Extend session to hear the next speaker (Speaker 39) — Public Hearing, March 5, 2026
← Public Hearing March 5, 2026
Summary
- A motion was raised near the end of the session when time was nearly exhausted, to extend the meeting in order to hear Speaker 39 (Adil Aham, representing owners of 2010 Barclay Street).
- No significant debate was recorded; a councillor moved, another seconded, and the vote was called immediately.
- The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote (all in favour, none opposed).
Vote
Public comments
| Mike Biscar | UNITE HERE Local 40 | oppose |
| Javier Oger | UBC Centre for Migration Studies · Engagement Strategist | oppose |
| Harold Clark | Resident | oppose |
| Maureen Wilson | Resident | oppose |
| Lori Hodgkinson | Resident | oppose |
| Jane Murphy Thomas | Resident | oppose |
| Mike Archibald | Resident | oppose |
| Fabian Frulich | Pooh Corner Daycare · Board Member | oppose |
| Lena Orlova | Resident | oppose |
| Dustin LaPrairie | Resident | support |
| Roger Keyes | Resident | oppose |
| Margareta Dovgal | City of Vancouver Renters Advisory Committee · Public Policy Analyst | support |
| Amber Papo | Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia (TIABC) · CEO | support |
| Andrew Methodius Harlech | Resident | support |
| Alexandra Zicki | Resident | oppose |
| Alan Ferris | Strata at 1934 Barclay · President | oppose |
| Veronica Marticius | Resident | oppose |
| Britt Penn | Resident | oppose |
| Stuart Robinson | Resident | support |
| Terry Smith | West End Business Improvement Association · Executive Director | support |
| Holly Burke | Resident | oppose |
| Adil Aham | Owners of 2010 Barclay Street | oppose |
| Randy Nill | Strata Council of Chilko Park, 1010 Chilko · Representative | oppose |
Statement ▶ Watch
I'm on the phone.
Yes, hi. My name is Mike Biscar. Uh, I am a resident of Vancouver. I've been a resident of downtown Vancouver for 10 years. Um, and, uh, I am speaking in opposition, uh, to this rezoning application. Um, I'm also speaking on behalf of United here Local 40, the union for hotel workers here in British Columbia. Um, our union is opposed to this rezoning application, uh, for a couple of reasons. Uh, firstly, firstly, firstly, we believe it would be yet another giveaway, uh, to, by this council to a major rich developer who is not providing any meaningful community benefit. Uh, you know, working people in the city of Vancouver are facing an affordability crisis. No one can afford to live here. And this application would be giving away major real estate next to Stanley Park without requiring the developer to do anything meaningful to address the affordability crisis that Vancouver residents are facing. And secondly, and I want to be clear about this, there is no hotel room crisis. We don't actually need more hotel. hotel rooms. And that is us, the union for hotel workers saying that it is a fake crisis, we believe, concocted by the hotel industry. Rich developers decided that they could not make as much money building office space or luxury condos in downtown at this particular moment. And so instead, they've pivoted to building more hotels. The Coast Plaza hotel on Denman closed, 150 unionized workers lost their jobs. The Empire Landmark Hotel on Robson closed. 150 unionized workers lost their jobs. The four seasons hotel closed. 400 unionized workers lost their jobs. I don't remember any real outrage from the council or destination BC when real estate developers that owned those hotels decided that they could make more money using those hotel rooms for a different use. And now we're facing the opposite. They're pivoting back to hotels to maximize profits. This is not about addressing some made up hotel room crisis. And lastly, I would like to say that, you know, and I think one of the counselors had stated this on the evening. of the hearing. It's obvious, but there's significant community opposition to this application. And we've already heard from staff that counsel have the ability to consider that opposition and reject this application, regardless of what policies might be in front of council. And so my message to the mayor and to the council is that if you continue to disregard the will of the people and improve applications like this one before you, in the face of opposition, we will be working to elect new representatives in the election in October.
Statement ▶ Watch
Send an email. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Sim, Council. My name is Javier. I'm a Western resident. And I love hotels, and I believe the hotel development policy is great. However, for now, I need to pose this application, because it's clear that this process is calling for more time and greater clarity for an independent and impartial judgment by counsel to be possible. Here are three examples. Number one. On February 19, the application, mentioned among all the cities, Barcelona, as a model for this development. I happen to be from Spain. Is Barcelona the vision for Stanley Park? The local government there is struggling with dire colonial impacts, much tourism, and public anger as a result of this type of development. Taking time for a sound impact assessment, as requested by the Park Board Commissioner, seems logical. Number two, at the Council in Mietil, Last February 3, the community engagement efforts by the applicant were described as going above and beyond. I am the engagement strategist at the UBC Center for Migration Studies and work internationally for over 10 years in this field, and I still consult. My evaluation of those efforts would necessarily have to point out at significant misalignments with basic principles of community engagement. Definitely not above and beyond. I'd respectfully ask for that record to be corrected and clarified. Number three, clarification regarding the historical status of hotel use is needed. The city's building a licensing team stated that hotel use on this site had been recognized as early as 1987, citing a 1980N report to counsel, which they say suggests that the use was lawful prior to changes in the resounding by law. However, documents at the city archives contradict this. this interpretation, and that should be revised. Many documents at the archives make it clear that the building was used for short-term accommodation after 1982. Further documents saw how staff at the Times City staff did flag by low contraventions. What the 1988 report actually says is, and I quote, prior to November 24, 1987, the building at 2030 Berkeley, could not definitely be determined to have contained an unload lawful use, i.e. Hotel. End of quote. So it does not state that hotel use was lawful. On the contrary, if the use had been determined to be a hotel, then it would have been considered unlawful at the time. What the report and other documents suggest at the archives is that the city determined the use not to be a hotel in order to avoid enforcement on the contravention, allowing then an conforming use seemingly to this day. So there's a couple of clarifications needed here. First, if the lawful recognition of the use of this site remains not a hotel, how can this application be revised under the hotel development policy, which is being used to evaluate the expansion of existing hotels? And how can that policy in this case supersede any other policy? So since 1998, the site needed not to be a hotel for the use of the site to remain lawful in terms of For this application to be lawful or conforming, the proposal relies on the site being an existing hotel. Also, the application was submitted to the city way before the hotel development policy was public. All this is very inconsistent and confusing and does need a lot of clarification. Second, given all this great context, is there a risk for the application to be used to bypass the Western Community Plan and other policies? There have been situations in which a small portion of other policies of a development, in this case only 23% of the units are short-term stay, is used to define the proposal as a hotel in order to avoid mandatory requirements for residential buildings. When the project fails as a commercial hotel soon after completion, and with 77% of the building already apartment-like units, a request for conversion is filed, and now 25 floors instead of 10,
