Good morning, everyone. I am now going to call the public hearing of Monday, July the 27th, 2026, reconvening from July 23rd, 2026 to order. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. This meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube. Meeting progress will be updated on X and threads at Van City Clerk, though due to the new posting limits, updates will only cover essential items such as vote results. Speakers are encouraged to monitor the live stream to track meeting progress, but please note it is slightly delayed. Call in or arrive soon after receiving your reminder email so you're ready when your name is called. Now, in case of an emergency where we have to evacuate these chambers, please direct your attention to the exits just located beyond the glass doors and to the left of the pillar. If that's obstructed for whatever reason, there are four exits on the side of this chamber here. And please do not use the elevator and walk, don't run. And if anyone needs mobility assistance, please remain in place. And whenever super friendly, helpful team members will help you get to a safe location. Also, there's a defibrillator at the end of the hallway if so needed. I do want to acknowledge that we are hosting today's meeting on the traditional lands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Squalor Tooth peoples, and I do want to thank them for their generosity and hospitality. and love and care they show this great land that we get to live work and play on i also want to recommend recognize the just the immense contributions of all of our team members throughout the city of vancouver be it vancouver fire rescue services vpd engineering bylaws accs planning everyone that chooses to work at the city um you know they make choices and they choose to be here and they work with incredible passion every single day and i couldn't be more thankful With that, can we please get a roll call?

Great. Thank you very much. So before we begin, we do have a few announcements. The public hearing will recess at 11.45 a.m. for the Pride launch at noon. The public may speak in person or by phone or may submit written comments to Mayor and Council. Speakers may only speak once and will have up to five minutes to comment on the merits of the application. Please state whether you support or oppose the application and if you are a resident of Vancouver. Those representing four or more individuals or groups, including themselves, may speak for up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by phone and may not speak separately. Written comments can be submitted through the Mayor and Council Public Hearing Feedback Forum on the City's website. If you pre-registered with a presentation, say next to have the Clerk advance your slides.

Okay, pursuant to Section 13.14 of the Procedure By-law, I'm exercising my authority as chair to modify the procedures for this public hearing to move speakers who do not reside in Canada to the end of the speakers list. I direct team members to make the necessary inquiries to implement this change immediately. For that purpose, speakers may be asked to confirm whether they reside in Canada. Speakers who do not confirm their residency will be moved to the end of the list. A reminder, at public hearings, Council acts as a quasi-judicial body and must focus solely on the merits of the rezoning or heritage application. Members may ask clarifying questions of team members or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has been closed. After hearing from speakers, Council may 1. approve the application in principle, 2. approve the application in principle with amendments, 3. refuse the application, or 4. refer the application to team members for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene on a date later to be determined. Okay, so we are going to continue with item number four, which is the Vancouver ODP amendment to 500 Dunsmuir Street, 619 through 655 Richard Street, 501 through 565 West Georgia Street and 388 Abbott Street and CD-1 rezoning 500 Dunsmuir Street, 623 through 655 Richard Street, 501 through 595 West Georgia Street, and 620 through 698 Seymour Street and 388 Abbott Street. Okay, so on July the 23rd, 2026, council heard the team member presentation, the applicant presentation, asked questions of team members and the applicant, completed hearing from speakers and closed the speakers list and received a public comments for item four. Council will now complete item four, starting with closing comments from team members and the applicant.

Thank you very much. Does council have any final questions for team members, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted?

Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Mayor. I understand, and I know this came up late last week around NAV Canada potentially having some concerns around the height of the tallest tower. Can you just give me a sense of what it would look like should the project need to be reduced in size? Would it be coming back, or is that something that could be accomplished through an amendment? I just want to get a better sense of that before considering voting on this.

When you say lower, I'm a bit confused. So the max... Go ahead.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. When will we know if that needs to occur around maybe some of the FSR being redistributed?

Okay, thanks. And then just because it's been an extremely busy couple weeks, can you just confirm around the delivery of the social housing building? Should that be approved with the phasing of that? When would that be delivered?

Okay. But any provision for Abbott to finish first, or is it that they finish around the same time?

Okay. That's good to hear. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. I have a question along the same lines. Can you confirm, is it possible for the hotel to be constructed without the social housing being constructed?

So they could proceed with the hotel, and although that wouldn't require the social housing to be built, there are the other benefits that would be accruing from the hotel.

Okay, thanks. There was a question about the stained glass windows of the cathedral. Can someone... Explain to me the effect on denying light to the cathedral of this project, please.

Okay, thanks. All right, I guess I won't know the answer to that.

Okay, that's it for me for now.

Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks. Three follow-up questions. The first one is on the heritage facade. I know it requires that. Can you just recap the covenant on that and what Assurance Council has that we won't? hear later on, for example, well, it wasn't possible to retain the facade, or it was in worse shape than we thought, or sort of any of the above? What are the protections for that?

So when you say hoping to secure, that doesn't sound very concrete, no pun intended. Why are we not putting a covenant in?

Okay, and is it possible that we will hear anything that says, oh, it wasn't possible to retain it?

Okay. How do we guard against that? Is there anything stronger that we can put in this to protect it, given the loss of Dunsmuir House also in the area?

And I have limited time, so I can go to my next question if you want to ask that. The social housing building... And we heard from the Gastown residents with a concern, and I think a lot of it relates to having a healthy mix of housing, which I think Council broadly shares. This will be a city-run building, and operations and affordability operator will be determined later. What assurances does any walkthrough, does the neighborhood have that it is going to be a mix of housing, that social does not necessarily mean supportive? What is, in terms of the shelter rate component, can you walk us through that, please, Dan?

Okay, so the shelter is meant to be the most deeply affordable but not necessarily supportive housing?

Thank you for that. And then on the NAFCAN one that Councillor Meiser touched on, so it is a regulation. It's not a guideline. It's a current, that's what I heard just reflecting back, it's a current NAFCAN regulation that you cannot build this tall.

Can I go back to my first question? What additional protections could council put in place for heritage at this point as opposed to hoping it works out later?

Can we preclude enactment if they don't retain it?

Okay. I guess what I'm asking for, is there any language that can be added to this to strengthen this recommendation as opposed to waiting later in the process?

Okay, can you point me to which one?

Okay, I'm happy for, I know others have questions, or no, maybe not, but I'm happy if staff want to come back. I'm looking for some assurance that it's as strong as it can be.

Of reconsideration of the entire entitlements? So the ability to proceed at all?

Has an assessment been done on the ability to keep it? I'm sorry, Councillor, we're out of time. Thanks, Mayor.

Councillor Maloney.

I'm happy to use the rest of my time for Councillor Kirby Young to finish her question.

