►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - March 10, 2022 (2 / 2)
Description
Planning Committee - March 10, 2022
Agenda and supporting documents available at www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
B
B
All
right,
I
do
have
I've
got
enough
faces
for
for
quorum,
so
I
will
start
so.
This
is
kind
of
a
throwback
to
our
pre-2011
planning
and
environment
committee
days
with
a
file
like
this,
so
it
kind
of
falls
in
the
in
the
footsteps
of
a
lot
of
the
work
that
our
our
climate
resilience
team.
That
has
been
doing
the
last
few
years.
You
recall,
you
know
we
approved
the
climate
change
master
plan
back
at
the
start
of
2020
at
the
end
of
2020
was
energy
evolution.
B
Just
this
past
fall
the
belder,
the
better
buildings
ottawa
strategy,
and
now
we
come
into
the
high
performance
development
standards.
So
it's
all
coming
from
the
same
group
under
leadership
of
andrew
flowers
and
and
her
incredible
team
there
that
does
with
our
climate
resiliency
group.
I
know
they're
working
other
stuff
too.
So
this
isn't
the
only
thing
they're
doing.
There's
plenty
of
work
coming
from
that
from
that
group.
But
we
have
this
before
us
today
and
we
have.
The
file
in
front
of
us
is
from
rebecca
hagen.
B
B
I
said
one
thing:
we're
just
going
to
change
it
to
be
a
bit
more
elaborative
on
the
actual
implications
of
the
report
so
put
up
on
the
screen,
so
I'll
just
go
right
to
the
so,
therefore
be
resolved
that
asset,
the
asset
management
implications
section
of
the
report
be
deleted
in
its
entirety
and
replace
with
the
following.
The
recommendations
documented
in
this
report
are
consistent
with
the
city's
comprehensive
asset
management
program
objectives.
B
The
implementation
of
the
comprehensive
asset
management
program
enables
the
city
to
effectively
manage
existing
and
new
infrastructure
to
maximize
maximize
benefits,
reduce
risk
and
provide
safe
and
reliable
levels
of
service
to
community
users.
This
is
done
in
a
socially,
culturally,
environmentally
and
economically
conscious
manner.
The
recommendations
documents
in
this
report
further
the
city's
climate
change
goal,
is
by
improving
energy
performance
in
new
builds.
This
may,
however,
come
at
an
increased
capital
cost
when
the
city
city
partners
build
new
buildings
or
expand
existing
ones
subject
to
applicability
of
site
plan
control
criteria.
B
B
A
A
D
C
The
standard
is
the
benefits
of
implementing
the
standard,
the
engagement
process
that
we
have
gone
through
and
what
we
have
heard
from
it
and
then
leading
into
the
next
steps
for
relating
to
supporting
the
standard
report.
So
the
first
four
recommendations
deal
with
approving
the
metrics
for
cycling,
control
and
plan
of
subdivision,
as
well
as
the
implementation
plan
supporting
legislative
changes
to
cycling
control
by
law
next
slide.
C
Slime.
The
high
performance
development
standard
is
a
collection
of
voluntary
and
required
metrics
that
raise
the
performance
of
new
buildings
to
advance
to
advanced,
sustainable
and
resilient
design.
The
planning
act
gives
the
newest
path:
municipalities
in
ontario
the
authority
to
use
site
plan,
control
and
plan
of
subdivision
to
review
priority
elements
of
developments.
Ottawa's
high
performance
development
standard
will
be
enabled
through
policy
direction
within
ottawa's
naval
official
plan
over
the
last
17
years,
starting
in
2006,
eight
municipalities
in
ontario
have
implemented.
C
The
standard
will
help
to
shift
the
industry
to
consider
sustainability
impacts
earlier
in
projects
where
there
are
more
opportunities
to
change
the
design.
The
shift
will
help
to
grow
the
green
job
sector
and
build
capacity
to
meet
future
building
code
changes
collectively.
The
standard
aims
to
advance
the
climate,
change
mitigation
and
adaptation
priorities
of
the
climate
change,
master
plan,
energy
evolution
and
climate
resiliency
strategy,
as
well
as
other
corporate
objectives
related
to
public
health,
ecology
and
accessibility.
C
From
a
climate
change
perspective,
the
high
performance
development
standard,
as
proposed,
is
estimated
to
contribute
to
six
percent
of
ottawa's
ghg
emission
reductions
over
the
next
10
years.
The
high
performance
development
standard
is
also
expected
to
build
resiliency
through
tree
canopy,
ecology
and
urban,
keen
island
mitigation
strategies.
C
Next
slide,
the
standard
does
not
apply
to
projects
pursuing
building
permit.
Only
the
standard
is
split
into
two
tiers
tier
one
is
required
and
tier
two
is
voluntary.
Voluntary
tier
one
applies
to
all
new
plans
of
subdivision
all
applications
all
slide
plan
applications,
except
in
the
rural
area,
where
it's
applied
to
complex
applications.
Only
and
tier
two
is
encouraged
tools
and
strategies
to
incentivize
and
increase
adoption
are
under
review
and
will
require
further
internal
and
external
consultation.
C
The
high
performance
development
standard
will
be
phased
in
over
time
to
build
staff
capacity,
staff
and
industry
capacity,
while
still
accounting
for
climate
change
targets.
The
standard
is
proposed
to
be
reviewed
and
updated.
Every
four
years
subject
to
council
approval
with
energy
metric
advancing
in
each
update,
as
shown
in
the
diagram
on
the
slide.
C
That's
like
the
standard
covers
some
key
features
of
sustainable
and
resilient
design,
including
energy,
health,
ecology,
resiliency
waste
and
transportation.
The
builds
on
this
builds
on
interrelated
policies
and
guidelines
already
in
place
and
under
development
in
ottawa.
Today
for
sitecoin
control,
there
are
12
metrics
required
under
tier
1
and
22
metrics
under
tier
2
listed
here
next
slide
for
plan
of
subdivision.
There
are
three
mandatory
metrics
in
tier
one
and
five
voluntary
metrics
and
tier
two.
C
Engagement
specifically,
a
series
of
eight
workshops
were
held
with
developers,
architects
and
sustainability
consultants
on
the
proposed
standard
in
november
2021,
the
draft
type
first
development
standard
was
published
on,
engage
ottawa
staff
received
comments,
held
public
information
sessions
and
two
q,
a
sessions
next
slide
through
the
consultation
with
industry
and
the
public.
Some
peace
concerns
were
raised
over
the
standard.
C
We
have
tried
to
mitigate
these
concerns,
where
possible
and
as
described
in
the
report
in
more
detail,
strategies
to
respond
to
concerns
include
a
phasing
plan
and
next
steps
were
proposed
in
the
report
and
next
step.
Next
slide
stop
so
the
following
next
steps.
Our
staff
will
start
implementing
the
plan
update
the
green
building
policy,
develop
an
incentive
program,
monitor
and
report
on
the
high
performance
development
standard
update
the
standard
every
four
years.
C
B
Great,
thank
you
so
much
rebecca
huge
appreciation
yourself.
I
know
you've
been
briefing
members
of
council
on
this
report,
the
last
the
last
couple
weeks
and
just
your
work
into
this
and
as
well
as
melissa,
george
conway
for
the
members,
don't
know
what
stroke
is
a
planner
with
the
city
and
she
was
also
integral
in
in
embedding
environmental
policy
into
our
official
plan.
B
E
E
I'm
grateful
to
be
living
here
on
unceded
land
of
the
algonquin
anishnabe
nation,
and
I
am
the
executive
director
of
cafes,
which
most
of
you
know,
that's
the
community
associations
for
environmental
sustainability,
and
we
are
here
to
talk
about
the
high
performance
development
standard.
I'm
going
to
give
a
framing
and
overview
presentation
on
this
proposed
ottawa
green
standard.
Subsequent
delegations
will
then
dive
into
what
this
is
all
about.
So
it's
it's
all
about.
Building
better
we've
heard
that
phrase
bandied
about
an
awful
lot,
but
what
does
it
really
mean?
E
B
B
E
E
B
E
B
E
Yep,
okay,
so
what
I'm?
What
I'm
trying
to
say
is
that
this
is
not
just
a
technical
standard
of
interest
to
building
science
people,
but
this
matters
to
people
and
actually
you'll,
see
you'll,
hear
me
often
refer
to
it
as
the
ottawa
green
standard,
because
that
makes
it
a
lot
more
relatable
and
I
would
love
a
counselor
to
introduce
a
motion
to
rename
it
exactly
that.
E
So
one
of
the
questions,
actually
that
we
have
is
how
we
build
out,
implement
and
verify
and
enforce
this
standard,
because
when
a
buyer
is
told
this
building
was
to
the
ottawa
green
standard
or
the
high
performance
development
standard
does.
Does
that
make
sense
for
the
buyer
then
to
put
down
ten
thousand
dollars
more
on
their
mortgage
because
they
know
the
future
stream
of
utility
bills
will
be
much
lower
and
by
the
way,
I
think
tier
two
of
the
standard
should
apply
to
all
deeply
affordable
housing
bills.
E
E
So
it
feels
like
the
planners
took
the
standards
from
the
other
cities
in
ontario
as
starting
points,
and
then
they
were
batted
down
in
the
industry
consultations
and
it
was
workshopped
actually
with
industry
in
detail
for
over
a
year
and
only
saw
the
light
of
public
insight
very
shortly
before
christmas,
with
the
first
feedback
deadline.
Like
four
days
before
christmas,
we
moved
that
out
a
bit.
We
had
a
couple
of
open
houses,
but
none
of
the
community
input
was
included
too
late.
So
it's
a
textbook
case.
I
would
say
of
some
degree
of
regulatory
capture.
E
There
is
no
reason
why
the
ottawa
standard
should
not
match
that
of
toronto
as
a
starting
point.
Next
slide,
please
the
most
impactful
difference
between
the
toronto
standard
and
the
ottawa.
One
is
in
application
by
our
estimate.
The
new
standard
covers
only
30
to
50
percent
of
new
builds,
and
my
colleague
joan
freeman
will
be
talking
more
about
that
later.
E
That's
what
and
yeah
anyways
next
slide,
let's
keep
it
moving.
So
we
understand
that
the
climate
crisis
is
the
most
important
challenge
facing
our
generation,
and
we
understand
that
local
action
matters
next
slide,
please
so
the
ottawa
green
standard,
the
high
performance
development
standard,
is
our
local
collective
action.
Let's
build
better
it
matters
to
all
of
us.
Let's
realize
the
potential
of
this
standard,
this
instrument
last
slide,
please.
So
thank
you
for
engaging
with
the
ottawa
green
standard
as
counselors
and
improving
the
draft
proposal
before
us
today.
B
D
Okay
sure
yeah,
I
saw
a
counselor
flurry
but
happy
to
go
first
chair
if
you'd,
like
the
the
question
I
have
is
around
some
of
the
the
percentage
of
buildings
that
will
be
covered
in
ottawa's
current
standards,
and
I
say
this
with
a
with
a
motion
coming
that
I've
worked
on
with
staff.
That
I
hope
committee
is
is
willing
to
support
today.
But.
D
What's
your
understanding
of
how
many
buildings
would
be
covered
by
this
and
what
are
the
greatest
differences
you're,
seeing
between
this
plan
and
in
toronto's
plan
recognizing
toronto
has
had
four
different
provisions
to
theirs
and
obviously
this
is
ottawa's
first
and
we
need
to
build
quite
extensively
from
where
we
are.
If
you
can
answer
that
convoluted
convoluted
question.
E
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
going
to
keep
it
simple
and
understandable
and
then
joan
freeman
has
done
a
lot
of
detailed
crunchy
work
and
also
been
back
and
forth
with
staff,
because
it's
not
easy
so
there's,
there's
documentation
and
and
different
units
right
are
we
talking
about
square
meters
and
we
know
how
to
convert
that
into
feet.
But
do
we
know
how
to
convert
that
into
dwellings?
Do
we
know
how
to
convert
that
into
stories?
E
Do
do
we
you
know,
is
what
do
we
mean
by
a
unit?
So
so
it
becomes
a
little
bit
difficult.
So
right
now
in,
in
our
estimation,
looking
at
different
data
sources,
it's
very
clear
by
intent
that
the
standard
does
not
cover
anything
below
site
plan,
so
all
of
the
infill
and
is
is
absolutely
not
covered.
E
The
toronto
green
standard
starts
at
five
dwellings
and
it's
our
understand
and
that's
our
understanding
that
that
is
sort
of
around
the
600
meter,
squared
where
the
non-energy
non-carbon
elements
of
the
standard
start
to
mostly
apply.
I
I
hope
that
wasn't
too
complicated.
There
is
also
the
plan
of
subdivision
and
there.
E
The
loophole
for
application
is
that,
for
the
majority
of
the
greenfield
spaces
that
we
have
in
the
existing
urban
boundary,
there
is
often
very
stale
applications
that
that
block
anything
so,
and
we
understand
that
it's
not
fair
if
there
is
a
deemed
complete
development
application
and
then
suddenly
we
come
up
with
this
new
requirement,
causing
everything
to
be
thrown
out
and
start
again
like
we're.
Certainly
not
asking
for
that.
E
E
So
in
terms
of
crunching
the
numbers
putting
together
all
these
loopholes
and
emissions,
we
think
the
standard
for
sure
doesn't
apply
to
at
least
50
percent
of
the
new
builds
and,
if
we're
less
conservative,
that
could
go
up
to
70
percent
and
we
do
have
a
background
document
that
that
fully
justifies
that
those
numbers.
Okay,.
G
G
E
Okay,
so
so
we're
gonna
have
a
detailed
conversation.
Now
I
should
tell
you
that
further
down
in
the
speakers
list
daniel-
who
I
think
you
know
very
well-
is
going
to
speak
and
then
we're
also
going
to
have
john
dance
from
old
ottawa
east
speak
to
trees
and
canopy.
So
so
I
I'm
going
to
speak
to
more
general
systemic
terms
and
then
I'm
going
to
let
them
talk
to
specifics,
because
I
also
want
to
be
polite
to
my
team
members,
of
course
right.
E
So
there's
a
systemic
thing
in
terms
of
the
the
potential
of
the
ottawa
green
standard
to
to
uplift
to
raise
the
standard
right
and
in
many
cases
in
the
standard
as
it's
written
in
the
ottawa
one
there's
kind
of
arrows.
That
say:
oh,
don't
look
to
the
standard
here.
Look
to
some
other
guideline
right
and
that
guideline,
in
one
case,
for
example,
is
from
from
2012
right
and
in
other
cases
the
arrow
points
you
actually
to
future
things
that
don't
exist
yet
right.
E
So
it
could
be
the
future
zoning
that
the
arrow
points
to
or
the
tree
planting
guide
that
doesn't
exist.
Yet
that's
being
worked
on
and,
and
I
think
in
each
of
those
cases,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
saying
well,
the
green
standard
is
not
going
to
lift
all
boats.
The
green
standard
is
not
going
to
realize
its
potential.
E
It's
basically
just
a
status
quo,
arrow
pointing
document
and
and
to
the
extent
that
the
arrow
points
back
to
2012
or
into
the
future
like
years
where
it's
not
negotiated
yet
like
that
really
doesn't
help,
and
in
general,
that
that
potential
for
for
saying
ottwa
is
gonna,
build
better,
is
not
being
realized.
So
then
you
say
well,
angela,
like
why
like,
why
is
it
that
the
ottawa,
like
starting
point
green
standard,
is
inferior
on
all
the
metrics
that
we've
reviewed,
except
for
one
like?
How
could
this
be?
It's
crazy
right?
E
I
mean
ottawa
deserves
better
and
we
have
good
people
and-
and
I
think
that
yes,
the
pushback
from
industry
is
part
of
the
explanation,
but
another
part
of
the
explanation
is
like
systemic,
and
that
is
that
the
staff
working
on
these
things
right
their
interest.
Their
incentive
is
to
do
a
good
job
on
the
instrument,
the
patch
of
turf
that
they
work
on.
E
So
we
have
people
working
on
the
solid
waste
management
master
plan
thing
right
and
they
want
that
to
be
the
winning
vehicle
and
it's
it
and
them
to
do
a
great
job
right.
But
all
of
this
turf
needs
to
actually
be
coming
together,
and
I
think
that
it's
the
public
interest
job.
It
is
council's
job
to
to
make
that
happen
and
to
say
hey.
E
This
green
standard
can
be
a
starting
point
right
and
after
that,
and
and
we
can
get
a
starting
point
which
gets
ottawa
at
the
starting
point
of
all
the
toronto
experience
it's
under
the
same
legislative
framework
and
also
if
the
site
plan
gets
thrown
out.
Toronto
is
going
to
have
to
cope
with
that.
The
other
cities
in
ontario,
you're
gonna,
have
to
cope
with
that
right.
E
So,
let's,
let's
work
at
that
level
and
then,
as
new
bylaws
and
new
guidelines
in
in
these
various
sub
areas,
come
on,
the
standard
can
be
the
baseline
and
we
can
see
if
locally
we
want
to
put
in
something
special
or
something
more
so
I'll
stop
there.
But
obviously
I
would
want
the
green
standard
to
have
provisions
for
not
just
like
a
technical
soil
metric,
although
that
is
welcome,
but
also
to
have
some
provision
that
we
can
actually
have
shaded
pedestrian
areas.
So
so
thanks
thanks.
E
H
H
So
I
I'm
curious
to
understand
as
part
of
the
tier
one
category
there's
a
square
footage
element
that
is
referred
to
and
when,
when
we
met
I'll,
have
a
question
to
staff,
unless
you
you
were
able
to
to
find
some
clarification,
you
were
saying
hey.
Why
not
600
square
feet,
and
I
I
made
reference
like.
Oh
what's
that
number
so
I'd
love
to
understand
your
concerns
with
the
2000
specifically
there,
and
what
you
feel
is
the
appropriate
square
footage
for
the
standards
to
the
standard
to
apply.
E
I
I
think
that
there's
lots
of
different
ways
to
arrive
at
at
magic
numbers
right.
You
can
go
into
back
room
negotiations,
you
can
workshop
it
with
technical
experts
or
you
can
look
sideways.
You
can
look
at
the
the
literature
and
and
best
practice
in
jurisdictions
that
that
are
in,
like
in
the
same
legal
frameworks
as
as
your
city
is
operating
right.
E
So
that
is
why
cafes
in
engaging
with
this
file,
which
on
one
hand
it
does,
it
has
complexity,
it
has
richness,
it
has
technicality,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
again
it's
really
relevant
to
homeowners
and
buyers
and
and
future
owners
the
people
that
we
also
heard
from
this
morning.
So
the
the
way
to
approach
this,
I
think,
is
to
start
looking
at
okay.
E
E
Also,
I
mean
important
on
the
climate
perspective
is
the
diversion
of
organics
from
so
we
don't
have
methane
and
landfill,
and
the
reason
that's
relevant
is
that
when
you
design
your
building
at
the
outset,
you
need
to
have
space
for
waste
separation
right.
So
if
you
don't
put
that
into
the
design,
then
you
don't
have
the
outcome
you
want
and.
H
You
know
one
of
the
things
I
raised
yesterday,
you're,
an
economist.
I
I
really
always
love
to
get
into
the
policy
and
numbers
with
you.
When
we
chat
on
page
30
of
the
report,
it
makes
reference
to
level
of
ambition,
and
particularly
it
sort
of
positions,
positions
the
situation
as
a
conflictual
conflictual
between
green
environmental
aspirations
and
financial
decisions.
H
I
think
it
goes
as
far
as
saying
that
some
of
these
measures
could
be
add
to
the
the
price
of
a
property
from
anywhere
from
five
to
fifty
thousand
and
and
I'd
love,
to
hear
your
perspective
as
an
economist
on
on
that.
Specifically,
when
you
look
at
I
mean
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
are
shell
shocked
by
the
cost
of
gas
these
days,
and
I
wonder
in
looking
at
the
future
utility
ciliation
what
what
that
means
from
you
from
an
economics
point
of
view.
E
Okay,
I'd
like
to
tackle
that
question
from
from
two
perspectives.
I
I
think
that
yeah
this
there
is
a
problem
with
this
oppositional
thinking,
but
it
it
is
reflective
of
how
the
market
right
now
is
functioning
for
for
developers
right.
So
developers
are
essentially
competing
on
on
the
price
on
which
they're
selling
the
new
home
to
the
home
buyer
right
and
when
you
go
and
buy
a
washing
machine
or
you
buy
a
new
stove
and
you're
trying
to
make
decisions.
E
There
is
energy
labeling
on
the
stove
so
or
the
washing
machine.
So
if
you
come
along
and
say
hey,
I
want
like
an
energy
efficient,
washing
machine.
Then
you
can
say:
oh
that
one
over
there
it
scores
really
high
on
the
energy
label.
So
I'm
going
to
pay
an
extra
50
bucks
on
that
one,
or
maybe
it's
an
extra
500
for
like
a
super
like
a
furnace
right
but
for
houses.
We
don't
have
this
right
and
and
a
lot
of
countries,
including
in
in
europe
in
the
uk
and
australia.
E
E
The
developers
compete
just
on
buying
price,
rather
than
being
able
to
say
this
home
will
be
able
to
operate
much
cheaper
and
one.
So,
let's
switch
it
to
the
home
owner
home
buyer
perspective.
I
don't
know
how
how
far
along
you
guys
are
in
in
your
mortgage,
paying
off
your
mortgage
right,
but
if
you
add
up
your
utility
bills
and
the
stream
of
that
versus
your
mortgage,
like
stream
of
mortgage
payments
well
like
for
me,
the
future
stream
of
utility
payments
is
bigger
than
the
mortgage
one
right.
H
F
F
I
really
couldn't
be
more
supportive
of
all
the
things
you're
doing,
and
I
don't
think
any
counselor
here
is
that
different
other
than
maybe
they
haven't
been
driving
a
car,
that's
blocked
since
2004.,
but
everyone
wants
to
try
to
do
the
right
thing
for
climate,
and
so
when
we
see
something
like
this
and
we
get
a
briefing,
we
think
this
is
fabulous
and
in
the
briefing
I
made
a
number
of
obnoxious
comments
having
come
from
toronto
to
say
why
are
we
not
more
like
toronto
toronto's?
So
amazing?
F
So
I
would
like
to
say
we
don't
even
go
with
toronto,
but
we
would
go
even
more
harsh,
but
what
construction
people
will
tell
me
is
it's
much
more
expensive
to
build
here
in
ottawa.
We
have
earthquake
standards,
we
have
crappy
weather
where
we
can't
build
all
year
round
or
it's
more
expensive
too,
because
it's
slowed
down.
We
have
a
completely
different
situation
in
ottawa
where
our
housing
prices,
our
apartment
prices,
are
lower.
F
So
builders
don't
make
as
much
money
on
what
they
sell,
whether
it's
condominium
or
house
or
houses,
it's
different
from
toronto,
and
if
you
can't
go
lower
with
underground
parking
because
our
building
heights
are
so
low.
We
don't
allow
the
real
skyscrapers
that
they
do
in
toronto.
Builders
then
find
it
really
expensive
to
put
in
geothermal,
and
so
they
give
me
all
these
other
things
about
how
toronto
is
very
different.
Ottawa
ottawa's
very
different
from
toronto.
F
We
can't
just
do
one
thing:
what
does
that
then
do
to
people
who
construction
companies
who
want
to
build
here
and
then
say?
Forget
it
we're
not
going
to
build
in
ottawa
it's
too
expensive
to
build
in
ottawa
and
they've
made
it
too
hard
so
similar
to
council
flurries
economic
question:
these
are
the
things
I
struggle
with.
When
I
I
more
want
to
go
with
you
and
say:
let's
just
make
it
incredibly
difficult.
You
have
to
do
this
now.
Retrofitting
is
is
ridiculous.
F
We
already
have
50
of
the
building
applications
in
that
this
won't
even
apply
to
you
know.
We
need
to
be
really
harsh
and
be
serious
about
climate,
but
my
concern
is
but
then
what
does
that
do
to
everything
else
once
we
do
that,
and
will
we
not
be
working
against
ourselves
in
the
long
run?
