Transcript: West Mount Opposes Official Plan Changes - 2026-04-20 - Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee | Summary 380

West Mount Opposes Official Plan Changes - 2026-04-20 - Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee

Welcome everyone for the planning and strategic initi committee for April the 20th. I'll confirm if there's any disclosure of pecan interest and the general nature thereof. Okay, seeing none, uh I'll get a mover for the consent items. Moved by councelor Davey. All those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Okay. This is uh to all the delegations. The city values and encourages participation and dialogue in a democratic process that occurs in council and committee meetings and through written submissions and correspondence. It's important that these interactions remain respectful towards other members of public staff and council. In case where dialogue is not respectful or delegates interrupt counselor, staff or other delegations, make derogatory statements about counselor, staff or others that are disrespectful or use hate speech or language that is considered harmful or defamatory. The chair may interject and take necessary actions to maintain a respectful inclusive environment for everyone which could involve removal from the meeting. One last reminder, delegations are permitted to address council for maximum of 5 minutes which which will be displayed on the screen in front of you. When there is 30 seconds remaining in your time, you will hear a small audio tone that will signal 30 seconds remaining. Please take that time to conclude your presentation as there will be second tone at the completion of your time and microphones will turn off shortly after the exceeded 5m minute mark. Lastly, please do not take offense if following your presentation. There are no questions from council. This is council's time to really listen and reflect upon opinions and ideas shared with us from our community members committee. There are the primary uh item of discussion will be 5.1 which is Kitner's uh 201 new official plan. An update uh I want to bring your attention that you guys have received a number of written submissions. Uh just to address they are already registered about 20 delegates so far this with this one item alone. Uh there is a delegate for item 61 for pivot net zero 2025 progress update. Uh I don't want to make them wait the entirety of the night. So I'm going to go to that item first so that they uh they can take leave. So we'll go to item 6.1. And uh okay so I'll ask the staff are not delegating on this. So it's just to the delegates. Uh that's Ann Schneider and Peter Heyman. Welcome. Are you presenting together or separately? Uh separately. I was I was doing um the 10 minutes. You're doing the 10 minutes. Okay. All right. Proceed when you're ready. Net zero is an ideology that is part of the United Nations Agenda 21 sustainable goals. The goal of this global non-government organization is to track, trace, and control everything including human beings through data sharing with money transferring from the developed nations to the lesser nations for equity. Its purpose is to change government to governance. There will be a transfer of power from the individual to a global governance system. If any member of this council does not understand that you voted yes to a global non-government organization that has no binding contract with the corporation of the city of Kitchener, then I suggest you read the book Behind the Green Mask UN Agenda 21 by Rosaora or you can go directly to the United Nations website which is a little overwhelming. Under the agenda 21 heading falls many branches including net zero 17 sustainable goals the global warming. All of these are so intertwined it is difficult to separate one from the other. The 2.0 is about raising capital. $250 million is needed for this globe goal to be achieved by 2050. That is $10 million a year for the next 25 years. I know that the corporation of the city of Kitchener does not have the money because I asked this question in November 2025. The majority is coming from provincial and federal funding. That money can only come from two different places. One, the Bank of Canada has printed it, or two, the fiat money is already in the system. Either way, the taxpayers will be paying for this capital funding. Although it may not be so difficult to get since Mayor Verbanovvic has just been appointed chair to the Green Municipal Fund for the next two years by the Federation of Canadian Municipality. The targets to achieve this ideology is proving to be very difficult with the lack of technology and payback is longer than expected or not at all. One project that has been completed is the street lights retrofitted to LED lighting. The project saved the city money, but the most recent report states that emission increased by 26% from 2024 to 2025. Is that not going the wrong way? Each category in the report that did not meet the greenhouse gas targets had the statement, "Prioritizing the three pathways of energy conservation, fuel switching, and generating renewable energy continue to remain important components of the city's climate strategy. I do believe that Jana Lich, who is an expert in cultic studies and professor Emiratus of sociology in California State University, has explained this situation best. And I quote, "A political cult is a group or movement with a shared commitment to a usually extreme ideology that is unusually embodied in a charismatic leader." End of quote. She continues to explain that this thought process works like a pyramid scheme. The existing group coaches the new members on proper behavior. The 2.0 document shows this group think on page 48. Staff will continue to identify and bring the right people to the table to accelerate and implement the work. In Cambridge, a revised energy conservation report was prepent presented to council last September and three out of nine counselors expressed strong skepticism of the climate narrative and voted against even receiving the report. The township of Thorald has completely pulled out of the globalists non-government organization. They just said no with zero repercussions because there was no legally binding contract. The bottom line for everything is money, and net zero is no different. Carbon tax is part of this narrative. 2.0 states on page 51, and I quote, "Carbon offsets can either be bought or sold by an organization acting as a mechanism to reach emissions reduction goals when additional absolute reductions become difficult to achieve or be used as a source of revenue." End of quote. So, there you go. Problem solved. You can just buy your way out. Or better yet, spend millions of taxpayers dollars, sacrifice the economy, have credits in the bank to sell to other cities and make money. What a win-win. But for who? Net zero pitfalls are evident across Europe and Great Britain. Both are Mark Carney's home bases. Germany now pays the highest electrical prices in the EU, and the British electricity rates are catching up to Germany's. In Kitchener's first draft of the official plan 201 on page 23, it states the province estimates that electricity demand will increase by 25% by 2050. For a brief second, um, your first five minutes is done. Is Peter also delegating? No, I'm taking all the 10 minutes. I have already clarified that. Oh, I see. Okay. All right. Gwen Morgan, who is a retired leader of five global corporations, wrote on April the 14th, 2026, "Net zero is collapsing. Despite trillions of dollars spent on renewables, fossil fuel still furnishes 86% of the world's primary energy. That is the reality policy makers in net zero obsessed countries like Canada have tried to ignore. It is not a coincidence that over a trillion dollars in investment has left Canada since 2015. That is the same year that the United Nations brought out their 17 sustainable goals. The progress report mentions that the 2.0 remains important to the city's climate strategy, which is the 17 sustainable goals of Kiter's strategic plan 2023 2026. The mayor participated in an interview with three other mayors from around the world talking about the SDGs, the sustainable development goals. A concern from the mayor from India was a lack of data collection. It needed to be monitored and worked on more closely with academia. Project managers had been brought in at the beginning of the project with the STGS built into them so that progress could be monitored. Everyone agreed SGS are good for business. Do you remember what the goal was of agenda 21 to track, trace, and control? The host asked the mayor from Portugal about the integration of SGS. At this point, I could see the psychological nudging creep in. He started by saying, "It must start with the mayor. He must speak SGS. He must say, "We want our language to be SGS." Once the mayor tells the team to speak SGS, now he must empower them, promote them. The SG team now speaks to civil society. We have to tell the team that they are catalyzers. We are now talking about a new way of designing and implementing public policy. We have implemented SDGs beyond a political mandate. All the mayors agreed that the best ambassadors of the SDGs are the children which become catalysts. The message that the public is told and that human beings are destroying the world. Children are being told this from academas. My niece believes I am a bad person because I eat meat. My other niece has criticized her dad for being white supremacy for renovating the bathroom with a rain shower head. I have 30-year-old women telling me they do not want to have children because they're concerned for global warming. I know a family that went through a teen suicide because of what that child had been taught by academia. Did you have these results in mind when you implemented this pro policy? My guess is no. Is the phrase it is good for the greater good still being promoted? Mayor Verbanovic ended this portion of the interview with, and I quote, "We got to keep driving this and not let the naysayers talk us down." End of quote. The naysayers are the silent majority. Enough is enough. It's time to kick out the globalism and bring back localism. Thank you. There is one question from the committee. Um, councelor Deno, I would really request that we keep this prescribed to the item uh, specifically as noted. It's not for direction to staff. It's only information and uh, so related to net zero progress report. Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair Singh. Um, two quick questions. So in in your opinion net zero is propaganda is sorry I didn't hear that. In your opinion net zero is government propaganda. Um I would go so far as to say it is higher than that. Okay. Uh my second question is do you know why Germany pays highest of energy costs in the EU? Yes. because Germany had instigated net zero to the absolute degree and it had collapsed their um economy for energy. Russia Okay. So So I'm going to stop you there because it's because of tax levy the the burdens and search charges. That's why 50% of their energy costs are are directly related to not actual energy costs. So they shut down their nuclear. Yeah, I'm good. Thank you. Thank you, councelor Deno. Councelor Davyy, specific to the uh the agenda item, Mr. Chair, I'm aware. Um yeah, sorry, I'm just I'm just not completely clear too um on you have you didn't come out and quite say it. Do you believe in anthropogenic or human-based climate change? Do you believe that's a truth or not? Uh to a certain degree, but not to the nth degree that it is being told for human beings. I I believe that human beings are um well aware of their actions and I think they are responsible and I don't think that we need to be told that uh we are the sole problem of this and and that narrative does come from the globalists. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's all the questions for you. Thank you. I'm going to leave this. Yes. Uh Madame Clerk, if you can take that. Thank you. I'm going to actually go to item 5.2 because we have staff from uh the transportation department and it's going to be a long night to keep them here for a couple hours is going to be rather unfair. So, we'll go to item 5.2, vision zero, annual project update. It's a presentation from staff for five minutes. Mr. Chair, yeah, we'll do our best. Uh, we did get a recent upgrade in the council chambers apparently. either I'm speaking softly or we needed a better upgrade, but we'll do our best to uh speak a little more firmer, louder into the mic. Mr. Kronite, I'm I'm requesting you guys to present first. Otherwise, there's going to be 20 delegates ahead of you. Yes. Oh, careful. Connor, I believe you're you're delegating first. You're making a presentation. Just key in when you're ready. Oh, try again. Now you are. Go ahead. Uh, good evening members of council and everyone in chambers today. My name is Connor Payne and I'm the project manager of transportation safety with the city of Kitchener. I'm joined today with uh my director of transportation, Barry Kronite. And together we are pleased to present the vision zero annual update. Uh the report before council today speaks to two key areas. uh first the progress achieved uh in previous vision zero plans and second the nearly 30 proposed safety improvements uh for which we're seeking council approval for today. Uh I'll begin with a brief overview of collision trends using the 2019 through 2024 uh data set for the purposes of this report. Uh from 2022 through 2024 there were zero fatalities on city of Kitchener own streets. This marked three consecutive years without a fatality on a city of Kitchener Street, which represents a significant milestone for the Vision Zero program. Uh while the 2025 uh while the 2025 uh collision data set is not yet complete, staff are aware of two fatalities that occurred on City of Kitchener streets in 2025. Both were investigated with the Waterlue Regional Police Service and safety improvements have been implemented. When we look more closely at contributing factors, some clear patterns emerge. Across 2023 and 2024, approximately 80% of injury collisions involved aggressive, distracted, or impaired driving behaviors, uh, marking driving behavior as the leading contributing factor in serious injury and fatal collisions. We also see a disproportionate impact on vulnerable road users. Um, pedestrian and cyclist collisions account for 34% of injury collisions despite representing only 3% of all reported collisions. This reinforces the importance of infrastructure design, traffic calming, and continued driver education. Uh, importantly, we are also measuring the effectiveness of our interventions. In the last two years, staff have collected follow-up data on previous hotspot locations. These results show an average reduction of 10 kilometers per hour or 18% in vehicle speeds along roads that receive speed control measures. Education is a pillar of vision zero. The 2025 road safety education uh garnered millions of impressions across television and social media, not including radio outreach, helping reinforce key safety measure uh messages citywide. The Sidewalk Smarts program also continues to be delivered to grade three and four students in our partnership with the student transportation services of Waterlue region, helping children learn how to safety n safely navigate their communities. Looking ahead, we'll continue with the similar education campaign structure in 2026 while also launching a new in-house transportation safety video series developed in collaboration with our communications team. This will further expand and diversify our education tools and allow us to reach residents in new and engaging ways. Uh turning now to the proposed uh improvements in this report, staff have identified 19 streets as hotspot locations for 2026. Uh all of these are summarized in attachment A of the report. Of note, five locations are within school zones and an additional four are on uh school routes or near school crossings highlighting our continued focus on child safety. Across the program, there are 23 raised traffic calming measures planned along 12 streets, two radar feedback signs at an additional location, and six streets are going to be receiving upgraded signage and pavement markings specifically addressing safety at sharp curves. We are also proposing approximately 185 meters of sidewalk infill on Glasgow Street. This will be connecting an existing multi-use pathway to the intersection of Glasgow and Park Street. This location sees heavy use by hospital staff traveling between the Waterlue uh parking lot and the uh beside the Catalyst building in Grand River Hospital and will eliminate the need for an uncontrolled crossing to access the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. Beyond hotspot improvements, 10 streets will be reconstructed using complete streets guidelines, creating safer, slower, and more inclusive all uh rights of way for all road users. Finally, staff are continuing a partnership with the UN University of Waterlue alongside municipal partners. This research includes evaluation and validation of improvements once implemented. We are excited to continue this innovative work. Based on the progress and results highlighted today, staff continue to recommend the data-driven hotspot program. This approach is equitable, evidence-based, and effective at delivering safety improvements across the entire street network. Collaboration has been fundamental to the success of Vision Zero, and we will continue to closely work with our internal teams and external partners to advance this important work. Thank you for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Conor. There is some questions. Uh, Councelor, I don't have any questions. I'm happy with the the report. I'm just going to move it. Okay, councelor Denell. Thank you chair Singh and uh thank you Connor for for your presentation. Um just a quick question to graph number two the injuries and fatility sorry fatality coalitions by road user. What category does ebike ecooter fall into motorcycle pedestrian or cyclist or motorist? So through the chair ebike uh depending on the classification of the ebike um it would fall into a very different class. So if it's um we go by the provincial classification or waterl regional police services when they're uh they're filling out the report. So if it's uh one with pedals, it would fall on