That's it. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, I will remind council that we need to move the recommendation for item four together with the yellow memo dated July the 22nd, 2026, entitled Vancouver ODP Amendment 500 Dunsmuir Street. Hold on, sorry. There's a lot to read here. Just give me two secs here, please. So 500 Dunsmuir Street, 619 through 655 Richard Street, 501 through 565 West Georgia Street, and 388 Abbott Street and CD-1 rezoning 500 Dunsmuir Street, 619 through 655 Richard Street, 501 through 595 West Georgia Street, and 620 through 695 Seymour Street, and 388 Abbott Street. Correction to bylaw number in Appendix D. Okay, so Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Domenato. Thank you, everyone, for your enthusiasm. Council will now make its decision on this application. Multiple councillors missed a portion of this public hearing and will need to confirm that they've reviewed the proceedings to be eligible to vote. Councillor Bligh, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting?

Thank you. Councillor Orr? Thank you. And so, clerks, can we get back to Councillor Dominato?

Great. Thank you very much, Councillor.

Great, thank you very much. So I will take that as an affirmative confirmation. Thank you. Do we have a mover for the recommendations and the yellow memo? Councillor Kirby-Young seconded by Councillor Meiszner.

the chamber could just remember to use their mics not only can counselors online not hear them but the public can't hear them on the feed either sorry uh counselor yeah it was the recommendation with the yellow memo was moved by myself in second

Yeah. Okay. So I'll just ignore that part of the script. Okay. Council members, is there any discussion? Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for staff for, you know, quite a thorough sort of... Answers to all of our questions. I did move the amendment for the alternative recommendation. So if you want to go to the amendment queue, it's just. I'm just going to put you on the amendment queue, counselor. Please go ahead. Yeah, I'm moving the alternative recommendation as an amendment to wait for the higher buildings review. I don't think we should rush this. I think this would set a precedent, but I think considering the high number of public interest in this, Matter, I think we should wait for the higher buildings policy review instead of approving this because this is quite a bit higher, 315 meters. And, yeah, we'd just like for that to happen.

Do you have a seconder? Councillor Maloney, thank you. Councillor Kirby Young?

Yeah, so the height's an interesting one because the project was presented as potentially being the tallest building in Vancouver. We do have the intersection of the taller buildings policy review happening. We also have a signature site at the heart of downtown, bookending Granville Street, which council is fully committed to revitalizing. We do need more hotels in the city. It makes sense to me for density, and quite pragmatically, we're hearing that there's a NAVCAN regulation, which, unless there's some incredible negotiation and design work that's going on, is not going to allow the ability to build to the proposed height and the extra, forgive me if I don't have the numbers right at the moment, but the extra 10 stories or so. So it's a bit of a moot point, I think, from that perspective, from height, because it's actually not... permitted from a practicality from a NAPCAN perspective. So if I take all of those things on balance in terms of revitalization for Granville Street and downtown, supporting the goal for additional hotel capacity, the delivery of a full social housing building, and I know that at 25 stories, which is turnkey to the city, I know we've ascertained that that does provide sort of a balance of mix of tenures. I just want to continue to emphasize that point. for neighborhood residents. I am comfortable with proceeding so I will not support the amendment to refer it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. May I ask a point of information through the chair to staff? I'd just like to know how long have the proponents owned this site?

Approximately. Approximately.

I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY.

OKAY. THANKS VERY MUCH.

YEAH, I'LL LET COUNSELOR ORR SPEAK FIRST. THANKS.

Thanks. Yeah, just to Councillor Kirby-Young's sort of point, I mean, I agree with all of that. I mean, I do think this area does need some sort of revitalization, and I do think that the social housing is absolutely much needed, and we can go through with all of that. That can all happen once we finish the... tall buildings review so i i do agree with all those things but i just don't think we should rush and i think we should we should wait for this and and do it right and um you know and we could still have all those those those uh other benefits that come along with those things i don't see why we have to do that um uh today i think we can we can just pump the brakes a little bit thanks counselor maloney uh yeah thanks um i'm gonna support this amendment because

This is the largest project in Vancouver's history and it would go ahead before the height policy is finished. And also when I was asking questions of the applicant at the start of the public hearing, they were very open about the fact that this project won't go ahead unless economic conditions change. And what that means is either costs decrease or housing prices go up. So that's what's required to make this a viable project, which on my reading of the advice that I'm getting may not happen anytime soon. And as we've heard, the proponents have owned this site for 20 years. So for me, taking a bit of a delay for the height policy to be finished and to look more into the The aircraft requirements for clearance, I don't think that's too much to ask. So I don't see the rush.

Thanks.

Just one quick closing comment. I found it interesting. I haven't heard some of my colleagues in the chamber before say that we could wait on affordable housing or a new child care facility. I think that's the first time. And that does seem to be an acute need in the city as well. So I was neglected to mention that point earlier, but felt compelled in hearing the conversation around the chamber. Thank you.

Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. Yeah, I'd just like to clarify that one of the things that I was thinking about over the weekend in relation to the social housing that will be built is how sad it is that the requirement for this social housing to be built...

is going to require more people being tipped into the homelessness because of the increasing gap in between incomes and the cost of housing. So with respect, I'm not sure that talking about this social housing, if it would completely negate the negative impacts for our housing crisis, from the required increase in housing costs for this to go ahead is I just don't know how to deal with that. But anyway, I think I've said enough on that. Thank you.

Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I was just listening to the comments from my colleagues. I think maybe there's a bit of a misunderstanding around this project based on what I just heard. The social housing component is not displacing anybody. And the development on Georgia is also not displacing anybody. It's a parkade. So this is a net new benefit of 237 social housing units on the Abbott site. I feel based on the assurances we've got from staff around the requirement for the occupancy of that social housing to come first gives me a lot of motivation to move this forward. I don't think we can afford to wait to deliver 237 social housing units. in our city. Obviously, we're in a housing crisis, and those units are very badly needed, and I don't want to support any effort to slow the delivery of that social housing down. So I will not be supporting the amendment. I think we need to move forward with the delivery of the social housing, which is going to come first, and I'll just remind all the councillors of that. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Orr.

Yeah, I agree. There is an urgent need for social housing across the city. So I will remind my colleagues that the social housing initiative to do that was voted down. And that would have allowed 20-story housing, social housing across the city. And my colleague was concerned that it was too far west. But then I also hear comments that we're warehousing... social housing in one area, and that's kind of a contradiction. And I do think, you know, I appreciate the staff's comment on looking for the one-third, one-third, one-third, but, you know, as it stands now with what's in the referral report, I'd The social housing is great, but the definition of social housing is fundamentally broken if it means 30% of the hills. I know that's not what this project is. It provides a little bit more affordability. But I do fundamentally believe that if we are losing 167... sro units we should have 167 units um at the deep affordability rate which is the shelter rate and we don't have that we have at best 47 units um that's 120 that we're missing so so we are actually losing uh deep affordability here um in my mind so um yeah thanks for the robust discussion thanks great thank you seeing no one else in the queue um

I'm going to call the vote. A reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to section 14.13 of the procedure bylaw. Clerk, can we please go to the voting panel? And council, can you please register your vote?

Mayor, it's Councillor Zhou here. Can I have a vote assisting in opposition, please?

Yeah, you sure can. And just so we're clear, we are voting on the amendment.

Okay.