But
what
do
you
think
about
when
I
s
with
all
that
I
said
there.
E
Okay,
I
I
think
that
I'd
like
to
connect
to
my
previous
comments
and
and
parts
of
my
presentation
right.
So,
if
we're
looking
at
a
market
that,
from
a
developer
builder
perspective,
yes,
it
is
in
their
interest
that
they
don't
want
to
see
any
guidelines
or
regulation
that
will
have
an
impact
that
will
raise
their
costs.
Okay,
so
it's
fairly
predictable.
E
It
has
requirements
which
is
tier
one,
and
then
it
has
the
future
ambition
which
is
tier
two,
so
there's
also
an
area
to
work
in
there
and
then
also
the
idea
is
to
have
the
incentives
apply
for
the
tier
2
level
of
performance
right.
So
there's
a
nice
room
there
to
also
develop
the
market
right,
so
the
conversation
is,
is
actually
a
little
bit
more
complicated
than
just
like.
No,
no,
no,
it
raises
costs
in
terms
of
saying
well.
Toronto's,
like
this
ottawa
is
like
that.
Okay,
fine,
so
we
have
a
different
climate.
E
There's
there's
different
conditions
here,
but
if
we
were
developing
the
standard
with
our
locality
in
mind,
you
would
really
expect
that
in
some
places
we
actually
would
be
able
to
do
better
and
then
in
other
dimensions
of
the
standard
it
would
be
harder
for
us,
like.
Maybe
it's
that
ottawa
has
more
space,
so
we
should
be
able
to
do
better
on
the
tree
and
canopy
than
if
you're
in
a
in
a
more
tight
toronto
environment.
E
But
the
way
that
the
draft
is
in
front
of
you
is
that
dimension
after
dimension
after
dimension,
the
ottawa
standard
is
inferior.
So
I
I
think
that
that's
like
as
an
ottawa
person,
I'm
kind
of
like
hey
that
this
is
not
the
the
right
starting
point
right.
We
should
be
able
to
learn
from
the
experience
of
others,
and
so
I
I
think
that-
and
I
think,
when
I
spoke
with
councillor
fleury,
he
had
an
idea
that,
like
maybe
there
should
be
a
direction
to
staff
to
explain
like.
F
E
I'd
like
to
add
one
one,
little
piece
and,
and
that
is
on
enforcement.
I
I
find
that
the
language
in
the
staff
report
in
some
cases
sounds
quite
strong
right
about
like
fully
implemented
and
mandated
and
and
and
and
they've
used,
even
the
word
enforcement
here
and
there.
But
the
reality
is
that
right
now,
there's
no
provision
for
verification
for
a
compliance
approach
and
for
enforcement.
E
So,
ultimately
a
developer
can
just
put
out
an
energy
model
like
for
a
say,
a
larger
building,
where
it
does
apply
and
some
kind
of
a
design,
and
then
they
they
meet
the
requirement
to
checklist
check
something
there's
no
provision
for
verification,
like
I
said,
or
enforcement.
So
then
they
can
just
throw
away
that
plan
and
do
something
else.
F
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
hi,
angela,
I'm
going
to.
I
think
you've
just
answered
this
question,
but
I
want
it
on
record.
I
want
to
talk
about
affordable
housing,
okay,
yeah
and
then,
and
then
you
know
the
the
standards
the
tier
under
which
it
falls
in
in
this
report,
and
you
know,
if
you
think
about
because
you
you
talked
about
you
know
it
does
increase
costs.
Of
course
you
know
the
higher
standard.
I
Everything
that
you
know
better
tree,
canopy
and
whatnot
and
if
you
think,
about
affordable
housing
in
in
ottawa
in
our
non-profit
sector,
you
know
ccoc
built
first
geothermal
building
salis,
which
is
another
non-profit
housing
provider,
was
the
first
to
build
first
of
any,
not
just
non-profit
but
any
developer,
to
develop
multi-residential
passive
och.
Today,
john
howard,
our
building,
you
know
net
zero
to
net
zero.
I
So
so
it's
happening
in
the
non-profit
sector
and
I
get
called
non-profit
because
you
know
they
don't
look
for
that
profit
margin,
but
they
can
obviously
afford
it.
It's
still,
it
still
provides
affordable
housing.
So
why
do
you
think
that
is
the
case
like?
Why
do
you
from
an
economist's
perspective?
I
Why
is
it
that
our
non-profit
sector
can
do
it
and
and
our
for-profit
sector,
even
if
you
strip
out
the
you
know
the
the
some
reduction
in
profit?
It's
certainly
not
all
you
know
they're
they're,
not
providing
that
that
low
rent
in
the
end,
so
they're
they're,
taking
kind
of
that
that
double
hit,
and
what
do
you?
Why
do
you
think
that
that
is
the
case.
I
E
It's
it's
that
the
the
market
is
functioning
in
certain
way
and
the
consumer.
The
buyer
is
lacking
information
to
make
a
comparison
of
what
they're
actually
buying
right
and
that's
why
a
verified
green
standard
is
a
good
idea.
So,
for
example,
when
we
have
like
organic
standards,
I
don't
know
if
you've
ever
looked
at
the
labels
carefully,
but
it
they
can't
just
say.
Oh,
this
is
organic
right,
but
there's
a
defined
standard
and
then
there's
somebody
else
whose
business
it
is
to
certify
right
to
make
sure
that
there
is
compliance.
E
The
way
that
I've
read
the
documentation,
it
does
not
say
that
this
standard
shall
apply
to
subsidized
housing
right
and
we
know
and
actually
well.
This
is
where
you
know
much
much
more
than
I
do
in
terms
of
the
10-year
housing
and
homelessness
plan
and
the
various
ways
that
the
municipality,
the
province
and
the
feds
are
financially
supporting
new
builds
new
redevelopments.
E
I
think
that
it's
kind
of
a
no-brainer
that
all
that
should
be
built
to
the
tier
two
standard
right,
because,
obviously,
if
those
buildings
are
being
built
in
the
public
interest
and
this
standard
tries
to
get
us
out
of
the
the
market
like
producing
the
wrong
equilibrium
point,
then
then
it
makes
total
sense
that
we
we
build
better.
We
build
for
the
future
and
and
as
as
we've
repeated
saying,
the
utility
payments
will
be
both
more
predictable
and
can
be
expected
to
be
lower.
E
Now,
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
predict
what
electricity
prices
gas
prices
will
be
in
the
future,
but
for
sure,
if
you
build
to
a
better
standard
and
you
reduce
the
space
heating
and
space
cooling
requirements,
your
builds
should
come
in
lower
and
it's
my
understanding
that
och
is
actually
looking
to
build
to
passive
standard
which
is
beyond
the
currently
proposed
ottawa
tier
2..
So
I
think
that
a
good
move
would
be
to
ask
to
improve
the
standard
so
that
housing
that
is
publicly
supported
should
be
built.
I
F
B
K
There
is
the
presentation
good
afternoon
so
chair
kansas,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
today
about
the
high
performance
development
standard.
My
name
is
marianne
sikerski,
and
I
have
worked
with
cafes
over
the
last
few
weeks
to
learn
about
the
hpds
and
in
particular
compared
to
the
toronto
green
standard.
K
K
Before
I
go
into
the
details,
I
want
to
take
a
step
back
and
look
at
the
bigger
picture
and
the
reason
why
we're
even
considering
the
standard,
the
climate
crisis.
Sadly,
the
world's
climate,
is
nearing
major
tipping
points.
The
amazon
rainforest
is
at
risk
of
becoming
a
carbon
source
rather
than
a
carbon
sink
with
profound
implications
for
global
warming.
There
are
warning
signs
of
a
collapse
of
the
gulf
stream,
which
would
have
catastrophic
consequences
for
our
climate.
K
K
So
the
hpds
is
a
crucial
opportunity
to
make
a
difference
and
help
also
our
transition
to
a
net
zero
and
resilient
future
next
slide.
Please,
unfortunately,
it
is
lacking
in
a
number
of
areas,
and
I
hope
you
can
make
an
effort
to
improve
upon
it.
The
issues
specifically
are
the
standards,
application
and
the
many
buildings
that
aren't
covered
by
it
and
others
will
speak
to
the
application
details
in
more
detail.
K
Second,
the
standards
ambition
is
in
many
respects
behind
toronto's,
which
is
a
useful
benchmark,
and
I
will
go
to
that
in
a
bit
more
detail,
also
monitoring
and
enforcement
mechanisms,
as
was
mentioned,
and
as
well
as
incentives.
All
key
aspects
of
the
standard
are
still
missing,
but
I
understand
the
city
is
working
on
coming
up
with
those.
May
they
be
bold.
K
It
is
also
important
to
realize
that
toronto
has
a
specific
standard
for
low-rise
buildings
with
five
plus
units
where
ottawa
has
none
next
slide.
Please
so,
coming
to
the
details,
now
I'm
comparing
the
autobah
draft
with
the
toronto
queen
standard
version,
4
effective
from
may
this
year,
which
should
be
the
benchmark
and
not
version
3,
which
is
already
four
years
old
on
electric
vehicle
charging
infrastructure
toronto,
for
example,
requires
25
of
all
parking
spaces
to
have
quick
charging
outlets
and
for
low-rise
buildings.
All
parking
spaces
require
those
in
ottawa.
K
We
have
to
wait
for
zoning
now.
Electric
vehicle
infrastructure
is
the
area
where
natural
buildings
and
net
zero
mobility
intersect
and
it's
hugely
important
to
be
ambitious
to
reach
our
emission
goals,
also
because,
as
was
mentioned,
retrofitting
this
infrastructure
that
will
be
key
in
the
years
to
come
is
so
expensive.
So
why
not
take
the
opportunity
of
the
hpds
and
already
include
provisions
for
ev
infrastructure
here?
Otherwise,
the
cost
of
retrofitting
is
transferred
to
home
buyers.
K
Next
slide,
please
so.
Trees
and
cool
paving
toronto's
requirements
are
more
stringent
and
I
think
what
happened
here
is
that
oswald
aligned
itself
with
toronto's
version
3
rather
than
the
latest
version
4..
So
updating
that
I
imagine
shouldn't
be
too
much
of
a
challenge.
I
hope
so.
As
an
example,
ottawa
requires
50,
green
and
cool,
paving
where
toronto
asks
for
75
or
on
green
roofs
and
solar,
where
ottawa
asks
for
75
coverage
compared
to
toronto's
100.
K
This
is
important
to
get
right
because
it
addresses
urban
heat.
Islands
is
related
to
tree
health
and
human
health,
of
course,
and
promotes
renewable
energy
next
slide
piece
and
then
next
slide
again
to
and
the
next
slightly
yes,
so
greenhouse
gas,
not
the
previous
one,
please
yeah
that
one
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
So
when
it
comes
to
energy
efficiency,
toronto
requires
net
zero
for
low
rise
in
their
tier
two,
where
ottawa
doesn't
have
any
requirement.
K
So
this
is
related
to
the
issue
of
application
of
the
standard
which
john
freeman
will
cover
expertly
and
the
next
slide
on
materials
management.
Please,
yes
again.
Under
t2,
toronto
has
multiple
provisions
for
sourcing
raw
materials,
managing
construction,
waste
embodied
carbon,
where
ottawa
only
has
one
optional
item
for
embodied
carbon.
K
This
is
important
because
a
lot
of
carbon
emissions
occur
through
our
use
of
materials,
how
we
source
them
process
and
discard,
or
ideally
reuse
them.
So,
in
summary,
I
hope
it
will
be
possible
to
still
align
the
hpds
to
toronto's
version
4
rather
than
version
3
in
those
areas
I
mentioned,
considering
that
the
two
cities
are
under
the
same
provincial
jurisdiction-
and
I
assume
most
of
the
developers
are
the
same-
it
only
makes
sense
to
align
the
standards
next
slide
case
homo
energy
labeling.
K
To
address
some
of
these
issues,
in
particular,
building
energy
efficiency,
which
is
key
to
the
net
zero
transition.
It
may
be
useful
to
consider
home
energy
labeling.
This
is
required,
as
was
mentioned
in
many
other
jurisdictions,
and
helps
to
transform
the
building
stock,
both
existing
and
new,
to
improved
energy
efficiency
by
even
involving
consumers
and
demanding
better
buildings.
K
It
would
be
a
useful,
complementary
tool
to
the
hpds,
and
I
know
there
were
initiatives
at
the
provincial
level
and
now
there
are
directions
at
the
federal
level,
but
maybe
there
are
opportunities
to
bring
this
up
at
the
municipal
level
as
well.
Next
slide,
please
and
now
back
to
the
beginning,
the
urgency.
So
we
face
the
climate
crisis
and
need
to
be
ambitious.
H
Hi,
I'm
aaron,
it's
been
a
long
day
and
I
want
to
make
sure
I
I
fully
understand
what
you're
saying
around
labeling
so
labeling
that
you're
talking
about
is
that
what
I
believe
angela
just
referenced
in
terms
of,
if
you
buy
an
appliance,
the
energy
ontario
guide
or
something
is
kind
of
the
sticker.
I
remember.
K
It's
also
happening
in
a
number
of
u.s
states
and
it
just
differentiates
the
offering,
I
guess
the
supply
and
it
allows
people
to
make
informed
choices.
Just
like
you
do
on
your
toaster
or
or
your
car.
I
guess
as
well.
You
look
at
the
mileage,
you
know
per
liter,
so
it's
it's
a
crucial
instrument
and
it's
really
complementary
to
to
the
demand
side
requirements
that
your
to
the
supply
side
requirements
that
you're
looking
at
right
now.
H
B
L
The
documents
before
council
go
some
way
towards
putting
trees
on
the
agenda
at
the
design
stage,
and
this
is
an
improvement
over
the
past
practice
of
treating
trees
as
an
afterthought
or
a
decorative
element
in
architectural
drawings
committees.
Communities
are
skeptical
of
the
depictions
of
trees
on
building
plants
presented
for
public
consultation.
L
L
L
I
don't
know
if
you
realize
this,
but
no
qualifications
are
needed
to
set
up
a
landscaping
business
in
ottawa.
Any
one
of
you
could
start
offering
landscaping
services
and
an
advise
clients
on
species
selection.
Under
this
new
building
standard,
I
wonder
how
that
would
go
until
and
unless
the
city
leads
on
building
a
robust
urban
tree,
canopy
landscapers
will
continue
to
use
the
species
that
are
the
most
convenient
to
them
and
make
them
the
most
money
and
those
are
typically
the
exotics.
L
L
No
fewer
species
means
more
vulnerability
to
pests,
such
as
what
happened
to
the
ash
trees.
The
requirement
is
even
less
helpful
when
we
consider
that
trees
planted
at
new
buildings
may
be
a
signature
green
element
easily
watered
by
the
building
owner.
They
might
be
a
flowering
tree
that
provides
fruit
or
nuts
edible
for
humans
in
other
animals.
G
G
L
L
J
L
And
there's
something
that
you
can
call
a
near
native
and
people
who
use
that
term
are
actually
referring
to
northeastern
north
america
and
that
region
provides
an
enormous
number
of
species,
flowering
species
very
beautiful
trees.
The
tulip
tree,
the
kentucky
coffee
tree,
the
catalpa.
These
are
things
that
are
native
to
northeastern
north
america.
L
That
would
be
that
grow
here
and
will
increasingly
find
a
favorable
environment
in
the
ottawa
region.
As
the
planet
heats
up
and
as
we
deal
with
higher
average
temperatures,
we
don't
have
to
go
to.
You
know
the
european
norway
maple
and
the
japanese
lilac
and
the
there's
something
called
the
european
mountain
ash
or
even
the
the
european
linden,
the
small
leaf
linden,
there's
a
there's
a
a
similar
tree.
G
So
I
think
one
of
the
concerns
that
I've
heard
expressed
as
well
is
that
the
section
of
the
hpds
related
to
trees
is
called
tree
planting
and
there's
some
thought
that
it
should
probably
be
called
tree
canopy
with
to
reflect
a
different
rationale
than
just
planting
trees.
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
have
any
insight
on
that.
L
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
shift.
It's
these
high-level
terms.
Titles
are
important
to
express
the
intent
behind
a
policy
and
the
intent
is
to
create
canopy.
You
do
that.
You
know
the
activity
is
free
planting,
but
the
intent
is
to
create
canopy,
and
so
that
should
indeed
be
the
the
higher
level
statement
title
for.
For
that
section
of
the
of
the
document.
L
L
You
have
to
get
the
trees
assigned
to
the
lot
and
and
then
plant
where
there
there
is
the
soil.
Soil
volume
is
there.
So
that's
the
reasoning
behind
the
toronto
approach
to
speaking
to
and
defining
the
number
of
trees
related
to
relating
that
to
lot
size
and
and
then
relating
it
to
soil
volume.
It's
a
sequencing
thing.
If
you
don't
have
the
tree
of
you,
know
the
right
number
of
trees
on
the
lot,
then
you're
missing
the
opportunity
to
actually
create
canopy.
G
My
understanding
of
the
toronto
standard
is
that
it
does
create,
or
it
requires
a
certain
number
of
trees
as
a
function
of
the
lot
size
and
then
requires
a
certain
amount
of
soil
volume
to
support
that
required
number
of
trees.
Is
that
your
understanding
of
how
it
works
as
well?
Yes
and
our
the
proposed
high
performance
development
standards
in
front
of
us
today
do
not
propose
that.
G
And
that's
what
we're
being
told
today
is:
you
know
some
of
those
rules
or
numbers
of
trees
and
a
space
for
trees
will
come
in
in
his
future.
Zoning
bylaw
and
I
certainly
understand
the
thrust
on
the
part
of
the
community
to
to
take
the
bird
in
hand
and
get
that
done
now,
so
I'll
be
asking
staff
more
about
that
as
well.
Finally,
daniel
there
was
one
piece
of
the
toronto
bylaw
or
sorry
the
toronto
green
building
standard
related
to
parking
lots
in
which
you
know
surface
parking.
G
Lots
are
required
to
have
one
tree
per
five
parking
stalls
in
the
high
performance
development
standards
that
are
being
proposed
to
us
today.
They,
in
order
to
deal
with
the
heatsink
issue
of
large
surface
areas,
parking
lot
areas.
One
of
the
options
could
be
to
plant
trees
in
that
ratio,
but
there's
also
the
option
to
use
permeable
surfaces.
Like
you
know.
Permeable
pavers,
for
example,
is
sarah:
do
you
have
a
preference
in
terms
of
how
we
treat
parking
lots
between
cooling
mitigations,
like
permeable
pavers,
for
example,
versus
planting
trees,.
L
L
B
O
L
I
I
so
if
I
may
have
a
second
second
slide,
please
I
want
to
speak
on
the
on
the
tree
provisions
within
what's
in
front
of
you.
It's
simply
not
adequate.
It
simply
speaks
in
terms
of
volume
of
high
quality
soil
sufficient
to
support,
as
recommended
in
guidelines,
and
then
it
speaks
to
the
land
landscape
plan
to
include
no
invasive
species,
minimum
50
and
then
there's
a
two
year,
watering
thing,
but
that's
so
vague,
and
it's
just
not
going
to
do
it.
L
L
You
should
need
to
specify
how
many
trees,
what
kinds
and
what
nurturing
real
nurturing,
is
required.
The
recommendations
and
tree
planning
guidelines
are
not
standards.
This
is
your
opportunity
to
make
progress
in
terms
of
the
the
canopy.
If
I
may
go
to
the
next
slide,
please,
the
ops
spent
a
lot
of
time.
You
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
dealing
with
tree
canopy
and
trees,
and
here
you've
got
a
lost
opportunity.
L
If
this
draft
goes
forward
to
to
make
progress
on
on
the
canopy
similar
to
the
improved
free
protection,
bylaw
yeah,
it's
it's
an
improvement
over
what
you
had
there
before
that's
good,
but
it's
about
protection.
It's
not
growing
the
canopy,
it
simply
protects
trees.
You've
got
to
go
farther
hold
on
I'm
yeah,
okay.
So
I'm
chair
of
the
old,
auto
east
planning
committee,
old,
auto
east
community
association-
and
you
know
we
in
the
core
and
the
inner
core
and
downtown
we
just
we.
We
really
need
more
trees.
L
We've
lost
a
lot
through
intensification
and
it's
the
the
tree
canopy
at
24
and
old,
auto
east.
It's
you
know
it's
considerably
below
the
40
target.
We
need
action
and
you
can.
We
can
get
action
through
and
improve
standard
retaining
trees
next
slide,
please
I
I
was
intrigued
to
read
in
the
comments
on
the
on
the
previous
discussion.
L
But
you
also
need
to
go
farther.
You
need
to
to
require
the
canopy
trees
are
planted
and
maintained,
and
that
the
number
of
new
and
protected
trees
is
proportional
to
lot
size.
You
need
to
go
that
step,
otherwise,
you're
not
going
to
make
that
critical
progress
towards
growing
the
canopy
and
the
last
slide
you'll
be
happy
to
see
why
trees.
Well,
you
know,
we
all
know
it.
It's
a
critical
means
to
medicate
greenhouse
gases
provide
valuable
shade.
L
That's
for
comfort
and
air
conditioning
energy
savings,
essential
part
of
natural
urban
environment,
enhanced
quality
of
life
and
beauty,
and
I
heard
staff
talk
earlier
how
the
standard's
supposed
to
reduce
greenhouse
gases,
improve
public
health,
health,
reduce
impacts
of
extreme
heat
events.
That's
what
trees
do,
but
you've
got
to
get
them
planted
now.
So
I
truly
urge
you
to
take
another
look,
make
this
a
much
more
stringent
and
serious
and
even
go
beyond
toronto.
I
mean
our
developers
aren't
half
as
capable
as
toronto
developers.
L
Our
city
is
is
is
not
half
as
ambitious
as
toronto,
so
so,
let's
make
some
progress
in
this
thing
and
not
be
so
wishy-washy.
My
last
comment
is
quite
simply
that
the
consultation
this
has
been
inadequate.
The
focus
has
been
in
satisfying
the
development
community.
Cafes
gave
you
solid
recommendations
of
what
could
be
done.
Retaining
trees,
nothing
was
accepted.
You
can
do
better
thanks
a
lot.
D
Thank
you
very
much
chair
thanks
for
being
here.
John
again,
I
think
it's
important.
We
recognize
the
tree
canopy
across
the
city,
but
particularly
in
within
our
greenbelt.
He
is
drastically
under
threat
right
now
we
are
losing
a
lot
of
our
tree
canopy
and
the
new
tree
bylaw
is
helpful
in
some
instances,
but
it's
not
going
to
reduce
the
percentage
of
which
we're
losing
our
our
trees,
which
carlton
university
has
done
a
full
study
on.
D
I
know
our
staff,
our
staff
within
the
tree
teams,
agriculture,
they're
there
and
they're
on
the
ground-
forestry,
understand
it
as
well,
and
you
know
they.
I
think
they
also
want
us
to
take
more
action
on
these
pieces.
So
john
in
terms
of
cafes
and
what
the
recommendations
are
that
you're
recommending?
D
L
Okay
simply
meet
the
new
toronto
standard,
meet
that
and
you
know
we
should
be
under
that.
We
should
see
ourselves
as
good
as
toronto,
but
I
say:
go
beyond
that
in
terms
of
being
be
specific
in
terms
of
of
the
number
of
trees
required
report,
make
it
proportional
to
the
lot
size
so
that
if
there's
a
big
lot,
that's
being
developed,
there
are
more
trees.
Yes,
you
need
the
correct
amount
of
soil
whatever,
but
gear
the
lot
size-
and
maybe
this
is
something
comes
through
the
the
zoning
by-law
amendment.
L
Maybe
that's
what
that
gets
done,
but
do
get
it
done.
So
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
saying
yeah.
You
have
soil.
There
go
beyond
that,
get
the
trees
get
the
so
we
have
mature
trees.
So
we
really
have
a
canopy
that
that
works
for
the
for
the
city
for
all
the
residents
in
the
future-
and
you
know
I
just
have
to
say
sean
and
councilman
ireland
take
this
time.
