Holborn might have historically demonstrated that they are dedicated to the people of this city, much as the City Council has also promised to do. Or perhaps they have built social and affordable housing in the past, something this. residents of the city also desperately need um that is glaringly not the case uh holborn has promised in the past to replace social housing at little mountain by 2010. um it is currently 2026 and little mountain still does not have social housing um holborn had also allowed previously the former sro at 500 dunsmuir to fall into such a state of disrepair that City Hall itself had to order its demolition. So we do not with this, I don't think that we need a luxury mega project, which could displace over a dozen independent businesses, some of whom are long time tenants, as other speakers before me have already mentioned. I also want to ask why are there 920 hotel rooms being developed for this project when Vancouver as a World Cup host city has already proven that there is an excess of hotel rooms. Hotel workers, in fact, this FIFA round in Vancouver have lost working hours and this sort of displayed need for more hotels does not really correlate with the facts of what we've seen as a host city of FIFA. Neither myself nor anyone in my circles, all of whom are currently renters scattered throughout Metro Vancouver, we would not be able to afford these condo units or the rental units perhaps being offered by this project. So I'm not against development nor rezoning. in and of itself. However, this project does not demonstrate or reflect the needs of Vancouver residents who are currently facing an affordability crisis. And yeah, that's it for what I have to say. Thank you to the Chamber for your time tonight.

Statement Watch

Hola, senoras y senores. Hey, how are you doing, girl? Hi, Counselor Clawson. I promise I'm not a carpetbagger. Anyway, I oppose to this rezoning. I applaud you for your patience. working through the registered speakers however given the many problems uh already mentioned by many of the speakers i think that's that's a key indicator of why people took the time out spoke and then registered and waited hours and hours and hours in the dead of the night um many people have already mentioned about the higher buildings policy exemptions And there are other previous speakers already talked about it being having implications for Vancouver as an earthquake prone zone. Not that many of you are going to be on the hook when that happens. The precedent setting that would be a concern for future negotiations of other copycat developers. also the bait and switch tactics of the other two social housing sites the abbott street and the randall building um they're also concerning from the slippery language of the affordability of the affordability definition to to the also there there's also another another height exemption that hasn't been reviewed by the urban design panel before the before the rezoning so i think at this stage given that it's being fast tracked i think this is wasting a lot of people's time unless mines are already made up also there are there are counts there are also staff already admitted in the referral report that it generally does not comply with the council approved heritage policy, if you even care about that. I do believe council should adopt the staff alternative recommendation, refer the package back until the higher buildings policy review is complete and then hold a new hearing. Unless your reelection chances that heavily depends on getting this through. And lastly, to the yes in your backyard activists celebrating another luxury mega projects while existing Vancouver renters are economically cleared out of the city, perhaps demand three additional benefits like free language lessons, visa counseling and one way airfare for everyone. Your housing policies eventually drive out of Vancouver. Anyway, let's get another Trump Tower, boys. Adios.

Statement Watch

M-O-R-I-S-S-E-T-T-E.

Okay, and are you a resident of the city of Vancouver?

Yeah, North Vancouver.

Oh, North Vancouver. Okay, got it. Okay, go ahead.

