Transcript: O'Connor Street High-Rises Approved - Comité de la planification et du logement – le 15 avril 2026 | Summary 118

O'Connor Street High-Rises Approved - Comité de la planification et du logement – le 15 avril 2026

Sound check. We'll get going in one minute. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the 63rd meeting of the planning and housing committee. And I'm just going to my volume. There we go. Uh okay. So uh we acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unseated territory uh and never surrendered territory of the Alangquin Anishnabi nation whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. We'll get a roll call. Councelor Brochington here. Councelor Curry here. Councelor Dudas present. Councelor Johnson. Councelor Kavanaaugh present. Councelor Kelly present. Councelor Kits here. Councelor Low here. Councelor Tierney say be about 10 minutes. Okay. Councelor Truster here. Vice Gower here. Cherry of Corn. Thank you. Have a good morning. Thank you very much. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendments listed as items 41 and 42 on today's agenda. For the items 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 in 120 days for an official plan amendment to submit written comments on these amendments prior to their consideration by city council on April 22nd, 2026. Please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? Nope. are our minutes of uh meeting 62, April 1st, 2026 confirmed. Thank you. Okay, just running through the agenda. We're going to consider items uh 41 and 42 concurrently. We'll be receiving a presentation from staff and my understanding is we have three delegations to speak to that item. The zoning bylaw amendment for 67 Kempster um Avenue. Um there staff are prepared to make a presentation. Did uh committee members wish to receive that? Nope. Um Christine McQuade at Q9 Planning is here uh online. Christine, if the committee is prepared to carry this item, did you still wish to make a presentation? No, I do not. Thank you, chair. Okay. Thank you. Uh so is that item carried? Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. the zoning bylaw amendment at 255 and 2707 Solant Road. Um I hadn't anticipated a presentation today. Uh did members have want this item held? No. Uh to uh Greg and Miranda with Novatech the uh uh consultants. Uh if the committee is prepared to carry this, did you still wish to speak? No, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to see this supported and consent today. Thanks. Thank you very much, Greg. Um so is that item carried? Thank you. Uh just running through the rest of the agenda. There are two IPDs on the agenda. The first is 71, the Canada Lakes Golf Course redevelopment update. The uh second is Oh, it's only the one. My apologies. Um on the Canada Lakes Golf Course, sorry. Uh sorry. So on the Canada Lakes Golf Course, we have had a request from councelor Curry um to lift that for a few questions. Um, Vice Chair Gower has a lifting motion. Yes. Uh, be it resolved that planning and housing committee allow discussion of this item for consideration by the committee at today's meeting pursuant to the procedure of bylaw to allow for questions to staff. Thanks. Is that carried? Um, councelor Curry, did you want to proceed with uh your questions of staff? Sure. Thank you so much, uh, Chair Leaper. Uh, first of all, I just wanted to say thanks so much to this committee and council for passing the original motion that allowed for staff to do such uh, helpful work and also that um, we were able to get WSP on the job and looking at what's going on there. So, just thank you very much council and uh, council colleagues here for that uh, support of that motion at that time. The other is thanks to staff for a tremendous amount of work. you see how many documents are attached to this inquiry and you can see the updates and the newsletters that are going out to the public. Very very helpful. Uh I have three questions that I think would just help the community so that that we don't have to get a 100 emails every day on the same topics. So to staff, um the staff report indicates that Ottawa Public Health notified the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks, uh of residents concerns, and can staff confirm whether the MECP has responded and specifically given that it's my understanding that the MEC has referred this matter back to Ottawa Public Health. Um so maybe staff can help un help us understand who's actually responsible for the proactive pro public health protection of adjacent residents during active soil disturbance on a site that's uh got documented mercury contamination. Right now it seems that neither uh agency has accepted that role. Thank you uh for the question through the chair and this is Marcia Wallace, general manager of planning, development and building services because you can't see me on the screen for those watching. Um so the way it works in the planning and development space is that we rely on uh companies and individuals to follow the rules as set out and health concerns are baked into the environmental regulatory structure. Uh their entire model around how uh what are the contaminations u that we need to be concerned about. what are the pathways uh of people and animals and plants being in contact with those contaminants and what's the process by which to clean up land. So uh to reduce or mitigate those impacts. So that is uh a very regulated process by the ministry. So they would um say that the public health is in is addressed through the rules that they have set out which is what the proponent in this case is working towards meeting and uh from a a per a individual public health perspective. They see a role uh that that belongs to our medical officer of health. our medical officer of health and public health see the um the elements of uh public health. Um so so his response um our medical officer's response and that is also posted on our on our engage page for others to read uh is that they do not have a um they don't regulate in this space but they are involved if there's a particular concern or a specific harm of um individuals in a particular case. So I I guess what I'm saying is and I'm apologies. This is a very big question and I got a little surprised by it. So I'm just trying to think as I talk. But um where we are is that we're very early in the process by which the proponent is doing what they need to do under the Ministry of Environment Regulations to do the cleanup work. and should the way they clean this up need verification or involvement of public health to ensure it's done properly. Um any conditions on the site long term are there that would be um uh where public health would get involved. So later in the stage of cleanup we're not at that point. So, I appreciate that people are are concerned and so we have tried to add a number of frequently asked questions to our engage page of late to better articulate the the level of risk here. What is the standards that the ministry has? What is uh what is the level of contamination that's been found in testing? How does that relate to those pathways of risk? and and and provide more information so people can better understand um what's happening on that site. Okay, thank you for that. Um and here's where the WSP and that council motion uh WSP report that are attached to this agenda uh are really helpful. So the staff report describes WSB's findings as some reported deficiencies and data gaps. Um, so I guess when the community reads that and then they read what WSP said, it I we wonder if that's really an accurate characterization because the reading of WSP's actual report is considerably more serious than that. Can staff refer confirm that environmental testing done on the site has actually been completed to the standard required by provincial law? And specifically, has anybody tested for methyl mercury, which is the toxic form of mercury that accumulates in living tissue on the parts of the site where mercury was already found to be too high? Um this is Aaron Tate. I'm the program manager of the environmental remediation unit here at the city and I am managing the peerreview work with WSP. Um so the the proponent has been doing testing in the work areas where they're excavating soil. We have only just received a a short summary of their test results to date. We have not seen anything um written. We do understand that they are going to need to do a more comprehensive phase 2 environmental site assessment in order to meet the record of site condition regulation and the requirements under that. We have received the proponents response to the WSP peer review of their uh original phase 2 ESA. They have acknowledged all of the comments that WSP has um put forward including the requirement for methyl mercury testing. So, we do anticipate that another round of um more comprehensive testing will be required across the site. Um and I do not have the date for when that will be conducted, but we will be following that work. We will have WSP on site when they do prepare to do the additional testing and we will make sure that all of the comments that WSP has put forward are addressed through that additional phase of work. Okay. Thank you for that. My last question is um in the most uh most recent newsletter that are up on the on the site here um dated March 27th uh since that time so that was March 27th it's April 15th today. Since that time residents have documented large areas of standing water, one coyote that's found dead on the course, one walking about uh looking about as if it's about to die. It maybe since has died. Uh, a retaining wall has fallen out right near the site, uh, onto the public pathway. Um, structural vibration, cracks in foundations in nearby homes that are getting larger. Um, what is the city's formal process for investigating each one of these? And is anyone specifically assessing whether