a bicycle. If it's one without, then it would fall in all likelihood under a motorcycle. Wow. Okay. And are we seeing an increase? Um, I know I hear about it in my community, but are we seeing an increase in in collisions and and uh accidents along our trails or sidewalks with ebikes and e- scooters? Uh, through the chair, what I would say is those are types of interactions that are typically not reported. Um, when we're talking about vision zero, uh, we're talking about collisions that are reported and we're looking at serious injuries and fatalities. So along our trails, that's not while the um the interactions are often reported um they're not reported as um as injuries or as a as a collision per se. Okay. Thank you. Just a couple questions myself. Uh it's a really positive report showing considerable work that's going to be uh done towards speedcomming or just ensuring more greater safety for our roadways. Some of the things that were mentioned were trail connections, trail extensions, uh sidewalk uh installation where sidewalks don't exist. I mean we used to have a broader program where we did a lot of that and different things. Vision zero kind of uh collapses it to or brings it under one umbrella, does it not? uh through the chair. That's the intent. We try to um as you'll aware number of you are aware number of years ago what we tried to do is make sure that um we're making datadriven decisions. And so by bringing it all under under one umbrella uh we're able to do that in what we feel is the most appropriate manner. Yeah. I think the reason why I'm referencing is to show that there are increased wins with vision zero beyond just road safety. It's interconnectivity too. I'm assuming. Absolutely. Yes. One of the things that uh didn't get highlighted as significantly, but we see a good immediate result from is the councilled speedcomming measures. How does that play uh within vision zero? Uh through the chair, it's another tool in the toolbox. Um when we look at vision zero and we look at um road safety specifically uh every tool that we can apply uh using the five E so education enforcement um evaluation the the infrastructure component building them all together is is really about what road safety is and so it's not any one tool um the the seasonal traffic calming is definitely a tool in the toolbox that we will continue to use. So because the seasonal trafficcoming measure is sometimes the most effective and immediate course of action when you receive complaints from a particular neighborhood, will we continue on enhancing that pillar of the net zero uh I guess that structure that's kind of built upon? Uh what I would say is that we're we we have a very robust program when it comes to seasonal traffic calming and it's something that uh I think we'll continue to roll out. Uh the program in my opinion is uh probably at capacity uh simply because it is um quite ownorous for our operations team to uh install and remove um you know we're talking upwards of over 100 signs now. Uh so they have to remove them in the the spring and fall seasons and it does take quite a substantial amount of work to do that. So, uh, at some point we'll have to say, you know what, we're at capacity. The program can't be grow beyond this simply because of, um, the constraints on the staff team. Okay. Uh, Mayor Vanovich, thanks. Just very briefly, I just want to thank staff for their, uh, work on this. I know that this is, uh, an important area of concern for our residents. I also want to take this opportunity um to just remind folks that um council has available to them the small um slow down lawn signs and if uh folks uh are interested in having one on their for their boulevard they can reach out to myself or members of council and be happy to provide those as uh and that's one of the initiatives through this uh overall program. Thank you Mayor Venovich. Uh those are all the I mean no other comments. I'll quickly make my own. I thanking staff. I think it's quite a uh uh momentous step forward towards ensuring safer roadways. I think uh the report outlines in year 2022, 2023, 2024, there weren't any fatalities and that's saying something for a city our size with the amount of vehicular traffic on our roadways. I know there were some unfortunate accidents in 2025, but we learned from them and we made those roadways uh more safer um realizing additional measures that can be incorporated as well. The comments I really want to relate to is I have no concern and full confidence in staff on their broader program for vision zero because the proof is in the pudding. It's working. It's it's you know giving us results that's making our community safer. One of the things you did outline uh Mr. Kronite that the uh the seasonal uh speedcoming measure uh it is uh labor intensive or ownorous with the number of sites that are across the city. But I again want to re-emphasize and again this is opinion shared by many members of council. This is a program that we feel that we can quickly be responsive and direct our staff to incorporate road safety or that that perception of a greater road safety uh where they do help uh anecdotally reducing speeding on roadways. It helps even greater when it's a three um vertical deflectors in a row as opposed to one where people can just swerve around. Uh I will continue emphasizing the very least if you're not looking to broaden the program and having additional sites, let's turn all the sites that are just one delineator to the to the three where we can cuz I think that enhances road safety across all the 10 wards. Okay, with that can I get a mover on the item? Um councelor Ionitis, you have moved it. All those in favor opposed that carries. Thank you. Just uh let staff take a minute. Changing seats. Council has jokes you can share if you like. 20 minutes. Okay. Okay. Okay, welcome staff. Uh again, item 5.1, kitchen 2020, sorry, 201 new official plan update draft. John, I believe you're presenting. You will be taking 10 minutes. So, whenever you're ready and I believe uh our consultant, city consultant, uh Jamie Cook is joining virtually as well. So, later on, if members of the committee have more questions, um Jamie will be available to answer them along with staff as well. And we have uh our other leadership team from the planning division in attendance also uh Natalie and Rosa. Thank you. Go ahead John when you're ready. Good evening chair, mayor, and members of council. Today's presentation will provide an update on the Kitchener 201 project and specifically the second draft of the official plan. Developing a new official plan has been more than two years in the making and is fundamentally rooted in Kitchener strategic plan initiative of building a city for everyone where together we take care of the world around us and each other. It is built on the values shared by the community members in over 3,000 conversations and over 70 engagement events for the past two years. These values highlighted affordability, thoughtful and resilient growth, access and inclusion, safe and sustainable mobility options, and mutual care and belonging as core to a new official plan. It is framed by the big ideas of our neighborhoods, our economy, and our environment that permeate the second draft. The approach to growth endorsed by council last summer represents an intentional shift towards expanded housing choices being available in all neighborhoods across the city, particularly missing middle housing. Some planning approaches taken in the past across North America have in part contributed to the challenges that we are now facing, including the housing supply and affordability crisis. The draft official plan boldly addresses these challenges by planning in alignment with the values that were shared by the community in over 3,000 conversations and that the community have said are important. It prudently links land use planning decisions with the city's role in addressing the housing supply and affordability crisis, the climate emergency and resilience in the face of global economic uncertainty and its impact on jobs here at home. A key part, pardon. So, developing the draft official plan was underpinned by five engagement principles that informed the engagement approach. These principles are outlined on page eight of tonight's agenda package. One particular engagement event that stands out to me that really en encapsulates the engagement principles took place at the Centerville Chip Community Center about a year ago at a neighborhood food program. Many of the participants at this event had language barriers, worked multiple jobs, and lacked an understanding of how municipal government works, let alone the planning process. These factors have historically limited their ability to participate meaningfully in many city processes, including city planning projects. At this neighborhood food program, staff were able to connect with residents in multiple languages to better understand their needs and aspirations for the city moving forward. This struck with this stuck with me and members of our team as we were able to use these conversations such as the one at the food program and experiences to really shape the policies that you see in front of you in the second draft. The engagement approach taken does not mean that voices that have historically influenced planning processes won't be considered. What it means is that the voices of those that have traditionally been underrepresented or do not have access to participation will have equal opportunity for influence. A key part in creating a meaningful process included creating a community working group for the project. This group was made up of individuals from every ward, each with their own unique set of experiences and perspectives living in the city. The community working group met once a month for approximately 18 months and directly influenced the development of engagement tactics and events as well as the policies that you see before you in the second draft. Chimaka Emadi served as one of the group's co-chairs and is with us tonight to share some of her perspectives and experiences working on this group. Thank you, John. Uh good evening everyone, council, Mr. Mayor. My name is Chiaaka Maddie. I am a grade 12 student at Kitchener Waterlue Collegiate, also known as KCI. And just as John said, I was selected as one of 35 members of the working group. And I was eventually appointed to be one of the three co-chairs. And it's such an honor to have actually been the youngest member as part of that project. And I hope that my contributions can better help shape Chimaka. If you don't mind, speak closer to the mic. You're doing amazing. My apologies. We're all old here and hard of hearing. So speak a little closer. Can you hear me better now? I can hear you much better now. Thank you. Do you want me to restart or do you just want me to No, no, you're good. Just carry on. Awesome. Yeah. So, as I said, I am the youngest member of the Kitchener working group, and it's been such an honor to uh put in my auditions and my contributions, and I hope that they can help better shape the Kitchener that thousands of young people like myself will inherit in 2020 20. uh as co-chair my role included serving as a liaison between the city staff and the community working group members and I created a messaging platform where we could bounce ideas off of each other concerning topics like housing bylaws and zoning and those were topics that previously I'd actually never heard of before. So this was an amazing opportunity for me to get to learn uh about the city around me. Um thank you all so much for this opportunity and I hope you have a great rest of your night. Thank you. Well, madame co-chair, thank you very much. You did really well. Thanks. So, the draft official plan was shaped by over 3,000 conversations with First Nations, the community, and collaborators in over 70 engagement events. Early phases of the project included a public kickoff in October 2024 with a launch party on Gawk Block where over,200 people shared their aspirations for the future along with the values that they felt ought to be in the official plan. Phase three saw over 700 conversations with the community and over 30 engagement events including conversations with local indigenous local indigenous groups, grade five students and city advisory committees. The conversations during this phase directly informed the preferred approach to growth. Engagement activities were used to simulate what life could be like in 2011. People were asked to experience a day in the life both as themselves as well as an avatar, putting themselves in someone else's shoes with different experiences and abilities to see how the city of the future could impact their needs and vice versa. As part of phase four, over 400 conversations were held in community centers across the city, online and in writing, mostly about the first draft of the official plan. All of these conversations from phases one through four from community members and collaborators in all neighborhoods and all wards representing a range of experiences had a direct influence in shaping the draft official plan before you. Following the release of the first draft of the official plan on November 13th, a number of key themes emerged from the comments, including employment area lands, particularly the requests to carry forward existing land use permissions, comments from the West Mount neighborhood, including opposition to the city structure and land use designations that were applied and requests for neighborhood specific cultural landscape cultural heritage landscape policies. themes around commercial policies, including concerns with rental commercial replacement policies. And lastly, strategic growth areas with requests being made to expand these areas to parts of the city that were not identified in the first draft. So with respect to employment areas, city retained consultants Watson and Associates reviewed the proposed employment areas lands for conformity with provincial direction shown in red on this slide. Jamie Cook from Watson and Associates joins us virtually tonight and is available to answer any questions that you may have regarding employment areas. As a result of the review, 425 Bingammen Center Drive was removed from the industrial growth area designation as it did not align with the provincial direction for employment areas. All other lands were determined to align with the provincial direction and have been maintained in the second draft of the official plan. City retained heritage consultants undertook a detailed review of the Westmount cultural heritage landscape geography to confirm its boundary and associated cultural heritage attributes. As a result of this review, the consultants recommended that two CHLs be identified rather than one, the West Mount East and West Mount West CHLs. The second draft of the official plan includes new neighborhoodspecific cultural heritage landscape policies for the Westmount East CHL. These policies are consistent with the policies for the four other neighborhood CHLs identified in the second draft and provide guidance for the conservation of the identified cultural heritage attributes. Additionally, new policies have been added to the mixeduse A and neighborhoods land use designation that provide further guidance on how the implementing bylaws will be applied in the future. It identifies considerations based on the cultural heritage attributes for regulations like front yard setbacks, building height, and building massing. A number of criteria were used to determine where proposed strategic growth areas were applied. These included proximity to higher order transit like ion stations, the GRT frequent transit network and the Ottawa Street Regional Intensification Corridor. Additionally, proximity to the cycling and trails spine network, retail spaces, food stores, and urban centers were used as criteria. The strategic growth areas are reflected in the proposed city structure in the second draft. In response to feedback received, a comprehensive citywide review of strategic areas was undertaken to identify and remove all lands that did not meet the identified criteria. This includes lands within 300 meters of industrial growth areas to align with provincial direction directing sensitive uses away from employment areas. The areas that were removed as strategic growth areas in the second draft are shown in the red hatching on this slide. As part of the first draft, we also heard concerns around policies that would require the retention of commercial spaces on properties. In response, staff looked to ensure that there was flexibility in the policies and continue to review these policies. In conclusion, the recommendation before you tonight is that staff consider the submissions provided on the second draft official plan attached to report DSD 2026151, including submissions made at the April 20th, 2026 committee of council meeting in the preparation of the final new official plan. Thank you, and we look forward to listening and continuing the conversation tonight. Thank you, John and Jamaica. Again, uh appreciate your presentation. If you want to take a seat, we will proceed to our long list of delegations. Uh once more to the committee. Uh we've gotten a number of written submissions that you can review through email. Um councelor Johnson, you had a question. Go ahead. Yes. Uh thank you, Chair Singh. and through you at the appropriate time. I just wanted um delegates to know that I will be providing direction to staff to move forward with some um considerations from many people in the West Mount neighborhood. Do you want to pinpoint some of those considerations so that the delegates as they come forward they're already aware uh potentially what would be uh how the direction that you are wanting to p provide to staff? Thanks chair saying yes I will. Yes the uh first consideration would be for westmount one neighborhood one land use designation. The second is one neighborhood one cultural heritage landscape designation. Uh the third is clear height limits um including a three-story maximum being asked for and the fourth is a complete cultural heritage recognition. Okay. Thank you. that helps for the committee to know exactly which direction that you are encouraging towards and uh and for the delegates as well. Okay, with that again once more we have I believe 21 delegates so it will be a long night. I would really appreciate uh if there's a group concerted on a single item if you can try to bring new information as opposed to repetition of something that may have already been said. If it uh coincides with your advocacy, it'll help for the night to go uh smoother as well as we want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to speak. This is an important night and we want to ensure that all the voices are included in our overall consideration of the official plan. All right, first up is uh Kathleen Kresky. Kathleen coming up just the committee uh because there are so many probably midway we'll take a break and that may allow those that have already presented for them to be able to exit if they don't want to stay to to the end of the meeting. Kathleen, welcome. You have 5 minutes to uh make your presentation. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kathleen Kresky. I have lived in Kitchener for most of my adult life and I object to the Kitchener 201 proposal. In the summary document on page eight, we see a map showing yellow as neighborhood growth areas with a picture of very pleasant town houses and indicating gentle intensification. So far so good. Now on page 22, we see the very same yellow color, but haha, here it is called neighborhood. And instead of gentle intensification, we see shops and services and six-story buildings. And we see light purple or mixed use with eight-story buildings. Now, to really understand the implications of this, we need to compare to the 2014 official plan. Whoops. Wait a minute. That went way too fast. Sorry about this. I lost my spot. Okay. Um, in the 2014 plan, which is currently in effect, yellow is low-rise residential. You see it throughout the whole city. Single semis, town houses, and three-story buildings with commercial subject to a number of con conditions. In the 20 map on the right, um, the yellow is diminished considerably as the light purple is expanded into this low-rise residential area. So what was previously low-rise residential throughout the entire city is gone and now it's 6 to8 stories and commercial anywhere. So why the change? Waterl region has the second highest downtown commercial vacancy rate in all of Canada at 30% with the national average at 18% and the best performers at 12%. So why convert housing into commercial space? This makes absolutely no sense. So let's look at growth. The 2014 plan already allows for growth by converting single dwellings into higher density housing. So how much growth are we talking about that we have to expand far beyond these parameters? Now if I say tomorrow it will be Tuesday, that is a fact. But if I say Kitchener will have 450,000 residents by 201, that is a forecast. It is not a fact. Forecasts are made by extrapolating data and trends into the future. And having worked with actuaries for decades, the forecast is only valid if the underlying assumptions remain the same. However, this is not the case. In recent years, we did see tremendous demand for housing due to two main factors. CO and the exodus from the GTA into cities like Kitchener and Cottage Country with work from home and the influx due to immigration and international students. Since then, there has been a 180day degree turnaround on both fronts with return to office mandates and government policy changes on immigration. Here is just a sample of the headlines in the last few months describing this dramatic turnaround. Yet, the plan still proposes turning our neighborhoods into intensified growth areas. I have only five minutes, so I must focus on the neighborhood that I know, West Mount. This is not NIMBI. This plan affects all of your wards, but actually not every neighborhood. I read the full 200page report and I was surprised that six neighborhoods are afforded special protections not mentioned in the summary report handed out at the openhouse meetings. So, I read the full report. Subsequent to attending the Victoria Hills Community Center openhouse, the second draft was amended to include a small subset of West Mount East with an indication to look at West Mount West. This 135page book describes West's Mount as an area worth protecting and the city's own 2014 report warns against, and I quote, these wonderful neighborhoods being ignored or misinterpreted in future planning initiatives. And that is exactly what is happening now. Now, according to City of Kitchener, we love our hoods and that's great. And residents take the lead, so we're taking the lead and we're saying no to the 201 plan. And the city aspires to a tree canopy at 30%. West Mount is already a neighborhood with significant enough tree cover to warrant autumn curbside collection. Another reason to say no to the proposal which would pave over our housing and destroy trees with commercial anywhere and six to eight story buildings. In closing, West Mount residents love our hood and we take the lead and require the entire West Mount, both east and west, to be designated a cultural heritage landscape. Again, I'm only speaking to this neighborhood because it is the one I know and I only have five minutes. counselors, it is up to you to represent your neighborhoods. And if you haven't heard from your constituents, it is very likely that they simply don't know. I only heard about this because my West Mount neighbors printed and handd delivered a flyer to my house. The city today Oh, I lost my slides. The city today can freely already use city-owned property to explore the concepts. Kathleen, can you please if you can begin to wrap up? Yeah, I have two more sentences. Thank you. Um, the city today can fully exploit the immediate ion corridor, particularly with the planned $4 billion expansion to Cambridge. Finally, we expect recorded votes on anything related to this proposal so that coming into the November election, we can be well informed when casting our votes. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you. No, please. Uh, there's again, I I'm sure that you will all agree there's no performances happening here. This is the public's opportunity to speak to their representatives and so we're all here. We're inclusive voices. So we don't want to be able to clap. You may agree with some voices. You may not agree with the others. So we want to have no emotion to anything that's said at the podium unless it's derogatory or something which case I will take action. But again, Kathleen, thank you for uh for presenting. There's no delegate no questions of you from the committee. But before you go, cuz you did pinpoint that you advise that all recorded votes be taken. There will be no decisions made today. Yeah, today's the opportunity for us just to get a first look as a committee of the uh official plan draft and then members of the committee will make general comments that staff will take back and um and then that will uh that that will form the final draft. Thank you very much. Yeah. Next up is uh David Kresky. David, are you from the same household as a previous delegate? Are you from the same household as a previous delegate? Yeah, I'm speaking through the 2020 51 plan. Yeah, not a problem. I'm just uh going to remind again try to focus on new information as opposed to what's already been said from the previous delegate. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay, so I'm David Kresky. I live in West Mount, West Mount West, an area that the planners say has no cultural value, but its true cultural value is green. West Mount West supplies all the water for downtown Kitchener and beyond. West Mount West is green. This slide is a bit misleading. The planners only consider green heritage as parks and empty spaces, usually city-owned. This is West Mount. This is green. Kitchener's water comes from West Mount. The arrow from the top, the red arrow, points to the water wells at 647 Glasgow Street in West Mount West, south to the railway. Do you see all the green? No condo towers, no apartments, no wide flat roofs, no massive parking lots, just green. Single family residential, grassy lawns to absorb, trees to shade. This equals water. Here are the water wells. The only wells in inner city Kitchener and at Greenbrook in Forest Hill. My discussion applies to both areas, but Kitchener downtown is West Mount West. This shows the pipeline from West Mount West down Glasgow Street in West Mount to Strain Street pumping and treatment station. Strain Street, the key facility in the region's integrated urban system primarily servicing Kitchener's downtown distribution, the central Kitchener pressure zone. The water supplying Strain Street comes from West Mount West. The five or six wells in West Mount pump 191 L per second. Small number, right? That equals 16,512,480 lers in a 24-hour day. That equals 500 million lers a month. That is more than 6 billion lers of water every year. West Mount West is water. When you folks at city hall or up the road at region or in all of these surrounding condo towers flush, you are flushing Westmount water. Downtown Kitchener, vibrant as it is, provides zero water to the system. West Mount is your water. If you look at this map here, this is from the region. It shows the wells, but what you need to focus on is the bowl shape around the wells. That's the catchment area for water. Here's this pumping station at Glasco Street, a little building. The regional document suggests this is the only thing that needs protecting. But of course, this just covers a hole in the ground. It's that bowl shape that creates your water. Here's Glasgow Street at the top, Fischer Halman. And as you go down, you can see the bowl shape going down and then up again. Here again is Westmount. This is green. The red circle is where the well is. The way water works is this. The catchment area comes in. All the hills come down and it becomes it's a huge sponge. All those front yards, backyards, all that grass you see is what absorbs the water and it comes down like a funnel. And then your well is that little hole at the bottom of the funnel. But without the catchment area, you have no water. Water crisis. There really isn't a water crisis. We've been underwater restrictions for four decades. The crisis is in leadership and planning. The region has failed us. But this plan proposal is your plan. And if you approve handing the city to developers, the consequences will be on you people, not the region. Even a tiny 3% decrease in West Mount water supply due to so-called gentle intensification. 3% is a small number. That's 495,000 L a day lost. 15 million lers a month lost. 178 million lers of water every year lost. The region is looking for more water, not less. The bureaucrats say groundwater is a hidden resource. West Mount West knows that the water is there and we've been protecting and nurturing it for more than 50 years. Kitchener's water is West Mount and Forest Hill. You need to protect these areas and we are suggesting that you move these areas out of growth and into what they really are green natural conservation heritage areas. Kitchener Council has the opportunity here to show leadership and protect our water. West Mount West extends from the railway to Waterlue and from Fiser Halman to West Mount Road. Thank you. Good compliments. you don't repeat yourself from the previous delegates. So, you guys coordinated really well. Great job. Uh, thank you. That's uh it's been heard and there's no questions of you from the committee. I appreciate that. Next up is Greg Shepard in person and Julia Kausski is joining I believe. Oh, through PowerPoint. Okay. You're presenting together as one delegation. Excellent. Go ahead. when you're ready. Council members, Mr. Mayor, my name is Greg Shepard. I'm here with my fellow resident of West Mount, Julia Kazowski. Um, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you tonight. And thank you, Councelor Johnston, for your preliminary remarks. We're very encouraged to hear that. Um, notwithstanding those preliminary remarks, we would like to proceed and give you our presentation. Um, for the record, um, Westmount 201 is a residentled initiative that's focused on improving Kitchener 201 official plan to protect West Mount's historic neighborhood. The reason we formed this group was there was strong community concern with the draft official plan in the first draft when it first came out. It risked irreversible impacts to West Mount if the plan is not changed. We had extensive discussions with city staff and and communications and we're we're pleased to hear that seems to be listen being listened to. So why why are we here? West Mount is a unique neighborhood in in uh in Kitchener, but the current draft of the plan did have potential to damage it. We recognize, however, that the city is facing urgent pressures, housing affordability, homelessness, infrastructure, and capacity constraints. But we don't see the city's protecting the city's historic neighborhoods is incompatible with addressing these these urgent challenges. What what did the city hear? In John's presentation, he referred to there having been 150 distinct commentators. We we' referred to the uh the um staff report that we saw thought it said 130 whether it's 150 130 of those commentators those distinct commentators 80 of them were about West Mount. So there was significant concerns raised from our community. Um what what that means is well over half of the comments the city received from distinct commentators related to West Mount. So as a result of that if you're to fix the issues pertaining to West Mount as councelor Johnson is suggesting you're proposing to do that will resolve over uh twothirds of uh of the commentators that you've received. Why does West Mount matter? It's a dist deliberately planned historic neighborhood. Key features, gently curving streets, some with center medians, well-maintained homes from the 60s back to the 20s. Unique heritage lighting and other character features. heritage lighting that was recently renewed in 2020 with the great assistance of Mayor Verbanovvic and councelor Johnson when they supported the neighborhood in uh encouraging and directing staff the procurement staff to replace the lights with historic lights that were so much what we had thereby continuing to retain the character of the neighborhood. Um it actually functions like a city park that the the sidewalk neighborhood throughout the uh throughout the neighborhood and uh that's why we think it's worth protecting. I'll turn it over to Julia now and give you a brief history about the neighborhood. Thanks, Greg. Um, I think it's worth mentioning to that the the neighborhood itself is a non-renewable resource, right? It is what it is. It's there and once it's gone, it's gone. Um, with that in mind, I'm going to give a brief history. There are books written about West Mount and we have 10 minutes. So in brief, uh the community was originally planned in 1912 by Talman Ryder and uh he envisioned this community to benefit the growing industry in Kitchener at that time. But it wasn't until 1924 when Ar Kaufman and other notable entrepreneurs worked with the city planning commission and the city of Kitchener to establish West Mount as Canada's first comprehensive city plan. So hundred years ago, this community was was planned out, laid out streets and lot lines. Um, and it was purpose purposefully established and considered a pioneer in the Canadian town planning movement. It was also part of the early city beautiful movement in North America in the early 1900s. So for a hundred years, this community has been treated by the city as a single cohesive neighborhood. And that's where we have some concerns u because the official plan is is essentially threatening that. So, here's a a summary of our problems, but I think the next slide on a map will really help outline it. Really, we want to see West Mount treated as one neighborhood, and right now it's being split up into multiple areas. So, I'm going to click to this next map, and I'm happy to bring this up after if there's any questions. But hopefully, if you can get your bearings on this map, you can see West Mount uh old West Mount as a neighborhood are the green and yellow areas with the houses. You've got the Westmount Golf Course to the west, the city of Waterlue to the north, Belmont Village, the commercial area, are those little gray rectangles on the east side, the right side, Glasgow Street, and West Mount public school along the south there. So, up until this draft official plan, uh, West Mount, Old West Mount, the neighborhood was considered one single cultural heritage landscape. And the draft that's come out is now proposing to split them along West Mount Road into West Mount West and West Mount East with different cultural heritage protections. In addition to that, and almost more concerning is what's happening along the purple delineation there. So east of Dunar Road all the way to Belmont Village is being proposed as a strategic growth area mixeduse A and in that area would be uh eight-story building per permitted development as well as some commercial uses as well. Then as you cross Dumbar Road you would head west and that would be the neighborhood growth area which would be a different land use designation and would permit six-story buildings and a different commercial area designation. So you can see here how we're chopping up this neighborhood into two different cultural heritage landscapes, two different land use designations, but three different zones overall that have different rules, uh different guidelines for them. It's confusing. It's it's it's really not in the vision of this original community from a hundred years ago. And and we're hopeful that we can make some changes to to maintain this this community's integrity and cohesiveness. So, let me start with the strategic growth area and why this is an issue. So, in the official plan, it's highlighted in purple and it's it's signaling to the developer community to please come and intensify this area vertically. Um, and to do that in a historic cultural heritage landscape really conflicts with other parts of the official plan which say that one of the goals is to conserve cultural heritage resources. It also conflicts with the goals of the residents who live there who would prefer not to see eight-story buildings in their one and a half to twostory residential low-rise neighborhood. So, it really undermines undermines neighborhood cohesion and and introduces less compatible land use