►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - March 10, 2022 (1 / 2)
Description
Planning Committee - March 10, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
A
C
F
E
I
tierney
see
counselor
tierney
co-chair
moffett.
G
E
Coach
gower
here
and
counselor
l
chantery,
you
don't
see
him
either.
A
Thank
you
kelly
good
morning,
everyone.
This
is
meeting
number
58
of
the
planning
committee
for
thursday
march
10th.
We
acknowledge
that
ottawa
is
located
on
unseated
territory
of
the
algonquin
anishinaabe
nation,
whose
culture
and
presence
have
nurtured
and
continued
to
nurture
this
land
important.
A
In
addition,
the
applicant
may
appeal
the
matter
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
If
council
does
not
adopt
an
amendment
within
90
days
of
receipt
of
the
application
for
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
and
120
days
for
an
official
plan
amendment
to
submit
written
comments
on
these
amendments
prior
to
their
consideration
by
city
council
on
march
23rd,
2022,
please
email
or
call
the
committee
or
council
coordinator.
A
A
Thank
you,
okay,
we're
going
to
go
through
the
agenda
and
we
will
hold
any
items
that
have
delegations
registered
or
questions
from
our
committee
members.
The
first
one
is
the
city
of
ottawa's
response
to
the
ontario
housing
affordability
task
force
report
recommendations.
We
have
several
speakers
signed
up
for
that
one.
So
we
will
hold
that
item
number.
One
item
number
two
is
the
high
performance
development
standard
report
and
again
we
have
speakers
registered.
So
we
will
hold
item
number
two.
I
A
A
There
is
one
delegation
registered,
so
we
will
hold
that
one
and
what
I'm
going
to
do
just
because
this
item
has
one
delegation
will
consider
it
ahead
of
the
manor
park
item
just
that
we
can
release
our
staff
and
be
respectful
of
the
delegation's
time
so
we'll
consider
that
ahead
of
manor
park
and
same
with
items,
five
and
six
official
plan,
amendment
and
zoning
amendment
for
50,
the
driveway
and
a
heritage
approach
for
50
the
driveway.
A
A
A
A
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
no
reason
to
present
any
information
if
there
are
no
questions.
Okay,
thank
you
don.
I
want
to
note
this
is
a.
This
is
quite
a
long
process.
A
I
remember
attending
the
public
meeting
for
this
when
it
was
first
submitted
back
in
spring
2018,
and
here
we
are
nearly
four
years
later
at
planning
committee.
So
these
things
take
time
sometimes
and
we'll
be
talking
a
bit
about
that
in
the
housing
report
item.
So
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
five
seven
and
five,
nine,
six,
nine
fern
bank
road
are
the
report.
Recommendations
carried
trade.
D
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
number
eight
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
four
4623
sprat
road
in
gloucester,
south
nepean.
There
are
no
delegations
registered.
I
believe
the
planner
is
here.
Do
we
need
to
hold
this
item?
Are
there
any
questions
from
committee
members.
A
D
A
J
A
J
As
it
has
been
determined
that
the
back-to-back
town
house
units
proposed
in
the
draft
approved
subdivision
are
not
able
to
conform
to
the
zoning
standards
of
the
r4
zone
or
for
zed
zone
and
whereas
separate
zoning
provisions
are
required
to
ensure
that
back-to-backs
back-to-back
town
houses
can
be
constructed
as
planned,
therefore
be
resolved.
That
the
following
changes
be
made
to
the
report.
J
One
replace
recommendation,
one
with
the
following:
the
planning
committee
recommend
council,
approve
an
amendment
to
zoning
bylaw
2008-250
for
879
river
road
from
development
reserve
to
residential
fourth
density
and
residential
third
density,
subzone
zen
exception,
2059
r3z259
to
prevent
low
rise
residential
development
as
detailed
document,
two
2
replace
document
1
with
the
attached
map
and
assume.
If
you're
listening.
There
is
an
attachment.
J
Proposed
changes
to
the
comprehensive
zoning
by
law,
1,
the
zoning
map
of
the
city
of
ottawa,
zoning
bylaw
2008-250,
is
amended
by
changing
the
zoning
of
the
lands
known
musically
as
879
river
road
from
development
research
of
the
fourth
residential
fourth
density,
subzone
zed
are
four's,
ed
and
residential
third
density.
Subzone
said
exception.
2059
r3z259
therefore
be
resolved
for
the
result
that
the
there
be
no
further
notice.
Pursuant
to
section
34
17
of
the
planning
act.
A
Thank
you
scott.
So
we
have
the
two
representatives
from
the
applicant
farouz
wahab
from
richcraft
and
eric
baze
from
stantec.
I
want
to
ask
them
if
the
committee
is
prepared
to
carry
this
item.
Do
you
wish
to
speak
today
on
it.
A
Has
no
issues
with
promotion
as
presented?
Okay,
thank
you
for
ruse.
Is
the
motion
from
councillor
moffat
carried
all
right
and
are
the
report
recommendations
as
amended
carried.
A
A
F
Good
good
morning,
mr
chair,
if
there
are
no
questions
for
us,
we're
happy
to
proceed.
A
A
Received
okay,
so
we
will
go
back
to
the
start
of
our
agenda
with
the
items
that
we
have
held.
The
first
item
is
the
city
of
ottawa's
response
to
the
ontario
housing,
affordability,
task
force
report,
recommendations,
steve
willis
has
a
short
presentation
to
lead
us
off
and
then
we'll
go
to
our
delegations.
Good
morning,
steve.
K
Have
that
by
now
chairs
members
of
committee,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today
on
the
report
in
front
of
you,
we
have
a
very
short
presentation
and
I'll
ask
clerk's
office
to
put
that
up,
but
before
I
actually
begin
the
presentation,
I
want
to
give
you
some
quick
context
piece
before
we
begin
so.
First
of
all,
this
is
the
city
staff's
recommended
response
to
the
province
on
a
report
of
the
housing
affordability
task
force.
So
it's
not
yet
legislation.
It's
just
a
series
of
recommendations.
K
The
task
force
has
given
the
province
and
the
province.
We
understand
will
introduce
legislation
very
soon
before
the
end
of
this
sitting
of
the
legislature,
and
so
we
felt
it
urgent
to
get
this
matter
before
you
as
quickly
as
possible,
so
that
the
city's
position
was
in
writing.
We
don't
know
whether
the
province
would
adopt
all
55
recommendations
or
some
of
them.
So
that's
why
it's
important
that
council
take
a
position
on
this.
So
our
hope
today
is
that
council
takes
the
staff
position
and
then
makes
it
council's
disposition
on
this.
K
So
we
can
communicate
that
to
the
province
with
the
purport
recommendations.
I
want
to
thank
megan
brody
from
our
economic
development
and
long-range
planning
group
who
assisted
me
in
pulling
this
report
together
in
a
hurry.
We
did
act
very
quickly
and
I
really
thank
megan.
I
couldn't
done
this
report
without
her
support
and
I
also
thank
our
colleagues
and
the
rest
of
the
department
and
our
colleagues
in
housing
services
in
the
finance
department
and
the
city
treasurer
cfo
as
well,
because
we
needed
their
support
to
pull
this
together.
K
I
want
to
put
some
context
to
the
task
force,
so
we
are
seeing
a
very
unprecedented
surge
in
housing
prices
in
ontario,
in
canada
and
in
north
america.
So
it's
not
just
an
ottawa
thing.
It's
not
just
an
ontario
thing.
It's
it's
all
through
north
america
and
we've
sat
through
and
we've
tracked
this
you
know,
informally
and
through
published
sources
through
banks
and
other
reliable
sources,
and
there
are
a
number
of
factors
that
are
driving
this
right
now
and
I
think
it's
important
to
talk
about
the
factors
driving
the
surge
in
housing
prices.
K
One
there's
six
different
factors
we've
identified.
One
is
demographics,
because
we
have
essentially
baby
boomers
still
in
their
houses.
At
the
same
time,
millennials
are
buying
houses,
so
we
have
two
very
large
demographic
groups
at
exactly
the
same
time
in
the
housing
market
and
there
isn't
the
natural
migration
of
people
through
the
system.
So
that's
one
factor
the
second
fact
and
that's
a
factor
we
saw
coming.
The
demographic
projections
have
always
seen
that
coming.
So
that
is
not
a
surprise.
K
The
second
factor
that
actually
is
a
surprise,
is
that
we
are
seeing
migration
into
ontario
in
particular
to
be
much
higher
than
we
anticipated,
and
there
are
early
signs
that
the
ministry
of
finance's
projections
from
migration
into
ontario
were
under
underpredicted,
and
there
are
two
factors
driving
that
migration.
One
is
federal
policy
and
immigration
to
canada,
but
I
think
a
bigger
factor
was
a
bit
of
a
sleeper
factor.
We
didn't
see.
K
The
third
factor
are
financial
factors
such
as
low
cost
of
borrowing
stress
test
rules.
These
are
also
factors
in
housing,
affordability,
they're.
The
the
additional
factor
is
the
pandemic
effect
of
people
wishing
to
trade
up
because,
as
they
decide
to
you,
know,
they're
stuck
in
their
houses
and
get
dissatisfied
with
what
they've
got
in
terms
of
their
lifestyle
needs.
They
want
more,
and
so
we've
seen
a
lot
of
trading
up
in
the
local
marketplace
in
ottawa.
K
In
the
last
couple
of
years,
there
are
financialization
factors
such
as
investments
in
housing
to
go
through
platforms
that
aren't
traditional.
So
you
know,
as
opposed
to
sale
or
rental,
which
are
traditional
tools.
We
have
short-term
arrangements
and
other
types
of
trusts
and
financial
financialization
of
of
the
commodity
there,
and
then
the
big
factor
also
is
labor
shortages
and
those
effects
on
and
material
shortages,
and
those
are
the
effects
on
construction
in
the
short
term
and
those
are
pandemic,
driven
and
also
demographic
driven
because
there
is
a
shortage
of
skilled
trades.
K
K
The
third
point
I
want
to
make
a
theme
on
this
is
this
report
task
force
report
is
not
talking
really
about
housing
for
low
income
ontarians.
This
is
about
market
level
housing.
So,
notwithstanding,
the
housing
task
force
is
focused
the
title.
There
are
a
few
recommendations
related
to
low
income
ontarians,
but
that
is
not
the
focus
of
this
report.
K
The
next
point,
I'd
like
to
make
as
a
context
is
you
know,
council,
in
an
almost
unanimous
vote,
made
substantial
changes
to
its
official
plan
recently.
That
are
very
much
in
line
with
the
recommendations
of
this
task
force,
but
we
did
it
on
our
own
council.
Did
it
on
its
own
council?
Did
it
the
auto
away
and
customize
it
to
local
conditions?
K
And,
finally,
you
know
we're
very
mindful
as
a
department
about
our
role
in
the
affordability
of
of
any
development
and
the
process
sides
of
it
and
it's
a
it's
a
difficult
trade-off,
because
we
still
believe
we
have
very
important
functions,
as
does
counsel
in
the
decision
making.
We
provide
our
advice
to
council
and
council
makes
the
decisions
and
and
a
lot
of
the
work
that
gets
done
in
local
planning.
Put
in
two
big
buckets,
one
is
fit
of
a
new
project
and
the
second
is
the
functionality
of
a
new
project.
K
You
know
the
fit
is
the
architectural
style,
the
character,
the
appeal
of
it,
those
sorts
of
things,
but
there's
also
the
functionality
like?
Does
the
drainage
work?
Does
this
the
servicing
work-
and
you
know
in
the
traffic
conditions
and
the
like,
and
how
does
this
fit
into
this
mobility
issue?
So
those
are
functionality,
components
and
we
believe,
there's
important
value
added
by
the
city
planning
process
on
both
of
those
two
main
themes.
K
We
fully
acknowledge.
We
have
choke
points
in
our
process
and
we're
bringing
our
annual
report
on
development
activity.
I
think
in
about
a
month
and
we're
going
to
talk
further
about
what
we're
trying
to
do
on
those
choke
points,
and
some
of
that
has
a
problem
that
there
are
process
issues,
there's
staffing
resource
issues.
There
are
a
number
of
issues
that
contribute
to
that,
but
we're
very
mindful
of
that,
and
you
know
we're
we're
really
striving
for
continuous
improvement.
K
But,
finally,
you
know
just
on
a
personal
level,
I'm
I'm
very
I'm
very
conscious
of
what
this
does
to
people
who
want
to
buy
new
houses.
I
mean
the
last
time
we
had
a
big
surge
like
this,
where
we're
in
the
1990s
late
90s
and
I
was
a
prospective
home
owner
at
the
time,
and
I
know
what
that
did
in
terms
of
our
housing
choices
and
limited
options
at
that
time.
So
I
know
how
this
plays
out
to
people
on
the
ground.
K
I'm
also
a
parent
of
two
young
adults,
and
I
know
that
the
privilege
I
have
that
my
kids
probably
will
never
be
able
to
afford
the
house
that
I
live
in.
So
that
is
a
reality
and
we're
very
very
mindful
of
that.
But
again,
the
municipality's
control
of
all
the
factors
is
fairly
limited
in
the
report.
K
You
know
in
terms
of
what
needs
to
be
done
so
with
that
clerk's
office.
If
we
just
put
out
the
presentation
just
want
to
highlight
the
key
points
of
the
report.
K
So
the
task
force
was
appointed
by
the
province
to
find
real
solutions
to
quickly
address
supply
in
the
ontario
housing
market
and
and
really
what
they're
targeting
is
a
housing
supply
increase
of
a
1.5
million
new
homes
over
over
10
years,
and
this
has
led
to
55
recommendations
and
the
staff
report
responds
to
each
of
the
55
recommendations
and
just
really
quickly.
You
know,
I
think,
about
72
percent
of
the
recommendations.
The
city
either
fully
supports
or
supports
with
some
qualification
on
how
it
actually
is
plays
out.
K
It's
not
that
we
disagree
with
the
recommendations.
We've
suggested
some
nuance
to
them
and
about
eight
of
them
we
support
the
underlying
premise
of
the
recommendation,
but
don't
think
the
recommendation
itself
is
the
tool
in
response
to
the
issue.
The
task
force
has
recommended
so
that
the
areas
of
disagreement
are
actually
quite
narrow,
so
we
have
11
recommendations.
The
city
does
not
support
and
for
we
had
no
comment
on
so
next
slide,
please
so
areas
of
agreement,
for
example.
K
You
know
the
the
provinces
suggest
that
there
needs
to
be
a
limit
on
exclusionary
zoning
practices
and
municipalities
through
grinding
provincial
action,
and
there
are
tools
such
as
the
provincial
policy
statement
and,
as
I
said,
we
tackled
much
of
this
in
the
official
plan
debate
and
we
have
our
zoning
bylaw
to
do
that
will
implement
that.
But
I
believe
council
has
made
some
brave
decisions
to
try
to
tackle
this
issue
in
the
plan
we
recently
did.
K
Secondly,
ottawa
has
has
for
many
years
permitted
as
of
right,
secondary
suites,
garden,
suites
and
laneway
houses,
and
the
province
wants
to
make
this
province
wide.
We
already
have
these
broad
permissions
in
place
in
ottawa
had
for
a
while
and
see
no
downside
of
this
being
rolled
out
province-wide
and
the
right.
There
are
recommendations
about
providing
provincial
and
federal
loan
guarantees
for
purpose-built
rental,
affordable
rental,
affordable
ownership
projects,
and
we
do
believe
the
action
in
that
area
is
absolutely
needed.
K
Next
slide,
please
areas
of
concern
so
basically
to
boil
down
a
common
theme
throughout
this
is,
while
the
city
supports
tackling
prevent
you
know
on
a
province-wide
basis,
limiting
exclusionary
zoning
practices.
We
don't
want
an
outright
override
of
municipal
planning
approvals
powers,
because
council
should
have
discretion
to
apply
these
techniques
on
a
local
basis,
and
the
city
has
done
a
lot
of
work
to
look
at
preservation
of
physical
character
of
a
neighborhood
still
work.
It's
still
work
that
needs
to
be
improved.
It's
it's
there's,
always
areas
we
can
improve
on
that.
K
K
K
The
province
made
major
changes
under
bill
108,
which
were
only
now
getting
into,
and
those
changes
in
bill
108
gave
many
more
powers
to
property
owners
with
respect
to
heritage
designations,
and
we
think
some
time
should
play
out
to
see
if
those
changes
previously
adopted
by
the
province
will
actually
address
the
problem
of
concern
and
the
city
does
not
support
further
changes
to
the
heritage
act,
as
recommended
by
the
task
force,
because,
basically,
the
city
disagrees
with
the
premise
that
heritage
designations
deteriorate,
property
value
and
the
city
would
owe
compensation
in
that
area,
and
that
would
be
detrimental
to
the
city
next
slide.
K
Please,
the
city
also
does
not
believe
in
legislative
timelines.
You
know
a
approved
by
x
date
or
it's
on,
and
if
we
don't,
it's
automatically
approved
right
now.
There
are
appeal
rights
if
we
take
too
long
in
the
process.
So
there
is
a
checks
and
balance
in
the
system
as
it
is
today.
The
timelines
as
they
exist,
don't
even
match
the
circulation
mandatory
circulation
requirements,
and
we
there
would
have
to
be
a
massive
rethink
and
we
don't
think
that's
the
best
use
of
the
province's
legislative
powers
to
go
down
that
road.
K
We
would
recommend
they
focus
elsewhere
and
the
city
is
also
very
concerned
about
waiving
development
charges
parkland
cash
in
lieu
for
smaller
units.
They
still
are
an
important
contributor
to
the
costs
providing
necessary
services
to
accommodate
growth
in
the
city
and,
as
our
new
official
plan
contemplates
more
and
more
infill
through
smaller
scale
developments,
it
would
be
very
detrimental
to
what
we
just
did
in
the
official
plan,
because
otherwise
the
tasks
the
the
burden
for
providing
those
services
would
be
shifted
to
the
general
tax
base.
K
So
I
won't
saw
the
remaining
slide
because
it's
really
about
the
next
steps
we'll
go
right
to
chair
I'll
return
it
back
to
you.
Thank
you.
A
A
We
have
looks
like
nine
delegations
signed
up.
First,
three
are
dean,
tester,
john
dance
and
patrick
sylvain,
so
we'll
start
with
dean.
Tester
is
dean
with
us.
A
Yeah
everyone
this
morning
has
five
minutes
and
then
be
an
opportunity
for
committee
members
to
ask
you
questions
as
well.
So
go
ahead.
Dean.
L
Perfect,
thank
you
so
much
so
my
name
is
dean.
Tester,
I'm
the
co-founder
of
a
group
called
make
housing
affordable.
I'm
here
today
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
recommendations
in
the
housing
affordability
task
force
in
opposition
to
some
of
the
draft
report
proposed
by
the
city
of
ottawa.
I
think
we
all
know
we
have
a
housing
crisis
in
ottawa
and
and,
as
steve
will
said,
you
know
it's
not
just
us,
but
it's
definitely
affecting
us.
L
You
know
the
city
has
acknowledged
this
by
adopting
an
emergency
motion
on
housing
and
homelessness,
we've
seen
housing
prices
double
in
the
last
five
years.
We
know
how
tough
it
is
for
a
first-time
home
buyers.
Right
now,
I've
talked
to
several
counselors
and
we
just
heard
this
from
from
steve
willis.
You
know.
L
People
who
are
in
their
homes
today
would
have
no
hope
of
buying
those
homes
if
they
didn't
purchase.
You
know
years
ago
my
personal
experience
I'm
currently
looking
for
a
home
with
my
wife,
the
last
home
we
bid
on
was
a
small
40
year
old
condo
in
kanata.
It
was
listed
at
350
000
and
it
sold
for
575
000.
L
So
I
I
can't
even
begin
to
tell
you
how
unattainable
that
is,
and
you
know
that's
that's
a
starter
condo,
it's
not
a
greenfield
home,
it's
it's,
not
a
new
development.
So
that's
the
struggle
we're
facing
and
we
also
know
the
biggest
problem
we
face
is
the
lack
of
supply
ottawa
compared
to
other
g7
cities.
We
need
to
build.
L
Seventy
thousand
housing
uses
overnight
if
we
just
wanted
to
be
an
average
city,
we're
way
below
where
we
should
be,
and
especially
when
you
consider
the
landmass
we
have
in
ottawa,
we
are
not
a
dense
city
at
all.
There
is
so
much
room
for
intensification
and
growth,
and-
and
so
I
wanted
to
reflect
on
some
of
the
ways
that
I
think
the
city's
planning
process
has
failed
us
so
far,
and
I
wanna
preface
this
by
saying-
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
really
good
people
on
this
planning
committee.
L
I've
met
with
a
lot
of
you.
I've
met
with
people
in
the
city
planning
office.
I
appreciate
their
efforts.
L
You
all
have
the
community's
best
interests
at
heart,
and
I
know
that's
why
many
of
you
will
support
this
motion
to
protect
the
city's
planning
powers
from
the
provincial
government,
but
you
know
I
just
want
to
share
a
few
examples
of
of
how
I
see
that
this
is
just
not
working
for
most
people.
So
we've
recently
approved
an
official
plan
that
estimates
the
city
will
grow
by
about
400
000
people
in
the
next
25
years,
and
we
set
a
housing
target
to
match
that
the
province
is
estimating.
L
That
number
is
closer
to
500
000
and
we
just
heard
a
presentation
by
steve
willis
suggesting
that
the
provincial
estimates
are
actually
low.
So
if
we
don't
have
a
proper
estimate,
how
can
we
build
enough
housing
and
how
and
will
we
be
building
enough
housing
to
match
that
growth
in
population
and
if
our
current
plan
is
to
maintain
the
status
quo
in
terms
of
home
per
capita
and
our
population
grows
by
more
than
planned?
How
much
worse
is
our
population
or
how
much
worse
is
our
housing
crisis
learning
gap?
L
A
few
other
examples.
I
spoke
to
one
counselor
who
told
me
about
a
frivolous
complaint
made
it
against
the
small
development
type
of
thing
that
that
happens
all
the
time.
The
complaint
was
dismissed
instantly,
but
it
took
over
a
year.
It
cost
the
developer,
a
million
dollars
in
legal
fees
and
increased
building
costs.
Endless
costs
were,
of
course,
passed
on
to
home
buyers.
L
L
Later
today,
you're
debating
50
the
driveway,
where
the
city
has
used
the
threat
of
a
heritage
designation
to
force
the
canadian
nurses
association
to
change
their
plans
to
develop
that
property,
delaying
an
important
housing
project
by
months
and
undoubtedly
adding
significant
costs
we're
going
to
hear
about
manor
park.
I
understand
there
is
an
attempt
to
put
a
heritage
designation
there.
You
know
people
are
using
the
planning
process
to
delay
projects
they
don't
like,
and
the
worst
example,
and
this
one
really
hits
home
for
me.
L
I
met
with
a
city
councilor
who
told
me
that
they
opposed
the
allegro
baffin
project,
which
is
meant
to
create
a
new
boarding
home
for
people
traveling
to
ottawa,
from
nunavut
for
emergency
health
care,
and
this
counselor
told
me
they
pro
opposed
the
project
because
they
thought
it
would
bring
homeless
indigenous
people
into
their
neighborhood.
L
Well
publicly.
They
said
that
they
were
concerned
about
traffic
impacts
and
green
space
implications.
That's
not
what
this
planning
process
is
for,
and
you
know
that
that
broke
me
and
I
I'm
still
very
upset
about
it,
and
you
know:
that's
that's
why
I'm
here
today,
you
know
our
city
planning
process
is
broken.
It's
delaying
projects
by
months
or
years
and
adding
tremendous
costs.
It's
dramatically
increasing
the
difficulty
of
small
builds
like
duplexes
or
triplexes,
which
should
be
available
to
property
owners
by
rights.
We
have
questions.
Can
you
wrap
up?
Please
yeah.
A
L
So
you
know
my
main
problem
is
we
have
counselors
who
use
the
zoning
process
as
a
political
weapon
to
try
and
win
votes
for
the
next
election,
and
we
have
other
counselors
who
use
it
to
openly
discriminate
against
certain
communities,
and
I
you
know,
I'm
afraid
that
this
is
the
process
that
you
guys
are
are
fighting
to
protect
today.