the structural impacts are connected to the site activity? Because it certainly seems so to residents through the chair. This is Marcia Wallace again. Um so I'll try and take those individually. Um when it comes to vibration um the municipality does not have additional tools in this context. We do have rules around how a proponent can operate if they are doing blasting. Uh but we do not have rules as it relates to construction. Uh that being said, the the proponent has uh offered to do the uh monitoring on individual homeowner sites before and during to um the same kind of monitoring that would have been done if it was blasting and some residents have taken them up on this and and so any questions about vibration should go to the proponent. um we we really don't have a a means to regulate that type of activity through normal construction which is occurring. Uh where it is on the public rightway like the stones falling out of the um uh the the wall there uh onto the sidewalk. We are uh we have dispatched uh staff uh confirmed that that was in fact a project that um public works had identified in the winter before the activity took place. So, it was on on their radar and is a project to uh be addressed this spring in the work um that staff will be going out. So, so when we hear things like this, it's very helpful to hear them from residents. They're coming in through the Canada Lakes email from the engage page and then we uh initiate a work order for someone to go in and check uh and then and figure out what next steps are. Uh that also fuels frequently asked questions so that we can help better um uh educate and and help residents understand uh what's going on fact from um concern. Uh when it comes to flooding, we have had uh development inspector staff on site uh every day for the last uh couple of weeks given that uh we're we're monitoring flooding as a city everywhere. Uh but we're particularly monitoring that site because of the pooling that is occurring. Uh we are working with the proponents contract contractor on site that is uh actively involved in some um uh efforts to try and manage uh the poolled water. And so we're watching very carefully to make sure that it doesn't uh become uh an issue um in terms of uh flooding or damaging um property owners nearby. So, uh, it's a live issue and one that we're, um, that's how we manage it is is by sending our inspectors out to see, uh, what's going on and working with the consultants so they can address this, um, or the contractor, I should say. So, uh, that we will have another newsletter come out later, um, probably today or tomorrow, and it it will add some, um, information similar to what I've shared in terms of what we're doing as it relates to the spring thaw and the and the pooling of water that we're seeing. Great. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask those questions on behalf of residents. Absolutely. Thanks. Vice Chair Goward does have some questions as well. Thanks, Sher. Yeah, following up on that. So, if WSP or the city identifies a serious safety issue that has an immediate impact, does the city have a mechanism or an authority to order a stop work or can you like is that possible? Is that would that is that our responsibility or is the MECP responsible? Chair, if we were to observe a significant um spill or health concern identified on the site, we would be notifying the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks to enforce under their legislation or to public health depending on uh the the nature of the issue. How quickly could that happen? The the spills action line is available 24 hours a day and it would happen if it was a significant health concern, it would happen immediately. Okay. And is there a mechanism though where the city itself would step in or could step in to order a stop work if there's issues identified? Chair, we don't have we haven't authorized the work that's under underway currently. It's it's operating under the um you know the it's operating through the abilities they have to fulfill work as a requirement of of uh development approvals that were granted by the Ontario Land Tribunal. So we don't have an ability to to issue a stop work order at this time. We would later on in the process when it's dealing with works that we have uh approved um and that we're actively managing from uh with securities and and other other forms of uh manage more direct management than we do at this point in time as they're as they're fulfilling their conditions. Okay. So at this point it's still on the provincial ministry. In the future there would be a city could be a city role as well. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, chair. Thank you very much. Um, I think that exhausts those who had questions on that IPD. Uh, thank you very much uh for your indulgence on that. I know uh councelor Curry has a bit of a time sensitivity this morning. So, we're going to move on uh to the or move back to the start of the agenda where we have items 41 and 42. Item 41 is the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for 267 Oconor. Item 42 is the heritage permit for 267 Oconor. We'll consider them um uh concurrently. Um I did want to ask Vice Chair uh Gower to move a motion now. Yesterday at Heritage um I introduced a a small amending motion. Um there is a a relief sculpture that's at the top of the building. Um the language of the condition in the heritage permit was that uh city staff integrate would work towards trying to conserve that. Um and then the language of the motion says they have to conserve it as a um uh condition of the heritage permit. Uh but uh I'm told administratively we need to make that change to item to the OPA and zoning bylaw amendment as well. Vice Chair, whereas the report recommendation that approval be conditional upon the applicant working with heritage planning staff to explore the feasibility of conserving the relief sculpture on the upper story of the existing building and whereas the relief sculpture is worthy of conservation as a heritage and cultural asset. Therefore, be it resolved that the recommended condition C be amended to read the applicant conserving the relief sculpture in a manner satisfactory to heritage planning staff. Amazing. Thank you. Uh so we'll move to staff for the uh staff presentation. Then we'll move on to um there are three delegations. I don't know if the uh applicant wants to make a presentation before the public delegations or whether you want to wait until after the public delegations. Okay, perfect. In your hands. Thank you, chair. Uh good morning. My name is Eric Forhan and I'm a development review planner. Alongside me today is my colleague Anne Fitzpatrick from Heritage Planning. Together we are here to present the planning and heritage applications for a landmark building proposal at 267 Oconor Street. Next slide, please. The subject property is located in center town within the city's downtown core transct and a heritage conservation district and a 15minute neighborhood context where access to services, public amenities, and a mix of uses is abundant and where transit and active transportation facilities are in proximity. This development proposal seeks to replace an existing office building and a large surface parking lot with a landmark building proposal consisting of two high-rise buildings, approximately 513 residential units, groundf flooror commercial, and a large privatelyowned public space. Next slide, please. The applicant has been required to follow a public consultation strategy which was approved by council back in 2020. As is required for landmark building proposals, this process has included extensive engagement with the community and local community associations, several rounds of city review and commenting and attendance at three special design review panel meetings. staff are satisfied that the requirements of the approved public consultation strategy have been met. Next slide, please. The applications have followed a rigorous and iterative design process which has included three visits with a special design review panel consisting of Canadian and international architects. The applicant has also had to respond to design comments from City of Ottawa planning, urban design, and heritage staff. The design has evolved in response to the SDRP recommendations, primarily regarding podium design and materiality, transition to the low-rise heritage context to the east, and the location, size, and utility of the pops area. These changes also address some of the public comments received and staff are satisfied that the design is tracking in a positive direction for a landmark building proposal. A future site plan control application will also be required to attend the urban design review panel. Next slide, please. Within this secondary plan area, development proposals that seek greater heights are subject to the policies for landmark buildings. However, to explain the policy context which applies to this site, it is important to first note that an existing sightspecific policy applies to 267 O Connor Street which already contemplates the redevelopment of the site for greater heights and a pops subject to the landmark policies. It is staff's opinion that the proposal aligns with the policies for landmark buildings. The proposal has satisfied the special design review and public consultation requirements. The proposal also checks all the boxes for site location and context. The proposal has been able to demonstrate that the site is appropriate for two high-rise buildings and provides appropriate transition to a budding low-rise with minimal shadowing impacts on public open spaces. And finally, a community benefit charge, a pops of at least 40% of the total lot area and sustainability measures will be ensured at the time of site plan control and as per the details of the recommended official plan amendment. My colleague An