Okay. And so Councillor Orr's amendment fails with myself, Councillor Kirby Young, Don Minato, Montague Classen-Meisner, and Joe in opposition, and Councillor Bligh absent.

So we can go back to the main menu. Counselor Orr, anything else?

Yeah, maybe just some closing comments. I might also jump back on just to sort of gather myself. But, I mean, yeah, no, I appreciate all the staff's work on this. there is a lot of public benefits from this. I just don't think it goes quite far enough. And I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of the design. I do appreciate how much work you did consulting with First Nations. You know, it's a stunning project. I think we're putting the cart before the horse in terms of approving this before the tall buildings review. But, and I do think, you know, there's other considerations too that we haven't quite figured out. You know, the heritage considerations, you know, the concerns from the church next door, you know, and the concerns around, you know, do we really need this amount of hotel rooms? I do appreciate also the, that the observation deck, if approved, will be open to the public. I think there's this... In general, there's this... perception about this building that I think is definitely sort of taken on, you know, a very polarized thing in the media for sure. And I do think it's thoughtful. But like I said, I just don't think that the affordability is quite there in terms of the replacement units. It's given me a lot of thought. I've really, really approached this with an open mind and really, really thought long and hard about this. So that's what's going to go into my decision. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks very much. It's been a good discussion. It's a significant project, and I think it's important that a lot of the questions that were asked, I think that this is an exciting opportunity to revitalize quite honestly a sort of pretty dormant site right in the heart of downtown and sort of move from sort of an old concrete kind of, I don't want to say bunker style, but sort of space that's just sort of warehousing cars predominantly in the heart of downtown There are a few businesses there. I understand and appreciate that. But the site is really underutilized from a public benefit perspective. It is a signature piece of real estate in our city and in the heart of downtown. This council has said it's fully committed to a vibrant Vancouver, both downtown and coming off of the Granville Street zone. This is very consistent with that. It delivers additional hotel rooms. It delivers residential, which puts... people and energy downtown both day and nighttime, which is always helpful to supporting vibrancy and to supporting public safety. It does deliver badly needed affordable housing with a 25-story social housing building. It's always important to clarify for the public what that means. I heard loud and clear from the Gastown residents wanting some assurance that the building would not convert to 100% supportive. And wanting to see a healthy balance in neighborhoods where different members of community from different backgrounds can sort of live alongside and enjoy neighborhoods. And I did hear very strong assurances from our staff that that is the intention to have that mix of housing there. And overall, I think it's going to bring a lot of life and a lot of energy. I have, I will say very clearly, I want to see the heritage retention. I don't want to see any wiggling out of that one. I was personally disappointed and I was vocal about it with the loss of Dunsmuir House. But again, I have asked those questions and have assurances that that will be retained and I'm seeing nodding from the applicant and the architect. And I do think that that makes for an interesting streetscape, honestly, that I think some of the most interesting cities evolve and have a juxtaposition of modern and heritage elements and components. And so it sort of shows us where we came from, but also allows us, our city, to continue to evolve towards the future. It will also add, which I think was talked about from a public benefit perspective with the observatory on the top and the locals having access, but what wasn't perhaps mentioned is that it has been almost two decades, I think, since an attraction was added in the tourism sector in our city. There's been a lot of folks that have tried, you know, back in the day, Storium and Gastown and others, but nothing new necessarily has landed. And so I think that that would be a welcome addition as well for both visitors, for the tourism economy, and for residents that would have access to that, which also from an affordability perspective is great because it doesn't preclude anybody from attending locally if they don't have the means to do so. It's going to take a lot to move this project forward. It's not for the faint of heart to do something that is this ambitious in this economy. But I also have some faith in the passion, quite frankly, of the vision and the architect. I think we had a similar conversation around inspiration for different public hearings. And I mentioned I used to be the vice president of the aquarium. So I always appreciate that. marine references for marine life and hopefully that vision comes to life in the way that it is intended because that's I think a nice inspiration and we are a water city so all of that said I am happy to support it for the reasons that were stated and again to the public regulations have to be adhered to for from a nav cam perspective so the proponent will have some work to do to kind of work through that but overall I think it's a great project for us to be advancing thank you

Councillor Claassen. Thanks very much. First of all, I want to just thank all the speakers. I want to thank staff. A lot of work went into this significant project. And this is really probably one of the most significant redevelopments Council has considered in many years. Downtown Vancouver is where our region expects to accommodate growth. jobs and investment. And if we believe in a vibrant downtown growth and a strong regional economy, then we have to be prepared to support ambitious projects in the places that are best suited to them. This proposal transforms an aging office precinct into a mixed-use district with new homes, employment space, retail and public amenities, and of course, a hotel and convention space. It also includes important public benefits through the companion site on Abbott Street with new social housing and child care that will contribute to the ongoing revitalization of that part of our downtown. I also want to recognize the design excellence that has been mentioned behind this proposal. This is the kind of urban design Vancouver should be proud of. Gregory Enriquez has made an extraordinary contribution to our city's built environment over many years. And I believe this project reflects that legacy of thoughtful city building architecture. And I particularly appreciate the incorporation of indigenous history, themes, and public art into the design as well as the heritage retention. That helps to create a place that reflects Vancouver's identity and tells a richer story about where we are and whose lands we are privileged to share. This is an exceptional site. Quite literally at the heart of downtown Vancouver, a location of this significance deserves architecture and public spaces that are equally significant, and I believe this proposal rises to the challenge. We often talk about wanting Vancouver to remain globally competitive, and landmark projects don't happen often, and when they do... They require long-term thinking. While height naturally attracts attention, I think a more important question is whether this project contributes positively to the city over the next 50 to 100 years. I'd much rather see ambitious growth accommodated in our downtown, adjacent to rapid transit, jobs and services, than push that growth into neighborhoods that are less suited to absorb them. This proposal represents a major investment in Vancouver at a time when we need confidence in our city's future. It will create homes, employment, public amenities, and a stronger downtown for generations to come. And for all those reasons, and probably many more, I'll be pleased to support this application. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thank you. I think this is an exciting moment for our city. And I would agree, it was mentioned earlier, that this is really a once-in-a-lifetime project for our city. This is going to bring new energy to a part of downtown that really needs it. It's a revitalization of a full city block with hundreds of units of new housing, hotel rooms, convention space, which is going to bring economic development and support small businesses in and around the site, new retail space, a large public plaza, indigenous art. free public viewpoint for residents and more. I think this is a really thoughtful and ambitious project, and I think our city is ready for it. Just to drill in a bit more to the public benefits and why I'm supportive of this project, the fact that the city will be receiving an entire 25-story social housing building, turnkey with 237 social housing units, a new childcare facility, cultural amenity space on the ground floor with an eye to making it indigenous cultural space and a guarantee that the occupancy of that social housing tower will come first before the occupancy of any residential units on West Georgia. It's a huge public benefit. That housing is desperately needed, as we all know. And on the revitalization piece, which I've touched on, revitalization of this area of downtown has been a big priority for this council and for myself as well. This is, as we all know, an extremely important part of our city. And there's a lot happening in and around this block. And I think moving this development forward expeditiously is extremely important. Across the street, we have the Hudson's Bay building, which is vacant. That's nearly an entire city block. But there's also great things happening nearby, too. The post office has been revitalized. That has brought so much new energy to that block, and I think we'll see a similar effect here should this project move forward, and I hope it will with my colleagues' supports.

