I am a resident of West Vancouver, and I work in the Armory District.

Thank you. So my name is Chris Knight. I'm an architect. As I mentioned, I work in the district at Michael Green Architecture, and I'm speaking tonight in support of the proposed ODP amendment. And the way I see it, this is a rare opportunity, a 7.7-acre self-contained industrial parcel at the foot of the Burrard Bridge. already surrounded by the residential towers of sanok this is exactly the kind of site that should be re-designated for housing and other vibrant mixed uses unlike many other industrial areas in vancouver this site is not contingent contiguous with true active industrial lands for the metro vancouver regional growth strategy so redesignating it doesn't compromise the city's broader industrial land strategy or displace working industrial uses in my opinion it offers an opportunity to enhance and complement the neighboring armory design district which already carries more flexible use permissions. With our office located in the neighborhood, I see daily and directly how the site cuts the area off from the water, and I think there's an incredible opportunity to create a vital pedestrian connection between the armory and Kitts Beach along Cornwall, as well as creating a more porous pedestrian connectivity through and around Sanhok. Redevelopment here is an opportunity to reconnect the armory district neighborhood to the waterfront. In addition, our office has also assessed a number of sites in the adjacent IC2 zone for redevelopment, and we've consistently found it difficult to make these projects pencil under the current industrial zoning. It's a pattern we've seen repeatedly, and it suggests that the zoning derived from the ODP is at a step with demand and is contributing to unoccupied land and a failure to capitalize on new development types which could further enhance the mixture of residential, retail, and employment uses. So as this moves toward rezoning, I'd ask Council to hold the future application to a high standard on sustainability, design quality, and in particular, treatment of public realm. And I also ask that transportation capacity be looked at carefully, given the load coming from Sanhok and the site together, and that public waterfront access be prioritized in the site planning. And finally, I'd encourage a broader rethink of the IC2 district as well, which could better align and allow the district to better integrate with Sanhok and the brewery site and encourage appropriate growth and diversity in the Armoury District. Thank you for your time.

Hey, everybody. Can you hear me?

Good evening Mayor and City Councillors. I've been a resident of the area for over five years and I'm pleased to add my voice in the support of this proposed land use change. As someone who drives past the Molson site every day, I believe it certainly can be put to better use than what currently exists. I think that we can all agree that the site is no longer a suitable place for heavy industry. I'd also like to just thank staff for leading the ODP amendment process to date with respect to the land use changes to reflect the needs of future residents and the area. Vancouver's land is already naturally geographically constrained, which makes every parcel extremely valuable. So I welcome any actions to free up land so many more people can live and work in the city, raise families, to contribute to the city's social fabric and economic well-being. So just quick and short tonight, but I wholly support this change and consider it a step forward for Vancouver's growth and livability. Thank you.

Hello.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Dana Garcia, and I am the Executive Director of the South Grand Mills Senior Center in Fairview. Our center provides meals, programs, and essential services to more than 2,000 local seniors each year. Many of our members are active older adults who enjoy walking, cycling, and spending time outdoors in our neighborhood. For that reason, we support the proposed land use change for the former Molson Brewery site. The existing concrete structure has long acted as a barrier, separating parts of the community and limiting opportunities for people to enjoy the space. Redeveloping the site into a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood has the potential to create a more welcoming, connected, and accessible environment for residents of all ages. As this project moves forward, I hope careful consideration will be given to creating accessible green spaces, walking paths, seating areas, and safe connections for pedestrians and cyclists. These features will greatly benefit older adults by encouraging physical activity, reducing social isolation, and creating opportunities for people to gather and enjoy the neighborhood. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and the opportunity to speak this evening.

Hi, good evening, city staff and councillors. Thank you so much for your time. My name is Sean Rosick, and I am a resident of Vancouver, as well as the director of Kyodai Properties. We are a property and asset management firm and part of the Rennie family group of companies. Kyodai is a landowner in the neighbourhood, and we strongly support the land use change in front of the council today. As we all know, Vancouver was a very different place in the 1950s when the brewery was built and used CP Rail to move their goods. Today, the rail line is closed, and part of it has been transformed into the Arbutus Greenway for the enjoyment of walkers and cyclists. I know our family uses it weekly, and we greatly love what it has done to the public realm. It seems equally appropriate to update the land use of this site to benefit the residents of today's Vancouver. This location, steps away from Granville Island, Fairview Kits and Sanhok, is a prime spot for redevelopment to align with its surroundings. Additionally, I'd like to switch hats for a moment and speak as an entrepreneur. I'm one of the owners of Mish Mish, which is a bakery in the Fraser Hood. Our business values the importance of placemaking within neighborhoods, with this being one we would love to expand into. I respectfully ask you to approve this land use change. Thank you so much for your time this evening.

Hi. Good evening, mayor and city councillors. My name is Hitesh Neb. I'm a partner at Wonder Architecture, and our offices are located two blocks away from the contemplated site today. I'm also a resident of Vancouver, living in the neighborhood in Kitsilano. This is an exceptional site, 7.7 acres, an impactful landmass that could transform the south end of Burrard Street Bridge. This area has been consistently growing over the last decade, and the brewery has been closed since 2019, and the land and the use of the building has been abandoned.

Since then, a lot of changes have happened, including the Broadway plan, which has obviously slotted the area to be densified along a broad corridor. The Armory District has evolved over those years, obviously. And we have this bare piece of land that's sitting in a prominent area in Vancouver that isn't contributing to the contemporary context.

I highly support the ODP amendment for the site, especially given the diverse use that has been laid out as staff has sort of presented today. uh we highly encourage staff to hold the applicant to a higher standard of architecture obviously the design intent of the space spaces in the project and access to existing public infrastructure which we use daily and the last thing that i would say is there is a missed opportunity that I think could be addressed by council and staff around a transit node in this neighborhood. It is getting busier and busier as time goes on. And there's a lot of people using Burrard Street Bridge and the access into downtown. This has become a very busy thoroughfare and not having an access node for a For a neighborhood that's evolving so quickly and not having seen very many plans to kind of expand that, I think is troublesome. So that would be something that I would highly recommend council and staff to hold the applicants to for the site. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

To the chair and council, thank you very much for your time and thank you for your hard work over the last four years, week in and week out, helping to shape our city. I'm Michael Mortensen. I'm an urban planner. I'm a resident of Vancouver for the last 30 plus years and a never-ending student of the city in addition to somebody who's pretty active in its evolution. I'm here to support the proposal. I think the post-industrial future of the city, of this area, was written with the South Falls Creek Official Development Plan in 1974, which is a key pivot in Vancouver's history, where the city decided to abandon industrial uses along this part of the waterfront. So your decision today on this parcel really builds on the vision from 1974. And I think it's a logical conclusion that industrial land in this location is no longer appropriate for Hoover. We can do a lot better than 200 jobs on a 7.7 acre industrial site. When the plant closed, I think they might have had 100 people on the site. I remember because when after it closed, as it was closing, I was watching. I'd sit there in the cafe across the street looking at how many people, there's nobody on this site. Really, 7.7 acres of inner city land with barely any employment on it. You heard from city staff, we could probably get four times the number of jobs with the equivalent amount of space if we deploy it as light industrial flex tech employment space. So more jobs for Vancouver, plus the opportunity for more housing, more amenities, more... commercial uses as well, too, and more amenities. So, you know, but to be brief, I think you've got a busy agenda today. I think that there are great placemaking opportunities between the owners of the Molson site and Inchikai, Squamish Nation, for the Sanok site. Interface between those properties is so enormous. There just has to be some great placemaking outcomes. if we let those two parties come together. I think given the intensity of use on that part, that just makes sense too. When we're thinking about transit, let's also think about water, water mobility as well. Walking, cycling, buses, new SkyTrain, but also the ferries that take people across the water. Two major centers of employment within a kilometer of this site in terms of the Broadway corridor. plus the entire downtown peninsula, which we know you can walk in 20 minutes. So this just makes too much sense. And again, I'm not part of this project. I'm not paid to come here and recommend this. It's just me for the love of my city and the right thing to do as we evolve and move forward. So just to wrap up, I urge council to approve in principle the amendments to the Vancouver Official Development Plan as presented in the report and to... changes that come through from Metro.

No, I'm a resident of Coquitlam, but I work in Vancouver.