Fitzpatrick will now speak to how the heritage component of the landmark policy is being addressed through the heritage permit application. Next slide, please. Oh, sorry. Thanks. Um, so heritage planning staff reviewed the application using the Centertown Heritage Conservation District plan and determined that the proposal meets the plan for the following reasons. The four-story podium is CLA podiums are clad in red brick and reflect the material pallet and historic scale of the HCD. The proposal provides an appropriate transition transition using stepbacks and stepbacks to the contributing buildings to the east. The facades have been articulated using vertical divisions through window patterns and balconies along McLaren and Gilmore to reflect the residential character of the east west streets in center town. The proposal balances contemporary design with compatible design for the heritage district. The lower floors relate to the historic context while the more contemporary upper stories are defined by a distinct change in materials and an articulated tower break on the fourth and ninth ninth story. The proposal incorporates design elements from neighboring properties in the HD such as arched windows and defined cornice lines. Next slide. The staff recommendation for the heritage permit is to uh approve the application subject to conditions which I'll speak to uh is to delegate authority for minor design changes to heritage planning staff and to issue the heritage permit with a six-year expiry date. Next slide, please. So, the conditions of approval for the heritage permit, it will be conditional upon the approval of the associated planning act applications. Uh, the submission of the engineering memo that outlines the construction protections for the nearby heritage properties. Uh, the conservation of the relief sculpture on the upper story of the building, which as chair Leaper mentioned was strengthened through a motion introduced at Built Heritage Committee yesterday. uh the approval of final materials by heritage staff and the submission of the final building permit drawings. Thank you, Anne. Um in summary, staff have reviewed the proposal against the applicable policy and regulatory framework and is staff's opinion that this is an appropriate landmark building proposal which further represents good land use planning. Thank you for your time and we are happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much for a great presentation. Uh we'll move into our public delegations. Irwin Dreon will be followed by Martin Barkley and uh he'll be followed by Liam O'Brien. So Mr. Dreon, I'm assuming he's online. Uh, Urban, could you unmute yourself? Oh, here we are. There you go. We can hear you. Um, you're no stranger to this committee. Five minutes. Chair and members of committee. Good morning. I wish to raise with you two matters, one macro and one micro. Until I read the staff report, my macro comment was going to be that this application should be rejected because it does not meet the clear requirement for this project to qualify as a landmark, namely demonstrate leadership in advances in sustainable design and energy efficiency. That's at the landmark policy item I, as I've argued repeatedly in personal comments, in joint comments with 16 of my co-owners around the corner of this site and in articles in the center town bus, all the proponents demonstrations of meeting this criteria fall laughably short of doing so. Promising to meet the city of Ottawa's tier one of the draft high performance development standards, even if that is voluntary, is simply not a demonstration of leadership. The sustainability consultant has clarified a few things which I won't go into in the interest of time. But we'll see what what comes of these promises. Promises are cheap, especially if there is no penalty for fulfilling them. setting out options does not demonstrate leadership. But low staff must have realized that this is the application's weak point as well. Well, I think there are several other very weak points, but I'll leave that aside. So we read on page 22 of the report and the OPA specifies on page 35 that the can will be kicked down the road to the site application stage. The OPA says that the site plan application would have to include quote supporting material to demonstrate leadership in advances in sustainable design and energy efficiency. That is to say, it repeats the wording of the landmark building policy, a condition the applicant is supposed to have met to receive approval. Page 22 is more more specific, but of course not non-binding and I won't read that to you in again in the interest of time. So there you have it. no criteria, no targets, no specific technologies, no sign that they have thought through and demonstrated that required leadership and these advances. So I'm afraid my wish remains to see you reject this proposal as it stands. Now to the micro point. I raised this point at one of the public meetings and remember and I remember that the representative of the owner responded that he was very familiar with the issue and would make sure that it would be mitigated. The issue is to a driver coming out of McLaren. There is a blind spot for cyclists traveling north. In reply to my queries, staff sends me the site plan. But I am not competent to interpret such a complicated drawing. What I want is a simple assurance that a car driver at the stop line of McLaren at the corner will be able to see at a safe distance an oncoming cyclist riding north on the bike path. You may want to ask the consultants about that. and let's hope that staff will make sure that any asurances will be reflected in what is built. Thank you for your attention, Win. Thank you very much. Um I don't see any hands up with questions. I might just ask um Eric if you can get back to Mr. Dreon after speaking with the appropriate people to uh talk about that potential blind spot. Amazing. Um, our next speaker is I've already lost it. Uh, Martin Barkley. Oh, there Martin. Uh, I'm back talking to you about this from uh the Centertown Community Association. I'm their vice president. I'm the co-chair of the planning committee and I've been involved with this for the past three years. Um I'm very surprised that in the staff presentation there was no mention of the fact that the environmental leadership is lacking in this project. We can't have leadership from the minimum standard. All that the uh proponent has proposed to do is meet the minimum standard required for construction. There has been no mitigation. There has been no leadership with regard to environmental sustainability or energy efficiency. This has been asked a number of times through a number of iterations and it appears to be the least important thing to the developer and it is not the least important thing to center town. uh having an environmental standard that is required under the uh landmark designation should be taken seriously and we can't have leadership being the minimum standard. I call on the city to require that the proponent at least meet the second or third tier of this environmental um requirement and that they demonstrate leadership which is required as is the requirement that this be a quote you know a landmark or some people talk about a wow factor. There are no criteria for these. So when this has gone on, what we've said is it's like saying popular prices, I like them. We think it's a landmark, so therefore it's a landmark. We think this is iconic, so therefore it's iconic. We're not concerned about the environment. It's not below the standard of the environment. It certainly isn't demonstrating leadership. So, I'd like to I'd like to feel that the uh city has as much commitment to the environment as the citizens of Centertown do. They have demonstrated it. The city does have have a long history of being um involved in the environmental movement and uh sustainability around this. They are however not enforcing the standard with this proposal. They are simply saying as long as it meets the minimum that's enough. It's enough to construct. It's not enough to demonstrate leadership. I don't think you can you can't lead from behind. You need to lead by suggesting how this project I had hoped that the uh proponent might have spoken first so they could but perhaps in their presentation they could outline uh either why they feel that this is leadership or how they can modify to demonstrate leadership in this matter. and to city staff, I would say that um this has not met a leadership standard. So proposing that this go ahead by meeting all of the standards of this act is not quite accurate. There is no leadership. It has not met those standards. Um I think it can be incorporated in the design that is per in front of it. I'm not against this proposal. Um, and Centertown is not against density. We don't speak against I don't approve or reject anything. I'm I'm simply a um advocate on behalf of the community. Uh, but I think it's important that when we approve a substantial project like this and which will have a noted impact on life in the community, that we meet a leadership standard and that all of the boxes are ticked. We have seen some concessions on the part of the developer in terms of the pop and in terms of uh opening more of the area for green space coming up to the 40% requirement that was I will say done grudgingly not it wasn't the initial proposal however I'll acknowledge it was done so um I look forward to the uh committee recommending that the environmental sustainability of this project be required at a higher level and that the proponent demonstrate leadership in this area in order to get this grant. Thank you. Hi Martin, thanks for being here. I'm on the fence on this one. I mean I dissented at heritage committee. I don't hate the design. I think it's the best out of the options that we've seen and they have responded to the community by in in