Sorry. On tower height, I can't think of a better spot for Vancouver to have its tallest building. This is at the center of downtown. This is connected by two rapid transit lines. And there are buildings being built nearly this tall elsewhere in the lower mainland in places like Burnaby and Surrey or even Birkwhitlam. It's never made sense to me that the tallest buildings in the lower mainland right now are not in downtown Vancouver. I think downtown Vancouver is the place for exceptional height like this. And with exceptional height, we need exceptional design. I'm not saying that, you know, height is everything. We want to see beautiful architectural design. We want to see public benefit. And I really think that this project is thoughtful and it delivers all of that. designed by one of the city's most celebrated architects, who's here in the chamber today. The substantial public benefit that I mentioned, the public viewing area at the top of the tallest tower, the large public spaces and permeability throughout the site. I think, you know, this project has been a long time coming. There's been several variations of it, but... I think that this is a huge opportunity for downtown and for our city. And as I've mentioned, the public benefits are substantial. So I am very supportive of moving this forward. And I'm really excited to see it come to fruition. So I'm excited to be part of a council that gets to move something so ambitious and defining, I think, for downtown Vancouver forward. So I'll be voting wholeheartedly in support today. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Dominato.

Thank you very much. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, thanks. This project looks beautiful. I admire the thought that's gone into the design. The project planned will bring a lot of benefits to the city and this neighbourhood. the least of which is activating sites that have been laying dormant for far too long. The additional market housing supply would eventually be beneficial should housing prices increase enough to make this project pencil, and it'll eventually contribute to the supply of hotel rooms. The social housing will be helpful in housing the increasing number of Vancouverites who can't afford market rents. When I've been considering my decision on this project, My overarching concerns have related to the proponent's social licence to operate.

There has been an extremely long gap between the destruction of social housing at Little Mountain and the construction of new social housing. The loss of the Dunsmuir Hotel was enraging to a lot of people for heritage reasons and as well as its potential for remaining as shelter rate housing during the period of the proponent's ownership, which is over 20 years, as we've had confirmed. The tax breaks given to the proponent have not endeared them to the community. I think some people would be disappointed by the possibility that the hotel may be built before the social housing. And on the other hand, the Dunsmuir site's been sitting vacant for such a long time that it's generally not been a good thing for downtown.

As I mentioned, I think it's pretty strange that the largest project in Vancouver's history is going ahead before the high buildings policy is completed, and I suspect that that relates to the circumstances and timing that we find ourselves in. So although I am a huge proponent of market housing supply and I definitely want the non-profit housing that will be built, I'll be voting against this on the basis that I don't think Holborn should be rewarded for how they've conducted themselves in our city for a very long time.

Yes.

I have a point of procedure. Are counselors allowed to base their vote on facts that are outside of the specifics in front of us for a public hearing based on proponents' other projects or procedures? I understood that that was legally not permitted. Can we get some clarification on that just for my own benefit and information that we can't consider? We just need to consider the specifics of a proposal in front of us and whether it does or does not fit policy and whether or not council feel it does or does not have merits based on whether it fits policies or not. But we can't vote based on other considerations or other information. Can we get some information through you to the staff?

Thank you very much. Councillor Maloney, any other comments?

No, I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to call a vote on the main motion. A reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to section 14.13 of the procedure bylaw. If we can please go to the voting panel.

Mayor, again, Councillor Zhou. So I need a vote of assistance in favour, please. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Great. And that passes with Councillors Frye, Orr and Maloney in opposition and Councillor Bligh absent. And that completes item number four. And team members, thank you very much for all the hard work that you put on this file.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is actually... Item number one, Vancouver ODP Amendment 6333 Yukon Street and CD-1 rezoning 6333 through 6369 Yukon Street. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Any conflicts to declare? Seeing none, the clerk's now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received. Just got to make sure we still have quorum.

Great, thank you.

I don't... Councillor Meiszner?

So thank you. Please go ahead.

much we'll just do a little switcheroo here okay this is the first call for speakers if you wish to wish to speak to counsel about this item please call toll-free sorry oh I guess sorry I'm going off the script that it was just handed to me so yes you're right okay

I'll continue with the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610 followed by participant code 1061-445-PAM. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be displayed during the recess.

There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application. We're ahead.

Thanks very much. Would the applicant like to present?

Okay. Are there any questions from council on this item? And this noting, this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant.

Okay. Seeing no one on there, this is the second question. Call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by the participant code 1061-445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. Now we will hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the public speaker podium on the left when it is your turn. The podium height can be adjusted using the controls on the right-hand side. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Our first registered speaker is Mike Bisker. Is Mike present?

Okay, thanks very much. That concludes our speakers list. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?

Okay. Okay. All right.

One moment here. So this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free. 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445-POUND. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be displayed during the recess. We will now take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to podium.

All right, that's the conclusion of our recess.

Okay, so seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item? No, there has not. Okay, seeing that there are a few or no public comments received on this item, I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?

Thanks very much. Okay. Does council have any final questions for staff, noting that no additional questions to the applicant are permitted? Yeah, thanks.

I missed my chance on the first round. But so through the chair to staff, just I'm trying to get caught up here, but the applicant is requesting a DCL waiver on top of foregoing a CAC. And basically, what's the sort of cumulative cost? I know there is 5 million DCL. I'm just trying to get a sense of the waiver there. Yeah.

Sort of refresh this.

Okay, but just like not the citywide one or whatever? Okay. And then just a question about the four existing tenants. Is there a right of return for them?

Thanks, Hugh. Counselor? Okay.

Okay. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?

Okay. All right. I will remind council that we need to move the recommendation for item one together with the yellow memorandum dated July 10th, 2026 entitled Vancouver ODP amendments and CD one rezoning six, three, three, three dash six, three, six, nine Yukon street council considerations. When amending an ODP council will now make a decision on the application. Do we have a move? A move by Councillor Domino seconded by. Councillor Kirby-Young. Okay. Councillor members, is there any discussion?

Okay. We will proceed to a vote. Please take us to the voting panel clerk.

Chair, it's Councillor Dole here. I need a vote of assistance in favour, please. Thanks.

Okay, so caps and primes. All right. So that passes with support from all present. Thank you. Okay. All right. Great. That completes item one. So now we're going to go to item 2 of Vancouver ODP amendment and CD 1 rezoning 6 to 5 6 5 to 5 dash 6 5 7 7 Oak Street before we have begin this agenda item If anyone believes they have a conflict of interest now is the time to declare it does anyone have a conflict to disclose Okay, so the clerk will now read the application and the summary of correspondence received

Okay. Thanks very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to Council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610 followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application. Go right ahead.

Thanks very much.

You do have a question from Councillor Kirby Young, I believe.

