Union-linked Californians accused of filibustering Vancouver City Council hearings | Daily Hive

Union-organized California callers and filibuster tactics ignite 'foreign interference' concerns for Vancouver City Council's public hearings

Protest outside Vancouver City Hall. (Unite Here Local 40)

Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim is urging the provincial government to prevent people living outside Canada from registering to speak at Vancouver City Council public hearings and other proceedings, following concerns about callers with no apparent connection to the city participating in debates over land-use and development proposals.

In a letter sent Thursday to Premier David Eby and B.C. Housing and Municipal Affairs Minister Christine Boyle, Sim asked the provincial government to amend the Vancouver Charter to establish Canadian residency as an eligibility requirement for public speakers.

“I am writing to urgently request that the Province of British Columbia amend the Vancouver Charter to provide that only residents of Canada may register to speak at public hearings and other proceedings before Vancouver City Council,” wrote Sim.

The letter follows an unusually long and contentious public hearing on the City’s proposed Villages Plan — a highly controversial City-initiated strategy to introduce new low- and mid-rise residential density and retail hubs in 17 select areas of Vancouver, primarily within existing low-density residential neighbourhoods.

You might also like:

The public hearing was held over three dates this month, concluding just before 1 a.m. Thursday, July 23 after City Council worked through a list of more than 340 registered public speakers. This third and final sitting to hear public speakers for the Villages Plan began at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 22 and continued straight into the early morning hours of the next day.

Several policy and rezoning matters considered by City Council at public hearings held very recently have attracted attention from beyond Metro Vancouver and Canada, with a number of people living in other countries calling into proceedings that will determine local land use and development policies.

Californians weighing in on Vancouver’s residential densification policies?

Concerns escalated during the final night of Villages Plan public hearing when city councillors questioned a caller identified as Cristina Melendez, who acknowledged that she was calling from California and had never visited Vancouver. She is just one notable example of the bizarre path taken during this week’s public hearings.

When asked by elected officials whether she was being paid to speak, Melendez said she was not. She also denied speaking at the request of a union, being a union member or having ever worked in the hotel industry.

Melendez acknowledged that she had previously spoken at proceedings in Los Angeles and Ontario. When asked why she was calling into a public hearing in another country and a city she had never visited, she said she was concerned about the precedent such policies could establish.

ABC city councillor Brian Montague subsequently asked Melendez to explain development cost levies, which had been referenced in her prepared remarks. Six seconds of silence followed Montague’s question before Melendez coughed.

The incident involving Melendez was just one of several occasions on which city councillors questioned the credibility or origins of testimony during recent public hearings for the Villages Plan, as well as the proposed high-density mixed-use allowances for the former Molson Coors brewery site on Burrard Street and various rezoning applications. The highly unusual behaviour of public speakers repeatedly prompted elected officials to raise questions about possible repeat participation, residency, organizational affiliations, and whether translated English statements accurately reflected what public speakers were saying in their original languages.

Some public speakers sought the assistance of another person to translate their remarks, despite appearing able to speak English at times or having previously spoken publicly in English. In at least one instance, an individual translating even admitted that they did not speak the language they were translating.

Under the City’s procedure bylaw, public speakers requiring translation receive up to 10 minutes — double the standard five-minute limit. Montague accused some participants of exploiting this accommodation to prolong the proceedings and attempting to filibuster the public hearings. Some were also seemingly reading the exact same script.

During the public hearing on proposed land use changes for the former brewery site owned by Concord Pacific, Unite Here Local 40 president Zailda Chan and other members of this major union representing hotel and hospitality workers in B.C. used translators, despite having spoken in English at previous public hearings earlier this year.

The union has taken a highly combative approach toward some hotel operators and owners over the years, including prolonged strikes arising from labour disputes. It has also strongly opposed new hotel proposals, municipal policies intended to encourage hotel development, and some market residential projects. Since at least last year, Unite Here Local 40 has also been aggressively seeking to influence Vancouver municipal politics.

According to a report today by the Vancouver Sun, Unite Here asked its American counterparts to call into City Council’s public hearings this week. The union’s opposition to new hotels is intended to protect the workload of unionized employees at existing properties. Unite Here Local 40 represents workers at many hotels across the region.

Public speakers who are not Canadian residents are now the last on the list, with Sim calling for urgent provincial measures

In his letter to provincial officials, Sim said existing provincial legislation broadly allows members of the public, including people affected by proposed bylaws, to make representations to City Council. However, he argued that the City lacks sufficient authority to impose residency requirements on those registering to speak.