So
I
urge
you
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board,
find
a
way
to
work
with
the
province
and
support
the
recommendations
of
this
task
force.
L
Do
not
go
to
battle
with
the
province
to
protect
a
planning
system
that
is
driving
our
city's
housing
crisis.
Thank
you.
I
Sure
I'll
ask
some
questions.
Thanks,
chair
thanks
dean
for
being
here
and
I'm
sorry,
we
didn't
get
a
chance
to
to
meet
before
wednesday.
I
saw
your
message
come
in,
it's
been
crazy,
but
I
appreciate
your
engagement
throughout
the
the
official
plan
and
the
urban
boundary
discussions,
and
then
this
piece
as
well
and
your
social
media
engagement.
I
do
I
do
want
to
talk
about
the
affordable
housing
piece,
because
you
mentioned
the
housing
and
homelessness
emergency
that
we
had
declared
in
the
report
that
the
province
has
produced.
I
They
specifically
mentioned
that
their
mandate
was
only
on
market
housing
supply
and
that
they
stayed
in
their
report.
Affordable
housing
units
provided
at
below
market
rates
with
government
support
was
not
part
of
our
mandate.
So
I'm
just
wondering
what
you
think
about
that
was
that
a
missed
opportunity.
L
Yeah,
thank
you
sean.
So
I
mean
the
the
task
force
clearly
got
their
direction
from
the
province
and
in
the
province
wanted
them
to
look
at
at
market
rate,
housing
affordability,
rather
than
affordable,
housing
right-
and
these
are
two
very
important
concepts.
I
don't
think
they
compete
with
each
other.
I
think
we
need
to
be
doing
on
a
lot
more
on
on
both
of
them.
You
know
I
would
love
to
see
this.
This
city
work
more
with
the
provincial
and
federal
government
to
secure
funding
for
affordable
housing.
L
I
know
there's
an
affordable
housing
development
going
in
my
backyard
out
here
in
bar
haven.
The
city
I
think
gave
gave
the
land
for
two
dollars
or
something
like
that.
It
sounds
great
like
I
wish
there
were
more
projects
like
that.
I
hope
the
city
continues
to
go
down
that
avenue,
but
you
know
the
challenge
is
market
rate.
L
Housing
has
become
so
unaffordable
that
you
know
I'm
I
I
make
you
know
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year.
I
do
very
well
for
myself,
I'm
very
privileged.
I
acknowledge
that
privilege.
I
can't
afford
a
house
so
I'm
competing
for
rentals
with
people
who
are
minimum
wage
or
working
part-time
or
just
starting
their
career
or
people
with
young
families
to
feed,
and
you
know
that
drives
up
the
cost
for
everybody.
You
know
it's
not
just
affecting
potential
home
buyers,
it's
affecting
renters,
it's
affecting
minority
communities
who
are
the
most
disadvantaged
by
the
planning
process.
I
And
I
I
very
much
appreciate
that,
and
I
agree
housing
is
unaffordable.
Absolutely
take
your
point.
It
is
the
reason
why
we're
discussing
these
things
and
how
we
talk
about
affordable
housing
on
a
regular
basis
because
it
is
unaffordable.
I
You
know
purchasing
homes,
it's
about
a
quarter
to
a
third,
and
so
what
we're
seeing
is
that
that
large
demand
come
from
existing
existing
homeowners
who
are
buying
new
new
places
and
the
financialization
of
housing
through
large
corporate
interests.
So
I
I
just
wonder
on
that
point
on
the
demand
side.
Do
you
see
issues?
Excuse
me
on
the
yeah
on
the
demand
side.
Do
you
see
issues
there
outside
of
just
you
know
free-for-all
allowing
on
the
supply
side?
I
What
are
your
concerns
about
the
demand
side
when
it
comes
to
affordability
of
housing.
L
Yeah
thanks
shauna,
so
it's
a
good
question
and
you
know
I've
seen
a
lot
of
arguments
on
this
side
and
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
a
lot
of
them.
You
know
the
the
biggest
trope
that
I
see
on
the
demand
side
is
that
it's
coming
from
you
know
foreign
ownership
or
foreign
buyers,
and
I
don't
think
this
statistics
borne
that
out
and
I
think
it's
it's.
L
You
know
a
lot
of
finger-pointing
and
people
looking
for
a
scapegoat
in
this,
and
it's
very
easy
to
you
know:
blame
foreigners
right
and,
and
unfortunately,
that's
the
way
our
federal
discourse
was
in
the
last
election
we
had
three
three
parties
arguing
with
each
other
over
which
one
hated
foreign
buyers
more
right
and
that's
it's
such
a
small
part
of
the
market-
and
you
know
to
your
point
about
you-
know:
people,
switching
properties
or
you
know
looking
for
looking
to
upgrade
you
know
or
to
move,
or
you
know
people's
circumstance
changes
over
time.
L
We
you
know
first
time
home
buyers
are
not
the
only
people
affected
by
this.
I
spoke
yesterday
with
with
with
someone
who
had
gone
through
a
divorce.
She'd
owned
a
house
with
her
partner
and
when
they
split
she
lost
all
her
equity,
and
you
know
she
lived
in
a
house
for
most
of
her
life
and
now
she's
she's
told
me:
she's,
never
gonna
be
able
to
afford
a
house
again
right,
and
so
those
people
are
are
hurt
by
this
too.
L
You
know
so
you
know,
while
I'm
largely
speaking
from
the
perspective
of
a
first-time
homebuyer.
There
are
much
bigger
impacts
of
this
housing
crisis
on
on
anyone
who
is
interested
in
home
ownership,
and
I
will
just
add
to
that-
the
gap
between
people
who
own
homes
and
people
who
own
property
and
people
who
don't
is
accelerating
at
a
pace
that
we've
never
seen.
I
mean
my
personal
story
is
five
years
ago
I
had
the
money
to
buy
a
house.
I
instead
I
decided
to
open
a
business.
L
Instead,
my
wage
has
basically
doubled
since
then,
but
I
could
buy
a
house
that
then
I
can't
now
that's
how
fast
housing
has
grown,
and
you
know
that's
that's
a
real
struggle.
I
talk
to
anyone
in
my
age
group,
my
friend
group
people
with
good
incomes,
people
making
as
a
family.
You
know
100
150,
000
and
they're,
saying
I'm
going
to
be
a
renter
for
life,
and
that's
that's
really
difficult
for
us
to
accept.
When
you
know
we
grew
up
thinking,
you
know,
get
a
good
job
go
to
school.
L
You
know,
work
hard
and
you're.
Gonna
have
the
same
thing
your
parents
did
and
we
don't.
I
Thank
you
for
that,
and
my
last
question,
just
on
the
on
the
demand
side
is,
is,
would
you
support
the
removal
of
the
taxation
exemption
on
capital
gains
for
homes
that
are
sold
for
your
principal
residence.
L
Yeah
thanks
sean,
that's
a
good
question.
I
I
honestly,
I
don't
know
enough
about
that.
Yeah!
I
I
couldn't
tell
you
I
don't.
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
on
that.
Sorry.
I
Okay,
it
speaks
too
heavily
to
the
demand
side
of
things,
so
I
appreciate
appreciate
you
being
here
thanks
again:
dean.
D
Thanks
dean,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
co.
Your
comments,
your
honesty
and
your
braveness,
really
for
coming
and
saying
some
of
the
things
you
said,
it's
really
helpful
to
have
real
conversations
at
this
table.
I'm
wondering
a
couple
things
your
group.
Would
you
be
giving
any
feedback
from
your
group
on
on
behalf
of
your
group
or
you
specifically
to
the
province
on
this.
L
So
so,
right
now
we're
heavily
focused
on
municipal
politics.
The
provincial
election
is
obviously
coming,
so
we
may
be
engaging
in
the
provincial
election
as
well.
Sorry.
H
L
Yeah,
I
I
I
think
you
know
I'm
not
a
subject
matter
matter,
expert
on
everything.
In
that
report
I
mean
I
I'm
someone
who's
very
passionate
about
the
housing
crisis,
so
I
don't
want
to
speak
to
every
single
nuance,
but
you
know
broadly
they
they
identified
the
issue.
The
way
that
I
identify
the
issue.
The
solutions
they
propose
are
solutions
that
that
I
propose
I
I
work
and
collaborate
with
like-minded
groups
in
toronto
and
they
very
much
they
issued
their
own
report
before
this.
L
This
report
came
out
and
it
was
very
much
in
line
with
what
the
task
force
recommended.
So
so,
yes,
I
I
would
say
the
short
answer
is
yes,
I
I
very
much
support
the
report
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
what
what
the
province
actually
tables
in
their
legislation.
D
Well,
I'm
glad
that
you're
going
to
do
that
that
you
would
contemplate
doing
that
when
you
listen
to
what
steve
willis
said
about
the
six
factors
I
feel
like
when
I
look
at
the
task
force
report.
This
is
only
one
thing
like
this
is
not
this.
Whatever
happens
with
this
task
force
report
and
what
they
go
forward
with
is
not
going
to
solve
this
problem
and
you
sort
of
had
a
list
at
the
beginning
of
your
presentation
of
things.
D
You
thought
also
needed
to
be
done
that
were
complicated
by
our
planning
processes
in
this
committee
and
everything
else,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
other
ideas,
because
this
is
not
going
to
solve
the
problem
on
its
own
and
you
look
at
the
projection
10
years
out
that
will
get
1.5
more
million
houses
by
that
time.
When
you
think
about
the
factors
that
steve
willis
listed,
this
is
not
going
to
do
it.
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
any
other
specific
recommendations
as
well.
L
Yeah,
I
I
think
the
number
one
most
important
thing
we
can
do
is
is
ending
the
exclusionary
zoning
practices
and
to
the
credit
of
the
city
of
ottawa.
You
know
I
had
spoken
to
some
planning
staff
about
this
and
it
sounded
like
they
were
working
towards
adopting
a
version
of
that
so
very,
very
enthusiastic
and
and
happy
that
they
were
already
headed
down
that
path.
L
I'm
I'm
curious
because
I
know
they
they're
not
opposed
to
the
provincial
recommendation
on
that
front,
except
in
the
sense
that
they
kind
of
like
to
do
their
own
version
of
that.
So
I'd
be
curious
to
hear
in
more
detail
how
what
the
city's
proposing
differs
from
what
the
provinces
is
proposing.
L
I
don't
know
if
we're
far
enough
down
that
path
to
to
have
that
discussion
yet,
but
I
would
like
to
know
that-
and
I
think
one
thing
I'd
really
like
to
know
as
well
is
what
is
what
is
the
city's
population
estimate?
And
it
has
it
changed
since
the
official
plan
process
and
how
are
we
going
to
change
our
estimate
of
houses?
L
L
L
Hill
you'd
be
like
well,
our
city
is
tall,
but
anywhere
else
you
you'd
say
we
have
a
flat
city
right
like
there's,
not
a
lot
of
towers
in
our
city,
and
you
know
I,
I
would
love
to
see
us
adopt
more
aggressive
policies
towards
that
and
like
how
can
we
get
you
know
if
someone
wants
to
turn
their
you
know,
mcmansion
into
a
fourplex
that
you
know
is,
is
more
affordable
housing
for
multiple
people.
You
know
how?
How
do
we?
L
D
I
thank
you.
We
have
a
long
meeting
today,
but
I
really
appreciate
your
comments
for
sure
and
you
look
at
the
different
motions
on
this
agenda
here
that
are
almost
competing
in
some
ways,
and
I
think
this
is
quite
a
complex
issue,
but
I
really
appreciate
your
feedback
here
today.
Thanks
a
lot.
F
Great,
thank
you
co-chair
dean.
I
want
to
thank
you.
I've
been
listening
intently
to
a
lot
of
your
discussions
on
radio
about
the
concerns,
and
I
it's
got
to
be
difficult
because
you're
speaking
here
with
23
millionaires,
because,
let's
face
it
all
our
houses
that
we
own
are
in
that
zone,
but
we
also
do
have
children.
I
see
people
nodding
their
heads,
but
stop
it
it's
a
problem
and
we
have
to
face
this
situation
head
on.
We
have
those
of
us
that
have
decided
to
have
families.
F
It's
a
concern,
and
I
hear
what
you're
saying
about:
will
our
children
be
able
to
afford
housing
in
the
future?
I
think
our
greatest
concern.
The
next
municipal
election
is
going
to
look
at
housing,
affordability
and
again
the
impact
assessments
been
pushed
off
so
where
the
desirable
communities
are
within
our
city
to
live
and
what
kind
of
increase
is
going
to
come
to
play.
So
on
that
note,
you
have
made
many
many
good
points
today,
one
of
them.
F
L
Yeah,
that's
a
great
question
and
it's
so
important
because
I
think
that's
where
our
city
is
headed.
Unfortunately,
yeah
I've
looked
at
carlton
place.
I've
looked
at
russell,
I've
looked
at
arm
prior,
you
know
I
have
no
desire
to
live
in
those
places,
honestly
they're
great
cities
I
like
being
in
the
city,
I've
I've
lived
in
ottawa
since
about
2010.
L
When
I
moved
here
to
go
to
carlton
for
university
or
sorry
2000
2006.,
it
doesn't
matter
anyways,
you
know,
and-
and
I
love
the
city-
I
want
to
stay
here,
but
you
know
my
wife
and
I
got
married
in
october.
L
We
want
to
have
a
kid
we're
already
cramped
in
our
apartment
in
bar
haven.
You
know
we're
already
pushed
to
the
edge
of
the
city,
and
you
know
we
we
look
at
our
where
we
live
and
we
say
we
can't
have
a
kid
here.
That
would
be
too
hard
for
them.
It
would
be
too
hard
for
us.
So
I'll
tell
you
honestly,
like
we've
delayed
our
decision
to
have
a
kid
right
and
that's
that's
hard
right.
That's
a
hard
decision
that
many
families
are
making.
L
I
have
friends
who
have
made
that
decision
to
move
out
of
the
city,
and
I
can
tell
you
the
impact
is
there's
there's
a
few
things.
It's
it's
a
climate
problem
because
we
have
drive
until
you
qualify
right
people
commuting
an
hour
for
work
every
day.
Instead
of
walking
15
minutes
to
work
right
and
that's
that's
a
huge
problem.
We
have
the
productivity
crisis,
we
have
it's
it's
an
emotional
crisis.
It's
it's
an
economic
crisis.
L
You
know
when
you
spend
two
hours
of
your
day
in
the
car,
instead
of
doing
productive
things,
instead
of
spending
time
with
your
family.
That
puts
an
enormous
strain
on
you
and
I
can
say
that,
because
you
know
I
lived
in
toronto
for
a
brief
period
and
I
commuted
45
minutes
on
the
subway
and
I
got
to
tell
you
sitting
on
the
subway
in
a
crowded
subway
with
you
know:
200
other
people
and
like
standing
holding
onto
rail
and
playing
brick
breaker
on
my
phone
like
it
was
not
a
good
experience
right.
L
You
know,
and
that's
that's
sort
of
like
how
you
get
through
the
commute,
and
you
know
I
don't
want
ottawa
to
be
like
toronto
is
now
you
know,
but
10
years
from
now,
20
years
from
now,
you
know
is
smith
falls
the
new
hamilton
right
like
how?
How
far
out
is
are
people
gonna,
have
to
go
to
afford
a
home
and
and
think
about
the
climate
impact
of
that
on
our
city?
Think
about
the
impact
on
the
people
who
are
living
here.
These
are
the
real
consequences.
F
Great
so
and
I'll
ask
if
you
can
keep
a
brief
dean
just
to
respect
the
date,
because
I
see
other
people
have
questions,
there's
only
two
solutions
in
my
mind:
either
we
add
on
hectares
for
development,
which
I
I
don't
see,
the
full
appetite
for
or
b
we
have
to
upzone,
especially
around
transit
stations,
and
I
know
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
have
trouble
eating
cake
and
enjoying
it
too,
but
is
that
in
your
mind
the
only
solution
you
see
is
we
have
to
up
zone
areas,
especially
around
transit
nodes,
to
be
able
to
get
more
units
in
place
just
a
simple,
yes
or
no,
and
then
we
can
move
along.
L
Yes,
I
I
think
I
vastly
prefer
intensification
over
greenfield
development
just
on
climate
impact,
on
the
impact
of
of
cost
to
the
city.
I
just
think
it's
a
lot
easier.
I
mean
that
being
said,
ottawa
is
a
very
big
city
and
I'm
sure
there's
opportunity
to
to
develop
new
land
as
well.
I
know
the
official
plans
recommends
a
60
40
split.
I
don't
have
strong
opinions
on
that,
but
there's
so
much
room
to
intensify
absolutely.
H
Thank
you
very
much
dean.
I
I
feel
like
I'm
listening
to
my
son,
because
he
he
bugs
me
all
the
time
about
the
fact
that
he
couldn't
buy
a
house
in
ottawa
and
he's
not
here
anymore,
so
he
moved
away.
So
I
I
totally
totally
understand
and
it's
a
feeling
of
frustration.
H
My
question
to
you
is
in
terms
of
what
we
call
the
missing
middle.
Is
that
part
of
what
you
see
at
the
solution,
or
is
it?
Do
you
have
to
have
a
single
family
home?
Is
there?
Is
that
part
of
it?
Because
there
are
different
solutions
in
different
cities?
I
see
montreal
as
having
more
missing
middle
type,
housing.
L
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Yeah,
I
think
the
missing
middle
is
is
the
biggest
part
of
the
conversation.
Absolutely
I
I
would
love
to
live
in
a
neighborhood
where
you
know
you've
got.
You
know
two
three
four-story
apartment
buildings.
You
know
I
think
of
some
of
the
this
streets
I
visited
in
in
in
europe
when
I've
I've
been
there
in
the
past
and
just
like
these
beautiful
old
homes-
and
you
know
every
every
home.
L
You
know
it's
a
little
bit
taller,
but
you
know
four
to
eight
families
can
live
there
and
I
just
think
of
you
know
that
it
that
is
not
density
to
me.
That
is
just
a
normal
living
experience
for
most
people
on
this
planet.
So
you
know,
I
understand
the
appeal
of
the
single
family
home.
Of
course,
I'd
love
to
have
one
one
day,
but
you
know
if
I
could
find
a
shared
unit
with
with
a
couple
other
families
that
you
know
was
was
a
suitable
size.
L
You
know
two
large
bedrooms
or
three
three
small
bedrooms.
You
know,
I
would
be
so
happy
with
that
and
I
think
that's
how
most
people
my
age
feel
you
know
we're
not
looking
for
for
our
castle
on
the
hill,
we're
just
looking
for
a
place
to
live
that
we
can,
you
know,
grow
and
have
a
family,
and
you
know
have
the
space
to
work
from
home
in
this
world.
You
know
things
like
that.
E
Thanks
chair
thanks
dean
for
for
your
delegation,
I
just
wanted
to
circle
back
around
and
talk
about
the
the
demand
side,
and
I
know
that.
That's
not
what
your,
what
your,
what
you
were
delegating
on
you're
looking
at
supply,
but
we
heard
in
early
february
when
the
census
data
came
out.
E
It
did
show
that
housing
units
in
in
toronto
in
in
most
in
most
of
the
country
actually
outside
of
the
atlantic
provinces,
the
housing
units
were
actually
growing
faster
than
the
population,
so
it
you
know
it
would
appear
that
that's
not
the
magic
bullet,
but
there
there
is
a
demand
issue
as
well
in
terms
of
what
people
are
looking
for
and
and
and
what
developers
are
developing
and
if
and
if
they're
developing
you
know
I'll
use
50
the
driveway,
because
because
because
you
brought
it
up,
50
the
driveway
yeah,
we
had
an
application
to
demolish
and
you
know
sat
down
with
the
applicant,
but
that
is
that
is.
E
That
is
an
example
of
a
developer.
That's
asking
for
double
the
height
in
an
r4
zone
for
only
88
units
you'll,
never
or
I
or
anyone.
I
don't
think
looking
around
will
ever
be
able
to
afford
a
condo
at
50,
the
driveway,
and
yet
you
know
that's
what
I'm
hearing
you're
kind
of
saying
to
us
that
should
have
just
been
okayed.
You
know
eight
months
ago
and
not
gone
through
gone
through
a
process
of
of
local
planning.
So
just
you
know
again.
E
I
know
this
is
not
about
homelessness,
but
you
know
we
have
people
sleeping
outside
in
this
city
and
in
a
lot
of
very
wealthy
cities.
Actually
more
people
sleep
outside
in
more
wealthy
cities,
a
population
of
people
sleeping
in
sheltering
outside
grows
higher
in
wealthier
cities
with
empty
buildings
that
really
are
being
built
for
investors
and
not
for
families
like
the
one
you're
describing
your
family.
E
So
I
just
wonder
if
you
know,
if
you've,
given
some
consideration
to
that
demand
side
like
what
does
that
really
mean
in
terms
of
removing
the
ability
for
for
local
municipalities
to
say
yeah,
like
you
know,
you
want
double
the
hype,
but
you
want
because
it's
close
to
transit
in
our
four
zone
and
yet
you're
only
building
88
units
and
you're,
throwing
in
a
parking
spot
for
for
each
one
of
those.
E
L
Okay,
thank
you
counselor.
I
I
appreciate
your
question.
So
you've
touched
on
a
few
different
things,
I'll
try
and
run
through
quickly,
because
I
know
I've
taken
up
a
lot
of
time,
one
on
demand.
Yes,
there's
a
lot
of
demand
in
ottawa.
We've
we've
built
an
amazing
city
and
we
should
all
pat
ourselves
on
the
back.
Everyone
who's
community
minded
here,
you've
built
a
city
that
people
want
to
live
in
and
that's
fantastic
and
what
we're
seeing
in
other
parts
of
the
province.
L
You
know
toronto,
especially
people
driven
out
by
their
housing
crisis,
are
coming
here
and
now
our
prices
are
going
up
right.
It's
not
you
know
I
it's
not
me
having
six
or
seven
kids
and
all
my
friends
doing
the
same.
It's
people
want
to
move
here
from
other
jurisdictions,
and
so
that's
that's
great.
It's
a
great
problem
to
have
right,
and
so,
when
you
talk
about
like
developers,
not
building
the
right
types
of
housing,
I
mean
developers
are
really
easy
to
understand.
L
In
my
opinion,
they
want
to
build
things
that
they
can
sell
and
make
money
right.
It's
not
a
complicated
concept.
They
are
profit
driven,
so
they
are
going
to
build
the
units
that
they
think
will
sell.
So
you
know
if
they're
selling,
single
bedroom,
condos
there's
a
demand
for
it
right,
and
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
you
know:
people
buying
them
as
investment
properties,
and
things
like
that.
L
So
a
couple
thoughts
on
that
one
people
who
do
that
they're
providing
valuable
rental
stock,
which
is
helpful
because
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
purpose
built
rentals
coming
in
the
city
two,
I
I
don't
think
we
have,
and
I
think
the
numbers
would
back
this
up.
I
don't
think
we
have
the
like
empty
home
syndrome
that
that
some
people
make
it
out
to
be.
L
L
The
reason
why
it
was
only
88
units
is
because
it
was
three
bedrooms
units
right,
the
type
of
thing
that
I
would
be
looking
for
in
a
condo
and
the
type
of
thing
that's
really
sparing
and
then,
through
the
planning
process,
they
were
told
not
to
do
that
and
now
I
believe
it's
it's
bachelor's,
one
beds
and,
and
maybe
two
beds-
I
don't
know
all
the
details.
So
I
apologize,
but
certainly.
L
L
We
wanted
that.
That's
totally
fair,
like
I'm,
not.
I
wasn't
in
those
meetings,
but
I'm
just
saying
the
planning
process.
We
lost
that
right.
So
I
I
mean
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and
yes,
we
don't
want
vacant
homes
everywhere.
Yes,
I
would
love
to
see
more
three-bedroom
homes
and
condos
built
than
one-bedroom
condos,
but
if
the
market
is
what
the
market
is
and
developers
are
going
to
build
things
that
sell-
and
ultimately
we
solve
this
by
building
enough
housing.
L
E
Thank
you
I'll
just
say
this:
it
would
seem
from
the
census
data
and
it's
just
data.
It's
not
my
opinion
that
we
have
been
building
enough
housing.
