Transcript: Contamination and Funding Concerns Raised - Comité de la planification et du logement — le 4 mars 2026 | Summary 140

Contamination and Funding Concerns Raised - Comité de la planification et du logement — le 4 mars 2026

audio test one for the meeting Dream. audio test two for the meeting Dream. We're going in 1 minute. Good morning. Bonjourus. Uh, welcome to our 61st meeting of the planning and housing committee. Uh, I want to acknowledge that Ottawa is located on the unseated and never surrendered territory of the Alangquin Anishnabi nation whose culture and presence have nurtured and continue to nurture this land. Um, I think we have a quorum, so I'll skip the roll call. This is a public meeting to consider the proposed comprehensive official plan and zoning bylaw amendment listed as item 52 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 March 11th, 2026, please email or call the committee or council coordinator. Are there any declarations of interest? No. Just pull up a different screen. Uh there are no declarations of interest. Are the minutes of our 59th meeting for uh February 4th, 2026 confirmed? Thank you. uh response to inquiries. Um I will ask uh Vice Chair Gower to make his uh motion to lift that to the agenda. Be it resolved that the planning and housing committee approved the addition of this item for consideration by the committee at today's meeting pursuant to subsections 893 and four of the procedure bylaw being bylaw number 2025100 to allow for the response to be listed on the agenda at the earliest possible opportunity following the submission of the inquiry at the February 25th, 2026 council meeting. Amazing. And councelor Curry, I'm assuming you like that held We have the 2025 annual report pursuant to the building code act. They are prepared to make a presentation if asked for. Uh we don't have any delegations and we didn't receive any correspondence. Is this members wish to have this held? No. Is uh that received? Thank you. the amendments to align the transportation master plan with the official plan. Um there is a presentation ready if uh required. We don't have any delegations. There is no correspondence on the matter. Did members wish to receive the presentation on this or have it held? No, I'll hold it for a comment. Pardon? I'll hold it for a comment or wait, this is or is it the next one that I want to hold for a comment? I think it's the next one. So if we carry this item Yes. approved and adopted. Yes. Oh, councelor Kavanagh would like that held. Okay. So, we'll hold that one. Did you want the presentation? Okay, we'll get the presentation on that as well. There is also the transportation master plan development charges amendment uh which we're going to ask to be held. Did you want the presentation on that one? No. Okay. So, held for questions. We don't have any uh delegations on that one. There was correspondence from Jason Bergraph at GOBA. The area specific storm water development charges amendment Riverside South. Uh there is I hadn't anticipated the presentation. We don't have any delegations. There's no correspondence on the item. Um did members wish to have that one held? No. Um is that item carried? Thank you. Perfect. Had uh anyone intended to lift the housing acceleration plan item 11 terms of references update for discussion? No. Perfect. So we'll receive that. Thank you. So going back to the beginning is the Canada Lakes item. Councelor Curry. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to many of you here for first of all allowing me to ask a few questions, but second of all, thank you very much to staff who work very hard to get this to us quickly. Right. turnaround time for inquiries it they take a long time. So, uh I really appreciate the community really appreciates how quickly this one came. Um I will say that um I I do want to just remind res uh not residents all of you here that currently uh there is work going on in this course to do testing right so earth is being disrupted removed um lots of things taking place with very big machinery right so people are afraid for a number of reasons because they believe and it is documented there's mercury contamination across this entire site 175 acres Right. So, as you can imagine, if you can imagine being a city council in this area, uh, a lot of emails, a lot of people scared. The house is back right onto this site. They believe it to be mercury have mercury contamination on the entire 175 acres. It just hasn't all been tested. Um, so I've got children writing to me, parents worried about their dogs. This has always been their public park. And so, there's a lot of people very upset. So, I did want to say that in one of the inquiries, it was sort of glaring to me and to the community so far that the city response was that no, the city has not received or conducted a sitewide risk assessment addressing mercury contamination mobilization across the full 175 acres. That's a problem. So, because we don't know where it is, here are my questions. Does the city intend to do any of its own independent testing on the entire site? Chair, the there have been discussions with the land owner with respect to accessing the site and and being able to do some of that testing. I understand that there are some um discussions that are continuing to be uh going ongoing with respect to accessing