GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS LUKE REYNOLDS AND I'M THE REZONING PLANNER FOR THIS APPLICATION CONSIDERED UNDER THE BROADWAY PLAN. Council, this application before you is accompanied with a yellow memo that adds a new recommendation to the report. The memo specifies that recommendation C be added, which outlines that subject to the enactment of the CD1 bylaw. Council terminates the previous approval in principle from April 23, 2025, to rezone this property, including consequential amendments to the noise and sign bylaws.

The site, shown in red, is located at the southwest corner of the West 13th Avenue and Willow Street. The site is on R33, and the surrounding area consists of a mix of uses, with Heather Place to the east, Vancouver General Hospital Parkade Energy Center to the north, and R33 and RT residential districts to the southeast. The property consists of a six-law assembly consisting of six duplexes, and the neighborhood is undergoing significant change with the future Oak BGH station located a five-minute walk away, which is scheduled to open in 2027.

The site is located in the Uptown South Area B sub-area. The plan permits 20-story market rental buildings with 20% of the residential floor area secured as below-market rental units and a maximum density of 6.8 FSR with the inclusion of commercial.

The applicant is proposing two 21-story towers with 507 rental units in a private 49-space child care center on the first two levels of the east tower. A density of 7.4 FSR and a height of 66.6 meters are proposed. As referenced in the yellow memo, a previous rezoning application was approved at this site at the April 23, 2025 public hearing. After receiving approval, the applicant reapplied to provide dedicated workforce housing to Vancouver Coastal Health employees. The form of development of the previous application, in terms of height and FSR, is consistent with this application. However, to support the dedicated workforce housing, flexibility was provided to family mix requirements, going from 35% of units to 8%, and affordability of the site would change from 20% of the units at below market rents to all units being provided at Class B DCL waiver rates. If approved, issuance of occupancy permit would be subject to the applicant entering into an agreement with VCH to offer to rent all rental housing units to VCH employees.

During the public consultation period and one-week Q&A, 35 pieces of feedback were received. Support was expressed for added housing for healthcare staff, proximity to essential services, and community benefits indirectly created by supporting healthcare workers. Concerns were related to the proposed height, density and shadows, unit makes and livability, and traffic and parking. Regarding the proposed height, density, and shadowing, as the site has a frontage of approximately 300 feet, which is twice the length of a typical site frontage assumed under the plan, staff support the additional height and density requested for the site. This application also complies with the solar access policy in the plan, as the proposed towers do not create new shadow impacts onto adjacent parks or public school yards. Regarding unit mix and livability, Vancouver Coastal Health has outlined a demand primarily for studios and one-bedroom units, with some demand for two-bedroom units among its workforce. Conditions have been included to ensure each unit has access to private outdoor space. Regarding traffic and parking, the application would be required to meet the requirements of the parking bylaw, and rezoning conditions require improvements to address safety for all road users, including upgraded sidewalks, street lighting, parking signage, and curb ramp-ups along 13th Avenue and Willow Street.

The public benefits of this application consists of 507 rental units at class B DCL rates, as well as half a million in public art contributions and 4.4 million in DCLs for a total contribution of 4.9 million.

In conclusion, this proposal meets the intent of the Broadway plan. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any and all questions. Thank you.

Good evening, actor, mayor, members of council. We do have a presentation as well, so I'm not sure if it's going to be brought up.

Perfect. Thank you.

Just a brief introduction. My name is Nadia Garriger. I'm a director of our development team at PC Urban. PC Urban is a local Vancouver-based developer. I'm accompanied here today by our full team, Brent Sauchin. Hey, Dolly. I'm just going to head over to City Hall, but I thought I'd just call and wish you good night.

A&W?

Oh, my God. Do you have pizza or spaghetti? What do you have? I love their pizzas.

No worries. I'll continue with introductions quickly. We have our CEO, Brent Sauchin here, our COO, Steve Forrest, our Vice President of Development, Kirk Robinson, our Senior Development Manager, Court Brown. We also have our architect team here from Frankel Architects, Laura and Julian, and also our landscape architect, Jose. On behalf of PC Urban and also our partner on this development, Harrison Street, we'd like to thank staff and everyone involved to help make this project possible. We're really excited to be here tonight to discuss the first of its kind workforce housing. I'll briefly go through the history of this site, its location, the amendment, and why it's important.

Just a brief timeline overview from when we originally submitted for rezoning in January 2024, which was then approved by Council in April 2025. Subsequent to getting approved, an opportunity came to recast this to provide housing, prioritizing health care workers. We therefore worked with staff to refocus this development and have worked really closely with Lucan team and with the housing team. We resubmitted our application October 2025. And last month, we already submitted our development permit and paid for it. So it's successful tonight. We plan to start construction early fall and deliver over 500 homes and a childcare facility in mid-2029.

As Luke showed the location already, it's directly across from the VGH campus, the largest and most specialized hospital in BC, serving patients across the province. This site also benefits from the fact that it doesn't have any tenant displacement.

This is an opportunity to convert an already approved development into high-impact workforce housing, the first of its kind in BC. We're not changing the height, density, massing, use, or the overall design. This change is to support workforce housing for healthcare workers, and we're focusing on one bed. The total increase in the bed count of the whole development is 17 in total. We're also making all the homes more affordable by aligning with the maximum west area DCL rental rates, as Luke mentioned, and in perpetuity. All of these units are going to be fully furnished, and they're going to include utilities and Wi-Fi. So the city housing agreement will include the affordability rates and the health care priority requirement. And we have a staff housing agreement with Vancouver Coastal Health prioritizing all their workers for housing and for the daycare. To put the importance of this development into perspective, VCH is the largest employer in the city with over 12,000 employees and thousands of new recruits annually. We understand that over a third of VGH staff commute over two hours daily crossing multiple bridges and hospitals. Furthermore, we estimate that less than 15% of first responders actually live within the city limits. This development aligns with the city initiative for better emergency preparedness. We're prioritizing healthcare workers by providing move-in ready homes, reducing commute times, and enabling faster response times during crisis. It can also boost retention and productivity. This type of development is more critical as we encounter an aging population. The estimate is that the population of those aged over 70 is expected to grow by 47% by 2035. This will impact demand for care and health care workers. VGH Foundation has already put forward a proposal for over 800,000 square feet of additional medical facilities close to this site. And the VGH campus expansion has also been proposed, which could possibly add millions of additional square feet in the future. Next slide, please. We want to help build a resilient city. Vancouver's healthcare system is strained by recruitment and retention challenges, yet we're facing an increase in demand for healthcare services. Healthcare worker wellbeing is critical in providing essential emergency services. Move-in ready homes with a large two-level extended care childcare near VGH will provide immediate usability for employees, including shift workers, new hires, and relocations. BGH is the province's center of health excellence. Prioritizing its employees will contribute to ensuring care can be provided for the sickest and most complex patients in the province. We're privileged to have two senior BGH leaders registered to speak this evening as well. And with that, I'd like to thank you for your time, and we're here to answer any questions.

So we haven't done market testing or demand. We've had a lot of discussions with VCH and perhaps when people from VCH speak, they can possibly add to that. We do know that there is a significant amount of commute time that's required for a lot of the people working at VGH in particular. A lot of people live out of the city limits. We believe there is strong demand for housing close to the hospital. there aren't too many opportunities available today. I believe there was a survey done a few years ago, but it is a VCH survey, and I don't know that I can speak to that.

Correct. So they'll get priority on all the units.

Yeah, so part of the housing agreement that we've determined together with city staff takes that into consideration. So within a certain amount of time, and I think it's 30 days in the agreement now, if nobody wants to take up those units, then we can go out to the market. Again, if we can prioritize health care workers there, that will continue to be the case, even if they're not VCH health care workers.

All the units are, yeah.

Correct, yeah.

In comparison to I guess average rents in that area of the city Thank you for the question as Sarah Robin housing planner Yes, so that's correct a hundred percent of the units will be at the DCL waiver rents for the west side of Vancouver and those average from 2200 approximately for a studio to 3600 for two-bedroom unit and those are based on an on average average rents across the city for newer buildings so those would date back to 2015 to present so it's an average of those rents plus a premium for the rents being on the west side of Vancouver

Yes, exactly, because they are inclusive of furnishings and utilities and Wi-Fi as well. That was factored in in terms of the affordability.

Yeah, thanks very much, Chair. And thank you to staff and the applicant. Maybe I'll just drill down a little bit on the... the model itself which is clearly been talked about a lot but not really implemented I think realized which is the kind of this kind of workforce housing so just in terms of the the people who are able to go is it just VGH people on the BGH payroll would other health care workers say working at you know Fairview Medical or something like I'm trying to trying to think of what the qualifications are So the agreement with VCH is for Vancouver Coastal Health workers, so including VGH. Okay. And these are always the questions you ask when you start thinking about doing this kind of work for housing is, what if somebody decides to leave for another position or has to leave for other reasons? Is there a termination of the housing agreement? So not of the housing agreement. So I believe the question is if somebody were in a unit and then they no longer work for Vancouver Coastal Health, what would happen? We have to abide by the RTA so we can't move tenants out. The priority is if we're renting out any new units that they go to people who are working for BCH. Unfortunately, if they no longer work there, or maybe it's fortunate, whichever way you want to see it, but we can't force people out after that. I realize I'm asking partly because these are some of the questions that probably get asked when you start thinking about this model. I know that when the original application came forward, the council approved that the presence of a 24-7 child care was met with a lot of excitement, again, because it was sort of pushing the envelope and very responsive. to the needs of people who are working shifts at the hospital. Have you been, and I know that we were received extremely well when we were at the LMLGA conference by people at the BC Nurses Union booth who were really excited about this. Have you been able to do any follow-up with some of the unions that represent the workforce, either HU, BCNU for example?

I mean, so we still plan on doing the extended care or 24-hour child care. We haven't followed up with the union specifically on the child care portion of this. Thinking on the housing side of it, I'm just meriting sort of trying to get a sense of their interest and enthusiasm for having this housing available. Yeah, and I think there is a lot of enthusiasm for that, so we have had discussions. okay and do and this might be a question for staff are we familiar of any other workforce housing that has either been proposed or implemented currently in the city of Vancouver in this in this form

Councillor Dan Garrison, housing policy. Certainly we've had discussions with other applicants about workforce housing, so it is something that's on people's minds. I am trying to think, I mean, there is definitely, we have examples of student housing, which is sort of similar and it's related to an institution, but I'm not sure if we have something exactly along these lines. So it is an interesting partnership that the applicant and VCH have proposed. Thanks very much. Assuming that this model is successful, clearly Vancouver is the center of some of the major medical institutions. St. Paul's is coming on stream very quickly. This would be potentially something that we're looking for in that environment or even potentially even see more workforce housing of this kind in our city. yeah absolutely the intent as nadia laid out staff are 100 aligned with that this is a very important um a very important group of folks who need housing close to that employment center so so yes i think also as as nadia said the sort of details and as you were asking counselor the the sort of details of how it all works is is something that we're we're trying out here and we're we're uh we're going as far as we can with getting it nailed down on this proposal that's what we're sort of interested in continuing to explore But certainly the intent and the concept is really is a good idea and I think important. Thank you. One quick question. Are any of these units potentially available for people who need sort of swing space out of care, for example? I got about 10 seconds. Partially. We have a 90-day minimum requirement. So if someone is here for three months and it's patients who are here or families who have to be here for three months or longer, yes. Thanks. That's my time. Thank you very much.

So we've already submitted our development permit and with that and we've put our schedule together so we think we can get started in October of this year.

Thank you for the question. Sarah Robin, housing planner. In this case, we are considering something that's different than the policy, specifically because it is targeting health care workers and the proximity to VGH. So it's a really kind of specific, unique situation, I would say, that we would consider it here. So I don't know in other cases, I guess it would depend what was proposed, but I do think this is something pretty unique and it does address, you know, community need for healthcare workers supporting that sector. So we feel it's important and worth considering in this particular instance.