designations. Um, why should height limits be in the official plan? Well, in John's presentation, he did note that thankfully the the staff did work and added new cultural heritage landscape protections in the official plan, the second draft, but they're they're largely quite soft and subjective and they're really ineffective without enforceable height limits. Um, up until today or up until this the first draft, there was always a three-story limit in any low-rise neighborhood and that's been around for a hundred years. And so this is quite a big jump to suddenly introduce an eightstory limit in a historic neighborhood. And I've been told that the height limits will be limited further in zoning bylaws. However, deferring those types of limits to zoning bylaws introduces risk because those can be amended easily and really just creates uncertainty because we're looking at another year before those even get drafted. Ultimately, a three-story limit existed in previous official plans. It should remain in in this historic neighborhood. Um, thanks. Thanks, Jul. I think we should move a little a little further along now we're running out of time. How do I advance this? You got it. You and we are the stewards of of West Mount. The early elected leaders, business leaders created West Mount. The current residents have worked really hard to maintain it. If we don't take steps to maintain it, this jewel in in the community will be lost. And again, I'm thankful to councelor Johnston for um proposing what she what she is proposing. So, let's move let's move on to what is the request, which I think we've heard from councelor Johnston. One neighborhood, one land use designation. And that land use designation will be NGA. One one neighborhood, one CHL. The entire neighborhood will be one CHL. There will be an explicit statement of threetory height limitations, not not deferring that to zoning, similar to what was in the first draft of the plan for the Pandora neighborhood that explicitly said that the limitation in the neighborhood will be three stories. And there will be a further uh recognition of the key character defining attributes for the entire neighborhood. I I would like just confirmation that is that is what we heard from you. And that's the end of our presentation. Okay. Thank you both. Um I'll look to see there are some questions of you. Uh councelor Den. Thank you chair Singh and thank you for your presentation. I guess my only question um for you folks where should the growth go like in our city what I'm hearing is there no growth should occur or if if it does it's very minimal. So where should it go in the city? Sure. Thanks for the question. Um the strategic growth area that's in the current official plan. Um am I limited by time? No, you're good. Okay. Um, it is it's pretty far expanded from what was in the the growing together initiative that I understand was approved last year. And and I'm not sure I think that original strategic growth area in that plan was quite um liberal already. So that that area really stopped at Belmont Village, which is still has room for a lot of development between Belmont Village and through to the transit hub area. Uh, and we're certainly not uh that's not on the table here. I think that that's an area. Um I know that if based on my estimates, if we were to remove the strategic growth area from West Mount, it would have less than a 1% decrease in the overall strategic growth area that's already there. But I it's hard as a as a resident here to look around Kitchener. You can see lots of areas that are still not developed, right? There's empty lots. There's areas where this could happen. Um we're just looking for for some protection for a historic neighborhood. And as we know that there still can be four unit dwellings put on lots in these homes and up to three stories as it stands. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Chapman. Yeah, thank you and thank you for coming in. Um, I was just wondering like you you you're quite an organized group and you've been dealing with um Council Johnston but also with staff and I just wondered where where did you start and and what things do you think have been addressed since you initiated your conversations with them? Well, we started of course with the first official plan which which had some problems with it from our perspective in that it didn't recognize Westbound at all. It it was mentioned earlier that there were six neighborhoods given specific CHL provisions in the new official plan. Four of which specifically had threetory height limitations. It seemed like a great oversight on the part of the city that that Westman itself wasn't being recognized to have the similar protections. So, so when we saw those changes, that became a big concern. The other the other big concern in the in the first official plan was the SGAA taking part of West Mount from Belmont over to Dunar and and giving that the separate land use designation compared to the rest of the neighborhood. It it didn't it didn't make sense to break up that historic neighborhood in into two different land use designations. So, you're hoping that the conversation will continue between now and the final draft based on the assertions you've already made? Well, well, we're feeling hopeful ba based on councelor Johnson's comments that perhaps there won't need to be any further conversations if if if what I I believe I've heard her to say it it's it sounds like um the council is going to or at least Margaret John's going to be recommending that staff make the changes that we're requesting. Okay. Thank you. Next up we have is Class Bton. Welcome, Mr. Bson. You have five minutes to make your delegation. You and if you can do your best, speak closer to the mic so that we can all hear you. Yeah. Um, mayor, counselors, and chair. Um, my name is Claus Bastian, and I'm a retired civil engineer. Uh, lived in Kiter for about 30 years. Um my comments are regarding the energy transit transition plan and uh my concern is to be able to transition away from fossil fuel where building today um gener where buildings today generate 45% of the total emissions in in the region of water. Uh we need to gradually eliminate the use of natural gas and I'm I'm speaking over the long term sort of the over the next 20 30 years. Woodler region currently is importing natural gas and electricity at the cost of about 1 billion per year. Um slide two. So the um my my concern is in the text the way it's written right now um energy storage is dealt uh with too simplistically talking about battery storage only. uh natural gas distribution in Ontario of course has extensive energy storage capabilities. There is caverns with natural gas. So the natural gas has natural large storage facilities to to handle the variations of use of consumption. The electrical generation has hydro dams where you can generate power and hold back on power when there is no need for electricity for example at night. Um the future district energy system that is being contemplated both by Kitchener and by Waterloo will typically have large thermal energy storage facilities and incorporated in the thermal distribution piping system. Geothermal system that is being used uh does naturally have thermal energy storage underground. So my point is uh storage is key for any energy energy form. Um what is thermal energy? Thermal energy basically is um um district energy's method of distributing energy to the community and it would typically for be in the large you know higher density areas and it typically would be a fourpipe system supply and return of hot water supply and return of chilled water. the thermal energy storage system. Uh once these um energy plants are being built in in um not too distant future I hope for both Kitchener and Waterloo. You can see on the picture the basically yellow silos are hot water storage tanks for energy storage and energy storage in the form of hot water is a much more cost-effective method than building battery banks. Battery banks are very expensive and the benefits of hot water storage is that recover the waste heat from waste water from industrial waste and other sources. So not having to burn any fossil fuel but basically recover heat that's already being generated in the community and the hot water storage tank is an excellent way of storing that and the use or the generation of hot water doesn't always coincide with the consumption. So that's why you need the hot the hot water storage to basically level level out the usage so that you capture all the waste heat that you can and then use it when it's required. Um what I'm proposing is that the um one title under on page 27 and 28 of the of the official plan section uh the second draft is that uh the title listed as generate and store clean electricity locally should be changed in my opinion to generate store clean energy locally not just electricity. My proposal is also that item 526 removes the word battery and instead modify that paragraph to to read. The city encourages renewable energy system and remove battery energy storage system that supports a clean energy transition and an appropriate scale um which are compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. I'd like to add this will include various electrical and thermal energy storage systems because there's a multitude of energy storage systems on a well-developed system. They should be developed fully and also remove the word battery in the balance of that page 2728. Thank you very much. Thank you class. Those were some really thoughtful suggestions and I saw ta staff typing away. I think uh your uh recommendation suggestions have been noted and uh they will consider that as part of the final draft. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Monica Reed. Welcome Monica. You have five minutes. Do you want the podium to come down a little? Would you like the podium to come down? Are you okay? Yeah, I'm good. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can. Okay. Go ahead. Just ju just a quick thought just to help move things along. If you let everybody else that's coming up know, I didn't realize where I was in the order. Uh that might just help move I'm sorry I didn't catch that last bit. I said it might just help move the process along if you put everybody in a give them a heads up as to the order. Oh, I see. Sorry. I thought I was much further down the process. No, no, no, no. That's that's a that's a good idea. So, I'm going to take you up on that. So Monica, if you can hold on a second, Dominic and Andrea, you're next. After that, it's uh Andrea, you're going to come back twice. And then after that, it's Karen Doan and Scott Nevin and Martin Ashling. But there's a big list, but at least those members know that they're up shortly after you. Go ahead. Sweet. Thank you. Um just for context, I we started our business in Kitchener in 1980, still active. Uh for 25 years I volunteered in the leadership of Chris Kendall Market uh in Kitchener. So I understand the importance of community and building community. Our family lives on Earl Street in West Mount East for 40 years and we are increasingly concerned that our input is not uh being meaningfully addressed in this plan planning process yet. But thank you Margaret for uh the input and um that that we've heard tonight. Um intensification will not only increase traffic density, it'll dramatically change the feeling of community. The city has invested in um the branding of Love My Hood and these changes would be the beginning of the end of West Mount as we knew it. and I feel the end of loving my hood. West Mount is a jewel of the city of Kitchener. And um as on another side, as a lifetime gardener and part of that green area, I also fear the impact of changes in light and height and wind and water will have. Even now it's facing the changing um its face is changing with the approval of these monster homes. My past exchanges with the planning department have left me feeling that they are going to do what they want. The official plan needs to have more protective provisions and language. Now splitting Westmount into east and west cultural heritage doesn't do anything. That sounds like protection for us on Earl Street. If this council doesn't strengthen the language now, what guarantees do we have for the future? Thank you. And thank you very much. Thank you, Monica. That's everyone. There's no delegate no questions of you of the delegate. Next up is Dominic Nutell and Andrea Sinclair. And Andrea, you'll be coming up again afterwards. Go ahead. as he ready few different properties for a few different clients. This presentation that's up is actually not Dominic's property. So I think there was a map I submitted as well. I'm not sure if that could be brought up first. Okay. There was another presentation I believe that it was just a single PDF of a a map. I can she's pointed as next delegate as well. And that one says PDF. It may be that presentation. Okay, I'll I can wing it without the map. That's fine. Um, so if you give it a second looking at Do we have because we have her pointed as the next delegation as well and that says PDF on it. Okay, you don't have it. Okay, that's all right. Then carry on. That's okay. Uh, so thank you. Good evening everyone. Um, so I'm here uh first to speak about 525 to 555 Bingamin Center Drive and 355 Shirley Drive. These lands were purchased by Cooper Construction. Uh Dominic is here from Cooper tonight uh four years ago. They were severed off of the larger Bingammen's property and are currently designated business park with a wide range of uses including a number of sight specific uses. These lands are proposed to be designated general industrial uh which is a significant concern. It is a down designation. Several uses will be removed if this designation moves forward. Um we have had multiple discussions with staff including most recently uh this past Friday. We understand staff are waiting for some provincial direction on how the new PPS is to be interpreted. Um we don't believe the intent is for it to be interpreted the way it has been. um along the Bingammans and Shirley corridor, there's going to be several properties that will become legal non-conforming as a result of this um policy direction, which I don't believe was the intent of the PPEs um as currently written. We do understand this Watson study referenced in staff's presentation, which has not been publicly available, should be coming out uh later this week. So, we'll obviously review that and continue working with staff um as well as sharing what we're hearing on how other municipalities are addressing these PPS policies, but do want to confirm that we are very concerned. Um and Dominic is really here to answer questions that council may have related to current market challenges, how employers come to look at these sites, and kind of what this could mean for the broader property. I'm also here to speak to 425 Bingamin Center Drive. that is the uh I'll call it Bingamin's proper property that um everyone's aware of. That um property was proposed to be designated um general industrial in the first draft. It has moved to the innovation of employment designation in the second draft. This is um a positive move for that property. Um and then we're generally supportive of that designation. However, a number of their sight specific uses continue to be removed. I understand from speaking with staff that might have been an oversight and those will be reinstated. So, we'll continue to review as updated drafts come out. Um, but there is a relationship between the Bingamins and Cooper projects. They are looking at lots of employment opportunities together um for different sectors of employment including things like the tourism industry. And having these um restrictive uses are really going to um challenge what can be done on these properties. And again, Dominic can speak to um the amount of land that's sitting there available right now and how hard it is to lease it up even today with all of the uses that are um proposed. So those are the um the first two properties and then I'll try to go as quickly as I can through um the other which are the two properties at the intersection of Huron and Strawburg Road. Very uh different concerns with these properties. So these are the two properties that um my client owns. They are on the southwest and southeast corners of Hiron and Strawburg Road. Um, right now in the 20 uh 2014 official plan, these are considered a community node. This is a priority intensification area in the current official plan. The west property is designated mixeduse and commercial. The east property is currently designated commercial. This council recently approved and it was fully supported by planning staff a proposal with a maximum of 24 stories on the southwest prop property to allow a four tower development. Um unfortunately this has since been appealed by a third party and is currently under appeal as we sit today within the draft official plan. These are no longer recognized as a priority intensification area despite a 24-story um approval. They're now shown as a neighborhood growth area which is intended to have more modest growth. In terms of the city structure, they've gone from being in a node which is a primary intensification area to a again a neighborhood area. In terms of the proposed designations, um the southwest property shouldn't have a designation at all. it's an active appeal. So to reddes designate it while appeal is in place is extremely challenging. Um and then the neighborhood portion proposed is a sixstory designation on the same piece of property that this council approved 24 stories. This is obviously a huge concern to our client who went through an entire official plan and zoning process recently to now have it considered at six stories when 24 stories has been approved. Our formal request is that the subject lands both properties be identified as a strategic growth area and that they be designated mixeduse B noting that the for the southwest lands that decision should be deferred pending the active appeal. And I just wanted to point out on this figure um if you look on the left which is the 2014 official plan all of the pink sort of outlined properties are community nodes today. This is the only two properties that are in a community node in the current OP that are not be cons being considered a strategic growth area in the new OP. So there has been for