that. We are prepared to, but it will require coordination and participation. uh from the developer and the property owner and I appreciate the situation the city's in here, right? This is a massive undertaking. It's just that this is I think this highlights the challenges with cities uh with municipalities that we don't have the you know the horsepower to do that kind of testing but yet there could be a risk and then you know the city's then potentially liable and that that's really what my concern is obviously for human health but also for city liability and all of us. So, um I think that we are really glad uh the community and myself and probably all city councilors that we've hired WSP. Um but when would we find out exactly what their scope is because it it seems very much like the developers will do the testing and then WSP would look at was it done properly as opposed to WSP doing the testing before anything goes on and then letting the city know. So what exactly is WSP's scope? So WSP has been hired by the city to do peer review and oversight of the work being done by the consultant for the developer. Um as Derek mentioned, uh we will have staff from WSP on site. Uh in the absence of being able to do the testing on our own, we will have staff there watching the consultant for the developer do the testing to make sure that they're sampling in accordance with the provincial regulations and uh requirements. Uh we will also have WSP peer review all of the environmental submissions that are coming in from the developers. So to date that would be the dust and sediment control plan for the preliminary environmental works and also the existing environmental site assessment reports that we have from the original planning application. Thank you very much for that. So uh in another meeting I talked a little bit about the precautionary principle as as a all of us we have to exercise that. So city staff that if we have known if we have information about a danger that you have to exercise precaution, right? You have a duty of care and you have to use a precautionary principle ahead of time. But what the community is seeing is that a lot of this is happening uh after not precautionarily. So what exactly is done being done precautionarily? I'm happy to start and if Erin wants to add in the developers have informed us that they are uh doing additional soil sampling before any excavation is taking place and looking at um removing any soils that are uh over this over the threshold. So, so mercury is a, you know, there's an acceptable level of mercury in the environment and the site has levels of mercury on it that are above that acceptable level. And so, they've indicated that they'll before they do any of the works that they are doing additional testing any um and and either doing the work in another location where there isn't a mercury concern or removing the soil that's on site. They have installed sediment and erosion fencing to prevent any um you know runoff from the site. uh in addition to that. Thank you very much for that. But the the challenge the community has is that we've we've just said we don't know where the mercury is across the 175 acres and then we say where there's no concern but they don't know that there's no concern. Like that that is what I'm getting at. Like if we don't know where the mercury is, but yet it's a golf course where you know those chemicals, pesticides were put over the entire golf course and over a lot of years because it's an older course and that's when they used a lot of mercury contamination. C the chemicals they used had a lot of mercury in them. But we don't know where it is. We only know that there were sites and there the levels were very high, but we don't know that levels weren't even higher in another location. Right? So we we're going on that we believe that the ones that the places that weren't tested maybe don't have any mercury, but we don't know that to be true. You see the challenge? So the phase one and phase 2 ESA did a number of samples across the site. Um and I apologize I haven't added them up and and got into rough an exact calculation, but roughly twothirds of the samples on the site did not have excessive levels of mercury. So there are certainly areas where there is, you know, exceeded, but there's a lot of the site that does hasn't demonstrated that there is exceedences. And I appreciate that there's community members that may have concerns, but it has not yet been borne out in any of the evidence. The developer is doing additional testing currently as they're as they're proceeding with their work in the areas where they're going to be doing excavation to ensure that they're dealing with it know what they're dealing with in those areas and that they're dealing with it appropriately. If there are exceeded But at the same time, we're saying we don't actually know. Like the answer to the inquiry was no. The city does not know across 175 acres. The the we have not received that study, but they are continuing to do environmental sampling testing for mercury before they undertake excavation works. Currently, yeah, I don't know. it's that this is not an easy thing for me to go back to the community to answer and say don't worry about anything you know like that that's the problem how am I supposed to go back and say that like I have asked for