Transcript - Committee Approves Zero Affordable Zoning - Comité de la planification et du logement

Committee Approves Zero Affordable Zoning - Comité de la planification et du logement – le 1er avril 2026

Audio test one for the meeting stream. audio test two for the meeting dream. We're going to get going in one minute. One minute. All right, we'll uh we'll get underway as soon as members have taken their seats. I'll say uh good morning to everyone. Welcome to our 62nd planning and housing committee meeting. going to have to go slow today cuz I was up until like 1:00 watching the Heritage Garage being moved across. So, congratulations to Stitzville's own CDS movers for moving the Heritage Garage back to the other corner of Island Park in Richmond. We acknowledge that Ottawa is located on unseated territory of the Algangquin and Schnabi Nation whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. Um, may I get a roll call, please? Council Rockington here. Councelor Curry. Councelor Dudas here. Councelor Johnson here. Councelor Kavanagh. Councelor Kelly present. Kits. Councelor Low. Councelor Tierney present. Councelor Troster here. Vice Chair Gower here. Cherry of Cororum. Thank you very much. So we have a number of uh presentations today. not a lot of delegates. Um, this is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 41 on today's agenda for the item just mentioned. Only those who are specifically identified in the planning act who make oral submissions today or written submissions before the amendments are adopted may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal if council does not adopt an amendment within 90 days of receipt of the application for a zoning bylaw amendment and 120 days for an official plan amendment. To submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on April 8th, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? No, I'm just going to change the view on my screen. There we go. Uh, no declarations of interest. Are the minutes of our 61st meeting March 4th, 2026 confirmed? Thank you. The Sorry, bear with me. I need to move those garages during the daytime. So, the first item is item 41, the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for 951 Gladstone and 145 Loretta Avenue North. We're going to get a presentation for that. The uh developer is here to make a presentation. Uh and then we can go to questions of staff. So we'll hold that one. There are no public delegations other than the uh developer. On item 42, the urban design review panel procedural and reporting updates uh in discussions with the committee. We're uh going to dispense with the presentation on that, but we will go to questions of staff. So we'll hold that item. Item 51, the inclusionary zoning policy and regulatory framework, official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendments will receive a um presentation on that one. There are two public delegations uh to hear from and then we can go to questions of staff. So, we'll hold that one. Uh just running through the rest of the agenda, see if we can let some staff go for the status update on planning and housing committee increase and motions. Um is that item received? Thank you. Uh we don't have any in camera items. There is an IPD on the urban design brief, terms of reference and urban design guidelines updates. Uh had anyone wanted to lift that one? No, don't see any hands. Thank you. Uh the cash of Parkland IPD. Uh did anyone want to lift that one? Thank you. So that is uh received and then we'll move on with the rest of the agenda. So, let's go back to the top, which is item 41, the OPA and um uh zoning bylaw for 951 Gladstone 145 Loretta. And uh Eric, we're in your hands whenever you want to give us a presentation and I'm a planner with development review central. Uh today I'm here to present planning recommendations concerning 951 Gladstone and 145 Loretta Avenue. Next slide, please. The subject lands are located within the Hintenberg community at the northeast corner of Gladstone Avenue and Loretta Avenue North adjacent to the Corso Italia station. The subject lands include the standard bread building and some existing non-residential uses. Next slide, please. The requested amendments seek to increase the maximum permitted building heights from the previously zoning approved heights of 30, 33, and 35 stories to 34, 38, and 40 stories, resulting in approximately 1,50 residential units. Except for the increases in building height, the proposal remains generally the same from the previous zoning approved master concept plan. Slide. Next slide, please. This image shows the proposed uh this image shows the proposed building heights gradually decreasing and transitioning as the development moves away from the O train station and the Gladstone Avenue corridor, aligning with the intent of the secondary plan policies. Next slide, please. Um staff have reviewed the development proposal against the applicable policy and regulatory framework and it is our opinion that the proposal represents appropriate and good land use planning. Uh next slide please. The last recommendation of the staff report before you today seeks continued exemption from community benefit charges. Uh the proposal is currently exempt from CBC, but there are community benefits embedded in the existing zoning via holding symbol. And these benefits include relocation of existing artists and a secured affordable lease rate for 15 years, $1 million contribution towards W 15 affordable housing, $1 million contribution towards the connection of the Laurel Street pedestrian bridge, uh construction of a multi-use pathway along the east side of the subject lands, and a public access easements for privately owned public spaces. The site plan application for phase one of this development was approved in February and there are conditions included in that approval which deal directly with these benefits including the timing and phase of development in which each of the benefits are to be addressed. In February, staff received a request from the applicant to revise the zoning bylaw amendment application to remove the monetary contributions being $1 million towards the Ward 15 affordable housing fund and the $1 million contribution towards the Laurel Street Bridge. citing project feasibility for phase one development and other development costs as concerns. The applicant has also indicated that the remaining community benefits that the city will obtain via the site plan agreement will still exceed the value of a CBC at 1% of the total land value even with the removal of the monetary contributions. staff acknowledged the community concerns raised regarding the loss of these monetary contributions, but recognized that the contributions being provided even without the two monetary contributions exceed the requirement on the CBC bylaw. In response to the developer's focus on proceeding with building permits for phase one, the zoning details have been written to temporarily provide relief from these monetary contributions only where these corresponding above grade building permit for phase 1 has been issued within 12 months of the passing of the propos of the proposed bylaw. The applicant has indicated their continued commitment to the remaining comments. um a community benefits and these will be addressed in the future site plan agreement. Therefore, staff have no concerns with the CBC exemption request nor the removal of the two monetary contributions subject to the details of the recommended zoning included in staff's report. Thank you for your time today, Eric. Thank you very much. Before we um ask the uh proponent to make their delegation, um I have a motion that we've been working on for a few weeks with respect to the um uh sight limiting distance agreement that would I think provide them with a little bit of further relief. Uh but I'll ask uh vice chair Gower to make that motion just so I can uh stay in the chair. Do you want the whole thing or just the therefore be it resolved? Chair, I can go with just the therefore be it resolved. Okay. Uh and for members that motion is presumably in the SharePoint uh site. Okay. Um therefore be it resolved that planning and housing committee recommend council direct staff to enter into a limiting distance agreement with the applicant for 951 Gladstone Avenue and 154 Loretta Avenue North. And be it further resolved that the applicable section of the real property disposal policy be waved to enable the agreement to be completed at nominal cost. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. And if people have questions about that, by all means, you can pose those to staff when they're up. But right now, I'd ask um the proponent to come on up. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Uh we're pleased to um uh just maybe give an over or speak specifically to some of the concerns that we've heard uh via written comments. Um we thank staff for their presentation and for their um support through the recommendations of their report. Um so maybe if I could just uh go to um please uh continue that that one's great. Thanks back one. So um uh this project has a long history. Of course, the original official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment predates the secondary plan that uh applies to the the broader hub area, the protected major transit station area that um relates to the Corso Talia station, which as we're all familiar is now up and running. So, um, as we're also all familiar, in 2022, uh, the province made changes to the way, um, uh, density bonusing, as we'll call it, works in the works in the province. And it's gone from what was previously applied to the site, section 37, to now what's called community benefits charges. Uh on a high level um the the obligations for this development are significant as relates to what was um applied through section 37 at the time. You'll see on the screen um these are the obligations that are applied to the proponent for development. So um through that section 37 uh agreement originally. So a relocation strategy for the existing artist tenants uh remains an obligation of the proponent. Um confirmation of a secured affordable unit rent for the artist tenants within the standard bread building building for a period of 15 years remains an obligation at 40% below market. Um contra uh creation of a multi-use pathway alongside the development remains an obligation of the proponent. um a public a privately owned public space uh area also remains an obligation. This is also in addition to the standard bread build building which has be been retained as a heritage asset and um in addition to that will be renovated and fully maintained as part of this. So uh this is just to speak to what what CLV is still obligated to do through their process. Um and this again scale is very distinct from what's uh currently uh an obligation under the community benefits charge which is a a 1% land value contribution as of the mayor's task force. Um so this is all just to say that CLV as um as the chair is aware and and many on on the um committee are aware has been in talks with the artists the uh staff about how to deliver on these things and they're really just focused on uh as staff had said you know a bit of flexibility relative to the obligations and uh just before I finish I want to once again reiterate that this relief only applies applies if they submit a building permit in the next 12 months otherwise it's taken away. So um uh if the question is okay are you going to build this if um if we give you this relief the answer is they have to or it goes away. Um so I think that's it. Um I don't know I'm here I'm joined here with Miguel Trombllay of our office. I'm not sure if you have anything to add. Um not not maybe on a on a broader scale. uh you know the city is still carrying over a lot of these section 37 agreements. They were these contributions and these draw down factors were identified often when policies were not in step with the developments that were being proposed as you heard now that the secondary plan and the OP provide very clear direction that these thousand units are are desirable and well in keeping with those policies but carrying over these section 37 obligations hinders these projects from being constructible and actually puts them at a disadvantage uh in comparison to newer projects that are only subject to the CBC contribution. We're not asking for relief for everything, but there are certain levers that we talked about last time uh when we when this committee considered um reducing the amount of CBC and that developers are looking for certain levers to make these projects constructable. Um it's not to say that all of them are being removed. For instance, the retention of the standard bread building as well. And all of those things are important community contributions, but we're looking for means to make these projects uh affordable because um if you remember my comments back in December, the measure of success is not how much money we accumulated in section 37 or CBC, but rather how many units together we were able to get constructed. So, I'll leave it to that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miguel and Jacob. The um I don't see any questions for you from committee members. Nope. Okay. But yeah, go ahead, please. Councelor Curry, just the motion that