It
is
not
only
the
supply
and
we
and
we
want
supply
as
we
grow.
There's
absolutely
no
doubt
about
it,
but
it
is
not
targeted
to
what's
required
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
I
appreciate
the
conversation.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Counselor.
F
Hey
I'll
keep
this
very
brief
dean
very
interesting,
your
presentation
and
I
guess
what
it
raised
for
me.
You
talked
about
montreal,
for
example,
where
someone
talked
about
montreal
and
having
at
home,
so
I
think,
was
counselor
kavanaugh,
perhaps
in
in
the
mushy
middle
or
the
missing
middle.
I
grew
up
in
montreal
and
in
full
disclosure.
I
lived
in
some
of
those
missing
middle
type
units
growing
up
where
it
wasn't
uncommon
to
have
a
four-plex
or
a
low-rise
apartment,
building
on
a
street
mixed
in
with
residential
homes.
F
So
I
guess
my
question
too,
is
as
part
of
the
answer
society,
ottawa,
community
sort
of
pivoting
and
saying
you
know
it's
not
a
bad
thing
to
live
in
a
rental
if
you
could
get
a
two
or
three
bedroom
rental
unit,
that
the
goal
is
to
have
appropriate
an
appropriate
roof
and
space
over
your
head,
as
opposed
to
necessarily
having
ownership.
F
F
So
I
guess
my
question
to
you
is:
should
we
also
be
talking
about
not
only
the
size
of
the
housing
but
the
type
and
sort
of
moving
away
from
somehow
renting
is
less
desirable
than
than
owning.
L
Great,
so
that's
a
great
question
I
mean
I,
I
rent,
I'm
very
happy
with
where
I
rent
it's
a
little
small.
If
I
want
to
grow
my
family,
that's
the
biggest
obstacle
I
face
and
we've
looked
at
renting,
bigger
houses,
and
I
can
tell
you
in
in
bar
haven,
we
can
find
like
a
nice
three-bedroom
home
like
a
detached
home
for
rental,
for
between
twenty
two
hundred
and
twenty
five
hundred
dollars
a
month
which
is
not
unreasonable
for
the
income.
L
I
make
the
challenge
there
is,
if
you
look
at
it
through
an
equity
lens,
you
know:
I've.
I've
doubled
my
paycheck
in
the
past
five
years
through
growing
my
business
and
you
know
progressing
through
my
career,
but
my
friends
who
bought
a
house
five
years
ago
and
you
know,
have
not
had
the
same
career
growth
and
are
in
the
same
place
in
their
career
as
they
were
five
years
ago.
Their
net
worth
grew
substantially.
L
More
than
mine
did
right
and
they've
built
all
this
equity
and
their
equity,
if
they
ever
choose
to
sell,
has
has
doubled
in
value.
From
what
they've
put
in
you
know,
there
is
a
growing
divide
between
those
who
own
a
home
and
those
who
don't
and
it's
it's
growing
farther
and
faster,
and
so
you
have
have
and
have
nots
in
society
right.
So
really
for
me,
it's
not
about
like
the
quality
of
life
of
where
I
live
right
now,
it's
it's
about.
L
You
know
my
financial
place
in
the
world
and
having
enough
money
to
retire
one
day,
and
you
know
having
something
to
pass
on
to
my
kids
right
and
you
know
I
I
think
you
know
anyone
who
bought
five
years
ago
looks
like
a
genius
and
the
rest
of
us
are
left
wondering
like.
Is
there
something
wrong
with
us
because
we
didn't
buy
five
years
ago?
Like
did?
Are
we
just
stupid
and
no
we're
not
just
stupid,
but
the
market
has
has
grown
at
a
much
faster
rate
than
than
anyone
anticipated.
L
I
mean
I
someone
chatted
earlier
about
the
the
boom
in
the
90s.
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
numbers
and
then
the
jump
in
the
90s
was
you
know
five
to
ten
percent
year.
Over
year
last
year
we
were
almost
at
40
percent
january.
To
january
the
year
before
was
was
close
to
20
percent
in
terms
of
house
prices
like
it's
just
it's
accelerating
at
a
rapid
pace,
and
you
know
that
the
have-nots
are
just
falling
further
and
further
behind.
F
F
I
still
hear
a
little
bit
of
a
pejorative
between
owning
a
home
and
then
you're
a
half
and
renting
a
home
and
then
you're
have
not
so
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that
I
mean,
in
your
case,
you've
doubled
your
income
because
you've
doubled
your
capacity
to
do
business,
so
that
in
itself
is
is,
is
a
financial
benefit
that
you've
created,
but
I'm
still
hearing
a
little
bit
and
again,
I'm
not
saying
it's
intentional
to
you,
but
I'm
hearing
a
little
bit
that
it
still
is
a
better
thing
to
own
a
home
than
it
is
to
find
a
place
that
you
can
raise
your
family
that
you're
renting
in
and
I'll
I'll.
F
C
C
Where
are
the
economics
of
that,
because
I
remember
between
the
harper
government
and
the
trudeau
government,
there
was
a
big
big
cmhc
report
that
really
spoke
of
over
a
30-year
period
if
you
owned
your
home
and
the
equity
that
you
could
extract
of
that
versus,
if
you
actually
put
the
same
saving
and
and
invested
it
appropriately
and
the
end
was
really
really
similar.
So
I
I
think
we're
I'd
like
to
understand
how
our
attention
to
home
ownership
is
not
based
on
an
investment
and
is
only.
C
I
think
so
many
are
focused
on
the
investment,
the
equity
side
of
it
rather
than
okay.
Who
cares?
I
live
in
a
home,
I
care
about
the
quality
of
the
home
and
the
amount
I'm
paying
every
month
and
if,
if
I'm
financially
sound-
and
I
can
put
that
money
aside
and
make
other
investments,
then
what's
wrong
with
renting.
C
So
I
I
I'm
on
keith's
bandwagon
here
and
I
want
to
understand
from
your
perspective,
why
is
home
ownership
so
so
dominant
because
it
creates
such
a
challenge,
and
the
montreal
example
still
applies
today
out
of
large
canadian
cities
they're
still
at
60
plus
percent
of
folks
who
are
montreal
rent.
I
don't
see
any
big
societal
problems
in
montreal
compared
to
us.
L
Yeah,
so
I
I
I
I'll
be
brief.
I
agree
completely
with
you
and
counselor
eagley.
I
I
love
renting,
I'm
happy
to
be
a
renter,
but
you
know
I
didn't
see
40
returns
in
my
stock
portfolio
last
year.
L
Right,
I
didn't
see
20
the
year
before
you
know,
I
haven't
seen
100
returns
over
the
past
five
years.
I
I
wish
I
did.
Maybe
I
got
the
wrong
stock
guy,
but
the
housing
market
is
just
accelerating
so
much
faster
than
than
everything
else,
and
I
think
what
you're
saying
was
was
true.
You
know
in
around
2015,
because
at
that
time
house
prices
has
grown
like
one
to
two
percent
for
the
past
five
or
six
years
that
that
has
not
been
the
case
for
the
past
five
years.
L
It
has
accelerated
at
a
rapid
pace
and
yeah.
I
I
I
am
not
saying
this
in
a
pejorative
way
towards
renters,
I'm
I'm
here
advocating
on
behalf
of
renters,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
them
want
something
more
eventually
in
life,
right
yeah
and
I
think
the
the
struggle
is
that
people
who
own
homes
are
getting
ahead
so
much
faster
than
people
who
don't
regardless
of
the
quality
of
accommodations.
L
You
know
if,
if
you
own
a
you
know
a
50-year-old
condo
or
a
40-year-old
condo
like
the
one
I
bid
on
and
you
paid
200
for
it
five
years
ago,
and
now
it
sells
for
575
well
you're
doing
pretty
well
for
yourself
right.
C
Yeah
just
a
final
comment,
because
you
made
reference
to
stock
and
there
is
a
local
build
stock
in
shopify
that
actually
made
that
much
more
than
that
percentage
point
over
the
2015
period,
so
good
investors
find
ways
to
make
money.
I
guess
my
final
point
is
a
lot
of
people
are
homeowners,
but
they
they
treat
their
home
ownership
as
a
rent
rental,
and
I
think
you
know
what
I
mean
they
pay
the
very
very
least
they
can
on
the
mortgage
and
hope
that
the
property
value
goes
up.
C
That
only
works
at
a
small
interest
rates
and
the
continued
growth
that
we're
seeing
in
house
value
that
shifts
very
quickly.
If
you
move
one,
two
percent
points
for
many
for
many
of
those
individuals.
I
I.
C
All
then
I
know
the
chair
has
reminded
us
there's
a
lot
of
speakers.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
I'm
seeing
no
more
questions
thanks,
matthieu
and
thank
you,
dean,
good
questions,
good
conversation
and
that's
right.
Tech,
counselor
flurry
between
all
the
items.
Today
we
have
about
30
speakers
and
we've
just
finished
speaker
number
one.
So
please
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
go.
Our
next
public
speaker
is
john
dance.
Good
morning,
john.
N
Appreciate
the
opportunity,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
old
ottawa
east
community
association
planning
committee,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
you're
giving
to
to
speak
to
this
profound
changes
that
potentially
will
come
from
the
province.
N
If
I
may
see
the
presentation
the
first,
this
next
slide,
please
so
it
does
appear
to
some
of
us,
not
the
previous
speaker,
that
the
removal
of
constraints
to
building
resonances
I
mean
the
recommendation-
will
remove
these
constraints
and
they'll
offload
infrastructure
costs
to
to
taxpayers,
and
it
will
maximize
profits,
increase
profits
of
developers
and
that
may
be
fine
for
developers,
but
there's
a
whole
lot
of
other
issues
to
consider.
N
N
The
the
report
fails
to
consider
environmental
impacts.
It
doesn't
speak
of
tree.
Canopy
doesn't
speak
of
climate
change.
These
are
fundamentally
important
to
our
society,
not
just
the
affordability
of
a
house.
It
dismisses
communities,
neighbors,
neighborhood
character
and
the
fabric
discounts.
The
value
of
heritage
diminishes
municipal
powers
and
curtails
community
influence.
We
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please
it's
premised
on
the
fact
that
or
the
fact,
the
belief,
the
fantasy
that
developers
know
best
and
that
laissez-faire
development
yields
the
best
outcomes.
N
It
seems
to
think
that
challenges
to
developers
proposals
are
nimbyism,
that
municipalities
aren't
capable
that
they
simply
impede
that
the
neighborhood
fabric
compatible
development
isn't
important
that
heritage,
environmental
and
social
concerns
hinder
building,
and
they
have
no
benefits
heritage,
environmental
and
social
concerns
in
themselves.
If
I
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
one
key
example:
in
the
mass
of
recommendations,
the
one
pertaining
to
appeals,
anybody
who's
involved
with
community
associations.
N
They
know
that
the
deck
is
already
stacked
against
them.
We
lack
the
resources,
we
lack
the
expertise.
You
know
for
the
previous
government
had
the
lpat,
not
oil,
t
at
the
time
el
pat
had
was
actually
providing
going
to
provide
support
to
communities.
Then
the
ford
government
eliminated
that
developers
yeah
they
donate
to
counselors.
They
hire
former
city
staff.
N
It's
a
hopelessly
slanted,
biased
situation.
We
already
have
the
developers
fantasy,
as
per
these
recommendations,
are
that
they'd
increase
the
appeal
fee
to
olt
in
the
new
omb
from
four
hundred
dollars
to
ten
thousand
dollars
would
limit
the
right
of
the
field
appeal
and
reward
costs
to
the
developer.
N
Our
community
association
has
been
able
to
appeal
recent
decisions,
but
we
would
not
have
been
able
to
hadn't
had
the
cost
going
up
to
ten
thousand
dollars
just
to
make
the
appeal
to
submit
it.
Our
issues
have
addressed
environmental
heritage,
community
character
and
community
functioning,
and
these
are
really
really
important.
It's
not
just
a
matter
of
affordability
in
terms
of
a
development,
the
developers
dismissal
of
community
association
concerns
is
simply,
as
simply
nimbyism
is
their
way
of
putting
profit
ahead
of
community
well-being.
N
N
You
know
we
worked
really
hard
with
the
city
with
the
institutional
landowners
for
our
community
design
plan
and
the
subsequent
secondary
plan
consequence.
We
have
a
livable
community
with
a
lot
of
intensification,
our
heritage
designations.
You
know
thanks
to
the
city
and
others,
we've
got
them
implemented
and
they've
been
reasonably
respected.
They've
been
differences
of
opinion,
but
hey
we've
got
them
there
and
it's
really
important
to
maintain
the
streetscape
character.
Analysis,
mature,
neighborhood
overlay
provisions,
they
they.
You
know
these
these
help
in
terms
of
zoning,
to
ensure
that
there
is
compatible
development.
N
You
know
secondary
or
second
units
they're
permitted.
Now
it
does
promote
an
appropriate
intensification.
The
you
know,
the
lrt
with
the
transit
oriented
development
is
key,
I
mean
just
through
lee's
station
there'll
be
another.
It
will
take
time,
but
another
3700
unit
dwelling
units
built
there,
the
new
official
plan.
It
too
is
providing
a
lot
more.
We
simply
do
not
need
what
the
province
is
trying
to
force
on
to
to
the
system
collaborative
planning.
It
means
better
outcomes.
N
Provincial
fiat
does
not,
if
I
may,
move
to
the
last
slide,
please
so
the
the
recommendations,
c
staff
they're,
basically
sound
they're
good,
but
I
do
suggest
we
suggest
that
you
need
to
push
back
in
the
task
force's
premises
and
its
deficiencies.
N
N
N
O
Thanks
chair
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
and
your
submission
in
advance,
which
I
read,
I
think
it's
quite
solid.
The
previous
delegate
accused
counselors
of
playing
politics.
If
we
had
the
audacity
to
actually
represent
our
constituents
and
our
neighborhoods
when
certain
development
files
come
to
life
and-
and
you
in
your
presentation
talked
about
compatible
development
and
respecting
the
community
fabric
when
certain
developments
are
proposed,
can
you
specifically
talk
to
that
and
expand
on?
Why
that's
so
important
for
your
community
and
other
communities.
N
Certainly,
in
terms
of
the
compatibility
we,
I
think,
other
people
in
the
city
like
it
when
you
have
you
have,
you
can
have
trees,
for
instance,
on
your
street,
so
that
you
have
a
shaded
environment
where,
where
there
is
enough
park
land
for
people
to
enjoy
themselves
where,
where
there
is
some
respect
for
the
the
new
building
going
up,
there's
respect
for
the
neighbors
of
it.
It's
a
it's
a
matter
of
of
having
development
that
that
is
compatible
rather
than
making
it
miserable
for
the
people
all
around.
N
I
I
Large
swaths
of
green
space
have
been
have
been
turned
over
to
to
housing
and
in
some
cases
it
makes
makes
a
lot
of
sense
where,
where
it
is,
but
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about
you
know
how
many
new
units
are
being
created
in
old
ottawa
east.
Just
percentage-wise,
I
mean.
Is
it
a?
I
Is
it
a
10
increase
in
the
last
several
years
going
forward?
Is
it
20
I
mean
you're?
I
think
you're
you're
very
involved,
obviously
graceful
development.
Otherwise,
what's
your
sense
of
how
many
new
units
are
being
created
for
the
community
right
now,.
N
Thank
you
councillor
through
the
chair.
Yes,
grace
stone's
going
to
produce,
graystone
village
will
produce
another
thousand
units,
the
the
various
other
developments
on
main
street
will
produce
another
thousand,
the
lee's
oriented
or
the
transit
oriented
development
at
the
station
will
produce
another
thirty,
seven
hundred
hawthorne
hawthorne
and
the
saint
paul
university
development.
That's
possibly
another
500.
I
mean
so
to
to
get
to
the
point.
N
We've
already
gone
up
by
about
20
over
the
last
five
years
over
the
next
10
15,
we'll
probably
go
up
up
by
by
another
two
or
three
thousand
the
trans
transit
oriented
development
police
station
will
take
longer
for
sure,
but
you
know
we're
we're
going
to
double
our
population
within
10
years,
we'll
probably
double
it
again
in
another
10
years.
So
I
think
that's
you
know
you
want
that
intensification
to
happen
in
consultation
with
the
community.
N
I
Yeah
very
good
point,
and
on
that
point,
john,
how
how
much
have
pr
while
we've
had
this
intensive
growth
in
old
ottawa
east
during
this
time?
How
much
have
prices
increased
over
the
last
five
years
in
your
in
your
neighborhoods.
N
Well,
they
they
clearly
have
gone
up
and
probably
comparable
to
what
they've
gone
up
in
in
other
areas
of
central
ottawa
they
probably
have,
but
I
wouldn't
like
to
make
the
distinction
and
this
sort
of
gets
to
the
heart
of
the
matter.
I
don't
really
think
I
looked
at
this
that
houston
without
any
zoning,
they've
gone
up
enormously
in
housto
houston
and
some
other
no
zone,
no
zoning
american
cities,
and
so
I'm
not
quite
convinced
that
taking
constraints
off
off
developers
is
a
means
of
lowering
costs.
N
I
Well,
I
think
it's
important
chair
I'll
wrap
up
here
quickly.
I
know
we
got
a
long
day,
but
the
the
point
being
that
we've
had
drastic
increases,
almost
a
doubling
of
units
in
old
ottawa
east
and
going
forward
with
with
a
large
increase
in
price
during
that
time
as
well.
So
the
more
supply
that's
being
created,
drastic
more
supply
isn't
creating
more
affordability.
I
That's
those
demand
factors
and
supply
factors
certainly
have
an
effect
beyond
just
what
we're
talking
about.
In
terms
of
municipal
zoning
and
my
last
my
last
question
to
you
is
around
the
report
itself.
You
read
through
the
provincial
task
force
report.
What
strikes
me
is
how
blatantly
this
is
tied
to
developer
profit.
I
I
look
at
point
17
in
the
city's
feedback
around
requiring
municipalities
to
compensate
property
owners
for
loss
of
property
values
as
a
result
of
heritage
designations
based
on
the
principle
of
best
economic
land
use
or
requiring
a
ten
thousand
dollar
filing
fee
for
elpac,
for
waiving
development
charges
in
parkland
cash
in
lieu
and
charge
only
modest
connection
fees
for
infill
residential
projects
up
to
10
units
for
any
development
where
there's
no
new
material
infrastructure
will
be
required.
I
I
just
I
I
question
this
because
it
it
seems
like
we're.
I
This
is
very
focused
on
you
know,
providing
developers
a
lot
more
leeway
and
financial
benefits
and
windfalls.
I
wonder
your
thoughts
on
that.
N
N
It
does
take
more
time,
but
you
get
a
whole
lot
better
process
and
it's
not
to
say,
improvements
can't
be
made
and
you've
been
making
improvements
and
the
more
improvements
will
be
made,
but
it
should
not
be
dictated
by
the
promise
and
developers
should
not
have
the
dominant
hand.
That's
my
point.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
see
no
more
questions
I
just
wanted.
There
was
a
line
in
your
slide,
john,
that
stood
out
for
me,
which
was
collaborative
planning,
equals
better
outcomes.
Provincial
fiat
does
not,
and
I
think
that's
worth
keeping
in
mind
that
if
we
want
to
move
people
from
not
in
my
backyard
to
yes
in
my
backyard,
we
do
have
to
be
considering
the
local
considerations,
as
well
as
the
provincial
considerations
as
they
relate
to
a
housing
crisis.
So,
thank
you,
john
for
your
presentation,
and
the
next
speaker
is
patrick
sylvain.
P
P
So
I'm
a
new
engineer
and
I'm
looking
for
my
next
department,
I'm
considering
being
a
long-term
rental
and
I'm
often
considering
moving
out
of
the
city
where
I
grew
up
because
of
the
surging
rental
costs.
P
But
recently
many
people
like
myself,
are
discovering
that
it's
north
american,
exclusionary
zoning
practices
that
are
the
root
cause
of
this
crisis,
there's
a
clear
trend
in
the
media.
Making
this
point
clear,
so
dean,
tester's
social
media
presence
are
part
of
this
trend
and
you
might
know
other
american
youtube
channels
like
climate
town
and
not
just
bikes,
which
get
tens
of
millions
of
views
off
of
this
point.
P
P
So
the
city
should
really
accept
the
ontario
recommendations
and
I'd
like
to
highlight
that
cities
in
the
u.s,
like
minneapolis
and
the
state
of
california,
have
already
moved
to
end
single-family
zoning
only
like
what
was
recommended
in
ontario's
report.
We
should
also
be
leaders
in
housing,
affordability.
P
P
A
J
Just
a
quick
one,
you
believe
that
we
should
accept
the
entire
slate
of
recommendations
from
the
province.
We've
had
bills
in
the
past
bill
68
bill
73
under
the
previous
government,
which
were
written
as
though
they
didn't
actually
know
how
municipalities
work,
because
the
province
doesn't
always
know
what's
best
for
municipalities.
J
So
in
the
case
of
recommendation
17,
which
speaks
to
heritage
buildings,
it
values
the
economic
land
use
higher
than
the
heritage
value
of
the
property
and
that
if
we
designate
a
property
heritage
which
we
do,
I've
been
on
the
bill.
Here's
some
companies
since
2012
that
we
would
then
have
to
pay
the
owner
of
the
heritage
property,
the
balance
of
whatever
they
would
have
lost
with
the
impact
of
the
heritage
designation.
P
Thank
you
for
your
question
counselor.
Regarding
this,
my
stance
on
the
ontario
housing
affordability
recommendations
is
to
support
the
densification
recommendations
they've
outlined
regarding
these.
This
note
that
you
make
I'm
not
familiar
enough
in
the
matter
to
to
comment.
J
There
are
a
lot
of
recommendations
that
are
perfectly
fine,
and
I
agree
with
you
on
exclusionary
zoning,
but
not
all
the
recommendations
are
perfectly
sound
and
do
require
more
effort
and
more
work
on
behalf
of
municipalities
in
order
to
refine
those
recommendations
and
make
them
more
suitable
to
municipalities
across
ontario.
So
just
blindly
supporting
all
these
doesn't
make
sense,
so
asking
council
to
completely
reject
what
we
have
in
front
of
us.
I
think
flies
in
the
face
of
what
our
role
is
as
a
municipality.
A
P
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
today,
I'm
here
before
you.
You
know
taking
time
out
of
my
day
to
participate
in
this
process
that
we're
having
now.
A
M
Thank
you
I
am
presenting
on
behalf
of
heritage
ottawa
and,
of
course
I
will
be
talking
about
the
heritage
recommendations
in
the
report.
Heritage
ottawa
is
actually
was
very
concerned
about
this
report.
We
feel
that
it
is
a
blatant
grab
for
power,
taking
power
away
from
the
municipality
and
handing
it
over
to
the
developers
with
the
helping
hand
of
the
province,
and
there
are
many
recommendations
and
some
of
the
counsellors
have
referred
to
them
or
where
this
is
simply
not
appropriate.
M
However,
I
will
be
concentrating
on
heritage.
We
were
very
upset
because
it
was
portrayed
as
an
impediment
to
realizing
the
true
economic
value
of
a
property,
as
councilor
moffatt
pointed
out
as
though
economic
value
is
the
only
value
ignoring
the
cultural
values,
social
value
and
and
environmental
value
of
heritage
properties.
M
We
noted
a
deep
lack
of
understanding,
even
hostility
in
this
report
about
the
purpose
and
impact
of
heritage
designation.
Some
of
these
recommendations
would
appear
to
require
amendments
to
the
ontario
heritage
act,
not
to
mention
the
provincial
policy
statement
so
how
the
province
is
going
to
handle.
That
is,
will
be
an
interesting
question.
Should
they
proceed
we?
M
I
would
like
to
comment
just
briefly
on
heritage,
ottawa's,
guest
involvement
or
understanding
of
some
of
the
recommendations,
for
example,
12a
to
repeal
or
override
municipal
policies,
policy,
zoning
or
plans
that
prioritize
the
preservation
of
physical
character
of
neighborhoods.