It is a significant cost. So actually when we made these changes, the cost of adding the additional units, that cost was about $20 million. The addition to provide all the furniture, we're estimating at close to around $5 million as well.

That's still included, yeah. I was just checking if our landscape architect is here, but he spoke about that last time, and nothing's changed.

Julien Léger, project architect. Yeah, the pub remains there. The main changes is the residential lobby that was coming off of Willow Street is now relocated on 13th, which makes the whole side between the daycare entrance and the corner even more open and feel even more public.

Yeah, thanks. I mean, it could come from either. I think coming out of this, one of the things we want to do is look at the sort of agreements and how they play out, like as this project gets built, as we start seeing it tenanted, what are the outcomes in terms of how many of the staff end up being VGH or VCH employees, or tenants end up being VGH or VCH employees? that sort of thing but it absolutely if council had an interest in staff taking forward a policy like this and looking at what it would look like we could absolutely do that probably what we would be looking at is the same kind of things we look at with many of our housing policies what are the the kinds of development incentives etc you could give in order to enable this And on the other side, what would the sort of requirements be? What would the legal agreements be? Are what we've landed on here the right ones that should work going forward, or is there anything else we'd like to see? So those are the things we'd work through.

So the agreement with Vancouver Coastal Health is for Vancouver Coastal Health employees. If some of those units are not taken up by Vancouver Coastal Health employees specifically, then the agreement we also have with the city is that we're targeting health care workers. So not as a first priority, but yes, as a second priority.

Correct.

The studio units, and I'll have the architect correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they range from 300 E5 square feet to, those are the studios. We've... the development permit plan that we've submitted has actually um we have a change in the unit mix we have a lot less studios very few of them and the majority of the units now are one beds and 15 of them are going to be two beds so we only have two studios per floor right now and i believe those are 385 square feet

Yeah. I think the size of the studio unit seems to be a relatively standard size of what we're seeing in Vancouver today, not bigger, not smaller. So I don't see any issue with that. As I said, the majority are going to be one beds because we understand from Vancouver Coastal Health, their view is there is more demand for one bedroom units for people to have a separate bedroom. One focus we have on the buildings is very much a wellness focus. So we have an extensive amenity area on both of the rooftops, a big fitness center on the ground floor on the tower without the daycare. So there is a strong focus for wellness. that it is a place where you're coming from the hospital and you need to get away and have your own privacy. We plan on having meditation rooms, saunas, wellness areas, and so forth.

That's correct.

We do have a lot, yeah. It's 500 units. There are not a lot of options out there in Vancouver with furnished rentals. Vancouver, for some reason, is a market that does not offer a lot of furnished rentals, so the target here is really people who may have graduated and are starting at VGH, for example, and need housing immediately, people who may be relocating here from other provinces or countries or areas within British Columbia, and people who may have moved and want to live closer but don't want to move a whole bunch of furniture around or own their own because it is a significant cost.

Yes, we have, actually, and it's something that we'd be very interested to collaborate with, and Vancouver Coastal Health, and they may speak more to it as well, but they've also spoken to some people there as well. If we can make something work together with them, we'd love to help because there is a real need.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to support this exciting and innovative project. My name is Shelley Fleck. I'm the Chief Clinical Planning Officer for Vancouver General Hospital. I've been with Vancouver Coastal Health for over 20 years, and my work includes leading the capital build of the new surgical suite at VGH, the build of the new Paul Myers Tower on the Lionsgate campus, the zoning application for the VGH campus, which is currently in process with our colleagues at the city, operational responsibilities for the Vancouver Acute Perioperative Program, along with broader operational and strategic responsibilities across Vancouver Acute, which is comprised of GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, the UBC Hospital, and Vancouver General Hospital. Over the course of my career, I have seen firsthand how critical stable housing is to the well-being and retention of healthcare workers, and by extension, to the patients and the communities that we serve. This application will meaningfully strengthen our health care system. At VCH, we are very mindful every day and grateful for our staff as we are very aware that the majority of them are commuting from across the Lower Mainland, and they do have the opportunity to turn off to a number of different hospitals to work. They have chosen to work at Vancouver General Hospital, at GF Strong, at UBC, as well as other hospitals across Vancouver Coastal Health. The time that will be saved by commuting, by not commuting these long distances, will allow for better work-life balance for them and their families. The availability of child care spaces will provide the necessary transition support to them as they are settling into the new city and have one less thing to worry about finding child care for their children. In the event of disasters, having a significant number of staff that are mere blocks away from the hospital will assist in readying our site for the disaster as it hits our doors. The inclusion of turnkey furnished homes, with everything included, will be important for new staff and medical staff. Many of our new hires relocate to Vancouver from other provinces or, as the applicant has indicated, are new graduates. Having move-in ready housing removes significant financial and logistical barriers at a critical transition time for such staff, allowing them to settle quickly, begin serving patients without delay, all the while becoming familiar with our beautiful city and finding out, taking some time where they do want to settle eventually. The possibility of a hostel-like model for existing staff who may not need the apartments that are in this building. But they're working shift and having the ability at the end of a three or four, five day, you know, run of 12 hour shifts to be able to spend a night or two in town as you're getting to your third and fourth shift. You're tired. You're going home after a 12 hour shift only to turn around and come back less than 10 hours later. If that's a model that we can pursue. With this application, that would go a long way as well to support staff that aren't looking for housing, but they are looking for the ability to just rest in between turnaround shifts, and you're not commuting two hours home one way and coming back two hours the next day. Vancouver urgently needs more housing, and healthcare workers face the same pressures as everyone else does, often compounded by demanding schedules and long commutes. Housing for healthcare workers, stands to support staff recruitment and better position the health care system within our city. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our insights into this innovative and exciting project. We believe, working with the partners at PC Urban, we will make this a successful project, and we will demonstrate that supporting housing for health care workers is something that we can all do as we provide an opportunity to continue delivering health care to our constituents. Thank you very much.

Thank you. My name is Sean Parr. I am currently the Associate Vice President for Corporate Services at Vancouver Coastal Health, and I'm pleased to be here, so thank you for the opportunity. I did have some prepared remarks, but I believe they've been spoken to very well by PC Urban and as well as my colleague, Shelley. So I will actually try and address some of the questions that have been raised just in terms of our Vancouver Coastal Health perspective. I've worked at Vancouver Coastal Health for over 23 years now and had a variety of roles. In my current role as a Corporate Services AVP, my job is to make sure that our clinical and medical staff have the right tools, supplies, and facilities to do the work that they need to do, providing culturally safe, appropriate, and high-quality health care to our residents. I have worked in a variety of areas. I have done staffing. I have worked in the North Shore. as well as all across Vancouver Coastal Health. And I will tell you that my experience with PC Urban, I want to provide some assurance as a member of the senior executive team for Vancouver Coastal Health that we are very supportive of this. The proposal as put forth is very much in line with our strategic objectives for housing. Housing is a critical piece of making sure our infrastructure and our teams can do the work they need to do. It will come as no surprise to any of you that healthcare is having a staffing challenge across the system. And as noted, our staff will have to commute long distances, either by affordability or inventory. This is addressing that need for Vancouver. Some of the questions I want to speak to, I was raised around whether there has been some market sounding in terms of people who are willing to do this. I can assure you that our VP of HR has definitely done that work and is supportive of this proposal. So yes to that answer, the answer to that question. Housing in other areas. I do believe this is innovative for Vancouver, but I can tell you that in many of our areas in Sechelt, Powell River, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, we have staff housing options available there. So this is an innovative thing for Vancouver. All of our areas struggle with housing. And we've actually seen in the last couple of years, it's actually hitting Vancouver, which is new to us. But in the last couple of years, certainly since COVID, we've certainly seen that hit us. So it has been a challenge for us. And then the question around transplant and whether there's a willingness to partner, absolutely. We know that we have many, many residents from rural and remote areas of British Columbia who come to Vancouver for their care at Vancouver General Hospital. And so the idea of partnering with PC Urban and transplant and other groups to provide some temporary housing, we know there can be some challenges with that, but we certainly want to partner with that. So it's a very good opportunity for us as well. We are, I believe, the largest employer in Vancouver. As noted, we have about 12,000 employees in Vancouver, and we hire thousands of people every year, from our frontline care workers, nurses, physios, OTs, our physicians, all the way to the infrastructure of support services like housekeepers and dishwashers and people who make everything work behind the scenes. We hear from them that housing is a concern. All of them tell us that. So I would just like to say in closing, the model that we've prepared with Peace Urban is very, very innovative. And as I said, we're very supportive of the housing, the health care, the child care. All this comes together for the triple word score for us. So with that, I would like to just end by saying thank you very much for the time. And we very much support this proposal.

I'm Dennis Agar. I live in Vancouver, and I support this project. You may know me from my day job. I push for better transit as the executive director of Movement Metro Vancouver Transit Riders, but I'm here today as a resident of downtown Vancouver. This is an excellent location to have dense housing. As you've just heard, VGH is slated to grow significantly, and we're going to need a lot more housing for medical professionals in the coming decades. Every nurse or doctor that lives here eliminates untold thousands of kilometers of driving over the course of their career. You can imagine building the exact same housing units in Burnaby or Langley. They're just going to be putting millions more miles on the road. What's more is this project doesn't displace any renters. That's a big deal for me. And that's a rare opportunity in this neighborhood.

Furthermore, the child care facility is the icing on the cake. People are putting many more kilometers on the road, getting their kid to and from child care facilities as far as Richmond. If anything, I'd love for you to call the developer to provide more child care spaces, but maybe that ship has sailed. In any case, I'll also just add that the relatively low number of parking spaces reflect... you know, the tenant mix, the fact that a few people, a lot of the residents are going to be able to just walk across the street to get to work. And it'll mean this project doesn't contribute nearly as much to roadway congestion in the surrounding community. And it'll instead support the vitality and frequency of public transit because as transit grows in ridership, it becomes more viable. It kind of, its growth is fed. So in sum, I support this development and thank you so much for having me on.

Let's see if we have it today.

Okay. There we go. First slide, please. Go ahead. My name is Louis Villegas. I am a Vancouver resident practicing urbanism in Canada and the U.S. for 40 years. Next slide, please. I oppose this proposal, although I don't oppose the concept of housing medical staff. I simply oppose building towers outside the downtown. The Broadway plan is the worst piece of planning I've encountered in my professional career.

Next slide, please. The proof is in the pudding. I don't understand how professionals faced with results like this are advising building even more towers. My analysis returns SkyTrain and towers as the primary cause of the housing crisis. Next, please. When Paris was modernized in the mid-19th century, Charles Baudelaire dubbed the new products the flowers of evil. Next. Building concrete jungle, government looks to maximize profits, but harming the social good makes the Broadway towers the fleur de mel.

Elected officials posturing not to understand urbanism or to be simply following staff direction lack credibility, especially after the Auditor General gave us a peek behind the curtain, revealing there is corruption in the system. Next. Bare drawings like this one conceal information.

By turning neighborhood streets into dark canyons, turning owners into renters, and forcing citizens to live in tiny, puny apartments, the Broadway plan harms the vitality of our community.

I sent a new one.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Karen Conrad, and I live at 888. West 13th Avenue, adjacent to this proposed project. I'm also the Strata President, and I also work in the healthcare field, however, not for VCH. I've heard a lot of different things here this evening that maybe weren't all given in the public access, so my presentation has only what I had access to. and could get information of. So next slide, please. With this proposal, and I too oppose the proposal as presented, I do not oppose housing projects, housing our first responders and our healthcare workers. I opposed to this project as presented. It represents more of a hotel and short-term rental mix of micro units. I've heard the term housing used quite loosely. Nobody can really say, is this going to be some short-term 90-day rentals? Is this going to be rentals for a long term? Is it my stable housing as a VCH worker? What does that look like? That is a problem. I haven't heard any data. I haven't heard any information about that. Next slide, please.