we're going to vote on that councelor Leaper is putting forward. What is the impact of that? I don't know the dollar value. I think the mover may may know, but uh it's another positive step. It's another positive lever. And I think CL CLV is is appreciative of those gestures. Uh but I don't know the dollar amount because I just heard about the I think Yeah. So we can and really it's a positive thing. It is great. Well received. Lovely. Thanks. I think density is the uh the more critical piece of what it allows. So please I mean I thank you for coming today and I appreciate that you've put a time limit on it saying that this fee relief will not be applied unless you build and I think that would allow me to vote for this motion. But it is deeply frustrating to communities. I know this is a really significant development that the comm I know councelor Leaper spent months years working with you and with the community on some of these proposed community developments. It is very frustrating to see that a process that would follow in good faith. Uh that there are losses here and it's also because the developer didn't build during the time that you were supposed to. I understand the financial environment. I understand that we're providing some incentives and some fee relief, but it is frustrating to see the clock being turned back on on agreements that were negotiated in good faith with the community. Um, I don't know what the answer is here. I know the fiscal environment has changed and I also know we're about to debate an inclusionary zoning policy that contains zero requirements for affordability. Um, but it's just this is a tremendous waste of communities time and energy. I'm just wondering if perhaps councelor Leaper could let me know what is your community saying about this? How are you explaining this to them? Because this this seems like a violation of the social contract as far as I'm concerned. Yeah. And I'll I'll have the opportunity to address that as we get into the next phase of the the discussion. But um uh I would suggest that your characterization of how the community feels is accurate. Are there any further questions uh for the delegate? I don't see any hands up. Okay. Thank you very much. So, we can move into uh questions of staff. I am just wondering if one of the things that might be useful right off the top is um for staff to explain it's it's pretty technical the what the limiting distance agreement uh relief does. Chair, I'm happy to speak to that a little bit. Within the building code, there are requirements for fire separation uh from between the building and the property line. Um the and and that can be achieved in a couple of different ways and and the most logical way is to limit the number of exposed openings i.e. windows uh on that face. Um there are other options including u installing fire rated windows but it in it increases the cost to the overall construction of the building. Um, the limiting distance agreement itself essentially results in a in in a situation similar to an easement where the city would would be agreeing not to build within uh 3.2 m of the property line or effectively moving the the building envelope that we would have over 3.2 m into our rail corridor. Um, we've done our circulations. Uh, we've consulted with um real estate with trans transit services. there there is no intention to build at this location in the corridor. It doesn't really suit itself to construction and the intention is to maintain the multi-use pathway adjacent to this site. Um the the issue and why it's before you. So staff have gotten to a point where staff are supportive of a limiting distance agreement, but the reason it's before committee today is because our real estate policies require that disposal of uh real property interests be done so at fair market value. And the motion that's before committee is to wave uh wave that in recognition of the uh significant contributions that are still being put forward over and above the community benefits charge regime um today. Thank you very much. Um I have encountered uh our transit agency's reluctance to sign these agreements uh for the 12 years that I've been a city councelor. This is the first time I've brought a motion to to wave that. Um it does not make sense to me to impose a requirement or a um a cost on the builder so that they don't build too close to what presumably will be in perpetuity a transportation corridor with uh without development on it. So uh happy to bring that forward and it does have a a financial value to uh to the uh to the developer. Um with that I'll move to councelor Brochington. Uh, thank you, chair. I'm just want to get staff's perspective on part D of the motion, which is the uh community benefits charge section. I'm trying to better understand why this is the best deal for the city overall, particularly given our declaration of a housing and homelessness emergency and the need for affordable housing to be built in this city. What's the offset to the million dollars that makes the proposal before us better than the alternative? Thank you, councelor. Uh, chair, just to answer that, to put it in perspective, we received a submission from the developer CLV after the last planning committee and before this went to council, which is why the item was referred back to this committee. Part of that submission was that the developer is really focusing on trying to get their first phase going. They want to start this housing start and looking at their finances. The the letter to us was that they're simply not allowing it to work financially with these contributions um being part of that requirement. So the million dollars towards the Laurel Street Bridge and the million dollars towards the Ward 15 affordable housing account. I do recognize that those are valuable contributions. The letter that came to us was essentially acknowledging that the contributions still being provided far exceed what we would get today under a 1% CBC. So staff was faced with the choice of do we want to continue supporting this development and housing start with the contributions that are still being delivered with this project. And the way we approached it was responding to that um you know proposed housing start with that leverage of saying okay but we're giving you a 12-month window to commit to that start otherwise these contributions come back on the table. So faced with the um challenges of what's in scope and out of scope. Our focus was on supporting this housing start which does bring a significant amount of um benefits to the city in in terms of general benefits not from a community benefits regime. Um but at the end of the day we're quite comfortable that what's still being delivered does exceed what we would get under our current regime at 1% and that was a factor weighing into that decision. I appreciate that answer. Thank you. um all developers can can make a I think a legitimate claim that it's difficult to get projects built and I'm concerned that there will be future attempts to eliminate needed funds whether it's DC's a conversation we're about to have in the coming weeks um or in this case the community development uh fee which does provide benefit so Um, I'm not aware of developers that are forced to eat craft dinner. Uh, they're still making a lot of money in this city when they develop housing. And of course, they refuse to tell us the profit they're making on housing despite our multiple attempts to get that information. So, I have to give this some thought. For me, it it's almost like six of one, half a dozen of another for the reasons that staff outlined. But, I'm just I'll just use the word cautious about what this might lead to in the future. Thanks, chair. Thanks, chair. Um, on the Laurel Street pedestrian bridge, I saw an assertion that without this funding, it would be very difficult to for this bridge to proceed. Can anyone from staff comment on alternate funding sources or how this might change the timeline for that pedestrian bridge? Because it does seem to be a pretty important connector uh for existing and future residents in this neighborhood. chair. To to my knowledge, we don't have any funding sources earmarked for that bridge. It is recognized um within the TMP as well as the secondary plan for this uh location as um a desirable connection to happen between Gladstone Village and the west side of the trade corridor. But to my knowledge, there's there's no other funding earmarked for this development. I don't know if uh others have to add to that, but um there's simply no funding associated with that project as at this point, but if it's in the TMP, it's still may come at some point. It's not deleted because this contribution doesn't happen. It's just it will become that much more difficult without a million dollars to start that work. We got general manager uh with her hand up. Go ahead, Mercy. Thank you very much, chair. Uh you're correct, uh councelor, this is in the TMP, so it would have to go through our our normal prioritization and budget and and we would look for funding. I would just um point out while I I don't u argue with the social contract that was uh given to the community when this came forward, we are dealing with um a smaller number of projects that are legacy. they never got built uh in in a timely way when we had the authority to issue section 37 requirements such as these. And so there's a few of them that we are now dealing with and some move forward because the burden of the requirements was not um uh so much that they couldn't move the project forward. This is a project uh that really um staff are left with the decision of recommending either it doesn't move forward or or we recommend pulling back some of the additional requirements even though we lose money that could go to affordable housing, money that can go to transportation projects that we don't immediately know where we're going to recoup from. I would just would like to remind the committee that uh the the proponent does have the ability to and that we have seen some cases of this where if the burden is too great they could withdraw their application reapply tomorrow and we would not be able to ask for any of the so we we are recommending this because the delta is still higher than if they pulled everything and reapplied tomorrow. there's costs for them and so they don't want to reapply and have to redo all their materials. But um but we think the benefit of getting some housing built because we need it across the spectrum. Um getting some housing built quickly is is worth the trade-off, but that's really for committee and council to see if you agree. Thank you for that. Um yeah, I just want to make sure that our decision today doesn't delete the pedestrian bridge. it causes it's going to make it take longer to build probably but it's still in our policy. Um I want to make sure we don't lose sight of that. Thanks Chair. Thank you very much Vice Chair Councelor Johnson. Yeah, thank you. This has been an interesting conversation. I I I I appreciate having it. Um I I just yeah I think I think Marcia's comments actually did came a long way in helping me to understand what I thought I read in the report which is that the um the costs of of not moving forward outweigh the benefits of what the community had uh carved out ahead of many of these changes. And so it's basically coming to committee to to see whether that testing ground is reasonable. I guess I just wonder, you know, when we're imagining, we have we have, for example, a motion from councelor King, uh, that is ongoing that is asking staff to look at community benefit agreements, for example. Um, and we've had quite a considerable debate on community benefit charges. I I wonder what this decision looks like going forward. Is it is it to be understood that communities given that we have the community benefit charge would not be entitled to um work with a work with a a a I don't want to say a compassionate developer work with a a partner in a developer to ek out further community benefit as appropriate as they can self-determine. I I want to make sure that you know all communities can feel empowered as best they can uh to be stakeholders in development. We do see many decisions that continue to remove them from the uh playing field here. But uh are we not trying to imagine a world where some of these things can be stackable? chair, there are still opportunities for communities to work with developers within the framework that's been established by council of voluntary contributions. I think the the the you know the journey to get to this point is a recognition that the contributions that are still on the table outweigh what we can legally require under our current framework by greater than an order of magnitude. And so the the the recognition from staff really is that that is, you know, there's there's an opportunity for a developer to come forward tomorrow and reapply. There's an opportunity for developers to sell properties to other developers that may not feel beholden to the communities in the way that this developer is standing by a number of those commitments that were previously made. um you know so so if you're looking for over and above what the CBC is uh under the current framework I think that those contributions are still possible under the framework of the voluntary contributions that have been discussed previously at council. Okay. Well, I I appreciate the sage and straightforward advice uh from staff on this. Certainly uh you know in reading the report uh there are pieces of it that might cause alarm but if if we believe that we're further ahead than we could be in a different situation. Um I you know I just want to commend the community then for and the counselor obviously for all of the work that they did to get the proposal to this point um to be able to have the advantages that it has and if it's a matter of of seeing the development go forward in a timely manner as has been proposed. I think that the uh the benefits here um are compelling. Uh but thank I really appreciate the uh the discussion at the table to be able to air this out because we don't want to be in a position where we start um again well before the first year of the housing task force report uh recommendations have seen through uh you know chipping away at some of the things that we hoped we would see spur development. So thank you very much chair. Thank you very much councelor Johnson. Councelor Kelly. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. And uh I don't think I could put it much better than my colleague councelor Johnson just did. um this does seem um like a like a blow to the community to the surrounding community and and what they've been promised but it does seem that there's also a strong rationale for supporting the staff recommendation in this case and I've I've heard a couple of times I' mentioned that uh you know if they were to apply today much of this would not apply to them um so that's you know point well taken but I I am just trying to understand what that would actually look like in in reality. So if a if the developer was to pull this application and reapply and and this might have been a better question for for the applicant, but I will pose it to staff. What would the would the cost of going through all of that be similar exceed or would it be far less than what they've um committed to at this point? I'm just trying to understand whether how realistic it actually would be if we were to not support the staff recommendation that they would pull the application and reapply. Thank you, chair. I can't speak to the specific cost of what that exercise would be, but ultimately I believe uh Marcia's point was the developer would have a right in this scenario to come back with a new application saying I want to remove all the previous approvals and get a new zoning approval that defaults to the 1% CBC. And our assessment of that is that that'd be quite a bit less than what we're getting today. So, I don't know what the actual cost of going through that exercise is, but um the developer may want to speak to that, but it would definitely have to go through a process and we'd have to make a decision on that, but that's not what's before us today. I understand that. It still would be nice to know. So, I I don't know if there's a a way to hear from the developer at this point on on how likely that would be or or what those costs would be, but uh but I would love to hear that. it uh probably won't make a difference in how I decide today, but uh it would still be interesting to hear. Thank you. I'll uh just ask staff to um give that some thought before we get to the council meeting and and get that info to uh to all of us. Uh councelor Tierney. Yeah, thank you, Chair. And uh again, I don't think we're alone in trying to persuade um development and building. Um, Tim, you're I'm sorry. You're a little bit soft. Oh, can you hear me? Okay, now that's better. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, but maybe it's using the wrong microphone. Uh, yeah, we're not alone in this. I think I think a lot of municipalities are having to get into this space to be able to get housing built, which is unfortunate. Um we also uh again chair I think we just passed something to encourage development by taking a I I'll use the term breaking social contract inside the green belt uh for a lot of our awards as well. Uh I think that's probably of note uh where we're taking a a bit of a bath to encourage development with inside the green belt. Uh so you know it's unfortunate. I think that's just the reality of where we are. So, I appreciate the staff uh and the work that they've done on this. It really uh helps me make a decision on this. So, thank you. Thank you, Chair. That's all I wanted to offer is unfortunately this is what a lot of us are having to do these days. Thank you very much. Uh councelor Tierney. Does anyone have any uh further questions of staff? No. Any further comments? Um so I will just uh uh make a I hope for relatively brief comments myself. Uh first off the uh a big part of this application of course is for additional height uh to this development. Um I think that is absolutely uncontentious. Um I have not heard a lot about that through the uh the course of the consultation. A few folks obviously are uh upset at additional height but generally speaking this is Corso Italia station. This is exactly where we want this kind of um uh height. It's where we want this kind of density. And I think uh people generally understand that. Uh with respect to the benefits that are proposed to be removed, um I just want uh colleagues before they vote to understand how important those are to me. Um because I will be dissenting on um item D of the uh the recommendations. Um the million dollars towards affordable housing is not going to solve the housing problem. But when uh for the past ever since we set up section 37 benefits prior to CBC's, I have been putting a a really big chunk of all the benefits money that comes in into a ward affordable housing fund. And that has allowed CCO to purchase additional property to add to uh the number of units that they were able to build on forward. It allowed the Ottawa Community Land Trust to purchase the building on Kirkwood. Um, and most recently, thanks to your support, uh, it has allowed, um, CCO to, uh, build a new, um, uh, low-rise affordable housing development that'll be on the stub of Bullman, um, that you approved, uh, several weeks ago. Um, it's it's not nothing. Uh, it does allow me to try to ensure that, uh, areas like Hintenberg are going to have at least some affordable housing in them as we gentrify uh, because it is increasingly a neighborhood in which fewer and fewer people are able to afford to live. With respect to the pedestrian bridge, I really am very concerned that if I don't have this million dollars in that account that that pedestrian bridge will not move ahead. Yes, it's in the TMP. Um, but I think many of you have seen the recent uh headlines with respect to uh where development charges are going. Uh it's, you know, our TMP projects are DC funded projects and I don't think we're going to have the DCs moving forward that we think we're going to have. Um, this would mean that folks who are living in Gladstone Village, which is going to be a very family-friendly um, uh, neighborhood, are going to have to walk some significant distance to Somerset or Gladstone Bridges in order to get around, in order to get on to Breeze Hill, in order to get to school. This is going to be a really important direct connection without that funding in the bank to work as as leverage, right? We don't want to lose the funding. So, if it's in the bank, I think we're going to be motivated to uh, move ahead with that bridge. I'm uh quite concerned with respect to uh would the development move ahead. Anyways, I'll just remind committee of the decision that this council made early in this term um to for want of a better term call the developers bluff on the airport hotel. Uh we chose not to proceed with uh with that um SIP and that hotel moved ahead. They decided to build it anyways. Um, the cranes are going up again in the city of Ottawa. No one wants to be the last to build. Um, I think that there is a a motivation that this developer is going to have to want to move ahead uh with the with this development. So, I'm I'm very comfortable dissenting from this um and still being relatively sure that they're going to move ahead with the development. I have to represent my community today. Uh the community is adamantly against providing this relief. Um to councelor Troster's point, they feel that it is a a broken trust in the city's processes and uh I'll be dissenting on item D um in order to uh reiterate and and represent my community's uh feelings on the matter. So I'll I'll leave it at that uh unless there are any further comments. No. the um limiting distance agreement motion. Uh Vice Chair Gower, is that carried? Okay. Um and then are the main report recommendations carried? Carried. I'll descent on item D, please. I'll descent on item D as well. Thank you. Okay, so that's uh that is done. Uh thank you very much to everyone. Uh it was a good discussion to councelor Johnson's point. Um glad we had it. The next item on our agenda is item 42, the urban design review panel, procedural and reporting updates. I know members have read the report. We're not going to receive a presentation on that. Uh but I know some members uh wish to ask questions about uh this report. So we'll go directly to questions. Um, I'm just wondering I'm taking a look at members who had asked that this one be held. I'm not seeing any hands up. There we go. Councelor Johnson, sorry about that. I was still sort of wrapping up in my head after the previous discussion. So, we're on the um urban design guidelines. Is that correct? We are straight to uh questions of staff. Thank you so much. Pardon me. Um, so yeah, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the um, uh, the process as it relates to some of the other changes that we've had for community participation in development applications. So, you know, over the last four years, obviously, we've had, you know, a real push to accelerate housing development. We moved away from some of the, you know, we've we've cut some of the timelines for feedback. we've shifted studies around and I and and now we're eliminating studies as well and and that's I understand the the rationale for much of this but I was hoping to understand how visible and in what context the results of the urban design review guidelines or the panel pardon me uh when that the results of that conversation will be visible to community members who care and the reason I ask is because they're triggered when it comes comes to greater density in a neighborhood or uh projects that have more significant changes in a neighborhood. And so they often can be uh of interest to the community and um maybe a little um novel in their massing and size. So, um I want to know that those neighbors who may have concerns about seeing additional density in their neighborhoods such as the outer urban ward can rest assured that there is someone looking at those guidelines, that procedure manual to make sure that, you know, we are trying to make the most um uh well, for lack of a better term, people are always concerned that we're going to have big ugly buildings. This is one of the ways that we try and make sure that we don't. So, how are they going to be able to see that work? Thank you, Chair. Um, and thank you for the question, Councelor Johnson. I I the changes that we're proposing are actually, in my opinion, going to make the process more transparent. uh as a result of bill 109 the UDRP review was large lar largely moved into the pre-conultation phase of the process and that is why we developed the UDRP report it was for transparency it was a tool to actually document the recommendations provided and then have an ability to post them online once an application was deemed complete the flexibility now as a result of the new planning uh process um is that we're offering the applicants the option to go within the pre-conultation phase or within the application um uh completeness review phase. So um completeness and review phase. So either way um the recommendations will be online. So if an applicant wishes to go within the pre-conultation phase, those recommendations from the panel will be posted online at the time the application is deemed complete. And if the applicant chooses to go within the review period, that is a public uh session. So the public is welcome to attend those sessions. So I I hope that answers your question. Yep, it does. Thank you so much. And just with respect to the pre-conultation, I know we had done some work over the last term to um initiate additional wards into the opportunity to participate in pre-conultation. Uh so I was wondering if you could let me know sort of where that's landed at the end of this. Certainly. and and maybe I'll defer to my call uh uh to my colleague uh Miss Wallace just as it relates to the uh NDA uh process as it relates to the pre-conultation process but certainly if there is an NDA and and uh community groups are a party to that they are welcome to the to attend the UDRP session if it's within the pre-conultation uh period. Chair, if I if I may just add some additional context, pre-conultations are no longer required. Uh the province essentially removed the requirement for that to to take place. Um so within the uh existing pilot program where the community associations have been involved, we continue to when those pre-conults happen, we continue to engage with the community associations. We have not looked at expanding beyond that at this point um into the other wards where that program is not offered. Um and I think to do so would uh benefit from some further discussion with the industry um recognizing that there the concern of of bringing forward information at that early stage. um you know while I think it's gone well in an urban context there is there is still some resistance and reluctance within the industry to participate in those discussions or to see that expanded and it may result in less preconult pre-conultations happening. Okay. All right. I'm assuming that uh Mr. Moody answered on behalf of Miss Wallace. So I I'm not in the room. I think that satisfies me for the time being. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councelor Johnson, Councelor Curry, thank you very much. Um, just so I have one question that's really directly to this and then I was also going to ask a question about some of the announcements that we've had recently in case they're related to anything that we're seeing here. My first question is though, so just so I'm clear, when we have taken uh requirements out for what what would be deemed complete, um it doesn't mean that they we will never look at it. There's still other opportunities. Is that what I understand? Yes, chair. If it's if there's something that is a requirement to assess um whether an application is supportable or not, we can ask for uh additional studies beyond deeming it complete. And maybe I'll just add to that. Um so I will be drafting a memo uh that will go to council and be a public memo uh very shortly on the provincial changes that are proposed. one of it's it's a massive package of change again that was dropped on municipalities as of Monday. So it includes uh proposed legislation and uh about a dozen um proposals for consultation. As part of that is a um articulation of what you are allow what you would be allowed to ask for and what you could be allowed to ask for in certain circumstances. So, I agree with um uh Director Moody's comments that any time in the process the planning act gives us the if new information comes and there's a really pressing new thing, we can ask for more. But that um proposed set of legislative changes would limit how far that scope could go and and under what circumstances we could ask and and potentially even what the terms of reference might look for certain studies. So that is not in the bill that has been tabled in the house uh by the province on Monday, but it is uh part of what they are consulting on right now. So I'll have more details and links in the memo to come, but later this week, but I I would just say that it's a live question about whether or not um uh how much authority we would have in the future. Thank you very much. So for me the uh announcement and I mean I read so many different articles. I don't know where I read this but it's I think it was very clear there would only potentially be 12 um I don't know if it's housing typologies that would standardize official plans across the province as I said in my public meeting last night from Timmans to Toronto which seems bizarre to me that we could have such standardized official plans given the diversity of our cities but um I was wondering if you had any comment on that given this motion. and I want to try to make sure we're applying it to this motion, but we're making a change here that may, you know, shortly be not necessary. So, uh, through the chair, it's a really good question. We did look at these reports today in the context of that legislation. I believe that this is in no way contradicting where the province is heading. Uh this report is actually asking us to remove or asking council to remove um uh a uh urban design brief which we see as duplicative to the process. And so uh we're proposing removing that here which is consistent with where the province is going. Uh have we gone far enough? I think that's still uh to be determined but but I don't think we're doing here anything here that's inconsistent. And the legislation proposed on Monday does include reference to a very specific standardized official plan. They did the province consulted on that in the fall and has made some adjustments based on what they heard. It is it is more um restrictive in the context of the table of contents and the scope of what can be in an OP uh official plan. So, um I do think that uh where and how we apply urban design is an open question based on um how this might move forward in terms of the list of studies and reports you can ask for and the standardization of the OP. Um it it doesn't immediately identify where urban design fits. But so far the the push back has been more around sustainability measures and um and green building design and that has been the focus of the province. So I think we still need to wait to hear more from the province and the details but um I don't think saying yes to this report is in conflict but I I certainly think there's more work to be done. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One other question. So the memo that we're going to get from you whenever that comes out, will that also will that memo, you haven't written it yet, but will it clearly indicate to us what the im the real impacts are for us? Uh and that so that we would know if there's any advocacy we need to do or if staff would recommend uh that council does anything, if this is going to materially change our city. So the uh the level of detail that it's been thrown at us and how much we can absorb and and and analyze in a short period of time is uh a challenge right now. But uh we are going to be clear about what we feel um has has basically been decided because it's in the bill itself versus where we think the consultation which uh ends May in the middle of May would have a strategic impact on what would come next. So I think maybe we'll be providing direction on where to where to put our emp emphasis and where where to push um the province um if uh if there was some advocacy and and then uh those postings can would also come back to this committee. So there would be an opportunity to see you know exactly how that's framed. But I it seems to me that there is going to be some very uh their intention is to move some very uh specific things forward uh quickly this this um sitting of of the house uh as a majority government. They can move bills pretty quickly. Um and there's another chunk of work that they're consulting on that is not in this bill. So would be presumably coming back in the fall or next spring. Thank you very much. Hi, thank you very much. So, I know in my community, especially when it comes to landmark building projects like there's one that's being proposed at 267 Oconor, these are really large projects that are supposed to have architectural significance. The urban design review panel's feedback has significantly changed those projects. So, I'm just wondering what the impact of this change will be on landmark projects specifically in the downtown core. Is there still an obligation to have an urban design review panel and just not to have that report included in the application? I'm just wondering the nuts and bolts of how that happened because I've seen how UDRP has has really changed a lot of projects in my neighborhood often for the better through you chair. I guess specific to the landmark proposals within center town. Um certainly there's no change proposed within this report as it relates to those focused on special design review panel uh meetings and that process. So certainly has been a positive outcome and and uh there's no proposed change as it relates to to those projects. Okay, that's really good to know. So for those big projects, they still have to do it. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much, Council Truster. I don't see any other hands up. Uh my own question is our official plan speaks to urban design and and um uh it's an important part of what we want to try to achieve as a city. the uh provincial proposal to create a short form official plan. Uh I'm just wondering if you have any visibility into whether or not uh there would be the scope within that um uh very stripped down OP that the province looks like it's going to allow cities to make for urban design. um through the chair. Um I I would say that it is not obviously apparent where local variation and priorities would fit in the stripped down version. Uh so we will be looking to um the official plan and the studies and plans required for sight specific applications. uh thinking about how they work uh together as well as other initiatives like a public realm master plan that we talked about at budget and other things to achieve a similar outcome. But I I um so it's early yet, but uh if if this goes forward, we would have to take a very serious look at our official plan and think about how we achieve those um big bold moves that are outlined there in alternative ways. for example, the there is one there about transportation and we have a transportation master plan that helps fulfill uh that objective. So, um we'd be looking at all of our tools, but but it's fair to say that it is uh um intentionally moving away from local priorities. Okay, thank you very much for that. Um I don't see any further questions. Are the report recommendations uh for item 42 carried? carried. Thank you very much. Um, moving on to item 51, which is the inclusionary zoning policy and regulatory framework. Um, I think David Weise is going to take us through a presentation on the report recommendations. David, it's been a few years since you've presented to the committee. I'm looking forward to this. whenever you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just need to work some work some of the rust out. Okay. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair, members of committee. This presentation provides an overview of staff's review of inclusionary zoning in Ottawa, how it works, the findings of the market assessment and recommendations for authorizing inclusionary zoning as a housing program as economic conditions in the future will warrant. My name is David Weise. I'm the program lead within strategic initiatives. Sitting beside me is director Lily Zoo. Uh and also I'm accompanied by Rory Bach, senior partner with Dylan Consulting who uh assisted us with this project. Is that better? Sir, good. Before I begin, I also want to note the hard work and efforts of many of our colleagues. Inclusionary zoning has been a challenging file over the many years. So, I want to work I want to recognize the work of Megan Brody, uh, Louie Alderaf, who's sitting back in the row back there. Our business support colleagues, Bill, Maddie, and Laura, uh, from our support team, and our terrific consulting team of Dylan, and NBLC, who have been instrumental. Uh, special thanks to Margaret, Marggo Hayward, Robert Wilson, and Chon Chu under the leadership of Matt Bennett from NBLC, and Rory Bax from Dylan, who of course is here today. I also want to note appreciation to the time, constructive advice and guidance we received from our nonprofit builders, our private home building sector, housing advocacy groups and community associations who sat with us on multiple calls and in-person conversation and have helped to inform the framework that we are presenting to you today. Next slide, please. So, what is inclusionary zoning? It is a housing program. It provides no land use or development permissions, but it is reliant upon land use planning instruments to be a requirement at the permit desk. It provides council with a regulatory tool to require development to provide affordable housing within a market residential development. Inclusionary zoning can only be required though if it is tied to land. And so, per provincial law, the official plan must authorize where and under what conditions inclusionary zoning will be will be required. and the zoning bylaw must provide the how to make inclusionary zoning applicable law when it comes to the permit desk. Further, these policies and regulations must be supported by and be able to be accommodated within the business case for market housing development. Now, back in 2022, staff brought forward a report on inclusionary zoning and received council direction to explore a 20% set aside and increase depth of affordability with 99-year terms. Shortly after, the province introduced Bill 23 and proposed significant changes to that inclusionary zoning framework and rules putting inclusionary zoning on hold in Ottawa for the time. On May 2025 of last year, the province released new regulations with a maximum set aside of 5% and a 25-year term. It is under this provincial environment that this framework is now being presented. Next slide, please. It is important to be clear on what income groups are the focus of inclusionary zoning. The 10-year housing and homelessness plan that was presented just a few short weeks ago noted the income dustile bands across renter and Ottawa and owner households in Ottawa. And the focus of that plan was really towards groups that are aimed in the low to moderately income bands. Inclusionary zoning acts on a different part of the housing continuum and a different part of that sector. The target is the fourth to the sixth desile bands. market housing that has become harder and harder