Clause 1 (b) of the main motion, be removed.

57:46Kush LaMathues and Emily, I don't know if you're doing a joint presentation or tag teaming, but

57:52welcome to the podium. We'll wait for you to get settled. Okay, everything's queued up for you.

58:08The floor is yours. All right. Good evening, Chair Kron, Mayor Guthrie, and members of council.

58:27My name's Kush LaMathues, and I'm here with my planning colleagues today tonight to provide some

58:33updated information on exploring the potential for five-plus units on low density residential

58:39lots in Guelph. So for this brief presentation, we'll first go over a bit of a refresher about

58:57scope of the work and why we're bringing you new information today. Ultimately, it is to

59:03fulfill a commitment the city has made through our Housing Accelerator Fund Action Plan. So in April

59:13of 2023, council approved the comprehensive zoning bylaw, and included in that was direction to staff

59:20to consider as-of-right permissions for greater than three units on a property. And this direction can

59:27and has been interpreted as not only looking at the possibility of four units, but also five,

59:34six, or even more. In October of 2023, council provided more scoped direction to draft a zoning

59:42bylaw for four-unit permissions, which was approved almost exactly one year ago today.

59:49As work began on drafting the four-unit zoning permissions, the city was also the recipient

59:55of the Housing Accelerator Fund, which complemented council's April 2023 direction

1:00:01and also included a commitment to explore the feasibility of five or more units.

1:00:08As with any city work, there are differing external perspectives on ultimate goals,

1:00:14and this piece is no different. From staff's perspective and a perspective that aligns with

1:00:20Guelph's corporate strategy, potential for advancing five-plus units is similar to the work done on

1:00:28four units. It's about providing a policy environment with guardrails that enables a

1:00:35greater variety of options for housing using one of the limited tools that we have available to us

1:00:41as municipalities. It's about becoming more housing ready at a time when significant challenges exist

1:00:48for increasing housing supply. It's about understanding that this is a building block

1:00:55that will take time to generate units. It's not an instant quick fix. The approach that we took

1:01:03to explore feasibility rests with the preliminary criteria that were selected and builds off the

1:01:09results of the four-unit work. That work identified 14,250 lots as having the possibility of supporting

1:01:21four units. We used this as a starting point for then scoping these lots down further using the

1:01:27criteria, which is now going to be shared with you by Ms. Irvine. Next slide. Good evening,

1:02:09check around, Merica 3, and members of council. My name is Emily Irvine from Planning Services,

1:02:17and I will be presenting the findings of our preliminary review. As mentioned, this review

1:02:23follows from the analysis of the four-unit work and further refines a series of criteria to determine

1:02:29the potential for five-plus units in the city. The criteria used to select unsuitable lots

1:02:37was infrastructure capacity that included water and transit services, as well as lot configuration

1:02:43that includes lot size and frontage. Oh, excuse me. There we go. Now we're in line.

1:02:55The findings of this preliminary review are summarized in the table. The four-unit project

1:03:02found that lots sown low density residential one and low density residential two, RL1 and RL2,

1:03:10of which there are a total of 32,000 in the city, represented the greatest opportunity to support

1:03:16additional residential units and concluded that 14,250 lots were suitable for four units.

1:03:23The first criteria that was reviewed for the potential for five-plus units

1:03:27was water servicing capacity. Lots were scoped to exclude properties that did not have very high

1:03:34water main and servicing capacity. This reduced the suitable properties to 10,100 or 32 percent

1:03:41of the lots. Transit services followed. Properties that were greater than 400 meters from transit

1:03:48were removed. This further scoped the suitable properties to 9,530 or 30 percent of the lots.

1:03:56Finally, lot configuration, including property size and frontage, were reviewed and reduced the

1:04:02suitable lots to 5,900 units or 13 percent of the lots in the city that could be suitable for five-plus

1:04:10units. The maps illustrate the location of the lots identified in the four-unit work

1:04:20and preliminary review that was conducted for five-plus units and are presented side by side

1:04:24to allow for comparison. The map to the left identified in purple illustrates the potential

1:04:30for four units. The map to the right with lots identified in yellow illustrates the findings

1:04:36of the preliminary review and location of the lots that could be potentially suitable for five-plus

1:04:41units. The scoped review removed clusters in the northeast part of the city and south of the downtown.

1:04:48Potential for five-plus units was found in clusters south of Speedvale across the northern part of

1:04:54the city as well as west and east of Hanlon Expressway and Gordon Street in the southern part of the

1:05:01city. Additional review would be needed to move forward with a review of the potential for five-plus

1:05:10units. Considerations in this review would include further refinement of lot size and

1:05:16characteristics. Minimum parking standards would be included. Compliance with official

1:05:21plant policies would be assessed. Public engagement would be undertaken and financial implications

1:05:28could also be considered. Should the project proceed the potential number of suitable lots

1:05:38for five-plus units would be refined with further analysis. This project could advance the city's

1:05:44housing residents as additional residential units have been a source of new housing and wealth.

1:05:50The review undertaken and summarized in this report fulfills the half commitment

1:05:54to explore the potential for this type of housing. Staff are seeking direction from council on

1:05:59moving forward with this project. This concludes our presentation. Thank you for your attention.

1:06:07Great. Thank you Ms. Matthews and Ms. Rippein. We have a delegation on this item so I think we'll

1:06:14follow that protocol as well and then we'll have questions for staff afterwards. So our

1:06:20delegate Chris Bonnet and I believe for this item there's a five-minute limit and again 32nd

1:06:32ding and then the mic will go off at the five-minute mark so welcome to our delegate. The floor is

1:06:38yours. Thank you Madam Chair. I'd really like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you

1:06:46this evening about City Staff's proposal to pursue five and up to 12 dwelling units per lot.