With the proposal that was available, 77% of the units averaged 400 square feet or less. 77%. We've been talking about family-friendly housing. We've been talking about the daycare. I don't know how many people in this room could raise a family in 400 square feet. can see the family sizes are also significantly reduced and don't really offer family dwelling this type of mix and density really speaks to a hotel or short-term living model the city itself as proposed doesn't fall under the purview of At the Broadway plan, city housing policies imply or say that we need much more amenities. I only heard about those amenities this evening. They were not in the proposal. This keeps changing and moving. And that's how do we know if we don't have some of these things concrete. The rents proposed are rents that currently you can find the same square footage or even more. done the research in Fairview and surrounding areas we do have a downtrend in in rental cost so as we move towards micro units and that downtrend will this be viable in a couple of years as a stable family-friendly long-term community-driven project That's my question. I haven't heard answers to that this evening. I think it's an exciting opportunity. I think there's a lot more to be done before something like this is actually approved. Next slide, please.

This slide is from the Vancouver plan that will be presented on March 10th, I think is the first. So this, I assume, is the city team and council vision 2050. In this slide, you see that there are allowances to try and incorporate smooth transitions of large and small, setbacks being landscaped, creating community, this project does not do that mayor you're further away than the actual building will be from where I live so that's the next slide I'd like to give you some context please next slide please So you can see here there's a rendering, that small U-shaped building in the shade there, that's our building. That's where I live and 35 owners live. We're also a rental-friendly strata, so we have many VGH renters. We have UBC med students as renters. And what you see there in the vertical line is where the building will begin. Next slide, please.

Now I want you to picture those towers where that yellow little bit and red line is going up 21 or 22 stories. Next slide, please. And how you would feel if you lived in this building, you had a rooftop deck, your bedroom windows faced the northeast, which is all along the side of the building, and you are now looking into balconies and literally a stone's throw, six meters. the setback that we've seen on proposals next slide please include the back area also has the same impact this is the back alley it's a normal residential back alley next slide please that's our garage driveway this is our garbage area and that hydro pole and to the right will be where the tower arcade starts And you can imagine that kind of traffic. You can imagine the safety issues, not to mention the vibration that's going to happen to our building because you can see where our building is. You can see people's bedroom windows. It's one thing to have a two- or three-story, 15-story, 10-story building. It's another thing to have 21 stories with balconies sitting over on that line. Next slide, please.

That's great, but I'd love to hear a lot more data and research before we go into something like this because nobody talks about the community.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Dana Garcia, and I am the Executive Director of the South Granville Senior Center. We serve older adults in this neighborhood and across Vancouver, many of whom depend heavily on the city's healthcare system. I am here today to express my support for this application. From our perspective, this is more than a housing proposal. It is an investment in the health and well-being of our city. Seniors are among the people who use health care services the most. As we age, timely and reliable care becomes essential to maintaining independence, dignity, and quality of life. That care is only possible when there is a strong, supported health care workplace in place. At the center, we often hear from seniors who are worried about long wait times. staff shortages, and the growing strain on our healthcare system. Creating housing for nurses, technicians, support staff, and other essential healthcare workers directly helps ease those pressures. This proposal understands that healthcare infrastructure is not just about buildings and equipment. It is also about the people who show up every day to care for others. Making sure those workers have secure, affordable housing close to where they work is essential to keeping the system functioning well. Housing essential workers near major employment areas also supports sustainability, reduces traffic, and helps workers feel connected to the communities they serve. I especially appreciate that this building will be furnished, removing one more barrier for people whose focus should be on caring for others. I respectfully urge Council to support this application as part of a broader commitment to straightening our healthcare system for seniors today and for future generations. Thank you for your time and consideration.

opportunity to create housing for essential workers and health care workers, of course. We understand this might be one of the first in Canada, certainly the first in Vancouver, if not the province of British Columbia. It is precedent setting. Lots of steps still to figure out, but we're very excited to be working hand in hand with Vancouver Coastal Health. And I simply wanted to say thank you for your consideration tonight. As mentioned, hopefully we're successful this evening because we're standing by, shovel ready to get in the ground in October. to deliver this in about three and a half years. And a special shout out to our friends in the planning department, in particularly Dan Garrison and his team and Sarah in housing, turning quickly, working with us and working with Vancouver Coastal Health to see how we can bring this forward. And so thank you very much. That's all.

Good evening, Council. My name is Chi Chan. I'm the rezoning planner for this application.

The site outlined in red is located mid-block on the south side of West Broadway near Granville Street. Site address 1470 to 1476 West Broadway. It was previously developed as a three-story Jordans furniture store. The surrounding area consists of predominantly low-rise commercial and office buildings along Broadway and Granville. There is a recently completed 39-story building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Granville Street that sits atop the future primary entrance of the South Granville Skytrain Station. You can see it with a T here on the map.

This proposal is being considered under the Broadway Plan. Redevelopment under Broadway Plan anticipates a mixed-use building of up to 40 stories and 12.25 FSR for development containing rental and below-market rental units and job space above grade. The provision of a secondary station entrance as well as a public open space, or POPS, is also anticipated by the plan for this site.

The application being considered this evening is for a 38-storey mixed-use building. The recommended building height is 387 feet with a density of 16.3 FSR.

An original application was submitted in 2024 for a 34-storey building at 13 FSR. The original application did not meet the plan's policies, so staff worked with the applicant to revise the application into what you are seeing this evening. The revised application proposes 337 rental units with 20% of the residential floor area for below market rents. It's approximately 68 units. The starting rents for the below market rental units is 10% below the CMHC average citywide rent. Commercial and office spaces are proposed on the ground floor and second floors. The proposal also includes floor area reserved for the future secondary station entrance for the South Granville SkyTrain station, as well as a POPs in front of it that can serve as a plaza. Note that TransLink does not have any plans at this time to open the secondary station entrance, so the space can be used in the interim as a commercial unit.

There are relaxations for this application from the plan's maximum FSR and BMR affordability levels, as well as a minimum amount of job space above grade. These relaxations are supported in order to help deliver the secondary station entrance.

During the public engagement period, support was received for new rental units, increased density near rapid transit, and activating the public realm through commercial uses. Concerns were related to the proposed heightened scale of the building, increased strain on existing services, and that the amount of below-market rental housing is insufficient and still unaffordable.

In response, the 38-storey proposal is consistent with the plan's expectations for a tower of up to 40 storeys at this location. The Broadway plan also contains a public benefit strategy, outlining the public amenities and infrastructure sought over the 30 years of life of the plan. Finally, this project will add 337 new rental units, of which approximately 68 will be at below-market rents. These rental units are all new. There are no existing tenants on this site.

The expected DCL contribution is approximately $3.4 million, with a public art contribution of a half a million, generating a total public benefit of about $3.9 million. Other benefits are the 269 rental units and approximately 68 below-market units, a future secondary station entrance, and a public open space. This proposal meets the Broadway plan, the intent of the Broadway plan, and staff support this application subject to conditions. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you very much.

My name is Adrian Rabar. I'm a Vice President at Great Court Properties. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant team. GrayCorp is a division of the Graham Group, one of Canada's largest construction companies. We're celebrating our 100 years of existence this year. At GrayCorp, we focus on delivering rental housing and student housing across Western Canada. This will be our fifth rental tower in the city of Vancouver in the last four years. And we are eager to move into construction with this one as soon as we can. We believe in the fundamentals this city has to offer and are committed to delivering housing for a long time to come. Proud to be moving forward with the construction of our rental portfolio, which are all inclusive of below market components, near net zero energy performance, their livable buildings, And in this particular case, the proposal includes 40% family-sized units for the below-market component, which is well above the required amount.

This is all despite the difficult economic conditions we're facing. It's been a long journey to get here, but I wanted to highlight the excellent work from the staff team, without whom we would not be here tonight. And Josh White, your work will have an impact on residents and families for decades to come. And we're grateful for you pushing this project to be as strong a contribution to the neighborhood as possible. Chair and Council, we're all lucky to have these talented, collaborative, and dynamic individuals working here. Thank you in advance for considering our application, and I'll be here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for the question. In the previous proposal, there wasn't sufficient above-grade job space. Also, the secondary station entrance was something that we were continuing to negotiate, and so through the revised application, we've gotten those items.

Yes, so 20% of the residential floor area will still be devoted to below-market rental units, but the affordability levels of those are 10% below the citywide average. Typically, Broadway Plan requires a 20% below citywide average. Okay, interesting.

I can give you an idea of what the starting rents are. They're in the report at 10%. Studios are going to be 1,400 as of 2020. I think this is as of 2025. 1,400 for a studio up to 3,100 for a three-bedroom unit.

Thank you for the question. TransLink is not indicated time frame. They don't have funding at this point to open the secondary station entrance. That could be considered in their next sort of investment plan, but that has to be weighed by TransLink amongst their regional priorities and funding. So at this time, that space is considered, we consider a public benefit or at least a cost to the project. We're holding that space for a potential future station entrance.

Not at this time.

I just want to clarify that it was my mistake that that presentation wasn't able to be shown. I sent the clerks a MAC file by mistake.

My name is Luis Villegas. I'm a Vancouver resident practicing urbanism in Canada and the U.S. for 40 years. Next slide. I oppose this proposal. Towers belong downtown, not in the neighborhoods. The Broadway plan is the worst piece of planning work I've encountered so far. Next. Staff plans treat all neighborhoods alike in a banal expression of professional practice. These are zoning bubble diagrams, a matrix for maximizing industry profits by multiplying tower sites. Next. Staff have tools that they're not using to avoid gigantism and to rely on timeless human scale urbanism instead.

When the modernization of Paris maximized profits under Napoleon III, Charles Baudelaire exposed their intent by dubbing their product the flowers of evil.

The first mistake, or deliberate calculation depending on what side you're on, is concentrating transit capacity in a too small urban core, thereby triggering land price inflation and a 20-year-plus housing crisis. Next. SkyTrain builds at 11 times more cost than the modern LRT streetcar demonstrated at the 2010 Olympics. Prohibited costs have constrained transit capacity. Consider that over the first 40 years, SkyTrain built at a rate of just 2 kilometers per year, effectively restricting access to land. Then government giving away density and height within the transit footprint put the prices over the moon. Next. SkyTrain and tower plans perpetuate the housing crisis by limiting access to land and then using density and height as a land value multiplier. Canada is the largest democracy in the world by land mass. We are not running out of land anytime soon. Government has run out of ideas and more than a modicum of common decency. Next. A constrained footprint is not the only limit on SkyTrain capacity. The SkyTrain loop is full. Therefore, Broadway trains will have to queue to enter the loop. In engineering terms, this forces Broadway trains to operate six-minute headways or separations rather than 90 seconds on the Expo Line. As train intervals grow longer, passenger capacity is inversely affected. The Broadway trains will carry just one quarter of the Mark V passenger capacity. Of course, we will have paid full price for the tunnel. Next. Modern LRT streetcar costs 11 times less, has six times more passenger capacity, and will go seven times further than the SkyTrain for a combined 445 times transit advantage. That is half the housing crisis solved right there. Next. And next. The string capacity is most clearly exposed at the inter-regional scale. Next. Inter-regional transit service is a win for Vancouver because all the trains will meet at the core. Next. Vancouver loses by building a concrete jungle, taking the shine right out of our city, both figuratively and literally.

We can make as much money building four stories. All we need is to provide access to land with modern transit. Next. Let's go for a walk. Next. And next. Towers in the neighborhoods block our cherished mountain views and cast long shadows all year long. Next. And next. Nobody's coming to Vancouver to see this.