specifically you know the the medical officer of health has written a letter to the MECP but I've asked can he further elaborate on whether he has concerns or not you know and and I've asked for that I mean do you see me getting a response uh so that the community could say well that the medical officer of health is saying that he has no concerns about human health and wildlife and water. Um, I'll answer that. This is Marcia Wallace, the general manager of planning, development, and building services. Um, I have spoken with the medical officer of health. He's explained to me how and when he would typically get involved in a ministry regulated file like this. It is uh usually if there's a a very clear exceedence or pathway to um that creates a a public health concern and they are trying to figure out you know for example what will the permanent mediation be in terms of how to uh uh protect people. But at this point it there is no reason from his perspective um for the uh public health to get involved that and he has made that clear to the ministry that if and where they see a role for him he would um step forward but at this point uh he does not see any um specific action that public health should take and we have shared with him the ministry tables and the ministry He's uh familiar with the ministry process. He's been involved in other situations, but he does not see this as a a file that he needs to be involved in at this time. Um can we ask him to put that in writing that he doesn't have any concerns? I don't So that's not within the purview of this committee to do. Um maybe I can do that just separately. Yeah, I I might approach him because Okay. obviously he's he's independent of of council. Okay. And then um just in just the last question, what defined triggers would cause the city to require immediate independent intervention? What would what would it take? Chair, the Environmental Protection Act is ultimately enforced by the Ministry of Environment and if there was a known credible um violation of the Environmental Protection Act, we would certainly be notifying the Ministry of that and the ministry would be the ones that would enforce any violation under the EPA. Okay. Thank you. And thank you to the committee for allowing this. Thank you, uh, Councelor Curry, Councelor Brockington. Thank you, chair. And um I just want to acknowledge uh the significant work and undertaking councelor Curry has taken on this file. I I think if you outlined to your residents, as I assume you've done, all the steps you've taken, uh particularly all the various groups you've engaged for advice and direction on the mercury matter. I think your your residents will agree you've done as much as you can as the local counselor. Uh my question um to staff is just regarding one of the first questions councelor Curry asked and that was about whether the city would engage on testing themselves and that's very rare to go on private property to engage in a test that um if it was warranted we would just ask the private property owner to do and and show us the results before they would be permitted to proceed with any type of development. So just for my clarity, where are we on that? The councelor has articulated it's a huge parcel of land. We're not aware exact or not exactly aware of where mercury can or is can be or where it is. Um so what are the next steps? Are we waiting for more comprehensive geotechnical studies to be developed and then what type of analysis do we put those reports through? Chair, one of the conditions in the draft approval um that was provided by the Ontario Land Tribunal was that they achieve a record of sight condition for the site before they advance towards uh the residential development, which is a more sensitive use than the commercial activity that was there previously. Through that record of sight condition, they are required to um to demonstrate that the site has been remediated appropriately and that there is uh no risk to human health. And certainly Aaron can elaborate on that in in much greater detail than I can. Additional conditions were that they will submit a remediation site remediation plan uh including dust control measures and other measures to limit um the movement of soil in and around the site and that's something that we would expect to see as before they move forward to um full-scale construction. We've given us a preliminary and an an interim plan to date, but as they go towards full construction, the impacts will be, you know, significantly greater and um the the studies and requirements will be in more detail as well. Okay, last question. I won't belabor this any further, but what is the actual risk to human health? Is it leaking into the groundwater? Is it uh uh breathed in through dust in the air once you disturb the soil? What is the actual risk to humans? The there are a number of modes of action that mercury can take that can impact human health and the guidelines that are prepared by the ministry outline what the risk levels are for for various types of you know modes of action. Sometimes it can be because there's a constant sort of uh presence because the home has been built on top of uh soil that is higher containing mercury and that's actually one of the more sensitive modes of action because you're in that constant exposure. A variety of people can be exposed to