1:06:53I am responsible for my own words and mistakes in this but several neighbors in the Mayfield Park

1:06:58Community Association have read and endorsed my written comments submitted earlier.

1:07:02There's high local interest in this current proposal and unanimous opposition. For reference

1:07:07Mayfield Park is two south of the University and included as an unwelcome target for the five to

1:07:1312 unit buildings. I want to start by highlighting that five plus seems to us to be misleading.

1:07:20The plus implies addition but this proposal is really all about multiplication and what do I mean

1:07:25by that? Here's a real world example. Excuse me. A local developer recently bought a four bedroom

1:07:32bungalow on my street. The City's Committee of Adjustment approved severing that into four lots.

1:07:37The former well-maintained family home will be demolished and two semi-detached buildings will

1:07:42replace it. That's fine on its face but those residences will be purpose-built, student housing

1:07:48and big. Student housing is not excluded from this five plus proposal as far as I can see although

1:07:54perhaps it isn't the prime objective. So this example is relevant to tonight's debates and

1:08:00vote on up to 12 units and here's the math that I've used. One bungalow actually becomes two

1:08:05semi-detached buildings. Those two buildings will become at least 10 and maybe 12 dwelling units

1:08:12primary and additional. The four bedrooms that are standing today will be multiplied by 11

1:08:19to become 44 bedrooms by September 1st next year if the plan proceeds and maybe eight more bedrooms

1:08:25on top of that. So describing this as five plus is misleading. This is how intensification multiplies

1:08:32with just four primary units the same as a fourplex. Now I couldn't find how many ADUs in any

1:08:38sized plex would allow. That's because as I understand no fourplexes have yet been built

1:08:44or approved. So the big question tonight is how much more intensity we're actually facing.

1:08:48It's a big question around that. The uncertainty about intensity is really important to us and I

1:08:54will like to expand on that. The staff report for council's April 9th 2024 meeting staff use words

1:09:00like gentle density and minimally build out these lots and conclude that and I quote here

1:09:07the ultimate sign of a successful gentle density is that it is gentle enough that one hardly notices

1:09:14end quote the 12 plex proposal before you today also speaks of gentle density. So the language is

1:09:21the same whether we're talking about four primary units or five or 12. My second point slows it

1:09:28is to emerge is that residents have been sold unresponsible and compatible intensification

1:09:34that is sensitive to surrounding homes and quite frankly neighborhood issues. Our experience is

1:09:39exactly opposite so we feel to be blunt betrayed. No one in our area believes that a five plex or

1:09:47a 12 plex will be gentle or barely noticeable. Anything so large is absurd to make that conclusion.

1:09:55So I also stayed another limitation. The missing middle mentioned in the proposal suggests this

1:09:59work will support the city's housing affordability strategy. However staff do not promise that in

1:10:05the documents far as I have read. You should not assume that five plus intensification will actually

1:10:11solve another very significant problem. None of us understand the urgency to denigrate existing

1:10:17neighborhoods whether for purpose-built student housing or for large multi-unit buildings that

1:10:22are incompatible with established low density residential areas. In fact forcing five and up

1:10:28to 12 unit buildings or dwellings I'm sorry the terminology here I keep tripping over.

1:10:39In fact forcing those five and 12 plexes to be shoehorn between existing homes seems exactly

1:10:44counterintuitive to us. Why isn't vacant service land the target? Why not intensification corridors

1:10:51or the RL3 medium density zones which considering the proposed density of these new buildings would

1:10:57seem to be a better fit. We also don't understand why consulting with residents waits until after

1:11:03staff have already made up their minds to make a recommendation to counsel and effectively against

1:11:09the neighborhood. To be clear our goal is not to refuse sorry was this a count? I'm sorry yes okay.

1:11:18Our goal is not to refuse any kind and all development but to ensure what happens is visually

1:11:23and practically compatible as the official plan defines this term. To summarize first five plus

1:11:30is not the whole story. Second our experience the real world implicate intensification has left us

1:11:35very frustrated and third the whole premise of intensification done as proposed leaves us and

1:11:41we hope you with many important questions to accept or approve. Perfect timing right on the mark well

1:11:49done. Do we have any questions for the delegation? I don't see any second any questions so thank you

1:11:56very much for your thoughts on this. Okay so we do have a staff recommendation in the report

1:12:04but we also know that we have a potential resolution another potential motion that is contrary to the

1:12:13motion in the report. So I think what we'll do is if we have any questions of staff first and then

1:12:19we'll ask whether there's any interest in putting that first that staff recommendation on the floor.

1:12:25So in terms of questions of staff I have councillor Allt, councillor Downer, Mayor Guthrie.

1:12:31Thank you very much chair Caron. Through you through you to staff and it's two questions I think

1:12:40they are quite simple one of them might be perceived as rhetorical but it's not.