And one more. Building immense towers on the south side of Broadway magnifies the shadow impact on what should be a treed, Paris-style boulevard. Next. Towers also block the Sky Dome. Next. Owners of properties shadowed by new towers should litigate a class action suit against government to recover the lost property value. Next. Nobody chooses to live in the shadow of a tower. Next. Portage will face a binary choice in October. Thank you very much.

Hi there. My name is Andrew Shletto. I live in Vancouver. I have the building 1445 West 10th across the alley, and I'm for this development. I have two comments and a question. My first comment is for the fire hall and library. I was told by city in 2021 that we don't have enough services for the Broadway plan and that they're going to develop that and that's under exploration. And I'm just wondering for councillors, as part of reviewing everything that's happening in this neighbourhood, are we certain that we have enough fire services and that library is completely packed? I think it serves a great purpose for the neighborhood. I hope that they continue to think about the people and everyone that's moving in there that they do have a bigger library. My second question is, my second comment is I really like this design. I think it's efficient. I think the units, the size of the units are great. But I feel I've got a couple of investments. And I feel a little bit sad for my tenants because everybody's being pushed into rental units. And I feel that a lot of these units could be like this type of building. It could be turned into a condo. I think that the condos that we're building right now, they're all luxury condos. And they're not like this type of condo, which is kind of like efficient. And it's great for somebody to start off so that if we think of what's going to happen in 10 years... I think the Broadway plan is a success. It's maybe too successful. And we should think about, you know, we're pushing everybody to be a renter. And what's that going to do for the future of Vancouver's economy? And my question is, how is the construction of this going to take place? I haven't been notified about a crane swing agreement or that if there's going to be a crane swinging over my building. If there's going to be a crane, could somebody contact me and we set up a reciprocal crane swing agreement? Those are my three things.

Sorry, I haven't been blessed with the height of Mr. Shilleto, but no further comments. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for the question. A green swing agreement would be negotiated at the DP stage and the details would finalize at the BP stage.

That's a fair characterization, yeah.

So actually, under

Thank you very much. GOOD EVENING, ACTING MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MY NAME IS LEX DOMINIAC, I'M THE REZONING PLANNER FOR THIS APPLICATION. TO AMEND CD1 NUMBER 915, WHICH IMPACTS THE SITE AT 450 TO 496 PRIOR STREET, 550 MALCON AVENUE AND 1002 STATION STREET. Staff note that this application is accompanied by a yellow memo which must be advanced concurrently with the report. The memo outlines a minor reduction to the minimum plaza size required in the CD1 bylaw and associated conditions and updates the timing of the shared access agreement for the underground parkade. Next slide please. The site, highlighted in red, is located on the south side of Prior Street, west of Malkin Avenue and directly north of Trillium Park and the future St. Paul's Hospital campus. The large, approximately 104,000 square foot site is currently vacant. However, during the original 2002 rezoning of this address, it contained a warehouse with both food storage and artist spaces and the White Monkey Design Studio. Next slide, please. The site falls within the False Creek Flats area plan, which prioritizes...

Shall I continue where I am?

The site falls within the False Creek Flats area plan, which prioritizes employment-generating space but enables some rental residential housing, conditional on the delivery of commercial, industrial, or non-profit space. Next slide, please. In 2022, Council approved the rezoning of the subject site. The resulting CD1-915 was enacted in January of this year and permits two 19-storey mixed-use buildings consisting of market rental housing in both towers, a five-storey office podium, and ground floor commercial space to a maximum height of 210 feet and a density of 4.68 FSR. The approval also featured the construction and delivery of a 6,500-square-foot purpose-built cultural facility to be transferred to the city and a central plaza that extends through the middle of the site. Next slide, please. Since the original rezoning, the applicant is now proposing to subdivide the site to allow the approved development to proceed in two phases. Phase 1 would deliver all the residential units and the cultural amenity space in a 20-storey building, while Phase 2 would deliver the office uses in a 17-storey building. No significant changes to the approved uses, form of development, or height are proposed. However, to enable subdivision, amendments to the CD1 bylaw are required to establish minimum floor areas for each subarea or phase. The amendments before you today therefore assigns a maximum floor area of just over 22,000 square meters to each sub area. When viewed as a single site, the overall FSR remains unchanged from the original approved rezoning. Next slide, please. To summarize, the proposal would amend the CD1 by-law, creating two sub-areas and assigning maximum floor areas to each to enable subdivision and phased development. It also sets minimum publicly accessible plaza areas for each sub-area consistent with the intent of the original rezoning and adds urban farm as a permitted use to meet the original food asset requirement and correct an omission in the original rezoning report. It also makes minor updates to the bylaw in order to modernize language related to height and daylight access. Next slide, please. During the entire review process, we received six pieces of public correspondence, which included a small amount of participants who felt that the proposal generally is compatible with the area. Key concerns included building height and stresses on community services, including schools and community centers, and those that questioned how the project benefits the local community.

In response, staff note that the proposed building form, tenure, and overall density remain consistent with what council approved in the 2022 rezoning. However, the number of rental units would increase from 262 to 321. Furthermore, the proposal aligns with the Falls Creek Flats plan in terms of height and rental affordability while delivering a public benefit through the inclusion of a cultural facility in an area with available school capacity. Next slide, please. Public benefits for this site were secured as part of the original 2022 rezoning application and would be mostly unchanged by the text amendment. Minor adjustments are expected due to changes in rates since 2022. At the time this amendment report was finalized, the expected CAC, DCLs, and public art contribution were approximately $22.8 million and would deliver approximately 321 market rental units. Next slide, please. In conclusion, the proposal remains consistent with the Falls Creek Flats area plan, and staff support the application subject to conditions. Staff and the applicant team are here to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Acting Mayor and Council, my name is Cameron Thorne with Strand. Thanks for the presentation, Lex. And yes, I'm here tonight to request your approval of the staff recommendation to allow this site to be subdivided into two legal parcels. Just for some context. This project was originally designed back in 2021, and the market has changed dramatically. And as such, it's necessary to undertake this project in an incremental phased approach, focusing now on rental and ground floor retail spaces, and then delivering later when the market improves the office space by the hospital. so towards that end we've been working collaboratively with rezoning and dbl staff and i do want to thank templar and his team and corey and her staff for helping move this project forward despite the challenging office market um as as lex noted you enacted the rezoning for this council you enacted the rezoning for this on january 20th of this year and and i'm happy to see the development permit and the building permit this first phase uh is are now issuable and so subject to the subdivision approval that we're seeking tonight uh we intend to break ground and start building this project next month so i think that's a big win for everybody these approvals and the creation of two legal lots will enable us to deliver 321 homes and retail space directly across from the hospital The first phase will also deliver other public benefits, including civil upgrades, a $5 million community amenity contribution, and a large public plaza that will connect Strathcona and the Prior Street area with the health campus and Trillium Park. So thanks very much, and thanks for your support for this project.

Right. Thank you for the question. So the original CD1 bylaw that was approved for this site, the original rezoning, just took the entire site area and set a maximum density of 4.68. To allow subdivision, we need to break that up into two parcels. That way of writing the maximum density doesn't work when you just have an overall density number. So to accommodate the subdivision... we needed to rewrite the floor area maximum in the CD1 by-law. So now we've just done a maximum floor area for each of the sub-areas. The overall density would be unchanged, but it was mostly just to allow specific maximum density for each sub-area.

Well, we can't predict the timing of the second phase of the development. However, we are making no changes to the use of phase B to the second parcel, and that would still be required to be office and commercial. So there would be no residential in there, but we can't predict the timing of that.

Well, the big picture is to utilize that second phase to provide office and including retail at the ground level. That was always the plan. I think that makes imminent sense. The market, as I think most people on council know, the office market has really languished for a period of time. I do think looking forward in the big picture, and, you know, just for context, when we brought this application forward to council in 2022, we'd done a lot of analysis looking at what we would expect the demand for office to be, given it's close to a new hospital. So I think... You know, we spent a fair bit of time looking at the analysis, and when you think about the size of that hospital and the doctors that are going to want to work in that area, it's going to make sense for there to be office there. So we're, you know, we don't want to sit on the second phase, just to be clear. We want to get on with that as soon as we absolutely can, but we also needed to be able to get financing and make this first phase go. again, the hospital is opening up in about a year or so. The 321 homes are going to provide very, very proximate housing for the hospital. And we've actually in the past spoken with St. Paul's about the synergies that are created by what the health campus brings and what our housing brings. So we didn't want to wait for there to be a return of the office market before we got underway with delivering the housing. And again, The public plaza, which I think is going to be a big, big asset for the people in that neighborhood, connecting both sides of Strathcona and Trillium. And also the, you know, the 15 plus thousand square feet of retail space at the ground level is going to be, I think, also a great service for emergency room staff or other medical people that are working in that area. It's going to be very convenient. So we wanted to get on with that first phase as quickly as we could. but we're still very eager to be able to move forward with phase two as soon as we can as well.

No. Gosh, no.

So there is, on the podium levels, opportunities for urban farming, and it was something that we always had contemplated, and as the planner noted, I think it was just an administrative error that it wasn't provided for in the original wording of the zoning, but we think it's a great amenity for the residents that are there that they can do some... We can grow some vegetables in there, so that's really what it is. It's just an outdoor area. Okay, so it wouldn't be like a commercial, like urban farm, like soul food is more for the residents?

My name is Louis Villegas. I'm a Vancouver resident practicing urbanism in Canada and the U.S. for 40 years.

I oppose this proposal and oppose building towers, well, high density outside the downtown generally. This is a plan that is as bad as the Broadway plan. Next. Drawings in the staff report hide important information.

For example, color is missing in the area shown by the large yellow arrow, misleading readers into believing there is open space there, when in fact there is a building in that location.

This isometric is a poor substitute for an accurate digital model. The yellow arrow points where the sun will shine in for less than one hour per day all year long. This is not good urbanism. It is profiteering from land with no consideration for the overall neighborhood quality.

More deception playing out in shades of gray.

Here is a massing study using 800 square foot footprints calculated at four stories in height. The yield for the site is 95 units. However, the irregular shape of the parcel nets only 88 units. An impressive density of 37 units per acre is still achieved, or 0.7 FSR. The fact that human-scale urbanism achieves seven times less floor area on the same site is an indication of just how inappropriate the massing and bulk are in the proposal. A boulevard is shown on the left and an attached triangular boulevard on the right. Boulevards in good urbanism serve many purposes, adding privacy by screening views of residences opposite, providing the luxury of shade in homes and outdoor spaces, limiting pollution through carbon capture, and adding the vibrancy of changing colors in the fall and spring. Every root, every leaf, every wood cell is made from carbon scrubbed from the atmosphere. Trees in the neighborhood are many times more effective at cleaning the air than trees, say, far away in the mountains. Our city has fallen behind regenerating the urban forest. Next. Regulatory capture makes government plan the concrete jungle to profit its supporters.

Crowding harms social functioning at the scale of the traditional home, the street and the neighborhood. Next. Industry has reduced the size of the tiny puny apartments even further. Rather than regulate industry, government keeps ginning it up. Next. The result is obvious. Rather than add supply, towers lift land valuations, so does high density, acting as a primary cause of the housing crisis. Land lift is greatest on land zone for residential neighborhoods and for industrial uses.

This year, housing costs are predicted to be four times over affordability. That is 400%, not 20%. When housing costs quadruple, money circulating in the local economy is cut by one quarter to one quarter. Small businesses are the backbone of employment in Canada. That's when shops close, jobs go begging. Next. The right urbanism for Vancouver is easily described. Towers belong downtown. Human-scale buildings below everywhere else, including on False Street flats.