Statement ▶ Watch
Hello, my name is Harold Clark. I'm a resident of 2045 Barclay Street right across the street from the 2030 Project. I will be speaking a bit about my past 21 years of living there and becoming familiar with the current community as well as the people who stay in the Rose Ellen. I'm not against hotels, but I am against this project. Thank you. When Vancouver City Councilor Sarah Kirby on a CBC interview and hinted that customers are sometimes a different type of traveler who'd rather base accommodations choices on quiet, leafy-green neighborhood near a beach or wooded area, I would ask, what is the community's context? Context is key here, as our comparisons, many people outside don't see clearly. However, Sarah and people eagerly following the new hotel developments need to recognize that context and scale are key to recognize to reconciling what is fair among a profitable, saleable visitor accommodation, and existing residences livability. What are preserved values towards visitors and local communities living by? What is different and what can be shared, adjusted to maintain livability? However, the specified tower promoters want to bring here, that which they want to bring, abolish the leafy green neighborhood and depreciate the livability of Barclays West Inn. in many people's opinion. Our residents live by the heritage that was handed to us through the community development plan, the West End Community Plan. Today, our middle class condos and rental buildings are populated by new families, also raising children in them. And there are many professionals working from home in these areas. Seniors, some of them disabled. Affordability is a priority here in this diverse, densely populated reason with reasonable housing stability. The proposed Barclay rezoning makes residents deeply concerned about increasing rents, taxes, build reservations, and in area becoming commercialized, rather than solely our residential leafy link into Stanley Park. West of Denman Barclay is Stanley Park. Just have a look at it. Now, the big problem, number one, is getting to Barclay, getting to the 23rd property, because travelers are now directed to take Barclay straight from the downtown core via Thurlow through Stanley Park entrance transacting lagoon. However, any vehicles traveling west on Barclay are unaware that the 2030 property is on the south side, meaning that the hotel-directed vehicles constantly make middle of the street U-turns in order to come up and unload or reload guests and luggage to the curb. In and out of the Rosellon, existing narrow Barclay street towards Denman, which is regarded one of the most congested veins in the city. is a big problem. The proposed 2030 hotel has no curved driveway that passes through and over the property for loading and unloading at the hotel. And this is due to the setback and the break in the standard setback depth from 130 feet to 99 feet. Now, I discovered something very interesting here, and that is 2045 Nelson Street in the Emerald Tower. You will see the 2545 Nelson Street residence, 16 stories, has a 2045 Nelson Street residence, 16 stories, has actually a drive-through, which allows Nelson Street to be free-flowing traffic with no loading from the curbside. I recall the 2030 Barclay-Lay-Rose-Ellen traffic nightmare during the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010 when I worked with Rose-Ellen guests attending downtown CityCorp sports events with a myriad of transit limitation complaints, 27 suites of guests, leaving the 2030 curb by taxis, car pickups, even tour buses at nearly the same times. It was a ferocious challenge then, and I've observed many similar incidents in 2030 since then. Barclay Street is also child air shadowing issue. Right across the street is the Brown Bear Daycare, and if you look at that, people actually come down and park illegally on the right side to take their children into that building at 2035 Barclay. And this creates a back. up of traffic going both north and south. And it also poses a danger for people who have children. Barkley Street is often busy with many people, all kinds of residents, residents with walkers. I challenge the notion that the city council, whom we the people elect to work for us, use the premise of radically removing the mandates set up by the West End plan, community values on which a deep heritage and vitality. of fairness has been built. I want you to understand the consequences of this and ask, when are you going to do about it? A 25-story commercial tower and narrow street line traffic is a proportion impossible to support. Thank you. Thank you very much, Harold.
Statement ▶ Watch
Sorry. Good afternoon, Mayor Ken Sim and counselors. My name is Maureen Wilson. I'm a resident, and a renter in the West End for almost 40 years. I'm here asking you to vote no to the rezoning at 2030 Barclay Street. I'm also speaking on behalf of more than 6,000 residents who signed petitions opposing this project. In municipal politics, that is not a small number. That is a neighborhood speaking. Since August, our community has been gathering every Sunday at Denman and Nelson from one to four. We call it the tables. What started as a simple idea turned into something remarkable. Thousands of conversations with neighbors who care deeply about the future of the West End. Renters, condo owners, seniors, young professionals, families, even hotel managers who warned us that putting a hotel in this location will create a real problem. More than 60% of the people signing were seniors, people who built their lives in this neighborhood. People like Pam, Pam. Pam is 92 years old, and every Sunday after church, she comes to the tables with her walker, wearing a colorful coat and a scarf tied around her chin, and she asks the same question, how many signatures do you have now, dear? Keep up the good work. We've also spoken with residents who helped create the West End Community Plan in 2013. The long-term vision for how this neighborhood should grow while protecting what makes it special. Many of them asked the same question. Where in the West End Community Plan does this proposal fit? Because what is being proposed is a 25-story hotel tower, dropped in the middle of a residential neighborhood, backing onto a short dead-end lane near the entrance to Stanley Park, and close to the already chaotic Denman and Linesgate Bridge corridor. That dead-end lane already serves residents, deliveries, and ongoing trade vehicle traffic. It was never designed to service a hotel. Hotels belong on commercial corridors. We've also heard that the community was engaged, but after seven months of standing on that corner and speaking face to face with thousands of residents, one sentence kept coming up. Wait, there's a hotel plant here? That is not meaningful consultation. That is discovery by accident. That says something. The West End is one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in Vancouver. People care about it deeply. They want growth, but they want growth that respects the community and the plan residents worked hard to create. Council. Once the rezoning like this is approved, it doesn't come back for a second look. Six. thousand plus residents have done their homework. They've shown up. They've spoken. You decide whether they were heard. So tonight, I'm asking you to do three simple things. Listen to the residents. Learn from the West End plan and love this neighborhood enough to protect what makes it special. Please vote no. Thank you. And just one more thing. Viva the West End. We love you.