I've
heard
a
lot
about
the
discussion
this
morning
about.
Well,
you
know
it's.
L
The
current
homeowners
that
are
are
it's
not
for
the
current
owner
homeowners
that
we
need
to
consider
that
the
affordable
housing
recommendations
that
problems
want
is
for
the
it's
for
the
future
homeowners.
But
that's
what
we're
talking
about
right
now
and
frankly,
we
were
talking
about
that
this
morning
too,
that
it's
the
future
people
residents
of
ottawa,
where
we
need
to
have
a
tree
canopy.
L
O
O
So
if
you
look
at
this
slide
here,
it's
got
a
list
of
some
of
the
countries
that
will
be
banning
the
sale
of
gas
and
diesel
vehicles
by
2030
or
in
the
case
of
norway,
2025,
so
we're
seeing
a
massive
shift
of
the
auto
industry
towards
evs
over
the
next
couple
of
years.
Next
slide:
please,
if
you
look
at
what
automakers
are
predicting
or
what
their
production
plans
look
like.
O
You
have
some
examples
here
of
what
some
of
the
automakers
are
are
predicting
for
the
the
short
term
future
next
slide,
please!
So
if
you
aggregate
all
of
those
plans
in
2020
so
two
years
ago,
the
sales
of
or
the
the
market
share
of,
electric
vehicles
globally
was
about
three
percent
right
now.
Well,
in
2021,
the
market
share
was
about
five
percent.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide
and
we
look
at
the
plans
of
the
automakers
okay
is
so
according
to
their
expected
2025
production
plans.
O
In
only
three
years,
30
of
world
production
will
be
evs.
Okay,
so
evs
are
coming
in
large
numbers
very
soon.
So
next
slide
please.
So
we
have
a
forecast
actually,
and
I
won't
dwell
on
it.
If
you
have
questions
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
them
later,
but
we
believe
that,
for
a
number
of
reasons
that
canada,
even
though
the
federal
government's
target
is
20,
is
20
35
400,
we
believe,
will
be
closer
to
100
by
2030..
So
next
slide
please!
O
O
So
why
are
we
saying
that?
Well,
we
know
that
this
infrastructure
is
gonna
be
required
in
a
relatively
short
term,
and
we
know
that
pre-wiring
is
much
less
expensive
than
retrofits.
I
could
talk
about
my
personal
experience
where
it
would
have
cost
me
a
heck,
a
lot
less,
probably
10,
of
the
cost,
if
it
would
have
been
done
when
I,
when
the
house
was
built-
and
that
applies
to
everybody
right-
and
this
also
applies
to
the
other
measures
in
the
the
standard.
O
So
so
what
I'm
asking
this
this
committee
to
to
do
is
to
look
at
the
science,
which
is
very
clear,
crystal
clear,
that
we're
in
a
climate
emergency
and
we
need
to
act
like
it
and
we
need
to
not
bow
to
special
interests,
and
we
need
to
do
what's
right
for
the
voting
public,
which
would
you
represent
and
have
a
standard
that
will
give
us
a
very
solid
baseline,
a
a
level
playing
field
that
everybody
could
could
follow.
That
will
be
in
the
interest
of
the
the
public
in
general.
O
O
This
should
apply
to
100
percent
of
new
developments,
the
the
certainly
the
the
the
ev
charging
requirement.
If,
if
you're
you
know
developing
one
or
two
units,
they
need
charging
as
much
as
any
other
development
that
would
be
out
there.
So
I
would
recommend
that
it
apply
to
every
single
development
or
deep
retrofit
and
the
applicability
should
be
moved
ahead
as
much
as
possible.
O
O
B
B
I
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you,
mr
laurie.
I
I
wanted
to
ask
you
had
said
that
you
were
speaking
specifically
to
evs.
You
mentioned
a
number
of
other
things.
You
spoke
about
matching
toronto's
plan
in
scope
and
ambition.
Can
you
just
summarize
how
this
standard
that
is
being
proposed
today?
You
mentioned
a
couple
of
things
that
you
would
suggest.
Does
it
not
match
toronto's
current
green
development
standard?
Is
it?
Is
it
far
different?
Would
you
know
pre-wiring
match
us
to
what
toronto
is
doing
or
is
there
a
bigger
gap.
O
I
I
I
have
a
staff
member
who
recently
bought
a
hybrid
vehicle,
an
ev
vehicle,
the
cost
alone
of
having
to
upgrade
through
hydro
ottawa,
and
his
panels
was
a
very
very.
It
was
significant
to
say
the
least,
and
is
your
sense
that
if
we
don't
start
building
for
evs,
knowing
that
that's
not
necessarily
the
solution,
transit
is
getting
people
actively
on
their
bikes
and
other
opportunities.
But
is
it
that
most
people
will
be
turned
off
of
the
idea?
O
So
yes,
absolutely
if,
if
that
house,
that
that
your
staff
member
bought
already
had
you
know
a
plug,
that
was
that
was
appropriate
for
charging
an
ev
there
wouldn't
have
been
an
upgrade
cost.
So
essentially,
that's
really
what
we
are
recommending
is
that
that
be
put
in
place
from
the
get-go.
It
is
considerably
cheaper
to
do
it
at
build
time
than
it
is
as
a
retrofit.
O
If
I
take
my
particular
case
now,
I
won't
go
into
details,
but
I
overdid
it
for
a
number
of
reasons
and
again
I
don't
want
to
get
into
details,
but
I'm
not
the
only
one
who
spent
over
two
thousand
dollars
upgrading
my
my
electrical
panel
in
my
house
to
be
able
to
support.
Now
I
have
two
chargers
at
home
right,
so
so
yeah
that
is
definitely
a
barrier
just
like
any
other
cost,
is
a
barrier
right.
O
So
the
fact
that
evs
are
still
more
expensive
than
gas
cars
that'll
change
in
the
future,
but
the
fact
that
they're
still
more
expensive
is
a
barrier
also.
That
being
said,
if
you're
on
a
budget
and
you're
already
struggling
because
of
housing,
affordability-
you
you
don't
want
to
be
in
a
situation
where,
because
you're
in
a
rental
property,
where
there's
no
access
to
charging,
you
can't
take
advantage
of
buying
a
usd
and
saving
a
whole
bunch
of
money
on
gas
right.
O
I
would
like
to
see
people
who
have
to
drive
because
of
their
work
or
whatever
the
situation
is
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
of
the
the
tremendous
savings
they
could
get
an
operational
cost
by
driving
an
ev
right.
So
absolutely
the
more.
We
could
do
that
in
advance,
the
cheaper
it
is,
and
the
more
people
will
be
able
to
save
money
and
and
perhaps
spend
the
money
elsewhere
right
on
something
that's
more
important,
like
maybe
providing
better
food
for
the
kids
or
whatever.
It
may
be
right.
O
I
With
the
cost
of
gas
and
the
cost
of
food,
as
you
just
mentioned,
going
up,
not
to
mention
whatever
else
is
coming
down
the
pipe,
we
need
to
start
planning
for
the
future.
I
do
really
appreciate
your
comments
here
and,
as
I
said,
I
do
have
some
questions
based
on
your
earlier
submission
for
staff
when
it
comes
time,
but
I
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
I
I
O
So
so
it's
very
tempting
and
that's
what
we
see,
because
people
are
looking
to
make
profit
right.
So
what
people
will
do
is
they
will
build
to
minimum
code
and
they
won't
insulate
as
much
as
they
could
do
at
relatively
low
cost,
because
it's
not
a
cost
that
they
will
incur
later
paying
the
heating
and
the
utilities
in
the
future.
It's
the
same
thing
with
with
builders
that
sell
their
properties.
O
So,
if
you're,
building
a
single
family,
home
and
you're
a
developer,
the
benefit
of
having
more
insulation
or
having
a
pre-wired
charging
plug
for
your
ev,
that's
a
benefit
that
goes
to
the
future
homeowner,
not
to
the
builder
right.
So
so
the
builders
won't
spend
any
extra
money
that
they
don't
need
to
unless
there's
a
standard.
O
That
brings
this
to
a
level
playing
field
where
they
have
to
spend
more
to
do
the
right
thing
for
the
future
owner,
but
also
their
competitors
have
to
do
the
same
thing
right
so
so
this
is
pure
economics
and
pure
business.
You
will
try
as
a
developer,
to
make
as
much
money
as
possible
and
by
the
way
houses
aren't
sold
based
on
how
much
they
cost
to
build.
O
There
is
so
they're
sold
on
what
the
market
will
will
bear
right
and,
and
we've
seen
large
increases
in
in
housing
prices
these
days,
which
means
that
any
developer
worth
his
or
her
while
is
making
a
lot
more
money
these
days
than
before.
Yes,
material
price
have
increased
and
all
that
there's
there's
certainly
price
inflation
there,
but
the
margin
for
developers
has
gotten
much
bigger.
As
the
price
of
housing
has
got
higher,
so
there's
a
there's,
a
big
fat
margin
there
that
that
I
see
would
be.
O
O
If
you
take
an
example
of
my
house
here,
which
is
it's
about
2
700
square
foot,
so
it's
fairly
large,
I'm
I've
been
looking
at
what
would
it
cost
me
to
add
two
inches
of
insulation
on
the
outside
of
the
home?
Well,
it
would
cost
me
at
the
minimum
somewhere
around
25
000,
to
do
that
now
as
a
retrofit.
If
it
would
have
been
done
when
the
house
was
built,
it
probably
would
have
you
know
if
it
was
today
it
was
being
done
today.
O
J
J
J
After
the
draft
high
performance
dinner
came
out
and
especially
to
rebecca
hagen
and
melissa
george
conway,
so
thanks
also
just
a
little
bit
of
a
diversion
here.
Two
days
ago,
when
mikhail
jean
was
given
the
keys
to
the
city,
she
called
ottawa
a
gem,
a
national
capital.
It
could
become
an
example
of
how
to
live
and
grow
well
in
the
changing
times
ahead.
J
J
People
have
said
that
I
did
a
lot
on
a
paper
which
you've
been
receiving,
and
I
can
certainly
talk
about
that
next
slide
piece,
but
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
the
details
on
that
because
I
think
a
lot
of
you
read
it
so
done.
Well.
The
high
performance
development
standards
provide
solutions
for
some
climate
change,
livability
and
affordability,
housing
they're
all
interrelated.
J
A
well-built
insulated
house
is
more
comfortable
and
much
cheaper
to
operate
a
well-designed
exterior
with
trees,
landscaping,
roofing
ice
and
bike.
Bicycle
ev
supports
livability,
15-minute,
neighborhoods
connected
walkable
suburbs,
etc.
So
they're
all
connected,
and
this
is
the
time
to
do
it
today-
I'll
focus
on
climate
change
opportunities.
But
I
want
to
note
that
when
you
solve
climate
change,
you
solve
a
lot
of
other
problems.
At
the
same
time,
it's
good
leverage
next
slide,
please.
J
J
J
The
other
point,
if
you
look
at
that,
is
that
it
really
doesn't
kick
in
until
about
20
30..
It
takes
a
while
to
step
up
and
make
the
changes
and
it's
so
it's
important
to
start
now,
because
it's
going
to
take
a
while
to
get
there
next
slide.
Please
now
this
one,
I
don't
expect
anybody,
even
I
with
glasses,
to
be
under
able
to
see.
But
the
point
is
that
it's
not
just
8.3
percent.
J
If
you
look
at
that
big
blue
blob,
there,
that's
the
benefit
that
comes
from
the
ev
when
everybody
from
the
residence
transitions,
and
you
can't
do
that
as
raymond's
explained,
without
the
charging
stations.
If
you
look
at
the
dirty
green
underneath,
that's
also
ev
for
commerce.
So
it's
a
big
chunk.
That's
affected
by
these
standards,
home
building
and
solar
panels
also
are
affected
by
the
front
end
things
that
need
to
be
set
up
and
other
things
so,
but
I
I
just
want
to
make
that
point.
It's
really
an
important
standard
next
slide.
J
Please
there's
also
advantages
for
here.
If
we,
if
we
do
indeed
do
the
trees,
the
landscaping,
the
green
cool
roofs,
water
protection,
we
are
investing
ahead
of
time
in
what
will
save
homeowners
and
the
city
itself
billions
and
billions
of
dollars
from
insurance
savings
for
homeowners
and
also
from
damages
from
climate
change
from
all
the
heat,
winds,
storms,
ice,
etc
and
buildings
really
are
the
things
that
cover
most
of
the
land.
So
how
we
do
that
is
important
next
slide.
Please.
J
Only
50
percent
of
the
buildings
are
covered,
and
I
can
explain
more
if
you
want,
if
you
haven't,
read
the
paper
and
only
50
of
the
subdivisions
and
that's
a
real
issue,
because
we
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
get
to
the
other
50
percent.
I
don't
know
the
city
has
some
good
plans,
but
some
of
them
are
real
gaps,
especially
for
the
subdivision.
J
The
same
with
the
standards,
we've
talked
a
lot
about
we're
not
going
to
benefit
from
all
those
things
we
looked
at
a
few
slides
ago.
If,
if
we
don't
have
good
standards
and
they
need
to
be
they're,
not
as
good
as
toronto
as
we've
talked
about-
and
there
are
a
lot
of
them
as
as
others
have
talked
about
our
packaging
or
pointing
to
existing
bylaws
instead
of
thinking
of
the
future
next
slide,
please
so
it's
time
for
us
to
seize
the
opportunity.
There
are
ways
to
fill
the
giant
loopholes
that
we've
talked
about.
J
D
Thank
you
very
much
chair
just
very
quickly,
thanks,
thanks
john
for
being
here
good
great
presentation.
The
one
question
I
have
is:
how
do
we
get
to
a
point
where
more
than
50
of
new
builds
are
covered
by
these
standards?
Is
it
simply
a
matter
of
changing
the
square
footage
that
they
would
apply
to?
J
Okay,
great
question:
that's
kind
of
the
crux
of
it
and
we've
been
kind
of
circling
around
a
bit
today,
so
there
are
two
standards:
there's
the
building
high
performance
development
standards
that
deal
with
largely
buildings
in
the
urban
area
that
are
unlanded,
small
parcels
or
infill,
and
probably
also
the
rural
and
then
there's
the
subdivision
standards
and
the
subdivision
are
all
for
the
new
green
field.
Developments
that
we've
been
talking
about,
since
we
got
into
official
plan
discussions.
J
So
in
terms
of
the
buildings
right
now,
the
cut
it's
all
it's
all
triggered
by
the
site,
plan,
control,
by-law
and
so
that
kicks
in
for
everything,
that's
over
600
square
meters,
it's
not
feet,
it's
meters,
that's
and
then
the
whole
energy
side
of
it
because
of
technical
problems,
doesn't
really
kick
in
until
2000,
so
that
square
meters,
so
that
that's
a
missing
middle.
That's
the
thing
we've
been
talking
about
earlier
this
morning
about
affordability
and
that's
an
important
area
now
in
toronto.
J
J
J
How
do
we
get
cover
all
this,
because,
frankly,
all
of
the
buildings,
all
the
new
buildings
have
to
have
green
standards
that
are
the
same.
It
can't
just
be
the
high
performance
ones
that
right
now
for
buildings
are
largely
apartment,
buildings
or
larger,
larger
units.
They
all
are
going
to
have
to
have
these
good
zero
standards
to
build
to
or
they
or
we'll,
never
reach
our
targets
and
get
the
benefits
from
it.
J
J
J
I
just
want
to
say,
there's
a
real
problem
with
subdivisions
and
maybe
because
a
lot
of
the
land,
as
we
learned
at
the
official
plan
about
a
lot
of
the
land-
and
I
don't
have
the
numbers
very
well
sorted
out-
melissa's
help
but
there's
hard.
But
a
lot
of
the
subdivision
land
is
already
got
something
on
file
in
the
city.
J
It
may
be
as
little
as
10
that's
left
or
maybe
a
little
more
we're
not
sure
at
least
70
percent's
got
stuff
on
file,
and
you
can't
retroactively
change
those,
but
they
do
get
old
and
they
have
to
come
back.
So
when
they
come
back,
we
can
be
firm
and
we
have
the
opportunity
to
add
to
them
possibly,
but
they,
I
think,
also
there's
probably
zoning
opportunities
there
to
solve
some
of
this
that
have
to
be
looked
at
seriously.
J
D
Thank
you
very
much,
that's
my
that's.
My
preoccupation
now
is
how
to
apply
the
standards
that
we're
putting
in
place
now
to
a
larger
percentage
of
buildings
off
the
get-go.
I've
got
a
motion
that
speaks
to
it
doesn't
go
all
the
way,
but
it
gets
us
to
a
place
where
we
can
have
staff
support
for
moving
at
a
starting
at
a
higher
level
than
we're
starting
now
so
very
much
appreciate
your
delegation.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
B
P
Hi,
thank
you
very
much
to
planning
committee
members
for
allowing
me
to
speak
to
you
today.
I
don't
have
a
presentation
today,
unfortunately,
as
time
didn't,
allow
me
to
get
you
one
made
in
time.
So
I've
made
this
relatively
short
and
I
acknowledge
it's
a
bit
repetitive
of
some
of
the
other
submissions.
P
I
appreciate
the
complexities
in
developing
these
standards,
the
consultations
that
have
been
required
with
competing
stakeholder
interests,
the
in-depth
work
and
research
that
has
been
done.
The
report
demonstrates
this
depth
and
breadth
of
work
and,
at
the
same
time
clearly
and
simply
presents
the
findings,
it's
easy
to
read
and
and
understand
a
good
portion
of
the
rationale
for
many
components
of
the
standards
and
their
implementation.
P
However,
I'm
not
a
client
climate
specialist,
so
I
will
acknowledge
that
I
struggled
a
bit
with
understanding
a
few
components
with
respect
to
the
application
of
the
high
performance
development
standards
in
terms
of
the
scope
of
the
developments
that
they
will
cover.
I
will
speak
to
these
from
two
perspectives,
although
I
know
that
there
are
others.
P
The
first
is
that
these
standards
mostly
apply
to
buildings
that
are
large
taller
buildings
in
the
urban
area
and
from
my
understanding,
which
I
I
think
I've
got
it
is
that
the
site
control
by-law
applies
to
all
buildings
over
600
square
meters,
but
the
size
of
building
under
the
high
performance
development
standards
requiring
energy
modeling
is
for
buildings
over
2000
square
feet.
This
is
baffling
to
me
the
discrepancy,
the
city
of
ottawa.
P
Recently,
of
course,
we
all
know
published
an
official
plan
that
pleads
the
case
for
the
missing
middle
sold,
this
plan
as
being
one
that
will
make
ottawa
the
most
liberal,
mid-sized
city
in
north
america,
highlighted
climate
change
and
sustainability,
then
developed
development
standards
that
specifically
exclude
this
missing
medal
from
green
standards,
focusing
only
on
tally,
light
buildings.
So
I
don't
really
understand
the
discrepancy.
P
The
second
concern
I
have
with
respect
to
the
scope
of
coverage
is
for
those
pending
application
applications.
My
understanding
is,
these
standards
will
apply
to
all
new
plan
of
subdivision
applications
and
all
new
site
plan
control
applications
in
the
urban
area.
But
I'm
really
concerned
about
the
note
on
page
23
that
projects
that
have
completed
pre-application
consultations
or
submitted
applications
will
be
exempt
from
these
standards.
P
I'm
already
struggling
as
to
why
we
would
eliminate
implementation
of
these
standards
for
a
huge
host
of
product
projects
that
have
yet
to
be
built,
but
yet
have
site
plans
approved
in
alta
vista
context,
and
I
will
speak
worldwide
here
and
not
just
for
my
ca
catchment.
We
currently
have
some
huge
developments:
train
yards
trombley,
st
lemon,
where
the
site
plan
is
on
file,
but
ground
is
yet
to
be
broken
and
likely
won't
be
for
years
in
many
cases.
P
So
not
only
is
it
difficult
enough
to
accept
that
these
buildings
will
all
be
excluded,
and
admittedly,
I've
struggled
a
bit
to
understand
how
stale
applications
will
work,
but
to
further
understand
why
those
in
pre-consultation
would
be
excluded
as
baffling
to
me.
Unfortunately,
my
I'm
not
involved
in
you
know
any
pre-consultations,
so
I
have
little
idea
how
many
more
developments
this
could
unpack.
Maybe
it's
none,
but
when
you
have
a
staff
report
that
clearly
indicates
that
site
plan
control
and
plan
of
subdivision
are
key
opportunities
to
address
energy
performance.
P
P
The
staff
report
here
notes
that
additional
costs
related
to
the
development
of
these
standards
are
low
compared
to
the
high
community
costs
with
climate
change,
health
and
the
environment.
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
discussion
about
financial
versus
high
community
costs
here
when
deciding
what
is
in
scope,
and
ultimately,
this
comes
down
to
what
we
value
as
a
city
and
the
city.
We
want
to
build
and
model
for
our
citizens,
including
our
developers,
to
that
effect.
P
I'll
just
use
a
quick
example
that
it's
outside
the
scope,
in
terms
of
demonstrating
the
values
that
we
want
our
developers
to
have
2015
is,
is
the
year
that
the
first
eviction
notices
were
issued
in
heron
gate.
It
took
until
2021
to
develop
a
legally
banning
agreement,
guaranteeing
that
this
company
would
not
renovate
low
income
racialized
canadians
for
financial
gain
now
full
disclosure-
I
I've
not
studied
economics
since
92,
but
I'd
guess
that
the
thousands
and
thousands
of
dollars
spent
by
that
development
company
over
six
years.
P
You
know
and
in
addition
to
the
city
staff
and
volunteer
costs
and
many
things
that
that
it
significantly
outweighed
the
cost
that
would
have
been
spent
from
not
renovating
in
the
first
place.
I
don't
think
this
was
a
question
of
financial
cost
for
the
property
owner.
I
think
it's
a
question
of
values
and
now,
as
a
city
in
that
scenario,
there's
a
renovation
policy
being
developed
and
hopefully
by
supper,
you'll
hear
about
a
voluntary
development
company
coming
forward
with
the
nyu.
P
I
B
B
N
Hello,
thank
you.
Do
you
hear
me
okay,
so
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak,
I'm
talking
as
a
private
citizen
concerned.
Obviously,
even
though
I'm
a
big
fan
of
the
work
which
cafes
is
doing
on
the
subject-
and
I
have
some
texts,
you
know
which
I
can
read,
but
probably
I
want,
because
most
of
my
points
were
already
made
very
eloquently
by
the
previous
speakers.
You
know
the
reason
I'm
subscribed
to
to
present
was
that
I'm
really
you
know
ashamed
and
appalled
by
how
low
ambitions
that
hd,
ps
draft
presents.
N
I
want
to
address
just
few
items
which
came
up
with
the
previous
presentation
and
discussions
with
the
counselors
and
actually
also
in
the
in
the
discussion
the
morning,
which
I
randomly
listened
to,
because
I
watched
that
meeting
since
9
30..
So
one
point
is
about
the
labeling
and
leading
the
you
know
living
the.
What
what's
going
to
happen
to
the
market
forces?
We
are
in
the
red
alert
zone
as
the
declared
by
ipcc.
The
city
council
declared
the
climate
emergency
a
few
years
ago.
N
Yes,
there
are
few
architects
in
ottawa,
building
passive
houses
and
not
zero
houses
for
themselves.
You
have
to
be
architect
to
do
that.
You
have
to
have
the
where
without
to
hire
his
own
contractor
and
whatever,
and
yes
you
can
do
that
right,
but
obviously
for
somebody
like
myself,
who
is
on
the
whim
of
whatever
developers
put
on
the
market,
you
know
you
can
only
buy
what
is
available.
You
cannot
really
buy
what
you
want
talking
and
addressing
again
the
question
of
council
of
kyrie
about
differences
between
toronto
and
ottawa.
N
I
would
like
to
make
a
comment
on
that.
Yes,
the
toronto
is
different
city
than
ottawa.
Climate
is
slightly
different.
The
legal
landscape
is
the
same.