you know including more of an open space. Is the community association central concern the environmental considerations or is there anything else? Do you just not like it? I mean let's be honest. Oh I mean I think that there are people within the community that don't like the building but um that isn't our job to um it's not a beauty contest. It's not about saying whether or not we like the uh use of brick or the uh whether or not we like the podium. I think people don't generally think the podium is beautiful, but there it is. Um I don't think that's the I think the main thing is that they aren't demonstrating leadership and that it doesn't qualify okay as being u significant or um great. Okay. Well, I mean I'll have some questions for the developer. I I agree that the landmark policy is really nebulous. It's very very subjective. It's saying it needs to be iconic architecture. Well, what is iconic architecture? I might think something is iconic. Somebody else might think something else is iconic. And I know that they've had I think three goes at it with the urban design and review panel. Is that correct? So anyway, um I appreciate your feedback. I uh I I also am aware of the fact it's going to be the biggest thing in the nearby area and that's a lot of change for the community. I totally get that. and Centertown's already getting a ton of density everywhere else. So, I understand the conflicted feelings about this development, but I do want to say um the community association and nearby residents have had an impact, I think, on making this proposal substantially better. So, uh thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. Thanks for being here. Thanks. And I will ask some questions about the environmental standards. Thanks. Thank you very much, Councelor Truster. Um I don't see any other hands up. Thank you for your presentation today, Martin. Thank you. And we'll move to Liam O'Brien and whenever you're ready, you'll have five minutes to make a presentation to the committee. Thanks. Um, thanks so much. Uh, and good morning everyone. Um, so yeah, I'm Liam O'Brien. I I live uh in center town under a big tower. Um and I'm I'm here to say it's actually not that bad. So So uh the the new towers up at Pimacy like we're we're thrilled cuz finally there's a hope of having shopping. Um but I wanted to speak in favor of this particular project. I watched um the de delegations yesterday on on double speed because it was lengthy. Um, but I think when we're hearing comments like it's too box-like, it's time to say, you know, good is better than uh perfect if it means proceeding quickly. Um, cuz cuz I think there's consequences actually in changing the design. Like it seems like there's a lot of nonorthogonal uh rooms and now people are going to have trouble using their spaces efficiently, which is already a challenge in these so-called boxes in the sky. I didn't call them that. Um, so I wanted to address the environmental aspect. Just uh for the record, I'm a profit Carlton and I I study uh energy efficient buildings. Um, and while there's room for improvement, I I guess my main point here is that any tower in downtown Ottawa is going to be so much better than the alternative. Um, because it's not just about the building. like compact forms are more energy efficient just inherently less surface area to lose heat um less material use per person etc. But it's also about the transportation. Um the people living here like me um are going to be much less reliant on on cars. Um they're going to be using the bike lanes which incidentally is right beside this site. They're going to be walking. Um they're going to be captive customers at the local businesses. They're going to be using transit which is great. Um, so they're going to have much less impact on the environment than, let's say, a development that's like 30 kilometers um, southeast of the city, which I won't name aim because I've spoken against that one. Um, um, so so while there could be improvements to environmental aspects, I don't actually think it's going to be the green roof. We're proposing taking out a surface parking lot, which is probably the worst possible thing from a hydraology perspective. Um, so yes, something like a green roof would be better, but but like let's compare what's there now to um what we're proposing. Or alternatively, what are what a new community that's 30 km away would look like. Um Walmart and Costco parking lots, everyone's got a, you know, two, three um car driveway roads to make sure that they're they can come downtown to uh work because now they're forced to do that, etc. Um, I also wanted to know that there's been a lot of I would say slightly questionable decisions um that I would say that BAS for example have led to like ensuring there's more parking for people. Well, yes, those our businesses are going to keep relying or they think they're relying on suburban customers if we keep more residents out of downtown. Let's bring more people downtown so that we can make our spaces more viable. Let's not give um Bank Street and and the market um private vehicle storage when we could make those actually enjoyable places. Instead, things like return to office and lots of parking makes it less enjoyable. It it makes it less attractive to visit. Um I think that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the presentation, Councelor Cher. Thanks so much for being here. I mean, I agree with you. Everyone's heard me talk to death about the food basics at Albert and Lion, but that grocery store came to the community, which is very, very much needed and wanted when the population density tipped to a certain point. And something that I'll say is I have a lot of sympathy for residents who are living through endless construction because it's really hard, especially when they're building those giant buildings like like like the ground shakes for a very long time. It's very loud. It's very messy. Um, but it's I was really happy to see that those residents in the north part of Centertown finally got the reward of the amenity that they wanted. So, I agree with you on that piece and that the way we're going to revitalize downtown is to have more people living there. That's where I'm on the fence about this particular development. Um, do you have any comments about the landmark policy about iconic architecture? I guess the difficulty is the landmark policy allows exemptions um to what is otherwise a heritage district um only if it meets this policy. And my concern with policy is just super nebulous and subjective as far as I'm concerned. Um, and I'm not sure how it serves us because, you know, whether I think something is iconic or a landmark is really different from what cancer broch or or you know, cancer tuning might think. Like it's it the criteria are very fuzzy to me. I think that's my issue. It it really is nothing to do with the development itself. It's just like is this a useful tool or not? I'm not sure at this point. Yeah. My comment would be why why do we need this policy? Why are we putting up obstacles to develop high density? You wouldn't see this in any other capital city. You wouldn't see detached houses sold relatively cheaply, honestly, within like half a kilometer of Parliament Hill. Um, so it seems like it's just putting up obstacles that's forcing the developer to, you know, bend around and and, you know, I I think the public has every right to push back against development. Um, but it's been like six years and people could have been housed by now if that had been built. Although they did come up with four different designs. So, yeah. And I mean it's it's just really interesting to see the way the neighborhood evolved. I recently held a copy of this center town plan that was developed in the 70s in my hands that I showed to staff and you know it used to be seen as really progressive to oppose a high-rise whereas now I think we understand that highdensity living is actually good for cities and where we can have an influence is in what happens at the ground level, right? like what the pedestrian experience is like. So, uh that's why I'm on the fence with this particular development, but at the end of the day, we don't approve developments, we approve zoning. So, I think we're often asked to make very subjective judgments about whether we like something or not, and that's not always our job. So, you can hear that I've kind of got one foot in both camp on this development. Uh and I really appreciate your perspective. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, uh Council Truster. Liam, I don't have any other questions for you. Thank you so much for the presentation today. I would invite the applicant team to uh come. You've got 5 minutes to either make a presentation or respond to what you've heard. Obviously uh staff have done a very good job of uh laying out the planning rationale at this point. So uh thank you. Thank you chair and committee. Uh we're happy to make a presentation if if you would like. It's up to you. Right. So, I'll just wait for it to come up there. So, my name is Tim Bead. I'm from F10 Planning and Design. I'm joined here by Kyle Cassa with the with the applicant uh Tagert as well as the architects online and and here with us from Hoben and UN studio. So, uh thank you for having us today. I'd also like to thank um planning and heritage staff for their supportive report recommendations as well as their active collaboration in the design review and policy review process and leading us to the project we see here today. I'd like to acknowledge as has already been acknowledged the uh special design review panel as well as the council approved consultation strategy which has really helped to direct define and bring us to this project and the evolution of this project that we're here with today. Also acknowledge the support of uh built heritage committee yesterday. The project before you today represents the transformation of this site from a near vacant office building and surface parking lot towards the provision of 513 purpose-buil built rental units which is a step in the direction of addressing the local and national housing crisis. In terms of uh discussing the policy framework as staff has so thoroughly discussed already uh under the landmark building policy within the secondary plan. The proposal that's before you today aside from the park ownership model fully adheres to the policy criteria as established within the secondary plan. Regarding the official plan amendment, the uh sightsp specific policy is specifically meant to implement the proposal before you uh in terms of the design details including the proposed pops as well as the other um important criteria and details of the project. The zoning bylaw amendment is uh practical and functional in nature in that it is meant to implement the secondary plan and official plan amendment as well as the site specific details. Happy to answer more questions afterwards, but I'll pass the presentation along to UN studio to discuss the design of the proposal. Yes. Uh good morning. Um so we'll jump right into the next slide, please. Our proposal for 267 Oconor consists of two high-rise towers. Uh it intends to provide a livable and futurep proof site for Ottawa's center town community. Our aim is not only to supply additional housing to the area but also create a vibrant community hub where residents of center town can meet and engage with new public space promoting social interactions and collective well-being. In the site plan below, we show clear um clear Okconor Street frontage for main for the main public entrances with secondary entrances and circulation paths connecting McLaren and Gilmore Gilmore Street through our activated public courtyard. Next slide, please. The north and south towers are 28 and 26 stories with amenity spaces dispersed throughout. The gray ceramic paneling of the towers then transition smoothly to the red brick of the four-story heritage podium. Next slide. In this slide, we see the final product of the two towers sitting within the context of center town. It's important to point out that our design methodology seeks to achieve iconic an iconic proposal by following contemporary urban design principles of mobility, nature, community, visual landmarks, and sustainability. Next slide, please. Our proposal highlights the importance of OKConor Street as the main frontage of the public uh of the public entrances and the pops. The facade here will be filled with program and activities suitable for the existing fabric of the neighborhood while the architecture is direct is a direct reaction to the adjacent context. Next slide please. The tower positions a setback to allow the maximum daylight for the courtyard and with our design OKConor becomes a vibrant meeting place where circulation from pedestrians and bikes seamlessly peels into our site forming a new point of activation for center town. Next slide. The courtyard design acts as a central point of gathering and circulation through this through the site. Paths are carved out with intu intuitive flows of the residents coming from all entry points. Bigger features are are introduced like the elevated platform towards uh the Okconor frontage. Next slide. The connection between Gilmore and Okconor is also quite important. On the south side on Gilmore Street, we created a welcoming arcade to connect through the the site as a secondary artery from McLaren to Gilmore. Next slide. Here we also highlight the direct relationship of the podium to the neighboring architecture of the red brick and the low-rise buildings. Next slide. 30 seconds. Yeah, last slide. Uh here looking west down McLaren Street, we see the unified image of the podium and the towers. We would also like to highlight the rigorous design process with the design review plan panel and that that we have undertaken. For a final thought, we would like to highlight the that our proposal is not just about designing outstanding architecture. It is a it is also a catalyst for future development of the area and giving quality spaces to the public. Thank you so much uh for the presentation. I'll see if committee members have any questions. Councelor Troster. Hi there. Thanks so much for being here. I was wondering if you could speak to how this design has evolved over the last few years because there's been a lot of them. Um I think it's a vast improvement from what we saw at the beginning and a lot of community feedback was taken into account. Um but maybe I don't know if you could just speak to how you think sort of resident involvement helped helped get to where you are now. Thank you. I think Pauline you should address this. I'll just start by saying that in 2020 we began the reasonzoning and OPA uh application process with the initial design. There was a bit of uh push back from the community in regards to how the the site was laid out, how the pops interacted with the adjacent streets and where the uh location of the towers were on site and the transition that it that uh was provided through that proposal. Uh after a couple years of of internal work and some experience with uh another landmark building policy we with our architect Hoben uh sought out a partner in designing the the next iteration of the project which is uh when you and studio became involved and Pauline perhaps you can discuss a little bit about how from the start of your involvement we've progressed through design uh based on city and STRP feedback and the public feedback. Uh so we um as Kyle stated, we've gone through a lot of iterations and um design process with the city and the panels. Um we started the project uh from creating one single podium to now the resulting uh two standing podiums. This all comes from direct feedback that we've received of understanding the proper nature of the site of how different flows come in. Uh this led to for example separating the podium into two so that there's a really nice direct flow through the site connecting Gilmore connecting uh uh McLaren and also creating a porous podium that is activated and uh vibrant for the community and create creating direct entry points um on all axes. Um the next level of iterations that we did was especially for the podium. Uh the podium we always envisioned as a heavy and um and heritage podium that would reflect the uh materiality and the character of the surrounding buildings. Through a lot of design iterations, we've uh nailed down how the exact fabric works in the community with different um parameters of arches or different apertures of windows and also the heights of the neighboring buildings. We believe that this last proposal we're showing you really does respect um uh center town and what the fabric is already. Next, we also uh did a lot of design iterations also on the center um the center space of the pops. This has really been formed over and over again to react directly to the comments from residents of how um gathering spaces could be used bring bringing things more towards the frontage of Okconor as opposed to more in the far back. We've also um allowed for different flows of mobility uh emphasizing the flow of um pedestrians to the site and another form of mobility which we're trying to promote through sustainability of the cyclists. Um, overall, uh, there's been quite a change. I think we've landed on a nice, uh, final design. Um, I don't know if Patrick or Mark, you have anything else you wanted to point out for the design features. I thank you. I'll just say you also really responded to the um the issue of the parocity between the two buildings, like really wanting to have that flow through. So, we do appreciate that. Sorry, were there any more design comments? I just have one more question. Good. Okay. Just could you speak to the environmental sustainability piece in your project? I mean, understanding that highdensity housing in general is more environmentally friendly than sprawl, but um uh just if you could speak to the environmental considerations and and how that how you adhere to them in the landmark policy. Thank you for the question. So our our development application aimed to establish how the the development would be assessed for leadership and sustainability. It had four components to it. The first was when we first submitted in 2023 uh adherence with the high performance development standard tier one which at the time the city was considering bringing in uh which is has since been delayed. um that focused essentially on energy energy use and consumption by the building as well as the potential for production to offset some of the use. The second was a uh carbon uh building assessment which would analyze where our design currently is in terms of the carbon produced uh from construction and operations and then setting targets on how to reduce it. Uh the third was participation in the city's uh better buildings program to give one of the first uh examples of feedback from the high performance development standard so the city can see how these standards are actually resulting in operational reductions with uh a system of program that they're aware of which is a better better buildings program. And then the fourth and final one was a construction and demolition waste management plan. We would assess what the anticipated waste production from the construction process is and set targets so that our contractor can try to meet those through construction. Um so those are the main areas and I'll let Tim talk about this implementation. Yeah, thanks K. I'll just I think follow up and and kind of finish this answer in the sense uh just acknowledging that the project still has to go through the site plan control process and during the uh entire evolution of this project and even more recently in working with staff for the uh zoning and official plan