Statement ▶ Watch
My name is Lori Hodgkinson. I live three doors west of the project. I do not support this application. 2030 Berkeley was built in 1959 as the four-story Roselle and Suites. It has functioned as a small boutique hotel offering extended accommodations for over 65 years. In 1986, Rex, Bo, it is believed the license was changed to include long-term stay. Since purchasing the property, Marconne worked on a few different projects. In 2018, they received approval for a 10-story residential condominium with 19 large-sized units. The building was designed to fit with a slightly higher height and slightly larger footprint in our RM-5B zoning zoning. It was all manageable. Neighbors supported this project because it respected low, mid-rise character, and it preserved the neighborhood. There was no traffic, privacy, or infrastructure issues. But in July 24, 2024, Markon abruptly withdrew the condo proposal and pivoted to this ambitious hotel tower. I do not need to repeat the obvious. It's too big. Just to put this in perspective, if this goes forward, there will be an additional 500 people with transportation in one small block every day. It is clear that the project relies on the new hotel policy, which overrides years of community-negotiated safeguards. I would ask the council to re-examine the hotel policy. It has been designed for short-term wants rather than long-term planning needs. There is no governance. It's vagueness. It's broad-ranging precedence over longstanding community plans, allowing for unjustifiable and unreasonable approvals, is very harmful to, neighborhood and it's forever. For months, I've been sending letters to planning asking for a consideration of the above. Can we have a smaller hotel off? And I've offered these suggestions. Is the rooftop pool really necessary? Could the bar restaurant be moved to the third or fourth floor without decks to minimize disruption and street noise? Could the height be closer to the previous condo proposal? All of these changes made the applicable, or pardon me, the application more palatable, but obviously have fallen on deaf years. I ask the counselors one question. Would you like a hotel and street level bar built 20 feet from your bedroom window that you've lived in as a renter for the past 20 years? I think not. Please ask Marc-on to go back to the drawing board. Thank you very much.
Statement ▶ Watch
Hello, Mayor Sim and counselors. My name is Jane Murphy Thomas. I live one block from the proposed hotel site, and I strongly oppose it. I will be talking about two subjects, the scale of opposition of this proposal and what can only be called the betrayal of public trust in the way the West End Community Plan and Hotel policy are being applied in this situation. I'll also be talking about how I've already been victimized by rezoning in another area of the West End and at that time given commitments about West of Denman. First, to give you more of an introduction to myself, I speak from my career as an expert in community participation, working for 30 years in international aid and community development projects in five Asian countries for United Nations, international donor and local governments, relief agents.
Statement ▶ Watch
Yep. I'm here.
I just, I want to keep it brief because I know there are a lot of speakers. I want to respond to some claims made in the previous city council session by the company behind this project. Firstly, the company's representative mentioned an, quote, acoustic impact of the one restaurant in the surrounding area being very low. And I'd like to note that the hotel and the building to which, that restaurant is joined is significantly lower than the proposed development. Secondly, the company representative claimed that the ancillary traffic generated by the new hotel of that size would not be significantly greater — the vehicles in question would be in numbers and frequency than they are now. And as they currently occur, I just want to draw attention to that claim, which seems at the very least, strange, considering that the proposed development would be five times larger and would include a new restaurant. I also think that the issue of ancillary traffic was framed a little narrowly and should be considered more broadly than in terms of just a few main streets and arteries. After all, a large hotel of this sort would generate more than just traffic from cleaners, suppliers, employees, etc. it would generate a lot of vehicle traffic from hotel patrons as well. We have here an application that conflicts with other official city policies, that faces union opposition, that faces opposition from the Vancouver Park Board, and that putatively represents a, quote, isolated development in terms of city policy. I think it's important to remember that precedents aren't just a matter of official policy. They can represent a sea change in the state. of the city and the culture that cannot be reversed. So I'm sorry, I should mention that I'm a resident of the West End, and I do oppose this application. Thank you very much.
Statement ▶ Watch
Good afternoon, Mayor and members of City Council, City Staff, and fellow West End residents. My name is Fabian Frulich, and it's my honour to speak today as a board member representing Pooh Corner Daycare. Located at 975 Lagoon Drive, just a two-minute walk from the proposed development. Personally, I also live with my family directly across from the planned high-rise, so I know this neighbourhood really well. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Today, I urge, in the strongest terms, to reject the rezoning at 2030 Barclay Street, replacing a low-rise hotel with a new giant 25-storey hotel tower. Pooh Corner Daycare's unique position demands special consideration. We are the closest enterprise to this development, literally steps away on Lagoon Drive. As a long-established, registered childcare serving Vancouver's families since the 1970s, we care for children aged 18 months to five who depend on this serene, Stanley Park gateway for safe play, outdoor time, daily drop-offs and pickups. This high-rise hotel would fundamentally threaten the children and families who rely on our services by permanently changing the safe and calm environment they depend on. Let me be direct, factual and structured. This development proposal fails on policy, on scale, on child safety, and on neighbourhood impact. First, policy versus reality. The hotel development policy sets enabling conditions, not automatic approvals. It demands balancing tourism with local plans, not overriding them. After Marcon's condo-to-hotel switch, policy was expanded April 2025 to suddenly include West End sites like this. Post-application policy tweaks demand transparency. This tower ignores the West End Community Plan's Family Housing Directive. Policy requires judgment. This proposal demands rejection. Second, mismatched scale and a bait-and-switch. In 2018, the city approved a 10-storey residential building here, fitting within the solar envelope to shield our daycare from shadows, matching West End Plan and RM-5B zoning. When Councillor Klassen questioned the height jump at the February 19th hearing, Marcon Executive Vice President Nick Povolella admitted 10 storeys weren't economically viable, they needed 25 to make the numbers work. This profit-driven tripling of height undermines trust in community planning. Third, zoning integrity. RM-5B is intended for low-density residential homes along Barclay Street. Spot rezoning erodes trust and invites city-wide livability erosion. Fourth, and most importantly, child safety and a typical day at Pooh Corner. To understand the impact, picture a typical weekday morning on Lagoon Drive. Between roughly 8 and 9:30 a.m., more than 30 children arrive at Pooh Corner. Parents pull up along the curb for one or two minutes at a time. Car doors open, sleepy toddlers are lifted from car seats, strollers are unfolded. Older siblings hop out with backpacks. Some families arrive on bikes with child seats, others on foot with strollers and scooters. Parents walk kids a few steps along the sidewalk and through our gate. It is already a delicate balancing act. And it works only because the street is relatively calm and most drivers are local residents who understand there's a daycare here.