Regulatory
landscape
is
the
same,
and
the
technology
available
available
to
the
developers
are
the
same
materials
technology
and
prevent
the
costs
right.
Obviously,
the
difference
is
that
the
selling
price
of
the
apartment
of
house
at
the
end
is
different
because
of
the
market.
N
And
in
that
respect
you
know,
I
think
that
we
really
should
demand
you
know,
and
yes,
I
somebody
rather
dimension.
If
we
create
the
level
playing
field
for
developers
and
all
of
them
will
have
to
provide
the
better
housing
stock
for
us,
then
we
will
have
the
better
housing
stock
for
many
years
to
come.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
attention.
F
Thank
you.
I
thank
you
for
those
comments,
because
this
is
this
is
for
me.
This
is
a
really
tricky
thing,
because
I
guess
we
can't
predict
what
would
happen
if,
if
developers
do,
then,
if
it
costs
developers
more
here
and
then
the
price
of
the
houses
are
higher
and
people
don't
can't
afford
them
in
ottawa,
and
then
we
have
the
same
problem.
We
were
just
discussing
in
the
first
four
hour
meeting
you
know
like
this
is
the
challenge
I
have.
You
know
it's
hard
for
us
to
predict.
What
this
will
do.
F
N
N
There
are
a
significant
part
of
the
population
which
are
renters,
and
you
know,
because
we
are
talking
about
affordability
of
houses
as
well,
and,
moreover,
we
are
talking
about
how
affordability
of
single
family
houses,
you
know
those
detached
houses
in
arwan
zoning,
mostly,
which
are
not
even
covered
by
the
hdps
standard
at
all
right.
So
if
we
are
talking
about
even
condos,
you
know
I
live
in
the
condo.
I
am
a
board
member
of
my
condo.
N
So,
if
you
can
do
everything
possible
to,
I
don't
know,
stimulate
if
you
don't
like
to
the
world
force
them
to
stimulate
the
better
quality,
better
quality
in
terms
of
many
different
things,
liability,
but
also
the
energy
consumption
or
whatever
housing
stock
to
to
appear
on
the
market.
That
is
the
service
for
the
future
generation.
You
know.
F
N
Me,
but
maybe
for
my
children
or
maybe
for
my
grandchildren-
and
this
is
what
I
guess
you
know.
This
is
what
I'm
asking
council
this
committee
and
then
council
to
do
right
to
think
about
the
future
of
not
not
only
of
the
house
owners
but
also
the
all
the
residents
you
know
tenants
or
not,
and
about
the
interest
of
the
future
generations.
You
know
you
have
to
live
with
the
increase
in
increased
temperature
and
whatnot.
N
You
know
adaptation
thing,
so
one
of
the
few
things
in
terms
of
adaptation,
which
we
can
do
relatively
easy,
is
to
it's
not
to
to
to
to
retrofit
the
things
that
they
have
so
the
buildings
we
have
already,
but
at
the
very
least,
because
that
and
again
not
in
10
years,
not
in
2030,
but
right
now
to
start
to
demand
from
the
people
who
and
the
housing
is
not.
Buildings
are
the
particularly
long-lived
assets.
Yeah.
F
F
No,
oh,
I
get
it.
I
totally
get
the
climate
argument
is
100.
You
know,
100
agree,
it's
always
just
you
can
never
just
do
one
thing
and
I
wonder
what
the
impact
will
be,
but
I
I
understand
exactly
what
you're
saying
and
that
I
just
think
that's
what
the
challenge
in
this
conversation
is.
It's
not
obvious
that
this
is
exactly
what
we
should
do,
but
anyway,
I
really
appreciate
your
comments
and
and
presentation.
N
Yeah,
so
that
was
the
discussion
with
daniel
about
whether
we
wanted
to
put
the
trees
or
permeable
pavement
on
the
parking
lots.
My
suggestion
is,
we
shall
put
trees
and
permeable
pavement
right.
This
is
not
the
the
all
the
climate
issues
are
not,
but
you
have
to
decide
what
to
do
this
or
that
we
need
to
do
all
we
can.
Q
Good
afternoon
everybody
I'm
I'm
not
going
to
do
any
prepared
remarks
partially,
because
I
want
to
try
to
save
as
much
time
as
I
can.
There's
been
a
really
great
discussion
today
we
did
put
in
a
submission.
I
hope
you
have
a
chance
to
read
it
if,
if
there's
any
questions
about
it
by
all
means
reach
out
to
me
later
on,
there's
been
a
great
discussion
about
affordability
today,
so
I
don't
want
to
belabor
that
point.
Q
I
know
I'm
quite
confident
that
you
guys
see
the
trade-offs,
as
has
been
discussed
many
times
about
cost
increases
to
housing
versus
the
social
good,
that
the
high
performance
development
standards
are
are
trying
to
push
forward
and,
of
course
it
might
shock
some
of
you,
but
I'm
not
here
to
speak
against
them.
We're
here,
you
know
we're
supporting
the
aims
of
the
high
performance
development
standard.
We,
as
is
in
my
submission.
We
have
a
lot
and
still
a
lot
of
concerns
about
some
of
the
particular
elements.
How
they're
going
to
be
implemented?
Q
How
achievable
are
they
and
and
the
cost
factors
as
well,
but
as
I
indicate
we're
quite
willing
to
continue
to
work
with
staff
on
individual
basis
on
those
individual
items
in
various
pieces?
Like
my
one
example
that
I
put
in
the
letter
is
on
trees
in
the
right
of
way.
Well,
we've
got
a
separate
exercise.
That's
working
on
cross
sections
right,
so
we'll
continue
to
work
on
that
issue.
Q
Then,
in
there
I
did
want
to
address
kind
of
two
of
the
overriding
items
that
seem
to
be
that's
brought
up
in
most
delegations
or
in
most
questions,
and
the
first,
of
course,
is
the
trial.
Is
you
know
the
truth,
the
comparison
to
the
toronto
standard
and,
frankly,
actually
councilor
menard
kind
of
hit
it
on
the
head
right
at
the
beginning.
You
know
there
are
15
years
ahead
of
us
and
four
iterations
ahead
of
us
as
well.
Q
So
we've
got
to
you
know:
we've
got
to
walk
before
we
can
run
and
we've
got
to
give
ourselves
the
time
which
a
very
short
time
I
mind
you
just
a
year
of
reporting
where
toronto,
when
it
started
had
four
before
it
kicked
in
its
enforcements
on
these
standards.
So
we've
got
a
a
little
bit
of
a
time
frame,
but
you
got
to
give
us
the
chance
right
to
to
build
up
capacity,
not
only
the
industry
side,
but
also
on
the
city
side.
Q
It's
not
in
the
jurisdiction
of
the
city
to
be
able
to
demand
a
performance
within
the
house
in
and
of
itself
the
city
doesn't
have
that
kind
of
authority.
So
I
I
put
I
give
that
to
provide
the
context
that
we
are
capturing
those
homes
in
terms
of
energy
performance,
maybe
not
within
these
standards,
but
they
will
be
swept
up
in
the
improvement
in
energy
efficiency
within
building
codes
as
things
move
along.
So
with
that,
you
know
what
let
me
wrap
it
there
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
H
Thanks
scott
and
thanks
jason,
I
really
appreciate
the
presentation
and-
and
I
I
I
appreciate
that
as
an
industry
you
can
come
in
and
having
one
conversation
I
think
that
is,
that
is
very
important
for
us
to
you.
You've
done
the
homework
amongst
your
your,
the
association
amongst
the
members
and
you're
able
to
come
with
a
a
an
agreed-upon
position.
I
think
that's
very
helpful.
H
That
said,
do
you
agree
that
you
sort
of
have
a
number
of
groups,
but
two
fundamental
groups?
You
have
developers
of
stock
that
they
will
be
holding
on
often
rent
rental
apartments
and
the
others,
because
my
position
or
what
I,
what
I
sort
of
see,
is
that
those
who
are
building
rental
stocks,
specifically
mid-rise
and
higher,
are
really
at
the
leading
edge
of
some
of
the
green
performance
because
they
end
up
holding
on
to
that
building
for
so
long
that
they
care
of
the
energy
and
utility
cost
versus
kind
of
the
other.
H
The
majority
I'd
say
in
this
position
where
ultimately,
the
builder
wants
to
build
what
the
customer
wants
and
at
the
cheapest
price,
obviously
to
to
to
respond
to
some
of
the
the
financial
issues.
The
affordability
issues
that
were
all
we
were
talking
about
earlier.
So
is
that
a
fair
assumption
that
I'm
describing.
Q
Yes,
actually,
I
think
it
is,
and
it
actually
would
be.
It
would
almost
pretty
much
word
for
word
what
my
response
would
be
to
counselor
mckinney's
questions
about
why
nonprofits
invest
in
this
energy
efficiency
for
the
same
reason,
right,
they're,
the
owner
operators
of
buildings.
Therefore,
it's
it's
to
their
benefit
to
it,
make
these
kinds
of
investments,
whereas
on
the
private
market
side
the
consumer
is
not
demanding
this
or
at
least
doesn't
appreciate
the
price
premium
that
it
takes.
Q
To
put
the
you
know,
these
things
in
there
are
certainly
more
and
more
high
efficiency,
high
energy
efficiency
homes
being
built
every
day,
as
people
turn
to
to
wanting
them,
and
most
builders,
especially
large
scale
builders,
are
going
to
offer
different
models
that
have
different
energy
efficiencies
and
right
now
we're
just
not
seeing
people
choose
those.
You
know
they're,
not
over
other
other
options
or
spending
their
money
elsewhere.
H
Okay
on
a
final
sort
of
question
comment
if
I
were
to
make
a
correlation
to
the
purchase
of
a
car
the
if
I
look
at
a
electric
car
right
now,
it's
very
hard
to
find
electric
car
under
40
000,
but
if
I
assume
that
I'm
spending
2
000
a
year
in
gas
and
I
buy
a
civic
at
two
twenty
thousand
dollars
just
to
give
numbers
here,
I
and
I
keep
my
cars
ten
years.
Then
I'm
willing
to
buy
a
forty
thousand
dollar
car
for
that's
over
time.
H
It's
my
same
cost
right,
so
I
want
to
understand.
Is
there
a
model
by
which
we
get
there
right?
Think
of
like
the
green
car,
it's
worth
spending
40
000
now
and
my
my
cost
of
ownership
remains
the
same
as
a
traditional
car
around
this
year.
Could
we
get
there
with
the
housing
sector?
Saying
hey?
How
do
we
bolster
the
green
retrofits
now
because,
ultimately,
it's
the
consumer?
It's
the
person
who
wants
to
buy
the
the
house
today
at
an
affordable
price,
but
then
lives
the
ups
and
downs
of
utility.
H
Q
It
is
the
same
principle
for
homes,
right,
consumer
education,
on
on
what
the
price
premium
of
buying
a
code
house
versus
one
that
has
a
higher
energy
efficiency
to
of
any
particular
label
to
in
that
zero
house,
and
then
what
the?
What
the
framing
is
for,
how
much
reduction
in
maintenance
and
operating
costs
you
have
year
over
year?
And
that's
that's
really.
The
key
right
is
that
consumer
education
piece.
R
Thanks
sure
I
want
to
follow
up
on
on
councillor,
flurry's
questions
and
then
ask
a
couple:
others
using
that
car
metaphor.
I
don't
think
the
impetus
to
educate
consumers
necessarily
came
from
the
car
manufacturers
directly,
or
at
least
it
didn't
come
until
the
government
moved
in
in
various
jurisdictions
and
put
in
stronger
laws
to
discourage
anything
but
zero
emitting
vehicles.
So
I
was
curious
if
your
members
of
goba
are
doing
anything
proactively
to
market
the
benefits
of
higher
performance
homes
or
or
net
zero
type
of
homes.
R
Q
So
we've
got
a
number
of
builders
who
energy
efficiency
homes
are
their
niche
product
for
sure,
but
even
your
very
large
builders
who
offer
a
number
of
models
have
models
that
are
higher
efficiency
at
a
higher
cost
point,
and
I
mean
they're,
not
seeing
the
consumer,
you
know
the
consumers
gravitate
to
those
models
versus
the
ones
that
are
slightly
less
expensive
right
for
with
with
that
addition
of
that
energy
performance,
so
I
mean
the
consumer
kind
of
votes
with
their
feet,
but
the
models
are
out
there.
People
are
not
choosing
them.
R
Yeah,
I
know
there
are,
I
know,
there's
a
minto
one
and
a
tamarack
one
I
can
think
of
recently
in
stittsville,
and
I
think
ivan's
got
a
research
facility
as
well,
where
they're
working
on
this.
I
guess
I
also
wonder
if
some
more
stringent
regulations
and
requirements
from
the
city
would
help
encourage
more
of
the
large
home
builders
to
adopt
these
standards,
which
would
then
help
the
industry
create
the
scale
required
for
the
right
ecosystem
of
suppliers
and
so
on.
R
Q
There's
certainly
always
a
capacity
question,
but
fundamentally
you're
going
back
to
then
the
the
original
point
of
trades
off
between
house
costs
at
least
certainly
right
now,
and
what
the
public
good
is
for
the
environmental
performance
and
if
the
city
wants
to
you
know,
have
cities.
Having
that
conversation,
you
guys
are
having
that
conversation
right
now
and
ultimately,
you've
got
to
kind
of
decide
where
to
go
and
we'll
work
with
with
everyone
to
to
make
it
work
for
industry
and
for
consumers
as
best
we
can.
R
S
Q
So
the
principle
behind
code
development,
just
in
general,
you
know
we're
not
speaking
about
energy
efficiency,
but
just
codes
in
general
is
you
know
the
code.
The
code
is
set
at
kind
of
at
your
base
model
right
and
then
there's
incentives,
as
you
see
in
tier
two
to
have
people
perform
above
whatever
that
baseline
is
and
then
eventually
the
vast
majority
of
the
industry
is
at
that
is
at
that
next
kind
of
standard,
and
you
raise
the
building
code
from
there
to
you
know,
get
the
laggards
to
catch
up
right.
Q
The
same
principles
are
basically
are
are
through
energy
efficiency
and
that's
kind
of
when
you
see
iterations
of
the
toronto
green
standard
of
phasing.
That's
here
within
our
standard.
That
is
that's
the
expectation.
As
you
know,
we
set
a
baseline,
get
everyone
to
it.
A
bunch
who
are
above
baseline
already
are
going
to
take
up
to
the
next
performance
level
because
they
want
that
differentiation
in
you
know
and
sell
that
to
the
consumer.
S
S
Q
That
is
yeah.
The
soil
volume
requirement
is
kind
of
one
of
the
the
more
outstanding
items
that
we
still
haven't
resolved
with
with
staff,
and
it
is
like
I
mentioned
earlier
about
trying
to
resolve
that
issue
at
the
cross
sections
piece,
but
you're
if
you're,
removing
that
material
land
material
you've
got
new
excess
soil
regulations
that
also
now
dictate
so
they
have
to
either
go
to.
Q
S
The
last
area
I
want
to
ask
you
about:
is
staff
gave
us
what
they
thought
was
a
high-end
estimate
of
how
much
this
would
add
to
a
cost
of
a
new
house,
and
earlier
today
we
had
a
very
good
discussion,
and
I,
quite
frankly
I
think,
we've
discussed
it
a
lot
this
tournament
council
about
how
do
you
make?
How
do
you
generate
more
inventory
in
affordable
housing
so
that
everybody
needs
housing,
gets
housing
right
so
and
we
certainly
have
a
need
for
affordable
housing
here
in
the
city.
S
But
my
understanding
with
these
standards
is,
we
could
add
as
much
as
a
hundred
to
a
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
on
the
cost
of
every
house.
If
we
were
to
implement
these
standards
right
away.
Is
that
a
are
you
familiar
with
their
numbers?
So
what's
your
your
association's
views
of
those
estimates?
Is
that
on
the
high
end,
or
would
that
be
a
more
mid-range.
Q
S
Q
I
think
yeah
I
mean
there's
a
significant
conversation
you
have
to
have
with
hydro
ottawa
on
before
introducing
ev
chargers
in
each
home.
There
was
a
great
struggle
when
that
was
going
to
be
part
of
the
building
code
a
number
of
years
ago
right.
So
I
there's
a
significant
discussion
to
be
had
with
utilities
before
that
could
be
moved
forward.
S
S
I
Yeah,
thank
you,
jason.
I
I
wanted
to
just
get
some
clarification
from
you.
We've
heard
today
from
many
of
the
delegations,
but
I've
also
been
speaking
to
c
staff
and
they've
been
comparing
what
we're
proposing
here
for
ottawa
with
what
is
already
in
place
in
toronto.
Now
toronto
has
gone
through
several
iterations
they've
kind
of
finessed,
where
they
are,
and
who
knows,
maybe
they'll
even
change
it
further
in
the
future
as
they
learn
from
it
ottawa.
I
I
Do
many
of
your
members
operate
in
toronto
as
well?
Are
they
familiar
with
the
toronto
standards?
Are
they
anticipating
that,
if
we're
not
getting
there
today
in
terms
of
ottawa,
that
we
will
be
at
toronto's
level
in
the
near
future,
and
is
there
really
a
difference
between
constructing
and
development
in
toronto?
I
mean
I
get
it.
We
get
more
snow.
I
lived
in
toronto
for
a
very
long
time.
There's
lake
effect,
but
in
reality,
is
the
construction
much
more
different
here
than
it
is
there.
Q
So
I'll
try
to
tackle
all
those,
so
the
there's
two
members
that
I
can
think
of
that
would
operate
in
toronto.
There
isn't
a
lot
of
of
expertise
that
that
covers
both
regions
for
sure
ottawa's,
because
it's
you
know
somewhat
isolated.
Geographically
from
the
next
largest
municipality
there
there's
opera.
Q
Q
There
is
certainly
a
big
difference
in
residential
construction
here
versus
toronto.
Of
course,
obviously,
there's
a
lot
more
low
rise,
low
rise
here,
but
there's
also
a
lot
of
soil
conditions
are
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
sand
issues
and
lead
soils
and
a
lot
of
radon
mitigation
that
has
to
happen
here
versus
toronto.
So
there
are
a
number
of
pieces
like
that
that
do
affect
and
the
smaller
labor
pool
for
sure
the
competition
with
materials
as
well.
Q
I
It
was
just
in
respect
to
how
different
it
is
it
to
construct.
You
mentioned
about
radon
and
and
the
different
type
of
geographic
aspects,
and
I
know,
even
in
our
city,
we've
got
bedrock
in
areas.
We've
got
lita,
clay
and
others,
but
once
again,
I'm
assuming
toronto
is
fairly
large
as
well.
They
have
the
lake,
they
have
other
aspects.
Q
I
think
it
never
hurts
to
strive
to
to
do
our
best,
but
we
haven't,
you
know
we're
just
we're
kicking
off
the
gates
right
now.
We,
if
we
try
to
jump
too
fast
too
far,
we're
going
to
fall
flat
on
our
faces
and
you
know
not
achieve
even
the
development
that
we're
trying
to
to
get
to
right
now.
You
know
a
slow,
gradual,
buildup
is
definitely
the
way
to
go
again
to
build
capacity,
not
only
in
the
industry,
but
in
sit
in
the
city
side
as
well.
Q
You
know,
and
so
the
the
what
is
it
the
turtle
wins
the
race
right
in
the
end
of
ends.
So
we
can,
let's,
you
know,
start
off
where
we
are
right.
You
know
with
the
standards
that
are
in
place,
do
the
evaluations
and
see
how
we
can
step
up
and
each
and
each
and
every
time
there's
going
to
be
a
new
iteration.
Obviously
the
standards
are
going
to
get
up
and
we're
we'll
cut
we'll
get
there
for
sure,
but
there
has
to
be
an
appreciation
that
we're
far
behind
toronto.
I
G
G
G
Q
We're
always
going
to
bring
up
the
affordability,
what
the
any
city's
proposals
are
going
to
cost
in
terms.
You
know,
try
to
estimate
what
that
cost
will
be
and
emphasize
again.
You
know
that,
there's
an
affordability
crisis,
you
know
within
the
city
again,
you
guys
are
the
ones
who
are
going
to
make
that
decision
of
the
trade-offs
is,
you
know
adding
this
particular
cost
through
development
standard
worth
the
trade-off
for
the
house
cost,
and
but
yes,
it's
it's
our
number
one
thing
for
sure.
G
Yeah,
I
look.
I
I
want
to
see
the
development
standards
approved.
This
is
absolutely
the
right
direction
to
go.
I'm
just
concerned
about
what
impact
it
will
have
on
affordability
and
who
then
will
be
excluded
from
the
marketplace,
because
the
additional
cost
will
not
allow
them
it'll,
be
their
breaking
point.
So
to
you
is
in
your
engagement
with
cities,
I'm
I'm
hoping.
Q
With
overall
for
all
policies,
absolutely
again,
we
reached
back
to
the
site
plan
discussion
from
earlier
today.
Right,
I
know,
there's
a
there's,
a
big
concern
about
reducing
those,
but
that
is
the
cost
trade-offs
right
if
you're
looking
to
increase
the
performance
of
a
home.
Well,
maybe
you
you
balance
out
with
lower
development
charges
or
especially
on
an
infill
project
right
that
would
help
achieve
that,
would
help
balance
that
cost
question,
but
still
achieve
the
aims
that
you're
looking
for.
G
As
councillor
carey
said,
we
just
had
a
four-hour
discussion
on
the
challenges
to
enter
the
marketplace
and
the
whole
affordability
concepts
with
respect
to
home
ownership
and
even
renting,
but
we
have
to
be
cognizant
about
how
this
will
further
impact
people's
ability
to
enter
the
marketplace
with
these
additional
costs.
So
we
do
need
to
tease
this
out
a
bit
further,
but
thank
you
for
your
delegation.
F
My
very
quick
comment:
thank
you
very
much
for
your
presentation
super
helpful.
What
counselor
brockington
is
saying
is:
where
else
can
we
look
to
have
savings
so
that
we
don't
cause
a
different
problem
right?
Have
we
created
iatrogenic
solution
here?
We
have
a
bigger
problem
afterwards
than
we
started
with
so,
but
counselor
moffat.
In
the
presentation
we
had
the
very
beginning,
there
was
sort
of
a
slide
that
indicated
in
four
years
that
there
will
be
a
review
and
our
presenter
just
talked
about.
B
B
D
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
yeah
apologize
for
this
coming
in
a
bit
late
and
for
the
length
of
it.
It's
it's
longer
because
that's
the
way
staff
mentioned
it
has
to
be
drafted
because
of
the
report.
So
you
know
normally.
I
wouldn't
want
to
have
this
length,
but
it
it's
a
necessity,
so
apologize
for
the
late
hour,
whereas
the
hp
ds
is
a
collection
of
voluntary
and
required.
D
Development
standard
therefore
be
resolved
that,
with
respect
to
the
report,
the
planning
committee
recommend
council
approve
the
following
one:
revise
the
report
and
supporting
documentation
to
make
all
complex
site
plan
control
applications
subject
to
energy
modeling
reporting
requirements
now,
which
will
lower
the
energy
modeling
report
size
threshold,
which
you'll
see
at
the
end
of
the
motion,
as
described
in
a
b
c
d
and
e
I'll
go
through
each
eight.
On
page
seven
of
the
report.
D
Application.
Two
moving
on
is
amend,
recommendation
5e,
which
as
follows:
a
joint
planning
agricultural
rural
affairs
committee
in
the
official
plan
implementation
report,
with
the
recommendation
of
any
hpds
criteria
to
be
used
for
applications
with
reduced
submission
requirements.
As
provided
for
under
official
plan
policy
11.1
to
a
and
considerations
for
simplified
energy
requirements
for
site
plan,
applications
that
are
not
required
to
submit
energy,
modeling
reports
and
three
amend
recommendation
four
to
as
follows.
D
1St
2023
must
meet
the
hpds
and
those
are
requests
of
of
staff
in
terms
of
timing,
particularly
on
item
c
item,
four
direct
staff
to
report
back
in
q2
of
2023
to
include
the
incentives
consideration
of
additional
metrics
in
tier
two.