some reason a removal of these as being a priority intensification area and it's the only two properties that have been treated this way uh in the new official plan. So hopefully I I didn't hear a ding so I hopefully came in under the 10 minutes but here to answer any questions on any of these and as I said um Mr. Mr. Natali is here to answer any questions related more to the employment area. Thank you, Andrea. Thank you very much. Just one question. Councelor Davey, go ahead. Actually, not not even a question. Just uh just wanted to acknowledge we've we've exchanged some some emails looking at this. We are waiting on some um um provincial policy comments as as as staff work through this. But I will ask those questions of staff at the end of this and I will also clarify um the the land use questions that you had regarding the Bingamin's proper proper property as well. Thanks. Thank you very much uh Mayor Revenovich. Thank you very much and thank you for uh for coming in for uh all of your clients. U I guess my question is on the industrial buildings. So, um, Dominic, I'm wondering if you can just share, um, how things have changed from when your original buildings went up, and I believe there's another one that's under construction right now, or starting out potentially, uh, subject to the market, but, um, I I know the the demand for industrial buildings has changed since, um, all of this started, and wondering if you can just speak to that. Oh, for sure. Good evening, uh, chair, uh, council, and Mr. Mayor, thank you for hearing us tonight. Um, yeah, definitely four years ago when we purchased this, uh, property or both properties. Um, we were so excited to, uh, create some employment lands that weren't there before. They were under different uses. Oops. Um, so definitely when we started this process, uh, we were excited about industrial development. We were excited about the opportunities to bring employment to city of Kitchener. We knew that uh there was a lack of of properties that were designated employment and we were excited to partner with the city of Kitchener uh and and our partner M Mr. Bingaman to allow us this opportunity. Um since we purchased the land uh we finished the project a few years ago that's 355 Shirley. It's 355,000 feet of industrial space. As of today, we've leased 95,000. So, we have considerable areas still to be leased. The leasing market uh unfortunately has taken a downturn. Uh industrial has taken a downturn in terms of the market um not only in Kitchener but throughout uh I guess Ontario and really across Canada. Uh so definitely challenges on leasing the balance of the building and we had actually because we were so excited about the development we went through site plan application on 525 and 555 Shirley we actually had it approved we had the the sorry the site plan document in our hands ready to sign the market has stopped uh and we actually put that project on hold um we've trying to lease 355 Shirley um we've We've had one tenant in there today. Uh leasing has pretty much dried up. Um so definitely challenges through the community. We we were hoping to bring a lot of new business, a lot of new employment. Uh it's a great it's a great area. Uh and we're competing, you know, not only within Kitchener, but we're competing through all southern Ontario. So the tenants that want to come to Kitchener also want to look at G. They want to look at Kitchener or sorry Cambridge. They want to look at Waterlue, Brford. So we're competing when an RFP comes out and the the real estate community checks the boxes and says where do we want to go? They look at our building and say you know is this a viable building for our tenants. with this new official plan and removing uh various uses, it will only restrict us uh even further in trying to attract new businesses and we don't want to put the you know close for business sign on the door. We want to keep it open and we appreciate everything that the city of Kitchener has done. Staff as well, they've been great supporters of us uh in getting these developments going. We just want to have the support of the city to allow us to do our job, create new opportunities, bring this employment to the city, uh, and just be profitable. Everyone needs to profit. You know, I love the support local. You know, this is what we want to do. We want to partner with the city and the surrounding areas to allow us to really just fill this building up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's everyone. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Andrea, did your presentation did you So, you were on for next one as well, but you already outlined through your presentation, wrapped it up. So efficient. Thank you so much. Uh, next up we have Karen Dohan. Karen Dohan. I might be butchering your last name. My apologies, Karen. But It's done. Okay. Welcome. You have five minutes. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Karen Dayne. I have ownership in two farm properties in the Trestler Blames Fiser Halman here on block. I will be referring to the to this block as the Rosenberg block for the remainder of this presentation. I am trying to make you aware of concerns that have come to light in the Rosenberg block as a result of a draft plan of subdivision in the Schlaggel 30T25202 application. I hope my verbal and written communication will result in council giving consideration that ensures the new official plan will give direction to the following two items. One, good future planning for possible urban development, including the portion that is currently outside the urban boundary. Two, ensuring new urban development will minimize and mitigate safety concerns and adverse impacts on remaining agricultural land within the city. I have been involved in farming most of my life. I have never felt I had or will have the resources to go against where the city wants the urban boundary. I feel that as long as the city wants property I own to be producing agricultural crops, there should be policy to ensure this can be done safely and efficiently. The map on the screen currently um it's also included in my written submission should help you understand my concerns. I have indicated in blue font on the map the location of my Trustler Road farm. It shows the entire Rosenberg block. The area outlined in red is the Schlago application. The Schlgo application involves land that was outside the countryside line in the 24 2014 official plan but now is inside the urban boundary. The entire south edge of the draft subdivision that is over a kilometer long abuts my farm. To the west my farm extends out to Trestler Road. The east end of my farm is wood lot and a a butts in a ready built madame subdivision. Approximately 25% of the Rosenberg block remains outside of the countryside line. The schlaggel draft subdivision does not allow for any possible future road connections into the area that is outside the urban boundary in the Rosenberg block. I feel this is and should be a concern even if projections currently show this area will not be needed for possible urban development by 201. I am told by Kitchener staff the current official plan does not allow for planning of future inner block roads within the Rosenberg block to areas outside the countryside line. To date, I haven't been able to convince Kitchener staff to allow in the draft official plan possible future road connections into the area that is outside the urban boundary. Now, this map shows detailed the draft Schlaggel subdivision. Please note the backyards of houses and walking trails that abut my farm. An 8- foot high non-p permeable fence would minimize spray drift concerns in areas next to my workable farmland. A fence would be a deterrent to keep people and pets off my property, including the unsafe period that can be up to 24 hours after field crops are sprayed with pesticides. I'm told by Kitchener staff the current official plan does not support fences in this situation. To date, I haven't been able to convince Kitchener staff that the draft official plan should allow for the requirement for fences to alleviate urban farming concerns. Summary. I hope you will use your elected position to make wise decisions in the areas I have brought to your attention. Please ensure the new official plan will give direction to the following two items. One, good future planning for possible urban development, including the portion that is currently outside the urban boundary. And two, ensuring new urban development will minimize and mitigate safety concerns and adverse impacts on remaining agricultural land within the city. If any of you are interested, I would welcome an on-site visit to my Trustler Road farm. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Karen. There's no questions of you. Okay. Thank you for presenting. Next, we have Scott Nevin. Scott, you have five minutes to make your presentation. Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Scott Neban. I've lived in West Mount in two homes uh for 35 years. I lived probably 500 meters outside of West Mount for another few years. Um I've always loved the area and that's that's what's brought me out tonight. Um I also want to speak a little more broadly about the remainder of the city and the other low-rise neighborhoods in the city. Um a bit of background. Um I was a municipal planner for almost 30 years in a in a region of Wateroo municipality. uh ended my career as director of growth management at that m municipality. Um I I've been through a few official plans. I've had uh I've led a team that's created a new official plan, a new official plan uh heavily weighted towards intensification. Scott, if you can just raise the mic closer to your mouth, that might help. I'm sorry. Just lean in a little bit if you don't mind. Thanks. Um, I'm also going to say a lot of what I was going to say tonight has already been said and and councelor Johnson has been very helpful in what in her comments earlier. So, I'm going to I'm going to add lib a little bit here, but bear with me. Um, so I' I've been involved in planning for a long time. Uh, I was involved in intensification planning for a long time. I support intensification as a goal. That doesn't mean that all proposed intensification is good planning. And uh, I'll come back to that in a couple of ways tonight. There's two things I want to talk about. One is the six-story height limit proposed throughout the city in effectively low-rise neighborhoods. Um to cut it short, I think that's a mistake. I think you really want to go back and look at that citywide. Notwithstanding the proposal to put in place a policy that says, "Well, we may limit heights to three stories and through other processes consider something a little taller." If your OP says six stories in low-rise neighborhoods, you will be facing many applications for six stories in your neighborhoods. Um, for me the the biggest concern about six stories is the is the overlook and the and the loss of privacy. Think about what everybody does in their in their when they move in a new house in a new neighborhood. They put up what we call a privacy fence because their backyard is theirs. With a building next door of six stories, you've lost that. You can't screen for six stories effectively. um other things that come along with those apartment buildings, those larger buildings, the light, the noise, the activity, those are issues I think you're going to want to deal with now, not later. Um so I would urge you to look AC across the city at those those neighborhoods. Um your old the existing OP has a lot of language around existing neighborhoods and and protecting community character. That language doesn't exist in the new plan. Um, we've really looking at turning a corner here, but I think you're turning it too fast and too far and you should go back and look at that. I also want to speak about um the West Mount cultural heritage landscape and you've heard a lot about that tonight. Um, I agree it should be one area. If you go back and look at the 2014 study that you did, there are several references to how it's one neighborhood and seamless from end to end. Not that it's end, not that it's divided at West Mount, but that it's seamless. Notwithstanding that some of the homes are of different ages, I think you want to treat it as one. Um I'm particularly concerned obviously about six stories in that neighborhood. I I really don't think it's appropriate. Uh you want you somebody asked earlier, well, where should we put the growth? Your current plan focuses growth in the nodes and corridors and particularly in our corridor that we spent a billion dollars of public money to put transit in and we spent many other millions to improve services in that area. We should be looking in those areas, nodes and corridors for most of our growth. That's not to say that the neighborhoods should be handsoff in my opinion, but six stories is too much. I think you need to really look at that hard. um in uh in West Mount in the CHL if you're really not going to look at bringing it in as one CHL and apply the policies across the board. Um there is a policy in in draft 2 today for for West Mount that says we'll do a further study. That's well and good. Um we've waited 12 years to get these policies in effect for West Mount East. I don't want to wait 12 years to get those policies in effect in West Mount West if we've got a six-story excuse me a six-story height limit. Um, so if you're if you're if you're not going to extend the CHL provisions across to West Mount West today, then put a policy in the plan that says until you do that CHL study, there's no development over three stories just as it is today. That would be my recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. There are no questions. Thank you. prefig presenting. Next we have Martin Esling and then after Martin we have Emily Elliot and after Emily it's Dave Aston. Welcome Martin. As you probably know you have five minutes. Hello. Thank you for letting me speak to this vital topic. I'm a member of Water Region. Yes, in my backyard. We advocate for more housing and more affordable housing options. And and and you've heard heard us before this time. The opportunities are particularly great for addressing our housing shortage and giving people more options for the types of housing that they could live in. The official plan will guide our zoning bylaw and will shape our city for years to come. This single document can do more than any other to make Kitchener's housing supply meet housing demand and make Kitchener more affordable and more welcoming. Allowing for more housing puts downward pressure on housing costs and helps mitigate the extreme high the extreme pressure high housing demand is putting on our housing market. This is a fundamental fundamental matter of justice and equal opportunity because when we allow housing costs to rise as much as they have in recent years, we push people out of our often thriving neighborhoods and city. People's ability to move to opportunity or even to stay in their neighborhoods is throatated. Allowing for more housing is also crucial for economic productivity. Ricardo Houseman, director of Harvard's Growth Lab, recently spoke at the Center for International Governance Innovation. He talked about Canada's prospects for economic prosperity as well as Canada's economic independence from the US. He pointed out that allowing for more housing is key to allowing for the proximity of people to each other to help spur innovation. Otherwise, high housing costs push people out and styy these benefits. Last year, we published a report that argued for an official plan that allows for more housing and facilitates more housing throughout our city. For the most part, this draft official plan improves upon the 2014 official plan by setting the stage for a zoning bylaw that will hopefully allow for more housing. You'll of course get push back, especially at the neighborhood level when whenever you're proposing more housing. One thing I don't often hear from critics, although we've heard some um responses to your question, um is is of from critics of more housing in their neighborhood is uh concrete concrete proposals for where else housing can go if not their neighborhood and why another neighborhood is truly better suited for more housing. We can't rely entirely on nodes and corridors. Uh we need to have it throughout neighborhoods as well. This highlights the importance of having these conversations on a broad geographical scale. Several polls back up this point. One in Rhode Island found that people's support for housing of any type was greater when they when asked if they would like to see it across Rhode Island versus in their neighborhood. For example, support for apartment buildings goes from 78% to 23% from moving across Rhode Island to their neighborhood. Similarly, polling in Toronto found that only 23% were opposed to more housing in Toronto as a whole even though 73% were opposed to it in their neighborhood. Kitchener might have similar divergent results. The question is, do we listen to Kitchener residents when they say they want if they say they want more housing across the city or do we listen to them if they say they don't want it in their neighborhoods? Unfortunately, we can't we can't have it both ways. When people say they want more housing when asked at a broader scale, we should honor that. If we instead honored the neighborhood level opposition, we would be promoting beggar thy neighbor politics where each neighborhood passes the buck on more housing on the need for more housing to another. So, while we're optimistic about the changes in the draft official plan, we are disappointed to see that less housing allowed for in the second draft of the official in the second draft than originally set out as a maximum for the West Mount neighborhood. What we're dealing with is a conflict between the right to choose your housing versus the right to choose how many neighbors you have. Shaping how many how how many may may join your community affects who can come. The practice of effectively choosing your neighbors has an ugly history. Let's not repeat it. I urge you not to add more restrictions on housing to the official plan when the time comes to pass it. I know it's not today. If anything, I urge you to allow for more housing in all neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. There are no questions. Next, we have