Government created the housing crisis. It will end it by limiting construction to four-story wood frame, our vernacular tradition. Four-story wood frame will energize the forestry sector, one of the principal engines in our economy. Prices are so far out of whack, the government must also deliver gap doors on ground land. Houses guaranteed affordable in perpetuity and sufficient quantity to meet or exceed demand. Voters will face a binary choice this October. Thank you.

Good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Carmen Young. I am a senior planner with the Rezoning Center. And we'll be giving the presentation for the proposed development at 2028 to 2039 Barkley Street tonight.

The area outlined in red is located at 2028 to 2038 Barkley Street between Chilko Street and Stanley Park within the West End neighborhood. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and consists of a mix of purpose-built low-rise rental and strata buildings ranging from three to 26 stories. The application proposes to rezone the mid-block site from RM5B to CD1 to enable a 25-story hotel tower with restaurant use. The site is currently occupied by a four-story boutique hotel with 27 units. There are currently no residential use or existing tenant on site.

Under the hotel development policy, rezoning applications may be considered citywide on site where an existing hotel is located. The policy stipulates that form of development of hotel expansion should consider livability of adjacent residential buildings, public realm shadowing, and other urban design considerations as per the applicable area plan and guidelines.

This slide shows that the site is located in the west of Denton sub-area of the West End Community Plan, which was approved by City Council in 2013. In this neighborhood, the policy encourages infill and redevelopment that maintain the RM zoning regulations and provide sufficient tower separations.

This slide shows that the site is located in area A of West End rezoning policy, where rezoning application will be considered for increases in density in cases where 100% of the residential use is for social housing. The proposed land use density, height, minimum site frontage, tower floor plate, tower setbacks, tower separation, and solar access proposed do not align with the West End rezoning policy. More detail and explanation is provided in the form of development section of the report. Excuse me.

The rezoning proposal is for a 25-story hotel building with a height of 83 meters or 272 feet and a density of 11.84 FSR. The proposed hotel will include approximately 248 hotel units, restaurant use at grade and on the rooftop patio. Four levels of underground parking to be accessed from the laneway is proposed.

In terms of compliance with policy, the proposal does not comply with the minimum site frontage requirements to achieve the minimum tile separation if the neighboring site is redeveloped as a 100% social housing tower under the West End rezoning policy. On this slide, the analysis table identifies additional urban design concerns associated with the proposal.

During the public consultation, a total of 189 questions, 882 comments forms, 499 emails or phone correspondence were received. Petitions with 5,000 signatures were also submitted to the city. Comments of support were for increased hotel supply, as Vancouver has a hotel shortage. Economic benefits, as residents believe that the proposal will boost the local economy and the job market. Location of the site, as it is in close proximity to Stanley Park, a major regional amenity, as well as English Bay and other downtown attractions.

Comments of concerns include, but not limited to, Loss of neighborhood character as proposed use and building height are inappropriate for the area. Traffic and parking, as well as safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists due to potential increase in traffic.

There are also concerns about existing shared vehicle access to 2010 Barkley may be impacted during construction. Negative impact to livability with potential noise pollution from hotel operations as well as loss of privacy and shadow. Negative impact to developability of neighboring sites. In response to public concerns, staff know that design solution has been incorporated to the building design to better respect the residential character of the area and related urban design conditions have been included in Appendix B.

Applicant will also be required to submit a traffic demand management plan at time of development permit. Further, conditions of rezoning includes requirement to meet the parking and loading requirements in the city parking bylaw, as well as to secure an agreement with 2010 Berkeley regarding the shared access driveway.

With regards to livability concerns, potential noise impact from the proposed residential use and hotel use will be managed through the city's noise control bylaw. The project must also comply with child separation standards to provide adequate separation and minimize privacy concerns.

Public benefits for the site include cash CAC payment, DCLs, and public art contribution with a total amount of approximately $6.3 million.

In conclusion, staff support the proposal to rezone 2028 to 2038 Barkley Street, subject to conditions in Appendix B of the report. Staff and applicant teams are available for questions. Thank you.

Good evening. Can you hear me? Yeah. I believe I have a presentation here. Okay. Good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Nicholas Pallella. I'm the Executive Vice President of MarCon. Marcon is a family-owned and operated business in the Lower Mainland. My dad started it 40 years ago. And we've been an owner of this property here at 2030 Barclay now for a number of years. I should note briefly about the history of this property. It's been operating as a hotel since just before Expo 86. In this community, we've owned it now for over seven years. And as stewards of this property over this period of time, we've understood the richness and context that a site like this represents in the community. And it was through our understanding of the great need for hotel rooms. from seeing the success and the space that the current hotel fills within the community, that we believed a new proposal was warranted. And today I'll talk to you a little bit about that.

So firstly, I think it's important to talk about context. And one of the things with context here is this proposal in the context of the downtown peninsula and in the West End. This is a privileged location west of Denman and very near Stanley Park. What I would say is that in the hotel development policy enacted earlier this year, this was a critical element towards creating distribution of hotel supply across the region. It is well documented and understood that hotel has great benefits to the city and region abroad, and we recognize that there is a significant shortage of supply, although a lot of what's been created and will be created in the future will be created in the immediate downtown district or along the Broadway corridor. And this policy allows for distribution to happen in communities and in neighborhoods, including this one, that allow for the vitality and economic activity of a hotel to permeate through other areas of the city. In doing so, a proposal like this also does respect the form and character of the community in our view. We do feel that this building, as cited, is compatible with the surrounding buildings. In fact, it isn't introducing a form, whether that be height or plate size or tower separation, that is inconsistent... with the West End inconsistent with this area west of Denman. It is not inconsistent with the historical pattern of development, nor is it consistent with the recent pattern of development. We do feel that it fits, and most importantly, we can create this new hotel supply in an area we feel is very appropriate for it and do that without displacing any tenants or residents, which is a very rare, rare thing. Next slide, please.

I will highlight here that proximity is something very important to consider. Globally, Stanley Park English Bay are some of the most recognized amenities in the country. And for a city like Vancouver, we obviously cherish this very much. We celebrate this for the community and for outsiders to visit. And one thing that is so special about this place is also recognizing its connective tissue to the rest of the city. And in the case of this property and in the case of this park, there actually isn't a lot of opportunity for a hotel to have this adjacency to an amenity like this. And if you look to other major cities in the world, and I'm talking New York, London, Sydney, even cities like Seattle, Chicago, Barcelona, These are cities that have world-class parks and natural features, that have residential character and residential communities adjacent to these features, that also have creatively integrated hotel over many years into these spaces. These amenities and these communities work in symbiosis. and that they develop over time. And I think it's a very important thing to note that this is something that only is an existing feature, but it's a very important feature that the city can benefit from by expanding on this type of proximity. And it can also help from a connectivity standpoint. A lot of us, when we have the great benefit of traveling, we often look to find ourselves not just within the central business district or in shopping corridors. We look to find ourselves immersed in the cultural fabric of the cities that we visit. And a property like this and a location like this allows that integration in a way that we think is special and can add a tremendous value in the long run to the city. Next slide.

Our proposal focuses on compatibility. We're working with the same architecture firm that designed the Presidio building on our block, on the same block as us to the west. We understand the street pattern and the rhythm. we were careful in the consideration of the podium. And as I will also talk about, we were also conscious about the integration of this hotel use and things like the fruit and beverage component into this environment. Next slide.

Over the course of many months working through the rezoning application process, we've had significant public engagement. And what you can see here is just a short summary. We've met with... individuals. We've met with community groups both against and for the project. We've met with stakeholders that support the business community and many others. We've sent out over 2,800 letters and we've had over 40 different touch points with groups in the community. What I would say through all of this is that we have heard passionate and respectful commentary about the context of a building like this. in the West End. And we thought about that carefully as we continue to shape the proposal towards the moment we're in. One thing that you may likely hear is that through this process, we did not have a formal in-person public information meeting. And that was something we had to think about very carefully through the course of this application. Unfortunately, we were receiving credible and disturbing threats to the safety of staff. our team and our family members that we had to think very carefully about in terms of how we continue to engage respectfully through this process. And so our choice consciously was to engage actively, openly, and as freely as possible and try to create venues that were safe to do that. And while that wasn't easy, we feel like we did our best. And as you'll see here... The feedback that we heard, we took seriously. And we feel that that has influenced now where we stand today. If you could skip to the next slide, please. One of the major items that had come up in discussion in the engagement was the condition around transportation and logistics for a property like this. I should make clear here that the current property is operating as a hotel. We have linen service. We have garbage. We have vehicles, patterns, and movement that would be at the same frequency we would anticipate for this building. Even though it was larger, you have the same vehicles. They just take more with them at the same frequency. in this case with this new with this with this property versus the new proposal versus the existing the existing property manages all of their logistics in the lane with no dedicated loading facilities they do that now and currently our proposal here now accommodates all those movements on site much more safely and logistically much much better than than the current building. From a parking perspective, we are handling our parking and pickup drop-off below grade, which is not atypical for urban hotels. And it's been mentioned that there's a shared access easement between the two properties, ours and the property to the east. And what we can share here is that that easement, while there may have been some confusion earlier in the process, is an easement that will be maintained and preserved not only through the course of the long-term development, but actually through construction as well. There'll be no disruption to that condition for the residents of the adjacent areas. Building. Next slide. One of the other things we wanted to talk about was the integration of the food and beverage component of this project, which we think is critical. This project has a mix of conventional hotel rooms as well as extended stay hotel rooms. Extended stay hotel rooms do trend towards older and more family-focused demographics. We also do think that it will serve, as the existing building serves, people in the community who are looking for an outlet to support visitors. And so while necessary as part of this hotel, we do believe that it is serving, it is not a service that is intended to support the uses beyond what's needed in the building. It's only 2,400 square feet. And as a matter of sound attenuation, the concerns about the potential disruption of a restaurant at grade... we actually were able to study a restaurant that's only one block away, just east of this property that's integrated into the community and very successful neighborhood restaurant. We measured the acoustics on the patio of the existing restaurant versus the surrounding neighborhood, and the acoustics of people actually using that active patio in the community is actually lower than the ambient noise in and around the area. So it doesn't add. And our acoustic engineer has looked at this condition exactly as designed and feel strongly that this will have the same type of condition. And in fact, not only would we meet any bylaw requirements, but that we believe that the sound attenuation with this use, as well as the rest of the uses in the building, would be lower than the requirements of the residential buildings around us.

Excuse me to the next slide, please. Finally, we recognize that this scale of this building is a departure from the current building of four stories. Although we do feel that this height and plate size of building is consistent with buildings in the West End and within the immediate adjacency. That being said, respecting the feedback from the community and many stakeholders that we spoke with, we have been able to modify our design from 29 stories down to 25 stories, reducing over 40 rooms. We've also adjusted the massing, both at the podium and on the tower. And we think this is a significant improvement to the urban design attributes project. That concludes the presentation. We are appreciative of the time to present this, and we are prepared as a business and as a family owning this building in the past and hopefully into the future that we're prepared to be accountable for the quality of the design and the proposal that we have in front of us. Thank you.

One of the main principles of the hotel development policy was A, to increase the aggregate number of hotel spaces in the city. B, strengthen and diversify the types of locations and types of offering. knowing that we have a fairly homogenous hotel offering, highly geographically concentrated within certain parts of the downtown to the exclusion of most of the city. And in service of both those goals, a principle of certainly trying not to lose hotels where they do exist. And so one of the policies did contemplate, notwithstanding any other locational criterion that we established, if there was an existing hotel opportunity on sites like this, that there would be opportunity to redevelop those spaces. And this is one of the parcels that was understood and known that would fit that criterion. We didn't apply any specific area lens or geographic lens to that specific policy. And that was one of the reasons why we considered this rezoning application under the hotel policy the way we did and arrived ultimately at the recommendation in front of you.