Thank you. It's a question to the applicant, and it's a simple one. Are you looking at a full-size grocery store, and are you able to share who the intended operator is at this point?

Okay, and presumably you elected to put grocery there because you did analysis and recognized there's not a lot of food options in the neighborhood?

Okay. Thank you very much.

Councillor Maloney?

Yeah, question for the applicant. Oak Street and 49th Avenue are really busy roads. What measures are you taking to mitigate the impacts on residents of traffic noise and pollution?

Can you speak into the microphone? Sorry.

Yeah, I'm interested in hearing about the windows and the building envelope.

Okay.

Staff could help me out here.

And what type of measures are likely to be required?

What type of measures are likely to be required to protect the liveability for residents of the external building envelope and windows?

Yeah, I'm aware that... requirements for the building envelope were ‑‑ a bylaw was removed in the last couple of years that ‑‑ so I want to know, is there going to be particular requirements for extra protection for residents because it's a very busy intersection that this building is on. Thanks, Josh.

I understood that in certain instances, some extra measures might be required or extra study required. And given how busy these two roads are, I was wondering whether this might be a particular instance where higher requirements might be put in place.

Okay.

Thanks very much. Thanks very much. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, my questions are for staff mostly.

Would this area fall under the villages plan? Would this be one of the sites? And just kind of walk me through, you know, this would be 18 stories and how that kind of works with the village's plan being, you know, six stories essentially. And what kind of, you know, like obviously we can go higher than six stories, or can we, basically.

When is that decision made? Like, I mean, obviously just for the public sort of benefit where it's like maybe they're going to see like, oh, I thought this was supposed to be six stories, but now it's 18. How is that communicated? We actually went with the Canby corridor plan instead of that.

Right. And that was this opportunity to do that here. Okay. Very good. Thanks very much. And can you walk me through a little bit, too, what it looks like when we've re-indexed the BMR on unit turnover? So rents in the below-market units may be re-indexed to citywide average. When does that happen? Does council re-decide? Who decides when it may be re-indexed?

And then just a little bit about sort of the kind of some of the other things around like the floor plate and the orientation of the public, privately operated public space, unit balcony access. There's a lot of sort of allowances that we're giving in terms of that. And it didn't trigger an urban design panel review. Is it... I think I probably know the answer. What would this be because of the substantial sort of public benefits here in terms of the child care and the below market rental that we're allowing those sort of relaxations?

Okay, but I'm just saying, yeah, okay. So you don't think there actually was any, really? Okay. Yep. That's all for me.

Thanks very much. So this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. We now hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the public speaker podium on the left when it is your turn. The podium height can be adjusted using the controls on the right-hand side. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered.

Thanks very much. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium.

Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?

Okay, this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106-1445-POUND. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be displayed during the recess. We'll now take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward.

okay that's the end of our recess and work to have any speakers in the chamber or on the line no additional understood speakers okay seeing no further speakers the speakers list is now closed clerk do there has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item none Okay, seeing that there are few or no public comments received on sitem, I'm now closing the receipt of comments.

One moment here.

All right. Does council have any final questions for staff, noting that no additional questions to the applicant are permitted?

Okay. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?

Okay. Council will now make its decision on this application. Do we have a mover? Councillor Meiszner, seconded by?

Councillor Domenato? Okay. Council members, is there any discussion?

Go right ahead.

Yeah, I just want to thank the applicant for what I think is a really well thought out project. Obviously, adding rental to an important area of our city that needs more rental options. And I really like the inclusion of the grocery store. And I think it's great to hear that. It will be a relatively affordable grocery store. So no frills. I'm a frequent shopper. So I think it's a great project and more of what I want to see happen in the city. So I'm going to vote him. Full support. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. I'll cede the chair to Deputy Mayor Kirby Young for one moment. Go ahead. Make a few comments. Thanks very much. Yeah, I just want to just express my support for this project. Having seen it evolve, the fact that we're now getting 189 purpose-built rental homes, 39 below-market homes, 160 space child care facility facilities, secured rental, and I always joke that you had me on grocery stores, my sort of favorite line. These are really neighborhood-shaping amenities, and I know No Frills, which is about two blocks from my home, changed the neighborhood about 11 years, about 12 years ago when it moved into it. It's become an incredibly important amenity. affordable groceries. We think that the west side, that every resident over there has boundless amounts of money to spend on things. But the fact is, the truth is that there are a lot of elderly people living in the community. There are a lot of other families that would really appreciate having a close amenity, such as a grocery store and the childcare that makes life more affordable for them. And a lot of us will remember this as the old Cyclone Taylor sporting goods store right in the corner there. So I really appreciate the attention to the urban design. I think this is going to be something, notwithstanding people, some neighbors and some communities being a little concerned around the density. I think the density is very appropriate to the site. And there was some discussion earlier on about the amount of traffic in the area, and I know that I've seen a lot of construction that has been nearby where there's extra glazing on the windows. There are other ways of mitigating that, but I think generally speaking, this is a great project, and I'm really glad to see it. I hope to see it move forward. Thanks very much, and I'll advance to take the chair back from Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Yeah, I'll just also be brief. I know the area very well. I'm in it often, obviously. And I think with the Canby corridor, I've often referred to sort of it. I know this is off of Oak, but as a food desert with the policy that didn't include. having some ground-level retail, and what that has resulted in is a lot of people have had to paradoxically drive to get sort of daily needs, and yet there's a good amount of green space in parks, and yet people are not able to meet that. So I'm happy to see the inclusion of that. Council has been making some... efforts for improvements in terms of accelerating bus speeds and others to eliminate congestion along here and balancing that with ensuring there's still parking for residents and things are flowing through but i think it's been proven many times that there's better uses than sort of parking lots and gas stations in terms of providing some housing so happy to support it and see more rental housing coming on stream thank you

Thanks, Councillor. Okay. All right. Just a reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to Section 1413 of Procedure By-law. I'm now going to call the vote. Carrick, can you please take us to the voting panel?

So that passes unanimously with all present with Councillor Bligh and Fry absent. Thanks very much.

Okay, we're now on to item three. Vancouver ODP amendment CD1 rezoning, 2516 Commercial Drive and 1704 East Broadway. Before we begin this item, maybe we'll just get staff and everybody to reset here for a second.

All right. Looks like everybody's settled in. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it.

Second.

The clerk will now read the application and a summary of correspondence received.

Thanks very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We now have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability to present the application. Right ahead.

Thanks very much. Okay. Just one moment here. Would the applicant like to present the application?

Thanks very much. Okay. Are there any questions for counsel to staff or the applicant, noting this is the only opportunity for counsel to ask questions of the applicant? And I see Counselor Meisner.

Thanks, Chair. First for staff, could you just provide a bit more detail on, I guess, is that a condition that the applicant consults with TransLink around the platform extension? I just wasn't clear on that.

Is the idea, I'm not sure if you're able to say, but is the idea that... even if the platform is not constructed in concert with the new building, that the building could be shaped in a way that could accommodate that in the future?