Statement ▶ Watch
Yes, I'm on the line. Yes, I am. Please go ahead. Hello?
Dear council and Mayor Sim, my name is Lena Orlova, and I've been a resident of the West End for six years. and I live within sight of the proposed development. Many of my neighbours who have also been on the speakers list have lived here for more than 20 years. Like them, I strongly oppose this development. We are asked to evaluate this proposal on its merits, and I'm here to say that there's little merit to this project. The staff notes that hundreds of responses were received from residents, and I want to point out that while negative responses were critically evaluated, the positive responses were, appear to have been largely accepted at face value. And I would like to question some of these assumptions. First, we're told that this project is necessary to address hotel scarcity, but we're given no evidence that this is true. Even if we accept that hotel capacity is tied during peak summer months, Vancouver's tourism is highly seasonal. For much of the year, particularly during our long rainy season, most hotels do not operate at full capacity. Council should ask themselves, is it ethical to approve a 248-unit hotel that may sit with empty rooms for much of the year while we're in the middle of a housing crisis? You may assume that the applicant has carefully considered these realities. However, hotel management and development is a complex and highly specialized industry. Many successful hotels operate as an established franchise for that reason. What evidence do we have that this will be a successful enterprise. A review of Marcon's portfolio, as you can refer to on their website, shows a strong track record in residential construction, but they have not to date completed or operated a single hotel of this scale in downtown Vancouver. In fact, they have only recently received approval to build another high-rise hotel at West Pender Street, which for the record makes dubious their claim that a 25-story building is the only economically viable option, since they're apparently in the economic position to build not one but two high-rise hotels. This lack of experience may help explain the many unanswered questions in the application. For example, how will the surrounding infrastructure handle increased traffic? Will upgrades be made to accommodate higher pedestrian volumes near Stanley Park? Will bike lanes or the seawall be widened? How will the city address increasing e-scooter and e-bike congestion, which is a very popular tourist activity around here? And it is already associated with high accident and emergency room visits. A 248-room hotel will require significant staffing, likely dozens of employees on site daily. Where will the staff park? Where will guests park? How about service vehicles, deliveries, waste removal, and tour buses? The applicant only offers a 70-spot parking garage, which is not enough to service any of these things. Consider a realistic long summer weekend scenario, potentially 200 check-ins and 200 checkouts in a single day. If only a portion of those guests arrived by car, that represents hundreds of additional vehicle movements in an area not designed for that level of traffic. The West End was not built to function like the downtown core, where most large hotels are located precisely beside roads and public infrastructure that support that density. Also consider the environmental impacts, the increased garbage, water usage, utilities, the spillover effects into Stanley Park, increased tourism brings strain, vandalism, and maintenance burdens. Will the applicant pay for these costs as well? Council, beyond the significant community opposition, I urge you to critically examine whether the stated benefits truly outweigh the costs. It is not simply about being for or against development. It is about responsible planning and long-term community impact. Certainly, we can redevelop this site. But what we need is daycares, we need schools, rentals, and community spaces. To the applicant's claim that they didn't submit a proposal for a rental building because it isn't allowed — isn't that what a rezoning application is for. I'm disappointed that the staff report makes no meaningful argument about why they have given hotel development policy precedence over the West End community policy. And only citing vague and dubious reasons for doing so, saying it was at their discretion. I'm sorry, we're at the time.
Statement ▶ Watch
Council, my name is Dustin LaPrairie and I'm calling to share my support for the proposal at 2030 Barclay Street. As someone who lives in a building in downtown Vancouver that combines residences with a hotel, living in a mixed-use building, I've seen how hotels can bring energy and convenience without disrupting the neighbourhood. Visitors walk the streets, stop at local cafes and use public spaces, which makes the area feel safer and more active. It's part of what keeps downtown vibrant and welcoming for everyone. This project will add 248 rooms, including serviced apartments and short-term stays. That kind of capacity is exactly what Vancouver needs to stay competitive with other major cities, attracting conventions, events, and visitors who contribute to the local economy in a way that integrates naturally into the community. I also like that the proposal includes plans for a charming restaurant that will be open to everyone. That kind of amenity doesn't just serve hotel guests. It gives neighbours a place to meet, dine, and enjoy the streetscape. My experience living with a hotel in my building, these kinds of thoughtful features can genuinely enhance everyday life for residents. This project shows that progress and livability don't have to be at odds. I fully support this proposal and hope to see this approved. Thank you.
Statement ▶ Watch
Dear council, and Prime Minister Carney. I know, Prime Minister, you're not at this meeting. Housing is a provincial responsibility given over to the municipalities they create. And housing is what the 2030 Barclay rezoning really boils down to. However, Prime Minister, your widely acclaimed national housing plan, which is so important and so appreciated in this affordability crisis, is already under threat. Thousands of residents, my neighbours, have signed petitions. I want you to know, sir, that there are heroes on the ground here. They are the neighbourhood folks like Marine who volunteer at the petition table outside Denman Mall and started this vigorous pushback. These neighbours belong to a great Vancouver tradition. In the 1960s, a similar grassroots movement arose to vehemently oppose the destruction of the downtown core by a council and its planning department of the time bent on the building of LA-style freeways throughout the downtown. West End neighbourhoods would have been devastated. Sadly, the Black Canadians of Hogan's Alley can attest to this when their neighbourhood, full of families, shops, and social clubs, like mine, was expropriated to build the Georgia Viaduct, scattering them into a long forgotten diaspora. This and more happened all over the United States, which resulted in dislocation, crime, and food deserts. But in Vancouver, it was elbows up. Nearly 60 years later, the justification of a planning department to go ahead with a 25-story monstrosity to house tourists and not residents is out of a Kafka novel. The planning department recognizes this, but justifies it because it needs hotel rooms. That's like saying, to quote chef Gino when his dish was compared to a carbonara, if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike. Absurd. This is a quiet, narrow street, which abuts, as you know by now, Stanley Park. Parking, cabs, foot traffic, garbage trucks, not to mention noise from their proposed outside restaurant. We have little kids on this street, Prime Minister, kids who go to Pooh Corner daycare. This is a family street. We need more of these streets, not less. Absurd. This, of course, is an area that we want our visitors to come to for its local culture and beaches.