1:12:47Reference was made to water servicing capacity and I want to take the servicing out of there and

1:12:54just address water capacity. I have concerns for water usage and the limits that we have on water

1:13:02and how this might affect such areas as Plurimulti and other greenfield developments that are

1:13:09currently proposed. I'm very concerned that as we increase density and increase water usage in the

1:13:17targeted areas that we are actually diminishing our ability to extend to the areas that we have

1:13:23accepted or developed and if staff could answer that I'd appreciate it. Through the chair to the

1:13:33councillor so with the changes that have come about to increase three units as a right and the four

1:13:41units of right and some of the changes that the province made with our Official Plan Amendment

1:13:44number 80 we are undertaking our water supply analysis again we're bringing forward policies

1:13:50they use it or lose it policies I think we've talked about it a couple times it's coming

1:13:56but we are going to be tracking our water supply very closely and ensuring that we have a very good

1:14:05idea of exactly how much we have left and when we need to do potential upgrades to systems we have

1:14:10we need to potentially look at new wells or other sources and use it or lose it so

1:14:17there is a limited time and you know as we said with even with ADUs or with individual streets

1:14:23not all sites can have five units not all sites can have an even 180 U if you are on one of those

1:14:31streets with a three-quarter inch water main it will reach capacity at a point and we've been

1:14:38sharing that as much as we can that it cannot go everywhere and we'll continue to monitor that as

1:14:43we go forward. Thank you very much it unfortunately it raises another question for me please don't

1:14:50perceive this as rhetorical either but through your words what I heard and please correct me if

1:14:58I'm wrong that this whole suggestion could actually be academic based on our water capacity in other

1:15:06words we could be in a position where whether we approve this or not it becomes moot because we

1:15:14just can't achieve it is that correct am I reading that right? Through the chair to counselor so

1:15:23maybe a nuance to that is that over time we could have capacity issues but certainly right now if

1:15:30the objective is to get housing in the ground as quickly as possible we'll take a look at it and

1:15:35consider it and we'll monitor our water supplies so there might be a time limit when we have capacity

1:15:39issues but right now we know we have capacity in the system individual streets may not but we do

1:15:46have capacity in the system right now and that's why we're doing the use it or lose it policies as

1:15:51well but for right now it's not a currently an issue today. And I do appreciate the use it or

1:15:57lose it I wanted to clear on that the question that really I don't want to be perceived as rhetorical

1:16:03I think it's very important and the delegate brought this up in one sense we're really focusing on

1:16:10our one and our two zoning here and my question is if we are why do we have zoning at all

1:16:17because we're going beyond our one and our two in this proposal are we not? Through chair Caron to

1:16:27Councillor Alde um you know I think the the the foundation of this work is that you know cities

1:16:38like Guelph um the majority um of our zoning like RL1, RL2 are single detached lots and there are

1:16:46opportunities that are available you know you know 70 percent um are zoned RL1 and RL2 possibly 80

1:16:54percent so there's opportunities there that we need to be exploring given the again as I mentioned

1:17:01in the presentation the limited amount of tools that we have to bring on um more housing supply

1:17:09in our city there's only so many places that increased housing supply can go and this is one

1:17:14one area that we can continue to look at so zoning still continues to be important and it's sort of a

1:17:23tiered kind of approach to zoning so we're looking at opportunities that may exist in RL1 and RL2

1:17:28areas for a limited amount of intention the intensification to occur. Thank you very much and I

1:17:37guess through chair Caron to you again then the question then becomes how broadly do we interpret

1:17:46limited as well and I see the map but the map in some sense the devil is in the detail um what do

1:17:53we mean by limited is my question uh through chair Caron to councillor alts so again that would be part

1:18:04of the work and the further should this um work um be advanced that would be part of the conversation

1:18:11that would be um had is what does limited mean what does you know what do what do the communities

1:18:18think about limited and and again it also speaks to the constraints though of of the properties

1:18:24and that's why some you know we did a limited scoped review going from four units to the potential

1:18:31for what could be possible for five or more but more of that scoping would need to be done through

1:18:37further exploration and further analysis. Thank you very much. Okay on the speaker's list I have

1:18:45councillor Downer, Mayor Guthrie, councillor Goller and councillor Gibson. Thank you it's

1:18:51through you Madam Chair um so I just want to confirm again that um there hasn't been no you'd

1:18:58say extremely limited uptake in the four units that there has been zero uptake is that what that

1:19:04means there's been some inquiries but through chair Caron to you uh councillor Downer that's

1:19:12correct there's been nothing the other thing too that if we decide uh not to move forward at this time

1:19:19does that impact our half um funding and can that be used elsewhere if we don't use it here

1:19:29through chair Caron to councillor Downer uh so this effectively this report effectively fulfills our

1:19:33our housing accelerator fund commitment and it could it would not risk um further funds that

1:19:41may be available to us and it could the amount could be reallocated to other housing half initiatives.

1:19:47Okay thank you. Um Mayor Guthrie. Thank you very much Madam Chair and through you.

1:19:56Um and and I think this is a pretty healthy uh discussion I think I think we were all sitting

1:20:02here two or three years ago I think it would maybe even be a little bit different but I think I

1:20:08think it's uh it's timely now um my question is did you at all parcel out the ability for the lands

1:20:21on sort of like like corner lots that that corner onto an arterial road or corner onto

1:20:32um a collector road where um you know I don't want to speak to like Gordon Street as an example

1:20:41because that's an intensification corridor and we all understand that but were there other areas in

1:20:47the city that that you looked at that weren't embedded you know 15 20 30 houses deep into an

1:20:55established neighborhood um and instead you looked at sort of these other corner lot sort of abilities

1:21:03and if not is direction for continuing to look at this is it allowed to be scoped to just something

1:21:15like that so still the same criteria you know bus transit coverage water coverage infrastructure

1:21:24etc um but limit the scope would be be able to give that type of direction to see how that could

1:21:32come back or do you think it would be so limited in numbers that it's just not worth it through you

1:21:42chair karantam er got three that is sort of the next step um these are discussions we have had

1:21:48we have not scoped it to that extent um to date um it would it would be what we would consider

1:21:56moving forward and it it has been discussions that we considered but we we wanted to get

1:22:02direction from council before because site and lot characteristics are one of the principal barriers

1:22:08that we would see or the other principal boundaries where we would we would we would set yeah okay um

1:22:16so in the through you madam chair so in the map that you've already created for us with the filters

1:22:22in place um is it easily is it easily parceled out the corner lots throughout the city is that