Okay. I'm glad that's being thought about. So thanks for that. Appreciate it.

Anything else? Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks. I know it contemplates a social service space. I'm wondering if you can provide a bit more perspective from the city's point of view as to what that's envisioned to be used for. And was it considered to be an arts and culture potential space to support arts and culture offices or production versus social services?

Yes. Go ahead.

Could it be arts offices? I guess my question is, when you say social, can you give us a bit more color? What kind of social space are you envisioning there?

Okay, but are we open to potentially it being arts support space, arts offices, et cetera?

Okay, thank you.

Thanks very much. Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, thanks. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the... station expansion potential, really. And, you know, I was listening carefully to the previous explanation, but can you talk me through whether there are any constraints put on that with us deciding this now, or are there any advantages to further discussions before this rezoning takes place? Can you just talk me through the considerations a bit more?

And do we have any insight into TransLink's, the priority that TransLink puts on The expansion of this station, I mean, it's a very significant station. I mean, I don't know whether they would have prioritised trying to purchase the site if they were...

All right, that's very helpful. Thanks very much. Thanks. Councillor Orr.

Thank you. Most of my questions were asked already around the platform. Was there any sort of discussion with the applicant to integrate SkyTrain usability with the platform? You know, you see in some other stations where... like New Westminster Station, where the building actually you can access, you know, the SkyTrain, and it's kind of integrated in with the SkyTrain in terms of access points and things like that?

Okay. And then I guess a similar question to the previous application around noise. SkyTrain is quite loud. We've heard some complaints from neighbors along the line, just further up around that station. Just in terms of a very similar question around what kind of mitigations have been placed on the applicant in terms of noise and vibration.

Okay, thanks for that. And then I guess my last question is sort of around the trade-offs around BMR. We kind of consider that the social space is a good trade-off for the lack of BMR. What's the size of the space? And I know we talked about what are the possible uses, but we're considering that a good trade-off, essentially.

It really sounds like it was contemplated and it was really a tricky site with the size of it and of course wanting to offer the non-residential spaces. And then just remind me again, too, like the TOA, there'll be Tier 1, and it allows 20, and this is obviously much higher than that. So can you walk me through that allowance, too? Is it mostly because of the approved neighboring site that it's much higher? Maybe I'd pass this one on.

Yeah. Yeah.

Thanks.

Thanks very much, Councillor. Okay. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to Council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610 followed by participant code 1061-445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. We will now hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the speaker podium on the left when it is your turn. The podium height can be adjusted using the controls on the right-hand side. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Our first registered speaker is Mike Biscar. Is Mike present?

Speaker number two is Annika Anderson.

Speaker number three is Kasia Piotrowski.

Speaker 28 is withdrawn. Speaker 29 is Jaskarn Singh.

Speaker 39 is Stephen Bohus.

Okay. This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833, followed by the participant code 1061445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. Phone number will be displayed during the recess. I note that we are very tight on time, so we have a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium. Thanks very much.

Clerk, do we have any other speakers in the chamber or on the line?

Okay. Seeing no further speakers, the speaker's list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item?

closing the receipt of comments does the applicant have any closing comments thanks very much to staff have any closing comment this council have any final questions for staff noting and no additional questions to the applicant are permitted okay clerk do we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments and no additional correspondence Council will now make its decision on this application. Do we have a mover for the recommendation and a seconder? Okay. Sorry. As long as we heard that, I didn't see who the mover was. Councillor Kirby Young, thank you very much. Okay. Council members, is there any discussion?

Okay.

Can I also get a vote of assistance in favor? It's Mayor Simm.

Thank you very much. Okay. So that passes with all present in favor. Thanks very much. So that completes item three. And we will now recess for the...

All right, good afternoon. The meeting is resumed and we're now on to item five, CD1-708, text amendment 2538 to 2550 Burt Street and 1290 to 1298 West Broadway.

Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose?

The clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received.

Thanks very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061-445-POUND before the close of the speaker's list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for speakers and misspeakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application.

Thanks very much. So would the applicant like to present the application?

Okay. Are there any questions from council to the staff or the applicant? Noting this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions to the applicant. I'll advance Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah. Thanks, Chair. Question for staff. The $2.7 million DCL waiver for the, I guess it's the residential portion that's now proposed to be hotel. What was the original DCL waiver for the whole building? Do you know?

Thank you. And then my other question was around the BC Housing Covenant. What conversations have staff had with BC Housing, if any, regarding their willingness to just discharge that covenant? Have conversations occurred? And what was the sense of those conversations?

I'm happy to ask the applicant, too, if you think that would be appropriate.

Yeah, if the applicant doesn't mind coming to the podium, I would like some more information around your conversations with BC Housing and their willingness to discharge that covenant.

But...

No, they chose to. They want the outcome of this particular decision? Correct. Yeah, okay. That's right. Okay, thanks. Anything further? That's great. Thank you. Councillor Dominano?

Thanks, Chair. Yeah, question to staff, just following on the question around the DCL waiver. Is it staff's view that the DCL waiver still applies because there's the 56 below-market rental units included in the project? Is that sort of the rationale behind that?

Okay, 3.1. But there's no money being returned, though, in terms of that waiver was made, and you're not suggesting, given you said it applied to a larger portion of the actual residential component. That's what I'm trying to get at is to understand.

THAT IS REQUIRED. THAT IS REQUIRED.

Got it. Okay, that's clear. Thank you. I'm curious, a question to the applicant, noting I think staff mentioned in their presentation that the applicant could consider long-term medical stays and partnerships in that vein. So I'm curious if you could comment on... Whether you have an interest in doing that, of using some of the rooms, hotel rooms, for long-term medical stay. We know there's a big need in the area, especially with VGH. We've had meetings in the past that were organized by Councillor Fry with the Transplant Society. So I'm curious if you could comment on something as to whether you would entertain that as part of the hotel mix, is using some of those rooms for medical stay. So that is to the applicant.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Councillor Frye. Oh, yeah, so I guess a question for staff, and then maybe I'll sort of also direct it to the – so this seems – I mean, obviously, this is all sorts of unusual in general. Now, if I caught you correctly, pending this outcome, it still has to go to BC Housing for – why is it this way and not going to BC Housing first to see if they will renegotiate the terms?

Okay. And obviously you can't speak for BC Housing, but how... Do you have any sense, given the track record with BC Housing and similar cases, if there are similar cases, how BC Housing might treat this?

Yeah, sure. Maybe I will. Applicant, do you have a sense of the conversation with BC Housing and where that's going? I feel like this is almost cart before the horse in many respects.

In the event that they do not agree to your request, what happens with this project? Do you have to go back to the drawing board? I think the building will have to stay to the existing use. Right. So it is conceivable that you could stay to the existing use.

So this isn't a matter of a financial matter to complete the project as was originally prescribed? What is the motivation for changing the ask here?

I'm sorry, Councillor Fry, can you repeat that? Well, I'm just curious. If this project could proceed as was originally envisioned... In the event that BC Housing does not honor your request, why are we submitting this new application altogether?