amendment details. We've talked in detail about uh how we can address this policy requirement and what that will mean moving forward through the site plan control process. I think uh we can rest assured that that is going to be an aspect of that discussion as well as the fact that the requirement is still very much enshrined within the secondary plan and and so therefore a a guiding directive as we move forward through the next approvals phase. Thank you very much. Wonderful. I don't see any further questions for you. Thank you very much for the presentation. Uh to members, if you have questions of staff, now is the time. Council Johnson. Thank you. So I mean I I I think we've covered this off at a previous council meeting but of course given that I'm in an outer urban ward I'm trying to understand exactly what the value is in the landmark policy I can understand that it it what does it prescribe in terms of the land use planning on the site in real terms and then yeah answer that question first. So what does it what does it prescribe? Uh so the landmark um criteria it applies to proposals that are um seeking uh greater heights beyond what is currently permitted by the secondary plan and there are a number of criteria. I can I can list them off. Um they're also spoken to in my staff report. There's a number of contextual site characteristics. Um there's uh there's other impacts such as shadowing. There's also going through a rigorous public consultation strategy. There's also um and I I've talked about some of this today, the sustainability requirements and also um requirements for a substantial uh public realm kind of um um uh portion. So that's the pops which is being satisfied at this. So there's a number of criteria and staff have reviewed those in in detail and also the recommended OPA details secure some of the things that we're talking about such as the sustainability um um requirements also the insurityity that will have the POP secured at the time of site plan control so those are all embedded and will be future are future proofed in the way that we'll review those again at the time of site plan control. Okay, very good. So, I mean, certainly I I I can understand the uh interest in the in the POPs given the lack of land in the core that you're trying to push for public realm investments for density. I I absolutely get that and not allow for other ways to, you know, uh cash and loo or whatever else might come forward. I'm hearing that's I I guess are you not able to apply for greater density outside of a secondary plan under our new zoning in certain aspects anywhere or is there something exceptional about this that triggers the the landmark policy? Thank you. So chair if I could help clarify the policy context in this particular secondary plan is is quite unique. Um, so the underlying designation to help clarify would be nine stories. If you don't invoke the landmark policies, so there's sort of that as of right notion that nine stories works on this site. It's when you invoke those landmark policies saying we're doing something additional be above and beyond to warrant that additional height and density. So that's what brings in the things like contributing 40% of the property as a POPS which would not otherwise be a requirement if you stuck to nine stories doing the extra sustainability measures going through those special design review panels to make sure that the the product being delivered um is very high quality architecture in a very highquality public realm. These are all things that are above and beyond a normal zoning and policy framework that are sort of embedded in that landmark uh framework to say yes, you can go higher and look at additional density upon delivering these things. If that helps clarify. Okay. I I guess part of this sounds out of touch with how we're moving forward in other applications, which is not inappropriate. I'm not going to tell my urban colleagues what is appropriate and inappropriate for your areas. Um I'm interested in the landmark status giving additional public consultation uh privileges uh given you know that there could be argument for um perhaps wards like ours who see large towers proposed that are very out of character seeing our consultation opportunities slashed. Um so you know neighbor being equal to neighbor that feels a bit funny but you know bully for us I guess. Uh so in that case like I'm not going to say that we don't need this landmark policy but I guess I would just like to register my discomfort with some aspects of it except for some of the very specific hard applications like the pop something that's measurable and tangible versus you know definitions like words that are you know subject to interpretation like so much of our planning can be. But it is a it's a funky little conversation that we're going to continue to have in this context and uh I'll be sensitive to it but I'll also be constantly curious about it. Thank you. Thank you councelor Johnson. Councelor Truster or actually councelor Tener can go first. Okay. Just I'll just ask one question. Sorry. Like you go you go. We're too polite. Um just to be clear I just wanted to double check. The reason the landmark policy exists is because of the heritage conservation area that it's in. Correct. No. Or is it someone please explain the evolution of this to me because you know what I I'll just tell you like I don't disagree with councelor Johnson here. I think it's a strange policy. It applies only to the downtown transact and I feel like we're gr you know every time a landmark building comes to committee we have this very subjective argument about what counts as iconic architecture. And I'm not sure that's really something we can be asked to decide because I think what I think is iconic is very different from what someone else might. So can you just explain this policy and also second question does the secondary plan even apply anymore under a new zoning like what are the high permissions in the area right now? Yes, thank you. So, chair, I heard two questions there. One, it's important to note that the landmark policies were established with the establishment of the secondary plan, which was about 15 years ago, and it was actually one of the policies that was highly debated before the uh at then it was the OM. So, now the Ontario land tribunal and uh out of that appeal process, this was the policy that that emerged from that process. So, it was established through the secondary plan. Um to the second question, yes, secondary plans are still in effect at this moment. I think it's important to note is when you look at the policy framework where this particular property resides, if we didn't have a secondary plan, the underlying designation is is neighborhood. So from a policy perspective, it would default to four stories. The intent of this secondary plan was to look at the broader center town neighborhood and identify roads within that context that could be identified for something greater than four stories which then defaulted to nine and then up to 27 when you invoke the landmark. So I I do acknowledge it is a complicated policy framework perhaps compared to other parts of the city. Um but that is in fact how we got here going back from the original CDP and the secondary plan. Okay. So, but under the new zoning is the the as of right permission still only four stories in that chunk of the neighborhood. We can double check and get back to you, but I believe the underlying zoning was an old R4 and would have carried forward the neighborhood zoning. Okay, so I get that. So, this is a big change for the neighborhood. Let's just acknowledge it's zoned four stories and these these are going to be very tall, which is why the policy applies. Thank you very much for the clarity. Um, I ultimately think the density is good for the neighborhood. I don't mind the design and I think it's come really far. I also totally understand the community's concerns. So, um, but, uh, this is a strange policy because I think it's, uh, it creates a lot of exceptions that we don't see in other parts of the city. Um, and there's lots of other parts of the city that now are zoned four stories where we're going to have applications for towers coming in. So, might be something to look at in the future, whether it's something that's worth extending into the suburbs or contracting in the urban core. uh cuz I think we're asking more communities to take that density and uh we all have the same conversations about what people like and don't like. So, thank you very much. It's okay. Cherine, great. Uh thank you and thanks for the presentation. I think we're kind of sympatico here. Uh we're a little confusion. Maybe I don't know if uh someone from the GMA planning or someone else would be inclined to comment on some of the new provincial policies that are coming that will essentially eliminate transacts too. Um yeah, the hand is up there. I see you. So, this is it's kind of weird the timing of all of this as well. And maybe you just want to quickly comment on on on how the future bill is actually going to change a lot of things anyway. So, this is a lot of wasted time I think in my mind. Uh sure. So through the chair I I there is nothing in the bill 98 that would uh change in the very immediate future but it it has signaled a um uh limitation to how we use secondary plans in the future. It also is signaling um a different approach to how we deal with urban design. So neither one of those have been articulated in this bill yet. Um but it would if passed in in May, it would require us to uh develop a new official plan using a very streamlined uh thinner list of um elements. So um I think that staff are doing their best under the current system we have and the current rules. And so we're looking for your direction and and this is consistent to our current policy framework. But it is true that we expect by the end of this year