M
As
some
of
you
may
know,
the
heritage
conservation
districts,
which
seem
to
be
targeted
in
some
sense
in
this
recommendation
they
have
all
or
almost
all
got
guideline
documents
and
the
guideline
documents
recognize
cultural
heritage,
value
and
attributes
of
the
areas,
but
provide
guidelines
for
alterations
and
new
construction
in
the
area
with
respect
to
recommendations,
16
prevent
abuse
of
heritage
preservation
and
designation
process
by
prohibiting
the
use
of
bulk
listing
on
municipal
heritage
registers
and
prohibiting
reactive
heritage
designations.
After
a
planning
act,
development
application
has
has
been
submitted.
M
The
leading
to
the
perception
that
a
proposed
heritage,
designation,
was
reactive
heritage,
ottawa,
actively
lobbied
the
city
for
the
creation
of
an
accessible
heritage
register.
In
order
to
remedy
this
situation,
and
we
do
agree
with
the
staff
that
the
the
the
robust
heritage
registers
creates
more
certainty
for
property
owners
and
limits.
The
number
of
reactive
designations
undertaken
recommendation
17,
requiring
municipalities
to
compensate
property
owners
for
loss
of
property
values.
M
We
feel
the
staff
has
effectively
countered
this
false
information
that
designation
results
in
loss
of
property
value
with
some
of
the
research
that
they
cited
in
the
report.
Heritage
ottawa
also
has
some
experience
in
this
area.
We
participated
along
with
heritage
conservation
districts
in
the
city
in
two
research
studies
of
the
ontario,
hans
of
ontario
heritage
conservation
districts,
not
just
ottawa,
but
all
of
ontario,
led
by
the
heritage
resources
center
at
the
university
of
waterloo
and
their
reports
were
entitled.
M
M
Real
estate
values
inherited
conservation
districts
generally
rise
more
consistently
than
surrounding
areas,
so
we
feel
that
these
recommendations
should
certainly
the
city's
recommendations
should
be
supported.
With
respect
to
these
heritage
issues,
heritage
ottawa
has
been
working
for
over
50
years
to
champion
the
protection
and
stewardship
of
ottawa's
build
heritage
and
cultural
places
celebrating
their
value
in
enriching
our
shared
environment.
M
B
Thank
you
co-chair,
and
I
just
really
wanted
to
thank
linda
for
her
comments
and
for
the
submission
by
heritage
ottawa.
I
have
to
agree
after
reviewing
both
the
report
and
the
response
by
the
city.
B
It
is
clear
that
there
are
major
inc
consistencies,
which
you
outlined,
especially
around
values
of
properties
in
heritage
conservation
districts,
and
I
also
appreciate
the
fact
that
staff
is
pointing
out
that
there
is
a
huge
amount
of
ambiguity
coming
out
of
the
report
from
the
province,
especially
concerning
whether
the
recommendations
that
have
been
put
in
place
would
actually
repeal
or
override
heritage
conservation
district
plans.
B
B
We
know
that
these
documents
don't
prioritize
neighborhood
character
over
new
housing
and
are
typically
aligned
with
existing
plants
and
that
these
plants
do
contemplate
growth
and
change
in
in
heritage
conservation
districts
through
additions,
new
construction
infill,
but
are
not
concerned
with
the
use
or
number
of
units.
B
So
you
know
the
system
that
we
have
in
place
aims
to
accommodate
growth
while
at
the
same
time,
looking
at
all
those
areas
that
we
value
that
go
beyond
just
monetary
value
with
with
properties
which
I
think
was
lacking
in
this
report,
and
I'm
happy
that
you
brought
that
out
the
cultural
value,
the
heritage
value
social
value.
Those
values
are
as
important,
if
not
more
than
economic
values
in
certain
contexts.
B
A
M
I
don't
think
so.
The
50,
the
driveway,
of
course,
is
that
the
you
know
poster
child
at
the
moment,
because
in
that
instance,
the
building
was
not
designated
was
not
on
the
heritage
register
and
the
proposal
to
demolish
the
building,
which
was,
I
think,
has
been
recognized
by
people
who
are
in
the
know,
is
a
very
significant
modernist
building
built
by
a
very
prominent
ottawa
architect.
M
It
could
have
been,
I
think,
if
it
had
been
designated,
I
think
there
could
have
been
a
solution
where
you
would
be
able
to
add
additional
units
while
preserving
most
or
all
of
the
existing
building,
and
there
was
an
addition
and
I'm
thinking
of
70
nicholas
street
is
about
to
come.
Well,
you
see
it's
in
the
process
of
being
worked.
That's
the
old
registry
office,
which
is
sort
of
overwhelmed
by
the
blank
wall
of
the
redo
center.
M
There
is
a
proposal
very
interesting
proposal
to
add
to
sort
of
fill
in
the
basically
the
tiny,
little
green
space.
That's
left
there
with
apartments
and
to
incorporate
the
heritage
building
in
the
new
development
in
a
very
sensitive
way,
which
looks
as
though
it
could
be
quite
successful.
So
there
are
examples.
Many
of
them,
I
think,
where
existing
buildings
heritage
designated
buildings
are
are
are
are
used
as
a
foundation.
M
If
you
like
for
a
new
development
and
in
many
cases
I
mean
some
of
the
bigger
older
homes,
many
of
many
of
them
are
occupied
by
embassies
which
doesn't
contribute
to
housing,
but
a
big
old.
Well,
as
I
think
your
the
first
speaker
said,
the
mcmansions.
M
We
can
turn
them
into
four
or
five
units
and
preserve
the
heritage.
The
heritage
outside
most
heritage
buildings,
don't
have
interior
designations.
It's
the
outside.
What
you
see
from
the
street
is
what's
most
important
and
so
yeah.
I
think
there
is
a
misperception
that,
oh,
my
goodness,
nothing
can
change
its
heritage,
but
that's
not
true.
M
As
as
councilor
king
has
pointed
out,
all
kinds
of
changes
are
being
made
to
buildings
and
districts
in
order
to
provide
more
housing
or
other
activities
and
but
preserve
the
character
and
the
important
aspects
of
the
heritage
buildings.
A
K
D
You
on
behalf
of
the
old
ottawa
south
community
association,
I'd
like
to
thank
all
of
you
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
our
comments
on
the
ontario
at
market
rate,
housing
supply
task
force
report.
D
Osca
doesn't
have
the
expertise
to
begin
to
solve
the
complex
problem
of
affordable
housing,
but
we
do
know
where
answers
don't
lie.
Answers
are
not
to
be
found
in
recommendations
to
reduce
community
involvement
to
the
legal
minimum
or
to
reduce
the
power
of
municipal
councils
or
to
adopt
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
for
municipalities.
D
D
Just
as
old
ottawa,
south
isn't
downtown
ottawa
isn't
toronto,
blanket
recommendations
which
would
apply
to
all
towns
and
all
cities
without
regard
for
municipal
context,
not
to
mention
community
context,
undermine
all
communities
and
all
municipalities.
Recommendations
to
limit
community
meetings
are
actually
across
purposes
with
the
report's
stated
goal
of
speeding
up
the
development
process.
D
D
D
The
authors
of
the
report
reveal
their
bias
when
identifying
normal
processes
as
suffering
from
quote-unquote
abusive
process.
Recommendation
16
as
spoken
to
by
linda
hode,
speaks
to
the
abuse
of
the
heritage,
preservation
and
designation
process.
There
is
indeed
a
process,
but
there's
no
such
abuse.
The
percentage
of
properties
or
areas
designating
as
having
heritage
value
is
a
small
component
of
the
available
properties
in
ottawa
and
throughout
ontario.
D
Zoning
of
from
six
to
11
stories
of
on
any
street
that
has
public
transit,
overriding
municipal
policies
and
zoning
throughout
all
of
ontario
are
all
objectionable.
D
D
A
number
of
these
recommendations,
if
accepted,
will
curtail
community
engagement
and
undermine
municipal
authority,
and
there
is
no
guarantee
in
there
anywhere
the
development
cost
savings
will
be
passed
on
to
consumers
and
result
in
greater
housing.
Affordability,
osca
supports
in
principle
the
response
of
the
city
of
ottawa
and
we'd
also
like
to
thank
the
fca,
which
has
been
a
great
leader
on
this
file
for
all
community
associations.
I
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you
laura
and
yours
to
yourself
and
richard
president
of
oscar
for
your
excellent
detailed
submission.
I
hope
that
that
also
gets
forwarded
on
to
the
ontario
authorities
as
well.
It's
important
that
they
see
it
as
this
is
likely
coming
forward
soon.
At
that
level,
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about
the
lpat
fees.
I
You
write
that
recommendation.
27
refers
to
preventing
abuse
of
process
by
increasing
lpad
application
fees
from
400
to
10
000
for
third
parties,
which
would
include
neighbors
and
community
groups,
and
you
say
there
is
no
abuse
of
process,
so
I'd
like
if
you
could
expand
on
on
that
point,
and
why
it's
important
for
neighborhood
groups
to
have
that
lower
threshold
when
appeal
before
appeal
rights.
D
Well,
the
purpose
of
the
lpat
oltv,
you
know
tribe
tribunal,
whatever
we
want
to
call
it
the
flavor
of
the
year.
Its
purpose
is
actually
to
hear
appeals
so
curtailing
the
appeal
process,
because
there's
a
perceived
you
know
abusive
process
there.
There
is
no
abusive
process.
The
process
exists
for
that
reason,
so
that
people
can
go
when
they
disagree.
D
With
the
decision
I
mean
that
that's
what
a
democracy
is,
so
if
you
close
it
off
so
that
it's
only
available,
you
know
it
becomes
like
a
gated
community
and
only
people
who
can
afford
to
apply
get
heard
or
have
their
grievances
aired,
or
you
know
have
the
chance
to
to
have
someone
who
is
presumably
independent
decide
whether
a
case
is
merit
that
just
that
goes
against
the
entire
flow
of
what
what
a
democracy
is.
D
You
know
if,
first,
you
reduce
people's
ability
to
have
collaborative
consultation,
and
then
you
reduce
their
your
their
their
right
to
participate
and
then
finally,
you
reduce
their
right
to
comment.
You
know
which
hasn't
happened.
Obviously,
here
we
all
comment.
We
all
still
participate,
but
you
can
see
where
it
goes.
D
Things
have
everybody's.
You
know
the
the
developers,
the
the
different
levels
of
government,
try
to
define
everything
as
a
top-down
process,
whereas
it
can't
be
if
we
are
all
to
live
together
and
if
we
are
all
to
live
in
a
democratic
society.
It's
the
opposite.
It
has
to
start
from
the
ground
up,
so
there
these
processes
exist,
so
that
these
things
can
happen.
I
I
appreciate
your
comments.
I
did
see
city
staff's
comment
around
this,
that
they
they
did
make
a
minor
comment
that
the
city
is
concerned
that
it
it
is
overly
prohibited
for
smaller
stakeholder
groups.
I
think
we
need
to
be
a
bit
more
expansive
on
that
and
explain
further
what
the
concerns
are.
I
very
much
appreciate
staff's
comments
throughout
the
report.
I
think
there
are
some
areas
that
we
could
probably
improve
before
council.
This
is
one
of
them
that
I'll
be
addressing.
So
I
appreciate
your
comments
here.
D
That
a
case
has
merit
before
it's
ever
heard,
whereas
the
process
is
there
to
determine
whether
there
is
merit
or
not
where
and
then
at
the
same
time
saying
you
know,
we,
the
developers
want
to
restore
our
right
to
appeal
official
plan,
so
you
know
there's
something
there
that
that
doesn't
work,
it's
one
or
the
other,
and
you
know
frankly,
I
don't
think
one
should
be
limiting
community
groups
at
all.
A
G
Good
morning,
thank
you
chair,
so
I'm
patrick
I'm
just
here
on
behalf
of
myself
as
a
member
of
the
public.
My
opinions
are
my
own.
So
just
a
little
bit
more
about
myself,
I
just
turned
30
just
recently
got
engaged
starting
to
look
at
playing
out
my
family.
The
key
thing
here
is,
of
course,
that
I'm
renting.
G
Currently
I
I
am
saving
to
buy
a
house,
although
in
the
last
little
while
I
usually
tell
that
last
part
as
a
joke,
a
bit
of
a
dark
joke,
so
yeah
I'm
cards
on
the
table,
I'm
going
to
be
in
favor
of
improving
housing,
affordability,
improving
intensification,
but
I
do
share
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
I've
seen
with
the
with
ontario's
report.
G
I
think
a
lot
of
the
concerns
are
good
ones,
especially
where
the
report
doesn't
even
consider
below
market
housing.
It's
not
referencing
climate
change,
but
you
know
and
sorry
and
of
course
I
mentioned
that
a
lot
of
this
is
taking
away
powers
from
the
municipality.
I
I
appreciate
local
government
and
I
appreciate
that
you
want
to
preserve
those
abilities
of
the
municipality
to
regulate
its
own
affairs,
but
I
really
want
to
see
ottawa
take
a
more
of
a
leadership
role
on
this
file.
G
I
really
want
to
see
ottawa
being
the
government
that
acknowledges
yes,
there's
there's
a
problem
here,
there's
a
housing
of
a
crisis.
We
have
the
tools
to
address
it.
At
least
part
of
it.
Municipalities
have
a
huge
impact
on
how
we
build
housing.
How
our
lives
are.
A
lot
of
our
lives
are
shaped
by
by
decisions
made
at
this
level,
and
I
wish
that
ottawa
would
take
that
leadership
role
here
and
in
some
of
the
responses
to
the
recommendations.
G
I
I'm
not
I'm
not
seeing
that
role.
For
example,
I'm
going
to
take
a
few
examples
of
the
right.
What
I
feel
are
some
of
the
most
key
recommendations
and,
of
course
this
isn't
legislation
yet,
so
we
don't
really
know
some
of
these
details
and
I
appreciate
the
need
to
to
flush
those
out
in
a
conversation
with
province,
but
in
a
few
examples
here,
I'll
start
with
the
the
limits
on
exclusionary
zoning
and,
in
fact,
in
the
presentation
earlier
from
staff,
they
mentioned
that
they're.
G
In
fact,
in
favor
of
recommendation
number
three,
which
is
the
limit
exclusionary
zoning.
But
that
is,
I
don't
really
see
that
ottawa
is
taking
the
lead
there,
we're
not
we're
not
eliminating
exclusionary
zoning
across
the
city.
We
still
have
low
density
zoning
covering
much
of
the
city.
The
official
plan
isn't
really
going
to
change
that
and
the
province
is
recommending
we
all
as
of
right,
housing
up
to
four
stories
on
a
single
residential
lot.
G
G
G
So
the
pushback
here
from
the
city
is
that
this
doesn't
allow,
for
some
of
you
know,
contact
specific
rules
on
zoning
things
like
tree
cover
and
well
it's
not
quite
we're
not
quite
sure
what
the
specifics
of
this
would
be
in
the
international
legislation.
G
This
is
clearly
referring
to
standards
such
as
maximum
setbacks,
minimum
heights
shadows,
front
doors,
things
like
that,
which
I
think
are
actually
a
bit
under
appreciated
as
something
that
adds
cost
to
development.
It
really
limits
the
options
even
in
something
like
a
six-story
house
has
to
become
a
four-story
house.
Because
of
the
shadow
angle,
I
think,
and-
and
I
agree
again-
that
we
don't
really
want
the
problems
to
be
imposing
this,
but
I
think
ottawa
should
be
leading
and
saying.
G
Yes,
we
hear
that
this
is
an
issue
and
we're
adjusting
our
standards
to
reflect
better
practices
and
the
same
again,
you
know
we've
heard
a
lot
about
the
issue
with
public
consultation.
I
think
we
need
to
acknowledge
that
it
can
be
quite
burdensome
and
it
can
really
only
have
impacts
for
a
certain
segment
of
the
population.
G
People
like
me
and
people,
I
hope,
to
sort
of
kind
of
represent
here
people
less
fortunate
who
aren't
able
to
access
even
the
sort
of
more
comfortable
rental
that
I
have
they're,
not
at
those
meetings,
you're,
not
hearing
those
voices
so
yeah
short.
I
think
this
is
more
intransigent
than
than
leadership,
but
I
really
hope
that
ottawa
can
take
more
steps,
perhaps
in
if
the
conversation
leads
back
to
the
official
plan.
If
the
province
rejects
it.
G
A
Q
Thank
you
very
much
chair,
patrick.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
for
the
presentation.
The
question
I
have
is
is
with
respect
to
trying
to
address
the
housing
crisis
both
through
urban
expansion
as
well
as
intensification.
You
know
all
of
our
r4
neighborhoods
we've
doubled
the
the
intensity.
That's
allowed
we're
going
to
against
all
logic.
If
I
may
be
political,
allow
an
entirely
new
subdivision
of
thousands
of
units
at
the
the
tawin
lands.
The
official
plan
has
laid
the
groundwork
for
a
comprehensive
zoning.
Q
Bylaw
review,
in
which
multiple
areas
of
the
city
are
are
probably
going
to
lose.
The
exclusionary
zoning
the
r1
will
be
eliminated
in
many
places
through
that
exercise.
You
know
the
the
significant
increases
in
intensification
allowed
in
the
r3
will,
probably
you
know,
move
right
across
the
urban
area.
G
So,
first
of
all,
I
would
say
obviously
that
process
isn't
complete
with
the
zoning
review.
Maybe
I'm
a
bit
more
pessimistic,
but
we'll
see
that
widespread
elimination
of
r1-
I
think
r1
is
the
most
critical
here
is.
It
covers
the
most
land
area
by
far
in
ottawa,
so
I
guess
part
of
that's
just
pessimism.
Of
course
the
timing's
been
off.
If
ottawa
could
come
back
to
the
city
to
the
province
and
say:
look
we've
done
our
zoning
review.
We've
eliminated
r1
in
most,
not
all
areas
of
the
city.
G
I
I
think
that
would
be
sufficient,
so
yeah.
Q
So
the
door
is
open
to
that
without
having
something
imposed
on
council,
and
I
I
think
the
the
notion
on
the
part
of
the
planning
staff
and
responding
to
the
province's
task
force
is
that
you
know
we.
We
should
make
those
decisions
in
a
in
a
locally
sensitive
context,
but
the
door's
not
closed.
I
was
just
wondering
whether
you
had
different
math
than
staff
have
in
terms
of
satisfying
housing
demand
with
the
moves
that
council
has
already
made
and
will
be
making
in
the
in
the
next
term.
G
Well,
for
I
can't
really
speak
to
what
we
will
be
doing
with
the
my
concern
here
was
just
that
I
want
to
be.
I
want
the
city
to
come
back
and
specifically
have
that
process
done
to
be
able
to
speak.
C
Fleury,
thank
you,
chair
and
I'll.
Be
quick
as
well.
Thank
you,
counselor
leaper
for
the
questions,
patrick,
that's
where
I
was
going
to
raise
points.
I
guess
I'll
build
on
to
the
conversation
you
just
had
just
to
get
clarification
so
you're
of
the
mindset
that
the
provincial
government
should
just
remove
our
ones
with
across
the
province
with
specific
local
specificity,
say,
heritage
conservation,
district
or
individually
designated
homes
is
that
is
that
fair
to
state.
G
G
C
Okay,
no,
I
and
I
wanted
to
clarify
that.
So
I
I
too
love
city
independence,
but
we
have.
We
need
clear
guidelines
of
what
our
authorities
are.
So
I
think
councilor
lieber's
point
around
next
term
of
council
would
be
reviewing
the
zoning
bylaw,
which
will
present
the
full
change
of
the
r,
the
our
well,
let's
call
it
the
r
regime.
I
wanted
to
raise
a
point
that
I
don't
want
you
raised
specifically
on
a
site
plan.
C
G
I
think
you're
talking
about
the
province
around
zoning
standards,
which
was
in
12
c
for
site
plans,
so
I
recognize,
of
course,
more
than
just
colors
of
front
doors,
but
I
think
what
the
province
is
saying
here
is
that
some
of
those
standards
could
be
maybe
a
bit
excessive
things
like
you
know:
shadow
rules,
minimum
heights,
minimum
or
maximum
setbacks.
G
Problems
of
recommending,
reducing
or
eliminating
some
of
those
standards
if
the
city
were
to
to
come
back
and
say
we're
recommending
reducing
these
ourselves,
I
think
that
would
be
ideal,
because
those
can
really
impose
costs.
Those
can
really
change
what
a
developer
can
do
to
add
to
a
building
to
to
build
a
new
building.
C
I
caught
really
on
the
front
door
comment
less
so
on
the
the
the
rest
provision,
so
I
I
don't
have
further
questions
mr
chair,
thank
you
for
delegation,
patrick
and
it's
great
to
see.
Young
young
professionals
come
to
the
committee
and
talking
about
urban
planning
and
the
future
of
our
city.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
R
Good
morning,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
federation
of
citizens,
associations
and
the
74
members
are
often
involved
in
planning
matters
as
it
affects
neighborhoods.
Our
residents
live
in
and
the
taxes
they
pay.
These
are
not
trivial
matters.
Planning
decisions
have
quality
of
life
implications
for
our
residents,
as
well
as
practical
issues
such
as
parking
parkland,
municipal
services
and
taxes.
By
and
large,
we
support
the
overall
thrust
of
the
city's
response
as
if
we
believe
it
reflects
mutual
concerns,
but
we
have
our
own
concerns.
R
The
task
force
proposes
development
as
of
right
in
residential
housing,
of
up
to
four
units
and
four
stories
on
a
single
residential
lot
and
multi-tenant
housing.
Promise
y
such
open-ended
language
ignores
the
need
to
balance
development
with
appropriate
infrastructure,
including
not
only
hard
services
but
green
space
tree
canopy
access
to
services,
the
object
should
be
to
be.
The
object
should
be
to
build
communities,
not
just
houses.
The
provincial
approach
of
one-size-fits-all
does
not.
R
Similarly,
while
the
fca
supports
higher
densification
the
immediate
proximity
of
major
transit
stations,
the
recommendation
for
unlimited
height
and
unlimited
density
ignores
local
context
that
should
contribute
to
the
appropriate
planning
decision
as
well.
The
proposal
to
allow
as
of
right
zoning
of
6
to
11
stories
on
any
street
utilized
by
public
transit
is
far
too
broad.
What
might
be
reasonable
on
arterials
with
high
frequency
transit
is
not
on
residential
streets
with
half
hour
bus
service
as
well.
The
fca
strongly
opposes
the
task
force
recommendation
for
open
development
outside
of
existing
municipal
boundaries.
R
Such
development
contributes
to
urban
sprawl,
which
is
both
costly
for
both
taxpayers
and
the
environment.
In
the
task
force
section
starts
saying:
yes
in
my
backyard,
the
fca
opposes
repealing
or
overriding
zoning
that
preserves
the
physical
character
of
a
neighborhood.
When
people
buy
homes
they
are
also
buying
into
a
neighborhood
with
all
its
physical
characteristics,
while
neighborhoods
can
and
do
change
through
controlled
intensification.
R
Such
characteristics
as
tree,
canopy,
streetscape
and
compatible
building
forms
ought
to
form
part
of
the
zoning
for
that
neighborhood.
Contrary
to
the
task
force
report,
the
choice
is
not
binary
between
not
in
my
backyard
and
yes
in
my
backyard,
but
is
more
nuanced,
requiring
local
decision-making,
not
a
uniform
province-wide
approach
assistant
with
this,
the
fca
opposition
to
the
imposition
of
province-wide
zoning
standards,
as
this
ignores
local
context,
which
again
contributes
to
neighborhood
attractiveness
and
quality
of
life.
The
task
force
proposes
limiting
public
meetings
and
development
proposals
to
the
legislative
minimum.
R
This
ignores
the
proven
value
of
public
consultation
that
leads
to
modifications
that
developers
accept
and
in
turn,
better
acceptance
of
development
proposals
by
the
public.
The
fca
opposes
this
task
force
recommendation
the
task
force
errors
in
characterizing
the
heritage
designation
process
as
abuse
heritage
designations,
do
not
stop
and
are
not
meant
to
stop
new
development,
but
to
guide
it.
The
fca
believes
heritage
conservation
is
important
in
preserving
historical
context
in
the
community
and
is
aware
of
many
examples
where
redevelopment
has
occurred
successfully.
In
these
circumstances.
R
Further
the
notion
that
municipalities
should
compensate
property
owners
for
loss
of
property
values
as
a
result
of
heritage
designations
as
both
unreasonable
and
untenable
and
counters
the
provincial
interests
and
heritage
conservation,
which
you'll
find
in
provincial
policy
statement.