And the market conditions are the reason why the new temporary medical accommodations couldn't be...

Thanks. Oh, shoot. Sorry, I just advanced. Hang on a sec. I'll put you back on.

Go ahead, Councillor.

Yeah, thanks. A lot of my questions have been asked, particularly around the covenant. For staff, I suppose, this was a pretty controversial rezoning, I think, when it first came through. But, you know, I think if Council approves converting... Nearly completed rental housing into hotel use. Are we worried about maybe setting a precedent for similar sort of situations, you know, waiting for market conditions to approve or things like that?

Okay. And walk me through that. What is that going to look like in terms of shared access to amenities? But then also, you know, privacy concerns, security concerns between hotel guests and residents. How do we sort of square that?

Okay, and so what about things like noise and deliveries and loading and things like that? How does that work between basically a commercial, project and a residential thing. I'm just trying to think of what this is going to look like for the residents that move in here in terms of living in a hotel, essentially.

Separate lobbies, separate elevators. That's right. Things like that. Okay, interesting. And I guess back to staff, I mean, you know, we're improving a lot of hotels. We've heard a lot about hotels over the past few weeks in terms of whether or not we need... A bunch of new rooms. So what happens, you know, we approve this hotel, the economics, you know, sort of weaken for hotels, you know, are we going to have to go kind of back to the drawing board there and then maybe, you know, come back, you know, or just a question around economics.

Would you mind repeating your question, Councillor?

Yeah, just sort of hearing a lot about hotels and approving a lot of rooms. What happens if now a hotel is not viable in this location? Would they have to come back again to the drawing board?

Okay. Thanks very much. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks. I have a few questions. My first one is to the applicant. And just in sort of simple terms, why do you want to do this? Why do you want to convert rental to hotel?

For the applicant.

Yeah, I'm not asking about the BMR, but why do you want to change the bulk of the building from rental to hotel?

Sounder in the sense of proximity to what exactly?

Okay, so you have had people or interest in people looking for a sort of longer-term stay while they have family or friends or others that are...

So you have been in contact with VGH?

And there was a hotel, I recall...

Yeah, and there was a hotel, I recall, also that used to... There was also... that used to provide support for families and others that were attending medical procedures. Is that right?

Okay. I have a question for staff now, and it's around, thank you, it's around the TMA, TAM, or whatever the acronym is, TMAC definition. Why did this not qualify? Can you walk us through that?

Do we have, I'm not aware that we have many TMAC designated rooms in the city of Vancouver, do we?

Nothing at scale, and I'm presuming because of the costs of developing in Vancouver, would that be a fair assessment?

Okay, but it's something specialized like a Ronald McDonald house?

Great. I do want to get one more question in, and we've received a lot of letters to council. One of the questions that's stated in a lot of these emails says, and I quote, the developers received under $156 million from BC Housing intended to support rental housing. Would that be referring to financing?

Okay, and then presumably if council will approve this today and then if BC Housing discharged the 219 covenant, would that financing also not be available to the applicant?

I'll direct that comment to the applicant then. Thank you. The applicant, any comment on that?

So the financing that's typically supported rental housing, would that also disappear?

Okay. I think that's an important clarification for the public because the public seems to feel that somehow you've been provided with $156 million of taxpayer funding.

So you would have to repay that in the event that the province subsequently does release the 219 covenant if that gets to that stage?

Okay. I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. I appreciate it. That's it for now, Chair.

Councillor Maloney?

Thanks. This is for the applicant. How many of the hotel rooms are going to be extended stay accommodation compared to normal hotel rooms, please?

All of them?

Okay. Thanks.

Thanks very much.

Yeah, sorry. Thanks. Just wondering what the mix of those 202 rooms are like one bedroom, two bedroom studio.

Okay, thanks for that. And presuming that some of the hotel rooms would be one and two bedrooms as well, would you consider that being conducive to stays for things like medical treatment?

uh counselor fry yeah with just my remaining 30 seconds i hadn't contemplated for the applicant i hadn't contemplated that this was a long-term hotel can you tell me who the operator how this is going to work is this will you self-marketing on airbnb or maybe quick guys

Well, I hadn't contemplated, because it's a long-term hotel, long-term apartment stay hotel, not a hotel.

Thanks. We'll let you go over time on that one. Thank you. Councillor Maloney?

No, I just logged on to in case.

Oh, okay.

He didn't have time.

All right, fine. Okay. Okay, this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445. Before they close the speaker's list, the phone number will be displayed during a recess. We'll now hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the speaker podium on the left. When it is your turn, the podium height can be adjusted using the controls on the right-hand side.

Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Our first registered speaker is Connor O'Keefe. Is Connor present?

Go right ahead.

Okay. Thanks very much. Okay.

Hello. Go ahead.

You bet. Go ahead.

Calling in. Okay. Speaker 3, Mike Biscar.

Speaker 4, Ian Poole.

Go right ahead.

Thanks. Speaker 5, Paul Moland.

Okay. Speaker number seven, Taylor Curran.

Thank you. Speaker 18 is Harj.

Go ahead, Janice.

Thanks very much.

Speaker 30 is Randy Hilton.

Chair, can you caution the speaker on not calling us carpetbaggers? That would be great.

Yeah, that's what I understood. Carry on, Stanley.

Hey, thanks. All right. Speaker 32, Emily Armitage.

And Speaker 33 is a duplicate. Speaker 34, George Morrison.

Okay.

If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?

This is a third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061-445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be displayed during the recess. I'll now take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium. Thanks.

Clerk, do we have any speakers in the chamber on the line?

Okay, so I'm looking for a caller with the digits 9178. Are you there?

Yeah, can you give us your name and whether you're a resident of Vancouver, please?

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you for calling. Okay. So seeing no further speakers, the speaker's list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item?

Okay. All right. Seeing there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?

Does staff have any closing comments?

Thanks very much. Okay.

Does staff, oh, staff already spoke. Does council have any final questions for staff, noting that no additional questions to the applicant are permitted?

Okay. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?

Sorry. Councillor Maloney, go ahead.

Thank you. If this had come to Council as a fresh application under the Broadway plan and relevant TOA legislation, would this in its current iteration comply?

And the height and everything?

All right. And what's the need like here for extended stay accommodation?

So I'm just interested in what the need is for extended stay accommodation here and... whether you keep track of that or not, I guess.

And so because these are apartments, for all intents and purposes, they are... suitable for extended stay but there's nothing compelling the owner to allow a particular length of stay. Is there any other legislation that governs?

Okay, and having extended stay accommodation has some kind of influence over...

the impetus to have other rental accommodation as... I will say that... Airbnbs, for example.

Okay, thanks. That's very helpful.

Thanks very much. Counselor Corbillon.

Yeah, just a quick clarification. So just following up on that question that was asked. So if this project proposal came forward today, it is permissible under the current Broadway plan to build a standalone commercial hotel?

And then a standalone hotel would not have any requirements for BMR for the below market rental units that we see in this project then, correct?