for moderate income earners to afford. Now, inclusion or zoning has the best effect in helping to reduce the price of that housing that is available for moderate income earners. These include dental or medical technicians, early career professionals, trades apprentices, people who find themselves being increasingly priced out of the housing market. Now, inclusionary zoning cannot address affordability on its own. It does not replace programs that can provide deep affordability for our lowest income households. But what it can do is it can be stacked alongside and in support of other resident and unit-based housing programs. Next slide, please. So, under these new provincial rules, how does inclusionary zoning work? First, we need to acknowledge that inclusionary zoning does not create free units. It works by requiring developers to take a subset of their units and offer them at a reduced price or rent. This means that a private market development will earn less revenue from that building while the construction costs will remain unchanged. This represents a revenue loss that the developer will need to accommodate somehow to keep that project viable. Now, in a hot market, that offset might happen by increasing the price on other market units within that building. It might involve reconfiguring the project or of its internal financials, or it might involve the developer making decisions on whether a project can still go ahead as designed. When the market is struggling, things become more complex. We are seeing downward pressure on rents, downward pressure on sales while construction costs continue to remain. And so that feasibility gap becomes increasingly harder to close. It is this impact on the business case for residential projects and the frictional impact that inclusionary zoning has in development economics that makes inclusionary zoning such a challenge. This is also why the province has taken a cautious approach to what cities can do with this tool and requires a market assessment to be conducted to support policies. I'm going to turn it over to Rory at this time to walk through the market assessment. Um so the city through staff uh retained the services of Dylan Consulting and NLC to undertake the market assessment that's required by the province. This assessment modeled typical build scenarios across different geographies uh of the city and incorporated recent land transactions and newly competed developments. Uh we use that to build prototypical examples that were then modeled through the market assessment. Uh it we modeled the internal financials uh using industry standard hard and soft uh cost assumptions and development financials consistent with the experience of the consulting team with market developments across Ontario. Not surprisingly, what we found was that inclusionary zoning and the reduced revenue has an impact. The underlying challenge is the housing market itself. It's in trouble. High development costs, that's both the high cost of land acquisition and the high cost of construction, tapped out market pricing, and ongoing uncertainties have made it uh very challenging to build housing at all without significant incentives. So the introduction of inclusionary zoning into the struggling market might not have the effect of creating more affordable housing. Rather, it would have the effect of reducing the creation of more housing at all. That's that concept of friction that you heard David speak about. As such, the market assessment did not recommend a full mandatory inclusionary zoning program, but recommended that the city look to the future. Next slide, please. So, while inclusionary zoning is framed as a mandatory tool for affordability, um, just wait for them to get get caught up. There you go. While while I is framed as a mandatory tool for affordability, it can also be a pathway to support and leverage affordability in private development through voluntary means while giving council a regulatory tool to act when the market cannot or will not act on its own. So even though I is not feasible now, moving the policies and regulations into place now gives council the ability to respond to future conditions while also setting out a framework that council can couple with further incentives to encourage voluntary inclusionary zoning to happen in the meantime. David, back to you. Move for the next slide, please. So, so what are staff proposing? Inclusionary zoning is not an immediate tool the council can use to create more affordable housing now. But inclusionary zoning is also not a tool that council has at all right now. So staff are therefore recommending to give council a new tool and put all the requirements in place now so that it is ready for use if and when it is needed. This will include clearly setting out the rules under which inclusionary zoning will operate, who it will apply to, the terms by which it will apply, and how it will operate. Staff are recommending that the initial rate be set at zero. This is consistent with the market assessment report that Rory has just presented. The rate must be supported by that assessment per provincial law, but also because there is more work to do to spin up this new housing program. As noted, even without a mandatory requirement, inclusionary zoning can also be a foundational tool for a voluntary or optional inclusionary zoning program to advance in the interim. Next slide, please. We also need to recognize the broader context. We know that housing is at the top of mind for all levels of government. Senior government is very focused on reducing barriers and frictions to housing, not adding to them. The three cities that were on the brink of implementing inclusionary zoning in Ontario right now, Toronto, Kiter, and Missaga, have had their inclusionary zoning programs suspended by the province. So, no city in Ontario currently has inclusionary zoning in effect. Next slide, please. For the next step, staff are recommending passage of this policy and zoning framework to authorize inclusionary zoning and give council a tool that you currently do not have. Following approval, staff will then work to develop the detailed guidance to bring this program into effect on a mandatory or voluntary basis and we'll return to council with reassessment of housing market conditions within two years with recommendations on how next to proceed with a mandatory program. Last slide. So therefore, the recommendations are as follows. That committee approve and recommend a council the passage of the enacting framework. That we go back to develop those implementation guidelines in consultation with stakeholders. That we look to complete that required market assessment to return back to committee within two years. and also to look at and assess additional financial and regulatory incentives that might support the launch of a voluntary program in the interim. Thank you, chair, and I'm happy to respond to questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Wise. Um, we do have two public delegations. I'm not aware of any u motions that are coming forward. Uh, but if uh if anyone did have something, now would be a good time before the delegation speak. Uh, I'm not aware of anything. So, we'll move on to our first delegation. uh which is Jason Bergraph with the Greater Roda Homebuilders Association who joins us online. Good morning everybody. Uh you can hear me. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Thanks chair. So uh good morning chair, members of the committee. Uh pleased to speak uh on behalf of the Greater Ottawa Home Association on the city's proposals on inclusionary zoning. First, I really want to acknowledge the significant amount of work that staff and consultants have done on this policy, including their consultations with industry and the flexibility that they've embraced to ensure that Ottawa gets the best housing outcomes. We agree with the core conclusion that under current market conditions, inclusionary zoning would further limit the creation of housing, both market and affordable. We also support the city's proposed approach to set the rate at 0% for now, subject to future reassessment. But of course, I want to be clear about GOBA's position. We don't support the establishment of an inclusionary zoning regime in Ottawa. Inclusionary zoning, as said, is not a comprehensive solution to housing affordability, and it doesn't create free affordable housing. There's no such thing as affordable concrete, affordable labor, or affordable financing. There is a cost to provide below market units, and someone always pays. In practice, that cost is either passed on to the other home buyers or renters, paid for by other levels of government or most concerning and what we've seen uh over the past little bit is results in not projects proceeding at all. That matters because developments happen at the margin and right now the city's own analysis shows that many projects are struggling to be viable. This leads to our biggest concern, the cumulative impact of policy. Inclusionary zoning would be layered in the same areas where the city is relying on housing growth to be the most affordable around transit in highdensity developments. Through the housing task force, the city has already moved to reduce, defer, or eliminate other costs to those types of projects, including community benefits charges and parkland requirements. If we layer inclusionary zoning on top of that, we risk slowing or stopping the very housing supply the city is trying to encourage the most. And the city is at risk of perpetuating a cycle of adding costs as the market warms up, only to have to pull back those costs or be forced to pull back those costs or have them addressed by the province when the market slows down or stays at a low-level activity such as we're experiencing right now. Highdensity projects around LRT stations are critical to our intensification targets and our overall housing targets which affect funding from other levels of government. Now, if the city does move forward in the future, there are some critical conditions that should be in place. First, inclusionary and zoning must function as a partnership model. That means clearly defined incentives and offsets that need to be in place before any requirement is introduced. And second, the policy needs to be flexible. that includes allowing off-site delivery, partnerships with nonprofits and alternative approaches that can achieve better housing outcomes. Uh, and I will say that staff have been very good uh in uh working with uh industry on uh making sure there's a lot of options uh to deliver those housing units. In closing, inclusionary zoning mustn't become another cumulative barrier barrier to the housing supply in Ottawa. and if implemented prematurely or without the right conditions, it risks undermining overall affordability rather than improving that. Thank you for Thank you for this. Uh we look forward to continuing to work with staff and council to make sure we get this right. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. McGrath. I don't see any hands up. I'm looking around. Uh we appreciate the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Our second public delegation is Charles Jibo who I think is joining us online as well. I'm being told you may be on mute, Mr. Jabbo. There you go. Hello. We can hear you. Uh we can't see you, but we can hear you. Okay. Uh I'd love to be seen if I I was earlier. U perhaps uh you'll need to turn your camera on for us to see you. Happy to give you a minute or two to Okay. That and there. Okay. Welcome to Planning and Housing Committee. uh when uh whenever you're ready, you have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. Uh thank you very much uh chair. I I was quite s very surprised to hear u on CBC that uh the inclusionary zoning was going to reduce to zero. And uh so I'm here to speak of an alternative to uh encourage developers to provide affordable housing. And um it reminded me of a submission I'd made to um housing staff I believe Lauren Reeves in 2024 that I suggested there's existing legislation Ontario regulation that allows municipalities to lease finance affordable units. And that's what I want to draw your attention to today. Um I I think you may have a copy of the um regulation in front of you. Uh not that you have to read it in depth right now. But what I am proposing is that u we propose to you a sample project. uh as a sample but um quantitative in every aspect uh that the uh city treasurer, your legal department and planning department um would require um and it so I suppose what I'm asking today is uh how would we move forward on this? Um, we're prepared to make, as I said, an actual proposal for a new building to be constructed and work out the all the details for your staff to assess. And those details are outlined in the Ontario regulation that I provided you with. So I'm I'm here to start that discussion. Um Charles, the uh the matter that is before the committee today is whether or not to accept the recommendations um that are put forward with respect to inclusionary zoning uh by staff. Um you it sounds like you want to speak to something that is out of scope to that discussion. Um I know you've contacted my office. I have not had a chance to uh review the materials that you've uh provided in depth, but what I could do is commit to getting