1:22:31something that can be can be done um because it's not like you'd be having to add more I think you've

1:22:38done that work you would just be eliminating sort of everything that's embedded inside these already

1:22:45built up subdivisions and neighborhoods you'd only be focusing on the ones that would be as I said

1:22:52collector arterial um you know main roads through you um council chair karantam er got three yes we

1:23:04could that would be difficult to parcel out okay thank you so much madam chair thank you staff

1:23:11that's all my questions for now I appreciate it okay councillor Goller you're up next and then

1:23:16councillor gibson um thank you three chair karantam to staff um first of all thank you for this report

1:23:23and thank you for doing the work to explore these um gentle densification um one of the the points

1:23:31that delegate made um is that we really have not seen the impact of the of the four units so could

1:23:37you let me know will there be a reporting as the four units on the lot get built when might we see

1:23:44those the feedback of what that the impact is to our community through chair karantam

1:23:55councillor Goller um yes we can provide reporting through our annual growth management and affordable

1:24:01housing report um and um I would just point out to that um council also um on five normandy and seven

1:24:10east you there there could be potential for four plexus on that as well perfect perfect um and if

1:24:17council today chooses to hold off uh and and say we give direction to take no further action

1:24:23um would there be an opportunity for us to come back say in a year or two years once we've seen

1:24:28some of the four units and say you know we we gave direction to maybe stop doing this work

1:24:34can we now continue it because we you know we like what we've seen with the four units per lot

1:24:42through the chair to councillor Goller um so I think there isn't it should that be the direction

1:24:48of council to bring it back um uh beyond 2026 of course that's up to council um I think where

1:24:57in terms of there would then need to be a budget consideration for that given that this is tied

1:25:01this work is tied and there's funding allocated through the housing accelerator fund okay okay

1:25:07and and if we gave direction to to not proceed tonight uh you know that would free up some funding

1:25:14where would that funding possibly go if not to do this work um through chair uh to councillor Goller

1:25:26so that would be something that would need to be discussed and internally in terms of how it could

1:25:30be reallocated through the housing accelerator fund initiatives that currently exist in our action

1:25:35plan okay and just so that I understand would that be a staff the operational decision or would

1:25:40something need to come back to council uh through the chair to councillor Goller at this point it

1:25:47it would be as it has been an internal uh discussion um however uh through through the

1:25:57chair I just maybe jump in here too um as budgets change so if if the um if if the money is reallocated

1:26:06within the the eight initiatives that were already approved um as the budget changes those

1:26:12adjustments come through the quarterly variance reports and so council does see them in terms of

1:26:17at the point in time when the budget is changing um if there are brand new initiatives or or pieces

1:26:24of initiatives like you've seen last month with with the property files specifically those are

1:26:29coming um to council in uh in kind of peace decisions so there there are um many ways in

1:26:36which we're navigating these projects given the varied nature of them um but uh council is

1:26:42informed um at certain points with decisions okay okay thank you thank you very much for the work

1:26:48you're doing on this thank you chair uh councillor Gibson up next thank you for your check karan um

1:26:54thanks to staff it was a intriguing read I appreciate the report I I had a question as I was

1:26:59reading the report I just I kept on coming back to lot size so when you think about five units on

1:27:04uh on a property I thought to myself where in the world would this fit in my ward like I don't

1:27:08know where this would fit and then sure enough I see the map and that it doesn't it doesn't fit

1:27:11just simply because we're already pretty compact out here but my question is um I just want to talk

1:27:16about lot characteristics so what makes a lot uh an attractive or even a possibility for something

1:27:22like this can you give me like a standard characteristic like is it are we talking about

1:27:2755 frontage you know 150 depth are we talking like I know in in ward one anyway if you get a 50

1:27:35foot wide frontage in a 150 and 120 depth that's a pretty big lot but like what are the lot

1:27:40characteristics for what would be like a a four or five unit I can only assume it's going to be

1:27:47probably 50 wide 75 feet wide and probably 150 feet deep is that is that a wrong estimate do you

1:27:54guys have any sorry I shouldn't say guys do you have any sort of large characteristics for thoughts

1:28:00that are lots that are sort of ideal um through chair Caron to councillor Gibson we did have

1:28:09discussions on on this very matter and in terms of the preliminary review we did a quick scan of

1:28:15where units were existing with where buildings were existing with sort of five plus units

1:28:22and and we can't we had a range we looked at and we came up with a a minimum size of 560 now that is

1:28:30quite preliminary square meters and that is quite preliminary we didn't do detailed review of of

1:28:36length and depth we took the minimum depth because that eliminated so many lots but that is something

1:28:44that we would really look at building typologies and what fits on a lot and and and how that's

1:28:50configured so I'm just thinking about that in the context of some of the properties that I can

1:28:55picture I'm correct if I'm wrong but are some semi-detached properties or even town home properties

1:29:03in Guelph are some of them 18 feet wide and a hundred and is it 18 is the minimum and then a

1:29:09hundred and 110 feet deep um through uh you through um uh chair Caron to councillor Gibson yes

1:29:23we believe it's 18 feet six meters six meters so just to just to put things in context I'm not

1:29:28being smart here but to put things in context currently right now in the east end you said 500

1:29:33some meter property 500 some square meter property would be a candidate for a four or five unit

1:29:40adu property currently that is the density that exists in the east end we've got 18 foot wide

1:29:45properties with 100 feet deep you can fit five houses on one of these lots so um I'm less sympathetic

1:29:51when it comes to the like the density argument from some of these neighborhoods these neighborhoods

1:29:56are extremely low density huge properties with one single house on it if we wanted to really

1:30:02capitalize on um intensification uh this gets back to the age-old argument of do we only intensify