Okay, I want to stay politically correct. I had a totally different speech. I own a company called After Dark Hospitality. And I think that this is amazing to have a man come in and spend hundreds of millions of dollars and create all these jobs. And I think people fail to realize that our federal government and municipal government and provincial government are all in debt billions of dollars trying to keep everybody housed and keep everybody looked after. But we need the 1% to come in and pay the heavy property taxes. buys the bottles of champagne, and this is in Pleasantville, and our rents are never going to be like they are in Mission. Vancouver's never going to be like that. So for us, for the people that can't afford to their property taxes, their income taxes, and every other way, this is the way we get to look after everybody else. And if we shun everybody that wants to spend, $2 billion on a project like that, well, these companies are starting to go bankrupt now. So these are going to be few and far between. So I think we have to live in reality and take the good with the bad. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Thank you. Mayor and Council, this application asks for an extraordinary increase in land value. The public should receive an extraordinary housing return. The Georgia Street proposal includes about... 1,270 strata homes and more than 270 secured market rental homes. The Abbott Street contribution includes 237 social housing homes. Across the combined package, the largest share of housing remains market ownership, while the main site contains no required below-market rental component. My first question is, what housing standard did the city use to decide that this is enough? The report values the Abbott building and land at about $184 million and identifies a $20 million cash contribution. but council needs more than the total dollar figure. How much additional land value is created by permitting a 315-meter tower and two other towers of 68 and 79 stories? What percentage of that lift is being returned as permanently affordable housing? The 237 social homes also include different rent levels. The minimum commitment described in the report is 20% at shelter rate, 10% at or below housing income limits, and the remaining units at market rents. The city hopes to reach a deeper one-third, one-third, one-third model, but that is subject to operational viability and outside funding. Why is the deeper affordability target not guaranteed before rezoning? How many residents on income assistance can actually live in the building? How many units will be affordable to low-wage workers, seniors, and people moving from SROs? Will market rents inside a social housing building rise to neighborhood market levels over time? The market rental homes on Georgia Street are secured for the life of the building, which is positive. The security of tenure is not the same as affordability. Why are none of the homes required to be below market when council is granting height far beyond existing policy? I would support a revised bargain with four clear improvements. A larger number of social housing homes. a guaranteed deeper affordability mix of the low-market rental component on Georgia Street, and construction milestones that place the Abbott housing before or alongside the first commercial phase. Council should also require an independent public summary of the pro forma, including the land lift projected private value construction costs and the value of each public benefit. Residents should be able to see whether the exchange is fair. There's not a choice between no development and this development. It is a negotiation. Please refer the application back and negotiate a housing package that matches the scale of the private opportunity. Council should also ask whether the housing contribution grows if the market improves. The applicant receives a permanent zoning entitlement, but the public contribution appears fixed. Could a value sharing mechanism require additional affordable homes or cash if... Sale prices, hotel value, or approved floor area exceed the assumptions in the pro forma. A fair bargain should protect the public from both downside risk and the unexpected private upside. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Yes, my first name is Rahul, R-H-U-L, and I live in Vancouver, downtown West End, so... Okay. Sorry, I sent you guys like 10 emails back and forth because I ended up getting out of the line and then I came back. All right. Great. Go ahead. So, yes, my name is Raul. I live in Vancouver downtown. I've been living here for about 10 years. I am going to be very brief and short. I oppose this project with big O. So, Polyburn has... I'm sorry, this company has a very bad track record with the Malaysian developer has a very bad track record with the people. We need more subsidized housing or we need more affordable housing in the city. One of the lucky ones that I have over my head, I pay the mortgage, but most of my coworkers and friends don't and I feel for them. They are priced out. They work in Vancouver. I work in Cold Harbor Hotel. And we work in Vancouver. I'm sorry, I'm just so tired. We work in Vancouver downtown, but they sleep in Surrey. Like their home is in Surrey or Langley or Abbotsford or outside. Like one employee that I know does like two hours off transit. so it it wouldn't be that case our city which you guys represent um would provide affordable housing to to its people that people don't have to commute people don't have to go out to two hours uh to commute back to work i listened to the lady that moved to white rock as well and that's just not fair at all for small businesses small um um owners to get out of the city whereas these big developers come in they just take the piece of land and All the traditional housing, they get demolished. To cut the story short, I oppose this project. I don't believe we require that. And if the builder still wants to go, Hallburn, sorry, I mixed up the names. Hallburn is not a small builder. They are one of the largest development groups in the country. If anyone can afford to build real affordable housing on them, it's them. So if they want to build that property, they should do with minimum, I would say 50% affordable housing. and the rest that they can do for the others so um like i said i oppose this um project i reject it as is and demand the real affordability not 30 not 40 minimum 50 percent and uh stop pretending luxury towers can resolve the housing crisis that we have in vancouver thank you have a good one