“Public participation is a fundamental part of local democracy,” wrote Sim. “However, the formal opportunity to address an elected municipal council should principally serve the people who live in Canada and are subject to the laws, policies and consequences arising from municipal decisions.”

He added that people with no connection to Vancouver or Canada should not be able to overwhelm public speaker queues, delay City Council business, or displace residents who will be directly affected by its decisions.

In his initial response Wednesday, Sim described the participation of a number of people calling from California as “foreign interference” and said he was arranging an emergency meeting with City Manager Donny van Dyk and Vancouver Police Department (VPD) Chief Steve Rai.

Sim’s letter confirms that he has now referred the matter to the VPD to determine whether there have been coordinated or organized attempts to disrupt City Council’s lawful business.

“This referral does not presume any particular finding,” wrote Sim. “It reflects the seriousness of the situation and the need to establish whether the participation we are witnessing is spontaneous or part of a deliberate effort to interfere with municipal proceedings.”

According to the letter, City Council changed its public hearing procedures this morning to place public speakers who are not Canadian residents at the end of the queue. Sim described this as an immediate step available under Council’s existing authority, but said a procedural change is not an adequate long-term solution.

He is asking the provincial government to give the City clear statutory authority to require Canadian residency and establish “reasonable verification and procedural requirements” to administer the restriction.

Sim said an amendment could preserve City Council’s discretion to hear from invited experts, representatives of other governments, and other people whose participation is considered necessary to inform its decision-making.

The City’s existing participation system allows people to address public hearings in person or by telephone. Speaking by phone enables participation from anywhere, while the City’s published rules do not list residency in Vancouver, B.C., or Canada as a condition of registration.

“The business of Vancouver City Council must remain open, accessible and responsive to the public,” wrote Sim.

“At the same time, openness cannot mean that individuals located anywhere in the world are entitled to consume limited speaking opportunities, obstruct proceedings or diminish the ability of Canadian residents to be heard by their local government.”

Zeroing in on Unite Here Local 40’s activism

The emerging controversy surrounding Unite Here Local 40’s strategies to oppose new hotels and other development comes against the backdrop of a worsening regional hotel-room shortage.

According to local tourism bureau Destination Vancouver, the shortage is contributing to some of the country’s highest occupancy rates and nightly room prices while increasingly weakening the region’s competitiveness in attracting visitors, conferences and major events.

To support tourism and overall economic growth, Destination Vancouver estimates the region needs 20,000 additional hotel rooms over the coming decades, including 10,000 within Vancouver, where demand is highest.

The imbalance between hotel demand and supply in recent years may also have strengthened workers’ bargaining position. In late 2025, for example, workers at Park Hyatt Vancouver (formerly the Shangri-La Vancouver hotel) reached an agreement that will raise wages to approximately $40 per hour by 2028 — an increase of between 25 per cent and 50 per cent over three years.

This past spring, the union filed a court petition seeking to overturn City Council’s recent decision to approve a rezoning application permitting a 250-room floating hotel next to the Vancouver Convention Centre. The union’s main arguments centre on questioning whether the proposal’s previous public consultation process accurately depicted the impacts the floating hotel would have on the harbour and mountain views from select locations of the seawall pathway.

The union’s activism has also repeatedly called on private developers to build affordable housing.

City Council has faced a series of marathon public hearings in recent weeks, with the cumulative list of registered public speakers across a wide range of agenda items exceeding 1,000 as of Tuesday afternoon.

That figure was subsequently reduced substantially when City Council deferred consideration of a controversial proposal by Telus and Westbank to create an artificial intelligence data centre in Mount Pleasant. The application alone had attracted 340 registered public speakers. The project will instead undergo further public consultation before returning for a decision in 2027.

For the public hearing that began this evening, Thursday, July 23, 479 people are registered to speak on five rezoning applications. Of those, 326 are registered for Holborn Group’s proposal to redevelop the Hudson’s Bay parkade city block with three tall towers containing major hotel, residential, and commercial uses.

The hotel proposal includes over 70,000 sq. ft. of conference space and more than 900 guest rooms, which would make it B.C.’s largest hotel. It would be a 1,034-ft-tall (315-metre) tower — the tallest building in Western Canada. This supetall tower would also contain a major public observation deck attraction at a height of over 1,000 ft. above street level.

As a public benefit tied to the Hudson’s Bay parkade redevelopment, Holborn Group has also proposed constructing a new 25-storey tower containing social housing and a childcare facility at a separate site next to the Woodward’s complex in Gastown. The completed social housing building would be gifted to the municipal government, with this Gastown tower timed with the first phase of the overall project.