1:30:09new new builds and new greenfield sites or do we actually try and intensify some of our

1:30:14mature properties that's my comment now I again I'm not bringing this back to drive waste because

1:30:20we had this argument for years on this council but what I do want to say is this somewhere in the

1:30:24report can you help me understand if I was to go with a four unit property from a one unit

1:30:31property with three parking spaces to a four unit property am I obligated to provide a parking

1:30:36space for each unit I think I know the answer but could you just help me understand through

1:30:49chair crown to councillor Gibson so sorry can you just clarify for me are you are you asking about

1:30:54no problem four units total primary plus three yes i buy a i buy a property and I decide i'm

1:31:04going to go for it and I'm going to take that original house down and build a four five units

1:31:09on the one lot am I obligated to provide parking uh for all four units a single parking spot for all

1:31:16four or even for all five units so in the circumstance uh through you chair crown to

1:31:21councillor Gibson throw so in this situation of four units total um on a property you would need

1:31:29three parking spots um because we have currently if it was five units you would need five parking

1:31:36spots okay in that situation and so this is where I will align with my fellow counselors I I'm I'm

1:31:43less sympathetic on the density because when we brought density forward a years ago and needing

1:31:48more parking spaces there wasn't a lot of sympathy but I am sympathetic to the fact that you are

1:31:54having to like if we go to five we're having to provide a parking spot on each lot for every

1:31:59single unit and I can appreciate how chaotic that would look like and the chaos that that would bring

1:32:05so I just wanted again I want to separate my sympathies but I also want to acknowledge that

1:32:12creating this kind of parking for me is just is too much too much intensity uh for for five units

1:32:19and although I know I bled in some of my comments there councillor crown I apologize but I do appreciate

1:32:24staff answer my questions okay great thanks we have one more question and then I think we'll

1:32:31start to look for a motion to to lay on the floor uh councillor downer thank you so um I was just

1:32:38thinking about the affordability thing and and what we monitor I mean because this is under that

1:32:44that envelope from the you know trying to achieve and the outcome is affordable housing uh correct

1:32:51more supply more affordable housing so as we get more supply so what we're seeing what we've seen

1:32:58and what we're seeing with the units that have been what we heard described earlier that they're not

1:33:06particularly affordable so like in in terms of what you presented us in our previous report so

1:33:13these rooms are renting for a thousand to twelve hundred dollars a piece I know councillor

1:33:18goller and I were looking at one the other day that was a four bedroom unit in one of these new

1:33:23you know semis and whatnot that was five thousand uh dollars first and and geared to students so we're

1:33:30not seeing it as what we're achieving is not affordable units but so far what I can see when

1:33:37we've done some of these some of the ones the 80s in the basements maybe I don't know but that's just

1:33:42it are we monitoring the the rents that are being charged for all these new units that were

1:33:49supplying now I understand that a bigger supply may bring down the rents but are we even monitoring

1:33:55what the units are all renting for um uh in the new units that we're providing not that it's wrong

1:34:04or bad I mean the three units are really we've had a really good uptake in the three units

1:34:09excellent there seems to and actually somebody told me who was a builder who said

1:34:13three units is a sweet spot for it not so much and I'm not quite sure why but

1:34:21so do we monitor that can we ever monitor that because if if we've got this funding to achieve

1:34:28affordable housing um how are we demonstrating that and how how can we get that monitoring on an

1:34:36annual basis as well uh through chair crown to councillor downer so at this point we are not able

1:34:45to um collect information or monitor um what ad use are rented for okay so we really have no

1:34:53way of monitoring whether the extra supply is bringing down the costs of rent we know that

1:35:00there's just more supply which is it's good we're getting more students more people living in the

1:35:05city and you know it's more difficult to purchase but we really don't know what these rents are

1:35:10and whether they ever come close to that so that um is there any and we don't have an ability to do

1:35:17that to follow up and once these permits have come in to see what they're renting for to collect

1:35:24that data uh through chair crown to councillor downer at this point no we do not except for the

1:35:31ones that we are incenting through our um CIP program okay okay great thanks thanks is there

1:35:41anyone who has questions of staff um I have two quick questions um if a property could accommodate

1:35:50a five or a six or a 12 plex today uh and this doesn't pass and doesn't move forward those property

1:35:57owners have other options do they not uh zoning amendment for example uh yes chair crown that is

1:36:08correct they can come through an individual zoning amendment okay um and then I think what we heard

1:36:13from the delegate is that um it isn't just a matter of one property um converting to four units or

1:36:20five units it's this it's it's one property being severed and then each of those severed properties

1:36:25becoming four units and within each of those four units three or four bedrooms per unit and that um

1:36:32in today's affordability crisis what we're seeing uh in the community is two persons per bedroom so

1:36:41potentially one single family four bedroom home severed turned into a four plex and then four

1:36:48bedrooms and two persons per bedroom we could take a single family lot and it could turn into 72

1:36:54bedroom 72 persons and so that's where the my question is about water and servicing is uh whether

1:37:06or not we're calculating our ability to service uh these severances and these these this densification

1:37:14with the number of people versus the number of units and I guess without any uptake on four plex

1:37:22is being built we really don't have a way of quantifying the the water impact at this time

1:37:27until they start getting built is that is that an accurate description of our current data collection

1:37:35ability uh council crown so we do do um capacity analysis for the sites that commit to determine

1:37:45if we have capacity on the street and in the system for individual development so that is looked at

1:37:50um prior to building permit being granted so we are looking at that individually okay great thanks

1:37:58very much so um without further questions I think it's up to the will of council at this point we

1:38:02do have a staff recommendation if there isn't any appetite for putting the staff recommendation