virtually Emily Elliot. Hi, Emily. Whenever you're ready. Evening, chair, council. Yeah, I'm ready. Um, good evening, chair and members of council. My name is Emily Elliott. am with MHBC. I'm actually here this evening on behalf of two property owners and I realize delegations are limited to five minutes but given that I'm here for two items I respectfully request a few extra minutes although I will try to be brief. Uh so firstly I'm here on behalf of 2013029 Ontario Limited who are the owners of the lands municipally known as six Shirley Avenue. Um next slide please. The lands are located um at the southwest corner of Shirley Avenue and the Shirley Avenue culdeac. To the west is the Konosoga Parkway and the planned highway 7 interchange. You can see the interchange uh design kind of shown in yellow uh over top of the aerial photo. The site is occupied by a warehouse that was originally constructed um many years ago and is currently used by Royal King. And the lands were purchased by the owner in 2001 with the intent that they would be used for warehhouse purposes in the short term and ultimately be developed as a commercial campus. Uh redevelopment has been delayed as a result of works associated with the realignment of Highway 7, including the expropriation of the western portion of the site and the interchange design. Uh next slide, please. In the current 2014 official plan, the lands are identified as being within an urban corridor and are designated commercial. They're also subject to a sight specific policy that permits large scale offices. They are similarly zone general commercial and are subject to a sight specific zoning permission that also reflects large-scale office permission. The draft official plan, however, proposes to redesate the land's general industrial, and this has the effect of substantially impacting the range of uses permitted and removing the long-standing commercial permissions. So, the reason for my delegation this evening is to request that staff reconsider the general industrial designation and instead consider uh a commercial first designation with sight specific office permission uh consistent with the current designation. Uh and there's a great deal of history with respect to the policy framework for these lands and I'll I'll be quite brief uh but I just want to highlight this for the committee. The history related to commercial land use policies for this site dates back to 1994 when the city uh included policies that allowed for office development on or near major highway interchanges. Uh followed by a zoning bylaw amendment in 1994 to allow for freestanding office and accessory uses on the site. Um the lands were considered again in 2001 through the official plan uh and the commercial policy review and through this process the lands were actually redesated from heavy industrial with commercial permissions to an arterial commercial corridor designation. In 2014 the lands were analyzed again through the city's official plan that you can see on the screen. uh and they were ultimately designated commercial and urban corridor with that sight specific policy to permit office being maintained. Uh this uh recognized the long-standing permitted uses and introduced new uses that were considered to be appropriate given the proximity of the land to the highway. Um and uh and then through the zoning bylaw in 2019, the commercial zoning was implemented and again that sight specific uh regulation related to largecale offices were maintained. So this history just simply demonstrate that there's been a longstanding intention dating back to 1994 that the lands would be developed with c uh commercial purposes and as I mentioned there were delays that uh have resulted and continue to result um as because of ongoing works associated with the highway 7 realignment. Uh next slide please. So in the current official plan, the lands are now being proposed uh to be designated general industrial and form part of the larger industrial area along Shirley Avenue and Bigman Center Drive. The draft official plan designation is shown on the screen here. Uh and it results in the lands being employment area which severely uh limits the redevelopment potential of the site um as envisioned by our clients. Uh the commercial first designation on the other hand uh that is in the draft official plan um is more appropriate in our view. The site has excellent visibility and accessibility from plan road infrastructure and supports the objectives of the commercial first designation. Following completion of the highway 7 alignment, the lands will be more directly connected to the Victoria Street corridor via the Bruce Street extension as opposed to the Shirley Avenue and Bingaman Center Drive corridor. So, like I said, we request that staff take a look at the uh designation and consider a commercial first designation to reflect the designation that's been in place for more than 30 years. Um, and I'd like to just quickly uh touch on the other site that I'm here for. I don't have a PowerPoint presentation. Um, it'll be about two minutes I would say on that. Um, so I'm also here this evening on behalf of 280431 Ontario, Inc. regarding the lands legally described as lot 13 plan 961 in Kitchener and lot 36 and 38 plan 986. Uh these lands do not have a municipal address. They're located on the north side of Hidden Valley Road and south of Highway 8. Uh and they're east of Fairway Road South. Uh my client owns multiple car dealerships throughout southwestern Ontario, including some in the region. Uh and they purchased these lands several years ago with the intent that they would be developed as a car dealership. The current official plan and zoning bylaw do permit a car dealership use. Uh and this was reflected in the 2025 uh OPA and zoning bylaw amendment for the Hidden Valley uh area where the lands were designated commercial and open space and zone general commercial. Um and like I said both of the current designation and zoning allow for the car dealership. The draft official plan seeks to redesate the land's commercial burst which is generally in line with the designation uh coming out of the hidden valley study. However, it ex notably excludes motor vehicle sales as a permitted use. Uh we filed submissions through the official plan review process requesting that motor vehicle sales be reinstated and although it's not been added uh in the current draft we have had positive discussions with staff and understand that it will be included as a sight specific use in the next uh version of the official plan. So provided that the next draft of the official plan includes motor vehicle sales, uh our concerns are addressed and we thank staff for engaging in conversations uh about the use on this property. Um so that concludes my delegation for this evening and I appreciate the consideration of a bit of extra time. Thank you. No problem. All right, there are no questions. Thank you, Emily. Thank you. Next up, we have Dave Aston. And after Dave Aston, it'll be Heather Price. And uh after Heather, it'll be Sam Nabby. No, we have about 1, two, three, four, six, seven, eight. We have about 10 more delegations. So that's not halfway. Almost. Dave, go ahead. When you're ready. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh thanks for the opportunity to be here this evening. I actually have three properties I'm going to speak to, but I'll be quick on all of them. We've had the opportunity to have discussion with staff on all of the properties, and I do want to uh share my appreciation with staff on all of the engagement that was outlined and the work that has gone into that. I also want to share my appreciation for the opportunity to represent myself and others here uh land owners as they are also critical to your city. They're the stakeholders. They're the developers. They're the builders that invest in your city, build your city, and shape your city. So, I think it's important to hear from both. So, this has been a good evening. The first one is 526 Lancaster Lancaster Street West. This is, if you know the area, there's a Tim Hortons on the corner. That property extends uh down along uh Bridgeport. It's actually split designated and the request tonight is to just carry the commercial first designation on all of the lands and that would provide better opportunity for the intensification of the site or the infill or the continued development of the site. You'll see just to the north it's commercial first. An apartment building was recently constructed there. The next property uh is at Strawburg Road and Robert Perry Drive and the request here is to identify the lands as part of a strategic growth area and as mixed use. There's been a lot of discussion tonight about where could you put growth, where should growth go. This is a location where uh there's no existing neighborhood adjacent to it. It's along a planned frequent transit corridor. It's along a busy planned arterial strawber. It has the hydro corridor which will contra contain a spine trail network. So we see this as one of those strategic growth areas to add to your official plan to assist with uh that growth uh that perhaps you may not realize in your neighborhood areas. So, we believe there's a good opportunity here and uh look forward to future discussion with staff in that regard. The last property is the seat miller property on Shirley Avenue. You've heard quite a few comments tonight about the general industrial design designation. uh you heard the word removed and I think the word removed is uh very concerning in the context of the market now you heard from Mr. about the market and when you start removing uses from areas where investment is required you're removing investment opportunity. So these lands had been planned as business park. All of the infrastructure all of the roads has been put in place and investments been made under a business park scenario. That area is developed as a business park. There's a wide range of uses there. to change it to general industrial now will have significant impact on the buildout of that area. There's only a a you know small vacant parcel remaining relative to the larger business park area. It's not the right time to make the change to limit the potential investment opportunity. It's the time now to keep that as it is allow investment opportunity. All of the comments you've heard about the industrial and general industrial is not about removing lands from employment and losing jobs. It's about maintaining opportunity and not limiting the opportunity for new jobs. So, we know that there's information coming from staff. We know there's direction being provided by the province, but this is a critical decision from for council to make as to how want to see future employment and to not limit opportunities for future investment and future jobs in your community by just taking away uses for really no purpose um with the change from business park to general industrial. And those are the three properties I have. Uh thanks again for the opportunity and we'll continue to follow up with city staff. Thank you Dave. There is a question of you from councelor Davey. Yeah. Hi Dave. Just wanted to clarify I the I think it was 526 Lancaster the where the Tim Hortons currently is. It's you said it was split. What is the split? You said you want you want the whole thing to be commercial. Can you identify the split for me? I haven't looked into this one. uh commercial first is the Tim Hortons portion and flexible industrial or the innovation actually don't have my slide right in front of me. Uh the I believe it's the innovation employment that's the back half at the back. We're just looking to have the commercial first um across the entire portion of the site. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Please continue with staff. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. There are no other questions of you. Thank you for presenting. Thanks. Have a great night. Committee. This is a good uh almost halfway point. If uh you like we can take a quick uh 5m minute bio break and then we can reconvene. So 5 minutes. Okay, next up we have Heather Price. And Heather is joining us virtually. Hi Heather. Sorry to make you wait. Can you hear us? Okay. Your camera seems to be off. She's muted. Yeah. Heather, if you can turn your mic on, please. You're muted. Okay. So, we'll go to the next one, next delegation, and then come back to Heather afterwards. Uh Heather, if you can hear us, we'll just come back. Oh. Can you hear us? No. Okay. All right. We'll go on to Sam Nabby. Sam, welcome. You have five minutes to make a presentation. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair Singh, members of committee. Uh, my name is Sam Nabi. I was one of the members of the community working group that has worked with staff for the last year plus to um help bring you this uh this official plan. And it was it was a really excellent process. Uh I just want to commend staff on engaging deeply with community. Um as you heard from Chiaka earlier, you know, we had people from high school to seniors, people from all across the city and uh the engagement work on this was was really really impressive. Um not only showing up at public events, um uh we had many many different types of of engagement. Um we had our committee that met regularly. Uh they sent us away with questionnaires to have uh meetings in our neighborhoods with our networks and our friends and families. And uh uh the report that is here for your consideration um is is a result of of some very uh yeah very impressive and very thoughtful engagement and I just wanted to highlight that. Um they also brought in multiple city departments into this work. Uh and that that was one of the questions that I and other committee members had throughout the process was this is a great uh planning vision. Uh how involved are other departments? Is this a document that is going to play well with parks and transportation and engineering and and uh the the team was able to show us through even going on field trips to see uh different parts of the the city where we're doing things like creek restoration work. um uh that other departments are are also part of this process and that there was deep engagement across the city um across the corporation. Uh I'm impressed and acknowledged that the that one of the first things brought to us as committee was that uh we will be protecting the countryside. um that these these policies are still um core to the official plan and that there are multiple paths to growth. Um the reliance the over reliance on a nodes and corridors model has been a detriment in some ways. Um and this plan helps to broaden the the types of tools that we have to manage growth. So when a lot of growth is concentrated in a central corridor or in specific downtown areas, um that really creates a lot of pressure and a lot of demand for uh well-resourced um developers to come in and and try to maximize as much as they can. Um that it that intense pressure in one part of the city while having very little opportunity for redevelopment in uh in other parts of the city has created um a situation where many people being are being displaced from the central transit corridor in our region and moving elsewhere um where they can find more affordable housing that has worse transit access. And so the people who may need access to better transit the most actually um are being pushed out of those areas that are seeing the investment in ion etc. So all that to say this plan's focus on more growth throughout neighborhoods is a positive one. Um expanding the number of uh urban growth areas uh outside of of downtown and and some of the areas that we've seen before is a positive one. And I also want to say that there's been a lot of thought thoughtfulness put to that neighborhood level growth and uh in terms of the the exact property sizes and what type of development could be permitted on a single lot. For example, um in my conversations with staff during that community working group, um they showed us how they were thinking about, you know, families that wanted to convert their single home into a multiplex for intergenerational living. Um a developer that's not necessarily uh a corporation that owns dozens and dozens of properties, but um you know, a family that just wants to redevelop one or two properties. this is something that they could do without assembling a lot of land and without going through a lot of um a lot of extra process in order to enable new housing and more choice and more different uh different ways for people to live in our community. Um quickly I want to touch on the institutional designation. There's a really really wonderful policy in the institutional designation that allows it to be used for affordable housing and specifically affordable housing. However, some key sites are not uh listed as institutional. That could be. Um thinking of City Hall, Kitchener Public Library, Center in the Square. Um so I'm not sure why those have been retained as a mixeduse instead of institutional, especially in the in the urban core. And uh that's just a point that I'd like to bring up before this committee. Um thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Sam. That's every there's no questions. We'll try Heather again. Hoping uh the mic works this time. Heather, can you hear us? Can you turn on your mic? I can hear you. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Great. Thank you for coming back to me. Do you prefer keeping your uh your camera off? Yes, if that's all right. Okay, that's fine. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. And good evening, members of council, Mayor Verbanovic, staff, and meeting attendees. My name is Heather Price, and I'm a planning consultant with GSP Group, delegating tonight on behalf of our client, Schlaggel Urban Developments with respect to their numerous land holdings in Southwest Kitchener. Uh Von Bender, vice president of real estate and development with Schlaggel is in council chambers and is available to answer any questions you might have relating to this delegation or or their properties and interests. Uh while I've registered as a delegate for Schlaggel as a single delegate, they own dozens of impacted properties. So I hope you'll indulge me with a few additional minutes to address our concerns with the draft official plan. I want to start by first acknowledging that there's many positive moves in this new Kitchener 201 draft document. Uh we also appreciate that staff have made changes in response to comments that we made on the previous draft. However, there are important aspects of our comments that have not been addressed. We intend to meet with staff in the coming weeks to discuss Schlegel's interests in greater detail. But there's several aspects of this April draft that are of significant concern to Schllegel. So my delegation tonight will focus on Schliggel's top three concerns. First is the lack of flexibility in the mixeduse designation with respect to commercial land uses. The mixed use policies need to provide flexibility to allow for the mixeduse vision to be realized over time. It should allow for the continuation of commercial that's already there today and the establishment of new commercial uses incrementally over the next 25 years. The OP takes a really stance against things like gas stations and drive-throughs and doesn't permit them in mixed juice nodes which are often the commercial hub of local neighborhoods. So we think this undermines this the vision the city has for complete communities as those form part of a complete community. We recognize and appreciate that these uses are car oriented in nature and because of this they're thought to be at odds with the vision of a pedestrianfriendly and human centered environment where cars are to be discouraged. However, this vision doesn't seem to align with the changing realities of the commercial landscape which has trended to greater reliance on automobiles rather than less. Uh we see delivery services becoming the norm from am Amazon and Door Dash deliveries generating vehicle trips throughout residential neighborhoods all the time. We need to provide policies that provide flexibility to the commercial sector so that they can adapt to consumer needs. We encourage the city to provide policies that foster and support commercial adaptility rather than policies that unduly limit where and in what form a business can operate. Next and most concerning to Schllegel is what constitutes down designations and that's removing land use permissions on their properties. Uh particularly because those changes seem to be made without policy support or or adequate justification. Uh former council decisions on Schlaggel's lands seem to have been disregarded in the proposed policies. Uh a few specific notes here for council to to be aware of. Um, one is the corner of Fischer Hullman and Flames. The current policies there permit u unlimited height provided that the proponent can demonstrate no impacts. In the November draft of the official plan, these were designated mixed juice B for up to 28 stories. And now in this latest draft, curiously have gone down to neighborhood capped at six stories. Uh we understand this is based on the new set of criteria for strategic growth areas, but we haven't been privy to that assessment and we have heard a few delegates tonight that have raised concerns and would suggest that it needs to be revisited. Williamsburg Town Center is commercially zoned and through the implementation of updated zoning a few years ago, council directed by resolution that the updates to zoning would not remove existing permissions, but the proposed redesation to mixed use is proposing to remove certain permissions. Lastly, in May of 2019, council resolved that the proposed zoning for the Rosenberg secondary plan properties and a future stage of the zoning bylaw be less restrictive than the current zoning outlined in 851. So, we know this isn't a zoning process, but the zoning is required to conform to the official plan. And so, we're raising these concerns with the emer emerging policies in the OP because they're going to set the stage for more restrictive zoning. Um, I have a little bit more here if you'll allow me. Um, how much more do you have? I have one more key area and a couple of um, examples of that for Schlaggel. And if you can wrap up, thank you. Go ahead. Absolutely. Um, lastly, I think we're seeing some missed opportunities. Um you've heard from a few delegates this evening as well that about the housing crisis and uh the question has come up if not in the stable neighborhoods then where? Um Schlaggel has several properties along the Fischer Hallman corridor that um are well suited for higher density development than they are permitted right now. So this does present an opportunity to explore higher density permissions as of right. Um these sites are um green field sites not adjacent to lowrise well separated well serified transit and other amenities that have been building out in that area over the past few years. So um to conclude there's some real improvements in the draft but there's still some disconnects between council's previous decisions and the land use designations applying to some of Schlaggel's lands in Kitchener. So, and we also see some misalignment between guiding principles of the official plan, things like the need for flexibility, housing, commercial um viability and so forth and the actual policies. So, we're hoping that when we meet with staff, when we're able to drill down to the sight specific level and and understand what these policies do to individual sites, we'll be able to um build in appropriate flexibility that Schlaggel's looking for rather than restricting development. So that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Heather. There are no questions. Thank you for presenting. Madame Clerk, I see Jamie Cook. Uh I think Emily Elliot has already spoken, but Jamie Cook, are they delegating as well or do you know? Uh Jamie Cook is the consultant here on behalf of the staff team. So yeah, you're the meeting's taking so long I forgot a consultant's name. Okay. Yes. All right. Next up, we have uh Stephen Zenov. Mr. Zenov, you have five minutes to make a presentation. Sounds great. Hi, I'm here to give input very generally. Uh, it is important as this plan is being finalized to prioritize higher density residential zoning. All economic arguments from many reputable economists say that an increase in housing supply will decrease housing costs and decrease rent. Housing and rent are commonly said to cost up to a third of people's budgets, which is huge. The more we can decrease the cost of housing and rent, the more people will be able to thrive in every other way. By lowering rent, we improve people's material conditions directly. People have more money to spend to pursue artistic, technological, social, and all other endeavors. These improve the culture of the city as a result. Economically, reducing that cost means that more businesses will want to be here, more people will want to be here, and we thrive socially and economically. There's a very clear and widespread consensus. Again, basically any accepted economic theory recognizes it. By increasing the housing supply, the housing costs and rent go down. Luckily for us, as long as housing is zoned appropriately, businesses will jump at the opportunity to build more residential properties. They're willing to put in the monetary investment, and the demand is already there. Since everybody wants cheaper housing, all we have to do is zone it accordingly, and zoning it appropriately means to allow for more higher density residential zoning. Note again that this is not just a moral argument. The social interests of people come first. But even if we looked at the other side of the interest, the argument is the same. Uh even those who own land t would benefit from it. As the density of people increases, the price of land per square meter also increases. Land where you can build a house is worth a lot of money, but land where you can build a big condominium is worth significantly more. So everyone who already owns land in these areas would be handsomely rewarded by such a policy change as well. And again it's wellestablished economic consensus. So improving people's material conditions is the first priority. Um and but this is something with clear support from all main schools of economic thought and it's only clouded by infighting and distraction or special interests. Um so changes in city zoning in the past number of years have have reflected this. Uh the city is moving in the right direction on this issue. However, I just want to say keep it going. Don't slow down. Uh turn that walk into a run. Uh so as this plan is being finalized, keep that in mind because these basic fundamentals are what drive the most growth and success in the future. Allow for uh allow more and higher densely residential zoning so that housing becomes cheaper for people. Also another delegate mentioned earlier the attitude of yes in my backyard. I think that's great to have. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. Uh there are no questions. There are no questions. Thank you. Next we have Richard Kelly Ritz. Welcome back, Richard. As you know, you have five minutes. Thank you. Uh good evening members of committee. My name is Richard Kelly Ritz. I'm a senior planner with GSP Group here in Kitchener and I'm here representing uh one of our clients, Auburn Developments, for their master plan community um known as the Mets or the Schneider's plant redevelopment. Um, as council is likely very aware, um, this significant master plan redevelopment, uh, is planned to consist of just under 4,000 units across 15 or so development blocks on 27 acres of land, uh, that formerly housed the Schneider's plant, uh, redevelopment. Uh, this site is among the most significant redevelopment sites in Kitchener and will contain a mix of unit sizes, land uses. There'll be some commercial development on the site. Um some park spaces and uh trails through the land and all on a site that's in close proximity to the uh LRT uh stations as well. Um just before getting into the comments on the official plan, I can give a brief general update on the the status of the development on that site. So, as you may have seen driving by the site on Courtland, the first phase is currently under construction. There's some cranes there. Uh that'll be uh three eight-story buildings, about 550 or so units across those three buildings. Um Auburn obtained their building permits last year and uh if all goes well, they hope to get occupancy um for those first residents to move in next summer of 2027. Um despite the ongoing uh water capacity constraints in the region right now, Auburn continues to move ahead with other phases of the site. Uh notably they plan to move forward with um uh commercial development in one of the existing buildings that's on Courtland near uh Courtland and Bordon um this year uh to start the planning approvals process for that along with one of the residential blocks further back in the site. So bringing this uh onto tonight's topic on the draft Kitchener 201 official plan. Um, we've worked with staff over the last number of months since the process has started to uh draft and refine a site specific that would apply to the Mets uh property that will be very consistent with the um council approvals for this site that were established around 2023. Um, so Auburn is not looking for any additional permissions uh beyond what's already been established through that initial approval. just looking to maintain that and we're continuing to work with staff to to refine that site specific for the site. Uh this will help maintain consistency for Auburn. As I'm sure council can appreciate, it's a significant project that will be built out over um 10 plus years and having consistent planning approvals in place over that time period is very important uh for them. So those were our main comments. um we can provide some more just general commentary on uh more structure of the official plan in general in terms of the draft that's been shared so far. Um particularly in light of some uh recent uh council or pardon me recent provincial legislation that's been just tabled in draft format over the last couple of months. Um, one of the key signals the province has continued to direct is just working towards a more streamlined official plan framework um along with refining uh the list of studies that um can be required through planning applications. So again, this is all still drafted um by the province. Nothing's been implemented yet. Um but more just to note for council's information that um there might have to be some changes in either in the next draft or following approval depending on where that provincial um documents go there. The the current official plan does contain the the draft does contain some more prescriptive policy direction related to matters such as urban design um and uh energy transition policies that may be slightly out of sync with the direction that the province is going. So, that's just something to keep an eye out and be aware of as the the project moves forward. Um, this is more a general comment for Auburn as well. Um, just having an official plan that is is less prescriptive um can really be a helping tool for uh a smooth and efficient development approvals process um which can ultimately help uh the city maintain their competit competitive advantage when it comes to that both here within the region and in the province more broadly. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation and I don't see any questions. Um, next we have Chintin Patel and Rammen Kungan Kung. And you have are you both presenting? Yes, we both five minutes each or uh No, we I think we should be able to get it done within five minutes. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. Uh good evening members of the council. My name is uh Chintan Patel together with my colleague Raman Kung. I am one of the principal owners for the land assembly at 239 to 251 Mel Street. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Uh Ramen and I will be sharing this delegation. I will cover our opening points and Ramen will follow up with the remaining points and our closing. Uh we are here to ask the council to redesate our lands from mixed use A to mixeduse B in the final official plan. Our request is simple. We believe mixed use B is the better fit for the site. This is a large well-located assembly on an important corridor. It is beside rapid transit. It directly abuts Charlesb Park. It is across the lands already planned for more intensity and it is a site that can realistically move forward in the near term. Uh we heard some previous delegates both for and against intensification. uh we believe mil street corridor is rightly suited or conducive for uh intensification because of its close proxim proximity from uh the PMTSA area. Uh some points I would like to make is first this is a strategic location for intensification uh and it's right next door uh next to the high order transit existing infrastructure and community amenities. If the city wants more housing in the right places, this is exactly the kind of site where that should happen. Uh that is why we believe mixed use B is more appropriate than uh mixed use A. Uh Charles Best Park is one of the strongest reasons to support mixed use B. uh this uh these lands but right next to the uh park and uh it can it has the possibility to give u direct access to the park as well and uh that gives future residents immediate access and a major benefit. This is not just a housing site. It is a site that can also create a better public relationship to the child's best park. Uh it is about adding housing in a location where residents can directly benefit from a park next door that makes this site especially well suited for additional intensity. Uh because of the size of this la land assembly there is an opportunity here not only for housing but also for parkland dedication and improve public access to the park from the Mel Street. It could create a wider pedestrian corridor into the park rather than the park feeling hidden from behind the private lots. Uh that is an important public benefit. It means development here can do more than add housing. It it can improve more people uh reaching and experience the park from the street. uh that is another reason why a broader and more flexible designation like mixed use B makes sense. Uh I will now hand things over to my colleague Ramen who will talk through the remaining points. Thank you. Um thank you Chantan. Good evening Mayor and member of council. My name is Ramen Kungkin and I'm also principal owner of the land assembly at 239 to 251 Mil Street. I'll pick up where Chinten left off. Mixeduse B would create a more balanced corridor. Third, mixed use B would create a more balanced and more logical planning framework along um Mil Street. The lands across the street are proposed to be designated mixeduse C which is the most permissive mixeduse designation in the draft official plan. It does not make sense to plan for the greatest intensity on one side of the corridor. While limiting other side to the mixed use A that creates an uneven corridor. Mixeduse B is the more reasonable middle ground. It better reflects the fact that this site is on an intensification corridor and should play a stronger role than mixeduse ALS. This site can actually deliver housing in the near term. Fourth, this is not just a long-term or theoretical growth site. It is a site with a real opportunity to move forward. The lands are assembled. They are currently residential parcels. They are actively being advanced for redevelopment. that matters. One of the key questions for the city is not only where the growth should go but where it can actually happen in a practical time frame. The material note uh that lands across the street are largely industrial and commercial in nature and may require more extensive site preparation before redevelopment. By contrast, our lands are assembled, residential parcels and are positioned to move forward sooner. That means that the site has the potential to contribute to housing supply in the near term. We believe the official plan should recognize and support sites that can actually help the city deliver housing sooner, not just later. Mixeduse A is too limiting for this site. Mixed use A does not fully reflect the site's location, park adjacency, corridor role, or development potential. It's too limited for a site that is directly beside rapid transact uh transit directly beside a public park or on um an evolving corridor large enough to create meaningful public benefits through redevelopment. Mixeduse B is the better fit because this site is beside transit