Statement ▶ Watch
Oh, Berkeley?
Oh, yeah, please, go ahead. Sorry, I was waiting for the mic to go. Thanks so much, Marisim, and good afternoon, uh, counselors. My name is Margareta Dovegal. I was born at St. Paul's Hospital. My parents were renting on this very block at the end of Berkeley in a tower overlooking the lagoon when I made my way into the world. Today I again live on Barkley Street. have for a number of years now renting a place I can barely afford like most of my neighbors. I'm a second generation Berkeley Street resident. I'm also a public policy analyst and commentator. I sit on the city's renters advisory committee, though I speak here today as an individual and as a neighbor. Some of the buttons you've seen on a few of the lapels, top 2030 Berkeley, they don't speak for me. And I love this proposal. I actually went out of my way to write an op-ed in the daily hive just last month, speaking to how a lack of hotel units is putting pressure on housing supply. I know this to be true for variety of reasons. My current West End building has largely been filled with initially legally, but now I believe, mostly not so legally, short-term rentals. That's a story that we see across the West End. And I've also heard from city staff on this matter at the Renters Advisory Committee. And we know full well that enforcement is not keeping up with the market pressures to bridge this extreme lack of adequate hotel units across the region and particularly in the downtown Peninsula. Overall, I think the opposition, well sincere, is disconnected from the material conditions that my neighbors and many others living in the West End and in the downtown core actually live with. So let me tell you what life for me looks like in the context of hotels or not. I live in a small apartment. Most of us do. So when my family and friends visit from out of town, the best that I can offer them is a small air mattress stuffed between my couch and my coffee table. That's not a complaint. That's just the reality. of renting in Vancouver in my late 20s. My cousin came from Hungary. She crossed an ocean to see me a few months back. And that was the best I could do for her. And friends of mine who live just steps away from this proposed redevelopment just had a baby. Their baby's nursery used to be their former guest room. And when the grandparents fly in to meet their grandchild, they need somewhere to stay. $400 a night is kind of what they're looking at, assuming they can even find a room. So as a result, many of those trips and trips like that just don't happen. So it's not also just about happy occasions. People use hotels when a loved one is in the hospital. St. Paul's is right here, Vancouver General, not too far from where we are today. Having affordable, available hotel rooms in this neighborhood is not a luxury. It is core infrastructure. And it's how families support each other through the hardest moments of their lives. We need to stop thinking about hotels as something only for, you know, latte-sipping tourists on a Bachelorette weekend. They're for grandparents visiting a new baby. Therefore, family members supporting someone through surgery. And they're really for all of us who live in 500 square feet or so and still want to be part of a community that welcomes people in that is livable. Let me now speak to the economics, because I think this matters for how counsel ultimately weighs this decision. Vancouver is short roughly 10,000 hotel units. That shortage means sky-high-nightly rates. Those have consequences economically. They affect whether conventions choose Vancouver, or go somewhere else. They affect whether businesses hold their events here or in Calgary, Seattle, or further afield. So if you fail to build more hotel supply, that's revenue and jobs that we are missing out on that we need here in the tourism sector. I founded an organized conference, the Indigenous Partnership Success Showcase. I ran it for three years, grew up to 1,500 attendees, and I can tell you from direct experience, hotel availability and cost are among the first things organizers look at when deciding where to go. Vancouver is losing bids that is showing. should be winning because we have now resolved this issue. This council has repeatedly said it is pro-business and pro-growth. This is a chance to prove it. A purpose-built hotel on a site that has been a hotel for decades. And here's the piece that should matter most to anyone who cares about renters. Every year we fail to build adequate hotel capacity, we incentivize exactly what the province just cracked down on. The entire apartments converted to illegal short-term rentals off of places like Airbnb, which are easier to enforce. Better enforcement alone isn't going to fix this. We need legitimate hotel rooms. And I also understand that change is uncomfortable. I'm someone who is living next to a soon-to-be construction site, so I feel that. I've lived next to construction before. That's just a reality of being in a city. Change happens. And while the height of the proposed hotel is a little bit bigger than what is there today, it is still a strong contextual fit for the neighborhood. The Weston I was born, and the one I know today after years of living here, is one that is characterized by a diverse and beautiful built environment. I think this proposed hotel would be a lovely addition to its surroundings, and I hope that one day I can not only refer visitors to the hotel, but that I could also enjoy time with friends and neighbors on the patio, and then many others in our community can partake in those upsides, too. Fundamentally, and I need to stress this, discomfort with change is not the basis for good urban policy. Vote yes. Great, and you're at time. Thank you, Margueretta. Speaker number 27,
No transcript available.
No transcript available.