1:38:07on the floor uh then we do have an alternate um motion that counselor downer is prepared so

1:38:13is anyone willing to move the staff recommendation uh and uh mayor guthrie moving the staff

1:38:21staff recommendation and uh any seconder for that I don't see a seconder so I'm going to

1:38:29call in counselor oh last minute hand up counselor gibson you're seconding the staff recommendation

1:38:35okay so um as the mover um mayor guthrie will speak to that and then we'll have a commentary

1:38:42from anybody who wants to speak to the staff recommendations mayor guthrie thank you chair

1:38:50and to council I appreciate that um so I'd like to immediately table an amendment um and then you

1:38:58know it's kind of a yes or no move forward or not um and I did send it to you chair and to clerks

1:39:05and I have no idea if there's a seconder at all so uh we'll see but I I I I well maybe if we could

1:39:17just have my amendment put up on the screen I won't get into it too much I'll just read it and

1:39:24I'll see if there's a seconder and I won't call any further if there's no seconder but it is it

1:39:30aligned you could read that while clerks is preparing it for the screen that would be oh

1:39:33sure yeah no problem it is so it's it didn't I I think I put it in the right spot and maybe maybe

1:39:44staff could help me if I did it wrong but um it's it's under a uh which is refine the criteria used

1:39:52to assess suitability for increased residential and then here's the amendment that would only apply

1:39:58to corner lots that are adjacent to arterial and or collector roads and so like I'm trying to I'm

1:40:07trying to give a little bit on the ability to get more housing built I'm also balancing recognizing

1:40:15that I understand that even with the even what um the delegates said and what we've heard from

1:40:20others like I want to recognize that too these sort of you know in the deep part of these neighborhoods

1:40:28and subdivisions and these built up areas I get the angst like I I understand that

1:40:34but I'm just trying to see if there's something along these arterial or collector roads where we

1:40:38could have permissions for those types of things to to have maybe more housing get built I'll stop

1:40:45there because it's not up on the screen yet I don't I don't want and they don't I don't have a

1:40:48seconder so I'll stop there just to respect the process yeah let's wait until we can read it on

1:40:54the screen yeah it's on its way and then we'll see if there's interest from a seconder so there it

1:41:14is everybody under a that would only apply to corner lots that are adjacent to arterial and

1:41:19or collector roads so you know I have no idea if that's 20 in the city or 50 or 100 I have no idea

1:41:27but I think I think that that would be more balanced to see about some more density without you

1:41:35know really rocking the boat for for things that the these existing neighborhoods have been bringing

1:41:43to our attention and and I would imagine that there's more review that would go even further a

1:41:49little bit around those corner lots whether it makes sense or not from staff if we were to give

1:41:54this direction so yeah you're in the room chair you'll see are you or I don't know if there's a

1:41:59seconder let's see if there's a seconder a councillor Goller is seconding that

1:42:06so discussion just on the amendment councillor Goller then councillor gibson then councillor Allt

1:42:11councillor hauser thank you and through you checker on I would like to ask staff on under thoughts

1:42:17on this whether you think that the the volume of work that is required may be worthwhile given that

1:42:26if it only applies to corner lots that are adjacent to unarterial or collectors

1:42:32plus all the other restrictions that would go on do you think it would be a viable

1:42:39number of lots to to warrant the amount of work that would be required

1:42:46through chair chronic health or galler I think it is it is a viable option and it provides a balance

1:42:53between trying to become more housing ready and providing a bit more of a flexible policy

1:43:00environment and an ability to do that work at this point I don't know how many

1:43:08units or parcels it would highlight through that work and if we go down this road to

1:43:16explore allowing the five to twelve units on those very specific lots and then we find out that

1:43:23you know in a couple years it does work would there be an opportunity to expand it at that point

1:43:29down the road through chair chron to councillor Goller yes there would be an opportunity to do that

1:43:38okay if I make make comments chair chron well thank you to staff for the quick answers I think that

1:43:47as Mayor Guthrie mentioned this would be an opportunity to get some more much needed housing

1:43:51stock respecting the needs of neighborhoods and this would really narrow it down to more accessible

1:44:00parts of the city that would be on transit routes so yeah I would be happy to see this move forward

1:44:06so that we can continue to advance the city's response to the housing crisis that we're experiencing

1:44:13thank you okay we have councillor Gibson alt and then hauser thank you chair chron

1:44:21councillor Goller asked my question was mainly around what is the opportunity here like well

1:44:25how many how many lots would this unlock but I think that would have to wait on staff to get

1:44:28back to us with that so thank you councillor Allt did you know I didn't was that a ditto okay councillor

1:44:43hauser um I just had a question about oh sorry through the chair to the staff um question about

1:44:51like corner lots and I know that these um have minimal setbacks so corner lots and visibility and

1:44:58sightlines I'm just concerned about those large structures blocking visibility on arterial roads

1:45:04and corners I don't know if you can speak to that at all yeah through the chair to the councillor

1:45:11so the minimum setbacks and including daylighting triangles we would be maintaining that in the

1:45:16zoning they typically are larger lots as a whole but we would be absolutely maintaining those

1:45:21daylighting triangles for for safety reasons thank you and councillor downer uh so I won't be

1:45:29supporting the amendment um I think I would caution council I don't think they realize

1:45:36what's in arterial and what collectors how many there are in the city and if you look at that

1:45:40you know I just know on my ward you look at streets like water harvard court right there would be

1:45:45nisca there would be starwood there would be all of these roads that you don't realize that a

1:45:50collector and arterial which we sort of discovered through the traffic calming process that there

1:45:55are more streets that are identified as arterial and collector that you actually think of so um

1:46:02and I think if we're going to stop it we should just stop it and um and take our time with the