Okay. Yeah, so it is a unique situation within the West End, given that there's an existing hotel that, under the hotel development policy, opens up opportunity for rezoning, that no other site in the neighborhood areas of the West End would... would enable. So we've certainly heard concerns about proliferation or things like that. We feel comfortable that this is sufficiently isolated or unique. The policy application is unique to this particular site within this community plan.

That's right. Allowing for renewal. Certainly in service of not losing hotel space, there comes a time in any building or hotel's life cycle that redevelopment is... desirable, necessary in some cases. So redevelopment and expansion is considered under that policy.

Yeah, I think we very much look on a case-by-case basis, and certainly a lot of the challenge around this particular application working through it was the site conditions, but ultimately we arrived at a building form that was supportable.

I'd have to defer to some of my staff who knows the West End a little bit better than myself.

Under the current zoning and according to the existing policy in the West End community plan, this site cannot be redeveloped into a rental tower this height. However, they are allowed to redevelop into 100% social housing in excess of what is currently allowed in the RM5B zone.

The current zoning is RM5B. One of the uses that is allowed is a hotel that exists before 1989, which this existing hotel is. It was built in 1965. So they can legally remain on site, but they cannot be demolished and redeveloped into something else. But they could exist on site. So if they want to redevelop, demolish the existing building, they want to redevelop into a rental tower or residential tower, they could do so under the current RM5B zone. Following all the regulations.

Thank you for the question. I'm development planner on this side. I just want to mention the hotel rezoning policy allows for existing hotels to seek a rezoning opportunity if the proposed site confirms with the area plans that I want to explain here. The subject site may qualify in principle, but we have identified several urban design concerns. One of them is insufficient site frontage, as you mentioned. The policy anticipates a minimum of 130 feet site frontage to support appropriate tower form in this area and spacing. This subject site is 99 feet mid-block, which is substantially narrower than the policy allows. This limits the ability to achieve appropriate massing. tower proportion and contextual transitions. This is one of the concerns consistent with West End plan. Tower separation frameworks continue to seek 80 feet separation between residential to hotel in West End. However, in other areas of downtown, Vancouver and Broadway plan areas... it's permitted 60 feet separation between hotel to residential, but in West End it is 80 feet. So based on the site constraints and the lot frontage, this 80 feet cannot be split equally between these two lots, between 2030 Barclay and the adjacent one. So with the proposal of 20 feet separation, to achieve 80 feet, the adjacent site has to accommodate approximately 60 feet setback from the property line. This is the constraint of this item.

We would be more than happy to offer service to residents in the building for the amenities within the building to residents outside. And different hotels, depending on where they are, will offer those services. meaning that a restaurant could be used by guests. It can also be used by people in the community. And so, too, that can mean access to wellness facilities, pools, et cetera. That is common with hotels, and we would be pleased to support that with this application.

in any regard. So it really depends on what other development opportunities might exist. There is certainly some restrictions on perhaps achieving some of those maximums as a result of this rezoning application, but this is the one proposal we have in front of us, and so this is the one that we're presenting for Council's consideration.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS PART OF A PUBLIC PROCESS AND WE CONSIDER THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HEAR, THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE FROM COUNCIL, THE VARIED POLICIES THAT WE HAVE, WE TRY TO INCORPORATE WHERE WE CAN FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT THEN ALSO TRY TO BE TRANSPARENT about where we haven't or we can't incorporate that feedback into the proposal. All that is taken into consideration tonight, continues to be part of that public process, and ultimately council, part of its role is to take that into consideration in its decision-making. Thanks very much.

Yeah, I suppose the applicant can also weigh in. I think with any public consultation exercise, we try and cast as wide or as appropriately wide a net as we can, talking to different populations that may or may not be impacted. I would suggest there was some particular challenges with especially in-person engagements related to this application based on some of the sort of feelings of tension that arose from the application itself.

We actually did reach out to the West End Seniors Association for engagement, and they actually declined our outreach. We did make a number of public postings, very conscious of seniors and seniors' engagement. I think we're building more seniors' housing than anyone in Vancouver right now, very aware of the challenges that seniors have in participating in the process. But I can say that we did publish, we did outreach, we did post, and we did also make effort to engage with representatives of that community through this process to speak about this application. Okay, thanks very much.

AS I DESCRIBED, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF POLICIES WEIGHING AT THE SAME TIME. AND IN AS COMPLEX A PLACE AS VANCOUVER, AS MANY POLICIES THAT WE HAVE, THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS PERFECTLY CONGRUE WITH ONE ANOTHER. And priorities and the importance of certain type of development tends to ebb and flow over time. Certainly, we are at a moment in time where the hotel development policy articulated a certain priority in terms of the need for new hotel space. And then, of course, we also are weighing that policy against the local policies. And there's a lot of very specific policies about use and built form and height and things like that within the West End plan. But we also are zooming out and looking at the context and the appropriateness of height, scale and use in this area. We're going to pause right there. I'll come back in a second, Ron. Thanks.

Thanks.

I'LL JUST ASK NEIL PEACOCK FROM OUR ENGINEERING TEAM TO ANSWER. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, ACTING MAYOR AND COUNSELORS. MY NAME IS NEIL PEACOCK ON THE ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR PROJECTS FOR ENGINEERING. I THINK I'D JUST LIKE TO START ANSWERING THAT BY Pointing to our transportation assessment and management study, which is something that the applicant leads, it's a very standardized process and particularly relevant for a project like this. And so really what that effectively does is allow us to kind of quantify the actual impacts associated with the development. This covers things like trip generation, loading requirements, pickup drop off. And of course, a basic principle of this exercise is to accommodate all of these features on site. And as noted by the applicant, in some cases, those are occurring in the laneway now. And so we use that as a basis to kind of put it into context with the adjacent streets. These, as most people know, these are very low volume vehicle streets, but high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians travelling this area. And so the data that's provided in here, we assess that in partnership with the applicant and we can use that to assess if there's measurements we want to take to mitigate that.

I'd say perhaps the most obvious one is just the modern nature of this building versus the Sylvia Hotel. So being able to accommodate a lot of that on-site underground is great. There's also acknowledgement that some of this might still occur ad hoc at street level, but that's something we look to minimize and ultimately we're responsible for managing in the long run. Thanks.

Sean Martinez with the Employment Lands team in Planning and Development. So the most recent hotel development policy was approved on April 15th of 2025. Previous to that, we had the interim hotel development policy, which was supposed to stand in until we had the Broadway plan as well as the Vancouver plan approved. Previous to the current... policy, there was no clear path to retain hotels. At this point, we cannot really stop the demolition of it. There was previously a structure with regards to just bringing reports to council where the hotels were not to be replaced on site. At this point, we are looking at where hotels are being demolished and looking to make sure that they are replaced as much as we can. Part of the reason for the policy being considered tonight with regards to this rezoning is to be able to retain the hotels that we do have and allow them the flexibility with regards to heightened density to be able to maintain the viability in the current economic environment.

Yes, thanks for asking the question. First, I have framed that this meeting is an optional meeting that happens occasionally on rezoning applications in the city. We certainly had that interest and were in discussions with staff about that. I think one of the elements has been misstated through this is that we had actually scheduled and published a meeting. In fact, we hadn't. And when we started to have safety concerns raised through the credible threats that we had received and were advised by our private security professionals that large gatherings would not be advisable for safety purposes, we never went through with scheduling and actually hosting the meeting. So it actually was never booked and then canceled. It actually never... Never actually happened. It was never published or suggested that we were publishing. It was simply something that we were in discussion with staff with and beginning to talk about dates, venues, et cetera. but it wasn't actually something that we had advanced or published to the community for presence.

We've hosted several engagement sessions. Firstly, anybody who has reached out to us through this process and through the 2,800 letters we sent, We have met with many folks, but also offered to meet with anybody who's reached out to us, whether that be individuals or with groups. We've met with the leaders of the current organized community opposition group to this. And in fact, we, even as recently as this month, offered an engagement session, which was actually quite difficult. A number of venues in the West End actually rejected us in requesting to have more modest-sized gatherings, including city assets, for the same concerns. But we did end up securing a venue and we did reach out to the community and the organized opposition group and hosted an information session earlier this month for which no one actually attended.

This hotel has a mix of extended stay hotel and short term. So the short term is about 65 suites and the balance about 180 odd suites is extended stay. We've extensively looked at the demands for parking that we believe are there and that's where we resulted in the 70 parking stalls. We feel that 70 parking stalls is very much... sufficient to accommodate the parking needs for the amount of guests that we anticipate. And part of my note earlier about proximity, one of the critical things about proximity to key attractions and natural features and communities like the West End is that people will find themselves being able to Uber or taxi into the community and then walk. And that's one of the features that is unique about a property like this that isn't always the case in more traditional hotel locations that exist in the city today. Thank you.

That is certainly one of the principal reasons. Also, the fact that it is an existing hotel site without residential displacement is certainly what makes it quite unique within the context of the West End plan and its alignment with the hotel policy.

No, it won't because, well, there is no such thing as precedent in planning. We make a decision on a case-by-case basis. But we feel quite strongly that this site, because it's the only existing hotel in the area and the hotel policy speaks to the replacement of existing hotels or the expansion of existing hotels, that the same rationale would not apply to any other site in the West End. Thanks, Josh. That's all my question. Thanks, sir.

Sure. Yeah, we were looking for sure at the totality of the different policies that would apply the site specific conditions, importantly, the context and using our discretion to and the and the and the shaping that we've done with the application to land at a recommendation for council and council has the purview to consider itself the public feedback as well as the the applicant's rationale, staff's rationale, and the various policies that apply to this area.

Yeah, I think what the hotel policy certainly identified was the need to expand our overall capacity of hotel space, find opportunities for retainment and redevelopment and expansion of existing hotel sites, and very importantly, diversify the offerings, whether they're short stay, long stay, high price point, medium price point, low price point. across the city of Vancouver, just given the very homogenous and very geographically concentrated nature of our hotel space in the city.

Yeah, I think the nature of the West End plan, especially in light of concerns around rental tenant displacement, because this comprises such a significant portion of our rental tenancy, that really is the significant driver of that statement and that policy statement. And again, one of the rationales for... recommendation of approval in this case is that no residential displacement is at risk here.

Yes, I think our purview as the city and the planning department is to consider those things. Factors like shadowing, impact on the park were considered and were part of the conversation around what the ultimate height ended up landing at.

Yeah, so as it's proposed within this application, there are shortfalls of those in that, again, those are typically finalized at the DP stage. And so we acknowledge that some of the – Larger requirements around Class C passenger loading for the hotel are considerable site planning configurations, so we're continuing to work with the applicant on seeing what's possible there to work on the floor plates. So, yeah, those discussions are still underway.

Yeah, so I'd say that, again, back to our transportation assessment and management study, the TAMs, that is included within that. So we established a study area with the applicant and their consultant team, which in this case does include six intersections within close proximity, including Denman. And so we assess each of those intersections for a level of service, safety considerations, and all that.

Yes, thank you. So as a clarification to the point on the loading requirements for the property, given the use in the mix of the extended stay and the traditional hotel units, the... type of vehicles that we anticipate coming to the property would typically not include tour buses in the same way other larger more conventional hotel rooms would because the stays are different tour buses come and go over shorter durations and we only have 65 rooms of the traditional we have the balance being extended at the same time in a receipt of the... And so we proposed a loading configuration based on our engineer's assessment of what is actually required for the type of use. That being said, we did test the bylaw requirements when the condition was provided by staff, and we did respond and... and are prepared to work with staff as we go forward to accommodate bylaw outright. So we can and have tested a Class C will fit and are prepared to do that through the DP process as well as all of the other loading conditions. So it is possible. It does work. It does fit. We're prepared to commit to do it, although we feel in practicality the approach that we've proposed now is closer to the actual needs of a property with this mix.