Okay, yeah, good evening. My position is opposed. Like I said, I work in Vancouver. I have a lot of friends who live and work in Vancouver, so I'm really concerned about the quality and the quantity of jobs available to people in the city. So I want to kind of focus what I'm going to say today on the, you know, the loss of this industrial use land. So I know we've heard some different numbers thrown around, but, you know, this former brewery seems like at one point employed maybe at its height 250 people, maybe at the end of its, you know, lifespan around 100, as the previous person said. But, you know, this report proposes at least like a one-to-one replacement of that new floor space with job space, which does sound good. You know, definitely on paper it sounds reasonable, but I don't think that we should, I don't want to get confused between like floor space and the actual replacement of the, you know, economic opportunity and the opportunity for jobs. So I think there's, like, two linked concerns here. There's, like, the loss of industrial land and then also the need for well-paying jobs. I think those concerns are really important because industrial land is difficult to recreate once it is converted. So, you know, production, repair laboratories, all these different sectors, they need suitable space in our city, and that comes with, like, certain restrictions and certain considerations. I'm just worried, you know, if these functions are mostly replaced by things like restaurants, you know, hotels, shops, offices, you know, we could end up in a situation where the city is meeting a floor area target but still losing, like, the diversity and resilience in a local economy. So I think that council should consider that as part of this application, there should be maybe an employment plan or some extra stipulations on this land before approving the redevelopment framework. And that plan should identify the minimum amount of space for light industrial production and other... job uses so it can include like design standards that make those spaces functional and not just like a nominal thing so potentially could also be if possible i'll look into maybe including protection that would protect um the like the the rent that's charged on the commercial commercial spaces to make sure that there's opportunity for small businesses local entrepreneurs, as some previous speakers were, in order for them to have a spot to get into the market and have an area for them to have spaces that produce jobs in our city. I think also that job quality really has to be part of this plan. I don't know what the wages were at the Molson Brewery, but I do know that if this space were to be replaced... by a bunch of jobs and employment opportunities that pay minimum wage, I don't think that's a good use of land.

Can you hear me?

Great. Yeah, my name is Mike Biscar. I am a resident of Vancouver. I'm opposed to this application. My wife and my three kids, we live in downtown, very close to the site. And to be clear, when I say opposed, I think as a family living in downtown Vancouver, I think we are absolutely... supportive of changing the use of the site from industrial to something that makes sense and I'm not an economist but my understanding is that the moment that council approves this application and this change in use the value of this land is going to go up significantly and will make um you know the 185 million that concord pacific paid for it uh 10 years ago seemed like a steal and so if if if that's the case then i i'm hearing all the conversation about the community benefits that ought to be included when the rezoning application comes and i think that ought to be spoken about now i think that ought to be a requirement now I think everybody knows that we're facing an affordability crisis. As someone who's trying to raise a young family downtown, there is an unbelievable shortage of child care space. We're friends with so many different families living downtown who have no place to put their kids. You know, we just look at – we have no space for schools. Our son was waitlisted. Many families go through the waitlist. It's become a regular occurrence where every year it just becomes the normal thing in February. Parents are told that their kids are going to be waitlisted for kindergarten. That shouldn't be happening here. You know, when – When we have the value of the land that we have in Vancouver, I don't understand how, and there are some people getting so wealthy off of the value of that land, why we can be facing some of these affordability issues for families in the city. You know, $10 a day child care is almost unheard of in Vancouver. It's something that I think that the city ought to be grappling with. It's not just a provincial issue. I think the cities ought to be looking at situations like this and their changing uses of land. I mean, this is really one of the main powers that you have in the city is what this land ought to be used for. And it seems to be wasted when we're approving these reuse on the idea that we might get some benefit later down the line. And so I think that we, you know, I think in terms of childcare space, I think in terms of the lack of school space, I heard conversation about that. I don't understand why that can't be approved now. I don't understand why there can be a proposal now that this be changed from used to build an elementary school. I don't know where all the kids are supposed to go when we drive by the massive project across the street. I don't know where all these kids are supposed to go to school. We've got wait lists now. um at the schools in downtown and just outside of downtown across berard bridge um i i you know we we have families that that are being priced out of the city um i haven't heard anything about the quality of the jobs i've heard a lot of conversation tonight about the fact that the amount of jobs is going to increase um i i can't speak for others but i don't know that there's any commitment here uh... now or will be in the future that these are going to be good jobs that people can make a living wage uh... pop you know uh... what people are making thirty forty dollars in vancouver can't live in the city so i don't have someone making minimum wage on the site is going to be a working in a retailer restaurant is going to be able to afford and live in the city where they work. So we seem to be wasting an opportunity to have a conversation that if we're going to be switching this from an industrial use, then what is the commitment that we're getting now, not down the line maybe, but now that there's going to be genuine community benefit to address some of the affordability issues that people are facing across the city. I also wanted to say that, again, and this is something that, you know, I'm a part of the Union for Hospitality Workers, United Here Local 40, and this is something that we've spoken about again and again. I heard it come up that one of the possible uses of this space is for a hotel. We've tried to make pretty clear that we think that the narrative from the hospitality industry that there's a hotel room crisis has... um been significantly exaggerated uh is how i'll put it um and so again i think that And Concord Pacific is one of the major players in the hospitality industry. So if they own the site, that seems like a real possibility. Again, we ought to be having a conversation about community benefit now. That is sort of one of the main opportunities that you as a council have to address the affordability crisis in the city. And I don't see that you're taking advantage of that at all. That's why I'm opposed to the application. Thank you.

I want to say that I am very happy to be able to speak to you today. I am very happy to be able to speak to you today. I am very happy to be able to speak to you today.

In the past, there have been many people who have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their jobs. It's a well, I want to tell me. I want to tell you that I'm going to do it. I want to tell you that I'm going to do it. I want to tell you that I'm going to do it. I want to tell you that I'm going to do it.

The percentage of people who live in social housing in Maracanã is less. The number of people who live in social housing in Maracanã is less. The number of people who live in social housing is less. I am very happy to be able to speak to you. I am very happy to be able to speak to you. I am very happy to be able to speak to you. I am very happy to be able to speak to you. I want to say that I am very happy to be here. I am very happy to be here. I am very happy to be here.

I am very happy to be here.

The.

. . . .

When I was a child, I used to go to the park.

I used to go to the park. I used to go to the park. I used to go to the park.

I would like to say that I am very happy to be a part of this project. I am very happy to be a part of this project. It's a religion. It's a religion. It's a religion. It's a religion. It's a religion. It's a religion.

I would like to say that I am very happy to be able to speak with you today. I would like to say that I am very happy to be able to speak with you today. I would like to say that I am very happy to be able to speak with you today. I would like to thank you all for your support.

I would like to thank you all for your support. I would like to thank you all for your support.

This is why I am here today. This is why I am here today.

This is why I am here today. This is why I am here today. This is why I am here today.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My position is against because i am saying the site must never change i am asking whether a change of the scale will leave a fair legacy for the people living in vancouver today and for generations to come when industrial land is changed to high-rise mixed use its value may rise greatly that value is granted to the owners through a public decision council should ask how much value is being created and what share will return to the community Will an independent appraisal show the value before and after the change? Future generations will need affordable homes, employment spaces, parks, schools, child care, and transportation. What percentage of homes will be social housing or below-market rental? How long will affordability last? Will there be family accessible and senior housing? Without finding numbers and duration, the promise may disappear before these children grow up. The city must...

Province is concerned about industrial land loss and the need for well-paying jobs. Replacing floor area alone does not describe job quality. How many positions will be full-time? What will they pay? What share will be light industrial and technology employment rather than mainly hotels, restaurants, and retail? A community benefit agreement should be mandatory. It should include local hiring, apprenticeships, a living wage, worker safety, and opportunities for youth. Indigenous people, newcomers, and underrepresented groups who will measure the results. What will happen if the developer fails to meet the commitment?

Benefits must also arrive on time. Will parks, childcare, affordable housing, and employment space be built in the first phase or postponed to the end? If the project is sold or stops after profitable buildings are completed, will Council hold enough bonds or financial security to finish the public benefits? This site is next to the Seaforth Armory and the Hoffmeister Building, operated by National Defense Security Routes for Large Multi-Review Codes, and post-disaster operations must be protected. Will agreed upon framework be completed before construction? Will the developer pay all related cost or community lose the benefit? Transportation and services must be ready as well. Can buses, water, sewage, drainage, schools and emergency service handle the growth?

Oh, good evening, Mayor and Council. My position is other.

Yeah, is opposed. Porque no estoy aquí para decir que este terreno nunca debe cambiar. Because I'm not here to say that the land can never change. Estoy aquí para preguntar por qué la ciudad debe cambiar primero el valor del suelo y dejar para después la negociación del beneficio público. I'm here to ask why the city should change the land value first and leave the public benefit negotiation until later.