This
would
add
some
tier
two
conditions
for
consideration:
a
mandatory
embodied
carbon
reporting,
including
methodology
b,
construction,
waste
management,
diversion
target
c
sourcing,
raw
materials
and
the
indoor
water
efficiency
and
five
approve
the
adoption
of
a
definition
for
complex
site
plan
control
applications.
D
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
there
on
the
first
go
around,
although
some
of
us
would
like
to.
But
what
can
we
do
to
get
us
a
little
bit
closer
and
so
be
helpful
to
have
them?
You
know
comment
on
on
these
pieces
as
they
drafted
it
to
kind
of
find
a
middle
ground
from
where
we
are
now
so
appreciate.
The
ability
to
introduce
the
motion.
B
Before
we
finally
voted
on
that,
I
think
in
the
end
it
was
proved
everything
was
fine.
But,
given
you
know,
it's
it's
420
smoke.
If
you
got
him
it's
4
20
on
on
in
the
middle
of
the
meeting
here,
and
we
have,
we
have
a
number
delegation
still
coming
up
on
different
on
different
topics.
A
lot
of
folks
have
been
waiting
here
for
manor
park.
I'd
like
to-
and
I
just
don't
feel
like
I
can
get
right
into
this-
I
mean
I
want
to.
I
haven't-
had
a
chance
to
read
it.
B
That's
the
first
time
I've
heard
the
whole
thing
just
right
right
there,
because
I
was
listening
to
delegations
the
last
two
hours,
so
I
we
have
a
long
runway
between
now
and
council
on
april
13th.
This
still
has
to
go
to
agricultural
affairs
coming
on
april,
7th
I'd
like
to
rec
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
the
motion
just
not
get
voted
on
today.
I'd
like
to
ask
staff
to
to
come
back
to
us
give
us
a
written
rationale.
Obviously,
staff
have
worked
with
councilor
bernard
on
this
motion.
B
I'd
like
to
just
get
a
a
written
response
from
staff
on
this.
What
this
means,
how
we
integrate
it,
how
we
can
have
it
work,
and
I
don't
want
to
say
no
to
it-
I'd
like
to
find
a
way
to
say
yes
to
it.
So
I
just
like
that
that
extra
time,
if,
if
committee's
available
to
that
and
then
it
would
come
to
april,
13th,
council
meeting
and
we'd
have
all
that
information.
D
Yeah,
I
think
chair
just
to
simplify
it.
I
don't
have.
I
don't
want
to
have
a
big
fight
about
this
at
all.
So
I
think
we're
late
today
and
I
agree
there's
a
lot
there.
I
mean.
The
whole
report
is
a
lot
as
the
briefings
showed.
So
I'm
happy
to
you
know,
take
it
back
and
have
more
discussion
with
staff
and
get
to
something
that
you
know
has
more
explanation.
Yeah.
B
I'm
not
gonna
even
saying
that
it
needs
to
be
changed
between
now.
I'm
just
saying
I
just
want
more.
I
just
want
more
information
from
staff
from
rebecca
and
don
just
to
give
us
a
written
information
that
we
can
sort
of
dive
into
it
a
bit
more.
It
might
not
be
it.
You
know
it
might
just
be
long
and
word,
it
might
actually
might
not
actually
be
long
an
impact.
I
just
need
to
understand
that
that's
all
yeah.
D
Makes
sense
so
I
think
I
don't
think
I
think
what
we'll
do
is
I
don't
know
if
we
have
to
have
a
vote
or
not.
I
don't
think
so.
I
think
that's
generally
friendly,
so
just
have
it
that
it'll
come
back
with
staff
prior
to
the
council
meeting,
where
this
item
comes
forward
with
explanation
right.
So
that's
fine
with
me:
okay,
okay,.
B
I
I
I
B
G
Staff,
the
memo
needs
to
be
very
clear
in
layman's
language,
going
through
clause
by
clause.
What
does
the
proposed
amendment
by
councillor
menard
mean
and
their
comments
on
whether
they
support
it
or
not?
But
we
need
to
understand
what
the
impacts
of
what
the
proposals
are
and
that's
very
important,
there's
probably
not
an
appetite
to
form
a
working
group.
I'm
I'm
personally
not
prepared
to
vote
today
on
this
matter.
There's
there's
so
much.
G
I
still
need
to
absorb
and
I
wasn't
satisfied
with
my
briefing
and
I'm
going
to
be
reaching
out
to
staff
to
get
into
it.
There's
so
much
more
personally
that
I
need
to
do
before
I'm
prepared
to
vote.
I
definitely
like,
I
said,
appreciate
the
direction
we're
going,
but
I
have
significant
number
of
questions
that
I
need
to
sit
down
with
staff
and
I'm
glad
we
do
have
that
runway
before
mid-april
to
get
there.
G
G
B
All
right,
thank
you,
council,
brockton,
just
before
we
get
into
it,
because
maybe
that
might
cover
up
a
lot
of
the
delegations
mentioned
toronto.
I
think
it's
the
the
only
day,
I've
ever
heard
so
many
people
say
pay
I'll,
be
more
electron,
so
rebecca.
If
you
could
just
sort
of
touch
on
that
a
little
bit,
I'm
sure
I'm
sure
it's
something
you
heard
as
you're
developing
it
as
well
and
and
bring
the
report
forward.
I'm
sure
this
is
something
you
anticipated.
So
if
you
could
just
sort
of
touch
on
that
a.
C
C
Other
gta
municipalities
that
have
similar
green
standards
and
in
by
and
large,
we
are
leading
among
those
other
green
standards.
So
that's
another
thing
to
keep
in
mind
in
that
comparison,
piece
with
respect
to
some
of
the
things
that
were
raised,
there
were
a
few
things
that
I
think
need
a
bit
of
clarification.
C
C
One
applies
to
low
rise
construction,
which
requires
energy,
star
certification
and
that's
for
buildings,
four
stories
or
less
and
then
there's
an
energy
modeling
report
requirements
similar
to
the
one
that
we
have
for
site
fund
control
and
that
in
the
modeling
report
guidelines
that
only
applies
to
buildings
under
200
over
2000
square
meters.
So
I
think,
that's
a
good,
an
important
distinction
to
make
another
piece.
C
When
we
were
working
on
the
standard,
we
were
trying
to
build
off
of
toronto
because
we
definitely
saw
them
as
a
leader
amongst
the
green
standards
that
were
that
are
happening
in
ontario.
We
were
building
off
of
the
version
three,
which
is
what
is
currently
in
place
today.
A
lot
of
the
comparisons
that
you
were
presented
with
by
some
of
the
delegations
we're
comparing
to
version
four
which
is
about
to
be
coming,
come
into
place.
I
think
it's
may
1st
of
this
year,
so
just
a
little
bit
of
additional
context.
B
B
H
Scott,
I
I
had
two
directions.
I
I
was
working
with
don
on
them
and
they're
pretty
straightforward
one,
which
is
a
head
of
council
to
do
a
side-by-side
analysis.
There.
There
were,
as
you
rightly
put
out
the
references
to
toronto,
which
element
who's
talking
about
what
so
I've
asked
staff
to
prepare
kind
of
a
a
a
direction
just
to
open
that
up,
and
you
know
it
will
live
in
record
also
of
this
time.
So
I
don't
know
if,
if
it's
required
to
get
don
don's
comment
on
it,
the
other
one
was
around.
H
A
Done.
Thank
you
chair,
yes,
staff.
I
already
have
a
lot
of
that
comparison,
so
we'd
be
happy
to
put
that
together
into
a
easy
to
read,
table,
hopefully
doing
a
direct
comparison
on
the
labeling
piece.
We
do
need
a
little
more
time.
It's
also
an
element
we're
looking
at
in
terms
of
our
our
building
better
ottawa
program,
our
existing
buildings.
So
we
have
a
bit
of
information
there
so
yeah
we
can
pull
together
some
some
further
information
by
council.
H
H
Okay,
two
three
quick
questions.
First,
one
coming
back
to
page
30
level
of
ambition
and
the
way
the
report's
written
is
really
it
really
sets
it
up
almost
simplistically.
I
I
have
to
say
I
think
ottawa
residents
are
very
smart
and
I
find
it
actually
polarizes
the
debate
rather
than
explaining
some
of
the
core
of
the
issue.
H
So
if,
if
you're
going
to
put
leave
that
in
the
report,
I'd
ask
that
we
have
trends
of
utility
costs
added
to
as
a
table,
because
to
me
that's
much
more
like
when
riley
says,
I'm
not
ready
to
vote
for
the
report.
I
I
think
we
have
to
be
extremely
careful.
The
decisions
we
make
have
impact
on
the
buyers.
There
are
hidden
costs
to
purchase,
and
I
think
some
of
these
utility
fluctuations
will
are
are
massive
in
terms
of
of
impact.
H
So
if,
if
it
stays,
as
is
in
the
report,
I'd
love
for
it
to
add
some
some
context
to
what
like
cost
of
ownership
of
a
home,
some
of
the
utility
costs
and
and
the
tables,
because
I
think,
as
it
reads,
is
way
too
simplistic
and
will
be
used
against
us
for
too
long.
I
think
it
it.
I
would
love
for
it
to
be
slightly
amended,
so
wondering.
O
D
C
Costs
aren't
necessarily
clearly
going
to
be
boiled
down
because
there's
a
distinct
cost
difference
between
the
cost
of
natural
gas,
which
versus
the
cost
of
electricity
on
a
per
unit
of
energy
basis.
Like
last
time
I
looked,
natural
gas
was
about
three
times
the
cost
of
electricity
on
a
per
unit
of
energy
basis.
So
we
have
to
be
very
conscious
of
that
and
I
think
developers
are
start
as
they
start
to
do.
C
H
I
I
hear
you
and
I
get
it's
complicated
and
will
move.
I
guess
in
the
snapshot
of
time,
if
we
have
say
the
last
five
years
of
utility
cost
and
the
predicted
next
five
years
as
a
table,
that
alone
would
be
and
like
what
is
the
typical
non-uh
green
home
non-uh
standard
or
today's
standard
home.
Look
like
on
that
chart
right
it
caught
the
yearly
cost
of
ownership
today
and
then
people
it's
just
because
as
it
stands,
I
find
it
creates
polarizing
views
rather
than
explaining
it
kind
of
exposing
the
actual
cost.
H
So
that's
my
reference.
My
last
question
is
in
relation
to
the
2000
square.
So
right
now
I
know
I
believe
counselor
manal's
motion
could
possibly
amend
this,
but
there
is
a
reference
to
2000
square
meters
as
a
trigger
point
to
the
tier
one,
and
I
just
wanted
to
understand
a
little
better.
How
that
was
chosen
as
a
number.
C
Sure
so
the
2000
square
meters
is
the
trigger
point
for
the
building
energy
modeling
environment
metric.
Only
all
the
other
metrics
don't
have
that
trigger
point.
The
two
thousand
square
meters
was
in
response
to
concerns
about
the
additional
cost
of
consulting
on
creating
this
report,
so
this
to
create
an
energy
modeling
report
for
a
commercial
or
multi-unit
residential
building
costs
in
the
in
the
couple
of
thousand
dollar
range
and
when
you're
in
building
a
large
project.
When
you
put
that
on
a
per
unit.
C
Come
out,
it
can
come
out
to
be
around
a
20
bucks,
a
unit
kind
of
range,
but
when
you're
looking
at
a
10
unit
building
and
a
10
000
cost
of
doing
the
modeling
report,
it
has
a
much
higher
impact
so
to
mitigate
those
concerns.
We've
we're
pushing
it
up
a
little
bit
and
the
2000
meter
squared
specifically
matches
what's
in
the
toronto
energy
model
and
report
guidelines
and
so
for
consistency
across
jurisdictions.
H
Okay,
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you,
chair
for,
for
this,
this
report
is
really
really
important.
I
hope
that
colleagues
do
look
at
not
simply
the
affordable
home
buyer
lens,
but
the
cost
of
ownership,
because
it's
almost
better
if
your
home's
expensive
at
purchase
time,
because
you
can.
A
H
That
in
your
mortgage
for
35
years,
if,
if
you're,
if
your
mortgage
is
stable
but
you're
paying
more
and
more
on
utility
every
year,
it's
extremely
difficult
to
absorb
that
for
for
everyone
as
a
homeowner,
so
I
I
think
you
know
it
is:
it
is
a
transition.
We
need
to
help
that
transition,
but
we
also
need
to
be
open
about
that
consumer
awareness
piece.
So
I
think
the
the
report
is
very
good,
but
can
do
a
bit
more
on
that
front.
Thank
you.
B
Thanks,
it's
often
not
as
simple
as
that,
though,
right
because
it's
it's,
you
have
a
finite.
You
might
have
a
finite
budget
on
that
at
that
moment
in
time
I
once
worked
the
builder
and
they
changed
their
proposal
from
a
steel
roof
to
a
shingled
roof,
and
I
had
a
nice
question.
I
said
well
in
the
long
term.
You'll
never
have
to
replace
that
roof,
but
you
go
with
that:
shingled
roof
in
15
years,
you're
gonna
be
back
and
you're
gonna
be
re-roofing
that
that's
a
that's
an
extra
cost.
B
That's
an
operations,
cost
you're
gonna
have
to
absorb
15
years
from
now,
and
they
said
well.
We
have
a
finite
budget
to
build
this
right
now,
and
this
is
our
budget.
So
we
have
to
save
now-
and
we
worry
about
that
later
and
that's
that's
tough,
but
that
is
a
decision
that
homeowners
also
have
to
make
sometimes-
and
it's
it's
just
a
reality-
I'm
not
saying
one
way
or
the
other
that's
right
or
wrong,
but
it's
just
a
reality.
Council
regularly.
L
L
Of
a
house
that
would
meet
the
proposed
new
standards
and
we
actually
heard
quite
a
quite
different
answers
from
industry
versus
staff
as
to
what
that
what
that
delta
might
be.
But
we
can
all
agree
that
it's
going
to
be
more
so
the
question
I
have
for
staff
and
again
I
think
I
know
what
the
answer
is.
But
is
there
any
way
for
the
city
to
incentivize
for
the
buyer
of
that
new
home?
L
L
Or
reduce
tax
for
a
number
of
years
to
help
offset
the
the
additional
cost,
because
we
don't
want
to
create
a
situation
where
we
build
homes
that
people
can't
afford
to
buy.
That's
not
going
to
solve
the
problem,
so
is
there
a
way?
Is
it
legal?
Is
there
a
way
for
us
to
to
provide
some
sort
of
a
tax.
L
M
C
So
as
part
of
the
incentives
report
back,
that
would
be
something
we
would
be
looking
at.
What
the
options
would
be,
I
think
through
cips
and
those
types
of
initiatives
there
are
options
available.
I
think
it'll
we'll
have
to
look
at
what
the
right
solution
is
for
the
right
building
typology
when
we're
looking
at
single
family
homes,
it's
much
easier
to
go
to
the
sort
of
home
buyer,
but
when
we
start
looking
at
a
condo
when
the
energy
performance
and
the
price
measures.
P
S
L
I
R
R
Mark,
okay
and
then
this
this
initiative
would
apply
basically
to
new,
builds,
only
not
to
renovations
or
anything
just
larger
new
builds,
especially
energy
evolution
set
a
target.
A
10-year
target,
I
believe,
of
302
kilotons
of
carbon
dioxide
emission
reductions
over
10
years,
and
the
measures
in
this
new
standard
would
get
us
to
74
percent
of
that
goal.
So
we're
still
we're
still
not
quite
there
we're
three
quarters
of
the
way
there.
R
I'm
not
sure
how
you
can,
how
you
end
up
with
that
or
whether
you
have
some
models
if
you're
working
on.
But
how
could
we
get
to
80
or
85
percent?
Like
do
you
have
the
the
level
of
detail
where
I
don't
know
if
we
reduce
that
minimum
size
of
2
000
square
meters
to
1800
square
meters?
Does
that
get
us
another
percentage
point
or
two
or
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out?
How
do
we
know
what
could
get
us
closer
to
that
100
percent,
rather
than
the
74
that
we're
at
now.
C
Sure
I'm
just
going
to
build
on
one
quick
thing
in
terms
of
the
retrofits:
if
there
is
a
site
plan,
a
retrofit
that
would
require
a
site
plan
application,
then
the
standard
would
apply
which
is
pretty
rare,
but
if
it's
a
big
enough
change
of
use
and
change
to
the
site
it
could,
it
could
apply
and
then,
in
terms
of
your
second
point,
what
could
get
us
further?
Certainly
extending
the
types
of
buildings
that
we're
addressing
would
be
one
way
as
part
of
that
modeling.
C
We
had
sort
of
included
projections
on
what
the
incentive
program
would
target
in
terms
of
the
percentage
of
the
market.
Looking
at
you
know
the
top
10
to
20
of
the
market.
We
could,
you
know,
be
more
ambitious.
If
there's
ability
to
provide
incentives
to
target
larger
groups
of
the
market,
we
can
also
work
on.
You
know
education
initiatives
to
try
and
drive
market
forces,
naturally
from
home
buyers
as
well
or
there
could
be
a
change
to
the
to
the
metrics.
C
We
we
set
the
metrics
energy
use,
intensity
thresholds
based
on
the
guidance
from
from
the
model
of
what
we
should
like
how
we
should
be
progressing
over
time,
but
knowing
that
we
can
only
influence
one
portion
of
the
building
sector,
I
mean
play
with
the
math
to
adjust.
If,
if
that's
the
will
to
do
so,.
R
C
That
would
make
a
huge
difference.
It
would
yeah
it
would
be
a
definitely
a
big
difference.
I'm
sorry,
I
was
interpreting
the
question
as
what
could
we
do
as
the
city,
but
as
the
province
were,
to
become
more
ambitious
with
the
building
code
and
having
the
building
code
address
emissions,
not
just
energy
efficiency,
which
is
an
important
thing
to
know
that
the
current
ontario
building
code
only
speaks
to
efficiency.
It
doesn't
so.
Energy
in
general
doesn't
speak
to
fuel
sources.
C
R
Okay
thanks
a
quick
few
quick
thoughts,
we've
heard
a
lot
of
comparisons
between
toronto
and
ottawa
and
oh
we're
15
years
behind
toronto.
We
could
probably
look
at
it
more
constructively
and
say:
we've
got
toronto's
15
years
of
experience
and
lessons
learned
that
we
can
draw
on
to
put
us
off
on
a
better
foot
as
we
get
started
here.
The
other
one
is
often
we
think
of
of
this
as
just
emissions,
but
there's
a
lot
of
other
benefits
as
well.
R
There
is
potential
growth
in
the
green
jobs
sector,
so
a
economic
benefit
to
this
it
puts
us
in
a
better
position
or
puts
puts
builders
and
the
construction
community
in
a
better
position.
When
the
building
code
changes
are
actually
adopted,
which
are
going
to
come
sooner
or
later,
there's
improved
public
health
income
outcomes.
R
There
is
better
resiliency
in
in
the
homes
in
the
building
to
extreme
weather
and
the
the
soil
volumes
that
have
come
up
recently
too.
In
this
discussion,
it's
about
supporting
a
healthier
tree
canopy.
So
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
benefits.
It's
hard
to
put
a
dollar
amount
to,
but
clearly
there's
a
lot
of
benefits
to
adopting
these
standards.
So
thank
you,
staff
for
your
work
on
this.
B
G
G
A
Yes
through
you,
mr
chair,
martha,
cope
state.
My
colleague
and
I
have
consulted
with
our
colleagues
in
forestry
services
about
this
proposal
to
increase
the
the
target
for
native
species
beyond
50
and
our
forestry
services
department
does
not
believe
that
it
is
practical
or
they
have
strong
doubts
that
it
is
practical
and
feasible
to
do
so.
A
So
we
would
need
to.
We
would
need
to
locate
sources.
We
need
to
change
our
procurement
practices.
We
need
to
work
with
the
nurseries
too,
to
do
so
to
you
know
to
alert
them
that
we're
going
to
be
changing
our
requirements,
so
they
can
change
their
mix
of
of
tree
species,
so
we're
reluctant
to
support
an
increase
through
the
high
performance
development
standards.
A
A
A
G
Thanks
martha-
and
you
know
I
I
certainly
would
welcome
it
if,
if
staff
did
take
a
closer
look
at
that
as
part
of
the
tree
planting
guidelines
and
if
you're
willing
to
accept
that
as
direction,
that
would
be.
That
would
be
good.
But
I
will
continue
to
take
a
look
at
as
we
get
closer
at
april.
13Th
meeting.
A
So
again
through
mr
chair,
the
the
toronto
approach
actually
takes
uses
two
strategies.
First
of
all,
they
talk
about
minimum
soil
volumes
for
street
trees,
which
is
something
that
we
have
incorporated
in
our
guidelines
and
then
they
produce
a
formula
that
is
based
on
a
forty
percent,
a
target
of
a
forty
percent
tree
canopy
target
on
the
site,
so
providing
sufficient
soil
on
the
site
to
support
a
40
tree
canopy
and
maturity.
A
So
we
would
much
prefer
to
look
at
this
through
our
our
tree
planting
strategy
and
through
our
landscape
plan
requirements
and
to
work
with
our
colleagues
in
zoning
to
see
what
is
going
to
be
feasible
on
each
type
of
site,
with
each
type
of
development,
in
conjunction
with
with
the
zoning
for
those
those
sites.
So
this
is
work.
A
So
it's
something
we
need
to
take
a
really
close,
close
look
at
there
and
I'll
just
note
we
did
speak
to
to
the
planners.
I
called
up
the
planners
at
toronto
and
asked
them.
Are
you
actually
getting
40
canopy
cover
on
these
sites
and
they
did
not
express
a
great
deal
of
confidence
that
they
were
getting
that
what
they?
What
they
said
was
well.
G
G
F
I
In
planning
who
does
the
review
mostly
of
the
tree
retention
and
tree
removal,
and
then
we
have
the
foresters
in
forestry
services
who
review
the
landscape
plans
in
detail
and,
like
nick
said,
as
a
part
of
the
op
implementation,
we've
revamped
our
lens
landscape
plan
in
terms
of
reference,
so
you'll
be
seeing
those
soon
and
much
more
detailed
and
as
for
better
requirements.
So
we,
through
that
side
of
things
we're
doing
well
through
that
landscape.
I
Infill
sites
that
you're
that
you're,
referring
to
that
you're,
seeing
in
your
ward,
we
have
so
we
have
a
requirement
in
that
tree.
Information
report
that's
submitted
for
those
kinds
of
sites,
it's
a
deep,
more
detailed
report
than
we
used
to
have
before
the
new
tree
by
law,
and
it
requires
a
tree
planting
plan
to
be
submitted
and
also
for
those
infill
sites
we
put
in
that
compensation
requirement,
so
they
are
required.
I
G
Yeah,
fair
enough,
I
I
think
you
know
I
and
the
community
are.
We
are
nervous.
We
are
skeptical
that
we're
going
to
see
a
large
wholesale
replacement
of
street
trees
in
you
know,
we
understand
that
in
the
r4s,
the
setbacks
don't
really
provide
a
lot
of
room
for
big
canopy
trees
on
the
street,
but
in
our
r3s
I'm
just
not
sure
that
we're
we're
getting
those
okay.
So
that's
something
else
I'll
be
thinking
about
between
now
and
the
april
13th
council
meeting.
Finally,
the
parking
lots.
G
A
So
through
you,
mr
chair
I'll
start
and
then
I'll
pass
to
my
my
colleague
rebecca,
we
did
look
again
look
at
that
requirement
in
the
in
the
toronto
green
standard,
and
that
was
one
of
the
recommendations
that
we
brought
forward
to
to
our
colleagues
in
the
climate
resiliency
group
for
incorporation
into
the
high
performance
development
standards.
It's
one
that
we
still
think
is
a
good
idea
and
which
we
think
is
achievable.
A
There
are
some
caveats
on
on
that.
We
don't
think
that
the
planting
of
large
trees
and
parking
lots
is
necessarily
going
to
be
be
practical,
so
it
may
be
necessary
to
plant
smaller
trees
with
smaller,
smaller
volumes
of
soil.