it um including infants and and pregnant women uh that are are more you know at a greater risk than you know fully grown adults. Uh there are other modes of action that could be uh skin contact um you know breathing and and there are within some of the documentation from the ministry there are sort of thresholds of concern for each of those and the standard is set at at you know at the most most conservative level which is uh related to the um infiltration through the through the home. Um so thank you very much colleagues. I don't see anybody else on the speakers list. I will ask um legal about the uh responsibilities that the city has. I'm concerned that if we take on um a lot of the responsibility for uh testing and assuring residents in things that are not within the city's purview that we're actually taking on more liability than we should. Can I just get a clear understanding from our city legal staff what is our responsibility visav uh the environmental contamination issues? Mr. Chair, as outlined in the response to the inquiry uh legal ser the city solister has retained the out an outside uh lawyer with expertise in environmental law and he will be reviewing this matter uh and advising the city with respect to those details. Mr. Sure. And is that the best protection that we can provide ourselves while still trying to meet the expectations of the residents? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. Okay. Uh so colleagues, I don't think we need to do anything that that was a response to an inquiry. Thank you very much to uh staff for making yourselves available this morning. Thank you very much, Councelor Curry, for uh making sure that did get on the agenda today. And thank you very much to Vice Chair Gower for moving that motion. We'll move on to the next item which is the amendments. Have I got the right one? Yep. The amendments to align the transportation master plan with the official plan. Uh councelor Kavanaaugh I think you asked that we received the presentation on that. So uh we are in staff's hands. Is anyone going to give us a presentation on that? Apologies, chair. Was this item carried earlier? No, we held it. Council Kavanagh had asked that we u may have the presentation. No, no. Good morning. Apologies, chair. We had our wires crossed there. So, uh, I'm Royce Ruin, manager of policy planning, and joining me is Deb Lightman. She's a program manager in transportation planning in relation to the TMP. Uh, next slide. So, just a bit of a background, the official plan amendments before you today are just really to implement what council approved in 2025 in the TMP capital infrastructure uh plan. Uh it updates transit, road, active transportation networks. Um from those currently included in the official plan and the direction at that time was to update the official plan for consistency with the approved TMP. Next slide. So amendments before you today are, you know, technical in nature. They're just really meant to implement the TMP. We're looking at updating the road classifications, rightway protections, ultimate road and transit networks, after transportation networks um that are shown in the various schedules to the official plan. There are also minor updates to the evolving neighborhood overlay. Uh then the evolving neighborhood overlay also includes areas around transit stations and since some of those transit stations have moved slightly um we are just aligning the overlay to uh match those new locations and those are shown in document 4 in the package for you today. Next slide. And here's a snippet of what those look like. Uh just if you wanted to get a sense of the the order of magnitude. Red is the old service station locations and green is the new locations. Next slide. Uh furthermore, we're looking at updating the definition of frequent street transit um to include continuous bus lanes and recognize them as higher order transit priority facilities that are intended to support frequent street transit service. And again, the route road network updates to two secondary plans and a bar haven downtown and the mayor blue developing neighborhood. And those are shown in document one appendix B. Uh next slide. And here's a snapshot of what those look like in the package before you. Again, just some realignments of those um those networks in those secondary plans. Next slide. So in closing, the recommendation before you today is to update the official plan to align the mapping and policies with the council approved update to the TMP and reflect minor changes to neighborhood zoning details. So the new bylaw implements the evolving neighborhood overlay. So the recommendation for you today is to update the new bylaw to reflect the new station locations uh in relation to the over evolving neighborhood overlay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Uh we don't have any delegations signed up, so straight to staff. Thank you, chair. Um thank you for uh taking the time to to do that. Um this is an important issue in my word. Uh with seven brand new stations coming in, um we're going to see uh transportation getting to the stations is really important. Um especially active transportation. And I want to know um how it's going with discussions with the NCC since their pathway system is really important. Um I had an incident this uh this winter of just trying to clear