Statement ▶ Watch
Okay. Okay. Council, thank you for the time today. My name is Alex, and I live in the West End. I want to start by clearing something up because I feel like it's starting to get misunderstood. People in the West End are not anti-density. We're not anti-building. We're not anti-housing. What we're opposing is a 25-story luxury hotel. And I think it's important to note that this is not going to be an affordable, family-friendly hotel as another speaker mused about. It's going to be for the rich. It's going to be inaccessible to regular people like my parents who also visit me and need a place. to stay. It's a 25-story hotel on a residential street on a land zoned RM-5B under the West End Community Plan. And that really matters. If this was a 25-story social housing project, many of us would be here supporting it. And if this were 25 stories of secured long-term rental housing that people actually lived in, I am sure it would be welcomed as well, but that's not what this is. It's also worth noting that this site has previously been approved for a 19-unit, 10-story, condominium project by the developers that aligned perfectly with the zoning in the West End plan. That proposal was withdrawn despite already enlisting real estate agents, being on Instagram, and starting to sell units. This hotel is not the only option for this site. It's a choice to replace a conforming residential project with a luxury hotel. The West End plan was adopted by council to guide exactly these kinds of decisions. It clearly identifies area west of Denman as residential. It prioritizes housing and long-term livability. for the people who live here. And it does not identify this area for major commercial hotel use. This proposal only exists through a CD-1 rezoning because it does not align with the existing West End policy framework. The city's own West End rezoning policy says rezoning policies are supposed to adhere to the community plan. And when a project requires this level of rezoning, that tells us something about what's important, whether it fits with council's plan to be adopted or not. residents engaged in good faith in creating this plan. We showed up, we participated, we compromised, and we did that with the understanding that this plan would actually be upheld. When a proposal like this moves forward anyways, it sends a clear message that the plan applies until it does not, and that community input has limits. This project is often justified by pointing to a hotel room shortage. But high prices and high occupancy do not automatically mean this is the right solution or the right location. This is still a choice. There's also environmental considerations. The West End plan asks the city to take seriously. This site fits within the buffer zone of the Stanley Park Heron colony, one of the largest urban heron nesting sites in North America. These birds have lived and tolerated us and lived alongside us for decades, and they are sensitive to overhead disturbance. The scale of this project creates a real risk to a colony that has existed here for generations. These concerns are not coming from residents only. A Park Board Commissioner recently spoke at our last hearing about the potential impact of the development on Stanley Park, including traffic and environmental pressures. The Park Board has now asked the city staff for additional information about this impact before the project moves forward. Part of that concern includes the potential legal exposure the city could face if impacts on Stanley Park and its ecosystem are not properly considered. When the body responsible for protecting Vancouver's parks is raising questions about environmental impact and possible liability, that should give council pause. We also want to briefly address the narrative that has been presented around this project. We've heard a polished story about how this hotel would seamlessly be woven into the neighborhood, but that story has not matched the facts. Residents repeatedly asked for clear information about scale and claims being made. We asked for evidence to support some of the justifications raised, and that evidence was never provided. At the same time, there's been very limited meaningful engagement with the community despite repeated requests. Public communications have suggested a level of outreach that many residents did not experience. This makes it difficult to trust the narrative that we're being asked to accept. I want to also acknowledge that as a resident, I want to feel as part of the vision for this city. I want to feel like the decisions that are being made move all of us forward. And standing here today, this proposal does not feel like the kind of progress any of us are hoping for. But it feels like a city that keeps listening to a few while many are asking to be heard. I want to feel like someone that you are running to represent. I want to feel like someone who already lives here, like the people that already live here, matter in decisions like this. We are here. We are obviously engaged. We are paying attention and we care deeply about the city. We want Vancouver to succeed. We want it to be welcoming, but we also want it to be a city that keeps its word and invests in its residents and listens to the many, not the few. Please reject the rezoning. Thank you.
Statement ▶ Watch
Good afternoon. Mayor Sim, council. My name is Alan Ferris. I'm the president of the strata at 1934 Barclay, where I've lived for 30 years. I'm here to represent my neighbors and voice our strong opposition to the rezoning of 2030 Barclay. I don't speak to you today only as a concerned neighbor. I speak with the professional insight of someone who has worked for two major Vancouver hotels for the past 40 years. It is truly a place to welcome visitors from around the world to our beautiful city. But I also know the back-of-house reality that a glossy architectural rendering will never show you. A hotel is not just a building. It is a 24-hour-a-day business operation. I question the presenter's initial comments that the current property is already a hotel and receives deliveries. Comparing a 27-room property with one almost 10 times the size and saying they would have minimal difference in deliveries is simply absurd. To give you a sense of scale. I consulted with our own receiver at my current hotel. He estimates we receive between 9,000 and 10,000 deliveries per year. We have 20 different food suppliers, liquor, beer, wine, soft drinks, four separate waste companies, laundry, dry cleaning, and endless supplies of guest products delivered daily just to operate. These deliveries don't follow a 9 to 5 schedule, often starting at 6 a.m. and many after hours, and several are seven days a week. While we are a 500-room hotel, even a fraction of that volume would be detrimental to any residential area. The current property at 2030 Barclay does not have any amenities. No restaurant, no retail is noted, no rooftop pool, all of which will require service. There is no front desk. There's no bellman. Arriving guests enter a code to get in. It is truly an Airbnb with housekeeping. Introducing high-traffic operations directly contradicts the city's recent 30-kilometre speed limit reduction for the west of Denman area. Because the proposed hotel is not near SkyTrain, guests will arrive via taxi, Uber, and potential buses. The narrow streets of the West End simply cannot absorb the 24-7 volume of ride-share pickups, food deliveries, as well as the hundreds of staff required to run a hotel of this size. It simply won't happen without compromising the serenity of the residents who live beside and in the surrounding area. The presenter noted the proposed 240-room property is about 60 short-room stays and 180 long-term apartments. While I understand this is the plan, it is certainly not the reality. Quite simply, the business plan of a hotel, and I mean every hotel, is to sell every room, every night, at the best possible rate. It is that simple. You can look at a Sutton Place as an example. They have a hotel block of 397 rooms and a tower of 164 long-term apartments. Over time, the reality has changed. You can book these long-term rooms for a single night. If the hotel is to overbook the short-term rooms, guests are accommodated in the long-term apartments. That's the business. Why is it important? Excuse me. To be successful, a hotel of this size will need to have some group or tour business, and typically, that means buses. 25 rooms is 50 people. That's a full-size coach. When the hotel is full, there will be close to 400 to 500 people arriving and departing in the neighborhood every day, and that doesn't include the staff. Looking at history, many of us remember that Coal Harbour Hotel on Denman just blocks away. It closed because it was not viable in this neighborhood, with 269 rooms. When this hotel fails, it will not be difficult to convert to condos. To be financially successful, a new hotel should be situated in a high-demand downtown area, major transportation and convention, as outlined in the city's own hotel development plan. This application also fails to meet the essential city-wide rezoning standards regarding livability. The west of Denman area is a unique gem. These 20 square blocks, there's virtually no commercial activity, with the exception of one long-standing restaurant on Haro. I want to stress that in our case, it is not the tower we object to. This is the reason. It is the lifeblood of a city. While I don't feel a current tower fits the neighborhood, the objection is to a 24-hour business operation in the middle of a high-density residential neighborhood. In conclusion, people make a great community, building upon its rich history, unbeatable location, diversity of people, the West End embraces its natural built assets to make us so livable, celebrate distinct character and foster a mix of people, places, and contribute to a vibrant, resilient community. If this sounds familiar, it is the vision from the city's own West End plan.