La decisión de hoy no es solamente una modificación técnica de un mapa. Tonight's decision is not merely a technical map amendment. Cambiar el antiguo terreno de la cervecería Molson de uso industrial y de empleo a uso mixto de gran altura puede crear un aumento enorme de valor para el propietario. Changing the former Molson Brewery lands from industrial and employment use to high-rise mixed use may create a very large increase in value for the owner.

Antes de conceder ese valor, ¿dónde está la taxación independiente que muestre El valor del terreno bajo la designación actual y el valor probable después del cambio.

Before granting that value, where is the independent appraisal showing the land's value under the current designation and its likely value after change? ¿Quién preparó esa decisión? Will the full appraisal and its assumptions be published? What share of the uplift will be returned to the community? El informe habla de vivienda, empleo, espacios públicos y servicios, pero no presenta una cuenta clara. The report refers to housing, jobs, public spaces, and amenities, but it does not provide a clear account. ¿Cuál es la contribución mínima? What is the minimum developer contribution? ¿Se expresará como una cantidad fija, como una proporción del aumento de valor, o como una combinación de dinero, terrenos y construcción directa? Will it be a fixed amount, a proportion of the value uplift, or a combination of cash, land, and direct construction? ¿Cómo evitará la ciudad contar dos veces la misma contribución? Por ejemplo, ¿llamando beneficio público a una plaza que también aumenta el valor comercial del proyecto? How will the city prevent double accounting? For example, describing a plaza as a public benefit when the plaza also increases the project's commercial value.

También necesitamos saber cuándo se entregan los beneficios. We also need to know when benefits will be delivered.

¿Te pagarán antes del primer permiso de construcción por etapas al final? Okay, so I'm speaking in French.

¿Y el mercado sube durante 10 o 15 años? ¿La contribución se ajustará automáticamente?

We also know when benefits need to be delivered. Will contributions be paid before the building permit, in stages, or at the end?

¿Habrá indexión por inflación y por crecimiento de valor del suelo? If the market rises over 10, sorry, will it be indexed to inflation and the land value growth? ¿Qué garantía tendrá la ciudad si el proyecto se vende a otra empresa? ¿Se divide en fases o queda incompleto? ¡Exacto! What security will the city hold if the project is sold, divided into phases, or left incomplete? Una comunidad de beneficios no puede depender de la buena voluntad del desarrollador. A community benefits agreement cannot depend on developers' goodwill. Debe ser obligatorio. It should be mandatory. It should be mandatory, negotiated with worker and resident representatives and secured through legal agreement. ¿Incluirá contracción local, aprendizajes, salarios dignos, compras a empresas locales, metas para grupos históricamente excluidos y reportes públicos?

Will it include local hiring, apprenticeships, living wages, local procurement, targets for historically excluded groups, and public reporting?

¿Quién auditará los resultados? ¿Qué sanciones se aplicarán si no se cumplen? Who will audit the results?

What penalties will apply if the commitments are missed? El cambio de uso también debe responder a la pérdida de tierra industrial. The land use change must also respond to the loss of industrial land. La provincia pidió considerar un reemplazo uno a uno y empleados bien pagados en sectores como industria ligera y tecnología. The province asks for consideration of one-for-one replacement and well-paying jobs in sectors such as light industry and technology. ¿Qué parte exacta del terreno se reserva para estos usos? What exact portion of the site will be secured for those uses? ¿Serán espacios realmente funcionales? Will the spaces be genuinely functional, with suitable ceiling heights, loading, power and rents, or will the result mainly be offices and service storefronts?

¿Cuántos empleados permanentes se esperan y cuál será su nivel salario? How many permanent jobs are expected and at what wage levels? En vivienda, palabras como diversa y asequible no bastan. On housing, words such as diverse and affordable are not enough. Thank you very much, Speaker.

My job?

Okay, I work with the syndicato.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear what she said.

Yeah, she's with the Hotel Workers Union.

Yeah, good evening, Chair and Council. I am Gulzar Garibaldi. I am opposed to this proposal because I am not simply speaking for the English change. I am asking why when the city is granted a developer a land use change, that may create private value. The return to the community is not clear, legal and mandatory. The proposal creates a community benefits agreement or CVA as an option. That is the wrong order. Would council describe safety requirements and service obligation or building code as an option for a major project? Then why should local employment, apprenticeship, living wages, equal opportunity and community oversight be optional? Who would negotiate a mandatory CBA? Would the city and developers set the terms behind closed doors? Or would labor unions, nearby residents, youth, newcomers, other communities, and small businesses have a real seat at the table? Would meeting records, drafts, and decisions be made public? Employment needs quality as well as quantity. How many permanent full-time jobs will be created? How many positions will be rejected? Only during the construction. Will wages try to uncover its living wages standard? Will the developer and the major constructor are required to report wages, benefits, and safety performance? What would local hiring means in practice? Would there be a clear percentage or would local be defined? CBA chapter targets and the apprenticeships for women and the young people facing barriers of unemployment. If various targets are missed, would plenty or mentors or financial security apply? The CBA should not end when construction ends. What labor standards will we apply in future hotels, restaurants, retail space, office, or technology business? The province has called for well-paying work and light industrial empowerment. Will the city assure that the project does not rely mainly on the low-wage service jobs? Housing should also be connected to the agreement. Will some homes be affordable at the income level of the people working on the site? How many social Low markets and family homes will be secured. Will the developer be able to pay cash and avoid building general and affordable housing on the site? Without independent monitoring and agreement is only a promise. Who will we verify the data? How will the report be issued? Will jobs numbers wages conducted? apprenticeship and housing outcomes be posted on the public dashboard? Will the community have a clear complaint and remedy process? My request is that council approve a mandatory CBA framework before changing the land designation. It should contain measurement targets, dates, audits, planters and the formal community rules. When a developer sees major private value, the public deserves enforceable rights, not only good intentions. Thank you.

Okay, and are you able to speak in English?

She needs to change translation, so I'm just on here to translate.

Good evening. A city can improve density on a map much faster than it can build a school seat. Increase the capacity of a pipe or add a bus.

That timing gap is exactly my concern with this plan. El informe reconoce que los detalles de densidad, viviendas, acceso y servicios se decidirían en una futura rezonificación. The report acknowledges that density, housing, access, and servicing details will be decided through a future rezoning. Sin embargo, el cambio de designación abre la puerta a una población considerable. yet the designation change opens the door to a substantial population. Why is an integrated infrastructure analysis not required first covering this site, SEMAC, and other nearby projects? ¿Cuál sería la demanda acumulada sobre escuelas, guardias, agua, aguas residuales, renaje, energía, parques, policía, bomberos y respuesta de emergencia? What will the cumulative demand be on schools, child care, water, sewer, drainage, energy, parks, police, fire protection, and emergency response? En educación, ¿cuántos estudiantes se proyectan por fase y por tipo de vivienda? On education, how many students are projected by phase and housing type? ¿Qué escuelas pueden recibirlos y en qué año? ¿Existe terreno para una nueva escuela o una expansión? Which schools can accommodate them and which years? Is land available for a new school or expansion? El Consejo Escolar Francophone pregunta si podría contemplarse una escuela pública en el lugar. The Council of Francophone Schools asked whether a future public school could be considered on the site. ¿Se ha reservado espacio real para esa posibilidad o solo se estudiarán después que el diseño está fijado? Has real space been deserved for that possibility or will it be studied only after the design is fixed? ¿Quién pagará la construcción y la operación? Who will pay for construction and operation? En transporte, no basta con pedir a las personas que caminan o usan bicicleta. On transportation, it is not enough to tell people to walk or cycle. ¿Qué nueva capacidad de autobús se financiará? What new bus capacity will be funded? Will there be a transit priority on the Burrard Bridge? How will the site connect to a rapid transit station? What cycling upgrades will be built and for which phase? ¿Se permite la ocupación de miles de viviendas antes de que lleguen estas mejoras? Will thousands of homes be occupied before those improvements arrive? ¿Esta red vial tiene conflictos especiales? This road network has special conflicts. Se necesitan rutas para cargas comercial, acceso de emergencia y movimiento de vehículos militares grande hacia las instalaciones del Departamento de Defensa Nacional. Commercial loading, emergency access, and the movement of large military vehicles to a Department of National Defense facilities all require reliable routes. ¿Existe un plan de sugeración que pruebe que estas funciones pueden coincidir con horas de mayor demanda? Is there a circulation plan proving that these functions can coexist during peak periods? ¿Cómo se evita que los estacionamientos, las entregas y los vehículos de aplicaciones bloquean accesos críticos? How will parking, entrances, deliveries, and ride hailing vehicles be prevented from blocking critical access?

Will evacuation and post-disaster responses be simulated?

Yeah, she's asking me what's happening, so just give me a moment. But these things are also important. We have to think about that. She's saying those things are important as well. You should be paying attention to all those factors, but I'll see.

Sure, sure. She's asking, is it real that you guys aren't letting her speak and talk about her? I'm just trying to explain to her that you guys are saying that it's going to come at a later date. I don't know. I don't know. No sé. I guess she'll just call back, I guess, if she thinks of something else. No. Bueno. Bueno.

¿Qué más ibas a decir? Maybe los beneficios comunitarios. Eso al final.

Does she wish to continue or no? ¿Quieres continuar o no? Sí, quiero hablar. ¿De algo más? Una comunidad de beneficios obligatorios podría incluir guardias, espacios, comentarios, programas juveniles y empleos locales. Pero no debe usarse para sustituir obligaciones básicas de infraestructura. Exactly. OK, so she said a mandatory community benefits agreement would include child care, community rooms, youth programs like local jobs, but it must not replace basic infrastructure obligations. I think that might be more on topic. Continue. So she's asking, will the city clearly distinguish required mitigation from an additional public benefit? She's asking if it will avoid counting a necessary sewer pipe as though it were a voluntary developer gift. Mi solitud es que el Consejo adopte una regla simple. Ninguna fase debe producir una demanda que la infraestructura todavía no puede atender. So I ask Council to adopt a simple rule. No phase should create demand that the infrastructure cannot yet serve. Primero, si deben publicar los modelos, financiar las mejores y activar las fechas. and publish the models, fund the upgrades, and secure the dates first. Okay, thank you.

I'm a resident of Victoria.

Okay. Sorry, just one moment here. So, Mayor and Council, my position is opposed because the current proposal asks the public to trust a future process without showing enough of the public bargain today. This is not an ordinary housekeeping amendment. The city is being asked to convert a former industrial site into a mixed-use, high-rise opportunity. That decision changes what can be built, changes the economics of the land, and gives the developer access to residential value that is not available under the current designation. Before Council grants that opportunity, residents deserve to know the terms of the exchange. At present, the public benefits are described in general language. We hear about housing, jobs, public space, childcare, culture, transportation. climate responsive design, all these ideas are welcome. The problem is that a list of the possible benefits is not the same as a commitment. A future rezoning may negotiate details, but the city loses leverage when the land use principle has already been approved without clear minimum expectations. Council should establish a benefit floor now. It should state the minimum affordable housing percentage, the minimum amount and quality of publicly accessible open space, the number of childcare spaces, the required employment floor area, and the amount of infrastructure expected from the developer. It should also define which benefits must be delivered in the first phase, not after profitable residential phases are completed. I'm especially concerned about the language on jobs. The report proposes a one-for-one replacement of the former industrial floor space with compatible job space. However, replacing square footage does not necessarily replace economic value. industrial and production jobs can provide stable skilled and well-playing employment service and hospitality jobs are important but many are lower paid and less secure if the teacher development relies heavily on hotels restaurants shops and personal services what will the city do to ensure these are good jobs the answer should include living wage expectations benefits predictable scheduling union access apprenticeship programs target targets for hiring local residents The province has already warned about industrial land loss and encouraged well-paying employment. Council should not simply count doors, desks, or forays. It should measure wages, job quality, and long-term economic contribution. That is why a community benefits agreement should be mandatory. A binding CBA can connect development rights to local hiring, training, procurement, COMMERCIAL SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES. IT CAN REQUIRE ANNUAL PUBLIC REPORTING AND CREATE A ROLE FOR COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES IN MONITORING DELIVERY. LEAVING A CBA OPTIONAL MEANS THE STRONGEST PUBLIC COMMITMENTS MAY DISAPPEAR DURING LATER NEGOTIATIONS. THE SAME CONCERN APPLIES TO HOUSING. THE REPORT SAYS THE DEVELOPMENT COULD INCLUDE RENTAL, AFFORDABLE AND SOCIAL HOUSING. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. Council should set an aggressive and permanently affordable target with deeply affordable homes, family-sized units, and housing for workers who actually serve their neighborhood. Otherwise, the project may create jobs that do not pay enough for workers to live nearby.

There are serious operational questions besides the Seaforth Armory and the Hofmeister Building. The Department of National Defense identified security risk large military vehicle movements emergency operations and the need to protect structural integrity of the post-disaster facility. Council should require an independent security and access plan reviewed by D&D before any final development approval. The city should welcome redevelopment on clear terms. Do not grant major private value today and negotiate the public return tomorrow. Define the return now, make it enforceable, and make it worthy of the value being created. There should be an independent review of the benefit package. The city and the developer will each have their own assumptions about land value, cost and feasibility. An outside review can help council avoid understating the value created or overstating the cost of public obligations. That review should be released before the final vote so the community can comment on the actual exchange. Thank you.

are you also requesting are you also intending to use a translator yes she's intending to use a translator i will translate okay go ahead This is not the reason why the site is being developed again, but this is the reason why I believe that this council will give the city what it needs most, affordable housing. Good evening, Mayor, Council, and staff. My name is Preet. I'm here tonight to speak against moving forward with the current planning process for the former Molson Brewery site. Not because I don't want to see their site redeveloped, but because I don't trust what this Council will use it for and what our city actually needs most, affordable housing. First of all, let's start with one thing that the city has given us, that along with us, there is a site called Fairview. It is bordered, it has residential buildings, it has a station, and there are other developments. And the brewery was closed in 2009. This is a 7.7 acre site right in the middle of Fairview. It's boarded by residential neighborhoods, jobs, parks, transit, and the Santa Clara development. Brewery operations ended in 2019. The city says the site is no longer suited for heavy industrial and that we need to reflect its evolving context. I agree the site needs to change, but evolving context cannot just be code for evolving to more luxury condos, more market rentals, and more missed opportunities.

I believe that this place should be redeveloped. But we can't say that only the most expensive apartments will be built here. We want the rentals to be affordable for the common people, and that opportunity should not be missed. Because this is the reason why the council has always given a head to this project and kept the affordable housing behind. Because this is exactly what has happened every single time this council gets a once-in-a-generation piece of land. First, let's talk about priorities. We're in a housing crisis. Rents are up 30% in five years. Teachers, nurses, trade people, and young families are being pushed out of Vancouver. The wait list for non-market housing is years long. People are living in cars and SROs in tents. And what does council do when we get 7.7 acres in Fairview steps from transit and parks? We launch a planning process to explore opportunities. First of all, the most important thing for us is that the current crisis in Vancouver is 23% higher than it was in the last five years. The teachers, the nurses, the workers, the young people, they are all living outside of Vancouver. The wait list for non-market vehicles is very long. People are living in cars, in SRMs, or in tents. When the council brought the 7.5-acre Fairview project to us, they did not think that it would be an opportunity to make it affordable, or that it would be something for the common people. Where, in that sentence, is the word affordable? Where is the commitment that 100% of this site will be non-market, co-op, or deeply affordable rental? It's not there, and that's the problem. Elected officials keep saying housing is the number one issue, but when we actually get land, the priority disappears. Instead, we get mixed use, employment districts, creative spaces, and public realm improvements. All good things, but none of them keep a roof over someone's head. Where is the word affordable in this? The commitment is that 4% will be non-market, co-op, and affordable for the common people. There is no such thing in this. That is the biggest problem in this. The people who are elected, some of them say that the current situation is unaffordable. That's the number one problem. But when they get a chance, they take the opportunity to buy affordable housing. They don't do that. There are a lot of problems in this. Only the common people. But the developers and the older people don't have that. Look at the pattern. Seneca next door, mostly market. East Fraserlands, mostly market. Jericho lands, we're still negotiating, and the affordable numbers keep shrinking. The city sells, leases, or rezones public lands, and the affordable component is always the first thing value engineered out.

For example, if you look at Seneca, the rental of all the markets in Guantanamo, East Friisland, and Jericho land, we are still negotiating with them, but the number of affordable housing is shrinking. The city has released a new lease on public land, and the affordable component is the first thing that has been done. Second, let's talk about timing and trust. The Molson site has been sitting empty since 2019. Six years. While we waited, thousands of people lost housing. And now, Council wants to start another multi-year planning process. More consultants, more open houses, more engagement.

Second, let's talk about the time and the trust that we have. The Mawson site is only 6 years old. Thousands of people have lost their homes at this time. And now the council is asking again that this affordable housing will take place again for so many years. They will take other people, consultants, open houses and engage them. Meanwhile, there are nonprofit housing providers who could break ground on affordable housing here in 18 months if you give them the land and got out of the way. But we won't do that because this council has never made affordable housing the default. It's always the negotiation. You cannot claim to prioritize affordability while treating every major site like a blank canvas for revenue generation. Third, the location demands better. This isn't the edge of the city. This is 7.7 acres surrounded by transit. schools, hospitals, and parks. This is exactly where teachers and healthcare workers should be able to live close to work. This is exactly where we should be building family-sized, non-market homes so kids don't have to change schools every time rent goes up. The third reason is that this location is much better. This is a city where each acre has its own transit, school, hospital, and park. In this area, teachers and health care workers should have a place to live. We always face the problem of not having an affordable job or profession in the city. We should solve this problem now. We should not change schools to make a family-sized, non-market home. If we put market towers and boutique office space here, we will have permanently wasted the best chance Fairview has had in 70 years to add affordable homes. And let's be honest about employment and creative districts. We don't have a shortage of office space in Vancouver. We have a shortage of one, two, and three-bedroom apartments people can actually afford. Speaker, that is your time.

No, that's incorrect. She's an organizer.

I'm sorry, you'd like to ask where she went to school?

She's a resident in this country. We're here to speak at City Council. That's not what I'm asking.

I don't have the answer to that question.

Okay. I don't speak the language. I'm reading off of the translation that she provided me.

Okay, I don't think that was anywhere in the rules that we saw, so Preet felt that she wanted to speak at this council in her language, that is her first language, and she provided me a translation of the speech so that I could translate for her the speech, which is what we were doing.

It's a translation of what she's saying.

Yes, I am.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Large developments are often presented through skylights made from towers. New and iconic designs, but people live at the ground level. That is where the experience means shadows, traffic, noise, and whether a place feels safe and welcoming. My position is other because important question about the human experience remain unanswered. What maximum height and total density MAY BE CONSIDERED EVEN IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE FOR A FUTURE REZONING WHY IS THERE NO PUBLIC RANGE NOW HOW WILL SHADOW ON VENUE PARK NEARBY STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES BE ASSESSED ONE IMAGE ONE HOUR IS NOT ENOUGH Will there be seasonal shadow studies from morning to evening? Multiple towers can create uncomfortable wind.

What wind standards will apply to seating, walking, play, and cycling? Will independent wind tunnel testing be required? if the completed project performs poorly who will pay the profits will there be post occupancy measurement tower placement also affects privacy and security how close could be balconies windows be the support harmony and hope minister building Could they create direct sightlines or camera views into sensitive operations? What minimum setbacks and screening will apply? How will unauthorized access from rooftops

What wind speed is standard will apply to sitting, walking, play, and cycling. Will independent wind tunnel testing be required? If the completed project performs poorly, who will pay for retrofit?

Will there be a post-occupancy measurement?

Power placement also affected privacy and security.

What minimum set backs and screening will apply? How will unauthorized access from rooftops, parkades, or paths be prevented? At the street level, how will the area remain genuinely public and lively without becoming an outdoor shopping mall? What share of the fat page will serve small local businesses?

change will affordable commercial space be secured for local entrepreneurs and artists. The public remain must be accessible to everyone. Will there be... Thank you.

Perfect. Good evening, Council. My position is to oppose, and I just want to ask whether this project will create a mixed income community or simply a mix of market products. The referral report says the future development could include strata, purpose-built rental, affordable housing, and social housing. That sounds a little bit broad to me, but without targets, it does not guarantee inclusion. A project can contain several tenures and still remain unaffordable to most Vancouver households these days. I think that council should establish a housing framework before granting the major increase in land value. The framework should set minimum percentages for social housing, below market rental, secured market rental, the family size units, and so on. And it should define affordability by household income and require long-term or permanent protection. The city should also require a range of unit sizes and accessible homes, families, seniors, people with disabilities, lower income workers. You know, they shouldn't have to be treated as special cases to be added later. They should be a part of the basic program. The developer contribution should reflect the value of the land use change. The city is moving the site from industrial and employment designation toward mixed use high rise development. The Council should publish the estimated uplift and show how much will be captured through affordable housing, infrastructure, public space, and community facilities.

Also, a mandatory community benefits agreement should support the housing framework. It can secure affordable units by phase, local hiring, apprenticeships, living wage expectations, childcare, cultural space, and affordable commercial space. um it should prevent the public benefits from being reduced quietly during later negotiations the province's concern about industrial land and well-paying jobs is directly connected to the housing if the permanent employment is mainly in hospitality retail and services many workers would not be able to afford market rents in the project or close by the city should require good job standards and ensure that affordable housing programs serves the incomes of the workforce being created. The one-for-one replacement for the former 283,000 square feet of industrial floor area should also be delivered in a way that supports economic inclusion. Functional space for light industrial arts, technology, laboratories, local businesses can create different types of jobs and opportunities. Affordable commercial rents can help small businesses survive. Public amenities must serve all residents as well, not only owners or customers. Parks, plazas, community rooms, child care, cultural spaces, so on and so forth, should be publicly accessible and delivered early. Council should require clear quantities and operating arrangements.

Okay, yeah, sure. Yeah, the D&D concerns around the land must be resolved without sacrificing the quality of housing or public realm. Secure boundaries, emergency access, large vehicle routes, structural protection should be integrated into the design from the beginning.

Yeah, I know. People kind of made my points earlier. But yeah, no.

This project will be called Complete Community Only if... people with different incomes can truly live there. It should be affordable, good jobs, transparent value capture, public amenities that are open to everyone, and a mix of towers is not the same as a mixed income neighborhood.

The city should also guard against strata dominance. A large share of ownership units can increase speculative demand, and weakened long-term rental stability. Council should examine whether rental and non-profit housing should form the majority. Thank you very much.

Hello, can you hear me?

yes i am a resident of vancouver um and i would like to um yeah sure i would like to thank council uh and acting mayor for for hearing us tonight uh and hearing us uh you know throughout these last few weeks i know it's been a lot of meetings and time um but yes i would like to speak in opposition of this proposal i do think that the proposal does not go far enough I think we need to have more housing in Vancouver that is for working-class people, for people who want to live in the city. And as we know, most people that live in the city, they make somewhere in the $25 or $30 an hour range, especially a lot of the people I know. And these kinds of rentals and these kinds of buildings and these kinds of developments, like the one that's going to be taking place on this site, are very unaffordable for people who make that amount of money. And those people are struggling every day. and they are moving further and further out of the city. And I think this is a great site. It's obviously very walkable to the downtown core right over the bridge. It's very, you know, centrally located. It's a location that, you know, in the past has been a little bit more upscale. And so adding housing for people who are working class, I think would bring a great mix to this community, would bring a great opportunity for people to live closer to work. You know, we're building all these hotels and, Other things downtown, we want a lot of jobs downtown, and so we need to have people who can work downtown. And this is a prime location where people could very easily walk across, you know, get downtown, work downtown, and then walk home. They wouldn't add to the traffic. You know, they wouldn't add to the car traffic that's constantly taking place. And those kinds of things and the congestion, you know, these would be people who, for the most part, would be walking or taking transit downtown. And I think that these kinds of communities, we really have to take a look at how. you know, how we're zoning them to make sure that these working people can afford to live there. Because right now, as we've seen, you know, working class people are moving further and further out. It makes it so difficult to do the jobs in the city when people have to commute an hour, an hour and a half. That's, you know, two, three hours they're spending away from their family. I would really like to see council prioritize... you know, working-class families, especially working-class families that work in the city. I know that your staff is very creative and can come up with ways so that people who actually work in the city can live in the city and that we can target developments for people who work in the city. I think that would be an incredible way forward, and I would say council should ask, you know, on this site particularly, council should ask their staff, is there a way to make sure, ensure, that people who are working class people who are making between 20 and say 35 dollars an hour If those people can afford to live here, how do we earmark this site for those people? How do we make sure that those people who are in that range that are making around $20 to $35 an hour are able to stay close to the city on this site and walk to their job, enjoy their life, and contribute to Vancouver in a vibrant way? Working class people can contribute to the culture. of the city uh and we are losing that we are losing that um and and all that is kind of moving out east that we wanted to stay in vancouver and this is a perfect spot right here on berard right down right close to downtown for people who will uh you know who will be able to work and live in in down in in vancouver so um that's what we're hoping for uh uh with this site And we hope that city council will reject it and ask city staff to earmark, figure out a way to earmark this location for people who work in the city, whether that's in a hotel or a car dealership or on a construction site or in a school or a hospital or for the police or whoever, so that they can live in the city. I think that's the most important project. city council can take on is how can working class people live in this city, especially the people that put so much pride into making Vancouver awesome. They do the work, they do the hard work, the heavy lifting. How can we make sure that they can stay and contribute to the city and add to the cultural life of the city? So, Council, thank you very much for hearing me out today. I want to, once again, thank you guys for all your time and listening to us, you know, over the days and the weeks and the months. I know it's been a very intense schedule for you guys, so thank you very much. And I please, I implore you to reject this proposal. Have a great night.

Good evening, Council. My position is opposed. I want to ask who carries the risk in this redevelopment and who receives the rewards. The land use change creates a clear reward for the developer, which is access to more valuable residential and commercial uses on a major central site. The public, however, may carry many risks such as infrastructure costs, traffic pressure, school crowding, delayed amenities, loss of industrial capacity, and uncertainty about affordable housing and job quality. Council should not approve something like this in which the private benefit is immediate and the public benefit is conditional. The city should identify the value created by the redesignation and secure the public return through binding agreements before the project advances. The referral report includes conditions stating that approvals do not create legal rights and that costs are incurred at the applicant's risk. That protects the city procedurally but does not answer the broader policy question of what happens if the project is approved in principle and later market conditions make the affordable housing, job space, or public amenities difficult to deliver. Will the city reduce the commitments or will the developer carry that risk? A clear answer requires financial security, phasing conditions, and a mandatory community benefits agreement. The developer should post security for major public obligations, affordable housing, employment space, childcare, parks, and transportation improvements should be tied to specific phases. And if obligations are not met, later phases should not proceed. the province's concern about industrial land shows why risk matters once industrial land is converted it is difficult to restore so the city should require functional and protected employment space not only promise a future uh sorry not only promise of future job uses if the mix becomes mainly hospitality and retail council should require good job standards so the public does not absorb the loss of industrial capacity in exchange for lower wage work housing risk must also be addressed the report names several possible tenures but sets no aggressive target Council should require permanently affordable social and family sized housing now because that's what we desperately need. The developer should not be able to reduce affordability later because costs rise or market demand changes. The Department of National Defense concerns involve public safety and emergency risk. The Seaforth Armory and Hofmeister building require secure access. large vehicle movement, structural protection, and uninterrupted disaster response capability. The developer should bear the cost of mitigation and provide technical studies, construction protocols, and design changes required by D&D. Council should also protect residents from operating cost risks. Public spaces, cultural facilities, and childcare need long-term maintenance and management, so the developer contribution should include sustainable funding, not only construction. The basic principle should be fairness, where the party receiving the development value should carry the cost and risk of delivering the promised benefit. These require transparent valuation, strong financial security, a mandatory CBA, aggressive housing targets, protected job space, and D&D approved mitigation. Do not allow the community to receive uncertainty while the developer receives certainty. The city should conduct a sensitivity analysis showing what happens under lower sales prices, higher interest rates, construction inflation, or slower absorption. Public obligation should be structured to survive realistic market changes. If the project only works when affordable housing and community benefits can be reduced during a downturn, then the original approval is not financially or socially resilient. Risk allocation should be written into every major agreement. Cost overruns for private construction should not automatically justify reducing public benefits. Insurance, bonding, warranties, and contingency reserves should protect the community and the city. The city should also ensure that taxpayers are not left with unexpected remediation, servicing, or maintenance costs. A full cost allocation should identify private and public responsibilities before construction begins.

Not on the line.

Oh, so she was able to respond to my question in English, but she is requesting a translator? I translated the question for her.

Please go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. For decades, this site has had a clear economic function. Al lado se encuentra la Armenia, C4C, y el edificio de ese otro, y instalaciones que apoyan operaciones sensibles y que deben seguir funcionando durante y después de una emergencia. The former brewery contained roughly 200,800... and once employed about 250 people. A complete transformation is now proposed.

That's why I oppose this.

That's why I oppose this. And I put it on.

Um, no lo tienes el papel, Gaby. Estás leyendo español tres, ¿cierto? Ah, no, cinco. Ah, ya. Okay, entonces estamos bien ahora. Ajá. Yo sigo y tú sacalo. ¿Lo puedes sacar ahorita? Sí, lo estoy leyendo ahora. Estamos bien. Okay. Okay. El Departamento de Defensa Nacional ha expresado preocupación por acceso, no autorización, seguridad, movimiento diario de vehículos militares grandes y la integridad del edificio Hofmeister como instalación posterior a desastres. The Department of National Defense has raised concerns about unauthorized access, security, the daily movement of large military vehicles, and the integrity of the Hoffmeister building as a post-disaster facility.

to do, and that's what you are doing, because it sounds like you're reading the same comments word for word, the same script we heard from previous speakers. Yeah, no, I'm translating for this person. And she's just wondering, like, if she has the same comments as someone previous to her, that's still relevant, is it not?

Okay. Wow, okay. ¿Por qué no le damos por acá el diseño para crear riesgos de muchas maneras?

Sorry, I was just translating what you had said to me, to her. She had asked me. We're continuing with the speech now. Thank you.

Please go ahead. Design can create risk in many ways. ¿Qué distancias se requerían entre edificios nuevos y propiedades militares? What setbacks will be required between new buildings and military properties? ¿Cómo se tratan balcones, azoteas, ventanas, cámaras, iluminaciones y líneas de visión? How will balconies, rooftops, windows, cameras, lighting, and sight lines be addressed? ¿Los espacios públicos o caminos podrían facilitar el acceso no autorizado? Will public spaces or pathways facilitate unauthorized access? ¿Qué barreras y controles se necesitan sin convertir el barrio en un lugar hostil para viajones? What barriers and controls are needed without turning the neighborhood into a hostile place for pedestrians? La circulación es igualmente crítica. Circulation is equally critical. ¿Qué rutas utilizaron los vehículos militares durante operaciones normales y emergencias? What routes will military vehicles use during normal operations and emergencies? How will these routes be maintained and kept clear during construction for trucks, deliveries, taxis, bicycles, so on? ¿Quién tendrá autoridad para cerrar una calle o plaza si ocurre una emergencia? Will there be protected access for people managed around the clock? ¿La construcción puede ser el fallido de mayor riesgo? Who will have authority to close a street or plaza if there's an emergency? Una evacuación profunda, pilotaje, vibración o cambio de aguas subterráneas podría afectar estructuras cercanas. Deep evacuation, pile driving, a vibration or changes to groundwater could affect nearby structures.

Se exigirán estudios geotécnicos independientes, monitorear continuo y límites de vibración. Will independent geotechnical studies, continuous monitoring and vibration limits be required? ¿Habrá un plan para detener trabajos inmediatamente si aparecen movimientos? Will there be a plan to stop work if movement is detected? ¿El desarrollador proporcionará una... Will the developer provide enough financial security to cover repairs and so on and operational continuity? ¿Todavía tengo tiempo? ¿Cuánto tiempo tengo? No sé, pero sigue. Estamos bien. Okay.

We must also consider the long term. Buildings can last up to 100 years and change ownership many times. Oh, sorry. She's asking how much time we have left, if we may know. You have under a minute.

My conclusion is that compatibility with defense facilities cannot remain a general phase for a future stage.

Before approving the designation change, require a technical framework. Thank you. Thank you.

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.

Are you able to hear me okay?

Good evening, council. My position is for this topic. I want to raise the issue of the president. The report describes this site as a unique and self-contained, and it says that the redesignation is unlikely to trigger many similar applications. Even so, Council's decision will send a message about how Vancouver handles industrial land conversion and private land value increases. If Council approves the change without clear public benefit requirements, other landowners will reasonably expect the same approach. Secure the new designation first and negotiate with the community later. This weakens the city's position and makes the future of planning less predictable. Council should therefore establish a strong standard for exceptional land conversions. The standard should require independent land value analysis, transparent value capture, aggressive affordable housing targets, protection of employment capacity, a mandatory community benefits agreement, and infrastructure planning before final approval. province's concerns about industrial land is especially important industrial land is scarce and conversion is usually permanent the city proposes one for one replacement of the former industrial floor space with compatible job space that should be a binding minimum but council should also require functional design sector target and long-term protection otherwise future projects may claim to replace industrial capacity while providing ordinary commercial pay the jobs must also be well paid if the site shifts towards hospitality retail and services the city should living wage expectations, benefits training, apprenticeships, and local hiring. A mandatory CBA is the best place to secure these commitments. Housing policy also needs a precedent. A major increase in residential development potential should produce a major contribution to permanently affordable housing. Council should not rely on whatever policy happens to exist later. It should set a strong minimum now, including social housing, below-market rental, secured rental, and family-sized homes. public benefit package should be specific how much park space will there be how many child care spaces and at what size and allowance of those child care spaces will there be transportation improvements will there be a school capacity contribution will there be any cultural facilities or reconciliation act when will each item be delivered these questions are left unanswered the president will be that public benefits can remain vague at a land use stage The Department of National Defense concerns are another reason for a high standard. The site is besides sensitive operations and a post-disaster facility. Security, large vehicle access, structural protection, and emergency functions need binding conditions. Future developers should understand that critical neighboring operations cannot be left to informal contradiction. Council can approve change while still protecting the public's interest. The way to do that is to make this project a model of transparent, enforceable, and proportionate value capture. a president that exceptional development rights require exceptional public benefit and public information a clear president would also help developers when the rule rules for value capture housing employment and cbas are known in advance landowners can price land and design projects accordingly uncertainty often produces pressure to weaken communities later Council can support both fairness and predictability by adopting a standard that applies whenever exceptional industrial land is considered for conversion. The standard should also require a cumulative regional analysis. Industrial conversion in different municipalities may each appear small, but together can reduce the land available for production, repair, logistics, and essential services. Metro Vancouver should receive clear evidence about long-term regional effect, not only the circumstances of this single parcel. Council should also commit to reviewing the policy after this case, so lessons from the process become formal guidance rather than remaining project-specific.

Yes, Dale McClanahan here.

Okay. Yes, I am. Please go ahead. Yes, I live at 16th and Grandville, about one and a half kilometers from the site. And on a micro level, whatever gets developed at the former Molson site will probably chip out a little bit of my view of Stanley Park, which... is i think definitely fair game given the quality of urban design that can be brought to bear on this site i'm speaking in favor of the proposal i would like to start by noting that the uh that the staff report was very succinct and identified the numerous reasons why this is no longer suitable for industrial use as as industrial use required in 1953. I think that the possibilities on this site as envisioned in Vancouver's standard approach to large sites that's evolved over the last 30 or 40 years is quite sophisticated and i would encourage all speakers to have a chance to look through in detail in the reports because there'll be numerous steps to deal with the micro and macro aspects of this site which i think offers many good opportunities i'd like to close by mentioning two aspects that i think are important opportunities to seize i think one is it will enable an east-west movement of pedestrians and bikes and better continuity for the seawall. And secondly, I think that the linkage between Kitts Point and Kitsilano generally and the waterfront, particularly to the east of Granville Island, will also enhance better utilization of these cultural amenities that are available, the recreational amenities that are in the area, and provide for what looks like a thoughtful mix of both industrial, commercial, employment-generating, as well as housing. Thank you.

Vote assist, please, in favor.

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor?

Chair, can I please get a vote assist in favor?

Yeah, Michelle Travis, and I'm a Vancouver resident. Great. I've got concerns and questions about the redevelopment of the former Molson Brewery site. While the property may no longer be suitable for heavy industrial uses, given how the surrounding area has evolved, a land use change of this magnitude doesn't mean we need to give away enormous public value without securing equally significant public benefits. So tonight's decision is about transforming over seven acres of industrial land into one of the most valuable mixed-use development sites in the city. The planning decision will dramatically increase the value of the land. That increase in value is not created by the property owner. It's created by the decision made by the council. The referral report references and speaks to guiding principles around affordable housing, employment, public amenities, and open space, but they don't establish any requirements at this point to ensure these benefits will actually be delivered. The report also acknowledges that the provincial government has emphasized the need for replacing limited industrial lands. They encourage well-paying jobs in the site. Hopefully that's not going to be limited to just tech jobs, and for providing diverse affordable housing. The staff report also notes that the public overwhelmingly identified affordable housing, community amenities, infrastructure, and public benefits as priorities. but none of those are guaranteed so once the land is re-designated from industrial to mixed use the property owner receives a tremendous increase in development potential the question i have is how does the city capture the value of that up zoning at this stage of the game city staff earlier this evening said they're meeting regularly with concord pacific so question whether there have been any commitments made at this point by the owner of the site regarding any sort of public benefits The report also raises several issues that deserve greater attention. School capacity is already projected to be under pressure. Transportation upgrades will certainly be needed. We also need new parks and community facilities there. So these are real costs created by redevelopment, and they should not be downloaded onto existing residents and taxpayers while the landowner captures most of the financial upside. So if this redevelopment is going to create billions of dollars in new real estate value, then it should also create lasting public value. which starts with an enforceable community benefits agreement. Such an agreement should include more ambitious affordable housing targets that go well beyond minimum policy requirements. That means requiring substantial non-market and below-market housing so that working people, not just high-income households, can afford to live there. It should require strong labor standards so that construction jobs and permanent jobs created on the site are family-supporting jobs with fair wages, apprenticeship opportunities, and respect for workers' rights. It should guarantee child care, parks, cultural facilities, other community spaces that the public needs as population grows. And we also want to make sure that we establish clear timelines and accountability so that those commitments cannot disappear during future negotiations. reports of the rezoning process will determine a lot of these details my concern is that what happens in those details council is being asked to approve an enormous increase in land value today while asking the public to trust that meaningful public benefits will follow tomorrow history tells us it's not always how these negotiations unfold So if this redevelopment is really intended to build a complete community, council should establish clear expectations now and not after the value has already been transferred. If the public is creating extraordinary wealth for the property owner through this land use change, then the public deserves extraordinary benefits in return. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tyler Winter, and I am not a resident of Vancouver.

I want to ask whether the, sorry, my position is opposed. I want to ask whether the public will have ongoing stake in the value created on this site. The city is considering a planning decision that could transform a former industrial property into a major mixed-use high-rise district. Sorry, excuse me. The decision will create substantial private value. The one-time contribution at rezoning may not be enough to reflect the long-time value of the opportunity. Council should consider forms of lasting community benefit. This could include permanently affording housing, publicly owned or nonprofit or owned community space, long-term affordable commercial space, childcare facilities, cultural space, and revenue arrangements that support local services over time. The city should publish an estimate of the land value uplift and explain how much will be captured immediately and how much the benefit will remain permanent. A park dedication, social housing building, or community facility has a lasting value. A temporary program or short-term discount does not. A mandatory community benefit should create this long-term framework. It should include local and Indigenous hiring, apprenticeships, good job standings, affordable commercial space, community facilities, and annual public reporting. Community representatives should have a role in monitoring the agreement. The province is about industrial land and well-paying jobs that lead to permanent employee protections. the one-for-one replacement of the former 283,000 square feet of industrial floor area to be secured for compatible job uses. Some of the space should be designed and priced for light industrial protection, laboratories, technology, arts, and cultural work. If the project includes hotels, restaurants, and retail, the CBA should require living wage expectations and career pact. Housing should also create permanent public assets. Excuse me, I said. Council should require a strong share of social and below-market rental housing with long-term ownership or operating arrangement. Family size and accessible units should be included. The city should avoid relying entirely on temporary affordability tied to private ownership. Public space must be genuinely public. The project should include land or legal rights that guarantee access, connection, and use for the broader community. It should not rely only on privately managed presence. That can be change rules or access over time. The Department of National Defense concerns need long-time solutions as well. Security buffers, large vehicle access, emergency routes, and structural protections must remain effective after construction and through future changes in ownership or use. agreements should bind future owners not only the original developer the project could create a new neighborhood and a new source of public value council should ensure that the benefits do not disappear after the first sales are completed please require permanent permanent affordable housing protected employment space publicly secured community facilities a mandatory cva and transparent value capture the community should receive lasting assets in exchange for lasting development rights council should also explore community ownership models a non-profit land trust housing provider cultural organization or public agency but own portions of the site or key facilities ownership gives the community stronger protection than a temporary operating agreement the land use change is permanent so at least part of the public return should be also be permanent and controlled in the public or non-profit interest Long-term benefit also requires protection against future conversation. Community rooms should not become private amenities. Employment space should not become residential storage. And affordable commercial units should not quietly return to market rent. Covenants, ownership structures, and regular audits should preserve the purpose of each benefit for future generations. The city should appoint an organization responsible for stewardship and public reporting, with stable funding and authority to correct violations. Lasting benefits require an institution. They will defend them long after their original approved team and development company have changed. Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, my name is Naya Holders, and I'm a Vancouver resident, and my position on the Pichu is other. I'm just going to list a series of questions that should be answered before this plan advances. First, what is the estimated increase in land value created by changing this site from industrial and employment use to mixed-use high-rise development? The public should know the scale of the benefit being granted to the developer. Second, what is the city's required return? How many permanently affordable homes will be delivered? How many social housing units? How many family sized homes? How many childcare spaces? How much truly public open space? What transportation and school contributions? Odd categories are not enough. Third, will council require a mandatory community benefits agreement? For a development of this size, a CBA should include local and indigenous hiring, apprenticeships, living wage expectations, benefits, affordable commercial space, community facilities, and public reporting. Why should these commitments remain optional? Fourth, how will the city respond to the province's concern about industrial land loss? The report proposes replacing the former 283,000 square feet of industrial floor area with job space. But what kind of space will it be? How much will be suitable for light industrial laboratories, production, technology, arts, and cultural work? How will that space be protected from later conversion? Fifth, what will make the jobs good jobs? If the future mix includes hotels, restaurants, retail, and services, what wage, benefits, scheduling, training, and career standards will apply? A four-area target does not guarantee economic security. Sixth, What are the aggressive affordable housing targets? The report lists several possible tenures, but the city should set clear percentages and income levels before land value increases. Affordable housing should be a permanent and delivered in every phase. Seven, what will the public benefits? When will the public benefits arrive? Well, employment space, affordable housing, parks, affordable housing, parks, child care and transportation improvements be delivered alongside the first residents four years later. What financial security will protect these commitments if the market changes? Eight, how will school and infrastructure pressures be addressed? The Vancouver School Board has already identified enrollment concerns. Who will pay for the capacity required by new growth? Nine, how will the Department of National Defense concerns be resolved? The Seaforth Armory and Hoffer Meister Building support sensitive operations. large military vehicle vehicles and emergency response who will approve it the security plan access plan structural protections and construction protocols will the nd sign off before final approval and how will the community monitor the project will there be a public commit will there be public commitments to register annual reports and consequences when obligations are delayed or changed These questions are not anti-development. They are questions responsible government should ask when a public decision creates major private value. The site may be appropriate for change, but the change must be fair, transparent, and enforceable. Please do not grant the full development opportunity based only on principles and future intentions. Require quantified community benefits, a mandatory CBA, aggressive affordable housing, protected employment space, good job standards, quality or coordinated infrastructure, and binding DND mitigation. The public should know exactly what it receives before council approves the developer gains. Council should require these answers in writing before the next approval stage and invite the public to respond to them. Decision on this scale should not depend on verbal assurances at a hearing. The conditions should be consolidated into one document, costed, independently reviewed, and linked to legal agreements. That would give both the community and the developer a clear understanding of the rules. The answers should include a clear decision point. If the developer cannot meet the minimum public requirements, will council reduce the density, delay approval, or review the application? Public standards only have meaning when the city is prepared to enforce them. Council should state that the land use change is conditional on a fair and complete agreement, not inevitable. Thank you.

Hi, I'm here.

Yeah, I'm Rowena Omani, and I'm not a resident of Vancouver.

I'm not.

Yes. So, good evening, everyone. So, I am approaching to this item. The development may take nine years to build, and we are more than a century. Market partners, staff, contractors, and political leadership will change. The question isn't only what is promised today. It is who remains accountable after people and companies change. If content-specific sales of things are commercial stakes, will every obligation follow the new order? Will affordable housing, employment use, public access, security, and maintenance requirements be registered on title? Can the city prevent sale or occupancy obligations on the property transfer? A clear governance factor is required. Who will manage FASA, community rooms, child care, cultural space, and employment areas? Is FASA a nonprofit, the city, or a special trust? Do residents have board representation? How will conflicts among commercial events, precedent complaints, public access, and security be resolved? Maintenance is not a minor detail. Who will pay for repairs, landscaping, public washrooms, elevators, affordable commercial space, and climate systems? Will a protected reserve plan last 50 or 100 years? If the fund is inadequate, will taxpayers pay, or will amenities close? Employment commitments also need protection. If light, industrial, and technology space becomes ordinary office or retail, relax. Will there be annual use audits and vacancy limits? Can we change the approval of the CDR non-profit otherwise to acquire space that is not used as promised? For affordable housing, how will our units and protections last for that age? Will there be an independent operator and a public register unit when eligibility and turnover? How will affordability survive renovations or ownership changes? Will any lost units require replacements? There are also long-term obligations to national defense security technologies. Military operations and emergency plans may change. Who will pay for future upgrades? Will regular review of core with D&D? Will protected routes and structural monitoring remain after the original developer leaves? Public reporting should be simple and continuous. Will annual reports cover housing, jobs, wages, public space access, maintenance, CBA results, security compliance, and infrastructure milestones? Will independent audits occur regularly? Will breaches and corrective actions be posted online? Enforcement must be real. What happens when a commitment... is missed. Will fines be large enough to avoid the coming of all factory business? Can occupancy permits, business licenses, or development rights be suspended? Will the city hold financial security for a problem throughout a long-term case before approving the destination change for a long-term governance? an accountability plan covering ownership, board representation, child provenance, research funds, audits, public reporting, penalties and transfer rules. Development does not end at the rhythm of the game. A public benefit is really only if it remains after the original developer has begun and tonight's promises haven't forgotten.

Hi, my name is Felicia Perry, and I'm currently not a resident of Vancouver, but would like to be in the next two years.

Mayor and Council, my position is opposed. I am concerned that the discussion of community benefits remains too general, especially for families. I am not opposed to growth, and I am not opposed to building more housing. Vancouver needs both. However, I do not believe this proposal provides enough certainty for the public before Council is asked to approve these changes to the Official Development Plan and the Regional Contact Statement. The applicant has said that today's discussion is only about changing the land use designation and that the details will come later through a future rezoning process. Respectfully, that is exactly why my position is opposed. Once this land use change is approved, the value of the property increases significantly. I believe council should secure clear... on affordable housing, schools, childcare, parks, transportation, and community benefits before granting that. Increase in land value, not afterwards.

Then, when you get to the afford... This issue is personal to me. I'm a woman in my late 20s, and every day I commute from Richmond to downtown Vancouver. It takes me about an hour each way because I cannot afford to live in Vancouver on a single income. I work every day but cannot afford to call it home. I know I'm not alone. Thousands of working people who keep Vancouver running, including hospitality workers, health care workers, retail workers, teachers, nurses, and many others, are being pushed further and further away because housing has become unaffordable. That is why I believe affordability needs to be guaranteed, not simply discussed. And before approving this land use change, councils should be able to tell families exactly what they will receive, how many affordable homes, how many childcare spaces, what support for schools and parks and transportation improvements. Broad promises are not enough. Families deserve measurable, funded, and enforceable commitments before this land use change is improved.

Yeah, my name is Allen. I'm a resident of Burnaby.

We're having a hard time hearing you.

Okay, do you have a speaker?

Yes, I'm . I'm against this proposal.

Colin. Full name.

Hi, thank you. My name is GB. I'm a resident in Vancouver.

Yes. Okay, please go ahead. Thank you, counsel. I'm not here today to offer unconditional support or unconditional opposition. My position is other. Because at this stage, the proposal raises more questions that the available answers resolve. When a major industrial site is and designated for high density mixed use. This is not routine planning adjustment. It is a public decision that can create enormous private value. The first question must therefore be how much value is being granted to the developer and what guaranteed value will the city and the residents receive in return? Has the city calculated the likely increase in land value created by the change? but share of that increase will be captured for the public will it appear as past child care school capacity better transit and housing that is genuinely affordable or are we being asked to improve the most valuable planning decision now while being told that the public benefits can be negotiated later during resuming Council's central responsibility is to avoid we will deal with it later approach. If the land use change granted first and the public return is negotiated afterward. Does the city lose bargaining power? Why can minimum community benefits not be returned down now? Should each commitment not have a value, a deadline, a responsible party and a consequence if it is not delivered? The province has raised concerns about the loss of industrial land. That concern should not be treated as a technical footnote. Once industrial land is converted, it is extremely difficult to replace. How many exiting or potential manufacturing, distribution, logistics, technical and green industry jobs could be displaced by this decision? Where will the city replace the capacity? Why should Council proceed before an independent employment land assessment is completed? We may hear that the future development will create hospitality, retail, and service employment, but a job count alone is not an employment strategy. Wages benefit stability, union access, and career progression of matter. How many new jobs will pay a living wage? How many will be permanent? full-time position with the benefits will the city require a good job standard or will lower wage service employment be used to claim that the loss of industrial the employment has been offset there must also be clarity about the community benefits agreement why should the cba be optional for a redevelopment of the scale should be should the project not be required to include the local hiring, apprenticeship training, inclusive procurement, living wages, construction safety, and community oversight through a binding agreement. Housing commitments also require much harder questions it is not enough to use the word affordable affordable to whom a who a unit price somewhat below the market may still be beyond the reach of nature's teachers service workers newcomers seniors and working families What minimum share of all homes will be secured as non-market rental housing? How many will be two- and three-bedroom homes suitable for families? Will these charges be expressed as best efforts or as legally enforceable requirements? The additional density and development rights are value created by public permission. and developer contribution must therefore not be confused with the ordinary project cost roads savers storm water systems and utility relocation and necessary to make the project function will those basic expense be presented as community benefits Should the real public return not be over and above the infrastructure needed for the development itself?