paths to get to the station that exists. Um and it was a back and forth of trying to decide whose responsibility it was. Um and finally stage two took the took the lead and um actually got people to get to the station. Um, so I I just want to make sure there's no blips in the future that we're looking at how people get to the stations. I'll provide a bit of leash on on that one, but it's it's well outside the purview of what this report is addressing. So, okay. Through the chair, we do work with uh the NCC on planning and implementing um pathway networks that work for all of our residents. Um the ones you're talking about wouldn't have been in the transportation master plan. they were part of the stage two um project scope which was established uh well before this transportation master plan. Um but going forward we do have sort of every intention to to try to develop pathway networks um through our works and through uh the NCC's work that connect us to our our transit stations. Thank you. I just wanted to get that clear because uh people are concerned about that and a lot of frustration. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Kavanagh. Sorry, I just got to pull my screen back up again. I don't see any other hands up. Uh, so is this item, what are we going to do? Received. Thank you. Uh, and so my understanding is that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee will also be uh dealing with this matter on Oh, it's carried. I'm sorry. Is that item carried? Amazing. Which leads us to the uh second one that we held, the transportation master plan development charges amendment that was held without a request for a presentation. So did you just want to go straight into questions, councelor kits? Sure. I don't actually have questions. Um but the team can come up if they want comment. Comment. Yes. So I know that this um is highly administrative but I have been looking forward um to this report uh because since 2023 I've b brought forward seven motions related to transportation infrastructure and planning that are outstanding and I asked for an update on them recently um and I won't bore you to death with the details but I will I will refresh your memory a little bit. So, April 26, 2023, allocated allocating increased funding to major transportation infrastructure projects in areas of significant new development. January 15, 2025, development charge funding principle for new roads allocation. June 26, 2025, use of development charge future debt and new funding strategies um and feasibility of establishing transportation infrastructure conditions for draft plan of subdivision and state plan control are some of the uh motions I brought forward and you'll see that um three of the therefore be it resolves were supposed to be resolved um in this report um but after getting the briefing on day. I fear that the spirit of the motions which is of course they're all trying to accelerate infrastructure projects in growth areas uh is being lost because in my view what's in this report does the opposite. It is reducing development charges by 2% outside the green belt. Uh that's before provincial DC discounts and non-stutory exemptions are applied. So in practice, it's really a 20 to 30% reduction. There's a placeholder of 319 million for upper levels of government funding, but there's nothing in the report on conting contingency if that doesn't materialize. Main street mobility improvements are now drawing from DC's. They were not before. Uh continuous bus lanes have been moved from the transit category into roads and related. Um so we are asking to do more projects with less money when in the last TAP we didn't have enough funds for the committed projects. Um and I raised this of course because the projects to support growth are not moving fast enough. I will say that until I'm blue in the face. There's been a degradation over time for roads and rel related projects. Um and it's my belief that this report furthers that. Um I am being told that all eyes on the LRFP um and that there may be some relief coming there. So I'm holding out hope for that um because we need to start doing things differently. I have been begging for creative solutions to fix what is broken. There are 13,000 units on the books for Orleans South. The widening of Brian Coburn from Mail Blur to Navan Road is in the books for 2032 to 2035. In my opinion, it's needed today, but I think that timeline is optimistic um based on this what's in front of us. And I can almost guarantee that it will be pushed out further. Um and that's road capacity for buses and for vehicles. Historically, what has happened is we put the projects on paper, counselors go to their communities and say, "Don't worry, it's coming." And then it doesn't materialize. And what's more dangerous is that the developers use the projects to justify intensification and you end up with the transportation mess that is Orleans South. So, we have to fix this. and I thought about bringing motions forward today, but I am I'm temp I've temporarily lost faith in motions. So, I'm just going to vote against this, but I am pleading once again. We need solutions to accelerate transportation infrastructure in growth areas. I'm going to say it at every meeting. Thank you. Thanks, Sher. I agree with councelor Kits. Um, but I'm not going to focus on that. Um somewhat surprisingly, I