uh beside a public park and capable of moving forward in the near term. Important clarification. I want to be clear about one point. We are not asking council to approve a building tonight. Uh we are asking council to put this site in the right policy framework. The details of the design built form compatibility parkland dedication and public access can all be worked through in the development review process. But at the official plan level, we believe mixeduse B is the appropriate designation. I'm closing. Um, in closing, we respectfully ask council to reset designate 239 to 251 Mil Street from mixed use A to mixuse B. that change would better reflect the site's adjacency to the mill PMTSA. It d it d its direct relationship to Charles Best Park, the opportunity to improve public access to the park from Mil Street, the planning context along the corridor, and the site real ability to contribute new housing in the near term. Thank you for your time. Uh, Tintan and I would be happy to answer any questions if you guys have. Thank you and thank you for your presentation. I don't see any questions. Okay. Awesome. I know staff has heard you. Okay. Thank you. And finally, we have Pierre Chauan. And you have five minutes. Did I hear you say finally? Uh thank you madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Pierre Chauvan with MHBC planning here on behalf of uh my client Activa Holdings Inc. with respect to uh uh a couple properties I'd like to bring to your attention and I first of all I just like to take an opportunity to thank staff. Uh we have provided written comments previously and uh some of the some of which have been addressed. It's not an easy task doing official plans. I've actually was sitting in the audience reviewing an official plan that I'm drafting myself. It's never easy uh to get it right the first time. There's always changes and things that are missed and some of that history that has gone into some of these applications uh kind of get missed through the the uh uh as you go through this process and that's effectively I think uh what summarizes these two particular properties. The first property relates to Activa's lands uh in a registered and draft approved plan of subdivision. uh they're commonly known as Harvest Park or Stafford Woods uh on the and particularly the lands are on the norththeast intersection of New Dundee and Ryel and they have been historically designated as mixed use. Um going back to the OM decision of 2008, uh these lands were specifically designated as mixed use to provide for a mix of uses uh residential and commercial and within mixed buildings. That was then carried forward in 2014 and your latest official plan. Again, lands are designated still to to this day as mixed use. Again, to encourage a mixing of uses. Now we find sort of what I would consider perhaps an erosion of sort of that direction which was intended for mixed uses which provided for residential to a commercial first designation which uh I would suggest uh only provides for may provide for residential. So it's not an 100% assurance with respect to the policies. So, I would certainly request that staff be directed to go back. In particular, I'm referring to policy 11.72 where residential uses may be permitted only in conjunction with commercial uses. And I find that wording a little troubling in a sense that it may be used. The intention all along for this particular uh I don't want to use the word node but this intersection was that it was intended to be a mixeduse and uh these policies are somewhat concerning. Certainly hope to look to work with staff uh this we understand this isn't the end of the road and we hope that we can come to some resolution with respect to that. Uh the second property, if you can put up the second image, relates to uh 495 Hiron Road. And again, you've heard uh my partner, Miss Sinclair, speak to the lands in the same node uh which was the sort of the missing node, so to speak, that wasn't carried forward. And these lands are also part of that same node. Uh and in fact, they're site plan approved for 10-story apartment. The official plan proposal is to effectively downd designate this to a neighborhood uh designation which only allows a max height of six stories. So we're not only zoned but we're also site plan approved to permit 10 stories. But the intention for this area was that it was part of a node and uh similar to Miss Sinclair's property, we had settle uh worked out a settlement with your staff in an establishment of uh through the 2014 official plan which then formed the basis for the zoning that you see today. So we would respectfully request that uh similar to Miss Sinclair's ask is that these lands be included as part of the strategic growth area and designated mix B. So, uh, with that, those are my, uh, comments, specific comments to these properties, and happy to answer any questions if you have any. Yes. Um, Council Johnston, um, sorry, thank you. I don't know if my question is, Mr. or whether it's a point of clarification from staff, but I'm wondering about the red line on the map and what that is delineating is is can you explain that? Which map or the the one that was just up there? Just up. Okay. Um it's uh well like is that like is that countryside line on the other side of it? Sorry. No, that is the Hiron the black line on that plan is Hiron Road. Uh but the red line is simply to uh delineate the process. Oh, that's just okay. Okay. Because there was green inside and outside of it. So there's when we're zooming in at that resolution, there's not exactly aligning, but thanks for the clarification then. Thank you. And those seem to be the only that's the only question. So thank you for coming in. Okay. Um, so now we could go to questions for staff if there are any or if we just want to move on. Doesn't look like there are. Yes, there are questions for staff. Okay, Mayor Banovic. Sorry. Thank you very much. So, I'm wondering if staff can just I mean, we obviously heard um a number of uh issues that were identified tonight. Um, councelor Johnson um raised uh a number of items that uh she has requested that staff take away and and uh look to address the concerns that we heard from several uh West Mount neighbors. Um but we we obviously heard things from a number of other applicants. Um what will sort of be the next steps between now and um when the formal public meeting will will take place? Um, and uh, yeah, just want to have to have some clarity on that. And I'm sure others who have left already are are probably still watching hoping to get that clarity. So wondering if staff can speak to that through the chair. Um as part of some next steps, we will follow up with a number of of delegates here that have raised um both sight specific matters that could be addressed through clerical revisions um sight specific considerations as well as just taking all the feedback that we've received tonight going back to the policies reassessing them in light of what we've heard tonight and um use all these comments to form the the final official plan that will be brought to you in the coming weeks. Okay. And so the next meeting um presumably will be the the official one that uh will will form sort of part of the the official process and and that will be the the official public opportunity for people to to lay any any final input onto uh on into the uh into the discussion. question for for council consideration through the chair. That's correct. Okay. Um and beyond the the sort of request for followup on West Mount, is there anything else that staff would need tonight to get any further clarity or direction from council or do you have what you uh what you need? So through the chair, what I can add is that um we've heard from the delegations and written submissions. The recommendation on the floor is that staff be directed to consider all of that. Should uh members of committee wish to provide their own comments for staff to consider as part of the next few weeks of our uh shaping up of a final official plan, uh staff would welcome those comments as well. Okay. So the the only other Yeah, I think um I think the comments that have been made by um the delegations obviously need to uh um be given strong consideration as we strive towards a a plan that u will meet the needs of uh of the community and it's always a balancing act. Um there is one thing and it came up on the weekend at a community event and uh it's one that I know continues to be a uh priority for many of the new faith communities who have moved into uh you know who have arrived in recent decades into our community and don't have the the same access um that longestablished communities had in in terms of uh properties were to establish themselves. I'm not sure we're quite there yet quite frankly in terms of um what I've seen in in with respect to the report and um in a way that's going to help make that situation any better. And so I would uh I would ask that staff go back and take a look at that because I think that's going to be uh that's going to be, you know, quite frankly from an equity point of view, I think that's going to be key so that we make sure we uh we just reflect the the new reality of our community going forward. So that would be my uh my one request over and above um the ones that have been raised. And I'm I'm glad that uh Councelor Johnson put on the table what what she did this evening because uh I think uh that that needs to be given strong consideration. Okay. Thank you. Um Mark Councelor Johnston. Thanks Chair Chapman. And uh just to just to clarify with uh from the planning team and to follow up on uh what uh what the mayor had asked then. So, the the points that uh the direction that I put forward for West Mount, the four points um that they had made, do I need to read them again or since I've already done that, you've got them. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Um Councelor Davey. Yes. Thank you. Based on um the mayor's comments, I don't have to go through my my list here because I get staff's going to be addressing all of those. Uh the only thing I did want to ask though in advance is the only um significant deviation I've heard so far from committee is um is indeed the the recommendations going forward from councelor Johnston and I guess she's trying to address the community's uh hopes in that area. But I just want to ensure because I don't understand the the quantum of difference that when it comes back it's it's made clear to a committee um what it means in terms of reduction in terms of population for example and where like and do we have to address that elsewhere and how that might be addressed elsewhere. So that's the only question that I have I think that I would add in terms of analysis but thank you for the good work. Did staff want to speak to that at all? No. Okay. Um, councelor Snider. Thank you, Chair Chapman. Um, we we certainly heard from delegations tonight who came out, but I know we've done a lot of engagement and we've got a working group. Um, I just want to um make sure that uh all voices are heard. Um, I think sometimes we people uh would come in and delegate or they'll give engagement and uh if we don't do exactly what they want, they might say that they weren't listened to or they weren't heard. Um, I'm, you know, I would imagine that there are some different opinions than what we heard tonight, uh, from the West Mountain neighborhood based on what we heard when, uh, we were dealing with 660 Belmont that some people were actually looking forward to being able to remain in that neighborhood as they downsized and uh, they could stay near all the amenities and nice things that they they enjoy in that neighborhood. Um, so I guess I'm I'm just uh asking for reassurance that uh all voices are taken into consideration uh when we're building this uh plan. So through the chair, yes, of course, all voices are taken into consideration and I think Mr. Zunich highlighted this uh in his presentation. Um we had mentioned that you know we've had you know over 3,000 uh conversations and comments uh through the community. What we heard loud and clear from the community from a values perspective is that choice is number one. We love our neighborhoods. We want to continue to love our neighborhoods and be able to live where we choose uh throughout different stages in our lives. and we would prefer not to leave our neighborhood of choice to do that and that is something that staff has taken to heart um in all the drafts of the official plan. Okay, thanks for that. Um yeah, I just had one question. Um and that is so if there and I there's one particular group that approached me earlier in the meeting um and they'd really like to meet with staff to go over their 21page document. Um is this an opportunity that can be um made available to them? Oh, sorry. Through the chair. Um, immediately following this meeting, we will be looking at all the written submissions that have come in as well in addition to the um the delegations here tonight. And yeah, follow up with any any specific um questions that were raised or any further clarity that has been sought by by delegates both written and in person. Okay. Thank you, counceloritis. Yeah. Um, I just want to I just want to follow up with staff and give some encouragement that I feel like a lot of the a lot of the the folks that came out tonight, I feel like they put a lot of good rationale on why certain things should be for for each individual property. So, I'd hope they would be taken seriously and and uh well, I know they're going to be taken seriously, but you know, give it a more holistic approach towards what's being asked. Okay. Oh, Council Johnston, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I don't have a question. I have a comment. Is that okay? Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to uh say a big thanks to the planning team. you have gone above and beyond in your work on uh on Kitchener 201 and I wanted to to say thank you. I know that you've had a lot of emails, you've had a lot of questions, um you've hosted a lot of events, you've held um community open houses, we even had a um a walkshop. I didn't even know that that was a word until recently. So, that was really cool to walk around Westmont. So, thank you and um I appreciate the the time and effort that you've put into this. you have worked many many many extra hours on this and there's been I know um uh uh it it hasn't always been uh greeted with um joy and exuberance from uh many people but you've uh you've remained professional and uh and you know um kept going through this and I really wanted to say how much I appreciate you so thank Councelor stretch. Thank you. I just wanted to add my comments and encouragements. I was able to participate in some of the um neighborhood and and area um community engagement activities. Um, I got to, um, come to GO Block with my kids and, um, you know, watched a whole bunch of different neighborhoods engage in and people engage in in planning in a way that I think they had never thought of before, like the board game idea. Um, I also really liked walking through the planning and and just, you know, learning so much about planning as a counselor as I go. It was also a really helpful tool for me to imagine going forward. I liked the avatar activity a lot and imagining myself as a different character and what and a different person and what might be important to someone else. I thought that was um just so well done. And today with um the delegates from Sri Lanka coming it's something that also I thought about when I was in Sri Lanka and when we were talking about different development projects there I was able to um use examples from what Kitchener was doing to engage the public in in some planning processes. So, I just think um yeah, well well well done. Um thank you for being great listeners to the community as well and in and in trying to engage as many voices as possible. Thank you. Thank you councelor stretcher. I'll quickly add my own comments as well. I think uh you've ended it really well to thanking staff and keeping that open perspective of uh the opinions of our community. Uh I mean we heard from various people those that are for development those that are uh against uh development u but the end of the day this document is driven with a tremendous public consultation and feedback. So, our staff have done a good job in listening to uh to to our residents and so ultimately it will be the people's document and of course it will not be perfect and I'm sure there's chances to improve upon it and that's why we don't quickly come to a decision ultimately what's the final product. It goes through a very long process. I think you guys have been working on this for the last year and a half and we still have many more months to go. Uh but I think it goes to show how inclusive we are of the public fe public public feedback and more importantly how conducive the city of Kitchener is towards development more importantly towards housing and creating a diverse housing stock in the city of Kitchener. So thank you staff for um for thinking outside the box and I think this document really does that. It keep makes city akiter very unique and uh we talk about talent attraction and housing starts from there and I think we creating those opportunities for future generations. Sorry I have a question and I had forgotten to ask it. It's just a quick one after my comments. I thought No, your comments were spectacular. I was trying to put a bull on this. Sorry to bring everybody down after your comments. Okay. All right. I was just I was just wondering because I we will be asked when do we think we will be coming coming back to council uh with the official plan again. You may not be able to answer it but a ballpark would be great. John through the chair we are tracking towards coming back to committee of council on May 25th. Thank you. Okay. So not too far. Okay. So again the the resolution is we're not giving any direct direction. It's just accepting the submissions provided on the second draft. Uh the yes yes uh the motion is before us. Can I get a mover? Moved by I'll go to my vice chair councelor Chapman. All those in favor opposed. And that carries. Thank you. And that we've already gone through the other items and so meeting ajourn. Thank you once more to staff and the deleg. Oh special counsel. Yes. For for planning meeting adjourned. Thank you.

Full Transcript