we may be once again under a different policy framework. Yeah. Thank you and thank you for educating us on that because uh quickly the ground is shifting all the time and our our powers are becoming more and more limited. Uh while I also do support the intensification and development, it's people like uh councelor Johnson, myself, councelor, we have these different regimes I guess you could say that are happening. uh we've gladly taken a bath on things about collecting money to encourage development within the green belt. We do all these things to be able to to help build and then we have something like this pop up which seems like a no-brainer to me but anyway thank you very much for the presentation today. Thank you very much councelor Tierney. Um I don't see any other hands up. Um so can I just ask on the issue that Mr. Dreon raised with respect to the uh environmental leadership? Um on page 22 it reads you know there obviously there's that leadership and advances in sustainable design to address the sustainability requirements of the proposed official plan amendment. It has been agreed per the official plan amendment details that the applicant will provide a complete application submission that includes supporting material to demonstrate sustainable design and energy efficiency. So there is more process to come. Yes. Thank you chair. Um by the time this proposal comes back in for site plan uh we will look at what uh are the emerging leadership and advances sustain sustainability at that time and it could change again um for the second tower for example cuz this proposal will be developed in phases. Um we don't necessarily um want or want to see the proposal locked in into a strategy now. It's a little bit premature because their approach to sustainability should reflect advances and best practices which would be available at the time of site plan control. So the um as opposed to sort of baking something in right now at the zoning phase. I guess one of the critical differences is that council wouldn't be weighing in at that point. Uh it will be entirely a staff decision since it would be wrapped up with the site plan. Uh that is correct. Uh however, staff would be reviewing the site plan control application for conformity against the OP and the landmark policy that we're recommending today that which will apply to 267 O Connor Street. Okay. And no site plan. U that's a consulted public document. So both the counselor and the community would have the opportunity to weigh in. That is correct. Amazing. Thank you. Um okay, I don't see any further questions. Bear with me. I am probably going to screw up the voting order here. So, we're considering uh two different items, 41 and 42. On item 41, which is the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment, that is the amendment on the No, it's the it's the heritage permit. Okay. So, on that one, are the um staff recommendations carried with respect to the OPA and ZBL? Carried. Carried. And then on the heritage permit, there is the motion that was put forward by councelor or vice chair Gower on the sculpture, the relief sculpture. Is that carried? And then is the heritage permit 267 Oconor street uh carried as amended? Carried. Amazing. Thank you everyone. Thank you very much to uh uh everyone involved with the with this one. I think that what was the name? you Madonna. It hasn't. Okay. So, we'll move now to um motions of which notice has been previously given. Uh councelor Dudas, you have a motion of which you have given previous notice. Yes, I have. I um pardon. Thank you, chair. Councelor Dudes, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. I um if if it's with the will of my committee members, I'm going to skip reading the lengthy motion, which you know, I gave notice of a while ago, and I'm just going to speak to my intentions behind it. Um, as a council, we've been adopting and refining our policies in order to more effectively, efficiently build housing in our city and in particular affordable housing. I see this motion as an extension of that work, a means of streamlining the request request for proposal process pertaining to the development of municipal land for affordable housing and strengthening the partnership with the city's wholly owned municipal housing corporation, Ottawa Community Housing Corporation. Currently, the city requires an extensive RFP process that OC has to spend city dollars on time and resources just to bid on a city project. It seems redundant and not effective to the to the best of means. Beyond that, we have a number of community partners that regularly work with the city and OC on affordable housing projects. They are also required to go through a full RFB process that is both resourceheavy and timeconuming. So my motion is really looking to fasttrack these efforts while still protecting the city and the integrity of the process. We are in the midst of a affordable housing crisis. And when we have our own dedicated housing partner, we should not be tying them up in red tape. We should be looking for better ways to do things, especially with taxpayer dollars. So I am looking uh to modernize this process. Staff will be coming back. If this motion is successful, staff will be coming back with what they uh deem is the most effective means of doing this. And I wanted to take a moment to thank uh the chair of OC uh councelor Theresa Kavanaaugh who has been working with me in lock step as well as the mayor's office on this and city staff uh Debbie Stewart and Lily Collins and their team. this has gone through many many many iterations um and and OC as well for their input. So I'm uh I'm open to any conversation about this but uh as I said I see this an is an extension of the work that we have been doing as a council to uh better align our processes with the need for affordable housing and housing in particular to be developed in our city. Thank you very much councelor Dudes, councelor Kavanaaugh. Thank you chair. Um this is also a thank you to to the mover. Um thank you uh councelor Dudas for bringing this forward. I think it's extremely helpful um as we are working towards building more affordable housing. We need clear policy on fasttracking those policies. Um because we have to recognize that uh Ottawa Community Housing Corporation is fully owned by the city and um this means that we're we're accountable. We're accountable to the city. Um and um we have to make good use of this. Currently, Ottawa Community Housing manages 15,000 homes and it's growing with over 3,000 that are already being planned or in progress of being built right now. So, Ottawa Community Housing is accountable directly to the city and has proven its value of efficacy and high standards of energy efficiency for each unit, which is not necessary for all nonprofits. Just as an example of of cost savings, Ottawa Community Housing can currently build units for around 450 to 500,000 per unit. That sounds like a lot, but we've recently heard quotes of 600,000 for nonprofit. And so um they are uh getting us affordable housing for a very good price and it's high quality. So one of the biggest cost for Ottawa community housing is delays. Delays are expensive and every time we have delays in our process, that means that we're not getting housing built and it's costing more. So, by streamlining the process, we can have more housing, affordable housing faster and we're saving money so that we can build even more. So, I want to thank the mover for this mo motion. I want to thank Ottawa Community Housing Leadership Table uh for all their work on this in uh collaboration and also our city team for working with them and I see that partnership growing because it has been as the mayor has uh said recently this is a priority um and we need to work together and let's make good use of Ottawa Community Housing. Thank you. Thank you very much councelor Kavanagh. I will just quickly note um Danielle McGee is here uh with Ottawa Community Housing if anyone has any questions. Uh she's online. Sorry, Councelor Johnson, please. Yeah, thank you. Um so uh uh thank you to the mover for putting this forward. We had had a brief conversation about it uh in in sort of a an indirect adjacent context at committee a couple weeks ago. Um I just want to understand in terms of the bandwidth of our housing services branch given that there is constant demand on your time and attention and many many uh players partners etc that this uh motion uh fits with your current um work plan uh and whether you have the resources to commit to it. Thank you for the question through the chair. Um so this work uh sorry this motion is very much in line with the actions that were put forward through the housing acceleration plan and so staff were planning to undertake very similar work. Um this just reinforces the importance of ensuring that we have a streamlined process so we are able to undertake it. Very good. I I was under the understanding that you were planning something similar. I want to understand this motion doesn't um narrow uh that process when it comes to other housing providers that are equally as important to other parts of the city. Uh so I know that CCO Nepian housing uh as two examples have been identified as uh stakeholders that demonstrate a readiness to build. Um I want to make sure that they will also benefit from the work undertaken to streamline efforts through the chair. Yes, that is um definitely my understanding of the intention of the motion was to ensure that there's a streamlined process under um overall to benefit all nonprofit uh community housing providers um while also recognizing the role that OC um plays and and their size and scale. Very good. So, I believe the next RFP uh for uh this round of funding is imminent. Uh so I can't imagine that this streamlined process will impact that particular uh opening. Do we anticipate that the following RFP may have a streamlined