think we only had one written submission. We have no delegations today on this and usually development charges um bring a a lot more attention and interest, but the one delegation or the one submission, pardon me, was from GOBA and they raised a number of questions and I wanted to know if staff is going to be providing a formal response to GOBA or how they're planning to respond to the questions that GOBA raised in their letter. So, we did respond yesterday evening at around 4:15 p.m. Okay, that's question. So, my follow-up's going to be, could you circulate our committee on that response so that we're aware of how you've uh answered or addressed their concerns? Absolutely. We can share that. Thank you. That's all. Chair, thank you. Um I'm actually just going to make sure are you uh under will you take that as as direction? Yes, we can. Perfect. Thank you. Uh councelor Curry, it's just on that. Can you just give us a quick summary though of what you said? Just take a second and pull it up. While you're looking at that, I can go ahead with my other comments. Um, so what councelor kits said was that we have uh reports that indicate well we're hoping other levels of government are going to fill this gap for development charges. That's what we're hoping and praying will happen. But there isn't a contingency plan if that doesn't happen. If that doesn't materialize or at least not enough money it materializes. But do staff have a contingency plan in their heads that we just haven't seen yet. through the chair. The projects uh that have the expectation of funding from other levels of government are the continuous bus lane projects which are being submitted to the Canada public transit fund. We're actively working with the province to get those into the federal government shortly and um we do know there is funding available. Uh the the Canada public transit fund does have a kind of large Canada wide allocation and our application is based on our sort of reasonable expectations of what the city of Ottawa might receive. So we are um at this point in time kind of cautiously optimistic that the funding for those continuous bus lane projects as well as our transitway projects uh they're they're all they're all being submitted. Um oh sorry both types of projects are being submitted. Um so so at the moment there is kind of real funding uh that the federal government has allocated and that we would hope to um hope to use for those continuous bus line projects. We haven't because we are busy preparing and submitting that application. We haven't thought about h if if or how we would implement the continuous bus line and the transit way projects if we did if that funding doesn't come forward. Um we do have sort of transit isolated measures funding that isn't contingent. So doing smaller scale projects would perhaps be the uh one path forward to make sure we can uh allow our buses to to move s through the city quickly. So and thank you for that. I'm glad you guys are working very hard on that and and maybe we will get the money. Um I think though I don't know if count councelor kits was thinking this exactly but there's the bus lane projects but there's not so many others like there's not just bus lanes right I mean you just look at in Canada the the uh the light the traffic light projects on March Road right and on Terry Fox right and so we're relying on developers as well to frontend those so that we can get them done but we don't really have as as we're sort of talking about we don't have a contingency for this like we just we just keep pushing it out because we don't really have a plan you know through the chair um just I understood your question to be only about where we've expected funding from other levels of government the other types of projects extremely important as you note uh but those don't have in our study or in our kind of funding plans we we don't expect funding from other levels of government those would be development charges and tax funding um to kind of the to the general question about ability to implement the study aligns with the new transportation master plan in terms of um kind of the number of projects and the speed of of implementation and uh we absolutely agree that it's critical to meet that schedule. Uh we we need to deliver uh all of the projects to support growth that are in the study and we are working collaboratively with finance and infrastructure services um kind of looking at the the issue from all angles and recognizing that that that hasn't occurred in the past. Um, I mean the reality is we have had low tax increases in this city because that's what people tell us they want. When we go to election, people say they want low, they don't want property taxes increased. Uh, we don't have that many options, you know, to get money for these types of projects. It's tax increases and if people aren't going to, you know, vote for candidates that want higher tax increases, then we suffer without the money to do some of these projects. I understand the transportation master plan. We've put years as to when these things are going to happen. But you look at this situation, not to go back to Canada North, but if that development were to ever go forward on the Canada Lakes Golf Course, Campo Drive needs to be widened. We don't have a widening till 2046 on that road. 2046. We I mean, you