Section
2.6
the
fca
opposes
unilaterally
restoring
the
right
to
developers
to
appeal
municipal
official
plans
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal.
Why
only
developers
in
the
task
force
section
cut
red
tape?
It
is
clear.
R
R
R
The
task
force
section
proposal
to
wave
development
charges
and
parkland
cash
new
for
all
infield
pro
residential
projects
up
to
10
units
is
opposed
by
the
fca.
There
has
to
be
compensatory
in
increased
municipal
services
and
parkland
amenities,
as
new
housing
units
are
added
to
an
existing
neighborhood,
and
the
cost
of
this
should
not
be
born
solely
by
taxpayers.
R
In
conclusion,
the
fca
is
disappointed
that
the
ontario
task
force
on
housing
affordability
did
not
spend
time
on
the
demand
side
of
housing
equation,
particularly
for
low-income
families
who
do
not
qualify
for
social
rent
gear
to
income
housing
and
will
not
be
able
to
buy
a
home
access
to
suitable
housing
is
a
key
social
determinant
of
health
and
allows
people
to
participate
fully
in
their
community.
In
our
view,
the
task
force
addressed
only
half
the
problem
and
not
well
at
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
D
Thank
you,
mr
cullen.
One
of
the
things
I
asked
the
first
speaker
was
whether
he
was
going
to
be
submitting
any
feedback
to
the
task
force
and
one
of
the
questions
I'm
going
to
have
for
staff
is
who
else
is
going
to
be
submitting
feedback?
D
And
so,
when
I
listened
to
your
presentation-
and
I
read
it
before
you
got
here
that
you're
representing
74
members,
and
so
I
wonder
about
whether
or
not
it
wouldn't
be
more
beneficial
to
have
74
members
submit
something,
because
I
think
the
question
always
is
how
how
did
you
actually
get
to
74
members
and
have
them
read
the
task
force
report
come
up
with
feedback,
give
it
to
you,
compile
it
in
such
a
short
span
of
time,
and
is
that
really
representative
of
74
members?
So
have
you
thought
at
all
about?
D
First
of
all,
if
you
could
help
me
understand
what
your
consultation
was,
because
canada
would
constantly
struggle
with
this.
You
seem
to
have
been
able
to
have
gotten
74
members
feedback
and
whether
you
think
it
might
be
beneficial
to
send
all
74
members
feedback
instead
of
just
one
person
saying
that
they're
speaking
on
behalf
of
74
members,.
R
Yes,
certainly-
and
it's
not
just
one
person
this-
this
does
represent
the
fca,
so
I
can
tell
you
the
when
the
task
force
report
came
out.
It
created
all
kinds
of
waves
in
the
community
association
community
that
we
represent.
There's
been
a
topic
on
our
planning
zoning
committee
agenda.
We've
had
you've
already
heard
two
of
our
members
speak
to
already
from
old
ottawa
east
in
old
ottawa
south
heritage.
Otto
is
also
a
member
of
the
fca
they're
speaking
out,
and
certainly
our
recommendation
to
our
members
would
be.
R
Please
speak
out
not
only
to
the
government
but
to
your
mpp.
It's
a
topic
that
we'll
be
talking
about
at
our
general
meeting
coming
up
to
take
the
next
step
to
inform
the
provincial
government
of
our
point
of
view.
The
fca
is
a
highly
consultative
process.
It's
not
a
top-down
organization
is
a
bottom-up
organization
and
often
our
initiatives
come
from
individual
community
associations.
R
Well,
people
who've
taken
the
time
to
read
and
then
come
back
to
us
and
say:
what's
the
fca
going
to
do
about
this,
and
and
of
course
we
have
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
involved.
So,
of
course
we
communicate.
This
letter
has
gone
up
to
all
our
members
and
they've
had
the
opportunity
to
comment
so
we're
highly
engaged.
We
will
certainly
be
pushing
that
individual
association
to
it
and
the
fc
will,
I
expect,
will
be
sending
a
letter
into
the
minister
as
well.
D
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
I
might
want
to
talk
to
you
at
some
other
point
just
about
that
whole
process,
because
it's
one
thing
we
struggle
with
in
kanata
all
the
time.
Thanks
a
lot.
O
Thanks
alex
for
your
delegation
appreciate
the
work
the
fca
does:
we've
heard
from
a
number
of
of
people
who
are
looking
to
purchase
their
first
house
that
they'd
like
to
see
and
I'm
paraphrasing,
basically,
the
elimination
of
r1
zoning
they're,
looking
at
the
the
area
that
r1
zones
occupy
and
want
to
see,
much
greater
density
and,
and
some
people
are,
you
know
implying.
Let's
park,
community
fabric
concerns,
let's
park,
compatibility
to
the
side
and
simply
build
build,
build
more
supply,
hopefully
more
people
in
homes
and
can
be
housed.
R
So
it's
not
a
as,
as
I
said
earlier,
it's
not
a
binary
choice,
it's
not
either
or
we
support
what
staff
are
saying
that
that,
yes,
we're
going
to
have
intensification.
In
fact,
most
of
the
city
has
been
built
through
intensification
and,
quite
frankly,
good
intensification
is
supported
by
community
associations.
R
What
you
hear
about
when
is
bad,
but
in
this
context
that
we're
talking
about
is
the
ability
to
deal
with
the
other
elements
of
the
official
plan
that
make
a
good
neighborhood.
So,
yes,
we
want
that
densification,
but
we
wanted
to
respect
the
tree
canopy.
We
wanted
to
respect
50
minute
neighborhoods.
R
We
wanted
to
respect
access
to
community
amenities,
that's
part
of
building
a
community,
and
we
believe
the
two
can
be
met
that
you
can
have
that
intensification
with
these
other
elements
and
that's
what
all
that's,
what
it's
all
about
for
local
planning,
local
control
and
that's
what
we
support
is
the
the
it's
a
misnomer
to
say
is
yes
or
no?
It's
not.
O
I
agree
we,
as
you
know,
we
just
went
through
a
three-year
op
process
where
we
made
compromise
after
compromise
after
compromise,
to
try
and
find
that
sweet
spot
on
many
issues
based
on
what
we
were
hearing
from
our
own
residents.
We
already
have
a
made
in
ottawa
solution.
We
now
have
to
implement
the
op
and
the
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
that
will
follow.
So
thank
you
again.
A
Alex
I
wanted
to
ask
you
you,
you
mentioned
existing
homeowners
and
in
your
presentation
I
think
you
said
when
people
buy
homes,
they
have
an
expectation
expectation
of
a
certain
character.
R
Well,
you
have
to
provide
some
weight
because
people,
as
I
said
earlier,
did
buy
into
community,
but
no
one
expects
a
community
to
be
carved
in
stone.
There
is
change,
I
mean
many
of
us,
I'm
I'm
the
I'm
a
senior
with
with
kids
who
are
in
the
market
for
buying
homes,
and
so
many
of
us
understand
that
pressure
to
find
affordable
housing
and
the
issue
is
not
either
or
it's
an
issue
of.
R
Does
it
meet
the
compatibility
issues
or
standards
that
the
city
has
in
its
official
plan
does
so,
if
you
have
intensification
coming
in
neighborhood
and
it
meets
the
the
you,
you
have
two
units
four
units
on
a
lot
that
previously
only
had
one
there's
got
the
setback.
If
it
respects
the
trees,
it
doesn't
overload
amenities-
or
at
least
you
have
amenities
to
compensate
for
the
increase
in
that
neighborhood.
Then
you're
golden,
and
you
can
do
that.
So
the
balancing
act
lies
with
you
folks,
but
you
have
you've
seen
gone
through
that
public
consultation
process.
R
Q
And
forgive
me
I,
I
guess
I'm
a
little
theoretical
here,
but
the
some
of
the
issue
seems
to
come
down
again
to
something
that
has
been
on
my
plate
for
the
last
eight
years,
which
is
that
our
zoning
doesn't
match
the
official
plan
for
the
most
part
across
the
city.
And
I
I
don't
want
to
be
too
provocative
here,
but
I'm
thinking
about
the
fights
over
and
I'm
sorry
was
it
grenan
greenon
grenin.
Q
Very
familiar
maple
grove
in
council
for
hubley's
ward.
You
know
these
were
long
drawn
out
very
fractious
processes,
and
I,
I
wonder
the
extent
to
which
the
provincial
government
is
looking
at
those
and
saying
those
took
far
too
long
for
something
that
council
was
clearly
willing
to
to
approve.
Q
But
I
wonder
whether
we
need
to
whether
it's
too
much
of
a
pendulum
shift
toward
eliminating
regulation,
eliminating
process
opening
up
the
floodgates
where,
if
we
had
zoning
that
actually
matched
what
council
intends
to
be
built,
whether
some
of
that
would
take
care
of
the
fractiousness
of
the
of
the
processes
and
the
opposition
that
sometimes
these
projects
create.
R
So,
with
respect
to
grenin
again
it
was
never
binary.
You
know,
keep
what
is
what
was
already
existing
versus
the
42
units,
I
believe
was
42
units
that
went
in
there.
The
issue
was
how
many
units
should
go
in
there
and
clear
the
community
came
to
planning
committee
to
say:
yes,
we'll
accept
more
units,
but
not
the
42.
I
believe
it
was
36
or
some
other
number.
R
So
you
know
one
has
to
be
careful
about
how
one
characterizes
how
the
community
deals
with
these
things,
but
the
pendulum
shift
here
to
to
expect
that
the
province
understands
what
happens
neighborhood
by
neighborhood
in
ottawa.
I
mean
that's
impossible.
As
you
know,
ottawa
is
not
toronto,
so
we
don't
need
the
toronto
solution.
We
don't
need
a
kingston
solution.
We
don't
need
an
owen,
sound
solution.
You
want
and
made
in
auto
a
solution
and
we're
already
make
taking
those
steps.
R
The
staff
report
makes
it
very
clear
we're
on
that
road
to
accommodating
more
growth
in
our
city
and
the
we
have
the
tools
to
do
that.
The
zoning
bylaw
review
will
create
those
tools
and
we're
willing
to
participate.
We
intend
to
participate.
We
see
the
writing
on
the
wall,
but
what
we
want
is
good
intensification,
not
bad
intensification
and
the
provincial
approach
just
caving
into
the
developer
lobby,
as
of
right
doesn't
protect
existing
communities
to
manage
change
that
they
can
live
with,
because
change
is
coming,
no
matter
what.
Q
My
my
sense
is
that
the
the
growth
management
strategy
that
we've
passed
allows
for
significant
infill
intensification
across
ottawa
that
probably
doesn't
even
yet
contemplate
large
swaths
of
r1
being
up
zoned
to
r3.
Q
You
know
my
sense
is
that
our
growth
management
strategy
and
the
the
comprehensive
zoning
by-law
review
is
actually
going
to
create
more
housing
supply
than
we
even
anticipate.
If
we
go
down
the
path
of
eliminating
some
of
that
r1
zoning
in
in
areas
where
it
where
it
makes
sense
so,
okay,
alex.
Thank
you
always
good
to
see.
You.
A
F
Thank
you
and
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today,
my
name
is
helen.
Cliff
I'm
a
resident
of
hintonburg,
I'm
speaking
in
my
personal
capacity,
not
on
behalf
of
any
organization.
F
F
If
those
submissions
are
too
loud,
I
may
have
to
leave,
but
I
just
hear
that
that's
why
so
the
main
submission
that
I
have
the
main
comment
that
I
had
in
reading
the
staff
report
is
that
I
think
that
the
city's
response
could
do
more
to
grapple
with
the
severity
of
the
housing
shortage
or
housing
crisis.
F
Shortage,
the
city
can
take
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
province
so
on.
Q
If
I
may
quickly,
you're
in
and
out,
I
I
think
I
see
the
other
members
nodding.
I
don't
know
if
turning
off
your
video
might
give
you
a
bit
more
bandwidth.
So
it's
a
smoother
experience.
Q
F
Thanks,
council,
larry
yeah,
so
there's
there's
numbers
showing
con
prices
went
up
60
on
average
last
year,
houses
price
house
prices
are
up
24,
so
our
population
is
growing
quickly
and
the
housing
supply
is
not
keeping
up,
and
I
I
saw
the
report
that
councillor
mckinney
referred
to
from
statistics.
Canada,
showing
you
know,
there's
more
dwellings.
Dwellings
are
growing
faster
than
population.
F
F
Spy
is
not
meeting
demand.
This
is
a
complicated
problem.
There's
no
magic
levers
in
order
to
address
the
real
seas
on
many
families
and
you've
heard
from
other
speakers
about-
and
I
know
many
of
you
know
personally
about
the
human
costs
that
these
prices
are
having
and
their
environmental
and
social
consequences
as
well.
When
people
who
want
to
live
in
ottawa
are
forced
to
live
further
away
to
have
long
commutes.
F
I
think
there's
a
pretty
clear
link
between
cities
that
have
unaffordable
housing
generally,
that
is
high
market
rate.
Housing
tend
to
have
more
homelessness
because
it
just
becomes
harder
for
everyone
up
and
down
the
income
scale,
but
it
has
particularly
negative
effects
on
poorer
people,
younger
people
and
other
communities
that
have
lower
rates
of
homeownership.
So
I
think
this
is
an
equity
issue
as
well
as
just
an
economic
one.
So
what
can?
What
can
ottawa
do?
I
think
I
was.
F
I
was
pleased
to
see
that
the
report
prepared
by
staff
acknowledges
in
the
summary
that
there's
a
housing
crisis,
because
that's
something
that
doesn't
appear
in
the
draft
official
plan.
It
doesn't
mention
the
housing
prices
crisis.
So
I
think
it's
good
that
we
take
this
opportunity
to
do
that,
but
that
doesn't
come
through
in
the
text
of
the
city
position.
So,
for
example,
we
take
no
position
on
the
1.5
million
target
there.
F
It's
a
good
idea
or
not
by
my
sort
of
back
of
the
envelope
calculations,
and
I
think
this
lines
up
with
what
steve
willis
mentioned
earlier.
F
The
target
would
be
30
or
40
percent,
more
ambitious
to
the
numbers
in
the
official
plan,
so
I
think
it's
sort
of
incumbent
on
the
city
to
say
do
we
think
this
official
plan
is
enough,
in
which
case
we
should
be
opposing
the
target,
which
I
I
don't
agree
with,
or
should
we
really
be
stepping
up
to
address
these
concerns
so
that
we
can,
you
know,
tell
our
kids
that
they'll
they
will
be
able
to
afford
houses
or
apartments
in
in
our
neighborhoods,
because
ultimately,
rental
prices
are
closely
linked
to
house
prices.
F
The
other
thing
I
I
just
wanted
to
mention
there
was
some
interesting
back
and
forth.
Among
the
other
speakers,
it's
clear
that
there
is
a
trade-off
between
building
more
housing
supply
quickly
and
addressing
existing
residence
concerns,
and
we
can
try
to
find
compromise,
but
ultimately
you
have
to
trade.
There
is
there
is
some
trade-off
there.
Part
of
the
problem
is,
I
agree
too
much
weight
gets
attached
to
existing
residents
because
the
future
residents
aren't
here
yet
they
don't
have
a
voice.
F
But
another
problem,
and
maybe
a
bigger
problem,
is
that
the
process
itself
seems
to
be
designed
around
existing
residents
and
we're
not
we
add
extra
layers
of
consultation,
extra
layers
of
appeal
without
thinking
about
what
that's
doing,
to
aggravate
the
housing
shortage.
So
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak,
I'd
be
happy
to
take
any
questions.
E
I
do
thanks
alan,
I'm
glad
that
you
were
able
to
get
the
bandwidth,
because
I
agree
with
much
of
what
you
said
and
I
just
want
to
circle
back
around
to
the
issue
of
you
know
the
census
data
that
came
out
that
did
show
that
you
know
housing
supply
was
rising
at
a
you
know,
moderately
higher
rate
than
than
population.
However,
that's
that's
net
right,
and
I
understand
that.
I
think
that
I
think
the
important
thing
is
that
we
obviously
need
supply.
E
We
need
housing
supply
and,
and
we
need
it,
we
need
intensification
and
we
need
that
intensification
in
existing
communities.
E
So
there's
always
that
conflict,
but
I
I
you
know
I
just
I
guess
where
I'm
always
concerned,
because
I
care
very
deeply
about
housing,
affordability
for
people
who
have
no
homes,
people
who
have
you
know
cannot
rent
and
for
people
who
who
want
to
purchase
homes.
You
know
people
should
have
you
know
there
should
be
housing
options
to
meet
everyone's
needs.
E
That
would
be
the
healthiest
type
of
community
and
city
we
would
build,
but
I
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
the
demand
side
and
I
think
that-
and
I
I
just
wonder
if
you
agree
with
this-
that
if
we
you
know-
and
I'm
not
an
economist-
I
think
about
housing-
a
lot.
But
I'm
not
an
economist.
But
if,
if
in
fact
the
the
it's
shown
that
there
are
more
people-
and
the
data
also
bore
this
out-
that
more
people
are
choosing
to
live
alone
rather
than
in
couples
right.
E
So
we
have
more
single
person,
households
that
that
is-
and
I
that's
the
type
of
demand
that
I
think
if
we
pull
away
some
of
the
decision-making
power
at
the
local
level,
it
means
that
we,
we
miss
the
opportunity
to
address
what's
happening
in
our
cities
right.
So
things
in
toronto
are
different
than
things
in
ottawa
and
and
things
in
ottawa
are
very
different
than
how
we
plan
and
how
we're
building
say
in
in
sudbury
and-
and
you
know,
an
11th
story.
E
Building
on
a
my
on,
a
corridor
in
one
city
might
be
very
different
from
another
and
the
and
the
the
the
the
number
of
units
that
that
we're
building
that
we're
you
know
of
moving
forward
on
doesn't
match
what
the
demand
is.
Then
I
that's
where
I
have
a
problem
with
only
looking
at
supply,
I
believe
in
supply.
I
think
it
has
to
be
matched
up
and
that's
where
I
see
the
decision-making
at
the
local
level
being
important.
F
Thanks,
counselor
and-
and
I
I
don't
think
we
should
only
look
at
supply-
I
don't
know
very
much
about
the
demand
side
things
my
feeling
is
demand.
Side
on
its
own
is
never
going
to
be
enough,
because
there's
there's
too
many
factors
that
are
that
are
going
to
push
on
the
demand
side,
so
we
need
to
get
supply
as
well,
and
so
I
think
that
this
report
that,
in
responding
to
this
report,
it
would
be
a
good
opportunity
for
the
city
to
say
you
know
we
get
it.
F
E
A
Okay,
thanks
very
much,
I'm
seeing
no
more
questions.
So
thanks
alan
for
your
presentation
today
we
appreciate
it
all
right.
We
are
finished
our
public
delegations.
A
A
My
intention
here
is,
I
kind
of
see
the
staff
report
as
a
almost
a
technical
response
to
the
to
the
provincial
housing
report.
But
if
we're
going
to
ask
the
mayor
and
chair
moffat-
and
if
committee
accepts
this
to
make
representations
to
the
province,
we
want
to
be
focusing
on
the
items
that
are
of
the
most
important
based
on
what
we've
heard
today
from
community
members
and
what
we've
received
through
public
consultations,
so
just
trying
to
highlight
four
main
points
that
do
come
up
again
and
again.
A
That
I
think
deserves
some
some
extra
consideration
and
focus
if
we're
speaking
with
the
province
on
this.
So
that's
my
motion.
I
believe
councillor
fleury
has
some
motions
that
are
going
to
be
introduced
by
counselor
libra,
but
councillor
fleury
since
you're
here
you
might
as
well
read
them
and
introduce
we'll
get
them
on
the
screen.
First.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
want
to
begin
by
thanking
councillor
lieber
for
moving
them
on
my
behalf
and
also
mr
willis,
for
taking
the
time
with
me
to
to
go
over
the
report
and
and
areas
of
clarification
and
helping
with
the
motions
here.
So
maybe
the
first
one
kelly
would
be
the
olt.
C
The
province
of
ontario
released
55
recommendations
through
its
the
ontario
affordable
task
force,
whereas
the
recommendations
26
through
31,
seeks
to
weed
out
or
prevent
appeals.
The
task
force
believes
is
aim
at
delaying
projects,
whereas
the
task
force
points
to
latest
data
from
the
ontario
land
tribunals.
C
Whereas
the
recommendation
numbers
26
states
that
the
province
should
require
appellants
to
promptly
seek
permission,
leave
to
appeal
the
tribunal
and
demonstrate
that
the
appeal
has
merit
relying
on
evidence
and
expert
reports
before
it
is
accepted,
and
whereas
the
city
report
states
that
it
is
that
it
has
no
concerns
provided
to
the
province,
restore
and
office
to
advise
community
organization
and
other
stakeholders
on
the
mechanics
of
filing
a
proper
appeal
and
whereas
the
city
further
states,
resources
would
also
need
to
be
provided
to
the
ontario
land
tribunal
so
that
an
expeditious
review
of
the
material
provided
on
the
leave
application
could
be
done
and
not
cause
delay.
C
And
whereas
recommendation
30
requests
the
province
to
provide
funding
to
increase
staffing,
adjudicate,
adjudicators
and
case
managers,
provide
market,
competitive
salary,
outsource,
mat,
more
matters
to
mediators
and
set
shorter
time
targets.
And
whereas
the
city
supports
this
recommendation,
but
to
be
successful,
this
recommendation
should
reflect
the
specific
needs
of
the
national
capital
region.
A
Okay,
thanks
matt
and
you've
got
one
or
two
others
on
this
item
as
well.
I
think.
C
Yes,
I
have
one
on
public
lands
very
similar
colleagues
to
the
motion
that
we
carried
at
on
the
op,
but
now
that
the
province
is
opening
its
interest
on
us
seeing
more
development,
I'm
rephasing
or
reframing
it
specifically
on
provincial
land
and
crown.
C
So,
whereas
the
city
of
ottawa
is
proud
to
be
that
the
capital
canada's
capital,
whereas
the
city
includes
unique
neighborhoods
and
villages,
whereas
communities
evolve
and
need
change
and
at
times
school
properties
being
unused
for
education
purposes
due
to
change
in
neighborhood
demographics,
whereas
many
public
lands
are
vacant
and
offer
development
opportunities,
whereas
the
city
has
not
signified
the
city's
objectives
for
the
development
of
these
federal,
provincial
crown
agencies
and
city
public
land,
whereas
these
lands
should
be
considered
in
a
complete
community
lens
ahead
of
development
and
redevelopment,
whereas
the
city
has
unique
opportunities
to
ensure
that
publicly
owned
land
meet
the
me
be
introducing
a
full
range
of
affordability
and
increase
the
number
of
rental
housing
stock.
C
Whereas
the
ontario
housing,
affordability,
task
force
mandate
was
explore,
measures
to
address
housing
needs,
whereas
government-owned
lands
was
outside
of
the
mandate.
But
many
stakeholders
noted
the
value
of
surplus
and
underused
public
land
and
land
associated
with
major
transit
investments
in
finding
housing
solutions,
whereas
several
stakeholders
on
the
task
force
raised
issues
that
they
believe
that
have
merit
in
further
consideration.
M
C
Whereas
the
city
has
no
concerns
with
this
proposal,
provided
that
there
are
appropriate
checks
and
balances
to
address
land
use,
compatibility
between
sensitive
land
uses
and
industrial
uses
that
may
be
adjacent.
Therefore,
it
be
resolved
that
the
city
requests
that
the
province
of
ontario,
based
on
their
affordable
housing
task
force,
recommendations
include
renewed
policies
to
easily
transfer
provincially
owned
land
within
ottawa,
to
unlock
housing
options
on
vacant
or
mt
provincial
properties,
including
crown
agencies
such
as
the
lcbo
nto
and
school
boards.
C
So
this
one
relates
colleagues
to
earlier
delegation
and
something
that
we
had
flagged
through
the
the
the
the
report,
whereas
the
provincial
the
province
of
ontario,
released
its
55.
C
So
be
it,
for
I
can
explain
it
after
so
be
it
for
the
result.