1:46:09four plexus and see how they're working out before we start heading down the road to five I have more

1:46:14comments but I still prefer the emotion that I hope to bring forward later if this uh fails thank you

1:46:21okay speaking just to the amendment any further comments um

1:46:26mayor mayor guthrie second time oh thank you just as the mover just to wrap up uh just before the vote

1:46:32uh councillor Caron um I I just wanted to say that uh you know this isn't direction to go and do

1:46:41this is direction to investigate further it's like we're filtering we're filled you know is it

1:46:45near a bus route is there water supply is it and what now corner lots it gets filtering down it's

1:46:52not to actually action it so I think uh some of the um some of the commentary uh is I think valid

1:47:01from my colleagues but but this is exactly why we would send staff away to filter down a little

1:47:08bit more and then and then let that come back and then we can we can say oh don't not water street

1:47:13or not Harvard or what I mean we can we can see what's available to me not seeing what's available

1:47:20I don't think would would be appropriate um I I just want to be more informed by seeing what's

1:47:26available in this type of a situation but that did thank you for letting me just to speak one more

1:47:32time as the mover I appreciate it yep no worries and in the meantime we've had a question from

1:47:36councillor Chew I threw you madam chair uh just to staff like I can I kind of foresee this as maybe

1:47:45like a pilot so we can really ground truth like a very specific and unique typology um

1:47:53the can you kind of foresee us doing this with the direction that mayor Guthrie has

1:48:01tabled because I I do think like we have a new manager of urban design and I think there

1:48:08there could be a lot of opportunities to enhance the four units work so we can actually look at

1:48:15the uh this is the nuances beyond just lot size configuration because I feel like that's a lot of

1:48:22what's the map has been prefaced on so I just want to see if like you could entertain more modeling

1:48:31more more in depth look if we just gave you this one configuration which mayor Guthrie is tabled

1:48:43through the chair to the counselor so if if that is the direction of council tonight we'll

1:48:47follow it I guess that's the the answer to the first part of the question um urban design is

1:48:52not applicable if it was five units or six units or seven units or eight units or nine units or

1:48:57ten units or 50 units so that is been removed from a lot of our processes we can look at

1:49:05massing if it's over 10 units but anything under 10 units we cannot review anymore as a result of

1:49:11provincial changes and just to follow up through you madam chair I guess like for me I'm not so

1:49:21concerned about looking at architectural treatment and urban design standards it's more so can you

1:49:27provide more accurate precedence based off of what we see in Guelph because I don't I think the context

1:49:36is very important for us to e politicize some of these conversations because I do think there are

1:49:42applicable lots out there that can merit homeowners um transforming their properties however I do get

1:49:49the concerns with parking especially in my end of town um and I think there's a lot of concerns with

1:49:57the with um the rental uh uptake within the university population I think those are all fair

1:50:05but I do think we have a very unique stream block pattern in the city and there are very

1:50:11unique configurations that could warrant uh some of this work being considered so for me it's not

1:50:18like I understand you can't do architectural treatment you can't do landscape uh uh treatment

1:50:24you can't apply those policies but I think we can provide better visualization for people and

1:50:31I'm just wondering if there's an appetite and a willingness to do that type of work

1:50:43through the chair to the counselor so um we can take a look at it if we if this motion moves forward

1:50:49and on the corner lots and then we certainly would bring back examples of what it looked like we did

1:50:54that with the four units and where how they'd be stacked and where they would be but we are limited

1:50:58in our ability to do other items and require other items yeah and I would just end this by saying

1:51:05it wouldn't hurt I think it could enhance the current four units uh work that has already been

1:51:12done just so we have more examples that are a product of Guelph rather than a product of

1:51:19Toronto or barrier or other places because I think that's in my opinion that's where the

1:51:24conversation gets diluted a lot of times and so I appreciate what Mayor Guthrie has put forward

1:51:30Any further questions or comments? I do have some comments on on the amendment I won't be

1:51:38supporting the amendment um as we said if if there are lots corner lots on arterial and

1:51:43collector roads there's another way to develop them and that's a zoning amendment that what's on

1:51:48the table today is anywhere from five to 12 units per lot and we took a significant leap when we

1:51:55went from three units as of right to four units as of right and if we're now talking five to 12

1:52:01units as of right on corners or arterials those property owners can pursue a zoning amendment

1:52:07to a higher zoning category that would kick in a lot of other different controls like lighting and

1:52:14and grading and and some other studies that would be required under a zoning amendment so

1:52:20I won't be supporting the the amendment that's on the floor um so we'll call a vote on the amendment

1:52:25could we have the amendment back on the screen just as one last flash before we vote on the

1:52:31amendment okay so is there anyone opposed to the amendment? Councillor Downer, Councillor Allt,

1:52:44Councillor Caiten, Councillor Billings and Councillor Curran so that is six that is five

1:52:52so the amendment carries okay so we're back to the main motion are there any additional

1:52:58questions or comments on the main motion? Councillor Downer, yes I hope this motion does

1:53:06the main motion does not pass I think um well Councillor Curran has just mentioned it I hope

1:53:12we have got an opportunity to vote on the other one of stopping this for now we've got as we've

1:53:18said they've gone from three units and that took two public that went through two public

1:53:23meetings and first time we did the three units they were just the ADUs who maxed out two bedrooms

1:53:29and when it came back with the four units it went up to three bedrooms that were allowed so we've

1:53:34done all that in a very short period of time um we haven't really had time to monitor um whether

1:53:41the the three units and the four units certainly we're not sure whether we're we're leading to

1:53:47affordability or not certainly we are developing more units and there does seem to be a significant

1:53:53uptake in ADUs which is is good and a lot of homeowners that we've heard earlier are doing