know, all the history of that. We built all those buildings assuming the LRT would come to Canada. And you know, the density now is insanity. And we have still have the same little two two-lane Campo Drive and no LRT, you know, and you know, we carry on and and residents complain and complain and complain. We say, "Well, you know, just wait till 2046. No problem. People tell me I won't be alive by then. I will not live to see this, you know, happen." So, you know, honestly, this is this is quite the time for infrastructure in my opinion. But anyway, if you have a summary of what we said to go, that would be helpful. Yeah. So they asked us about 11 questions and clarifications. So uh the first question or clarification was around the percentage changes um between the roads um rates. So we clarified what those were really their their rates of change were were based on on a previous study not the current rates. So that was clarified in the response. The second question was around uh property. Um I don't know whether you want to talk to the property piece. Okay, perfect. So um what our response there was we agreed with what they were proposing. So we are looking to make an adjustment to the final table. It doesn't have any implications on the rates. It doesn't have any implication on the capital program. It's really just a clarification in the table that's there. Um so we will make that adjustment for the final study. The next question they had was around the VKT um that was used. So it was uh vehicle kilometers traveled uh in transit mode share calculations. So again that was a table included in the study um that they were seeking clarification on. Um so the the updated study does include those tables. So um we did provide that clarification. And the next one was surrounding uh life cycle renewal for traffic monitoring systems. So that question was really the concern around life cycle renewal being in the name because it's not DC eligible if it's if it's strictly renewal. Um so we did clarify with um public works traffic staff that it that name is misleading. It was used in previous uh studies. However, it is misleading. So we did clarify that it is um also pertaining to growth that program itself is only um 20% growth related. So that is pertaining to the growth component of that. So we did clarify that response as well. The next one was around um the various works yard facilities. Uh so they were looking for clarification on why that program increased. Uh so that's a public works project um within the study. So it increased um from the 2019 study um by 10 million. So that is largely due to cost escalations in that program. So we clarified that with staff and clarified that back to GOBA. The next question is surrounding bte changes. So uh city staff provided clarifications on why there are bte changes uh throughout um the study itself. So this one was pertaining to network modification program and why that's less. The next question was regarding uh the intersection control measures program. Um so just questions surrounding um the the provisions for inside green belt outside green belt. Um so we clarified that and the next question again is around bte changes. So the change from transit priority measures uh that is being realigned to roads and related services. It was previously 32% bte in transit and it's being realigned and into an amended program to uh four to 5 bte. So that was clarified. And then the next one is surrounding development sidewalks and urbanizations. um they're looking to clarify that program and the local service obligation. So we clarify that in the response and the local service guidelines is also included in the amended study that's attached to this report. And the second last question is surrounding the grants and subsidies. So we do have the inclusion for um or provision for the Canada public transit fund metro regional agreement stream and then the last question was surrounding growth. So they were looking to understand why the growth was less uh within this study than the previous and and responded to that question and really that we haven't changed the the population employment targets from the 2024 study but growth occurred quicker in the previous planning horizon so it was updated to a lower number within this horizon. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you. Uh, councelor D. Ro, is your hand still up? Yes, it is. Welcome. Virtual hand. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, councelor Kits is spot on. Um, I supported the transportation master plan as a compromise. Um, there's a lot of water in that wine, but the expectation would be that we would move on road projects, right? that add cycling capacity, add pedestrian capacity, uh support our bus network, uh increase uh um the reliability or improve the reliability of buses. And I was a bit surprised to see in the budget, like we were all gung-ho about the TMP and then we get into the budget, not a lot of design work underway. So, if we're going to go after federal provincial funding, start the design on some of these key road projects like Earl Armstrong so that they can get to a point of construction ready. And as I said yesterday at corporate, start purchasing the land that we need to acquire um so that we can get them construction ready as quickly as possible. Um I agree with