possibility or are we looking maybe a little bit further than that through the chair? So we're launching the um pre-development funding RFP. Um we had recently launched a municipal lands um RSP. There are a number of sites on that process. we had introduced um streamlining in that process. So um reducing the requirements on the nonprofit housing providers who are interested in coming forward and also city staff had undertaken a lot of work to ensure that the sites were development ready um and so that work uh was undertaken to streamline in terms of the upcoming RFP uh we are looking at how to um reduce the burden on that. It's an important intake process because it's pre-development so early stage funding and that feeds the affordable housing um pipeline strategy which essentially has all the projects that the municipality is looking to support through the development process. Um and and so it we think it's important that it proceeds as a public tendering kind of open process because that is our call for intake into the municipal process. So I mean this is fabulous. We want to cook with gas on all cylinders. Mix my metaphors. I am absolutely into this. I um I am conscious of the uh the frequency in which we talk about housing services and the variability of committees that we talk about housing at. And I know that you have a like I don't even I can't even imagine what your work plan looks like. Um do you know? No, I'm kidding. Of course, you know, but I I I do wonder if there's a way for us to be able to communicate to the public and council. Like, we have a dashboard for housing starts, for example, and we have a this and a that and a this, but we don't necessarily have a way of telling the public all of the different policy ideas that we're currently working on. And sometimes we have inquiries and motions that are absolutely valuable. Um, but I do wonder what kind of more wholesome story we can tell on the policy innovation front. Um, I just think we're doing such good work and I wonder if there's an opportunity to be able to coalesce some of those various uh reports and uh there's there's toolkits and dashboards and all these other things that we have. It could be uh you know another piece of work obviously. Uh but I do wonder if there's a policy aspect to this that could be communicated out um in a way that was uh meaningful to the public through the chair. So I think that that's a really good suggestion. There has been a lot of policy advancement and development in this area. Over the past couple of years, a number like the municipalities toolkit has expanded exponentially. The process is being reviewed continually. So I think that's a very good suggestion. Um I'll take that away and work with the team in terms of a memo to council that brings us all together and tells a streamlined story and gets it out to the public. We are also working um with colleagues um in other departments who also have um connection points to housing to ensure that we're providing more information publicly on affordable housing and the developments that are um receiving funding and proceeding. So that will complement that as well. Very good. So, I I do very much want to close by thanking the mover of the motion and to, you know, recognize my my members of council that sit on the OC board and the additional work that that takes, including the chair, councelor uh Teresa Kavanagh. Um, we we're seeing great advancement in some of our uh risk-taking approaches when it comes to Ottawa Community Housing, you know, and I think one of the ones that I continue to uh reference is the uh idea of looking at our financing options for OC as a pilot, you know. So that to me was a really we we really cracked the shell of of how we're willing to absorb risk for a player of that size and scale where we can have a degree of confidence um that they will be able to deliver on our housing objectives when it comes to construction. Um that being said, I would also recognize that within the sector, I think they've done a lot of work to recognize that there's enough for everyone to do and there are other actors who are are small who are looking at mergers, consolidations and other aspects to be able to create that sort of stability for the city to invest in. And so certainly as we move forward, we do need to continue using OC as a proof point whether it comes to processes or capital funding. But then the onus will be on us to think about how we can then expand that or include those that are not just OC because there's no time is of the essence and competition is un unhelpful in this way. It's collaborative and I know the sector has been doing great work and I know that OC has been doing great work to lead some of that collaboration. So very excited for this. Thank you again for the time and energy chair councelor. Thank you uh councelor Johnson. Councelor Brochington. Thank you, chair. I just wanted to better understand because I think staff said um they were already moving uh forward on a number of reforms to expedite the uh housing applications that are coming in. Um is there any component of this motion that's new or or that staff isn't already addressing that would be a benefit for us to pass today? Do you want me to answer? I know staff are contemplating it, but No, I want staff to analyze your motion and and answer my question. Sure. Thanks. Thank you, Miss Zoo Header. Um thanks for the question counselor to the chair. Um uh some of the uh policy update such as the action Ottawa guideline um further look of how we could fast track the uh procurement process for the pre-development funding. It is already in our work plan. So we're that committed to improve that. I also want to just add a little bit um clarification is when we do the quote unquote procurement process it's basically has three components. The first component of the land and then we need to follow the citizen real estate policy like a disposal policy. So usually that goes to through a RFP process. staff does not have the authority to wave that process but through the council's motion or council approval um sometimes that process could be waved under very unique circumstances. So that is happening. The second uh category of our procurement process or resource allocation process is the uh um funding the capital funding. So those are the develop the the money to support the construction of affordable housing. Um for that staff already have the delegated authority which was approved by a council through the capital strategy and the budgeting process. So this has never been an issue. We didn't need the RP process. The pre-development funding uh usually it's a $250,000 per project. that is to invite um affordable housing projects into our pipeline so that we can support and help a wide uh range and variety of affordable uh development types and housing providers. So that doesn't need to uh rely on either RFP or the more enhanced streamlined expression of interest process and we're continuously looking at improving that. Okay, thank you for that answer. Um, the motion specifically refers to affordable housing, but I assume staff is looking at all processes for all housing applications. There's no developer in this town that will say they're satisfied with the amount of time it takes to have their applications processed by the city of Ottawa. That is the top complaint I hear consistently. So in the context of this motion which I think is the right discussion to have, what are we doing within the planning department to ensure that all applications are being sorry the processes are being reviewed. So I have no objection at all to um the sentiments or the objectives of this motion, but all housing is important. The majority of housing that's built in the city is not affordable housing. So what are we doing in that context through the chair? So with regards I just want to go back to the last question really quickly with regards to the components of this motion. They are very much align with the work plan. This is primarily about reinforcing it. The overall goals of the housing acceleration plan were to streamline the end-to-end process because you know as you point out kind of time is money and we do have an urgency to get all housing types um built and developed. We will be coming forward to um joint uh finance and planning committee at the beginning of May with an update on the housing acceleration plan actions which includes a number of quite a number of actions in terms of streamlining the overall process. Most of those actions that council had um directed staff to undertake have been uh undertake or are in progress. Um and so you'll have a full um update on that and as well some estimates in terms of time savings and I'll maybe just ask if my colleagues in the planning department wanted to add to that but I can assure you that there is ongoing work in terms of streamlining all processes given the importance of housing. Yeah, through the chair. Um I would I would add I mean the we're going to see the update on the housing acceleration plan coming to a joint committee in the joint um agriculture and planning committee in the first part of May. And I think you're going to see the tremendous progress that has been made in terms of uh concrete changes that have already streamlined the process for the uh the housing that comes through that isn't through the affordable stream. Okay, I appreciate uh those dates and I look forward to that uh report. Um so I'm my question today is just trying to better understand whether this motion reinforces what a word I heard staff use existing plans or whether there is something new that we're trying to achieve. Um and perhaps the mover can address this. I'm going to support it because uh I think it's the right thing to do, but I'm I was just trying to tease out what's new here that we're not already doing. And more importantly, uh if it's

Full Transcript