There
may
need
to
be
shared
soil,
soil,
soil
space,
and,
at
this
point,
I'm
going
to
pass
off
to
my
my
colleague
rebecca
to
talk
about
her
discussions
with
industry.
On
that.
C
H
D
G
No,
I
get
it,
I
mean
we
should
be
moving
away
from
minimum
parking
requirements
across
the
city
and
in
our
official
plan.
I
think
that
that
is
the
direction
that
we've
said.
We
want
to
go
right,
so
I
I
have
less
have
less
concern
about.
You
know
forcing
larger
parking
areas
on
folks.
I
do
have
a
lot
of
concerns,
though,
about
the
the
lack
of
trees
and
in
parking
lots,
they're,
they're,
big
heat
sinks.
G
B
S
A
Through
you,
mr
chair,
so
the
the
street
tree
requirement
in
the
in
the
high
performance
development
standard
is
a
there's
actually
a
soil
requirement.
So
we
are.
What
we
have
said
is
that
we
would,
like
pardon
me,
see
me
losing
my
voice.
The
provision
of
30
cubic
meters
of
soil
shared
between
the
the
lot
and
the
right
of
way
30
cubic
meters
of
soil,
is
the
minimum
soil
volume
required
to
allow
a
large
tree.
A
A
large
species
of
tree
to
grow
to
maturity,
provide
less
than
30
cubic
meters
of
soil
chances
are
that
tree
is
not
going
to
grow
to
maturity.
It's
not
going
to
be
healthy
and
we're
going
to
have
to
replace
it
at
at
some
point,
so
we'll
never
enjoy
the
full
benefit
of
that.
So
when
we
talk
about
providing
30
cubic
meters
of
soil,
what
we're
really
talking
about
is
the
the
the
effort
and
the
cost
of
providing
large
street
trees
in
terms
of
to
help
visualize
30
cubic
meters
of
soil.
A
Basically,
it
is
an
excavation
15
feet
by
15
feet
and
four
and
a
half
feet
deep.
We
think
that's
very
achievable,
particularly
when
we
look
at
what's
happened.
What
has
been
happening?
What
will
be
happening
under
the
zoning
bylaw,
where
we
have
been
focusing
on
the
provision
of
soft
landscaping
as
a
priority
in
our
zoning?
We've
done
that
in
infill
and
we've
done
that
in
the
r4
zone.
We
anticipate
doing
that
in
the
zone.
A
The
I'll
just
note
that
the
mr
graph
from
from
globa,
raised
the
issue
of
the
the
disposal
of
that
soil.
Well,
this,
of
course,
is
an
incremental,
an
incremental
cost,
so
that
you
know
the
excavating
at
15
by
15
area
would
of
course
be
incremental
above
what
is
necessary
for
the
excavation
of
foundations
of
basements
of
parking
garages.
A
So
it's
an
incremental
cost
and
yes
and
he's
quite
right.
It's
about
three,
I
think,
or
it
may
have
been.
You
counselor
mentioned
three
truckloads
of
of
topsoil
required
to
fill
that
hole.
That's
that's
quite
accurate.
I
checked
the
I
checked
the
website
of
greeley
sand
and
gravel
this
morning
and
the
the
cost
for
delivering
three
truckloads
of
of
topsoil
in
a
dump
in
dump
trucks
is
about
twelve
hundred
dollars.
So
we
don't
see
this
as
being
impractical
or
or
unduly
costly.
S
I
I
don't
disagree
and
I've
seen
situations
where
the
quality
of
the
soil
affects
anything
being
grown
there.
So
I
I
get
where
you're
coming
from
with
the
the
soil
my
concern
with
it
was:
what
are
they
going
to
do
with
what
they
excavate,
because
if
you're
putting
in
three
truckloads,
then
you're
taking
out
three
truckloads
and
if
the
soil
is
not
good
enough
to
nourish
a
tree,
then
it's
not
good
enough
to
like
spread
in
a
park
or
anything
else.
So
where's
it
gonna
go
and,
as
I
believe
his
name
was
jason.
S
S
Now,
if,
if
you're
able,
because
if
you're
going
to
go,
purchase
a
ton
of
really
good
quality
top
soil,
you're
gonna
pay
for
it,
because
you're
gonna
use
up
most
of
supply
out
of
an
area,
I
would
think
so,
but
we
can
work
on
that.
So
I
I
appreciate
what
you're
saying
about
the
trees
that
you
are
talking
about:
planting
the
big
trees,
which
would
give
us
a
realistic
expectation
of
a
tree
canopy
within
years,
not
decades
correct,
okay.
S
S
Okay,
but
if
there's
a
requirement
to
take
earth
to
a
landfill
or
if
because
now
we're
getting
into
some
of
the
ingredients
into
a
house
right
like
the
type
of
windows,
they
use
the
type
of
insulation
all
that
stuff.
If
there's
at
a
cost
there,
that's
I
saw
that
as
a
adding
more
to
the
house
as
well.
I
think
I
put
that
in
at
again
around
five
to
ten
thousand,
I'm
taking
the
average
house
price
at
being
around
eight
hundred
thousand.
S
I
think,
by
the
end
of
the
summer,
it's
probably
even
going
to
be
higher
than
that.
I
know
at
least
in
canada,
stitchville
you're
not
getting
much
under
800
000
and
that
those
are
towns.
Those
are
not
singles
by
any
means.
So
that's
where
I'm
adding
up
and
then
what
was
added
in
today
by
one
of
the
delegations
was
that
we
should
put
a
current
charger
in
every
house.
Well,
we
know
from
the
earlier
discussions
around
that
that
the
grids
that
exists
in
ottawa
today
cannot
provide
a
car
charger
to
every
single
house.
S
C
Up,
that's
really
important
to
note
is
that
utility
planning
piece
which
the
community
energy
plan
is
really
intended
to
help
address
that
issue
in
that
we're
now
having
those
conversations
with
utilities
at
a
stage
when
they
can
actually
work
this
in
to
work
work.
These
expectations,
sorry
expected
increases
in
electrical
demand
into
their
long-range
plans
and
into
into
how
we
build
up
those
communities
so
that
you
don't
have
those
shocking
sticker
prices
where
you're
going
back
and
having
to
add
in
transformers
and
those
kinds
of
items.
D
C
The
between
one
to
ten
percent-
that's
construction,
cost,
that's
not
purchase
cost.
The
construction
cost
is
going
to
be
less
than
your.
Then
your
average
purchase
price
of
the
house
and
and
then
we
we
would
be
looking
at
as
mentioned,
it
was
what
I
think
he
had
said.
It's
about
a
thousand
dollars
dollars
for
the
from
the
soil.
If
you're
happy
to
track
it
in.
If
you
can
have
soil
on
site,
then
that
would
be
a
different
cost.
Of
course,.
S
So
then,
for
the
cost
that
we
know
up
front
to
this,
and
thank
you
for
that
clarification-
that's
construction
versus
not
the
the
value
of
the
home,
so
I
I'm
gonna,
take
a
guess.
I
would
say
an
eight
hundred
thousand
dollar
home,
probably
is
seven
hundred
thousand
in
construction
costs.
Is
that
does
anybody
on
staff
know
if
that's
an
accurate
picture
or
not
that
it's
too
bad?
If
I
had
known
that
the
fact
that
jason,
that.
S
Okay,
well,
then,
we'll
we'll
keep
exploring
this,
because
I,
I
really
think,
what's
going
to
determine
how
much
I
want
to
support
this.
Is
you
know
the
the
conversation
this
morning
was
very
telling
about
the
the
need
to
try
to
find
a
way
to
make
housing
affordable?
So
I
find
it
difficult
in
the
morning
to
have
that
significant
conversation
about
affordability
and
then
in
the
afternoon
past,
something
that
could
add
anywhere
from
fifty
thousand
up
to
the
cost
of
a
house.
So,
okay,
thank
you
for
your
answers.
I
I
I
Why
would
we
not
get
as
close
to
that
as
possible,
and
I
understand
that
the
industry
wants
to
be
phased
in,
and
I
understand
from
from
jason's
comments,
and
they
were
wonderful
comments
that
you
know
it's
going
to
take
a
while
for
people
to
buy
into
this.
But
this
is
not
new.
I
mean
we've
been
hearing
about
other
there's
other
municipalities
other
than
toronto.
I
That
would
get
us
at
least
to
our
own
target,
through
energy
evolution,
that
we
can
reincorporate
into
this
report
and
see
and
work
with
the
development
community.
So
they
can
start
seeing
that
implement
it
a
little
bit
faster
than
the
phasing
that
you've
identified.
I
want
to
see
us
more
ambitious.
C
Okay,
I
think
one
thing
that
I
would
like
to
point
out
as
part
of
energy
evolution.
It
was
pointed
out
several
times
that
that
it's
going
to
be
a
shared
effort.
It's
going
to
be
the
province,
it's
going
to
be
the
feds.
It's
going
to
be
the
municipality,
it's
going
to
be
the
public.
It
really
is
a
shared
shared
strategy
so
and-
and
I
know
that's
sort
of
it's
hard
like
we
would
like
to
see
pushing
things
further.
C
I
I
get
that
and
then
in
terms
of
the
sort
of
second
part
of
your
question.
What
other
things
could
we
look
at
between
now
and
council?
That
would
get
us
closer
to
our
sort
of
eight
percent
target
for
reduction
in
ghgs
from
the
new
building
sector?
I'm
I'm
not
sure.
I
I
do
think
that
the
changes
to
the
the
threshold
to
propose
in
the
motion
have
potential
to
help
address.
Some
of
that
I
would
have
to
think
a
little
bit
more.
I
don't
have
anything
necessarily
talking
ahead.
I
I
appreciate
that
and
I
actually
look
forward
to
that
conversation
about
that
motion.
I
think
it
has
a
lot
of
potential
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
hearing
from
staff
on
it
and
talking
to
councillor
menard
regarding
it.
I
did
have
one
more
question
and
it
is
regarding
these.
You
know.
As
I
said
I
have,
I
represent
a
large
number
of
residences
in
older
areas.
Retrofitting
is
a
huge
burden
in
terms
of
trying
to
to
apply
future
technology
to
older
homes.
I
There's
been
a
lot
of
conversation
about
the
upfront
cost
of
buying
a
new
home.
Has
staff
evaluated
how
much
it
would
cost
for
folks
to
to
retrofit
over
time
versus
new
build?
Is
there
savings
in
the
long
run
to
people,
even
if
they
have
to
provide
a
bit
of
a
an
increased
upfront
costs
to
buying
the
home
if
their
home
is
now
energy
efficient,
potentially
wired
for
ev
is
looking
to
the
future
of
some
of
those
environmental
costs
that
we'll
see
trickle
down
from
some
of
the
federal
and
provincial
changes.
C
The
cheaper
it
is
to
implement
something
that
goes
for
planning
as
well
as
throughout
construction
and
then
once
you're
in
in
the
home.
So
there
would
be
savings
in
terms
of
mitigated.
Retrofits
retrofits
in
general
are
gonna,
be
you
know.
In
the
five
to
ten
times
the
cost
range
from
compared
to
embedding
it
early
on
into
a
new
planning
project.
So
they're
definitely.
C
At
the
moment,
I
don't
think
that
there
are
any
homeowner
incentives
at
either
level.
I
think
the
federal
government
has
made
some
indications
that
there
will
be
some
coming,
but
they're
not
there's
no
more
information
on
it
than
that.
There
used
to
be
some
through
the
iso
that
are
no
longer
available
yeah
and
I
think.
P
I
D
Thanks
very
much
chair,
I
want
to
thank
staff
as
well
for
the
work
to
this
point.
I
know
it's
a
lot
there's
a
lot
there.
Counselor
dude
has
asked
some
great
questions
and
so
did
counselor
fleury
around
the
savings
that
say
somebody
buying
that
home
or
maybe
renting
that
home
over
time
or
longer
term
owners
that
that,
may
you
know,
rent
it
out,
could
achieve
by
having
these
things
done
up
front.
I
think
that's
really
important
information.
If
we're
saying
it's
gonna
increase
the
cost
the
upfront
buy.
D
How
much
can
be
saved
over
time
is
a
really
really
important
question
to
to
answer,
as
well,
even
with
the
metrics
that
chair
moffett
had
talked
about
before
in
that
point
in
time
in
that
purchase
the
the
after
effects
still
matter
and
so
helpful
to
have
that
that
information
as
much
as
possible.
Thank
you
for
your
support
as
well
on
the
motion
that
was
drafted.
I
really
appreciate
the
back
and
forth
and
where
we
ended
up,
I
just
want
to
confirm
that.
That's
something
that
staff
as
a
motion
is
right.
Now.
A
D
Absolutely
and
that's
why
I
didn't
want
to
put
up
a
big
fight
here
actually
today,
later
on,
if
you're
thinking
about
it,
because
the
motion's
very
long,
if
there's
complications
there,
and
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
take
it
back.
I
I
want
to
make
sure
we
do
get
to
that
point
that
counselor
dude
has
spoke
to
as
well
that
that
we're
pushing
the
envelope
here
that
we're
getting
to
a
point
where
we're
starting
from
a
good
place.
It
may
not
achieve
everything.
D
D
You
know
in
in
the
motion
itself.
We
talk
about
changing
some
of
the
a
threshold
for
that
under
2
000
square
meters
piece.
So
I
just
wonder
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
and
why
that
may
be
palatable
in
this
in
this
case,
and
then
I'll
I'll
I'll
generally
I'll
leave
it
there,
one
more
quick,
comma
and
then
I'll
leave
it
there.
A
I'll
just
start
and
then
I'll
throw
it
to
rebecca.
I
think
the
one
thing
it
does
do
it:
it
harmonizes
it
better,
with
our
current
site
plan
thresholds
for
what's
a
complex.
What's
a
standard
site
plan
application,
so
there
is
that
benefit
in
terms
of
you
know,
it's
clearer
and
we're
using
existing
thresholds
and
there'll
be
more
consistency.
Understanding
versus
you
know
less
a
more
convoluted
solution,
so
I'll
ask
rebecca
to
add
to
that.
C
Is
gone
as
in
the
report,
we
talk
about
how
energy
modeling
reviews
will
have
to
be
factored
into
future
considerations
on
the
application
fees
and
so
having
to
be
tied
to
these
thresholds
that
are
already
existing
within
our
planning.
Routing
process
would
be
a
good
change
as
well
as
it
does
increase
the
the
number
of
buildings
that
it
would
apply
to
so
we're
moving
from
for
a
multi-unit
residential
building,
we're
moving
from
a
2
000
square
square
meter
size
threshold
to
a
1200
square
meter,
size
threshold.
D
That's
great,
thank
you
so
much
which
would
obviously
increase
the
percentage
of
buildings
that
we're
covering
in
terms
of
new
builds
for
the
sustainability
thresholds
at
the
tier
one
level,
so
that
is,
that
is
very
much
appreciated.
My
comment
is
just
that.
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
support
what's
in
front
of
us
today,
but
with
the
caveat
that
there's
a
lot
more
still
discussion
to
be
had
here.
The
delegations
were
very
good
today,
they're
very
prepared
and
they've
looked
into
it.
We
need
to
listen
to
what
they're
saying.
D
I
counsel
for
for
pushing
a
little
bit
more
here
so
that
we
can
get
to
where
some
of
the
other
municipalities
are
in
ontario,
because
we're
late
on
this
one
right,
a
lot
of
other
missed
values,
have
already
got
their
a
head
start.
A
long
time
ago,
so
we
have
catching
up
to
do
and
we
don't
want
to
catch
up
in
a
very
slow
way
you
want
to
catch
up.
So
I
appreciate
all
your
work.
It's
been,
it's
been
great
and
appreciated.
Thank
you,
chair
thank.
G
G
But
I
think
what
councillor
menard
has
brought
forward
is
very
important,
because
that
was
my
concern.
But
I
saw
the
way
that
the
conversation
has
evolved
here
in
terms
of
being
able
to
catch
up,
because
the
one
thing
that
I
did
notice
with
the
toronto
green
standard
is
that
each
integration
was
every
four
years.
So
almost
once
a
term,
and
so
that's
why?
I'm
very
pleased
that
councilor
menard
moved
a
motion
that
would
catch
us
up.
G
So
the
only
request
I
really
have
is
in
that
memo
whether
there
can
be
some
information
on
the
gap
in
terms
of
this
motion
and
where
it
gets
us
in
comparison
to
the
toronto
green
standard.
I'd
be
I'd,
be
very
curious
about
that,
because,
obviously
we
want
to
get
as
far
as
possible
to
to
really
ensure
that
we
are
are
moving
forward.
Was
the
standard
I'd
also
like
to
see
just
a
little
bit
of
discussion
on
how
energy
performance
metrics
might
be
made
public?
G
Even
if
that's
you
know
through
anonymous
data
in
terms
of
aggregation,
but
I
think
that
that's
very
important,
because
that's
going
to
be
a
very
important
tool
for
us
to
actually
ascertain
where
we
are
in
terms
of
progress
of
the
implementation,
implementation
of
the
standard
versus
any
emission
reductions
that
we
might
see.
So
just
a
few
quick
comments
and
thank
you
for
the
good
work
and
just
hoping
to
see
some
of
that
information
relayed
in
the
memo
to
to
council.
C
Sign
control
that
are
totally
exempt
from
any
energy
requirements.
So
that's
what
that
second
part
of
it
and
we'll
get
to
that
we'll
be
able
to
explain
that
more
fully
in
the
in
the
memo.
The
other
thing
with
respect
to
public
reporting,
cycling
applications
are
are
made
public
when
they're
going
through
their
considerations.
So
all
that
information
will
be
part
of
what
gets
submitted
and
is
posted
on
our
development
applications.
M
C
G
T
T
So
on
that
on
that
question,
I
just
want
to
know
from
staff
with
the
like,
I'm
deadly
afraid
of
the
cost
of
housing
and
our
children
being
able
to
actually
afford
housing.
We
remember
previous
federal
governments
in
the
past.
Changed
the
rules
around
mortgages
to
go
from
it
was
like
it
went.
It
was
alway
what
I
see
some
snickering
there,
but
it
used
to
be
25
years,
and
that
was
always
the
standard,
the
gold
standard
25
years
for
a
mortgage.
T
But
if
we're
talking
about
increasing
costs
on
things,
I
remember
there
was
a
certain
segment.
It
went
30
and
40-year
mortgages
and
then
the
the
government
clawed
back
and
changed
the
rules.
If
we're
looking
at
trying
to
front-end,
because
that's
what
this
is
for,
front-ending
a
whole
bunch
of
things
that
are
terrific.
T
You
look
at
maybe
solar,
and
I'm
only
I'm
only
triggered
by
this,
because
through
the
good
work
of
fcm,
which
I'm
a
part
of
we've
done
the
aspect
on
the
retrofit
side,
but
now
we're
running
into
new
problems
where
mortgage
costs,
the
ability
to
be
able
to
meet
the
test
of
mortgage
costs
have
gone
up
dramatically,
and
that
means
the
only
way
to
achieve
that
is
to
be
able
to
add
on
years,
not
that
I'm
totally
in
favor
of
that.
But
it's
the
only
real
solution.
C
C
Note,
though,
is
last
time
I
looked,
the
cmhc
has
a
greenhouse
mortgage
rebate,
so
home
people
who
have
a
mortgage
and
are
required
to
get
more
mortgage
insurance.
I
get
it
and
they
get
it
through
the
cmhc.
They
get
a
rebate
by
hitting
a
certain
performance
level.
So
there
is
that
one
protection
piece:
it
is
a
fairly
significant
rebate
and
the
standards
that
are
being
presented
in
terms
of
level
performance
would
make
a
project
eligible
for
that.
T
Okay,
great
and-
and
I
know
a
lot
of
my
colleagues-
have
had
a
lot
of
questions
and
I'm
glad
councilman
nerds
there's
going
to
be
a
little
time
to
breathe
before
we
get
it
to
council.
How?
How
confident
are
you
that
you'll
be
able
to
get
all
the
answers,
because
I
keep
hearing
all
you
have
to
ask
industry.
We
have
to
ask
federer
there's
a
lot
of
asking
to
take
place
on
something.
That's,
I
think,
very,
very
important.
T
If
we
want
to
and
again
it's
it's
not
just
about
people
that
want
to
buy
a
net
new
people
are
going
to
buy
a
lot
of
these
properties
and
rent
them
out
and
there
is
a
cost.
Everyone
pays
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
well
prepared
before
council
when
we
have
to
make
these
decisions.
Do
you
feel
confident
you
have
enough
time
for
that.
T
T
Well,
I'll
have
a
lot
of
questions
to
them
as
well
when
it
comes
to
mortgage
rules
and
and
how
we
can
see
changes,
because
I,
if
we
want
to
go
down
this
road,
the
old
school
style
25
year
and
that's
how
I
was
raised
was
you
know
your
goal
in
life
is
to
if
you
can,
if
you're,
not
in
that,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
people.
I
can't
afford
they've
had
to
fight
a
big
battle
to
be
able
to
have
home
ownership,
I'm
not
hearing
an
avenue
to
that.
T
I'm
hearing
a
different
avenue
and
I
just
want
to
ensure
we
have
a
lot
of
options
on
the
table
more
than
than
what
our
current
system
provides.
So
I'll
work
on
that.
The
last
piece
was
related
to
earth
removal,
and
I
only
say
this
because
I've
gone
through
it
and
all
my
colleagues
have
gone
through
it.
T
I
even
had
try
to
put
a
splash
pad
in
and
when
they
try
to
take
the
earth
out
of
there.
The
cost
to
remove
the
earth
because
of
our
ministry
of
environments,
rules
and
regulations
and
deemed
contamination
levels
are
insane.
I
I
counselor
hubli
mentioned
it
and
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
cost
of
soil
removal,
and
we
have
many
examples
even
stage
two
light
rail.
I
know
some
of
my
eastern
colleagues
are
looking
at
mount
trim
and
mount
blair
where
there
is
a
significant
cost
to
clean
that
soil.
T
A
T
Right,
I
just
I
don't
want
sticker
shock
for
anyone
if
we're
going
down
this
road,
whatever
financial
mechanisms
from
a
federal
perspective
and
banking
perspective
that
we
can
have
in
place
whatever
you
know,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
we
do
this
in
the
right
fashion
and
not
lock
a
lot
of
people
out
of
the
ability
to
be
able
to
purchase
a
home
so
anyway.
Thank
you
very
much
staff.
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
work.
You've
definitely
worked
with
all
council.
Colleagues
to
you
know
abreast
them
of
what
this
is
about.
T
B
B
So
we
will
go
straight
to
the
report
as
I
like
to
do.
I'm
going
to
read
the
the
report.
Recommendations
try
to
go
quickly
because
they're
not
short,
that
the
plain
community
and
cultural
affairs
committee
recommended
council
approved
the
following:
one
approved
the
high
performance
development
standards,
site
plan
metrics
in
document
three
and,
as
described
in
this
report,
to
approve
the
high
performance
development
standard
of
subdivision,
metrics
and
document
four
in
describing
this
report.
Three
approve
the
implementation
plan
and
standard
delegated
authority
report
conditions
in
document
8
and
described
in
this
report.
B
Film
standards
as
part
of
the
climate
change
master
plan,
annual
status,
update
c
planning
committee
with
pros
incentive
program
and
funding
options
to
support
higher
tier
performance,
tier
2,
again
q2
23
2023
and
d
plan
committee.
With
a
review.
An
update
on
the
high
performance
development
standard.
Every
four
years.
First
recommended
update
for
approval,
2025
e
joint
planning
aircraft,
cultural
growth
affairs
committee
in
the
official
plan
implementation
report,
with
a
recommendation
of
any
hbts
criteria
to
be
used
for
applications
with
reduced
submission
requirements,
as
provided
for
under
official
plan
policy.
F
H
F
B
I
I
D
B
R
Well
done
scott,
okay,
so
about
eight
hours
ago
I
said
we
would
consider
items
four
and
five
slash
six
ahead
of
item.