councelor Kits and and several of the suburban councilors. Um we've seen significant growth and and the infrastructure has been lagging and residents are prepared to do more on housing, but they want to see the services and infrastructure that go with it. And we can't just press the easy button um as councelor Hill says for suburban um development and not have kind of the infrastructure that is needing. Certainly pre-amalgamation they would have done a lot of the work that we're contemplating at the present time. So please get started on some of those design works that are critical. On the issue of funding um do you have the money uh for Earl Armstrong both extensions as part of um the calculations that you're doing today through the chair. The Earl Armstrong uh extension is within the 10-year horizon. So it is included in the development charges uh background study same kind of order as the transportation master plan. So we will have the money to do these projects once we get to the state of construction readiness which needs to happen sooner rather than later. Correct. Okay. And for the transit projects, so the Riverside South BRT from uh Bar Haven to um Riverside South, which will take pressure off the Vivian Memorial Bridge, which will massively improve reliability of our bus network, which will connect uh many, many people to the line bank station. Um the Bank Street um lanes that we're contemplating uh in South Ottawa. You're proposing that we would secure federal provincial funding for these projects so that they can advance through the chair. Uh yes, the submission to the Canada public transit fund is uh based on the transportation master plan. Um the public transit capital program was not updated within this uh background study. Um but the submission for that funding is proceeding and our our ability to use development charges is kind of consistent and and uh with with the existing study. So it is Sir. Yeah. Yeah. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, Councelor Dur. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I thought I cut off the um I cut off um staff there, chair. I I didn't mean to. Uh yeah. Uh the answer is yes. We we are pursuing funding for all of those projects. Okay. And when will we get an answer on these on these pursuits? as you say uh through the chair we don't have exact timelines. Um we we have of our full application into the provincial government. Um but the kind of timelines that follow from there in terms of submitting it to the federal government and receiving responses are uh are a bit unclear. We have also we we have emphasized the urgency uh in in various ways including uh letter to the federal government uh in December. So we are doing everything we can to to get that process moving and keep it moving. So play it out and if we don't hear from them what we come back and we re revisit the the uh the mathematics on this that you're proposing. uh through the chair. I the annual budget cycle is the time that we look at the funding that we would reasonably expect to um receive or the status of those and if that funding is not there, what we can do without it. Um, I mean I think the I I did mention that the we have a high degree of confidence that that Canada public transit fund metro region agreement stream funding is available. We've already qualified. There was an expression of interest um early submission. So um we have been invited to submit a full package. Uh so kind of early signs are positive. Okay. Well, you know I and members of the community will be following it closely. They live day day in day out uh as do many people right across the city with the pressures of growth that we're seeing. Um they're concerned about the growth projections that are proposed. They're concerned about seeing developments going forward with no minimum parking and and how we're going to accommodate this from top to bottom. Um so I look forward to um you know seeing some real progress on this that this the the energy that we had in the TMP to get this done needs to continue and uh really be a force to respond to uh the residents. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, that's all. Thank you very much, counselor. I don't see any other hands up. So, with that is the report recommendations carried. Descent. Thank you. Descent. With the recording of descent from councelor kits. We'll move on. We have no in camera items that I'm aware of today. We've already uh dealt with the IPD. Uh are there any notices of motion for consideration of the subsequent meeting? Nothing came in ahead of time. Nope. Hands up. We do have an inquiry from counselors uh Gower and Kits. Yes. So, we're jointly bringing this forward. Uh, traffic and pedestrian safety near schools is a significant issue for planning reviews involving new schools. What standards or guidelines does the city use to evaluate transportation plans submitted by school boards? Are there any projects active or planned to better understand and plan for changing school transportation dynamics? For example, pedestrian movement, mode share, parking requirements, and so on. Thank you. Thank you very much for vice chair and counselor. Um, are there any other inquiries? Nope. We don't have any other business. We're adjourned until our next meeting on April Fool's Day, 2026. Thank you, colleagues.

Full Transcript