Thank you.
Statement ▶ Watch
Yes, hi. Can you hear me?
Great. Please go ahead. Yes, and that was good pronunciation. Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this matter. I am a Vancouver resident. and I oppose the recommended approval of the revised rezoning application at 2030 Barclay Street. This is the first time I have ever taken a NIMBY position or not-in-my-backyard position. But I cannot, in good conscience, remain silent about such an unreasonable and frankly obscene proposal. I live with my partner and our four-year-old daughter in a semi-underground corner unit at the Châtelaine, at the corner of Chilco and Barclay. The Châtelaine is a 96-year-old brick apartment building with single-paned windows. Our unit is kitty-corner to the application site. We can see it from every window in our home. In fact, I'm looking at it right now. And we often hear the hustle and bustle coming to and from the current hotel, which is a tolerable four floors. Besides the sound of hotel guests rolling their suitcases down the sidewalk. Our densely populated part of the West End neighborhood is relatively calm and quiet. The hotel guests are mostly respectful of our peace and enjoyment, but there have been times
Statement ▶ Watch
Hello. Good afternoon. Council. My name is Britt Penn, and my husband and I live just west of Denman, just a few steps from this site, and I oppose this rezoning. Thank you very much, I should say, for your time this afternoon. And thank you very much to the councillors who were present during our last hearing on the 19th for your line of questioning after the staff and applicant presentations. The questions that you raised showcased similar concerns from the community, what has been shared in over 400, plus opposition comments now submitted online. And based on the answers from both staff and applicant, I think that you surfaced many shortcomings in this application on topics ranging from tower size and current zoning to emergency access and competing policy plans, as well as many other great points. So thank you very much for that. I am not opposed to hotel development at this site. Of course, tourism matters, jobs matter, and a strong local economy matters. The hotel development policy enables you to make informed decisions on the very real consequences of proposed commercial developments that hold that balance of economic development and community impact. And today you have discretion, or perhaps on the 12th you will have discretion. At our last hearing, the planning team offered what can only be termed as a very reluctant recommendation, as they acknowledge that this project deviates from many West End Community Plan guidelines, as it was acknowledged that they are, you know, feeling the pressure to balance competing priorities. That's no easy task for this team. And I believe this emphasizes the need for thorough and intentional processes with objective data from all impacted parties and stakeholders, rather than relying so heavily on some biased developer-led consultancy. As many have spoken to throughout this hearing, there is a resounding... I totally apologize.
Sure. Do we have quorum?
Okay, great. Thank you. Sorry about that.
We're great. Green light?
All good. No, no, no, no. We're good. Thank you for that. As many have spoken to throughout this hearing, there is a resounding 6,000-signature petition that has been submitted to this council. And I believe that this volume of opposition is worth noting and speaks to the lack of community consultation done by Marcon, despite what they deem to be sufficient. My primary concern is that a 25-story commercial tower is just far too large for this site's specific constraints. A six to ten-story boutique hotel would be a much more appropriate fit, effectively meeting tourism demand while significantly reducing the operational and urban and design impacts on the neighbourhood. Scaling down to that size would align the proposal with the sound planning principles established in the West End Community Plan, ensuring we welcome visitors without compromising the residential integrity of the area. The existing transit and traffic infrastructure simply cannot support a 25-story commercial property, as the last speaker was just speaking to, you know, regardless of below-grade access of this plan. Unlike residential land use, the hotel operates on a 24-hour cycle of trip generation, passenger turnover, and operational logistics. Funneling that commercial volume into a single no-exit lane, which must already accommodate city services and resident parking, is just a recipe for neighbourhood overflow. And this just isn't inconvenient for residents. This isn't just a NIMBY, right? It would completely change how the surrounding streets function and introduce major safety conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, and Pooh Corner, as was so thoughtfully mentioned. Approving this project would grant a commercial operation an unfair advantage at the expense of public street function and safety. Any development at the entrance of our beloved Stanley Park, regardless of scale, should not proceed without formal coordination with the Park Board as flagged by Park Commissioner Brennan Bastyovanszky to ensure long-term integrity of adjacent natural systems. The herons have been mentioned here, important to note. As was outlined last hearing, advancing major commercial developments adjacent to the park without proper board deliberation invites litigation and injunctions. And this council does not have the necessary information to make that informed decision on the impact. In closing, you know, cities evolve incrementally. One exception becomes the next benchmark, and long-range planning only works when well-designed community plans meaningfully guide decisions at key moments like this. I've lived west of Denman for about 10 of the last 15 years, and it truly is a magical place where the urban form meets you know, the rare natural beauty and history of our park, and that balance is fragile. So, you know, please use your discretion today or around the 12th, and I ask that you please oppose this rezoning. Thank you very much for your time.
Statement ▶ Watch
Stuart Robinson. I live right here in the West End.
Thank you. I'm calling today because I want to share my support for the new hotel proposal at 2030 Barclay Street. I live in the area. I walk by this block quite often. It's a beautiful part of Vancouver, so close to Stanley Park, the seawall, and bustling Denman. I truly believe that a thoughtfully designed hotel here can enhance the area, bring life, and activity without taking away from what makes it special. I also live in a condo built by Marcon, and I've been very impressed by the quality of their work and the architecture and attention to detail that makes them stand out from other developers. This experience has made me confident that this hotel will be built responsibly and with care for the community and the surroundings. This hotel will also bring more accommodation to the West End and hopefully keep people walking into the lobby of my condo with their two cases, you know, away from our community here. I want to see jobs that support local tourism and create more jobs. I also like that it will include a street-level restaurant and rooftop amenities, spaces that both residents and visitors can enjoy and help make the street feel more vibrant and welcoming. I also appreciate that Marcon has listened to community feedback along the way by lowering the height from 29 to 25 stories in height. As someone who lives nearby and has experienced the quality of Marcon's work, I'm happy to support this proposal and hope the city will approve it. Thanks for the time and consideration.