Three
almost
seems
like
a
moot
point
right
now,
but
but
we'll
proceed
with
that.
What
I
wanted
to
ask
committee
is
with
your
concurrence
that
we
skipped
the
staff
presentations
on
these
just
as
a
way
to
cut
down
on
our
time.
Are
we
okay
with
that.
D
I'm
good
with
skipping
the
presentations,
I
suppose,
although
we
should
probably
ask
the
ward
counselors
that
question
specifically
I'm.
I
am
fading
pretty
quickly
here,
though
the
zoom
thing
for
the
eight
and
nine
hours
just
gets
to
gets
to
me.
So
are
we
expecting?
These
are
gonna
be
long
and
if
they
are
like,
I
don't
know
that
I'm
gonna
stay
on.
To
be
honest,
so.
R
R
D
I
I'm
sorry
I
just
I
have
a
development
meeting
in
my
community
ironically
at
six.
So
what
I
would
ask
is
if
we
are
going
to
take
a
break,
could
we
do
it
at
six?
So
I
can
go
launch
that
and
then
we
can
come
back
I'll,
come
back
to
this
committee
and
I'll
I'll
kind
of
wear
both
hats.
But
if
we
could
look
at
that
because
I
agree
with
councilman
aaron,
I
think
a
break
would
be
in
order
for
all
of
us.
I
All
right,
thanks
chair,
so
I'm
here
also
for
50,
the
driveway
and
people
have
been
waiting
all
day.
I'm
also
fading,
but
I
think
I'm
not
sure
why
the
legislative
agenda
has
not
been
ironed
out
a
little
bit
smoother
through
this
couple
of
months.
Why
this
needed
to
be
on
today,
but
it
did
so.
I
you
know
I
just
I
want
to
appeal
on
their
behalf.
They've
been
waiting
since
9
30
this
morning
to
to
speak
to
the
item.
R
R
R
T
Recently,
this
committee
agreed
to
a
staff
recommendation
for
an
official
plan
amendment
for
a
quote:
minor,
unquote,
increase
to
the
28
story,
height
permitted
under
the
secondary
plan
by
four
stories
for
the
gateway
project
at
cummings
bridge.
Now
we
are
presented
here
with
an
application
to
more
than
double
the
37
stories.
The
permitted
height
of
18
under
the
secondary
plan
for
an
adjacent
property
there
is
a
holding
by
law
covering
this
property,
conforms
to
the
secondary
plan
on
staff
recommendation.
T
The
by-law
conforms
with
the
city
ncc
covenant
concerning
road
access
from
the
vandy
parkway
to
the
neighborhood
within
the
block,
as
recommended
by
staff.
At
the
time
now,
staff
appear
to
be
recommending
that
palace
a
very
narrow
street
and
a
narrow
right-of-way,
the
original
part
of
vanier,
with
the
stoops
of
its
houses
directly
on
the
curbs
and
no
sidewalks
as
a
major
entry
route
for
this
development
of
almost
900
residential
units.
T
This
does
not
comply
with
the
secondary
plan.
It
is
unsafe
for
residents
of
this
street
and
is
totally
unacceptable
to
us.
Snow
clearance
is
difficult
here,
as
you
can
imagine,
the
building
of
new
housing
seeking
to
fit
into
the
character
of
the
street
continued
as
approved
by
city
staff
and
consistent
with
the
mature
overlay.
T
T
We
think
any
amendment
to
height
limits
for
this
site
should
conform
to
the
intent
of
this
secondary
plan
to
give
visual
prominence
to
the
gateway
development.
The
shadowing
effects
of
a
37
37-story
tower
are
extensive
and
are
inconsistent
with
the
secondary
plan
policy
direction
and
and
the
tall
design
guidelines
tall,
building,
guide
design
guidelines
to
minutes
minimize
shadowing
effects.
T
As
this
application
moves
forward,
hopefully
with
suitable
changes
at
this
committee,
the
vca
will
continue
to
be
actively
engaged
on
site
plan
control.
Bca
welcomes
the
provision
for
family
sized
rental
accommodation,
but
some
units
can
be
more
affordable.
Reconfiguration
of
the
site
is
also
welcome.
The
proposed
pops
drastically
lacks
trees.
Despite
the
limited
tree
canopy
in
vanier.
T
The
vca
welcomes
the
set
that
the
second
tower
is
sent
back
from
legit
adjacent,
mori's
residences
to
the
south,
consisting
consistent
with
the
holding
by
law.
The
space
south
of
the
new
road
has
been
green
space
for
many
years,
rather
than
a
basketball
court,
more
trees
are
needed
and
a
small
shaded
park
would
add
to
venues
limited
park,
space
screen
the
increasing
pollution
and
noise
from
the
vanity
parkway
and
add
to
the
vegetative
barrier
for
the
adjacent
low-rise
townhouses.
T
Finally,
we
look
forward
to
working
with
the
applicant
and
the
city
and
the
counselor
to
implement
a
community
benefits
agreement,
including
for
affordable
housing,
as
discussed
with
the
applicant.
The
vca
recommends
also
that
affordable
housing
be
facilitated
through
the
use
of
the
montreal
road
community
improvement
plan.
Thank
you.
Missy.
R
M
Q
Rod
leahy
is
joining
me
as
well
good
late
afternoon,
everyone,
my
name,
is
miguel
tremblay,
I'm
a
partner
at
foten,
I'm
here
with
the
project
architect
what
I
could
suggest.
Maybe
we
did
have
a
presentation
ready
for
you,
but
I'm
getting
the
sense
that
you
would
potentially
like
me
to
address
along
with
rod
some
of
the
comments
made
by
mr.
M
I'm
comfortable
doing
a
quick
presentation,
I'll
be
as
brief
as
I
can
be,
and
give
some
room
at
the
end
for
miguel
to
speak.
To
planning
is
the
presentation
up
next
slide,
please
so
the
subject
site
at
the
intersection
montreal
road
or
tulsa
intersection
under
road
parkway.
It
should
be
noted
a
few
things
that
my
client
is
invested
in
this
area,
with
a
site
across
the
street
under
construction
across
montreal
road
and,
of
course,
ownership
of
the
shopping
mall
on
the
other
side
of
the
venue
parkway.
M
M
M
M
So
this
is
the
proposed
site
you
can
see
what
we've
done
is
reorganize
that
development
to
create
a
major
green
space
within
the
site,
a
sort
of
a
common
amenity
area.
We've
key
features
in
our
development.
Is
these
say
the
three
towers
ranging
from
37
to
28
to
16,
with
some
transition
to
both
the
west,
as
well
as
to
the
south,
and
we
introduced
the
idea
that
the
basketball
court,
that
was
the
low-rise
building
and
really
that
came
through
public
consultation.
M
One
thing
really
needed
in
the
area
was
this
idea
of
a
basketball
court
and
then
and
building
a
which
is
a
small
building
that
complies
to
the
high
ri
or
the
mid-rise
guidelines
of
montreal
road.
But,
more
importantly,
we've
reduced
the
size
of
it
to
allow
for
a
great
pedestrian
entrance
and
outdoor
space
off
montrell
road,
allowing
people
to
come
onto
the
site.
M
Key
to
this
was
pedestrian
access
and
movement,
and
so
this
demonstrates
this
movement
coming
off
the
vanity
parkway
for
access
with
bustop,
which
current
existing
bus,
stop
access
to
montreal
road
and
access
to
the
greater
community,
as
mentioned
earlier,
we're
showing
our
vehicular
access
coming
in
off
palace
and
off
of
right
in
radar
in
montreal
road
and
then
two
lane
out
on
palace
heading
south
toward
selfridge
next
slide,
please
so
site
plan.
Really.
I
know
you
don't
interested
in
floor
plans.
The
biggest
really
of
this
is
the
idea
on
the
ground
floor.
M
We've
got
great
opportunity
for
community
space,
including
daycare's,
common
room
area,
so
there's
great
opportunity
for
public
involvement
and,
of
course,
retail
on
montreal
road
to
help
strengthen
the
retail
component
on
montreal
road.
The
other
key
idea
is
that
we
have
roughly
a
20
percent
of
our
residential
units,
are
three
bedroom
units
and
we're
looking
at
alternate
ways
of
creating
flex
space
within
the
buildings
units
can
shift
and
change
over
time,
depending
on
the
needs
of
their
residents
as
a
sort
of
age
in
place.
So
next
slide,
please.
M
M
Again,
you
can
see
now
that
transitioned
of
the
taller
building
down
to
the
16
story,
building
down
to
the
eighth
story,
building
in
montreal
next
slide
again,
this
idea
of
transition
within
the
towers,
but
keeping
that
lower
podium,
distinct
and
allowing
that
sort
of
connection
to
grade
next
slide
and
then
some
of
the
interior
spots.
The
idea
of
this
large
green
space
or
central
park
area
within
the
development,
the
top
lots
that
are
accessible
to
daycare
areas
and
great
flexibility
within
the
site
plan
next
slide.
M
M
Yeah
next
next
slide
is
just
one
more
and
then
I'm
sorry,
I'm
taking
all
miguel
aside
and
that
just
shows
that
sort
of
bowl
effect
that
we're
creating
with
the
high-rise
buildings.
On
our
end
of
this
block
and,
of
course,
the
river
rain
project
on
the
most
westerly
site
and
that
sort
of
lower
scale
in
between.
G
M
The
idea
is
the
is
there's
flexibility,
because
it's
a
phase
development,
so
the
flexibility
is
allows
us
to
change
this
also
to
have
opportunity
for
possibly
some
shortage.
That
right
now
exists
within
the
area
for
parking,
so
we've
got
right
now,
yeah,
it's
it's
point.
Nine
three
levels
on
the
ground
parking.
G
J
H
G
R
H
Thank
you
thank
you,
chair,
and,
and
thank
you
chris
and
bca
for
the
engagement
presentation.
I
I
will
raise
a
few
elements,
one
which
is
kind
of
probably
the
ending
point,
which
is
as
as
the
zoning
is
in
front
of
committee
today,
assuming
it
passes,
we
will
be
working
closely
with
the
applicant
on
a
number
of
elements,
including
some
of
the
materials
for
the
buildings.
Some
of
the
lighting
of
these
buildings
we'll
be
looking
at
more
cl
more
carefully.
H
It
does
deserve
further
discussion,
so
I
will
take
that
offline
and
and
glad
to
engage
you
on
that.
On
the
final
point,
I
know
counselors
and
colleagues,
my
my
community
was
raising
concerns
of
heights
and
I
do
want
to
clarify
for
the
record
that
what
was
approved
in
the
past.
There
was
four
four
buildings
18
stories,
and
it
can
be
jarring
when
you
start
looking
at
some
of
those
density
transfers
and-
and
yes,
they're-
not
perfect
in
terms
of
volume
transfer.
H
But
I
do
think
that
getting
better
design,
better
buildings,
skinnier
buildings,
better
location,
does
minimize
some
of
the
the
neighborhood
impact.
So
you
know
it
is
important
to
see
developments
on
main
streets
and
this
corner
here
or
this
almost
corner
of
montreal
road
in
vanier
parkway
is
an
important
sign
of
of
what's
happening
in
banyi
following
the
main
and
main
site
which
the
committee
approved
a
few
months
ago,
and
now
here
we
are
with
the
mana
park
estates
112
montreal
road.
H
So
thank
you,
everyone
for
your
time
and
and
certainly
will
be
following
up.
I
see
counselor
manal
does
have
his
hand
up,
and
I
it
reminds
me
that
there
are
components
of
affordable
housing
that
still
need
to
be
solidified
and
negotiated
as
part
of
the
cycling
conditions.
The
applicant
is
committed
to
that,
and
so
am
I
in
the
community,
as
chris
highlighted
with
the
community
benefit
agreement.
D
Note
counselor
fleury
addressed
it
thanks,
counselor
fleury,
for
mentioning
that
I
just
wanted
to
to
raise
that,
as
we
should
be
often
with
these
applications,
so
appreciate
that
it's
a
lot
of
housing
going
in
and
we
heard
today
how
much
affordable
housing
is
how
it's
important,
affordable
housing
is.
So
I
really
do
hope
that
that
comes
back
at
the
site
stage.
Thanks
thanks,
counselor.
R
I
R
Carrie,
it
was
a
dissent,
counselor
leaper,
okay,
all
right,
so
it's
5
56
p.m.
We've
got
basically
three
more
items:
items
five
and
six
and
items
three
we're
going
to
take
a
break
and
come
back
and
finish
off
so
that
we
can
maintain
quorum,
so
we're
gonna
break
until
let's
say
six
6,
15
p.m,
and
hopefully,
we'll
have
to
be
able
to
maintain
quorum
and
finish
off
our
final
items:
6
15
p.m
and
we'll
see
everyone
soon.
B
G
R
Okay,
we
have.
We
have
six
of
us
at
least
six
planning
committee
members.
We
have
quorum,
we're
gonna
go
ahead
with
the
driveway
items.
We
may
be
deferring
the
manor
park
item
because
we've
got
several
committee
members
with
competing
commitments.
Couple
committee
members
who
are
not
feeling
well
and
we
don't
have
a
meeting
on
march
24th,
so
we're
just
seeing.
Procedurally,
if
we
could
do
a
special
meeting
to
do
manor
park
on
the
24th,
I
don't
think
anyone
was
expecting
the
first
two
items
to
go
four
hours
each.
R
This
is
a
little
it's
it's
too
long
of
a
day
anyway.
So
councillor
moffat,
I
think
you
are
just
going
to
work
with
clerk
staff
to
confirm
the
procedure
on
that,
but
we'll
go
ahead
with
50
the
driveway
right
now,
while
we
figure
out
those
last
details,
we
have
an
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
for
50,
the
driveway.
That's
item
five
and
going
along
with
that
is
item
number
six,
the
heritage
approach
for
50,
the
driveway
that
involves
a
heritage
easement.
R
R
R
R
A
You
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
I'll,
try
and
get
this
quickly
in
the
interest
of
everyone's
time,
so
I'm
marcus
drizzler,
I
represent
the
cornerstone
owners
association
and
the
president
of
our
condo
association
effectively,
that
constitutes
11
households
on
cornerstone,
private.
Our
town
homes
are
immediately
adjacent
to
50
the
driveway
on
their
western
border.
Western
property
line
development
at
50.
The
driveway
will
impact
our
homes
and
lives
to
a
great
degree
more
so
than
most
neighbors.
A
During
the
last
round
of
public
consultation,
the
cornerstone
owners
association
expressed
conditional
support
for
50
the
driveway
to
be
rezoned
to
r5.
However,
our
support
was
conditional
in
certain
aspects
of
the
proposed
design
being
amended.
Now
some
of
these
amendments
were
met.
This
included
or
partially
met.
This
included
a
very
limited
increase
to
the
setback
from
louis,
as
well
as
the
preservation
of
some
trees
and
the
introduction
of
some
green
space
between
the
cornerstone,
townhome
complexes,
rear
property
line
and
50
the
driveway's
west
property
line.
A
A
More
importantly,
the
parking
lot,
the
basement
is
being
dug
two
stories
down
ground
level,
very
close
to
our
property
lines,
and
we
were
concerned
about
potential
damage
to
our
foundations
and
our
structures
due
to
digging
that
deep,
so
close
to
the
property
line.
Our
rear
wall
is
a
mere
1.5
meters
away
from
the
property
line,
so
it
will
definitely
impact
us.
A
So
a
nine
story
building
reduces
the
quality
of
life
and
enjoyment
of
property
for
cornerstone
owners
and
residents,
so
much
so
that,
despite
the
overall
increase
in
property
values
across
the
city,
my
neighbor
at
six
cornerstone
sold
his
property
last
november.
After
the
announcement
was
made
for
this
project
at
about
a
six
and
a
half
percent
loss
he
had
purchased
in
summer
2020
sold
in
november
2021
and
lost
six
and
a
half
percent
of
his
home's
value
after
the
announcement
came
through
we're
also
with
the
two-story
basement.
A
I
also
note
that
in
prior
discussion
items
agenda
items
there
was
significant
discussion
of
tree
coverage
and
how
it
how
it
enhances
the
character
of
a
city
and
it's
a
general
sense
of
environmental
responsibility
in
green
space.
The
proposal
as
it
stands
removes
many
mature
trees
due
to
the
encroachment
of
the
proposed
building
of
louis
and
replaces
them
with
some
very
small
trees.
There
are
healthy,
mature
trees
on
the
north
side
of
50
driveway
that
we
feel
should
be
retained.
A
So
in
order
to
retain
these
trees,
I
think
an
increase
of
the
setback
of
lewis.
Yes,
they
increased
just
to
code,
which
is
three
meters.
The
original
proposal
was
two,
but
a
greater
increase
would
not
only
make
louis
look
less
like
a
canyon,
as
it
leads
to
a
very
popular
area
in
the
summer,
with
the
canal
and
with
the
skating
in
the
winter.
I
Thanks
chair
thanks
marcus
thanks
for
joining
us
at
6
30..
I
know
it's
been
a
long
day
for
you
as
well,
so
I
I
do
appreciate
you
coming
back
to
the
meeting
on
the
height
marcus.
You
know
I
struggle
with
the
fact
that
it's
nine
stories,
but
only
88
units
right
like
it's,
not
even
I
don't
feel
like
it's
even
adding
any
intensification
like
any.
You
know
intensification
or
supply
that
that
we
keep
talking
about
that's
so
so
necessary.
I
A
A
And
I
I
fear
the
traffic
implications
of
that,
because
it's
already
very
difficult
for
our
visitors
to
get
a
visitor's
parking
spot
and
I'm
sure
the
owners
of
the
driveway
right
now
can
tell
you
that
there's
probably
a
lot
of
illegal
parking
going
on
in
their
parking
lot.
While
they
have
stopped
their
day-to-day
operations.
Just
because
of
the
parking
pressures
in
the
neighborhood.
R
B
Yeah,
so
we
have
a
motion:
I'm
just
going
to
bring
forward
a
motion
just
right
now
for
deferral,
that
the
official
plan
amendment
manor
park,
north
and
manor
park
state
with
multiple
addresses
be
deferred
for
consideration
at
a
special
meeting
to
be
called
for
thursday
march
24th
2022
at
9
30
a.m.
That's
our
normal
committee
day,
but
we
don't
usually
meet
twice
in
march,
so
our
next
community
meeting
would
have
been
april
14th.
We
felt
it
was
important
to
deal
with
this
sooner
than
a
month
from
now.
B
T
Just
real
quick
on
this,
I
agree
it's
the
right
thing
to
do.
My
only
concern
is
the
ability
for
members
of
this
committee
to
achieve
quorum,
so
I'm
hoping
that
is
the
case.
I
know
that.
Well,
I
guess
I'm
asking
was
there
a
planning
committee
that
was
delayed
due
to
the
occupation
that
took
place
in
ottawa?
B
T
R
R
So
deferring
an
item
is
not
something
we
take
lightly,
but
given
how
much
time
we
spent
on
the
first
two
items
today-
and
I
think
a
two-week
deferral
will
give
us
time
to
to
give
this
the
full
hearing,
it's
an
important
important
site
for
the
community
manor
park
north
manor
park
south.
So
thank
you
to
staff
for
helping
us
get
this
deferral
motion
together
in
the
last
few
minutes.
M
R
Carried
okay,
thank
you
everyone.
So
we
are
still,
though,
in
the
middle
of
our
items,
five
and
six,
and
we
have
a
pair
of
delegations,
so
I
believe,
are
presenting
together.
We
have
adrian
kluit
and
michelle
wakefield,
I'm
sorry
adrian!
If
I
might
be
mispronouncing
your
name.
That's!
Okay!
It's
cluti!
That's
fine!
Okay!
Thank
you!
Thank
you.
L
Yes,
so
good
evening,
and-
and
thank
you
for
this
time-
counselors
and
I
I
really
wanted
to
give
a
shout
out
to
the
the
very
helpful
staff
members,
andrew
mcrate
and
kelly
and
others
who,
since
the
beginning
of
this
application,
have
done
a
great
job,
keeping
keeping
the
neighborhood
informed
about
all
the
different
stages.
So
I
really
appreciate
their
efforts.
L
You
know
that
and
the
argument
that
you
know
this
this
project
would
address
any
housing
shortage
or
the
housing
crisis
in
ottawa
is
totally
fallacious.
You
know
it
would
only
be
a
very
tiny
segment
of
the
rich
citizens
or
even
investors,
who
would
be
able
to
afford
a
condo
in
this
in
this
project
as
as
proposed.
L
Looking
over
to
to
center
town,
you
know,
people
skating
people,
biking
along
the
canal
would
just
have
this
massive
nine-story
structure
blocking
most
of
their
view
in
that
area
of
center
town.
The
density
issue
you
know
as
marcus
has
talked
about
before
and
as
we
see
lewis
street,
if
any
of
you-
and
I
know
council
mckinney
knows
lewis
street
has
got
to
be-
has
to
have
the
claim
to
fame
as
the
most
narrowest
street
in
ottawa
in
that
area,
for
about
50
to
50
meters
or
so
from
queen
elizabeth
driveway.
L
To
to
robert,
I
mean
it's
incredibly
narrow,
it's
one
way,
not
surprisingly,
but
even
as
a
one-way
street,
it's
narrow,
and
so
the
density
that
this
massive
building
will
create
will
just
be
terrible
for
everyone.
And,
lastly,
you
know
both
these
problems,
the
size,
the
height,
the
density,
would
be
simply
resolved.
Actually,
if
we
just
accepted
councilman
kenny's
solution
in
in
the
documents
and
just
reduce
the
height
from
nine
stories
to
something
far
more
reasonable,
so
far,
more
or
less
imposing
on
on
the
vistas
around
the
canal.
I
L
Yeah
I
mean
it's
almost
antithetical
if
you
send,
if
you,
if
you
think
about
it,
I
mean
this
is
like
you
know,
center
town.
This
is
like
amazing,
amazing,
walking
neighborhood
to
everything
in
addition
to
to
the
lrt,
literally
being
just
across
the
court
town
bridge.
So
it's
it's
really
strange,
I
mean
so
I
mean
it
really.
I
guess
it
speaks
to
the
demographic
that
this
developer
is
seeking
to
attract
the
people
that
would
be
driving
everywhere,
because,
possibly
they
don't
don't.
You
know,
don't
want
to
take
a
public
transit.
L
I
F
I
guess
on
this
conversation
here,
I'm
new
to
this.
You
know
I've
heard
about
these
conversations
about
parking,
but
is
the
understanding
I
mean
you
mentioned
you.
You
do
have
a
car
like
you
walk
everywhere.
You
know
live
in
this
great
neighborhood,
but
you
still
own
a
car
for
whatever
reason
you
know,
maybe
you
have
somebody
want
to
visit
in
northern
ontario
or
who
knows
what?
But
you
still
own
a
car.
So
you
still
need
a
parking
spot
for
that
car.
Even
though
you
don't
use
it
a
lot,
but
you
still
need
a
parking
spot.
F
L
In
fact
I
mean
we,
we
had
a
car
and
we
moved
to
to
center
town.
I
think
if
we,
you
know
had
lived
in
central
town
for
for
all
our
lives,
we
probably
wouldn't
wouldn't
need,
have
a
car.
I
I
guess
it's
just
it's
that
it's
that
you
know
one
to
one
ratio.
I
guess
that
we
find
is
is
is
is
surprising
right.
I
Some
of
the
things
that
you
have
is
you.
We
understand
that
when
you
buy
a
condo
or
you
buy,
you
know
somewhere
around
in
the
area
in
the
in
the
city,
that
some
people
buy
a
parking
spot.
Some
people
don't-
and
I
think
catherine
mckinney
just
gave
that
you
know
the
one-to-one
ratio
is
quite
high.
We
are
11
town
houses,
you
know
so
it's
it's.
I
I
mean
even
with
the
can,
with
the
nursing
association
they
were
allowed
to
park
on
the
side
street
on
louis,
which
is
very,
very
tight
and
they
had
a
parking
lot
outside,
but
they
are
just
a
you
know:
it's
a
small,
it's
a
fairly
small
footprint,
a
small
building,
and
even
with
that,
we
had
parking
issues.