It will likely take several public hearing dates for City Council to work through the list of 479 registered public speakers. However, it remains to be seen whether the process will be prolonged further by other apparent filibuster tactics and participation from people calling in from far outside Vancouver.

City Council is now running out of time to finish its public business in the City Hall chamber, as City Council is not in session from early August to mid-September for the annual summer break for City Council and City staff. This also overlaps with the start of the civic election campaign cycle.

OneCity signals it will seek to defer Villages Plan decision for major amendments and additional public consultation

While City Council completed the public speaker list for the Villages Plan, its debate and decision have been deferred until Tuesday, July 28.

Supporters of the Villages Plan argue that Vancouver’s longstanding low-density zoning has made it difficult to build many of the homes needed by younger residents, renters, and growing families, and older people looking to downsize. They say the proposal would create more opportunities for townhouses, multiplexes and low-rise apartments near retail, restaurants, services, and public transit, providing an alternative to both detached houses and high-rise towers.

Some in favour of the plan told City Council that the people who would benefit most from the plan are often underrepresented at such public hearings because they are busy working, raising families, or have already been priced out of Vancouver. They argued that protecting existing neighbourhoods from change would continue to favour established homeowners over future residents and people struggling to find suitable housing in the city.

Even some supporters called for stronger requirements for affordable and family-sized housing, along with clearer commitments to childcare, parks, public transit and other public amenities. However, they generally maintained that the plan’s broader direction is necessary to accommodate Vancouver’s long-term population growth and give more people the opportunity to remain in the city.

Opponents have generally argued that the plan applies a sweeping, one-size-fits-all approach to 17 areas with different transportation networks, commercial conditions, housing patterns, and infrastructure needs. Many said they support additional housing in principle, but believe the proposal was rushed, inadequately communicated and developed without sufficient neighbourhood-level consultation.

Their concerns include the possible loss of mature trees and existing rental housing, pressure on schools and public services, insufficient parking and public transit capacity, repetitive building designs, speculation, and the potential creation of more retail space than some neighbourhoods can support.

Some homeowners within or near the 17 areas also fear that the rezoning could affect property taxes, renovation options, and their ability to remain in their homes, with some particularly concerned about a commercial space requirement for the ground level of some multi-storey, mixed-use residential and commercial buildings — a policy intended to provide storefront continuity on certain lots in the designated retail areas of a village.

It remains to be seen whether City Council will approve the Villages Plan next week, given the immense backlash. During the initial public hearing date earlier this month, city councillors also thoroughly questioned City staff on the components and rationale for the strategy.

However, it appears there could be at least one vote of opposition from OneCity councillor Lucy Maloney, after the party announced earlier this week that it backs the plan in general, but would like to see major amendments as part of its platform ahead of the civic election. This suggests the party supports sending back the Villages Plan to City staff for adjustments and further public consultation.

OneCity mayoral candidate William Azaroff said the party supports the broader objective of creating more housing and neighbourhood commercial space, but believes the current version is too rigid and was developed without sufficient public trust or engagement.

“Vancouver shouldn’t be afraid of its own shadow,” said Azaroff in a statement. “We can be bold about building this city and thoughtful about how we do it.”

Rather than applying the same development framework across all 17 areas, OneCity is proposing more permissive zoning that would allow four- to six-storey residential and commercial uses on the ground and second floors where communities want them. The party says this would provide greater flexibility instead of mandating a largely uniform built form across each proposed village.

The party is also calling for quarterly and annual monitoring of redevelopment activity and changes in land use under the Villages Plan, with the results used to determine what additional services and infrastructure are needed as the areas grow.

“Vancouver needs more homes, and we need them now,” said Azaroff. “But the neighbourhoods I grew up loving like Sunset, the Drive, and Strathcona — where I live now — didn’t happen because City Hall drew a box around them. They happened because people had a voice, a place, and a future that led them to invest in their communities. Too many Vancouverites are feeling locked out of the future of this city, and we need a Villages Plan that works, so that we can build vibrant communities.”

As part of its civic election platform relating to the Villages Plan, OneCity is proposing three months of public discussion on how Vancouver should grow over the next 30 years. Should the party win a majority, it would then launch a broader consultation on the city’s Village Plan and upcoming Neighbourhood Centres Plan, with the process completed within six months and no later than April 2027.

OneCity asserts the revised planning process would better position Vancouver to secure funding from the federal and provincial governments for public parks, swimming pools, community facilities, and other amenities needed to bettter support population growth.

The party is also proposing more affordable commercial space for small businesses, including greater use of second-storey commercial space, which it suggests is not sufficiently enabled under the current Villages Plan.

You might also like: