►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - July 7, 2022
Description
Planning Committee - July 7, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
C
Good
morning
kelly
so
kelly,
there
were
no
no
additional
speakers
from
the
chairs
notes
you
sent
out
this
morning.
C
So
counselor
moffat
might
be
signing
on
just
a
few
minutes,
late
he's
in
in
transit
right
now.
So
I
know
he's
got
a
bunch
of
technical
motion,
so
we
may
just
have
someone
else
move
on
his
behalf.
If
he's
not
here
off
the
top
but
we'll
get
there.
C
Well,
he
he
likes
to
move
he's
a
mover
and
a
shaker
he's.
F
C
Oh,
I
know
what
you're
referring
to
I'll
leave
that
to
you
he's
he's
not
attending
today's
meeting.
So
okay
yeah
morning
tim.
D
D
D
J
C
Yeah,
that's
that's
great!
That's
fine!.
E
C
Councilor
moffatt
may
be
just
a
few
minutes
late
joining.
He
has
a
number
of
technical
amendments.
If
he's
not
here,
I
may
just
pick
random
committee
members
to
move
technical
amendments
on
his
behalf,
so
be
forewarned,
but
we'll
see
how
it
goes
so
it
is
9
31.
We
have
a
quorum
of
members.
So,
let's
begin
this
is
our
planning
committee
meeting
for
thursday
july
9th.
C
D
L
C
Here,
thank
you
kelly.
This
is
a
public
meeting
to
consider
the
proposed
comprehensive
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendments
listed
as
items
6.1
6.11
on
today's
agenda
for
the
items
just
mentioned.
Only
those
who
make
oral
submissions
today
or
written
submissions
before
the
amendments
are
adopted
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
C
If
council
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
a
zoning
bylaw
and
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
prior
to
their
consideration
by
city
council
on
august,
31st,
2022,
please
email
or
call
the
committee
or
council
coordinator.
Are
there
any
declarations
of
interest?
C
I'm
seeing
none
confirmation
of
minutes.
The
minutes
are
for
meeting
number
66
june
23
2022
are
the
minutes
confirmed.
C
We
have
a
number
of
items
on
the
agenda
today.
First,
two
items
are
deferrals
from
the
previous
meeting
on
parkland
dedication:
bylaw
replacement
and
cash
in
lieu
of
parkland
funds,
policy,
revision
and
parkland.
First
policy.
We
have
speakers
on
both
of
these
items,
so
we're
going
to
hold
items
5.1
and
5.2.
C
Going
through
the
agenda
we'll
see
what
other
items
we
need
to
hold.
We
have
item.
6.1
is
zoning
by
law,
amendment
for
3776
and
3780
albion,
road
and
gloucester
southgate.
We
have
no
delegations
registered.
I
know,
there's
a
technical
amendment.
I
see
counselor
deans
here.
Are
there
any
requests
to
hold
this
item
for
questions
to
staff.
C
Okay,
I'm
seeing
none.
We
have
the
applicant
here
as
well.
What
we
should
do
first,
actually
is
the
technical
amendment
and
I
will
choose
a
random
committee
member
from
my
screen
for
this
technical
amendment.
Counselor
dudas,
we'll
get
the
amendment
up
on
screen.
Counselor
mother
was
going
to
move
this,
but
he's
been
unable
to
join
yet
so
council
dude
asked
what
the
technical
amendment.
E
F
C
G
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
the
community
for
their
input
over
the
last
year.
This
proposed
plan
for
the
site
plan
has
evolved
a
lot.
It
started
as
a
three-story,
low-rise
apartment
building
with
36
units,
and
today
it's
eight
townhouses,
plus
eight
secondary
units
and
well,
there's
still
some
concerns
from
the
community.
I
believe
this
application
is
actually
a
very
good
example
of
gentle
intensification
is
and
is
in
keeping
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
I
also
wanted
to
thank
the
applicant,
who
has
worked
really
hard.
G
G
J
Make
something
work
so
thank.
G
You
to
the
committee
for
for
your
support
today
and
for
everyone
involved.
C
Thanks
ken
for
deans,
so
we
do
have
representing
the
applicant
brian
casagrande
from
foten
brian.
If
the
committee's
prepared
to
carry
this
item,
do
you
wish
to
speak
on
it?
No,
we
don't.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
thank
you.
So,
on
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
3776
and
3
780
albion
wrote
are
the
report
recommendations
carried
kerry?
C
Terry,
hey
all
right,
we'll
keep
going
through
our
consent
agenda
here.
Items
6.2
and
6.3
are
related
to
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
108,
nepean
street
and
part
of
257
lisker
street,
and
a
zoning
bile
amendment
for
142,
144
and
148,
and
street
and
demolition
control
for
142
nepean.
These
are
in
somerset
ward.
We
do
have
a
number
of
speakers
registered,
so
we
will
hold
item
6.2
and
6.3
item.
6.4
is
a
zoning
by-law
amendment
for
100,
stacy
drive
and
canada
north
and
I
believe
councillor
curry,
has
a
deferral
motion
on
this
councilor
curry.
F
I
do
do
we
want
to
put
it
up
or
oh
okay,
so
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
unique
situation
here
in
canada,
north
but
I'll
read
it,
whereas
the
public
meeting
with
respect
to
the
application
related
to
100
stacy
drive
was
held
on
february
4th
2021,
whereas
during
the
17
months
that
have
passed
since
the
original
consultation
was
held.
F
Nor
have
time
have
had
has
had
time
to
consult
with
community
leaders,
whereas
a
deferral
to
the
next
planning
committee
on
august
25th
2022,
would
allow
for
this
item
to
rise
to
the
same
council
meeting
as
items
considered
at
planning
committee
today
on
july.
7Th
2022,
therefore
be
it
resolved
that
the
item
6.4
of
planning
committee's
agenda
67
be
deferred
to
the
august
25th
planning
committee
meeting.
F
So
on
that,
then,
in
the
meantime,
I'll
hold
a
consultation,
counselor
wilkinson
and
I
can
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
we're
going
to
do
next,
a
former
counselor
who
helps
me
a
lot
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
the
same
council
meeting.
C
Okay,
yes,
and
not
affecting
any
statutory
deadlines
in
the
process.
Okay,
on
the
deferral
motion,
then
any
any
questions
or
is
that
carried.
C
And
thank
you
to
the
delegations
who
registered
for
this
one
and
you'll
have
to
be
patient
and
come
back
to
and
join
us
at
the
end
of
august.
For
that
okay
item
number
6.5
is
also
in
canada,
north.
It's
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
1055
klondike
road.
There
are
no
delegations
for
this
item.
The
applicants
have
representatives
here
any
requests
from
the
committee
to
hold
this
item.
C
C
Okay,
thank
you
christine.
So
are
the
report
recommendations
for
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
at
10,
55
klondike
road
carry.
C
Thank
you.
We're
going
to
stay
in
canada,
north
for
item
6.6,
a
zoning,
violent
amendment
for
101
and
201
nipissing
court.
There
are
no
delegations
registered
any
requests
to
hold
this
item
from
our
committee.
C
No
seeing
none,
okay
and
we
do
have
representatives
from
the
applicant
here,
I'm
not
sure
if
they're
in
the
panelist
room
yet,
but
I
will
ask
oh
there's
miguel
trombley
from
foten.
If
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
this
miguel,
does
the
applicant
wish
to
speak
today?
We
do
not.
Thank
you.
Okay,
thank
you.
So
are
the
report
recommendations
carried
for
item
6.6.
C
Thank
you
item.
6.7
is
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
30,
38,
42
and
48
chamberlain
avenue
in
capital
war.
There
are
no
delegations.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
here
any
request
to
hold
this
item
from
the
committee.
C
C
C
C
Okay,
thank
you.
So
are
the
report
recommendations
for
item
6.8,
1545
bank
street
carried
carried
carried
all
right,
staying
in
altavista
ward
item
6.9
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
2571
and
2595
lancaster
road,
no
delegations
registered.
Are
there
any
requests
to
hold
this
item,
seeing
none
counselor
clutie.
Did
you
wish
to
speak
on
this
one.
E
Thank
you
chair.
No,
I'm
comfortable
with
the
report
recommendations
for
both
the
previous
item
and
this
item.
I'm
supportive
of
the
application.
C
Okay,
we
do
have
representatives
from
the
applicant
brian
casagrande
back
again
brian.
If
the
committee's
prepared
to
carry
this
item.
Do
you
wish
to
speak?
No,
mr
chair.
Okay,
thank
you.
So
are
the
report
recommendations
on
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
2571
and
2595
lancaster
road
carried
carried
carried?
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
we're
going
to
go
even
further
south
one
of
the
rare
times
we
have
a
report
in
osgood
ward
on
our
regular
planning
committee
agenda.
This
is
a
zoning
by-law
amendment
for
part
of
673
rideau
road.
C
C
C
O
Don't
say
that
daniel
string
I'll
use
that
next
election
okay,
so
the
technology
is,
whereas,
as
part
of
report
acs,
2022
p,
I
e
p
s:
zero,
zero,
four
and
title
zone
by
law.
N
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
I
I
haven't
seen
that
before
now.
Can
I
ask
that
the
item
be
held
please.
While
I
come
to
grips
with
with
what
that
says,.
C
C
The
first
two
items
were
the
deferrals
from
last
meeting.
5.1
is
parkland
dedication
and
bylaw
replacement
and
cash
in
your
parkland
funds.
Policy,
revision
and
item
number
two
is
502
is
the
parkland
first
policy.
We
do
have
a
staff
presentation
to
lead
us
off
in
this
and
then
after
that,
we'll
go
to
our
delegations
from
staff.
We
have
kevin
wary
and
kirsten
nietzsche
who
have
been
the
authors
and
leads
on
this
file,
and
I
see
kevin
wary
kevin
you're
walking
us
through
the
presentation.
Are
you.
H
Oh,
thank
you
counselor,
I'm
going
to
introduce
kirsten
to
that's
actually
kirsten's
presentation
today.
Okay,.
H
Okay,
thank
you
so,
first
of
all,
just
a
a
thank
you
to
committee
for
doing
it
for
providing
us
with
a
deferral.
Two
weeks
ago
there
was
a
number
of
items
that
required
further
discussion
and
courtesy
the
deferral
you
provided
us.
We
were
able
to
resolve
many
items
without
requiring
additional
representation
at
committee
today.
For
those,
so
you
say,
our
the
deferral
saved
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
at
committee
and
we
were
able
to
resolve.
So
thank
you
for
that
now
going
on
today.
H
This
park,
dedication,
bylaw,
has
is
a
requirement
by
the
province
and
kirsten
will
have
a
short
presentation
for
you,
but
I
would
also
like
to
point
out.
It
is
something
that
was
widely
discussed
also
during
our
parks
and
recreation
facilities,
master
plan,
the
master
plan
process
is
one
that
was
all
encompassing
for
things
to
do
with
parks
and
facilities,
and
it
was
a
required
process
in
order
for
us
to
come
forward
to
with
what's
here
today.
So
with
no
further
ado
I'll
ask
kirsten
to
start
the
presentation.
M
Great,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members.
As
kevin
said,
my
name
is
kersten
nicha,
I'm
the
planner,
who
worked
together
with
kevin
on
this
project.
I'd
also
just
like
to
note
that
we
do
have
support
from
our
consultant
team,
who
also
worked
on
a
background
report
and
analysis
from
watson
and
associates
andrew
grunda
and
tina
chitsunde,
so
they're
here
today
to
answer
questions,
but
they
won't
be
making
a
presentation.
M
So
we
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
So
just
a
very
brief
presentation
on
why
we
took
undertook
this
project
so
as
background.
The
planning
act
permits
municipalities
to
require
park,
land
for
or
money
for
parks
through
development,
and
the
planning
act
actually
establishes
the
maximum
rates
that
we
can
take
as
municipalities,
those
being
two
percent
for
of
the
side
area
for
commercial
or
industrial
uses
and
then
for
all
other
purposes,
including
residential
five
percent
of
the
site
area.
M
The
planning
act
also
does
give
us
the
ability
to
use,
what's
called
an
alternative
requirement
for
residential
development
where,
when
we
want
to
take
parkland
so
when
parkland
is
dedicated,
the
rate
is
one
hectare
for
every
300
dwelling
units
and
if
cash
and
lieu
is
to
be
provided,
the
rate
is
one
hectare
for
every
500
dwelling
units.
So
next
slide.
Please.
M
So
our
current
parkland
dedication
bylaw
uses
these
rates
from
the
planning
act
and
we
use
the
alternative
rate
when
we
hit
the
threshold
of
a
density
of
18
dwelling
units
per
net
hectare
or
greater.
Now
in
using
these
rates,
we
do
cap
the
dedication
at
10
of
land
area
for
apartment
development
and
our
parkland
dedication,
bylaw
also
details
exemptions
and
types
of
land
that
are
not
accepted
as
parkland,
so
our
bylaw
also
allocates
where
we
are
our
cash
remove
parkland
funds.
So
that's
the
sixty
percent
of
the
forty
percent.
M
M
And
so
why
are
we
doing
this?
So
in
order
to
keep
using
the
alternative
rate
in
our
bylaw?
We
have
to
actually
replace
this
by-law,
so
in
moving
forward.
It
also
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
review
and
improve
the
bylaw,
as
it
hasn't
been
reviewed
in
great
detail
since
2009
and
the
legislative
deadline
for
reviewing
and
replacing
the
bylaw
is
september
18th
of
this
year,
and
this
is
why
we're
bringing
this
forward
right
now.
M
So
next
slide
please
and
we
did
reach
out
to
stakeholders
at
the
beginning
of
this
process
and
then
throughout
and
through
that
input.
We
received
comments
that
we
should
look
at
the
10
cap.
We
should
look
at
development,
that's
not
subject
to
a
planning
application
and
how
that
can
be
subject
to
this
parkland
dedication.
M
Bylaw
we
looked
at
or
we
heard
that
we
should
increase
the
requirements
in
areas
that
do
not
meet
our
parkland
targets
and
that
we
should
also
consider
types
of
encumbered
land
as
parkland,
and
then
we
should
also
review
the
exemptions
list
that
we
currently
have
within
our
bylaw
and
also
how
cash
and
move
parkland
is
distributed.
So
that's
that
60
40
split
next
slide,
please.
M
So,
as
I
mentioned,
we
did
have
a
consultant
prepare
a
background
report
to
understand
how
our
current
parkland
dedication
bylaw
is
working
and
in
consideration
of
the
city's
parkland
target
of
two
hectares
per
thousand
people.
They
found
that,
as
the
population
grows
to
2031.
M
the
core
inner
and
outer
urban
transects
will
have
the
greatest
parkland
deficit,
and
that's
in
that
parkland
deficit
relates
to
meeting
that
two
hectares
per
thousand
people
target
that
and
that
also
the
suburban
transects
will
have
a
parkland
deficit.
M
So,
from
the
from
our
analysis,
the
analysis
prepared
by
the
consultant
and
the
stakeholder
input
and
our
own
experiences
with
the
bylaw
over
the
past
13
years
since
it
was
implemented,
we
have
put
forward
a
a
new
bylaw
or
proposed
for
a
new
bylaw,
and
our
recommendations
do
include
changes
to
that
bylaw.
M
So
briefly,
going
through
these
changes.
Further
definitions
within
the
by-law.
We
have
proposed
to
change
the
definitions
for
develop
grossland
area,
encumbrance,
parkland,
transect
and
then
other
technical
visions,
drift
revisions
to
reflect
our
zoning
bylaw
and
our
current
departmental
organization
and
then
all
those
that
we
didn't
list
here
remain
the
same
as
within
the
current
bylaw
next
slide
and
in
looking
at
exemptions
at
our
current
exemptions
list.
M
We
are
proposing
three
three
changes
to
that
list,
so
we
are
proposing
to
take
secondary
dwelling
units
and
coach
houses
off
the
list
and
to
implement
a
nominal
fee
of
500
per
unit.
We
are
proposing
also
to
take
sorry
to
ensure
that
ancillary
uses
that
are
developed
with
places
of
worship
are
not
exempt
and
then
also
providing
more
clarity
on
schools
and
when
they
are
exempt.
The
rest
of
the
exemptions
that
are
currently
listed
in
the
by-law
are
staying.
The
same
next
slide,
please,
and
so
another
key
change.
M
We're
recommending
is
that
all
development
and
redevelopment
be
subject
to
the
parkland
dedication
bylaw,
including
development.
That's
only
subject
to
a
billing
permit.
Currently
our
parkland
dedication
bylaw
only
applies
to
development
that
is
subject
to
a
planning
application.
So
that's
those
that
are
listed
here,
site
plan
control,
plan
of
subdivision,
etc.
M
This
is
just
a
recommendation
to
bring
things
more
in
line
with
the
planning
act,
to
bring
the
site
plan,
control
and
building
permits
their
valuation
to
be
before
the
issuance
of
building
permit,
but
we're
also
recommending
that
the
valuation
only
be
valid
for
one
year.
The
valuation
provisions
for
the
other
applications
listed
here
stay
the
same
as
currently
listed
within
the
bylaw,
which
is
before
draft
approval
or
provisional
consent.
So
the
next
slide
and
then
a
key
change.
We're
recommending
is
an
increase
in
the
caps.
M
So
we
are
recommending
that
the
10
cap
remain
for
low
density
or
low
rise
residential
development,
but
that
the
cap
be
increased
for
higher
density,
residential
development
and
specifically
for
residential
development
within
mid-rise
buildings.
So
five
to
nine
stories,
I'm
having
a
cap
of
15
and
then
for
development
within
residential
development
within
high-rise
buildings.
M
So
that's
anything
greater
than
or
equal
to
10
stories
being
25
percent
so
next
slide
and
then,
with
respect
to
the
cash
and
lieu
funds
park,
cash,
new
parkland
funds
policy,
we
did
make
some
minor
changes
just
just
to
reflect
the
departmental
structure
and
updated
definitions,
and
our
staff
recommendation
recommends
that
further
review
this
distribution
be
undertaken
by
the
fourth
quarter
of
2023.
C
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
kristin.
We
will
come
back
to
staff
for
questions
after
the
public
delegations,
so
we
have
12
delegations
registered
today.
The
first
three
to
be
speaking
will
be
carolyn
mckenzie,
lisa,
dela,
rosa
and
chris
green
shields.
O
C
Yes,
actually
that's
a
good
idea
before
we
get
into
delegations
because
it
may
address
some
of
the
concerns
there.
So.
O
Which
is,
whereas
staff
accommodation
one
recommends
that
council
adopt
a
new
parkland,
bylaw
parking
dedication,
bylaw
detail
document,
one
details
recommend
a
new
parkland
dedication,
by-line,
where
our
staff
would
like
to
provide
further
clarity
on
the
transition
provisions,
as
detailed
in
section
143
of
document
one
and
whereas
staff
noted
that
section
15
2
of
document
1
details
recommend
a
new
parkland
dedication
bylaw
references.
The
incorrect
subsections
therefore
be
resolved
with
respect
to
the
report
within
document
1
be
deleted.
O
Sorry
sections
14,
3
within
document
1,
be
deleted
and
replace
the
following
three:
an
application
for
official
plan
amendment
plan
subdivision
part
lock,
control
plan
of
condominium
consent
to
sever
or
site
plan
control
that
has
satisfied
the
requirements
for
completeness
out
of
the
planning
act
as
of
the
date
of
the
enactment
of
this
by-law
or
an
application
for
building
permit
that
was
submitted.
As
of
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
by-law
shall
be
required
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
bylaw
as
of
the
date
that
is
one
year
from
the
enactment
of
this
bylaw.
E
O
I'm
just
gonna
skip
the
first
two,
so,
whereas
section
one
of
document,
one
includes
a
definition
for
develop
and
where
our
staff
have
determined.
Further
clarity
is
required
for
the
definition
of
develop
to
ensure
consistency
with
the
planning
act
as
it
pertains
to
portable
classrooms
on
school
sites.
O
O
Alterations
there
for
clarity
for
the
most
part.
So,
whereas
section
one
of
document,
one
includes
the
definition
for
dwelling
units
and
whereas
the
definition
of
dwelling
units
in
section
one
of
document,
one
reflects
the
definition,
as
provided
within
the
ontario
planning
act,
but
differs
from
the
definition
within
the
current
parkland
dedication,
bylaw
being
bylaw
2009-95
as
amended,
and
whereas
staff
have
determined
that
further
clarity
is
required
to
maintain
the
intent
of
the
current
parkland
dedication.
Bylaw
being
bylaw
2009-295,
as
amended
with
respect
to
the
conveyance
requirements
for
residential
care
facilities.
H
Chairs
kevin
wary
here,
if
I
may
interject.
First
of
all,
there
is
a
fourth
motion
that
is
ready
that
kelly
could
put
up
on
the
screen,
but
secondly,
the
second
motion
that
chair
moffett
read.
H
It
was
edited
earlier
today
and
he
was
perhaps
not
provided
it's
a
very
small
edit,
but
it
has
to
do
with
the
2007
date.
That's
in
there
it's
a
minor
edit,
but
if
those
could
be
read
into
record
that
would
be
appreciated.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
well,
why
don't
we
come
back
to
that
at
the
end,
when
we're
we're
voting
on
the
motions
and
make
sure
we
get
the
correct
version
up,
do
we
have
that
kelly?
Do
we
have
that?
Fourth,
I'm
an
ending
motion
ready.
O
Whereas
section
4
of
document
1
includes
table
one
conveyance
requirement
per
use
and
whereas
staff
have
determined
that
table
one
of
document,
one
is
missing:
townhouse
dwelling
after
three
unit
dwelling
within
type
of
development
or
use
column.
Therefore
we
resolved
that,
with
respect
to
this
report,
revised
table
one
section,
four
of
document,
one
to
add:
townhouse
dwelling
after
three
unit
dwelling
within
the
type
of
development
or
use
column.
C
All
right
carolyn.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
patience
as
we
introduce
those
motions
and
welcome
this
morning.
Each
of
our
delegations
has
five
minutes
for
their
presentation,
so
carolyn
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
I
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
So,
first
of
all,
thank
you
very
much
for
to
staff
for
moving
this
work
forward.
I
think
the
last
couple
of
years
has
really
demonstrated
the
importance
of
parks
and
green
space
to
the
health
of
residents
and
a
very
livable
city,
but
I
start
I
wanted
to
start
by
making
an
observation,
though
about
about
our
parkland
goals
of
two
hectares
per
thousand
residents.
I
Actually
that
report
indicates
that
targets
for
comparable
ontario
cities
are
generally
between
one
and
a
half
and
three
hectares,
and
our
overall
goal
is
to
be
the
most
livable
mid-sized
city,
so
I'm
not
sure
we're
going
to
get
there
with
with
unless
we
raise
our
raise
our
sites
regarding
our
ambition
for
targets.
So
that's
just
an
observation.
I
It
also
seems
clear
that
the
further
review
of
the
bylaw
needs
to
be
equally
ambitious
and
ensuring
that
there's
a
strong
link
between
those
higher
level
objectives
and
the
planned
policies
to
get
us
there,
because,
as
it
stands
there,
my
understanding
is
that
quite
clearly,
we
won't.
In
fact
the
consultant's
report
again
made
it
clear
that
the
bylaw
would
provide
nowhere
near
the
city's
targets
to
get
it
closer.
I
I
I'm
not
too
sure,
there's
a
good
reason
for
why
those
in
affordable
housing
units
or
in
towers
in
transportation,
oriented
demand
areas
should
be
deprived
of
parkland
that
others,
including
myself
in
my
neighborhood,
enjoy.
So
I
hope
the
staff
will
be
given
direction
to
do
additional
work
on
the
policy.
With
this
in
mind,
I
also
think
that
we
need
to
reconcile
what
I
see
as
a
continuation
of
a
disconnect
between
those
high
level
objectives
and
the
practical
basis
for
achieving
them,
and
chiefly
the
development
applications
themselves.
I
What
do
I
mean
by
this?
Looking
at
looking
at
lansdowne,
which
I've
been
doing,
that
I
was
doing
a
fair
bit
of
the
last
few
months,
I
had
submitted
a
question
to
the
city
so
I'll,
just
I'll
use
that
as
an
example,
I
wanted
to
try
and
better
understand
how
the
new
bylaw
might
be
intended
to
apply
to
the
anticipated
application
that
will
add
about
2500
residents
to
the
site,
while
removing
upwards
of
55
000
square
feet
of
park
space.
I
In
other
words,
to
understand
how
we
would
do
what
the
city
said.
We
would
do
to
make
sure
that
amenities,
including
parkland,
keep
up
when
we
intensify
staff
now
have
direction
to
develop
and
design
costing
so
that
the
space
may
be
used.
But
according
to
the
merit,
it's
gonna
be
very
costly
over
30
million
dollars.
So
I
think
we
can
assume
that
we
have
a
serious
risk
of
losing
a
lot
of
usable
park
space
while
adding
a
lot
of
new
resins.
I
So
my
question
to
staff
was
what
analysis
has
been
done
to
date
regarding
current
versus
future
parkland
targets.
Given
the
proposal
to
add
2500
residents-
and
the
answer
was
quote-
there
has
been
specific
analysis
to
date
on
this
concept.
I
The
issue
of
parkland
targets
for
transects
are
not
accessed
in
relation
to
an
individual
development
application.
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
difficult
wording
or
language
really
to
understand,
but
what
I
took
from
that
is
that
there
was
an
explicit
acknowledgement
that
no
we're
not
making
any
link
between
our
parkland
objectives
and
what
happens
at
the
development
application
stage.
So
I
guess
I
would
to
my
mind,
it
seems
like
it's
just
wishful
thinking
to
think
that
we
can
manage
to
meet
parkland
objectives.
I
If
this
is
the
case,
we
certainly
hear,
and
rightly
so-
why
an
application
should
be
supported
because
it
contributes
to
growth,
management
and
intensification
goals.
Those
are
very
important,
but
I
don't
hear
similar
arguments
looking
at
the
specifics
of
how
parkland
objectives
should
be
considered,
and
I
really
hope
that
the
staff
review
can
also
address
this
issue
and
how
we
can
make
that
link.
I
The
bylaw
sets
requirements
based
on
the
development
of
land.
The
word
land
is
there,
and
it's
perhaps
not
clear
that
land
in
this
context
includes
air
rights.
I
think
it's
important
because,
as
we
look
to
intensify
the
future,
I
assume
the
air
rights
may
be
increasingly
used
as
a
tool
to
build
up
and
resins
of
buildings.
Developed
using
air
rights
will
need
access
to
sufficient
park
space
just
as
much
as
residents
of
any
other
building.
So
clearly,
there
was
some
doubt
earlier
what
land
included.
I
C
Thank
you,
carolyn
counselor
menard
has
a
question.
P
Thank
you
very
much
for
being
here,
carolyn
nice,
to
see
you
and
a
great
presentation
as
usual
with
regard
to
the
cash
in
lieu
portion.
Is
that
something
that
you
see
coming
as
in
the
2023
update
of
the
of
the
bylaw
itself?
Or
is
it
something
that
staff
have
said
they'll
work
on
now
as
part
of
this
initial
policy.
I
Yeah
yeah,
I
guess
it's
not
completely
clear
to
me
what
the
review
is
meant
to
encompass,
but
there
were
certainly
a
number
of
issues
that
were
raised.
I
mean
I
realized
that
there's
absolutely
it's
absolutely
important
and
and
critical.
I
would
say
that
this
by-law
has
passed
today
at
committee,
given
the
statutory
requirement
to
do
so.
I
If
not,
we
would
we
lose
the
the
basis
to
apply
the
alternative
means
the
alternative
rates,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
raise
is
that
I
still
think
and-
and
I
can
only
imagine
that
staff
are
in
agreement,
at
least
with
some
of
the
things,
hopefully,
that
I've
raised-
that
there's
a
lot
more
work
to
be
done
in
a
number
of
these
areas,
and
I
guess
one
of
my
concerns
is
that
I
guess
another
part
of
the
answer
to
the
question
that
I
asked
to
staff
was
that
the
the
proposal
for
lansdowne,
the
specifics,
of
course
for
the
for
the
parkland
dedication
would
be
considered
at
site
plan
control,
and
it
just
seems
to
me
that
at
that
point,
if
we're
not
considering
taking
into
consideration
into
consideration
at
all
how
an
application,
a
development
application
addresses
parkland
objectives
or
impacts,
I
should
say
on
parkland
requirements
and
how
we
can
address
those
at
the
rezoning
stage
that
we
will
then
get
to
the
site
plan
control.
I
We
may
we
may
approve
something
through
the
rezoning
process,
then
get
to
site
plan
control
and
it
seems,
like
I
don't
know,
what's
the
option
if
it
seems
like
we
have
an
application
that
really
cannot
address
practically
speaking,
how
to
ensure
that
we
have
parkland
in
this
particular
case
for
2500
residents.
What
are
our
options
at
that
point
other
than
just
to
having
done
a
whole
bunch
of
work
on
something
just
to
say?
No,
I
don't
know
how
we
address
that.
It's
just
we're
not
you
know.
I
Land
is,
as
we
all
know,
very
expensive,
particularly
in
the
poor
they're,
not
making
we're
not
making
land.
So
how
are
we
gonna?
How
are
we
gonna
address
this.
C
C
We
do
need
to
make
sure
we
are
acquiring
creating
protecting
park
land,
but
we
also
have
a
housing
crisis
and
affordability
crisis,
and
I
know
we've
had
correspondence
and
I've
had
meetings
where
I've
heard
from
builders
and
developers
that
if
we
raise
the
park
land
dedication
too
much,
it's
going
to
increase
the
cost
of
building
and
I'm
wondering
what
thoughts
or
advice
you
might
have
for
our
committee
on
how
we
potentially
resolve
that
clash
in
priorities.
I
Yeah,
that
is
a
great
question
and
to
me
that
is
the
issue
of
these
trade-offs
between
the
housing
crisis
and
you're.
Absolutely
right.
I
You
know
we're
talking
about
adding
a
lot
of
housing,
much
needed
housing,
and
that
is
you
know
one
of
our
highest
priorities
at
this
point,
but
we
will
not
be
able
to
even
we're
not
even
considering
those
trade-offs
at
the
time
that
we're
making
those
decisions,
if
we
don't
have
any
policy
and
direction
for
how
to
how
to
how
to
do
that,
and
that
we
should
do
that
and
to
me
that
is
simply
to
say
where
you
know:
we've.
I
We
have
declared
a
housing
crisis,
we've
also
how
you
know
declared
a
climate
crisis
and-
and
we
have
these
great
objectives,
as
I
said-
maybe
a
little
more
ambition
on
on
some
of
them.
But
okay,
let's
say
we
have.
We
start
out
well
with
high
objectives
and
then
we
go
to
the
development
applications
and-
and
we
have
our
head
in
the
sand-
we're
not.
We
have
no
basis
for
actually
having
a
consideration
of
those
trade-offs
in
any
explicit
way.
We
sort
of
talk
around
the
edges
and
well,
we
need
housing.
I
Well,
we
need,
and
and
and
ultimately
at
the
end
of
the
day,
housing
always
seems
to
win
in
you
know,
in
my
estimation,
housing
seems
to
win
it
and
maybe
that's
maybe
that's
the
decision
that
we
as
a
city
are
making
housing
trumps.
Everything
trees
always
come
second,
third,
fourth,
whatever,
but
I
think
we
we
need
the
mechanism
to
to
to
have
that
discussion
and
to
make
that
trade-off.
C
F
If
that's
the
way
it
ends
up
going
and
so
then
that's
a
decision
at
that
point,
I
guess
carolyn
I'm
trying
to
understand.
Where
is
it
that,
like
we
haven't
made
that
decision,
that
is
still
possible?
Maybe
it's
30
million
dollars,
but
all
of
that
is
still
possible.
Are
you
seeing
that
any
other
like
time
that
we
would
or
wouldn't
make
that
decision?
I
feel
it's
then,
and
that's
still
to
come.
I
Yeah,
no,
absolutely
I'm
not
saying
that
it's
impossible,
I'm
saying
that
it's
a
decision
to
make
that
investment
that
needs
to
be
considered
and
then
taken.
I
was
told
the
mayor
was
very
clear
with
me
that
it
was
too
expensive.
It
was
not
doable.
I
know
the
staff
have
been
provided
direction
to
investigate
it
and
to
the
specifics,
but
there
were
some
numbers.
I
I
heard
number
of
numbers
and
again
I
don't
get
in
the
weeds
of
lansdowne,
but
between
20
and
35
million
is
what
it's
going
to
cost,
all
of
which
was
deemed
to
be
too
expensive
for
parkland.
But
again
anytime.
I
asked
about
what
about
park
land.
It
seemed
like
we
were.
I
We
were
covering
over
the
idea
that
we
were
going
to
lose
a
huge
amount
of
parkland
with
that
proposal,
while
adding
a
lot
of
dwelling
units,
that's
good,
pretending
that
we
really
weren't
going
to
lose
it
with
no
idea
of
what
the
plan
was
to
to
provide
anything
reasonable
for
all
these
additional
people.
When
you're
in
a
46-story
tower,
you
need
a
place
to
to
play
outside
in
the
in
you
know,
in
the
trees
and
the
green
I
mean
I've
got
lots
of
trees
and
I
live
in
the
neighborhood.
I
D
D
D
So
I'm
going
to
start
with
those
caps
for
mid
and
high
rise
developments.
These
are
the
building
typologies
in
the
target
areas
for
intensification
along
main
streets
and
close
to
transit.
Are
they
the
logical
places
to
build
parks
requiring
more
unencumbered
land
for
parks
will
decrease
the
area
on
which
to
build?
Did
the
city
consider
the
reduction
of
lrt
ridership
and
the
effect
on
intensification
goals
of
the
op?
D
If
the
area
to
build
housing
is
reduced,
what
effect
did
that
have
on
the
new
unit
projections
used
for
the
new
op
on
the
cash
and
lose
side?
Parkland
is
based
on
the
value.
Sorry,
the
cash
in
lieu
value
is
based
on
the
value
of
the
land,
so
if
it
already
increases
with
density,
there's
no
need
to
also
increase
the
percentage
applicable.
D
We
have
been
asked
as
an
industry
to
absorb
additional
policy
cost
increases
with
inclusionary
zoning
community
benefits,
vacant,
land,
tax,
high
performance
development
standards
and
an
increase
in
the
dc's.
This
has
caused
the
industry
to
put
a
pause
in
some
of
the
higher
density
projects
which
have
a
negative
impact
on
land
supply
and
achieving
intensification
targets
requiring
inclusionary
zoning
and
a
parks.
First
policy
in
pmtsas
is
a
guaranteed
recipe
for
disaster.
The
land
first
policy
for
high-rise
projects
in
these
areas
should
be
reconsidered.
D
There
are
some
other
concerns
with
this
bylaw.
Aside
from
the
caps,
the
proposed
transition
clauses
need
to
be
revised
that
projects
currently
being
reviewed
for
approval
are
treated
fairly
planning
applications
take
months
of
work
alongside
city
staff,
to
arrive
at
a
plan.
You
can
agree
that
it's
not
fair
to
change
the
rules
midway
through
the
process.
D
Goba
and
its
written
submissions
have
provided
alternative
transition
policies
that
would
consider
all
in
progress
applications.
The
new
definition
of
encumbrance
is
too
broad.
The
demand
for
unencumbered
land
for
parks
is
a
barrier
to
innovative
solutions
which
such
as,
for
example,
district
energy
or
geothermal
heating
under
a
park.
We
have
multiple
examples
of
where
we
brought
forward
site-specific
considerations
that
do
not
affect
the
park's
usability
or
value.
However,
these
were
all
met
with
resistance
from
park
staff
and
with
this
definition,
that
approach
is
going
to
continue.
D
D
Despite
the
city's
argument
that
ncc
and
school
playing
fields
cannot
be
programmed
according
to
local
needs,
surely
there
must
be
something
that
they
count
for
these
non-city-owned
lands
provide
for
recreational
provide
for
recreation
in
part
to
the
city
identified
as
being
deficient
in
park
space.
Some
considerations
should
be
given
to
their
contribution,
specifically
in
the
downtown
core
and
the
inner
urban
transects.
D
So
in
conclusion,
we
see
no
alignment
of
the
proposed
changes
to
this
bylaw
with
the
city's
other
goals,
such
as
housing,
affordability,
maximizing
the
land
within
the
urban
boundary
and
achieving
intensification
goals.
As
stated
in
the
current
and
yet
to
be
approved
official
plan,
it
would
be
goba
and
foten's
recommendations
that,
since
the
city
of
ottawa
needs
a
bylaw
in
place
by
september,
they
draft
one
that
mirrors
the
existing
as
a
placeholder.
D
D
F
Thank
you
for
that.
I,
I
guess
the
problem
I
always
have
with
some
of
the
statements
that
goba's
making
that
you're
on
you're
making
on
their
behalf
is
that
there's
there's
no
other
option
other
than
to
make
rents
higher
and
housing
more
expensive.
It
sounds
like
that's
what
you're
saying
when
I
feel
like.
So
it's
almost
as
if
the
city
does
this,
then
we'll
have
no
other
option
but
to
raise
rents
and
then
housing
will
be
unaffordable,
and
it's
as
simple
as
that,
and
I
just
don't
think
it's
as
simple
as
that.
F
D
D
They
provided
some
of
that
in
their
written
submission,
and
I
think
yes,
there
there's
constant
priorities
and
if
we're
doling
out
more
money
for
certain
things,
whether
it's
cash
in
lieu
or
land
that
could
have
been
built
on,
there's,
there's
a
financial
contribution
of
that
trade-off
and
we're
not
just
looking
at
parkland
as
a
we
listed
off
a
couple
of
other
items
that
are
adding
to
the
cost
of
development
and
it
has
to
be
absorbed
somewhere
and
yes,
we're
not
a
non.
The
industry
is
not
not
for
they're.
D
They
have
to
go
into
this
with
some
sort
of
incentive
to
actually
go
out
and
build
these
things
and
make
some
sort
of
profit.
So
if
we
just
keep
chipping
away
at
that
and
not
passing
it
on
or
absorbing
it,
how
do
we?
How
do
we
do
that?
And
that's
why,
when
we
talk
about
the
higher
density
projects,
that's
where
you
don't
necessarily
have
the
ability
to
to
spread
it
out
as
much
rental
projects.
D
You're,
not
selling
those
to
somebody
else,
you're
sort
of
maintaining
it
and
those
costs
have
to
be
absorbed,
and
you
have
to
deal
with,
for
example,
the
banks
who
are
doing
the
financing
if
additional
10
million
dollars
is
needed
because
of
cash
and
low
and
parkland
and
high
performance
standards,
and
all
of
that
you're
pretty
much
asking
for
the
banks.
The
project
itself
is
not
changing,
but
we
need
an
additional
10
million
dollars
to
be
financed.
F
D
So
I
think
there's
some
there's
small
there's
some
things
that
are
outside
of
it
that
can
be
looked
at
to
help
bring
bring
some
of
those
other
those
costs
down,
and
it
might
be
small
things,
but
those
small
things
do
add
up.
N
Thanks
chair
lisa,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
the
presentation.
It's
something
that
I'm
struggling
with
as
well.
I
do
understand
that
the
increased
costs
that
the
city
is
putting
on
development
flow
down
to
the
people
who
buy
or
rent
those
units,
but
we
can't.
N
We
can't
allow
the
level
of
intensification
that
we're
proposing
in
concrete
jungles,
without
room
for
trees,
without
room
for
splash
pads
without
room
for
basketball
courts
without
room
for
picnic
tables
that
are
underneath
leafy
trees.
We
we
have
to
have
the
parks
and
the
more
people
who
live
the
more
we
need
of
them.
N
I
guess
the
the
question
I
have
about
the
economics
is
around
land
pricing
right.
The
development
costs
that
are
being
put
on
development
are
a
known,
unknown
number
and
at
some
point
over
the
course
of
the
next.
You
know,
probably
years
so
we'll
have
a
good
idea
of
what
that
known
number
is
for
the
next
five
ten
years.
D
You
can't
it's
it's
used,
so
we
have
to
become
more
efficient
in
how
how
we
use
the
land
and
into
your
point
about
providing
for
these
new
residents
and
not
building
the
concrete
jungles.
I
think
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
newer
projects
and
the
amenity
areas
that
are
being
put
into
those
buildings
that
are
you
know,
they're,
not
public,
but
you're,
starting
to
see
pops
and
stuff
like
that.
D
There
should
be
some
credit
where
people
can
still
do
those
urban
junk
urban
jungle
gyms
for
adults,
where
you
can
do
push-up
bars
and
that
sort
of
stuff
you
don't
need
the
big
green
space
for
a
soccer
field,
and
I
get
there's
a
purpose
to
those
sort
of
big
field
stuff
as
well.
But
there
is
something
to
be
said
about
other
types
of
recreation
and
the
ability
to
go
out
whether
it's
a
rooftop
or
on
top
of
a
parking
garage.
D
N
The
worry
I
have
is
that
the
the
pops
are
often
unwelcoming
to
the
general
public.
They
feel
like
private
space
in
the
way
that
they're
built
and
the
residents
who
are
moving
into
developments
are
using
both
the
the
pops
but
they're,
also
using
the
green
spaces
that
are
elsewhere
in
the
community,
adding
to
pressure
there
without
an
offset
to
increase
the
amount
of
that
green
space.
Where
you
know,
I'm
feeling
very
keenly
in
kitchissippi,
the
ability
to
actually
expand
green
space
is
is
public.
N
Green
space
that
feels
welcoming
to
people
is
is
difficult
because
of
the
skyrocketing
land
values
that
we
have.
You
know
I
I
sort
of
need
as
big
a
cil
fund
as
possible
just
to
acquire
small
residential
lots.
N
N
I
guess
I
wonder
how
serious
I
don't
want
to
call
it
a
threat,
but
a
scenario
that
is
surely
surely
the
lands
that
are
around
lrt
that
are
close
to
great
amen
in
these
streets,
like
bank
street
and
like
wellington
and
like
richmond,
are
going
to
be
popular
no
matter
what
isn't
the
scenario
more
around,
not
incenting
to
build
in
the
suburbs,
but
just
sort
of
exacerbating
the
price
difference
like
who
gets
to
live
in
what
neighborhood?
I.
N
I
am
concerned
that
you
know
by
the
time
a
resident
can
afford
to
live
in
a
high-rise
near
westborough
station
in
a
future
scenario,
where
it's
been
treated
differently
with
respect
to
cil.
You
know
that
is
a
that
is
a
buyer
or
a
renter
who
has
a
lot
more
disposable
income
than
somebody
who
can
afford
to
buy
or
rent
elsewhere
because
of
the
difference
in
the
development
charges
and
the
cio
that
we're
charging
so
is
that
is
that
the
more
realistic
scenario,
rather
than
not
building
at
all
yeah.
D
D
Let's
say
six
story,
nine
story,
stuff
further
out,
we
haven't
been
asked
to
sort
of
pause
stuff,
whereas
the
stuff
in
the
downtown
core,
until
they
can
figure
out
the
finances
of
it,
we've
been
sort
of
asked
to
you
know
not
to
stop
work
but
to
monitor
this
and
try
to
provide
them
as
much
information
as
we
can
on
the
changing
dynamics
of
what
what
the
bylaws
are
coming
out.
What
policies
are
coming
out?
D
They're
not
rushing
into
anything
in
in
in
those
areas,
because
the
implications
are
quite
big
and
they
need
to
know
that
answers
and,
as
I
mentioned,
they're
going
to
banks,
they're
financing
and
trying
to
request
money
and
those
those
performance
have
to
be
pretty
detailed.
They
can't
a
a
five
million
dollar
swing
is
going
to
make
a
difference
on
on
on
their
interest
rates
they
have,
and
all
of
that,
so
I
can't
say
that
it's
going
to
continue
that
eventually
these
projects
will
get
off
the
ground,
but
what
what
delay
in
it?
D
C
Okay
counselor
fleury
morning,
counselor.
L
Hi
bud
lisa
a
few
questions
based
on
your
presentation
and
the
conversation
with
with
jeff
isn't
part
of
the
issue
that
there
are
a
number
of
risk
factors
that
are
happening
now.
L
There
were
development
rights
that
were
in
place,
and
now
the
city
is
shaping
those
there's
interest
rates,
there's
property
values
as
to
what
how
those
were
purchased.
There's
labor,
there's
material
costs
that
are
higher
like
right
now,
there's
there's
an
explosion
of
all
of
that
which
are
making
these
these
projects
unaffordable.
But
I
I
struggle
with
the
idea
that
you
know
we
we
have
to
look
beyond
today.
L
We
have
to
think
of
like
the
policies
that
we
pass
today
have
generational
trans
transactions,
so
the
land
impact
and
the
value
of
these
decisions
are
are
beyond
the
immediate.
While
you
know
is,
is
the
nudge
of
this
issue
on
a
transition
clause
right,
like
I
think,
overall,
the
industry
adjusts
with
the
rules
it
has
and
and
does
so
so
I
I
wanted
to
bring
you
there.
So,
okay,
there
are
a
number
of
property
owners
and
developers
that
have
bought
land
with
intentions
at
that
point.
L
So
what
would
be,
in
your
mind,
a
fair
transition
clause
that
would
not
backlog
the
current
intentions,
but
also
meet
the
city's
policy
needs
and
objectives.
D
I
think
what
goba
has
brought
forward-
and
I
think
you
guys
all
have
a
copy
of
that
is
using
that
pre-consultation
date
when
you
have
a
meeting
with
the
city
on
an
application,
and
I
I
get
building
permits,
don't
have
pre-consultation,
I
do
not
nor
do
consent,
those
are
smaller
scale
projects
usually
and
the
costs
there
are
not
going
to
be
as
astronomical
as
some
of
the
bigger
projects.
D
D
That's
now
changed
and
so
that
pre-consultation
date,
if
you've
had
a
pre-consultation
prior
to
september
1st
or
whenever
this
new
bylaw
comes
into
play.
I
think
whatever
was
stated
at
that
meeting
should
sort
of
be
the
rules
you
move
forward
with
and
then
from
there.
We
can
work
on
with
this
new
bylaw,
but
it
takes
a
very
long
time,
even
simple
projects
to
get
through
so
giving
that
year.
D
I
think
that
the
the
closets
currently
in
there
now
talks
to
a
year
again
we're
not
sure
of
the
year
of
they
say
you
have
a
year
for
approval
for
in-stream
application.
Does
approval
mean
delegated
authority
report?
Does
approval
mean
sign,
site
plan
agreement
and
building
permit
in
hand
those
questions?
Still
we
we've
asked
and
we
haven't
gotten
clarity
on
what
that
means
is
any
is,
and
in
our
opinion
a
year
is
not
enough
for
a
project.
D
L
L
I
mean
I'm
not
on
this
committee,
but
I
I
do
encourage
the
committee
to,
I
think,
there's
an
important
report
in
front
of
them.
I
think
you
know
the
presentation
that
you're
giving
with
the
conversation
we're
having
is
much
more
nuanced
in
terms
of
saying.
Okay,
there
are
economic
realities
and
project
timing,
realities
for
certain
areas
that
that
need
to
be
captured
and
reflected
appropriately.
I
understand
the
industry
anything
that
will
impact
rights.
L
The
industry
won't
be
favorable
to,
but
I
think
over
time
it
makes
sense
for
us
to
make
sure
that
those
those
objectives
are
protected
and
retained.
So
you
know
chairs.
I
would
encourage
some
reflection,
as
the
delegations
go
on
as
to
what
is
the
appropriate
transition
clause,
I
mean
I,
I
think,
lisa's
put
a
her.
You
know
their
thoughts
on
on
the
table,
which
I
think
are
are
something
to
be
debated
and
discuss.
Thank
you.
C
Hey,
thank
you
counselor,
I'm
seeing
no
more
questions,
so
thanks
very
much
lisa
for
your
presentation
today.
We're
gonna
move
next
to
chris
green
shields
is
chris
with
us.
H
E
Yes,
I'm
here.
Thank
you
chair
good
morning,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
vanier
community
association.
The
vca
has
actively
participated
in
the
consultations
concerning
the
replacement
of
the
parkland
dedication
bylaw.
E
Vca
is
engaged
on
this
important
issue
because
vanier
is
one
of
a
number
of
neighborhoods
which
are
significantly
deficient
in
parkland
in
vanny's
case
approximately
one
half
of
the
target
said
under
the
new
official
plan,
but
that
also
includes
ncc
land,
but
taking
into
account
the
explosive
growth
expected
in
veneers
population
over
the
coming
years,
through
current
development
and
future
intensification,
we
will
continue
to
go
in
the
opposite
direction
of
the
new
ops
parkland
per
capita
target,
even
with
the
draft
by
law
recommended
by
staff.
E
The
staff
report
acknowledge
and
acknowledges
that
the
targets
will
not
be
met
in
certain
transits,
and
these
are
areas
targeted
for
intensification
under
the
new
op
in
some
neighborhoods
like
vanier,
the
targets
will
grow
further
out
of
reach
unless
more
serious
consideration
is
giving
to
addressing
the
needs
of
highly
dense
and
further
intensifying
neighborhoods
like
venue,
since
there
is
no
choice
but
to
ensure
replacement,
bylaw
is
in
place
by
the
province's
deadline.
The
recommendations
as
revised
appear
to
reflect
sufficient
progress.
E
I
think
the
committee
understands
that
its
decisions
today
do
not
comply
with
the
new
official
plan
and
must
be
interim.
The
vca
is
encouraged
that
the
revised
recommendations
provide
better
direction
in
requiring
a
further
review
in
which,
in
our
view,
should
should
be
even
more
ambitious.
E
The
vca
is
also
concerned,
however,
by
a
new
recommendation
to
limit
the
bylaw
in
the
case
of
transit,
oriented
development
projects
to
10
as
a
neighbor.
We
shared
the
concern,
for
example,
of
the
overbooked
community
association
that
such
an
approach
would
affect
a
park
deficient
neighborhood
like
overbrook
unduly
as
like
vanier
in
intensifies,
and
the
new
per
capita
target
goes
further
out
of
reach
going
forward.
E
N
Thank
you
thanks.
Chris,
the
we
have
ambitious
targets
for
the
number
or
parkland
acres
per
per
population.
How
much
of
that
should
fall
on
the
cil
regime
versus
others?
N
I
despair
when
I
take
a
look
at
how
close
or
far
we
are
from
being
able
to
achieve
those
targets
and
and
the
amount
that
we
are
putting
on
the
cil
in
this
discussion.
N
In
order
to
be
able
to
achieve
it,
we
have
to
build
more
housing
in
the
city,
and
there
comes
a
point
at
which,
requiring
you
know
very
large
amounts
of
parkland.
Very
large
amounts
of
cash,
remove
parkland
become
a
barrier
to
building
housing.
E
If
you
take
the
example
of
beignet,
where
70
renter,
18,
000
residents,
primarily
r4,
and
so
the
focus
and
redevelopment
and
intensification
is
evidently
focused
on
the
r4,
increasing
density
there
and
that's
the
missing
middle,
which
we
think
is
very
important
both
in
terms
of
affordability
but
also
to
you
know,
manage
intensification
because,
on
the
other
hand,
in
the
western
sector
of
vanier,
we
have
3200
new
residential
units
apartments
going
in
in
the
next
three
years.
E
This
is
a
very
small
area
of
an
already
small
neighborhood
and
so
clearly
the
kind
of
25
percent
formula
that
is
now
being
recommended
fits
with.
You
know
we're
putting
in
37
story
tower
there,
which
you
approved
recently
another
one.
Another
official
plan,
amendment
32
stories,
so
certainly
that
should
involve
both
a
mix
of
cil
money
as
well
as
parkland,
and
I
think
this
is
what
we're
going
to
get
from
those
two
major
project.
E
On
the
other
hand,
the
office
conversions
that
we're
seeing
well
future
conversions
will,
at
least,
as
I
understand
it,
benefit
from
the
ex
expansion
of
the
scope
to
include
all
new
developments,
including
those
not
under
the
planning
act,
but
require
a
building
permit.
So,
for
example,
in
that
area
that
I
just
mentioned,
we
have
168
new
units
and
there
was
no
cash
in
lieu
and
and,
of
course,
no
additional
park
land.
So
I
think
every
neighborhood
is
is
unique
and
a
neighborhood-based
policy
is
very
important.
N
E
L
Thank
you,
chris
I'll
I'll
I'll,
bring
you
maybe
somewhere
else
in
in
in
your
in
your
submission.
Earlier.
L
You
were
talking
about
the
infill
pressures,
particularly,
and
I
wonder
if
you
could
you've
seen
a
lot
of
the
committee
of
adjustment
issues
in
the
community
that
are
kind
of
spread,
two
ways
right:
one
which
is
single
family
home
folks
come
in
and
do
the
you
know
the
the
four
town
houses
within
that
lot
and
then
there's
very
few
trees
in
the
front
yard,
for
example,
and
then
you're,
seeing
also
the
opposite,
which
is
a
an
accumulation
of
lots
that
are
being
turned
into
apartment,
buildings
for
rental
and
and
both
have
the
issues
of
seeing
a
tree,
canopy
lost
or
issues
of
protection
of
green
space,
new
trees
on
those
projects.
E
Well,
I
certainly
think
that
the
low
rise
missing
middle
is
really
important.
We
do
want
to
maintain
housing
choice
so,
for
example,
in
our
predominant
r4
area,
we
have
very
limited
r1
or
r2
areas.
We
want
to
see
options
for
for
for
for
people
who
wish
to
live
in
vanity.
E
At
the
same
time,
we
have
very
successful
low-rise
apartment
buildings,
well-managed
and
so
on.
There's
all
sorts
of
things
that
could
be
done
with
those,
for
example,
the
large
parking
lot
areas
which
could
could
be
modified
to
accommodate
more
trees
and
also
even
additional
building
with
a
parking
garage,
and
we
we're
seeing
that
already
in
one
of
one
of
the
low-rise
pugs
pubs
in
our
area,
so
there
that
approach.
E
We
also
have
a
lot
of
former
malls
that
are
being
repurposed
and
more.
That
should
be
repurposed
to
accommodate
higher
density
and,
ideally
more
park
space.
So
I
think,
looking
at
it,
and
and
and
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
why
we
thought
a
secondary
plan
for
all
of
banya
was
important
so
that
we
can
look
at
these
kinds
of
of
opportunities
and
how
to
manage
what
is
an
already
high,
dense
neighborhood
by
any
standard
when
vanier
was
a
an
independent
municipality.
E
It
was,
I
think,
the
second
most
densely
populated
municipality
in
the
province,
so
secondary
planning
and,
as
I
mentioned,
real
estate
strategies
are
really
important,
because
we
know
that
a
lot
of
single-family
homes
are
being
are
going
to
be
replaced
by
triplexes
by
other
low-rise
developments.
E
The
council
has
directed
that
a
apartment,
a
low-rise
apartment
design
guidelines
be
developed
for
for
beignet,
pending
the
new
guidelines.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
approaches
that
need
to
be
taken
at
the
neighborhood
level
to
deal
with
these.
As
for
the
committee
of
adjustment,
we
generally
are
supportive
of
those
kinds
of
of
of
applications.
E
But
what
we're
finding
is
that
the
r4
limited
the
size
of
of
lots
required
for
intensification,
but
then
we're
now
seeing
applications
to
further
erode
or
permit
much
smaller
lots
where
we
don't
think
it's
appropriate
because
they
don't
provide
the
green
space
or
the
amenity
space
for
for
residents.
O
E
Thank
you
very
much.
Community
groups
have
followed
with
considerable
interest
and
discussion
about
city's
parkland
dedication.
There's
been
significant,
sufficient
interest
to
form
a
little
working
group,
and
it's
mostly
through
that
working
group
that
I've
learned
more
about
parkland
dedication
and
has
guided
my
comments
today.
E
The
overriding
view
is
that
parks
are
for
people,
and
this
means
more
people.
You
have
the
greater
the
need
for
parks,
and
that
leads
us
to
the
alternative
method
of
calculating
parkland
dedication.
E
But
I
do
think
it's
worth
noting
that
the
bylaw
to
be
adopted
today
is
probably
imperfect
and
it
requires
improvement,
and
here
I'd
like
to
just
deal
with
some
of
the
things
for
improvement.
If
I
could,
but
first
a
positive
feature
in
this
bylaw
has
proposed
is
it
provides
for
parkland,
conveyance
or
cash
in
lieu
determined
by
building
permit
issuance,
as
well
as
through
development
applications?
E
E
E
What
are
the
criticisms
of
caps?
First
of
all,
it
provides
an
incentive
for
the
erection
of
tall
residential
towers
on
postage
stamp
properties.
Second,
in
adopting
it,
we
have
this
high-rise
definition
which
which
begins
at
10
stories,
as
if
we
don't
have
any
30,
40
and
50-story
buildings
in
this
city.
E
So
I
know
there
are
questions
over
the
60
40
split
and
I
hope
that
that
will
be
addressed
in
the
review
that
will
follow
will
follow,
but
it
is
only
one
example
of
the
problems
that
we
need
to
consider
in
the
outcoming
review
now,
just
to
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
some
of
the
issues
that
I
think
need
to
be
dealt
with
in
that
review,
which
you
might
not
have
considered,
I
think
we
should
look
at
new
developments
such
as
these
super
tall
buildings,
we're
going
to
have
more
of
them
how
about
buildings
constructed
on
air
rights
and
lease
and
air
air
raids,
either
sold
or
leased?
E
How
do
we
calculate
do
the
calculation?
The
repurposing
of
the
commercial
buildings
downtown
into
residential
uses
is
another
example.
How
do
we
calculate
this?
We
should
be
measuring
the
effect
of
collecting
cash
and
lieu
funds
on
all
new
density.
This
is
something
new.
E
We
should
be
assessing
the
effect
of
the
caps,
not
just
on
the
effect
on
development,
but
what
what
is
the?
What
is
the
amount
of
park
land
we're
generating?
What
is
the
amount
of
cash
we're
accumulating?
E
We
should
be
analyzing
what
is
the
real
cost
and
what
is
the
real
effect
of
some
of
the
exemptions
that
we're
talking
about
offering
so
just
to
sort
of
summarize
it
all
community
groups
would
like
to
have
a
real
active
participation
in
this
review
process
that
goes
to
the
end
of
2023
there.
It
should
be
a
broad
review
of
the
bylaw,
but
in
summary,
please
move
ahead.
Stop
the
new
bylaw
meet
the
deadline
and
broaden
the
subsequent
review.
So
we
can
talk
about
some
of
these
deficiencies
in
the
future.
O
Thanks
thanks
bob,
I
just
got
a
little
question
here
from
councilman
nerd.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you
bob
for
being
here.
P
I
wanted
to
talk
about
caps
a
little
bit,
so
you
raise
them
and
obviously
they're
they're,
being
it's
being
progressively
raised
in
the
alternative,
parkland
dedication
rate
at
25
of
land
area
or
or
value,
and
so
that's
one
point
I
know
you've
mentioned
and
I'd
like
to
hear
more
about
that,
and
the
second
point
I'd
like
to
hear
more
about
is
in
the
version
of
the
draft
pilot,
and
you
raise
this
as
well
presented
for
the
june
23rd
meeting
possible
exemption
for
affordable
housing
was
included
in
the
version
for
the
july
7th
meeting.
P
That
passage
was
replaced
by
a
a
maximum
or
cap
of
of
ten
percent
of
land
value
applied
to
buildings
in
in
transit,
oriented
development
zones,
as
you
mentioned,
so
just
I.
I
just
would
like
you
to
expand
your
thoughts
on
those
two
pieces,
a
little
bit
more
on
caps
and
and
what
ideally
you
see
as
an
outcome
when
the
the
actual
policy
is
written
up
following
our
approval
here
today,.
E
Well,
maybe
I
should
first
put
on
the
table
my
personal
prejudice
against
what
I
call
tax
expenditures,
that
is
to
say,
you
grant
somebody
a
special
deal,
so
you
have
lower
taxes
that
does
not
fit
into
your
budget
calculation.
You
don't
see
that
those
of
us
who
who
are
balding
get
a
special
tax
rate
on
our
property
taxes.
You
don't
see
that
in
your
budget
calculation,
and
so
you
don't
know
how
much
it
costs
and
we
see
this
again
and
again,
we
don't
know
what
things
really
cost.
E
E
So
therefore
you
might
even
be
paying
more
in
parkland
dedication
than
even
the
value
of
the
property.
Who
knows
don't
forget
it's.
It's
related
to
500
dwelling
units.
So
we
have
this
tower
that
has
over
500
dwelling
units
we
have
to
produce
a
hectare
of
land
right.
Maybe
you
don't?
You
didn't
even
buy
a
hectare
of
land
put
up
this
building.
It's
it's,
it
would
be
more
than
100
percent.
E
You
would
think.
Oh
gee,
that's
terrible.
We
can't
have
a
tax.
That's
more
than
a
hundred
percent
ever
buy
a
bottle
of
vodka.
The
tax
is
more
than
a
hundred
percent
on
the
bottle
of
vodka.
It
costs
nothing
to
produce
it
any
anyway.
The
whole
idea
of
caps
should
be
looked
at
now.
Are
we
making
progress?
Yes,
because
up
until
now,
if
you
build
a
super
tall
building,
the
maximum
that
you
would
ever
pay
is
the
value
of
10
of
the
property.
E
E
What's
the
lot
is
the
lot
the
whole
rito
center
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
is
a
lot
just
the
amount
that
the
building
is
sitting
on.
Most
buildings
have
to
have
at
least
some
side
yard,
front,
yard
setback,
and
so
on
I
mean
we've
got
problems
that
need
to
be
resolved.
Okay,
so
on
on
on
caps,
my
question
is:
we
should
have
a
discussion
about
justifying
caps
and
that
should
be
a
discussion
that
is
carried
on
in
the
next
18
months.
P
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
rockefeller.
That's
very
helpful
and
always
pleased
to
see
you
here.
Thank
you,
chair.
O
Thank
you,
mr
bronco
bank.
Just
before
I
just
wanted
just
a
slight
observation.
We
have
these
conversations
here.
I
look
at
the
speakers
list.
O
We
have
a
number
of
individuals
that
are
speaking
that
feel
that
communities
need
more
parks
right,
no
argument,
and
then
we
have
the
other
side,
which
are
the
builders
that
are
saying
we're
charging
them
too
much
with
you
know
a
b
and
c
what
we're
missing
are
the
people
that
either
live
in
these
buildings
are
going
to
buy
these
units
and
use
these
parks.
That's
what
we
miss
in
these
conversations.
It's
almost
like
you
need.
You
almost
need
like
a
stakeholder
board
of
comprised
of
just
new
homeowners,
first-time
homeowners.
O
Maybe
they
just
bought
their
home
in
the
last
two
three
years
and
then
people
that
are
prospective
new
buyers
or
new
renters
that
are
going
to
be
looking
at
these
buildings
in
the
next
two
to
three
years
and
get
their
take
on
some
of
this
stuff,
because
we
always
miss
that.
In
these
conversations
we
hear
we
hear
from
folks
that
have
no
intention
to
move
out
of
their
homes
and
they're
representing
communities
that
are
established
communities,
and
then
we
have
the
builders
and
that's
it
and
that's
the
conversation
we
have.
O
We
just
we're
really
missing
a
big
chunk
of
of
ottawa.
When
we
have
these
discussions
here,
anyways
I'm
going
to
pass
it
back
to
glenn.
C
Thanks
scott,
our
next
speaker
is
kevin
harper
with
minto
good
morning,
kevin.
Q
L
Q
Q
Next
slide,
please
kelly,
as
shown
here.
The
total
cost
of
each
new
apartment
in
this
project
is
520
000.
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
circle
number
in
the
second
column
and
of
that
350
000
is
purely
the
hard
cost
to
construct
it.
So
the
concrete
glass
mechanical
electrical
you
can
see
that
in
the
cost
per
unit
second
column.
Q
Q
In
this
example,
comprise
thirty
four
thousand
dollars
the
cost
of
being.
You
can
see
the
cost
there,
the
top
bullets
circled.
So
what
do
these
costs
actually
include?
Next
slide,
please
kelly,
as
shown
here.
These
costs
include
development
charges,
cashflow
parkland,
in
this
case
a
section
37
contribution
and
the
planning
application
fees.
So
for
this
particular
project,
these
costs
total
some
six
point:
three
million
dollars
or
about
twenty
eight
thousand
dollars
of
the
unit
cost
next
slide,
please
kelly.
Q
So
the
cash
and
loan
parkland
for
this
sample
project
totals
some
1.24
million
dollars
under
the
current
bylaw
with
the
10
cap.
This
would
increase
to
1.86
million
dollars
under
the
proposed
bylaw
with
a
15
cap
for
mid-rise
development.
Q
Q
Not
only
that-
and
it's
been
mentioned
by
previous
speakers-
these
costs
will
be
stacked
on
top
of
those
associated
with
other
provincially
mandated
and
official
plan
related
policy
initiatives
that
are
on
the
horizon,
specifically
community
benefits
charges,
inclusionary
zoning,
high
performance
development
standards
and
so
on.
The
cumulative
effect
of
these
initiatives
will
increase
the
total
cost
of
each
new
apartment
by
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars.
Q
Now
the
development
industry
continues
to
grapple
with
hard
costs
that
are
up
roughly
30
since
2019
labor
shortages,
now
famous
supply
supply
chain
constraints
and
inflated
land
costs,
and
now,
as
we
enter
a
time
of
rising
interest
rates
and
finance
carrying
costs,
it's
my
opinion
that
there
will
be
fewer
starts
as
projects
in
the
pipeline
are
held
back
until
market
conditions
improve
next.
Q
Q
Q
I
think,
to
expect
private
development
to
help
the
city
catch
up
to
a
false
shortage
of
parkland
by
extracting
an
exorbitant
dedication
on
every
project
is
a
mistake,
particularly
particularly
considering
the
overall
value
of
these
developments
in
these
two
particular
transects.
R
Q
City
building,
think
of
any
north
american
city
you
visited
the
downtown
neighborhoods
generally
include
two,
maybe
three
large
parks
depending
on
the
size
of
the
city
and
then
a
sprinkling
of
smaller
parks.
I
think
we
need
to
take
a
step
back
here
and
focus
on
these
smaller
dedications
I'll
call
them
everyday
spaces.
Q
Speaking
of
everyday
spaces,
pops
have
come
up.
It's
part
of
the
conversation,
and
I
think
these
are
of
vital
importance
in
the
downtown
and
in
urban
transects
we've
provided
these
on
several
of
our
projects.
These
spaces
create
urban
moments
and
experiences
in
the
core.
I'm
sure
these
are
privately
owned
and
developed,
but
it
means
the
city
doesn't
have
to
maintain
secure
clean,
insured
spaces
either.
Q
I
would
also
suggest
that
these
spaces
should
count
toward
the
parkland
dedication
requirement
on
any
infield
project
in
the
corps.
Finally,
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
I
think
flexibility
here
is
key.
The
city
needs
to
work
with
developers
to
create
these
great
spaces
in
our
city,
while
ensuring
the
feasibility
and
design
intent
of
any
development.
Q
For
instance,
this
means
allowing
parking
under
a
parkland
dedication
to
the
city
or
a
design
element
above
if
needed.
Parkland
under
a
strata
scenario
should
not
be
an
issue
in
the
downtown
and
urban
transects.
If
we
want
intensification-
and
we
also
want
to
increase
the
amount
of
parkland
at
the
same
time,
I'm
almost
out
of
time
so
I'll
leave
my
presentation
there,
but
I'm
happy
to
respond
to
any
questions
you
may
have.
Thank
you.
L
Too
often
I
I'm
here
speaking
about
the
importance
of
rental
and
kevin.
I
I
want
to
begin
by
thanking
minto.
I
I
it
is
important
to
invest
in
our
city's
core,
it's
important
to
see
more
rental
housing
stock
being
built.
L
I
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
questions.
I
was
asking
lisa
earlier
and
I
don't
know
if
you
were
on
at
that
point,
but
but
is
there
not
kind
of
the
struggle
of
projects
you're
working
on
with
the
the
cost
of
the
land
and
the
approach
to
those
sites,
rather
than
a
what
I'm
hearing
from
you?
Is
that
hey?
If,
if
the
future
is
where
you
want
to
go
great,
that's
been
cl.
That
is
clear
as
a
city
now,
but
it's
the
bridge
to
that.
Q
I
I
think
it
is,
there's
been
a
couple
of
comments
and
and
responses
regarding
land
value
and
how
land
value
will
adjust,
and
I
think
it
will
it
takes
time.
I
think,
there's
there's
two
issues.
Q
One
is
on
the
mid
and
high
rise
just
the
extent
or
the
high
level
of
the
cap
and
the
value
of
that
contribution
of
a
particular
development
and
then,
and
then
I
also
think
on
the
other
side
of
the
equation
is
just
what
this
does
to
the
affordability.
You
know
the
actual
cost
of
providing
a
housing
unit.
I
think
I
think
we'll
get
to
where
we
want
to
go.
Q
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
fully
on
the
back
of
infill
development,
which
is
what
the
city's
official
plan
is
trying
to
encourage.
I,
I
think,
there's
other
ways.
There
are
other
tools
for
sure
this
should
not
be
the
only
one.
Q
Well,
I
I
think
you
know
chris
greenshield's
raised
a
good
point
right.
It's
redevelopment
on
parking,
lots
and
stale
retail
plazas
and
malls.
I
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
that
goba
commented
on
and
asked
city
staff
to
consider
was
the
issue
of
encumbrances
above
and
below
park
space.
You
know
why.
Why
do
we
not
want
to
have
geothermal
or
a
parking
garage
permitted
under
a
city
dedicated
park?
Q
Q
None
of
that
was
deducted
from
the
cash
in
lieu
of
parkland
requirement
for
this
project,
which
was
1.2
million
dollars.
So
I
think
I
think,
there's
a
number
of
different
ways
that
that
this
can
work,
and
I
just
my
opinion
is
that
you
know
the
exaction
that's
being
proposed
is
really
significant
and
I
know
the
city
has
a
pretty
significant
war
chest
for
cio
right
now
and
that's
going
to
grow,
and
I
you
know,
I
think
just
we
need
to.
We
need
to
spread
the
responsibility
around
a
little
bit
more.
L
Maybe
just
to
to
on
a
final
question:
final
area
of
questioning
are
how
far,
how
far
does
minto
plan
out
like
you're,
saying,
800,
new
units
or
so
on,
lisa
earlier
was
saying.
You
know,
projects
that
have
been
through
pre-consult
at
the
very
least
like
give
me
a
sense,
and
obviously
this
you're
speaking
from
a
mental
perspective
like
how
what
what
decisions
could
council
make
now
that
would
not
affect
the
pipeline
of
projects
you
have
in
the
works
with
architects
with
the
specific
lands,
but
really
shape
your
your
future.
L
Q
Great
question,
mr
chair:
so
for
minto
using
beechwood
2
as
an
example,
the
land
was
acquired
in
2019.
Q
We
went
through
you
know
our
year
and
a
half
of
planning
approvals
during
the
pandemic
site
plan
approved
last
christmas,
we're
starting
construction
now.
So,
if
you're
looking
at
a
year
between
acquisition
and
doing
all
of
your
studies
a
year
and
a
half
in
approvals,
so
you're
up
to
two
and
a
half
years,
three
years
to
construct,
you
know
you're,
I
would
say
it's
a
five
year
cycle
on
a
rental
project,
from
acquisition
of
the
property
to
to
kind
of
final
occupancy
and
project
completion.
Q
That's
so
the
transition
is
important,
lisa
noted
it
and,
and
you
phrased
it
as
well,
counselor
fleury.
So
you
know
I
have
two
two
projects
and
approvals
right
now,
potentially
with
over
400
units
of
apartment
rental,
and
you
know,
regardless
of
the
new
transition
clause
of
the
year
before
the
bylaw
kicks
in
on
those
projects,
I
mean
they're,
both
high
rises
and
that's
a
two
and
a
half
times
hit
on
the
cash
in
the
parkland
that
I
didn't
carry
in
any
pro
forma.
Q
You
know
it
hasn't
been
considered
by
the
project,
so
you
know,
in
my
opinion,
anything
that
has
been
pre-conned
on
or
is
in
approvals
at
this
stage
should
be
grandfathered
from
the
bylaw,
and
the
bylaws
should
should
apply
to
any
future
projects
starting
at
pre-con,
but
anything,
that's
in
the
system
now
should
not
be
effective.
L
L
I
appreciate
kevin.
Thank
you
so
much.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Counselor
counselor,
curry,.
F
Kevin
first,
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
for
showing
your
financials.
I
think
that's
a
good
way
to
start
this,
so
we
can
actually
see
the
numbers
I
I
would
just,
though,
ask
you
to
comment
on
my
thinking
here.
So
the
the
situation
we're
talking
about
here
right
now
is
a
one-time
cost.
You
have
to
get
money
to
afford
that
from
the
banks.
The
banks
have
to
contemplate
whether
you
know
they
want
to
lend
that
what
interest
rate
cmhc
may
be
involved.
F
What's
your
amortization
in
terms
of
years,
but
the
building's
going
to
stand
for
100
years
potentially
and
you'll
have
those
rents
in
that
income
and
that
mortgage
paid
off
this
is
just
a
one-time
cost.
You
know
like
some
of
our
arguing
here.
It's
as
if
that
the
this
is
is
difficult
right
now,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
difficult
for
a
hundred
years
for
builders.
F
You
know
and-
and
that's
why
I
sort
of
say
you
know
you
don't
have
to
take
as
much
profit.
You
could
say
well
right
now
we
may
operate
at
a
little
bit
of
a
loss
or
not
as
much
profit.
This
is
an
expensive
endeavor,
but
100
years
out,
you
know
like
companies
like
minto
companies
like
all
the
builders.
They
don't
go
in
this
because
it's
not
a
lucrative
business.
F
C
Q
Again,
minto
and
and
most
of
the
other
developers
and
builders
in
the
city
are
are
not
not
for
profits.
This.
This
is
a
one-time
charge.
You
know
again,
I
think,
there's
two
things
to
consider.
One
is
protecting
projects
that
are
already
in
the
pipeline
party.
You
know
in
approvals
where
discussions
with
staff
are
already
underway
in
the
community
and
with
counselors
those
need
to
be
protected
right
or
those
projects.
Q
You
know
you
know
late
hits,
there's
always
there's
always
a
contingency
in
a
project
and
that
contingency
usually
covers
things
that
may
go
sideways
sideways
during
construction,
increased
hard
costs,
but
you
know
not
for
cash
in
the
parkland,
so
I
think
the
first
thing
would
be
to
protect
the
existing
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline
and
then
the
second
thing
I
think,
is
you
know
it's
hard
to
it's
hard
to
come
down
to
a
number
in
terms
of
setting
a
cap.
Q
You
know:
we've
set
10
at
low
15
at
mid
and
25
at
high.
Some
cities
may
do
more.
Lots
of
students
do
less
and
all
the
consultant
study
looked
at
all
of
that,
but
they
they
are
costs
and
they
they
go
directly
to
the
cost
of
the
unit.
I
I
wanted
to
to
point
out
councillor
curry
that
ottawa
is
not
toronto.
Q
I
know
you've
all
heard
kind
of
these
rule
of
thumbs
or
or
urban
legends
about
million
dollars
of
profit
per
story
and
a
tower
or
two
millions
of
dollars
of
profit
per
floor
and
a
tower.
I
I
can
tell
you
after
completing
three
projects
in
the
city.
That
is
absolutely
not
the
case.
I
mean
sure
every
developer
would
would
love
to
have
a
20
margin
on
a
on
a
mid-rise
or
high-rise
project,
but
I
can
tell
you
it's
far
from
that.
Q
I
mean
minto
is
a
big
machine.
Clearage
is
a
big
machine,
the
money
those
companies
make.
You
know
it's
not
based
on
an
individual
project.
It's
based
on
spread
across
multiple
projects,
so
every
little
bit
adds
up
and
I
think
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
it
was
raised
earlier
is
that
unfortunately,
the
timing
of
these
increase
in
increases
in
costs
is
unfortunate
right
because
we
have
a
new
official
plan
with
a
number
of
policy-led
initiatives.
We
have
you
know
these
provincially
mandated
initiatives
and
they're
all
adding.
S
C
Q
Supply
and
decrease
the
cost
of
that
supply.
So
maybe
it's
just
a
matter
of
bad
timing.
Q
I
don't
know,
but,
but
I
think,
as
interest
rates
rise-
and
I
mentioned
this
in
my
presentation-
I
think
we're
getting
to
the
end
of
that
sweet
spot,
particularly
for
rental,
where
you
know
the
low
finance
charges
and
and
carrying
fees.
Q
I
think
that
time
is
is
coming
to
an
end,
and
that
was
the
sweet
spot
for
rentals
and
you've
seen
it
in
the
cranes
on
the
skyline.
We
have
thousands
and
thousands
of
units
in
the
pipeline,
which
is
a
great
thing
for
ottawa.
We
desperately
need
those
we've
gone
four
decades
without
rental
housing
being
built
for
a
number
of
reasons,
and
I
just
think
we
should
do
everything
we
can
to
try
to
help
those
projects
continue
and
not
turn
off
the
top
one.
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
counselor.
It.
F
N
Thanks
and
we,
it
could
obviously
be
an
all
afternoon
discussion,
so
I'll
keep
it
relatively
short,
but
I
I'm
taking
a
look
at
the
development
that
you're
proposing
at
the
corner
of
parkdale
and
wellington,
which
will
add,
I
don't
know,
300
new
residents,
maybe
a
couple
more
into
an
area
that
simply
doesn't
have
any.
You
know
potential
for
more
parkland,
except
on
a
very,
very
expensive
basis.
N
Q
Chair,
that's
that's
a
fair
question,
council
leaper
for
sure,
and
I
and
I
get
staff's
approach
on
this.
You
know
more
people
are
coming
into
an
area.
That
means
we
need
more
parkland
or
more
recreational
resources.
Q
The
problem
is,
is
that
where
this,
this
intensification
is
happening
is
that
it's
in
an
existing
context
where
we're
in
and
we're
in
a
built
form
like
we're
in
an
existing
city.
So
you
know
lrt,
runs
through
existing
city
for
the
most
part
and
we're
we're
putting
up
buildings
close
to
that
and
around
stations,
and
that's
exactly
how
it
should
happen
and
staffs
made
the
adjustment
on
on
the
land
first
policy
by
by
dropping
the
land
to
ten
percent
in
tods,
which
is
absolutely
required.
Q
Q
I
mean
it
makes
no
sense
so,
but
I
I
think-
and
I
I
tried
to
make
the
point
ottawa
was
very
lucky
in
being
a
capital
city
and,
having
you
know,
the
graveyard
plan
and
implementation
by
the
ncc.
We
have
lots
of
park
and
open
space
land
in
the
city
in
your
award
council
leaper.
You
benefit
more.
I
M
I
Q
You
know
so,
if
I'm
coming
from
outside
the
city
and
I
want
to
buy
a
home
or
even
if,
if
I'm
looking
to
move-
and
I
want
to
go
downtown-
I'm
not
really
thinking
about
city
recreation
resources,
I
don't
see
the
difference
between
municipal
and
federal.
I
want
to
be
near
the
canal
where
I
can
run
a
bike.
I
want
to
be
near
the
auto.
C
Q
And
you
know,
adding
parks
is
difficult.
When
an
existing
urban
context
exists,
then
the
cost
of
land
is
so
high.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
that
I
think
a
blanket
to
hectare
target.
C
Q
Thousand
residents
city-wide
just
doesn't
work
in
an
in
a
dense
urban
setting,
and
I
mean
downtown
transect
and
and
interurban
transect
you
shouldn't
be
aiming
for
for
two.
You
know
we
have
access
to
lots
of
federal
lands
on
top
of
existing
city
facilities
and
there's
there's
other
ways.
I
think,
and
pops
plops
are
a
good
contribution
to
that,
albeit
they're
small,
and
you
made
the
point
earlier
about
them
being
perceived
as
as
private.
Q
But
you
know
if
they're
on
a
street
corner,
you
know,
I
don't
know
how
I
would
perceive
not
being
able
to
use
that
space.
But
I
think-
and
I
I
mentioned
it
with
councillor
fleury-
I
think
there's
other
ways
and
parkland
dedication.
I
don't
think
it's
the
only
way.
N
Q
Yeah,
I
I
I
I
get
all
this
like
I
just
so
I'm
a
professional
planner.
I
worked
in
the
public
sector,
consulting
you
know,
for
over
20
years
before
I
came
to
minto,
so
I
get
why
all
this
stuff
stuff
is
needed.
I
get
inclusionary
zoning.
I
get
parts
master
plans,
I've
done
all
that
stuff
I
get
it.
The
issue
is,
is
that
it's
all
happening
all
at
once
in
a
time
with
incredibly.
Q
High
costs
to
build
and
and
now
we're
having
you
know
higher
interest
in
carrying
costs,
so
it's
just.
There
needs.
P
N
Q
I
agreed
agreed,
and
I
mean
all
of
our
projects
we
we
have.
We
try
to
include
a
pet
relief
area
right
because
dogs
and
grass
so
yeah
there's
one
proposed
in
the
winter
for
that
one,
but
that
agreed,
you
have
it's
a
hike
right,
it's
a
hike
to
the
nearest
park.
It
is.
C
You
and
yeah
there
is
a
lot
of
ncc
land,
but
you
can't
really
build
a
pickleball
court
next
to
the
sir
john,
a
even
as
much
open
space
as
you
have
it.
It
doesn't
have
the
flexibility
that
city-owned
land
would
have
for
parks.
I
have
a
really
quick
question
kevin
and
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
You
you
mentioned
and
lisa
at
least
the
de
la
rosa
mentioned
earlier
flexibility
for
things
like
a
park
on
parking.
C
Q
Yeah
exactly
so
there
were.
There
were
a
couple
things
that
we
specifically
mentioned
with
staff
during
our
conversations,
and
one
of
them
was
was
encumbrances,
so
the
the
land
first
policy
does
not
permit
encumbrances
from
heaven
to
hell,
as
we
like
to
say
right
or
strata
for
the
parkland
dedication.
In
other
words,
you
can't
have
a
parking
garage
beneath
the
park
or
any
kind
of
extension,
architectural
or
otherwise,
into
the
space
above
it
and
in
the
downtown
core.
Q
If
you
want
a
city-owned
park
or
plaza,
that's
pretty
much,
the
only
way
to
do
it,
otherwise,
you're
shoving
all
the
development
and
services
and
underground
infrastructure
for
that
project,
to
the
outside
edges
to
the
corners
at
great
cost,
right
you're,
affecting
the
ability
to
park
the
development
or
service
the
development
and
the
park
ends
up
being
the
driving
design
force
of
the
development
rather
than
the
buildings
themselves.
So
there
needs
to
be
flexibility
there.
Absolutely
that's
one
that
that
gobo
members
raised
and
then
the
other,
I
think
is
you
know
again.
Q
These
pops
are
not
inexpensive
to
build
the
the
one
at
the
corner
of
fifth
and
bank
was
250.
300
thousand
dollars,
and
yet
you
know
our
cash
in
the
parkland
contribution
there
was
eight
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
dollars.
There
was
no
credit
for
the
for
the
effort
provided,
even
though
there's
right
to
pass
public
right
to
pass
over
over
private
land.
So
it's
another
one
that
was
unfortunately
left
out
of
the
by-law.
N
It
was
kind
of
legacy
I
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
if
we
were
to
pass
this
bylaw
today.
There
is
the
potential
for
changes
moving
forward
to
council,
which
I
understand
will
be
in
late
august.
N
There
is
also
the
potential
for
changes
in
next
steps
around
our
parkland
acquisition
and
urban
parkland
strategy
in
the
next
german
council.
To
do
things
like
count,
pops
toward
land
counts,
for
example,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
was
that.
That
was
clear.
I
guess
that
we
can
do
things
like
consider.
Encumbered
parkland,
as
counting
towards
the
the
cil
are
using
encumbered
land
in
in
subsequent
steps.
Today
is
not
the
be
all
in
the
end.
All
of
this
discussion.
C
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
a
great
point,
councillor
lieber
and
I
think
the
more
flexibility
that
our
staff
has
and
that
builders
have
to
find
opportunities
for
green
space
and
parks.
That's
something
we
definitely
need
to
explore.
So
I
don't
know
if
a
direction
later
on
might
be
appropriate
as
something
to
add
to
the
work
plan
for
next
term,
but
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
to
make
sure
that's
staying
open
as
an
option
so
glad
you
raised
it,
seeing
no
more
questions
for
kevin.
So
thank
you
kevin
for
joining
us
today.
A
A
It's
often
perceived
as
being
this
place
of
luxury,
and
that's
that
is
not
the
role
of
high-rise
housing
in
ottawa,
traditionally
going
in
the
past
and
going
forward
high-rise
housing
is
primarily
where
most
of
the
small
units
are
built
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
studios,
one
bedrooms,
smaller
two-bedrooms
and
and
done
through.
You
know,
sort
of
the
most
affordable
units
available
for
purchase
in
the
city,
as
well
as
supplying
the
rental
housing
market.
The
majority
of
rental
housing
going
up
right
now
is
in.
A
Those
are
the
housing
forms
that
service
young
people,
service,
new
canadians
and
what
what
this
policy
does
in
conjunction
some
of
some
of
the
documents
I've
sent
around
to
everybody-
we're
not
having
this
conversation
in
relation
to
some
of
the
other
policies
in
discussion
coming
forward,
and
you
know
in
the
some
in
the
next
term
of
council
and
some
coming
sooner
than
later,
we're
starting
to
overburden
the
units
that
are
closest
to
being
affordable
in
the
city
right
now,
roughly
the
cost
of
a
new
unit
at
a
transit
station
and
a
high
rise
in
the
future
is
going
to
be
120,
130,
more
square
foot.
A
Those
who
think
land
value
can
adjust
to
that
is
mathematically
impossible
to
make
the
project
work.
Somebody
is
going
to
have
to
sell
me
a
piece
of
land
and
give
me
30
a
square
foot
of
buildable
area
to
make
that
work
in
today's
market
to
give
some
context
on
the
condominium
market
what
it
is
in
ottawa
past
18
months,
there's
been
500
new
condominiums
sold
in
most
of
that
time
in
one
of
the
craziest
housing
markets.
R
A
A
This
going
forward
would
make
condominium
projects
unworkable
at
transit
station.
Now
you
say
fine
and
dandy.
We
don't
really
like
them
or
we
don't
want
them.
That's
fine,
but
the
reality
is.
We
have
the
same
number
of
people
coming
and
moving
to
the
city
and
we're
asking
these
people
to
contribute
so
much
more
in
their
housing
to
to
support
infrastructure
that
you
know
nobody's
going
to
dispute
more
parkland
is
always
going
to
be
needed,
as
people
are
moving
moving,
but
questions
at
the
end.
A
You
can
question
whether
the
developers
can
reduce
the
profit
and
do
those
things.
The
reality
is
these
costs
are
going
to
pass
through
the
system.
That's
just
the
reality
and
the
alternative
is
projects
just
don't
get
built.
Companies
like
cleridge
companies
like
minto,
richcraft
tamaracker,
the
major
high-rise
builders
in
the
city
are
also
home
builders.
A
A
A
People
cannot
afford
housing
in
the
city
right
now.
The
housing
market
has
become
very
slow.
Interest
rates
are
a
major
contributor
to
that,
but
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
housing
has
become
too
too
expensive
in
this
city
to
overburden
the
housing
at
the
transit
stations
or
high-rise
forums
is
going
to
be
hurting.
It's
not
hurting
the
developers,
it's
hurting
people
who
can
barely
afford
housing.
Now,
that's
the
reality
of
the
situation.
A
Is
there
an
easy
answer
to
how
to
resolve
some
of
the
infrastructure
shortfalls?
No,
there
isn't
I
mean
to
be
honest,
the
reality
is
some
of
it's
got
to
be
ratepayer-based.
Some
of
it's
got
to
come
from
other
places,
but
if
we
truly
want
to
have
a
city,
that's
driven
by
intensification
and
moving
people
to
the
transit
stations,
making
it
the
most
expensive
place
to
develop
is
not
the
solution.
A
If
you
believe,
if
your
environment
is
of
your
greatest
concern,
this
policy
is
actually
going
to
trigger
a
great,
more
deal
of
housing
in
the
suburbs,
eventually
going
to
trigger
more
and
more
lands
need
to
be
brought
in.
As
official
plan
reviews
occur,
we
are
going
the
opposite
direction
of
what
the
policies
of
the
official
plan
are
asking
for,
and
it's
not
necessarily
the
city's
fault.
It's
not
the
developer's
fault.
A
A
At
the
end
of
the
day,
people
have
to
be
able
to
afford
the
mortgage
to
cover
these
things
if
they
can't
they're
not
going
to
get
built
and
we're
already
seeing
prior
to
these
policies
putting
in
place
condominiums
are
not
getting
built.
We've
seen
some
success
in
the
last
five
years
in
construction
of
rental
housing,
but
that
is
also
coming
to
a
grinding
call.
I
know
of
projects
where
they've
already
started
construction
that
have
come
to
a
stop
because
of
the
change
of
interest
rates
and
the
cost
of
inflation.
A
C
A
F
Thanks
neil,
I
I'm
finding
this
hugely
interesting
these
conversations
here.
Maybe
these
other
meetings
just
weren't
as
exciting,
but
this
one's
good.
My
question
is
but
say:
if
the
banks
said:
okay,
no,
we'll
we're
good
with
99-year
mortgages.
Cmhc
says
you
know,
never
mind
the
25,
but
40
50
60,
like
other
countries,
have
multi-generational
mortgages
like
we
just
aren't
doing
that
in
canada,
yet
say
if
they
did.
That
say
if
I
know
unders,
I
understand
the
banks
make
more
money
that
way
but
say
yes.
I
just
don't
think
that
this
is.
A
The
reality
situation
is
that
doesn't
exist
here
yet
and
and
there's
no
indication
that
that's
going
to
exist
in
the
future.
Cmhc
has
done
some
things
where
they're
allowing
50-year
mortgages
on
rental
housing,
but
the
consumer
market
is,
you
know,
consumers
are
not
being
given.
Even
you
know,
fairly
giving
30
years
as
difficult
to
get
today.
So
there's
there's
that's
just
not
a
market
reality.
A
A
The
reality
is
in
the
short
term.
We
don't
have
the
ability
to
let
the
market
pause
right
now
on
construction
and
wait
for
wait
for
the
market
to
absorb
all
this.
The
reality
is
like
I
said
earlier.
Somebody
would
have
to
give
me
money
to
take
land
right
now
to
develop
under
these
future
policies.
If
these
are
all
put
in
place.
The
inclusionary
zoning's
put
in
place
with
the
cbc
with
this
increased
national.
To
do
a
high-rise
development
of
transit
station
will
be
the
most
expensive
place
for
me
to
develop.
A
I'm
fine
doing
it.
If
there's
a
market,
I
just
don't
believe
people
are
prepared
to
pay
for
it
and
that's
the
reality.
That's
and
that's
already
that's
already
in
the
market.
People
are
not
prepared
to
pay
the
increased
cost
of
construction
right
now
or
the
increase
in
land
values
the
market's
rejecting
the
cost
to
develop
a
condominium
right
now,
we're
not
selling
condominiums
in
the
city.
It's
not
toronto.
A
Toronto's
selling,
25
000,
30
000
condominiums
a
year
we
sold
100
this
year
we
sold
500
in
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
it's
not
a
hugely
accepted
form
of
homeownership.
At
the
current
cost,
it's
pushing
people
out
further
we're
lucky.
We
collect
some
tax
base.
If
we
push
them
to
canada,
it's
more
problematic,
we're
pushing
them
to
campfield
and
carlton
place
in
rockland
and
other
places
we're
not
getting
their
tax
base.
A
They
still
live
in
the
city
they're
still
using
our
roads
they're
using
our
services,
but
we're
not
collecting
their
tax
base,
we're
not
collecting
the
development
charge.
So
that's
the
reality
of
the
situation.
We
can
talk
about
theoreticals.
This
has
got
to
change
the
macro.
This
guy
changed
the
macro,
but
I'm
I'm
telling
you
somebody
who's
business
is
based
in
the
suburbs
and
in
based
in
downtown.
A
It
shifts
we
shift
with
what
the
market
demand
shifts
and,
to
put
you
know,
fifty
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
extra
costs
on
a
studio
apartment
downtown
at
the
train
station
is
going
to
push
somebody
to
say
well,
I'm
closer
to
being
able
to
afford
the
walk-up
apartment
in
the
surface
parking
lot
in
the
suburbs.
That's
easier
for
me
to
afford.
I'm
going
to
have
to
make
that
choice.
A
A
20
years
ago
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
we
had
to
create
incentives
to
get
people
to
live
downtown.
We
had
to,
I
believe
it
was
jackie
holtzman,
had
development
charges
waved
downtown
prior
to
the
super
city
being
created,
we've
gone
the
opposite,
where
it's
going
to
become
more
expensive
to
develop,
downtown
and
there's
other
issues
that
aren't
even
in
this
discussion.
Yet
the
infrastructure
master
plan
consultation
has
already
said.
We
have
no
idea.
What
cost
of
intensification
is.
A
We
need
to
charge
more
costs,
just
to
figure
out
what
the
cost
of
intensification
is
going
to
be
on
our
infrastructure.
There's
greater
and
greater
issues
coming
down
the
pipeline.
We
have
a
development
charge
review
coming,
I
believe
in
next
year
significant
increases
are
coming,
people
already
know,
significant
increases
are
coming.
The
transit
automatically
creates
a
significant
increase
in
development
charges.
These
are
things.
People
cannot
afford
and
scott's
very
right,
we're
not
hearing
from
the
people
who
have
to
who
are
trying
to
get
into
these
units
because
most
of
them
aren't
here.
A
Most
of
them
are
stuck
in
other
countries,
they're
going
to
immigrate
here,
they're
going
to
be
refugees
here.
I
I
think,
for
most
people
I
mean
your
situations
when
people
have
kids
who
are
getting
to
the
age
of
having
to
buy
a
house
or
looking
for
housing
getting
out
of
their
house.
Just
have
those
conversations
with
your
kids.
I
think
everyone
has
those
conversations.
It's
it's
impossible
for
people
to
stay
in
the
city
of
ottawa
right
now,
unless
they're,
making
150
000
a
year,
it's
it's.
It's
gone
crazy
and
to
tax
future.
F
F
A
There
there
aren't
too
many
areas
that
haven't
had
new
parks
built
in
the
last
10
years.
There
really
aren't
you
know,
and
on
top
of
that,
there's
37
million
dollars
plus
sitting
in
city
coffers
for
cil,
it's
not
being
spent,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
reason
is
I
hear
it's.
The
land
is
too
expensive,
but
some
of
that
money
can
be
put
out.
You
may
have
a
bigger
issue
with
allocation.
You
know
perhaps
more
needs
to
be
put
into
the
into
the
award
funds
rather
than
into
the
general
coffers.
A
That
might
be
the
issue,
but
the
reality
is
there's
a
lot
of
money
sitting
there.
There
are
parks,
there
are
new
parks
coming
in
center
town,
their
new.
You
know,
huge
significant
in
capital,
ward
of
money
was
put
into
lansdowne,
there's
more
money
going
into
brewer.
There
are
parks
being
put
everywhere.
I
think
in
kitchissippi's,
probably
the
one
place
where
they
probably
have
the
most
challenge
for
parks
right
now,
just
because
of
the
level
of
intensification,
but
even
then
there
will
be
some
parks
coming
in
time.
A
I
know
we've
dedicated
one
on
a
proposal,
so
I'm
not
sure
there
is
actually
this
huge
shortfall
in
parks
and
if
the
shortfall
is
going
to
be
created
because
of
increased
intensification.
Well,
this
money
is
going
to
prevent
that
intensification
like
so
you
can
make
it
25,
but
25
of
zero
is
zero.
I'm
not
sure
we're
going
to
further
the
goals
that
we're
trying
to
to
move
forward
on.
F
I
have
looked
at
those
high
amounts
sitting
there
too,
and
I
you
know
that's
a
different
conversation,
but
anyway
thanks
a
lot.
Neil.
P
Councilman,
thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you,
neil
for
the
presentation.
We
have
a
target
of
two
hectares
of
active
park,
land
per
thousand
people
and
there's
only
three
transects-
that
we're
not
meeting
that
in
and
that's
downtown
the
inner
urban
and
suburban
south,
and
so
those
are
the
areas
that
you
know.
We've
got
some
work
to
do.
P
Lansdowne,
of
course,
we're
gonna
be
losing
park
space
potentially
in
the
future,
and
certainly
appreciate
the
conversation
around
costs
and-
and
I
do
want
to
you-
know-
talk
about
that-
a
bit
what
it.
What
is
your
understanding
right
now
of
what
the
tod
zones
will
require
as
a
cap.
A
P
Right
and
so
on,
the
affordable
housing
piece,
though,
which
we're
targeting
for
tod.
P
What's
your
understanding
of
those,
because
I
mean
obviously
inclusionary
zoning
coming
in
there's
there's
going
to
be
affordable,
we
have
to
define
that
but
affordable
in
the
tod.
So
you
don't
think
that's
going
to
change
sort
of
the
the
payback
of
those
areas
that
we're
trying
to
develop
when
we're
considering
affordable
housing
going
in
in
tod.
P
Well,
just
in
terms
of
the
policy
that
we're
bringing
forward,
it's
probably
something
that
staff
needs
to
jump
in
on,
because
my
understanding
is
the
new
bylaw
would
replace
the
cap
which,
which
limits
parkland
dedication
to
10
of
the
land
area
of
any
development
writ
large,
but
on
tod
zones,
there's
a
difference
when
it's
considered,
affordable
and
that
cap,
when
it's
it's
affordable
housing
would
be,
would
be
ten
percent.
P
My
understanding,
so
I
just
I
just
wanna,
get
clarity
on
that,
because
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
important
right.
We
there's
a
couple
things:
the
dc
charges
they're
out
of
whack
we
charge,
there's
a
huge
advantage
in
ottawa
to
build
a
single
family,
home
or
single
unit
home
compared
to
everywhere
else
in
the
in
in
the
province
of
major
cities.
P
That
should
probably
change
should
probably
lower
our
multi-unit
dc's
and
increase
our
single
unit.
If
that's
what
we're
saying
we
want
right
so
agree
with
you
on
that,
but
on
these
changes
around
tod
zones,
you're
saying
that
we're
not
going
to
be
incentivized
to
have
development.
Go
there
as
a
result
of
some
of
the
policies
coming
in
recently,
which
I
think
are
actually
you
know,
they're
fairly.
P
Tinkering
on
the
margins
compared
to
your
other
costs,
your
construction
costs,
for
example,
which
are
obviously
the
largest
costs,
but
I
don't
know
that
we're
actually
accurate
on
on
how
much
we're
going
to
be
charging
for
new
development
in
transit,
oriented
development
zones
when
it's
considered,
affordable,
which
majority
of
them
are
supposed
to
be
having
some
affordability
baked
in
as
a
result
of
inclusionary
zones.
I
just
want
to
get
on
the
same
page
of
that
a
staff
would
be
helpful,
probably
in
this
conversation
with
that
too.
P
A
Yeah,
I
know
that
that's
something
written
right
into
it,
the
25
so
yeah,
it's
it's!
It's
a
combination
of
all
these
policies,
they're
happening
a
little
bit
in
a
vacuum
of
each
other
right
and
that's
that
that's
an
issue.
But
if
we're,
if
we're
concerned
about
getting
people
to
live
at
the
transit
stations,
it
can't
the
burden
can't
be
a
hundred
dollars,
plus
a
square
foot
more
than
otherwise
right
and
that's
the
thing
you
can't
this
isn't
despite
the
belief,
the
high-rise
housing
is
not
this.
A
This
big
thing
in
the
city
of
ottawa.
It's
it's
not
this
huge
thing:
it's
very
limited
market.
It's
not
it's
not
being
pumped
out
in
in
a
significant
way,
there's
a
little
boom
in
rental
construction
strictly
when
there
was
a
low
interest
rate
environment
that
low
interest
rate
environment's
already
gone.
So
it's
it's
very
challenging
and
we're
making
it
very
hard
to
build
this
stuff.
Like
I
I
am
the
biggest
advocate
for
it.
We
we've
been
building
the
most
of
it
over
the
last
10
15
years.
A
I
I'm
just
I'm
just
trying
to
make
it
clear
to
everybody
that
it's
it's
not
me.
That's
going
to
decide
not
to
do
it.
It's
going
to
be
the
market.
People
are
not
going
to
people.
Are
they
can't
afford
now
and
they're
not
going
to
choose
to
pay
even
more
to
live
at
the
transit
station.
The
benefit's,
not
there
factor
in
I
mean
you're,
dealing
with
macro
issues
like
potentially
a
totally
decentralized
downtown,
because
the
majority
of
the
workforce
doesn't
come
back
to
work
there
like
there's,
there's
significant
issues
and
changes.
A
A
It's
just
not
going
to
have
the
intensification
work.
It's
just
financial
realities,
it's
not
me,
it's
not
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
affect
me,
it
doesn't
affect
minto,
it
doesn't
affect
rich
crap,
we're
gonna,
respond
to
the
market.
We're
gonna
build
the
units
where
people
demand
we
have.
Our
businesses
are
based
on
wherever
the
demand
goes.
If
we
have
to
build
more
houses,
which
is
what
we've
done
the
last
two
three
years,
that's
what
happens
so
the
market's
going
to
drive
it.
P
Yeah-
and
I
mean
it's
fine
to
say
that,
and
I
think
we
we're
experiencing
experience
that
reality,
the
market's
a
lot
bigger
than
municipal
fees,
way
bigger,
much
more
affected
by
trends
outside
of
fees
that
that
will
have
that
will
play
into
this,
and
I
just
there's
a
sliding
scale.
P
That's
been
proposed
by
staff
here,
right
of
10,
15
or
25
percent
of
the
land
area
or
the
value,
and
so
previously
the
cap
would
limit
parkland
dedication
to
10
of
the
land
area
of
any
development,
we're
expecting
tall
buildings
in
our
tod.
P
So
even
at
a
higher
level,
the
scale
does
represent
an
incentive
for
super
tall
buildings
right
and
those
two.
No.
A
It
doesn't
it's
the
opposite:
it's
the
opposite!
Where
there
being
the
higher
buildings,
are
being
charged
way
more,
but
you're
assuming
land
value
is
the
same,
whether
I'm
on
a
mid-rise
or
high-rise.
So
cash
in
lieu
10
is
historically
based
on
the
appraised
value
of
the
land
which
reflects
the
development
rights.
A
So
a
higher
building
has
a
higher
land
base,
higher
appraisal,
it's
working
from
so
that
already
captured
the
difference
between
a
high
rise
and
low
rise.
If
I
build
a
50
story,
the
appraisal's
gonna
be
higher
than
when
I
built
a
30
story
and
when
I
built
20
or
when
I
built
a
10.,
so
it's
already
captured.
A
So
this
25
percent
is
actually
has
a
multiplying
effect,
because
the
land
value
is
already
1x,
2x,
3x,
whatever
it
may
be,
depending
on
the
size
of
the
building
and
then
we're
putting
another
15
burden
on
top
of
it
versus
a
low-rise
construction.
So
it's
not
just
these
people
are
not
just
paying
two
and
a
half
times
the
assessment
rate
they're,
also
paying
a
higher
land
value
on
top
of
it.
So
the
the
costs
become,
it's
a
it's
a
multiplied
effect.
It's
not
a
two
and
a
half
times
effect.
A
It's
actually
going
to
be
four
or
five
times
the
fact.
By
the
time
it's
done,
and
so
it's
we
already
had
a
progressive.
P
P
Yeah,
I
think
that
the
the
the
cap
will
incentivize
larger
buildings,
more
units
that
will
be
created
there,
because
if
you've
got
a
cap,
you're
going
to
want
to
go
higher
and
create
more
units,
you're
going
to
try
to
get
as
much
height
as
you
can
as
possible
in
those
tod
areas
to
potentially
offset.
And
that's
what
we're
we're
saying.
We're
going
to
allow
in
those
tdo
tod
areas
is,
is
a
lot
more
height
and
a
lot
more
units
and
density.
And
so
you
know
the
math
is
going
to
be.
P
Tricky,
perhaps
be
good
to
hear
from
staff
on
on
this
and
how
we
make
it
work.
But
I
appreciate
your
perspective
and
and
hearing
from
you
today
at
committee.
So
thank
you,
chair.
N
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
do
just
want
to
quickly
say
with
respect
to
the
cash
balances
and
some
of
the
awards,
land
is
expensive
to
acquire.
I've
just
acquired
a
parcel.
I
think
it's
just
a
little
under
400
square
meters
to
build
a
park.
That's
a
million
bucks
and
that's
before
demolition
and
actually
constructing
the
park,
so
those
cil
balances
can
be
wiped
out
fairly.
N
Clearly,
if
we're
pursuing
things
like
acquisition,
neil,
what
what
about,
having
a
slightly
higher
rate
in
terms
of
the
cap
but
spread
across
all
three
building
typologies,
so
a
12
cap
on
low,
mid
and
high
or
a
13
cap
on
mid
low
and
high
and
then
rejig
the
reach
of
the
ci
distribution
formulas,
to
try
to
try
to
make
the
parkland
acquisition
possible
in
urban
areas.
A
I
I
think,
that's
a
more
reasonable
approach.
Like
I
said,
I
think
the
reality
is
land
appraisal
actually
captures
the
difference
in
different
building
typologies.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
should
everybody
be
contributing
about
the
same?
Probably
at
the
end
of
the
day,
yeah
housing
forms
should
be
created
should
be
contributing
equal
amounts,
that's
the
reality.
I
just.
I
have
a
hard
time
with
the
policy
that
the
people
who
are
paying
for
500
000
are
contributing
more
than
the
people
building
three
million
dollar
homes.
C
Thanks
thanks
neil,
you
know
this.
This
conversation,
what's
almost
like
deja
vu
from
our
inclusionary
zoning
in
way
were,
were
it's
almost
an
analogy
or
a
stand-in
for
a
larger
discussion
about
land
value
land
economics.
C
You've
articulated
quite
well
and
many
other
speakers-
have
this
clash
of
priorities,
building
more
homes,
building
new
homes,
building
apartments,
building,
affordable
housing,
and
then
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
respond
to.
As
a
committee
is
there's
more
to
building
a
city
than
just
building
homes.
We
need
park
land,
we
need
transportation,
we
need
all
sorts
of
amenities.
C
C
Do
they
not
care
about
having
enough
park
space?
So
because
don't
you
think
if
we
get
10
years
from
now
and
people
don't
have
enough
swimming
lesson
spots
to
enroll
in
or
enough
swing
sets
in
the
local
park
or
enough
soccer
fields
for
kids
to
play
in
or
enough
benches
to
relax
on
in
the
summer?
Are
they
not
going
to
be
resentful
of
our
of
our
council
for
not
having
the
foresight
to
properly
fund
park
space.
A
100
percent,
in
terms
of
like
we're
community
builders.
No,
but
nobody
wants
deficient
communities
or
neighborhoods,
not
clearage,
not
mintown
outreach
craft
like
we
don't
we,
we
want
good
communities.
You
know
claire
we've
been
on
large
sites
very
much
supportive.
I
I
like
we
show
up
with
parkland
first
in
our
initial
concepts,
we
want
those
parks
in
those
communities.
The
question
is
how
much
new
development
can
afford
to
contribute.
So
I
don't
think
it's
a
question
of.
A
Are
we
building
housing
versus
infrastructure
at
the
end
of
the
day,
like
it's
a
question
of
where
is
this
housing
going
to
get
built
if
the
housing
is
going
to
get
built
one
way
or
the
other?
There's
too
many
people
coming
to
the
city
question
is:
where
do
you
want
to
be
built?
I
personally
my
read
on
these
costs
being
added
on
through
these
different
policies.
A
A
I'm
not
sure
if
you
asked
a
28
year
old
who's
struggling
to
buy
a
place
today.
If
they're,
that
concerned
about
contributing
enough
parkland
to
make
the
existing
community
happy
versus
having
a
parkland
to
make
the
new
building
satisfied
and
I'm
not
sure
they
are
that
concerned,
if
that
means
they
can't
afford
their
mortgage
or
they
can't
afford
their
mortgage
to
buy
something
for
the
first
time
or
they
can't
afford
to
rent
at
what
new
buildings
cost
to
rent
it.
A
A
At
the
end
of
the
day,
people
can
only
afford
so
much
and
that's
just
the
reality
and
that's
going
to
shape
where
housing
gets
built
because
that
isn't
going
to
have
to
get
built.
The
people
are
coming,
that's
not
going
to
change.
Our
official
plan
is
already
a
few
hundred
thousand
people
short
of
what
current
projections
are
for
our
population.
So
it's
just
a
question
of:
will
people
pay
all
those
extra
costs
to
to
make
the
choice
the
right
choice
to
live
in
transit?
C
Okay,
thanks
john
I'm
actually
going
to
have
a
motion
later
because
I
am
concerned
you
mentioned
earlier
these
policies,
these
fees,
charges
in
a
vacuum,
and-
and
I
appreciate
that-
I
don't
think
any
of
us
have
a
really
strong
well
with
everything-
the
volatility
of
the
market.
I
am
concerned
about
about
what
this
means
for
development.
So
I'll
have
a
motion
later
on
about.
C
L
You
chair,
and
you
know
I
having
lived
the
consequences
of
poor
generational
planning
at
amalgamation.
L
I'm
not
blaming
any
developer
for
the
fact
that
I
have
to
register
at
plant
recreation
center
for
a
morning
class
for
my
son.
I
I
don't
think
that
that
is
the
spirit
of
you
know.
A
new
homeowner
look
moves
into
a
neighborhood
and
sees
the
amenities
that
aren't
there
and
adjusts
accordingly.
L
L
I
heard
you,
I
I'm
a
I'm
a
big
booster
of
rental.
You
know
that
I
I
think
we
should
incentivize
rental
in
all
shape,
forms
and
areas
like,
and
then
you
jumped
in
and
really
made
keep
making
reference
to
the
transit
hubs,
and
I
wonder
if
we
could
just
go
go
briefly
through
all
these
pockets.
So
if,
if
we
are
to
apply
the
financial
pressure
or
the
space
pressure
to
all
zones,
what
does
that
look
like?
What
does
that
look?
L
A
What
does
it
look
like?
At
least
you
have
an
element
of
fairness
if
it's,
if
it's
shared
burden
across
everywhere,
you
know,
like
I
said,
the
new
official
plan
is
the
challenge
is
the
new
official
plan
is
basically
limiting
high-rise
to
transit,
nodes,
right
and
and
so
unintended.
When
we
talk
about
high-rise,
we're
essentially
talking
about
transit-oriented
development
going
forward,
so
a
more
balanced
approach
is
is,
is
not
a
bad
way
to
go.
It's
probably
the
right
way
in
terms
of
fairness,
again,
not
making
sure
we're
not
overburdening
like.
A
I
said
the
highrise
is
servicing
people.
You
know
in
middle
middle
financial,
quartiles.
Overburdening
them
is
a
big
issue.
They
can't
afford
housing
right
now
so
by
by
having
25
percent
on
high
rise
in
tods,
whether
it's
you
know
even
something
10
in
land
and
15
cash.
It's
still
going
to
flow
through
the
project
cost
to
get
units
built
and
so
they're
really
being
overburdened
in
the
process.
A
You
couldn't
make
a
you,
couldn't
make
a
rental
project
work
with
it
with
that,
and
you
know
iz
at
least
exempt
in
that
particular
case,
or
supposed
to
be,
I
think
was,
was
the
theory.
What
was
in
in
the
so
far
from
the
past
is
the
directions
yeah,
but
it's
it's
it
it's
it's
challenging
just
to
have
it
on
high-rise.
At
that
extent,
it
just
kills
the
market.
A
L
Okay,
what
what
could
be
the
intervention
so
if
we
were
to
apply
an
equal
rate,
but
then
consider
hey
how
to
favor
rental,
how
to
favor
rental
near
transit?
What
does
that
look
like
from
your
from
your
picture
in
for
the
report?
That's
in
front
of
us.
A
What
does
it
look
like?
You've
got
different
tools.
How
you
want
to
create
the
incentives.
If
you
need
to
you,
know.
L
A
A
The
dc
waivers
allowed
some
projects
to
start
getting
built
with
time,
and
it
started
to
create
the
momentum
where
it
was
possible
to
develop
inside
the
old
city
of
ottawa
again
and
especially
in
this
in
center
town,
it
was
significant.
Does
it
need?
Do
we
need
a
full
incentive
at
this
stage?
No,
but
I
I
I
also
don't
need
to
pay
100
square
foot
more
to
build
a
transit
station
at
the
end
of
the
day,
between
iz
and
between
park
lands.
A
Everything
I
don't
need
to
have
the
cost
to
build
it
at
the
station
to
be
so
much
higher
than
to
build
anywhere
else
at
the
bare
minimum.
It
should
be
equal
in
terms
of
municipal
burdens.
We
can't
control
some
of
the
issues.
None
of
us
can
control
what
the
construction
cost
is
going
to
be.
None
of
us
can
control
the
labor
market.
Numbers
can
control
what
cmhc
does
with
mortgages,
but
where
the
city
can
help
is
at
least
keeping
that
as
a
reasonably
level
playing
field.
A
So
at
least
you
if
the
market's
at
least
so
that
the
market
actually
pushes
towards
the
transit,
because
there's
economic
benefits
for
somebody
to
limit
transit
problem
is
the
costs
are
getting
so
great.
It's
going
to
offset
you
know
the
cost
you'd
save
by
riding
trans
instead
of
having
a
car
is
out
the
window
when
you're
spending.
You
know
another
3
400
a
month
on
your
mortgage
to
live
in
transit.
L
Who
are
we
not
hearing
from
we're
we're
not
hearing
from
the
resident
who's
making
those
choices?
And
I
I
you
know
I've
been
in
that
case.
I
grew
up
in
sandy
hill.
I
have
friends
who
we
used
to
live
in
sandy
hill,
they
loved
to
live
in
sandy
hill.
They
bought
an
image,
and
you
ask
why
property
value
prop?
They
moved
to
chelsea.
Why?
Well,
I
have
to
commute
downtown
every
day
they
move
out
to
you
know
to
to
kempville,
aren't
probably
wherever
right.
They
move
out
of
the
city
and
in
perth.
L
Perth
is
like
a
beautiful
gathering
area
now
where
so,
I
think
you
know
neil's
talking
to
us
as
a
city
of
ottawa,
but
the
policies
we
make
and
the
costs
we
put
on
housing
actually
expand
our
pressure
into
into
the
greater
region.
So
we
have
to
be
sensitive
to
that
and
it's
unfortunate
sometimes
because
the
policies
we
make
locally
should
be
should
be
done
across
municipalities
as
well,
so
that
we're
not
we're
not
forcing
that
into
oh
well.
Why
don't?
L
I
just
move
out
of
the
city
of
ottawa
to
not
pay
that
dc
or
to
not,
but
then
benefit
from
all
of
the
access
to
our
libraries
to
our
roads.
To
so
on.
I
think
there's
a
bigger
conversation
here,
but
I
think
neil
you
you've
hit.
You
know
for
what's
the
report
in
front
of
us
you'd
hit
the
fairness
piece.
We
don't
want
to
dissent
incentivize
what
the
op
wants
to
do.
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
very
important
message
that
you're
sharing
here
thanks.
C
N
Thanks,
I'm
not
suggesting
this
would
be
a
good
thing,
but
is
there
not
a
relatively
affluent
and
large
demographic
that
would
be
able
to
afford
the
rents
and
prices
in
the
transit
areas
that
still
make
economic
sense
for
you
to
move
ahead
and
complete
projects,
that's
adding
to
supply.
A
No
again,
sir,
come
back
to
my
original
comments
today
that
high-rise
housing
does
not
support.
It
is
not
fulfilling
demand
in
high
in
high
income.
Demographics
for
the
most
part
limited
in
a
very,
very
limited
way.
It
is,
but
the
majority
of
the
housing
that's
built
in
high-rise
form
is
in
small
form
units
targeted
at
young
professionals,
mostly
condos,
buying
their
first
home
four
hundred
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
N
But
I've
got
the
mizrahi
project,
for
example,
going
up
at
the
corner
of
island
park
in
richmond.
There
are
some
additional
sort
of
large
unit
multi-res
that
are
that
are
going
in,
because
people
want
to
live
in
westboro.
They
want
to
live
in
hintonburg.
They
want
to
live
in
these
these
great
neighborhoods.
N
N
Is
the
is
that
going
to
change
with
the
changing
demographics,
the
age
demographics
of
our
population
as
seniors
downsize,
for
example?.
C
G
My
name
is
bria
aaron
and
I'm
a
planner
at
foten
and
I'm
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
schliegel
villages-
and
I
just
want
to
know
my
colleague
brian
costrandi
is
also
here.
He
doesn't
have
a
separate
presentation
but
he'll
be
available
to
answer
questions
along
with
me.
So
I'm
adjusting
my
comments
a
little
bit
because
of
motion
3
that
recognizes
residential
care
facilities.
G
So
I
want
to
thank
staff
and
planning
committee
for
for
that
motion
because
it
does
bring
a
lot
more
clarity
to
to
the
questions
that
schlegel
village
has
had
about
the
new
bylaw
schlegel
villages
develops
and
manages
a
continuum
of
care
seniors
communities
across
ontario.
So
these
communities
provide
a
full
range
of
care.
G
Schleichel
villages
has
partnered
with
the
ottawa
hospital
for
their
first
ottawa
project.
That's
a
new
community
on
the
riverside
campus.
It's
intersecting
control
right
now,
so
it
won't
be
subject
to
the
new
by
law,
but
schlegel
villages
is
looking
to
to
future
potential
projects
in
ottawa,
so
there
are
still
some
some
questions
and
some
areas
of
concern
that
schlegel
has
with
new
bylaw
within
the
continuum
of
care
model.
G
All
of
the
long-term
care
and
majority
of
retirement
units
fall
within
the
definition
of
residential
care
facility.
As
eighty
percent
of
the
retirement
suites
do
not
help
full
kitchens
and
rely
on
congregate,.
G
Oh
sorry,
I
realized
my
phone
was
not
there.
Everyone
can
hear
me.
G
Perfect,
thank
you
sorry
about
that.
So,
sir
I'll
just
go
back,
all
the
long-term
care
home
units
will
fall
within
the
the
residential
care
facility
and
the
majority
of
retirement.
Suites
will
also
fall
within
that
definition,
so
that
clarity
is,
is
really
helpful
and,
as
I'm
sure
all
members
of
committee
are
aware.
G
Long-Term
care
care
homes
are
critically
needed
to
serve
people
in
our
community
who
need
care
and
also
to
to
ease
the
crunch
on
hospital
beds
and
really
facilitate
the
functioning
of
our
health
system
and
continuum
of
care.
Communities
are
best
practice
because
they
allow
for
greater
integration
with
the
community
and
minimize
disruption
to
residents
as
their
care
needs
change.
So
recognizing
this
other
ontario
municipalities
have
provided
further
relief
as
compared
to
the
new
bylaw
toronto,
exempts
long-term
care
homes
entirely
from
parkland
dedication
and
brampton.
G
Mississauga
and
kingston
apply
a
two
percent
rate
to
these
uses,
and,
and
that's
not,
I
haven't
done
a
comprehensive
review.
That's
just
pulling
some
examples,
so
we're
requesting
consideration
for,
for
that
lower
rate
in
ottawa
and
there's
a
few
reasons
that
we're
we're
looking
to
that
and
why
other
municipalities
apply
a
lower
rate
in
the
case
of
long-term
care
homes.
G
The
funding
streams
are
highly
regulated,
so
there's
not
even
opportunities
to
absorb
costs
or
pass
them
on
to
residents,
which
means
that
any
costs
imposed
by
the
municipality
do
directly
impact
the
viability
of
projects
and
then,
in
the
case
of
retirement
suites
as
you've
been
hearing
from
other
speakers
today,
the
costs
are
passed
on
to
the
residents
and
it
impacts
affordability.
G
The
other
reason
has
to
do
with
with
what
is
provided
on
site
and
the
needs
of
residents
for
parkland.
So
the
ministry
of
long-term
care
requires
secure,
landscaped
amenities,
space
to
be
integrated
into
all
long-term
care
facilities
for
resident
well-being
and
safety
and
schlegel
villages
in
their
communities
goes
well
above
and
beyond,
what's
required
by
the
ministry
and
the
zoning
bylaw
to
provide
parklight
or
amenity
space,
so
that's
accessible
to
all
residents
as
well
as
members
of
the
public,
and
they
have
decades
of
experience
in
designing
and
operating.
G
These
amenity
areas
to
respond
really
directly
to
the
needs
of
residents,
and
that's
because
many
residents
can't
access
municipal
parkland
because
of
distance
because
of
dementia
physical
frailty.
So
they
really
need
space.
That's
right
on
their
parkland.
So
in
terms
of
of
the
sort
of
outstanding
questions
we
have,
one
is
just
a
clarity
use.
G
The
definition
of
residential
use
in
the
bylaws
bill
still
speaks
to
a
building
that
contains
one
of
our
dwelling
units
and
we
just
want
to
understand
how
that's
going
to
be
applied
and
the
other
questions
have
to
do
with
sort
of
their
campus
of
care
partnership
model.
So
questions
about
how
the
parkland
dedication
bylaw
will
be
applied
when
the
development
area
is
sort
of
a
smaller
leased
portion
of
a
larger
campus
and
as
well
as
when
there's
partnerships
between
non-profit
and
for-profit
groups.
G
So
we
just
request
that
planning
community
consider
a
reduced
rate
for
residential
care
facilities,
consistent
with
other
municipalities
across
ontario
and
sort
of
the
the
function
and
needs
of
this
type
of
use,
and
to
consider
a
mechanism
for
the
city
to
credit
projects
that
do
provide
amen
in
the
area.
That's
above
and
beyond
minimum
requirements,
particularly
where
it's
integral
to
the
building
program.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
O
G
It's
it's
not
so
he
was
here
just
to
assist
me
in
answering
questions.
So
if
there's
no
questions
for
either
west,
then.
E
K
K
So
I
sent
in
a
visual
presentation
with
many
pictures,
so
I'm
waiting
for
that
to
pop
up
so
since
you've
started
the
timer,
maybe
I'll
start
talking,
I'm
angela
keller,
herzog,
the
executive
director
of
cafes
and
as
the
cover
slide,
which
we've
skipped
now
tells
you
is
I'm
here
to
speak
to
the
parkland
first
policy,
which
is
actually
a
different
document
from
a
lot
of
the
interesting
discussion
that
we've
been
having
next
slide,
please,
I
think
that
most
of
you
know
cafes,
we've
been
around
for
over
10
years
and
usually
address
environmental
and
climate
issues
representing
residents
from
all
parts
of
ottawa.
K
Next
slide,
please
so
I'm
gonna
speak
briefly
to
consultation,
but
then
mostly
to
the
intersection
and
targets
that
underlie
this
policy
and
this
land
first
policy
and
the
need
for
small
parks
next
slide.
Please
next
slide,
so
the
roots
of
the
land.
First
policy
are
not
actually
in
the
parkland
dedication,
but
were
long
foreseen
as
an
implementation.
Piece
supporting
the
new
official
plan
and
community
has
been
part
of
very
specific
discussions
about
small
parks
and
neighborhood
canopy
issues.
K
So
when
we
saw
the
parkland
first
policy
suddenly
pop
up
having
had
only
internal
consultations
and
consultations
with
gopa,
we
were
quite
surprised
as
in
why
only
meet
with
development
industry
and
the
result
we
see-
and
this
is
a
learning
moment-
I
think,
with
a
clear
demonstration-
we're
seeing
the
omission
of
urban
canopy
climate
and
equity
considerations
next
slide,
please
so
the
part
clan
first
policy
is
an
intersection
really
of
planning
parks
and
rec
and
forestry,
and
what
we're
seeing
in
how
the
policy
has
been
written
is
the
complete
omission
of
the
urban
canopy
target
of
40,
the
equity
drivers
that
are
supposed
to
underlie
that
and
resiliency
and
urban
heat
island
issues.
K
The
benefits
of
canopy
trees
and
small
urban
parks
greatly
outweigh
the
maintenance
costs
and
in
terms
of
that
decision,
whether
to
go
for
cash
or
whether
to
go
for
the
land,
the
parks
and
rec.
Who
is
the
lead
on
this
file?
They're
saddled
with
the
maintenance
cost?
So
suddenly
that
becomes
huge
next
slide,
please
in
terms
of
the
need
for
small
parks.
The
technical
requirement
for
the
establishment
of
a
canopy
tree
is
three
meters
cubed
and-
and
I
actually
want
to
pay
attention
to
the
cube.
K
In
terms
of
again,
some
numbers
tree
planting
plant
for
summerset
wart
for
2022
was
for
all
of
21
trees
and
they
can't
tell
us
how
many
trees
we
lost
vastly
more
because
of
a
lack
of
capacity
in
the
forestry
department,
the
livability
and
health
implications
of
of
parks
and
and
public
shade
and
trees.
I
think
have
been
discussed
a
lot,
but
I
want
to
look
at
what
small
parks
actually
look
like
and
the
feasibility
next
slide.
K
Please
the
the
issue
that
we
have
in
terms
of
how
to
improve
this
policy
is
that
we
don't
like
to
see
this
cap
and
preference
of
cash
for
land
spaces
that
are
less
than
400
meters
squared.
So
the
picture
in
front
of
us
here
is
arlington
park
at
a
small
304
meters
squared,
and
you
can't
see
it
that
well
in
the
top
right
because
of
the
text,
but
it's
basically
one
little
lot
and
it's
got
a
child
playground.
It's
got
seating.
Usually
it
has
strollers
parked
next
slide.
Please
so
summer
said
square
jeff.
K
I
think
you
know
how
much
public
use
that
space
gets.
It's
only
248
meters.
Squared
next
slide,
please
fifth
avenue
parquet
is
275.
K
This
is
knowlton
park
a
little
bit
over
400
meters,
squared
it's
sort
of
a
narrow
pizza,
sliced
piece
of
land
just
to
demonstrate.
This
is
not
exclusively
inner
urban
next
slide,
please!
This
is
in
nepean.
This
here
is
a
little
plot.
I
discovered
with
service
of
kugel
for
temporary
parquet.
This
one
is
343..
K
If
you
look
at
the
map
on
the
top
right,
you
can
see
the
little
green
dot
and
there's
really
not
very
much
parkland
green
space
anywhere
nearby
next
slide.
Please
mccann
park
yeah.
This
is
another
hidden
gem,
so
a
single
lot
size,
really
370
meters,
squared
I
put
in
the
overlay
for
the
urban
trees,
and
you
can
see
how
much
trees
this
one
little
park
contributes
to
this
quite
paved
over
neighborhood
and
again
there's
a
child
playground
hiding
in
there.
K
You
can't
see
it
that
well
next
picture
sorry
slide,
so
our
recommendations
are
to
strongly
support
the
intent
of
the
parkland
first
policy
to
prioritize
the
acquisition
of
land
and
to
remove
the
400
meter
square
size
cut
off
in
urban
context,
where
the
parklands
per
hectare
and
the
canopy
covered
target
are
not
met
and
to
add
provision
in
the
policy
also
for
coherence
with
the
forestry
department
staff
in
terms
of
the
respite
responsibility
section
of
the
policy
to
engage
towards
achieving
the
canopy
target.
N
Thanks
and
angela,
we
had
a
bit
of
a
correspondence
a
bit
about
this
last
night,
and
I
apologize
to
my
colleagues-
I'm
not
100
today,
but
the
almost
all
of
those
examples
that
you
showed
are
brilliant
pocket
parks
that
require
cash
to
acquire.
I
would
like
to
have
many
many
more
of
those
types
of
parks
in
kitchissippi,
and
you
know
I'm
actively
now
trying
to
achieve
that
with
our
cash
in
the
balance,
but
I'm
able
to
pursue
those
because
I
have
cash
anu.
N
Does
it
not
make
sense
to
create
some
flexibility
in
the
cil
policy
by
having
an
acquisition
fund
available
to
councillors
to
buy
parkland,
where
it
most
makes
sense
where
it
is
leased
where
in
in
the
areas
that
most
need
it?
It's
not
guaranteed
that
any
given
development
is
going
to
be
where
we
absolutely
need
the
parkland.
Sometimes
the
cash
associated
with
that
development
can
do
much
better
in
an
area
that
is
bereft
of
these
types
of
of
these
types
of
parks.
K
Okay,
thanks
thanks
for
the
question
jeff-
and
I
I
think
even
if
you're
at
like
60
you're,
you're
still
great
to
have
on
the
block,
and
you
have
so
much
pressure
in
your
ward.
So
I
think
that
if
it
was
a
straight
a
b
comparison,
do
we
want
to
have
cash
that
we're
saving
up
for
buying
parkland
later
versus?
K
You
know
a
awkward
small,
bad
kind
of
plot.
Now,
then,
then
you
know
we
would
want
to
keep
it
kind
of
even,
but
that
is
not
really
the
the
larger
context
of
how
things
work.
So
before
I
started
learning
about
the
gory
details
about
how
all
this
works.
I
I
remember
a
ways
back
when
our
cash
and
lieu
seemed
to
get
directed
towards
the
replacement
of
the
astroturf
at
the
nepean
sports
plex,
and
I
mean
I'm
not
seeing
that
as
as
a
as
an
inner
urban
parks
acquisition
conduit
at
all.
K
If
you
look
at
the
planning
acts
like
in
section,
I
think
it's
42
or
anyway
I
was-
I
was
looking
into
it
last
night
and
the
provision
from
the
province
is
that
you
can
use
the
cash
and
you
not
just
for
land
acquisition.
So
it's
not
a
land
fund,
but
for
maintenance
right.
So
you
can
make
like
capital
improvements
and
you
can
fix
things
in
your
in
your
parks.
K
So
in
terms
of
the
the
rational
management
coming
from
parks
and
rec
department,
obviously
they
want
to
maintain
right
and
we
do
have
maintenance
problems
and
there's
like
kids
safety
issues,
so
so
that
becomes
the
driver.
So
it's
not
land
versus
like
land
now
versus
land
later
in
terms
of
aggregation.
That's
that's
not
what
we're
talking
and
I
think
that
in
if
we
did
like
a
long-term
audit,
I
think
we
would
see
that
actually
there's
been
very
little
new
park
land
created
in
in
the
areas
that
that
are
really
under
pressure.
K
I
think
that's
that's
the
reality
and
that's
why
this
parks
first
and
trying
to
demonstrate
that
even
a
small
plot
can
lead
to
significant
amenities
for
for
the
neighborhood
and
that
that
needs
to
be
really
recognized
and
pushed,
and
that
you
can
do
a
lot
with
400
meters.
Squared,
like
that's,
really
the
one
of
the
core
points.
I'm
trying
to
convey
to
you
guys.
N
No,
it's
interesting,
I
mean,
I
think,
and
I'll
double
check
with
staff
in
the
the
conversation
that,
despite
what
we're
saying
in
here,
we'll
still
have
that
flexibility.
N
I'm
sure
that
our
parks
planners
will
be
taking
a
look
at
each
and
every
application
saying
you
know
what
it
does
make
sense
for
us
to
take
something
smaller
than
400
square
meters
here,
but
having
that
cash
on
hand
in
in
our
word
I
mean
I've
used
it
to
build
two
new
field
houses
that
are
recreation
use
that
are,
you
know,
fall
firmly
within
the
the
cil
intent
and
spirit,
some
really
inexpensive
things
that
you
can
do.
N
We
have
a
block
of
road
that
I
d
paved,
took
out
a
commission
and
de-paved
to
add
park
space
in
addition
to
to
acquiring
land
recently
and
and
beginning
to
compete
more
competitively
for
for
land
acquisition.
I
I
think
there
is
definitely
something
to
be
said
for
prioritizing
cash
when
the
park
that
might
be
conveyed
is
is
marginal
in
terms
of
its
potential
improvement
in
the
community.
K
Okay,
so
I
I
think
the
policy
leaves
leaves
room,
but
it
tilts,
and
you
know
the
other
factor
is
that
and
that
I
guess
gets
back
to
the
bigger
by-law.
Is
the
40-60
split?
Does
the
money
actually
stay
in
the
neighborhoods
that
that
are
under
the
intense
pressure
of
all
these,
like
thousands
of
new
people
coming
in
needing
some
shade
and
green
space.
N
Yeah
and
that's
that
is
like
the
discussion
we'll
have
in
the
next
term
of
council,
as
we
continue
to
talk
about.
How
are
we
going
to
increase
green
space
to
the
target
levels
in
our
in
our
most
challenged?
Neighborhoods,
this
policy
is
not
the
be
all
and
end
all
of
that
approach,
so,
okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
Angela
thanks.
O
P
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah,
feeling
good
right
now
anyway.
So
thanks
angela,
the
the
the
piece
you've
mentioned
about
smaller
parks
is
well
taken.
I
think
that
there's
there's
good
a
good
direction,
coming
our
way
that
we've
worked
with
staff
on
to
to
take
it
where
it
makes
sense.
I
think
council
bleeper's
point
is
also
important.
P
There
are
times
when
it
doesn't
make
sense,
and
you
know
you
need
to
have
more
options
to
acquire
land
that
may
be
a
kind
of
a
big
splash
rather
than
smaller
spaces.
That
may
not
work
out
as
well,
and
obviously
that
consultation
around
community
is
important
that,
but
we
do
have
direction
so
that
the
next
bylaw
that's
created
will,
through
the
parks
manual,
will
allow
for
smaller
consideration,
smaller
spaces
consideration
in
taking
space
rather
than
taking
funds.
P
With
regard
to
your
presentation,
I
I
live
near
mira
park
and
it's
been
a
game
changer
for
for
for
kids,
just
even
having
smaller
parks
nearby
can
be
a
huge
difference
for
for
children
growing
up,
and
so
I
recognize
where
we
don't
have
park
space
and
there's
three
transects
that
really
are
not
meeting
the
city
standard.
So
I
wonder
your
take
on
just
you
know
the
kids,
raising
kids
and
the
importance
of
park
space
with
regard
to
that.
K
Okay,
you
know
this
is
amazing
that
you
should
answer
this
question,
because
when
counselor
moffat
earlier
said,
you
know
like
we
need
to
kind
of
think
about
who
who's
in
the
room
and
who's,
not
in
the
room.
Well,
like
the
people
that
that
really
are
not
in
the
room
are
the
kids
and
beyond
that.
I
think
the
people
who
are
parents
of
young
kids
tend
to
be
so
overburdened
between
work
and
family
that
they
certainly
don't
have
time
to
hang
out
at
council
meetings
and
committee
meetings.
K
So,
but
if
we
start
asking
ourselves
well,
what
kind
of
city
are
we
building
right?
So
we've
got
thousands
of
people
coming
in
and
neil
got
us
thinking
about
who's,
gonna
move
to
where
well
like
I,
my
kids
at
one
point
were
certainly
little
and
I
totally
appreciate
the
need
for
like
physical
mobility
playground
spaces.
K
I
know
that
when
my
family
lived
in
berlin
for
a
couple
of
years,
they
have
a
requirement
where,
if
you
want
to
build
like
a
multi-unit
res
building
over
a
certain
size,
you
are,
you
must
put
in
a
play
structure.
You
must
put
in
a
playground.
K
So
if,
if
we're
building
only
for
the
single
professionals
with
the
small
units
and-
and
that
is
our
vision
for
the
inner
urban
and
downtown
area,
then
we're
saying
we're-
we
don't
want
families
to
be
living
in
downtown
ottawa
and
and
the
new
arrivals.
I
mean
anybody
who's
like
low-income
or
in
the
trades.
They
can't
afford
anything
anyway,
so
they
have
to
look
at
the
deeply
affordable,
non-profit
and
and
social
housing
right.
K
So
that's
a
different
conversation,
so
I
I
think
that
having
this
land
first
and
and
setting
up
like
small
spaces
that
are
adjacent
to
our
new
denser,
lots
is
key,
and-
and
I
mean
the
seniors
like
not
being
able
to
drive
being
like
needing
to
walk
to
a
nearby
park
bench
sitting
underneath
some
trees,
like
that's
key
and
and
like
so,
if
we're
thinking
about
who
we're
building.
K
For,
I
think
if
we
want
kids
to
be
moving
into
the
inner
urban
area,
then
it's
it's
really
clear
to
me
that
that,
like
you
can
raise
kids
in
apartments,
and
I
mean
I
left-
I
spent
some
years
with
my
family
living
in
in
apartments,
but
there
was
definitely
like
play
spaces
nearby.
So
I
think
it's
like
there's
a
huge
question
there
about
who
are
we
building
for.
F
Hey
angela,
I'm
here
for
the
kids,
okay,
I'm
representing
them
not
to
worry
so
angela
back
and
forth
on
this
and
sean
councillor,
menard
has
a
direction
to
staff.
I
agree
with
what
you're
trying
to
do,
because
it's
more
proactive
and
I
hear
what
counselor
leaper
is
saying,
but
it
is
a
little
bit
reactive
and
then
there's
the
how
how
long
would
it
take
to
actually
get
some
little
space
to
build
a
little
park,
whereas
I
think
what
you're
suggesting
here
is
more
proactive.
F
T
F
And
barbara
ramsey
were
at
a
an
event
at
hub
350,
where
dr
trombley
from
cheo,
who
leads
the
halo
project
healthy
act
of
living
in
obesity,
talked
about
how
critical
it
is
small
or
big
that
any
little
park
space
is
really
important.
So
I
love
what
you're
trying
to
do
here.
The
timing
of
this
is
that
this
won't
go
to
account
to
council
till
the
end
of
august
right
so
councilor
menard
and
talking
to
mr
weary,
there's
a
direction
to
make
sure
that
it
is
right
when
it
gets
to
council.
F
O
O
B
Thank
you
chair
very
much,
I'm
going
to
end
up
repeating
a
few
of
the
points
or
just
reiterating
some
of
the
points
you've
heard
already
from
lisa
from
kevin
from
neil,
but
I
do
have
a
a
bit
of
item
to
bring
up
that
they
haven't
touched
on
yet,
which
I
think
is
critical
too
and
really
so.
B
The
most
critical
point
that
I
want
to
make
is
and
re-emphasize
is
that
the
bylaw,
as
it's
written
right
now,
is
continuing
the
additional
cost
burden
of
housing,
the
kind
of
housing
that
targets
that
the
city
says
it
wants
to
build,
the
most
of
which
is
density
around
transit
stations.
It
was
extremely
disappointing
to
see
that
housing
affordability
wasn't
considered
in
the
in
the
bylaws
so
far
as
you've.
B
In
our
high
rise
example,
the
increase
was
eleven
thousand
dollars
for
a
total
cost
of
over
eighteen
thousand
dollars
per
unit,
and
the
parkland
is
just
one
example
of
the
cost
burn
that
infill
development
is
seeing
lately
when
we
look
at
what
the
dcs
are
increasing
to
in
the
fall,
we
add
in
parkland,
add
in
the
potential
cbc
charge,
inclusionary
zoning
charge
and
the
additional
city
impose
costs
on
a
condo
or
an
apartment,
for
a
high-rise
is
now
creeping
over
80
000,
while
the
same
char,
same
spread
of
charges
on
a
low
rise
in
the
suburbs
is
46
000.
B
So
I
mean,
under
this
city's
proposed
policies.
High
density
units
are
going
to
be
subject
to
city
imposed
costs
that
are
more
than
six
and
a
half
times
higher
on
a
square
foot
basis
than
lower
density
units,
and
that
doesn't
even
count
the
costs
of
recent
and
upcoming
policies,
including
high
performance
development,
which
cities
staff
estimated
at
eleven
thousand
dollars
per
unit
for
multi-res
and
stormwater
management,
for
which
will
be
upcoming
for
infill
projects,
which
staff
say
are
going
to
be
six
to
fourteen
thousand
dollars
again
per
unit.
B
All
of
this
on
infill
so
and
there's
also
site-wide
charges
on
vacant
property,
tree
bylaws,
shoring
and
other
policies
that
are
coming
out
of
the
op.
So
there's
so
much
cost
burden
happening
on
info
right
now
and
I
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
explore
the
impact
of
parkland
dedication,
specifically
on
our
growth
management
strategy
and
the
official
plan.
For
those
of
you
heard
me
talk
before
all
plan.
B
Oh
all,
roads
lead
back
to
the
official
plan
for
me
and
the
op
calls
for
185
000
new
homes
over
the
next
25
years,
so
for
round
numbers,
let's
just
say:
5
000
for
rural
90
000
in
the
suburbs
90
000
in
infill,
so
the
bylaw
alone
will
instantly
raise
the
city,
impose
costs
on
those
90
000
new
homes
that
the
city
wants
to
see
in
existing
neighborhoods
and
around
transit
compared
compared
to
low
rise
housing.
And
it's
not
just
because
of
the
increased
charges
on
mid
and
high
rise.
That
I've
already
mentioned.
B
B
Each
of
those
units
are
now
costing
22
000
more
and
that's
that's
all
just
parkland
dedication,
that's
going
on
that
wasn't
being
seen
before
and
that
hasn't
been
part
of
the
of
the
bylaw
up
until
now.
So
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
the
proposed
bylaw
in
front
of
you
today
works
against
the
city's
goals
for
housing,
especially
for
intensification
and
we're
rea
and
you've.
B
The
most
significant
cost
burden
of
this
by-law
and
a
number
of
other
policies-
and
we've
already
talked
that
the
conversation
has
to
widen
out-
is
that
on
the
type
of
housing
that's
supposed
to
be
the
most
affordable
in
the
city,
the
one
two
three
bedroom
apartments
that
are
supposed
to
be
close
to
transit
stations,
they're,
the
ones
that
are
also
taking
the
burden
of
increasing
all
the
costs
for
the
city.
Even.
B
B
You
know
my
understanding
is
that
oh
I'm
running
out
of
time,
so
maybe
I'll
just
I'll,
stop
there
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
but
we're
really
urging
this
bylaw
is
not
ready
for
prime
time
it
needs.
You've
heard
it
from
all
that
it
needs
to
kind
of
come
back
and
be
worked
on
heavily
and
that's
what
we
want
to
see
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
B
B
It's
we
would
be
happy
to
talk
to
talk
to
staff
and
come
back
to
even
our
urban
infill
council
on
propositions
like
that,
because
the
impact
is
so
great-
and
you
know
neil
put
it
right-
there's
this
distant
year,
disincentivizing
building
around
transit,
which
is
you
know,
ideally
what
the
op
wants
to
see
the
most
of,
but
I
am
still
concerned,
as
I
said,
about
the
impact
of
the
parkland
dedication
on
neighborhood
infill
as
well.
C
Well,
we
do
have
six
or
seven
weeks
between
now
and
council
to
to
work
on
those
on
any
changes.
I
also
wanted
to
ask
you
a
higher
level
question.
I
guess
we're
being
pushed
by
the
federal
and
the
provincial
governments
as
a
municipality
to
support
their
goals
of
building
as
many
new
homes
as
possible,
because
we
are
in
a
housing
crisis
and
I
almost
feel
like
the
approach
is:
let's
build
homes
and
figure
everything
else
out
later
parks,
schools,
even
roads,
and
how
would
you
respond
to
that?
B
I
think
amenities
are
certainly
an
important
p.
A
part
of
of
of
a
complete
community,
no
doubt
do,
I
think,
of
if
all
these
competing
priorities
should
be
housing.
Yes,
I
mean
that's
what
a
zoning
like
when
we
have
this
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
discussion
in
the
next
couple
of
months
and
next
year,
if
we're
not
building
housing
for
new
for
the
residents
who
are
coming
in
what
are
what
else
are
what
what
are
we
doing?
We've
got
we're
if
we're
not
providing
the
amount
of
housing.
B
That's
that's
supposed
to
be
for
the
people
who
are
coming
in.
You
know
for
whether
it's
400
000
or
530
000,
depending
on
what
estimate
you
want
to
go
with
all
the
park
space
in
the
world
isn't
going
to
make
the
housing
more
affordable.
If
we're
not,
we
don't
have
the
units
to
accommodate
them.
C
B
Well,
I
mean
there
is
cash
in
lieu
already
on
some.
If
you
want
to
you,
know,
incentivize
certain
types
of
building
over
others.
It's
certainly
the
way
to
increase
cash
and
lieu,
but
it's
not
like
a
park
has
only
benefits
to
a
new
to
a
new
resident
as
well
right,
there's
going
to
be
an
existing
benefit
to
existing
for
any
park
as
well.
C
O
Thank
you.
I
see
no
further
questions.
Thank
you,
jason.
Thank
you.
We
now
move
to
the
the
newly
crowned
president
of
the
fca,
robert
brinker
of
the
carlington
community.
You
know
funny
connection
to
currents
and
my
mom
was
was
born
in
carlington.
Actually,
oddly
enough,
I
found
this
out
a
couple
years
ago.
She
went
to
kindergarten
with
jan
harter
at
gowling,
which
we
didn't
know
that
until
like
two
years
ago,
but
there
you
go
my
little
carlington
connection
interesting.
Thank
you.
E
E
I'm
just
briefly
reading
them
down,
because
we
are
mostly
already
mentioned
today.
N
E
All
developments
that
require
building
permit
should
contribute
to
to
parkland
air
rides
conversions
of
commercial
building
development
in
partnership
with
the
city.
E
Land
swaps,
to
create
a
larger
parcels
or
park
and
should
be
encouraged.
The
fca
supports
the
current
proposed
to
act
as
an
interim
bylaw.
We
do
so
prior
principally
to
secure
the
city's
right
to
abduct
the
funding
formula
linked
to
population
growth.
We
asked
for
a
widely
based
stakeholder
consultation
next
year,
leading
up
to
the
q4
2023
staff
report
assessing
the
results
of
the
interim
buyer,
including
hopefully,
as
a
direction
to
staff.
A
comparison
of
revenue
was
raised
under
the
new.
O
O
So
I
know
counselor
gary
mentioned
that
he
wanted
council
menard
to
provide
that
direction.
First,
I
know
cancer
gower
has
a
motion
that
I
think
he
wanted
to
bring
forward
as
well.
We're
not
mistaken,
so
we'll
go
first
to
councilman.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
I
think
they'll
help
to
get
this
one
on
the
screen.
Thank
you
all
right
so
and
thank
you
to
staff
for
working
with
us
on
this
and
all
the
community.
That's
inputted
on
this
as
well.
So
the
direction
of
staff
is
at
the
park.
Development
manual,
the
manual
last
updated
in
2017,
was
required
to
be
updated
again
to
accommodate
changes
required
by
the
parks
and
recreation
facilities.
Master
plan
and
official
plan
revisions
to
the
manual
are
anticipated
early
in
the
next
term
of
council,
pending
provincial
approval
of
the
op.
P
Given
this
represents
an
opportunity
to
review
minimum
requirements
for
parkland
dedication.
Staff
are
directed
to
include
urban
parkettes,
slash
plazas
as
a
new
park
classification
for
park
spaces,
which
are
smaller
than
400
meters,
squared
in
the
classification
of
park,
spaces
for
transect
areas
which
do
not
meet
the
active
park,
then
target
of
two
hectares
per
thousand
people.
In
addition,
staff
be
directed
to
review
the
feasibility
of
accepting
parkland
before
cash
and
loot
funding
our
plan.
First
policy
for
these
small
park
spaces
in
transect
areas,
not
meeting
the
active
parkland
targets,
as
described
in
the
prfmp.
O
All
right,
thank
you,
so
we
I
mean
we
can
deal
with
that
when
we
get
through
with
the
motions
and
whatnot
but
counselor
gower
did
you
have
that
motion
you
want
to
bring
forward.
C
Yeah,
I
can,
I
can
read
it
in
it's
kind
of
long,
but
I
think
it's
worth
making
the
points
here.
Whereas,
as
a
result
of
provincial
legislative
legislation
changes,
the
city
is
required
to
replace
its
existing
parkland
dedication
bylaw
by
september.
18Th.
Providing
an
opportunity
to
revise
13
year
old
viola
and
ensure
ottawa
can
continue
using
the
alternative
rate
and
their
cash
into
a
parkland
funds
policy.
C
And
whereas
some
stakeholders
noted
concerns
that
the
provision
of
cash
and
new
of
parkland
in
areas
where
development
is
encouraged
is
high
and
impacts
the
affordability
of
housing
and
whereas
the
city
is
currently
working
on
a
new
zoning
bylaw
for
ottawa
to
implement
the
new
official
plan
and
whereas
the
new
provincial
legislation
under
bill
109
will
result
in
a
number
of
changes
to
the
community
benefits
authority.
Under
the
planning
act
to
help
growth
pay
for
growth
and
whereas
the
development
charge
rate
bylaw
will
be
reviewed
in
2023
for
replacement
in
2024.
C
And
whereas
council
has
adopted
the
hpds
report
that
may
have
an
impact
on
housing,
affordability
and
whereas
staff
is
working
on
drafting
official
plan
policies
and
zoning
provisions
to
implement
inclusionary
zoning
in
ottawa
and
create
a
new
mechanism
to
encourage
or
require
affordable
housing
to
be
developed
in
major
transit
areas.
And
whereas
there
is
no
restriction
on
council's
ability
to
amend
the
parkland
dedication.
Bylaws
subsequent
to
september.
18Th.
O
C
The
question
about
some
flexibility
and
what
we
allow
is
parkland.
This
idea
of
parking
on
sorry
park
on
top
of
parking
is
that
something
that
staff
have
explored.
Is
there
any
legal
reason
or
impediment
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
that,
and
and
how
could
we,
I
guess,
how
could
we
look
into
the
feasibility
of
that
and
potentially
included
in
the
future.
H
Thank
you,
chair
gower.
We
have,
and
we
are
actually
currently
experimenting
with
it
right
now,
at
a
property
downtown
being
developed
by
maine
and
maine.
It
is
a
strata
parking
arrangement.
H
It
is
basically
a
park
space,
that's
being
constructed
over
a
parking
garage
and
it
comes
with
its
own
set
of
restrictions
that
we
are
learning
about
and
we
are
still
evaluating
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
report
back
one
of
the
things
that,
for
instance,
has
come
back
to
us.
As
limitations
was
our
inability
to
construct
things
like
a
a
gazebo
or
park
shelter?
H
We
could
not
get
a
water
supply
into
the
site
because
of
the
proximity
to
the
ground
of
the
parking
garage
below.
There
are
considerations
when
we're
doing
that,
and
one
of
them
is
if
we're
accepting
land,
are
we
accepting
raw
land
or
are
we
accepting
land
that
is
restricted
in
its
use
and
capability?
H
We
tend
to
prefer
land
that
is
constructable
within
the
zoning
that
applies
to
it.
Whether
the
current
zoning
is
o1,
l1
l2.
H
C
How
much
flexibility
does
staff
have
under
this
current
bylaw
or
the
new
bylaw
to
be
able
to
well
to
be
able
to
be
flexible?
I
guess:
do
you
have
it
under
delegated
authority,
or
is
it
something
if
the
opportunity
presented
itself?
Is
it
something
you
could
come
to
planning
committee
or
to
counsel
with
to
look
for
exemptions
on
a
case-by-case
basis?
I'm
really
not
sure
what
what
staff
is
allowed
to
do
and
what
the
planning
act
allows
us
to
do
and
and
what
you,
what
council
could
authorize.
H
Thank
you,
chair
gower.
I'm
I'm
going
to
ask
christine
to
assist
christine
anto
with
legal
to
assist
me
with
the
response.
However,
I
do
want
to
respond
in
the
case
of
the
existing
one
that
I
mentioned.
It
is
one
that,
under
our
authority,
that
the
report
that
went
through
the
planning
committee
permitted
us
to
experiment
with
this
as
a
pilot
project.
F
So,
mr
chair,
further
to
mr
wary's
comments,
the
city
has
experimented
with
some
of
these
flexible
options
such
as
strata
plans,
and
I
anticipate
that
staff
will
be
able
to
report
back
on
these.
Certainly
under
the
planning
act
there
there
are
some
limitations
on
parkland
and
cil.
For
example,
mr
chair
cil
cannot
be
used
for
maintenance.
It
can
be
used
for
acquisition,
it
can
be
used
for
recreation
and
programming,
but
it
cannot
be
used
to
maintain
existing
parks,
so
that
is
a
limitation
on
the
city.
F
That's
established
under
the
planning
act
in
terms
of
this
bylaw.
With
respect
to
its
flexibility,
it
would
be
my
opinion
that
there
is
more
flexibility
than
in
the
older
one,
because
the
general
manager
retains
the
right
to
to
look
at
flexible
options
and
to
to
work
on
developments,
because
there
are
no
easy
pieces
of
land
left
in
terms
of
development
within
the
city.
F
So
it's
my
opinion
that
this
is
more
flexible,
but
that
that's
my
legal
opinion
and
and
not
necessarily
a
planning
opinion
on
how
it
is
to
be
applied
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
given
the
overall
direction
in
the
bylaw
as
development
applications
are
assessed
at
the
time
they
come
in,
so
staff
is
aware
of
what
the
actual
development
is
going
to
be
at
that
time.
Mr
chair,
I
don't
know
if
that
answers
your
question.
F
Certainly
it
is
always
open,
mr
chair
for
staff,
to
bring
forward
reports
where
delegated
authority
does
not
exist
or
or
where
staff
wish.
C
Okay,
that
actually
is
helpful.
Mr
maholtra
referenced
37
million
dollars
that
the
city
is
holding
on
to
and
cash
in
new
funding,
and,
I
believe,
he's
referring
to
the
city-wide
and
ward
specific
reserves.
C
H
Yes,
chair
gower,
absolutely
so
the
the
master
plan
recommendations
of
last
year
included
us
to
come
back
with
a
land
acquisition
strategy,
and
that
is
intended
to
try
to
address
the
fact
that
the
city
isn't
as
nimble
as
it
can
be.
Certainly
nowhere
near
as
nimble
as
mr
malhotra
can
be
when
it
comes
to
acquiring
land
for
parks.
Councillor
leeper
is
has
witnessed
what
I'm
talking
about,
but
we've
been
successful
and
we
have
been
not
successful.
H
It
is
not
easy
for
us
to
go
in
and
and
find
properties
that
are
attributable
to
acquisition
of
parks,
and
I
would
like
to
address
the
37
million
only
in
the
sense
of
well,
for
instance,
that
number
changed
drastically
yesterday
and
I
see
counselor
menard's
hand
is
up.
Maybe
he
wants
to
recognize
the
same
thing,
but
we
spent
1.5
million
yesterday
out
of
the
cash
and
lou
accounts,
to
help
bolster
the
acquisition,
not
the
acquisition,
the
development
of
a
new
community
center
in
old
ottawa
east.
H
C
Okay,
thank
you,
kevin
and
mr
bergeroff
suggested
that
there
is
a
city-wide
benefit
to
parks,
not
just
to
new
residents.
That
was
in
response
to
my
question
about
growth,
paying
for
growth.
I
know
part
of
this
was
basically
you.
You've
got
a
parkland
target,
you
want
to
reach
and
we
asked
the
consultant
to
run
the
numbers
and
figure
out
how
much
park
land
or
cash
in
you.
We
need.
H
Thank
you,
chair
governor.
I
I
have
a
very
specific
response
I
would
like
to
speak
to
regarding
the
benefit
to
existing
that
came
up
during
that
conversation.
However,
I
will
ask
if
andrew
or
if
andrew's
prepared
to
respond
regarding
the
the
overall
benefit
of
park,
development
as
it
comes
from
new
development.
H
And
kirsten,
I'm
not
sure
if
andrew
grunda
was
made
made
available.
H
My
apologies
to
gower,
we
might
not
have
escalated.
Our
our
consultants.
M
Okay,
okay,
I
think
tina's
available.
I
think
andrew's
discussing
the
same
thing
for
another
municipality
right
now,.
H
R
Hi
sorry,
I
apologize
as
part
of
our
review.
What
we
were
asked
to
do
was
to
look
at
what
potential
modifications
to
the
plan
would
be
to
achieve
the
park's
plan
objective
and
so
the
recommendations
that
we
put
forward
in
our
report
heads
out
to
achieve
that,
and
so
there
there
would
be
no
benefit
to
existing.
R
In
that
respect,
however,
what
the
the
city
is
proposing
with
the
lower
caps
would
see
less
of
that
plan
achieved
and
therefore
the
implied
difference
presumably
would
be
made
up
from
non-growth
funding
and
therefore
perceived
as
a
benefit
to
existing.
H
Oh,
just
simply
that
mr
burgraph
rightly
points
out
that,
when
a
developer
makes
a
contribution
towards,
for
instance,
a
new
park
or
a
new
recreation
facility,
there
is
what's
called
a
benefit
to
existing.
That
means
the
existing
residents
get
access
to
said
new
park
or
new
facility,
but
what
he
also
did
not
mention
was
that
all
the
new
residents
that
are
subject
to
that
new
development,
they
in
turn
get
access
to
the
existing
parks
and
the
existing
facilities
and
such
as
part
of
the
rationale
behind
cashflow.
H
Parkland
is
so
that
we
can
also
improve
access
to
those
facilities
based
on
new
density
or
or
new
new
clients
coming
forward.
C
Okay,
thanks
wrap
up
with
a
comment.
I
guess
I
am
really
struggling
with
these
competing
priorities
and
I
am
concerned
about
about
the
the
viability,
the
financial
viability
of
of
new
housing
construction.
At
the
same
time
like
we
need,
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
achieving
our
goals
in
terms
of
creating
sparks
park.
Space
we've
identified,
I
think,
a
pretty
modest
target
of
two
hectares
per
1000
people.
We've
got
to
pay
for
that,
some
somehow
we've.
I
guess
decided
growth
pays
for
growth
and
that's
how
we're
going
to
pay
for
it.
C
It
gets
added
to
a
mortgage
they're,
carrying
an
incredible
financial
burden
and
I'm
not
sure,
that's
completely
fair,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
the
alternative
is
either
and
at
the
same
time
that
we're
building
homes.
We
have
to
make
sure
that
we
are
providing
the
amenities-
and
perhaps
it's
looking
to
the
other
levels
of
government.
C
For
more
assistance
there,
I
I
don't
think
we
have
a
lot
of
options,
but
it
is
a
concern
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
address
for
the
motion
that
I
introduce
making
sure
we're
understanding
that
burden
and
that
we
are,
we
are
applying
it
fairly
to
to
new
home
or
new
homeowners
and
new
renters,
and
really
understanding
how
it
affects
the
the
financial
viability
of
housing
in
our
community.
So
a
good
discussion
today
and
thank
you,
everyone
for
the
the
answers.
Thank
you
chair.
O
P
P
I
think
we're
in
a
good
place.
I
think
we're
in
a
better
place
than
than
we
were
so
a
few
questions,
though,
that
came
up
from
delegations.
One
was
around
the
the
transit
oriented
development
zones,
so
my
understanding
is
in
the.
In
the
version
of
the
draft
by-law
presented
for
the
june
23rd
meeting,
the
possible
exemption
for
affordable
housing
was
included
in
the
version
for
the
july
7th
meeting.
That
passage
has
been
replaced
by
a
maximum
or
cap
of
10
percent
of
land
value
applied
to
buildings
in
tod
zones.
H
Through
you
chairs,
the
counselor
has
it
right
in
the
sense
that
there's
a
10
cap
on
land
dedication
in
td
zones-
and
this
is
and
also
in
recognition
that
that
10
percent
cap
has
existed
in
since
the
original
by-law?
It's
it
actually
follows
that,
as
neil
malhotra
mentioned,
there's
additional
15
of
cash
and
lieu
that
will
apply
on
top,
but
we
restricted
it
to
10
percent
land
for
the
very
reason
that
there's
also
a
density
requirement
in
td
zones
that
don't
exist
in
other
apartment
building
zones
in
the
same
way.
H
P
H
P
Okay,
that's
good!
Thank
you.
Question
was
raised
in
the
delegations
around
cash
in
lieu
when
it
comes
to
air
rights
and
obviously
with
lrt,
there's
more
air
rights
of
stuff
at
carleton
lands
down.
There's
a
number
of
projects
that
have
air
rights
sales
now
or
considerations
for
air
right
sales,
so
just
is,
is
cashaloo
of
parkland
applicable
to
buildings
that
may
come
through
sale
of
air
rights.
H
H
Just
means
that
a
new
development
may
occur
on
top
of
something
it
is
still
development,
so
any
development
by
the
act
will
require
an
application
under
the
city,
and
this
means
that
it
will
be
coming
through
development
review
and
all
of
our
policies,
including
the
park
development
bylaw
their
park,
dedication
bylaw,
my
apologies-
will
apply
at
the
point
of
application,
so
air
rights
there
is
no
such
thing
as
granting
air
rights
and
building
something
new
without
having
an
application
and
and
kirsten.
I
see
you
going
sideways.
H
P
Thanks
well,
thank
you
for
that
and
I
guess
so
I
guess
the
question
or
direction
might
be.
Can
we
explicitly
include
air
rights
and
cash
and
lieu
provisions
in
the
bylaw
review?
Is
that
going
to
be
part
of
it?
Can
we
can
we
make
sure
that
that
is
specified
there,
because,
as
I
understand
right
now,
it's
not
explicitly
mentioned
in
the
in
the
parkland
dedication
bylaw.
H
I
believe
it'd
be
best
for
me,
mr
chair,
to
refer
to
christine
anta
our
city
legal
on
this.
My
gut
tells
me
that
development
is
development.
P
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I
just
I'm
glad
to
get
confirmation
here
today.
You
know,
obviously,
with
lansdowne
and
other
files,
lansdowne
we're
removing
55
000
square
feet
of
potential
park
space
there,
not
where
the
stadium
is,
but
the
the
east
side,
where
there's
proposed
to
be
a
new
underground
facility
and
that's
55
000
square
feet,
and
so,
while
we'd
have
development
happening
in
the
other
portion,
which
also
is
public
land,
of
course,
different
type
of
park
space.
I
suppose
that
that's
the
area
you
know,
obviously,
is
a
concern.
P
So
I'm
just
glad
to
get
the
confirmation
here
today
that
would
be
applicable
to
to
any
new
development
there
and
we'd
be,
conversely,
losing
park
space.
So
for
a
lot
of
new
people
and
that
that's
that's
a
question.
We're
gonna
have
to
grapple
with
a
question
to
forestry
and
then
I'll
be
done
and
oh
pass
it
over
to
cancer
leaper.
But
how
many
trees
could
a
could?
A
small
parkette
typically
support
you
know
is
it?
P
Is
it
a
meaningful
way
to
kind
of
increase
the
canopy
cover
in
our
in
our
areas
that
do
not
have
the
two
hectares
per
thousand
people,
and
and
how
can
forestry
integrate
with
with
rc
fs
to
to
help
meet
those
canopy
cover
targets
that
we've
got
now.
H
H
I
can
assist
in
the
response
only
in
the
sense
of
from
a
parks,
perspective,
parkland's
dedication.
We
are
required
to
meet
canopy
covers,
and
that
is
actually
part
of
what
we've
already
mentioned.
There
was
the
discussion
of
the
direction
to
staff
that,
where
parklands
are
dedicated,
canopy
cover
for
trees
is
to
be
discussed,
and
we
already
mentioned,
I
believe
40
in
the
op
is
the
requirement.
So
that's
one
part
of
our
review
of
the
park
development
manuals
to
make
sure
that
we
comply
in
city
parks
as
well.
H
P
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
again
for
all
your
work
on
this
kirsten
and
kevin
and
the
whole
team.
You've
done
a
great
job
and
I
appreciate
your
efforts.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you
very
much
chair,
so
to
staff.
I
mean,
we've
heard
the
assertion
from
clearage
and
from
minto
that
if
this
bylaw
passes
it
will
serve
as
a
disincentive
to
developing
around
our
transit
stations
that
the
focus
will
move
to
the
suburban
areas,
which
is
counter
to
all
of
our
highest
level
policies
and
plans
in
the
official
plan.
N
What
do
you
say?
What
does
your
math
indicate?
What
do
you
think
the
effect
is
going
to
be?
Why
are
you
still
recommending
that
we
pass
this.
H
Well,
I'm
going
to
ask
if
andrew
grenda
has
any
anything
to
add
he's
our
consultant
on
this
from
watson
associates
only
in
the
sense
of
there's
a
bigger
picture
as
to
how
are
we
growing
as
a
city.
R
Thank
you
so
as
part
of
our
assessment
in
our
report,
what
we
looked
at
was
what
the
impacts
would
be
on
development,
and
that
was
obviously
provided
with
the
the
higher
recommended
caps
than
what
is
is
coming
forward.
R
That
proposal
what
we
did
was
we
went
and
looked
at
what
those
implications
would
be
on
a
per
unit
basis
with
the
proposed
caps
and
to
put
that
in
some
context,
these
are
our
costs
of
development
that
have
to
be
born.
Ultimately
by
the
builder
and
ultimately,
the
landowner.
R
There
becomes
a
question
as
to
you
know
how
housing
prices
are
established.
You
know,
and
to
what
degree
do
these
municipal
fees
and
charges
play
in
setting
those
prices?
R
Sometimes
it's
it's
not
necessarily
very
clear
that
it's
an
input,
cost
driven
assumption
in
terms
of
what
those
costs
of
prices
are,
but
rather
broader,
macroeconomic
and
debt
conditions,
employment
markets
and
so
forth
that
are
are
really
feeding
into.
You
know
how
these
builders
are
setting
the
prices,
so
it
becomes
somewhat.
You
know
debatable
whether
or
not
increases
in
charges
like
parkland
dedication
will
ultimately
be
passed
through
to
to
the
homeowner
or
whether
those
can
be
absorbed
within
the
current
housing
prices
that
have
been
established
in
the
associated
margins.
R
But
with
that
said,
when
we
ran
the
impact
analysis
with
the
the
proposal
we
ran
in
our
study
about
seven
different
development
scenarios.
Different
types
of
residential
mixed
use,
types
of
uses
in
different
areas,
applying
those
proposed
caps
showed
a
per
unit
impact
rate,
ranging
between
roughly
around
you
know,
six
hundred
dollars
to
four
thousand
dollars
a
unit
increase,
and
so
to
put
that
in
some
context,
if
those
costs
were
not
able
to
be
absorbed
by
the
builder
and
ultimately
had
to
be
passed
on
to
the
homeowner.
R
I
think
one
way
of
looking
at
that
is
you
know
to
what
degree
would
that
impact
the
purchase
decision
of
that
ultimate
buyer
and,
if
you
think
about
it
in
that
context,
these
costs
would
be
wrapped
into
an
overall
mortgage
payment,
and
so
that
would
typically
range
again
if
we're
looking
at
roughly
a
600
to
4
000
per
unit
increase.
An
increase
in
mortgage
payments
somewhere
in
the
term
of
about
four
dollars
to
twenty
dollars
per
month
is
what
that
would
range
to.
R
So
it
really,
you
know,
becomes
a
question
of
balance
with
the
city.
You
know,
balancing
between
its
parks
plan,
establishing
the
quality
of
life
and
level
of
service
that
it
wants
to
achieve
and
seeking
to
have
development
to
pay
for
those
increase
in
demands
that
it
places,
and
ultimately,
what
this
is
is
balancing
against.
That
objective.
R
Is
that
impact
on
the
the
homeowner
ultimately
potentially
again
in
the
range
of
around
four
dollars
to
20
a
month
in
an
increased
mortgage
payment
if
it
can't
be
absorbed.
N
On
the
one
hand,
I
you
know,
I'm
hearing
your
analysis,
which
sounds
very
reasonable
and
it's
it's
a
certain
figure
in
terms
of
the
the
price
versus
what
we're
hearing
from
minto
and
claridge
and
goba,
and
others
that's
talking
about
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
impact
per
door
in
terms
of
the
the
cost
of
construction.
With
that
new
impact,
I
I
mean
how
do
you
assess
the
analysis
that
has
been
put
in
front
of
us
by
kevin
harper
at
minto,
for
example?
Is
there
is
there
a
flaw
in
that
analysis,.
A
N
A
R
Is
determined
by
the
underlying
land
value
assumptions,
so,
for
example,
when
we
ran
our
analysis
in
the
report,
we
were
provided
with
average
land
value
assumptions
for
the
different
transacts
within
the
city
and
and
that's
the
basis
that
we
have
to
to
prepare
our
analysis
and
our
impact
assumptions.
R
I
can't
speak
directly
to
the
underlying
assumptions
that
may
have
been
used
by
by
some
of
the
delegates
in
terms
of
their
level
of
impact,
but
presumably
they're,
using
different
values.
In
that
case,.
N
I
I
wonder
if
their
assumptions
are
closer
to
the
ground
than
you
are.
Yours
are
in
terms
of
understanding
the
the
conditions
that
are
on
the
ground
today,.
R
N
N
Okay,
if
I
may
then
for
mr
wary
we've
heard
a
couple
of
delegations
speak
to
the
need
for
to
to
treat
the
the
cut
off
with
more
nuance
in
terms
of
the
size
of
park,
that
you
will
accept
versus
cash
and
new
they're,
urging
us
to
take
less
than
400
square
meters.
N
H
Thank
you
counselor.
The
direction
of
the
staff
I
I
had
originally
thought
would
actually
be
for
the
next
item,
which
is
for
the
the
parkland
first
policy,
but
I'm
it
wherever
it
comes,
it's
still
direction
to
staff
and
we
will
still
follow.
What
we
are
being
asked
to
consider
is:
yes:
is
there
opportunity
for
us
to
take
a
smaller
parcel?
H
What
are
the
conditions
for?
Why
would
we
take
it?
And-
and-
and
I
heard
one
of
the
one
of
the
presenters
make
a
very
clear
point
as
to
some
of
the
benefits
of
a
smaller
parcel,
especially
in
the
urban
area,
where
we're
missing
in
most
of
urban
areas,
where
we're
missing
these
little
moments,
we
from
a
friendly
direction
to
staff
we
actually,
since
we
are
undertaking
a
review
of
the
parking
lot
development
manual.
We
would
like
to
take
this
back.
H
We
would
like
to
research
it
because,
when
we
came
up
with
400
square
meters
that
wasn't
an
arbitrary
number,
there
was
a
group
of
us
which
included
myself
that
visited
every
small
park
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
including
the
lady
from
I
forget
what
she
called
was
it
cafes.
I
believe
it
was
called
anyway.
She
she
presented
some
small
parks
in
her.
We
in
her
presentation
we
actually
visited
every
one
of
those
and
many
many
more
to
see
what
is
the
benefit
of
a
larger
versus
a
smaller
property.
H
So
I
am
happy
to
take
back
is:
is
there
a
opportunity
when
something
even
smaller
is
of
benefit
to
the
city?
But
what
I
do
need
to
do
is
have
a
discussion.
It's
not
just
from.
Is
it
a
benefit
from
a
parks
perspective,
there's
also
a
cost
for
that
from,
for
instance,
a
public
works
and
maintenance
perspective
going
off
and
sending
a
crew
in
a
truck
to
maintain
a
very
small
property
and
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
small
properties.
H
Obviously
there's
a
cost-benefit
thing
that
needs
to
be
discussed
and
brought
back
for
council
for
discussion
as
well
as
there
is
the
impact
on
collecting
less
cash
in
lieu,
because
you're
taking
more
land
that
has
two
different
impacts.
One
is
obviously
the
financial
impact,
which
means
you
have
potentially
less
funds
coming
in
to
do
some
of
our
other
priorities,
but
then
there's
also
the
impact
on
developability
of
sites.
H
If
we
take
a
percentage
of
land
from
a
site
that
is
already
suffering,
it's
a
postage
stamp,
that's
trying
to
deliver
and
we
are
taking
something
from
it.
It
could
cause
another
issue
from
a
development
developability
perspective.
So
these
are
things
we
want
to
analyze
and
come
back
and
say,
and
I
I
would
like
to
engage
with
committee
and
council
to
demonstrate
that
it
is
plausible,
hopefully,
in
certain
scenarios
and
applause
and
not
so
plausible.
In
other
scenarios.
H
No,
there
isn't.
We
still
have
the
ability
within
our
own
rules
that
the
400
meters
is,
that
is
our
minimum
standard
from
a
land.
First
policy
perspective.
It
does
not
prevent
us,
the
city
as
a
right,
whether
it
through
provincial
legislation,
can
take
the
smallest
amount
of
parkland.
Should
it
choose.
N
N
I
will
leave
it
there
other
than
moving
that.
If
scott
moffatt
talks
about
his
family
connections
to
city
council
again,
we
remove
him
as
chair.
O
O
I
don't
see
any
further
comments
or
anything
so
we'll
move
on
to
I'll
start
with
the
direction
just
to
to
kevin's
point.
We
actually
are
hearing
these
two
items
concurrently,
so
we're
just
considering
currently
so
that
the
direction
being
on
the
other
thing,
it's
fine,
so
the
direction
on
item
5.2,
which
is
on
the
directing
staff
to
review
the
feasibility
of
accepting
parkland
before
cash
and
lieu
funding
for
these
small
park
spaces
in
transit
areas,
not
meeting
the
active
parkland
targets
as
described
in
the
pr
fmp,
so
that
that's
accepted
by
staff.
O
So
thank
you
and
then
we'll
move.
Oh
geez,
my
dog's
growling,
that's
weird
he's,
usually
pretty
quiet
and
I'm
at
my
office.
Why
is
my
dog
in
my
office?
Oh
my
god?
Okay!
So
let's
go
to
the
motions
I'll
go
to
the
first
motion
that
I
read:
first,
which
is
the
the
transition
yeah.
This
is
the
motion
on
on
transition.
So
is
that
motion
approved.
O
The
second
motion
was
just
refining
revising
the
word
develop
and
providing
that
that
definition
in
the
in
the
by-law
is
that
item
carried
carried
very
the
one
on
the
screen
is
the
one
that
that
I
so
I
I
misread
the
one
originally
so
the
actual
there
was
a
reference
in
there,
but
the
the
one
that's
on
the
screen
is
the
proper
one.
O
So
let's
carry
it.
Thank
you.
The
third
motion
is
the
one
that
provides
clarity
on
the
intent
of
the
current
by-law
as
it
pertains
to
residential
care
facilities.
Is
that
item
carried
carry?
Thank
you.
O
Fourth
motion
speaks
to
the
missing
townhouse
dwelling
reference
after
three
in
a
dwelling
type
of
development
or
use
column
is
that
item
carried
and
then
the
fifth
motion
was
from
councillor.
Gower
therefore
be
resolved.
The
staff
he
directed
to
review
the
accumulated
impact
of
these
major
legislation,
legislative
and
policy
changes
which
are
anticipated
to
have
an
impact
on
land
prices
and
market
conditions
and
report
back
to
committee
and
council
and
the
accumulated
impacts
within
three
years
and
put
forward
recommendations
to
mitigate
the
impact
on
affordability,
if
required,.
O
I
mean
this
would
be
so
kevin
could
reply.
I
mean
this
is
obviously
looking
at
it's
not
just
looking
at
the
parkland
piece,
because
it's
also
looking
at
the
the
the
other,
the
high
performance
development
standards,
development
charges.
You
know
we
haven't
obviously
approved
inclusionary
zoning
bylaws.
So
it's
hard
to
sit
there
and
say
what
the
impact
of
that
is
at
this
moment,
but
it's
so
kevin
can
reply
to
one
piece,
but
I
mean
in
terms
of
who
would
actually
be
doing
this
review
and
bringing
it
back
to
us.
O
It's
likely
going
to
be
more
out
of
the
the
planning
real
estate
economic
development
department.
In
my
opinion,
I
don't
know
if
vivi
chi
is
here,
but
did
he
might
be
better
to
reply
respond
to
that?
One.
H
Chair
moffett
kevin
wary
here,
as
you
mentioned,
I'm
I'm.
We
support
from
our
cfs
perspective
this.
There
is
no
concern
we
we
actually.
I
consider
this
a
very
friendly
motion
in
the
sense
of
it's
worthwhile
to
consider
the
big
picture
once
we
know
what
the
big
picture
actually
is.
H
O
Yeah
so
again,
knowing
that
there's
multiple
departments
involved
in
this
in
this
in
this
review-
and
I
don't
believe
I
have
baby
here.
O
Yeah
understood
yeah,
there's
certainly
plenty
of
time
between
now
and
august
31st.
Thank
you
thanks.
So
much
okay.
So
on
that
on
that
final
motion,
then
okay,
thank
you.
O
So
so,
then
we
have
with
no
further
motion.
So
the
the
two
policies
in
front
of
us
so
I'll
read
them,
because
I
like
doing
that.
The
parkland
dedication
bylaw
one
that
plan
can
be
recommended.
Council
repealed,
bylaw
2009-2-9-5,
as
amended
being
the
practical
dedication
bylaw
and
adopt
a
new
parkland
dedication
bylaw
as
detailed
document.
One
two,
the
planning
committee
recommend
the
council
direct
the
cash
and
lieu
of
parkland
funds
policy.
He
revised
as
document
two.
It's
not
cliche
turn
off
your
mic.
O
Sheesh
getting
lung
butter
in
my
my
reading
here.
Three.
That
planning
committee
recommend
that
council
direct
recreation,
cultural
and
facility
services,
parks
and
facility
planning
to
a
further
review
the
distribution
of
cash
and
loot
parkland
funds
within
the
parkland
dedication
bylaw
and
the
cash
blue
parkland
funds
policy
b,
bring
forward
recommended
provisions
to
the
parkland
dedication,
bylaw
and
cash
and
loot
parkland
funds
policy,
including
an
approach
to
one
reflect
the
transect
needs
found
within
the
parks
and
recreation
facilities.
O
N
There
is
a
point
of
order
that
will
be
of
interest
to
staff.
My
questions
around
item
x,
dot
x,
have
been
answered,
so
I
don't
need
that
held.
O
C
O
Your
dog
scott,
oh
he's
great,
he's
great,
but
he
like
pooped
right
on
the
walkway
right
on
the
sidewalk.
I
mean
there's
if
there's
a
whole
yard
here
at
the
back
of
the
the
north
core
client
service
center,
he
could
go
all
the
way
down
to
stevens
creek,
but
no,
no
right
on
the
edge
of
the
sidewalk
is
where
he
decided
to
go.
So
that
was
my
break.
O
O
O
O
O
He
named
him
after
jimmy
from
yellowstone,
because
he's
kind
of,
like
you
know,
unconventionally
attractive
like
jimmy
from
yellowstone.
I
don't
know
if
you
watch
that
show.
O
He's
a
he's,
a
he's,
a
little
bulldog,
pitbull
mix,
but
he's
a
fun
little
he's
a
he's,
a
very
snuggly
little
guy.
C
Okay,
I'm
happy
to
take
it.
Do
we
have
do
we
have
quorum
kelly?
Perfect,
all
right?
Yes,
the
exciting
conclusion
of
planning
committee.
Thank
you
to
everyone,
especially
our
public
delegations,
who
have
been
sitting
patiently
for
this
item.
This
is
item
6.2
and
6.3
on
our
agenda.
The
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
108
nepean
street
part
of
257
lisker
street
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
142
144
and
148
nepean
street
demolition
control,
142
nepean
street,
both
in
somerset
ward.
C
C
O
Yeah
so,
whereas
the
report
was
published
with
the
meeting
agenda
on
june
27th
2022
and
where
I
was
talking
about
two
details
of
recommended,
zoning
inadvertently
contained
incorrect
provisions
and
whereas
the
remainder
of
the
report
is
accurate
and
the
correct
zoning
details
were
provided
within,
the
body
of
that
of
the
report,
therefore
be
resolved.
With
respect
to
report
acs,
2022
ieps-0072,
the
planning
committee
receive
and
replace
document
2
with
the
revised
document
2
on
file
with
the
office
of
the
city
clerk
prior
to
the
item
being
submitted
to
council.
C
Okay
is
that
motion
carried
carried
carried
buried?
Thank
you.
Okay,
we'll
go
now
to
andrew
mcrate
who's,
the
planner
on
this
file
for
an
introduction
to
what's
in
front
of
us
good
afternoon,
andrew.
E
E
E
The
subject
properties
are
located
at
the
corner
of
o'connor
and
nepean.
You
can
see
on
this
slide
that
the
red
box
identifies
108
european
and
part
of
257
lister.
This
is
currently
a
60
space.
Surface
parking
lot,
44,
which
are
owned
on
108
nepean,
which
is
currently
the
parking
for
the
office
at
190,
o'connor
highlighted
in
the
yellow
box
and
the
proposal
consolidating
these
properties
will
result
in
a
27-story
mixed-use
building
with
approximately
300
dwelling
units
142
to
148
nepean
identified
in
the
blue
box.
E
Just
west
of
o'connor
on
nepean
currently
exists
as
a
vacant
lot,
as
well
as
a
six
unit
apartment
building.
The
proposal
regarding
these
lands
is
to
demolish
the
six
unit
apartment
building
and
replace
those
lands
with
the
relocated
parking
from
108,
where
there
are
60
spaces
down
to
30
spaces
in
this
section.
E
So
that's
why
these
items
are
being
heard
together
because
there's
overlap
in
the
way
they
relate
to
one
another.
Next
slide,
please
so
quickly
on
the
proposed
development
at
108
in
the
pnn
part
of
257
lizard,
it's
a
27-story
mixed-use
building,
as
mentioned
it
will
have
approximately
300
dwelling
units
ranging
from
bachelor
to
two-bedroom
units,
the
ground
floor
and
second
floor.
E
Mezzanine
is
designed
for
approximately
120
square
meters
of
of
commercial
space
with
local
serving
community
uses,
and
the
access
to
this
development
will
use
the
existing
access
off
o'connor,
which
currently
serves
257
lizard
that'll,
be
a
shared
access,
but
separate
garages,
and
the
garage
for
the
new
development
will
have
166
parking
spaces
which
is
broken
down
into
136
spaces
for
residential
and
30,
for
visitor.
Also
important
to
note
is
that
the
application
does
a
very
sound
job
on
bicycle
parking.
E
There's
approximately
400
bicycle
parking
spaces
provided
including
a
very
large
ground
floor
bike
room
for
use
of
the
tenants
next
slide.
This
just
shows
you
a
quick
image
of
the
site
plan,
excerpt
of
the
proposed
building.
You
can
see
it
on
the
corner
of
nepean
and
o'connor
27
story.
Building
where
the
tower
portion
is
set
back
from
a
six-story
podium,
you
get
new
street
trees
along
the
pian
and
o'connor
in
the
bottom.
You
can
see
partially
that's
the
existing
ramp
from
the
garage
that
exists
at
257
lizard.
E
E
Next
slide,
please
regarding
the
nepean
property,
so
142
to
148
the
google
street
view
image
on
your
right
shows
the
base
of
the
existing
office
at
190
corner.
You
can
see
some
of
the
landscaping
treatment
there.
E
E
Next
slide,
please
the
applications
reviewed
concurrently
both
took
into
consideration
both
the
current
op,
as
well
as
the
new
op
quickly
on
the
27-story
building
staff,
feel
that
the
proposed
development
is
consistent
with
the
official
plan.
It
represents
residential
intensification
and
mixed-use
development,
which
supports
strong
active
transit
uses,
especially
with
their
quite
high
bicycle
parking
ratio.
E
Very
close
access
to
parliament,
o
train
station
and
the
design
made
quite
a
few
improvements
going
through
edrp,
such
as
reducing
the
floor
plate
size
working
on
the
podium
design,
stepping
back
of
the
towers
and
that
recessed
ground
floor
to
really
enhance
the
public
realm
and
widen
the
public
realm
experience
on
the
proposed
parking
lot
with
the
demolition
of
142
nepean.
I
think
one
policy
to
highlight
that's
quite
quite
applicable
to
this
proposal
in
these
applications
is
the
ability
to
protect
existing
rental
housing
stock
and
support
the
production
of
more
units.
E
The
policy
speaks
to
not
supporting
zoning
amendments
that
reduce
residential
units
unless
there
is
an
equivalent
or
concurrent
zoning
amendment
nearby
to
ensure
that
the
loss
of
units
is
replaced
within
the
same
neighborhood.
So
when
we
look
at
everything
that's
happening
with
these
applications,
60
parking
spaces
are
being
removed
from
the
corner
of
o'connor,
nepean,
being
relocated
to
nepean,
but
reduced
down
to
30
spaces,
and
the
the
removal
of
a
six-story
apartment.
Building
with
all
of
this
working
together
is
enabling
a
300
unit
development.
So
it
is
consistent
with
that
policy
direction.
E
E
Please
the
recommendations
concerning
142
142,
144
and
148
and
a
pn
is
that
staff
are
recommending
approval
of
the
zoning
amendment
for
the
performance
standards
related
to
the
accessory
surface
parking
lot.
That
will
serve
the
office
important
to
note
that
the
details
and
the
zoning
make
it
very
clear
that
it
is
office.
It
is
parking
for
that
existing
office.
Only
this
is
not
a
parking
lot
that
can
operate
as
a
commercial
parking
lot
that's
prohibited.
E
Second
recommendation
is
the
recommendation
for
demolition
control
and
I'll
speak
to
some
of
the
conditions
there
in
a
moment.
And
third,
there
is
a
memorandum
of
understanding
in
document
four
and
chair,
I
believe,
there's
a
motion
that
will
be
coming
forward
as
the
recommendation
to
ensure
that
the
mou
is
executed
prior
to
going
to
council
or
when
it
comes
into
effect,
goes
through.
So
there
should
be
a
motion
on
that
next
slide
as
part
of
the
demolition
control
conditions,
it's
our
fairly
standard
conditions,
but
they've
been
dovetailed
to
this
application.
E
The
main
priority
here
is
that
demo
of
the
142
nepean
building
is
not
permitted
to
take
place
until
construction
has
commenced
on
the
108
nepean
building.
So
there's
there's
no
scenario
where
we'll
be
left
with
two
parking
lots.
There's
protections
put
in
place
to
make
sure
that
that
demo
is
not
allowed
until
construction
of
the
replacement
building
has
occurred.
Once
that
happens,
they
have
five
years
roughly
to
complete
that
construction
to
ensure
that
we're
recouping
the
lost
units
and
again
it's
fixed
for
300.
E
next
slide.
Please
just
quickly
on
the
mou-
and
I
suspect
the
applicant
will
speak
to
this
as
well,
but
it
is.
It
is
framed
around
protecting
the
existing
tenants
such
that
they'd
have
opportunities
to
relocate
into
a
new
unit,
that's
of
the
same
as
they
have
now
so
two
bedrooms,
a
two
bedroom
as
well
as
ensuring
that
all
the
associated
costs
with
moving
are
covered.
E
There
is
there.
The
applicants
can
speak
to
this,
but
this
might
result
in
a
a
direction
to
staff.
If
I
could
plant
that
seed,
but
one
of
the
provisions
was
that
when
those
tenants
are
relocated
to
a
new
unit
that
their
rent
would
be
protected
for
two
years,
I
believe
the
applicant
is
now
offering
five
years
and
then
as
well
as
first
right
of
refusal
to
get
into
one
of
the
new
affordable
units
in
the
new
build
I'll.
E
C
Thank
you
very
much,
andrew
since
you
brought
it
up
the
mou
motion
and
there's
some
other
technical
motions
that
I
should
have
introduced
or
had
introduced
at
the
front,
but
we
I
think
this
would
be
a
good
time
to
do
it
put
them
on
the
on
the
floor
kelly.
If
you
could
bring
up,
I
think,
there's
three
motions,
two
technical
amendments
and
an
mou
motion.
O
C
C
Okay,
thank
you
we'll
deal
with
that
at
the
end
kelly.
Are
there
any
other
technical
amendments
or
motions,
not
to
my
knowledge,
chair
all
right.
Thank
you.
Okay,
we'll
come
back
to
staff
for
questions
later
now
we'll
go
to
the
applicant.
We
have
a
number
of
representatives
from
the
applicant,
I'm
not
100
sure
who's
doing
the
presentation
might
be
miguel
trump.
B
It'll,
be
mr,
mr
chair
it'll
be
myself
and
then
the
other
representatives
are
here
to
answer
questions
at
a
later
time.
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
I
do
have
a
fairly
fulsome
powerpoint
presentation,
but
andrew
covered
a
lot
of
the
the
material.
So
I'll
just
ask
you
to
go
to
slide
number
two
kelly,
and
I
think
I
will
probably
stay
here
for
the
duration
of
the
of
the
presentation,
just
to
save
a
little
bit
of
time.
Good
afternoon,
I'm
miguel
tremblay
I'm
a
partner
with
foten
planning
and
design,
and
I'm
here
today
with
representing
taggart
realty
management
and
glenview,
and
I
think
that's
an
important
point
in
that
these
applications
are
combined
and
they're
they're.
B
Actually
the
outcome
of
a
cooperative
process
between
two
developers,
which
is
still
somewhat
rare,
but
there
are
numerous
synergies
and
overlaps
between
these
applications
and
they
truly
do
need
to
be
considered
together
and
recognized
as
mutually
dependent.
And
if
you
don't
have
one,
you
don't
have
the
other
truly.
Mr
mcrates
provided
a
very
comprehensive
overview
of
the
planning
policy.
So
I'm
gonna
stay
out
of
that
for
my
five
minutes,
but
I
will
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
on
the
mechanics
of
the
applications.
B
So
as
andrew
painfully
read,
there
are
numerous
different
properties
here
you
can
see
below
the
colors
some
of
the
the
existing
property
lines
that
are
within
these
groupings
so
for
for
ease
of
our
discussion,
we've
grouped
them
into
three
groups.
The
first
is
108
in
the
pn
and
257
lisbert
want
108.
Nepean
is
at
the
corner
and
it's
owned
by
glenview
and
257
is
the
parcel
adjacent
to
it
and
next
to
the
the
claridge
high
rise
just
to
the
east
and
it's
kind
of
a
an
upside
down
t-shape.
B
That
is
the
frontage
of
the
building
for
the
257
lisbert,
which
is
lisborough
to
the
south
here,
and
that's
that
bar
building
those
combined
properties
are
characterized
as
a
surface
parking
lot
of
approximately
60
parking
spaces,
there's
44
parking
spaces
on
108
nepean
at
the
corner
and
then
there's
15
16
parking
spaces
that
are
for
the
taggart
building
to
the
to
the
south.
The
257
lisker,
the
parking
spaces
at
250
to
seven
lisbo
are
fully
compliant
they're.
On
the
same
lot,
there
are
no
issues
with
zoning
compliance
similar
to
108
nepean.
B
You
know
that
office
building
was
built
under
the
old
ottawa
z2k,
which
was
in
place
before
I
was
even
a
planner,
so
it's
they
are
legal
non-conforming
and
could
stay
there
in
perpetuity.
They
are
there
to
support
and
meet
the
zoning
obligations
for
required
parking
for
190
o'connor
and
that
is
owned
by
glenview,
and
then
the
remaining
grouping
of
properties
is
142
to
148
nepean,
which
is
where
the
property
is
largely
vacant.
B
Now
the
two
western
blocks
have
been
cleared,
but
the
there
is
a
remaining
three
story:
six
unit
apartment
building,
but
only
four
of
the
units
are
occupied
and
those
four
units
are
the
focus
of
taggart
and
glenview's
relocation
efforts
through
that
mou.
While
we're
on
this
slide,
I
I
will
just
point
out
that
the
relocation
of
those
those
units
will,
it
would
occur
either
in
the
taggart
building
at
257,
or
you
can
just
see
the
the
corner
of
the
imperial
apartments
at
171
o'connor,
which
is
on
the
north
side
of
nepean
there.
B
Those
would
be
the
relocation
of
those
four
units
would
occur
within
within
those
existing
taggart
buildings
to
as
andrew
mentioned,
comparable
buildings,
the
intent
of
the
applications
is
to
relocate
and
reduce
the
surface
parking
from
what
is
the
very
prominent
intersection
of
o'connor
and
nepean
and
create
a
development
parcel.
B
The
relocation
would
allow
the
construction
of
a
300
plus
unit
rental
apartment,
building
with,
as
per
the
holding
provision,
25
affordable
housing
units.
Now
this
building,
as
you
heard
from
mr
mcrae,
is
in
full
compliance
with
the
policy
direction
of
the
auto
official
plan
plans
and
secondary
plan.
The
center
town
secondary
plan,
which
permits
mixed
use
and
residential
buildings
up
to
27
stories
again
I'll
stay
on
this
slide
just
for
for
ease,
but
this
translates
into
a
net
increase
of
a
minimum
of
296
units
minus
those
four.
B
But
the
building
might
actually
push
to
about
310..
The
building
is
in
very
close
proximity
to
transit,
employment
and
commercial
and
and
other
supportive
surface
services.
B
You
heard
from
mr
mcrae
that
we
are
far
exceeding
the
bicycle
parking:
that's
a
function
of
the
site's
location
in
centertown,
but
the
project
also
includes
only
166
parking
spaces,
and
that
includes
residents,
visitor
and
commercial
all
in
an
effort
to
contribute
to
a
more
transit,
supportive
development
with
respect
to
that
office.
Building
rather
than
the
59
or
60
parking
spaces.
Only
through
30
spaces
will
be
relocated
to
142
148
nepean.
That
represents
a
reduction
of
50
percent
of
the
overall
parking
and
asphalt
area.
B
The
parking
lot
now
would
now
be
contiguous
to
the
office
building
and
it
would
address
issues
of
safety
and
convenience
and
function.
Glenview's
objective
here
is
always
to
have
a
well-performing
office
and
employment
building
in
the
core
and
to
recognize
that
there's
a
need
for
at
least
some
reasonable
amount
of
surface
parking,
given
that
this
is
an
existing
building
with
existing
leases
and
existing
tenants
in
existing
conditions
and
just
in
anticipation
of
a
question
for
for
reasons
of
ex
of
those
existing
leases.
B
The
construction
staggering,
which
would
building
it
a
27-story
building,
is,
is
estimated
to
take
about
39
39
months
to
construct,
there's
no
practical
way
to
incorporate
the
parking
spaces
into
the
new
building,
so
the
in
all
scenarios,
the
relocation
of
the
parking
to
148
nepean
is
a
necessary
component
of
these
applications.
B
You
know
the
net
benefit
from
the
city
and
and
to
echo.
Mr
mcrae's
comments
is
that
the
city
gets
a
300
plus
unit
building
with
25,
affordable
housing
units
built
into
it
in
proximity
to
transit
employment.
B
We
want
good
functioning
office
buildings
in
our
core
and
while
the
application
does
remove
six
six
units,
four
of
which
are
occupied,
there
are
numerous
safeguards
built
into
the
approvals
here,
whether
it's
the
relocation
and
accommodation
of
the
existing
tenants
through
the
mou,
the
sequence
of
the
demolition
permits
requiring
site
plan
approval
and
even
the
appropriate
design
and
landscaping
of
of
the
parking
lot.
B
So
mr
mcrate's
already
covered
some
of
the
the
mous,
but
you
you
heard
correctly
that
there
has
been
there's
always
ongoing
initiatives
by
the
by
the
developers
to
to
make
things
better
make
things
right.
So
you
you've
heard
that
the
the
period
of
the
of
the
comparable
rent
will
be
elevated
to
five
years
and
there
are
other
provisions
in
the
moe,
taggart
and
glenview
are,
are
here
with
me
to
answer
questions
about
the
holding
symbol
or
the
the
functioning
of
the
office
building.
B
So
I
think
I'll
leave
my
comments
to
that,
because
I
believe
I'm
out
of
time.
I
would
assume
so
I
thank
you
for
your
attention.
Thank
you.
C
G
I
actually
don't
see
him
on
the
call
if.
K
You
wanted
to
go
to
the
next
delegation.
I
can
reach
out.
C
A
Hi,
nice
to
see
you
nice
to
see
everybody.
I
hope
my
camera
is
working
properly
here.
Well,
first
of
all,
it's
it's
not
often.
I
get
the
pleasure
to
actually
defeat
to
a
municipal
committee
of
colleagues.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here.
I
want
to
say
a
couple
of
things
in
the
short
amount
of
time
I
have.
I
know
you've
been
in
a
meeting
all
day
long,
so
I'll
try
to
keep
it
as
succinct
as
I
can.
A
It
is
an
absolute
crisis
in
our
city
and
what
disturbs
me
with
this
application
with
all
due
respect
to
the
presentation
we
just
heard,
is
that
four
units
currently
occupied
six
potential
units
of
affordable
housing
could
be
lost.
I
I
heard
the
presentation.
Well,
if
I
understood
it,
there
are
rent
guarantees
for
five
to
ten
years,
but
the
we
have
some
great
research
institutes
here
in
the
city
of
ottawa
that
tell
us
that,
for
every
one
unit
of
affordable
housing,
we're
building
we're
losing
seven
and
that's
because
we're
letting
existing
rental
stock
slip.
A
So
I've
had
the
occasion
to
meet
with
the
residents
at
142
nepean
street
I've
committed
to
them
to
go
down
to
the
legislature
and
try
to
advocate
for
a
system
of
real
rent
control,
where
a
rent
control
system
would
follow
a
tenant
between
tenancies.
But
we
don't
have
that
right
now
in
the
city
of
ottawa.
A
So
what
that
means
practically
for
me
and
my
capacity
is
the
city's
mpp
for
ottawa
center
is
that
we
are
right
now
working
with
several
tenants
who
are
either
being
encouraged
or
compelled
to
move
out
of
their
units,
knowing
full
well
that
the
sticker
price
for
that
unit,
when
they
move
out,
is
going
to
be
massively
more
than
what
it
is.
So
I
I
hear
that
we're
going
to
have
300
more
units
of
adjacent
housing
and
that
it
somehow
is
impossible
to
build
parking
in
that
building.
A
I
I
have
a
hard
time
imagining
that,
given
the
talents
of
architects
planners
and
engineers
building
trades
folks
that
build
buildings,
I
can't
understand
why
we
wouldn't
have
the
capacity
to
have
the
parking
available
in
the
building
that
glendu
and
taggart
is
proposing,
be
constructed
there.
So
we
could
save
the
affordable
housing
that
we
actually
have
at
142
to
pete
street.
If
you
get
the
chance
to
meet
the
neighbors-
and
I
hope
some
are
going
to
talk
to
you
this
afternoon-
they
are
wonderful
people
that
want
the
same
thing
that
so
many
of
us
do.
A
They
want
to
live
in
the
downtown.
They
want
to
take
advantage
of
all
the
amenities,
but
they
want
to
do
it
at
a
price
that
is
not
going
to
break
their
back
and
too
many
people
in
the
city
are
seeing
rents
go
up
massively.
So
I'm
making
a
succinct
case
to
you,
through
your
chair
to
committee
members,
to
preserve
this
affordable
housing
stock.
To
ask
this
developer:
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
table,
to
put
the
parking
in
the
building
that's
being
built
and
to
not
take
away
existing,
affordable
rental
housing.
A
J
Thank
you
chair
thanks,
joel
for
coming
out
and
competing
to
us
today.
I'm
gonna
some
of
the
other
delegates,
but
from
the
residents
in
that
building
who
you've
spoken
to
are
any
of
them.
E
J
Any
of
them
for
the
right
word
excited
are
any
of
them.
Looking
forward
to
moving
to
another
property
and
getting
rent
that
is
comparable
for
five
years.
Did
you
hear
from
anyone
that
they're
pretty
excited
about
that.
A
Thanks
for
the
question
councillor
mckinney,
I've
actually
heard
the
precise
opposite.
The
the
residents
are
not
happy
to
move
they.
They
picked
142
pm
because
they
want
to
live
there,
and
when
I
read
and
again,
staff
and
experts
to
this
particular
development
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
when
I
am
led
to
believe
what
I
see
in
front
of
me:
affordable
housing
in
the
new
unit,
the
25
units
we
heard
about
is
affordable
housing.
A
If
we're
going
to
be
creeping
up
to
18,
1900
2
000
a
month
for
a
one
or
two
bedroom
that
is
not
affordable,
the
market
that
makes
sense
for
me
is
when
a
person
is
spending
more
than
30
percent
of
their
disposable
income
more
than
that
on
housing.
We
are
moving
into
a
housing,
affordability
issue
and
it
is
rampant,
rented
all
across
the
city.
A
J
Okay,
I
I
appreciate
that
it's
what
I've
been
hearing
as
well,
but
I'd
like
to
have
it
confirmed,
and
if
some
of
those
residents
are
here
today,
which
I
believe
they
are,
I
can
I
can
delve
into
that
more
as
well.
So
thank
you
thanks
for
coming
out
and
thank
you
chair.
C
Our
next
speaker,
actually,
we've
checked
with
bill,
who
was
the
first
registered
and
he's
unable
to
join
us
today.
So
we're
going
to
move
on
to
speaker
number
three
on
our
list.
Who's
lionel
nyukum
is
lionel
with
us.
T
Sorry,
I'm
here
so
thank
you
counselors
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
lionel
jacom.
I
am
a
tenant
here
at
142
nepean
street
and
I
am
an
acorn
member.
I
moved
to
center
to
right
center
town,
sorry
right
at
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
back
in
march
late
march,
early
april
2020
to
get
closer
to
my
work
here
downtown
and
I
will
then
be
able
to
save
on
transportation
and
make
my
humble
contribution
to
protecting
the
environment
by
commuting
less
between
valley,
where
I
used
to
live
and
aurora
center.
T
So
this
old
building
was
a
blessing
for
my
baby,
who
was
to
be
born
a
few
months
later,
our
little
family
of
three
have
been
close
to
everything,
meaning
walking
distance
from
work,
grocery
stores,
pharmacies
and
clinics,
cultural,
centers
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
And
on
top
of
that
we
had
a
fair
deal
in
terms
of
rent,
just
what
we
could
afford
twelve
hundred
dollars
per
month
for
a
two
bedroom.
T
Can
you
imagine,
and
suddenly,
early
one
year
after
moving
to
this
incredible
place,
we
heard
about
a
demo
victim
project
to
replace
our
affordable
home
for
a
parking
lot?
No
less!
This
is
having
an
impact
on
our
family.
I
mean
an
emotional
and
financial
stress
which
is
which
are
overwhelming
the
developer
offered
to
match
our
rent
in
a
different
building
close
to
ours,
as
you
ment,
as
they
mentioned
earlier
for
only
two
years
yesterday
was
shifted
to
five
years,
but
what
is
going
to
happen
for
us
or
with
us?
T
After
those
five
years,
our
rent
will
skyrocket
and
we
will
be
looking
out
for
another
home.
This
is
how
gentrification
happens
in
daylight.
If
someone
or
some
people
are
wondering
how
some
people
are
getting
poorer
while
others
are
getting
richer.
This
is
a
clear-cut
case.
30.,
according
to
zumpa.com,
average
ran
for
a
two-bedroom
in
central
town
is
2149
dollars
per
month.
As
of
june
this
year,
citywide
the
june
2020
rent
important
rentals.
That
ca
noted
that
the
average
rent
for
a
two
bedroom
was
two
thousand
and
seventy
four
dollars
per
month.
T
This
is
eight
hundred
to
one
thousand
dollars
more
than
what
we
are
paying
right
now.
Can
you
imagine
that
would
be
the
equivalent
of
a
mortgage.
Without
the
house
we
will
be
forced
to
leave
center
town,
but
I
honestly
don't
know
where
we
will
go.
Perhaps
my
family
of
free
will
be
forced
into
a
one
bedroom
apartment
or
we
will
have
to
make
sacrifices
on
food
saving
on
my
daughter's
education
or
one
one-day
retirement.
T
T
You
will
likely
hear
a
few
arguments
and
you
already
heard
them
from
the
developer
in
favor
of
the
application
first,
that
they
will
be
providing
affordable
housing
in
108
vpn
street.
Second,
that
some
tenants
have
signed
relocation
packages
already
why
others
have
moved
out.
I
would
like
to
address
each
of
these,
as
they
are
very
misleading.
T
Neither
the
city's
staff
report
on
the
memorandum
of
understanding
included
definition
of
affordability.
So
this
provides
no
assurances
to
the
community
that
these
so-called
affordable
units
will
actually
be
affordable.
They
will
certainly
be
less
affordable
than
what
currently
exists.
And,
finally,
I
myself
have
signed
a
relocated
relocation
package
with
the
developer.
T
I
did
this
because
I
need
a
backup
plan
for
my
family
if
the
city
does
not
support
us.
I
imagine
this
to
be
the
case
for
my
neighbors
also
and
yes,
a
couple
of
tenants
have
moved
out
because
they
couldn't
live
in
the
uncertainty
of
not
knowing,
if
or
when
they
would
be
forced
to
leave,
but
those
that
are
still
living
at
142
nepean
street
are
here
for
reason.
We
do
not
want
to
move.
T
We
can't
afford
to
move,
so
I
urge
this
committee
to
reject
proposal
to
demolish
our
home,
I'm
not
against
building
new,
I'm
I'm
not
against
building
new
apartment
buildings,
I'm
just
against
demolishing
an
affordable
building.
T
J
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
lionel.
That
was
an
exceptional
presentation
to
us
today
and
I
appreciate
it.
I
know
that
you've
been
fighting
hard
over
the
last
year
and
more
actually
to
to
save
your
housing,
a
couple
of
questions
for
you
lionel
because
he
really
did
cover
everything
in
in
what
you
said.
J
J
T
My
guess
is
that
in
five
years
from
now,
as
you
mentioned,
counselor
they
want
the
price
will
be
higher
than
now.
Prices
are
going
always
up,
they
are
not
going
down
so
for
sure.
Once
the
the
matching
stops,
I
would
just
have
to
go
somewhere
else
and
you
won't
be
downtown
because
affordable
buildings
are
extremely
rare,
downtown
so
and
I'm
not
fighting
just
for
me,
I'm
fighting
for
those
who
are
in
the
building
right
now
for
those
who
could
come
after
us.
T
If
we
have
to
leave
so
the
options
are
just
to
leave
center
town.
That's
that's
the
only
option
and
to
get
away
from
work
to
get
away
from
everything
that
I
have
known
for
two
years.
J
T
Well,
very
few
because,
as
I
mentioned,
I
am
at
walking
distance
to
work,
I
don't
need
to
drive
to
work
with
the
pandemic.
We
don't
work
much
at
the
office,
but
it's
going
to
resume
by
september
the
the
work
at
the
office
and
so
for
groceries.
I
barely
go
driving
for
my
groceries
because
we
have
grocery
stores
all
around
here.
T
So
I
I
can't
really
assess
how
much
I
drive,
but
I
technically
do
not
need
to
drive
because
I
drive
on
mostly
because
my
daughter
is
two
and
she
she
cannot
walk
everywhere.
So
I
can
drive
her
to
some
remote
places,
but
I
don't
have
to
drive.
I
can
avoid
to
drag.
J
Of
course,
and
lionel
last
question
just
beside
142
nepean,
two
other
addresses
one
is
144
146
and
the
other
is
148.
they're
both
empty
today.
Did
you
know
that
they
that
there
were
two
homes
standing
there
in
2016.?
J
And
did
you
know
that,
in
that
agreement
that
we
signed
when
they
were
demolished,
there
was
an
agreement
that
included
conditions
that
were
meant
to
encourage
new
development
and
prohibit
any
parking
on
site?
Actually,
we
we
put
in
the
agreement
when
we
allowed
them
to
demolish
those
two
homes
that
really
were
demolished
by
neglect
in
the
end,
but
but
that
they
had
to
be
that
a
replacement
building
had
to
be
substantially
completed
within
five
years
and
that,
except
for
you
know,
maybe
a
sales
center.
J
Any
associated
parking
it
could
not
be
could
not
be
provided.
So
you
so
in
the
agreement
we
actually
when
we
allowed
them
to
take
those
two
homes
down
just
in
2016
that
that
they
were
to
be
landscaped
while
while
they
were
vacant,
do
you
do,
I
don't
believe
their
landscape?
J
No,
but
they
were
supposed
to
be
it's
right
in
the
agreement
that
the
city
signed
and
that
there
was
never
to
be
parking
on
that
site
that
that
that
site
was
never
to
have
parking
allowed
on
it.
J
So
I
just
wonder
if,
given
that
agreement
by
the
city,
just
in
2016,
if
you
have
any
faith,
that
we
will
live
up
to
our
agreement
this
time,
if
first
you
know
if
we
do
the
wrong
thing,
and
we
allow
a
surface
parking
lot,
that
it
won't
be
turned
into
a
commercial
parking
lot
at
some
point.
That
will
make
a
lot
of
money.
Do
you
have
any
faith
in
the
city
that
that
would
be
that
we
would
live
up
to
the
word
of
this
agreement.
T
I
don't
think
so
because
it's
very
tempting
to
rent
a
parking
lot
here.
Downtown
sorry,
my
first
language
is
french.
So
sometimes
that's.
T
So
definitely
it's
very
tempting
because
prices
are
very
high
and
the
demand
is
very
high.
So
I
I
don't
believe
that
we
will
stick
to
that
commitment.
I
I
I
really
doubt
I
really
doubt
so.
J
Yeah,
no,
so
so
do
I
just
given
that
the
past
history
and
that
we've
allowed
those
two
lots
to
become
parking
lots
when
we
said
2016
that
that
would
could
not
happen,
but
but
it
did
so,
that's
I'll
read
out
the
entire
thing
a
little
later
when
I
I'm
able
to
wrap
up,
but
I
appreciate
you
coming
out
today
lionel
and
I
really
am
sorry
for
what
you
have
to
go
through,
not
just
to
keep
your
housing.
L
I
am
quite
opposed
to
the
existing
plan,
which
would
involve
demolishing
the
building
in
which
he
and
his
family
are
currently
living.
I
you
know
have
have
listened
to
the
the
presentation,
and
certainly
while
I
I
quite
appreciate
the
you
know,
opportunity
for
for
development.
L
You
know
sort
of
at
108
nepean
and
the
the
the
the
fact
that,
even
as
it
stands,
this
is
a
a
reduction
in
the
the
surface
parking.
I
I
still
think
that
what
the
way
this
is
going
right
now
is
unacceptable,
particularly
when
the
city
has
already
declared
both
housing
and
a
climate
emergency
which
behooves
the
city
to.
L
And
to
do
everything
possible
to
encourage
move
towards
active
and
public
transportation
and.
L
Blocks
away,
as
lionel
said,
when
he
moved
in
in
2020,
he
was
able
to
get
a
two-bedroom
apartment
for
1200
rent
in
2022.
L
I
am
paying
very
nearly
the
same
amount
of
money
for
a
bachelor
apartment
in
the
same
neighborhood,
so
you
know
to
me
that
that
clearly
shows
the
the
value
of
such
a
stock
of
affordable
housing,
which
I
you
know
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
We
we
cannot
allow
to
be
demolished,
especially
again
for
for
for
something
like
a
parking
lot.
L
L
So
you
know
I
I
would
not
want
to
be
in
lionel's
situation.
It
sounds
very
challenging
and
that's
why
I
I
believe
that
you
know
whatever
development
goes
ahead
with
these
plots
of
lance,
it
cannot
be
done
on
the
back
of
you
know
lionel
and
his
family,
and
it
should
not
be
done
at
the
expense
of
our
city's
precious
stock
of
affordable
housing.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you.
My
name
is
miranda
gray
and
I'm
currently
a
home
owner
in
orleans
work,
but
over
the
past
35
years
I
have
been
a
renter
in
orleans,
ward,
somerset
board,
capital,
ward
and
rito
vanier
ward.
Over
those
years
I
was
precariously
housed
and
paying
much
more
than
30
percent
of
my
income
for
housing
expenses.
G
I
understand
the
stress
of
precarious
housing
and
how
it
makes
it
impossible
to
focus
on
any
other
issues
in
your
life.
It
is
not
possible
to
focus
on
improving
your
situation
or
keeping
it
stable
when
you
are
at
risk
of
losing
your
housing.
That
is
why
I
supported
the
declaration
that
ottawa
has
a
housing
emergency.
G
I
am
asking
you
to
refuse
a
permit
to
demolish
142
in
the
pn
at
this
time.
That
would
make
the
amendment
for
performance
standards
related
to
the
parking
unnecessary
as
well
the
provision
to
allow
owners
to
compel
or
force
tenants
to
move
so
that
a
new
project,
a
new
housing
project
can
be
built,
was
intended
for
situations
where
the
new
housing
would
be
on
the
exact
same
site
as
the
old
housing.
That
is
not
the
case
for
this
project.
G
Here
the
application
is
to
provide
parking
for
people
not
living
on
any
of
the
land
parcels
of
the
development.
This
is
parking
for
profit,
not
parking
attached
to
housing.
It
is
unjust
to
force
people
to
move
for
cars
at
this
time.
There
is
still
ample
paid
parking
during
business
hours.
In
this
area
of
town,
the
car
owners
will
be
forced
to
park
in
a
new
location,
but
only
steps
away.
They
will
not
be
forced
to
use
public
transit
or
park
in
another
neighborhood.
G
G
They
wish
to
develop
their
property
and
have
chosen
to
forego
some
parking
revenue
permanently
to
gain
residential
units
on
the
combined
sites.
This
is
in
line
with
the
city
vision,
and
I
thank
them
for
that.
Unfortunately,
they
are
also
trying
to
keep
the
parking
revenue
while
developing
the
site
by
demolishing
some
affordable
housing.
G
G
The
provision
to
allow
existing
tenants,
the
right
to
return,
fails
to
recognize
the
significant
burdens
and
disturbances
of
a
housing
move
beyond
the
finances.
It
will
be
impossible
for
these
tenants
to
find
similar
housing
in
this
particular
part
of
the
area.
Many
of
these
residents
already
live
in
a
15
minute
community.
G
They
are
unlikely
to
find
similar
housing
at
the
same
cost
within
a
15-minute
walking
distance
of
their
current
residence.
I
ask
you
to
compare
the
distance.
The
car
owners
are
being
asked
to
move
versus
the
distance.
The
tenants
will
have
to
move
the
timing
of
the
demolition
of
the
building
should
be
after
the
new
housing
is
available.
G
G
The
current
proposal
allows
the
property
owners
to
keep
the
revenue.
It
forces
a
one-time
change
for
drivers
where
parking
is
located
by
mere
meters.
For
the
tenants,
the
impacts
are
severe
long-lasting,
as
they
must
move
an
unknown
distance
for
up
to
five
years.
I'm
asking
you
to
stand
by
the
residents
and
protect
their
homes.
G
The
property
developer
has
chosen
to
protect
the
parking
over
the
homes.
I
ask
you
to
refuse
the
demolition
permit
until
the
new
development
is
finished.
At
that
time,
the
tenants
can
be
moved
and
the
lot
made
available
for
parking
or,
ideally,
more
housing
as
the
developer
chooses
housing
is
critical
to
a
stable
life.
I
oppose
the
loss
of
any
safe
housing
now
for
new
and
better
housing
later
during
a
housing
emergency.
G
It
is
time
to
act
with
urgency
and
protect
these
units
until
the
replacement
units
on
the
adjoining
site
are
completed.
Don't
let
people
fall
into
a
housing
gap
to
protect
parking
for
cars
or
parking
revenue
deny
the
permit
for
demolition
until
the
new
housing
complex
is
complete.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
J
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
coming
out
miranda.
I
just
want
to
clarify
when
you
say
you
know
ensure
that
the
building
is
built
until
we
allow
demolition.
Are
you?
Are
you
supporting
in
that
statement,
surface
parking
lot.
G
I
don't
believe
by
the
time
you
get
around
to
it
that
surface
parking
in
the
downtown
core
is
going
to
be
a
desirable
outcome.
I
suspect
at
that
point
more
housing
will
be
the
desire.
I
would
hope
it
would
be
affordable
housing,
but
perhaps
it
will
not
be
it's
hard
to
know.
I
would
also
make
a
lovely
a
park
space
based
on
your
other
topic
this
morning.
G
All
of
those
are
needed.
Parking
is
not
the
only
issue
in
the
downtown
core
and,
as
we
see
offices
move
out
of
the
downtown
core,
I
don't
think
we
need
as
much
housing
and
presumably
within
five
years,
the
lrt
system
will
be
working
better
and
people
will
be
using
it
again
again.
Removing
cars
from
the
road.
J
Well,
let
me
let
me
just
point
this
out,
then:
okay
in
2016,
yes,
hope
to
share
your
optimism,
but
I
just
want.
I
just
want
to
read
the
two
conditions
that
were
in
place
in
2016
for
the
144.
Remember
the
buildings.
G
J
Yeah
so
another
they're,
the
ones
that
we
allowed
to
come
down
demolition
by
neglect.
So
these
were
the
two
conditions
I
just
want
to
read
them
if
you'll
allow
me
that
a
replacement
building
be
substantially
completed
with
five
year
within
five
years.
From
the
date
of
this
approval
and
in
default
thereof,
the
city
clerk
shall
enter
into
on
the
collector's
role,
etc.
J
Number
two
that
until
the
time
of
the
construction
of
the
first
replacement
building
other
than
where
the
sales
center
and
any
associated
parking
are
provided,
the
register
owner
shall
landscape
the
property
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
general
manager,
et
cetera
today
in
the
report,
the
condition
that
the
replacement
building
be
substantially
completed
within
five
years.
From
the
date
of
this
approval
and
in
default
therefore
thereof,
the
city
clerk
shall
enter
on
the
collector's
role,
etc,
etc.
J
That,
until
the
time
of
the
construction-
and
this
is
today's
of
the
first
replacement
building
other
than
where
sales
center
and
any
associated
parking
are
provided,
the
registered
owners
shall
landscape
the
property
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
general
manager,
et
cetera,
so
that
the
same
conditions
are
being
placed
today
on
142
142
that
were
in
place
for
144,
146
and
148,
and
we
know
that
144,
146
and
148
were
never
landscaped
and
they've
become
de
facto
parking
lot.
So
I
just
wanted.
J
G
So
two
comments
on
that:
you
haven't
shared
whether
it's
the
same
developer
or
group
of
developers
yeah,
I'm.
J
Gonna,
I'm
gonna
just
let
it
go.
I
have
lots
of
questions
to
to
staff,
but
it's
the
same
people
that
own
that.
G
F
Quickly,
thank
you
miranda.
The
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
clear
when
I
just
had
a
recent
briefing
on
this
and
understood
that
the
people
who
would
be
choosing
to
either
sign
the
agreement
and
move
or
are
still
in
the
process
of
doing
that,
would
move
only
to
the
buildings
on
either
side
of
the
current
building,
because
the
developers
own
those
buildings
as
well,
but
I
think
I
heard
you
say
that
they
have
to
move
out
of
the
neighborhood.
I
just
wanted
to
understand
where
that
comes
from.
F
C
C
O
I
will
I
will
begin
before,
while
I'm
waiting
just
to.
I
think
there
is
reason
to
be
optimistic,
that
parking
in
this
area
won't
be
as
permanent
as
it
has
been
in
the
past.
I
look
at
right
behind
this.
Property
is
287
and
it
was
two
ascent
lisbo
I
leave
and
it
was
a
parking
lot
as
far
back
as
30
years
ago,
it's
now
a
16-story
apartment,
a
rental
apartment
building
just
around
the
corner.
O
From
this
we
recently
at
this
at
this
committee
dealt
with
234
236
o'connor
and
I
believe
it
was
3
11
summerset,
311
somerset
was
a
parking
lot
for
a
better
part
of
50
years.
We've
just
approved
development
on
those
properties
as
well,
so
those
are
parking
lots
in
this
immediate
area
that
have
been
transitioning.
O
In
the
future,
but
just
on
that
on
that
need
for
the
parking
lot
for
the
service
level
parking
lot,
I'm
hoping
someone
could
just
address
the
committee
with
exactly
why
you
need
these
spaces
at
the
surface
level,
because
we've
heard
a
lot
of
why
don't
you
build
them?
Why
don't
you
build
them
underground
with
the
with
the
new
construction,
I
understand
they're
for
the
existing
office
uses.
So
if
you
just
touch
on
why
you
need
these
surface
level
parking
spaces
to
replace
the
ones
that
you're
losing
at
108.
S
Is
there
a
cow
here?
I've
just
introduced
myself
and
my
colleague
mark
chabinsky.
Thank
you
very
much.
Chair,
co-chair
members
of
the
committee.
I
think
what
I'll
do
is.
I
will
answer
the
first
question
that
relates
to
the
proposed
construction
of
the
new
building
and
the
parking
lot,
and
then
I
will
allow
my
colleague
mark
schubinsky
to
talk
about
the
surface
parking
lot
at
142,
144,
148
and
a
pm.
So
mr
joel
harden
made
a
comment
in
terms
of
the
comment
around.
S
Why
can
we
not
put
parking
stalls
below
the
proposed
new
tower
so
essentially
in
terms
of
health
and
safety
regulations,
including
the
ontario
labor
board?
We
are
not
comfortable
in
terms
of
having
a
fully
functioning
parking
garage
located
below
grade
be
accessible
by
members
of
the
public,
including
the
tenants
at
190
o'connor.
While
we
have
a
27-story
high-rise
construction
project
up
about.
So
the
challenge
that
we're
worried
about
in
terms
of
pedestrian
safety,
access
in
and
out
of
that
parking
garage,
coupled
with
it
being
an
active
construction
site.
S
So
the
gap
which
I
will
now
turn
over
to
mr
shibinsky
is
that
we
have
a
gap
of
approximately
three
to
four
years
from
when
we
start
construction
to
when
the
parking
garage
will
be
then
completed.
So
I
think
that
that
it
is
not
a
design
issue,
as
it
relates
to
situating
parking
below
the
new
tower.
It
is
simply
a
time
lag
and
that
there
is
zero
parking
available
during
that
construction
period.
R
Thank
you
derek.
I
had
my
hand
up
before,
so
I
apologize
if
I
didn't,
have
the
proper
protocol.
Thank
you.
For
the
time
folks,
I've
been
sitting
here
patiently
anxious
to
clarify
a
number
of
things
that
I've
heard.
Again
I
apologize.
R
We
have
always
controlled
our
own
parking
destiny
and,
while
it's
very
convenient
and
easy
for
others
to
suggest
that
our
parking
needs
for
our
tenants
for
our
inventory
can
be
handled
elsewhere.
When
you
actually
own
the
office
building,
it's
not
quite
so
simple.
At
the
best
of
times,
an
office
building
is
in
a
very,
very
competitive
marketplace,
and
here
we
are
exiting,
hopefully
covid,
we're
not
sure
what
the
office
environment
is
going
to
be,
and
we
are
simply
not
prepared
to
forego
the
opportunity
to
continue
to
control
our
own
parking
destiny.
R
R
The
same
way
we
cannot
park
on
those
lands
unless
the
tower
proceeds.
I
want
to
confirm
to
everybody.
The
tower
will
not
proceed
unless
we
have
control
of
our
parking
next
door,
it's
not
a
threat,
it's
simply
a
commercial
reality
that
we
are
dealing
with
and
while
our
hope
and
efforts
to
date
have
been
that
this
development
is
going
to
proceed,
because
we
believe
it's
a
win
for
everybody
involved
at
the
end
of
the
day.
O
No
generally,
the
process-
I'm
not
I'm,
not
cheering
at
the
moment,
but
the
process
is
generally
that
you.
You
only
respond
directly
to
the
questions
that
are
asked,
so
you
can't
speak
freely,
unfortunately,
in
this
in
this
type
of
environment,
but
just
to
back
on
the
I
understand
you
want
to
make
sure
that
you
control
your
own
parking
in
your
office
building.
What
is
the?
O
What
is
the
requirement
right
now
from
the
city
in
terms
of
your
the
you
know,
the
gross
floor
area
of
your
building,
and
then
how
much
parking
is
is
a
requirement
that
how
much
parking
do
we
require
for
this
building.
R
O
R
Know,
to
be
perfectly
frank,
that
the
city
necessarily
even
has
currently
given
the
long-standing
legal
non-conforming
use
a
requirement
for
us
to
park.
It's
it's
more,
a
question
of
being
marketable
and
having
a
competitive
product
and
we
have
maintained
the
current
surface
lot.
We
own
44
monthly
spaces
that
service
our
tenant
base,
and
you
know,
unlike
others,
who've
been
on
the
call.
R
I
cannot
predict
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
future
other
than
the
fact
that
we
have
a
multi-tenant
private
sector
tenancy
that
will
require
parking
and
there's
probably
in
normal
times,
150
to
200
people
occupying
the
office
in
the
good
old
days
and
we're
we're
prepared
to
commit
to
to
reducing
that
to
30
from
the
current
44..
But
we're
not
prepared
to
go
any
less
than
that.
R
It's
correct.
We
first
of
all,
we
have
current
commitments
to
our
leases,
our
tenants,
rather
by
way
of
lease,
so
we
would
be
in
breach
of
those
leases,
were
we
to
remove
those
parking
which
we're
not
going
to
do
and,
secondly,
those
tenants
aren't
going
to
stay
forever,
we're
going
to
have
to
replace
them
with
other
tenants,
and
we
have
to
be
competitive
and
be
able
to
provide
parking
to
attract
new
tenants.
B
My
comments
are
related
to
parking,
but
they
the
bylaw
part
of
the
the
effect
of
this
bylaws
to
reduce
the
required
parking
from
44
to
30..
So
there
is
an
obligation
for
this
building,
but
lisa
lee
structure
and
everything
else
that's
critical,
but
there
is
a
municipal
obligation
to
provide
parking
as
part
of
this
application,
they're
reducing
the
number
of
parking
spaces.
So
there
there
is
a
win
there
for
the
city.
In
that
you
know,
and
I
think,
as
miranda
and
others
said
you
know,
reducing
the
amount
of
parking
could
contribute
to
transit
ridership.
B
Well,
that's
what
the
effect
of
this
application
is.
It
is
actually
reducing
the
amount
of
required
parking
for
the
office
so
and
again
like
I
want
to
reinforce
again
related
to
the
parking
right
now.
It
is
a
at
a
prominent
and
meaningful
intersection
in
a
corridor
that
is
identified
in
the
secondary
plant
for
27-story
buildings.
What
this
does
now
is
it
takes
that
parking
lot
reduces
its
size,
reduces
its
obligation
under
the
bylaw
landscapes.
B
It
puts
it
in
a
less
prominent
location,
all
in
an
effort
to
advance
some
of
the
city's
other
policy
objectives
related
to
residential.
I
found
that
throughout
this
application
we
did
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
the
importance
of
adding
residential
units
to
this
corridor,
but
I
think
the
city
has
a
or
should
have
an
equal
investment
or
interest
in
successful
office
in
the
core.
That's
why
we
built
our
transit
system
in
that
area
and
spent
a
gazillion
dollars
on
a
tunnel
to
service
office
buildings
to
get
people
to
those
office
buildings.
B
This
is
actually
even
better
than
that
because
we're
putting
residential
next
to
those
employment
uses,
but
I
think
the
city
has
a
shared
objective
to
make
sure
that
our
office
stock
is
well
functioning,
and
I
think
what
you're
hearing
from
mark
is
that
surface
parking
is
important
to
that.
Thank
you.
O
Thanks
I
was
gonna.
I
was
gonna
ask
if
you
considered
a
an
agreement
with
an
existing
parking
lot
nearby
at
307
liz
gerber.
Then
I
realized
there's
a
development
application
for
that
one
too,
to
convert
that
entire
parking
lot
into
into
residential
as
well.
C
Okay,
is
that
your
last
question
chair
moffat,
okay,
counselor
curry,
is
up
next.
F
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
ask
a
question,
so
we
have
all
the
right
information
in
front
of
us.
Are
there
any
things
that
need
to
be
clarified.
F
R
F
R
Thank
you
for
that.
So
I've
got
a
bunch
of
notes.
Bear
with
me
here,
so
I've
not
met
lionel.
Personally,
I
understand
he's
a
pleasant
fellow,
but
I
do
have
in
front
of
me
the
relocation
agreement
that
he
signed
on
december,
the
16th
of
last
year.
No
one
put
a
gun
to
his
head
and
lionel
was
certainly
cognizant
enough
and
careful
enough
to
ensure
that
not
only
did
he
protect.
C
C
O
It's
it's
mark,
I'm
going
to
ask.
I
mean
I
just
the
gun
to
the
head
comment
was
a
bit
over
the
line.
I
would
just
say
if
you
could
refrain
from
talking
about
individual
agreements
you
have
with
individual
senators,
I
mean
so
in
the
past.
I've
had
I've.
Had
speakers
come
here
and
try
to
speak
about
other
speakers.
I
don't
like
that.
So,
if
you
could
just
focus
on
on
your
application
and
not
necessarily
specific
comments
about
other
speakers
who
cannot
be
here
to
defend
themselves,
I
would
appreciate.
N
It
I
just
I
I
don't
want
this
committee
to
be
in
a
position
of
allowing
a
discussion
that
would
get
us
into
legal
trouble
in
terms
of
not
having
consent
for
details.
R
Please
excuse
my
my
choice
of
words.
My
point
was
that
this
agreement
was
negotiated
at
arm's
length.
No
one
forced
mr
lionel
to
sign
it.
He
ensured.
O
R
Notwithstanding
what
it
may
have
just
sounded
like,
we
have
been,
in
our
view,
extremely
sensitive
to
these
six
occupants
that
are
now
four
again,
please
keep
in
mind.
We
do
not
own
that
building
at
142
nepean.
We
don't
have
a
direct
relationship
with
these
folks,
so
it's
been
a
little
bit
unconventional
in
that
respect
in
terms
of
trying
to
discuss
and
negotiate
with
them.
R
We
believe
that,
what's
being
offered
and
has
been
offered
has
gone
above
and
beyond,
in
an
effort
to
to
display
that
we
have,
we
have
dealt
with
the
immediate
term,
we've
dealt
with
the
short
term
in
terms
of
relocating
them
to
one
of
the
two
buildings,
either
north
or
south,
of
the
proposed
new
tower,
and
just
to
clarify
that
the
building
to
the
north
is
not
a
taggart
building,
but
rather
glenview
operated
building
and,
lastly,
we
believe
we're
covering
off
the
long
term
in
terms
of
offering
them
the
opportunity
to
get
first
dibs
at
the
affordable
units
in
the
new
tower.
R
So
is
it
an
unfortunate
reality
that
to
be
able
to
put
the
replacement
parking
it
to
a
scale
that
that
142
will
have
to
be
demolished?
Yes,
we
all
wish
that
wasn't
the
case,
but
it
is
the
reality
and,
as
a
result,
we're
doing
what
we
think
has
been
yeoman's
work
in
an
effort
to
try
to
accommodate
these
folks,
and
we
will
continue
to
try
to
do
two
of
these.
F
B
It
is
it's
in
the
spirit
of
clarification.
I
did
want
to
speak
to
counselor
mckinney's
comments
related
to
the
previous
demo
in
the
previous
conditions.
Well,.
C
B
P
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
chair
thanks
for
this
item,
so
just
on
its
on
the
surface.
What
this
looks
like
is
that
there's
currently
about
60
parking
spaces
there's
for
different
uses,
but
there's
about
60
parking
spaces
in
that
area.
Now
we
would
get
166
space,
underground
parking
garage
and
and
a
30
space
surface
lot
across
the
street.
P
So
just
in
terms
of
the
question
around
kind
of
controlling
your
own
parking
parking
destiny,
it
seems
to
me
you
know
you're
you're,
giving
up
60
spaces,
but
you're
getting
196
in
in
return.
So
just
in
terms
of
controlling
that
that
amount,
you
know
you
getting
196
in
return
and
giving
up
60.
It
seems
to
me
you
you
do
control
your
parking
destiny.
It's
just
how
you
choose
to
utilize
the
parking
spaces
that
are
being
built
is
that
is
that
not
the
case
no.
R
R
P
Yes
sure,
in
terms
of
the
office
building
and
historically
what's
been
there,
I
mean
historically,
we've
had
some
units
involved
as
well,
and
so
I
guess
I'm
confused
about
why
something
a
deal
can't
be
struck
within
the
current
building
for
the
new
166
space
underground
parking
garage
to
accommodate
30..
So
I
understand
you're
saying:
oh,
we
can't
add
more
and
that
was
kind
of
your
response
or
initially
and
then
mpb
hardness
mentioned
it.
P
Can
you
accommodate
more
in
the
building
if
you're
saying
you
can't
accommodate
more,
which
okay
I'll
take
your
word
for
it?
Why
can't
you
turn
some
of
the
166
space
underground
parking
garage
and
work
out
a
deal
to
have
the
30
this
30
spaces
there?
I
just
I'm,
not
I'm
not
seeing
if
you're,
if
you're,
if
the
whole
thing
is
just
to
control
the
number
of
parking
spaces,
there's
60
that
are
there
now
and
now
there
will
be
a
hundred
and
ninety
six.
S
I
I
think
I
think
it's
sterical
here
I'd
like
to
speak
to
that
point.
Council
menard.
If
I
may-
and
I
I
appreciate
your
comment
as
it
relates
to
the
166
parking
spaces
that
has
currently
been
designed
for
a
parking
ratio,
just
a
.5
stall
per
unit
within
the
new
residential
tower.
S
The
office
building
requires
currently
some
44
spaces
to
be
operating
and
they're
currently
operated
across
the
street.
So
the
proposal-
that's
in
front
of
the
committee
here-
is
that
the
lots
of
142
144
148
will
then
be
transitioned
to
an
alternative,
smaller
parking
lot.
But
you
are
not
wrong
in
that.
We
could
surely
build
another
level
of
parking,
but
the
existing
office
building
that
is
currently
owned
solely
100
by
glenview
would
be
in
default
of
its
lease
obligation
because
it
has
no
ability
to
provide
parking.
S
S
So
I
don't
have
the
ability
within
the
three
or
four
years,
while
we
construct
to
satisfy-
and
I
say
we-
the
tiger
glenview
joint
venture
of
the
residential
tower-
we
have
no
way
of
basically
doing
what
you're
asking
196
bases
below
grade,
because
we
can't
access
those
spaces
during
construction
and
we're
not
prepared
to
run
the
risk
of
a
significant
incident
or
accident
with
a
tenant.
During
that
time
there
are
almost
no
construction
sites
in
the
greater
city
of
ottawa
that
allow
regular
access
24
hours
a
day
while
there's
above
grade
construction.
S
So
I
think
that's
the
differentiator
here
in
terms
of
the
short-term
issue,
where
we
can't
provide
those
30s
bases
below
grade
and
they're
going
to
the
nepean
street
lots.
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
I'm
trying
to
enunciate
for
every
member
here
the
challenge
of
the
story,
the
challenges
of
swapping
the
parking
across
the
street.
P
I
appreciate
you
know
your
response
to
the
the
information.
P
I
guess
I
have
a
hard
time
understanding
why
the
166
spaces
in
the
new
build
can't
be
reallocated
to
do
exactly
what
you're
talking
about
there's,
not
there's
a
lot
of
buildings
that
are
constructed
where
parking
is
removed
on
a
surface
lot
and
you
need
to
find
different
parking
in
the
transition
for
the
two
or
three
years
that
it's
being
constructed.
It
happens
all
the
time
we
deal
with
them
all
the
time
here.
So
I'm
not
that
sympathetic
to
that
point
because
it
occurs
regularly.
I've
had
many
in
my
ward,
the
same
thing.
P
So
it's
more
about
the
the
end
result
here,
which
it
seems
to
me
that
staff
are
providing
a
reduction
in
what
our
traditional
parking
ratios
would
be
for
this
residential
tower,
and
I
I'm
sort
of
hearing
that
you
might
be
also
insinuating
that
staff
would
not
be
willing
to
go
down
further
in
terms
of
the
ratio
for
that
new
building,
because
if
they
were,
I
just
want
to
ask
you
that
if
staff
were
willing
to
go
below
the
ratio,
that's
currently
been
allocated
for
that
166
spaces
and
allow
for
30
of
those
166
spaces
to
be
for
the
the
office
building.
P
Therefore,
being
what
would
be
a
0.4
or
something
instead
of
a
0.5?
Would
you
accept
that.
R
B
And
maybe
I
can
speak
a
little
bit
to
the
distribution
of
parking
in
the
in
the
residential
building
and
it
it
is
to
comply
with
the
bylaw.
I
can
tell
you,
because
I've
I've
been
involved
with
the
other
clerics
buildings
at
96,
nepean,
70,
gloucester,
91
nepean,
and
some
of
the
applications
that
missed
chair
moffitt
has
spoken
to.
This
ratio
is
much
lower
than
all
of
those
buildings,
and
what's
happening
here
is
taggart
is
exploring
ratios
that
are
we.
We
are
to
the
car
what
the
bylaw
requires.
B
There
is
absolutely
no
over
parking
right
now
in
that
building,
but
I
I
I
think
it
would
be
a
difficult
ask
for
taggart
to
further
push
that
ratio
down
in
an
event
to
accommodate
other
preoccupations
by
the
city
yeah.
I
want
to
revisit
this
you're
right,
councillor,
menard
and
that
there
is
60
surface
parking
spots
and
I
I
the
the
benefit
to
the
city,
and
I
I
fully
appreciate
that
we
are
losing
a
four
to
six
unit
building,
but
we
are
relocating
strictly
from
an
urban
planning
perspective,
a
city
building
perspective.
B
We
are
removing
a
large
surface
parking
lot
at
what
I
would
consider
a
fairly
prominent
intersection
leading
to
the
parliamentary
precinct
and
our
central
business
district,
and
we
are
relocating
it
and
tucking
it
behind
an
existing
office
building
and
we're
actually
as
a
side
note
bringing
that
into
greater
compliance
with
the
bylaw.
We
have
a
legal
non-conforming
site
with
off-site
parking
that
people
need
to
cross
the
street
to
get
something
out
of
their
car,
we're
putting
it
immediately
next
to
a
building
I'm
in
at
396
cooper.
B
B
That's
what
they're
seeking
given
their
existing
leases,
but
it's
still
a
win
for
the
city
you're,
reducing
by
50
percent
the
amount
of
parking
that
is
available
for
that
office,
building,
you're,
reducing
it
by
14
from
a
bylaw
perspective,
you're,
putting
it
in
an
area
that
is
landscaped
and
concealed
from
a
prominent
intersection
and
you're,
allowing
the
development
of
a
300
plus
unit
building
with
25
of
affordable
housing.
I
fully
understand
why
the
city
is
struggling
with
the
loss
of
those
four
units,
but
to
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
the
mou.
B
If
I
can,
what
what
the
current
version
of
that
mou
is.
Those
four
tenants
are
offered
identical
units
in
terms
of
number
of
bedrooms.
If
they
have
a
parking
spot,
that's
also
guaranteed.
They
are
being
relocated
in
one
of
two
buildings
that
are
less
than
70
meters
from
their
current
building.
Here
they
are
provided
rent
at
below
market
value
for
a
period
of
five
years
at
their
current
rent
in
that
building,
and
then
they
are
given
the
option
to
come
back
in
one
of
the
25
affordable
housing
units.
These
aren't
affordable
housing.
B
I
don't
want
people
to
assume
that
these
four
units
are
subsidized
units
they're.
Not
they
are.
The
rent
reflects
the
quality
of
that
building
and
what
taggart
is
doing
is
they're,
building
a
better
quality
building
or
they're
relocating
them
to
existing
buildings
that
are
still
a
better
quality
than
those
buildings.
So
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
S
I
wish
to
clarify
one
point:
the
rent
for
the
five
years
will
be
fixed
for
the
five
years.
There
will
not
be
annual
escalation
members,
they
will
be
fixed,
so
what
they
are
paying
if
we
contemplate
a
construction
start
in
2023,
the
2023
rent
that
each
of
the
tenants
are
paying
in
the
existing
six
block
will
be
matched
and
fixed
for
five
years,
so
there
will
be
no
escalation
year
over
year,
so
they
will
have
a
fixed
term
and
fixed
rent.
P
Thank
you
very
much.
I
will
ask
some
questions
of
staff
when
it's
the
when
it's
the
time
to
do
that,
I
mean,
if
there's
any
spot,
where
there's
an
area
that
you
can
reduce
needed
parking
this
this
is
it
and
I
know
other
cities
are
moving
to.
You
know
no
mandatory
minimum
parking
ratios
in
in
this
case
we
waived
it.
We
waived
that
requirement
for
some
parking
spots
and
the
city
staff
do
that
on
a
regular
basis
for
other
developments
as
well.
P
In
this
case,
I
just
can't
help,
but
thinking
some
creativeness
creativity
could
have
could
have
resulted
in
a
better
scenario
where
we
don't
lose
some
housing
that
is
affordable,
classified
as
affordable
housing,
affordability,
for
what
is
a
parking
lot
surface
parking
lot
and
the
trade-offs
here
in
terms
of
like
the
swap
and
the
you
know,
the
one
of
them,
I
think,
is
great.
You
know,
that's
that's
good!
Well,
we
should
approve
that
27
story.
P
I
have
a
hard
time
believing
you
won't
build
that
without
without
the
30
surface,
I
know
you're
saying
you
won't,
but
I
have
a
hard
time,
believing
that
that's
the
case
for
those
30
30
30
spaces,
that
you
give
up
an
approval
of
a
27
story
tower
in
the
core
walkable
neighbor,
as
you
say,
central
business
district
close
to
parliament
with
all
the
other
pieces
that
come
with
it
for
those
30
spaces.
So
I
just
look
at.
I
do
appreciate
the
answers
and
I
appreciate
your
time
thanks.
J
Thank
you
chair.
Most
of
my
questions
are
for
staff,
but
I
just
wanted
to
ask
miguel,
because
you
may
have
the
answer
to
this,
where
staff
wouldn't
we're
talking
about
four
addresses
here:
right:
142,
144,
46
and
148.
J
The
30
spots
are
like
25
of
them
at
142,
like
what's
the
what's
the
breakdown?
What's
the
ratio
of
parking
bike?
How
many?
How
many
parking
spots
here
I'll
be
clear?
How
many
parking
spots
could
go
at
144,
146
148
for
those
homes
that
came
down
where
they
were
supposed
to
rebuild?
But
you
know
city
never
holds
anyone
to
their
to
their
word.
But
that's
that's!
Not
your
problem,
that's
ours!
How
many?
How
many
of
those
30
spots
would
go
in
that
area
because
I've
seen
it
it's
pretty
big.
B
Okay,
so,
given
that
your
answer
asking
me
a
question,
hopefully
you'll
indulge
me
to
speak
to
your
previous
comments
and
that
the
2016
agreement
that
you
you
raised
was
a
signed
by
other
property
owners
who
sold
their
property
to
sorry
who
are
proposing
to
sell
their
property
to
to
glenview.
But
I
think
you're,
comparing
apples
to
oranges,
to
expect
the
two
sliver
lots
at
148
and
144
to
be
developed
and
then
comparing
that
to
the
sophisticated
development
proposal
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
by
two
of
ottawa's.
B
Prominent
urban
builders
is
not
the
same
to
be
disappointed
that
those
two
lots
didn't
get
built.
I
I
get
it,
but
it's
not
comparable
to
what
we're
talking
about.
I'm
disappointed
that
they're
being
turned
into.
J
B
B
No
on
one
of
on
well
again,
it's
I'm
going
to
say
if,
if
142
is
on
its
own
four
half
of
the
spots
that
I
counted
of
the
10
are
overlapping
the
property
line
between
148
and
144.,
and
it's
a
difficult
question.
B
You
guys
see
that
yeah,
that
the
property
lines
overlap
the
parking
spaces
and-
and
you
know
we
did
the
layout
for
this-
we
did
it
as
efficient
as
we
could
to
still
try
to
protect
four
areas
of
landscaping,
both
along
nepean
street
and
down
the
spines
of
the
parking
and
even
in
the
back,
we're
able
to
fit
in
a
total
of
three
trees.
So
it's
it's
a
difficult
question
to
answer.
No.
J
S
J
J
N
J
H
J
B
That's
a
correct
statement
because
it
doesn't
work
without
it
right,
like
you,
that's
that's
kind
of
my
point
with
the
discussion
of
the
overlapping
property
lines
is
that
none
of
the
depths
are
deep
enough
to
make
it
work.
So
if
glenview
was
trying
to
get,
you
know
parking
on
just
the
two
lots
that
were
previously
demoed
you,
wouldn't
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
what
I'm
I'm
looking
at.
You
would
probably
get.
B
Sticks
is
what
I'm
saying
like
you.
You
need
the
other
properties
to
make
the
plan
work
and
we
even
went
to
angled
parking
to
make
it
work.
It's
still
a
very
small
lot,
especially
that
we
we
identified
landscaping
as
a
priority
on
that
property
to
make
the
parking
work.
So
thank
you.
J
Thanks
chair
thanks
thanks
miguel.
O
Thanks,
I
always
I
always
chastise
people
for
for
asking
hypothetical
questions,
so
I'm
just
gonna
call
myself
out
on
my
own
hypocrisy
before
I
ask
this
question
the
you
have
you're
building
a
27-story
building
at
108.
That's
the
proposal.
You
need
the
the
three
properties
for
for
parking.
We've
talked
about.
You've
heard
the
conversation
about.
Why?
Don't
you
put
an
extra
30
spaces
or
use
30
spaces
at
108
for
the
office
tower,
but
you
need
the
30
spots
here.
Those
three
properties
together
could
accommodate
another
27
story,
residential
building
on
nepean.
R
R
N
R
S
The
tiger
organization
has
no
interest
in
actually
interacting
with
any
of
the
office
tenants
inside
a
residential
building
causing
you
know.
I
haven't
talked
about
this,
but
causing
potential
security
concerns
access
concerns
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
our
preference
on
behalf
of
the
tiger
organization
is
that
the
residential
tower
parking
serves
the
residential
tenant
and
that
the
office
building
across
the
street
is
clearly
delineated
and
it
has
its
own
parking
lot.
C
J
Yeah
I'll,
I
just
have
a
couple
questions
and
then
closing
I
guess
so
I
just
I
wonder
if
staff
can
take
us
back
in
time
to
2016
and
tell
us
if
the
conditions
to
the
agreement
that
was
signed
for
demolition
control
at
that
time,
I
have.
The
exact
wording
now
in
front
of
me
was
ever
was
ever
put
in
place.
That
was
that
was
the
landscaping
done.
J
E
Chair
based
on
looking
at
the
condition
of
the
site
today,
I
would
say
that
the
existing
landscaping
is
not
reflective
of
what
was
approved
through
those
prior
development
or
demo
agreements,
but
I
can't
speak
to
the
condition
of
that
site
in
that
period
between
when
the
agreement
and
demo
occurred
till
approximately
you
know,
20
21
22.,
so
whether
it
was
actually
put
in
place-
and
it
was
not
maintained-
I
don't
know
if
that's
scenario
but
what's
there
today
would
not
be
reflective
of
the
original
interim
plan.
If
I
could
phrase
it
that
way,.
J
And
if
the
required
landscaping
wasn't
completed
by
was
supposed
to
be
august,
1st
2018,
the
cost
thereof,
would
be
entered
onto
the
collector's
tax
roll
by
the
city
clerk.
Do
we
know
if
that
was
ever
done
after
2018.
J
This
actually
says
landscaping.
I
can
read
it
like
it's.
It
actually
says
if
the
required
landscaping
is
not
completed
by
said
date,
the
cost
thereof
will
be
entered
onto
the
collector's
tax
roll
by
the
city
clerk.
I
was.
I
was
very
much
involved
in
these
two
because
I
knew
when
they
wanted
to
take
them
down
those
two,
those
two
homes
I
knew
they
were
going
to
be
turned
into
parking.
J
I
actually
asked
the
owners
at
the
time
I
said:
would
you
be
willing
to
sod
it
a
little
bit
put
up
a
couple
benches,
a
few
stones
so
that
it
could
not
be
turned
into
parking
and
they
were
very
hesitant
to
do
so.
They
also
wanted
the
the
the
time
frame
for
when
they
would
lose
their
deposit
to
be
extended
to
ten
years,
and
I
I
I
wouldn't
do
it
because
I
just
knew
it
was
going
to
be
turned
into
into
a
parking
lot.
So
so
it
it
actually
does
say
landscaping.
J
So
I
just
wonder
if
there's
anyone
from
the
city
clerk's
office,
who
can
tell
me
if
we
actually
did
anything
and
then
collect.
E
Yeah,
no,
I
appreciate
the
question
and
we
we
pulled
the
agreements
on
what
we
saw
as
the
demos
for
the
I
believe
the
properties
you're
referring
to,
and
I
we're
not
seeing
comparable
language.
So
I
don't
want
to
seem
like
I'm
putting
it
off,
but
I
think
would
be
helpful
if
counselor
mckinney
forwarded
whatever
document
you
are
looking
at
to
myself
and
legal
being
christine
in
this
case.
E
We'll
compare
what
agreements
we've
seen
on
title
the
document
you're
looking
at
and
maybe
bring
some
resolution
as
in
terms
of
a
report
back
to
council.
Unless
legal
wants
to
add
to
that
or
speak
to
that,
I'm
not
prepared
to
make
an
assumption.
J
J
I
guess
my
my
point
is
just
that
you
know
I
knew
I
knew
these.
These.
These
lots
were
going
to
be
turned
into
parking,
and
here
we
are
all
this
time
later.
So
I
just
I
just
want
to
wrap
up
quickly.
I
just
want
to
you
know.
Obviously
I
have
no
opposition
to
108
nepean
there
it
it's.
It's
a
you
know
decent
development.
It's
got
some.
You
know:
cmhc,
affordable
housing,
that's
market
rent,
but
better
than
nothing,
but
it
is
not
affordable
in
terms
of
deeply
affordable.
It's
it's
market
rent.
J
So
it's
about
2100
a
month,
but
but
we
are
getting
25
units
and
some
of
them
three
three
bedroom,
but
again
we're
you
know
we're
removing
a
small
apartment,
six
units
missing
middle,
that
we
always
talk
about
in
the
city
and
and
the
notion
that
you
know.
If
we
don't,
if
we
don't,
if
we
don't
do
what
we're
being
asked
to
do
here,
they
won't
build.
Well,
I
can
take
you
around
the
downtown.
I
could
bring
up
google
google
view
right
now
and
show
you.
J
The
downtown
is
littered
with
surface
parking,
and
I
know
we've
had
some
builds
lately
and
we've
just
approved
311
and
we've
had
you
know
the
tribeca
there
have
been.
You
know
some
european
there's
a
new
one
coming
on
metcalf,
but
the
downtown
is
littered
with
empty
parking
lots
there
is.
There
is
no
way
that
a
developer
can
be
held.
J
You
know
to
to
account
here
by
somebody
who
just
wants
a
parking
lot,
that
doesn't
that
just
doesn't
make
sense
so
we're
you
know
we're
we're.
No
one.
No
one
is
excited,
no
one
in
those
six
units
down
to
four,
because
you
know
people
are
moving.
They
get
scared.
J
People
are
afraid
when
they
know
that
their
housing
is
temporary,
whether
that's
six
months,
two
years
or
five
years,
it
is
temporary
and
at
some
point
they're
going
to
have
to
uproot
themselves
uproot
their
families
take
their
children
out
of
those
schools,
move
them
somewhere
else.
Kids
do
very,
very
poorly
in
transitional
housing.
J
So
to
you
know
to
be
held
hostage
to
say
you
know,
if
you
don't
allow
us
to
demolish
this
six
unit,
building
for
parking
for
parking.
You
know
this.
This
building
won't
go
up
it,
it
just
doesn't
hold
true
in
in
a
macro
sense.
You
know
it
it
just
doesn't.
We've
got
plenty
of
parking
lots
that
could
be
used
for
these
30
30
spots,
but
that
could
also
be
that
could
also
be
developed.
J
J
It's
very
different
than
what's
affordable
to
you
or
I,
and
twenty
one
hundred
dollars
a
month
as
market
affordability
is
relatively
affordable,
but
not
for
somebody
in
service
industry,
not
for
somebody
who's,
a
newcomer,
perhaps
not
for
somebody
who
maybe
is
finishing
up
school.
There
are
many
many
people
who
need
these
1200.
J
You
know
that
that
kind
of
not
deeply
affordable
but
moderate,
moderately
affordable
units.
You
know
again,
you
know
the
notion
that
this
will
never
become
a
commercial
parking
lot.
I
I
suppose,
but
you
know
we
know
that
we
know
that
these
agreements,
we
we
can
see
it
and
we'll
get
the
memo
back.
They're
not
held
to
account
we
we
never
go
back.
I
have
in
the
downtown
empty
lots,
turned
into
commercial
lots
on
a
pretty
regular
basis.
So
you
know
I
appeal
to
you.
You
know.
J
If
we
continue
going
down
this
road
people
will
be
living
in
their
cars.
We
will
need
parking
lots
because
people
need
to
park
their
cars
there,
because
that's
where
they're
going
to
have
to
to
live,
we
are
losing
seven
for
every
one
we
build.
We
pour
money
into
ottawa,
community
housing,
we
pour
money
into
affordable
housing
and
then
we
lose
seven
and
we
have.
We
have
an
opportunity
here
to
say
no
not,
but
not
for
a
parking
lot
like
not
for
a
parking
lot.
Let's
just
do
the
right
thing
we
are
in
a
climate
crisis.
J
J
If
he
does
move
it's
temporary
for
five
years
and
then
he
will
have
to
move
and
he'll
have
to
drive
more
everything
will
cost
him
more
and
he
won't
be
living
in
a
place
where
he
works
and
he
can
get
to
his
grocery
store
and
he
can
get
to
his
kid's
school
and
do
all
the
things
that
we
encourage
people
to
do
as
we
densify
and
intensify
our
city.
So
that's
it.
Thank
you.
Please
do
the
right
thing.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you
very
much
chair,
so
here's
where
I'm
at
with
this
personally
is,
I
would
like
to
see
the
6.2
approved,
and
I'm
happy
to,
as
a
member
of
committee
approve
that
here
today.
I
think,
as
councillor
mckinney
has
just
said,
counselor
leeper
has
talked
about
today.
Already
the
6.3
item.
There's
more
creativity
there
to
come,
we
did
hear
from
the
developers
about
an
extra
level
of
parking
that
could
accommodate
some
potential
for
lease
spaces
and
creativity.
P
That
could
happen
with
regard
to
the
sort
of
three
different,
separate
laws
that
council
kenny
was
talking
about.
I
think,
there's
more
here.
We
know.
City
staff
have
also
changed
the
minimum
parking
standard
for
this
one.
It
was
a
small
change,
but
we
do
do
that
often,
and
I
think
that
that
could
be
looked
at
some
more
for
the
building.
That
would
go
up
so
so
chair.
If
I
can
just
ask
staff
committee
can
approve.
P
These
are
two
different
items:
they're
related,
but
they're,
two
different
items
and
so
committee's
purview
could
be
to
approve
6.2.
P
E
Thank
you
chair,
so
I'll
answer,
the
the
first
question
and
if
I
missed
something
councilman
bernard,
can
kind
of
repeat
please,
but
I
I
believe
the
question
was
yes,
you
heard
these
items
concurrently
because
of
the
relationship
and
how
they
all
work
together,
but
from
a
purely
process
point
of
view.
They
are
separate
items
before
committee.
In
other
words,
the
zoning
for
the
27
story
tower
is
being
voted
on
separately,
as
is
the
zoning
and
demo
related
to
142
144
148
nepean.
E
The
only
complication
I
would
see
is
in
that
the
way
they
were
recommended
for
approval,
for
example,
the
demolition
has
a
condition
that
says
you
won't
proceed
until
this
building
occurs,
and
you
know
there's
the
mou,
as
well
as
the
holding
symbol
with
some
of
the
housing
stuff.
So
there's
a
relationship
in
terms
of
some
of
the
conditions
and
and
obligations
between
the
two,
but
they
do
have
the
ability
to
be
voted
on
independently.
P
That's
helpful
and
I
mean
I
think
the
intent
would
be
that
in
referral
we
come
back
with
working
through
some
of
those
pieces
that
may
interact
with
6.3.
That
would
be
improving
at
the
6.2
stage,
that
that
would
be
the
intent
here
it's
to
give
some
more
time
to
come
back
and
work
through
something
that's
more
palatable,
for,
I
think
the
public
in
general,
the
word
counselor
and
where
we're
trying
to
head
as
a
city
with
our
new
official
plan.
P
So
if
I
can
propose
that
chair,
I
think
I
think
that
probably
makes
the
most
sense
is
for
us
to
to
approve
the
6.2
with
a
referral
of
6.3
with
time
to
work
on
those
intricacies
between
the
two
and
how
that
interplay
can
come
back
to
us
in
a
more
creative
way.
P
Just
for
just
for
clarity,
are
you
asking
to
refer
6.3
like
d
first
6.3
to
the
next
planning
committee,
or
refer
6.3
to
the
august
31st
council
meeting
with
no
decision?
No
excuse
me
and
good
clarification
chair.
Thank
you.
It
would
be
a
deferral
to
the
next
planning
committee
meeting
in
august.
I
think
we'll
probably
need
a
little
more
time
on
this
one
so
appreciate
that.
P
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
staff:
it's
on
parking
again
or
it's
the
parking
committee.
The
new
official
plan
says
that
in
the
downtown
core,
the
zoning
bylaws
shall
prohibit
new
automobile
oriented
land
uses
and
development
forms,
including
surface
parking
lots.
I
know
that
the
new
official
plan
is
not
official,
but
my
understanding
is
the
more
restrictive
of
the
old
versus
a
new
official
plan
would
apply.
It
seems
to
me
this
is
creating
a
new
surface
parking
lot.
Does
staff
feel
otherwise.
P
Thank
you
chair.
It's
an
excellent
question.
I
know
the
policy
you're
quoting
and
my
understanding
of
that.
If
you
break
down
the
policy
it
is,
is,
it
is
framed
around
land
uses
and
auto
oriented
land
uses
and
the
notion
of
surface
parking
lots
there
would
be
in
the
context
of
a
commercial
parking
lot.
P
The
best
way
to
describe
that
is
the
parking
lots
that
you
see
as
a
pay
and
display
surface
parking
lot
where
anyone
can
go
there,
pay
to
park
and
walk
wherever
they
want.
The
parking
lot
that's
proposed
before
this
committee
being
the
30
spaces
on
the
nepean
lots
is
not
a
commercial
parking
lot.
It's
an
accessory
parking
lot
that
is
only
to
be
used
by
the
existing
office
at
190
o'connor.
Even
in
the
secondary
plan.
P
The
centertown
secondary
plan
there's
language
in
there
that
contemplates
that
surface
parking
or
parking
for
an
office
should
be
at
the
rear
or
underground.
So
there's
there's
a
number
of
different
policies
that
speak
to
how
parking
is
viewed
and
the
one
I
believe
you
quoted
would
be
viewed
as
a
commercial
parking
lot.
P
Okay:
okay,
the
staff
report
also
says
that
to
accomplish
developing
the
new
mixed-use
building.
Part
of
the
proposal
requires
relocating
the
existing
parking.
That's
now
at
108
nepean
street
is
it
requires
from
a
planning
and
policy
perspective,
or
is
it
requires
because
the
well
glenview
has
a
tenancy
agreement
with
their
their
clients
to
provide
parking.
What
what
does
the
requirement
mean
exactly
it's
complicated,
but
first
and
foremost,
it
is
a
requirement
by
virtue
of
of
the
application
and
proposal
before
the
city.
P
So
it
was
a
request
of
the
applicant
where
it's
complicated
is
the
existing
parking
lot,
which
is
44
spaces,
does
serve
the
office
at
190
o'connor.
In
today's
zoning
terms,
that
office
building
would
require
43
parking
spaces.
So
when
they're
moving
that
parking
from
the
corner
to
the
nepean
lots,
zoning
would
say
hey.
This
is
an
office
of
x
size.
You
would
require
43
spaces
and
that's
why
our
zoning
provision
that
says
there's
30.
so
there's
there's
sort
of
two
prongs
to
that
question.
P
P
It's
it's
a
lot
less
clearer
or
a
lot
more
complicated,
I'll
ask
a
hypothetical
if
I
could
as
well.
If
it
was
one
contiguous
piece
of
land
that
had
been
assembled
by
the
same
owner,
would
it
change
any
of
the
recommended
recommendations
in
front
of
us?
Would
there
be
any
other
any
other
policy
that
would
be
more
restrictive
or
less
restrictive
on
this?
P
Just
because
it
has
that
straight
instead
of
being
a
contiguous
piece
of
assembled
land
hypothetically,
it
would
have
been
more
simplified
and
probably
very
similar
to
other
applications
that
this
committee
has
seen
where
an
existing
rental
building
has
been
demolished
for
the
benefit
of
a
larger
residential
intensification.
And
if
it's
one
lot
it's
simpler
for
zoning.
P
Okay,
I
guess
just
procedurally
on
the
on
the
statement
by
the
the
applicant
about
a
five-year
rental
rate.
P
P
Yes,
we
would
happily
take
that
direction
and
amend
the
mou,
as
you
see
it
in
document
four
to
reflect
that
prior
to
execution.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
have
no
more
questions
myself,
but
counselor
curry
does
and
then
chair
moffitt,
just
just
to
be
clear.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
really
talking
about
referral
or
not
if
this
is
on
the
floor
or
not,
but
it's
my
understanding.
P
So
I'm
wondering
about
the
interim
referral
if
there's
time
for
creative
solutions,
whether
it
matters
staff
goes
off,
find
something
creative,
the
applicant's
saying
it
doesn't
matter.
If
this
doesn't
happen,
we're
not
doing
it
well,
I
guess
I
don't
think
we're
specifically
on
referral
or
deferral
right
now.
P
Council
monarch
had
suggested
it
as
an
option,
but
I
don't
think
we've
had
it
formally
formally
moved
councilor
curry
happy
to
let
anyone
respond
to
that,
not
sure
if
there's
someone
directly
or
if
there's
more
of
a
comment
or
an
observation
than
a
question,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
heard
that
correctly,
because
I
just
wondering
about
this
creative
solution.
I'm
hearing
create
a
solution
or
not.
If
this
doesn't
go
forward,
they're
not
doing
it
did
I
not
hear
that.
P
Well,
perhaps
to
planner
andrew
have
have
the
has
the
applicant
to
your
knowledge
offered
any
other
solutions
to
parking.
Has
that
been
explored
through
staff?
I
know
in
the
questions
first
for
the
applicant.
There
is
a
question
about
how
open
staff
would
be
to
changing
the
parking
requirements
from
the
0.5.
That's
there
now.
Otherwise,
can
you
give
some
more
context
about
any
discussions
or
creative
exploration
that
staff
might
have
had
on
the
parking
issue?
P
Yeah,
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
of
course,
but
my
understanding
is.
Their
position
is
very
firm
on
on
how
this
parking
works
and
many
of
the
questions
that
this
committee
is
asking
the
applicant
we
engaged
in
those
discussions
very
early
on
to
say
what
are
the
other
options.
Where
can
you
go?
Can
you
park
in
the
garage
this
and
that
we
ask
the
same
questions
to
understand
the
full
picture
and
there
has
been
a
very
consistent
response
from
the
applicant
that
it
just
won't
work
for
them?
P
Thanks-
and
I
personally
think
that
142
144
and
148
the
highest
and
best
use
is,
is
the
future
residential
building
not
a
parking
lot,
but
that's
not
the
application
before
us
today.
Let's
try
to
think
of
you
know.
Could
you
conversation
earlier,
while
I
think
there
will
be
a
future
decision
at
some
point,
whether
that's
now
or
next
term
or
beyond?
P
At
some
point,
a
council
is
going
to
make
it
have
a
decision
that
has
to
be
made
on
its
on
its
future,
even
if
there's
a
way
to
have
a
stay
of
execution.
Now
that
decision
will
come.
You
can't
avoid
that.
I
was
looking
at.
We
have
this
this
nice
juxtaposition
of
287
lister,
which
is
a
parking
lot,
the
exact
same
size,
these
three,
these
three
properties
together.
P
I
I'm
fine
with
giving
time
you
know
the
bottom
line
is,
if
anything
comes
back
to
august
25th.
It
goes
to
august
31st
council.
If
we
approve
something
today
it
goes
to
august
31st
council.
If
we
prove
something
on
august
25th,
it
goes
to
august
31st,
council,
so
it
the
time
is.
We
do
have
the
time,
it's
not
a
huge
concern.
P
P
It's
a
conversation
and
that's
all
I'd
be
comfortable
too,
to
approve
6.2
and
have
more
discussion
on
6.3
as
well.
P
Sorry
yeah
thanks
chair.
I
think
I
don't
know
sean.
Are
you
planning
on
moving
deferral?
I
thought
I
had,
but
I
I
wasn't
clear
so
yeah.
Well,
that
is
clear.
So
as
long
as
one
of
us
cannot
be
great
yeah
so
sheriff.
If
if
we
want
to
treat
this
as
if
sean
is
a
moved
deferral
to
the
next
meeting,
that's
great
and
I'm
going
to
fully
support
that.
I
mean
I'm
not
prepared
today
to
say
that
the
commercial,
not
planning
justification
for
demolition
is
okay
with
me
right.
P
The
the
basis
upon
which
we
are
contemplating
demolition
of
affordable
housing
in
the
midst
of
a
housing
crisis
is
in
order
to
meet
what
the
developer
has
told
us.
Are
their
commercial
prerogatives,
we're
the
we're
the
planning
committee
we're
not
an
economic
development
committee.
P
P
Okay,
so
on
a
deferral
motion
from
council
menard,
we
had
a
version
up
on
screen.
I'm
not
sure
you
wanted
to
defer
just
one
of
the
two
items:
the
6.3,
so
deferral.
First
item
6.3.
Is
that
correct?
Okay?
Let's
get
updated
and
have
it
on
screen,
and
this
would
be
a
deferral
to
the
next
planning
committee
meeting
on
august
25.
P
That
looks
correct
to
me:
councilman
art.
Are
you
happy
with
that
yeah
that
looks
good?
Thank
you,
chair,
okay,
counselor
clutier
has
a
question
just
to
point
chair,
so
this
would
go
to
council,
which
is
I
I
believe,
august
31st.
Is
that
correct
that
that
is
the
commitment?
P
P
P
P
There
were
two
motions
document
replacing
document
two
and
the
mou
motion
as
well
so
we'll
have
to.
I
may
be
corrected,
but
I
do
think
we
did
vote
on
them,
but
we
could
we
could
vote
again.
Perhaps
we
did
the
document
too,
because
it
was
more
technical
in
nature,
but
I
don't
think
we
did
the
we
voted
on
the
one
that
I
introduced
before
andrew
spoke,
and
then
we
didn't
vote
on
the
one
after
andrew's
book.
P
P
And
my
computer's
not
cooperating
so
we're
voting
on
the
mou
one
on
the
mou
motion.
Yes,.
P
Is
that
motion
carried
even
without
seeing
it
on
screen,
it's
committed
carrying
it?
Okay,
there.
It
is
now
okay
and
then
item
number
6.2,
zoning,
bile
amendment
108,
new
peon
street
and
part
of
257
lisker
street
to
permit
a
27-story,
mixed-use
building
and
the
planning
committee
approved
the
consultation,
details,
etc,
etc,
as
amended
by
the
motions.
P
Is
that
carried
very
varied?
Very
very,
I
hate
to
be
a
procedural
jackass,
but
that
motion
on
the
mou
was
actually
attached
to
6.3
procedural.
P
Well,
okay,
continue
on
get
clarity
from
either
legal
or
the
clerk's
office.
If
that
motion
the
mou
was
attached
to
6.3,
do
we
then
have
to
defer
that
as
well
or
can
we
get
advice
on
how
to
best
deal
with
this
procedurally?
Well,
the
mou
is
contingent
on
the
demolition
control.
It
is
approving.
Approving
that
motion
without
having
to
prove
the
demolition
control
makes
it
mix
it
in
a
relevant
motion.
Okay,
so
we
may
have
to
deal
with
that
motion
again
on
august
25th
with
6.3.
P
Okay,
congratulations,
mr
chair
I'll,
allow
legal
and
planning
staff
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
it'd
be
appropriate.
If
committee
wanted
to
defer
that
motion
for
consideration
at
the
same
time
as
the
report.
P
Okay,
also
move
counselor
leaper
moves
to
defer
the
motion
on
the
mou
to
august
25th
is
that
deferral
motion
carried
kerry?
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
scott,
for
catching
that
all
right.
So
that's.
I
believe
that
wraps
up
this
item
kelly
are
there
any
other
outstanding
motions
or
issues
with
item
six
point
two
or
six
point
three?
P
We
had
one
other
item
in
the
agenda
that
we
held,
which
was
797
richmond
road
item
6.11.,
councillor
lieber.
You
had
held
this
but
you're
satisfied
with
the
implication
of
the
technical
motion.
Yeah
staff
got
back
to
me
with
exactly
what
it
meant.
So
I'm
happy
with
that.
P
Okay,
so
on
the
technical
motion
that
was
introduced
by
moffett
about
six
hours
ago,
is
that
carried
gary
carried
and
then
on
the
report
itself,
as
amended?
Is
that
carried?
P
Thank
you?
It's
been
a
long
day.
Are
there
any
in-camera
items?
No,
there
are
not.
Are
there
any
notices
of
motion?
No,
there
are
not.
Are
there
any
inquiries.
P
10
quickly
in
other
business,
I
don't
even
think
he's
watching,
but
perhaps
he'll
watch
later
on
youtube.
We
receive
word
this
morning
that
gm
of
planning,
real
estate
and
economic
development,
steve
willis,
is
going
to
be
leaving
the
city
at
the
beginning
of
august,
and
I
think
this
is
the
last
public
meeting
where
there's
an
opportunity
to
thank
steve.
He
called
me
this
morning
at
7
30
a.m.
To
give
me
a
heads
up-
and
I
was
shocked
and
immediately
felt
a
sense
of
loss
on
behalf
of
our
city
and
our
city
staff.
P
Steve
has
been
an
incredible
leader.
I've
appreciated
all
of
his
advice,
his
negotiation
skills,
his
skills
at
building
consensus,
his
ability
to
bring
together,
you
know
various
stakeholders
and
counselors
with
sometimes
very
different
and
competing
interests
and
find
solutions
and
find
a
way
forward.
P
His
work
on
the
official
plan,
his
work
on
the
lansdowne
park
project,
his
leadership
of
the
economic
development
economic
recovery
through
kovid,
his
ability
to
keep
the
planning
department
running
through
some
very
difficult
times.
P
Steve
has
been
an
incredible
leader
and
public
servant.
So
thank
you,
steve.
There's
only
one
person
who,
when
my
phone
rings
at
7
30
a.m,
I
run
to
answerix.
I
know
that
steve
getting
in
his
car
from
bar
haven
to
drive
downtown
and
I
will
not
miss
at
all
those
those
7
30
a.m-
calls
to
give
me
a
heads
up
so
on
behalf
of
all
of
us
on
planning
committee
and
city
council.
Thank
you
steve
for
all
of
your
contributions
to
our
city.
You
will
be
greatly
greatly
missed
around
here.
So
thank
you.
P
P
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
wants
to
chime
in
on
steve.
That's
our
end
of
our
business
today.
Our
next
meeting
is
not
until
thursday
august
25th
enjoy
the
break.
Thank
you
to
staff
planning
staff
clerk's
office
for
all
of
your
help.
Today
and
over
the
past
season
of
council
and
planning
committee
have
a
great
summer,
we
are
adjourned.