The
city
of
ottawa
agrees
that
the
province
needs
to
lead
a
discussion
on
ways
to
remove
exclusionary
zoning
that
inhibits
allowing
a
variety
of
housing
types
in
neighborhoods
in
ontario
that
the
city
encouraged
the
province
to
adapt
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
issue
best
practices.
C
C
Again
very
similar
to
the
op
conversation,
but
ties
in
a
number
of
things
that
were
presented
in
this
in
the
task
force.
Recommendation
specifically
heritage
conservation
districts
and
site
plan
elements.
So
therefore,
be
it
resolve
that
committee
direct
staff
to
clarify
in
their
report,
ahead
of
replying
to
the
province,
the
importance
of
site
plan
and
its
current
review
process
in
certain
neighborhoods
and
in
communities
that
have
been
rezoned
or
are
zoned
residential
for
density
and
not
exempt
it
from
public
consultation
and
input.
F
A
Q
It
is
thanks
thanks
chair,
so
I'm
gonna
keep
it
really
brief.
I
mean
I
fundamentally
agree
with
the
the
city's
positions
on
pretty
much
all
of
this.
Q
I
am
wondering,
given
what
we've
heard
from
delegations
around
the
olt,
whether
we
can
bump
up
that
language
to
make
it
stronger
before
council,
and
I
would
be
you
know
very
happy
to
chat
with
anyone
who
wants
to
talk
about
that,
but
the
the
essentially
ripping
away
the
appeal
rights
from
community
groups
strikes
me
as
a
very
inequitable
way
to
treat
that
quasi-judicial
system.
Q
The
question
that
I
have,
though,
is
with
respect
to
site
plan
we're
going
to
talk
about
green
building
standards,
the
high
performance
development
standards
as
the
next
item
today,
the
legislative
basis
for
being
able
to
apply
green
standards
to
buildings
comes
from
our
authority
over
site
plan.
If
the
province
were
to
remove
site
plan
requirements,
do
we
then
lose
our
leverage
to
implement
high
performance
design
standards.
K
So
chairs-
and
mr
mark
may
wish
to
add
to
what
I
say
about
this-
I
I
do
believe
that
many
of
the
standards
are
in
peril.
If
we
lose
those
legislative
authorities,
we
could
still
do
some
things,
but
what
much
of
what
is
before
you
later
in
the
agenda
would
become
out
of
scope
of
municipal
authority.
Q
Yeah,
so
that's
that's
a
big
concern
for
me.
Our
ability
to
get
better
design,
understanding
the
trade-offs
right,
the
the
opposition
to
high
performance
science
standards,
some
of
that
relates
to
housing,
affordability,
which
is
obviously
counter
to
what
the
province
is
trying
to
achieve
here.
Q
So
I'd
ask
you
to
give
that
some
consideration
and
I'll
be
interested
to
hear
from
my
colleagues
as
to
whether
or
not
there's
an
appetite
for
an
appetite
for
some
stronger
language
around
the
olt.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Jeff
counselor,.
F
Thank
you,
chair,
merci
beaucoup,
and
thank
you
to
staff
for
the
report
in
the
presentation.
Just
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
Recommendation
three
of
the
report,
not
the
third
recommendation
from
staff
that
was
amended
by
possibly
amended
by
the
council
fury's
motion,
but
the
limit,
exclusionary
zoning.
F
It
allows
it
would
allow,
as
of
right
housing
up
to
four
units
on
a
single
residential
lots
and
if
these
policies
are
adopted
by
the
province,
considering
the
new
op
states
that
single-family
homes
are
also
allowed
to
be
built
and
rebuilt
on
lots.
How
do
those
policies
reconcile.
K
So
chairs
again,
without
this
isn't
legislation.
Yet
it's
a
proposal
we'd
have
to
see
the
context
of
the
legislation
how
it
would
apply
much
as
we
ran
into
this
very
issue
during
the
official
plan.
You
know
the
issue
of
continuing
rights
versus
new
rights
will
be
very
part
of
the
transition
provisions.
The
new
legislation
and
chairs
we're
watching
any
introduction
legislation
closely
and
we'll
issue
a
memo
to
council.
When
we
see
it's
out
there
and
that's
a
question,
we
will
be
tracking
but
counts.
K
F
Thank
you
for
that,
but
you
know
the
city
supports
the
intent
of
the
proposal
and
is
is
the
response
by
the
city.
So
if
the
task
force
recommends
allowing
up
to
four
four
units
as
of
right-
and
I
wonder
if
there
will
be
retaining
the
right
for
for
single
family
homes
to
be
built
as
well,
but
thank
you
I.
F
I
recognize
that
it's
not
legislation,
just
one
more
question
quickly
about
the
tree,
canopy,
the
the
recommendations,
the
directions,
the
potential
legislation,
if
implemented,
what
impact
would
it
have
on
our
targets,
our
objectives
of
the
40
tree
canopy.
K
So
jared
complex
question
to
answer,
and
so
it's
hard
to
give
you
a
straight
and
straightforward
answer
on
this.
My
take
on
this,
and
this
is
something
we're
going
to
have
to
wrestle
with
in
our
zoning,
regardless
of
what
the
province
does
in
this
space,
we're
having
good
internal
discussions
and
staff.
Now
about
whether
or
not
we
need
to
revisit
front
yard
setback
requirements
in
certain
neighborhoods
that
have
very,
very
minimal
front
yard
setback
requirements
in
order
to
have
the
goals
of
the
intensification
and
the
tree
canopy
as
well.
K
K
F
You
thank
you.
You
know
we
have
the
new
tree,
bylaw,
that's
less
than
two
years
old
that
that
we
all
support
and-
and
I
hope
those
policies
are
taken
into
account
with
respect
to
the
city's
response
and
with
respect
to
this
this
process
moving
forward.
Thank
you,
mr
willis.
Thank
you,
chair.
K
I
chairs,
I
don't
have
that
data
for
ontario.
I
can
look
it
up
see
whether
the
task
force
represents
it
and
maybe
miss
brody.
If
you
can
scan
through
the
document
and
text
me
if
you
have
that,
I
I
know
in
ottawa,
we
oscillate
between
5500
and
6900,
depending
on
economic
conditions
a
year.
That's
that's
the
ottawa
number
and
you
know
it
there
it
it's
very
tied
to
the
health
of
the
local
economy
and
how
much
houses
are
being
sold.
So
I'm
trying
to
multiply
that
math
out.
K
O
One
from
councillor
fleury
talks
about
the
province
needs
to
lead
a
discussion
on
ways
to
remove
exclusionary
zoning
that
inhibits
allowing
a
variety
of
housing
types
and
neighborhoods
in
ontario.
What
does
that
actually
mean?
We
want
to
ask
the
province.
K
So
sheriff
if
councillor
fleury
feels
it's
appropriate.
I
answer
on
his
behalf,
he's
okay,
with
that.
I
think
what
what
we're
framing
the
intent
of
counselor
flurry's
motion-
and
I
did
give
him
some
advice
on
the
wording
of
it
is-
I
think
people
understand
that
to
address
the
housing
needs
of
ontario.
We
need
to
break
down
some
of
the
traditional
zoning
systems
that
all
around
north
america.
There
are
jurisdictions
questioning
the
way
we're
doing
it,
and
many
jurisdictions
have
gone
so
far
as
to
eliminate
our
one
zoning.
K
We
did
not
do
that
in
ottawa
in
the
new
official
plan,
but
we
did
talk
about
where
it
needs
to
be
eaten
into
and
transformed
from
multi-family,
and
I
think
the
province
could
lead
in
municipal
discussion
across
the
province
among
municipalities
about
how
to
do
it.
But
you
know
we
maintain
the
position
that
we
should
not
withstanding.
The
province
should
set
some
direction
and
guidance
and
tell
us
what
they
want
us
to
achieve.
We
have
like
the
pps
already
is
constructed.
We
should
be
allowed
to
customize
it
to
the
ottawa
context.
O
Okay,
so
this
is
the
most
dicey
issue
in
my
award
and
I
know
there
are
others
about.
You
know
the
cost
of
appealing
and
engagement.
That's
that's
very
important,
but
the
the
the
recommendations
coming
from
this
task
force
does
not
recommend
eliminating
r1
zoning,
but
how
close
do
their
set
of
recommend
recommendations
get
to
it?
Can
you
just
summarize
that.
K
I'm
chairs
it's
very
hard
for
me
to
read
the
minds
of
the
panelists
on
the
task
force.
I
I
think
there's
a
lot
they.
They
must
have
had
an
internal
discussion
about
whether
they
would
go
there
or
not,
because
much
of
the
language
in
the
in
the
report
really
does
dance
around
the
edges
of
this.
I'm
sure
they'd
struggled
much
as
council
itself
did
when
it
adopted
the
new
official
plan
about
trying
to
find
a
balanced
approach.
K
It's
it's,
and
this
is
the
problem-
is
it's
hard
to
do
a
one-size-fits-all
across
the
province,
because
what
might
be
appropriate
in
in
toronto
wouldn't
be
appropriate
here
and
what
might
be
appropriate
here
wouldn't
be
appropriate
in
kingston
like
it.
It
is
a
very,
very
difficult
problem
and
I
think
we
still
believe
as
staff,
that
municipal
planning
approaches
are
still
valid
rather
than
provincially
led,
but
I
think
the
intent
and
again
I
I'm
speaking
on
councillor
fleury's
behalf
here
because
of
his
motion.
K
O
Just
we
we
have
heard
from
the
colleagues
of
mine
during
the
op
discussion
that
there
is
a
willingness
to
look
at
r1
and
maybe
even
eliminating
our
one,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
this
motion
does
not
feed
into
that
political
intent.
Rather,
it's
ensuring
ottawa
has
a
seat
at
the
table
so
that,
if
we're
going
down
this
road,
we
get
to
be
there.
We
get,
we
get
to
help
guide
the
final
outcome.
K
So
councillor,
if
I
may
clarify,
I
believe,
councilor
fleury
should
also
respond,
but
I
I
the
wording
that
I
suggested
to
councillor.
Fleury
does
not
make
this
a
mandatory
item.
It
says
the
province
has
to
lead
into
conversation
and
we
would
expect
as
the
second
largest
city
in
the
province
of
ontario,
to
be
at
the
table.
C
Yeah
I
know
I
I
and
thank
you,
mr
willis,
and
thank
you
council
brockington
for
for
your
questions.
I
think
they're
very
relevant
for
the
context.
We
have
an
op
with
its
directions
and
the
next
council
will
have
its
zoning
review
bylaw.
In
the
meantime,
we
could
be
steamrolled
by
a
report
like
this.
If,
tomorrow,
the
province
just
removed
r1
we
lose
any
of,
and-
and
if
you
look
it's
embedded
in
different
parts
of
the
report-
the
site
plan
their
heritage
components.
C
So
this
motion's
really
meant
to
show
our
card
saying
we
recognize
the
risk
of
where
you're
heading
we
we,
we
have
our
local
context
and
we
want
to
be
engaged
on.
That's
all
this
does
yeah,
mr
willis,
that's
like
that's
the
direction.
I
think
we
you're
clear
on
like
it
does
not
remove
r1
at
this
point,
but
it
states
that
we're
worried
that
the
province
might
remove
r1
and
we
want
to
be
at
the
table
if
you
do
to
not
lose
the
local.
The
local
context.
O
I
just
think
if
the
tax,
the
task
force
didn't
go
that
far,
then
why
are
we
now
wanting
to
engage
in
that
type
of
conversation
and
if
we
believe
we
need
to
protect
ourselves
and
the
province
is
going
to
go
further,
even
though
it
may
not
be
addressed
in
the
task
force
set
of
recommendations,
then
yeah
I'll
support
that,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
engage
in
a
conversation
that
could
be
quite
damaging
to
many
of
our
neighborhoods
if
we
don't
have
to
if
the
province
has
told
us
they're
not
going
to
go
that
far,
and
then
this
this
conversation
is
very
helpful.
O
I
was
just
trying
to
understand.
Is
your
motion
because
the
province
is
going
that
direction
and
we
want
to
see
it
at
the
table?
Is
it
more
because
we're
worried
that
potentially
could
come
up
and
we
want
to
flag
it
early
and
get
a
seat
at
the
table?
That's
that's
very
noble,
but
that's
that's
the
reason
behind
my
questions
in
that
regard,
I
have
others
I'm
going
to
yield
because
there's
a
long,
lineup
and
perhaps
I'll
come
back.
Thank
you.
A
D
I
just
wanted
to
say
you
know
when
I
hear
people
talk
about
this.
Sometimes
it's
an
interview,
sometimes
it's
in
writing.
They
refer
to
this
task
report
as
a
seminal
document
and
when
people
start
talking
about
it
as
a
seminal
document
and
and
it
gets
some
legs
with
that,
I
wonder
how
much
anything
we're
going
to
do
here
is
going
to
make
a
difference,
and
I
I
hate
questions
that
asked
for
crystal
balling,
but
we
are
giving
feedback.
You
know
some
of
the
groups
today
may
give
feedback.
D
I
asked
one
of
the
presenters
about
74
voices,
so
we
send
all
this
feedback.
We
say
this
is
what
we
think.
We
think
our
communities
don't
like
this.
We
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
good.
We
agree
with
some
parts.
D
Do
you
really
think
that
there's
a
value
to
this
that
they
would
actually
listen,
because
when
they
talk
about
it
as
a
seminal
document,
we've
got
a
provincial
election
coming
up,
I'm
wondering
if
what
we're
doing
here
is
enough
and
if
it
will
be
listened
to
you
know
what
are
your
thoughts
about
whether
this
will
have
really
an
impact?
What
we're
trying
to
do
here
today.
K
So
that's
recent
experience
for
the
city
and
I
and
I
do
believe
that
when
I
discuss
this
with
my
counterparts
from
around
the
province,
there's
sort
of
a
sense
that
if,
if
the
city
could
flag
to
the
province
things
it
can
support
and
things
it
cannot
support.
Maybe
the
province
will
listen.
K
K
Chairs
I
I
had
conversations
with
many
of
my
counterparts
around
ontario
I've
seen
some
of
the
reports
coming
out
and
there's
some
very,
very
common
themes
emerging-
and
I
don't
know
if
one
of
the
members
of
council
can
talk
to
amo's
position,
but
I
believe
ammo
is
also,
I
believe,
council
brockington
I've
been
correct
as
our
emo
representative,
I
I
maybe
he
can
remarkable
what
amos
position
has
been
on
this.
O
D
Okay,
well,
I
guess
I
would
say
that
that
gives
me
some
hope
that
there
is
actually
some
benefit
to
what
we're
saying
and
doing
here,
but
I
will
just
echo
what
counselor
leaper
had
said
that
if
there
isn't,
if
we
aren't,
if
we
don't
have
any
impact
here,
all
that
we're
about
to
talk
about
later
in
this
agenda
is
is
at
risk.
You
know
this
is
fairly
significant
thing
anyway.
I
I
appreciate
everyone's
comments.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you
chair.
I
do.
I
do
have
somewhat
mixed
views
on
what's
in
front
of
us
today,
because
I
don't
disagree
with
the
delegates
that
were
here
today
saying
our
current
planning
process
can
and
does
at
times
impede
our
ability
to
increase
our
housing
stock.
D
So
you
know
I
feel
it
is
important
for
me
to
speak
as
a
millennial.
You
know
I'm
a
33
year
old,
counselor
I've
experienced
some
of
these
challenges.
M
D
You
all
know
I'm
a
proud
navinite,
but
I
do
live
40
kilometers
from
my
workplace,
I'm
still
in
the
city
limits,
obviously,
but
I'm
not
far
from
the
border.
So
all
that
said,
my
question
to
you,
mr
willis,
is:
where
is
the
healthy
middle
between
removing
all
consultation
and
letting
the
province
completely
run
roughshod
over
our
planning
decisions,
but
and
and
permitting
for
some
good
community
input
that
allows
for
suggestions
and
improvements
on
applications?
K
D
K
Like
the
way,
counselor
kids
characterize
the
debate
here
I
mean
you
know
I
every
opportunity
I
get.
I
say
the
best
consultation
is
the
consultation
that
happens
before
an
application
is
ever
filed
because
a
lot
of
development
proponents
spends
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
meet
our
application
requirements
and
they
do
that
based
on
one
design
concept,
so
the
earlier
they
get
out
and
consult
the
community
ahead
of
an
application,
the
more
advantageous
it
is
to
both
the
applicant
and
the
community,
because
it's
a
change
it's
the
time
when
change
is
most
likely
to
happen.
K
We
there
is
value
in
public
consultation.
A
lot
of
designs
are
improved
through
that,
but
we
also
struggle
as
a
municipality
to
get
things
processed
in
a
timely
manner,
and
that's
why
earlier
conversa
conversations
are
better
for
sure,
and
so
I
think
the
staff
position
in
this
is
is
is
really
urging
the
province
to
to
not
go
too
hard
down
that
road,
because
it's
there
are
risks
to
that
and
it'll
play
out
in
other
ways.
Like
you
know,
any
any
consultation
that
doesn't
happen
will
come
up
it'll.
K
The
concerns
and
complaints
will
come
in
another
way
and
I'll
just
give
you
an
example
of
that
is
that
you
know
forgive
me
counselor
leaper
for
picking
on
counselor
leeper,
but
you
know,
developments
approved
as
of
right
in
his
ward
will
generate
they're
as
of
right.
They
didn't
require
any
approval
from
the
department
and
they'll
generate
lots
of
issues
that
might
have
been
avoided.
Had
the
file
been
discussed
ahead
of
time
and-
and
I
just
just
because
counselor
and
I
are
dealing
with
these
every
couple
of
weeks-
it's
it's.
C
Yeah
sorry
about
that
steve,
I
just
wanted
to
come
back
and-
and
thank
you
for
the
time
one
of
the
points
that
you
made
and
I
went
back
to
the
youtube
throughout
the
the
speakers.
I
think
you're
you're
at
25
minutes
on
youtube.
C
You
presented
something
very
clear
that
all
residents
in
ottawa
and
all
community
association
should
really
listen
to
the
the
three
four
points
that
you
made
around
the
impacts
on
housing
and
and
that
how
the
report
was
written,
I
think,
is
extremely
well
articulated
and
important
for
all
stakeholders,
no
matter
which
side
you're
on
to
listen
to
to
me
in
the
area
I
represent
and
my
responsibility
with
och
and
understanding
the
waitlist.
I
think
your
first
point
was
the
most
important
one,
which
is
the
title
and
name
of
this
report
is
confusing.
C
Most
people
think
of
affordable
housing.
They
think
of
our
wait
list
for
affordable
housing.
They
don't
they
don't
think
about
affordable
home
ownership,
which
I
think
is
what
this
rip.
What
what
you
highlight
in
this
report
and
the
various
elements
of
that
I
want
to
come
back
on
a
couple
of
elements
in
the
report,
particularly
0.32
on
point
32,
page
30.
C
There
is
something
about
infill
that
a
raises
an
eyebrow
to
me.
We,
we
have
a
provincial
recommendation,
a
task
force
recommendation
that
says
all
these
things
about
site
plan
heritage
and
so
on,
and
we've
done
a
lot
of
that
work
recently
with
the
op
which
you
know
commends
us
in
being
ahead
of
that
and
it's
unfortunate.
The
province
doesn't
fully
capture
how
far
we
went
in
the
op,
but
I'm
I'm
concerned
when
we
think
that
infill
should
should
escape,
wait.
C
The
waiver
of
dc's
dc
charges
and
cash,
and
I
wonder
if
you
can
express
what
that
would
mean
for
our
city,
because
ultimately
there
is
a
cost
to
seeing
new
residents
moving
into
a
neighborhood,
maybe
not
the
water
pipe
or
the
a
sidewalk,
although
sometimes
it's
missing,
but
thinking
that
the
cost
of
development
pays
for
the
cost
of
development,
I
don't
think
that
we've
articulated
what
that
means
in
infill
condition:
infill
conditions.
I
wonder
if
you
could
say
that
for
the
record.
K
So
chairs
you
know
in
the
new
official
plan
you
know
we
have
a
lot
of
you
know
of
the
195
000
new
housing
units
we
predicted
we
need,
and
the
plan
was
adopted
on
the
basis
of
that
49.
000
of
them
need
to
be
larger
household
units
which
are
largely
done
not
through
towers
but
are
done
through
low-rise
infill
projects.
K
So
a
lot
of
our
intensification
targets
are
based
on
more
and
being
done
in
low
rise
form
going
into
into
areas,
particularly
those
well
served
by
transit
and
if
we
were
to
exempt
what's
now
going
to
become
the
majority
of
our
new
units
from
development
charges,
those
development
charges.
You
know
the
the
largest
dollar
figure
development
charges
in
ottawa
pays
for
public
transit
right
now,
the
entire
public
transit
system.
You
know
the
second
largest
is
in
roads,
but
we
also
have
affordable
housing,
recreation,
amenities,
libraries,
policing,
ambulance
services
and
the
like.
K
So
the
development
charges
is
in
a
very
crucial
tool
for
the
city
to
raise
money
to
deal
with
the
incremental
cost
of
growth
and
population.
If
we
don't
have
that
money
coming
in
through
development
charges,
it
will
come
to
the
general
tax
base.
There
is
no
other
option
for
that.
Some
of
it
could
go
on
to
the
water
bills,
but
but
the
rest
would
come
on
the
tax
base,
so
the
city
has
concerns
about
it.
The
government
did
provide
a
provision
for
both
deferral
and
exemption
of
affordable,
truly
affordable
housing.
C
I
think
that's
very
important
because
in
the
report,
it's
very
not
generic,
it's
clear
that
development
should
pay
for
development,
but
it
does
not
say
what
you
just
said:
we're
going
towards
a
majority
of
infill
and
here
here's
what
infill
pays
for.
I
wonder
if
that
could
be
a
basically
if,
if
you're
able
to
take
that
as
a
direction
and
amend
the
that
segment
of
the
report
with
with
such
language,
because
I
think
it
is
pertinent
to
financial
well-being
and
growth
of
the
city.
K
C
Okay,
chair,
I'm
very
cognizant
of
the
time
I
took.
I
have
two
more
quick
questions
on
page
point
on
put
on
point
12,
section
d:
there's
a
recommendation
to
remove
floor
plate
and
I
thought
man.
We
did
a
lot
of
work.
Members
of
council
that
have
been
here
for
a
few
years,
I'm
looking
to
cancer
moffett,
counselor,
counselor
tierney
and
includes
you
particularly
like
we
went
for
high
rises
that
are
much
more.
We
have
separation
distances
floor
plates.
C
So
I
wonder
if
we
capture
the
the
magic
of
that
it
seems
almost
like
a
toronto
clause
to
me
and
not
representative
of
the
character
of
ottawa's
high-rise,
def
lake
environment.
K
So
chairs,
I
will
say
that
I
have
heard
from
the
industry
that
sometimes
our
provisions
are
not
very
context-sensitive
and
that,
but
they
do
have
an
out.
They
can
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
for
a
revision
to
that
standard
based
on
site-specific
context.
So
I
think
this
is
again
goes
back
to
the
point.
Similar
to
the
motion
I
provided
advice
on
is:
there's
nothing
wrong
with
a
province-wide
conversation
about
these
standards
and
whether
or
not
you
know
if
ottawa
is
more
restrictive
than
hamilton,
maybe
we
can
align
ourselves
a
little
bit
better.
K
So
there's
more
predictability
in
this.
I
don't
think
anybody
opposes
that
and
if,
if
somebody
has
found
a
better
way
of
analyzing
this
we're
more
than
open
to
that
conversation,
so
I
think
would
really
the
point
of
staff's
staff's
position
on
this
recommended
to
council's
position
is
that
the
conversation
can
happen
province
wide,
but
and
we
defend
the
work
we've
done,
but
you
know
maybe
we
can
learn
and
improve
our
process
based
on
a
provincial
conversation.
K
C
I'd
have
one
more
question.
My
final
one
is
0.48
the
ontario
housing
delivery
fund.
What
does
that
mean?
What
does
that
mean
to
you
when
I,
when
I
read
that
I
I'm
really
unclear
about
that
objective,.
I
Thank
you
very
much
chair
just
wanted
to
start
by
saying
I
very
much
appreciate
staffs.
Oh
sorry,
can
you
hear
me
okay?
Is
it
coming
through
all
right,
yeah,
you're.