Yes, certainly. We certainly looked at the existing context, the property, and what could be done with the existing zoning. And firstly, the existing zoning is a very difficult envelope to work within. and very little has actually taken place in terms of development within that zoning envelope. And so what would be permitted within the zoning would be a 10-story development, and that scale would not be compatible with our ability to redevelop. For us, we were looking to get to a scale that is economically efficient and can justify very significant costs of delivering a new property. And so that threshold that we've landed on is something that we feel is comfortable and attainable. But from a form, we were conscious that the form that we proposed and have now landed on is consistent with the other towers in the immediate vicinity of the block, including being the second tower on a block as well.

To be honest, we've never contemplated it on the basis, and we do develop rental in the city of Vancouver, but we hadn't contemplated on the basis that it wouldn't be permissible and that this proposal with a hotel, in fact, is. So that's what led us to this path. There's been projects with similar form of development, similar constraints as residential in the West End advanced through approvals and development. But in this case, we actually would not be eligible for that. And so we proposed what is currently supportable by policy.

The staffing is very similar. So there's still daily service levels that are provided to all of the suites. So it's similar in terms of how it is resourced and staffed. They're heavily managed 24-7, security, concierge, cleaning, housekeeping, F&B, et cetera. The difference with the extended stay is that the extended stay include small kitchens that allow people to extend their stay. But otherwise, staffing is the same.

Right now, the policy wouldn't actually allow us to have residential units in the building itself. We haven't contemplated a specific staff housing in the building itself, although I recognise the need.

To be totally honest, what we saw here is an extremely unique condition and so presented with different possibilities of what, It could be done on a property like this. The fact that the context existed, the very relevant context for that exact desire, what you're saying, people coming as a destination to this location, was absolutely true. and the fact that it was like uniquely possible to do it. And that was really the key is we, there is such a, there's such a shortage, such a shortage in the city that hotel in almost any context would serve demand. This particular location serves demand that would be highly of interest to people. We've seen that as owners of this property for years. and uniquely in the condition where we can build it and that we're not competing for highest and best use with other uses that often make hotel development in these types of high-quality locations impossible.

Well, the current condition is it's aging. The building was built in the 60s. We've been maintaining it actively. It's still operating actively as a hotel. So we've been investing in keeping it operational, but it is an aging asset now being more than half a century old. Thanks very much.

I'm speaking on behalf of the park board. So is that eight minutes? That's what the city clerk told me.

Thank you.

Is there a clock?

Great. You count up, not down. All right, my name's Brennan Bas-Juvansky. I'm a Vancouver Park Board Commissioner. I'm here on behalf of the chair, Tom Digby, and together we oppose this proposal. Now, to be clear, we're opposed to the process being followed. I don't have a say about the actual hotel itself. And I do want to acknowledge the problem is the process. There's gaps, and there's risk to public engagement that are not being properly followed. And I do want to acknowledge at the same time that Vancouver does need increased hotel capacity, so it has nothing to do with... disputing our need for hotels. But I am here to ensure that we follow the right process, one that protects public trust and respects the stewardship responsibilities we all share as elected officials. And part of today, I'm speaking both in the capacity as a commissioner and also as a West End resident. But I point out to my council colleagues that they have not received a report on the impacts of Stanley Park. I'm raising a red flag that the correct process is not yet being followed, and I'm requesting that council refer this matter back to staff until that report on the impacts of Stanley Park has been... received by counsel. When process is rushed, the risk of injunction and litigation become very real. And part of my experience as a commissioner is that when major changes happen to Stanley Park, when it's not deliberated publicly and transparently, then the trust in our institutions drops. And we've had several cases of examples of litigation and attempts at injunction on various things when that happens. And we heard from that city engineering and planning. They took it upon themselves to adjust the heights and stuff like that, which was great. But the reality is that it's a park board jurisdiction. So in the council report, it says that there's an impact of Stanley Park shadowing. There's also traffic impacts, both of which should trigger a report to a park board. In the BC Supreme Court, they would agree with me. They've already warned, or they recently warned the city about advancing major actions affecting Stanley Park without clear park board authorization or deliberation. In the Looper moth example, the court found that staff did not have expressly delegated authority to approve phase one work. So trees were being cut down prior to the actual approval from the park board. The concern today is not about stopping the development. It's actually about avoiding the same, like avoiding the same issue with governance and that same governance mistake that I just referenced. And that's where decisions with direct park impact, they move forward before the elected park board has the opportunity to review and publicly consider them. Now, and the park board is set to request the formal impact report on Monday, February 23rd. Now, that's just four days from now. So that means that council does not yet have the necessary information to make a fully informed decision because there has been very little mention of impacts to Stanley Park. The staff report, it does thoroughly cover the city planning process, but what is missing is a public analysis of the impacts of Stanley Park. There is no policy guiding the creation of a major commercial operation adjacent to Stanley Park. Stanley Park does get special treatment. It is the crown jewel of the city. It's also the reason why the park board was set up as independent, so we don't have conflicts of interest when we're protecting our parks. And the Park Board has statutory authority over matters impacting Stanley Park. And we have received and approved nothing related to these. Now, and what I'm doing is I'm talking about what is not in the report. What's missing is a public analysis of those impacts. There's no park board assessment, no reference to co-management with host nations, no evaluation of operational impacts or access along the park edge, and no consideration of the broader heritage landscape. There's like 100-year-old trees in that area, and that block is immediately adjacent to Stanley Park and the entry to Stanley Park. And it's right next to Lost Lagoon, which is a sensitive cultural and ecological boundary. between the city and Cincinnati Park, yet it's not discussed in the city report. And there's not even mention of contributions from the developer that might help remediate Lost Lagoon. Lost Lagoon, it's going to be really bad branding for the city when this hotel is open and there's a major die-off of the fish in Lost Lagoon or there's an algae bloom, which we saw this year. The city needs to put millions of dollars into Lost Lagoon, and yet there's no contributions mentioned that might go towards remediating that area. Most of what's impacted Lost Lagoon is actually cars, and it's made it quite toxic. It's actually in real dire shape. The report mentions shadow impacts, but it doesn't talk about any of the impacts of the child care center, the tennis courts, and the community garden with the native plant section. It's quite an ecologically sensitive area. There's quite a lot of moisture. It's quite damp, very mossy. So if you add this big shade in that area, it's going to have ecological impact. And yet there's nothing talking about the established park amenities. And those do have operational, recreational, and ecological value, none of which is in your report. So you actually don't know as councillors what you are voting on right now on the impact of that. Yes, it'd be lovely to have a hotel there, but the impacts are going to be enormous and you don't know what they are. And so if you make an uninformed decision... It kind of goes along the lines of what we've heard recently from the Auditor General and at this council, which I think you heard from last week, and the Park Board also heard from the Supreme Court in December. And the lessons that we can take from these institutions as they review how our process is followed is that when you make decisions, if the process is rushed, you do risk injunction litigation and delay, and it does erode public confidence. And that's why people feel quite uncomfortable about it. And as a West End resident, I'm also concerned about neighborhood impacts, like the block feeds directly into Lagoon Drive and North Lagoon Drive. That is going to impact traffic in the park. That is going to put pressure for us to potentially change the traffic configuration, none of which is in your report. And anything that obstructs or impacts traffic in Stanley Park, we've already faced litigation as a city, and none of that is in your report. But fortunately, like I'm here as your colleague, we can avoid a known goal. The park board motion being considered will give you that public scrutiny that is currently missing. And following that, we're a council, would receive a deeper assessment of traffic impacts, risk to the heritage trees along the park edge, and the ecological impacts from the shadowing and increased traffic. Councillors, this request is not about stopping the development. It's really about ensuring that decisions affecting Stanley Park are made with full information, transparency, and governance oversight. And in my capacity as Commissioner, I respectfully ask to refer the matter back to staff until you have received the Park Board's report on the impacts of Stanley Park.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. And I'm speaking to you as a second-generation West Ender who chooses to keep living in the neighborhood because I think it's the best urban neighborhood in the country. I'm here to say I think this project will only make the neighborhood even better. I do, however, have a very serious concern. My concern is that there are not 17 more projects like this one proposed in the West End and elsewhere because we have a critical shortage of accommodation space in Vancouver, and that's exactly what this project provides. with a net addition of over 220 units over the current dated building on the site. The building also happens to be very tastefully designed by one of the best architects in the city, and is clad with high-quality materials, something that is very important to me personally. This location is perfect for a hotel, as attested by the fact that there is already a hotel on the site today. The proposal may strike some as unusual, because in recent decades, the city has pursued a policy of concentrating almost all hotel development into the same 10 blocks of the financial district. That practice has been a primary cause of the hotel shortage that we have in the city today. It is also very, very weird. In most cities anywhere in the world, there are a range of modern accommodations available in any urban neighborhood, not so in Vancouver. I look forward, as a resident, to being able to offer visitors the option of a pleasant modern suite in my neighborhood as opposed to a couch in my living room. While the tower is filled with good stuff, my favorite part of this project is actually on the ground floor. The proposed food and beverage patio will become a beloved gathering spot for both locals and visitors alike. It also helps fix Vancouver's shortage of patio spaces that are not jammed up against automobile sewers. High-rise buildings have been a part of the West End for over 70 years, 7-0. Before our country had the Maple Leaf flag, there was a building boom of high-rises in the West End, just like the one proposed before today. There are four of them on my block. I live in one. I think they're great. I think they're normal. And they are the reason why the West End works today as a complete community. I very much look forward to the day that this project is hopefully complete and to the day when there is no longer the whiff of controversy surrounding a simple 25-story high-rise in the downtown peninsula.

Hi. Good evening, Active American Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm a homeowner near 2030 Barclay in the West End. And, you know, for the 15 years that my family first came there, there's always been high-rises, and it's just part of the fabric of our community. And I find, even though I live in a low-rise, I find that they blend in quite well. My focus on this application is I'm really excited to see some great, much-needed economic injection into the West End, into the commercial core on Denman Street, which could benefit from some health and some love. And I'm really excited about this short combination of short, sweet, and long stays so that business travelers, which I deal with professionally, They have a place to stay that's not just a simple hotel room when people are in town for a week or two or even sometimes months. The longer stay accommodation is perfect. And those folks, they integrate in the fabric for their short time while they're here, and they really get out and spend money. They like to go to every restaurant that they can. They like to get out and enjoy being part of the community and get away from the sometimes stare-out feel of a financial district. So I'm really excited about having the hotel in the neighborhood. I think that they've done a good job with the proposal and making it fit. As you will know better than I do, much of Vancouver, 25 stories, is not really considered a high-rise anymore as things have evolved over time. And I think that they'll do a good job adding to the community of the west of Denman and the neighborhood. And thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Perfect. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jill Wanklin, and I live a short distance from the site up on Barclay Street. I'm calling to express my support for the application to redevelop the existing hotel on the site. I've been following discussion around this project, and honestly, I don't fully understand all the attention that this has received, given the West End, as has been mentioned, is already a neighborhood that has plenty of high-rise buildings, which is part of its charm. And it's long been a community that's welcomed density and experienced the benefits of density since the 70s. Given, too, also that the site is already an existing hotel. So the immediate context seems to be surrounded by towers, and the proposed height seems consistent with what's already been here and is in the neighborhood. So to me, this doesn't really feel out of place. From a street-level perspective as well, what matters more to me is how a building contributes to daily life, and replacing an older, low-density structure with a well-designed building that has active uses like a new restaurant seems like a positive change and something that myself and my family who visits from out of town would really appreciate. It seems to add activity and services without fundamentally altering the character of the West End. Again, like cities evolved, the West End has always been a place that balances density with livability, and this proposal fits within that pattern. So it looks like a natural continuation of how this neighborhood has developed over time and not something that feels radical or disruptive. And finally, I guess I just mentioned that, and it has been mentioned earlier this evening, we are in dire need of new hotel stock in the city. And while I love the Sylvia Hotel, the West End remains critically underserved and a gateway to Stanley Park and downtown. So I fully support this project, and I really hope to see it move it forward. so much.