Okay, so following that through, conceivably, is it possible that the applicant could have filed another rezoning application entirely to just build a standalone hotel, or no, because the building is already built?

In theory, they could have, right?

But they're sticking with this and committing to the 56 below market units? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Okay.

A reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absence for the vote pursuant to section 1413 of the procedure bylaw. I'm now going to call a vote. Can you please take us to the voting screen? Sorry. I'm sorry. You're right. Absolutely. Council members, is there any further discussion? Apologies. Okay, move, seconded? Seconded, okay. Okay, now, council, any further discussion? Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that this has transpired over some time, sort of dating back to the original rezoning application that was enacted in 2018, so close to a decade ago now. And a lot has changed, obviously, in the world with respects to development conditions, economics, housing needs in the city, continued need for affordability, and so on. I think that while this one's gone through a couple of twists and turns in looking at it and based on my last question, the applicant conceivably could stand down and bring forward, even though the building is essentially constructed, and bring forward another rezoning application for a standalone hotel, which would not provide the below market units and those affordable rentals. So I think that, you know, coming off a project this morning when we didn't have, you know, support where council would receive a full turnkey building that would deliver affordable housing. We do have here, although it did pass, but it wasn't fully supported, but we do have here the ability to have 20% of below market rentals. And if I understand correctly from some of the questions asked by some of my colleagues, that those could conceivably be some more family units that were originally envisioned. there's been a lot of discussion at council on this project and others around the need for hotel rooms it does exist and it's very similar to rental projects where and housing projects in general where they take years to realize and just because council approves them does not necessarily mean that all of those projects whether they're housing or hotels actually get built because they are subject to sort of changes in financing, construction costs, and so on. So whenever we approve any of these projects, we're still years away from actually seeing them open. I do recall, and others that were maybe on council previously, the more affordable park and suites, I think it was called, above the Fairview Pub, that provided some affordable housing as well used by... Patients that often were in the hospitals and families that were staying with them, either individuals were coming in for medical care and needed to stay close by for post-care or family members or accompanying others that were receiving medical attention. And there was a real dismay around the loss of some of those patients. We have always hoped when we have sort of redevelopments, we just approved a large, very bold vision over the next 30 years for VGH. We've done it previously with St. Paul's, and yet the hospitals themselves are not delivering or allocating part of their footprints towards providing accommodation either for visiting medical personnel or for families sometimes. And so a lot of that does fall into the city, and it's sort of part of the overall vision mix of things that we do need here. I think that in balance, given the current situation, the fact that the BMR is retained, and I think it's been important to clarify for the public that this is step one for a change. It will still need to go to the province after this and have the province released the Section 219 covenant. And at that point, should that happen, then The financing that was advanced would also need to be repaid. So I think it needs to be very clear that the financial parameters have also changed. So the $3.1 million DCL waiver, they're now paying $2.7 million in DCLs, which is the rates that are calculated for the hotel and the commercial use. So it's not like the city has given up $3 million. That's also not correct. So I think it's really important to daylight a number of these facts. put them on the record. These are always important considerations for council to walk through and to make sure that we're doing due diligence, sorry, and asking the right questions. But on balance, having done that and looking at the location and who it would be serving and the retention of the affordability component, I will support this change. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Fry. Yeah, incredibly conflicted on this. I did actually vote against this project when it came to us back in 2020, mostly because at that time it was leapfrogging what was then the Broadway plan, and we wanted to give it the time to, or I wanted to see us complete the Broadway plan before we approved significant height and density at this location. As staff have just indicated, it would... Since that time, it is now more or less compliant with the intention and the height and scale of the Broadway plan. I do note that the inclusion of the below-market housing is probably also still a condition of that low-interest loan from BC Housing. And so I do recognize that there's a good possibility that including this BMR is not purely altruistic, but rather a sort of compliance issue with the low-interest loan that they have a covenant with BC Housing. So... It seems that this project has shifting goalposts. I mean, private child care? Sure. Great. Long-term hotel? You know, I've been on record and, of course, brought to this council a motion a couple of years ago, housing as health care, because I do actually recognize very specifically the need for indigenous folks coming from across our province and the need for that long-term health care stay. I worked a lot with Nishka on this vision, and so I'm hearing Mr. Morrison's commentary. It's incredibly disappointing that this... these shifting goalposts did not, well, I feel like kind of disrespected the original intention as I understand it, and that makes me very uncomfortable. So I'm honestly super conflicted. I recognize that this project is, for all intents and purposes, built, and it has to do something on this site, but I am incredibly disappointed that I feel like it's a very cynical approach to this development, and I... I feel like I might have to hold my nose and vote for this one or abstain, but I'm very disappointed in how this has progressed from that original application.

Thanks, Councillor. I'm going to cede the chair for a moment to Councillor Deputy Mayor Kirby Young.

Go ahead.

Make a few remarks. So I sort of concur with what I've heard from others in the chamber here today, that this is a project that is is not a Doesn't have a really clear path There has been a lot of change over time, but I recollect that this used to be the site of a Denny's and while I Probably missed the Graham's flam breakfast. I used to have there. We didn't have any displacement displacement on this site, and we are actually have a virtually fully built building on that site. I actually attended as deputy mayor essentially a groundbreaking ceremony with the then MLA of the time quite a few years ago, but I'm not completely familiar with the entire history of this site. but I would sort of see that from the voices of opposition and concerns from the public, I've talked quite a bit about the loss of the rental housing, concerns about the hotel use that I personally don't have, and then, of course, the whole questions around the subsidies that were brought in to enable this. But now we've got a project where the affordable housing is going to be fully protected. affordable housing that we otherwise may not have on this site. The Broadway plan expressly contemplates having hotels in this area. I know that we have a lot of questions around what long-term stay hotels are, whether it's long-term or short-term. The fact is that when we have a thriving economy, there are a number of people who come here to work, and I'm thinking because of the proximity to Vancouver General Hospital, They'll probably have medical professionals, researchers, and other leaders that potentially could be staying there, in addition to outpatients who need some short-term accommodation so they're not residing in hospital beds. So I sort of see a bunch of different scenarios, and being around VGH really helps that. Of course, PC housing must independently agree before any conversion occurs, so that work still relies on the approvals from the provinces. And of course the hotel component is going to generate a DCL revenue while preserving the blue market housing that is part of this project so while not a Straight line towards what it was originally intended for this site I feel as though that I am going to going to support this based upon the merits that I've outlined in this and knowing full well that I think the public has right to ask questions and and make sure that we're always making the right decision in terms of using public assets and during our approval process. So with that, I'll leave my comments there, and I'll take the chair back from Sarah Kirby Young. Thanks very much. Okay. All right. Again reminder to any council member or participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to section 1413 the procedure bylaw I'm now going to call the vote clerk. Can you please take us to the voting screen?

Okay. Okay. So absent. Great. Okay. So that passes with Councillor Bligh and Sim and Joe absent and Councillor Fry and Councillor Orr abstaining.

All right. Okay.

I've got a motion, I've got a seconder to all those in favor of adjournment. Any opposed? Carries. This meeting is now adjourned.