I
Fantastic,
okay,
just
very
much
appreciate,
staff's
work
and
responses.
Here
I
think
it's
it's
very
important
to
point
out
as
you've
done.
The
many
factors
that
that
affect
price
and
rent
increases,
affecting
households
that
that
have
you
know
substantially
accumulated
equity
from
persistent
depreciation
in
in
their
home
values,
as
well
as
the
strong
income
growth
that
has
taken
place
and
the
declining
and
historically
low
mortar
rates.
I
There
are
other
factors
as
well
that
that
are
that
are
contributing
to
this.
We've
been
seeing
fewer
fewer
homes
listed
for
sale
on
the
mls
for
all
through
the
pandemic,
that
that
has
a
major
effect
and,
I
suspect,
with
some
of
the
rising
interest
rates
and
the
carrying
through
of
some
more
listings,
that'll
occur.
I
I
I
K
You
know,
especially
when
we're
adding
context
to
the.
Why,
which
a
lot
of
the
comments
I've
heard
from
counselors
really
are
about,
will
provide
a
replacement
version
which
can
be
moved
on
the
floor
of
council
to
with
track
changes,
so
people
can
see
where
we
changed
it
and
staff
are
willing
to
do
that.
If
that's
council's
direction
or
committee's
direction.
Excuse
me.
I
I
think
it's
a
good
process,
because
then
you
can
kind
of
wrap
up
all
the
comments
you're
getting.
I
don't.
We
don't
have
to
all
come
with
motions
right
here
today
and
you
can
take
the
comments
we've
given
you
kind
of
offline
and
wrap
them
up
and
people
can
see
those
changes.
So
I
appreciate
that
I
won't
go
through
each
one
of
them,
then
that
we've
sent
it
on
because
most
of
them
we
just
fully
agree
with
there's
a
few
that
I
think,
could
just
use
some
more
some
more
language
in
there.
I
I
Supportive
of
this
report
is
is,
are
you?
Are
you
anticipating,
through
just
intelligence,
that
you
have
at
the
provincial
level
that
many
of
these
recommendations
potentially
get
approved,
as
is
I
just
would
like
more
intel?
If
you
have
it
on
where
things
stand
in
the
province,
both
on
the
staff
side
and
politically,
as
you
can.
K
So
chairs,
I
can
only
rely
on
what's
on
the
public
record
and
at
the
day
that
the
task
force
report
was
provided
to
the
province.
I
believe
minister
clark
said
there
would
be
amendments
before
the
end
of
this
term
of
the
legislature
as
far
as
ministry
staff
go
and
their
position-
and
I
really
have
no
read
on
that-
I
know
like
us-
they
are
working
hard
on
this
topic.
K
It's
a
front
burner
topic
for
them,
but
I
can't
begin
to
tell
you
what
staff
position
is
and
again
as
the
the
process
of
the
province
is
quite
different
as
a
municipal
process,
because
ultimately,
decisions
are
made
by
cabinet.
I
Okay,
I
think
the
more
we
can
give
back
to
us
as
we
as
we
see
this
moving,
I
I
know
your
staff
will
be
on
it
in
terms
of
just
telling
us
what
gets
table
and
what
doesn't
and
what
we
can
expect.
So
I
appreciate
that.
I
do
want
to
just
make
some
comments
about
this.
I
I
think
the
report
really
is,
unfortunately,
provincial
report,
an
evisceration
of
of
democratic
oversight,
of
the
the
development
industry
and
of
our
own
shared
built
environment,
and
I
think
the
province
really
has
been
doubling
down
on
this
sort
of
yinbi
versus
nimby,
false
dichotomy
and
it's
a
narrative
that
benefits
you
know,
industry
and
their
financial
backers,
which
really
have
had
a
huge
effect
on
on
this
report.
I
think
recommendation
after
recommendation.
I
We
would
see
subsidies
or
safe
costs
for
development
industry
at
the
expense
of
taxpayers,
residents
and
democratic
oversight,
and
the
assumption
is
that
making
development
more
profitable
for
developers
will
make
housing
more
affordable
for
residents
and
we've
not
seen
evidence
of
that.
You
know
on
the
demand
side,
we
know
there's
a
lot
of
demand
out
there
and
it's
it's.
It
is
separated
from
the
basic
need
for
shelter
demand
for
you,
know,
corporate
income
properties
and
demand
for
speculative
investment.
I
The
only
way
to
make
housing
affordable
is
to
start
taking
it
out
of
the
market
entirely
and
not
letting
the
market
run
wild,
so
housing
is
never
going
to
be
cheaper,
with
with
simply
more
profits
for
developers
added
under
the
bill
and
and
deliberative
development
processes
would
be
more
efficient
if
the
interest
of
private
profit
wasn't
always
pitted
against
a
community
benefit.
If
the.
If
the
province
is
serious
about
affordable
housing
and
housing
affordability,
then
they
should
invest
in
it.
That's
the
supply,
that's
needed.
I
We
need
public
housing,
there's
not
a
lot
of
profit
to
be
made
from
that,
but
that's
what
we
need,
and
instead
we
have
a
plan
that
really
seeks
to
you
know:
develop
1.5
million
new
homes,
none
of
which
would
be
classified
as
non-market.
As
far
as
I
can
tell,
and
so
we're
very
much
talking
about,
we
aren't
talking
about
demand,
much
we're
talking
about
supply,
we're
not
talking
about
demand
and
the
tax
advantages,
the
trading
up
of
existing
homeowners,
the
role
of
developers.
I
I
It
takes
into
account
those
single
living
folks
or
the
changes.
Homes
are
outpacing
households
nationally
between
2006
and
2016,
canada,
added
1.636
million
households
and
built
1.92
million
new
homes.
I
That's
cmhc
and
census
data,
so
on
average,
almost
30
000
extra
homes
were
constructed
each
year
compared
to
the
increase
in
the
number
of
households.
Not
just
a
supply
issue
is
the
point
that
there
is
a
supply
portion
of
this,
but
it's
not
the
bigger
factors
are
much
greater
than
that,
and
you
know
steve
pomeroy
writes,
writes
extensively
about
this.
I'd
ask
all
folks
to
read
steve
palmer
on
the
demand
side.
I
It's
not
just
the
quantity
of
demand
either,
but
the
quality
of
demand
that
he
writes
about
and
over
the
last
few
decades
we've
seen
supercharged
demand,
which
has
been
created
by
households
that
have
substantial
accumulated
equity
from
persistent
appreciation,
their
home
values
combined
with
strong
income
growth
and
declining
mortgage
rates.
So
I
think
it's
taken
for
granted
that
and
assume
that
the
surge
in
supply
will
have
a
trickle-down
benefit
for
consumers,
but
the
the
price
of
housing
is
not
determined
by
a
simple
that
simple
supply
and
demand
curve.
I
Only
housing
is
not
a
typical
commodity,
and
it's
that's
why
it's
not
considered
as
part
of
cpi.
For
that
reason,
so
I'm
really
glad
we're
having
the
discussion.
I
just
wish
it
came
in
a
better
context
than
it
is
right
now,
and
I
hope
that
the
staff
report
can
help
create
these
arguments
at
the
provincial
level.
So
appreciate
your
your
work.
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
staff
for
for
their
their
counter
proposals.
I
have
to
admit
I
found
it
really
strange
that,
in
a
conversation
about
affordable
housing,
we
have
somebody
who
admittedly
makes
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
coming,
because
they
can't
buy
a
house.
H
That
seems
very
strange
when
we
as
counselors
know
the
need
for
affordable
housing
in
a
different
context
based
on
people
being
on
a
waiting
list
and
and
and
needing
housing
it
just.
It
is
a
strange
world
and
one
of
the
concerns
I
have
is
the
gender
lens,
because
it's
it's
we're
not.
H
You
know
like
single
family
families,
weren't
even
a
single
parent
families
were
hardly
mentioned,
and
we're
talking
about
people
with
kids
and
and
people
that
really
need
housing,
and
it's
just
another
number,
and
I
think
we
have
to
show
that
there's
a
need
for
that
particular
demographic.
H
I
get
a
little
worried
when
we
lump
affordable
housing
is
one
big
lump
and
we
don't
look
at
the
big
picture
because
I
am
concerned
about
the
missing
medal,
which
would
help
many
of
many
people
and
and
those
those
with
families
like
because
when
we
start
looking
at
you
know,
what's
offered
to
us,
you
know
a
number
of
affordable
housings
in
an
apartment
building.
H
We
don't
even
have
control
over
what
size
units
they
have.
They
they're
going
to
give
us.
So
I
just
wanted
your
comments
on
that
and
how
we
can
put
the
gender
lens
on
this.
K
So
chairs,
I
think,
first
and
foremost,
as
we
indicated,
this
report
was
about
market
housing.
For
the
most
part,
there
were
a
couple
of
comments
at
the
end
which
staff
had
some
recommendations
where
they're
advising
the
province
of
where
their
energy
is
best
focused
on,
and,
as
I
said,
I,
our
housing
services
staff
are
in
the
best
position
to
explain
the
nuance
that
they
suggested,
and
you
know
when
we
did
the
official
plan
and
looked
at
the
gender
issue,
gender
lens
issue.
K
You
know
it
did
point
to
the
need
for
ground
oriented,
multi-bedroom,
larger
unit
housing
and
that's
why
the
plan
puts
so
much
emphasis
on
trying
to
accommodate
that
and
that's
why.
We've
always
felt
that
the
ottawa
version
of
a
bigger
city,
a
1.5
million
city
1.4
unchanged
city-
is
you
know
more
like
the
montreal
model,
as
I
often
said,
where
it's
lower
rise
and
it
actually
has
bigger
units
that
actually
can
deal
with
families
rather
than
the
vancouver
model,
which
is
all
towers.
K
You
know
which
is
not
great
for
families
and
even
though
the
city
is
doing
admirable,
work
to
try
to
figure
to
crack
that
nut.
I'm
not
I'm
not
criticizing
my
counterparts
there.
I
just.
I
just
think
that
that's
why
our
plan
is
organized
the
way
it
did,
and
you
know
clearly
it
wasn't
on
the
in
the
task
force's
terms
of
reference
to
address
that
issue.
So
I
don't
know
that's
much
more
useful.
I
can
say
on
their
response
to
it.
H
H
We
did
a
good
job
and
and
then
and
that's
a
step
forward,
but
when
we
get
a
report
that
that
doesn't
do
that,
I
think
we
have
to
push
back
and
say
that
that
hey,
you
forgot
something
very
important
here.
It's
not
just
figuring
out,
you
know
where
to
put
more
units
and
and
taking
down
different
restrictions,
but
you've
got
to
look
at
the
demographics
of
who
needs
housing
and
who's
really
really
hurt
in
these
situations.
K
Chairs
my
recommendation
is:
is
that
when
council's
representatives
being
the
mayor
or
the
mayor's
designates,
as
the
report
contemplates,
has
a
conversation
with
the
province,
I
think
that's
a
good
point
for
them
to
raise.
K
H
Thank
you.
One
of
the
things
that's
talked
about
is
is
infill,
but
in
my
experience
just
in
my
neighborhoods-
and
I
think
it's
pretty
true
is
they're
the
least
affordable
housing
that
infill
like
taking
down
a
house
putting
up
a
couple
of
units.
H
It
tends
to
be
in
neighborhoods
that
are
well
loved
and
everybody
wants
to
be
in
and
therefore
the
price
is
really
high.
Even
though
there
are
two
units
as
opposed
to
one,
and
you
know
about
it
very
much
so
that's
concern
and,
and
it
sort
of
speaks
again
to
still
working
on
the
missing
middle
trying
to
get
even
more
units.
Do
you
have
any
comment
on
on
that.
K
Well,
chairs,
I
go
back
to
the
official
plan.
The
official
plan
says
in
more
areas
of
the
city,
not
just
those
close
to
the
river,
where
incredibly
desirable,
neighborhoods,
very,
very
high
value
neighborhoods.
We
need
to
having
more
neighborhoods
and
more
parts
of
the
city,
more
permissions
of
more
typologies
of
housing,
that's
what
the
official
plan
did,
and
so
if
we
can
distribute
multi-uh
unit
housing
and
over
more
of
the
city
that
will
accomplish
that
goal.
You
know
right
now,
just
some
interesting
stats
provided
by
my
staff.
K
K
So
that
means
89
of
the
lots
within
the
city
would
not
allow
more
than
a
triplex
of
the
in
in
in
development
types.
You
know
with
almost
half
only
allowing
a
single
family
dwelling
and
as
much
as
it's
fair
to
protect
the
the
integrity
of
neighborhoods.
It's
also
fair
to
introduce
new,
more
diverse
housing
typologies
in
more
areas
of
the
city,
because
it
is
a
balance
of
public
interests
that
we're
dealing
with
here
and
you
know
and
give.
K
H
Thank
you.
I
think
that
the
other
thing
that
I
hear
from
communities
is
that
some
neighborhoods
feel
well
because
of
our
whole
designation
of
inner
urban
versus
outer
urban
and
and
other
that
some
neighborhoods
are
obviously
going
to
be
more
picked
on
or
or
will
be
set
up
for
more
intensification
should
it
be
across
the
board.
Maybe
that's
I
mean
we
put
that
in
our
official
plan,
but
does
it
kind
of
throw
that
out
the
window.
K
K
So
the
the
issue
is
about
leveling
the
playing
field
and
putting
more
unit
diversity
through
the
zoning
in
more
parts
of
the
city.
But
it's
really
important
to
remember
just
because
it's
zoned
to
permit
that
doesn't
mean
it's
ultimately
going
to
be
built,
and
there
are
market
forces
dictating
what's
ultimately
built
and
the
city
does
not
unilaterally
have
the
power
to
force
that
to
change.
Q
Q
With
a
combination
of
you
know,
half
and
half
intensification
in
greenfield,
you
felt
that
the
numbers
are
going
to
be
challenging
to
reach
with
the
growth
management
strategy
that
we
have,
but
that's
the
official
plan
that
we've
adopted
when
you
were
putting
that
gms
together.
Q
K
So
chairs,
mr
wise,
is
on
the
line
and
might
be
able
to
assist
me
and
back
up
what
I
have
to
say.
I
mean
during
the
growth
management
phase.
You
know
we
didn't
go
down
to
looking
at
how
zoning
would
necessarily
deploy
back,
we
modeled
how
it
would
go
and
we
modeled
the
rate
at
which
units
would
turn
over
based
on
housing.
K
You
know
houses
getting
old,
that
they
get
knocked
down
or
replaced
with
something
new,
and
we
we
did
did
that
and
we
also
looked
at
historic
infill
patterns
and
what
it
is
and
they
oscillate
a
lot
like.
We
have
some
really
high
years,
like
last
year,
was
a
very
high
year
and
some
years
that
are
low
and
it's
there's
no
consistent
trend.
K
It
goes
up
down
up
down
in
terms
of
based
on
the
on
market
conditions,
and
so
the
growth
management
numbers
were
based
on
a
longer
trend
line
over
time
to
to
see
what
we
could
accomplish,
and
it
certainly
did
not
assume
four
units
on
every
r1
lot
in
the
city,
for
example,
we
always
assumed
we
could
only
take
some
of
them
in
time
so
david.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
add
to
that
or
if
you
think,
I've
captured
it
at
a
high
level.
K
K
The
the
there
is
no
assumption
that
all
r1
would
change
some
would
change
when
they
have
a
proximity
to
a
transit
station
proximity
to
a
well-served
transit
corridor.
Yes,
that
would
be
assumption.
We
talked
about
the
perimeters
of
neighborhoods
rather
than
the
core
of
neighborhoods
is
where
that
would
be
generally
directed,
and
these
details
will
be
worked
out
in
the
zoning
plan.
Q
But
if
the
provincial
or
the
the
task
force's
recommendations
were
to
become
legislation
and
r1
were
to
be
eliminated,
that
would
represent
a
very
significant
leap
over
intensification
potential
in
ottawa.
Compared
to
what
you
anticipated
in
the
course
of
putting
together
the
growth
management
strategy.
Assumptions
well.
K
Chair
I'll
go
back
to
the
point
I
made
earlier,
which
is
it's
one
thing
to
zone
it
as
one
another
thing
to
have
that
actually
convert
to
units.
So,
for
example,
I
think
it'd
be
highly
unlikely
that
a
very
I'm
I'm.
I
would
be
unlikely
that
a
house
in
altavist
in
the
core
of
alta
vista,
just
because
it's
zoned
to
be
a
two
or
three
units,
would
necessarily
change,
because
it's
a
very
desirable
form
that
it's
currently
in
it.
K
It
may
be
some
I
mean
our
projections
are
that
you
know
the
turnover
rate
in
in
neighborhoods
of
older
building
stock
is
like
half
a
percent
a
year,
maybe
in
council
leakers
own
ward,
it's
closer
to
one
percent.
A
year
old
ottawa
south
was
used,
as
example,
where
it's
because
there's
a
large
vacant
underutilized
in
former
institutional
use.
You
had
a
much
bigger
turnover
because
of
that,
but
on
the
building
stock
that
has
historically
existed,
it's
only
half
a
percent
or
one
percent,
and
that's
even
with
zoning
that
permits
more.
K
So
we
always
have
to
take
into
account
the
you
know
to
make
up
a
term
a
conversion
rate
of
how
much
are
people
taking
advantage
of
the
zoning.
Q
And
so
I
guess
the
where
I
go
with
all
that
is:
do
we
need
policies
that
are
as
aggressive
as
what
the
task
force
has
recommended
in
order
to
achieve
a
slightly
or
a
higher
level
of
housing
supply
than
what
we've
already
contemplated
in
the
course
of
doing
our
official
plan.
K
So
jersey
monitoring
is
really
really
important
and
that's
why,
when
council
adopted
the
official
plan,
they
had
us
do
a
regular
report
back
on
monitoring
to
see
how
we're
doing
on
intensification,
how
we're
doing
on
population
growth.
We
don't
yet
know
whether
these
macro
ontario
population
trends
are
going
to
affect
ottawa
in
the
same
way
that
they're
going
to
affect
the
greater
toronto
area.
It's
too
early
to
tell
the
data,
isn't
clear.
K
Yet
we
don't
know
so
we
need
to
monitor
and
if
we
have
not
gone,
if
we're,
not
keeping
up,
council
will
have
to
go
back
and
revisit
either
accelerate
the
intensification,
permissions
or
add
land.
Those
are
the
two
things
council
can
toggle
with,
but
you
know
that's
why
and-
and
you
know
when
we
adopted
the
growth
management
strategy.
Two
years
ago
we
weren't
facing
the
same
situation.
We
are
today.
Things
have
changed
a
lot
in
two
years,
but
is
it
a
two-year
trend?
Is
it
a
five-year
trend?
Is
it
a
ten-year
trend?
Q
Okay,
I
I
just
I'm
interested
in
the
some
of
the
what
I'm
reading
in
the
task
force
report.
There's
been
a
remarkable
calmness
in
today's
meeting
and
overall
about
the
elimination
of
our
one
zoning.
Q
Q
But,
what's
really
concerning
is
that,
instead
of
just
more
intensification
as
we
contemplated
in
our
official
plan,
the
pendulum
might
swing
all
the
way
to
four
stories
as
of
right,
multi-dwelling
units
on
on
every
property
in
ottawa
with
no
appeal
rights.
That
seems
to
be
the
the
the
most
important
sticking
point
of
what
the
province
the
task
force
is
recommended,
and
I'm
just
interested
to
see,
because
we
may
not
need
to
go
down
the
path
of
four
stories
multi-dwelling
units
on
every
residential
property
in
ottawa
if
r1
is
eliminated.
Q
Just
given
that,
I
think
that
that
would
allow
for
significantly
more
intensification
than
we
had
counted
on
when
we
did
our
growth
management
strategy
a
couple
of
years
ago
yeah.
So
I
just
I
mean
the
math.
How
close
are
you
to
being
able
to
model
any
of
this
out
in
terms
of
what
it
might
mean
for
our
growth
management
strategy?
If
these
proposals
were
to
be
codified
into
law,.
K
Chairs,
because
of
the
speed
of
which
the
release
of
the
task
force
report
us
getting
a
report
to
council
for
so
council
could
adopt
its
permission,
there's
no
way
we
could
model
what
it
means,
and
I
and
you
know,
let's
face
it.
Many
of
these
recommendations
are
extremely
controversial
in
many
parts
of
ontario,
so
I
would
not
wouldn't
seem
appropriate
to
until
we
see
what
happens
with
the
legislation
to
go
there.
But
again
you
know.
If
the
legislation
changes,
we
are
doing
regular
monitoring
reports.
K
Q
I
think
some
of
that,
as
we
go
into
actual
legislation
committee
hearings,
the
the
drafting
of
the
final
law
is
going
to
be
critical
and
it
is
interesting.
I
mean
we're
having
one
discussion
here
in
ottawa,
which
is
a
pretty
progressive
jurisdiction
with
a
strong
understanding
of
what
intensification
means
there
are.
You
know
I'm
guessing
municipalities
that
are
even
higher
r1
levels
in
some
of
those
gta
communities
who
obviously
are
not
going
to
embrace
an
end
to
r1
as
as
easily
as
ottawa
might,
if
we
even
do
so.
Okay.
K
Chairs,
if
I
may,
you
know
it's
really
important
for
listeners
to
understand
that
we
have
not
in
any
sense
in
the
previous
official
plan,
done
a
blanket
reversal
in
r1.
We
have
talked
about
tactical
changes,
and
people
will
see
more
details
when
the
zoning
comes.
I
want
to
reassure
anybody,
who's
listening
and
may
not
understand
the
conversation
that
it
has
not
been
ottawa's
position
to
eliminate
r1.
O
Thanks
sharon
thanks
mr
willis
for
reconfirming
that
statement.
Certainly
that's
I
don't
have
direction
from
my
community
for
that
elimination.
I
certainly
did
not
run
on
that,
and
I
think
that
part
of
the
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
review
is
I'm
very
open
to
conversations
even
in
r1
zones
where
that
would
be
appropriate
or
could
be
appropriate.
O
But
we
have
to
be
very
clear
with
what
we're
messaging
to
the
public
today.
Just
on
the
question
of
amo
I'll,
just
share
give
a
one
minute
update
and
then
I'll
yield
the
floor.
So
amo
on,
as
of
march
1st,
issued
a
statement
that
said
they've
provided
the
province
with
their
comments.
With
respect
to
the
task
force
report,
the
pandemic
has
exasperated
the
urgency
of
addressing
the
housing,
affordability
and
supply
crisis
in
ontario.
Amo
has
been
actively
involved
in
housing
and
homelessness
work
for
years,
including
the
housing
blueprint.
O
We
are
aiming
well
positioned
to
provide
advice
and
what
is
necessary
to
address
the
housing
crisis
affecting
our
communities,
so
there's
much
more
there,
but
on
march
the
1st
amo
submitted
this
paper
to
the
province.
This
is
amo's
response
to
the
task
force
report
and
I
did
circulate
that
to
all
members
of
council
and
the
month
before,
amo
had
a
blueprint
for
action,
an
integrated
approach
to
address
the
ontario
housing
crisis
and
again
any
member
of
council
wants
that
report.
That's
a
pretty
detailed
report.
O
This
is
a
top
priority
for
amo
and
they
have
absolutely
been
engaged
and
active
in
the
city
of
ottawa.
I'm
not
referring
to
myself
has
a
good
representation
at
amo,
that
is,
city
staff
who
participate
on
a
number
of
working
groups,
including
housing.
So
I
do
want
to
recognize
and
acknowledge
city
staff
in
this
regard
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
riley,
I
have
that
report
printed
out
next
to
me
here
too,
it's
a
good,
a
good
overview,
counselor
aglay.
F
Apologize
if
someone's
already
brought
this
subject
up,
I
have
to
step
away
for
a
few
minutes.
But
I'm
particularly
concerned
mr
willis
about
staff's
response
to
the
increase
in
appeal
fees.
F
I've
already
had
instances
where
members
of
my
community
have
had
to
crowdsource
or
crowdfund
enough
money
to
to
launch
an
appeal
and
that's
at
the
old,
the
old
numbers
if
they
go
up
to
anywhere
near
ten
thousand
dollars.
My
sense
is
that
you
know
most
people
won't
even
bother
trying.