So
I
think
it's
just
the
sheer
number
of
units
that
will
require
this
two
levels.
You
know
two
level
basement
requirements
for
parking
and
in
that
area
they
just
you
know
marcus
has
already
spoken
to
that.
I
I
And,
of
course,
we
will
not
get
that
at
all
anymore,
which
you
know
does
reduce
our
living.
But
that's
that's
totally.
You
know
a
side
point
completely,
but
we
were
just
you
know
talking
about
just
the
densification
in
such
a
small
area,
which
would
require
the
incredible
amount
of
parking
and
louis
is
tiny,
very,
very
narrow.
C
R
M
M
Let's
advance
this
slide,
I
think
I'm
going
to
deal
with
a
little
bit
of
the
context
and
the
main
narratives
in
terms
of
the
architectural
expression
and
then
some
of
these
yard
considerations
that
are
are
relevant
and
have
been
raised
when
you
flip
to
the
next
slide.
I
think
what's
unusual
about
this
project.
First
of
all,
it's
a
fantastic
piece
of
land,
and
it
is
you
know
it's
it's
about
30
000
square
feet,
it's
a
very
large
piece
of
land,
it's
in
a
section
of
the
canal
which
is
well
set
back
off
the
canal.
M
If
you
look
at
the
setback
from
the
property
line
to
the
to
the
canal
edge,
it's
quite
wide.
This
is
the
section
of
the
canal
that
was
a
train
line
on
the
other
side
for
a
long
time,
and
therefore
this
area,
the
canal
didn't
develop,
like
it
did
the
other
houses
to
the
south.
In
fact,
the
site
was
originally
a
creek
and
a
warehouse
site
before
the
nurses
association
took
it
over.
We
go
to
the
next
slide.
M
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
of
this
side
from
a
just
from
an
overall
perspective,
is
the
marrying
of
a
series
of
objectives.
One
is
the
nurses
association
have
had
this
building
on
the
site.
This
went
to
build
heritage,
yet
on
tuesday
was
approved,
so
there's
heritage
issues,
and
then
there
are
planning
issues
in
terms
of
trying
to
pull
this
all
together.
So
it's
a
marrying
of
a
variety
of
interests
and
trying
to
pull
it
all
together
and
it's
complicated.
It's
not
straightforward,
so
we
flip
to
the
next
slide.
M
Just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
ultimate
expression
of
this
is
looking
from
the
canal
and
you'll
start
to
see
the
bit.
This
is
the
highest
form,
because
the
building
steps
back
in
two
directions
both
to
the
south
and
to
the
west
just
going
to
note
the
feature
on
the
roof
is
something
that's
being
retained.
A
heritage
piece,
that's
being
retained
from
the
nurses
association
building.
Now,
and
just
so
you
know,
the
form
is
actually
an
abstracted
notion
of
a
nurse's
cap
and
also
reference.
The
flooring.
Nightingale
is
a
light
feature.
M
The
building
isn't
finalized
in
terms
of
its
exterior
expression,
but
it
gives
you
initial
idea
and
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
you
can
see
that
in
fact
the
building
steps
back.
I
mentioned
a
special
section
of
the
canal.
I
want
you
to
notice
how
far
the
canal
is
away
from
the
building,
because
this
section
of
the
can
of
the
the
driveway
experience
is
very
well
landscaped.
M
The
cut
of
the
canal
is
substantially
lower,
so
the
notion
of
seeing
the
building
from
the
canal,
if
you're,
skating
or
boating,
is
a
bit
of
a
fallacy,
there's
a
fair
amount
of
tree
cover
which
we've
had
to
remove
in
order
to
be
able
to
show
this
slide.
But
you
can
see
the
retention
of
the
original
nurses
association,
building,
building
that
was
designed
by
james
strutt,
a
well-known
architect,
and
we've
accommodated
this
building
in
terms
of
a
form.
M
In
terms
of
our
redevelopment,
you
can
see
the
building
also
steps
from
south
to
north
and
you'll
notice,
the
higher
rise
buildings
to
the
north
of
us,
which
obviously
were
built
in
in
a
time
when
the
canal
was
not
a
desirable
place
to
be
in
the
canal,
and
the
train
lines
were
on
the
other
side.
You
can
also
see
the
one-story
parking
garage
in
between
the
building
immediately
to
the
north
and
then
going
to
the
south
to
the
houses
and
waverly
there's
a
stepping
we
flip
to
the
next
slide.
M
M
The
two-story
podium
that
represents
reflects
the
nurses
association
wrapping
around
and
then
the
building
is
stepped
in
both
directions
and
the
two
objectors
which
you've,
which
you
have
noted
are
delegations,
are
in
that
little
clump
of
townhouses
that
are
immediately
to
the
west
of
us
and
it's
important
I'll.
Come
back
to
speak
to
them
very
quickly,
go
ahead
to
the
next
slide,
just
in
terms
of
that
interface,
even
though
we
that
separation
distance
between
us
and
the
townhouse
project
to
the
west
is
our
side
yard,
we
have
treated
it
like
a
rear
yard.
M
In
contrast,
those
little
town
houses
have
basically
treated
a
side
yard
like
a
rear
yard,
and
you
can
see
what
we've
done
in
terms
of
stepping
the
building
back
to
mitigate
mass
certainly
have
I
heard
comments
about
construction
issues
if
you'll
notice,
the
underground
is
set
away,
six
meters
from
their
property
line,
and
obviously
there
are
considerations
and
mitigation
factors.
Whenever
you
do
construction,
the
depth
of
the
parking
garage
has
nothing
to
do
with
impact
on
their
properties.
M
Our
building
is
to
the
east
of
their
building
the
sites.
The
sun
shadow
studies
clearly
show
that
has
minimal
impact
and
then
we'll
deal
with
the
issue
of
overlook,
etc,
and
if
we
flip
ahead,
we
specifically
you
can
see
here
that
along
the
bottom,
we
have
actually
continuously
created
a
landscape
buffer.
So
I
heard
some
rhetoric
about
loss
of
trees,
in
fact,
because
we
have
no
basement
for
up
to
six
meters
and
seven
meters
in
between
our
property
and
theirs.
That
will
be
fully
landscaped.
M
You
know
they
picked
up
a
lot
of
the
themes
which
I
heard
listening
to
eight
or
nine
hours
of
planning
committee
today
about
tree
cover
all
relevant.
In
this
case.
We
do
the
possibility
to
landscape
this,
and
you
can
also
notice
that
our
building
at
the
lower
level
has
a
serrated
edge
and
that's
so.
We
don't
put
glazing
directly
facing
the
town
houses
to
west
to
preserve
our
mutual
privacy.
M
If
you
look
to
the
top
you're
going
to
see
in
a
red
line,
which
is
the
retention
of
the
of
the
original
nurses
associated
bill
association
building,
which
has
been
to
build
heritage,
our
approach
is
to
basically
to
dismantle
and
rebuild
it
in
place,
and
so
you
can
see
where
that
exists
as
an
expression.
If
we
go
to
the.
R
M
Separation,
distance
and
you
can
see
how
we've
landscaped
in
between
the
two
buildings
I
want
to
make
one
last
point:
I
find
it
slightly
hilarious
to
be
talking
about
parking
counts
from
a
from
a
neighbor
who
has
a
one-to-one
parking
ratio
without
any
visitor
banking
and
we're
actually
one-to-one
with
a
robust
visitor
capacity
in
our
basement.
So
the
issue
of
two
stories
of
depth
in
the
basement
is
not
a
it's,
not
a
structural
issue.
It
doesn't
come
into
play
at
all.
M
Basically,
our
building
at
nine
stories
sure
would
we
like
it
to
be
six
yeah,
but
at
the
same
time
we're
only
about
fifty
percent
coverage
on
site,
which,
and
a
lot
of
it,
has
to
do
with
creating
separation
and
objective
and
optimizing
our
view
to
the
account.
There's
no
question:
it's
a
special
site,
it's
geared
towards
an
upperly
mobile
group.
Anybody
who
lives
in
this
area
is
not
talking
about
affordable
housing.
This
is
a
prestige.
G
M
Why
do
they?
Oh
yeah,
that's
an
average
counselor
and
you-
and
I
have
had
this
discussion
endlessly
about
trip
generation
versus
parking.
People
are
moving
to
this
neighborhood
they're,
not
car
centric.
They
have
a
car
they're
moving
to
this
neighborhood,
so
they
can
walk
to
the
nac.
They
can
walk
along
the
canal.
They
can
benefit
all
of
that.
The
bicycle
travel.
The
pedestrian
stuff
is
very
much
in
the
domain.
Look
at.
I
I'm
in
this
group,
I'm
not
on
this
section,
I'm
further
down
the
canal.
M
You
know
we
lived
there
because
of
all
of
the
attributes.
Yes,
we
have
a
car
as
do
these
townhouses
they
have
a
car,
but
is
it
being
used?
No,
I
mean
you,
you
yourself
can
describe
very
carefully
how
people
are
very
compliant
during
the
week
taking
rapid
transit
from
your
neighborhood
and
they
use
it
diligently
and
basically
on
the
weekends
in
your
neighborhood
as
you've
described
it
before
quite
chaotic.
M
But
people
all
want
to
drive
someplace
else,
but
the
reality
is
like
yeah
there's
going
to
be
cars
and
then,
by
the
way,
there's
lots
of
opportunities
building
for
evs
and
also
to
have
virtual
car
as
part
of
it,
as
well
as
supplying
visitor
parking,
which
is
you
know,
parking
capacity,
even
if
you're,
not
using
it
on
a
regular
basis,
is
valuable.
So
that's
my
stitch.
G
I
I
It's
it's
a
painting
I
picked
up
like
for
65
bucks
in
humana
in
cuba,
cuba
exactly
oh,
I
just
I
do
want
to.
I
do
want
to
circle
back
around
to
the
parking,
because
I
know
this
about
center
town
sure
people
have.
I
have
a
car,
but
the
the
less
parking
that
we
supply,
that
you
know
that
the
parking
supply
that
we
have
the
less
vehicles
there
are
it's
just
just
a
you
know.
I
It's
just
people
will
purchase
something
and
purchase
kind
of
car
storage
and
then
either
have
a
car
and
leave
it
or
not,
have
a
car
and
sell
that,
and
actually,
if
we're
talking
about
housing,
affordability,
which
we
were
earlier
today
building,
you
know
going
down
that
extra
story
actually
does
add
to
the
expense
of
the
overall
unit.
So
so
what
we've
got
here
are
a
few
things.
I
We've
got.
We've
got
a
nice
looking
building,
I'm
gonna
give
credit
where
it's
due
around
the
the
attributes
and
how
they
were
built
into
the
heritage
attributes
and
how
they
were
built
into
this
building.
Absolutely
height.
I've
been
all
along
I've
said,
should
have
been
six
stories.
Well,
it's
only
before,
but
you
know,
sixes
is
not
it's
not
more
than
double
the
height
that
that
is
allowed,
and
you
probably
could
have
gotten
88
units,
or
at
least
70
75
units,
maybe
wouldn't
make
the
same.
I
This
table
who
voted
for
our
recent
most
recent
official
plan,
has
got
to
think
to
themselves
look
you're
asking
for
additional
height,
because
you're
close
to
rapid
transit,
but
at
the
same
time
you
want
more
parking
like
it's
got
to
be
one
one
or
the
other.
You
can
see
how
myself
people
kind
of
who
surround
this
raise
an
eyebrow
around
that
it's
kind
of
having
it
having
it
both
ways
right.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
have
a
comment
to
that,
but
that's
my
that's
my
comment
in
terms
of
sure
it's
a
it's.
I
A
good
site
pushed
back
from
the
canal,
there's
there's
distance
between
and
and
all
of
this
you
know,
residents
did
recognize
that
that
the
setbacks
were
put
in
place
and
and
that's
all
very
positive.
I
struggle
with
the
parking
and,
and
else
you
know
I'll
say
this.
Maybe
this
is
my
wrap-up
too
chair.
You
know
I
want
to
see
some
movement
on
the
parking,
it's
something
that
I
will
likely
hold
site
plan
for
parking
as
we
move
forward.
M
M
If
I
compressed
everything
which
I
heard
today,
which
was
how
do
we
actually
intensify
the
city?
How
can
we
smart
growth?
How
do
we
actually
provide
ample
landscaping?
How
do
we
actually
meet
new
sustainability
targets?
You
know
and
then
a
project
comes
along
like
this,
which
is
like
nine
stories
and
yeah.
I
listen
to
rod
la
he
says,
38
stories,
and
you
know
you
know
I
I'm
shocked
at
the
the
business
about
about
height.
You
want
to
focus
on
parking.
M
I
want
you
to
think
about
all
of
you
in
the
inner
city
think
about
the
last
project
that
came
through
your
five
year,
your
award,
which
had
only
fifty
percent
coverage.
That
means
you
have
greater
area
for
landscaping,
greater
area
for
separation
for
those
neighbors
to
the
west.
Even
though
they're
complaining,
the
separation
is
extraordinary.
M
I
you
know
I'll
come
back
to
the
issue
of
parking,
it's
basically
underground
car
storage
and
a
certain
demographic
will
respond
to
that.
There's
no
question
about
that.
This
isn't
the
most
affordable
part
of
the
city
and
the
part
we're
missing
in
all
of
this
is
that
I
have
a
national
association
of
nurses
association
who
are
basically
wishing
to
dispose
of
this
and
basically
use
the
funds
to
actually
do
something
else.
M
So
you
can
focus
on
the
developer,
trying
to
do
something
else,
he's
actually
trying
to
respond
to
little
of
the
expectations
of
the
nurses,
association
and
trying
to
do
this
as
well,
so
they're
trying
to
be
they're
trying
to
act
in
a
way,
they've,
basically
honored
the
heritage
piece,
and
I
came
back
to
those
three
circles
which
I
showed
at
the
beginning,
which
is
about
heritage
planning,
the
nurses,
association
and
the
ultimate
thing
is
actually.
What
are
we
doing
from
a
city
building
project?
Are
we
creating
nice
buildings
that
actually
contribute
to
the
public
realm?
M
M
It's
not
where
I
would
be
going
yeah.
I
I
think
it's
discreet,
there's
nothing
at
grade.
We
have
visitor
parking
all
of
the
servicing.
Things
are
handled
below
ground,
so
it's
got
lots
of
positive
things
in
how
we
try
to
deal
with
all
the
nuts
and
bolts
that
are
behind
the
scene
so
that
actually
we
didn't
talk
about
lewis
street
at
all,
but
obviously
we've
set
the
building
back
on
lewis
street,
so
we
have
a
proper
street
edge
and
we
can
landscape
along
lewis
street
as
well
so
I'll
stop
there.
M
R
B
T
Great
thank
you
coach.
First
of
all,
barry
I
don't
want
to
hold
you
up
tonight
great
use
of
a
venn
diagram
by
the
way,
terrific
work.
I
think
you've
heard
all
day
today,
we've
seen
many
occasions
where
we're
talking
about
the
affordability
of
our
children
to
be
able
to
purchase
a
home
all
these
great
things
and
it
all
starts
with
in
the
green
belt
and
to
be
able
to
get
some
of
those
heights
raised.
T
T
This
parking
situation,
we've
seen
and
and
glenn,
inherited
a
lot
of
this
in
stittsville
when
they
tried
to
change
the
parking
game
back
in
the
day.
We
don't
want
to
go
through
that
again.
Do
you
have
support
of
the
local
award
counselor
on
this
one
because
it
sounds
like
80,
but
is
that
is
in
and
maybe
counselor
mckinney
will
be
able
to
respond?
If
that's
okay,
will
you
support
this
application?
It
seems
it
seems.
T
Pretty
good,
but
I'm
going
to
go
based
on
whatever
the
word
counselor
supports,
because
that's
what
today's
discussion
has
been
all
about,
and
it's
unfortunate
that
we're
not
upzoning
this
year
prior
to
an
election
year,
where
we'd
have
everything
on
the
table
to
be
able
to
have
that
full
discussion
about
the
ability
to
be
able
to
add
more
units.
I
I
think
it's
a
terrific
project.
Barry
I've
worked
with
you
on
many
many
different
things.
M
Suggested
that
should
prefer
six
stories
versus
nine
and
that's
all
I
have.
I
mean
it's
by
the
way.
This
has
not
been
a
slow,
a
a
quick
force,
ram
project.
This
has
gone
through
a
number
of
iterations
with
public
consultation.
It's
been
a
there's,
a
huge
amount
of
work.
You
realize
that
the
nurses
association
has
been
involved
in
that
as
well
and
they
halted
demolition
applications
to
make
the
guild
heritage
approval
go
through,
which
was
all
valuable,
but
it
which
it's
elongated
the
process
for
a
couple
years
now.
I
Yeah
I
just
again,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
I've
already
said
very
briefly,
that
I
will
indicate
that
I
do
want
to
see
some
movement
on
the
amount
of
parking
as
we
move
through
site
plan.
It
would
be
a
reason
for
me
to
to
hold
up
site
plan.
I
don't
believe
that
one-to-one
parking
in
in
a
center
town
location
is
is
warranted,
and
I
understand
that
these
are
very
high-end
units.
I
Nine
stories
for
88
units
is
high-end,
there's
no
doubt,
and
we
don't
have
inclusionary
zoning
in
place,
so
we're
not
getting
any
affordability
in
any
of
this,
but
certainly
in
terms
of
meeting
our
yeah
our
parking
requirements.
I
think
that
I
will
just
indicate
that
I
will.
I
will
be
watching
for
that,
as
we
move
through
site
plan
thanks.
I
F
T
Yeah,
and-
and
thank
you
I
I
appreciate
councillor
mckinney
speaking
to
that-
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
Are
you
going
to
vote?
I
understand
you're,
not
on
planning
committee,
but
we've
had
a
full
day
of
discussion
about
trying
to
get
a
number
of
units
in
place
within
our
city
and
we're
not
achieving
those
targets.
By
any
stretch,
are
you
going
to
support
this
at
council
and
obviously
within
the
privilege
of
a
counselor
lift
delegated
authority
on
site
plan,
which
is
totally
absolutely
something
within
your
authority?
R
Okay,
counselor
dude
your
hand
was
up,
and
now
it's
not
okay.
I
I
want
to
ask
staff
about
some
questions
about
compatibility.
This
comes
up
all
the
time
and
I
think
it's
something
I
want
to
raise
or
ask
about
so
the
building
as
it
is
now
the
the
existing
nurses
building.
It's
non-compliant
right,
so
somebody
tried
to
build
a
a
low-rise
office
building.
It
wouldn't
even
be
allowed
in
this
neighborhood.
It's
only
there.
It's
like
a
grandfathered,
it's
grandfathered
in
as
allowable
is
that
right,
andrew.
I
R
T
R
R
Okay-
okay,
it's
just
it's
interesting.
I
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
or
wrong
answer
is
but
gold.
The
golden
triangle
has
been
characterized
as
a
low-rise
neighborhood
and
it's
true
that
most
of
the
buildings
are
low-rise.
So
there's
more
low-rise
buildings
than
there
are
high-rise
buildings,
but
there
have
been
high-rise
buildings
or
mid-rise
buildings
there
for
a
long
time
and
over
half
the
units
in
the
golden
triangle
are
in
buildings
that
are
over
five
stories.
R
So
it's
just
an
interesting
way
when
you're
thinking
about
compatibility,
more
than
half
the
people
in
the
golden
triangle
already
live
in
in
taller
buildings.
So
it's
it's.
I
think
we
have
a
real
problem,
we're
talking
about
compatibility
in
neighborhoods
and
it's
hard
to
put
numbers
and
and
rules
to
those
and
and
understand
what
is
or
isn't
compatible
or
what
is
or
isn't
the
character
of
a
community.
So
it's
not
a
question.
Just
a
a
comment.
I've
been
thinking
a
lot
about
that
on
this
one.
R
F
I
just
honestly,
I
know
that
this
seems
like
it's
off
topic,
but
based
on
all
that,
we
talked
about
about
the
affordability
task
force.
If
the
affordability
task
force
reports
were
put
into
legislation
tomorrow,
well
sorry,
last
year,
would
we
even
be
having
this
conversation
right
now?
Would
we
be
able
to
have
any
input
here
on
what
the
heritage
designation
was
or
the
heights
or
any
of
these
things.
F
I
think
from
the
heritage
perspective,
it
would
restrict
potentially
the
heritage
approach
that
the
city
could
take,
but
in
this,
in
this
instance,
we've
worked
really
collaboratively
with
the
owners
of
this
property
to
move
this
project
forward
from
a
heritage
perspective.
So
when
you
have
the
agreement
of
the
owner,
it
makes
it
easier.
F
Some
of
those
other
recommendations
could
make
it
more
difficult
if
an
owner
wanted
that,
I
can't
speak
to
the
other
to
the
other
side
of
it.
Okay,
I
guess
I
was
just
sort
of
thinking
about
this-
is
real
life,
a
real
life
example
of
if
that
all
becomes
legislation,
and
they
don't
care
about
any
of
our
recommendations.
F
How
much
of
this
would
we
not
even
be
able
to
discuss?
So
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
understand
that
better,
but
it's
something
I
can
do
offline,
but
I
thought
I
would
make
that
point
right
now.
I
think
this
is
valuable
to
have
the
input
of
communities
and
have
for
all
of
us
to
have
these
discussions
before
this
to
have
taken
this
much
time.
It's
just
fascinating
to
think
about
what
it
would
be
like
if
this
legislation
was
put
in
place
and
a
year
ago
anyway,
thanks.
I
I
Before
committee,
the
amount
of
parking
is
not
really
an
ask
of
the
zoning
bylaw
amendment.
Our
zoning
bylaw
is
set
up
in
a
manner
that
.5
spaces
are
required
as
a
minimum
for
the
amount
of
spaces
per
unit
and
our
maximum
rate
is
1.75
parking
spaces
per
unit
combined
with
visitor,
what's
being
proposed
here,
is
an
88
unit
apartment
building,
designed
with
an
88
space
parking
garage
for
residents
and
an
additional
13
or
14
visitor
parking
spaces.
I
So
at
that
level
there
is
not
a
zoning
ask
when
it
comes
to
the
parking
rate
and
when
we've
reviewed
the
application.
It
was
the
conversation
that
was
starting
to
get
to
between
mr
hoban
and
other
members
of
of
planning
committee
about
you
know
what
are
the
trip
generations
from
those
parking
spaces,
provided
we
look
at
that
through
the
transportation
impact
assessment
and
look
at
the
location
as
being
very
supportive
of
active
transit
and
there's
assumptions
made
that
not
every
vehicle
trip
is
going
to
be
made
when
you
not.
I
Every
trip
made
is
going
to
be
made
by
using
a
vehicle.
You
use
walking
public
transit
bicycle,
that's
all
part
of
the
consideration,
but
I
just
go
back
to
my
point
that
for
what's
before
this
committee,
in
terms
of
an
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
violent
amendment,
there
is
not
truly
an
ask
on
a
deficiency
on
parking.
B
R
T
R
R
R
Whereas
the
legislation
allows
municipalities
to
apply
interest
on
the
deferred,
installments
and
frozen
locked
in
payments,
which
is
reviewed
annually,
whereas
the
employ
applied
interest
rate
is
at
the
discretion
of
council.
Whereas
council
approved
the
2020
report,
entitled
implementation
of
interest
rate
on
development
charge,
referrals
required
pursuant
to
bill
108
that
council
adopt
an
appropriate
interest
rate
policy
based
on
the
higher
of
one,
the
rate
of
indexing
applied
to
the
various
development
charge
rates
on
an
annual
basis
or
two.
R
The
actual
interest
rate
that
was
applied
to
the
debt
used
as
a
source
of
financing
of
eligible
growth
related
capital
projects.
Whereas
the
2021
construction
price
index
for
ottawa
is
17.2
percent,
which
represents
the
largest
increase
of
the
index
since
its
inception
in
1981,
whereas
17.2
percent
is
a
significantly
greater
interest
rate
charge
by
the
city,
therefore
be
it
resolved.