back to you uh sometime within the next day or so. Okay, very good. I uh I was encouraged to bring this forward today, so I thought I would take that opportunity. Understood. And uh we do appreciate you being here today and for your uh really strong interest obviously in affordable housing, which this committee shares. Um, so unless there's anything else, I will thank you very much for the uh presentation. Thank you, chair. Thank you. And I'll get back to you. Um, okay. There's uh time for questions of staff. Counselor Dudes, he's quick with the hands up button there apparently. Um, so why are we doing this right now? Um the the problem that I am seeing is that it doesn't make anyone happy. It's zero as the recommendation and I know that the recommendation would allow for the framework to be built so that if at a you know more robust time in the housing market we can trigger this. We do not have a crystal ball as far as I can tell. The market, all markets right now are incredibly volatile and tumultuous. How do you know that what you develop? And I'm looking at the dates you're coming to back in 2027, then again in 2028. How do you know that what you develop will be reflective of what we actually want to use as a tool? Thank you, chair. Those are excellent questions. Uh first off, we can answer the first part of the question. Why are we doing this? Uh we are doing this in part number one. Um uh council in 2022 directed staff uh to review inclusionary zoning. Uh it was included as a priority measure within the official plan uh in terms of the flow out from the new official plan that was put in place. Uh and also uh it was included within the former 10-year housing and homelessness plan as well as a priority initiative that the city to pursue. So there is existing council direction that staff uh did need to follow up. It was also included within the housing acceleration framework that council passed uh back in 2024 as a milestone that we need to achieve to to enable that framework. But that's more of the procedural reasons for why the the main challenge that we have here with respect to this is that when we are talking about a housing crisis, it it is useful to have all the tools that are available and not necessarily to need to use them but simply to have them available. Uh inclusionary zoning is a tool that currently does sit there. Uh and what staff are looking to do is make sure that that option exists uh under the framework and under the rules that the province has set aside. There are requirements and strict requirements for how and when it can be used. Uh and those are the tests that staff would be bringing to bear when we come forward in two years time to assess whether or not council should in fact actually flip the switch. Uh that is not to say that in two years time staff will recommend that we flip the switch. It all depends upon the conditions of the market, how things are looking, uh the stabilization, how transactions are happening through the city, what is the change in interest rates or construction prices. There are a number of variables that we need to assess over the course of this next year to understand what those trigger mechanisms could possibly be. What I would say is this, putting together the framework is a significant undertaking with respect to the policies and the zoning framework and pieces that are in place. What we are suggesting is to put in place that framework now so that that tool is available. If it turns out that in two years time that um uh a regulation would be useful in order to reach council's objectives whatever they may be within two years time within a new term of council. Uh I would respectfully suggest that it may be better to have that tool available rather than suddenly realize that you might want to have that tool available and need to restart a process from the very beginning. It is a lengthy and timeconsuming process and so if we have that tool that is there then council has the option whether or not they wish to flip that switch. Chair I hope that answers. So it it does. I'm looking at this also from a resource perspective and and please you know David Marcia correct me if I'm wrong but we don't have unlimited planning staff as a resource. were tap dancing on quicksand with the provincial government making announcements every single day it seems regarding planning and and housing. So as you noted it, this is a significant time investment and resource investment. Are those resources not better allocated to what is happening, what's coming from the province and moving forward on some of the housing acceleration plans that we have. And I'm I'm you know, again, I see immense value. I have been a massive cheer cheerleader for Zed zoning in the past. I'm just sitting there going, do we send you off? You work for years, you could be focusing on other items and you come back with something that's lackluster because we just can't read the tea leaves. Thanks for the question. So the chair um this uh report and recommendation is important and stepstone for us to proceed to the next step which would include um looking into potential financial incentives to encourage market development and to incorporate affordable housing as well. uh in addition to the procedure reasons that David just summarized of why we're doing this uh we also have a commitment with CMHC when we are signing the uh uh housing acceleration fund that this is one of the task that we have to do so there are several reasons that we're doing this but um the result is still um valuable and uh informative for our next steps. Okay. So just for my understanding and clarification, we are required to do this as part of our agreement with CMHC. Correct. Okay. Puts it in a bit of a different frame for me. I'm still very uncomfortable with us spending time on something that we don't even know is going to be effective or that we want to use at the end. Um I'll leave it at that. Chair councelor Low. Oh, thanks. Um, I mean, my my main concern or the the thing that stood out at me was the fact that we're we're looking at a policy right now that the province has essentially suspended in in three other cities. Um, but the answer to the last question there, um, uh, I may have missed a little bit of it. What's what would happen if we don't do this? Uh, what would happen with our CHC CMHC um, uh, agreement or what Yeah. What would happen if we don't go forward with this? Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. The it is certainly true that the inclusionary zoning framework uh was uh put in place as a milestone under the housing acceleration fund. CHC does require the city to report annually on the completion of milestones. Uh the completion of those milestones is then assessed as to whether or not the city will receive the full extent of uh funding. Uh we receive $44 million in funding through the housing accelerator fund on an annual basis. Um inclusionary zoning is uh a file however that the uh CMHC has recognized uh has provincial uh what I'm going to say influences uh or being influenced by the province. So these are matters that are outside of the municipality's control. Uh so they have advised us that they would be taking a look at circumstances where the city uh has reasonable control uh over uh how they are able to complete those milestones versus situations where the city does not have reasonable control over how to uh to um uh to uh to move forward with a with a milestone. Um that being said, the city has been in compliance with all milestones to date. uh we have a so far a 100% uh completion rate. Uh the most significant milestone the CMHC was looking at was of course the passage of the new zoning bylaw uh back in um uh back in January 28th and March 11th. So uh certainly they would prefer us to see that milestone completed, but I cannot speak to how CMHC will view um council's decision to not move forward with a framework at all. That's uh that's something that would be entirely within the hands of the CMHC to judge. Okay. So, if we're um passing this with a 0% set aside, would they would they see through it at all and say uh oh, you just pass this just to put a you know piece of paper in the filing cabinet um to check a box or something and and and you know react accordingly. Yeah. Thank you very much. Uh councelor Low, Mr. Chair, I think one of the things that um and again I'm not privy to how the CMHC will judge internally uh what we do and do not do. In the conversations we've had concerning this file uh with CHC, there has been a recognition that while inclusionary zoning was considered as a significant tool for cities to use to provide affordable housing. As time has gone on and we have seen the significant growth in other incentive programs such as the affordable housing community improvement plan and the tax benefit that has come from there uh along with other incentives coming in from other levels of government. The ability to leverage affordable housing using those others tools has been much more significant than we thought. uh in particular the affordable housing cap program has been uh very successful in increasing voluntary contributions uh of affordable housing within private market development. As such the weight uh of expectation that CMHC has for inclusionary zoning is um at least in terms of the conversations we've had less. Uh now CHC is also well aware uh that there are uh economic realities the city has to deal with. They are aware of our position and they have no concerns with the city moving forward at the zero set aside rate. Uh they are interested of course in seeing that the city establishes this tool uh in compliance with what the milestone requirements were. I hope that answers the question. Yeah. Um okay. Uh so so today what we're approving then is is that and then um or rather so today what we're approving is um kind of setting down the framework and then in terms of actual implementation it will come sounds like it'll come back to committee in Q2 of uh next next year. Yes chair that's correct. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councelor Low, Councelor Kavanagh. Thank you very much, Chair. Um, and thank you for giving us a briefing ahead of time as well. Appreciate that. It's a big topic. Um, and uh um it affects u a ward like mine where we're getting so much u development because we're getting new transit stations. So, there's lots of development around the transit stations. And um of course people get pretty cynical about this because um when they see a lot of buildings being built and then find out, well there's no affordable housing, you know that um it's it just frustrates people because they think this is being built because uh there's a lot of people that need homes out there. So it's concerns, but we do have partnerships and we've had this discussion um already with some developers and um we just confirming that those still go ahead the ones that we've negotiated. Thank you for the question to the chair. Yes. Um we have several tools that could incentivize the uh affordable housing development with private developments um near the transit stations. Uh we have the affordable housing community improvement plan program, the CIP, which gives the uh private developers um a rebate um uh tax increment after the development. And that program was approved by council in 2024. So just short of two years and so far has been eight uh developments participating uh resulting in 488 uh affordable units among almost 2,000 market uh units. The additional benefits of that program and approaches to create and encourage mixed income developments uh embedding affordable units and uh you know wide variety of housing types and populations income levels into one location shared amenities. Uh there was also a um um while the project incorporated the youth group as a a target um client group for their project. So that was one of the example of uh um the real financial incentives that could achieve that goal. Just to add that um inclusionary zoning itself it does not provide any financial supports or incentives. It's not a financial tool. So just to clarify all what you those examples you gave that's not inclusionary zoning. That's a correct. Yeah. I I think that's important to to realize that um there's other things that are happening out there. Um Mr. Bergraph um talked about partnerships with nonprofits. He did mention that. So that is outside of the inclusionary zoning uh definition. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. Okay. Well, I think that's important to know that um nonprofits are the way to go if you want true affordable housing and they certainly know that. Um I mean it's there's a lot going on out there and and there's also a lot not going on out there because some developers are just not building. Um they're saying it's not profitable to build period. And I have many projects that are just not moving forward. And we even have an developer that's changed their mind about building housing at all. Um and um that's incredibly frustrating. Um so I get that uh we're trying as much as we can to to get them still to build um housing that is um and we need every tool we can. So, I'm I'm just showing that there's different ways of doing it and occlusionary zoning was one definition and it's obviously not working right now because we can't even get builders to build um at all um because they're saying it's just not the right time or um the expenses are too much. So, I appreciate that, but um I know this is kind of outside the scope, but we we what are we doing to encourage more nonprofit housing? because uh I I'll let you just answer that and I know you're going to have a good answer. Briefly, please just as significantly out of scope. So, thank you chair and the councelor. Briefly, the affordable housing sectors are supported largely through the uh our capital our affordable housing capital strategy works that includes a pre-development support uh capital funding support um some concierge support um and uh or coordination and support letters to other levels of government and the funding sources in a nutshell. Thank you and thank you chair for giving me that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, first of all, I guess I think that at first I thought this was quite bizarre. Councelor Gower and I were talking about this the other day. This is actually bizarre. 0%. However, hearing what we've heard today, I think it actually does make a lot of sense because here's the reality. Right now, in this moment right now, this would be it would not be a good thing to put any percentage on this, right? We we heard all the ramifications of doing this type of thing right now. However, we do not none of us in this room can predict the future. You have no idea what's coming down the pipe. You know, we have could have a different government provinially. We'd have a different government federally. You never know what's going to happen, right? You don't know what's going to happen to society. It's not a financial planning tool right now, but it might be. You know, a government can say, "Oh, guess what? If you put um inclusionary zoning and you have an OC run it uh even in an existing building, like you really have no idea." Like we have seen so much come at us in the last few months in the last few years. you actually as a planner right now probably cannot predict the future at all. So, uh I think it's it's fair for us to be ready for this. Set it at zero right now and be ready. Um so that's my overall comment on this. Um I want to say that this presentation I thought was excellent. Um one of the things I have complained about in the past to your annoyance potentially uh is that I didn't feel we were getting an understanding that staff uh could walk in the developer shoes. And I this this uh presentation certainly reflected that that there seems to be a lot of understanding now as to why things won't as they say pencil or um they're not constructible I think was the term uh you used last night in our our public consultation. Um these are real things you know and the conversations we have with developers uh and they register on the lobby registry they help us understand these things and I feel like now everybody's uh got a lot more understanding. you know, we talked about whether a proforma uh sample proforma would be helpful for you to run the numbers along with the developer and I I don't know if that's what you're doing, but I certainly feel that way after that presentation. So, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Councelor Curry, Councelor Johnson. Thank you so much, Chair. Yes. So, I just wanted to um you know, back when I was uh getting back into the job market in 20 I'm looking at the girl right now, so I guess 2019, um I had to write a piece for my employer on why the city should think about inclusionary zoning. You know, I that was my that was my test. I had to write in French about it. And here we are in 2026 and um I think it we actually owe the public a demonstration of our understanding of the issue. Uh it was uh a hot topic only seven years ago or how old are you seven years ago and now we're in a very different place. It's um it's it's worthy of a conversation here at committee and and I just want to echo my the previous speaker's comments. I was so incredibly impressed with this presentation. It demonstrated the uh a grounding in the current economic reality in current careers in uh a very very sensitive uh um uh staggered approach to the to the quintiles we were after. It's a credible level of detail and I and and if we're going to come out with a recommendation that suggests 0% then we should definitely be able to demonstrate our understanding of why we're recommending nothing right now you know and so I think that has really been achieved. So I want to commend uh Mr. Wise for his work here. I think it it it it should give folks who are critical of the city an understanding or an appreciation that we really are trying to ground ourselves in the economic realities and trying to advance those those pieces that are are worthy of consideration at this time. Um so now we have a a moment where or we have a a process that we can develop um for a stage of readiness uh in the market. You know, we have colleagues in um BC right now, talking to uh counselors in BC right now who have just recently passed a bylaw uh in New Westminster to uh mandate landlords to have a cooling room in their buildings. So, if you can't have all of the units have uh air conditioning, uh now they're asking landlords to have a a a cooling space. It just goes to show you the differences in where the housing markets are. Here in Ontario, we're trying to do everything we can to spur development. In BC, the housing market is relatively healthy and now they're able to introduce additional values and expectations within that built form. So to have something already prepared uh that we can use in the future as the market conditions improve, I think is uh uh worthy uh of of passing today. I don't I don't think it's um I think it will create a set of nimble resources later and we can move away from the pearl clutching of the development industry at this time. Thanks. Thank you very much councelor Johnson. Councelor Tierney. Yeah, thanks chair. Uh just want to echo a couple of the points I heard. Uh like councelor Kavanaaugh it is very frustrating when you have a lot of development taking place and we don't have any kind of carrots or sticks. I don't really care what you want to say uh to encourage uh that kind of topology. Um I my questions to staff and I now I kind of understand because councelor Judas teased it out there that this is a requirements. Um, but everything changes very quickly. Just as we saw a couple days ago, a federal/provincial announcement that from a FCM perspective, we're still digesting um because and same with AMO, they're also digesting it as well because removal of DCS and return for some weird application process and we we're just not all there. I I guess with all this happening all at once, happening so quickly, how does this play into uh and I don't want to go totally off off scope here, chair, but kind of all ties together is we have all these opportunities to encourage development. H how how are we going to blend this with what we're doing here today? Is there any opportunity like it'd be great to have something? Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. Thanks, David. the it's an interesting question uh and I might go back a bit to to some of the questions from uh from councelor Dudis uh and uh from councelor Curry uh with respect to um the interesting nature of inclusionary zoning and I'm apologize I'm going to get I'm going to get a bit nerdy uh here but um so so bear with me and share to if I go too overboard but the um development charges act Oh, watch out. Is uh really interesting in that it actually sets up two uh types of units uh that can qualify for financial relief. Uh one of them is the affordable units, the what we considerly to be purely defined as an affordable unit. Uh and the other one is an inclusionary unit and those are actually considered in the development charges act as two separate things. Even though uh for the purposes of what we've done in this report here is we've actually aligned them. So they are to all intents and purposes they are the same thing. They do not have to be uh regardless under the development charges act if you are considered an inclusionary unit and if you are deemed an inclusionary unit whether mandatory or through a voluntary contribution. you will still be eligible for development charges relief, community benefit charges relief, cash in the parkland relief. So there there is a an indirect financial tool that is associated with inclusionary zoning that staff have aligned this policy framework to do. So, so that is where I say that although we are not suggesting a mandatory program right now, this is where and to go back to councelor Dudis in terms of are we um um kind of spinning our wheels uh just to sort of frame it appropriately, this is a launching point and it is a potential to actually spin this into a housing program uh that could create opportunity rather than uh being focused on a liability for developers. But it will depend upon future work uh that does need to be done. uh there is uh additional financial incentive that our traditional additional financial analysis that we have asked uh our colleagues at NBLC and Dylan to do. Um the market assessment represented a point of time from early 2025 and we know that since that time there's been a number of new programs that have come down from senior levels of government. Uh there are new financial tools that are always coming down from CHC such as the MLI select program. Uh we also have passed a bucket of tools under the housing acceleration plan as well. Uh those packages still need to be priced in and understood as to what they do in terms of number one stimulating the housing market overall but number two helping to bridge that gap that exists for layering on affordability on top of that. That is work that we have already started. uh that is work that we are looking to bring forward and that is also work that would be covered under the recommendation four of this report. We can't predict the future. It's absolutely true. Uh but as planners we can do what we can to position ourselves so that when it comes we at least have the tools ready to respond. Thank you and and thanks for your nerdiness because I I think you're caught on to what I was kind of alluding to there and I appreciate the nerdiness. Uh with the shifting land under us all the time and possible reduction to DCS and this new application process to make us whole. This is a lot of work. So I appreciate staff staying on top of this because we're all kind of learning. You know, just a couple days ago things changed again. So uh thank you for your nerdiness, continued nerdiness. Godspeed. Thank you, councelor Tney. I'm always fascinated to see um when counselors are all universally or everyone focused on the speaker and that was one such moment. Uh so thank you very much for the nerdiness, David. Councelor Troster, thank you so much and I will add to the pylon. Look, I worked as a communications professional for most of my career. That was the most clear presentation of a very complex issue that I've ever seen at committee. So congratulations to your team for putting that together. My understanding is certainly much better after this conversation. Here is my question though. You mentioned that even if there's no affordability requirements attached to inclusionary units, those units could still be eligible for fee relief and relief of things like development charges. So, is it possible that they could be in inclusionary zoning and be getting something without giving something or are you just saying that relief would be possible on a voluntary basis if they offered some rent relief? Thank you for the question. Uh, Mr. Chair, the alignment is still subject to the criteria in the development charges act. Again, I'm just sorry the nerd comes out. Um the affordable the definition for affordability within the development charges act uh is reliant upon a development being able to provide a unit at average market rent uh and that's city-wide average market rent. It's a blended uh composite average uh from uh CHC uh or the 90% of the average market purchase price or um the lesser of those compared against the incomebased uh ability for a household to pay uh at the six decile. So that's the that's the threshold uh that the development charges act has set uh in provincial legislation that a developer can achieve in order to get those development charge exemptions cash loan parks. Now those are all subject to being tied into an agreement. They can't just simply say that they have to be tied to a development agreement uh through um my colleagues in development review through site plan uh or uh some other type of mechanism. Uh and that would be for a maximum of 25 years. So there there are still bounding boxes around this. Okay. Thank you. I mean my comment will just be I think we're seeing the limits of using zoning to actually create affordable housing. I I think this is a policy that was really touted a few years ago and we're understanding its limits. So, I'm supportive of us setting up the framework and taking a look in a couple years. But again, I will register my frustration um and my concern that we're embarking on kind of a great experiment here with the housing acceleration plan with the number of fees that we are reducing or deferring, which you know, unless the promised developments are actually developed, unless those builders actually build, it's really just a cash gift to private for-profit developers that are still very profitable. And again, my frustration remains. We have to put all our cards on the table. We have to show all our finances and we're doing it in the hopes that it'll spur housing development. But I have still have never received a good response from the development industry on what threshold would take a project off the shelf for them. What is the profit margin that makes a profit viable? Because as far as I'm concerned, we're being asked to forego fairly significant revenue that we need to build complete communities and to offer affordable housing that is desperately needed on the promises that these developments will finally get built and we just did it with a previous file with Loretta Street. So that is my warning. Um my final question is just when you say in two years we'll reevaluate based on market conditions. like what things will you be looking for that would tell you that it's time to actually implement some affordability requirements into this policy? Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. Uh, one of the things that I did want to touch up on with council is is we we have been working quite closely with uh with respect to understanding the underlying economics there. There are the two challenges. Number one, there is the gap um from what is stopping housing from advancing now. Uh and what is that fiscal reality uh that we're seeing? Uh I mentioned before that there is that downward pressure on rents, the downward pressure on sales prices while construction prices, interest rates, etc. still remain the same. Uh we have been working to quantify what that means on a per unit basis. Uh of course, these are always point in time. These are always specific to particular developments but we do have a fairly good understanding of what that quantum is uh what that delta is between feasibility and there then you then you throw in the affordability portion on top of that. So there there is a stacking effect there is what incentives and offsets are needed um from society uh and not necessarily through fiscal means. It could be through the HST relief program announced yesterday. We simply don't know what the impact of that is but there will be an impact. Uh so what are the impact of these things to close that feasibility gap just to make housing tip over to pencil out uh to get into the red uh get into the black sorry. The second question on that is is what is the delta that is needed to check with respect to affordability. Uh and there are two dimensions to that. One of them is how much uh how many units do you want to have affordable inclusionary zoning right now the mandatory requirement is 5%. But in our official plan we previously said 20%. Uh our 10-year housing and homelessness plan uh that went through last year reset that to 10 to 15%. So um CIP program uh requires the developer to have at least 15% in order to become eligible for the tax relief uh that's available through that. The other axis on that is the depth of affordability. Inclusionary zoning starts at sixth income desile. But as we drive that decile down, and this is a policy decision that we would have to come back and have that discussion here at committee, as we drive that down to the fifth decile or to the fourth decile or to the third decile, that gap becomes larger and larger uh to close. And so it becomes a question on how do we allocate and how do we close that gap which is also part of why we look at this tool within the framework of all of the other tools and incentives that we have available and the offsets that we have available. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I will say I was very excited by the new definition of affordability that's in the tenure the refreshed tenure housing and homeless plan which is not about comparison to the market. It's about ability to pay. Because at the end of the day, affordable housing is how much income do you have and how much can you afford to spend on housing? And I was very happy to see that plan very firmly say that it is about 30% of income, 30% of of of net income. That's what it's about. So, um, you know, I think we can play with the numbers, but the reality is it's not affordable if people can't afford it. And I I have lost faith that that minor incentives will create deep affordability in the way that we actually need to to tackle the housing crisis. So, um I I'm very interested to see the way this plays out. Um but I will register my skepticism. Um because I think we're doing a lot and we're asking very little of the development industry right now. We really are. And the housing acceleration plan was the biggest transfer of incentives to the private development sector that the city's ever considered. So, this is kind of a grand experiment and I'm very interested to see what happens in the next two years. And I hope we're not filled with regret having given away money and not actually spurred development. That that is my concern. So anyway, I can support this report. I want to thank staff for your work on it. I'm disappointed to see that we're asking so little right now. Uh I also understand the economic environment, but I would love to see more clarity from the and more honesty, frankly, from the development industry on on profit margins and viability of projects because I think it's it's relevant. we have to make these decisions in public and that is information they are allowed to keep private and it's very frustrating. Thank you very much. Well said, Councelor Truster. Councelor Low, thanks. Um, one of the answers uh something that was said in the in the last uh last little bit kind of got me curious. So, if if we're looking at a percentage of units, um like if the developer chooses to to do this, u if we're looking at a percentage of units, would that would that sort of disincentivize the creation of like larger units uh like for families basically? Um if if they're trying to get as many units into a development as possible to maximize on these uh on the potential incentives. Thanks for the question. um to the chair. The inclusionary zoning itself currently does not um uh require or differentiate to the size of units. However, there are other tools and that does city applies do require that. Um for example, the uh CIP program does require a distribution of different sizes of the units. I believe um through the 10-year housing and homelessness plan uh there will be a family strategy that would require the uh provision of the family size units of affordable development as well. Okay. Uh all right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much, Councelor Low. I don't see any other members hands up. Amazing. Um, I don't uh have any questions for staff. Uh, but I I do want to um reinforce the the recognition that I think a lot of us have that the the world has changed since inclusionary zoning was first floated. Um, I remember a lot of uh even late night conversations with um uh then I think solicitor general Nakvi uh as the pressure was on the the wind government and and people were very excited about inclusionary zoning. David and I were tra uh trading uh stories of uh some of those first meetings at which we thought we might be able to accomplish 20% requirements for inclusionary zoning and you know the world has uh has absolutely changed. Uh it is a different government. Um though we can't look to the market to build affordable housing. Uh I think that this is a strong recognition that if affordable housing is going to be built in our city, it's going to have to be built by the not for-profit providers. uh and we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that our uh not for-profit partners are well funded and can build the amount of affordable housing that we need. Um and it's interesting to see who is not here today. Uh I was um uh um sorry I was I was fascinated by uh the fact that um you know we we don't have the the housing advocates out who were out in in great force eight years ago. Uh it's a it's a strong recognition of um a changed economic reality out there. So uh it doesn't do us any harm to pass these recommendations. It sets us up for future. I'm very interested in the DCA discussion that Mr. Wise brought to us. Uh but with that, we'll uh bring it to a vote. Um are they carried? I'll desent on this. Thank you very much. Uh thank you very much for all of your work on that. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I hear? Yeah, Johnson. No. Uh, quite the opposite. Councelor Low. Oh, from councelor Low. Okay. Yep. Don't want to make assumptions, but the other counselor Johnson. Okay. Thank you very much everyone. Thank you very much to staff for for a lot of work on that. Um, I I got a chuckle out of the CBC headline on this story. Uh, affordable housing plan contains no requirements for affordable housing. That was a good one. Um, but I think we all understand the reason why. Okay, moving on. I think we are just about done. Took care of a whole whack of things. Leaving us only with item nine, notices a motion for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Councelor Dudes, just when you thought you were done, I have a very lengthy notice of motion to read in. Okay. Whereas Action Ottawa is a program of the city of Ottawa designed to increase the supply of affordable housing in the community by providing financial support, incentives, and other assistance to nonprofit and private housing developers to help provide affordable and supportive housing. Whereas Action Ottawa functions as the city's primary initiative for facilitating and expanding the development of affordable housing across Ottawa. Whereas the city's affordable housing capital strategy outlines funding allocation progress on affordable housing developments and key initiatives advancing affordable and supportive housing. And whereas a key objective of the housing acceleration plan is to support a diversified and sustainable notfor-profit housing industry to strengthen development capacity, reduce risk and costs, and improve housing delivery outcomes. And whereas the housing acceleration plan outlines complimentary actions to accelerate affordable housing delivery on municipal lands, including introducing flexibilities and calls for proposals, simplifying regulatory environment, developing a 10-year roadmap for utilizing municipal lands, advancing city-led development preparations such as prezoning and environmental remediation, and exploring long-term land leases to preserve value for taxpayers. And whereas Ottawa Community Housing Corporation as the city of Ottawa's wholly owned municipal housing corporation is accountable to council for the development, ownership, and long-term sustainability operations and leveraging of existing and future community housing assets. And whereas the city currently uses requests for proposals, RFPs, as a tool to allocate city- owned land. And whereas the non-market housing industry continues to evolve through sector-led partner-based models such as the Bumblebee initiative developed collaborative by OC, Options House, Ottawaalis, and Guno nonprofit housing that leverage collabor collaboration among nonprofit organizations, social service providers, and the private sector to foster innovation, share risk, and improve efficiency. Therefore, it be resolved that staff be directed to review current processes and policies respecting the allocation of municipal land and resources for affordable housing with the goal of streamlining the city's approach while maintaining transparency, fairness, and accountability. And be it further resolved that as part of this review, staff consider a range of different models to more efficiently move projects forward, including but not limited to leveraging C OC as the city's municipal housing corporation and considering a pre-qualification mechanism for established sector partnerships and other alternatives to RFP processes. And be it further resolved that staff consider how to best recognize the varying scale and capacities of organizations, encourage partnerships, and explore strategic uses of long-term land leases and transfers to balance affordability goals with long-term value for taxpayers. Be it further resolved that staff be directed to ensure the proposed updates to the processes align with the city's procurement bylaw real property disposal policy action Ottawa guidelines and applicable legal requirements and includes recommendations on transparency fairness and reporting be further resolved that staff work with OC to explore ways to more effectively streamline future developments and improve the speed and affordability at which wholly municipally owned non-market housing is delivered. in Ottawa. And be it further resolved that a report detailing the outcomes of this motion rise to council through the planning and housing committee as soon as feasible. We'll debate that one at our next meeting of the planning and housing committee, assuming everyone has actually read through it by then. That's a long one. Exactly. Um, are there any other notices of motion? I don't see any. Um, I haven't received any inquiries. Nope. Uh, we have no other business. We are adjourned until our next meeting of April 15th, 2026. Thank you very much, everyone.

Full Transcript