F
So
I
I
know
there's
a
comment
in
in
the
report,
but
I
and
I
may
have
missed
it
in
the
discussion,
but
there's
no.
We
haven't
offered
an
alternative
to
that
recommendation,
say
that
it
should
stay
at
400
or
if
to
go
up,
go
up
nominally
to
take
into
account
perhaps
additional
cost
of
the
of
the
hearing
body.
F
But
but
I'd
like
to
hear
you
on
that,
because
I
think
ten
thousand
dollars
for
an
appeal
is:
is
gonna
price
out
community
associations,
neighborhood
groups,
and
just
you
have
an
appeal
on
paper,
but
in
in
practice
you
know
it
will
almost
never
happen.
So
just
like
to
hear
what
your
position
is
on
that
and
whether
staff
are
prepared
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
to
the
province
that
that
we
think
that's
that's
just
a
step
too
far.
K
So
chairs
the
comment
staff
made
is
we
are
concerned
about
that?
That
cost
is
prohibitive.
That's
what
staff's
position
was
so
so
nothing.
The
counselor
said
I
disagree
with
in
all
fairness
to
the
province
of
ontario,
because,
like
us,
they
look
to
recover
the
costs
within
programs
and
fees.
I
think
I
understand
why
the
province
may
need
to
look
at
the
fee
structure
in
order
to
get
that
growth
in
olt
that
we
all
know
they
need
to
do.
The
province
has
under-resourced,
lolt
and
that's
not
just
the
current
government.
K
This
has
gone
on
for
decades
actually
and
there's
been
a
further
and
further
backlog,
and
mr
mark
can
probably
advise
you
about
how
much
longer
the
process
is
taking
just
to
get
hearing
time
over
where
it
once
was
somewhat
exacerbated
by
the
pandemic.
But
it's
a
longer
term
trend
and
we
do
need
more
olt
support
in
ontario,
and
we
also
in
the
past
have
advocated
that
there
be
a
separate
olt
panel
that
deals
with
eastern
ontario,
so
so
on.
K
So
ottawa
and
the
all
eastern
ontario
files
don't
get
in
line
behind
toronto
files,
so
that
things
could
happen
in
a
timely
way
here
and
we
think
that's
beneficial
for
the
process.
So
you
know
when,
when
we
as
staff
are
going
to
come
to
council
and
say
set
a
fee
based
on
cost
recovery,
okay
staff
can
hardly
criticize
the
province
if
they
would
use
the
same
methodology.
F
And
I
appreciate
that.
I
guess,
though,
what
you
know
usually
what
we
try
and
do,
though,
if
we're
doing
that
at
the
city
level,
we
give
people
notice,
there's
a
break-in
period,
there's
an
adjustment
period.
It's
it's
graduated
over
time.
If
we
can
do
that
at
all,
it
just
seems
to
me
that
it
jumped
from
400
to
10
000,
you
know
in
one
in
one
giant
leap
will
will
just
make
it
make
it
unaffordable
for
groups
to
go
forward
so
I'll,
just
I'll
just
I'll
just
leave
there.
F
I
think
council
menard
may
be
trying
to
move
something
at
some
point
in
that
regard.
I'll
just
leave
it
there,
but
I
just
again
I
think
it'll
make
it.
I
hear
what
you're
saying
mr
wilson.
I
appreciate
that.
I
just
think
that
that
it's
it's
too
much
in
one
in
one
step,
even
if
that
is
the
rationale
and-
and
it
will
force
people
away
from
from
the
table
in
terms
of
you-
know
legitimate
groups
that
want
to
bring
forward
appeals.
K
Chairs
check,
if
I
may
just
respond
there
in
no
way
do
staff
think
that
the
10
000
number
is
appropriate,
just
to
be
perfectly
clear,
but
you
know
the
400
probably
does
not
provide
the
resources
to
the
panel
to
do
what
the
recommendations
of
the
report
are.
So
we
don't
know
what
the
right
number
is,
and
only
the
province
can
tell
us
what
that
right
number
is,
but
we
are
concerned
and
that's
what
we
said
in
the
staff
report.
J
Thanks,
I
don't
have
any
questions
snapchat.
I
just
figured
coming
at
the
end
just
to
make
some
comments
before
we
get
to
motions
and
and
wrapping
this
all
up,
but
just
just
on
the
report
I
mentioned
earlier
when
a
delegation
was
speaking
that
I
don't
believe
the
folks
that
are
writing
to
us
and
saying
we
should
just
dismiss
the
staff
response
and
accept
the
accept
the
recommendations
in
whole.
I
mean
that's
not
actually
what
we're
being
asked
to
do.
I
mean
we're.
J
This
is
a
consultation
with
this
is
exactly
what
we
should
be
doing
is
responding
to
these
and
providing
feedback
back
to
the
back
to
the
province
and
and
to
councillor
gower's
amendments.
You
know
having
that
engagement
level
with
the
minister
of
affairs
and
housing
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
some
of
our
main
points
across.
J
I
do
think
there's
some
good
in
this
I
mean
to
be
clear:
it's
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
task
force
on
affordable
housing,
it's
a
task
force
on
housing,
affordability,
and
I
know
that
to
many
that
might
seem,
like
you
know,
potato
potato,
but
to
all
of
us.
We
know
that
there's
a
difference
and,
and
but
there
is
there
are
some
some
points
in
this
on
affordable
housing.
J
I
think
one
you
know
in
past
months,
myself,
saeed
saya
and
I've
met
with
councillor
mckinney
and
fleury
to
talk
about
community
improvement
plan,
one
of
the
one
of
the
key
things
of
that
would
be
looking
at.
You
know:
potential
waiver
of
fees.
Well,
that's
that's
covered
in
a
potential
waiver
of
development
charges
on
affordable
housing
projects
that
would
that
would
guarantee
affordable
housing
for
40
years.
J
The
tough
thing
is:
what's
the
definition
of
affordable
housing,
we
struggle
with
that
here
we've
been
asking
for
a
better
definition
of
affordable
housing
so
that
we
we
understand
what
that
means:
you're,
not
just
going
to
waive
development
charges.
Unless
you
fully
know
what
affordable
housing
definition
is
being
used,
but
at
the
same
time
there's
the
the
next,
the
preceding
or
the
preceding
clause,
or
the
preceding
point
was
a
waiver
of
development
charges
for
infill
housing.
J
68
the
modernizing
ontario's
legislative
municipal
legislation
act
from
a
few
years
ago,
as
well
as
bill
73,
the
smart
growth
for
communities
act.
They
had
some
points
in
it
that
were
good,
but
they
also
have
some
points
where
it
just
didn't
make
sense
from
a
municipality's
perspective,
and
so
we
want.
We
need
to
see
changes
to
those,
and
hopefully
we
will
get
some
changes
to
those
things.
You
know,
I
think,
we've
the
comments
about
the
mandatory,
I'm
sorry,
the
filing
fee.
There's
no
question,
that's
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
J
I
know
there
are
some
groups
out
there
that
will
appeal
as
a
means
to
delay,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
just
lump
every
single
appeal
together
as
being
frivolous.
In
reality,
the
tribunal
has
the
ability
to
assess
frivolity
by
assessing
the
charges
back
to
the
the
appellant
if
they,
if
they
so
choose,
so
the
the
ability
is
already
there
to
address
that
concern.
You
don't
need
to
address
it
at
the
start
by
almost
making
it
possible
for
them
to
appeal
in
the
first
place,
the
there's
funny
some
funny
ones.
J
J
You
might
want
to
call
it
something
else,
but
I
mean
the
whole
point
of
it
being
delegated
is
that
it
can
then
come
back
to
a
counselor
if
it's
mandatory
that
it's
no
longer
delegated
authority
the
admission
to
see
we're
expecting
a
response
back
from
from
the
province
on
our
official
plan.
It's
interesting
to
see
how
they
respond
to
certain
things.
J
You
know,
I
think
we
all
know
when
we
approved
our
official
plan.
We
made
changes
to
to
cap
building
heights
on
minor
corridors,
well
that
that
four
story
building
cap
on
minor
corridors,
which
is
in
our
official
plan,
submission
to
the
province,
goes
against
the
task
force
recommendation
of
six
to
eleven
stories
in
those
same
areas.
J
I
beat
you
to
see
how
the
province
responds
to
our
official
plan
and
if
they
make
amendments
to
that,
because
if
they
make
amendments
to
that,
then
you
know
where
this
is
going
to
go
on
on
the
task
force.
If
they
accept
the
four-story
cap
that
we
put
in
place,
then
there's
clearly
room
for
for
negotiation
on
how
this
task
force
process
goes
goes
forward
on
exclusionary
zoning,
I'm
going
to
touch
on
this
one
last,
you
know
it's.
It's
definitely
not
staff's
position.
It
has
been
mine.
J
J
If
the
province
steps
in
like
california
did
and
eradicates,
the
exclusivity
of
single
dwelling
units
actually
does
council
a
favor
because
it
actually
helps
us
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
get
to
without
the
concern
of
of
politics
getting
in
the
way
of
implementing
our
official
plan.
That's
to
me,
that's
always
been
the
biggest
concern
to
implement.
The
official
plan
is
the
pushback
that
we
will
conceivably
inevitably
get
to
getting
rid
of
the
r1
zone.
J
J
This
council,
I
don't
believe
today,
would
support
eradicating
the
r1
zone.
I
don't
think
you
even
think
they'd
support
eradicating
50
of
the
r1
zone.
So
if
you
don't
do
that,
then
you're
going
to
come
back
in
2026
and
you're
going
to
expand
the
boundary
because
you're
not
going
to
have
had
the
intensification
that
you
need.
J
So
that's
a
tough
one.
I
think
staff's
response
on
that
is
is
is
proper
because
you're
still
open
to
it.
You're
still
open
to
the
discussion,
and
I
think
we
we
have
to
be
open
to
that
discussion,
because
I
don't
think
I
think
it's
a
big
risk
like
I
said
so.
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
else
to
say
I
think
councilman
kenny
had
their
hand
up
for
a
bit
but
we're
gonna.
I
know
we're
gonna
get
to
motion
shortly.
J
So
I'll
just
put
it
back
to
the
to
the
the
chair
and
go
from
there
thanks.
A
Thanks
for
that,
scott,
I
want
to
know
just
a
few
things
and
wrap
up
quite
great
questions
from
counselors
to
staff
and
good
presentations
today,
just
a
few
things
that
I
wrote
down
in
the
course
of
this.
I've
said
this
before
we
should
be
renaming
this
committee
to
the
planning
and
housing
committee
to
better
reflect
our
responsibility
as
a
committee
and
as
a
council,
our
focus
should
be
on
addressing
the
housing
crisis.
A
Councilor
fleury
mentioned
concerns
about
infrastructure
and
amenities.
I
think
it's
one
thing
that
we
have
to
be
cognizant
of.
If
we're
going
to
be
building
1.5
million
homes
in
ontario,
doubling
the
rate
of
growth,
we
also
need
to
have
financial
tools
from
the
province
in
order
to
keep
up
on
the
amenities,
the
servicing,
the
roads,
the
transit,
the
community
centers,
but
also
a
focus
on
complete
communities.
We
more,
we
need
more
than
just
homes
in
order
to
have
a
healthy,
livable
community.
A
I
realized
the
report
was
really
focused
on
housing
ownership
and
the
affordability
of
housing
ownership,
but
I
think
it
does
a
disservice
to
to
not
consider
renters.
I
think
we
have
to
think
about
housing
as
finding
a
place
for
people
to
live,
whether
they
own
it
or
whether
they
rent
it.
Housing
is
a
right-
and
I
know
councillors,
egleye
and
menard
and
mckinney
and
others
touched
on
this
in
various
ways.
A
Counselor
kavanaugh
brought
up
the
the
gender
lens
in
this.
I
think
that's
important,
I
don't
think
the
provincial
report
touched
at
all
on,
but
actually
it
did,
but
but
almost
in
a
cursory
way.
We
have
to
acknowledge
that
there
are
significant
inequities
faced
by
marginalized
people
by
by
black
indigenous
people
by
racialized
groups
and
other
marginalized
people
who
have
real
problems
accessing
housing
in
this
environment.
A
Councilor
moffitt,
I
think
you
were
you-
were
touching
on
this-
a
bit:
the
accountability
between
different
levels
of
government
and
the
provincial
report
touches
on
this
too.
You
know
the
federal
government,
for
example,
sets
immigration
targets
and
then
kind
of
leaves
it
up
to
cities
to
figure
out
where
people
are
going
to
live.
A
The
provincial
government
sets
policy
and
legislation,
and
then
it's
up
to
us
as
a
city
to
implement
it.
I
think
if
you
ask
the
average
person
you
know
how
much
involvement
does
the
province
have
in
planning
approvals,
they
probably
say
none.
They
really
look
to
city,
council
and
city
councillors
as
the
political
level.
That's
accountable
for
how
our
city
is
growing,
but
I'd
like
to
see
the
province
take
on
some
more
accountability
in
how
they
are
introduced,
how
they
are
managing
policy
and
introducing
legislation.
A
We
need
to
find
a
balance,
counselor
kitts
and
counselor
lieber,
both
both
touched
on
this.
We
do
need
to
accelerate
residential
growth,
but
not
at
the
expense
of
good
city,
planning
and
local
context,
and
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
in
our
consultation
and
our
deliberations
that
we're
we're
listening
to
current
homeowners,
but
we
have
a
way
to
include
renters
and
future
owners
in
our
in
our
consultation
and
and
deliberations
as
well.
Overall,
I'm
glad
we
are
talking
about
this.
A
I
believe
that
the
biggest
risk
right
now
it
is
largely
political
and
it's
because
development
is
happening
very
quickly
and
we
just
spent
three
and
a
half
hours
discussing
this
at
committee.
I
don't
think
there's
still
a
big
enough
appreciation
of
what
this
housing
crisis
and
this
affordable
affordability
crisis
is
in
our
communities.
A
I
think,
if
I
ask
the
average
person
in
stittsville-
and
I
imagine
it's
the
same
in
many
wards-
they're
just
saying
development
is
happening
too
quickly.
Please
stop
it
and
there's
a
number
of
reasons
they
hold
that
that
opinion,
but
we
need
to
be
doing
more
as
as
city
councillors,
and
I
think
every
level
of
government
needs
to
be
doing
more
to
kind
of
socialize
what
the
housing
crisis
is
and
how
we
need
to
address
it
and
why
we
need
to
address
it
and
I'm
I'll
just
end
with
that.
A
J
I
don't
think
I've
seen
any
have
come
up
since
then
we
have
the
we'll
start
with
the
the
motion
from
from
the
co-chair
counselor
gower
I'll,
just
read
that
the
the
final
resolution
of
them
as
we
go
so
therefore
we
resolve
that
recommend
recommendation.
Three
of
the
report
be
revised
to
read:
request
that
mayor
watson
and
the
co-chairs:
oh
council
mckinney,
did
you
want
to
jump
in
before,
or
you
want
to
speak
to
a
motion.
J
Okay,
yeah
no
worries,
no
worries,
no
worries
request
that
mayor
watson
and
co-chairs
are
playing
committee
on
behalf
of
council,
make
representations
to
the
minister
of
municipal
affairs
and
housing
detailing
the
city's
position,
with
a
focus
on
one,
increasing
provincial
support
for
affordable
housing.
Two
ensuring
that
meaningful
public
participation,
engagement
in
the
planning
process
is
maintained.
Three
maintaining
local
context
considerations,
including
the
importance
of
heritage
protections
and
four
maintaining
equitable
ontario
land
tribunal
appeal
rights
for
residents
and
community
groups.
E
Thanks
thanks
chair,
I
just-
and
I
was
already
in
discussion
with
chair
gower.
I
just
wanted
to
add
on
to
number
one
as
a
friendly
amendment:
affordable
housing
and
supportive
housing.
The
the
province
is
largely
responsible
for
funding
supports,
especially
for
supportive
housing,
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
we
just
recognize
that
that
we
need
supportive
housing
in
order
to
eventually
eliminate
chronic
homelessness,
so
friendly
amendment
to
just
add
to
number
one
and
supportive
housing.
H
Yeah
hi,
as
I
was
in
conversation
with
mr
willis
and
also
chair
gower,
also
mentioned
it
as
being
important,
is
about
the
gender
lens
and
about
the.
This
is
an
opportunity
to
raise
that.
I
don't
have
wording
for
it,
but
if
we
can
include
him
in
there
that
the
mayor
raises
the
issue
of
the
gender
lens
in
housing
and
how
important
it
is
in
terms
of
affordability
and
what
is
what
is
needed
in
the
overall
strategy.
J
I
mean
without
without
going
through
the
motion
and
rewording
it
with
every
comment,
but
you
know
my
counselor
gary
and
I
are
listed
on
this
motion
as
being
two.
That
would
do
that.
I'd
be
happy.
I
think
council
guy
would
take
that
as
a
direction
from
you
to
make
sure
that
we
do
raise.
That.
E
Sorry,
just
on
on
gender,
I
think
it's
really
important
to
include
and
equity.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
there's
an
equitable
lens
to
to
gender
as
well,
so.
J
Feel
free
in
the
meantime,
you
know
to
to
provide
any
information
to
us
council's
kavanaugh
mckinney,
you
know,
send
an
email
to
myself,
council
gower,
to
be
specific
as
to
what,
where
you
want
us
to
focus
on
that
type
of
thing
to
race.
We'd
be
happy
to
do
that,
for
you.
J
All
right
so
on
that
motion
as
a
men.
Okay,
thank
you
so
we'll
go
through
it,
probably
not
going
to
read
them
in
the
order
that
counselor
fleury
introduced
them
in,
but
I
will
go
through
them,
so
the
first
one
on
on
the
tribunal
so
remember
these
are
coming
from
councillor
leeper,
but
are
truly
from
council
flurry.
So
the
first
one
on
the
land
tribunal,
therefore
be
it
resolved.
J
The
council
request
the
solicitor
general
to
create
an
eastern
ontario
ontario
land
tribunal
to
address
the
backlog
and
allow
for
timely
reviews
in
ottawa
and
therefore
be
for
the
resolve
that,
following
the
city's
recommendation,
this
eastern
ontario
office
include
an
office
to
advise
community
organizations
or
other
stakeholders
on
the
mechanics
of
filing
a
proper
appeal
they
used
to
have
that,
but
they
got
rid
of
it.
They
used
to
have
that
so
we'll
see.
N
J
Next
motion
on
public
lands
again
counselor
leaper
flurry,
therefore
be
resolved.
The
city
requests
the
province
of
ontario
based
on
the
affordable
housing
task
force
recommendations.
Sorry,
the
housing
affordability
task
force
should
read,
include
renewed
policies
to
easily
transfer
potentially
owned
lands
within
ottawa
to
unlock
housing
options
on
vacant
or
empty
provincial
properties
empty.
It
sounds
so,
including
crown
agencies
such
as
lcbo
mto
and
school
boards.
O
O
If
you
want
to
include
crown
agencies,
just
say
that
and
eliminate
the
rest,
it's
all
included
in
the,
whereas
statements-
and
I
can
assure
you
we
don't
want
to
get
into
a
war
with
school
boards.
The
main
theme
here
is:
if
there
are
deemed
surplus
provincial
lands.
We
would
like
to
have
that
conversation
to
build
affordable
housing,
but
those
are
my
two
minor
editorial
changes.
C
I'm
fine
with
removing
mt.
I
am
careful
on
the
declaration
of
surplus.
The
declaration
of
surplus
has
meaning-
and
I
will
get
out
of
the
politics
of
school
boards
and
get
into
the
politics
of
mto.
Mto
does
have
a
number
of
lands
along
the
417.
They
will
never
be
used
or
developed
and
never
be
declared
surplus.
That's
the
reason
why
I'm
not
using
that
word.
C
So
it's
important
that
we
actually
trigger
a
provincial
review
of
the
lands
they
own
and
come
back.
Obviously
they
have
their
own
governance
and
their
own
diligence.
So
I'm
not
trying
to
get
into
you
know
counselor
rockington's
point
around
school
boards.
Schools
is
fair,
but
we
have
in
the
core.
I
have
three
schools
that
have
been
vacant
for
three
decades.
C
So
to
me,
the
province,
I'm
asking
the
province
to
take
a
look
at
lands
they
own
and
and
across
agencies,
because
if
we,
if
we
go
to
I'm
giving
an
example-
and
I
think
the
motion
refers
to
that-
so
I
I
guess
I'm
responding
to
I'm
okay
with
the
removal
of
the
word
empty,
but
I
would
like
that
we
keep.
We
keep
the
words,
crowns
and
and
and
various
lands
because
and
not
add
surplus.
The
surplus
is
a
specific
process.
Provincially.
J
Okay,
that
just
removes
such
as
because
then
it's
because
it's
not
as
as
counselor
brockington
said
you
have.
You
have
things
here
that
aren't
examples
of
granted.
So
then
you'd
have,
including
crown
agencies,
lcbo
mto
school
boards.
Maybe
you
want
to
put
etc.
C
Etc,
that's
right,
I'm
good
with
that,
and
I
apologize
for
this
is
doing
it
on
on
the
fly
here.
So
thank
you
for
thank
you
for
the
recommendation.
J
J
Thank
you
if
the
clerk's
office
needs
a
wording
from
what
I
just
said
verbally,
just
send
me
an
email,
the
next
one
on
site
plan
process
again
flurry
and
leaper
therefore
be
resolved.
The
committee
direct
staff
to
clarify,
in
their
report,
ahead
of
replying
to
the
province
the
importance
of
site
plan
and
its
current
review
process
in
certain
neighborhoods
and
communities
that
have
been
rezoned
or
are
zoned
residential,
fourth
density
and
not
exempt
it
from
public
consultations
and
input.
M
J
Thank
you
and
then
finally,
on
provincial
policy
statements.
J
I
realize
the
yeah
the
motion
says
pps,
but
for
anyone
not
knowing
what
that
means
is
virtual
policy
statement
therefore
be
resolved.
The
state
of
ottawa
agrees
that
the
province
needs
to
lead
a
discussion
on
ways
to
remove
exclusionary
zoning
that
inhibits
allowing
a
variety
of
housing
types
in
neighborhoods
ontario.
The
city
encourages
the
province
to
adapt
the
printer
policy
statement
and
issue
best
practices,
but
the
city
of
auto
wants
to
retain
the
right
to
adapt
any
new
standards
conditions.
I
don't
think
this
is
overly
different
than
what
is
already
the
process.
J
The
city
does
retain
the
permissions
today
to
to
make
decisions
on
its
own
behalf.
When
it
comes
to
to
exclusionary
zoning,
we
could
do
it
now
if
we
wanted
to,
but
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
think
the
motion
of
money
means
out
of
order.
It's
just
it's
not
it's
not
a
huge
departure
from
what
we
already
have
in
front
of
us
today.
Any
questions
on
that
nope
cnn
is
that
carried.
J
Great
thanks
and
then,
if
you
don't,
have
the
entire
report
right
in
front
of
me
so
counselor,
if
you
don't,
if
you
haven't
so
if
you
want
to
just
do
the
final
report,
recommendations.
A
There
are
three
recommendations
in
the
report.
I
don't
think
we
need
to
consider
them
separately,
but.
A
So,
on
the
report
recommendations
as
amended,
it's
received
this
report
and
approved
the
city's
response
to
the
55
ontario
housing
affordability,
task
force
recommendations,
it's
direct
the
general
manager
planning
real
estate
and
economic
development
to
submit
the
city's
response
to
the
ministry
of
humanistic
affairs
and
housing,
and
we
have
amended
item
number
three
requesting
that
the
mayor
and
the
co-chairs
on
behalf
of
council
make
representations
in
the
minister
of
public
of
municipal
affairs
and
housing
detailing
the
city's
position,
and
we
identified
the
four
bullet
points
to
focus
on
there.
A
So
are
the
the
report
recommendations
carried
as
amended.
P
A
Carried
out,
okay
thanks
everyone,
it
is
1
28
p.m.
This
has
been
a
long
meeting
so
far,
so
we're
gonna
take
a
10
minute
break
to
let
everyone
reset
and
then
we'll
continue
with
the
high
performance
development
standards.
So
let's
be
back
for
1,
40
p.m
and
we'll
keep
going
from
there.