1:53:59that as well so I I think um I I would like to have us just pause and monitor for now really

1:54:09that's basically the bottom line I don't know that we're we're particularly getting the outcomes that

1:54:15we want and I I would like to thank staff for the work that they've done on this so far and to

1:54:21bring it to us to this point so we can decide whether we want to move forward or not personally at

1:54:28full disclosure I live across from a nine plex in the old university neighborhood contrary to what

1:54:34councillor Gibson says there's a lot of density in parts because and behind that is a 24 plex

1:54:40and these were converted buildings the one across from me was from a church

1:54:44and there's lots of green space around it and and the parking is is very adequate and and it is not

1:54:50a problem so I that's sort of not the issue it's just how we're going about these units now and

1:54:55this how we need to really monitor this in a much better way thanks councillor Dyer any any

1:55:03further comments uh councillor chun through you madam chair um I would just say like I agree

1:55:11in whole to what councillor um downer has put forward and this is in and part of

1:55:17listening to my constituents I don't think we're quite there yet in the in our conversation as a

1:55:24city I would just say though if we don't take some ownership in this conversation at any point

1:55:31we're going to see more escalations to all t and we're going to see more of those nine plexes

1:55:37that are going to be put forward because OLT has allowed that to allow those uh typologies to be

1:55:44put forward and I think there's an opportunity to help facilitate these conversations in a more

1:55:48wholesome way so it stays local um but again like I I I don't think there's appetite in the room at

1:55:55the moment but I just hope that in the future that we can uh be able to ground truth some of these

1:56:01community conversations in a way that helps demystify some of the fears that some people have

1:56:08and address the pertinent issues like traffic and parking which are serious considerations that my

1:56:14part of town needs some uh uh answers rectified for so just some comments that I'd have thanks

1:56:23councillor chun um mayor guthrie thank you chair and through you um I was just wondering through

1:56:30to staff and I just I I do want to maybe try to continue to balance the conversation with my

1:56:36colleagues and and into the public too on this um can we just maybe not would you be okay by us

1:56:45not approving B in the motion which is for you to actually prepare official plan zoning amendments

1:56:53and all the necessary implementation work you know we just passed the amendment about you know

1:57:00going and refining going and investigating more about these corner lots ideas maybe it would be

1:57:06better for us just to get that information back before you do all the other heavy lifting on

1:57:13official plan amendments and all zoning amendment wording to actually implement and instead bring

1:57:19it back just as another checkpoint before we move to implementation at all and that might allow all

1:57:25of us to have a little bit of breathing room on this to get another kick at the can and then I would

1:57:31also ask our staff if um see uh which is to report back in q4 2026 um could you know be a part of

1:57:42just sort of the the reporting but again not not pushing towards implementation it's just

1:57:48more information for us to come forward would staff be comfortable with with uh with us not

1:57:55voting on B and uh and C is more just relevant to bringing back information uh through chair

1:58:04chron to margherita three uh yes staff would be comfortable with um okay that type of checkpoint

1:58:09okay gary would you like those clauses separated then yeah so chair that's where I was going I was

1:58:14just saying if we want to all be a bit more comfortable some of us some of us not and I

1:58:18appreciate that um why don't we just separate them madam chair and uh that way you know even

1:58:24myself I can vote against B and we don't have to get have staff do all that work and we can um

1:58:33yeah we can maybe still keep C in there and then we if it's the will of council on the amended

1:58:38main motion then so that way there's no no pressure we still have one extra checkpoint

1:58:42okay thank you very much okay uh councillor goller question um through your chair um seen us and

1:58:50mayor got through us the mover if I could ask the clerks would it be possible for just for us to

1:58:55just remove B so that only A and C have been moved hold on I'll defer to the clerks on that

1:59:04question since the motion is on the floor and it is a three-part motion through three separate

1:59:09motions through you chair Caron um council can vote on distinct clauses of motions individually

1:59:16but A B and C are not distinct clauses they're effectively sub-elements of the one clause so I

1:59:21would say if if council's desire is to not approve B then an amendment to remove it would be the most

1:59:27appropriate way to do that's what I'm thinking as well because it is clause one uh so we would need

1:59:32an amendment to remove B in that case I would like to move an amendment to remove clause B

1:59:38and we have a seconder we have count that we have mayor guthrie seconding that

1:59:43all right is there any commentary or questions on the amendment to remove clause B

1:59:47we don't need that put up on the screen everyone understands what the amendment is do we have

1:59:52any objections to the amendment anyone against the amendment to remove clause B okay seeing number

1:59:59one now we have an amended motion which is uh the amended clause A and uh and one C so now we

2:00:10are voting on that doubly amended motion any further comments um point of order uh chair Caron

2:00:18yes councillor old have the amended motion on screen sure thank you very well we'll give uh we'll give

2:00:24our clerks uh just a few seconds to take off that clause B there it is the new B is the old C

2:00:32and uh and I won't be voting in favor of this one either for me timing is everything we are

2:00:38less than a year from the time council approved for units as of right and we just have not had the

2:00:45time to get the take up and the impact data that we need to move forward on this if this was a year

2:00:51from now I might actually be supportive because at least we'd have some data to collect as we go

2:00:56through this exercise but we haven't even had four units as of right for a full year at this time so

2:01:03so I'll be I'll be voting against this motion and and hoping that we can put an alternate

2:01:07motion on the floor I will call the vote on this motion that's on the screen is there anyone against

2:01:13this motion so we have councillor downer councillor Allt councillor caton councillor billings

2:01:20councillor caron so that again is five and the motion carries so that is the end of our agenda

2:01:31tonight we have some bylaws can I have a mover for the bylaws and a seconder for the bylaws