Okay. Hello, Mayor and Council. Excuse me. My name is John Kelly. I've lived in Vancouver for nearly 40 years and I'm calling in strong support of the hotel proposal at 2030 Barclay Street. My family visits multiple times a year. When they do, they stay at the Sylvia Hotel on the West End. It's charming, it's walkable, and it's where we might gather for a meal before walking around Sunset Beach or Stanley Park. But the reality is it's aging. It's the only hotel of its caliber in the West End. In a world-class city like Vancouver, in a neighborhood that serves as a gateway to some of our most iconic destinations, it's just not enough. So in 10 years, I firmly believe this hotel will be the neighborhood gem, the kind of place residents are proud of. A welcoming restaurant at ground level, a place for families to gather will nicely animate the block. I wanted to also address something very important.

I've been very surprised by the opposition around this project. I know people in the West End who support this. but are afraid to speak publicly because of the intimidation they've experienced from a few bullies on the block or their stratas. I have seen paid social media ads spreading fear and misinformation with the organizers actively deleting supportive comments. That's not healthy civic discourse. Excuse me. The West End is already a neighborhood of mid- and high-rise buildings, including tall ones on the same block. Yet some of the propaganda circulating about this project exaggerates the impact. A trust council will see right through that. This proposal aligns with our city priorities, addresses our shortage of hotel space in an ideal location close to parks and restaurants. I think it's crazy not to allow this to proceed. We cannot allow a well-organized vocal minority to overshadow the broader public need and interest. So I urge you to focus on the benefits, remain clear-eyed, and support this proposal. And I don't see any issues with what the Parks Board member brought up. And frankly, the Parks Board is the same group that cut the Aquatic Centre in half recently from 50 metres to 25 metres, so I don't really trust them. Thank you very much.

I live in the West End, and I am opposed to the recommended rezoning of a portion of Barclay Street from residential to comprehensive development. I live contiguous to the proposed development site and have incidentally often stayed at and frequently recommended the Rose Ellen Suites. because it suits the neighborhood and does not impair its livability.

I am a former Chief Administrative Officer of Bowen Island Municipality, former Executive Director of your Museum of Vancouver, the author of A Guide to Stanley Park, and two books on Canadian local government, and as the Chief Administrative Officer in three different provincial jurisdictions have been responsible for the legislative management of major developmental projects.

I therefore bring you greetings from my neighbourhood that you are about to destroy should you approve this rezoning application. The West End Community Plan intends to govern the stability of the neighborhood. Though boutique hotels such as Rousselton Suites are identified in the plan, the construction of new hotels and certainly not high-rise hotels in residential areas is nowhere mentioned in or supported by that plan. The proposed form of development submitted by Herenque Partners Architects on behalf of Langley's Marcon Corporation with its relentless pursuit of real estate construction was received by the city in July of 2024 and was amended by the applicant in May and December 2025. It is being considered under the hotel development policy which was promulgated in July 2025, that is after Marcon's application and after its first amendment of that application. Despite its intent, the demolition of the Four Seasons Hotel is in progress. The landmark hotel, in order mostly to build condominium towers, and the Listow Hotel, which is to be replaced by a high-rise hotel, both on Robson, were demolished with council approval. The Coast Hotel on Denman has been converted to rentals. The hotel development policy seems in such a context, not only specious, but also represents a flawed municipal policy, which seems in the case of the Barclay Street proposal to have been made expedient by commercial opportunism. and thus the approval of the rezoning would constitute a civic misstep, subservient to the greed of developers. Hotel policy is predicated on the premise that tourism is good for this city, but it is not necessarily the case. Tourism is considerable, and that is the instance in Vancouver It disrupts the social fabric. Stanley Park, one of the finest municipal parks in all of North America, continues to be degraded and will not withstand a continually additional influx of hotel traffic a mere one block from it. Neighborhoods throughout the city have also suffered degradation by ineffective local government, at all three levels of Canadian governments, and examples other than the West End would certainly include Chinatown, Japantown, and the downtown Eastside. I submit, therefore, to counsel that the way to the future is not through the destruction of Barclay Street. Thank you for having me.

Good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Mark Jan Vrem. I'm a 20-plus year resident of the West End, and I love the area. And I'm here to speak in opposition to the zoning. And as you've learned tonight, I'm not alone. And the response has been overwhelmingly negative to this application. A 6,000, you said 5,000, it's going to be six. One of the speakers is coming in with updated petition for a little bit later. We got more than 6,000 names on that petition. Thousands of public comments against the project, and I see the comments that have been submitted for this function are running eight to one against the project. So we're not a fringe group. We're a community of motivated voters who value the integrity of our neighborhoods, our streets, and as I've learned this evening, Stanley Park. The hotel development policy, congratulations, is working. It's doing the job you folks intended it to do. Last count, there were more than 5,800 hotel rooms in the pipeline in locations that make sense, like downtown and commercial corridors. So I'm not against hotels, but I am against this hotel in this location simply because it does not make sense. And the hotel industry agrees. The BC Hotels Association and Destination Vancouver say that large commercial hotels belong downtown and on commercial corridors. And it recommends six- to eight-story boutique hotels in neighborhoods like West of Denman. And the boutique hotel of that size would be perfect for this site. Now, that does make sense. The hotel development policy does not require you to approve this project. You can say no. You can defer the project, but make no mistake, Marcon is using a wrinkle in the policy to its own full advantage and in turn getting approval for massive height and density. The referral report says this proposal fails to meet the area's zoning requirements and they are only recommending approval, quote, to enhance project viability. I have to ask, when did project viability become the city's problem? If a 25-story commercial tower is the only way to make this hotel profitable on this specific narrow lot, then Marcon has a bad business plan. This is a private risk for Marcon, not for the city. Let's talk about the site. We've heard earlier the planning department notes it's too narrow, 99 feet instead of the required 130 feet. Because the lot is so narrow, the building, as staff notes, strands the neighboring properties at 2010 and 2040 Barkley, which robs them of their own development potential. Planning asked Marcon to work with those owners to their mutual benefit. Well, they haven't been able to come to an agreement, so that hasn't happened yet. So much for being good neighbors. And there's more. The problem of the shared driveway that was discussed this evening. The shared driveway with 2010 Barkley. That problem is still hanging out there with no resolution in sight. The size of the lot is not the only problem. City engineering does not support plans for passenger drop-off and delivery. You've heard that addressed. With 248 rooms and no proper passenger drop-off or loading spaces, Barkley Street and the dead end, Ted North Lane, will become even more congested than they are now. Engineering also warns that some construction methods will put city utility lines at risk. And tonight we learn the Park Board is about to consider a notice of motion asking the city to hit the brakes on this project, pending a formal briefing on the impact the project will have on Stanley Park. I have to agree with the commissioner. Council needs to know how this tower will affect the park's entrance, traffic, and emergency vehicle access, and I'm worried about the herons. They're awfully close to where this project is being built. Rushing this through before the park board provides its findings is a serious oversight, and that doesn't make sense. Wrapping up, I'd like to thank Council for this evening. I'd also like to thank the Council members that took a tour with us through the site. We appreciate the fact that you took that walking tour so we could show you exactly how big this hotel is and how it would fit into the site. The site, it does not fit. So again, I said I'm not against hotels in this location. I'm not against hotels, but in this location, I am against it because it does not make sense. The hotel policy is a guide that even the hotel industry calls misplaced. The project engineering warns it is flawed, and the planning admits it violates the zoning to ensure project viability. Again, that should be Marcon's problem, not yours, not ours. It simply doesn't make sense to jam a 25-story tower into a narrow lot and in the process risk spending neighboring properties. Paralyzing local traffic. My time is up. I realize that. Thank you very much. Please vote no or defer this project. Thank you.

Hello. Good evening, everybody.

Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Margaret Chisholm, and I've lived in Vancouver for 39 years, half of that time in the West End. Over the last seven months, I've had a very healthy discourse with thousands of residents of the West End.

This single thing before you It's being framed as a simple rezoning. There's already a hotel there. That's a bit of a false narrative, if you ask me. To many residents, it feels much larger than that. It feels like a massive exception to good planning principles.

expectations and standards, it simply doesn't make sense. And it is, in my opinion, not a fit.

I'm going to have some slides up in a few minutes. I think, is that, who's the slide person?

Yes, we can do that. We have a slideshow.

I can speak, but I was saving two or three minutes for my slides.

They have it. Yeah, they do.

I saw my name on the list had that presentation next to it.

What did we just do? Sorry.

Okay, so they're going to try to find it now? Am I going to keep speaking?

slides and chocolate bar it's been a long evening oh there we are okay you could just leave it on that slide i'll just i'm going to talk a bit and then i'm going to run through the slides real quick so you can start me again anytime okay very nice okay where was i so i don't think this project is a fit i don't think it makes sense to jam this 25 story commercial hotel onto a narrow street and the narrow lots we've talked about, it doesn't make sense to override in a dramatic way a community plan that was years in the making. I get there's a hotel policy and the planning team sought to see it through that lens. The durability of this decision matters. I don't believe this is good city planning. The residents who built their lives there over decades and many have become seniors. I've spoken to thousands of them. And I've spoke to people who were in support of this project, but not that many. These people are not anti-density, anti-development, anti-hotel. None of that is true. We like fun, too.

But they are pro-thoughtful city planning, and they also understand the need for housing. We wouldn't be here if this were housing. The absence of seniors here tonight, although I think quite a few of us are seniors, many more were to come, but there's a certain limitation. I don't believe that the developers met the bar with regards to engagement. I just...

I can't explain completely why, but they didn't bring the glossy brochures down to the neighborhood. Sure, the hotel development policy allows hotels, but it does not require approval of any scale, any site, any circumstance. The question is not whether this hotel can be built. It's whether this site in this location reflects, represents thoughtful and durable city planning. Good commerce is good for cities. This is not that. Years from now, when the immediate pressures of this application have passed, will this proposal still make sense? Will it be seen as a thoughtful addition to the city or a mistake that eroded the community? If you would go ahead and just start playing those slides, I just want to put a bit of a human face on the West End. And you can just play them every three seconds or so. I'm going to make a few comments. As we go, that's the neighborhood as exists today. And can you pause there for a minute? That's Poot Corner. And that is at the end of Barkley where it jams into Lagoon Lane and people mostly make U-turns. It's part of the picture and part of the problem. Next slide, please.

And it's on a cycling route and just a little more flavor of the neighborhood. Go ahead to the next slide. Go ahead to the next slide. This is who lives down there now. It's an amazing community, and it will densify, and it will change. Next slide. That is the, we come to the rezoning proposal and I'd like you to keep going and I'll show you the next few slides are to scale except for two floors. I believe these were rendered at 27 floors. Next slide. What you see there, the blue are homes, and the red is a commercial hotel that this proposal is seeking rezoning. Next slide. And next slide. These are right from Marcon's proposals. Next slide. There's a couple of important ones I want to get to here. Keep going. I don't want to run past my time. Here's the no exit. Next slide, please. That is the little narrow alley that's a dead end, and that is Stanley Park at the end there. Next slide. And next slide. And next slide. That's how we use the alleys down there, and these are the size of trucks that we'll take. And you can just roll through those slides. I urge you to defer, or even better, oh yeah, there we go, there's what it takes to run a hotel. I'm over time, and I urge you to defer this decision. I actually prefer if you simply vote no.