1905 Ogden Avenue CD-1 Rezoning

disconnected okay yeah yeah is that Robert that's me okay can you advise if you're a resident of Vancouver or not please I am a resident of Vancouver yeah okay please go ahead and my position is I oppose and I wanted to focus on one issue that's easy to lose in the language of mixed-use that is the quality of jobs that may replace to the industrial use The former brewery was a very large industrial space and employed a lot of people. The report proposes a one-for-one replacement of that floor space with new job space. On paper, this sounds responsible, but the public should not confuse the replacement of a floor area with replacement of economic opportunity. The province has raised two linked concerns, the loss of industrial land and the need for well-paying jobs. Those concerns are important because the industrial land is difficult to recreate once it's converted. Production, repair, laboratories, creative manufacturing, and technology uses need suitable space, loading, ceiling heights. servicing and long-term affordability. If these functions are replaced mostly by restaurants, hotels, shops, and offices, the city may need a floor area target while losing the diversity and resilience of the local economy. Council should require an employment plan before approving the redevelopment framework. The plan should identify the minimum amount of space for light industrial production, cultural production, and other job-intensive uses. It should include high design standards, which make those places functional, not merely nominal. It should also protect the living space from being converted later into high-rent commercial uses. Job quality should be a part of the plan. What presenter jobs will be paying a living wage? What benefits, training, career pathways will be available? How many apprenticeships will be created during construction and in permanent operations? Will local residents and indigenous workers receive real opportunities? Will there be affordable commercial space for small businesses, artists, and local service providers? uh... the economic discussions that have to be connected to the land use land value increases proposed uh... land use change gives the developer access to much more valuable uses council should publish an estimate of that uplift and explain how much of it will be returned to the public through housing infrastructure amenities and employment commitments residents should be able to uh... compare the land They compare the value granted with the value received. Housing is another part of this economic equation. Workers in hospitality, retail, child care, arts, and community services often struggle to afford Vancouver rents. If the city approves a major new mixed-use district, it should require aggressive targets for permanent, affordable rental and social housing. Family-sized homes should be included. and affordability should be tied to actual household incomes, not just a discount from an expensive market price. The site should support a modern employment district alongside housing, but that will not happen automatically. It also should require real production space, good jobs, strong affordability, mandatory community benefits, and transparent account of public return. Please measure success by job quality and community value, not by square footage and power height. Council should also examine the number of jobs per acre and the amount of payroll generated by future development. These measures would show whether the site is becoming more economically productive or simply more valuable as real estate. The employment strategy would be reviewed every few years so that promised sectors and workforce outcomes are not lost in leasing decision changes. Thank you. Have a good night.

Yes.

Yeah, I'm a resident of Vancouver.

Excuse me, speaker, just a moment.

Yes, yes, I do.

Go ahead. Translate now? yeah so good evening mayor and councillor um my position is other tonight i want to focus on the community benefits agreement for a development of this scale value and long-term impact a cba should not be an optional extra that a developer may accept or decline it should be a basic condition of approval the community

Why does the community have to wait for the benefits to be decided in the future? The community will experience years of construction, noise, dust, traffic detours, pressure on public services, and rising living costs. So why should the people carrying those impacts not have a direct written and enforceable agreement? Why should community benefits be left to future negotiation instead of being established before the critical planning decision? Why can't it be open and transparent?

When should it be published? For example, the salary, or the source of travel, or the training. If the data is not public, how can the residents judge if it is correct or not? If you violate this agreement, what will happen? Will you be fined? Or will you be fined for the insurance? Or will you be fined for the construction of the building? If there is no real consequences, then these are all like propaganda documents. So, in terms of business, is this action effective? Who will participate in negotiating the agreement? Only the city and the developer? Will nearby residents, renters, youth, business seniors, small businesses, and community service organizations have a formal seat at the table? Will there be meeting records, draft terms, and financial information be public? If the community can comment only after the agreement is completed, that is not meaningful participation.

What will the agreement contain? Will it include living wages, predictable hours, apprenticeships, hiring local youth for employment, training for newcomers and youth? Will it require procurement from local and social enterprises? Will it provide child care, cultural space, community service funding, and affordable commercial space? Will the targets be specific numbers or vague, like best efforts language?

Will the environment, management, and the city have a clear distinction between the cost, the project, and the benefits of reducing waste? The public needs to know the basic responsibilities of many developers. We need to know their real return on investment. When it comes to waste, the actual problem is... Who will monitor compliance? Is self-reporting by the developers sufficient? Will there be an independent auditor and a community oversight committee? And how often will reports be published? Will the data include wages, worker origin, training completion, contract value, and facility delivery progress? If this information is not public, how can residents judge whether promises have been fulfilled? What happened after a violation? Can the city impose fines, draw on financial security, suspend building permits, or refuse approvals for later phases? Without meaningful consequences, the agreement may become a promotional document. Will all obligations run with the land so that they remain binding if the project is sold to another company?

The benefit of the community must be that the citizens know the content of the negotiations. The key is not how to deal with the consequences. Who represents the community? For example, the tenants, the residents, the nearby shops, the disabled, the youth and the low-income citizens. Can they participate? Is the meeting fair and open? I'm also concerned that a CBA could be used to replace costs the developer should already pay. Community benefits must not substitute for infrastructure upgrades, development charges, affordable housing, or environmental remediation. Will the city clearly distinguish statutory charges, project mitigation, and additional community benefits? The public needs to know what is a basic developer responsibility and what is a genuinely additional return. 開發商是否可以選擇自己編號的組織來簽署合同呢? 還是有透明度的代表來選拔的程序呢? 有沒有普通市民參與呢? 所謂社區的協議可能反映最有資源,最容易被聽到的聲音。 A university is not only a community's goodwill, it also needs data and can be implemented. So we want to know if the city, if these benefits, why not write them into the regulations?

The agreement should also address daily construction impacts, truck routes, construction hours, air quality, noise, street safety, business access, and complaints. When residents report a problem, who must respond and within what time? Will there be a public hotline, issue register, and resolution deadline? I ask council to make a mandatory CBA a precondition of any future rezoning and to require public negotiation, community representation, measurable targets, independent monitoring obligations that run with the land, and penalties for noncompliance. A project of this size cannot ask the community to rely on goodwill alone. Trust comes from clear rules, public data, and enforceable consequences. If the city believes these benefits are important, why would it not make them mandatory? Thank you.