Statement Watch

Yeah, so like I said, my name is Christopher Lannanen. I am a resident of Mount Pleasant, but years ago I did do a lot of work in the Downtown Eastside, so I'm familiar with the neighborhood. And I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal because it is wildly out of proportion with the rest of what's going on in the neighborhood, not only in size, but more importantly in expense and the class of the people who are targeted to live there. i apologize in advance this is going to be uh a little bit scattered um because it's 12 30 at night um and you know i recognize that you've all had a very long day um but it's uh it isn't great to see um you know counselors chatting um with each other while other people are calling in on the feed and currently there's no one visible on the feed but anyway uh moving on um I uh... yeah I just want to let me start over here uh... yeah so I'm just gonna respond to some things that I heard in at the start like when when city staff and uh... and the submitters were sort of presenting the uh... proposal and city staff mentioned that most of school in the neighborhood were already at or over capacity uh... buildings were outside of the area where the height higher buildings policy currently covers uh... all three buildings on the georgia site are going to be the highest in the city uh... why do we need this uh... you know as as world class as we'd love vancouver to be uh... these are very out of place and represent more of a playground for the rich in a way that almost extends into caricature. That on its own, those factors on its own should be enough to reject the proposal, but at the very least it really should be sent back for resubmission for some of these things to be addressed. To get a bit more into the weeds, the Abbott site, which is former social housing and is going to become another site with some social housing. Again, responding to that, something, you know, Councillor Orr questioned, the 20% shelter rate, 10% hills, and 70% market. didn't make any sense given the location of where this is in the downtown east side um where it should be the 30 30 30 as has been discussed earlier or the one-third one-third one-third um so at the very least we got to go back to that um as well as going up to the higher number in the original submission if possible um i'm going to respond also to some things that the submitter said um I don't remember his name, I'm sorry, but asked the question, if not here, then where? And then continued to discuss how Nordstrom left the city without mentioning that part of that was because the city wasn't able to support a retail store of that size, of that luxury. And then went on to describe the site as twice as large as International Village, a mall that is famous for being a retail ghost town due to its unsustainable rents. I'm not sure that we really want to repeat that here on a larger scale. Later on, this same presenter... said we have the inertia and goodwill of city staff and we need to act now uh... which sounds a lot like a desperate call to cram this proposal through a friendly council uh... friendly staff or something before what could well be an electoral bloodbath in october uh... if not now then when maybe we should wait for october when the city's had an opportunity to reconsider what they want to see uh... when staff have had a chance to uh... when everyone has had a chance to revisit the high buildings proposals and um... The submitter has had the chance to resubmit a proposal that's more in line with Vancouver's own city policy. I don't actually know how long I've been going on for because I don't have my timer handy. I forgot to turn it on. So I guess I'm just going to end with two sort of quick points. One of them, which other speakers have mentioned many times, think it was not in a hotel crisis we don't need more hotels we don't need the largest hotel in the city uh... or the province or possibly the country to be here uh... you know the uh... this is mentioned in another site similar with mention the woodward building uh... and i think it's important for us to note that when woodward was built rent all around it uh... residential rent in that neighborhood skyrocketed and many people were displaced uh... some people walk their homes altogether uh... and this is going to represent another rent bomb along those lines uh... and then everyone has already mentioned also or many people party very much that's the end of your time

Statement Watch

Oh, yeah. I'm Sheila, and I live in Vancouver.

You do live in Vancouver. Okay.

Yeah, I do. And I moved here five years ago already. That's fine. Go ahead. So, a 315-meter building is not simply a taller version of an ordinary tower. And it creates a different level of emergency, evacuation, and resilience, responsibility. And then the referral notes that specialists in supertall design participated in the urban design panel. That is useful, but the public record should also explain how the project will function during fire, earthquake, and prolonged power failure, and extreme heat, smoke events, or a failure of water pressure. And also, how long will it take to evacuate the hotel, observation deck, ballroom, and upper floors to fully occupancy? And also, how many protected stairwells and refuge areas are proposed? And can a firefighter reach and operate effectively at the highest occupied level? And what independent peer review will be required beyond minimum building code compliance? The hotel and convenience center could place thousands of visitors in the building who are unfamiliar with its exits. The observation deck may attract large crowds to the uppermost level. And what crowd management and assisted evacuation plan will apply to children, seniors, and the people with disabilities? And also, will emergency drill and staffing level be legally secured? Seven levels of underground construction and major excavation also creates resilience questions. What happens to adjacent street utilities and rapid transit operation during an earthquake or underground water event? The report requires further hydrological work. Why should zoning be enacted before the city as a final groundwater? and foundation risk assessment for project if the depth and scale. Power failure is equally important. Will elevator, ventilation, water pumps, communication system, and refuge areas operate through a multi-day outage? And how much emergency power is available? What fuel or battery systems are proposed? And how often will they be tested? Can the residents remain safely in place during extreme heat if the electrical grid is stressed? And also should require a public-facing safety and resilience report prepared by the independent engineers and reviewed by the Vancouver Fire Rescue Services, and emergency management staff. And the report should address evacuation time, seismic performance, redundant system accessibility, emergency communications, and impact. on surrounding infrastructure. I'm not claiming that a safe, super tall building is possible. I am saying that extraordinary height requires extraordinary evidence. Also, minimum compliance and feature permit condition are not enough for a decision that may establish Vancouver New Zealand. And please delay enactment until the safety case is complete, independently verified and understandable to the public. The landmark shall be known not only for its but for the setting the highest standard of resilience. That's all. Thank you.