Statement ▶ Watch
Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Can you hear me? We can hear you great. Please go ahead. Okay, thank you. My name is Terry Smith and I'm the executive director of the West End Business Improvement Association. The West End BIA represents approximately 650 businesses and property owners across 21 blocks of Davie, Denman, and Robson Street. Our role is to champion the collective success of our local business community through branding, marketing, placemaking, advocacy, and strategic partnerships. While the 2030 Barclay site sits just outside of our formal catchment, it is very much part of the broader West End and downtown ecosystem that supports our businesses. And for that reason, we are here online today to express our conditional support for Marcon's rezoning proposal at 2030 Barclay. Downtown Vancouver has experienced a significant loss of hotel inventory in recent years due to conversions to residential use, closures, and repurposing for social housing. At the same time, Vancouver continues to attract tourism, conventions, and major festivals, and adequate hotel capacity is essential to meeting visitor demand and sustaining a vibrant downtown economy. This proposal would add 248 hotel rooms, a net increase of 221 rooms over the former Résidence Inn, rebuilding hotel capacity at a scale that contributes to the visitor economy and generates increased foot traffic for our local businesses. That said, we do want to acknowledge and respect the concerns raised by our residents. We understand the apprehension around neighbourhood density, potential noise from street-level restaurant patio, and rooftop amenities, and increased traffic from rideshare and taxi activity. We are encouraged by several elements of the proposal to address these concerns, the long-term stay model, representing approximately two-thirds of the total rooms, should reduce high guest turnover and daily traffic impacts. The inclusion of an underground drop-off and pickup area, which is a thoughtful design feature intended to mitigate congestion on residential streets. And of course, Marcon's amendment of the project height from 29 to 25 stories in response to community feedback demonstrates a willingness to adapt. Restaurant patios can contribute vibrancy to a neighbourhood. However, given this location west of Denman and outside the main commercial corridors, it is critical that operations respect adjacent residential buildings. We have seen neighbourhood patios operate successfully in similar contexts, including at Tavola, the Sylvia, and Robba da Matti. The key is reasonable operating hours, clear expectations, and enforcement of noise management. Furthermore, we also understand that Marcon intends to pursue designation through the International LGBTQ+ Travel Association, an organization that promotes safe, inclusive, and equitable travel experiences for LGBTQ+ visitors worldwide, an approach that aligns strongly with the values and identity of the West End community. In closing, while we do in principle support this project in recognition of the much-needed hotel rooms it will deliver, and the important economic stimulus it will bring to the neighbourhood, our support is conditional upon Marcon demonstrating an ongoing commitment to being a responsible neighbour, which means proactively managing traffic, ensuring respectful patio operations, and contributing positively to the livability and vibrancy of the West End. Thank you.
Statement ▶ Watch
Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Holly Burke. I've lived in the West End for 16 years, and I'm about 50 yards from Roselawn. I vote no on behalf of myself and our uniquely balanced community. And I'm so happy we've had so many great speakers today. So, the decision that is made on this pivotal issue will have far-reaching consequences for Vancouver's future, for the West End's future. So, will we be wise and protect our long-term assets for future generations to enjoy? Or will we rush to make a buck, jeopardizing the very character of the West End and our crown jewel? Stanley Park. The site has not been properly vetted or proven to be safe. There is not enough footage on the site to insert a 27-story building deeply into seismically vulnerable ground. It overwhelms neighbouring buildings and the community. You cannot simply shoehorn in a 27-story building into seismically risky ground with an insufficient lot size, overriding the residential zoning for the block, and expect us to be happy. You cannot override the established plans, community plans, in favour of a single private
No transcript available.
Statement ▶ Watch
Even the engineering department does not support a relaxation of parking and loading requirements in this location. Perhaps there are shuttle buses, Ubers, and taxis, but there's not even a lay-by drop-off for any cars to stop without blocking the street. The site is two blocks from Denman where there's one number five bus with a bad reputation. It's not near any rapid transit. There's no overnight parking spots available and street parking spots nearby. The traffic report indicates that large truck loading is possible, but there have never been large delivery trucks along Barkby. Street and the dead end Ted North Lane. So this is a major change to the character of the neighborhood. And if you look at the site plan, the drive-down driveway, she's shared with the residential next door, and it's a one-way curving path down into the underground parking. Anyways, I couldn't find what changes in the noise bylaw are, but if a new restaurant and rooftop bar make too much noise is the proper solution to change the bylaw. Maybe the neighbors should be given earplugs instead. The restaurant, Marcon, tested, is a small community-oriented restaurant a couple blocks away behind a landscape buffer, not a street-oriented tourist-tilled restaurant. So I don't think that noise comparison makes any sense at all. Other hotels in the area, as we've heard, on Robinson and Demonst Street, have been torn down or reduced in size because there are far better locations. Our neighbors all agree that the city needs more hotel rooms. We're not anti-development by any stretch, but they should be located appropriately. This proposal violates every existing zoning, community planning, and neighborhood vision that has been created over the years with significant community citizen input. It contradicts the Vancouver model that says that allowing high density around the perimeter of this neighborhood along and near Georgian Broad Street would protect the tower, the the lower density of the interior part of the West End while providing plenty of new residential units. And we've seen lots of high rises go up around the perimeter. This is clearly stated by previous planning department officials. The former director of planning, Larry Beasley, earned the Order of Canada and many, many awards for his work on the Vancouver plan that created this concept, among other world-famous planning ideas. We know the Vancouver plan. has been altered in other neighborhoods, but the planning concepts in the West End have never been really challenged until this project came by. Against every planning vision, this proposal relies on a small loophole in the hotel development policy that allows new hotels to be located where there's an existing hotel.