Statement Watch

I'm here. My name is Chelsea.

Go ahead.

I am a resident of Vancouver.

Sorry, what was your first name again?

Yeah, my first name is Chelsea, and I am a resident of Vancouver.

Go ahead, Chelsea.

Okay, thank you. So I am a member of UNHCC by NBC and by NBC, and I'm on the opposition side, and we represent, or we are, yeah, on the opposition side of the redevelopment project and hotel being pushed by the Holborn project. This will displace long-term residents as well as small businesses. And we see housing as a basic human right. And yet all over the city, we see an increasing trend towards displacement that especially impacts working class and migrant neighborhoods. As overseas Filipino organizers, we fight for the issues affecting Filipinos here and in the Philippines. We stand in solidarity with the struggles of the press wherever they are. And in this case, we see Myron Manor residents and long-term residents who have lived there for so long with families being displaced in the name of profit by capitalists and the bureaucrats that they are with.

Speaker, can you just pause for a sec?

The point of procedure, the speaker speaking to Myron Manor, which is another resulting application, it is not this item.

Yeah, thanks for making that point. Speaker, can you focus on the application at hand? Thank you.

Yes, of course. Thank you for correcting me. In any case, this is an issue of housing affordability, right? This is yet again another redevelopment project that's being pushed through. And the question is always for whom is this being pushed through for? I do not think it is for the residents that this. That is that are being displaced, right? In this case, it's not a coincidence that the neighborhood where Holborn and the city's redevelopment project. that is displacing these long-term residents, a third of whom are Filipino migrants, used to itself be a Filipino neighborhood 20 years ago. Chair, I'm not sure the resident is speaking to the correct item. There are no residents being displaced in this one. This is a parking lot, for example, in the social housing building. So I think maybe perhaps the speaker is intending to speak to a different item, but that is not this project. And we need to, the public hearing rules dictate that we should focus on the matter before council. Okay, thank you for correcting me. I, sorry, I was informed that this was the item that, I think I was, yeah, I think I was misinformed. Okay. It's the, yeah.

Statement Watch

Hi, Councillor. This project may reshape Vancouver skyline and influence future site policy. The referral reports approximately two to three public submissions on the application. 223 comments are not meaningless, but they are small foundation for a decision for this scale. The separate higher buildings policy review has attracted thousands of public response because residents understand that the location and height on the city tallest buildings are citywide questions. Why should council decide the most consequential example before that? border consultation is complete if the project is approved now many people will reasonably conclude that the policy review is being asked to explain a decision rather than get it the consultation methods included postcard right side web pages and digital model and online command where renders low income residents seniors youth people without reliable internet access and residents outside the immediate mailing area meaningfully reached was information available in the language commonly spoken downtown and the downtown each site and the the two sites also involve different communities Did residents near above speed receive a dedicated discussion about building operations, affordability, cultural space, and neighborhood services? Did downtown residents receive a separate discussion about super tall height, heritage, wind, land closure, and construction? And all over nothing package can blow the issues and make feedback harder to interpret public consultation should also occur after key information is available many matters remain unresolved final tower separation podium design plaza rules and cultural operator social housing operator transit connection and detail affordability How can the public give informed feedback when major outcomes will be settled later? I ask Council to adopt alternative recommendations, complete the higher building policy review, and return with revised plans for a new public hearing. Before that hearing, hold accessible in-person sessions in both neighborhoods. Publish plain language financial and tracing information and clearly show what changes because of public input. This is not delay for its own sake. It is the consequence required for the democratic legitimacy. Establish citywide rules. Revise the project. disclose the agreements and then ask the public to respond a tower may stand for a century the additional months required for the complete process are small compared with the permanence of the decision please do not confuse the application the light with the public mandate thank you thanks for calling okay uh caller with the last four judges